The antipathy between the Wake County school board majority and their critics was extremely evident on Tuesday.
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, speakers lashed into the board majority for abandoning the diversity policy and going to only one public comment period per month. Members of the board majority fired back later on in the discussion before adopting the public comment change.
Here are examples of some of the comments:
"Usually what I see is five people who decided in November 2009 that they were going to tear this school district apart and rebuild it in the image of their narrow supporters," said Amy Lee. "You seem determined to undermine public education for all children in order to benefit a few, those few who voted for you."
"This isn't a dictatorship," said Patty Williams, a spokeswoman for the Great Schools in Wake Coalition. "It is a a democracy and the board should be setting the tone for public discourse using proper transparent processes by which to govern. If you want respect you have to earn it. If you want public trust you need to demonstrate a willingness to listen and embrace feedback."
"It seems that you want Charlotte's choice: creating high-poverty schools so that your voters won't have to suffer from having poor children in their schools," Amy Womble said directly to school board chairman Ron Margiotta.
"You've blown it," said Susan Evans. "You've alienated teachers. You've torn apart this community. You've not focused on student achievement. Instead you've focused on what you said you wouldn't do: creating high poverty schools. Shame on you."
"You are creating less flexible bureaucracy just to get away from people who disagree with you," said Betsy Lovejoy.
Throw in the comments of Diana Bader and the arrest of Seth Keel and five other people who refused to give up the podium.
Members of the board majority repeatedly said they had bent over backwards to let people speak at meetings. They also said the change wasn't being done to restrict the public from speaking.
School board member Chris Malone said there was "much ado about nothing" about the change because most of the people who had spoken Tuesday had also talked at prior meetings.
Margiotta said that they would still be criticized if they had four meetings a month.
Comments
Why is this news? Really,
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 17:43 — woodstockWhy is this news? Really, it is the just same few extreme left people making that same tired points over and over and over again ..well, I guess teaching kids to get arrested and supporting them in that effort is a new spin.
Just like
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 18:42 — bluedaisyJust like the Alison Backhouses, the Jennifer Mansfields, the Kathleen Brennans, Cynthia Matsons.....picketing the school system, dragging their children with them, creating coalitions, filing lawsuits...........
The boards they spoke to were at least following their own policies, didn't trim speaking from 3 to 2 minutes, didn't cut public comment in half.....
Yea - Save it - I know - their side won in the end. (well, this could be the middle) But - how much more extreme would these people have gotten if the people on the board they dealt with didn't follow their own policies, trimmed speaking from 3 minutes to 2, cut public comment in half............
Two sides, Woodstock, two sides.
I will concede your argument
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 23:30 — jenmanI will concede your argument that the few people who we are hearing from over and over again mirrors the few people (myself included) who have spoken out many times on the issues important to us. I will, however, point out that I was never rude to the BOE and I never made it personal. I would be embarrassed to speak to anybody in public the way that some of these speakers have and I would be ashamed to have my kids see me behave that way.
So while I agree with your first point, I disagree with you on the public speaking time. While it stinks to only have 2 minutes to make your point (3 isn't much better), it was done in order to give more people a chance to speak. Good grief, the first couple of meetings they let the public comment session go on for hours. I can understand thinking it should be 3 min instead of 2 but I don't think this is a huge issue.
And you're right that the boards 'they' spoke to were following their own policies--Rosa Gill had security toss out a woman who went over her time limit. She didn't even make a big scene, chant or refuse to leave the podium. I heard Chuck Dulaney angrily reprimand a woman for saying that he didn't care about what he was doing to families. We can all play the game back and forth of what board said or did what, but it doesn't get us anywhere.
Under the status quo
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 21:29 — woodstockUnder the status quo leadership, public comment was very often limited to only 30 minutes -- as policy allows. At 3 minutes a pop, that allowed 10 people to speak. The new board has heard every speaker signed up to speak since they took office and appointed Margiotta as chairman. Last night 17 people spoke and on some occasions recently the public comment has lasted literally hours.
As for the two sides, I will put the side I'm on up against the other side anytime. In terms of knowledge, intellect, class and respect for others...and the law, we'd win every time.
It actually wasn't typical
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 23:17 — KeungHui (author)It actually wasn't typical for the old board to have more than 10 people signed up to speak. When it did happen, they sometimes ran them all through until the last person spoke. Other times they stopped after 30 minutes and told the rest they could speak at the end. Whether they would have done the same strategy of cutting speakers to two minutes in the face of frequent regular crowds is conjecture.
what is the wording of the
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 23:34 — jenmanwhat is the wording of the policy itself? Is it just 30 min of public comment, or is there an individual time limit listed in the policy?
There actually has neve been
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 12:18 — KeungHui (author)There actually has neve been anything in policy that sets aside a specific amount of time for publlic comment. The 30 minutes was a guideline that the old and new boards used without codifying into policy. Even the new public participation policy adopted by the board in May doesn't specify a specific amount of time for public comment.
Interesting. Thanks Keung.
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 18:18 — jenmanInteresting. Thanks Keung.
Agreed, there are two
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 19:50 — CaryCurmudgeonAgreed, there are two sides. But I'd like to think that when we were on the outside looking in that we did it right. I do not recall ANY dissenting parent getting up in front of the school board and speaking as disrespectfully as today's dissenters. I do not recall any meeting where any of us marched our kids up to the podium and had them speak condescendingly to the board members the way these kids are doing. I do not recall staging any protests which interrupted the progress of a lawful meeting. Yes, there were pickets and protests, all conducted lawfully by people who actually live in Wake County. Oh, and nobody got arrested.
We brought alternatives, not just complaints and not just a demand to go back to the way things were done before. We demanded better of our school system. Two sides, but not the same.
I was out of town and
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 14:04 — jenmanI was out of town and haven't watched the meeting yet. Did any of these people wait until the 'non-agenda items' time to rant or did they speak during agenda item time anyway?
You already know the answer
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 17:36 — woodstockYou already know the answer to that one.
I was hoping to be wrong.
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 18:31 — jenmanI was hoping to be wrong. Besides, I'm a benefit of the doubt kind of person. :-)
How many of you idiots have
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 11:34 — true_freedomHow many of you idiots have kids in the school system? I'm sure if someone from your side said something rude it would be perfectly acceptable... god, you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocritical "people" I've ever seen.
Don't...
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 11:53 — Bob_SconceFeed the troll.
Whine
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 11:18 — MissVA lot of substance can be offered in 2 minutes, yet they only seem to whine. No way would they ever work in corporate America.
"A lot of substance can be
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 21:32 — woodstock"A lot of substance can be offered in 2 minutes ..."
And, as was on display last night, a lot of idiocy and misinformation too.
Do these women understand
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 10:27 — HJ2ss2Do these women understand that they are part of the problem? When given the opportunity to speak, they seem to complain rather than offering, at the very least, constructive criticizm.
Re: Ms Lee's comment, "You seem determined to undermine public education for all children in order to benefit a few, those who voted for you." If only "a few" voted for the current board majority, how did they win the election? Where were those (I"m assuming many) when it was time to vote? If they were so adverse to change, why didn't they vote to keep the status quo?
Oh my god... please don't
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 11:35 — true_freedomOh my god... please don't tell me you are actually this stupid.
I've been called a lot of
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 14:14 — HJ2ss2I've been called a lot of things but stupid is a new one.
My post was replete with sarcasm.
A new one?
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 17:31 — GreyhoundToNJWe didn't realize you were using your sarcasm font. Sarcasm isn't always obvious in written form.
I understand. I will use
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 21:16 — HJ2ss2I understand. I will use sarcasm font next time.
...
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 10:07 — SideburnsWhat those women really meant is:
"We want this Board to continue the shuffling of poor children around the county -- not only so our children can keep their magnet seats but so we can continue the guise of a healthy school system. We don't care if certain children are targeted for reassignment year after year and are used simply as F&R percentage pawns -- and we'll even ignore data that shows these children are not achieving academically because we value diversity. We have zero concern for choice and stability because we won the magnet lottery and don't have to deal with either and, quite honestly, have no concept of how they affect a child's education. We claim that you have torn apart the community but, in reality, we know this is just the reaction of some magnet parents who are worried about losing their children's well-funded electives. We recognize that we use the terms like "resegregation" and refer to Charlotte a lot in our rants simply because they are attention-grabbing. But, we are speaking the truth when we say we are angry that you are reducing the number of meetings each month because we now must find something else to do those days."
Seiously - you aren't listening
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 19:37 — bluedaisySideburns - if this is what you think then you have not been listening at all. Why couldn't this new board at least resolve to have, at minimum, "healthy schools"? I bet these women know what this data really shows - the higher the poverty level, the lower the performance of that ED subgroup. Did you know that? Do you know why Charlotte continues to be referenced? Do you know that the number schools in Charlotte over 61% DOUBLED in 8 years, millions were spent in the name of equity, but ED students in the poorer schools don't come close to the performance of their peers in schools with a more balanced population? If it can be proven to you that schools with balanced populations of ED children perform better, would you care? Your response, IMO, is tacky and show's your true colors.
Here's what I know
Wed, 08/11/2010 - 22:50 — TrailerParkGirl"this data really shows - the higher the poverty level, the lower the performance of that ED subgroup"
Not necessarily -
Under the old "healthy schools" policy based on the theory that "a school can't be healthy if it has > 40% FRL," Dillard, the school with the highest ED subgroup performance, would have been deemed "unhealthy" because the FRL% is >40%.
How about we start focusing on healthy STUDENTS for a change?
Can you provide a citation to the "data" because I have some questions that I'd like to figure out, such as:
What is the assignment basis for the schools used as data inputs (given that 99% of districts use some form of community based assignment rather than SE balancing)?
If the assignment basis of data inputs was community based how was the conclusion reached that it is the poverty level of the "school" rather than the "community" that impacts ED subgroup performance?
What other variables besides "poverty" level of school were factored in?
Were differences in poverty level of districts considered?
How was "poverty" defined - as living below poverty level or as qualifying for FRL?
Was any consideration given to income distribution versus "poverty" level?
Referencing Charlotte
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 01:39 — bluedaisyMy thoughts are referencing Charlotte, not Wake. I've been checking CMS out, since it looks like, as one of the speakers said, we are headed down I-85. I wanted to know what these ladies are finding, for myself. The source for the statement is the CMS website, school stats. I'm still running the numbers.
BUT -
You have just made the case for no high poverty schools with your Wake schools numbers! Your Wake County snapshot of schools shows me that very low poverty schools, (those we will have more of if we have more high poverty schools), are not the way to go, as they will not get the additional resources to help their ED kids, because they don't have enough ED to qualify for Title 1 funds. Your stats show me that balance, around 40% for schools is the best. Your stats show me that too far over 40%, and we lose academic performance. This is what the GSIW folks are saying - balance of F&R. Wow, I've never seen it put so plainly here!
Another thing you may want to keep in mind
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 10:59 — TrailerParkGirlDillard's base assignment area is community based, as are those of:
So does this support SES balancing or does it support community based schools? Are they succeeding due to the diversity of the school or the community or due to attending school in their community or some combination those factors plus other factors?
Can you provide the "data" references because I would like to understand if and how those studies addressed that question?
CMS website
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 23:00 — bluedaisySource - CMS website, school data. Put it at the top this time for you to see. Don't miss the Equity Report. Its a great read!
Lead Mine - active engaged middle and upper class parents volunteering in the school. Active PTA with resources in addition to the Title 1 Funds. Perfect scenario due to diverse community. BUT - you are happy with 65% for ED children? I'm not. Lead Mine is not. They are actively pursuing new ways to reach 100% at or above grade level. Love that school.
Very good questions you posed! Why would Briarcliff be 10 percentage points lower in performance with a 5% lower F&R, as compared to Lead Mine? Did Briarcliff receive Title 1? I don't know. Maybe the difference is in the funding. I'm sure Briarcliff knocked itself out with their kids. All the schools do.
But, what you point out is very interesting - you are telling me that we have neighborhood schools in the old student assignment plan already! I bet that's news to quite a few bloggers here. How many more schools are already neighborhood/community? How many schools actually have a contiguous base? Answer - watch the last Student assignment meeting tape. One of the parents figured it out. Very interesting.
What platform did the new board members ride in on again???
Why would Briarcliff be 10
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 16:45 — user12345Why would Briarcliff be 10 percentage points lower in performance with a 5% lower F&R, as compared to Lead Mine?
May be due to Briarcliff having a higher Hispanic population that is very mobile with kids moving in and out of school as their parents migrate.
Asian
Hispanic
Black
School Name
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Briarcliff Elementary
18
3.3%
89
16.5%
100
18.6%
Lead Mine Elementary
12
2.5%
59
12.2%
166
34.4%
Personally
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 01:14 — TrailerParkGirlI think Dillard, Lead Mine and Briarcliff all deserve recognition and analysis of what is driving their results.
Am I happy with 65% for ED? I'd say I'm not satisfied. However, the 65% here is significantly higher than the <35% pass rates at some of our celebrated lower-poverty and magnet schools.
Where I'm from all the schools (including 80% FRL) score around state average (either at, slightly above or slightly below depending on grade and subject) on overall school scores and the 80% FRL (highest) school outscored the 36% FRL (lowest) school, all schools met AYP, achievement gaps are statistically insignficant, and the school system is not happy with the results because they believe they can do even better despite being a district that is 10 percentage points higher on FRL than state average. So, my expectation bar is pretty high because, unlike what some think around here, I know the achievement gap can be closed and ED students can achieve. When it gets to be more like that here, then I'll be happy.
That district also spends about the same as Wake, which is $1,500 less per student than state average there and yet still manages to have lower student-teacher ratios than WCPSS and the state average there. That district spends a higher percentage on Instruction and lower on Administration than state average.
I thought the data you were referencing related to the "studies" GSIW had brought up, which was broader than just CMS. I hadn't looked at the CMS site in a while, but I'll take a look at it.
Platform
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 00:02 — TrailerParkGirlFrom what I recall each had their own main key points, but generally - making achievement for ALL students top priority; parental choice; and promoting stability, parental and community involvement.
Not sure for whom you think the fact that we already have some community based schools is a surprise, but I'll bet that it's news for some of the GSIW followers and that we already have some diverse community schools because we have diverse areas of the county. I'll bet that it's news for some that with the "diversity" policy in place, we had schools that are 90% minority and/or >70% FRL. Would it surprise people in GSIW that the former BOE approved reassignments of FRL students out of Dillard purely to increase FRL% at low-poverty schools including one where ED students scored below average and one 18 miles away from the students' SE diverse community area or does GSIW already know that and not care because it was for "diversity"? How about the ED/ESL kids they reassigned out of Combs despite the pleas of those families, so more magnet seats could be opened for NED applicants? Some of the supporters of GSIW know all about it because they orchestrated and approved them.
Of course there are some
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 23:44 — jenmanOf course there are some 'neighborhood' schools already. Nobody has ever argued that we have no schools that meet that general definition.
In fact 90% of the kids
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 16:48 — user12345In fact 90% of the kids today go to a "neighborhood" school if you define Neighborhood as being within five miles of their home.
Radial Distance or "as the
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 20:46 — jeffrey1Radial Distance or "as the crow flies."
There are 23 elementary schools within a 5 mile radial distance of my home. Are they all neighborhood schools?
Yes
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 22:12 — user12345Yes
Then why stop at 5 miles?
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 23:17 — jeffrey1Then why stop at 5 miles?
I agree ... but with 23
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 23:46 — user12345I agree ... but with 23 schools already near you do you want to include even more?
5 Radial Miles
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 00:43 — jeffrey1I was being sarcastic.
5 radial miles is not near. The majority of students in Wake County live within 1.8 radial miles of an elementary school. In many parts of the county driving to a location 5 radial miles away can take 30 minutes or more. A school 5 radial miles away from you is NOT in your neighborhood.
I don't have to travel anywhere near 5 radial miles to go to a dozens of grocery stores, gas stations, or restaurants. It's a lot shorter than 5 radial miles to a movie theater or a shopping mall or a local park. In fact, I can't think of a single thing that I do on a typical day where I have to drive more than 5 radial miles.
Did you know that you could cover the entire map of Wake County with just 11 circles, each with a radius of 5 miles?
Why is it OK for a school to be 5 radial miles away?
Hey if you want to have a
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 07:31 — user12345Hey if you want to have a school on each street, I won't object ...just remember that Wake is the home of cheap schooling so we can not afford that ..... we have X number of school and Y number of students .... The majority (your team) has already said that everyone (which includes you) can not fit in the closest school. So what is a reasonable distance - five miles? 4.8? 4.7? With 23 schools within five miles of you, you seem to have plenty to choose from. If you want closer, pass a bond and build more school ... than you can have 50 school within five miles.
Good point. Thankfully
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 07:49 — woodstockGood point. Thankfully we now have a BoE that intelligent and fair minded people in Wake County trust, so expect future bonds to pass. There is no question new schools are needed.
Why is it OK for a school to
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 07:20 — CaryCurmudgeonWhy is it OK for a school to be 5 radial miles away?
The "90% within 5 miles" is an arbitrary WEP talking point, he's just reading from the playbook. As an aside, I think that whole analysis was pretty dull -- until we come up with flying school buses radial distance means nothing.
As...
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 17:59 — Bob_SconceAs the crow flies and if you ignore magnets.
Community Based ?
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 22:22 — Solon77I am assuming your definition of community is neighborhood proximity. Leadmine does not fit this model. Leadmine has a reverse hook drawing from the apartments off Ray Road. These would be closer to Jefferies Grove of Leesville. It also seem like you missed those nodes down off East Millbrook. I would not consider Leadmine a neighborhood school, although I would consider it a community as the parents and students assigned there are very active in education achievement. I know this because this was our elementary school for 7 years.
Briarcliff - not sure how this can be considered a "neighborhood" school as there are gaps and islands in the assignment area.
Community
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 23:20 — TrailerParkGirlAs in community zone type area.
I'm confused as to why people are still hung up on "neighborhood" and "closest proximity"
1. The BOE resolution is "community based assignments" not "neighborhood/absolute closest in proximity assignment"
2. The proposals are for a zone with choice model not "everyone goes to the closest school" or everyone goes to a school in their immediate "neighborhood".
3. The in which I've lived outside Wake, the people would say they have "neighborhood" schools, but how that really plays out is that kids either a) go to the closest school after capacity considerations so for some students that is the closest school, for some it's the second closest and for some it may be the third or b) they attend schools in some form of community zone concept. I was assigned to the second closest school for ES. My current "neighborhood" is <50 houses and we don't expect WCPSS to build a one room school house to have a "neighborhood" school. I wouldn't expect any assignment area to be perfectly square, round, "hookless" or strictly based on "neighborhoods."
Dillard, Briarcliff and Leadmine are not F&R "balanced" because they are a) in largely low-poverty (high poverty) areas and have F&R (non-F&R) students bussed in from a completely different area of the county, rather they are the way they are largely because they are b) in SE diverse portions of the county.
I still would like to know how "studies" have considered differences in district poverty levels and community area poverty levels. In other words, did the studies consider whether there is a difference in "results" between balancing achieved via a) versus b) in the above paragraph and did they consider whether there are differences in higher poverty schools in higher poverty districts vs in a lower poverty districts.
The BOE resolution is
Fri, 08/13/2010 - 16:52 — user12345The BOE resolution is "community based assignments" not "neighborhood/absolute closest in proximity assignment"
TPG ... I think that eventually it will sink in to some that they are not going to attend the nearest school and it will be interesting to observe the reaction. I think some thought they were buying a proximity guarantee with the majority.
You are grasping at straws
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 06:24 — woodstockYou are grasping at straws with that argument. Being able to attend the very closest school was never the issue. The issue(s) revolved around forced busing that took student past 4 or 5 schools to get the their's, siblings on different tracks or calendars, and enormous unfairness in access to magnet schools.
I would add all the
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 15:15 — jenmanI would add all the reassignments done for 'comparable schools' to that list. You're right that it was never about everybody attending the absolute closest school.
Jenman, I have often
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 16:53 — DrActualFactualJenman, I have often wondered about the balancing of F&R for creating comparable schools in that it seemed the purpose was to get more $$$$$ for spreading the F&R kids around to different schools to actually CREATE more schools over 40% to get that funding from the feds. I also noticed that DPI grants give special consideration for grants$$$$ to schools with 40% or more F&R students. Am I correct in thinking that under the previous BOE/WCPSS admininstration that if you had (for example 1 school at 46% and two other schools at say 38% each they would take kids from the higher poverty school and split them between the other two thus getting funding for 3 schools in lieu of 1? If this is an accurate assessment of what was occurring do I conclude that this is 1) an acceptable educational practice throughout the nation to achieve funding 2) an intentional rigging of the systems student population to defraud the feds out of money or 3) viewed as a shrewd method to save local money and maximize other funds. I would love an honest answer to this question as it gets to the core of how schools are funded in relation to students and/or how students are manipulated to achieve school funding. Thanks in advance to all who can help me for an accurate, well-informed decision on this topic.
When I was employed by the
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 17:32 — HJ2ss2When I was employed by the school system, our understanding (staff) was that the distribution of F&R was to optimize the possibility of having as few schools as possible labeled "underperforming". Appears to have worked as evidenced by the article about the Raleigh and Cary ranking among the best cities for public schools.
So, you agree there won't be
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 16:42 — user12345So, you agree there won't be any kind of backlash when people still drive by closer schools to get to the one with an open seat? Same kid, same drive, same path ... but now we can say it is not because of diversity?
Before you get too excited - do some homework
Thu, 08/12/2010 - 10:38 — TrailerParkGirl