The Great Schools in Wake Coalition is going to use the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system as the boogeyman at today's Wake County school board meeting.
GSIW has asked Jim Henderlite, a member of the CMS Equity Committee and current board member of the Swann Fellowship to be one of today's speakers. Swann opposed ending busing for diversity in Charlotte.
Members of the old Wake school board had passed out Swann's reports about resegregation in Charlotte to justify keeping the diversity policy.
Henderlite said he has a personal stake in the issue because his grandson attends the magnet program at Douglas Elementary School.
"My son and his wife are very concerned about what might happen to Douglas under a neighborhood school assignment plan," Henderlite said in an e-mail message. "They are very happy there now and value the highly diverse student population that exists at Douglas."
Douglas Elementary, located near North Hills shopping center in Raleigh, was an example of a rim school who was badly hurt by the magnet program. The school board added the magnet program to Douglas in 1999 to help the school.
GSIW had also drawn the Wake-Charlotte comparison at Saturday's forum. One of the panelists was Amy Hawn Nelson, a doctoral candidate at UNC-Charlotte and a principal-intern at Lincoln Heights Elementary, a high-poverty Charlotte school.
Nelson said the number of extremely high-poverty schools in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system has increased since the district abandoned busing for diversity in favor of neighborhood schools in 2002.
"You don't have to guess what Wake County will look like in four years," Nelson said on Saturday. "You have a case study three hours down the road. It's not pretty."
Critics of the diversity policy will counter that Charlotte's low-income students outperform those in Wake. But supporters of the diversity policy say that the performance in Charlotte's high-poverty schools is much lower than in the more economically balanced schools.
Comments
why the sudden interest?
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 08:27 — louiselee44It's been interesting to me that people are suddenly screaming, "research! data! facts!" now that their viewpoints are being challenged. Where were they when mountains of irrefutable facts concerning the repercussions of massively mandating YR schools were presented on a platter - year after year - only to be totally ignored? Yes we need facts, but if people are truly interested in fairness, ALL facts need to be considered, not just a select few.
Yep, the diversity policy
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 15:46 — jenmanYep, the diversity policy didn't need to be studied because "we just know it works". Research was not an interest before.
huh?
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 19:41 — JaneknowsbestThis event has been in development for several months. Panelists were lined up. They should just drop one or add one on the fly because a BOE member shows up?
Inviting the chair and vice chair of any organizations is more than sufficient. If they had wanted to send someone in their place they should have offered to arrange that. That neither one of them made themselves available nor offered to find a replacement pretty much says they didn't want to have a voice there.
Follow The Conversation Jane!
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 19:53 — JanisTangoFollow the conversation Jane. The poster below stated this:
It's too bad no one from the majority accepted one of the invitations to speak.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority in this context includes, Margiotta, Goldman, Pricket,Malone and Tedesco. The truth is only two of the five were invited. I'm was asking why all 5 weren't asked. If they were truly open to all sides and input, Tedesco would have and should have been invited. Don't give me this story that they couldn't have added him to the panel. I don't buy it . If they were going to invite outside guests from places outside of Wake, why didn't they invite someone with an opposing view beyond the BOE. There is plenty that would have taken up an invitation. Yveonne made it quite clear she has no respect for the otherside with her opening comments.
Obviously
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 20:14 — mgoodallTime was not going to permit 5 members of the majority to speak. You're not being serious. Invitations couldn't be offered to all. Someone with the majority point of view should have been offered up, but who speaks for you on the state or national level on educational research? Give us a name.
I know for a fact that if
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 15:45 — jenmanI know for a fact that if WSCA had been asked, we could have provided at least one person who is very knowledgable on at-risk kids and the research out there.
Seriously!
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 20:59 — JanisTangoYou can't allow time for 5 speakers or even two for that fact, but you can allow time for how many status quo speakers? Eight....nine! Get real! You didn't want opposing views.
...
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 20:28 — SideburnsSeriously? What an odd question.
IMO, Tedesco wasn't asked to speak because he can run circles around most people when it comes to WCPSS -- local, state or national level.
Tedesco
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 22:32 — mgoodallIs not in the field of educational research. Apparently you have nothing to offer in this realm. Its not a matter of "talking circles". It's research. It's scholarship. Or don't you believe in these things?
Exactly!
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 22:44 — commongoodTedesco can talk circles alright! Senseless circles! - with no real data to back his personal opinions up. He is shamelessly ignorant and has no business being on a school board.
He mentioned references tonight.
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 23:14 — Dove314I wondered if one of his many supporters could furnish me with his reference list or if they would recommend that I request he email it to me upon reaching him via phone?
invitations
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 19:55 — turnerk1My understanding from media coverage and this blog is that all the board members were invited, but only Margiotta and Goldman were invited to speak. I assumed (though I don't know) that as the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board they were singled out with invitations to speak while the rank-and-file members were only invited.
Stoke it up
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 15:06 — SDR256Stoke up that bonfire, GSIW, stoke it up. Keep those toxic fires of rhetoric burning hot. That way it will be all the more difficult for reasonable people to participate.
No kidding
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 20:08 — g88ky07these goofs need to buy some of my special, discounted, extra burning disco wood. It burns great in bonfires built from status quo lumber and comes with a free disco ball!
GSIW is Not Just Rhetoric
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 15:40 — mgoodallGSIW is one of the few organizations putting the research out there for us to have a conversation on a higher level. I think we're the opposite of rhetoric. Tedesco and McLaurin sat next to one another listening. Statements were made from the podium about the about uses of the former board. It's too bad no one from the majority accepted one of the invitations to speak.
It's Too Bad They Didn't Invite All Of The Majority!
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 17:09 — JanisTangoIt's too bad no one from the majority accepted one of the invitations to speak.
Why did they not invite John Tedesco to speak? I guess they didn't want anyone to cloud their praise parade with any 'facts' and data from the other side.
Tedesco
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 18:01 — mgoodallTedesco deserves credit for showing up. I'm sure the board members invited to speak could have had him appear in their place. I think the forum would have welcomed opposing data. I know I would have been very interested in it. Margiotta and Goldman were invited - couldn't they find anyone to represent their point of view? Even at this point, why don't they rebut with data that backs up their point of view to GSIW? We have academics from UNC, State and Duke who have clarified the data that is pro-diversity. Who is speaking for the majority on peer-reviewed data that supports neighborhood schools?
I'm Sure They Could Have Asked Him To Join...
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 18:14 — JanisTangoI'm sure the board members invited to speak could have had him appear in their place.
The organizers could have also asked him to join the panel when he showed up on Saturday. Why they didn't....who knows!
motivation
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 13:18 — red_balloonHenderlite said he has a personal stake in the issue because his grandson attends the magnet program at Douglas Elementary School.
If there were no spoils for the rich from the 'diversity' policy, I bet the F&Rs would have been left high and dry aeons ago.
Its interesting that they
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 15:50 — jenmanIts interesting that they are worried about Douglas losing its program under the new board. When they did the elem magnet review a couple of years ago, Brooks and Douglas were the top 2 on the list to be removed in the initial criteria matrix. I understand Douglas parents' concerns and desire to keep their program but Douglas isn't Hunter or Powell or Poe, etc.
Status quo bribed the rich and powerful with magnet goodies
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 14:01 — NWRaleighMomto make them defend the system.
Or, even worse, they kept 'diversity' policy as a justification for uneven distribution of resources.
The strategy worked. Look at
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 14:55 — red_balloonThe strategy worked. Look at all the defenders of 'diversity' clamoring for the model of discrimination to continue.
Well
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 12:46 — danofncI'd say that if you're being criticized by both sides because of your bias you must be doing a pretty good job of staying relatively neutral.
What other criticism has there been
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 12:59 — nancyncFrom both sides? Seriously, I've missed that LOL!
You mean there are people upset with the N&O and WRAL because they have been 'too fair' to the school board?
[snicker]
Pander is this paper's
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 12:45 — nancyncPander is this paper's strong suit, it's what they do best, with an extra dose of bias in case anyone missed it ;)
boogeyman
Tue, 03/23/2010 - 12:35 — mgoodallI object to the use of the word "boogeyman". Are you saying that the Charlotte experience of more high poverty schools after implementing neighborhood schools is an imaginary fear? Isn't this really fact? Challenge the facts if you can or will but don't color them in this pandering way.