While the official word isn't expected until later today, it's pretty evident that the Wake County school system isn't winning a $10.3 million federal magnet school grant.
As noted in today's article, school board member John Tedesco confirmed through his congressional contacts that Wake isn't among the $100 million in grant recipients. It's what I'm hearing too.
What it means depends on your point of view.
Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, is repeating the refrain that's been heard for months from critics of the board majority that eliminating the diversity policy jeopardized the grant.
“Their decisions have caused a nationally recognized school system to be called into question,” Brannon said. “I don’t think the federal government was going to hand over millions of dollars when our judgment is in question.”
Brannon acknowledged the $1.8 million grant that Wake received last week for the teacher merit pay program at Wilburn Elementary. But she says that program was instituted under the watch of the prior board.
Brannon pointed to how Wake has won $36 million in magnet grant money since 1985.
But Tedesco said it can’t be proven that there’s a connection between eliminating the diversity policy and not winning the grant. He pointed out that Wake didn’t win a $7.5 million grant in 2004 when it had the diversity policy.
“I don’t know how any intelligent person would make the leap and say that’s why we didn’t get the grant,” Tedesco said.
Tedesco said that if Wake’s change in assignment policy was a problem then the U.S. Education Department would have rejected the district’s request this year for a one-year extension to finish using $1.3 million in unspent magnet grant money.
Tedesco pointed to additional competition nationally this year for federal magnet money. He also speculated that federal officials didn’t give any magnet money to school districts in the state because North Carolina recently won the $400 million federal Race to the Top education grant.
UPDATE
It's official. Wake didn't win. Click here for the press release from the U.S. Department of Education. To make it equivalent, it's $100 million this year but potentially up to $300 million over three years. Wake wanted $4 million in the first year for a total of $10.3 million over three years.
Comments
Two Press Releases Today
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 19:01 — Solon77In addition to the Magnet Grant press release, Department of Education also announced $100m to Improve Academic Performance and Support Drop out prevention. - Anyone know if wcpss applied for any of these grants ? As far as schools in states awarded reach for the top being excluded - does not appear to be a factor.
Realistically
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 14:42 — Dove314Isn't the likely answer for why WCPSS didn't get the grant "choice D" -- all of the above?
Why would they award a magnet grant to a county who
when there is added competition for the money from other districts without all the nationally reported turmoil here?
You nailed it.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 19:38 — Apexter"Isn't the likely answer for why WCPSS didn't get the grant "choice D" -- all of the above?"
You nailed it, Dove.
It does no good to speculate
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 16:38 — DrActualFactualIt does no good to speculate reasons for not getting the grant. The response from the granting agency will be in soon enough. We could have missed out due to a technicality, been deemed ineligible due to status of winning Race to the Top $$$ (which hopefully we'll see some of that $$) or not demonstrating an acceptable level of progress to warrant continued funding. In tougher economies budgets at agencies can be cut which means fewer grants will be given out. Wake and NC economies have fared better than California (seemed to have many winners listed). I would think both grants were adjudicated in separate process but there may be a limit to the overall monies the granting agency will let you collect from. They are likely from different pots of money but they may have changed the ability to let you collect from both areas. Having an experienced person to handle grant submissions likely leads to getting more grants. Based on what folks have said about Mr. Carruthers effectiveness at bringing in money, the new board should pursue bringing him back. Perhaps he would make a good Supt. Of course, he may have been successfull during times that money was more plentiful. I await Mr. Hui's posting of the feds response.
"It does no good to
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 17:07 — CaryCurmudgeonExtension
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 13:56 — Solon77The granting of the extension in no way validates JT's comment. Has any extension ever been denied when 3 years into a program and just finishing up ? A new grant is an entirely different matter. Just how stupid does JT think we and the rest of the country are ? With the srutiny placed on everything the Federal Gov't spend $ on, how do you think it would play out on CNN or any news outlet - Magnet $ awarded to a district that eliminated their diversity policy. Does anyone think a grant approver is going to stick their neck out, get real.
Instead - let's blame the grant writing team.
You are equating WCPSS'
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 05:54 — red_balloonYou are equating WCPSS' situation with other MSAP extensions across the country. Given the furore over a non-MSAP worthy goal at a nationally recognized system, and the skies have fallen outcry in the magnet world, I would have thought the Feds would have denied the extension. I am not stating this should have happened but I can't see why Tedesco's contention rises to the level of stupidity.
I guess we can not count on
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 13:14 — user12345I guess we can not count on the G5 to bring home the bacon ... if they can not force it 5-4 they won't be able to accomplish it.
Why do you fret over not
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 06:04 — red_balloonWhy do you fret over not bringing home the "bacon"? For someone subscribing to MSAP goals, you should be happy some child somewhere is getting to experience 'diversity'. It isn't like the MSAP funds lost by WCPSS are lost to the 'diversity' advocates. Remember this is a zero sum game. If WCPSS had won, some other 'diversity' brigade would have gotten ambushed.
I think it is inherent in
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:31 — user12345I think it is inherent in humans to want things for your own children. While the world may benefit, human selfishness help promote efficiency. My point it that the G5 may not have the political skills to negotiate grants and bonds which take more skill and finesse than 5-4.
something
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 13:55 — LongtimeLurkerIts almost like you knew who must be to blame before you knew anything else about this.
Look who lost
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 11:07 — bluedaisyCumberland, Guilford and WS/F lost as well. They all have removed or do not have income or race, only geographics, in their assignment policies.
There were strings to this money - and they blew it. Interesting how Tedesco is the one reporting it to the media - HIS contacts in Washington are telling HIM. HIS people are telling HIM to get out in front of the story. Why? Easy. Because it is most certainly the G5's fault. Tedesco is doing what he does best - but not good enough this time - putting HIS spin on the story, doing damage control. After watching the Student Assignment fiasco on Tuesday, watching Tedesco not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES refuse to acknowledge parents' and board members' concerns that not enough understanding of the path we are taking is comprehended, and after hearing their policies cost us millions (or they would not be attempting damage control) I vote - NO CONFIDENCE.
You have absolutely no idea...
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:30 — woodstockYou have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are just making stuff up.
Your post is indicative of
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 06:11 — red_balloonYour post is indicative of the confusion prevalent in WC. Schools are established for education. If you wish to engage in correcting racial imbalances, I urge people like you to live in communities that are reflective of the racial composition you wish to see in schools. By moving to such neighborhoods, you get to experience 'diversity' in more aspects of your life. Live the 'diversity' you want. Let the schools focus on academics.
Pfft....
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 11:27 — Bob_SconceYou can't look at the people who lost -- look at the districts who WON and count how many of them use income and/or race in their assignment policies.
The cause of this little disaster is well known
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 08:53 — LongtimeLurkerThe cause of this little disaster is well known in the secret upper corners of the school district administration. Our stellar grant writing operation was destroyed in the two years after Holdzkom took over E&R. Its not just this ten million dollars lost as a result - many tens of millions in external grants are no longer funded because the skilled grant writers were hounded out of their jobs. Burns and Hargens both know that Holdzkom destroyed that operation. I'd guess the cost runs towards 50 million dollars.
This particular grant application was cobbled together by the magnet people themselves without the grant writer who had always written it (Bill Carruthers), because he had been pushed into leaving the district. They (the magnet people) know they never had to write it alone before and they asked E&R for help but there was none - so they wrote it themselves. Ask them - they will tell you.
It was a sub-par proposal and the feds recognized it as such. The only mystery here is why the destruction of a nationally recognized grant writing program at Wake was allowed as part of petty vindictive power struggles and replaced with a reign of terror. There was no upper leadership under Burns - just terror. Why that level of incompetence is still in place is the only mystery.
So...
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 11:25 — Bob_SconceI've been involved with various organizations which have applied for grants, and the skill of the grant-writer cannot be overstated. It's a distinct specialty -- for an organization that depends on grant money, keeping a successful grant-writer happy is critical, because there are dozens of organizations which will try to poach him/her.
It would be very interesting to see this grant application, scored, and compare it with previous winning applications.
They aren't comparable.
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 14:20 — Dove314The score would be hopelessly confounded by other factors, one of which would be the change to the assignment policy and whether that had any impact. No way to tease those effects apart.
yep
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 13:44 — LongtimeLurkerin my estimate Bill Carruthers is one of the best school district grant writers in the nation. He is a machine.
This is unacceptable.
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:21 — woodstockThis is unacceptable. Holdzkom needs to go. We need to get a high-quality Superintendent in here SOON to clean house and get rid of the dead weight and obstructionists.
Why do you have better, more informed information than our local journalists ...who rely on "speculation."
Why (and before we burn any witches)
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 13:40 — LongtimeLurkerWhy I have access to my observations isn't that important. I can see some things from my perch relative to the action, that's all. Some things I see, some I don't. I watched this quietly for a long time, and don't expect things to be anywhere near perfect. Every work place has these bad dynamics. But this one became pathological, so I'm pointing some things out. When we get back the right side of pathological I'll shut up again.
Speculation: Sometimes I have to be speculative myself, like my comments about the Algebra 1 access and the 20th day process - I don't have that as good information - just a strong hunch. Hence the kooky conspiracy-style writing there. I'm pretty sure of this particular thing about the magnet grant. A lot of people saw different parts of this unfold.
The things I say should be verified, not accepted uncritically. Here I'm asserting something and then pointing where to look for evidence.
The federal response to the proposal should be public. Likewise Wake's magnet program promised Washington things for years but the situation just became worse and worse - there may be feedback. Someone posted on that sometime back - maybe someone can find it.
A comparison of the amounts coming in from external grants between 2005 and maybe 2009 should tell the tale. It will correlate with the early part of H's tenure as he squashed all the local competition for power. Lots of people in E&R and elsewhere in WCPSS watched this particular drama with the grants happen, although they cannot be expected to speak openly about it, but they may when off the record. Ditto with the folks who wrote this grant - they know for sure that they were thrown out on their own contrary to all the successful past applications for the magnet funds. I assume they will admit that, at least off the record to a reporter. I heard the prediction that this grant would never be funded at the same time it went in. They didn't know what they were doing. The bottom line on all this will come from a demonstration that the grant application process and its results both narrowed drastically as H got a stranglehold on the people and the process. We really ought to wait for that demonstration before we burn any witches. The scale of it all indicates to me that the process and price should be easy to calculate.
Keung does a good job and I believe him when he says the doesn't get interference from above. He followed out the Algebra 1 story - I don't think he is biased. There is just a lot of investigative reporting moles to whack here (and some people are starting to get desperate to shut down the overall process that is underway, hence the mayor's initiative, the accreditation assault, etc.). But this is an interesting story outside the main drama and I think it will play out with some fact-checking.
Anyway, its important not to let this one get spun as an outside reponse relating to the other politics. This is just dirty and local.
Maybe Holdzkom is the local
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:29 — klanders65Maybe Holdzkom is the local journalists' informant.
Hmm...for any other N&O
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:37 — woodstockHmm...for any other N&O journalist I'd say that may be the case. Kueng, however, seems smarter than that to me. Holdzkom is a world-class BSer and it does not take long to figure that out.
why did Holdzkom want him
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 09:37 — jenmanwhy did Holdzkom want him out?
analysis of the crater
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:18 — LongtimeLurkerYou would need a combination of Machiavelli and a psychiatrist to understand that. The only common denominators I have ever noticed about the behaviors in question are internal power machinations, innocent-appearing vindictiveness, the ability to incite terror, and manipulating other people to do things and take the fall. Carruthers didn't respond to terror (personality thing) so he became a target. I can pretty much assure you it was all stupid power games - everything in that guy's shock zone is all about internal power struggles. Burns was furious how much grant money was lost over these schenanigans, but didn't DO anything about it. The district's entire grant writing capability cratered - Carruthers used to bring like 70M. What is it now?
It was more important to
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:04 — klanders65It was more important to completely control all staff, and have them terrorized into submission than to have a talented grant writer who brought in millions.
Started his own business
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 09:58 — sachivalayhttp://www.grantproseinc.com/index.html
BoE stand...
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 08:24 — bpuli9999Weren't magnet programs set up to decrease segregation? So the question is why is the school system even applying for grants that don't support what it (the BoE) stands for, in the first place?
The bigger conundrum is why
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 06:19 — red_balloonThe bigger conundrum is why MSAP funds need to be awarded to people who embrace 'diversity' only when it comes with incentives. I wonder if one would get more bang for the buck if MSAP grants were converted to housing grants. Would you perchance be aware of mountains of research on voluntarily diverse communities being more ineffective than 'diversity' imposed in schools?
Weren't magnet programs set
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 08:33 — woodstockWeren't magnet programs set up to decrease segregation?
No, race had nothing to do with it. Magnet schools were created to reduce/limit the number of high-poverty school. However over the past ten years of the status quo, WCPSS went from 16 high-poverty schools to 61 high-poverty schools.
so you are calling
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 09:27 — bpuli9999bs on the postings below? (I think the sources are noted in the individual posts that I copied this from). I don't see any reference to poverty.
"Magnet programs aim to eliminate, reduce, or prevent minority group isolation in elementary and secondary schools while strengthening students' knowledge of academic subject...."
...
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 09:32 — Sideburnshttp://www.wcpss.net/magnet/
Objectives
Magnet Programs will be used to foster healthy schools throughout the Wake County Public School System by using choice to help:
Your turn to nail it!
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:38 — woodstockYour turn to nail it!
Nail what?
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 18:08 — bpuli9999The feds aren't looking at the WCPSS definition of the magnet program. They have their own. And it is the Fed money that we are begging for - so they get to define it. Beggars cannot be definers.
Please try to keep up.
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 18:44 — woodstockOy vey. Please try to keep up.
WCPSS' definition of a high
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 08:42 — danofncWCPSS' definition of a high poverty school and the national definition of a high poverty school are quite different.
But you knew that.....
Just for future reference...if WCPSS ends up with 20-30 schools that are 80%+ F&R, and the rest are under 40%, we aren't in a better position.
I agree, that alone does not
Thu, 09/30/2010 - 10:45 — woodstockI agree, that alone does not put is in a better position...but it also does not put us in a worse position. Why? Because our school do not exist to balance socioeconomic diversity, they exist to education students ...something the fringe extreme left opposition keeps forgetting.
PLUS, I will say it again so you can ignore it again, the F&R numbers are completely bogus. It is all self-reported data and NEVER verified.
Jobs are still very
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 10:46 — Andrew95Jobs are still very segregated, neighborhoods almost never have a homogenous mix of races, and the judicial system always favors the rich over the poor. The schools are one of the few places we've won back the ability to put any kid on the same level as any other. When you put one category of kid in some schools, and the other in schools across town, you defeat that purpose.
But, reassuringly, the maps
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 11:29 — AngelaWBut, reassuringly, the maps do show that not all American cities are so divided.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315078/Race-maps-America.html#ixzz117aUtPdK
?
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 10:56 — starsonoursAndrew what country do you live in? This is 2010 not 1810.
2010?
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 11:23 — Dove314Are you saying Andrew's statement is untrue in 2010?
I am saying you can live
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 14:31 — starsonoursI am saying you can live were ever you chose. No one is stopping you based on race, religion, sex ect..(this is true of the work place also) It isn't segregation when you make the chose to live with people like you. As long as we have a choice who care if we are a "homogenous mix of races"? Who decided we must be a "homogenous mix of races"? The only way to create this mixture is to mandate were people can live based on race.
Please show me any law that favors the rich over the poor. This is just more rhetoric and sensationalism.
I don't quite understand.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 15:56 — Andrew95I don't quite understand. Are you saying that the poor are choosing to be poor?
I don't recall saying that.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 16:05 — starsonoursI don't recall saying that. But I have seen people move from poverty to middle class, from poverty to extreme wealth. I have also seen people go from wealth to poor. Being poor or wealthy is not a fixed designation in this country. We have equal opportunity, we don't have equal outcome.
There is no equal
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 20:15 — Andrew95There is no equal opportunity. It's quite clear that someone has to work much harder to get out of poverty than to stay in middle class. We, as a country, favor the rich far more than the poor. To argue that we don't is just being ignorant.
As a poor child, you face much more exposure to crime and violence, and a much lower chance of becoming as successful as a middle class or rich child. There's a reason that the top 1% of the country holds 25% of the money.
So...
Sat, 10/02/2010 - 10:44 — Bob_SconceThe change in wealth numbers since the 60's reflects more of a demographic change than anything else. In the 60's, most households, especially at the top end, were single-income -- the two-earner families were concentrated in the bottom; further, there were far fewer single-parent families than we have now. (Recognize that all the numbers refer to *households,* not individuals.)
If you look at the households at the top today, they will look dramatically different than the households at the top 50 years ago. They will nearly all consist of two earners -- a doctor and a lawyer in the same family, for example -- in 1960, you almost never had both. Similarly, families at the bottom will look dramatically different than the households at the bottom 50 years ago. The people at the bottom are generally single-parent families. In the 60's, many of these single-parent families would have been combined into a single household; today, it counts as two households. In addition, folks at the bottom are, today, much more likely to be recent immigrants from Latin America who are starting on the bottom rung of US society -- these people just weren't hear in 1960.
The real question is how easy is it for people to move out of the bottom rung of society. I posted elsewhere about that: the US has a surprising amount of income mobility -- the folks in that top 1% today stand an exceedingly good chance of not being in that top 1% in ten years, similiarly with the folks in the bottom 1%.
Also, consider that the standard of living enjoyed by the poor is hugely ahead of where it was in the '60s -- much of that improvement happened by the actions of people in pursuit of profit. Cell phones are a great example -- the 1970's equivalent of a cell phone (a mobile, operator-assisted radio phone) was a luxury only the very wealthy could affort. Yet, today, they are accessible to every segment of society. So, even if inequality is higher (which I dispute, see above), everybody is still far better off than they were.
Other reasons here: http://cafehayek.com/2010/09/why-inequality-is-a-red-herring.html .
NO!
Sat, 10/02/2010 - 13:29 — fiveblindmiceDemographic changes have very, very little to do with the toxic increasing concentration of wealth in our society. For a very detailed look at the causes I'd suggest starting with this post and reading the series of linked detailed articles:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/following-money
More hooey. You pointed out yourself that there are more two-income families but then ignore the primary reason for it! For the most part it takes two incomes now to achieve the same lifestyle you could get with one back in the 70's. Back then it was perfectly normal to be able to afford a nice house, health care, college for your kids and a reasonably comfortable retirement with a relatively secure pension on one non-college income. I grew up in a whole neighborhood of lower middle class blue collar factory workers doing exactly that. That same lifestyle now takes not only two incomes but for the most part two college-educated incomes. And you can't get those secure pensions at any price
Yes!
Sun, 10/03/2010 - 10:32 — Bob_SconceI noticed that you didn't even address the points raised in the sources I cited. The urban institute (hardly a right-wing bastion -- both mother jones and the American Prosject are distinctly left-wing) has a decent summary here: http://www.urban.org/publications/306775.html.
This subject is way off-topic, so I'm not going to say much more, except two points: you are absolutely correct that a high school education, only, does not go nearly as far as it once went -- that's the one segment experiencing negative long-term income growth. If you want to be successful in tomorrow's society, get a college degree.
Secondly, pensions were never secure -- they only appeared to be so because they allowed companies to push their costs into the future. We're now in that future, and newspapers are full of stories of retirees at bankrupt companies who have lost some or all of their pensions and retiree health coverage.
As to the rest -- I suggest that if you don't mind living in the same size house as was typical in 1970 (1500 sq ft), having the same number of cars (1, perhaps with an AM radio, but certainly without A/C), and with the same quality of medical care (i.e. if you had a heart attack, you were given bed rest), then you can pretty much live like you would have in 1970. Much of today's families' second income goes into lifestyle, whether they recognize it or not.
Huh?
Sun, 10/03/2010 - 21:28 — fiveblindmiceBottom line (so to speak): how people live their lives is an important topic. But it's not the only topic. How the private economy distributes wealth and income is important too. And on that score, all the signs point to an ever-widening gulf between rich and poor — an unhealthy, unsustainable gulf. We can't just shrug our shoulders and accept it.
Sorry --
Sun, 10/03/2010 - 22:54 — Bob_SconceI had edited that post down just to try to keep it short. The urban institute study and one from the Federal Reserve were in the original. I agree that the cafehayek one is not directly on-topic.
Personally, I don't think focusing on the top X% is particularly productive because we do not live in a zero-sum society: it's possible for Larry Page or Sergey Brinn to be stinking rich without taking anything away from anybody else. I am far better off than my parents were at my age, even though they were further up the 1977 economic ladder than I am in the 2010 ladder. My house is bigger than theirs was; my car is certainly much nicer, lasts a whole lot longer and is a whole heck of a lot safer. There are lifesaving generic drugs available at $4/month from Walmart which didn't even exist in 1977. My 1977 computer was a TRS-80, 4k of memory, cost the equivalent of $1750 today. For breakfast this morning, I had clementines grown in South Africa -- completely unavailable in October, 1977.
My father-in-law has a heart attack a few years ago, and had a stent implanted -- when President Eisenhower had his heart attack and received absolutely the best treatment available to anybody in the world at the time... he got 5 weeks of bed rest. When I was born, I was expected to die before I was 68 -- when my kids were borne, that number had risen to 76.
All of those advances were occasioned by people putting money at risk in pursuit of profit. If you shrink the amount of profit people can take, you also shrink the risk they'll take for that profit.
So, I don't care if I'm further behind Bill Gates today than my parents were behind William Hunt in 1977. In fact, I hope that when my kids grow to be my age, there will be dozens or hundreds of Gateses, each of them rich because they created something that made my kids' lives better. Maybe we will see the first trillionaire -- perhaps somebody who actually cured cancer or found a way to dramatically slow the aging process. That would be awesome.