I posted your chances of getting into a magnet earlier in the year, but I was using last year's selection criteria. The Growth Management and the BOE tweaked the criteria a bit this year and it does actually make some people's chances of getting in a bit better. I'm not sure why they raised the max F&R for the 1st 3 rounds to 33% (system average) from the previous 27% (5 percentage points below system average). Chuck Dulaney did say that the minimum crowding percentage was lowered from 100% to 95% because growth has slowed. A big change was the removal of the 20% max of students performing at Level 1 or 2. Changes in the EOGs last year caused test scores to be lower across the board and it would have sharply reduced the odds for getting into a magnet.
Rounds One & Two-27 Schools
****Must live in a node 33% or less F&R, base school must be 33% or less F&R, and crowding factor must be greater than 95%. Round 1 is for those who meet all the criteria and applied for the same program last year but were denied. Round 2 is the same except for the 'applied last year' criteria.
Apex Elementary
Brassfield
Brooks (magnet)
Cary Elementary
Cedar Fork
Combs (magnet)
Davis Drive
Forest Pines
Fuquay-Varina
Holly Grove
Holly Ridge
Hunter (magnet)
Jones Dairy
Lacy
North Forest Pines
Northwoods
Oak Grove
Olds
Partnership (magnet)
Penny Road
Root
Swift Creek
Turner Creek
Underwood (magnet)
Weatherstone
West Lake
Wiley magnet
Round 3-12 Schools
**No node criteria, but base school must be 33% or less F&R and at least 85% crowded.
Ballentine
Briarcliff
Carpenter
Heritage
Leesville Road
Lincoln Heights
Middle Creek
Morrisville
Olive Chapel
Pleasant Union (94.8%--could be rounded up to 95 which would place it in Round One/Two)
Vance
Willow Springs
Round 4-29 Schools
**Base school must be less than 40% F&R and be at least 60% crowded.
Adams
Baileywick
Baucom
Brier Creek
Dillard Drive
Douglas (magnet)
Durant Road
Farmington Woods (magnet)
Fuller (magnet)
Green
Green Hope
Harris Creek
Highcroft
Holly Springs
Jeffreys Grove
Joyner (magnet)
Laurel Park
Mills Park
North Ridge
Rand Road
Rolesville
Salem
Sanford Creek
Sycamore Creek
Wake Forest
Wakefield
Washington (magnet)
Wildwood Forest
Yates Mill
Lottery for the remaining 10% of seats-31 Schools
Aversboro-52.1% F&R
Barwell-58.8% F&R
Brentwood-69.8% F&R new magnet for 2009-10
Bugg-49.2% F&R magnet
Carver-57.7% F&R
Conn-42.8% F&R magnet
Creech Road-64.3% F&R
East Garner-58.9% F&R
Forestville Road-43% F&R
Fox Road-60.5% F&R
Hilburn Drive-42% F&R
Hodge Road-59.9% F&R
Kingswood-40.1% F&R
Knightdale-55.7% F&R
Lead Mine-43.5% F&R
Lockhart-44.7% F&R
Lynn Road-46.7% F&R
Millbrook-55.6% F&R magnet
Poe-45.2% F&R magnet
Powell-52.3% F&R magnet
Reedy Creek-41% F&R
River Bend-56.2% F&R
Smith-68.1% F&R new magnet for 2009-10
Stough-46.4% F&R
Timber Drive-40.3% F&R
Vandora Springs-46.7% F&R
Wakelon-66.7% F&R
Wendell-49.6% F&R magnet
Wilburn-57.8% F&R
York-47.3% F&R
Zebulon-57.2% F&R magnet
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
What Are Segregated Schools?
I asked this question in my last post. What exactly are 'segregated' schools? As I mentioned in my previous post, Wake County today looks much different from Wake County 30 years ago. We have a growing Hispanic, Asian, and multi-racial population. It is not enough to talk about segregation in terms of the black population. I did a little poking around the internet to find a 'modern' definition of segregated schools and found that the term 'racially identifiable' is most often used. I could not find any NC definitions of either term but I did find a few.
A 1999 Minnesota state rule labels a school segregated, or racially identifiable, if the minority enrollment is more than 20 percentage points above the district minority enrollment. The Civil Rights Project defines segregated schools as those where the percentage of minority students deviates by more than 15% from the district wide percentage. In Chicago, schools are considered integrated if the white population is between 15-75%. A school is out of compliance if 70% or more of the students are white, and a racially identifiable school is one which is 85% or more non-white. (Of course, 'racially identifiable' is interesting because it sets everything up as two races: white and non-white, but that's an whole other discussion.)
I always get frustrated when people claim that the diversity policy keeps WCPSS from having schools over 40% F&R. Yes, that's the goal and it sounds terrific. Except nobody ever mentions the fact that 30% of our elementary and middle schools are over 40%. I think that most people aren't even aware of this--they just repeat the policy as fact. I've been thinking about this argument that without the diversity policy, we would go back to segregated schools. I wondered how many segregated schools we currently have and if we do have any, why is it never brought up?
I used Civil Rights Project's guidelines to determine which schools were segregated or racially identifiable. I thought that a 15% deviation seemed too strict, so I used Minnesota's '20% rule' but also added the schools that would qualify under the CRP guidelines. White students make up 51.8% of WCPSS's total student population.
A 1999 Minnesota state rule labels a school segregated, or racially identifiable, if the minority enrollment is more than 20 percentage points above the district minority enrollment. The Civil Rights Project defines segregated schools as those where the percentage of minority students deviates by more than 15% from the district wide percentage. In Chicago, schools are considered integrated if the white population is between 15-75%. A school is out of compliance if 70% or more of the students are white, and a racially identifiable school is one which is 85% or more non-white. (Of course, 'racially identifiable' is interesting because it sets everything up as two races: white and non-white, but that's an whole other discussion.)
I always get frustrated when people claim that the diversity policy keeps WCPSS from having schools over 40% F&R. Yes, that's the goal and it sounds terrific. Except nobody ever mentions the fact that 30% of our elementary and middle schools are over 40%. I think that most people aren't even aware of this--they just repeat the policy as fact. I've been thinking about this argument that without the diversity policy, we would go back to segregated schools. I wondered how many segregated schools we currently have and if we do have any, why is it never brought up?
I used Civil Rights Project's guidelines to determine which schools were segregated or racially identifiable. I thought that a 15% deviation seemed too strict, so I used Minnesota's '20% rule' but also added the schools that would qualify under the CRP guidelines. White students make up 51.8% of WCPSS's total student population.
Re-segreation and the Diversity Polilcy
If we stop busing for diversity or move towards neighborhood schools, we will re-segregate our schools. That is a common argument from those who favor WCPSS's diversity policy. On one hand, I do understand where those people are coming from. If we did move to strictly neighborhood schools (which I don't think most people are proposing), we would see largely minority schools in certain areas of town and largely white ones in others. On the other hand, I have a few problems with this argument.
First, it isn't truly segregation, or at least not the legal segregation of the past. Segregation was the deliberate and forced separation of blacks from whites. Are we living under segregation now because blacks and white don't live together for the most part? Its no secret that the 'projects' in downtown Raleigh are largely minority and that the suburban areas of far North Raleigh are largely white. Does that mean we are segregated? Is it segregation when high school students sit together by race in the school cafeteria? Or is it just human nature to want to be around those who look like you? It's definitely a topic worth discussing, but to use the term 're-segregation' is inflammatory. For the most part it serves only to invoke imagines of a racist past and to scare the general public.
Second, if it is illegal to consider race when making school assignments then how does the re-segregation argument fit in? Its widely known and admitted even by WCPSS's supporters that Wake County is unique. Assigning students by socio-economic status instead of race works here because most of Wake county's poor are minorities. But what is the true purpose of the diversity policy? It seems that avoiding 'segregated' schools is the real intent because that is one of the first arguments that gets made against changing the diversity policy.
Third, what are segregrated schools? Back in the days of segregation, Raleigh and much of the south were pretty much black and white. Now we have significant Hispanic and Asian populations. So what does segregation mean? Is it a school that is largely black? Or one that is largely minority with very few white students? Further complicating this question is the fairly large economic differences between Wake County's minority populations. Cary is probably the most diverse community in Wake when it comes to race, but these minority families aren't poor for the most part. Many are highly educated and employed in high tech industries. Does WCPSS value that type of diversity, or is it only about black and white or rich and poor?
I think that its time for WCPSS and Wake County as a whole to have real discussions on race, diversity, and what the goals of the diversity policy truly are. Demographics have changed significantly in Wake County yet we still seem to be operating with a 1950s or 1970s mindset. Of course we must respect and be mindful of the past but we will never get anywhere if we don't start looking towards the future.
First, it isn't truly segregation, or at least not the legal segregation of the past. Segregation was the deliberate and forced separation of blacks from whites. Are we living under segregation now because blacks and white don't live together for the most part? Its no secret that the 'projects' in downtown Raleigh are largely minority and that the suburban areas of far North Raleigh are largely white. Does that mean we are segregated? Is it segregation when high school students sit together by race in the school cafeteria? Or is it just human nature to want to be around those who look like you? It's definitely a topic worth discussing, but to use the term 're-segregation' is inflammatory. For the most part it serves only to invoke imagines of a racist past and to scare the general public.
Second, if it is illegal to consider race when making school assignments then how does the re-segregation argument fit in? Its widely known and admitted even by WCPSS's supporters that Wake County is unique. Assigning students by socio-economic status instead of race works here because most of Wake county's poor are minorities. But what is the true purpose of the diversity policy? It seems that avoiding 'segregated' schools is the real intent because that is one of the first arguments that gets made against changing the diversity policy.
Third, what are segregrated schools? Back in the days of segregation, Raleigh and much of the south were pretty much black and white. Now we have significant Hispanic and Asian populations. So what does segregation mean? Is it a school that is largely black? Or one that is largely minority with very few white students? Further complicating this question is the fairly large economic differences between Wake County's minority populations. Cary is probably the most diverse community in Wake when it comes to race, but these minority families aren't poor for the most part. Many are highly educated and employed in high tech industries. Does WCPSS value that type of diversity, or is it only about black and white or rich and poor?
I think that its time for WCPSS and Wake County as a whole to have real discussions on race, diversity, and what the goals of the diversity policy truly are. Demographics have changed significantly in Wake County yet we still seem to be operating with a 1950s or 1970s mindset. Of course we must respect and be mindful of the past but we will never get anywhere if we don't start looking towards the future.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Middle and High School Magnet Odds
Middle and high school magnet applications get a little more confusing. They are accepted according to the same priorities and criteria that elementary magnet students are except for one. As with elementary magnet applicants, siblings of current magnet students at that school/program are given first priority. A second priority is added for middle and high school applicants--students moving on from one magnet school to another. I have heard that the priority is for magnet students moving on to a magnet in the same program. For example, if a magnet student at an IB elem school applies for an IB middle school. But I am unsure of other instances.
what about base students at a magnet elementary school who aren't assigned to a magnet middle school? Do they have priority in getting accepted to a magnet middle school to continue the program? What about magnet elementary or middle school students who want to move on to a middle or high school magnet that offers a different program? For example, an IB elementary student applying for a GT middle school? Would they get priority over a student who went to a non-magnet elementary school? I'm waiting for clarification on these questions but until then we can still look at what round your base middle school qualifies for. As I said, the criteria for each round are the same for middle and high schools as they are for elementary schools.
To refresh your memory, the criteria states that the F&R% of a node & school should be at least 5% less than the county average. The county average for middle schools is 29.5 so I used 25%. For high schools, the average is 21.6%, so I used 17%.
Rounds One and Two
**Must live in a node 25%(17%) or less F&R, base school must be 25%(17%) or less F&R, crowding factor must be greater than 100%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less. Round 1 is for those who meet all the criteria and applied for the same program last year but were denied. Round 2 is the same except for the 'applied last year' criteria.
Davis Drive Middle
Heritage Middle
Leesville Middle
Martin Middle--magnet
Wakefield Middle
West Cary Middle
Apex High
Leesville High
Panther Creek High
Round Three
**Must live in a node with 25%(17%) or less F&R, base school must be 25%(17%) or less F&R crowding factor must be greater than 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Apex Middle
Lufkin Road Middle
Salem Middle
West Lake Middle
Green Hope High
Holly Springs High
Round Four
**No requirement for F&R of your node, base school F&R must be less than 40%, crowding factor must be at least 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Centennial Middle--magnet
Ligon Middle--magnet
Athens Drive High
Broughton High--demag'ed
East Wake School of Engineering Systems
East Wake School of Health Science
Enloe High--magnet
Fuquay-Varina High
Garner High--magnet
Knightdale High
Millbrook High
Sanderson High
Wakefield High
Lottery for the Remaining 10% of Seats
**Comments after each school indicate why it wasn't considered in the first 4 rounds. For schools who missed the other rounds solely because of Level I/II performance, I put which round they would otherwise qualify for in bold.
Carnage Middle--magnet (45% F&R, 25.4% Level I/II)
Carroll Middle (43.8% F&R, 27.5% Level I/II)
Daniels Middle--demag'ed this year (21.4% Level I/II) Round 3
Dillard Drive Middle (40.1% F&R, 20.8% Level I/II)
Durant Road Middle (71.3% crowding, 20.9% Level I/II)
East Cary Middle(42.7% crowding)
East Garner Middle--magnet(50.4% F&R, 33.8% Level I/II)
East Millbrook Middle--magnet (43.8% F&R, 30.4% Level I/II)
East Wake Middle (77.6% crowding, 49.6% F&R, 29% Level I/II)
Fuquay-Varina Middle (23.6% Level I/II) Round 4
Holly Ridge Middle (22.2% Level I/II) Round 3
Moore Square Middle--magnet (79.8% crowding, 32.1% Level I/II)
North Garner Middle (30.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Reedy Creek Middle(40.9% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle(25.5% Level I/II) Round 4
Wendell Middle(51.3% F&R, 33.8% Level I/II)
West Millbrook Middle(79.1% crowding, 41.7% F&R, 29% Level I/II)
Zebulon Middle--magnet (49.1% F&R, 32.3% Level I/II)
Cary High (78.1% crowding)
East Wake School of Arts, Education & Global Studies (44% F&R)
East Wake School of Integrated Technology (82.9% crowding, 44.2% F&R)
Middle Creek High (81.5% crowding)
SE Raleigh High--magnet (78.4% crowding)
Wake Forest-Rolesville High (76.3% crowding)
what about base students at a magnet elementary school who aren't assigned to a magnet middle school? Do they have priority in getting accepted to a magnet middle school to continue the program? What about magnet elementary or middle school students who want to move on to a middle or high school magnet that offers a different program? For example, an IB elementary student applying for a GT middle school? Would they get priority over a student who went to a non-magnet elementary school? I'm waiting for clarification on these questions but until then we can still look at what round your base middle school qualifies for. As I said, the criteria for each round are the same for middle and high schools as they are for elementary schools.
To refresh your memory, the criteria states that the F&R% of a node & school should be at least 5% less than the county average. The county average for middle schools is 29.5 so I used 25%. For high schools, the average is 21.6%, so I used 17%.
Rounds One and Two
**Must live in a node 25%(17%) or less F&R, base school must be 25%(17%) or less F&R, crowding factor must be greater than 100%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less. Round 1 is for those who meet all the criteria and applied for the same program last year but were denied. Round 2 is the same except for the 'applied last year' criteria.
Davis Drive Middle
Heritage Middle
Leesville Middle
Martin Middle--magnet
Wakefield Middle
West Cary Middle
Apex High
Leesville High
Panther Creek High
Round Three
**Must live in a node with 25%(17%) or less F&R, base school must be 25%(17%) or less F&R crowding factor must be greater than 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Apex Middle
Lufkin Road Middle
Salem Middle
West Lake Middle
Green Hope High
Holly Springs High
Round Four
**No requirement for F&R of your node, base school F&R must be less than 40%, crowding factor must be at least 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Centennial Middle--magnet
Ligon Middle--magnet
Athens Drive High
Broughton High--demag'ed
East Wake School of Engineering Systems
East Wake School of Health Science
Enloe High--magnet
Fuquay-Varina High
Garner High--magnet
Knightdale High
Millbrook High
Sanderson High
Wakefield High
Lottery for the Remaining 10% of Seats
**Comments after each school indicate why it wasn't considered in the first 4 rounds. For schools who missed the other rounds solely because of Level I/II performance, I put which round they would otherwise qualify for in bold.
Carnage Middle--magnet (45% F&R, 25.4% Level I/II)
Carroll Middle (43.8% F&R, 27.5% Level I/II)
Daniels Middle--demag'ed this year (21.4% Level I/II) Round 3
Dillard Drive Middle (40.1% F&R, 20.8% Level I/II)
Durant Road Middle (71.3% crowding, 20.9% Level I/II)
East Cary Middle(42.7% crowding)
East Garner Middle--magnet(50.4% F&R, 33.8% Level I/II)
East Millbrook Middle--magnet (43.8% F&R, 30.4% Level I/II)
East Wake Middle (77.6% crowding, 49.6% F&R, 29% Level I/II)
Fuquay-Varina Middle (23.6% Level I/II) Round 4
Holly Ridge Middle (22.2% Level I/II) Round 3
Moore Square Middle--magnet (79.8% crowding, 32.1% Level I/II)
North Garner Middle (30.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Reedy Creek Middle(40.9% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle(25.5% Level I/II) Round 4
Wendell Middle(51.3% F&R, 33.8% Level I/II)
West Millbrook Middle(79.1% crowding, 41.7% F&R, 29% Level I/II)
Zebulon Middle--magnet (49.1% F&R, 32.3% Level I/II)
Cary High (78.1% crowding)
East Wake School of Arts, Education & Global Studies (44% F&R)
East Wake School of Integrated Technology (82.9% crowding, 44.2% F&R)
Middle Creek High (81.5% crowding)
SE Raleigh High--magnet (78.4% crowding)
Wake Forest-Rolesville High (76.3% crowding)
What's Your Chance, 2009?
It's magnet application time again so I thought I'd update my 'what are your chances' list. The News & Observer has reported that there will be no major changes to the selection criteria that they used last year. One potential problem is the criteria that a school's Level I or II performance on the EOGs for the past two years must be 20% or less. This wasn't an issue last year because the only elementary school that had more than 20% of its students getting a Level I or II was Brentwood. Since Brentwood was over 40% F&R, students assigned to Brentwood didn't qualify for anything but the last 10% of seats anyway. So I never even mentioned that criteria last year.
However, you may remember that EOG reading scores fell last year because of changes to the test. As you will see from the lists below, this would have significant impact on applicants from several schools. I sent an email to the Board asking if they will stick with this criteria or not. When I hear from them or when the criteria are officially decided upon, I will change the following list if I need to.
One of the criteria for acceptance into a magnet is the F&R% of your node. If you live in a node that is more than 27% F&R, you are not eligible for selection until Round 4. Without knowing the F&R% of your particular node, we can still see which base schools give you the best chance of being accepted to a magnet. According to WCPSS, 31.6% of all elementary students participate in the Free & Reduced Lunch Program. I rounded that up to 32% then considered 27% to be 5% points below the average. After siblings are placed, the earliest you can be accepted into an elementary magnet based on your current base school is:
Rounds One and Two--8 Schools
**Must live in a node 27% or less F&R, base school must be 27% or less F&R, crowding factor must be greater than 100%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less. Round 1 is for those who meet all the criteria and applied for the same program last year but were denied. Round 2 is the same except for the 'applied last year' criteria.
Cedar Fork
Davis Drive
Forest Pines
Lacy
Oak Grove
Turner Creek
West Lake
Wiley (magnet)
Round Three--12 Schools
**Must live in a node with 27% or less F&R, base school must be 27% or less F&R crowding factor must be greater than 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Ballentine
Brassfield
Brooks (magnet)
Carpenter
Heritage
Holly Grove
Jones Dairy
Leesville Road
Morrisville
Olive Chapel
Pleasant Union
Willow Springs
Round Four--14 Schools
**No requirement for F&R of your node, base school F&R must be less than 40%, crowding factor must be at least 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Apex
Dillard Drive
Farmington Woods (magnet)
Fuller (magnet)
Hunter (magnet)
Joyner (magnet)
North Ridge
Northwoods
Olds
Penny Road
Root
Wake Forest
Washington
Weatherstone
Lottery for the Remaining 10% of Seats--65 Schools
**Comments after each school indicate why it wasn't considered in the first 4 rounds. For schools who missed the other rounds solely because of Level I/II performance, I put which round they would otherwise qualify for in bold.
Adams (76.7% crowding)
Aversboro (52.1% F&R, 28.5% Level I/II)
Baileywick (20.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Barwell (58.8% F&R, 37.2% Level I/II)
Baucom (61% crowding)
Brentwood (82.3% crowding, 69.8% F&R, 42.2% Level I/II)
Briarcliff (22.3% Level I/II) Round 4
Brier Creek (74.7% crowding)
Bugg (49.2% F&R, 26.8% Level I/II)
Carver (78.1% crowding, 57.7% F&R, 25.8% Level I/II)
Cary (20.9% Level I/II) Round 4
Combs--magnet (21% Level I/II) Round 4
Conn--magnet (42.8% F&R, 27.4% Level I/II)
Creech Road (64.3% F&R, 32.6% Level I/II)
Douglas--magnet (24.4% Level I/II) Round 4
Durant (29.6% Level I/II) Round 4
East Garner (70.2% crowding, 58.9% F&R, 49.3% Level I/II)
Forestville Road (43% F&R, 25.9% Level I/II)
Fox Road (60.5% F&R, 28.3% Level I/II)
Fuquay-Varina (23.9% Level I/II) Round 4
Green (71.4% crowding, 26.1% Level I/II)
Green Hope (74.2% crowding)
Harris Creek (82.2% crowding, 27% Level I/II)
Highcroft Drive (64.9% crowding)
Hilburn Drive (79.7% crowding, 42% F&R)
Hodge Road (59.9% F&R, 35% Level I/II)
Holly Ridge (21.1% Level I/II) Round 1
Holly Springs (76.2% crowding)
Jeffrey's Grove (23.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Kingswood (40.1% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Knightdale (77.6% crowding, 55.7% F&R, 29.3% Level I/II)
Laurel Park (78.4% crowding)
Lead Mine (43.5% F&R)
Lincoln Heights (23.1% Level I/II) Round 4
Lockhart (69.9% crowding, 44.7% F&R, 22% Level I/II)
Lynn Road (46.7% F&R)
Middle Creek (21.1% Level I/II) Round 3
Millbrook--magnet (55.6% F&R, 28% Level I/II)
Mills Park (75.9% crowding)
North Forest Pines (27.2% Level I/II) Round 3
Partnership--magnet (23.5% Level I/II) Round 1
Poe--magnet (45.2% F&R, 30.1% Level I/II)
Powell--magnet (52.3% F&R, 24.8% Level I/II)
Rand Road (82.1% crowding)
Reedy Creek (41% F&R, 22% Level I/II)
River Bend (56.2% F&R, 31.8% Level I/II)
Rolesville (22% Level I/II) Round 4
Salem (82.9% crowding)
Sanford Creek (68% crowding, 37.7% Level I/II)
Smith (74% crowding, 68.1% F&R, 36.6% Level I/II)
Stough (46.4% F&R, 27.3% Level I/II)
Swift Creek (25.1% Level I/II) Round 4
Sycamore Creek (75.2% crowding)
Timber Drive (40.3% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Underwood--magnet (23.3% Level I/II) Round 1
Vance (23.3 % Level I/II) Round 3
Vandora Springs (46.7% F&R)
Wakefield (78% crowding, 22.7% Level I/II)
Wakelon (66.7% F&R, 37.5% Level I/II)
Wendell (49.6% F&R, 27.4% Level I/II)
Wilburn (64.5% crowding, 57.8% F&R, 32.2% Level I/II)
Wildwood Forest (23.7% Level I/II) Round 4
Yates Mill (21.3% Level I/II) Round 4
York (74% crowding, 47.3% F&R, 24.3% Level I/II)
Zebulon (72.5% crowding, 57.2% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
However, you may remember that EOG reading scores fell last year because of changes to the test. As you will see from the lists below, this would have significant impact on applicants from several schools. I sent an email to the Board asking if they will stick with this criteria or not. When I hear from them or when the criteria are officially decided upon, I will change the following list if I need to.
One of the criteria for acceptance into a magnet is the F&R% of your node. If you live in a node that is more than 27% F&R, you are not eligible for selection until Round 4. Without knowing the F&R% of your particular node, we can still see which base schools give you the best chance of being accepted to a magnet. According to WCPSS, 31.6% of all elementary students participate in the Free & Reduced Lunch Program. I rounded that up to 32% then considered 27% to be 5% points below the average. After siblings are placed, the earliest you can be accepted into an elementary magnet based on your current base school is:
Rounds One and Two--8 Schools
**Must live in a node 27% or less F&R, base school must be 27% or less F&R, crowding factor must be greater than 100%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less. Round 1 is for those who meet all the criteria and applied for the same program last year but were denied. Round 2 is the same except for the 'applied last year' criteria.
Cedar Fork
Davis Drive
Forest Pines
Lacy
Oak Grove
Turner Creek
West Lake
Wiley (magnet)
Round Three--12 Schools
**Must live in a node with 27% or less F&R, base school must be 27% or less F&R crowding factor must be greater than 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Ballentine
Brassfield
Brooks (magnet)
Carpenter
Heritage
Holly Grove
Jones Dairy
Leesville Road
Morrisville
Olive Chapel
Pleasant Union
Willow Springs
Round Four--14 Schools
**No requirement for F&R of your node, base school F&R must be less than 40%, crowding factor must be at least 85%, and 2 year avg of Level I or II performance must be 20% or less.
Apex
Dillard Drive
Farmington Woods (magnet)
Fuller (magnet)
Hunter (magnet)
Joyner (magnet)
North Ridge
Northwoods
Olds
Penny Road
Root
Wake Forest
Washington
Weatherstone
Lottery for the Remaining 10% of Seats--65 Schools
**Comments after each school indicate why it wasn't considered in the first 4 rounds. For schools who missed the other rounds solely because of Level I/II performance, I put which round they would otherwise qualify for in bold.
Adams (76.7% crowding)
Aversboro (52.1% F&R, 28.5% Level I/II)
Baileywick (20.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Barwell (58.8% F&R, 37.2% Level I/II)
Baucom (61% crowding)
Brentwood (82.3% crowding, 69.8% F&R, 42.2% Level I/II)
Briarcliff (22.3% Level I/II) Round 4
Brier Creek (74.7% crowding)
Bugg (49.2% F&R, 26.8% Level I/II)
Carver (78.1% crowding, 57.7% F&R, 25.8% Level I/II)
Cary (20.9% Level I/II) Round 4
Combs--magnet (21% Level I/II) Round 4
Conn--magnet (42.8% F&R, 27.4% Level I/II)
Creech Road (64.3% F&R, 32.6% Level I/II)
Douglas--magnet (24.4% Level I/II) Round 4
Durant (29.6% Level I/II) Round 4
East Garner (70.2% crowding, 58.9% F&R, 49.3% Level I/II)
Forestville Road (43% F&R, 25.9% Level I/II)
Fox Road (60.5% F&R, 28.3% Level I/II)
Fuquay-Varina (23.9% Level I/II) Round 4
Green (71.4% crowding, 26.1% Level I/II)
Green Hope (74.2% crowding)
Harris Creek (82.2% crowding, 27% Level I/II)
Highcroft Drive (64.9% crowding)
Hilburn Drive (79.7% crowding, 42% F&R)
Hodge Road (59.9% F&R, 35% Level I/II)
Holly Ridge (21.1% Level I/II) Round 1
Holly Springs (76.2% crowding)
Jeffrey's Grove (23.8% Level I/II) Round 4
Kingswood (40.1% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Knightdale (77.6% crowding, 55.7% F&R, 29.3% Level I/II)
Laurel Park (78.4% crowding)
Lead Mine (43.5% F&R)
Lincoln Heights (23.1% Level I/II) Round 4
Lockhart (69.9% crowding, 44.7% F&R, 22% Level I/II)
Lynn Road (46.7% F&R)
Middle Creek (21.1% Level I/II) Round 3
Millbrook--magnet (55.6% F&R, 28% Level I/II)
Mills Park (75.9% crowding)
North Forest Pines (27.2% Level I/II) Round 3
Partnership--magnet (23.5% Level I/II) Round 1
Poe--magnet (45.2% F&R, 30.1% Level I/II)
Powell--magnet (52.3% F&R, 24.8% Level I/II)
Rand Road (82.1% crowding)
Reedy Creek (41% F&R, 22% Level I/II)
River Bend (56.2% F&R, 31.8% Level I/II)
Rolesville (22% Level I/II) Round 4
Salem (82.9% crowding)
Sanford Creek (68% crowding, 37.7% Level I/II)
Smith (74% crowding, 68.1% F&R, 36.6% Level I/II)
Stough (46.4% F&R, 27.3% Level I/II)
Swift Creek (25.1% Level I/II) Round 4
Sycamore Creek (75.2% crowding)
Timber Drive (40.3% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Underwood--magnet (23.3% Level I/II) Round 1
Vance (23.3 % Level I/II) Round 3
Vandora Springs (46.7% F&R)
Wakefield (78% crowding, 22.7% Level I/II)
Wakelon (66.7% F&R, 37.5% Level I/II)
Wendell (49.6% F&R, 27.4% Level I/II)
Wilburn (64.5% crowding, 57.8% F&R, 32.2% Level I/II)
Wildwood Forest (23.7% Level I/II) Round 4
Yates Mill (21.3% Level I/II) Round 4
York (74% crowding, 47.3% F&R, 24.3% Level I/II)
Zebulon (72.5% crowding, 57.2% F&R, 23.9% Level I/II)
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Correct Decision
Most of you have probably heard by now that in their work session on Tuesday, the BOE voted to de-magnetize Daniels Middle School. Of course, most of you know that I believe this was the correct decision. It was not an easy decision for the board, but it was absolutely the right one.
I attended the work session on Tuesday because of my obvious interest in the magnet discussion, but I encourage all of you to attend a work session at least once if you can. The public is allowed to quietly observe and I took advantage of this for first time on Tuesday. This will come as no surprise to those who know me, but I had a very hard time with the 'quietly observe' part. :-) I even slipped a note to Beverley Clark during one of the discussions (more on that in another post).
I took copious notes of the entire session and will post those at a later time, but I will give a brief synopsis of the Daniels discussion.
Most of the discussion centered around whether or not Daniels would be a 'healthy' school if it wasn't a magnet. Could a reasonable base population be drawn into the school while maintaining a healthy F&R%? The general consensus was yes. With only a 14% magnet student population and a 30% F&R, its pretty much a base school already.
Lori Millberg brought up the fact that we have 3 IB elementary, 3 IB middle and 2 IB high schools. Considering that 3 elementary schools can fill 1 middle school, she and others questioned the number of IB schools we have and their balance.
There was an inordinate amount of hemming and hawing about what to do. Beverley Clark mentioned her reluctance to move out large portions of Daniels' base only to replace them with magnet students who would not change the school's profile (F&R%). She commented more than once along the lines of 'if a school can have a reasonable base drawn then it shouldn't be a magnet'. Yet she (and everybody else for that matter) was unwilling to make a motion to de-magnetize Daniels. After about 20 minutes of this back and forth, Millberg finally told Beverley to just make the motion already, to which Clark replied "I was waiting for somebody else to make it". Watching everybody dance around the subject was one of those times when it was hard for me to stay quiet, and when Lori Millberg made her comment I said a resounding "YES!" in agreement :-)
The motion was seconded and then passed with only Kevin Hill, Eleanor Goattee and Anne McLaurin voting no. I don't recall hearing any argument from any of them as to why Daniels should be spared. The only argument I heard came from David Ansbacher, the Director of Magnet Programs. He brought up the fact that Daniels went through this very situation before. It was a magnet school in the 1980s (I think) due to declining enrollment and rising F&R. Once the school was in a situation similar to the one its in now, they demagnetized it. Over the course of about 6 years, the population dwindled and the F&R rose again so they made it an IB magnet.
He expressed concern that the same thing will happen and in another 6 years they will be having the discussion to re-magnetize Daniels. Ansbacher also mentioned the fact that the Daniels base has private options available nearby, such as Our Lady of Lourdes and St. Timothy's and that many of those families can 'take advantage of'. Additionally, Daniels base parents could apply to charter schools such as Magellan and Endeavor as well.
Ansbacher's comments reinforced an idea that I have suspected but had never heard directly expressed by a staff member before. Basically when he said that some of the families can 'take advantage of' the private school options in the area, it means that some of those families have the financial means to go private. WCPSS cannot afford to have 'wealthier' families leave schools like Daniels because it will be harder to fill those empty seats with other non-F&R families.
Many families in Apex, North Raleigh and Cary have left WCPSS for private, charter and even homeschools, but we are a dime a dozen. If we leave the system, there are plenty of others who can take our place in our overcrowded schools. While I understand the concern about Daniels and other schools in less crowded areas, there is something fundamentally wrong with this way of thinking.
Lots of parents around the county are not happy with the level of academics and opportunties available to their children. But if this particular population deems that the standard level isn't good enough for their children, we are going to give them more than everybody else? That seems to be counter to the WCPSS belief that everybody deserves a good education and that where you can afford to live shouldn't dictate the quality of your schools.
If you get a chance, write to your Board of Education member to let them know that de-magnetizing Daniels was the correct decision. Difficult, yes, but correct.
I attended the work session on Tuesday because of my obvious interest in the magnet discussion, but I encourage all of you to attend a work session at least once if you can. The public is allowed to quietly observe and I took advantage of this for first time on Tuesday. This will come as no surprise to those who know me, but I had a very hard time with the 'quietly observe' part. :-) I even slipped a note to Beverley Clark during one of the discussions (more on that in another post).
I took copious notes of the entire session and will post those at a later time, but I will give a brief synopsis of the Daniels discussion.
Most of the discussion centered around whether or not Daniels would be a 'healthy' school if it wasn't a magnet. Could a reasonable base population be drawn into the school while maintaining a healthy F&R%? The general consensus was yes. With only a 14% magnet student population and a 30% F&R, its pretty much a base school already.
Lori Millberg brought up the fact that we have 3 IB elementary, 3 IB middle and 2 IB high schools. Considering that 3 elementary schools can fill 1 middle school, she and others questioned the number of IB schools we have and their balance.
There was an inordinate amount of hemming and hawing about what to do. Beverley Clark mentioned her reluctance to move out large portions of Daniels' base only to replace them with magnet students who would not change the school's profile (F&R%). She commented more than once along the lines of 'if a school can have a reasonable base drawn then it shouldn't be a magnet'. Yet she (and everybody else for that matter) was unwilling to make a motion to de-magnetize Daniels. After about 20 minutes of this back and forth, Millberg finally told Beverley to just make the motion already, to which Clark replied "I was waiting for somebody else to make it". Watching everybody dance around the subject was one of those times when it was hard for me to stay quiet, and when Lori Millberg made her comment I said a resounding "YES!" in agreement :-)
The motion was seconded and then passed with only Kevin Hill, Eleanor Goattee and Anne McLaurin voting no. I don't recall hearing any argument from any of them as to why Daniels should be spared. The only argument I heard came from David Ansbacher, the Director of Magnet Programs. He brought up the fact that Daniels went through this very situation before. It was a magnet school in the 1980s (I think) due to declining enrollment and rising F&R. Once the school was in a situation similar to the one its in now, they demagnetized it. Over the course of about 6 years, the population dwindled and the F&R rose again so they made it an IB magnet.
He expressed concern that the same thing will happen and in another 6 years they will be having the discussion to re-magnetize Daniels. Ansbacher also mentioned the fact that the Daniels base has private options available nearby, such as Our Lady of Lourdes and St. Timothy's and that many of those families can 'take advantage of'. Additionally, Daniels base parents could apply to charter schools such as Magellan and Endeavor as well.
Ansbacher's comments reinforced an idea that I have suspected but had never heard directly expressed by a staff member before. Basically when he said that some of the families can 'take advantage of' the private school options in the area, it means that some of those families have the financial means to go private. WCPSS cannot afford to have 'wealthier' families leave schools like Daniels because it will be harder to fill those empty seats with other non-F&R families.
Many families in Apex, North Raleigh and Cary have left WCPSS for private, charter and even homeschools, but we are a dime a dozen. If we leave the system, there are plenty of others who can take our place in our overcrowded schools. While I understand the concern about Daniels and other schools in less crowded areas, there is something fundamentally wrong with this way of thinking.
Lots of parents around the county are not happy with the level of academics and opportunties available to their children. But if this particular population deems that the standard level isn't good enough for their children, we are going to give them more than everybody else? That seems to be counter to the WCPSS belief that everybody deserves a good education and that where you can afford to live shouldn't dictate the quality of your schools.
If you get a chance, write to your Board of Education member to let them know that de-magnetizing Daniels was the correct decision. Difficult, yes, but correct.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Just For Fun--Davis Drive Real Estate Sales
Most of us probably think of Davis Drive families as fairly wealthy and many of us think they are elitists who don't think their school should be 'burdened' by high needs children. I have even heard a staff member from WCPSS say in response to a comment about DDE's high achievement, "Well, there's a reason why Davis Drive is a School of Excellence". The dedicated teachers and parents? No, this staff member was referring to Davis Drive's low F&R percentage. At 9.8% (2007-08 school year), it is one of the lowest in the county. And since non-economically disadvantaged students pass the EOGs at a rate significantly higher than economically disadvantaged students, it follows that Davis Drive's overall test scores will be higher. But does this necessarily mean that Davis Drive deserves the image that it has?
First of all, although Davis Drive's F&R is well below the county average of 31.6%, the school's percentage of ESL and LEP (Limited English Proficiency) students are slightly above the county average. And while Davis Drive has a much smaller percentage of black students than the WCPSS average for elementary schools, the percentage of asian students is much greater. So while the racial makeup of the school is probably not what WCPSS would like to see, it is nonetheless a racially diverse school.
Second, does the fact that a school has a very low F&R mean that the rest of the population is high income or wealthy? When Davis Drive parents protested reassignment last year, we saw footage of beautiful homes and manicured lawns. I'm sure that many of us made assumptions about how much those houses cost and the types of families who live in them. But were we correct?
I was meeting with a group of Davis Drive parents last month when I mentioned that I was thinking about researching home prices in some of the ITB magnet base nodes. I wanted to show that many of those reaping the benefits of magnets weren't in low income neighborhoods . One of the women had already done that research for one of the neighborhoods assigned to Davis Drive for the opposite reason--to show that Davis Drive wasn't composed of elite, expensive subdivisions like the image suggests. So I thank her for giving me the idea for my research and for the google documents spreadsheet setup. :-)
While the homes in these Davis Drive nodes are not inexpensive by any means, they are also not as expensive as some people might think. And especially not as expensive as homes in western ITB as noted in my previous posts on Underwood, Joyner & Martin. I've included all of DDE's nodes except for the 2 low income nodes that are bused in.
One other stat that I noted to myself: Of the 87 homes that sold in the Davis Drive nodes in the last year, only 14 of them were more than the lowest median price for the Joyner and Underwood base nodes. Underwood's node 92 had a median Single Family Home sales price of $386K.
First of all, although Davis Drive's F&R is well below the county average of 31.6%, the school's percentage of ESL and LEP (Limited English Proficiency) students are slightly above the county average. And while Davis Drive has a much smaller percentage of black students than the WCPSS average for elementary schools, the percentage of asian students is much greater. So while the racial makeup of the school is probably not what WCPSS would like to see, it is nonetheless a racially diverse school.
Second, does the fact that a school has a very low F&R mean that the rest of the population is high income or wealthy? When Davis Drive parents protested reassignment last year, we saw footage of beautiful homes and manicured lawns. I'm sure that many of us made assumptions about how much those houses cost and the types of families who live in them. But were we correct?
I was meeting with a group of Davis Drive parents last month when I mentioned that I was thinking about researching home prices in some of the ITB magnet base nodes. I wanted to show that many of those reaping the benefits of magnets weren't in low income neighborhoods . One of the women had already done that research for one of the neighborhoods assigned to Davis Drive for the opposite reason--to show that Davis Drive wasn't composed of elite, expensive subdivisions like the image suggests. So I thank her for giving me the idea for my research and for the google documents spreadsheet setup. :-)
While the homes in these Davis Drive nodes are not inexpensive by any means, they are also not as expensive as some people might think. And especially not as expensive as homes in western ITB as noted in my previous posts on Underwood, Joyner & Martin. I've included all of DDE's nodes except for the 2 low income nodes that are bused in.
One other stat that I noted to myself: Of the 87 homes that sold in the Davis Drive nodes in the last year, only 14 of them were more than the lowest median price for the Joyner and Underwood base nodes. Underwood's node 92 had a median Single Family Home sales price of $386K.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
