Wake County Democratic Party Chairman Mack Paul is calling Tuesday's election results "truly a victory for all of us in Wake" and "the beginning of the end of the Tea Party movement."
In an email message today to Democrats, Paul thanks his party members for their efforts in the school board races and the municipal elections. He also touts the success of the well-funded coordinated campaign that the party used this year to boost get-out-the-vote efforts for its candidates.
"Kevin Hill's victory seals the deal on the Wake County Board of Education," Paul writes. "For the first time in two years, we will have consensus driven, sensible, pragmatic, principled and experienced leaders in the majority. They will work to deliver plans and policies that make sense for all of our children."
Paul goes to say that their efforts this year "have provided a blueprint for 2012."
"Our victory last night showed that when Democratic candidates align themselves with the values of Wake County, including access to high quality education and prudent quality of life investments, they will succeed," Paul writes. "Republicans who adhered to an extreme national Tea Party agenda became easy targets. We can proudly say that our success in Wake County heralds the beginning of the end of the Tea Party movement."
Comments
Overblown reaction from Mack
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 21:02 — festusOverblown reaction from Mack Paul. This election was not a rejection of the Tea Party. It was a rejection of politics in the schools. People are tired of the divisiveness brought into the board by the members elected in 2009 and their boss man, Ron Margiotta. This is not a referendum on the parties or a straw poll for 2012. It is the two-years in the making reaction to the ridiculous partisanship of the 5-member majority on the board. Soon, this board will be boring and effective once again. And we can get back to talking about substantive issues (like how to close the achievement gap for poor kids) rather than pandering to a small fringe constituency (by talking about nonsense like "forced busing").
Yep, soon we'll be back to failing more kids
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 22:18 — FSandYOUdenying more children acceptance to magnet programs, dividing more communities, ignoring more parents and hearing more excuses about why we still don't have an assignment plan.
Just like the good ole days.
consensus-driven
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 16:00 — snordonewill be key here. We can continue to have an us vs. them school system, or we can work on consensus.
Consensus?
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 19:22 — concerned2Just remember, consensus to do the wrong thing will not make it right. Since when is "consensus" the goal? Why don't we try to do what's best for the children and families of Wake County while spending the taxpayer's money responsibly?
If it's the right idea, let's pursue that. If it's not, let's not settle for second-best for the sake of consensus! 1/3 of our students not graduating (1/2 of minorities) is unacceptable - and I don't care how we rank as compared to some other school district.
We have a world-class mess of a school system and the keystone cops that got us here over the last century are back in control of the Asylum. Look for the number of parents evacuating their children from WCPSS to increase.
The truth is that we have a
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:31 — virginiadareThe truth is that we have a graduation rate of 80% overall and 67% for African American males, and higher for African American females. Repeating over and over the lie that we fail to graduate 1/3 total and 1/2 minorities will not make it true.
look at the maps on the board of elections
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:18 — snordonefor D3. The upper tier is all blue, the rim is all green. I am a parent in D3 and what I see is that the upper tier does not want to be bused into Title I schools with no enrichment opportunities for their EOG proficient children, and the rim is terrified that without SES balance their schools will become high poverty. The solution, in my opinion, is to deal with our reality. We don't want segregated schools. We don't want to send our kids to bare bones schools with nothing but the basics. We don't want our kids on a bus for an hour each way. We don't want our ED kids to continue to fall through the cracks. The Right ignored the value system of this community - we want integration, not segregation. The Left ignored the value that high income parents place on education and their desire for strong, enriching educational environments. You are correct - if we don't deal with our reality we will continue to have more charter and private schools. They will flee and our schools will become higher poverty, but it will be our own fault for not listening.
Amen, Snoredone
Sat, 11/12/2011 - 10:42 — raleighlauraWho do you think is prepared to deal with this reality? Do you think Tata gets it?
here's some more realities to ponder
Fri, 11/11/2011 - 01:36 — EBDarcyAccording to the Repubs on the board and the WTA we don't want a tax increase. Losurdo thought she'd find enough waste to make up for the loss of fed stimulus funds next year. And we have leaders on the state and local level who are openly anti-public education. That's our reality
How do you think we will pay for something beyond bare bones? Language teachers? literacy coaches? Schools closer to all kids? We have had three years of declining per student spending and the admin audit Broad payed for showed we don't have much fat to cut at the top. That is one of the outgoing majority's biggest failures in the eyes of many. Ron provided political cover for his BOC buddies to the detriment of our students.
I was heartened to see people in the next county over approving a quarter cent tax increase for education.
I agree about increased funding
Fri, 11/11/2011 - 10:33 — snordoneto public schools, but I also know that there are problems in the funding formulas that can be fixed to make sure our schools are equitable in terms of resources and opportunity. And importantly, Kevin knows this and he knows these things should be fixed (this is our one and probably only point of agreement). There were a series of conversations after Tony got here and it was Kevin who initiated the discussion. I was on the emails back and forth (I am not sure why, other than I provided him with a breakdown of the resources in D3 by school), but because of the dysfunction of the group interactions the conversation shut down. Raising taxes will be inevitable, but so is stopping the mismanagement of the resources. It is insane to support one without the other because the problem will just get worse.
snordone
Sat, 11/12/2011 - 10:26 — EBDarcyOn this we can agree. We need more resources and we need to use all resources wisely. Unfortunately there are people in positions of influence who will fight any funding increase.
And on that WE agree
Sat, 11/12/2011 - 11:10 — FSandYOUThe repub CC's won't bow down to Evans, Martin and/or Billy Barber. The first time Evans or Martin smart off to the CC's I would expect to see a reduction in the funding they hand over.
we can't ask for a blank check
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 08:10 — snordoneThat would result in no increase in funding. BUT we can ask for an increase in funding for specific things - ***number 1 should be literacy. Part of that should be scaffolding in Spanish for our LEP children. Number 2 should be equity in programming - while the ITB magnets need more to keep parents coming into those schools, all schools should have at least 1 foreign language and full time IRTs, specials teachers, technology teachers and AIG.
Things we must promise to improve would include reform of the federally funded SES after school program. It is a giant waste of money that does more harm than good. We need to get the feds to approve the use of our own Title I specialist and AIG teachers to provide remediation or enrichment, whatever that individual ED child needs. Next we must promise to retain the best and and most effective school leaders and teachers, provide professional development for those who are not working well for students, and remove those who after PD are still not performing.
We need to commit to doing better and stop making excuses. Lack of money is an excuse.
It'll be interesting
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 14:18 — Dove314The Broad group leans conservative yet could not identify "fat" that could be cut. Mr. Farr is strongly conservative yet could not identify significant waste in legal fees. What is the figure we're quoted as losing, $30 million in funding? I strongly concur there is need to maintain the current level of funding much less back slide. And improvements are necessary. And while we can (and should) change the things we can, we are going to have to recognize that we may have some very hard choices imposed in the 2012-2013 calendar year.
So...
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 15:37 — Bob_SconceWhy does being conservative mean that you have some special skill to find "fat"? It's true that conservatives generally want government to do less, but that doesn't give us any special "waste-seeking" ability.
Further, the Farr audit had a number of good suggestions which, IMO, were discounted too quickly. Here's a big one: the district needs a general counsel--somebody with an office in the adminstration building, a couple of doors up from Tata's. Why? Because, without one, the district will experience some legal catastrophe that could have been avoided by having a GC. I don't know what it will be, or when it will happen, but it is inevitable. And, in the aftermath, somebody will say "you know, if we had had our own lawyer here everyday, this wouldn't have happened." That happened with auditors and the transportation parts embezzlement case; it'll happen with lawyers and some future legal case.
[Yes, I recognize lawyers are expensive and money is tight.]
"Conservative"
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 18:17 — Dove314Being conservative does not convey any particular skill at finding fat. Quite often, it is as with the Broad example where little "fat" is found. As you have noted in the past, it is mostly just a standard justification, whether true or not, for why taxes should not ever be raised except on expenses "blessed" by conservatives. Education doesn't fall in that "blessed" category for many conservatives.
Unfortunately...
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 22:47 — Bob_SconceEducation doesn't fall in that "blessed" category for many conservatives.
And, that's something that drives me nuts about some conservatives -- the core principle is federalism: the federal government's role is proscribed and most government power is best exercised by the states. And, that explains wanting to get rid of the federal Department of Education -- it interferes with what should be the domain of states. But, the fllip side is that you should support state involvement in education. Heck, North Carolina even has a right to an education enshrined in its constitution -- how on earth can a conservative have a principled position that says "we should follow the federal constitution, and keep the federal government out of education, but NOT follow the state constitution when it involves the states in education"? That's not a political philosophy; it's just an anti-public-education philosophy.
[Doesn't mean they have to support the current implementation of public schools; they just can't oppose public funding of education generally.]
Excuses or not
Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:36 — FSandYOUThere is no more money and won't be for years to come.
They can ask all they wish, and I have NO doubt they will, with their arrogant tone, but to receive it is something else. I don't see them getting anything additional and fully expect with what's coming for all budgets, now that the band-aids are falling off, they will get less this next time around.
Consensus
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 19:26 — Dove314Consensus is important because what is "right" for you may not be "right" for others. Just as what may be "right" for others may be objectionable to you. But we all live here together and share the education system. As a result, if we can do our best in a way that seems the best both for an to the majority of parents and children, then there is no minority trying to impose their will on others.
Explain to me
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 23:47 — concerned2how allowing 1/3 of our students to fail to graduate is "right"? How are children served by being on a bus for 1 hour and 45 minutes?
Sure, let's get "consensus" on what color to paint the walls, but when it comes to actually educating children effectively, "right" becomes just a bit more narrowly defined.
I don't think it's "right" to sacrifice our childrens' education just to get along.
Not so fast
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 08:06 — Dove314First, lets start with accurate statistics. You can't get the right solution if you haven't correctly identified the true scope of the problem. The overall graduation rate is higher than 66-67%, nearer to 80% for the most recent year available. But the overall graduation rate is misleading as the rate is much lower in some subgroups and much higher in others. So the focus needs to be on how many options are available to help those subgroups that have the lower graduation rates and which ones might work best in WCPSS. Then there is the subtext of how things like middle school math placement bias extends forward to influence the graduation rate. So what are you saying -- there is only the Tedesco way to improve overall graduation rates? Or is anyone welcome to help with EDSATF?
In terms of bus rides, again, isn't shorter bus rides one of the goals of the new student assignment plan which is set to be implemented in 2012-2013? So many here have noted it will then become a choice whether to make that long bus ride or not. Are you saying that Tata's new plan should not be optimized for all (not just those supporting either the minority or the majority) to meet the needs of as many students in WCPSS as possible? How do you do that if you don't try to invite consensus?
Tedesco isn't dead or gone, nor are Supt. Tata. But, within the administration, Burns, Delaney, Hargens, and that other guy are. The administration is being reorganized by Tata, presumably in part to be more transparent. I think the opportunity for transparent public consensus has never been greater. The question is whether people are willing to get down off their ideology and get in the trenches to find and implement those options that work instead of argue and, in the end, do nothing.
here is my concern
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:26 — snordoneWe will again bury our failures by focusing on school-level data. Our ED kids will be bused to non-Title I schools where they don't receive the resources the federal government provides for them. They will continue to be tracked low and away from college. We will deny there is racial or SES prejudice in AIG placement and math placement. But we will look good again.
I argued with Keith Sutton about this a few months ago. The democrats never asked for the data, so they never saw it, so it did not exist. Maybe Christine will demand the truth, I hope so. Or maybe Kevin will prevent anymore bad press. I don't know.
Snordone...
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:51 — JanisTangoDo you know why WCPSS handles the Title I resources the way they do? I've stated before my mother was a traveling Title I teacher and so were all the other Title I teachers she worked with. The kids that needed the help and qualified got it regardless of which school they were in. We have traveling AG teachers in this county. I don't like the fact that there are kids in non Title I schools that qualify and could benefit from the extra resources that don't get the extra help.
I personally would like to advocate for WCPSS to change how they do their Title I allocation, but I don't have the background for why they do it the way they do.
I don't know
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 12:49 — snordonePolicy 6200 was meant to level the playing field in terms of resources vs need at every school. So I think that maybe there was a belief that we don't need Title I dollars if schools are balanced and there are only a handful of low achieving children. But money is spent in a discretionary way. Principals decide how to spend the money if it is not Title I/federal money. So they can hire a band teacher before hiring a literacy coach. And that is what has happened. Tim Simmons is 100% dead-on-the-money when he said we need to focus on school leaders (and to be honest, we said that 2 years ago in a N&O op ed). We need principals to spend the money on all children. And Title I funds must follow the child, not go to the school. And we can allocate literacy teachers and math coaches to schools on certain days if necessary so there is no lost time traveling.
How effective is a traveling
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 11:11 — starsonoursHow effective is a traveling teacher? Part of the day is spent traveling instead of teaching.
It Would Depend...
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 13:18 — JanisTangoOur AG teacher is currently assigned to our school 2 days a week and to another school 3 days. She is very effective. Her time is allocated based on the AG needs at the two schools. I would think if we had a similar arrangement with our Title I teachers that would be workable.
In my mother's case, she spent one day each week at different schools except in the case where she had paperwork or testing to do. She might travel to multiple schools in a given day if that was required. For the rest of the time she had her schedule and she would get up and go to work like normal....it would just happen to be at a different school each day.
The multiple schools in one
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 13:27 — starsonoursThe multiple schools in one day would be when they are less effective and losing teaching time due to travel time. It would be interesting to see if most are on a day at school x a day at school y or mornings at school x and afternoon at school y. I have seen it both ways.
Tata and JT
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 10:41 — Dove314It is great to be concerned and vigilant. But do you think either Tata or JT would be on board with that?
If you talk to any...
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:15 — bpuli9999republican, they will tell you that consensus is for the weak minded.
consensus?
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 16:47 — FSandYOUNever gonna happen in this county.
48% want stability and respect and 52% want Evans, Martin, Barber and the others who live in their time warp.
60.1% - 39.9%, not 52%-48%
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 20:35 — chaboardThe five Dems combined for 44,344 votes, their opponents combined for 29,390.
And Barber wasn't on the ballot....
Statistically misleading.
Thu, 11/10/2011 - 03:23 — jeffrey1Statistically misleading. See:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/election-results-draw-cheers-from-democratic-board-members-and-jeers-from-gop-board-members#comment-243770
Not my point
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 20:41 — FSandYOUbut I didn't expect you to get it.
Barber was on the ballot. Under the names Evans, Martin and Hill. The 4th lady I can't recall. She's the NEW Carolyn Morrison.
With the NEW Fab FIVE!
And depending on which day with Goldman, maybe Fab SIX there chaaaaaaaaaaaaabored.
I tend to agree. I am not
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:12 — woodstockI tend to agree. I am not sure how one overcomes the enormous philosophical gulf that exists. The go-where-we-tell-you-to-go approach and choice are very far apart.
The republicans expect...
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:11 — bpuli9999everyone to behave like them. Maybe the new majority should do what the previous majority did for the past two years. But for the betterment of the system being the difference.
No, Republicans do not want
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:19 — woodstockNo, Republicans do not want everyone to behave like them. Republicans -- or, rather conservatives (can't speak for some who call themselves Republicans) -- respect "individual freedom" and believe everyone should behave as they please as long as it is legal and does not impinge on the rights of others. Within WCPSS that translates to "choice," which honors the right of parents to decide what is best for their children.
another problem is how they define "consensus"
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:14 — Jackson_TybeeRepublicans tend to define consensus as "you agree with me" or it's a no go.
As we are seeing...
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:16 — bpuli9999at the national level.
How so? Please explain.
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 17:20 — woodstockHow so? Please explain.
Current Board
Wed, 11/09/2011 - 16:01 — HereWeGoHave you told this to the current board?