Here's a quick recap of today's Wake County school board student assignment work session.
No decisions, formal or informal, were made during today's at times tense discussion. But some changes are on the table for further discussion.
Several Democratic members said they'd support delaying implementation of the plan's feeder patterns by a year while staff did more review of the issue. They repeatedly talked about the unintended consequences caused by the feeders.
Democratic member Christine Kushner asked staff to review the impact of raising student achievement ahead of proximity in the selection priorities. In response, Republican board member John Tedesco asked staff to look at how many students could be displaced from neighborhood schools by Kushner's proposed change.
Both Tedesco and Democratic board member Jim Martin backed removing student achievement as a priority in the magnet selection process.
Democrats also talked about setting aside a percentage of seats at the high-performing schools for applicants from low-performing nodes. This came after staff said that a number of the applicants would wind up going to the under-enrolled schools as opposed to the high-achieving ones on their regional choice lists.
Comments
stinks to be on the other side of the fence?
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:22 — dalanchong@Sideburns:
I guess the memories of the average supporter of the old Margiotta regime are:
a) minute, or
b) selective, or
c) it's simply another case of "IOKIYAR".
I mean, is it that easy to simply forget all the secret/priviledged meetings that the old Margiotta cronies had with private groups he declined to identify?
That said, if it were true, or if it turns out that this board did the same thing, I wouldn't be too happy they did it either. However, it appears it was the Wake Ed Partnership that initiated this meeting, and it included only the newly elected Board members. That all of the new members happened to be voted in to kick the old guard out appears, is, for the moment anyway, unless new information comes to light, another straw man. And it is certainly a straw man about which Debra Goldman seemed to relish blowing smoke.
The fact that WEP appears to
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:41 — jenmanThe fact that WEP appears to have initiated the meeting doesn't change the fact that it still seems wonky. It was hard to follow exactly what was going on from the feed so I don't know all the details yet. From what I understood, it sounded like the WEP invited the new members through Hill. Or maybe he was included on the emails. I couldn't make that out too well. It seemed like none of the other old board members got the invite. I think I recall hearing Sutton say he didn't know about it too but I could be wrong.
Goldman mentioned that the only time she had been able to meet with Alves was Sept of 2010 (?) when he came to a SAC meeting that was open to the public. That would have been before this new plan so the old board members could not have been able to ask questions about it.
I don't know--the whole thing is weird.
Not so odd
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:01 — Solon77JT, Malone, Prickett, and Goldman either did or have the opportunity to spend time with Alves. Since Alves is somewhat the architect of the choice model it would make sense for the new board members to have access to get his perspective. Had the incumbent members not had previous access I would see the new members access as a foul.
When did they have access to
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:05 — jenmanWhen did they have access to Alves? Goldman mentioned that meeting from the SAC but I don't know if that's the only time they had access. If it is then it's not the same thing as having access to him now that we are essentially adopting the Alves/WEP assignment plan. That was not the case when the SAC was meeting.
Bull...
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:05 — JanisTangoIf there was any kind of discussion then all the board members should have been there. If the new board members had concerns it would have been good to have them all there to hear the feedback from Alves!
You Can't Call Foul...
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:30 — JanisTangoAnd then turn around and do the same thing. It has nothing to do with being on the wrong side of the fence. You cannot honestly tell me that Kevin Hill and Keith Sutton who were sitting board members couldn't have made sure all 9 members could be there. This new board so far is governing just like the previous board so they are no better then huh!
magnet feeder programs
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:16 — turnerk1I'm no great fan of the feeder pattern concept, but what about current 5th and 8th grade magnet students? The magnet lottery has already closed and those students were given an assignment based on the feeder patterns. Many kids probably didn't enter the magnet lottery based on the assumption that they would be going to the school they would have applied to anyway under the old plan. Was that issue addressed in the meeting?
we've been there before
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:10 — EBDarcyIn 2010 the magnet app process was first extended then had to be re-opened when the board made changes. And those changes were made well past the first week of January.
Staff said they'd have to
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:55 — KeungHui (author)Staff said they'd have to reopen the magnet application period if the feeders are delayed.
Good thought. I didn't
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:26 — jenmanGood thought. I didn't hear anything about that but I missed about 30-45 min.
Did anybody hear how they are going to deal with the waiting lists? Are they going to try to match students who are applying for each other's schools? This seems like a pretty basic thing that any choice plan would have to deal with, but I've not seen any mention of it yet.
It was always a con...
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:34 — nriemannto lump underenrolled schools and high performing schools together and call them "Regional Choice" schools, then say there were enough seats for all the displaced kids without a "quota." The question always should have been whether there were enough seats at high performing schools for displaced kids from low performing nodes. There never were, and the Board should ensure that there are. They should also ensure that the default choice for kids who don't choose is such a school.
I am not sure delaying the feeder patterns or prioritizing schievement ahead of proximity will turn out as well. Either would be a highly disruptive change, though the former might please as many as it angers. I will be interested to see what they come up with.
Couple points on "high performing" schools
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 01:49 — nmoskalDoesn't this only apply to students from low-performing nodes displaced from Tier I magnet areas? I was under that impression. If so, what about students from low-performing nodes outside Tier I magnet areas?
What happens in the case of the high-performing schools in academically mixed areas (Dillard Drive ES and Adams for example) that have proximate low-performing nodes, as well as medium and high-performing nodes? Do those schools receive the same percentage of displaced students from low-performing nodes from other areas as the other high-performing schools + keep those from their proximate low-performing nodes? What will this do to the "balance" of academic performance at those schools and how will that impact the perception of their appeal as a choice for the proximate medium and high performing nodes? Do we then in turn displace the proximate low-performing node students and if so, where do they end up?
I'm really confused why we seem to only be concerned about and focused on students from low-performing nodes in very specific areas of the county rather than all areas of the county. I also don't understand viewing high-performing schools in it seems a monolithic manner as I haven't heard anyone at the staff or BOE level raise the point that some high-performing schools have proximate low-performing nodes and all the suggestions involve having the same set aside % at each high-performing school for displaced students. What about the impacts of and to low-performing nodes in the eastern part of the county or along areas of the Rim for example? The fact that they seem to get ignored repeatedly and seemingly almost completely makes me wonder what our actual priorities and goals are with regard to low-performing students.
I am also concerned that we are falling into the same trap of moving students as the solution rather than addressing what is keeping the non-high performing schools from being high performing and, as happened before, moving rather than fixing will end up breaking something else.
In the plan itself, they
Thu, 01/05/2012 - 08:58 — jenmanIn the plan itself, they specify that it is students living in low performing areas (nodes) who have priority for a high performing school. They don't state that it is just the Group 1 Proximity kids, but in all of the discussions, it is those kids that they talk about. It will be interesting to see what ends up happening.
So..
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:32 — Bob_SconceThe question always should have been whether there were enough seats at high performing schools for displaced kids from low performing nodes.
If that's the approach the board's going to take, then it needs to be careful and look more closely at what's actually happening in those schools.
"High Performing" schools tend to be so because they have lots of high performing kids, not because they have the ability to improve the performance of low-performing students. Pleasant Union, for example, is a "School of Distinction," making it a likely candidate for a 'high performing school,' yet only 26% of its ED students pass their EOGs. Meanwhile, Hilburn is only even a "School of Progress" by the skin of its teeth, yet 48% of its ED students pass their EOGs. Between the two, Hilburn does a clearly superior job of serving ED students.
That's the sort of nuance that may get lost on parents trying to navigate the school choice process. (Heck, it's been lost on many members of the school board as well.)
Found It
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 07:54 — nriemannIt's a little unclear whether they are called high-performing schools or achievement choice schools, I guess:
http://assignment.wcpss.net/downloads/choice-assignment-plan-with-appendices.pdf
The definition is at numbered page 76, Appendix D. The important part is not the top part you allude to, but the last paragraph. It used to be even better, but they watered down "top one-third of" to "top" non-magnet schools.
High Performing Schools
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 06:57 — nriemannI should have been more precise. When I used the phrase "high performing," I was referring to the definition of "achievement school" used under the assignment plan. That definition does a good job of ensuring that Level I or II students attending such a school have a better than average chance of enjoying more academic growth at the school than they would at most of our schools. I tried to find a link to the definition on the website this morning and could not, but it is on my blog.
You cannot draw reliable assumptions about school quality from EOG passing rates. Achievement gaps are large on entry to schools and vary widely within classifications like ED depending, for example, on whether the ED students are black or white. The fact that they are not eradicated at a given school is unfortunate but not necessarily informative.
Very good point, Bob
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:18 — RKCurtrightThe value of a school is so entrenched in their test scores. Setting aside seats at every school that is doing a great job of educating their students is the key. High performing schools are not the only schools capable of teaching well. I would like to see "Quality Schools" be counted and given as an option. There has to be a middle ground here. Is it option A, B, or C below or is there an option D?
In the handout the question of set aside seats answered:
Current Option A: In order to seat students at one of the other schools on their choice lists, they will need to occupy approximately 8% of the total Kindergarten seats in those other schools. If 8% of the seats in each of those schools was to be set aside for these "structurally displaced" students, then they could all be seated at a school on their choice list.
Option B: To further ensure that each student could be seated specifically in a "highperforming" regional choice school if they requested it during the choice process, then the percentage set aside for those schools would have to be around 15%, since only about half of the regional choice schools meet the criteria of "high-performing".
Option C: Set aside around 10% of seats in high-performing regional choice schools and around 6% in non-high-performing regional choice schools. This would open up seats in high performing regional choice schools for
around 2/3 of the structurally displaced students, and about 1/3 would end up being seated in non-high-performing regional choice schools.
It's not just a good point,
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 09:24 — shearertwIt's not just a good point, it is the entire point. We currently have no validated method to measure whether a school is a good one or not. We certainly do not have a way to determine whether school A is good for an ED child or not. This IS why the busing for diversity policy failed. High achievement for one group of students at school A doesn't mean another type of student will succeed at the same school.
If we could identify "good" schools from "bad" schools, why the H E double hockey sticks are we not talking about fixing the "bad" schools and holding somebody accountable vs moving the kids around!!!!!!!!!!!!! No kid from any damn node should be forced to attend a schools we KNOW is bad. For God sake what are we doing!
Here's any idea. Let the kids go to a school that is close to where they live. Let charter schools develop and prosper as a means for providing alternatives to traditional public schools. If the kids are not performing well at a particular traditional public school, come in, figure out what the real problem is and address it. If its a teacher problem, fix it. If its an administration problem, fix it. If its a parent problem, the good parents are going to find the alternatives if you allow them to exist. The few remaining bad parents are going to have bad performing kids no matter what you do, period. The best case for those kids is to allow non-profit, non-governmental groups to come in and work their magic. The only thing we need the government for in those cases is to determine whether the kids should be allowed to stay with those bad parents are not.
I think another issue is
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:00 — jenmanI think another issue is going to be whether or not there are enough proximate seats for downtown kids who don't get into their Group 1 magnet options and don't want to be sent far away.
I think that when the options are laid out for us, the downtown/SE Raleigh kids will be given transportation to their closest magnet school, their yr options and their regional choice schools but not their next proximate traditional schools.
What about kids in other lower performing nodes? Is the system only worried about making sure that chilren in low performing nodes near the Group 1 magnets have access to high achieving schools?
With no time left to do anything
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:21 — FSandYOUin the manner in which they said they would operate, you know, full disclosure, thorough reviews, public comment, not rushing, blah blah blah... it's easy to read between the lines and see they are going to halt this plan anyway. As some predicted months ago.
And just when most thought they were about to finally put assignment behind them for good. Not so fast Wake County, your new board has something to say about that.
Hill's approach
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:45 — Solon77Hill's approach is not a smart move. He should appoint JT as point person on the assignment plan with Malone and Prickett on the flank. The three of them can field all of the complaints from parents on not getting their choice, feeder pattern issues, and the lack of opportunity for achievement students.
...
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 22:33 — SideburnsDid you hear the part about the new Board members having a private meeting with Michael Alves? According to Hill, Wake Ed Partnership arranged it and it was held at one of the Crossroads building prior to them being sworn in. No one else was made aware of the meeting. Not the other Board members or the public. Although Hill certainly seemd to know a lot about it.
What sort of deliberation did they have at this private meeting prior to today's discussion? And who was in attendance?
I'll get into this more
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:53 — KeungHui (author)I'll get into this more later as part of a post about the tension between the majority and minority at the meeting.
Did you see....
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:23 — JanisTangoThe comment Dr. Martin made....'Neighborhoods don't own the schools'. I think Lori Millberg must be feeding him lines....geezzz......so much for doing things differently huh!
Just more of the same
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:08 — FSandYOUI had no doubt they would be nothing more than a repeat of the Head/Millberg era and sure 'nuff it hasn't even taken a month to prove it. OMG, I'm laughing so hard I may pop a vein.
Next up...
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:37 — Bob_Sconce"These people just need to go where we tell them."
How about Martin's comments
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:34 — jeffrey1How about Martin's comments on the 10:00pm news (I am paraphrasing):
If this assignment plan were a business plan that was turned into a professor in an introductory business course, it would be sent back to the students, and they would be told to try again.
I think comments like that are incredibly disrespectful to Mr. Tata and the staff that have spent nearly a year developing the plan. I can understand that he wants changes, but he's not scoring any points with comments like that.
Martin Scored Points In Our House
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:42 — mariareierOn the contrary in my book - Martin scored huge points with me and my husband tonight. I watched the whole meeting (or what WRAL was able to show) and I thought he was by far the most intellingent and well spoken of the group - whether I ageed with his viewpoints or not. This assignment plan is very much a business/science model and should be tested in it's final form just as a scientific experiment would be. This plan has never been tested w/parents in it's final form. And even worse, never tested at all, even in the early stages with the fundamental element of feeder patterns included.
Martin may have some
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 03:02 — jeffrey1Martin may have some intelligence (he has a PhD ya know), but it's his mouth and his temperment that are going to cause his downfall.
First he flat out lies about his pre-election communication with Tata, intentionally omitting key facts in an email communication. Then on election night, he says that anyone that did not vote for him is not intelligent.
Now, less than a month into his term, he's telling Tata and his dedicated staff, who have slaved for nearly an entire year on a plan that included more community engagement than any prior policy changes in the history of WCPSS, that it is not worthy of a passing grade in an introductory business class. Martin is alienating his peers, his constituents, and the staff that he has to work with for the next 4 years. It would have been far more beneficial for him to say something like "I have some concerns with this plan, but given that it received bipartisan support from my predecessors, and given that we are two weeks away from the scheduled implementation of the plan, I look forward to carefulling monitoring its strengths and weaknesses, and working with staff and my fellow board members to address my concerns."
This is a plan that has had more input from board members, parents, administrators, and education consultants than any prior assignment plan in history (recall that WCPSS would often reassign 10,000+ students with an announcement in December, a cursory review by the board in January, and final approval in February, without so much as a single community engagement meeting). There are two types of leaders in the world -- those who do, and those who study, re-study, contemplate, and study some more. This plan is the culmination of a two year process, far longer than needed. It's time for implementation, followed by careful monitoring, and adjustment as warranted.
how long ago was that?
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 09:54 — EBDarcyWhen did students get moved without any public engagement. Since we've been in the system reassignment process has been basically:
draft plan released in December
comment period (email, letters, calls)
Revised draft
community engagement meetings (with staff)
revised draft
public hearings (before BOE)
If that happened, and I'm saying it didn't but it must have been before my time,it was wrong and yes they have done a better job. But lets not forget the recent Repub majority was still making calender changes and moving nodes well into March in 2010 and they had to re-open the magnet app process which had already had it's deadline extended.
vote
How long ago was that? When
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:04 — jeffrey1How long ago was that?
When my children were reassigned in 2002, there were no community engagement meetings. There were board work sessions, where the public was not allowed to comment, and there was the regular BOE meetings where one could make comments during the public comment period, but there were NO community engagement meetings held at various locations throughout the county (as there are now) for the specific purpose of addressing reassignment issues.
The Difference....
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 10:08 — JanisTangowas in the past when the new assignment plan came out, very few changes were ever made to the 'draft'. When uphappy parents and neighborhoods voiced their concerns the answer was always, we want to go with the staff's recommendation. Isn't it interesting that this new board appears to have a problem with the staff's recommendation in regards to this new plan!
not always true
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:02 — EBDarcyThere were plenty of occasions when the board in the past (including the Reps who were recently in charge) made changes contrary to staff suggestions.
Percentage Wise....
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:42 — JanisTangothere were not many changes made that went against the staff recommendations. The community engagement meetings on the 3 year plan was a joke.
I'll get into it more later
Tue, 01/03/2012 - 23:50 — KeungHui (author)I'll get into it more later but Martin and Tata butted heads on more than one instance during the work session.
.
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 00:12 — Bob_SconceOh never mind my purile attempt at humor. Move along.. move alone.