In a new "white paper" released this morning, the Wake Education Partnership lays out why it feels Wake County's magnet school program largely needs to remain the way it's now operating.
In the group's third topic review of "Understand Your Schools," the WEP says the magnet program is helping to fill seats and avoid the creation of high-poverty schools in parts of the county. The WEP also argues why the current selection system serves a needed purpose and the problems that would be caused by dispersing more magnet programs around the county.
The magnet program is in the news now that the school board is in the process of adopting the community-based schools resolution, which could expand magnet offerings around the county while reducing the number of magnets now inside the Beltline.
"Magnet schools with different themes could be distributed equally among assignment zones, but the result would be a magnet program in name only," the WEP writes. "What is lost in that approach is the opportunity to create any assignment plan that provides both balance and stability."
The WEP warns that without magnet programs, it would be extremely difficult for the school system to avoid poverty levels exceeding 66 percent in roughly two dozen schools. Those schools would be located mostly inside the I-440 Beltline, in eastern Wake County and in the Garner area.
The WEP argues that the magnet program "is the compromise that the school district has brokered for years among middle-class and low-income families."
"It's used because decades of research have made clear that high-poverty, urban classrooms quickly develop problems that traditional schools are not equipped to counter," the WEP writes.
The WEP tackles the issue of how critics of the diversity policy note that achievement for low-income students is below the state average on some exams.
"But raising test scores was never a stated goal of the magnet program," the WEP writes. "The goal is to provide 'equity in educational programs.' In layman's terms, that means making sure students in poorer parts of the county aren't stuck in schools with lower standards and less-qualified teachers."
The WEP adds that "there is no research that suggests removing opportunities will benefit low-income students."
The WEP next tackles the complaint raised by critics of the current selection process that it's unfair. But the WEP says giving all families the same choice "would defeat the goals of a magnet program."
"In effect, the trade off is already built into the system," the WEP writes. "Those who live closer to poorer parts of the county get more choices. Those who live farther away in more affluent areas get schools that are consistently above average."
Based on how often the past WEP white papers on year-round schools and student assignment have been used, you can expect critics of the new board majority to bring up this new one in their arguments.
Comments
WEP so-called white papers
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:56 — shearertwWEP so-called white papers are best used on the bottom of a bird cage. They (WEP) has no credibility and should be ignored. They have one concern and one concern only, to bus minority children out of downtown Raleigh, period. I wish we could put them on administrative leave too.
No viewpoint should be
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 17:41 — Dove314No viewpoint should be ignored. Any one of us, including organizations we disagree with, could have some part of a solution to helping children in WCPSS from Art Pope through to Barber and everywhere in between.
Any organization that is
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 09:58 — shearertwAny organization that is willing to take faulty data, self appointed experts to interpret the faulty data, and then make clearly biased, agenda driven proclamations about the data all the while pretending to be a non-partison, expert panel should absolutely be ignored. If they (WEP) is willing to admit their bias, take off their sheep's clothing, and state their true agenda, then perhaps we could begin listen to their concerns. In the case of Art Pope and Rev Barber, at least their not trying to hide their agenda and/or bias. As long as the WEP pretends to be something they are not, anything they put out has ZERO credibility.
questions
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:24 — danofnc1) The new board hasn't shared their data or the names of the "experts" they have allegedly consulted. Does the same standard apply to them, since they are supposed to be a public entity?
2) The only reason you think their reports are biased and agenda-driven only because they disagree with you. Do you also think the people who claim the school system is "broken" are agenda-driven? Do you think JT was agenda-driven when he said it was like the Titanic?
None of this stuff is one way.
My perception is that WEP
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:00 — red_balloonMy perception is that WEP and JT are poles apart. One is working to use the school system for economic advantage while the other is focused on academic achievement. I am not saying that economic goals are unimportant but they should not be the primary driver in a school system.
The presentation that I
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:12 — danofncThe presentation that I heard from WEP seemed very concerned about academic achievement.
Have you seen the "Suspending Disbelief" presentation? WEP will come present it to basically any group you can gather, I think.
It actually mentions a lot of things that need to be improved. It's not just a glowing report.
To me, the problem is that
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:00 — jenmanTo me, the problem is that WEP purports to be a neutral organization that just wants to provide facts to the citizens in the county. I will not say that they lie, but they maniuplate the information to support the current policies of WCPSS. They are not neutral at all--they most definitely have an agenda and are very good at protecting their interests.
Exactly!
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:14 — NWRaleighMomBut I don't think that anyone except vocal status quo supporters (and critics :-) ) even reads WEP's reports.
"1) The new board hasn't
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 10:57 — user12345"1) The new board hasn't shared their data or the names of the "expert" they have allegedly consulted"
Art Pope
magnet applicants from Mills Park
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 11:53 — avvid_news_observerMr Hui,
Is there clear explanation regarding Wake County's process behind the request for resending magnet applications. This request came in yesterday 03/10/10 from Wake County's Growth and Planning Department to parents affected by Mills Park Elementary going from 'Year-Round' to 'Traditional'. Letter stated "March 12 - March 18, 2010 will be your new on-line magnet/calendar application period" and that the results will be available online on April 8th.
Below questions come up immediately:
1. If MPE parents have already applied between Feb 8-28 and do not apply between Mar 12-18 would the application put in Feb be considered at all and when do we get to see the results Mar 18th or Apr 8th ?
2. If MPE parents do re-apply between Mar 12-18, then of course the last application would be considered and suppose if it gets rejected will the applicants still be squared back to Mills Park Elementary school as base school ?
thanks in advance for your reply.
I'm just getting to your
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 21:47 — KeungHui (author)I'm just getting to your message now. Your question isn't answered in the press release the district sent out today. I'll try to get the answer Friday. I'll either create a new blog post or, more likely, put it as an update to today's post about the magnet/calendar notification being delayed.
a mess...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:42 — supportwcpssThis is an perfect example of making a decision without a plan - just like the old Board did sometimes. My friend, who has kids at Highcroft, called me yesterday fuming. She would like traditional but guess what - No MPES (3 miles away) for her because of the projected capacity issue. Back to weatherstone. And on top of that she has next week to figure it out and make a choice.
Same for Salem for her 6th grader. No one from Salem will be allowed to go to Mills park midle because they missed the feb window. Off to East cary for you. I know, she deserves it just like the traditional side a few years ago.
But when Ron and John sit there in the meeting and say "All those Salem people will get to go to Mills Park" and everything coming from the schools and admin contradicts that....
Ridiculous. Oh I forgot, these families deserve it just like the traditional families in the past.
Highcroft parents are not happy
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:49 — supportwcpssSounds like deja vu from the traditional options the last few years.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/highcroft/
...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:59 — SideburnsDon't tell Chris Decker. :>)
not sure
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:55 — supportwcpssWho you are referring to Sideburns but my information keeps coming from a friend of mine who has two children at Highcroft.
She was a typical parent who had no idea what was going on until this shakeup. She called me because she knows I keep up with the system wide stuff and I had to give her a 101 on all aspects.
Question: if brand new MPES
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:58 — NWRaleighMomQuestion: if brand new MPES and MPMS already projected to be at the capacity, where did all the students go last year?
Nobody knows...
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:14 — supportwcpssbecause no one knows what people are going to choose. MPES was YR and most people will probably stay because they will probably veto school over calendar and the YR option is East Cary.
I don't know in terms of the MS.
No, of course they don't
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:55 — Eric_BNo, of course they don't deserve it. I thought the application window was being extended for families affected by the Mills Park decision.
not getting the point
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:12 — supportwcpssIt is. But it's the options people are screaming about (just like traditional family options in the last few years which i completely disagreed with).
Highcroft (YR) - Trad option is Weatherstone (not Mills Park)
Mills Park middle (now Trad) - YR option is East Cary (not Salem which is right down the road)
Salem Middle (YR) can't go to Mills Park Middle (trad)
Principal and GM said Salem is now full and they have no idea how filled up Mills Park ES or MIddle will be so they can't offer those. You can request a transfer but they will probably not be accepted.
Again, same EXACT situation as traditional options for the MYR schools. This does not support their community model. And what is ironic is when Ron and John both said "Salem people can go to Mills Park" It's not even an OPTION!
Supportwcpss..(honest
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:19 — DrActualFactualSupportwcpss..(honest question here) Do you think Ron and John said that "Salem people can go to Mills Park" as a directive to the staff to make it so? Or do you think it was just discussion?
answer
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 22:43 — supportwcpssOf course it wasn't directive because they wouldn't do that in that setting. But it showed their complete lack of understanding of what they they were doing.
One of the staff said Salem was full and John said that school wanted traditional so space should open up when those people go to Mills Park.
It's not even an option for Salem.
They said it (I believe) in
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:23 — danofncThey said it (I believe) in response to a concern being raised about people at a school that wasn't begging to be changed having their calendar switched.
It was the exact opposite of the "listening to parents' concerns" that RM speaks of so often.
My guess for why
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:51 — jenmanMy guess for why Weatherstone is the option? Because Weatherstone has a 33% F&R. Staff is coming up with these options, correct? That's who has always done it in the past
Conspiracy theory
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 15:47 — supportwcpssJenman - I never thought of you as the conspiracy type. I think it is much simpler.
You have no idea what choices people will make in the next 10 days so you cannot plan for it. And Salem doesn't even get a choice despite Ron John saying they would.
It suggests that either Ron
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 17:47 — Dove314It suggests that either Ron and John didn't have a firm grasp on what they were doing or they knowingly lied when they made that very public statement and didn't follow through to insure what they said was true.
They don't get a free pass any more than any previous board.
Ron, the rep. for Salem
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:03 — DrActualFactualRon, the rep. for Salem should have had a better handle on this. I think supportwcpss and I discussed this in an earlier thread. Salem MS was supposed to peel off some of the northern nodes (approx. 618 students) slated in the previous 3-yr. plan to go to Mills Park. Salem MS feeds into so many HS's that it is quite a mess in the first place for feeder patterns. It seemed at the meeting that Ron felt there were many YR schools feeding into Salem MS so he seemed to think that Salem and Mills Park would just reciprocate students if you will. Staff clearly spelled out the school options and I think Ron just didn't connect it all or actually wanted it this way inspite of his district's wishes. I hope GM considers the impact of the BRIDGE being built up by PCHS/MCKRIMMON Pkwy. and how that year-long project could complicate bussing patterns. Highcroft nodes should point that out to GM because the less traffic you have on 55 the better and that would be a compelling argument.
Not trying to present a
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 15:55 — jenmanNot trying to present a conspiracy. Just proposing that maybe the F&R of Weatherstone had something to do with it. For years now, F&R has been crucial in decisions like this and I wouldn't expect that mentality to disappear overnight.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it was the only motivation, just that it could be part of it.
Well, I don't know why the
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 13:50 — Eric_BWell, I don't know why the traditional option for Highcroft is not Mills Park. The numbers for Mills Park show room for 280 more students and the base nodes assigned to the school are still only slightly above 900 students for a school designed to handle 1078 students. There's room for almost 200 transfer/application students there right now.
As for the middle school situation, I assume this is a temporary problem due to the opening of the new middle school and the difficulty in determining who is going where for the first year with calendar options and grandfathering thrown into the mix. I would hope Growth & Planning and the board would approve transfer requests as they are able to once they get a better handle on how the opening of Mills Park Middle affects Salem Middle.
Salem MS parents/students
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 18:23 — DrActualFactualSalem MS parents/students (who wanted the school to convert and had the numbers on the survey to prove it) should not have to wait and should be accommodated at MS's that fit their HS feeder patterns under the new "choice" guidelines. If these families cannot be accommodated it will just be a further continuation of Myr and I believe the current board said that students would be accommodated regardless of crowding.
Well, part of it looks like
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 14:42 — Eric_BWell, part of it looks like it is because one node containing almost 110 kids from Green Hope is being reassigned to Mills Park for 2010-11.
Nevermind. The 1078 number for Mills Park is YR capacity, not traditional. I see the problem...
wep paper is flawed
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 16:04 — red_balloonLet's take a look at some of the self serving claims and trivializations in the WEP paper.
That is the compromise that the school district has brokered for years among middle-class and low-income families.
This is not a compromise. It is blatant discrimination or, to paraphrase from a post on this blog, a theft of opportunities and hope.
But raising test scores was never a stated goal of the magnet program.
If improving academic achievement is not a stated goal, how are the underprivileged supposed to benefit? Where is their path to opportunity and success? If decreasing the achievement gap is not furthered by the magnets, why do 'diversity' zealots push for magnet based discrimination?
Magnet schools do not automatically create success. They provide
opportunities for success. There is no research that suggests removing opportunities will benefit
low-income students.
Given the above, why does WEP believe the "compromise" will help low income students? It makes no sense that WEP states magnets provide opportunities for success while in the same breath supporting a "compromise" that discriminates against the low income students.
All families should have choices. All families cannot have the same
choice. That would defeat the goals of a magnet program.
In essence, let us discriminate and the better we discriminate , based on whatever suits WEP and the social engineers, the more the accolades for the magnet program
Diversity
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 14:11 — SDR256Magnet schools are another component of this system that sounds good, but in practice achieves something worse than the opposite of what its 'marketing statement' proclaims. The magnet school program may claim to be a tool to promote diversity, but the crown jewel - Enloe - has a graduating class with 38% Economically Disadvantaged students. THIRTY-EIGHT PERCENT! The current two-schools-in-one-school culture of many magnet schools continue to ingrain and promote this idea that certain groups need a class based system of support. And in the end it further cements the bigotry of low expectation. This is not an embrace of diversity, it is a begrudging tolerance. It is not the lifting of hope but the theft of it.
The 'compromise' of the magnet system - which may have many benefits, but promoting healthy diversity is not one of them - is just a vehicle for seeing the underlying problem. The underlying problem is the class based system we have. The class-based system we have today that WEP has helped to implement is in fact unfairly weighting children with the label of F&R. Look at how the Effectiveness Index works. It robs children of opportunities. Robbed of the opportunities of a diverse graduating class, robbed of the opportunities that come with a diverse accelerated math class. And WEP has been a fundamental instrument in establishing and proliferating this systematic institutionalization of low expectation. It has been a convenient economic tool to have 'healthy schools' that look good for the developers supporting WEP, but achieved by 'pirating' the opportunities of F&R children. When the public starts to understand the data that is just coming out now, even staunch supporters of the very narrow solution Policy 6200 will see that it was high time for spring cleaning.
Let's agree to find a solution that supports academic achievement for all children. A solution that promotes diversity in graduating classes and advanced classes. The diversity will increase in these groups if children are matched with programs simply based on their test scores. Data driven diversity not politically driven diversity. From what I understand, with a data driven solution, there are enough Level III and Level IV minority children who are NOT in accelerated programs today to maybe create more diversity and competition than these magnet parents would be comfortable with. We'll see who starts yelping when fair and balanced diversity arrives and there are more black and brown children in accelerated classes than anyone expected. It may be very surprising to some of you just how many of these high achieving minority and poor children will have seats in these classes just based on their test scores alone. And I think it will be very surprising who might complain about it.
I like that you try to offer a possible solution
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:03 — festusrather than just condemning poor kids to poor schools. But since poor kids and rich kids tend to live in different neighborhoods, how does the solution in your last paragraph benefit poor kids? (I am assuming, as most reasonable people seem to be assuming, that the neighborhood schools model will mean the death of magnets.)
I'm jumping in here, but I
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 11:22 — jenmanI'm jumping in here, but I don't think that a neighborhood schools model has to mean the death of magnets. Tedesco has mentioned the possibility of county wide magnets in addition to the magnets that are in the 'neighborhood zones'
I think that most people are assuming that magnets will disappear because defenders of the current policies have figured out that they could scare magnet parents by making wild claims.
SDR ... here is an example
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:24 — user12345SDR ... here is an example of why good teachers avoid poor (unhealthy?) schools ... you get fired ... it is much safer to teach at Leesville than take a job at a low income school where you are expected to get everyone to pass with harder students and fewer resources. It is no wonder that teacher migrate to safe schools when given the opportunity. It is simple economics. And you want to create a bunch of these schools?
==========================
Graduates of the nation's most vilified high school descended upon campus Tuesday evening to support the school's fired teachers. A firestorm has erupted in this Democratic stronghold in recent weeks after 93 teachers, support staff and administrators at Central Falls High School were fired for the low performance of the school, which graduated just 48 percent of its seniors last year. About 70 young people, most of them graduates of the school and now in college or working, demonstrated peacefully outside the school in the largely Hispanic, working class neighborhood
...http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/09/rhode.island.school.battle/index.html?hpt=T2
So...
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:44 — Bob_SconceSo, it's not at all clear that the situation in Rhode Island is anything like your characterization. How do we know that these weren't actually a bunch of slacking teachers who would have deserved to be fired no matter what school they were in?
In any case, I believe you'll find that they weren't actually fired for their performance -- they were fired because the school wanted them to work more and the teachers union came back and said "Ok. We'll work more, but you have to pay us $90/hr to do it." At that point, the school system determined that the teachers weren't serious and decided to go a different route.
"How do we know that these
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 16:10 — user12345"How do we know that these weren't actually a bunch of slacking teachers who would have deserved to be fired no matter what school they were in? "
yeah ... Bob ... blame the teachers .... what is the probablity there was not a single good teacher in that school? Maybe they warehoused all the bad teachers in the poor school ... sound familiar? ... And what teacher is going to work in the next school that has 40% graduation knowing how it ends ... why would anyone take the challenge to help poor kids .... let's all crowd into Wakefield where 96% of the kids pass whether I teach or not ....
So...
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 16:23 — Bob_SconceNot blaming the teachers, just pointing out that we don't actually know the facts. In any case, my recollection is that the district had planned to offer about 1/2 the teachers their jobs back. (Why they didn't just fire the other half, I don't know. I suspect it has something to do with a union contract.)
I agree that it's not a terribly good signal to send, but it may be that it was the right choice under the circumstances. We just don't know.
it may be that it was the
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 17:03 — danofncit may be that it was the right choice under the circumstances.
You weren't willing to give that same benefit of the doubt to MYR were you?
Nope....
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 17:14 — Bob_SconceThe difference between the two is that I know nothing about the Rhode Island situation other than what I've seen on the national news. And, I've discovered that the National News often gets the facts horribly wrong. So, I don't have enough reliable information to form a conclusion.
In contrast, I know a lot about Mandatory Year Round, have investigated the facts and lived it for the past 3 years.
But, when it was brought up,
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 17:26 — danofncBut, when it was brought up, as a solution to a tight budget and exploding growth, did you support it?
Did you say that it may be the best option, even though you didn't support it?
Or did you just call Del Burns and the administration a bunch of self-righteous idealogues determined to ruin WCPSS?
Uh...
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 18:17 — Bob_SconceSo, I don't know that I've ever called Del Burns a self-righteous idealogue.
If I recall correctly (and I'm a bit fuzzy), my view then was about like it is now -- I didn't have a problem with converting schools to the year-round calendar, but I thought that there was enough voluntary demand that the district shouldn't have to force people into year-round schools against their will. I also thought that schools should be converted on an as-needed and where-needed basis.
I also thought that the district should have made better use of the 2006 bond money -- too much of it went toward unnecessary renovations that did nothing to add seats.
The thing that made me suspicious in the bond vote was that the then-school board started off by saying "we need to choose between a big bond to build lots more schools or a smaller bond with year-round conversions, and we think that only the smaller bond will pass." And then, almost immediately after the bond passed, they did a bunch of year-round conversions.
The problem was that in the counter-factual, where they went with the big bond, the conversions wouldn't have happened even though new schools from the bond wouldn't come on-line for a couple of years. So, it seemed clear that the year-round conversions weren't being driven by capacity problems, but by something else.
I didn't read the article
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:27 — red_balloonI didn't read the article but I found it paradoxical from the title that these students could better help the teachers by studying than protesting.
Really?
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:06 — NWRaleighMom"In effect, the trade off is already built into the system," the WEP writes. "Those who live closer to poorer parts of the county get more choices. Those who live farther away in more affluent areas get schools that are consistently above average."
---------------------------------------------------------------
So, where my children's school fit in? We don't have any choice and the school is below average in performance.
I found that bit interesting
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:48 — jenmanI found that bit interesting too. Those who live closer to poorer parts of the county get fewer choices unless they happen to be assigned to a magnet as their base.
WEP is basing this on when the magnet system was put in place, not on what the reality is now.
what school?
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:11 — carson79what school? why "no choice"?
You have asked me the same
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:24 — NWRaleighMomYou have asked me the same question several times already. Why are you trying to imply that there IS a choce for everyone?
We applied for 4 years to 3 different programs each time. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied.
School was low F&R BEFORE my children started there, so significant portion of students and their siblings were allowed to leave which effectively raised F&R % for remaining students.
what school? because there
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:41 — carson79what school? because there is a choice for the overwhelming majority of people - which is better than the zero choice under a neighborhood plan (not saying john's zones, we've yet to see the details there)
You are wrong
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:11 — NWRaleighMomThere is NO choice for overwhelming majority of people.
The school is in the last round of 'lottery' right now.
So, you are saying that as long as your child has a choice it is no problem that other children are deprived of quality education.
NW Raleigh Mom, Yes, there
Wed, 03/10/2010 - 16:17 — carson79NW Raleigh Mom,
Yes, there is a choice of either, year round, neighborhood or many magnets for the majority of people.
What school in Northwest Raleigh is in the last round of the lottery right now?
I think that they should give more weight to people who reapply (such as yourself) or do away with some or all of the weighting.