The Wake Community Network is demanding that the Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP, apologize for the comments made at Tuesday's Wake County school board meeting by the Rev. Curtis Gatewood.
In a statement today from Joey Stansbury, who runs the conservative web site, he says members of the school board minority faction should attend today's NAACP press conference "to condemn the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 'Reverend' Gatewood."
Gatewood, the 2nd VP of the state NAACP, was nearly arrested by police for not giving up the podium Tuesday. He called school board chairman Ron Marigotta a "white racist'" and said he was going to hell.
Barber called today's press conference to complain about Margiotta's "here come the animals out of the cages" comment at the board meeting.
Here's Stanbsbury's statement:
So the North Carolina NAACP will hold a press conference this morning. My question? Will the “Reverend” Curtis Gatewood, former head of the Durham NAACP and 2nd Vice President for the North Carolina NAACP State Conference of Branches speak again?
Will he tell us we are all going to Hell again? Will his fiery rhetoric rise to the level where law enforcement officers are forced to intervene again.
Or will the NAACP keep him out of the picture?
I would encourage School Board Member Keith Sutton or his diversity associates – Kevin Hill, Anne McLaurin and Carolyn Morrison to join the NAACP this morning. It would be an excellent opportunity for them to condemn the hateful and divisive rhetoric of “Reverend” Gatewood. But I doubt they will. They’ve silently encouraged the circus that has become Wake County School Board School meetings.
Kevin Hill has sent out emails claiming he wants to “stir up the pot” against the majority. So the loud abrasive comments, wishing board members to “go to Hell” and the repeated berating of school board members from the podium would seem to come with his blessing. We’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise. (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/questioning-the-school-board-committee-assignments?storylink=misearch)
We’ve also seen nothing from School Board Members Kevin Hill, Anne McLaurin or Carolyn Morrison to show concern for the out of control nature of diversity proponents at Wake County School Board meetings. They’ve sat idly by and allowed it to continue. It seems to come with their blessing also.
If Chairman Margiotta deserves criticism, it is for his generosity to allow those with views contrary to his to passionately express them at school board meetings - more so than at any governmental body I’ve ever witnessed. And that generosity has been abused. The meetings have become a media circus, with diversity proponents fomenting as much division as possible. Diversity proponents have personally berated school board members from the podium, used profane language (telling board members they are going to Hell), mocked school reform advocates while attempting to speak and created unruly noise and distractions while board members attempt to conduct business.
No other governmental body would tolerate what has occurred at Wake County School Board meetings. Ever been down to the General Assembly? The Sergeant at Arms would throw them out of the chamber gallery and perhaps out of the building for what diversity agitators have done.
The antics of the other side have become so inflammatory that it culminated this week in the need to bring in police and sheriff’s officers. This need proved true when the Reverend Curtis Gatewood proceeded to tell reform board members Deborah Prickett, Debra Goldman, Chris Malone, John Tedesco and Ron Margiotta they were “going to go to Hell” and refused to leave the podium. The “Reverend” Gatewood clearly attempted to create a media situation and provoke his arrest by officers.
Chairman Margiotta recessed the meeting to calm down tensions and attempted to return the meeting to normalcy. Diversity advocates would have none of that.
Wake County’s character education policy speaks of being “considerate” and “courteous.” Seems diversity agitators seemed to have missed that day in class.
What is sad is that diversity agitators have feverishly sought to protest and express outrage at the new board for policies yet to take effect. Where have they been while current policies caused the graduation rate for socio-economically disadvantaged students to plunge to 54.2%? To them it’s only been classified as a “problem” or “challenge” or “difficulty.” When will the fact that almost half of poor students in Wake County Public Schools don’t graduate rise to the same level of crisis diversity agitators express toward the new board members? 40%? 30%? 20%? One would have thought that alarm bells would have sounded at 54.2%. That would force them to acknowledge that Wake County’s diversity emperor has no clothes. Me thinks they protest too loudly.
The Reverend William Barber asked for an apology from Chairman Ron Margiotta, which he graciously gave without hesitation or spin.
Will the Reverend Barber provide us one for the Reverend Gatewood? Doubt it.
Comments
Curtis Gatewood
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:36 — jtpCurtis Gatewood is a racist. He is a member of Black is Back (Racist group). We need to get this thug out of here.
What an unhelpful
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 13:45 — Dove314What an unhelpful inflammatory press release.
The only fair aspect to the statement is to request an apology from Rev. Gatewood. The rest of the statement just demeans the Wake Community Network as stooping to Mr. Gatewood's level.
Keep the focus on doing something constructive for the children not on scoring points off each other in tit-for-tat press releases. Just unbelievable behavior from supposed adults all around.
It's not his choice
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 13:35 — openmindIf Chairman Margiotta deserves criticism, it is for his generosity to allow those with views contrary to his to passionately express them at school board meetings - more so than at any governmental body I’ve ever witnessed. And that generosity has been abused.
As stated in the article above..Margiotta isn't being generous. He is doing what is the norm for a position such as his. If you are not familiar with board meetings, there is an opportunity for the public to speak, even if they don't agree with the presidents opinion. Imagine that, allowing people to speak. Gee I think it may be called freedom of speech.
I disagree.
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 21:16 — Apexter"As stated in the article above..Margiotta isn't being generous. He is
doing what is the norm for a position such as his. If you are not
familiar with board meetings, there is an opportunity for the public to
speak, even if they don't agree with the presidents opinion. Imagine
that, allowing people to speak. Gee I think it may be called freedom
of speech. "
I disagree with you on this. Is he a candidate for sainthood? Certainly not. However, he is being generous in allowing time for public comment, being perfectly aware that much of it will be dissent.
Read the agenda for any school board meeting. Here's what it says regarding public comment:
I've attended board meetings off and on for the last 10 years. By and large, previous chairs have not extended the initial public comment past the originally scheduled 30 minutes unless it involved only a couple of people beyond the 30 minute limit. I've had to stick around until 8:00 or later to hear represenatives of my group speak.
Also, there is the issue of public comment at community engagement meetings. In the past, if a large number of people signed up for a single meeting, past board chairs have typically broken the speakers into two groups (e.g., Speakers 1 - 45 go to the gym, and 46 to 100 go to the cafeteria.) While they always said that all board members would hear all the public comment, parents who were split up this way were doubtful that the board members would, on their own time and of their own volition, sit down and watch a 2-3 hour videotape of public comment. Hearing this, Ron has made sure that all speakers were heard by the full contingent of the board who attended. To make this possible, he cut their speaking time from 3 minutes down to 2. (While I admire his intentions on this, I don't know that I agree it's the best solution. It's hard enough to provide details enough to make a point in 3 minutes; it can be nigh unto impossible in 2 minutes.)
Comments that Ron is not allowing the opposition time to comment are totally specious.
I concur. Mr. Margiotta is
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 16:19 — Dove314I concur. Mr. Margiotta is not a benevolent soul, kindly allowing the public to speak. He is an elected official chairing a government body required to allow public feedback at meetings, good or bad.
Most, definitely not all and definitely NOT Mr. Gatewood, but most of the speakers I saw chose their words with care and, although critical, were speaking from their hearts as citizens of the county. This was true whether people were speaking in favor of the new board or critical of their changes.
Margiotta was not generous, he did his job, no more, no less. And on a couple of occasions he did his job very poorly.
I respectfully disagree.
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 16:58 — jenmanI respectfully disagree. Now I'm not saying that Ron is a saint by any means but I do think he has been very generous in terms of allowing the anger and accusations during the public speaking time. (not speaking about Gatewood). As well as all the cheering, booing, applause and hissing from both sides.
I've been at several heated reassignment CEMs where Chuck D has admonished the crowd for behavior such as this. I also saw him once get very angry when a parent accused him of not caring about the kids he was busing all over the place. He flat out said that he wasn't going to listen to somebody telling him that he didn't care. Even though I think Chuck was wrong on so many levels and I do believe that he let his own principals cloud his vision on what he was doing to low income children especially , I absolutely agreed with him on this. He doesn't have to sit there and take that kind of insult, and it wasn't even as bad as being told you are a resegregationist or implementing racist policies.
I agree with you that sometimes Ron has reacted poorly. But he's human. I swear, I don't know how long I would be able to take it before lashing out. I'm not sure that any other board has been subject to this level of outburst and aggressively angry comments. Honestly, I can't see Kevin Hill, Rosa Gill or Patti Head allowing it either. I think Morrison and McLaurin would probably be shell-shocked and not know how to react--they seem like very sweet ladies. :-)
Don't think we're that far apart.
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 19:47 — Dove314I think we agree more than we disagree.
First, I never said Ron did terrible. I said he did his job. As you note, he has had a couple of moments of reacting poorly, one unfortunately heard via microphone. That's truly all I meant. I'm honestly asking though, can you highlight some examples of his generosity?
What is perhaps more a key point to consider -- why is there this level of anger and accusation at this new board majority and their actions? This is turning out to be much more than just a few individuals dissatisfied with the election results.
The other day, you suggested to have patience and watch the information unfold, to give them some benefit of the doubt. But the high levels of anger and rhetoric suggest there is a lot of doubt. I'm going to ask you to give some consideration to the anger reflecting more than just the dissatisfaction of a few and whether any sort of moderation by the board as well as the public would be beneficial all around. Kids are precious and people want some tangible information when people's actions have significant implications for their children, whether they voted or not, or ever took an interest or not. A lot of people want more than a promise from the board majority's stating it'll be good and that they'll have more detailed information available in 15-18 months.
In other words, while the board should not ever be subject to uncivil behavior, the level of anger and doubt I'm seeing should give them pause.
Watching this from outside
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 11:10 — sstarksWatching this from outside the county, I would say that the level of anger is not surprising because it has been fanned since before the election by the News Observer editors and a wide assortment of civic leaders. I find it amazing that these "leaders" found it acceptable to continually disparage board candidates and then the newly elected board. Never did they acknowledge that there was an education issue here. Everything was about diversity being opposed by selfish newcomers. That these people did not understand the animosity they were creating is to me unbelievable. Their reaction to the election of this school board was uncivil at best.
As for generosity, I think
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 20:30 — jenmanAs for generosity, I think that letting the public comment section go past 1 hour at some of the meetings is a good thing. Of course, this was generosity on the part of all the board members and its not like this was some saintly act but I do think it shows generosity. Barber complained about public comment time getting cut to only 2 minutes from 3 but that allowed for more people to be heard. That's what Ron said the reason was. He did the same thing at the year round meetings too so that more people could be heard and so they wouldn't have to split the speakers and board members into 2 groups. that was very unpopular when they did it last time (fall of 2008?).
I've been around Ron a few times when people were complaining about Rosa Gill and he had only positive things to say about her. I don't mean that he was being disingenuous but I felt like he purposely kept his comments from being negative. He said something along the lines of "hey, Rosa's all right. we've got our disagreements but she cares about x or she did x that was good". He really could have very easily slammed her and nobody would have been offended (it was a group of people critical of the previous board). I thought that showed integrity.
I do absolutely understand what you are saying about the level of anger though. I'm not thrilled with how everything has been done either. Some of their actions I understand why they did it how they did (overthrowing Kevin Hill), but others I don't. Its tough.
Eric Blau (EricB here on the blog) and I participated in a forum at St. Francis Catholic Church in N Raleigh on Thursday night and it was wonderful. I do think people are clamoring for more conversation about this. The forum was a great start. Eric and I spoke with many people afterwards who were interested in more opportunities like this and we're hoping to get more churches and organizations to host such events. It really helps to have a 3rd party bring both 'sides' to the table. It was purposely set up as a discussion and not a debate which was essential.
I do hear you and I do understand what you're saying.
Eric's knowledge of numbers,
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 20:54 — Dove314Eric's knowledge of numbers, reports, and more has impressed me. My thanks to him for sharing the facts and figures. It's clear he's spent a lot of time studying the stats.
I'd much rather have a press announcement about the type of meeting you mention that the one's we've been seing. Maybe can have posts about those too.
I agree to an extent. The
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 14:15 — woodstockI agree to an extent. The BoE members do NOT have to sit in listen to folks insult and ridicule them. It is entirely appropriate to call people out-of-order.
Margiotta has been extremely gracious in extending the public comment periods and tolerating the abuse some spew. I think he needs to run a tigher ship, and he could have started with having Gatewood escorted out.
!!!!
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 20:41 — choice4allRosa, Patti and Chuck set the tone of these meetings very early on. Nothing was tolerated that was disrepectful in any way. Rosa actually had a Mom escorted out of a CEM meeting at Leesville prior to the conversions for simply going over her alloted minutes. The Mom was not allowed to return to her seat. She was taken by security out of the meeting. Hmm and the Board and the people attending the recent board meeting were subject to being called white racists? And no one was ushered out? Pathetic indeed.
Back then when speaking we had respect no matter how angry we were. Now its acceptable to speak this way? Even the young kid that spoke at the recent board meeting arrogantly took a scripted pause to say "hey? excuse me? I am over here." Or something to that effect.This is what we teach in schools? And Ron sat there and took it. He let them vent away. It was the most disgusting display of disrespect I have ever seen.
I hope this will not be the new norm.
NAACP
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 13:01 — jkanderson7694It is amazing how thin skinned some people can be.
NAACP - Always keeping race an issue in this state, else what would they do.
Mr. Stansbury. In the past
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 12:46 — WhalerCaneMr. Stansbury.
In the past 12 years Wake County has gone from 11 schools that failed to make the diversity goal to 57. It is not diversity that has been driving graduation rates down but the loss off it.
No one is argueing that the 'Diversity Policy' is the only thing that can and should be done, but Mr. Stansbury, or the G5 Board members have yet to provide one piece of data that concentrating economically disadvantaged kids in very highly concentrated poverty schools will help them. In fact, lots and lots of evidence that this will cost more money.
There should be change, but now is the time to chill rhetoric, and look for concensus. Proximity has always been a part of assignment policy. There can be change without eliminating the value of diversity. Totally eliminating SES as a criteria would be a huge fiscal and community mistake in order to fulfill ideological political goals.
So
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 15:58 — TrailerParkGirlSo, let me get this straight. You are saying that in the past 12 years while the "diversity" policy has been in place there has been a "loss of diversity," yet you want to keep that policy????
There has been no "loss of diversity." All that has changed is the distribution and redistribution of ED students from this school to that school over and over. If we have more schools over the goal now, how does this cost less money and how will doing away with a goal that is not being met anyway cost more? The achievement gap between the ED student and NED student demographic groups as a whole have not changed at all - zero, zilch, nada. Nothing has been solved or saved, it has just been redistributed. What has been accomplished by this? What will be accomplished by its continuation? You want to keep talking about school results, we want to talk about student results. You want to keep redistributing ED students and soothing yourself that it addresses the gap, while the new board wants to address the actual issues, raise student achievement and close the gap. It's too bad that focusing on achievement is considered ideological political goals.
When it comes to ideological political goals have you noticed that there are whites and minorities; Democrats, Republicans and Independents; and Liberals, Conservatives and every point in between that support change and the same can be said for opposing change? People seem to keep thinking it is about divisions among those groups, but reality says otherwise based on those who have spoken for and against change. Don't you find that odd if it is just about ideological political goals?
Could it be because differing views on SES, the relationship between education and SES, SE achievement and classism transcend those groups? Could it be because those aware of and experiencing the disadvantages and advantages of the inequities under the system in place for the last 12 years transcend those groups?
In general, which group (NED or ED) has been bussed by choice to magnets and which group has been bussed by assignment to non-magnets? Which group has had access to higher level courses and what does the SAS report tell us about that? Why did people try to sweep the SAS report under the rug instead of shining broadway lights on it, if they "care" about "diversity"? Why is expected growth discounted for ED students? How are these things valuing "diversity"? Is this what you mean by cost more? It will cost more to give qualified ED students access to the same resources, like higher level Math courses, that NED students have been getting?
Diversity is a wonderful thing, but it is much deeper and broader than FRL status. Your idea of what constitutes valuation of "diversity" is not my idea of what constitutes valuation of diversity. SES profiling does not equal valuation of diversity and not SES profiling does not equal anti-diversity. In fact based on my view of diversity, not stereotyping based on SES is valuing the diverse aspects of individual students. Not all ED are alike and not all NED are alike, so why in the world do we try to pretend that they are and attach labels and stereotypes and call it "valuing diversity"? Think about the mismatching that sets up. What about the AG ED student or the learning disabled NED student? How about the ED families that do value education (mine did) or the NED kid whose parents are both workaholics? How about the middle class minorities and the poor whites? Where do they fit in the stereotyped views on "diversity" here? If anything seems to be valued here it's stereotypes.
What about working together on breaking down the stereotypes, looking at things objectively and getting to real diversity appreciation? We have a directive to do that.
Unfortunately, that is counter to how the political hacks, "leader" wannabes and media pot stirrers thrive. Making this non-politically ideological and a common sense discussion reduces the relevance of the political hacks, wannabes and media pot stirrers, so best to keep stirring it up into a frenzy with more labels and stereotypes. Let's not talk about why we have an achievement gap or about student attendance or highlight some of the community summits that some schools have been holding. It's much better to highlight who said what out of line and what Clay Aiken said again.
It's so sad. That is part of why the kids in my hometown do better. Their needs aren't being overshadowed by the self interests of hacks, wannabes and the media. Information is not biased and covers the relevant issues, not the tabloid junk. When something doesn't work, people are willing to admit and address it without a lot of hoopla and they don't pretend to be doing an excellent job when they are not. Instead even when they meet expectations, they are not satisfied and say so. The mentality is continuous improvement. They will not call themselves excellent. They would be ashamed to accept accolades while their ED students perform below state average. Their emperor has clothes and they do not pretend they are finer than they are to satisfy business interests.
How much time and energy are we going to waste on the soap opera drama angles? Is there really no better approach or way to spend time on these issues?
How we move forward is going to have to be worked through by the community, one reasonable mind and hand reaching out at a time because the community can't look to the hacks, wannabes and media for help in coming together. They're too busy putting out or covering the press release or protest de jour.
If the new policy starts,
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 21:23 — danofncIf the new policy starts, the new super-high poverty schools are created, and the achievement gap gets worse........would you then agree that keeping the gap the same is a bit of an accomplishment?
The population has gone up at least 250,000 people since 1998. Suppose more of those people are at the bottom of the economic food chain? In the same way that most of the people that move to Wakefield are doing OK financially, most of the people that move to the poorer areas are poorer.
Judging by the increase in F&R, I'd suggest that the quite a few of the new people are poor.
The achievement gap has stayed flat, while the actual numbers of ED kids has gone up significantly, right? What if, after the first two years of the new policy, the gap is 5 or 6 points wider? What then? It'll be too late to turn around.
The only thing I want to see is proof that the new plan is really going to be better. Not what Tedesco is going to try to do, not a promise from Margiotta that "of course" he's not trying to resegregate, I want to see research that proves their assertions.
It's one thing to want to see the NAACP's alleged information. The NAACP isn't elected by the citizens of Wake County. The school board should have to answer to its constituents, no matter whether or not those constituents voted for them.
My wife wants to buy a building downtown to start a business. If I write a nice little resolution that talks about how great my business is going to be, will the bank just trust me?
curious
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 10:50 — red_balloonWhich metrics are you looking at it for the following:
i) number of ED kids has gone up significantly, and
ii) achievement gap has stayed flat?
1) The number of schools
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 13:20 — danofnc1) The number of schools over the 40% F&R threshold has increased greatly, right? Since I don't hear of a bunch of schools that have had a significant reduction in F&R to match, the only logical conclusion is that there are more F&R kids. If that's too much of an assumption on my part, I apologize.
2) Most of the arguments against the current policy begin with talking about how the achievement gap hasn't closed. Since they begin with that comment, and not about how it has widened, I assume that it has stayed relatively flat. Again, if I'm assuming too much or I'm simply incorrect, I apologize.
I didn't really feel like I was breaking any new ground with that information. I felt like I was just presenting it in a different way.
Since the F&R rate is
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 17:00 — red_balloonSince the F&R rate is alleged to be fraudulent, I wondered if perchance you were using some other metrics for your statements. I should have explained my thinking in asking the questions. Sorry about
that.
No problem. I'm sure there
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 18:55 — danofncNo problem. I'm sure there is a lot of fraud, but those numbers are what we have to work with, right?
Honestly, even assuming that there is fraud, I'd bet that the parenting of someone who would lie about needing F&R lunches for their child is not exactly award-winning.
I really think a lot of people on both sides get involved too much in the statistics. I think it's pointless most of the time. Each year, you're dealing with a new group of individual students. Measuring them against each other doesn't really produce true results, IMO. If one class has 100 kids that aren't going to graduate, and the next class has 300, I'm not sure there's a single thing that the school district can do about it.
Please don't think that I have my mind made up. The only thing you can't change my mind about at this point is my belief that the new members have put the cart before the horse in several instances since taking office.
The ideal policy, for me, is one that has the most opportunity to reach kids who are more likely to fall through the cracks. I think the current policy does that, which is why I support it. If the new policy actually does what Tedesco claims, I will support that one.
some thoughts
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 09:18 — red_balloonThe ideal policy, for me, is one that has the most opportunity to reach
kids who are more likely to fall through the cracks. I think the
current policy does that, which is why I support it.
Knowing the basis of your support, I offer these for your consideration:
i) Busing vulnerable kids to maintain F&R numbers does not do anything to prevent them from slipping through the cracks.
ii) From the absence of support for EVAAS, and from Klanders(?) posts about ED students being tracked lower, it does not appear the current policy does what you may think it does.
1) I don't believe that's
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 19:26 — danofnc1) I don't believe that's true. I believe there can be some benefit.
2) The main EVAAS problem was 8th grade algebra, right? I think under-performing kids can be helped by the fact that they may be a little more spread out when they are in elementary school. It's easier to help them catch up. In those first years, sometimes the "achievement gap" is only there because one kid went to preschool and another kid didn't.
At a certain age, achievement should probably be the way that kids are grouped first. Our differences in opinion could be explained very easily if you have a middle schooler or higher, because at that point I could understand having some frustration.
I've only dealt with K and 1st grade, and I think there are benefits, at that age, for kids being in wide-ranging groups. Those ages are when parents are more likely to show up to volunteer, and those volunteers can provide either a) extra help for the struggling kids or b) extra time for the teacher to help them.
The SAS (EVAAS) report used
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 23:51 — jenmanThe SAS (EVAAS) report used 8th grade Algebra as an example but that is by no means the 'main problem' or the only problem. I don't think that the achievement gap is only there because of preschool. I do agree that kids come into Kindergarten with a very wide range of skills , but tt seems to be a system wide 'dumbing down' of expectations of the low income students. Even if you get the low performing kids caught up in the early grades, the lowering of expectations will cause the achievement gap to widen. Even if they perform at the same level as their NED peers, the ED kids will automatically have their expected outcome lowered.
I don't think the lowered
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 08:31 — danofncI don't think the lowered expectations are good. Not at all.
But, I also think that there has to be some way of figuring out who can and can't excel academically so that you don't give kids more than they can handle. I'm far from qualified to suggest what those methods should be.
I thought the achievement gap had stayed relatively flat. If it has, and the lowered expectations have been in place, how do you figure that the lowered expectations would cause it to widen?
I thought the achievement
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 13:37 — jenmanI thought the achievement gap had stayed relatively flat. If it has,
and the lowered expectations have been in place, how do you figure that
the lowered expectations would cause it to widen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking in terms of younger kids--the example you gave earlier. With intervention from parent volunteers, etc the kids who are behind in K or 1st may catch up with their peers, but once they hit 3rd grade and the EOGs, the predicted score is always lowered for them. So even if they once achieved at roughly the same level, it would widen afterwards once those expectations were lowered. Most kids will generally rise to only the level you set for them.
Gotcha... I think that's
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 13:56 — danofncGotcha...
I think that's actually the hardest thing the school system has to do. I can't imagine trying to find a way to challenge all the kids, without having the really bright ones become bored or the more challenged ones get frustrated and quit.
It has to be the most difficult, thankless, impossible task imaginable in such a large district.
I don't have experiences
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 23:07 — red_balloonI don't have experiences that support your hypothesis. When I volunteer, I see the kids who need more help but I really am not qualified to share anything more than knowledge and time. The key factor, expertise in teaching that segment of students, is lacking. I try my best but I can see that I am not making tangible progress. I think the teacher too would be hindered when having to cater to students of greatly varying needs. In my child's second grade classroom, some kids are ahead by a grade or two while others are not at grade level. Teaching such a disparate group is not possible without inherent inefficiencies. The gifted children are not challenged, those needing intense help can't receive it beyond a point, and the teacher is swamped trying to keep everyone moving along.
You make an excellent case, Red Balloon
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 09:46 — Voice_of_Reason_Ability grouping is needed. And teachers teaching the lower end of the spectrum should have a special skill set. It is the same when a teacher is confronted with an AG student and doesn't recognize their need or have the training to deal effectively with them. I have personal experience with the later. Only in the later case you might have an AG coordinator who actually knows what he/she is doing and can help.
You can find
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 14:46 — TrailerParkGirlYou can find some of the things that you are wondering about by looking at the last Annual Report (you can find it on the wcpss.net site under the demographics link - look on the left side of the main page). I believe that is where the map you mention came from and there are trend graphs for F&R%, race %, etc. It also has the map from 1998 so you can see how the FRL population has shifted around. Also, there is F&R by location data and you can that data and the population map data to determine %F&R by municipality and county only. I don't remember them all off the top of my head, but Raleigh is 50% and so is Garner. Holly Springs is about 28%. Cary was somewhere in the teens and county only (second largest population and spread all over) is about 25% . The highest F&R% is Wendell or Zebulon, but they are too far away to realistically bus. You are in D2 correct? Where in D2 is there a 5-6 up to 10 mile area with only ED or only NED in it? Whenever I've driven around D2, I've always had the impression it was fairly SE mixed. I'm not trying to be difficult but from what I've seen of Wake it is largely SES mixed when looking at 5, 6, 10 mile areas and yet the way people talk one would think all the ED live in just one area. For example, anyone who says Cary has no ED, has never been to East Cary. It puzzles me. Why don't we acknowledge, heck even celebrate, the diverse areas we already have? I have never seen a place that claims to want diversity so badly, then completely ignores the diversity that already exists.
Do you know that the ED students in those diverse areas often don't go school with the nearby NED students that they play with at the community park? They get sent out (as a spot node) of their diverse community to go make a school in a lower poverty area more diverse. This is helping those ED students how?
Also, you can check out data on the state ABCs site. The F&R% has increased from about 20% to about 30%, however, this is still well below state average F&R%. Over time, relative to state average and urban districts in the state with higher F&R, pass rates for our ED and minority students have declined. If I'm following your train of thought, you are suggesting that as %F&R increases performance would decline (were it not for policy 6200). If that were true and the policy is working, then please explain why our ED students are performing below other districts and state average with higher %F&R. Also, given relative trends between WCPSS and non-bussing districts prove that changing our approach would result in a drop in our scores and that maintaining the approach that has been used would not result in a continuation of this downward trend.
And no, I would never consider maintaining the largest achievement gap in the state, which includes lower than average ED performance, a bit of an accomplishment and certainly not something worthy of accolades or unquestioned continuation.
I don't argue the merits of
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 15:38 — danofncI don't argue the merits of the diversity policy because of any effect it will or won't have on me. I live in Fuquay, and as far as I know there isn't any busing going on here. There are 4 elementary schools that are about 5 miles or less from our house, and my kids are very likely to go to one or the other of them. Those schools are at 34.5%, 28.9%, 36%, and 31.5% diversity.
I won't talk about the policy's effects on middle or high school students, because I have no experience with it at those levels. My oldest is a first grader, and my youngest starts K in August.
In elementary school (especially early, when kids are mostly learning the basics), I think it's much, much easier to handle a few struggling kids in a classroom than it would be to handle a classroom full. Not all F&R kids are going to struggle, but I think they are more likely to have not had preschool, which sort of gives some kids a head start. If you put them in a class together, they all stay behind unless the teacher works a miracle.
If you put 5 or 6 in a class, parent volunteers can help them catch up. I've seen it happen.
I suppose I should explain that I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the assignment policy. I don't like that the "blueprint" has already been made policy. I think there should have been a somewhat fleshed-out version of the model prior to passing the resolution. The resolutions that passed only made me think of Chris Malone's favorite quote, which is "We have to show them we're doing what we said we'd do".
I think you also should show how. You shouldn't convert schools without a plan for how it's going to happen. You shouldn't pass resolutions without a plan for implementing the changes.
When everything shakes out, suppose some of the people clamoring for calendar change at Leesville end up outside of the Leesville base area? Think they'll wish they had voted to stay YR instead of traditional?
There should be answers to big questions before you change everything.
How is it better to create high-poverty (not by Wake County standards, but by mathematical standards that say 90% is high) schools, even though most every other school with that level of poverty suffers?
Since I can guess the answer to that question, the follow up: How can you promise "extra resources" when there are across the board budget cuts?
If I had answers to these questions (and some others), I could easily support the changes. But there are no answers. I'm told to "wait for the plan". Well, the plan is policy, even though it doesn't exist (allegedly). I think I have a right to be a little nervous.
So
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 21:10 — TrailerParkGirlSo, generally the manner in which things are implemented is that 1) a Board sets goals/mission/vision, 2) Policies are then developed in light of the goals/mission/vision, 3) a plan for implementation of the policies is developed and then 4) implementation. My understanding is that the Board is on at step 1) and wants community engagement on the rest of the process. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you want to know step 3) but they are asking stakeholders to help develop step 3 (stakeholder input BTW is considered a project management best practice). Does what I'm saying make sense? The vision (community schools with logical feeder patterns, use of objective data) exists, the plan (zone layout, the actual feeders, etc.) is to be developed with stakeholder input.
I live in an area similar to yours, but in another part of the county. I've lived in very high poverty areas (outside Wake County). My ES was 70% FRL, but it used an innovative program. It was a wonderful school. You raise valid concerns such as access to early education. So let's address the underlying issues instead of redistributing. These are the sort of things that community schools try to address. If it can be done in Harlem (check out Harlem Children's Zone and its birth through college philosophy) and it can be done in my 50% FRL hometown - why not Wake? My hometown not only has early ed for ED students, but they worked out transportation with the area transit authority for the families who could not get the kids to the early ed center. That way they aren't far behind coming out of the gate. Volunteers are still there in K, but now instead of catch up, it can be time spent on push forward. If you haven't already, please check out the communityschools.org website. If you look under the Community Schools Toolkit section there are a couple good summary documents to give you a sense of community schools.
You can also find explanations of how community schools are funded on that site. I'm just a citizen, not an elected official so a promise is out of my league, but a fair question to be asked of the elected officials. I can help you understand how things have been/are done other places and even here. One thing to keep in mind is that Title I funds follow the student. So for example, Wilburn was able to fund doing the TAP program by using their Title I funds. WCPSS already spends funds on various other programs for ED students. It is a matter of where, how effectively and on what. Another thing to keep in mind is that the current Secretary of Education is a supporter of community schools (you can see the videos on the communityschools site) and recent federal funding initiatives (for example for Promise Zones) reflect this support. BTW if you put Wake in the search feature on the site, you should be able to find a Q&A from your very own BOE member.
There's nothing wrong with asking questions and you should ask. I'm not nervous because I grew up in community schools (all high poverty by Wake's defination) and know what they can accomplish, but I realize not everyone has had that experience so it is a new concept. Understandably that can make people a little nervous. Where my frustration comes in is with those that make assumptions and use nasty labels before even asking questions or seeking to understand.
TrailerParkGirl
Sun, 03/07/2010 - 00:44 — Voice_of_Reason_My understanding is Title I money does not follow the student and that student will only benefit from Title I if that school is Title I, at least that's how I read the law. Can you cite me the place you found that that is not true? It does make provisions for targeted assistance schools if the LEA wants them. As far as I know WCPSS doesn't have any targeted schools.
I think you are correct
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 02:22 — TrailerParkGirlI think you are correct as far as there being a "floor" on the % F&R to receive funds. So, if the student goes to a lower FRL school, the funding does not follow them. Sorry, for the confusion. However, in the revserse sense that was being discussed of having "high poverty" schools, those schools would qualify as Title I and the level of funding is based on the number of students qualifying for FRL. According to the NC public schools website, it says LEAs rank schools in order of FRL (with those 75% or above being required to be served) and then fund going down the list. In other words, the schools with the highest FRL get funded first and get the most funding. Also per my understanding, if a school is 40% or more FRL, the funds can be used for school-wide rather than just targeted assistance.
TrailerParkGirl, that another problem with the busing policy
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 10:10 — Voice_of_Reason_The students they bus are cut off from that funding and get no benefit it the school they go to is failing. There is no penalty for a non-Title I school to fail. WCPSS knows this, that's why they move the lower achieving nodes out of Title I schools. This is wrong, IMHO it is also scandalous and circumventing the intent of the law.
As far as school wide programs, WCPSS only funds school wide Title I programs at Title I schools. They do not opt for targeted assistance with those funds at non-Title I schools. I don't have a problem with that. If those schools fail (based on certain criteria), the low performing LI students do have the option of changing schools or getting private tutoring (depending on what their guardians think is best).
Did the previous board
Sat, 03/06/2010 - 22:10 — danofncDid the previous board follow the steps you mention? I don't remember them passing policies and then hoping that they could devise a plan to implement them.
I didn't grow up in Wake County. I grew up in Edgecombe County, and if we moved back my kids would go to the exact same schools I did. There's a K-3, a 4-5, a 6-8, and a 9-12 that pretty the kids in Tarboro attend.
The Harlem initiative that you mention sounds similar (sort of) to the Project Enlightenment program that I believe just had its funding cut. That's what scares me about the new ideas. All the people now who would attend the "good" schools talk about how we could just provide extra funding to help the "poor" schools. That's easy to say, but actually doing it is another thing.
There are already people on this very blog complaining because people are bused into "their" school. Are we really expecting them to be gracious and caring when "those kids" are getting extra money and resources? Especially if the budget is stressed by the costs of changing the plans and funds become even harder to come by.
Well
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 03:22 — TrailerParkGirlI'm not sure what the previous Board did. My impression was that for the most part they did what staff recommended. Maybe someone else can help - for example, how did the MYR thing happen? Was there first a resolution to have MYR and then they identified the 22 schools or were the 22 schools identified with assignment impacts identified before there was a policy or resolution for MYR? As I recall they did pass a goal that by 2014 all students will graduate on time prepared to compete globally. What was their detailed plan for obtaining this goal and how's it doing?
Please define what you mean by "good" schools. The "school of excellence" we used to attend did not impress me nearly as much as the "school of progress" we now attend, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean.
Funding - no one said it would be easy, but if we wait until it will be easy, five years, ten years from now we'll still have the same achievement gap and be talking about the same problems because it's never easy. Some will be gracious, some not. Some efforts/resources already exist, but there are coordination challenges based on the current structure and instability.
I think there's a
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 09:35 — danofncI think there's a significant difference between the school board asking staff for a plan to deal with growth, then voting on/tweaking that plan, and the school board saying "here's the plan, make it work".
I agree with you that the "Excellence" or "Progress" or whatever doesn't make a ton of difference. All of those designations are the products of the inividual teachers and their students.
Suppose the budget and the achievement gap both get worse. Then what?
I don't know how you avoid instability. Wake County is expecting to add 3800 students next year, even in a down economy. A nurse whose son plays on my daughter's soccer team says that a whole class is delivered bascially every day, so I don't see the growth stopping. Unless you're going to direct the families of these new students to only live in areas where the schools aren't full, then you are going to have instability. Unless you build 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors at existing schools instead of building new schools, there will be instability. In a growing community, it's simply unavoidable.
So...
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 11:36 — Bob_SconceI think that if you do the math, you find that a class being born every day is about 10,000/year, which is needed to sustain a school system of approximately the size of WCPSS. That's not growth -- that's just standing still.
You would also find that
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 12:44 — danofncYou would also find that WakeMed isn't the only hospital delivering babies in Wake County.
Logical Fallacy Dan
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 11:44 — Voice_of_Reason_Anecdotal and mostly irrelevant:
Do you have proof that the birth rate is higher than before, after all we lose students too. This is normal growth that can be factored into planning. Yes, we will have to build more schools in the future, and the tax base will also be bigger (in theory). Why then, do we waste money on "permanent" trailers? Why don't we let developers help with providing land for schools? Why don't we condemn land around schools if growth in size is needed?
{added}
And Dan, the planning for growth is beyond rocket science. A lot of growth in the last few years were from more affluent families moving here with ages of mainly in the 30's and 40's. They will probably have less children entering the school system at the lower grades. And those children are less likely to stay in NC than families with roots here. now illegal aliens are a different issue, they are young and usually have large families. But they too have variables since they tend to move when work dries up (I believe you will find that already happening here). There are no good computer models that take all of this in account.
Allowing the developer to
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 12:50 — danofncAllowing the developer to help with a school generally comes with strings. Those strings are probably not in the best interest of the school system as a whole, even though they may be good for people who buy into that particular neighborhood. Haven't you been very critical of school board policies that are allegedly only meant to prop up property values?
I understand that planning for growth is an inexact science. Personally, I think it's better to plan too aggressively, and then have extra capacity, than to plan for too little growth and have no capacity
Partially Agree Dan
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 13:13 — Voice_of_Reason_But as far as the strings go, I personally don't care. I do think the interests of the school system is served. After all, doesn't state and local governments do the same thing. Don't we give tax breaks, land, ect. to corporations to more there? It's no secret some communities even have gone as far as building buildings and leasing at low rates to attract business. I think the school system should negotiate to get the best deal from developers, we might get cheap growth out of it. What's the downside?.... less diversity? Upside, more money to serve students.
I do agree on your later point. This county did not handle their growth well. The abundance of modular classrooms are a monument to that.
On a board decisions being used to artificially prop up property values; I have been critical of some magnet schools and especially the assignment policy. But that is done at the expense of others. The developers offer would help more than just their developments. I would also be critical of any artificial tinkering with property values. MYR has been a big one for me. I figured I've lost at least $40K for just that in the value of my home based on market fundamentals BEFORE the housing bubble burst. I was trying to sell my home during the time when the decision was made, almost a quarter of my neighborhood soon followed my lead. The housing bust soon followed and I 'm still in my home. How's that for an example Dan.
Giving a tax break to a
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 13:36 — danofncGiving a tax break to a corporation brings jobs (in theory) that the entire area would have a chance to apply for.
Accepting land for a school in exchange for guaranteeing that certain kids from certain houses could go to them benefits the developer and the people who buy those houses.
Am I the only one that sees a big difference there?
Did you notice that in the examples I gave, I didn't reference my specific situation once? If you're going to convince me that you are really concerned about the WCPSS, and not V_O_R's personal situation, you should try that.
You obviously have a problem with taxes. Would you have voted to pass a higher school construction bond? That would have been needed if MYR hadn't been instituted. I have a hard time thinking you'd have been in favor of that, since it would have meant increased property taxes.
If you had your house on the market before the housing bust, maybe you just had it priced too high. Did you use the same realtor that kept you in the dark about Wake County schools?
I'll answer that Dan
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 14:10 — Voice_of_Reason_I can absorb the loss, in fact it isn't a loss until I sell. But I only told my situation because it is first hand. And as far as a bond issue to build more schools if it meant ending MYR, I would. I pay lots of taxes Dan, I think paying them gives me the right to criticize how they are spent...don't you? I thought MYR was a waste of money when it was converted and spoke up, I was right. I was never against YR, I didn't like the manditory part, but if that was the only way to put deal with the growth...I could deal with it. My beef with property taxes and schools had more to do with representation and benefit. I also feel bad for seniors that bear the brunt of raising them (my last state (OK) froze, the tax for seniors. If I had a good school, I would gladly pay more and my property value would go up too. But why should I support paying more money for a mediocre school that doesn't help my property value. I rather send my kids to public school.
As far as my house went, I had it priced for what I paid for it two years before and I had put a lot of improvements in it. Yes I guess it was priced too high, since I wasn't willing to accept the loss, I didn't want to lower the price. Nobody else at that time was willing either. the realtor was a non-issue since I was not in a position I had to sell.
You never answered,
How is doing a deal with developers hurting a school system? Even if a limited number see some benefit. You get more taxes from higher property values, cheaper schools, more available seats, and help with high growth planning..all I see is benefits, where are the negatives? Did anyone rob any benefits from anyone else?
BTW- that corporate example doesn't always work out to benefit the area. I've seen that first hand many times.
"How is doing a deal with
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 14:48 — danofnc"How is doing a deal with developers hurting a school system?"
If that deal also comes with a promise to assign certain kids to a certain school, it eliminates flexability in assignments.
The development may not be in an area of need for the county. If the school is built, and kids have to be bused around to fill it, is it still a good thing?
I don't think that the school system should make deals with developers like that, and if they make one how do they tell the next developer no?
Because Dan
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 16:09 — Voice_of_Reason_The school system doesn't have to agree if it isn't needed. It's an offer, it takes two sides and both sides should expect mutual benefit. Deals can be tailored any way you want. If the school wants a school somewhere, I could even see soliciting developers to help them build cheaper. It won't work in all cases. I do not advocate building a school for one development unless that development is large enough. Wakefield Plantation has 3 Elementary Schools, a Middle School, and a High School. Everyone in Wakefield goes to those schools anyway. Why didn't WCPSS do a deal with the developer?
WCPSS bought the land that
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 16:21 — danofncWCPSS bought the land that the Wakefield schools sit on from the developer that started building Wakefield. Do you think all that land was worth 2.75 million dollars?
So...
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 17:51 — Bob_SconceIIRC, the developer cut WCPSS a significant deal on the land.
Land is worth whatever poeple will pay for it -- had it been used for housing, I think they could have netted $2.75M.
I think it was a
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 18:20 — danofncI think it was a below-market deal, too. That's what I was trying to get VOR to see, but apparently he didn't
Considering the average lot size in Wakefield (especially that particular part of Wakefield, I think the developer could have extracted much more than 2.75 million out of it. The tract sold to WCPSS is 109 acres.
What if, Dan
Mon, 03/08/2010 - 16:46 — Voice_of_Reason_Wake County would have told Wakefield development that they had to donate that land in order to build that development, in return all residents of Wakefield could go to school there as long as space permitted? What would change? Let's see, the school system would be $2.7 million better off and nothing would change. I even think you are bit low on your estimate, did you take into account the two new elementary schools?
If the developer passed the costs to the home builders, the homes would cost more and the tax base would go up too. Explain to me exactly how that policy helped the schools? I'll give you another chance.