The Wake Education Partnership is focusing on the lack of trust among school board members in this week's review of happenings in the school district.
In the latest issue of In Context, the WEP's weekly e-newsletter, the lead item is on the heated debate Tuesday between majority and minority board members on the voluntary desegregation resolution.
The WEP says "a school board committee is the proper place to hash out the details" of how to blend the desegregation resolution and the community-based schools resolution.
"But board minority members have come to distrust that process," the WEP writes. "They have repeatedly and ferociously complained that no major decisions have come through committee since the new five-member majority took control Dec. 1.
Out of time, out of trust and out of ideas on how to compromise, the board approved the resolution on a 5-4 vote."
Comments
Let's see. We have a
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:27 — shearertwLet's see.
We have a non-profit org that is supposed to be free of partison politics constantly spewing out slanted, biased press releases and white papers promoting a single-minded view point. If the were a true "partner", they'd be working with the new board to help them best implement the new strategy.
The WEP is who cannot be trusted. They're like a bunch of backstabbing school girls.
Honestly?
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:42 — supportwcpssThe WEP should flip flop back and forth on their views depending on the latest of whims of the current board?
Seriously?
Actually, the WEP shouldn't
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:58 — shearertwActually, the WEP shouldn't have "views". That's the point. They should be supportive of the system. Any fews and opinions they have should be communicated with the BOE directly, not in backstabbing, biased press releases. If they want to have public "views" they need to go be a PAC, not a NFP.
Eehh...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:19 — Bob_SconceGreat article about what 501(c)(3)s can and can't do:
http://bit.ly/7g8xzu
Thanks Bob. Informative.
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 12:42 — shearertwThanks Bob. Informative. I should have been more clear that I was sharing an opinion of what I think they should be doing, not what they can or can't do.
The name Wake Education Partnership just throughs me a little as I don't see them being very good partners for education. Perhaps they should change their name to Wake Business Partnership or Wake Diversity Advocates or something like that.
Before the new board came along, I thought they were really close partners with WCPSS. I guess now that the new BOE is not doing their dirty work, they're not interested in the partnership thing any more. Based on the article you sent, that's certainly well within their right, just not a productive "patnership" from my point of view.
No, they will continue to do
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:47 — CaryCurmudgeonNo, they will continue to do what their donors and board tell them to do.
Off topic--The article today
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:24 — DrActualFactualOff topic--The article today by Lynn Bonner on Better Teachers, Better Students could be something all stakeholders should grab ahold of and support for overall student achievement goals. This article and research speaks to the deficits Wake students face. It was startling to see the data equated in terms of "days lost" (of instruction I guess) based on an experienced teacher vs. a rookie. The article also referenced training programs that could be pursued to make improvements. I hope someone from the achievement committee or even WEP looks more closely at this.
Well
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:08 — supportwcpssJoe, when you become a paid employee of WSCA, I expect WSCA to help support the direction of the Board no matter what their views are at the time.
Really, still acting like a
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:31 — CaryCurmudgeonReally, still acting like a two-year old and trying to change the subject when you don't have a good answer? If you can't accept that some people donate their time and money toward helping their community without expecting some kind of personal kickback, then I really have to wonder what your motivation is and what kickback you are expecting.
WEP does what their donors and board tell them to do. They are a lobbying and PR firm.
Cange the subject?
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 10:43 — supportwcpssHow did I do that? I was simply asking if WSCA should function the same way as you profess WEP should function. I think that is very related.
And I believe we have a former member indicating you wanted to get paid for your efforts. Is that not true?
Make that comparison when
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 11:17 — CaryCurmudgeonMake that comparison when WSCA gets $1M in funding, then it might mean something. Until then you are simply using unfounded accusations of a disgruntled former member to divert attention from the matter at hand, which is that WEP represents no one other than the businesses that fund and lead them, and their core mission is to "sell" the wonderfulness of our school system.
...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:11 — SideburnsDisgruntled? LOL
Do you really want me to prove these "accusations"? Or would you prefer to tell the truth yourself?
Allison, Do you not
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 13:59 — CaryCurmudgeonAllison,
Do you not realize how your continued attempts to undermine WSCA leaders since you were asked to leave only serve to demonstrate to others how you put your own grudges ahead of the group's goals (which have not changed)? I already have a job, I want no compensation for the time I spend on schools issues.
...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 16:49 — SideburnsYou might want to check with the other 2/3 of your leadership then. One of them told me otherwise. Perhaps you're not aware of our correspondence and you are being left out of the loop?
You can keep on denying it though. It makes me giggle.
Non-partisan doesn't mean
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 09:41 — danofncNon-partisan doesn't mean you can't have an opinion of what's best. WEP isn't a Wake County employee, so they can make up their own mind.
I heard a very good presentation from Donna Hargens explaining the merits of Wake Wednesdays, but she will likely be the interim superintendent when it is dismantled. If you could ask her privately, she would likely tell you that WW are good for the district.
So...
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 23:43 — Bob_SconceIf they're a good thing (which I suspect they are), then the district ought to be able to find a way to integrate them without inconveniencing every single family in the district.
The district needs to balance educational improvements against the effect that the means to achieving that improvement will have on families. Unfortunately, "Wacky Wednesdays" failed that balancing test -- they inconvenienced tens of thousands of families without convincing those families that the benefits were worth the trouble. And, that failure led, in part, to this last election.
Only convenient improvements
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 08:37 — Dove314This makes me laugh -- all the talk about the need to improve student achievement but apparently those efforts should be limited to those select ways that don't inconvenience any parents.
Teachers getting together to disucss best practices is great BUT not if it inconveniences parents. Parents put forth that EVAAS is great and they want it used but teachers need to figure such new mandated softwares out in a way that doesn't inconvenience parents' schedules.
Can hardly wait until the discussion gets broadened to insuring student achievement is required to not cost much either.
So..
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 08:57 — Bob_SconceI didn't say "any" parents -- this inconvenienced around 140,000 parents. And, for many of them, it wasn't just a minor inconvenience.
You cannot reasonably assert that PLTs justify any inconvenience to parents. What if they required, say, having school start at 3:00 am?
Parents accept inconveniences from their kids' schools all the time, usually without complaint. But, Wacky Wednesdays took them to a breaking point.
Got Hyperbole?
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 10:44 — chaboardthis inconvenienced around 140,000 parents
Where on earth did you pull THAT number from? Isn't that roughly the number of kids in the system....are you saying exactly one parent was inconvenienced for every kid?
That number is WAY too large....parents of most kids saw no appeciable inconvenience. That's not to downplay the degree that some were...but no need to exaggerate.
In fact, my complaint with the new board's elimination of WW despite not really caring either way whether we have them is the same as my primary complaint on EVERYTHING this new board has done - the complete and total disregard for ANY process of gathering, looking at and factoring data into their decisions.
The one thing this new majority has made clear is that they ABHOR the very idea of data-driven decision-making - and the elimination of WW wasa a perfect example. They did not even make a cursory attempt to quantify the inconvenience, costs OR benefits. None of those things mattered at all.
So..
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 12:24 — Bob_SconceYes, I assumed, on average, 2 parents and 2 kids per family. I recognize that it's not exact -- some familes only have one parent, and some only have 1 child, or more than 2. But, to a first approximation, it seems about right. And, I wasn't trying to look at net effect, only the number of parents who had some, even tiny, inconvenience. But, regardless of the number, it's cleary affected a large number of parents. It's also clear that many of the affected parents were unhappy about the change.
If you recall, Wacky Wednesdays were instituted extremely late in the schedule with very little public input -- June 16th, if my reading of board minutes is right. That was just a couple of weeks before they were to go into effect. Heck, school zone signs weren't changed until mid-way through the school year. If anything, stopping them was just an acknowledgement that the previous board had rushed into PLTs, and that they needed to be thought through better.
Not so fast
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 19:22 — danofnc" If anything, stopping them was just an acknowledgement that the
previous board had rushed into PLTs, and that they needed to be thought
through better."
If this new board stopped everything that hadn't been thought through well enough, they wouldn't have done very many of the things that they have done.
They didn't gauge the effectiveness, they didn't offer any rescheduling options, they didn't do anything but fulfill a promise made on the campaign trail to a bunch of parents who don't want school to be an inconvenience at all on their lives.
They didn't take a split second to ask anyone involved if PLTs might just be worth the inconvenience.
So...
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 10:31 — Bob_SconceSuppose, for example, that the previous board had decided to start school at 3:30 a.m., and the current board had decided to move the time back to the traditional time. Would you be complaining that the new board didn't gauge the effectiveness of a 3:30 a.m. start time? That it didn't do enough study? That it needed to let another year go by with the 3:30 a.m. so it could investigate and make an informed decision?
Of course not. The proper reaction would have been "the previous board had its collective head up its collective butt when it decided to do this. Let's undo it and then see if we can find another way to reach their goals without such a dramatic change." The decision to do away with Wacky Wednesdays is justified on the same logic, even if the change wasn't as stark.
Apples and oranges Bob, and
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 10:56 — magnetParentApples and oranges Bob, and you know that.
Nothing turns me off of a discussion on this blog more than when someone on one side or the other interjects a ridiculous example to steer away from the actual concern.
Are you saying that PLTs are as dumb as 3:30am starts? One has potential merit and one doesn't and you know that. PLTs deserve a more serious discussion, not a ridiculous counterpoint. PLTs did provide benefit to some in the collective system (ie teachers and students), even if it was not beneficial to some of the parents. PLTs deserved a little more research by the new board to understand what its benefits were and if they are taken away, what can be done to replace that loss. They did not do their due diligence in this decision.
No...
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 11:21 — Bob_SconceI took a deliberately extreme position to point out the fallacy in Dan's argument -- you don't need to do this data-driven assessment of every project to know whether a project should be continued or not. Sometimes, it's just obvious.
I suggest that it's still obvious in this case, even though it's a somewhat closer call than my 3:00 am example. I don't want the board going around gathering input, reassessing, and so on and either shortening the amount of notice parents get or likely even delaying so long that Wacky Wednesdays are in place for another year.
WWs were sprung on parents with no advance warning, very late in the game. The current board righted that wrong and directed the administration to find other ways to get the PLT benefits. Dropping WWs early meant that parents got a LOT more notice about what the weekly schedule will look like than the previous board provided.
Obvious to who? The
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 11:49 — magnetParentObvious to who? The parents?
What about the teachers? The new board should have at least tried to understand what they were taking away from them before making this decision. This act of shoot first ask questions later is what I have a problem with. The decision to enact WW last year was a result of research and due diligence. They expiremented at a couple of schools prior to making it a county wide mandate. It was not a last minute idea that they came up with on a whim. The decision to take it away was shooting from the hip.
I am all for parental input in their decision making process, but when it supercedes any research or input from those closer to the subject, they are asking for trouble further down the line. The parents are going to expect to get everything they ask for, and only have their own kids best interest in mind. This is a dangerous precedent to set.
I think you have the cart
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 17:19 — woodstockI think you have the cart before the horse. Nothing has been taken away from teachers. PLTs still meet on Wednesday afternoons. By next school year I will be shocked it there is not a new approach to PLTs in place. The new BoE majority members have stated on numerous occasions that they recognize the value of PLTs, but they must find a better way to implement them.
You said the PLTs were put into place after "research and due diligence." Well, I may agree that PLTs as a concept may have been the result of research, but there sure was not any due diligence in terms of how they were implemented. It was a good idea poorly executed.
"Dropping WWs early meant
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 11:44 — danofnc"Dropping WWs early meant that parents got a LOT more notice about what
the weekly schedule will look like than the previous board provided."
Except for the "March 18th...wait..April 8th....hold it....April 16th" notification date for magnet/calendar/track notifications, and the "maybe, maybe not, let's squeeze blood from a turnip and find $750,000 under a rock, and if we can't then this is the final option" unknown bell schedule we are currently facing for next year, you're absolutely right.
Here's a press release announcing the approval of the PLT schedule adjustment from last year:
http://www.wcpss.net/news/2009_march31_time_approved/
If you'll notice, you'll see that it was dated March 31, 2009. Last year at this time, I knew what track my daughter would be on in her newly-assigned YR school. I knew what time the bell were going to ring. I don't know any of that for sure for my son, who will begin K in August (or July, maybe September...who knows).
The WW program was implemented, and since I haven't heard of a bunch of kids being left at school every Wednesday, parents must have adjusted. Since all of that had already happened, why not assess the effectiveness of the program before scrapping it?
Really?
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 12:02 — Bob_SconceI don't recall seeing that in March. I do recall seeing the board approving the policy in June. In either case, it was definitely sprung on parents with far less public discussion than we're getting with abandoning them. There's a March 25th announcement about the recommendations from the time committee, and they were approved by the board on March 31st.
I'm with you on the delays in knowing where and when kids will be going next school year. The current board needs to do a better job of giving parents advance notice. I cut them some slack for this year because by starting in December, they were already late for making changes.
Parents have adjusted for the most part, but there are still students who are left at school on Wednesdays.
I don't think the program is scrapped -- it's going on hiatus while the administration considers how to better implement it.
...
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 20:13 — SideburnsIf PLTs are worth the inconvenience, why weren't Fridays considered? I think many more parents would buy in to Wacky Fridays instead of Wednesdays. But, Lanane called the possibility of early-release on Fridays a "deal breaker" because she said it wouldn't be fair for teachers to watch their students leave early every Friday. If this planning time is so vital, teachers would support it regardless of what day it is. Right?
Do you guys honestly think
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 20:41 — danofncDo you guys honestly think that every single thing that happens should harm teachers?
Is there nothing at all that is worth actually doing something that affects parents?
For a group that makes such a fuss about the importance of "engaged parents" and what not, you sure are picky about when and where you're willing to be engaged.
I keep hearing teachers are
Wed, 04/14/2010 - 17:22 — woodstockI keep hearing teachers are professional (they are in my book) but they -- or at least their representatives -- often act like they are hourly employees.
...
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 20:49 — SideburnsHarm teachers? Wha....?
Wednesdays are safe but Fridays do harm?
I thought this was about providing necessary planning time. Fridays, in my opinion, would have been a good compromise.
I guarantee you that if they
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 21:13 — danofncI guarantee you that if they had made it Friday you'd still be complaining.
The teachers are still pretty much guaranteed to stay later than the time they normally leave on PLT days. Is it really "compromise" to tell them that they are going to stay later than usual EVERY FRIDAY just to get parents to agree to doing something that would improve student achievement?
For WW, a student achievement initiative, you want compromise, study, advanced planning, etc. For a district-wide reassignment you only need a resolution, a promise, and a fundraiser in charge of a plan. To change a bell schedule to save millions, it's better to study, suggest reassignments, or find 3/4 of a million dollars (in an already $40 million short budget) than to ask parents to compromise.
That all makes a lot of sense.
Asking for compromise?
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 10:36 — Bob_SconceThat never happened here. Instead, the previous school board told parents, "thou shalt compromise." And they did it under a month before the start of the school year.
I don't know how you could call that 'compromise' -- compromise is "I give up something if you agree to give up something." Parents weren't even notified until just because the whole thing started, let alone consulted.
...
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 21:29 — SideburnsGuarantee? You don't even know me. How can you make such a claim?
The fact that teachers stay later on any day is irrelevant to the Wacky Wednesday conversation. Early release Wednesdays don't make a hill of beans difference to me and my children. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it inconvenient for working parents? Absolutely. Does it personally affect me other than going to carpool earlier? No. I just see the common sense in placing this time on Friday.
High School
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 22:59 — Dove314In addition to the concerns raised by Dan below, many HS have athletics and other school events on Thursdays and Fridays which would also interfere with having scheduled the PLT's on those days.
Why is it ridiculous? The
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 22:37 — danofncWhy is it ridiculous?
The district felt that PLTs were important. They felt that it was necessary to adjust the schedule one day a week to make room for PLTs, so that teachers would have time to make the meetings worthwhile.
If you make it a Friday, you're basically telling teachers that their time means nothing. Everyone else gets a long weekend, teachers get a meeting every Friday afternoon. That isn't compromise.
Is it really inconvenient for working parents? I could see it being inconvenient if parents just happened to work a schedule that allowed them to be at carpool or the bus at the right time, but I'd imagine that most working parents already arrange after-school care. An extra hour a week isn't really that big of a deal, is it?
Dealing with that extra hour a week of "inconvenience" is the compromise that would show that parents were really interested in student achievement and not just their own individual interests cleverly disguised as broader concern.
...
Mon, 04/12/2010 - 06:52 — SideburnsI disagree.
I think the "data driven"
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 11:53 — user12345I think the "data driven" statements might be a WSCA invention and not part of the new board's DNA. They have certain actions their donors demanded and those things need to get done witthout the delay of collecting and analyzing data.
Wake Wednesdays
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 22:26 — stepbystepI like Wake Wednesdays for lots of reasons:
1. I have seen positive results in our school throughout the year--teachers looking at data TOGETHER and making instructional adjustments accordingly. I was glad WCPSS took such a bold step to address student achievement directly.
2. Prior to Wake Wednesdays, our school found time during the school day to meet as PLT teams. Talk about wacky! Trying to get coverage and rearrange the school day schedule so a team could meet TOGETHER resulted in much lower quality instructional time for the students whose teachers were involved those particular days. With a non-instuctional, cross-county consistent time, there are also opportunities for multiple teams to meet and for lone-subject teachers to meet with others across the school system.
3. This year has been such a relief to have a consistent schedule all week long. Ten minute longer days makes the school day even more productive, and one hour less on Wednesdays is no loss because it is consistent, and our school planned accordingly.
4. I enjoy having my children get home an hour earlier once a week since we are on the third busing tier.
5. My children appreciated a small break mid-week.
Other thoughts:
I'm curious to see if there will be ways to tell if and how PLTs made a difference by the end of the school year.
For those who complain about additional child care costs with early release days, late start days, etc., remember that nowhere in the mission of WCPSS does it say that it is the responsbility of the school system to provide free or even convenient child care for families. The mission of the school system is to educate children. Place the responsibility for child care where it lies--on families!
My wife appreciated the
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 12:06 — user12345My wife appreciated the training she received during PLC time. I thinkDel
nowhere in the mission of
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 08:39 — Bob_SconceFirst of all, here's the mission, from the website:
If the standard is "if it's not in the mission, then the district doesn't have to do it," then I suggest that the district also doesn't need to provide transportation to/from school, school lunches, football stadiums, etc...
Under that standard, the district could start school at 3 am, and people should just suck it up -- after all, the district doesn't have to provide "convenient child care."
Parents are an important stakeholder in the schools. Their cooperation can make the district's job easier or harder. Further, they're the main voters in school board elections. The district antagonizes them at its peril.
different angle
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 15:11 — stepbystepYou're right, the mission has limited language. What I should have said is to weigh decisions against whether they support student achievement. PLTs: Absolutely! Many decisions within the school system will inevitably conflict with parental convenience. Especially with continuing budget cuts and more still to come, looking at decisions through the lens of student achievement seems more important than ever. The list is growing of BOE votes that cost money now or will later and don't speak to student achievement.
Funny
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 07:27 — danofncJT hasn't shown anything that should convince you that his assignment plan is going to improve achievement, but you support that, don't you? I guarantee you that many of the people you say "weren't convinced" that WW were worth the trouble are sitting home right now just waiting for the day that JT announces his new assignment plan. There was a lot more information available about WW than there is about that plan.
The idea is that PLTs are important enough that they want all teachers to be able to attend. In order to ensure that, they carved out an hour on Wednesday afternoon, instead of tacking it onto the end of a day or doing it early in the morning, which would likely have led to decreased attendance.
Personally, I think it sends a message to teachers that the district wants PLTs to be used effectively and also that the district respects the demands on teacher's time.
Some people would have been against it simply because it's different, even if they were promised whiter teeth and twenty pounds of weight loss. For me, it gave me a day to schedule doctor and dentist appointments without having to take my daughter out of school.
Curious
Fri, 04/09/2010 - 22:57 — TrailerParkGirlWas it specifically on the merits of doing PLTs via the Wake Wednesday schedule or was it on the merits of PLTs?
It was on the merits of PLTs
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 07:13 — danofncIt was on the merits of PLTs and also on the reasoning behind the choice to implement WW.
What
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 17:04 — TrailerParkGirlWhat was the reasoning to implement WW? I'd like to understand because there were schools doing PLTs pre-WW, so am trying to understand specifically what (from Donna Hargens perspective) they thought was not working about the way those schools were doing them. Also, did she mention any other options considered and then rejected in favor of WW?
TPG … I understood WW was
Sun, 04/11/2010 - 12:28 — user12345TPG … I understood WW was a time to allow teachers to learn and exchange ideas. Most office workers do not understand the isolation teachers feel being in a classroom all day with only children. Office workers can walk next door and get some help or fresh ideas. Teachers cannot leave their room ever, they may have a free period, but that time is consumed by grading papers, helping students and make up work / tests. Also, beyond job isolation and getting no time to exchange ideas with other teachers is the whole area of training. I get the impression that WCPSS and NCDOE have all kinds of resources to help teachers but unless someone shows them to you and explains how to use them, they are just another untapped resource. Again, an office worker would have a coworker come to their desk and explain how to use the resource. For example, I have noticed that my wife does not even use all the features of WCPSS email / calendaring system. I often wonder, while I can train my wife how to be more productive, how many other teachers are there out there who do not have a computer technical husband to make their job easier? All the unused resources add up to lost opportunities and misspent money and all the under utilized program add up to lost productivity that could be redirected to education. Personally, I am guessing the effectiveness of WW is dependant on school leadership. I have heard supposedly teachers on the blog say WW is a waste of time and they do not do anything productive during that time. For my wife, her school leadership is very strong and dedicated and always has a full agenda of things to learn, how to be more productive and time to exchange strategies for dealing with difficult children.
I don't remember everything
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 21:56 — danofncI don't remember everything she said (it was about 7 or 8 months ago), but basically the few schools that implemented the PLTs had enough success with them that they felt it was worth rolling out district-wide.
They talked about every possible time frame for the meetings, and eventually settled on WW. They wanted every teacher involved, which would have meant late starts after all the kids were dismissed at some schools.
I think they spent about two years working out the details. They didn't just wake up one day and decide to change the school schedule.
Teachers already have meetings a couple of days a week, they've always taken work home on nights and weekends, and the district felt like this was a promising enough idea that it was worth implementing but they didn't want to just pile another meeting after school hours onto the teachers.
I'm sure I've forgotten some important things, and I may very well have explained some of this incorrectly and/or poorly. All I can tell you is I went into the meeting as a skeptic of WW, and I came out supportive of it. (It was only a few weeks into the school year when the meeting took place)
perhaps to make sure ALL
Sat, 04/10/2010 - 18:28 — AngelaWperhaps to make sure ALL schools were utilizing PLT's instead of just the self-motivated schools that have been doing them for years prior to WW?
but then again that brings to question Lanane's "Friday's a deal-breaker" comment.