Not following Charlotte's example

Tell me this ISN'T so, I just saw where the school BoE meets Wednesday to decide what kind of RAISE to give Burns.......

This issue has nothing to do with re-segregation. Segregation is generally understood to be the FORCED separation of people according to their ethnicity or race. Parents in Charlotte, just like Wake County, prefer NEIGHBORHOOD schools. No one is forced to live in any particular neighborhood in the USA in 2008. It is only a matter of personal preferences and financial abilities. Sure, someone living in subsidized housing will have to work hard to afford to live in a nice neighborhood, but that's what America is all about - upward mobility through personal initiative. To claim that families living in SE Raleigh can not afford to live in the affluent communities of Wake County may be an accurate statement, but it is also true for someone now living in Prestonwood who would prefer to live in Hayes-Barton near Raleigh Country Club. If it is important to these people, they'll figure out a way to get the education and income make the move.
As far as data and references being thrown around to prove that WCPSS' assignment by income policies are working, David Holzkom has all the data he needs now to show this in Wake County. Keung, why not call on the WCPSS to give noted statistician Bill Lynch access to the data? He knows how to make a meaningful assessment of the effectiveness of socioeconomic assignments. The fact that this hasn't been done can only mean that WCPSS fears the result that we all expect - kids do better when they go to school near their homes. I have found data that contradicts what is being claimed aboue CMS. Grades have improved their since their socioeconomic assignment policies were abolished a few years ago. See Table 5 in my 'Rebuttal' paper:
www.ullisart.com/images/Misegades_Balance_rebuttal.pdf

Char-Meck is doing public education Right;
WCPSS is doing public education Wrong;

We as a community need to "Take out the Trash, 09" so we can finally clean-up the schools.

Keepings asking: "Where is the proof?" & "Justify the Cost"

http://www2.talkingaboutpolitics.com/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ArticleView/mid/364/articleId/1303/WorldClass-Schools-Bite-the-Dust.aspx

The bottom line of the argument to support the diversity assignment program is that the have nots deserve what the haves have.
*Poorer schools have fewer hours of volunteerism by parents and fewer dollars contributed by parents to the schools.
*Poorer schools have fewer quality teachers and teachers in poorer schools tend to stay fewer years."

The answer offered by diversity busing is to move the students that have not to schools where volunteerism is higher, financial contributions by parents are higher, teachers stay longer and better teachers want to teach. It also requires moving haves to those schools where these benefits are not present.

As the argument goes, the have nots that are given the opportunity to share in the largesse of the haves benefit. In exchange for traveling a greater distance to school they reap they benefits of the environment created by the haves (more resources, more volunteers and an environment that promotes the desire of the best teachers to compete for jobs and remain in them longer).

If you have donated great deals of time, energy and money to help build that environment at your school you risk appearing greedy for wanting to see your investment pay off by your child being able to continue to attend that school. How dare you deny the poorer child that seat and refuse to allow your child be bused away to another school? If you were a caring citizen you would gladly and enthusiastically agree to your child moving to the higher poverty school and furthermore you would continue to give generously.

Thats how the case goes for diversity assignments. And that is why parents who have given from what they have in time, energy and resources to live under the threat that their children may each year be subject to reassignment to another school are leaving the system.

What parents want to know is whether it is all worth it. Does moving a poorer child to a wealthier school assure that child will reap the benefits of the wealthier environment? The better teachers are there, according to the argument, so surely they get the benefit of that. More resources are there, so surely they get the benefit of those. More parents are actively volunteering and interacting directly with students, so surely they experience that benefit. It would seem that with years of this in place, data to show that students moved from poorer schools to wealthier schools reaped the benefits. Where is the data?

and they only use it to compare/contract whatever it is THEY want to show, anyone else realize that?

Diversity is not about helping kids, it's about real estate and money. Follow the money trail, where does the bulk of the money come from to help elect the BoE and support WCPSS. It the builders ! It is also about WCPSS's ability to shift under-performing children from Title I schools to non-Title I schools to avoid paying the penalty. Real Estate because in theory it keeps all areas of Wake County "in the game." You cannot be assured of a good school where ever you buy. That's why they never present the facts why it is helping children...they can't! Read what they say "it helps schools." Parents and children are mere pawns in their game. The F&R kids it is supposed to help suffer for the most part.