Here's a quick recap of today's Wake Education Partnership update on the student assignment plan being developed by Michael Alves.
Wake would be divided into two to four attendance areas with similar student achievement levels that reflect the county's demographics. Student achievement would be used to make individual determinations of whether to grant a family's request for a particular school.
Also, instead of a base assignment, you'd have a "base option" in which every family would be given a school they can request. Priority would be given to those who live in the walk zone, basically 1.5 miles.
But the catch is you aren't guaranteed of getting that base option school if it conflicts with the other guiding principles.
Wake Ed VP Tim Simmons said none of the guiding principles of choice, proximity, stability and student achievement can violate any of the others.
Simmons said the goal is to avoid creating any schools with high percentages of low-achieveing students. This means looking at the student achievement of every student.
In the case of rising kindergarten students, Simmons said they might look at factors such as whether the child attended a preschool, the education level of the parents and if the kid comes from a single-parent household.
Simmons said the magnet program would remain intact with schools in all zones. He said schools weren't added or dropped so it looks like they took the large cluster of magnets inside the Beltline and divided them between the zones.
Simmons said grandfathering would be provided to every student at the time of implementation so they wouldn't have to change schools. Once in, you get to stay at that school.
Cost data will also be provided.
Alves will present a full plan to the school board in December. Whether the board runs with it remains to be seen.
UPDATE
Click here for the handout from today's WEP presentation. Changed wording from zone to attendance area.
Comments
To Serve Man
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 21:39 — ApexterWaiter: "Good evening, and welcome to the WCPSS Choice Cafe. My name is Michael Alves, and I'll be your server. Have you had a chance to look at our menu?"
Customer: "Yes, I have. I'd like the Beef Medallions. All my neighbors in Happy Meadows have said they're fabulous."
Waiter: "Oh, yes, the Medallions have been a very popular choice for your Happy Meadows neighbors. Too popular, I'm afraid. Our chefs want to make sure that the medallions are served to a proper demographic mix, so I'm afraid that we've already served all the Medallions that we can to people from your neighborhood. Would you like to make another choice from our extensive menu?"
Customer: "Oh, what a shame. I'd really wanted to enjoy the meal all my neighbors have been raving about. The Chicken Parmigiana sounds really great, though, so I'll go with that."
Waiter: "Ah, one of our premium selections. Unfortunately, there are only three servings left in the kitchen, and those are reserved for the siblings of those who have already been served. That's just one of the services that our premium customers have come to expect from us."
Customer: "Well, rather than wasting any more of my time, then, could you tell me what I CAN order off the menu?"
Waiter: "Certainly, sir. We still have Corndogs and Shrimp Scampi."
Customer: "I'm allergic to shrimp ..........."
Waiter: "Then Corndogs it is! And I'll write you down as yet another satisfied customer who got his choice at the WCPSS Choice Cafe.
Seriously folks, are we gullible enough to believe that something dubbed "Controlled Choice" is actually intended to provide families with the choices THEY want? He's talking about dividing the county into two areas (which would be about 415 square miles in area, if the county were split equally by land area), and then having free license to assign kids anywhere they want within that area. This is Chuck Dulaney on steroids.
Didn't you watch the classic Twilight Zone episode about those nice aliens who loved mankind so much that they just wanted to take them back to their own planet to make a new home, and proved their love of mankind by carrying the guidebook "To Serve Man?" In the final scene, the horror was revealed when the translators had learned enough of the language to realize that the text didn't offer guidelines to providing service to mankind; it was a cookbook. We need to wake up before it's too late and see through the inviting title of "Controlled Choice." It's not about providing a family-friendly community school system where families can have their choice of schools; it's about providing the school system a license to assign your kid wherever they darn well please.
This is a WEP exercise and
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 08:13 — danofncThis is a WEP exercise and it has as much relevance as a chart published in the Independent.
Relax.
But, realize that anything you say about this choice plan would also apply to any other choice plan. In the SAC version, with more zones, you still wouldn't have been guaranteed your first choice.
Policy 6200 does not..
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 08:52 — WadingIn"Student achievement would be used to make individual determinations of whether to grant a family's request for a particular school."
Policy 6200 does not contain any reference to "student achievement" as a factor that can be used in a student assignment plan. Why instruct an outside entity to develop and present a plan that violates an existing WCPSS policy?
"....look at factors such as whether the child attended a preschool, the education level of the parents and if the kid comes from a single-parent household."
What?...
One thing to remember is
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:23 — danofncOne thing to remember is that for all intents and purposes I could meet tomorrow for lunch with CaryCurmudgeon, come up with a framework for an assignment plan, post it onto my (basically inactive) blog, and it would have just as much BoE standing as Alves' plan at this point.
Alves' just has more access to the media.
He isn't working for the BoE, so his work isn't really "on the table" as far as WCPSS is concerned.
Diversity was removed from 6200, and achievement goals have never been in it.
What's the point of calling something a "base option" if you aren't guaranteed to get into it? If you aren't guaranteed to get in, it's just an "option", no different than any other school in your zone.
If you make the "areas" as large as he suggests, transportation costs go up and you run the risk of having a greater number of people who get choices that are way down their list.
If you have 3 or 4 selection criteria, but they all have equal weighting and can't overrule each other, then you basically have no criteria.
The only weighting you need is to ensure that siblings attend the same school and that siblings are on the same calendar if that's what the parents want.
Sounds like a good idea, you
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:25 — CaryCurmudgeonSounds like a good idea, you like Taco Bell?
I'm not a huge fan of Taco
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:41 — danofncI'm not a huge fan of Taco Bell, but perhaps we could help with funding the schools by getting a restaurant to sponsor the plan.
The Bojangles' Wake County Student Assignment Plan.
Smithfield's Chicken, BBQ and Assignments.
If they go with the choice plan, they'd probably have to get Golden Corral to sponsor it. You know.....because it's a buffet.
NC kids are #5 on the list
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:56 — user12345NC kids are #5 on the list of most obese US kids so maybe we should avoid fast food.
Well, I guess that means we
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 12:58 — danofncWell, I guess that means we have to go with the (alleged) choice plan, but we'll go with Sweet Tomatoes instead.
While it wasn't gone into
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 09:35 — KeungHui (author)While it wasn't gone into detail yesterday, I have heard talk about how student achievement could fit into the wording in the Oct. 5 resolution about providing students with "equity and equal opportunity."
Didn't Ann Majestic say..
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 10:45 — WadingInMy initial concerns on first seeing the ambiguous wording in the resolution was that it could be used as a back door mechanism to modify Policy 6200. Didn't Ann Majestic say that the new directive doesn't change student assignment policy?
If so, how can a new directive modify the stated / described factors to be used in a student assignment plan without being considered a change? There is also no reference (nor definition) of "equity and equal opportunity" in Policy 6200.
I remember your concerns.
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:46 — jenmanI remember your concerns. You were absolutely right.
I hope you change your name to JumpingIn. I'd like to see a big cannonball. ;-)
Exactly, they are trying to
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 08:58 — CaryCurmudgeonExactly, they are trying to re-write policy.
academic achievement
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:56 — snordoneI sent Tim an email this morning with WCPSS academic achievement data attached. These data show that where level 1 and level 2 children go to school really does matter. The schools that get the most impressive academic growth from low achieving children are the schools with a critical mass of them. The worst schools for low achieving children are those schools with just few low achieving children - they essentially take up space and no one bothers to educate them. If low achieving children are not showing academic growth they will never be proficient. It takes 3-5 years of consistent academic growth (i.e. with an effective teacher) for children to become proficient.
When are we going to start caring about the children in this county, their education & their future? When are we going to understand that our policies are not about us and our adult perceptions, but should be about doing what is right for children. Student assignment can not be used as a proxy for education. We have 8 years of experience that have shown us that.
Snordone, this confirms what I have suspected
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 17:30 — enufalredyIt makes sense to me that you need to target resources to like groups of children in order to make a difference in their achievement. If you don't have a critical mass of similar needs, it is not as cost efficient or effective to provide the needed services. The low achieving kids at my kids' school seem to be lost in the noise. They are shuffled here and there for resource time, but it doesn't appear they are being consistently and effectively reached.
Can you direct me to the data you reference in your post? I would be most interested in reviewing it.
I Totally Agree....
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 18:45 — JanisTangoThe low achieving kids at my kids' school seem to be lost in the noise.
and I really don't feel this is the children's fault or even the teacher's fault. Some of these children 'turn' off in class when there is a topic that they don't understand. The teacher has curriculum goals to meet so there isn't much time to bring these kids up to speed. One of the most affective approach I saw my school do during the EOGs is to group the kids into 4 classrooms. Level 4, 3, 2, and 1. The teachers were able to target the kids that needed the extra help on the EOGs versus kids that really didn't need any extra help. The Level 4 kids were able to do classroom exercises to expand their critical thinking skills. I do believe there are downsides to an approach like this, but if the kids are learning and making progress that is what matters most.
interesting
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 17:22 — stepbystepSnordone, I was wondering if in the achievement data there is evidence of a "tipping point," at which achievement begins to decline if the critical mass of low achieving students gets too high? Also, what % constitutes a "critical mass." Thank you.
I don't see a tipping point
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 21:35 — snordoneThere really is no "bad" percentage of ED children, it is all about the school and their leadership and their teachers. We have several very successful schools that are around 37-42% poverty, but their principals are amazing, data-driven and committed to educating all the kids who walk in their door. Most principals will say that keeping poverty under 50% makes their job easier. We have several successful high poverty schools (50-77% ED). In particular, the school with 77% poverty has 80% of the kids in the school make strong academic growth and 87% of the 5th graders are proficient in math. And then we have some lousy low poverty schools where no one is making academic growth. We really do know the formula - strong leadership & effective teachers. The longer we focus on assignment as a way to fix our schools, the longer we prolong the failure.
Blue Daisy raises a question
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 08:32 — Dove314Were any of those higher achieving, higher ED schools receiving extra funding (e.g. Title 1) or were they receiving the same funding? Obviously strong leadership and effective teachers are critical but did available resource have any role or can that be dismissed as a component of the success?
YES!
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 05:57 — snordoneResources matter - a lot. Brentwood is Title I and a magnet. We are looking at resources in the next ED Task Force meeting, you have to have resources to raise achievement.
So , Really, SNordone,
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 14:46 — bluedaisySo, Really, if more high poverty schools are created, and as you determined, more resources will be needed to address achievement there, and we have a limited amount of said resources......
Then the low poverty schools will teach with less resources.
And, if it is determined these high poverty schools need even more, how willing will the lower poverty schools be to do with even less? And less?
Ask Charlotte - that is the problem now - the rich schools are screaming about "all that money" going to the high poverty and low performing schools. So, CMS is shutting down those schools, and spreading the students from them to other schools. And, those schools are screaming.
Can you not see where this is headed? PLEASE start looking at the big picture!! Let's maximize the effectiveness of our base and additional resources, by having an equitable balance of student achievement in every school. Use your considerable influence and the considerable influences from the others at "the smart table" at the ED Task Force meetings on John Tedesco - explaining to him that academic achievement is NOT a proxy for tracking kids, its about EDUCATION!
David Neter's presentation
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 11:52 — bluedaisyDavid Neter's presentation to the student assignment committee holds the key. Dollars follow the student. He said Title 1 funds go to the schools with X% of poor and low performing children. What wasn't said was - what is X? I've heard tell its in the high 30% of F&R. Principals LIKE having challenging students - gives them more resources, months of employment. So, Snordone's conclusion of schools with low number of high poverty students not performing well is correlated to funding, or lack of it. I'm only guessing here, but one could conclude with say, 20% of your 3rd grade class potentially not performing at grade level, the classroom teacher, well, at least a really good one, should be able to address this. If she's not, then what's going on in that classroom? But when it gets to 40% - she needs additional resources. (made up percentages to show example).
I'm only guessing here, but
Fri, 10/29/2010 - 20:44 — jeffrey1The most effective use of staff and dollars is - - - -
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 22:39 — bluedaisySo the best case scenario school is the one with enough poor/low performing children to qualify for extra resources (Title 1 funds), but not too many challenges that drive away quality teachers and principals. Sounds like a job for student assignment.
So the best case
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 07:59 — user12345So the best case scenario school is the one with enough poor/low performing children to qualify for extra resources (Title 1 funds), but not too many challenges that drive away quality teachers and principals. Sounds like a job for student assignment.
But is that a sly calculated business move to maximize resources to the school or social engineering by communist pinkos. :-)
Mr. Hui, thanks for posting
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:32 — DrActualFactualMr. Hui, thanks for posting the plan/presentation. So WCPSS will still have preselected school options for your area to attend (you choose from among those) then they populate the school with the appropriate mixture of students that reflects the districts demographics of poverty/race/achievement level within 4 large zones dividing up the magnet schools for placement irregardless of the distance you have to travel to get to the magnet? The selection of nearby schools was originally suggested to reduce transportation costs, will this still be achieved under a model with 4 large zones (oops--areas)?
They're not talking about
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 17:03 — KeungHui (author)They're not talking about using race or family income in individual student assignments. But they say that having four zones means they can have them all reflect the county's demographics. At the individual student selection level you'd get into the issue of looking at their academic achievement.
As for cost, Simmons said they've asked Alves to draw up the plan so that it would not lead to increased transportation costs.
This plan brought to you by
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:06 — CaryCurmudgeonThis plan brought to you by the same people who produced the "flying school bus" distance analysis. They have been torpedoing the SAC zone plan, creating fear and uncertainty about the cost. Then they release their own plan, including a statement that "cost data will also be provided" so people should suddenly not worry about money?
All of the attacks against dividing the county into zones, and they come up with ...... zones.
Dan asked a bunch of really valid questions about the SAC's zone plan in another thread. All of those same questions would apply here as well.
Thanks. And, you're
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 17:45 — danofncThanks.
And, you're absolutely right the questions would still apply.
I acutally still think I like the plan I "designed" in about 10 minutes better than any of these.
It wouldn't make everybody happy (but neither will any other plan). But, who has a better argument....someone who is unhappy they were denied an opt-out, but is going to school near their home, or someone who is unhappy with their school who is attending their 4th option, not all that close to home, under a plan promising "choice"?
...
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 15:59 — SideburnsDoes the education level of parents determine how smart a child is?
Does coming from a single-parent household mean you are low-achieving?
And what happens if your child is identified as a low-achiever and they've already met their quota of them at a school? Do receive a letter saying your child is too dumb to go to that school?
I thought labeling based on socio-economics was bad. This is much, much worse.
I agree Sideburns, this is
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:01 — jenmanI agree Sideburns, this is much much worse. I'm still at a loss for words and that never happens (as any regular readers of this blog know!). Really. I keep starting to type up some thoughts and I just have to stop because I just don't know where to begin.
Alves developing his model with no input from our community (but probably plenty from WEP and other former policy supporters) is somehow better than what the SAC was doing? I'd much rather have the long, ugly, difficult, and frustrating process that the SAC was going through than to have an outsider draw up this plan with guidance from WEP.
Ok, I'm back to being at a loss for words. Mark this on your calendars, people.
I'm with you
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:49 — loriacI cannot believe this is actually a serious proposal, let alone that anyone paid money for this. Are they kidding????
I am with you on this, Jenman. Now magnets will take on a whole new level of meaning as a way to escape the engineering. Johnny can't go to that school - too many smart kids already there. What if that school is then only one that has ROTC, or a certain course of study? Move another smart kid out to make room?
Stop with the social engineering already! There is NO ONE at WCPSS qualified to make any such determination, especially when we know it will come down to a poorly written computer program.
Need to know more on their
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 21:45 — DrActualFactualNeed to know more on their planned use of achievement. I don't remember if it was Alves or JT that said the educational level of the mother is used as a predictor for performance. It sounds like it could be individual student achievement which could vary quite a bit based on grading scenario used by teacher (some grade on curve, some don't; some were always confused on giving out 3s or 4s in ES so they never gave out a 4. I could see a lot of problems with using achievement in and of itself. It will be interesting to see what the church folks say about the educational factor criteria if that is a chosen route taken.
...
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 21:31 — Sideburns"Now magnets will take on a whole new level of meaning...."
Under the WEP/Raleigh Chamber/Alves plan, I would think the only ones qualified for a magnet seat would be children whose parents have PhDs, are still married to each other and made preschool a priority.
ROTC is Social Engineering??
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 21:25 — user12345Only one or 2 HSs offer ROTC
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 22:08 — loriacOnly one or 2 HSs offer ROTC - what if the student who wants ROTC is deselected, either because she is too smart or not smart enough for the prescribed mix at that school. Just an example...
It's not a serious proposal
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 21:01 — FSandYOUNot one that this current board will consider.
And rightly so.
I still can't believe I live
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 22:10 — loriacI still can't believe I live in this la-la land where WEP would actually pay thousands of dollars for this. UNBELIEVABLE.
Evidently, he didn't get the
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:23 — CaryCurmudgeonEvidently, he didn't get the Kevin Hill consensus-based planning memo.
Wake Ed VP Tim Simmons said
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 15:41 — jenmanBack to value judgements, ala Dulaney
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 14:03 — SDR256Wake Ed VP Tim Simmons said none of the guiding principles of choice, proximity, stability and student achievement can violate any of the others.
--------------------------------------------------
So, no priority - again? Remember when (I think it was Loriac?) asked Chuck how he made his choices and he responded that the board had not articulated priorities so it was up to him to provide his own value judgments?
Are you all ok with that? Think of your favorite character to distrust in this 'drama' and imagine that they are the one now to provide their own value judgement in just how the principles get mixed and prioritized - behind the black curtain, far from public view and public discourse.
It sounds good in 'print' but in action, without the necessary (and painful) sifting and sorting through community dialog (that WAS happening with the SAC) - these buzz words just provide another broad playground for the ideologue du jour.
How are they going to
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 15:50 — DrActualFactualHow are they going to program computer selection in regard to the guiding principles? I am relatively certain the guiding principles will have to be ranked for the computer to make the selection placements. This is not what we discussed when we went door-to-door talking to parents/voters. Neither WEP/Alves were elected, this is a substantial deviation from the original intent put before voters. What do you do with people that don't live within 1.5 miles of any school--they just get the last choices? When Simmons referred to choice did he mean magnet schools or parental choice?
Great...
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 15:32 — Bob_SconceDrop the "student achievement" and demographic balances, split into, say, 6-8 zones (2 zones, really, does Alves use drugs?) and you might have something I could get behind.
. . . none of the guiding principles of choice, proximity, stability and student achievement can violate any of the others
And that's the sort of nonsense you pay too much attention to academics. There are always trade-offs among those things. What do you do, for example, if somebody wants to choose a distant school? Or wants to choose a different school every year? What do you do if all of the low-performing kids are in one part of a zone, and all of the high-perfoming kids are in a different part?
I love how they came out with this a week before the election.
Huh?
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:22 — fiveblindmiceWell if you're inclined to see black helicopters I'd point out the inconvenient fact that they are coming out with this almost exactly as FAR away from a school board election as is phyically possible! Almost exactly a year (give or take 3-4 weeks) after the last one and almost a year (again give or take) before the next one. (And it's RM & JT - not their opponents - who have pretty much admitted that their goal was to ram something through before the next election)
I love how they came out
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:33 — CaryCurmudgeonOh Please
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:10 — fiveblindmiceLike there's any comparison at all between Pope and Goodmon. Pope is a significant player and financier in a national movement of nutty extremists. Goodmon, on the other hand, has no real national scope (at least that I'm aware of-you?) and does not hold a single position that even you - when challenged - was willing to call extreme.
You are the frigging KING of false equivalencies.
But I guess there is at least one thing we agree on. Keung I concur with Joe's final sentence.
Charlie, I always knew you
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 19:31 — CaryCurmudgeonCharlie,
I always knew you admired me, but coronation is really not necessary. You can still call me Joe, or "Mudge" will do.
Slow day on the Huffington and Kos?
"What do you do if all of
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 16:03 — magnetParent"What do you do if all of the low-performing kids are in one part of a zone, and all of the high-perfoming kids are in a different part?"
Test the water ;-)
um... zones are dead,
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 22:13 — loriacum... zones are dead, remember? Try attendance areas.... and, maybe they should just educate them.
Kinda like when the
Wed, 10/27/2010 - 22:29 — CaryCurmudgeonKinda like when the administration at my son's schools insisted that we refer to the trailers as cottages.
Joe I prefer to use the
Thu, 10/28/2010 - 08:46 — hmoncelleHarry_Moncelle
term "learning CHATEAU", because my classroom is part of two eight room mobile units sitting where our tennis courts used to be at our high school. We have progress way beyond the "cottages"