Supporters of the old diversity policy are ramping up the message of "wait 'til next year" in the aftermath of last week's GOP election victory on the Wake County Board of Commissioners.
As noted in Thursday's American Independent article by Ned Barnett, diversity policy supporters say last week's election results shouldn't be seen as a referendum supporting community schools. Instead, they're pointing to the 2011 Wake County school board elections as the true test of public sentiment.
“I don’t think the voters went to the polls and voted the way they did because of what was going on with the school board,” said Karen Rindge, executive director of WakeUP Wake County, the parent group of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition. “But I think we’re going to see a change next year. That’s when we’re really going to see if the public agrees with this board of education.”
A similar refrain came from campaign strategist Perry Woods, who worked for Democratic commissioner candidates Jack Nichols and Steve Rao. Woods said the real referendums would be the next school bond issue and next year's school board elections.
“The real mandate of the election was people are concerned about the economy,” Woods said. “It’s ridiculous for them to claim a mandate. The results show we’re pretty much a 50-50 county and there is no way in the world they are going to pass a school bond.”
Patty Williams, program director of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, also predicted that the next bond won't pass unless the board addresses concerns that the new assignment plan will lead to school resegregation.
Williams said a lack of voter education may have been what led to last week's election results for commissioner.
“One one hand, it was a referendum on the schools. On the other hand, I don’t know how much voter education necessarily worked,” Williams said.
School board member Kevin Hill also disputes the notion that the election results were a mandate for community schools, a message being uttered by school board members Ron Margiotta, Chris Malone and John Tedesco.
“I don’t know that it’s a mandate to proceed with community schools," Hill said. "I think it was people coming out to vote their dissatisfaction with how things are going in this country.”
Hill said he and other members of the minority will work with Debra Goldman to develop an assignment plan that won’t allow for high poverty, low performing schools.
Hill said he expects Margiotta will face a tough challenge for re-election next year. Margiotta ran unopposed in 2007.
“I don’t think [Margiotta] is going to run unopposed,” Hill said. “The days of any board member running unopposed are over. [The majority members] left the barn door open for politics to come come in.”
UPDATE
In today's article in the American Independent, newly elected Wake County Commissioner Phil Matthews is calling last week's election results a mandate for neighborhood schools.
Comments
"Williams said a lack of
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:28 — woodstockTS ... be your own man,
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 19:22 — user12345Although I still support it, public education has certainly given us many reasons not too. I think many people (including myself) are starting to believe there must be a better way. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We (the American society) has dumped a ton of money and resources down the public education rat hole. I'm not sure we have ever even come close to maximizing our return on that investment.
TS ... be your own man, educate your own kids and you will never look back. I never bet but I will put $100 on you doing a better job, having a wonderful time and leaving all these problems behind. If sometime in the future, after trying it and you disagree, ping me and I'll sent you a check.
The next SB Election ??
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:59 — AgentPierceDoesn't the 2011 WCPSS election just involve the four "Democrat" seat and Ron Magiotta. The Dems run the risk of losing one or more seats .... or defeating Magiotta who is very popular in his district?
Yes we know this is non-partisan (except to Mr Hui!).
Defeating Margiotta
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:35 — Apexcitizen1RM very popular did you type that with serious intent.
He won because he ran unopposed in the last election.
And...
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 09:59 — Bob_SconceNobody decided to oppose him because he was popular. If he had been unpopular, opponents would have been coming out of the woodwork. We didn't have to wait until Election Day to know Horace Tart was unpopular -- there were 4 people running against him!
Not Popular the Only guy who ran
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 15:13 — Apexcitizen1Bob,
Nobody opposed him because nobody wanted the job. I would say the truth is that most county residents are quite apathetic when it comes to WCPSS BoE elections. His election has nothing to do with your concept of his perceived popularity. If you have children in school and their not in the re-assignment mix people simply don't care who's on the BoE, hate to say it but that's the truth. You can quit staring at your "Ron M." bobble head figurine on your desk now.
So....
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 15:40 — Bob_SconceI don't see why your scenario is any more likely than mine is. He's certainly been controversial over the years. Most other races have been contested -- why hasn't his?
In any case, his is one of the more conservative parts of the county, and beating him would certainly be an uphill battle. The Democrats will put a lot of money into trying to upseat him; by this time next year, I expect them to have hired some floozie to say that he made advances toward her.
Okay I'll meet you in the middle on Ron's popularity
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 16:23 — Apexcitizen1The floozie strategy (FS) is about the only entertainment that's been missing from the currently composed BoE. It certainly we'll add a new component of dysfunctionality. I wouldn't limit it to the Dems to try exclusively, the FS can be effective political tool with both parties. In RM's defense I don't think the FS it would work well as he's been faithfully married for 30-40+ years. I would guess it's more likely to be tried with JT during his re-election by the Dems, but it's equally likely that JT will self implode on his own.
I'm sure you'll all talk
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:43 — KeungHui (author)I'm sure you'll all talk about how non-partisan it is next year after both parties pour a lot of money into the races like they did last year.
Sad that we can not just
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:40 — user12345Sad that we can not just elect smart, creative, independent folks and and pour all that political money into the schools instead.
Seems to me...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:47 — MissVApparently the majority of voters are not impressed with either the News and Observer nor the Independent. Wonder why?
Bring Back the Diversity Program Please
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:21 — JustShutUpPlease bring back the diversity program with it's +50% minority failure rates. It's what the folks really really wants. The NAACP and Mr. Barber needs this platform desperately. Fair, impartial, injustice for all!
Oh good grief...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:05 — Bob_SconceAnd when they lose THAT one, they'll say "This election wasn't a referendum on community schools. You'll have to wait for the 2012 Commissioners election to see that."
Dropping the diversity policy was going to happen sooner or later. By this time next year, there will be even more people who have moved here from someplace where the idea of busing kids for 'diversity' is completely alien. And there will be more the year after.
I'd guess that if busing
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:36 — CaryCurmudgeonI'd guess that if busing supporters lose yet another seat in next year's BoE election, they still won't accept the result as a referendum on community schools. I'd be curious to know exactly what would convince the board critics that there is not majority support in the county for diversity-based assignment.
what would convince the
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:15 — user12345what would convince the board critics that there is not majority support in the county for diversity-based assignment.
Take all the low achieving / minority kids and stuff them into a few schools and see if anyone notices or cares? Create a poverty zone and get rid of the "problem". Like the post below, I think the "majority" does not care about public schools, don't care where kids go to school, MYR is, what PLT are, how many times kids have to be reassigned, etc. as long as it is cheap and keeps their taxes low. I think the worst part of the Ron and team is that they continue to erode public confidence in and support for the schools in their effort to eliminate diversity.
Will you please make up your mind?
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 13:53 — TrailerParkGirlIt seems that some days you do not view low-income, minority and low-achieving as one and the same and always will be and then other days you do.
Until people STOP assuming they are one and the same and always will be, it will never get better.
You will NEVER close the gap if you keep thinking these kids will always be low achievers because that is how the system will continue to treat them and track them down.
“Take all the low achieving / minority kids and stuff them into a few schools and see if anyone notices or cares?”
You mean like what has been happening by spreading them around? Who notices and cares about the ones at Oak Grove, Underwood, Lacy, Laural Park, Salem, Joyner, Olive Chapel, Wakefield, Middle Creek, West Lake, Ballentine, Banks Road, Briar Creek, Farmington Woods, Fuller, Green Hope, Herbert Atkins, Olds, Partnership, Root and Washington. All schools where ED and at least one minority group are scoring below district average in a district that is about at or below state average (may have missed some as I got tired of and depressed from looking). You should see the percentage of Level I scoring ED kids at some of those schools – double state average.
Let me guess somehow those schools got a “different kind of” ED or minority kids than the schools not in that group where the performance is above district average. Do you think those schools got all the “low achievers” and the other schools got all the exceptions who are “not low achievers” or do you think something about what is going on inside the respective schools might play a role?
Are they being served in those schools??? Who cares if they are or aren’t – certainly not the “slap a 'not expected to achieve' label on them and keep spreading them around” for “great schools” crew. They’ve been getting away with not educating those kids and not closing the gap for years and will never change their M.O. because deep down, they don’t think those kids are as capable even when they have the same predicted probability of success based on objective data and/or all they really care about is their own pocketbooks (property values, real estate commissions, etc.) and keeping their own advantages in the system.
You either think all demographic groups can achieve or you don’t and that is pretty much what drives everything else that goes on with this system and the various stakeholders.
They’ve been getting
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 16:52 — user12345They’ve been getting away with not educating those kids and not closing the gap for years and will never change their M.O. because deep down, they don’t think those kids are as capable ..
I have a hard time with this concept ....
Take a low income kid from SE who goes to Green Hope and you say he is not getting his needs met because the staff does not think he is capable? Now what about the kid who lives next to GH with the same income. Do they think he is capable? Is the school screwing him too or does a "local low income kid" get special attention over a "SE low income kid". Poor kids are spread across the county and the segment is growing so all schools need to get use to them. Every school needs to be capable of handling the kids who show up. There should not be an excuse that we are use to teaching only white affluent kids so you should send the poor kids to another school. All schools need to step up and help out.
What?
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 23:44 — TrailerParkGirlI didn't say people think this low income kid is capable and this one is not. People either think low income kids on the whole are capable period or not capable period. Most don't distinguish, they just lump all low-income into one stereotype. I didn't say GH is educating some low-income but not others, I said some schools are doing a lousy job with low-income kids as a whole, so this notion of if we just send them to a low-poverty school or to school with 'expected to achieve kids' all will be hunky dory is bunk.
No, there shouldn't be an excuse, so how come these schools haven't been called on the carpet and are praised as "great schools" and people want to continue the smokescreen? Why haven't they "stepped up"?
Weren't you one of the people who kept saying all the good teachers flock to lower-poverty schools? So how come all those "good teachers" in those "great schools" can't educate a low-income or minority kid out of a paper bag, especially when they only have a handful so as not to be "overburdened" by them? Oh, not to mention the extra help of all those "better" middle class parents volunteering in the classroom. Plus, they are rubbing elbows with the expected to be achieving NED kids, which is supposed to give them "role models" to follow. Isn't that how the theory is supposed to work? Where are the consistent positive results of this theory? How come low-income and minority students do better in some schools than others?
your bias is showing
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:33 — loriacObviously you feel that low-income kids must only be minority and/or low achieving.
"Take all the low achieving / minority kids and stuff them into a few schools and see if anyone notices or cares? Create a poverty zone and get rid of the "problem"."
That's the whole basis behind the so-called diversity policy, and it has resulted in pushing Level IV (very capable) children into remedial classes only because of their being labeled at risk due to their family income level. What's worse, they actually lost ground in the remedial classes. And we want to continue this because??? You are really on a roll today.
That's the whole basis
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 15:23 — user12345That's the whole basis behind the so-called diversity policy, and it has resulted in pushing Level IV (very capable) children into remedial classes only because of their being labeled at risk due to their family income level. What's worse, they actually lost ground in the remedial classes.
The basis behind the diversity policy is to let all schools share the joy of educating all kids especially the ones that may need more help. If kids can not escape from remedial classes because they are labeled at risk that is a policy problem and has nothing do do with diversity. Is that any different than girls not being able to play sports, take shop, etc. because some administrator was thought they were not capable or would get hurt? We have already seen that racist and bias teachers and principals have conspired to keep capable poor kids out of Algebra for years and who knows how many other advanced classes and that is now being addressed by having a computer make the placement to remove the human element from the selection..... the problems you cite are easy to solve and should have been addressed day one before hiring another lawyer, changing the bell schedule, etc. It is a matter of priorities.
and the People said "AMEN!!!"
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 16:41 — hmoncelleHarry_Moncelle
You nailed it User!
Spot on and Well Said
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:25 — Apexcitizen1Good post
Amen, User.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:01 — virginiadareAmen, User.
What I am convinced of by
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:40 — virginiadareWhat I am convinced of by this last election is that there is not majority support in this county any more for public education, period.
What I'm convinced of is
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 00:10 — FSandYOUthose you supported got hammered.
Oh well, there's always next year's "diversity supporters" just wait 'til then elections to look forward to for you.
Although I still support it,
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:54 — shearertwAlthough I still support it, public education has certainly given us many reasons not too. I think many people (including myself) are starting to believe there must be a better way. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We (the American society) has dumped a ton of money and resources down the public education rat hole. I'm not sure we have ever even come close to maximizing our return on that investment.
The answer is vouchers and
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 22:23 — woodstockThe answer is vouchers and competition.
Support competition and vouchers
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:30 — Apexcitizen1Agree that competition is part of the answer and perhaps vouchers. Let's also inject a good dosage of competition within the WCPSS. The starting point would be with the SAC. The SAC starts by develop three (or more) plans based on the defined criteria which has already been captured by the BoE. When the plans are done (includes budgets) the plans are then presented to the BoE and evaluated on their merits and different ranking of criteria. Perhaps one or more of the the plans could be truly innovative and would incorporate a mix of vouchers and competition. You'll never see vouchers or competition with the BoEs current mentality. What frustrates me the most is that they are so locked into short term and a singular plan mentality.
This BoE has an opportunity to implement something better and truly innovative but they've got to open up their minds a bit and quit thinking short term. Have the plans ready by next Spring/Summer and they should be good for the election cycle. I don't believe in any of the conspiracies, harbor no anger towards or care about their political leanings I just expect them to do their best which they've clearly fallen short of doing.