Quote :

"We don't bus based on race. We bus on socioeconomic status, which I realize lines up with race."

Thus, we bus based on race.

10/2/2009 10:08:51 PM

Quote :

"...and your prescription for the problem is vouchers, which is actually a ride to a private (white) school."

You're right in that "economic" diversity is simply a proxy for racial integration. The current Board members should at least give us the courtesy of being honest.

We spend around $7500 per student in Wake. I'm OK with continuing to collect school taxes. But give each child a $7500 voucher to use towards whatever school their family wants. Then let the private sector build schools to compete for those vouchers. Superior teachers will get superior pay for their expertise.

As far as this October's election is concerned, I would urge my fellow voters to vote for candidates who reject the social engineering of our students...

District 1: Chris Malone
District 2: John Tedesco
District 7: Deborah Prickett
District 9: Debra Goldman

10/2/2009 10:37:09 PM

^^No, we bus based on socioeconomic status. The race of the school really isn't as important as the incomes of the families. A high-poverty, white school struggles too.

^Those four candidates are neighborhood school advocates, not necessarily voucher advocates. You keep bringing up vouchers, but the debate really isn't about that. The school board isn't going to privatize the system with vouchers...they're just going to make neighborhood schools, cause certain housing values to skyrocket, certain business to go under, and ensure that only affluent kids have access to good schools.


But let's take your vouchers-for-all bit to the end. Everybody gets $7500/year. The poorest students will go to private schools that cost $7,500/year, and these schools will be like the "shitty" public schools we hear about in other counties. Everybody else will supplement their vouchers as best they can and get progressively better schooling based on how much they can pay...these schools will mirror the good public schools we see today.

So the only difference between the current fucked up public systems and your system is that people will have to pay more than just taxes to go to a good school (the poor still won't have access), and schools will be making profits.

Plus, the economic concepts you apply to toilet paper cannot be applied to education. It's not that simple. If you think it is that simple, then you either don't know shit about economics or you don't know shit about education.

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 1:22:58 AM

Quote :

"Id hate to live in District 9."

Why's that?

10/3/2009 4:36:16 AM

Quote :

"and these schools will be like the "shitty" public schools we hear about in other counties."

That amount is what we're paying now for a less efficient gov't education, so are you saying the current system is bad?

Quote :

"the only difference between the current fucked up public systems and your system is that people will have to pay more than just taxes to go to a good school "

That is what's happening now. Parents pay their property taxes and then shell out additional money for a better education in a private school. Vouchers would allow everybody to go to a provate school. Yes some schools would be more expensive than others, just like some colleges are more expensive than others.

Quote :

"Plus, the economic concepts you apply to toilet paper cannot be applied to education. "

And you're applying the same gov't concept to something as important as education. This is the same gov't that can't even do a car rebate very well. Why do we want those same politicians deciding how our kids get educated?

10/3/2009 10:49:53 AM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: That amount is what we're paying now for a less efficient gov't education, so are you saying the current system is bad?"

The current system is bad in a lot of places, not in Wake County. Did you not note the part about "other counties"? Have you been reading the thread?

Quote :

"EarthDogg: That is what's happening now. Parents pay their property taxes and then shell out additional money for a better education in a private school. Vouchers would allow everybody to go to a provate school. Yes some schools would be more expensive than others, just like some colleges are more expensive than others"

No, that's not what is happening now in Wake County. Parents pay their property taxes and then send their kids to across-the-board good public schools. It's working well.

And I don't know how you can so callously dismiss the fact that some will be more expensive (better) than others in your private plan. Just a little while ago, you were insisting these poor kids needed better schools, but now you fess up to the fact that they're not gonna get better schools with their vouchers.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: And you're applying the same gov't concept to something as important as education. This is the same gov't that can't even do a car rebate very well. Why do we want those same politicians deciding how our kids get educated?"

Because they've done a good job so far in Wake County.



You're getting ahead of yourself on this issue. First, you have to destroy our public schools. Then your smarmy ass can come in with the privatization plan. Just be patient...if you win on Tuesday, you'll be on your way.

10/3/2009 12:05:24 PM

Quote :

"No, we bus based on socioeconomic status."

No, we bus on race, as you already admitted. We say we bus on SES, but we really bus on race.

10/3/2009 8:34:42 PM

This is semantics. Retarded semantics.

They bus based on SES.

Yes-- SES correlates with race. SES correlates with a lot of things. SES probably correlates with amount of ice cream consumed. But we don't bus based on ice cream consumption.

10/3/2009 9:02:24 PM

they choose SES because it correlates with race, though. That's why they bus on race

10/3/2009 9:10:40 PM

They chose SES because it's the best indicator of success/failure in school.

10/3/2009 9:13:36 PM

They say they chose SES because it's the best indicator of success/failure in school.

10/3/2009 9:21:44 PM

aaronburro says he isn't a birther.

10/3/2009 9:26:06 PM

I'm glad to see you admit they bus on race. Otherwise, why would people denounce the neighborhood school people as being against integration?

10/3/2009 9:27:24 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise, why would people denounce the neighborhood school people as being against integration?"

Because they understand that people against busing misunderstand the issue, and are making it about race-- even when it isn't.

You're exhibit A

[Edited on October 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2009 9:36:00 PM

you assume I am against busing... And, again, why denounce them as being against integration? If it's NOT about race, why use a term related to race? They argue that the end of busing would lead to de-integration. it sounds as if busing is directly tied to race in that case, since the argument is that de-integration is bad. durrrr. I love how you live in a fantasy world, though

10/3/2009 9:56:16 PM

Quote :

"And, again, why denounce them as being against integration?"

Because they are against integration.

Because they don't even know what SES stands for.

Because they completely misunderstand the point of busing.

And it's an easy way to dismiss stupid people's arguments.

10/3/2009 10:19:05 PM

so, it's easy to say it's about race when it's not?

10/3/2009 10:28:58 PM

It is about race...

For stupid people.

For the people actually making policy, it's about SES

10/3/2009 10:54:22 PM

Quote :

"The current system is bad in a lot of places, not in Wake County. ...send their kids to across-the-board good public schools. It's working well."

Many parents will disagree with you. It's not working well for them. The election will tell the tale. These parents do not want their children used as fodder for social engineering.

10/4/2009 10:26:41 AM

Just keep dropping that buzzword.

10/4/2009 12:31:42 PM

^^ What exactly is it about the current system that isn't working well for them?

10/4/2009 3:05:27 PM

^^^^ no, it's only about race. Even for the policy makers.

10/4/2009 4:12:29 PM

That would make sense if it were only one race of kids getting bussed around but it's not.

10/4/2009 6:01:24 PM

Pardon the interruption, but the N&O posted their Voter's Guide the other day. It's just a quick rundown of the candidates in each race:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/local/story/117786.html



Now back on topic, the N&O also ran their 8012th story about the Wake School Board, which doesn't mention anything new, features lots of the above-described dancing around admitting that it's done with race in mind, and what I see as an important opinion in a study that SAS did of Wake's schools.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/125674.html

The important bit:

Quote :

"Changes in state tests in recent years have lowered passing rates in schools statewide. With the revised tests, Wake's previously small racial achievement gap has widened; now low-income students and some minority groups are performing below the state average on some exams. A recent SAS Institute report found that the way Wake analyzes school performance "tend[s] to camouflage schooling inadequacies for disadvantaged populations." It found that the achievement gap between Wake's low-income and non low-income students was greater than observed in other North Carolina districts."

10/4/2009 8:13:12 PM

Quote :

"That would make sense if it were only one race of kids getting bussed around but it's not."

Did you really say that out loud? So, you are only gonna bus black kids to white schools, leaving the schools in black neighborhoods only partly filled?

10/4/2009 9:21:47 PM

^^For Tuesday's vote, the important bit:

Quote :

"Theirs is a false choice," said Jennifer Lanane, president of the Wake County chapter of the N.C. Association of Educators, which has 5,000 Wake school employees as members. "Their side won't help the dropout rate.""

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/125674.html

10/4/2009 9:36:16 PM

Quote :

"It is about race... For stupid people. For the people actually making policy, it's about SES"

You know, I considered that, and then I read this brief history from the N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/local/story/125674.html

Quote :

"Wake County voted down a proposed merger in a referendum, but Smith and others got it passed by legislative action; and the city and county schools became one system in 1976. After years of balancing schools for racial diversity, Wake County adopted its family-income based approach in 2000. Proponents of the current system say they understand parents' desire for neighborhood schools, but not at the cost of having large majorities of children from minority groups at some schools. "We cannot go back to a time when our schools were segregated," Smith said."

Basically, unless the N&O is incorrect, it sounds like we've only been doing things based upon SES for less than a decade; before that, it was explicitly a race-based policy. And the explicit concern voiced here is racial re-segregation - from proponents of the current policy.

I fail to see how then one would not conclude that SES is being used as a more discreet proxy for race. Make whatever arguments you will for its virtues, but the argument that this "isn't about race" doesn't exactly seem to bear out from history. In fact, multiple sources, including the one linked by BridgetSPK, appear to indicate that the only reason they moved to an SES policy was due to an adverse ruling by a Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruling which barred race as a factor in school assignments - which, incidentally, came down in 1999.

http://www.tcf.org/publications/education/districtprofiles.pdf

Again, even by the admission of proponents of the existing policy, SES is a defensible means of achieving goals of racial integration. Which is fine and dandy, but to pretend it is a non-factor is completely dishonest.

To be fair, the argument made by folks like the above source is the converse - race is a proxy for income. But then, one has to ask - why didn't we do that from 1976? Why did we continually make measurements based upon minority populations? Why are we still talking about race as if it is the relevant metric?

I'm fine if you want to make the argument that integration by SES yields positive results - I'm still evaluating the evidence. But up until 10 years ago, the policy has been explicitly by race, the metrics have been by race, proponents fear racial segregation - so why is it, exactly, that race has nothing to do with it?

[Edited on October 4, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2009 10:28:05 PM

Ok so where do the candidates line up on this issue, then...

10/4/2009 10:31:49 PM

Quote :

"A graph and data intensive article from TCF: http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=618 It's a pdf, but it's only 12 pages, and it pretty much sums up what I've been saying with stats that I'm way too lazy to track down right now. One startling stat shows middle-income students at high-poverty schools performing worse than lower-income students at low-poverty schools. It also briefly touches on the teacher dynamic."

I'm not sure this is the correct link. It's a fairly comprehensive case study of several districts' integration policies (by race and SES), and it studies Wake in particular. But their analysis seems to be a little... thin. Their argument for the Wake system is, "Hey! It does better than Durham, Charlotte-Meck, etc!" This is not exactly a particularly helpful argument - Wake also almost certainly boasts a higher median family income, and this bare statistic says nothing about teacher recruiting, etc. It is far from sufficient to make the case that integration by race, and only later SES, has been solely, or even significantly responsible for the difference.

Quote :

"Of course, teachers want to teach at middle-class schools. What teacher with a Master's degree and plenty of experience would sign up to teach at a high school where she knows three quarters of her students are going to be reading at a middle-school level? I mean, we can't pay teachers enough to work at high poverty schools. The schools are so undesirable that we have to give full scholarships to people just so they'll promise to teach at a high poverty school for a mere four years. We've also tried $15,000 signing bonuses and reduced housing prices just to try to lure them to a high poverty school. So, of course, the best teachers are attracted to Wake County where there are no high poverty schools."

I'm not so sure there's no high-poverty schools in Wake - in fact, even the article you posted indicates that there's a variance. Less of one, but it exists.

But let's take the argument at its face value. Here's how I seem to understand it:

Statistically, students from poorer families tend to bring more problems. Some of this is due to poor family environment, other environmental factors (malnutrition, etc.). But basically, statistically speaking, poverty = problems. These students are harder to teach and tend to be more disruptive. (I say this as someone whose fiancee teaches in a rural county with a very high number of free/reduced lunch students).

That being said, the basic argument for integration by class seems to be to break up concentrations of poverty, thereby eliminating particularly difficult schools, where in turn in it is difficult to keep and retain top talent. Am I doing the argument justice so far?

Basically, it seems like the case for SES integration is in "evening out" problems brought on by students living in poverty by spreading them out among other schools, and in turn making it easier to retain high-quality teachers (who would otherwise go to more manageable classrooms).

The fundamental problem still is there, though - students in poverty tends to underachieve compared to their peers. But they get to "come along for the ride" by having access to teachers who, due to the problems endemic in schools with very high concentrations of poverty, would not teach there.

Again, have I captured the essence of the argument?

Looking at it, it seems like Wake's system of voluntary magnet schools is perhaps the best model; i.e., if one is seeking to integrate by SES, offering an incentive to "opt in" to integration rather than doing it by "force."

While resources are clearly an issue, it seems like expanding a system of "pull" programs and resources to encourage voluntary integration (while leaving, say, a fixed fraction of slots available as a minimum for "migrants") is the best way to accommodate both camps; i.e., parents who absolutely want to send their kids to the closest schools, regardless of the resources of magnet schools, are accommodated, while still maintaining the benefits of "evening out" schools by SES distribution.

10/4/2009 11:17:33 PM

I think part of the problem is some parents assume that if they get rid of busing for integration, all busing will stop.

That simply isn't true since most reassignments and busing in Wake County happen because of overcrowding. When I was in the WCPSS I changed elementary schools two times and narrowly missed being reassigned a third time. It had nothing to do with integration. I was living in a middle income neighborhood going to middle income schools. They just liked to shuffle the neighborhoods around every few years to try and limit overcrowding.

Some of the busing might stop but I have a feeling these same parents currently bitching about busing will bitch twice as hard when little Timmy gets reassigned again even without the integration policy in place.

10/5/2009 1:23:53 AM

Quote :

"Ok so where do the candidates line up on this issue, then..."

For the busing policy are:
Rita Rakestraw, District 1;
Horace Tart, the District 2 incumbent;
Karen Simon, District 7; and,
Lois Nixon, District 9.

Against the busing policy are:
Chris Malone and Debbie Vair in District 1;
John Tedesco and Cathy Truitt in District 2;
Deborah Prickett, District 7; and,
Debra Goldman, District 9.
Carlene Lucas in District 2 favors a modified diversity policy.


You can go here http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/local/story/124483.html and click through to get to each candidate's own webpage and see what they hae to say about most issues.

10/5/2009 10:24:20 AM

^^Excellent point. Growth patterns and overcrowding are a huge part of perceived instability in the system.

^^^Yeah, you seem to get the main point of the argument.

The problem with the magnet system is that it doesn't actually achieve balance. Charlotte uses the magnet approach to attempt socioeconomic balance, and take a quick look at their "learning communities" and scores:

http://apps.cms.k12.nc.us/departments/instrAccountability/schlProfile05/profiles.asp

They simply haven't been able to achieve socioeconomic diversity with only magnets.

And, again, parents who want their kids to go to the closest schools will not necessarily get that. The closest schools aren't big enough to accommodate all the closets students.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 10:47:41 AM

District 1: Chris Malone
District 2: John Tedesco
District 7: Deborah Prickett
District 9: Debra Goldman

From my understanding, most of these candidates are only against busing if it's to create "economic diversity". They are OK with temporary busing or re-assignments until a local school can be built in that particular area.

10/5/2009 10:50:15 AM

are they in favor of zoning requirements to induce economic diversity?

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason : not that that is the school board's job or anything.]

10/5/2009 10:56:51 AM

this is some what on topic but where do I find info on the other candidates whose positions are up for vote including, Raleigh Mayor, City Council at Large and City Council District E. I can't find a platform on any of these people.

10/5/2009 11:42:27 AM

^http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/local/story/124483.html

The N/O has been releasing voter guides since as long as I can remember.

Actually, that link doesn't look good. But try the paper version.

And here's the Indy's voting guide (without their endorsements):

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A398249

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2009 11:44:17 AM

cool thanks!!

10/5/2009 11:59:03 AM

damn...no good choices for raleigh mayor. its depressing!!

10/5/2009 12:17:36 PM

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/127605.html

Another N&O article, 2nd for today. I'm apparently one of the few that subscribes to and reads the paper, but they've been basically running the same article every day for a month now.


At any rate, it's fairly relevant to the recent discussion about the diversity policy being a wink towards race.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 2:23 PM. Reason : []

10/5/2009 2:23:04 PM

That really hasn't been a discussion.

It's just aaronburro insisting it's about race when it isn't.

Even back when we bused on race, it was still understood that a big part of that had to do with socioeconomic status. The courts came in and busted up the race-based busing so we switched to SES.

I'm still unclear why you guys think this point is meaningful at all.

10/5/2009 2:37:07 PM

Form the article I just linked:

Quote :

"He was among several speakers, including Knightdale Mayor Russell Killen and current school board member Keith Sutton, who said that maintaining racially integrated schools was key to the school system's success."

10/5/2009 3:18:53 PM

the point is meaningful because we are still busing on race, just calling it something different.

Quote :

"It's just aaronburro BridgetSPK insisting it's not about race when it isn't. is"

10/5/2009 6:51:50 PM

OK, that's enough posts about race vs. socioeconomic status. if you have something to back up your claim, let's hear it. if not, shut the fuck up.

10/5/2009 7:19:04 PM

^ Uh, I did. Fairly conclusively, in fact. Proponents of the integration measure were quoted by the N&O as specifically being concerned about racial re-segregation. A policy analysis posted by one of the proponents of the measure specifically makes use of race as a metric. The fact that the policy change was instigated was due to courts ruling against a race metric, and proponents have heretofore identified SES as a legally defensible substitute.

Their argument has been that race is a crude marker for SES, however this does not answer the question of why we did not simply begin in 1976 with using free/reduced lunch or some other measure of SES instead of race for integration purposes, or why many of our metrics toward the level of "integration" within schools have been explicitly race-based, or why race is even a relevant criteria for measuring integration based upon SES grounds.

So, uh, yeah. It's not a discussion emerging from nowhere.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2009 7:40:02 PM

I was referring to aaronburro's irritating, incessant, and stupid responses.

10/5/2009 7:42:30 PM

Quote :

"damn...no good choices for raleigh mayor. "

What, you don't want to vote for the guy who threw an email hissy fit over guns?

10/5/2009 8:09:30 PM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Uh, I did. Fairly conclusively, in fact. Proponents of the integration measure were quoted by the N&O as specifically being concerned about racial re-segregation. A policy analysis posted by one of the proponents of the measure specifically makes use of race as a metric. The fact that the policy change was instigated was due to courts ruling against a race metric, and proponents have heretofore identified SES as a legally defensible substitute."

Some people are still concerned with the performance of black and other minority students as a separate group. That's why they still talk about them and their performance. Just because they banned race-based bussing doesn't mean we still can't look at black students and reflect on how policy affects them.

But we still distribute students based on SES, not race. And, in terms of maintaining good schools, SES is way more important than race.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Their argument has been that race is a crude marker for SES, however this does not answer the question of why we did not simply begin in 1976 with using free/reduced lunch or some other measure of SES instead of race for integration purposes, or why many of our metrics toward the level of "integration" within schools have been explicitly race-based, or why race is even a relevant criteria for measuring integration based upon SES grounds."

Sort of. SES was definitely a big part of it. But I also think there were other reasons, like concerns that largely black schools would suffer due to racism. They probably also had goals for racial equality in mind. And a main concern, white flight, was a race issue so it makes sense that they chose to join the county and city school systems and start bussing on race back then.

[Edited on October 5, 2009 at 10:09 PM. Reason : ?]

10/5/2009 10:07:22 PM

It is wrong to bus one child around in order to promote some other child's chances of getting better grades.

One child should not be used to enhance another child.

10/6/2009 12:08:16 AM

Quote :

" however this does not answer the question of why we did not simply begin in 1976 with using free/reduced lunch or some other measure of SES instead of race for integration purposes"

Does this question need answering? It seems like it would be like asking why they didn’t use SES to determine who should have been slaves back in the days.

^ if a child’s parents don’t want him bussed, then let them get a private school. Part of living in a society, and using a socially supported system (such as public schools) is accepting policies that promote the benefit of the society as a whole.

[Edited on October 6, 2009 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2009 12:36:38 AM

^Yeah, I'm still not clear what Chaos is getting at.

He just seems to be ignoring basic history and more specific (but still widely understood) legal history.

I think he has a point for doing so, but I don't get it.

10/6/2009 1:16:50 AM