A new study about Montgomery County schools in Maryland could add some fuel to the fight over socioeconomic integration in Wake County schools.
As reported in the Washington Post, a study coming out today shows that low-income students in Montgomery County performed better when they attended affluent elementary schools instead of ones with higher concentrations of poverty. At 144,000 students, Montgomery County is only slightly larger than Wake County.
The study tracked the performance of 858 elementary students in public housing scattered across Montgomery from 2001 to 2007. About half the students ended up in schools where less than 20 percent of students qualified for subsidized meals. Most others went to schools where up to 60 percent of the students were poor and where the county had poured in extra money.
After seven years, the children in the lower-poverty schools performed eight percentage points higher on standardized math tests than their peers attending the higher-poverty schools - even though the county had targeted them with extra resources. Students in these schools scored modestly higher on reading tests, but those results were not statistically significant.
As the article notes, Montgomery County has been uncommonly aggressive in seeking to improve the performance of students in schools with higher poverty.
It has divided the county into a high-performing, more-affluent green zone and a high-needs red zone, where schools receive about $2,000 more in per-pupil funding. And yet, the low-income students in the study performed better in the green-zone schools.
There really hasn't been an equivalent study done in Wake County. The school district did try a study several years ago but said it was inconclusive. Later attempts by school board member Ron Margiotta before he was elected chairman to request such as study went nowhere.
All this is taking place before tomorrow's Great Schools in Wake Coalition forum in which nationwide and statewide studies are likely to be discussed to pitch the benefits of socioeconomically diverse schools.
UPDATE
The study was done by the Century Foundation, which has been an outspoken supporter of socioeconomic diversity in school assignment. Click here to view the report.
Comments
off topic: on the subject of equity and AP courses
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 14:27 — mbgjwaltersI just exchanged email with Dr Hargens and she said the information about AP courses presented at the last Student Assignment Committee meeting was not accurate. The high school team is working to correct the information and will provide an update.
I compiled a list of the AP courses offered by each school in their school catalogue and checked it against the AP exam schedule for several schools (not all schools had the exam schedule available).
The list of AP courses by school is available here:
http://barbarastakeonwake.blogspot.com/2010/10/ap-courses-at-wcpss-high-schools.html
Thank you ... the numbers
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 21:41 — user12345Thank you ... the new numbers seemed like a big change from what was previously reported ... I was surprised to see Holly Springs fall to the bottom with only 12 classes offered ... hopefully, that is a typo.
EVAAS data about Wake Schools.
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 00:15 — SDR256Holy Cow.
I can see why the previous system didn't want the public to know the truth. There is no rhyme or reason to it because when you see the EVAAS data for schools its clear - ITS NOT THE KIDS!
Kids do great in great programs. Its shown in the data, even when there is (gasp!) high F&R - as in Brentwood (@77%) they have high EVAAS achievement. Great programs, great leaders, great teachers, kids achieve. (oh, and look at that: a high F&R school and the teachers are staying. Imagine that..)
And kids do not do great in mediocre programs, regardless of fantabulous public perception. Very popular and widely discussed "SchoolABC" (sorry folks, its not up to me to reveal it...this will hopefully be Keung's job) - where the F&R is 22%, and yet all category of kids are not meeting expectations.
Lots of surprising examples which show that
ITS NOT THE KIDS
It doesn't matter if they come from poor or affluent backgrounds, they will succeed or fail to expectations, depending on their school's teaching and leadership environment.
Once this EVAAS data is released - please clamor for it!! or they will not need to release it --- for schools, you'll see that the picture they have wanted to paint is completely hollow.
How is your school REALLY doing? Ask for the EVAAS data for your school.
As I have mentioned here in
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 14:03 — willynillyAs I have mentioned here in many posts, it really is the classroom teacher, not the kids...F&R, low SES......the teacher has to have a clear vision of what they wnat the kids to do and them move towards that vision. If a teacher has not to jump through the hoops of PBS, differentiation (as defined by the school systems), inquiry, AVID, etc etc etc and simply TEACH then the kids can learn. Unfortunately for teachers this mess of going through 6 or 7 steps before a teacher can refer a student to the office is rediculous. Not that effort should not be made, but refusing to deal with a student (as an administrator) because you cannot get a parent on the phone (phone disconnected, the work number shows that no one knows who the person is, no parent involvement at all) is useless. I have worked with administartors who send a student home suspended until the parent accompanies the student to school for a meeting.
Reminds me of a conversation
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 14:38 — jenmanReminds me of a conversation I just had with my sister in law. She teaches 6th grade lang arts at a very high poverty school in a very high poverty district--about 80% for both. She is in her 6th year of teaching and said that she doesn't think she can do this as a career for 30 years. It's not the kids, their poverty level or the baggage they bring to school from their tough home lives. It's the bureaucratic nonsense that she has to deal with. It's the brick walls that she hits when she tries to give the kids what they need each year.
She said she can understand why some teachers just give up, become lazy and are happy to just ride out the rest of their careers knowing that they can never be fired. She'll never do that and I suspect that she'll be switching careers within 4 years if things don't change. It's such a shame because I think she's an amazing teacher but I can understand. She'd rather leave than just phone it in year after year.
The in-fighting at the BOE
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 15:23 — user12345The in-fighting at the BOE is very detrimental to teachers who wonder what the future will hold ... teachers are being laid off and rehired each year, no-fewer TAs, calendars are changing, training comes and goes, and there is more and more "accountability" with less and less resources. There is so much more Ron and team could be working on besides zones to improve schools and help teachers.
I just saw the movie
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 16:06 — loriacI just saw the movie 'Waiting for Superman', and it really put this in perspective.
Everyone shares some blame in not making education for ALL kids the top priority. And, no, I do not think we have an award winning system that we need to just tweak.
If it isn't public knowledge
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 07:51 — Dove314If the data are not public knowledge, then how is it that you have seen the data? Why can't you share the data you've seen? If the data are important, why don't you publicize them? Otherwise, this is just innuendo.
Achievement is important. You say it isn't the kids. What do you think is the problem(s)? As the poster below note, do you ascribe achievement issues to be the fault of the teachers? Do you think the issues come down to just one cause or does an individual child have achievement issues for a unique set of their own circumstances? Leaving assignment out of the discussion (because children can do well at any school), what actions beyond EVAAS would you like to see WCPSS employ to raise achievement for all children? for those who below grade level? within a given school?
it is real
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 20:43 — snordoneI have seen the data too. A friend of mine requested them and Michael Evans said that "they are not ready to release the data," and denied her request. My hope is that they are eventually made public because the data clearly show that F&R has nothing to do with whether or not children are successful (probably why they don't want to release them). Resources are clearly a factor, Brentwood is an excellent school where are children are exceeding their expected academic growth, but this is a magnet and a Title I school. Leadership clearly matters, and whether or not the principal is data-driven or not. The schools that we know are using data for math placement are clearly getting children to meet and exceed their expected academic achievement. Literacy is a problem in most of our schools, and science is terrible across the board.
one more thing Dove
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 21:25 — snordonethey are called EVAAS school level performance diagnostic reports, you should ask to see them for every school, every grade, every subject. They show whether or not children in levels I-IV met, exceeded or did not meet their expected academic growth. These bar graphs show the current year in blue and the average of the last 3 years in yellow, with a green reference line representing the expected academic growth. I suggested to Keung a month ago that he should request them (after the LA Times article broke), he said he would think about it.
I personally think that public pressure is the best pressure, and if parents and tax payers knew how we were really doing our central office would have to immediately deal with our lack of academic achievement. They would have to take a look at our budget and whether or not they were providing resources where they are needed. They would have to do a cost-to-benefit analysis of our magnet offerings. And they would have to ask whether Title I funds should go to the children they are intended to help, or to a school as a whole. They would have to offer professional development and data training. As of right now central office can continue on the same useless path because they have no pressure to do better. Everything is hidden. Who knows, maybe our new superintendent will care about academic achievement.
Whom do we ask, the guidance
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 00:32 — DrActualFactualWhom do we ask, the guidance counselor, principal, the data manager?
So...
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:27 — Bob_SconceYou ought to be able to ask the communications department in the central office. There are some things that they're not allowed to release (individualized student records, for example), but they have to release almost everything else. Or face a public-records lawsuit.
Just ask
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 01:24 — SDR256I'm not sure. Wake County is new to EVAAS and visa versa. But what I have seen - at the school level - everyone needs to see.
It is definitely available for individual student data by asking your principal. To see the data for the school as a whole, not sure - I suggest your principal. Just ask for it and keep asking! There are some parents whose children are attending 'good' schools, who are really not producing students at expected achievement levels.
Just make sure your child is at expected achievement level, and if not find out why this school isn't teaching them.
The overarching data shows its not the students.
Use of EVAAS
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 08:10 — lferreriIt's my understanding that the data available from EVAAS will be used to evaluate teachers and schools under Race to the Top, replacing the use of the Effectiveness Index in Wake County. It will also apparently be the basis for awarding bonuses to teachers whose students meet or exceed their predicted performance levels. (There's an interesting discussion of the impact of the switch from the Effectiveness Index to EVAAS on barbarastakeonwake.blogspot.com.) Do you know if the individual school level data will also be made available to the public?
Why are you on such a
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 02:44 — aquaman4life68Why are you on such a vicious "witch hunt" for the teachers! Dang! No wonder we can't produce enough teachers from universities these days. If they read this blog, we would be lucky to get ANY new teachers.
Agree
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 07:58 — Dove314On this we agree. If the choice were WCPSS or some other system without all the drama for an equivalent salary, why would anyone choose WCPSS these days? We have collectively created a serious disincentive for bright and talented new teachers to come here. There are frequent posts about how the teachers themselves are a problem, how the administration treats teachers poorly, the teachers should give more of their own time outside of the standard school day to focus on teaching during the school day, teachers haven't adopted new systems fast enough, pay is mostly frozen, the system is in flux, the BoE is fighting amongst themselves, the Superintendent position is open with the last one having resigned. WCPSS would have a red flag as "only if no one else will hire me" for most of us.
it is not the teachers
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 20:48 — snordoneThe problem is in central office and in E&R. The use of the effectiveness index has lead our teachers to believe they were doing just fine, when in reality they were not meeting expected gains in achievement. If I was a teacher I would be furious and feel completely manipulated. I know that the vast majority of our teachers and principals want to do the best for the children in their schools. I see how hard they work. I volunteered at our school's book fair this week and one of our librarians was working with me. She knew EVERY child by name, knew their reading level, and helped them find books that challenged them and interested them. She was amazing.
We have excellent teachers and some excellent principals, but as everyone knows, we have lacked central office leadership for years. And is shows.
I would have to dispute your
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 21:26 — virginiadareI would have to dispute your contention that "everyone knows" as I have personally spoken with principals and teachers from schools all over the county, as well as other community, state, and education leaders who would disagree 100% with your statement about central office leadership!
If you are talking to principals and teachers
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 07:48 — snordoneas a parent then of course they will tell you all is well. Year after year we were told that Wake was a great district, and year after year we got farther behind in what matters - academic achievement. I have yet to hear someone who is involved in Wake Ed policy who thinks that we had decent leadership. At national education meetings (where people know what matters) we are a joke because of all our bluffing and posturing. We did not get our magnet grant because a reviewer actually looked at our academic achievement!
Take a look at our cultural beliefs (effectiveness index) and policies and academic achievement. Then look at CMS, read the 3 page article about their superintendent in Newsweek last week, read the Washington Post and the LA Times and the NY Times - understand where education is going. Has anyone stepped up to take Wake in the right direction (i.e. where all children learn)??? NO. We have focused on ONE thing - where kids go to school. We have wasted another year talking about this. We can reassign kids to different schools every year in the name of diversity, or we can go to complete neighborhood schools - nothing will change until we focus on fixing our schools.
well maybe you aren't asking
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 21:32 — AngelaWwell maybe you aren't asking the right questions.
So...
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:40 — Bob_SconceSurely, some teachers are part of the problem. We all can remember when we had truly lousy teachers. It's disingenuous to say that they don't exist, especially in a district the size of WCPSS. Unfortunately, some of them are probably not from lack of effort -- we probably have a number of very hard-working teachers who are just bad at teaching. It may be that they can be easily trained to be good teachers (but, to do so, you'd have to at least identify them), or it may be that they can't -- there may be just something innate in certain people that makes them bad teachers (maybe they can't control their tempers, perhaps).
Don't get me wrong -- as a whole, teaching is under-appreciated; it's not paid as well as it should, teachers (especially in public schools) have duties imposed on them that should not be imposed on professionals (lunch-room duty? Puh-leeze), and teachers often give a lot of unpaid time. There are lots of heroes among teachers. But, they're not all heroes, and it does our students no favors to lift those undeserving teachers on pedastals.
Multiple factors
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 17:27 — Dove314I agree that there are probably some teachers who are not as effective. But there appear to be many more problems than whether a teacher is effective or not (e.g. maybe a teacher is effective with a class size of 15 but not 30; whether they have textbooks for their classes, etc.) before even introducing circumstances like what proportion of their class can read at grade level; whether the principal or the administration can correctly discern an effective teacher or not; what resources they have available; how supportive the administration is. Maybe more importantly, how do you make WCPSS an attractive option for new or experienced teachers to replace those you "weed out" while at the same time always tearing teachers down and making them the fall guy for student performance issues amongst all the other chaos surrounding WCPSS?
Thank Dulaney.
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:31 — DrActualFactualThere are great teachers within WCPSS and we were lucky enough to get a few over the years. We also got a lot of rookies but in a system this large someone has to. It would be nice if the system had a way to look at the student and ensure that their entire educational experience wasn't comprised of only or predominantly only rookie teachers. Rookie teachers bring youth and enthusiasm to the table and young kids really respond to that. They may also bring different/varying methods and practices of teaching that their peer teachers may benefit from. Veteran teachers bring experience, knowledge and NC system knowledge to the table which is also important to success. I look at the use of EVAAS as a way to expand and target for future growth and success for the individual student thus helping the teachers in identifying the challenges correctly. That said, Chuck Dulaney was the one who said publicly that teachers are the reason for Wake's downfall and poor performance in regard to math--quite a maligning from someone within the system. I don't agree with him and would rather he taken responsibility for the systems use of EI but he did not do so.
I guess Dulaney would also
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 13:46 — aquaman4life68I guess Dulaney would also out the other side of his mouth say his wife was a great administrator...which she wasn't. She was about the worst you could get, treated her staff like crap and did nothing to help moral at the school and do nothing to help the feelings of parents. Dulaney is a prime example of what's wrong, if he said something like this, he is the issue, people like him. Admin. without a clue of what's needed, but of course let's blame the people digging the ditches for the problems, that they help create. The man makes me sick and I'm glad he is no longer a part of this school system. People have got to get off this "EVAAS" kick, you use a computer program and numbers to judge people, you are going to shoot yourself in the foot eventually. When you are left with the very people you wanted to get rid of in the first place.
The Effectiveness Index
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 21:39 — AngelaWThe Effectiveness Index violates federal and state mandates as well as Race to the Top requirements. It produces inaccurate and misleading results which are inconsistent with the state's results. It incorrectly asseses the effectiveness of school programs and teachers. As long as WCPSS uses the Effectiveness index, principals and teachers will receive conflicting information about the student growth in their classrooms.
The use of the Effectiveness Index should be discontinued immediately. Our teachers and principals deserve to receive the highest quality information possible. Why is Wake County jeopardizing their bonuses ?
http://barbarastakeonwake.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-wake-county-is-jeopardizing.html
From what I understand
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 19:44 — lferreri"People have got to get off this "EVAAS" kick, you use a computer program and numbers to judge people, you are going to shoot yourself in the foot eventually."
From what I understand, a computer program and numbers are already being used to "judge people" (teachers and schools). The change is in the way the standards are being set. Currently, the system is using the Effectiveness Index to predict how well students should do while the new system will use EVAAS. Both the EI and EVAAS use student predictions to make judgments. The difference is in how the predictions are made.
What? When did Dulaney
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 13:18 — virginiadareWhat? When did Dulaney ever say anything like that? And he had absolutely nothing to do with EI! Why should he take responsibility for that?
Chuck brought Ruby Payne to Wake
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 21:02 — snordoneThat lovely poverty program that advocated for breaking the ties of children from their families, their church, their community. He is the architect of our node system that moved kids when they failed to achieve. And he supported the use of the EI in that he never spoke out against it. He has an EdD, he knows what normalization is, he knows what the implications are when you deny a child educational opportunities. They (Del, Chuck, David H.) are all guilty. They all tried to suppress the SAS Response. I have an email from Del in which he cc'd all of them, and Kevin Hill, when I asked him what he was going to do about the SAS Response and all that it revealed about our system (this email is dated 2 weeks before the media requested it and it was released). His response was brief - I will take your concern under advisement. They had no intention of addressing our problems, they had all intentions of hiding the report. Similarly, they were all aware of what the math collaborative found 5 years ago, that ED children were being denied access to higher level math classes. They did NOTHING for 5 years.
I know that those of you who support diversity want to believe that these guys are pure of heart. But understand, the intent of policy 6200 and how it was executed were completely different. They could care less about the academic achievement of ED children. They ignored it for years. I talked to holdzkom in his office about this 2 years ago, I told him point blank that I thought that the EI was immoral. He yelled at me, and I left. And he kept using it.
I think that most of you are good, concerned, caring people - please wake up to our reality and help us help these children.
Mr. Dulaney was a speaker
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 15:02 — DrActualFactualMr. Dulaney was a speaker for GSIW along with Lori Millberg and some teacher rep. lady (sorry I don't recall her name). He blamed the downfall of math placements on "bigoted teachers" to be precise. There are previous posts that substantiate this--it is what he said regrettable though it may be. I realize he did not design the EI program but he collected info and made decisions based on its use so IMO he knew or should have known and understood its programming/workings in order to carry out their ER roles and research.
Dulaney did assignment, not
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 17:25 — virginiadareDulaney did assignment, not research. David Holtzkom does research and defended the EI.
"Dulaney did assignment, not
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 21:29 — Apexter"Dulaney did assignment, not research. David Holtzkom does research and defended the EI."
Dulaney was in Evaluation & Research before taking over reassignment/growth management when Ramey Beavers retired.
Two peas in the At Risk model pod
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 13:40 — TrailerParkGirlThey were just in charge of different pieces of the At Risk model pie and Burns was over the whole pie.
EI goes against federal guidelines, Race To The Top guidelines and state legislation approved related to Race To The Top, so why don't they want to let go of it? Because it made their policy and model appear more effective than it was. Dulaney and Burns needed the cover provided by DH and his EI (I don't care who orginally came up with it, as you point out DH has been the defender of it) and those that support the former policy continue to need it.
I'm quite familiar with
Sun, 10/17/2010 - 10:55 — DrActualFactualI'm quite familiar with Dulaney's assignments and reassignments. I realize Holdscum headed up E&R. I thought Dulaney's last title put him in as Del's right-hand man, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps you are right and Dulaney did not look at any of the research from E&R when making his node reassignment decisions (some would like to think they were data driven.) Many folks around the county and those that blog here have said principals give up/suggest nodes for movement based on their undesirability or that BOE members past and present give priority to donors and/or powerful ITB interests in regard to reassignment. Dulaney was paid well, if he used no E&R info (F&R or achievement evaluation assessments) in making decisions than we should have just let a monkey throw darts at a map of nodes--it would have been more equitable.
...
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 15:30 — SideburnsDoc, if you are referring to the Cary forum, I was there and heard the same thing. I wouldn't swear to the term "bigoted teachers" but his implication was that it was the teachers' faults. He then pretended to claim he had no idea where this attitude had come from or what could be done to change it.
I was shocked to hear him be
Sat, 10/16/2010 - 15:56 — DrActualFactualI was shocked to hear him be that critical of his own staff/side/comrades. I know there was a tutor in the crowd and I can't imagine how disappointing and disheartening this must have been to him.
To See
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 15:17 — gregishere"To see what is front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
-- George Orwell
Keep struggling. Maybe you'll be able to see it.
"He who rejects change is
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 15:23 — CaryCurmudgeon"He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery." -- Harold Wilson
I'm not up for a quote-off
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 17:19 — gregishereJust popped in to pop off. I will say, though, that, after being out of the thick of it for a few weeks, coming home to the good news of The Goldman Saga, was, well, quite groovy for the children (and the taxpayers). Rock on Curmudgeon, and shine on, you crazy diamond.
See you on your next trip to
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 17:23 — CaryCurmudgeonSee you on the dark side of the moon.
You guys are creeping me
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 17:36 — jenmanYou guys are creeping me out. Wake me up before you go go.
won't leave you hanging on
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 18:19 — CaryCurmudgeonwon't leave you hanging on like a yo-yo.
AArrgh! You made me recite Wham! lyrics!
Mr. Hui???? I called both
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 13:49 — DrActualFactualMr. Hui???? I called both numbers listed on the report to inquire as to who commissioned the report but all I got was voicemail. Did they provide any info on who funded the study and who requested it be done in the paperwork provided to you? (I don't know if newspapers get more detail up front as to sources.) TIA
I really don't have any
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 14:24 — KeungHui (author)I really don't have any additional info.
Thanks for posting the
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 14:40 — DrActualFactualThanks for posting the article and the paper, I can't decide which I think is more interesting. The grad student/author noted that the poor students studied had stability at the low poverty school/neighborhood which was crucial for the outcome. I think Wake has a much higher turnover of impoverished people moving around within both neighborhoods and schools.
Century Foundation, ie.
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 13:48 — CaryCurmudgeonCentury Foundation, ie. Richard Kahlenberg. I'll read the study.
Few comments:
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 13:40 — Bob_Sconce(1) Montomery county does not bus for diversity, so its results indicate that schools should bus for diversity? Strange.
(2) Note this quote from the study:
those children in public housing who attended schools where as many as 35 percent of students who qualified for a free or reduced price meal performed no better academically over time than public housing children who attended schools where 35 to 85 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal.
Even if you assume that you could export the study's findings to Wake County, this pretty much means that Wake simply cannot accomplish these same results without a massive reassignment.
(3) The study doesn't show why Wake County's schools don't have similar results.
(4) The study doesn't talk about the effect of the neighborhood where the kids live, in comparison to the effect of the school. In fact,
Children in public housing benefitted academically from living in low-poverty neighborhoods, but less from attending low-poverty schools.
I have to read through it more. I'm disappointed that she didn't publish her raw data, especially since many of her graphs show straight lines wheere there should obviously be clouds.
Neighborhood schools
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 13:39 — Eric_BIn Montgomery County schools, low income students attending their neighborhood school in public housing located in more affluent areas did better than low income students attending their neighborhood school in public housing located in less affluent locations.
How is this comparable to the way student assignment is done in Wake County? If anything this should be impetus for our municipal leaders to enact more inclusionary zoning to make sure affordable housing is available throughout the county. I don't see how it is relevant to student assignment.
so this compares to Wake County how?
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:41 — AngelaWMuch less known is the fact that it operates the nation’s oldest and by far the largest inclusionary zoning program—a policy that requires real estate developers to set aside a portion of the homes they build to be rented or sold at below-market prices. The zoning stipulation has caused the production of more than 12,000 moderately priced homes in the county since 1976. Similar inclusionary zoning policies have since spread to over one hundred high-cost housing markets in California; Massachusetts; New Jersey; New York City; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Denver and Boulder, Colorado; the greater Washington, D.C., metro area; and Burlington, Vermont, among other places.5
A singular feature of Montgomery County’s zoning policy is that it allows the public housing authority, the Housing Opportunities Commission, to purchase one-third of the inclusionary zoning homes within each subdivision to operate as federally subsidized public housing, thereby allowing households who typically earn incomes below the poverty line to live in affluent neighborhoods and send their children to schools where the vast majority of students come from families that do not live in poverty. To date, the housing authority has purchased about 700 apartments that are located in market-rate apartment complexes that it operates as public housing. All told, it operates 992 public housing family apartments (some clustered in small public housing developments) that are located in hundreds of neighborhoods throughout the county and are zoned into almost every one of the school district’s 131 elementary schools. Families who occupy the public housing apartments in Montgomery County have an average income of $22,460 as of 2007, making them among the poorest households in the county. The apartments are leased Heather Schwartz 5
at a fraction of the normal market rates: whereas the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Montgomery County in 2006 was $1,267, public housing tenants’ average rent contribution was $371 (equal to one-third of their income, per federal regulation) in the same year.
The Housing Opportunities Commission randomly assigns applicants to the public housing apartments. Since almost all of the county’s elementary schools have neighborhood-based attendance zones, children in public housing thus are assigned randomly to their elementary schools via the public housing placement process. This feature prevents families’ self-selection into neighborhoods and elementary schools of their choice, which in turn allows for a fair comparison of children in public housing in low-poverty settings to other children in public housing in higher-poverty settings within the county.
Thank you. Obviously no
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 13:38 — HJ2ss2Thank you. Obviously no comparison.
"About half the students
Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:43 — AngelaW"About half the students ended up in schools where less than 20 percent of students qualified for subsidized meals "
Children who lived in public housing and attended schools where no more than 20 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal did best, whereas those children in public housing who attended schools where as many as 35 percent of students who qualified for a free or reduced price meal performed no better academically over time than public housing children who attended schools where 35 to 85 percent of students qualified for a free or reduced price meal.
think about the amount of shuffling that would take to achieve.....would that go over ANY better given the recent outcry of "don't change my school" within a zone?