Richard Kahlenberg is calling the Wake County school system's school diversity fight an example of one of the best developments to happen in education in 2010.
But before you scratch your heads about it, here's what Kahlenberg, an ardent defender of using socioeconomic integration, means.
In a blog post Monday for the progressive Century Foundation, Kahlenberg cites the controversy in Wake an an example of how at the local level "many citizens and education leaders fought back vigorously against growing segregation."
"In Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina, which has had a highly successful socioeconomic school integration plan in place for years, supporters repeatedly challenged a conservative school board’s attempts to re-segregate the public schools," Kahlenberg writes. "In March, I gave a speech at a conference organized by the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, as part of an effort to lay out the research on the importance of integrated schools.
The conference was followed by protests from the NAACP, a lawsuit from civil rights lawyers, and a federal investigations into re-segregation. While the school board squabbles, the local Chamber of Commerce (hardly a radical organization), hired an esteemed education planner, Michael Alves, to come up with a proposal that will honor parental choice in schooling, manage explosive growth in the system, and preserve integrated schools."
Despite what happened in Wake, Kahlenberg writes that "nationally, momentum for socioeconomic integration grew."
On the flip side, Kahlenberg writes that the worst development in education this year has been how the "left" is joining in on the bashing of teachers unions. He called the documentary "Waiting for Superman" an "anti-union tirade."
Comments
http://www.edweek.org/ew/arti
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 19:21 — AngelaWhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/12/21/15parents.h30.html?tkn=YUOFpa46eRywJyNKs3oskCtn0hxI23GHN4HO&cmp=clp-edweek
Education advocates and organizations are watching intently as events unfold in Compton, Calif., where parents upset about their children’s failing school became the first in that state—and apparently in the nation—to invoke a “parental trigger” law that will force the school to become a charter by the 2011-12 school year. California’s parent-trigger law, passed in January, allows 51 percent of parents at a school that has failed to meet “adequate yearly progress” requirements for three consecutive years to sign a petition that prompts one of four actions: converting to a charter school, replacing the principal and staff, changing the budget, or closing the school entirely. Mississippi passed a similar law in July, and Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, and West Virginia also are considering parent-trigger laws. “The fact that the parent trigger allows parents a role in choosing new management for the school puts the onus on parents to be very wise consumers,” said Ms. Lake. “It will take some community education and support to make sure parent groups have the capacity to make informed choices.”
Kahlenberg has too much
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 18:54 — DrActualFactualKahlenberg has too much invested to think anything else--this system received great praise (mistakenly placed btw) in the past from him. He is intertwined with the former regime here which goes waaaay back. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that he suggested Alves to WEP/Chamber etc. it's all one great big back scratchin fest. Any significant change/alteration to our reassignment scheme that follows Alves plan will result in widespread parental disappointment. If you follow comments from Boston and other places Alves plan has been used most parents dislike it because they are stuck in schools they didn't choose and/or schools NO ONE pays to fix because there are too many broken schools and no money. The MYR alteration to our system was met with a large bit of disapproval (tracks 2/3 can't be populated to a large degree) the choice we would get under Alves plan would likely result in the same sort of scenario. FAR from what I would call a great change or great year for Wake schools. The parents in Wake voted for Parental Choice not "Controlled Choice" and I don't think Alves plan would make even 50% of the parents here happy--would it be a good thing if the other half left????I don't think so. Based on the MYR track record I'm not optimistic.
Dr. Alves v. Dr. Kahlenberg
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 15:37 — ellabakerIt is a mistake to pretend like Richard Kahlenberg is you or me or anyone else with an opinion. I am not nominating him for Education Emperor, but he is one of the most senior and accomplished education scholars in the country. His books are not op-ed pieces, but rich with data and carefully argued. Dr. Kahlenberg's scholarship is calm, clear, and thorough, and he is certainly not an ideologue or a cheerleader. If you look at his books, you are likely to find something useful even if you disagree with his analysis in the end.
Dr. Kahlenberg and Dr. Alves are not carbon copies, by any means. Kahlenberg is more the scholar, while Alves is more the fixer. The plans devised by Alves are shrewd combinations of scholarly assessments and practical responses to political predicaments. His "realism" tends to accept more high-poverty schools than I find acceptable. In an ideal world, I don't know where Alves and Kahlenberg would agree and disagree about Wake County's needs. In this world, however, I doubt that Dr. Alves has created any school system anywhere that would please Kahlenberg all that much. I prefer Kahlenberg, personally, and I do not think Wake County should hasten to embrace an Alves plan without looking at it closely. But don't paint them both with the same brush without looking at their work.
I know exactly who both of
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 20:16 — DrActualFactualI know exactly who both of these gentlemen are, what they do, etc. I've read their books, publications/papers and googled reviews and info on the systems(Alves) they have worked with. Kahlenberg is a Sr. Fellow for TCF and he reviews data and provides analysis on many different topics. He has reviewed the data our system provided him(have you seen some of the data our system compiles?) The current OCR scenario shows how capable our system/staff is in compiling accurate data and spitting it back in a timely manner. I know Dr. Kahlenberg is well-educated, well-trained and extremely intelligent; just read his bio. He studies us from afar and has contact with the upper administration of WCPSS--no surprise. He should speak with parents of students to get the "skinny" on what is actually occurring--that's I book I'd pay to read. I've quoted his work previously on his statements that WCPSS relies more heavily on forced busing and forced assignment that other districts do since he monitors education he would probably know what practices are used most often. I don't want to see either of these two gentlemen have ANY continued effect on our system because IMHO it would be to our students detriment.
ot
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 17:32 — AngelaWWake schools meeting could be about superintendent search
http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/8811517/
maybe we should all go up to
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:58 — CaryCurmudgeonmaybe we should all go up to Bethesda and protest Walt Whitman's being a segregated school.
Kahlenberg is such a
Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:29 — woodstockKahlenberg is such a shyster. I guess I can understand why he keeps selling his snake oil... it butters his bread and there are lots of extreme left wingers out there ready to lap it up.
What snake oil?
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 07:53 — SatchHHKahlenberg actually has facts and data on many, many schools over many, many years informing is views. Did you attend his session at the Great Schools Forum in March? Do you even know his work? Calling him a shyster simply reveals your extreme bias, lack of real information, and reliance on propaganda sound bytes like this recent one. Kahlenberg actually is interested in good education for ALL students, not just those in some neighborhoods. BTW - in the long run, educating ALL students is good for everyone - makes for a stronger society as a whole. The new board members (or their student assignment appointees) so focused on keeping "those kids" out of "our" schools seem to miss the picture beyond their big toes.
Yes, I know his work and and
Thu, 12/23/2010 - 05:40 — woodstockYes, I know his work and and attended his "Great Schools" promotional tour.
Yes, he uses data -- carefully selected data that aligns with his extreme left-wing thinking and limited theoretical data that does not account for the practical implementation of his ideas.
The kicker is you say "Kahlenberg actually is interested in good education for ALL students, not just those in some neighborhoods." Really? Then the status quo leadership in Wake County must have gotten something very, very wrong because ALL students did not succeed. Far from it. In fact the achievement of the most vulnerable students in Wake County DECLINED under the reign of the Burns, Dulaney,Gill/Head/McLaurin/Hill leadership and were blatantly discriminated against in terms of access to magnet schools and advanced courses... and graduation rates dipped and drop out rates increased. They leave a pitiful and disgraceful legacy that is only now being corrected.
You, like Kahlenberg, are all talk.
I attended a Kahlenberg
Wed, 12/22/2010 - 08:06 — CaryCurmudgeonI attended a Kahlenberg session last year and came away completely unimpressed. He had lots of charts drawn from raw data, and was very selective in only presenting those that supported his case. Lots of statements beginning with "I believe" or "I assume" because all of his work was done in the biosphere of Washington, DC. He loves studying data, but does not seem to have a grasp of what is really going on at ground-level. At the end of his presentation, audience members lined up to ask questions. He squirmed when confronted with facts contradicting his theories, and spent more time rationalizing than anything else. Kahlenberg tells busing supporters what they want to hear, so they are blind to his lack of depth.