Supporters of the old diversity policy are heeding Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker's call for input on the decisions being made by the Wake County school board.
The YWCA of the Greater Triangle is hastily spreading the word about a forum at 7 p.m. tonight at Revelation Baptist Church, 805 E. Davie St. in Southeast Raleigh. The e-mail message says they're responding to Meeker's call for "feedback from community leaders, business people and legal advocates about recent decisions and plans made by the Wake County Board of Education."
Participants will meet in small group and large group discussions developing what will be discussed in a meeting later with Meeker.
"What should be our strategy for the meeting with the Mayor and is there a unified message we want to convey?" according to the flier for the event.
This is the kind of feedback that, once the new community zones are drafted, that could result in a lawsuit being filed against the school system. Officially, any lawsuit would be by individuals and/or community groups and not by the city.

Comments
Jeffrey - It was getting too
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:43 — magnetParentJeffrey - It was getting too skinny, so here is my response.
I am talking about the mandatory year-round conversions done in 2006. You are referring to the time many years before that when they added a base assignment area to year round schools. Way back then, (sorry, can't remember the year, late 1990s I think) complaints were made because year round schools were by application only and had no base and as a result did not have a diverse population. They added a base assignment area to those schools to appease those complainants, offering a traditional option to those who could not work with year round. The MYR discussion I was talking about was when they identified 20+ schools to convert to year-round to accommodate growth, which brought about the lawsuit. If the lawsuit did not happen, the year-round options would have been successful in handling the growth and saving money without having to build more schools. Regarding the recession, that did throw a monkey wrench in the plans, but you can't place blame on that.
Regarding the recession,
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:09 — jeffrey1Regarding the recession, that did throw a monkey wrench in the plans, but you can't place blame on that.
WCPSS has not done those
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 07:08 — virginiadareWCPSS has not done those projections since the mid-90's, when the department that handled them was dissolved. Wake County government took over and used outside contractors after a WCPSS employee had correctly predicted the massive growth and the commissioners of the Pendleton era disagreed with her. WCPSS is consulted, but has not determined the projections since then, and is not responsible for those failures in prediction.
Not True
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 14:24 — jeffrey1Not True
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:43 — Sideburns65% of those who opted for a traditional calendar when Judge Manning ruled against MYR were F&R families -- those you purport to care about.
Please provide a link for
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 20:55 — magnetParentPlease provide a link for that.
So, if the traditional option (year-round opt-out) was, as previously claimed, much further away from their home, are you saying that these families preferred to go to a school that was not as close to their home?
So, if the traditional
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 23:57 — jeffrey1So, if the traditional option (year-round opt-out) was, as previously claimed, much further away from their home, are you saying that these families preferred to go to a school that was not as close to their home?
Just doing a cursory check
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 00:33 — magnetParentJust doing a cursory check on some F&R nodes (both spot nodes and nodes with a neighborhood YR school) and I don't see that being true. Granted, I have not looked at them all, but every one I looked had had their traditional option further than their assigned YR option.
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:00 — SideburnsYou're getting good at twisting words. Is that a magnet elective?
You obviously don't want to hold a discussion. Find your own link.
If you make a claim, you
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:29 — magnetParentIf you make a claim, you should be able to back it up.
if you were as "involved" as
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:59 — AngelaWif you were as "involved" as you claim to be, you'd know that this was a fact.
I would love to see the data
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 23:44 — magnetParentI would love to see the data - since you are so involved, perhaps you can provide it. I don't take things as "fact" without the data (65% was a pretty exact number - surely it is written somewhere?). Sorry, this is a blog.
Sorry I don't have a link,
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 23:52 — jeffrey1Sorry I don't have a link, and I don't remember the exact percentage, but I do remember that a majority of the requests for the traditional calendar came from low income families.
Diversity spurs CMS debate;
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 11:06 — AngelaWWhile you have to admire the
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 10:57 — red_balloonWhile you have to admire the energy and proactive nature of these people, imagine the dividends to the community and the gratitude of the children if they spent this time positively by brainstorming on ways to improve WCPSS. But unfortunately, it suits their selfish goals to engage in creating chaos and nurturing conflict to undermine any attempts to architect a better education model. Until the new model shows tangible gains, there is no way their negative energies and vicious zeal will give up on multi-pronged attempts to sabotage attempts to improve WCPSS.
"These people"
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:44 — lnbsteinerRed_Balloon, your constant need to spew your negativity on this website leads me to find your most recent negative post rather ironic. "These people" are using their "negative energies" to promote their "selfish goals." Let's look at a few facts here:
1) The invitation to tonight's event is not AT ALL negative. Rather, it simply calls for a gathering of community members to identify opinions and concerns in order to present an organized set of thoughts to the Mayor. While, I admit, there is probably very little being said at this meeting that you would agree with that does not mean the tone is negative - it just means there is concern over the direction in which the BOE may be going.
2) You suggest that the individuals that are attending the meeting tonight have not taken any other steps to "improve WCPSS." That's one bold statement! You don't know who's going to this meeting. You don't know what goes on in their schools - do they volunteer, participate in the PTA? How do you know "these people" haven't brainstormed on improvements for WCPSS?
3) "Selfish goals": Care to define what you mean here? Diversity is a selfish goal? Or are you taking aim at your favorite target of magnet school parents again? Anyway you define this term you're going to loose as every single party to this argument has a major position of self-interest and, therefore, every single argument is somewhat selfish. Therefore, you're just being insulting.
4) "These people": "These people" are who? This tone and reference is downright ugly if you're referring to African Americans and odiously condescending if you're referring to magnet parents or supporters of diversity. "These people" (whomever chooses to participate tonight) are Americans with every right to assemble to discuss issues of concern to them and formulate a strategy to express their concerns.
Typically, I choose to ignore your angry comments. However, in this case, I cannot. These are truly troubling times for Wake County because this issue has become so polarizing. There is not just one answer...there is not just one way to change or improve WCPSS...there is not just one set of people or views that are correct. Therefore, the only negativity spewed (until/unless I am proven wrong) in relation to this community meeting is YOURS. Please stop the name calling and learn to have respect for individuals that may have a differing viewpoint...this is the only way, as a community, we will be able to formulate truly positive change.
beg to differ
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 00:25 — red_balloonTruly troubling times for WC? That is an incendiary position and an insult to those working toward improving WCPSS. Simply because it does not align with your position does not make the push toward neighborhood schools truly troubling. One can seize the opportunity to improve outcomes or lag by clinging to a defunct education model that deprives many and obfuscates the performance of the disadvantaged.
1. Negative would be an understatement. A xenophobic mayor urges proactive confabulations with an intent to derail improvements to the public school system. He and his intellectually bankrupt acolytes confer in a most brazen manner to launch an attack on WCPSS through the courts because he and his supporters have become defensive about their failures on two fronts - elections and education.
2. Regardless of whether the individuals attending the meeting were motivated by the xenophobic call to litigation, imperilment of personal gain, or by a decision to continue to drown the needs of other students, I cannot call their misdirected efforts as steps to "improve WCPSS".
3. Utilizing my wages and my child's SES to advance corrupt social engineering goals is undeniably selfish. Take the social engineering goals to welfare, housing, healthcare, and any other scheme that can be polluted by the lack of personal responsibility without endangering the competitive ability of my progeny. Keep your hands off education. Will your team not rest until every facet of civilization is embraced by a sense of equity that really is blatant discrimination that penalizes the responsible and diligent citizens?
Don't equate me with a magnet parent when talking about selfishness. The school system should have no business running lotteries and skewing the field. If academic enrichment is offered in the system, then it should be offered to all. Or you earn it.
4. This is a silly accusation. If it offended you, I assure you that "these" did not refer to a race. It was a reference to the people paying heed to Meeker's xenophobic call and conspiring to sabotage in the courts a new direction for WCPSS. The clarification is no less flattering but at least it isn't what you found offensive earlier on.
I am not happy but I can put up with number #3 (my wages and my child as a pawn). It isn't fair but it is the way WCPSS functions. But when I see a new BOE being raked over the coals, without being given a chance to formulate and present a plan, it irritates me. And when I see some members of the BOE being subjected to vicious insults and attacks, I find it loathsome and difficult to refrain from responding in kind.
P.S.: I hope you had a meeting that went beyond 'diversity'.
You've proven my point...
Thu, 07/01/2010 - 09:46 — lnbsteinerTo state that my observation that this is a polarizing issue and creating real problems in Wake County is "incendiary" and "insulting" seems rather out of touch with reality. I think our debate is clearly illustrating that there is significant disagreement and no desire on the parts of many involved to seek any type of middle ground or consensus. Thus, there are real and lasting chasms being created in this community among good citizens that have differing values. Such divisions will not result in "improvements" to WCPSS with widespread support or buy-in...which, to me, are important for as grassroots an institution as the school system. You are clearly upset by other policies or changes being, at least in your opinion, forced upon you - which is your prerogative. But, then, do you get some sort of revenge or satisfaction by forcing your concepts on the rest of us with the expectation that no will disagree or express (in whatever form) their strong opposition? Lasting, effective change never occurs in a vacuum.
Clearly, you believe that the current Board has some sort of master plan that will be successful and everyone should just sit and wait until they are told how the school system is being changed. I beg to differ insofar as there is nothing harmful about community involvement in formulating the plan or making the "architects" aware of community values or interests in making said plan. In fact, Mr. Tedesco has made it clear that he welcomes and solicits such in-put. So, why you choose to condemn, seemingly, all community activism that may be not be totally in line with your clearly stated objections to the system is puzzling.
As usual, your comments regarding magnet schools are just really off base. You have opinions and attitudes about magnets that don't really line-up with the facts about this system which has been in place for decades and serves tens of thousands of students. However, I recognize from your history of posts that you and I will not agree on this issue and, thus, I won't waste my time attempting. Suffice it to say, WCPSS is grateful for the many of us that happily opt out of our overcrowded base schools. And, I will never apologize for the opportunity my children have been given to be taught by competent, caring teachers in an environment that fosters mutual respect, friendship and blindness to race or economic status.
The bottom line and reason I was even led to respond to your initial post is this: we are all concerned citizens with equal rights to construct and express our viewpoints. Your negativity does nothing but alienate...why should I give you, those that share your viewpoints or the school board majority that you champion any credit, thought or respect if all you're going to do is make baseless negative assumptions and belittle my attempts to express concern or participate in this process? I agree with you that there have been attacks that have inappropriate and theatrics that discredit the actual concerns. I am not a part of any of that - I'm a concerned parent and citizen that will continue to be aware of the debate and raise concern or objections when it is necessary to draw attention to the many, many good parts of WCPSS.
As usual, your comments
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 00:53 — shaneoAs usual, your comments regarding magnet schools are just really off base. You have opinions and attitudes about magnets that don't really line-up with the facts about this system which has been in place for decades and serves tens of thousands of students. However, I recognize from your history of posts that you and I will not agree on this issue and, thus, I won't waste my time attempting. Suffice it to say, WCPSS is grateful for the many of us that happily opt out of our overcrowded base schools. And, I will never apologize for the opportunity my children have been given to be taught by competent, caring teachers in an environment that fosters mutual respect, friendship and blindness to race or economic status.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think your comments on magnets shows that you don't fully understand the magnet program and its effects on the rest of the system. Yes, it is truly wonderful that your children have been given this wonderful opportunity. What about those who aren't? You just happened to live in the right node and be assigned the right school. What about the kids unfortunate enough to be assigned to the wrong school or whose parents don't make enough money to live in the right node? Somebody has to be the loser in this system, so I guess "better them than me" is the prevailing attitude.
And you don't have to attend a magnet for your children to be taught by "competent, caring teachers in an environment that fosters mutual respect, friendship and blindness to race or economic status." My children got that at our base elem school, too.
your post appears to be an
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 12:48 — carson79your post appears to be an argument for a system of good schools for everyone?
...while slamming the
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 14:03 — woodstock...while slamming the non-magnet schools by implying that they do not measure up to any of the ideals outlined as attributes of the magnet school.
It's not an uncommon
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 09:52 — red_balloonIt's not an uncommon attitude on these blogs to insinuate that the magnet seat was earned/ deserved and that non-magnet education doesn't teach you respect, diversity, etc.
Hallalujah!
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 05:24 — JanisTangoAnd you don't have to attend a magnet for your children to be taught by "competent, caring teachers in an environment that fosters mutual respect, friendship and blindness to race or economic status." My children got that at our base elem school, too.
My children do not only get this important life lesson from their teachers at school, but my husband and I teach that at home as well! The best advice my father ever gave me was to surround yourself with people that would treat the man who picks up your garbage the same as they would treat the richest man in town!
If you are to "treat the
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 13:05 — virginiadareIf you are to "treat the man who picks up your garbage the same as they would treat the richest man in town," why would you agree with the board majority and their supporters who plan to create very high poverty, racially-identifiable schools (which have not been successful in the huge majority of schools like that across the nation) for the children of the former man and not for the children of the latter man? Those schools will not have the resources or parental support or the highly qualified teachers that the schools for the children of the rich man have.
I'll Bite...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 21:18 — JanisTangoI would treat all people the same. This would also be the case when it comes to choice. If the family of the 'man' who picks up my garbage chose to have his children attend my school I would welcome them with open arms. I just don't feel I or anyone has the right to tell them they should be bused by force! That is just plain wrong. Apparently you have no problem with forced busing! I guess they tells us how you would treat the man who picks up your garbage?
The "good" schools in the
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 22:19 — virginiadareThe "good" schools in the suburbs will be filled to overflowing with neighborhood students, leaving no room for the garbage man's child, even if he would like to choose to send his child there. Therefore, he will be forced to attend the very high poverty school in his neighborhood. No one would choose to go to a school like that.
...
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 18:18 — SideburnsYou may treat the man who picks up your garbage the same as the richest man but what does it say about you when you support a policy that targets the garbage man's children for reassignment, forced calendars and long bus rides while providing all the goodies, along with stability, to the rich man's family?
The garbage man's children
Sun, 07/04/2010 - 10:42 — virginiadareThe garbage man's children were not "targeted" for reassignment, forced calendars and long bus rides. They had much more choice in calendar, as did every other student in Wake County, than the great majority of students across the state and nation. The reassignments would not have happened for rich or poor without the massive growth and lack of funding. The "goodies" were available to rich and poor and middle, many of whom chose the long bus rides, sub-par buildings, or other disadvantages in order to have them. And I believe most of the garbage men would prefer for their children to have to ride a little farther on the bus than be forced to attend a very high poverty school in their neighborhood which does not have the resources, parental support, or high quality teachers that the suburban schools have. They are the ones who will suffer when we don't try to balance the schools socio-economically. No one, rich or poor, should be forced to attend those schools which are failing all across the nation.
And I believe most of the
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 03:12 — jeffrey1And I believe most of the garbage men would prefer for their children to have to ride a little farther on the bus than be forced to attend a very high poverty school in their neighborhood
Asking is a great idea -
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 07:33 — magnetParentAsking is a great idea - wouldn't it be a good idea to ask if they want to be torn from their healthy balanced school? Breaking away from the analogy, those SE Raleigh nodes taken away from Garner High without being asked, for example.
Yes, asking is a great idea -- but sooner rather than later
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 16:14 — jeffrey1Asking is a great idea - wouldn't it be a good idea to ask if they want to be torn from their healthy balanced school?
But long before you ask them that question, you should have asked them if they want to be torn away from their nearby school and go on a 1 hour bus ride to a distant school where there is absolutely no evidence that their education will be improved?
BTW, when I was more actively involved in reassignment reform, I spoke to many low income parents about their long bus rides to so called "healthy schools." The vast majority of them said their preference would be to attend a closer, nearby school.
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 10:25 — SideburnsThe old policies moved F&R children from your so-called "healthy" schools to schools that needed more F&R children year after year after year -- sometimes the same children. Funny, I don't remember you complaining when that was happening.
Funny, I didn't think you
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 10:49 — magnetParentFunny, I didn't think you "knew" me back then. Slight difference was the old policies moved students to healthy schools. Now, there is no guarantee of that (it remains to be seen). Besides, if it was wrong then, why is it OK now?
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 11:32 — SideburnsI don't know you now, do I? But, you are new to the blogs -- at least your blog name is. Did you advocate for not moving those children under the old policies? If so, how?
No, the old policies didn't always move students to "healthier" schools -- and most times it reassigned them regardless of the impact of the instability, loss of connections and/or calendar needs. I'm no expert on the details (except for my own experiences). jenman is a good source.
On a side note, I look forward to the day when "healthy" denotes the educational successes of the student population -- not the racial and/or F&R make-up of a school.
Goodness, no. So, you think
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:30 — magnetParentGoodness, no. So, you think arguing on the blogs is advocating for children? Not quite.
The old policies provided an opportunity for the public to speak over decisions like these. The SE Raleigh nodes were not given that opportunity (hence, my original comment).
Regarding the "healthy" comment - I agree - My use of the term is for fear of using the "D" word - it seems to get people up in arms.
No, I don't equate blogging
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:46 — SideburnsNo, I don't equate blogging to advocate work. Again, how did you advocate in the past?
I advocated for the
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 12:56 — magnetParentI advocated for the children. I believed in the merits of the diversity policy, so why would I advocate against it? I spent my time working with the children one-on-one. Would you like a history of my volunteer hours? So, aside from complaining on a blog, what have you done to advocate for the children?
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:05 — SideburnsWhich merits did you believe in? Did you support forcing families into MYR for diversity's sake? Did you support the constant reassignment of F&R children for diversity's sake? You must have because, as you said, you didn't advocate against it.
I wasn't referring to volunteering. You can happily volunteer at your school while turning a blind eye to the problems elsewhere in the system.
Those who know me know what I have done.
"Those who know me know what
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 13:51 — magnetParent"Those who know me know what I have done."
That qualifies as a non-answer. You value your privacy, that's fine. Same here.
MYR has nothing to do with diversity - The whole reason they brought MYR into the picture was to avoid having to build new schools due to growth. I saw first hand the merits of a diverse student population. I also recognize the difficulties in student assignment - especially when confronted with parents who complain about how their own child "will miss dance class" or need to "save their summers" without regard to the big picture solution. Have I been directly negatively affected by the diversity policy? Heck yeah. But for the need for privacy, I will not go into details. You will just have to trust me on that. How did I deal with it? By looking at the big picture reason for why it was done that way, and recognizing the merits of that decision.
...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 15:18 — SideburnsMYR absolutely had to do with diversity. Convert a school, create more seats and bus more low-income children in to increase the F&R. That's what happened to our school. Because of that, our school population got reassigned, faced a calendar conversion, was split into 4 tracks and had our feeder patterns changed.
The fact that you diminish the concerns of parents who couldn't make MYR work as missing dance class or saving their summer is typical and tiring.
And you are wrong by implying that I do not see the merits of diversity -- first hand or otherwise. I value diversity but not when it becomes detrimental to education and family. I find it sad that families have to be "directly negatively affected by the diversity policy" and learn how to "deal with it". What a horrible connotation of diversity.
Whatever the assignment
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:40 — magnetParentWhatever the assignment policy, there are going to be people directly negatively affected. When they draw those "lines" in the sand, a new set of people on the "wrong" side of the line will be complaining. When they make those high poverty schools, a large set of those familes will be complaining. When they reassign because a school is overcrowded, families will be complaining. Even within the low poverty "neighborhoods" people will be unhappy that they did not get their 1st or 2nd choice. Keep dreaming the ideological dream.
You have blinders on regarding MYR. There is no way you will convince me that they planned to institute mandatory year round to make the schools diverse. They addressed the problem of high growth and low budget with MYR. Sure they kept diversity in mind when planning the assignments, because it was part of policy 6200, but the need for MYR was because of growth.
I am not diminishing the concerns of those that could not make it work - Those with issues could and should address the school board with their real issues and get a transfer. - I am diminishing the concerns of those who could make it work but had to complain/sue because they did not like it. Many families did not like it because it was different and ended up liking it once the tried it.
Sorry to intrude on this
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:18 — jeffrey1Sorry to intrude on this debate.
There is no way you will convince me that they planned to institute mandatory year round to make the schools diverse
Actually, if you go back and look, you will find that WCPSS was quite concerned that YR schools were predominantly middle class. Since they could not force ED families to choose YR, they only way to get more diverse YR schools was to make them mandatory.
When trying to address low budget with MYR, WCPSS ignored mountains of evidence from dozens of school districts across the nation that switched to MYR, then abandoned it a few years later, when they realized it did not save any money. I suspect that if someone wants to look at WCPSS expenditures on MYR, they will discover that in the end, it is not cost efficient. With regards to growth, let's not forget that WCPSS says MYR was necessary to provide an additional 3000 seats, but failed to take into the account the deteriorating economy, and 2000 of those seats never materialized.
See my reply at the top of
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 19:44 — magnetParentSee my reply at the top of the post.
Huh?
Sat, 07/03/2010 - 17:12 — Bob_SconceApart from accusations by their opposition and your own personal prejudices, what evidence do you have that the majority plans "to create very high poverty, racially-identifiable schools"?
Incidentally, the kids of the richest man in town go to private school.
John Tedesco has admitted
Sun, 07/04/2010 - 10:29 — virginiadareJohn Tedesco has admitted that those schools will happen under his zone plan and the board majority has said repeatedly -- by their votes -- that they will do nothing to prevent that from happening. Instead they will label them "promise zone" schools. They would not even vote to include a weak statement that they would "try" to keep schools from becoming segregated. I don't see how that has anything to do with my personal prejudices. It is fact.
So...
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 01:20 — Bob_SconceI believe you're misquoting him, but even if you were right, at most you have one member saying that would be an effect of their goals. That wouldn't mean that it's a planned effect or that it's the plan of the board majority.
This isn't just arguing over words -- you were accusing the majority of deliberately trying to create such schools, when all the evidence you can muster is a single member saying that such schools may result. There's a big difference between the two that some, apparently out of that prejudice, ignore.
It is fact that the majority
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 10:45 — virginiadareIt is fact that the majority have voted over and over again NOT to do anything to prevent those schools from being created, making it part of their plan. They have voted against every single compromise or idea that would have given any effort at all, no matter how small, to keep it from happening.
They know full well
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 08:05 — Solon77The new board knows full well the consequences of their actions and therefore could be considered planned. JT has on numerous occasions indicated he is ok with creating high poverty schools. Silence on the part of the others is an acceptance. Other evidence that they understand the planned consequences is holding up schools like John A Johnson Elementary (high poverty school) as a model. Otherwise they could have easily held up some other random non poverty community school as a model. Other evidence is Margiotta looking into turning magnets into mandatory year round. The additional capacity is needed to: 1. accommodate the kids who were previously bused out and 2. expand availability to others.
In the meantime we wait until the fall when the zones are unveiled, what real choices are offered, and the funding plan for the high poverty schools.
Great..
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 08:30 — Bob_SconceIn the meantime we wait until the fall when the zones are unveiled, what real choices are offered, and the funding plan for the high poverty schools.
Excellent. A big part of my frustration with VDare and other naysayers here has been the doom-and-gloom scenarios that they all assert must result by moving to a community schools model. In reality, though, there's very little evidence to support their scenarios. The plan hasn't been developed yet, and alternate approaches to improving student performance haven't yet been given a chance to succeed.
We know that the approach of solving student performance by assigning them to different schools has failed. If this board's new model does no better, then they'll be booted out and replaced again.
What evidence can you
Mon, 07/05/2010 - 10:12 — virginiadareWhat evidence can you produce that the gloom and doom scenario won't happen? In reality it has happened everywhere in the state and nation that have "neighborhood" schools. We know that THAT approach has failed. Almost all of the schools in the nation which have been deemed failing are very high poverty, racially isolated schools, as school systems become more and more racially and socioeconomically segregated. Other approaches have not worked elsewhere in those schools, so what makes you think they would work here? And obviously any alternative approaches that inconvenience parents in the slightest -- like PLT's held at a time to produce maximum results -- will be shut down.