MEMBERS: Register | Login

Lines yet to be drawn in New Hanover County redistricting

Submitted by WWAY on Mon, 12/14/2009 - 6:11pm.READ MORE:

After hours of discussion, and tweaking district boundaries, the school board has yet to draw the line. In addition to mapping out new boundary lines, board members discussed how over-crowding, free and reduced lunches and busing issues play into the redistricting debate. The redistricting is a result of the county's newest middle school, Holly Shelter. A number of parents attended the meeting to express their concerns. They have mixed emotions about neighborhood school districts versus busing for socioeconomic equality and they know it's going to take time for a final decision to be made. “It's going to take some compromise because I'd like to see a map where some of the economically disadvantaged children were distributed more evenly in the county than just being downtown,” said parent Wendy Browning. School board members ended the meeting late Monday afternoon with four revised maps for the 8 school districts. The board has until February 4th to reach a final decision. They are hoping to hold another public forum in January. Parents said they would like to have some answers sooner than later.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

Add new comment

North Carolina Reasoning is Amusing.

Submitted by Iknoweverything (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:45pm.

Do you really think that mixing the reduced lunch rate is going to make the failing students succeed?? NO. It will simply make the failing school scores more attractive on the outside. Children will not succeed unless they have support at home.

reading emails

Submitted by VET (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 4:38pm.

I just read comments of people regarding redistricting. I'm pretty much astounded. I'm a vet, a teacher, a parent, an American, etc. and the kind of mentality represented does and doesn't surprise me. The morality involved here in general seems to be survival of the fittest and to hell with our neighbors downtown. Whoa. Lot of clarity there. By the way, where the heck are the Christians out there?--Love your neighbor as yourself? do unto others? . . . . in as much as ye have done it to the least of these ye have done it to me? Every parent should be looking out for HIS OR HER KIDS FIRST--agreed. ONe hundred percent. Just like in a fire--you look out for your kids first. It's normal, natural, the right thing to do. But we have a fire marshall--the board of education!--and their job is to do what is BEST FOR EACH CHILD EQUALLY IN THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM. THEY HAVE THE JOB OF SEEING EACH CHILD AS WITH BLIND EYES (the my child first mentality can become complicated in a society whose constitution suggests each person is due life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) and most any teacher or school administrator can tell you that having an overcrowded classroom of 30 motivated students is better that having a class of 10 with 7 unmotivated . . . . This board is setting up a recipe for disaster if they do not follow common sense and centuries of common educational sense--(and loads of educational research that's out there--all about LEARNING--many don't want to see it). Board, PLEASE DON'T TIP SCHOOLS IN THE DIRECTION OF FAILURE when there is an opportunity to vote plan 3B. I KNOW PEOPLE ARE THREATENING TO VOTE YOU OUT IF YOU DO SO, but think of this: Your allegiance, if it's were it is supposed to be, is to EACH CHILD in the system and to what we know about learning. WHat about the big neighborhood which is Wilmington, and our neighbors, and CHILDREN WHO ARE POOR OR UNMOTIVATED OR DISADVANTAGED through no fault of their own. How many people out there have taught or administered in classrooms or schools where the majority of students are unmotivated (for whatever reason). In most emails I've read here there is no concern, care, or even thought about these dedicated people. I think somebody said teachers should go into BUSINESS?? where the competition is TOUGH and Go Get 'em tiger and all that. It's sad to hear a lot of comments from people who seem to me to use eighth grade logic while hoarding their toy soldiers. On the other hand, I agree that well-reasoned arguments are made FOR neighborhood schools, and I appreciate those. I'm glad we can exchange ideas.

Yes, survival of the fittest

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 5:52pm.

It's the universal law that no amount of coddling, no amount of Socialism, and no amount of sob-sister political correctness can overcome. BTW, teacher - the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Thanks for proving my point about the quality of government education.

survival of the fittest?

Submitted by VET (not verified) on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 1:25pm.

The facts, Commonsenseetc, that you're 1) hooked into the source, rather than the content, of the "life, liberty," mistake and 2) that my mistake "proves" (!) your point, and that 3) you can generalize (!) about the quality of "government education" is indicative to me of your survival of the fittest perspective. You are fit enough to take an argument where you want it to go. God bless you--you will always win, and thus have reason to be proud of yourself. Go get 'em. I'm wondering if you support incubators. Isn't that coddling the non-fit? Did I misunderstand you? Too bad you weren't around in 1865 to support the survival of (unfit?) freed slaves, or in 1940 to support the survival of (unfit?) powerless Jews. (wups, did I miss the date on that, Commonsense?) or in 1898 to get in on the riddance of (unfit?) Wilmingtonians who were not fit enough to survive that riot. Afterall, survival of the fittest is "the universal law that no amount of coddling, no amount of Socialism, and no amount of sob-sister political correctness can overcome." Yours is about as black and white as an argument might be, huh? Are you interested in researching the basic question at hand (learning in schools) --just a little bit, maybe?--to see what experience and valid research has to say about learning in classroooms. Wait. Nevermind, you could care less about "government education." I forgot. You've made that clear. Too many unfit people there, for you, I'm led to assume, or too much unfit thinking, or unfit reasoning, or something like that. BTW, no "survival of the fittest mentality" (found in abundance, among other places, in the chapter and verse of Nazi Germany propaganda) can ever, in my view, morally overcome the sermon on the mount (in concert with certain parables, and any number of humanist propositions). Your universal law, survival of the fittest, and the way you broadcast it, hints to me where you stand on a host of issues. You have many brothers around the world who believe exactly as you do. Fewer sisters. I could get into guilt by association (as you do with "Socialism," "sister," etc.) but I'd like to stay away from guilt by association--- wups, I already did with that Nazi Germany thing, and maybe in other ways--my boo boo. We probably shouldn't do that guilt by association thang--because as you no doubt know, that tactic doesn't go far toward survival in the arena of any kind of serious Debating. Both guilt by association and careless generalizing are, in that arena, seen as unfit. And here I've drifted from the matter of middle school children and their education. Most of those children clearly more unfit that others, huh? There must be a host of the unfit in public education (government education). Because I can't see you abandoning any cause (in favor of private education) where the "fit" need representation and support.

Rave on!

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 3:39pm.

I can always tell when you touchy-feely types get desperate - you start bringing up Nazis, slavery....all sorts of totally unrelated rhetoric designed to fire up emotions rather than logic. You are to be congratulated, however. Normally the only time you folks bring up Chritianity is when they are discussing capital punishment or progressive taxation. (a.k.a. redistribution of wealth). You're the first to claim that Christian principles somehow mandate busing poor kids from poor neighborhoods to attend schools in more affluent areas. Since you're big on research, take the time to research the "success" of busing on improving grades. You'll be sorely disappointed. If the poor want to break the cycle of poverty, no one is in a better position to do it than they are. They could stop having kids they can't afford and taxpayers have to support. They could stop vanishing after they get a woman pregnant. They could stop having children out of wedlock and while still in high school. They could stop using drugs. They could stay out of jail. Most of all they could start being parents and paying attention to the products of their loins. Read to them. Teach them simple addition. Teach them some basic moral values. Trust me - sending them to a school where they will STILL get lousy grades isn't the answer.

rave on 2

Submitted by VET (not verified) on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:12pm.

Let's see, commonsense, you say: "I can always tell when you touchy-feely types get desperate - you start bringing up Nazis, slavery....all sorts of totally unrelated rhetoric designed to fire up emotions rather than logic." Let me get this straight: Socialism, sob-sister, touchy-feely is nonrhetorical language. Gee, I had it all wrong. I had not seen the logic behind your perspective, and the desperation behind mine. And blasting away at the poor as a group--about what all they should do . . . is . . . how brilliant! If not brilliant, it's certainly helpful, I'm now realizing. So . . . You poor people out there whose parents have taught you to read--take notice! (If you are poor and learned to read in school, well, how the heck did that happen?) You win, sir. You've won yet another debate (and I'm guessing you've got a long, long string going). And we need more middle school pricipals with your point of view when dealing with poor children in the NC mountains, Wyoming, Wilmington. These principals should call all these poor children together in an assembly and tell them face to face what they should do. What they should stop doing. So they can be fit, so they can survive in this American culture. It's too bad you, sir, have given up on mediocre "government education" in favor of private education (as I recall from an earlier post). Clearly the way to solve problems is to tell people what they should do. You're right, I was desperate. And the next time I face a group of poor public school children, I'll just tell them what they should DO. Why have I ever thought it was all a little more tricky than that? Something else is becoming clear--if I can just get all the poor children (of poor parents) in a few schools, where they can all fail together, then they won't muddy up the progress and grades of the children of the fit people like you and me. Right on, brother. God Bless, and in Jesus' (born in the low-rent district) name. Amen.

Holding them responsible for their own lives...

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 12:28pm.

...will do a LOT more than busing them out to the suburban schools to be TOTALLY noncompetitive. Of course, when your TRUE goal is to raise EOY performance at the "bad" schools by importing better students, then it really doesn't matter if it won't help those poor kids, does it?

TRUE GOAL?

Submitted by VET (not verified) on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 2:35pm.

No it doesn't matter, it that's your TRUE goal. And it may be the true goal of some folks. But that's not my true goal. So you're talking to somebody else on that one. As far as "helping poor kids" is concerned--given your apparent philosophy--why bother? If poor parents and children won't do what you've told them to do (above), and if parental influence is what makes them learn, couldn't we be using those "government education" teachers and administrators for something else--like, I don't know, spending time with children who are among you and me and the other "fittest." We, after all, aren't poor. We've survived, man! Let's celebrate. Think of the money we could save by not educating the poor (since it does no good), and by raising the overall quality of competitive children so we have have more, better competition and thus more and better learning.

Keep fooling yourself

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 5:22pm.

You know and I know that busing won't raise anyone's grades. The difference is that I'm not willing to try elevating the poor on the backs of the middle and upper class students. The poor aren't poor because their neighborhood schools stink. In this town (and many others), they're likely poor because thirty years of unlimited welfare destroyed the family structure and work ethic in three generations of recipients. (Great to hear that the welfare rolls are exploding again due to modifications included in the "Stimulus" packages, huh?) The only result to this "noble experiment" will be to lower average EOG scores in the "good" schools, and raise the average EOG scores in the "bad" schools. The school board will look great! The bussed kids will be getting up earlier, getting home later, and likely getting the same results they would have attained at their original school. Like everything else in life, the capable will produce, the inept will displace blame for their failure.

Keep dreaming the dream of "fit" and "unfit"

Submitted by VET (not verified) on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 6:01pm.

I'm not concerned about bussing or grades. You are. I'm concerned about chances for learning in classrooms, and decades of experience and research demonstrate that when above 50% of students aren't motivated in a classroom--or school--the problems are compounded and the school is more likely to fail that if we're at 50% or below. This is obvious and simple to most educators. Fewer students will be bussed with the plan that calls a 50% balance and thus increasing chances for learning (-I think you'd rather keep the above 50% in two schools AND increase bussing). . . and as to cross town bussing, I think we're talking maybe 5 miles instead of 3 in some cases--or less. And you and I know that the parent griping about passing two schools to get to a third would gladly pass Williston and Virgo to get to one with fewer of your "unfit" children who've had no control over why they're poor. The displacing blame is mostly in your head, and of course you long ago stated you've given up on government education.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka KS

Submitted by GloryDaze (not verified) on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 6:30pm.

In 1951 Linda Brown complained that her daughter was walking over a mile to school when there was a closer school only a few blocks away.

Little girl Brown was denied access to the school only a few blocks away from her home because of the color of her skin.

Today, more than 60 years later kids in NHC are still denied access to the school closest to them due to race.

Does anyone see how backward that is??

response

Submitted by education10 (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:10pm.

I don't see anything backward but your logic which defies history, power, logic, and any kind of moral view of the world.

Very simple

Submitted by guesty on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 12:37pm.

Child A lives in Pine Valley but due to "socioeconomic equality" is not allowed to go to Myrtle Grove or Roland Grise (both are close) but is bused downtown to Williston. The child isn't allowed to attend the neighborhood school closest to home. Child B lives downtown but doesn't go to Williston but is bused out to Monkey Junction to go to Myrtle Grove. Child B isn't allowed to attend the school closest to home. So now we are not allowing a child to go to a close school due to the amount of green in the parents wallet. Racism of a whole different kind.

Time to be Wise

Submitted by Smart Mom (not verified) on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 10:43am.

Supreme Court "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." That should be enough said. Why do so many think that poverty and race is contagious and are afraid to "expose" their children to the "ills" of the society? Read up before making such ignorant comments. Do you really think, as children, when asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" they responded poor and living in substandard housing? No, they had dreams and somewhere along the line their parents, society and our schools failed them. You can't blame and punish children for adult mistakes and decisions. When you knowingly send kids to failing schools you are doing just that, punishing them. If you despise the fact that those in the poorer neighborhoods "do nothing" all day while you work so hard, then BREAK THE CYCLE GENIUSES!. Educate the children in the schools you deem great and just maybe in 10-15 years they'll become professionals living in your neighborhood. Diversify the neighborhoods and you don't need to bus kids for the sake of equality. Perhaps that is the fear, that your neighbor may not look just like you. Don't be afraid of change, embrace it for the sake of your kids. It gives me great satisfaction to know that there are so many in this county who believe that every child deserves a great education. Its time to focus on creating great schools all over the county and understand that we have to invest in our futures. Invest in educating all kids to the point that they can succeed and overcome obstacles that their parents were hindered from.

Mom

Submitted by Das Weibstück on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:06pm.

"Why do so many think that poverty and race is contagious and are afraid to "expose" their children to the "ills" of the society?" My 5 year old was to be sent (exposed) to the ghetto for his education and then be bussed through the ghetto everyday to get home. I went back to work and paid for private school. "Educate the children in the schools you deem great and just maybe in 10-15 years they'll become professionals living in your neighborhood." Hows that working out?

Tell me please

Submitted by Pine Valley (not verified) on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 8:46pm.

How does my childs good grades help a child with poor grades? When I spend two hours a night helping my child with homework how does that help another child? It is more likely my child will revert to poor grades or be in danger being at a school like Williston and to make it clear my oldest went to Williston and is on her way to grad school after graduating with honors this past weekend from UNCW. Now, how did she get there? Because she worked hard and we taught her to work hard to get where she wants to be not because it was a diversified school! Further more why are there elementry schools with over 75% free lunch and thats ok. Why are all the highschools under 50% free lunch? Seems to work out in the end so the free lunch issue is not an issue. Until the parents at the "Under privledged" schools step up the schools and the kids will not do better. We where members of Willistons PTA we went to one christmas show/meeting, There where more kids than parents!!!! by 3 to 1. Further more we where scared to death leaving the school and driving away after dark. That was the last meeting for my family at that school. Please explain how taking away from a good school in the name of helping a poor school makes no sence at all, there is no possible way it can help anyone involved.

Lets

Submitted by Guest7969 (not verified) on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 12:38pm.

not HIDE the truth here...moving these children into schools that aren't performing to standards does two things, HIDES the problem and wastes tax payer money. Wake County figured this out and is going back to neighborhood schools. The problem here is you have children that have parents that DON'T CARE. You aren't DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM by moving middle class children into these areas. If you want to deal with the PROBLEM and FIX the "cycle" something DIFFERENT is going to need to be done at the failing schools. Why should a child be drug into a failing school to help bring up the scores..THAT is all they want to do. Basically what YOU are saying is that I and my children should be PUNISHED because I decided to better myself and put myself thru college. That is the problem with liberal/socialistic mindsets...you believe that bettering yourself and life is a BAD thing and you must be punished...I can tell you...and the voters are going to side with me in 2012...I WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO TAKE WHAT I HAVE WORKED FOR! If I have to fight for it...I WILL and I won't allow my child to be punished either. Neighborhood schools make sense...but facts never let a liberal/socialist see the light.

Hogwash

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 11:33am.

Society and schools failed them? Nonsense. Neither schools nor society told Susie to get knocked up when she was fourteen and have two more by the time she was twenty. Neither schools nor society told Marcus to drop out at sixteen and sell drugs until he was gunned down in the gutter. What failed them? Absent dads. Dads in jail. Moms who care more about drugs than they do their kids. Moms who do nothing when junior comes home with stolen property. Moms who turn their head when their fouteen year-old stays out until 3 AM and comes home carrying a wad of cash that would choke a horse and a 9mm. I could care less about redistricting because anyone who truly understands the competitive nature of society will exist on a diet of PB&J to allow their kids to go to private school and avoid the dumbed down mediocrity of a government education.

redistricting

Submitted by RESPONSE1 (not verified) on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 4:53pm.

Commonsensenotcommontoday has this to say about redistricting: "I could care less about redistricting because anyone who truly understands the competitive nature of society will exist on a diet of PB&J to allow their kids to go to private school and avoid the dumbed down mediocrity of a government education." My pleasure would be to see him (or her?) cease commenting on things he (she) could care less about. A wonderful fact about our country which is big enough to handle competition and consensus, conflict and harmony, is that there are thousands who care about public education, on both sides of this and many issues--and for good reasons.

Going for average

Submitted by guesty on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 4:48pm.

They are going for an average. They take poor students from schools that don't have any parental involvement and put them in schools that do have parents involved. They hope it doesn't drop that school too far. Then take some of the good students and put them in the poor schools and hope they can raise it up. You can take the student out of the hood but you can't take the hood out of the student.

..but that raises an important question, Guesty

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 12:43pm.

If we assume the nonsensical argument that successful schools are somehow "better" than poor performing schools, how fair is it to take children whose parents fund those "better schools" and send them to the poor performing schools? Let me try to be clear, beacuse as many times as I've re-written that first sentence, it's still pretty vague. If Mister Smith lives in Porter's Neck and his child goes to Laney, while Mister Jones' child (who lives on Tenth Street) goes to New Hanover, take the time to compare the property tax revenue Mister Smith pays to that which Mister Jones pays. Doesn't the Smith kid have a "right" to attend the better school in his own neighborhood? His daddy has paid for it. Of course, that's all a theoretical argument and there are no "better" schools. If the schools have a difference in performance and scores, shuffling the kids around isn't going to solve anything. Success in school is directly related to early, pre-school education by parents, parental involvement once the child is in school, and high quality teachers teaching a good curriculum. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear no matter how far you bus it.

sows ear

Submitted by greenie (not verified) on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 12:26pm.

The only hole in the last part of your postulation is that there are some low income, inner city, high performers who exceed expectations. However, I do not believe in bussing kids all over creation due to waste (carbon emissions), lack of statistical data to support any collective gain in educational achievement, and the loss of sense of community. The sad fact is that there are some local, bright, very high income children that get involved with drugs and unwanted pregnancy. Good parenting only goes so far. I have sympathy for the parents that have done all they possibly could (to include psychiatric help and rehab) to "save" their kids to no avail... I guess my point is that I agree partially - neighborhood schools are tied to real estate values and the very reason why some people buy in a certain area. And bussing past two schools to achieve a racial or economic balance is reverse discrimination (and wasteful).

I agree with common

Submitted by guesty on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 10:02am.

If parents are not involved or even care about their children or education, it won't matter where they go to school. You make a great point about the different amounts of property tax paid. If we wanted our son to go to Williston we would have bought a house downtown. Myrtle Grove is the middle school for the area we did buy our house back in 2005. Now they want to change that. It is funny to look at the map for Myrtle Grove while it covers the Monkey Junction area, most of Pine Valley, Echo Farms and a small section of downtown. Roland-Grise is the same way. It has everything else that Myrtle Grove doesn't as well as a section of downtown. It is well apparent which students come from the downtown area by their behavior, lack of respect to school personal and clothing appearance. Before some folks start to cry, notice I didn't say anything about race.

Wow

Submitted by Educator (not verified) on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 10:16pm.

It is so unfortunate to view the pervasive opinions of those who want their children to attend schools that have such little diversity. What these parents fail to see are the benefits that such an environment has on all children, rich, poor, black, white, hispanic. As an educator, the beauty of teaching in public school is seeing our children develop into caring, accepting individuals, who view the world on a global scale, and who care about issues both inside and outside of their home and neighborhood. In order to grow into young adults with the twentifirst century skills needed to be successful in a globally competitive market, students must be able to work collaboratively in a diverse setting. Heaven forbid we do what is best for all children, and all teachers, in our community by creating schools that provide positive opportunities to break racial and cultural boundaries in our community.

Thanks for that load of bovine droppings!

Submitted by Commonsensenotc... on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 6:28pm.

Can we all join hands and sing "Kumbayah" now? Obviously "survival of the fittest" doesn't exist in your fantasy world, does it? Perhaps if you had chosen the business world instead of teaching, you'd know that it is very much a factor in everyday life. When I interview a candidate, I don't care how well he or she plays with others. I care about knowledge, drive, and motivation. White, Black, Brown, Red, or Yellow, he or she better know how to dress, how to speak, how to write, and how to follow instructions. They also better be able to think on their feet and make smart decisions when initiative is the order of the day. Strange - when you hire people from the same economic and educational background, diversity never seems to be an issue. Whatever the color, they seem to get along fine. I also want what's best for **MY** kids and grandkids. You should want what's best for YOUR kids and grandkids. I'd rather have my grandkkids graduate with a thorough knowledge of Economics, World and U.S. History, then learn about "working collaboratively in a diverse setting."

deversity?>

Submitted by Jesus Lopez (not verified) on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 10:15am.

Just another example of redistribution of wealth by these Liberal idiots..... Can you imagine what the value of my house would be if the school district was one of these none performing schools downtown? If I wanted to live downtown in low income housing, send my kids to school for free lunch and spend the day with teachers who would really rather be some where else and not have to deal with the problem, then I would have done nothing for the last 20 years of my life instead of busting my tail to make sure this didn't happen to my kids! Come on people, fix the problem! Don't redistribute!

How about this

Submitted by Guest3418 (not verified) on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 8:16am.

If you want to pick the school your child goes to, drive them yourself. Otherwise..cut out the bussing. No excuse for it.Bussing is a waste of taxpayers money and a waste of time for the child. Do what you can to make your own schools better rather than trash them and complain about the schools. And quit complaining.

Excellent

Submitted by WilmingtonMAJ on Tue, 12/15/2009 - 11:42am.

Excellent posting Guest...I couldn't agree more!

I can't believe I'm about to say this...

Submitted by Guest1029 (not verified) on Wed, 12/16/2009 - 5:13pm.

but for once I completely agree with Wilmington MAJ!!! Our daughter is starting kindergarten next year, and we are willing to drive 30 minutes each morning and afternoon in order to have her in a school that we think would give her the best educational experience. We just aren't pleased with the school we're zoned for, so we chose a charter school - it was the best decision for us; and we are willing to make the sacrifices that are required. I don't agree with bussing our kids past 3 schools each day, but I also think that if you are unhappy with the school in your own neighborhood, then the responsibility to do something else is yours...you can't ask the taxpayers and the city to fix it for you.

Uh..

Submitted by Guest7969 (not verified) on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 3:26pm.

30 minutes...LOL better add some time to that one if your going across the bridge TWICE a day...cause you more than likely will hit a bridge up or wreck somewhere along the way..

Primary links