
Did you all know that there was a Charleston County Friends for Buist?
Neither did I. I did know there was a group of parents who started after District 20 Families in order to combat the attention that Buist received after all the false addresses. Apparently this is the same group. Evidently, it is led by attorney Mark Brandenburg who also is head of the Buist Foundation, a private non-profit according to him. I was unaware that there was such a thing as a private non-profit whose address with the federal government is a public school.
Any who there was an e-mail floating around after the article in the Post and Courier comparing the inadequacies between Charleston Progressive and Buist Academy. For those of you who have not read it, you should, it gives much insight to the racial discrimination from the Charleston County School district.
The email below....no I did not give you email addresses. The email below is from a parent of this fine organization and their views on the article. The key here is the name of the address list for members. Some of these are false addresses, some are legit. Isn't it wonderful when cheaters ban together to protect their not so secret fibs?
Note not all of these members have cheated, only some.
members:
Sarah Hoefer; Donna Lee Rose; Richard Gowe; Frank Dirks; John Hiers; Peter Demetre; W Keith Kirkland; Libby Russler; Becky Fenno; Eric LangJam; Ellie Langsom; David Richards; Robben Richards; Chris Whitacre; Kellie Thomas; Jeff Thomas; Susan Cale; Yvette Dede; Laura Stefanelli; Bobby Frye; Trap Puckette; Chris Cullum; Sallie Thomas; Ellison Berlin; Tommy Dew; Teri Hiers; Laurie Ann Hart; Leigh Brandenburg; Cindy Linhart; Sue Groff; Sallie Ballard; Ken Chavin; Robyn Bradley; Tina Rastogi; Jeri Lawing; Amy Manucy; Christy Sanford; Chip Legerton; Lennie WoodsSubject:
Interesting e-mail
To all:
I assume you all read the article in the P & C on Sunday. Should there be a response from Charleston County Friends for Buist? I would write a letter to the editor, but I am not up to speed on all of the facts.
I guess there are some simple rebuttals to the one-sided article:
1. The article starts with the assertion: “In almost any comparison of resources, Buist beats Charleston Progressive Academy.†Those are the comparisons selected by the writer. Are there any financial comparisons where Buist does not beat CPA? I don't know the answer, but if there are, they should be noted.
2. The Second paragraph states that the inequities are so serious that the Office of Civil Rights is investigating. I don't think the office of Civil Rights just happened on this case. Is this not the result of the lawsuit that has been filed? Should the instigator of the lawsuit be called out and provide a background for the litigation?
3. What were the original plans for Buist (as referred to in the article) and CPA? Is there a logical reason why the disparity exists? The writer does not investigate that angle at all.
4. Buist has, according to the article 397 students and CPA has 315 students. Buist has 26% more students than CPA. Does the difference in the number of students account for the fact that there are full time teachers for music and a full time nurse at Buist among other resources? It would seem logical to me that once you hit a threshold, you need full time staff to handle functions that are handled by a part time employee in a school with fewer students.
5. How do other schools compare? Are all schools in the district treated equally? How do the Buist and CPA budgets compare with other schools? Why are there disparities?
6. Finally, the most glaring error in the story is the math. According to the statistics in the story, Buist receives General Operating Funds of $2,439,685 for 397 students or $6,145.30 per student. CPA, according to the statistics, receives $2,059,809 for 315 students or $6,539.08 per student. Somehow the writer comes up with $7,086 per student at Buist and $6,061 per student at CPA. I assume there are other funds that are taken into consideration when calculating the per student funds. Does anyone know what the additional funds are? Or is the math simply wrong? Or is there some type of Typo?
Obviously, this article was once again, slanted negatively against Buist.
Is there any way we could get an editorial size letter published in the P & C stating accurate facts? Again, I am not fully up on the statistics, but would be happy to assist drafting the letter.
Jeff Thomas