For those parents with rising 6th graders in Wake County, it is time to make a choice about the appropriate math class their children should be registering for. Many parents will meet with their child's teacher and perhaps the guidance counselor and the parents will sign off on a preselected class level and move on without giving this very important choice a second thought.
But, and this is a big "but", this math placement is something that should be considered much more carefully. It is something that is not intuitive, that 5th grade math teachers don't understand as much as they should, and something that Wake County has made unnecessarily confusing. A few parents in Wake County know that the choice made for their child's 6th grade math drives the available selection of classes from that point forward. It determines whether their child will take algebra in 8th grade. It determines their math track in high school. If a parent wants their child to have the opportunity to take higher level courses that could impact their college admissions or save them money in tuition down the road, this 6th grade math choice is very important.
If a child has been fortunate enough to excel on the 3rd grade assessments that determine placement in AIG, and if they have excelled enough and are in a school that offers it and have been able to take an accelerated math class in 5th grade, they may already be on the right track but there is some clarification of the choices that is necessary. If a child is a good student with an aptitude for math but who did not test well for whatever reason, they are probably in regular 5th grade math but could use some additional challenge, and for them, they need to consider their choices too.
In a nutshell, the most common choices for 6th grade math are as follows: Math 6, Math 6 PLUS, Compacted 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS, and in some very few cases, Math 7 PLUS.
Aside from the infuriatingly confusing naming of these classes, which leads to parents and administrators sometimes dropping off the "plus" when discussing 6+ or 6+/7+ and thus REALLY muddying the conversation, is the equally confusing way in which WCPSS describes the requirements to be able to take these classes and the charts they provide to describe all the myriad pathways for math going through high school.
WCPSS provides multiple documents about math placement, all of which are completely incohesive and which contradict each other. For example, this chart: Common Core State Standards for Mathematics outlines all of the different math pathways from 6th through 11th grade. Note that Common Core Math 6 is the first choice listed for rising 6th graders. However, this document that is used as a reference for parents for 6th grade math options: Middle School Math Placement Guidelines does not list Common Core Math 6 at all but does list Common Core Math I. It is a fairly useless piece of information as it gives no reference point for these classes in terms of when students typically really take them. (Common Core Math I for example is not really an option at all for a 6th grader but here it is, listed on this chart, so is this chart a valid reference tool at all?) This web page: Rising 6th Grade Math Placement Information does list Common Core Math 6. What a mess!
The bottom line is, students are recommended for / placed in a math class based on their EOG scores and their EVAAS score. EVAAS is a calculation that gauges a student's probability of scoring 70% or greater in Math I.
If a student does not have an EVAAS of 70% or higher, and does not show an aptitude for higher level math, they are most likely placed in Common Core Math 6 - the grade level math course. This class does not put students on track to take Common Core Math I (Algebra) in 8th grade.
When considering other math placement guidelines, it gets very confusing, very quickly. I am going to note one more time that the Middle School Math Placement Guidelines chart (link above) is very flawed. It includes four math options - 6 PLUS, 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS, 7 PLUS and Common Core Math I, and attempts to merge options for two different classes of students - those who have taken 5th grade math, and those who have taken 6 PLUS math in 5th grade.
The requirements for the various classes depend on which of the two 5th grade math classes the student took! For example, the requirements for 6 PLUS apply more to a student who took 5th grade math. It allows for a student in regular math who shows a higher aptitude via EVAAS score of 70% or higher and an EOG score of III, to take a more challenging class - 6 PLUS. Math 6 PLUS covers all of 6th grade math curriculum and one third of 7th grade math curriculum.
BUT, the requirements for 7 PLUS are more likely applicable to the student who took 6 PLUS math in 5th grade. Though the requirements listed for 7 PLUS are exactly the same as the requirements for 6 PLUS - an EVAAS score of 70% or higher and who has scored a Level III or higher on the most recent EOG - Math 7 PLUS is a much more rigorous course for a 6th grader. It skips 6th grade math altogether (because it assumes the student taking it has already had the 6th grade curriculum through 6 PLUS math in 5th grade). 7 PLUS covers three quarters of 7th grade math, and one half of 8th grade math. Very few students, even those who took 6 PLUS math in 5th grade, are recommended for this class in 6th grade.
Then, there is the choice of Math 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS, which is in the second column of the chart and requires extremely stringent placement guidelines - an EVAAS score of 97% or higher and a level IV on the EOG's. 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS covers all of 6th grade math, all of 7th grade math and one half of eight grade standards. 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS guidelines are specifically for students who took regular 5th grade math. A student who took 6th PLUS math in 5th grade can theoretically take 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS with lesser EVAAS and EOG scores because they've already been exposed to the 6 PLUS curriculum. (They'll still need a waiver to take the class though because of the way these requirements are structured). The higher requirements listed on the chart assume a student who has never been exposed to the 6 PLUS curriculum. The class would understandably be more rigorous for them.
Is this confusing enough? Throw in the fact that the 5th grade teachers don't understand it either. I was told by one teacher that they place students based on the EVAAS score and EOG score requirements listed on that chart. This same teacher said they never place 5th graders who've taken regular 5th grade math in 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS because there's no way they would meet the requirement for the class. That's really scary because it means that the teachers don't even seem to understand that this chart inappropriately mixes guidelines between students who've taken different levels of math in 5th grade. It means students are most likely being placed incorrectly and it shows a serious disconnect between what central office is doing and how it is being implemented at the school level.
What does this mean for the average student? Does it really matter in the long run? I ask this because many teachers and administrators will try to tell parents that as long as their student is on the right track, they're fine. But as a parent, I disagree. I think we all want our children to succeed and part of that process involves finding the right place for our kids in school. We want them to be appropriately challenged at their level - not too little, not too much.
To base math placement solely on a computer generated score and a testing score, and not on the individual student is wrong. Yes, 6 PLUS in 6th grade will get my kid to Common Core Math I in 8th grade. But it's not just about that. If she's already taken 6 PLUS curriculum, won't she be bored taking it again? Should she take 6 PLUS / 7 PLUS for a bit more challenge? And based on this messed up chart, will her teacher and principal allow it, even though the chart guidelines really don't apply to her? Or, if she's taken 5th grade math, will 6 PLUS be too frustrating for her? Or will it provide a needed challenge that she's missed out on to this point. And again, will the teacher and principal allow it if she tests poorly and her scores aren't up to par?
So, as middle school math placement looms, I urge every parent to get a really good grasp on what these classes are about, why the level matters, and which one is best for your child. I urge parents to advocate for their kids and to understand that the school system, with all of its myriad parts, makes mistakes and I urge parents to not make assumptions that their school or teacher will make the right decision for their child.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Magnet Application Period Is Open
Magnet School applications are being accepted between January 28th and February 9th. Apply online at https://choiceselection.wcpss.net/WakeBaseSchoolMagnetApps2014/Login.aspx
PAGE of Wake County Super Saturday Spring 2014
The next Super Saturday, sponsored by PAGE of Wake County, is on Saturday, February 8th at Meredith College. Some sessions are already sold out. Check out the registration page for more information http://www.eventbrite.com/e/winter-2014-super-saturday-registration-10215979269
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Shifting the Responsibility for Creating Good Schools Back to the Principals Who Run Them
A disclaimer: The following is purely an opinion piece and I welcome any insight into what is written here that may serve to shed light on the process of teacher evaluation...
There is a great deal of ongoing discussion about what is wrong with our schools, how to fix them, how to gauge student performance, and whether to utilize student performance data when evaluating individual teachers.
I contend that we need to start looking at our schools like a corporation and applying the same expectations to them, specifically in terms of management. A principal typically earns, in our county, $80,000 a year, sometimes tens of thousands more. They oversee a staff of some 50 people. Like corporate executives, they must deal with all number of issues all of which involve running a successful division within the budgetary constraints of the company, including dealing with upper management and everyday staffing. An individual school is the same as a division in a corporation; the principal the same as a vice president. And like a corporate division in which the vice president is ultimately accountable for his or her division, a school principal is accountable for his or her teachers.
Touching back on teacher performance, I've had many discussions with both teacher and parents on the subject, and I've come to my own conclusion that the practice of tying test scores to teacher performance is patently unfair. The teaching profession is unique in that you can't utilize the success or failure of the student population as a gauge of teacher competence because it's such a moving target. That is, in a class of 24 or 30 students, every one of those students has their own unique situation going on at home that plays a bigger role in their success at school than what the teacher is doing during instructional time. But we have, as a nation, been unable to come up with any other methodology for gauging teacher performance, and we need to.
Despite all of the obstacles that a teacher faces in their profession - low pay, long hours, and twenty different bosses so to speak - the fact remains they chose teaching as a profession despite those obstacles. It is not much for them to expect to deserve to be evaluated in some meaningful and fair way as to their competency level.
The fact is, there are many good teachers out there, but there are just as many bad ones. I have encountered innovative, creative teachers who have utilized all sorts of cool activities and project that have engaged their students while still teaching all of the curriculum required by the Board of Education. And I have encountered mediocre teachers who flat out don't know how to challenge students at individual levels, and who see no need to move a centimeter outside of the required curriculum to stoke any fire whatsoever that might be inside these kids. I have heard stories of teachers who not only teach poorly, but who teach inaccurate information as well. By evaluating teachers differently, we can weed out the poor teachers, and encourage an influx into the profession of excellent ones.
So, going back to the school as corporate division idea ... like a corporate executive, part of a principal's job is hiring qualified staff and managing that staff properly. It is a principal's responsibility to find a good teacher, one who is uniquely qualified for the position, who can prove in an interview that they bring something excellent to the table, and who can provide examples of ways they stand apart from the other applicants in what they plan to bring to the classroom and the students.
It's my opinion that this isn't currently happening. Too often in schools, hiring is an afterthought, done under the gun when time is short and a position needs to be filled with a warm body. I have personally dealt with teachers who have been hired last minute in this manner, and who have been mediocre at best. This is simply unacceptable - how can we expect excellence from our students when we are putting such little priority on the hiring process?
I realize the constraints that a principal must work with from a budgetary perspective - they have to prove the need for every teacher they hire. There are classroom caps in place that dictate whether and when they can hire a teacher at all. They may deal with a limited labor pool. But that's their job. That's part of what they get paid to do. So they must do everything they can to make hiring a top priority. They must do everything they can to put the best and most innovative professionals in place. Doing so creates good schools filled with good teachers. It creates competition. It creates excellence.
And of course, hiring an excellent teacher does not mean the principal's job is done. Like corporate employees, the teachers must be evaluated, not on student test scores, but on their own performance. We must accept that the profession of teaching is unique to all others in that the end result of their performance is impossible to evaluate. You simply cannot say that a teacher has done a good job or a poor job based on whether the majority of a class of 25 or 30 students have passed a test. The quality of the teacher's day-to-day teaching is the only real thing on which we can evaluate them.
For teachers, this evaluation is traditionally done through classroom observation at random times of the school year. This is effective only if it's tweaked to yield more meaningful results. Principals need to treat evaluations not as an afterthought, but as a priority. Observations need to take place more often, and outside of testing times. They need to take place not at the very beginning or very end of the year, but throughout the year. Teachers need to be evaluated not only on whether they're hitting all of the base curriculum objectives outlined by the Board, but on how they teach, how they engage their students, whether and how they're thinking outside the box in their teaching and what innovations they're using.
When a principal, like a corporate executive, makes hiring and meaningful observation and evaluation a priority, they can create and maintain a staff of excellent teachers. This levels the playing field, creates necessary competition, encourages innovation, and creates a teaching environment in which teachers know they are the best of the best and valued for what they do. It eliminates the misguided effort within the American education system to desperately attempt to gauge our student and teacher success through testing and its results.
There is a great deal of ongoing discussion about what is wrong with our schools, how to fix them, how to gauge student performance, and whether to utilize student performance data when evaluating individual teachers.
I contend that we need to start looking at our schools like a corporation and applying the same expectations to them, specifically in terms of management. A principal typically earns, in our county, $80,000 a year, sometimes tens of thousands more. They oversee a staff of some 50 people. Like corporate executives, they must deal with all number of issues all of which involve running a successful division within the budgetary constraints of the company, including dealing with upper management and everyday staffing. An individual school is the same as a division in a corporation; the principal the same as a vice president. And like a corporate division in which the vice president is ultimately accountable for his or her division, a school principal is accountable for his or her teachers.
In a nutshell, I would say that the furor over teacher accountability needs to change to a furor over principal accountability, and that, among the things a principal should be held accountable for, the quality and effectiveness of their staff should be number one.
Despite all of the obstacles that a teacher faces in their profession - low pay, long hours, and twenty different bosses so to speak - the fact remains they chose teaching as a profession despite those obstacles. It is not much for them to expect to deserve to be evaluated in some meaningful and fair way as to their competency level.
The fact is, there are many good teachers out there, but there are just as many bad ones. I have encountered innovative, creative teachers who have utilized all sorts of cool activities and project that have engaged their students while still teaching all of the curriculum required by the Board of Education. And I have encountered mediocre teachers who flat out don't know how to challenge students at individual levels, and who see no need to move a centimeter outside of the required curriculum to stoke any fire whatsoever that might be inside these kids. I have heard stories of teachers who not only teach poorly, but who teach inaccurate information as well. By evaluating teachers differently, we can weed out the poor teachers, and encourage an influx into the profession of excellent ones.
So, going back to the school as corporate division idea ... like a corporate executive, part of a principal's job is hiring qualified staff and managing that staff properly. It is a principal's responsibility to find a good teacher, one who is uniquely qualified for the position, who can prove in an interview that they bring something excellent to the table, and who can provide examples of ways they stand apart from the other applicants in what they plan to bring to the classroom and the students.
It's my opinion that this isn't currently happening. Too often in schools, hiring is an afterthought, done under the gun when time is short and a position needs to be filled with a warm body. I have personally dealt with teachers who have been hired last minute in this manner, and who have been mediocre at best. This is simply unacceptable - how can we expect excellence from our students when we are putting such little priority on the hiring process?
I realize the constraints that a principal must work with from a budgetary perspective - they have to prove the need for every teacher they hire. There are classroom caps in place that dictate whether and when they can hire a teacher at all. They may deal with a limited labor pool. But that's their job. That's part of what they get paid to do. So they must do everything they can to make hiring a top priority. They must do everything they can to put the best and most innovative professionals in place. Doing so creates good schools filled with good teachers. It creates competition. It creates excellence.
And of course, hiring an excellent teacher does not mean the principal's job is done. Like corporate employees, the teachers must be evaluated, not on student test scores, but on their own performance. We must accept that the profession of teaching is unique to all others in that the end result of their performance is impossible to evaluate. You simply cannot say that a teacher has done a good job or a poor job based on whether the majority of a class of 25 or 30 students have passed a test. The quality of the teacher's day-to-day teaching is the only real thing on which we can evaluate them.
For teachers, this evaluation is traditionally done through classroom observation at random times of the school year. This is effective only if it's tweaked to yield more meaningful results. Principals need to treat evaluations not as an afterthought, but as a priority. Observations need to take place more often, and outside of testing times. They need to take place not at the very beginning or very end of the year, but throughout the year. Teachers need to be evaluated not only on whether they're hitting all of the base curriculum objectives outlined by the Board, but on how they teach, how they engage their students, whether and how they're thinking outside the box in their teaching and what innovations they're using.
When a principal, like a corporate executive, makes hiring and meaningful observation and evaluation a priority, they can create and maintain a staff of excellent teachers. This levels the playing field, creates necessary competition, encourages innovation, and creates a teaching environment in which teachers know they are the best of the best and valued for what they do. It eliminates the misguided effort within the American education system to desperately attempt to gauge our student and teacher success through testing and its results.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Case 21 Tests and Single Subject Acceleration
A brief note about Case 21's, for those of you who aren't familiar with them ...
Case 21 tests are benchmark assessments administered at NC schools periodically throughout the year. The tests typically have anywhere from 50 questions on them and take an hour or so to complete, and they are administering them this year to students as early as second grade. It's my experience that many parents are only vaguely aware of them, since the school typically keeps them under the radar.
The tests are aligned with the EOG's and the Common Core curriculum and are meant solely as a tool for teachers to periodically see whether their students are learning the required material. However, at least in Wake County, and at least according to our school's AIG teacher, Central Office is encouraging the use of a student's results on the Case 21 tests as an indicator of whether that student is an appropriate candidate for higher level AIG services, specifically Single Subject Acceleration.
Single Subject Acceleration or SSA, by the way, is a new offering by WCPSS, in which certain identified academically gifted students may be able to remain in their current grade, but take Math or English with a higher grade level. Though this is being offered at both the elementary and middle school levels, it seems more suited to middle school since that is when students begin changing classes for each subject. At the elementary level, it's logistically difficult to provide a situation in which a handful of students are being taught at the higher level - it would require some planning, I think, to put this in place, and since it's so new, individual schools are still trying to work it out. At our school, the current solution is for students to learn via an online format.
But back to Case 21 and how they factor into SSA and other interventions typically available to students...
The shortcomings of Case 21 are these (aside from the fact that it's yet another test): This year, the first year that Common Core has been put into practice, is what I would call a norming year. In other words, everything is in the process of being realigned. So the Case 21 test questions are being written to try to match up with the new Common Core curriculum, but it's going to take some time before that happens accurately. For example, some of the questions administered, say, on the second quarter Case 21, include material that may not have been covered yet by the teacher in class, because they're trying to normalize standards for what is taught when and that doesn't yet align with the schedule of questions on the Case 21's. Additionally, some of the results for certain questions had to be thrown out, as they were found to have been flawed in some way - either poorly written, or containing more than one correct answer, or the like. So the actual student score is not much of an indicator of anything.
This would be all fine and good, but if it's true that WCPSS is encouraging administrators to use the scores as a determining factor for access to SSA, then there's a problem. Clearly, the tests aren't a reliable indicator for the reasons stated above, and in fact, there should be a whole host of criteria that is used for consideration of things like SSA. After all, the schools certainly require an unwieldy battery of aptitude tests to determine students eligibility for initial access to AIG offerings.
It's true that SSA is relatively new, and I'm sure WCPSS is trying to work out the kinks which, like all things involved in government and education takes far longer than it should. But this seems like a far too simplistic approach, and therefore, what's the point? If this is how they, or individual AIG teachers, plan on determining students for additional services, then they're not going to be appropriately reaching all students who may qualify and that is fundamentally flawed.
Case 21 tests are benchmark assessments administered at NC schools periodically throughout the year. The tests typically have anywhere from 50 questions on them and take an hour or so to complete, and they are administering them this year to students as early as second grade. It's my experience that many parents are only vaguely aware of them, since the school typically keeps them under the radar.
The tests are aligned with the EOG's and the Common Core curriculum and are meant solely as a tool for teachers to periodically see whether their students are learning the required material. However, at least in Wake County, and at least according to our school's AIG teacher, Central Office is encouraging the use of a student's results on the Case 21 tests as an indicator of whether that student is an appropriate candidate for higher level AIG services, specifically Single Subject Acceleration.
Single Subject Acceleration or SSA, by the way, is a new offering by WCPSS, in which certain identified academically gifted students may be able to remain in their current grade, but take Math or English with a higher grade level. Though this is being offered at both the elementary and middle school levels, it seems more suited to middle school since that is when students begin changing classes for each subject. At the elementary level, it's logistically difficult to provide a situation in which a handful of students are being taught at the higher level - it would require some planning, I think, to put this in place, and since it's so new, individual schools are still trying to work it out. At our school, the current solution is for students to learn via an online format.
But back to Case 21 and how they factor into SSA and other interventions typically available to students...
The shortcomings of Case 21 are these (aside from the fact that it's yet another test): This year, the first year that Common Core has been put into practice, is what I would call a norming year. In other words, everything is in the process of being realigned. So the Case 21 test questions are being written to try to match up with the new Common Core curriculum, but it's going to take some time before that happens accurately. For example, some of the questions administered, say, on the second quarter Case 21, include material that may not have been covered yet by the teacher in class, because they're trying to normalize standards for what is taught when and that doesn't yet align with the schedule of questions on the Case 21's. Additionally, some of the results for certain questions had to be thrown out, as they were found to have been flawed in some way - either poorly written, or containing more than one correct answer, or the like. So the actual student score is not much of an indicator of anything.
This would be all fine and good, but if it's true that WCPSS is encouraging administrators to use the scores as a determining factor for access to SSA, then there's a problem. Clearly, the tests aren't a reliable indicator for the reasons stated above, and in fact, there should be a whole host of criteria that is used for consideration of things like SSA. After all, the schools certainly require an unwieldy battery of aptitude tests to determine students eligibility for initial access to AIG offerings.
It's true that SSA is relatively new, and I'm sure WCPSS is trying to work out the kinks which, like all things involved in government and education takes far longer than it should. But this seems like a far too simplistic approach, and therefore, what's the point? If this is how they, or individual AIG teachers, plan on determining students for additional services, then they're not going to be appropriately reaching all students who may qualify and that is fundamentally flawed.
EOG's and Common Core
EOG'S for Wake County Track One students take place today and tomorrow. Here are some quick facts about this year's tests:
Because of the implementation of the new Common Core standards this year, the EOG's will look a little different this year. The main difference is that scores will not be released anytime soon. Our school, Sanford Creek Elementary, has provided a tentative timeline of October of 2013 for the release of the scores.
Basically, the material on the tests has changed in order to align with the Common Core curriculum. The Department of Public Instruction needs to have time to norm all of the scores - to determine based on the overall results, what now constitutes an achievement of a 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the tests.
This means that there will be no retakes of the test this year. In the past, tests were scored fairly quickly and students who scored a 1 or 2 had to take a retest in order to ensure the scores weren't an anomaly. Final score results played a role in determining whether a student was retained or received intervention of some sort.
So, essentially, while this year's tests will eventually provide educators and parents some information about student progress, they do not provide much immediate guidance for schools in terms of placement for intervention. Therefore, parents, be on the lookout for what the school may be utilizing instead as guidance, whether you're looking for your child to be eligible for additional tutoring / help in areas where they may be struggling, or looking for your child to be included in the academically gifted offerings available at your school.
Because all of these offerings are limited in scope due to ever-increasing budgetary restrictions, it is worthwhile to stay on top of this info so your child does not miss out on an appropriate learning opportunity.
Because of the implementation of the new Common Core standards this year, the EOG's will look a little different this year. The main difference is that scores will not be released anytime soon. Our school, Sanford Creek Elementary, has provided a tentative timeline of October of 2013 for the release of the scores.
Basically, the material on the tests has changed in order to align with the Common Core curriculum. The Department of Public Instruction needs to have time to norm all of the scores - to determine based on the overall results, what now constitutes an achievement of a 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the tests.
This means that there will be no retakes of the test this year. In the past, tests were scored fairly quickly and students who scored a 1 or 2 had to take a retest in order to ensure the scores weren't an anomaly. Final score results played a role in determining whether a student was retained or received intervention of some sort.
So, essentially, while this year's tests will eventually provide educators and parents some information about student progress, they do not provide much immediate guidance for schools in terms of placement for intervention. Therefore, parents, be on the lookout for what the school may be utilizing instead as guidance, whether you're looking for your child to be eligible for additional tutoring / help in areas where they may be struggling, or looking for your child to be included in the academically gifted offerings available at your school.
Because all of these offerings are limited in scope due to ever-increasing budgetary restrictions, it is worthwhile to stay on top of this info so your child does not miss out on an appropriate learning opportunity.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Class Sizes and the Assignment Plan
Wake County's much maligned assignment plan, in its current version, is quite flawed. I think we all know that and agree on that.
There's no base school for anyone, currently, and the five "choices" aren't really choices at all because there's little open space in any of them to allow for transfer.
Here's an interesting tidbit though that hasn't gotten any press coverage from the N&O who should, in my opinion, have more than two reporters working the beat since the Wake County Public School System has been such a debacle for North Carolina as a whole.
Sanford Creek Elementary, the school my children attend, has been under-enrolled since it opened seven or so years ago. Several people I know registered their children to attend school in the WCPSS system. One was a mom who'd been homeschooling her kids to this point, another was a parent who could no longer afford private school tuition.
Since there is no base school, they were placed in whatever school WCPSS determined to have space. That ended up being Sanford Creek. Sanford Creek being year-round, both moms saw their children placed on track three. One of the moms, the homeschool one, wanted track one but was told she could not have it, because the classes were already at capacity for fifth grade and her oldest was going into fifth grade. Legal capacity for that grade level is somewhere around 28 - 30 kids.
Ironically, when her son started the school year, he found himself in a track three class with, get this, forty students. Forty.
Not only that, but it took six to nine weeks (three weeks in, three weeks tracked out and another two to three weeks back in) for WCPSS to agree to allow Sanford Creek to hire another teacher and open up a second track three class, and for the Principal at Sanford Creek to get said teacher hired.
According to the mom, WCPSS had a mandatory 20-day waiting period before it would approve a second class because they needed to make sure the number of students in the class wouldn't fluctuate down due to continued reassignment movement.
Then, the Principal couldn't find a suitable candidate, finally opting to hire a teacher who had previously subbed at the school and whose qualifications were questionable as compared to anyone else the Principal may have interviewed. But that's another story.
The bottom line is, among the many, many problems with this mess, is this numbers game that Wake County is playing, particularly with the year-round schools whose administrators must, year-after-year, adjust to. Year-round, which was supposed to be the end all, be all, for growth management, is a nightmare when it comes to capacity issues and money management.
If community growth fluctuates, and too few students are enrolled, the school must entirely collapse a track to save money, which involves uprooting of students from their classmates and changing their yearly schedule, a problem for parents with other students in middle or high school who must adjust the entire family's schedule to accommodate. It involves movement for the teacher who is guaranteed a job but must move to another school in some cases, just to keep a job. It involves overcrowding and adjustment for the teachers on the other tracks who must absorb these new students into their classes. And it could all change the following year when growth rises again, and they have to add the track back.
So on top of that problem is the current assignment plan issue. WCPSS does not have adequate resources in place to accurately reflect space availability at each school, and it has done a poor job this first year managing the reassignment requests because of it. As a result, our students and teachers are forced to make due in a class of 40, while WCPSS wastes valuable time waiting to see if the numbers will change.
I wonder if anyone else has seen these issues at their own schools in Wake County. It's an issue that should be receiving some attention.
Welcome
As a parent of children attending the Wake County, North Carolina school system, I would like to welcome you to my blog.
Currently, the News & Observer has a fairly up-to-date and informative blog that follows the goings on of WCPSS but I thought I'd add another voice to the fray.
Count on this blog to provide periodic updates about what's going on with WCPSS from a parent's perspective. We parents often hear things out and about that the N&O can't cover due to space and resource issues. I'm hoping to fill in some gaps for those followers of the Board, the schools, the new superintendent, etc.
Thanks for stopping by!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)