Will Beverley Clark became the next school board member to give up her seat?
Rumors are swirling that Clark will resign her seat in August, allowing her to stay on for a little while longer to vote on the applicants for Rosa Gill's vacant seat. Clark has served the longest of any of the board members. She was first elected in 1999.
Clark was non-committal about her intentions.
"That's interesting," Clark said when asked last week about her rumored resignation.
The line proceeded to break up with static. Clark did not return follow-up calls.
Normally I don't blog about rumors. But it's based on multiple sources that are normally reliable.
The speculation is that the last straw for Clark was not being elected board chairwoman last month.
If Clark does resign, the board would likely follow the same procedure it's using now to fill Gill's seat. Applications would be requested from her District 6 Central Raleigh seat to finish out her term, which expires November 2011.
Comments
The counties with the largest number of home schools included Wa
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 09:47 — AngelaWStatewide, a total of 41,042 home schools operated in 2008-09, an increase from the previous year's total of 38,367. This year's total is the highest number of home schools on record. Home schools were located in all 100 counties of the state. A total of 65.9 percent of the schools classified themselves as religious schools.
The counties with the largest number of home schools included Wake (3,771), Mecklenburg (2,956) and Buncombe (1,637). Counties with the least number of home schools were Alleghany (39), Hyde (29) and Tyrrell (22).
http://news.mync.com/site/news/story/39422/non-public-education-releases-home-school-stats
NC is very home school
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 11:52 — user1234NC is very home school friendly. Many states and counties impose onerous rules - have to use state text books, principal has to inspect your home, you have to have your lesson plans approved by a teacher – that contradict the reason people home school … to escape the public schools system – teachers, curricula, test, teachers ….
the national education
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 09:29 — AngelaWthe national education nonprofit group, announced the selection of several schools from Johnston County Schools as Speak Up 200 schools. Speak Up 200 schools are a collection of top K-12 schools in the country that encourage and involve authentic student, parent, and teacher ideas and views in the education planning and decision-making. The Speak Up data is especially valuable this year as it gives our education leaders important input as to how to spend the historic education stimulus funds provided by the federal government.
http://johnston.mync.com/site/johnston/news/story/39413/johnston-schools-honored-by-national-nonprofit
class size flexibility
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 06:42 — AngelaWhttp://wunc.org/programs/news/Isaac-Hunters-Tavern/stuff/073109_SP_ClassSize.pdf
Wake sidesteps No Child law
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 05:54 — AngelaW"Wake County has a history of ignoring requests by parents to send their child to a school that's best for them," Stoops said. "It's all part of the school system learning how to game the system and ultimately find ways to violate No Child Left Behind without consequence."
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1631712.html
They do everything without
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 06:41 — rr77rr99They do everything without "consequence."
Does anyone see a bunch of lawsuits being filed here or what? !
This is why they test and retest and retest these kids, and spend over half the year preparing them "to test."
It's a big mess and our kids are the pawns in the whole game. I don't buy the whole WCPSS we are here for the children stuff. No they are not. The teachers hearts are not in it anymore, the administrators are pulling their hair out, and the BOE (er) is totally cluless as they try to keep hold, but the reins are flying out of their hands.
I don't know what happy air Del breaths, but the whole jig us up here.
They need to start by BREAKING UP THE "NATION'S BIGGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT" and allow for smaller districts and get control over this run away train before the real carnage occurs.
Factors, stereotypes, studies, etc.
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 00:26 — TrailerParkGirlI have no studies to offer up regarding what factors are most important in a student's educational success, only personal experience. Based on what I remember of my regression analysis classes, I think it would be pretty difficult to conduct a valid study. How could the study control for all the other factors. IMO trying to attribute things to one factor over another is off track because ultimately it is a combination of factors. Humans are complex creatures and life in a complex journey. The key factor in one case, may not be the key in the next. That is why we need to be looking at students as INDIVIDUALS, not part of a stereotyped group or node. In other words what diversity is supposed to be about - that every person is a unique individual based on a combination of all their dimensions.
It's a combination of many factors: degree of educational exposure before K; parental involvement; parent's views on education; parent's education level; relationship with parents; stability at home; stability in school; educational philosophy, style, approaches of school/teacher both on instruction and behavior management; personal experiences outside of home and school; other external influences (media, etc); friends and classmates; victim of abuse; learning disability, mental disorder, or other disabilities; english language knowledge; cultural; personal interests; IQ; learning style; stereotypes; home environment; exposure to drugs; and... (I'm sure I've missed some).
I've experienced too many "exceptions" (myself included) to stereotypes to accept the ED=low performing behavior problem and NED=high performing no behavior issues. Let's start with all college graduates who were the first in their families to be college graduates - I think there are a more than a few million "exceptions" right there. How about are ALL the NED parents equally involved with their child's education and/or at every school?
Another thing that is never considered in all the group pigeon-holing is that the income and educational range for NED parents is HUGE. NED is everything from $40K per year to >$400K per year income and everything from HS grads to doctorate degrees. Quite frankly, IMO it's ridiculous to pretend all ED are the same and all NED are the same or even that similar.
By sticking with stereotypes, I can't explain 1) why none of the "troublemakers" in MS came from my ES (60-70+% F&R), 2) how my friend J was the Yearbook editor, in AP English and got a full ride scholarship to college when his dad was in prison on drug charges by the time J was in 1st grade, 3) why the most affluent kid in my class was the only one to end up in drug rehab (his NED Dr dad was a jerk and a crook), 4) why one of my NED classmates is on trial for murder and another is a drug addict, 5) why some of the most disruptive students in my kids' classes have been NED, 6) why the PTA President in my ES was one of the ED parents, or 7) the success of programs like KIPP or Capital Prep just to name a few "exceptions". Heck, by the stereotypes, I should be an alcoholic, not have a college degree, be living in a trailer somewhere and my kids should hold everyone else's kids back. Reality is I've never had a drinking problem, have a graduate degree, live in a nice home, and my kids are ahead of grade level.
There were two girls I knew grewing up one NED, one ED. One of the NED girl's siblings is a church secretary and the other has a graduate degree in Math and is married to a Wall St type. Both the NED and ED girl ended up single teenage mothers and drug addicts. How can it be that 1) children in the same household turned out so differently and 2) the NED and ED girls both turned out the same, if income level is the key? In this case it turns out the NED and the ED girl did have one factor in common, both were molested in MS (by non-relatives). Now, there's a factor that does put a student "at-risk".
Also, sometimes things work the opposite of what people might think. The person that pushed me the hardest educationally was my mother who never went to college and had a child out of wedlock as a teen. She must have told me at least 2,000 times, "don't make the same mistakes I did", "study hard", "make good choices", "never be financially dependent on a man". By HS, it was almost like a daily mantra. She never expected anything less of me than to not only go to college, but also to go on to grad school. Think of all those poor immigrant families that came through Ellis Island and within a generation or two they were middle class and sending their kids to college and they did it without government assistance. Why? Because that was their expectation.
Here's what I suspect does cause some differences in NED/ED. For a variety of reasons, there tends to be a higher degree of educational stimulation before age five with NED (be it SAHM taking a break from her career as a lawyer that pushes it, preschool, or academic daycare*). I think it is more pronounced here than some other places due to the relatively large percentage of highly educated parents. Therefore, more NED kids come into K ahead of their ED peers. More ED kids are behind and depending on their classroom setting, they may quickly figure out they are struggling compared to others and develop negative feelings about their abilities and school (which doesn't help behavior)/or may get labeled as low achieving and on it goes. Their missing skills get intrepretated as lack of ability, which fits neatly into and reinforces the stereotypes.
*For those not aware, there are academic-based daycares, but they are more expensive. Kids learn their ABCs, letter sounds, calendar, and beginning reading, math and writing in "daycare." My oldest learned letter sounds and beginning writing in her 3s class taught by two new college grads with teaching degrees. (BTW - the young teachers were great at the academic stuff, but a little inexperienced in the common sense stuff like don't put the two most active kids next to each other during quiet time. I think it may be that sort of stuff where teaching experience helps.)
My responses
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 19:23 — TrailerParkGirlIt’s not too impolite. I went to school in the mid-70s to late 80s in a small 45-50% ED blue collar/farm town in the Midwest. Parts of it look like Mayberry on the outside, but that is where the Norman Rockwell picture stops. The #1 cash crop was not the one displayed at the 4-H Fair, if you get my drift. It, like some similar towns, has now become Methland, although I’m sure the #1 cash crop is still not one that can be displayed at the Fair. I went in to a number of my classmates’ homes, both single and dual parent that smelled like a mixture of patchouli and pot and were littered with paraphernalia. So, some of my ED classmates had an involved functional single parent, some had two such parents, some had a single crappy parent and some had two crappy parents at home. There were even some single parents due to divorce in the NED group. Some lived in abject poverty and neglect - one boy came to school reeking of urine with no underwear (could see bare bottom through rip in his pants). Therefore, I struggle with the generalization of urban poor or today is significantly tougher and that all ED parents from even the same area are alike. So, how is that I do not recall significant behavior issues, was AG but never bored or apparently held up (considering I scored in the >95% percentile on nationalized tests and my parents didn’t supplement stuff at home other than buying me books), and somehow the class functioned?
In MS there were kids with behavior issues, but not from my ES school despite it being the 2nd highest F&R school. The ED kids from other ES came from similar neighborhoods/backgrounds and some from lower F&R ES. So, I keep coming back to the different teaching and behavior methods used at my ES and the belief that all kids could learn had some positive impact and not just on kids that struggled.
Is it a non-small town thing, an urban thing, Southern thing, transplanted Northeasterner thing to turn everything into us/them, black/white, rich/poor? I’m curious because I was used to people not making generalizations and not judging books by their covers. I honestly thought a place like Raleigh would be less, not more prejudice than where I grew up.
Do I know you?
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 23:33 — klanders65A lot of people don't notice the stereotypes because they think they are true things.
You sound like you came from my home town. Except my hometown had mixed race, so I guess not.
It is so nice to have you here to say the same thing I say only you come from a different angle. I am a teacher and I know what I am saying. It is funny, but the attitudes kind of make you feel guilty (me anyway), as if I am some kind of radical when I say the kids are fine and can learn.
That Logic puzzle I posted earlier was just that... a puzzle. Things can be logical but not true. That was the point I was trying to make. We have logical evidence that low income kids can't learn, and have no parental support. But logical doesn't mean true. And I asked how would we be able to tell. Surely not from looking at schools with low % F/R lunch. Those kids get treated like losers. We'd have to do an experiment where we took the high scoring F&R kids and tracked them high. Or told the teachers they had wealthy kids, or something like that. We need to look for national studies like this. Kids in India and China who are poor as dirt are learning math so they can get our engineering jobs. They don't have parental support or books in the home or anything. I am going to say something totally radical here--- you don't need those things to learn math. Besides the radical fact that I think poor parents support their children (or not, just like rich parents), I don't even think you need parental support to learn math. And I bet most of you would have no idea what it takes to learn math because you never learned it. And for the exceptions who did, how much parental support was required for you to learn it?
I have had teachers in our building say that the very kids who I think are brilliant, successful students, and have bright futures are "at risk," "lack parental support," and are not good students. They are fine for me. I have wondered if maybe I am delusional, and the kids are really losers and I just can't tell. But, then I give those National Math Contests, and they ace them. And they score high on standardized tests, not just my tests. Twenty years ago, I went through the same thing with girls.
Girls have always been wonderful math students because they (unlike most of the boys) want to please the teacher. They'd learn the math just to make me happy. Even women math teachers who were in graduate school with me would argue with me that girls can't do math. They would think they were an exception. I even learned in graduate school that women and minorities can't do math. They were teaching that. (I didn't learn that as an undergrad because I was a math major.)
People see what they believe is true.
Besides learning that girls and minorities couldn't do math, in my math education classes, WCPSS has Poverty Training and teaches us that poor kids can't learn.
I don't care what B_S sees in his kids schools. Actually, I do care, because I think the regulars here in this forum care about the schools being good. And I don't think anyone would put this kind of time into talking unless they wanted the schools to be better for kids. So, I guess it does bother me that B_S thinks the poor kids are a problem. I don't disagree with what he is observing--just the explanation for it. The teachers in my own school think the poor kids are losers and treat them like they are. He probably sees that.
Are you familiar with the experiment the Washington Post did? They put Joshua Bell in the subway playing his violin for quarters. They had crowed control ready for the crowds they were sure would form. Maybe 2 people stopped. By the end of the time he was playing he reported that he was grateful when someone threw more than a quarter as they passed by. They chose Joshua Bell for this experiment because musicians agreed that he was so great that his talent can't be missed. They were wondering if talent is spotted where it is not expected. I knew when I read about this that he wouldn't be spotted. We don't spot talent where we don't expect it.
Sorry to be Johnny One Note here.
And, TrailerParkGirl, I would advise you to change your name. Call yourself GatedCommunityGirl. If you don't, your kids might get tracked low. Don't get free lunch unless you are starving, and I mean really starving. Keep your kids clean and their clothes ironed. Have one expensive outfit to wear to teacher meetings. Buy the teacher gifts. This will be giving your child the "parental support" necessary for success in school.
TrailerParkGirl
Tue, 08/04/2009 - 07:49 — TrailerParkGirlI think you missed the post where I explained why I changed my username from Falc to TrailerParkGirl. It was in response to Lori Millberg stereotyping the world.
(Reprint)
"It comes from a line from a Disney movie (what can I say I have kids). The heroine, a tomboy who works at her dad's bait shop and finds her inner princess, turns down the cool guy who finally notices her with a line something like, "I may a princess now, but I will always be Bait Girl and I'm proud of that."
So to Ms. Millberg and her "poor kids create unhealthy schools and can only accomplish something if allowed to rub elbows with rich folk" ilk - I may be a 'princess' (NED) now, but I will always be Trailer Park Girl and I'm proud of that.
Therefore, I am changing my username from Falc to TrailerParkGirl.
Why am I a 'princess' now? Because no one, including my school system, told me I couldn't be. They told me the opposite. Not only could I learn, but I had a right to learn and was expected to learn regardless of with whom I did or didn't go to school." (See Grace Pilon philosophy)
So, actually I am affluent now and my kids are NED, although I don't live in a gated community (not because I can't afford it, I can, but because it's not my style). While I can hang with the wine and cheese crowd (I'm a Carolina grad afterall :-)) even at the mack daddy country club in Raleigh, I prefer every day people. So, no worries having my kids tracked low (both are above grade level but I haven't pushed that and they do have the work to back it up). Also, we are in one of those schools lead by the 'all kids can and will learn' variety of educators (you mentioned in another post).
I think as I have lived in almost every SES in the range and known people in all, the stereotyping thing just doesn't work for me because while some people fit them, many do not. Better to not prejudge and actually get to know someone before making judgements. It seems I've heard the not prejudge thing somewhere else (beside figuring out for myself) -- oh yes, it was in DIVERSITY training. This is why I get irritated that an assignment policy based on negative stereotypes is the "diversity" policy.
Play it again Sam - irony
Tue, 08/04/2009 - 23:25 — SDR256"I've heard the not prejudge thing somewhere else (beside figuring out for myself) -- oh yes, it was in DIVERSITY training. This is why I get irritated that an assignment policy based on negative stereotypes is the "diversity" policy."
And those who prescribe to the 'not to prejudge' philosophy are quickest to label anyone with an opinion other than their very narrow approach/definition of diversity.
I think they have a name for that - oh yea, hypocrite!
I think the generalizations
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 19:55 — user1234I think the generalizations come as people try to make sense of things initially... I don't think it is bad ... just the first phase of thinking .. as more is known, people can handle more variation ... with 132k kids it is hard to make any decision if you don't start with some stake in the ground to begin the process ... I doubt there is anything anyone can say about people anywhere that there is not some exception somewhere ...
So to begin my understanding of
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 22:57 — TrailerParkGirlsay the millions of black people, I should start with the "generalizations" to put a stake in the ground and anyone that does not fit that generalization I should chalk up as "there is always some exception somewhere" until I can handle some more variation? Really?
WEll...
Tue, 08/04/2009 - 09:38 — Bob_SconceThat's a strawman. In the US, we disapprove of racial stereotypes because of our history of slavery and our experience that those stereotypes don't really have any grounding in fact. We have a similar, but not quite as strong, disapproval of stereotypes based on sex. As a result, when people seek to make decisions based on race, they have to have a compelling reason for doing so. We don't have that history with income, so there's much less fear that people are making decisions based on bigotry instead of data.
When you're dealing with large enough groups of people, you have to make generalizations just to wrap your head around situations. Sometimes those generalizations are 100% accurate, and sometimes they're 0% accurate, with a bunch of shades in between. You see this all the time -- look at the 2008 election and coloring states as "Red" or "Blue." You see it in the surprise of the "Blue Dog" democrats. You see it in the health care debate.
So, for example, a generalization is that in the 2008 election, black people turned out for Obama. You can look at exit polling data and see that, yes, indeed, black people voted more than they had in previous elections and when they did vote, they were far more likely to vote for Obama than McCain. Another generalization is that men possess more upper-body strength than women do, and you can look at data to show that's true. Another generalization is that poor students don't do as well in school as non-poor students, again backed up by data.
So...
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 09:38 — Bob_SconceIf it's not too impolite to ask, when (and where) were you in school?
I was in public school about 25 years ago, and recall that the lower-income students were not particularly different than the rest of the school. And, frankly, that experience doesn't jibe with what I see at my kids' school. I think part of the difference is that 25 years is a long time, and I was in a suburban district, where most families (including the lower-income ones) had two parents. My cousins grew up in a more rural area, with significantly lower incomes, and had experiences similar to yours.
Given all this, I agree that it's wrongheaded to stereotype "F&R" students -- poor students in Wendell are not the same as, say, poor students in the old Chavis Heights. And, inside each of those groups, you still have differences. Pretending that all F&R kids are the same will lead to a bunch of bad ideas as things which help one group of kids fail miserably on others.
Unfortunately, WCPSS' sheer size means that it has to look at groups of kids using whatever data it can get--it's impossible to treat 100,000+ kids as individuals. A better approach would be to break the district up. At least that would prevent ideas that work in SE Raleigh from being foisted on, say, New Hill.
What you are seeing
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 23:09 — TrailerParkGirlSo, I found an earlier post where you mentioned what a disaster the policy has been because it takes low-income kids from where they are doing ok and reassigns them to a school further away where they do not do as well. How much do you think this may be impacting the kids behavior that you see in the classroom? Also, I noted that your school just recently implemented PBS, so wonder how that is going.
There's some interesting information in the evaluation of schools that implemented in the first round (bottom of page 7 and top of page 8 for starters).
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2009/0916pbs_followup.pdf
A lot...
Tue, 08/04/2009 - 07:23 — Bob_SconceSure, the busing affects them. Not only do they have to spend a lot of time on the bus, get up earlier, get home later, have less time with friends, etc..., but there's the physical distance -- they're foreigners in somebody else's community, and they didn't ask to be there. They're generally far away from their homes, and their parents couldn't come to school if they wanted to.
I'm not familiar with PBS, so can't say anything there -- I know it's at Wakefield High, but haven't seen anything about it being at Wakefield ES.
So, here's the real question: why do poor students uniformly do worse across the entire district (and, generally, across the entire NC public school system) than non-poor students? I fully disagree with the broad generalization that affluent areas have superlative kids without any problems who always do their best and come from loving families while poor areas only have drug-addled kids from broken homes and inattentive parents. Yet, in general, poor kids (those on F&R) don't do nearly as well as those not on F&R.
I just don't buy that it's some sort of conspiracy, that if only schools had no idea which kids got free lunches, that the F&R kids would start doing as well as the non-F&R kids. The difference is too great to be attributed to Heisenburg.
I would like to throw out
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 11:46 — user1234I would like to throw out the idea of as Wake becomes more Urban that the environment might be different from were most of us grew up ... It seems like differences in income, race, etc. are bigger in urban enviroments ... in my wife's rural school she would often say that since everyone was poor your race did not really matter and in my suburban school income and race were that big a deal maybe becasues we were more homogenius being suburbanites... but when we played urban schools ... there were all black schools and some schools with really poor whites where we always needed to bring the police to get in and out of the stadium ...
So stereotypes work in certain places, but not others?
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 13:15 — TrailerParkGirlI'll get back with you and Bob in detail tonight when I have more time. Let's just say for now that not all small towns are Mayberry and Raleigh isn't Detroit, Chicago or NYC.
Amen to that...
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 15:01 — Bob_SconceI don't know about "stereotypes," but generalizations certainly work better in some places more than others.
You are absolutely right that Raleigh isn't Detroit. Comparing Raleigh's performance to Detroit's is absurd.
But let's keep the
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 15:50 — user1234But let's keep the comparison straight .. it was today vs. 25 years ago in some rural or suburban place we all grew up in ... This area is much more urban than those places though not NYC urban and there are a lot more single parents now than 25 years ago for all incomes. I am guessing if Raleigh was Detroit, your kids would be armed before going to school which is different than 25 years ago too.
Analogy
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 02:31 — klanders65I looked up Grace Pilon and it is not a WCPSS teacher. It is professional development for teachers.
Low income people are not very good golfers. Nearly all of the best golfers were high income white people. This may be because of the parental support needed for learning to golf. The same is true of tennis. It may be that Black people are not very good at tennis or golf, but maybe the fact that most Black people historically have been poor is why we don't have many Black golf or tennis pros.
(This is the same as the logic we are using to understand achievement in schools. Some of you may have realized that golf and tennis are country club sports, and low income and Black people historically don't belong to country clubs. Well, why didn't they just join the country clubs if they were interested in golf and tennis? And why don't they just elect to enroll in advanced math and science classes?They must not like golf or tennis-or math and science. Heck, this is our first Black president. Black people must not have liked social studies, and they don't like to be leaders. Otherwise, they would have run for president before now. We have had plenty of poor presidents, but no Blacks until now. I guess poor people like social studies and Black people don't.
---they like those low math classes... can't you hear them singing? --sorry. I couldn't resist.)
Oh wait, maybe we don't let them in--to the country clubs, or the math and science classes, or to politics.
It is a little messier than this, as to why low income students score lower, but not much.
I am so old, and a female math major, that I remember when females couldn't do math. The young girls now don't even know about this. I used to argue about females being able to learn math just like I now argue about low income kids being fine learners if they have the opportunity to be taught. Girls can't do math just went away like this will.
Is anyone old enough to remember when we thought Blacks couldn't play baseball? (I'm not, but I've heard of it and saw the documentary.)
Boys didn't used to be able to learn to type.
Are these examples different than the current discussions of who can't learn as well as others? I don't think they are. The poor and all-different-colored people of the world are learning math and engineering, and they will take all our jobs if we don't decide to teach our kids.
We value things by comparison to other things. Our elite value their childrens' educations by comparing them to the educations of others. I think our history of segregated schools and separate but not equal, has made us want to have some opportunities that are open only to "the haves." We can't educate all children the same, because that would diminish the value of the quality education that now only some kids get.
But, this is getting all mixed up and messed up. It used to be so simple.
Grace Pilon
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 08:44 — TrailerParkGirlI would never call out any local teacher by name.
I never thought of it as professional development for teachers, but rather a different way of thinking about learning. To use your analogy sort of like how do you develop a love of golf in someone who hasn't been expected to do well at golf or whose first ball off the tee only goes 15 ft.
Just to be sure people do not get confused - I believe that not requiring the right answer part refers to 'not having to get the answer right to feel good' (i.e. willingness to make mistakes in learning), and not 'not getting the answer right at all'.
http://workshopway.com/about/
http://www.workshopway.org/resources/beginning_of_ww.pdf
That is why we homeschooled
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 08:29 — user1234That is why we homeschooled our daughters in Elementary School so they would never hear that "girls can not do math" ... it worked sort of ... while they are outstanding in language due to their mother they don't fear math and never thought they could not do it ... they just don't love it like they do books and writing ...they score well on math but won't be an engineer ... so, I think we did the best we could do avoiding the "girl-math" low expectation ...
I remember this
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 06:51 — lferreriI didn't take Calculus II in high school because I was told "girls can't do math." I wish more people would see the analogy between what girls were told then and what low income and minority students are told today. By the way, it seems that in Texas, gender is still being used to develop "projected scores" in calculating their Effectiveness Index. So I guess it isn't always a thing of the past.
Low Expectations
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 17:29 — SDR256What low income and minority students are told today? You mean like WCPSS's assumption that low income schools will automatically score lower, and that they actually use income to develop OUR projected scores and calculating OUR Effectiveness Index!? You mean like low income kids who score high on math aptitude tests but are kept out of advanced math because entrance is still (highly irregularly) determined by teachers? Many teachers 'see', 'expect' that these students will not have at-home support and so choose not to promote these students on to a math track that would be needed if a child wants someday to be an engineer or scientist. I guess there are limited seats?
So, yes, the low expectations really chaps my buns. And the fact that it is institutionalized is really lethal.
You're finally getting it!
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 22:27 — klanders65What you say here is exactly what happens. Low income kids who score high are kept out of advanced math classes because entrance is determined by teachers, and some (not all, but many/most) see them as not having the support at home to succeed in advanced math. And, yes, there are limited seats so this works out real well. The high income parents demand the advanced math, and there are enough seats for them because high scoring low income students are tracked low.
And, these low expectations are institutionalized in the Effectiveness Index. Teachers are given the expected growth scores of their students, and low income students are expected to have less growth academically by this model. We don't use EVAAS because it doesn't have this lower expectation for low income students. Our whole system is built on those lower expectations, so EVAAS doesn't fit.
Expectations are a lot better for girls now than they used to be in math. As soon as we can separate Black from low income in our minds, Black students will have better access to advanced courses. I think the low income kids don't have much hope. My advice to anyone (and I have given this) would be not to sign up for free lunch unless you are going to starve to death without it, and trick your child's teacher into thinking you are middle to upper class. If I ran "parental support" classes, this is what I'd teach in them.
Klanders65 and Richard - couple questions
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 22:48 — TrailerParkGirlHave you ever heard of Grace Pilon?
What are your thoughts about differentiated instruction (at the ES level) and does it require a great teacher?
Differentiated instruction
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 01:01 — klanders65I have mixed feelings or rather, no straight answer on this. I have a lot of opinions on it.
I don't know Grace Pilon, but I can tell you as a teacher that we should not be naming teachers here, good or bad.
In elementary school, I see differentiated instruction used to give low income kids remedial work because Title 1 pays for it. They don't need it in most cases (the majority of low income kids are not below grade level). I see the "so called" gifted kids get what they call rigor but it is what I think all kids should get. Rigor means quality instruction. So, differentiated instruction is used to teach kids differently even though they don't need to be taught differently, so we get our Title 1 funds, and so that the kids of parents who would have fits get some quality instruction. I don't support this kind of differentiated instruction.
Wake has very good student support services and special ed staff. I have worked with some who have helped us content area teachers add scaffolding to our lessons so that students who need more support can succeed. I believe in this.
As a math teacher (I have taught in AG elementary, and middle), I see how much different instruction matters. I see what kids are getting and where that puts them. Did you know that in sixth grade, there is one math curriculum but yet it is tracked and taught as if it is two different curricula? The high track then goes on to Pre-Algebra, then 8th grade algebra. And only those kids are on track for taking Honors or AP math or science classes in high school. The official math paths only have Honors or AP classes for kids who had 8th grade algebra. A kid who earns an A+ in 9th grade algebra will not ever take an Honors or AP math class in high school. (It is not impossible, but extremely rare.)
Some of the middle schools are doing sixth grade math differently. They are doing Algebraic Thinking, which is a special program where all the students are taught the rigorous (quality) version of 6th grade math. The teachers supposedly have to differentiate learning in these classes because of the huge range of ability. We already had to differentiate learning in all but the top track before this. Before, most of the top scoring minority and low income kids were tracked to the low 6th grade track. Their scores were often higher than the kids in the top track. And when I say most, I mean over 75% of them--whose math EOG scores were higher than the kids in the top track. So, we had to differentiate learning in the low/standard track anyway. We had the top of the top, down to the low level 1s all together. That is very hard.
I am so in favor of Algebraic Thinking because us middle school teachers get to identify who goes on to PreAlgebra, and we can select the kids with the highest math scores. No offense to the 5th grade teachers, but they are not very good at spotting the best math students. And in their defense, they do it before they have the EOGs back. But somehow Level 2 Asians get tracked high while Level 4 Black students are tracked low.
It is very hard to teach math to kids whose abilities have a huge range. I'd much rather teach kids who are about the same as each other. But, since we put the kids on totally different paths and those who are not on top get taught entirely different things in all math classes after 6th grade, and we don't use data to track--we use stereotypes and parental pressure-- I'll work the extra 20 hours per week to differentiate the learning.
Does it take a good teacher? Any teaching at all takes a good teacher. Like most things (e.g., raising kids) a lot of it is not talent but rather is willingness to work hard.
Thanks for response
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 21:22 — TrailerParkGirlMy question more related to differentiating within one classroom (vs. teaching to the middle).
My ES used Grace Pilon's methods (only one in district) and I loved school. My 6th grade year was the first year the district went from a K-6, 7-9, 10-12 grade format to K-5, 6-8, 9-12, so we were the first 6th grade class in MS in my district. They simply divided us at random, so my math class had full range of levels/ability and the teacher taught large group lecture type format to the middle and would repeat things 3-4 times for those that were struggling to catch on. I thought I was going to go nuts from boredom because I'd been so used to working independently at my pace.
My MS did the two track thing starting in 7th grade. In our case the higher track was then a grade ahead in Math in HS and took AP Calc Sr year, non-accelerated could only get through PreCalc (didn't stop my husband from becoming an engineer though, meanwhile I took AP Calc and never used it beyond the free college credits). I believe the determination of who was put in the accelerated track came from the 6th grade math teachers. When I think about the kids that were in the honors vs non-honors courses on the college track (the big divide in my HS was VoTech vs College Prep) both had a mix across the SE spectrum. College Prep was further divided by honors and non-honors. Honestly, the only NED kid that I can think of that seemed to have gotten pushed up beyond ability was the son of one of the staff. The most affluent student was in the non-honors track.
www.WakeCountyParents.com
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 19:08 — ExplorisMSParentAs the parent of two children in the Wake County Public School System, I am extremely passionate about the issues and challenges facing public education today, particularly here in Wake County. I have been frustrated with what I believe is a distinct lack of a centralized forum and "meeting place" where parents across Wake County can come together and discuss the issues that impact our children. This is what led me to create http://www.WakeCountyParents.com.
I have taken this step not to promote a specific agenda, call to action, or political directive, but simply to provide parents and other education advocates a means to discuss issues within a user-friendly, bulletin-board format easily accessible by all. It is my hope that this forum can educate and empower its participants to become more involved in our schools.
Please feel free to share this announcement with anyone whom you feel would be interested. Thanks!
Wow! Thank you!
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:37 — SDR256Wow! Thank you Exploris Parent for creating this forum. I think this forum is a very valuable idea - a non-political, non-charged place for parents to connect. thank you!
Oh, but just to check, IS it non-political? As a very trusting person I've been burned a few times, thinking that this was all about parenting when in fact in Wake County its NOT. I know you know that, so could you offer some encouraging words for a few of us who have been stalked, flamed, tarred and feathered, beheaded, eviscerrated by the public, in public?
....figuratively speaking and not necessarily for myself.
It is indeed not political.
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 00:02 — ExplorisMSParentIt is indeed not political. I'm just a parent myself who's trying to figure out the best way to raise my kids in this convoluted world. :)
Impact of Poverty
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:58 — klanders65http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
"Quantitative analyses indicate that measures of teacher preparation and certification are by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and mathematics, both before and after controlling for student poverty and language status."
(That study is old, but I have read more recent studies by Darling-Hammond that show this same result. I was looking for the recent study.)
http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/1999/9920_poverty.pdf
Check out the research review (old that it is) that is posted on WCPSS's website. I think this is where their diversity policy originated from.
I read what they have written in here differently than they intend, I think. This research summary shows that when schools have more than 40% F/R, they have lower quality teachers.
(I am not sure that it is because they can't get them. I taught in a high F/R school and the district used it as a dumping ground for teachers they wished would quit.)
Uh, no...
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 13:23 — Bob_SconceThat summary cherry-picks information and quotes from studies. So, for example, it takes a 1986 DoE study to show that poor students don't do as well in schools where there are a lot of poor students. The study itself, though, admits that it didn't control for resources available at the school or for the students themselves. ("... the important finding here is that high-poverty schools have more low-achieving students, regardless of why they do.")
8% Teachers with less than
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:30 — shearertw8% Teachers with less than 3yrs for 6-20% F&R vs 12% with less than 3yrs for >40% F&R.
Staggering! Do 2-3 more young teachers at a school really cause it to fail? I'm thinking not. Could that difference not be made up with an increase in salaries/bonus etc for the high F&R schools vs busing? I'm thinking you could easily recruit of couple of high performance, great teachers with experitise in teaching to high F&R classes to each high F&R school to switch out with the couple of extra young teachers you have. Give'em a $10,000 bonus to come. Still cheaper than busing!
Another fallacy?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:03 — RichardAndersonIf A then not B is a fallacy. I am not saying that teacher quality isn't important and influenced by student population, however, there is just as much evidence for the importance of parental involvement.
Where is this evidence? And
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 13:33 — klanders65Where is this evidence? And where is the evidence that low income parents have less involvement that matters? There are lots of kinds of parental involvement, but not all types affect achievement. I am not arguing, I just haven't seen any research on parental involvement relating to achievement. I hear everyone say it does but I don't see any research on it. I also see all income levels and all races with good and bad parenting skills. I see a huge difference in the way the schools treat the parents and the kids.
I am not trying to be difficult. I just can't find this research.
Clarification
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 13:43 — RichardAndersonI think it is well established that parental involvement is postively correlated with achievement. What I think the question is, how does parental involvement correlate with socio-economic status. That I don't have at my fingertips and it is in the answer to that question that I think we will find the bridge between our two postitions.
I agree with you. It is the
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:56 — klanders65I agree with you. It is the correlation between socio-economic status and parental involvement that needs to be established. I see a correlation between volunteering and attending PTA and socio-economic status. But I am not sure those types of parental involvement are what matters. When it comes to interested parents who seem to be supporting their children to learn, and want them to succeed, I don't notice a correlation. I see all incomes having almost no interest in their children's education, thinking it is not their job--it is the schools' job. I have seen high income parents say (many times) that they really don't care if their kids learn math because they didn't learn it. I see all incomes saying this. I also see all income level parents having just about every attitude about their children's education.
Looks like 0 to 3 years old
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:43 — user1234http://www.growingchild.com/brain.html
I thought I had read that
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:38 — user1234I thought I had read that the brain is largely formed in the first six years and during that time kids who are read to, and spoken to, and see new thing, develop more capacity. Thus if kids of wealthier parents get more during this time they have a head start. Also, I understood that enviromental pollution - water, air, food (e.g. high fat / sugar)- limits low income kids brain development since they are more exposed to it than wealthier kids. I thought this pre-school experience could explain some of the deviation in results as the kids get older.
These are interesting and
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 16:00 — klanders65These are interesting and consistent with other things I've read. Most of the F/R kids in Wake are not living in more pollution than the wealthy kids. They don't breath different air. About 70% + of the wealthy kids are in day care from infancy on and not receiving great stimulation daily.
I agree that if kids of wealthier parents had more stimulation during the first 3 years they'd be ahead. I have yet to see a stimulating day care.
And, there may well be differences that can be accounted for by income. But the huge differences in quality of what the schools deliver to the different income levels has got to have a big impact. Why do people think it doesn't?
"I have yet to see a
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 08:42 — user1234"I have yet to see a stimulating day care."
That is going to open up a can of worms and guilt ... but really, hopefully, non-related people with minimal education getting paid minimum wage surely can not compete with a loving, full time parents ... I am sure daycare does not harm the kids but just not the same as a parent ...
?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 17:11 — JSBinNCwhich daycares have you visited that were NOT stimulating? I know ours certainly was!!
Not Sure Either
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 15:37 — RichardAndersonI see a correlation between volunteering and attending PTA and
socio-economic status. But I am not sure those types of parental
involvement are what matters.
I am not sure that is what matters either, but at the same time, I think it is very rare that you find a person who volunteers in the PTA who doesn't also put a high priority on their child's education and achievement. This isn't to say that the converse is true (that if you aren't in the PTA you aren't involved with your child's education), but if you have a school of 1000 kids and 100 parents show up for a PTA function, it is a good bet the kids of the kids of those parents are going to be very well represented in the higher achievement levels.
Of course, one could argue that this is also the stereotype threat issue. A kid whose mom is in the school all the time could be more likely to get the benefit of the doubt for an advanced program placement.
Didn't meet ayp
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 01:23 — klanders65http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0609ses_hodge.pdf
Take a look at this report. Notice that the F/R kids got remedial services and a large percentage of them didn't need these services. Look at the appendix. They make it hard to understand. You have to figure things out yourself. A lot of F/R kids who were above grade ended up getting remedial services and then were below grade.
If you have kids in Title 1 schools, beware of these practices.
someone asked about Reedy Creek
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 19:26 — AngelaWhttp://reedycreekes.wcpss.net/pdfs/AYP%20letter%2008-09.pdf
May 5, 2009
Parent or Guardian,
As we near the beginning of our End of Grade testing window, I am writing to let you
know that according to guidelines established under The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) Reedy Creek Elementary did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) last year.
As a Title I school, NCLB requires ALL student groups to meet achievement targets. The
student groups are: all students, white, black, Hispanic, Native American, Asian,
multiracial, economically disadvantaged students (students who receive free/reduced
lunch), limited English proficient students (new English language learners), and students
with disabilities (students who receive special education services). Should we not meet
AYP targets for two consecutive years in the same subject area, we will enter Title I
School Improvement for 2009-10.
The students and teachers have been working hard to ensure our scores accurately reflect
their abilities. However, should we fail to meet AYP goals this year, we are required to
offer every student the option to enroll in another school within the system as determined
by the board. Choice options will be limited, based on eligible schools, program
availability, and transportation patterns. Please know we are committed to discovering and
nurturing your child’s talents, building the foundation that will help fulfill their potential;
therefore, we are optimistic about this year’s results.
Because the final results for all schools will note be available until July, we will not know
our AYP status immediately after taking our End of Grade Test. Once we do receive the
final AYP results, you will be notified. If you have any questions about this notice, please
contact me at 380-3660 or via email hevans@wcpss.net.
In partnership,
H. Trent Evans
940 RE EDY CRE EK ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7 513
PHONE : 919 .380 .3 660
FAX: 919 380 .3 678
RC 2009 AYP 24/27 "not met"
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 20:33 — BWNelsonHi Angela,
I was one of the people asking Reedy Creek in particular. I was looking at the BOE webpage and the 2009 test results were announced. There was another link that gave the schools and the alternate "choices", but Reedy Creek was not listed. Did I misread the information? Can you double check? And if I didn't misread the info, why aren't there alternative schools listed for Reedy Creek?
The links for this information are on the "homepage"
http://www.wcpss.net/
There are two ways
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:20 — TrailerParkGirlfor a school to no longer be subject to NCLB Title I Improvement:
1) begin meeting AYP
2) no longer be a Title I school (i.e. decrease the F&R% below 35%)
Further down among the many posts is one from JanisTango that RC's F&R rate is now below 30%, so that may be why there are no options listed for RC.
Best to check with the district (I'd guess the Title I division) or school.