CCPS regains accreditation!

Ending over a year of uncertainty, Clayton County Public Schools regained its accreditation last week.

There is still lots of work to be done, however.  CCPS was placed on probation for two years, and must report its progress to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools every six months during this time.

In addition, CCPS still must satisfy three of the nine mandates (3, 5 and 9) that SACS originally administered.  Further, SACS also expects CCPS to: “… conduct a comprehensive revision of its vision, mission and values; “implement immediately” a thorough strategic planning process which includes stakeholder input; review the district’s organizational structure, and establish an action plan for dealing with problems and conflicts between board members and school system staff,” according to the Clayton News Daily.

What I really found interesting is how little coverage this received.  When accreditation was revoked, I distinctly remember hearing about it ad nauseam.  The story ran like clockwork on local news stations as a “special update” even when there was nothing new to report.  I got calls from as far away as California telling me they heard about CCPS.  This good news barely got an honorable mention during newscasts I watched over the weekend.  Makes me wonder if the good news went national like the bad did.  (The AJC played it on Page One on Friday.)

Anyway, I’m very happy for our students who will graduate from an accredited school system.  They should never have had to deal with adult mistakes or be treated as scapegoats in the political agendas of others.  With all the other stuff kids deal with on a daily basis, those who want an education shouldn’t have to endure what our kids did during this past year and half.

Congratulations to everyone who worked hard to make this happen.  Especially CCPS teachers and staff who kept our kids encouraged throughout.

95 comments Add your comment

How fedup?

May 8th, 2009
7:18 am

Seems fedup, if they were that upset about MACE being a private corporation, would be really upset with SACS being a private corporation, especially since, unlike MACE, SACS makes their money off your tax dollars.

Must not be fedup enough to think things through.


May 8th, 2009
7:53 am

The Trotterites are fighting for there survival. Not many of them left anyway. Guess Trotter will have to find another”for profit business”.

Oh please

May 8th, 2009
9:01 am

I wonder how Valya Lee feels about having Trotter’s support.

Advice for Dr. Heatley

May 8th, 2009
9:05 am

“Spineless” Where did you get this information? Glen Brock is not the influence for this Board. Dr. Val Lee is an excellent persona nd the community has been impressed with her. Unfortunately, she does not possess the required experience and background that SACS stiputalated in their report was requried for a new supperintent. Does anyone remember reading that the person should have a mininmum of four years experience as a superintendent? That was made quite clear by SACS. Neither Dr. Lee or Dr. King fit that criteria. Having said that the choice made by the Board was the right choice. As in anything else time will tell. But it looks like we have a fresh start.


May 8th, 2009
9:06 am

Trotter will do anything to derail the progress of CCPS. Always have, always will. At least we have a Super who is capable, and free of the local politcal machine. At least we have accreditation back. People need to work together for progress and stop all this Claton bashing

Clayton Resident

May 8th, 2009
9:27 am

I must say, the fact that Mace, Trotter & company are so opposed to Heatley, makes me like Heatley even more! He must be doing something right and won’t be bought and paid for by Clayton politicians the day he takes office. Looking forward to hearing and seeing more from and about Heatley!


May 8th, 2009
11:34 am

John Trotter is smarter than the bozos on the school boards. He always has been. That’s why they are nervous with him around.


May 8th, 2009
12:52 pm

I agree, it does seem bizarre to give Valya Lee, unqualified to be a superintendent, a one-year $187,000 contract and then hire Heatly the very next week. Mind you, the board had to pay thousands upon thousands to buy out Thompson’s contract and put Lee in place (which Lee and Brock conspired to do, so Brock could become the school system’s attorney). How much do you think all of this is costing us as taxpayers!? This smells really bad!

Mojo Mist

May 8th, 2009
2:43 pm

Actually, the recent elections in Clayton County and the potential hiring of Dr. Heatley smells pretty good to me. It’s the first breath of fresh air in about five years.

There are no guarantees but if Dr. Heatley turns out to be as good as what other school districts (including his own) are saying and brings good fortune to what we’ve seen become a muddy hole caused by selfish, self-serving individuals, I have no problem paying out to Dr. Thompson or Ms. Lee. The percentage of those two contracts is very minimal to what we’ve already paid for during this nightmare. Time will tell but I have more hope now than I’ve had in long long time.

Buck Haralson

May 8th, 2009
4:57 pm

Why does everyone think Mr. Heatley is any good. Is it because he is being run out of California or because he got turned down for the Tulsa Job. Clayton County needs The Educator of the Year Dr. Sam King. Why not choose Sam King can anyone on here give me one good reason. Sam King was the obvious choice and they screwed it up again. SAM KING SAM KING.

Will Rogers

May 8th, 2009
5:07 pm

Why wont the school board ever listen to Dr John Trotter. He has more sense than all the board members combined. Why dont the school boards in Clayton county ever listen to Dr. Trotter. They are always jealous and scared of him. This causes them to do stupid things. Hiring The California reject Mr Heatly was only the latest of their stupid actions. They could have hired Dr Val Lee or Dr. Sam King and everyone would have been happy.

concerned oldtimer

May 8th, 2009
5:16 pm

Good luck to the new superintendant. I am glad to hear he is planning on keeping the current staff. Several are very good at what they do. Clayton County has lost enough wonderful staff members do to the board problems. Many retired and many just left. So all us old retired ones are looking forward to a high quality school system again. Just hope Trotter finds a new school system to bothr.

to Mace & and allies ... again

May 8th, 2009
5:21 pm

I asked this question yesterday and all of you (maybe only one of you are actually posting here) ignored it. Here goes again:

Can you point to one specific proposal or policy that Valya Lee OR Sam King have put forth to empower teachers when it comes to discipline?

Based on research so far I can’t find any policy put forth by Heatley, that’s true.

But what exactly qualifies Lee or Sam King either? From what I saw at that meeting, I’d rather take a chance on Heatley than your candidates.

Valya Lee being from Clayton isn’t and shouldn’t be enough to qualify her for superintendent. and who in the sam hill is Sam King?

IN ADDITION – I’ve done my own research on Edmond Heatley and just ran another search on your Tulsa accusation. I have seen nowhere else any indication that he got turned down (or ever applied for) any superintendent position in Tulsa. If you have proof of that allegation, please share with the rest of the class so we know you’re not just blowing smoke.

And Heatley is not being “run out of” California. I really hope you aren’t putting false information out here to try and confuse us and prop up Lee and King. Valya Lee couldn’t even make it to the final round of interviews and again, who is Sam King and why should any of us care? I’ve only read his name on this blog!

Mojo Mist

May 8th, 2009
5:48 pm

Heatley being ran out of California just after receiving Superintendent of the Year for his respective area (Riverside and San Bernardino counties)? Oh, I get it, MACE. Must be that administrator hang-up. A few parents are upset about some school closings resulting from budgetary cuts but that’s about it.

Let’s see,

Heatley brought together a committee of district and community members to develop his District’s first strategic plan which focuses on student achievement. Since 2005, the District has experienced significant growth in student achievement along with schools being recognized as a California Distinguished School, a National Blue Ribbon School, a California Business for Excellence/Just for Kids Honor Roll, a California Service-Learning Leader School Award, a National Network of Partnership Schools-Johns Hopkins University/Working Together for Student Success, a Golden Bell Award, an International Baccalaureate World School and two International Baccalaureate candidate schools.

He continued to teach at the university level, keeping him current with educational trends. Yes, MACE he’s still a teacher. Unbelievable!! An administrator and teacher at the same time?! Oh no! AND in 2008, he was awarded the California League of High Schools, Outstanding Administrator of the Year Recipient for Region 12.

Take a page from Obama's play book...

May 8th, 2009
7:04 pm

When I saw John Trotter and Ms. Norrese Haynes on television with those stupid poster boards picketing the new superintendent, I knew then Heatley was the right person for the job. I am willing to bet money he has already put Trotter in his place and now Trotter is mad!!!!

Valya Lee and Sam King, need to denounce Trotter’s support just like Obama had to denounce Jeremiah Wright. Trotter’s support of Lee and King automatically makes me question their competency and many community members feel the same. Take a page from Obama’s play book and distance yourselves from this poster board carrying FOOL!!!!

Don’t allow Trotter and Ms. Norrese Haynes to cast a cloud over careers you all have worked so hard to build!!!!!!


May 8th, 2009
7:14 pm

Let’s just see what happens. Trotter was right about Hairston, Pulliam, Chavis, and Thompson. He will probably be right about Heatley. He does look to me to be heavy-handed. One thing about Trotter is he is consistent. He doesn’t come dancing up to the new superintendents with his hat in his hand. He lets them know up front what he thinks of them. He seemed to have given a pass to Duncan and Lee. I think he does indeed think that Lee and King would have been good choices. John Trotter is probably right, but the school boards always want to go “outside” for the latest educational gypsey. I really question why they would bring in this fellow. I understand that they conducted a “straw vote” about him. This is illegal as well as the board’s meeting with candidates in California at the San Diego meeting. I don’t think the school board really understands the concept of transparency. I too think that Glenn Brock is running the whole show down here in Clayton County. It’s a shame. I will be voting agains my representative, Pam Adamson.

Political Spectator

May 8th, 2009
7:18 pm

Trotter and the other idiots at MACE know nothing about predicting the success of a superintendent. MACE works hard to plant the unintelligent and the uninformed on the board, then work to influence their vote, then MACE works to distance itself from members they placed on the board when things go wrong. This has been the predictable pattern for Trotter for sometime now!!!!!

Nedra Ware
Connie Kitchens
Noresse Haynes
Lois Bayne Hunter
Michelle Strong
Michael King
… just to name a few


May 8th, 2009
10:30 pm

River (Trotter follower),

Doesn’t it strike you odd that in your mind Trotter is so right and consistent about superintendents but yet his support of prospective and current board members has been a dismal failure and train wreck? Anything wrong to you about that picture? Only those who support Trotter try to throw around “illegal” or “legal” without really knowing the difference. To MACE, anything that promotes a non-supported MACE member becoming a board member or super. is considered illegal. Stop referring to the MACE handbook and become acquainted with real law.


May 9th, 2009
12:20 am

News flash everyone – Sam King didn’t want the job!

District 3

May 9th, 2009
12:44 am

For clarity, Dr. Lee was given her current contract because by law she had to be the highest paid employee in the school district. Please recall that Julie Lewis was the highest paid once Dr. Thompson was released. Her contract is for one year but can be voided with a 30 day notice. The attorney said that that was the proper way to formulate the contract.

Two questions for Political Spectator

May 9th, 2009
12:54 am

You say Trotter knows nothing about predicting the success of superintendents.

Was he wrong about Pulliam?

Was he wrong about Thompson?

Let me say it before you do. Some on the old board who were affliated with MACE to some extent joined with GAE members on the board to bring about John Thompson. But that wasn’t Trotter; it was people who didn’t listen to Trotter.

So the question remains, was he wrong about Pulliam and Thompson?

And as far as MACE distancing itself, I don’t see MACE distancing itself from Norresse Haynes. As far as distancing themselves from the others when they themselves distanced themselves from the MACE philosophy of restoring the teacher’s authority in the classroom first, why would that be a bad thing?

Now if you want to say some have used MACE’s message to get elected, then turned around and acted in their own best interests, that’s a legitimate point. But it doesn’t mean MACE’s philosophy is wrong, and it sure doesn’t mean they were wrong about Pulliam and Thompson.

And if you’re the asute political commentator some of your other comments indicate you are, you should know that GAE has more than their own fair share of mistakes on the board, chief among them Rod Johnson and Ericka Davis.

And don’t forget it’s not a MACE official earning years of credit in the Teachers Retirement System without actually working in a classroom, it’s a GAE official.

Clayton resident

May 9th, 2009
12:15 pm


Trotter acts like he was the only one in Clayton who knew ahead of time that Pulliam and Thompson would crash and burn and just because they did, doesn’t mean this guy will.

I’d like to read an answer to the question asked above that none of these MACE people want to answer. What has Lee or Sam King done about policy in Clayton.

I know the answer – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Any candidate supported by MACE is not one I want running anything with my tax dollars.

Essential Question

May 9th, 2009
1:43 pm

We have fourteen days to ask Heatley THE one essential question that will tell you ALL you need to know.

A student is severely disruptive, defiant, directly insubordinate, so a teacher refers the student to the office. An administrator walks the student back down a few moments later, with absolutely no consequences, and demands the student be allowed back into class.

The teacher, having written up the child for violations that warrant consequences under board policy, and more importantly, wishing to protect the sanctity of the classroom learning environment, refuses to let the student in.

Who does Heatley support?

If he has says FOR THE RECORD that he has the guts to stand up to CCPS administrators and support the teacher, you may indeed have a good candidate who understands discipline.

Fourteen days. If you REALLY want to know, the question MUST be asked.

Who cares about Trotter?

May 9th, 2009
2:03 pm

To those of you are obsessed with this Trotter person pro or con. Let it go the citizens of Clayton county do not give a damn about a Trotter one way ior another. Please stop using this blog and give the man a call yourself. We do not care to hear any more about him.

As for Heatley, Kudos to this board who obviously acted indepedently and made a sound choice based on their own research. I can not wait to see who was against him on the board. It will speak volumes.

CCBOE up to same tricks

May 9th, 2009
2:30 pm

District 3 – you’re wrong. Valya Lee is INTERIM superintendent, not superintendent, so laws don’t apply. Plus, Lewis was gone by the time her contract was approved by the Board, so she didn’t need $187,000 b/c Valya Lee and Brock had gotten rid of her so that Brock could take over as legal counsel (and, so that Lee could conveniently get a fat contract that wasn’t necessary).

Why so afraid?

May 9th, 2009
4:52 pm

Why does the following invoke so much VISCERAL FEAR that no one wants to deal with it?

“A student is severely disruptive, defiant, directly insubordinate, so a teacher refers the student to the office. An administrator walks the student back down a few moments later, with absolutely no consequences, and demands the student be allowed back into class.

The teacher, having written up the child for violations that warrant consequences under board policy, and more importantly, wishing to protect the sanctity of the classroom learning environment, refuses to let the student in.

Who does Heatley support?”

The question gets to the crux of what we need in a superintendent, yet not one of the current and former teachers on the board, to the best of my knowledge even THOUGHT to ask him, much less demand an answer.

Why so afraid? I would hope that as many citizens as possible will seek an answer to this, IF they are willing to make the candidate available.

They, having been in a classroom, know FIRST HAND the importance of the question. Why so afraid to ask it?

Before someone tries to respond by AVOIDING the question, or turning it into a partisan issue, I’m not saying that Sam King or Valya Lee would have a better answer that Heatley.

I’m saying that, if Heatley is the choice at this time, and you want to know if he is an advocate for REAL change, given what goes on in ClayCo’s classrooms today, the question MUST be asked, and it must be asked often, and by as many people possible.

ClayCo MUST have an answer to this question, to see if the candidate has the BACKBONE to take on the institutional dysfunction that currently does not support the teachers of CCPS.

It’s not a MACE question, a GAE question, a Lee question, a King question, or a Heatley question.

It’s a LONG OVERDUE question, and it’s high time someone ask the BOE why they haven’t asked it, and it’s time to ask it of ANY candidate, since the BOE apparently is too fearful to.

Same Old Crap

May 9th, 2009
8:44 pm

As you can tell by the above posts folks, the county is still loaded with misfits with there agenda’s. Ignore them.

A regular voter

May 9th, 2009
10:21 pm

This is pretty sad. Most of these comments here appear to be from people who work for CCPS or have some sort of direct interest in it (various insiders). I don’t see that many posts from the average Clayton county homeowner who has children in the CCPS. Thanks to all these incompetents that the voters of Clayton county voted in, my modest house lost over 50% of its value within just 2 years or so. The bad economy had a small roll the devaluation of residential properties in Clayco; losing the SACS accreditation was the by far the largest culprit. Also because of all this, I have my young elementary-aged son enrolled in a local church private school. I live in a high rental area and most of the rental houses stand vacant; some houses have been empty over a year. No one wants to move here, the ones with school-aged children are desperate to leave. All the home break-ins and high crime deter many people from “Clayco.” The biggest financial mistake of my life was buying an older home in Clayco in 2002 and taking this depreciation of my house. What a basket case, between this and the former Sheriff, Victor Hill, Clayco couldn’t get much worse, but I suspect it will. I am very bitter and willing to take the loss on the house to get out of here, even if I have to take a big loan. Even so, I wish success to this new Clayco Superintendent and hope he can straighten things out, but I have severe doubts due to all the revelations in some of the obviously dysfunctional thoughts found in the posts here.


May 10th, 2009
12:05 pm

You are correct “A Regular Voter”. My husband and I are in the same boat with a house that we can’t give away and private school costs while paying county school taxes. Yes we can celebrate the regained accreditation but this county’s abysmal academic statistics, a majority of inexperienced/uncertified teachers, low academic expectations, low parental involvement and widespread disciplinary problems must be seriously admitted to and addressed before credibility is regained. The dysfunctional school board was only a small part of the problem. I hope that the new super will realistically address these problems even if feelings are hurt in the process. Policies such as mandatory school uniforms are useless window dressing if the polo shirts are worn like dresses and the khakis are still sagging (seen on Riverdale Road). Restored accreditation or not Clayton County schools still have a long way to go.

KimWhit is right

May 10th, 2009
5:43 pm

Amen KimWhit. Heatly is probably just what Clayton County needs, but the dysfunctional Clayton County people will preclude him from being successful. Same old song being replayed over and over again.

And to the person who keeps reposting the same hypothetical about not letting the student back in class, there is no one answer; it would be very fact dependent – what specifically did the student do? What policy did the student violate? What are the consequences for the student violating the policy? There is no one answer based on your very vague hypothetical. Quit beating that drum! You are just looking for a reason not to support someone you don’t think you can control!

Yes there is one answer

May 10th, 2009
7:47 pm

If a student has caused a severe enough disruption to warrant being removed from class, then there is one clear answer when an administrator tries to walk him right back to class with ZERO consequences.

Why are you in such MORTAL FEAR of having this addressed?

It’s already been said the question should be asked of ANY candidate, so it has NOTHING to do with THIS candidate. Nice try to, as I suspected, AVOID the question.


May 11th, 2009
8:01 am

Stop Worrying, The ONLY question, Stand and deliver, Two questions for Political Spectator, Essential Question, Why so afraid?, Yes there is one answer….apparently the same person. It’s disingenuous to post with so many usernames. For consistency and clarity in our bantering, please pick one and stay with it. Thx!

For those of you still wanting Ms Lee and “Dr King”, read once again “…Advice for Dr. Heatley;… SACS stiputalated…that the person should have a mininmum of four years experience as a superintendent…”

John Stewart: You make some very valid and reasoned points. Dr Heatley does seem quite qualified. But, I still have to also ask, why would someone in their right mind choose Clayco over Reno, NV? Why would someone in their right mind say they “want” to come to Clayco (leave Calif)?


May 11th, 2009
4:23 pm

So much mis-information by Trotter supporters and the woefully under-informed. Suffice to say that the times that different Supers were in jeopordy – it was MACE and Trotter in the mix. When the super was pushed out by Nedra and the 4 (Trotter led MACE members) horsewomen of the Apocolyspe. There was MACE. Chavis was nothing but a puppet for the afore mentioned Nedra and when he found his Backbone – he was gone too. Again there was MACE. When the election cycle came around the Trotterites were defeated. We had 2 years of relative peace. Ms. Pulliam was brought in. Only after MACE CEO (what a joke) Noreese Haynes was voted in with sympathyzers Baines-Hunter and Sandra Scott, did we have the personal agenda group raise their ugly heads. Again – there was MACE. Hunter and Scott – were among those who brought in Dr. Thompson. Of course JT wants a local black for the job – He thinks he can flim-flam them the way he has many others and convinced to become MACE. The worst thing for JT – is to have a educated strong black man who is not stuck inside the “victim mentality” as so many in the South have become.

Good Luck Dr Heatley.

KimWhit is right

May 11th, 2009
5:46 pm

Jborodawg – Have you been to Reno, NV????? It is AWFUL!!!! I would never want to live there, or raise a family there!

Why so afraid?

May 11th, 2009
10:23 pm

Why so afraid of a simple question? If a teacher removed a serevely disruptive student, and an administrator tried to immediately return him to class with zero consequences, who would you support?

Why are people so resistant to asking this question?

Why is this question being spun as an attack on Heatley, when no one has claimed that King, Lee, or anyone else mentioned would have a better answer?

For that matter, why is it being spun as an attack on Heatley, when it very well could give him a chance to shine, and set a tone that would allow him to be welcomed with open arms?

Lastly, with the number of current and former teachers on the board who know first hand the legitimacy of the question, why aren’t the voters demanding not only that it be answered, but it be asked?

Will this be another case of citizens refusing to address an issue head on that leads to them getting what they fully and richly deserve?

Clayton Parent

May 12th, 2009
9:34 am

I was at the “Meet the Candidate” forum last week. Someone asked Dr. Heatley why he chose Clayton over Reno. He gave several reasons, but one was that he wanted to move to the East coast to be closer to his (and his wife’s) family. He also stated that he has received extensive training to oversee an urban school district. The Chino Valley School district is not urban.


May 12th, 2009
6:05 pm

Why so afraid,

May I ask you a hypothetical question? What if that same kid you are referring receives no referrals in his other five classes and the teacher you are referring to has such poor classroom management, poor instructional techniques, have no clue about creating boundaries for the high school age student and as a result the student only gets in trouble in that class. How do you suggest an administrator address the average MACE teacher described in this scenario?

… inquiring minds are anxious for your answer.

Why so afraid?

May 12th, 2009
6:18 pm

Why are we are still so very, very, afraid to ask a cadidate a simple question?

Given how the culture of lack of support of teachers in CCPS leads to low morale and high turnover and generally contributes to poor results all across the spectrum, there is no way you can make the case it isn’t a legitimate question.

Given the number of current and former teachers on the board, who know first hand how the lack of institutional support of teachers can destroy the culture of the learning environment, there is no legitimate excuse for them not asking it.

You can’t make the excuse that it’s designed to tear down a candidate, as it’s merely a question that addresses educational philosophy, as oppossed to making an attack on a specific individual.

Really what the question does, is ask if CCPS is committed to real institutional change, or just the facade of a change, which is all you will ever, ever, have until you address the institutional lack of support of teachers.

Maybe that’s why the question isn’t being asked. Too many people want a dog and pony show, instead of real reform that might upset the status quo.

Why so afraid? Just a question, a legitimate question. Why so afraid?

Political Spectator

May 12th, 2009
6:41 pm

Two questions for Political Spectator,

I take pride in being able to look at the issues before me with an objective view. That is why I can see Clayton County being used by Dr. Elgart for political gain.

Through those same lense, I can also see that MACE uses fear/negativity to attract members-”those big bad administrators are going to mistreat teachers;therefore,teachers should join MACE for protection”. That is Bull feces!!!!!

I compare MACE to Bush’s color coded terror alert system. Bush ordered terror alerts to scare the people when it was advantageous for his campaign. MACE uses discipline in the same way. MACE exploits this issue and over dramatize how the organization can help. After the poster board protests, then what?

As a parent,I have no respect for any organization that will advocate for the worst teachers to stay in the classroom. I do not care if it is GAE, Page or Mace.


May 13th, 2009
9:01 am

Valya Lee and Sam King would do well to disavow and refuse any support coming from the direction of John Trotter and his MACE constituents. They have been around long enough to know he and his ilk are poison for their futures.


May 13th, 2009
5:50 pm

Why so afraid,

You did not answer my question. I will ask it again- What if that same kid you are referring receives no referrals in his other five classes and the teacher you are referring to has such poor classroom management, poor instructional techniques, have no clue about creating boundaries for the high school age student and as a result the student only gets in trouble in that class. How do you suggest an administrator address the average MACE teacher described in this scenario?

… inquiring minds are anxious for your answer

Why so afraid?

May 13th, 2009
7:11 pm

Resolve, to answer your hypothetical. I’d say it’s in the students best interest to promote the mindset that the student is in control of his behavior choices. If he can adapt in five classes, he can find a strategy to behave in six.

But I wouldn’t just leave it at that. Obviously your situation raises a red flag. And, truth be told, walk into any school and you’ll see a class or two out of control because the teacher has no clue.

But, just as true, if not more true walk into the same school, and you see a small number of students in practically EVERY classroom who act as they have no clue. If it’s an entire class, you may want to look at the teacher. But if it’s a small group of students, and it’s the same group YEAR after YEAR with TEACHER after TEACHER, I think we know what time it is. Time for some BACKBONE!

Students know this, because even when they ACT like they don’t have a clue, they do indeed have a clue. And that clue is the administration has no BACKBONE. And if a student KNOWS that, then the teacher’s authority is undercut and ALL students suffer. Why should students who do the right thing, and parents who send students to school to do the right thing, have to suffer because CCPS doesn’t have the BACKBONE to deal with students who don’t learn, and parents who won’t parent?

If you want me to say there are cases where it is the teacher, and the teacher is a detriment to the school, fine. OF COURSE there are cases like that. But are they THE core problem when it comes to discipline?

Let me put it this way. If you trained the world’s best police department to make arrests, and the judicial system continually refused to prosecute the arrests the police made, would you continue to pour money into more police “training” or would you mandate that the prosecutors finally start SUPPORTING the efforts of the police with CONSEQUENCES?

That’s basically the dynamic that is going on in CCPS. And that’s why the question needs to be asked.

The thing is, people want to spin this as a MACE question when EVERYBODY should want this question asked, to get to the heart of the philosophy of any candidate.

Now, if we are so willing to ask questions on this blog, why are we willing to ask one simple question of a potential leader of CCPS on the core issue that affects the system most?


May 14th, 2009
8:00 pm

Why so afraid,

I actually believe that without structure/order/discipline effective teaching can not take place. In the words of Morgan Freeman in one of my favorite movies. “discipline is not the enemy of enthusiasm”.

You lose my support when you present a VERY narrow view of this issue. I am not convinced that every administrator acts in the way that you describe just like I do not believe every teacher is unable to handle his/her classroom in the way that I described.

When you paint with a broad brush and people can point out multiple exceptions, you lose credibility. On the other hand, your purpose may be to drum up new business for a profit organization that attracts new members by harping on discipline.

Why so afraid?

May 16th, 2009
4:20 pm


As far as the VERY narrow view. It’s very narrow because SOMEBODY needs to articulate the view. One only has to look at the number of current and former teachers on the board who know FIRST HAND the importance of supporting the classroom teacher, yet they’ve done NOTHING to address the issue.

And no, this isn’t directed AT teachers, only advocating FOR teachers by educating the public at large. Teachers know first hand how the LACK of support affects them. Yet if they choose to make the largest organization in ClayCo one run by administrators, and then sit around and complain about teaching conditions, what can you do? They can complain all they want, but in reality, they are getting exactly what they CHOOSE to pay for in terms of LACK of advocacy.

But the average citizen doesn’t know first hand, the DEVASTATION caused by lack of support for teachers in the classroom. And I’m afraid the term MARINE is just the newest version of out of town snake oil that has poisoned ClayCo education for years.

It is quite logical to think a Marine might have discipline at the forefront of his agenda, and this guy very well might, but it does NOT follow by logical definition that it is so. It also does NOT follow by logical definition that to ask where this guy stands is somehow pushing a Vayla Lee or Sam King canidacy. In fact you can make the case the opposite is true, because asking the finalist could indeed give the guy a chance to SHINE, and enter office with a REAL mandate, but only IF people are willing to ask the question.

So again why are citizens SO afraid to ask a simple question that could speak VOLUMES on where he stands on the checks and balances of supporting the classroom teacher vs. supporting the administrative agenda?

Why so afraid? Why so afraid to ask the BOE what THEY haven’t asked the question?

A week’s worth of being blasted, yet still NO ONE can explain why it is NOT a legitimate question.

New Board, Same Antics

May 19th, 2009
7:37 pm

It’s not legitimate b/c YOU’RE asking it and you have an agenda (CEP).