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
There are some wonderful
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 20:35 — klanders65There are some wonderful principals in high F&R schools, and those principals attract wonderful teachers. And the schools are wonderful. These schools are examples of what could be. The F&R kids are challenged, as are all the kids. The parents even get involved because the school values their kids and they feel welcome. I know of several schools like this in Wake. I have taught in a school like this. Bad teachers left because no one would listen to them complain about how these low income kids couldn't learn, and that we had to teach to the test, etc.
Teaching in a school like this is what made me develop the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the kids. What is wrong is the message coming out of Central Office to the schools that the low income kids are at risk and should not be expected to learn as much, and the schools that give resources to the upper income over the upper scoring kids, and middle school tracking that is not based on achievement scores.
If one of these wonderful principals were to move into a different high F&R school, it would be different kids, but the results would be the same--good teachers would want to teach there, courses would be challenging, expectations would be high, and scores would be high. If it were the kids, bringing in this culture of high expectations shouldn't matter.
Last year, I was in one of the highest F&R schools in Wake for a few meetings. It was like an upper-income private school. That is what it felt like. The teachers there love their principal, who supports them and has high expectations for them. This shouldn't be so easy if something is wrong with the F&R kids. All they were doing was running the school with high expectations and respect.
High Expectations and Respect
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 22:57 — TrailerParkGirlHow is it that I can figure it out, you can figure it out, my hometown figured it out YEARS ago (actually I don't think they ever thought otherwise), KIPP figured it out, Steve Perry at Capital Prep (did you see the segment in CNN's Black in America 2?) figured it out, other districts have figured it out, wonderful principals have figured it out, other educators have figured out, even my eight-year old figured it out...but WCPSS Central Office and most of the BoE can't or won't? Instead, they stick by the "a school can't be healthy if it has more than 40% F&R students" theory like it is gospel handed down from a higher being, even though it can't explain schools in my hometown, KIPP schools, Capital Prep, etc.
If you missed the Capital Prep segment, the reporter described it (similar to what you said above) as "a prep school attitude on a public school budget."
Capital Prep
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:27 — ExplorisMSParentI saw the segment on Capital Prep and was absolutely blown away. I think we need to arrange for the BoE to take a field trip to Connecticut. Here's the link in case anyone missed it the first time: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/22/bia.education.success/
Golden node?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:22 — SDR256But Growth Planning makes sure that there is no predictability in who gets to go to the 'good' schools, so this reference to any golden nodes I think is a misrepresentation.
If you live next to Mills
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 12:50 — user1234If you live next to Mills Park or Highcroft especially west of those schools, I don't see much chance you will be moved around ... for everyone on the other side of 55, they could be pulled east ...
http://wwwc.wcpss.net/maps/WCPSS_RAP_2011_APPROVED_20090202_SCHOOLMAP_501_BAS.pdf
If you live in Preston, you are married to Green Hope
http://wwwc.wcpss.net/maps/WCPSS_RAP_2011_APPROVED_20090202_SCHOOLMAP_441_BAS.pdf
The instability comes from nodes on the edge that can go to one school or another ... but since all the schools are suppose to be equivalent, it should not matter, right?
"Equivalent schools"
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 13:02 — Bob_SconceThe idea that two schools can be "equivalent" is a fiction, if for no other reason than they're staffed and attended by individuals, each of whom is unique.
Same Experience
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:12 — Bob_SconceI've seen the same thing at my kid's school and received confirmation (indirectly) from teachers that they do this -- they focus on working with the poor students and basically ignore the ones who don't need help getting to basic proficency. It's a perverse outcome of the incentives created by EOG testing.**
It's a great example of why kids should be grouped by ability level. In theory, a "Great Teacher" will be able to teach to all levels at the same time. But, in practice, most teachers aren't "Great Teachers," and we need policies that allow all students to learn from merely "Good" teachers.
Kids with the best teachers
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 07:42 — RichardAndersonKids 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.
The question is why? Why do they get the best teachers? Pay is the same at all schools. Why do they get the more challenging courses? The curriculum is standardized for all schools.
I think we all get what you are saying, but until we know why it happens, we will never be able to fix it. The current program is predicated on the belief that if you disperse the low income kids among the high income kids, it won't happen. Well, there is no evidence that is working. So where do we go from here?
Two reasons why
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 17:41 — klanders65I think there are two reasons why this happens but I don't know how to fix it. Knowing the reasons why don't tell you how to fix it. The first reason why is because wealth is associated with power. The wealthier parents have more power so their kids get the best resources (highest quality classes and teachers). The second reason is Title 1. Title 1 funds are a huge source of revenue. They are for purchasing remedial work whether the kids need it or not. It is so much money, those kids will be pulled from core instruction and given remedial work because the district wants the money.
Now, if I am right, how does that help us know what to do?
Why aren't teachers reassigned?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 09:54 — DisappointedInstead of reassigning students, why don't we reassign teachers periodically so the "best" teachers don't get stuck at the same schools. Or, at least have them rotate. If my child can never be sure of going to the same school for more than one year, and continuity isnt really all that important for kids, it shouldnt be important for teachers anyway. They could be given a small gas allowance from their homes, or, they could ride the bus for free.
Harumph...
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:24 — Bob_SconceBecause it would annoy everybody and be counterproductive. What would happen in your workplace if everybody changed every year?
And, I don't know where you get the idea that "continuity isn't important for kids."
Bob, do you live in a golden
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:33 — user1234Bob, do you live in a golden node with the best teachers and you don't want to share? You don't want the high needs kids and you don't want to share the best teachers ... not a lot of give in that .... Moving to a different school a few miles away should not be that big a problem for teachers and like most employee may invigorate them. I don't think the best teachers should be held prisoner in the golden node schools.
Prisoner?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:52 — RichardAndersonI don't think the best teachers should be held prisoner in the golden node schools.
You really think they are held there against their will? Having worked in a high poverty school in WCPSS I can absolutely guarantee you that wasn't the case when I was there. Those jobs are sought out. If you don't know why, find out.
Pfft.
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:46 — Bob_SconceA "Golden Node" -- you mean a node that's so close to one school that it will never be assigned away. Yes, probably. But, my kids go to a "School of Progress." I think that might turn it into a "Bronze Node" or maybe a "Zinc Node."
Your wife is a teacher. Ask her how effective it would be if every year, every school started at square one with a completely new set of teachers. Ask her if that policy would have made her think twice about applying to work in Wake County. Ask her what sort of incentives that would create for Principals hiring teachers.
As far as being "held prisoner," the last I checked, the 13th amendment hasn't been repealed. Nothing forcing a teacher to stay put if they don't want to.
Should have used hostage ...
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:19 — user1234Should have used hostage ... what about every seven years? Move 5% of the teachers to the next school over every seven years should not be a big deal.
Moving teachers
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 11:29 — RichardAndersonWhy the focus on moving things? Students, teachers, what difference does it make? If we don't address the needs of the students and make sure the system meets them equitably, how we shuffle the deck doesn't make a bit of difference.
Ok there are only a few top
Sat, 08/01/2009 - 10:28 — user1234Ok there are only a few top notch principals say 20%, 60% are average, 20% bad ... just like business executives ... we know great principals draw great teachers who produce great results .... We know that the prize is on passing not YTY % improvement ... so, what do we do with these top principals? - put them in the top schools so wealthy kids get even smarter or put them in the poor performing schools where they are desperately needed but they have a lifetime of work to move kids from 30% to 70% which is just passing? Wealth parent feel they pay a lot of taxes and don't want average education and threaten to run to private school and the poor parents don't have the political pull to fight for the best resources.
As an aside the top principal in the state is from Apex HS which has the lowest F&R% (8%). “At Apex High, Principal Matt Wight says his focus is on retaining and supporting teachers.”
The answer is NO!
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 21:10 — designmanThe answer is NO... as long as the only strategy is to sell the ridiculous idea of a magic bus ride to success. That is what the status quo BOE members and their like-minded candidates keep trying to cram down our throats.
You are correct in suggesting that "something very different" needs to happen. And, it is going to happen. Prickett, Malone, Tedesco and Goldman are going to ensure it! They are prepared to clean up the mess left by Gill, Millberg, Head, Tart, Hill and Clark and set a new course for academic success in Wake County.
Do you think about what you say?
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:29 — RichardAndersonI wonder if a >30% F&R district can ever compete against Ron's schools with <15%?
Compete? Come on. Please stop. This isn't about competition. This is about getting a school system which allows each child to do the best they can. Quit with the antagonism. The "wealthy as Cary", "segregation" and "rich white people" stuff is getting old.
Don't make the people who label you a troll right.
They can't compete unless
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:35 — klanders65They can't compete unless there are policy changes that would give quality resources to schools with >30% F/R. This would take policy changes. We don't allow kids to do the best they can. We place kids in advanced Language Arts and Math in middle school based on teacher recommendation. It is all the wealthy kids, not the kids who score high. We would have to have a policy change to place kids based on scores.
Middle School?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 07:31 — RichardAndersonI am not going to disagree with you on the middle school placements, my question is how do you explain the achievement gap in elementary schools? This is evident before special placements begin.
I think that there is a lot more to this than bias in the schools. Yes, that plays a part; I certainly agree with your stereotype threat analysis. People, kids especially, live up and down to expectations. However, I think that there is really something more fundamental going on that has nothing to do with the way in which the schools view these kids.
I am not saying there are no
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 16:01 — klanders65I am not saying there are no disadvantages suffered by the kids because of their lower incomes. But I think schools could do so much more. Title 1 pulls out perfectly fine kids and gives them remedial services. They miss core instruction and get watered down dumbed down stuff. Low income schools get the worst resources. These things have a bigger impact than the fact that the kids are poor.
Not sure what is wrong with
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:54 — user1234Not sure what is wrong with competition ... it brings out the best in people and organizations ... and what is wrong with recognizing that wealthier schools score higher than schools with mostly poor kids? The interesting part is how can we buck this natural order and get schools with mostly poor kids to do as well (complete?) wealthier kids ... now, that is a great goal ... I think anyone can do above average with above average kids ... that is nothing to brag about ...
You need to recognize that
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:06 — klanders65You need to recognize that wealthier kids do better because they get the good teachers and the rigorous curriculum, and all the resources because their parents have power. It is true that they do better. But this is why. This is the natural order. It has always been this way.
I am well aware of that
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 10:26 — user1234I am well aware of that having been on both sides ... I am guessing most wealthy parents are ignorant of the extra and special attention they get assuming it is standard across all schools.
Think, please.
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 15:05 — RichardAndersonI think anyone can do above average with above average kids ... that is nothing to brag about
I guess I just refuse to accept the premise that the economic status of parents predetermines the academic performance of the child. Yes, there are trends, but to assume that a child from a wealthy family will naturally do well and one from a poorer family won't does them both an enormous disservice. There is no "natural order" between parental wealth and child achievement.
Furthermore, I think that any teacher and school that can get children to perform at the highest level, regardless of what kind of kids they are, has the right to brag. We should celebrate high achievement, not diminish it.
This is where to really get to the bottom
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:34 — TrailerParkGirlthe performance trend by nodes is what would need to studied because of all the reassignments.
McLaurin's district includes some of the "bussable rim" where a number of the non-magnet schools became revolving doors. The F&R% at some of the schools recently has been consistently mid-30s to 40%, but there is turnover of many of the underlying students (some former students are now in Margiotta's and Goettee's districts replaced by different ones from other districts).
Not sure what the magnet schools issues are.
THAT is why a study should have been agreed to be done on the impacts of the reassignment policy and not "I just know it's working" attitudes.
or make use of EVAAS, which
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:50 — AngelaWor make use of EVAAS, which WCPSS has access to and won't utilize, and track the STUDENTS and be done with it, there would be the proof which people seek.
But that would mean treating students as individuals
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:20 — TrailerParkGirlinstead of stereotypes and we can't have that <sarcasm>
stereotype threat
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:12 — klanders65Look for something called "stereotype threat." I have been reading about this and the Dept of Ed has just put out a paper on this. There is all kinds of research that shows that when people think they belong to a group that is thought to be low performing on something, they will perform low. They internalize that they shouldn't be able to do something. This is different than stereotypes.
For example, since Wake calls low income kids "at risk academically" this may cause a "stereotype threat" to these kids. (Not to mention all the N&O stories about how no one wants them in their schools.) W
When people know they are not expected to perform, they discount their own talent. There is a lot of research on this, and US Dept of Ed just put out a research paper on this. I got the link in email. I'll try to find it.
Yes, right there with your thinking
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 23:38 — TrailerParkGirlThis goes back to an exchange we had on another thread where I'd used "fix" the student in my response to someone else because the said "fix" the school. I think you misunderstood and said there was nothing wrong with the kids. By "fix" I meant kids needed self-esteem development, reversing "stereotype threat" (only didn't know it had a term), and missing skill development where needed (like coming into ES with lower vocab knowledge). True for any student that "struggles" with school regardless of in which buckets they fall or for what reasons.
I'm going to post a related item in another post to you and Richard.
BTW - I've mentioned a few times that my 45%-50% ED home district does not view ED kids as "at-risk." The factors for being deemed "at-risk" are using drugs, victim of abuse and things along those lines and the designation is used to help get the students connected to services they need (counseling, etc.) You mean an NED student can be "at-risk" - you bet.
*sigh*, I know, I know,
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:44 — AngelaW*sigh*, I know, I know, silly of me to even suggest!!
it's all there though.....even if WCPSS "tried" to discount it...
If you plot the numbers
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:11 — user1234Here are the McLaurin schools … mostly school of progress or no recognition .. Head is held up by Green Hope ...
Beyond the basics
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 12:29 — RichardAndersonI understand that if you look from 10,000 feet it looks like a straight line, but I am asking you to go beyond that.
Again, lets focus on Goettee and McLaurin. Identical total F&R. Vastly different school level results. Here are three questions that come to mind.
I have posted a number of times that we need to identify what the diversity program does and does not accomplish. Where we can use it good effect and where it fails. At this point, we know based on academic achievement levels districtwide, it is failing our F&R population. However we have here an interesting test case for examining what is happening on an intermediate level. No longer do we make large bounds from student scores to whole district performance or group scores to whole school performance, we see different levels. Students, schools, programs, board district, regions and then look at the whole district with what we learn.
Problem is, the school system has repeatedly been unwilling to do this. Their publicity machine, WEP, puts forth a constant stream of information that bypasses this level of analysis. I want to know. As I have said, I taught in a high poverty school, so I know it isn't just about academics, but at the same time, if there isn't a compelling academic reason to do something, we quickly return to the opportunity cost drum I have been beating.
They are used to doing PR,
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:17 — klanders65They are used to doing PR, and not analyses. I don't think they know how to do analyses. Even the data people are not data people. Look at the credentials of the researchers in WCPSS. They are not data people. In the past, their jobs and been PR. They could never do an analysis like you describe.
I did not mean this
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:54 — user1234I did not mean this analysis to go this far given I only showed F&R Avg and number of schools above average (no progress). There are many dynamics involved as was mentioned - location (on the rim), impacts of magnets, etc. that only more detailed study would show. And it is not like the BOE has much day to day impact on any school .. the fact that Patti got top school Green Hope which is on the edge of her district seems a "Gimme" from Ron as if they horse trade??
But given general numbers, it is interesting to wonder why two disticts with similar F&R % have vastly different outcomes (e.g. one has very low income kids and the other kids all on the upper edge, who knows) and if any actions can be done to improve the lower one ... or if everyone was as wealthy as Cary would every school be a school of excellence
As wealthy as
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:26 — TrailerParkGirlHere is the list of the most expensive zipcodes in the Triangle - please note the one on top is in *drum roll please* RALEIGH, as are a number in the top 10.
http://www.esri.com/news/rss/pdfs/triangle_bus_jrnl_spring07.pdf
It should also be noted that McLaurin's district includes portions of 27608 (#1), 27605, 27607, 27606 and 27539 (all on the list).
Maybe these expensive zips
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:34 — user1234Maybe these expensive zips don't have school age kids? Not having kids maybe why they are rich :-)
You need facts
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:10 — RichardAndersonthe fact that Patti got top school Green Hope which is on the edge of
her district seems a "Gimme" from Ron as if they horse trade??
I don't believe that either was in office at the time that the current districts were drawn, so what you say is impossible to the best of my knowledge. The schools are in certain districts by default as the districts are drawn based (supposedly) on voters. While there is obviously a lot of political gamesmanship involved, the idea that one board member can move a school to another is absurd. They don't have the power to redraw districts on a whim. They might disagree as they seem to think that if they can think it up, it is within their rigths to do, but I have a feel that there would actually be a near unanimous disagreement on this point.
Which of course brings up the situation where someone is represented by one board member based on residence but their school is represented by another. Very frustrating when you contact the board member who represents the school only to be blown off because you don't get to vote for that person. Then you contact the board member you do vote for and find out that since the school is not "theirs" any issue they raise with it isn't taken seriously. <Barney Stinson>True Story</Barney Stinson>
End BOE=set of schools
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:31 — user1234"Then you contact the board member you do vote for and find out that since the school is not "theirs" any issue they raise with it isn't taken seriously. "
That is why we need to get rid of the BOE = school connection. Every BOE should represent a set of voters but not a set of schools. They should support the "system" not individual schools. So, the rep you voted for should be your interface to the entire system.
But...
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 14:39 — RichardAndersonJust to play devil's advocate, the problem is that when it comes to education issues, the school is the natural gather point for both issues and action. As a spot node, what impacts me has sometimes been very different than what has impacted those people in the same basic geographical area.
Furthermore, BOE members have reps from each school (PAC) and your proposal would get rid of that. Moving the BOE further from the schools and parents is a bad call.
There is no easy answer.
...
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 11:33 — SideburnsSince you feel people aren't worthy unless their children attend "diverse" schools --
what are your base assignments?
what if innovation was REALLY explored? stability? *gasp*
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 09:31 — AngelaWALAMANCE COUNTY, N.C. – An innovative program to reach some of Alamance County's most at-risk students launched this week. The Little Leaders program put 15 students in one class for four years with the same teacher.
http://news14.com/content/top_stories/612615/innovative-4-year-program-kicks-off-in-alamance-county/Default.aspx
what if??
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 03:23 — klanders65Consider this alternative reality. Your assumptions in all you discuss in this blog might be wrong. Just do a little mind experiment to see if you can see things differently. Did you read Puddinhead Wilson, or The Prince and the Pauper?
What if poor kids could learn in school same as wealthy kids? Maybe their parents support them just as much but not in the same ways.
What if quality education results in success? And what if there isn't enough of that to go around?
What if getting into advanced more rigorous courses has nothing to do with prior achievement, but rather has to do with social status?
What if we are busing all these kids around so that kids whose parents have social status all have access to the highest quality resources, which can't just be put into their neighborhood schools because that would look bad?
What would make sense if this were going on? What would the school district look like if this were happening?
I agree
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 10:20 — lferreriTo what extent do you think some of these problems are attributable to the use of the Effectiveness Index? I know you've talked about this before but I was wondering if teachers are told the "expected score" of each of their students. Could this influence how they treat students? Or do they just know that the expectations for certain groups are lower? I can't imagine that this would not have an impact even if it is subconscious.
Teachers are given the
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:07 — klanders65Teachers are given the expected scores for individual students.
Scores
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 13:11 — RichardAndersonSince when? I never got it as a teacher. Can parents get it?
When were you a teacher?
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 02:41 — klanders65When were you a teacher? Teachers get it now, if their principals give it to them. We get ours, and so do my friends in other schools.
Gasp!
Fri, 07/31/2009 - 05:44 — RichardAndersonTen years ago.
Thanks for making me feel old. (-;
Hmm … maybe you are
Thu, 07/30/2009 - 09:34 — user1234Hmm … maybe you are talking about young children … my experience is that the academic classes are filled with low income minorities … they only come to school when the truant officer finds them, they sleep during class, they live with a single parent, relative or boyfriend and when not in school or home are in jail.
I don’t know if they arrived at that state from poverty at home, unstable home moving all the time, not being read to, not having enriching experiences, being surrounded by low peer expectations, being tracked into lower tiers early on, or not being taught to read, etc.
So, I don’t know if it is the parents responsibility for not providing a stable home with two parents, the fact they let their kids get tracked low, they did not insist on or know about getting some useful diagnostic testing that would give their kid access to some special program, or if it is the school system that warehouses kids and moves them through the factory floor from one end to the other with as little variation as possible, or the governments that has ever changing funding and metrics as they meddle in schools each day … I don’t know …
I do know these kids as human beings and unless we dispose of them or ship them off they will be part of our society hopefully holding a job and paying taxes. So, we have a vested interest in making sure we get the best outcome we can afford or we end up paying on the back end in prison construction and welfare. I think distributing poor kids around and not having very wealthy and poor schools like other communities is probably takes the least political energy and involvement by voters, teachers and the school system. Actually creating a VOTECH program, trying KIPP, etc. is harder to sell. Remember that Wake Co. invests the least amount in kids of any place for miles and many are proud of our low tax burden and wealthy voters are not interested in reallocating resources from their schools to help … they feel they are paying too much and getting too little already … so, as not to warehouse all the poor kids in their “neighborhood” schools and not wanting to redistribute resources we settle for distributing the “load” around hoping each school can help a little without incurring any incremental cost ….