The new Wake County school board members are saying their victories on Tuesday represent public frustration over the actions of the last two years by the board majority.
As noted in today's article, Jim Martin said that the five Democratic candidates offered tangible ideas for improving the school system while Republicans were throwing out soundbites and playing politics.
"The voters didn't want anymore partisanship," Martin said. "I've always said you can trust the educated voters."
Martin said the board majority, particularly Margiotta, were hurt by the way they conducted business. He said they used the legitimate issue of promoting stability in student assignment and turned it into a political issue.
"This is a board that complained about the arrogance of prior boards but took arrogance to a whole new level."
Martin said he'd hope the board majority would talk with the new members before adopting the new student assignment plan. He pointed to how the new members, before they took office in 2009, had complained that the prior board was going ahead with the decision to build Forest Ridge High School over their objections.
Susan Evans said the victory over board chairman Ron Margiotta was the culmination of two years of effort by groups worried about the changes being made by the board majority.
"This represents a lot of effort on the part of people who felt the community needed to heal, and they all rallied around me," Evans said.
Christine Kushner said she and her fellow Democrats ran an issues-oriented campaign.
"Our message resonated that we wanted to end the divisiveness and we wanted stronger governance on the board," Kushner said.
Comments
Do I Look Like A Board Member?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 15:33 — chaboardI can't guarantee anything. Heck, those ON the board can't guarantee anything.
I suspect the new board majority (assuming Hill wins - and let's not get too far ahead of ourselves on that one) will - unlike the current majority - pay some serious attention to the real problem of the creation of high poverty schools under the current proposal and make modifications around that.
But no, I really don't think they will be going back wholesale to what was in place two years ago. Could be wrong but I don't see it happening. Particularly if the four Republicans show any serious willingness to compromise..
The reason you won...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:00 — bpuli9999is because citizens did not like what the republicans/tea partiers were doing. So now that you have been elected stick to what you campaigned on - do not help create segregated schools by adopting the student assignment plan currently under consideration. And stop with "neighborhood" schools bunk - everyone knows what that is code for. The republicans can't even say outright what they stand for - they have to hide behind politically correct euphemisms.
Reverend Barber, is that
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:10 — jeffrey1Reverend Barber, is that you?
Exactly what is neighborhood schools code for? Ah yes, racism and segregation, right?
My kids were plucked out of their neighborhood school in Western Wake County, and bused to a non-magnet, high poverty school inside the beltline, because that school was on the verge of failing, and needed some middle class students to help it succeed. There were 23 elementary schools closer to my home. Both kids experience emotional distress because of the instability. The school told us my daughter was too bright, and they did not have the resources to challenge her. Their recommendation - skip the 1st grade, and go straight to 2nd grade. She cried herself to sleep for an entire year.
Diversity busing is not just about giving magnet opportunities to suburban families, and wooing inner city families with bus rides to rich white schools. It's about the constant disruption to lives that is necessary to maintain balance in a county that is constantly changing. It's about using children as pawns with no regard to their emotional health.
So I have one question for you. Is this what you want to return to? Should familes like mine continue to undergo the treatment we have in order to balance schools? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Exactly how high was the
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 08:26 — virginiadareExactly how high was the poverty in that school? My guess is that it was not half what the very high poverty schools that would be created by going to neighborhood schools would be. If that school was on the verge of failing, what do you think will happen to the schools that are 90% or more? My guess is that they would have very little chance of being successful, just like the large majority of very high poverty schools throughout the nation. Do you think any students should be relegated to those schools? What would happent to the very bright ED students? It seems to me your experience would have demonstrated the need to prevent high poverty schools.
Having said that, not having the resources to challenge a very bright student is not limited to high poverty schools. We chose to put our child in a magnet school because we thought the neighborhood school would not be challenging enough. They also recommended moving her to first grade by November of her kindergarden year because she needed more. We took their recommendation, and she thrived. On the other hand, we had a child who went to our base school (which also was not the closest to us). It was not a good fit and he was not happy there, so we took him out of WCPSS, much as we value public education, to do what was best for him. The school system has to do what is best for the majority of students attending, and we did not expect them to cater to our individual needs.
The instability was caused by the massive growth, and could have been mitigated by proper funding. I don't understand how you think voting in board members who have ties to people who do not value public education (and have in fact publicly stated their desire to "do away with" public schools) and want to defund our schools could possibly help with the problems you cite.
Sounds Like You Had Choices?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:07 — JanisTangoIt sounds like you had a lot of choices and some stability VD. Shouldn't all parents have that? Some parents in this district never had true choices beyond their base assignment and they were forced to go where ever they were reassigned year after year. I don't believe any child should be relagated to a high poverty school, but I also believe all parents should have a say. Why do you think they shouldn't? I hope whatever assignment plan that is decided on, it will give real choices to all families. In those areas where there is higher poverty, those families will should be given more choices and more importantly some stability! Is this is a bad thing?
I agree with you that no
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:08 — virginiadareI agree with you that no child should be relegated to a high poverty school, all parents should have a say and there should be real choices for all families, and that where there is higher poverty the families should be given more choices and stability. I think that the new plan could work if the choice is controlled enough that high poverty schools are not created, which would mean setting aside seats in high achieving schools for low achieving students, and having their default assignment if the parents don't choose be those schools. I'm afraid that if proximity is the highest priority, there will be no true choice for students living in poor neighborhoods or for those moving into the county. They would be assigned to the schools no one else wanted. Our goal should be to have all schools be desirable, middle-class schools.
huh?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:49 — EBDarcyBut the majority relegated children to schools that were already high-poverty schools and created our first true high-poverty, racially isolated school. Was that in their best interest academically? As we've already seen promises have been broken at Walnut Creek and it's only been open 2 months.
And what about the children whose parents choose to send them to a high-poverty school because of proximity? Or who don't choose at all? What if it's a failing school? Is society's responsibility absolved by saying " their parents picked it and parents always know what's best for their children" Shouldn't the board's overriding concern be achievement, not convenience, particularly for those students who don't have someone to advocate and make good decisions for them?
It's all well and good for people to say families in high-poverty areas should be given more choices, but that can't happen unless they are given choices outside of their immediate area. In the better schools. Schools where there will not be any open seats without set-asides, the very thing Margiotta is dead set against.
OK EB..
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:33 — JanisTangoyou always refuse to answer this question. How would you recommend that they filled Walnut Creek when it opened? The previous board decided on the location of the school. How were they planning on filling it? I do not know. Do you think those kids should not have had the opportunity to go to a school closer to home? You used that as an argument when talking about Sycamore Creek...why should they be allowed and these children not? Have you ever driven from the Walnut Creek area to Hilburn...I have...it's not a short ride by any means! I have asked you this question 3 times and each time you refuse to answer! I really want to know your thoughts. Also, the plan makes accomodations for kids in higher poverty areas to have more choices than you and I. I have been to multiple meetings where Mr. Tata and his planning folks have talked. They have thought about all the things you continue to complain about. Is that plan perfect...no. Will this plan start addressing the concerns of parents and the community...yes. What is wrong with going forward with a plan and making adjustments along the way (and no I'm not talking about reassignments).
In regards to VirginiaDare's response, I like what you had to say. I like the idea of making a high performance school a 'base' priority if a parent from the higher poverty area doesn't make a choice. That might help with the concerns people have. With that said though, if all the parents choose to be at that school, what then? I personally don't have a problem with spending more resources at that school to help those children succeed. Personally I would like to see Walnut Creek be a magnet with 50% of the kids coming from base.
Great idea for Walnut
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:35 — virginiadareGreat idea for Walnut Creek! I also believe increasing the magnet program could help in a new choice plan. I have thought Fox Road would be another good candidate for becoming a magnet, and Carroll Middle School.
That first year, we were not
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 08:57 — jeffrey1That first year, we were not even permitted to apply to a magnet school. Our node was one of a handful that was prohibited from applying to a magnet school.
We applied for a magnet school each and every year after that, but we were always denied. Our presence was required at the high poverty school. I did not have the resources to take her out of the public school system.
And it wasn't that my daughter was extremely bright. It was the fact that she was in the 1st grade and none of her classmates could count past 10!
And It appears my instability, and that of thousands of others, had nothing to do with massive growth. How does taking a student out of one existing, uncrowded school and putting them in another existing, school have anything to do with growth?
And what's with trying to tie the views of some people to others based on the fact that they know one another. Because you know someone who has committed a crime, does that make you a criminal?
Finally, I find it reprehensible that you are trying to excuse WCPSS for the way they treated my family. Because you were able to work around the system, you think that every family has that same opportunity?
I'd rather you just say that familes like mine deserve better treatment from their schools. But I understand, you do not back family friendly candidates, and think families like mine are the problem. I am asking for special treatment because I'd rather not go to the 24th closest elementary school. I am asking for special treatment because I'd like my child to be happy and not suffer the way she did. I get it, so please do me a favor and stop replying to my posts!
Sorry Jeff..
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 23:55 — local23This was to be my response further up in the blog to ED and VD
Thanks for telling us your
Thu, 10/13/2011 - 01:41 — jeffrey1Thanks for telling us your experience.
I think that ED and VD continue to think that cases like ours were isolated cases, when in fact there are hundreds, if not thousands of similar cases all over Wake County.
Here's another thing that most people don't realize either. It wasn't your individual F&R status that mattered when it came to assignment. It was the overall F&R status of the node that you lived in. In other words, a student could receive F&R lunch, but live in a node classified as middle class (i.e. non F&R), and when it came to assignment, that student was identified as middle class. The converse was also true.
Does Carpenter Village
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 23:51 — local23ring a bell to, we were forced to go to East Cary MS, while every other MS in Cary and Apex (West Cary, Davis Drive, Salem, Reedy Creek & Mills Park (opening) were closer; we pleaded, begged to no avail. Also, remember the feeder plan for Carpenter was Panther Creek HS, yet the feeder for East Cary was Cary HS..we were told point blank by Patti and D., you node (which magically got re-done that same year) was needed to cough..balance the social eco. Choice, there was none and guess what we also applied for 7 straight years to magnet schools (of the one's we were allowed to apply for) but only word was REJECTION! Our node made up 53 students (but take out Mag, private, charter, etc. and we had around 29 to actually be moved). Don't tell everyone on these blogs that there where choices, because there were not during the rain of D for many, many parents in this school district! I can't even begin to tell you of the fiasco for MYR.
Or How About...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:15 — JanisTangono being allowed to go to a very underutilized school in your neighborhood because 'they' needed your numbers elsewhere! That was very common!
are you both Jeffrey's Grove
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:21 — carson79are you both Jeffrey's Grove families?
You Seem To Know A Lot About Me....
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:41 — JanisTangobecause I don't hide who I am on these blogs. If you are game, let's meet for coffee so I can find out more about your position. My email is easy....just take my name (JanisTango) and @nc.rr.com!
No
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:40 — jeffrey1No
No
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:36 — Dove314Can't speak for anyone but me. BUT it's time for achievement to become the focus and assignment to take a back seat. If that can be done by moving ahead with the blue/green/choice plan then the current BoE and incoming BoE should move it ahead. Any assignment plan can work if the BoE provides the specific resources each school needs and a mechanism to asses dynamic changes within a given school.
It is very frustrating when some politician wins by a slim majority then they and their supporters declare they have a "mandate" from such a small victory. In this case, all of the BoE members, current and future, would do well to realize that voters and parents were and are pissed off at past BoE conduct. There is a pretty clear request by many for stability in assignment above all. In addition, quite a number of people want proximity. Transparency and fairness in assignment is also required.
If the new plan can continue to be tweaked to provide these elements and if the schools can receive the resources they need then let's move forward, not backward.
Thank you. But I find it
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:42 — jeffrey1Thank you.
But I find it nearly logistically impossible for SES balance and stability to co-exist. Even with all the reassignments done by previous administrations, we went from just 8 schools above 40% F&R in 2000 to more than 50 schools above 40% F&R 10 years later. Thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of kids were reassigned each year, and still we could not control the rise in higher poverty schools.
Even this new assignment plan, with it's pillar of achievement, will soon find out just how difficult it is provide stability and balance (if it is passed).
hmmm
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:29 — EBDarcyDidn't WCPSS's add almost 50,000 students during those ten years. Many from low-wealth families? If a school was close to 40% it wouldn't take many kids to push then over that mark. If a school with 1000 students was at 38% the adition of 2 dozen ED students would push it over 40%.
What years were "tens of thousands" of children moved to new schools?
They Will Be Adding 50K during the Next 10 Years...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:30 — JanisTangoso are you advocating the policy we had will work during the next decade? The projections already have stated that if we don't change the plan 50-70K kids will need to be reassigned in the next decade. Have you ever dealt with reassignment? I'm assuming not!
??
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:53 — Dove314Where did I say anything about SES balance? Are you suggesting that we should completely revisit assignment and all that entails to implement a purely proximity based plan as the only option you accept?
Sorry, I assumed that you
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:59 — jeffrey1Sorry, I assumed that you were trying to tie achievement with assignment.
I'm suggesting that any attempt to tie achievement with assignment is destined to fail. When you tell a low SES family that the reasons they are struggling to achieve is because of their SES status, and that their road to success can only begin when they are surrounded by high SES families, CANNOT and WILL NOT work.
I believe that until we remove any association with assignment and achievement, we cannot begin to truly address achievement with the effort that is required to make a difference. Assignment is a crutch, and rather than lean on it, we need to walk on our own two feet.
The opposite
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:10 — Dove314Our goals are not that dissimilar. Stop changing around where people go to school and start focusing on achievement and what the students need regardless of where they are.
Yes!
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:22 — JanisTangoYes...that is exactly what we need. I've always believed when you move kids around constantly you can't figure out why they are failing or succeeding. It's difficult to study a moving target and try to gage what is causing the outcome! Once we have stability for families and children we can truly start focusing on achievement! Isn't that what we all want for all the kids?
That simple
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:40 — Dove314It really is that simple. And yet that complex.
One of the aspects I think the BoE majority failed to take in to account is the constant relatively sudden reassignments in the name of proximity over the last two years were introducing just as much instability as the previous reassignments in the name of diversity that had angered so many. And all the while, improving achievement across all the schools has been a lower priority whenever focus on both was needed.
What could have been done to date if the highest priority of the BoE had been put on examining recommendations for math placement instead of waiting until 6 months in and after inflaming a large segment of the public on a number of other issues?
Agreed...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:42 — JanisTangoI wish there was more focus on achievement than anything else, but the problem is we have schools that are over-crowed and under-utilized. It's been stated time and time again that busing for diversity was never about achievement, but is sure has been sold that way in the past. We have new schools opening and we need kids to fill them. Assignment has taken a majority of this board and the previous board's time and that needs to stop. They previously had a planning department that wasn't able to get a grip on the growth that was coming this way. I want to see a plan put in place that has the flexibility to deal with the growth and new schools that are going to be needed. I think once we get away from having to focus on reassignment we can do amazing things in the area of achievement, votech, etc. The saddest thing I see at my school is some of these children that are missing what they need now. In a few years it might be too late. We can't afford to let anymore children slip through the crack!
Friction is okay...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 06:49 — uBniceWith a 5-4 vote, there will be friction. That is okay. We can claim that the Wake School board has diversity of representation and ideas.
I may not be able to articulate what non-divisiveness is for this group, but I know what divisiveness was from the last group. It was a mess. A national mess at the local level. Out of all the ugly things that the prior leadership did, to me the worse was their flirting with non-accreditation. They crossed the line big-time with that one. You see that Tata corrected that immediately.
For our children, we want strong, civil, thoughtful, and knowledgeable governance for their compulsory education. The children are our natural resource. They are vital to our national security.
...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 06:55 — SideburnsDivisiveness has already been renamed "friction".
Ah yes, Divisiveness=Bad,
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 06:57 — jeffrey1Ah yes, Divisiveness=Bad, Friction=Good.
The flirt with
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 06:55 — jeffrey1The flirt with non-accreditation was a response to a bullied effort by a firm to cozy up with the NAACP, over trumped up charges.
AdvancED tried to overstep their bounds. Wake County schools are only accredited at the school level, not the district level. AdvancEd, as stated on their own website, did not have the authority to investigate any governance issues with regards to our BOE. Besides, there was no way that our accreditation was ever at stake. If AdvancEd were to remove our accreditation, I guarantee you that would have spelled the end of AdvancEd.
I don't know about you, but when I get bullied, my natural response is not to sit back and take it.
Then why?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:49 — Dove314Then why do you wonder at the response the current BoE majority and many of their supporters got when they bullied both their fellow BoE members and the public?
Bullied how? By not agreeing
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:50 — jeffrey1Bullied how? By not agreeing with them?
Hmmm...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 08:11 — Dove314How many do you want me to mention?
1. how Ron was made chairmen;
2. how agendas were set;
3. bias in when what information was provided to which BoE member, i.e. treating some members of the BoE like second class citizens.
4. clear bias in the public BoE meetings indicating complete unwillingness to even hear or consider any ideas beyond their own despite continued and ongoing feedback that quite a large segment of the population and other BoE members disagreed with the course.
5. Demeaning name calling by the BoE members.
As you note, no one likes a bully. The BoE majority had laudible goals. With the way they conducted themselves and the negative perceptions this created, they put significant obstacles in their own way.
Apples and Oranges. Unlike
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 08:39 — jeffrey1Apples and Oranges. Unlike AdvancEd, none of these so called bullying tactics went beyond the authority of the board.
But I've always said that the majority could have conducted themselves better. I would have given Barber his 45 minutes of fame. I would have been kinder to people that opposed neighborhood schools. But in the end, I would have voted the same way. And I doubt very much that people on the other side would be praising me for my decorum instead of insulting me for my vote.
With the way they conducted themselves and the negative perceptions this created, they put significant obstacles in their own way.
It's a shame the behaviour of Barber and company did not create the same negative perceptions with you.
Seriously?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:14 — Dove314If you go back and look, you'll see that I posted that his behavoir was appalling and that he was doing more harm than good. Inaccurate stereotyping isn't helping anything. That's twice this morning alone.
Please accept my apologies.
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:38 — jeffrey1Please accept my apologies. I haven't sbeen to sleep for 24 hours, and I've made some mistakes.
Absolutely
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 11:08 — Dove314Is all good. As noted before, we don't have to agree on everything to find ways to be constructive for WCPSS kids. Hope you are able to get some rest soon and come back and argue constructively later.
This is a board that
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 06:09 — jeffrey1This is a board that complained about the arrogance of prior boards but took arrogance to a whole new level.
This from the man who defined arrogance each and every time he spoke during the public comment period.
Our message resonated that we wanted to end the divisiveness
The votes will continue to be 5-4, so exactly how do you end the divisiveness?
Educated Voters...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:33 — KevPerduethe comment Martin made about 'educated voters' is a great start. I have a feeling someone is going to need to put a muzzle on this guy! So anyone that didn't vote for him is 'non-educated'.
For now, I am pleased with
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 08:49 — tide_turnsFor now, I am pleased with Martin being elected. I do not need a BOE that fails to critique the Supdt's proposals and I expect Martin has the intellect and disposition to fulfill this role.
What Do You Think Of That Comment?
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:29 — JanisTangoI think Martin's comment was a little offensive to anyone that decided they didn't want to vote for him. With that said, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean it the way it came across. I've personally disliked the name calling on both sides these past two years. I think people have been hung out to dry for innocent comments they have made. If Mr. Martin doesn't watch how he states thing, he will create more problems and a more divided community than what you have now.
I end up saying the most
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 09:45 — tide_turnsI end up saying the most daft things when in the spotlight so I would give him the benefit of doubt. If he really is disrespectful, it will be a pattern that will be obvious pretty soon.
Exactly. That comment was a
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:37 — jeffrey1Exactly. That comment was a slap in the face to those of us who voted in 2009. I don't believe for one moment that this guy is going to compromise. Hell, he had the balls to go after Tata on an issue in which he clearly compromised his integrity.
"educated"
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 10:30 — MiraMilI think Jim meant "educated" about the schools and school board issues, not educated in the sense of having a college degree. Don't jump to conclusions! I've talked to many of the new school board members and I think they clearly heard those who have complained about re-assignments and I expect the new members to value stability. Personally, as one who supports the new board members, I can still empathize with those who faced continuous reassignments or who were locked out of the magnet schools. I expect the new members of the board will listen to both sides of the issue and try to implement workable solutions that are reasonably acceptable to folks from various sides of the issue (recognizing, of course, not everyone is going to be happy about every decision).
Here's to a new board capable of reasoned decisions, open communications and flexibility!
I Think Most Of Us Are Educated on School Board...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 12:00 — JanisTangoissues that participate on this blog and have children that are in WCPSS. I believe a lot of people that voted for Jim Martin were voting based on the information that was passed around the magnet circles (some of it was very inaccurate BTW). This current board didn't do themselve any favors by how things occurred day one, but some of the turmoil was created by magnet parents that had a fear of losing what they had. I was appalled by the what the magnet parents and students did at the board meetings. Rev. Barber didn't help with his race hustling. I hope that we will see positive changes in the future, but it does bother me that people have made villians of this board. I cringe when I hear people slam the board members the way they do. I personally didn't like some of antics of this board, but I do know John Tedesco cares very much about low-income children and their success. The stuff people have said about him was very unfair and unwarranted. I think if people want to move forward in a postitive manner they need to stop making the current board the bad guys. I sure don't intend to look at the new board members in that manner, doesn't the remaining board member deserve the same?
Perhaps...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 12:39 — MiraMilPerhaps a good place to start would be to tone down the accusations--e.g., race-hustling. Perhaps the non-magnet parents and magnet parents could at least see each other's point of view? As a magnet parent myself, I deeply value the diverse experience my child has. It goes way beyond the special offerings of magnet schools. And by the way, if you visit any of the southeast Raleigh magnet schools, you might be struck by the aging facilities we have and by the very challenged neighborhoods in which our kids go to school. The magnet families are primarily the force of diversity in the system and that's fine. I think we give up nice facilities in nice neighborhoods for a diverse student body and enhanced curriculum. I do think it is a fair trade off and the extra costs of magnets is offset by the full use of aging facilities and the pedagogical benefit to low income kids. Now there may be an argument that the magnet schools are not doing as well for their base population as they could. It's hard for me to tell, as there are so many statistics bandied about for various political purposes--it's hard to find an unbiased analysis. But if that is the case (or even if it is not), the magnet schools should be tasked with improving the performance of its base population and I hope the new Board looks closely at that. I also think that if you do away with the magnet schools, you are going to completely do away with certain programs, especially language programs. Wake County cannot afford 5 languages in all schools, but it can afford them in a few magnet schools. I would agree that selection for magnet schools should be done on a basis that residents perceive is fair. But my question for you is whether we should not we offer Japanese, German or Chinese in any schools because we cannot afford to offer them in all schools? Regardless, I think if we want to move the system forward in any positive way, we need to stop demonizing eachother and work towards a common purpose of providing a great education for all of our students within the financial constraints we are given. I think also, that each of us need to live with the fact that we're not going to get everything we want. That's what compromise is all about.
Agreed...
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 13:14 — JanisTangoA apologize for using the word race hustling, but I will not conceed that Rev. Barber was a big component behind the divsiveness of this board and community. He was not the only one, but he did not contribute in a positive way IMO. I would like to invite you to come outside the beltline sometime. Our school JGE is one of the oldest schools in the county. It was originally built 1924 as a Rosenwald school. The Rosenwald foundation gave many communities money to build schools when the states would not pay for schools for black children. You should read the history of our school...it's fascinating. Mr. Peebles donated the land so the families could pick cotten to sell to raise more funds for the school. His son was the 'bus' driver that went through the community to pick up children that wanted to come to school. Our school at one time had 1,000 black children that attended in a building that is much smaller than it is today. Granted our school building has been rebuilt sometime ago, but it's not shiney and new like many schools around. Our school still has a strong foundation and we have alway embraced our children regardless of where they came from. The biggest problem we have faced is constant student mobility issues. Our school population has changed so dramatically year after year because of reassingment and families leaving voluntarily. This has hurt our school and as parents we try desperately to try to keep what little we have. I agree it's time to get rid of the magnet versus non-magnet titles, but it's also time for people inside the beltline and magnet families to appreciate the issues that many face that are outside. Resources are thin and I don't believe any magnet should have 5 foreign languages unless it's deemed a global school with an emphasis on foriegn languages. Why can't a magnet offer 3 foreign languages and the other two resources go to two schools outside the beltline that have none. Would that be so bad?
More resources
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 13:37 — MiraMilI agree that every school should have at the very least one, and better yet, two languages. Preferably this should begin at the elementary school level, but at the very least in middle and high schools. But Wake County is cheap (and the board last go round did not ask the commissioners for more money). On the global school--the only elementary school that offers 5 languages is Wiley which is an "international" themed school and emphasizes foreign languages and foreign cultures.
Your school sounds cool and I hear you on the reassignment issue. I do expect the new board members understand the hardships caused by reassignment and this was evident in the prior board election. I almost think an assignment system with base schools as we have now, but strong grandfathering provisions and greater transparency and fairness in the magnet application process would work just as well as anything. But the fact is that we have had and are expected to have tremendous growth and any assignment system is going to have to deal with that and there may not be any wholly-satisfactory solutions. I also think that research shows avoiding high poverty schools is beneficial (and more economical) and the magnet schools have a central role in avoiding high poverty schools. But for the magnet schools to work in this role, they really have to be a "magnet" and draw families into schools that are located in areas that many such families would ordinarily perceive as being drug-infested and unsafe.
You're Probably Right About the 5-4
Wed, 10/12/2011 - 07:19 — chaboard(though I think there's a chance Goldman turns into a true swing vote and we get a fair number of 6-3's)
...but as for this:
so exactly how do you end the divisiveness?
I think it will come down in large part to whether your 4 are willing to face up to the fact that public opinion is against them and start reaching for some middle ground.