Do the Cleavers live in Orange County?

This morning Orange County Schools posted the "registration" form that will be used to decide which children to expel from Hillsborough Elementary later this spring.

This was the first opportunity any of the "unwashed masses" had a chance to see the document - interestingly, that reportedly also includes the Board of Education, to which everyone on the OCS staff ultimately reports.

Parents of rising 3rd, 4th and 5th graders automatically "grandfathered" into the school are only required to complete an "Intent to Remain at HES" question on the form and return it to OCS by March 21, 2008.

Everyone else will have to complete the entire form which includes intrusive questions about the number of people living in your home, how many of those people are adults, the total "household income from all sources" and the educational level of each parent regardless of whether they both live in the child's household.

Aside from the repugnant nature of the underlying policy of expelling children from a public school funded by their parents' tax dollars, I have a real problem with some of the assumptions inherent in the questions on this "registration" form.

In particular, I take issue with the questions about parental educational achievement. This entire process was reportedly designed to reduce the Free & Reduced Lunch disparity between HES, CES and the rest of the District. Since then it has degenerated into a process of segmenting people at the school by household income and educational attainment - regardless whether the families in question receive free or reduced lunches.

Can someone explain the direct, cause and effect relationship between education level and FRL status? I have known many people with graduate degrees who chose to follow a personal calling into less lucrative professions. Should their children be penalized for that choice?

Presumably, the Ph.Ds running OCS believe that only uneducated people have low incomes, or worse yet, that only people with higher educations (like themselves) can financially succeed in our capitalist system.

Of course, I can only presume this because no one in the Central Office has bothered to explain why "educational level" is even on the form. It was not something mandated by the Board at any meeting.

But, this arrogance aside, I have more problems with the assumptions that go along with requiring people to provide the educational level of a child's "mother" and "father."

We live in a very diverse community with families of many different types. However, the OCS assumes everyone fits their pre-conceived notion of what a family looks like - one man and one woman living together in the same home to raise their biological children. To assume that picture is representative of everyone who might want to send their child to HES is closed-minded and arrogant.

In fact, I doubt you could find a parent in our county who doesn't know a family that breaks that 1950s model. There are plenty of single-parent families, foster families, blended families, and same-sex partner families in our community, and they should all be offended by the assumptions made by the school system their taxes pay to support.

How are these members of the community supposed to answer those "required" questions, and better yet, why should they be?

An infrequently answered question

I was just provided the "second draft" of Frequently Asked Questions regarding how the Orange County Schools plan to expel a number of children from the only school they have ever known.

The draft is expected to be finalized today and posted to the OCS website at midnight tonight. So, here is your first peek at one question your school system is being asked - and is not answering.

Among the additions to the FAQs is this new gem:

"21. If spaces become available during the school year, will students who were not selected in the original process be allowed to fill them?"

Now that seems like a perfectly reasonable question. I can imagine many parents asking just such a question as they consider what to do if they are among the many expected losers in Ted Triebel's education lottery.

After all, many of the children expelled from HES under Ted Triebel's new plan know no school but HES. Presumably, these children's parents would welcome any chance to return them to a familiar environment staffed with people who know their children's strengths and weaknesses well - even if it comes during the middle of a school year.

While the question is reasonable, the District's answer is not.

"Response: If student slots become available during the course of the school year, students transferring into Orange County Schools from a school with a year-round calendar will be given consideration for the available slots."

Simply put - No.

According to this policy, children of long-time Orange County taxpayers forced out of HES by this Board of Education would not be allowed to fill empty desks at one of the county's public schools - HES.

While at the same time, children arriving from Wake, Durham, Alamance, or any district with a year-round school will be offered access to those empty seats.

With actions like this, it is no wonder that few people in Orange County trust their public schools to do what is right - or even what is reasonable.

Orange County Schools' lack of public trust was a dominant message in the report of the Closing the Gap Committee this past November, and it appears that nothing has changed as a result of that report.

"... schools often function in ways that do not build trust ... and even act in ways that undermine its development and maintenance."

"It includes, trusting that if a group (such as parents) thinks something is a problem, their concerns will not be dismissed, even if there is real disagreement about the source or meaning of the problem."

Again, I ask, is it any wonder no one trusts these people?

A Parent's Dilemma

At last night's meeting of the Orange County Board of Education, the Board was presented a list of frequently asked questions about Ted Triebel's plan to expel children from Hillsborough Elementary School.

Among these FAQs was one regarding the District's plan to use self-reported "income bands" as a proxy for economic status. As presented to the Board, the question reads:

"14. How do you know that parents are reporting accurately their income bands?
Response: Parents will be required to sign a statement on the registration form attesting to the accuracy of the information they have provided."

Aside from the poor grammar used by these "educators" in writing the question (an adverb should not be placed between a verb and its object), something about this FAQ caught my attention.

People who know me well know that I was an Economics major in college. I chose that major because the rules of economics just made sense to me, and the outcomes they predicted seemed logical. For example: If the price of something I value goes down, I will probably buy more. Simple, huh?

Well, last night's discussion reminded me of an economics class I took at UNC - Game Theory.

Simply put, game theory is a way of predicting how people will react in a given competitive situation. The "player's" goal is to gain the greatest benefit (or incur the lowest cost) by predicting what other competitors will do, and choosing a strategy that takes those actions into account.

One classic illustration of game theory is the Prisoner's Dilemma. In this model, the players are most interested in maximizing their personal benefit (or minimizing their costs), even if it adversely impacts the other players.

Consider this situation: Two accomplices are separately questioned by the police. If they both "stick to the story" they will both get off without either being punished. If one turns on the other, he will be punished, but to a lesser degree than the person he betrayed (probation vs. prison). Since neither accomplice can be absolutely sure what the other one will do, game theory predicts they both turn on their partner - even if they have to lie about the facts to do so. This is seen in just about every episode of Law & Order, NYPD Blue, Dragnet, or the police drama of your choice. It is an entirely predictable element of human nature.

Even so, this is what economists call a "sub-optimal" solution. That is to say, both players will voluntarily accept a less than "best case scenario" in order to ensure they do not individually suffer the "worst case scenario."

So, how does this relate to the coming reapplication for slots at HES?

With its plan, the Board of Education has created a game scenario in which those who claim low income on the registration form will increase the chance that their children will be allowed to attend HES.

Since the number of slots available to K-2 children zoned to Central and Efland-Cheeks Elementary schools will be greatly limited and the District has acknowledged that it has no way to verify the information parents provide on the "registration form" it plans to distribute, there is a huge incentive for parents in those zones to claim low-income status - whether it is true or not.

Doing so, could literally be the sole deciding factor on where their children attend school for many years to come. Not doing so, could mean the expulsion of their children from the only school they have ever known and forced attendance at a school at which they have no relationship with the staff and faculty.

While I would never publicly advocate for people to lie on their HES "registration forms," simple game theory predicts that many people will. And, it is a perfectly logical response to the situation created by this Board.

Wow! I didn't see that one coming.

News Flash!

Orange County Board of Education member Dennis Whitling has been accused of embezzling over $58,000 from the Durham law firm where he worked for over 20 years. Working with a search warrant, Durham Police detectives have seized Whitling's banking records .

According to the Durham Herald-Sun, accountants found "numerous discrepancies in Whitling's documentation of the firm's business transactions" after Dennis left the firm in September to start his own law practice.

"Police and the accountants think Whitling made out 26 checks to himself in 2006 and 2007. Seventeen were for amounts greater than authorized, and the rest weren't authorized."

"Check register entries for the 17 greater-than-authorized amounts hid the discrepancy. The unauthorized checks were either credited in the firm's records to a different payee, or not listed at all."

The Raleigh News & Observer reports that, according to the search warrant used to seize Dennis' banking records, "in 2006 Whitling issued himself six checks totaling $23,318.93 in payments not authorized by Mr. Stevens."

While there does not appear to have been an arrest in the case, Durham's Police Chief says that it may be because the investigation is still "ongoing."

I reserve the right to comment on this in the future.

Until then, the Board might want to dust off its procedures for replacing a sitting Board member. You never know when that kind of information will come in handy.

Win-win?

In his recent guest articles published in both the Durham Herald-Sun and the News of Orange, Orange County Board of Education Chairman Ted Triebel referred to the plan he recently forced upon the county as a "win-win" based, in large part, on "the recommendation of the CES-HES Task Force."

Unfortunately, Ted failed to take into account that members of that Task Force might have a different view of their discussions.

The Board recently heard from just such a Task Force member. Here is the full text of a message sent to every Board member, as well as a significant number of the District's staff, in direct response to the "artistic license" Ted took in his guest articles:

Mr. Triebel,

I am astounded by your statement in the column you wrote for the Durham Herald (Sun Jan 6).

You stated: "For Hillsborough Elementary, our board accepted the recommendation of the CES-HES Task Force, presented to us on Nov. 19. The task force (comprised of parents, school officials, teachers, central office personnel and board members) recommended that we revise the application and selection procedure for students attending HES, in order to move it toward a more representative socio-economic proportionality of our schools."

Your statement is not a reflection of the time the task force was allowed. There were NO official recommendations from the CES-HES Task Force. We were only allowed to meet twice and at the 2nd meeting was a brainstorming activity at which you were present. NO formal recommendations came out of this meeting and Ms. Morton presented them as initial conversations from brainstorming and progress made thus far by the Task Force.

Please review the minutes from the Nov 19th Board meeting:
07-11-(2)-07 Central / Hillsborough Elementary Task Force Report – Dr. Denise Morton, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, presented a preliminary report from the task force recognizing members of the task force who were present. The initial two meetings were devoted to questions, discussion and looking at data concluding with a brainstorming session. An analysis of the input was conducted to determine the top three brainstorming ideas. The consensus thoughts that emerged were
{: the idea of investigating Central Elementary as a magnet school and the application and selection procedure for Hillsborough Elementary to be revised. Merger of the two elementary schools is not supported by the task force.
Chairman Triebel indicated that since the two Board member representatives on the task force were not present at the Board meeting tonight due to family emergencies, the next discussion and action to be taken by the Board will be at the December 3, 2007 meeting.

It is irresponsible of you to assign this recommendation as coming from the Task Force. The Task Force was not even allowed to meet long enough to come up with a majority approved idea. We were not even allowed time to debate ideas the came out of BRAINSTORMING! Changing the application and selection procedure for HES was one idea that came out of brainstorming but the Task Force was not even given time to flesh this idea out with specifics of what should or could change about the process.

You misled the public in the media and I believe you need to fix it. I'm appalled by your presumptuousness. The Board needs to take responsibility for their actions and plans. At no point should this plan be associated with the Task Force. There were NO recommendations from the CES-HES Task Force.

CES-HES Task Force Member

Why would they start now?

I received a message earlier today from an HES parent who was frustrated that the Orange County Board of Education does not appear to be listening to parents with concerns about the planned changes to HES.

Dr. Alex Freemerman from Duke sent the following letter to every member of the Board, dropped off hard copies at the District office and sent a version to the News of Orange for publication. While the News of Orange seems to ignore its length limits for members of the Board, Dr. Freemerman's submission was cut down to fit a 250 word limit.

I promised to publish his entire letter here for the community to read.

Dear School Board Member,

I hope that you saw my letter to the editor in this week’s News of Orange County. That letter was limited to 250 words, but I have a few more points I’d like to make regarding the new enrollment policy at HES. And in case you missed the newspaper, I completely disagree with the strategy the BOE has decided to pursue to increase the percentage of low SES children attending HES.

First, when we enrolled our daughter at HES last year, we were told, and this was in writing, that every child enrolled at HES would be given a slot in the next year’s class. This is a critical policy element of a year-round school. As a family, we need this certainty to plan our vacations and summer schedule a year in advance. For the BOE to change this policy mid-year for only rising first and second graders and then to leave those families hanging until March is simply unacceptable. The BOE has asked for community support in this endeavor, but the BOE will receive no support until they prove that the promises and commitments they make will, in fact, be honored. I am hopeful that the BOE can understand how critically important it is to be viewed as trustworthy by the entire community as the Board moves forward with changes to other schools. Certainly, recent promises made by the Board regarding programs and funding will be evaluated by the community based on the Board’s decision whether or not to honor its existing commitments.

Second, the BOE has decided that the percentage of students receiving free/reduced lunch (FRL) at HES is too low compared to other schools. I don’t believe anybody has argued against this point, however, the strategy to achieve this goal is unwise and unfair. The Board’s plan to increase that percentage, not by recruiting low-income families to HES, but by restricting enrollment and expelling students not receiving FRL from HES is both discriminatory and divisive. Let us not mince words, that is exactly what this policy does. Since when is it ever okay to discriminate against children based on their socio-economic status? Since when is it ever okay to expel a child from a school because that child does not match some predetermined profile? The answer is that it is NEVER okay to do those things. If a higher percentage of low wealth students is the goal at HES, then the only correct way to pursue that is to recruit those children and families to HES.

Third, I need to point out the inconsistent nature of this new policy. You have guaranteed re-admission to rising first and second graders that transferred to HES due to the Title I improvement status of Central and Efland-Cheeks. Those transfers missed the first 6 weeks of school. Our family knew beforehand that Central, our districted school, would not make AYP and be placed into Title I improvement and that students would be allowed to transfer. I knew HES would be offered as a transfer school option because I attended your meetings. Instead of waiting for our child to miss 6 weeks of school, we enrolled her at HES. Thus, we opted out of Central, but now we are likely going to be forced back into Central, and only because we were proactive in enrolling our daughter at HES so that she would not miss her first six weeks of school. Not only is this not fair, but it clearly runs counter to the express purpose of giving parents the choice of leaving a school not making AYP.

Forth, the end result of this policy will be to increase class size at Central and Efland-Cheeks. This runs counter to your proposal of maintaining the current small class size at those schools.

Fifth, due to the guaranteed re-admission of a number of students groups, only a handful of first and second graders will be forcibly transferred from HES back to Central and Efland-Cheeks. Because of the small number of children involved, this policy, if enacted, will not appreciably change the SES balance at HES, Central, or Efland-Cheeks. Thus, if a policy does not achieve its stated goal and that same policy inflicts significant harm on those families impacted by that policy, then, surely, that is the definition of bad policy and it should never be implemented.

For all the above stated reasons, I believe that the BOE must re-address this policy and, at a minimum, needs to honor the commitments made to HES families and grandfather in all grades at HES and then commit to recruiting a diverse entering Kindergarten class. Surely, every Board member should be able to see the real damage that will be caused to the families and children impacted this new enrollment policy at HES should you allow it to remain in place.

Alex Freemerman, Ph.D.

Tonight's meeting

Just to keep everyone informed, the Orange County Board of Education will hold its first meeting since ramming through its revised plan to hide the struggling children of Orange County tonight at 7:00 pm.

This will provide the first opportunity for people to comment on the Board's decision to use an accounting trick to remove Central and Efland-Cheeks Elementary schools from Title 1 School Improvement Status by taking over $300,000 in federal Title 1 funding away from the two schools.

Given that Ted Triebel heavy-handedly crushed any opportunity for community discussion or debate of his new plan at the early-morning meeting he used to propose, discuss and pass this new plan, anyone wishing to have ex post facto input to this plan will need to take advantage of their three minutes of public comment time. It could be fun.

What: Orange County Board of Education Regular Meeting
When: Monday, January 7, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Where: Orange County Board of Education Meeting Room
200 E. King Street
Hillsborough, NC