Wake County has the third highest graduation rate among the nation's largest school districts, according to a report today in Education Week.
In its annual Diploma Counts report, Wake County's graduation rate of 78.2 percent for the Class of 2008 placed it ahead of most of the nation's 50 largest school districts. Only Montgomery County in Maryland at 85.7 percent and Fairfax County in Virginia at 85.1 percent came in higher than Wake.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the only other North Carolina school system on the list, was ranked 30th with a 61.2 percent graduation rate.
Detroit Public Schools ranked last on the list with a graduation rate of 33.4 percent.
The publication found that most of the nation's 50 largest school districts were meeting expectations for graduation rates. But Education Week was unable to calculate what Wake's expected graduation rate should be for a district of its size and demographics.
For Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Education Week found the district to be below its expected graduation rate of 63.2 percent.
Statewide, the report found that North Carolina for the first time ranks above the national average in graduation rate. The state is at 72.8 percent compared to 71.7 percent nationally.
As noted in today's online article by Rob Christensen, Democratic leaders immediately said the report was an indication that North Carolina's education system was working, despite criticism from Republican lawmakers.
Comments
(that's what 5x means, x is
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:01 — danofnc(that's what 5x means, x is a symbol for time in math or you could use it in algebra like I did 5x would mean 5 times x, x = 1 WCPSS administration cost). I really should take more time to spell things out for you as you are so easily confused.
You really should understand what you're saying. I know what "5x" means. I don't know why you'd say that smaller districts wouldn't increase costs "5x" as though you proved something, because no one ever said that going to 5 districts would mean "5x" the costs. You started that all on your own.
You should spend less time talking trash about what I know or don't know, and more time actually making sure that you're right about what you say.
I really don't understand why you always turn every discussion into a lobbying session for breaking WCPSS into smaller districts. Unless you've got a lot of friends in the GA, I don't think it's possible. You haven't given anything in the way of facts to suggest that it would be flat or cheaper in cost, either.
All you've done is speculate that the schools would be more able to adjust to needs, an assumption you made without explaining how the smaller districts would be paying for those adjustments in much tighter budget times.
Don't you realize that there
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:31 — shearertwDon't you realize that there is a reason 39 of the 50 largest school districts are below the national average for graduation?
If we use your logic, why don't we just make one big NC school district? For that matter, why don't we just have 1 "highly efficient" district for the entire country?
Actually, given the current situation we're in and the fact that I don't have any friends in the GA, we could keep one school system but form 5 relatively independent operating districts. No one would be assigned out of their district, have their own reps and sup to work issues out with. Such a system would be much more efficient and effective and might actually give WCPSS a chance of being competitive with the best (not the worst) school districts in the country.
Don't you realize that there
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 14:59 — danofncDon't you realize that there is a reason 39 of the 50 largest school districts are below the national average for graduation?
You know Dan, I think you're
Fri, 06/10/2011 - 09:50 — shearertwYou know Dan, I think you're right. Having 1 in 5 kids not graduate and 1 in 2 black males not graduate from a school district that covers one of the wealthiest and most educated parts of the entire COUNTRY seems like a pretty good job. We shouldn't look to change a thing. I know my kids will graduate, probably go on to college, perhaps get a scholarship.....what do I care. Let's also ignore that they'll never grow up with a sense of community as the 10 kids that live within 100 yards of us go to 6 different schools. Also, even though one of my kids is in MS, I have no confidence I know what HS she will attend nor to I know that for my other two kids. Heck, they may not even go to the same HS. This all sounds great! What a county!
duplicate
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 08:26 — shearertwduplicate
All BS aside
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 15:48 — Dove314Does this report point out that it may be more challenging for larger school districts, independent of and potentially also in interaction with other factors, to improve/attain higher graduation rates? It would seem like there could and would very likely be some unique extra challenges when trying to get larger cohorts of teens to graduation. Plays in to asking what is the optimal maximum number of children for a school district?
Over 27% of students don't
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 20:27 — woodstockOver 27% of students don't graduate from high school and the Democrats say it's and "indication that North Carolina's education system was working?" What the hell?
Reality check
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 07:42 — SatchHHThis is a reality check Woodstock. Just accept the fact that Wake County is doing many things RIGHT and has been for years. This new confirmatory data about thow Wake Compares to other districts just doesn't fit into your fictional narrative that Wake is a failing district and should completely revamp things such as its student assignment policy. We need to keep the essential elements of our county's system - like balancing our schools for achievement, SES, etc. so that we can continue to IMPROVE and not fall down to where other large districts are. Wake has been out front in innovative policies. NOTE that Montgomery County, one of the top two grad rate large districts, has an active diversity policy to balance SES across schools. So 2 of the 3 most successful grad rate large districts balance their schools to provide good opportunity for ALL students. How about that!!! The other in the top 3 just happens to be one of the richest districts in the nation.
Huh?! In Wake County more
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 07:57 — woodstockHuh?! In Wake County more than 1 in 5 students fail to even graduate and for some student populations it is worse: only 6 of 10 low income students and half of black males manage to graduate and you think that is doing it "right.? Wow, thank God that folks like you are in the minority. How bad do things need to be before you'll admit things need to change? It seems it is YOU who needs a reality check.
Statewide, we are sending 27% of our students out into the world completely unprepaired to get a job or to continue their education. That is OVER 1 of every 4 students who will very likely become a drain on our economic system rather than a contributor. And, you find that to be a success? What the hell are you smokin'?
A few key quotes from the report:
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 15:52 — Bob_SconceGraduation rates are below the national average in 39 of the 50 largest districts.
The national leaders—New Jersey, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin—each graduate more than 80 percent of their high school students.
As these quote demonstrate, Wake County comes out fairly well in comparison to other large districts mostly because most other large districts are so lousy. Sure, Wake County is pretty good, but what does it say when New Jersey does a better job of graduating students?
To me it says NC needs to
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:16 — twatts1000To me it says NC needs to follow NJ's lead:
NJ is ranked 3rd in Teacher Pay. NC is 47th.
NJ spends $13000 (+/-) per student. NC spends $8000 (+/-)
NJ has a strong Teachers Union. NC is trying to weaken its own .
YMMV...
NJ is ranked 3rd in Teacher
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:34 — CaryCurmudgeonNJ is ranked 3rd in Teacher Pay. NC is 47th.
Good point. I'm sure, at least to some degree, that we get what we pay for.
NJ spends $13000 (+/-) per student. NC spends $8000 (+/-)
The cost of living in NJ is much higher than NC. I doubt we have to spend quite the same money to get the same value.
NJ has a strong Teachers Union. NC is trying to weaken its own.
A teachers union is the last thing we need. I'm sure a teachers' strike would do wonders for our school system --- not.
Cost of living analysis:
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:53 — twatts1000Cost of living analysis: [link removed]
Cost of living of $13000 in Trenton NJ equals $8750 in Raleigh, NC. Factoring the Cost of Living, and NJ spends an average 10% more per student.
cost of living II
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:26 — stan_norwalkHaving lived in both NJ and NC, your cost of living numbers paint a false pictre.picture. My comparison is based on two similar suburban/urban areas, Middlesex NJ and Raleigh Durham. According to http://swz.salary.com/CostOfLivingWizard/Layoutscripts/Coll_Result.aspx
The cost of living is 10% higher in NJ and average income is 15% higher. The cost of living reflects largely housing prices and property taxes in NJ. NJ has hundreds of school districts - each with its own superintendent and centrral office overhead - highly inefficient.
Where did you get your data from?
Compare Middlesex to Garner,
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:51 — shearertwCompare Middlesex to Garner, Clayton, WF, FV....I doubt many of our teachers live in Raleigh or Durham, even if they teach there.
That would mean you're
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:33 — danofncThat would mean you're turning Raleigh into Manhattan....I'm not sure that is accurate.
All things are
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:39 — shearertwAll things are relative.....WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT!
Well, if you go to
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:44 — danofncWell, if you go to realtor.com and look up houses for sale in Middlesex, NJ, you get houses that look similar in size to houses you can by for a similar price in most parts of Wake County.
BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ A quick
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 12:52 — shearertwBUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
A quick look and it appears the price per square foot is close to $190 ppsf in Middlesex vs the 120 - 130's in most of our suburban areas.
And, of course, that's today's values, not 2007-2008 values which everyones current mortgages and the true cost of living is based on. I'm willing to bet NJ took a bigger hit than we did in the home value area.
That math thing is really limiting your ability to effectively argue. Can't spell check math.
#1. The BUZZZ thing is
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 13:20 — danofnc#1. The BUZZZ thing is really stupid.
#2. The most expensive house for sale there is 569,000. There are 460 houses for sale in Raleigh that are more expensive than that.
#3. The only people who have mortgages based on 2007-08 values are people who bought houses in 2007-08.
#4. A realtor.com search for houses in Raleigh between 569000 and 570000 produced 8 properties. The first 3 listed were 202/sf, 148/sf, and 175/sf.
#5. The fact that Middlesex is a suburb of NY doesn't matter. It's demographic breakdown is, in fact, somewhat similar to Raleigh, which I think was the original point.
#6. I am fine with math. What I'm not good at is taking numbers that say one thing and twisting them to say something else just because it's what I think they should say.
#1. The BUZZZ thing is
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 13:54 — shearertw#1. The BUZZZ thing is really stupid.
I know. But I still like it.
#2. The most expensive house for sale there is 569,000. There are 460 houses for sale in Raleigh that are more expensive than that.
Meaningless (you have to compare ppsf), and we’re not talking about Raleigh.
#3. The only people who have mortgages based on 2007-08 values are people who bought houses in 2007-08.
Wrong. Ever heard of refinancing?
#4. A realtor.com search for houses in Raleigh between 569000 and 570000 produced 8 properties. The first 3 listed were 202/sf, 148/sf, and 175/sf.
We’re not comparing Raleigh….we’re comparing Garner, WF, HS, FV, etc to Middlesex. And, you need to look a ppsf in broader price range.
#5. The fact that Middlesex is a suburb of NY doesn't matter. It's demographic breakdown is, in fact, somewhat similar to Raleigh, which I think was the original point.
No. The original point is why the NJ schools fund at a higher PP spending rate. The answer is teacher’s salaries are more due to the higher cost of living, plus cost of land and everything else.
#6. I am fine with math. What I'm not good at is taking numbers that say one thing and twisting them to say something else just because it's what I think they should say.
Then stop doing that.
#1. Whatever #2. I think
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 16:16 — danofnc#1. Whatever
#2. I think I see the problem.....you're wanting to compare just Middlesex, NJ (pop ~14,000), while I have been thinking more about Middlesex County, NJ, which is actually similar to Wake County. Middlesex the town would be the equivalent of making the part of Cary and Apex around Prestonwood its own little town. You could find probably 5-10 areas in Wake County where you could carve out a little town like Middlesex.
#3. Wow...I didn't write every possible option in my post. If you refinance, haven't you basically re-purchased your own home? Stop nit-picking.
#4. I explained the county vs. township thing already. Unless the Middlesex teachers live in Middlesex (I believe you are the one who said Raleigh teachers aren't likely to live in Raleigh), then we aren't really comparing Middlesex to the suburbs of Wake County.
#5. I notice how you conveniently left out the impact that having so many independent, tiny districts with taxing authority has on PP spending. That would knock a lot of your beliefs right out of the park, wouldn't it?
#6. Whatever, again.
According to Zillow.com:The
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 08:40 — shearertwAccording to Zillow.com:
The median home price in Middlesex, NJ in 2007 was 360k. In Raleigh, the 2007 median home price as 198K. That's nearly double. As of today, the median home price in Middlesex, NJ is 265K (a 26% decrease). Do you think the PPF value decreased by 26%? For reference, the median home price in Raleigh today is 174K (a 12% decrease). Home prices in Middlesex, NJ are still 35% higher than in Raleigh but the PPF values in both areas are set by the 2007 values, not today's values because neither place had adjusted their PPF down due to the decrease in COL. In fairness, housing is only one factor in COL but talk to anyone from NJ and I believe they will tell you that everything is more expensive there.
Middlesex , NJ, the borough,
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 10:30 — danofncMiddlesex , NJ, the borough, has a little under 14,000 residents and is about 3.5 square miles in area. Raleigh, NC, the city, has a population over 400,000 and is almost 143 square miles in area.
If you're going to compare, you really should compare Wake County with Middlesex County. If you're making a comparison with Middlesex the borough, Raleigh isn't the proper comparison.
Like I told you......carve 13 or 14000 people out of an upscale part of Wake County, and you'll have your proper comparison.
The only thing your home price comparison proves is that if you have 3.5 square miles of area, developers aren't likely to build a bunch of starter homes. If that' s your point, I've got no argument for that.
FYI, the median home prices
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:22 — shearertwFYI, the median home prices in Middlesex are virtually the same as the entire state of NJ.
#3 Wasn't nit-picking.
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 08:27 — shearertw#3 Wasn't nit-picking. The average time people hold mortgages is about 5 years. That isn't because they're moving around that much, its because they're refinancing and taking equity out of their homes. That hasn't been happen nearly as much over the past 3 years for obvious reasons but the current per pupil funding levels at schools across the country are based on the peak cost of living/housing prices during those times. One problem gov't has is it’s almost impossible to shrink the budget, even if cost of living decreases. It would take years to cut the teacher’s salaries and years after that to finally decrease the per pupil funding levels. So when you’re trying to compare the per pupil funding levels across districts, you need to adjust for COL based on 2007-early 2008 levels b/c that's what the current budgets are based on.
#4 You completely off base....not worth my time.
#5 Actually, in WC, I would propose to have about 5 districts, not many tiny ones. Those 5 districts would be much more manageable, and not require the staffing nearly at the level of WCPSS. The sups wouldn't be paid as much nor would the mid-level administrative staffs. Over all the administrative cost would go up slightly but that's a tiny % of the total budget. The savings that would be had in transportation cost and general efficiencies gained from working in a smaller, more nimble district would more than make up for the slight increase in administration cost (which may not even occur). So...I believe that splitting WCPSS into 5 districts that are more responsive and tailor to the areas they serve would be BOTH more efficient AND more effective. I find it amazing that tax and spend liberals are so concerned about spending whenever it goes against their ideology. Very strange....
#5. How do five smaller
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 10:43 — danofnc#5. How do five smaller districts need less staff than one big one? Oh wait....later in that paragraph you say administration costs would increase...which would mean more staff. The individual schools would still need at least the same level of staffing, right? I think that is an example of talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Smaller doesn't absolutely mean "more nimble". Middlesex the borough's school district has about 1800 students, but budget concerns certainly impact their ability to be "nimble".
#5 - The staff wouldn't need
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 11:31 — shearertw#5 - The staff wouldn't need to be 5x as large. Larger in total, yes, but not 5x. Also, the higher level people wouldn't need to make the same amount as they do in similar positions because their role is smaller. In other words, the 5 sups wouldn't make Tata's salary or any where close to it. So together, as I said before from the one side of my mouth, there would be a net increase in administration cost, but not 5x higher. The administration cost is a very tiny portion of the total budget so the saving obtained by efficiencies gained in the rest of the budget would more than cover the small relative increase in administrative cost. I'm sure I'm losing you now....
By nimble, they can better prioritize their budgets to what is truly needed. Smaller, more local governments, are always better at that. As a precent of their entire budget, who has a greater amount of waste, the Federal government, the state of NC, Wake Co., or Holly Springs? I rest my case.
What are you talking
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:07 — danofncWhat are you talking about? What does "5x" mean? Is that another situation where your math and your English aren't cooperating?
You wouldn't be able to pay the 5 new superintendents 1/5 of Tata's $250,000 salary. The superintendent of Cabarrus County (~28,000 students) makes $181,000. Kannapolis City Schools' (~5200) superintendent makes $135,000. Del Burns is making $189,000 as the interim superintendent of Alamance-Burlington Schools (~22,000 students). Those are the districts you'd be creating.
You'd be creating 5 new administrations. They would all need office space. You wouldn't pay any academic officer what Dr. Hargens makes....but the 5 you'd have to hire (one per district) would probably combine to make more than double what she makes.
Your budget analogy isn't necessarily the best. While Wake County isn't "nimble", the size of its budget enables it to fund a lot of different initiatives. If it were the Holly Springs district, the smaller budget may make them have to choose between two different necessary things. Every report requested by the new board or the new superintendent has said that WCPSS runs a very efficient program.....for you to continually act like that isn't the case flies in the face of fact and logic.
WCPSS may be efficient, but
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 12:36 — shearertwWCPSS may be efficient, but it's not effective. There is a major difference. You're not getting it. Clearly I'm stating that there would be an increase in administrative cost, but it wouldn't be 5 times (that's what 5x means, x is a symbol for time in math or you could use it in algebra like I did 5x would mean 5 times x, x = 1 WCPSS administration cost). I really should take more time to spell things out for you as you are so easily confused. I never stated that 1 sup would get paid 1/5 of Tata's salary, only that the salary would be less. They'd also need far less supportive staff because the districts wouldn't be so large and complicated. Just think home much simpler the assignment process would be if HS, Cary and Apex would all one district to themselves. You may be right that funds would be in short supply or taxes would have to be raised in some areas, but you may also be wrong. The smaller districts would do a better job and be even more efficient as spending that WCPSS is. I'm betting that WCPSS efficiency is being compared to other large districts and we already know that is steep competition. Even if the 5 districts would require more total funds (and that is by no means a guarantee), it would be a lot more tolerable to the tax payers as they would be getting more of what they need and want in a school system and have more influence and control over it (which is probably what you fear most).
Saying 5 smaller systems would be more costly that 1 large system is just your opinion vs mine. Neither of us can prove it. However, 5 smaller administrations would not be 5 times (or 5x) the cost of 1 larger one (you can't dispute that). It might be 1.5x or 2 x but that relatively small increase in administrative cost would almost certainly be made up by better local prioritization, less wasted time on assignments and busing, etc. Ultimately, we'd all have a much better system(s).
two similar suburban/urban
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 11:44 — CaryCurmudgeontwo similar suburban/urban areas, Middlesex NJ and Raleigh Durham
I really don't think those two areas are similar. Middlesix NJ is a commuter area for people working in Manhattan. Taxes there are higher, and homes cost a small fortune.
Hello, most of Wake Co. is
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 08:26 — shearertwHello, most of Wake Co. is not in Raleigh! I know that may be news to some of you Raleighites out there....Do you really thing the cost of living is the same in Garner as DT Raleigh? Factor that correction into the equation and that 10% evaporates pretty quickly.
NJ has a strong Teachers
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:54 — twatts1000NJ has a strong Teachers Union. NC is trying to weaken its own.
A teachers union is the last thing we need. I'm sure a teachers' strike would do wonders for our school system --- not.
---------------------------
You opinion about Unions is your business. You wanted to a reason why NJ has a better education system than NC (or more specifically Wake Co). Whether or not you agree with Unionization doesn't preclude the fact the unionized teachers receive better pay and benefits than non-unionized teachers. This incentive makes the more qualified teachers go to NJ and avoid NC. You opinion means nothing on pay-day - it feeds no one, and buys nothing. In otherwords, those teachers couldn't care less about your opinion, they want the higher pay.
BTW, (out of curiousity) why would you be against a Union that struggles to maintain some kind of power in the face of a Monopolistic Government Agency? Normally I don't like Unions (the Monopolization of the Labor Force), but when faced with a single employer (Monopolization of Employment) I support Unionization. YMMV.
Huh?
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 06:58 — Bob_SconceThere's no monopoly. If you're a teacher who lives in Raleigh, you can work in Wake, Durham, Johnston, Orange, CH-Carrboro, Chatham or Frankin county schools. There are over a dozen charter schools where you could work and somewhere north of 100 private and parochial schools. In addition, you can move and have access to thousands of other employers around the country.
Heck, your claim of a monopoly conflicts with your claim that "the more qualified teachers go to NJ and avoid NC." That's like saying "There's a monopoly in grocery stores, even though people can switch from Food Lion to Walmart."
There are other facts that cut against your theory. First of all, there's not a whole lot of state-to-state mobility in the teaching profession, partially due to state licensing. If a teacher is the primary breadwinner in his/her house, they tend to stay in the same place. (That differs significantly from the university level.)
Additionally, the fact that there's been a huge migration of workers from NJ to NC (a right-to-work state) cuts against the idea that they value union power.
Finally, you completely ignore the fact that if you're a lousy teacher, you're much better off in a strongly-unionized district, where it's almost impossible to fire you.
BTW, (out of
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 17:01 — CaryCurmudgeonBTW, (out of curiousity) why would you be against a Union that struggles to maintain some kind of power in the face of a Monopolistic Government Agency?
That cuts both ways, why would I want a "monopolistic" work force who gets to decide whether they are being paid enough, and has the power to strike when they don't like what they're getting?
You opinion means nothing on pay-day - it feeds no one, and buys nothing. In otherwords, those teachers couldn't care less about your opinion, they want the higher pay.
And why do we need a union to pay teachers more? Why can't we just do that? Why do we want a union telling us how much to pay a teacher instead of the market? And do we really need a union to step in and prevent us from firing ineffective teachers?
Ineffective . . . or worse
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 07:03 — Bob_SconceMy home school district was forced (by the union) to rehire somebody after he was fired for taking off all his clothes in the girls' locker room. He was eventually re-fired, but it took close to a year. Luckily, he sat at home (and in jail) for all of that time, and wasn't in the school.
Heck, just google "Rubber Room."
People who want stronger unions in North Carolina don't know what they're asking for.
No, they're Asking For...
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 17:43 — chaboard....better education and a stronger middle class. You can pull out all the anecdotal scare stories you like but overall you lose the argument because overall teacher unions create better educated kids. And because unions in general create stronger economies, more vibrant democracies and expanded levels of liberty.
But more importantly, they're asking for nothing more than - as noted socialist pinko liberal Ronald Reagan once put it - "one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union."
Chaboard, If hadn't already
Thu, 06/09/2011 - 08:14 — shearertwChaboard,
If hadn't already discredited yourself, this post would have certainly sealed it for you.
Do yourself a favor, stop smoking that stuff....
"...teacher unions create
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 21:55 — woodstock"...teacher unions create better educated kids."
Congratulations, you win the most asinine statement of the century award with that one! LOLOL!!!
pfft...
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 19:05 — Bob_SconceThey do nothing of the sort. Ask France and Greece how their unions are working for them.
Another Acecdote: I used to work for a large multi-national. It had a practice of placing as few workers in France as possible because of the very pro-worker laws. Heck, look at Boeing's plan to locate their new factory in SC.
And Reagan was pandering.
Yep, Reagan learned right
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 19:57 — CaryCurmudgeonYep, Reagan learned right quick what a menace labor unions are with the air traffic controllers, who were perfectly happy to shut down air travel throughout our country. And our President is on the path to give collective bargaining rights to the TSA, here we go again.
Uh...
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:28 — Bob_SconceGreat. How do you explain the high quality of Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools? I'd rather follow their model.
Demographics and Dollars
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:59 — nriemannIt explains the same way. They spend a lot more than we do, and they spend at least as wisely. In addition, they probably have the most academically prepared population to enter school in this state. Always helpful when you start halfway to the finish line, as Mr. Tedesco likes to (correctly) remind us.
Are you discounting that
Wed, 06/08/2011 - 08:30 — shearertwAre you discounting that fact that Wake Co. has one of the most educated parental populations in the COUNTRY? Is that not helping WCPSS elevate that graduation rate?
The majority of their
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:42 — twatts1000The majority of their Board is Minority, Women, and Democrat??? I can go along with that...
Well gosh darn then
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:19 — FSandYOUI guess there was a reason JT won in a landslide!!
What might that be?
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 16:34 — dubiousHe certainly hasn't figured out that quality education requires investment.
He's figured out there is no investment to be had
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 20:13 — FSandYOUUnlike you apparently.
If you want to fund "investment" by cutting the guts out of other areas knock yourself out. How about this, I have no problem with making parents foot the bill totally to operate the transportation convenience, so start there. We should mandate parents who have a job, those who can afford it, be responsible for their own transportation. How many teachers jobs and TA's would that save?
If we don't have the spine to deal with the real issues the public has nothing more to give so don't bother asking for more. You're not getting any!
And yet
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 15:20 — nancyncWhatever measures are used, the entire country apparently showed improvement - wish they had included how they determined such an increase across the country as well as specific data used.
The nation’s graduation rate rose by 6.1 percentage points over all of the past decade. During the same period, the black-white graduation gap narrowed by 2 points, owing to the more rapid progress made by African-Americans. Because improvement for whites outpaced that of other groups, though, the gaps between Native Americans and whites and between Latinos and whites have widened somewhat since 1999.
They referenced using a
Tue, 06/07/2011 - 15:12 — DrActualFactualThey referenced using a formula different from the national survey which makes me wonder if they reported 4-year or 5-year graduation rates or how the formula differed.