We already know that their involvement with DCSS is due to the staff who reports to the Superintendent who answers to the Board elected by the voters then replaced by the Governor, but has anyone along that chain of command vetted the capabilities and operations of SACS? Is it difficult because SACS is a private corporation beholdin' to no one but they are somehow entitled to play a shell game based on "Hole In The Bottom Of The Sea" with our money? In spite of Elgart's best effort some of the smelly bits of SACS were on display at the SBOE hearing wherein Mr. Elgart was questioned by Mr. Wilson. While Mr. Wilson is a very good lawyer and skilled at (cross)examination the SACS story stank like fresh manure on a hot summer day--Wilson didn't spread the manure, he just parted the clouds letting the sun shine on it.
Time and again SACS, through their report and their mouthpiece Elgart, lamented about "ten years" of troubles. Ten long, painful, disgusting years. Really? So just how is it that Mr. Elgart used the questionable authority of his private, unaccountable corporation to bestow his very own seal of approval for the middle two years of that ten year period? Is it because the system converted from school accreditation to system accreditation much to the profit of SACS? Could it be that the recent troubles affect little more than DCSS's ability to pay Mr. Elgart the healthy fee his private corporation demands and therefore "the fix" must be put in place with all haste?
The few troubled souls who routinely read this blog are very aware that TOD is no stranger to rumor, innuendo and anecdote, but for a highly paid, allegedly professional, private corporation to sling out a report with absolutely no possibility of corroborating a single line in that diatribe and not only expect us to accept it, but to pay for it, is ludicrous. That man has more balls than a pool hall and access to enough of our money to keep them fine and shiny on the best felt Brunswick has to offer. When questioned about his report's vagueness and lack of citation or reference to background information (like district provided lists of interviewees, schedules, agendas, etc.) Elgart slyly pointed out that "the district" provided these data and consequently knew this information and since this was a report "to the district" and not the public (or the Board for that matter) that this level of (in)completeness was perfectly acceptable. Of course the superintendent provided none of this information to the Board and had the Board demanded it, as is their right if not also their responsibility, Elgart would have risen to her defense accusing them of meddling and micromanagement. And the fact that Atkinson was less than forthright (or capable) was outed by Thurmond who pointed out that the Board could not act on issues because she did not or simply would not provide accurate information in a timely fashion. That Mr. Thurmond was able to solve "The Case of The Missing Textbooks" giving full report, a report that Atkinson under the protection of SACS was unable to provide during her entire reign, is powerful testimony that she, and by association SACS was at least as much the problem as a dysfunctional Board.
It is as if Atkinson and Elgart were in cahoots to maintain their status quo by throwing the Board under a school bus. Over and over again.
And it gets better. Apparently SACS and advancED are not just obfuscating intertwined corporations but are themselves a bizarre shell game where responsibility and accountability are the "missing pea". And the third shell in this scam is Elgart's shadowy pool of "associates". These never to be named Voldemorts apparently are the keepers and if they so choose destroyers of all record pertaining to the details of interviews, site visits and investigations. SACS/advancED/Elgart claim no possession of nor control over these very important artifacts. While eschewing plausible deniability Mr. Elgart hides behind a robust and impenetrable shield of willful ignorance.
And now the rats are fleeing the sinking ship. Everyone, including SACS, is hiding behind the "It's About Educating Our Children" bumper-sticker platitude, yet not a single word in the report addressed academics and dear reader, Wi-Fi has damn little to do with academic outcomes--at least good academic outcomes. So pool room or not even SACS doesn't have the balls to take on the monotonic academic decline of this system, yet like cowardly terrorists they hide behind hostage children while taking pot shots at everyone else.
Are these really the kind of people you want in control of your child's destiny and pissing away your money?