Wake County Superintendent Tony Tata announced today the names of eight of the 10 schools that will get special academic programs for the 2011-12 school year to make them more attractive to parents.
Tata said that Hilburn Drive, York and Aversboro elementary schools, Carroll Middle School and Knightdale High School will receive STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) programs.
Tata announced that Timber Drive, Jeffreys Grove and Stough elementary schools will receive Global Schools programs that will include things such as greater emphasis on teaching foreign languages.
Tata said the deadline to award the final two Global Schools programs has been extended to May 6 to give schools more time to apply. One middle school and one high school program will receive a program.
The programs were proposed by Tata this year as a way to make these schools, several of whom are underenrolled, more attractive for families to attend. He has said that one of his goals is to make all schools attractive as part of a new long-term student assignment plan that’s being developed.
Tata has stressed that these new programs aren’t the same as magnet schools. Parents at several of the schools receiving the new programs had lobbied for receiving magnet programs.
UPDATE
In case I didn't make it clear in my budget post, Tata said today that he has no plans to cut back on the new STEM schools and Global Schools even in the face of deeper than projected state funding cuts.
Comments
Question
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:42 — Dove314If magnet schools and better alternatives were what created the RIM school issues of underenrollment AND the goal here is to get individuals to volunteer/apply to increase enrollment at these schools, then isn't this just going to shift the problems to schools that are not magnet, not any of these special programs and not charter schools? Exactly what is the "target market" for recruiting these students to fill these new programs? Surely it is not being marketed to those who are so wedded to attending their nearest neighborhood school? These seems contradictory.
Exactly what is the "target
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 16:39 — jenmanExactly what is the "target market" for recruiting these students to fill these new programs? Surely it is not being marketed to those who are so wedded to attending their nearest neighborhood school?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The target market is the base area of the school. The neighborhood kids who left (or never came) because the school was not perceived as a good one. When a school can't even offer the basics that everybody else has then people leave, even if they'd rather be at their 'neighborhood' school.
I'm not disagreeing with you that these school present a new set of issues, just telling you what the target market is.
Question
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 08:54 — Dove314Question then -- for that to be the "target market", does that mean that only students who are assigned to that base will be eligible to attend there? Thus there will be no application process for students from outside the base to attend?
Good question
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:11 — stan_norwalkI have seen nothing to indicate the answer. This is the BOE's issue.
Stan
From what I understand,
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 15:46 — jenmanFrom what I understand, these are not magnets with an application process. I think I just saw mention somewhere of transfer possibilities but I'm not sure of that.
There won't be an
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:34 — KeungHui (author)There won't be an application process. But they're hoping it will bring back the base families who are going to school elsewhere. Plus, you can always apply for a transfer to attend the schools.
I agree with you. I like
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:10 — jenmanI agree with you. I like the idea behind what Tata is trying to do, but there are still unresolved issues with these schools.
I believe there is a place for magnets, but we need to have some major changes in them.
Right - that's my thinking
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:51 — loriacRight - that's my thinking behind my comment that this begs the question of why we need magnet schools. I think it's good to even out the offerings at these schools. They are adding back what I consider to be pretty base offerings. Why do we need schools with extra offerings (ie magnets)? I think kids should be able to go to a neighborhood school that has a solid set of offerings - why should one neighborhood have a school w/ no art, music or foreign language, while another neighborhood has a Ligon w/ 200 electives?
Doh Doh Doh
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 15:00 — jiggawhat12Why are these schools under enrolled? If they are under enrolled because of a population shift in that area how do you make these programs available to kids that do not live in those neighborhoods? Questions that need to be answered.
parents opting out
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 16:23 — snordonethey are under-enrolled because parents opt out of their base school and into magnets and charters. The base rim schools are bare bones schools with no electives, no foreign language and fairly high F&R. These initiatives will "pull" parents back in (rather than continue to attempt to "push" with forced busing to an under-enrolled school).
Their under-enrollment has nothing to do with kids not living in their assignment area, there are plenty of children assigned to these schools but they don't show up. We have seen this repeatedly when they have tried to fix the problem with moving new nodes into these schools, they just won't go. So, this is a novel approach to a long-term problem in Wake. These schools cost us money when they are not fully utilized.
Your Numbers
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 16:38 — jiggawhat12Your numbers do not add up. Some of those schools are far below capacity is not due to all the students going to magnets and charters. But, using your logic does that not reward some schools while still leave other schools with out the best programs? So now we will have magnets and these other programs at any school that is under enrolled. Do you see the circular logic? The problem has always been uneven growth in the county not bussing. With rapid uneven growth there has to be a plan to fully utilize all schools fairly. This plan is no different than magnets instead of managing growth just reward under enrolled schools with better programs. Not a fix.
it is not about growth in these schools
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 18:51 — snordoneThe formula for school funding in Wake is enrollment numbers. The more students a school has the more $ it gets and the more it can offer. These under enrolled schools are not at capacity, they do not fund music, art and PE as full time positions, they lack clubs, they lack technology.
Some of it has to do with the policy 6200 theory - the lower the F&R the more PTA dollars you have and therefore the more extras you can fund. It is the money that comes from the Fund 6 accounts that provide some of these extras (clubs, computers, books in the library, sports uniforms, etc..), and also from PTA funds. The problem with policy 6200 is that those who were trying to execute it did not realize they were working against the underlying principle of the model - middle class schools are strong because parents understand the value of education for their child's future. If you strip a school of all the extras then high income and middle class parents will leave, particularly if they have other options. And they do have many options. The year that Endeavor opened there were 2400 applications between Endeavor and Magellan. If there had been more than 400 seats available between the 2 schools it would have been enough to wipe out West Millbrook MS, Baileywick ES and Jeffreys Grove ES.
Few people really understand what has been going on in this county, particularly those who have kids in magnet schools. they have been very isolated from the inequity. I have been a rim parent for 12 years, I understand our reality.
I agree that the growth
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 17:38 — jenmanI agree that the growth patterns and aging out have contributed to the problems with underenrolled schools in the rim but snordone is absolutely right. Just as great of a problem, perhaps even greater, is people leaving those schools for other options. Another issue a while back was W Millbrook MS. There were many families who left for charters, private and magnet so they could avoid WMMS, which meant leaving their elem schools. W Mill has greatly improved with the new principal and is drawing families back but it had an effect on those elem schools that feed into that middle school. With siblings having automatic (or priority) entry for those other schools, you've got another 'generation' of kids not attending the local school.
but
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 10:36 — Dove314But charters are wonderful things, aren't they? And we're going to have even more of them in the near future aren't we? Do the charter schools have to cut their custodial staff and TA's as well?
Yes...
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 13:16 — Bob_SconceBy law, the charters receives a per-student amount equal to the per-student amount of the surrounding school district. There's some adjustment for disabled students and LEP students. See Section 115C‑238.29H of the NC statutes.
The difference is that the GA has strings on some of the money it gives school districts ("You can only use this money here . . ."} that it doesn't apply to charter schools. The idea, after all, is to allow charters to operate with minimum intervention by the state.
Which amount?
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 16:07 — Dove314Spending varies widely according to information posted here. Do charters receive an average which would then be higher than a nonSTEM, non-magnet school and potentially lower than the nonSTEM/non-magnet school?
So...
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 17:20 — Bob_SconceLook up the statute for what they're supposed to get. Basically, I read it as "Take the total amount, exclude capital costs and additions for LEP or disabled kids, then divide by the total number of students in the district. Take that number, multiply it by the number enrolled in the charter school. Then, to that amount, add (a) the number of LEP kids times the LEP add tion and (b) the number of disabled kids times the disabled addition." So, if you're spending more on STEM schools, that gets averaged into the total district spending per student.
Interesting
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 08:58 — Dove314Then seems likely that charters would receive a per pupil expense that was higher than that quoted for standard base school students but potentially less than that quoted for either magnet or these new special programs. And they don't have to furnish transportation, etc. Seems a bit skewed to give an advantage to charters.
So....
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:38 — Bob_Sconce"Quoted" by who? The state doesn't require WCPSS to have magnet schools or STEM schools. If WCPSS chooses to reallocate money to those programs, why should that reduce the amount that charters get?
The idea behind charter schools is to free them up from most of the requirements placed on public schools, without spending additional money, and to judge them largely on whether they create educational opportunities that families are interested in pursuing.** Does that create an advantage for them? Sure. Is there anything wrong with that? Not that I can see.
There's this bizarre idea of "fairness" and a "level playing field" floating around, as if that was a goal in itself -- it's not.
(**This is why the studies that find that charter and public school students perform about on par (on state tests) miss the point. It's like saying 'Well, you can get the same nutrition from a cheeseburger from McDonalds as you can from a Taco at Taco Bell. So, there's no reason to have Taco Bells." But there is a reason -- some people prefer Taco Bells for reasons unrelated to the nutrition of the food. Similarly, some people prefer charter schools for reasons unrelated to EOG scores. That, alone, is enough reason to keep them.)
"Fairness" is a bizarre
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 14:53 — virginiadare"Fairness" is a bizarre idea? Isn't that what motivated people complaining about MYR and magnets and being assigned to a school they didn't want to go to and the eighth grade algebra controversy etc. etc. etc.? That it wasn't fair? Not to mention all the people who complain about ITB getting more than suburban schools. Seems to me it is the main reason for ALL the complaints against the system, no matter which "side" one is on.
You're missing my point...
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 15:27 — Bob_SconceOf course we care about fairness in certain contexts -- you mentioned a few of them. But, we don't care in other contexts. Is it fair that US troops in Afghnistan have the support of unmanned ariel drones while the Taliban don't? Is it fair that Walmart can sell goods at prices lower than many mom-and-pop stores can buy them? Is it fair that (In Durham, at least) food trucks don't have to provide bathrooms for their customers? Of course it's not fair, but so what? We don't care.
Similarly, we should not care if charter schools and tradtional public schools compete on a "level playing field." That's really beside the point.
Yes, I am definitely missing
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 17:05 — virginiadareYes, I am definitely missing your point. Are you saying it's okay not to be fair in competition? Well, I don't think charters should be "competing" with public schools at all. That implies someone has to lose. We know that it would be the regular public schools who would lose, because they're required to adhere to rules and regulations that charters are not, including accepting any child who comes to them, regardless of need. Proposals in the legislature now would also have charters getting even more funding, including the portion of public school financing set aside for transportation, lunches, and preschool, even though charters don't offer those services. So school districts would be losing even more funding to charters. The goal, according to what Paul Stam said he wants, is to do away with public schools, except for charters. So you believe it's perfectly okay to give charters all the advantages and it shouldn't matter if that's fair or not? It's beside the point?
The last I read, at least
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 08:29 — aacismeThe last I read, at least one of the new charter bills was requiring some transportation and lunch provision for certain students meeting certain requirements. I don't have it at my finger tips, but it was at least attempting to get charter schools providing some of these 'services' to students.
What is not fair about it?
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 19:59 — woodstockWhat is not fair about it? What is the better education experience, Raleigh Charter or the average high school in NC? Who would benefit if Raleigh Charter was no longer available to students? Does Raleigh Charter elevate the academic offering in Wake County or does it detract from them?
So...
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 18:51 — Bob_SconceI am responding about a comment that complains about charters having an 'advantage.' Why is it that everytime we hear a complaint about charters having an 'advantage,' the complainer always argues that the advantage should be taken away? I go back to my basketball analogy -- Kobe Bryant has a distinct advantage over me. Yet, I don't go around saying that his advantage should be taken away, just so I can compete.
You voice a limited view of competition. Toyota competes against Honda -- which one loses? Apple competes against Microsoft -- which one loses? In each case, doesn't the competition force each competitor to offer better and better products? True, occasionally there are losers who cannot compete. But, the point is to have iron sharpening iron. (At this point, usually somebody butts in, insulted that I dare to compare education to a mere consumer product. To them, I reply "Harvard competes against Yale -- which one loses?")
Remember, the end goal is to educate students -- having a public school system is merely a means to that end, not an end in itself. Personally, I don't share Stam's view -- I think public schools will always have a major role in US education. But, if I'm wrong, and traditional public education ends sometime in the future, I don't care as long as students are being educated.
I'm not that familiar with all the legislative proposals, so can't comment, except for this: (1) public schools lose funding to charter schools only as fast as they also lose students. The end result should be, approximately, a net wash. (2) initial bills are usually improved by the legislative process.
...
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 15:04 — SideburnsWhat is the eighth grade algebra controversy? If you are referring to the intentional low tracking of students who are academically ready for Algebra, how does that relate to your "fairness" argument?
I guess you're addressing
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 11:06 — jenmanI guess you're addressing this to me. I don't recall ever posting a lot about charters. I am generally in favor of charters--they have their issues just like everything else but I am not against them. I am in favor of at least raising the cap on them.
I don't know how those cuts affect charters, but I did tell you on another post that you've asked a really good question. I hope somebody knows the answer. My guess is that they will have to cut something somewhere. From my understanding they get a certain number of dollars per student, which can change depending on the overall budget. You suggested in your other post that maybe they could just reduce the number of students instead of having to cut TAs & custodians but I don't think it works that way. They only get the money if the student goes there.
Not addressing you per se.
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 12:44 — Dove314That note was targeted to the wider audience for all to respond. It just seems like adding "magnet like" enhancements to some additional schools is just going to further impoverish the remaining schools that have nothing and the increasing the number of charter schools isn't going to help the equation, especially given the need for budget decreases.
...
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 14:07 — SideburnsWhether a child attends a charter or traditional public school the per-pupil funding is the same. Not sure why you think charters will hurt the budget.
Actually, are they?
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 16:09 — Dove314If charters receive the overall average, then that is higher than the non-magnet, non-STEM school and represents yet another option away from the "plain vanilla" school.
So...
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:10 — Bob_SconceCharters also don't get a share of any grant money the district gets for magnets.
It seems more like you're really taking issue with the district's approach of spending more money on some students than others more than you are with how charter funding is computed. If the district said "we're giving all of our money to our charter and STEM schools, and only spending $5.00 per student elsewhere," should the charter schools be reduced to $5.00? I don't think so.
...
Wed, 04/27/2011 - 17:48 — SideburnsDo you have that same concern for our per-pupil magnet funding? If so, let's talk.
Actually
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 09:05 — Dove314Actually, in the end, the only financially "fair" way is to limit spending to an equal expenditure per student regardless of where they are at (magnet, special, charter, etc.). That include PTSA contributions which should likely go into a county wide pot and divided back to individual schools based on enrollment or some other mechanism to insure schools blessed with a rich base population aren't allowed to turn their public school into a private academy while those in a poorer area can't even provide the teacher with the colored copy ink they need to print materials. Otherwise, the "elitist" status just shifts entities.
The flip side is this means no special resources for those who need them in the interest of transparent financial "fairness". You get a base amount per student and sink or swim with it. Every school has to become a cookie cutter mold of all the other schools with no special differentiation or distinction that can't also be funded at every other like school. If one school can't fund Spanish for ES then nobody gets Spanish for ES. If not PE at one ES, then no PE at any other ES.
Is this what you foresee?
...
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 09:37 — SideburnsI find it interesting but not surprising that your post has to do with the wealth of families -- and nothing to do with the educational needs of students. I'm not worried about an "elitist" status -- as you seem to be. I'm concerned with the programs and solutions being put in place at schools.
A magnet school is just sprinkles -- it is not provding academic solutions. Sure, some children get dance, languages, computer courses, etc. -- but can those same children read at grade level?
We need to ensure we are using our resources wisely. And, IMO, spending millions on electives to entice rich kids to go to school in Raleigh is ridiculous when, at the same school, only 38% of ED kids are passing their EOGs. How do you even find time to be worried about PTA funds when this is happening?
Way to miss the point.
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 07:34 — Dove314And avoid responding to the real question in my post. Do you favor a single, cookie cutter approach to public tax dollars spent on education with a scripted set of elements at each of the ES, MS, and HS levels without variation?
...
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 08:25 — SideburnsNo, but I get very indignant when I know some schools are getting local funds to provide a handful of foreign languages (among many other electives) yet my school can't/doesn't offer any. There should be a strong baseline for all schools in academics and ensure children are being served before we begin offering extravagant electives.
So, what was your point?
The point?
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 18:17 — Dove314Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable versus what is not in terms of discrepant funding? You don't like the current allocation of resources and point to it as one extreme. I've presented the other extreme -- identical per pupil funding and programs at every ES, MS, and HS. You don't like that either. So just how flexible do you want the resource allocation to be? Note -- that question isn't directed specifically at you, it is more directed at everyone and is a significant point of contention. There will never be complete agreement but to have more consensus on this helps settle the framework for what can and can not be options for improving student achievement
Thank You Snordone and Jenman...
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 20:52 — JanisTangoyou both hit the nail on the head. I happen to be a JGE parent and personally I'm thrilled that we received the new Global Studies program, but at the same time I do understand the challenges that the schools face that were not chosen for these programs. I hope this is only the first step in solving many of the problems the 'RIM' schools deal with. It's time we stop pitting families, neighborhoods and schools against each other like the previous assignment mess did. The biggest issue JGE has been dealing with is student mobility issues. As more kids are reassigned in and out of a school the trickle down effect is many students that aren't reassigned leave as well. These families have other options (i.e. private, charter, home school, etc). This problem isn't unique to JGE, Hilburn, Baileywick, etc. Here's some statistics from JGE to highlight our student mobility issues. 30% of our 3rd-5th grade students have been at JGE for one year or less. 25% of our 4th and 5th grade students have already attended three or more schools in WCPSS. Next year we are loosing 80 students to Walnut Creek and we have another 45 that are leaving voluntarily.
45 leaving voluntarily
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 20:55 — valsparJust curious - how do you know you have 45 leaving voluntarily, 30 % 3-5 graders have been at JGE 1 year or less, how many schools the 4th and 5th graders have attended?
I think your biggest problem lies to the west - Leesville Elementary, and the "gotta be at Leesville" mindset. Their base has 1043 students in it, and 238 leave for "choice". Add back in the transfers and TCAs, there's 902 students there. You may think that's fine with a 941 capacity but Leesville Elementary has 17 trailers! That school has had trailer after trailer added for years, instead of the line moving to increase JGE's attendance zone, Hilburn's and York's too. Three underenrolled schools bordering a crowded school with too many trailers. And Prickett's not changing that.
Don't get me wrong, glad you folks received the funding, and hopefully it will help you attract more students from your base (I think it needs to be opened up to the Leesville Community to apply). But I see the same folks here damning the old board for reassigning students, then complaining about underenrolled schools with a crowded school next school over.
That is an excellent point....
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 17:41 — Bob_SconceIf you mistreat families that have the means to leave, they will. And those families are often ones that the district needs the most.
Why needed the most ?
Thu, 04/28/2011 - 22:46 — Solon77Why are these parents needed the most ? For the PTA funding ? The incremental $20k-$30k per year funding that goes to school beautification and teacher appreciation luncheons. I am not sure how this improves student achievement. So why not let these parents leave, they pay taxes and their kids do not take up a seat - can't get any better than that.
Interesting. Perhaps you
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 16:45 — jenmanInteresting. Perhaps you should tell David Ansbacher from the magnet programs about this. He argued for Daniels Middle to keep their magnet program even though a healthy population could be drawn for the school. His reason was that without the extra programs, the families would leave. This excuse was also given by parents and board members for why Broughton should keep its IB program. Other magnets have their programs for the same reason.
I've also heard magnet parents at board meetings say that if the magnet programs are diluted or eliminated then there will be a mass exodus of parents from WCPSS. So perhaps we don't need any of these parents either. They can still pay their taxes too and not take up a seat.
All of the above +
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 10:04 — Bob_SconceBecause middle-class families are the foundation of community support for the public school system. Sure, they're the ones who donate their time, talent and treasure to the schools. But, perhaps more importantly, they're the ones most likely to vote for school bonds and for the school board, and they encourage others to do so. (Since low-income people vote with far less regularity). Further, if you don't have any kids, your inclination to vote your pocketbook (i.e. against school bonds and against property tax increases) is tempered if there are kids on your street who would be negatively affected by those votes. However, if all the kids on your street are in private schools, you won't care as much.
Heck, this should be obvious considering what happened in October 2009 -- the old majority lost the support of suburban middle-class families and got booted.
Ummm
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 18:38 — magnetParent"Because middle-class families are the foundation of community support for the public school system. Sure, they're the ones who donate their time, talent and treasure to the schools."
Isn't this an argument for why you don't want to have any high-poverty schools?
Right
Fri, 04/29/2011 - 18:24 — Solon77Sure, they're the ones who donate their time, talent and treasure to the schools.
So - time, talent and treasure - and why is this ? When I went to school we did not have parents in the classroom functioning as TAs. Parental involvement in the day to day activities of the school is a clear sign of lack of broad financial support of the public school system. Stability in the teaching corp is a key ingredient to student achievement and it is difficult to make headway when you have parent volunteers rotating in and out with no training or expertise.
But, perhaps more importantly, they're the ones most likely to vote for school bonds and for the school board, and they encourage others to do so.
And this has worked so well for us ? We rank near the bottom in financial support for our schools with one of the highest per capita incomes of the state.
However, if all the kids on your street are in private schools, you won't care as much.
Did you just make this up or is are there some facts behind it. The town in MA I lived in before coming here had 20% of the students going to private schools. And yet there was never an issue in the town passing a property tax override to fund the schools. Towns next door, with lower % of students going to private schools did not support funding for the public schools. Schools deteriorated and so did the town - property values and business. There could be a lesson here. I have a number of friends inside the beltline, they send their kids to private schools and they fully support the funding of public schools. They are smart enough to realize that the educational foundation is built on public schools and they see the connection between a strong public school system and success of our community. We have a number of heated debates on different topics but one thing we all agree on is funding for the public schools.
Heck, this should be obvious considering what happened in October 2009 -- the old majority lost the support of suburban middle-class families and got booted.
Well said, we need to cater to the suburban parents - I got it. I just read a survey taken by school board members across the country. The question was - what do you see as your primary role and focus. Overwhelmingly it was to support the raising of achievement for the district. Catering to suburban parents didn't make the top 10.
Don't forget about private
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 17:22 — loriacDon't forget about private and homeschool. A whole neighborhood by me goes to the Catholic school - they were assigned to JGE, but 4 ES schools were closer. They all opted out. THis is what happens with forced social engineering.
Exactly why there are 14 schools about to be changed
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 21:36 — FSandYOUagain. When you force us many will walk. Those who can't will as soon as they can. Now we have 14 schools that need to collapse down to one track because the Head, Millberg, Gill Parent Haters Club lied to and failed us all!
begging the question
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 13:49 — loriacI think this is a good idea, but it begs the question of the purpose of magnet schools.
I agree. I'm not against
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 13:54 — jenmanI agree. I'm not against this idea, but I'm a bit unsure about it. The role of these schools and the magnets schools need to be fleshed out a bit.
I asked the question last night...
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 21:52 — raleighlauraAt the district 7 BAC meeting, I asked about the timeline for the magnet review process. I did not get a definite answer but the impression was that this should be complete this summer. My question was whether the grant schools would also be considered for magnets if they fit the stated magnet purpose better than schools who are currently magnets but who have developed low f/r student bodies. Again, no clear answer.