Arkansas Blog

Starting a new thread on this topic might cause some readers to overlook the 75 or so comments on this exact topic posted under "School bomb", Max, I know you wouldn't want that to happen.

I will bring a few of mine over here, and I bet others would be glad to do the same.

A.C.A. 6-17-1506. Contract renewal - Notice of nonrenewal - Rescission.
(a)(1) By May 1 of the contract year, the teacher is notified by the school superintendent that the superintendent is recommending that the teacher's contract not be renewed.
.......
(b)(1) Termination, nonrenewal, or suspension shall be only upon the recommendation of the superintendent.
.......
(B) The notice of recommended nonrenewal of a teacher shall include a ststement of the reasons for the recommendation, setting forth the reasons in separately numbered paragraphs so that a reasonable teacher can prepare a defense.
..................
..................
This ghastly overstep of authority seems to be escalating. And most likely subsequent unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars for continuing legal services will continue if situation is not reigned in by reasonable taxpayers.
..................
.................
A.C.A. 6-13-619
(a)(1) The board of directors shall hold regular monthly meetings during the school term and shall meet on call of the president or secretary or any three (3) members of the board of directors or when petitiond to do so by a petition in writing signed by fifty (50) electors in the school district . 50

In a related vein,
Logan v. Rosa (1983) :647 SW2d 469, 278 Ark, 561, is an interesting Arkansas case that dealt with the constitutional issues of a Superintendent's property and liberty rights.
14th amendment due process is tied to the loss of liberty (freedom to .freedom from) or property (something of value) tights. The Supreme Court has defined liberty to include severe stigmatization of reputation and property as having a legitimate claim of entitlement.
Here is the eerily similar history. From Logan v. Rosa, "On January 12, 1981 the board voted 4-2 to renew the superintendent's contract. Members Baxter and Logan dissented. The new two year contract was signed on February 5, 1981. It was to run from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. In the March 1981 school elections two of the members who had voted to renew the superintendent's contract were replaced with new members."
In the Logan case, the superintendent alleged that the school board had spread personally damaging information to a local newspaper, as well as an allegation of one board member had joined the board primarily to get rid of the superintendent.
The trial court found for the superintendent, and the State Supreme Court affirmed that decision. :647 SW2d 469, 278 Ark, 561,
In the Logan case, the courts ruled for the Superintendent based largely on it's finding that the Board had both damaged the Superintendent's reputation and that they had acted vengefully.
The fatal flaw is intemperate behavior that is intended to embarrass or humiliate and driven by any measure of vengefulness or that could be construed to be a form of retribution.
I am afraid that we, the taxpayer, will now pay for the foolishness of a few board members.

I didn't mean to imply that there was anything wrong with the disclosure of the letter sent this weekend. I believe the fact that a board member authored and failed to maintain control of a document that made a number of accusations about an employee, Roy Brooks, when the release of any documents of that nature should not have been disclosed until a final action had been taken and the employee had exhausted all administrative remedies was a primary wrong. As much as we would like to be right in the thick of every step of the termination process, we do not have that right. Our right to know all the gory details begins *after* the board has completed its actions. Frustrating, I know.
The intemperate actions that came to mind in my earlier post included the above mentioned handling of confidential personnel evaluation. And the rushed/botch job of immediate suspension without, obviously, even reading the contract that dictates the process. The egomaniacal action of sending letters speaking for a board completely unauthorized. Each of these actions brought about intense eruptions of scrutiny and speculation about the character of an employee. Speculation that by the very nature of continuing public attention caused by a board majority's bull-in-a-china-shop actions reduced what positive regard Dr. Brooks enjoyed prior to the allegations.
As to the notification/chain of command issue, it would seem that the board waited too late to dismiss any of the nine that received the letter this weekend. Nine does seem to be a meaningful number for LRSD unfortunately.
Here is my stab at permissible scenarios as they relate to the nine administrative staffers in question since the only legally authorized individual in the nonrenewal notification process is the superintendent:
The board succeeds in suspending Roy Brooks (sometime after May 1). An Interim Superintendent (IS) is hired. The IS recommends to the board that the nine be re-assigned to other positions/duties . say selling pickles at the Tiger concession stand, and that their contracts be nonrenewed. (S)he notifies the nine of his/her intention and dots all the I's and crosses all the t's.. The nine no longer have any administrative influence. The LRSD has some very well educated, highly paid pickle pushers for a year if the district is ultimately successful in their attempt to terminate Roy Brooks. If not, the nine most likely would be re-assigned to administrative positions by Dr. Brooks; bringing new food service skills with them.
I bet there are other, even more creative ideas that aren't occurring to me at the moment.

Max, aren't you underestimating a key part of Mitchell's letter? She writes: "To insure the stability of the district during this time, we ask that you refrain from taking any action that would undermine the charges against Dr. Brooks or otherwise harm the LRSD."

I read it as a clear attempt to intimidate the district's leadership team and send a warning they'd better not cross this thug majority or be loyal to their boss. Undermine the charges? Is Katrina worried she's got a weak case or something?

ARK. BLOG: I'm not defending the letter. And the whole debate about the depth of the charges is irrelevant to me if they'll just buy him out. They can't work with him. He should go, whether there's cause to fire him or not. The inability to work with the majority is sufficient reason.

Of course if they buy him out spend the $500,000 that takes then the board opens itself up to charges of wasting money which will most likely make it more difficult if a millage request needs to be sent to voters.

It will be easy to beat the drum that the money was wasted. If I were working against a millage increase, I would just capture all of Mitchell's comments and then flood WLR and the Heights with her pithy quotes. Really doesn't matter how long it has been since the firing, I would assume the ill feelings will lay just below the surface for a long time.

If the majority had just bought out Brooks quickly and quietly then it would have already started to calm down. Mitchell needs to remember there are only so many times you can fumble before the other team starts scoring.

I agree that Brooks should go, but I would like to get rid of all seven board members, too, and start from scratch.

Here we go again, OAZ,
Why do you think this statute in your first posting has anything to do with the letter "leaked" to AT and the DG? Nothing in the letter suggests non-renewal or rescission of any employee. The letter does say that the positions in which these employees now serve MAY not be available. There is an explanation for the notification.
All employees can be re-assigned at the will of the BOA or super, and it does require notification by May 1, though teachers are routinely shuffled around depending upon enrollment AFTER school has started and even as late as after the Oct. 10 count. I still love the Pickle Pushers analogy. I am going to hush now for as long as I can stand it and let some others take over. I don't think thee and me are going to agree. Thank you for at least taking the time to try to answer all my questions of minutia on the previous blog! You are indeed a person of GREAT patience.

"Just the same, Roy Brooks will never preside effectively over this school district. The wound he's helped inflict -- with aggravation from all sides -- can't be healed. He should go."

Max, I think you may be right about Brooks. Now, you can put Katherine Mitchell's name in that same context. She, too, "will never preside effectively over this school district."

The "honest broker" you seek is what we need; and, it has become apparent that neither Brooks nor Mitchell qualify. Give the both the boot!!

We need to find a solution which gives both sides the opportunity to save face and claim victory. Dragging this Brooks issue out for weeks will only damage the LRSD. I propose the LRSB buy out Brooks contract. Then, Dr. Mitchell should relinquish the chair and vote to name Baker Kurrus the new presiding officer. Not a perfect solution but one both majority and minority board members could call a victory.

Curious,
I don't see that we disagree at all. The Friday letter posted on the blog is not a legal problem ...being posted on the blog.

And yes, you are right. If the letter's intent was simply to remind the staff members that reassignement could take place at any time ... May 1 means nothing in reassignment. However, a letter from an individual board member (any action that is not the result of a properly called board meeting) is null. It has no merit. And in this case, it might be crossing the line into perceived intimadation.

Max and Stump have good points. Brooks certainly wasn't the first LRSD super asked to leave before the end of his contract. Most of the past cases garnered very little attention. However, this is the first time in at least 35 years (maybe longer?) that the LRSB has pushed for the firing of a super with cause. Guess what? People are starting to pay a little bit more attention. This should be a good thing, right? The future of our schools deserves notice.

Obviously Mitchell did not have to convince me or anyone (other than the majority of board members) that firing with cause is the right path to take with Brooks. A democratically elected majority of board members voted in legal proceedings to do so.
They have that right. It's an important part of conducting business in a democratic society.

But, remember, we also live in a capitalistic society. Right or wrong, the forces of supply and demand are strong even within the public sector. Convincing the public (especially those who actually vote in school board elections) that the repercussions of firing Brooks with cause are justified will be crucial the next time a millage increase is needed. Losing consumer confidence could prove disastrous to our schools.

The facts may just show that Brooks is the devil incarnate. If so, will that make all of this worth it?

Thanks to Doc, mouthinfreely, Stump, Love my job and my students..,Curious, OnesandZeroes, lrmom, BeckiS, Sqwheel, Aporkalypse, Yonwood, honestone, spillingthebeans, watchingcarefully, MuddlingThrough, Pavel, A Concerned Mom, and many others who have taken the time to educate me with information, data, and opinions on this issue.

It has been an epiphany. I've learned more about policy, procedures, budgets, as well as human frailty and conscience. When discussing this with neighbors, I've been able to share your thoughts and views with them. Many expressed hope for public education and for an end to the confusion and conflict.
The most common question was: "What has really happened?"

Someday, maybe we'll find out. Hopefully soon.

I agree that the board should buy out Brooks contract and let him go honorably. Mitchell is just being punitive and is making a grave mistake in trying to fire him outright. I don't know for certain, but I would think that buying out of a superintendent's contract would be standard practice in most quarters - even for individuals who are poor performers. Doing otherwise will come back to haunt the LRSD when they look for a replacement. Anyone of high caliber will be very wary of working for a school district where the same could happen to them. It is time for everyone (the minority AND the majority) to put egos aside and do what is best for children in the LRSD.

OK, I can't stand it any more. I tried OAZ, I really tried.
BeckiS said: "The facts may just show that Brooks is the devil incarnate. If so, will that make all of this worth it?"
ARK BLOG said: "And the whole debate about the depth of the charges is irrelevant to me if they'll just buy him out. "
Anyone besides me remember Dr. Henry Williams? His contract was "bought out" to get rid of him and look what he has done to at least two other districts.
Is it not time to hold those at the upper level of Administrations (Fed, State, Local, School, Corporate) as accountable as those at the lower levels instead of passing along the misery? This situation is not a pat on the back, thanks for serving, now get the hell out of here kind of scenerio. How are our schools (USA) ever going to improve if the deadwood and harmful are allowed to transfer, apply for a new job, move on - with a GOOD recommendation? Please think about the children, not just "ours", children all over.
I have no idea what the charges are against Dr. Brooks, BUT if there is criminal activity and not just social inability then I WILL be in the front row of the board room encouraging the board to prosecute. Won't you? Why not? Sometimes, the "easy" way only continues to harm.

It sounds to me that Dr. Mitchell is the one who should get the boot. She is single-handedly trying to bully and push Dr. Brooks out since he doesn't support her pro-black, anti-white agenda. She needs to go!

Who actually has the authority to kick her ass off the LRSB?

Katherine Mitchell is not the villain here. She is reluctant to buy out another contract of a failed superintendent when there is cause to fire him. Sure, paying the money would be the "easy" way out, but what about accountability? Does the fact that she is willing to dismiss him "for cause" not indicate she has a pretty good case that Brooks deserves to leave WITHOUT a face-saving golden parachute? Why should he be able to 'save face" or leave quietly when he has been the most divisive force in this district in my 28 years? It is not spite or retribution by Dr. Katherine Mitchell--it is called taking responsibility for your actions.

K.M. should resign, not because of what she said about Brooks, or even because she violated board policy.

She should resign because the second paragraph of her letter "asked" the employees to not dispute the charges against Brooks. This is tantamount to threatening potential whistleblowers.

But, the board policy issue does show her to be an inept and devisive leader.

These are excerpts from the LRSD Board Policies regarding, "School Board Member Code of Conduct."

"Board members may state personal positions as long as they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the Board or the District. The Board speaks only through its resolutions."

"When interacting with staff, Board members are expected to be cognizant of their role as policy makers, in contrast with the role of administrators as managers of the school system."

If we buy out Brooks' contract, let's not forget that the cost will be perhaps double what it would have been if the previous majority faction hadn't extended his contract an extra year. Why was this done? Was it a poison pill intended to deter the buyout? Two of the members who voted to extend Brooks' contract are still members. The next time these two are up for reelection, their opponents should ask them to explain the contract extension.

"Board members may state personal positions as long as they make it clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the Board or the District. The Board speaks only through its resolutions."
Doc, this one may sink Kurrus come September. And this one:
"When interacting with staff, Board members are expected to be cognizant of their role as policy makers, in contrast with the role of administrators as managers of the school system."
sunk Brock.

Good point to ponder, Pavel. Thanks.

_

those of you who are tiring of LRSD debate Biliken Man has posted a new thread, a real winner too.

_

Max, I think there may also be a lesson for Arkansas journalism hidden somewhere in this tawdry affair.

People like Dr. Mitchell have been considered reliable sources for various newspapers, when they pick up the phone and provide "inside information" about people said newspapers dislike for various personal and political reasons.

What Dr. Mitchell is revealing of herself in the current LRSD
debacle is something many of us who know her have long known about her. She should never have been regarded by any credible newspaper as a reliable source for "inside information." There's a reason Shorter College went down in flames under her presidential leadership. It has to do with inepititude, and even more, with her willingness to pursue her vindictive personal agendas in underhanded ways.

She's also well-protected and well-connected to political figures you admire. Unfortunately, those connections can't restore her credibility now.

I suggest you review some of the information she has passed on to you privately over the past several years in light of her behavior in this debacle, and question its credibility. Perhaps some of your stories based on her "inside information" have been flat wrong.

I also suggest that LR journalists consider allowing much more open public discussion of issues like the ones facing us in the school district now. Stop relying on your favorite group of insiders for inside information. Let more voices in. Publish more pieces from more constituencies. Let the public have access to publicly verifiable information.

Give us a chance to grow up.

ARK. BLOG: You're awfully presumptuous. I talk very rarely to Katherine Mitchell. When I do, I can't recall a time it hasn't been on the record. I know of no "inside" information I've received from her, accurate or inaccurate. What she's told me, I've printed, with her name attached. I do know this -- I met Roy Brooks early in his tenure, long before he'd undertaken actions that have caused such controversy. I couldn't believe he'd been hired as superintendent. I was unimpressed in nearly every single respect and subsequent actions have given me no cause to reconsider my initial impressions.

"single-handedly trying to bully and push Dr. Brooks out since he doesn't support her pro-black, anti-white agenda. "

How ignorant and inflammatory is that? People like you have made this a race issue. DUH. Dr. Brooks and Dr. Mitchell are BLACK! The majority of the board is BLACK! Heck, the majority of the LRSD students are BLACK! So its not a black issue, maybe a class issue, since there are some less affluent white, asian, hispanic, native american and african students at ALL the schools. Did you ever stop to think this is about EQUITY? Its a public school system, no one should control or influence the money flow. Dr. Brooks is inept at his job. Dr. Mitchell didn't like him because his resume' was weak and his credentials weren't in order. He proved this himself under oath when he couldn't remember what his own dissertation was on! Dr. Mitchell doesn't have a personal vendetta, she's just finally in a position to speak out about all the wrongs that have been done to the LRSD students by inept administrators, underhanded tactics and nefarious peanut galleries.

Muddling through, Shorter College fell because the BIshop in charge stole over 500,000 dollars, the financial aid officer made up students and the AME church pulled its funding due to misappropriations and loss of accreditation. Not Dr. Mitchell. Research before you run off at the mouth.

As far as what's public and private, maybe we just don't need all the details. Has anyone stoped to think the reason they have kept the list so long, is so that no one could change, destroy, or tamper with evidence or witnessess.

I say fire his butt, why pay him that much money(500,000) when I for one could use some more computers in my classroom for my students to research and study with. He doesn't deserve any extra after the rift he has caused in our city. If he had sense he would resign effective June 30 and find him a darn job. But he's so smart, he'll keep fighting to be where he is not wanted, never realizing he is the pawn of some wealthy individuals with their own agenda. Poor guy!

Disclaimer: I took this straight from KARK's website, so the mistakes are their's, not mine.

"KARK 4 News spoke with Dr. Mitchell several times by phone Saturday evening and at one point she was coming to our studios for an interview, but later her son called to tell us she could not make it because she in a conference. However, she did tell us her letter was not meant to be threatening, but a notice of what could come."

So now why are we debating her motives? We should be staying posted for the hearing this week.

I wish people would stop calling her "Dr. Mitchell" when you order a degree online with out taking any classes it doesn't count. if she gets to be "Dr' then I should be called the archbishop Tebe Torbes. it only cost me $10.

Archbishop Torbes, are you okay with calling Roy, "Dr. Brooks"?

I view the LRSD problem as intractable. The problem is more money spent annually in a futile system. When business or any investor analyses a community, the first consideration is the quality and stablity of the school district. No quality, no investment. No investment, little value-added economic activity and low property values therefore the impetus for tax increases.

Two questions, if answered honestly, will illuminate the situation for LR property taxpayers. (1) Did Roy Brooks attempt to correct the operational and financial problems idenified by the MGT consultant report? (2) Was Roy Brooks injecting accountability measured by metrics into LRSD educational delivery for the benefit of the students?

Dr. Brooks has a PhD from an accredited university so, I will call him Dr. Brooks.

- Archbishop Tebe Torbes

ARK. BLOG: He does not have a Ph.D. And, if you'll recall, he couldn't recall the topic of his Ed.D. dissertation at a Florida school some have described as a diploma mill. Efforts to turn up his dissertation have so far proved fruitless. Mitchell, on the other hand, indeed has a doctorate, an Ed.D. too, from the University of Arkansas.

But if you ask Dokter Brooks the subject of his doctoral thesis from said accredited university, he has no recollection of it.

Question: What good is a PhD if you don't know what you studied?

Answer: It looks good behind your name and on a resume.

"How ignorant and inflammatory is that? People like you have made this a race issue."

Hey love your job and love your students...when the white board member vote to keep Brooks, and the white crowd at the meetins supports him...and the black members of the board vote to fire him...and all the black people in the crowd are cheering and taunting him; and the reason give to us by your buddy, Dr. Mitchell tells us that he is being fire because they have lost confidence in his abilty (and to meet Dr. Mitchell's anti-white, pro-black agenda).....it became a race issue!

Were you not at the meetings? Have you not been following in the press? or are you just ignorant of these facts? Everyone I know in the LRSD knows this is why he is beig kicked out.

I guess you must have missed this one or you are another indication of what is wrong with the LRSD.

Folks, there is a world of difference between a Ph.D. and a Ed.D. Big, big difference in the academic world.

Absolutely. A Ph.D. is a research based degree. Competition for spots in programs is usually intense and limited to candidates with very high GRE scores and other credentials. Ph.D. programs usually are 90 credit hours plus a minimum, additional 18 credit hours dissertation research hours. Ph.D. programs have been relatively unchanged for a century.

Ed.D. programs are practice based. No other field but education has a "quasi" Ph.D. program, and they are very recently invented. They usually are 60 credit hours above a bachelors, total. There is no real dissertation, but more of a thesis.

You can usually tell who has an Ed.D. by the way the they style their name. Medical doctors, lawyers, vets, Ph.D.'s always style their name as "Name, credential"; John Doe, DVM; John Doe, M.D.; John Doe, J.D.; John Doe, Ph.D. If you see a name styled Dr. John Doe, you can pretty much guess the individual is NOT an M.D. or a Ph.D.

" Everyone I know in the LRSD knows this is why he is beig kicked out.

I guess you must have missed this one or you are another indication of what is wrong with the LRSD."

Catfish-
You obviously don't know any English or grammar teachers! Wow, your sentence structure is faulty and your spelling is second grade. You are obviously one of the students I have been talking about in the LRSD- shuffled along and unable to survive in the academic or work world by the machinations of people who do not have children at heart. I feel sorry for you.
You missed the point, since they are all the same color, color is really not an issue for black people in this mess. Its his lack of respect for the children, teachers and parents of the LRSD. He has done nothing but tear our district down. I don't hate or dislike people based on color, that is archaic at best and ignorant at worst.

I don't agree with what Dr. MItchell did ( that's a Ph. D in ENGLISH LITERATURE), but it is small compared to the turmoil we are in and the years it will take to straighten this mess out for ALL the kids in the district.

But I do like your name:-)

"Dr. Mitchell's anti-white, pro-black agenda"

WHat's up with that? Grow up. THe district is majority black, so any efforts to improve it for the majority of the students, can be seen as pro-black. Just because it helps minority students, doesn't mean its against white students. Let's ask the kids how they feel. THey play, work and grow together without all this foolishness until we put it in their heads. There are greater forces than race working against us in this world. poverty, crime, war, hunger, global warming, over population, resource depletion, disease and terrorism. If a bomb strikes Little Rock today, it won't ask what color we are. Or our nationality. Or for that matter how we feel about Roy Brooks, Katherine Mitchell or each other. We are all humans, all on the same planet and we need to learn to respect our differences without our differences getting the best of us.

Check out th

Lover,

Do you know where Katherine Mitchell got her degree? And the year?

Max, you say I'm presumptuous in claiming that Dr. Mitchell has been an off-the-record source for stories for you. And yet you yourself have indicated that in various comments on threads related to the LRSD debacle. I accept your statement that she hasn't been a source for you. But that leaves me wondering--I must admit--what you have meant by your references to information you've received from her above and beyond her public statements about the LRSD situation.

(ARK. BLOG: It's by definition NOT off-the-record when I identify the source by name. I have quoted her directly from time to time, clearly identifying her as a source. To the best of my recollection I have NEVER used her as an anonymous source.)

Love my Job: yes, I've heard Dr. Mitchell herself claim that Shorter failed due to the bishop's actions. I haven't seen evidence that this was the sole reason for the college's failure.

You say, "As far as what's public and private, maybe we just don't need all the details."

I disagree very strongly, for reasons I've already argued at length. This is a PUBLIC issue regarding a PUBLIC issue. Of course, WE THE PUBLIC need all the details. Our tax dollars are involved. We are involved.

Why should we ever relinquish our judgment entirely to Dr. Mitchell's secret information, particularly when she appears to be handling this situation in a particularly vindictive and nasty way designed to inflict injury not only on her personal enemy, but on the school district and city as well?

I say let the sun shine in. You claimed in a previous posting to know things no one else knows about the reason Brooks is being fired. In the interest of informing the public, and perhaps allowing Dr. Brooks to defend himself against allegations that could be baseless, why not bring that information to the public?

The politics of behind-the-scenes slur and stab just don't serve our best interests as a city and state. Dr. Brooks may well be a flop as a superintendent. But if so, and the evidence warrants the action being proposed, then that evidence needs to be made accessible to us all.

Cato and OAZ point to a much larger issue concerning what is wrong with traditional public education. The people running the show are often coaches-turned-principals who decide to spend a couple of summers getting an inflated doctorate so that they can keep climbing the ladder.

Muddling, you raise some interesting points.

Lover has claimed to have inside information about the charges that would be in the letter to Brooks. If that is true, then he/she will be a valuable witness ... for Brooks. (S)he stated here that (s)he had that information ... confidential personnel information. Which would leave a reasonable man to assume either 1) (s)he is a member of the LRSD board, and has legitimate access to this information, or 2) law and personnel policy has been violated in sharing the information.

Lover is easily identified by IP address, the AT collects them. A simple subpeona is all that will be needed.

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

"Ed.D. programs are practice based. No other field but education has a "quasi" Ph.D. program, and they are very recently invented. They usually are 60 credit hours above a bachelors, total. There is no real dissertation, but more of a thesis."

You are SO Wrong!

Straight from the Hill
Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Degree Requirements & Prerequisites

"Completion of a minimum of ninety-six (96) graduate semester-hour credits (some programs may require more than the minimum of 96 hours), including a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours in educational administration and at least eighteen (18) dissertation hours. At least thirty (30) graduate semester-hour credits must be completed beyond the Master's degree (or its equivalent), on the Fayetteville campus (not including dissertation and independent study). Anyone whose Master's degree was not completed at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, must complete a minimum of thirty-three (33) graduate semester-hour credits on the Fayetteville campus (not including dissertation and independent study). "

There is no fancy double talk language in America that will ever mak an Ed.D. anything but a continuing education credit.

Aren't we unwilling to say we we are wrong:-)
Tell that to all the people busting their humps getting one.

Did you miss this part-
"at least eighteen (18) dissertation hours"?

Sorry, sweetheart, there is a huge difference between a Ph.D. and an Ed.D. in the collegiate/research world.

Just like your earlier post, saying things over and over and over just won't make them true ... or convice reasonable (wo)men.

I doubt that either Brooks or Mitchell, even if given the title as a prompt, could clearly describe the content of their dissertations.

Onesandzeros:
"No other field but education has a "quasi" Ph.D. program, and they are very recently invented"

What about optometry and pharmacy. They have "doctor" titles bestowed upon them.

Our child # 3 is presently working on his Ph.D. at Oxford, England. He got his B.A. at the UofA, his master's degree at Oxford and has been working on his Ph.D for 30 months since getting his masters. To do the research for his dissertation, he has had to make two 9 week trips to Red China, trips to a desert in South Africa, various trips to most of the European countries and some I have forgotten. I don't believe an Ed. D. candidate has to do this type of research or work.

When he graduates in August (hopefully), I will get him to explain it again to those who don't comprehend the differences between a Ph.D. and a Ed.D.

So, lover...I guess all the press was wrong and are the only one correct on this one? If this isn't about Brooks being kicked to the curb for not meeting Docta Mitchell's agenda, then what is it about? I would like the hear the BS that you teachers are spreading in the LRSD.

I don't know if you just refuse to accept the politics behnind this, or are just to dumb to know the difference.

I appreciate your candor with my grammer. I am a product of the LRSD, and after reading your stance and your condescending BS, I now remember why I didn't want to subject my kids to the same crap that you teachers are teachen, political correctness, ebonics, etc, hence, I moved out of LR because of dipshit teachers like you...bythe way, have you gone on strike lately?

Of course, this is a blog, we don't get graded on our spellin and grammar, but I guess youwa and yo sista Dr. Mitchell are on the same page with yo attitudes towards othas....

Cato,

Your child has gone through a very exclusive (meaning very high admission standards) program, that is extremely rigorous, and research based. That is not at all the Arkansas drive-through Ed.D. program. The legislature wanted to increase the number of Ph.D. qualified people in the state, instead, every school that has a shingle hanging out has developed an Ed.D. program that will fit into the "lifestyle" of any Arkansan.

Catfish, you are showing your bottom dweller tendencies. You're throwing too much racism into the this and it only serves to muddy up the waters. The hot spit and cold spite has worn thinner than a nympho's scruples.
One learns not to take the words or actions of a few and generalize them to the many. That's something which ought to be taught in the home. Childish taunts, whether from Brooks supporters or Mitchell supporters, are just that: childish.

The most telling point you made is that you quit LRSD. Most of us here don't intend to give up and run. Most of us here have a vested interest in this institution and in the children who attend its schools. A lot of us know that the problem started when too many people ran from their responsibilities to heal the problems segregation caused.

Yeah, you're right 'bout the grammar and stuff. It shouldn't be concerning us and ain't gonna prove nothing. But, we are concerned about those who use the cheap theatrics of name-calling and taunting as a substitute for rational discourse. It ain't fittin', bro'.

Wizard of Ooze,

Enough about the doctor issue. It has nothing, repeat NOTHING, whatsoever to do with this issue. It's just a cheap shot.
I liked you better when you brought up policy. Now that was interesting and enlightening. This "Doctor, Doctor" game is tiresome.

Catfish,
I pity you for your childish, backwoods tirade. Your water is so muddy, you can't see the clear day. The press is full of deceit. I will not even address your insults. It just shows how limited you are. Stick to the issues, race is not an issue unless people want it to be. The point is people should be careful about what sides they take in an issue. Have you been informed or deceived? How could the majority of the school board, teachers, parents and advocates for public education be wrong about one person? Lighten up.

"Lover has claimed to have inside information about the charges that would be in the letter to Brooks. If that is true, then he/she will be a valuable witness ... for Brooks. (S)he stated here that (s)he had that information ... confidential personnel information. Which would leave a reasonable man to assume either 1) (s)he is a member of the LRSD board, and has legitimate access to this information, or 2) law and personnel policy has been violated in sharing the information.

Lover is easily identified by IP address, the AT collects them. A simple subpeona is all that will be needed."

OAZ- if it were only that EASY. Who are you...binary code, a computer type at the least. A Brooks supporter at worst. If you paid attention, I said a lot of what was disclosed in a previous post about 2 weeks ago.

Don't try to indimidate me. This is a blog. My first amendment rights are protected given the inherent promise of anonimity when you sign up.

New question-

Which is better a margarita or a daquiri and why?
Thanks

Love My Job, I hope you don't teach history.

You ask, "How could the majority of the school board, teachers, parents and advocates for public education be wrong about one person?"

How could the majority of Germans be wrong about Hitler? History is full of examples in which the majority makes a very wrong decision, particularly when public discussion is suppressed.

Why are you so ready to relinquish your right (and ours) to a public display of the facts, followed by a public debate of them? Why are you so ready to trust the one person who is leading the board of the LRSD, when she not only won't make the information accessible, but now has behaved in a way that makes her credibility even weaker?

I am not pro-Brooks. I am pro-sunshine. I would like to see a culture in which issues affecting us all are aired in a public way. It's time to break with the old behind-the-scenes slur and stab tactics. They do us all incalculable harm.