What's the possibility that the new Wake County school board majority would still unconvert some schools for 2010-11?
As noted in today's North Raleigh News article, some parents haven't given up hope that the board will switch both Leesville Road elementary and middle schools to a traditional calendar next year.
"We still feel we'd be a great guinea pig for mandatory year-round reversal next year," said Lisa Boneham, founder of Concerned and Committed Leesville Parents, in the article.
The possibility of unconverting schools for 2010 diminished after the school board pulled from last week's meeting a resolution calling for the beginning of the end of MYR in 2010-11. The lack of time to make a change after staff presents the parental survey results in April was the problem.
School board member Deborah Prickett said she's trying to organize a meeting with Leesville parents after the holidays to talk about the implications of unconversion.
"It will be close, but it still may be possible to do it next year," Prickett said in the article.
But you can expect opposition from groups such as BiggerPicture4Wake and Leesville parents who want to keep the year-round calendar.
Gary Dismukes, a Leesville Elementary parent, said they plan to keep up the pressure on the new board to leave the campus on a year-round calendar. Dismukes made waves at last week's board meeting when he said "the board's stated polices are rooted in the same small-minded and racist polices of the Jim Crow South."
"My concern is that the only reason they slowed down is the public outcry," Dismukes said in today's article. "We just need to keep on them."
(I've got some more posts running today and a few over the next week. But I won't be answering questions between Thursday and Jan. 3 while I'm out of town.)
Comments
"But if the system can not
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:43 — user12345"But if the system can not even execute on the basics and only 50% of minorities graduate shouldn't we do the basics first? The AP/AG kids will do just fine in the world without special classes (they have for years) ... the minority kids are going to have a much rougher time in life without a HS education.” <Me> "I don't think it works like that. You are implicitly assuming that if we just allocated more resources (i.e. money) to educating poor students, those students would suddenly do better, and then use that assumption to suggest a preferable allocation. “<Bob>
Bob not sure how you got from my quote to yours?? ... my point is that public education is to bring ALL citizens to a level so they can participate in society ... it needs to accomplish that before wondering off into other areas (mission creep) ..
The analogy I would make is to another public offering … drinking water … the government offers the same above average drinking water to all citizens … now if the poor homes were being sent the polluted water that would be unacceptable … public education is like public drinking water the same above average quality should be offered to all citizens no matter their zip code… similarly, if some citizens in the rich area wanted better tasting water before fixing the pollution in the poor area that would be unfair ……education and water are two government services made available to all citizens to improve their quality of life irrespective of their race, income, zip code, potential…
"Fresh water" is served at
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 15:27 — woodstock"Fresh water" is served at all schools in Wake County; at the magnet schools it is a sparkling variety with a twist of lemon. Kids headed to Ivy League schools and those who will not make to it graduation all have access to the same well. The problem is some drink it and some let it just spill on the ground.
No
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 17:38 — lferreriNo, they don't have access to the same curriculum, at least not at some of the magnet schools. Enloe and Ligon, for example, are each really two schools in one building. Access to many of the desirable courses and electives are restricted to the "haves".
Yet another reason we need to re-examine Magnet Schools
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 07:59 — Voice_of_Reason_The have vs. have-not two track mentality of magnet programs is a hidden segregation program. If the NAACP really wants to go after something, this is it, not economic-diversity busing.
So let's fix the problem
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 14:18 — Voice_of_Reason_Any child that is not doing well due to socio-economic status should be taken away from there parents and boarded elsewhere in a well funded facility, feed nutritious meals, and forced to study for the greater good of society. They should be given unlimited resources because they might end up in prison if they are not. Those children should be shielded from any criticism of their behaviour except by their caregivers. That's how they do it in Cuba to some extent after all.
OK back to reality, what is your solution to those children who are given an opportunity and don't take advantage of it? ..or is it what I just said ?
BTW- I don't advocate what I said as the solution, I think society and parents are the problem and I am not sure there is a total solution in a representative democracy or should there be.
Where are they given
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 21:24 — klanders65Where are they given opportunities? Not in WCPSS. These kids do not have opportunties in WCPSS even when they are prepared to succeed.
Opportunities ??
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 08:32 — Voice_of_Reason_Don't we have schools with decent environments? Are they given books and study materials? Don't we have mandated core curriculum ?
Are the children going to class? Are they doing homework? Are they paying attention? Are they respectful to the teachers and other students? ARE THEY WASTING OPPORTUNITIES????
Do liberal education policies aid or help prevent students from failing or assisting others to fail? Or maybe we aren't getting enough quality teachers because of relaxed standards for graduation. [these are national issues]
What do you define as opportunities? Unlimited resources to those that don't try at the expense of others? It takes initiative by both parents and students to seize most; and that is true across the economic spectrum.
I think WCPSS does a pretty decent job of providing opportunities. I do wish they would provide MERIT-based competitive entry special opportunity schools for those that want that (and weighed to give some advantage to low income kids) and more vocational education for those that want that.
Opportunities
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:58 — klanders65High achieving low income kids get pulled from core courses to receive remedial work instead. Almost all the reports on the E&R website that are program evaluation of programs designed to bring kids to grade level report that they find when evaluating them that they served primarily low income kids who were already above grade level, and that the service more or less damages the children. Just read the little summary parts of these reports:
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2009/0927alp3-5_2008.pdf
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2005/0503alpk2_2003_04.pdf
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0609ses_hodge_revised.pdf
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2009/0915h_hands.pdf
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2004/0409partnership_edu.pdf
This is all hidden in plain sight. They give these kids remedial services designed to bring them to grade level, when they are already at or above grade level. Then they document this absurd practice and report that these remedial services have hurt the students who started out above grade level.
They miss out on core curriculum to receive these services. I have had students pulled from my math class to receive remedial services instead of sitting in my class. I had to find out why in the world perfectly fine students would be pulled out of math class to receive services they do not need-on a regular basis. Kids can hardly make up what they miss in math if they get the flu. Why pull kids out on a regular basis? I have been told that they deserve services because of their income, and they rotate when to pull them out and don't want them to miss electives because the kids like the electives but probably don't like math, and their lives are so hard that we sure don't want to pull them out of fun classes and make school as bad for them as their home lives. I am talking about perfectly good students who were successful in math.
You know my trouble-making attitude. I looked in to this crazy practice and saw that they really believe this is the right thing to do. Then I threw such a fit and demanded they not pull these A/B students out of my class to receive remedial services they do not need on a regular basis that just to not have to deal with me they quit pulling kids from my classes. But, most other people have no problem with this.
I see this as limiting opportunities in many ways.
One more thing, the concept of AG came about at the same time school integration came about. We segregate within the schools now. AG is a great tool for helping segregation. And that is hidden in plain sight also. Look at the stats on who is AG and look at how kids are identified. There is nothing scientific about it. And what are the results? Once labeled AG, kids have access to opportunities they would not otherwise have. And those opportunities are largely segregated.
What I am saying here is in addition to the huge lack of opportunities that lferrari points out.
Opportunity
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:58 — lferreriI define opportunity as things like having equal access to Algebra in eighth grade no matter what race you are, having an equal chance of getting into magnet programs no matter where you live, having an equal chance of being classified as AG even if you do not have powerful parents or even if you move here after third grade, etc. These equal opportunities do not exist in the WCPSS. There are probably many other examples of inequality but these can be demonstrated. No one that I know is advocating "unlimited resources to those who don't try at the expense of others". However, I realize that some children may need additional (not unlimited) resources. There's just too much disparity in the way resources are allocated and too much of the allocation isn't based on need but on having influential parents who know how to game the system, in my opinion.
One more thing. No, not all students even have books. Nor do all teachers follow the core curriculum. As a parent, it is very difficult to get these things corrected if the school decides not to fix them.
Not the same....
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 14:16 — Bob_SconceYour analogy is flawed. For one, a failing kid and a successful kid in the same class are drinking the same "water."
I didn't really get directly from your quote to mine -- a question of resource allocation seems to be underlying your argument, and I was trying to point out that it wasn't really about resources. Even in the water analogy, your view is that some kids get the good resources, and some get the bad ones.
There's only mission creep in your view of what the mission is. I view teaching advanced kids as a central part of the mission.
Non-stop sophistry
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 13:17 — Dadof3Did you just liken a public education system to public water delivery? Take a break and do some reflection; you're all over the map and convincing only yourself.
I understand the concern for
Sat, 12/26/2009 - 16:09 — red_balloonI understand the concern for those failing to graduate but I don't see that as a failure to deliver a basic education. Very likely, these are recalcitrant students and getting them to appreciate the benefits of an education shouldn't be the burden of schools. I am not saying that they should be neglected but that it shouldn't fall to schools to parent these kids.
Red, that is something to be
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 10:16 — user12345Red, that is something to be figured out ... my wive has five kids that need to go back to prison in her class ... removing them would unlock the potential of the other 22 ... next step would be to find how many of the five could have been saved ... maybe they live on the streets, can not read, or have an unaddresses learning disability ... the issue is that the 54% kids do not have a website, PAC, etc. to push for them ...
If the five are moved to a
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:11 — red_balloonIf the five are moved to a program for troubled/ troublesome students, would the graduation rate for the remaining minorities improve significantly? If yes, wouldn't the "unlocked" potential result in students attaining some level of academic success and consequently be caught in a cycle of positive change? Perhaps such a positive momentum will propel some of them from receiving a perfunctory education to a higher academic trajectory.
If the above is within the realm of reality, I am surprised that the community's leaders and more vocal members direct their energies to diversity/ desegregation than to fixing the root causes.
BTW, I saw the 12/15 meeting and felt only one group lacked a PAC, speaker, or a website: the group of capable students being marched into mediocrity in non-magnets.
“If the five are moved to
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:57 — user12345“If the five are moved to a program for troubled/ troublesome students, would the graduation rate for the remaining minorities improve significantly? If yes, wouldn't the "unlocked" potential result in students attaining some level of academic success and consequently be caught in a cycle of positive change? Perhaps such a positive momentum will propel some of them from receiving a perfunctory education to a higher academic trajectory.”
Not being an education expert, I think removing the five (probably three is enough) would make a big difference … my wife says the class in like night and day when administrators remove these kids for one reason or another … the question is how do you do that correctly … previously, white schools would remove blacks from the system by failing them out or expelling them … so policies were put in place to prevent that such that they try to keep everyone in the boat now at any cost … if they could find a race neutral method of separating the “wheat from the chaff” it would benefit many low income kids … note, a whole comprehensive program is needed from ES to HS and getting rid of a few trouble makers at the end of the process is only a small step to the total problem … a change would also make teaching in low income schools more attractive and address teacher retention issues ...
AP/AG
Sat, 12/26/2009 - 14:41 — RichardAndersonPerhaps, but as a society and nation, we certainly won't. I am not saying that you are wrong, but at the same time we all lose if we don't maximize the potential of our best and brightest.
IMO
Sat, 12/26/2009 - 13:29 — TrailerParkGirl"But if the system can not even execute on the basics and only 50% of minorities graduate shouldn't we do the basics first?"
IMO this is how we've gotten ourselves into trouble in the first place - low expectations and striving for mediocrity, especially based on demographics.
How is it that a teacher in inner city LA has minority 5th graders doing Algebra and Shakespeare? It's not by striving to get them to the basics. Same with KIPP or Capital Prep, etc. Again, every single successful scenerio for ALL children is founded in high expectations and belief that they will be obtained. There will still be variances between individual students (not groups) as to pace, degree and area (ie personally my verbal potential exceeds my math potential but I reach my potential in each area). BTW the high expectations do not stop with the students, but extend to teachers, admin, parents and community.
Situations where ED/minorities are not showing success are those where the expectations for them are set lower like here, and therefore, effective efforts are not made to close the gap because the gap is expected to exist in the first place. In other words success is considered getting them to the minimum while more NED are above minimum. It's too often viewed as a given, rather than a missing skill to be filled in, etc. (not in all cases here though, which is why you see such variance between ED performance between schools). It will never get better where it exists if the that mentality does not change in the places it exists, starting with district level.
Bob is correct - we need to be striving to have every student reach their full actual individual potential, whatever it may be (not assumed potential based on stereotypes).
"MO this is how we've gotten
Sat, 12/26/2009 - 15:13 — user12345"MO this is how we've gotten ourselves into trouble in the first place - low expectations and striving for mediocrity, especially based on demographics."
I am not sure on how offering above average education to ALL students has anything to do with low expectations and striving for mediocrity ... do you just copy and paste this line each time? Today, a significant portion of the the population do not graduate (54% kids) ... we need to address that issue .. if you think we can just expect more from them next year and they will all graduate ... go for it ...
How much research have you done?
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 00:28 — TrailerParkGirlHow much research have you done on the various programs that have success rates with ALL students?
Go read it, listen to it, whatever and then maybe you'll understand what low expectations and striving for mediocrity have to do with kids not graduating and what having high expectations has to do with them graduating.
Let's not forget that according to the status quo side, we have an excellent school system - in other words they think a 54% graduation rate equates to excellence. Got it?
Yes, I'm going to keep saying it until people get it because that's the key and the "basic" that is missing.
"Let's not forget that
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 10:22 — user12345"Let's not forget that according to the status quo side, we have an excellent school system - in other words they think a 54% graduation rate equates to excellence. Got it? "
TPG .. so imagine that the people who are suppose to love these kids only got to 54% what do you think the new people will do who only care about MYR, ending diversity and getting a new lawyer ... these kids did not make Ron's top eight ... let's see some concrete plans some funding ... start KIPP in 2011 ... if you have high expectations than lets see your people make it a priority ....
Who are supposed to love
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:12 — TrailerParkGirlTo whom exactly are you referring? The "status quo" BOE members? Administration? Who?
Do you think Lori "we can't have schools inundated with these kids" Millberg "loves" them or Kevin "schools can't be healthy with >40% ED students" Hill? How about David "we need to discount expected growth for ED students" Holdzcum? If that is "love", to me it is terribly misguided. I think there are people out there that "care" but it has this elitist, defeatist, low-expectation, pitying approach to it that is counterproductive to what is really needed. They really do think that the low-income CANNOT.
I'm not sure what you mean by "your people," but it seems that things could be accomplished much more efficiently if all parties sat down together and worked together towards that instead of this "us v. them" prove it while we throw up roadblocks and then we'll see approach. The chariot will go much faster if all the horses are pulling in the same direction instead of opposite. Again, moving the academic achievement goal up to #1 is making it a priority, but sometimes you seem to only want to see what you want to see.
Low expectations
Sat, 12/26/2009 - 17:42 — klanders65Let me try to explain this again. Maybe I haven't been clear. Here is what offering above average education to ALL students has to do with low expectations and striving for mediocrity: Low income students are provided with remedial work even when they are high achieving. WCPSS has low expectations for low income students and therefore provides them with learning opportunities that are sub-standard. At the magnet schools, there are two schools under one roof, like the Stanford girl explained. This starts early. Our low income schools pull high achieving kids out of classes to give them work designed to bring them to grade level. Read this: http://edstaranalytics.blogspot.com/ that shows how low income students are provided with remedial programs and they evaluate them and find this damages the students who were high scoring but low income, although they make up the majority of kids served with these programs. And they just keep doing this. They do this instead of providing high quality work for these kids.
When a high income kid is Level IV, they get to take advanced courses. Low income Level IV kids get remedial programs-over and over.
"Our low income schools pull
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 10:34 — user12345"Our low income schools pull high achieving kids out of classes to give them work designed to bring them to grade level."
I hope you see I am saying the same thing ...except you do not need to be low income or a minority ... you just need to be in a low income school ... my children who are white and high income get "work designed to bring them to grade level" because there are not enough advanced classes in low income school ... the classes can not be filled to capacity so they are not offered .... this is very simple ... it has little to do with race, income, SAS, etc. and has everything to do with a policy to fill every class room to capacity to reduce costs ... rich people in rich schools do not experience this nor do they seem to comprehend it ... the solution is to offer the most advanced classes possible even if only five kids are in it ... you hear that TPG ... no fancy KIPP, CAP, or program from your hometown ... just a simple policy change to offer the most advanced classes and take what ever fills them even if it is only five or ten kids ... that can be done now ...
Do you hear?
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 12:48 — TrailerParkGirlThe not enough classes in low-income has a lot to with race, income, SAS. The other factor is the whole magnet vs non-magnet problem. Do you really not get that? The fact they want to fill each class would not be an issue no matter what the demographics of the school if low-income and minority students were achieving academically and were in higher level courses across the board and we didn't limit what some schools could offer in favor of other schools. All your policy change accomplishes is to allow more access for students who are achieving without addressing the students who are not producing demand for those courses now and does not address the magnet/non-mag disparities. Allowing more access for those students is important, but can also be accomplished by increasing overall demand and leveling the playing field between schools.
It's pretty sad commentary when programs that raise achievement for low-income students by having high expectations for their success are considered "fancy."
By the way, there's nothing "fancy" about what is done in my hometown or the program used in my ES. My ES program is a different way of approaching learning and teaching. One teacher that uses it did post on a (national) teacher's blog when another teacher was asking about it that "it's not for sissies." I don't consider that or community schools "fancy." "Fancy" is the mistake they made in Kansas when they spent money on things like swimming pools with underwater viewing areas.
TPG .. read this slowly ...
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 13:13 — user12345TPG .. read this slowly ... maybe your will get it this time ..
"It's pretty sad commentary when programs that raise achievement for low-income students by having high expectations for their success are considered "fancy."
"fancy" is AG, schools for the arts, everyone having their own football field or swimming pool when 50% of the kids do not graduate... not "fancy" is valuing an advanced class of 10 kids in a poor school as much as 24 in a rich school ... that does NOT require any new programs ...Ron has not pushed for KIPP, John has not pushed for VoTech ... not their top priorities ... they are still struggling with whether to give the NAACP 15 minutes on their agenda ... before we do anything "fancy" just open up advanced classes in low income schools even if they only have ten kids and stop trying to fill seats as the priority ... I do nott want to wait for magnet changes to get two more kids and still NOTE have an advanced class for the 12 kids ...
Go back and read your first post real slow
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 21:54 — TrailerParkGirl"... you hear that TPG ... no fancy KIPP, CAP, or program from your hometown ..."
You go from "no fancy KIPP, CAP or program from your hometown" to "fancy is AG, schools for the arts, everyone having their own football field or swimming pool" - so you keep changing what you mean, thereby making your point intangible.
By all means go right ahead and suggest they open up all sorts of classes at low income schools. Good luck, let me know how that turns out without waiting for magnet changes, considering part of the current magnet set-up is denying non-magnets certain things in order to keep magnets special.
If they start them young
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 21:37 — klanders65If they start them young enough, there would be way more than 10 kids in them. If we start using EVAAS to decide which kids are currently ready for advanced classes-not fancy classes, just normal good quality courses that prepare kids for top track later-we are going to see a lot more than 10 kids in low income schools are ready. But what will will do with all those Title 1 teachers who are pulling Level IV kids from courses to teach them remedial work if we let the low income Level IV kids learn the normal curriculum? Normal curriculum would be an improvement over what low income Level IV kids get. The advanced version of normal would be a huge change. Like, let Level IV low income kids take 8th grade algebra. That isn't fancy.
AG is FANCY ! ??????
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 14:06 — Voice_of_Reason_You are showing a lot of ignorance on this topic user1234. AG is a special needs category, not a fancy program. In fact, one can argue AG programs are the most bang for the buck programs if done right. Some AG students would do bad in school and/or be disruptive if not challenged. In fact, they may also can make it harder for the academically challenged in a classroom. I do agree that some non-essential core programs such as foreign language study, SOME arts programs, swimming pools (who has that?), IB schools, as being in the category of luxury. I also agree a strong Vo-Tech program as an alternative to college prep is a must IMHO. Football Stadiums are an American tradition IMHO and the fields serve multiple uses...in this case I think the money is well spent. Perhaps the fields could be shared in some cases, but that would be the exception.
BTW- I have an AG student in a WCPSS Middle School.
Reference advanced courses in high poverty schools: I agree they should be offered in High School, if there is not enough participation to make them economically viable, then video telecommuting or physical busing should be offered.
AG
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 21:43 — klanders65AG is defined differently by all school systems, and the private schools here don't even have it. AG kids are protected by the fact that it is a special needs category. This doesn't make it real. All the kids would benefit from the high quality curriculum, or extra time and support of "accomodations" that some LD AG kids get. AG is subjectively identified in very non-reliable ways. If AG were real, it would be distributed throughout all the demographic groups but it is not. It is highly correlated with race and income. I think this is because of the extremely subjective nature of how kids are identified. Once identified, kids benefit from better more rigorous opportunities and high expectations. Like the Enloe parade at the school board meetings... those kids really are very well prepared for elite colleges. But that is because we made them that way with high quality educational experiences. And we also create our AG kids... at least most of them any way. It is great for the kids who get identified.
AG is subjectively
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 00:02 — red_balloonAG is subjectively identified in very non-reliable ways. If AG were real, it would be distributed throughout all the demographic groups but it is not. It is highly correlated with race and income.
Are you saying there are better indicators than CogAT and ITBS?
I don't want anyone whose
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 00:20 — klanders65I don't want anyone whose kids are labeled AG to think their kids are not special because that actually results in the kids becoming special. They are presented with more opportunities and higher expectations and they benefit greatly. So, if your kid is labeled AG you should continue to believe he/she is AG. I think it does damage though when one sibling is labeled AG and another is not if the parents actually believe this is something real being measured in the kids.
The CogAT and ITBS have very large false pos and false neg rates (which are diffferent things) so they are only part of the how decisions are made. The false positives favor certain kinds of kids and false negatives hurt other kinds of kids. This alone is about enough to account for disproportionate number of kids identified by race and income. But, in addition to that, not all kids are tested.
And, I don't believe any more than 2% of the kids are truly what I would call gifted. The others we could make into what we are calling gifted if we gave them the opportunities and high expectations.
I am gifted, so I am probably right. I think I am in that 2% that is real. (I am just kidding.)
Odd statistic about Enloe
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 23:20 — lferreriI just looked at the percentage of students at Enloe who are identified as AG. It's 49.5%. Yet apparently the students who come to Enloe are primarily from Ligon, Carnage, Zebulon, and Martin. Those schools are supposed to have a base population and a random selection of students (from a lottery that favors certain areas). The schools that feed into them are supposed to have students selected in a similar manner. So how does Enloe end up with so many AG students? Are the feeder schools identifying large numbers of students as AG? I know the process is very subjective but still Enloe is winding up with twice the average percentage of AG kids.
There are lots of ways to
Sun, 12/27/2009 - 23:42 — klanders65There are lots of ways to answer this. The answer that I actually believe is that some people demand that their children and children like their children get an advantage. They demand that they get most of the good resources. They get their kids identified as AG. (The reason the private schools don't have AG is because they'd have to identify all the kids as AG.) Being identified as AG is a ticket to the quality resources when they are available.
These are the same people who get their kids into the feeder schools for Enloe because they want to go to Enloe. They buy houses or pretend to. I know several people who bought houses but didn't live in them so they could go to Ligon and then get in to Enloe. They also made sure their kids were identified as AG in 3rd grade. Then they go to Wake Page and learn how to advocate for making sure their kid gets the best of all resources. The people who do this have Enloe as their final goal. So, you are going to have whatever the most powerful people who will use that power and wealth to get their kid the best education (and who can blame them?) disproportionately represented at Enloe.
A lot of kids are identified as AG and their parents have nothing to do with it. They usually look a lot like these kids whose parents bully everything through though because that is what we start thinking AG kids look like.
That is what I really believe. But another answer is that at least some of those feeder schools are what we call "gifted and talented" magnets. The magnet schools all have their "special programs," like "international" or IB, etc. At least some of those Enloe feeders are "gifted and talented" for their special thing. So, the magnet kids take "gifted and talented" versions of all their classes (which means better, higher expectations, etc.) They don't let the neighborhood kids take these. They have regular classes. I don't know if the "gifted and talented" magnets only take kids who have been identified as AG or not. I know they wll be gifted and talented after being treated like they are and educated like they are. But, I don't think they identify anyone after 3rd grade. Maybe they only take AG kids. I know siblings get priority so it seems they must take non-AG kids.
I am not a bit surprised that almost half of Enloe's kids are AG. And they wouldn't be neighborhood kids. So, a larger than 50 percent of magnet kids are AG. To get a top notch education in Wake, get your kid labeled AG in 3rd grade, then get into a feeder middle school for a magnet high that has all sorts of advanced courses to offer. Enloe has the most. Those who are most successful at playing this system and have it as a really high priority will end up both AG and at Enloe.
If I had it to do over again, I might do that. It is a really good education and I was aware of how it works. It just made me sick so I didn't want to play the system like this to advantage my kids. And it bothered me that the advantage is at the expense of other children. Something is being taken from other children. This is not a victimless advantage. But, it sure gets your kid a good education. When my high school kid lost the Honors math classes due to budget cuts or something, I started thinking maybe I should have played this system the way I know it can be played. (We are going to use NC Virtual School and get the Honors courses.)
2 things to add: 1) Some
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 00:27 — jenman2 things to add:
1) Some of the feeder schools are GT, and some are AG/GT. So a certain number of seats at Ligon & Carnage are for AG kids and a certain number are for GT. I think that Martin and Zebulon are just GT.
2) As to the way to get a top notch education. I agree with you except you have to get your kid into an AG or GT elem school in K, then get them ID'd as AG. If you're not already at Hunter, Powell, Fuller, Underwood, Washington, Wiley or Zebulon ES then you have a much harder chance of getting into Ligon, Carnage, Martin or Zebulon which are the feeders for Enloe. Other magnets have priority over the non-magnet schools but those AG and GT magnets get first dibs on seats at the middle school and high school levels.
In this system, you really have to know the year before your kid starts K that you ultimately want them at Enloe. You're screwed if you move here after K or if you aren't aware of how the system works or if you just don't know what your kid's interests will be at that young of an age.
I absolultely agree with something you've said a few times in the past: we are not giving these resources to the 'best and brightest' or most deserving students. We are MAKING these students that way by giving them the extra resources from the beginning. And it has much much more to do with the drive and the influence that the parents have than it does with the talents or brains of the kids themselves.
If you're interested
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:27 — lferreri"You're screwed if you move here after K"--definitely something that needs to be changed. I wonder how many parents moving here in part because of the supposedly "great" schools are aware that their older children are precluded from benefiting from many of the programs. I've also heard that, if your child is past third grade and was identified elsewhere as gifted, it's difficult to get them classified as AG here.
I looked up the statistics for the feeder elementary schools and I think it's interesting. The AG percentages are: Fuller 37.7%, Hunter 30%, Powell 18%, Underwood 28.5%, Washington 30.6%, Wiley 29.5% and Zebulon 11.9%. So it may matter not only that you get your child into a feeder school but also that it be the "right" feeder school. Of course, I realize that these statistics are affected by the population of the school. If there are fewer parents with influence, maybe the percentage are lower. But it may also be affected by the willingness of the school's administration to make exceptions. There's almost a 20% difference between Powell and Fuller.
Fuller and Hunter are the
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:01 — jenmanFuller and Hunter are the only 2 elem schools that have the AG Basics Program. They are also GT. Basically, GT means that they offer all the electives and AG means that they group the kids together for their basics--lang arts, math, science, soc studies. I think that's how it works. They might not group them for science & SS but I think they do.
That is one reason why people really want their kids in the AG program--they are separated from the rest of the kids. Ligon used to do this for all 4 core subjects as well but I think they have moved to just doing math and lang arts. And then I think its only if they are id'ed as strong or very strong. I'm trying to remember the details from our tour last year.
Do you know
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:37 — lferreriDo you know how admission is determined at Fuller and Hunter? I assume that most students enter these two schools as kindergarteners. So I assume that there is the usual base population plus application magnet students selected at random from the school areas that get magnet preference. Since the kids enter in kindergarten, their AG status should be unknown. Yet these two schools have higher than average percentages of AG students. That could happen if they are taking a lot of kids after the third grade AG identification process. Or maybe they are more willing to place students in AG. (It's odd that Washington Elementary, without an AG Basics program, has 30.6% of its students classified as AG.)
You're right--most kids are
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 12:51 — jenmanYou're right--most kids are entering at K so their AG status should be unknown. Could be that parents who are smart themselves and highly involved are pushing for their kids to get into those schools. I would think that kids coming from home environments like this are more likely to succeed and later be id'd as AG.
I also don't doubt that the parents and the schools are creative about getting kids id'd as AG. They know the importance of getting that label so they will do what they can to get it. My youngest has an attention problem and I worried about how he would do on standardized tests so I talked to the AG teacher about it. She assured me that there were other ways to ID kids as AG. Sure enough, he BOMBED the CogAts but she had him take the Iowa tests anyway. He scored in the mid to upper 90th % on those. Between those scores, his teacher and the AG teacher he was recommended for AG placement.
If I had not been an involved parent who brought this issue to light, he very well could have been bypassed for AG services. I'm sure that there are lots of kids whose parents don't know the ins and outs. Or who don't understand the importance of this label in our system.
Also
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 13:47 — lferreriI also had a thought about the ITBS. Since it is based on achievement, rather than ability, a better curriculum could affect the percentage of students who are identified as AG. They used to have all kids take the ITBS, not just those scoring above the 75th percentile on the CogAT. Someone said they cut back for budgetary reasons. (I've also heard that the results on the ITBS were not good so they wanted to limit the parents' ability to compare a nationally-normed test to the EOGs.)
You're right. I had
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 01:08 — klanders65You're right. I had forgotten that you have to get into those elementary schools. I knew that when my kids were little but I have forgotten. You have to know your kids are AG/GT (what is GT? I know it is Gifted and Talented, but what is that? And how is it different from AG?
You must be gifted like me, because you understand that we make these kids gifted and talented.
The good thing about this is that if we ever will admit it, we already know how to make successful kids.
Would it be a forbidden experiment to take a randomly selected set of kids and label them as AG and give them the best opportunities, and compare them to a control group that was also randomly selected? I think all educators know about the Rosenthal Experiment that did this. Why can't we do it now in Wake? It is kind of what we are doing any way only we don't keep track of the effect.
According to the WCPSS
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:40 — lferreriAccording to the WCPSS web site, AG students are those who " have been state-tested, starting in the third grade, and qualify for Differentiated Services in Gifted Education."
The Gifted and Talented magnet program "is based on the belief that every child has gifts and talents that need to be valued and nurtured and thus is offered the opportunity to participate in an extensive elective program." So GT means everyone. To me, GT is meaningless other than to indicate that the school offers a lot of electives. Being a cynic, I wonder if they realize that, in many other places, GT is the term used for AG kids. If parents see the term GT, they may think their child is getting a better education even though he or she hasn't been identified as gifted.
Thanks for all the good
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 11:08 — user12345Thanks for all the good facts ... I thought the disparity was just in the HS with languages / AP classes and I was not familiar with the problems in the ES/MS ....
My kid is in ES and I can
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:05 — red_balloonMy kid is in ES and I can tell you that WCPSS dumbs down kids like him. He will do well on EOGs despite WCPSS but his academic growth will regress until I get him out of his current school of 'excellence'.
Interestingly
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 15:06 — TrailerParkGirlMy kids do not seem to be experiencing this issue in our school of 'progress'.
Did you know
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:24 — lferreriDid you know that you can give your child a nationally-normed test at home if you want to see how he is doing? There are a bunch of places that provide tests to homeschoolers, but they will let anyone give them. The results aren't "valid" if a parent administers them, but you could have a friend do it. (It's easy.) Or, since you would only want to see how he's doing and don't want to share the results, you might not care. We gave one of these tests to our son after a couple of years of bad teaching and were dismayed to find out how far he'd fallen behind his previous levels even though he had passed the EOGs.
In math and reading, he
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 14:48 — red_balloonIn math and reading, he covers material that he did two years ago. I am focusing more on his writing skills and expect he will improve in this area too. I don't consider him AG but for sure WCPSS will succeed at making a nitwit out of him unless I remain engaged.
Montessori
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 16:15 — lferreriI saw your reply below but put this up here for more space. Our son was at a Montessori school too before we moved here. It was also well ahead of the curriculum here. He could do multiplication in first grade there. When he got to the WCPSS, they ignored this and didn't even teach the multiplication facts until the end of second grade. I had to work with him at home so he didn't lose what he had learned previously. Still he lost ground because he was wasting time in his regular classroom. I had him tested (I didn't know then that I could do it myself) and his calculation skills were only at beginning second grade level on a national scale. I think that was entirely due to the reduced curriculum. Our son isn't AG either but there's no reason why he shouldn't have been taught a curriculum that would put him at the national average.
Is that compared to another district
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 15:09 — TrailerParkGirlIs the two years ago in another district or another school within the district?
I've heard of a number of people who move here from other states and say that schools here are behind where they are other places.
"I've heard of a number of
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 16:48 — user12345"I've heard of a number of people who move here from other states and say that schools here are behind where they are other places. "
All that seems confusing ... when I moved from VA schools to GA school many years ago in the 5th grade, I was bored the first year waiting for everyone to catch up ... I mentioned that my homeschooled kids typically score one to two grades ahead of their peers ... so, what difference does it make ... the people moving here are coming from places that are going under ... typically, those places have higher taxes and spend more per student .. and over all, it seems like everyone gets into the college they should ... for example, I don't get the sense the Ivy League school take fewer people from NC ... so, while I think it is sad that NC and much of the south is behind what more progressive states teach, I am not sure how much it hurts the kids ... or how much it would payback it we came up to par ....
I think
Mon, 12/28/2009 - 17:05 — lferreriI think it would help a lot if we came up to par.