The elimination of the Wake County's socioeconomic diversity policy is the central theme in this fall's battle for control of the Wake County Board of Commissioners.
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, incumbent Democratic Commissioner Lindy Brown and Republican challenger Phil Matthews hold sharp differences about the elimination of the diveisity policy. Similiar party splits are playing out in the other three races on the ballot.
Brown said she's concerned that the school board's direction will result in schools with disproportionate numbers of low-income and minority children.
"The majority of my constituents are very upset with the school board," Brown said. "I'm hearing they would prefer the school board to compromise and not jump the gun on issues."
Matthews says he's willing to pay teachers more to work in schools with high concentrations of low-income and minority students so as to give those kids equal quality teachers and equal facilities.
Overall, Matthews says the public should give the school board majority a chance to do what they were elected to do.
"I believe in neighborhood schools," Matthews said. "I believe we'll give our kids a chance at a better education. We'll see the parents getting more involved."
(I've been sick for the past few days so I've been slow in answering your questions. I'll try to get caught up over the course of the day.)
Comments
Commission on Civil Rights
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 13:26 — JohnofNCThis is a long cspan video, please watch this all and don't jump to conclusions. These are all people who spend a great deal of time picking at these issues. See what ALL of them talk about. Changes are coming, but we need to inform the legislators and board members. It is hard to manage the goliath and be able to research what to do at the same time. Watch the whole thing please....
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/09/14/HP/A/38119/US+Commission+on+Civil+Rights+Conference.aspx
Diversity maps
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 10:47 — JohnofNCI think you will all find this link interesting and very on topic.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5010394159/
It is a diversity map of Raleigh and the surrounding area. As we can see the issue is a foundational issue. The article that brought me to this map dicussed that we call America "a melting pot". I agree with this article that using the term melting infers that everything is mixed together in one homogeneous lump. However reality shows that this is not true. The article talks about instead of a melting pot that people are divided like dinner plate with different sections. Peas in one section and carrots in another. If we want to talk about diversity we need to look at why it is this way.
The answer that everyone seems comfortable talking about is the "birds of a feather" theory. The understanding is that people naturally have a tendancy to group up in social structures of people most like themselves (to me this is a platitude). Social theories in my mind are hard to apply. Also nothing happens for just one reason. Beyond "birds of a feather" what is causing this issue?
The most significant impact on the continued segregation in our society is a direct result of our government and our media. Housing and welfare policies of the past have sectioned off enitre cultures from each other. Fear mongering in the news media and the exhaltation of poor behavior by opposing cultures. If you can identify it you will see these things on a daily basis, not just to promote racism, but also sexism, and most any other "ism" you can think of. And the first place these people bring the fear mongering tactics is.....your kids school! Now the stage is set, so many parents are in disagreement... The fight is on... The school should be in charge and now we see our parental rights withering away. In places they hand out condoms to 7 year olds. They don't allow parents to visit the classroom. Judges are ruling left and right that the parents have no say when they teach sex education to kindergarteners...We label all of these things as problems and foolishly agree to give away our rights and the problem only gets worse.
Schools get larger and larger...(most will never remember the one room schoolhouse) and the power solidifies, with Nazi percision our children are bussed and moved from class to class with no independent thought allowed. Like Pavlov's dogs we attend each class faithfully while our jobs are shipped out of the country. Many graduate and are unable to find work. Many high school children are barely able to work at McDonalds (press the button with the picture) and we keep seeking solutions from the same tired people, who with of course the best intentions only make it worse.
Nice map ... one point, your
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 11:40 — user12345Nice map ... one point, your map shows a lot of white folks but the schools are only 50% white ... so there may be difference between counting people and counting kids in school ...
user12345
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 13:20 — JohnofNCGood point. The kiddies do get bussed around.
LOL DanofNC
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 22:26 — JohnofNCThe ideas you have are wrong. It is absolutely without merit and you are making things up to trash an idea of which you cannot possibly grasp. So why do you keep trying? You totally would have the choice to move back to the town you grew up in, however, you would have to convince the judge it was in the best interest of the child. If you did then move with the kids, the mother of the child would have the choice to move. How it stands now, you would not have the choice. For example, you would lose and even if you lived right down the street from your ex, you would not be able to see your kids.
You also know nothing about child support and how it is doled out. The more overnights you have with the child the less you have to pay. So having every afternoon with Dad would not reduce his payments one bit. Only overnights count. So dad would not have to live in a cardboard box in an equal situation. And there are plenty of people who only make $800 a month and have kids... Are you telling me they should not be able to see their kids because they are poor? Or be forced to be homeless?
Also I did not say a $300 dollar a month car payment. I said " A car costs about $300 a month on the cheap" let me translate for you. Say you own a car... No payments, to pay for gas to get to work and insurance I estimated at $300 a month. Now how is anything you said helping children or solving the problem with Wake county schools.
Lastly, I am not the same person however, I did look at his website and contacted him. He is very easy to talk to. What you don't understand is that there are a lot of men out their that care about their children and should have the same chance at seeing their kids as the mothers do.
Now to stay on topic....Read this article and then start arguing with the person that wrote it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/14/eveningnews/main6866663.shtml
WE SUCK! The ridiculous amounts of money we pay for our children's education and we are ranked near the bottom. (Or maybe we are suckers) Most people are looking at money as a solution. Money is not the solution, we must change everything, and this is not something Hurlburt is saying, at least not that I saw on his site.
I am reading these posts and I am concerned
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 14:18 — JohnofNCWe have candidates running for offices in several levels of local and state government putting forward ideas on how to make the school systems better, more appropriate and fair for all participants. We also see a budget shortfall of 100 million dollars. I have some questions.
1) Where does the school system get it's money?
I am assuming from several sources. Here are my assumptions.
a) Federal money for federal school programs. (taxpayer)
b) State money for state school programs (taxpayer)
c) County money (taxpayer)
d) Lottery - which I am aware that the partitioning of the lottery money is not evenly distributed. It is a fact that school in more well to do areas get a greater percentage of the lottery money. (taxpayer)
e) Parents, PTA, booster clubs, etc... (taxpayer)
If there is a budget shortfall then we all have to decide where we need to trim the fat. We have to seriously look at all the programs involved in shaping our children's education. As far as I can see our nation's overall school education value is disintegrating. Money is not the only issue. However, it is an issue.
2) There seems to be a disconnect in our social fabric that I cannot understand. Help me? One poster recommended throwing "deadbeat dads" in jail. In what way will this help with...
a) the 100 million dollar budget shortfall. Doesn't storing people uselessly in jail cost the taxpayer? Does this further his childs education? Is this in the best interest of the child? Another poster pointed out that Dad may not be able to afford access to the lawyers he needs to see his kids. However, if he has time to give it should be given. Forcing men to be "deadbeats" in the court system is not in the best interest of the child. If he can't pay with money, he should be able to pay with being there. (this subject is way to vast to discuss here, the point is throwing dads in jail is not going to help the school system or it's children, as a matter of fact it is hugely detrimental)
b) Are we doing what is best for all the children? Or are we doing something that is best for the administration of a public school system. When I look at models of school systems all over the world and compare them with what we have I am ashamed. We have a tyranical system which puts education behind almost all of the other aspects of the school system. We have to admit to ourselves we suck. Until we look in the mirror and admit this, nothing is going to change.
It looks like Hurlburt is the only one with an idea of where this money should come from... I didn't see any other ideas out there...
Correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!!!
"Correct me if I am wrong.
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 15:23 — danofnc"Correct me if I am wrong. PLEASE!!!"
The candidate's ideas are great. They just aren't realistic. You can't legislate shared parenting without legislating that the two parents who don't live together have to live in the same area, and I don't think that would be 1) Constitutional 2) stable for the kid.
I said, if a dad was able to pay, but didn't, lock him up. If the threat of incarceration was there, some of the people who just don't pay would all of a sudden find their wallets.
Ok Thanks.
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 15:47 — JohnofNCShared Parenting by definitition is constitutional. It has to be. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. What does that mean? It means that everyone in the eyes of the law should be treated equally. Being a mom should give you no more right to your kids then being a dad. It is sexism, specifically feminism. The constitution doesn't say you have to take any responsibilities for your children. However, it does say in court you should be treated the same as everyone else. The constitution doesn't say women or Native Americans, or Anglo Americans or whatever should be treated better, or differently.
So for example the dad only wanted every other weekend and opted to pay more child support, he should be entitled to do just that. If the mom didn't want to be forced to keep her child(ren) 12 out of 14 days and never had time for herself, she should not be forced to do that... However, short of terminating ones parental rights, keeping a dad from seeing his children at least an equal amount of time, robs him of equal protection under the law. The one thing that everyone agrees on is that between the mom and the dad they need to come up with a plan that is equitable and non-confrontational.
Say dad makes $800 a month... his child support is $275, it can be up to 40% of his income. A car costs about $300 a month on the cheap. So he has $225 to live off of.... Yeah he is going to want to go to jail, just to get something to eat and crawl out of his cardboard box. Wouldn't it be more equitable instead of paying $300 to pay half that and spend more time with his kids? Maybe one day even go on vacation with them?
The problem is when you don't follow the constitution.
Shared parenting is great.
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 20:22 — danofncShared parenting is great. Shared parenting as the law is not necessarily constitutional. Your candidate (who I suspect may also be you) was suggesting 2-3-2, 3-4-3, etc., as potential methods of splitting custody.
If that was made the law, then you are restricting the freedom of one parent or the other. If my wife and I split, but I had to have the kids every two or three days, I couldn't move back to the town where I grew up. I'd have to live close to where she was with the kids, unless I ended up with them living with me. Then she'd have to live close to us. If she lived in Apex and I lived in Wake Forest, how would the kids go to school when we swapped them during the week? Would we have to get them into a downtown magnet school so it would be about halfway for both of us?
No one is suggesting that a horrible mother should get the kids just because she's the mom. That's a flaw that often shows up in the current system, but it isn't something that requires "Shared Parenting" legislation to fix.
If a parent wants to see their kids, and is fit to see their kids, then they should be allowed to spend time with their kids. I don't think that time should be substituted for financial support if the parent is capable of helping. Spending an afternoon with dad doesn't help if you need clothes, shoes, or food.
I'm basically going to ignore your example, because someone making $800 a month isn't taking vacations, and he isn't going to have a $300 a month car payment unless he had it before he started making $800 a month. If that's the example you need to prove your point, all you're proving is that you don't have a point.
I know where the money is and will be and can be found etc....
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 10:33 — ncsenate14HURLBURTI know where the money is.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
I know where the money
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 10:42 — CaryCurmudgeonI know where the money is.
OK, senate candidate, where is it? If you do have a plan that will protect school funding without creating chaos somewhere else, then I'd think voters would flock to you.
I have identified $1.329 billion in the NC budget that can be
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 14:53 — ncsenate14HURLBURTused, at least part of it, for education...hiring, not firing teachers...expanding classroom choices, pay raises for teachers, what else....expanded physical education, music and arts choices...You will not find another Candidate on the whole NC ballot for almost any office, local, state or federal...that will tell you exactly what is going on and take the time to show you the truth...I can do that and I will do that, but you have to call it out...I have the data to share...the will of the people can accomplish this...the will of your current elected representatives won't until you force them to see the entire forest over the single trees. The money is already available....One simple change in NC policy realizes a pot of $1.329 billion dollars every fiscal year...Do you know how? I do..Ask me.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
I'm ASking...
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 15:26 — Bob_SconceWhat's the secret? Is it real, today, money?
Ummmm....he already did ask
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 15:16 — danofncUmmmm....he already did ask you. So why did you write a long post telling him to ask you? Especially when you're claiming not to be "like every other politician?" You seemed to do a heck of a job of making a claim and then dodging a question about it.
PS...if any part of your answer involves the family thing that you always put in your posts, save it. I don't think anyone argues that a home with a mother and a father present is better than a home with a single parent (assuming both parents actually care), but I also don't think you can legislate that into existence.
You can legislate shared parenting
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 15:27 — ncsenate14HURLBURTNot supporting shared parenting supports spending $1.329 billion dollars annually in NC from the effects on children of divorce and unwed child-bearing.....Shared Parenting prevents those effects from taking root in most cases....I can't give you the data on here, but I can share it with you offline...name the time/place.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
I'm not sure how you
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 20:28 — CaryCurmudgeonI'm not sure how you legislate shared parenting, can you explain better what you mean? Are you talking about tracking down and prosecuting deadbeat dads (which I'm all for)? Or, are you talking about discontinuing government programs which today are used to provide support to unwed mothers, teen mothers, etc.? Could you just spell out a few of those programs?
Most Fathers/NonCustodials 85% and Mothers/NonCustodials 15%
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 14:51 — ncsenate14HURLBURTof the cases of family breakdown are Mothers and Fathers that care about and love their children and want to continue parenting...The ones labeled deadbeats, the majority labeled as such, are so labeled because they do not have the funds or credit to even access the "family court industry" to attempt to share parenting for their children...furthermore, the system that they are accessing, even if they have $$$ or credit, is adversarial, which makes a difficult situation(the breakup) even worse, by advocating the Mother and the Father to attack one another in order to "gain advantage" over the other in the "negotiations or court proceedings". Even the public mediation, doesn't work as it doesn't advocate shared parenting...so many of the voters report that they were coerced into an agreement in the public mediation that was not shared parental responsibility and time. Unwed Parenting or Younger Parents is not a sentence of "we got government programs for you"...with Shared Parenting, those parents can continue their young dreams with their children.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Can you stop naming the
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 15:16 — danofncCan you stop naming the problems and start elaborating on some of your fixes?
you have more patience than
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 21:50 — CaryCurmudgeonyou have more patience than I do
The fix is to legislate shared parenting
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 21:45 — ncsenate14HURLBURTto ensure the Judiciary, along with the "family court industry" changes their scope from sole single parent to two single parents in two homes..The scope must include the maximum amount of time(minimum 35%) with each parent including sometimes 50/50 splits(they could be any number of arrangements ie 2-2-3, 2-3-2, 4-3, 3-4, 3-3-4, etc....
The idea is to encourage and expound the benefits to the children as a State of quality, frequent and continuing time with each parent after family breakdown with a Parenting Plan in place within 30 days of the breakdown...that sets the stage for reducing the harms to children, introducing "realized savings" and "reduced need" $$$ for reallocation or return to taxpayers through refunds or lower tax rates, removing the false allegation syndromes and freeing up court calendars for the worst cases...so that Judges can spend significant time figuring out what parameters need to be in place to ensure a quality Parenting Plan between the parents for the benefit of the children.
The law sets the intent and scope of the State so the Judiciary and the "family court industry" has a blueprint and template to follow in all scenarios presented for their discretion. See other post for specifics on $$$(realized savings/reduced need) breakdown.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Your little pick 3 numbers
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 22:37 — danofncYour little pick 3 numbers are cute and everything, but I think there would be some consitutional (ever heard of the Constitution?) issues with legislation that required parents who weren't married to remain close enough together so that your plan was feasible.
On top of that, you're selling a situation where kids would sleep in a different place every two or three nights to people who value stability quite a bit. That seems odd, too.
If you really want to make a difference (instead of just spouting off rambling posts of unrealistic goals), put some teeth into the enforcement of current family laws. If a guy doesn't pay his child support (and he is able), put him in jail. A big part of the problem is that people aren't really held financially liable for their part of the child's needs. In many cases, having the other parent around isn't necessarily a positive. But, the single parent that is putting forth an effort to raise a solid citizen could use the support mandated by law.
It's sort of like the drunk driving laws. If a first offense got you 5 years in prison, more people would probably think twice about driving after they drink. But, since you can get a lawyer and end up with a suspended license and probation they take the risk.
Candidate Hurlbutt, still
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:32 — CaryCurmudgeonCandidate Hurlbutt, still would love to hear from you on this.
Once again....
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:31 — danofncEveryone supports shared parenting. The question becomes what are you going to do to the kids when one parent refuses to share?
It's the same thing with the schools, really. Everyone thinks parents should be involved and contribute their time, talents, and resources as much as possible. Everyone thinks that parents should work with their kids at home to help ensure success at school. The question becomes what do you do with the kids whose parents don't/won't/can't provide that assistance?
I don't think public
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 20:49 — user12345I don't think public education should depend on parents to be involved. Parents are an extra not a requirement. The concept of mom staying home with the kids, sitting around the fire doing homework, while dad works the PTA Christmas tree sale may be dated ... whether it be affluent two income homes both working late at work or illiterate low income homes without the skills to help, there just is not the resources and time at home today for many parents to contribute significantly to their kids education ... so, if parents help, great but their help should not be built into the public school model ... look at booster clubs that use to buy the extras for sports teams and now are having to buy the equipment and maintain the fields ... as parents have gotten more involved, the school system has exited. So, for parents who are not going to help or are incapable of helping, the public should use public education to get their kids to be basic functioning citizens. I think that is all public education is capable of accomplishing with limited resources and mandate.
You have touch on so many different aspects
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:47 — duvalYou have touch on so many different aspects of a public system that it is hard to respond...
The wcpss has been helped considerably by the families who were able to lend a hand and get to the school to give support when needed...the booster clubs, the volunteers for tutoring, the fund raising, the volunteers for field trips,, etc...
The scarry aspects of the soon to be released but not yet planned future of our school system is that if there are schools with a high number of parents who are unable to meet these "extras" then these schools will not be able to compete with the schools who will be top heavy with the parental support system that we now mostly have system wide.
This is the core of the resistance to the yet to be revealed plan. Where will the support come from for the schools that are to be created in the high poverty zones?
I agree .. supporter of the
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 22:14 — user12345I agree .. supporter of the new plan seem so naive ... they seem to think that putting kids back in the ghetto and concentrating them in a few school will spark some kind of urban renew to support schools. Don't you think they will end up doing a "dump and run" ?
Ghetto?
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 08:20 — loriac' they seem to think that putting kids back in the ghetto...'
Where exactly is this ghetto in Raleigh you are referring to?
Now that would be a good question for the CCs - what are they doing the fix 'the ghetto' so that it's safe for kids to go to school there. After all, the kids have to live there too.
"the public should use public education to get their kids to be
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 20:53 — AngelaWbasic functioning citizens"
so, why then magnet schools and the extra funding that goes towards that?
As I have said before,
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 22:06 — user12345As I have said before, magnets are just an enticement to get affluent OTB whites to populate under capacity ITB minority schools to postpone having to build more OTB schools. The magnet just makes the inconveniences worthwhile. We don't care whether parents participate or not ... we just want their kids in certain seat in certain schools to postpone a capital cost.
I have always been confused on why people thing magnets cost more. When I count the number of teachers they seem to be similar regular and magnet schools.
I have always been confused
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 09:42 — jenmanSeems like that should
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 11:16 — user12345Seems like that should concern someone that magnets cost more but the number of teachers is not the issue ... the pay scale is set by the state ... so that is not it ... no bonuses for magnets teachers ... that is not it ... do magnets have better facilities ... no, the nice new schools are all OTB ... like I said , I am not sure who in the magnet is getting the extra money ... not the teachers or facility?? ... are the kids getting paid under the table :-)
what thread was it that
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 09:59 — carson79what thread was it that virginiadare asked you a long question and you were going to answer later? I had very similar concerns with your positions and wanted to read the reply. I've lost track of what blog post it was. Thanks!
Just happened to be reading
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 10:01 — magnetParentJust happened to be reading it:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/grilling-john-tedesco-and-dan-coleman-at-the-rwca-meeting#comment-186503
How many times are you going to repeat the same misconception?
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 00:09 — TrailerParkGirlThe ITB schools that would be undercapacity are those in the more affluent and white portion of ITB, not the minority schools as you refer to them. A number of those in the predominantly minority areas (both ITB and portions of OTB) would be the most overcapacity schools if everyone attended their most proximate school. See WEP analysis link.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=109065480600238693029.00047eddab95ea1381aea&z=10
I don't think he meant ALL
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 12:33 — carson79I don't think he meant ALL of the schools would be under utilized and minority - so I don't think it's that big of a deal that SOME (a number as you say) would be full - you are talking about Washington and Fuller right?
And he didn't say anything about OTB schools at all did he?
He said
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 14:27 — TrailerParkGirlHe said “magnets are just an enticement to get affluent OTB whites to populate under capacity ITB minority schools”
Looking at the WEP data, which magnet schools would be “under capacity ITB minority schools” – Powell, Bugg, Washington, Fuller - all hugely overcapacity under an “everyone goes to closest school” scenario. I’d throw in Brentwood too although technically OTB, it is pretty close to ITB. Schools that would be well under capacity ITB include Wiley, Joyner, York, Partnership and Underwood – are those “minority” schools/in predominantly minority areas?
Repeating misinformation does not help anything. A successful solution does not come from starting with misinformation.
I’ve already heard more than one misinformed magnet parent say to other uninformed people that she is benefiting the school system because she chose to send her precious angel to a school in the scary part of town and otherwise that school would be under capacity. Actually, that school would be way over capacity if not for the fact that the precious children that live in the part of town she’s afraid of are not allowed access to the magnet school in their neighborhood and the extra resources there and instead have to get on a bus not to another magnet school, but to a non-magnet school.
??York is not ITB and you
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 17:24 — carson79??York is not ITB is it? what about Hunter and Root?
You mention Underwood, Partnership, and a couple of others - I thought the WEP analysis included their F&R breakdown, but not race - is that not right? How would I know if they would be high minority based on a closest schools scenario?
I think what user is referring to is that those under utilized schools without a magnet program and under a neighborhood schools policy would likely become high minority as well.
York is not a magnet. It is
Wed, 09/22/2010 - 22:30 — NWRaleighMomYork is not a magnet. It is severely underenroleed, since part of its base has left for magnets.
I did not say York was a
Thu, 09/23/2010 - 10:00 — carson79I did not say York was a magnet, did I?
I said it was NOT ITB to correct TPG's understanding.
Me too
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 08:22 — loriacI'll have to go back to the principal at my kid's school and ask why we don't have the same electives as Enloe. After all, it's the same number of teachers.
Good ... and ask him why he
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 09:26 — user12345Good ... and ask him why he does not have the same expectations ... as a previous poster who has one kid at Enloe and one at Leesville said the difference is that Enloe gives more homework and has higher expectation for the students than Leesville .... and expectation are free ...
You can see that in the % of students who take AP classes and the % of those AP students who bother to take the test and get credit ...
# Different AP Courses Offered
# AP Enrollments
# Unique Students Enrolled in AP
# AP Tests
# Unique Students Taking AP Tests
Total Enrollment
% of Total Taking AP
% of AP Taking AP Test
Enloe
29
3019
1019
2018
824
2643
39%
81%
Green Hope
22
1560
633
1138
483
2006
32%
76%
Broughton
19
1067
624
751
405
2249
28%
65%
Panther Creek
19
1093
497
639
326
2194
23%
66%
HollySprings
16
593
345
352
213
1671
21%
62%
Wakefield
26
1238
558
717
361
2721
21%
65%
Wake All
37
16168
7281
9800
4849
37298
20%
67%
Athens Drive
19
801
353
514
246
1824
19%
70%
WFR
17
860
361
399
208
1872
19%
58%
Cary
19
749
332
422
219
1751
19%
66%
Leesville
18
849
437
503
280
2502
17%
64%
Apex
19
749
377
461
262
2201
17%
69%
Middle Creek
14
695
281
335
166
1697
17%
59%
Sanderson
18
714
300
349
179
1946
15%
60%
SE Raleigh
18
460
234
281
151
1637
14%
65%
Millbrook
17
627
301
418
200
2417
12%
66%
Fuquay-Varina
18
356
211
219
148
1843
11%
70%
Garner
14
357
213
113
72
2317
9%
34%
Knightdale
11
221
100
84
48
1807
6%
48%
Great stats.
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 10:10 — DrActualFactualCan you tell how many kids got a 3, 4 or 5 on the AP test? In an established HS one would expect to find teacher longevity which aids in student confidence to take a course and do well. If a student gets a teacher that is teaching the course for the first time, or is ill and will be gone for weeks out of a short block-scheduled class, they may not do well on the AP exam. I'm just saying that there may be valid reasons for a student to take a course and hope to do well but to have to alter their overall plan though it is no fault of their own.
I can understand problems
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:23 — user12345I can understand problems with any single AP course but the data is over thousands of students and hundreds of classes ... I know from my daughter's school that the kids know when they have not been prepared and don't waste the $85 taking the test. I wish they made a bigger deal of the teachers whose kids scored highest. I am betting we have some teachers in the system where all the kids score 5 which is extraordinary.
shared parenting?
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:07 — turnerk1What is shared parenting? I've not heard that term before.
After family fragmentation(millions families)..Shared Parenting
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 11:55 — ncsenate14HURLBURTis the continuation of the involvement(parental care) of the mother and the father in the lives of their children during the whole week, especially during the school week. As a State, that policy, legislated and advocated by our "family court industry" will start the process of recovering the $1.329 billion dollar budget vacuum of which could be used partially to strengthen our most struggling schools in our public school systems(though just shared parenting in and of itself will yield more positive outcomes in education as measured by dropout rates and graduation rates) It is a win/win for children, families and education...of which I am sure Phil or Lindy would jump at that chance locally when they see declining harms to children and the $$$ returning that are currently spent on reducing those harms. I have the data...name the time and place. Until shared parenting is instituted, we will all just be spinning our wheels spending tax money on reducing harms to children that can't be reduced by sole single parenthood.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
"I have the data...name the
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:39 — danofncWakeEd has the highest
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:14 — CaryCurmudgeonWakeEd has the highest readership of any N&O blog, why not post some specifics here. Which programs would you do away with to come up with the $1.329M. Just list a few so I can get a sense of where you're coming from. THanks.
Don't forget it is 1.329 BILLION per year in NC
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 14:11 — ncsenate14HURLBURTand it isn't "do away with" any programs, it is more of a realized savings/reduced need and in this forum we are discussing the actual reallocation of those resources/savings to public school systems. The public programs impacted are each and every one, local, state and federal, though some are more impacted than others. The more impacted programs are more dramatic in the change that will occur.
What happens at a public policy based on shared parenting is actual recognition of the root cause of why we spend as much as we do on programs aimed at reducing poverty/low income, programs aimed at incarceration and probation, programs aimed at low income healthcare/Medicaid, programs aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency, truancy, programs aimed at increasing graduation rates and reducing dropout rates, and programs aimed at increasing overall tax revenues through increased productivity of our economy etc.... All of these "REALIZED SAVINGS or REDUCED NEED" happens to a greater degree over the fabric of society and the taxpayer as more and more shared parenting is practiced. I have the specific numbers current to a recent previous calendar year available and will post the specifics later of each program "realized savings" that can be had. Regardless, it adds up to a conservative estimate of $1.329 Billion for North Carolina. Wouldn't we want to as a State spend that money more appropriately or have the option of returning it to the taxpayers or lowering taxes overall(better business climate/more jobs) than continuing to year after year after year forking it over to pay for the costs of harms to children that result from divorce and unwed child-bearing. Shared Parenting is the key to minimizing and reducing those harms to almost nonexistent and reducing the money we currently pay to correct those harms(of which the current correction does not work). It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two intimately involved parents.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Realized Savings/ Reduced Need data
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 22:23 — ncsenate14HURLBURTOver the whole U.S. the total is estimated to be $112 Billion dollars.
see....The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States---2008
Appendix B: Explaining the Methodology for State-Specific Costs
North Carolina's share is estimated to be $1.329 Billion dollars.
Estimates of State and Local Taxpayer Costs of Family Fragmentation (in millions)
State & Local Tax Burden...11%
Foregone Tax Revenue........$250
Justice System.....................$587
TANF.................................$59
Medicaid.............................$339
SCHIP................................$21
Child Welfare.......................$73
Total....................................$1,329
Shared Parenting realizes this savings by reducing the harms to children which reduces the need to spend already taxed and appropriated monies at the current levels. If the State, Judiciary and "family court industry" already forces parents to not share significant parenting time, what makes you think those same entities can not help create, expound, educate and enforce shared parenting plans? Follow the money. The most effective way to reduce middle class wealth in America is to engage the "family court industry". Phil, Lindy, WCPSS....the money is already there.
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Two suggestions: 1)
Tue, 09/21/2010 - 14:28 — danofncTwo suggestions:
1) Proofread
2) Mix in a few paragraphs/line breaks.