Wake County, along with the rest of the state, will be releasing the preliminary adequate yearly progress results today under the federal No Child Left Behind program.
As this state press release indicates, the number of schools statewide that will fall short and have to allow students to transfer out is expected to sharply rise this year. That's because the target passing rate for schools to meet AYP standards sharply rose this year in order to reach the goal of being 100 percent proficient by 2013.
The Obama Administration has talked about revising No Child Left Behind but it hasn't happened yet.
One thing to see is whether critics of the Wake school board majority may try to use this year's NCLB results in the school board elections. Some critics of the old board majority had mentioned the AYP results in 2009.
Comments
WCPSS scores — served with perspective
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:36 — AngelaWhttp://www.civitasreview.com/education/wcpss-scores-served-with-perspective/
Do our students need to do better? Of course. I’ll be the first in line for acccountability and standards. However, NCLB’s straightjacket one-size fits all approach and unrealistic goals are some of the program’s biggest shortcomings. WCPSS results and those elsewhere confirm we have a performance — and a testing problem.
Your insights...comments are
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 23:16 — HJ2ss2Your insights...comments are always accurate. May I just add that more than a performance and testing problem, the County has an "inability and unwillingness to understand the real issue" problem. I don't see that changing. The atmosphere is too politically charged for common sense to prevail.
Targets and resources
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 19:46 — newsdayPaulastam, nice analogy for laymen understanding. It's important to look at the number of targets a school has to achieve in relation to the resources they receive, i.e., Title I, DSSF funds and now the Renaissance schools. Another caveat, data like this is useful when it's used to understand trends over a period of time. It is not useful when it is used to further individual political agendas to crucify teachers and justify ill thought out pay for performance schemes. Good call about Blue Diamond. Hard to do the job when the people who are supposed to be on our side take away the tools a teacher needs with out thinking about how to replace them. Another example of board whimsy.
No Child Left Behind OR No School Left Standing?
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 18:22 — paulastamImagine if federal education law and its requirement for perfection for ALL children (regardless of disability, language - or lack of, background, immigration status, etc) were applied to the private sector. Kathy Emery (longtime teacher and writer) alludes to that when she asks us to just imagine: All cars must be fuel proficient, have NO blowouts and not a single recall after 2014. That federally mandated scenario would allow all our newly perfect kids (as required by No Child Left Behind) to drive around in perfect cars.
Imagine if all doctors were to be 100% proficient, or perfect, by 2014. The feds should mandate that too! We would no longer need to fear medical malpractice as any doctors that wittingly or unwittingly made an error would simply have had their practice shutdown by the arbitary 2014 cut-off date. In the interim we would have seen how many errors they had made published in the newspaper on an annual basis. I'm certain that our doctors would be just fine with that level of accountability - even those that "operate" on public funds! :)
Restaurants? The feds could mandate that all consumers will be guaranteed the perfect meal by 2014. No more having to send that bleeding steak back for a bit more time in the stove - it'll be guaranteed to be perfect everytime - heck, if it's not, then the restaurant will be shutdown anyway. In reality, it seems some of our restaurants can have cockroach problems and employees that don't wash their hands prior to handling food yet still get a 'B' rating by inspectors which becomes an 'A' if they take a food sanitation course despite the pre-exisiting issues!
In reality the private sector, including private schools, could not cope with the same lofty and rigid accountability measures that our public schools must endure under No Child Left Behind and its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) measure: EVERY child that walks through a school's doors (at anytime of the school year no less!) must be proficient on the end-of-year state tests. There are NO excuses: It does not matter if the child has an abnormally low IQ; It does not matter that the child cannot sit still for a 90 minute test; It does not matter that the student is (or his/her parents) in our country illegally (I understand school officials are not allowed to question immigration status), barely speaks English and has parents that did not go to school; It does not matter that the child is averse to testing; It does not matter than a child may be "intelligent" in many other ways; It does not matter that the parents kept the child out of school for 2 months of the school year; It does not matter that the GOP in NC continues to freeze teachers' salaries; It does not matter that the state's GOP is stripping our schools of funding and human resources; It does not matter that the GOP led General Assembly refuses to honor current pay-for-performance bonuses (state's ABC bonus system); It does not matter that Ronnie M and his GOP cohort running our school board is removing instructional tools such as Blue Diamond from our middle schools; It does not matter that teachers are asked everyday to do more with less; and so on....
I 'salute' (that one's for the general!) the public school parents, educators and students that must learn and work under such impossible standards that no or very few private sector business(es) could survive...
Paula, "Independent, Fair & Speaking Up for MY Kids."
so...
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 20:05 — Bob_SconceFirst of all, recognize that the only negative consequence is loss of Federal money, which is typically only a small part of each school's funding. Even so, I'm all in favor of turning federal funding into block grants to the states -- that would increase funding by allowing all the federal bureaucrats to be fired.
Incorrect
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:01 — trekkeroneNot meeting AYP has no impact on a school's federal funding. So long as a school hits the trigger Free & Reduced lunch rate, it qualifies for federal money through the Title I program. If a school does not meet AYP, it is subject to cascading consequences for each following year that it does not: families may transfer out in years 1 & 2, then mandatory tutoring services must be offered in year 3, and if still not meeting AYP in year 4 for the same subgroup(s), possible removal of the teachers and administration. At no point is loss of federal dollars ever on the table. Please get the facts.
I have the facts
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:24 — Bob_SconceMy point is that the hook the feds have on the schools is the money they give. If a Title I school was ok with giving up the federal money, it could ignore AYP, not offer transfers or tutoring services, and keep the same teachers and administration. There is no mechanism for the feds to force the school to do anything -- all they can do is say "Fine, you don't get your money."
...
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:46 — SideburnsAnd some states are choosing to ignore.
More states defying federal gov’t on education law
States say NCLB unrealistic, willing to lose federal funding
http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/07/22/more-states-defying-federal-govt-on-education-law/
NCLB always sounded better
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 08:32 — woodstockNCLB always sounded better in concept than in implementation and it is indeed wildly unrealistic. We all know not all children are going to reach a shared high-level of proficiency and any measure that intends to depict all children as reaching some similar level of performance is not much of a measure. It is not reasonable to measure the achievement of the next Steven Hawking against that of a child with an 85 IQ. It is not the matter of leaving a child "behind" it is a matter of realistic expectations and maximizing individual abilities and opportunities.
Individual schools do not
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:38 — trekkeroneIndividual schools do not make decisions about its funding sources, central services and the law does. School districts are required to appropriate Title I funds to all schools hitting the target F & R rate. To deny a school it's due funding would be illegal. The only way around it would be for the entire district to refuse federal funding. Are you suggesting that Wake raise taxes to make up for the millions of dollars we'd be walking away from?
Wake receives about $31
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:56 — AngelaWWake receives about $31 million in Title I funding and about $2.5 million for ESL classes.
Projections of the numbers of students who might qualify a school for this special funding are made in the spring before the August start of the traditional school year.
"We take a snapshot in April on what projected enrollments are and we don't change," Tata said. "That could short-change some schools to the tune of $100,000, and that's two teachers."
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/07/22/1362589/tata-wake-schools-should-target.html#ixzz1SqlIqdxl
31 mil + 2.5 Mil
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 10:23 — valsparAs mentioned in a Wake Commissioner's meeting, one cent tax increase raises 11 million dollars. It would take a 3 cent tax increase to replace the federal money, or 30 dollars per 100K of tax value. At a 250K house tax value, that's 75 extra dollars per year.
Mrs. Paint just reminded me about the thousands of dollars we have spent over the last 10 years directly supplementing the school system via fundraisers like wrapping paper, fruit, dining out books, sending in reams and reams of paper, and of course Kleenex. I wonder how much of a tax increase would be needed to wipe out the need for target group fundraising altogether? Yes, I know, I'm dreaming.
How much more do you think
Tue, 07/26/2011 - 16:16 — woodstockHow much more do you think taxpayers should pay? You do understand the penny extra sales tax and the $75 a year in property taxes you make light of are on top of whole lot of other taxes and fees, right? And, your "dream" is to tax more??!! When will it be enough?
Also, you may interested to know that 47% of working Americans pay no income taxes. Isn't it about time they start contributing something?
Heh...
Tue, 07/26/2011 - 16:40 — Bob_SconcePlease don't fall into the trap of calling it a 'penny' sales tax -- it's a 1% sales tax, which is $1 on every $100 spent, or $100 on every $10,000. Over the course of a year, that 1% adds up to an extra $200 - $400 per family. We don't call a 1% increase in the federal tax rate a 'penny'.
I agree that the 47% paying no income tax is a really bad idea -- it's dangerous to have a tax system where nearly 1/2 the population has no skin in the game. (But, but... what about the SS & Medicare payroll tax? That's a huge portion of that 47%'s income. It may be, but all that is allocated for their future benefit, so it doesn't count. However, I'd be more than happy to let them opt-out, as long as they opt-out of the benefit as well.)
And, the Raleigh City Council should stop cramming fees into my monthly water bill -- they should increase the property taxes instead; at least those are deductible.
I'd much rather see the taxes be allocated at the local level than at the state level -- I think it's harder for the County Commission to reallocate education funding than it is for the GA. So, yeah, I'd go along with a $75 property tax hike even though it's on top of a lot of other things.
No....
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:54 — Bob_SconceYou're trying to read too much into what I said. My point is, basically, this: the federal government does not have constitutional authority to directly regulate K12 education.** Congress, for example, cannot pass a law that says "Every 4th grade class must teach the American Revolution." But, it can pass a law that says "We are going to give $X to your school district. But, as a condition to receiving that money, you have to teach the American Revolution in every 4th grade class." Local schools can decide to ignore the obligation by foregoing the money that comes with it.
In answer to your question, I'm not suggesting that Wake should turn down the federal money. I do think that the district needs additional revenue.
(**To my recollection, Congress has never actually asserted that authority, so the issue hasn't actually been decided in court. But, K12 education has always been considered to be the responsibility of the states, and any law that directly regulated it would have a tough slog through the courts.)
Now you're just embarrasing yourself. Bob
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 10:41 — trekkeroneI'm not reading into what you've written; I'm simply responding to what you've written. Your position shifts each time I enlighten you with the facts. Each time, you've broadened out and watered down the scope of your point because you don't have a solid understanding of the facts as they apply at the local level. You've moved from the mistaken position that a school could simply choose to refuse federal dollars to avoid AYP consequences (again, look at what you've written) to now schooling me on federalism, implied powers of the states and the role of Congress in our fine democracy. God Bless America! Here you are entitled to express your opinion, however uneducated. Best wishes.
Pfft...
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 11:28 — Bob_SconceThis is what I started off with:
The only negative consequence is loss of Federal money
I stand by that. The worst the feds can do is take away federal money.
Everything else is you over-parsing what I said. In particular, you misconstrued this sentence:
If a Title I school was ok with giving up the federal money, it could ignore AYP, not offer transfers or tutoring services, and keep the same teachers and administration.
as being a statement about who would make the decision about giving up federal money -- I was just saying that nobody has a gun to the schools' heads; the worst that happens is a loss of some federal money. Nobody goes to jail. No judge says "You have to do this or I hold you in contempt."
You need to read my original comment as a response to PaulaStam, who asked what if the feds applied similar standards toward other industries as they do to K12 education. I was pointing out why the situation was not as analagous as she made it out.
$900 per student
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 22:22 — Solon77Federal Funding provides approx $900 per student. This is hardly chump change when locally there is absolutely no appetite to fund the schools.
Well...
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:29 — Bob_SconceThat's the average per student, but, IIRC, much of that isn't tied to Title I status. In any case, I wasn't suggesting that WCPSS should forego federal funding. I do wish, however, that the Feds would leave education to NC and WCPSS instead of imposing top-down policies that (1) require a team of DC bureacrats to implement and (2) are generally poor at addressing the needs of the districts across the nation.
Good thing
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 19:32 — Solon77So much for the GOP philosophy of small government. It was Bush that implemented NCLB if I recall. The GOP should wack NCLB as part of the spending reduction efforts and let the states fund their own education programs. Education competition between the states would be a good thing.
NCLB was originally proposed
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 09:36 — AngelaWNCLB was originally proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office. The bill, shepherded through the Senate by co-author Senator Ted Kennedy, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress
The Department of Public
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 17:46 — AngelaWThe Department of Public Instruction released the preliminary Annual Yearly Progress reports Thursday. To make AYP a school must meet 100 percent of its No Child Left Behind target goals. The standards were tougher this year and not comparable to past years because the target goals increased as planned through No Child Left Behind
(news 14)
Posted on wcpss.net now.
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 15:09 — midtownmomLook closely at the numbers to see which type schools let their neediest students down the most. I'll give you a hint - Hunter, Ligon and Enloe.
AYP Results
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 21:19 — RKCurtrightI can understand how hard it is to tell which school are doing welll and come to an accurate conclusion about schools. If left to judge each student and teacher based on AYP results we will all be predetermining the quality of every teacher, student, and the entire school staff. AYP results are looking at how well the entire student population lumped together in that school knows the material they were tested on. You cannot tell by these results how well each student has improved or can you determine how good the teacher is. Teachers and the schools have no control over how proficient students are when they start out in their class, how well they test, and how much they have been given the skills they needed prior to arriving at their classroom.
It seems common for parents to judge a school on this one-dimensional view. To judge an entire school, each student, or teachers based on test scores is almost like saying we are going to judge how smart you are based on the combined test scores given to everyone on your street and that is how we determine how well you have been taught or how smart you are.
Schools should have goals, benchmarks, guidelines, teacher peer reviews, accountability, strong Principals, and every resource needed for each child they are required to teach. AYP results and standardized tests are one small determination that should be looked at. To stop there leaves many schools with the wrong label and some of that perception is unfair, as a great school can be looked upon as inferior.
It would be good if our school system took extra care and consideration in finding the right multidimensional approach for parent with some better way to “grade” a school. Parents need to be shown all that makes a school great. Hopefully they will incorporate a multifaceted view of our schools in this new assignment plan to better help parents determine school quality .
AYP Results
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:17 — Ewood79All I'm seeing is the number of AYP targets met which doesn't tell much, so I'm wondering how to get at the information you're referring to.
You can find
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:28 — AngelaWYou can find school-by-school AYP results at www.wcpss.net/test-scores/ayp/2011/. For additional information, visit the NC Department of Public Instruction at www.ncpublicschools.org/nclb.
Thank you
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:49 — Ewood79Just a little confusing because none of the three schools you mentioned are at the bottom in terms of % targets met so I was wondering why they were singled out (3 high schools with lower % than Enloe; 11 middle schools lower than Ligon; 2 elementary schools lower than Hunter). Perhaps there is some measure of minority achievement I'm missing other than the fact AYP targets focus on different subgroups. I apologize, don't know much about this subject.
Simpler answer than that...
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:51 — bpuli9999his kids didn't get in.
hey wasn't me who mentioned
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 17:07 — AngelaWhey wasn't me who mentioned Enloe, Ligon or Hunter.....
I just told you where to look
...
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:44 — SideburnsYeah but the subgroup data isn't released yet.
...
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 15:54 — SideburnsHow does this compare to the Blue plan's list of "achievement" schools?
AYP and Achievement Schools
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 21:12 — nriemannI would not expect much overlap. AYP is a broad-based outcome measure and the Achievement Schools classification is a broad-based growth measure. Success at meeting the former depends on where your kids start. Success at the latter classification mostly does not.
...
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 21:47 — SideburnsAre you suggesting that the students in those schools that met AYP started at a better place? There are many higher F&R schools on that meager list.
?
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 08:39 — nriemannI wasn't. I was just suggesting that the measures were two different things. All else being equal, it is easier for a school to make AYP if its subgroups do in fact start in a better place, while this is less true for the "Achievement Schools" calculation, which primarily looks at how kids improve when in the school.
(Note that the implication in your question is incorrect. High FRL is not necessarily a disadvantage for making AYP, since the proficiency bar is lower for subgroups that tend to be poorer.)
I do not intend to demean the results of any of the schools that made AYP. As shown by our overall results, the breadth of success involved is very impressive.
I don't understand your statement
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:32 — nmoskal(Note that the implication in your question is incorrect. High FRL is not necessarily a disadvantage for making AYP, since the proficiency bar is lower for subgroups that tend to be poorer.)
I don't understand your statement as my understanding is that the same proficiency requirements under AYP apply to all subgroups -
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/nclb/abcayp/facts/aypfactsheet.pdf
Are you thinking about the WCPSS E&R Effectiveness Index? That did set lower bars for FRL, LEP and SWD students, as well as adjust the bars downward for school poverty level.
My understanding is that "adjusting the bar" for different demographics is counter to federal guidelines, which makes sense. Otherwise, how would achievement gaps close if there was a built in expectation that some groups will always do worse than others (i.e. an expected gap)?
If a subgroup doesn't meet the set target, the school can still make AYP on the safe harbor, but I believe the same 10% reduction in students not meeting proficiency holds across all subgroups.
One other thing of note is that the actual sanctions only apply to Title I schools (non-Title I schools only have to revise School Improvement Plans).
Friday
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 20:58 — nriemannAs noted in response to Alison, I just wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote that. You are right.
Neil
Yes, the measures are two
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:18 — trekkeroneYes, the measures are two different things. Your suggestion about it being easier for schools who meet AYP because their subgroups "started in a better place" seems reasonable at first, but two factors come into play. Wake's population is highly transient, with thousands of students moving within the district every year. Second, ever consider that the "better place" could be the excellence of the very school in which the students achieved AYP? If a school is strong, it can make great gains in students' proficiency within one academic year - whether all students were there the year prior or a bunch just transferred in at the beginning of the year. To do so as the bar is raised much higher this year is a tremendous accomplishment.
Your comment that "the proficiency bar being lower for subgroups that tend to be poorer" is completely false. All subgroups are held to the same target for reading and the same target for math. Please get the facts. How ridiculous and wrong would it be to have lower expectations for some subgroups over others? The whole point of No Child Left Behind is just that: to hold everyone to the same and increasing standards until all subgroups hit 100% proficiency in 2014.
...
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 09:11 — Sideburns... since the proficiency bar is lower for subgroups that tend to be poorer
I can't seem to find anything about a 'proficiency bar'. I thought all subgroups had the same target goals. Are you talking about safe harbor analysis?
No
Fri, 07/22/2011 - 20:55 — nriemannI just wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote that. The bar is the same. You are right.
Neil
well
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 16:07 — AngelaWI believe Hilburn was one of the few that made AYP and is listed as an "achievement" school....
Last year at Hilburn a good one
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 10:08 — valsparCongrats to the group of children that, due to proximity trumping all, are being forced by this new school board's policy to leave a school they excel at, and attend Walnut Creek next year, just because its closer. I hope whatever helped them to achieve AYP at Hilburn is in place at Walnut Creek already. We'll see, in fact, we should watch closely. In the mean time, so much for that awful bus ride sucking their brains out on US 70.
We should expect ALL schools
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 10:55 — woodstockWe should expect ALL schools to have what students need to succeed. Students should not have to bypass nearby schools to get to a better ones across town that deliver what is needed for them to succeed.
...
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 10:47 — SideburnsAnd yet if they were moved under the old assignment policy -- for "diversity" -- you wouldn't have blinked an eye.
Perfect example of a diversity move working?????
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 12:56 — valsparOne could say the assignment policy that got these children TO Hilburn worked for these students, in fact ALL the students in each subgroup. These kids "weren't broke", this board used geographic tunnel vision and "fixed them" anyway. Had academic performance been the deciding factor for these kids, they would get to stay where they are doing well. What should have happened is a review of what is working at the schools doing well by all subgroups, and replicated where it is not. Moving students for any other reason is not doing them any justice - no matter which 6200 got them to where they are. So much for me being a 'diversity for simply diversity's sake' supporter. Can one guarantee this group of children will perform equally as well just because they are closer to home? No. Nor can one guarantee this group of children would have performed so admirably simply by being bused. The fact that they did is what is important, and this board blew right past it at the Student Assignment table. No mention of academic performance for any node moved. It is what was happening AT Hilburn that made the difference for this set of children, and all the children there. Allison, why can't you simply applaud their achievement, at Hilburn?
...
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 13:49 — SideburnsI do applaud their success. Considering what Hilburn has faced the past few years, it is tremendous that they met AYP.
Your newfound concern for student stability, however, is ridiculous. Move 'em for diversity and you couldn't care less. But, move students to fill a new school and you want to pretend you care. How do you suggest a new school be filled?
Why can't you just applaud the fact that this Board has allowed every family the opportunity to attend their neighborhood school and quit being a Walnut Creek hater?
Wrong paint as usual, Allison
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 15:45 — valsparAgain, trying to paint poster's views the way your imagination desires and it backfires, of course. But we expect such from you. I've been for stability from the get go, which means keeping kids where they are, not moving them just because of geographic tunnel vision. Stability could have started with where every child was already at on December 1, 2009. This group of students should get to stay at Hilburn if they want to. There was already a student assignment plan designed for Walnut Creek, this board changed it, and they changed it using the kids bused into Hilburn, who did not ask to be moved. That's lack of stability from a stability shouting group, changing the Walnut Creek attendance base. No Walnut Creek hating going on here, wondering why you make up such completely idiotic rhetoric? Must be that Western Wake narrowed view of the world - - - - Stability for Western Wake & the majority board member's districts, Proximity for any student in the way of that, isn't that how it goes?
...
Sat, 07/23/2011 - 16:19 — SideburnsI've been for stability from the get go,
From the get go? When was that? Apparently not when children were being moved year after year from school to school just because they were F&R? That's the policy you supported -- and want to bring back.
You're not kidding anyone. You and your group latched on to the word 'stability' when you realized that's what parents want. I noticed your candidate Mr. Martin has suddenly realized that as well. Ironically, each and every GSIW candidate is itching to bring back diversity busing yet are using the buzzword 'stability' publicly. Talk about completely idiotic rhetoric.
Yes, there was a student assignment plan for Walnut Creek and it involved reassigning kids. Was that before the 'get go' for you?
climb off your high horse
Sun, 07/24/2011 - 20:29 — EBDarcyYour "group" latch on to MYR (a term which your side coined) and "diversity" when they realized that they were hot-button issued that would get people to the polls. Can you honestly say you didn't take advantage of the anger a relatively small group of parents felt to win in 2009?
...
Sun, 07/24/2011 - 20:51 — SideburnsAt least I stood for what I believed -- and continue to. This new batch seems to change their mantra as the wind blows. To GSIW and their candidates, "stability" is the new black.
MYR was destructive and diversity assignments (as defined by WCPSS policy at the time) were as well. They weren't just hot-button issues. They were real and caused many problems for families, their children and many communities. To readily dismiss them as "hot-button issues" shows you really don't understand their impact.
I didn't take advantage of anything. Parents were angry, frustrated and tired of being pushed around and they voted that way. But thanks for letting me know that my high horse and I were so effective.
A better word?
Sun, 07/24/2011 - 23:47 — RKCurtrightThank you, Allison and Woodstock for your response. May I suggest Hot buttons could also be called propaganda. I'm not saying your issues were invalid, just put into its' simplest form that it left out important information that the public now has a better understanding of the issues.
Obviously the campaign worked well. Though it did the public no favors in truly understanding what factors needed small adjustments and what needed minor changes. Now we are hearing some say we don't need a huge overhaul on our assignment plan, though the last campaign sold the reform to include just that. This sell is on the fast track and now we must hope the public is willing to buy it. A choice plan is what will give families choice, create equity in schools by giving undesirable schools a bit of a lift, and rid ourselves of reassignments by filling new school by open enrollment. To the people who are saying we don't need a huge change, just some minor adjustments. It is too late.
You guys succeeded and had some valid frustrations, though what happened was the issues were sold in the most simplest terms. Citizens deserve more explanation of the issues and what it will take to get us to where we all want to be.
Your beef with Apex having so many new schools and all of them were opened as year round calendar was a valid issue. Everyone should be given a choice in calendar and continuity in calendar within elementary and middle school, all within a reasonable distance. It all seemed so practical at the time. So we evolved into understanding more than practical logic.
There were distinct issues that arose from the growth Apex gained over a relatively short period of time. Growth was projected to continue at a fast pace when they decided all new schools would be opened on the year round calendar.
Then growth slowed with the economy, families were upset, confused, frustrated, irritated, not feeling heard, etc.You helped get your issues heard and got 4 board members to align with Mr. Margiotta all in the name of big changes.
Now it is time to fully explain each process, cost, consequences of change, and get serious about what the public deserves to understand.
We all know a campaign can succeed when fingers are pointed and propaganda is sold as fact. Has the public wised up and expects better? Do they want diplomacy, working together, humble hearts, and actively listening to each and every issue?
My hope is we can put ego aside, stop finger pointing and help the public truly understand where we are headed and what we stand to gain and loose. Helping citizens make their vote meaningful means they understand all aspects of change and know the intentions will put us where we need to be.
Good intentions are a better education for all children, a family friendly assignment plan with clear choices. We also need to be budget-minded, teacher-friendly, equitably fair to all schools, utilize all schools, build new schools, have year round schools with choice in calendar available within reasonable distance, all while we get creative with ideas to make everything better, stronger, leaner, efficient....
We need a School Board humble enough to listen to others and not just their own voice and the voice of those who support them. Which of these people on the ballot are willing to hear all sides, all views, all perspectives and work together with the entire Board and Mr. Tata to make success happen?
When persons put ego front and center, righteous, justified in what they say, do, and see other views as idiotic, it appears they are without any idea how flawed their ability to truly hear anything but themselves and those that align themselves with what they believe. Is it liberating or really a caged life?
Being in the grey is where most people are. It is the silver lining. Evolving means we are growing, listening and trying to understand all perspectives. Every issue is not black and white and should not be sold as such. Wake County deserves the facts from all sides, don't you think?