Duke University professor Atila Abdulkadiroglu is acknowledging that parental choice can lead to socioeconomically segregated schools but he argues that it can be controlled for in student assignment.
In a blog post today, Abdulkadiroglu points to the experiences in Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, which he said "provided a good approximation to Wake." He said that racial resegregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg can be partly explained to parents preferring schools with higher concentration of their own race.
"However, appropriate breaks and controls can be embedded into a choice system in order to avoid segregation while giving, for example, some priority in assignment to students at their neighborhood schools." Abdulkadiroglu writes. "It is important to note that guaranteed neighborhood assignment is also likely to yield segregation along the socioeconomic and racial lines of neighborhoods."
Abdulkadiroglu's views matter because he's helping Wake County school board member John Tedesco develop his vision of community-based schools.
Abdulkadiroglu lays out the three components of a public school choice plan:
1) Demand data: Parents rank schools in order of preferences during application.
2) Assignment priorities: Various priorities can be designed to meet different policy goals. Neighborhood priority for certain percentage of seats gives parents a fair chance at their neighborhood schools. Priority for the rest of the seats can be given to students from NCLB schools. Socioeconomic balance can be targeted through choice by giving priority to low-income students for certain percentage of available seats.
3) Assignment algorithm: A carefully designed assignment algorithm tries to assign as many parents as possible to one of their higher choices while implementing the assignment priorities set by the district.
Abdulkadiroglu cites how Boston Public Schools tries to achieve socioeconomic and racial diversity while providing parents with priority for 50% of available seats at their neighborhood school. He includes a link with more details.
Comments
Our vision
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 13:26 — RKCurtrightJenn,
When you said : "It frustrates me to hear GSIW folks blame this on the economy or on 'dropping the ball' after we made such great strides." I think you are talking about when you were on the panel at St. Francis of Assisi's forum with Caroline Massengill. It was Caroline who explained how addressing growth (economy?) issues caused WCPSS to "take our eyes off the ball" in 2004 re: student achievement. Maria brought this up during her WPTF interview, too, & she speaking on behalf of BiggerPicture. At the forum, Caroline and Charlotte Turpin were introduced as "educators," not reps of GSIW.
None-the-less, I think we can both agree (and Sarah) it is not a good excuse to "drop the ball" on achievement, though we must have some idea how difficult it was for the Board and staff back in our peak of growth to juggle building schools, bonds, and reassignments while still trying to focus on what is most important, which is student achievement.
We are all for change when done with real thought to our budget needs in relation to what is most important: teaching and learning.
I am happy to see we may be on the same team with some topics of most importance to us all. Improved student achievement is what we all want. It is unfortunate we are seeing how choices made in assignment for 2010-11 has cost money that will make it harder for us to improve academics.
Forest Ridge HS will cost us plenty alone in trailers to accomodate the overcrowded schools until the new HS is built in 2014.
Extra Lawyer: $75,000 and growing.
End Year Round School Calendar, Construction Costs $14.1 million. End YR Calendar, Operations Costs $18 million (annually) .
Del Burns Salary $145,550. What are we paying Donna Hargen for her new position?
Loss of Magnet Grant $1.9 million
Now we begin to see some of the casualties to the luxurious political promises:
We've just seen how we had to sacrifice the core of Project Enlightment. Programs that focus on the preschool and schools years lead to success in school.
We now need to purchase 22 buses and hire drivers costing us $750.000.
District 7 now have highly popoular yr schools converted to traditional calendar and will see overcapacity Leesville middle School and Leesville Elementary school. More trailers are expensive.
District 7 has now filled up their only year round schools within 5 miles: Brier Creek and Sycamore Creek. Green Road has seats, though this is far for many who prefer a year round calendar. There is no year round middle school except Durant which now will be full.
1,439 ninth- and tenth-graders will be temporarily housed at Heritage High School. Wakefield has had to handle the growth with serving 2832 students. 850 9th grade students are located in an off campus 9th grade center.Wakefield utilizes 39 trailers. The trailers sit on what had been a soccer field. They will see no relief anytime soon.
Yes, Sarah and Jenn, we all can support the focus being on academic achievment. I'm all for encouraging responsible spending and creative ideas while also giving choices within reason. We must consider every choice that costs money makes it harder to focus on academic achievement. I hope the political promises are over and we can start making the best decisions for all of WCPSS. I'm supportive of change and us all working together for one goal. I do believe we who are involved in our schools care deeply about WCPSS and we can learn from one another.
Read more: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/abdulkadiroglu-on-balancing-parental-choice-and-diversity#ixzz0mh5TUevM
Not so fast
Mon, 05/03/2010 - 00:12 — SDR256I would like to believe you but your political striving in this email seems disingenuous. Please come to our next coffee - fourth wednesday of May. Place is yet TBD. I'd rather discuss in person.
Levels of interpretation
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 15:45 — RKCurtrightSarah, I hear what you are saying. Interpretation was difficult in these last 5 months and throughout the election. Nothing was explained indepth. There were flaws in the presentation of where the BOE majority stood when they were first elected all the way up until JT decided to share his vision. Mistakes were made through a general misunderstanding of each other. When emotions are flying and we are not fully understanding each other it generally leads to fear-based responses and more questions. I'd like to see more respect given to all the Board members, past and present. It is an amazing sacrifice. People on both sides of Policy 6200 can all agree there is much room for improvement. Policy 6200 has not had room for big improvements because we have been a financially strapped school system for a very long time. We have seen recently how fragile our school budget is. It has just gotten worse. People who supported the BOE majority got their promises met and it is an uncomfortable feeling to see it is costing us a lot of money that we do not have. We have to spend money when giving more choice without sacrificing education. Actually we need to improve academic achievement and the focus needs to be there. When on a fixed income hard choices need to be made. The bell schedule is a recent good example. We have to now spend $750,000 on new buses and drivers. That money has to be taken from somehere else. Sarah, do you know if Dr. A is being paid or he is doing this for free? It is good he is willing to be a part of this planning process. It would have been good for JT to present his vision to the Board first. But we all live and learn and we cannot expect people to be perfect. I agree-"There is no reason that, within a community based, choice priority and proximity priority model that there could not ALSO be some kind of mechanism to relieve any kind of needs-based issues that arise. " Like you said, the complexities of a school system in costs, growth, utilization,balance can never be a one dimensional neighborhood model unless we had unlimited money to spend. "Neighborhood schools in a community model" has a bit more depth than "neighborhood schools". I appreciate you saying this leaves the flexibility for not just neighborhood schools but other kinds of choice - schedule, programs, cross-county etc. Wish I could make the meeting tonight. I have another committment. Hopefully next month. Again Sarah, I appreciate the respectful dialog.
Thank you Rhonda
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 10:26 — SDR256Rhonda, I don't think we've met but I appreciate the passion you have applied to this topic. One of the silver lining aspects to all this is that we are all talking more. I had the opportunity to agree on this point with a couple of folks from 'the other side of the issue' last week when we had coffee. They actually said that they didn't think we'd all be sitting to coffee if the election hadn't offered such a surprise. Did you read the opinion piece in the N&O this morning about the mother whose son was killed at Kent State 40 years ago? She called for more civility and I couldn't agree more. As I've been saying for over a year, the US vs THEM mentality when this affects the whole county's children is deplorable. And the media feeds on it.
Achievement is the key. I could not agree more. I'll be right behind you to challenge anyone on that board who does not focus on achievement. I am confident those I supported are focused on it, but I'm anxiously awaiting the proof of that. None of it is worth a hill of beans if the children are not achieving. What I find offensive is the former system's touting of the 'hide the struggling kids under the rug' tactic as somehow world class. Looking at achievement levels it was not.
I thank you as well for the open dialog. You are welcome to our fourth Wed of every month potluck/coffee meeting any time, as are all. Hopefully we can continue to find where we agree and build on that.
Policy 6200 has not had
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 15:43 — jenmanPolicy 6200 has not had room
for big improvements because we have been a financially strapped school
system for a very long time.
Rhonda, the reason there has been no improvement or changes to Policy 6200 is because nobody thought it needed to change. Or if they did they weren't willing to stand up to those who didn't. Deciding not to bus kids out of already 'healthy' schools to other 'healthier' schools in order to raise the F&R at those schools would have cost NOTHING.
Goes back further
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 16:07 — Dove314It goes back further than that and the current board majority is making the same mistake.
Student achievement should be the primary goal of the system no matter who is on the board and always taking into account the available budget. The "diversity" policy or former Policy 6200 should have been regularly examined to insure it was first meeting any intended achievement related goals (or not), whether it had any unintended (negative or positive) impacts on student achievement; and then lastly, for purposes unrelated to assignment.
At some point, previous boards stopped paying attention to whether and how student assignment impacted student achievement, making certain assumptions that is was effective which were inaccurate.
The new board majority has also ignored student achievement to focus first on assignment for purposes unrelated to achievement. It too is missing any focus on knowing their goals and policy on student achievement and whether or how their proposed assignment plan may have either intended or unintended impacts on achievement. We have no idea (and will have no idea) whether a focus on student achievement first would have meant a different idea for student assignment. This BoE majority too, after a potentially bitter public fight, will have no plans to revisit student assignment on a regular ongoing basis to understand the impacts on achievement and whether changes will need to be made. At this point, it is a crap shoot whether the next election cycle may result in yet another new board majority who just further repeats the same cycle.
We might as well expect to improve student achievement by assigning students via roulette wheel for ES, MS, and HS. What is happening now is all about making some parents happy.
Agree.
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 10:16 — SDR256I agree. This has been the core of the whole problem, and a big factor in the allergic reaction to busing (let's be clear. I did not say diversity. I said busing). It became clear that all the gyrations did not help achievement, and in fact (disagree if you want, I'm just making a statement) many thought there was a correllation between busing an lack of achievement. Busing hid the problem instead of addressing it. And we have to help this new board stay focused on achievement AS WELL. Could not agree more. Their new assignment policies don't get them off that hook any more than the last board should have been.
I am maybe more optimistic than you that they will show us soon how they proposed to incorporate achievement. I'm anxiously awaiting that as well.
I think what a lot of people
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 10:27 — carson79I think what a lot of people are wondering is how all of you that were "allergic" to busing feel about Tedesco's zone presentation and the Professor's work on incentivizing diversity (pretty darn similar to what Wake has had all this time)?
If they continue down the path laid out in Tedesco's presentation, the "busing" that you so despise will still be there....
Big diff
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 01:13 — SDR256There is a big difference between forced busing and a bus you take by choice. HUGE difference. It seemed to me, for instance, that Mrs. Willis from the WRAL focus piece - who would like to be a more involved parent (contrary to Chuck Dulaney's strict view that 'they will never participate - never.') - Mrs. Willis might choose Washington Magnet which she can see from her window over her children being bused an hour to Western Wake.
Personally, we would also have taken another choice to stay on a traditional schedule than having our children forced to be bused 18 miles. And we did exercise our ability to make that choice. In the current system others do not have the same freedom.
Because Tedesco's proposal incorporates proximity, choice and stability as MAJOR factors, I would reckon that most folks who voted in this new board won't have a problem with valves put in place to relieve pockets of need as a secondary measures. If some see it as merely a slight variation on what is in Policy 6200, and others see it as a desired move to more of a neighborhood model - AND we measure achievement as the primary indicator of success, then I say - - - WIN + WIN + WIN!
I think we spend way, way,
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 07:16 — woodstockI think we spend way, way, way too much time, money, effort and angst trying to achieve some imaginary perfect blend of socioeconomic and racial diversity in our schools. If we hire effective teachers, offer increased stability in assignments, and make sure we have the right resources in the right places to meet the needs of students (including going beyond obvious academic needs and addressing the social, health, nutrition, etc. needs of at-risk students of all races and income levels) we will have a better system.
I hope to hell we are not heading down just another path to feel-good social engineering that does not address the real barriers to academic success. Also, where is the discussion with the city councils and county commissioners about economic development in the lower income areas of Wake County? That HAS to be part of a comprehensive approach to making Wake an even better place to live. We cannot heap all the responsibility for achieving socioeconomic balance on our school system.
Woodstock ... we would all
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 09:55 — user12345Woodstock ... we would all love that but we know it has never been done ... it is survival of the fittest and schools with the most affluent parents get the best teachers, most courses, and best facilities. Spreading out the weak and strong is just a reaction to human nature so the weak do not get trambled. There are so many stories of success by poor school and kids who beat the odds with great teachers and principals. So, it can be done but it is not being done. I doubt you were fighting against the disparity that existed ten years ago and I doubt you will be around to fight ten years from now when people are looking for the extra resources you promised would arrive..
User, this is just urban
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 12:27 — DrActualFactualUser, this is just urban legend. Our HS is getting teacher cuts left and right. My HS age kids have Never had an experienced Language Arts teacher--we always got the rookies from outside Wake Co. or out of state. This year one of my kids finally got a teacher from Chapel Hill---yea! The NOTION that parents (affluent or otherwise) can Demand things that will enhance overall school education or child's education is, well, it just doesn't happen. (Our principal is a scary guy that will never meet with you in person and like a prison warden would just scoff at this idea.) Kids shipped long distance to our school get the same lousy deal the rest of us get. Class size has been huge for years even before cuts under the previous BOE we had 35+ in MS algebra class. HS classes are as bad or worse after the cuts. The people I see best able to negotiate better standing for their kids are the teachers/former teachers.
I wish we had more ways to
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 13:00 — user12345I wish we had more ways to measure the disparity but I keep going back to the poorest HS like Knightdale and Garner have the lfewest number of AP classes, lowest passing rate and lowest % of students paricipating ... is that because they are poor, minority, discrimination? could affluent parents with the right political connections change that? I look at Lacy which someone mentioned has Whiteboard provided by WCPSS (normally comes from grant or PTA money) and an extra teacher provided by the PTA. Davis Middle took an unused (makes you wonder why) trailer and created a weight room and one HS has not had a drama teacher in years so has not school plays. Lots of small missing parts that heavily affect schools with high F&R that don't affect more affluent schools. I am not saying that no problems occur at a school like Green Hope, only the problems are fewer and they increase as the F&R% goes up and your lobbying power decreases.
wral segment
Tue, 04/27/2010 - 23:03 — red_balloonWashington principal Peggy Beasley-Rodgers: "It raises everybody's bar a little bit".
Who is everybody? The children of Latasha Willis who are bused out even though Washington is a short walk from their home? The children at the non-magnets?
Ms. Beasley certainly seems
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 07:35 — CaryCurmudgeonMs. Beasley certainly seems to have raised the bar for her white students, who pass the EOG's at a rate of 94%. Not so much for her black students, whose passing rate is 38%. Seems like the diversity stops just short of the finish line.
Not so much for her black students, whose passing rate is 38%
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 08:06 — HereWeGoIf the passing rate for black studetns is 38% these are the students who can walk to school with Washington their neighborhood school. If the white studetns rate is 94% and they are bussed in should this not be reversed if proximity matters so much.
I think the new school board forgets that F&R students are not all the same. Some F&R students are from 2 parent families who are stable to homeless children.
The best way for a parent to be involved in their childrens school is not to volunteer at school but to see that homework is completed. So, of the families from the neighborhood around Washington I wonder what percentage of students complete their homework on regular basis.
And what makes you think
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 08:37 — CaryCurmudgeonAnd what makes you think they will do a better job of completing their homework if they spend an extra 1-2 hours a day on a school bus to Olive Chapel?
Sorry, but when a principal has the disparity of results we see from this school, then something is horribly wrong. This is a magnet school. I am constantly told that diverse schools like this are needed to attract good resources. Well, they have the resources, where are the results? Are the better teachers only focused on the better students?
resources
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 18:49 — turnerk1The extra resources that go to a school like Washington are for electives like music, drama, science, etc. A child whose parents can't afford music lessons or science camp in the summer will get similar types of experiences through school, which is of great value to their education. But, it's not probably not going to significantly help their math EOG score.
I honestly wonder how many
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 17:41 — jenmanI honestly wonder how many of the lower income kids are in some of the special electives. I've heard from several sources that 'base' kids are funneled to certain 'remedial' electives while the magnet students are the ones enjoying the really great, special electives. I'd like to really know how it breaks down because while I trust the people I've heard this from, I always like to see figures and facts for myself.
I do find it very troubling that low income children are performing at such low levels at Washington and other magnets. I really think in some cases that the magnets are doing a disservice to the low income base populations. I've heard several WCPSS staffers and magnet & non-magnet principals say that you do not want to make magnet parents mad. Especially at the AG and GT magnets. It was kind of the running joke about how demanding and pushy many of the magnet parents are. So what happens to the lower income base kids in all of this?
I think the last elections
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 19:27 — danofncI think the last elections proved that magnet parents aren't the only ones that you don't want to make mad.
"So what happens to the lower income
basekids in all of this?"That question is just as applicable to the actions of the new members (and the parents who support them) as it ever was to the actions of magnet parents and their school personnel.
Are these programs
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 20:25 — red_balloonAre these programs restricted to those who cannot afford them outside the school?
why? Are the music
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 12:56 — carson79why?
Are the music programs at Green Hope restricted to the students that prove they could not afford the band instrument and private lessons??
What is your point?
That extra resources poured
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 20:20 — red_balloonThat extra resources poured into magnet schools like Enloe go to people like you.
people like me? I'm not
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 21:45 — carson79people like me?
I'm not even sure what that means?
so the additional resources at Wakefield - do those go to people like me too? ? That would actually make more sense if we are talking about me personally but we aren't, so how bout not trying to make everything about me personally?
It seems to be a theme tonight
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:06 — Dove314To make it personal and try to make it about the people posting instead of about the school board or elected officials.
Such sensitivity is most
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:16 — red_balloonSuch sensitivity is most peculiar when noted on behalf of a person who is not averse to casting aspersions on posters. Also, equally odd is that anonymous posters take umbrage while elected officials are expected to face a barrage of abuse while managing to remain phlegmatic.
ok I am guessing you are
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:27 — carson79ok I am guessing you are trying to talk about me? I think you might have me mixed up with someone else....come to think of it, you periodically attack me (say once a month or so) on the blog with things that don't make sense, so you probably do have me confused!!
Personal? You are a fine
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 21:50 — red_balloonPersonal? You are a fine example of what is wrong with WCPSS. You tout 'diversity' but get offended when it is pointed out you don't practice what you preach. 'Diversity' is wonderful as long as someone else is paying the price and you get your privileged education and choice of neighborhood.
ok so I will take that as a
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:15 — carson79ok so I will take that as a no to my request to not make things personal? especially when they are not even based on fact.
Your behavior would have set
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:18 — red_balloonYour behavior would have set a better standard than your plea.
?? when did I make a
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:30 — carson79?? when did I make a personal remark to you??
Another fine example. None
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 20:24 — CaryCurmudgeonAnother fine example. None of us should be proud of a 54% ED graduation rate, and certainly none of should be proud of the Enloe 38%.
Nothing.
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 20:44 — Dove314And what has this board majority done to improve the ED graduation rate anywhere in WCPSS in the next 2 years?
Nothing.
Brought attention to a
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 20:55 — red_balloonBrought attention to a problem that got drowned out in an ocean of national acclaim for 'diversity'. Not much but a start nevertheless. Keep in mind it was neglected in the prior years while now there is a flicker of hope that something tangible might occur.
Which puts them on exactly
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 20:50 — CaryCurmudgeonWhich puts them on exactly the same pace as the previous board. Nowhere but up to go from here, and I am expecting to see some steps taken soon. In the meantime, they have undone some of the reassignment and conversion damage done by their predecessors.
You have been arguing against every thing this new board has done since taking office, so I'll assume that you're ok with the results of the last board and don't mind a 38% graduation.... and don't think that something is terribly wrong with that school. Sorry, but I don't think you are being very balanced if you condemn all that the new board does, while selectively supporting parts of what the old board did.
While you're reading this, there is an Enloe ED student somewhere who is falling behind in their coursework and getting close to joining that 38%.
WTF?
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:10 — Dove314Back off sir.
Just because I don't like your cherry-picked favs, doesn't mean I liked previous boards any better.
They've all sucked, pretty much since mine started in the WCPSS system but it was better than Durham, the only alternative we could afford. But hey, go right on and claim your majority want any consensus from the community while engaging in personal attacks on posters don't agree with the precious 5 prima donnas.
If they can't handle people watching what they are doing and holding them as accountable as we've held previous boards, then maybe they shouldn't be in their jobs anymore than the last bunch. Didn't you vote the last bunch out for not listening and not maintaining or improving student achievement?
No, I don't blindly bow down
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:24 — CaryCurmudgeonNo, I don't blindly bow down before the new board and praise everything they have done. I wasn't happy with their hiring of Thomas Farr, the decision to cut Project Enlightenment, and some other things they have done.
John Tedesco has worked his tail off to gain consensus. We voted out the last board because they acted as if all the problems of the world could be resolved with chuck's constant shuffling of nodes, and because the old board were afraid to challenge anything staff brought before them. This board has spent five months fighting a reassignment battle. I'm sure they are smart enough to know that if they don't take the right steps to improving academic performance, they may just as easily be voted out.
And I hope they very quickly get to an examination of the magnet program. I AM NOT saying abolish the program, but we need to understand what's not working and get it fixed.
Guess what?
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:40 — Dove314On that one, we agree. The magnet program is not living up to the intent behind it and needs to be examined and reviewed, especially in light of scarce resource. The chance of selection needs to be more open to everyone county wide and has been unfair.
goals
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:46 — red_balloon1. Increase 'diversity'
2. Increase infrastructure utilization
3. Offer enhanced offerings
WCPSS does all three. Is there something else the magnet system is expected to achieve?
According
Sat, 05/01/2010 - 01:40 — TrailerParkGirlAccording to the magnet program grant site, magnet schools are supposed to "provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging academic content and student academic achievement standards."
Come on now
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 22:59 — Dove314For me, student achievement should be the overarching goal. Everything else can have other goals including things like enhanced course offerings and increasing infrastructure utilization but should, in some way, be reviewed in light of any intended or unintended impacts on student achievement.
When the achievement gap is greater in magnets due to those not achieving doing so in higher numbers, then CC is right -- it's time to examine the program and see if problems and solutions can be identified. And no solution should be off the table for consideration.
I agree with you and CC on
Fri, 04/30/2010 - 00:00 — red_balloonI agree with you and CC on that but dispute any notion that the magnet program is not meeting its goals. It is the goals of WCPSS' magnet program that I question, not the effectiveness of the implementation.
"Which puts them on exactly
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 21:02 — user12345"Which puts them on exactly the same pace as the previous board. You have been arguing against every thing this new board has done since taking office, so I'll assume that you're ok with the results of the last board and don't mind a 38% graduation.... "
That is illogical ... we were told we were going to get something new ... we were told that time is of the essense ... we were told kids are important .. you are saying that the new board is just like th old board and if you argue for more faster, that makes you happy with previous performance. When are you going to stop making excuses for these guys and saying they are just as bad as the old folks and that is ok?
You and others were told
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 21:32 — red_balloonYou and others were told that before the election but that didn't stop friends of 'diversity', etc. from ignoring them or what they were saying. So, after the election, it's a stretch that what they have been saying before the elections has suddenly become material to you and the others. Now that is illogical.
then what's the point?
Wed, 04/28/2010 - 19:25 — CaryCurmudgeonthen what's the point?
The point
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 15:46 — turnerk1There is more to school (and life) than what is tested on the EOGs. Only the smallest part of what a child learns at school is tested on the EOGs, so even if the value of an elective doesn't transfer to to higher EOG scores it doesn't mean that it isn't a worthwhile investment. The electives are there (as well all know) to draw people voluntarily to schools farther away from their homes to downtown schools.
I hear you, but the cold,
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 16:32 — CaryCurmudgeonI hear you, but the cold, hard fact is that students who get low grades or don't graduate (and we all know the path to dropping out is paved early in a student's career) have almost zero chance of breaking the poverty cycle. Those electives certainly do help round out individuals, but we don't need to be adding more enlightened individuals to the unemployment line or prison.
When EOG scores go up, Steve Ford and his WEP buddies are all over it. When they go down, we get the story about them being just one of many indicators. Until the state decides differently, EOG is the standard of success.
I think it is criminal that in the same school where the majority of poor children are failing, we are investing resources on teaching multiple foreign languages instead of providing remedial education to those kids. I don't see how that can be defended.
Yes, but....
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 15:57 — lferreriI agree that there is more to school and learning than just reading, writing, and math. However, students who are not on grade level in these subjects are hampered in their ability to learn many of the other subjects. So I think a school that fails to ensure that all of its students are on grade level is doing those students a great disservice. Before funding a large selection of electives, in my opinion, resources should be spent on making sure that all students can read well, write well, and do math.
Yes, but ...
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 18:47 — turnerk1Of course, that is the reason that most middle schools went to a block schedule and their electives were largely stripped away about 10 years ago. I can't remember the exact year. It wasn't advertised, but the net result of the schedule changes was that students were getting significantly more time on the basics. There will always be the tension between only teaching the basics and providing a more well-rounded curriculum. In another post jenman said that base kids were funneled into remedial electives. That is the way that GT schools find time to work with kids who are struggling -- it's basically a form of a pullout. I don't think it is necessarily a base kid/magnet kid thing as much as it is the teacher thinks that this students needs extra help in reading or math, but it does mean that the child loses the opportunity for an enriching elective.
I don't think that's right
Thu, 04/29/2010 - 19:51 — lferreriBlock schedules actually provide less time, at least the way I understand they are being done here. The argument is that students can take more classes (I believe it's eight per year instead of seven) so if students have a problem, there is more chance to retake a class. However, the tradeoff is that there is less time in each class. (It seems as if that would lead to more electives rather than fewer since students are taking more classes each year.) I only know about high schools so I don't know if middle school block schedules are the same.
Our experience with the magnet schools was that many desirable electives were limited to only certain students. I am not talking about having a child who needs remediation. That I could understand. I am talking about reserving the more academic electives for students who are in the highest tracks. The other electives (at least the ones we saw) were not remedial; they just had reduced academic content. Since the decisions seemed to be made based on a student's track, not the student's individual strengths and weaknesses, I can see where large numbers of capable students may be relegated to classes that are not challenging to them.
Edited to add: I just looked it up on the WCPSS web site. It says high school students used to take six courses and now they can take eight. It also says that this was done to allow students to take more electives. Again, I don't know about middle schools, just high schools.