Former Wake County school board member Tom Oxholm did his best Peter Finch impersonation in a speech on school funding during Saturday's Great Schools in Wake Coalition forum.
In a speech mixed with data and fiery words, Oxholm implied that members of the school board majority are demagogues who don't know what they're talking about financially. He also threw in a New Jersey dig and explained that the move to socioeconomic diversity he helped implement in 2000 was done for financial reasons because they didn't have enough money for academic programs.
"Our assignment decision was never designed to help any particular student," Oxholm said of the board's vote in 2000. "Test scores for any one individual were not taken into account because of their school assignment and we knew it wouldn't make them any better a student. We also knew it wouldn't make them any worse of a student."
Much of Oxholm's talk revolved around Wake being underfunded compared to school districts such as Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
He said the $2,100 more per student that Chapel Hill gets in local funding would equal $300 million a year in Wake. He said that would be enough to get everyone in Wake up to grade level and to graduate. But he said that's in the pipe dream category.
Oxholm then took on the Harlem Children's Zone Project in New York City, which has been used by supporters of the board majority to argue that high-poverty schools can succeed.
Oxholm said the children in the Harlem Children's Zone are getting $21,500 a year compared to $8,000 in Wake. He said that $21,500 per student includes $5,000 per student that has to be donated annually from the private sector forever.
While the test results are showing "remarkable progress" in the Harlem's Children Zone, Oxholm said that's only looking at the 1,200 students in the charter schools and not all 10,000 kids in the zone.
Oxholm then took on the contention that savings from reducing busing would lead to more money for Southeast Raleigh high-poverty schools.
With the state controlling most of Wake's transportation funding, Oxholm said any savings would largely go back to the state.
Oxholm said Wake's share of the transportation funding, which he claimed was only $6 million a year (a number lower that what school officials have said) covers bus drivers, mechanics and repairs and maintenance. He questioned how you could cut those areas.
"Read my lips, there's no money to be saved in busing that can be applied to something else," Oxholm said. "So when you hear that, put the brakes on that rubbish. Once again it's sound bites from people who don't really understand the budget process or how funding works in North Carolina."
Moving to comparing Wake and Charlotte's funding, Oxholm said CMS has gotten $417 million more than Wake over a nine-year period. He said the improvement in test scores shows that spending money can help on certain problems. But he said it will stop helping when you don't provide the money any longer.
Oxholm said that $417 million a year would equal $45 million more a year in Wake, or $4,500 a year to tutor all 10,000 high school students below grade level. He said that isn't going to happen.
Looking at the difference in local dollars only, Oxholm said CMS spent between an average of $129 to $330 more per child per year than Wake. He said at $129 more per student per year would equal $18 million a year more in Wake.
Oxholm then moved back to how Wake's test scores rose sharply toward the goal of having 95 percent of third- through eighth-graders passing by 2003. He said that was accomplished without more money.
Oxholm said the follow up goal to extend it to 95 percent in all grade levels wasn't reached because of a lack of additional funding. (He didn't attribute any of it to how the state making the exams harder knocked down passing rates so much that the goal was practically impossible.)
Oxholm then moved to the decision that was made when he was on the school board in 2000 to switch from using racial diversity to socioeconomic diversity. He said it was done to create healthy schools.
"The assignment pattern changed from race based to socioeconomic was designed that we didn't want any bad schools," he said. "We never said that 'you know what we're going to make this student group do better and this student group may not.' That never happened. We wanted to avoid becoming like every large urban school system in America."
Oxholm said school system like South Central Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Richmond and Atlanta "have failed" and "aren't repairable" without billions of dollars.
"We're not like those other cities and I don't know about you but I don't want to be like those cities," Oxholm said. "People have been moving here to get away from those other cities. Some of those people who move here want to make us like from where they came from. I don't understand that but everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own set of facts."
The preceding remarks drew laughter.
Oxholm said that Charlotte, which is now facing the closure of schools, is in danger of becoming like Atlanta and all those other cities. He said that's coming for Wake in the future.
"I don’t blame a demagogue for believing he's the only one who knows the solution," Oxholm said to more laughter. "Demagogues always blame something. They quote facts and they absolutely believe and know they're right.
I don't blame that kind of person. But the citizens, the business community, the voters who think let’s give them a try, they may be right, they may have a better way, those folks wake up years later and wonder what happened. We need to wake up those folks now."
He said whining that other districts have more money isn't the answer. But he said they can ask county commissioners for more money as part of a new goal and if they don't reach it then they can take it away.
He said Wake will never catch up to the rest of the country in funding.
"With our expected growth we'll never have the stability of a four-school system in New Jersey, It's not going to happen," Oxholm said to laughter. "But we can have a community where we have no bad schools. We already do and we need to keep that working."
Borrowing from Finch's famous line in "Network," Oxholm closed by urging the crowd to get up out of their seats, go to the doors of the McKimmon Center, throw them open and yell "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Comments
...
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:26 — SideburnsLet me get this straight...
A former member of the Board of Education says it was cheaper to bus children than to actually address their educational needs? And the old Policy 6200 was implemented knowing it was "never designed to help any particular student"?
It's worse than I thought.
Policy 6200 was designed to
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 13:17 — jenmanPolicy 6200 was designed to keep middle class white families in the system.
And isn't it a good and
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:41 — virginiadareAnd isn't it a good and necessary thing to keep middle class white families in the system? We must have their support for public education to be successful! What possible benefit would there be to drive them away like is happening in CMS?
Sure it's a good thing. I
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 19:57 — jenmanSure it's a good thing. I just wish that people would get honest about it. Somebody else posted this, but basically it's easy for Meeker and others like him to take the moral high ground and say how awful it is that these newcomers don't share our values and don't want low income kids in their schools. Yet he ignores the fact that they are getting bused away because people like HIM don't want too many of 'them' in their schools either.
Magnets aren't about helping low income kids, all of the busing isn't about helping low income kids. Jim Goodmon isn't about the good of all the kids, he's about making sure ITB schools stay 'healthy' to keep the economic engine running.
It reminds of a recent episode of Glee when Rachel kept saying she drove away the great new singer because she just 'loved everybody so much that she didn't want somebody new coming in and changing their relationship' when in reality she didn't want somebody else to take away her spotlight. People need to start getting real about their motivations. It makes us feel really good to think that we are doing all of this to help kids who are less fortunate but it's just not the reality. The truth is too unflattering to admit.
"Jim Goodmon isn't about the
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 21:07 — danofnc"Jim Goodmon isn't about the good of all the kids, he's about making sure ITB schools stay 'healthy' to keep the economic engine running."
I've heard that same sentiment about Meeker, and a bunch of other people, too. Is there some reason besides a lot of people here saying it that I should believe it?
Meeker is more believable, I guess, since he is the actual mayor of Raleigh. The mayor of Garner is against busing simply because kids get bused into Garner schools. Does that make him a bad guy? The mayor of Rolesville wanted (and got) his own little high school...is he evil?
What percentage of Wake County residents have Raleigh addresses? Meeker is supposed to do his best to represent them all. For all intents and purposes, he is the mayor of Wake County.
I suspect that most of the business interests you claim want to prop up ITB schools actually have lots more employees who live OTB. The traffic on US1 coming from North Raleigh and Wakefield every morning would suggest that some people there work ITB. There are traffic backups every morning and afternoon that would suggest the same thing about other areas.
Did anyone complain when Meeker was helping get 540 built around North Raleigh? I'd sure like to have him working for us down here in the south so that we didn't have to pay tolls to get a connection to a road you guys got for free.
Developers built Brier Creek in an area that may as well be an island in Wake County, and people that live there complain because they don't have their own schools. Maybe they should hire the mayor of Rolesville to lobby for them...he gets things done.
The fact that "healthy schools" have helped keep property values up throughout the county seems like a good thing for every property owner here. I have family that bought a house off of Wake Forest Road a few years ago. It is small, and it wasn't cheap. The day that zones go into effect, they are likely to be upside down in their loan (depending on which zone the fall in). They are about to have their second child, and will likely want to move to a larger house to accomodate their growing family. But, they could easily be stuck.
I always thought it was a pretty good thing that the schools here weren't allowed to turn into high poverty places. I really believe that high poverty schools are bad, even though I've resigned myself to the fact that they are likely on the way here. I don't think they should be avoided at all costs, but I also think that we could keep the poverty levels in our schools at 50% or lower without the amount of busing we've had previously.
Sorry for the rant....I didn't really intend for this to be as long as it is. I just get bored sometimes with people criticizing Meeker for trying to represent Raleigh, even though they don't criticize the mayors of some of the smaller towns who do the exact same thing. I don't think Meeker should be penalized because his town is a lot bigger.
38% of total students does not = education mayor of Wake County
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 23:40 — TrailerParkGirlPoint of clarity - not everyone with a Raleigh "address" lives in Raleigh. There are actually people who live in the municipal limits of Cary, but have a Raleigh address, and there are a number of unincorporated residents with Raleigh addresses.
According to city-data - in July 2009, Raleigh had 405,791 total residents and Wake County had 897,214, making Raleigh residents 45% of total. (45% of total residents does not make someone the county mayor.)
I had the same question myself once, so created this:
I've heard that same
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 22:16 — jenmanI've heard that same sentiment about Meeker, and a bunch of other people, too. Is there some reason besides a lot of people here saying it that I should believe it?
You don't have to believe it. For several years now I've heard about how vital the diversity policy is because it's the 'goose that laid the golden egg'. I've watched as decisions have been made based on what will keep certain families in the system with little regard to how decisions negatively affect others. You're free to come up with your own opinions just as I have.
What percentage of Wake County residents have Raleigh addresses? Meeker is supposed to do his best to represent them all. For all intents and purposes, he is the mayor of Wake County.
I don't know what percentage have Raleigh addresses. A little less than half? I don't think that Meeker's responsibility is to any citizens except those of Raleigh, and I certainly don't consider any mayor of Raleigh to be the mayor of Wake County.
I suspect that most of the business interests you claim want to prop up ITB schools actually have lots more employees who live OTB. The traffic on US1 coming from North Raleigh and Wakefield every morning would suggest that some people there work ITB. There are traffic backups every morning and afternoon that would suggest the same thing about other areas.
You're right about where people live. That is a separate issue. We hear over and over again how our 'urban core' is healthy, unlike other 'urban' cities. That is the pride of the business community and they shout it from the rooftops about how wonderful our 'city' schools are. Schools in other parts of the county go unnoticed.
Did anyone complain when Meeker was helping get 540 built around North Raleigh? I'd sure like to have him working for us down here in the south so that we didn't have to pay tolls to get a connection to a road you guys got for free.
I didn't say that Meeker doesn't do good things for Raleigh.
Developers built Brier Creek in an area that may as well be an island in Wake County, and people that live there complain because they don't have their own schools. Maybe they should hire the mayor of Rolesville to lobby for them...he gets things done.
Who approved that development? Meeker and the Raleigh City Council?
The fact that "healthy schools" have helped keep property values up throughout the county seems like a good thing for every property owner here. I have family that bought a house off of Wake Forest Road a few years ago. It is small, and it wasn't cheap. The day that zones go into effect, they are likely to be upside down in their loan (depending on which zone the fall in). They are about to have their second child, and will likely want to move to a larger house to accomodate their growing family. But, they could easily be stuck.
I wouldn't say that 'healthy schools' have kept up property values throughout the county. They have kept them up or even greatly increased them in certain parts of the county but I would say that others haven't seen a benefit from the schools and some have seen negative effects. I feel for your family, but is it the school system's responsibility to increase property values for certain areas? I've heard people in Wakefield talk of having a hard time selling their houses after MYR was implemented. I don't recall anybody else caring about that. In fact, the Wakefield (or Cary, or Apex, etc) folks are generally disdained when they mention negative effects on property values. Past reassignments have had effects on property values and the ability to sell homes. Are some areas more important than others when it comes to preserving property values? Brentwood vs. Five Points? East Raleigh vs Garner? How do we decide who matters more?
I always thought it was a pretty good thing that the schools here weren't allowed to turn into high poverty places.
I used to think the same thing but I'm seeing more and more that some of those 'healthy schools' really aren't so healthy when it comes to how their students are doing. It sounds great in theory but the reality doesn't always match up.
I really believe that high poverty schools are bad, even though I've resigned myself to the fact that they are likely on the way here. I don't think they should be avoided at all costs, but I also think that we could keep the poverty levels in our schools at 50% or lower without the amount of busing we've had previously.
I generally agree with this.
Sorry for the rant....I didn't really intend for this to be as long as it is. I just get bored sometimes with people criticizing Meeker for trying to represent Raleigh, even though they don't criticize the mayors of some of the smaller towns who do the exact same thing. I don't think Meeker should be penalized because his town is a lot bigger.
I'm not criticizing Meeker for representing Raleigh, although I'd argue that he doesn't always act in the best interest of the entire city. I'm also not criticizing him because his town is bigger. What I'm criticizing Meeker and all of the really vocal critics who will slam 'newcomers' and suburbanities for is that they refuse to shine the light on themselves. Like I said, it's so easy for them to throw out insults at others while at the same ignoring their own part in all of this. Do they really think they are helping low income kids by shipping them out of ITB? Or are they more concerned that their schools not have too many of them? Or as we're hearing now--that their property values will go down? Do I think that all of those people are evil, racist monsters? No, but I think they are refusing to the face the truth of the situation because it's too uncomfortable.
How moral?
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 16:03 — SDR256You got me thinking about something Jennman. How moral is it for the mayor of a city to ship it's citizens elsewhere instead of addressing their needs personally right at home where they live? There is some sense of a lack of ownership for the responsibility that really bothers me. Mind you, EVAAS data is showing that the previous book of schools could not be understood by it's cover. These 'problem' kids are not problems in and of themselves. However, even though -or maybe especially because - he thinks they are, it is not a ticket to do the 'lemon dance' (reference from Waiting for Superman re: teachers) with students of your city. If he thinks 'they' are a 'problem', wouldn't it be better leadership/more heroic to do something productive and treat these student/Raleigh citizens as something more than so many pawns to be shuffled?
Part of the 800 lb. gorilla
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 16:37 — DrActualFactualPart of the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that Raleigh wants the income and jobs associated with all the prisons/jails they have located throughout their town but they don't want their kids to go to the same school the children of the prisoners attend. Therefore, some of the kids that have guardians in lieu of parents are quite underserved (not bashing the guardians--just the system for exporting particularly vulnerable students). Some of the kids have relocated and live near the prisons so they can visit (living with aunts/uncles/grandma while the parent is incarcerated). Sometimes the family stays once the prison term is served, sometimes they leave. Based on my observations, these kids are quite different from the norm (no fault of their own, many were abused) but they don't readily assimilate into the suburban schools--they seem more isolated. If a community has a population such as this IMO it would be better to have the kids together to work with them on their unique/similar needs rather than to pick them off like snipers and bus them out to distant schools where little or nothing is provided for mental or physical support.
Why would you think that
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 20:05 — kbrooks500Why would you think that all children with incarcerated parents are the same? Isn't that the same type of profiling people complain about with ED kids.
I have worked with many children of incarcerated parents and most fit into the school environment just fine. Many times I don't even know a child has an incarcerated parent until they tell me. It is sad when I am working with a small group of first graders, and one says my dad is in jail, and then three others say mine too. Not exactly what I want young children to bound over. I feel sorry for the children who could not fit into the school you describe, but I find more fault with the school than the students.
I didn't say the kids were
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 21:26 — DrActualFactualI didn't say the kids were the same, I said they had similar problems/issues/circumstances (parent in jail, lack of parent in home). I didn't feel that the school met their needs particularly well. I did feel sorry for them and helped as much as possible, but sorry doesn't cut it when the need is almost insurmountable. Suburban parents pitch in with time and money and countless volunteer hours but that doesn't mean that the child didn't feel out of place, or that he/she didn't feel they fit in, related to surroundings, etc.
Which school in Wake County
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 21:55 — danofncWhich school in Wake County is the "My dad's in jail" school?
Do you think perhaps the kid noticed you and everyone else talking about him, and that's why he felt out of place?
None of the parents would
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 22:33 — DrActualFactualNone of the parents would have been so crass as to belittle him by talking about him in such a manner. According to kbrooks' response there are now several schools that serve these kids, hopefully better than ours did. I'm thankful that the principal has since moved and retired and a better one has replaced her.
Whether you want to admit it
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 07:01 — danofncWhether you want to admit it or not, there is an attitude in your first post about this that says you didn't think that kid belonged in your school.
The only thing kbrooks' response shows is that your school isn't the only school that has had kids in that situation.
Do you agree with kbrooks' assertion that it was a school problem and not a kid problem? S/he said that in most situations those kids assimilate just fine.
You jumped to a lot of conclusions in your first post. I think it's very possible that you jumped to conclusions about that kid in just the same way.
I always said it was a
Thu, 10/21/2010 - 11:13 — DrActualFactualI always said it was a school problem not a kid problem.
This is one of the most
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 17:29 — danofncThis is one of the most insane posts I have ever read on this blog.
And remember, woodstock posts here quite often.
I know it sounds insane, I
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 19:07 — DrActualFactualI know it sounds insane, I wish it wasn't the truth. We had several kids in this category while my kids were in ES. Perhaps it is just a coincidence they live so close to the prison their parent was in, perhaps the schools downtown have many of the same hardship kids. It still didn't seem to serve them well to bus them out so far. The only thing I'll concede is my assumption on the part of the ITB folks because I can't actually prove that. The rest, well I've got yearbook photos, directory addresses and other parent volunteers that could easily corroborate my statement. I actually even spoke to Miss V (used to post here) in person about one of these kids during the past election campaigns.
I agree that it brings up
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 16:35 — jenmanI agree that it brings up issues of morality. It has always bothered me that we talk around the low income communities as if they don't have a say at all. It used to be that the system decided that they shouldn't be allowed to go to school with 'us'. Now it seems like, well, if we have to take you on we'll just make sure that we don't have to take 'too many' of you. What those communities and families want just flat out doesn't matter. And all the while we pat ourselves on the back claiming that we are so enlightened.
The presentation that was made at the Dist 5 (I think that's the number) mtg last night focused on how many F&R and how many black students were moving in and out of each high school. From what I understand this was presented several months ago as well. Looking through the power point and 'demographic book' from that presentation (links at http://www.wakereassignment.info), I just feel covered in 'ick'.
Board critics are praising that new study from Montgomery County and saying it's a reason for us to keep the diversity policy in place. I think it makes a far more compelling argument for building low income housing in higher wealth areas.
"I think it makes a far more
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 17:26 — danofnc"I think it makes a far more compelling argument for building low income housing in higher wealth areas."
That horse has probably already left the barn.
Most of my concern over the diversity policy (or lack thereof) centers on elementary schools, because that's what I have experience in through my kids.
I simply believe that a teacher in a class with 24 kids where only a few of them have had preschool will drown. I have a hard time believing that creating schools where it is more likely that fewer kids have had preschool is better for teachers or students. When you have a higher poverty school, I think it's rather logical that those kids are less likely to have had preschool and are therefore more likely to start out behind a lot of kids.
They aren't incapable of learning, they just haven't been taught much prior to their first day of school.
I really think we would be doing those kids a disservice by putting them in school together. I really think that teachers in that school would be anxious to get out, because they would know that the same money but an easier job awaits in other areas of the county. I really think that those schools wouldn't have very much PTA support, which is a much different form of parental involvement than making sure that your own kid does his homework.
For me, it's almost as simple as this....if WCPSS can find the money to guarantee class size and TA availability based on F&R percentages, I don't really care how we assign kids. School over 80%: 16 kids per class max. 50-79.9%: 18 kids per class max. 30-49.9%: 20 kids per class max. Under 30%: whatever max the state allows. All schools over 50% should have TA's in every K and 1st grade class, and at least a 1/2 day TA in 2nd grade.
If they could do something like that, they could assign the kids however they wanted. Smaller classes make a big difference, so I think the kids that (as a group) tend to need the most help should get them.
Couldn't it be that they
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 00:08 — danofncCouldn't it be that they think it's easier on the district, the teachers, the students, basically everyone involved, if the poverty levels in our schools are below a certain level? Isn't it at least possible that's the main driving reason?
Explosive growth made the 40% goal unwieldy, and it is now obvious that instead of trying so hard to keep it intact they should have raised the threshold to limit reassignment and busing.
I think the Wakefield/MYR thing is another myth. Lots of people say that Wakefield is woefully under-enrolled and should be converted back. There are two things I think they are ignoring. One, if there is one track two class, then the YR aspect of the school is in use. Two, we are often told about "hundreds" of families who opted out of Wakefield for a traditional school or some other option, but we aren't ever told what we'll do with those kids when they want to come back. Wakefield would immediately be massively overcrowded as a TR school.
It seems that good schools helped make this area attractive for businesses, which in turn led to stresses for the schools. People who claim the schools were outstanding often leave out the "for a big system" qualifier. But, people who claim that the system was failing are also using hyperbole.
The schools were healthy because there are a lot of good kids with involved parents in Wake County. Will it make you feel better if we end up with a few schools that have really poor performance instead of a lot of schools that are pretty good but have a few warts?
Pfft...
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 10:47 — Bob_SconceI think the Wakefield/MYR thing is another myth. Lots of people say that Wakefield is woefully under-enrolled and should be converted back. There are two things I think they are ignoring. One, if there is one track two class, then the YR aspect of the school is in use. Two, we are often told about "hundreds" of families who opted out of Wakefield for a traditional school or some other option, but we aren't ever told what we'll do with those kids when they want to come back. Wakefield would immediately be massively overcrowded as a TR school.
That's easy enough to dispell:
(1) In theory, WES could run 48 classes on a year-round schedule. It's running, at most, 34. (I think the number is actually 32, because enrollment was less than projected and they were planning to collapse another track in 2 grades, but I haven't heard, for sure, that it happened.) Traditional capacity is 36. That sounds like extra space to me.
The argument for year-round schools is based on capacity. So, the question isn't whether all 4 tracks are used; it's whether the school NEEDS to use all 4 tracks. Currently at WES, there are three grades that each have 5 classes spread over three tracks. In theory, the school could spread those classes over 4 tracks. But, doing that doesn't do a single thing with enrollment.
(2) Who has talked about "hundreds" of families leaving for a traditional calendar? IIRC from the data presented to the board last year, there were about 60 students who switched. I think the number would have been a lot higher, but the traditional calendar options were deliberately placed far away to discourage families switching. Plus, you cannot even assume that all of those families would switch back to Wakefield -- I suspect many parents would keep their kids at their existing schools to avoid the trauma of switching again.
There have been a fair number of families who left the district entirely -- Thales in Wake Forest is full of former Wakefield students. I'd be very surprised if any significant number of these students switched back just because Wakefield switched to a different calendar.
Will it make you feel better if we end up with a few schools that have really poor performance instead of a lot of schools that are pretty good but have a few warts?
Irrelevant. The important thing is how well students perform, not how well schools perform. If you focus on having a lot of "pretty good schools," then your goal is to hide poor performers in schools across the district. If your concern is improving those poor performers, then you will do things to help them instead of just hiding them.
1) Is Wakefield ES designed
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 15:11 — danofnc1) Is Wakefield ES designed with a K hall, 1st grade hall, etc? I think that is the way ES are set up. If any grade has a track 2 class, that means that the school can't handle that entire grade on a traditional calendar.
If they have 5 5th grade classes and 7 2nd grade classes, I don't think they can (or should) simply have one second grade teacher move to the 5th grade hall.
2) Is that 60 everyone that has opted out since the conversion, or just the number that left after the conversion? Either way, if WES went back traditional, it would be really close to capacity.
The comment you called irrelevant most certainly is not. People cannot sit here and talk about how using EVAAS gets kids into the proper classes with similarly-abled kids and therefore increases their performance while at the same time you are going to claim that sending kids to a school that is full of kids who are statistically more likely to struggle is irrelavent.
No...
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 15:44 — Bob_Sconce1. Classrooms are generally kept together by grade, but the halls are not assigned to individual grades.
2. The 60, IIRC, is the number of people who were assigned to WES as their base school but opted out to other WCPSS schools -- I think this was mostly traditional calendar opt-outs. I agree that if WES went back to a traditional calendar, it would be closer to its capacity than if it continued as a YR school. But, that's true of every school.
On the year-round schedule it's way under capacity. There are still classrooms that are completely unused. For 4 years, the district has wasted hundreds of thousand of dollars unnecessarily running WES on a YR calendar. Plus, a majority of the parents at the school are unhappy with the calendar.
As to your last comment, the EVAAS point has never been to get kids into classes with similarly-abled kids. It's to make sure that they're taking curriculum that will appropriately challenge them. While it's true that other kids in their classes will likely be of a similar academic standing, that's just a side-effect, not the end goal.
You can argue all day about theory, but the fact is that poor students bused to remote schools in Wake County don't perform any better than their peers at their local "high-poverty" schools. Heck, in a number of cases, they're bused to schools where they do WORSE. (e.g., F&R kids moved from Fox Rd. Elementary, where about 39% pass their EOGs to WES, where about 29% do.)
Either way, if WES went back
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 15:20 — jenmanThis really depends on the
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 16:25 — user12345This really depends on the assignment model used. It's hard to tell what the true number of students would be when there are so many kids bused in from outside the area. Well, I take that back. Somebody could go through the node document and figure out how many seats are actually needed for the Wakefield area.
Seems like your comments should be turned around ... instead of here is Wakefield and how many will fill the school it seems the process should be here is a a school and we are going to make the area as large as it takes to fill every seat even if some of the kids don't live in Wakefield .... it seems that we need to start with the assets, the school, and than fill it to the brim first and not worry about matching the neighborhood name with the school name .... with more and more financial bad news, we may need to go to MYR, shifts, etc. to postpone having to build something ...
So...
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 17:18 — Bob_SconceSo, the obvious qestion, then, is which calendar do you do that with Wakefield? Why would you fill up Wakefield on a YR calendar, when you're only filling other schools on a traditional calendar?
Personally, I think assigning a bunch of new students into WES would be a mistake -- the school is still reeling from the last set of changes the district foisted on it.
I might be swayed on the
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 10:04 — jenmanI might be swayed on the Wakefield thing if they had made any effort to use that capacity. My family asked twice to be able to go to Wakefield (our YR option was full) and we were denied because 'we're saving those spaces for future growth'. 4 years later, Wakefield ES is still underenrolled and my youngest is in 5th grade so we'd be out of there next year. Doesn't seem like my 2 kids would have inhibited their ability to deal with growth. It hurts a school when it is underenrolled. Teachers are laid off, specials seem to be negatively impacted (MOE are based on population), morale goes down, etc.
With one track 2 class, the school might technically be used year round, but it's not giving us the cost savings or the capacity that was promised by the conversions.
My Problem With Meeker Is...
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 21:39 — JanisTangothere has been so much public turmoil over school reassignments, MYR, etc for the last decade and beyond. It really appeared to escalate in the last few years. Mayor Meeker and a lot of other people including the previous board just wrote it off as a bunch of selfish, white, rich parents that didn't want 'those' kids in our school. They never had any interest in what was going on when the discontent was so high the past few years. When a group of parents organized and worked hard to get a new board elected, Mayor Meeker now wants to have a dialog and talk about 'tweaking' the things they had to have known were problems all along. It just seems very disingenuous to me!
...
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 12:56 — loriacAnd, continually state that the system is a success because there are no 'bad schools'. Also, make sure the magnets are fully funded so they get awards, so they can reference our 'award winning school system'. (It also makes a base of magnet parents who will scream loudly if anything should threaten those.) Spend $5M a year in PR so that people moving to the area believe that 'Wake County has good schools'.
It's all a sham - meanwhile, every year, thousands of kids were being cheated.
So much heart ache ... you
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 13:02 — user12345So much heart ache ... you really should find another school option before you have a heart attack ......
heartache is right
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 14:28 — loriacI find it amazing that somehow we have allowed treating low income kids as unable to learn to become institutionalized... and more are not upset about this.
I think the folks you speak
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:14 — user12345I think the folks you speak about are happy to see low taxes, have little interaction outside their neighborhood, and want to see poor kids do some tricks (e.g. make their parents volunteer) before making investments to change things. Besides their kids are in "good" schools which is all that matters to them.
maybe
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:28 — loriacI also think many thought they were doing their part by going to magnet schools 'for the diversity' (couldn't resist), and that keeping schools from going over 40% F&R was addressing student needs. The lid blew off in the last election when many people found out this wasn't true, and they were getting bused around the county for nothing more than appearances.
And now they are off the
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 18:37 — user12345And now they are off the hook and can sit behind their gates and complain ... remember >90% are happy with their school, and live near by ... few kids get bussed of the 140k and those that do end up in a "School of Excellence" vs. their neighborhood "low performing" school ....
So nothing much will be
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 18:42 — loriacSo nothing much will be different when the busing for diversity stops then. Why all the marching?
Ahh, you fell for it. The
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 20:51 — Andrew95Ahh, you fell for it. The busing only affected a small population, yes, however, the bases under the new board are expected to change dramatically for some areas, mainly SE and central Raleigh. So not only is busing no longer a factor to maintain diversity (don't be mistaken, there will still be busing, only it will accommodate for overcrowding in the suburbs, not under-enrollment in the ITB), but the bases will also change to separate areas as the majority sees fit. Our best option at this point is to create a more widespread magnet program that offers programs that would apply to everyone, not just more affluent students. This model would both increase options, and deal with those who argue that the magnet program is unfair to the disadvantaged. (I don't buy that, but compromise is the name of the game at this point in time.)
Our best option at this
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 22:38 — loriacOur best option at this point is to create a more widespread magnet program that offers programs that would apply to everyone, not just more affluent students.
Really? It would be great if every middle and high school had as many offerings that Ligon and Enloe do. Why should one school offer so much more than the others? Why do we need magnet schools? Why not just make all our schools good schools? (Do you realize how many nodes had ZERO chance of being accepted into a magnet school, until SES was eliminated as one of the factors in the 'lottery'.)
Why exactly do we need to 'maintain diversity'? What are we maintaining? Please explain your definition of diversity.
40-50% F&R. The data says
Wed, 10/20/2010 - 20:59 — Andrew9540-50% F&R. The data says that that's the safe threshold before you run into a dramatic spiral of "white flight". For more politically correct terminology, you could say "affluent flight" but they're both still accurate, at least for this generation. After the 40% mark, any student who can afford it gets out, and the graph illustrates that with a sharp drop.
Why all the effort to end it?
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 20:51 — user12345Why all the effort to end it?
It was rhetorical - you
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 22:30 — loriacIt was rhetorical - you can't have it both ways. You can't say most people are already in their neighborhood schools, but the sky will fall if we end SES busing. The reality is there are many people who are not at their neighborhood school, and who are NOT happy - reference the last election. If this weren't true, there wouldn't have been the overwhelming support for the new BOE reps. The other reality is that SES busing is not helping anyone (except Mr. Meeker who wants to bus 'those kids' out of downtown Raleigh.).
Time to move forward, things will only get more interesting.
I'm with User...
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 13:10 — gregishereApparently some of the addled right-wingers can't seem to understand things that are, um, complex. Oh life, as Mr. Kurtz said, "The horror. The horror."
I hardly think a camp full
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 20:44 — Andrew95I hardly think a camp full of head-hunting tribals in cambodia is a proper analogy for the current schoolboard, but it seems like it's moving farther and farther in that direction, eh?
Favorite movie. I appreciate the reference.
it's complex?
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 14:18 — loriacYou mean it's too hard to worry about all the kids, so let's just spread them out? Maybe they'll drop out and just go away.
No ... too poor or miserly
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:17 — user12345No ... too poor or miserly to feed them in their own schools so desperately depending on wealthy parents to provide charity .... but they hate the poor kids and want them out of their schools ...
??
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:31 — loriac????
do you have to work at being
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 16:29 — AngelaWdo you have to work at being so disgustingly prejudiced or does it come naturally?
I just love the smell of
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 13:15 — CaryCurmudgeonI just love the smell of diversity in the morning.
"and explained that the move
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 02:01 — TrailerParkGirl"and explained that the move to socioeconomic diversity he helped implement in 2000 was done for financial reasons because they didn't have enough money for academic programs."
We couldn't be expected to actually provide all students the education they need, so we just spread them around so our schools looked healthy. That way we could fly under the academic accountability radar screen and use schools as economic development tools. So, they plan on just not providing all kids with the education they need and not raising achievement or closing the gap for perpetuity? There's a brillant long-term societal strategy.
Also, then where did they find the money for magnets? (Spare the grant excuse as those are only for start-up funding. Maintaining the programs has to be sustained without grant funding.)
People did wake up years later (after the SES policy was implemented) and wondered what happened. Here's the people who woke up - people who think education systems are actually supposed to educate all students. People who realized that we were failing some our students academically and that we can no longer continue to do that. Eventually just redistributing our achievement gap, rather than closing it, will bite us in the rear and we will start to look like those other districts as our F&R and minority percentages grow and we can't hide the gap anymore. People who believe that it's not right not to give all children a decent chance at a future. Oh, and they're mad as hell.
So, when Margiotta and Tart asked for a study of whether student achievement improved due to the diversity policy, why instead of saying they "just know it is working" didn't they just say we don't need a study because we know it doesn't improve achievement, all along it was just about money and academic programs only for some and not to help student achievement?
It's ok to have bad students (not achieving) and have the biggest achievement gap in the state as long as we hide the bad students in "good schools". Also, love how they quote how expensive it is to actually educate a student, but never talk about how expensive it ends up being to not educate a student.
I couldn't have said this
Tue, 10/19/2010 - 22:13 — klanders65I couldn't have said this better myself.
Where to begin?
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 20:24 — CaryCurmudgeon