The new student assignment plan and an update on middle school math placement will be on the agenda of today's meeting of the Wake County school board economically disadvantaged student performance task force.
The task force will hear about efforts to do community outreach, particularly among low-income families, about the new choice plan. One of the concerns raised is making sure that poor families will have the same opportunity to participate in the choice process.
The task force will then get an update on middle school math placement, looking at the 20th-day numbers at individual schools. The discussion will take place while the new placement policy is in limbo seeing whether the new Democratic majority will take action.
Speaking of the new majority, questions exist about what will happen to the ED task force moving forward.
Will the new majority keep the task force? If yes, will John Tedesco be replaced as the task force chairman?
One option could be incumbent Keith Sutton, who is also the vice chair of the task force. It could depend on whether Sutton is chosen as board chairman or vice chairman next week.
Another potential option is new board member Jim Martin, who served as a community member of the task force.
Another name that's been floated around is new board member Christine Kushner, who talked a lot about curriculum issues during the campaign.
Today's meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. at Powell Elementary School, 1130 Marlborough Road, Raleigh,
Comments
Links
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 16:21 — ksinclairTracey Noble, the community member for board member Deborah Prickett, proposed numerous moves that would send Southeast Raleigh students out of schools in North Raleigh.
David Williams, the community member for Tedesco, proposed moves to send Southeast Raleigh students out of Garner High and East Garner Middle back to their communities.
Ann Rouleau, the community member for board chairman Ron Margiotta, proposed moving Southeast Raleigh students out of schools in western Wake.
http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/8703128/
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/01/835564/big-shift-in-wake-students-on.html#storylink=misearch
I thought these community
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:59 — DrActualFactualI thought these community members made their recommendations under the guideline that proximity (at that point in time in the JT plan) was ranked first, above stability. Any computer program that weights these various pillars for assignment placement may have selected the same groups of nodes if their proximate placement was changed to be #1. This is why many parents may want to see the algorithms--what criteria is really first in what instance.
These moves proposed
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 19:20 — valsparThe bulk of these moves proposed by Rouleau, Williams and Noble in Tedesco's Student Assignment farce were implemented by their respective board members the first year the new board majority changed the 3 year plan, with no attention paid to capacities at the schools they were moving kids in and out of. These three folks came with an agenda that was planned with their board member ahead of time - quite obvious. Goldman's rep quit about that time. Williams and his wife spoke their peace at the Garner High student assignment hearings, and used the words - "those kids", referencing how their daughter was harassed by SE Raleigh kids. Don't yall remember Tedesco saying "Garner kids in Garner schools"? Williams has never been shy about saying Garner had "too many" southeast Raleigh students.
Here's what I've never understood
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 01:30 — nmoskalIn 2008-09 Raleigh (municipality) residentially had 41% FRL students and Garner (municipality) had 38% FRL - not much different (plus Garner is much smaller, so assigning 100 FRL students to Garner will have a larger impact on their FRL% than 100 FRL students will impact Raleigh's %). Given the similar FRL%s, why were FRL students from SE Raleigh assigned to Garner in the first place rather than to a another area of Raleigh (while Garner students were assigned elsewhere)?
Why do people take issue with Garner wanting to "own" and have room to keep their residential FRL students local, but take no issue with Raleigh not wanting to "own" and instead send their residential FRL students out of Raleigh to Garner?
If I were a low-income person living in Raleigh, I'd want to know why my own town didn't want me before I worried about why some other town didn't.
Magnet access
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:16 — valsparOK - Mrs Paint asked the question - "why were SER students sent to Garner?" Answer, because suburban middle class Garner students are in magnets in SE Raleigh. Same reason SER students were sent to North Raleigh, to Apex, to Cary - so there would be magnet seats for the kids leaving North Raleigh, Apex, Cary. But now everyone has a choice. Let's see how this new assignment experiment works for student achievement. Mrs. Paint also asked her source to ask the source to start blogging - nope. So you have to be content with this "deep throat" access to info. (Man does that date me or what?)
Thanks for the information-but Garner isn't N Raleigh
Mon, 12/05/2011 - 10:04 — nmoskalThat is the crux of the issue. Garner is not similarly situated to N Raleigh and Apex, and for Cary it depends if you talking about the Rim area or the rest of it. It seems what happened with Garner is similar to what happened to the Rim. When you already have residentially diverse areas, the whole magnet/SES balance busing approach creates an unnecessary mess in those areas. You basically end up hurting the already diverse areas trying to fix the not diverse areas. Then it becomes a fingerpointing game of hot potato.
I got the deep throat reference so count me in as dated.
I attended a WakeEd
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 22:06 — jenmanI attended a WakeEd Partnership roundtable on the diversity policy in Garner several years ago. Well before the 2009 eletions. Ronnie Williams was there along with David Williams, Amy White (boe member before Horace Tart), and several Garner civic and business leaders. The discussion was quite interesting and a few key points were made. One was that Garner wasn't interested in ridding themselves of low income families. Garner was about 35% F&R at the time--the county average and not far from the diversity goal at the time of 40%. Several people there said, "We own that 35%. We're not intereted in reducing it, we're not interested in getting rid of low income kids. They are Garner kids and we want to keep them in Garner schools." I do not remember the specific nodes, but it was discussed that some higher F&R nodes from Garner were being bused out of Garner in order to accommodate F&R kids getting bused into Garner schools from SE Raleigh.
It wasns't about saying nobody else belonged in Garner schools. They were saying quit busing low income Garner kids out to make room for low income kids from somewhere else. What I always found interesting about that whole situation was that it was somehow offensive for low income kids to attend higher poverty schools in the own SE Raleigh or downtown neighborhoods but ok for them to attend high poverty schools in Garner.
Does anybody really think that Raleigh, Wake Forest or Knightdale families wouldn't be upset if they were moved out to schools in another town or area to make room for kids from somewhere else to go there? That's the reason why Broughton ended up losing its magnet status. Once there were middle to upper income base nodes reassigned to Sanderson to make room for more magnet applicants, they fought it because they didn't want to leave 'their' school. It was turning into a domino effect with Sanderson families having to be reassigned to make room for those Broughton nodes. PTA members from those affected surrounding high schools got together to argue that maybe Broughton shouldn't keep its magnet status after all. Is this really any different from the Garner situation? Nobody likes to be moved out of their 'hometown' schools to make room for families from somewhere else.
Sorry to go off on this, and I don't mean to be yelling at you, but I get so tired of hearing about how it's Garner, Leesville, Wakefield or 'suburban' parents who are so horrible and want to keep other kids out of 'their' schools when it is EVERYBODY who acts this way. ITB, Garner, Cary, Apex, the rim, Wake Forest, Zebulon--everybody. We're all the same when it comes to wanting to have pride in our neighborhood schools. We want to invest in those schools and know that our kids and neighborhoods will attend them for a long time to come. This is not just a newcomer/Yankee thing and nobody is selfish or bad for feeling this way.
Right on the money. Most
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 03:05 — jeffrey1Right on the money.
Most people on this blog are relatively new when it comes to school assignment issues, and don't the history of school assigments regarding Garner.
For those that don't know, Garner has a long history of assignment issues. It goes all the way back to when Sam Bridges was mayor of Garner. When the diversity policy was put in place in 1999, Garner quickly became the "dumping ground" for Wake Schools. Garner kids were shipped out. and disproportionally more SE Raleigh kids were shipped in. If you go back to the early part of last decade, the poorest schools were routinely located in Garner. They often had F&R rates that were well above the F&R rates of Garner and the rest of the county.
There was a huge protest held outside of Wake County Schools back around 2002 or 2003, where Garner citizens asked to be treated with fairness. Just as Jen says above, the citizens protested, not because they wanted outsiders removed, but only because they wanted to be treated fairly.
When Amy White was elected to the school board, she was in favor of busing for diversity. She approved most of the moves sent to the board by Ramey Beavers and Chuck Delaney. But during her campaign, she ran on a platform to address the inequity of school assignments with regard to Garner schools, and was elected in a landslide victory, but had limited success in bringing change to Garner schools.
Yep...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 21:49 — JanisTangothey were members of the student assignment task force. Does that mean Anne Sherron and Diane Bader were apart of those suburban parents that wanted 'those' kids out of their schools since they were on the student assignment committee in years past? They had a hand in moving a lot of low income children around! Since the Tedesco plan was shut down it was back to business as usual ....node based assignments. Even Dulaney said the 3 year assignment plan would require moves throughout the 3 year period. I want to see the list of suburban parents that weren't involved with reassignments that demanded that 'those' kids be removed out of their schools.
? no it was not just
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 15:46 — carson79? no it was not just reassignment - it was suburban parents bringing lists of nodes to be reassigned out of their school.
This was completely different situation.
you are right
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 17:35 — snordonewe had the N Raleigh Rim association that did formally request that ED kids not be placed in the rim schools to such a large extent. But it is the same reason that magnet parents protested so much, we associate ED/minority with being bad for schools. That is what must change, our perception of race and income.
But the parents in the rim schools - the ones who have stayed - have done an amazing job of supporting all children. It is these parents who have suffered from the constant negative comments about suburban parents. If you want diversity, if you want a truly healthy school (one where all children learn) then you need to come to the rim.
Link Please...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 16:13 — JanisTangoThere must be a blog or write up on the suburban parents bringing this list of nodes. Please provide the link. I could be wrong, but I don't recall the situation the same as you do!
?
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 21:55 — EBDarcyDon't the neighborhood schools folks want those kids out of LRES? Tedesco said it was unfair that we were denying them the right to go to their closest schools. Didn't matter to him what the results were at the closest schools. Was this node on h list Prickett tried to get moved out via Tedesco's assignment committee?
Bless Mrs. Paint
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 19:49 — valsparBless Mrs. Paint - She knows somebody, who knows somebody who was on the JT student assignment farce committee, who has the docs from Williams, Rouleau, and Nobles still on a laptop. Node 76 was on the Nobles list, at elementary, middle and high, to remove from the Leesville campuses. Nobles recommended 39 nodes for removal from District 7 schools - most located in SE Ral; and Leesville, Hilburn, and JG were the schools most affected by her proposal. Some of these nodes had not been at Leesville one entire year yet.
To where were they recommending they be moved?
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 22:23 — nmoskalSo, 76 was moved to Leesville for the 2009-10 school year? I'd also like to know why they were moved out of Joyner in the first place. When were the other nodes originally assigned to Hilburn and JG?
They were moved out of
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 23:43 — jenmanThey were moved out of Joyner because Joyner was overcrowded and they were not going to reassign the middle to upper income base nodes out of Joyner because it wouldn't be fair to them. After all, they 'stuck it out' and supported the school after Node 76 was assigned there in the first place and caused a mass exodus of white middle class families who were concerned that the Node 76 kids would lower their property values. (This reason was given to me by somebody in admin who shall remain anonymous) The 2000 node 76 controversy was well documented in the news, but the whole 'we can't move the affluent base' reasoning was never made publicly known.
This conveniently coincided with Leesville's conversion to YR, which was designed in large part to enable them to increase the number of low income kids that could be bused there. They didn't have enough of the 'burden'.
The very next year, Joyner got mobile units and became one of the traditional options for those not wanting YR. So much for overcrowding. Joyner then had the revolving door of low income kids opting out of YR for a couple of years.
I also find it interesting that they moved low income kids out of a school that was already 'healthy' at 41% when there were several schools that were over 50% F&R that weren't touched. Brentwood is 3 miles away from Joyner and was 66% F&R at the time. And Joyner is a magnet school with not only very invested and active magnet parents but a very active and supportive middle to upper income base. I never thought that 40% F&R was a problem in the 4 years we were there. It was a great school with really nice families.
Keeping the middle class families happy and in the schools
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 00:44 — nmoskalDulaney said that's what guided things in his GSIW presentation (and it was done behind closed doors - don't think he mentioned that part). Brentwood doesn't have a lot of middle class families (and I'd bet few, if any, truly affluent, powerful families) that needed to be kept happy and the same for all the other schools that were way outside the parameters of the former policy and no one focused on or did anything about for a long time or never (until two years ago).
Keung posted the same docs
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 21:10 — jenmanKeung posted the same docs here.
One thing to keep in mind is that these were suggestions for discussion. And at least this committee was out in the open. The members were appointed by the Board reps, the meetings were held openly where anybody could attend. I wonder how many of the suggestions and comments from Dulaney's secret assignment committee would be offensive to people. I've heard comments about my neighborhood from people who were on that committee and it was not pleasant to think about our families being discussed as numbers rather than actual people.
I know Rouleau and Noble and they are good people who care about all students in the system. They do not operate under some ulterior motive of wanting to rid their area's schools of low income kids. I've only met Williams a time or two but I'm willing to bet that he's the same.
...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 20:45 — SideburnsDoes Mrs Paint also have the list of nodes that were moved round and round for the past 10+ years? Why was node 076.0 moved to Leesville in the first place? They had been assigned to Joyner less than 3 miles away for 7 years.
Mrs Paint to the rescue with the facts again...
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:51 — valsparMrs. Paint does not have the data. She knows somebody who has access to the public data generated from JT's Student Asssigment Farce. 076 was at JYJ for 7 years, then was moved to LES to continue cohort movement. The high students had been going to LHS since 93-94, and the middle since 91-92. The 3 year plan was all about aligning feeder patterns for elementary to middle. Right or wrong, that was why it was done. No big conspiracy here.
The 3 year plan was supposed
Sun, 12/04/2011 - 14:43 — jenmanThe 3 year plan was supposed to be about aligning feeder patterns, but it was done selectively. Lots of low income nodes were moved to far flung suburban elem schools under the guise of 'cohort continuity', yet there were moves mostly in the suburban areas that actually took kids away from their cohorts.
I have an analysis somewhere of the nodes that were moved--which ones actually had peer continuity and which ones took that away. Where the nodes were located and what the F&R was of the nodes and the affected schools. I'll have to see if I can dig it up--there were some interesting patterns.
I do know that overcrowding at Joyner was given as the reason they were moving Node 76 out.
and that's your argument?
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:55 — EBDarcyNo denial of the action or it's intentions, just "well they did it..." Did you elect the current majority to stop that?
...
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 13:12 — SideburnsI'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that valspar is trying to make an issue out of moving a node that had been assigned for only a year. Uh, that had been going on for years and he didn't mind. Now, suddenly, it's an issue? Please. Hollow words, at best.
I am thrilled that this new plan doesn't just offer -- but guarantees stability for all children. All families can stay where they are or choose another school based on their needs. What a concept.
Darn tootin' its an issue
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:01 — valsparAnd I've typed it here before - its because the stability board did it, and who said I didn't mind about movement with prior boards? Not me. Just like you, I've been for stability from the beginning. However stability was distributed by this board selectively. Ron called these moves during his chairmanship "correcting past mistakes", which I guess made it OK for you. This board could have guaranteed ALL students could stay where they were at without moving a single child while implementing a choice plan, but they didn't, did they? By removing the SER students from the schools they were in created more room - and stability - for the students left, as it opened more seats in growth areas. As I've always said - Ron's board was about "proximity for you, stability for us". I've been a proponent for once in a school, you stay in a school, and capping.
You are correct...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 11:33 — truthBtoldthey fought tooth and nail to have "those kids" removed from Leesville ES. Debra Prickett is going to have some 'splaining to do !
I never heard anyone say anything
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 13:58 — snordoneabout removing children. I have heard suburban parents say they don't want to be bused to a school that has no resources and an assignment that requires them to drive past 3 closer schools with more resources.
really you don't remember?
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 15:10 — carson79Do you not remember the meeting where the suburban Assignment Committee Reps or whatever they were showed up with long lists of Node numbers that they wanted to be reassigned out of their schools?
It was when Tedesco was in control of everything.
I'm surprised yall don't remember this!
EB Was Making
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 15:34 — JanisTangoan inaccurate statement. She said 'it was parents who wanted those children out of those schools'. I'm asking for the proof where those statements were made. EB continues to make inaccurate statements and I'm asking for proof to this one.
I'm not familiar with the
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 16:12 — carson79I'm not familiar with the former statements you are talking about but I would say that proposing the reassignment of SE Raleigh nodes from your school at least partially lines up with what EB said about parents wanting kids removed from their school.
Your School...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 22:02 — JanisTangodo you mean Jeffreys Grove? If you think there is a single parent at JGE advocating for any students to be removed you are once again WRONG. In fact....it is insulting to the group of wonderful JGE parents that are there day in and day out helping any child that needs the extra help. JGE has some of the most generous and giving parents that I have ever met. Why don't you step in the door of our school sometime before you start making assumptions about people you have never met!
The links you requested have
Sun, 12/04/2011 - 13:19 — carson79The links you requested have been provided - I don't know if it was a JGE parent that requested the SE Raleigh kids to be moved out, but I don't remember you guys protesting the proposed move.
And the idea that I have not been in the school is laughable! I bet I was in the school before you were even in Raleigh! So let's both try not to make any assumptions.
How Do You Know...
Sun, 12/04/2011 - 16:29 — JanisTangothat people didn't protest the moves. I guess because it wasn't done publically it didn't happen. Talk about making assumptions!
I did not say that there
Sun, 12/04/2011 - 17:31 — carson79I did not say that there were not protests, but that I didn't remember there being any. If you have information on some, by all means, please provide the links as we did when you requested proof of suburban parents fighting for removal of SE Raleigh kids from suburban schools.
Really...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 11:45 — JanisTangoplease provide the proof where parents fought tooth and nail to have those kids removed. There must be minutes from that meeting somewhere. Link please!
oh, puhLEASE! C'mon, Janis.
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 16:37 — jeannie84oh, puhLEASE! C'mon, Janis. Think about what you're asking for! Who is going to be quoted in a news story saying "I want 'those kids' out of my kids' school?" But I have seen it in comments within the anonymous security of responding online to Letters to the Editor, I've overheard it from folks in the grocery store and I saw it in action -- under the guise of creating "neighborhood schools" -- during that work session that Carson is referencing when Prickett's SAC rep came prepped with her infamous node list. But if you're looking for links, you'll need to check the library archives, because I don't know that news stories from the 1950s are readily available online.
...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 17:08 — SideburnsHow is it that you support moving 'those kids' out of their own neighborhood so your magnet friends can get all the academic goodies yet you remain completely blind to how those children were treated under the old assignment policy? Look at the high demand of Walnut Creek. The families in SE Raleigh obviously want neighborhood options. What a shame that you don't feel they are worthy.
Just Wondering
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:01 — jgegbgmgWonder how the old majority would have handled this two years ago - You think they would have left a democrat in charge of anything? Would like a reply from one of the fab five (preference being Margiotta) if he or she is willing to speak up!
FWIW - this specific item is N/A to two years ago
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 16:55 — nmoskalThe ED Task Force did not exist then. It was created under the fab five to use your term. If the now newly elected majority would like to create a specific task force, I would expect the person whose brainchild it is to be chair.
If say Susan Evans wanted to start a task force on budgeting for example I wouldn't expect anyone but her to be chair- would you? Shoe on other foot - do you think it would be reasonable for those who identify as Rep to then complain that say Prickett wasn't made chair of the budget task force?
Since she's not sure if she's a CPA or not
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 20:52 — FSandYOUI'd highly suggest she not chair a task force on budgeting.
I'd like to see Tedesco stay
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 10:39 — jenmanI'd like to see Tedesco stay on as chair, but if he is replaced I think it should be Kushner.
JT
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 11:15 — HereWeGoIf JT is going to run for state level office will he have time?
Eh...
Mon, 12/05/2011 - 11:42 — Bob_SconceNext year's a presidential election year. If your name is listen on the ballot under the same party as the winning presidential candidate, you will be elected. Otherwise, you won't. (Probably not true for high-profile state races like Governor and, perhaps, Lt. Gov.)
While reforming...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 10:20 — bpuli9999the educational system in all of NC, at the same time, as president of NC CER.
Keung
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 09:11 — valspar"One of the concerns raised..."
Who among the members is raising the concern? Just curious. With Tedesco against "quotas" but at the same breath championing choice, I wonder where he stands on established high performing options for low performing nodes when he is in the ED Task Force meetings. He's repeatedly cracked on the downtown schools' lackluster performance for ED students attending them. While making sure poor families have the same opportunity to participate in the choice process is an admirable goal, will he also champion them having the same quality of choices as his western neighbors, or does he champion throwing another million per school?
Who among the members is
Thu, 12/01/2011 - 23:47 — jeffrey1Who among the members is raising the concern?
It's a common concern raised by all board members (past and present) when any action is required on the part of ED families. It's common for ED families not to have the same level of participation in their child's education. That is true, whether we are talking about participation in PTA, or returning forms that are sent home with children, or making a choice of which school to enroll in. Trying to address it now, instead of assigning all those families who don't make a choice to their default school, is the right thing to do.
will he also champion them having the same quality of choices as his western neighbors, or does he champion throwing another million per school?
Of course he champions them having the same quality of choices as do ALL board members. That's the whole premise of the student assignment plan. That's why every parent has a choice of magnet schools and application schools in addition to their proximity choices. And the plan itself was designed by Tata and staff.
The plan...
Fri, 12/02/2011 - 10:22 — bpuli9999was devised entirely by Tata and his staff. Which is why it is so similar to the ones that were proposed previously by JT and Alves.