Charlotte-Mecklenburg school leaders are favorably comparing the school district to Wake County schools.
As noted in today's Charlotte Observer, CMS Superintendent Peter Gorman presented several charts on Thursday showing that black, Hispanic and low-income students in his district are now more likely to pass exams than students in those same groups in Wake and Guilford counties and statewide.
Gorman says high-poverty schools aren't ideal for students and teachers. But he said the test-score trend of CMS catching up to Wake shows it’s more important to improve teaching in those schools than to shuffle students.
“I think the conclusion is you teach your way to greatness. That’s the only way to get there," Gorman said.
Charlotte-Meck still lags overall behind Wake. But CMS has narrowed the overall gap. Among specific groups, such as black, Hispanic and poor kids, CMS outperforms Wake.
CMS abandoned busing for diversity in 2002 in favor of neighborhood schools. Critics of the switch note that the number of high poverty schools has shot up in CMS, which they say will happen in Wake without a diversity policy.
Critics of CMS have attributed higher spending with the reason why it's doing better than Wake among some subgroups.
Charlotte-Meck has been regularly beaten up by Wake diversity policy supporters. For instance, CMS was mentioned in a TV ad during last fall's school board campaign and was highlighted in a comparison paper with Wake.
CMS had 29 schools with passing rates of 90 percent or higher. Wake had 14.
But CMS also had nine non-alternative schools with pass rates of 50 percent or lower. Wake has none.
Comments
new supdt
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 14:03 — red_balloonBut he said the test-score trend of CMS catching up to Wake shows it’s more important to improve teaching in those schools than to shuffle students.
“I think the conclusion is you teach your way to greatness. That’s the only way to get there," Gorman said.
WCPSS needs someone with this line of thinking to succeed Dr. Burns.
Dr. Burns . . .
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 20:44 — stepbystep. . . who promoted data-driven, embedded PLTs to steer high quality instruction, which the board majority immediately rejected without giving a thought to learning more about the decision-making process behind the initiative.
Graduation rates
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 11:07 — virginiadareI still don't see how people can say CMS is doing better than Wake, even with low-income students. If the graduation rate is the main indicator of success, WCPSS out-performs CMS in every category, except for ties in low-income and Hispanic students, according to Ann Doss-Helms in the Charlotte Observer:
"Since Wake/CMS comparisons seem to be the hot topic (look for more on that in the near future, too), I'll note that Wake's overall 2010 four-year rate of 78 percent tops CMS, as do Wake's graduation rates for black and white students. For Hispanic and low-income teens the two megadistricts are tied and below the state average."
This is despite spending much less per pupil. Obviously Wake is (or rather WAS) doing something right!
CMS only spends 5% more per
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 13:42 — shearertwCMS only spends 5% more per pupil than WCPSS but has nearly 2x as many low income students. I would't say WCPSS spends "much less per pupil". But then again, I like to work with facts.
Also, when comparing CMS and WCPSS, generally we're referring to the differing policies with regard to treatment of low income students. So in that respect, CMS is kicking our behinds.
So if you want to say that WCPSS's former diversity policy was great for kids from rich families with highly educated parents but CMS's policies are better for kids from low income and minority families, that's fine but are you really sure that's a good argument for keeping the diversity policy in place in WCPSS?
Absolutely! Again, as far
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 15:51 — virginiadareAbsolutely! Again, as far as graduation rates, WCPSS is way ahead of CMS in all categories except for ties in low-income and Hispanic. I wouldn't say CMS is "kicking our behinds." Why wouldn't you want much better performance in all other groups and equal performance in low income and Hispanic? And perhaps this past year the difference in spending was around 5% after all the cuts CMS had to make, but it was much more than that over the past decade, when most of these graduates were in the system and benefitted from the increased funding. And it wasn't only because of increased numbers of F&R students in CMS, but was because local funds were so much greater.
"teach your way to greatness"
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 16:30 — g88ky07not bus your way to oblivion. That sounds like how!
Do they have 6-8 hr. PLT's there???
Still silence on that I see.
OT -- 20th Day
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 10:52 — Bob_SconceKeung -- Any clue when the 20th day year-round numbers will be released? 20 days is today. Did they ever release the 10th day numbers? (Imagine that would have been low, since one track hadn't started yet.)
Historically, Wake doesn't
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 12:06 — KeungHui (author)Historically, Wake doesn't separately release 20th-day numbers for year-round schools. They're put out at the same time as the traditional-calendar and modified-calendar schools. That info usually comes out in late September or October. Unoffiically, I'm hearing that Wake is pretty close to reaching its projection of 3,800 new students. With all the other stuff going on, I didn't ask about 10th-day numbers for year-round.
CMS Equity Report
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 08:09 — bluedaisyGo to the CMS website and check out their annual Equity Report. Recently, the Equity Committee asked for class sizes of 16 in high poverty schools, vs each poor student counting as 1.3 students in teacher allotment, as the 1.3 allotment did not meet the needs of the students. That means another classroom in the 'burbs gets .7 of a teacher, or the county has to cough up local funds to pay for the .3 deficit. And, if a system has to truck in hundreds of "Teach for America" teachers, they are having a problem with retention. And yes, their PPS is more than Wake's. Millions more are generated. Generated from tax dollars, of course, not PTA's. Yes, CMS does offer differential pay to teach in a high poverty school. The gains in academic achievement are not necessarily due to corralling low performing students, gains are due to spending more money on them. It all comes down to how much more money you are willing to pay in taxes to have neighborhood schools. This is all from my friends in Charlotte. By the way, Charlotte's tax rate is right at 30% higher than Wake's. My friends were livid when I told them ours. Go check out the CMS website for more.
But he said the test-score
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 07:50 — CaryCurmudgeonBut he said the test-score trend of CMS catching up to Wake shows it’s more important to improve teaching in those schools than to shuffle students.
“I think the conclusion is you teach your way to greatness. That’s the only way to get there," Gorman said.
-- Wow, what a concept.
Catch us if you can
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:47 — user12345... he said the test-score trend of CMS catching up ..
I am glad Wake can give CMS a leader to follow ....
Given that WC has half as
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 10:39 — shearertwGiven that WC has half as many F&R students and a far more educated parental population, this should be a race between the tortoise and the hare. The good news is, the the hare has finally woken up, perhaps just it time to prevent us from having to look at tortoise "behind" for the next few years.
Given that WC has half as
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 12:39 — user12345Given that WC has half as many F&R students and a far more educated parental population
You made the arguement in an earlier post it is a town (you said town like Knightdale vs. Holly Springs) or in this case, CMS's, fault for letting F&Rs move in a breed right?
User, Starting you
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 13:44 — shearertwUser,
Starting you weekend partying a little early? I can't understand are word your post?!
teaching
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 06:32 — stepbystepI agree that a key to improving achievement is high quality teaching, and I would add that strong school leadership is a big factor as well. How does CMS do in recruiting and retaining high quality teachers to their 9 low-achieving schools? Does it cost CMS extra money to attract teachers to low-achieving schools? What's the overall per-pupil-spending rate in CMS compared with Wake County? Are there programming areas elsewhere in CMS that have been cut in order to provide extra support to low-achieving schools?
duplicate
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:56 — shearertwduplicate
All great questions! I
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 08:20 — shearertwAll great questions! I think we should send an envoy of former WCPSS Dulanyites, the current BOE and prominent diversity supporters on a school bus to Charlotte so they can beg and plead for the answers on how to run a school system. Perhaps Rev Barbar could drive the bus!
As has be established and dicussed in great detail here, the PPS rate for CMS is higher primarily because the have twice as many F&R students as WCPSS. The morons who follow my post claiming high tax rates and high PPS rates, etc for CMS will not tell you that part of the story.
Maybe I am misunderstanding
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:28 — magnetParentMaybe I am misunderstanding your claim, but are you saying that the PPS rage for CMS is higher because, with more F&R students, the cost is higher because of the free or reduced price lunch? If so, my understanding is that they pay for those lunches out of a separate federal fund and is not part of the PPS. Or are you saying that their PPS is higher because they have to pay more to those students in teachers/resources (smaller classes, extra remedial education teachers, higher teacher pay at high F&R schools, etc), which is what the "morons" are trying to say?
The PPS is actually not as
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 09:56 — shearertwThe PPS is actually not as straight forward a calculation as you might think as different systems calculate it differently. In my opinion, the best way to calculate that number is to divide the total budget by the total number of students served during that school year.
My current understanding is that if you remove the funds received for F&R students from the budget of WCPSS and CMS, then their actual PPS's are pretty much the same (i.e within a $100 or so of each other). If you have information otherwise, please share.
I am not saying one way or
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 11:49 — magnetParentI am not saying one way or another, but in looking at (granted it is old data) the PPE comparisons of certain NC school districts, Wake spends less than Meck (regardless of F&R).
Look at page 5 of this document:
http://www.wcpss.net/financial/investing-in-public-education.pdf
It states "Federal funds are also used by Child Nutrition to provide free or
reduced-price meals to children in need."
And the breakdown between Wake and Meck:
Wake Meck
State: $4574 $4615
Fed: $418 $485
Local: $2119 $2392
Total: $7108 $7492
So, since only a portion of federal funds are used for the F&R lunches, I don't think I see that removing it from the equation brings Wake and CMS to an equal number.
I didn't say equal, I said
Fri, 08/06/2010 - 13:28 — shearertwI didn't say equal, I said pretty much the same. So they spend $384 more dollars per student (actually only $273 more in local funds) to teach a population with 2x as many F&R students with a parental population not nearly as educated as WC to achieve similar results. That $384 dollars comes out to only 5% more than WCPSS in a county with far more challenges than WC. Now that sounds like a bargain to me!
Here's that math
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 10:30 — bluedaisy$384 = almost the same? Are you kidding? Here's that math using $384.
Classroom of 25 - $9600
Elementary school of 600 = $230,400
Middle of 1200 = $460,800
High of 2500 = $960,000
District of 140,000 = $53,760,000
Goldman referenced how many teachers can be purchased with one Sr Admin position at central office. Since we already beat CMS on so many levels at our lower funding, imagine what the funding level of CMS can do for just our at risk students here! Somebody else do the math how much of a tax increase we'll need to get that kind of money. I'm thinking 10%.
Of that $384, $100 goes to
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 14:45 — jeffrey1Of that $384, $100 goes to busing.
CMS spends $100 more per student for busing. Not because bus routes are longer in CMS, but because they bus far more students. Comparison from 2007-08 school year:
WCPSS CMS
Transportation Budget $56 million $69.6 million
Enrollment 134,002 134,242
Daily Ridership 68,000 86,500
Cost/Student $418 $518
Cost/Rider $823 $805
So we're down to a $284 difference.
According to the state
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 16:35 — danofncAccording to the state report here: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/statisticalprofile/2009profile.pdf ,
WCPSS had 71973 kids on buses in 07-08, and CMS had 87033.
That same website listed the cost per pupil as 740.53 for CMS and 690.77 for WCPSS. CMS was cheaper "per bus" and "per mile", but WCPSS was cheaper "per student". CMS spent $64,450,132 and WCPSS spent $49,716,690.
The information is in Table 31 of the .pdf file.
Did you get your numbers from the approved budgets or a different report than the one I found of what actually transpired for that year? Based on your reduction of the gap based on transportation, the actual numbers from the state (which I'm sure you will dispute because of your personal "analysis") would suggest that the gap should grow from $384 to $434.
A Few Good Men
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 18:22 — jeffrey1You know, I don't mind if you ask me for my source. But if you're going to continue with snarky comments like I'm sure you will dispute because of your personal "analysis," (your quotes), then I am going to be less likely to provide you with the information in the future.
Your big mistake was going to a third party (DPI) for your information. As numbers move from one agency to another there tends to be errors. I can assure you that I went directly to WCPSS for its busing statistics, and went directly to CMS for its statistics. I even received confirmation from both organizations that the numbers reported were correct.
Now if you want the source, there's only one way you're going to get it. As "A Few Good Men" has already been referenced recently on this blog, I am sure you won't mind another peek into this great movie (Just in case you can't figure it out, I'm playing the role of Jessep and you're playing the role of Kaffee):
KAFFEE Let's go. Colonel, I'll just need
a copy of
Santiago's transfer orderthose busing links.
JESSEP What's that?
KAFFEE
Santiago's transfer order.The links to the busing stats.
You guys have paper work on that
kind of thing, I just need it for
the file.
JESSEP For the file.
KAFFEE Yeah.
JESSEP Of course you can have a copy of
the
transfer orderbusing links.For the file. I'm here to help
anyway I can.
KAFFEE Thank you.
JESSEP You believe that, don't you?
Danny? That I'm here to help
anyway I can?
(Hey, you even have the right name!)
KAFFEE Of course.
JESSEP The corporal'll run you by
Ordinance on your way out to
the airstrip. You can have all
the
transfer ordersbusing linksyou want.
KAFFEE Let's go.
The LAWYERS start to leave.
JESSEP But you have to ask me nicely.
KAFFEE stops. Turns around.
Sam and JO stop and turn.
KAFFEE I beg your pardon?
JESSEP You have to ask me nicely. You
see, Danny, I can deal with the
bullets and the bombs and the blood.
I can deal with the heat and the
stress and the fear. I don't want
money and I don't want medals.
What I want is for you to stand there
in that fa---oty white uniform, and
with your Harvard mouth, extend me
some f---in' courtesy. You gotta
ask me nicely.
KAFFEE and JESSEP are frozen.
Everyone'staring at Kaffee;
KAFFEE Colonel Jessep ... if it's not too
much trouble, I'd like a copy of
the transferorderthose businglinks. Sir.
JESSEP smiles.
JESSEP No problem.
Touchy touchy Jeffrey.
Sun, 08/08/2010 - 21:13 — zandeTouchy touchy Jeffrey. Geesh! Like you never make comments one might perceive as "snarky."
"The Wheels of Education -
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 18:52 — danofnc"The Wheels of Education - Winter 2008 Edition"
That has your 68,000 students (you left off the +) and it has your $56 million budget.
The only problem is that it was published in Winter 2008, which would have been basically right in the middle of the 2007-08 school year. I already knew that when I questioned your source, I just wanted to see how you'd defend it (Hence the 'analysis' reference).
Charlotte's Transportation Home page lists 86,500 daily riders during the 08-09 school year. That's the exact same number that you list (and apparently claim to have verified) for 07-08. Is that not the craziest coincidence ever?
Since you called me Kaffee and made yourself Jessep, I feel like I should ask you if you really
ordered a code redfudged a little about your sources.Your correct for the WCPSS
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 21:24 — jeffrey1Your correct for the WCPSS link. What's to defend? My original post stated that data was from the 2007-2008 school year, and that data is from the 2007-2008 school year. It's exactly what I said it was.
Sorry, your source for Mecklenberg is not where I got my numbers. Since you did not ask nicely, you'll have to find it on your own.
Is that not the craziest coincidence ever?
Another snarky comment. One more and you're out. I doubt Jessep would have given you a second chance.
And as for the data itself, I noticed you failed to retract your erroneous suggestion that the gap between CMS and WCPSS should grow to $434. It appears YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Snarky?
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 22:42 — danofncThat's a serious question.
The numbers from CMS' website say that they had 86,500 bus riders a year later than you say they had 86,500 bus riders. That is one heck of a coincidence. I'm not going to beg for your source, and I'm not even going to ask you nicely. I don't care. Your numbers are a fraud and you've been called out on it.
What's to defend?
You claimed that I was wrong in using a state report that provided data from after the 07-08 school year. You claimed that your data was more accurate. Your data wasn't based in fact, but was based on an estimate. There is no way that your data for WCPSS can be fact, because it provides projected data for the 07-08 school year, not actual numbers from the 07-08 school year. That makes your numbers and your claims fraudulent.
You said that the gap was "only $284" because of the $100/pupil difference in busing. I showed that the actual data from 07-08 states that WCPSS spent $50 less per rider than CMS. If the logic in saying that the number should increase by $50 is erroneous, than your suggestion that it should have dropped is just as erroneous, because it's the EXACT SAME LOGIC.
Analyze That.
The numbers from CMS'
Sun, 08/08/2010 - 01:45 — jeffrey1The numbers from CMS' website say that they had 86,500 bus riders a year later than you say they had 86,500 bus riders
Like I said, I got my figure from a different source. However, you should note that enrollment at CMS schools actually declined slightly from 2007-08 to 2008-09, and explains why the same number could be reported for both years. I am not sure whether you want to believe that CMS ridership was lower or higher than 86,500 for 2007-08, but it doesn't matter. It may affect the cost/rider by a couple of dollars in either direction, but it will not change the cost/student, because that is based on enrollment, not riders. That's the only stat that matters in the context of this discussion. Since we do not disagree on enrollment figures, the only other piece of data that affects the cost/student is the amount spent on transportation (discussed in more detail below).
You claimed that I was wrong in using a state report that provided data from after the 07-08 school year.
Your data wasn't based in fact, but was based on an estimate. There is no way that your data for WCPSS can be fact, because it provides projected data for the 07-08 school year, not actual numbers from the 07-08 school year
I showed that the actual data from 07-08 states that WCPSS spent $50 less per rider than CMS.
WCPSS did spend less - you just got the amount wrong, then made a huge error on how to interpret that number. I am saying that WCPSS spent $100 less per rider than CMS, i.e. CMS spends $100 more per rider than WCPSS. Remember, we're looking at why CMS spends $384 more per student on education than WCPSS. If CMS spends more on busing than WCPSS, then that amount must be subtracted (not added, as you did) from CMS spending to determine just how much of the extra $384 is actually going to the classroom. So CMS spends about $284 more per student in the classroom. not $384.
In fact, your figure of $50 less is also in error. If you want to use your budget numbers, the results would be even more favorable to me. Since we're talking about cost per student, your figures would show a cost/student of $371 in WCPSS ($49,716,690 / 134,002) and a cost/student of $480 in CMS ($64,450,132 / 134,242). That's $107 more than WCPSS, meaning even less of a difference ($277) for money spent in the classroom.
I am certain that the transportation budgets in 2007-08 were $56 million for WCPSS and $69.6 million for CMS, but if you insist on using your numbers, it proves my point even more! However, I do think (I haven't looked into it enough to be certain) that your numbers are significantly less than actual expenditures because you failed to include the cost of Exceptional Children (EC) Pupil Contract Transportation. In 2007-08, Wake spent more than $11 million on EC Transportation.
I'll conclude with two additional notes:
You, and others on here, may be tempted to use the fact that WCPSS spends a smaller amount on a per student basis for transportation, to conclude that busing for diversity is cheaper than zone busing. However, that's not the case, because a significantly higher percentage of students ride the bus in CMS than do in WCPSS. That is the reason (and the only reason) why my original post included the cost/rider statistic, which showed that the difference between CMS and WCPSS is less than $20/rider.
Finally, I think your first reaction might be to quickly post a hasty response that tries to challenge the information that I have presented here. I suggest that you read my post several times and study the numbers. Remember I agree that WCPSS spends less on transportation than CMS on a per student basis. And that is why $384 difference in overall per-student spending is not as significant as originally stated.
You really should question
Sun, 08/08/2010 - 12:55 — danofncYou really should question your data rather than trying to explain the exact same number for two straight years. The fact that the number is 86,500, and not something like 85,789, lets you know that it is an estimate. CMS' membership from 07-08 to 08-09 did NOT remain stagnant, either. They grew by almost 2000 students.
That .pdf (Wheels of Education) has to be from January '08 (the middle of the 07-08 year) because it includes an "introduction" of sorts to the hybrid electric bus introduced during the 07-08 school year and also because it says "The law banning the use of cell phones by drivers in now in effect." As in, it just went into effect. That law went into effect Dec. 1, 2007. The sentence wouldn't make sense in a brochure printed in Dec. of '08.
The reason your data is a projection is because it includes the money budgeted for transportation, but not the actual amount spent. You can't know how much you've spent until after you've spent it. The numbers you used for Wake County are a projection of how many kids will be bused and how much it will cost to bus them.
"However, I do think (I haven't looked into it enough to be certain) that your numbers are significantly less than actual expenditures because you failed to include the cost of Exceptional Children (EC) Pupil Contract Transportation. In 2007-08, Wake spent more than $11 million on EC Transportation."
Apparently, you didn't go look at the table of information I provided.
TABLE 31
STUDENT TRANSPORT ATION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL BUSES, 2007–08*
(INCLUDES CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION)
I understand where the calculations were off in my post. Part of that is just me not thinking clearly enough (I was doing about 14 things while posting), and part of it is that I think it's a little odd to think of busing costs on a per-every-student basis instead of a per-bused-student basis. It didn't really click for me that you were doing that.
I suppose it comes down to the old "massage the numbers in a way to prove your point" thing.
For example, if you divide (from Table 31) miles traveled by pupils served to get a "miles per students bused" calculation, CMS' kid went 271.26 miles and WCPSS' kid went 217.13. Wake spent $50 less per student than CMS, but you spend day after day telling me and others how going to an assignment system more like Charlotte is going to save money. When I say it's more expensive and keeps kids on the bus longer, you call me crazy. Well, the simple numbers from that table would indicate that I'm right.
You really should question
Mon, 08/09/2010 - 22:11 — jeffrey1You really should question your data rather than trying to explain the exact same number for two straight years. The fact that the number is 86,500, and not something like 85,789, lets you know that it is an estimate.
Of course it is an estimate. The number of kids that ride the bus each day can differ by hundreds. Just one less kid or one more kid on every route would change the daily number by 2200! OK, you win it's an estimate. Read on to see why it does not matter.
CMS' membership from 07-08 to 08-09 did NOT remain stagnant, either. They grew by almost 2000 students.
According to http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/mediaroom/aboutus/documents/diversity.pdf (A CMS publication by the way), it declined by a little more than 1000.
The numbers you used for Wake County are a projection of how many kids will be bused and how much it will cost to bus them.
You can argue this all you want, but I received verification from WCPSS that $56 million was spent. Also, if you know anything about budgets, you should know that what you don't spend, you return. And in the business world, nobody returns money.
Apparently, you didn't go look at the table of information I provided.
TABLE 31
STUDENT TRANSPORT ATION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL BUSES, 2007–08*
(INCLUDES CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION)
Apparently you haven't looked at a detailed budget. There are two different line items for contract transportation. One for contract transportation and one for EC contract transportation. Like I said EC transportation was $11 million. I noticed that the title of the table that you referenced says "ON PUBLIC SCHOOL BUSES." You are aware, aren't yout, that WCPSS spends a lot of money on transportation of students by car.
it's a little odd to think of busing costs on a per-every-student basis instead of a per-bused-student basis.
I suppose it comes down to the old "massage the numbers in a way to prove your point" thing.
No it doesn't. As I showed in my last post, if we use your numbers, the difference is $107/student. If we use my numbers, the difference is $100/student. This is money spent by CMS that is not going into the classroom -- and that was the whole reason for my original post, i.e. to show bluedaisy that he/she could not assume that all of the extra money was spent in the classroom. It was a simple, undisputable point.
Wake spent $50 less per student than CMS, but you spend day after day telling me and others how going to an assignment system more like Charlotte is going to save money.