How did I miss this one?

I don't know how this very insightful, and accurate, column from former Orange County Board of Education Chairman Keith Cook failed to catch my attention before now. I guess my news searches aren't triggered by columns in the Chapel Hill News.

While Mr. Cook and I agree on many things with regard to this runaway Board, I have to disagree with one statement from his column.

As the parent of a rising third-grader at Hillsborough Elementary School, I can say that I am far from "happy" with the Board's "shell game" of a plan. Unfortunately, Mr. Cook has fallen for the frequently hurled accusation that parents of children at Hillsborough Elementary care only about their own children. This is a brush with which HES parents have been unfairly painted for over 10 ten months now.

I have always maintained that "I believe that the purpose of any school system is to provide the best possible education to each individual student given their individual abilities, talents and motivations." This belief knows no socioeconomic limit or arbitrarily drawn attendance zone.

As Mr. Cook writes:

"This plan does nothing to ensure that our children at Central and Efland-Cheeks will become academically successful learners in math and/or reading."

"This hastily conceived plan has nothing to do with what is best for children or with the board being an advocate for all children. The board's plan to remove Central and Efland-Cheeks from the Federal School Improvement Plan does nothing to raise math and reading scores or to increase enrollment at Central. Just because Efland-Cheeks and Central will no longer be in Title One School Improvement Status doesn't mean that their students have now become proficient in reading and/or math. What it means is that those schools will no longer have access to federal dollars for resources to prepare students in the lower grades to be successful learners in math and reading by the time they get to the third grade."

He is absolutely correct.

And, as he goes on to say, "For board members that voted for the plan, shame on you!"

We're #8! We're #8!

According to the Durham Herald-Sun, the proposed (and abandoned) merger between Central and Hillsborough Elementary schools was the #8 news story for Orange County in 2007.

Our efforts to derail the runaway train of a myopically arrogant Board of Education even beat out John Edwards' presidential campaign (#10) on the Herald-Sun's list.

Had it not been for the work and vocal opposition of parents at both schools the Board planned to destroy, I am sure it would not have even made a ripple in the news ocean.

While the year is rapidly drawing to a close, the fight against this Board's tendency to ignore and try to hide those most impacted by its poor decision-making is far from over.

Let's hope that next year's Top 10 list includes a dramatic turnover of Orange County Board of Education members.

Rest for the next week, because the new year's work is about to begin.

Why isn't everyone doing it?

Just like disgraced Enron executives, the Orange County Board of Education is playing a financial shell game, only this game threatens the educational futures of the children they were sworn to serve.

Rather than come up with a plan to actually provide a better education or enriched educational experience to the children at the county's two poorest schools, the Board has decided to use a blatant accounting trick to hide its accountability for the decline of Orange County Schools.

Even though I was there and heard it first hand, I still had to hear it explained in this video clip a few more times before I could believe what I was hearing.

[The voice you hear from off-screen is Mary Alice Yarbrough, Orange County Schools' director of elementary instruction.]

So, by withdrawing $300,000 in federal Title 1 education funds from the accounts of Central and Efland-Cheeks Elementary schools, and depositing it into the account of an entirely new Pre-Kindergarten program, the District ceases to be accountable to the federal government for failing to teach its poorest children?

If it is this easy, why isn't everyone doing it? Well, maybe other school boards care more about actually helping the children they serve, than they do about appearing to be vanguards of social engineering.

As Former Orange County Board of Education Chairman Keith Cook told the Durham-Herald Sun, "You heard nothing about how we're going to raise scores for Efland-Cheeks or Central Elementary. It seems that we got caught up on a lot of things that don't matter." He is absolutely right.

In fact, there has been no discussion about how any of these changes will academically benefit a single child in Orange County. And, that is because the academic performance of children at the district's poorest schools "doesn't matter at all" to the ideologues on this Board.

Mr. Cook also told the Durham Herald-Sun that "he would be looking into whether Friday's process was legal." It is looking like this matter may end up being decided in a courtroom rather than in the Board of Education's meeting room.

I guess some Board members will be more comfortable there than others, after all Dennis Whitling is an attorney, and of course Liz Brown had that other thing.

A telling exchange

If anyone is wondering how a Ted Triebel led Board of Education might act, here is a telling exchange from last Friday morning's Special Meeting:

In the background you can hear Former Orange County Board of Education Chairman Keith Cook ask for the opportunity to comment on the newly revealed plan:

• Keith Cook: “Are you going to allow any input at all before you vote?”
• Ted Triebel: “We had public comment in this room to start with.”
• Keith Cook: “That was before I heard anything.”
• Unidentified attendee: “How can we comment when we don’t know what y'all were going to say?”
• Keith Cook: “That was before we had …

Then Ted Triebel cuts Mr. Cook off and moves on with “board determinations."

Frustration was obvious among those in attendance, and Mr. Cook provided them with a voice in the Durham Herald Sun: "'I'm disappointed because rarely does a school board put something on a table and vote on it at the same time without getting feedback from the community,' Cook said. 'You heard nothing about how we're going to raise scores for Efland-Cheeks or Central Elementary. It seems that we got caught up on a lot of things that don't matter.'"

This Board has shown time and again that the academic performance of Orange County's children "doesn't matter at all" to them. Rather, the fixation on "things that don't matter" is of greatest concern to this group of amateur social engineers.

I understand that Captain Triebel comes from a military background, and is not accustomed to people questioning his orders. But, he needs to understand that he is a civilian elected official now, and that comes with a high level of accountability to members of the community.

He cannot be allowed to show such arrogance and utter disdain for his constituents, and still lead the Board.

It was a bad day

Friday was a bad day in Orange County, not just because the children at our county’s two poorest schools had federal resources specifically targeted toward them suddenly taken away, but also for the premise of open and responsive local government.

Early Friday morning the Orange County Board of Education pushed through an entirely new plan for "dealing" with the disparities between Central and Hillsborough Elementary schools. After spending months coming up with a disastrous merger plan, the Board spent just about two hours coming up with the new plan.

It is amazing how quickly you can get things done when you schedule meetings when most interested parties cannot attend, and you don't feel the need to gather any community input.

Newly named Board Chairman Ted Triebel must be proud that he accomplished in two hours what Dennis Whitling couldn't get done in months - too bad for those parents and children crushed beneath the boot of Ted's efficiency.

First, and foremost, in the Board’s plan is the “redirection” of federal Title 1 funds, currently being spent on remedial reading teachers at CES and Efland-Cheeks, to the creation of a county-wide Pre-Kindergarten program at CES. This program will be open to any child in the county, but the District has no plans to provide transportation for the program. So, the only ones who will be able to attend are those who can either walk to the school or afford to drive there every morning. Wait, wasn't HES criticized for just such a situation when this whole discussion started last spring?

The true goal behind this redirection of funds, is to remove the ability of parents at either “failing school” to opt out and send their children to better performing schools. In essence, hiding the black eye of the county’s failing schools under a coat of makeup without actually doing anything to help the most vulnerable students. Not only are those children losing federal funding earmarked specifically for programs at their struggling schools, but the Board has found a way to ignore that they exist at all.

Next, all children in Kindergarten through 2^nd grade at HES will be forced to reapply for their spots at the school next year. Attendance from any one school zone will be capped at 20% of that zone’s elementary school population. That means some HES children could be forced to leave the only school they have ever known. Once every Free and Reduced Lunch child who applies is admitted, the remaining spots will be awarded to other applicants based on a lottery. After all, the lottery has been such a success for funding our schools, why not use it to assign people the schools also?

The least discussed part of the plan will have the widest county-wide impact. Ted’s new plan includes one apparently innocuous bullet point aimed at helping CES meet its SES balance goals:

• "Ensuring strict adherence to transfer policy"

What this means is that the District will rescind the ability of parents to apply for transfers from one school to another unless there is an “extreme hardship.” While that may not sound like a big change, it becomes one when you look at the number of children currently attending schools outside their zones.

As of last February, 123 elementary students were attending schools under the previous regular transfer policy, and every school in the district had both transfers in and transfers out.

I seriously doubt the parents of these 123 children ever thought they would become victims of this Board’s myopic arrogance, but I’d like to welcome them my world.

Like I said back in July, "So, if you think the current discussions about HES, CES and Efland-Cheeks don't involve you, you may be right - but probably not for long."

Did you get my note?

Since time has become such a factor in the next round of Board decisions, I sent a message to every email address I could get from last year's Dolphin Directory.

I heard from some people that they received my message, but some others said their email clients screened it out as potential spam. For those of you who didn't receive my note, here is what it said:

Dear Parent,

I apologize for sending this mass email, but I felt recent developments in the proposed merger of Hillsborough and Central elementary schools warranted such a step. Time is of the essence, and this is the fastest way to communicate with such a large community.

My name is Allan Scott, and my son is a second-grader at HES. Those who know me are aware that I have paid very close attention to the Orange County Board of Education’s efforts to merge HES with CES for over 9 months. While I regularly post developments to my weblog (http://SaveHES.blogspot.com), I have not felt the need to email everyone since last spring; that is, until now.

Every parent with a child in Orange County's elementary schools needs to know that the Board of Education is poised to create an entirely new plan for changing CES and HES that will likely impact every elementary school in the district. And this dramatic change will probably happen with virtually no input from those most directly impacted – the parents. If the Board continues in its current direction, there will be no time for research or debate, and almost no opportunity for public comment.

This past Monday, Board members proposed four entirely new proposals for changes to CES and HES. Among these were:

• Requiring every current HES student to “reapply” for admission, with a cap on the number of students from any one school zone and quotas for those allowed to return. According to the plan, this cap could prevent as many as 80 current HES students from returning to the only school many of them have ever known.
• Capping HES enrollment at 330 and redistricting the remaining 100 students to CES. New students would only be allowed to enroll at HES if a similar number chose to attend CES.
• Recinding all transfers not mandated by federal law. This means that parents who applied for, and were granted transfers, for their children to schools outside their zone would be forced to return unless they can prove an "extreme hardship." This represents over 100 children with a sizable number at all six zoned schools. No elementary school would be unaffected.
• Closing CES for an entire year and “distributing” all CES students to other elementary schools, again taking them away from the only school many of them have ever known.
• Eliminating Kindergarten at HES and only allowing children to apply after spending one year at their zoned school.
• Taking $300,000 in federal funding away from reading teachers at CES and Efland-Cheeks Elementary School as a way to disguise the fact that neither school made Adequate Yearly Progress the past two years.

While many ideas have been put forth over the past 9 months, we are now at a point where time has become a critical factor. Recognizing that, Board Chairman Ted Triebel was recently quoted as saying, “We’re in a time crunch here, and I think everybody knows it.”

In response, he scheduled a two-hour special session to discuss proposed changes to CES and HES. That meeting is scheduled for Friday, December 14^th at 8:30 am in the Central Office Boardroom on King Street in Hillsborough.

To make matters worse, the Board decided Monday night to set January 20, 2008 as the deadline to approve final changes to CES and HES before the next school year. Given that they have not yet had any in-depth discussion of any plan other than a CES/HES merger, any new idea would have only six weeks to be discussed, accepted and approved.

As it stands, the Board does not have another regular meeting until January 7^th. – less than two weeks before its self-imposed deadline. That means that any idea to come out of the December 14^th meeting will likely be approved by the Board in January, regardless of how ill-conceived it may be or how negatively it may impact the District's elementary schools.

It is important that parents at both schools take the few remaining opportunities to voice their opinions before it is too late. If you know any CES parents, parents new to HES, or those who have transfered their children to a school outside their zone, feel free to forward this message to them.

I understand that the time and day of week is difficult for many, but I encourage everyone who can, to attend the Board’s special meeting next Friday morning, and let your presence send a message to the Board.

Will you join me there?

If you are unable to attend, please contact your elected Board of Education members to let them know how you feel. You can find email addresses for all members here: http://www.orange.k12.nc.us/board/ocs_board_edu.html .

Sincerely,

Allan Scott

Save the Date!
What: Orange County Board of Education CES/HES Special Meeting
When: Friday, December 14, 2007 @ 8:30 am in the Central Office Boardroom
200 King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278

Not exactly convenient, but maybe that's the point

At this past Monday's Orange County Board of Education meeting, Chairman Ted Triebel decided that the Board needed more time to fully consider both his "Rainbow Plan" and Dennis Whitling's latest attempt to destroy both CES and HES. So, he decided to call a special meeting for further discussion - for 8:00 am on Saturday, December 15th.

Now, I am told, the meeting date was changed because at least one Board member couldn't make a Saturday meeting, but the unusually early meeting time was of Ted Triebel's choosing.

[Note: The Board's website posted information about the meeting on Friday. The posted time is 30 minutes later than what was originally scheduled. I have updated information in my column to reflect the new time. - Allan]

So, it looks like Ted thinks he's found a solution to the overwhelming opposition parents have shown to the Board's consistent failure to find a plan the community can support - hold meetings at a time when most parents cannot attend.

In an obvious attempt to make the meeting as inconvenient as possible for parents from either school, Ted has scheduled it for two hours starting at 8:30 am on a weekday.

Since the Board has not even seen fit to announce the existence of the meeting on its website, I guess I will have to do so here.

What: Orange County Board of Education CES/HES Merger Discussion
When: Friday, December 14, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Where: Central Office Board Room
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC 27278

So, here is what I propose: Every parent able to spare the time, should go directly from the drop-off circle at HES to the meeting at the Central Office. We need to send the message to Ted, and the other Board members, that no matter how hard they try to exclude us from this process, we will still be watching them and our voices will be heard.

Who's with me?

What are the Board's priorities?

There has been a great deal of discussion about how to balance the percentage of Free & Reduced Lunch children between Orange County's elementary schools.

As it currently stands, four of the district's 7 elementary schools fall outside the Board's professed goal of 38% (+- 10%) FRL at each school.

While the Board has spent over 9 months trying to create a rational plan to address the disparity at two of the four schools (and ignoring the other two), virtually nothing has been said about improving student academic performance at any of the three elementary schools that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress this past year.

That begs the question: What is more important to the Board - SES balance or academic performance?

Al Hartkopf made his answer to that question perfectly clear Monday night.

While Liz Brown made her position perfectly clear earlier in the year.

It is time for the rest of the Board to show enough courage to publicly state what they see as the top priority for the Orange County Schools.

Is it a profoundly unpopular social engineering experiment, or is it, as the Board's own policies state, "setting high academic standards for student success"?

Until every member of the Board models the "integrity and moral courage" to live up to the Board's own policies, how can it expect such behaviors from the county's students?

To the other 5 Board members: Stand up and be counted!

And then there were five (at least)

Going into last night's Orange County Board of Education meeting, there was only one plan officially under consideration for the destruction of two of Orange County's elementary schools - Dennis Whitling's disastrous "Big Plan."

Now that the Board has met, there are at least five plans on the table for Board consideration. And, as if they were ordering from a Chinese restaurant menu, Board members encouraged each other to pick and choose elements from each plan to form something entirely unique to them. Presumably, the combinations could be infinite.

To open last night's discussion, the Board was again formally presented with the opinions/recommendations of the Board-appointed CES/HES Merger Task Force. The Board then promptly ignored the Task Force's suggestions.

The Task Force's only unanimous recommendation was for the Board to scrap Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan" for merging CES and HES, but the Board did no such thing.

Even though most members of the Board acknowledged that Whitling's plan had no "buy-in" from the community, it failed to remove the plan from consideration. In fact, a significant amount of time was spent in a defense of the plan by its sponsor - ex-Chair Dennis Whitling - during which he laid blame for its failure on the inability of less "idealistic" parents "to look beyond their narrow interests."

Then, current Chair, Ted Triebel took his turn at recommending a "Big Plan" of his own to address the issue - or, make that THREE plans.

I. Blue Plan

1. HES K-5, Year-round calendar
• All current HES students would have to apply to return with a cap of 20% accepted from each of the six elementary zones. Application would include an optional question about FRL status.
• "Controlled choice" would be a quota system imposed by the District on who could be admitted to HES. This means that if you do not fit the SES or demographic groups the Board designates, you will have no choice. It sure sounds more like "control" than "choice."
  
• If HES enrollment does not reach 350 students, then the cap will be lifted, but the District will still restrict who is allowed to attend based on their SES or demographic quotas.
• Students living within a 1 mile radius of HES will be assigned to the school, but with an option to opt-out to another school.
• Transportation provided for all.
• Free intersession programs for all FRL students.
• Free summer camps for all FRL students.
2. CES K-5, Traditional Calendar
• "Mini-redistrict" for SES composition.
• Limit opt-out option to two schools.
• Guarantee lower student/teacher ratios compared to other schools
• Appropriately staff CES based on proven experience and performance
• Offer "extended year" option with enrichment. Basically, starting the year two weeks earlier and ending two later as an option for families.
• Improve building aesthetics
• Provide child care and transportation to parents who want to participate in PTA activities.

II. Gold Plan

1. "Reconstitute" CES as a "theme" school after closing the school for a full year of preparation. In essence, this is the creation of a magnet school but only after shutting the school down for a year.
• Current CES students would be "distributed" to other elementary schools for a single year with priority given to FRL students who want to attend HES. So, if your child attends CES but is not on FRL, you will have to go where the Board sends you for a year
  
• FRL students would be provided the same incentives as in the Blue Plan.
2. Reopen CES as a "new" school with "controlled choice" and a "mini-redistrict."
3. CES teachers, TAs and classified staff would have guaranteed job security during the year the school is closed.

III. Green Plan

1. Maintain school structuring as is, but increase focus, programs and resources meant to ensure continued improvement of SES balance between CES and HES.
• The Superintendent would be expected to provide initiatives to the Board that would move the SES numbers in both the short and long term.
• Year one SES change goal would be at least 5% decrease at CES and 5% increase at HES.

Added to Ted Triebel's "Rainbow Plan," was yet another attempt by Dennis Whitling to destroy both CES and HES, while also taking a huge chunk of money away from Efland-Cheeks as well - a trifecta of sorts.

In his new vision, Whitling suggested that the Board take $300,000 in federal Title 1 money away from CES and Efland-Cheeks, and use those funds to pay for a Pre-K program at CES. According to Whitling, those funds are currently "wasted" by paying two teachers at each school, funding additional programs for at-risk children, and providing options to parents seeking the best educational opportunity for their children.

By not "wasting" federal money to help the struggling children at the District's lowest performing schools, the District could remove itself from accountability to the federal No Child Left Behind law. Without that accountability, parents at those schools (and most likely New Hope next year) would not have the choice to opt-out of their "failing schools." Of course, that doesn't mean that the students at those schools would be performing any better than in previous years, only that the District wouldn't have any accountability for helping them improve.

I can't help but use a healthcare analogy here. Dennis' new idea is akin to seeing a precancerous lesion on your face that, if treated properly, can be cured, but if ignored will only get progressively worse. Rather than seek that curative treatment, Dennis would have you remove the mirrors from your house so you simply can't see the problem any more.

Without the inconvenience of parental choice in response to Board actions, Dennis' new plan would force families into specific schools based on a pre-set quota system. New students could only attend HES if children of a similar SES or demographic profile also choose to attend CES.

This entire process reminds me of a joke. Question: What is a flamingo?

Answer: A duck created by committee. The situation would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.

Why reinvent the wheel?

In a recent column on the recommendations that would come out of the CES/HES Merger Task Force, I wrote:

"Of the three proposals the Task Force will report to the full Board of Education on Monday night, only the creation of a magnet school program at CES can claim to directly address the Free & Reduced Lunch disparity the group was charged with impacting."

Now, there is strong evidence from right next door that the magnet school approach will have exactly the impact the Board claims to seek, and in an amazingly short period of time.

Today's Durham Herald-Sun has an article by Carolyn Rickard about a planned parental vote on requiring school uniforms at Durham County's W.G. Pearson School. While coverage of parents having an actual voice in decisions made by their public school system is always of interest to me, this quote from the article reveals a clear solution to the problem the Orange County Board of Education had hoped to address with Dennis Whitling's disastrous plan to merge CES and HES:

"Until 2006, Pearson was a traditional school drawing students mainly from the poor neighborhoods that surround it. When it became a magnet, though, it suddenly began enrolling students from all over Durham, reducing the percentage of students in the free and reduced-cost lunch programs -- traditional indicators of poverty -- from about 83 percent to 60 percent."

In only one year as a magnet school, W.G. Pearson was able to attract enough diversity from across Durham County to lower its FRL percentage 23 points!

With strong support from the Board's Task Force and local models of magnet programs that have actually improved a school's FRL balance, the Board should immediately repudiate Dennis Whitling's unsupported "Big Plan" and aggressively pursue the creation of a magnet school at CES.

The time has come

"In accordance with this code, each member of the board will commit to the following:
1. Attend all regularly scheduled Board meetings insofar as possible..."
- The Orange County Board of Education Code of Ethics (Policy #2120).

I attended the Orange County Board of Education meeting last Monday evening, primarily to hear the report of recommendations by the CES/HES Merger Task Force.

As the meeting opened, Board Chairman Ted Triebel announced that Debbie Piscitelli and Anne Medenblik would be absent because of family emergencies then went on to say that Liz Brown was absent as well, but without explanation. Not surprisingly, this reminded me of Liz's still unexplained, prolonged absence from Board meetings this past summer.

So, I started looking back at Liz's attendance record, and here is what I found in Board meeting minutes posted to its web page:

• Nov. 19 - Regular Board Meeting - Absent [The minutes are not yet approved, but I was there and she wasn't]
• Nov. 4 - Regular Board Meeting - Present
• Oct. 15 - Regular Board Meeting - "Elizabeth Brown left the meeting at 7:25 p.m."
• Oct. 1 - Regular Board Meeting - "Elizabeth Brown left the meeting at this time" [9:42 pm]
• Sept. 17 - Regular Board Meeting - "Elizabeth Brown left at 10:32 p.m."
• Sept. 13 - HES Community Listening Session - Present
• Sept. 6 - CES Community Listening Session - Absent [I was there, she wasn't]
• Sept.4 - Regular Board Meeting - Present
• Aug. 20 - Regular Board Meeting - "Board member absent: Elizabeth Brown."
• Aug. 6 - Regular Board Meeting - "Board members absent: Elizabeth Brown..."
• July 19 - Regular Board Meeting - "Member absent: Elizabeth Brown."
• July 9 - Regular Board Meeting - "Board member absent: Elizabeth Brown."
• June 18 - Regular Board Meeting - "Elizabeth Brown left the meeting at 9:45 p.m."

So, let's recap: Of the past 13 public Board meetings, Liz Brown has:

• Been entirely absent 6 times
• Left early 4 times, and
• Stayed for an entire meeting only 3 times

Are these the actions of someone granted, what the Board's own policies call, a "high public trust"?

The Orange County Board of Education's Code of Ethics says, "A breach of this Code of Ethics by any Board member may result in disciplinary action. This action may result in sanction(s) as approved by the majority of the Orange County Board of Education consistent with legal standards."

The time has come for the Board to live up to its proclaimed ethics and publicly sanction Liz Brown for the her willful violation of the Code she promised to uphold, and for abandoning the school children of Orange County.

Thoughts and prayers

My thoughts and prayers go out to Debbie Piscitelli and Anne Medenblik as they both deal with "family emergencies."

While I often disagree with the Board, we must all keep things in proper context when reality steps in so harshly.

As a result of both Board Members' absence at last night's meeting, the discussion of what to do with the recommendations of the CES/HES Merger Task Force has been postponed until the Board's next meeting on Tuesday, December 3, 2007.

A tip of the "cap"

I wrote earlier about the recommendations the Merger Task Force plans to present to the Orange County Board of Education at its meeting Monday night.

I attended both Task Force meetings and was very pleased to hear so many ideas with which I could agree.

• Like everyone on the Task Force, I also feel that Dennis Whitling's disastrous "Big Plan" should be immediately killed.
  
• Like many on the Task Force, I believe that the creation of a magnet program at CES is a great idea. In fact, I would like to see the concept expanded to include "magnetic" programs at all our elementary schools.
• Like many on the Task Force, I think increased availability of transportation would reduce SES barriers to attending HES, while at the same time increase opportunities for parents to find the school that best fits their child's needs.
• Like many on the Task Force, I feel that increased programs during HES intersessions would benefit all children, and income-based subsidies of these programs would reduce SES barriers to attending HES.
• Like some on the Task Force, I feel that the parents of Orange County should have universal school choice and be allowed to pick the school that best fits their child regardless of where they live.

However, I also found some things the Task Force appeared to support that I could not, and, in fact, I feel will have an effect opposite of what either the Board or the Task Force intends.

Among the three recommendations the Task Force will present on Monday night is one calling for "reexamining the HES application process." During the Task Force meeting, a number of distinctly different ideas were grouped under this heading.

Among the ideas placed under the umbrella of "reexamining the HES application process" was a proposal supported by a number of Task Force members to close HES and force all currently attending students to reapply for admission to the school. Acceptance would be based entirely on a predetermined cap on the number (or percentage) of students that would allowed to return from each school zone.

By this plan, the disproportionate representation of people from the CES and Efland-Cheeks school zones would be prohibited. The suggestion was made to restrict the percentage of students allowed into HES from any one school zone at no more than 20% - even if it resulted in turning away children while seats at HES sat empty for lack of interest from other school zones.

On the surface, this may sound like a a reasonable approach. That is until you put more thought into what would happen in the real world. Unfortunately, the Task Force was not allowed enough time to discuss or consider any one idea before a list was developed using a "pick 3" approach and the meeting was adjourned "on time."

Consider this situation: For the 2008-09 school year (one Task Force member was adamant that the change occur in the coming year), parents of current HES students would be told they must return to their zoned schools unless they reapply for the seats they already occupy at HES, and are selected by the District for a spot at HES. At the same time parents of students currently attending other schools would be told they may apply to fill one of the newly opened HES spots.

When the day to apply arrives, who do you think will apply?

About 99% of applications will come from those already at HES (except for incoming kindergarteners). Of course, this makes perfect sense.

HES children will almost universally want to return to the only school most of them have ever known, and children at other schools will almost universally want to stay at the only school they know. Parents who find the year-round calendar attractive, would have already enrolled their children at HES, and parents who prefer the traditional calendar, or don't want multiple children on different schedules, would seek to stay in their zoned schools.

So, what will be the result of this application process? The pool for selection will look almost exactly like HES does now. Then comes the really interesting part.

Someone has to develop a plan for how to choose which children are permitted to return to HES and which ones will be forced back to CES and Efland Cheeks. According to the data provided to the Board in February, a 20% cap on enrollment from any one school zone would send over 80 HES families back to Efland-Cheeks or CES. Those of us zoned to any other school would almost automatically return to HES because no other school zone makes up more than 17% (Cameron Park), and my zone (New Hope) only accounts for 5%. (So much for the frequent accusation that I only care about my own child.)

But, wait! You can't force those families back to either CES or Efland-Cheeks.

They are both in Title 1 School Improvement. That means that, under the current situation, those parents can immediately opt-out of their zoned schools and return to HES as their school of choice. Even if the Board were to restrict the choice of schools available to opt-out families, and remove HES from the list, the No Child Left Behind law says that you MUST allow a child to stay at their school of choice through the last grade that school offers. That means that the 29 students who's parents chose to opt-out of their zoned school and endure the difficulty of joining HES six weeks into the school year would be exempted from this new plan.

Even if this assignment plan could be worked out, would it have the desired effect of reducing the socioeconomic imbalance between the two schools? No.

According to the District's expert on these matters, Mary Alice Yarborough, the District does not know which individual children in our schools receive Free & Reduced Lunch. Given this, how would you know, by restricting enrollment from the two school zones with the highest poverty levels, that you are not sending some of HES' lowest income students back to the schools with the highest FRL levels?

On the flip side, you will have, in essence, created an "open door" admissions policy for families zoned to schools with much lower levels of Free & Reduced Lunch. If you assign a 20% cap on any one zone, that means at least 240 HES seats will be available to people who are not zoned to either CES or Efland-Cheeks. As of last February, only 161 HES students came those zones.

Effectively, the Board would be telling people, "If you can afford one of the new houses in Churton Grove, we have a seat waiting for your daughter here at Hillsborough Elementary. But, if you can only afford to live in West Hillsborough, we have no room for your son." How likely is it that the first child will improve the SES disparity and the second would not?

Based simply on the demographic data provided to the Task Force by the OCS staff, it is far less likely that any new children drawn from outside the CES and Efland-Cheeks zones will be on Free & Reduced Lunch. In the end, the SES gap between the two schools will not fall, and will in all likelihood widen under any kind of enrollment cap.

The devil is in the details.

It's unanimous (minus 5)

I attended last night's Merger Task Force meeting, and by the end of the night one thing was made perfectly clear:

The only people who want to see CES and HES merged are sitting on the Orange County Board of Education.

Of course, those of us who attended the "community listening sessions" and have paid attention to the public comment periods at Board meetings over the past 9 months already knew this to be the case.

It is an amazing coincidence that the only 5 people in Orange County who appear to support this disastrous plan just so happened to get themselves elected to the Board of Education.

After their second two hour meeting in two weeks, the only thing everyone on the Merger Task Force could agree upon was that Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan" should be trashed.

Even though, at its first meeting, the group expressed a need for more time to consider possible actions and more information upon which to base its recommendations, it will be making a set of recommendations to the Board at its next public meeting.

According to the Durham Herald Sun, "'Obviously, the top feeling of the group is to move past the merger idea,' said Denise Morton, superintendent of curriculum and instruction." Recommendations the group will make include:

• Removing the current merger proposal from consideration
• Reexamining the HES application process
• Creating a magnet school program at CES

While a vastly larger set of potential recommendations was collected from the group, Task Force members only had 30 minutes to share the ideas brought forth in closed door, small-group break out sessions. As such, there was very little discussion of any individual idea, and many with distinct differences were pooled into larger groups based on vague similarities.

After a secret vote in which members listed their top 3 choices from the long list of ideas, the final recommendations above were the "winners."

The process by which these three recommendations were selected appeared to be driven more by Denise Morton's desire to end the meeting on time, than by any desire to fully consider actions that would directly impact the problem the group was tasked to solve. In fact, when the concept of a fixed ending time for the meeting was questioned, Ms. Morton replied that she felt there needed to be one in order to ensure the meeting resulted in final recommendations.

Of the three proposals the Task Force will report to the full Board of Education on Monday night, only the creation of a magnet school program at CES can claim to directly address the Free & Reduced Lunch disparity the group was charged with impacting.

The other two, while they may be perfectly valid things to consider, will have no effect on the socioeconomic disparity between the two schools, and one has the potential to have the entirely opposite effect. I will write more on that one soon.

As they say, the devil is in the details.

They took a meeting

I am sorry for taking so long to post a report from last week's Merger Task Force meeting. My family went out of town last Thursday to attend a wedding and we did not return until Sunday evening.

As such, I have neither had time to write my impressions, nor edit and post clips from the video I shot of the meeting. I hoped that the article from the lone reporter covering the meeting would suffice.

As someone who has paid a great deal of attention to this process for over 8 months now, the Task Force meeting was a mixed bag of frustration and hope.

My frustration came as some Task Force members asked questions that had been answered for the Board over the past 8 months. It was apparent that many of the Task Force members had not been paying much attention to the merger discussion until named to the Task Force. With many new players in the process, it was clear there was no "institutional memory" of what had come before.

But, on the positive side, this lack of an entrenched agenda or committment to an overwhelmingly unpopular merger plan will allow the group to approach the issue less myopically than the Board had done since February.

I saw a glimmer of hope in the Task Force's first meeting.

For the first time, actual parents (you know, those people supposedly at the top of the Orange County Schools' organizational chart) were officially involved in the discussion. For 8 months, the Orange County Board of Education has seemed to employ every measure possible to mute the voices of parents in this process, or to dismiss what was said as the opinion of a small minority. It was not until they decided to formally start "listening" that they seemed to understand the level of opposition from parents at both schools to the plan they adopted in a vacuum.

With the exception of the Task Force moderator, parents on the Task Force asked most of the questions last Tuesday night. It was genuinely a breath of fresh air.

After one two-hour meeting, the group appeared reach a concensus on a few things:

• They need more information before beginning to understand the "problem" they are being asked to solve. The group made a number of requests for more information they felt was needed before they could start to discussing specific ideas.
• They do not feel they currently have enough "evidence" that any specific action will have the desired effect, or what effect any action they take may have. They seem truly interested in making recommendations based on valid educational research rather than some emotional or "deep inside" moral judgement.
• The District knows very little about why parents choose one school over another, whether it is to move their child to HES or to stay at CES when allowed to opt-out. It was suggested that a survey be conducted to gather this information.
• Unlike the Board of Education, The Task Force quickly acknowledged that the District cannot force any parent to send their child to CES (or Efland-Cheeks, and soon to be New Hope). Through the mechanisms of Title 1 School Improvement, families zoned to CES can automatically send their kids to another school. It was mentioned a number of times that CES is now a "school of choice" - meaning the families who stayed at CES chose to be there when they had other options. Yet, again, the District does not know the reasons behind their choice.
• The Task Force also agreed that it was impossible to expect significant recommendations from them by the Nov. 19th full Board meeting. With the possible exception of Debbie Piscitelli, the group does not believe it can come up with changes in time to impact the coming school year. Some said they believe it could take the group as much as "a year to a year and a half" to come up with its final recommendations.

While it was not the most entertaining two hours of my life, it did have its bright moments, and was generally more productive than any of the Board meetings I've attended in the past 8 months.

If for no other reason, my time was well spent when I heard one of the most insightful comments of this entire fiasco. One of the Task Force's parents stated that no balance among the schools would ever be possible until the District creates a situation at CES and Efland-Cheeks that makes parents "want to send their kids there." Too bad the Board of Education has spent 8 months discussing this issue, and not a single minute creating such an environment at any of its three struggling elementary schools.

The next meeting will be the last one before the Task Force reports its progress back to the Board at its next public meeting.

The Task Force meets again on Tuesday, November 13th at 5:30 pm in the Board of Education meeting room at 200 King Street, Hillsborough. (At least this time, the District posted the meeting information more than a few days in advance.)

All interested parties are free to attend. If that isn't enough to bring you in, they also had cookies at the last meeting.

Let's take a meeting

I will let everyone else draw their own conclusions about what it means that this information is posted no where on the Board of Education's website.

I am betting just about everyone can guess what I think it means.

[Update: I guess someone at Orange County Schools reads my blog, because a notice of the meeting appeared on the OCS website Friday morning.]

But, here is the information I received from a member of the group about the first Merger Task Force Meeting.

What: Orange County Board of Education's Merger Task Force Meeting
When: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 from 6:00-8:00 pm
Where: Orange County Board of Education Meeting Room
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC

The agenda for this meeting includes:

• Developing a calendar for other meetings of the Merger Task Force
• Reviewing the Board of Education's charge for the Merger Task Force
• Examining longitudinal data related to the Merger Task Force's charge

As an advisory body to the Board of Education, the Merger Task Force's meetings should be open to the public under North Carolina's Open Meetings laws.

As such, the public has every right to attend all meetings of this group, and observe its discussions.

I plan to attend next Tuesday, and I encourage every HES and CES parent to join me.

Will you be there?

A rose by any other name would be just as hand-picked

Just for the sake of moving the discussion forward before the anonymous comments (from either side) get any more personal, here is my explanation of why I still feel the term "hand-picked" is an appropriate description of the Board's "Task Force."

According to the Board's own minutes from the September 17th meeting, it established "a task force to create plan(s) or a series of tasks to increase the socio-economic balance (+/- 38%) at Central Elementary and Hillsborough Elementary for 2008-2009."

During that meeting, the Board specifically named 6 of the Task Force's 15 members, and left a 7th member to be identified by the OCS Central Office.

"Dennis Whitling appointed Anne Medenblik and Debbie Piscitelli to serve as Board representatives." Can we at least agree that those two were picked by the Board?

"Dr. Morton and Mary Alice Yarbrough will serve as Central Office representatives." How about those two?

One Central Office representative not specifically named at the meeting was what the Board Minutes refer to as a "leader" and the Raleigh News & Observer calls a "facilitator" tasked to "coordinate meetings." It is unclear whether this person will be a full Task Force member or serve in a support role.

The Board went on to say that "The principals will serve as the administrator representatives." By specifically assigning the principals of both schools, the Board named specific people to the Task Force (Sheila McDonald from CES and Martinette Horner at HES). Surely, we can agree that those two members were "picked" by the Board.

I am guessing that this is where my use of the term "hand-picked" has offended some anonymous posters - the Task Force's teacher and parent members.

In its creation of the Task Force, the Board required that it include two teachers from each school. Principals at the two schools were instructed to "select the teacher representatives." Allow me to illustrate this point with an analogy. Assume I am your employer and control the fate of your career in my hands. Now, further assume I tell you to choose two other employees for a committee that is sure to draw public scrutiny and press coverage. What is the likelihood you will choose someone I feel might rock the boat?

That leaves us with the parents. Nevermind that the Board chose to limit the number of parents on the Task Force to only four, an inexcusibly low number given that these are the families who will most closely feel the impact of any decision the Board makes, but the Board also chose not to open participation to ALL parents.

Unlike the assertion of my anonymous commenter, parents were not simply asked to "VOLUNTEER" to serve on the Task Force. In fact, there was a filtering process that limited the pool from which parent representatives were chosen. And, at least in the case of CES, the pool of eligible partipants was closed before the need was known.

In setting up the Task Force, the Board dictated that "Parent representatives will be selected by the Student Governance Committees." That was interpreted to mean each school's PTA. Additionally, as the Raleigh News & Observer reported, it was suggested that parents be drawn from each school's "school improvement teams." And, in both cases, they were.

As it turns out, the OCS Administration's "Site-Based Management Model" prescribes the structure and size of a School Improvement Team (SIT), as well as dictates who can and cannot serve. The parental component of an SIT includes three parents chosen in a PTA-run election, typically held prior to its members being tapped by the Board for a Task Force.

This is why CES was able to name its parent representatives without delay - they already knew which three parents were eligible to participate, and there was no need to expand the search. The Board could have known with a good degree of certaintly who CES would be sending to the Task Force as well. Two out of three are pretty good odds.

While this may have been the case at CES, HES was an entirely different matter. When the Board called for parents from the group to serve, HES had only one parent on its SIT. This necessitated a delay in choosing parental representatives until the 3-week intersession ended. When HES reconvened, a call was sent out by the HES PTA for people willing to serve on the SIT. With only one evening to decide, those who answered the call were listed on a ballot sent home with every student the next day. Again, with only one evening to decide, parents selected their representatives from a list of people most did not know.

So, let's recap:

• Of 15 Task Force members, the Board picked 6 of them on the same evening they formed the Task Force itself.
• Five more Task Force members (1 "leader" and 4 teachers) were picked by people the Board directly picked for the Task Force.
• Two CES parents were chosen from the pre-formed 3-person group specifically picked by the Board as a source of eligible parents.
• And, finally, two HES parents were chosen within less than two days from a list of parents very few people actually knew.

Of the 15 members on the Board's Merger Task Force, only two names would have surely come as a surprise to the Board.

When the Board can either directly name or exert control over the selection of 11 of the Task Force's 15 members (and may have some insight into who two others may be), I think it is entirely fair to say the Task Force was "hand-picked."

As much as I hate to do it ...

I again feel the need to respond to someone posting anonymous comments to this blog.

While I welcome disagreement with my opinions on the issues, and factual challenges to the things I write (which is why I have never censored or failed to publish a comment on this blog), I do take issue with attacks of a personal nature or attempts to silence those with whom you disagree.

An anonymous poster is currently taking me to task for using the term "hand-picked" when referring to Board's recent creation of a "Task Force" to explore "tweaks" or alternatives to Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan" for merging CES and HES. This person feels that I am not giving due respect to the parents and teachers who "VOLUNTEERED" to serve on the group. I welcome the comments on this matter, and would have happily engaged him/her in a discussion had they not posted the comments anonymously.

However, there is one long-running element to his/her posts that I now feel crosses the line.

Since July this anonymous poster has repeatedly called upon me (and other merger opponents) to remove my child from the public school system rather than point out what I see to be glaring problems in need of addressing. To see examples what is becoming and increasingly frequent call, start here, then go here, then here (toward the very end), and finally here.

I can only refer to this as the "love it or leave it" strategy for silencing a person with whom one disagrees. It is no different than the labeling of civil dissenters of the war in Iraq as "traitors" or "unpatriotic" and suggesting that they leave the country rather than voice their opinions. Such rhetoric has no place in a free society such as the US or in Orange County.

Rather than debating the issue at hand in a civil reasoned way, this person assumes that if I were to send my children to a charter school or home school them, I would leave the workings of the Orange County Schools to more enlightened people, like him/herself.

Of course, the poster is wrong. As long as my recently paid tax dollars are used to fund the Orange County Schools, I will continue to voice an opinion about things with which I disagree. This will be the case regardless of where, or how, my children are educated. It is my right.

That said, if you would now like to have a civil discussion of why I still feel the "Task Force" was "hand-picked" by the Board, maybe we can move forward.

Quote of the Year

From Class Warfare:

"Mark Twain is reputed to have said, 'First God made idiots. That was just for practice. Then He created school boards.'"

In his book, Professor J. Martin Rochester, went on to write, " That's unfair. The fact is that one of the worst positions to occupy other than school superintendent is school board member. There are strong pressures to go along and routinely accept staff proposals, since few wish to alienate the faculty and administration. When board members are elected who refuse to be co-opted, and boldly question the direction the district is going in, they are portrayed by their opponents as bad people who wish to harm the district."

Or, like in Orange County, they are labeled "elitists" or "segregationists."

At least, we are not alone

While I haven't been writing much lately, I have been reading quite a bit.

I am currently reading a book titled "Class Warfare" by a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. Unlike the writing of most poli/sci professors, this book does not report the findings of some elaborate research project, rather Prof. Rochester chronicles his family's personal experiences with public education in the St. Louis area.

As he writes in his opening notes, "To the extent that I indulge in telling my own private horror stories, I do so strictly for the purpose of illustrating the bigger picture of educational theories and practices run amok and exposing the failures of our precollegiate education system."

Rather than document the K-12 educational climate of St. Louis, MO in the 1980s and 1990s, Prof. Rochester could have been writing a case study of Orange County, NC in 2007.

"We certainly should not write off the public schools. We need to make them more responsive to parents. The director of governmental relations for the National PTA has stated that parental involvement is 'mostly just rhetoric. Parents are out of the decision-making loop.' The president of the Institute for Responsive Education says similarly 'It's common for school districts to plunge ahead with change efforts with no prior discussion with the community about the need for - or goals of - change.'

The conventional mode of parental involvement in schools is the PTA, where it is generally expected one will not get immersed in curriculum matters and, in any event, will not make waves. As a parent activist in Greenwich, CT says, 'The issues addressed by the PTA have nothing to do with the academic performance of children. They are more concerned about funding for the playground and the social aspects of children... They [the administration] don't really want parents involved."

That sounds pretty familiar to me. The Orange County Board of Education did not launch its "community listening sessions" until after they had "plunged ahead" and voted to adopt Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan."

Also, there was no effort to involve parents at either school, individually or through the respective PTAs, until the Board needed a convenient supply of parents for a handful of "Task Force" slots. But, even then, the number involved was kept small enough to ensure they would have little real control over the process that most directly impacts their children.

I look forward to reading more of Prof. Rochester's prophecies for Orange County. It's a page-turner.

So, it's not just me?

The downside of sitting in front of a computer and writing about your opinions is that you sometimes wonder if anyone out there agrees with you.

While I greatly appreciate the comments people post in response to what I write, it is very rewarding to read articles of support from those not wrapped up in this mess. And, it is particularly rewarding when they refer to what I write in their articles.

In a recent article on the North Carolina Education Alliance website, Kristen Blair writes about the widening use of socioeconomic status in student assignment. In her article, Ms. Blair highlights the ongoing merger battle in Orange County as an example of "heavy-handed student assignment policies" and specifically calls out Liz Brown for her dismissal of CES student performance as unimportant to her.

"In North Carolina, the Orange County School Board has proposed merging two elementary schools – high-performing Hillsborough Elementary and poor-performing Central Elementary – to rectify socioeconomic imbalance. Board member Liz Brown has indicated that achieving full economic (and racial) integration for Central’s students is far more important than boosting their achievement. Indeed, last week she expressed a shocking disregard for performance outcomes, saying, “Whether or not Central is passing or failing its End-of-Grade tests doesn’t matter to me.” Fortunately, performance matters to sensible county parents, who have worked to table the merger while a committee evaluates other options."

Now that the Orange County Board of Education has decided to abdicate its responsibility for setting policy to a "Task Force" dominated by parents, administrators and teachers, maybe the key message of Ms. Blair's article will get through.

"In the end, if research on school choice teaches us anything, it’s this: when it comes to picking the best schools for students, parents just may know a thing or two after all."

A parting shot

I guess Orange County Board of Education member Liz Brown's tendency to ignore her responsibilities to the Board didn't escape Orange County School Superintendent Shirley Carraway's attention either.

In the Durham Herald Sun's "Peeling the Orange" section, comes this little tidbit:

"The Orange County school board meeting Monday was Shirley Carraway's last as district superintendent. Chairman Dennis Whitling thanked Carraway for her years of service and noted that it was her last official meeting of the board.

That's when Carraway chimed in, 'And I didn't miss a single meeting,' she said, adding that she should receive a perfect attendance award."

Too bad our elected officials aren't as omnipresent as Dr. Carraway. We can only hope that Liz Brown will be "retiring" from her role in our schools soon too.

A blast from the past

Earlier today I published an anonymous comment that claimed Liz Brown had been prosecuted for removing the campaign signs of another candidate during her 2004 run for the Board of Education. This was the first time I delayed posting a comment until I could do more research.

As it turns out, a simple Google search showed that the poster was correct. According to the June 9, 2004 issue of the News of Orange County, while running for her seat on the Board, Liz was tried in Orange County District Court on a charge of maliciously removing the campaign signs of Hillsborough Town Board candidate Paul Newton in the days leading up to the 2003 general election.

Although she admitted removing the campaign signs from the road in front of Grady Brown Elementary School, she said it was because the signs posed a "safety hazard" by blocking drivers' views

"Judge Buckner said Brown did not act 'maliciously or wantonly' when she removed the sign," and, thus, found her not guilty.

During my search, I came across a number of postings from about the same time relating to the Board of Education campaign and the push to merge the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County school systems that foreshadowed the situation we face today. From a June 14, 2004 posting on OrangePolitics.org:

"We need to take a real close look at all of the candidates that are running for the Orange County School Board and we would quickly find out that we have a major liar amongst them in the person of Liz Brown. Brown has now gone on record saying that she is not in favor of School merger and that is certainly the biggest lie I have heard in a long time. The records clearly show that Liz Brown is one of the foremost advocates of School merger in the entire county. Brown was very vocal at all of the public hearings on Merger and participated in many Pro merger activites.

How can we possibly vote for a woman who now claims that she is not in favor of School merger yet the truth is that her sole purpose is to dismantle the very school system that she’s running for a seat on."

I guess three years has not tempered Liz's divisive personality one little bit.

The law of the land

While I was unable to personally attend last night's Orange County Board of Education meeting, it was reported by someone present that Liz Brown again began advocating for assigning children to some Orange County schools based exclusively on their race.

When I posted the video of her describing her plan, I wrote that Liz has "either a profound ignorance of educational law, or a philosophical disdain for decisions of the US Supreme Court." However, it now appears that she only has disdain for Court decisions that do not reflect the "deep inside" morals she wants to impose upon others.

During last night's meeting, Liz inevitably turned the discussion of feedback received on the Board's "community listening" tour to the topic of her race-based school assignment plan. It seems that someone on the Board had the audacity to point out the illegality of using race in school assignment, only to have Liz quickly turn upon them. In response to another Board member's refusal to discuss a plan that clearly falls outside the law, Liz shot back "Brown vs. Board of Education is still the law of the land!"

Yes, it is.

And, even though you may disagree with it, so is Parents vs. Seattle. The two are not mutually exclusive. The US Supreme Court's decision from June clearly states that you "simply can't consider race in deciding which school kids go to" - whether it is forbidding African American kids from attending high school in Little Rock, or banning white kids from Hillsborough Elementary.

As if the Justices foresaw Liz's willingness to bend words to her liking, the Court provided Orange County with some clarity in terminology around the issue facing its schools. Comments in brackets are mine alone, as is the bold text for emphasis:

"Because this Court has authorized and required race-based remedial measures to address de jure segregation, it is important to define segregation clearly and to distinguish it from racial imbalance.

In the context of public schooling, segregation is the deliberate operation of a school system to 'carry out a governmental policy to separate pupils in schools solely on the basis of race.' In Brown, this Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district’s individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large. Racial imbalance is not segregation. Although presently observed racial imbalance might result from past de jure segregation, racial imbalance can also result from any number of innocent private decisions, including voluntary housing choices [or parental choice of a preferred academic calendar].

However, racial imbalance without intentional state action to separate the races does not amount to segregation. To raise the specter of resegregation to defend these programs is to ignore the meaning of the word."

Whether you like it or not, "the law of the land" says you cannot assign students to public schools based on some concept of "racial balance." Until a higher power gets this point through to Liz Brown's closed mind, she will keep dividing our community and the struggling children of Orange County will continue to be failed by the people elected to help them succeed.

Finally, it sounds like the Court is prophetically warning Orange County about Liz Brown, "if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories."

Two is greater than one

I am now going to do something I have never done before on this blog - I am going to post an entire article from another author.

Today's edition of The Daily Tar Heel includes an editorial that perfectly communicates what the Orange County Board of Education appears not to have heard even after three "community listening sessions."

The DTH piece is so totally relevant that I do not feel the need to comment further:


Two is greater than one
Merger of elementary schools is not the county's best bet
by Editorial Board

The Orange County Board of Education is faced with a dilemma: It has two schools in close proximity with vastly different academic performances.

After the second question-and-answer session Thursday night about a proposed merger of Hillsborough and Central elementary schools, the county's next step is still up in the air.

Merging the elementary schools is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to both; instead, Orange County should focus its resources on improving Central. [Bold added by me.]

A big motivating factor behind the merger has been Central's failure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress requirements the past two years.

But there's also a socioeconomic divide, typically measured by the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch.

At Hillsborough, only 14 percent of students receive free and reduced lunch, significantly lower than the district average of 38 percent. At Central, though, about 70 percent of students are in the program.

[My note: These are old numbers. Last February the numbers were 14% and 61% respectively. With so many students opting out of CES this Fall, the current FRL numbers are unclear.]

The merger would send kindergarten through second grade to Central, while third through fifth grades would be at Hillsborough.

Merging the schools would do nothing more than bring both schools closer to the middle of the pack academically. Teachers would teach toward the median performance range, leaving the lower aptitude students struggling with the work level while the higher-aptitude children are twiddling their thumbs.

The BOE should focus on improving Central while maintaining the same high quality that already exists at Hillsborough.

This option best serves the needs of every student in the school district.

In addition, merging the schools would not be an easy transition for the students, parents or faculty at either school, and the overhead costs associated with switching schools are funds that would be better used put into improving Central.

It also won't be as simple as switching Central to a year-round schedule like Hillsborough; too many other factors affect a school's performance.

The county needs to look into the allocation of funds between the two schools, the level of teaching at each elementary school and perhaps even the stigma associated with attending the so-called "lower" of the two schools.

Orange County shouldn't move the Central students when it would be less costly and more effective just to help them where they are.


Leave it to a truly disinterested third party to see things so clearly. Thank you DTH.

Can we talk honestly now?

"When facts and logic fail, a scoundrel resorts to character assassination" - Larry Huss

Shortly after it became clear that HES parents were going to actively resist any plan to merge Central and Hillsborough Elementary schools, one vocal supporter of the plan sought to minimize resistance by labeling its opponents as "elitist," while others hurled accusations of racism.

While this tactic of race- and class-baiting served to silence some of the less vocal merger opponents, it had a disastrously chilling effect on the discussion of options for providing programs and services to the struggling children at CES.

In his letter to the editor of The News of Orange County this past April, CES parent Brad Davis relayed the content of an email he received from Board member Al Hartkopf. According to Mr. Davis, Al said:

“The advantage we have at this time is that we have identified children who are being underserved. We know where they are. Why would we make any move to obfuscate the clarity of that picture? Why do we not simply deliver to these children what they need? My answer is that we should do exactly that and nothing else.”

Based on Al's suggestion to increase the resources available to struggling children at CES, Mr. Davis accused him of elitism and of being a segregationist. Mr. Davis went on to imply that without a merger his "very privileged" child "from an educated, affluent situation" would have to transfer out of CES "to succeed, at her highest potential."

At the Orange County Board of Education's "listening session" his past Thursday evening, a parent pointed out that the Board was focusing exclusively on the "quick fix" of merging the two schools. She then asked why the Board had not developed plans that would allow it to target struggling students at the schools they currently attend.

She felt that this approach would have the benefit of allowing the Board to address problems at other schools that fail to make AYP in the future [like New Hope Elementary?] that cannot feasibly be merged with higher performing schools.

For anyone who has felt the sting of being unfairly labeled, the answer was quite clear:

Thankfully, a number of CES parents spoke up in support of Al's ideas, and told him that merely being called a racist by someone with an obvious agenda does not make it true.

With another false argument out of the way, maybe now we can have a real discussion of how best to help the struggling children at all our schools - without the "hyperbole" and name calling.

Did you get the memo?

This past June, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of two school districts that had been using race as a factor in assigning students to specific schools.

According to the court, the use of race in student assignment is unconstitutional.

In describing the impact of the decision, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said, "What this court said was even though only a few slots were determined by race, that's too many. You just simply can't consider race in deciding which school kids go to."

While the Court's decision received massive press coverage, and has been frequently compared to the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the word appears to have never made down as far as Orange County Board of Education Member Liz Brown.

Perhaps, if she had bothered to attend even a single Board meeting between June and September, she would have heard something about this development. But since she obviously places such a low importance on her responsibilities to the children of Orange County, it is not surprising that she is blissfully ignorant of the law.

This ignorance was on full display this past Thursday night, as Liz proposed a plan for "balancing" Hillsborough Elementary School that would "cap the enrollment of white students" until there are "enough minorities" enrolled.

In Liz Brown's plan, "a lot of you" would be denied enrollment at HES, unless you win a "lottery" held among only white children. This is a clear violation of the Supreme Court's decision, and would be destined to land the Orange County Board of Education in federal court.

Watch for yourself.

Should someone with either a profound ignorance of educational law, or a philosophical disdain for decisions of the US Supreme Court, really be responsible for setting educational policy in Orange County?

The Return of Liz Brown

Liz Brown made one of her rare appearances at an Orange County Board of Education event earlier this evening. Her presence alone is so rare an event that it warrants comment, but in classic Liz Brown style, she succeeded in being divisive by just being herself.

The occasion Liz chose to grace with her "moraler-than-thou" presence was the Board's last scheduled "community listening session" on the merger of Central and Hillsborough Elementary Schools.

During last Thursday's "listening session" at CES, I wondered why Liz chose not to attend after reappearing from a nearly three-month hiatus from her Board responsibilities. I guess I now understand.

At CES, her message might have yielded something more than the stunned silence she received this evening at HES. She publicly confirmed what I have been saying for 6 months - the academic performance of children at CES (and presumably at HES) "doesn't matter at all" to her.

In her eyes, the Orange County Board of Education is simply a tool to impose her "deep inside" moral views on the parents, children and citizens of Orange County - whether they agree with them or not also "doesn't matter at all."

Thankfully, the parents of Orange County aren't stupid and, as one CES parent noticed, she was creating a racial issue where none existed.

Don't just believe me. Watch her yourself.

Liz, maybe you should have taken tonight off too.

What are your plans for tonight?

While it may look like they are guest starring on an episode of "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" (hint: the answer is no), members of the Orange County Board of Education will actually be holding the second of their "community listening sessions" at HES this evening at 7:00 pm.

Just like on that popular show, tonight the Board will be asked a number of seemingly simple questions but, try as they might, will be unable to provide answers.

After spending last Thursday evening trying unsuccessfully to convince CES parents and staff to support the merger being forced upon them by the Board, attention will now turn to parents and staff at HES.

After listening to CES parents speak out against the merger for over two hours without hearing anything about a "plan B" from the Board, I was reminded of an old George Will line about the three biggest lies in the world. One of which is, "I am from the government and I'm here to help you." For some reason I always thought the government (especially local government) was supposed to represent the people and not dictate to them.

While I think the Board was genuinely surprised by the overwhelmingly negative reaction Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan" received at CES, there should be no delusions about what to expect tonight. I will be attending this meeting, and I have personally invited a few people from last Thursday's meeting to attend as well. It should be an interesting show.

While the plot may look familiar, it should at least be better than an Ugly Betty rerun.


What: Orange County Board of Education "Listening Session" on CES/HES Merger
When: Thursday, September 13, 2007 @ 7:00pm
Where: Hillsborough Elementary School

A night well spent

I had the very good fortune of being in town last night and decided to attend the Orange County Board of Education's "community listening session" at Central Elementary.

I was pleased to see that the number of people in attendance exceeded the school's expectations, as people stood around the walls and additional chairs had to be brought into the room as the crowd grew. The large turnout brought out some very pointed questions for the Board and extended the meeting past its scheduled two hours.

I am not too sure how much the Board actually listened to what the parents had to say, but they sure got an ear full. For my part, it was very refreshing to have the prevailing "us vs. them" illusion shattered.

Among the group, there seemed to be very little animosity toward HES parents even though outspoken CES parent Brad Davis seemed determined to drum some up by repeatedly interrupting other speakers and beating the same dead horse about HES draining away affluent kids who should be forced to stay at CES.

The message from the overwhelming majority of CES parents and teachers came through loud and clear: They do not support Dennis Whitling's "Big Plan" to merge CES and HES.

Given that the door is still open for any CES student to immediately transfer to HES under NCLB, the parents who chose to keep their kids at CES said they want nothing to do with a year-round calendar - "modified" or otherwise.

After the meeting, I was concerned that my feelings on this matter might cloud my perception of what was said, and I decided to wait before writing anything about the meeting. But, that concern was erased this morning when I read the media accounts of last night's event from the Raleigh News & Observer, the Durham Herald Sun and The Daily Tar Heel.

The Durham Herald Sun reported on what I felt was the meeting's pivotal moment: Dennis Whitling asked the audience, by a show of hands, to decide between two options: "'If choice is between balancing this school and the traditional school, who would rather have [socioeconomic] balance and go to a year-round than go to traditional?'" I only saw two hands raised in support of "balancing" the school, and the Herald Sun reporter saw the same thing. "One parent asked for a show of hands for the number of people who would prefer a traditional calendar. Nearly all in attendance raised their hands. "

The evening was filled with poignant, emotional comments from CES parents about how well their children have performed at the school, in many cases after struggling in a year-round school, ringing endorsements of CES's teachers and staff - many of whom attended the meeting - and pleas for the Board to not make the proposed changes.

But, the most direct and to the point comment came from a CES parent after out-going superintendent Shirley Carraway announced the great strides CES made in meeting its growth goals on the latest state ABC scores.

The Daily Tar Heel captured the moment of clarity perfectly: "Parent Christy Baylor cited those reforms that have increased scores and growth at Central as a reason to quell the merger movement.

'What we're doing is working - why scramble it all up? Why scramble the students all up if what's happening here is working?'"

That's a good question, and the answer is one HES parents have known for almost 7 months: It's not about teaching our children!

From the very moment Shirley Carraway presented a proposed merger to the Board, this has always been about hiding the children who are struggling, and most at risk, within the statistical averages of a combined school.

The Board has latched onto this idea as a "quick fix" to avoid what the district's Director of Elementary Instruction, Mary Alice Yarbrough, kept referring to as federal "sanctions" during last night's meeting.

In fact, it wasn't until May of this year - three months into the process - that the Board actually decided what problem they wanted the merger to fix. That is when "balanced schools" became the Board's mantra, only now replaced by Dennis Whitling's newest term - "middle class schools."

Seeing little support from parents at either school, the Board committed to coming up with a "Plan B", ignored up until this point, and communicating that plan to parents in time for binding decision letters to go out in December.

The Board will hold another "community listening session" at HES next Thursday at 7:00 and everyone is welcome to attend and voice their opinions regardless of where your children go to school.

My bad

I have written here before that I am perfectly willing to admit when I make a mistake or to acknowledge when I don't know something. And, this is one of those times.

When I read yesterday's Daily Tar Heel article about Tuesday's Board meeting, I misinterpreted the following quote attributed to Liz Brown:

"So it's costing $1,000 a student," Brown said. "That was an expensive decision."

Given Liz's apparent distain for Orange County parents, I naturally jumped to the conclusion that she was criticizing the CES and ECES parents for deciding to send their children to HES rather than stay at the "failing" schools the Board had assigned to them. It would have been par for the course, but, as it turns out, I was wrong.

Based on a fuller quote provided in today's Durham Herald Sun, it appears that Liz was not being critical of parents at all (there is a first for everything) but was aiming her barbs at her fellow Board members.

"'It was an expensive decision, I think -- I don't know if I would have gone for that,' said Elizabeth Brown, referring to the board's decision to include Hillsborough Elementary as a designated school for transfers."

This greater context puts the quote in an entirely different light and begs a new question: How is it possible that "The motion to add Hillsborough Elementary as a choice option for both Central and Efland-Cheeks Elementary was unanimously approved" by the Board, when its most vocal member would not have supported such an "expensive decision"?

Could it be that a wide-eyed Liz Brown was misled into believing that including the choice of HES would come without the additional costs? In the Herald Sun article, associate superintendent Denise Morton is quoted as saying, "When the board approved Hillsborough as a school of choice, the board knew then there will be some added costs." Then, that can't be it. But, what could it be?

Oh yeah ... now I remember. Liz did not attend a single public Board meeting for over 11 weeks. That is almost three months!

The reason she never voiced her opposition to allowing parents from the two lowest performing schools in the district to send their children to the highest performing school was because she didn't even bother to show up for the discussion.

Yet, now that she has again chosen to grace the Board with her presence, she has the audacity and arrogance to criticize those who took their often thankless responsibilities seriously.

So, in the interest of fostering civility amongst the Board, I would like to recommend a new rule for Board members:

If you don't bother to show up for nearly three months, you don't get to criticize the decisions made by those who came to work.

I'll bet that is one motion that won't pass unanimously.