The newly adopted Wake County student reassignment plan could help produce some sharp changes this fall in the percentages of students receiving subsidized lunches at some schools.
This handout was presented by staff at Tuesday's school board meeting following a request by school board member Anne McLaurin. During the votes on the individual items, the Democrats often cited the changes in the F&R rates for them voting no.
For instance, the Walnut Creek feeder pattern moves are projected to increase Southeast Raleigh High's F&R rate from 40.2 percent this year to 50.3 percent this fall.
Walnut Creek Elementary is projected to open at 81.4 percent F&R. Schools sending students to Walnut Creek are projected to see drops in their low-income rates. For instance, Jeffreys Grove Elementary would drop from 40.3 percent F&R to 27.3 percent and Hilburn Elementary would fall from 48 percent to 41.8 percent.
Some other schools would see sharp drops as well. For instance, Davis Drive Elementary's F&R rate would fall from 18.9 percent to 6.2 percent. Davis Drive is sending 175 students to Combs, Reedy Creek and Smith elementary schools, all projected to see increases in the F&R rate.
Sycamore Creek Elementary is projected to see its F&R rate from 12.9 percent to 4.7 percent. The school is sending 128 students to Green Elementary, which is projected to see a boost in its F&R rate.
The board got the data at the last minute because F&R rates are no longer routinely included in the assignment plan since socioeconomic diversity was dropped from the student assignment policy last year. Growth and Planning had to ask Evaluation and Research to help them compile the numbers for Tuesday.
Comments
more "fraud"?
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:37 — AngelaWHow is it that Davis Drive
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 15:21 — wireless200How is it that Davis Drive and Green Hope Elementaries both had their F&R rise? I thought those were supposed to be two of the mighty-whitey schools that were trying to ship those guys out! Boy are they going to be disappointed.
They Don't Rise
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 18:05 — occum_sharpeYou have to read the chart right to left to see this year vs. next year. They are both lowered significantly.
Ok but seriously I've never
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 18:49 — wireless200Ok but seriously I've never heard a single person say or even imply he wanted the F&R or black students out of the schools in West Cary. I hear complaints and have witnessed firsthand problems concerning "help" students (what is the PC term or acronym for them anyway?). They are valid complaints but many help students aren't black!
So...
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 15:30 — Bob_SconceHave you considered that this may be laid-off middle-class people? F&R status, unlike welfare, is based solely on income and not on wealth. So, at an extreme, you can live in a $5M house that you've fully paid off, drive your kid to school in a BMW that you also have paid off, and that kid can be receiving free lunches.
re-read the column heading of the handout
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 15:29 — Athey01you may want to retract your statement.
Highlights something
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 15:53 — magnetParentHighlights something completely different, doesn't it? :-/ Now look at all of the schools whose F&R rate increased by just as much. Especially the ones > 70%. Sad.
Which schools are you
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 18:42 — jenmanWhich schools are you talking about, mp? Davis Drive ES is going down by roughly 13%. The only schools I could find that are going up 10% or more are:
Green ES from 49.6 to 59.4 direct result of moves added to plan
Lincoln Heights 45.5 to 54.1 I'm not sure what's going on here. Didn't see any moves in the plan. (I'm looking at the handout of moves that they went through at the meeting)
Reedy Creek 41.4 to 50.9 direct result of moves added to plan
SRHS 40.2 to 50.3 direct result of moves added to plan
Schools over 70% are:
Barwell 66.8 to 73.3 some moves were part of Dulaney's plan, some were added. Don't know how much is due to which moves.
Brentwood 78 to 78.7 no moves in the plan--natural increase
Fox Rd. 73.6 to 76 Don't know if the increase was figured before they decided to move the kids to WWF instead of Fox. Or it could just be natural increase.
Creech 74.6 to 75.8 guessing this is from moving some of the kids to Aversboro.
Hodge 71.1 to 76.3 Not sure what's going on here. Kids were moved out of Hodge to Knightdale and Bugg, but both of those schools' F&R increased. I don't have the node numbers with me right now but I think the kids moved out of Hodge were F&R.
Smith 68.2 to 73 I don't see any moves in the plan--natural increase?
I'm not trying to argue with you about whether or not some of the moves are increasing F&R and I really don't mean to appear like I'm picking apart tiny bits of your argument as an "Aha I gotcha!" I'm just wanting to make sure that we're really looking at the whole picture.
You got most of them.
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:46 — magnetParentYou got most of them. Thanks for the detailed info. Some additional comments:
"Barwell 66.8 to 73.3 some moves were part of Dulaney's plan, some were added. Don't know how much is due to which moves."
Nodes 238.2 and 743.0 were moved from Aversboro to Barwell. (approx 73% F&R in those nodes). Nodes 506.9, 507.1, 508.0, 619.0, 620.0, 652.0, 671.0, 740.0, 759.0 were moved from Barwell to E Garner. (approx 53% F&R)
"Hodge 71.1 to 76.3 Not sure what's going on here. Kids were moved out of Hodge to Knightdale and Bugg, but both of those schools' F&R increased. I don't have the node numbers with me right now but I think the kids moved out of Hodge were F&R"
Actually, the node moved from Hodge to Knightdale had a relatively low F&R rate - 37%. Not sure why Knightdale increased.
"Smith 68.2 to 73 I don't see any moves in the plan--natural increase?"
I don't know if it made the final tally, but the spreadsheet I am looking at moved a node from Davis Drive ES (about 97 students) to Smith ES, and moved 2 nodes from Smith ES to Walnut Creek ES (about 177 students). The nodes moving from Smith to Walnut Creek had a lower F&R (58%) than the node moving from Davis Dr to Smith (77%).
You also forgot to list Walnut Creek ES - a brand new school - opening at 81.4%. It looks like Jeffreys Grove (reduced from 40.3% down to 27.3%) benefitted from that.
"I'm just wanting to make sure that we're really looking at the whole picture."
Well, to look at the whole picture, you also need to look at these:
Davis Dr ES from 8.9% down to 6.2%
Forest Pines ES from 34.2% down to 24.2%
Green Hope ES from 22.2% down to 16.0%
Olive Chapel ES from 12.5% down to 7.6%
Root ES from 40.0% down to 30.8%
Sycamore Creek ES from 12.9% down to 4.7%
Davis Dr MS from 17.5% down to 10.1%
Green Hope HS from 6.2% down to 5.4%
Put all of these on a map (red for increased, green for decreased) and you will have an interesting picture.
So, we have a couple of new schools in the >70% club and none of the ones already over 70% were reduced. And we now have a new club for the >80% school. Yeah, that is the whole picture, and I do not like the direction this is going. (and they didn't get all of their moves in yet... )
Just a comment about Forest
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:33 — jenmanJust a comment about Forest Pines decreasing. GM notes that Forest Pines is overcrowded and that's why they were looking to move somebody out. Look at the assignment map for Forest Pines. That node, 246.1, is a non-contiguous node that is much closer to its new school, Wildwood Forest.
I don't care that Forest Pines is going down in F&R. To keep Forest Pines at the same level of F&R they would have to move out a non-F&R node from closer to that school and move it to a farther away one. Wildwood Forest is my neighborhood school and I have no problem with our school getting those kids. It makes no sense to me to micro manage these nodes and worry about one school being 'too low'. If nearby low income nodes were being moved out of Forest Pines and into a farther away school, then I would question what is going on.
I will agree with you on
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 07:11 — magnetParentI will agree with you on Forest Pines - its not like its F&R was dropped down into the single digits like some. I just don't like the willy nilly approach they took without regard to what they were doing to the schools. To open a brand new school at 81.4% without a plan to help them is unconscionable. But... they didn't intend to, did they?
I don't really care how low
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:25 — jenmanI don't really care how low Davis Drive or Green Hope get if the only way to raise their F&R is to bus kids 15 or more miles. Not when there are 'healthy' schools closer to them.
I forget which move it was, but I think it was a low income node that got moved from Underwood to Green Hope. There were 11 schools closer than Green Hope that had F&R% lower than 30%. If it was really necessary to move these kids from their school, they didn't have to move them 18 miles away. What really ticked me off about that move (and the Joyner to Leesville moves the year before) was that Joyner and Underwood were already 'healthy' and moving those kids out was not really necessary. Both moves were done because the schools were overcrowded, yet both are magnets located in middle class areas with middle to high income base nodes that got to stay.
I spoke with somebody in admin about the Joyner to Leesville moves and was told "It was a hard decision. The school is crowded, so do we move out the middle class base families who have supported the school or do we move out the low income nodes?" Of course they chose the low income nodes because those kids and their families don't matter and because Leesville needed more of 'them'. I imagine the same reasoning was used for the Underwood to GHE moves as well. The 2 really sad things about the Joyner moves was that 1)those families had been with the same Title 1 teacher who had moved with them about 5 years before from Brentwood. She's an amazing teacher who had good relationships with them and their families. 2). The very next year Joyner got a pod of trailers and ended up taking in more students, some of whom were yr opt outs. That original node of kids could have stayed there.
The F&R of both Underwood and Joyner went down after those nodes were removed to 26% and 28% respectively. To me, that is not acceptable. Schools located within 3 miles of a high concentration of poverty have F&Rs lower than the county average but schools like Hilburn with an F&R of 50% have low income nodes bused in from 15 miles away.
I have never been against a diversity policy, per se. I agree that it's important that we make sure schools have the proper resources. I am against busing kids from already 'healthy' schools just to make sure that a higher wealth area has to 'take their fair share of the burden'.
So 80% F&R is bad. Now all
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:18 — loriacSo 80% F&R is bad. Now all the kids going to that school know they are bad, need help, are going to bring the school down. How do you know there's no plan to 'help them'? Help them how? What is needed?
I did not say the kids are
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:46 — magnetParentI did not say the kids are bad, why did you?
With all of the transparency in all of the meetings, I have yet to see a plan for the high-poverty schools. They are still too focused on reassignment. They are doing this in the wrong order.
They will have to hire teachers soon. What kind of teachers are they looking for? What incentives will they offer to attract the teachers they need? As a traditional calendar, how many students will be in each class? Will there be extra money for these schools, and where will it come from?
You ask "What is needed?" Well I hope the board has done due diligence on that question already and knows what is needed to support high poverty schools. But I'm afraid they have not. They are operating under the "build it first, then check to see if the foundation can hold it" concept. Sad.
That having 80% F&R at a
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:43 — loriacThat having 80% F&R at a school is 'bad' is implied in every single discussion about high F&R schools. Who makes a school 80% F&R - the students. How do you think they feel about all these discussions about how their neighborhoods can't possibly be in a school together? They need to name a principal for that school, and the principal should have the leadership to make sure the school has the right teachers. There was no planning when low-income nodes were ripped away from teachers they knew and schools/parents where they had relationships. Principals/parents/teachers are very capable of teaching all kids, including low-income kids. Now that we have EVAAS, it will be harder to label all low-income kids as unable to learn. I'm glad that now these students won't be moved around at will just to balance numbers.
"There was no planning when
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 15:43 — magnetParent"There was no planning when low-income nodes were ripped away from teachers they knew and schools/parents where they had relationships."
Are you talking about this current reassignment? Because these kids are being "ripped away" from the school that they knew.
By your response, it seems that you agree that there is no planning on how to prevent this school from becoming another Barwell. Your claim that there was no planning before (which I do not agree with) does not make it OK to do it (or in this case, not do it) now.
"How do you think they feel about all these discussions about how their neighborhoods can't possibly be in a school together?"
Let me ask it a different way - How do you think they feel about all these discussions about how they are not welcome in the school they know?
I should have been more
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:15 — loriacI should have been more clear - I was referencing the prior BOEs reassignments - at just our ES, low-income nodes were swapped in and out for no reason. The teachers tried to intervene - they had built relationships, were seeing progress, and the kids lived nearby. Denied. What planning was done to help either group of kids? Who know why Dulaney did this - no reason was ever given. Lots of people left after that. Now the BOE is trying to get to a stable assignment model. That is the difference.
...
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 15:58 — Sideburns"Let me ask it a different way - How do you think they feel about all these discussions about how they are not welcome in the school they know?"
That's comical. For years, previous School Boards have been rubber-stamping plans devised by Dulaney and his super secret committee (which Bader and Sherron both served on) that attempted to reach some utopian balance of F&R kids. Every year students were reassigned with complete disregard to their stability needs. Now, this Board is attempting to create a long-term stable assignment for neighborhoods and all children and you want to complain about the one move that is necessary to get there? Your concern is completely insincere.
Insincere? Building
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:55 — magnetParentInsincere? Building high-poverty schools under the guise of "neighborhood" without any solid plan of how to help them succeed is insincere.
You can have stability without neighborhood schools. In fact, growth will impact the stability of neighborhood schools more than other options. So, which is more important to you - neighborhood or stability? I vote for achievement.
either or?
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 08:32 — starsonoursIts not an either or vote, we can have achievement, stability and neighborhood schools. Under the old plan you could chose 2 out 3 or 1 out of 3.
You won't have stability
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:03 — magnetParentYou won't have stability with strict neighborhoold assignments. Even JT says that.
Correction
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:51 — starsonoursOK change stability to more stable than the current system. Still its not a pick 1 or 2 but you can't have all 3 solution that we had with the old system.
I never said you couldn't
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:53 — magnetParentI never said you couldn't pick more than one. The direction they are going in is not going to give you stability and achievement is not being given its due diligence. You could have just as easily given stability to the old system. They are not focusing on anything but neighborhood schools. If you expect them to give all three then you should be just as concerned as I am.
You may not have said it but
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:56 — starsonoursYou may not have said it but that was the result of the old system. You claim we could have given stability to the old system? If you could why didn't they give it? The lack of stability lead to the election results in 09 changing the board. The old system did not work for the majority of people, yes a few benefited and those that did benefit while others suffered now scream to keep the system that benefited them (them being a small percentage of students, those students where not the SE students).
Here is a reality to
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:23 — woodstockHere is a reality to consider. When people plop down their down payment and purchase a house, one primary consideration location-wise are the schools in the area. Their expectation is that their children will attend a school in close proximity to their home. That is the way it works virtually everywhere. When it does not work that way, you will have discontent. That is why we have a new school board now, the status quo kept pushing the envelop on forced busing -- and all the burdens associated with that -- and discontent increased. When after the 2009 community engagement meetings -- where literally hundreds of parents took the time to plead with the status quo board to stop the insanity -- the busing escalated and the voting public had enough.
To claim that there has not been "due dilligence" is just not true. Many of the folks involved in the positive change we are seeing have been involved in this effort for years and worked -- and still work -- tirelessly to being common sense to school policy.
Then what is the plan to
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 13:13 — magnetParentThen what is the plan to prevent Walnut Creek ES from becoming another Barwell? Full details please, including budgetary cost. They've made more high poverty schools, so what is the plan?
Schools are there to
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 17:48 — starsonoursSchools are there to educate, not determine the correct level of students based on there parents income. How can the school system correct a parents income level? It can't. So why would it concern it self with something it can not control? It is a fool errand to think you can control or change something you can not control or change. I would like to see the school system get back into the business of education.
Wow.
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 18:00 — magnetParentWow. Just wow.
"So why would it concern it self with something it can not control?"
Because it is directly affected by it? Not expecting the schools to change a parents income level (where did that come from anyway?) but it is a factor in the children they educate.
Wow
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 19:51 — starsonoursDouble WOW..so 99+% of school districts can educate a student without looking at the income levels of the parent (F/R Lunches are dictated by parent income) but Wake County can only educate after balancing the students out? Are we that different from the rest of the USA? Schools are here to educate not to practice social engineering. If 99+% of the country can do it why can't we? We have tried to balance schools only to end up with children constantly being moved from one school to the next and experienced a decline in graduation levels. But you claim it is necessary to do this in order to teach? Explain how the 99+% of schools operate without this concern? You would think if something were so important to educating a child the majority of school districts would use that method instead of the less than 1% that do (and this number is declining not increasing) Please explain this?
First of all, I would love
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 21:45 — magnetParentFirst of all, I would love to see your data that proves that 99+% of school systems do not look at F&R (or some other form of insight into parent income) when educating their children. And then you seem to imply that 99+% are successful at educating them without concern to income level. (and 99% are more successful than WCPSS?) I say HOGWASH. You are hanging onto unfounded talking points there.
I am asking - WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHERE IS THE MONEY? Even school systems that do have neighborhood schools have done research and invested money for special programs for their high poverty schools. They don't operate without concern. It's scary to me that you think they do. So now we have a new high poverty school - what is the plan?
Magnet Parent on High Poverty Schools
Sat, 02/12/2011 - 09:36 — Voice_of_Reason_You need to understand one thing about high poverty schools. That one thing is NCLB Title I funding and how they relate to these schools.
If a school is identified (and only if identified as Title I), they is extra FEDERAL money that goes to these schools and can be spent on inividual school programs for certain children or on the whole school if WCPSS elects to go that way. In most schools in Wake, it is spent school wide.
These schools, and only these schools, have penalties is they continue not to meet their average yearly progress (AYP) goals. Penalties include everything from voluntary busing to other schools, tutoring, and even "regime change." If money from the federal government for corrective action is not enough, it comes out of WCPSS funds. These schools are the only schools that have these penalties. If a poor kid goes to a failing high income base strata school tough, that kid has no protection under the NCLB law.
I firmly believe that WCPSS under Dr.Burns was using SED busing (as a cover) to avoid penalties by sending low performing nodes (yes they kept that data) in a lot of cases to suburban schools to help bolster Title I schools on paper, while letting the children they bused have NO Title I protection. Remember, healthy schools was the goal, not improving the child. IMHO, this is directly thumbing his nose at the NCLB law's intention and spirit. That is one reason one achievement gap is not closing. He really didn't have to address the worse problems.
Talking point? OK how many
Mon, 02/07/2011 - 00:06 — starsonoursTalking point? OK how many schools can you name that have a program like to one we just ended? First you would have to go outside of NC since we are the only one in this state (or is this a talking point?)I believe there are 116 school disticts in NC so 1 out of 116. But I am sure the numbers change drastically once you leave NC. Please show me your list.....We are reseting to the norm, the old system did not work. Neighborhood schools does not fix the achievement problems (neither did the old system) but at least it creates stability that the public has asked for and voted for.
Read more carefully. I
Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:33 — magnetParentRead more carefully. I said "see your data that proves that 99+% of school systems do not look at F&R (or some other form of insight into parent income) when educating their children". I am not talking about assignment. I am asking WHAT IS THE PLAN to prevent Walnut Creek from becoming another Barwell? All schools look at income level - heck, Title 1 is concerned with the achievement level of economically disadvantaged children. Not once did I say anything about assignment. They built another high-poverty school - WHAT IS THE PLAN?
...
Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:35 — SideburnsWith the right approach, increased stability can be offered. Heck, anything is better than crossing your fingers each and every year and hoping you're not the one getting moved. Of course, as a magnet parent, you haven't had to experience that.
Without a PAC or direct
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:59 — user12345Without a PAC or direct access to a board member, schools like this are toast. It is all about money and access.
Jenman, do you have any feel
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:13 — DrActualFactualJenman, do you have any feel for how accurate the district's projections align compared to the actual numbers. I noted that although this years plan reassigns 3,000+ students Laura Evans indicated slightly over 1,000 could grandfather.
Thank You!
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:28 — JanisTangoThank you for providing this analysis! Some of these high F&R schools are a result of the Dulaney plan and not the changes made by this board. I believe I saw someone ask about the plan for Walnut Creek. Do you know if that was accounted for in the 3 year plan and if so, what they projected?
Anecdotal "Evidence"
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 22:58 — RiversideRealistMy FIL was a middle school teacher with the Flint City Schools System (Michigan).
In his 30 years at the SAME middle school, he was often drafted to help collate, review (etc, I am not sure of all his 'duties') Free/Reduced Lunch Applications. He has told us many times that he KNEW (for reasons that are irrelevant here) that people who were applying were LYING on the application. Early on, he would approach his principal with the issue, citing hard evidence of fraud, and was told to "shut up". Later on, he just rubber stamped anything, as pointing out dishonesty fell on deaf ears anyway.
The more FnR students, the more federal money trickles in... So, who cares if the data is accurate, who cares if we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as the money is flowing IN, honesty, integrity and TRUE 'neediness' were totally unimportant.
What you
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 08:55 — woodstockWhat you describe, unfortuately, happens everywhere. And here is the thing about Wake County, it is not just that the money flows in based on fraudulent data, it is that many, many system-wide decisions unrelated to a lunch program are made that are also based on this same fraudulent and enormously inaccurate data.
If WCPSS is going to use F&R nunbers to make important decisions, it must be accurate, verifiable data that is subject to audit. AND, if fraud is discovered, it should be prosecuted... it is stealing.
I'm not so much concerned
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 09:07 — jenmanI'm not so much concerned about the fraud itself, but definitely the fact that we are basing so many decisions on this one number and we have no way of verifying it. I'm sure there are people who are lying to get F&R lunch but I'm equally sure that there are some families who need it but don't apply. Not to mention the fact that the difference between ED and NED is one dollar and that the difference among NED families could be $100K. Two schools could have the same F&R population but have very different non-F&R populations. Not everybody who is non-F&R is wealthy and willing or able to donate lots of time and money to their schools.
Want to add that I think the fraud itself is still an issue, it's just not the main concern I have about it.
The People That Don't Apply...
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 09:55 — JanisTangoPeople enrolled in SNAP are automatically enrolled
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 10:18 — Voice_of_Reason_Those are the trully needy. The other issue about the stigma is a good thing, pride is a good motivator. (tough love). Actually, I don't think the children really use the reduced lunch program as a reason to judge that child any differentely. My child has commented on a couple of children she knows shouldn't be getting it based on where they live, how they dress, and what car their parent's drive...that's a stigma.
It Was OK
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 21:41 — local23to routinely bus students of nodes that have high F&R to long distance suburban schools without tracking these students progress OR even allow the money to follow them? It was OK to take these same students and bus them to suburban schools multiple times in 5 years with no explanation to the parents? It was OK to bus these same students and label them? Do you think that makes these students feel good or wanted? If the school system was to really embrace their so call social engineering, then it would never have attempted to bus only certain students, they should have bused atleast 50% out and 50% in - to be fair!
Is it also OK to let the eastern schools of Wake county be high F&R (with mostly caucasian make up, but high poverty) for most of the last decade - was a brown bag over their heads?
Why does high F&R deam to be a failure? There are many, many successful stories in this country where high F&R schools have not only succeeded, but have stagering graduation rates and entrance to college.
Why can't Wake County people embrace a new and future method/process (dream) and create fantastic incentives, give more resources, attract business backing, ensure community engagement, etc. into the high F&R schools and have one of the greatest success stories instead of trying the same darn things that HAVE NOT worked and then we can tote what a great southern class school system we really can be?
Keung--What was the
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 20:38 — jenmanKeung--What was the projected F&R of Walnut Creek under the 3 year plan? I can't imagine that it was less than 50% F&R. Just trying to get a handle on what the increase is for Walnut Creek.
Back in 2009, it was
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 21:41 — KeungHui (author)Back in 2009, it was projected to open at 64 percent F&R. Staff never ran a revised projection of what it would be like with the same nodes as before.
81% is very concerning
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 18:07 — occum_sharpeconsidering many of the 19% who don't qualify for F/R lunch will probably go elsewhere through charters, magnets, or private schools. Don't be surprised if this school isn't 90% + F/R lunch when its doors open.
I would think that
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 23:01 — DrActualFactualI would think that projection also assumed that it would open as a YR with a higher number of students and that would skew the numbers.
Now the Data is Wrong
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 18:53 — jiggawhat12This BOE should have provided these numbers before they before they began this exercise of moving kids around. Now instead of holding this board accountable most people find it easier to question the data, sad if your wrong admit it! Now we will reap the repercussions of this leap into blind policy. If you live around those schools that will be above 60% poverty and support this board please don't complain about your plummeting property values.
What about the people who
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 07:50 — jenmanWhat about the people who live near the schools that have climbed to over 60% under the old diversity policy? You could ask them. Schools over 60% are not new.
This BOE should have
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 21:09 — woodstockThis BOE should have provided these numbers before they before they began this exercise of moving kids around.
For what reason? WCPSS -- thankfully -- no longer assigns students based on their F&R status. The only purpose of knowing one's F&R status is to know who gets a free or reduced price lunch... legitimately or otherwise.