The Myrtle Beach Herald published the following on Thursday, December 19, 2013. It was the first to break my story, in which I claim fraudulent behavior on the part of Superintendent Cynthia Elsberrry and the Horry County Board of Education, when they submitted a federal grant application in President Obama's Race to the Top - District competition for FY 2013.
http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/education/article_619b9c46-6995-11e3-af09-0019bb30f31a.html
About Me
- Bobby Chandler
- 1970 graduate of Hemingway High, Hemingway, S.C. 1973 graduate of Francis Marion College, Florence, S. C. (History - B. A.) 1973 Human Relations Award (Chesterfield County School District, S. C.) 1981 M. Ed. (University of S. C.) 1982 Teacher of the Year (St. James Middle School, Myrtle Beach, S. C.) 1988 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Conway Chamber of Commerce) 1989 South Carolina Governor’s School Teacher Recognition Award 1991 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Horry County) 1992 Most Inspirational Teacher Award (Horry County) 1992 South Carolina U. S. History Teacher of the Year (D. A. R.) 1992 South Carolina House of Representatives Award for Outstanding Achievements 1993 Teacher of the Year (Socastee High, Myrtle Beach, S. C.) 1993 Horry County District Teacher of the Year 1993 South Carolina Honor Roll Teacher of the Year 1998 Wellman, Inc. Golden Apple Award 2000 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching) 2003 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching) 2004 Joseph B. Whitehead Educator of Distinction Award 2005 International Baccalaureate Shuford-Beaty Award (Excellence in Teaching)
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Victims of Fraud and Unprofessional Conduct
I was a victim of a crime and unprofessional conduct in which I and many others were injured and could be injured in the near future.
Fraud occurs, if a grant application includes false or misleading information, whether intentional or reckless, even if no money changes hands. This was the case with Horry County Schools’ FY 2013 Race to the Top – District application. Although named a finalist in last year’s competition, our district was not a finalist this year. Therefore, we missed out on a $2.5 million award.
In addition, fraud requires injury. I was injured by Horry County Schools, and so were most teachers in our school district, by being left out of the development of our application. According to the requirements of the competition, teachers were supposed to play an integral role, through giving input and feedback. We did not, but the application said we did.
Our district was also supposed to provide time for possible revisions, before teachers were asked to give their support or non-support to the final proposal. It did not, but the application said it did.
Teachers at my school, Socastee High School, were supposed to have had an on-site meeting or meetings to deal with the details of our application. The application said we did. We did not.
There was a period of at least two months in which teachers could have been meaningfully involved in the development of our district’s application. We were involved for less than one school day, September 12, 2013, and that while we were working. We were told that there was nothing we had to do but sign a form, one which had to be turned in to the district by the end of the day. We had no input. There was no feedback. There was no time for possible revisions, only our signatures.
Injury definitely occurred in some ways and might occur in others.
Many participating teachers were injured because they were under pressure to show their support for our application, due to the fact that there was no secret ballot. Many could see who had signed the common form being passed around and would have felt compelled to show their support. Teachers fear retaliation from administration in the form of undesirable job assignments, transfers, and even job loss. This was in direct violation of district policy which is supposed to guarantee anonymity on highly sensitive issues by administration.
I have been personally injured because almost three months of my life have been devoted to making the public and the proper authorities aware of the crime committed against me and others by the superintendent and Horry County Board of Education and the unprofessional conduct exhibited by the superintendent. Many might say that it was my choice to do so, and they would be right.
It was my choice to do what was right. It was my choice to exercise my duty as a teacher, to look out for the welfare of my students and my profession. It was my choice, upon discovering irrefutable evidence of a crime, that I report it. Not to do so could have resulted in my being charged with a felony.
After attending to my students and my school duties, these past three months have been devoted to study, thinking, writing, and speaking about all the significant aspects of our district’s participation in the Race to the Top application. I truly want my life back, but I must finish what I started.
The greatest injury of all was to each participating teacher’s self-worth and professionalism. What the district did was a form of bullying. In essence, what it did was to send a message, “You do not matter. You are just a teacher. You cannot have any significant input into pedagogical ideas and the philosophical content of something as complex as Race to the Top. You must rely on administration. So, there is nothing you have to do but sign here. We need the money, and it will help you do the job we tell you to do in your classroom.” How belittling and demeaning!
If a teacher gets this message enough, he will begin to believe it. He will lose all sense of self-worth. His professionalism will be reduced to having his thinking and believing done for him. Our district needs to be held accountable for its actions, and nothing like this should ever happen again.
I refuse to be a pawn or a toy soldier for administration. I have a mind, and I am going to use it. This entails my sharing my ideas publicly on these matters, first as a citizen, and second as a teacher. Teachers are citizens, too!
Since the district submitted an application with gross inaccuracies in the B4 narrative, which were unsupported in Appendix B4, this could have contributed to our district’s elimination from the competition and a loss of its portion of grant monies, $2.5 million. The loss of this money would cause injury to both teachers and students, by depriving them of classroom support.
The loss of $2.5 million could lead to increased class sizes. The district might have to hire fewer teachers to pay for the technology and support that it intended to purchase with the grant monies to supplement its Personalized Digital Learning initiative. If this were to occur, injury would result to both teachers and students because much research supports the idea that increased class sizes causes harm to both teachers and students. In addition, a number of teachers would necessarily lose their jobs, causing much personal injury.
I am thankful that there will be districts which deserve their grant awards, for they will have achieved them in the proper manner, hopefully, by involving their professional teaching staffs in the meaningful development and support of their applications.
The day must come soon that all citizens, especially parents and teachers, will once again be major participants in what goes on in our public schools.
Fraud occurs, if a grant application includes false or misleading information, whether intentional or reckless, even if no money changes hands. This was the case with Horry County Schools’ FY 2013 Race to the Top – District application. Although named a finalist in last year’s competition, our district was not a finalist this year. Therefore, we missed out on a $2.5 million award.
In addition, fraud requires injury. I was injured by Horry County Schools, and so were most teachers in our school district, by being left out of the development of our application. According to the requirements of the competition, teachers were supposed to play an integral role, through giving input and feedback. We did not, but the application said we did.
Our district was also supposed to provide time for possible revisions, before teachers were asked to give their support or non-support to the final proposal. It did not, but the application said it did.
Teachers at my school, Socastee High School, were supposed to have had an on-site meeting or meetings to deal with the details of our application. The application said we did. We did not.
There was a period of at least two months in which teachers could have been meaningfully involved in the development of our district’s application. We were involved for less than one school day, September 12, 2013, and that while we were working. We were told that there was nothing we had to do but sign a form, one which had to be turned in to the district by the end of the day. We had no input. There was no feedback. There was no time for possible revisions, only our signatures.
Injury definitely occurred in some ways and might occur in others.
Many participating teachers were injured because they were under pressure to show their support for our application, due to the fact that there was no secret ballot. Many could see who had signed the common form being passed around and would have felt compelled to show their support. Teachers fear retaliation from administration in the form of undesirable job assignments, transfers, and even job loss. This was in direct violation of district policy which is supposed to guarantee anonymity on highly sensitive issues by administration.
I have been personally injured because almost three months of my life have been devoted to making the public and the proper authorities aware of the crime committed against me and others by the superintendent and Horry County Board of Education and the unprofessional conduct exhibited by the superintendent. Many might say that it was my choice to do so, and they would be right.
It was my choice to do what was right. It was my choice to exercise my duty as a teacher, to look out for the welfare of my students and my profession. It was my choice, upon discovering irrefutable evidence of a crime, that I report it. Not to do so could have resulted in my being charged with a felony.
After attending to my students and my school duties, these past three months have been devoted to study, thinking, writing, and speaking about all the significant aspects of our district’s participation in the Race to the Top application. I truly want my life back, but I must finish what I started.
The greatest injury of all was to each participating teacher’s self-worth and professionalism. What the district did was a form of bullying. In essence, what it did was to send a message, “You do not matter. You are just a teacher. You cannot have any significant input into pedagogical ideas and the philosophical content of something as complex as Race to the Top. You must rely on administration. So, there is nothing you have to do but sign here. We need the money, and it will help you do the job we tell you to do in your classroom.” How belittling and demeaning!
If a teacher gets this message enough, he will begin to believe it. He will lose all sense of self-worth. His professionalism will be reduced to having his thinking and believing done for him. Our district needs to be held accountable for its actions, and nothing like this should ever happen again.
I refuse to be a pawn or a toy soldier for administration. I have a mind, and I am going to use it. This entails my sharing my ideas publicly on these matters, first as a citizen, and second as a teacher. Teachers are citizens, too!
Since the district submitted an application with gross inaccuracies in the B4 narrative, which were unsupported in Appendix B4, this could have contributed to our district’s elimination from the competition and a loss of its portion of grant monies, $2.5 million. The loss of this money would cause injury to both teachers and students, by depriving them of classroom support.
The loss of $2.5 million could lead to increased class sizes. The district might have to hire fewer teachers to pay for the technology and support that it intended to purchase with the grant monies to supplement its Personalized Digital Learning initiative. If this were to occur, injury would result to both teachers and students because much research supports the idea that increased class sizes causes harm to both teachers and students. In addition, a number of teachers would necessarily lose their jobs, causing much personal injury.
I am thankful that there will be districts which deserve their grant awards, for they will have achieved them in the proper manner, hopefully, by involving their professional teaching staffs in the meaningful development and support of their applications.
The day must come soon that all citizens, especially parents and teachers, will once again be major participants in what goes on in our public schools.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Origins of Policy Governance in Horry County Schools
(Originally shared in March 2013, but highly relevant today)
How our current system of governance came to be in Horry County Schools sheds much light on my current concerns with how our district governs itself and operates. A brief, factual synopsis follows. I have much more detail and information, if anyone is interested in knowing the whole story.
Why anyone would not be interested is very difficult for me to understand, for this matter has serious implications for every citizen of Horry County. It has tremendous significance for students, teachers, parents, and the community at large, in terms of how much their voices matter and to what extent and in what ways they can be involved in developing decisions that should be voted on by their representative board members.
As of this moment, no citizen of Horry County has a vote on most matters related to students’ welfare, instruction, curriculum, personnel, financial matters, and district operations. There is only one exception– the superintendent of education. She can decree policy and remove policy, at will, with no board approval. This is law-making authority, and no citizen has any viable input, only advisory input. These are referred to as District Policies, distinct from Board Policies. (See Horry County Schools’ website. Together they comprise what we call Coherent Governance Policies.)
This serious error was made in 2000 and has been perpetuated for over thirteen years. This is a tragedy for “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and the concept of the “consent of the governed.”
The story really begins before 1999, but for the sake of brevity, I will start in the spring of 1999. (For evidence prior to 1999, you may want to ask, inquire, or otherwise probe, for it is extensive. I am available, for any inquiries.)
As early as May 1999, a committee of the Horry County Board of Education was looking at shifting to what was then termed “board governance.” Board minutes on actions taken on July 19, 1999, detail a process supposedly begun because “participants” of the 1998-2000 Reconnecting Communities and Schools project in Horry County “recommended that the Board establish a more efficient and effective means of defining school board governance.” However, nowhere in the final agreement produced by the representative sample of citizens chosen was governance mentioned at all. See Horry County’s “Our Agreement,” the product compiled for future directions of our district.
Some members of the community might have discussed the issue of governance in light of the fact that some prominent national groups and authors were promoting the policy board concept. However, it seems that the board of education was only looking at the Policy Governance model of Dr. John Carver. The consultants referred to in the July 1999 minutes, although not by name, were Linda and Randy Quinn (the Aspen Group). The only model they marketed at the time was Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance. Now, they market a user-friendly version – Coherent Governance, their creation (c. 2006), the model we moved to in June 2007 and under which we currently operate.
If the Horry County Board of Education was seriously looking at a radical shift in governance, why were other models not explored? The community as a whole was not notified and involved through the dissemination of detailed information, discourse, and debate. A series of board meetings and board trainings took place over the next year, before final adoption in June 2000.
Why were all citizens of Horry County not given a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the development of this radical shift in governance? Why were special attempts not made to inform and involve every citizen of Horry County about the radical change which was being planned? Did the superintendent and the board believe this was simply business as usual? I know that someone knew it was not and did not want the public to fully understand what was happening. I believe this is still the same today, only there are several “someones.”
This was not a typical vote. The public cannot always be involved in in-depth discussions prior to all board votes. The logistics of this would be impractical. However, changing a form of governance is like the creation of a constitution. This is fundamental change, for roles shift, and practices become much different. Much time and study should be offered to all citizens, not representative samples of the people and/or the board of education, before a change of this magnitude occurs.
The Reconnecting Communities and Schools project was a wonderful opportunity for hundreds of people to be involved in discussing many matters related to school and community involvement. However, if the recommendation about governance from some participants was used as the springboard to the radical change in our governance, this is not democracy at work. This is not democratic practice at all. It is, as is strategic planning, a manipulative tool, designed, in many cases, to bring about prearranged outcomes.
This would be more like the tactics of Mao Tse-Tung and the psychological technique of what he called the “mass line” in bringing large numbers of people together, listening to them, making them think their contributions are quite helpful, and then proceeding to implement a predetermined change. Then, using the masses, justification for change is broadcast on the basis of what the people want and democracy in action, psychological manipulation of the highest order.
Let’s remember that Mao’s China was called, and still is, the People’s Republic of China, what Mao also termed the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship.” There is not much that is democratic about China, yet there is a recent tendency to admire many aspects of the Chinese education system. That is a topic for another day.
To continue with historical context, you can read the response I made to “rhoward” in the comments section of last week’s Horry Independent article (http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/education/article_616f7544-8cb9-11e2-ad52-0019bb30f31a.html). It details what happened starting in late 1999 with the involvement of former superintendent Gerrita Postlewait and her role on the Study Team on Local Leadership Quality and Engagement that was appointed by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. The study team produced recommendations that supported our district’s move to the Policy Governance model.
No, real democratic practice involves all of the people having a reasonable opportunity to know about the details of large scale change and participate in in-depth discourse and debate before votes are taken by representatives of the people. It is quite shameful how the board of education dispensed with traditional governance, without widespread public knowledge. It is also shameful that nothing has changed after thirteen years.
How our current system of governance came to be in Horry County Schools sheds much light on my current concerns with how our district governs itself and operates. A brief, factual synopsis follows. I have much more detail and information, if anyone is interested in knowing the whole story.
Why anyone would not be interested is very difficult for me to understand, for this matter has serious implications for every citizen of Horry County. It has tremendous significance for students, teachers, parents, and the community at large, in terms of how much their voices matter and to what extent and in what ways they can be involved in developing decisions that should be voted on by their representative board members.
As of this moment, no citizen of Horry County has a vote on most matters related to students’ welfare, instruction, curriculum, personnel, financial matters, and district operations. There is only one exception– the superintendent of education. She can decree policy and remove policy, at will, with no board approval. This is law-making authority, and no citizen has any viable input, only advisory input. These are referred to as District Policies, distinct from Board Policies. (See Horry County Schools’ website. Together they comprise what we call Coherent Governance Policies.)
This serious error was made in 2000 and has been perpetuated for over thirteen years. This is a tragedy for “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and the concept of the “consent of the governed.”
The story really begins before 1999, but for the sake of brevity, I will start in the spring of 1999. (For evidence prior to 1999, you may want to ask, inquire, or otherwise probe, for it is extensive. I am available, for any inquiries.)
As early as May 1999, a committee of the Horry County Board of Education was looking at shifting to what was then termed “board governance.” Board minutes on actions taken on July 19, 1999, detail a process supposedly begun because “participants” of the 1998-2000 Reconnecting Communities and Schools project in Horry County “recommended that the Board establish a more efficient and effective means of defining school board governance.” However, nowhere in the final agreement produced by the representative sample of citizens chosen was governance mentioned at all. See Horry County’s “Our Agreement,” the product compiled for future directions of our district.
Some members of the community might have discussed the issue of governance in light of the fact that some prominent national groups and authors were promoting the policy board concept. However, it seems that the board of education was only looking at the Policy Governance model of Dr. John Carver. The consultants referred to in the July 1999 minutes, although not by name, were Linda and Randy Quinn (the Aspen Group). The only model they marketed at the time was Carver’s trademarked Policy Governance. Now, they market a user-friendly version – Coherent Governance, their creation (c. 2006), the model we moved to in June 2007 and under which we currently operate.
If the Horry County Board of Education was seriously looking at a radical shift in governance, why were other models not explored? The community as a whole was not notified and involved through the dissemination of detailed information, discourse, and debate. A series of board meetings and board trainings took place over the next year, before final adoption in June 2000.
Why were all citizens of Horry County not given a reasonable opportunity to be involved in the development of this radical shift in governance? Why were special attempts not made to inform and involve every citizen of Horry County about the radical change which was being planned? Did the superintendent and the board believe this was simply business as usual? I know that someone knew it was not and did not want the public to fully understand what was happening. I believe this is still the same today, only there are several “someones.”
This was not a typical vote. The public cannot always be involved in in-depth discussions prior to all board votes. The logistics of this would be impractical. However, changing a form of governance is like the creation of a constitution. This is fundamental change, for roles shift, and practices become much different. Much time and study should be offered to all citizens, not representative samples of the people and/or the board of education, before a change of this magnitude occurs.
The Reconnecting Communities and Schools project was a wonderful opportunity for hundreds of people to be involved in discussing many matters related to school and community involvement. However, if the recommendation about governance from some participants was used as the springboard to the radical change in our governance, this is not democracy at work. This is not democratic practice at all. It is, as is strategic planning, a manipulative tool, designed, in many cases, to bring about prearranged outcomes.
This would be more like the tactics of Mao Tse-Tung and the psychological technique of what he called the “mass line” in bringing large numbers of people together, listening to them, making them think their contributions are quite helpful, and then proceeding to implement a predetermined change. Then, using the masses, justification for change is broadcast on the basis of what the people want and democracy in action, psychological manipulation of the highest order.
Let’s remember that Mao’s China was called, and still is, the People’s Republic of China, what Mao also termed the “People’s Democratic Dictatorship.” There is not much that is democratic about China, yet there is a recent tendency to admire many aspects of the Chinese education system. That is a topic for another day.
To continue with historical context, you can read the response I made to “rhoward” in the comments section of last week’s Horry Independent article (http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/education/article_616f7544-8cb9-11e2-ad52-0019bb30f31a.html). It details what happened starting in late 1999 with the involvement of former superintendent Gerrita Postlewait and her role on the Study Team on Local Leadership Quality and Engagement that was appointed by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. The study team produced recommendations that supported our district’s move to the Policy Governance model.
No, real democratic practice involves all of the people having a reasonable opportunity to know about the details of large scale change and participate in in-depth discourse and debate before votes are taken by representatives of the people. It is quite shameful how the board of education dispensed with traditional governance, without widespread public knowledge. It is also shameful that nothing has changed after thirteen years.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Dr. Elsberry's Unprofessional Conduct
Dr. Elsberry’s unprofessional conduct has significant ramifications for every professional educator in Horry County Schools. The Horry County Board of Education and the South Carolina State Department of Education should recognize that no one who holds a professional certificate in the state of South Carolina should be treated differently because of rank or position.
A teacher, guidance counselor, librarian, assistant principal, principal, district level administrator, and superintendent, for examples, are all charged with acting professionally and competently. Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. However, a serious lapse in judgment, which has major implications, cannot simply be dismissed. It must be dealt with as a professional, not a personal, matter. That is why there are numerous reasons one can lose his professional certificate, two being “unprofessional conduct” and “incompetence.” I have publicly alleged “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence” against our superintendent.
Although Dr. Elsberry has many admirable, personal qualities and has garnered praise and accolades for our district’s accomplishments, the ends never justify the means. It is not so much about whether “you win or lose but how you play the game.”
Dr. Elsberry was highly unprofessional in how she involved professional educators in the support of our Race to the Top – District grant application for the FY 2013 competition. Teachers were pressured to support something she wanted, without sufficient time to consider our grant proposal. This did not happen in isolation, to one teacher, as was the case last year, when Dr. Elsberry questioned my professionalism in an email to the board and news media.
Although I was right, in violation of no policy or law, her questioning my use of my planning time as unprofessional to inappropriate audiences, was an action against me. In simply trying to sign up to speak at a board meeting on behalf of my students and their welfare, Dr. Elsberry said that I should have been planning lessons for my students. She obviously was unaware of policy, law, and court rulings on teachers’ first amendment rights, especially during their professional day.
(Please note that I am composing this professional email during my planning time.)
I could have pursued this matter as “unprofessional conduct,” but I chose not to, realizing that good people can make mistakes, and since it was an action only against me. I had originally only demanded an apology, something I believe I deserved but never received, but then decided to drop that demand as an impractical expectation.
However, the current issue is not just about me. If a superintendent can get away with this kind of behavior and still hold a certificate in the state of South Carolina, it has major implications for all of us. The power and influence he or she could assert would reach dictatorial levels.
In addition, in its unwavering support of Dr. Elsberry, despite all of the evidence of improper treatment and involvement of professional educators in the development and support of our grant application which it received, before our application was submitted to Washington, the Horry County Board of Education cannot be counted on to ask for Dr. Elsberry’s dismissal. Its conduct in this matter becomes quite suspect.
Voters cannot simply wait around to elect a new board, as some have suggested, to see justice done. This would be time consuming and an impediment to justice. Therefore, my public appeals must go beyond the Horry County Board of Education to the Office of General Counsel at the South Carolina Department of Education and the Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Education in Washington, the former to consider my charges against the superintendent for “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence,” and the latter to determine my charges against both the superintendent and the board for fraudulent behavior.
Both the superintendent and the board must be held accountable now.
The South Carolina State Department of Education should act immediately to have Dr. Elsberry’s professional certificate revoked.
This matter is independent of my public charge that the superintendent and board fraudulently submitted our Race to the Top grant application. A determination of innocence or guilt by the appropriate authorities in this matter has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Dr. Elsberry has demonstrated unprofessional conduct.
Even if the superintendent and board had accepted my plea and did not submit our grant application, no crime having been committed, Dr. Elsberry’s conduct should be seen as unprofessional.
“Incompetence” is plausible, for it would seem that Dr. Elsberry should have known better, especially if she understood the requirements of the application and the Executive Summary document. If she did not understand or was not familiar with the requirements, that would definitely be a question of “incompetence.” If she did understand them, that would be a matter of deliberate subjugation of professional educators. That would not be incompetence, as much as outright chicanery.
No teacher should ever have to be put into the position of quickly certifying his educational beliefs and support for anything. The vast majority of teachers in Horry County Schools had no idea about the content of our grant application, were not given anywhere close to sufficient time to consider what they were doing, and then were urged to sign a document because the superintendent said it would help them with what they were doing in the classroom (You Tube video – Sept. 12, 2013).
If a teacher can easily be dismissed for grade changes, crossing the line on the administration of standardized testing, and/or making improper judgments about what he considers to be in the best interest of his students, all examples of legitimate reasons for loss of a professional certificate, why should not a superintendent be dismissed for something which has similar, if not larger, implications?
No one is above the law, and a strong message needs to be made in Horry County Schools for the sake of students, teachers, parents, and our various communities, not to mention in our state and nation.
A teacher, guidance counselor, librarian, assistant principal, principal, district level administrator, and superintendent, for examples, are all charged with acting professionally and competently. Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. However, a serious lapse in judgment, which has major implications, cannot simply be dismissed. It must be dealt with as a professional, not a personal, matter. That is why there are numerous reasons one can lose his professional certificate, two being “unprofessional conduct” and “incompetence.” I have publicly alleged “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence” against our superintendent.
Although Dr. Elsberry has many admirable, personal qualities and has garnered praise and accolades for our district’s accomplishments, the ends never justify the means. It is not so much about whether “you win or lose but how you play the game.”
Dr. Elsberry was highly unprofessional in how she involved professional educators in the support of our Race to the Top – District grant application for the FY 2013 competition. Teachers were pressured to support something she wanted, without sufficient time to consider our grant proposal. This did not happen in isolation, to one teacher, as was the case last year, when Dr. Elsberry questioned my professionalism in an email to the board and news media.
Although I was right, in violation of no policy or law, her questioning my use of my planning time as unprofessional to inappropriate audiences, was an action against me. In simply trying to sign up to speak at a board meeting on behalf of my students and their welfare, Dr. Elsberry said that I should have been planning lessons for my students. She obviously was unaware of policy, law, and court rulings on teachers’ first amendment rights, especially during their professional day.
(Please note that I am composing this professional email during my planning time.)
I could have pursued this matter as “unprofessional conduct,” but I chose not to, realizing that good people can make mistakes, and since it was an action only against me. I had originally only demanded an apology, something I believe I deserved but never received, but then decided to drop that demand as an impractical expectation.
However, the current issue is not just about me. If a superintendent can get away with this kind of behavior and still hold a certificate in the state of South Carolina, it has major implications for all of us. The power and influence he or she could assert would reach dictatorial levels.
In addition, in its unwavering support of Dr. Elsberry, despite all of the evidence of improper treatment and involvement of professional educators in the development and support of our grant application which it received, before our application was submitted to Washington, the Horry County Board of Education cannot be counted on to ask for Dr. Elsberry’s dismissal. Its conduct in this matter becomes quite suspect.
Voters cannot simply wait around to elect a new board, as some have suggested, to see justice done. This would be time consuming and an impediment to justice. Therefore, my public appeals must go beyond the Horry County Board of Education to the Office of General Counsel at the South Carolina Department of Education and the Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Education in Washington, the former to consider my charges against the superintendent for “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence,” and the latter to determine my charges against both the superintendent and the board for fraudulent behavior.
Both the superintendent and the board must be held accountable now.
The South Carolina State Department of Education should act immediately to have Dr. Elsberry’s professional certificate revoked.
This matter is independent of my public charge that the superintendent and board fraudulently submitted our Race to the Top grant application. A determination of innocence or guilt by the appropriate authorities in this matter has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Dr. Elsberry has demonstrated unprofessional conduct.
Even if the superintendent and board had accepted my plea and did not submit our grant application, no crime having been committed, Dr. Elsberry’s conduct should be seen as unprofessional.
“Incompetence” is plausible, for it would seem that Dr. Elsberry should have known better, especially if she understood the requirements of the application and the Executive Summary document. If she did not understand or was not familiar with the requirements, that would definitely be a question of “incompetence.” If she did understand them, that would be a matter of deliberate subjugation of professional educators. That would not be incompetence, as much as outright chicanery.
No teacher should ever have to be put into the position of quickly certifying his educational beliefs and support for anything. The vast majority of teachers in Horry County Schools had no idea about the content of our grant application, were not given anywhere close to sufficient time to consider what they were doing, and then were urged to sign a document because the superintendent said it would help them with what they were doing in the classroom (You Tube video – Sept. 12, 2013).
If a teacher can easily be dismissed for grade changes, crossing the line on the administration of standardized testing, and/or making improper judgments about what he considers to be in the best interest of his students, all examples of legitimate reasons for loss of a professional certificate, why should not a superintendent be dismissed for something which has similar, if not larger, implications?
No one is above the law, and a strong message needs to be made in Horry County Schools for the sake of students, teachers, parents, and our various communities, not to mention in our state and nation.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
My Simplified Story: Horry County Schools' Intent to Commit Fraud
To Whom It Should Concern:
My Simplified Story: Horry County Schools' Intent to Commit Fraud
I had heard that Horry County Schools was pursuing a federal grant through President Obama’s Race to the Top program, but I had no idea I was supposed to be involved, in any way, until Thursday, September 12, 2013. I was naive, thinking that the administration and the board could act, without my participation. However, all of a sudden, the superintendent was urging me to support our district’s application by signing a form provided by the district, which had to be turned into the district by the end of the school day. Teachers all over Horry County were being given less than a working day to provide their signatures, most while they were engaged in teaching, not thinking about or even knowing the content on which they were voting. I knew something was very wrong.
If my signature was needed by the school district on a matter which involved its possible reception of $2.5 million, and I had not been properly involved in its development and support, then I knew that a possible federal crime was in the works. If false or misleading information is provided on a federal grant application, that is fraud. Of course, no crime had been committed before the district submitted the application on October 8, 2013, but unprofessional conduct by Superintendent Cynthia Elsberry was exhibited throughout this entire endeavor.
A teacher should never be put into a position of giving consent on a matter of significant import, especially one that involves money and stances on educational philosophy, without sufficient time to consider all of the ramifications of his doing so. Yet, that is exactly what Dr. Elsberry did on Thursday, September 12, 2013.
I communicated with the superintendent and the Horry County Board of Education my concerns over the next four days in a series of emails, culminating in an address before the board on the night of Monday, September 16, urging it to reverse itself and not to pursue the grant because of improper teacher involvement. Instead, it heard me but did not even discuss any of my objections before voting unanimously that night to support our grant application.
Shortly thereafter, I initiated a series of South Carolina Freedom of Information Act requests of the district to gain greater insight into how this travesty occurred. The first answers and documents I received were in the middle of October, after the submission of our grant application.
Having studied the relevant portions of our 1500 page application, I came to the conclusion that a fraudulent act had indeed occurred. By law, if I did not report this, I could have been charged with a felony. I would have reported it, anyway, because it was my duty to do so.
First, I reported problems with the application to the Race to the Top – District Team, then to the Government Accountability Office in Washington. I followed up with a report to the US Department of Justice and finally to the particular office at the US Department of Education which is responsible for investigating particular allegations of fraud, the Office of Inspector General.
In the meantime, I detailed my concerns to the Office of General Counsel at the South Carolina Department of Education to address my allegations of “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence” against Superintendent Cynthia Elsberry.
I know I am misunderstood by many, but I am compelled to follow my conscience. Most teachers will not get involved and speak out because of fear, even against something so very wrong.
The superintendent and board of education hold offices of public trust. They must be held accountable.
As far as intent goes, the superintendent and the board were given the opportunity for three weeks to check out my claims, before submitting the application. A simple read of only three pages, B4, pages 25-27, would have shown them that my claim is accurate, for all of the evidence I presented, beginning on September 12, clearly showed that neither I nor the thousands of teachers in Horry County were meaningfully involved in the development and support of our application, as claimed in section B4.
They would not have had to read the 1500 page document to find this out. A simple look at the table of contents would have pointed them to the object of my claims: “Stakeholder Engagement and Support.”
They had access to the application, if they so desired to examine it. I did not, until the middle of October, after it had already been submitted. Although I suspected fraud from the beginning, I could not be sure, until I had answers to the questions I submitted through the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. In response to some of my questions, the district provided the application for my examination, before I requested it, which was my next intended step. I did have to request the appendices later, some 1100 pages of evidence, for the district did not originally provide this information. Both the board and the superintendent should have easily known that they were committing fraud.
If the superintendent and the board did not check out my claims and proceeded to file the application, this would have been the height of ignorance and absurdity, for I was making a strong public claim about my non-involvement in a process that was demanded by the requirements of the application, which all board members and the superintendent should have been familiar with.
Dr. Elsberry acted with specific intent, after each presentation of the evidence, and made no attempt to reverse herself over a three week period. The board did the same.
I can only conclude that both acted with intent to commit fraud. Perhaps neither recognized the gravity of their actions or inactions and perhaps did not know that what they were committing was a criminal act, but their intent was to proceed. Money and district desires were more important than how teachers had been treated. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Sincerely and professionally,
Bobby Chandler
International Baccalaureate History Instructor
Socastee High School
Myrtle Beach, SC
My Simplified Story: Horry County Schools' Intent to Commit Fraud
I had heard that Horry County Schools was pursuing a federal grant through President Obama’s Race to the Top program, but I had no idea I was supposed to be involved, in any way, until Thursday, September 12, 2013. I was naive, thinking that the administration and the board could act, without my participation. However, all of a sudden, the superintendent was urging me to support our district’s application by signing a form provided by the district, which had to be turned into the district by the end of the school day. Teachers all over Horry County were being given less than a working day to provide their signatures, most while they were engaged in teaching, not thinking about or even knowing the content on which they were voting. I knew something was very wrong.
If my signature was needed by the school district on a matter which involved its possible reception of $2.5 million, and I had not been properly involved in its development and support, then I knew that a possible federal crime was in the works. If false or misleading information is provided on a federal grant application, that is fraud. Of course, no crime had been committed before the district submitted the application on October 8, 2013, but unprofessional conduct by Superintendent Cynthia Elsberry was exhibited throughout this entire endeavor.
A teacher should never be put into a position of giving consent on a matter of significant import, especially one that involves money and stances on educational philosophy, without sufficient time to consider all of the ramifications of his doing so. Yet, that is exactly what Dr. Elsberry did on Thursday, September 12, 2013.
I communicated with the superintendent and the Horry County Board of Education my concerns over the next four days in a series of emails, culminating in an address before the board on the night of Monday, September 16, urging it to reverse itself and not to pursue the grant because of improper teacher involvement. Instead, it heard me but did not even discuss any of my objections before voting unanimously that night to support our grant application.
Shortly thereafter, I initiated a series of South Carolina Freedom of Information Act requests of the district to gain greater insight into how this travesty occurred. The first answers and documents I received were in the middle of October, after the submission of our grant application.
Having studied the relevant portions of our 1500 page application, I came to the conclusion that a fraudulent act had indeed occurred. By law, if I did not report this, I could have been charged with a felony. I would have reported it, anyway, because it was my duty to do so.
First, I reported problems with the application to the Race to the Top – District Team, then to the Government Accountability Office in Washington. I followed up with a report to the US Department of Justice and finally to the particular office at the US Department of Education which is responsible for investigating particular allegations of fraud, the Office of Inspector General.
In the meantime, I detailed my concerns to the Office of General Counsel at the South Carolina Department of Education to address my allegations of “unprofessional conduct” and possible “incompetence” against Superintendent Cynthia Elsberry.
I know I am misunderstood by many, but I am compelled to follow my conscience. Most teachers will not get involved and speak out because of fear, even against something so very wrong.
The superintendent and board of education hold offices of public trust. They must be held accountable.
As far as intent goes, the superintendent and the board were given the opportunity for three weeks to check out my claims, before submitting the application. A simple read of only three pages, B4, pages 25-27, would have shown them that my claim is accurate, for all of the evidence I presented, beginning on September 12, clearly showed that neither I nor the thousands of teachers in Horry County were meaningfully involved in the development and support of our application, as claimed in section B4.
They would not have had to read the 1500 page document to find this out. A simple look at the table of contents would have pointed them to the object of my claims: “Stakeholder Engagement and Support.”
They had access to the application, if they so desired to examine it. I did not, until the middle of October, after it had already been submitted. Although I suspected fraud from the beginning, I could not be sure, until I had answers to the questions I submitted through the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. In response to some of my questions, the district provided the application for my examination, before I requested it, which was my next intended step. I did have to request the appendices later, some 1100 pages of evidence, for the district did not originally provide this information. Both the board and the superintendent should have easily known that they were committing fraud.
If the superintendent and the board did not check out my claims and proceeded to file the application, this would have been the height of ignorance and absurdity, for I was making a strong public claim about my non-involvement in a process that was demanded by the requirements of the application, which all board members and the superintendent should have been familiar with.
Dr. Elsberry acted with specific intent, after each presentation of the evidence, and made no attempt to reverse herself over a three week period. The board did the same.
I can only conclude that both acted with intent to commit fraud. Perhaps neither recognized the gravity of their actions or inactions and perhaps did not know that what they were committing was a criminal act, but their intent was to proceed. Money and district desires were more important than how teachers had been treated. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Sincerely and professionally,
Bobby Chandler
International Baccalaureate History Instructor
Socastee High School
Myrtle Beach, SC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)