News-Record.com

Find here the pilot program reviews conducted by Guilford County Schools Advanced Learning Department as part of the story that ran today.

Update: What you read on Sunday was just a snippet of what is happening with the district's gifted and talented population. I started reporting on the AL department in February, but found with the school bond, superintendent search, budget, and another project I am working on that it would be best to approach this story in chunks, rather than all together.

I plan to follow up on the districtwide program review as well as do more with the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. Actually, a sidebar that I wrote about Smith and its IB program did not run on Sunday, although the graphic ran. Basically, that sidebar stated that Smith teachers don't really see the IB scores as a failure when you compare them with Grimsley and High Point Central. Those two schools have had the IB program since the mid-1990s, so it is understandable that they would outperform Smith.

Find the text of that sidebar below:

Update: More Guilford County Schools teachers reported being pleased with their working conditions this year than in 2006, the last time a statewide survey was issued by Gov. Mike Easley’s office. However, the district again posted lower scores than the state average.

A few things stand out about the results, released May 15 (but apparently not announced to the media):
* Eighty percent of Guilford educators responded to the survey, a 10 percentage point increase from 2006.
* More teachers responded favorably to questions about Guilford County Schools in the areas of time, facilities and resources, leadership and professional development. For example, 54 percent of teachers agreed that they have reasonable class sizes, compared to 43 percent in 2006.
* Despite concerns vocalized over the past year about student misbehavior and violence, 85 percent of respondents reported that they work in a safe school environment. That compares to 72 percent in 2006.

You can view the results here.

Update: Find here a GCS update on the 2008 bond.

The Guilford County Board of Education has a pretty busy agenda for Tuesday's meeting. On the list is an update from the architectural selection committee that met last week to discuss what construction methods to use for the 2008 bond. Tomorrow, the board could decide whether to follow the committee's recommendation on using "construction management at risk" for fewer than half the 27 projects.

I attended the committee meeting last week and wrote about it, but it was not published (it's kind of inside baseball, if you know what I mean). Below, what I wrote:

The district is one of six in the country to be recognized by the National Education Alliance.

The Guilford County Board of Education will, after 15 years, stop insuring school property through the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.

The reason? It was able to get a stronger policy through Surry Insurance Co. (underwritten by Berkley Mid-Atlantic). The policy will cost more than $781,000, but sublimits have been increased, which in the event of a loss, would keep the district's out-of-pocket expenses low. Examples: Berkley Mid-Atlantic would pay $750,00 for extra expenses, such as moving students, whereas the old policy offered $100,000. The state also offered a total of $1 million for both demolition and cost of construction expenses. The new policy: $3 million.

Risk Manager Wanda Frazier said she was told the district could have received $20 million more in its settlement for Eastern Guilford High School had it been covered under this new policy. GCS received a settlement of $17.6 million from the state. An expensive lesson to learn.

Keep in mind however, that even with a $37.6 million settlement, GCS is building the new Eastern at a cost of $61 million.

By the way, the school board spent a great deal of time Tuesday discussing (and questioning) the Haberman process of interviewing teachers and administrators. Turns out former Superintendent Terry Grier is using the same process in San Diego -- and ruffling some feathers -- as he overhauls the positions there.

Howard Lee, chairman of the state Board of Education, and state Superintendent June Atkinson, are not happy about the proposed budget coming out of the Senate. Their statement, released Monday:

"Today, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Education released its budget for the public schools. Overall, the news for PreK-12 schools is not good.

First, we want to commend the Senate on fully funding the State Board of Education's request to expand the More at Four Prekindergarten Program. This will ensure that at least 5,000 additional at-risk 4-year-olds are prepared to enter and succeed in the public schools.

At the same time, the Senate's budget overall will place the burden of funding quality education on our local school districts. As diesel fuel prices push past $4 per gallon, the Senate increased the fuel budget by a net of $8 million or $0.32 per gallon. This leaves a major hole in the PreK-12 budget. If the Senate Budget passes as it is currently written, it is likely that we will need to withhold from $40-$60 million from local school districts' budgets in order to cover fuel and student population growth needs. In addition, the Senate budget for ABCs bonuses for teachers is $36 million short of our projections for the 2007-08 school year. This level of funding likely would mean reductions to the bonuses awarded to our public school teachers.

In addition, the Senate failed to make key investments requested by the Board to increase needed services for teachers and principals in schools with low student achievement and high dropout rates as part of the state's assistance program and the Court's focus on low-performing high schools.

We look forward to addressing these concerns as the budget process continues."

Not so, according to the Fordham Institute, which released this report today.

Statement from Joyce VanTassel-Baska, past president of the National Association for Gifted Children and member of the study’s peer-review panel:

"As our nation makes significant gains boosting the performances of low-achieving students, we continue to shortchange our gifted students. Settling for stagnation or modest learning gains penalizes gifted learners, especially underserved students whose needs continue to go unmet, and jeopardizes our nation's future as we struggle to compete in the global economy.

"Especially alarming are findings that our nation’s teachers do not consider themselves prepared to meet the unique learning needs of gifted students, nor do they feel encouraged by the system to focus on cultivating the talents of our gifted learners. While no one will dispute the critical need of increasing proficiency for students at the lowest levels, doing so at the expense of high-performing students – especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds – only perpetuates the cycle of inequality and results in continued underperformance in the classroom.

"I hope this study serves as a wake-up call if we as a nation are truly committed to leaving no child behind and investing in students from all ability levels to maximize their potential. Nothing less than our future is at stake."

One thing pointed out in the study is that low-achievers have made greater gains than high-achievers over the years. My question is: Is it fair to compare the gains among these two sets of students? While it is possible for a student to score a low 2 on a state exam one year and then a few years later score a high 3, how far can a student who scores a low four go (when the scale is 1-4)?

Note: The public can listen to the state Board of Education discuss the 2008-09 budget in a 3 p.m. special meeting today.

The N.C. Department of Public Instruction notified district finance officers across the state Monday that they could face a shortfall in funds provided for diesel fuel. Below, the text of that message:

Read more about the one-year-old initiative here.