Much of the discussion of dismantling HES has revolved around the lack of "diversity" created by its status as a school of choice.
Does anyone else see the irony of this discussion followed shortly by this news?
The African-American, female Superintendent of Orange County Schools, Shirley Carraway has announced her retirement effective October 1.
The African-American, female Principal of Hillsborough Elementary School, Mamie Jay has requested to take an immediate "leave of absence."
With the need to immediately start the search for a new superintendent, who may have different ideas about how best to address the problems facing all of the district's schools, this may not be the best time to make potentially irreversable decisions about the future of two elementary schools and alienate a sizeable number of the district's families.
Situations change and the Orange County School Board needs to change its priorities.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
What about HES students' needs?
Throughout the entire discussion of merging CES and HES, people who favor the dismantleing of Hillsborough Elementary have said that the drain of "high-performing students" from other district schools adversely impacts the education at those districted schools.
In fact, Brad Davis, in his Letter to the Editor of The News of Orange County said:
"My own belief is that what underperforming students need is a diverse educational atmosphere where they are exposed to and challenged by their high-performing peers, and where high-performing students can serve as role models, at least during the early years of education."
Now, I don't know what Mr. Davis does for a career, perhaps he is a published educational researcher, but I do know that his "belief" is not supported by those who make their living doing research into education.
In an article in the journal, Education Leadership, author and assistant superintendent for curriculum, assessment, and instruction in the Grosse Pointe, Michigan, public school system, Dr. Susan Demirsky Allan dispells the value of classroom "role models":
"The thorniest issue concerning grouping and the gifted is whether the gifted are needed in the regular classroom to act as role models for other students and whether this 'use' of gifted students is more important than their own educational needs.
That students constantly make ability comparisons between themselves and others is sometimes used as the rationale for having gifted students serve as motivational models for others. While there is nothing inherently wrong with serving as a positive role model on occasion, it is morally questionable for adults to view any student's primary function as that of role model to others.
Further, the idea that lower ability students will look up to gifted students as role models is highly questionable. Children typically model their behavior after the behavior of other children of similar ability who are coping well with school. Children of low and average ability do not model themselves on fast learners. It appears that 'watching someone of similar ability succeed at a task raises the observer's feelings of efficiency and motivates them to try the task.'
Students gain most from watching someone of similar ability 'cope' (that is, gradually improve their performance after some effort), rather than watching someone who has attained 'mastery' (that is, can demonstrate perfect performance from the outset)."
Is it in any way appropriate to disband the only school most HES students have ever known so that they can be "used" by other schools?
In fact, Brad Davis, in his Letter to the Editor of The News of Orange County said:
"My own belief is that what underperforming students need is a diverse educational atmosphere where they are exposed to and challenged by their high-performing peers, and where high-performing students can serve as role models, at least during the early years of education."
Now, I don't know what Mr. Davis does for a career, perhaps he is a published educational researcher, but I do know that his "belief" is not supported by those who make their living doing research into education.
In an article in the journal, Education Leadership, author and assistant superintendent for curriculum, assessment, and instruction in the Grosse Pointe, Michigan, public school system, Dr. Susan Demirsky Allan dispells the value of classroom "role models":
"The thorniest issue concerning grouping and the gifted is whether the gifted are needed in the regular classroom to act as role models for other students and whether this 'use' of gifted students is more important than their own educational needs.
That students constantly make ability comparisons between themselves and others is sometimes used as the rationale for having gifted students serve as motivational models for others. While there is nothing inherently wrong with serving as a positive role model on occasion, it is morally questionable for adults to view any student's primary function as that of role model to others.
Further, the idea that lower ability students will look up to gifted students as role models is highly questionable. Children typically model their behavior after the behavior of other children of similar ability who are coping well with school. Children of low and average ability do not model themselves on fast learners. It appears that 'watching someone of similar ability succeed at a task raises the observer's feelings of efficiency and motivates them to try the task.'
Students gain most from watching someone of similar ability 'cope' (that is, gradually improve their performance after some effort), rather than watching someone who has attained 'mastery' (that is, can demonstrate perfect performance from the outset)."
Is it in any way appropriate to disband the only school most HES students have ever known so that they can be "used" by other schools?
Where do I start?
Over the past week, a number of people have emailed me a link to a Letter to the Editor written by Brad Davis that is posted on The News of Orange County's website.
Since I first read Mr. Davis' letter, I have wanted to both correct his factual errors and to comment on the points he made. But, thanks to The News' waiver of its length rules in this case, there was so much to address that I didn't know where to start.
I will take a stab at responding, but this will take more than one post. Text from Mr. Davis' letter will be italicized with my comments in regular text.
First, let's start with the most obvious factual error from the letter. In his first paragraph, Mr. Davis states:
"The percentage of children receiving Free-and-Reduced-Lunch (FRL) at Central is almost 75 percent, ..."
Even though we may disagree on the proposed changes to our elementary schools, I wish we could simply agree to argue from a position of accuracy.
The percentage of children at the two schools on FRL seems to be a moving target, and at the rate it is growing, over 100% will be on RFL by the end of this school year.
On March 20, the Durham Herald-Sun reported that "Roughly 70 percent of students at Central Elementary participate in the free and reduced lunch program."
On the same date, the Raleigh News & Observer reported the same statistic. "At Central Elementary, that number [FRL] is more than twice the average at about 70 percent."
Orange County School Board Member Liz Brown inflated the number even more when she emailed an HES parent, "I believe all schools should reflect the district average of 33 percent free&reduced [lunch], instead of the 70 or 79 percent currently at CE."
Now Mr. Davis is putting forth a number of his own - "almost 75 percent."
I don't know how Mr. Davis defines the word "almost," how the Herald-Sun defines "roughly," or how the News & Observer defines "about," but I don't think 14 percentage points (or even 9) falls in that category.
In fact, 61.3% of CES students are on the Free & Reduced Lunch program. This data was clearly presented to the Orange County School Board at the February meeting when the concept of a school merger was first proposed by Superintendent Carraway's staff.
For those who continue to inflate this number as justification for a merger, I have one question. Do you really need to disseminate false information to support your cause?
Since I first read Mr. Davis' letter, I have wanted to both correct his factual errors and to comment on the points he made. But, thanks to The News' waiver of its length rules in this case, there was so much to address that I didn't know where to start.
I will take a stab at responding, but this will take more than one post. Text from Mr. Davis' letter will be italicized with my comments in regular text.
First, let's start with the most obvious factual error from the letter. In his first paragraph, Mr. Davis states:
"The percentage of children receiving Free-and-Reduced-Lunch (FRL) at Central is almost 75 percent, ..."
Even though we may disagree on the proposed changes to our elementary schools, I wish we could simply agree to argue from a position of accuracy.
The percentage of children at the two schools on FRL seems to be a moving target, and at the rate it is growing, over 100% will be on RFL by the end of this school year.
On March 20, the Durham Herald-Sun reported that "Roughly 70 percent of students at Central Elementary participate in the free and reduced lunch program."
On the same date, the Raleigh News & Observer reported the same statistic. "At Central Elementary, that number [FRL] is more than twice the average at about 70 percent."
Orange County School Board Member Liz Brown inflated the number even more when she emailed an HES parent, "I believe all schools should reflect the district average of 33 percent free&reduced [lunch], instead of the 70 or 79 percent currently at CE."
Now Mr. Davis is putting forth a number of his own - "almost 75 percent."
I don't know how Mr. Davis defines the word "almost," how the Herald-Sun defines "roughly," or how the News & Observer defines "about," but I don't think 14 percentage points (or even 9) falls in that category.
In fact, 61.3% of CES students are on the Free & Reduced Lunch program. This data was clearly presented to the Orange County School Board at the February meeting when the concept of a school merger was first proposed by Superintendent Carraway's staff.
For those who continue to inflate this number as justification for a merger, I have one question. Do you really need to disseminate false information to support your cause?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Is this good news?
I must admit that I am a newcomer to local Orange County politics in general, and to Orange County School politics in particular. I would not be the least bit interested at this point were it not for the Orange County Schools apparent interest in shirking its responsibility to the district's under-performing students by brazenly manipulating the statistics used to measure their performance.
Since I am ignorant of the political discussions that took place over the past few years, I don't know if this is good news or not.
"Orange Superintendent Carraway to retire"
Given that interest in merging Central Elementary and Hillsborough Elementary schools has reportedly come from Ms. Carraway's staff, I can only assume that this bodes well for more accountability for their failure to address problems at Orange County's under-performing schools - not just find a quick fix that will make the numbers look better.
Help a newbie understand.
Since I am ignorant of the political discussions that took place over the past few years, I don't know if this is good news or not.
"Orange Superintendent Carraway to retire"
Given that interest in merging Central Elementary and Hillsborough Elementary schools has reportedly come from Ms. Carraway's staff, I can only assume that this bodes well for more accountability for their failure to address problems at Orange County's under-performing schools - not just find a quick fix that will make the numbers look better.
Help a newbie understand.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
That's a really good question
What goal does the Orange County School District hope to accomplish by merging Central Elementary School with Hillsborough Elementary School?
I have been futilely trying to find an answer since the issue was first brought to my attention. And, I am apparently not alone. It seems to be something of a mystery to the Orange County School Board itself.
In a Daily Tar Heel article about the OCSB Merger Study Group's first meeting, OCSB member Debbie Piscitelli is reported to have said that "the board needs to identify the problem they are trying to solve before they will be able to find a solution."
Merger Study Group Chairman Ted Triebel appears to be equally in the dark about what problem he is expected to solve. The DTH reports, "Triebel agreed that the problem needed to be identified and said the solutions could be different depending on how the problem is defined. 'We need to know what the goal is,' he said."
Even though they may not know what they are doing, at least they know they are creating entirely new problems that they will have to solve in the future.
"... shifting students from Central Elementary to Hillsborough Elementary or vice-versa could create new problems, Triebel said."
I have been futilely trying to find an answer since the issue was first brought to my attention. And, I am apparently not alone. It seems to be something of a mystery to the Orange County School Board itself.
In a Daily Tar Heel article about the OCSB Merger Study Group's first meeting, OCSB member Debbie Piscitelli is reported to have said that "the board needs to identify the problem they are trying to solve before they will be able to find a solution."
Merger Study Group Chairman Ted Triebel appears to be equally in the dark about what problem he is expected to solve. The DTH reports, "Triebel agreed that the problem needed to be identified and said the solutions could be different depending on how the problem is defined. 'We need to know what the goal is,' he said."
Even though they may not know what they are doing, at least they know they are creating entirely new problems that they will have to solve in the future.
"... shifting students from Central Elementary to Hillsborough Elementary or vice-versa could create new problems, Triebel said."
When is a precedent not really a precedent?
How about when it bears almost no resemblance to the issue at hand?
This past Wednesday, the Daily Tar Heel ran an article under the headline, "Merger has statewide precedent."
With a title like that, one could easily assume that there were situations much like current discussion of merging Central Elementary and Hillsborough Elementary schools that could provide everyone involved with some guidance. Unfortunately, no such enlightenment was to come from the article.
After leading with, "Orange County Schools have to look no further than other N.C. school systems for advice on how to proceed with the possible merger of the district's Central and Hillsborough elementary schools," the article proceeded to describe situations where entire city and county school districts were merged together. I don't think anyone is ready to re-open that discussion so soon after the last debate.
The DTH says Orange County should be learning from the 1987 merger of Rowan County Schools with the Salisbury city system, and the 1992 merger of Durham county and city schools for a model to use. Are these really the examples we want to follow?
According to their 2005-2006 district school report card, the combined Rowan-Salisbury School District scored below the state average for student performance in all but one of the student demographic categories tracked by the state - American Indians. Additionally, the Rowan-Salisbury School District had no schools at any level to be named a School of Distinction, while 17% were designated a Priority School.
While the combined Durham Public Schools performed much better than Rowan-Salisbury, it is far from what Orange County should aspire toward. DPS failed to surpass the state average for student performance in all but three demographic categories - White, American Indian and Asian/Pacific Islander students. DPS was also successful in having 11% of its elementary schools named a School of Distinction, but 39% of its elementary schools were designated as a Priority School.
If we are going to dismantle a school attended by 377 young children and force the parents of 292 others to adopt a mandatory year-round school calendar, shouldn't we be looking for better examples of what to expect?
This past Wednesday, the Daily Tar Heel ran an article under the headline, "Merger has statewide precedent."
With a title like that, one could easily assume that there were situations much like current discussion of merging Central Elementary and Hillsborough Elementary schools that could provide everyone involved with some guidance. Unfortunately, no such enlightenment was to come from the article.
After leading with, "Orange County Schools have to look no further than other N.C. school systems for advice on how to proceed with the possible merger of the district's Central and Hillsborough elementary schools," the article proceeded to describe situations where entire city and county school districts were merged together. I don't think anyone is ready to re-open that discussion so soon after the last debate.
The DTH says Orange County should be learning from the 1987 merger of Rowan County Schools with the Salisbury city system, and the 1992 merger of Durham county and city schools for a model to use. Are these really the examples we want to follow?
According to their 2005-2006 district school report card, the combined Rowan-Salisbury School District scored below the state average for student performance in all but one of the student demographic categories tracked by the state - American Indians. Additionally, the Rowan-Salisbury School District had no schools at any level to be named a School of Distinction, while 17% were designated a Priority School.
While the combined Durham Public Schools performed much better than Rowan-Salisbury, it is far from what Orange County should aspire toward. DPS failed to surpass the state average for student performance in all but three demographic categories - White, American Indian and Asian/Pacific Islander students. DPS was also successful in having 11% of its elementary schools named a School of Distinction, but 39% of its elementary schools were designated as a Priority School.
If we are going to dismantle a school attended by 377 young children and force the parents of 292 others to adopt a mandatory year-round school calendar, shouldn't we be looking for better examples of what to expect?
Thursday, April 5, 2007
What a difference 6 months makes!
In voting to create the Merger Study Group, Orange County School Board chairman Dennis Whitling endorsed forcing parents with children districted to Central Elementary into a year-round schedule against their will. At that time he said:
"We as board members should be willing to look into ideas and do the research and be able to come to the best decision we can for all the students." (Durham Herald-Sun, 3/20/2007)
However, his view of year-round scheduling was very different 6 months TO THE DAY earlier. At that time, he felt year-round scheduling was purely a parental decision.
"Personally, I am not willing to force a year-round school because I believe that is a parental choice," Whitling said. "It would be a different issue if we had a long waiting list at the year-round elementary schools, but we don't seem to have that." (DTH, 9/20/2006)
What has changed Dennis? Are parents no longer important in deciding what happens with their children, or is it just the parents of CES students?
"We as board members should be willing to look into ideas and do the research and be able to come to the best decision we can for all the students." (Durham Herald-Sun, 3/20/2007)
However, his view of year-round scheduling was very different 6 months TO THE DAY earlier. At that time, he felt year-round scheduling was purely a parental decision.
"Personally, I am not willing to force a year-round school because I believe that is a parental choice," Whitling said. "It would be a different issue if we had a long waiting list at the year-round elementary schools, but we don't seem to have that." (DTH, 9/20/2006)
What has changed Dennis? Are parents no longer important in deciding what happens with their children, or is it just the parents of CES students?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)