Here's a taste of what you can expect from Richard Kahlenberg at Saturday's Great Schools in Wake Coalition forum.
In a March 1 post on the left-leaning Century Foundation blog, Kahlenberg bemoans the changes being proposed by the new Wake County school board majority to end the socioeconomic diversity policy. Like local critics of the new board, Kahlenberg says Wake "is a victim of its own success" from growth and how a small percentage of voters were able to change the board's direction.
"The political debate in Wake County isn’t over yet," writes Kahlenberg, who has extensively researched socioeconomic diversity. "Supporters of the diversity policy — teachers, civil rights advocates, business leaders, and white parents who like magnet schools — are fighting back. An important forum is slated for mid-March to discuss the diversity policy."
Kahlenberg blamed the decline in district test scores on the old school board allowing some schools to significantly go past the 40 percent F&R goal.
Kahlenberg again promotes his "third choice" option.
Under Kahlenberg's controlled choice model, which had been a theme of school board candidate Carlene Lucas, all of Wake's schools would essentially become magnet schools. Parents would select from schools within a zone with the district making the final choice to promote diversity.
"If Wake County’s economic diversity plan is ultimately overturned, it will be very bad news for children in Wake County, and it could also give an excuse to timid school board members nationally to avoid doing what is right for children," Kahlenberg writes.
That's a different tone from what he took with the (Louisville) Courier-Journal. In a Sunday article, Kahlenberg said that he doubts that Wake's upheaval will spill over into other districts.
Comments
Why Low Scores?
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 08:46 — willynillyI attended the Middle School Conference in Greensboro this week. I was quite amazed.
Monday at 8 am I attended a workshop in which a teacher (who earned her PhD for this) showed us how to incorporate reading in middle school classes. What we watched is how to use "pop up" books to get students interested in the subject matter. The second workshop was about including art in science and social studies. This is where we started to use glue sticks and glue animal cut outs onto construction paper.
The state is pushing the idea of creating rigor in the classrooms in the state. Call me silly, but this does n ot sound like rigor. It sounds as if we are lowering the bar for these kids....if we have a bar at all.
That is an odd standard for
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 09:04 — red_balloonThat is an odd standard for MS.
Kahlenberg is a modern day
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:03 — woodstockKahlenberg is a modern day snake oil salesman.
Last piece of
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 16:55 — shearertwLast piece of analysis:
"Kahlenberg blamed the decline in district test scores on the old school board allowing some schools to significantly go past the 40 percent F&R goal."
I've already posted data to suggest that the only %F&R group (for Grades 3-8th) that appear to have lower %proficiency on Math and Reading EOGs were 6 schools with >60% F&R (albeit it wasn't statistically significant). However, I went ahead and analyzed the WCPSS 3-8th Grade 2008-09 data and EXCLUDED these schools to see how much it HURT the district test scores. Here goes:
Math with ALL schools - 62.5%
Math without 6 highest F&R schools - 62.0%
Reading with ALL schools - 42.2%
Reading witout 6 highest F&R schools - 41.8%
So, for Math, those schools "signinicantly past the 40% goal" decreased the Math and Reading F&R scores by 0.5% and by 0.3%, respectively. Oh, and there is NO statistical significance.
There are 102 elementary
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 17:14 — danofncThere are 102 elementary schools and 30 middle schools.
Are you really expressing shock that removing 6 from the calculation didn't make a huge difference?
If you took out the six lowest F&R schools, that wouldn't change much either.
Bob answered it. I'm
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 17:50 — shearertwBob answered it. I'm really shocked at how lost some of you get.
So...
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 17:32 — Bob_SconceUnderstand where we are in the argument.
He's just shown that the schools significantly past the 40% goal had a negliable effect on test scores. Basically, he's saying Kahlenberg is full of crap. Which, frankly, isn't really news.
EricB ???
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:08 — CaryCurmudgeonKahlenberg likes to collect facts which support his theories, and discard the rest. EricB and I attended one of his presentations the last time he was down here. We asked him questions and it seemed like he was making up the answers as he went. His recent explanation of test scores declining because more schools are over 40% was debunked in one day (Good work, Todd).
EricB, please chime in with details on your question/answer and any impressions you came away with.
I'm sure Kahlenberg is upset at losing his Wake County petri dish.
I don't really care about
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 17:50 — danofncI don't really care about Kahlenburg one way are the other.
But, the schools are where they are right now. Breaking them down against each other now isn't really how you prove his point, is it?
Was there a time when no school was over 40%? Or when only a few were? What were the performance numbers for F&R students then?
Compare those numbers to where we are now, and then you'll find out whether or not this particular argument is full of crap.
So...
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:30 — Bob_SconceAre you kidding me? The
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 18:14 — shearertwAre you kidding me? The policy was, keep F&R below 40%. Kahlenberg stated that the reason WCPSS's #'s were slipping was b/c they (the former BOE) didn't do a good enough job of that. I have established that F&R kids are doing just as well in >40% schools as <40% schools, if not better in WCPSS in 2008-2009!
His arguemennt is full of crap, period. And for that matter, so is yours.
Yeah, I know. Anyone who
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 18:43 — danofncYeah, I know.
Anyone who dares to disagree with you is full of crap. Any statistic that makes yours look bad is "statistically insignificant".
Got it.
Just like I understand the there's not much of a statistical difference between the <20% schools and the <60% schools, even though in your chart it looks like about an 8% gap in both categories.
If the number of >40% (or close) schools has increased, and the performance of F&R students has declined, that would indicate that higher F&R numbers adversely affect peformance of the group.
Comparing just last year's numbers across the school system doesn't really prove much, unless the same research done a couple of years after we go to the zone system shows that the gaps have widened.
No matter what the numbers were last year, if they are worse than they were when the F&R numbers were at 40% or below, than you haven't disproved Kahlenburg's theory.
danofnc,My statistical
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 09:13 — shearertwdanofnc,
My statistical analysis is non-biased. Clearly you do not have a background in stats and I understand that, most people don't. The statistics I'm performing here is of the most basic kind....looking to see if one population is different from the other. There are established statistical and mathematical rules to follow. Yes, there appears to be a gap between the <20% and >60% schools, I acknowledged that. However, by statistical analysis standards, the two groups are no signficantly different. Signficantly different in the statistical world is not an opinion, it is a mathematical term. The reason these two groups are not signficantly different is because of a combination of the small sample size (i.e. numbers of schools in each group) and variability (i.e. difference in scores at the different schools within each group). I actually found the high variability to be the most striking part of the analysis. Some of the old BOE and WCPSS supporters used to the say "There are no bad schools in Wake Co." Well, clearly, if you're an F&R kid, there are some bad schools in Wake Co. Most of the bad schools in Wake Co (from and F&R perspective) are actually the low F&R (<40%) schools. That's the facts. I know it hurts your feelings that Kahlenberg is a joke and is just making stuff up as he goes along and that this busing is for the poor is a lie but its just the truth.....and I'm not making that up.
Nothing about this hurts my
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 09:54 — danofncNothing about this hurts my feelings. If you'd keep the attempted belittling personal shots out of this, the discussion would go much better.
RK says that the increased number of >40% F&R schools has hurt the performance of F&R kids.
I don't care how many different ways you break down last year's numbers, until you compare them with numbers from a time where there were significantly less >40% F&R schools, your comparison is useless.
Also, isn't the achievement gap about 8%? You know....the achievement gap that people like to point to when they claim that the school system is "broken" or "ineffective"? Well, since you are claiming that an 8 point gap is "not statistically different", what's all the hubbub about?
I am surprised that you weren't expecting high variability. That's what makes studying these things down to the individual student level so difficult. Two kids can sit side by side in class every day, and one may grasp the subject matter better than the other.
You're just not getting
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:20 — shearertwYou're just not getting it. How can anyone claim that an increase in the number of schools above 40% F&R hurts the performance of F&R kids when F&R kids in those schools are performing just as well as kids in less than 40% schools? My analysis proves that going above 40% does not effect the performance of F&R students.
The achievement gap is closer to 30% I believe but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about and is totally irrelevant to my analysis. If the AG is 8%, it may still be significant depending on the sample size and variability.
And finally, the variability I'm commenting about is school to school variability between schools with similar F&R%. In my opinion, we should be trying find out what is going wrong at schools where the F&R kids are performing poorly. WCPSS solution to that is just to ship them to another school and replace them with a new crop to fail.
In summary, I think you and I are speaking a different language when it comes to the statistical analysis part. I'm not sure if that is due to your lack of background in stats or in my inability to clearly state the results of the analysis.
Uh..
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:12 — Bob_Sconce(1) There's no way to make the comparison you're asking for -- there have been too many changes in the last 10 years.
(2) Maybe I'm reading too much into what RK is saying, but he seems to be saying that the >40% schools are significantly contributing to the decline in test scores. It's conceivable that simply having more >40% schools is somehow influencing the test scores at <40% schools, but I'm having a tough time figuring out how that would work.
(3) 8% can be very statistically significant depending on other factors, such as sample size -- an 8% lead in a presidential poll is huge, for example.
(4) The achievement gap is actually much larger than 8%, depending on what you use to measure it. If you're an ED student, you're about 1/2 as likely to pass your EOGs as your NED peers. (And, yes, I know that's not a great definition of the achievement gap, but it's the easiest to give with available data.)
1) That may be true, but it
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:44 — danofnc1) That may be true, but it doesn't make this analysis accurate.
2) I think he's looking at overall scores, not for specific schools. I don't think he's saying that one particular school is incapable of doing equally as well as another, but that the increased F&R numbers have brought the system-wide averages down. With the reassignments, it would be hard to be sure that a comparison of the same school for two straight years would be totally accurate, unless that school's attendance remained stable.
3) I understand that 8% can be statistically significant. I don't understand why you always use examples that don't really relate to WCPSS. In this case, he is talking about ES and MS, right? Since the 8% is from that example, and he said the sample size was not big enough to make that gap statistically significant, I want to know how the achievement gap is significant. I doubt the sample size for that one can be any larger than the one he said was not statistically significant.
4) Once again, you choose a statistic that helps your position.
In my comparison between
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 11:58 — shearertwIn my comparison between <20% schools and >60% schools, there are only 6 >60% schools and 15 <20% schools and the variability is pretty high. When you talking about the achievement gap between F&R students and NED students district-wide, thats 10's of thousands of students in each group. That's a totally different situation. Its much much easier to find statistical significance with >10000 per group vs less than 10. The fewer the numbers per group, the more influence one individual school can have on the average.
I understand that, too. I
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 12:23 — danofncI understand that, too. I don't think you've gone as far over my head as you think.
The only problem is that you haven't convinced me that you can determine whether or not F&R students have been hurt by more high F&R schools unless you compare today's stats with stats from years ago.
Since the test has changed, you probably can't get a really accurate assessment, and that's understandable. I still don't think you can make any conclusions without the historical data.
If I claimed that moving the 3 pt line back caused NCAA teams to take and make fewer 3 pt shots, but didn't include stats from a time when the line was closer, can I prove my theory?
OK. Please explain to me how
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:22 — shearertwOK. Please explain to me how an F&R student sitting in school A is affected by the percentage of F&R in school B? You seem to be saying that because WCPSS allowed a few schools to go over 40% F&R, that causes the F&R performance rates to decline in every individual school system-wide. How is that possible? Please explain?
I can understand why you and RK might think that allowing more schools to go above 40% could cause the system-wide average to go down but that's just not the case. What I have proven to you and RK is that the schools with F&R% above 40% are performing just as well as those at schools below 40%. For your critism to be valid, you'd have to prove that having more schools above 40% in the system hurts F&R students at schools below 40%. That just doesn't make sense. If it does to you, please explain.
The whole point of the WCPSS diversity policy is to keep schools below the 40% mark. That's what RK said. So, the best comparison is NOT to look at historical F&R #'s, its to compare those above and below that mark at a defined point in time. I chose 2008-2009. Take it or leave it, but whay my analysis show's is that in WCPSS, the schools %F&R is NOT and indicator of F&R performance. Therefore, efforts to keep schools below 40% are pointless and will have no effect on F&R performance. My analysis uses only data for 2008-2009 meaning all the kids took the same test so your BB analogy doesn't make any sense.
Ok.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 11:04 — Bob_Sconce(1) Agree
(2) Not just system-wide, but average across all F&R students also.
(3) I use non-WCPSS examples because it's easier to get people to agree to a non-controversial analogy outside WCPSS.
(4) Well, of course. I can't prove my position from statistics that hurt it. Do you have an alternate statistic? If so, I'd be interested in seeing it.
"Some of the old BOE and
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 09:31 — user12345"Some of the old BOE and WCPSS supporters used to the say "There are no bad schools in Wake Co." Well, clearly, if you're an F&R kid, there are some bad schools in Wake Co. Most of the bad schools in Wake Co (from and F&R perspective) are actually the low F&R (<40%) schools. "
So, if poor kids were neglected and abused in affluent schools why do you think it will be different if you send them somewhere else? Aren't you taking an already over burdened majority poor school and adding more weight to it ... are you thinking there will be some addtional resources that will correct this problem? In this and next year of major cut backs?
Also, it needs to be noted that it appears poor kids do worse in affluent ES but better in affluent HS ... we had a long discussion on why that was before ....
because
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:43 — loriacSo, if poor kids were neglected and abused in affluent schools why do you think it will be different if you send them somewhere else?
Because we're not 'sending' anyone anywhere.... now it's time to listen and learn. The focus of the previous board was NOT education. It was busing kids around and hoping magically scores would improve... and if not, they would at least be averaged out. The new news here is that the focus will be on educating ALL children.
Again, what is you plan for
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:28 — user12345Again, what is you plan for the 90% who are in their poor neighborhood school and have been there forever waiting for help?
The data seems to say that
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 10:39 — shearertwThe data seems to say that the F&R kids are doing just fine in high F&R schools in WCPSS at least up to 60% F&R. After that, it appears there may be a drop off, albeit its not statistically signficant (too small of a sample size). I know you understand that with your Ivy League degree and all....
So....Here's what we know. For schools below 60% F&R, there F&R precentage is not an indicator of F&R performance. WCPSS has NOT been providing extra resources to F&R students at any school, they just bus to try and get below 40%. So lets compromise. Leave the diversity policy in place but let's tweek in a bit. Change the acceptible level to 60%. Put some language in the policy to suggest proximity assignment is the first priority unless a school reaches 60%. Then, and only then, should divesity may be used as factor is school assignment. Now, as I mentioned, there does appear to be some schools in both the low F&R and high F&R groups that are doing a good job with F&R kids and vice versa. We should take a hard look as these schools and figure out what is going on. I believe we should put extra resources into schools where the F&R kids are struggling (whether or not its a high %F&R or a low %F&R). Perhaps thats more teacher training or hiring more qualified teachers or whatever. Clearly, though, just busing to try and get below 40% is stupid as there is now logical, data driven reason to do so.
“So lets compromise.
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:23 — user12345“So lets compromise. Leave the diversity policy in place but let us tweak in a bit. Change the acceptable level to 60%. Put some language in the policy to suggest proximity assignment is the first priority unless a school reaches 60%. Then, and only then, should diversity may be used as factor is school assignment.”
Personally, I think you have it … 60% is the new 40% … as we get poorer and poorer … 40% may not be realistic here anymore ….
“Now, as I mentioned, there does appear to be some schools in both the low F&R and high F&R groups that are doing a good job with F&R kids and vice versa. We should take a hard look as these schools and figure out what is going on.”
Again, I agree … there is always someone doing better and understanding what they are doing well and making it know is the right thing to do.
“I believe we should put extra resources into schools where the F&R kids are struggling (whether or not it’s a high %F&R or a low %F&R). Perhaps that is more teacher training or hiring teachers that are more qualified or whatever. “
Again, I agree … I do not think anyone knows what technique is most cost effective but we need to find out.
I think I like you again.
"Personally, I think you
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:45 — shearertwUser, this may make you not like me anymore...
Perhaps we're not getting poorer (as I haven't seen any data to suggest that, discounting this short-term spike we're in a the moment) but we're just lowering the standard of what it means to be poor. For example, 10 years ago, a poor person may not have a TV and certainly not a computer with internet access. Now most of the "poor" have both and a cell phone to check their email while they're away from their 2BR house driving around in a $10,000 car.
So when we're talking 40% "poor" by the fraudulent F&R #'s, perhaps that's really 20% by 2000 or 1990 standards. So 60% F&R is more like 30% back in the day.
I am just thinking about
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:59 — user12345I am just thinking about when I moved here 30 years ago the place was growing like wild, everyone had jobs, housing was cheapr and going up like crazy ... that drew a lot of people looking for work, more apartments being build, etc. ... looking at the F&R charts over the last 20 years, it appears the "red dots" continue to become more dense and widerspread. Most of the F&R kids struggle with financial obligations and home problems ... at least one of my daughter's friend works "full time" after school to keep her unemployed mom and brother and sister in an apartment .... that is tough ...
Maybe user maybe. It tough
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 14:15 — shearertwMaybe user maybe. It tough being truly poor. Unfortunately, our entitlement society is now including more and more people in the "poor" category. In some cases, we're calling people who make 80K/year poor. I think that trend is hurting the truly poor people like you describe. The higher we raise the standard by which someone is considered poor, the fewer resources that are available for the poor. Its like raising the minimum wage.....sounds good, but all it really does is cause poor people to be laid off and the price of french fries to go up.
KUMBAYA
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:31 — shearertwKUMBAYA
One other point ... if we
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 13:51 — user12345One other point ... if we could find a way for smart poor kids to escape their poor remedial school that would be good ... when you have a high number of poor kids the in a school, a majority of the classes are remedial ... we need to provide bright kids who happend to be poor more challenging courses (online?) so they do not gravitate down to the school norm.
The numbers will never prove
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 19:15 — DrActualFactualThe numbers will never prove out the stats because WCPSS keeps changing the students within the group in the giant shell game reassignment shuffle. The control group is not comprised of the same members.
They keep changing the F&R
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 19:21 — danofncThey keep changing the F&R kids?
If the F&R kids remain F&R, and you're analyzing data across the system (all ES and MS, for example), why doesn't the control group remain intact?
I guess I was thinking of
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:11 — DrActualFactualI guess I was thinking of the stats on a "school" level since the old BOE would always talk about healthy schools. So if you took 5% F&R from Salem ES and sent 2% to Baucom ES and 2% to Highcroft ES and 1% to Mills Park ES and imported a different set of 5% into Salem ES you would not be getting the test scores from the first group of individual students at the same school, (the actual kids would be different). System-wide you could get scores it just wouldn't be as "comparable" from my perspective. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Yes, when asked about this
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:28 — jenmanYes, when asked about this in the past, WCPSS has said that they can't track individual students. But it appears that EVAAS (SAS software) can do that. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I think this software can do it.
Low income kids have been getting shifted around a lot lately so its been impossible to track their progress using the current WCPSS model.
Let's assume for a moment it
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 21:32 — red_balloonLet's assume for a moment it was tracked. In such a scenario, it would be possible to report on the bused students' progress. And since the 'diversity' theory claims this helps improve outcomes, the tracking would have easily established the superiority of the busing approach. You would think any of the whiz kids in central office or WEP would have figured this out. But instead you are stonewalled. Hence, the absence of the tracking mechanism is most peculiar since it is not complicated to capture and report on that data. More burden on the teacher but I suppose they can capture the data on a computer instead of having to record it on paper.
One more sample of the F&R
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 16:37 — shearertwOne more sample of the F&R data: For both <40% F&R schools and >40% F&R schools, the % profient in Math was around 60% and for Reading was around 40%.
So, I looked at both groups of ES and determine the % of schools in each group below those numbers. Let's call those the schools with F&R pop "at risk" of getting a poor education".
40.4% for Math and 48.1% for Reading of the <40% F&R schools are "At risk"
36.7% for Math and 42.9% for Reading of the >40% F&R schools are "At risk"
So, all said and done, the F&R students in WCPSS appear to be doing BETTER at schools with >40% F&R, not worse.
It is a lie people! A flat out lie that high (>40%) F&R puts ED students at risk.
So, why don't we crank up
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:27 — user12345So, why don't we crank up the support and resources for ED students whether they go to >40 or <40 and fix them now.
btw, a school like Barwell which is diverse, no bussing, and all neighborhood is the kind of school you are trying to build, right?
I hadn't even thought of
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 22:36 — danofncI hadn't even thought of that aspect of this "analysis". Some of these schools are neighborhood schools already.
If you're judging the performance of the busing policy, shouldn't they be left out of the analysis? Or used as a comparison, instead of part of the test group?
I think it's safe to assume
Wed, 03/17/2010 - 22:04 — ApexterI think it's safe to assume that all schools are being touched in some way by the current diversity policy in that students are allowed to magnet out, or attend calendar option schools.
Just how wrong he
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 16:20 — shearertwJust how wrong he is!
%F&R %Prof Math %Prof Reading
<20 63.0(13.3) 46.6(12.6)
20-30 62.0(10.6) 40.3(10.6)
30-40 61.2(12.2) 40.3(9.4)
40-50 63.3(13.3) 43.7(12.0)
50-60 65.2(9.2) 43.0(8.3)
>60 55.5(8.9) 38.0(5.2)
*The data may be starting to break out when you get above 60% F&R but there's just not enough ES in that group (only 6) to make it statistically signficant with the high degree of variability. The >60% F&R group is not even statistically different from the <20% F&R group. Clearly that 40-60% F&R range is doing pretty well (by WCPSS standards).
And the final
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 15:15 — shearertwAnd the final analysis:
Math EOG Scores (Grades 3-8) 2008-09:
Schools with %FR greater than 40 % = 62.3% proficient (+/- 11.3 stdev)
Schools with %FR less that 40% = 61.8% proficient (+/- 12.4 stdev)
Reading EOG Scores (Grades 3-8) 2008-09:
Schools with %FR greater than 40 % = 42.2% proficient (+/- 9.6 stdev)
Schools with %FR less that 40% = 41.7% proficient (+/- 10.5 stdev)
The mean %proficient is higher (i.e. better) for the “Greater than 40% F&R” group for both Math and Reading, although there is no statistical difference between the two groups in either area.
So, clearly Richard was just spouting off at the mouth with nothing to back it up. Should we really trust anything he says?
Here’s the good, the bad and the ugly with regard to F&R reading proficiency Grades 3-8. And, similarly to the Math scores, 3 of 5 of the worst were in the "Less than 40% F&R" group.
The best less than 40: %F&R %Prof (F&R)
Rand Road Elementary 27.4% 58.8
Morrisville Elementary 17.1% 61.9
Holly Springs Element 17.4% 62.5
Willow Springs Elem 31.5% 64.3
Davis Drive Elementary 15.8% 69.6
The worst less than 40:
Underwood Elementary 30.2% 22.4
Root Elementary 37.4% 23.0
Olds Elementary 25.6% 25.0
Hunter Elementary 37.0% 28.7
Lacy Elementary 30.5% 28.8
The best greater than 40:
York Elementary 44.9% 50.6
Kingswood Elementary 44.2% 56.3
Lockhart Elementary 52.5% 57.5
Lead Mine Elementary 40.6% 60.6
Dillard Drive Elementa 43.4% 64.2
The worst greater than 40:
Wendell Elementary 52.9% 26.4
Poe Elementary 48.1% 28.2
Hilburn Drive Element 44.7% 30.3
Conn Elementary 41.7% 33.1
Fox Road Elementary 64.5% 34.6
From Kahlenberg's Blog Post:
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 14:09 — Bob_SconceNote how carefully he says that -- he's not claiming that busing students to economically mixed schools will improve their test scores. Instead, he's saying that in existing economically mixed schools, students do better than in non-economically mixed schools. Even if he were correct about the research (which I don't think he is), that's insufficient to justify the busing policy.
Here's why:
Consider a neighborhood where the average family income is right about at the cut-off for receiving F&R lunch, so about 1/2 the families get it, and the other 1/2 don't. The school serving that neighborhood will be "economically mixed," as he uses that expression, and most F&R students will be relatively close to that F&R cut-off.
Now, consider a neighborhood where the average family income is well below that cut-off, so nearly every family gets free lunches. The school serving that neighborhood will be "high poverty," as he uses that expression, and most F&R students won't even be close to that F&R cut-off.
In short, the students receiving F&R lunches at the "economically mixed" school are different students than those at the "high poverty" school, in part because they're more wealthy. As we know family income correlates fairly well with performance, we would naturally expect the F&R students in the "economically mixed" school to do better than F&R students in the "high poverty" school. Being in that school just means that they're in a group that is natively going to do better.
Secondly, that "research" doesn't discuss negative effects due to busing -- it doesn't even examine busing. But, there's good reason to believe that spending long times on a school bus would hurt a student's performance at school.
there's good reason to
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 15:07 — carson79So...
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 15:24 — Bob_SconceHas the "right" really been working to dismantle bussing for years?
The main problem here is that to figure this out, you need to know some very specific information about students, and that information is generally confidential. I can't call the WCPSS offfice and ask for individualized data on student performance and node assignments -- they just won't give it to me.
The only people who could possibly do this is the district itself. And, the last board declined to do the study, saying "I just know it's working."
Plus, I suspect that it's not as easy as you'd think. Basically, you need to match up kids, finding sets of kids which are similar in every statistically significant way except for being bused. And, that's quite difficult. Not only do they each have different families and neighborhoods, but they all have different schools and teachers. Alternatively, you could try to run a huge multiple regression trying to control for all those other factors. But, that involves a lot more data collection and, unfortunately, a lot more discetion.
ok so I didn't mean just in
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:54 — carson79ok so I didn't mean just in Wake county. Well yeah the right has been complaining about government enforced diversity for a long time ... I know a lot of you disagree with me but I think that is what has fueled most of the new boards supporters especially the deepest pockets.
And I think the post below mine pretty much says what I would have responded.
Would you support a study on the new Board's proposal?
Sorry...
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 21:04 — Bob_SconceI was trying to ask an honest question there -- when I think of busing, I think of George Wallace and southern Democrats. I grew up in a Republican family and the subject of school busing never came up. I've just never really come across it as an issue except for here.
I responded to chaboard below. The one addition I'd make is that this demand for a "study" really seems to be just a stalling tactic. And, given that it's basically the same group that didn't want a study before, the concern just sounds disingenuous. If the study came out and said "No, the diversity policy really isn't working," would that honestly convince anybody? I don't think so -- they'd just clamor about how the study wasn't conducted right, how the board commissioned a rigged study, how the result was predetermined, etc....
They want to hide the node data because
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:45 — Voice_of_Reason_They wanted to hide the fact they were busing low performance nodes. I stubbled across that when I found WCPSS assignment slides on a web server in Tennessee. Why they were in Tennessee and not on the WCPSS server is another question.
I think this is part of the reason we see lower performance numbers in the bused kids when we compare against base populations.
But You DON'T Need Individiual Results
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 18:02 — chaboardYou can answer these questions by comparing populations in different districts with different methods provided you control for sufficiently for other factors. Paired samples aren't the only way to answer them and neither are longitudinal "before and after" type studies.
BTW, wrt ".. And, the last board declined to do the study". That's true.
But it's also true that neither you nor I have seen the new board express any interest at all in doing a study. (Before spending millions changing the system, I might add). They're essentially saying "it's not working". The difference being that they actually RAN on how bad it was that the board wouldn't study it! And then won't study it.
Bob, would you be in favor of the new board taking time to DO the study (that THEY said the old board should've done) before acting as if they knew the result?
So...
Tue, 03/16/2010 - 20:56 — Bob_SconceIn theory, sure. But, you need to control for "enough" other factors, which means collecting a lot of data. And then you need to know something about what that other data means -- you can't control for another variable unless you have an idea of how that variable influences the result.
The bigger problem is that the results of a study can be determined by a study design -- it's too easy to keep doing regressions until the results come out the way that you think they should.
And that's the problem with doing the study -- who does it? It's either done in-house by people who already think the diversity policy is working, or you commission somebody else to do it, and then the results are going to be suspect based on the biases of the people conducting the study.
That's one reason that I'm not in favor of taking time to do a study. Another is that we already have evidence that the policy doesn't work (see sheartw's comments above which, while not completely rigorous, are certainly enough to raise questions).
And, finally, if somebody wants to keep any weirdo policy that negatively impacts thousands of kids, they bear the burden of proving the existence of positives that outweigh those negatives. It ought to be simple -- you should be able to show that nearly every school with 30% F&R students or fewer has a 95% across-the-board EOG passing rate, and nearly every school with 50% F&R students or more has a 30% across-the-board EOG passing rate. But, instead of pointing to obvious figures, your side needs to bring in some think-tank expert to try to explain why those numbers don't exist.