The state NAACP and the Great Schools in Wake Coalition have issued statements today praising Tuesday's vote by the Wake County school board to scrap work on the community assignment zone plan.
In a press release, GSIW says it's "encouraged" by Tuesday's vote and "feels its voice has finally been heard." But GSIW chairwoman Yevonne Brannon is also calling on the board not to make any additional reassignment changes for the 2011-12 school year.
The resolution passed on Tuesday says it will leave in place for the 2011-12 school year the plan adopted by the previous board. But the resolution also says that "when considered appropriate, approved adjustments to the existing plan will occur."
“We don’t want this to be a ‘stay of execution,’ after which we move to a plan that resegregrates [sic] students and creates more high poverty schools,” Brannon said. "Rather, we hope that this vote signals a reinvigorated dialogue between the School Board and the community."
The state NAACP was also cheered by the vote. Below is the statement from the Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP:
"We believe yesterday's vote to stop the student assignment process is a step in the right direction. The NAACP and other advocates have said on numerous occasions that the best course of action would be to rescind the Board's 5-4 decision last March to throw out Wake County's socio-economic diversity program.
You don't throw out a plan without a replacement plan. If there was a need, based on sound educational research, to adjust the plan without destroying its constitutional and educational purposes, then a unified Board could develop alternative plans and put them side by side for public comments in public meetings. Objective evaluations of the alternative plans, based on educational research, the law, and what is best for the full development and equal opportunity of every child could then be made by interested parties. We believe such a process would be in the best interests of our children. Not only must we vote not to go forward with a bad plan--we must also vote not to go backwards on any plan by removing a commitment to socioeconomic diversity and student opportunity/achievement. Any plan without intentional commitment to socio economic diversity and student opportunity/achievement will lead to racially isolated resegregated high poverty schools--which will hurt our children's future and our community's character and prosperity."
UPDATE
The N.C. Social Justice Project is also reacting to Tuesday's vote, saying "we were as encouraged about Ms. Goldman’s resolve as we were revolved by the ridiculously juvenile comments of Mr. Tedesco." The group has been a harsh critic of the elimination of the diversity policy.
"We are torn: should we be celebrating the vote rejecting the 'neighborhood' schools under the premise of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' or should we be even more concerned that this Board seems completely unable to do anything constructive, logical, or remotely useful," according to a blog post today from the N.C. Social Justice Project.
Comments
Go to the Great Schools in
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 12:09 — aquaman4life68Go to the Great Schools in Wake's Facebook page and you can view the pictures of the wonderful ceremony honoring Brannon and her Gang. It's funny, after watching the public comment sections of the board meetings the past 8 months or so, you can see who's against this ending diversity, it's pretty much the people in the pictures that you see each and every time get up at the microphone and complain, whine and squeal. I wouldn't say that they could possibly represent most of Wake County.
It also says something that
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 16:46 — Andrew95It also says something that there are even less supporters of the board. I would imagine the majority of wake didn't really care much until they heard that they might have no definite idea what their school would be next year. Goldman represents a more mild-mannered section in favor of stable, community schools, not to say that I support that entirely, I do think stability is a virtue, but I don't think community schools will be necessarily more stable than the old system.
Need I bring it up again, 90% of parents were satisfied with their assignment last year, and the other ten percent were the only people at the polls.
Under Chuck Delaney...
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 05:08 — JanisTangono definite idea what their school would be next year.
This was even a bigger problem. I do commend you for getting involved and wanting to talk about this issue, but there is so much history with reassignments in the time I have been here in Wake County that can't be ignored. Chuck would move kids year after year so a lot parents had no definite idea where their kids would go to school the next year and beyond. My guess is the parents that were satistifed were the ones that were never touched by reassignment. The most disheartening thing is it was the same kids and same nodes that were reassigned over and over in some cases. Why did certain people have to deal with constant reassignments while others had the stability most desired. What hurt Wake in the latest reassignment mess and one of the main reasons we have a new school board is when they moved away from one year reassignment of about 9-10K kids and posted the three year plan affecting 28K kids. This made a lot more parents mad than they traditionally did with the yearly reassignments. Chuck had an attitude he could deal with the mad parents and the outrageous community engagement hearings and then peope would settle down and go where he wanted them to go. With the 28K kids being moved many parents said enough is enough and that is why we now have a new school board. I do not always agree with some of the moves this new board has made, but I do think change was long overdue.
Andy Andy Andy
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 17:13 — FSandYOUSo now we know where our children will go to school next year, big deal. Just more of the Chuck Dulaney Human Experiment and more failed policy for our kids. Not your kids Andy, OUR KIDS!
But guess what Andy, you might finish with your schooling next year and move on, but unfortunately many of us have children who will be in this screwed up system for years to come.
So where will our kids go to school the following year? Got any idea Andy? That's what I thought. And neither does Goldman. But, let's line up 2-3 years worth of meetings and talk about it. Thanks Debra. You are a big disappointment.
Need I remind you Andy, this isn't about you, your education is done, this is about OUR children!
That's pretty disrespectful,
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 20:55 — Andrew95That's pretty disrespectful, considering that
1. I'm a sophomore
2. My brother is in third grade
3. I'm not selfish enough to only care about people directly involved with me.
4. We have a serious disagreement in that I believe the old system was working for the large majority of kids just fine. It was when the suburbian ten percent got moved about to account for their own massive growth that this whole fiasco started.
Don't get discouraged ...
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 09:49 — user12345Don't get discouraged ... you are not conversing with normal citizens who want to understand all sides and find the best solution through compromise... you are conversing with political operatives who have an agenda and many times are paid to influence opinion through letters to the editor, PACs, showing up on TV or beating down the opposition on the blogs ... look for code word like "forced busing" and "social justice" ....many will sign on under different names to make it appear people actually support what they say ...that is what politics has come to ....there won't be convince some unless you can pay or donate more than their present employer.
Once Again....
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 05:17 — JanisTangoWe are not talking about suburban rich kids only with this plan Andrew. Let me share with you where some of the new kids in my son's class are coming from. Three of them are coming from inside the beltline and a two of them were removed from the magnets they attended in the past. Their base moved with the three year assignment plan. What about the Mynamar refugees that begged to stay at Carroll MS and were moved to Leesville MS with the three year mess. This was a case that should have definitely been considered in my opinion.
Every case should have a
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:14 — Andrew95Every case should have a chance to be considered, but just because a system is not 100% effective does not mean that the system needs to be replaced. Now, 100% should be the ultimate goal, but it's statistically impossible to make a social system 100% effective. Despite their best efforts, the census still works with data they couldn't get. I think the system worked well, possibly could've used some tweaks to make input easier, etc.
But the point is, no matter what system you use, SOMEONE is going to be reassigned, and they're gonna be ticked. The question being, who will the board pick to be reassigned? Probably the people least likely to vote.
You may not be selfish, but you certainly are confused
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 00:27 — FSandYOU" It was when the suburbian ten percent got moved about to account for their own massive growth that this whole fiasco started. "This comment alone proves that yes, you are a sophomore.We have a serious
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 21:54 — woodstockWe have a serious disagreement in that I believe the old system was working for the large majority of kids just fine.
"Just fine," Andrew?!! "Just fine?" Wow! Do you not care at all about the plight of the ED and black and hispanic male students who do not graduate or were denied entrance into advanced classes solely because of the color of their skin or their family income? Don't you care that only select students are privileged enough to be granted permission to attend magnet schools and enjoy their offerings? Don't you care about the poor minority children who are denied enrollment and forcibly bused away from the wonderful magnet schools in their neighborhood to attend school across town or across the county?
Yes, the old system worked "fine" for students like you from affluent families with supportive parents ...they are going to achieve regardless of the system, because they have a support network that will ensure that. But a lot of students are not as fortunate as you are and we need a system that accommodates them too.
I know the affluent parents and students like to brag about the wonderful diversity at their magnet schools, but the truth is the vulnerable students in them are failing at an acceptable rate. It is not "fine" and to suggest that is is denying the challenges that exist... the challenges the status quo did not address during it decade-long reign. You do not get it and, it appears, neither does Debra Goldman.
I apologize if I got you
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:10 — Andrew95I apologize if I got you stressed out, but seriously. Give it a chance to settle, you're acting like I said cat and dog would be a good addition to the school lunch menu.
First off, I have research that shows the board majority:
1. Changed their position multiple times
2. Have been extremely unprofessional on many occasions
3. Do not care at all for anyone's research if it doesn't agree with their ideology
4. Don't think that compromise of any kind is a good idea
So, as bad as you claim the old board was, nobody on your side gave a flip about the fate of the poor kids, good or bad, until the new board came around. Then, all of a sudden, they had the twisted remnants of an argument that they were trying to help the poor. Even the board said it wasn't their intent to create high poverty schools, but their actions show a much different intent.
We both "get" one side of the argument. I have what I value as research, and you have whatever it is you value as research, which seems to be anecdotal evidence.
You confuse being upset with
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:36 — woodstockYou confuse being upset with the passion I have that our school system must meet the needs of ALL students. Your naive "things are fine" comment was crass and insulting to our most vulnerable students who face challenges you cannot even imagine. It is NOT "fine" for them.
Why do you never answer a question or support your arguments? You deflect. Just spewing your half-baked accusations does not really support your case or help anyone understand your point if view. Also, it seems you've recruited Mommy and daddy to help with your responses. That's your choice to make, of course, but it does support my contention that you are not thinking for yourself. Repeating talking points fed to you is not the same thing as thinking.
If I used the same talking
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 12:30 — Andrew95If I used the same talking points my dad does, I would draw a LOT more flak from you guys. I think for myself just fine, and believe it or not, I'm more moderate than he is.
Deflection is a part of argument. I haven't had a single exchange with you where you didn't deflect, but that's just how it goes. We both know the other is never gonna give any ground, so does it matter?
Andrew, I have to agree with
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 17:11 — jeffrey1Andrew, I have to agree with Woody. You constantly deflect. You will make a good politician someday because you never say anything substantial.
How many times have we heard you say "I have research that..." But not once have you provided us a link to that research, despite being asked no numerous occasions.
Finally, I have research that shows the OLD board:
1. Changed their position multiple times
2. Have been extremely unprofessional on many occasions
3. Do not care at all for anyone's research if it doesn't agree with their ideology
4. Don't think that compromise of any kind is a good idea
and I will be happy to share that research with you. Just ask.
You need only look to a few
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 19:06 — Andrew95You need only look to a few posts ago to see the unprofessional things the current board (mainly Tedesco) did. There was the animals in cages comment, there are people constantly coming to the board showing graphs and data from the WCPSS website that shows what they are trying to do is the wrong direction.
The new board was elected on stability and less reassignment, and then made a plan that said nobody would have a base and you'd be bused if the schools got overcrowded.
As I constantly point out to woody, it's a little pointless to argue with someone who is blind to your argument. I won't lie, I don't see any merit in your side's position at all. You think I'm insane, I think you're insane, and we both will never be convinced we're wrong. Unfortunately, I can't vote, so I record this whole fiasco through the news and the meetings and hope that I can explain it to others and get them involved. Arguing with people on here is just a way to make sure my argument is solid before I use it in my paper for school. For the most part, I've found that if anything, I'm too moderate.
...
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 19:14 — Sideburns"....then made a plan that said nobody would have a base and you'd be bused if the schools got overcrowded."
Where did you read this? As a journalist, I'm sure you have a source.
Forced Busing
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 19:32 — Solon77Yes JT's plan called for forced busing under the guise of "choice". In addition JT indicated that there would be reassignments and changes to the zone lines as needed to accommodate capacity. If this is not correct, please do share the details of JT's assignment plan including the assignment algorithm.
...
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 21:12 — SideburnsMy understanding was that proximity would drive assignments. Thereby creating a base, of sorts. Unless, of course, you chose to attend a school within your zone/region that is better suited for your child/family.
I was specifically asking about the "you'd be bused if the schools got overcrowded".
Of course there would be some reassignments initially. You can't change while remaining the same. I've never said otherwise.
...
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 21:15 — SideburnsHeck, even Del Burns gets it.
http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/8423465/
From his WRAL interview:
"You can’t have everything. If you want freedom from student assignment every year, then you have to give up something,”
Goldman seems to be promising keeping things the same (base assignments, no reassignment) while changing to a neighborhood model. It simply can't be done.
...
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 22:31 — SideburnsMaybe that's the new standard we will be reaching for. No longer will we have "healthy" schools -- we'll have schools that are "just fine". Or maybe that's the next book what's-his-name Grant should write: "All Schools in Raleigh are Just Fine".
...
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 16:54 — Sideburns90 + 10 = 100. That works out nicely so it must be right.
I was generalizing. You
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 16:58 — Andrew95I was generalizing. You caught me. It was actually closer to 95% satisfaction, and I don't know about among parents, but less than 5% of people in wake voted in the new board.
I am not sure what all the
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 21:50 — jeffrey1I am not sure what all the fuss is about. For diversity supporters, this doesn't rise to the level of the board re-instituting the diversity policy. And for neighborhoold school supporters, this does not even come close to changing the direction of the board.
This was simply a vote against a controlled-choice zone system. A zone system is just one way of implementing neighborhood schools. As I recall, the public never voted on a zone based assignment system. In last fall's election, we voted for a set of candidates that would eliminate diversity busing, and provide parents with more input on where they want to go to school. The board changed Policy 6200 -- we will no longer base assignments on SES.
We will still have neighborhood schools. Goldman's resolution was just a minor detour on the path to neighborhood schools. IMO, that detour puts us on a path to a better system than the one that was being designed by JT and Malone.
"IMO, that detour puts us on
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:04 — woodstock"IMO, that detour puts us on a path to a better system than the one that was being designed by JT and Malone"
What is that opinion based on? In what specific ways are things now "better." Is it because Sutton, Hill, Barber, GSIW and the NC Social Justice Center are celebrating the new development?
Tedesco did his research, brought in experts, engaged community members and put in countless hours incorporating the input. Goldman refuses to even accept the advice of a professional architect on how to build a school stair case.
"Tedesco did his research,
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 10:55 — xmarkspot62"Tedesco did his research, brought in experts, engaged community members and put in countless hours incorporating the input."
He didn't do any such thing; he only listens to what he wants to hear. Thanks for the laugh, Mr. Prickett!
You can say that all you want it
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 13:03 — woodstockYou can say that all you want it doesn't make it true.
As for being Mr. Prickett, what is the deal here? That is twice in two days...very weird. Call me what you want, I don't really care, but you are way off base, Mr. Meeker. LOL If you only knew...
I can assure you that
Wed, 10/06/2010 - 22:33 — jeffrey1I can assure you that Sutton, Hill, Barber et al will be severely disappointed in the final assignment plan. They are acting as if we just banned AK-47 assault rifles, and they are hoping for a repeal of the 2nd amendment -- not going to happen.
Back to a better plan...
Before the election, NOBODY talked about a controlled choice model in Wake County. Yet JT simply went about building a controlled choice assignment model -- albeit without any quotas for diversity or achievement. There was never any community input on whether or not we should have a zone system - - that decision was made by JT, right? As you can see from the response of those that support the board majority (people like myself), the zone model had a fair number of detractors. Drawing zone boundaries was a huge problem, that was never going to get fully resolved.
The biggest mistake JT made was the absence of a base assignment. When parents are forced to choose, many will not get their choice and feel disenfranchised. When the assignment model makes the first choice for parents (i.e. a base assignment), then parents are more apt to understand that an alternative choice is just that -- an alternative that may or may not be granted.
Now you may ask, well how is that different from what we had? The difference is that the base assignments will now be proximity based, i.e. nearby. The neighborhoods assigned will be contiguous, leading to a sense of community in the schools that had been lacking. A school is a reflection of the community that it serves, and by serving a local community, the school becomes a reflection of the families that are assigned to it. This leads to parental acceptance of the community school, and less desire to opt out of it. You will always have some parents that want to opt out, but a local base assignment will keep the number of parents to a minimum. This in turn will keep us from a hodge podge of assignment where anyone can go anywhere, resulting in a transportation nightmare.
Curious
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 00:54 — TrailerParkGirlIn March, the BOE (including Goldman) adopted a resolution that specifically said it would use a zone model. JT presented to the vision to the full BOE in April, which clearly was a choice zone model with certain nondemographic controls. Why wasn't there large scale outpouring of detraction then? That was months ago. Even when they put out the four potential basis for moving forward (HS map, transportation map, etc.) there was very little public feedback or comment. It wasn't until they put out the detailed maps and certain areas didn't like what their zone and/or region looked like or what zone they were in that people reacted. Then added to that was the base assignment piece.
How will the base assignments work? I imagine there will need to be numerous adjustments to get everyone into a continguous proximate framework. If an area has spot nodes currently assigned non-proximate how will they be fit into the contiguous picture and what if that puts the school over capacity? Will less proximate nodes be moved out? If people were up in arms over zone lines, how smooth do you suppose rearranging unknown numbers of individual nodes out of 1,350 nodes to give them contiguous and proximate based assignments will be? Once all that is done - what happens to base assignments when a new school opens? How about the next new school? The 25th new school?
What does the language in the resolution about equity-based assignments mean?
I think...
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:00 — Bob_SconceThe devil is in the details. It may be that a zone approach sounds better in theory than in practice. For example, as soon as the beginning zone lines were drawn, all of the defects in the current assignment pattern became obvious. In a rational district, you would already have contiguous zones and set feeder patterns -- everybody at each elementary school goes to the same middle school, everybody at the same middle school goes to the same high school, and the assignment areas for elementary, middle and high schools are contiguous. But, since we didn't already have that, setting up zones meant impacting lots of students, and you saw lots of people getting frustrated.
Also, the fact that there wouldn't be any base schools wasn't apparent at the beginning of the process, and once it became apparent, more people got upset.
The "equity-based assignments" part, I think, was probably a sop to the minority members for their votes. "Equity" is that sort of ill-defined word that can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It's possible for one activity (say busing poor kids across town to go to school) to both be equitable and inequitable, depending on who's making the argument. The fact is, though, that the majority is still going to control the resulting assignment plan.
In a rational district,
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 09:22 — user12345In a rational district, you would already have contiguous zones and set feeder patterns -- everybody at each elementary school goes to the same middle school, everybody at the same middle school goes to the same high school, and the assignment areas for elementary, middle and high schools are contiguous.
Bob, I think you need to question your priorities … it seems “rational feeder patterns” are something from the 1950’s …. Like neighborhood schools, … the priority should be academics period! …. Why do we contort ourselves to create a K-12 path for kid where they all can hold hands together from birth in their neighborhood until graduation? I think the obsession with neighborhood and rational feeder patterns is a distraction from academics …. Do you know of any studies that show kids in rational feeder patterns score better than those not in rational feeder patterns? … Schools are brick buildings, with state employees, using state curricula, teaching and testing the same thing … not pattern has an advantage over another…. Trying to keep the neighborhood kids together from cradle to grave should not be a priority and only confuses things… the obsession with convenience, calendar, proximity, base assignment, and feeder patterns will not get our kids to be competitive globally.
Do you know of any studies
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 23:16 — jeffrey1In a growth environment how do have stability + base assignments
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 12:47 — TrailerParkGirlIn a growth environment how do have stability + base assignments? Do you mean the child has stability because as they are reassigned as base assignments change to accommodate growth the other children in their node will be reassigned with them, so they will know somebody?
Not just their node, but
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:32 — jeffrey1Not just their node, but their surrounding nodes.
Stability does not mean stability with the same building. If you go the same building, but all the faces are new, that's not stability. Stability means going to school with a significant number of familiar faces.
I explained how I would handle growth in this post: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/naacp-and-gsiw-praising-tuesdays-community-zone-vote#comment-189538
I guess I'm not following
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 23:03 — TrailerParkGirlI guess I'm not following how if students apply at each school level (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) and once they are in, they stay until the next school level how all the faces would be new in the same building.
A couple thoughts on the circle concept - you can't cover a sheet of paper with circles without overlaps or gaps, so ultimately you end up with something more in the square/rectangle shapes but similar concept. Something to think about - it is workable where schools were actually built in a configuration to allow for this to work, but that is not the case here in all areas. For example, take the area that came up a couple times in the last SAC - Athens. Take a look at the current ADHS base map. Three of ES in the ADHS base map are clustered within a couple miles of each other, two of which are very close together. Two of the other ones are clustered close together. Middle Creek is another area where almost all the schools are clustered in one location. To some extent we are stuck with having to find something viable with the structure that previous BOE decisions have created.
I guess I'm not following
Sat, 10/09/2010 - 02:21 — jeffrey1"No, but I know that
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 14:42 — user12345"No, but I know that children of all ages thrive on stability. I know that young minds are not equipped to deal with sudden changes in their surroundings."
I think you are making a logical error equating "rational assignment pattern" with stability.
"Rational Assignment Pattern" is a ploy to guaranteed proximity preference to "good schools" for select folks. Let's explore instability ....
Neighborhood A -> all kids go to ES1 -> 1/2 the kids got o MS1 and 1/2 to MS2 -> they all go to HS1
You would say these kids are "scarred" because of the instability they suffered in MS. Personally, I have never seen that. At some time, these kids need to separate from their next door neighbor and become individuals (cut the apron strings). I am guessing you think they should all go to college together too?
I grew up in a ES->HS arrangements so I am familiar with only associating with kids from our neighborhood and hating kids from other neighborhoods .... my kids have gone the ES1,2,3 ->MS 1,2,3->HS1,2 and seem to have friends in every school ... so I don't feel they were as isolated as kids who never left their neighborhood.
Neighborhood A -> all kids
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:27 — jeffrey1Neighborhood A -> all kids go to ES1 -> 1/2 the kids got o MS1 and 1/2 to MS2 -> they all go to HS1
You would say these kids are "scarred" because of the instability they suffered in MS.
No I would not say these kids are scarred. This is an acceptable feeder pattern IMO. But lets look at the feeder pattern my kids experienced.
ES1 -> 3 kids go to MS1 and the rest go to MS2
or how about this feeder pattern. ES in Raleigh, MS in Cary, HS in Apex. Sure the node sticks together, but it's a completely new set of friends with each school change. All the ES friends are now at Athens Drive and all the MS friends are now at Cary HS, while we're making new friends at Apex.
The problem is not necesarily one ES going to 2 different MS or 1 MS going to 2 different HS. THe problem is the isolation of just a handful of students when one node at an ES goes to one MS, and all the other nodes go to a different MS.
So...
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 11:06 — Bob_SconceThe board has other goals which are not directly connected to academic achievement (which I agree is paramount). A big one of those other goals is keeping parents happy -- if Momma ain't happy, nobody's happy. I think we saw the results of not keeping Momma happy in October, and I suspect that Debra Goldman would claim that she was also keeping Momma happy.
How do you keep parents happy? I suggest that the most important way is not to defy their expectations. So, for example, recognize that parents have expectations about where their kids will go to school, and what their school calendars will look like. I suggest that feeder patterns play into this.
In addition to keeping parents happy, the board should have a goal of administrative ease -- having programs be as simple as possible, so as to require less effort to administrate and to make those programs easy to communicate.
Finally, the board should have a goal of adaptability -- it ought to be fairly easy to adapt the district's operations to changed conditions. For example, what would happen if the state decided to reduce 3rd grade maximum class size by 1 student -- would it throw the entire district into a massive reassignment? Currently, I suspect it would, and that means that the district is not particularly adaptable to changed conditions.
capacity?
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 08:35 — awake1I also wonder how the creation of logical feeder patterns is affected by capacity? I'm pretty sure that my neighborhood's year-round elementary school option, which many of us choose and is NOT the closest YR school, has everything to do with the lack of seats at our closest YR school. As a result, kids in my neighborhood go to a different middle school than most of the kids they go to elementary school with. I don't know how to create a logical feeder pattern in this situation given capacity constraints in our part of the county. One option we saw under the proposed HS zone map was complete reassignment away from our current base schools and our YR elementary option, but that had everyone up in arms since we are very happy with our current assignments. I dunno...maybe we're the only neighborhood in this position? Also, given that Wake parents appear to value school choice (tradition, YR, magnet), is creating logical feeder patterns a priority?
In March, the BOE (including
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 03:06 — jeffrey1Can you run for office ... exactly what I want
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 09:07 — user12345Ms. Goldman is my
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 07:00 — AngelaWmaybe because she hasn't
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 20:52 — jeffrey1Debra Goldman
Vice Chair
WCPSS Board of Education
One interpretation... that's the problem
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 09:27 — WadingInI have highlighted the ambiguous wording found in the new Resolution in several recent posts. When wording is purposely left ambiguous, it is for a reason... so that the reader can infer whatever the want / need by the phrase regardless of how it will be actually used.
Ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Sutton as the authors of the resolution what each ambiguous phrase means (and why it is not clearly defined).
Ask Ms. Morrison and Dr. McLaurin as members of the BoE who voted for the resolution what is their exact definition of the ambiguous wording.
Frankly, the interpretation
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:39 — jeffrey1Frankly, the interpretation of Hill, Sutton, et al doesn't matter. That's only 4 votes and no one will be aligning with them on any attempt to bring back features of the old assignment model.
Look, the reason the Sutton and company voted for Goldman's resolution is because they see this as the first step in bringing back the old assignment policy. It was a way to stop Margiotta and company dead in their tracks. It's sort of like voting to ban Anti Aircraft Arillery in the hopes of someday banning handguns. Just because a supporter of the 2nd amendment votes to ban AAA doesn't mean they are going to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Sutton and company will be disappointed if they think Goldman is going to come over to their side.
Is Goldman saying she will
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 21:49 — red_balloonIs Goldman saying she will not balance schools by race? If that be the case, I am thinking she will have to fall back on those she deserted Tue in order to get her model approved by the BOE. However, unless Tedesco gets past the zone model and animosity toward Goldman, I can't see how a model without zones and diversity will get the support of either bloc. I wonder how much analysis of probable outcomes was done by Goldman before deciding to block the zone model. An interesting conundrum indeed.
It sounds like you are
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 23:06 — jeffrey1It sounds like you are looking at this as Goldman leaving the board majority and attempting to form an alliance with the Sutton, Hill, Morrison, and McLaurin. Goldman never intended to join forces with the board minority in order to formulate an assignment policy. Goldman is committed to the revised Policy 6200. JT, Margiotta, and Malone may be upset with Goldman, but they are not going to "cut off their nose to spite their face."
The board majority is "alive and well," albeit a few of them are licking some wounds. This is the way the way that politics play out all over the country. Rarely do you see government officials (with the same idealogy) march in lock step with one another. Here, the board majority agree that we cannot and will not go back to the old assignment model. But there are differences in opinion as to what the new assignment model should look like.
They will work it out, and we will end up with an assignment model based on proximity. I expect that model will include base assignments as well as liberal choice options.
I wish it were that simple.
Fri, 10/08/2010 - 08:36 — red_balloonI wish it were that simple. The fact remains Goldman derailed the zone model with the help of the 'diversity' supporters. She can't continue in that mode without appeasing the 'diversity' bloc. Nor can she fall back on her former allies without getting (at least) Tedesco to abandon the zone model. We will need to wait and see the dynamics to be established once better sense prevails.
I do find Goldman's email troubling. In particular, the line "Different schools will have (as they do now) different needs, and under an equity system, (NOT equality-equity) people would get what they need." appears to indicate that magnets and high F&R schools will receive preferential treatment. Also, it can be interpreted that "equal opportunities to sound basic education" points to status quo and continued deprivation of resources at non-magnet schools.
Frankly, I care more for achievement than assignment and I am afraid Goldman appears to have forged an alliance that may maintain status quo. Unless she read out that directive Tue having neither authored nor comprehended the full import.
She can't continue in that
Sun, 10/10/2010 - 03:57 — jeffrey1Sure she can. She does not owe the diversity bloc anything. The diversity bloc has been looking for something they can call a "win" ever since the majority was swept into office. They are so tired of losing, that they were looking for anything that they could conceivably claim as "good news." The only good news (for the diversity bloc) here is that assignment reform will now be implemented in 2012-2013 (as had been originally planned), instead of 2011-2012 (as it appeared JT was rushing to do).
I've used the analogy before and I'll use it again. The diversity bloc want to repeal the 2nd amendment, and all they've managed to do is make it illegal for a citizen to possess an armored tank. There's no reason to believe that just because someone does not want a private citizen to own an armored tank, they also want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
"It sounds like you are
Thu, 10/07/2010 - 23:19 — woodstock"It sounds like you are looking at this as Goldman leaving the board majority and attempting to form an alliance with the Sutton, Hill, Morrison, and McLaurin."
That is exactly what is happening ...just add Harvey Schmitt's name to the the mix to get a bigger picture of what is happening. Goldman sold out. She is just repeating the "I still support community schools" mantra to to console folks and to keep the dust down. There is very peculiar langauge in her -- I mean Sutton's and Hill's -- resolution that makes it pretty clear that the Dulaney nodes and busing for "diversity" nightmare is coming back ...perhaps bigger and stronger than ever.