The mystery of how many kids were and are still being bused for socioeconomic diversity in Wake County won't be answered by the school district anytime soon.
As noted in today's article, school officials responding to the civil rights probe by the U.S. Department of Education say they don't have the info. Click here to view the district's response.
The feds had asked how many students were bused for socioeconomic diversity in 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Wake interpreted the question to only refer to kids who were reassigned in either school year for SES reasons. But they still couldn't come up with a definitive number.
For years, percentages such as 2, 2.5 or 3 percent have been cited by diversity policy supporters to argue that it played a small factor in assignments in Wake. It hasn't helped that the district hasn't been willing to give a number.
As part of the report for the Wake School Choice Plan last month, Michael Alves said that "available data indicates that at least 5,900 students, who reside mostly in Southeast Raleigh, are currently enrolled in 41
suburban schools." That's 4 percent of Wake's enrollment.
Alves also wrote that 65 percent of those 5,900 students are from low-income families and only 11 percent are white. He said 52 percent are black and 27 percent are Hispanic.
Since Alves' figures focused on kids bused out to free magnet school seats, school board member John Tedesco says the number countywide assigned for diversity is much higher. He pointed to examples such as how kids near Adams Elementary in Cary are not going to the school or kids who live near Vandora Springs Elementary in Garner going to Yates Mill Elementary.
School board member Chris Malone also said he thinks the number bused for diversity is much higher than 5,900 students.
Comments
I thought the number was . . .
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 17:10 — occum_sharpeThousands and thousands.
Del and the previous boards
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 13:43 — shearertwDel and the previous boards created such a convoluted system it may very well be nearly impossible to determine the number of students bused as a result of the diversity policy in any given year. 50 kids are bused from school A to school B. To make room for those 50 kids at school B, 50 kids at school B are bused to school C, so on and so forth. When you try and figure out the total number of kids bused for diversity’s sake in 2009, you have to look back over all the asinine reassignments from 1999 through 2009 to figure out why the H double L Johnny rides past 5 elementary schools with a similar SES population to get to his final destination. No one is stupid for not knowing the answer, the answer isn’t known because the policy was stupid.
Given the scandal
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 16:55 — LongtimeLurkerGiven the scandal that broke wide open in 2005, where millions were shown to have disappeared over time without anyone noticing, did you ever wonder what other purposes the "structured unaccountability" of that convoluted system might have served?
Maybe
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 19:55 — Voice_of_Reason_A good place to start is food services.
Moved here in 2007.... no
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 17:07 — shearertwMoved here in 2007.... no idea what you're talking about.
The transportation
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 17:34 — parent9The transportation department and Barnes Motor. You can read about some of it here:
http://www.wcpss.net/audit/summerford.pdf. Specifically starting on page 14 of the PDF file.
One could argue
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:31 — cmalone1One could make the argument that since we bused for diversity that all re-assignments were for that purpose. At least as a matter for statistical theory. Granted that is only one possible statiscal theory but probably not accurate in real terms. Growth and the building of new schools is a big part of that, however in order to make schools "healthy" you had to move people for diversity to create the effect they were looking for. So moves for diversity expanded exponentially over the years. 5,900 is not a real number. It has to be at least twice that. In my district it was a non stop complaint wherever I went that people were moved for this reason. I had one somewhat diverse node that was about 1 mile from a school on their same street but took an hour and 45 minutes ride to Knightdale.
I would argue that our nodes
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 13:33 — loriacI would argue that our nodes were assigned to our ES 'for diversity'. The ES is the 5th closest ES, and for years <10% of any applications out (to YE or Magnet schools) were not approved because 'they needed our numbers'. Wouldn't that be a diversity assignment?
One could argue
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 12:31 — cmalone1One could make the argument that since we bused for diversity that all re-assignments were for that purpose. At least as a matter for statistical theory. Granted that is only one possible statiscal theory but probably not accurate in real terms. Growth and the building of new schools is a big part of that, however in order to make schools "healthy" you had to move people for diversity to create the effect they were looking for. So moves for diversity expanded exponentially over the years. 5,900 is not a real number. It has to be at least twice that. In my district it was a non stop complaint wherever I went that people were moved for this reason. I had one somewhat diverse node that was about 1 mile from a school on their same street but took an hour and 45 minutes ride to Knightdale.
Just A Thought
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 11:27 — JanisTangoIf they can't provide numbers for how many kids were bused for diversity, I'm assuming they can't provide numbers on how many of the reassignments were only growth related...right?
Reverse calculations
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 13:53 — nancyncWell, since we have seen student reassignment numbers from one school to another, and then from the school they were assigned to, X number of students moved to yet another, it's easy to see that many of those reassignments had nothing to do with capacity issues.
I guess one could reverse calculate by removing any truly reassigned to fill a school vs those shuffled in/out of schools in near equal numbers.
Busing for Diversity
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 09:27 — al_in_garnerWhich office do I go to to get my daughters underdeveloped education back?
Mr Burns?
Mr Dulaney?
question?
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 13:40 — Athey01Who is responsible for your child's education... you or the school system.?
What a foolish question
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 16:57 — LongtimeLurkerWhat a foolish question. It means "If you cannot force the schools to treat you fairly, then it is your own fault."
Speaking of foolish responses to a question
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 17:14 — Athey01Thank you.
Sounds like the "diversity"
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 08:01 — woodstockSounds like the "diversity" policy was quite a scam. The data used as a basis to orchestrate the madness was used illegally and now we learn that the status quo never even kept track of what the hell they were doing. It seems the "diversity" policy was 100% pure snake oil.
No surprise
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 10:31 — FSandYOUCriminals and Con Artist always cover their tracks.
And eventually get caught.
NOW LET ME SEE...
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 09:05 — ClearThinkerHow could the diversity policy be a scam if the "scam" has been under new management since December 2009?
Anyone with a lick of sense knows the Republicans on this board know that answer, but are just trying to steamroll the federal probe. They can't act badass against the feds like they did AdvancED, so they play dumb.
And they're playing dumb (though I'm sure there isn't much effort) because they have no intention in helping the feds make their case.
Obstructing a federal investigation. Once the feds talk with Chuck Dulaney, the guy who had to know what the numbers were, their goose is cooked.
Meanwhile, the diversity policy indeed worked, or else the sniping fools here that are against, wouldn't be here in the first place.
That makes me laugh, really!
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 10:04 — nancyncAll these years, no one knew anything other than their own views and implemented it based on data they never really 'entered' into documents. As Del Burns himself said, in justifying the massive number of highly paid administrative staff under him and how 'complicated' the system is, blaming that on DPI concerning accounts. Therefore you can pretty much extrapolite that type of leadership all the way through the system.
June, 2006
The 239 Central Office administrators who work for Burns earn an average salary of $68,000. Burns said the administrators are college-degreed individuals who oversee many people and programs; they are worth the money.
Is such compensation excessive? Critics of the system say taxpayers should consider how their tax dollars underwrite school administrators’ salaries and fringe benefits when they are asked to vote for tax increases such as the $1.05 billion school bond Wake County voters will decide in November.
In Wake County, for example, school board members said they set objectives for the superintendent and get a detailed report on what has been done to meet the objectives. However, since this is a part of his performance appraisal, it is protected as a part of his personnel file. The school system’s Certified Annual Financial Report lists department salary budgets as line items, but follows these with a general “other costs” category, which some critics say is too vague.
The superintendents themselves concede the system is complex. “Everything we do has to follow the chart of accounts that DPI has set for us,” Burns said. “There are 125,000 active accounts in Wake County. It is a complex structure that DPI requires.” Because this information is available to the public, Burns said he thinks the system is transparent to taxpayers.
But if something is published in a language no one outside the system can speak, is this really true? Forsyth County Superintendent Dr. Donald Martin said the answer is no.
“We are very closely budget-code-controlled,” he said. “To the average person on the street, if you don’t have a chart of accounts and someone to explain it to you…it’s almost impossible to figure out.”
So, the system is so convoluted and complex that no one can tell you much of anything, according to the above information.
And they have been content with that lack of transparency, from DPI on down to the Superintendents and possibly even to the school boards.
I suspect Chucky Dulaney is
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 09:38 — CaryCurmudgeonI suspect Chucky Dulaney is the only person who could ever tell how many kids were bused for diversity. Some diversity-based assignments were easy to identify, either because of distance involved or parent outrage at community engagement meetings. Others were more subtle. Chuck had his own model on his own computer, and nobody ever got to see all the puts and takes.
Whatever assignment model we end up with, we need to ensure that we never again give so much unaccountable authority to an individual.
How could the diversity
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 09:36 — woodstockHow could the diversity policy be a scam if the "scam" has been under new management since December 2009?
News alert - the diversity policy has been discontinued. Where have you been?
Anyone with a lick of sense knows the Republicans on this board know that answer, but are just trying to steamroll the federal probe.
What? I seriously doubt if WCPSS staff who deal with the data as part of their job on a daily basis do not know the answers, no one on the board knows either. You do know board members are not employees doing staff-level work every day, right?
As for your silly notion of obstruction, wake up, dude, your wet dream is over. LOL
Oh my, another education
Thu, 03/10/2011 - 07:29 — willynillyOh my, another education study with no numbers. Again, here we go......ask about initiatives such as Middle Start that costs taxpayers thousands.....PBIS, AVID and on and on. This shows that, in education, an old movie line comes to mind: "Numbers? We don't need no stinkin numbers!" Education has this funny way of shutting teachers down that speak out against this mess. 1) We will initiate PBIS this year. 2) We don't have any data that it works. 3) But if it doesn't work, then that means that the teacher(s) didn't impliment it correctly. That is the way most initiativesa are treated in eduworld. Nothing has to be peer reviewed. The fact that a school is MUCH worse off a few years after implementation (Northeast Jr High: Meridian MS 2007 and Middle Start) does not stop the juggernaut of "getting taxpayer money for nothing" from rolling onward and upward.