Wake County school board member John Tedesco is being vilified by diversity policy supporters for invoking the Brown v. Board of Education decision on Tuesday to justify going to community schools.
Tedesco drew a comparison with how poor children in Wake couldn't go to their neighborhood school with 9-year-old Linda Brown not being allowed to go to her neighborhood school because she was black. His mention of the Brown case drew boos and shouts of “how dare you” and “shame, shame” from the audience.
"So what we’ve done in this county at some time now, is told many of our children and many of our families even if they live near a school, because their mom and dad doesn’t have enough money in their pocket, they’re not welcome to go to school with their friends and their neighbors," Tedesco said. "And I just don’t find that fair."
After the vote, the public had some pretty harsh words to say to the board majority and Tedesco.
"You literally have what amounts to blasphemy Mr. Tedesco by invoking Brown vs. Board to justify the resegregation of the schools," said Sarah Moncelle of Apex. "It's beyond Orwellian, It's contemptible."
In a blog post Tuesday night, Rob Schofield of the liberal N.C. Policy Watch accused Tedesco of engaging in "revisionist history" by bringing up Brown.
Schofield said Tedesco was making a "tortured analogy" to compare busing a poor child to an integrated, lower poverty school with denying a black child a seat at an all-white school near her home because of her race.
"This is the person drafting THE PLAN to totally remake one of the largest and most successful school systems in the United States: a man who has such a twisted and confused view of American history that he’s willing to cite the most important anti-segregation case ever handed down by the Supreme Court as grounds for intentionally re-segregating the schools!" Schofield writes. "This is Orwellian reasoning of the worst kind. What’s next for Tedesco? An MLK quote? Cesar Chavez?"
Brown v. Board is in the news this week because Monday was the 56th anniversary of the famous U.S. Supreme Court intergration ruling.
Comments
Mr. Tedesco compares the
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 13:50 — askmisterbrownMr. Tedesco compares the plight of Linda Brown, who was not assigned to the nearby school, with the plight of present-day Wake County students who are not assigned to the nearby school. But the Supreme Court did not strike down Linda Brown's assignment because she was not assigned to the nearby school. The Supreme Court struck it down because she was assigned for the purpose of segregation, and SEGREGATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, not to mention immoral, evil, and based on mistaken notions.
There are various reasons present-day Wake County students are not assigned to the nearby school. Some involve capacity, some involve growth patterns, some involve stability. One reason is the goal to prevent concentrations of poverty. THIS GOAL, unlike segregation, IS A NOBLE GOAL, because it is based on the overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that, with rare exceptions, schools with high concentrations of poverty DO NOT AFFORD A QUALITY EDUCATION and DO NOT PREPARE STUDENTS FOR SUCCESS in the modern world.
It is truly as simple as this: It is WRONG to sacrifice convenience for the evil goal of segregation. It is RIGHT to sacrifice convenience for the NOBLE goal of ensuring equal educational opportunities for all.
I am all for sacrificing
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 23:48 — red_balloonI am all for sacrificing convenience for education. But, "equal educational opportunties for all"? I doubt you mean that. It is just a grandiose euphemism for busing.
So
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 20:55 — TrailerParkGirlSo, due to which of your mentioned reasons (capacity, growth patterns or stabililty) are families who can see Washington Magnet ES in dowtown Raleigh from their home (and would like to attend there so they have the opportunity to be involved in their child's school) being bussed WITHOUT CHOICE to Olive Chapel non-magnet on the far side of Apex and meanwhile a family base assigned to Olive Chapel who didn't consider OC good enough gets to apply to and go to Washington BY CHOICE?
Is that your NOBLE idea of equal educational opportunties for all? Who are YOU to decide for ED families that they should sacrifice the opportunity of parental involvement? Personally, I don't consider parental involvement a CONVENIENCE. If people are expected to sacrifice "convenience" for your NOBLE goal then it should be an EVEN sacrifice for all. Either force bus all NED and ED alike or give choice to all NED and ED alike (and I don't just mean the "opportunity to apply"). The sacrifce of your NOBLE goal should not fall disproportionately on some, but not others.
What I consider a NOBLE GOAL is not treating people differently just because of their SES and I dream of a day when people will be judged by the content of their INDIVIDUAL character and not their SES group or the size of their income. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath as still not a single day goes by here that someone doesn't use a SES stereotype.
The case opinion more than once mentions the concept of different treatment and inferiority as it "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone."
Hmm, wonder if being automatically labeled "at risk" or told you CAN'T go to school near home or that you won't be an involved parent anyway because you are ED might "generate a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone."
So, as Enloe is only 21% ED and not a high poverty school do you want to pretend that it affords students with a quality education and the 62% of ED students at Enloe not passing EOCs are PREPARED FOR SUCCESS in the modern world?
Why do you suppose the exceptions are "rare" and what do you suppose is different about those exceptions? You don't suppose it's because they don't treat ED as if they are different and inferior, but rather have high expectations while actually addressing their individual situations, and that is rare?
Uh.. No...
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 14:07 — Bob_SconceThe Supreme Court struck down her assignment as a violation of the 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause. It has nothing to do with whether a goal is "noble" or not. Heck. the Supreme Court cited Brown when it overturned the University of Michigan's assignment policy that had the noble goal of helping black students.
Your characterization of the evidence as "overwhelmingly conclusive" indicates that you certainly haven't looked at it in depth. But, I suppose that any falsehood that's repeated enough will be taken as truth.
Blasphemy
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 09:37 — SDR256What an interesting word choice. Blasphemy. Doesn't that imply that you're insulting someone's religion? tsk tsk tsk John. You've insulted someone's religion. You used the sacred text for your own purposes.
Get a grip folks. Policy 6200 is not 'diversity' incarnate, it is an assignment policy - for a public school system. WCPSS did not get rid of 'diversity' in the effort to 'create pockets of poverty'. There already are pockets of poverty - all around Wake County - even in (*gasp*) Cary. Children of poverty, in spite of the glorious worshiping around the 'diversity' alter - have been ignored and let down by WCPSS. All the sacred rituals and alms bearing to the great diversity gods will be disrupted - yes.
But the intent is to create a new assignment policy that allows some level of choice - so no one is 'stuck' , and add to it achievement goals that will finally address the ACADEMIC needs of the students in this county in an equitable way. Many impoverished children are able to achieve, but because of the 'diversity' quotas are not allowed to participate in challenging programs because they've been labeled as the sacrificial lambs in the diversity religion.
Speaking of equitable, a friend of mine has been doing some very interesting research. Did you know that if you take AP courses you can pump up your GPA? Guess which HS offers the most AP courses in Wake County - ding ding ding! Enloe. Enloe offers courses that other HSs offer, but at Enloe they are AP. How do they do that? The government body that approves AP courses (can't remember if it was county or state) has a disproportionate number of the list that is approved for just especially for Enloe. While Enloe's AP list is opulent, really a primo gilded list, Enloe's graduation rate of ED students is around 38%. I guess we know what their priorities are, eh? All this pumping up of the GPA might be merely irritating except that UNC and State have a quota for how many Wake students they will accept. Because Enloe has kids graduating with higher GPAs, there are a higher percentage of students going to State and UNC from Wake than from any other HS. Are they smarter? no. Better students? no. Own the goose that lays the golden eggs - ah ha!
Imagine being one of those high achieving ED kids at Enloe who is kept out of the AP track because you are ED and having to endure the insult of having your privileged classmates rant at the board meetings about keeping the system that has kept you out of AP classes. Afterall, it has helped them so much (on their way to UNC) to sit next to you - the lowly ED student - at lunch. Really opened their eyes to the world, etc etc etc. How insulting would that be to not be regarded by the school system or your classmates because of your individuality and your capacity, but for your economic status. To not be allowed by this great magnanimous and paternalistic system to take the AP classes because, well, shucks, you're ED and so of course you won't make it poor thing. And your classmates are simply too distracted by how much better a person it made them (and what a great story for their entrance application to UNC) to sit next to you (at lunch, not in class of course) because of your skin color or your economic status to see you - the person - sitting in front of them, and your future of being one of the majority from that school who will not graduate. But that's ok with the AP/privileged kids because - sigh, and a tear in the eye - they have been so enlightened.
Ick.
My experience has been that no religion has all the answers. And there are fanatics in every religion.
uhhh
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 00:07 — turnerk1IF children are being denied entrance into AP courses at Enloe (or anywhere else) because they are ED the assignment policy has nothing to do with it. Which children take AP classes is up to individual teacher recommendations and those same teachers will be at the high schools no matter which children are attending the schools. HOW students are assigned to a particular school doesn't impact which courses they take once they get to school. I think this idea that getting rid of 6200 will somehow magically mean that all the inequities of the system will go away is particularly strange. The experience a child has in a particular school has to do with the STAFF at that school. If there are teachers or administrators in a particular school who have biases for or against a particular group of students there is nothing about the assignment policy that will change that problem.
As for the GPA issue. Yes, Enloe has more AP courses than the other high schools, however, there are only so many AP courses any one child can take while they are in school. The GPAs of the valedictorians of Enloe, Green Hope, Apex, etc. are very close to one another. Somehow they all manage to take enough AP courses to have GPAs well in excess of 5.0. And there have been years that more kids got into UNC from Green Hope than Enloe.
And there have been years
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 14:47 — NWRaleighMomSarah, as you very well
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 13:23 — askmisterbrownSarah, as you very well know, no student is "kept out of the AP track because [he or she is] ED (economically deprived)." The school system does not base academic placement on economic circumstances. You are making a very serious false accusation.
Seriously misinformed
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 16:48 — SDR256You are seriously misinformed. Today over 80% of high achieving children who happened to be ED (economically disadvantaged) are in remedial programs. Children are tracked to remedial programs simply because being ED marks them as 'at risk'. Yes, it is extremely serious and it is it tragically accurate.
And, by the way, it was not my choice to share my name and we have not met - so please don't address me by my name unless you share yours.
At Risk
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 19:39 — willynillyIt is amazing what I see inside education. You are absolutely correct. Students are tagged "at risk" if they are:
From a single family home, of color, in a low SES home, on F&R, in a home with a parent or other relative that has a history of anything (drug use, incarceration, etc), and almost anything else. And you can bet, they ARE treated differently by most teachers and administrators (in my expriences).
....in a home with a parent
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 08:47 — user12345Actually, much of the status
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 12:56 — willynillyActually, much of the status of any child I teach is unknown officially. The parents status (income) may be known if a F&R form is filled out. The students file has academic and immunization information in it. There would be very little other info in it.
If a child was in Dorothea Dix we MAY find out, but it would probably be by accident. Criminial records would not be made available necessarily.
I hope your post ends the
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 13:54 — user12345I hope your post ends the discussion that children are treated differently and there are different expectation institutionally applied from data and categorizing done by WCPSS... teachers do not know income status, etc. to apply lower expectations … my wife’s expectations are set by the attendance records, ability to turn in assignments, performance on test, listening in class, etc. not some computer program …
Actually that is not
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 13:57 — willynillyActually that is not correct....there is one part of the equation that is left out....the other students. I'm not saying we do not know our students. I am 51 years old with a career in the navy behind me. I know (with at least 90% accuracy) which of my students come from a poor background, it does not take rocket science. I can tell you which kids, for the most part, have a parent or other relative who is involved with alcohol or other drugs. I can tell which kids are probably involved with sex or sexual abuse. My post was about OFFICIALLY finding out this information. If a teacher cannot get a feel for their students......they don't need to be in the business.
This smacks of the charade
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 15:24 — red_balloonThis smacks of the charade over switching from race based to SES based busing. Who it fools I know not.
How about we switch to
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 16:27 — user12345How about we switch to graduation rate? Oh, wow ... same answer as race and income ... you can not run from knowing who needs help.
The at risk kids need help.
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 10:15 — red_balloonThe at risk kids need help. And in WCPSS, EDs are considered at risk. If some teachers are able to look for substantive measures, and not economic status, in making such a determination, then it should be something that WCPSS should adopt system wide. However, for a system that uses economic status to drop students in the "at risk" bucket, it would be a tectonic shift to migrate to more meaningful measures.
I do not think it really
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 11:09 — user12345I do not think it really matters if we use income, race, number of parents, etc. to define at-risk since we have nothing to offer those kids ... we are losing teachers, class size is increasing, project enlightment has been ended ... what does it matter ... we would be better to pretend that at-risk does not exist if we can not help them.
Damaging
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 17:37 — SDR256If we eliminate the profiling of ED students as automatically at-risk, thereby stopping the unnecessary 'remediation' of Level 3 and Level 4 students - we will re-engage those kids. In other places where this was corrected, their drop out rate and suspension rates plummeted. The achievement gap shrank to almost nothing. Think about it - a lot of damage has been done by targeting children not by their scores, not by their data - but by superficial characteristics. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO USE CHILDRENS' SCORES TO PLACE THEM IN APPROPRIATE PROGRAMS. Why can't it be as simple as that? Why does all this social stuff have to come into play BEFORE the kids are targeted based on their scores? Kids who are doing well should be pushed forward to more advanced work. Kids who are struggling may need intervention - social and academic. But children have been damaged, held back, discouraged and lost due to this ED = at-risk = needs remediation fast track. And it all starts with the fanatical, myopic drive toward diversity at any cost.
Academics. Academics. Academics.
I would love to see some
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 18:59 — danofncI would love to see some proof of this other than people here saying it over and over until it becomes some form of "truth".
Everything I have seen and been told (by people who should know) is that the EI is a way to measure teachers against other teachers and schools against other schools.
EDs are dropped in the "at
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 19:26 — red_balloonEDs are dropped in the "at risk" bucket by WCPSS. Is that what needs to be proved or were you asking for something else?
EDs are dropped in the
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 19:55 — danofncEDs are dropped in the at-risk bucket by most school systems.
At risk doesn't mean incapable.
And no, that isn't what I was looking for proof of....I was talking about her claims about the EI.
No you can't run from it,
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 17:22 — woodstockNo you can't run from it, but the status quo BoE sure did try...that is why the grad rate for ED students kept falling and now sits at 54%.
If the new board was
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 19:34 — danofncIf the new board was concerned with that number, they would have at least proposed some sort of program to impact LEP and ESL graduation rates.
LEP is the subgroup that is dragging that number down.
Uh, they have, it is called
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 21:05 — woodstockUh, they have, it is called the Community Schools model where kids are assessed individually and provided the resources they need to succeed...instead of a bus trip across the county where they can get lost in the bogus "healthy schools" statistics.
Since this was a grad rate
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 00:16 — danofncSince this was a grad rate issue, you have to be referring to high school students.
Tell me which HS students are being bused that aren't doing well as a group.
"Healthy schools" might be bogus (I would disagree with that, but I'll play along), but it's better than having a bunch of failing schools. And that is where we're headed unless we pull off something that hasn't been done yet.
It is sort of a non-issue
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 11:15 — user12345It is sort of a non-issue ... >90% live near their school, F&R are about 30% of the mix, and less than 10% of the kids are "bussed" anywhere ... so, most poor kids go to poor performing neighborhood schools ... and only a few escape on a bus to a good school and cause all the disruption for affluent parents. The goal should be if people want F&R kids expelled from their school than make the F&R school of excellence so there is no reason for them to want to leave.
yep ... woodstock does not
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 19:50 — user12345yep ... woodstock does not seem to share the same concern for Hispanics and their 38% rate for some reason ...
I didn't know that. Thanks
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 21:03 — woodstockI didn't know that. Thanks for the ammunition!
Oh, how does this help your case?
I am just trying to get you
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 11:05 — user12345I am just trying to get you to expand your concern to all the kids needing help and not just parrot the single talking point you have been given to push.
Your team has not changed a
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 19:25 — user12345Your team has not changed a single thing that affect graduation rates compared to the old BOE ... lawyer, bell schedules, HS locations don't have an affect ... you need to get them moving if they are going to make improvements in our lifetime ... note, telling a kid he is "in the zone" in 15 months won't help either.
You're wrong
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 14:33 — SDR256I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
Look into how children are chosen for something like the Accellerated Learning Program. This is a program that Wake spends about 8M per year (local dollars) to teach 'at-risk' children. So, they need the 'at-risk' children identified. This data is not kept, so - the program itself asks teachers to choose children based on 'at-risk' factors. At-risk factors include, according to this program (and MANY others like it) SES status. When teachers are asked how they can know whether a child is ED, they give some amazing answers - which bus the child rides on; whether the child eats breakfast at school; what kind of handbag the mother carries.
There was a problem not long ago with a bunch of students who had been assigned to a remedial program but were Level 4. When the parents complained and investigated why this group of Level 4 children were assigned to the program, it turned out that the children had been picked (by their teachers) because they all rode the same bus - a predominantly black group. Turns out, though, that they were all returning to a neighborhood where the parents were mostly professors. So, why were these children in the remedial program?
Children are treated differently - by their teachers and by the system. Which is why we need an academic focus that has nothing to do with SES or color. These characteristics are superficial and too subjective for teachers to assess. Academics, equitable and based on scores, period.
Instead of the bus
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 15:36 — Dove314If Level 4 achievement isn't overriding the algorithm as it is, it won't
in future just because the student isn't on "that bus". I don't see how changing how the student came to be in the seat in a school impacts the requirement for a teacher to have to assign an SES status to a child for this ALP. Instead of "what bus they road", aren't teachers likely to now substitute "what school you attend" based on the SES of the community around the school? It seems more important to change the criteria for ALP to first require that a student be performing at Levels 1 or 2 on a pretest, regardless of how they came to be in a given seat while undertaking a decision about removing SES as a required input, removing the onus put on forcing the teacher to make a guess in the absence of information.
Woods for the trees
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 00:04 — SDR256Oh yes, and I couldn't agree more Dove. Yes yes and yes. This board must - and WILL turn this big boat slowly toward achievement. However, this systematic, ingrained discrimination against ED children will take some time - some hard line academic lines drawn in the sand to turn it around. And getting rid of the toxic Policy 6200 and its insane Macheavelian algorithms to create a "Utopia" - getting rid of this was a necessary first step. Like lancing the wound. Now we have to apply the dressing.
Labelling children by SES had to stop. We must now turn the sysem toward academic achievement. For so long individual children have been ignored. Remember healthy schools? I am ecstatic that we are finally talking about children - individual children and what they need to achieve.
No more county wide recipes - no more empty religious diversity worshipping that saved NO ONE - let's clear the board of static (Policy 6200) and TEACH THE CHILDREN.
Systemized
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 21:05 — SDR256Yes, and even worse because of this worship of diversity, this idea that children with certain characteristics need to be 'helped' - well intentioned as it may have been to begin with - has morphed into systematic discrimination. And it starts with Policy 6200 - the 'diversity' policy.
If the intent is to help children with high acadmic needs (NOT superficially identified, like by their bank account or their color - offensive) - then this has clearly not been the way to do it.
I am anxious as many of you are for the board to finally, finally get through this emotional static of the assignments which have (thankfully) given promise of stability and choice - and get to the achievement issues.
Achievement
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 23:36 — Dove314Achievement issues should have been the primary focus, not coming second to assignment. It should have been the focus of past boards and it should have been the primary focus to date of this board, all 9 of them. None of the boards have made it their primary remit. Not a single one in the time my children have been in WCPSS.
There should be a student achievement plan agreed by all 9 that provide 3-5 responsibilities for each board member on which they report each and every board meeting.
Tedesco and Sutton still haven't scheduled a meeting of the ED Student Achievement task force. Prickett halved the number of Student Achievement Committee meetings each month. Nothing, as yet, has happened to help the graduation rate. And nothing should be more important to a school board.
Per the BOE schedule
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 01:43 — TrailerParkGirlPer the BOE schedule, ED Task Force meeting has been scheduled for Thursday (27th) 6-8pm. Site is TBD.
Glad to see it.
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 07:28 — Dove314Glad to see it on the schedule with one in June as well but still maintain it should have been and should remain a higher priority than it has been given to date, especially given the rhetoric.
Keung -- will you or Mr. Goldsmith be able to attend or will you be on holiday?
It was important
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 17:47 — SDR256It was important for them to eradicate the diversity policy first. An ingrained system of discrimination has bubbled up from treating ED differently. And only once it was erased could a focus on real achievement - based on data and scores not smoke and mirror social issues - only then could real achievement be pursued. On the surface 'the diversity policy' has made it look like ED chidlren are being magnanimously 'helped', but in reality this whole 'at-risk' philosophy holds children back and discriminates via means like the Effectiveness Index. As you all know by now, the Effectiveness Index - because those 'poor incapable ED children' are 'so miserably unable to achieve' - weights their scores down even when they are achieving Level 4. Because if they are ED, you know they need help. If they are ED and Level 4 there must be something askew, because we all know they need help. And the special programs need the warm bottoms in the seats to keep the grant money rolling in. Its been a terribly corrupt way of the system seeming like it was doing things to help ED children - and getting the public to swallow it hook line and sinker - while in reality NOT serving them but hiding them. God forbid if anyone were to find out the truth.
Only, we have.
Agree to disagree
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 22:38 — Dove314On this, I cannot agree. I think Student Achievement should have been and should be THE primary focus, regardless of who is on the board. The BoE majority themselves have indicated they see student assignment as independent of student achievement. Since they cannot effectively implement any changes in assignment until the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year which is ~July 2012, there is nothing that would have precluded them from setting that as the goal for any student assignment plan and making it subservient to a thorough review and focus on what ways to impact, if any, the graduation rates in minorities and many other achievement gap issues between now and then.
An Answer?
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 21:56 — willynillyI have been reading a great book, "Whatever It Takes" by Paul Tough...... it follows the work of Geoffrey Canada in and around Harlem. It speks volumes of this very thing.
In a classroom there ARE NO SIDES. There are children in different situations in life. We are all stake holders in this and we have to realize that all of this arguing and mess is taking away from educating our students. I don't care what a child's background is, they can learn to at least some level if they are taught well and held accountable for their actions. Schools are not designed to solve social problems because they don't have time.
I get a child in my classroom and send them on their way 180 days later. I have that time to: introduce them to the way I run my classroom, introduce the basic skills I want them to use, show them how I want them to organize notebooks for my class so that they know what I will be looking for when I grade their notebooks, I incorporate character education to try as best I can to provide a small number of common frames of reference for many of the lessons I teach during the year. This is not to mention that I cover basic earth science such as Plate Tectonics and the History of Earth Over Time. After that I have to introduce my students to the Hydrosphere and try and get my students to understand the importance of water on the earth and how they are stewards of this resource. That means I have to cover the freshwater and salt water areas. Finishing that I get a nine week period to take my kids from basic chemsitry (reading the Periodis Table) to balancing chemcial equations to understand the Law of Conservation of Mass. When I finish that I cover Cells and Microbiology, microscopic organisms and growth and development.
Now while I am doing this I am calling parents that I cannot find. I call a work number and ask for a parent only to talk to someone that has worked there for 15 years and has never heard of this person (the parents that provided this number). Some students, honestly, I have no idea if they had parents. Then I have meetings with parents who "cuss me out" because I told their child to shut up and sit down after their child told me to f--k off when I simply ASKED them to sit down the first time.
In the mean time I have to attend meetings where these people, paid for by tax money, come in a try to hypnotize me with all of this jargon that is supposed to make me a better teacher. In those meetings I feel like Roy Hobbs (The Natural?) being lulled to sleep by some 2-bit carny hypnotist. I loose my planning period and I have to stay after school for these meetings and then get raked over the coals because in all of this I was unable to return a call to a parent who needed me as well as being unable to post my grades in the NCWISE data system.
Now, as to grades, I am using a mulitbillion dollar system (NCWISE) that SUCKS! to coin a phrase from my kids. Every Wednesday (Prior to a Fridayt interim or report card deadline) when my grades are due the NCWISE system is DOWN for maintenance the weekend before. Not that this would matter becasue I cannot access the system from home. Well, I could, but I would have to set up my own computer at home in a way that no program I have would interfere with NCWISE. That means I have to pretty much render my computer useless to me in order to use NCWISE at home.
This rant is just scratching the surface. So if you think for a moment this is hard for me after 13 years of teaching and a prior (challenging) career in the US Navy then imagine a teacher, 22 or 23, with no work experience to speak of, coming into this.
Then here on the BLOG people get ticked when I suggest that a teacher should teach their subject matter and not put something fun in simply for the fun of it. Like dissecting a frog in a physical science class. This attitude of it HAS to be FUN all the time is why we are where we are. These kids (50% likely) cannot read on grade level. My estimate is that in 13 years I have taught 1300 students. I am betting that 20% of all of them were functionally illiterate. Why you ask? Because principals run their schools (many of them) on philosphies not numbers. And whatever numbers they use are smoke and mirror numbers. I am teaching students right now that have NEVER passed a reading EOG in middle school and I teach 8th grade (this is NOT unusual). I don't mean scoring a 2, I mean kids scoring 1 in 6th and 7th grade and being passed on to the next grade. Again, why you ask? Because the "philosophy" is that if a kid makes growth they should move on....even if after making growth (2 or 3 raw points) they are still a one. Right now I have a student that, in order to pass the ready EOG this year will have to gain 17 points on her reading test over last years score.
Now, with all of this, you think differentiation is possible? That means my lessons are supposed to be designed NOT to a class, but to individuals in my classroom. I see young teachers burn out so quickly because they actually try to do this. Yes, they write 100 different lesson plans every day to try and meet the needs of each and every student in this way. And why? Because some idiot professor in a college classroom (close to Raleigh BTW) tells them, (waxing poetic BS) "If you are a good teacher you can have 40 kids in your classroom and all be EC and you can reach every one." Which means that if you can't then you are "bad."
I'd say that 90% of that BS I did not believe when I entered the classroom and I still don't. I believe that sound basic instruction is great instruction. Before you spend hours trying to differentitate make sure your kids in the classroom can read and write. If they can't....TEACH THEM!!!!! There are classrooms out there that are getting it right and you will not hear of them because they "go against the grain."
You don't have to believe me, find a teacher you trust and ask them.
Where do you get this stuff from ?
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 21:00 — Solon77Where do you get this stuff from ? First you have no clue on the purpose and benefit of AP classes - taking and excelling in them is a good thing. And by the way Wakefield offers just as many as Enloe.
Effectiveness Index - has nothing to do with students scores. It is a way to measure teacher and school performance as to the mix of students. Take the example of a realtor. Year 1 you sell 10 houses at $1,000,000 each or 10,000,000. Year 2 - economy is crummy, but you have a great manager - he sets your sales quota at $10,000,000 same as last year but only the $200,000 homes are selling. You sell 30 houses in the year - how did you do ?
Teacher and School performance is based on learning growth. This is typically by comparing EOG pretest at the beginning of the year and comparing the EOG test results at the end of the year. This is a straight numerical calculation. There is not the opportunity in the calculation or algorithm to insert subjectivity. The numbers are the numbers. Did the teacher's class and school grow by the prescribed amount - yes or no. Simple as that.
Your lack of understanding of the basics compromises the credibility of your comments. However, you can keep believing that changing the assignment policy will all of a sudden expose the hidden treasures of over performing students that have been suppressed by the conspiracy of teachers and administrators.
In the meantime the board will be all consumed with assignment for the next 9-15 months. In the meantime efforts to focus on achievement are taking a back seat.
Teacher and School
Sun, 05/23/2010 - 21:59 — willynillyThe test of which you may be referring is the benchmark. The benchmark is a county generated test that is starting to catch on in NC counties. There is no preEOG. What you may be referring to is the EOG from the previous year being put into the equation.
Since I've repeatedly heard
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:48 — danofncSince I've repeatedly heard people say that the changes to the assignment policy not be all that bothersome to the ED people who will be in high poverty schools because they aren't coming to the meetings or forming PACs, could you provide a link or a quote from an ED Enloe student or parent complaining of not being able to get into a certain class?
Until you do, I'd have to assume that you're speaking in hypotheticals.
Are you in favor of base-assigning more ED kids into magnet schools? I thought your group was in favor of random lotteries with no weighting for ED. If that is true, then busing would be a question. Without busing, most ED kids couldn't make the daily trip to a magnet school anyway.
blas·phe·my [blas-fuh-
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 09:55 — magnetParentblas·phe·my
[blas-fuh-mee]
priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies
against life itself.
I think it fits just fine.
"Imagine being one of those high achieving ED kids at Enloe who is kept
out of the AP track because you are ED and having to endure the insult
of having your privileged classmates rant at the board meetings about
keeping the system that has kept you out of AP classes. Afterall, it has
helped them so much (on their way to UNC) to sit next to you - the
lowly ED student - at lunch."
Please someone show me proof that this is happening (not some SAS-report that deduces it, but an actual claim from a student, written policy, etc.) If a student is high-achieving and the class is on the list of available courses, they can take it. Is there a separate list of courses for ED students to sign up for in SPAN?
Accuracy
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 16:50 — SDR256I didn't say it wasn't accurate. I said I thought it was an interesting choice of words. Shows how much of a religion this has become.
As for proof, I'm digging around.
ESL students
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 07:38 — Dove314The principles of Brown vs the Board may be more of an issue to come if the concept of an ESL school for Spanish speaking students of Hispanic ethnicity comes to pass. Could the new BoE majority make the legal case that a separate set of schools requiring busing past local neighborhood schools of good quality is not discriminatory in some way. This becomes especially important if only one group (Hispanic ESL students) is singled out while other non-Hispanic ESL students are not required to go to a specific school. And can WCPSS make a case for only providing ESL services to Hispanic students in a special ESL school but not extending the services to these same students if they attend a different school.
I can't imagine them
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 08:19 — DrActualFactualI can't imagine them singling out just Hispanic students for a language themed center. There are many college students with kids that come from various countries and their children learn bilingual skills. Also, with RTP nearby many scandinavian/european/Indian/Asian transplants have similar needs for their kids.
Tedesco's Folly
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 21:19 — civesorbisterrarumJohn Tedesco's point doesn't even make logical sense. He claimed that busing for diversity means that a student is unwelcome in his or her own neighborhood due to race. That's not even true! That student is not unwelcome, just at a different school. The goal is to make sure that all students are welcome throughout Wake County. In Brown v. Board, the complaint was that she was being denied the right to go to a higher-quality school simply because she was black. The case was that the schools were not equal. Where you live is determined largely by what you can afford. Poorer families cannot afford more expensive houses in the suburbs. As it stands, the wealth gap between African-Americans and Caucasians is pretty large, with Caucasians making the higher amounts of money. Thus, they are able to live in the suburbs in Caucasian neighborhoods. If you apply neighborhood schools to residentially segregated neighborhoods (which is the case in Wake County), the result is inevitably segregation in schools. As a result, minority students are trapped in high-poverty schools while majority students enjoy more affluent schools. Therefore, race will play a significant factor in school assignments. Tedesco's argument is not just illogical, but it is hypocritical. He uses the argument that Brown v. Board--which ended school segregation--to justify the elimination of diversity. I'm not sure where he lost his logic, but it sure didn't get all the way to the board meeting.
They did start
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:15 — TrailerParkGirlIt did start with the Brown family wanting to attend their neighborhood school. So, the similarity is that under the "diversity" policy, certain students cannot attend their neighborhood school because of their demographic. In Linda Brown's case it was her race, here it is SES. The difference is that in Linda Brown's case she was force-bussed to a segregated school, whereas here students are force-bussed to a non-segregated school. We all agree that it was wrong that Linda Brown was not allowed to attend her neighborhood school due to race, so how do you make the leap of logic that it is OK to tell ED kids that they cannot attend their neighborhood school and must be force-bussed across the district because they are ED?
(Found this on wikipedia) The named plaintiff, Oliver Brown was a parent. Brown's daughter Linda, a third grader, had to walk six blocks to her school bus stop to ride to Monroe ES her segregated black school one mile (1.6 km) away, while Sumner Elementary, a white school, was seven blocks from her house.
As directed by the NAACP leadership, the parents each attempted to enroll their children in the closest neighborhood school in the fall of 1951. They were each refused enrollment and directed to the segregated schools. Linda Brown Thompson later recalled the experience in a 2004 PBS documentary:
From the Court opinion - "The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn."
Please explain the differences and similarities that you see in that opinion statement and the repeated "diversity" policy justification given that we can't have more than X% (which apparently is negotiable) ED students in a school or it can't be healthy or that ED students need to go to school with "better" children.
Diversity accomplished through voluntary means based upon respect for and of all groups/parties involved is one thing, what has been going on in Wake County under the name "diversity" is something else entirely.
Diversity is not being eliminated just because you don't include an X% F&R goal in a policy. One third of schools already exceed the former goal. There are areas of residential diversity here. We can institute choice models that go both directions (rather than bus in students by choice and bus out students mandatorily) to encourage diversity. Choice shouldn't be reserved for some while others are given no choice. What is accomplished by putting an arbitrary %F&R goal into a policy and then only selectively applying it? What would be accomplished by continuing to do that? Those are his points.
Also, keep in mind that as he has been both ED and NED his frame of reference may be different than those who have not been ED (i.e. he is more cognizant of ED are inferior insinuations).