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
...
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:11 — red_balloonthe complaint was that she was being denied the right to go to a
higher-quality school
... because it's ok to be
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 07:23 — CaryCurmudgeon... because it's ok to be denied a chance to go to a better school, as long as everyone is shooting the same pair of dice.
"He claimed that busing for
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:00 — woodstock"He claimed that busing for diversity means that a student is unwelcome in his or her own neighborhood due to race. "
---------------------------
Nope. Your entire premise is wrong, Professor. Tedesco very astutely pointed out that WCPSS policy assigned low expectations to students from low-income families and denied them the same rights affluent students enjoy. He perhaps should have added that these same low expectations deny low-income students entry into higher level math courses. THAT is a very clear case of discrimination and very reminiscentof the issues surround Brown vs. Board of Education.
I find it interesting that you have only signed up to post about 30 minutes ago...seems to be a rash of new posters joining the ranks, all with the same mission.
I have absolutely no idea
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:25 — civesorbisterrarumI have absolutely no idea how that pertains to the diversity policy. Let me make it clear that I am fine with looking for a middle ground, but I do not believe in sacrificing diversity in our schools for the sake of convenience. If there is a problem with low-income students having difficulty getting into higher-level math courses, the solution is not to eliminate diversity. In fact, that only exacerbates the problem.
The new policy would create zones of high poverty schools. These schools are unable to generate the funding that more affluent schools could get. For example, poorer parents have less money to donate to the PTA. Therefore, it would be harder to fund those high-level math courses due to the fact that fewer students are taking them--which would be true in every school, affluent or not. The effect is lowering further the amount of poor and minority students who get into higher-level math courses.
And regarding the statement that I signed up 30 minutes ago, that number is in error. I don't know why, but I definitely signed up before that. Admittedly, I did only sign up yesterday, but I have not at all been silent in my support for diversity.
Do you have information the
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:55 — woodstockDo you have information the rest of us do not? The zones have not been drawn yet, nor have the application magnet schools and themed academies been defined, so your conclusion that we would be innundated with high-poverty schools is pure speculation. However, even if there are higher poverty schools (with the current forced busing policy, we already have some schools that exceed 70% poverty, by the way), if they are equipped with the right blend of resources, there is no reason to expect them to be anything but successful.
Additionally, since you talked a lot about the African-American community and the achievement gap, what is the responsibility of that community and its leaders to address the problem and to work WITH the school system instead of against it?
What I'm saying is that the
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:04 — civesorbisterrarumWhat I'm saying is that the result of neighborhood schools is almost inevitably schools that are more extreme in affluence and poverty. I am speculating, but the fact that the school board is rushing headlong into this idea without any idea what exactly it's doing forces me to assume the worst.
It's true that the diversity policy has not been 100% effective. However, take a look at the school system before busing began, when it was the Raleigh City and Wake County systems separated. That is the closest historical equivalent in Wake County to neighborhood schools. Raleigh City had a disproportionately high black population and consequently had disproportionately black schools. The reverse was true for Wake County. The speculation does have a basis in history.
And as to your query as to fixing the achievement gap, I believe the solution starts with education. Before we can defeat the poverty afflicting African-Americans, we need to make sure they have a sound education, even sounder than it is right now. We need to fix the problem of lack of motivation in lower-income families. We need to help minorities gain the same opportunities that the majority has.
That starts by not denying our students the right to diversity. You say that we should work with the school system. I would be willing to work with them if they made an attempt to compromise and try to keep the diversity policy. The school board should be working in the interest of the community. If they do not, then I cannot support them. I believe that eliminating diversity is against the interests of the county as a whole, and I will not support a policy that does not include diversity.
I don't agree that students
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 07:54 — DrActualFactualI don't agree that students have a right to diversity as defined previously by WCPSS (economically disadvantaged) diversity because that means someone must always remain poor and impoverished to achieve diversity goals. Living in poverty restricts opportunity to succeed and get ahead. We have a right to a sound, basic education but a basic education won't allow our country to maintain a competitive edge--we need to have advanced classes to continue that academic path. PTAs are not allowed to fund teacher salaries/benefits for advanced classes so the suggestion that an affluent school could do so whereas a poor school could not IMO is inaccurate. I would encourage the school system to ADD more high-level math courses/sections in light of the fact that some AA folks believe they are being discriminated against in this particular area. An academic improvement in response to their concern demonstrates support for ALL students achievement poor, rich, black or non-black.
Please describe to me how
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:11 — woodstockPlease describe to me how WCPSS defines "diversity" and the role that this plays in educating students.
What's good for the goose...
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 14:39 — HenryMillerBrown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, was about a government telling kids where they could and could not go to school based on extraneous factors like the colour of their skins. The former Wake County "diversity" policy was about a government telling kids where they could and could not go to school based on extraneous factors like the colour of their skins, cloaked behind a mask of "socio-economic status."
Its exactly the same thing.
A lot of blacks aren't the least interested in being treated equally under the law. They want favouritism and special accommodations and, at long last, the rest of us have gotten tired of that.
A Necessity
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 21:30 — civesorbisterrarumLet me just clarify something for you. African-Americans are not looking to be superior to whites, and only the most extreme of us have ever looked for that goal. What we want is an equal chance, and that simply doesn't exist yet.
The only reason we want what you claim to be "favouritism" is because we have suffered through the exact opposite for hundreds of years. Even now, we still don't have equal opportunities. Minorities still make a significant amount less than the majority, and a study in a recent article showed that the affluence gap has quadrupled in the past 23 years.
Poverty is a vicious cycle. It takes money to pay for educational expenses, such as testing services, college, and various fees. When that money isn't available, those options aren't available. As a result, the students whose families already have money have an advantage and are able to get a leg up, earning more money.
In other words, what you call "favouritism" is what we call equality. We have not been able to achieve that in the hundreds of years since the first slaves were brought from Africa to America. It seems that complacency is starting to set in. What you are seeing, HenryMiller, is that we have not yet given up.
"We have not been able to
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:13 — woodstock"We have not been able to achieve that in the hundreds of years since the first slaves were brought from Africa to America."
-------------------------
Then how do you explain the literally millions of exceptions to that comment?
Millions of exception, millions more non-exceptions
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:38 — civesorbisterrarumIf you take the average income of African-Americans and compare that to the average income of Caucasians, you will notice that there is still a significant gap. In addition, African-Americans tend to receive a lower quality of education, to the tune of scoring 23-45% lower than Caucasian students.
While it's true that there are millions of exceptions, such as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Barack Obama, and others, the fact is that they are exceptions. When you have millions upon millions of a group to choose from, a couple million exceptions really isn't uncommon.
"While it's true that there
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:52 — woodstock"While it's true that there are millions of exceptions, such as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Barack Obama, and others."
No, I am not talking about them. That is like saying successful white folks like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Brett Farve. I am talking about the millions and millions of blacks who are accountants, lawyers, scientists, engineers, dentists, educators, florists, artists, writers, project managers, business owners, etc. Exceptions in literally every imaginable field. I find it amazing that you would even suggest that blacks do not achieve.
I will also take excpetion to your comment that "African-Americans tend to receive a lower quality of education." They go to the same schools with the same teachers as everyone else, yet they graduate in far fewer numbers. They have access to the same education, but do not enjoy the same results. At what point does the black community take charge and say, we need to change that?
Do African-Americans truly
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:08 — civesorbisterrarumDo African-Americans truly get the same quality of education? I find it hard to believe that one group could score that much lower while still getting the same quality of education.
I agree
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 09:58 — lferreriFrom the SAS report, we know one way in which equally-achieving students are denied equal opportunity. We also know that the Effectiveness Index reduces expectations for equally-achieving students just because they are ED. I think we need to find out if there are other curriculum decisions that are under the control of the schools that are preventing students from having access to the same quality of education. But it is not enough to have reports on these problems. We need to make changes to the system to ensure that this does not continue to occur.
I don't think the
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:18 — user12345I don't think the Effectiveness Index actually reduce expectations ... it just provides a measure of what would normally be expected or average performance ... most every teachers will tell you they want their kids to be above average and exceed expectations.
An extreme example ... teacher at Green Hope with a 99% pass rate (2% F&R, 1% LE) for the last five years vs. teacher at Knightdale with a 60% pass rate (60% F&R, 30% LE) .... what should the GH teacher expect ... 99% again for the sixth year in a row ... KD teacher is an average performer at 60% and above average at 70% .... should the GH teacher get a bonus for 99% pass which was expected? Should KD teacher get a bonus for exceeding expectations by 70/60 = 16% ... or should KD teacher be fired for not having 99% like GH teacher ... overall, teachers want their students to excel ... they don't slack up if the EI says their kids may not pass ... they work harder ... even though there is no reward for doing so ... beyond personal satisfaction ...
Yeah...I'm quite certain
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:37 — danofncYeah...I'm quite certain that the EI is used as a performance measure for teachers and schools, not as a predictor for students.
But under the EI, a low
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:25 — jenmanBut under the EI, a low income kid who scored a 4 on the EOGs one year may be predicted to only score a 3 the next year. If that student does indeed only score a 3, his teacher is deemed effective. That's the problem to me--that a teacher could be deemed effective even if her students do worse.
I just don't think that's
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 13:17 — danofncI just don't think that's how it works.
I know that the EI doesn't affect how individual teachers approach their individual students.
I agree that it probably
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 14:32 — jenmanI agree that it probably doesn't affect how individual teachers approach their students. But look again at TPG's example. If a student's predicted score is adjusted down because they are low income, the teacher will be deemed effective if the student meets that lowered expectation. Even if that student actually scores lower than they did the year before.
I don't believe the EI is
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 15:03 — danofncI don't believe the EI is used to predict scores. I think it uses historical data to gauge the performance of students, teachers and schools.
It isn't a tool that is used or intended to be used as an individual student gauge.
It gives the district a way to measure different schools against one another and to compare teacher performance across the district.
from a WCPSS report: "The
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 15:22 — jenmanfrom a WCPSS report:
"The regression equation takes into consideration the
student’s pretest score, the student’s special education services, and the student’s free or reduced
lunch status and calculates the score a student should have been expected to achieve based upon
the predictor variables. "
From the same report: "If
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 16:33 — danofncFrom the same report:
"If the Index z-score is above +1.0, the school is among the top 16% of schools in the system
serving that grade level. If the z-score is below –1.0, the school is among the bottom 16% of
schools. Thus, subjects and grades in which a school showed a z-score of less than –1.0 might
be targets for school improvement efforts. Z-scores above +1.0 might mean that a grade-level
team is implementing practices that should be documented and shared with other schools or other
grade levels. "
It is used to measure schools, and.....(this is the paragraph directly after the statement you quoted).......
"When a residual score is near zero, a student scored close to the average for similar students
across the district that took the same test. The standard error of measurement for a single student
on the EOG or EOC test is given at the bottom of the student roster. Individual residuals above
+1 standard deviation or below –1 standard deviation may be worthy of closer examination.
Reviewing individual residuals can help teachers identify patterns of student success or failure
that may be related to the instructional methods used with those students."
It is used as a tool to gauge the effectiveness of teachers and particular teaching methods.
It is a way to determine what methods are most effective at reaching certain students so that those methods can be used for those students as much as possible.
I would imagine that including a pretest score is the most important part of predicting the student's actual test score. Do we know if pretest, special education and F&R are the only predictor variables? I'd bet that there is a little more calculation than that involved. Those three things could be simply used to group the kids.
Adjustments
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 16:54 — lferreriThe pretest (last year's EOG) is adjusted for special education, student F & R, the F & R percent at the school, and AG status. The first three are downward adjustments; the last is an upward adjustment. In other words, students (a class or a school) will have their predicted scores adjusted downward if they are in special education, are ED or are in a school with many ED students. Their scores will be adjusted upward if they are AG. EI does predict individual scores as Jenman said, but it is not valid for individuals, only for groups. Two groups of students with the exact same scores on last year's EOG could have very different predicted scores because of the adjustments. That's why it is problematic to use it as a measure of determining the effectiveness of particular teaching methods. A group of students who scored well on the EOGs last year but who are poor, in a school with many ED students or in special education could appear to have been taught well not because the teaching was effective but because their predicted scores were adjusted downward thus inflating their "progress". It is my understanding that some students are even actually predicted, due to the adjustments, to have scores that are lower than their previous EOG scores. (EOG scores are supposed to go up each year.)
Report
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 16:33 — bnartisthttp://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2005/0511bio_sum_att.pdf
It's about identifying effective teachers, not individual students.
Here's another, more recent, report:
http://wakeschools.org/evaluation-research/reports/2007/0623effective_multirisk_study.pdf
It's about adjusting teaching practices to account for multiple risk factors.
I agree ... I am afraid that
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 15:04 — user12345I agree ... I am afraid that some folks think these things happen but have never asked a teacher ... I know from my wife, her goal is to get all of them across the finish line ... I have never heard her say, she was slacking off because some computer program said everyone was going to pass or she was neglecting a kid because a computer program said he had no potential ....
I think so too ... the EI is
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:29 — user12345I think so too ... the EI is for schools and SAS is for individual? .... either way , it gives decision makers a metric to know when a school or individual exceeded what was predicted and than go find out why ... again, I do not see how it lowers expections ... you do not need a computer program to know that your class of special ed kids are not going to do as well as the Green Hope Math team ... but a teacher should be rewarded when their classes' performance exceeds what was predicted ... sort of like is done with sales people exceeding the sales quota they were given.
Everything sort of works
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:37 — danofncEverything sort of works together, I think.
If a teacher outperforms their peers, the Effectiveness Index would show it. At that point, that teacher would be able to share what worked with their peers at a PLT. That collaboration would help raise the performance of the other teachers, which would improve the school's scores, which would mean that the individual children had done better.
A 75% pass rate on an EOG can be good or bad, depending on what school you're teaching at and how that school has done in the past.
Here is where EI
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:25 — TrailerParkGirlHere is where EI becomes potentially problematic. Let's say you are non-FRL and I am FRL. I don't know the magnitude of the dependent variables used to adjust for F&R and F&R of school (I'm not aware that they have been published), so these numbers are made up just to walk through the concept.
Let's say we both scored 350 on EOG. EI then predicts a score of 355 for you and a discounted 345 for me. The teacher teaches us and then you score a 358, which gives you a positive residual of (358-355) and I score a 348 giving me a postive 3 residual. Therefore, it appears that whatever the teacher did was effective but in reality there is now a gap between us where there was none before. However, that gap is masked because you were expected to outperform me just because your family has more money than mine. She then shares her "effective" method with PLTs and on it goes. That is NOT the way to start closing achievement gaps.
On the other hand EVAAS would predict a 355 for both of us, thus showing my actual negative residual and your actual positive residual, which would allow the teacher to see that she actually had mixed results, so she could go back and make adjustments.
How do you close a gap when you mask it in your assessment tools? There is a reason fed dept of Ed guidelines say you should not be adjusting expectations in your assessment tools.
Another way of looking at it
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:11 — lferreriHere's another way of looking at it. Take two equally-performing groups, say two groups of students who have scored Level IV on the EOGs for several years. Would you not expect both groups to continue to do well in the future? After all, their past achievements demonstrate that they are capable of high achievement. Yet the EI would adjust the prediction for one of the groups downward if the children in that group are ED. At year end, if the both groups score at Level IV again, it can appear that the teacher of the high ED group was using great teaching techniques. After all, her students did better than expected. The teacher of the low ED group might appear to have only done what was expected. After all, her group was expected to score well. It could result in the promotion of teaching techniques that are not effective but merely appear to be effective because of low group expectations.
This type of thinking used to be used to lower expectations for girls in science and math. Even girls whose past achievements in science and math indicated that they were good in those subjects were often expected not to excel in the future. Wouldn't it be offensive to you if your daughter scored Level IV in math for several years yet you were told that "We have lower expectations for girls because girls don't do well in math"? (The same would hold true for boys in English, by the way.) Personally, I would find that kind of generalization offensive. If my daughter had done well in the past, I would expect the teachers and schools to have high expectations for her. I would not want the system to reduce the expectations for higher achievers just because they are girls. The same holds true for other groups. There should be high expectations for all high achievers no matter what SES they belong to.
This isn't idle speculation, by the way. The Dallas public schools actually use gender and ethnicity as factors in their system. To me, it's a slippery slope to include demographics. EVAAS can generate more accurate predictions without the inclusion of these factors.
Yet the EI would adjust the
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 12:51 — user12345Yet the EI would adjust the prediction for one of the groups downward if the children in that group were ED.
1) I thought the EI was at the school level
2) The individual teachers do not know the EI for the school.
3) No one adjusts the program ... the program use math to predict the outcome.
"We have lower expectations for girls because girls don't do well in math"? (The same would hold true for boys in English, by the way.) Personally, I would find that kind of generalization offensive.
BTW ... that is one of the reasons I would not let my daughters attend public school until HS because the teachers, students, counselor, etc. all secretly think girls can not do math and go about making it true ... they do not need a computer program to discourage girls ... it is built into the fabric of society. And while my daughters are not math professors now, they are not afraid of it.
"The Dallas public schools actually use gender and ethnicity as factors in their system. To me, it is a slippery slope to include demographics. EVAAS can generate more accurate predictions without the inclusion of these factors."
Again, the predictive factors are the factors ... this is just basic marketing research ... straight math ... given hundreds of factors, which ones predict success math is not like English where we can leave parts out because we do not like them ... we can leave income out if it does not help the analysis but it should not be eliminated because we don't like it.... they do that with mortgages ... even if Blacks default more often, race can not be considered....
Yes, but....
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:49 — lferreriYes, but telling teachers and schools to have lower expectations for students as a group because they are ED has the same effect. EVAAS factors in previous achievement, so it recognizes that not all students arrive in a classroom having achieved equally in the past. (In fact, it uses three data points which is more statistically sound than using one data point.) What it does not do is take a group of equally-achieving students and adjust expectations downward just because the students are ED, in a high ED school, or in special education. Low expectations hurt students whether those low expectations are for each individual student or for the student as part of a group.
What it does not do is take
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 11:33 — user12345Predictor programs only use the inputs that help predict ... if Family Income does not help the prediction than it is discarded ... personally, I hate the more obvious low expectations practiced on a macro level like only giving Knightdale 11 AP classes while the average is 16 ....
"Predictor programs only use
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 18:44 — klanders65"Predictor programs only use input that help predict..."
You obviously are not familiar with the Effectiveness Index. You should have said "GOOD predictor programs only use input that help predict." You are assuming EI is good. It is not. A good statistical model would put as many variables are possible into the hopper and look to see what is most predictive. Then, reduce the model. If it turned out that height predicted math score, then they'd leave that in. You don't assume you know ahead of time. You look to see what predicts.
EVAAS is a good prediction program. They would have race and income as predictors if they turned out to be good predictors. But they are not. If someone managed to get to top of Level 4 in math by 5th grade, and had the same reading, writing, and science scores as someone of a different income and race, they are just as likely to learn math as well in 6th grade as that other student who has the same academic history.
Effectiveness Index assumes (without ever testing) that income, special ed status, % of low income in the building, and AG status all predict achievement. They did not test this. They simply assume it. It is not a good model.
It is true that these groups have a lower average score, but that could well be because no matter how high they score they are often tracked low. (See Wake Ed Partnership's graphs), and their schools have fewer AP course offerings. These things cause children to score lower than children who are tracked into rigorous courses with high expectations.
Now, when E&R goes to identify effective practices, they look for positive residuals. This is how they identify effective teachers. Well, track the Level IV low income kids into a remedial course with a bad teacher (not that there are any), and adjust the expectations for the kids down for their income, then down again for their schools' poverty level, then down again because you've classified a third of the boys in the class as SWD. The kids can all lose quite a bit of ground and the average residual for the teacher can be high.
Schools have at Quickplace, rosters of the kids that include residuals for individuals. Principals are provided with average residuals for teachers.
Why debate? Why not have someone with credentials review the Effectiveness Index. Won't someone from Duke or NCSU volunteer? SAS already looked at it and said it is not "good." I guess their credentials for statistics can't be trusted?? Fine. Do we trust our universities? I bet they would review the EI for free. It is a very simple model. It would only take them a few minutes to review it. Then, they should also look at the conclusions drawn from it in E&R's reports.
Someone mentioned E&R's report on students with multiple risk factors. They are using individual student residuals in that report. They took a handful of kids and found kids with "multiple risk factors" who had positive residuals. This could be Level 4 kids who lose ground and become Level 3, if they are ED, in a high ED school. They may have been served by ALP and received remedial services that damaged them, then provided with SES services after school for further damage. Then, after losing ground, still have a positive residual. The programs are seen as effective because the kids still have a positive residual. The kids are labeled "resilient" because they are not completely destroyed by this system.
And it only costs of tens of million per year to document all this and provide these services.
Don't take my word for it. Get an expert to take a look.
I said they are provided the
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:24 — woodstockI said they are provided the same opportunity. I think you know that there are other factors that contribute to the achievement gap that are outside what happens within the confines of the school building.
I teach in a low SES, high
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:18 — willynillyI teach in a low SES, high F&R and predominately black middle school. My school was at 34% pass rate on the science EOG 2 years ago and last year 65% of my students passed the science EOG. Yes, "they" can choose to get the same education that all other students in the same classroom unless they buy into the same BS of they learn differently (differnetiation) which, like all color of students, gives them and excuse not to succeed. If it's the same teacher and other studentsd pass then we MUST look at what the difference is.
With all due respect to you
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 21:39 — willynillyWith all due respect to you and my many African American friends, I do not know one "slave." I was with a group of navy people in Kenya in 1985. We went on a tour with two native tribesmen. When two black service members told the tribesmen they wanted to come back to "their country" the tribesment told them.....this is not your country. You were not born here and you have ni lineage here. Go home and make your lot in life right. Changing places is not a solution!
Obviously, we're not slaves
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 21:56 — civesorbisterrarumObviously, we're not slaves any more. Otherwise, I would not be allowed to type this message. In fact, you are helping me make my point. America is my home and it will continue to be my home and the home of the millions of African-Americans who live here just as much as it is the home of the millions of Caucasians, Hispanics, Native Americans, and other groups. What I'm saying is that despite the fact that this is just as much our land as it is yours, we African-Americans do not get to enjoy the same comforts. The same thing is about to happen in our school systems if the board follows through with this policy.
And......IMHO........no one
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:26 — willynillyAnd......IMHO........no one desrves the right to be here that is not native....including me....but that is for a different strand.
Curious
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 22:39 — civesorbisterrarumActually, you've piqued my curiosity. Would you care to elaborate?
Welcome to the blogs
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 09:13 — zandeWelcome to the blogs civesorbisterrarum! I think you will find some of the opinions expressed here to be well...er.... interesting?
Native Americans (NA) were
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 23:20 — willynillyNative Americans (NA) were here. They do NOT own land, they live on it and from it. Europeans came here and took the land and divided it....NA never understood "owning" the land. We came here, or were brought here, and we have no real claim to the land. Just my opinion and No, I am not Native American.
And now, the new social
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 17:16 — allkidsfirstAnd now, the new social engineers of the school board will dictate which school you go to by how much you can afford to spend on housing! Proximity priority simply means, if you have money, you have school choice. If you don't, tough luck.
Families that chose to buy a smaller home with affordable payments rather than risk unconventional mortgages aren't getting any help... and now they'll get weaker schools and the lower property values to go with it.
If you decided to put all your money in your home in Western wake, you just hit the jackpot! I'm sure you love the new board! They just made your property values skyrocket!
So...
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 14:56 — Bob_SconceYou had me up until this:
That applies to a lot of different people, independent of their skin color.
I don't disagree.
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 15:41 — HenryMiller"That applies to a lot of different people, independent of their skin color."
But when you start seeing comments like "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," you have to wonder.
Brown condemned a policy once used to discriminate against black kids but is now being used specifically to avoid discriminating against any kid. Why is Ms Moncelle so outraged? The new Wake County policy doesn't discriminate for or against anyone based on skin colour or "socio-economic status," but she's nevertheless deeply offended. The obvious conclusion is that she's offended by the lack of discrimination, suggesting that she's perfectly happy with discrimination, but only so long as that discrimination is in agreement with her prejudices.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
The obvious conclusion is
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 17:22 — woodstockThe obvious conclusion is that she's offended by the lack of discrimination, suggesting that she's perfectly happy with discrimination, but only so long as that discrimination is in agreement with her prejudices."
--------------------------------
My God, man, you are a genius!
Let's face it, John Tedesco
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 13:58 — CaryCurmudgeonLet's face it, John Tedesco is going to be vilified over anything he says. The fact is Linda Brown lived a few blocks from her neighborhood school, but had been forced bused to a school much further away.
And, speaking of MLK, I believe his dream was for a world where people were "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Busing kids based on how much money they have in their wallet doesn't seem to line up very well with that vision.
And he dreamed of a world
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 17:20 — allkidsfirstAnd he dreamed of a world where kids were judged by how much their parents make? Because that will now dictate the quality of your school. That's as much social engineering as the diversity policy.
You have a very fatalistic
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 18:26 — CaryCurmudgeonYou have a very fatalistic view of the world. I view those kids as being just as smart and capable as kids from more affluent families.
It is dishonest to act like
Wed, 05/19/2010 - 18:31 — danofncIt is dishonest to act like this debate is about whether or not ED kids are capable. As a general rule, they simply have more hurdles.
I only have experience with elementary schools, and I know for a fact that having classes that aren't all ED is beneficial there. Last year, when my daughter was in kindergarten, there was probably a parent in her class 3 or 4 days a week. The parent (sometimes me) helped the kids get through different stations (along with the TA and sometimes another parent) while the teacher was able to get about an hour of time working with kids who were behind. I don't know the economic status of those kids, but I know that a couple of them were ESL and one was LEP.
If the class had been full of those kids, that time wouldn't have been possible and the teacher would likely not have had nearly as much parental help. If a child is ESL or LEP, it is likely that the parent is either ESL or non-English speaking.