You could see even stronger wording in Wake County's revised student code of conduct about discouraging the use of suspensions for what might be considered relatively minor offenses.
Members of the Wake County school board's economically disadvantaged student performance task force spent much of today's meeting reviewing the proposed revisions to the Code of Student Conduct.
The new code breaks offenses into five levels. Much of the discussion at various small groups was on making changes to the wording on Level I offenses.
Level I offenses include cheating, showing disrespect to school employees, repetitive tardies, using inappropriate language, wearing inappropriate dress. having a cell phone on during the instructional day, trespassing, using tobacco and gambling.
The proposed wording for Level I violations is that they "may warrant disciplinary consequences up to a short-term suspension." It also says "teachers and principals should consider in-school interventions in lieu of out-of-school suspensions."
Victoria Curtis, Wake's student due process officer, told task force members that training of principals would convey to them that Level I offenses should result in suspension only if the offenses are considered so egregious.
But after meeting in small groups, nearly all of them said they wanted wording spelling out that suspensions should be considered a last resort or not used at all for Level I.
Several groups reported out that the policy should explicitly say that principals have to spell out aggravating factors why they're issuing a short-term suspension for a Level I offense.
A couple of groups suggested going even further and saying that only alternatives to out-of-school suspensions should be used for Level I offenses.
A couple of groups had questions about the inclusion of misconduct on a school bus in Level II, which the new policy says that short-term suspension may be warranted. The policy also says that principals can cite mitigating factors for not issuing a short-term suspension or aggravating factor for making it a long-term suspension.
Examples of misconduct on a bus cited in the policy include delaying the bus schedule, getting off at an unauthorized stop, participating in disruptive behavior while the bus is in operation, failing to observe established safety rules and regulation and willfully trespassing upon a bus.
Ideas proposed included moving misconduct on a bus to Level I or splitting up certain bus offenses between Levels I and II.
Other ideas discussed today including setting up tiers of consequences based on grade level and length of the suspension. This could include saying some short-term offenses would last for less than 10 days or that some long-term offenses would be for up to a certain length.
The full board had been set to have an initial vote on the changes on Tuesday. But school board member John Tedesco, chairman of the ED task force, asked for it to be pulled so the group could review the changes.
Tedesco indicated today he'd be willing to look at stronger language about not using suspensions unless needed for Level I offenses and on setting up tiers based on grade level.
Staff wants a decision made soon on whether the policies will be changed so they can print up new student and parent handbooks.
The school board could vote on the discipline changes as early as Tuesday or May 17.
Comments
Changes/Less of Zero Tolerance
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:35 — mommy593 years ago my son told his friends he had a headache.One of them offered him a tylenol.He took it but gave it back.Teacher didn't notice but another student saw what was happenning .Sotory got blown out of porotin and before we knew it we had phone calls galore about the situation.They were in 7th grade with the timing of this before EOG's.The friend who oofered a tylenol was given a 10 day suspenion.We all felt bad because it wasn't like he offered our son any illegal drug for his headache.The drug part of this student conduct needed to be changed and suspensions given out case by case.
While I think further
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 18:23 — Andrew95While I think further investigation certainly would've helped that case, a no-tolerance policy on pills is a reasonable rule. The office should have tylenol or something similar.
Allowing students to just give eachother pills without further investigation is a bad idea.
No tolerance rules are
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 19:48 — woodstockNo tolerance rules are ridiculous as it completely takes judgement and common sense out of the situation as illustrated by the scenario above. However, I do agree that students -- especially middle school and younger -- should not be offering other students medications of any sort. Whatever happened to teachable moments?
I don't mean zero tolerance
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 20:52 — Andrew95I don't mean zero tolerance as in, pills=punishment. I just mean that it should be assumed that the pills are against the rules until proven otherwise, to be on the safe side. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Also, I would think that it would be riskier to let highschool students give pills to eachother. After all, that's where the drug culture really begins. I don't see how younger kids could ever get their hands on anything worse than adderal. (though half of them are taking it anyway.)
The "drug culture" actually
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 21:38 — HJ2ss2The "drug culture" actually begans in upper elementary to middle school with it becoming more ingrained and prevalent in high school. Are half of the younger kids really taking meds for the treatment of ADHD or is that just your perception?
Being agaisnt the rules is
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 21:28 — woodstockBeing against the rules is not the same as zero tolerance... not even close. Zero tolerance implies punishment in all cases.
I don't understand your comment that the "drug culture" begins with asprin or Tylenol; are you suggesting they are gateway drugs... or is it because they are in pill form? Never heard that one before. If however you are suggesting that the kids only start to use drugs in high school, I got some news for you. That is not true.
Okay, confusion abound. I
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 21:40 — Andrew95Okay, confusion abound. I was talking about pills in general, because highschoolers are more likely to say it's tylenol and it's really something else. I was in no way suggesting that over the counter painkillers are gateway drugs. Again, sorry for any confusion.
And yes, I'm well aware that middleschoolers do drugs. However, pills (illegal ones) don't really start until highschool. (not a rule, just a general observation. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the only kind of pills I hear of middleschoolers doing is prescribed anti-depressants or ritalin, which can be abused. They are not, however, inherently illegal).
Oh my..., sounds like you
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 22:04 — woodstockOh my..., sounds like you have it all figured out.
Some questions have popped
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:51 — KeungHui (author)Some questions have popped up about the use of SCORE. Victoria Curtis said last week that 235 students have received SCORE in lieu of long-term suspension, If they don't complete the program, it gets reclassified as a long-term suspension. She added that recommendations for long-term suspensions are half the normal rate. Even if all 235 students don't complete SCORE, that would put Wake at 445 long-term suspensions. While more could be suspended in the last two months, that's still below last year's pace when 837 students received long-term suspensions.
I was really hoping
Tue, 05/10/2011 - 11:26 — LongtimeLurkerI was really hoping you could do some digging on this, not just repeat the administration's cover story.
Observers should mark my words. There is much more to this story.
If anyone wants to see it come out they will need to dig deeper. For starters try to think of what various advantages accrue by manipulating these definitions of who is "in school but not in school."
What are the "beneficial effects" (in political but also systemic terms) of cosmetics concealing that students are put out of class attendance for many weeks, failing all classes as a result of that missed work, but still eventually redefined as not having missed school for long-term time periods, but just having failed classes? The kids are gone, but they are "present" and then they all fail. Think about this. What are the various sinister gains in that kind of redefinition? And who absorbs the hidden losses? The administrator who is the architect of this change (I can't tell who it is) has done something unique and probably illegal here. Its important to expose this. And they are scared. That is all the evidence I have.
professional development?
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 15:55 — snordoneI volunteer in an afterschool program in SE Raleigh, and there are bad days with behavior. Not outright disrespect, but not listening, not staying on task, not motivated (i.e. they are normal kids). And from my perspective, it can be frustrating. Working with kids is never easy.
Here is my opinion from my experience working with ED kids - empowering children and reminding them of their talent and intelligence works better than anger and harsh words and punishment (although I do raise my voice to my own kids, so I am not trying to be preachy). I am really looking forward to the presentation about Project Bright Idea in June, from what I have read they have a behavior component to their program. I want to learn how to handle the bad days. I hope every teacher in Wake can attend, if we want to change the suspension rate we have to learn how to handle the bad days.
subjective not objective
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 14:11 — mbgjwaltersThere are several issues with the current discipline policy. My understanding is until this year, long term suspension in Wake County meant that the student was suspended for 10 days or the rest of the school year, whichever was longer. The principal had no ability to limit the length of the long term suspension. This was a radically different policy compared to the rest of the state.
Also, most suspensions were made based on subjective, not objective criteria. From the presentation at the ED Student Achievement task force meeting July 2010 :
From the presentation at the ED Student Achievement task force meeting last year:
Even though Wake County has only 9.4% of the state's students, it
accounted for 28.3% of all long-term suspensions in North Carolina (an
increase of 7.2 percentage points from the previous year). In other words,
more than a quarter of all long-term suspensions in the entire state came
from just one of the 115 school districts: Wake County.
Over the last three school years, students in Wake County have received
long-term suspensions at a rate 2.6 to 3.8 times higher than students in
the rest of North Carolina’s school districts.
Too many long-term suspensions were given out for relatively minor offenses. There were a total of 1015 long term suspensions. Almost 300 were for the following minor offenses:
191 long-term suspensions were handed down for the primary violation of minor assault (e.g., pushing);
36 for aggressive behavior;
31 for disruptive behavior;
and 29 for inappropriate language.
Additionally, thousands of short-term suspensions were
handed down for relatively minor, subjective offenses:
over 2,500 for inappropriate language;
over 2,300 for disruptive behavior;
and over 5,000 (nearly a quarter of all short-term suspensions) for disrespect of
staff.
My two cents: They actually
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 09:03 — Andrew95My two cents:
They actually need to start working on teaching teachers how to deal with disruptive or unruly students, instead of handing out punishments. Granted, the avoidance of long term suspension is a step in the right direction, but what's the difference between the effect of that punishment and another?
There are teachers that know how to deal with that kind of thing and teachers who don't. I'm not saying that the harshest teachers are the best at quelling resistance, because in highschool that just results in kids skipping the class. There are teachers that maintain the proper mix of motivation, entertainment, and respect that can turn a lot of kids around.
Classroom management is
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:18 — klanders65Classroom management is important and most teachers, especially younger new teachers, would love more help with this.
WCPSS doesn't need to address classroom management though, because the kids are still being sent home and not allowed back. They just don't call them Long Term Suspended any more. The situation is the same for the classroom teacher. They wouldn't see a difference from this policy.
It seems that this program
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 13:17 — Andrew95It seems that this program is trying to make getting long term suspensions harder, and increase the amount of discretion that goes into giving out such a punishment. I don't see how this makes no difference at all.
Even if it does make no difference, why would we not also focus on classroom management?
Not only classroom
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 16:58 — HJ2ss2Not only classroom management but working with students in general. I recall a student who stepped out of class because he was angry and felt, as if, he would explode. (He had a history of difficulty controlling anger). As he was sitting just outside of the school a BEH teacher's assistant came up to him and demanded he return to his classroom. She also threatened to take his cigarette lighter away. As you may have already guessed this escalated to the involvement of an administrator and the SRO. Further leading to threats of suspension, the student cursing, culminating in the 16 yr old student dropping out. This could have all been successfully resolved at the point where the student was initially attempting to calm himself.
You are misunderstanding.
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 14:13 — klanders65You are misunderstanding. They are giving out the same number of long term suspension. They just don't call them long term suspensions any more. The kids are not in school. They are out of the building. The same number of kids are getting put out of the building. So, teachers are not having to deal with effects of a new policy. It is confusing. They are saying the new policy is making for fewer suspensions.
The same number of kids are being removed from the classes, and from the buildings. They are just not calling it long term suspension any more. Nearly all the kids put out of the building are being called short term suspended even though they may be out for months and months.
It is a trick.
I'm not aware of any
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 16:27 — Andrew95I'm not aware of any objective source that says that.
Why don't you try to find
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 16:36 — klanders65Why don't you try to find out?
They did say at the ED Task Force meeting, when asked, that they have changed the definition of Long Term Suspended and are reclassifying students as short term when they enroll in the online courses called SCORE. They confirmed when asked, that the kids are not going back to school. They can log on from home and take some classes. But they cannot go back to school.
Why do they need to go back
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 23:11 — red_balloonWhy do they need to go back to school? If their continued presence is disruptive, the unfortunate reality is that maybe these students do not belong in a regular classroom. I see no reason why a disruptive student deserves special consideration and/ or funding than a regular student. Finally, I think it more important to focus on improving discipline than on WCPSS' classification for troublemakers.
So...
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 08:08 — Bob_SconceThe point is that the books are being cooked. Whether they actually should be going back to school is a different issue.
I understand the
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:06 — red_balloonI understand the reclassification and am not too concerned, in this instance, about the label used to report the statistics. The key problem is lack of discipline and that isn't about to go away by devising new labels and diluting disciplinary standards.
You are not concerned about
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 13:07 — klanders65You are not concerned about the reclassification or the label used to report the statistics? This means that you don't care to have any information about this.
You should not have any opinion if you don't care to have any information.
Maybe you don't realize the possible range of realities here. First, N&O reported 210 students are long term suspended. The OCR report had less than that reported.
At the ED task force meeting they reported when asked, that at least twice that number has been recommended for LTS. They let kids enroll in some online courses and if they do, they reclassify them as STS. Kids have to wait up to a month or longer before the paperwork is completed to get them enrolled. So, they sit not doing any work and not at school for a month or so, then join in a month later. They log in from home. Now they are being counted as not long term. If they fail all the courses, which seems likely, that is fine. They get Fs as if they were in school, but they weren't.
They don't know how many kids are taking SCORE. I've heard it is likely to be 1000+. They reported a much smaller number at the ED Task Force. This is like the math placement where they thought nearly everyone was placed correctly, then realized they were missing data on about 4000 kids, then explained they had defined "correctly" as being if they placed a kid wrong last year they could count it as correct if they placed them wrong again this year.
I think it is likely that 1000 kids are enrolled in SCORE, and most will fail. We could know this, but they won't tell us. They didn't even want us to know about SCORE and the reclassification. Why?
As for the relationship between zero tolerance and racial bias in suspension, a lot of people are confused. Many infractions to not require long term, but the principal can recommend for LTS. A student can be long termed for pushing or swearing, but doesn't have to be. This is what results in racial bias. A student can swear during the first week of school, or steal a book, or wear his hat backwards inside even after being told to take it off (non compliance), etc. and be suspended for the entire year. These kinds of suspensions tend to be racially biased. There is currently the flexibility to LTS or STS or slap the wrist on these.
I would like the racial breakdown of the students who have been recommended for LTS, and are not back in the building, regardless of how they are being classified. Then I would like to know how many students are taking SCORE, and how they are doing. I think it matters.
We probably look at this
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 23:48 — red_balloonWe probably look at this differently. While you appear to be concerned about classifications and race, I am more concerned about discipline and maintaining an acceptable academic experience for those who come to school to get educated.
I am not opposed to keeping indisciplined kids in the regular classroom but there will be a point when the teacher spends more time on an incorrigible than on teaching. I do not see the ED task force paying any attention to the needs of disciplined kids.
Reclassification
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 12:29 — Solon77I understand the reclassification and do not believe it is cooking the books. Students are in the classroom albeit virtually.
It seems the real issue is it is not clear on what issue is trying to be solved. If the goal is to reduce offenses that are deemed to be subject to long term suspension - weapons, assault, drugs - this is not within the responsibility of the school district and needs to be addressed by the community and not the school district.
If there is any claim of cooking the books/window dressing it JT's effort the reduce the disciplinary standards for offenses that would result in long term suspension without any real substance behind it as if the reported number of LTS would result in increased achievement.
I believe the current approach is a good start - discipline standards maintained but kids given an opportunity on line to keep up without being a disruptive force in the classroom.
Providing an online
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 23:48 — red_balloonProviding an online alternative could be a viable approach but its value is suspect when you consider that the target population has discipline issues.
Online Alternative
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 19:58 — Solon77I understand your point. However, there are cases where discipline issues arise due to peer pressure. Remove the kids from the environment and they do well. Discipline issues also arise when kids are board. At a time when kids learn through video games and other electronic media it could be kids could do well. Not all kids are the same and to generalize could be a disservice. I would like to see some data before dismissing the idea. This could also be an alternative to students who drop out to work, they could take on line classes at night or more to their convenience, allowing them to graduate.
Very good point. It's hard
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 06:51 — jenmanVery good point. It's hard in general to set aside time for something like that and make yourself follow through, let alone if you're an undisciplined teenager.
I'm sorry, you seemed to be
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 19:24 — Andrew95I'm sorry, you seemed to be implying that somehow this new program is worse than before, simply because some short term suspensions fall under the definition of old longterm suspensions.
Taking your cues from the
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:09 — loriacTaking your cues from the N&O? Sure - what's the big deal. They changed the definition with no bridge, and now everything looks great.
What's the big deal? Minorities are under-represented in 8th grade algebra by 20%, and there is no outcry. When they got rid of EI, only 1 tiny article in the N&O about the new process helps minorities get into advanced math, nothing about the years of discrimination. No outrage or reporting on how Ed kids do the worst at magnet schools.
You are learning well. Just ignore it, if you don't acknowledge it the problem won't gain traction.
I wonder what the agreement is between the old guard ITB power brokers and the NAACP. Mr. Barber pushes to continue busing at all costs, not a peep about the real problems. In return, ITB gets to bus out the ED kids and have the magnet schools prop up their house values.
The whole thing boggles the mind, and you are buying it hook, line and sinker.
Loriac, be sure to always
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:37 — klanders65Loriac, be sure to always qualify that minorities students WHO MEET THE OBJECTIVE ACADEMIC CRITERIA FOR ADVANCED MATH PLACEMENT, not simply "minority students." People read minority students and think "well they can't do math anyway so of course they are under-represented."
My mind is boggled, too. All I can figure is that NAACP doesn't get it. It is very difficult to understand. I can see why the ITB want magnets, want everyone to think that ED kids can't learn and therefore are fine not having any of the high quality advanced course resources.
It is so crazy, lots of people may not understand. Maybe I can help some people:
There have been no objective criteria for placement into advanced courses. It is done by teacher recommendation. The lack of ED and minority kids in these courses was explained by saying they are academically at risk, and have trouble learning. Ruby Payne training supported this and taught staff how to pity these kids and expect less. The Effectiveness Index adjusted their scores and reported that after getting remedial work, interventions they don't need, and tracked low, they score just as we expect-worse each year.
Then, someone looked at the data and found that lots of the ED and minority kids are very bright and academically successful, but get tracked low anyway. EVAAS could even identify which students are likely to succeed. E&R staff fought to get rid of EVAAS, prohibit its use, and stick with the E.I. A couple schools used EVAAS and started identifying ED and minority kids to track high. They closed their achievement gaps. But nothing happened.
If not for ED task force, they school counselors would still be fighting for the right for these kids to have access to advanced courses. Almost no progress was made until the ED Task Force. We still have no accountability for math placement and they still say they can't tell who is qualified, etc.
ED kids have been allowed in magnet schools to accomplish Diversity, but they have not been allowed to take the advanced courses no matter how academically successful they have been. The data show this. All these wonderful enriched resources are for the ITB people as a reward for letting ED kids in the building.
Suspensions have been out of control and WCPSS has been criticized for it. They disproportionately suspended minority students for subjective things like "non compliance." So they do what they do... they try to make it so you can't tell who is suspended. They changed the definition.
NAACP may actually think suspensions are down and that minority kids simply don't qualify for advanced courses. It is kind of hard to believe it is this messed up. When there were no data to show what was going on, WCPSS could say they are really trying to get minority kids into more STEM courses. They started AVID programs for them so maybe some day they could take an advanced course. That shows they care. They write goals about closing gaps. They put on a show of caring about ED and minority kids. As long as you couldn't see what they were doing, because the EI masked the outcomes, and there have been no objective criteria for placement in enriched courses, you could believe they really cared and tried to educate all kids.
I don't know why but
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 10:04 — nmoskalI don't know why but I've been thinking about Stockholm Syndrome a lot lately.
Question
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:53 — lferreriThis is a question for you or anyone else who may know. We've talked about EVAAS being used for math placement, which I support. Can it be used for placement in classes like Honors and/or AP? As far as I know, those placements are made subjectively right now. I realize that, as a gateway course, 8th grade Algebra is very important, but I'd like to see us explore objective criteria for other placements too. If this is possible, I wonder if a study like the SAS report could be made of our current placements in other classes.
When kids take PSAT they get
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 21:08 — klanders65When kids take PSAT they get predictions for success in AP classes. Using those is optional. You can track all the ED and minority kids low if you want, regardless of these predictions. No one cares.
There are no objective criteria for other courses. Language Arts is tracked in middle school, based on recommendation. As for LA and other subjects, SAS has not run analyses to determine the margins of error and how the predictions correlate with success in advanced classes like they have for math.
When the PSAT and EVAAS predictions both exist for advanced math, and SAS has checked them for margin of error, and we have examples of success when using these predictions to get kids' access results in such incredible resistance, why bother trying to get kids access to other subjects? We don't have the weapons we have for math, and we can't get them into math.
The predictability of the PSAT scores has been quantified. I would guess that 90+ EVAAS prediction together with a PSAT prediction for success in some other subject AP would be good enough to get you in but you go ahead and fight that fight. Good luck to you. Math is so clear cut and six years after establishing that, they are still fighting to keep these kids out of the top track.
Maybe they'll just suspended all the kids who meet the objective criteria for advanced math who they don't want in there. Then they can call them "not suspended" so their numbers look good. That would kill two birds with one stone. They'd be able to say that all the kids still in school who meet the criteria are placed correctly, and no one is suspended. Their problems would be solved.
No. Here is what I am
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 20:08 — klanders65No. Here is what I am implying. I am implying that just as many kids are recommended for long term suspension as in prior years, and then do not come back to school. Because this is the case (I think--they won't say what the numbers are), there is no reason to think teachers need help with kids who are staying in school after exhibiting some unfavorable behavior. They are not staying in school. They are leaving for the remainder of the year, just like in the past.
But they are reporting that only 210 students have been long term suspended. This is because they are calling the rest of them short term suspended even though they are not allowed back to school. If they accept these online courses then they are called short term, not long term. It doesn't mean that fewer kids were recommended or fewer kids left the building for the year.
They made it sound like the new policy to be flexible and more tolerant has resulted in fewer suspensions. It hasn't. The new policy of kicking kids out for the year but not calling them long term suspended has resulted in more kids not being called long term suspended.
I think this is deceptive.
I think it would be great if they were providing the long-termed (not called that any more) kids with quality work so they could keep credits. They are being so secretive about this, that I get suspicious that maybe it is not high quality instruction and kids will keep credits. I hear it is taking 3-4 weeks after getting recommended for long term before kids are processed so that they can enroll in the SCORE classes. Then they are to catch themselves up by doing a months worth of work on their own while keeping up in 4 classes. I just can't believe any of them are passing.
I think we will have just as many kids who have lost their credits, gotten behind, and have had to sit out a good part of the year as in the past. They are just describing it differently now.
Ask. See if you can get any answers. Ask how many kids have been recommended for long term suspension, then not come back to school (regardless of what they call them). How many credits are they earning in that online course? Will they be prepared for moving on in their classes next year if they earned credits?
Yes
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 18:23 — lferreriThat's what they told us at the Task Force meeting. I wrote down that there are about 235 students in this situation. I wish there had been more time to find out about SCORE. While I think distance learning can be useful, my experience is that there are difficulties sometimes as well. I hope the Task Force can cover this program (and other alternatives) at an upcoming meeting.
SHELL GAME - still throwing away kids same as before?
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 14:14 — LongtimeLurkerClearly you are talking about the same thing I am. I think what has happened here is that, in response to the pressure to change the policies of suspension so that they are not destroying so many children, some ONE in the WCPSS decided to respond with duplicity, by merely changing the names of categories and processes so they could claim major results in reduced long-term suspensions. But they have not really changed anything. This is what Tedesco apparently wanted exposed when he reportedly spoke of having tabled the matter until the Task Force participants could get a look at what was going on. And this is why Central Office is now in a panic. This is close to being exposed.
What is needed is to find out if the same number of kids is apparently being "put outside the schools" and if they are suffering the same effects as when they called it "long-term suspended." Are they are out of the schools? And are they then failing all their classes once they spend sufficient time outside of the school because of what used to be called long-term suspended?
Expletive deleted! This is how strong the imperative to throw these kids away is! More importantly, this shows that the response of the internal administration (prior to Tedesco and Tata) in WCPSS is the same as it has been for years - to lie, to hide, to confuse - for their own reasons - reasons that have nothing to do with the good of the children. This is what Tedesco is apparently trying to overcome with his policies of open task forces and community input - the inherent duplicity of an internal administration at all costs bent on resisting tranparency. For Central Office, this is not about reducing the racial and economic biases resulting from effects of long-term suspension policies. It is about finding new deniable ways to mask what is happening to thousands of children. And if we merely go to giving the principals discretion to pick which kids are punished and which are not, then the effects will continue to weigh, as usual, most heavily on those with less social power. None of this is acceptable.
Interesting...
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 10:32 — Bob_SconceMy understanding is that this generally falls into the category of "classroom management." My friends who did Teach for America indicate that this was the thing most lacking in TfA's preparation.
Interesting view on this whole thing here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_how_i_joined.html
What a GREAT Teacher Appreciation Gift!
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 06:54 — lovingpenelopeSo let me get this straight: Smack dab in the middle of the national Teacher Appreciation Week, our system decides to weaken student conduct policies, making it harder to maintain standards of discipline and to enforce reasonable expectations for behaviors in our classrooms?
No wonder teachers quit at such an alarming rate.
Good timing, Johnny T! Good timing indeed.
No Difference for Teachers
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 12:24 — klanders65There is no difference in the number of kids put out of the building. They are just coding them differently. They haven't weakened the discipline policy. They have just changed the way they code the count. The same number of kids are being put out. They now can log in to a classes via computer, from home, and they get recoded as short term suspended.
why are the numbers so wrong?
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 13:06 — mbgjwaltersI was at the ED Student Achievement task force meeting and what seemed to be so strange was that the definition of long-term suspended seems to have changed. Last year if a student was barred from going to school for more than 10 days, they were counted as long term suspended. This year, the student may still be barred for more than 10 days, but if they sign up for SCORE (second chance online resources for education) which is some kind of online course, they are counted as being short term suspended. Short term suspension is supposed to be less than 10 days and for sure these students should not be counted in that bucket. It seems to me the administration is playing a game with reporting long term suspensions.
When the administration presented to the school board last week and said there were fewer than 200 students on long term suspension, that number was grossly inaccurate if the accounting were done the same way as last year. At the task force meeting the administration didn't present a precise number, but said that the total was somewhere between 400 to 450 students were really on long term.
This year the administration has done a very poor job of reporting information accurately to the school board.
The information about advanced placement courses offered by school was grossly inaccurate. And the corrected information was not distributed to the same audience as the original inaccurate information.
The information about math placement was also extremely inaccurate (there were a total of 5 reports created by the administration on this topic and none of them agreed and the amount of the discrepancy was in thousands of students).
And now we have funny numbers concerning long term suspensions.
What is going on? Why is the administration allowed to continually mislead the school board and the public?
Here's a Conspiracy Theory for You. . .
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 06:52 — lovingpenelopeIn the spirit of consipiracy conversations that seems to dominate these boards, I offer the following:
Isn't it just possible that the weakening of the student code of conduct is a part of John Tedesco's continuing plan to destroy our school system?
Won't lowering standards and expectations for behavior in our classrooms and schools inevitably result in more discipline problems interrupting classes and taking away instructional time from all of our kids as teachers are forced to deal with repeated behavioral issues from a small group of kids who are constantly misbehaving because they know there's not a damn thing that the school can do about it?
And if so, won't the indicators of success that everyone seems to care about----graduation rates, SAT scores, passing rates on end of grade test scores----fall, giving Tedesco and Company still more ammunition to throw at our schools and teachers?
(As cheeky as this was meant to be when I started writing it, it's not all that far-fetched is it? Like some of you don't trust anything that teachers and principals are doing, I don't trust anything that the current majority on the school system----and that's sad.)
most sad that...
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 11:24 — red_balloon...you missed the one about allowing more kids to take higher math thereby bringing to light the inability of WCPSS to cope. Or the one about deliberately sending students into depression and 'F's.
Standards...
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 09:14 — Bob_SconceI don't think standards are being lowered. Penalties are being adjusted, but there's nothing that students are now allowed to do that they weren't before.
Who doesn't "trust anything that teachers and principals are doing"? Most of the issues have been with policies and practices of the board and administration, not at the school level.
The standards and
Sun, 05/08/2011 - 08:57 — HJ2ss2The standards and expectations should not be lowered. What needs to change is providing teachers with the skills and the support for dealing with disruptive students.
What's sad is that you spent
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 07:25 — woodstockWhat's sad is that you spent time writing this rubbish.
Here is a simple question, what possible motive would there be to "detroying (a )school system?" And, if for some bizarre reason that was the goal, how does increasing access to advanced math courses, dramatically lowering suspension rates, making efforts to balance program equity, using better academic and performance measures (EVASS), instituting STEM programs, and organizing an economically disadvantaged task force help in achieving that goal?
Keung - follow up?
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 15:44 — LongtimeLurkerKeung, reading this it sounds like you completely missed the significance of this meeting, by reporting on it like on accumulation of so many dry facts. If so, I'm a bit amazed. Did you not pick up on the apparently paranoid mood middle-level administrators are in here, and the growing sense by task force participants (of all political persuasions) that the discipline numbers released last week (like the Algebra numbers, like the busing numbers, like the...) were being seriously cooked for external consumption while the "child discard" pipeline blasts right on destroying lives?
Look, I hear that it came out quite openly in this meeting that the long-term suspension figures released last week were at least 100% removed from reality, and there are suspicions that they are total fabrication. These "misalignments" of fact come from some one. Some ONE did this. And I understand that John Tedesco opened the meeting saying he tabled the motions at the previous meeting so that more daylight can be shed on all this. If there is a cover up, he is not part of it. Something is happening here. There is a rabble forming who are demanding accountabilty. Can't you see that? Central Office is in near panic to control this - it feels like it could become an explosive situation. Did this really escape your attention or are you following the threads and planning a follow-up article?
My interpretation is that Central Office is in a paranoid state because they are pinched in a three-way hard place. They have people above them (Tata and Tedesco for starters) who are trying to make them be accountable. They are routinely averse to that (you have to ask some of them know why). They have people surrounding them (as I said, now people of all political persuasions) demanding accountability and no longer simply swallowing facile presentation of meaningless pablum. Did you notice these changing dynamics? What does it mean that these numbers for disciplinary actions don't add up at all?
And lastly they are under pressure "hydraulically" - from the forced current in the various pipelines that range from discard to high honors for different children. There are myriad practices in place to deliver to Wake County citizens differential educational outcomes. One does not just change those without repercussions - administrators tend to simply find ways to hide them. And somehow all these differential outcomes in every area that one examines correlate with race and income and the way the school district handles those variables.
We are on the national scene here - close to cracking a code that shows how educational structures nationwide deliver different futures for children. If this isn't a lit fuse (it may be) its at least a generous trail of breadcrumbs.
The routine Wake County administrators have adhered to for years suddenly is not working and they are getting perilously close to being exposed. Now they are close to being surrounded. For instance, why have so many of the magnet administration people suddenly left for other jobs? One could say its just because they are disheartened. But its too pointed of a pattern. My take is that they KNOW what a close look at the magnet system is going to reveal about race, income, and delivery of priviledged services. And so they are fleeing. My prediction is that we will see a similar flight from Central Office soon. If we see that, then the reasons need explored.
Don't just take down the facts - dig - measure the temperature - expose. I assume you are not unaware of these things and I believe you are a reporter. Can you give us a preview of your intent?
Their strategy of demeaning,
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 21:02 — HJ2ss2Their strategy of demeaning, devaluing and destroying careers will not work with those currently looking for program results.
Re: suspensions....there were so many that could have been avoided.
OT - Magnet Envy is the tip of the iceberg
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 17:09 — LongtimeLurkerLet me expand on that... I think that a poor black child who is in the base population of a Middle School magnet has a very slim chance to get one of the seats for the top level educations that are being offered in that school. I think there is NOTHING that we can objectively measure about that particular child - and essentially nothing that they themselves can do that would qualify him/her to get one of those valuable seats.
There is a far more important issue than who is accepted into magnet schools. The dirty deal is the way base kids are treated -as if simply being in a school with kids the system values is good enough for them.
The schools say they don't HAVE highly differentiated curricula so its very hard to evaluate who is getting the seats. But they do have differentiated courses, the top courses are full of almost exclusively white kids, and we CAN analyze this. THIS is the Civil Rights issue. This is the point of effective segregation.
Why are there so few longitudinal studies looking at this? Why do the schools deny that there are even different tracks leading to different outcomes? You will NEVER see the school district Central Office signing up to do this study unless they are forced to. And when we look, I think we will see exactly this. There is a reason there are "two Enloes." The children are delivered to high school pre-sorted. This deck is deeply stacked towards skin color and income, and we will see this when we control for objective scores on standardized tests and use value added predictive models to see who gets the seats in the classes that they will not admit they have.
A father speaking at the OCR
Fri, 05/06/2011 - 18:32 — loriacA father speaking at the OCR complained about something like this. His kids were in the base for a magnet school, but were not 'magnet students'. They got reassigned to Leesville, which he described at being the furthest possible school with 30-odd schools closer. He was surprised his kids were reassigned, because he thought they were magnet students, but they were not. Now why Mr. Barber is not concerned about the differential treatment of base kids at magnet schools is a good question.