If you haven't' read it yet, the Wake Education Partnership had an assessment of last week's discussion by the Wake County school board on the student assignment policy.
This appeared in Thursday's issue of In Context, the WEP's e-newsletter:
The framework for a long-term approach to student assignment that is noticeably different from past years is beginning to take shape in public conversations among school board members.
Unlike the current assignment policy, which is several pages long with lists and subsections, the new proposal has four basic goals and no more than three factors to be considered within each goal. The goals are achievement, stability, proximity and operational efficiency.
The difference would be immediately obvious to legions of frustrated parents who have spent countless hours trying to navigate the numerous and sometimes conflicting elements of the current approach.
The new proposal, which was discussed by board members this week, is not designed to make everyone happy. No large school district in the country can make that claim. But it is straightforward and it breaks from past plans in several key areas.
One of the biggest differences is an acknowledgement that the district can no longer expect all schools to be similarly diverse. While it would strive to minimize concentrations of low-performing students and low-income students, its other goals would make it impossible to create all schools with similar demographics.
To address the differences among schools, the district would turn to a new equity policy that would guide how money and other resources are spent. The goal would be to ensure all students have access to what they need to succeed.
An equity policy has not been discussed in detail yet, but a working proposal was distributed last month.
“The devil is in the details” is a phrase that applies here and school board members know they have a lot of work ahead of them. For example, will there be a specific cutoff for concentrations of poverty? How will new schools be filled when stability is a goal? Will every school have its own defined walk zone?
The list of questions goes on, but the mission is clear. Board members want to create a policy that will last a decade or more. They will need a solution by late summer or early fall to be ready for the first day of school in 2014.
Comments
It sounds like, with this
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 13:34 — NWParentIt sounds like, with this new Equity of Resources policy, they are getting ready to tie funding to the perceived risk factors of the child. So it could be that low F&R schools are going to get major cuts. I wonder if they will now allow parents to make up the difference or if that would be perceived as hurting the magnets. All I can see is an accelerated flight to charter schools as they open.
Montgomery County
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 07:06 — SatchHHSounds a little like they're looking toward the successes of Montgomery County Schools - as are many other districts around the nation. There they tied funding to need and provided more than 1 FTE to higher needs students, so an ELL student got more funding than a non ELL student, for example. Higher poverty schools or schools with high proportions of ELL students had lower class sizes, etc. Of course some people will squawk, but this move makes good sense, especially if they plan to scale back the effort to diversify schools. There's a book about this if you want to read it. It's called Leading for Equity: The pursuit of excellence in Montgomery County Schools. The irony of it all is that they initially wanted to do what Wake has been doing for years (diversify schools) but couldn't due to various capacity reasons - so they settled for plan B. Now Wake seems to be going to plan B. Such is progress.
Good Idea
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 10:18 — NWParentThanks for the info. I agree with a sliding funding scale based on the needs of the child. But Iit seems with Wake's new assignment plan they are going to try to do both. They will be attempting to continue busing while changing the funding formula. In my opinion if they change funding based on risk factors, prosimity should be the primary factor in assignment.
That's exactly correct and
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 16:36 — shearertwThat's exactly correct and exactly what they are planning will fail miserably, again. If you're going to take money from one group of people and give it to another, you have to offer up some sort of compromise to the people you are taking it from....and that compromise should be proximity and stability. If you allow the suburbs to have proximity and stability, they can build up their schools and replace the resources you've taken from them over time. If you do not offer them proximity and stability, they cannot do that and you are now slapping them in the face (2x). Off to charter schools we go...
Of course, the only reason they will not offer proximity and stability is because there goes the magnet program which they will do anything to protect.
right now we have a butts in seats funding policy
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 17:53 — snordoneSchools are funded based on enrollment - the more kids you have the more money you get. So an equity of resources policy would be a great thing for under-enrolled Title I schools.
Will it hurt magnets? No. They are at capacity and low F&R.
Will it hurt Title I magnets? No. They have the highest level of need and funding - predominantly MOE money.
Will it hurt base schools? Probably not. They are at capacity and have parents that fund the school well.
My question is what will the money be used for? Will we use data and offer enrichment/remediation based on what children need, or will we assume those under-enrolled Title I schools are full of low achieving ED kids who need remediation?
For sure there are more low achieving children in the ED group, but the majority are at grade level and need enrichment. Push not pity. Our Title I schools need more enrichment and less remediation. Our high ESL Title I schools need more ESL teachers and more literacy coaches.
With Tony gone I don't trust central office to use achievement data to make decisions. The people that are left can see past skin color and address.
How would they avoid
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 11:05 — loriacHow would they avoid concentrations of low performing students? Will they look at test scores and split up the low performing children?
These look like the factors we used to deal with - i.e. they sound good but it gives the board latitude to do whatever they want.
So...
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 11:13 — Bob_SconceThey think that performance is somehow tied to geography -- so, if you live in certain neighborhoods, you much be low performing because, after all, many of your neighborhood peers are low-performing.
Of course, since they have "stay where you start," if you have a school where many of its students are underperforming, there's no way to forcibly separate them. So, it goes even further -- they'll look at how, say, 5th grade students from neighborhood X are performing, and use that information in deciding how to assign rising kindergarteners from neighborhood X.
The entire idea is based on stereotyping neighborhoods.
Stereotyping neighborhoods
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 13:17 — loriacStereotyping neighborhoods is the only way to accomplish that ... Whatever happened to treating every child as one who has promise? Now certain kids will be labeled as 'toxic' to a school, .... wait, that's not new.
Wake must have kids that are more toxic
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 17:57 — snordonethan Johnston County, because the ED subgroup in Johnston outperforms Wake by 10%. Overall Johnston outperforms Wake. It is amazing what you can accomplish when you focus on education, not demographics.
Bizarre...
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 10:35 — Bob_SconceSo, now we are ranking socioeconomic status. There are people of "low socioeconomic status" -- presumably, this means that if you're black, they consider you to be 'low'. That's from "low-performing students."
Also, instead of working things as a guarantee: "Students have the right to stay where they start," it's much more fuzzy: "Provide opportunity to stay where you start."
Whether this plan works will depend on how much the majority of 7 will use the plan to force their ultra liberal philosophy on the rest of the county. If they push too hard, the plan won't last 5 years, let alone a decade.
Personally, I'd rather have the county commission take over student assignment and leave construction to the school district.
This plan will only last
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 13:08 — shearertwThis plan will only last until the first at large election.
I'd prefer to hand both student assignment and construction over to the CC's....along with just about anything else we can think of.
I hope so
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 17:59 — snordonebecause I am watching my neighbors with younger children get screwed - forced busing back down into the rim to schools with no resources. They were denied their first transfer request. They won't show up, they are talking about private, charter or even moving.
Interesting. I wonder what
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 22:25 — jenmanInteresting. I wonder what the transfer request numbers are going to look like. A poster here got in to Pleasant Union from an underenrolled, under funded rim school and I was hoping that others got their requests granted.
I would like to see overall
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 12:40 — WakeCtyMomI would like to see overall results too. If they really are letting people into schools regardless of the sending school (if there is capacity), then I think this model is a decent hybrid of address based assignments combined with some choice.
Folks need to realize that if they are trying to get into the same schools as everyone else, they simply may be running into capacity constraints as opposed to board policy. They should be careful with what they choose to maximize their chances of getting out if their primary motivation is just to leave the school they are assigned to. Not EVERYONE can go to Davis Drive and Sycamore Creek, and just because there is a waiting list does not automatically mean the board manipulated the results to keep people in their less desirable schools. Now, they very well may HAVE done that, but it's hard to say without more data.
...
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 12:46 — Sideburns"Folks need to realize that if they are trying to get into the same schools as everyone else, they simply may be running into capacity constraints..."
Gee, sounds just like why they got rid of the Choice Plan. Not everyone could have their first choice. As long as ITB peeps are happy, this plan is the best thing ever.
I thought some of the main
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 14:39 — WakeCtyMomI thought some of the main reasons given for getting rid of the choice plan were that it causes chaos with bussing (under this plan, transfer students must provide transportation) and the fact that addresses were not linked to any particular school. Even if a school is at capacity, someone moving into the area over the summer can still go to that school, to my understanding, unless the school is capped. Under the choice plan they couldn't and may have ended up miles away (and had to be provided transportation) and didn't really even know what that school might be until they had actually moved into the new address. Now, I fully realize there are other reasons why the choice plan was abandoned that "they" don't talk about as much. And personally I was a supporter of the choice plan/Tata and still am. I wish it had been left in place with some tweaks. Regardless, I think my point stands in either case and in ANY case. Not everyone in this county can go to the same handful of schools. But that doesn't automatically mean that no one has any choice or that children are being trapped in failing schools and not being let out. Again, I said those things may very well be happening (and it wouldn't shock me), but we haven't seen any data yet...
...
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 18:23 — SideburnsWell, I could argue that the Choice plan offered extensive grandfathering to allow every child to have the opportunity to stay where they were. Was it a cost worth paying? A couple of million to allow every child to remain? Remember, that cost would have gradually reduced as children aged out of their assignments. GSIW didn't think our children are worth it - even though their children (grandchildren, in Brannon's case) suck $12M of our local dollars every year for their academic goodies AND get a bus.
Extensive grandfathering didn't have to be offered with transportation - as it never was in the past. Of course, if it wasn't, that would have been the argument from the GSIW loons. I don't recall them caring about it back in the day when grandfathering was offered only if you provided your own transportation which cut many F&R families out of that option.
BTW, base assignments (having addresses linked to a school) will lead to reassignment. Unless they keep capping schools - which will also push assignments out miles away. Something has to give.
This Board hasn't fixed any of the perceived problems with the Choice plan. In fact, they've made things worse.
Wakefield
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 09:19 — NWParentWe applied in the first transfer period and got accepted to Wakefield MS opting out of our assigned Durant Road MS. I was really surprised to get it in the first round but, if they have capacity, it seems they are granting requests irregardless of what school you are transferring from.
You will like it...
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 11:40 — Bob_SconceWell, as much as anybody likes middle school. The principal is incredibly involved. My only concern is that good principals tend to get promoted, and I don't want the school to lose him.
There are a few teachers who are, well, less than ideal, but that's true anywhere.
PU's enrollment
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 07:18 — snordoneactually dropped under the choice plan, so they may be worried about it dropping too much and are trying to stabilize it early, which is smart. They can't bus that high up into the county so PU is very low F&R/ESL
Yeah I will admit I played
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 10:10 — WakeCtyMomYeah I will admit I played the game - I am the poster who got into Pleasant Union. PU was actually not our first choice in reality, but I realized that it was not a calendar option for any other school (which meant transfer requests would be processed first as opposed to calendar options), and it only had 6 first choice requests. So I knew that I would be one of the first 6 applications processed. I figured it must be partially because the school is kind of in a remote area, but I hop on 540 at Creedmoor every day anyway, so I didn't mind driving 15 minutes out of my way.. Where were the folks who were bussed back to the RIM schools applying to? If they were applying to Sycamore Creek, Brier Creek, etc. they should not be surprised. Sycamore had something like 130 transfer requests alone. I crossed that one off my list immediately because I knew I'd never get in.
You were really smart about
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 13:07 — jenmanYou were really smart about how you applied. I also wonder where the other folks applied to.
Why not?
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 08:21 — RonnieRI thought Judge Howdy said the WCPSS could bus anywhere and anytime. This school should get its share of "toxic" kids, too.
..
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 09:10 — SideburnsNo, it wasn't Judge "Howdy" that ruled that way. It was the NC Supreme Court. But, I agree. With complete control over assignment and this Board in charge, let the busing begin.
I do wonder who will actually be afforded a base assignment within a reasonable distance from their home. Considering this Board has already directed staff to move back to the 2011 base assignments - which is chock full of busing F&R assignments, I assume they will use stability as their reason to continue their long-distance assignments.
Right you are shearer
Tue, 03/12/2013 - 13:40 — FSandYOUThey need to be speeding that along even faster and lock it into stone so it can't be overturned.
Just incase Betty Lou goes off the reservation. ;)