The Buck Stops Here: Anatomy of
a Smear – Part III
By Chuck Muth
November 4, 2014
In Part
I and Part
II of this series, I laid out the case that the Pinecrest Academy Charter
School in Henderson has an excellent principal, an excellent teaching corps,
an excellent board of directors, an excellent EMO (Educational Management
Organization) and an excellent mission to provide an excellent education.
So overall, we’re talking about an excellent school from top to bottom
at which parents CHOOSE to send their kids and has a waiting list of parents
dying to get their kids into it.
That said, there’s always at least one malcontent who’s not content
unless they find something to carp about.
At Pinecrest Academy, that role has been filled by a parent named Tiecha
Ashcroft.
Unbelievably, Ms. Ashcroft’s beefs primarily have to do with recess and
the school’s attendance policies; not, you know, reading, writing and
arithmetic. But we’ll get to that in a
minute.
The reason we know all of this is because of an October 22, 2014 blog
post authored by Karen Gray of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI),
Nevada’s absolutely terrific conservative think tank which has been on the
leading edge of education reform and holding public school bureaucrats
accountable.
And Ms. Gray has done a yeoman’s job in that regard for years in Clark County. So when she wrote a negative blog about
Pinecrest and its principal, Dr. Carrie Buck, it was significant and people
took notice. Especially considering NPRI’s stellar reputation.
Unfortunately, because of this particular blog post, both reputations
are now in serious jeopardy.
Why would Ms. Gray, whose focus has been on policies and practices of
the Clark County School District (CCSD), suddenly take such significant
interest in one solitary charter school’s day-to-day operations, especially
since it’s a charter school and not a regular district school and NPRI has historically
been a huge backer of school choice?
The headline of the post gives a glimpse of what horrible thing was
allegedly going on at Pinecrest that was worthy of Ms. Gray’s attention: “Charter-school parents fear the creeping
CCSD mindset: See Pinecrest Academy’s board distancing itself from parent
concerns.”
Sounds sorta serious on a PTA-level if true, but still not the sort of
thing you’d think NPRI would be devoting time and attention to since this is a “choice”
school, not one where kids are forced to attend because it’s where they’re “districted.”
As the saying goes – especially in Nevada, where the regular public
schools are ranked dead last in the nation – there are certainly much, MUCH
bigger fish to fry.
The justification expressed to me in several conversations about this
issue with NPRI management was a comment made last month by board Chairman
Candace Friedmann; that in board meetings, during public comment periods, board
members were only allowed to listen to parents’ concerns, not respond to them.
That is, in fact, incorrect.
I know this from having worked on this issue myself a few years ago
when I was in Carson City and a school board member there tried to hide behind
the law to duck tough questions from the public during public comment
periods.
But was Ms. Friedmann really trying to hide from the parental concerns
of the Pinecrest Academy family the way elected public school board members
have sought to do in the past?
In a word…no.
I spoke to Ms. Friedmann after this brouhaha erupted and asked about
her comment relating to board members not being allowed to respond to parents
during the public comment period. Here’s
what I learned…
Ms. Friedman is a volunteer board member. She joined the Pinecrest Board for the sole
purpose of helping to provide an excellent education to children. She’s a school teacher by trade. She is not a parliamentarian. She is not a lawyer. She is not a legislator. She is not a school bureaucrat. And she’s never been a board chairman before.
When I asked her why she said board members weren’t allowed to respond
to questions during the public comment period, she said she had relied on
Robert’s Rules of Order. She then quoted
me the passage verbatim that she was relying on.
I then explained that Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) says something
different and that NRS trumps Robert’s. The fact is, board members MAY respond to
questions during the public comment period, but aren’t required to.
This is something Ms. Friedmann – again, a volunteer board chairman
with no previous experience – simply was not aware of because the issue had
never come up before. Now that she
knows, problem solved.
Indeed, after speaking with Ms. Friedmann - who has an absolutely stellar
reputation in the community - it became abundantly clear that there was
absolutely nothing nefarious whatsoever in her actions - something Ms. Gray
also would have learned if she had made the same phone call to Ms. Friedmann
that I made.
Something any good, objective, unbiased journalist would do for such a
story.
So why didn’t she?
After all, she talked to Tiecha Ashcroft and another disgruntled parent
at length. She also called Patrick Gavin,
Executive Director of the Nevada State Public Charter School Board, which has
no jurisdiction whatsoever in school matters such as this.
Seriously, folks.
One phone call to Ms. Friedmann would have revealed that there really
was no story here. The Pinecrest board
absolutely, positively was not – as Ms. Gray’s blog post suggested –
intentionally trying to “misinform” parents.
It was not being “evasive.” It
was not trying to “duck confrontations.”
In fact, Tiecha Ashcroft has had PLENTY of opportunities to belly-ache
at board meetings and has regularly taken advantage of those
opportunities. Indeed she has been heard
and responded to; heard and responded to; heard and responded to, over and over
again.
But like the old saying about God answering prayers, sometimes the
answer is “no.” But Tiecha Ashcroft
simply refuses to take no for an answer and would rather fight than switch
schools. Which is fine. That’s her choice and this is a choice
school.
But again, the real mystery is why Karen Gray would take such an
interest in such a petty, single-school squabble in which the premise of the
entire story was – or could have been – discounted with one simple phone call.
Why the one-sided, clearly biased hit piece making a mountain out of a
molehill by a professional journalist working for a highly reputable think
tank?
Here’s why…
Although it wasn’t disclosed anywhere in the original blog post, Tiecha
Ashcroft’s full name is Tiecha Gray-Ashcroft.
As in…
Karen Gray’s daughter.
Holy ethical breach, Batman!
Not only did Ms. Gray/NPRI fail to disclose the mother-daughter
relationship in the blog post, but in Part IV of this series I’m going to
tackle head on the allegations leveled by Tiecha and her mom at Dr. Buck and
provide the other side of the story that wasn’t presented in the original smear.
Of course, now you know WHY the other side of the story wasn’t
presented.
Stay tuned, Batfans…
No comments:
Post a Comment