The Great Schools in Wake Coalition is forum is off and running with a few hundred people so far at N.C. State's McKimmon Center.
GSIW chairwoman Yevonne Brannon opened things up by praising socioeconomic diversity as being an important part of the foundation for the success of both the school system and the county. School board member John Tedesco, who is in attendance, got beaten up indirectly during Brannon's remarks.
Without saying Tedesco by name, Brannon chastised his statement after Thursday's student assignment committee meeting that SES was no longer going to be used in assignment.
"Denying the term does not make it go away," Brannon said, drawing applause from the crowd.
Brannon also said the proposal to divide up the county into community zones, which has been pushed by Tedesco and will apparently become a reality in Wake, as being "irresponsible."
It was noted at the beginning of the forum that school board chairman Ron Margiotta and vice chairwoman Debra Goldman had turned down an invitation to speak today. But Tedesco, who's been the most outspoken person on the new direction wasn't invited to speak. He came on his own today.
Also present are school board member Anne McLaurin and Carolyn Morrison.
Brannon also said parents should know that growth is driving reassignment. She said that socioeconomic diversity only drives 5 percent of reassignments.
(Brannon's 5 percent figure likely only includes reassignments where SES is the sole factor. But especially in the recent era of trying to make schools comparable, it likely doesn't include assignments where diversity is one of the factors. For instance, a number of moves of high-poverty nodes in the assignment plan adopted last year cited feeder patterns and filling new schools as the main reason.)
Also at the start of the forum, Brannon gave a special thank you to the Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP. She praised Barber as being "steadfast" for ensuing his support for providing an equitable education to all children in North Carolina.
After getting applause from the crowd, Barber gave some love back to the GSIW.
"You are to be commended," Barber said. "This is the right issue. This is the right time you are the right people."
For those who can't make it today, Raleigh Television is taping the forum and will air it at some point.
UPDATE
While all nine school board members were invited to attend, only Margiotta and Goldman were invited to speak.
Comments
allkidsfirst, Thinking about
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:49 — shearertwallkidsfirst,
Thinking about this a little more, if you statement were true, it actually would be an arguement for creating more higher poverty schools it WCPSS. Follow the logic, the data already suggest that F&R students perform just as well (sometimes better) in higher poverty schools (>40%) in Wake Co. as in lower poverty schools (<40%). If you're statement is true (and I don't believe it is), then it would mean that NED students are performing much better in higher poverty schools than their peers in lower poverty schools. So... is this really true or where you just making a statement with no solid data to back it up. I'd really like to see this data.
I've done some preliminary
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:43 — shearertwI've done some preliminary analysis into this and I believe this statement is false. At the moment, I have to focus on my real job so I don't have time to do the detailed data collection to fully answer this question. If, however, you have not spent hours collecting the data, analyzing the data and putting it up for all to see to back up your claim, then I suggest you keep you statements (stated as fact) to yourself.
?????
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:20 — chaboardWhat is this a response to?
Mr. Kevin Hill was there
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 13:56 — duvalAs were many past BOE members.
...
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 13:27 — SideburnsHey Perry --
I heard Beverley Clark called the School Board a bunch of jackasses. True?
If this was anywhere near
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:21 — carson79If this was anywhere near true, I'm sure Hui would not only have led the blog post with it but then devoted a blog posting it on its own as well :)
Clark borrowed LBJ's quote
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 20:52 — KeungHui (author)Clark borrowed LBJ's quote about any jackass being able to kick down a barn. I'm a little busy finishing up the Tedesco profile before it runs tomorrow. I'll get around to posting more about today's forum later
I always thought that was a
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:11 — carson79I always thought that was a Sam Rayburn quote, but here is LBJ's version from 1964:
"Any fool
could have put his thumb on the button and turned on the atomic bomb.
Anyone could have started a war right quick.
We have an old
saying in Texas--you may not have ever heard it: "Any jackass can kick
a barn down, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." So we want to
be careful and not kick anything down. We want to be careful not to
start anything that would wipe out a hundred million Americans, and
wipe out a hundred million Soviets. So we considered and we thought and
we deliberated"
Most quotable president ever?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:38 — festusAnytime I read an LBJ quote I always get the combination of involuntary grin and shudder.
Of course, the truism that "things could always be worse" still applies: We might have had Goldwater!
Wonder If
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 22:01 — occum_sharpeLBJ made that comment while he was walking around Air Force One naked or sitting on the toilet while holding a staff meeting. Maybe it was while he was carrying out his favorite pastime of driving drunk on his ranch in Texas.
If you ever have the chance to read some biographies of LBJ, I promise you'll get a kick out of him. Quite a character.
...
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:31 — SideburnsSo it wasn't just somewhere near the truth -- it was true. Why did you doubt me?
it was meant to be a joke
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:51 — carson79it was meant to be a joke about Hui's sensational approach to blogging, as confirmed by his response. He'll post about it later, just as I said.
I really don't consider this quote the same as "calling the new board jackasses" - just the same as Margiotta didn't exactly call the diversity supporters "animals" and Gatewood didn't call the new board "white racists" exactly.
The lack of context in your statement was irresponsible and serves only to ratchet the heat of the debate for no real reason. The same as when people kept saying someone spray painted John Tedesco's car with "racist" when no such thing happened! I guess you may see her comment as doing the same thing, but then you are still pot calling the kettle black!
"I really don't consider
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 17:19 — woodstock...
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 18:32 — SideburnsThe funniest part is that Clark considers herself a "good carpenter". :>)
...
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 22:12 — SideburnsMy post wasn't irresponsbile. It was a question for Perry -- and Mr. Hui confirmed it. Your poor attempt at a joke made it seem I had just made it up -- THAT is irresponsible.
I agree with you on the Tedesco incident. I had heard it was papered with fliers (still vandalism). Unlike some people, I don't need to make things up to make my point.
It's still not the same
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 22:27 — carson79It's still not the same thing as her coming out and saying "Hey yall, man, can you believe this new Board? <boos from the crowd> Are they a bunch of jackasses or what?" Given the heat of the debate at this point, the context around her quote was necessary to give a clear view of what happened. Not only that, but she didn't explicitly "call them jackasses".
Economically balanced schools
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 12:33 — WhalerCaneKeung, In stead of just focussing on personalities, I hope you will cite some of the repeated research presented that proves economically balanced schools impoves academic achievement among low wealth and middle class students alike, and that along with personal SES status, the SES of a school is the #1 predictor of student perfomance. As well, I hope you will cite the overwhelming research that demonstrates economically balanced schools is by far the most cost efficient means of contributing to student achievement among low wealth students.
When we look at the WCPSS
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 15:17 — klanders65When we look at the WCPSS schools, we see that there is no correlation at all between the % of low income and achievement. The magnet schools have the highest achievement gaps. I think WCPSS's huge achievement gaps in the magnet schools, due to much lower scoring minorities than in the non-magnets (not higher scoring White students) is because the low-income and minority students have no access to the quality courses in the magnet schools. WCPSS's magnet schools actually hurt the achievement of low income kids. Why don't we start here looking at ourselves and ask why? Do we want more of this?
Why rely on such a small subset?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:42 — festusUsing Wake data alone doesn't make much sense, for all the reasons given by others below: Limited sample size, short time frame, high mobility, etc. Instead, why not use the large and growing data and analysis on high poverty schools nationwide? The trend is pretty darn clear: High poverty schools lead to high teacher mobility and poor student performance. The exceptions are rare, fragile, and expensive. Using economic diversity as one among many assignment decisions makes good sense in Wake. We should be looking to IMPROVE that policy, and to AUGMENT it, rather than to throw it away in favor of a known path to failure.
Why rely on such a small subset?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:42 — festusUsing Wake data alone doesn't make much sense, for all the reasons given by others below: Limited sample size, short time frame, high mobility, etc. Instead, why not use the large and growing data and analysis on high poverty schools nationwide? The trend is pretty darn clear: High poverty schools lead to high teacher mobility and poor student performance. The exceptions are rare, fragile, and expensive. Using economic diversity as one among many assignment decisions makes good sense in Wake. We should be looking to IMPROVE that policy, and to AUGMENT it, rather than to throw it away in favor of a known path to failure.
"we see that there is no
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 18:07 — chaboard"we see that there is no correlation at all between the % of low income and achievement."
I'm still not convinced that what you're seeing here isn't a reflection of the fact that because of the diversity policy we don't have a lot of schools in the danger zone. I notice that the correlation appears to gets stronger as you look at higher-poverty subsets of the data. For example (each pair of numbers below is the correlation between %F&R and , respectively, %prof math and %prof reading. Using the data todd uploaded yesterday):
All WCPSS: -.11 -.18
Only Those over 50% F&R: -.28 -.29
It appears that the correlation gets even stronger at "over 60%" but there are so few schools in that range in WCPSS that the number can't be trusted.
IF the correlation really *does* get stronger at higher F&R levels (and before really claiming it I'd prefer testing against a district like CMS that HAS a lot of really high F&R schools) then that seems to me to be evidence against the idea that there is no correlation. It's more consistent with the idea that it doesn't matter much until you hit a critical mass threshold and then it starts mattering a lot. Which is basically the idea motivating the diversity policy.
I'd like to get that CMS (and even statewide) data into a dataset ovrr the next couple of weeks and test this threshold theory.
Taking This Idea A Bit Further
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 20:21 — chaboardhave a look at these graphs:
docs.google.com/View?id=df732hrw_87chxmhggs
I just threw these together in about 15 minutes and there's not enough data there to make conclusions.....but I think it's highly suggestive that the basic idea behind the diversity policy - ie, there exists a "tippig point" beyond which higher poverty concentration correlates with lower proficiency levels - is true even in WCPSS.
Thoughts?
79-85?
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:33 — Dove314What do you think may be causing the sign change occurring just prior to the tipping point around 86 (~79-85) ?
You do have to be very careful given you don't have error bars and have very low numbers of schools at that outer margin.
And as I've been harping, crude numbers may well be confounded by some variable not included.
One suggestion -- if you want to measure whether increasing poverty is associated with decreased achievement, you should not limit yourself to comparing Wake to CMS but instead consider pooling several counties where there is no diversity policy limiting the ability to explore the association because it is already a part of the selection process. You could pool as many counties / districts as needed to get power across the FRL%'s and incorporate variables for district or district size (plus any variables you have the time to include, the more the merrier if the power if sufficient).
I'm Pretty Slammed
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:42 — chaboardfor the next 10 days or so but if no one has convinced me that I made a dumb mistake in he methodology by then I'm thinking I'll have time to do the same thing over all schools in the state.
(Aside to Eric - shoot me an email at my home addy. I just realized all I have for you is your work one. )
Are these graphs for the
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 20:29 — Eric_BAre these graphs for the overall proficiency percentage at each school or the ED student proficiency percentages?
In the past (like shearertw), I've plotted ED student proficiency and found no correlation.
EVAAS questions
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 23:41 — Dove314Am trying to learn about EVAAS strengths and weaknesses and have some questions.
EVAAS objective it to allow a school district or a school to ascertain where a system has problems. As a result, it seeks to control for student specific characteristics to allow focus on school level characteristics. It controls for student specific information by using each student as their own control using prior history on test scores for a specific student to account for the suite of student level characteristics? So the idea of not taking student SES, in reality any student level variables, beyond a prior history of at least 3 test scores into account in modelling test scores is that adjustment could confound the models ability to fit school and district characteristics to diagnose what is and isn't working?
Dr. Sanders in one of his response articles cites the example of the hypothesis that many "high poverty" schools have less experienced teachers which results in lower test scores and that if a district adjust for the proportion of high poverty students in their evaluations, it would overfit the models and reduce their ability to detect such an effect if present. Am I following to this point correctly?
It's The Proficiency Numbers
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 21:34 — chaboardshearertw posted yesterday to Google Doc. I *think* he said they were the ED's proficiencies. Guess we need to doublecheck that. To check one example the numbers for PLeasant Union are 61.5% math and 41.4% reading. Is that the ED set?
Did you look at how correlation *rates* changed as the school pool gotpoorer? I don' think anyone has posited a linear relaionship so straight correlations won't answer the question.
can you also respond to
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 20:49 — carson79can you also respond to user1234's figures below on hs if you get a chance? like if it is a valid comparison and if not why not.
Actually, the achievement
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 15:47 — allkidsfirstActually, the achievement gap is worse in the schools that we've allowed to become higher poverty.
Really?
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:28 — Bob_SconceSo, sheartw posted some analysis here over the last day that demonstrated that students in those higher poverty schools don't do appricably worse than in other WCPSS schools. Do you have other evidence?
Of course, you've talking about the "achivement gap," which could have another cause -- are you asserting that non-F&R students actually do better in high F&R schools?
So...
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 13:05 — Bob_SconcePerry --
Why don't you provide links to that research yourself? I've seen a lot of it and don't believe that it presents nearly as strong of a case as you see to think it does.
Where The Research....
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 13:07 — JanisTangoPeople keep talking research and now I here the line that WCPSS performance is due to not following their own policy and growth, etc. Is there research to back that up?
So...
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 15:30 — Bob_SconceThat's Kahlenberg's argument -- the district says "no more than 40% F&R in a school," but there are a number of schools with more than that. As sheartw has shown here, the argument is erroneous because those school with more than 40% F&R (1) don't contribute significantly to the overall performance (or lack thereof) of the district and (2) in general don't do any worse among F&R students than school with less than 40% F&R.
Better than magnets
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 22:26 — SDR256Actually many of the high F&R schools do better in their achievement gaps than magnets. Magnets are some of the worst in that regard, and also in the percentage of their poor and minority students they graduate.
What do you mean by
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 15:22 — klanders65What do you mean by research? Just look at school system data. They are not following their own diversity policy. Even in the schools where they are following it, low-income and minority students are doing terrible. There is something else accounting for achievement. I think it is the institutionalized low expectations for low income students, created by the Effectiveness Index, together with lack of access to rigorous courses for even the high achieving low income students. I believe diversity would be a good thing, but only if low income students have access to the things that are brought to a school (quality courses and quality teachers) when high income kids come in. WCPSS magnets do not give access to neighborhood kids.
Don't ask someone if this is true or not. Look at the data. Get the math achievement scores for Ligon 6th graders, and see who is in the advanced courses that lead to 8th grade algebra.
What about local base kids?
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 12:45 — festus"WCPSS magnets do not give access to neighborhood kids."
Is this really true? What about the base nodes at Conn, Ligon, Carnage, Washington et al?
I think
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 15:53 — TrailerParkGirlI think you may be confusing access to the school with access to the higher quality resources within that school.
The applicant students get the more rigorous quality courses while the ED base end up in the remedial courses. What I heard with my own ears at an open house (ES level) was that they give the elective courses clever names so no one feels bad or is supposed to be able to figure out who is AG and who is remedial. Then certain students are "encouraged" to take certain electives. It was in response to a question from an applicant parent about how students get appropriate level instruction. Remembering that ED students are labeled "at risk" and the magnets are trying to entice NED into and stay at the school, which students do you suppose may be encouraged to take which electives? You might want to look at the ED performance scores at some of the schools you mentioned. They are all below district average for ED and magnets have some of the largest achievement gaps.
Now some have tried to use the theory that magnet ED are a "different kind of" poor than nonmagnet ED. I'm not buying it. I suspect it has do with the fact that unlike nonmagnets where NED and ED are in the same classroom all day (except when they pull ED out to get remedial services whether or not they are actually below grade level), magnet NED and ED spend at least part of, if not most of, the day in different electives doing different coursework.
Someone told me their child was in an "environmental" science elective where the coursework included picking up trash. I'd be curious if the AG science elective kids pick up trash, too.
I think it depends on the
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:27 — jenmanI think it depends on the magnet--on its program and on the demographics of the neighborhood kids. If its one of the magnets that has non-F&R base nodes, then definitely those kids are given equal access. If its an AG magnet with a low income base, not as much.
Base kids
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 14:19 — lferreriIt was true when our son was at Ligon. The neighborhood (base) kids did not get equal access to the programs.
It Is In Some Areas!
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 15:54 — JanisTangoIt was true at Millbrook ES. I know a mom that moved to stay in the 'base' because they kicked her son out to make more room for more high income kids! She moved a block away! Her son's teacher's begged the previous BOE...she begged the previous BOE to stay and in her words...they were denied, denied, denied!
effectiveness index
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:41 — stepbystepBelow is some information that has been shared before but might clarify misconceptions about the effectiveness index. Also, Klander, are you aware of the Math Collaborative in WCPSS that is seeking to raise math achievement and increase access to advanced math courses throughout WCPSS? I just learned about it recently. Finally, the statement WCPSS magnets do not give access to neighborhood kids is just plain wrong.
1. The Evaluation & Research department (E&R)
never publishes our effectiveness indexes BEFORE the EOG/EOC scores are
recorded. Thus, teachers have no idea what the effectiveness index
"predicts" for any student. In this case, "prediction" is a statistical
term associated with regression analysis, the method used to calculate
the effectiveness index.
2. The Effectiveness index is
calculated using a statistical method that weighs a variety of factors
in "predicting" the relationship between the score earned and the score
anticipated. This method allows for a comparison between the student's
actual academic growth and the growth that, theoretically the student
should have earned.
3. The effectiveness index is NOT a matter
of adding a score, and adding something else. Rather, a statistical
formula is calculated that weights the score from the previous year (or
years), includes additional weighting for individual poverty, school
level poverty concentration, SWD and/or AG. The largest part of the
formula is derived from the student's performance history. The other
variables add a relatively small amount of the weight in the formula.
4.
It might be interesting to remember when and why the Effectiveness
index was developed. Several years ago (maybe 10) DPI developed a
growth formula similar to the Effectiveness Index to calculate growth as
part of the ABCs. Their formula did not control for poverty, AG, or
SWD (except as those influenced the past performance score). Because
WCPSS schools and students typically outscored the state, it was decided
that a localized regression formula might help make for better
comparisons within WCPSS. Therefore, the Effectiveness Index was
created to allow for such comparisons. The fundamental question being
asked was: how did a given student compare to other similar students
within Wake County? The controls allowed the performance of similar
students to be compared.
5. Since the effectiveness index was
created, the state has changed its regression formula and SAS has
released EVAAS. All of these are efforts to gauge the growth of
individual students compared with the growth that was reasonable to
expect.
6. Just to summarize and be clear: the effectiveness
index is NOT calculated before the end of the year. Teachers therefore
do not have access to this measure while they are teaching the student.
Principals do NOT use the effectiveness index to place students. In
fact, the effectiveness index is rarely calculated and disseminated
before August or September of the following year, so the measure cannot
be used for placement decisions.
I hope that this clears up the
completely incorrect information being posted on the blog. Let me know
if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.
Cordially, David
Assistant
Superintendent,
Evaluation & Research
(919) 850-1863
Stepbystep - you opened yourself up to a lawsuit.
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:03 — Voice_of_Reason_Since this part of your post may be in your own words and the remaining is purported to be Mr. Holdzkom's without quotations, you impersonated Mr. Holdzkom by putting his signature block at the end. Mr. Holdzkom would have a legal claim against you in court if he wished to pursue. I suggest you be more careful in the future when you post. I'm sure someone will send this post to Mr. Holdzkom for his comment.
Questions
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 18:47 — TrailerParkGirlHow long has the Math Collaborative been seeking to raise math achievement? Is their focus to raise overall achievement or close the achievement gap or both? What have been the findings and recommendations of the Math Collaborative? Have recommendations been implemented? Results?
How much weighting specifically is given to each of the categories AG, SWD, poverty and school poverty? My understanding was that the weighting factor used for poverty is FRL. Does the school FRL weighting vary depending upon the school's FRL percentage? Based on the fact that weighting is done this results in different expected growth targets for different demographic groups. Wouldn't lower expected growth targets for certain demographic groups make it appear as though their performance was better than it actually was relative to students in other demographic groups? When the percentage of students meeting growth targets by demographic group graphs are presented is this explained?
"All of these are efforts to gauge the growth of
individual students compared with the growth that was reasonable to expect."
By weighting FRL you seem to be indicating that it is not reasonable to expect FRL students to achieve at the same growth rate as non-FRL. How do you reconcile this with closing the achievement gap?
"Several years ago (maybe 10) DPI developed a
growth formula similar to the Effectiveness Index to calculate growth as part of the ABCs. Their formula did not control for poverty"
If the state formula did not control for poverty and EVAAS, which was purchased by DPI for use by all LEAs in NC does not control for poverty, why does WCPSS continue to control for poverty? If controlling for poverty is a best practice why are DPI and other LEAs not doing it?
How is the EI data disseminated in August or September of the following year specifically used?
The point
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 18:14 — klanders65I don't think anyone says that students are assigned classes using Effectiveness Index residuals. Quickplace has rosters of individual student data that shows the residual for the tests that students have already taken. Those residuals are computed with different expectations for academic growth for different subgroups.
EVAAS actually predicts and can be used for making enrollment decisions, although it is not used that way. I believe Mr. Holdzkom has said EVAAS is not needed because the Effective Index fills the role that EVAAS would play.
You can't have it both ways. Effectiveness Index is not used for predicting. It is used for identifying effective practices, or principals use it to identify effective teachers. I know that teachers look at their students' residuals to see if they have met goals they set for themselves. And all of this institutionalizes lower expectations for low-income students.
In #4 above, there are some high poverty schools that do worse than similar students in the state and the Effectiveness Index masks that. This was in the SAS report.
I am aware of the math collaborative that started 4 years ago to try to establish objective criteria such that if a child meets the criteria they will be allowed access to the top math track. They've been working for 4 years and do not have these criteria yet. There is too much resistance. The math teachers don't want objective criteria, and neither do other groups advocating to prohibit access to this track. Four years ago, this collaborative showed that about 80% of Level IV minorities were being tracked into the low 6th grade math track. The percentages of high scoring minorities being tracked low were higher in the magnet schools.
They still have no objective criteria. They have a confusing mix of subjective and objective criteria. Even though EVAAS predictions would tell which students are most likely to succeed on the path to 8th grade algebra, the new criteria just released uses EVAAS predictions only after 6th grade. Tracking begins in 6th grade, and those tracked low are not prepared to succeed/compete in the top track. So, using EVAAS after 6th grade seems designed to discredit EVAAS predictions (since students who spent 6th grade in the low track will fail at higher rates if tracked high after that) and to continue the social sort that happens after 5th grade.
The math collaborative illustrates how much effort will be put into restricting access to the rigorous courses. Why would this take 4 years? And why are people working so hard to keep kids out when they are likely to succeed?
Are You Serious?
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 09:02 — chaboard"I don't think anyone says that students are assigned classes using Effectiveness Index"
That exact claim has not only been made here repeatedly..it's probably the single most frequent claim made her avout the Effectiveess Index. Usually followed by accompanying claims that doing so is intentional racist behavior meant to make schools look good by holding poor kids out out of higher level classes.
Lets not be disingenuous....that is EXACTLY what has been claimed here. Over and over and over.
Can you offer some quotes
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 11:45 — Eric_BCan you offer some quotes from this blog that supports your contention that folks here claimed that principals assign students to classes based on the Effectiveness Index?
The main point about the Effectiveness Index is that WCPSS uses it to evaluate the "effectiveness" of its programs and interventions. Low income and minority students are handicapped on the EI, so even if they end up not doing as well as middle class students they can still show as meeting expected progress on the EI.
This hides problems and makes it appear that low income and minority students are doing well when they really may not be and the academic achievement gap can then widen.
I can second that I've seen it
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 12:19 — Dove314I can't point to a specific post but there have been some within the last two weeks. Is it possible to search the blog for specific terms?
I remember this as I'm still sorting out all of these various sources of data and it was those allegations in posts here that led to my understanding that the issue of %FRL is much more broad than just it's use in student assignment.
I've seen more than one post on the topic with discussion on the specific point of whether the scores were available at the time teachers and principals made recommendations on placement for the subsequent year. Discussion then went down two paths -- the first discussing when the EI scores were known to who and the second discussion on the unfairness of prospective placement of students on the basis of EI scores which were down-weighted for lower SES students and thus led to their placement in lower level math classes.
It led me to ask a series of questions trying to better understand this as I did not realize it was an inaccurate portrayal.
Went and found one series of the posts that led me to think this was the case and you along with klander65 were actually the posters that gave me that impression in a series of exchanges with a poster, exYank_WCprin, in the thread titled "Great Schools in Wake to hold press briefing on research on socioeconomic diversity", bottom of p.1 and continuing on to the top of p.2.
The kids have not even taken
Sun, 03/21/2010 - 18:38 — klanders65The kids have not even taken the EOGs yet when placement decisions are made. I am sorry if you got the mistaken impression that EI residual scores for current year were available to use when placement decisions are made. They are not. That exYank principal had a misunderstanding of what the EI is. I know I have said repeatedly that EI should not be used for information for individuals. The error is too big.
School staff use the individual residuals any way they want. You'd have to ask each principal how or if they use it. I forget how exYank said he used it but I remember he had a misunderstanding of what it is.
The main damage of EI is as Eric says, that it is used to determine the effectiveness of schools, programs, and teachers. And it has a different bar for different subgroups. It institutionalizes lower expectations for different groups.
I do have a real problem with how course placement decisions are done because they are not objective and many bright successful students are kept out of rigorous courses because they are overlooked. The EI isn't part of this. Subjective placement criteria is the problem. Different problem.
Your opinion
Mon, 03/22/2010 - 09:22 — Dove314Is student assignment one of the many factors influencing student achievement AND student achievement should be the major focus of WCPSS?
Or is student achievement one of the items impacted by student assignment AND student assignment should be the major focus of WCPSS?
Mr Holdzkom
Sat, 03/20/2010 - 16:55 — wireless200Mr. Holdzkom, would you provide or point us to data that shows performance of students who are bused to or from nodes with high (or low) F&R and comparison data with students from the same nodes who aren't? You understand what I'm asking, right? Does busing for an economic diversity goal, benefit individual students as compared to their peers who aren't relocated? A simple question and data should be there to answer it.