Wake County school board members Ron Margiotta and Deborah Prickett both said tonight they oppose the use of student achievement as a factor in Michael Alves' controlled-choice student assignment plan.
Both board members were unexpected guests at tonight's Lacy Elementary School PTA forum on student assignment in which Wake Education Partnership Vice President Tim Simmons gave details on the plan that Alves is developing.
Margiotta, the board chairman, said he's willing to look at the Alves plan and that he likes how it's using proximity, stability and choice as guiding principles. But he equated the plan's use of student achievement as a "quota," similar to the use of socioeconomic diversity that the board dropped from the student assignment policy this year.
"When we include that quota system in the plan, that’s something the community has said it wants no part of," Margiotta said during the forum.
As you guys may recall, Alves will look at student achievement levels for students to help determine where they'll go once parents request their choices. The goal is to avoid having too many low achieving student at any individual school.
Prickett said she has concerns about using student achievement as a factor in student assignment. Citing her experience as a school guidance counselor, she said students could be going through many things in their lives such as the divorce of their parents that could affect achievement.
Prickett said it would be "a scary thing" to look at achievement levels and "label a child." She said every child should have fair chances of getting into a school.
Prickett and Margiotta's fellow GOP school board members John Tedesco and Chris Malone have already come out against the Alves plan, which was commissioned by the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and the Wake Education Partnership.
The wild card is GOP board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman, who hasn't publicly commented on the Alves plan since the WEP began presenting more details. Back in September when it was announced that Alves was being hired, she had said she was "thrilled" about adding student achievement into the assignment mix.
Democratic school board member Carolyn Morrison, who was invited by the PTA to tonight's meeting, reiterated her willingness to look at the Alves plan when it's presented to the school board in December.
(It's late so I'll blog more about the meeting tomorrow, include Dana Cope's exchanges with Simmons and Morrison and Margiotta's comments about the discord on the school board.)
Comments
Cuts in teaching staff
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:04 — stan_norwalkHere is a news story from four months ago when the last round of cuts was being digested. The big cuts lie ahead with the loss of the Federal stimulus program.
August 2010
RALEIGH (WTVD) -- School officials met Tuesday to finalize cuts they had been preparing for, but there's still some confusion over whether there will be deeper cuts.
The school board approved the nearly 5 percent budget cut they'd been planning. However, now they're trying to figure out if the newest executive order signed by the governor would cut the state agency budgets by another 5 percent.
It states that exceptions may be made to urgent situations related to direct classroom instruction.
It's that wording that Wake school leaders said they are worried about.
"The specific language says 'may be exempted,' it did not say will be exempted or shall be exempted," WCPSS Business Manager David Neter said.
The new state budget already cuts $35 million from Wake Schools.
For the most part legislators have dictated where the cuts would come from and the school has already done it.
They slashed hundreds of teaching assistants -mostly from the third grade have been eliminated- and no new textbooks will be ordered next school year.
Principals also said they haven't been able to rehire all the teachers they had to let go.
Even some classes are being cut, while others will be overcrowded.
"They'll do fine. That's the reality is that they'll do fine but the thought of going from 25, 26 to 30, 32, 34 students in a class, I choke when I say 34 in a class because that's a ridiculously large number but I have parents who I've said the class is closed it has 32 students and parents say please let one more in, let two more in, let three more in," Millbrook High School Principal Dana King said. "We're having to make some hard difficult decisions."
Despite the fact that some school teachers are starting to be rehired, the union president who represents them said that's not good enough.
In an emotional plea to the school board, Wake County North Carolina Association of Educators President Jennifer Lanane wanted to know why federal stimulus dollars were not saving more jobs.
She said the President Barack Obama and Governor Bev Perdue lied about stimulus money saving jobs, enough that everything would be okay.
Lanane said it's a mess and teachers deserve the truth.
She wants government leaders and school leaders to stop painting a rosy picture and stimulus money has not saved the day.
"Everything's not fine, everything's awful," Lanane said. "They're saying to me they have 37 kids in the classroom. They're teaching subjects they never thought they'd have to teach again, schools they never thought they'd be at. I have TA's in classrooms they've never been trained to be in. It's a mess. I know the federal government passed the buck to the state and state to you and you can't pass it because this is where it stops."
Wake County said stimulus dollars have saved special education jobs and have created nearly 50 new math positions. But there are still nearly 600 teachers who were let go earlier this year that haven't gotten a new contract.
Fourth grade teacher Hal Schwartz was first cut then rehired after his first year of teaching.
"I got a letter that said you've been named a finalist for "Beginning Teacher of the Year" for Wake County," Schwartz said. "Two days after that I received a letter saying, 'just to let you know, giving you a heads up, your contract is a terminating contract and we're probably going to have to let you go. In a matter of a few days it went from me being on top of the world to questioning the future."
He said he feels for his colleagues who still didn't know if they had a job. Only some are slowly starting to be rehired as school starts next week.
More teachers could be rehired based on tenth-day attendance. If there are more students than anticipated, the county will have to hire more teachers.
RM/JT Whitepaper - window dressing
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 18:41 — Solon77Provide economically challenged families and poor performing students’ additional options, such as system-wide choice for school assignment.
How was this to be implemented in the assignment policy ? It seems to me that the Alves plan simply includes this as part of the algorithm - allowing for ED and Poor Performing a shot at their choice of assignment.
Which one?
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 23:37 — SDR256Which assignment 'policy'? The extinct Policy 6200, the three year assignment policy about to come to an end or any of the miriad proposed policies? A little clarity would help.
JT assignment model
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 13:01 — Solon77The JT/RM whitepaper calls for ED and Poor achieving students to have a county wide choice of schools - my question is how was JT going to accomplish this in his proposed zone assignment plan ?
the real users
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:11 — SDR256I think its fair to ask for more clarity on this question. Its not to say that more dialog wasn't planned. But someone suggested recently to involve PTSA representatives - parents, teachers AND students. The best systems are designed with the users involved throughout the process. I don't know how realistic this is, patience and planning would be key. But I bet that, if interviewed constructively, the students would have some very valuable insights about how they may be labelled and shuffled. They could help make any proposal resilient and livable long term.
And the statement that the Alves' plan 'simply' includes achievement as part of the algorithm seems naive to me. There isn't anything simple about these big systems. And the thought that something so organic, huge and human as this problem could be 'systemized' from the administrative, theoretical level seems unbelievably arrogant (of them/us, not 'you' , just to be clear). It seems that some level of open switches will have to be left for the school level or 'at the ground' so to speak. It would be impossible to view all levels and situations, as this thing unrolls, through the narrow peephole of the 'management'. Also, putting all bets on Alves - or any one 'off the shelf' solution - seems a little like thinking there really is a magic silver bullet, another online-ordered custom made suit delivered by an outside specialist. Call me old-fashioned, but I think we're going to have to sew this suit ourselves.
And it will only fit if we actually measure, gauge and regard the real people who will have to wear it.
OK
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:32 — Solon77For the last 12 months I have been listening to: 99% of the country has neighborhood schools. With this talking point consistently being drilled throughout the community - why is now the claim of a tailored suit ?
My original question remains - RM/JT have proposed that ED and Poor performing students be given a county wide choice. Considering that we have capacity constraints - how is this option expected to be implemented ? It really is a simple question. Since RM/JT had the foresight to include it as one of the main assignment/achievement points - clearly there must have been some idea on how this would be implemented.
Call me old-fashioned, but I
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 23:12 — user12345Call me old-fashioned, but I think we're going to have to sew this suit ourselves
But do we want the advice of an experience tailor as we proceed or boys club organizer who was born yesterday? I would prefer involving a profession who has built a house before vs. a politician looking to promote himself in the next election. We needs someone to distill the requirements, show us options and guide us to successful implementation. I am glad that JT isn't on the board of Progress Energy or he would be designing the next nuclear plant at his kitchen table.
So...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:30 — Bob_SconceHow does one use student achievement in determining student assignment? "Sorry. Your grades are too high [or low], so you can't go to this school. If they go [up/down], you might be able to get in next year." What sort of screwy assignment system is that?
There are two hallmarks of any reasonable assignment plan: Simplicity and Transparency. If parents can't understand the plan or decisions made under the plan, then it will be a failure.
Obviously achievement is not
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:40 — user12345Obviously achievement is not part of the plan now by viewing Barwell which has been a low performing school for what four years now? But who cares since they don't donate much and don't have a PAC.
So...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:28 — Bob_SconceThe last I heard, Barwell's performance has improved dramatically recently, although their students still don't perform as well as their peers with educated and involved parents who happen to live in the suburbs.
The district should be all about achievement, but trying to fix achievement through an assignment policy is like trying to use a canoe to plow your fields.
Dramatic????????
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 15:41 — user12345The last I heard, Barwell's performance has improved dramatically recently, although their students still don't perform as well as their peers with educated and involved parents who happen to live in the suburbs
So...
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 16:41 — Bob_SconceI was thinking percentages -- two years ago, about 26% of their students were passing EOGs. This year, that's about 40% -- over 1/2 as many additional kids
I agree that they have a ways to go. But, they're still doing better with ED students than many of the schools that WCPSS buses ED students to.
But all their effort is on preventing diversity and achievement from be considered?? It is as if they are single minded in that by eliminating diversity and achievement consideration that somehow Barwell will become a school of excellence.
? Going back to my canoe analogy, you're effectively saying "Not using a canoe won't get the fields plowed.." Never said it would. If you stop using the canoe, you still have unplowed fields. But, at least you're no longer trying to plow them with a canoe. Sounds like time to find a plow.
I have a mental picture of Anne Sherron and Diana Bader sitting in a canoe in the middle of a field, paddling with all their might while Tedesco & Margiotta slowly shake their heads as they load the canoe (Sherron and Bader still inside) into the bed of a pickup truck, and then returning 30 minutes later with a mechanical plow.
The mental image I have is
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:17 — user12345The mental image I have is of TM and JT disparately trying to contain poor and minority kids in zones so they don't contaminate the good schools.
Interesting....
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 17:52 — Bob_SconceConsidering that, IIRC, the plan was to let them apply to whatever school they wanted in the county.
Actually, that's not a bad first step: assign spot nodes back to their neighborhood schools, but give them the option to continue to go to their current school.
Full Circle
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 20:20 — Solon77OK, so the tread has come full circle. My original question remains. The RM/JT whitepaper calls for ED and Poor Performing students to apply to whatever school in the county. I believe this is a good thing. But how is this to be accomplished ? How does a poor achieving ed kid from Southeast Raleigh get to go to say Leesville ? Considering that many of our schools are full and the algorithm favors proximity - how does this kid from Southeast Raleigh get to go to Leesville ? Who gets bumped ?
It appears that "student
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 00:54 — HJ2ss2It appears that "student achievement" is just another euphemism for "free or reduced lunch", except, if I were a student, I would rather admit to being bused because I qualify for the lunch plan rather than because I'm a low achiever.
Well...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:26 — danofncI had a little bit of free time yesterday, so I decided I'd go ahead and solve the assignment problem.
For anyone who is interested, here's a link to my "plan".
http://wp.me/pK9Ol-12
I didn't realize it had been so long since I wrote anything on my ol' blog.
I'm sure it has lots of flaws, and I'm sure there are lots of things that people would change....which makes it just like all the other plans.
WEP can email me through Keung to get info about where to send my check.
Crashed the party?
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:47 — valsparDr. Morrison, Tim Simmons and Anne Sherron were invited by the Lacy PTA. Why would Prickett and Margiotta show up? Prickett ignores repeated requests to address issues at her own district's schools, but she shows up at Lacy? Margiotta felt he was entitled to speak? How arrogant of the both of them. The only good thing about these two being there is they were forced to listen to families outside their own district. Did anyone attend, and can offer the Lacy perspective? Did Margiotta or Prickett respond to their concerns at all? The politics behind them being present at this meeting is sickening.
Discussion?
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 18:37 — SDR256But I thought we were all supposed to be encouraging each other and our board members for community dialog. How can that happen if no one is willing to cross into unchartered waters? I commend Ms. Prickett and Mr. Margiotta for attending in person and not relying on second hand information. I wish more people were willing to engage in this way. Headlines and soundbites do nothing to further understanding - or the source of misunderstanding, for that matter.
Board members regularly sit
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:23 — CaryCurmudgeonBoard members regularly sit in on meetings that they are not a part of. In the case of this meeting, Tim Simmons was brought in to discuss the Alves plan. Margiotta and Prickett took the time to listen to his presentation, and should be commended for it.
To CC
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:31 — valsparCommended for listening - I offered that up - sort of (forced to listen). I am appalled at either of them speaking out.
As for the Alves plan, if Margiotta really wanted to hear about it, he would have requested Tim Simmons present to the board after Tedesco heard the presentation in Garner, and reported back. Margiotta has not. Remember - he turned down the opportunity to work with the Partnership and Chamber - they proceeded without him. Margiotta showing up was only about it being at Lacy. Do you think he would have gotten out of his easy chair on a cold rainy night if the presentation had been at Stough?
...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:06 — SideburnsHave you considered that Margiotta was asked to attend? Maybe not by Sherron, Morrison or Simmons but by a parent? Prickett too, for that matter. Just the fact that Hope Carmichael "moderated" could be reason enough to attend.
To Sideburns
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:07 — valsparCould be considered, yes, Sideburns, and I'll give you that one. It is no secret there was a post school board election celebratory breakfast held in the Lacy node returned to that school from Stough, attended by Malone and Margiotta. The majority has friends in the Lacy base. Nothing secret or wrong about that. Upon further thought, considering Margiotta and Tedesco turned down the Chamber and WEP's offer of Alves, I can see how it would be somewhat uncomfortable for Margiotta to ask for WEP to give a presentation to the board. Therefore -
I stand on the simpler thought that Margiotta's and Prickett's attendance was prompted on the fact that it was at Lacy, only. As Margiotta stated, the board would not consider the Alves Plan due to its criteria using academic achievement; this has not been a secret, so why go to hear about it? Because, it was at Lacy. And the opportunity to interject rhetoric to a Lacy audience. Which they took. Arrogantly, IMO.
Again, back to the politics of it all. Which is the point of my entry into N&O blogosphere.
Not sure what you mean with the quotes around moderated, referencing Mrs. Carmichael. Would you care to elaborate?
...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:44 — SideburnsI think you are really overreaching on why Margiotta and Prickett attended. Maybe they went because Sherron is known to fear-monger and purposefully create confusion? It's possible.
Hope Carmichael has a nice little history with the previous Board and MYR. Are you not familiar with it?
Go paint something
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:02 — FSandYOUThe board members have a right to go to any meeting they choose. Since your info came 2nd hand I see no point in it. The school board can tell Alves to go jump and doesn't have to do anything he's whipped up for the WEEP'ers.
And I'm pretty sure they won't.
To FS
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 15:17 — valsparFS - see post to Sideburns for an answer to board members attending any meeting they want.
Why are you pretty sure they won't have anything to do with Alves Plan? What if the lines are actually workable, the schools within the lines are a clean and equitable distribution of magnet, year round and traditional? What is to stop them from taking the lines as drawn, removing academic achievement from the selection criteria within the regions, and letting parents choose based on the parameters the board sets? Do you find fault in that?
"What if the lines are
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 21:38 — Apexter"What if the lines are actually workable, the schools within the lines are a clean and equitable distribution of magnet, year round and traditional? What is to stop them from taking the lines as drawn, removing academic achievement from the selection criteria within the regions, and letting parents choose based on the parameters the board sets? Do you find fault in that? "
Those of us who live in the outer edges of the county typically don't have any magnet schools near our homes. Someone did a study on this a few years ago and found that there was only one magnet school within 10 miles of District 8 board member Ron Margiotta's home, and that the average distance to magnets was something like 18 miles.
Do you honestly think that by drawing a line down the center of the county and saying "OK, we've now split up the magnets evenly between the Area A and Area B" that this will make the magnet schools any closer or more accessible to the families who don't live in Raleigh?
Alves has proposed breaking the county into two to four areas. If the county was broken into two regions/area/zones of equivalent size, this would result in two zones of 415 square miles in area, or at best, four zones of 207 square miles in area.
Let's take the two region plan, and assume that Alves draws an east-west line roughly down the middle of the county. By and large, the west is high income/high achievement, and the east is lower income, lower achievement, and the center has a mix. To make things equal out, this is going to force a lot of churning of those in the outer areas into the center, in Raleigh. Those in Raleigh are in the catbird seat, as they likely will not have to move much, and have magnet schools nearby. Sorry, this is nowhere near my definition of equity.
This is not a CHOICE plan. It is a REQUEST plan. No one will get to choose the school their children will go to. They can only make a request, and be told to enjoy the choices they had to choose from that were denied to them.
"This is not a CHOICE plan.
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 09:03 — danofnc"This is not a CHOICE plan. It is a REQUEST plan. No one will get to choose the school their children will go to. They can only make a request, and be told to enjoy the choices they had to choose from that were denied to them."
That statement would apply to the plan that was being considered by the Student Assignment Committee, too.
We don't have enough empty space at any schools to really allow for "choice".
Just curious
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:37 — Solon77Just curious. As someone who lives at the fringe of the county - what are your expectations of the school system ? Offerings, distance to school, stability....ect.
I'm no Margiotta apologist,
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:36 — danofncI'm no Margiotta apologist, but this is a little unfair. It could be that this presentation was the closest one for him to attend that was planned.
It could be that Tedesco heard the presentation and suggested that other board members also try to hear it.
Unless you know why he spoke, and who asked him the questions, it's unfair to just assume that he jumped up to state his opinions.
Honestly, you could just as easily criticize the minority board members, WEP, and the PTA for trying to drum up support for this plan in advance of presenting it to the board.
why can't everyone in this
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:40 — CaryCurmudgeonwhy can't everyone in this debate be this rational?
Rational responses require
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 22:28 — HJ2ss2Rational responses require intelligence and the ability to understand and control emotions.
Prickett was lurking at
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:20 — user12345Prickett was lurking at Goldman's meeting too.
How do you tell the difference?
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 21:24 — Apexter"Prickett was lurking at Goldman's meeting too"
How do you tell the difference between a "lurker" and an "attendee" at a public meeting?
Does the lurker hide behind the potted plants in the corner? Wear a cape, and break into uncontrollable outbusts of "Muuuuuwah-hah-hah-hah-hah" from time to time? Listen from the air ducts?
Or is the lurker just someone you disapprove of?
An "attendee" is attending
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:30 — user12345An "attendee" is attending to listen, see what other districts are concerned about and there primarily to support their fellow board member and most likely invited by the main board member and acknowledge before the meeting ... at the end of the meeting the visiting board member offers to help the main board member with question and logistic ... it is the main board member's district, people, etc. and the visiting member is a guest.
"Lurking" politician are not invited to the meeting, probably learn about the event from the news, show up because it is public meeting, interject and try to bring the focus back on themselves, are not acknowledged, sit in the back with their cronies whispering and looking for mistakes to quote later, sneak out the back quickly to get to the TV cameras first to preempt the main member who is answering question and greeting constituents.
Does that help? Any self serving politician can qualify and Prickett did not do all of these.. This is just a general frame work.
?
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:01 — Bob_SconceAre you saying that this was a private forum, where only invitees could attend? Do they not have the same rights as other citizens?
Not at all
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:22 — valsparI am not saying that at all, Bob. I thought I was quite clear. More directly to the point - Margiotta and Prickett went to the meeting #1 because it was at Lacy, and to disrupt if they did not like what they heard. Tim Simmons presented the same to Garner last week, Tedesco showed, and remarkably remained quiet I'm told, as it was not his meeting. Margiotta and Pricket had every right to be there, but showed lack of professional courtesy. Its a red letter day when Tedesco shows more professional decorum than his Republican cronies. But I guess they are feeling quite invincible this week. Again, the politics of it all is disgusting.
Ok...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:29 — Bob_SconceI accept that's not what you meant. But, I don't know how you came to your conclusions -- were you there? It's unclear from the original blog post how their comments came about. Did they stand up and say it right in the middle? Were they asked about it? Was there a Q&A period? Or did Keung just ask them about it while they were there?
To Bob
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:59 — valsparBob - I was not there. (Made some phone calls, found a colleague who was in attendance).
I was told Margiotta objected to a parent statement regarding discontent with the way this board is working together, and the damage it is doing, and how this person wished this board could work at getting along better. Twice Margiotta attempted to interject. Twice Mrs. Carmichael (Lacy parent and moderator) stopped him, offering for him to speak when called on. She did, and also offered the courtesy to Prickett as well, when Prickett stood up and attempted to interject.
Margiotta's comments addressed that the discontent started long before this majority came into power. (my colleague concluded he was referencing the frequent reassignments and year round schools in his area). He also stated using "quotas" would not be part of this board's student assignment plan. He was referencing using student achievement as a determining factor in student placement, which is being used in the Alves plan, as to not overwhelm any one school or classroom with low performing children, which is tied to teacher and principal retention, and its' fiscal responsibility, as presented by Simmons. Prickett went off on a tangent regarding free and reduced lunch reporting. Neither comment was addressing specific Lacy concerns, they were simply spouting rhetoric in defense mode. In my colleagues' opinion, (which validates my earlier suspicions) they should have not interjected, as it was not a "point/counterpoint" style of meeting, it was an informational one, and a platform for listening to Lacy parents' concerns.
I offer this is 2nd hand, but confident enough in the source to offer it up as an accurate, albeit opinionated, representation.
Take on base assignments
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 08:41 — sachivalayAnalyze kid's day ...1) Get up - Get ready 2) Get to school ( Bus, walk, car ) 3) See familiar class mates 4) See familiar adults 5) Study+play 6) Get home (Bus, walk, car ) 7) Do homework.... and you will see that physical plant (school) does not matter to kids. I have observed this very well in my 2 kids.
Above is to make a point that wholesale reassignments where a large set of kids (classmates+neighbors) are moved from one physical plant to another physical plant have minimal impact on kids.
Base assignments are good because it allows parents to choose there home with knowledge of the physical plant where their kid will go to. In a growth area of the county, parents can be made aware of new schools being built and possible reassignments in advance ( like 3 yr assignment plan ) so that they can make informed choices about where they choose to live. It is all about INFORMED choice and not just choice.
Not having base assignments take away the capability from parents to make informed choice. I do not think parents want that. Base assignment is a must have for any new assignment plan.
...
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 08:58 — Sideburns"Base assignments are good because it allows parents to choose there home with knowledge of the physical plant where their kid will go to."
Yet, at the same time, it will possibly reassign another family out of that school when that new family moves in. Base assignments are good if you are the one moving in -- not if you're the one getting kicked out. We must promote a plan that addresses the importance of increased stability -- and, IMO, this isn't the way.
Terrible Title
Thu, 11/04/2010 - 23:17 — edna_pI was at the meeting tonight and I take exception to baiting title of your post and characterization of tonight's events. I have become all too accustomed to the N&O's reporting style and find it very lacking in objective journalism just like most MSM. The title of your "article" is at odds with the content. Neither Mr. Margiotta nor Ms. Prickett expressed being against the plan, they merely expressed their concerns as evidenced by your own writing. Shame on you. One very interesting fact presented tonight is that F&R students are self-reported which is shocking as this was the basis by which the former diversity policy was measured and implemented; resulting in the egregious reassignment plans that angered so many.
Many of the aspects of the controlled-choice model are positive and in my opinion reflect common ground which a majority of people on both sides can agree. It would be refreshing to see you report on this point of view from the different School Board members. Reporting differences is fine and perhaps newsworthy, but inciting them is making news, not reporting it.
With all due respect, the
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 00:51 — KeungHui (author)With all due respect, the student achievement portion is one of the plan's guiding principles. If the board says we like the plan but we'll only use the other three principles, I don't think you'll hear people saying they took the Alves plan. Having all four board members publicly say they oppose the use of student achievement in the selection criteria is essentially saying we won't support the plan. This all may be moot if Goldman backs the Dems on this but she hasn't spoken out publicly on the Alves plan in the last month.
All we need anti-diversity anti-achievement BOE
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 08:39 — user12345"Having all four board members publicly say they oppose the use of student achievement"
Alves' plan is not Pro-achievement
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 14:05 — jenmanYou are making the big mistake of thinking that Alves' plan is pro-achievement. Having achievement in the mix isn't about targeting services to kids who need them. It's about making sure that low income minority kids are spread out so nobody has to deal with 'too many' of them.
Gotta say I'm with you there
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 16:44 — LongtimeLurkerGotta say I'm with you there, Jenman. Your previous comments this week - about labeling these kids as "low-achieving" before they ever enter a school - shows exactly where the Alves plan would be taking us.
Under the Alves plan we would look back fondly on the days when there were children in the schools whose main risk factor was that they were going to be labeled "at risk" and then served with mediations and destructive programs based on an assumption they might fail. At least there was uncertainty there. I'm afraid that the Alves' nodes would work more like a tatoo or a yellow sleeve band - identity of the student within the school district would be fixed and immutable where ever they got shuffled - oh wait, we already do that.
Anyone who thinks this plan is a good idea should just try imagine being called "low-achieving" no matter how well you achieved.
On the other hand, labeling these kids as toxic right up front saves a huge amount of effort and uncertainty. We already know how they would have performed if we had taught them.
What a nightmare. Are we REALLY debating the merits of this plan?
If so, then why not just suggest we move all these nodes to one place and BUILD WALLS around it?
Oh darn, I just realized that would be "wrong." We can't restrain people's freedom - we can only judge their potential by the average performance of their neighbors, reify their five-year-old children's identities as sub-standard, and then condemn them to second-class educations, and call it diversity. We already know we can get away with doing that. So why reinvent the wheel? Either way it is distributing a population defined as a problem.
Anyone who thinks this plan
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 09:34 — user12345Anyone who thinks this plan is a good idea should just try imagine being called "low-achieving" no matter how well you achieved.
So easy to solve ... take the bias, racist, etc. element out of labeling and turn it over to a computer that adds up the test scores ... all math ... so, if you are in the 9th grade with a third grade reading ability, you are at risk of .... prison, dropping out, failing, etc. ... even if you have two married parents and are white.
A completely different option
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 23:59 — SDR256Here is a completely different option - leave it up to the human equation. Allow people to get used to and comfortable with interacting and feeling compassion and responsibility for those they see on a regular basis. I've heard and experienced volunteering in the school and its tandem connection that comes with the children. You feel a responsibility whether you want to or not. Didn't matter if the kids were from the neighborhood or not. Some kids from the neighborhood had two parents working. It was just simply that the parents couldn't come to the school. The 'human relationships within the school' - teachers, children, administration, volunteers - did not include the adult representative for students. They were not all poor.
When children have been moved simply for satisfying the system, it has been hurtful on a societal - and a personal - level.
Pretty simple, really.
Fri, 11/05/2010 - 17:47 — CaryCurmudgeonPretty simple, really. Would WEP ever back a plan that didn't use something as a proxy for race-based assignment?
It comes down to the fear of
Sat, 11/06/2010 - 09:28 — user12345It comes down to the fear of black/minority/low income/low achieving (you name it) kids going to school with white, affluent kids and trying to block that potential mixing at every possible turn.