It would be an understatement to say that relations are strained between the new Wake County school board majority and the Wake Education Partnership.
As noted in today's article, school board members are questioning such recent WEP publications as the school assignment analysis and the assessment of Del Burns' resignation as superintendent. It's a departure from when the WEP worked closely with the old school board majority.
“They seem to be going against everything we want to do," said school board member Deborah Prickett. "I feel like a salmon swimming upstream against them.”
Intentional or not, the WEP is becoming the defacto research arm for critics of the new school board majority. The WEP's reports are regularly cited by opposition groups.
School board members are particularly upset about the WEP report which found that sending students to their closest school would result in crowding problems.
Members of the new board majority say they've never said they're solely going to assign students based on proximity.
School board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman said the WEP could have tried to develop a scenario which would have allowed for more community-based school assignments while still trying to provide the socioeconomic balance the group wants to preserve.
“Let’s work together to bring something positive," Goldman said. "Even if you don’t like the general concept of what we’re trying, try to work with us to make it more positive.”
Goldman said she's been asked by school board chairman Ron Margiotta to serve on the WEP's board of trustees after he turned down the invitation.
School board member Chris Malone said he looks at the WEP reports to see if there's anything worth finding. But he said he hasn't found much.
As for school board member John Tedesco, his blast on the WakeEd blog following the WEP school assignment report has gotten a lot of attention. He accused the WEP of spreading 'fairy tale hysteria" and "waxing philosophical lies."
But Tim Simmons, communications director for the WEP, said the report noted that the approach it analyzed was not under consideration by the board. But, he said, it spoke to questions the public might have about community-based schools.
"I know that the general public thinks that school choice means they get to choose the schools close to home," Simmons said in the article. "The primary reason for doing this is to make it clear that this is not possible."
The school board majority has at least some reason to be skeptical of the Wake Education Partnership, which has been a longtime supporter of the diversity policy.
In 2002 the WEP's board of trustees passed a resolution in support of the diversity policy.
More recently, WEP President Ann Denlinger attended the Friends of Diversity Press Conference that was held the day before the October elections. She was joined at the event by several people who are on the WEP's board of directors and board of trustees.
Comments
Don't tell Michelle Obama
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 08:58 — hd27540Don't tell Michelle Obama about the cake...she's starting a fight obesity in kids initiative.
Why in the heck they serve those stale pieces of cake or any other cookies on the lunch line is beyond me! Serve fruit! The kids can learn to love it if they refuse it. Let 'em eat cake at home !
Bad example...
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 22:57 — supportwcpssDid you honestly just use dessert at lunch as an example??? Unbelievable...
Because everyone in the world has to have a dessert and if the poor souls (and I'm not singling out F&R) don't get their cookies then all will fall apart. The menus at schools are bad enough, and the kids get so much junk in the classroom already, you think dessert will solve the F&R problems.
Wow.
I have no idea how you
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 00:25 — DrActualFactualI have no idea how you arrived at the dessert will solve F&R problems but I'm sure that we'd both be in school cramming dessert into everyone if that were true.
Oh, I 've eaten many a
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:09 — shank56Oh, I 've eaten many a cafeteria meal with my kids and done the same with buying desserts for the F&R (before all the allergy scares). I am "old" but in my schools, the parents never did "serve" food. We were called to help with monitoring the cafeteria time to time.
Parents "serve" food now in EL- seems that would be a real health department issue.
ROFLM*O!~
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:15 — AngelaW"Parents "serve" food now in EL- seems that would be a real health department issue. "
are you kidding me? do you think that parents aren't serving? just what is your point by that comment?
Sounds to me like you are
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:33 — shank56Sounds to me like you are coming from kitchen , bringing big trays of food to the line and watching kids from the other side. What do YOU mean by serve food?
yes bringing it out and
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:59 — AngelaWyes bringing it out and ladeling it out on to styrofoam trays that children are holding...getting it out of warmers, etc... what do YOU mean???
Same thing. No parents
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:08 — shank56Same thing. No parents did behind the line cafeteria work when we were in elementary (36% F&R) but we were asked to help TA's monitor the lunchroom sometimes.
define "behind the line" for
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:17 — AngelaWdefine "behind the line" for I believe you are misunderstanding.....there is more than just "monitoring" going on, there is HANDLING of food...
I hear what you are saying-
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:51 — shank56I hear what you are saying- what you do.
When we were in El, parents did not handle any food from the kitchen to the serving line, carrying steam trays or anything like that.
ok, so with this in mind,
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:40 — AngelaWok, so with this in mind, think of how much it has changed and then imagine how much things must have REALLY changed in school since someone like say...Morrison or Burns has actually BEEN INSIDE the schools.....this was my point....it's so easy to throw edicts down from the tower....try living, breathing, teaching in the trenches....
imagine how much things must
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 17:27 — shank56imagine how much things must have REALLY changed in school since someone like say...Morrison or Burns has actually BEEN INSIDE the schools.....
Are you saying that Burns and Morrison have actually not BEEN INSIDE the schools?
There has been a lot of change in the schools over time - increased enrollment , less dollars.
If parents at your school are having to play cafeteria worker shuttling food from the kitchen to the line, then the BOE and CC need to know now! Is that an everyday occurance at all elementary schools or just at Leesville?
when were they and for more
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:39 — AngelaWwhen were they and for more than just a photo op? for perhaps a week volunteering?? seriously?
yes increased enrollment, budget cuts, thanks to NBurns taking from schools first instead of Central office, and lots less staff/TA's teachers to deal with increased enrollments....
how do you know they aren't aware of these occurances...you often presume waaay too much...and condescension gets you really nowhere.
Always testy aren't you
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:23 — shank56when were they and for more than just a photo op? for perhaps a week volunteering?? seriously?
I don't know their schedules. In Burns interview, he stated he is in a school at least once a week( Monday's ?) to get updates on PLT's and to meet with staff and students.
What I do know is that he and Morrison are career educators. And if career educators are so clueless as to what's happening now (as you say), then I can't imagine how a non-educator business person can be expected to have a clue if chosen as Superintendent to develop budgets and make staffing decisions across a county when they have never worked in the trenches.
Burns and Morrison have lived and worked in the trenches . You seem to indicate they are not in touch-seriously?
BTW, I'm not presuming anything, nor am I being condescending. You started this with:
"Has anybody from WEP or on these blogs spent any SIGNIFICANT time INSIDE any of the schools in WCPSS?? Seriously?"
If Del and Morrison are so out of touch in the schools, heaven help Ron, Malone, and the rest of the BOE.
what I do know is that
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:28 — AngelaWwhat I do know is that Prickett has spent numerous years "in the trenches" and pretty recently. much more recently than Morrison certainly....
I'm Going To Ask A Carson79 Question?
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:14 — JanisTangoHow do you know someone is F&R? Isn't that confidential?
Ok, I'm confused
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:33 — kbrooks500I thought you were talking about F/R kids not getting the same lunch, but that can't be the case. Their lunch is being subsized. Everyone gets the same basic lunch, but there are extras that kids can purchase if they have the money. That would include additional milk.
Fortunately, where I live that is not the case in elementary school, where the foundation of good nutrition should be set. There is not reason to tempt children to buy junk food. The only purpose it serves is to bring in additional money for food services.
I agree....although/or you
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:05 — AngelaWI agree....although/or you can watch their faces fall when they have "no money" and the food is snatched out of their hands and they are told you get "fruits and vegetables", no milk even.
This whole lunchroom talk is
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 09:04 — hd27540This whole lunchroom talk is confusing. This is my expereince at one of my children's elementary schools....
All kids are offered the same lunch. Money is rarely exchanged as kid are encouraged to have an "account" that they provide the number to the lunchlady and she takes it off the 'tab'. Parents are alerted when money is running low.
All kids are told they need the basic nutritonal meal. If they do not have any money in their account and need lunch, they get the fruit and veggie choice and water.
I too HATE the fact that there are cake, cookie offerings and bags of chips (baked, but they are still not necessary).
I hear argument that the kids will "not eat anything" if they can't have their sweets or chips and we rather them have something than nothing.
Again, the lunches, for me anyway, boil down to the same basic issue, the schools are responsible to "parent" and it's unfair. Granted there are special needs kids that need assistance in making proper choices, I am not talking about them.
...
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:35 — SideburnsAnother "you're not worthy" dig. Nice.
I completely understand what you're getting at, AngelaW. These so-called "leaders" probably haven't stepped foot in a classroom in a long time. It's much easier to look at numbers from behind a desk or home office.
typical "shank"....and yes,
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:37 — AngelaWtypical "shank"....and yes, that is my point....thanks!
Shank-assume nothing...stop w/personal attacks
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:37 — AngelaWin what actually goes on INSIDE the schools instead of edicts from the ivory towers of Central and WEP. and not just ONE day here and there.....spend time......in ALL schools.
You Suffering from paranoia??
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:52 — shank56Stop w/personal attacks??
Hello??
The shame here is that WEP
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 10:34 — CaryCurmudgeonThe shame here is that WEP has some smart people who could be dedicating their energies to finding positive solutions within the new board's framework, instead of just throwing stones.
Today, 32% of Wake County Schools are already defined as "high poverty" by the current policy 6200 (> 40% F&R). 44 more schools are are running 30-39% F&R, it wouldn't take much to push them over the mark into high poverty status.
We don't even meet our own objectives for "healthy schools." And if we did, can you imagine how many kids would have to be bussed go get all of those schools below 40% F&R? That would make for an interesting WEP study, one which we are unlikely to see.
The F&R population here is growing. It was growing before the recession and it will grow after the recession. Continuing to chase a <40% F&R goal based on theory makes no sense, we can't do it today and things will only become worse. And what about those other counties in North Carolina where the entire school population is already above 40% F&R? Are these systems doomed to failure?
"The shame here is that WEP
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:12 — woodstock"The shame here is that WEP has some smart people who could be dedicating their energies to finding positive solutions within the new board's framework, instead of just throwing stones."
I think the comment "stupid is as stupid does" applies in this case. If they are smart, they should demonstrate it occasionally...for confirmation.
Makes Sense
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 11:46 — occum_sharpeThe schools that are already 40-50% F/R kind of know how to "deal" with those kids, so making them 70-80 % wouldn't hurt them.
Maybe the really motivated and gifted poor students whose parents were willing to take them to school every day and volunteer could attend the schools that are <15 % F/R since they have parent support and wouldn't need the extra support and remediation offered by their neighborhood school.
It would give those parents who want their kids to succeed a reason to stay involved. It makes the parent commit to their child. Maybe the county could give bus vouchers for these committed parents to make sure they have reliable transportation to get out to these schools.
Funny!
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:56 — local23Maybe the county could give bus vouchers for these committed parents to make sure they have reliable transportation to get out to these schools.
We do not have county bus transportation in many, many of our areas- there is some in Cary, Apex and Morrisville, but not much and definitely not around the school areas!
Quite a dilemma
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 09:52 — occum_sharpeOur new board has quite a dilemma.
If they move the F/R students who were bussed into their districts for diversity (Cary, Northwest Raleigh, Garner, Wake Forest) you have to have somewhere to move them to.
There is nowhere near enough room at the closest schools to these students neighborhoods on the east side of the city, so you have to find somewhere to put them. The City of Raleigh will probably make it impossible to put in modular cities on these campuses, so these students will have to be bussed somewhere else.
One option is to do away with ITB magnets and bus them to those schools, but there still wouldn't be enough room for all of them and this would set off a firestorm in the ITB neighborhoods that could have serious political ramifications on the Republican Party.
Another option would be to bus them East into schools that are already very high in F/R student percentage, but once again, there is not enough room here either.
These options aren't really feasible (not enough seats) unless some of the students stay at their current schools in Cary, NW Wake, Wake Forest, and Garner.
A combination of these options is possible, but it would create 15 or more new 60% or higher F/R schools if you moved all of the students who are bussed for diversity.
Bottom line, to make this work, one or more of the board members is going to have to reneg on their promise to move out poor kids bussed into their districts for diversity and then the folks who fervently support them will eat them for lunch.
It is a tough situation.
Why do away with the ITB Magnets?
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 12:43 — raleighlauraWCPSS ought to maximize our scarce and popular resources, and make the magnets go voluntary year round. Students who opt out of the YR calendar could fill the rim schools with a minimal bus ride (at least, compared to what the kids have been through already), and I think many of the 4300 kids who were denied a seat last year would fill the magnets. It's bound to be less expensive to run magnets year round than it is to build new schools.
What a fabulous idea!
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 13:54 — midtownmomThat would take care of so many issues - expanding the magnet program, overcrowding, using the taxpayers funds wisely. And I'm sure most folks in the magnet schools said they were highly satisfied with their school, so adapting to one of the four year round tracks for these familes should be no problem, right? Now let's look at it in a real world situation. All of the sudden myr doesn't look so good. Those will be the families in one to three years who "tried" the year round schedule and see that it's not easy for a family to adapt. They will be the ones fighting the school board saying that now that they're affected, they see why the rest of us have been asking for our schools to covert back to traditional. Until it actually affects your family, you don't know the emotion behind the arguments.
YR Magnet
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:41 — Solon77My 6th grader goes to a magnet school and I have actually suggested this in the survey response. I have no problem with YR even through I have two in High School. With regards to mandatory - mandatory is if your ideal choice is not accommodated. So if you want Magnet and YR - but only Magnet Traditional is offered - then it is in essence mandatory traditional. I would prefer YR, but I am not being given the calendar option, so in my mind I am forced to a mandatory traditional calendar.
And track 2 is fine by me.
YR Magnet query
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:53 — MomknowsbestI have asked the previous board why they don't offer year round magnets. They said it's not even an option. In other words, they're looking out for one specific group of people only. In my opinion, magnets should be converted to year round and made available to all who applies for the program, not the calendar. And to make it fair for all, make those who gets in pay tuition and provide own transport. That will make it a whole new ballpark.
I asked that question, too.
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 18:57 — raleighlauraI know that specific question ("Why can't we convert magnets to Year round?") was posed to Chuck Dulaney in December 2009 because I was cced on the email. I was not, however, on the response list, so I have no idea why this is off the table. I think it needs to be one of many solutions WCPSS can employ to fill seats with students to keep up with growth.
I break with your thinking, however, at asking for tuition. To me, asking people to pay tuition for public school is wrong. I think a true lottery (without 10% caps) for students outside the magnet's base would bring equity to the process. I'm open to not providing transportation or to only providing "express" bussing if that saves significant money.
This question comes up
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:16 — KeungHui (author)This question comes up periodically. A couple of reasons historically brought up by staff is that several of the magnets are in older and smaller campuses where the lack of classrooms makes it harder to achieve capacity gains. But the bigger reason is how hard it would be to offer electives and other unique magnet offerings on all four tracks, especially at the gifted and talented magnet schools. With 300+ electives, you'd be realistically limited in what could be offered on all four tracks without ramping up staffing.
A similar reason had been given back in 2006 as to why no high schools were considered for conversion to multi-track. It would be even harder there to offer Advanced Placement and other electives on four tracks.
Then again, some parents at year-round middle schools complain that track offerings are unequal.
The Magnets that aren't GT
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 12:38 — jenmanThe Magnets that aren't GT could just as easily convert to yr as any other school. The ones with an overall theme and teaching method like Combs, the IB schools, Brooks.
300+ Electives
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:28 — Solon77While this may be listed on the course selection sheet - if there is not enough interest then the few kids who did sign up for that elective are reassigned. Students typically list their top 10 selections - one semester my daughter got 0 of her choices.
Your child got zero out of
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:38 — red_balloonYour child got zero out of ten? Wow. I am amazed that a student can select ten electives and receive zero out of that list. It serves to point out the excessive and esoteric nature of these electives.
I think WCPSS could still
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:19 — Eric_BI think WCPSS could still offer lots of electives on a YR schedule for magnet schools. The offerings may be unequal between tracks, but like you say, YR middle schools have to deal with that now and don't have any special extras like magnets do.
Not directed at you Keung,
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:19 — red_balloonNot directed at you Keung, but I have heard the number of electives as an issue before and I don't buy that. The number of electives in non-magnet ES is a grand total of zero. It is time to pare down the number of electives at magnets to the point YR is possible. The mindset to date has been to protect the magnet holy cow and neglect the non-magnets. I can see the old BOE, Dr Burns, WEP, etc. acting to preserve this status quo. With the new BOE in place, it is time to analyze hitherto accepted gospel truths and work to overcoming obstacles and increasing capacity at magnets.
I understand the AP argument, but
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 20:14 — raleighlaurathe smaller classrooms and older campus argument, and the "we may have to offer less than 300 electives" argument both seem weak to me. If you have smaller classrooms, 25% more is still more. And even 200 electives are far more than traditional schools offer. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation of why at least the magnet elementary schools could not be made YR with adequate capacity gains to merit the expense of running 4 tracks.
It's not so much that the
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 23:35 — KeungHui (author)It's not so much that the classrooms are physicall smaller as that the older schools don't have as many classrooms period. You need a certain number of classroms to be able to offer double tracks. If you don't have enough classsroom and the schools are too landlockd for more trailers than you really won't see much if any gains at some schools.
no answer
Mon, 02/22/2010 - 14:55 — g88ky07hmmmmmmmmmmmm
thanks. I still think if
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:48 — JSBinNCthanks.
I still think if they really sat down and looked at it - they could find a way. Maybe do away with some of those electives... (ha ha) and then do some kind of quarterly setup so that different things could be accomodated at different times across most if not all tracks....
It definitely deserves more consideration. Heck if even HALF of the magnets could go - we'd see a lot more children reaping the benefits!
I also agree on parent provided or express bussing in terms of transport.
"some parents at
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:22 — AngelaW"some parents at year-round middle schools complain that track offerings are unequal"
because they ARE unequal!
Token Tuition
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:01 — MomknowsbestI mean a token tuition. I would pay that to get my kids in just because magnets are like free private schools.
I don't think I'd support monetary tuition, but
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 19:08 — raleighlauraI like the idea of a parental contract, the way they do at Partnership Elementary, saying that if your child accepts a seat at this magnet, here are the expectations of you as a parent, both in terms of time, financial support if you are able, and in support of the goals of the program.
On the other hand, what I do or don't support isn't really important to anyone but my husband, and then, not all the time!
I see that rub.
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 16:54 — raleighlauraYou can have application magnet or application YR, but no magnet YR. I like the idea of choice in magnets, and if we get to the point that we have community school clusters where traditional vs yr are the calendar choices and magnet vs traditional are the curriculum choices, I think it would be a great "four square" plan. However, I don't think that approcah solves the "get kids in seats that would otherwise be empty" problem that YR so neatly solves- but I agree, it would be a huge stride toward parental choice.
I wonder how much any of these permutations would cost VS building new schools.
I wouldn't put Mandatory in it at all.
Sun, 02/21/2010 - 14:21 — raleighlauraYR works for many families, I know. If the goal of YR schools is to get more seats out of exsisting facilities, converting magnets would likely accomplish that better than converting less desirable schools. I'm not saying we should force anyone into YR- I would make it voluntary for the base students, and by application for everyone else. The base students would have a much, much lesser burden to bear being bussed to Stough, York, or other rim schools than the kids who are currently being bussed to non-magnet schools 17 miles away.