Chris Fitzsimon is bashing the Wake County school board majority for Tuesday's votes on the voluntary desegregation resolution and the budget.
In a column Wednesday, Fitzsimon, executive director of the liberal N.C. Policy Watch,criticizes the "Gang of Five" for rejecting board member Carolyn Morrison's amendment about making every effort to avoid minority group isolation.
"For some reason that was too much for the Gang of Five who all voted against the resolution," Fitzsimon writes. "Maybe they wanted only a half-hearted effort, or more likely, no effort at all."
Fitzsimon mocks school board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman's insistence that she would be for anything to strengthen the magnet schools. He notes that she backed Ron Margiotta's election to board chairman even after he had mentioned last year the idea of abolishing the magnet program.
"She also supports (John) Tedesco's rich zone, poor zone scheme which will significantly change the magnet program," Fitzsimon writes. "And the magnet program is the foundation of the diversity assignment plan that Goldman voted to end. That's all true, whether she wants it to be clear or not."
Fitzsimon has praise for one school board member from the minority camp. He says that Anne McLaurin "has emerged as the outspoken conscience of the board."
Fitzsimon notes that McLaurin had complained that the board hadn't spent enough time reviewing the budget. He also notes how she had brought up the board majority's decision to abandon Forest Ridge High despite warnings of the financial cost.
"That would be the Gang of Five who also campaigned as fiscal conservatives," Fitzsimon writes. "Better to fire teachers and expand classes than reconsider a foolish decision about where to build a new high school."
Comments
Why does it matter what
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 14:36 — woodstockWhy does it matter what Goodmon's puppet, Fitzsimons, has to say? His job is to preserve the status quo regardless of what lies he must tell. He's also the same guy that believes we should bow our heads on April 15 and thank the government for all they do for us...never mind we are the ones footing the bill. What a goofball.
Anyone who been in the
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 13:33 — HJ2ss2Anyone who been in the schools and works directly with students who are in the free and reduced group knows that, even under the "desegregation plan", there is "minority group isolation" in the schools. With that said, what is the real issue?
"Anyone who been in the
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 15:20 — kbrooks500"Anyone who been in the schools and works directly with students who are
in the free and reduced group knows that, even under the "desegregation
plan", there is "minority group isolation" in the schools."
Could you please explain this statement. I have heard other people say this but I just dismiss the comment. I work in a school, so I want to know why you feel this way.
I'll try to keep this brief
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 21:33 — HJ2ss2I'll try to keep this brief and hopefully clear. The students labeled F&R seldom interact with the general population. We usually seek out others who have similar values, experiences, etc... . The cultures are very different and students are attracted to students with whom they can identify. Parents of the F&R students are not comfortable visiting schools where their children are bussed. They feel they are looked down upon. Many only receive complaints about their children from staff. Younger children often feel out of place because they cannot relate to the regular student population.
If you walk through a high school you will see the separate groups of students at lunch. They seldom to never intermingle. The composition of classes is also recognizable. Average classes with mostly F&R students, advanced and AP classes mostly made up of the general population (not the bussed students). Many teachers are not used to working with at risk students. I have both observed and spoken with teachers who are frustrated because they are blamed by administration when the at risk students are out of control or not achieving.
There is also a difference in the way the F&R students are treated by administrators.
Just bussing children to a higher achieving school does not improve their performance. In fact, sometimes it does just the opposite
Wow. The pot calling the kettle
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 23:42 — SDR256Could it be that 'students labeled F&R' are suffering and exhibiting certain behaviors because they are 'students labeled F&R'?
How is it again that poor people are so different? I guess maybe I need special training on this to fix my perspective.
Absolutely not. Not all
Fri, 04/23/2010 - 07:50 — HJ2ss2Absolutely not. Not all F&R students are "suffering and exhibiting certain behaviors just because they are labeled F&R". Just like not all of the general population take AP classes because they are not labeled F&R.
Not all poor people are so different. It depends on the value system in which the were raised. If you were raised to believe that you can make a large income selling crack, education is not valued in your family, parent or parents are always high on drugs or alcohol, mom has many different male partners and sexual activity is acceptable in the living room with children present, your father, if you know who he is, is doing time in prison for a number of crimes, etc..... Whether you are F&R or general population, this will have a serious effect on your interest and ability to learn.
I speak from 35 years professional experience and keeping up with current research and literature.
kbrooks - quick question.
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 15:37 — magnetParentkbrooks - quick question. It was told to me by a teacher that they are not even given F&R information about their students - that it is privileged information that they don't know about, to prevent bias. Is this true? I believe it is and can see why.
We do not receive a list of
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:39 — kbrooks500We do not receive a list of F&R students. I have never heard a discussion among fellow teachers about any students F&R status.
And yet
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 23:48 — SDR256And yet, teachers are asked to channel 'certain students' toward 'certain programs' that would be for 'at risk' children. At risk they cannot determine outright by asking a child to come in with a 1040 form, but they can guess, based on which bus a child rides or - what I've heard - which purse a mother carries. Teachers are asked to pick out which children are at risk and they get special training on this - to pick which children are poor. "At risk" = "poor" = "less capable to learn". Teachers are put in the position of guessing which is which, resulting in some embarrassing mistakes. Embarrassing for the teacher and devastating for the child. Damaging for the child.
What do you think teachers
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 15:42 — Eric_BWhat do you think teachers do then when they must recommend students for Title I services or other interventions targeted at "at risk" students if they don't have access to the F&R list? They guess. And who do you think they guess? Minority students.
That's why they are disproportionately targeted for remedial instruction even if they don't need it.
I have never seen a student
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 21:25 — HJ2ss2I have never seen a student recommended for remedial instruction if they did not need it. Problem is that these children have so many other issues (basic needs) that need to be met before they can focus on the academic. Just providing remedial help is useless. There are programs that can be implemented to address other problems but the county really does not want to hear about them.
they must recommend students
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:12 — carson79Title I and I never said that
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 19:37 — TrailerParkGirlTitle I funds can be used at the school level or for individual students (there is some cutoff level for it to be used for school level).
"Geographical achievement problems" - You cannot "guess" an individual student based on address nor are all students that live in an area the same as every other student in that area. THAT IS THE HOW POLICY 6200 FUNCTIONS. THAT IS OPPOSITE MY WAY OF THINKING.
Not assuming everyone in an area is the same does not mean one cannot figure out what resources may benefit an area.
Did you not learn the concepts of "sets" and "subsets"? Do they not teach that in the magnet programs you attended here?
"She says that it is offensive to say that ED kids face barriers to education that need to be addressed"
I never said that and if I felt that way, I would not be a supporter of community schools. What is OFFENSIVE is when students are labeled "at risk" JUST because they are FRL and their projected test scores are automatically lowered JUST because they are FRL, when people like Chuck D say "their parents won't be involved anyway even if they live across the street so it is ok to bus them further without their choice" JUST because they are FRL, when students are ABOVE grade level but are given REMEDIAL services JUST because they are FRL.
Honestly, I am amazed that some people cannot see the difference between those things and attitudes and a "promise zone". They are opposites. Promise zones are not just about where kids are 6.5 hours/day, 180 days per year.
I also never said that kids in SE Raleigh need to be RESTRICTED to a "promise zone" because of "their issues." I want them to have CHOICES.
I pointed out that there we already have achievement concerns in response to someone saying that will be "created" if we change the approach. "Created" makes it sound like we do not already have students who are not achieving. Why do people keep pretending like ALL students are achieving at high rates and we will suddenly create low achieving students if we change our approach when they already exist?
What has been happening to this point is that in large part ED students have been RESTRICTED to their ASSIGNED non-magnet unless they are base assigned a magnet. What CHOICES have they had? Meanwhile, NED were LESS RESTRICTED and given CHOICE magnet program carrots, plus they are more likely to have the wherewithal to have the ultimate choice to BAIL the system. So, you tell me who has been restricted under the old way and who hasn't.
How about this if people want to keep bussing for SE balancing as has been done under policy 6200 - how about we turn it around and give the ED students magnet choices and force bus NED kids currently assigned to magnets to Wendell with NO magnet program at the end of the line? We can start with ITB NED nodes. How long you do you suppose that would last? What are the odds that Mayor Meeker would ask the City of Raleigh to pass a resolution in support of that policy?
Title I
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 22:04 — carson79I thought the district had a choice on how to use Title I funds, and they, as most districts, chose to use them at the school level.
Can anyone help us here?
I do not believe people have to be restricted to Tedesco's zones to have their "needs" met.
And I think everyone agrees with you that people should not be put in remedial classes if they are above grade level - I think this is true REGARDLESS of the studen'ts F&R status. With respect, this had nothing to do with my point and nobody has ever argued on that.
You say:
What is OFFENSIVE is when students are labeled "at risk" JUST because they are FRL
How is this different from saying a student is "at risk" just because of where they live? Isn't this what you are saying when you assume that you know the students needs because of where they live?
If this is TRULY the plan you want to follow - you should advocate for all low achieving students with the same needs to be sent to the same schools - but you are only concentrating on students in a certain geographical area - WHY?
Great Idea
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 19:55 — klanders65I love your idea of busing the ITB students to Wendell. Diversity is what they really value, so I think they will be okay with it. I think those pirates were protesting the threat to their diversity. This should keep them happy.
Title I
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:08 — turnerk1Though Title I monies are paid to a school based upon the number of F&R kids they have, once the money is in the school, any child can receive services paid for by that money no matter what that child's F&R status is. So, basically, the feds assume that the more poor students, the more a school will need extra funding, but at the school level the money can be used to help anyone.
So...
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 21:51 — Bob_SconceThere is a threshold -- not every WCPSS school with F&R kids receives Title I money.
PLease provide proof this happens
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:55 — Solon77PLease provide proof this happens. I thought you were pretty smart and offered some good insights - however, if this is really what you believe - then you do not have a clue as to how this really works.
Excuse me, but that is not
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:21 — kbrooks500Excuse me, but that is not what I DO!. I and every other teacher assess the students according to established criteria for success. We rank order the children based on those assessments by greatest need, and then group them for instruction based on those needs. To imply that every teacher in Wake County does not know how to determine a students skill level and need for remediation or enrichment is disgraceful and completely inaccurate.
Then how
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:43 — lferreriThen how do we wind up with a program like the Hodge Road Supplemental Educational Services program described in the E & R paper, where 73.3% of the student served in this remedial program were above grade level before receiving services? Or how do we end up placing only 40% of the qualified Black and Hispanic students into 8th grade Algebra? I am not saying that you are not making accurate assessments of students, but there is something wrong with the system when we see these kinds of inappropriate placements.
It has been quite awhile
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:21 — kbrooks500It has been quite awhile since I have read the Hodge ARd, report. From what I recall, it is from several years ago, not in the last couple of years. It was the first time the county had to provide supplemental educational services as required by NCLB. This was after school programming and parents had to sign their children up for the program. Many parents (primarily Spanish speaking ones) thought the program was enrichment and Spanish instruction(I never understoood why they thought their children would be learning Spanish). I seem to recall the services were provided by a tutoring company, or maybe only some of them were. I think this report showed how difficult it was to provide remediation services to children who needed it most after school. Unfortunately, I don't see it as a surprise that the most able children had the most interested parents in providing more for their child's education. I do agree the program was not well explained to the parents, but to suggest that it still is like that now is misleading.
As for Algebra I answer with two other questions. How come no one seems to care that only 60% of qualified white children take Algebra in 8th grade. If there are so many qualfied Black students not taking Algebra I, then why isn't their performance on the 8th grade math EOG outstanding?
I care
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 18:03 — lferreriI care that any qualified child is not being placed in 8th grade Algebra. I think it's disgraceful, especially since our country lags behind in math internationally. However, there is a disparity between the rate at which qualified White (60%) and qualified minority students (40%) are placed. There is no legitimate reason why the rate of placement should differ by race. As for the performance of Black students on the 8th grade math EOG, I don't see where that is relevant. I am talking about students who are qualified for advanced math while the 8th grade math EOG is given to all students. I don't think even one student who is able to succeed at advanced math should be denied the opportunity to enroll in these classes. I don't think it should matter how their race as a group scores on the EOGs.
As for the Hodge Road study, it describes how placement was determined. It says that all parents were notified about the program and that "parents of eligible students were later invited to attend the Provider Fair. Parents of eligible children who did not attend or who did not enroll their children at the fair were contacted to ensure they understood the provisions of the program." Since the school was apparently determining who was eligible and was inviting them to participate, they could have limited their recruitment efforts to those students who actually needed remediation. In my opinion, since the school knew this was a remedial program, it was the school's responsibility to accurately determine who would benefit. (Particularly, given the fact that the program "may have had a negative impact on some students who entered the program scoring at grade level.") I cannot find anything in the report that indicates that any parents thought their children would be learning Spanish. (It does say that there were no Spanish-speaking tutors which apparently disappointed some parents since a Spanish-speaking tutor was at the provider fair.) The study was from 2004-2006.
Let me help
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 21:00 — klanders65I know this is very confusing.
The school did nothing wrong. They could not limit who they invited. The federal law said they had to invite all parents of students who received free lunch and only them. They could only provide services that had been approved by the state. The state only approved remedial services. For fear that school systems would try to get parents to not take the service so they wouldn't have to pay for it, strict rules about influencing parents not to take the service apply.
Hodge Road happened locally, but this is a national and state level problem. Hodge Road did only what they were mandated by law to do.
To clarify some other confusion here, some schools are "school-wide Title 1" and can serve anyone with Title 1 funds. Schools that are not "school-wide" can only serve ??? it used to be students who received free lunch. I don't know who it is now.
I am not saying Hodge Road wasn't horrible and damaging. It was. But they were required by law to do what they did. (It is a shame that they didn't notice what they were doing...)
I have seen no evidence that this is not happening still in schools that receive SES sanctions. You would think that given what happened at Hodge Road, they would have put some policy in place, then monitored what happened after that. Instead, they moved the program off campus, and never evaluated any more SES programs.
I would love to think this has not continued. Where is the evidence that it hasn't?
Thanks
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 21:19 — lferreriThanks. I didn't realize that they were forced by law to do this. Isn't there any way to avoid placing kids in remedial programs if they don't need them then? Or would that be considered influencing them not to take services?
In any event, I don't think we can blame the parents. It's a shame that this is continuing to occur. Is there any chance that the changes to NCLB will remedy this problem?
I've heard from 2 minority
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:04 — jenmanI've heard from 2 minority parents whose children have repeatedly been given the F&R form to take home for their parents to fill out.
Geez Eric. I have more
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:20 — magnetParentGeez Eric. I have more faith in the teacher's professionalism that you seem to. They work one-on-one with the students and know who is struggling academically and who is not. They would not benefit from "guessing" based on minority. Why would they do that when they see first hand who needs help and who does not? It is in their best interest to recommend those who really need it for both the students and themselves.
Oh, and is your name kbrooks?
There is plenty of evidence
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:34 — Eric_BThere is plenty of evidence that this is happening. Look at the SAS report. Look at evaluation of Supplemental Education Services at Hodge Rd. Look at the ALP evaluations on the E&R website. Minorities repeatedly get identified for remedial services even if they are level III or IV. This is happening. Do not be in denial about this.
In WCPSS, "at risk" = ED = minority. People repeatedly use the terms interchangeably. Why do you think people think that resegregation is going to occur without the socioeconomic diversity policy? (Resegregation is a racial term even though the "diversity policy" is income-based.) It's because in many folks minds, ED = minority. Why is it so outrageous to think teachers may make the same assumption?
If a teacher is asked to choose students who are "academically at risk" for special services and remediation, who do you think they are more likely to choose? Everyone knows that ED students do worse in school than NED students, right? (being sarcastic here!) So in the absence of a list of showing who is ED and who is NED who do you think the teacher will tend to choose??
Ironically, Your Statement....
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:12 — chaboardThey guess. And who do you think they guess? Minority students.
...is ITSELF nothing but a guess.
It is not a guess. See the
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:36 — Eric_BIt is not a guess. See the Hodge Road SES evaluation and the ALP evaluations on the E&R web site. Minorities are repeatedly singled out for remedial services even if they are level III and IV.
Eric, my wife recommends the
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 16:07 — user12345Eric, my wife recommends the kids who don't come to school, sleep in class, don't do their homework and do not pass their tests .... there is not a lot guessing that needs to go into who is at risk which is independent of race or income. Given that many of her HS kids can not read, I am guessing that there is not enough remedial work being offered.
Ms. Goldman has a child in a magnet school
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 13:24 — user12345Is that the infamous "Suzie" people keep refering to who has dance lessons at 4PM and is driving the school's stop time?
middle school
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:09 — turnerk1her child is in middle school.
Did Mr. Fitzsimon forget
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 12:32 — DrActualFactualDid Mr. Fitzsimon forget that Ms. Goldman has a child in a magnet school--she likely loves and protects the magnet schools. Keung, can you include photos of Fitzsimon, Tim Simmons, Bob Geary, etc. somewhere in your reference area--many would like to put a name with a face. I was surprised to see a photo of Mr. Simmons in a recent newspaper and realize that he was the man I saw at one of the CEM meetings. Just a suggestion.
We'll see. I'm still getting
Thu, 04/22/2010 - 17:45 — KeungHui (author)We'll see. I'm still getting a hang of posting videos, which I think I've finally mastered how to do on my own. Pictures are someting I need to learn to add myself without getting outside help.