The Lacy-Stough and Garner-Southeast Raleigh moves were approved Tuesday, but not without some melodrama.
As noted in today's article, the board majority voted 5-4 to reverse the 2009 reassignment of three nodes from Lacy Elementary School to Stough Elementary. But the vote came after Deborah Prickett objected to media coverage about how the Lacy families had given political donations to help the new board majority last fall.
Prickett called it "political" that the N&O had run a story that mentioned the contributions on the day of the board vote. She said the article gave the impression that "affluent parents aren’t supposed to have a choice."
Prickett said parents have a right to give money to whatever political organization they want to give to.
"I don’t think of this as being political," Prickett said. "I see this as a situation where parents are being forced."
The words also got heated when it came to the issue of reassigning the students from Garner High to Southeast Raleigh High.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta had previously urged board members to restrict changes on Tuesday to nodes that were either in the three-year plan or would help relieve crowding.
Board member Keith Sutton argued that the Garner High moves didn't fit the criteria as they weren't in the three-year plan. But board member John Tedesco said it would relieve crowding at Garner High.
Sutton accused the board majority of "blindsiding these families" by moving them without giving them a public hearing.
Both Debra Goldman and Prickett said they could see both sides of the issue but they backed moving the students out of Garner.
Comments
Ahh....nice laugh! I was
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 08:34 — shearertwAhh....nice laugh!
I was trying to see if AFP had a university....
>80% ED schools in HISD's
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:53 — shearertw>80% ED schools in HISD's beat WCPSS ED students. Therefore, it can be done. We should be able to do it if they can. HISD also crushes WCPSS in the number of National Merit Scholars, even when adjusting for their higher population. All that with a district wide average >80% ED.
80% was not the level...it was 40%. My data showed that 60% didn't matter. If I showed that 80% didn't matter, you'd likely ask for 100%.
Actually, I would expect a
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:34 — danofncActually, I would expect a district with >80% ED kids to be able to do a good job with them.
I am not someone who believes that ED kids can't learn. They just have a different set of obstacles for the most part.
How many schools does HISD have that are less than 10% ED?
I read that they hire a lot of teachers from other countries because they have so many students who are ESL. They are very different than Wake County.
Interesting. They are very
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 14:59 — shearertwFYI - wasn't just talking
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:22 — shearertwFYI - wasn't just talking about the data in the Google doc....But who's counting?
Missing the Point of Fixing Underperforming Schools and Children
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 14:09 — chriskennedy1Too many are caught up in the mistaken belief that "magnetizing" a school shall fix what is wrong.
Just like reassigning for diversity, reincarnating a school as a magnet may create more problems and only put a band-aid on the core problems with the public schools -- get better Principals who are responsible for hiring/motivating/keeping top teachers, have them set high standards in and out of the classrooms, and demand parents get engaged with their children. Yes, all parents are busy and its tough work to get involved with your kids. But its life, and its necessary.
Get good core curriculum in place - teaching 6th graders about career choices before they are even exposed to strong curriculum of sciences, for example, is a waste and a crime.
Fix the underlying problems with the right leadership + parent engagement + allowing parents to choose to live within their nearby schools (stability, engagement) = much better short and longer term success than by playing games with reassignments, magnets, and throwing alot of resources without core accountability.
"Fix the underlying problems
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 15:56 — danofnc"Fix the underlying problems with the right leadership + parent
engagement + allowing parents to choose to live within their nearby
schools (stability, engagement) = much better short and longer term
success than by playing games with reassignments, magnets, and throwing
alot of resources without core accountability."
I sort of agree with most of what you say, but this particular paragraph seems to lay out the groundwork for blaming poor performing schools on parents and letting them go. I don't think that is really an option for WCPSS.
You can't shout "personal responsibility" at a parent and watch their child fall by the wayside. At least not if you have a conscience.
THIS is one of the best
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 15:19 — JSBinNCTHIS is one of the best posted thoughts/opinons I've read in a long time. You are so right - thanks for posting this...
I agree
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 14:46 — turnerk1Couldn't agree more about leadership. Magnets with bad leadership and poor teachers (and they do exist) are undesireable schools just like traditional schools with strong leadership and dynamic teachers can be great schools. The extra electives are wonderful, but in the end they don't make up for a lost year in language arts because the teacher spends all her time answering emails instead of teaching.
Chaboard - for the last
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:04 — shearertwChaboard - for the last time, please provide the peer reviewed journal title for that paper....
My claims are that I am very
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:03 — shearertwMy claims are that I am very very skeptical of their work.
#1 - I spent 7 years in graduate school getting my masters followed by a PhD. I know very well the process for doctoral students.
#2 - you are correct that I do have a cynical view of academic research. I have worked in academia, for the government and for industry and have collaborated with each from every angle. This experience has lead to my skeptism of academia in general. There are many good academic researchers and many good government ones as well but there are at least as many bad ones. Their are bad ones in industry but generally they do not last very long, especially in the current environment.
#3 - I'm not threatened by Southworth or Mickels, I'm skeptical of their research. I do not, admittedly, have a high regard for some of the research in social sciences in general as I believe it is the area of science with the highest likelyhood of being corrupted by personal and political biased. Therefore, I would need to personally review the data and methods of analysis before accepting ANY conclusion they draw. I have no reason to highly respect the UNCC Publich Policy department but do have many reason to suspect they are a "group think" department and be skepticle of their research.
Yeah, but didn't you get
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 20:46 — jenmanYeah, but didn't you get your PhD at APU? That doesn't count.
APU? Try Med U. of S.
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 21:12 — shearertwAPU? Try Med U. of S. Carolina.
Art Pope University. :-)
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 22:21 — jenmanArt Pope University. :-)
I don't want to belittle it,
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 12:45 — shearertwI don't want to belittle it, in fact I've been through the painful process myself. However, there are groups in academia that propagate group think. Unlike what chaboard would have you believe, I've looked into several of the individuals in this group, read some of their research and what ever other info I can find. You can be very challenging to a PhD candidate while still propagating a biased position. In fact, I've seen that play out more than once. If they're all expecting the same conclusion from the get go, are they really capable of challenging the research? I think not.
My personal bias is that I don't automatically assign a high level of credibility to someone just b/c they have a PhD nor to I automatically assign a high level of credibility to an institution just because they have a PhD program in place.
Good Posts, but this move was political.
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 09:56 — WhalerCaneMany excellent posts on this thread, but make no mistake, the only reason to make this change now is politics. How ironic that old Board was always being accused of being in the pocket of the ITB crowd, and among it's first moves, new Board placates pollitically connected ITB crowd upset at old Board. Only reasons given are just spin. This is nothing but a political payoff.
How are the folks in Cary who have been screaming about their re-assignments for years feeling about that?
What is really sad is it gives into the flawed notion that something is wrong with 'Stough'. The Balkinization of our County will continue untill we realize that all of Wake County is our community.
What is really sad is it
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 11:05 — jenmanWhat is really sad is it gives into the flawed notion that something is wrong with 'Stough'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Blame The Lacy Parents
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 11:02 — JanisTangoYou can't blame the Lacy parents for the flawed notion that something is wrong with Stough. I have a real problem that G&P caused the issues that Stough has today. They have done this time and time again with several schools in WCPSS and then wonder why parents don't want to be moved into a school to help with the problems that G&P caused in the first place. Stough is a good school, but they do have issues. One of the main issues is they lost a lot of parental and PTA support when they yanked out all those kids to move them to Brier Creek when it opened. They should have thought about that IMO.
Please provide the journal
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:08 — shearertwPlease provide the journal and year in which this paper was published.
Oh...and I do give damn about the data, that's why I have come to the conclusion that diversity busing has failed to improve ED performance...after exhaustive research of my own. I find the research I have conducted to be more credible than that of the diversity camp. YOU don't have to believe it but I've seen more than enough for my own satisfaction that divesity busing doesn't work. If I'd discovered something else, I'd say that. In fact, I'd be for the busing. I'd also be afraid that stopping the busing will end up hurting ED performance but I'm 100% confident it won't hurt, may help and if combined with appropriate programs and strategies will lead to significant improvement. I'd expect to start seeing those improvements in 3-5 years following the reversal of the current policy is implemented. So...if mostly implemented by say 2012, the ED EOG scores of 2015-2017 will be very important to analyze. So that's seven years. After 30+ years of having it your way in WCPSS and NOT improving ED performance, asking for 7 years of community schools is not too much to ask.
This Says It All
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:11 — chaboardI find the research I have conducted to be more credible than that of the diversity camp
Just the single paper you're shrugging off (and there are LOTS more) today consists of advanced heirarchical regression models run against three seta of EOG test scores each for more than 60,000+ students from over 1000 schools in NC tracked over five years. Models explicitly designed to isolate group (school) and individual effects of more than two dozen school and individual attributes.
You, on the other hand, have run a few simple correlations and compared a few group means. On a dataset that consists of at most a few hundred (too lazy to go look and count but I'm pretty sure I'm overcrediting you here) observations of ONLY rolled up school-level data - and only one or two demographic attributes at that.
Get real. Your data collection and analysis was "ok" for a part-time hobbyist stuck with having to manually glean data off a website. I've been there and done the same type of stuff.
But you're comparing your tricycle to her Porsche....
I think my data set did a
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:33 — shearertwI think my data set did a little more than that.
First, it asked a very simple question. How do ED kids perform in high (>40%) vs low (<40%) schools in WCPSS? Sometimes, the best research starts with a very simple question. The measures were also simple (another mark of a good research topic). The results, as it turns out, clearly showed that the performance of ED in high ED pops is no different than low ED pops. The statistics were sound, solid, albeit simple. There's really no need for advance statistics to try and search for a fit. The differsity policy doesn't consider all the other factors you may put in some wacky model, they only care(d) about SES. That's it. So that's the only question we needed to ask to end the policy. i.e. Has it worked? Answer, NO!. End policy. Problem solved. Sometimes a tricycle is all you need.
Actually, until you have an
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:44 — danofncActually, until you have an >80% ED pop to compare to a 5% ED pop, you don't have enough data, because those are the types of situations that seem to be on the horizon.
If WCPSS
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:45 — local23is so great, then why are not all of the HS making the top 20 nationwide? Having one Magnet school doing great (which does exclude the ED) is not the same thing. It must be every kid in that school. Everyone keeps saying how great WCPSS is, but gosh in my many years in many other states and countries, I just don't remember seeing Wake County making the top list for schools..maybe I just missed this data!
It's not a bad system, it's just not a great system IMHO. For all of the wealth, great companies, many colleges and many families with degrees you would think we would be the number 1 school system in the country..but we are not. Being the most populous is not something to be proud off - too big is really one of the major problems we are facing. We could be one of the top 5 school systems if we would just concentrate more on the individual children instead of just the schools as a whole. If we help all children, then the schools/communities themselves will be great.
It's not a bad system, it's
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 22:01 — user12345It's not a bad system, it's just not a great system IMHO.
I was looking at the Great Schools site to see how we compare to similar sized cities and we have one of the highest overall ratings at one of lowest costs. It seems like a system needs to invest much more than we do to move up to an "8" ... so, we have a scorel card from the old board with best rating at the lowest cost that we can use to judge the results of the new board. Hopefully, they will move us to an "8" at a even lower cost.
....http://www.greatschools.org/cgi-bin/az/district-profile/1834#finance
So...
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 08:00 — Bob_SconceI have my doubts about this rating system. The New Orleans system is as good as Wake County? That just seems wrong.
I am sure there will always
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 08:45 — user12345I am sure there will always be disagreements over ratings .... but my intent was to show that WCPSS is not bottom of the barrel and give a mark that we can measure the performance of the new board against ... I was surprised that Fairfax, Va was only a 7. I was figuring an 8 given all the love shown here. Like the other post said, I think NO has rebuild much of their schools from the ground with new teachers, schools, charters, etc.
since the hurricane
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 08:12 — turnerk1I don't know about this rating system, but the New Orleans system has completely changed since the hurricane. There is almost no New Orleans school system any more, instead it is a complex mix of charter schools and schools run directly by the state. I've read that the situation there is really turning around.
Huh?
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 22:17 — local23I'm not following your post with this web site.
I'm referring to be a great school with top graduation rates and top attendance into colleges..in otherwords making the news.
You said we have a good
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 00:10 — user12345You said we have a good school system but not a great one and I am sort of agreeing with you .... we are not an 8,9 or 10 but are above all the similar sized cities and sure do well for being the lowest cost provider ... so I rank us above average for doing so much with so little.
As for having top businesses and colleges well the business are here for the low taxes and proximity to colleges .. the colleges really don't have any affect on schools ... just in the same physical space ... the problem with your thought is that you are in NC which is primarily an rural state outside Wake with a couple of pockets of high tech and banking but overall, NC has never been a leader in education like say VA or MA.
Here is the Forbes review which mentions our stellar performance using diversity.
...http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/moving/slideshows/top-public-schools-med-cities.gs?content=2272&page=3#slide
So...
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:36 — Bob_SconceAny idea why the North Carolina Educational Research Center doesn't appear in Google? I found a total of three citations there, one of which was in Spanish. (Hoping to download the data the woman used to do her analysis...)
What I said was I looked for
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 16:54 — shearertwWhat I said was I looked for the paper, couldn't find it. During my search for the paper, I found clear evidence that the individuals responsible for producing the paper are clearly biased. Therefore, reading the paper would not LIKELY change my opinion although I would still like to read it. What was that "peer reviewed" journal it was published in again?
In order for me to be convinced by the paper, I would need to be able to obtain the raw data, verify the results and methods of the analysis, check out the references, etc. Coming from this group, just saying it is peer reviewed is not enough. Sorry. In my case, I posted the data, shared the methods of analysis and references with the data came from. Anyone and everyone could have (and many have) checked and verified it for themselves. I'm willing to bet that is actually more than has occurred with the paper you are referring to. I think that gives me a little more credibility. Oh....you may call this arrogant but I would put my scientific abilities and credibility about 10 miles above the group this paper comes from.
Your Nose Is Growing
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 20:54 — chaboardYou found no evidence that the author was biased (you found a link between the author and someone you DISAGREE with) and even if you had it's irrelevant....scientists are allowed to have opinions and beliefs. In fact it's not at all odd that they would believe the things their research tells them are true. (Not, mind you, that you've established ANYTHING about the beliefs of the author.). No, what you need is evidence that the RESEARCH as biased. Or faulty And you haven't read a single word of the research.
There are very, very limited reasons to legitimately cast aside research based on WHO did it rather than what it S - basically there are only two. Certainly when it's someone with a history of deceit and data falsification (like that John Lott guy the gun nuts oved till he got caught). Often when it's someone being paid by a group whose agenda lines up with the results (think American Tobacco INstitute, for example). Neither applies here as far as you or I know.
And, you know, by YOUR stated criteria your own data and analysis are worthless. You have a much more thoroughly documented bias on this issue than you have any reason to believe Dr. Southworth has. I don't hold the same beliefs you do so I took your data and analysis on their own terms instead of trying to dismiss them because you had an agenda. Instead I was able to dismiss them on the merits because your analysis itself was flawed. ;)
Anyway, enough. You've made it very, very clear that the evidence means nothing to you. You are determined not to let your opinion be swayed by data or research. And that you're not interested in seeing it. I've offred to send it to you and I wo't retract the offer if you change your mind. But there really doesn't seem to be much point - you will dismiss it because you do not like the reality it documents.
Finally, as to the
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 15:29 — shearertwFinally, as to the evidence that the author is biased. The link I found is someone who is more than likely the mentor of the Southworth. I think that is relevant. As to DISAGREEing with that person....in the video, she is clearly stating her position that the Supreme Court ruling against busing solely based on race was WRONG. I would call the a radical position. Then she goes on to promote the use of "alternative means" for achieving the same thing (i.e. busing based on RACE, not just economic status). Again, RADICAL. Finally, the more material from her I read, the more I'm convinced I should be skeptical. I'm just sad that some of you are so fooled by you idealism.
So...
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:04 — Bob_SconceSo, two parts to research: data collection and analysis. Analysis is relatively easy to verify. Data collection is another thing, though: if it's not done very carefully, the biases of the researcher will impact the quality of the data, intentionally or not.
..
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 21:39 — Dove314Maybe the Chemistry professor being an expert on school board policy isn't as far off as first purported by critics.
It seems parents can become experts in education research just by doing some lay research, learning buzz words on how to dismiss research that doesn't fit their desired results and doing their own uncontrolled analyses. No education degree(s) or expertise required.
Apparently, any lay person can become an expert on any aspects of education.
Heh...
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:03 — Bob_SconceI'll have to dig up the reference to the supposedly peer-reviewed scholarly computer science paper that got published but was actually computer generated and contained nothing but gobbeldy-gook.
I'm beating my head against
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:14 — shearertwI'm beating my head against the wall here Bob. I'd love to see that for some comic relief. I just don't get why some people think these "group think" researchers should be trusted because they are "peer-reviewed". They're all reading and reviewing each others papers and are looking for the same conclusion BEFORE starting the research. If the "peer reviewers" have the conclusions of the paper decided before they review it, why do I need to read it before deciding I'm skeptical?
Oh...still waiting on a journal ref....still thinking this may be part of a PhD thesis...making it even more suspect.
So...
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:39 — Bob_SconceI'll dig it up. I think I saw it linked to at slashdot some time ago.
Russ Roberts, a professor of Economics at George Mason, has an interesting take on all of this. His view is that computers have actually hurt the quality of data analysis that's done -- it used to be that you would have to come up with a fairly solid hypothesis because if you spent a ton of effort doing data collection, spent a ton of time running a regression and then came up with nothing, you were in deep trouble. Now, computers have made running regressions much, much easier, to the point that you're no longer in deep trouble -- you just change your hypothesis a little bit and tweak things until you find something that sort-of fits, even if it only does so by happenstance. Once it fits, you write the paper and get your doctorate.
Calling BS
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 05:54 — Dove314First of all, the idea of the a priori hypothesis remains along with detailing the primary objective of an analysis.
Once you deviate from the primary hypothesis, the analysis becomes a fishing expedition and shifts to hypothesis generation rather than confirmatory analysis. Statistical analyses also have corrections for multiple comparisons. And lastly, there is the reality check -- does the result make any sense in the real world context. Any proper scientist is publishing their work to allow others to review, get feedback, and provide comment, including from lay people without significant schooling in education theory and practice as post on this blog.
And then there is the dissertation committee who lives for the opportunity to bedevil a graduate student, requiring them to provide in exquisite detail up front in the protocol all study details through data collection and on through to completed analyses. The required oral and written dissertation defenses and doctoral exams are purposefully made to challenge the individual and make the candidate demonstrate extensive understanding of their subject, not rubber stamp their work.
Given this is a forum on education, it might be worth not belittling what is involved in obtaining an advanced education.
Huh?
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:59 — Bob_SconceNot trying to belittle what it takes to get an advanced degree -- I have one myself.
I'm just pointing out that academic research is not this idealistic path to unbiased enlightenment that some perceive it to be, especially in the social sciences.
In the end, the test of research isn't whether it got past a faculty committee, but whether its data and methods can stand up to scrutiny. And, unfortunately, there are lots of papers that don't. See, e.g., http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/newmark.pdf (noting incorrect assumptions in a different study.) (Just off the top of my head; I know you won't like the source, but the author is well-respected.)
That's one of the reasons why medicine often has multiple studies looking at the same hypotheses. For example, a number of studies show that aspirin helps prevent heart attacks. If there were so much confidence in the methods, why run the second or third study?
Just a note
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 19:47 — Dove314I pulled up the reference you provided.
While I have not read the original study, the JLF author did a very nice job of laying out exactly what he did methodologically and how it differed from the original study. The author also nicely reproduced the original published results before making the methdological changes.
I appreciated the level of detail as often a letter to the editor can be too abbreviated for anyone but the original author to follow.
Of course I am not fond of the propaganda arm of the "source" if you mean the JLF, but that doesn't lead me to immediately dismiss the content of this article.
Been here before.
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:35 — Dove314Me too and pretty sure we've had this discussion.
One study is not sufficient to prove causality of anything. For that matter, multiple studies may not prove causality.
How strong was the association(s)? Is the temporal relationship realistic? Specifically here, how low a dose of aspirin is effective to minimize the side effects of aspirin use? Can the results be replicated? Do you see the same associations when you vary the study design or the study populations? Is there a viable biological mechanism? What other alternate explanations might there be?
And there is a reason why somewhere along the way, students in graduate school are taught to critically review the work of others and the importance of peer review. It is amazing to watch you dismiss all academic research and researchers in the social science arena as a waste of time. I have yet to see you provide any references you consider as having merit and have watched you dismiss ALL references provided. Since you are in this arena, you know that all but the most egregiously flawed research contains information that, taken in to context with noted biases and limitations, is still useful in informing both the current standard of research and the future standard of research.
Unlike you, I have not dismissed the readings I have done on either side of the assignment question, finding merit and flaws on both sides. I don't feel a need to drop objectivity to support "my team".
I don't think Bob and I are
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 16:46 — shearertwGetting an advanced
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:39 — DrActualFactualGetting an advanced education should be everyone's ultimate goal (IMO) I think the reputation of various journals which publish the findings of experts is what many people may look at to determine whether the paper published holds any weight (as part of the initial cursory review to the credibility of the researcher and research). This is likely why sheretew???? was asking where the work was published. Several of the other publications referenced by GSIW appeared in what seemed to be for the most part reputable journals. There is distrust on all sides from what I read here, if we can all keep to specifics and FULLY explain the sources used, why a poster deems the work/data to be relevant, --that adds to the discussion and conclusions the readers will make. At this point, an unbiased assessment looks pretty unlikely from either side because both sides are so invested in their viewpoints.
I disagree.
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 21:03 — Dove314From TPG, I have gotten information without the rhetoric and been allowed to form my own opinions.
I've come to appreciate that many assignment models could work to the benefit of students including the community schools model. But it calls for people trying to have an open mind and to look for the objective information provided amongst the rhetoric.
That is an interesting
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 17:51 — jenmanThat is an interesting take. One that I agree with.
Does This Sound Familiar?
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 16:30 — jgegbgmgI want to thank the Republican Party for all their help with my campaign and making me who I am today. Way to go Prickett - Maybe someone with the Party will give you another statement to read at the Board meeting so it will look like you know what you are talking about. So, So Sad !!!!!!!
What would be your solution jenman?
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 15:39 — mossYour comment: "If the BOE would have moved them 4 years ago when they were originally slated to go, it wouldn't be as big of a mess." is a very accurate statement. Growth and Planning were the ones who selected these nodes to be assigned to Stough back then, not Stough parents. So, when it came up again last year, Stough parents were blamed for asking for these nodes. But these were the nodes, except for one, that were chosen by Growth and Planning to attend Stough to begin with- four years ago when BCES opened. Stough parents asked for healthy nodes. These nodes just happen to be very close to Stough, and Lacy was over capacity. Would it have made more sense to reassign nodes from the overcrowded Leesville ES? What is the answer, what would have been a better solution? Also, what would have been the solution 4 years ago when Brier Creek opened? No one, including the old board and the new board, has yet to answer this question. When a new school opens, and students are assigned to fill that school, doesn't it make sense to replenish those students? That was the case with Stough. And as for the comments that are being made about Stough parents recruiting the base nodes.......well that is an ongoing process. The folks who made comments like this don't really know what Stough parents are doing b/c they do not attend Stough or live in the base. How do you compete with a brand new year round school (BCES) or magnet schools? Most traditional schools can not compete with the magnet schools. I don't blame parents for applying to magnets - it is certainly a way to avoid reassignment or to avoid being assigned to a MYR school. It is the families who attend their base schools who pay the price of reassignments and the many other unequities in the system. For the Chairman of the school board to make a comment like “Stough is one of the schools that has the highest percentage of base students that have moved out for magnet schools. How do you let your school lose all of their base students?" is really ignorant. Is he really blaming Stough parents for letting the school lose the base students? That sure does give the Stough parents a lot of power, doesn't it? At this point, Stough parents just want a solution. No, we don't want families at our school who do not want to be there. And frankly, if it were not for the resources that we lose by not being at capacity, we would be fine with our enrollment numbers. Stough is a great school, and I can assure you that my middle school student was very well prepared after attending Stough for elementary school. So please, a lot of the folks on this blog post really do not know a thing about Stough, or about the history surrounding this issue. What is printed on the blogs and in the newspaper is not always 100% accurate.
I'm not disagreeing with
Wed, 04/07/2010 - 15:52 — jenmanI'm not disagreeing with anything you've said. Absolutely I think the nodes should have gone there 4 years ago. Like I said, many established areas have been forced to go elsewhere because of the 'domino effect' of new schools opening. I understand that it is painful being moved but I don't think that the moves were out of line 4 years ago when BC opened. And I do agree that Stough asked for 'healthy nodes' back then and in the beginning of this most recent assignment. Frankly, I think you may have one particular person who has created much of the ill will.
I honestly don't know what the solution is anymore. I can see both sides. I've read it all here and in the newspaper and I've heard it all from both sides in private conversations. There's a lot of history there. There are also good and bad arguments on both sides. I truly feel for both sides.
Who?
Thu, 04/08/2010 - 13:36 — duvalFrankly, I think you may have one particular person who has created much
of the ill will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------