News-Record.com

Jennifer,

Thanks for posting this, but I doubt if GCS and the Board of Education want this information available. Remember, this flies in the face of their chants to the Commissioners. Remember - for GCS more and more and more and more money. Anything less is a failure to educate (at least in their minds).

It would be interesting to hear how many parents here in Guilford County would agree this politically-conservative think-tank's prosposals (couched as "accountability" and "measured" as "positive esults/high-acheivement"):

● Principals’ autonomy in hiring and budgeting.
(In GCS, many principals have been nearly hounded into making decisions to satisfay the most vocal contigent of disgruntled parents)

● Measurable goals to establish a culture of achievement.
(As we continue to learn, state goals in NC are based on laughable measures)

● Parents encouraged to make their homes centers of learning.
(What does this mean, really? Shouldn't it include parents being active learners themselves? Maybe the majority might actually read more than one book a year?)

● Master teachers helping the other faculty.
(Will we pay them as "Master teachers"?)

● Regular testing to guide the improvement of student achievement. (See above standards note)

● Student self-discipline promoted to help concentration on
learning. (How is this achieved by the district if parents are not doing it at home?)

● Belief that effort creates ability. (True enough. But our culture lauds the easy money, the talented fluke, the cheaters who prosper)

This study is particularly interesting, given Judge Manning's series of rulings in North Carolina, which basically are going to force the state's taxpayers to spend more money on struggling schools, despite any evidence that more spending will fix the problems.

Judge Manning may mean well, but this is judicial activism at its worst. Decisions on school spending should be left up to the state legislature, county commissioners and school boards - the people we elect to make those decisions. And if we don't like the decisions they make, we can vote 'em out.

As the study rightly says, the problem with this "adequacy spending" approach is that it assumes that more of the same will fix the problem of struggling schools. It doesn't examine how current money is being spent.

Andrews High School right here in Guilford County is a perfect example of this type of broken approach to mending schools. Andrews has had a whole host of extra funding in recent years: additional administrators, Equity Plus money, Title I (although they lost that), freshman academies, smaller classes, magnet programs, etc. I'm sure the per-pupil spending at Andrews is well above the GCS high school average. And Guilford County Schools, as a whole, spends more per student than the state average, according to the N.C. Report Cards.

And what are the results? Andrews still is one of the only Low Performing high schools in the state. A majority of Andrews students are failing state tests. On-campus violence and discipline problems have plagued the school.

In short, Andrews remains a deeply troubled school, with little tangible evidence that things are any better than they were three or four years ago, despite all of the money that's been spent there.

Although Freddy may dismiss this study, I think it holds a lot of merit. Judges shouldn't be deciding how schools are funded and money isn't the answer to every problem in education.

Interestingly enough, if you read some of Judge Manning's writings on the Leandro case, you'll see that he, too, doesn't believe that extra money means better education. In fact, he was especially harsh toward CMS because they spend quite a lot of money per pupil and also have several failing high schools. He contrasts that with some high schools in NC with much less money per student and yet much better results.

He actually makes the point that money does not equal quality.

In Judge Mannng’s famous letter of March 3, 2006 he writes:

“I believed it as important to know how much was it costing the taxpayers of North Carolina to maintain high schools that failed to educate less than 60% of its students…

The DPI proved the answer on September 9, 2005. For the 44 lowers performing high schools (those with less than 60% performance composite for 2004-2005) the cost was $268,011,986, or more than a quarter of a billion dollars. Those 44 high schools served slightly over 44,000 children in 2004-2005.

Upon receipt of this information, I requested that DPI provide the same data on the top 44 performing high schools. The DPI provided the answer on October 3, 2005. For the 44 highest performing high schools (those with performance composites of 86.7 and above for 2004-2005) the cost was $254,413,043, or some $13,598,943 less than the worst 44. These schools served some 47,500+ or – students as compared to the 44,000 + or – served by the 44 worst high schools.

While the 44 worst performing high schools have high Free and Reduced Lunch (“FRL”) Populations as you can see on the data, it is obvious that “money” is not the answer to the disparity. All children can learn but learning is not occurring as it should in these sorry high schools.”

He then goes on to highlight some low income schools in Pitt County, Onslow, and Craven counties and how well they have succeeded even with large numbers of free and reduced lunch students.

What quest said. :)

Here's Judge Manning's letter from March, in which he talks about money not being the only answer. Be patient, it's a big file and takes awhile to load.

Great Info, I am still learning. How can we implement a plan to reform our cirriculum in Guilford with these overpaid staff who are retreads from other districts looking for a solution?

Maybe we should look to those who succeeded and copy them?

Thanks Jen

Here is an obvious example where monet will not work and why.

Take Smith. 10 million bucks on a school for 120 kids.

Smith regulary fails 750 kids a year.

What happens to the 630 that dont get into the Academy?

Grier just has not explained that and no board member has asked this question either.
Its even worse if you think that some of the passing kids may go into the Academy too.

It makes me think its just another Resume builder for Grier and not a real solution again.

Freddy,

Who needs to read a book? I can just hang out with my "friends" on the Chalkboard and learn more important and more interesting stuff!

You guys are brilliant.

But Judge Manning's rulings will force schools to spend more money - or at least that will be the end result.

He's said poor schools need more help. In the world of politics, that translates to, "Spend more taxpayer money." Sure, the schools could do a much better job with the money they have, but we all know it's easier for school leaders to plead poverty and throw money at a problem.

If anything, Leandro has given the school system establishment (the NCAE, school administrators, liberal activists, etc.) the stick they need to call for increased spending. They'll say, "We MUST comply with Judge Manning and how can we do that without the resources?"

Just look at the spending at Smith and Andrews. Local school officials used No Child Left Behind goals as an excuse to spend more money and try out pet programs at these schools. But so far, all that extra spending hasn't accomplished much if anything. If Guilford county was in the Leandro lawsuit, you can guarantee that the Board of Education would be begging the County Commissioners for even more money, saying they had to have it to meet Judge Manning's goals.

North Carolina already has spent $22 million to comply with Leandro (spending that Judge Manning applauded, by the way). And that's just the first installment of many to come.

If anyone really thinks Judge Manning's well-intended, but wrong-headed, meddling isn't going to cost North Carolina taxpayers, you are fooling yourselves. It already has!

And then there is the issue of judicial activism. The courts simply shouldn't be making decisions that our state and federal Constitution says the legislative branch is supposed to make. No matter how noble the cause, bad things tend to happen when we lose sight of the separation of powers in government.

We're hoping those mid-term grades will get out scores up.

Very interesting,

Please read Manning's March 3 letter (Jennifer posted the link above).

Manning is clear - throwing more money at the problem doesn't bring forth the solution.

I agree that he has been misinterpreted and unfortunately, the only way our board of education can think is to throw more money at the problem.

Think of it - if they request millions more in funding from the commissioners and the commissioners obviously cannot provide that level of funding, the school board can blame the commissioners for students failing.

I think the flaw in your logic is that you seem to think that our school board and super actually know how to educate kids - that's a fallacy. And since they don't know how to educate, they have to find a scapegoat to blame for their own failure.

If the commissioners gave the school board a billion dollars this year, I suspect there would still be huge numbers of failing students.

Quest, what on earth led you to believe I have faith in the ability of the school board and administration to educate children? Quite the opposite is true - my referencing the problems at Andrews and Smith should have indicated that. My central point is that blindly throwing money at a problem doesn't fix anything!

Unfortunately, the end result of Judge Manning's ruling will be increased school spending. He can say more money won't fix the problem, but school districts will rush to spend more in order to meet his goals. It's just the way they operate.

Now, if you or I have an extra bill, we trim our budget and shuffle existing money to cover that additional expense. But in education, you simply ask for more money under the guise that "It's for the children".

GCS isn't alone in its ability to waste taxpayer money. Many school systems do a poor job in managing the money they receive, then plead poverty when they don't get the desired results. And there are always politicians (like Gov. Easley) who are willing to give them a blank check.

That's the problem I have with Leandro. It's not that Judge Manning doesn't mean well or that he doesn't have some good ideas. But the end result will be an increased burden on the taxpayers just the same.

Very interesting,

I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post. I've re-read it and you're right.

So, let's take the vaunted Hoover Institute at its word, point by point:

Do you parents of Guilford County belive principals should have autonomy (from the Superintendent AND parents) in hiring and curriculum?

Do you think certain teachers should be treated as "master teachers" who are given extra pay for mentoring newer ones?

If you agree with the recommendation that the parental home become a center for learning, what does that necessitate?

1. Sure, if parents are able to choose where their kids go to school. Schools will have to pick teachers and curricula that meet the approval of parents (i.e. the customers). And it's not like the school board is doing a slam-bang job in this department, anyway.

2. Absolutely. I also believe that teachers in hard-to-staff subjects like math and science should get paid more, as should the best teachers. Why should a mediocre teacher receive the same pay as a really good one?

3. It requires parents taking responsibility for their children - and that's as it should be. Parents, not teachers, school board members or administrators, are primarily responsible for educating their children. After all, who cares more than parents?

It doesn't take a village to raise a child, Freddy. It takes parents.

Mr. Hoover. One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set! Daniel Simpson Day... HAS no grade point average. All courses incomplete. Mr. Blu - MR. BLUTARSKY... ZERO POINT ZERO.

Thank you for a direct response, vi.

So, you would give a green light to principals? Does that include not having parents constantly kvetch and browbeat the administration and/or teachers on academic matters? I know of horror stories from teachers for years who have faced irate parents who claim to know what is best in the academic interests of their child...to the point of denying their child has a learning disability or needs tutoring or really did earn that C- or D.

When paying "master teachers" more to mentor other teachers, in addition to their pay as classroom teachers, do you think they should be paid what similarly-level-educated professionals make in the private sector? That probably rings in around $80-100,000 a year.

Finally, I am afraid the notion of parents being the primary teacher may be well and true, but the Hoover Institute has called parents to a slightly more involved task: to turn the home itself into a center for learning. What, aside from "hard work" and "diligence" (fine things) does this entail? I would argue it begs us to turn off the TV and computer, pick up a book and READ, not just bedtime stories with the kids, but to engage our own minds as parents in the world of literature, the arts and sciences. Any psychologist and every teacher will tell you, modeling behaviour is by far the best method of showing kids how to learn.

So...Grier got himself a little raise. I knew he would because I had a dream/nightmare two nights ago and he was in it.

I was walking by this door that said something about a dance or a bird (can't remember). I was NOT going to open it but my friends had opened it and mentioned that Dot and Grier were in there, so...reluctantly, I did.

Well, there they were, just the two of them. I couldn't actually hear any sounds from the room, just music coming from somewhere else but it wasn't hard to see what was going on. They seemed to be in serious negotiations. Dot was wearing green, which seemed odd, because she never wears green (probably because it is a SW color).

It looked like she may have been trying to give him a raise or hoping that he'd get one. I couldn't tell for sure because she was so bouncy with excitement. Grier was just kinda there. I couldn't tell if he was happy about it or not. It looked like he had been through this with board members before. I could onlyimagine that if there was a raise involved it was probably very, very, very small.

Then, I watched the school board meeting last night and he did get a raise. I think he would like to have a bigger raise but for a guy like him, any raise is probably cause for celebration.

Thankfully, Dot wasn't wearing her green ensemble from my dream!! My retinas are still burning.

Freddy, you are right that parents should expose their children to literature, art, science, history, and the many other valuable subjects found in books. I would suggest that good parents already do that.

And I hope I'm not misinterpreting your point, but why do you say you are "afraid the notion of parents as the primary teacher may well be true"? Why is this something to fear? This is undisputably a good thing!

Parents should be a child's first and best teachers - no one is more important in a child's life. I can guarantee you that if you survey happy, successful people in any walk of life, the overwhelming majority will tell you that their parents have been their greatest, most positive influence.

As far as over-enthusiastic parents pressuring principals and teachers, I'm sure that can be frustrating, but it is simply part of the job. Every business has to be accountable to its customers - in education, that means the parents, students and taxpayers. Parents have every right to demand a quality education for their child and deserve to be the final word on what goes for their child. That's why I say we need school choice - if parents aren't happy with one school, they can shop around and find another one that meets their needs.

Believe me, I am sympathetic to your concerns about the micromanaging, hectoring parents. But it seems to me that the reverse - parents taking no interest in their child's education - is a far greater problem.

vi

The simple answer is I messed up when I went to post, not going back to check and get rid of my phrasing, which was originally part of a different sentence I later deleted.

I guess it is a bit scary, though, that parents are so overwhelmingly powerful in most children's educational life. I know I do not feel qualified to impart science and math concepts and skills, for instance. If we don't find a school where teachers of these subjects, particularly, engage and illuminate them for female students (we are expecting soon), I fear, again, we'll need to find new sources of funds to pay for tutors.

I agree there should be vouchers for all PUBLIC school choice. This would greatly reduce the huge bidding wars to live in the "right" school zones. Transportation may become an issue, but if it deflated the housing market, I'd be happy as a clam.

Freddy,

You make sense about school vouchers, but why stop at PUBLIC. Private schools do a fine job of educating students, and if parents want their children educated in a private setting, why not? The day is not far away when the county won't be able to afford to build enough schools to house every student anyway. Private schools could be a great alternative and save taxpayers millions (especially when GCS is saying it will cost $80 million to build a high school for 1,200 students). That is not cost-effective or doable in the near or long-term. We need to put aside our biasis and be realistic about providing children with an education.

I couldn't agree more, Stormy.

The myth about voucher is they "take away" money from the public schools. In reality, every student is funded on a per-pupil basis - money that comes from the taxpayers, by the way. All vouchers do is transfer the money with the student. Public schools would receive the same amount per-student under a voucher system as they do now. Sure, their overall budget would decrease, but since they would have fewer kids to educate, their expenses would go down, too.

Then there is the benefit of competition. Currently, private schools are only available to people who can afford them. But if low-income parents suddenly had the choice to send their children to private school, public schools in low-income neighborhoods would have to provide better services in order to compete.

For example, do you think Andrews High would be the mess it is today if students had the option of leaving? I firmly believe that's the reason GCS dropped Title I funding for Andrews - they knew hundreds of students would take advantage of the No Child Left Behind transfers. GCS and the school board decided it was easier to take away the threat of students leaving than to actually fix the problems at Andrews.

Stormy,

When/where did GCS say it would cost $80 million for a high school?

The last I saw was about $66 million to buy land and build an airport area high school and about $65 million to do the same for the Southeast area. The highest renovation costs were about $29 million for Eastern High.

I got these figures from the data given out at the board retreat in late September (about 2 weeks ago).

Do you have newer figures? Thanks!

Yeah, Stormy where do you get your numbers? Stop pulling them out of the sky.

Stormy's manipulating the figures in order to paint everything black.

The straight-up reason not to fund private school educations with public-dollar vouchers is the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of state-supported religious ideas or entities. Private-run charter schools, however, may be a different story. I am no fan of them, mostly, because studies show the companies that run them, like Edison, are heavily skewed toward captive marketing of products at the students. I don't like the notion that McDonalds and its ilk are allowed to slant news coverage on Channel One and use other tactics to effectively brainwash kids into brand loyalty and hyperconsumerism.

As for parochial schools getting their hands on taxpayer dough---don't get me started.

Jennifer,

As I recall you stated $66 million to build a school, and GCS was also budgeting for inflation to the tune of 20% as a hedge. That translates into a cost of about $80 million to build the school. Harold, I am not pulling figures out of the air, as you put it. Nor am I manipulating anything. This is what was reported by Jennifer. Given the track record of these people, how could I possibly paint everything black. It's already a disaster.

So, even if the number is "only" $66 million, would someone tell me why it costs so much more for this school administration to build a school district than one 30 miles away who did it on-budget and on-time? I stand by my assertion that county taxpayers are not going to be able to fund this school distrcit in this manner going forward. It's too expensive. Taxpayers will say enough is enough to this lavish spendig.

Freddy,

I hope that you get over that bad case of theophobia.

Stormy,

I just talked to Morgan and she said there is an inflationary piece (24 percent) included in the list given out at the retreat. I didn't see it. It's separate from the projects. So on individual projects, that would put the high schools at just under $80 million each.

Freddy, I think you misunderstand the First Amendment.

The Founding Fathers never intended to erase religion from private life. They intended to prevent the government from favoring one religion over another.

Vouchers hardly violate the church-state separation. Under a voucher system, parents would receive a credit which they can use to pay for education at a school of their choice, including but not limited to church-run schools. The key here is that parents, not the government, would be making the decision on where to spend the money. How is this a case of the state dictating religion?

Of course, any church-run private school that receives voucher money would have to comply with all relevant law, including non-discrimination statutes. For example, a Catholic school that receives voucher money would have to accept non-Catholic students. Almost all private, religious schools are willing to accept those conditions and those who aren't wouldn't get any voucher money. Simple as that.

Congress has made it clear that religious institutions that provide legitimate services cannot be discriminated against when bidding for federal contracts.

Freddy, I agree that charter schools shouldn't be able to use kids as a captive audience for marketing purposes. But you have to admit that bias and brainwashing exist in the public schools, too.

For example, a couple of years ago, a principal in nearby Chapel Hill made the news for barring the Pledge of Allegiance, despite the fact an overwhelming majority of the school's parents petitioned for the Pledge to be recited. Should kids be a captive audience of this man's blatant anti-Americanism?

And while I'm no construction expert, $80 million strikes me as an excessive price to pay for a high school.

I might be willing to give the school system the benefit of the doubt. But given the recent construction boondoggles and cost over-runs at the Smith Academy and the three faulty middle schools, I'd suggest GCS and the school board hasn't earned that level of trust.

It's a shame, really. There are tremendous school facility needs in Guilford County. But I suspect the next bond effort is doomed to failure because the people handling the money have shown they can't be trusted.

Well, just think about how the proposed goals of the Hoover Institute could ever play out in a parochial setting.
- Principals' autonomy? Try papal infallibity. Or any ayatollah.
- "Master teachers" being paid more to mentor? Check the difference in pay scale between most private (especially parochial) schools and their already less-than-remunerative public counterparts.
-Parents' homes as centers of learning? Can you say, "Intelligent Design"? And other anti-science.

It is patently clear that the founders (no bible-thumpers themselves) did intend to keep public tax moneys out of the hands of the clergy and religious institutions. Of course they did not intend to remove religion from private life! But tax-funded education is a public initiative. Would one make distinctions about quality of education, if a religious school ardently taught against any evolutionary theory, for example?
Shouldn't taxpayer dollars be accounted for when such inanities occur?

As for "theophobia", I thought one was supposed to fear god(s).
But an irrational fear of irrational faith might be rational (as two negatives equal a positive?).

And as for Congress making something clear...bear in mind who has been running Congress. And now the courts.

Freddy,

You obviously have a misguided understanding of God and religion; an unfounded secular progressive fear? God is love, not one to be feared. Folowing is the first paragraph of an encyclical letter from Pope Benedict:

1. “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.

Actually, I apologize for letting this particular cat of a bag on the Chalkboard blog. While it relates to the voucher issue tangentially, I think it best to allow the more pointed discussion of religion to remain on Nancy's blog. Suffice it to say, I take umbrage to being told I am "misguided" in my religious or irreligious understanding. Where I come from, what one chooses to believ or NOT believe about God is strictly one's own personal understanding, long as it isn't being forced on others or paid for with public tax dollars.

FREE QUALITY PORN
Click here to download
http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif teens_porn42.avi ~ 7.86MB http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif teens_porn54.avi ~ 261.56MB
http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif girls_xxx81-20.mpg ~ 2.48MB http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif blowjob_porn32.avi ~ 381.18MB
http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif anal_video8-17.avi ~ 2.94MB http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif mature_porn41.avi ~ 286.12MB
http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif teens_xxx18-14.avi ~ 4.48MB http://mysexmovies.info/images/play.gif hard_porn12.avi ~ 401.56MB
http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/13.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/15.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/14.jpg

http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/1.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/2.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/3.jpg

http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/4.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/5.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/6.jpg

http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/7.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/8.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/9.jpg

http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/10.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/11.jpg http://cutegirlfreeporn.com/images/12.jpg