Orange County School Board Race

I think those are all great issues and strategies. But, they also all require more funding. Which means we wither have to do without them, or the school board will have to divert funds from other programs to implement those you've proposed. Which would you choose?

Other thoughts:

-I'm a social worker and I work in a school-based setting. I lobbied the school board and commissioners to support the request for more social workers. However, I think we should fire any social worker who could "predict" which kids are going to drop out while they are in kindergarten. Our job is to eliminate barriers to success, not predict them.

-OPC Mental Health services will change, but it's unlikely that they'll go away. There is a proposal in the works right now for a merger between OPC and a local non-profit. The result would likely increase school-based mental health services.

-The district already has a K-8 year-round school program. It starts with Hillsborough Elementary and continues at Stanback. But the demand is not there to sustain the Stanback program.

Graig

Issues: Numbers 1-5 were included in the school board budget request submitted to the county commissioners. As I said before, the county manager's recommendation leaves all these out and does not cover mandated increases. Number 1 is not an item most voters care about, but it is, in my opinion, the most critical need.

1.I would strongly advocate for additional social workers. Orange County schools currently have four covering eleven schools. The requested “large budget” asked for four more social workers. We have an increased dropout percent contrasted to falling rates across the state. Generally, individual students do not drop out. Families drop out. The social workers can now predict, as early as kindergarten, the children who will eventually drop out. They are hard-pressed, however, to keep up with truancy issues. An at-risk child can only get attention if he gets into serious trouble. There is just so much a social worker can do about problems such as school bullying if he/she is only at a school ½ day a week, which is the case at one elementary school. Furthermore, with Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health services phasing out in order to be privatized (more government savings), and only one (I am told) provider accepting Medicaid, counseling for at-risk families will cease. My sister-in-law is a social worker in Dover, Delaware and serves grades K-3 in one elementary school. Her schedule is full - counseling, getting students and parents to various hearings, and even getting them to doctors for needed treatments. The social workers are the people who work to keep families in the system. The alternative, high drop out rates, is far more costly to the community in terms of safety, economics, and crime.

2.Fund the International Baccalaureate Program (IB). We run a high risk of losing the program if we do not show our commitment.

3.Begin Spanish in each of the elementary schools, then have quality Spanish curriculum in the middle schools. This serves all children, from at-risk to the privileged.

4.Increase the teacher pay supplement.

5.The following are all areas where city-county collaboration could be effective.

A.Expand the Alternative School. It is presently insufficient for the needs. For instance, the Wake County alternative school has childcare and over half of the students are assigned a volunteer mentor from the community. Because Chapel Hill – Carrboro has the same needs, and the commissioners are trying to start a branch of Durham Tech in Orange County, I would like to explore placing an alternative school in that facility available to all county and city students.

B.Many of the dropouts attend Alamance Community College (ACC) to earn their GED’s in order to accelerate graduation. These still count as dropouts from the school system, although they are attending classes and pursuing their high school degree at ACC. I would like to see if it would be feasible to have a GED program at the Durham Tech facility that would be under the Orange County / Chapel Hill – Carrboro schools’ auspices.

C.Develop a year-round school track for kindergarten through middle school. The middle school year-round program failed because it did not have the number of students to make it viable. Part of that problem was due to housing it within a traditional calendar school. It was awkward for the year-round children to participate in extra-curricular activities when all such programs were scheduled for the traditional students.

If we are to only do one this year, I would say it would have to be the IB program, because it is a "moment in time" opportunity that would be withdrawn if not supported.

Have fun in Chatham County. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You're boring.

I disagree--I hope you don't desert us, Duncan.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Let's get back to the topic.

As an Orange County Schools parent, volunteer, and voter, I'm frustrated that this race seems to be about red-herring issues and not how to improve the schools.

Perhaps most challenging is that merger is such a big issue in the campaign, when the county board doesn't even have any power to decide the issue. Funding is similar, the county board has the power to ask for money but not to decide how much they get. If you want to make an impact on merger or funding, run for the County Commission.

Several candidates have also made statements about needing to change who is on the board in order to increase it's integrity, make it more accessbile to the public, and/or stop the dysfunction. All good things, I agree. But what compelling reasons are there to vote for candidates rather than against them?

Although I'd pay more taxes for better schools, I don't think most OC voters would support a tax hike for schools (they didn't support the last levy). So frankly, I'm interested in knowing what candidates think we can improve with the amount of funding we currently have.

Some areas for improvement that have been absent from the debate:

-Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress standards set out by No Child Left Behind

-Improving achievement of students of color

-Reducing our district's very high student suspension rates

-Parent involvment in schools

-Possible partnerships with CHCCS.

Until I hear some candidates focus on at least some of those issues, I'll be lost as to who to vote for.

Do you think that was nasty? You've got to be kidding me. Anyway, I have never had any respect for you and your fellow anony-mice, and I will continue to treat you with disrespect until I get kicked off this board, which I assume will be soon.

I _am_ impressed by your sudden disinterest in the messenger, "Jay," and your increased interest in the message. Good little robot.

Jay--Based on what I currently understand, I think adding a supplemental district tax to the ballot is premature. What are the long-term implications of such a tax on ALL citizens (not just the kids)?

There's also the issue of whether or not the CHCCS supplemental tax is being used effectively. It's entirely possible that CHCCS misuses their funding since there is so much of it. A cost effectiveness study should be done immediately--by someone other than personnel within each district.

I'd also like to know if the funding inequity is creating an actual gap in the access to educational resources for OCS students. Therefore, I endorse the educational resource study being conducted by Madeleine Grumet and others from the UNC-CH School of Ed.

As you can tell, I prefer to make decisions based on data rather than emotion.

Terri

I for one thought James Henninger made his position crystal clear. The issue of merger vs. no-merger is a straw man. The real question is whether or not we believe that all children within Orange Co deserve equal access to educational resources. As James said, we can continue debating this question ad nauseum, but in doing so we leave ourselves open to a Leandro type case as well as our own moral convictions that equity is not being served in Orange Co. As James also pointed out, a district tax alone is not a solution to the disparities in funding equity.

For the purpose of this election, I challenge all candidates to clearly state their ideas (which can always be changed in my opinion as long as changes are published for all to see) on how to achieve funding equity between the two school systems. I look forward to a open and informed discussion of these issues rather than the scare tactics of the merger vs. no-merger fiasco.

Terri --

what do you think of Commissioner Gordon's proposal to put a countywide supplemental tax on the ballot ASAP? 2 of the commissioners proposed open ended task forces that will do little to improve relations or funding. Only 1 in my opinion has put forth a mechanism with public support that would get funding to the schools in a timely fashion.

Also, it is the commissioners who have hoisted "to merge or not to merge" on the public -- not the otherway around.

I too would like to deal with funding and not merger. However, until the commissioners clearly take merger off the table at the very least THEY not the public have brought it into the domain.

.......

as far as the above nastiness.... people need to focus on the ideas not the messenger in my humble opinion. Robots and bad people can have good ideas if there software engineer programmed them to. Covnersely, good people of good intention can have bad ideas as well.

Please refer to the guidelines in threads, DUNCAN. "treating your fellow discussers at least as well as you would treat your neighbor....try to criticize IDEAS instead of PEOPLE." You must not have any neighbors.

CJ, would you care to cite which work of Plato contains those two quotes?

Since "Jay" and "CJ" present themselves as abstractions waging, from the anonymity of their own private caves, a paradoxical campaign of outrage about one (actual, living, identifiable) person's public opinions, I am forced to think of them as ideas rather than people. I have no idea whether they're people or not. For all I know, they're AI. Technically, I'm abiding by the rules, which say nothing about robots.

They are part of the problem, and so are you. Sign your name.

Sorry Mark, I included the author but not the source. My bad. You see, I just typed in "Plato Quotes" on Google. It was hardly a "Keith Cook moment" but here is the website http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/plato.html

I guess I will have to resign my position as a blogger and start being attacked by the pro-merger crowd. Oh, wait a minute, Merger is NOT an issue. Merger is a DEAD issue. I got worried there for a moment.

Since I don't know who you are, "Jay," I have no interest in what your concerns are. I don't really have any interest in what "CJ"'s concerns are either, but I chose to think of "CJ" as a spontaneous expression of a certain generalized nincompoopity on the issue of changing one's mind.

Don't ever address me by my name again, "Jay".

Duncan --

changing ones mind is not the issue for me.

I just am plain confused.

Unless the candidate is crystal clear on their new position and makes it clear to the electorate -- it is very easy to imagine people could vote for the same person for opposite reasons. For instance James H.'s position on the last thread is fairly confusing - it wasn't clear to me and I have average intelligence.

Changing one's mind is great but the question is how does a candidate convey this clearly and succinctly to the public?

Could you not have people voting for the same person because they each believe the opposite view is what the candidate stands for?

this would be my policy concern.

I have given you my honest opinions and stated the facts as I see them. That is my style. I have invited you to contact me with your own ideas, because I am open to other approaches. David Gerlach printed his name on his response, as I have. The lengthy response that I gave earlier was actually a personal email to CJ, but it was returned undeliverable due to a false email address. It is really difficult to deal openly with someone using an ambiguous name and false address. So, "For the benefit of the readers of OrangePolitics.org," who are you?

There is a intimation here that there is a conspiracy of lying and deceit afoot. I have given you honest answers. If Liz Brown told someone that we are a strong ticket, I take that as a complement from an opponent with divergent views from my own. It means we can get along, which is a virtue missing on the present school board.

Again, I think that our community needs to be able to learn to have opposing views without demonizing those who disagree.

I have stated my opposition to merger because of local control and cultural differences. Everything I have said in print and in my literature backs this up. In truth, I cannot imagine how the subject might even come up as a school board issue. It's dead. The schools have bigger problems. I'll be happy to discuss those and answer any questions.

Why can't you advocate for what you want rather than maligning candidates you don't endorse? I'm really disgusted with the way this campaign is going. Although I don't vote for OCSB members, I would prefer to see the campaigns run in such a way that citizens can vote for candidates who clearly present their analysis of the issues, previous experience/voting records, etc. What we have going now is "politics of personal destruction."

I know nothing about Liz Brown, and I am not really following this race. I will be a Chatham County resident within the week.

I do not know whether Ms. Brown has really changed her mind about merger, or whether she's fiddling with the truth to confuse people and sneak into office. Nor do I care.

I _do_ care about this concept, which has grown in politics: that to change one's mind is a sign of some sort of moral or intellectual weakness, ipso facto. To change one's mind solely for political gain, rather than on the merits of the opposing argument -- that sounds like weakness to me. But are we willing to accept that when someone changes their mind on an issue, they've shown weakness making them unfit for office? If so, what's the point of arguing these and so many other issues? If, when we succeed in convincing someone by argument, we also spit in their face for being so weak as to accept our argument, what have we accomplished? What was it we were setting out to do in the first place, by mounting the argument, if not to convince?

To brook no possible conversion except one that emerges from weakness is to turn political argument into mere sport. Or, more likely, to acknowledge that this is what our politics has already become -- a pitched battle between fixed sides toward the very simplest and simple-minded of outcomes, either winning or losing. We mouth platitudes about people having the moral courage to admit their mistakes, and we are ever on about wanting to hear our politicians apologize for one transgression or another. But these apologies or admissions of conversion are not "accepted" in the traditional sense. Many of us want to hear them only so far as they confirm that we won and someone else lost, the confessions of the vanquished.

In our politics, we now practice what was once during the Civil War called "Forrest's Quarter," named after the ruthless and brilliant and criminal CSA cavalry Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: no quarter at all; everybody dies, even the surrendered. There's much debate about whether this was ever really a policy of Forrest or his units, and I'm of the opinion that it wasn't. But it certainly was thought by Union troops to have been the general's policy. Thus, when Union troops faced Forrest they fought harder and without any thought of surrender even in the direst of circumstances and with the facts of their defeat all around them, since surrender (they thought) meant death anyway. Thus, Forrest got himself involved in some of the bloodiest skirmishes of the war -- and one massacre -- in part because it was thought that he would not accept a surrender nor give his prisoners protection.

Our polity has been attenuated by a similar attitude toward people who surrender to compelling argument and change their minds. (Or "flip flop," the current term of accusation.) I, for one, don't see the point of arguing at all, or discussing, or "dialoguing," or holding out for more "input," if we are either to be entrenched in our thinking, or reviled for listening and perhaps accepting the merits of another point of view.

Only fools would enter into that kind of "debate." .

Thanks for pointing out that link Ruby.

How in the world did the challengers not point out that school merger would slap a minimum 22% tax increase on seniors and retirees living in the county when speaking in a retirement center? I thought that kind of issue might be of interest to people living on fixed incomes in the county and who will not use the facilities that mandate the tax hike.

Speaking of apologies for bad actions ala keith cook.

Isn't it about time for the organizers of ROB-chapel hill to come out and admit they were wrong??? They can say they didn't have a clue how county governments get revenue and are funded if they want. (they didn't know better)

I think some apology to the voiceless children are necessary to explain why they would deprive them of revenue?

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,

while bad people will find a way around the laws.

- Plato

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by

being governed by those who are dumber.

- Plato

I can't get over that some of these people -- whom the ability to follow the law and not steal other people's candidacy signs and join the rest of us in society -- have sway with other connected people and elected officials.

It is a pity that so few people bother to vote I guess we get what the few of us bother to vote for...

I guess that is why some of these nitwits -- who advocated draining the county of revenue sources from tax dollars ( which is something like 2.3 million dollars a month in reimbursements that comes back to Orange) actually have people willing to elect them. The dumbest boycott I have ever heard of -- can anyone think of a better (worse) one?

County Commissioner candidates talk about merger: http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-491747.html

For the benefit of the readers of OrangePolitics.org, Mr. David Gerlach is the husband of current Orange County School Board Member, Dana Thompson. The following is a response to his comments in another thread: http://orangepolitics.org/schools/should_keith_cook_resign.html#004166

Gerlach’s statements confirm all rumors that Dana Thompson is supporting candidates Liz Brown and James Hennginer. Ms. Thompson has been the sole source of discord on the current Orange County School Board as has been editorialized on in the June 16th edition of the Chapel Hill Herald by Ms. Jean Bolduc. The fact of the matter is that Dana Thompson’s actions were one of the main reasons why the OCSB decided that they needed to pursue an ethics policy in the first place. For Mr. Gerlach or Ms. Thompson to cast stones at Keith Cook for something he did is more than a little bit hypocritical.

Dana Thompson and Liz Brown both co-founded the pro-merger group FFICS (Fair Funding In County Schools) and the other pro-merger group ROB-CH (Rural Orange Boycotts Chapel Hill). Ms. Thompson and Ms. Brown are two individuals whom, apparently by their own actions, believe that their cause is so just that the rules simply don’t apply to them. That is why they both got in trouble for using Orange County School Children as a conduit to distribute their political message (FFICS Report) to Orange County parents pointing out all of the benefits of school merger and the consequences of not merging.

Gerlach states that changing a position on an issue because the public does not truly support it is “a strength.” I would argue that it is a weakness. It is a clear display that someone has chosen to put their mouth into motion before putting their brain into gear. Liz Brown has proven time and again that she can take matters into her own hands. And if that isn’t the case, then it is more than a little fishy that one would change their position on merging the school systems right after filing to run for school board (as Liz Brown did). Liz Brown has stated in no uncertain terms that School Board members must ignore the opinions and wishes of parents and the public in order to do what is best for “our children, the voiceless”. What a statement! I am sure Orange County parents will be relieved to know that there is someone running for school board who knows what is better for their children than they do.

Henninger and Brown are not offering any new solutions or original ideas. They are stating what they believe the problem to be (fair funding) and then warning of the consequences (school merger) if the problem is not resolved. They offer no mechanics or road map that clearly states how they will solve the problem. For Gerlach to state otherwise is simply untrue. If it isn’t, then someone please explain where the motivation exists for a school board candidate who has worked so hard to merge our schools (aka Liz Brown) to work for a solution that doesn’t lead to their alleged conclusion? If they already have a chronic history of bending the rules whenever they see fit and if they have already stated the opinions and wishes of parents are not important, what should we expect when they are elected?

Let’s face the facts and stop spinning. Just as Dana Thompson is pro-merger, so are the candidates who now claim to be anti-merger after filing to run for School Board. Liz Brown and James Henninger are passively in favor of school merger. It doesn’t take a degree from Harvard to figure out that Dana Thompson, David Gerlach, and the other 10 pro-merger advocates would not be lending their support and jumping to the defense of candidates Liz Brown and James Henninger if the case were otherwise.