The consent process that was used for the past two years got bashed repeatedly by school board members and administrators on Tuesday.
As noted in today's article, school leaders blamed the consent process for underutilization of year-round schools, crowding at traditional-calendar schools and damaging efforts to maintain balanced, healthy schools.
Board members blamed the late May timeframe of the consent process for not providing "predictability" for principals. They said it made overly hard for schools to know how many students they'd have when determining how many teachers to hire.
School board member Lori Millberg said she has gotten letters from parents complaining how their traditional-calendar schools have become overcrowded through the consent process.
"It’s not a process that has worked very well," Millberg said of the consent process.
Manning particularly faulted the consent process first mandated by Superior Court Judge Howard Manning Jr. saying that families who didn't return the forms would be considered to have not given their consent.
"Consent sounds so nice but it was not easy," Millberg said. "What the consent pocess said was that people who do nothing, who choose not to file paperwork must be assigned to a traditional-calendar school.
That was a challenge. All we’re saying is that the do nothing option is to go to the school they’re assigned."
While Millberg had the most to say publicly Tuesday about the consent process, she was not the only one who took shots at the process.
School board member Beverley Clark said eliminating the consent forms provides the proper balance for the school system. She said Wake is now shifting it to a request process from a consent process. She said it no longer shifts the balance to individual consent.
Comments
Board Approves Assignment
Sat, 05/09/2009 - 07:00 — AngelaWBoard Approves Assignment Process
May 7, 2009 - Following the ruling of the NC Supreme Court last week, the Wake County Board of Education approved a return to its assignment process allowing families the opportunity to apply for schools in February, receive an assignment in mid-May and request a transfer after assignment.
The action came during the board’s May 5 meeting.
Board members noted the process ordered by Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning two years ago caused disruptions for schools, leaving some year-round schools underutilized and crowding some traditional calendar schools. In addition to the facility use issues, board members said the process did not allow school administrators to have the appropriate staffing and equipment available since the District Court ruling allowed families to determine where they would attend school long after staffing and budget allotments were provided to principals.
The board approved the assignment plan for 2009-10 on February 3. Soon after, a letter was sent to the homes of students making sure they were aware of the February application process where families desiring a magnet school assignment or a traditional calendar school assignment or a year-round school assignment could submit an application indicating their request.
For families who took part in the February application process, 95 percent of the students who had a base assignment to a year round school and applied for a traditional calendar school seat were placed. 77 percent of the students who applied for a year-round school seat were placed. 45 percent of students who applied for a magnet school seat were placed.
WCPSS Growth and Planning is preparing the assignment strips that will be delivered to schools so that students will receive them on May 15. In addition to the assignment strip, students will receive information on the school system transfer process.
Once students receive this notification of their school assignment for 2009-10, parents may then seek a transfer. Growth and Planning staff will apply Board Policy 6203 to transfer requests. If a transfer is denied, families may appeal to the Board of Education.
In a board appeal, parents have the opportunity to meet with a panel of board members and discuss the hardship caused by their school assignment and their transfer request. The entire Board subsequently reviews the request and votes on whether to approve or deny the request.
Board members noted during their meeting that they have recently discussed possible changes to the transportation policy that could benefit families seeking transfers.
-wcpss-
No CAT bus, No cab fare, No car, No parent, No lawsuit?
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 22:50 — tigger516Where is NAACP? How do low income children (interestingly all AF-AM children on this particular street) benefit from being reassigned even further from home?
Currently, there are 20 or so minority/low income "healthy" numbers/students attending a coveted magnet school on Ridge Rd (traditional calendar). They were already being bussed from Evers Drive for "healthy" reasons a distance of: 13.34 miles/18 min travel time (according to Mapquest).
Now, it seems imperative that a year round school on Lufkin Rd in Apex must be made healthy (or Wake County will enter a time warp and be zapped back to 1963). How is it not discriminatory to select this minority group of kids to endure an even FURTHER bus ride @ 16.02 miles/20 min travel time? There is no public transportation to Apex from Raleigh.
Ms. Gill suggests that receiving no complaints from these families means these families must support the diversity plan (and the extreme bussing that goes along with it). This sounds like wishful thinking or some kind of magical thinking.
I doubt the Board has knocked on doors to find out exactly how this extreme bussing provides an additional barrier in place for low income/minority families.
What parent would agree to have their child bussed to a year round school far away to another town that lacks public transportation when their child is already attending a magnet school in Raleigh that has public transportation AND a traditional calendar?
Oh yeah, these families can request a TRANSFER. Is that a cruel joke? These families have no car and CANNOT provide their own transportation, so a transfer is not helpful.
When will the Board create a diversity policy that doesn't include the constant reassignment of the same group of minority children forced to make the rounds of suburban schools that are 15 to 20 minutes away from home?
When will the Board acknowledge that the year-round calendar is a hardship for low income families? Their own data showed MANY opted out when the form was provided to them. I'm sure the Board is pleased that they are no longer mandated to provide the form to these low income families. Now, they REALLY have no voice.
Reassignments for diversity have unintended consequences for low income families and extreme bussing is harmful to parental involvement @ school.
Without a car, without a city bus, and without cab fare, a sick child spends all day in the school office. Why worry about this individual child? Afterall, it's all about the school becoming "healthy" at the expense of the child.
It is time to revise this "Health Plan" and it is time for the Board to hear from ALL families in Wake County. It is definitely high time for someone with REAL experience to be elected to School Board.
Deborah Prickett is a very capable and highly qualified candidate. Her years of experience as a guidance counselor has provided her with the valuable skill of LISTENING to others.
Finally, the Board might get the opportunity to practice this skill. If elected, maybe Ms. Prickett can model this behavior for the others. Don't forget to vote!
You forgot to mention
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:46 — choice4allthat the only way the application process works is via computer! How many families do not have internet? Computers? Access or means of transportation to the school or library to accses the computers? Or how about someone telling them, not snowing them, about the application process. I know first hand how administration (won't say where) took a group of F&R, after being reassigned out of their traditional to a YR several miles away to give them warm fuzzys. The parent repeatedly told them she did not want YR (this was last year when consent was needed). NO ONE..I MEAN NO ONE took or showed this distraught parent that she could apply for a magnet/traditional in the library at the school where they were holding this warm and fuzzy meeting for the F&R parents. Thanks to me (not patting myself on the back) I was able to apply for a traditional magnet for her children (of course they qualified) in the nick of time before the process ended and her kids are closer to home, closer to her work and on a traditional calendar where in the summer her HS can help take care of the younger ones while she is at work. I stood in the office of that school (again I will not say which one) with the Data manager and demanded why they did not direct her to the computers. It was a deliberate attempt to make sure that node would stay in the YR assignment.
So Ms Millbergs comments about the process...ya know the one where she said "its like wanting the job and no application was submitted?" .....How do they sleep at night? REALLY!!!!!
OT: Comparisons to other big districts
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 17:16 — Bob_SconceSo, one of WCPSS' claims to fame is that it is one of the best large districts in the country.
Here's an article describing some of the competition:
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-teachers6-2009may06,0,6604006.story?track=rss
How about the SMUG AROGANCE
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 13:38 — g88ky07on Chuck "Jones" Dulaney's face with his interview from last night! "We are VERY flexible and offer many options for everyone, unfortunately there will always be 4 or 5 loud mouth, whiney parents who just can't seem to make it work."
Yeah Chuck, yeah!!!
Link please?
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 23:43 — SDR256G88ky -
I'm temporarily outta town but would love to see this. Can you provide a link?
I don't have a link
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 06:20 — g88ky07but it was on News14 and those were not his words verbatim, sorry, but they were pretty close. It was the look on his face that had me add the "loud mouth whiney parents" part. Sorry if that got a few more than excited.
t
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:47 — dcourtinet
He had the gall to say that
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 17:32 — Big_PictureHe had the gall to say that on TV? What channel? No class as usual.
I wonder what the parent's really wanted?
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 12:31 — KnightdaleParent"School board member Lori Millberg said she has gotten letters from parents complaining how their traditional-calendar schools have become overcrowded through the consent process."
They were upset about the overcrowding at their school but did they want to convert to a MYR or did they want the other MYR unconverted to open more seats. OR did they did not care what happened as long as they had their traditional seat in an uncrowded school.
Backwards Comment
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 11:13 — choice4all"school leaders blamed the consent process for underutilization of year-round schools, crowding at traditional-calendar schools and damaging efforts to maintain balanced, healthy schools." SHOULD READ (or meant to say) The consent process screwed up our healthy school plan to maintain balance (first and foremost) that crowded traditional schools (traditional calendar is what parents wanted) and underutilized YR schools because their was no Healthy Balance. Cry me a river BOE and WCPSS.......CANNOT WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER!!!!!! Can someone please put a gag order on Millberg or is everyone happy she keeps on shooting herself in the foot??!!!
Highlighting the wreckage
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 21:40 — SDR256My reply:
Happy she keeps shooting herself in the foot.
Hoping it wakes folks up to voting in the fall.
In the article today it was
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 08:28 — rr77rr99In the article today it was mentioned that parents do have a "choice" they can to go traditional schools if they "choose."
This is not accurate... parent can "choose" to APPLY to another school, but the "choice" to ALLOW the child into that school is up to the School Board.
I get pretty ticked off when I hear the general lemming population tell me, "But you have a choice" .... taking on face value what the y read in the paper.
I have to go through the song and dance about how NO PARENT has a "choice". They sit and wait to see what the school board "chooses" for them and then they can "chose" to fight that.
But that's the way it's
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 11:00 — chaboardBut that's the way it's always been for those "choosing" year round over traditional. You have exactly the same "choice" now that "voluntary" year round has always had, right? The level of choice hasn't changed...only the default has.
Well....
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 15:45 — Bob_SconceSo, the old way was dumb also. Under both the "old" and "new" systems, there are year-round schools with available seats and students willing to fill them. But, because those students don't match the demographics the district is looking for, they are denied.
As for the "you're just changing the default" argument, here's an analogy: "You have a choice between filet mignon or fried brains. If you don't like the default, you can ask and maybe we'll give you the other choice. Our default used to be filet. Now, it's fried brains." Year-round schools and fried brains are both sufficiently oddball that neither should be the default, even if (at least in theory) they're both better for the people involved.
I don't understand why you
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 12:36 — Eric_BI don't understand why you are carrying the board's water over mandatory year-round when year-round demonstrably harms low income families.
You seemed concerned about protecting the rights of low income families when it comes to the diversity policy, but on this issue you don't seem to care about low income families not wanting year-round.
Let me list some of the ways YR harms low income families:
How can you just dismiss these hardships?
Because I have yet to see
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 15:33 — chaboardBecause I have yet to see an alternative that isn't worse for low income neighborhoods. None of the advocates of "community schools" seems to be willing to address the question of how kids in high-concentration poverty neighborhoods will be better off than they are now.
I've seen data & studies that valdate atleast the general concept of busing for socio-economic diversity (namely that poor kids on the whole do much better in economically diverse schools than in concentrated poverty school) so I at least can determine that the *idea* makes some basic sense (even if the implementation may be bad and even if highly-specific local data doesn't exist).
I have NOT seen any corresponding high-level studies or data to validate the basic idea of converting to neighborhood schools as a way to help kids in high-poverty neighborhoods. Worse, I haven't even been able to get anyone to even plausibly outline the mechanism by which they expect it to do so. Data really *should* be mandatory...but even if you don't have it you should be able to lay out in a paragraph of clear English HOW you think it will help. A paragraph that can withstand some questioning and prodding. So far I have not come across anyone willing to try that.
The current system has at the least sound data-backed rationale and a long history of success here in Wake County. I'm not willing to gamble with these kids by changing things without (at the very least) some very solid plausibility arguments. But all I'm seeing is vague hand-waving...
(BTW, I wasn't "carrying the board's water" above - I was making a fairly neutral factual correction. The level of "choice" *hasn't* changed over what's been in place for well over a decade. Ony the default option has.)
Here's a study for you done
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 16:13 — Eric_BHere's a study for you done by the Urban Institute showing that student reassignment and school assignment transience reduces academic performance, especially among low income and minority students:
http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001256_student_transience.pdf
I'll Read It...
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 16:52 — chaboard...but let me get the reference straight first. What's the connection to either MYR or diversity? I presume that you intend to argue that the reduced mobility of a strictly neighborhood school system would confer an advantage over a (presumably higher mobility) non-neighborhood alternative. Seems to me that for that argument to succeed you would need to support two claims:
1) That a community school system would actually have fewer reassignments than the current system (or preferably, since we're less interested in a particular implementation than in thebroad outlines, to an ideal busing for diversity system). There WILL be necessary reassignments in a community-based system (particularly one where proximity is the PRIMARY determinant) based on growth and building.....it's not clear to me that it would necessarly be significantly smaller than the numer of reassignments needed now. That's a mathematical topology modelling question, I guess.
2) Assuming there is a benefit - and presumably the paper I'll read at your suggestion says there is - has it been quantified with enough granularity to weigh it against the benefits we know we'd lose by (for example) creating concentrated poverty schools?
Or in plainer english.....is there evidence that mobility WOULD be reduced by switching to community schools and then is there evidence that the benefit outweighs the "cost"?
Well, my initial question
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:27 — Eric_BWell, my initial question was, if you support the diversity policy due to the claim that it helps low income students in some way, why do you support mandatory year-round when it harms low income families? This is the question I would like answered.
The answer to 1) is that a community based assignment policy would necessarily entail fewer reassignments because the school district would no longer be fighting against the underlying socioeconomic differences in housing patterns. Students would no longer be bused 20 miles from ITB Raleigh to Cary just to balance someone's F&R equation.
The answer to 2) is to look at the pattern of test scores in Wake County schools. Schools with higher concentrations of poverty do not show lower test scores for low income students. Particularly, as the F&R percentage at a school rises above 40%, test scores for low income students actually tend to go up in Wake County.
What I'm saying is, show me the proof of the benefits of the current policy. The burden of proof is really on Wake County to justify the policy that has been in place for years now to show that it helps reassigned students. After all, they have the all the data necessary to do this justification. That the WCPSS 2004 study failed to show any academic benefits to reassignment for diversity is telling.
"Well, my initial question
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:51 — chaboard"Well, my initial question was, if you support the diversity policy due
to the claim that it helps low income students in some way, why do you
support mandatory year-round when it harms low income families? This
is the question I would like answered."
Fair enough. I guess I'm just not convinced that it DOES necessarily harm them. Taking your points one at a time....
We're not talking about high schools so I don't think the athletics/extracurricular participation during track out should be that big an issue.....that's not a core function of schools, it's an add-on. And where high school participation might make adifference in a college scholarship or applcation no one gets into UNC for running 7th grade track. Besides, it's not clear to me that it wouldn't be possible to find a reasonable supplied-transportation option.
More expensive child care....well, most child care is local - particularly the child care used most by poor families. They aren't the ones sending their kids to weeks at ot of ton summer camps. And *local* paid child care being cheaper in the summer is primarily a function of most demand and supply being in the summer. Once everyone is on a year-round schedule and demand is pretty much even over the four tracks I would think the market would pretty mucxh even out the supply, too. Would you argue otherwise?
There's some validity to the "older sibling in high school watching the kid argument"....but to be honest I don't think it's a good idea for most high schoolers (even the most mature ones) to be primary caregivers for children. And I don't think it should be something that's encouraged by policy.
Was that it or was there a third item?
Look, you could be right and there could be harm to them from YR...but I don't find the items you listed all that convincing.
"but to be honest I don't
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:03 — loriac"but to be honest I don't think it's a good idea for most high schoolers (even the most mature ones) to be primary caregivers for children.And I don't think it should be something that's encouraged by policy."
I work from home, and have very successfully hired neighborhood high schoolers to watch my kids during the summer. Our neighborhood runs Youth Sports programs in the summer - my kids can ride their bikes to the pool, take part in swimming, diving, tennis, at very reasonable cost. They exercise, participate in sports in a fun environment (many kids are introduced to these sports thru this program), and have fun w/ their friends in a structured environment. I didn't have to drive them to a daycare or camp, i'm supporting the neighborhood club, and employing a local teen.... YR is threatening these community activities.
In Austin, TX - all schools are on the same schedule. Spring break is a city-wide event with a huge festival - creating a great sense of community. What a contrast to Raleigh where we don't even have the same school breaks as our neighbor across the street.
So what exactly is the policy-approved method of child care? Our BOE is high on power - they are wrecking the very fabric of our community.
Right on loriac. I
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 09:07 — shearertwRight on loriac.
I believe these people have totally forgotten the wholesome benefits of the lifestyle and community you described and I also experienced, notebly, while in TX.
My ES aged kids are heavily
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 08:36 — shearertwMy ES aged kids are heavily involved in sports etc. and the YR thing is a constant issue. No one is on the same track, some are traditional, on and on. Its almost impossible to organize practices, camps where everyone can attend, occasional o/n trips, etc. In my mind, these activities are not "add-ons" part are essential activities to a childs well rounded development. There a many lessons and habits developed in these activities not addressed in a public school day. Nor should they be. If you don't think these activities are important, just go to the mall and look around...There may be an obesity problem in this country.
Also, in my opinion, YR has a profound effect on the overall community because no one is on similar schedules with kids. A sense of community, again, my opinion, is also important to our children's development and our ability to hold schools accountable.
Finally, your comment, "but to be honest I don't think it's a good idea for most high schoolers (even the most mature ones) to be primary caregivers for children. And I don't think it should be something that's encouraged by policy. " is absolutely rediculous. Are you kidding? You know how, what and who is best for people to have look after their kids? My family has used HS and college age kids for part-time (4-6 hrs/day) childcare for several summers with great results. I personally think its much, much better for my kids to stay at my home then to go to a day care center (any day care center). Believe me, I know what is best for my kids. The last people I need making policies encouraging one thing or another with regard to childcare is the gov't, esp. WCPSS.
"but to be honest I don't
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 06:50 — CaryCurmudgeon"but to be honest I don't think it's a good idea for most high schoolers
(even the most mature ones) to be primary caregivers for children. And
I don't think it should be something that's encouraged by policy."
So let's demand that those F&R families cough up the money to pay for the child care that we think they should be using !!
Market adjustment for childcare
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 19:38 — FalcQ: Who generally are the employees of the places that provide the childcare? A: HS and college students
Q: When are HS and college students available to be employed by organizations that provide childcare? A: Summer (at local Y summer camp the counselors drop like flys in mid-August when colleges start up)
Q: What are the odds of converting HS and colleges to true YR schedule? A: Slim to none
Q: Demand will go up, but how will supply be increased? A: ?
Q: What happens to prices when demand exceeds supply? A: Prices increase.
Here's the schedule for the Boys/Girls club, please note the very first line under hours of operation:
Based on the Wake County Public Schools Traditional School Calendar.
Normal school days: 2:30-8:00pm
Saturdays: 9:00-2:00pm, September-April (If the member is involved in the Saturday program.)
School holidays/teacher workdays: 8:00-6:00pm
Summer hours: 7:00-6:00pm
Falc, if child care cost is
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 20:39 — user1234Falc, if child care cost is a primary issue against YR it seems like that should be the issue we solve. So, could WCPSS offer competive child care during breaks and would that make YR more acceptable. So, maybe kids would go to the same school everyday of the year but during breaks there might be maybe 35 kids in a class with mostly play run be a TA.
I agree with Eric and also
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 00:17 — Falc1) Couldn't be at the school because if capacity utilization is being maxed, which is one of the biggest claims for having YR, there would be no space. Another location would be needed, which unless free, puts a dent in the cost-saving reason for having YR. Plus, if at/near the school what about the kids assigned to that school from outside the immediate area, they would need to bus them to daycare?
2) If school system is subsidizing childcare that puts a dent in the cost-savings.
3) Still haven't solved the problem of who will actually be employed to provide the care. What cost competitive labor pool would be available YR? I may have mentioned before that my hometown provided free summer day camp to anyone in the community (through parks and rec), but it was staffed by recent HS grads as their minimum wage summer job before they went off to college.
Finding coverage for a few hundred - maybe, but thousands? Already 22 MYR and counting (all new opening as MYR) and what if they pursue the let's make them all YR theory. How does the marketplace provide childcare for that many (and I don't just mean low-income) on a YR basis when the labor pool that is probably most cost-effective is not available?
The whole reason the board
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 21:17 — Eric_BThe whole reason the board is pushing MYR is for capacity reasons. If YR schools were fully utilized, there would be no space in the schools for students to continue to attend for child care purposes during track out.
Maybe WCPSS could subsidize child care for low income students during track out, but that would raise costs even higher than the already higher operating costs of YR schools. Where would the cost savings of YR be then?
It's not fair or equitable
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 19:19 — Eric_BIt's not fair or equitable that the low income kids being bused into a suburban school from 10 miles away cannot participate in sports in 7th and 8th grade just because they cannot get transportation to school during track outs. Sure it's not a primary function of schools, but it's still important to many kids and the unequal access due to year-round vs. traditional is not right.
What kind of other transportation option would work that would not cost more $$$? Are you suggesting taxis? How many city buses run from downtown Raleigh to Cary or NW Raleigh or Garner? Would you put a middle schooler on a city bus alone?
Cheaper child care in the summer is a function of supply and demand. Year-round track out child care will always be more expensive because there will always be less supply. High school and college students going to school on a traditional calendar, a source of cheaper labor for summer camps, will be unable to work as many hours for track out camps as they would over the summer time.
I don't see anything wrong with older high school or college age siblings watching younger children. Also, many parents can arrange for kids to stay with relatives for periods over the summer. It's much harder to arrange this 4 times a year for 3 week periods.
No availabilty of summer school for remediation was the third item. If year-round schools really are used for capacity reasons then there will be no room for students to stay during track out periods for remediation.
Sports are important to many
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 19:15 — Big_PictureSports are important to many families. When both parents work the child cannot get to school for practice during track out. Same goes for those students using WCPSS busing. No practice=no participation.
Year-round
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 16:08 — Eric_BI was really talking about mandatory year-round. Why do you support mandatory year-round given the demonstrable harm (reasons listed above) it causes low income families?
As for busing for diversity, how do you explain Charlotte-Mecklenburg's improving test scores relative to state average since 2001 across the board (all cohorts) while Wake's are dropping? This just happens to correspond to the abandonment of busing. It seems to me that what you've called a "gamble" is working out out pretty well there.
Recycling the same old failed policies from the 1960s and 70s that so many school districts across the country have abandoned and are abandoning, simply is not translating to student academic success for low income students.
In Wake County, the most socioeconomic diverse elementary schools have the lowest EOG test scores for low income students. For example, take a look at the low income EOG scores for Partnership, Olds, and Root. Compare them with high F&R schools like Carver, Aversboro, and Zebulon. Which schools come out on top? The high F&R schools. I have spreadsheets and charts to prove it. You can check for yourself on ncreportcards.org. Be sure to look at ED EOG scores and passing percentages.
What makes it even worse is that the diverse schools listed above are magnet schools while the high F&R schools are not, yet low income students in high F&R schools beat their counterparts at the magnet schools!
Eric, Do you consider
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 16:32 — user1234Eric,
Do you consider that these kids are getting "bussed all over the place"? Except for Aversboro and a spattering of nodes in the other schools the maps look contiguous. If Aversboro is high F&R they sure when a long way looking for those kids. Also, Olds and Root as Traditional schedule. Does that mean that traditional is worse? Seems like too many varible to make a good comparison.
Root
http://wwwgis2.wcpss.net/prod/mapscript/WCMapscript.php?MainOption=FindNodes&NodeType=BASE&MagProg=&SchoolInfo=548+Root+Elementary&ProgramTitle=Base+Attendance+Area&MagName=&CalendarYear=2008-2009
Olds
http://wwwgis2.wcpss.net/prod/mapscript/WCMapscript.php?MainOption=FindNodes&NodeType=BASE&MagProg=&SchoolInfo=524+Olds+Elementary&ProgramTitle=Base+Attendance+Area&MagName=&CalendarYear=2008-2009
Carver
http://wwwgis2.wcpss.net/prod/mapscript/WCMapscript.php?MainOption=FindNodes&NodeType=BASE&MagProg=&SchoolInfo=362+Carver+Elementary&ProgramTitle=Base+Attendance+Area&MagName=&CalendarYear=2008-2009
Aversboro
http://wwwgis2.wcpss.net/prod/mapscript/WCMapscript.php?MainOption=FindNodes&NodeType=BASE&MagProg=&SchoolInfo=320+Aversboro+Elementary+(APPROVED)&ProgramTitle=Base+Attendance+Area&MagName=&CalendarYear=2009-2010
I did not say kids at these
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 17:13 — Eric_BI did not say kids at these schools were bused all over the place. I said that low income students at the schools with lower F&R percentages that I listed scored worse than low income students at schools with much higher F&R percentages.
It seems strange to me that low income students at a socioeconomically diverse magnet elementary school would end up doing worse than low income students at a high poverty school.
Sorry, I did not mean to mix
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 19:33 — user1234Sorry, I did not mean to mix the subjects .... when I was looking at the attendance maps those schools did not look like they were getting bussed anywhere so I was wondering wher the F&R kids that people are trying to get rid are located ... again, your findings seem counter intuitive that the more we concentrate the poor kids the smart they get ... which make me think that ghettos and housing projects should be building rockets with that logic.
To find from where the F&R are being bused
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 22:30 — Falclook at the attendence maps for schools in the areas you consider "golden": places like Brassfield, Carpenter, Davis Drive, Green Hope, Laural Park, Mills Park, Turner Creek, etc.
I know you think all of Cary is "golden" and don't want you to be confused :-), so will let you know that the node in Cary in the middle of the Carpenter map is a trailer park.
Ok here is Green Hope a
Fri, 05/08/2009 - 11:53 — user1234Ok here is Green Hope a school of distinction … is it you don’t like the kids from the two ITB nodes? Maybe 60 kids that are causing you so much consternation?
http://wwwgis2.wcpss.net/prod/mapscript/WCMapscript.php?MainOption=FindNodes&NodeType=BASE&MagProg=&SchoolInfo=439+Green+Hope+Elementary&ProgramTitle=Base+Attendance+Area&MagName=&CalendarYear=2008-2009
Come on User1234
Fri, 05/08/2009 - 14:53 — FalcYou should know by now that we are not at Green Hope or any of the other schools I listed and you sure as heck ought to know that I don't dislike F&R kids (no matter where they live) by now. Our closest school is diverse, no busing needed.
You asked from where F&R kids are being bused longer distances, so I was trying to help you figure out how to find the answer to your question.
If a single kid in this system is getting short-changed and jerked around, it bothers me, but it is not just a single kid or 60 kids -- it is 60 kids from one set of nodes, 80 kids to the next set, 75 kids to the next set, etc. A lot of kids are getting short changed because this system IMHO is focusing on the wrong issue. The students should come first. To me, this theory that "healthy schools" created by mixing test scores at all costs will lead to healthy students is not correct. There are still too many "unhealthy" students, just in a different place. I think you tend to assume people's concern is that they do not want "them" at "their" school. I do want all students to succeed at any school, for their sake. If we continue to fail to reach them as kids (whether at the school down the block or 10 miles away), what does that mean for their future except a repeat of the same cycles? What magical thing do you think happens to them at the school 10 miles away -- not how it helps schools, property values, etc. but how it helps the actual child?
Sorry
Fri, 05/08/2009 - 17:01 — user1234I did not mean to infer you did not want these kids or you went to GH. I am just familiar with GH and was just trying to better understand the problem. I just wanted to understand if "kids being bussed all over" was 100's of kids or a couple of nodes on the map. When I look at these school maps it looks like most are "neighborhood" schools with a random ITB node.
When you start to add up a few random ITB nodes
Sat, 05/09/2009 - 21:34 — Falcat a number of schools, the number of ITB low-income kids being bussed all over starts to add up. At a public hearing I heard a Stough parent speak about how she'd driven downtown to pick up a bussed student so he could participate in an evening performance of a student play. His parents had no transportation. The Stough parent drove past something like eight ES to the boy's home and was surprised to see a magnet school across the street. So, we put extra resources into magnets that offer second language, music and dance classes but the kid who lives across the street whose parents can't afford those things privately we ship out past eight other ES to a non-magnet school. Meanwhile, we bus in an upper middle-class kid from a sea of white area who gets to take those classes instead even though his family could afford them privately. Is that a good use of resources?
Good points ... it seems
Sun, 05/10/2009 - 09:45 — user1234Good points ... it seems to me also that some of those random nodes could go to a little closer school ... I wonder if that illogic happens when you blindly trust a computer program to do all the work ....
It's smoke and mirrrors
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:26 — Voice_of_Reason_Magnet schools are two schools in one. Another way Wake County hides their "dirty laundry". The dirty little secret is nobody cares as long as they can hide it. This is another reason for revamping or elimnating the magnet system.
Eric something seems wrong
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 12:12 — user1234Eric something seems wrong with your arguement. If the highest F&R schools score the highest on the EOG why wouldn't the WCPSS jump on that? If the WCPSS is all about scores and all these reassignments are to "hide" scores than it sounds like they have the solution and are not using it? It sound like you are say if we send more kids to high F&R schools like Carver, the county's EOGs scores would increase? Why are the teacher better at Carver than Green Hope or Lucy?
They are about "healthy
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 13:52 — Eric_BThey are about "healthy schools" and looking at overall school EOG passing percentages. They do not bother to look at the populations within the school (low income vs. middle class scores).
I hesitate to speculate why low income students score lower at many of the socioeconomically diverse magnet elementary schools than at high F&R schools such as the examples I gave.
My best guess is that the magnet schools are socioeconomically segregated within the school and that low income students are "warehoused" (as you would put it) and are not given the same attention as the magnet students attending.
Let me suggest another
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 14:15 — shearertwLet me suggest another possibility.
Higher F&R schools are forced by their very circumstances to adapt to and learn how to address the specific needs of such a population of students. Schools not traditionally containing higher F&R populations have NOT been forced to make such an changes. In those cases, the F&R students are more like a "burden" to be "warehoused" within the school. That is one HUGE problem with busing being your primary solution for these children. They are in effect transported away from the places that may understand and know how to address their specific needs into schools that really are not equiped to teach them effectively. So yes, they are a "burden" to there adoptive school. The magnet situation is similar in that they are designed to cater to the non-F&R so the base F&R gets "warehoused".
There is a great advantage to maintaining a specific population of students in an area so you can learn what their specific needs are and customized the instruction so that it is most effective to them. Following User's design, we make cookie cutter schools and balance the F&R and non-F&R populations and address no one's specific needs, issues or learning styles. Recipe for failing everyone, and that's what we've accomplished.
You may also find this interesting.
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 16:03 — shearertwA report on SUCCESSFUL school systems with >90%FR AND >90%ethnic group AND met >90% success on state testing standards
http://www.sabine.k12.la.us/online/leadershipacademy/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf
Very
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 17:04 — chaboardVery interesting...thanks!
However I didn't see anything in there that requires community schools or is incompatible with YR or busing. It seems to be usable with the current system as far as I can tell. Am I wrong?
I agree … community
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:15 — user1234I agree … community schools and diversity can co-exist. In fact they have to since most low income kids are dispersed around the county and not concentrated in ghettos. If we think of “community” as say 6 miles, most community schools in that radius would have a wide range of kids with a few exceptions.
I think there are many who want the low income kids out of their local school to make room for their kids. I think some blame low income kids for frequent assignments which are really due to the high growth. There may be a few folk that have always advocated for these kids though it seems logical that most people would worry about themselves first and focusing on the low income kids is just a means to their end (getting them out).
The underlying argument for community schools and keeping the low income kids concentrated in their own neighborhood seems to be:
1) Their family will now gather around their children and re-form their family, finally attend PTA, start volunteering in the classroom, and start attending after-school activities and build a new community that will surpass what they have now. And kids will take all that extra time not riding the bus to study more and improve their scores. Yeah.
2) Additional resources will come from the state? or federal government? and make everything better with more teachers and programs once these kids as sent away. I have my doubts about that. “Out of sight, out of mind”.
3) Some innovative program like KIPP will be implemented so the poor kids can stay put. People will search and find anything possible to facilitate getting these kids out. Hopefully, there is some truth to the internet hype but it remains to be proven.
I think MYR is a pocket book issue at its core. It appears having multiple breaks instead of one long one is inconvenient and more costly child care than one long break over the summer. There appears to be a large percent of people who love YR and a small vocal minority who hates it with a passion.
Curious; how do you figure
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:45 — Big_PictureCurious; how do you figure large percent of people love YR? It's quite the opposite. Large percent hate MYR. Small percent like YR.
"Small percent like
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 19:07 — user1234"Small percent like YR."
Maybe you are right but from my experience it seems like about 40% of the schools are YR and every parent I have enver met outside this blog never complains about their kids bing in YR in all the years I have lived here.