SC for Ed will descend on the legislators on March 24. That's only two weeks from now.
I watched for publication of the agenda for the March 10th school board meeting, expecting to see an item for Executive Session and an item in the Regular Session to discuss the very real possibility of a teacher walk-out on March 24. As of 5:30PM yesterday, the published agenda had not been revised to show such items.
And my open letter to the board? Nary a response.
Remember last May 1, when so many Richland 2 teachers requested "personal days" that Richland 2 School District caved in at the last moment and closed all schools for the day? The District never announced what the cost was to the District or the estimated cost to part-time employees and parents.
This created havoc for parents and employers, when moms and dads had to take a day off from work, virtually without notice to their employers, so that they could be responsible parents to their children who would be out of school.
What will happen this year?
Will Richland 2 teachers say "Thanks for the $1,000 bonus. We will be at work on March 24 and will not be walking around the Capitol Grounds in our red t-shirts"?
Raise your hands. Do you think that will happen? Get in line. (It'll be the short line to the right.)
Who, me? Cynical?
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Superintendent to be away during SC for Ed walk-out
Supt. Baron Davis will be in California later this month, when SC for Ed is expected to walk out on March 24.
He'll be speaking on Monday, March 23, at a conference put on by the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools and co-hosted by the Compton and one other USD (its website is out-of-date and does not list the March 2020 conference!). No doubt he could, if he wanted to, hop on a plane and fly back to Columbia in order to be the Face of Richland 2 and enforce an order to the teachers to be at work on March 24 or lose their jobs.
With the COVID-19 scare creating panic and havoc in the U.S.A. (and elsewhere), will he be self-quarantined upon return? Will District 2 pay him almost $1,000/day to sit behind closed doors at home after he returns?
Should he tell the conference that he won't be there and, instead, will be here to personally direct handling of SC for Ed?
What did the 2019 Red for Ed walk-out cost taxpayers? And what collateral costs did parents and employers face, when moms (and dads?) had to suddenly take a day off to care for children, while their teachers were parading around the capital with their red shirts on?
He'll be speaking on Monday, March 23, at a conference put on by the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools and co-hosted by the Compton and one other USD (its website is out-of-date and does not list the March 2020 conference!). No doubt he could, if he wanted to, hop on a plane and fly back to Columbia in order to be the Face of Richland 2 and enforce an order to the teachers to be at work on March 24 or lose their jobs.
With the COVID-19 scare creating panic and havoc in the U.S.A. (and elsewhere), will he be self-quarantined upon return? Will District 2 pay him almost $1,000/day to sit behind closed doors at home after he returns?
Should he tell the conference that he won't be there and, instead, will be here to personally direct handling of SC for Ed?
What did the 2019 Red for Ed walk-out cost taxpayers? And what collateral costs did parents and employers face, when moms (and dads?) had to suddenly take a day off to care for children, while their teachers were parading around the capital with their red shirts on?
Open Letter to Board re SC4Ed
On March 24 SC4Ed is planning its 2020 rally and will descend
on the State House to try to force its will on South Carolina legislators and
the people of South Carolina.
We know what happened last year. Richland 2 wasn’t going to
close and then, at the last minute, Richland 2 folded.
This year’s march is announced on short notice, but there is
time for Richland 2 to act.
Remember Nancy Reagan’s words on September 14, 1986? “Just
say No”
Well, Just. Say. No.
Most of you on the Board supported last year’s walk-out and
disregarded the expense and waste to the District and the disruption to
students and their working parents.
This year you have a chance to get it right. Direct the
superintendent to grant NO requests for absence on March 24 which, according to
the District 2 calendar, is the end of the third nine weeks and likely a day
full of tests for students.
You just gave the teachers $1,000. This is how they say
“Thank you”. I predicted there would be no value to Richland 2 for the
hand-out. They got the money. They spent the money. Now they say, “What are you
going to do for me now?”
Here’s what you do for them now. You tell them – “You take
March 24th off, and you will face discipline up to and including
immediate termination.”
They have a contract to work. They get paid for fulfilling
their end of the contract.
Don’t let them trample you like they did last year. Don’t
make any inane statements to them from your board chairs, such as “We support
you.” You employ them. That’s what you do.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Weapons at three Richland 2 schools on March 2
On Monday a Richland 2 Westwood High School student was arrested for taking a gun to school, according to an article by The State reporter Noah Feit published today, March 3, at 8:38AM.
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to take a gun to school? And then to pull it out of a backpack during lunch, so that another student could see it?
Of course, this student is under 17 and privacy laws (don't you just love them?) prevent the District and The State newspaper and the Richland County Sheriff's Department from identifying the jerk.
No doubt that word is percolating around school as to who that student is. The State provides a clue when the reporter wrote "...bringing a gun to his high school..." How did the reporter learn that the student was male? or did he? Perhaps the reporter just used the editorial "his" in his article.
Should laws be changed? Do parents, other students, teachers, administrators, neighbors, friends, enemies have the right to know what 15-year-old is "packing"?
Westwood High School is located at 180 Turkey Farm Road in Blythewood.
A different article, by The State's Travis Bland, reported a 16-year-old at Westwood High School with a knife and a box cutter in his backpack.
And Bland's article reports a 13-year-old at Summit Parkway Middle School with a BB gun.
And a 12-year-old at Dent Middle School with a pellet gun.
If you know anyone who can identify these kid with the weapons, I don't have any problem with publishing their names. If I were the parent of a student at Westwood High School or any Richland 2 school, I would certainly want to know who these kids are. Let me know. I'll confirm it and post names here.
Maybe I missed the announcement from District 2 to media about this. I receive many emails in a day, and I don't recall seeing it. On the other hand, maybe the District didn't notify media about it.
Did the Board know about it last night?
Do we need to ask at every Board meeting, "Did anyone take a gun or other weapon to a Richland 2 school in the past two weeks?"
I mean, how stupid do you have to be to take a gun to school? And then to pull it out of a backpack during lunch, so that another student could see it?
Of course, this student is under 17 and privacy laws (don't you just love them?) prevent the District and The State newspaper and the Richland County Sheriff's Department from identifying the jerk.
No doubt that word is percolating around school as to who that student is. The State provides a clue when the reporter wrote "...bringing a gun to his high school..." How did the reporter learn that the student was male? or did he? Perhaps the reporter just used the editorial "his" in his article.
Should laws be changed? Do parents, other students, teachers, administrators, neighbors, friends, enemies have the right to know what 15-year-old is "packing"?
Westwood High School is located at 180 Turkey Farm Road in Blythewood.
A different article, by The State's Travis Bland, reported a 16-year-old at Westwood High School with a knife and a box cutter in his backpack.
And Bland's article reports a 13-year-old at Summit Parkway Middle School with a BB gun.
And a 12-year-old at Dent Middle School with a pellet gun.
If you know anyone who can identify these kid with the weapons, I don't have any problem with publishing their names. If I were the parent of a student at Westwood High School or any Richland 2 school, I would certainly want to know who these kids are. Let me know. I'll confirm it and post names here.
Maybe I missed the announcement from District 2 to media about this. I receive many emails in a day, and I don't recall seeing it. On the other hand, maybe the District didn't notify media about it.
Did the Board know about it last night?
Do we need to ask at every Board meeting, "Did anyone take a gun or other weapon to a Richland 2 school in the past two weeks?"
Bulletproof glass?
During the bond update at the February 25, 2020 school board meeting staff member Will Anderson mentioned that "specially-formatted glass - ballistic glass" is yet to be delivered to three schools.
Bulletproof glass?
He didn't mention where it will be installed. Isn't that a good question? Will it be at the front entrance, where the gatekeeper sits and admits visitors?
Do you know what the risk is for a student to be killed by a gun in a U.S. school?
That number is 1 in 614,000,000. In other words, infinitesimal. There is a better chance that a kid will choke to death on a PB&J sandwich. And, no, I don't have a statistic for that.
Somebody intending harm in a school is not going to waltz in the front door, show his driver's license, get his name badge, wish everyone a good day, and stroll on down the hallway to wreak havoc. He'll get in a back door, where some kid will hold the door for him or open it to a knock.
So, where is the bulletproof glass to be installed?
Bulletproof glass?
He didn't mention where it will be installed. Isn't that a good question? Will it be at the front entrance, where the gatekeeper sits and admits visitors?
Do you know what the risk is for a student to be killed by a gun in a U.S. school?
That number is 1 in 614,000,000. In other words, infinitesimal. There is a better chance that a kid will choke to death on a PB&J sandwich. And, no, I don't have a statistic for that.
Somebody intending harm in a school is not going to waltz in the front door, show his driver's license, get his name badge, wish everyone a good day, and stroll on down the hallway to wreak havoc. He'll get in a back door, where some kid will hold the door for him or open it to a knock.
So, where is the bulletproof glass to be installed?
Public cautioned not to name board members
When the public participation segment of the February 25, 2020 board meeting was introduced, Chairman Manning reminded the speaker, as she approached, not to mention the names of any staff members or board members.
I can appreciate that he might not want the public to criticize any staff members, because staff is not going to get an opportunity to respond.
But to limit the public from mentioning elected board members is an incorrect instruction.
How else can members of the public call attention to wrong-doing by a board member?
A letter or email or phone call to someone (board member) will not gain any public attention.
The only place to do it is at a board meeting.
For example, there are two women on the board who have never taken the oath of office legally. They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was before they became eligible to do so. They had not filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.
State law is clear. First you file the SEI; then you take the oath of office.
Each filed her SEI on December 4, 2018. Neither Amelia McKie nor Teresa Holmes has taken the oath of office since filing her SEI. To become a full-fledged, bonafide, legitimate member of the board, each needs now to take the oath of office.
And then there is the question of Amelia McKie's $51,750 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. A judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in July 2019.
Should this "premier" School Board have a person on it who 1) has never legally taken the oath of office and 2) owes $51,750 to the S.C. Ethics Commission?
Where will the public bring that up, if not at a board meeting?
I can appreciate that he might not want the public to criticize any staff members, because staff is not going to get an opportunity to respond.
But to limit the public from mentioning elected board members is an incorrect instruction.
How else can members of the public call attention to wrong-doing by a board member?
A letter or email or phone call to someone (board member) will not gain any public attention.
The only place to do it is at a board meeting.
For example, there are two women on the board who have never taken the oath of office legally. They did take the oath of office on November 13, 2018, but that was before they became eligible to do so. They had not filed their Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) with the S.C. Ethics Commission.
State law is clear. First you file the SEI; then you take the oath of office.
Each filed her SEI on December 4, 2018. Neither Amelia McKie nor Teresa Holmes has taken the oath of office since filing her SEI. To become a full-fledged, bonafide, legitimate member of the board, each needs now to take the oath of office.
And then there is the question of Amelia McKie's $51,750 debt to the S.C. Ethics Commission. A judgment was filed in Richland County Common Pleas Court in July 2019.
Should this "premier" School Board have a person on it who 1) has never legally taken the oath of office and 2) owes $51,750 to the S.C. Ethics Commission?
Where will the public bring that up, if not at a board meeting?
Two trustees missing on 2/25/2020
Why would two trustees on the Richland 2 School Board miss the February 25, 2020 Regular Meeting due to "prior engagements"?
Teresa Holmes (actually, "trustee-elect", because she has never legally taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018) and James Shadd missed the February 25th meeting.
Isn't it their obligation as elected officials to be present? They have known about the date for this scheduled meeting for months. It should have been on their calendars first. Did they miss the meeting because of an engagement scheduled prior to the announcement of the 2019-2020 School Year Meeting Schedule?
If the possible conflict arose after the Calendar was published, then wasn't it their obligation to decline the conflicting event?
And isn't the public entitled to know what the "prior engagement" was? They were elected to be in their seats and ready to address school district business.
Do absent trustees still receive $450 (one-half of the monthly compensation) for the missing meeting? Or do they forfeit the $450 for the meeting they missed?
Teresa Holmes (actually, "trustee-elect", because she has never legally taken the oath of office since December 4, 2018) and James Shadd missed the February 25th meeting.
Isn't it their obligation as elected officials to be present? They have known about the date for this scheduled meeting for months. It should have been on their calendars first. Did they miss the meeting because of an engagement scheduled prior to the announcement of the 2019-2020 School Year Meeting Schedule?
If the possible conflict arose after the Calendar was published, then wasn't it their obligation to decline the conflicting event?
And isn't the public entitled to know what the "prior engagement" was? They were elected to be in their seats and ready to address school district business.
Do absent trustees still receive $450 (one-half of the monthly compensation) for the missing meeting? Or do they forfeit the $450 for the meeting they missed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)