Wake County Schools Superintendent Tony Tata was at Barwell Road Elementary School this morning to laud the Renaissance schools for their academic success.
During a brief pep talk with teachers, Tata said preliminary test results indicate that Barwell had the highest increase in test score proficiency in the district. His remarks drew applause from the teachers.
Tata said that Barwell showed high growth and also had a 10-point increase in proficiency.
Tata asked teachers what they thought accounted for the gains. The answers he got were high expectations and strong relationships.
"I just wanted to come out and thank you for all your hard work and congratulate you for all your success," Tata said. "I’m terribly proud of each and everyone here.”
Tata also told teachers that they're dealing with they problems they heard in the past about Central Office not being geared toward helping year-round schools.
"We’re working hard in Central Office to maintain the mindset that we are a year-round school district," Tata said. "I’ve got folks back at Central Office today all primed and in a three-point stance."
Tata went on to have a press conference to talk about the start of the new school year.
Tata again focused on the preliminary test score results for the Renaissance Schools. He said that all four Renaissance Schools saw academic gains.
"I’m terribly proud of the team here because it’s one of the four Renaissance schools," Tata said. "And the gains at those schools are outstanding.”
It was noted that Barwell has a smaller enrollment this year with 100 kindergarten openings under the choice plan. With the enrollment smaller, Barwell lost seven teaching positions, including at least some of whom had gotten signing bonuses last year.
"We have growth every day." Tata said. "I can guarantee you that as the word gets out about Barwell Road Elementary that this place will be in demand.”
Comments
Growth everyday
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 17:53 — Solon77We have growth every day." Tata said.
Is he talking about population growth ?
So this means...
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:27 — bpuli9999spending more money does get results? Or is it the ipods?
Trend was up
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 20:41 — Solon77Prior to this year the three year trend at this school was up for both reading and math. So was this year's results due to the extra money and resources or was it headed that way anyway. What is surprising is the enrollment drop at Barwell for the coming year. How does Tata explain that ? Smaller class sizes, ipads, and all the extra resources and yet parents did not choose.
I've wondered about this as
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 21:54 — jenmanI've wondered about this as well. Perhaps Walnut Creek had an effect on Barwell. Barwell has extras but not as much as Walnut Creek IIRC. Another factor could be that WC is traditional and Barwell is YR. Plus, WC has really gotten a lot of buzz--much more so than the other 4 Renaissance schools.
It would be interesting to see where the students in the former Barwell base nodes chose to attend under the new choice plan.
...
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 21:22 — SideburnsHow much reassignment has occured at Barwell over the past 3 years? Having a stable school assignment certainly helps.
Stable assignment
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 17:54 — Solon77So we didn't need to spend the extra $1m and buy ipads.
...
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 17:57 — SideburnsNo, we could have just reassigned it to academic success.
Both may have helped, but...
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:37 — nriemannit was probably the principal that made the most difference.
Once upon a time, WCPSS gave me the 2010 4th and 5th grade reading and math disaggregated school performance diagnostic reports for white, black, and hispanic students (12 reports per school). These show academic growth compared to statewide norms. York, where Barefoot was at the time, showed a broader range of growth than all but one of the schools I looked at, and the rest of the schools I looked at were the district's "high performing" schools.
Of note, people voted with their feet not to attend York while Barefoot was there, and they haven't yet voted to attend Barwell like you'd hope to see. This tends to undermine the thesis that letting people vote with their feet automatically produces educationally optimal results, unless you just define an educationally optimal result tautologically as the one people want.
Well...
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:06 — Bob_SconceThe results came out months after the choice period ended. It will take some time for parents to start seeing Barwell's advantages.
Unfortunately, it appears that for 2013-2014, students will again be force-assigned to the school. We'll see if the board continues the Renaissance Program there once it's no longer needed to attract students.
Assuming the success of the school depends on the funding...
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 14:10 — nriemannwe have another reason high poverty schools are a bad idea wherever they can be avoided. The Board did not choose to deprive wealthier schools of money on a long-term basis so these schools could have more, and there is no good reason to believe it ever would have. Instead, it established a three-year program expiring after 2013-14 that used federal Race to the Top funds. Because it's easier to take someone else's money for such a program that take from your own, there is no good reason to believe it would have continued beyond that time, regardless of assigment policy.
We spend $12M a year on
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 14:48 — jenmanWe spend $12M a year on magnet schools. Money that could be spent elsewhere in the system. (I'm not suggesting getting rid of magnet schools, just making the point.)
You have a good point about not creating schools that we know will cost more, but we've got to look at all of the factors. How much did it cost to bus kids under the old diversity policy? Will we go back to boasting about our overall school scores and not make sure our low performing and disadvantaged kids are actually learning and growing academically?
What is the opportunity cost for students who are bused out of Title 1 schools? If Title 1 money is meant to target low income kids, what programs and support are they missing out on? (Of course we know there is the major issue of making sure the programs are appropriate for each child, but that's another discussion.)
It scares me when I hear people talk about the cost of higher poverty schools. It is usually the same people who were content with the old policy failing our low income and minority students. I know that you would not be satisfied to go back to that, but far too many would be. Many of us spent years trying to get WCPSS and county leaders & activists to address these issues, to no avail. They absolutely would not listen or acknowledge any negatives of the system. I find it hard to believe that the people who were in power then and still are now will actually address them this time around. It has become far too political and nobody wants to admit any of their own weaknesses. The Reps didn't when they were in control and the Dems aren't now.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the board starts moving nodes out of schools like Walnut Creek or Barwell and sending them to Cary or North Raleigh again. Will the parents complain? Will they feel empowered to speak out and demand to be heard? I hope so.
?
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 18:17 — nriemannWe spend $12M a year on magnet schools. Money that could be spent elsewhere in the system. (I'm not suggesting getting rid of magnet schools, just making the point.)
I'm fine with the point, but I don't think it undermines the notion that we should avoid high poverty schools where we can.
You have a good point about not creating schools that we know will cost more...
The point is not that high poverty, racially isolated schools cost more. I hate that argument, because it is never made per capita. The problem is not (often) that they cost more. Schools should get the money they need to succeed. The problem is that they have a hard time holding onto the extra funding they need to succeed, they rarely do hold onto it, and over the long haul and perhaps for this reason, they rarely remain successful. Much is made of depriving these kids of Title I money by busing them, but I don't believe there has ever been a review of the Title I program as a whole that has found it to be educational beneficial. (Not to say it cannot be used beneficially in some school, somewhere. I believe that does occur.)
I also hate the busing costs argument. The cost delta between the diversity program and anything else we are likely to adopt is unquantified, probably unquantifiable, and likely not very significant, particularly in terms of local funding. The same is true for the cost delta between the choice plan and whatever else we might adopt. I thought the argument was silly when the Republicans made it, and I think it's silly when GSIW makes it now with respect to the choice plan.
I do agree that no one is eager to own up to the limitations of her approach. The new Board has watered down or put the kibosh on a number of worthwhile initiatives that I support, sometimes with support from the Republicans, including the math placement policy, grading policy revisions, the equity policy, and the effectiveness review. This disappoints me greatly, although it has occurred to me that the Republicans are less zealous about these programs too now that they aren't campaigning (for school board).
I do not anticipate any meaningful return to a diversity program, though I hope to be disappointed. I doubt they will (or should) start with diversifying Walnut Creek.
Even more important
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 15:04 — Bob_SconceWill the parents complain? Will they feel empowered to speak out and demand to be heard?
And, if they do, will the board listen? Or will it take Lori Millberg's "These people just need to go where we tell them" attitude?
As to the "cost of high poverty schools" argument, well, duh. It costs money to educate poor kids. But, that's true no matter where they go to school. Under the old approach, that money wasn't being spent -- the kids were just hidden in schools all across the district, where their failure was diluted by a bunch of high-performing affluent kids.
See above...
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 18:27 — nriemannregarding the high cost of high poverty schools. I don't believe I made that argument here, and I hope I haven't made it anywhere else.
While there were—and continue to be—shortcomings in the resources devoted to educating poor kids, I don't think it's fair to say that nothing was being spent under the old approach, or to imply that some tremendous sum is being spent now. But for federal recovery money, very little extra is being spent now, and that money is going away. In prior days, some money was spent, somewhat effectively. Somewhat more money is now being spent, perhaps more effectively (we'll know soon, but I expect positive results).
Finally, to say that results for poor and minority children were hidden under the old regime seems a bit silly—the Republicans certainly found them, and it's not because they are a corps of Sherlock Holmeses.
Honestly I don't think it
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 21:31 — jenmanHonestly I don't think it was the 'Republicans' who found them. It was interested citizens and parents who started looking into the policies and found out that ED kids were not necessarily doing better when bused. The Republicans ran with it. I did like the Sherlock comment though. :D
I agree that they weren't hidden in the sense that anybody could look up those scores on the NCDPI website. But WCPSS and others sure did spread the notion that the old Policy 6200 was working wonders. I remember speaking at a board meeting in 2006 or 07, handing out a chart showing the performance of ED and NED students based on the F&R of their schools. It showed that the F&R had no correlation to performance for ED kids and that Wake's ED kids were doing worse than the state average for ED. After the meeting, one board member said to me "I really thought our ED kids were doing better than the state average".
Everybody just trusted what admin/staff was telling them. Nobody questioned it and when confronted with it, many (most? all?) stuck their heads in the sand and pretended it didn't exist. Especially if their own kids or business interests were benefitting from the policy. So no, they weren't truly hidden from people who knew the right questions to ask and where to find the relevant information, but to the vast majority they were.
You're right
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 21:45 — lferreriI agree with you. The data was available but very few people paid attention to it. Instead, a lot of people just ignored the fact that ED and minority students were not succeeding. I think we have a long way to go to see the kind of improvement we need but at least now there is more recognition of the problem. I'm glad it's now become part of the public discussion.
Ignored or accepted
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 23:00 — Solon77Ignored or accepted the fact that there are no systematic solutions to address the challenge. Sure there are isolated examples of a school success here or there after spending a boat load of money but nothing on a district level. DC poured millions and while test scores went up, partly due to cheating, they have plateaued and actually decreased a bit. And in Wake County since there is no money - what to do ? Pretty funny isn't it - Tata touts the academic success of the Renessaince schools, funding made possible by the Liberals. JT will no doubt take credit as he tours the state with the vision of #1 academically and #50 funding.
Ignored sometimes willfully
Wed, 07/11/2012 - 08:07 — lferreriThe people I spoke with did not express any of the acceptance you describe. They either had no idea how poorly ED and minority students were doing or, in some cases, did not accept the evidence even when it was shown to them. No one said that they believed the students are unable to learn, although it's possible that some of them thought that privately.
I disagree with your premise that there is no systematic way to address the challenge. I agree that there have been many examples of ineffective programs. (Read the myriad of E&R reports on ineffective programs if you want to see examples.) I believe that we have to do much more upfront work before adopting the latest programs or fads. There are successful ways to ensure that almost all students learn to read, write and do math at grade level. (I say almost because I realize that there is a small percentage of students who will always struggle.) It requires a lot of effort to find these methods and a strong will to avoid automatically adopting whatever is the latest, best advertised approach. But I honestly believe that it can be done.
Place fingers in ears, close
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 15:35 — shearertwPlace fingers in ears, close eyes and yell, "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LA LA LA LA LA LA...".
That is the liberal response to your very excellent point above.
Worse yet, they actually DO spend more money with their "solutions"...the money is just not being spent in the schools or on the kids that could use it. The extra money is spent on busing and magnet schools which we know do not produce results for ED kids.
I worry about the program
Tue, 07/10/2012 - 11:06 — jenmanI worry about the program going away now that they want to go back to the 'healthy schools' model. It will be way too easy to just bus the kids around to balance the schools and forget about the students' performance again.
The York situation was more complicated than that.
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 21:35 — raleighlauraYour comment seems to put the under-enrollment problem York faced at the time squarely in Barefoot's lap, and that's not exactly where it belongs. It was more complicated than that.
Principal Barefoot came to York in October 2008, far too late to influence enrollment that year. In 2008-09, York had 419 kids, down from 532 the year before, when we had a not well-liked principal and failed to make AYP for the 2nd year in a row. The board reassigned a bunch of kids for 08-09 so you can't hold Barefoot responsible for the big dip from 532 to 419. That was the year when the effects of being under-enrolled dropped onYork like a ton of bricks. We didn't have so many of the things we had been used to under the 532 enrollment- like Spanish, Drama, and regular field trips. I think that turned a lot of parents off. So they left when they could.
The next year was a rough one at York. Under-enrollment, left unchallenged, breeds under-enrollement. In 2009-2010, we had 380 kids in a school that had a capacity of 588 at the time, and we felt like we were starving. We were the second most under-enrolled school in Wake. Barefoot seemed to try to do things that would invite people in and connect with the community, and I think did the best she could with what we had at the time. But as you noted, York made AYP and did better than expected on our EOGs, so that was progress, and it showed in next year's enrollment.
In 2010-2011, we had 432 kids on the 20th day. That uptick was enough to get us a sense of momentum, and Barefoot did other things to try and keep our kids from only getting the bare-bones basics, like Fun Fridays where kids "chose" one of the specials (Computer Lab, Media Center, Art, PE, Music) to focus on each quarter. Barefoot left in April of 2011, and while nobody's perfect, I think she left York in a far better place than where she found it.
Just to finish off the story, I believe wholeheartedly that the STEM grant is what made York attractive in 2011-2012 and got our enrollment up last year to 501 on the 20th day, and much higher than that by the end of the year (I understand we're coming close to capacity!). Plus, everyone likes our new principal, too.
That's not what I meant
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 23:12 — nriemannI didn't mean to suggest that she drove anyone away, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. To the contrary, I meant to suggest that if producing good educational results (or the likelihood of producing them) were really rewarded in the way choice advocates suggest, people would have flocked to the schools. Unfortunately, they did not. Part of the problem is simply lack of good information. It's hard to find data on academic growth (as opposed to proficiency).
If it were only about test scores, you would be right.
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 23:23 — raleighlauraBut it is not. A school isn't just inputs into a data set, and people want more than strict teaching to the test.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant, though.
Targeted, wise spending of
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 16:52 — shearertwTargeted, wise spending of more money gets results.....
Just spending more money on current practices does not.
Allowing parents to decide with their feet how and where more money should be spent is the best way to acheive results...
...
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 18:37 — SideburnsDon't worry. The new Board majority will be spending money on busing again soon. An almost 70% F&R school is not healthy -- regardless of the academic outcomes.
Of course we have to reserve
Mon, 07/09/2012 - 12:27 — jenmanOf course we have to reserve judgment until we have a look at all the figures, but I am so thrilled that the Renaissance schools all saw academic gains. Congrats to the staff & students! Hopefully the new board will build on what worked with these schools and continue the program.