Tuesday, May 22, 2007

CCSD, NAACP, & Ministerial Alliance: Unholy Trio


Sunday's Post and Courier story on youth recruitment by Charleston's NAACP contains both interesting facts and revealing quotations. For example, the local branch has a membership of 625, only five percent of whom are white, as opposed to Columbia's branch (size not given) that has a membership that is 35 percent white. Why the great disparity?

Now, of course, statistics don't always tell the full story, as I recently noted regarding Academic Magnet's success in Newsweek's index; however, perhaps these percentages do give a clue to the orientation of local leadership--namely, their continued position that true integration of downtown schools is a BAD idea, not a good one. From everything I have heard and read since returning to the Charleston area six years ago, the NAACP has worked closely with Joe Riley for more than 30 years while supporting the positions of CCSD and its school board. The results are de facto segregation in District 20 and miserably failing schools.

But, of course, many of the youth affected by this sorry state of affairs are poor. In the same article William Jenkins, of the Father to Father Project in North Charleston (and an NAACP member), suggests that the poor he works with see "the NAACP as a middle-class organization out of touch with their needs." That certainly fits with the residence of its local leaders in West Ashley and the attitude of Toya Hampton-Green, the one Board member who resides in District 20 but claims to represent the interests of the whole district instead.


The Post and Courier has reported several times now that the NAACP and the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, supposedly representing 10,000 downtown residents desirous of CCSD's opening a tech school in the Rivers building, "staunchly" oppose the creation of a downtown charter high school for math and science. Their reason? To prevent further segregation of downtown schools.
You mean the half-dozen white students who now attend District 20 schools (excluding Buist, of course) would have to leave?
What's the REAL agenda?

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm sooo glad you said it! And who are these 10,000 people?
Rev. Darby has way too much power with the Post and Courier and I'm sick of it. His commentary in the paper today is just another example. While I actually agree with him on the Confederate flag issue (sorry, folks, but it was sneaky politics at it's worse to get the 19th Century flag atop the Statehouse when they did...We're in the 21st Century and its time we start acting like it), the spread he gets is absurd!

Anonymous said...

You say it all...I have nothing left to say.
THANK YOU!

Anonymous said...

Babbie, what happen tonight at the staged planning session at Burke?

Anonymous said...

Yes, do tell.

Memminger1945 said...

I enjoyed watching what must have been the hottest breakout group tonight. Dot Scott was doing what she does best, rooting out and exposing whites everywhere for being the racists and bigots that she really is. She went off in her group (5) about everything that she was sure would go wrong with the Math and Science Charter School. Funny, but she never mentioned these as being issues at Buist. She even demanded an opportunity to read a statement on behalf of the NAACP. It was the one group out of a total of five that went off on race, race and more race. As in the other groups, this group easily went over the top for Option A (Charter Math & Science to share Rivers with High Tech High) and Option C (Charter School for Math & Science to exclusively use Rivers), but surprise, surprise...when the "official" report was given, Dot Scott managed to deliver "her group" the only one that went for something else...Option E (a mix of CCSD schools with no charter component). Funny how the votes got changed in this one group between Dot's tirades and the official report. Her hatred for white people (and even other blacks who seek common ground) is eventually going to be her undoing. Ms. G-J certainly keeps nice company.

Anonymous said...

So, What was accomplished? I heard a new Charter school will be built on the Sanders-clyde site.

Anonymous said...

They (the CCSD minders) wouldn't let our group talk about anything except Rivers, so I didn't hear anything about other sites. As far as I know CCSD is still planning a $16-17 million new Sanders-Clyde on the old site scheduled to open in the Fall of 2009 (or so they say). The Engelman's were there for the beginning and confirmed that one of the last actions of the last board was to amend the capital budget to fund a new Sanders-Clyde (hopefully not just funds to demolish it). I'll accept their comments as verification unless proven otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Annette Goodwin's Charter School in North Chas. appears to have received no support from any of the five break out groups. It was said that only between 15 & 20 of the current 90 students in this intervention program came from Dist. 20 anyway. MIMBY for this program. Dist. 20 is speaking out against CCSD continuing to use its schools as a dumping ground. The universal sentiment was for more academic options at the higher end of the excellence scale to attract and serve Dist. 20 kids.

Anonymous said...

Four out of five groups overwhelmingly supported the use of Rivers by either the Charter School for Math and Science as a stand alone or for the Math and Science Charter School to cohabit the space with the High Tech program which would compliment the math, science and technical orientation of both. The High Tech program is not really a high school and would appear to need the charter high school's core curriculum to round out its academic offerings anyway. Four of the five groups also favored the Math and Science Charter School as a second choice, too. If you can believe that CCSD officials didn't attempt to manipulate any of this for a different outcome (yes, and I also own a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you), then only two groups gave as either one of their choices (first in one and second in the other) the option that allowed for no charter school use of Rivers at all. No one I spoke with in those groups could verify that their group actually voted that way. So it's fair to say it was a resounding victory for those who favor Rivers becoming the site of the Charleston Charter School for Math and Science. It was also a well lighted path for Dr. McGinley's High Tech program sharing the facility (and possibly supported by the charter school). The losers appear to be the outgoing superintendent and those who support the status quo by keeping Dist. 20 downtrodden and segregated.

One warning: Even though she has a one-way ticket to Seattle in her pocket, after it became obvious the direction taken by the group was for a charter school at Rivers, G-J implied that this meeting (and the vote taken) was not the final word from the community. She said another meeting might be held before she leaves on June 14. Does this mean-spirited lame duck have something else up her sleeve?

BTW, it was interesting how so many CCSD employees were among the various groups. It was also odd how many teachers were trying to be seen by their bosses as the meeting began, but who disappeared when the 250 in the initial audience broke into discussion groups. I'd say at least 20% were CCSD employees or top officials. About half the audience was white and half were black. A significant number of both whites and blacks appeared to support (and speak out in favor) of the Math and Science Charter School's use of Rivers. The votes in most groups were at least 2-1 in favor of the CSMS.

Clisby said...

One sort of interesting (to me) item that came up at the meeting was the school district pledging to start an Advanced Placement Academy program at Burke - Nancy McGinley likened it to Academic Magnet. (This had nothing to do with the 5 options for Rivers - the school district was just listing planned enhancements for Burke).

Now, I've been back in Charleston only about 2.5 years after a long absence, so my memory of all this is very sketchy, but ... didn't Academic Magnet start out at Burke?
Or was that just a proposal? Or am I hallucinating? If I'm not, does anybody know why it was moved out of Burke in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Oh, that's a good one. Why not ask Greg Meyers to explain why the Academic Magnet High School was separated from Burke? And why its supporters fought so hard against having the name Burke on the diplomas of the Academic Magnet graduates? Maybe he could also explain why it wasn't moved to the old Murray Vocational High School on Chisolm St. but instead moved to North Charleston.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone witness the mayoral debate between Hillery Douglas and Keith Summey? The Post and Courier stated Hillery's "main concern on the school board was to make sure children had quality buildings..." Thank goodness Mayor Summey stated "buildings don't give a child an education."
I'm confused, Mr. Douglas. So, its okay if our children in N. Chas. aren't reading at grade level as long as they're in a quality building?
How many excellent rated schools do we have in N. Charleston? (Sorry, The School of Arts and Academic Magnet don't count). Better yet, how many schools are rated "good"?

Anonymous said...

Or you might ask, how many are just "average"? North Charleston schools as a whole are so bad that q student who starts out in one has almost no chance to ever be admitted to an advanced program by the time that student reaches high school. That's why it's so ironic that the School of the Arts and the Academic Magnet High School are located in North Charleston. And this is what Nancy Cook and Hillary Douglas are so proud of? Both are up for re-election in 2008.

Anonymous said...

And didn't they both run unopposed the last time they were "elected?"

Anonymous said...

Let's get back to these AP acronyms.
In the world of most public schools, AP stands for Advanced Placement. Advanced Placement courses are offerred for students attempting to receive college credit while still in high school.
Now in the world of CCSD, AP can have many meanings. Why? Are we attempting to, once again, mislead the public?
Let's list all of the meanings AP may have in CCSD land. Who can help?

Anonymous said...

Let's see AP could stand for Academic Plus...the "rigorous" curriculum with additional extracurricular activities and tutoring CCSD supposedly put at Burke Middle and Brentwood Middle.
Aren't they using the AP term for something new at Burke now as well?

Babbie said...

Well, that fits in with the Orwellian "disinformation" campaign being waged by CCSD. How many people think "magnet" actually means "magnet," as in a school dedicated to a rigorous program with resources to back it up? How many pretend-magnets do we have in CCSD?

Anonymous said...

Anyway you look at it, the results of Tuesday night must have been a major blow to Goodloe. Her supporters are abandoning ship as their captain is preparing to leave, too. It was just as well that the District 20 community has made a clear statement as to where it wants to go while Goodloe is still at the helm. McGinley now has an opportunity to apply this newly developed consensus within District 20 as the force to bring about positive changes in each of the downtown schools. That was never Goodloe's intention and she lost the support of District 20 when that became all too clear.

Anonymous said...

McGinley needs to have an honest discussion with the real District 20 "stakeholders" (to use Goodloes's term) and gain their trust. Downtown residents have demonstrated that they are organized and they need to know that the new superintendent's programs have substance and are not just catchy phrases. We've had enough of "A Plus", "AP", "High Tech High", "County-Wide", "Magnet", "Edison", "Arts Infused" and "Open Enrollment", all ideas or policies without clarity. We need proof of what these programs are and are expected to accomplish. We need definitive answers and commitments that these programs will work as they were intended or, if they don't, will be abandoned. We need this from our school officials who still appear to be asking us to trust them with our kids' future without telling us where they are going. Too often we have found these terms and most other phrases like them have no meaning except to the political hacks who use them to get the public to go along for another expensive and disappointing ride to nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Given the recent history of both the NAACP and the Ministerial Alliance in Charleston, both organizations, with an intertwined, overlapping and duplicative leadership that might even be described as incestuous, have become irrelevant to a majority of those in need in Charleston. They have lost their direction and meaning to the African-American community here. They are little more than platforms for out of touch suburban blacks who are too far removed, in memory and experience, from the real civil rights movement. These once good organizations now only serve those who have become their masters. What a shame considering the good they might have done over the last decade or so as true advocates for improved public education for all instead of improved job security for a few friends with access to a check book. The current membership profile of the much larger and more diverse Columbia NAACP chapter is a damning condemnation of just how far off track the Charleston chapter has gone.

Anonymous said...

It might be good to remember that two of the three North Charleston seats on the county school board, one held by its vice chair Hillery Douglas and the other held by its chairman Nancy Cook, will be contested in the 2008 general election. Will North Charleston voters (or potential challengers) have anything to say about what CCSD has done for North Charleston schools? Magnet schools that north area kids can't attend, an out-sourced student jail and Brentwood, need I say more?

Also, two of three West Ashley seats are up for voter consideration in 2008. Brian Moody and David Engelman will be facing voters again. And isn't Toya Green's seat for Downtown up, too? She's only filling the remainder of the 4-year term that Hugh Cannon was initially elected to in 2004. Never mind what the CCSD website says about her term ending in 2010. (It's bad enough these people manage our schools. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to run our elections.)

This raises a question. Will Charleston County voters continue to be happy with the status quo of essentially the same manner of leadership for the county school system as we have had for the last decade or will the new Superintendent be facing as many as five new faces on the nine member board in a little less than 18 months?

Lewis Caroll said...

2008 may be the election the truly makes a difference. It looks like whatever happens a new school board will be built on a foundation of the four who occupy the seats not up for voter review. These are the seats currently held by Ravenel, Toler, Meyers and Jordan. As it looks now the direction of the county board could go either way.

Anonymous said...

Let's go back to a previous poster's comment...
Word is there is a group of parents composed of some Porter-Gaud parents planning a Charter school "in between the 2 smoke stacks where they're clearing land now"---
Surely, someone on this blog has heard of this group...Help us out.
It sounds like the old Sanders-Clyde site to me....

Anonymous said...

Forget the elections and sue, sue, sue...
its the only way to get CCSD to change their evil ways.
Don't you people get it????

Underdog said...

Isn't Toya Green's husband Dwayne Green still on the board at Porter-Gaud? Surely, he would know about this...
Let's ask him...

Anonymous said...

According to yesterday's Post and Courier he still in on the board at Porter. No one ever believed that the new Sanders Clyde building was ever intended for the current population in District 20.

Anonymous said...

Really guys, this thing about a group of Porter-Gaud parents and a charter school on the Sanders-Clyde site sounds like another disinformation campaign originating from inside CCSD. If Sanders-Clyde isn't built on the old site then some politicians will have hell to pay. Too many bait and switch games have already been played involving city hall and CCSD. I'd start asking questions like what is being planned for Archer and Fraser. There are too many real estate deals for profit going on in the area. Not even a group of Porter-Gaud parents could pull that one off, nor is there any real reason to believe they would be interested in anything except what they already have...70 acres overlooking the Ashley River. No, this is a disinformation campaign promoted by CCSD and others who lost big when the community turned out in large numbers to support a Math and Science Charter School at Rivers. It now reported that Sanders-Clyde has been funded, Gantt-Huberman has finished preliminary plans for the new school, CCSD has all but demolished the old school. If CCSD changes course now (and they have done this before) I'd say do a recall on every last one of the board members and sue, sue, sue as someone has already suggested. But this story about P-G parents interested in the Sanders-Clyde site for a private school is too far fetched to have any legs. The only people who would gain from such a story is those who would want to divide the downtown communities against each other. Now that's a real motive for CCSD to spread false information and rumors.

Anonymous said...

You might be right about Sanders-Clyde. Something is going on that involve Fraser,Sanders-Clyde and the Archer building. And...the Community is always the last to know. This kind business simply must stop. While they are brokering real estate deals the children of D20 are getting lost in shuffle.

Anonymous said...

It’s been noticed that both Ruth Jordan and Toya Green appear to have recently removed their contact information from the CCSD's web site. They are elected public officials and their direct contact information is a matter of public record. Only Arthur Ravenel is not reachable by e-mail because he just doesn't have one, but he has more than made up for it by providing several phone numbers to reach him or his wife.

If Toya Green (a lawyer with a publicly advertised private practice) and Ruth Jordan (an active real estate agent) are not interested in providing their constituents with a means to contact them directly, then perhaps they shouldn't have run for the positions of public trust they now hold. Their business telephone numbers are perfectly acceptable (no one requires them to use home telephone numbers when a business number is available). Of course they should expect their constituents who contact them to be civil in their language and manners during the course of communications, but for Ms. Green and Ms. Jordan to be found ducking out altogether from this most basic responsibility of our elected officials is not acceptable. Perhaps their inexperience with the democratic process is showing.

Just in case anyone wants to reach them, their e-mail and business phone numbers are given below. This is public information and as long as they are public officials they will have to get used to being at the beck and call of those people Ms. Green and Ms. Jordan asked to vote for them. If they object or if the data shown isn’t completely accurate, then perhaps Ms. Green and Ms. Jordan can enlighten us as to the preferred method of DIRECT contact they would want their constituents to use.

Toya Green:
Business Phone: 266-2626
e-mail: Toya@hamptongreenllc.com

Ruth Jordan:
Business Phone: 571-7400
e-mail: rjordan@prucar.com

Babbie said...

To the 9:47 a.m. commenter--Just when I think I've seen it all, along comes another mind-boggling action by board members. Email can always be screened, a fact which those two must know quite well. Maybe Ruth Jordan can claim that her employer doesn't want email from constituents mixed in with email from clients, but Toya Green & her husband own their law firm.

Anonymous said...

Maybe someone should e-mail each of them a copy of this post and the blog site address. It might be educational for both of them.

Clisby said...

Plus, yahoo and hotmail are your friends.

Anonymous said...

I'm going back to Babbie's original posting. Why hasn't the NAACP said anything about the only somewhat integrated school on the peninsula and all of it's "bonuses"?
Was anyone at the IB celebration? I heard the t-shirt the kids were wearing pretty much tells it all as to "who's who" at Buist. Thank goodness the Post and Courier just gave us a picture. If they had rubbed our noses with an article about how wonderful Buist's IB program is, I may have truly lost it.

Anonymous said...

Yea, why haven't the voices of the NAACP and Ministerial Alliance been heard on this? It's not that hard to figure out something is very wrong when an all Black magnet school at Courtenay (CPA) gets significantly less money, less academic courses, not foreign languages and less administrative choices than another White majority magnet school at Buist located only 3 blocks away. Now that Ms. Goodloe is moving on to Seattle, will these people and the organizations they speak for finally recognize the inequities against Dist. 20's African American students that CCSD has maintained for years.... under Goodloe AND all those many White male superintendents who came before her.

Anonymous said...

Toya Green thinks giving $350,000 more to Memminger Elem. School next year. This is so the downtown school can begin “emulating” Buist. What about admissions standards? Will they continue to dump kids in Memminger from outside its attendance zone? How is the "Open Admissions" policy supposed to allow it to "emulate" Buist? Tell us Toya, how is this supposed to work when the school community isn't even aware of your plan? Not even the Dist. 20 Board was in on this discussion. Did you just pull this out of your hat?

It could be a great idea, but you missed the part about including the school in on this. We can't call or e-mail you because you took yourself "out of the loop", possibly to avoid direct contact with the public. Now it appears that your CCSD "phone drop" is permanently off the hook.

Anonymous said...

Why not give the 350,000 to Charleston Progressive ? The school is called a MAGNET SCHOOL and the school is in need of funds.

Downtown Resident said...

Why not? So ask Toya Green to explain her reasoning to the people she's supposed to be representing.

Anonymous said...

Why do we even have magnet schools in the city of Charleston? They get everything and all of the other schools are left in third world conditions. If it's "not in the budget" to help out downtown schools that why give Buist Academy an IB program on top of everything else it receives? Clearly Buist is given the best of what CCSD has to offer because that is where the school board members and their cronies send their children.

Anonymous said...

The real tragedy is that Charleston has the talent and the resources to make every one of the downtown schools an excellent rated school. CCSD and the county board as a whole lack the will to do it. As a result, these schools that should be among the state's best are instead very much like those described in the "Corridor of Shame". It's Charleston's Shame.

had enough said...

To the 9:00 am poster:
CCSD doesn't give Buist its IB program...
the fake address parents give them that.
Where have you been? Remember Sallie told the Buist parents, the Dist. 20 board wanting to give priority to its residents first would "destroy" the IB program. Why would that be? Just check out the t-shirt the kids were wearing...

Anonymous said...

Those fake address people should have been ashamed to put their names on the t-shirts. This looks like a great news story Diette! How about checking out that new Buist yearbook while you are at it?

Anonymous said...

T-shirts?