Both The Economist and Education Week had their takes last week on the fight over socioeconomic diversity in Wake County schools.
In The Economist article, the writer speculates whether Wake's future looks like that of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, where the percentage of high poverty and high minority schools has increased since the district ended busing for diversity. The article says that efforts by CMS parents in poor areas to get into wealthier schools have often been impossible to grant because of capacity limits.
"(School board member John) Tedesco bristles at the notion that Charlotte is the future; he believes that with better management and more efficient spending Wake can avoid Charlotte’s errors, and he may be right," according to the article in the British weekly. "But Wake’s school system faces a $20m shortfall, which makes the board’s task all the more daunting."
The Education Week article doesn't include any interviews with members of the new school board majority or their supporters. It does say that efforts to reach school board chairman Ron Margiotta were unsuccessful and quotes from his Northern Wake Republican Club speech.
Education Week interviewed both Ann Denlinger, president of the Wake Education Partnership, and Richard Kahlenberg, a researcher from the liberal Century Foundation. Both are critical of the direction of the new board majority.
Education Week cites the WEP report that found that "the district would immediately have more than two dozen high-poverty, low-performing schools if the new student-assignment policy were to be solely based on the neighborhoods students live in."
“In our opinion, Wake County shouldn’t make decisions that result in low-performing schools,” Denlinger said in the article. “We believe we have choices here.”
What they're referring to is what could happen if students were solely assigned to their closest school, something the WEP acknowledges isn't being considered by the board.
Comments
Wanted to add the WEP
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:42 — jenmanWanted to add the WEP published this report on Feb 8, before the amendments to the resolution that you're talking about. They had to have started looking at this analysis well before Feb 8.
I guess they were able to
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:05 — carson79I guess they were able to learn enough about the Board majority's positions that they were right in how they would respond to such resolutions. I am not sure how but it must be bc several campaigned on proximity based assignments.
In any case, they were right about the Board's position on putting avoiding segregation into the resolution.
I could agree with you about
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:38 — jenmanI could agree with you about it shining a light IF they were using anything that's actually being considered. WEP did this 'analysis' solely to get people in a frenzy. They achieved their objective, but its done more damage than it has good.
Totally
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:56 — carson79Totally disagree.
POTENTIAL Consequences of different models are absolutely something they should be looking at and we should be talking about.
A lot of people right here on the blog support a proximity based plan.
Talking about and analyzing what it would look like to show the demographics of the county right now is absolutely an OK, beneficial and good thing for them to do.
How could it not be?
Maybe people are in a frenzy because they have not seen a plan, don't understand how it would work, didn't want a zone model anyway, and don't trust the guy drawing the lines. He seems like a wannabe slick politician and most of the time you can't even make out what he is trying to get at! - can you not understand where the mistrust is coming from?? He mispronounced "revision" in one meeting and honestly that woke me up like wait a second here, who is this guy and why does he care so much where my kids go to school?
The same thing happened when Deborah Prickett said the "sound basic education" was from the US constitution! Come on, that's pretty ridiculous.. and she thanks the Republican party and then calls a newspaper article that was factually accurate and timely "political"?
There is no trust here and the treatment of the SE Raleigh nodes pretty much stamped out any good things I might have had to say about John Tedesco.
I've visited SRHS several times and was impressed
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:16 — NWRaleighMomby the school and students. Are you sure it is going to be detrimental for reassigned students to go there? I would expect the Board to grant transfers to students who would like to graduate from Garner High.
The argument isn't the moves
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:24 — jenmanThe argument isn't the moves themselves, but the fact that these families were reassigned without asking for it and with no notice that it was being considered.
I can understand the boe looking at reversing some of the moves from the 3 year plan that have been protested all along. I can't understand putting somebody new in the plan. Also, SE runs on the modified calendar while Garner is on the traditional. While its not as drastic as being on a multi-track YR, it's still a different calendar.
FWIW, I've also been impressed by SE Raleigh HS.
I understand your argument
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:04 — NWRaleighMomand I agree that it might look bad. But how happy were these families to go to Garner to begin with? I would ask the Board for transfers with transportation for all students who want to graduate from Graner. For me, it iwould be a win-win common sense solution.
You should not assume that
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:26 — magnetParentYou should not assume that these families were unhappy at Garner OR happy to go to SERHS. They did not get a chance to provide that input.
They are about 5 miles closer to school, but on a different calendar, with a different program. Their traditional option is now a 10 mile further drive if they chose to go to Middle Creek. (8.3 mi to GHS, 18.4 mi to Middle Creek).
Please don't try to justify a wrong with assumptions. If they were unhappy with Garner they would have already applied to SERHS as a magnet student. So my guess is they were probably just fine with Garner. (Though I will not assume anything)
If they were unhappy with Garner
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:37 — NWRaleighMom-------------------------------------------------
Actually, pretty good -
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:44 — magnetParentActually, pretty good - SERHS is underenrolled, remember?
I remember that
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:27 — NWRaleighMommy friends have unsuccessfully applied to SRHS for several years.
Anyway, I've been trying not to get into this particular discussion. But, really, this move is not as bad as you and carson are trying to make it, especially if BoE accommodates students willing to stay.
You really can't admit that
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:48 — magnetParentYou really can't admit that it is the wrong thing to do at this time and in this manner, can you? If this move is not really as bad as we think - then lets change the calendar and location of your school on a whim without asking for input and see how you feel.
Their enrollment for 2009/2010 is:
442(9th) ,388(10th), 384(11th) 351(12th) with a total of 1565 - The max capacity is 1975 (with trailers). Years ago SERHS was very full. Not as much now. Anyone applying now has a very good chance of getting in.
If BoE accomodates students
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:45 — danofncIf BoE accomodates students willing to stay, then bus costs go up at a time when we're already trying to find 3/4 of a million dollars.
so you admit we have not
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:38 — carson79so you admit we have not heard from the families in that area and they were robbed of their chance to speak about it when no other nodes were treated this way by the board, right?
And then you somehow want to say this is "not bad" because YOU claim to know what is best for these families?
I feel like you are missing the whole point - it's not the move that was the problem, it was the process used to move them (or lack thereof since it just consisted of John T raising his hand and getting approval).
Would it be ok with you if your node was treated this way?
Would it be ok with you if your node was treated this way?
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:09 — NWRaleighMomThis is why I got into the discussion :-) I would be happy if my kids were reassigned into SRHS, especially if it were our closest school.
I guess I wish for immediate improvement whether certain protocols are met or not. I will change my mind if I hear from affected families who feel otherwise.
How is this immediate
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:51 — carson79How is this immediate improvement?
You are saying it would be immediate improvement for you, but you have no way of saying it's what anyone else wants. that's what the community involvement is for (hint hint)
And your kids are in elementary anyway right? Might be a tough transition for your kid to go from ES to HS LOL
Getting parental input and involving the community is not a "certain protocol" - it was A CAMPAIGN PROMISE!!
Unfortunately I think we are finding out WHO the new Board was really promising - this incident proves that. No amount of spin or sideways talk from you can change the facts to this one. I'm thoroughly disappointed.
My problem is
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 16:42 — NWRaleighMomthat you are not even going to consider the fact that it might be a positive move for these students. It is irrelevant to you.
And it is relevant to you
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 17:40 — carson79And it is relevant to you how?
If it is going to be a positive move for the students, why were the families shut out of the process? If they wanted to move, wouldnt they have pushed for it like other families? Or are you saying you know what's best for them to the point that we shouldnt even ask for input the way we do with other nodes?
I don't know if it's going to be positive or not for the 160 families affected and you don't either! That's the problem, this is what unfair and unequal treatment of neighborhoods looks like.
I'm not going to let it go unnoticed or try to twist the situation into something it's not as you are attempting.
I don't know if it's going to be positive
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 18:33 — NWRaleighMom-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say it was "evil" I
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 13:05 — carson79I didn't say it was "evil" I said it was WRONG and INCONSISTENT WITH THE WAY OTHER NODES HAVE BEEN TREATED AND THE BOARD'S CAMPAIGN PLATFORM!
ok?
Based on your posts it's pretty clear you haven't read the paperwork behind the moves that Hui posted or watched the meeting. I'm not sure I even know what you mean about the families voicing their opinion in Garner High? If there was some other comments that you are saying *might* be out there, they should have been brought up in the meetings and THEN had public comment and input. You're clearly on your own here saying this was ok and I'm not sure I understand why but since you don't seem to understand the situation at all, I'm going to say that has something to do with it.
So...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:34 — Bob_SconceWhy is SERHS on a modified calendar? Just don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
If you were ever in a school
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:43 — magnetParentIf you were ever in a school with a modified calendar, you would be asking why all high schools are not on the modified calendar.
1. SERHS is the feeder option for the modified calendar middle schools (Centennial and Moore Square).
2. The modified calendar is much more closely aligned with the colleges/universities calendars. Yes, we do have some students taking classes at NC State and Wake Tech - especially the math courses that cannot be filled enough to staff at the school itself.
3. The modified calendar is much more closely aligned with the AP exam schedule. Especially since the "Save our Summers" campaign that further delayed the start of traditional calendars.
4. Why not?
So...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:36 — Bob_SconceYou've convinced me on the last two; the first one, not so much since I don't see any reason why Centinnial and Moore Square should be on the modified calendar (other than the fact that they feed into SERHS, which seems circular). The college class part especially makes sense to me -- My neice in WCPSS has been taking classes at NCSU for two semesters, and being on different calendars is difficult.
As far as AP goes, is SERHS on a block schedule or a more typical HS calendar? The block schedule seems to be a real impediment to AP tests.
So, here's the million-dollar question: what's up with the break in the middle of September? This schedule would make more sense and be more appealing if it started two weeks later. Probably also help with fall sports.
The calendaring law is an abomination -- I use it as an example of why the state should devolve as much control to the local districts as possible.
Here, here
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 18:58 — kbrooks500Don't always agree with you, but on this one absolutely. Local districts shouldl be able to set their calendar.
Centennial and Moore Square
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:10 — magnetParentCentennial and Moore Square act as feeder schools for the elementary schools on modified calendar (Carver and Partnership).
SERHS is on a block schedule, but that has not been a problem in my kids experience. Most AP courses are either second semester or full year (we do have some of those) so the courses finish up right at AP exam time. Regarding sports, the kids still play during their break. Never saw it as a problem though.
The break is at the end of Sept, beginning of Oct. It actually falls in place with the quarters. Report cards come home during the break. 9 weeks on, 2 weeks off. Midterms and Finals are right before the breaks, so they don't forget everything while on break. Teacher workdays are built into the 2 week break, so we don't get peppered with those sporadic teacher workdays in the middle of the week. Great for those vacations in the "off-season" to the beach in October, when it is still relatively warm.
Convincing you that its a good calendar yet? Other than the issue with younger siblings being on a different calendar, maybe all high schools should be on the modified track. Even better, maybe all traditional calendar schools should be converted to modified as well... Fixes everything
. Too bad that calendar law prevents it...
He he he...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:16 — Bob_SconceSo the 'anchor' to having a system of modified-calendar schools appears to be that SERHS is better aligned with college schedules and with AP classes. The K-8 modified-calendar schools follow along to give some continuity to those who eventually end up at SERHS.
You haven't convinced me about the need to have a break in September, but it does otherwise seem preferable to the traditional calendar -- heck moving those two weeks would actually make it reasonably close to the traditional calendar, avoiding many of the problems with the year-round calendar. I like the better alignment with colleges, with AP tests and having finals before winter break.
Unfortunately, it's also over 20 miles away from my house and just not possible.
Actually, Partnership
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:28 — magnetParentActually, Partnership Elementary was the first school to be a modified calendar, so you have that backwards. The 2 week breaks are key for the ES students as well. The break is not in the middle of Sept. Think of it as the beginning of October - I'm not sure what you are trying to line up with the traditional calendar - they have no real breaks in October - and it lines up ok with Track 4 of the year round.
It's 16 miles for me, and it works just fine. I drive mine in on the way to work. We have kids coming in from Wake Forest, Cary, N. Raleigh... all over the place. And in 11th and 12th grade, they can drive to school themselves (lol if you can trust them to... just can't get used to that part myself). Then, there is the express bus, I guess.
So...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 15:19 — Bob_SconceMy point was that shifting the 2 weeks means that kids would start in August instead of July, getting more of their Summer.
It may be that some students can do 20 miles. For us, it's too far -- I can't see letting a 16-year-old drive down Capital Blvd and 1/3 the way around the Beltline. School starts too early for HS kids anyway -- can't see adding another hour onto that. If it were at, say, WF-R (5-6 miles away), it'd be a serious consideration.
Right now, though, it's all theoretical -- my kids aren't that old yet.
Believe me - they get 8
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 16:08 — magnetParentBelieve me - they get 8 weeks for summer and that is plenty long enough. Starting in August causes the same issues you have on the traditional calendar wrt AP exams and college courses. They start the last week of July, so it is not too bad.
I understand the drive issue - my kids will take back roads when I allow them to drive to school. The earlier start time is actually a good thing because we are on the road a little ahead of rush hour.
I guess since you have time, maybe you can push for changing all traditional calendars to modified. Then your nearby schools would work out for you. Good luck!
Why do you obsess over
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:41 — user12345Why do you obsess over calendars?
You caught me...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:45 — Bob_SconceI have been unable to think about anything other than calendars for months. My car has calendars stacked in the passenger seat; my desktop background is a calendar. I dream about them. My clothes are made out of calendars.
Seriously, dude, I was asking a question -- it's an oddball and since it's a single-track, it doesn't even get any theoretical gain incapacity. I'm just curious what the logic is.
My clothes are made out of
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:16 — jenmanMy clothes are made out of calendars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please promise me you won't go out in the rain or swimming unless your calendars are laminated. I'd hate to see you end up in jail.
LOL - Laminated Calendars
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 15:25 — magnetParentLOL - Laminated Calendars -
Be careful now, you don't want to get chafed.
I am glad you asked, I wish
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:53 — magnetParentI am glad you asked, I wish more would. My answer is above. Hope its logical enough.
But how happy were these
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:16 — carson79I don't believe those
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:19 — danofncI don't believe those transfers would include a bus, which may make them useless.
Also, since Garner is a magnet there's a chance these students are in programs that aren't available at SER.
And, SER is on a much different schedule than GHS. Weren't the other people who were given calendar changes also given options that included transportation?
I know that some transfer students are able to use the bus.
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:49 — NWRaleighMomHope they will try to accommodate transfers with existing magnet routes.
....
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:10 — carson79....
I think the problem is that
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:55 — carson79I think the problem is that they weren't notified and the moves that were made were supposed to be just things that were already in the 3 year plan.
There was no justification for the move in the first place, so any accomodations made at this point are actually addressing what the new Board did wrong.
Their traditional option
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:00 — magnetParentTheir traditional option will be Middle Creek, which is a much further bus ride than they had when going to Garner.
SERHS has a different magnet program, does not have IB. So any students in their IB program would definitely lose out.
Since these families have not been given a chance to voice their concerns, they may be unaware of the calendar change. We have had many students not show up on the first days of school because they thought they had 3 more weeks of summer break. If they show up later, some of them don't even get counted on their 10-day count, which affects funding, as well as the staffing for the school.
A lot of people right here
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:08 — jenmanA lot of people right here on the blog support a proximity based plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEP
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:28 — turnerk1I actually thought the WEP article was helpful in that it made it more clear which areas are short of school capacity, which have too much capacity, which areas had higher rates of poverty than other areas. Because of the way schools are assigned today, that is not always clear. For instance, I didn't realize the area around Adams was so high in poverty, or that there was still so little capacity in the Wake Forest area. It's a very large county and few people really understand the challenges faced by people living in parts of the county that they don't know well.
I felt the accompanying article made it clear this was just an exercise to clear the decks and figure out where people lived in relation to schools. Also, several of the board members ran on "neighborhood" schools and didn't start talking about community schools until after they were elected. The WEP article made it clear (to me anyway) that a true neighborhood model isn't feasible.
WEP is not just there to be
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:21 — carson79WEP is not just there to be critical of what the guy that holds the crayon has publicly said!
There is a much broader public discourse that has included statements such as "Wake county is not segregated now" and "Why doesn't everyone just go to the school closest to them?" etc etc
I'm glad to see the analysis of how our county is laid out and what problems would be associated with such a plan.
It's not like John has put forth any type of plan that they COULD anlayze. No parameters, nothing concrete but wait a minute - he has done some things - in fact when he proposed the move of 160 Garner High families to Southeast Raleigh High it was because of "crowding"(yeah right) and he said that they would be at Southeast under his zone plan anyway because they are a few minutes drive closer to SE.
So the only moves we've seen him make are
1. Reject any addition of language to the resolution that the zones will not segregate schools or zones.
2. Start moving kids without public input or comment from their historical attendance pattern to a school with a different calendar closer to them. (PS weren't yall so mad about moving poor kids in SE Raleigh to MYR schools without asking them first?) ---- so Prioritizing proximity above any other concerns (well he doesn't even know the other concerns bc this was done without public input!)
So what are we supposed to think?
I agree with whoever said it's like waiting for Santa Claus.... and I admit I hate the idea of FORCED ATTENDANCE ZONES and lines anyway just as a personality trait so to my mind, unless drawing the zones gives us significant tangible benefits, I'm probably going to be predisposed to any plan that blocks people from choices.
I'm fully aware of this bias but John T has done nothing so far to disple it.
Their lack of focus on anything other than where our kids sit is pretty discouraging too.
and I admit I hate the idea
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:29 — jenmanand I admit I hate the idea of FORCED ATTENDANCE ZONES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I see your point,
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:44 — carson79I guess I see your point, but I think it will get worse under a zone plan, and the magnitude of the problem matters to me - I don't see it as a black and white issue, like "well, we have that now, so this won't be any different" .....
and some of the board majority campaigned on neighborhood schools not "community zones" so I probably have left over skepticism from the idea that they campaigned on not caring about resegregation and now all of a sudden do. So they are for diversity after they were against anything that would incentivize diversity or balanced schools. I don't blame anyone for mistrusting them!
If Kevin Hill all of a sudden said he wanted every school in SE Raleigh to be proximity based only, I would wonder what was going on too :)
I'd faint :)
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 00:24 — TrailerParkGirlI'd faint if Kevin Hill said that :)
I get a little confused when people are concerned about the lines of 15-20 community zones, but are ok with the lines of 1,350 nodes, some as small as a single trailer park or apartment complex, which are then assigned to a different school than all the students immediately outside the lines of that node.
One of my hopes is that in moving from 1,350 nodes to 15-20 zones there will a reduction in focus, time and energy over whether 29 students are assigned to this school or that, resulting in increased focus on achievement. I wonder if one could add up all the manhours that were spent in any way shape or form (including people blogging) on the Lacy/Stough assignment of those 29 kids (think it was 29 correct me if I'm wrong) or any other particular assignment what it would add up to. I wish achievement topics got as much focus as assignment topics.
When did they say they were against anything that would incentivize diversity?
Can we agree that choice and community zones may be areas of opportunity to find some common ground and compromise? Remember that new board members also campaigned on parental choice and innovative solutions.
A strict mandatory neighborhood schools model like what WEP showed isn't innovative nor does it account for choice and even the presentation itself said what was being presented was not the plan. I realize they didn't have a detailed plan to go from, but at a minimum they knew that there would be calendar choice and capacity considerations so there was no way every student would go to the closest school like was presented. When people don't know a plan that generally doesn't mean they then present something they know is not the plan. That falls in the "things that may you go hmm" category. OK, off soapbox. Have a good weekend.
YES--Thank you, TPG!
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 08:45 — petehs"I get a little confused when people are concerned about the lines of
15-20 community zones, but are ok with the lines of 1,350 nodes, some as
small as a single trailer park or apartment complex, which are then
assigned to a different school than all the students immediately outside
the lines of that node."
This perfectly captures the essence of why I got involved in this mess in the first place. The system had band-aids on top of band-aids so many times that nobody could explain "who, what, where, when or why?"
For me, initially, it had nothing to do with school proximity, calendar, etc... rather it was a desire to [see our school leaders] re-structure the inner workings of a system that had become too convoluted to effectively manage.
(TPG, and the rest of your post was spot on, too.)
So...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:51 — Bob_SconceI'm not completely sure what the difference between community schools and neighborhood schools is. I suspect that the biggest difference is that Rev. Barber called "neighborhood schools" a racist code-word.
How I interpret it
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 19:41 — kbrooks500Neighborhood schools = proximity based, usually closest school to your home, may be made up of one large subdivision or several smaller ones. Probably a more homogenous grouping of people at least when looking at income.
Community school = this can have two means I think. On the one hand it is a broader view of neighborhood and recognizes how one may not attend their closest school. it would also explain how a distant magnet could become ones community. This definition acknowledges that most people are not tied just to the neighborhood they live in.
Secondly, I believe some use community schools to define schools serving high poverty students which utilize resources and partnerships with non-profits and business. Unfortunately this will take time, money and effort to create and only time will tell how much support there will be. Most likely only a couple of the highest poverty schools will fall into this definition. There is nothing preventing the board from utilizing this model in high poverty schools now.
Clarification
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 23:29 — TrailerParkGirlJust wanted to help clarify your second defination (from communityschools.org).
The term community school offers the broadest definition of the relationship between school and community. Many people use the terms community school, full service community school and extended service school interchangeably; others use them differently. The Coalition is not particularly concerned with the nuanced differences between these terms. Rather, we encourage people to expand on their own vision of school and community relationships, adding components and strategies that help to achieve better outcomes for students, families and communities. Overtime, we believe that approach will lead people toward the vision of a community schools that we have set forth.
A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities. Schools become centers of the community and are open to everyone – all day, every day, evenings and weekends.
Using public schools as hubs, community schools bring together many partners to offer a range of supports and opportunities to children, youth, families and communities. Partners work to achieve these results: