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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
What if everyone wrote - It is none of your business - for their income band?
It is discrimination to base admittance into a public school, funded by our government, on household income.
It is also criminal to have children in kindergarten and first grade suffer the consequences of a redistricting that was flawed from the beginning. It never should have passed b/c it gave CES the short end of the stick and now those children won't be allowed into HES. How is that ethical? If you live in the Central district, you won't be accepted into HES for kindergarten in 2008-09.
It is time to band together and just say "No" to a BoE that is this incompetent.
Tink's Mom
Tink's Mom,
For everyone to decline to reveal an income band would be an "optimal solution," but unfortunately game theory predicts that many people would "defect" from that arrangement, and gain the benefit of less competition for readmission at the expense of those who upheld the agreement.
The more rational approach, as predicted by game theory, is for everyone to claim a low income.
While it is a "sub-optimal" solution, it does minimize the likelihood of a "worst case" outcome (expulsion from HES) for the greatest number of "players."
Well...considering that the current Chair of the BoE is under the delusion that the subsidized preschool will not divert funds from Central and Efland Cheeks kids, I think that makes sense.
If Dennis stays on the board, maybe he can make it all add up.
-Spending 300k for preschool does not steal services from children who need extra help in two schools that didn't meet AYP.
-Everyone applying to HES is low income.
-The Easter Bunny is on his way.
Sounds great to me!!!
Did you know that a person who truthfully completed the form can easily win a lawsuit against the BOE if they can reasonably prove that there was some fraud (i.e. parents not filing the forms correctly)which resulted in their child being denied admission to HES. There is no sane Court that would rule in favor of the BOE with such a lame process that they have created. WE ALL KNOW THAT SEVERAL PARENTS WILL NOT COMPLETE THE FORM CORRECTLY.
Something to ponder....
Found an interesting bit of information about small schools vs. large schools.
http://www.newrules.org/equity/smallschool.html
It seems that this should apply to elementary schools as well. I wonder if overcrowding at Cam. Park and Efland Cheeks is having an adverse affect on the students' scores? If we apply this principle to Central, than maybe their scores will improve again this year. My question is: has the board taken into consideration the overcrowding at CP and EC; the potential for New Hope to not meet AYP this year and the fact that Central may be better off with its small size for the moment?
I just think that down-sizing HES will exacerbate the problems in the district by sending kids back to EC. It was my understanding that it would cost $35k to retro-fit the classrooms at EC for the pre-K program. Isn't EC overcrowded? Why take away classrooms AND send more kids there - especially when those families would rather go to HES.
Lastly - I feel like every other problem in the district has been ignored b/c the board is so hung up on HES' free lunch. I don't get it. Yes, it needs to improve, but to completely disregard other schools is a bit excessive (overcrowding, failing AYPs, monitoring new growth and preparing for more students). I'd like to see some improvement strategies on the agenda, not just FRL rhetoric.
HES Mom
Found an interesting article this morning. Not relevant to this topic (sorry about that) but relevant to the whole issue. There are many more things that could be implemented...
Got this article as a news blast today from NCDPI: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2007-08/20080123-02
Not sure what else other than I am sorry that this has happened.
CES Parent
Has anyone contacted the TV news media?
I've contacted WRAL several times and became frustrated by the lack of response. Wake Co. is all that they seem to want to cover - yet the parallels are very striking.
Someone suggested the ABC station - WTVD? That might be better b/c it is in Durham.
A wonderful article about 2 elementary schools in Alamance County switching to year round schedule to improve test scores. http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/school_9855___article.html/students_schools.html
Top News: Board OKs year-round schedule | school, students, schools : Burlington Times News
It seems odd to me how the parents there are in support of the change but the parents here were so against the idea of switching Central to a year round calendar. It will be interesting to see how well the students do. I honestly believe people are going to come around to how effective year round schooling is, especially for young children. Hang in there, reapply, and prove we are committed to the year round program!
I have never had a problem with the year round schedule. I just don't see having two different school schedules for one family to follow. Had their original plan gone through, I would have had one in year round and one in traditional.
If the BOE would really commit to the idea of year round and convert elementary, one middle and one high school, maybe parents wouldn't be so much against it. At least, our family wouldn't be.
CED Parent
Stevie,
Not everyone can afford to have their children go to school on two separate calendars. I think the CES parent is right on with their assessment. It's time to advance the program to a middle school and to a high school.
For me, the opposition was b/c Central would not have remained year round. I say this b/c Judge Manning, in Wake Co., had just struck down the efforts to have some schools mandantory year round and others traditional. His ruling was that you can not force a family to be year round - UNLESS - the entire district was year round (this just refers to elementary schools). Therefore, the final product would have been K-2 and 3-5 on two campuses and on a traditional schedule.
So really the merger would have been fine if the schools were guaranteed to be year round, but that was not possible. One lawsuit by a Central parent would have changed everything over.
I don't know if that was every very clear, but that was the initial opposition.
Believe me, I would love to see a year round elementary, middle, and high school in Orange County. As a parent of 4 children, the days of having children on different calendars is quickly approaching for my family. I don't doubt it will be difficult. I just believe giving my children an advantage in their early years of education is worth the hassle.
Right now, my children have to get on the bus at 6:11 am and ride for an hour and half to get to HES each morning. I wake them up at 5:45am!!!! Until this year they rode the bus home another hour and a half in the afternoon, getting home at close to 4:00pm. If we went to our districted school, we certainly wouldn't have to do that. But because we wanted the year round program and a school with great test scores, we put in the extra effort. Juggling calendars might be difficult but it is still worth the advantages my younger children get out of year round schooling at HES.
Also, If Central went to a year round program it could increase the chances for getting a year round middle school in Orange County. So parents may not have to wait long before they don't have children on different calendars. Wake County and Alamance County have shown that year round schools are going to be part of education's future, whether it's for financial reasons or test scores. I honestly believe that year round middle schools and high schools are just a matter of time. Parents who stay committed to year round schools despite the current difficulties will see a pay off in the long run.
I don't deny the idea of year round school being advantageous, especially in the primary years.
We felt it was more important to our children that they have stability rather than move to a school with better test scores. That is why we stayed at CES. (This is our 7th year there)
My husband and I work with both of our children nightly and it shows in their grades and test scores.
I'm not sure that CES being year round will increase the chances of having a year round middle school though. Does anyone remember if HES was year round when Stanback had their year round program? It's my (foggy) memory that program didn't work, but I don't know the details.
All in all, the BoE didn't do well at all on this issue. Hope we have some good candidates coming up. BTW was that Dennis' picture I saw on the front page of the News of Orange this morning?
CES Parent
I do believe that HES and Stanback were year-round at the same time. From my understanding, Stanback's program was a year-round within a traditional...they shared facilities, staff, etc. I think the year-round students got left out of a lot of things because of staff limitations. Seems to me in that kind of setting, it was doomed to failure. Please keep in mind, I did not have a child in the system at that time, so I could be wrong. Someone please correct me if I am!
The two schools were year-round at the same time. I have also heard as you did, that Stanback was a school within a school, and it did not work.
Gravelly should have been made year round!
My friend's daughter was enrolled in the year round program and hated it. It is my understanding that the principal was not invested in it at all and that contributed to its failure.
Post a Comment