APS dual standards utterly unacceptable

The leadership of the Albuquerque Public Schools; school board and senior administrators, are accountable only to the law.  The law is the standard of conduct that every single higher standard of conduct, is higher than.

They make no bones about it.  They spend more than a million dollars a year on lawyers proving they cannot be held accountable even to the law.

Students on the other hand, and according to school board policy, are expected to "model and promote the Pillars of Character Counts."  The Pillars are a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.  They are among the highest standards there are.

There is something wrong with adults expecting students to hold themselves accountable to higher standards of conduct than adults will hold themselves.

Every generation expects the next generation to be the first generation to hold themselves honesty accountable to meaningful standards conduct and competence.

In no case shall the standards of conduct for adults
be lower than the standards of conduct for students.

So read the role modeling clause in school board and administrative standards of conduct until the school board deliberately and unanimously removed the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct.

With that and subsequent acts and omissions, they have eliminated every shred of doubt about their willingness to be held accountable as role models of accountability to the same standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students.

We don't need no stinkin' standards.

School Board Member David Peercy, if you ask, will tell you he and the rest of the adult role models in the leadership of the APS, are accountable to the "highest standards" of conduct.  Even higher he argues, than student standards; the Pillars of Character Counts!.

He cannot actually point to any such standard; unlike the Pillars, the standards to which he refers are imaginary.  The Pillars are only a mouse click away, link.

Nor can Peercy point to an venue where he or anyone else in the leadership of the APS can actually be held accountable to any standards at all, by due process.

There is not one whit of difference between the highest standards of conduct and the lowest, if neither is being enforced.

There are two paths out of the hypocrisy;

1. The senior most role models of student standards of conduct can hold themselves honestly accountable to the Pillars of Character Counts! or,
2. student standards can be lowered to a point where the leadership of the APS is actually willing to be held accountable to them.

Dean Inge wrote;

The proper time to influence the character of a child
is about a hundred years before he is born.

If we really want students to grow into adults who embrace character and courage and honor, someone has to be willing to show them what it looks like.

It is hard to imagine a standard that is low enough that school board members and senior administrators would be willing to be held actually and honestly accountable to them.  Their record is of spending enormous amounts of money to avoid honest accountability to any standards at all, in especially the law.

Do we have to meet in the middle? ... raise the adult standards to actual accountability to the law; the lowest standards of conduct acceptable to civilized human beings and then,
lower our expectation for students from some of the highest standards to the absolute lowest.

Is there any standard so low that the leadership of the APS is willing to prove to students, as their role models, honest accountability to them?

The argument is moot; the leadership of the APS is willing to take neither path; they won't raise their own standards and they won't subject themselves to the public shame of lowering student standards to far enough to accommodate their own lack of character and courage.

Instead, they will just avoid the discussion.  There will be no open and honest public discussion of student, adult, administrative and executive standards of conduct and accountability in the APS.

Kent Walz,  co-conspirator?

If the Journal editors wanted to hear that discussion, they would write an editorial calling out the leadership of the APS for stonewalling questions about the issues of standards and accountability.  They would demand a public discussion.

They haven't written the editorial; they do not intend to write the editorial.  Nor will they investigate and report upon credible evidence of public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS.

Is it because as Journalists, they don't see the point?  Are they afraid?  Or are they willing co-conspirators in the cover up of the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS?

Does the cover up enjoy the aid and abet of the Journal?

What other explanation is there?




Peercy photo Mark Bralley
Walz by ched macquigg