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
F&R Numbers
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 11:18 — ExplorisMSParentI asked this in the original "thread" but can someone tell me how to find out a school's F&R numbers? Where are fluctuations in the numbers reported?
FR data
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 14:51 — klanders65http://www.ncwiseowl.org/erate/discount.htm
From this website, you can download spreadsheets that list every school in NC, grouped by county, that gives population and FR stats. You can get every year back to 2002.
I usually look
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 14:17 — user1234I usually look here
http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/schools/images/schools09_l.pdf
I think if you are looking for a singular static number you will be disappointed since the available data maybe last year, this year, or projected future years.
Food for Thought
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:25 — CaryCurmudgeonThe School Board election is 67 days away. Our time is now. I ask that anyone who is fed up with status-quo leadership find whatever spare time they have toward:
1. Volunteering to support a WSCA candidate. These people need all the volunteers they can get. Volunteers can knock on doors, make calls, do staff work or help out in other areas.
2. Recruit other volunteers (see above).
3. Donate to the candidates or WSCA.
We get one chance at this, let's not leave anything in the tank.
And ...
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:42 — user1234And attend the candidates forum on Sept 15 ...
http://townofcary.org/council/forum/
All schools with > 40% F&R
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:47 — user1234All schools with > 40% F&R end to end. I use to live in a <10% F&R schools area and understand the disparity seeing it from both sides.
I was just trying to keep it
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:30 — user1234I was just trying to keep it simple .. I am sure that at one time or another in a kid's 12 years of public school that they may move through at least one school that has some income diversity ... this stated with a discussion on District 8 which I think of as Western Wake which has the lowest income diversity compared to the other districts which have a similar average.
Actually,
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:57 — TrailerParkGirlit started with shearertw commenting that their school would be just as diverse as a community school and your response that included your presumption that nearly 100% of 'diversity critics' (to use your words) were from the <20% schools. Let's hear from the 80%.
ALL my base schools (which are the closest to my house in a low-growth area i.e. also my community schools) are > 20% F&R and will be with or without the "diversity" policy. The difference will be that hopefully we can get some STABILITY and hopefully the District can get on board with low-income kids are capable and ALL kids will learn instead of the low expectations bigotry behind the current policy.
There are a number of schools and districts in other places that are already on that "close the gap" train and they have pulled/are pulling out of the station leaving Wake county behind and still standing on the platform. Thank heaven for me that my district was on that train more than 30 years ago.
You sound like me. There
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:02 — klanders65You sound like me.
There is a basic assumption that something is wrong with low income kids. I'd like to know from usr1234 who has lived in high and low income areas... Were the resources, teachers, and what the schools had to offer the same, and only the kids were different?
Someone commented that I have a pretty depressing view of what the schools might be doing (something like that). What do you think is going on? Look at where we came from. I think it is hopeful that we are moving forward.
"I'd like to know from
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:15 — user1234"I'd like to know from usr1234 who has lived in high and low income areas... Were the resources, teachers, and what the schools had to offer the same, and only the kids were different?"
Absolutely … My older children went to a <10% school and I thought every school in Wake offered the same kind of courses, teachers and principal , right … this is public school right … so when we down sized and moved five miles away to a mix neighborhood with >30% F&R (now >40%) I was shocked by the difference in the quality of the facilities, teachers, students and course. Not that they were dangerous or illegal … just a step below the <10% school … for my kids who were quite advances, finding challenging course was much more difficult in the >30% school because there was “no interest” since there were fewer kids in the advanced classes … that is when it hit me that we were getting screwed getting a substandard offering compared to the golden node we moved from … so, it was a shock to me that public schools could have so much disparity yet all had state employee teachers teaching state approved courses in county build buildings … you would think moving from school to school would be transparent and equivalents … but some people’s tax dollars are more valuable than other it appears … the crux of the problems is that the more F&R kids are in a school the fewer advanced classes are offered which creates a flight of non F&Rs in a death spiral. It is all real innocent … F&Rs get tracked into lower classes, the advanced classes slowly disappear, smart parents start migrating to golden nodes to be in schools with better teachers and harder course … so, I don’t care about the % of F&Rs in a school just the affect they have on expectations, quality of teachers and what is offered a the school … note, none of that is their fault ..
I was shocked by the
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 00:41 — klanders65I was shocked by the difference in the quality of the facilities, teachers, students and course.
Think about this in terms of your daughters. You said you home-schooled in part, so that your daughters wouldn't learn to hate math, or to think that they couldn't do math. Depending on what school they attended, they may have learned to hate math. (I learned to love math because of my 4th and 6th grade teachers.)
If your daughters were in public school, and had learned to hate math and to think they were bad at it, would we say that the quality of the students--your daughters--was low? They would hate math and be bad at it. That would make them low quality students, right?
I am sorry to keep harping on this, but there is nothing wrong with the kids. I swear! I have had the same nightmare kids in the projects as in the country club crowd, or ITB and the same kinds of wonderful learners from both extremes. The kids aren't different. The schools are.
And, think about this. You downsized so that you could spend more time with the kids, do more for them, etc. What is the assumption built into the WCPSS philosophy? It is that since you moved to a lower income area, that you support your children less. Income area that you live in (not real income--many of the folks in the $2 million homes are upside down and have high credit card debt and may be worth far less than you) determines how much parental support WCPSS believes your kids have.
You may think that is not true. Surely they mean the really poor people, not people like you. It is a sliding scale, based on where you live. If you cut your expenses to be able to spend more time with the kids, then you are in a lower income area and assumed to provide less parental support. So, your school needs fewer challenging courses. Fewer kids need tested for giftedness, and more for special services.
And the resistance to what I am saying about low income students being just fine to learn if given the opportunity is exactly the resistance I've gotten over the decades as I argued that girls learn just fine if given the opportunity.
And, I am not just talking theory. I have taught them. I know.
Well...
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 11:46 — Bob_SconceSo, I fully agree that presuming that a student is incapable, or less capable, of doing X because of his race, wealth, sex, etc... is wrong.
But, I just don't believe either (i) that parental supoprt and expectations play a tiny role in a kid's education, or (ii) that poorer families, on average, don't have significantly less education and more home problems than affluent kids. (If everybody in your family dropped out of high school, then you are far more likely to do so also because that's what people do in your experience. Same reason abused women often have fathers who abused their mothers.)
In my kid's classes, the kids who need most of the teacher's attention are those that are bussed in. I've seen it with my own eyes over 6 years, and gotten confirmation from teachers.
If there's nothing different about the kids home lives, but just inequities in opportunies provided by WCPSS, then you would expect schools with very few F&R students to do much better at teaching those students than those with many. But, they don't. I just don't buy the idea that there's some massive conspiracy to keep them down.
"In my kid's classes, the
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 20:38 — user1234"In my kid's classes, the kids who need most of the teacher's attention are those that are bussed in. I've seen it with my own eyes over 6 years, and gotten confirmation from teachers. "
Are these kids who monopolize the teacher F&R or general bussed in kids? Are you thinking that if these kids were sent home that your kid's classes would be more productive? I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Well...
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 22:04 — Bob_SconceI have no way to know how they pay for their lunches, so I can't answer your first question for certain. But, at my kid's school, my impression is that most, if not all, of the busses come from nodes which are bussed in for diversity purposes -- just about everybody else is in the walk zone. So, those kids are generally F&R kids, otherwise they wouldn't be bussed in.
As to your second question, it's clear that the teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time working with these kids, and those other kids who get the curriculum quickly aren't being challenged. It's popular to say something along the lines of "A good teacher can handle having a bunch of different ability groups in the classroom." In my opinion, that's a platitude, more wishful thinking than fact. It seems to me that grouping by ability would correct the problem of unchallenged high-achievers. I suppose sending the kids needing extra help home would do that also, but I don't favor expelling students just because it takes them longer to learn, and I'm surprised that you'd even suggest it.
I'm saying that this idea that "Poor Students are exactly like Non-Poor Students and would do just as well if the school system and teachers didn't presume that they'll have a harder time learning" is baloney. Sure, it's true of some students, but those are the exceptions. Poor students generally have a lot more impediments at home which impact their ability to learn. For every 1 family which chose to downsize so the parents could spend more time with the kids, there are 100 families where the parents didn't finish High School and don't expect their kids to either.
Would it be fair to say
Mon, 08/03/2009 - 10:01 — user1234Would it be fair to say though politically incorrect that non-neighborhood kids who may be F&R, may be a different race, and may be a vastly different income require more of the teacher's attention either academically or discipline-wise which reduces the effectiveness of the teacher? If you resent the situation that your kids are getting a substandard education because of these non-performing kids I understand and don’t think you are a racist, and incomist??, etc. If that feeling is wide spread, maybe the root problem to the diversity policy is that it dilutes classes for brighter kids which those parents resent. I wonder why kids who get bussed in are not better segregated into levels so that does not happen. I would like to make that comments that hopefully people can see that if dilution occurs due to low income kids that the higher the % the greater the dilution and the unhappier higher income parents are going to be with the situation. It seems like if the smart lower income kids were properly sorted into classes with equivalent higher income kids that the dilution would not be an issue. I wonder if in higher income schools that not-so-smart kid are sorted higher because of parent and teacher expectations?
I think you have made your
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 10:49 — user1234I think you have made your arguement very well (many more entries above). I understand and agree with your reasoning and experience. Nicely, put.
One more point
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 13:37 — klanders65Let me make one more point, then I'll shut up. (This is a logic problem.)
IF your girls had been in public school, and had teachers who thought girls can't learn math...so they learn to hate math and are bad at it,
THEN they are low quality students.
AND
IF they are low quality students, who are bad at math and hate it,
THEN they act up during math (in girls ways, since they are girls--pass notes, giggle, don't pay attention, etc.)
Their behavior is attributed to their lack of parental support.
How do we know they lack parental support? By your address. You don't live in a wealthy area, so we know they lack parental support.
It all makes perfect sense and is logical.
Logic??
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 17:57 — Bob_SconceSo, speaking of logic, if your premise fails, your conclusion is unsupported. Sure, there are probably some girls who fall into your description. But, there are other girls (and boys) who truly don't like math for reasons having nothing to do with the prejudices of their teachers, and who act up in math class when they wouldn't have had their parents taught them any sense of discipline or respect.
I fully agree that the prejudices of the district and the teacher *can* end up being self-fulfilling prophecies. That's not particularly novel. The real question is how often it happens and which kids it happens to. How many F&R kids are in tough shape academically due mainly to the aforementioned prejudices, and how many are in such shape due mainly to lack of parent involvement? One does not preclude the other.
Real question
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 18:13 — klanders65The real question is how often it happens and which kids it happens to. How many F&R kids are in tough shape academically due mainly to the aforementioned prejudices, and how many are in such shape due mainly to lack of parent involvement?
How would we answer this question? I think we should be trying to answer this question. I don't know the answer, but I think we should be trying to figure out how to answer this question.
Well...
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 22:00 — Bob_SconceI think a good approach is to assume that it happens some and then try to put in processes to catch those kids who have been sidelined by idiotic prejudices. Of course, I don't know what those processes would be. Unfortunately, blind grading doesn't work in elementary school.
Fallacy
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:28 — RichardAndersonbut some people’s tax dollars are more valuable than other it appears
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. I think it has nothing to do with the amount of taxes the person pays. I think it is all to do with perception, expectation and involvement. Look at the math tracking and grades for Aisan kids. Look at the Title I remedial results referenced below. Look at all the studies that show that parents make a bigger difference than schools (which is justification for More At Four and so on).
Money correlates with these things, but it isn't causal, in my opinion.
Look at all the studies that
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:40 — klanders65Look at all the studies that show that... There are not studies that show that. It is a myth. Money correlates with power and power causes the schools to have better resources. Asian kids get tracked high regardless of their scores because of the stereotypes. Whoever gets tracked high will succeed because those are good courses. Title 1 causes low scores. There are plenty of studies that show that high quality instruction correlates with achievement the same for all income levels. (I had better find a reference since I'm saying your claim is false. I'll find one and post it at the top. )
Huh?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:47 — RichardAndersonThere are not studies that show that.
10 seconds on ERIC disagrees with you.
Link 1
Link 2
Thanks. I'll read these.
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 14:36 — klanders65Thanks. I'll read these.
Of course. Parents are
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:04 — shearertwOf course. Parents are far more important than school buildings or teachers. Can a great teacher make a difference in some kid with bad parents? Yes. Just like with any profession, however, most are not great, just good or average. That's why you need specific programs designed to help these kids, not remedial classes or busing.
User (who I am still no longer communicating with) is not in anyway concerned with student acheivement. He is entirely concerned with making the lives of teachers (such as his wife) better. Having less F&R students in a classroom makes his wife's job easy, makes the school performance appear better, and for him, that's all that really matters. His wife gets a bigger bonus, the school system gets an award and the F&R students, AG students and parents continue to suffer. Can you imagine any other business where whats best for the employees is considered first and whats best for the customers is considered last?
User: Just wondering, are you an agent or a member of the teachers union? $1 more dollar to WSCA.
"User (who I am still no
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:14 — user1234"User (who I am still no longer communicating with) is not in anyway concerned with student acheivement. He is entirely concerned with ..."
Actually, I am concerned with getting the same access to advanced classes and good teachers the wealthy kids get ... not interested in saving the world at this time ... just my kids to start ...
I guess
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:22 — RichardAndersonI guess that is why you don't understand what others do. Absolutely advocate for your kids, but if you advocate only for your kids, they will move the problem somewhere else. Then those people will do the same as you. Lather, rinse, repeat, and sooner than you know it, those problems are yours all over again.
As some here might remember, I fought vigorously against an assignment plan that gave me the assignment I had been denied by request just one year earlier. It doesn't matter if you get what you want if the method by which it can be taken away is still around.
I remember...
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:53 — shank56So how goes it with the family Rich? Still at TCE or did you exercise other options? And the lovely wife who always had something cute to say ? ..Pam, as I recall?
Ok, again, very personal and
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 00:42 — SDR256Ok, again, very personal and creepy. Hate that!
Well
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:00 — RichardAndersonIt is going well. Yes, Pam. Good memory. Things are going well. What options? ☺ Didn't all those get taken away.
The following comment is
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:38 — shearertwThe following comment is sure to make some people uncomfortable but here goes.....
Parents should have no more than 1 (possibly 2) choices on where to send their children to public school. No magents, no transfers, period. You live here, you go to school here.
First, this assumes that assignment is based on a community/neighborhood model. I say possibly 2 choices only for the consideration of allowing a voluntary calendar choice. If you have only 1 choice, chances are you will put your efforts into making it work. You will demand excellence and accountability. Parents of all economic status can go up the school and demand more from their teachers and principals. Last time I did these, I wore jeans and a tee shirt and no one asked me for a copy of my W2! Your economic status does not matter! Your actions do.
The one caveat is the case of failing schools. As dictated by NCLB, parents should be given a choice to get out of a truly failing school. That puts pressure on the school system to fix failing schools through innovative solutions that work. Not "sweep it under the rug techniques" such as busing.
If my neighborhood school
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:35 — user1234If my neighborhood school had the same resources, opportunities, teachers, etc. as every other school why would I want to go anywhere else? Like choosing between which McDonald to eat lunch. Failing schools need a full court press, in my mind ... replace all the teachers and principal, increase merit pay, add some TAs, etc. .. I am betting there are a bunch of teachers who would like to be "troubleshooters / turn around specialists" and would move into a school to turn around the most challenging cases ... sort of like that bunch of retired principals they use when a school really needs help ... and on getting out of a failing school ... personally, the change should not be to another marginal school on the edge of failure ... that is cruel ...
You are oversimplifying
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:46 — RichardAndersonLet's put that that table back in.
To me, the real question is why the McLaurin district, with just 28% F&R, below the average, has 0% high achievement schools, when the Goetee district, with the same 28% F&R is at 30%.
Just how reliable an indicator is F&R of school performance? It might be worth looking at from the very highest level. Yes, the lowest F&R district (Margiotta) has the highest percentage of achieving schools. Also, the highest F&R district (Gill) has the lowest percentage of achieving schools. But between the two extremes there is a whole lot of noise.
I think your own data shows that there is a lot more to it than simply busing to reach a certain balance of students. The results are far from uniform.
" Yes, the lowest F&R
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:20 — user1234" Yes, the lowest F&R district (Margiotta) has the highest percentage of achieving schools. Also, the highest F&R district (Gill) has the lowest percentage of achieving schools. "
I wonder if a >30% F&R district can ever compete against Ron's schools with <15%? It seems like something very different would need to happen to get the other eight districts to get similar results with the kids they have.
Circular logic...
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 22:57 — Bob_SconceWhether a school is a "school of distinction" or a "school of excellence" depends on the percentage of students at grade level. So, OF COURSE schools with low F&R percentages have more students at grade level -- it's well established affluent students are far more likely to be at grade level than poor students.
F&R students in Gill's district pass their EOGs about as often as F&R students in Margiotta's. It sounds to me that they're competing quite nicely -- for example, 37% of F&R students at Powell pass their EOGs while 36% at Green Hope do. Why believe that F&R students are any better off at Green Hope than at Powell?
let me be clear
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:30 — klanders65Kids with the best teachers and the most challenging curriculum always do better. That is well established. It is true throughout history. And high income kids always get the best teachers and the most challenging curriculum. So, of course schools with low F&R percentages have more students at grade level. They get the best resources, and the best teachers.
Data disagrees with you
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:20 — Bob_SconceIf that were true, then you would expect F&R students to do better in schools with lots of high-income kids, and worse in schools without them. Yet, at the elementary level at least, this doesn't appear to be true in Wake County -- if anything, F&R students do marginally *better* in schools where they compose most of the population. (There is a slight positive correlation between the percentage of F&R students in a school and their performance.)
Look at my previous example -- why do F&R kids at Powell do about the same as F&R kids in Green Hope? Why do F&R kids at Fox Road do better than F&R kids at Wakefield?
So, either (1) high-income kids do not always get the best teachers and the best curriculum, (2) F&R students don't do better with the best teachers and the best curriculum, or (3) in low F&R schools, F&R kids are somehow being segregated into classes with the worst curriculum and worst teachers.
It is #3
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:44 — klanders65It is #3
Really?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 19:34 — Bob_SconceThat's the first time I've ever seen anybody accuse the schools of segregating the F&R students into their own classes other than in Magnet schools, where base & magnet kids take different classes. In fact, at Wakefield ES, I know that it does not happen -- F&R kids seem to be pretty well spread across the tracks and across the classes in those tracks.
Considering that class assignments happen at the school level and not centrally, It seems unlikely that this is particularly wide-spread. Why do you know that it's (3) and not (1) or (2)?
I don't know. It is just
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 20:22 — klanders65I don't know. It is just what I think. It differs by school, depending on the principal and on how demanding the high income parents are. This is all just what I think, from teaching for nearly 20 years. And even when F&R kids are in normal classes they get pulled out for Title 1 services, which I think harms them in many ways.
Well...
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 22:24 — Bob_SconceWhatever the reason, since F&R students don't appear to do any better in schools where they're just a small minority, one has to wonder what the point of the diversity policy is, especially in elementary schools where this failure is most obvious. (Thanks to having a lot of schools to draw conclusions from.)
When it became clear that the policy wasn't helping F&R kids, the district shifted to the claim that the diversity policy promoted "Healthy Schools," an expression so vacant of any meaning that it's impossible to assess whether the policy works or not.
NEWS FLASH!
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 01:03 — SDR256Kids need programs and grown-ups who know them and give them what they need. Not data. Not shiny buildings. Not advanced programs.
They need us.
Am I the only one who knows that we don't need more forums or facebook pages or blogs? Our kids need us. They need a school, a set of grown ups who really care about them - even if they are (gasp!) democrat! republican! gay! black! white! none of the above! gasp!
Join in. Let's all grow up.
Not data.
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 01:41 — klanders65We need data. We need data because without it, the low income and minority kids don't have a chance. Looking at data, you can see that very high scoring kids are being tracked low and this gives you a way to argue that they need to be moved. Without data, you'd be shouted down about how they lack parental support and are at risk so they need to be in the bottom classes. Data is going to save these kids. It is what I use and I have to fight to get kids placed high when they are high scoring.
Of course you're right. I
Sun, 08/02/2009 - 21:59 — SDR256Of course you're right. I didn't literally mean WE didn't need data, only that it doesn't tell us everything. The kids need to be understood empathetically and in a human way, that was my only point. It seems to me we need a good dose more of a hands-on, face-to-face approach from beginning to end on this topic.
Be careful...
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 10:43 — Bob_SconceI agree that measurement and data gathering is very important. But, there's a big difference between raw data and knowledge, especially in the social sciences.
The standard response--you get social scientists to analyze the data--isn't particularly convincing. When was the last time a social scientist conducted a study where they philisophically disagreed with the result? With today's computers, I can run hundreds of regressions until I find some way to make the data match my theory. Social scientists have the same confirmation biases that the rest of us do.
That's one of the reasons why I'm frustrated with WCPSS' tendency to embrace ivory tower on the cutting edge. Consider, e.g., diversity policy, year-round schools, PLCs, Block Scheduling, etc.... These things cause a lot of disruption often with unexpected conseqeuences. We should make changes cautiously, after they've been proven out in other districts.
Maybe this will be the final
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 14:23 — user1234Maybe this will be the final frontier for us in integration .... we have addressed the obvious issues like emloyment and housing - e.g. have decoys find and punish sellers and landlords who discriminate ... maybe discrimination has gone underground now and it comes down to a single teacher who has low expectation for certain kids and than makes those expectation come true through attitude, expectations, grading, tracking, parent conferences, etc. Personally, that is why I think filling a school with all low income / low performing kids only adds to the problem.
Back to reality. At my
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 08:58 — shearertwBack to reality. At my kid's ES in Western Wake Co., the F&R kids are equally distributed throughout the classes/teachers. They are not segregated into special classrooms with the 22yr old first year teacher.
Several of the high acheiving, moderate to upper income children, such as my child are practically ignored in the classroom, receive no/very little additional work to challenge them and often spend time reading books to themselves to pass the time while the lower acheiveing (from all economic backgrounds) receive special attention to bring them up to grade level.
My children do better in school because we spend hours at home all year (including summer) reading and working workbooks to keep them challenged and interested. Their success in school has 0% to do with the school or the teachers they have had so far. I do give some credit to the ES and teachers one of my children attended in Texas, however. She was >1 yr ahead when she started school here after moving from Texas. The entire system in Wake Co. is dumbed down, so of course the bottom fails out.
At my kid's ES in Western
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 18:31 — klanders65At my kid's ES in Western Wake Co., the F&R kids are equally distributed throughout the classes/teachers.
How would you know something like this? Even the teachers are not to know who is F&R. How do you know who they are?
"Several of the high
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:22 — user1234"Several of the high acheiving, moderate to upper income children, such as my child are practically ignored in the classroom, receive no/very little additional work to challenge them and often spend time reading books to themselves to pass the time while the lower acheiveing (from all economic backgrounds) receive special attention to bring them up to grade level. "
Well, if you were wealthy enough to get into a golden node school with <10% that would not be the case. Low F&R = Challenge ... so the message is to migrate to low F&R schools if you don't want your kids spending time reading to themselves. Personally, I think that is unfair to you and penalizes you for being in a mixed income area.
Low F&R = Challenge - Enough with the Assumptions Already
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 20:06 — TrailerParkGirlThat is not always the case. Same with your all the good teachers want to teach at the "golden" schools.
We have experienced four ES classrooms in WCPSS - two in a "golden" school (school A), two in a school with F&R in the mid-30s (school B).
Three of the teachers/classes have been challenging. Guess where my child (AG) was not challenged during class? By your assumption, it would be in school B. You would be wrong. The least engaging was in school A (to the point child disliked school) and the most engaging classroom was at school B (to the point same child would rather stay in school than have a break).
Oh, and that wonderful engaging teacher (along with others) is now at a school with F&R in the 50s (by choice, not due to budget). Also, the teacher from school A that was really good wanted to transfer to school B but couldn't work it out for scheduling reasons.
So there are factors others than just F&R% that drive good teacher's decisions about where to work - just like I'm sure there's more than one factor that you consider when deciding where to apply for/accept a job. IMO at least two of the other factors are for whom you will be working and the actual job (i.e. some teachers only want to teach K and not 4th graders or for some they have the opportunity to become an IRT or Literacy specialist).
Which brings us to this question. For and with what kind of people do those who are high achievers/have high expectations themselves want to work -- people who have high expections of themselves and others or those that tolerate and celebrate mediocrity?
I'll give you a hint - being surrounded by mediocrity tends to irritate people who have high expectations. So, IMO you start to get a snowball effect.
So, do good teachers want to work for mediocre principals or those with high expectations and work with other teachers who are mediocre or also high achievers, (especially now that they are doing more team planning, etc.)?