It doesn't look like the school system's resolve to turn down year-round applications when it impacts diversity is weakening.
As noted in today's article, Rosa Gill, chairwoman of the school board, said they want to avoid repeating how year-round schools had very low percentages of low-income students when admission was all voluntary.
"You know that year-round schools were elitist before," Gill said.
Gill said they need to consider the impact on the health of the sending traditional-calendar school and receiving year-round school.
It's these factors that help explain why only 1,797 of 3,750 year-round applicants, or 48 percent, were accepted in 2008. The acceptance rate was only 36 percent at year-round elementary schools.
Click here for last year's school-by-school totals.
Gill said they are trying to help some families improve their chances of getting into a year-round school this year. That's why said she said they changed the year-round application nodes at Oak Grove Elementary, resulting in kids going to Adams Elementary.
Gill said altering the draw areas for both schools will make it easier for people to get into the year-round program.
Comments
Thank You, Bob
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 12:32 — RiversideRealistI guess I was right about the reading comprehension thing. Oh well, we can't all be brilliant, can we? :-)
Back to more important things. . . . .
Here's ONE...
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 10:25 — RiversideRealistwith just a quick search... I know you could find more if you bothered or cared:
http://tinyurl.com/aemzbh
That evoked an eruption from Wake County School Board Chairwoman Rosa Gill, who let fly, saying Charlotte is “going back to a segregated school system”
Of course, Rosa is talking about Charlotte in this particular article, but the reason is the same. They (CMS) abandoned diversity busing.
So, please, get a clue.
Look in a dictionary...
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 02:11 — supportwcpssI already discussed the true sense of the work segregated. You are making an assumption about Ms. Gill's comment and I never heard her or see the printed word 'race'.
That's disingenuous
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 10:14 — Bob_SconceYou're parsing words a bit too closely. "Segregated Schools" has, for the past 60 years, meant segregated along racial lines. Plus, she was talking about "going back to" segregated schools. In the context of Charlotte's schools, Charlotte was under court order to bus kids around BECUASE their schools were segregated by race. "Going back to" means going back to that previous condition.
What I think VOR keeps
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 11:39 — user1234What I think VOR keeps missing is why do “segregate school” cause such bad memories? Those bad memories come from the wide disparity between white and black schools in the past. Any Black who grew in inferior schools or socially conscientious White who felt a little guilt does not want to return to that time. VOR always mentions that resources will come to those in need but everyone knows that promise evaporates once the pressure is off or budget tight. People don’t want a wide disparity between Public schools either by race, income, religion, etc. People who want something else can choose private schools in this free country.
Not missing a thing
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 14:32 — Voice_of_Reason_America has grown up when it comes to race equality.
There are laws against discrimination based on race, including schools and housing.
There is the No Child Left Behind Act that mandates performance in high F&R schools.
If those things didn't exist today as they didn't when we had segregated schools then you have a point. Oh explain this:
Why do we still have taxpayer supported all black colleges that some might say are inferior to other public universities? Who would complain if we eliminated them? Just wondering, I can't really figure that one out myself.
“Why do we still have
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 15:47 — user1234“Why do we still have taxpayer supported all black colleges that some might say are inferior to other public universities? Who would complain if we eliminated them? Just wondering, I can't really figure that one out myself. “
Are you saying the there are schools that discriminate on the basis of race? Can you give me an “all” black school so I can go verify your assertion? Did you mean “historically black schools” like Morehouse which is 95% black or Spellman which is 92% black.
what about Shaw? Or St.
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:09 — AngelaWwhat about Shaw? Or St. Augustine?
The examples you and user1234 cite
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:21 — Voice_of_Reason_They are all private universities, not public. There are many more of those.
sorry, didn't even realize
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 17:35 — AngelaWsorry, didn't even realize that part, have a hard enough time dealing with k-12, have NO idea about colleges yet!
The argument is still the same
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 16:51 — Voice_of_Reason_OK most of these historically black universities have a few token non-blacks, mostly foreigners. There are two I remember in Louisiana, Southern and Grambling which are like that. But technically, these schools don't discriminate I guess. Once LSU and Southern talked of merging being in the same town, there was an uproar, and it wasn't from the whites.
Of course we also have basically all black charter schools too here, again if it is a problem to having too much of one race in a school... then why have them? I just don't understand why some blacks wish it both ways. Personally, I think we need to move on, but I really don't have a problem with them if that's what they want. I just don't like hypocritical attacks. Yes I understand they are blacks which agree with me and some that don't; that the problem when you separate races and only look at one opinion as speaking for an entire race. But some people get their political power from that division, so I guess it will not change anytime soon.
Noticed something about you supportwcpss
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 07:25 — Voice_of_Reason_You rarely end an argument since when someone counters you with a reasonable retort you just quit posting. You rarely "counter punch." One can assume you lost that argument in your mind.
You are very quick to discard others opinions and resort to prejudicial name calling. Plus you use the word vacuum a lot, maybe it's because you _________. (fill in the blank)
Come on supportwcpss
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 06:59 — Voice_of_Reason_Any reasonable person would come to that same conclusion. Your technical definition of segragated doesn't hold water here. Their busing program was based on race, that why the SCOTUS ruled against them. It is very easy to connect the dots. After all, Mrs. Gill is not a lawyer or a US president (i.e. it depends how you define the word is). BTW- the word doesn't have to be used, it was easily inferred. And that doesn't make Mrs. Gill racist, she was just expressing her opinion.
VOR
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 15:15 — RiversideRealistI should take my own advice and ignore those who really don't do anything but agitate.
Don't take anything support or user1234 posts PERSONALLY.
The only way they seem to be able to attempt to make their point(s) is by making it personal.
"You obviously believe in survival of the fittest" and the like. She doesn't know WHAT I 'obviously' believe, because she doesn't read what I say, but chooses to spin what's written to fit her argument.
I use WCPSS' own rhetoric to back up my opinion, and that makes ME a racist, a hate-monger, a-what-the-heck-ever-the-code-word-of-the-day-is.
No skin off my nose, I know the truth. The GOVERNMENT (state, local, whatever) creates these 'demographic boxes' into which they place people, the bureaucrats make the labels, and then you call them on it, and YOU'RE the bigot. Nice, eh?
I try to expose the hypocrisy of WCPSS policy (that was the question I posed originally) -- again, the POLICY -- and right away, out come the names.
It's all liberals know how to do. When they have NO solid ideas or data to make their own case, they attack.
You know this.
Don't take it personally. I certainly don't, because I know better. :)
Amen RiversideRealist,
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 12:42 — Big_PictureAmen RiversideRealist, Amen. Well said. The childish methods employed by 2 here are desperation attempts. Continue to ignore.
I was play acting
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 17:52 — Voice_of_Reason_I was enjoying to play "victim". I wasn't offended, I'm American as can be.
I am actually from NY
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 14:17 — RiversideRealistbut figured that regional colloquialism would be appreciated.... ;)
And, yes, glory be!, I actually have Southern friends who taught me that word! :P
Again, you fail to understand what's WRITTEN..
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 13:09 — RiversideRealistYour comprehension skills are lacking. WCPSS grad? *LOL*
I never said race had anything to do with how smart or stupid someone is
And I never said YOU said that. So quit putting words in my mouth. You are trying for a 'zinger', and your ignorance is the only thing coming through.
I said WCPSS PRACTICES "income based diversity" and then complains that doing away with it would make the schools revert to 1960's-style segregation (that WAS race-based segregation, was it not?). So, back to my original question, WHICH IS IT?
Keep trying to zing me. It's funny watching you make a fool of yourself.
And
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 00:21 — supportwcpssIt's funny to watch you continue to backpeddle whenever possible. Please point me in the direction of the school board being quoted about resegregation .
Eleanor Goettee was quoted
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 08:30 — CaryCurmudgeonEleanor Goettee was quoted by Mr. Hui using that word. It was printed in the N&O. If you do a search on her name you will find it.
I swanny, do you read?
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 10:31 — RiversideRealist"Technically segregation by itself does not imply race."
Which is why I clarified in my original post:
re segregate -- and then they talk about all-black or all-white schools.
And by 'they', I mean WCPSS. THEY are the ones who create these labels, and THEY are the ones who say 're segregation would lead to all-black or all-white schools'. Not me. So, there are no semantics here. To 're segregate', according to WCPSS, is to have RACIAL imbalance in schools, not economic.
They talk out of both sides of their mouth. CONSTANTLY. There is no argument that can prop up their hypocrisy.
Last I checked being poor, or being black, or being poor AND black didn't make you stupid. THAT is the implication though, from WCPSS. Are there challenges, sure! Can a TEACHER be more than just an instructor? That's what WCPSS wants. A mom/dad, a coach, a moral compass, a food provider, everything BUT a disciplinarian, which is probably what these children need MOST.
So if the school system wants to be surrogate parents, then come in, take the kids, and let the state raise them.
But if they are unwilling to do THAT, then don't DARE take my child and use HER to prop up YOUR failed experiments.
If you can't see that logic, there is just no more talking to you.
I Swanny ?
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 14:12 — Voice_of_Reason_Where are you from?, I haven't heard anyone else but my mother use that expression when she was angry at us when we were kids.
no clue
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 12:31 — supportwcpssI never said race had anything to do with how smart or stupid someone is and I disgree that is what WCPSS thinks. It's about the correlation between high poverty and the lack of parental support and focus on education. Now we can all say too bad those parents either don't care or care but don't have the means to provide this support and they are left to fend for themselves or we try to help those children who don't have the support we provide to our kids.
But maybe you are right, maybe this is black and white (not referring to race), maybe we should just teach the basics, and let those kids fail.
Because you obviously support survival of the fittest.
Your rhetoric is racially inflammitory Support WCPSS
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 14:21 — Voice_of_Reason_I have never hear anyone on this board (except user1234) talk about teaching only basics. If WCPSS taught only basics in an high F&R school and more in a higher income area, I would be the first in line screaming racism at the BoE, and I am not black or brown. The majority of us want equality of access to programs at all schools.
Your survival of the fittest comment is hateful and not appreciated by any of us on this board. You should be ashamed of yourself for claiming that, just because you don't agree with us on economic diversity busing. You are a hate monger when you do.
It's the facts
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 00:28 — supportwcpssVOR - It might not be the case for you but I guarantee the majority of people would not give a chit about low income schools if they had their local neighborhood schools. They did not get involved until they were tweaked and they would walk away when they got their way. That is a fact and you cannot dispute that. They would go back to sticking their head in their sand.
Again, that might not be you, but it would be an overwhelming majority. It has nothing to do with hate, but if you want to spin my comments that way it hasn't stopped you before.
It doesn't matter, there is the law
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 08:04 — Voice_of_Reason_The NCLB Act is very specific on performance and mandates that. Local LEAs must pay attention to the high F&R schools or face the penalties. Of course, WCPSS circumvents this by busing out lower performing nodes to non -Title I schools. They deny these children all the protections the NCLB Act has for these children. That is my #1 gripe with economic diversity busing, they can easily hide their worse problems, personally I don't know how some people can look in the mirror doing this.
“I have never hear anyone
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 14:56 — user1234“I have never hear anyone on this board (except user1234) talk about teaching only basics.”
If 70% of these students can not master basic skills why would you branch out to anything else (e.g. Calculus?) I would like to state that again … 70% fail minimal proficiency …. If a sports team lost 70% of their games the coach if still employed would be working on the basics first and last before any thing advanced. One more time 70% so it sinks in.
You can lead a horse to water... be you can't...
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 18:34 — Voice_of_Reason_You can only offer to teach and challenge them to learn. At some point, there is little you can do but hope they see the light and be there for them when they do. Is this society's fault, their parent(s), the school, or the students themselves? There are alternatives, but most still take a willingness to learn.
That being said, sometimes the alternatives that work cause some in political circles to reject them for expense or civil rights considerations. Economic Diversity busing sounds good and makes some think it help them, but it only makes individual school look better (or worse) than they are.
I agree and understand ...
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 19:57 — user1234I agree and understand ... VOR, I don't have the answer ... I do know we will "inherit" these kids one day and their parents' neglect and any unwillingness to learn will become society's problem.
Under the "busing for
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 13:09 — Eric_BUnder the "busing for diversity" policy, WCPSS treats low income children as a burden to be shared among schools through busing and moving them out of schools near their homes. That is simply the reality of what is being done today.
It is not as if WCPSS has mentoring programs set up so that low income students are mentored by wealthier students and parents with more inclination, time and money to volunteer. They are simply dropped off the bus at the door to the school and are left to fend for themselves.
And you have no idea
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 00:24 — supportwcpssOf the costs and time associated with this 'mentoring' you seem to profess. It's that easy isn't....just provide a little mentoring. And on top of that all these wealthy students and parents are going to step up. That's BS.
You seem to think this problem is so easy to fix when you have no concept of the problem.
Please define wealthy
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 10:30 — Falc"all these wealthy students and parents are going to step up"
Please define wealthy. I thought wealthy was only the top 5%. Even if your theory were accurate, you are missing a lot of people.
Also, again you can't make assumptions about people based on one thing about them. There are wealthy people that mentor, wealthy people that work with non-profits, weathly people that donate large sums to good causes, etc. I even know wealthy people that make their kids donate 25% of their allowance (and yes, the have to earn it and they are not highly compensated) to charity.
Read
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 02:13 — supportwcpssPlease stop commenting in a vacuum. My comment was in reference to another individual who made the wealthy comment.
Wealtier people should not be doing the mentoring unless
Thu, 02/26/2009 - 07:56 — Voice_of_Reason_Mentoring should best be done from successful people that lived similar lives these kids are experiencing and succeeded despite it. The best place to find these people are churches and charitable organizations. They must be volunteers that are passionate in their beliefs. Most wealthy people may not have the credibility with these children even if their hearts and minds are in the right place. They may supply "treasure" though. In the workplace, that might be a different matter, but we are talking children. Money though is not the answer, money doesn't buy good mentors for the most part.
Eric, maybe WCPSS is
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 14:08 — user1234Eric, maybe WCPSS is thinking it will work like with animals when a mother takes in an abandon or orphaned baby of a different species and nurtures it as one of her own. Most schools can absorb a certain % of high needs kids before getting overwhelmed. I agree WCPSS’s approach is incomplete but maybe that is the best this society can do at this time.
You bring up the real
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 11:21 — user1234You bring up the real issues that never get discussed. Diversity... who cares, does it have value, can you measure that value, is it worth the social cost to implement? Does it matter if with have very wealthy schools and very poor ones? Do we care if we go back to all White and all Black schools as long they are voluntary, separate and equal? Do we care about say 30% of the population whether they be Black, White, Hispanic, LI, LE, Special Ed who are not minimally proficient? Can we kick them to the curb and have the other 70% pull their weight? How do we efficiently reach these groups? Pair them with successful groups who can use peer pressure? Warehouse them in special schools where we can efficiently deal with their special language, cultural, racial, religious, family needs? Neglect them and hope the die off? And if we care about any of this and these folks are inhibited by social factors such as dysfunctional families, malnutrition, gangs, etc. who cares? They are lost anyway, right? Do you step in and provide free breakfast and lunch or write them off? Do we care that maybe a few kids get some free eggs they don’t deserve? Do we build more prisons or secretly hope these none performers die early. I am being harsh here because we don’t seemed to have come to a consensus on what is important, what we are going to do and how much we are willing to sacrifice to make it happen. Thus, we end up with a wishy washy system that does not really do what anyone wants because that is the best consensus we can agree on. Ultimately, powerful interest whether they by rich people, business groups, the State, etc. will impose order on the system if we don’t.
Good questions
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 11:44 — Bob_SconceSince 70% of poor students in WCPSS fail, it's pretty clear that Wkae County has not found a solution for dealing with poor students. There are schools, however, which have done a decent job with poor students (KIPP Academy comes to mind) and the district should be willing to learn from those schools.
But, it may be that the restrictions placed on public schools are onerous enough that they are incapable of reaching poor kids. If that's true, then maybe there needs to be a more fundamental change in the pubic education system.
I agree ...
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 12:46 — user1234I agree ...
Think about what you JUST
Tue, 02/24/2009 - 20:50 — RiversideRealistsaid, user1234.
And then NOTE, REMEMBER and ADMIT that the BoE/WCPSS, etc... says that doing AWAY with busing would cause schools to re segregate -- and then they talk about all-black or all-white schools.
So, which is it? Economic diversity (purely) or racial diversity by socio-economic proxy?
Answer honestly, and then some of us might take you more seriously.
Semantics
Tue, 02/24/2009 - 22:20 — supportwcpssTechnically segregation by itself does not imply race. Segregation means to become separated to be set apart into isolated groups. It has always been tied to race because of our past. Segregation can be based on race or economic status. Doing away with some version of busing or diversity will lead to a segregation of schools, have and have nots, and we will end up with failing schools.
And we can all argue this point until we are blue in the face because we all sit on different sides of this opinion.
Semantic II
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 07:55 — Voice_of_Reason_Using your technical definition, all schools are segregated to some degree. If we went to neighborhood area schools they would be segregated by those that lived in an area and those that didn't. Your argument would hold water is school districts imposed a economic criteria for entry or gerrymandered schools so it was obvious that they were establishing a "segregated" population WHEN BUILT. Last I looked we lived in a free country and people can live where they want and can afford. Government doesn't force people to live where they live, they sort of allowed that happen in the early half of the last century, but not now. If you want to eliminate race, your argument could also be put to rural vs. urban students too, and there are many other...a slippery slope. Nobody is denying anyone an education or a decent building to go to, only the school system itself can do that. Moving the children around, IMHO, only helps the some schools look better than they are and doesn't really address the root reasons for failure of some students. One can also argue until they are blue in the face that busing children for hours a day (2-way) is actually a detriment to their education.
I know your heart is in the right place, but that doesn't make your views right or even fair.
The current policies of
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 00:19 — SouthEastWakeMomThe current policies of WCPSS and the BOE are already giving us failing and "segregated" schools (please take the time to look at the F&R numbers and test scores for the Rim schools). They have created a system of have and have nots - only those from the "right" schools (to quote Lori Millberg) are allowed to attend magnets or have their choice of calendar met. The system as it stands now is failing miserably because of the unrelenting focus on diversity and the shuffling of students to hide test scores.
Bada BING
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 09:54 — g88ky07O!!!!!
I knew someone would get this one for me. You are correct!!
Balancing test scores through diversity busing and inequality in education.
The Wake County way!
... and the g88ky07 new
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 10:40 — user1234... and the g88ky07 new creative idea to address the same problem is?? What is the g88ky07 way??
Please don't hide your creative, new idea until Oct.
Hang on
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 11:49 — SideburnsGosh, if g88ky07 has all the answers, we are in for some big changes. :>)
If we did things my way
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 15:23 — g88ky07all of you would move!
Probably! ;c )
Gotta turn off my gps so big bro can't find me. More later.
I keep waiting for him to
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 12:44 — user1234I keep waiting for him to go postal since something changed a few months back and his tone has turned radical (new school, lost job?). Anyway, I am expecting government monitors are already tracking him. <joke>
We already have failing schools
Wed, 02/25/2009 - 00:18 — Bob_SconceI don't know how else you describe a school where only 30% of a specific group of kids pass their end-of-grade tests.
Bob
Tue, 02/24/2009 - 14:25 — JSCAppreciate your attempts at clarification, but I still take issue with your "she is a liberal, so her ideas are dumb...doesn't mean SHE is dumb" comment. To assume that anyone who would be considered a liberal automatically has dumb ideas, or that they automatically agree with the Wake BoE and the WCPSS on every issue is a drastic generalization, and oversimplification. On this very "us versus them" blog, I'm sure that approach is popular, but that doesn't make it right.
Well....
Tue, 02/24/2009 - 15:18 — Bob_SconceI think you're over-generalizing a bit from my post.