A long day of budget discussions is in store for the Wake County school board.
The school board will hold an all-day work session today on how to adjust the budget to reflect the additional cuts that need to be made since the state budget was adopted. Board members have expressed unhappiness with the school district budget proposal adopted in April.
The discussion had gotten so contentious that the board majority initially voted in June against a resolution that would have allowed Wake to keep operating until the final state budget was adopted. After the situation was explained, board members quickly passed an interim budget resolution.
One issue today is how much of the $20 million in potential cuts such as cutting pay for coaches and raising class sizes still needs to implemented.
Agenda topics include whether to restore positions cut from Project Enlightenment, how magnet schools are funded, a review of cell phone usage and a review of the security budget.
School board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman had complained about not getting information from staff on things such as how many cell phones are being used by the district.
Also on the agenda is a discussion of the state's disadvantaged students supplemental fund. Wake gets $3.6 million out of the states $77.7 million pot.
One of the provisions in the state budget is that the state Board of Education can withhold money from school boards whose policies "have contributed to or is contributing to increased segregation of schools on the basis of race or socioeconomic status."
it's different from the wording originally adopted by the state House that talks about school boards whose policies "contribute to increased segregation of schools on the basis of race or socioeconomic status."
The work session will run from 1 to 8:30 p.m. in the board conference room, 3600 Wake Forest Road in Raleigh. It's open to the public but there's no public comment section because it's a work session.
Comments
ot-
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 16:38 — AngelaWModifications to School Board Public Comment Sign up
Several changes are being made to the process for signing up for public comment at Wake County School Board meetings. These modifications will be implemented beginning Tuesday, August 10.
These changes are in an effort to make signing up for public comment faster, more efficient and equitable.
-wcpss
From where did the notion come?
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 22:42 — TrailerParkGirlFrom where did the notion come that magnets are located in the particular schools that they are because otherwise the school would be an undercapacity high-poverty school? When you look at the WEP data based on their "closest school for everyone even though the new schools board knows that isn't possible" analysis - by and large, the most overcapacity schools are the ITB magnets in the lower-income areas. It is the ITB magnet schools in the higher income areas that would be undercapacity. (I presented the data for, not just ITB, except Wake Early because it wasn't on the WEP information.)
A few years ago, Joyner got
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 10:03 — jenmanA few years ago, Joyner got a 'pod' of trailers which increased capacity. (Not sure pod is the right word but it was a group of trailers from what I understand).
Aren't two of the purposes
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 08:23 — danofncAren't two of the purposes (under the old policy) of the magnet program to help balance SES status of schools and help utilize capacity?
Doesn't your chart show that the magnet program is doing just that thing (capacity utiilization in the high income areas and SES balancing in the lower income areas).
I think it's an either/or, not both, situation.
I was responding to
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:34 — TrailerParkGirlI was responding to user's "underutilizied ghetto school" misconception. I've heard the same misinformation stated by a magnet parent who said that schools like Hunter, Washington and Fuller would be underutilizied because there are not enough students in those areas to fill the schools so they are helping to fill capacity by sending their child to the school.
I’m not sure if they just don’t realize or are intentionally misleading people on that concept. The reason “bussed in” NED magnet students get to have access to the magnet resources by choice is because the ED students in those areas are denied access to that school and are bussed elsewhere to non-magnets without choice for SES balancing (as you pointed out) even if they would rather have gone to the magnet school. I just want people to be very, very clear on the difference in historical treatment based on SES and not perpetuating a myth that their child getting extra magnet resources does not come at the expense of other students (mostly low-income) being denied access to those resources. To be clear, by resources I mean some of the extra programming (orchestra, dance, etc.) not academic achievement because the ED base students that are left in magnets do not seem to be getting that (the reasons for which IMHO need to be studied).
I’m not saying we should not have magnets, but rather that our magnet program does not seem to functioning as intended especially when it comes to providing academic opportunity for all students, which needs to be addressed.
I’m not saying we
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:38 — user12345I’m not saying we should not have magnets, but rather that our magnet program does not seem to functioning as intended especially when it comes to providing academic opportunity for all students, which needs to be addressed.
Again, I do not think magnets were intended to help poor kids, increase AA graduation rate, get more Hispanics into college, solve world hunger, or any other failed goal people want to pin on them .... my understanding is that they should be used to postpone construction / give WCPPS a little slack in bringing on new schools through voluntary rebalancing ... if WCPSS also wanted to use them to volunteering help balance the schools racially and income wise that seems ok to ... but I have never seen the stated purpose of magnets as being a minority / low income improvement tool .... there will always be schools and areas over and under capacity and a voluntary or involuntary process needs to be created to rectify the problem to keeps costs low ...
From the magnet home page @WCPSS...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 16:12 — JSBinNCthe objectives are:
Objectives
Magnet Programs will be used to foster healthy schools throughout the Wake County Public School System by using choice to help:
...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 12:53 — SideburnsI've never really understood the whole underutilized school argument. If the School Board has complete control over the assignment of students, why would any school be left underutilized?
I agree. Like Beverley
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 13:59 — jenmanI agree. Like Beverley Clark said, "We need these people to go where we tell them to". Ron was trying to make the same point when he 'suggested' that maybe we don't need magnet schools anymore. If the BOE has the right to tell people to go to YR schools or to assign them far away for diversity reasons, then why do we need magnets? Just tell them where to go and be done with it. Of courses, Ron wasn't really suggesting that we get rid of magnets, just making a point (albeit sarcastically) and perhaps a topic to be investigated.
I agree that people should
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 14:06 — user12345I agree that people should do what they are told but there are political consequences these guys may not want to pay.
I was being sarcastic.
Sat, 08/07/2010 - 19:05 — jenmanI was being sarcastic. Just pointing out that if Clark can say that about people attending MYR then why can't she say that about all schools? Why do we need magnet incentives if we can just tell them where to go? Good enough for MYR then it should be good enough for all schools.
Me neither. Why add mobile
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:12 — red_balloonMe neither. Why add mobile units where excess capacity is alleged?
...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:29 — SideburnsThe ridiculous claims of Wake Ed Partnership seem to be fueling the myth. The maps they fabricated show one school would operate at 36% capacity in a "neighborhood" model and another school just over a mile away at 193% capacity. Common sense seems to be amiss with that group.
There comes a point where
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:14 — user12345There comes a point where people refuse to travel to an open seat or mix with people they don't like and will opt out if government forces the issue.
...
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 13:41 — SideburnsAnd those that don't have the ability to opt-out are stuck with long bus rides, constant reassignment and forced unworkable calendars? How sad.
That is what happens when
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 15:25 — user12345That is what happens when people depend on government service and are so leveraged in debt or limited in income that they have no options but to be on the government dole.
I think the chart shows that
Wed, 08/04/2010 - 10:06 — jenmanI think the chart shows that the low income kids don't need to be bused so far from home in order to achieve SES balance. The kids near the overcapacity schools could be bused to the schools under capactiy. We don't need to make some of those schools magnet in order to attract applicants. Kids from within 5 miles could fill the schools in many cases.
Wake only?
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 07:54 — PACK_MIKE77"One of the provisions in the state budget is that the state Board of Education can withhold money from school boards whose policies "have contributed to or is contributing to increased segregation of schools on the basis of race or socioeconomic status."
Is that a threat by the N&O? Has the N&O looked at Johnston County, Nash, Franklin, Harnett, Sampson, Durham, Orange, etc...
Let's see Chapel Hill City Schools, Orange County schools.
The N&O sure does not care about the make-up of those counties. Must not care if those counties are segregated racially and socioeconomically. Only Wake. Why?
So do you think Bob Luebke
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 08:21 — KeungHui (author)So do you think Bob Luebke of the Civitas Institute was threatening Wake when he said the funding change was "clearly targeted" at Wake?
I don't think the N&O is
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 08:45 — CaryCurmudgeonI don't think the N&O is "targeting" Wake County, we are their news coverage area. I do think that the Wake County members of the NCGA are using their influence within the General Assembly to target their own county. The majority of NC House and Senate representatives fall in with the forced-busing crowd. I would hate to think that they played a role in reducing state funding to their own county due to idological reasons.
The fact is that Wake is the only county in NC to have [recently] had a forced busing program. We know that housing patterns in most places are organically segregated, so I'd argue that 100% of this money should have been going to Wake in the first place because we were the only county doing busing. Since we were only getting a fraction, it makes no sense to reduce our funding because we are implementing the same programs as the other school systems.
"The fact is that Wake is
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 10:38 — danofnc"The fact is that Wake is the only county in NC to have [recently] had a forced busing program. We know that housing patterns in most places are organically segregated, so I'd argue that 100% of this money should have been going to Wake in the first place because we were the only county doing busing. Since we were only getting a fraction, it makes no sense to reduce our funding because we are implementing the same programs as the other school systems."
For 2007-08 (the most recent data I found at ncdpi's website), NC had 1,427,960 kids. Guilford (71,525), CMS (134,060), and WCPSS (137,706) were the 3 biggest districts, accounting for 343,291 together. That leaves 1,084,669 for the rest of the state. Based on my count, there were 115 districts that year. Those other 112 districts average 9685 students.
For the vast majority of them, there simply aren't enough kids to assign to worry about the racial makeup. If every kid around is going to the same school, THAT is "organic". In most districts, there is an elementary school in the biggest town, and then a few more spread around the county (usually directionally). There simply isn't the population to mandate a concern about the racial makeup of schools. If a district is 60 or 70 percent African American, you can't bus in a bunch of white kids from the mountains to balance it.
For the vast majority of
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:05 — CaryCurmudgeonFor the vast majority of them, there simply aren't enough kids to assign to worry about the racial makeup
OK, then why is the NC General Assembly creating a task force and tying funding to integration? You make a good case for Wake County being the target.
I would imagine that WCPSS
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:17 — danofncI would imagine that WCPSS is one of the targets, along with CMS and Guilford, and maybe a couple of the next biggest districts. You don't have to get very far down the list until you get to districts that are rather small.
"Organically" segregated - nonsense
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 09:56 — dseibertIs "organically" supposed to imply that segregation is the natural state of human society? That's clearly looking backwards. They are segregated because selling a bunch of houses/apartments at the same price is most convenient for developers, because low-income people don't have much choice on where to live, and because a bunch of people don't want their children to go to schools with the low-income students.
The point of the rule is to keep counties from going backwards. Wake is clearly doing that. I don't know the entire state of NC, so I won't speculate on the other counties.
BTW, we were allowing students from areas with failing low-income schools to attend better schools outside those areas. It seems that we're clearly cutting back on those practices now. Have other districts been pushing low-income children back to their local schools recently?
Is "organically" supposed to
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 04:04 — jeffrey1Is "organically" supposed to imply that segregation is the natural state of human society? That's clearly looking backwards.
Actually, it should not even be called segregation (organic or whatever). Here's what the US Supreme Court had to say on the matter in the Seattle/Louisville schools decision that declared racial busing unconstitutional:
Justice Thomas, concurring:
Because this Court has authorized and required race-based remedial measures to address de jure segregation, it is important to define segregation clearly and to distinguish it from racial imbalance. In the context of public schooling, segregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to "carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 6 (1971); see also Monroe v. Board of Comm'rs of Jackson, 391 U. S. 450, 452 (1968). In Brown, this Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Swann, supra, at 6; see also Green v. School Bd. of New Kent Cty., 391 U. S. 430, 435 (1968) ("[T]he State, acting through the local school board and school officials, organized and operated a dual system, part 'white' and part 'Negro.' It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown I[, 347 U. S. 483,] held unconstitutional and a year later Brown II[, 349 U. S. 294 (1955)] held must be abolished").1
Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district's individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large. Cf. Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457, 460 (1982). Racial imbalance is not segregation.2 Although presently observed racial imbalance might result from past de jure segregation, racial imbalance can also result from any number of innocent private decisions, including voluntary housing choices. See Swann, supra, at 25-26; Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 116 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring). Because racial imbalance is not inevitably linked to unconstitutional segregation, it is not unconstitutional in and of itself. Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 413 (1977); Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 443 U. S. 526, 531, n. 5 (1979) ("Racial imbalance ... is not per se a constitutional violation"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467, 494 (1992); see also Swann, supra, at 31-32; cf. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717, 740-741, and n. 19 (1974).
Although there is arguably a danger of racial imbalance in schools in Seattle and Louisville, there is no danger of resegregation. No one contends that Seattle has established or that Louisville has reestablished a dual school system that separates students on the basis of race. The statistics cited in Appendix A to the dissent are not to the contrary. See post, at 69-72. At most, those statistics show a national trend toward classroom racial imbalance. However, racial imbalance without intentional state action to separate the races does not amount to segregation. To raise the specter of resegregation to defend these programs is to ignore the meaning of the word and the nature of the cases before us.3
segregation is the
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 07:59 — CaryCurmudgeonsegregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to "carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race
Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district's individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large
Jeff,
Thank you so much for posting this. Much as the forced busing supporters have hijacked the term "Diversity," they have tried to do the same with "Segregation." "Segregation" looks great on protest signs and sounds more powerful in bombastic speeches (along with references to "Jim Crow," "Separate but equal," etc
This is coming from Mr.
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 09:58 — user12345This is coming from Mr. "Forced Bussing"? which is a racial charged term you often use? (I know I use "warehouse" to evoke the same attention to concentrating the poor).
"Segregation" does not have to be intended (e.g. Ron's plan) or school policy. It can be the "unintended" consequence of zoning (transportation and housing). For example, by limiting section 8 housing, public transportation or number of bedroom in an apartment, a community can effectively limit the number of poor and minorities that live there. Those communities are happy to have the fast food workers, counter help, gardeners, house cleaners in their community but don't want them to live there. Hopefully, you agreed that centralizing all the poor in a few schools will probably not turn out well without a big increase in funding which is unlikely. Hopefully, you are not one of the "unintendors" who are marching to concentrate the poor but never "intending" it to happen.
No...
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 10:57 — Bob_Sconce"Segregation" does not have to be intended (e.g. Ron's plan) or school policy. It can be the "unintended" consequence of zoning (transportation and housing).
Not according to the Supreme Court. CC's right - the term has been hijacked. As to the term "Forced Busing," if you can find me an authoritative definition, I'll use it.
Than give me a term / word
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 11:10 — user12345Than give me a term / word for separating people by race / income- one an intentional government policy and one an "unintended" government policy ... same negative affect driven by government policy.
They did
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 11:24 — Bob_Sconce"Racial Imbalance" or, in this context, "Socioeconomic Imbalance." However, since it's not as inflammatory as "segregation," I suspect it won't meet wide use from the opponents of the current board.
You nailed it Bob. And the
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 13:12 — CaryCurmudgeonYou nailed it Bob. And the fact that some students are being led to believe that having neighborhood schools equates to segretation greatly diminishes the importance of understanding the real and horrible segregationist practices that were in place in this country, and recognizing the courage of those people who fought to have those practices ended.
Is "imbalance" right? ....
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 12:22 — user12345Is "imbalance" right? .... doesn't that infer there is a "balance" that is not being met? Many here probably think that income imbalance is the natural state with wealthier folks dominating the resources and living separately in their own neighborhoods like present day South Africa. I think segregation is correct ... even if people soiled the meaning by their past hideous acts does not mean the word is inaccurate, just soiled. At one time, it was considered the natural state to keep the races separated and segregated.
Hmm...
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 17:08 — Bob_SconceIncome imbalance is certainly the natural state (although I don't know if your S. Africa comparison is fair). However, it's not a steady state -- if you look at income mobility statistics, people in the US actually move around a lot among income quintiles.
Further, attempts to "fix" income imbalance invariably end up making everybody poorer by destroying incentives to work. As Reagan used to say, when he got to the 90% tax bracket, he stopped working for the rest of the year.
Hmm..
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:02 — Bob_SconceThe natural state of human society is that most people are comfortable being around others like themselves. We look for connections with other people and race (especially for people in a racial minority), culture and national origin are natural connection points.
So, it's 'organic' for people not to be homogeneously distributed. In fact, it would be completely unnatural -- even if you distribute people randomly, you will develop clusters where members of a specific race disproportionately outnumber members of other races.
As to your belief about housing patterns, I wonder if you have any evidence of your accusation, or if it's just based on a handful of anecdotes.
An ideal I share is that we
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 10:15 — CaryCurmudgeonAn ideal I share is that we do a much better job of socioeconomic integration at the community level. And I don't mean building section-8 apartments next to a high-end community, I mean affordable housing that people can own.
But in the real world today, the lines between low-income and higher-income housing areas are much sharper than we want them to be. No, that is not the nature of human society, and I don't think I know all the forces that drive development this way.
Have other districts been pushing low-income children back to their local schools recently?
None of the other districts have forced low-income children into long bus rides to schools further from their home, so it would be impossible for them to be "pushing" them to their local schools as they are already there. None of those counties can go "backwards." These other counties have chosen to keep ALL kids close to home and focus on educating them where they are instead of shuffling them around the county in the hopes of them learning through osmosis (which we know doesn't work). We are moving to a model that resembles the rest of those districts, but with more choice for all students including ED ones.
The task force created by the NCGA was clearly aimed at Wake County -- just ask Yvonne Brannin, she has been beating her chest about it to anyone who will listen.
More choice?
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 13:06 — magnetParentLet's see... the proposed Middle Creek Zone allows the parents to "choose" from 3 YR elementary schools, 1 YR middle school and 1 high school. Where the choice in that?
The Wakeforest/Heritage/Rolesville Zone has 3 HS, 3 MS, and 7 ES. How is this representing zones that offer the same choices? (Not to mention, 3 MS feeding into 3 HS does not make much sense).
...
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 14:39 — SideburnsI don't remember you complaining about lack of choices back in the MYR days. Or did I miss that?
So do you disagree with my
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 15:54 — magnetParentSo do you disagree with my concerns or are you just blowing hot air?
...
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 16:53 — SideburnsI'm just wondering whose lack of choice you are really concerned about.
Since my own kids will be
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 17:24 — magnetParentSince my own kids will be graduated from WCPSS before this plan is in place, obviously I am concerned about all of the affected families. And you?
...
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 18:01 — SideburnsWere you concerned with the lack of choice and all those affected families during the MYR days? I don't think you've answered that yet.
Sideburns this is the year
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 14:52 — doctorjSideburns this is the year 2010. Do you have points to make based on the present?
...
Thu, 08/05/2010 - 16:34 — SideburnsPlenty of them. Where would you like to start?
Socio-economic integration at the community level
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:01 — dseibertThat's a great idea, but it's not coming soon unless someone has a magic wand that will make people with money want to live next to poor people. Unfortunately, too many people with money want to live with "their own kind".
Regarding your claim that learning through osmosis doesn't work: I haven't heard any parents of low-income children complaining about being forced to attend good schools. Most of people do believe that there are definite advantages from attending a school with a lot of good students. If not, why do all the parents in higher-income areas want to keep their children in a chool there, and why do people want their children to attend the best colleges? I certainly don't any advantages from attending a low-income school, although I see a lot of disadvantages. Can you name one advantage of attending a low-income school?
Finally, I don't see more choice coming. My children have a choice of at least 5 high schools right now - what's the chance they have more choice under any new plan? I haven't seen a proposed plan yet that increases their ability to choose.
I haven't heard any parents
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:20 — CaryCurmudgeonI haven't heard any parents of low-income children complaining about being forced to attend good schools.
In this context, you are defining "good schools" as ones with more affluent populations, often located further from concentrations of poverty.
The Dean Debnam PPP poll taken before last year's elections showed that there was not majority support for busing among black participants. And when WCPSS was forced to offer opt-outs for MYR (which were typically schools outside the beltline), thousands of minority and ED parents voted with their feet and took the opportunity to send their kids to school closer to home.
"when WCPSS was forced to
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 12:51 — magnetParent"when WCPSS was forced to offer opt-outs for MYR (which were typically schools outside the beltline)..."
The opt-out schools were also typically outside the beltline and no closer to their home. So what are you trying to say?
Well...
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 13:21 — Bob_SconceRemember the circumstances here -- it was late in the year when the school board decided to convert the schools and even later when Judge Manning rendered his decision that the district had to get informed consent. The district was convinced that it'd win, so it got caught with its pants down and did not do a very good job of telling parents what the opt-out choices were going to be. Lots of people assumed that they would be closer schools. In fact, the informed consent forms said something like "you can either go to school X on a year-round schedule or you can go to some other school that we haven't identified yet." (So much for "informed consent.")
Also, note that a lot of the people being bused live outside the beltline along Capital Blvd.
If you go back and look at the reporting at the time, you'll see that the supporters of the diversity policy thought it appropriate to run a public education campaign to tell those poor misguided parents why it really was better for their kids to be bused to a distant school.
Wrong question / poll ...
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 11:55 — user12345Wrong question / poll ... everyone would like to go to a close by "good" school ... but as long as you are going to restrict them to affluent neighborhood, people who want a "good" education have to travel longer distances. Stop hoarding PUBLIC resources and you won't have to deal with people at your neighborhood gates.
What extra public resources
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 12:59 — red_balloonWhat extra public resources do schools in the suburbs receive?
There must be many ...two
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 13:16 — user12345There must be many ...two examples that come to mind - the number of AP courses offered (11 Garner / Knightdale vs. 19 Avg (28 at Wakefield]) and the discrimination in math placement for minorities and low income kids that holds them back (a year later after using it to get votes still have not corrected the problem). I am sure the disparities are "benign neglect" and hopefully not racial motivated .... I am guessing these examples are the tip of the iceberg of subtle discrimination that promotes some and holds other back ... as Ron would say, "we did not intend to create such an unequal and unjust system"