There have been a couple of new developments today in the ongoing saga of Wake County student assignment and school diversity.
One, the school system made public today documents it turned over to the U.S. Education Department that says there is no evidence that any of their decisions about student assignment policies or procedures were "motivated by racial animus." I'll go more into the documents, part of the ongoing federal civil rights probe, in a later post.
Two, the Great Schools in Wake Coalition and the N.C. Justice Center released a new report today that's critical of the Wake School Choice Plan. They say the plan, developed by Michael Alves, doesn't promote student achievement highly enough and lacks clear policies to ensure all schools are high-performing.
The report is concerned that the focus on proximity in the feeder patterns under the Alves plan means it will be hard to maintain high performance in every school unless Wake were to break those feeder patterns in some cases.
"In order to avoid the proliferation of low performing schools, achievement for all students must become a much higher priority in student assignment," according to the report.
"To support high achievement, a choice system whose rules strongly encourage parents to favor their neighborhood school, like the Wake School Choice plan, must also find a way to ensure that those rules do not result in the creation of new low performing schools." the report later says.
The report also questions the need to abandon the current node-based model in favor of a controlled-choice plan. They point to how 94.5 percent of parents in the calendar survey said they were satisfied with their child's school assignment.
"Why would we jettison our current system to placate just 5 percent of parents?" the report asks. "We believe that the Wake County Public Schools’ Student Assignment staff has the knowledge, talent and good judgment needed to fine tune our current node-based system and create greater stability in assignment. And by augmenting our magnet program, we can extend choice to more students. In sum, we already have a modified choice plan with great potential to be enhanced for the benefit of all.”
GSIW and the Justice Center push for the school board to maintain a commitment to balanced schools.
"If the Wake School Choice plan or similar controlled choice plan is ultimately accepted as the only politically palatable compromise for our current situation, then strict guidelines must be in place in order for such a plan to succeed," the report says. "Foremost among these is a bedrock commitment to having no schools with high concentrations of low achieving students. Whatever student assignment plan the Board adopts, it must consciously and aggressively balance schools so that countywide resources are not drained by high poverty, low performing schools.
If the Board of Education bows to the loud voices of the privileged few and builds extra capacity in the highly desired, low poverty areas of the county, there will be no way to balance poverty or achievement levels across all schools. We will follow Charlotte’s fate, even though we have the opportunity not to repeat their mistakes."
UPDATE
Click here to read Wake's response letter to OCR.

Comments
...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 17:56 — SideburnsLet the in-fighting begin.
In my opinion, this was a bad move by GSIW. Even if they didn't support the Alves plan, they would have been better off not announcing it. Tata's task force is handling the matter now anyways.
Brannon would have been
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:28 — woodstockBrannon would have been better off supporting the path Tedesco's committee was on... until Goldman cut him off at the knees.
No kidding
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 22:32 — FSandYOUWatching Brannon fight with herself over what she caused and now still doesn't like should be classic.
Actually, I thought that
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 19:38 — DrActualFactualActually, I thought that GSIW has moved in lock-step with WEP up to this point so I was a bit surprised that they are skeptical of the Alves plan. Since many of these special interest group/stakeholders met with Supt. Tata in the past regarding some of these issues I think it is helpful for the public at large to know if they have changed their views. The NC Justice center review raises concerns that many of the folks on both sides have with trying to institute a controlled-choice plan. It was good to watch Mr. Tata's interview this morning on WRAL and know that he is looking at many different models and renditions of each.
Anyone...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:10 — bpuli9999(who puts aside their patriotism to the party line and thinks about it) would have come to the same conclusion. There is no difference between the Alves plan and JT's plan.
Even the name "controlled choice" does not make any sense. It almost like Henry Ford's "you can have it (the model t) in any color you want as long as it is black". JT's plan is the exact same.
I was also very surprised to
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:30 — jenmanI was also very surprised to see GSIW not fall in lock step with the Alves plan. I kept waiting for the song and dance to begin. I couldn't imagine how on earth they could support the Alves plan but I really thought they'd find some way to do so.
Thanks for mentioning the Tata interview on WRAL--I'll have to check it out. I never watch WRAL news so I didn't know anything about it.
Interesting....
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 16:38 — Bob_SconceThe GSIW/NC Justice plan has the following priorities, in the following order:
They complain that proximity is the main factor in the Alves plan, but it doesn't even make their top 5. Have they missed an election?
Controlled choice...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 16:35 — bpuli9999is an oxymoron. It is the original JT "communit zones" plan with a new name. And CC plan will not scale to WCPSS - there are just too many students for that to work. This plan will have the same end-results the community zones plan would (and still could, I suppose) have.
Any plan that puts proximity over achievement and diversity will be bad for the system and society overall.
What would be bad for
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 18:20 — eddie2What would be bad for society overall would to continue with a system that produces so many dropouts and poorly educated graduates. Or change to a system that is different in appearance but essentially the same.
So tell me...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:11 — bpuli9999how the original JT community zones plan or the controlled choice plan (as it has been proposed) would help reduce dropouts overall (not in particular schools) in the system? Maybe I missed it when this was proposed.
Less time on buses, more
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 18:46 — eddie2Less time on buses, more time in school. Reviews of under-chosen schools, and corrective action for them.
Well...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 16:48 — Bob_SconceI think you're conflating two different uses of 'achievement.' One is (A) the idea that the district should promote student achievement. The other is (B) the idea of using a student's achievement in the decision about what school he/she will go to. It's important to understand that when people say "I don't think we should use student achievement as part of the controlled choice plan," they're talking about (B), not (A) -- it's not a statement saying that the district shouldn't promote student achievement.
Personally, I think (B) is a potential disaster. The last thing you want to do is to create incentives for students not to perform well. (That's on top of the question of whether (B) would do any good whatsoever.)
A = promote excellent
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 18:09 — eddie2A = promote excellent achievement
B = promote achievement balance
B is the GSIW plan, either by continuing the node system and balancing achievement, or modifying the Alves plan to balance achievement as the first priority, then provide choices as lower priorities. In either case, the overall result of (B) would be equivalent to the old diversity plan, inadequate programs for at-risk kids at every school, rather than (A) excellent programs for them at a few schools plus excellent programs for mainstream and gifted kids at most schools.
Achievement-based assignment
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 17:30 — CaryCurmudgeonAchievement-based assignment is an even more effective way of hiding our problem students than SES busing. Taken to the fullest extent, assigning students based on their achievement levels (or potential, in the case of kindergartners) allows WCPSS to perpetrate the illusions of "no bad schools in Wake County" without doing a thing to help struggling students -- except put them on a bus so they can sit near students who are doing better.
Re: your other post here, I too am stunned that GWIS and Co. would leave proximity completely off their list of assignment criteria. Take a look at the table in WCPSS's response comparing busing distance and academic performance, very enlightening. See pages 31-32.
Am I to understand...
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:14 — bpuli9999that you are against busing (because that is what it boils down to - assignment is busing) because of achievement or diversity or any other reason. You want kids to go to the closest school - no exceptions - is that it?
Gosh, nothing gets by you!
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:46 — CaryCurmudgeonGosh, nothing gets by you! Yes, I am against forced busing.
Why don't
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:27 — bpuli9999you tell us what you are for? And answer the question instead of side-stepping with irrelevant comments.
Busing distances
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 20:24 — Solon77Take a look at the table in WCPSS's response comparing busing distance and academic performance, very enlightening. See pages 31-32.
Yes it is interesting. Due to the small number of students, a handful can make a significant difference in the %. So it would say that 2-5 miles would be the sweat spot - not exactly the neighborhood school.
Then look at the Magnet vs Non-magnet, where non magnet outperform the magnet, again suggesting that the neighborhood school may not be the optimum choice.
One aspect of JT's white paper that did excite me was his proposal to provide SES and low achieving students the opportunity to go to any school in the district. Basically offering to those who want a different environment a real opportunity for choice. Hopefully the Tata plan will offer this choice.
Basically offering to
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:26 — jenmanBasically offering to those who want a different environment a real opportunity for choice. Hopefully the Tata plan will offer this choice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree and have mentioned this before. I know there are people in SE Raleigh (and other higher poverty areas) who want their kids to go to school near home and I know there are those who are glad that their children are bused farther away to a more affluent school. We should give them that choice. I don't think it's feasible to give families the choice to go to any school in the district, but giving all families real choices is a good thing.
Opportunity to move schools
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:08 — SatchHHFor your suggestion to work, schools (the desirable ones - high performing ones) would need to set aside seats for students to come in from outside their assigned schools. In these types of systems, the desirable schools are ususally full and there are not spots for folks who want in from other areas. Politically, keeping space open in a desirable school doesn't last long because the neighborhood folks will vote in those who will not save the spots. Thus, though it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work in practice. It just allows for a system for students to be locked out of desirable schools unless their families can afford the nearby real estate.
Sounds good in theory
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:31 — Solon77I agree it sounds good in theory, which is why I was disappointed that JT did not voluntarily disclose how it would be implemented. The "good" schools would be full and to set aside seats for outside of the neighborhood students would cause an uproar. Maybe it was going to be hidden behind the assignment algorithm. We will never know.
Theory --
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:18 — bpuli9999that was JT's plan and that is the controlled choice plan. Neither one of them is going to work in practice.
If you go look at Great
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:57 — DrActualFactualIf you go look at Great Schools reviews on the Cambridge, MA plan and the Cambridge District's website to see how it is administered and how well(not well) received it is in Cambridge, you should deduce it is not likely to work here. Great Schools ratings of the Cambridge schools rank 2 ES as 3's (low) several as 5's (mid-range) and 2 as 8's (based on my recall of looking at it 3 weeks ago to check scores.) The average overall rating was 5. Mind you, this cost $29,000+ with 60% going to instructional costs, so about $17,500 per student. There are Wake residents that would vote to increase per pupil expenditures but I don't think we'd ever reach that level of funding--nor do I think it was even a good idea for Cambridge to spend that much because the plan was so heavy on control that parents didn't care for it much. And worst of all, look at the ranking of the schools and the fact that they still have "under-chosen" schools in operation. If you can't fix under-chosen schools in a system that small over many years, what chance of success would Wake have.
If you can't
Wed, 03/30/2011 - 14:43 — NWRaleighMomIf you can't fix under-chosen schools in a system that small over many years, what chance of success would Wake have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None.
Well...
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:07 — Bob_SconceDo we have the exhibit 71 to which that relates? p. 31-32 don't include the number of students bussed.
The worst part of the busing for me has always been the fact that was really forced on the families. As the PPP poll showed in 2009, that "I know what's best for you" attitude was not popular among the people bused.
The exhibits referenced in
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:51 — KeungHui (author)The exhibits referenced in the report are part of the flash drive that I got today. I'm posting several of them in the morning in connection with Wednesday's print story.
Possibly the reference is to
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:10 — CaryCurmudgeonPossibly the reference is to the numbers released in '09 by Chuck Dulaney that said xx percent of students go to school less than xx miles from their home. But that data was based on straight-line distance, whereas this table is titled "By length of bus commute to base school" so the old distribution wouldn't hold.
I must have missed that,
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 20:57 — CaryCurmudgeonI must have missed that, where to the list the number of students within each mileage range?
They don't per se
Tue, 03/29/2011 - 21:36 — Solon77They don't per se, but if you look at the wcpss distance analysis and take 31% (page 30 of OCR) in the 5-10 mile range and 56% >10 miles it gives an approximation of the number of students. It is not like tens of thousands of students. To increase Black males graduation rates by 10 pts all you have to do is get 200 students over the finish line, not thousands.