The Foundation's head wears LeCorbusier eyeglasses, FLW's arch enemy. Talk about clueless. Missing from this stroll through the cowpasture is any mention of dollar amounts owned by the Foundation or the School and who gets what.
As I've posted on twitter and elsewhere the Foundation saying "It was the School's choice to close!" is bullshit. The analogy is: An employer (the Foundation) says to an employee "You can either take a 50% cut in salary, or you can double your workload but stay at the same salary." so the employee decides to quit and the employer turns around and claims "It was *her* decision to quit!" Bullshit.
Feb 3, 20 3:57 pm ·
·
Chad Miller
It sounds like the accreditation board required the school to financially independent from the foundation. The school could not.
Feb 3, 20 5:44 pm ·
·
liberty bell
NAAB required the School, if it wanted to be accredited, to be a standalone institution, not an arm of a non-educational institution. So the School became independent, this the name change several years ago. The School Board members report that they had a sustainable financial scenario including a guaranteed source of income by partnering (in some way) with another unnamed educational program (I’m guessing ASU) but the Foundation refused to accept that source. So the School was forced to close.
Feb 3, 20 9:51 pm ·
·
liberty bell
Oops I think you’re right, Rick, it’s the HLC! My mistake.
Join the American Institute of Architects at Taliesin West for a conversation with leading experts on the history of building codes and the future impact of new code changes on historic and existing buildings."
I don’t understand how anyone could think that ending a schools accreditation would be a financially viable option.
Dan Schweiker says that it was the Foundation that demanded the accreditation of the school to end if it were to remain open and the Foundation says it was Dan Schweiker’s idea. Either way it’s ridiculous and would be doomed to fail had it come to that. Even Frank Lloyd Wright’s legacy isn’t strong enough to stand up to modern scholastic criteria.
Feb 4, 20 7:30 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The Wright Foundation's Rebuttal
The Foundation's head wears LeCorbusier eyeglasses, FLW's arch enemy. Talk about clueless. Missing from this stroll through the cowpasture is any mention of dollar amounts owned by the Foundation or the School and who gets what.
https://archpaper.com/2020/01/...
As I've posted on twitter and elsewhere the Foundation saying "It was the School's choice to close!" is bullshit. The analogy is: An employer (the Foundation) says to an employee "You can either take a 50% cut in salary, or you can double your workload but stay at the same salary." so the employee decides to quit and the employer turns around and claims "It was *her* decision to quit!" Bullshit.
It sounds like the accreditation board required the school to financially independent from the foundation. The school could not.
NAAB required the School, if it wanted to be accredited, to be a standalone institution, not an arm of a non-educational institution. So the School became independent, this the name change several years ago. The School Board members report that they had a sustainable financial scenario including a guaranteed source of income by partnering (in some way) with another unnamed educational program (I’m guessing ASU) but the Foundation refused to accept that source. So the School was forced to close.
Oops I think you’re right, Rick, it’s the HLC! My mistake.
Those specs are wannabe Corbs
Curious.
"February 7, 2020 – February 8, 2020
Taliesin West
Join the American Institute of Architects at Taliesin West for a conversation with leading experts on the history of building codes and the future impact of new code changes on historic and existing buildings."
I don’t understand how anyone could think that ending a schools accreditation would be a financially viable option.
Dan Schweiker says that it was the Foundation that demanded the accreditation of the school to end if it were to remain open and the Foundation says it was Dan Schweiker’s idea. Either way it’s ridiculous and would be doomed to fail had it come to that. Even Frank Lloyd Wright’s legacy isn’t strong enough to stand up to modern scholastic criteria.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.