You may also like WakeWatch | Eastern Wake Buzz | Crosstown Traffic | Campus Notes
News
Web Search powered by YAHOO!
WakeEd
The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system as it prepares to undergo historic changes. Will the new school board scrap the diversity policy in favor of neighborhood schools? Will year-round schools be converted back to a traditional calendar? How will the new board respond to growth and the school construction program?
WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.
Wake rated "the most transparent school system in the state"
Submitted by KeungHui on 07/02/2009 - 12:44
The John Locke Foundation is not exactly a great fan of the Wake school system, but they're showing the district some love on a new web site, NCTransparency.com.
Wake was graded today "the most transparent school system in the state" by the Locke Foundation, receiving a B. No other district got above a C.
"We've got to give Wake its due when it deserves it," said Terry Stoops, education policy analyst for the Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Raleigh.
The rankings are based on public access to online information "in an effort to encourage transparency in North Carolina." The web site also graded state agencies, counties and municipalities.
Among the categories looked at for school districts were Individual payments to vendors for specific items, budgets, audit reports, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results and salaries of employees by job code.
In contrast to Wake, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Durham received C grades. The Johnston County school system got a D.
Want to post a comment?
In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. To register or to log in using your existing account, click here.Advertisements
Comments
Engineers
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 16:17 — user1234I was reading the recent Foreign Policy magazine and I noticed the lead article concerns Asia and the fact that all we read and hear needs to be qualified. One of the sections that caught my eye related to an earlier blog discussion on how the US was getting killed by Asia in engineering graduates …. Here is a summary …
=====================
China supposedly graduates 600,000 engineer majors each year and India another 350,000 while the US trails with only 70,000 engineering graduate annually.
Half of China’s graduates and two third of India’s are associate degrees. Once the quality of the education is factored in Asia’s lead disappears altogether. A 2005 McKinsey Global Institute study reported that human resource managers in multinational companies consider only 10% of the Chinese engineers and 25% of the Indian engineers as even “employable” compared to 81% of American engineers.
Foreign Policy, Pg 34, July / August 2009-07-05
So TRANSPARENT, that we can all SEE THROUGH the deceit!
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 22:23 — Its_the_parents...Wake rated "the most transparent school system in the state"Another headline ripped from "The Onion"!!!!! When will this hilarity end?...I guess we should really break out the Dom Perignon for this accolade...we are the top of the heap (a whopping "B" grade!!!) among counties within a state that ranks in the hind-quarter of national educational rankings, in a nation that ranks in the double-digits compared to other progressive nations on this planet!Break out the champagne!!! Truly, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. At least the "right-wing conservative think-tank" that is the JLF had the intellectual honesty to run an unbiased analysis and report conclusions...Still waiting for our "left-wing liberals" to demonstrate some integrity in questioning data rather than being blinded by ideology. The old quote about lies, damned lies and statistics holds true when it comes to WCPSS claims of competence.And the rest of us stuck in the center will keep waiting for true leaders who offer pragmatic, workable, results-oriented solutions to take charge at the WCPSS.
Joe, What are you 'Touche'
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 21:46 — WhalerCaneJoe,
What are you 'Touche' ing'. The fact that J. Locke has said WCPSS is most transparent or the comment by user1234 or Apexter.
Perry :-)
This is impressive to have
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 13:25 — user1234This is impressive to have the JLF complement you. A review which included individual payments to vendors, budgets, audit reports, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results and salaries of employees by job code sounds quite thorough. The downside of being so transparent is that every critic can find a piece of data to try to hang you on. I wonder if less transparent systems like Johnston are able to keep the critics at bay by limiting the flow of information and if WCPSS is doing itself a disservice being so transparent?
"The downside of being so
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 19:07 — Apexter"The
downside of being so transparent is that every critic can find a piece
of data to try to hang you on. I wonder if less transparent systems
like Johnston are able to keep the critics at bay by limiting the flow
of information and if WCPSS is doing itself a disservice being so
transparent?"
Yeah, if you post all that information, people might want to try to look up the home phone numbers, party affiliation, and voting record of everyone involved, and then drag their names through the mud by falsely attributing made-up opinions about their beliefs.
APEXTER - Confused on the connection
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:29 — user1234Sorry, I don't understand your comment ... I mentioned that having transparent financial records makes finding Del's salary or the PR budget easier for people to reference and criticize compare to other school system. I did know WCPSS had voting records and home numbers on their website which it should deleted.
<Me>
"included individual payments to vendors, budgets, audit reports, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results and salaries of employees by job code sounds quite thorough."
<APEXTER>
"people might want to try to look up the home phone numbers, party affiliation, and voting record of everyone involved, and then drag their names through the mud by falsely attributing made-up opinions about their beliefs. "
Sorry, my inner snark was
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 16:08 — ApexterSorry, my inner snark was coming out, and I have a weakness for irony.
This was actually a response to numerous posts in another thread, where you (and others) keep asking for exhaustive detail about all the leaders in a parent-led organization.
Going back still further in the past (Geez, I've been reading this, and the political blog too long), I've seen the witch hunts (by others, not you.) "Aha! So-and-so claims to be involved! Well, I've looked up his voting record, and he didn't even VOTE in the 2007 school board election!" (Ignoring, of course, the fact that the board seat for his district wasn't up for election that year, and it would have been illegal had he voted then.)
I've been in the leadership of an advocacy group before. It's hard work, and generally a thankless task. You do it in the evenings after you come home from work, and if you don't go trotting all around the county with your meetings to try to involve others who live 45 minutes away from you, you're accused of being an elitist or of representing only the narrow views of your own community. The irony is that you do what you're doing for the good of your (and others') kids, but it eats away at the time you have to spend with your family, and your kids and spouse frequently get fed up with it. Your ability to do things for your organization --- update a website, organize meetings, etc, are at the mercy of the schedules and motivation of other time-strapped parent volunteers like yourself. You will have no shortage of criticism from people who have not put any sweat equity into the organization telling you what you should be doing (yes, if I had a staff and a $100 K budget, I'd agree that would work, or no, you and I don't agree on the direction in which you want to take this organization we have set up here.)
Frankly, it hurts to have your name dragged through the mud, and having false opinions or statements attributed to you. When I say that I don't think that any child should be forced into an hour long bus drive when there are closer alternatives, I mean just that. Don't play psychotherapist and try to guess what my motivations are, and claim that I'm saying that because I don't want low income or non-white kids bussed into my school. I'm saying it because I endured those bus trips (which were a necessity in the rural county I grew up in.) Life on the bus was utter hell --- and I actually was pretty lucky because I had an older brother who could serve as a threat to the kids who would attack me. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar --- I don't believe that kids belong bored and unsupervised on a bus for an hour at a time is a good idea because it leads to abuse of other kids on the bus. I lived it, and I don't want that for any kid --- my own, or anyone else's.
As another example --- supportwcpss notes that yes, you may be able to vouch that no one in the leadership of your organization is a racist, but can you prove that no one else in the general membership is? Of course not. You have open meetings, inviting people to get involved and support your group. Can you vouch for the feelings of every person there? No. Can you vouch for me that every member of your garden club is not racist, or not an anti-semite, or a nose-picker? As I've particpated in various organizations over the years, I've come to the conclusion that I can't control everyone I come in contact with, whether that organization is a PTA, a band booster's organization, a soccer team, or a Race for the Cure team. Judge an organization by its intentions and actions, not by the presumed attitudes of straw-man members you can imagine.
And, back to where I started. You have admitted disdain for the organization based upon what you presume they stand for. You've been invited to come to meetings to hear what they stand for, but you've indicated that you didn't really care enough about it to do that. Your mind appears to already be made up about the organization. Why should the organization expend any energy to cater to the whims of someone who has already decided that they don't like it?
Sorry way to long ..
Sat, 07/04/2009 - 11:43 — user1234“This was actually a response to numerous posts in another thread, where you (and others) keep asking for exhaustive detail about all the leaders in a parent-led organization. “
Just so you know, I would be interested in knowing who is leading the effort but if the politics as so evil here I can understand why people want to remain anonymous. So, to avoid hate mail, I don't want to know anymore who any of the leaders are or the organizational structure. Second, all I wanted was an official position on diversity instead of the "ALL student answer" because is it hard to separate personal from organizational positions …. The response was, we are just a parent’s organization and too overwhelmed to do that which is in line with what you said and what I know from my own volunteer activity. I accept that and will need to get the informantion elsewhere. Some how that gets blow into some witch hunt to investigate and defame people. Some one must have been burn really badly. After years of avoiding all the internet scams, I just try to verify things before repeating or commiting. I have learned my lesson and won’t ask another question on the subject.
“When I say that I don't think that any child should be forced into an hour long bus drive when there are closer alternatives, I mean just that. Don't play psychotherapist and try to guess what my motivations are, and claim that I'm saying that because I don't want low income or non-white kids bussed into my school. “
Just so you know there are consequences to your actions that you may not be aware of. I think that is where the confusion begins. Parent A says I want something and Parent B realized if that happens there will be a chain of events that will affect them. That process is probably poorly communicated on the blog and often appears to be accusatory.
“Judge an organization by its intentions and actions, not by the presumed attitudes of straw-man members you can imagine. “
Again, not to make another stir, as an average citizen, it is so hard to understand on the bog who speaks for an organization. Everyone is spouting an opinion and it is so hard to know if it is personal or organizational. I know it sound too naive, but I was expecting the conversation to be more like: “Let me give you our organization's statement on diversity which our group has agreed to and why we said these things and how we will measure candidates. Signed President of organization.” <I know ... I don't expect this now that I know how busy they are so no hate mail please .. I got it> I may like or dislike the statement but it is clear and has the authority of the organization. It is clear that anyone stating something else is not a real part of the organization or imposter. I guess that is old school.
“You have admitted disdain for the organization based upon what you presume they stand for. You've been invited to come to meetings to hear what they stand for, but you've indicated that you didn't really care enough about it to do that. Your mind appears to already be made up about the organization. Why should the organization expend any energy to cater to the whims of someone who has already decided that they don't like it?”
Distain …No way … I admire these people … I admire anyone willing to stand up and organize and lead including politicians I don’t agree with philosophically. As I said, it is hard to understand what is really going on for someone not deep into Wake politics… everyone has an agenda and angle that motivates them … it is just so hard understand and knowing the ramification will be for me from each group … for example, I read through hundreds of comments on MYR about tearing families apart, family unity, hectic life, low enrollment, etc. but I finally came to realize core issue appears to be financial - the higher daycare costs (e.g. $5000/yr) it imposes on families which I can clearly understand and see now how we could solution.
My mind is not made up but I am trying desperately to find something for me in all this. MYR, Calendar, bussing, reassignments, etc. are not important to me. People take that as meaning 1) I am a moron who does not follow the news, 2) I don’t think those issues are worthwhile (therefore they are worthless) or 3) if you don’t support me you are my enemy (e.g. status quo is what evil doers are called). None is true. Those issues are just not my fights. I have tried over and over to suggest what is important to me and my area but it falls on deaf ears and must not affect the steering committee like those issues affect me. I understand. So, I am looking for an organization that addresses my needs. I will simply read the paper, look at the blog, see who the parties endorse, review the websites to make up my mind and really don’t have time to attend meetings to gather that kind of simple information. Personally, I am cautious when information is so hard to get. Again, I am not showing distain for the meeting but they are too time consuming when all I want is the positions on a few key points.
“Why should the organization expend any energy to cater to the whims of someone who has already decided that they don't like it?””
Because it is all about sales … it is not over until the votes are cast. Personally, if I was leading, I would welcome everyone into the big tent and find a place for them to sit. If my interests are not being recognized or addressed than that means there are many more voters out there in the same boat. Again, when I suggested that, the response was that there are thousands of members and they cross all neighborhoods, incomes and races and what you want is not on the list so sorry. And if you are not with us, you are the enemy. It is not that black and white. So, another voter sent packing.
Finally, I think this could be a slam dunk if one issue was resolved – diversity. I don’t know Perry or supportwcpss but I think they have made it clear that diversity is the sacred cow as it is for me. First, I am referring to income diversity so we don’t play the race card. I just don’t want a system with very poor and wealthy schools. I know the system is not perfect today but it is better that other places I have lived where there are very good and very bad school separated mainly along income lines. I am guessing the origination could get everything else on the list – MYR, responsive BOE, reassignments, calendar, VOTECH, KIPP, etc, if this one issue was resolved. Personally, a commitment to continuing having diverse schools with limited disparity does not really affecting most people but a movement away from that policy will have great repercussions. Let me say that all the promises of additional funding to compensate don’t sway me, I can not link "ALL Kids" statement and a clear position on diversity, I don't respond to WCPSS sucks or the sky is falling arguemetns and I feel that promised funding to compensate for a resulting two tier schools will be short term and not genuine. Is all that evil?
Long posts. They're contagious.
Sat, 07/04/2009 - 21:05 — ApexterNo, not evil at all.
If you're wondering, I'm not involved in the leadership of WCSA. I am sympathetic with what they're supporting, and with the aches and pains of running such a group, however. When you have a lot of people making up the face of the organization, it can be a precarious position. If one of your group puts his foot in his mouth (which happens to all of us at some time), this can be the statement that damns your group from that point forward. I agree that having a clear mission statement and position points would be helpful.
"diversity is the sacred cow"
Actually, I see diversity as more of a red herring. Who can say they don't like diversity? It's like not liking America, Mom, and apple pie. But most of the supporters of the current plan tend to keep pretending that the system we have now is giving us diversity, when it is not.
Diversity is not some Holy Grail that WCPSS has found and we must protect. It is the Emperor's New Clothes. It is something that sounds beautiful, but in reality is just not here.
Diversity is hard to define, but let's just use the definition that WCPSS uses: Having schools have no more than 40% of their student bodies be made up of low income students. Have you noted that since we changed from the racial diversity policies we had in the 90's to the current socioeconomic diversity policy, we have substantially increased the number of schools that exceeded 40% F&R, and substantially increased the margin by which the most non-diverse schools exceed that 40% F&R? It's positively Orwellian to refer to the system we have now as one that promotes socioecomic diversity. We don't have diversity; we have Dulaneyosity.
The current crisis we're in is due to chasing Dulaneosity. The theory that there is a magic 40% threshhold, that, if exceeded makes a "bad" school is a theory based primarily on a research study headed by Mr. Dulaney. Don't get me wrong --- I agree that there can be more challenges when you have higher concentrations of poverty in a school. (However, I came from a pretty high poverty school in a high poverty rural county, and I agree with Falc's comments about the bigotry of low expectations.) Where is the evidence-based data used to back up the assertions that made up the theory that has driven WCPSS to the policies it is following now?
I agree that it would be a bad thing to have a community where there are tremendously more resources given to schools in one area than in another. But, elsewhere in the country where this happens, does this normally happen when a single school system oversees all the schools, or is this a byproduct of the situation where a single county may be broken up into multiple school districts, so that the wealthy schools get all the goodies, while the adjacent lower income ones get the dregs? And please don't say that given the chance, we'd be going back to the "separate but NOT equal" schools that existed prior to the 70's. Those were a byproduct of an era when that sort of crap was considered acceptable. While I'm not naive enough to claim that racism is dead, I am optimistic enough to think that we've grown enough as a society to see that that would not happen again.
And, as I see it, we have already slipped into the situation where schools in one area are given more than others. Back when our only policy was racial diversity and there were unfilled seats in urban schools, it made sense to put magnet schools in the urban core to attract a desired demographic. But now that we've begun a policy whereby we claim it's OK to bus anyone anywhere we damned well please, why then are we spending a tremendous amount of money to overload magnet schools in the urban core with tremendously more resources and programs, especially when this magneting process frequently exacerbates the poverty concentration problem (which, as you have rightfully observed, frequently makes it harder for those schools to have enough students to offer advanced courses.) Instead of super-loading certain schools to reward some families for going to school with low income students, why not share some of the wealth ---- make sure that all high schools, say, have 50 electives each, rather than having a couple offer 160, while others settle for 30? How about spending some of that on extra teacher assistants or teachers to lower class sizes where the needs are high instead of using it to provide an incentives to some families, while the lottery policies will effectively ban others from being able to get in on this?
It's just hard to expect people who are currently living with the down sides of the current policies while seeing others reaping substantial rewards feel enthusiastic about keeping with the status quo. There really needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of our system addressing both the inequities in the current system and trying to prevent the inequities that you (justifiably) fear if the current policies are summarily scrapped (which I consider unlikely.)
I agree with SDR … well
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 08:32 — user1234I agree with SDR … well said … also, showing understanding and empathy always wins points ….
“Have you noted that since we changed from the racial diversity policies we had in the 90's to the current socioeconomic diversity policy, we have substantially increased the number of schools that exceeded 40% F&R, and substantially increased the margin by which the most non-diverse schools exceed that 40% F&R?”
I think part of that is the change in demographic whereby the % of the total population of F&R kids is much higher than the 90’s.
“The current crisis we're in is due to chasing Dulaneosity. The theory that there is a magic 40% threshold, that, if exceeded makes a "bad" school is a theory based primarily on a research study headed by Mr. Dulaney.”
I am with you … BOE has made 40% be the magic limit between good and bad which drives where teachers want to work, the assignment principle want to take, and the places people want to live. While I am sad that 40% has become the magic line, given that humans need some demarcation line to separate things, I don’t see an alternative. Still, what ever the number / line, concentrating all the high needs kids in a few schools has some negative consequence. I agree with the “bigotry of low expectations” but I would like to comment that that insight would be so much better coming from that community than from one mile away and much better off. Personally, I would those parents affected to say your expectations for my child are too low and we want more which is support (not lead) by people from more affluent communities.
“And please don't say that given the chance, we'd be going back to the "separate but NOT equal" schools that existed prior to the 70's. Those were a byproduct of an era when that sort of crap was considered acceptable. While I'm not naive enough to claim that racism is dead, I am optimistic enough to think that we've grown enough as a society to see that that would not happen again. “
To clarify … note, my point is not racial … but separate but now equal exist today in the present diversity policy based system where there are big disparities between schools. So, if it exists today with a policy how much worse will it get with no policy? That is the big unknown that causes people to hold on to the status quo.
“especially when this magneting process frequently exacerbates the poverty concentration problem (which, as you have rightfully observed, frequently makes it harder for those schools to have enough students to offer advanced courses.) “
Again, there is much talk here from people shorted by the magnet program whose kids don’t get in to end the program. Again, people wonder while the magnet program has been mismanaged, does some group want to eliminate it entirely out of sour grapes (possibly rightly felt). Personally, a better way would be to praise the potential, acknowledge the faults and put forth improvements to alleviate any fear closing the program down.
“Instead of super-loading certain schools to reward some families for going to school with low income students, why not share some of the wealth ---- make sure that all high schools, say, have 50 electives each, rather than having a couple offer 160, while others settle for 30? How about spending some of that on extra teacher assistants or teachers to lower class sizes where the needs are high instead of using it to provide incentives to some families, while the lottery policies will effectively ban others from being able to get in on this? “
Those are all the common sense comments I am hoping to hear form candidates. If I felt in my high needs school that my kids were getting the same opportunity as kids in low needs school, I would not feel so disenfranchised and I would want to join the march with others toward a better system. As long as it is “neighbor vs. neighbor” WCPSS does not need to worry about a formable coalition forming.
“It's just hard to expect people who are currently living with the down sides of the current policies while seeing others reaping substantial rewards feel enthusiastic about keeping with the status quo. There really needs to be a comprehensive overhaul of our system addressing both the inequities in the current system and trying to prevent the inequities that you (justifiably) fear if the current policies are summarily scrapped (which I consider unlikely.)”
Just to clarify a little … that status quo is what we know … it is livable and bearable … there are a lot of unknowns with moving from that … on the pessimistic side, some will figure the wealthy and powerful will rig any new system to their benefit and things will get worse since that often happens … I think the challenge is to overcome that concern and build trust …
I see your point.
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 11:06 — Apexter"Just to
clarify a little … that status quo is what we know … it is livable and
bearable … there are a lot of unknowns with moving from that … on the
pessimistic side, some will figure the wealthy and powerful will rig
any new system to their benefit and things will get worse since that
often happens … I think the challenge is to overcome that concern and
build trust"
I see your point entirely here. However, you are fortunate enough to be living in an area where you and a large number of your neighbors find the negative consequences of the status quo to be livable and bearable. Those of us further out have faced harsher consequences and reached the point where we no longer find the inequities to be livable and bearable. And, quite frankly, we'd like to go back to the point where we can be enthusiastic supporters of our school system rather than constantly being put in an adversarial system. This doesn't serve any of us well.
I understand and agree ...
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 15:48 — user1234I understand and agree ... it take a high level of dissatisfaction to get people off the bench.
Ding, ding, ding!
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 11:00 — Apexter"If
I felt in my high needs school that my kids were getting the same
opportunity as kids in low needs school, I would not feel so
disenfranchised and I would want to join the march with others toward a
better system. As long as it is “neighbor vs. neighbor” WCPSS does not need to worry about a formable coalition forming."
There's your answer. "Divide and conquer" is how the current system of inequity continues to thrive. Playing neighbor against neighbor works. "We've got ours; too bad they're not getting theirs, too, but as long as it's them and not us, I guess I'm OK with it" sadly works. It really is hard to form a coalition. It's hard work, and it's always tempting to drop out when your kids's needs are met.
I guess the part of you that I just don't get is your feeling that the low needs schools are taking something away from the high needs schools just by existing. Have they taken anything away from the low needs schools? No (I'm excepting construction money, since schools had to be constructed somewhere; additionally, those funds came from separate bonds, and not budget money.) Magnet schools, on the other hand, tend to actively draw the cream of the crop/motivated students and families out of schools within the busable rim, thus increasing the poverty concentration, and reducing the demand for the advanced courses. While basic economic distribution is clearly the primary driver, have you considered the fact that the urban Raleigh magnet schools are too damned far away to consider for many of the families in the outer edge also contributes to the high concentration of more affluent families and higher demand for advanced courses in these schools? And, of course, WCPSS has, by policy, limited the coursework that can be offered at non-magnet schools.
I know I come across as a "bomb the magnets" person. Back when the magnets alone were being used to manage diversity, as an outer-edge family, I felt that being able to go to a decent school in my own community was a fair tradeoff for not having practical access to the magnets due to distance. When the Dulaneosity principles came into effect, though, our kids' assignments were made more unstable, and we could be forced into long bus rides without even the benefit of any cool programs at the end. (And you've heard many times that long abusive bus rides are my particular nightmare.) Then they added the ability to force our families into differing calendar schedules to boot. Something is just grossly wrong when a system is designed to spend a lot and offer cool incentives to one area of the county, while others face numerous negative aspects --- that ALSO cost more.
There's a lot that's wrong with the location of the magnets, as well. When the Mayors' Task Force looked at other systems, the group found it more appealing then a district was broken into subsectors, so that each area of the district had meaningful access to magnets within their sector. This is not the case here now. Look at a map to see where they're located: http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/overview/images/08/I-overview08.pdf#page=14 (page 14, if it doesn't link you directly). Now look at a poverty distribution map at http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/special-need/F&R-historic-m.pdf. See a problem? They're overwhelmingly located ITB, even though, other than the southeast and southern edges, these are not high poverty areas. However, these are all in reasonable commuting distance of some very high poverty areas to the east and south/Garner. Great if you were lucky enough to get your dynasty of magneting families started a few years ago, not so great if you're now in a school where your ability to attend magnets is blocked, or you're left in an even higher needs school due to motivated students magneting out.
I'm not saying magnets can't be a part of the solution, but the current situation where there is so much being spent to heap rewards on a few while even more must face costly negative consequences is just not workable. It creates not just anger and resentment, but outright fury in those who are getting the short end of the stick. The entire system is in need of a major overhaul. Those who keep trying to sell us on the beauty and majesty of the Emperor's New Clothes are not the ones we can trust to lead the way to meaningful change that will recognize the needs of everyone in the county.
“I guess the part of
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 15:42 — user1234“I guess the part of you that I just don't get is your feeling that the low needs schools are taking something away from the high needs schools just by existing. Have they taken anything away from the low needs schools?”
Personally, I don’t know if it is a zero sum game but the way it APPEARS to work is that if you have too many high needs kids much of the schools resources go to Special Ed, TA, IDP Admins, etc. and if your kids wants say French III there is not enough critical mass of kids to justify teaching that class. You than find out the low needs school a few miles away has three French III classes because there is so much demand at that location. So, it appears the more high needs kids you concentrate in a school the fewer opportunities there are for the remaining low needs kids. I am guessing once you get above 50% many challenging college bound course are non-existent and the school is a determent to your college bound kid's future and you need to move. I have NO problem with high needs kids and their concentration in my school if they did not have the negative affect of reducing the number of advanced classes offered.
I need to say I don’t know anything about magnets and so try not to comment on them. Like I said, I have no problem with Enloe and all they have. Enloe appears to be a huge campus and I am glad we can fill it and avoid building a $75M build somewhere else. The fact that many kids travel over 26 miles one way to attend Enloe is amazing. I always thought magnet school purpose to draw suburban kids to underutilized urban buildings was a good plan to maximize what we have already built and mitigate white flight. Personally, I don’t know how the program has evolved. Maybe all the whitest, richest kids have moved so far out that they are too far away now compared to 20 years ago. I have a number of coworkers who seem to love magnet schools (magnet dynasty?) which is my only contact on the subject. I will say that I was amazed going to their kids play at Hunter (at night!) and realizing the school was next to a housing project which would have been a death wish in Atlanta to be white in an area like that late at night. I was nervous since I had my little kids with me thinking the gangs would soon show up but everyone had a good time and there were a mix of some of the wealthiest folks I know and what I assumed were project residents intermingling. I loved that the area was not a war zone like I was familiar with growing up inAtlanta
“The entire system is in need of a major overhaul. “
I can understand and support that. I would assume that 1) magnets are not needed in a perfect world 2) since we don’t have a perfect world the question is where to put them, 3) if we think diversity is important, maybe the right place is in places like the housing projects I mentioned above which forces high and low income kids to comingle or 4) if you just want to fill under utilized empty urban buildings until the population of kids increases again that is ok too. What is important is to have a transparent plan and stick to it.
"magnet dynasty?" Once
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 17:44 — Apexter"magnet dynasty?"
Once you have an older sibling in the magnet program, younger siblings get dibs in the lottery. If you had an older child get their foot in the door a few years ago, you're guaranteed to keep your kids in the program, assuming you used family planning properly to space them at the optimum intervals ;)
Another difference
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 07:38 — user1234Again ... since most of my friends have been in the magnet program for years, they are part of the dynasty, love it, and have no problem getting in. Again this is another example why what I know and my neighbors know maybe different than what newbies here have experienced. So, proposals to end the magnet program would not go over well with the dynasty families I am familiar with and would be a reason to vote "status quo".
Another good example of how
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 11:41 — SDR256Another good example of how the status quo brilliantly pits neighbor against neighbor.
I couldn't agree more...
Sun, 07/05/2009 - 07:05 — srhudson06Thank you for explaining the way many of us feel. This explains it very well.
Wow. You have stated that so
Sat, 07/04/2009 - 22:30 — SDR256Wow. You have stated that so well. I hope you are a person in public office, based on your multifaceted perspective. If not, you should be!
Voting Records
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 10:32 — Bob_SconceInformation about who voted in each election is always public. That's how public interest organizations detect things like dead people voting. The last I looked at the Board of Election's web site, the phone numbers were not listed, but the addresses were.
I suggest that the public interest in having detailed information about how the government works trumps whatever negative effect there is by having that information public. Heck, under public records laws, they have to release it anyway. Once the school board changes, the other side will use the same information for the same purposes.
Touche' !!
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 20:15 — CaryCurmudgeonTouche' !!
Opps, This would have
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 21:47 — WhalerCaneOpps,
This would have been better placed here. Appologies.
Joe,
What are you 'Touche' ing'. The fact that J. Locke has said WCPSS is most transparent or the comment by user1234 or Apexter.
Perry :-)
The comment by Apexter was
Thu, 07/02/2009 - 21:56 — CaryCurmudgeonThe comment by Apexter was dead on. I know you are not a frequen poster here, but you might want to take the time to read some of user's posts.
Personally, I was glad to read some good news about wcpss for a change. Despite what some might think, wcpss is still our school system and I only want the best for our children.
I'm not sure what you mean,
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 07:36 — WhalerCaneI'm not sure what you mean, but if someone is posting home numbers or calling people to abuse them, I will join you in condeming that. No, I'm not a frequent poster, but I know false things are often said about me, and that hurts. I personally try to keep it real and above board. Joe, even though I disagree vehemently with you on the 'diversity' policy, I do know you and other members of WSCA care about WCPSS and what is best for children. I do not believe most in your group are racists. Elitist perhaps, but not racists. I just think it is wrong to role back a policy that has served our entire community well for thirty years. I'm open to other ideas about how to approach the challenges we face, but the goal of no school with more than 40% FNR is important for building community all across Wake County, and not creating enclaves of good and bad schools, pitting municipalities against each other.
Perry, I think we would
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:04 — CaryCurmudgeonPerry, I think we would disagree who the elitists are. I think the elitests are the people who have the power to make policy for Wake County schools, but then feel that what they have created is not good enough for their own children. Talk to the status-quo supporters you know, especially in the NCGA. Their kids either won the magnet lottery, or are in private school. Same goes for the "experts" who have studied us from Maryland and New York.
I also disagree that current wcpss policies are "working." We should be ashamed of the achievement gap between ED and non-ED students, and that gap is not getting any better. We should be ashamed of our graduation rate, especially among African American men -- half of whom don't earn a HS diploma. And having a system which fractures families by forcing their children to attend different school calendars (while denying YR access to those who want it) is a broken system.
One nit to pick... You said you belive "most" in our group are not racists. NONE in our group are racists.
Well...
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 09:33 — supportwcpssI don't mean to jump into this conversation but are you referring to your small group of 10 middle class, white, western Wake, 2.5 kids, suburban neighborhood individuals or are you referring to the larger organization who are not 'racist'? I would guess you can't speak for the smaller group and definitely can't begin to speak to what your larger group is about.
You seem to preach that this is not the "60s" and that everything is just fine when it comes to race. If I am not interpreting your comments correctly my apologies. But if you truly beleive racism is not still rampant in this country you are very naive. As recent as the early 90's establishments in some of the major cities in NC refused to allow blacks in.
Some people are blatant racists (like the RVs I saw in Raleigh recently with Confederate flags on them) and some are racists and don't know it. Again, I'm not labeling your group but don't be so quick to pretend racism isn't still alive and well in this country.
Case in point
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 11:40 — SDR256"your small group of 10 middle class, white, western Wake, 2.5 kids, suburban neighborhood individuals" ....not 'racist'?
Can you all see now why a group of CROSS Wake County moms wouldn't want to put their names out on a website? Every tiny little bit of information shared is twisted and used to paint an untrue picture. Easily, offhandedly labeled and maligned. WSCA has 1000+ members from ACROSS Wake County. I don't know any one of these members who has 1/2 a kid in their house.
Supportwcpss....I don't discount what you say about racism in Wake County, but what we have been saying about children and education publically, loudly and often, is on a different higher plane than that. So bundling all that 'racial battleground' into our conversation about raising academics for ALL children in Wake County is a cynical, suspicious stretch of logic. Go ahead, keep putting that word into posts about us, even if just to say that you have begrudgingly realized that it might not be true. Repeat it again and again. It makes it very clear that you are making presumptions about us. We're white? Maybe we are maybe we're not. How would you know? Oh - you have presumed based on racial stereotypes? In fact our membership about reflects the racial percentages in this county. Some folks have been scared - yes, downright bullied - into not speaking out because their 'communities' are supporting the system. (This is what's good for us, honey, pipe down. Don't rock the boat. ) They aren't comfortable coming out of the 'shadows' but are desperate for some help as parents for what's best for their children. No parent in their right mind wants their child bused 20 miles from home - and yes it is happening. And yes at-risk children are the ones its happening most to. And yes their parents don't like it. But the system is very powerful and has strategic friends. I think your characterization of WSCA is in fact narrowminded, elitist and - ......shall we say..... based in old racial stereotypes.
These have been difficult conversations that we have been conjuring across diverse communities in our county and what you're doing here doesn't make it any easier. Shame on you.
Once again
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 13:44 — supportwcpssYou put words in other's mouths and say I am calling you racist which I did not. I simply refuted a statement that indicated no one within the WCSA group is racist which just isn't realistic. Racism is not a black and white topic. I know plenty of people who believe they aren't but in a 5 minute discussion it's obvious.
I didn't make the issue about racism - you did! I am simply indicating that the current of racism is deeper then most peopel aorund can even begin to understand and I believe it is but one part of the issues that we have. As user1234 busing and schedules don't matter to me either. I think the issues we must address are so much bigger then schedules and distances.
In terms of who is and is not bussed and who does and does not like being bussed, you have no real proof of any of your claims so you are no better then WCPSS who won't' do your 'magic bullet' study on diversity. I have met and interacted with a number of high poverty families in this area who are glad their kids are not in the school closest to them.
My point about labeling is that, as other groups which have come before you, your group is but one shade of society. You claim to have 1000+ members but as the other blogger said, where is your transparency? Wake Cares and the other organizations before you have stood up momentarily and then disappeared intoa black hole. If this was truly a cause supported by a large group of our community why do these groups not stick around?
You mix your self professed truths in your posts with absolutely nothing to back them up. And in terms of claiming they are based on stereotypes...I see these people every day in my schools. I won't begin to open that can of worms.
And there we have it!
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 15:38 — g88ky07"I think the issues we must address are so much bigger then schedules and distances. "
Well, I'd say this explains our current system and it's "supporters" to a "T". Even at the very basic level, education in OUR neighborhoods, they don't see a problem. They think however THEY want to do business is how it should be done. People who don't support the parent's right to be a parent, use common sense and taught something besides a "diversity" agenda don't need to be in charge of anything! Not a thing!
Enjoy your burger!
You're right in one sense
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 15:32 — SDR256You're right in one sense supportwcpss because I'm just simply calling like I see it. We've had our own conversations, we've read material and reports and data out the wazoo and come to our own conclusions. What is certain is that there is a lot that is not reported on because it would show the system in an unpopular light. Short of having our own newspaper and full time PR staff there is no way for us to fully satisfy doubters.
As for what is 'the truth' we'll see in October. No one has a crystal ball.
You're wrong in another aspect because by bringing up the topic of 'not racist', but implication you were first to direct the reader to consider the topic of race. I simply responded as I think that topic takes a back seat to education in this context. Maybe that's where we diverge.
Nuff said. Happy 4th!!
SDR, Your points are
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 13:21 — truthBtoldSDR,
Your points are well taken and very well documented, however if the JLS has said it created a criteria that they independently applied to all school systems across the state and Wake was the best so be it.
I believe the other point is that you claim that WSCA has a 1,000 members, we have to take your word for it. There is no proof (or transparency) from what I have seen, to say that is true. I have seen on the news everytime you've had a gathering there have been 12-18 people including children there. Maybe you do have thousands of followers, I haven't seen the evidence. Where is your transparency?
I have however seen data, reports, videos, etc. pretty much everything I want from a governmental agency (much more than the city of raleigh, or wake county commissioners provide to us btw).
So if a watch-dog conservative, neighborhood school, voucher supporting organization has determined, according to their criteria that the school system does a good job at accountability, then why do you go into convulsions at least acknowledging it?
It is pretty apparent how you are going to run your campaigns this fall, you and your candidates are entitled to it. That is at least until your tactics are used against you and then it's all propaganda. Of course it is dear...*smile.*
Happy Fourth of July everyone
My comments were directed
Fri, 07/03/2009 - 15:26 — SDR256My comments were directed specifically at supportwcpss' post and not a comment on the article. I thought that was pretty clear.
I'm grateful the system is as transparent as it is. Otherwise....geesh I hate to even think about it.