Wake County Republicans are making it clear that they're going to push neighborhood schools in this fall's school board elections.
In an op-ed piece submitted by Wake GOP Chairman Claude Pope, he is stressing the party's support of candidates who will back a "neighborhood-centric assignment policy."
While school board elections are officially non-partisan, that's more myth than reality. Both the Republicans and Democrats have thrown money and organizational support behind candidates over the years.
"Be assured that the Republican Party in Wake County will vigorously support School Board candidates who actively support the concept of neighborhood schools," Pope writes. " And while we may not “officially” endorse an Independent or Democrat who holds these views (after all, we’re still Republicans), we will be working behind the scenes with a very diverse group of neighborhood school advocates — regardless of their party affiliation — to further the concept and implementation of a neighborhood-centric student assignment policy."
Pope's letter touts a new parental choice assignment approach that has a lot of similarities to Charlotte-Mecklenburg's method.
Pope says put more magnet schools in "economically-depressed neighborhoods." Then allow students to go to neighborhood schools with parents given the option to send their children to a more diverse school.
Pope touts how with this approach "our school system can once again be the envy of the nation, and the engine that continues to drive economic development in our county."
The flip side is that a lot of families would likely opt to stay in their neighborhoods, creating segregation by choice.
Click here to read Pope's op-ed piece.
UPDATE
Fixed link for Pope's op-ed.
Comments
Where do we get the money?
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:18 — Eric_BA recent article by Mr. Hui shows that the state provides most of the transportation funding in WCPSS, but local funding accounts for $17 million of the budget.
There are 137,000 students x 28% F&R = 38,360 F&R students in WCPSS. Take the $17 million in local funding from the transportation budget and transfer it to the 38,360 F&R students. Add in some MYR deconversions, which could easily save $1 million by reversing the MYR conversion at LRMS and maybe 5 or 6 other schools that are underenrolled.
You've now got $18 million to split among the 38,360 F&R students. That's $469 per student in additional funding. Add in Title I funding that would now be able to be focused on high poverty schools under a community schools model and you can make a serious difference.
Please clarify...
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:33 — supportwcpssSo Eric, are you saying that 18 million is being spent on busing?? Or that he stafe funded money should be enough to fund our transportation?
You were subtle in your assumptions here so please clarify.
The transportation budget
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:57 — Eric_BThe transportation budget for WCPSS is $63 million, $46 million of which comes from the state and is supposedly "untouchable, use-it-or-lose-it" money. That leaves $17 million in local funding that can be redirected.
The other $1 million is a conservative estimate in savings from eliminating MYR in underenrolled schools. LRMS + 7 other elementary schools would give about $1 million in savings. This savings does not even count the transportation savings in not needing school buses 2-1/2 months of the year for these schools.
With a community schools model where more students attend closer to home within the 1.5 mile walk zone, less transporation service would be needed.
Can I say that state money alone would be enough to fund transportation? No, because I don't have the budget numbers that Misters Neter and Snidemiller have, but it is something that should be looked at.
From Todd Silberman's "Wake County Schools: A Question of Balance" article included in the Divided We Fall book:
Assuming the same 30 percent figure holds today that held in 2000-01, that would mean $18.9 million is being spent out of the $63 million transportation budget to "achieve balance." I'm assuming those are funds that can be reallocated.
LRMS + 7 other elementary schools
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:51 — g88ky07would give about $1 million in savings.
What are the 7 other schools?
I was thinking of the blog
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 16:47 — Eric_BI was thinking of the blog post from a couple weeks ago:
No particular schools in mind. Maybe 7 is a little on the high side.
One more...
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 20:19 — Bob_SconceWakefield's enrollment dropped when it was switched to year-round. Never should have been converted to begin with.
With the opening of Banks at
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:13 — SouthEastWakeMomWith the opening of Banks at 65% of capacity, Willow Spring, Rand, and Ballentine all could probably operate on a traditional calendar. Possibly West Lake too.
Correct on ALL accounts!
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 11:48 — g88ky07Maybe the question is better asked this way, are there ANY MYR schools that are at or above capacity?
What a HUMONGOUS waste of money that CAN be used to educate and employee!
3 schools in Raleigh (
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 17:12 — NWRaleighMom3 schools in Raleigh ( LES, Sycamore Creek, Green ) can go traditional and still serve as many students. I am sure there are at least 4 YR underenrolled schools in Cary/Apex.
Don't forget Briar Creek
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 20:32 — lilybugDon't forget Briar Creek Elem.
Holly Grove Elementary...too
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 08:00 — rr77rr99Holly Grove Elementary...too
Eric, also, I don't know how
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:24 — user1234Eric, also, I don't know how much transportation cost is used by the Special Ed kids who use the private company cars. Those funds are probably untouchable too.
Details
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:13 — supportwcpssCould you provide the details behind this 30% estimate. I just don't believe the18.9 million dollar figure.
In terms of the 1.5 miles estimate I think much less then you guess would be saved. In addition, while it would save on school transportation cost, it would make the impact on the environment no less. Have you seen how many parents carpool within that arbitrary 1.5 miles.
saving the environment?
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:52 — loriac'In addition, while it would save on school transportation cost, it would make the impact on the environment no less.'
I'm missing the logic of this statement - so we shouldn't try to save on transportation cost because parents may drive their kids 1.5 miles to school anyway, and it wouldn't help the environment? ?
NOW the BOE is worried about the environment?
subtle sarcasm
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:09 — supportwcpssDon't always take things so literally or seriously.
Pub education should attempt
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:57 — shearertwPub education should attempt to solve all of society's issues. After that, should there be any time and resources remaining and as long as a teacher work day is not involved, they could teach a little math. 2 + 2 = 3
Why
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:41 — supportwcpssdoes it have to be all or nothing. This is not a black and white (no pun intended) issue.
My point is, lets get the
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 15:49 — shearertwMy point is, lets get the primary objective right first (or at least mostly right), education. I don't think we're there yet in this county or state. Then we can look to address secondary issues, resources permitting. If addressing an issue does help our primary objective (education) as much as actual teaching, then I'm all for it. Busing, in my opinion for the sake of spreading low EOGs around does not fall into that catagory. It is also showing no quantifiable benefit. You have never answered my question, why do you so strongly resist the idea of trying something other than busing? Do you think there can't be another way without busing? Really?
Pub education should attempt
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:58 — shearertwdup
Todd Silberman does not
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:29 — Eric_BTodd Silberman does not provide details of the 30% figure. There is no footnote present for the source of the number. It is not represented as an estimate, but the actual figure for 2000-01. I'm assuming the same percentage holds today. Mr. Silberman works for WEP and co-authored the "A Question of Balance" article for WEP linked here:
http://www.wakeedpartnership.org/publications/d/Balance.pdf
so I would not think you would question his figure or think it came from an anti-WCPSS source. I gave the citation for the 30% figure, so you can go look up the book and article if you would like or contact Mr. Silberman yourself.
Here's a direct link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Divided-We-Fail-Together-Foundation/dp/0870784765/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1239647347&sr=11-1
It's published by Kahlenberg and the Century Foundation no less.
I agree with you that lots of parents carpool within the 1.5 mile "walk zone." I'm one of them. I drop my daughter off to school each day since it is on my way to work in the morning. Some of the reasons for that are safety-related and that is why I helped with a Safe Routes to School federal grant this year for our school.
Math Quiz
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 12:48 — shearertwLet's try a little math quiz:
Which school is better fior the F&R population?
"Healthy School" with 20% F&R, overall school EOG performance is 90% passing.
vs.
"Community School" with 80% F&R, overall school EOG performance is 70% passing?
A. Health Schools are always better
B. Clearly the 90% EOG passing rate is better than 70%.
C. A & B
D. Not enough information.
Drum roll...
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:16 — supportwcpssThe answer is always D ;-).
"Wake County Republicans are
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 08:56 — user1234"Wake County Republicans are making it clear that they're going to push neighborhood schools in this fall's school board elections. ... Wake GOP Chairman Claude Pope, he is stressing the party's support of candidates who will back a "neighborhood-centric assignment policy." ..."
I came back from vacation with fresh eyes and re-read this headlines and thought there was no mention of improving the schools as the prime mission. Pope was going to push for "neighborhood schools" ... not great schools whether they were neighborhood or not ... not cost effective schools for ALL children .... just neighborhood ... people keep saying that good education is the primary goal but Pope primary goal appears to be where kids sit not what they learn ...
Republican, Democrat,
Sat, 04/11/2009 - 23:43 — Big_PictureRepublican, Democrat, Independent, everyone is welcome into the new alliance formed to elect a more responsive BoE. If you are a parent and you have witnessed any of the BoE's ridiculous policies and lies you now have a chance to make a difference. Party affiliation is not important. This alliance has already made great strides and they are just getting started. www.wakesca.org
Well said. Let's remember
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:21 — CaryCurmudgeonWell said. Let's remember that the Republican party gave us Patti Head and Horace Tart, and the Democratic party gave us Lori Millberg and Eleanor Goettee. WSCA is beholden to no political party.
I am with ya' Mudge!
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 08:03 — rr77rr99I am with ya' Mudge!
:-)
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:26 — user1234:-)
Wow...What A Load Of Gibberish
Sat, 04/11/2009 - 16:43 — chaboardTaking his "bullet points" one at a time:
A) Huh? The CMS model costs *more* than the Wake model.
Enhancing the magnets in poor neighborhoods to a degree sufficient to actually have any remote chance at all of achieving voluntary diversity will almost certainly cost more (a lot more) than the busing does. Not a good sign when the leadoff argument is an imaginary money tree!
B) I've been asking for data to support this claim all over the place and no one seems to have it. I'll ask again here - does anyone have actual data showing that parental involvement goes up with the introduction of neighborhood schools, particularly in poor neighborhoods. All the datapoints I've seen say that exactly the opposite occurs in poor neighborhoods.
C) Ok, can't argue with that one. But that"happy parent" in the suburbs comes at the almost certain cost of NOT HAVING much socio-economic diversity and ending up with concentrated poverty in the poorer schools. Fundamentally immoral bargain that will also have really bad consequences, imo.
D) Happy talk. Again, show me the data. It's easy to SAY that more parent (and christ, now even non-parents!) will magically start participating but where is the data that shows it works that way? Again, there are concrete examples of parental involvement *plummeting* in schools in poor neighborhoods when neighborhood schools are introduced. What's the solution to that? Does the author plan to just write off those schools & kids?
E) The author has given absolutely no reason to suppose that it is even *possible* to "us[e] parental choice as a key criterion in achieving economic diversity". Assertion does not make it so. Where has it been done before and how?
F) And if wishes were ponies we'd all be riding
The contrast between the meaningless gibberish in that letter and the solid data and argument in the letter from the other side in the post immediately preceding is quite illuminating.
Well.
Sun, 04/12/2009 - 08:12 — Bob_Sconce(A) CMS costs more because F&R students are more expensive to educate, and CMS has, proportionately, a lot more F&R students.
(B) Are you suggesting that poor families spend more time working in their schools when the schools are miles away than they do when they are nearby? That seems absurd -- it doesn't surprise me that nobody's studied it. If you want poor parents involved with their schools, then you should make it easier for them, not harder. (Consider that many of the outlier schools are not accessible via public transportation.)
(C) You presume, without citing any support, that socio-economic diversity is a goal worth having. How do you deal with the *FACT* that F&R students in Wake County do marginally better when grouped together. (There is a positive correlation between F&R percentage and F&R EOG passage rates in WCPSS elementary schools.)
(D) What examples? Do you have a study? See (B) above.
(E) I think he was suggesting allowing poor families to select where their students went to school -- if they want diversity, they can get it. Magnet schools are another example of this.
"(A) CMS costs more
Sun, 04/12/2009 - 12:08 — user1234"(A) CMS costs more because F&R students are more expensive to educate, and CMS has, proportionately, a lot more F&R students."
Bob while it could be more expensive to education F&Rs (e.g. smaller class size) do you have any facts to back up that is what is happening in CMS? For example, many of the advanced classes here have few students in them meaning the non-F&R students may actually cost more. Also, many of the high F&R schools here are old and outdated while the low F&R schools are new and modern so again, non-F&R may be costing more.
Well...
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 10:44 — Bob_SconceOn the F&Rs, I was thinking more along the lines of IEPs, before/after school help, etc... We all know that Charlotte directs more funding toward poorer schools. If Wake were to adopt Charlotte's model, Wake would have fewer poor schools (since Wake has fewer poor students), and would thus need less additional funding.
As far as the facilities question, as an accounting matter, I don't think you can mix capital costs with operating costs like that. Capital costs are usually financed across the useful life of the building -- at the end of the useful life, older schools are typically renovated. So, you never really get to a point where you can say "Oh. Wake Forest-Rolesvile High School. Well, that's paid for." (WF-R's renovations will cost almost as much as a new high school.)
Taking some of your bullets
Sat, 04/11/2009 - 23:35 — FalcA) If the increased spending on instructional programs results in some closing of the NED/ED gap by improving ED results, I for one, will consider it money well spent. Money spent on busing has not lead to a closing of the gap. Relative to state average ED results have decreased.
B) Is there data to support that when students are reassigned out of school, the parental involvement in that school does not drop? Is there data to support that there is equal parental involvement by those parents located near the school and the parents of students assigned to that school that live in another part of the county?
C) What are the "suburbs" -- anything OTB? There are plenty of poor OTB. In 2007-08 there were approximately 21K ED students in Raleigh (not sure of ITB/OTB breakdown) and approximately 16K ED students combined in all other parts of Wake County.
D) Why does parental involvement *plummet*? What steps can be taken to directly address those causes? Parental involvement is not lacking in all poor schools, so what is making the differences? Can we at least try to figure that out?
The data I saw in Kevin Hill's letter was that the NED students in this district that has relatively more NED and fewer ED students are testing better than those in the higher ED district, but what about the black, ED and LEP students? Their scores are higher in a "neighborhood" based system that has a much higher percentage of ED students than WCPSS. WCPSS does not appear to be improving the health of the students in those segments via busing and does not care to study it. That makes me unhappy.
Fine
Sat, 04/11/2009 - 22:49 — SDR256Three points charbord:
1. Please look at the KIPP school model. They expect that most low income communities need assistance in becoming 'learning cultures'.
2. Your frustration is understandable.
3. Your profanity - especially on Easter eve - offended me.
Usually people who use
Sun, 04/12/2009 - 19:57 — CaryCurmudgeonUsually people who use profanity and are otherwise offensive on blogs are trying to compensate for something.
Sometimes people got to a
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 08:04 — rr77rr99Sometimes people got to a point where their heads are going to explode... and it just comes out...
Usually
Sun, 04/12/2009 - 21:26 — supportwcpsspeople who post something that is completely irrelevant to the topics or any of the posts are attention getting and just like to hear themselves speak.
Bob - As to your point about making it easier for low income families. In some of unofficial studies we did when I worked in this area in the NE, we actually saw that we had better results when we could remove those kids from their homes for extended period of times and focus on additional support before and after school. Close proximity to schools led to kids missing more days of schools and usually never saw the parents with a few exceptions. And when we did, we ended up having to spend a lot of extra time with the parents because of a lack of understanding of common educational practices.
So...
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 08:48 — Bob_SconceIt may easily be that in Northeastern high-poverty areas, a number of poor kids live in basically abusive homes, where they don't get any support for their education. In those cases, I can see how removing the kids from their homes could be helpful. But, Raleigh is not New York City, Philadelphia or Boston.
Before- and after- school support for struggling students is a great idea. But, it can only work if the kids have a way to get to and from school. Students in my neighborhood have that, since they live within walking distance of school. The kids who are bused 10 miles, however, don't.
No
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 12:00 — supportwcpssThis has nothing to do with abusive. This has to do with parents who don't put a focus on education because they weren't taught that way or they have more pressing matters like keeping food on the table or keeping their family safe.
The one on one support that would be needed for these struggling students is not cheap. Where do we get that money? And don't begin to think recuding busing by 5 miles will cover it.
I'm really doing my best to
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 12:31 — shearertwI'm really doing my best to try and listen to you, hear your point of view...but I can't understand why you think busing is going to solve these issues? WCPSS has bet the farm on busing and yet there is no data to even suggest it helps improve the performance of individual students in Wake Co. or any where else that it has been attempted. Why are you so against trying something else for change? Busing is the same 'ol, same 'ol lazy approach. Please help me to understand why you are against a different approach, one that has proven success elsewhere and might just work here as well. Please help me....I'm having an open mind moment, it may close any minute.
I don't think
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:14 — supportwcpssI said busing as currently implemented solves the issue. I don't think there is any evidence on either side of this argument but both camps will yell at the other one regarding 'evidence'. I also think collecting that information is much harder then anyone understands because of a myriad of paramaters.
I personally think Chuck is in over his head and has implemented the diversity policy in a random way which makes no sense (Wow -we agree on something). However, I strongly believe that a diversity policy needs to be in place or schools of 80% F&R will fail. And just saying let's throw more money at it or follow the KIPP model (which know one has told me how much it costs and how scalable is it) doesn't work.
I worked in two different environments in the NE, a mid sized city and a more rural poorer area and the issues, overall, were no different.
So overall, I strongly support a policy to limit the high poverty schools but we do it in a more scientific way that makes sense.
Did that open mind close to quicky ;-)
Not an expert
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 18:27 — SDR256I don't pretend to be an expert, only one who is trying to find some creative alternative solutions. What I understand about the KIPP model is that it costs approx. $7200 per child. There is a KIPP school in Gaston NC with 80% F&R and a very high graduation and college matriculation rate. If you want to know more specifics please come to the Garner WSCA meeting on Thursday at 6pm, Carolina BBQ. Some of those who have been researching this and other data will be there and can answer questions afterwards. But again, its really the candidates' jobs to be the experts.
Not closed yet.So, let's
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:54 — shearertwNot closed yet.
So, let's limit high poverty schools. What's too high? What is that # based on? So what if you have one or three higher poverty schools but they're doing ok for their population, if not, you can leave? Wake Co. is very diverse and there are plenty of schools to shuffle. Surely we can find some happy middle ground on keeping kids close to home and diverse. But that's not what this is about, really, not for WCPSS. Its about "healthy schools" which is really latin for shifting our low EOGs around.
Time is up, mind closing again.
focus on additional support
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 07:48 — SouthEastWakeMomfocus on additional support before and after school.
Kind of hard to find adequate time to do that when the kids are on a bus an hour plus in each direction, don't you think.....
Creepy, 'It Takes a Village" mentality
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 07:14 — fiestamomSupport, your statement here... "we had better results when we could remove those kids from their homes for extended period of times and focus on additional support...". That's none of your business. Why do low income kids NEED to be taken out of THEIR homes? Why does a school know better than a child's parent(s)?
I call shenanigans on this claim as well :"Close proximity to schools led to kids missing more days of schools" ummm, how is that possible? Close proximity to schools means kids whose parents don't have cars can walk, or their parents can easily walk to assist with their child's education.
And what's up with this gem? :"we ended up having to spend a lot of extra time with the parents
because of a lack of understanding of common educational practices." Are you trying to be condescending? Why are low income people unable to understand common educational practices? Does having a small paycheck make parents unable/unwilling to help their child?
Clueless and spinning of words
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 11:55 — supportwcpssIt's obviously very clear you don't understand this population. There is a strong correlation in these cases between low income and lack of stability, focus on education, and the capabilities of parents to support the education. This is a fact and if you even had a little bit of experience with these families you would understand. They focus on getting food on the table and keeping their kids safe and have little energy or in some cases capability to support education.
I'm not indicating this is everyone that falls into this bucket but there is a majority of this type of environment. It's not that they don't care, but that there are more pressing matters and they don't have the background to support this aspect.
Close proximity means it was easier for the kids to miss school. As for parental involvement, we saw very little parental involvement and we had neighborhood schools.
Condescending?? Get a clue. It's not about the paycheck but about the fact that a lot of these families (not all before you accuse me of a blanket statement) are single parent families whose in some cases the parent have dropped out of school. There is a fundamental difference between loving, supporting, and caring for your children and being able to support their educational needs.
Again, your comments indicate you have had absolutely no experience in this area so to make comments about it is nothing but ignorant.
Support, I think many of
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 12:32 — user1234Support, I think many of the clueless views I read here about F&Rs come from folks with little interaction with the population or those who don't venture outside their neighborhood often or whose views come from years ago when they where in young (e.g. I knew poor kids when I was in High School / Military or I was poor when in college one year). They are more "let's compare numbers / scores". Also, some may be regurgitating conservative talk shows views from their comfortable homes without any real experience. It is a lot harder in real life than theory. Thanks for keep them honest.
Clueless views
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 12:58 — Falc"I think many of the clueless views I read here about F&Rs come from folks with little interaction with the population or those who don't venture outside their neighborhood often or whose views come from years ago"
That's interesting because I think there are some similar issues with those who support the current policy, but did not attend diverse schools or grow up in higher F&R areas, and think sitting ED kids next to NED kids is all they need and that they are "flexible" and the next school can just "pull them up in the system."
I'm curious what is the issue with the knowledge coming from years ago? How better to understand what it is like to grow up in a high F&R area than to actually grow up in one?
Falc ... your experience as
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:16 — user1234Falc ... your experience as a child in the midwest is interesting but I would rather hear your views / insights on how your recent experience helping these kids suceeded or failed.
Assessment of recent experience
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 13:52 — FalcActually, our school is struggling with assessing that due to lack of a stable group of students. The ones that were at our school last year are somewhere else this year and those that are there this year will be somewhere else next year. So how do you track to what extent the strategies you brainstorm and put in place are working? It is a bit more challenging to brainstorm how to improve a segments results when many of the kids from the segment won't be there in three or four months and you are not entirely sure which and how many kids will be replacing them. These movements in and out are not related to growth in our base area just to be clear.
I am surprised that they
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 14:18 — user1234I am surprised that they just don't group the individual student records with their current performance being a consolidation of the schools they attended. Since the Public schools all teach the same thing, kids should be able to move around and end up at the same place. Kids and schools are fluid and trying to measure them like a well controlled factory would be difficult. Also, kids that leave after three months or come with three months left could be reported separately as not to skew the findings.