A full 1 hour of time and then some more was spent in Delegate comments, questions, and answers, mostly on the stealthy introduction of Critical Race Theory (CRT) propaganda and political bias among faculty at SAA. This phenomenon of lengthy questioning is not very well suited to a Constituency Meeting (CM) because it well exceeds its bandwidth. But persons wanting to be heard truly have no other official forum. SAA has no Parent-Teacher Association (PTA). SAA obviously does not believe in the concept of a Town Hall Meeting for all stakeholders to discuss difficult topics (or else one would have been held to discuss things like the decision to remain mostly online for 2020-21, Judie Rosa’s termination fiasco, or widespread concerns over CRT, etc.). SAA holds no large-scale meeting for parents to express concerns about anything. And as we found out during “The Main Event”, SAA’s administration and Secret School Board have developed a disturbing pattern over the past years of turning away tuition-paying parents wishing to meet and discuss matters of grave concern. We also found out that those very few parents who somehow find their way into a meeting of the Secret SAA School Board aren’t allowed to be heard there either. Therefore all the pent up frustration of being unheard, ignored or dismissed has to be released somewhere. This year it happened at the CM, despite objections from certain self-appointed meeting cops that used parliamentary moves to try to shut down speakers who were taking too long for their liking. These speakers either didn’t know or care that the CM is supposed to be a highly-scripted public relations production where hand-picked delegates nod and applaud, perhaps occasionally offering up gentle, easy questions for SAA’s leadership to tee up and hit out of the park. So goes SAA-style democracy – a great fit for Syria or Venezuela, but not a good fit here in the United States of America.
Yet this again is a clear illustration of how SAA’s constituent oversight model is broken and non-functional and defies any semblance of democracy. Undemocratically chosen delegates are flooded with information, and the only action they are asked to take is to approve and accept reports. No changes, no improvements, no remedial measures are mentioned or brought up for their consideration, discussion, or action. That consequential work will be left to Secret School Board Meetings, with privately vetted and groomed board members, and closed-door decision-making by SAA Administration at 2502 Spencerville Road. Unfortunately for those wanting a quiet, boring evening with their spouse, the CM Show was interrupted by pointed, impassioned, sometimes emotive comments and questions pressed by a few courageous delegates determined to make their concerns finally heard on a large scale, and demanding answers about their children’s school curriculum. Virtually none of those tough questions were answered on CM night or afterwards, and they remain unanswered up through today. Other questions were answered in corporate dodgeball fashion by hedging as much as possible to keep from acknowledging missteps or mistakes, let alone holding anyone accountable. This is why Eyes On SAA exists and is needed. We will do our job.
In prior reports we have asked the questions Why do I have to go to an unofficial, unauthorized blog to find a report on the 2021 SAA Constituency Meeting? Why isn’t there an official, authorized report published by SAA or Spencerville Church to the school community about this meeting? After reading “The Main Event”, you will be able to confirm that the only logical answers to those questions at SAA are these: Image is everything. Protect the brand at any cost, including truth, transparency, and the best interests of the school, teachers, and children. Information is power. Power will not be allowed to be distributed equally among all SAA stakeholders. It must be tightly controlled and retained by the smallest possible circle of generational and political power players at SAA. The less the masses of stakeholders know, the better and easier for SAA to control the narrative, protect the brand, get away with silence to undesired questions, maintain a chokehold on democracy, protect its favorites, cancel its challengers, and to generally exercise hubris wherever and whenever possible.
We now bring you Sections B & E: Delegate & Non-Delegate Questions & Comments of Eyes On SAA’s unofficial, unauthorized report on the 2021 SAA Constituency Meeting. Our commentary is noted in bold italicized and underlined print. We have identified and reported the actual names of speakers because the questions and comments at the CM were not made anonymously. This was a meeting of at least 150 people where speakers stood up, identified themselves, and made their remarks for all to hear. We have a list of official delegates and have noted them below. The remarks below are published because we believe them to be very accurately summarized or paraphrased. We have not attempted to reproduce anyone’s remarks word for word. If any person believes that they have been misquoted by Eyes On SAA, then please contact us to request a correction.
(To be covered here in "The Main Event" - Part 1)
Section B: Outline of Delegate Questions & Comments Period:
1. Critical Race Theory (CRT) propaganda was assigned in high school English classes.
2. Why were parents blocked from addressing CRT concerns to SAA Board meetings?
3. Political bias and racial privilege is being expressed by teachers in the classroom. What will be done about this?
4. SAA School Board members are unknown and undisclosed. Why?
5. SAA School Board meetings are not really publicized or accessible. Why?
6. There is a closed and backroom selection of SAA School Board members. Why?
7. There are no term limits for board members. Why?
8. A Parent-Teacher Association is needed.
9. There is a need for restoration and healing of relationships among Freshmen affected by CRT propaganda.
10. SAA’s curriculum must follow Biblical foundation, not insert biased opinions on controversial political or social issues by staff.
11. SAA must pledge transparency by publishing all its curriculum materials in advance.
12. Inquiry was made on the protocol for parental grievances.
(The following will be covered in Part 2 of "The Main Event"):
13. Proposal of policy/requirement of Teacher/Administrator neutrality on political matters.
14. Suggestions on effectively addressing widespread parental concerns (group meetings instead of meetings with individual parents)
15. We need to be counter-cultural in a sinful world, not follow society’s patterns.
16. Our teachers should be given adequately preparation to address controversial issues in the classroom.
17. A parent’s general reference to a past “racial incident” at SAA (without details).
18. There is a cloud hanging over school because of personnel and curriculum decisions.
19. SAA has a history and pattern of not giving parents chances to be heard on grievances.
Section E: Outline of Non-Delegate Questions & Comments Period:
1. What consideration will be given to forming a Parent-Teacher Association?
2. How was Judie Rosa’s termination on April 1 in the school’s best interests?
3. Expression of appreciation of SAA Staff.
4. Is there a policy on teacher neutrality on political matters?
Delegate Questions & Comments Period:
Speaker 1: Hollie Faehner (Delegate).
The book assigned to Freshman English students [“So You Want to Talk About Race?” by Ijeoma Oluo] was a prime example of Critical Race Theory [CRT] propaganda. It’s a divisive, graduate-student level theory written by an atheist author which includes the idea that a white person’s opinion holds no value. It’s not designed for 14 year olds engaged in distance-learning who may not yet know each other, or feel safe to discuss such a sensitive topic. Parents who expressed concerns to SAA administration and asked for this teaching to be paused, were told “absolutely not.” More parents met with SAA Principal, the English teacher, and School Board Chairperson, yet the book remained in the classroom for several more weeks.
Even as a lifelong member of this community, I was not allowed to address this concern to the SAA School Board’s next meeting, even though these same concerns were shared by at least a dozen other families. This sends the message that you (SAA) don’t really want to hear our concerns. Your explanation that the book was selected through proper channels and established processes is of no comfort. In fact it makes me feel worse that multiple educators and administrators believed this was appropriate content for our students. What assurance do we have that similar material won’t be used again in the future? [Inadequately answered by SAA] Why weren’t we notified and given the book information? [Inadequately answered by SAA]. Screenshots of the book were disseminated online, and so parents had no idea what was going on unless a student happened to mention it to their parents. We should have been told that the sensitive topic of race was going to be discussed and given notice that this book would be used, so we could talk about it at home with our children. No email, no heads up was given to parents.
We need a clear statement as to how you will discuss race relations in our school, and what that message will be going forward. If it’s along the same lines as this book, then you should expect families to talk with their wallets and leave. Maybe that doesn’t concern you since one administrator told a family that they should expect more of this in the future, and that if they didn’t like it, they could go somewhere else.
Teachers and administrators have been expressing unsolicited personal political beliefs by their speech and their wall decorations. This is a slippery slope and must be stopped. This is a Christian school for learning about God and academics, not one for political agendas. This is damaging to students and the learning atmosphere by creating a wall of separation and distrust. This must be reinforced to SAA teachers and administrators. We are paying for a Christian education, not politics. Those personnel who do not agree to keep their personal political beliefs out of the classroom should be asked to leave.
SAA’s Response to Speaker 1 (by Mark Noble, Chairperson of SAA’s Secret School Board): Conversations must go through the right channels. From teacher to administrator, to the board. German Rodriguez [identified as Vice-Chairperson of SAA’s Secret School Board] and I spent considerable time dealing with these concerns. We met with 2 families. The [CRT] material is debatable. Tissiana [Bowerman] do you want to [help me out and throw me a lifeline here] speak about this? [She did not.] As for political agendas, there are diverse political backgrounds and beliefs in this school constituency. We want to focus biblically - the Golden Rule. Treating people as you would want to be treated yourself. What have others experienced - look through their eyes. That’s the Christian thing to do and what our school is going to be doing going forward.
[The “Christian thing to do” is to sneak divisive CRT material into our high school Freshmen’s English class that shames and segregates them into competing and adversarial groups according to their skin color? A new version of the Golden Rule: pre-judge me and draw conclusions about me according to nothing more than my skin color, because I am already doing the same to you.]
Speaker 2: Cheryl Toscano (Delegate).
My mother suffered the atrocities of racism and war in the Philippines, but it was liberated by America. She arrived in America with a zeal for patriotism and to savor its liberties and opportunities. I also asked to speak to the principal and school board chair, and vice-chair. I was refused. The response I got was a form letter that was cut and pasted out to other families. I wasn’t given the decency of a face to face meeting. I asked many questions, and am prepared to go to the School Board or to the Chesapeake Conference if necessary. I want answers to these questions:
Why are faculty expressing personal political opinions? [Unanswered by SAA]
What are school and conference constitution, bylaws, and standards for discussion of race and why are they so hard to find or access? [Unanswered by SAA]
Why are school board meetings so hard to access, which is a right of each constituent of this school? [Inadequately answered by SAA]
Why are school board members’ names not published or shared? Other schools (Olney Prep, Atholton, Sandy Spring Friends, and Washington Christian all share names, pictures, and bios of board members. [Unanswered by SAA]
Why does school board chair get to decide whether or not a constituent gets to know who’s on the school board? [Unanswered by SAA]
Why do school board members serve longer than a 3 year term? (7, 10, or 15+ years) [Unanswered by SAA]
Why does the principal invite certain individuals to serve on the school board? Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Shouldn’t it be done by a nominating committee? [Unanswered by SAA]
Why don’t we have a Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) to better represent and address these concerns? [Inadequately answered by SAA]
What’s the school’s plan to repair and strengthen trust among its constituents, and heal broken relationships among Freshmen students? [Unanswered by SAA]
What’s the plan to ensure that the Bible and Christ’s teachings will be the basis of curriculum standards (unconditional love, respect, acceptance), rather than division, derision, and cancellation? [Inadequately answered by SAA]
We will never agree on certain political and ideological or social issues prevalent in our society, but we should all agree on teaching our children the love and acceptance of Jesus.
I urge all my fellow constituents and the SAA Faculty and School Board to focus on Jesus’ teaching of love for God and each other rather than judging people by the color of their skin. Divisive and inconsistent with this school and principles of SDA church.
SAA’s Response to Speaker 2 (by Mark Noble): We were reached out to by 1 set of parents, then a 2nd set of parents and we (Mark Noble and German Rodriguez [identified as Vice-Chairperson of SAA’s Secret School Board] met with both of them. We tried to figure out what had happened with this issue, whether protocols had been followed, how the particular book had been selected. By the time we heard from you we were just about 85-90% done and therefore declined to meet with you because we had concluded our investigation and you were asking about the same information and concerns.
First Follow-up by Speaker 2 (Cheryl Toscano (Delegate)): The questions that I just asked here publicly were the same ones that I first asked you privately. You answered none of them except to say in the form letter that CRT would not be implemented. But my children have reported to me about teachers apologizing for their entitlement and whiteness, and that they hated certain presidents. I have seen an alarming pattern over the past 7 years, but remained quiet and never came to the School Board about anything. But when I did now, you shut the door on me and told me no to hearing me and all the concerns that I have to share. Speaking here for 2 minutes is not enough. You need to know the heartache and pain that these students experienced, having to sit in class being scared to death to disagree for fear of being labelled racists or possibly even having their lives threatened.
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): I spoke to the teacher and read the whole material assigned. We have already said that we will find different material to present. I don’t want to debate it, but from my perspective the material was a conversation about how we can have relationships and how we can look at things through another person’s eyes, and I did not find anything in there that would frighten a student or cause fear for any of their beliefs. The project was reading literature written from a different perspective, not a textbook to be written as fact. The teacher noted that students provided critical analysis on the text. Based on the teacher’s feedback, it doesn’t sound like kids were afraid to voice an opinion different from the author. [What a tone-deaf denial to a parent whose child was a student in the very class in question! How nice Mr. Secret School Board Chairperson that you did not feel intimidated by Oluo’s CRT propaganda, but you’re a full-grown and experienced adult. You reason that because some number of students provided open critiques of the book, therefore no other student felt pressured to keep their true thoughts silent. What about the fact that our country has been in the throes of political and social division plus the phenomenon of cancel culture that students see all around them in the prevailing culture? Did you ask any parent of any freshman student if their child felt uncomfortable or intimidated? What consideration did you give to group pressure and peer pressure among 14 year-olds to go along with controversial material that the teacher herself assigned them to digest? Do all that before concluding that no student felt pressured or intimidated to go along. It's hard to believe that the same grown man who told Delegate Toscano that there was nothing for her own son to be frightened about from the CRT book, also wrote these words: “The appropriateness of literature also varies depending on the age, maturity, and sensitivity of individual students.” in the form letter we call Mark Noble on Literature Selection. This is exactly the opposite of what happened by imposing graduate-school level Critical Race Theory onto 9th Grade English, during one of the most contentious political and social moments in recent US history, and doing so underhandedly. Was the least amount of consideration given to the “age, maturity, and sensitivity of individual students” of the Freshmen class whose average age is 14? The clear answer is no. So then what’s next for comparative literary criticism of different perspectives in Freshman English? Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler)? Industrial Society and Its Future (the manifesto of Theodore “Unabomber” Kaczynski)? The Birth of a Nation (or “The Clansman”) by D.W. Griffith? The Oluo book was just as atheist, and at least as divisive as any of these titles.] I hear the criticism, but there are other voices coming to us that are extremely supportive of this angle and this material. There are persons that are opposed to it. It’s not a landslide on one side of it. We’re going to work on what we will present in the future and not use that same material.
[So was this decision to insert CRT taken from the result of one of the many surveys and polls parents were sent in 2020-21? Is that how curricular decisions are made? Should we then conclude that SAA will just bow down to the demands of those shouting with the loudest voices, or whoever shows up first to lobby them for controversial and divisive material to sneak into the curriculum? The evidence points to SAA Administration not having the courage of Delegate Faehner or Delegate Toscano to withstand the influential activist voices within the community (or within administration itself), but instead just skipped over principles of political neutrality in the classroom, over the Freshmen parents, and decided to come down on the side of an CRT for 9th graders, without the equal time and content of a balanced biblical Christian perspective on racial relations. This is the character of SAA leadership - whichever way the wind blows.]
Second Follow-up by Speaker 2 (Cheryl Toscano (Delegate)): It’s not just one book, but a pattern of the past years that I have observed. Even though you have promised not to use that book anymore, we have an SAA administrator who told the 2021 high school graduates to “stay active and stay woke” to CRT. [By the way, where was High School Principal Ellenor Paul-O’Neil during the Constituency Meeting? She was still employed as HS Principal on June 15th, so shouldn’t she have been required to attend? Wasn’t she was at graduation exercises just 2 weeks before exhorting the graduates to “stay woke”? Was she absent from the CM to evade questions about CRT? Was she given the night off by Principal Bowerman so that she did not have to face questions?] What is the policy and procedure published for choosing this CRT material? It wasn’t provided to me when I asked for it. None of it is known or made available. You didn’t provide it to me. That book is full of negativity and racist thoughts against white people (such as racism is in the DNA of white people; white people must keep quiet around black people on the topic of racism, etc.) that some of the Freshmen students were inspired to buy it and read it all. Even if you don’t use this book again, CRT is all over in many other books that you might choose. You got this book off the NAD website, what else is on that website that you will pick for our children? Will we need to scour everything that you pick for our children to ensure that they are not being taught such poisonous things?
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): Only the excerpt of 50 pages was assigned to the students. Students were told only to look at the excerpts, and not to go buy the book. If the students chose to go out and buy the book and read it, then that’s different material from what was assigned by the teacher. [Are you serious right now? So the teacher, Mrs. Laura Steinert, flooded them with 50+ pages from “So You Want to Talk about Race?” while at the same time directing them (wink-wink) not to go out and buy the book? Really? Please provide confirmation of that. That makes absolutely no sense for a teacher to assign a huge portion of the book on the one hand, but on the other specifically admonish them not to buy the book. These are inquisitive, intelligent human beings, not housebroken canines who will obey their master’s command not to eat the dog treat laying on the ground in front of them. But we do actually have confirmation that no student and no parent was ever directed to buy this book – because it was not on the 9th grade book purchase list at the beginning of the school year. It was snuck in by some murky and undisclosed combination of SAA’s Administration, SAA Curriculum Committee, or Freshman English Teacher Mrs. Steinert.] I did read all the excerpts and I want to clarify that some of the items you just mentioned were not presented in the excerpts. We will examine, review, and change processes that have been in place. 50 pages is too much for an excerpt. Such a long assignment should have to go through the entire curriculum process. We are going to change our process to make it so. [This is the smoking gun admission that the Oluo book did not go through the proper curricular channels. This statement is directly contradicted by the form letter written by Mr. Noble to dozens of concerned parents where he wrote in black and white that all the proper steps had been followed, and in fact that the teacher went above and beyond the call of duty in vetting this book. "SAA has established processes for choosing both literature and excerpts that are used in the classroom. The teacher followed these processes in selecting this particular literature excerpt. In this case, the teacher went above and beyond the current process consulting other staff members at SAA regarding use of the excerpts. No single individual or group mandated or directed that this particular material was to be used." [Click here for Mark Noble on Literature Selection] Either the form letter you wrote was false in claiming the book was correctly selected, or the statements you made at the CM that it should have been vetted by a curricular committee was false. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Noble. It’s plain and simple – you either lied in your form letter, or lied to the Constituency Meeting. Which is it?] The School Board does not set the curriculum, that’s outside our role of expertise. [If the Secret School Board has no control over curriculum, then how can it ensure changes in the curricular process?] But I have had conversations with Tissiana about this. When the school is vetting materials for curriculum, committees that do set the curriculum will work with the conference, union, NAD to vet information to make sure we achieve our goal of biblical standpoint using the Golden Rule, including sometimes looking through the eyes of other individuals to see what their experiences are, which is valid and what the school will do. There’s no way for me to sit here and give you a list of approved books or approved parameters. [Sounds almost like SAA is committed to CRT and shaming 9th graders. Mr. Noble needs to re-read the Golden Rule in the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Stick to that. The Golden Rule does not say that we should shame and label white 9th graders based on their skin color because of the historical and institutional mistreatment of black people in America generations or centuries before any of those 9th graders of any skin color was born. Nor does the Golden Rule direct SAA to teach black students that they are less likely to succeed in life than their white peers because all of us in live in a white supremacist country where all systems are engineered to intentionally oppress blacks, and therefore the only hope that blacks have of being successful is not hard work, dedication and achievement, but getting special help and hand-outs at the expense of their inherently racist white peers. What you have just read is the essence of Critical Race Theory, apparently espoused by SAA as “seeing things from another’s viewpoint” or “The Golden Rule.” It seems like more of the same is coming your student’s way this school year. And in case you're wondering how CRT treats brown, red, and yellow children? Well they don't even get mentioned. They're just invisible in the black-white binary. ]
Third Follow-up by Delegate Speaker 2 (Cheryl Toscano (Delegate)): You don’t have to give us a list of books, just tell us the policy for how material will be selected.
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): It’s not driven by policy, but driven by education experts looking at the material and deciding whether it’s appropriate or not. I can’t write a decision tree that chooses literature. [These expert decisions will apparently be based on absolutely no objective standards at all, just whatever the individual expert or panel of experts happens to think is good. In this case the "panel of experts" was one solitary teacher, which is how we ended up with “So You Want to Talk about Race?”]
Fourth Follow-up by Delegate Speaker 2 (Cheryl Toscano (Delegate)): Well they must be following some kind of rubric to choose this book. So we would like to see their rubric.
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): I don’t think anyone is hiding a rubric from you.
Fifth Follow-up by Delegate Speaker 2 (Cheryl Toscano (Delegate)): Then where is it? No one is providing a rubric to us. How are they picking the book then?
Response from SAA (by Mark Noble): I don’t think there is a rubric.
[Aha, now the truth comes out that there is no rubric at all that led to CRT in the Freshman English class. Again, this exposes the written lie that "SAA has established processes for choosing both literature and excerpts that are used in the classroom. The teacher followed these processes in selecting this particular literature excerpt. In this case, the teacher went above and beyond the current process consulting other staff members at SAA regarding use of the excerpts. No single individual or group mandated or directed that this particular material was to be used." [Click here for Mark Noble on Literature Selection]
Point of order raised by Secret School Board Vice-Chairperson, German Rodriguez: Delegate Cheryl Toscano has been recognized well above the allotted 2 minute time limit.
[I can see you’re floundering for answers there Mark, so I’m coming to help you out by silencing Delegate Cheryl Toscano with parliamentary procedure.]
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): Okay, thank you [for rescuing me from having to dodge any more questions from this tenacious and relentless delegate].
Speaker 3: Steve Faehner (Delegate): SAA has had changing administrations and leadership over the years, and this probably contributes to where we are today. In times past the school has provided information, and at other times it hasn’t. In today’s world, we would all be served very well to have transparency. This is what people are simply asking for. In our conversations together (Mark Noble, German Rodriguez, my wife and myself) you were very helpful in telling us about what you believed had happened in this circumstance. The question that most of us want answered is this: Will SAA administration provide us with a list of materials to be used in the curriculum to teach our children? It’s a very simple question. It’s not that complex. It’s transparency, being straight-forward, and having integrity. If we have that, then we as parents can make better decision about where to send our children. So will the administration of SAA, not the School Board Chair, make that commitment to the constituency, to our parents?
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): Tissiana please answer. But before you do, let me clarify that anything that was assigned as literature, other than an excerpt, was provided on a list of materials to parents. However since this book was an “excerpt”, it did not have to be provided on the list of materials to parents. [And so the “50-page excerpt exception” to the rules is firmly established in SAA protocol. Parents, you can expect to receive notice of all materials being used to teach your children; that is except for 50-page excerpts of Critical Race Theory material. You won’t be notified about that.]
Response from SAA( by Tissiana Bowerman): Our governance committee will be updating handbooks and putting policy and procedure information on the new website we’re working on. We can outline which material will go to curriculum committees and which material will not. [Eyes On SAA will follow this issue on our blog.]
First Follow-up from Speaker 3: Steve Faehner (Delegate): Good to hear that, because at our prior meeting it was not clear on whether parents would be notified of the curriculum to be used or just materials to be purchased for the students. What I hear you saying is that you are making the commitment to provide that list to parents in advance with materials to be used in the curriculum. Is that correct?
Follow-up Response from SAA( by Tissiana Bowerman): Let’s define terms to be clear on “curricular material” [“It depends on what the definition of ‘is’, is.” – Bill Clinton] which are textbooks to be published and provided on a list versus “supplemental material” that will not be listed and published on the website. We are internally trying to define the difference between curricular and supplemental material so that we can avoid this situation in the future. We are taking all the information from all the meetings that have happened with parental meetings with administration and the school board chairs to pull it together and take notes to improve the process, and give parents the information.
Remark from SAA( by Mark Noble): By the way, there were several people who asked me for the link to our school board meetings, and every person that asked me for a link was given it. [That sounds nice, but how does someone actually reach you if they don’t know you at all, or don’t know that that you are the Secret School Board Chairperson, or don’t have your info in their list of contacts? Where is your email or phone number published for anyone to ask for the link? Every email blast from you to the SAA community is relayed through the school RenWeb system, with no way to contact you directly or for instance, ask for a link to the Secret School Board meeting. Are you going to remove this obstacle so that anyone can in fact receive a link to Secret School Board meetings? How about you simply publish the link on the school’s website calendar or in the school newsletter? That would be one small step for you, but one giant leap for transparency at SAA.]
Speaker 4: David Howell (Delegate): Can someone explain what the proper procedure is for bringing these concerns forward? I wasn’t aware of a lot of this but perhaps people should be aware. [You’re right that people should have been made aware of this. It’s not an accident that you didn’t hear about any of the CRT controversy, Delegate Howell. Logic tells us that this is by design.] For those that have concerns what is the proper way to bring them up?
Response from SAA( by Mark Noble): Concern protocol is to go to the teacher. If it still is unresolved, then go to the principal that is over that teacher. [What do you do if the Principal declines to meet with you?] If still unresolved, then approach the school board chair. [What do you do if the Secret School Board Chairperson declines to meet with you?] If it still is unresolved, then you would approach the superintendent of schools, and so forth and so on eventually leading up to the conference board of education.
Remark by Pastor Chad Stuart (Automatic delegate to CM): It’s first parent to teacher, then parent to principal, then parent to school board chair. The school board chair has within its discretion to take the matter to the Executive Committee of the School Board, then it’s parent to conference superintendent, then parent to conference board of education. After that, the decision is then final and there will be no more discussion.
End of Part 1: Report on the Delegate and Non-delegate Comments & Questions Period.
We hope you found this report informative and helpful, and that it raises enough interest for you to stay tuned for more reporting coming very soon. If you appreciated this post, please show your gratitude by subscribing to this blog, contacting us with news and information of concern to you about SAA’s programs and operations, and finally by sharing the link to this report on social media and directly with other members of the SAA Community so that they can know more about the product that they are purchasing at SAA, and take an active role in making it better with their observations and feedback.
Again, we thank our contributors that gathered and provided information, documents, and notes for us to prepare this series of reports. You are the lifeblood of Eyes On SAA and are contributing to the important work of bringing change and improvement to this school that we all care about. If the SAA of the future could speak today it would say "thank you" and that it is in your debt for your love and courage.
Shining Light. Breaking Silence. Holding Accountable.
We’ve got Eyes On SAA.
-Lillian Hepburn-Richmond
(A Cohort of Concerned Parents)
Make sure to subscribe to this Blog (see bottom of homepage) to receive emails of each new post. We welcome your news, information, and reports which you may send to us using the "Contact" form, also near the bottom of our homepage.