Things definitely got heated at Wednesday night's forum looking into allegations of racial discrimination by the Wake County school system.
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, speakers used terms like "white supremacy" and going "back to the back of the bus" to describe the move toward neighborhood schools in Wake.
“They are being introduced to blatant white supremacy in the Wake County school system,” said parent Darryl Fulton about what his four children are facing with the end of the diversity policy.
Doris Burke, a retired Wake teacher, also used loaded words during her comments. Burke unsuccessfully ran against Rosa Gill for the school board in 1999 and applied for her vacancy in 2009.
“We will not and shall not go back to the back of the bus and that seems like what they are trying to do with our children," Burke said.
The hearing, which was organized by the complainants at the request of federal investigators, consisted mainly of supporter of the diversity policy. But some opponents spoke as well.
Joe Ciulla, a leader of the Wake Schools Community Alliance, told the panel that many of the issues before them long predated the tenure of the present board. Ciulla said the new board won its right to run the system based on votes from parents frustrated about frequent reassignment of their own children and their perceptions that the busing-based diversity policy wasn’t working for low-income children.
“None of this is new,” Ciulla said. “A majority of the people who voted in that election wanted to send their children closer to home.”
Jennifer Mansfield, another WSCA leader, questioned the timing of the complaint.
“We already had racially identifiable schools, and nobody complained about them,” Mansfield said. “It’s not as though the new school board came in and automatically did these things.”
Deborah Prickett and Keith Sutton were the only school board members at the meeting.
Comments
Could anybody understand
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:12 — jenmanCould anybody understand what the answering machine message said? I think it was the man who had the daughter with CP. I couldn't hear it at all.
Thanks Jennifer and Joe
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 08:33 — SupportNeighbor...for attending, and bringing a thoughtful point of view to the meeting.
The two things that bother me the most about the diversity policy are:
1) the low expectations placed upon ED children (e.g., sending the extremely detrimental message that you cannot succeed unless we send you outside your own community) that are not only accepted, but have been institutionalized in our community, and
2) the fact that these ED kids are bused without choice. While it's just my hypothesis, I firmly believe many of these ED kids would prefer to stay close to home and their communities. (But I also fully support giving any ED child who desires it the opportunity to attend a different/"better" school outside their community if they WANT to. The point is, we don't ask. We just assume we know what's best for these kids and send them where ever we want to.) As hard as I try, I just cannot comprehend why the NAACP and company doesn't fight for CHOICE for these kids. Instead, they want an all or nothing approach, and to hell with all the families they drag down, or the communities they destroy, in the process.
Were either of these points discussed at all? Just curious.
Both of the things you
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 09:16 — Andrew95Both of the things you brought up are talking points used by the board majority to convince independents that the diversity "policy" (it was really a small section in the overall assignment plan) was causing the majority of the problems for ED students. The policy was not a mandatory action, it was a suggestion, and previous boards may have follwed it the wrong way, but that's their problem, not the policy. This board (assuming mind control is possible) could turn around and start reassigning people based on diversity tomorrow. Just because the policy doesn't exist doesn't mean you aren't allowed to reassign for F&R lunch diversity.
These ED kids you speak of who are bused "without choice" far from their neighborhoods number very few. In fact, the schoolboard just recently reassigned some 400 kids who were orginally assigned to a highschool based on the diversity policy back to their neighborhhod school, some of them seniors and juniors.
How's that for stability?
...
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 09:51 — Sideburns"The policy was not a mandatory action, it was a suggestion, and previous boards may have follwed it the wrong way, but that's their problem, not the policy."
Did you really just write that?
BTW, the Board makes policy. Admin and staff follow it.
Uh...
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 09:47 — Bob_SconceYou're suggesting that policies are mere suggestions? I suspect AdvanceEd would disagree with you.
...
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 13:49 — Sideburns"While it's just my hypothesis, I firmly believe many of these ED kids would prefer to stay close to home and their communities."
One gentleman who spoke called his family the "poster family" for the issues currently being debated. He then explained how his children had been reassigned in 2009 (pre-new Board) from their base/neighborhood magnet school to Leesville Elementary to make room for more "caucasian kids". He said Leesville was "the furthest elementary school from where we live". He was convinced his children had magnet status since they attended a magnet school and fought the reassignment. He said if parents are not familiar with policies and procedures their children will be "shuffled around like cattle". Unknowingly, this gentleman spoke in support of community schools and what this Board is trying to do (and has done) in regards to assignment yet blamed the new Board for his situation.
I thought the same thing
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 15:20 — woodstockI thought the same thing when I heard that guy speak. He didn't even understand what side he was on... he claimed to be on one side, but he actually supported the other.
Thanks, Support. There were
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 09:31 — CaryCurmudgeonThanks, Support.
There were five citizens who spoke out against forced busing, everybody else was on the hating train. A courageous young black woman did stand up and talk about your second point, how these kids are bused without being given a choice. At the end of her three minutes, this woman read a poem she had written called "at the end of the bus ride." I think WRAL still has all the footage on their site, her poem is worth looking for, it should be toward the end of the two hours.
Nobody spoke about your first point, in fact it was quite the opposite. Mr. Barbor and others said that Walnut Creek is essentially doomed to failure, because when it opens it won't have enough white or NED students. I can't imagine how that makes parents of Walnut Creek students feel.
and where is the evidence
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 14:11 — EBDarcyHow do you think they feel when they see that the BOE majority is moving their children because many of it's supporters think their children are not worthy of attending school with their children? When Tedesco gets students reassigned after the public hearings to make sure the prents can't object? Do you think they really believe that the majority cares about how their children will do at that school?
Has a single member of the BOE majority or their supporters presented one piece of evidence to show that Walnut creek won't be a struggling school? The superintendent has acknowledged it will be. I haven't heard anyone on the BOE deny it either. They can trot out isolated cases of high-poverty schools that seem to be successful, usually with a whole lot of extra private an public money, manpower and community support, but no evidence to say this is a good idea. The fact that little Johnny will only ride the bus 10 minutes instead of 30 hardly seems justification for putting him in a school that we know will have many difficult challenges from day one? Why aren't you asking "why won't it fail?"
The problem is that these
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 15:42 — jenmanThe problem is that these kids don't do any better after they are bused.
I know that there are people out there who don't want their kids going to school with black kids, but they are not the majority and they are not what drives support for the new board.
But they do better being
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 18:35 — virginiadareBut they do better being bused than they would if they were condemned to a very high poverty school. Though you said at the meeting that we had racially identifiable, high poverty schools before, it was no more than a handful, and no where near as high poverty as Walnut Creek and others will be if neighborhood schools advocates get their way. And yes, it did automatically change once the new majority started implementing their agenda. At least before we had a goal to try to prevent schools that would have a much higher risk of failure, even though we weren't 100% successful. Most of the assignment moves the new majority has made have been to move poor black kids out of the schools attended by their supporters. I know that it drives much more support for the new board than you, or often-times even they, are willing to admit.
Condemned
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 14:38 — nmoskalHow you are defining "very high poverty"? Do you mean that as something different than "high poverty"? How are you defining "high poverty"? Did you attend a "high poverty" or "very high poverty" school and feel condemned? What was it about the school? How do you define "neighborhood schools" (different people seem to have different concepts of that term)?
All the schools that I attended were Title I and my ES pretty high. I never felt condemned. What I felt was dignity, respect, valued, and intelligent. The condemnation doesn't come from poverty level - it comes from the attitudes of others who do not view low-income people with respect.
I didn't watch all of the OCR meeting recording, but I caught a few clips of people talking about how they weren't treated with dignity or respect. Unless I caught the names of the schools incorrectly, those experiences were not in high poverty schools. We've had plenty of lower-poverty schools with high incidences of failure for low-income students.
In terms of success for low-income students, there are both higher-poverty and lower-poverty schools where they are successful and both higher-poverty and lower-poverty schools where they are not. It's not the poverty-level of the school. There are impacts of attitudes and privilege systems. Those don't magically change by changing school poverty levels. I think people thought it would and some want to believe still will even though results to date don't reflect clear improvement.
Personally, the only contexts where I have heard talk about moving poor, black kids was from those who want to keep the old policy so not "too many" poor, black kids are moved back into the schools in their area. So, that attitude issue occurs in both those (as a group) who supported and did not/no longer support(ed) the policy as it was. There are also those in both groups that don't think that way. That is because there are a variety of reasons people either supported the former policy as it was or not.
we weren't even close to
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 20:51 — jenmanwe weren't even close to 100% successful and the 40% 'goal' was only applied in certain areas, mostly ITB. There is virtually no difference between Walnut Creek and schools like Barwell, Brentwood or Fox Road. The only difference is that the latter three (and others like it), were created under the old diversity policy. Where has Barber been all these years? How convenient that a school like Walnut Creek is so awful now that he must file a complaint with OCR while they could exist for years and he didn't care. So as long as the previous admin said they had a 40% goal that they didn't do much about enforcing then everything was ok?
As for doing better being bused than at a high poverty school, we have high poverty schools that do a much better job with their low income kids than low poverty schools do. We have some low poverty schools where low income kids have some of the worst passing rates in the county. Somebody actually needs to start caring about these kids rather than their property values and the downtown economic engine.
What's more...
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 21:56 — Bob_SconceFox Road does a much better job with poor kids than many affluent schools in the district. In 2007, WCPSS reassigned F&R students from Fox Road, where 40% passed their EOGs to Wakefield, where only 25% did. For every 8 kids who would have succeeded at Fox Road, 3 of them failed at Wakefield.
The amazing thing is that Barber wants to CONTINUE doing stuff like that.
I don't think Baber
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 06:46 — woodstockI don't think Baber understands or even cares about policy. That is not what this is about. He merely saw a high-profile school district and an opportunity to manufacture a racial issue and exploit it, all for his own selfish gain and to raise his profile within the NAACP. Facts, the effectiveness of policies, and outcomes be damned.
Fox Road principal is inspiring
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:31 — jenmanI attended the ED Task Force meeting yesterday at Fox Road and I was very impressed with their principal, Melanie Rhoads. She talked about her students and their parents with respect and talked about their challenges but remained positive. She really cares about her students and has a can do attitude that she shares with her students. She believes they can achieve even with the extra challenges. I just cannot say enough about her positive attitude and caring.
Interesting tidbit about Fox Road--they have students of 40 nationalities who speak 30 different languages.
We had one school that hit
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 21:51 — virginiadareWe had one school that hit 77% and less than a handful flirting with 70%. We never had a school as high as Walnut Creek will be, and no very high poverty schools of 90% or more. That is what was frightening, the thought of dozens of schools like that in our district. That is why Barber got involved at this time. You cannot tell me that you believe that the people advocating for neighborhood schools care about "those" kids. They just want to corral them into their own schools so they won't have to deal with them. Just wait until someone suggests giving them more money than the wealthy suburban schools get, and you'll see how much they care. And what is wrong with caring about property values and the downtown economic engine? Isn't that what will increase our tax base and help us get more revenue to build a better school system and actually help those kids?
So let me understand this ...
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 15:50 — nancyncWe never had a school as high as Walnut Creek will be, and no very high poverty schools of 90% or more.
You cannot tell me that you
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:18 — jenmanYou cannot tell me that you believe that the people advocating for neighborhood schools care about "those" kids. They just want to corral them into their own schools so they won't have to deal with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do with those kids? Bus them out so you don't have to deal with them? There is not a single school in central Raleigh that isn't either below 40% or a magnet. Many are both. This policy has always been about making sure that ITB schools are 'palatable' to the middle and upper income white families. It has never been about helping low income or minority kids.
BTW, more than one school has been over 70% in the past few years.
No, it's trying to balance
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:02 — virginiadareNo, it's trying to balance them so no school will have to be overly burdened with high-needs students resulting in high teacher turnover and other issues very high poverty schools have to face. It is about trying to keep the inner city from decaying as so many have. It does help low income and minority kids to keep property values from deteriorating, resulting in decreased revenue.
By "flirting with" 70% I meant either just below or just above, and we have had no more than a handful of those schools, as I said.
Why do you consider black
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 23:45 — CaryCurmudgeonWhy do you consider black children a "burden?"
if she is taking questions...
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 00:19 — red_balloonWhy do AA students cause higher teacher turnover?
?
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:00 — Bob_SconceThat's pretty offensive. I care. I know lots of others who do care.
But, caring is really irrelevant. Your side may care, but it's supporting a system that failed kids for a decade.
How can you say you care
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 08:39 — virginiadareHow can you say you care when you have repeatedly stated on this blog that you do not believe poor students deserve to have the same extras in time, energy, and money that affluent parents can afford to give the schools their children attend? That those resources do not "belong" to the school system to try to balance out, so there will not be have and have-not schools. You have stated that past a certain point of fulfilling basic needs at each school, it shouldn't matter if parents at some schools can afford to give many more extras than those at other schools.
Our system has not "failed" kids for a decade. That is simply not true. In fact, scores for even the most vulnerable had been rising at the end of the last administration's tenure, as pointed out by AdvancEd, but the majority board members refused to acknowledge the data, and kept shouting out their false campaign propaganda, just as you are doing here. The only reason a system like CMS caught up with and slightly surpassed Wake recently in test scores of poor students was because of the many millions of dollars more that they poured into their high poverty schools over the past decade. Suburban parents had been complaining about the discrepancy. Now that those dollars have been cut to levels closer to the amount Wake has gotten locally, and many of their high poverty schools have closed because their achievement still hadn't reached acceptable levels, we'll see if those gains continue. I do not believe they will.
?
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:32 — Bob_SconceYou are mischaracterizimg what I said. The base level at each school, provided my the taxpayers, should be sufficient for the kids in that school to get an education. But, the time and money parents give so their kids can have a talent show or a father-daughter dance or a pizza party is the parents', not the district's. Parents will leave when the district starts treating those as its own. And, that's dangerous for the district.
I don't know how a policy that resulted in schools with 25% of poor students PASSING could be deemed anything other than a failure.
...
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 21:56 — SideburnsJust convert Walnut Creek to YR and make it a magnet. In your world, problem solved.
You have a very odd and
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 19:28 — woodstockYou have a very odd and closed-minded perspective on things.
Thanks, I'll try to check out the footage
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 13:11 — SupportNeighbor...Happy to hear that there were at least some african-americans there who could put the very distant past behind them, and look at the situation from the other side of the spectrum.
very distant past?
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 13:55 — EBDarcyIs everyone supposed to forget the past or just African-Americans? And what exactly is the other side of the spectrum? Whose side would that be?
Supporters of neighborhood schools like to think it's the very distant past but it's not . Anyone who grew up in Raleigh (and elsewhere in the South) who is over 50 probably has first hand knowledge of what it's like to attend a segregated school. Many of them have children in the public school system. I'm one of them. Or grandchildren. Racism certainly isn't in the distant past. Neither is Klan activity, racial slurs, and institutionalized discrimination. The KKK burned crosses in Durham in 2005.
Some of you have accused the school system of racial discrimination by keeping qualified students out of advance math. Can you then turn around and say racism doesn't exist? Or should African Americans just get over it now that one problem has been addressed? See some hypocrisy here?
As the quote goes, "those
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 14:21 — CaryCurmudgeonAs the quote goes, "those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it." No, we should never forget slavery and segregation. Nor should we let or vision of the future be shackled by those atrocities. Not seeing neighborhood schools as racist does not mean one is forgetting the past. Racism is still with us today. Look at what happened last year with the expression wall at NC State. That doesn't mean racism is what drives the schools debate.
IMHO, the truly damaging remarks I heard at that meeting came from supporters of the old busing policy. These people insisted that black children would not learn as well if they weren't seated next to white children. Some of these people judged me and others who support neighborhood schools based on the color of our skin, they assumed that we did not want our kids going to school with black kids.
At that meeting, I saw black people argue for busing, and argue against busing. I saw white people argue for busing, and argue against busing. Why can't we just call this a disagreement over how best to close the achievement gap, and drop all the accusations of racism?
"Why can't we just call this
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 15:34 — woodstock"Why can't we just call this a disagreement over how best to close the achievement gap, and drop all the accusations of racism?"
Because without accusations of racism, Barbar would have nothing and he would be nothing. He needs it for his very livelihood and to feed his enormous need for attention and to further his career opportunities.
Although the size of several men, just this one man is essentially orchestrating this entire fiasco. His tactic is relentless race-hustling without regard to common sense, facts or reason. He seeks to wear down his opponent... but that ain't gonna happen and I believe he is beginning to understand that.
The meeting at Martin Street was a pretty tepid affair considering the build up. There were very few parents, lots of senior citizens, some folks who were completely clueless about the issues, and some others who are not even residents of Wake County. It was hardly the groundswell of outrage that folks like Barbar like to binge on.
Who insisted that a black
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 15:30 — EBDarcyWho insisted that a black child couldn't learn if not seated next to a white child? I didn't hear that said or even implied. Where is it in the video?
Seems to me that most of the argument was based on resources and who will get them under a segregated system. I don't recall the word busing being used very often at all. It's the people who want to eliminate socio-economic balance who use that emotionally charged term. Just like it's those who oppose diversity who use the phrase "a black kid has to sit next to a white kid to learn......
To say lets simply call this a disagreement over closing the achievement gap is quite an understatement. (And of course begs the question how does creating high-poverty schools close the achievement gap?) And it conveniently lets some on your side off the hook doesn't it? If racism is behind some of what's going on - and you know it is - then why should we pretend otherwise? If destroying the public school system is the motivation for other supporters of the majority - and we know it is - should we pretend that it isn't? I hate to use the word victim but this suggestion reeks of blaming the victim.
What will creating high-poverty schools do to close the achievement gap? I see little proof that the majority cares, other than Tedesco using this issue for political gain. Now I'm not saying that you personally don't, but actions speak louder than words when it comes to actually doing something to address the ssue. Where are the extra resources to reduce class size and add more assistants? What is the majority willing to take away from the wealthier schools to help out the high-poverty schools? In the current economy that's what it is going to amount to.
If racism is behind some of
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:18 — CaryCurmudgeonIf racism is behind some of what's going on - and you know it is - then why should we pretend otherwise?
Actually, no, I don't know that it is. In 2009, I had the pleasure of working with hundreds of parents who wanted change in our school system. Were they all involved for altruistic reason? No, some just wanted to improve their own kids' situations (and there's nothing wrong with that). Others I met were driven by a higher purpose, to improve our school system to the benefit of all families. If any of the folks I met were in in to keep their kids from attending school with black kids, they did a heck of a job of hiding it. Racism does exist today, but it is NOT what's driving the "neighborhood schools" movement.
Who insisted that a black child couldn't learn if not seated next to a white child?
This theme was carried by many speakers. A huge deal was made about Walnut Creek. Barbor pointed to some research he saw that said black children in "racially-identifiable" schools consistently failed.
I don't recall the word busing being used very often at all. It's the people who want to eliminate socio-economic balance who use that emotionally charged term.
I couldn't count how many times "back of the bus" references were made in the OCR meeting, as well as several mentions of Rosa Parks. In fact, the entire two hours of that meeting was filled with emotionally-charged terms like the ones I listed in my other post. You're not fooling anyone, school reformists are not racially-motivated, nor are they trying to drive wedges between races.
If destroying the public school system is the motivation for other supporters of the majority - and we know it is - should we pretend that it isn't?
I know Art Pope and Bob Luddy are strong supporters of private schools, but I don't know if they want to "destroy" the public school system. We had hundreds of volunteers who pounded the pavement to support neighborhood schools candidates, which of those do you accuse of wanting to destroy our school system.
Where are the extra resources to reduce class size and add more assistants? What is the majority willing to take away from the wealthier schools to help out the high-poverty schools? In the current economy that's what it is going to amount to.
I'm going to restate this the way I hope you meant to say it. What is the majority willing to take away from the higher-performing schools to help out the lower-performing schools? I think that is a very good question. We already have too many low-performing schools today, and the old approach was just to reshuffle the deck. I expect more from this board. Tedesco has been pushing the "Rennaisance" model for lower-performing schools. For now, he gets it done with Federal money. If the program works, then I expect this board to continue the funding after the Federal $'s run out. I don't care whether they find the money from elsewhere in the budget or they ask for more.
Seems to me that most of the
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:00 — jenmanSeems to me that most of the argument was based on resources and who will get them under a segregated system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard this theme throughout the night too, but all of our schools are funded using the same formulas. It will not and cannot go back to the days of 'black' schools getting the hand me downs from the the 'white' schools. I understand the fear, especially from those who lived through segregation, but I think we need to make that distinction very clear.
Resources
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:00 — Eric_BTo have an argument about resources, we need some discussion about the current distribution of resources. WCPSS gets $78 million from the federal government, most of which is Title I funding that is mandated to be spent on providing services at high poverty schools. In addition, most of the magnet schools are located inside the beltline in higher poverty areas (of course there are exceptions).
Why is there a perception that suburban schools located in middle and upper income areas have more resources than other schools? Is it disparity in PTA funding or athletic booster club funding or what? We know that in past years several suburban middle schools like Wakefield didn't have the funding to offer even a single foreign language class, so why is there a perception that these schools have something that other schools don't or that high poverty schools wouldn't have?
I'm just trying to figure out what resources you think need to be provided and where you see discrepancies.
Just some food for thought,
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:51 — magnetParentJust some food for thought, here.
Why does a school like Green Hope High have 20+ AP courses, and Knightdale only gets the opportunity to watch them on TV? They both have the same funding, right? Is it because schools like Knightdale have to allocate their funding differently because it is higher poverty? Or because they cannot fill an AP class on their own to warrant budgeting for one? Or a little of both?
Interesting...
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 17:06 — Bob_SconceIt's more interative than just watching them on TV, isn't it?
I'll note that you're claiming two sides of the same coin: schools allocate resources to where demand is. If lots of kids in a schools want AP courses, they get lots of AP courses. If lots of kids want remedial typing, they get remedial typing. It's a bit like asking why students at UNC-G have access to fewer engineering courses than students at NC State.
Not really a good analogy.
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 17:16 — magnetParentNot really a good analogy. The students at UNC-G chose to go there for (obviously) something other than engineering. The "funding" (ie tuition) at UNC-G vs NCState are different. Knightdale and Green Hope are base schools with the same funding and are not application. Not the same thing. So are you saying the kids in Knightdale "want" remedial typing? Part of it may be demand, but part of it is because of needs in other areas. The kids in Knightdale that "want" AP courses are getting short-changed. Bottom line is you can't say that both schools get the same funding so they are equal.
I am sure it is more interactive that just watching it on TV, but do you really think it will have the same quality as actually being there?
So...
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:07 — Bob_SconceOf course they're not equal; they're different. You and I aren't equal -- you do some thing better than I do, and I do some things better than you. Knightdale and Green Hope are the same way.
Remedial Typing was a joke -- the point is that Knightdale has to meet its students needs and Green Hope has to meet its students needs. Nas a result, they offer different courses. Knightdale may not reflect the courses your kids will need, but I suspect you don't live there.
I don't know what where I
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:30 — magnetParentI don't know what where I live has to do with anything. My whole point of bringing up the comparison of Green Hope and Knightdale was in response to Eric's question "Why is there a perception that suburban schools located in middle and upper income areas have more resources than other schools?" I imagine that those AP-level students at Knightdale that have to watch their AP classes on TV might have that exact perception.
Talk About Assumptions
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 22:42 — local23There you go making assumptions when you do not even know the program for Green Hope or Knightdale!
I suggest you speak with both principals HS's and their AP Programs along with the shared unity these students experience and actually initiated this program...you would be absolutely amazed how well the interactive virtual program is working of these academically gifted students from BOTH HS's.!
I'm not saying it is a bad
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 08:21 — magnetParentI'm not saying it is a bad program at all and would love to see it expanded across all High Schools. (It could even, in the long run, be an answer to some budget issues). And for Knightdale it is certainly better than what they had before. But if you were taking a course and had a choice of being in the actual classroom, face to face with the teacher vs via teleconferencing, where you cannot get access to the teacher outside the classroom, which would you choose? The point is, if both "suburban schools" have the "same funding", why is there a perception that suburban schools in middle and upper income areas have more resources than other schools? I am simply giving one example. Not to mention that Knightdale gets this opportunity thanks to a grant from Lowes - this is "one time" money and not even part of the equation of the "equal funding".
What perception?
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 08:53 — Bob_SconceSo, first of all, what matters is reality, not perception.
But, if that perception does broadly exist, isn't it just because those schools are located in wealthier communities? I think that perception exists about most things in wealthier areas -- there's a perception that grocery stores in wealthier areas are nicer than those elsewhere, also.
Lets face it, there are lots of people who have strong negative feelings about suburbia that border on irrational, and those feelings apply to the schools in those communities as well. You can't make policy based on what they think. (look at this post: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/cash-michaels-on-impact-of-high-poverty-schools-on-property-values#comment-219319 for an example.)
Eric, I know that as leader
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:29 — CaryCurmudgeonEric,
I know that as leader of the ED Task Force, Tedesco was pushing hard to get a WCPSS spending breakout by school, do you know whether that data was ever released? I would love to be able to compare funding for individual schools and see if there is any correlation to race or SES.
No, I do not know if such
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:34 — Eric_BNo, I do not know if such data was ever released. I definitely think funding by school should be public information. Then we can get to the root of what differences in resources we are talking about instead of the weak implications about "resources" without any factual basis to speak of.
Principals definitely work off of a school budget, so why can't we get the information about how much funding each principal has to work with?
Well, this is one we can't
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 16:47 — CaryCurmudgeonWell, this is one we can't let go of. There are too many people who believe "racially-identifiable" schools tend to be funded less than other schools. If that is the case (which I doubt) we need it fixed. If not, then maybe publicizing that data would reduce some of the animousity out there.
Define equity funding ?
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 23:39 — Solon77Schools are funded based on a standard formula driven by the number of students. There is no differentiation based on the types of students except for disabilities and special needs. Principals have some latitude with class sizes to max out the allowed per grade and take a left over resource to fund a special program. They could also go the other way and decrease class size and eliminate say Spainish.
JT looked into Fund 6 (?) which is for the most part a pass through to collect funds for year books, class rings ..ect. If JT had bothered to do his homework he would know what this fund represents and would not have wasted people's time.
Equity funding - what does that mean ? what is the definition ? Does it mean that each school is funded equally based on the number of students or should the types of students drive the funding ? If a school has 100% ED students does it have a different student/teacher ratio than say 100% NED ? If achievement in the 100% ED is the same as the 100% NED school the answer would be no. If achievement of the 100% ED school is well below the 100% NED school, equity funding would be defined as say in the ED school the max class size can be no larger than say 12 and special tutoring and other programs have to be offered. In a district where there is no spare cash sitting around, where is this funding going to come from ? 1. Raise taxes or 2. Shift funds within the district budget. So to fund the high poverty schools resources would need to come from the NED schools - class sizes increased and programs reduced.
The issue with the board's move to neighborhood schools is the board had no plan to fund the high poverty schools equitably (lower class sizes, tutoring, ....ect, ) and therefore the claim of discrimination.
Thanks for the information.
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 06:40 — Eric_BThanks for the information. One question: how are Title I funds distributed? WCPSS receives $78 million from the feds, of which I think around $55 million (going from memory here) are Title I dollars. Why aren't those funds being used to reduce class sizes, provide tutoring, etc.? Is there still just not enough? How is the money being spent?
Below is the link to ED Task Force site - it has the data
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:46 — nmoskalBelow is the link to ED Task Force site - it has the handouts and agendas. You can review and analize for yourself. The files are in the December meeting.
When the discussion about "pass throughs" came up, a senior staff member noted that there is a component that remains with the school, so he felt they should be considered.
http://www.wcpss.net/e-d-task-force/
My understanding is that one of the ED Task Force subcommittees will be getting a presentation about the various Title (there's more than just I) programs. You need to keep in mind that is not HOW MUCH is spent, but HOW it is spent (i.e. effectiveness). For example, the money spent on supplemental services related to NCLB at Hodge Rd. Unfortunately, the program was only designed to bring students to proficiency, but it was offered to all FRL students, so a number of already proficient FRL students (Level III and IV) were in the program. The study found these students actually lost ground. I believe that those that fit what the program was designed to do (i.e. Level I and II) did benefit as I recall. So, overall a mixed bag. This is what happens when we treat ED monolithically, which is far too common.
when we treat ED monolithically
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:48 — Solon77This is what happens when we treat ED monolithically, which is far too common.
So is the issue with the school system or the way in which the feds wrote the program and how funds are to be utilized ? Title 1 is to provide funding for students that are deemed low income, not low achievement. By definition of the program if you are low income you are entitled to the services of the funding. If you use funding to raise achievement of non ed students, use of funding would be in violation and the district could be subject to sanctions. Similarly if ed students, regardless of achievement, are excluded from the program the district could be subject to sanctions. What appears to be an inefficient use of resources - is it due to the wcpss administration or really a result of the way the feds wrote the rules ?