Three rather major events occurred this past week concerning North Carolina’s public schools and the state’s top educational leader did what he does best – attempt to deflect and pass the blame.

First, the “stay” on the implementation of iStation as the reading assessment tool for NC elementary students was upheld in a recent hearing. From EdNC.org on December 9th:

A Department of Information Technology (DIT) order Monday said the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) apparently took actions that favored Istation over the state’s former vendor, Amplify, when DPI awarded a new contract this year for its statewide K-3 reading assessment tool.

DIT General Counsel Jonathan Shaw’s order upheld a stay that has stalled the contract DPI awarded this past summer to use Istation’s services to test readers in early grades — but allowed Istation to continue supplying the state its services free of charge.

Amplify, the losing bidder and previous vendor, protested the state’s decision and procurement process in June. In August, Amplify was granted a stay of the contract until the process was reviewed. Last week, DPI and Istation asked DIT for a decision on the review by Monday. Shaw’s order was DIT’s response.

Johnson, who has reminded North Carolinians that he is also a lawyer, released a pathos-driven statement that of course placed blame on others.

Secondly, it was reported on Friday that The Office of State Budget and Management had begun to investigate Mark Johnson’s authorization of money used to buy iPads to be utilized in the state specifically for reading assessment initiatives in elementary schools. From WRAL:

The Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) sent a letter to the Department of Public Instruction on Oct. 22 challenging state Superintendent Mark Johnson’s purchase and distribution of iPads to public school teachers.

In the letter from Kristin Walker, deputy state budget director, to Barbara Roper, the chief financial officer at DPI, Walker said that the use of the money wasn’t appropriate and that her office was sending the letter to prevent this from happening again.

“…we wanted to bring this to your attention to prevent this oversight from occurring in the future,” she wrote.

Then there was the release this past week of WestEd’s Leandro Report. What did the top official in the state as far as public education is concerned say about the findings in the Leandro Report?

That’s right. Nothing. At least not yet.

iStation, iPads, and the Leandro Report. That’s not a very good week for DPI and especially its “leader” who reorganized the Department of Public Instruction to have all activities and actions funnel through him as he runs for Lt. Gov. in the 2020 election.

So, what does Mark Johnson – the lawyer, former two-year teacher, almost one-term school board member – do?

Plays politician – to try and deflect any responsibility and lay blame someplace else.

From WRAL this past Friday:

North Carolina Superintendent Mark Johnson says the State Board of Education violated the state’s Read to Achieve law, causing more than 70,000 students to be “improperly socially promoted,” according to a memo he sent to “interested parties.” The memo is not dated and does not list who the interested parties are.

For a man who touts transparency and accountability, he forgot to mention the dates and names of those who are accused in his memo. That makes it ambiguous enough to not have its details investigated. Even in his memo, Johnson does not really clarify when he really noticed this “violation.”

Numerous stories? Do any of those “stories” include the NC State review study of the Read to Achieve that found it horribly implemented and did not show any significant gains? Of course not.

The timing of this released memo does not seem coincidental, and its nebulous nature in how it identifies supposed culprits and violations makes it seem like a rushed attempt to save some face.

Ironically, all three news events presented earlier have something to do with Read to Achieve. Clearly the iStation procurement process and the purchase of iPads have direct ties to Read to Achieve.

And the Leandro Report even makes a mention of RTA. It stated on page 15 that it “reaches only a small share of the students who could benefit from it.” That’s a statement on the implementation of Read to Achieve as directed by the North Carolina General Assembly (who under Sen. Phil Berger pushed this legislative mandate based on a JEb Bush style program in Florida).

Makes one wonder if Johnson sent the memo to Berger.

In any case, this red herring by Mark Johnson was not thrown far enough away from him. The stench of incompetence still surrounds him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From March of 2019 in the News & Observer about the new average teacher pay in North Carolina:

The average salary for a North Carolina public school teacher has risen 5 percent to nearly $54,000 this year.

New figures released Wednesday by the state Department of Public Instruction estimate the average salary for teachers to be $53,975 — $2,741 more than the previous school year. The new number is 20 percent more than the $44,990 average salary five years ago.

According to DPI, North Carolina now ranks fourth in the Southeast in average teacher compensation, with Georgia being the highest at $56,392.

“These numbers are the result of record-breaking investments from Republicans in educators and students,” Pat Ryan, a spokesman for Senate leader Phil Berger, said in a statement Wednesday. “Over the last five years, Republicans have provided teachers with five consecutive pay raises, and in three of those years the raises were at or near the top in the entire country.

“Once the facts are laid bare, it’s easy to see that attacks against Republicans over education spending are simply Democrats and their special interest allies playing politics.”

Well, then lets lay bare the facts of how that figure has come about.

The operative word here is “average”. What GOP stalwarts purposefully fail to tell you is that most of the raises have occurred at the very low rungs of the salary schedule. Of course, you can raise the salary of first year teachers by a few thousand dollars and it would give them an average raise of maybe 10-15%. You would only have to give veteran teachers a very small raise funded by longevity pay (which we no longer get) and the OVERALL average raise still looks good, and not much money has to be invested.

“Average” does not mean “actual.” But it sounds great to those who don’t understand the math.

This report reflects a whopping double standard of the NC General Assembly and a total contradiction to what is really happening to average teacher pay. Just follow my logic and see if it makes sense.

The last eight-nine years have seen tremendous changes to teacher pay. For new teachers entering in the profession here in NC there is no longer any graduate degree pay bump, no more longevity pay (for anyone), and a changed salary schedule that only makes it possible for a teacher to top out on the salary schedule with at 52K per year.

So how can that be the average pay in NC be over 53K when no one can really make much over 52K as a new teacher in his/her entire career unless they all become nationally certified (which takes a monetary investment by the teacher to start)?

Easy. North Carolina is counting all of the veteran teachers’ current salaries in that figure. The very people whose salaries simply disgusted the former governor and the General Assembly to the point that they had to take measures to “lower” them are actually being used to tout this new wonderful “average.”

Furthermore, this average is counting on local supplements. This comes in the face of budgets that are allocating less money to each central office of each school system for administrative costs. Now each county has to raise more money to actually offset those costs and also allow for local supplements. And not all localities provide the same supplements.

Plus, those LEA’s will have to do something in the next few years to raise even more money to meet the requirements of the delayed class size mandate.

Any veteran teacher who is making above 50K based on seniority, graduate pay, and national boards are gladly counted in this figure. It simply drives up the CURRENT average pay. But when these veteran teachers who have seniority, graduate pay, and possibly national certification retire (and many are doing that early at 25 years), then the very people who seem to be a “burden” on the educational budget leave the system.

In actuality, that would drive the average salary down as time goes on. If the top salary that any teacher could make is barely over 50K (some will have higher as National Board Certified Teachers, but not a high percentage), then how can you really tout that average salaries will be higher?

You can if you are only talking about the right here and right now.

The “average bear” can turn into a bigger creature if allowed to be mutated by election year propaganda. That creature is actually a monster called the “Ignoramasaurus Rex” known for its loud roar but really short arms that keep it from having far reaching consequences.

Remember the word “average” is a very easy word to manipulate. Politicians use it well. In this case, the very teachers who are driving the “average” salary up are the very people that the state wants to not have in a few years. There will then be a new average. It can’t possibly be over 53K then if current trends keep going.

Would the current spokesperson for Sen. Phil Berger care to debunk this?

The release of WestEd’s Leandro Report and its resounding call that NC should seismically increase its funding of public education will reverberate strongly in these next few months; 2020 promises to be a contentious election year.

And public education is one of the issues (along with Medicaid expansion) that has prompted Sen. Phil Berger to stall the passing of a budget that addresses the needs of our students.

As soon as the report was released last week, feedback and commentary came swiftly from the media, education professionals, lawmakers, and teachers.

And what has the top official in the state as far as public education is concerned had to say about the findings in the Leandro Report?

That’s right. Nothing.

This is the leader who

1. Conducted a “listening tour” around the state to gather ideas to help craft innovations in classroom teaching and never really presented those findings, who also
2. Said that he would decrease the amount of standardized testing that NC would subject students, but continues to laud a faulty school grading system, who also
3. Celebrated the “revamped” NC School Report Card website and further entrenched our state into a relationship with SAS and its secret algorithms, who also
4. Called for an audit of the Department of Public Education, a million dollar audit to find wasteful spending that actually showed that DPI was underfunded, who also
5. Did a reorganization of DPI and replaced high ranking officials with loyalists from the charter industry and made them only answer to him and not the State Board of Education, who also
6. Seemed rather complicit with the legislature cutting the budget for DPI while he was actually taking taxpayer money to fight the state school board over the power grab that the NCGA did in a special session that gave him control over elements of the school system that the voting public did not actually elect him to have, who also
7. Rallied for school choice advocates and never rallied with public school teachers, who also
8. Bought 6 million dollars worth of iPads using unlawful procedures, who also
9. Supported both the extensions and renewed investment of two failed initiatives –  Read to Achieve and the NC Virtual Charter Schools – who also
10. Championed the Innovative School District which to date has not shown any success, who also
11. Set up a personal website to act like a website for information about his job and initiative, but really looks more like a campaign website, who also
12. Held a private dinner to make announcements about public education in February of 2018 launching his #NC2030 initiative of which nothing has been mentioned since, who also
13. Used a for-profit company to “allow” teachers to get “supplies” for the new school year, and who also
14. Unilaterally decided to sign a contract with iStation.

This leader who is running for a higher office next year has said this about the Leandro Report:

absolutely nothing.

 

 

The recommendation of “Increase the cap on Exceptional Children funding” is used five times in WestEd’s Leandro Report 

I am the proud parent of two children in our public schools. One is a highly intelligent and academically driven young lady. The other one is a sixth grader and what some in the educational field might call “special.” Officially, he is an “EC” student.

Specifically, that child has Down Syndrome and is also on the autism spectrum and needs modifications in school that help him to learn optimally.

Some may say that I am the parent of a Special-Ed, DS – ASD child. I rather think of being a parent of a child named Malcolm who happens to have Down Syndrome and autism and an IEP.

And both my kids are special to me. As is every student in our schools.

I also teach high school coming into contact with as many different personalities and learning styles that can possibly be contained in crowded classrooms with overarching standards.

In my twenty-year-plus  career, nothing has made me more attuned and more aware of the spectrum that exists in all classrooms for learning than being a parent of a child who happens to have special needs and requires modifications in school.

That includes:

• The need to keep engaging and reengaging students.
• The need to have individual tie with students to focus on individual work.
• The need to allow students to engage with each other collaboratively.
• The need to allow students to be exposed to various options for learning.
• The need to expose students to other students’ methods.
• The need for sufficient resources and space.
• The need to revisit parts of the curriculum to ensure mastery.
• The need for unstructured time spent in curious endeavors.
• The need to offer some choices in what is pursued as far as learning is concerned.
• The need for students to be exposed to all subject areas as each student is intelligent is multiple ways.
• The need for students to have self-guided learning.
• And the list goes on and on.

And in my career, not many things have given me insight to how much schools in North Carolina have been hampered by under-funding and ill-gotten policies in allotment for EC teachers and resources as going through an IEP process.

Remember that an IEP is a legally binding document. As a parent, I want to do everything for my child to help ensure his chances at success. As a teacher, I would want to be able to offer anything that could help a student. I see both sides. In an IEP meeting for my son, I am a parent. But as a teacher, I can reflect on how teachers and schools look at IEP’s.

The last IEP meeting we had for Malcolm was a great example of simple collaboration. The teachers in the room wanted what was best for Malcolm. The specialists in the room wanted was was best for Malcolm. The parents felt like they were listened to.

The people made it work. But imagine if there were more resources and time at their disposal. And does this happen at all schools?

There is something available to parents like me and my wife for students like Malcolm. It’s called the Personal Education Savings Account. It allows for a maximum of $9,000 of taxpayer money to be used on educational services that parents or guardians deem necessary. From edchoice.org:

We would qualify.  But we will not apply for it, and we would never criticize a family for using one. There truly are needs that require certain measures.

But there are a few reasons why we would not apply.

The first is that like many other endeavors in the reform minded views of lawmakers, the NC ESA is highly unregulated. It is crafted much like Arizona’s program and that one has been highly abused because it is lacks oversight. Instances of using funds for non-educational purchases were not uncommon.

Also, if you look at the requirements, using the ESA “releases the school district from all obligations to educate the student.” That can be interpreted in a few different ways, but ultimately it absolves the school system from being responsible for the services it would have already provided if the ESA was not used. An IEP would cover it, if that IEP was constructed so.

Furthermore, it would seem like taking money away from other students in a state where per-pupil expenditure still lags behind the .

If 11% of the state’s student population  is eligible for an ESA, and each of those ESA’s can go up to $9,000 per student, it makes one wonder why the state would not consider simply going ahead and adding that amount of money to the very public school that the student with special needs already attends.

In fact, it would be great if we as a family could apply for the ESA and simply give it to Malcolm’s public school.

If that money is already available for families who qualify who choose to keep their students in public schools, then it could then be immediately plugged back into those public schools and help alleviate what the Leandro Report from WestEd recommends five times – “increase the cap on Exceptional Children funding.”

But Raleigh made sure that was not the way it worked.

Below are some excerpts and data points from the Leandro Report specifically dealing with Exceptional Children policy.

 

“The state reported 1,621 teacher vacancies — a consequence of declining supply and high turnover — that could not be filled by qualified teachers during 2017–18, with the greatest number of vacancies in positions for teachers of exceptional children at all levels, elementary school teachers, math teachers, and career and technical educators” (p.18). 

“Consistent with prior research (Duncombe & Yinger, 2004; Taylor, Willis, Berg-Jacobson, Jaquet, & Caparas, 2018), the research team’s education cost function analysis indicates that more funding is required to produce the same outcomes for student populations with greater needs (e.g., English learners, economically disadvantaged students (EDSs), and exceptional children). Similarly, the professional judgment panels consistently noted that additional resources are necessary to adequately serve students with greater needs” (p.35). 

(Recommendation of report) – “Revise the state’s funding system so that current and additional funding is distributed to students with the greatest need. In order to do this:
– Add weights to the position allotments to account for higher-need student groups.
– Increase the cap on exceptional children funding” (p.50).

“During the needs assessment, district CFOs reported that restrictions on the allowable uses of allotments, along with new restrictions around the Classroom Teacher allotment, hamper their ability to align funding to student needs. The analysis indicated that in 2010–11, allotments with substantial flexibility represented roughly three quarters of K–12 state funding. By 2018–19, allotments with substantial flexibility represented only about one fifth of K–12 state funding. This finding corroborates North Carolina’s Program Evaluation Division 2016 report, which found that the system’s local flexibility has been drastically reduced in recent years. The report notes the General Assembly’s new restrictions on various allotments, including the Teacher Assistants, Exceptional Children, Academically or Intellectually Gifted, and Textbook allotments (186-187).”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earlier today, Sen. Phil Berger released the following statement.

This is not the first time Berger has issued such a statement.

Remember the last part of October? From the News & Observer:

Republicans in the General Assembly are offering Democrats a deal that would mean raises for teachers and some other state employees if the state budget becomes law.

North Carolina teachers could get the 3.9% raises over the next two years that are in the state budget, which includes step increases for longevity, or an additional raise that would bring the total raise to 4.4% if Democrats vote with Republicans to override the governor’s veto of the budget, Republican General Assembly leaders announced Wednesday…

…“There’s still time for Senate Democrats to come back to us with what more they need to override the veto. This bill can change in five minutes. Otherwise, this is it. If the Governor vetoes this bill, teachers and support staff are the only ones in the state who will get nothing,” Berger said.

Apparently, that ultimatum wasn’t “it” because now it is over forty days later than that time. And on October 30th, it had been over 100 days and 4 million dollars wasted on an extended session in which Phil Berger did not have the guts to even call a vote on a veto-override in the NC Senate.

It’s funny that Berger mention that it was “impossible to negotiate teacher pay in isolation.” Didn’t Berger and his cronies literally ram last summer’s (2018) budget process through a committee? That was done in “isolation.”

This is nothing more than holding teacher pay hostage. After the release of WestEd’s LEANDRO Report, this seems more like damage control.

While “Bunker” Berger stays behind his sanctimonious trench of partisan politics, this veteran teacher will continue to do his job of teaching students…

…and encouraging others to vote in 2020 for pro-public education candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

These two data exhibits in the recently released Leandro Report paint a vivid picture of what many in this state have been describing for years: the weakening of the teacher pipeline in North Carolina because of policies set by the NCGA.

From 2009-10 to 2016-17, the percentage of new teachers who came from the UNC system dropped nearly 30%. Couple that with the fact that teachers who come from the UNC system have higher rates of retention at both the three-year and five-year mark (see below).

Then on page 218 directly following the above exhibits, the Leandro Report states,

Although there has been an increase in the number of teachers of color (now about 30% of teacher enrollments in state teacher preparation programs), some of these teachers — particularly African American and Native American recruits — are primarily entering through alternative routes, which have much higher attrition rates. One reason for this is the steep drop in teacher education enrollments in minority-serving institutions, including historically Black colleges, which decreased by more than 60% between 2011 and 2016.

Teachers of color are an important resource. Recent research — much of it conducted in North Carolina — has found that having a same-race teacher has a positive impact on the long-term education achievement and attainment of students of color, particularly African American students (e.g., Dee, 2004; Gershenson, Hart, Lindsay, & Papageorge, 2017).

This state could do one action to help both increase the number of teacher candidates trained in our UNC system and bring in more teacher candidates of color – expand the North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program exponentially – the same North Carolina Teaching Fellows Program that put so many great teachers in our NC schools for years.

That is until it was abolished and then brought back as a shadow of its former self.

The latest iteration of the Teaching Fellow Program only accommodates 160 potential teachers at “only one of five public or private universities to be selected by an appointed committee ” for only select fields. This comes nowhere to replacing a program that yearly helped train 500 potential teachers at multiple campuses  in a variety of subjects who were for 25 years also walking advertisements for teaching in the state that was at one time committed to public schools.

What NC needs now is to raise that number of yearly candidates to at least 1000.

Imagine if just one-tenth of the budget surplus that Phil Berger and Tim Moore have been bragging about these last few years was reinvested into the Teaching Fellow Program and expanded it to beyond what it used to be to include all state-supported colleges and universities with emphasis on our public Historically Black Colleges & Universities.

Because this state needs more good teachers – more good teachers who stay. We especially need more teachers of color to whom our students can look up to in the most impressionable times of their lives.

Studies show that students of color who have teachers of color achieve more in school.

And that Leandro report confirms that.

 

As the Leandro Report by WestEd was released, it was no doubt that those who have been at the helm of budgetary control in North Carolina would try and deflect the report’s findings.

Sen Berger’s spokesperson Pat Ryan offered the senator’s thoughts and those thoughts show an absolute denial of culpability.

“Money doesn’t buy outcomes,” Pat Ryan, a spokesman for Republican Senate leader Phil Berger, said in a statement Tuesday.

Makes one wonder if that very thought is communicated concerning campaign financing by Sen. Berger because, well, you know, money doesn’t buy outcomes.

Then in the same news report from the N & O,

But Ryan said per-pupil expenditures are currently $10,500 per student, and that this year’s budget spends more than $10 billion on K-12 education.

Ryan said North Carolina already spends a higher share of its revenue on schools than 33 other states and provides more funding to poor school districts than to wealthy ones.

Ryan and Berger are going to have to do some crafty spinning to show how we are spending $10,500 per student. Why? Because the report says,

And that part about how we as a state spends a higher share of its revenue on public education? Well, Ryan is neglecting to tell you that that is what is stipulated by the state constitution.

It’s hard to compare how NC funds public education to other states when each state uses a different formula. How North Carolina funds schools with federal, state, and local dollars really is not the same as other states as far as what percentage comes from which entity because the real measurement is how much money is invested in schools overall.

In fact, the Leandro Report explains that.

It’s funny how Berger and his cronies will gladly include local supplements from local funds to boost their argument for average teacher pay, but in this instance they do not consider local funding.

It doesn’t fit their narrative.

And by the way, only 9 other states have a population that is larger than North Carolina.

When starting to filter through the data-rich and incredibly detailed Leandro Report many of the very issues that public school advocates have been calling attention to for years were not only echoed, but were also explained in context of other issues that affect our public education system.

These 12 data exhibits help to summarize some of those issues as far as the effects of poverty on school systems, lower numbers of teacher candidates, attrition levels, per-pupil expenditures, and how it is hard to compare NC to other states in how it funds its schools.

It’s hard to look at how this state can sit on a large manufactured state surplus and extend more corporate tax cuts while conditions in the public schools exist to the level explained clearly in the Leandro Report.

Again, it is important to look at the entire report – Sound Basic Education for All – An Action Plan for North Carolina.

 

 

It was released today.

Here is a copy: Sound Basic Education for All – An Action Plan for North Carolina.

It’s 301 pages.

It has 65 data exhibits in the actual report.

It has 52 data exhibits in the appendices.

And it has 12 basic findings listed below.

• Finding #1: Funding in North Carolina has declined over the last decade.
• Finding #2: The current distribution of education funding is inequitable.
• Finding #3: Specific student populations need higher levels of funding.
• Finding #4: Greater concentrations of higher-needs students increases funding needs.
• Finding #5: Regional variations in costs impact funding needs.
• Finding #6: The scale of district operations impacts costs.
• Finding #7: Local funding and the Classroom Teacher allotments create additionalfunding inequities.
• Finding #8: New constraints on local flexibility hinder district ability to align resources with student needs.
• Finding #9: Restrictions on Classroom Teacher allotments reduce flexibility and funding levels.
• Finding #10: Frequent changes in funding regulations hamper budget planning.
• Finding #11: The state budget timeline and adjustments create instability.
• Finding #12: There is inadequate funding to meet student needs.

As a teacher, public school parent, taxpayer, and advocate, I look forward to people like Phil Berger, Tim Moore, Dan Forest, Mark Johnson, and Craig Horn offering an explanation to this report.

 

 

Two of them were delivered just this week.

And all four of them were penned by State Board of Education members.

1. That Letter From Dale Folwell.

Remember this from last April?

“Did You Know?

During 2017, the state spent $3.3 billion on medical and pharmacy benefits. At the same time, costs have increased 5 to 10 percent while funding for the Plan only saw a 4 percent increase. In addition, the state has a $34 billion unfunded liability for retiree health care. This liability is a result of promises that were made for lifetime benefits but no money was ever put aside to pay for that benefit.

What Can You Do?

You can help sustain this benefit by taking control of your medical costs.”

Many teachers and other state employees received those words from Dale Folwell, CPA who is also the State Treasurer for North Carolina. He sent that letter with new ID cards for the state health plan that is contracted through Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

And simply put, his letter was rather insulting.

It was hard not to think that in a missive meant to outline benefits to a person whom “North Carolina values,” one was also being told that he/she literally cost too much, was promised too much, and that it was that teacher’s job to not be as much of a burden on the state.

And that paragraph under the “Did You Know?” heading actually shows a bit of a contradiction in how the state seems to treat the teaching profession: as prices for services and products go up in most every segment of the economy, the willingness to invest in those very things seems to not be the same.

What if the words associated with benefits were replaced with words associated with public education?

2. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest’s  To Teachers.

On December 6th teachers across the state received in their school email accounts a letter from Lt. Gov. Dan Forest concerning his “record” on public education. It was a “response” to Gov. Cooper’s recent letter about education spending and teacher pay.

In his missive, Forest bragged a lot about what he has done for public schools as the lieutenant governor when in actuality he has acted against them. Simply put, Forest is hoping that teachers will forget what this current NCGA he is aligning himself with has actually done to public education since 2011. That includes the removal of due process rights and graduate degree pay increases for new teachers, a greater reliance on standardized tests, the elimination of class size caps, instituting a punitive school grading system, fostering unregulated charter school growth and vouchers to religious schools, as well as the creation of an ineffective Innovation School District.

Add to that at least a 30% reduction in teacher candidates in our state’s education programs.

Every claim from pay freezes to Medicaid expansion to teacher salaries to per-pupil expenditures to NCAE membership numbers was a simple spun view of issues that require much more explanation.

Reading Forest’s letter is like listening to a man running for an office against a group of teachers rather than the incumbent.  And if Forest considers the actions of a group of five thousand people enough to send a letter like this to tens of thousands of public servants, then imagine what a group of over twenty thousand would make him do.

Wait, that happened twice – May 16, 2018 and May 1, 2019.

3. Mark Johnson’s Response To DIT’s Decision On iStation’s Stay.

First read Justin Parmenter’s post on Johnson’s statement. He nails it.

Aside from the prodigious use of quotations, the tone of teenage angst, and the pace of a first draft narrative from high school, this letter sums up the state superintendent’s love/hate relationship with actual transparency.

And it brings to mind…

4. Mark Johnson’s “I Am Also A Lawyer” Letter. 

Here’s the entire text that was sent this last August:

I’m the NC Superintendent of Public Instruction, but I’m also a lawyer. That’s a good thing on weeks like this one. 

 DIT improperly issued an injunction on the reading diagnostic contract this week that ignored due process and was in contradiction of state law and their own agency rules. DIT rendered a decision after only hearing arguments from one party, the losing vendor, and failed to give DPI its proper chance to respond.  

Today, DPI has filed a motion to dissolve this improper stay. DIT lawyers need to understand they are accountable to North Carolinians, not the CEO of Amplify. Given that DIT procurement specialists advised DPI throughout the procurement process, it is odd to begin with that the same department that approved the process is now in charge of reviewing that same process.  

We are reviewing our options to eliminate the uncertainty in our schools that DIT and this frivolous protest have recklessly created. 

Istation is the best reading diagnostic for NC students, parents, and educators. If you get outside the Raleigh Beltline or out of Uptown Charlotte, you get to read how Istation is already working. In Scotland County for example, the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction told the Scotland County Board of Education, “This is something that is really solid for students that’s going to make a difference,” and “It [Istation] is something that can really make a difference for the students.” 

And, we are getting similar feedback across North Carolina. The State Board and I made the right decision after a fair, just, and legal procurement process. It might not be supported by those who prefer to always go the more of the same route regardless of frustrations from teachers or lack of results for students. But, this is the right decision for the State of North Carolina. DIT has thrown this process into chaos, which is unacceptable, careless, and unnecessary. We are moving forward at DPI because we owe nothing less than positive change for our students and educators. 

For a man who has wanted you to know for over two years that he was a teacher for less than two years, he now wants you to know that he is a lawyer who knows the legal workings of Raleigh.

Maybe he could have saved the state money while defending his own office in the lawsuit over HB17 that lasted over a year.

Maybe he could have advised the very people who prop him up that their gerrymandered districts are unlawful.

And while he was at it maybe he could have fully and legally disclosed how he got money and made the agreement to purchase iPads that stayed in a warehouse for a full year.

All three of these men – Folwell, Forest, and Johnson – all serve on the State Board of Education.

Makes you want to educate as many as you can on why to not vote for them in 2020.