There was a lot of data and emotion coming from supporters of Wake County's school diversity policy at Saturday's Great Schools in Wake Coalition forum.
As noted in today's article, researchers presented national and state data on the challenges of high-poverty schools and the benefits of socioeconomically diverse schools. The message presented was that community schools would be the wrong step for Wake to take.
"It's very important that Wake County stay the course on their programs," said Richard Kahlenberg, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, which he called a 'progressive think tank.' "The plans to dismantle the socioeconomic diversity policy would have disastrous effects.”
Kahlenberg cited national studies showing that high-poverty schools are more likely to struggle academically, have higher teacher turnover and less involved parents.
Kahlenberg also took on those who've cited the KIPP model as a way that Wake can deal with high-poverty schools. He argued that since parents choose to attend KIPP and that a high percentage of students leave over the course of the year that it's not sustainable in the traditional public schools.
“It’s an outlier that we really can’t base our public schools on," Kahlenberg said.
Kahlenberg said no research has found that middle class students are harmed by socioeconomic integration.
It was a theme echoed by Amy Hawn Nelson, a doctoral candidate at UNC-Charlotte. She pointed to a Clemson University study of North Carolina data from 2000 to 2006 that she said showed that the highest achievement was in schools that were racially and socioecoonmically balanced
"The most important characteristic of any student isn’t the school but the composition of the school, which is why that policy put in place in Wake County is so important," Nelson said.
The emotional aspect of the forum was especially noticeable from retired Wake Superintendent Bill McNeal and retired Wake magnet director Caroline Massengill. Both talked about having their heart broken at the prospect of the diversity policy being eliminated.
"My heart is broken for people who won’t have the opportunity to go to schools in diverse climates and learn from other people," Massengill said. "My heart is broken for people who won’t get to become like the women my two daughters are because they went to public schools in Wake County."
There wasn't much data brought up about Wake County specifically. For instance, the charts used by Massengill were from 2003 and 2004 when the passing rate was over 90 percent.
Massengill and other panelists did acknowledge that Wake's overall academic performance has dropped recently during a Q&A with questions submitted from the audience.
Panelists cited reasons such as lack of funding, loss of focus on academics and the failure of the old board to do more to keep down the number of schools exceeding the 40 percent F&R goal. (What wasn't mentioned was that the old board would have probably had to do a lot more reassignment to keep to the 40 percent goal.)
"We were dealing with considerable growth," Massengill said. "Wake County is famous for not having enough money. We lost focus. We were not really focused on academic achievement. Our focus was on growth."
The lack of recent Wake data was something pointed out by school board member John Tedesco, who attended the forum.
“The achievement gap has dramatically widened in the past five years,” Tedesco said. “My hope is that we can get together to come up with a system that works for all kids.”
Comments
where are your solutions?
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 13:58 — JaneknowsbestWhere are the ideas...where are the specifics on all the problems.....where are the solutions to fixing these problems.
Aren't these the questions those who want to dismantle WCPSS should be answering? I think everyone is clear on what the problems are and there are certainly plenty of ideas out there. As one of the professors said Thursday, "this is not rocket science...we know how to improve student achievement" And she gave specifics based on study of schools of excellence in Wake County. Shouldn't the BOE be clamoring to get her in to talk to them? Shouldn't they ask her to make a presentation at the student achievement committee meeting?
not so
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:47 — JaneknowsbestLast time I checked Wake was still in NC so when a study includes data from NC schools and/or data from individual students across the state I'm assuming that as the largest system they are part of that group. But easy enough for you to check out the methodology before you start shotting down the results.
And one of the researchers on Thursday talked speciifically about research done in Wake schools. Grant's work is certainly Wake specific.
And are you saying that the experiences in Chapel Hill/Carrboro apply in Wake? Seems contradictory to your demand for Wake-only info. Still waiting for you to produce the research to support the idea that a neighborhood assignment scheme will work in Wake.
Grant's work? What are you
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:11 — Eric_BGrant's work? What are you talking about? I read his entire book. He did not do any research.
He quotes 2005-06 EOG results instead of the most recent 2007-08 results in his book, which was published in 2009 because if he did they would not support his contentions on "closing achievement gaps".
The 2005 WCPSS E&R report on reassignment for diversity showed no effect for the policy.
I do find it ironic that we have professors from UNC-CH and Duke telling us how things should be done when CH and Orange County are not merged school systems and Durham county has a neighborhood schools assignment model. Why not protest at home first before telling Wake how we should continue to do it here?
who is not talking?
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:11 — Janeknowsbestbreining, I guess it's safe to assume that you didn't attend Saturday's event. Have you been attending BOE meetings? The folks who support diversity have talked about what's wrong with WCPSS. NO ONE has said that the current results we are getting are adequate. But they have also presented research from multiple sources that show nationally and in NC, SES and racial diversity does help individual students and academic achievement. Please read the research presented Thursday and Saturday. There is no need to dismantle the school system...but we need to fix what's broke and continue what's working.
By contrast the majority has yet to provide any research to support their proposal. Is that because the preponderance of research shows that their proposal will have detrimental results for students, schools and the community? Their response, and the response of most of their supporters here, is to go on the offensive and claim it's the responsibility of the school system supporters to prove it works. They never seem to get around to answering the question.
How Do We Fix Things?
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:40 — JanisTangoThe folks who support diversity have talked about what's wrong with WCPSS
I support diversity...I just don't support they way WCPSS handles the SES reassignment and the discrimination of kids to create the 'illusion' that everything is hunky dory!
Where are the ideas...where are the specifics on all the problems.....where are the solutions to fixing these problems. All I hear is diversity is good. Not one of these people were out there talking about improving the system prior to this new board. They weren't complaining when kids were being reshuffled like a deck of card (unless it was their kids). They weren't complaining before now. I guess they didn't care until it started to impact them huh! Ironic isn't it....they said that about me because I don't support the StatusQuo.
I'm ready to listen to ideas....where are they?
Where are the ideas...where
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:19 — ksinclairWhere are the ideas...where are the specifics on all the
problems.....where are the solutions to fixing these problems.
How many high poverty
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:23 — klanders65How many high poverty schools are you worried about creating? Do you know how many we have now? You aren't too worried or you would know.
And "make addressing the achievement gap more difficult." ??
More difficult than what? What are we doing now to address the huge achievement gaps we now have? Can you answer that? You're afraid it is going to get more difficult?
You should not be worried at all if you do not know what the achievement gaps are or what we are doing about it. That wouldn't make any sense for you to be worried something you know nothing about is going to change or fixing this thing you know nothing about will be harder than something you compare it to in your imagination.
I may be totally wrong. Maybe you know these things. Do you? Do you know where the largest achievement gaps are and what is being done? I am just curious and I apologize if you do.
Could you define high
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:48 — carson79Could you define high poverty on your terms?
"they have also presented
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:30 — CaryCurmudgeon"they have also presented research from multiple sources that show
nationally and in NC, SES and racial diversity does help individual
students and academic achievement"
Seems like they have research from everywhere in the world except Wake County, why is that? The theories Kahleberg tried to pass off as research last year have been debunked.
Nice that the professors from Chapel Hill could stop by for a visit. Can they explain why CH/Carrboro schools are fighting so hard not to be integrated with Chatham County?
Grant's grandkids are in magnet schools. He doesn't seem at all distressed that their minority and ED classmates are bombing out of school.
If our forced busing program is so great, how come we need "experts" who come from other areas and have no experience with bussing to tell us so?
Can they explain why
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 13:09 — carson79Can they explain why CH/Carrboro schools are fighting so hard not to be integrated with Chatham County?
I flunked geography .
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 13:20 — CaryCurmudgeonI flunked geography
. Seriously, The CH/Carrboro has for a long time refused to be integrated into their county school system. Lately they have the NAACP after them for offering too many honors courses.
It seems like so many of the academics who are such strong diversity supporters either don't do it themselves, or they have their kids in magnet schools and don't seem to be very bothered by fact that those schools do nothing to help minority or ED kids.
Good Question Joe
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:52 — chaboard"Seems like they have research from everywhere in the world except Wake County, why is that?"
Do you want to help solve that problem? YOU have a lot more influence than we do with the 5 board members who are currently the key to getting data out and studies done.
Is WCSA ready to throw it's weight behind a drive to get the Board to commission studies from and make data available to independent bodies such as SAS and/or researchers at local universities?
I thought a study was a good
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 13:06 — CaryCurmudgeonI thought a study was a good idea before, and I think so now. The board is on a 6-18 month plan to implement neighborhood schools, so doing such a study simultaneously would not cause a delay in planning a new assignment policy.
I suspect it would be extremely difficult for both "sides" to agree on a neutral analyst. And realistically, I don't expect such a study will answer the question once and for all -- whichever side doesn't like the result will have some people who spend their time picking it apart.
I'm speaking for myself here, but I will bring the idea up at our next meeting.
Beyond reassignment, WSCA has always had a core mission of finding innovative learning models, and the group will continue to focus on that.
Sounds Good
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 14:53 — chaboardI was actually contemplating showing up at K&S on Wednesday to bring it up myself. ;)
I don't think it would be THAT hard to get both sides to agree so long as we're not doing something obviously phony like paying Civitas or NAACP to do it. Hiring SAS to do one would be hard to argue with on competency or neutrality grounds. Better yet, hire them to anonymize the data and then release as much as possible to the public so that university researchers (and lowly bloggers!) can study from multiple angles.
Good on you if you're sincere about bringing it up - I was in favor of a study last year and I'm glad to see you still are this year.
Is....
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:13 — chaboard...the referenced Clemson University study available online anywhere?
I thought it would be easier
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:21 — KeungHui (author)I thought it would be easier to find than it turned out to be. I'm hoping Great Schools will have it when they post the presentations online. For now, search for Stephanie Southworth and Clemson University as she's the one who did the research.
There was a really good LTE
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 08:12 — CaryCurmudgeonThere was a really good LTE in today's paper. The writer's point was that opponents of the new board would get a lot better traction if the spent their time proposing solutions to today's academic failures, instead of regurgitating research from elsewhere that purports to justify the forced busing diversity program. The "more of the same" argument doesn't seem to play very well these days. All that PhD brainpower, and the best they could come up with was an argument that we should continue a model which increasingly fails students....
Cary Crum...model which increasingly fails students
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:51 — hmoncelleCary Crum.. What is the data you are referring to ?
is it the data that states:
Harry, I call a 51% Latino
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:07 — CaryCurmudgeonHarry,
I call a 51% Latino graduation rate failure.
I call a 54% ED graduation rate failure.
I call a 50% AA/Male graduation rate failure.
I call an increasing achievement gap failure.
Many of the "more of the same" supporters embraced WEP's white paper and vision for Wake County schools, think it was called Dismissing Impossibility. The message was that we need to educate our children to compete globally. In that context, comparisons to other NC schools are not how to set the bar.
That said, Wake is the best-educated county in NC, and is one of the wealthiest. Ranking 69th or 85th is nothing to be proud of.
-- Crum
Now that the new board has
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 13:20 — user12345Now that the new board has staked their political future on improving these numbers, it will be interesting to sit back and watch the magic.
School achievement versus school assignment.
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:26 — Dove314I sometimes think the discussion of school achievement is just a distraction.
Asked this earlier --
Is School Achievement THE primary goal/objective of the new board majority with school assignment being one of the factors hypothesized to be affecting achievement makiing it one component of a plan to raise achievement?
OR
Is Student Assignment THE primary goal of the new board majority with a secondary objective to see if school achievement can be made to benefit from the primary goal of changing assignment?
If the former, the discussion and studies and research should be on reviewing all available options to improve student achievement and implementing the most beneficial combination we can afford with student assignment being evaluated among the options, but not the only option in isolation currently being moved forward.
All too often, the goal seems more to be the latter with changing student assignment as the primary objective of the board majority while more beneficial and cost effective changes could be available to improve student achievement which are either not on or much lower down the new majority's agenda.
Which is it, "school
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:42 — shearertwWhich is it, "school achievemnt" or "student achievement"?
You seem to use them interchangealby in your post but they are not then same thing. You can improve student achievement without improving school achievement and vice versa. WCPSS has been doing the latter for years without ever acheiving the former.
Sorry
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:51 — Dove314Some days I struggle with writing. It is their very difference driving my question.
If you can pick only one primary goal, which do you see as the primary, student achievement or student assignment?
Achievement
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 17:19 — TrailerParkGirlStudent achievement and new BOE members actually ran on that very platform!
That is why to date:
Formed ED student achievement committee
Proposed moving Student Achievement to top goal in policy 6200
Proposed directive to use objective data driven decisions
Proposed to move away from "at risk" model to "individual student achievement" model
Assignment related changes relate to ending SE profiling practices under "at risk" model and moving toward a structure to encourage stability in assignments and community and family involvement.
There is also a lot of research on the importance of stability, family and community involvement as they relate to achievement. I found a bunch some time ago just googling those topics. Just like there is research on small class sizes, teacher effectiveness, multicultural curriculum, single gender classrooms, parent education level and other factors.
It isn't the new board that wants to have the focus be on assignment. That is the OLD way and it is the supporters of the OLD way that keep wanting to have that be the focus. Didn't they just have a forum about SE balancing, which is accomplished via ASSIGNMENT, research? Have those same people talked about all those other factors upon which research has been done? WHY do they care so much only about the SE balancing angle? Why have they not been talking about all the other factors researched? Why are they trying to defend the Effectiveness Index, which has never been peer reviewed and misrepresent EVAAS, which has been peer reviewed by multiple peers including the US Dept of Ed?
That has been one of the issues with the OLD way, it focused so much on assignment as THE factor and solution to the exclusion of all the other factors.
I think JanisTango has repeatedly asked for proposals from the OLD way to address the achievement issues or anything other than SES balancing is the magic bullet even though the results HERE just aren't there to support that. I'm pretty sure she's STILL hearing crickets.
Instead, all we hear is some vague claim that well ED student achievement would be worse if it weren't for the bussing. Really? Because in order to make that claim it seems you would have to be in a position where your ED students weren't already doing worse than state average when you are the only district that uses SE balancing. Even Kevin Hill has stated that policy 6200 is NOT about individual student achievement, it is about creating "healthy schools."
The only other thing I've heard up to now as of late is bus more. If that was the answer, we didn't they just bus more when they had a 8-1 BOE majority, a superintendent so supportive that he quit over the ending of the policy and a supportive superintendent of Growth Management?? Could it be because it won't work as those that can will just bail on the system? It's happened to some extent every time they tried to use forced bussing and reassignments on the NED here - some left the system or found a way to go to a different school than where GM intended them to go. Remember the "people need to just go where we send them" comment? People were not being good pawns in the SE balancing between calendar option issue they hoped to resolve with MYR. The balance was out of whack with voluntary YR because NED like it more than ED. If SE bussing was the magic bullet these researchers claim, every system around would be flocking to do it - yet we are in small company. They can research and claim its greatness til the cows come home, but it just doesn't seem to work in practice the way it looks in the petri dish. So the research from other places shows ED do better in non-high poverty schools. Are those other places using forced bussing and SE as an assignment factor for SE balancing? Because unless those other places are successfully doing that, it's a moot point.
Now, it would be nice to start talking about what people think about all those other factors that research has shown to impact achievement. I think this county has beat the one "poverty level of school" factor to death ever since they started using SES as an assignment factor.
Thank you
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:10 — Dove314For not answering "Both" and actually choosing one.
First, please pardon my grammatical errors.
Can I just ask, if student achievement is the primary goal, why are these only the focus within the resolution changing the student assignment policy?
Are there other resolutions outside of the proposed resolution to change assignment which are more overarching and focused specifically on achievement?
I think this is part of my confusion. Before a few weeks ago, I spent very little time on the WCPSS web site and had only rarely ever read a policy. But it didn't take me but a heartbeat to find the goal and mission of WCPSS which seems to say that the primary focus of the WCPSS as a whole is student achievement. As we've discussed previously, it isn't in Policy 6200, it sits above Policy 6200 which suggests to me that it was intended to be the driving purpose to all policies and actions. Their success is a different matter, I'm just reviewing for intent.
I would suggest that the new majority should first have put forth a resolution which reiterated that the main focus of the WCPSS will be student achievement and then detail each of the areas that would be undergoing review to improve student achievement and detailing recent years of declining achievement as the motivation. For example, if community involvement is considered critical to student achievement, what does the board resolve to do to improve community involvement? Is there nothing outside of reassigning children to a school within their zone? If stability is critical to student achievement, it would seem like there should be a focus on insuring students are stable wherever they are now with a goal towards creating the next student assignment policy that would, as one of its goals, improve stability.
By the very act of making these clauses within a resolution specific to changing student assignment, an intent that student achievement is their primary focus is not the message they are sending to me.
Dove you are correct
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 07:01 — Voice_of_Reason_It should be about student achievement. Policy 6200 gets in the way of focusing on student achievement. Policy 6200 has driven so much in WCPSS at the detriment of both student achievement and the community as a whole. Stability for families is important to a community's health. There is no basis to any claims that Policy 6200 has improved student achievement. It only claim to fame is keeping some schools "healthy" by playing a shell game with low income, low-performing nodes. The board needs to focus on performance, not "healthy" schools. If our metrics were showing a positive trend, I think you would have a case for maintaining the status quo.
No worries
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 23:54 — TrailerParkGirlNo worries on grammer or spelling. There's more important stuff to focus on and I'm lousy at spelling (the downside to having your ES focus on vocabulary over spelling; upside being higher Reading comprehension scores). BTW vocab tends to be a missing skill for struggling students, so there's another example of something for our school communities to work on.
John Tedesco talked about community schools (like what Arne Duncan is advocating) a lot. I suggested the N&O do an article on how community schools were being advocated at the federal level and one of the candidates here was talking about community schools, but was told that the paper only covers "local issues." I'm not sure how someone wanting to do locally what the US Secretary of Ed advocates for is not a local issue. Some of the local stations have had some longer interviews where the details are given, but others generally give a few soundbites and seem more interested in who called who what or who protested what than they are in the real issues.
Also, with the achievement angle there is a lot for them to figure out and absorb. It is a complex issue, more complex than some of these other issues so may unfold less quickly. It seems to me the fact that the objective data driven item was in the resolution indicates their awareness of that issue as it relates to achievement and intent to address it. Also, they seem to be aware of and want to address the "at risk" model ramifications.
The resolution is a directive. They said they will still need to create new policies which align with the directive. This is supposed to give direction for policy makers, not be the policy itself. Also, I believe one of the objectives in the resolution mentioned starting now to give the 9-15 months for policies and plans to be developed and have things in place when the current assignment plan expires. My understanding is that they are currently addressing one off individual node issues. Keep in mind that under the current 2009-12 plan, some students are slated for reassignment for next year.
Hopefully, communication will improve. I'm betting they've gotten feedback on that issue.
URL
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 07:34 — Dove314Here is the URL for the stated goal and mission of WCPSS as listed on WCPSS website Board pages. Have to add the www stuff.
wcpss.net/goal-mission/
This new majority absolutely assumed everyone knew what they had planned and was behind what they wanted to do and made no effort to share insights with those not invovled in the elections. The follow on response of so many of "you lost the election, we've got a mandate, suck it up" has surely not helped. That is a message I posted here early on. Even if people are focused on achievement and could support either diversity or neighborhood assigniment, the arrogance and reckless heed is off-putting.
Thanks
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 13:45 — TrailerParkGirlThanks for the URL. I remember now running across it at some point and seeing how far we have to go by looking at the chart on one of the tabs comparing 2008 results with the 2014 goal. We better get cracking :-) !
Agree with you that the process has been rough. IMHO I think there was a bit of the "we want to stay the current course" side coming out of the gate appearing to throw up roadblocks and the "we want change" side appearing bull in china shop. Here's to hoping everyone makes some progress on the process.
I was just listening to the budget session and Ron asked about Project Enlightenment and pre-K and McLaurin said she had those same questions/concerns so looks like there is at least some common ground to build upon.
I'm not sure if you saw my post some time ago about people of different viewpoints being able to open up more productive communications and how we can't count on the media and "political" types for that because they function on pot stirring. I do think many supporters, but not all, of both viewpoints have the same goal, which is achievement for ALL. Some on both sides have self-focused concerns as well, which is human (i.e. those in magnet programs worried about losing them, property values). It is a complex, challenging situation but meeting challenges is how advancement happens, so people just have to keep working through this while keeping focus on achievement. If one looks at schools where ALL are achieving, they do it with high expectations and hard work. There are no shortcuts, no easy button.
IMHO we, as a community, either have to get off our duffs and be willing to do whatever it takes to help our students reach those goals or be honest about not really having the commitment to get every student over the bar. It is a community and society issue not just a school system issue and will take the community helping out to reach it. Lowering the bar and reshuffling along the way so it looks like more are getting over it doesn't count. For example, right now the "each student being challenged" part of the goal is not happening because we know that some (disproportionately low-income and minority) Level III and IV students are not getting access to the rigorous coursework they need to challenge them. That's why we need a new approach and to move away from the "at risk" model. Otherwise, it will keep us from meeting goals.
These things have been issues for some time but now finally are being talked about and analyzed publicly. IMO there has been more public focus on where we are and are not when it comes to achievement and the achievement gap in the last year than in all the years together that I can remember. I posted a while back that when it comes to the achievement gap, it is a little like recovering from alcoholism in that step 1 is admitting you have a problem. So, now there is public attention on step 1- we have achievement challenges. That's progress. It may make some uncomfortable, but until we admit we have the issue and get people focused on it, we won't begin to solve it. Publicly ignored issues don't solve themselves, which IMO is part of what has been happening.
Both, For students that
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 15:14 — shearertwBoth,
For students that typically do not struggle (NED), then assignment should proximity based so as to help build a community around the school that makes it better for everyone. As long as appropriate resources are provided, student achievement will tbe driven by the community and take care of itself.
For students that historically struggle (ED), we should focus on providing the right resources and programs to improve student achievement. Location (i.e. assignment) remains important from the stand point of stability. These programs do not need to be duplicated all over the county, nor should they, so they should be placed where needed. If you constantly try and rebalance SES by 5% or so each and every year, you cannot maintain the stability needed for these programs to work. Therefore, for ED, student achievement should be the focus as long as stability (not location) in assignment is maintained.
omg Do you ever struggle?
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 01:34 — klanders65omg
Do you ever struggle? Are you poor?
This is why we need to use data folks. This is how people think. "typical" means you belong to a group with some lower average.
Funny...
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:17 — chaboard...change two words and you have EXACTLY the main weakness of the new board and its supporters:
"SUPPORTERS of the new board would get a lot better traction if the spent
their time proposing solutions to today's academic failures, instead of
regurgitating research from elsewhere that purports to DAMN the
forced busing diversity program."
I have a solution. Use EVAAS
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:38 — klanders65I have a solution.
Use EVAAS to identify the students who are already prepared to succeed in advanced courses and then enroll them in those courses.
Math tracking begins in 6th grade. No one (almost) moves track after that. So, get every single "ready" 6th grader in to the top track. This will more than double the number of students headed for 8th grade algebra. That in turn will more than double the number of students taking Honors and AP math and science, since you pretty much have to take 8th grade algebra to be on the road to taking those.
Do NOT allow Level IV students to be pulled from core courses to receive remedial instruction that they do not need, and that damages them. Use EVAAS to determine who needs intervention to be able to score at grade level, and only those students should be allowed to receive remedial help.
Stop calling low income students "the at risk kids."
Stop using the Effectiveness Index, which institutionalizes lower expectations for students who belong to certain subgroups, including low income students.
Rip down all that so called "research" on E&R's website that reports on effective practices or compares effectiveness after adjusting the expectations for low income (and I didn't realize until today, they also adjust for race in some studies.).
Stop disseminating these institutionalized low expectations for subgroups and start treating the students as individuals. EVAAS allows us to look at individuals to see what they are ready for or what interventions they need.
Look at the successes and study why they are successful.
Stop providing "Understanding Poverty" training that teaches staff that poor students live in squalor and can't be expected to do homework because they don't have light bulbs.
This would be a plan. What do you think of this plan?
I'll tell you why this plan won't move forward. Right now, one group gets to look like they have compassion for poor people and want to help them, while taking all the resources. The current system of the "at risk" model conveys that these subgroups wouldn't even benefit and would probably be harmed if we didn't pull them out of core courses to get remedial services, or if we let them take advanced math classes (which lead to many other advanced classes.) We look like we have compassion for these folks right now. The evil new board wants to take away these compassionate services we are now providing to the poor at-risk kids.
Stop providing
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:44 — carson79Stop providing "Understanding Poverty" training that teaches staff that
poor students live in squalor and can't be expected to do homework
because they don't have light bulbs.
Poverty
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:50 — klanders65It not research based, other than a person with education credentials thought real hard, and called her thinking "research" since she has credentials. It is so offensive. It is snake oil and she is getting very wealthy.
It teaches that low income people are different in many ways. It is sick. I don't want to get started. Maybe others can comment. Here are a few links to scan:
http://educationandclass.com/category/ruby-payne/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU-LMmpDYzw
Don't necessarily
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:27 — CaryCurmudgeonDon't necessarily disagree. The difference is that the status quo supporters are the ones that need to do the convincing right now.
54%
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 07:51 — breining2454% graduation rate for low income students under the "nationally recognized" diversity policy is pretty horrible. None of the defenders of the status quo want to mention that. I find it interesting that most folks who defend the "diversity policy" never talk about the educational benefits, or what a huge success its been in the classroom. I guess they cant because there isnt an educational benefit, children don't learn by osmosis and the dismal test scores show its been a failure in the classroom. The policy isnt working, I cant see how ending bussing kids all over the county and creating some stability is a bad thing.
well first of all, they
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 10:38 — carson79well first of all, they aren't bused "all over the county" - stop telling this lie!!
and while the angry minority mob on this blog may not want to admit it, 95% of parents were happy with their school assignment. A lot of us think that thanking a political party after your victory in a non-partisan election is pretty telling (Deborah Prickett).
Wrong, Wrong and Wrong
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:42 — JanisTangoHow about the kids that are bused 25 miles.....is that not all over the county? If there is one child bused 25 miles then that is one child too many!
who is the child bused 25
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:00 — carson79who is the child bused 25 miles? I'm assuming elementary school only, right?
And you are saying something VERY different from what that poster said that "children are being bused all over the county" - not that 5% of kids are bused further than 5 miles from where they live. I don't disagree with you - if you have a personal problem with someone riding a bus further than 25 miles, then of course this would be "one child too many". Shouldn't that outcry come from that child or their parents? (andI guess it is if this is your child)
It Has Come From The Parent and In Their Words....
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:56 — JanisTangoThe parent did complain to the previous board and they were told...your request for transfer is denied!
Miles
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:12 — bnartistThe fish gets bigger every time the story is retold.
how about 17.45 miles (according to mapquest)
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 15:23 — momsateacherNode 140.0 ( part of Walnut Street, Raleigh) has Olive Chapel in Apex as its base school. Is 17.45 miles too far? Want to count the number of elementary schools that this node passes on their way to school each day? Start by counting the school across the street (Washington), then keep counting.
Why are you limiting
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 18:33 — user12345Why are you limiting people's choice? If they prefer to attend a better school at the price of a longer bus ride, why don't you let them?
Our choice
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 00:44 — SDR256Our choice after we were assigned out of our traditional school which we could walk to, was either accept YR or be bused 18 miles if we so insisted on traditional. No going back to the one we could walk to. No sirree. 18 miles or bust.
You have preconceived
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 10:58 — user12345You have preconceived conditions on the calendar preference, which makes you choose another school … that is the problem with too many choices …. The closest school that teaches astrophysics is 18 miles away from me so we went private and want WCPSS to pay for it... <joke>
Shouldn't the real question
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:40 — Tony_LucasShouldn't the real question be, Do the parents and children prefer going to a school that is farther away than the one next door for better educational opportunities? It's about what is best for the children. I was assigned to two schools (Middle Creek Elementary and High) that were 12.4 miles away, acording to Google Maps, and prefered going there over schools that were closer. The schools had better and far more resources available than the previous schools I was assigned to, basically due to their location. Because of my experiences I believe Wake County should tweak the current assignment policy to more of a Controlled Choice model, rather than a "Community" schools model.
Please answer this question:
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 18:48 — Eric_BPlease answer this question: What is the difference between what John Tedesco has proposed and the "controlled choice" model that Kahlenberg advocates for? They both seem to be models where zones are created and parents are given a choice within those zones.
Are the zones in Kahlenberg's model larger? Wouldn't that make transportation more expensive, if so? What large school districts have implemented controlled choice? The examples Kahlenberg gives are small districts, nothing on the scale of WCPSS. Cambridge, MA, one of the examples given of controlled choice had only 5,770 students in pre-K through 12th grade in 2008-09!
All I know about Tedesco's
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 20:35 — Tony_LucasAll I know about Tedesco's plan is that he wants to create zones and eliminate socioeconomic diversity from the assignment policy. As for Kahlenberg's plan I don't know the specifics as to what he is calling for.
The controlled choice plan I advocate for is the one that was part of my mom's platform. In her plan, parents list five schools for their child to attend in order of preference when their child starts kindergarden, they move to a new area of the county, or move to the county. Each school would have an alotted number of seats for ED and non-ED students. Say a school cannot exceed 40% ED, so 40% of the seats would be set as ED and 60% as non-ED. If the number of ED students who apply do not fill up the 40% of the seats, then the remaining percentage becomes available to non-ED students. The 40% number is based off of the current goal to have no school with more than 40% of ED students.
If there are more students in either category who apply for the school, then there would be a true lottery for the seats with the ones not picked going to their second choice school and the assignment process is repeated again. If out of the five schools, the student is not assigned to a single one then they would be assigned to the closest school with an open seat and would be able to be placed on a waiting list for another school that was on their list.
As for the "districts," in the plan that I advocate for they are just busing districts. By that I mean if you wanted to use the bus to go to school then you would need to choose a school within the district. However, if you are an ED student, then travel vouchers/reimbursement would be provided to your family to pay for transportation to a school outside of the busing district. This would allow the ED students to have a true choice because their parents may not be able to provide transportation out of their district. I'm assuming there would be some savings in busing to pay for the vouchers.
If the schools were not being chosen at a similar rate of the others, then a study would be conducted that year to make recommendations to make the schools more attractive. This would include offering more programs that are not currently available at that school. In essence, the schools would be competing for students but there is a control to make sure the schools are balanced.
As for other districts that have a form of controlled choice, I can't really recall them right now but I don't think we found any the size of Wake County when we were working on the elements of the plan. But then again, why does Wake have to copy another system's plan? We are the national model for a diversity assignment, so why can't we adopt a controlled choice model and tweak it for our size? Just because a plan works in one system, doesn't mean it will work in another, we have found that out from economic models across throughout the world.
Zone model
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 21:23 — snordonethe zone model is pretty close to the controlled choice model, except for it does not include balancing SES. Our need to honor Brown vs. Board and strive for de-segregation is not being served by forced busing, if you look at the increase in % of F&R kids vs increase in % of schools with >40% F&R they are not proportional. Forced busing is actually having the opposite effect, it is creating higher poverty schools. Rick Kahlenberg clearly says in his book, forced busing does not work.
And Tony, you must not have a lot of experience with ED families. Most do not have personal transportation at all and must rely on public transportation. When an ED child misses the bus, they don't go to school. Drive around some of our low income areas around lunch time on a nice day and admire the children playing.