News-Record.com

How many times to we have to go through this Allen. The Choice Plan, which precipitated all this rancor, was NOT DRIVEN by poor people demanding to go to school with wealthier kids. If you'd open your eyes, you'd see they have more pride than this. It was NOT driven by black members of the schoolboard. If it was, you'd have a county-wide policy to CP all the schools. No matter what the cover story is, it was driven by two white ladies who wanted less black people by proportion at their alma mater. They saw a school and a source of what they thought were the "right kind" of kids they could bully into it via the desertion of the SW people by one of the white ladies(who's their nominal rep) and that's the end of the story. People are not going to put their kids on a bus for two hours a day so two white ladies can pretend it's 1965 again in Emerywood.

Imagine for once having your kid sweat a lottery to find out where he's going to school. Imagine having to go before a "tribunal" to beg for the educational course of your childs life like almost 200 SW Guilford Co. parents had to do, all because you happened to settle in a town that happened to be the same town in which the above mentioned white ladies live. Imagine for a minute the sense of indignity and absurdity of it. (and you don't have to tell me SW parents don't have the market cornered on indignity and absurdity, and I'm damn sick of people making assumptions about our socioeconimc status and the ease of our lives because I assure you, you don't know Jack).) Unless you actually had to do all these things, you have no idea what it's like. You could not as an educated, reasonable man support it and if you lived here , you'd be right along with us.

You mentioned in your column your admiration for people who VOLUNTEER to help at schools. That's the whole point-THEY VOLUNTEERED!!! They were not DRAFTED. The people in the SW district run the gamut. Many of us are (or were) quite liberal in our thinking before all this. SW High is almost 30% minority. There's a few race problems once in awhile, but by and large things work like they are supposed to work. Why would you wreck this?

Allen,

You state, "Whatever happened to the notion that a community owns its schools —- that it takes collective responsibility for what happens in their hallways and classrooms?"

I High Point, as long as you have NO idea where your child will attend high school and as long as next-door-neighbors are forcibly bused to 3 different schools, there will be NO sense of community. By definition, there CANNOT be. There is much, too much, instability and uncertainty.

Thus, those who are able, will continue to move or enroll their children in private schools. This trend will continue and thus, the numbers of free and reduced lunch children will continue to outpace the non-FRL children, because those families have left the system.

The Guilford County Board of Education is "selfish, destructive and shortsighted" - to use your words.

Allen,

Matt Williams' story did imply that wealth was the major factor in educational achievement. You say that it is not the only factor, but the focus of the story was that a family's wealth or assets is primary in children's achievement. In fact, as I recall, the front page had a graphic that said "wealth = grades". You realize that headlines say much more to a reader than a caveat somewhere buried on page A-16, don't you? Let's face it, the goal of the story was to communicate that a family's wealth had a major, if not only, determining factor in a child's educational success.

Now, I would submit to you that wealth is certainly a factor, but more important than a family's wealth is the parents' involvement with the child in their life as well as education. Reference this link to a report by the Michigan Department of Education, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Final_Parent_Involvement_Fact_Sheet_14732_7.pdf

Pay close attention to their statements:

"The most consistent predictors of children’s academic achievement and social adjustment are parent expectations of the child’s academic attainment and satisfaction with their child’s education at school."

"Parents of high-achieving students set higher standardsfor their children’s educational activities than parents of low-achieving students."

"The most effective forms of parent involvement are those, which engage parents in working directly with their children on learning activities at home."

I think that it clear from these educational experts' statements that the greatest determinant of a child's educational development and achievement is their own parents' involvement. You'll note that they say "their parents' involvement". It's been said that it takes a village to raise a child, but the truth is that it has always taken caring and involved parents. The village has to get involved when parents can't or won't. Parents do not have to be wealthy to be involved with their children or have expectations for them. All that they have to do is care and invest some of their own time.

So, I believe that the News-Record was fairly panned on the article as it tried to make a case that wealth is the determinant of success. Making a case that the lack of wealth is the controlling factor lets parents off the hook in being responsible for their own children.

I think that if you really want to do a story that can be more meaningful, you might investigate the impact on child development and success of children living in single parent families. It was recently reported that in the past year that 36% of children born were to single mothers. It is an increasing trend in this country that has to have a dramatic impact on the development of children in the future. If we can agree that parental involvement is a major factor, if not the most important, how will this new social more playout in 10 to 15 years? It is likely that single mothers will be challenged to make sufficient income, gather sufficient assets and invest sufficiently in their children to ensure their child's future. What will be the economic cost and impact upon America in 10 or 15 years if this trend continues or intensifies as it likely will?

Allen, the current School Board and administration has a complete lack of skill sets for what you are hoping for. Therefore when this same group of people attempted to abduct our daughter against her will and move her to HP Central, my family swung into action and took matters into our own hands.

Our daughter is now in a terrific private school that is in the shadows of the beloved HP Central. Quite a sacrifice for our family, but by cutting back on other community donations we were able to make it happen. Just thought you should be aware that private school funding can have a compounding adverse impact on the community.

My wife, father and I all volunteer at our daughter's new school. It is rather envigorating to particpate in a school where the students and the teachers all want to be there.

Do I have any regrets? Yes, I wish our daughter could have walked to high school over at Southwest. We would have been glad to continue to volunteer in the public school system. And it is rather upsetting when the kids in the neighborhood come a knocking with their fundraisers and I have to explain to them why we can't help them out.

I'm sorry that we feel this way, but that's the way it is. As it turns out it doesn't always take a village as Hillary likes to say.

Allen,

One other thing. You said "Whatever happened to the notion that a community owns its schools —- that it takes collective responsibility for what happens in their hallways and classrooms?"

Parents that live in North High Point would say to you that their community doesn't own their school. The BOE implementation of the lottery in there has essentially removed ownership of the schools from the parents and their community. Their children are being desseminated to three different high schools, so how are you to have a sense or community or ownership? And, it's only the students in one school .. Southwest. Not one student at Andrews and Central has been forced to attend a different school. As long as the lottery lasts, their can be no sense of community ownership of the schools in North High Point. So, there is your answer, Allen. The Boe owns the schools, not the parents. They don't care what the parents want, especially their elected representative, Susan Mendenhall, who made the motion for the lottery in HIgh Point.

Hey everybody, since Allen wants to see community involvement how about donations tiered based on how many School Board members resign right now.

For example:

1 Board Member: $100
2 Board Members $250
3 Board Members $500
etc.

BTW, why is there an Alan Duncan head holding a "Get Terry Grier Outta Here" sign over by SW Middle? Positioned right where every student, teacher, and parent has to see it!!!

Now that's community involdment.

Allen, I was more than gratified to see that article in the paper, because those of us in the school business know full well how accurate those statistics are.

Your readers who are getting so wound up over the information are not very good readers themselves -- they failed to note that not only did the paper point out that these schools had children that come from wealthier neighborhoods but that the schools themselves tend to spend more per child. Why is it, for example, that the school in the poor neighborhoods are also the schools that need books donated to their libraries or supplies for their classrooms?

Parent involvement is a factor, statistically, of the amount of education the parents have received. The more education, the more likely the parent will be involved in the education of the child. I was once on the school board of another city. It was a small district with mostly working class white families. Few of those children went to college because their parents, hard workers all, could not envision their children doing more with their lives than they themselves did.

The truth is that the wealthier schools have resources the poorer schools lack and the parents in the wealthier schools, many of whom have the time and interest, apply pressure to the schools to continue to provide quality educational services to their children. And, because the parents tend to have strong educational backgrounds themselves, they know what that means.

Parents in poorer schools often lack the time or knowledge to apply the same kind of pressure to the schools to educate their chidlren. In addition, governmental institutions represent a very difficult barrier for many of our poor who believe they have no influence over any kind of institutional enterprize. To say that poor parents "should just get more involved" is both simplistic and frought with almost criminal misunderstanding for what it is like to be poor in America.

Finally, the ultimate irony is that the "No Child Left Behind" legislation should be renamed "No Child Who Can Afford It Left Behind". Under that brilliant piece of nonsensical legislation, poor schools who perform poorly because they have poor children in them, get penalized with even LESS money then rich schools who do well because they have more money and their children do better anyway.

Makes sense to me.

Michael,

Would you explain your position that schools in poor neighborhoods get less money per child to spend? Who allocates money to schools in Guilford County? If money is not being fairly distributed among schools, it must be the fault of the school administration and/or the school board. Plus, schools with large numbers of poor children are eligible to get Title I money and Equity Plus money, as long as the school administration and school board allocate it to them, so if some schools are not getting enough money, Terry Grier and the school board should be required to give some answers.

As I indicated above, educators have said that the best predictor of school success for a child is their own parents. Schools wil never be able to make up all of the ground for children, if their parents don't take interest and get involved. It's a shame for the children, but society can't fix all of the problems that parents aren't willing to address for their own children. Too many people now are dependent upon the government to do things for them that they should do for themselves.

Allen, liked the piece on pg. A6 of today's paper about the newspaper in NJ that was paid by corrupt politicians to print only goood news about them. You should think about negotiating with GCS, you've been selling yourself cheap,(or have you?).

Mr. Gehris:
Even when we've disagreed you've been generally civil and respectful. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and share it with you as a morning chuckle.

Allen,

From the October 28 Friday Notes on GCS website written by Dr. Grier is the following tidbit of information which disputes your paper's article on the socioeconomic status of the family.

Four Directives Guide Districts to Higher Performance Scores
A study released October 26 by California non-profit EdSource helps explain why elementary schools with similar demographic profiles achieve vastly different results on the state’s Academic Performance Index. Based on surveys completed by nearly 6,000 principals and teachers at 257 schools, researchers concluded that higher academic performance at elementary schools serving low income students is most strongly associated with four key practices: 1) closely tying the curriculum to state academic standards; 2) ensuring adequate classroom resources including current textbooks; 3) using student assessment data to analyze instructional strengths and weaknesses; and 4) establishing high achievement standards and communicating those goals to all staff. Enforcing student behavior rules and promoting parental involvement were not as highly correlated with out performance. Study Project Director Trish Williams said, "Socioeconomic factors are clearly not the sole predictor of academic performance. What schools do, and what resources they have for doing it, can have a powerful impact on student achievement. Stanford’s Mike Kirst served as Principal Investigator for the study.

The full article can be found here:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3152672

Read This:
Thanks for that link. I'll check it out. I imagine there are conflicting studies on this issue, as with others.
But my point stands: A greater community ownership of schools is needed here.

Read This:
I've read it. As the comment you quoted from the project director says: "Socio-economic factors are clearly not the SOLE (caps mine) predictor of academic performance. It appears that what schools do, and what resources they have for doing it, can have a powerful impact on student achievement."
I'm not seeing how that differs with what I said in my column or what the original article said.

Allen, Still waiting for you to "think out loud" and at least give a token reply to my post from 10/30 (the first one on this thread) even if it's something evasive and innane such as; "I never get in arguments with zealots, got better things to do with my time" or something like that. Nobody is going to fault you for falling for the cover story on the CP, since many otherwise objective, critically thinking people were taken in as well.

I'm sure that the CP sounds good in the abstract and obviously duck tails with your political views, and that's fine. The parents of these children however don't have the luxury of treating this as an abstract issue. We have to look at the facts. We can't stand at a distance out in the world of theory that you are using as your vantage point.

Mr. Gehris:
The choice plan probably won't survive (I still don't think it got a fair trial) but the thesis of my column is not about the choice plan; it's about an eroding sense of community where our schools are concerned. The consequences are well known: If we don't deal with the problems now we'll suffer their inevitable results -- crime, unemployment and poverty -- later. Don't you agree?

Allen,

You keep referring to the need for a "sense of community where our schools are concerned". Perhaps, you could share with us what your vision is in this matter of community? Perhaps, we don't understand what you would like to see happen. I think that we can all agree that there was liuttle agrement with the "wealth=grades" article. Yes, it was superficial, addressing only one possible contributing factor for our school problems. As many have posted here, there are many other factors in play as well. What is your vision and what is the solution?

I agree with Mr. Gehris that some of the motivation behind the lottery is to protect HP Central from becoming "too black". For some reason, certain school board reasons have had an axe to grind against HP Andrews for decades. I remember the rumors back when I was in high school about some of the "white ladies" Mr. Gehris refers to wanting to close Andrews. Maybe Andrews beat the crap out of Central in football one too many times. I have always been suspicious as to why Central was largely left out of the lottery and it was encouraging to see that I am not alone in my thinking that certain HP Central alumnni are trying to "protect" their school from a growing minority population. Seems conspiratorial, but there is an anti-Andrews history with this one school board member.

Allen, So your premise is; that poor children are going to be kept employed and out of jail in the future if they go to school with wealthy kids. Okay, let's take Central High in HP as an example. Here's traditionally one of the premier highschools in the state, academically, teacher quality, athletically etc. where poorer kids have mixed with wealthier kids. In fact, Central would probably be close to your ideal of what a school should be considering demographics in the past close to 50-50, although it is probably changed now. So, by your hypothesis, Central High has prevented more crime and unemployment in High Point than another school such as Andrews, which didn't have quite the numbers of wealthier kids. I don't know the answer to this, maybe someone else does, but I just have a hard time believing this. (Maybe someone, a consultant perhaps, could run the statistics on this)What do you consider a good ratio of rich to poor? Should it be 50-50? I don't know the answer. I understand the problem that if schools become filled with hopeless, impoverished students that good teachers will not want to go there. In in a free society, I don't know how teachers can be forced to teach somewhere they don't want to be. (they can't be choice planned). Maybe incentives can be developed or maybe there will be a surplus of teachers develop which would help solve the problem. I don't have the answer.

Let's take Forsythe Co. From what I understand, any student in Forsythe Co. can go to any school they want. You still find schools like Carver and Parkland with disproportionate number of poor kids, because people want to go to school close to where they live with people they know.

I think the number of poor kids that could somehow theoretically saved by going to school with "wealthier" kids would be quite small in the final telling, and it seems that the potential for even more alienation could result, especially if they were forced to be together. Malcolm X went to a fairly wealthy white junior high and was president of his seventh grade class, but only considered himself a "mascot". Hard to imagine that he went on to greatness because of this, although it sounds as he may have used it as a negative motivator of some kind. It seems like you can't win either way. Maybe, however this small number that could theoretically be saved is worth all this rancor. I don't know.

Mr. Johnson,

I think it is safe to assume you support the High Point plan for reasons you stated in your column and it’s fair to say had the parents of High Point students decided to roll over and play dead when the board voted to implement the plan; you may or may not still be writing on this subject. It’s also safe to say this plan if implemented countywide will not be met by the welcome wagon.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the following questions...

Why do you think the board is not pushing this plan countywide?

Do you think the plan should be countywide?

Would you be willing to support and advocate for such a plan countywide?

I would love to read a response or an editorial addressing those questions! The plan could be implemented countywide if the board chooses. There are mirror images of the issues that led the school board to implement the High Point plan throughout other schools in the county. There also are schools located closer geographically than some of the High Point schools.

Thank you – a response to the above would be greatly appreciated!

Indeed, Ronda, but the rest of the county doesn't have Dot Kearns driving the program. No, wait! Dot Kearns is member-at-large, she is responsible for the entire county! So, maybe the rest of the county does have something to fear.

Allen,

One of the major problems (notice i said one) of the 'Choice' plan is that there is no choice. If, indeed, this plan gave a real choice to students and did not have a mandatory provision to force children from their school of choice, things would be much different.

The plan as it was implemented should be illegal and unconstitutional.

I will say that I like the idea of offering specialized courses for development. But, in this case, I think that was just a dangling carrot and not the true point or motivation behind this plan.

Ronda,

Those are good questions. I'm sure Allen is consulting Grier right now to see if he's allowed to comment.

Dr. Grier said it's OK. I can comment.
Seriously, no, Mr. Gehris, it will not make poorer kids smarter to be beside wealthy kids. But a more socioeconomically diverse learning envronment is part of the equation of greater achievement.
So is parental involvement.
So are good teachers.
So are high expectations.
So is a strong principal and a stable teaching staff.
So are ties with the surrounding community.
As for the rest of Guilford County, especially Greensboro, it has its own problems with diversity and needs to face them.
When you have schools that are 90-plus percent one race, that's a problem as I see it.
When have written about that many times. I have written about it myself at least three times.
The community seems to have lost its commitment to diversity in schools.
But it can and does work. Consider the case of Morehead Elementary.

Allen, every one of these criteria mentioned was met by Central High throughout the 1970's 80's and 90's and many would argue even now. STILL it is not enough. Still there had to be a grab on for MORE rich kids. It will never be enough! The 1999 redistricting in High point carved 200 plus white kids out of SW High and sent them to Andrews. It wasn't enough! It will NEVER BE ENOUGH.!!! You don't seem to get it. IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH! We agree with all your points, it's just that forced relocation of kids DOESN'T WORK. The people will move, they'll go to private schools etc. We just keep making the same mistakes OVER AND OVER again.

Allen,

I'm so happy you got clearance from the big doctor.

"The community seems to have lost its commitment to diversity"??? You mean everywhere except in High Point, don't you?

For some reason there is a BIG commitment to diversiy only High Point. I believe the big push to do this does comes from those nice, fair-skinned ladies that Mr. Gehris referrs to.

And you say that you've written before about the need for the rest of Greensboro to be diversified? PLEASE refresh my memory on those articles.

I was beginning to think that no one, other than the screwed-over families in N. High Point realized that Dudley and some other Greensboro schools were MORE disproportionate that the schools in High Point.

Since you have clearance, PLEASE do keep writing about it. Obviously no one is listening.

Mr. Johnson,

I think your piece was very accurate. They (the nay sayers) don't want to see the good in the piece you wrote because, you are right, they like and want to live in their own world, which excludes those that haven't reached their "status." It's amazing that they claim to be civic minded-people, but are out of touch with those who haven't reached thier "status." They claim to be hard workers who have earned the right to live in 300,000 dollar plus neighborhoods, but yet I doubt very few will acknowledege that, some of their success stems from, not their efforts or character, but simply who they know. It doesn't take a college degree to receive an inheritance or have a mother or father or aunt or uncle who knows someone that knows someone to receive a good opportunity to make a good living. Dr. Grier is doing his job very well, that's why he is superintendent of the schools, to make effective learning a possibility for all students in Guilford county. I think the debate could end if they just said it like it is, which is, they simply don't want their kids to be exposed to black people for fear, rather I should say ignorance, of the perceived sterotypes of poor under-privileged kids. They also fail to realize that some of those students that don't cause trouble are still put in the category with the true trouble-makers...why is that? Because they are black, because they wear their hair in braids, because they see know need to try and immulate a person that wears a suit and tie or has a neat trimmed haircut!

Mr. Jennings, that argument is so warn out. It's a nice theory but the only folks afraid of black children are Dot Kearns and Susan Mendenhall. They are on the school board if you are not aware of that. You see, the very things you accuse the $300+ homeowners of is the very plan that these 2 school board members implemented. They needed more white kids at Central.

Oh, and if your theory about "it doesn't take a college degree to receive an inheritance" were true, most students would just opt for no college and sit on their ass until their auntie died. Sounds to me like you are suffering a little $300+ house envy and either no one in your family has any money or no one is ready to kick the bucket and leave it all to you.

Please inform yourself on what is going on in High Point schools. The only color issues have been created by the very administration that you speak so highly of.

Your race card doesn't work here. Go to Bruce Davis' new blog. It'll surely work there.

No Faith:
You asked when we'd written about the lack of diversity in Greensboro schools before?
Here are a few (but not all) of the dates:
1. July 24, 2005
2. May 16, 2004
3. Aug. 10, 2003
4. March 3, 2002
5. Jan. 28, 2001
6. May 23, 1999

In a few minutes I'll be posting one of the past columns I've written about the issue.

Thank you Allen. How disgusting that you've been writing about this since 1999 and probably even before, and no one listens.

Do you ever get feedback from the Board of Education? I believe this community should ban together and demand diversity for the entire county. How on earth could such a request be ignored? How can it be mandated in one part of the county and ignored in other areas that are even in more need?

Am I just an idiot or what am I missing here?

MR JENNINGS, You're claiming people at SW don't want their kids exposed to black kids?

I take it you have never even set foot in SOUTHWEST GUILFORD HIGH SCHOOL. It is located off skeet club road, take a right onto Barrow Rd. in North High point. If you could drive there tomorrow, if you could please walk the halls then come back to the blog and report to us. Please do this, please! I'm on my knees. Please!!!!Or Allen, how about you doing this? When was the last time you were there?

Let's do basic math (the kind that can be taught in a one room school house without electricity or running water)- If the county is 35% black, then how are you ever going to equalize the schools racially? You can't have 1/2 black 1/2 white without banning a large percentage of white kids from school. Nor can you have 1/2 black 1/2 hispanic 1/2 asian and 1/2 white. The numbers don't add up. At best it would seem that 30% is about the maximum black population you could get if you divided up all the children in Guilford County and spread them around. Therefore, there is clearly a limit on how integrated a school can be.

Further, I still don't get the learn by osmosis argument. Put a rich kid next to a poor kid and the poor kid starts doing better. How exactly does that happen? Put a black kid next to a white kid and his grades go up. Isn't that insulting enough? Doesn't that scream of racism because it is premised on blacks needing whites to succeed or to do better?

Imagine we have one school that is brand new and built in 2005 and an old school built in 1955. They both teach English, reading, algebra, spelling, geometry, basic science, and arithmetic. Tell me, which of these subjects has changed since 1955, and which of these requires anything that was invented after 1955 in order to be taught? How did the people who went to school in 1955 learn these subjects when they did not have the same things we have now?

That is the problem with equating spending money to improving education. It does not logically make sense. A person can learn even in an old school house without the modern amenities. History proves this or we would have a bunch of uneducated morons running around. At one time a school built in 1955 was new and modern and people learned there. The core subjects haven't changed, so tell me how the dollars will help?

Samuel and others:
Thanks for your comments, but please reread my column; I don't think my point is getting through.
The issue isn't so much money but a commitment in spirit to our public schools and a willingness to care about the good of the whole community, not just our corner of it.