Chicago Tries Student Assignment Based on SES; Outrage Ensues

As I’ve written about before, districts across the country have been toying with the idea of putting into place student assignment systems based on socioeconomic status (SES) rather than race, especially in light of the Seattle/Louisville decision which makes the use of race in assigning students a no-no.  Chicago has recently taken the leap, but not everybody is happy about it.  Via the Chicago Sun-Times:

A new admissions policy for elite Chicago public schools is little more than a plot to free up seats for middle-class white families tired of paying private school tuition, black aldermen charged Monday.

The new policy followed a federal judge’s decision to void a 1980 desegregation consent decree that let CPS use race to decide admissions to the coveted schools. Now, census tracts, neighborhood income levels and other socio-economic indicators will be determining factors.

Here’s the problem for Chicago: since the 1980 consent decree has been voided, then legally, it can’t use race explicitly to assign students to schools.  There’s a legitimate argument that using SES instead of race will still equal diversity, but dissenters in Chicago see a different side of the story.  Echoing, in some ways, testimony from our own rezoning case, Spurlock v. Fox, 9th District Alderman Anthony Beale said,

“You guys are basically changing the system to accommodate them. That’s the bottom line. . . . It’s unjust. . . . You’re gonna isolate those [minority families] who have been getting their kids into these schools to make it more amenable to the [white] people . . . who are tired of paying [private school] tuition.”

There’s the problem — some plans that grew out of desegregation, which use race explicitly to balance out student assignment and create diversity, can no longer be maintained under the new Supreme Court regime.  Instead, Districts are struggling to find ways to create diverse (and fair) student assignment plans.  However, these new plans don’t always work the same way as the old ones, and that’s certainly going to rub at least some people (regardless of race) in the community the wrong way.  Good luck, Chicago: I certainly respect the struggle and what you’re trying to do.

 

Overpaid Wall Street Private School Dad Throws a Hissy Fit

Gawker has the story via Dealbreaker (h/t Alexander Russo)

Hugh “Skip” McGee III has a rumored $25 million salary at Barclays, and he finds lefties and lesbians just sickening. In an epic letter to the board of his son’s school, he implores the “silent majority” to strike back.

It seems that John Edward, Skip’s son, wanted to perform a skit at a pep rally with some friends of his from the football team dressed in cheerleader costumes.  Cross-dressing fun, you say?  Au contraire.  From the letter itself:

A key event in the week was the Friday afternoon pep rally. Being her usual super-organized self, Peggy met early in the week with Mickey Saltman and went over the pep rally in detail, including a typed script. At the end of this session, I am told Mickey “high fived” Peggy and told her all was OK. One of the skits involved the classic routine of the seniors on the football team dressing up as EHS cheerleaders and doing a brief cheer followed by some clumsy cartwheels. Teams of moms went to work on making skirts big enough for the boys, while others fanned out across Houston in search of wigs, pom- poms and megaphones in the correct shade of blue. Seeing the boys practice all week in the gym, in the hallway and outside in the courtyard created a sense of anticipation for Friday afternoon (and gave everybody an idea of what the skit would be).

Friday afternoon arrived and the theater filled up with students, parents, grandparents and faculty, all eagerly awaiting the show. Just minutes before the skit was to begin, (Governing Council President and Master of Ceremonies) came backstage and told the boys that their portion of the skit was cancelled. The assembled moms pushed back and said “you have got to be kidding.” The seniors posing as cheerleaders was the punchline to the pep rally.    said no, that under the order of Mr. Saltman, the act was cancelled. Another mom said “such an order can only come from the Administration. Where is Mr. Saltman?” After all the effort and preparation and with the crowd anxiously anticipating something, and no “official” word from Mr. Saltman, the boys shed the balloons from their shirts, exchanged their skirts for khakis, and proceeded to the stage. After getting through one line of their act, Mr. Saltman finally appeared at the back of the theater and, pointing with his finger, yelled at the top of his lungs, “I told you not to do this! This pep rally is over!” The boys were humiliated as they milled about on stage and the crowd murmured in disbelief. The parents and grandparents were shocked. What a way to send the team off to the championship game! I have never seen the air taken out of a room like that.

Gasp!  The goofy football players weren’t allowed to prance around in skirts!  Oh noes!

How does Skip feel about all this?  Not good, my friend:

I am writing to you today with a heavy heart but also with a strong sense of obligation. I am sad that things have gotten to the point they have at Kinkaid but feel I must speak up on behalf of the “silent majority” before the situation gets to a point of no return. …While it has been a very slow and gradual process, I submit to you that the values, methods, beliefs and actions of the current Administration are not in synch [sic] with those of the majority of your students, families, alumni, with the original charter of the school, or with the views of this Board. So this letter is about much more than a cancelled pep rally—it’s about taking back control of the Kinkaid School.

They can take our lives … But they’ll never take … OUR FREEDOM!

You can read the rest of the letter yourself (and I strongly encourage it).  There’s a bunch more vaguely anti-homosexual stuff and, just for kicks, a major crusade against a “leftist” teacher (“So, if it were my decision, Leslie Lovett should be terminated immediately.”).

You know, I taught in an urban public school, and often trotted out the tired truism (to make me feel better) that, though things might be bad, one of the major downsides of teaching in suburban or private schools was dealing with obnoxious parents.  His Majesty Mr. McGee certainly proves that one right.  Just one final taste of his arrogance:

It is time for a change of direction, and it is time for the Board of Trustees to act. Like many other families, the McGees will be watching closely. We pulled our oldest child (Katie) from Kinkaid years ago due to concerns over the middle school experience, and she subsequently flourished at St. Johns (she is now a senior at Princeton). John Ed’s group of friends is what has kept us here at Kinkaid. They are now all graduating. Sadly, we may find ourselves forced to leave Kinkaid once again for the benefit of our third child, Lizzy, who is currently an 8th grader, as four more years of “status quo” is rather unappealing. Many, many parents have expressed the same concerns I have but they are worried about getting their seniors into college—I am not. Many are concerned about whether they can change schools – I am not, as I know St. Johns will take another McGee in a heartbeat. So on behalf of the “silent majority,” I tell you that this cancelled pep rally is the “tipping point” for many families.

Goodness gracious.

Gun on the Hillsboro High School Campus

Maybe going to Hillsboro HS isn’t all that and a bag of chips* after all.  Via the City Paper:

A 17-year-old Hillsboro High School junior was arrested Monday afternoon for bringing a 9-mm handgun to school in his SUV, Metro Police said.

The money quote:

The student told the officers the gun was for recreational target practice.

Nice.

 

*Please excuse the dreadfully outdated slang.  I really am hip and with it.  I promise.

Calculating Racial Isolation

On day 11 of the Spurlock v. Fox hearing, the Defense called an expert witness, Milan Mueller, to testify about the demographics of MNPS pre- and post-implementation of the new rezoning plan.  Mr. Mueller testified that he used a 90% number to designate a school as racially isolated, but Plaintiffs’ Attorney Woods challenged his use of that number on cross-examination, mentioning at least one other case that used 75% as the cut-off for the percentage of students of a single race that would make a school racially isolated.  So what’s the deal?  Which number is correct?  And, if 90% isn’t what we should be using, what effect would it have on the claims of the Defendants or Plaintiffs regarding the demographic effects in the Spurlock case?

At least one court, the Middle District of Florida, has confronted the issue and has done a broad case survey.  In Manning v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, FL (1995 WL 1773810; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22267), the court confronted the problem of how to measure “racial isolation” (here: “racial identification.”):

The parties also dispute what measure determines whether a school is “racially identifiable”.

Plaintiffs point out that this Court has stated that “[a] school with a majority black population would undoubtedly be identifiable as a black school. The racial identification of schools is the antithesis of a unitary school system.” Mannings v. School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida, 151 F.R.D. 133, 136 (M.D.Fla.1993). That published decision concerned a motion to intervene by persons objecting to the middle school Task Force Report. In the course of addressing the proposed intervenors’ objections that black students cannot maintain a majority of the school population in black communities, the Court made the above-quoted statement.

Defendants argue that the precise definition of a racially identifiable school was not at issue in the motion to intervene and the Court’s pronouncement was dicta. Moreover, Defendants argue that inquiry into racial identifiability of its schools is premature at this point because the Court has not yet been asked to determine whether the Hillsborough County public school system has attained unitary status.

…While the instant litigation does not involve a determination of unitary status, this Court may wish to determine what percentage of minority or majority race students shall be used to define racially identifiable schools in Hillsborough County.

..Plaintiffs’ consultant, Dr. Stevens, defines a racially identifiable school as one which has 40% or more black students because “once you get schools that are running 20 points or more at variance from the district-wide average, racial identifiability is a fact of life and becomes a reality for that school.” (T2-110) He states that one-third of all black elementary students in Hillsborough County are attending schools which are more than 40% black. (T2-218)

The courts have wrestled with the definition of what constitutes a racially identifiable school. See e.g. Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 320 (1st Cir.1987)(declining to consider whether 80% or 90% minority enrollment makes a school racially identifiable while stating that 75% was too low a figure for Boston schools); see also Riddick by Riddick v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 784 F.2d 521, 533 (4th Cir.) (a racially identifiable school has fewer than 30% or more than 70% minority or non-minority students), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 938 (1986); Yarborough v. Hulbert-West Memphis School District No. 4, 457 F.2d 333, 334 (8th Cir.1972) (no fewer than 30% of the minority race at each school); Diaz v. San Jose Unified School District, 633 F.Supp. 808, 813 (N.D.Cal.1989) (a desegregated school is one with at least 20% majority and at least 20% minority students; noting expert testimony that “an ethnic group would risk continued isolation if it did not represent at least 20% of the student body at a given school”), aff’d 861 F.2d 591 (9th Cir.1988).[11]

11. One Eleventh Circuit opinion which was subsequently vacated stated in a footnote that a school which was 64% black was clearly not racially identifiable while a school which would be 94% black clearly would be. Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., 970 F.2d 767,774 n. 23 (11th Cir.1992) vacated, 987 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir.1993).

Some courts have focused on the extent to which black student enrollments vary from district-wide enrollment ratios. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, 1307 (8th Cir.1988) (a racially identifiable black elementary school is one having a black student enrollment in excess of the applicable range of variance from the system-wide percentage of black students, citing Penick. v. Columbus Board of Education, 583 F.2d 787, 799 (6th Cir.1978), aff’d 443 U.S. 449 (1979)); Stell v. Board of Pub. Educ. for Savannah, 860 F.Supp. 1563, 1574-80 (S.D.Ga.1994)(aim of desegregation order was to bring all schools, to the extent practicable, within +/-20 percent of district-wide ratio).

This court rightly grappled with the question of what the threshold should be for a racially isolated or identifiable school.  Significantly, however, most courts have not adopted anything near a 90% number, going more often with 80% or lower. Another option is to look at variance from overall district racial makeup.

Note: Creating a plan based on this sort of “variance” system would almost certainly run afoul of the 2007 Supreme Court case (about which a post is forthcoming), Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (the Seattle/Louisville case), where the Seattle School System designed a student assignment plan to keep racial balances in the high school approximating those of the district as a whole.

Notes from a few other cases:

• Missouri v. Jenkins (515 U.S. 70, 90)(1995): “Thus, the proper response by the District Court should have been to eliminate to the extent practicable the vestiges of prior de jure segregation within the KCMSD: a systemwide reduction in student achievement and the existence of 25 racially identifiable schools with a population of over 90% black students.”
• Tasby v. Wright (713 F.2d 90, n.10)(1983): “The district court defined a “one-race school” as a school that “has a student body with approximately 90% or more of the students being either of anglo or combined minority races,” 520 F.Supp. at 707, and a “predominately one-race school” as a school with a 75%/25% racial ratio. Id. at 711. The court borrowed the 75%/25% standard from its earlier definition of a naturally integrated school and noted that it was the measure of a racially identifiable school used by Justice Powell in his dissent from the dismissal of certiorari in the appeal from our earlier opinion, Estes v. Metropolitan Branches of the Dallas NAACP, 444 U.S. 437, 442, 100 S.Ct. 716, 718, 62 L.Ed.2d 626 (1980). 520 F.Supp. at 709 n. 57. The district court noted further that the parties on both sides of this litigation had used the 70-75% figure as a measure of a desegregated environment and that there is a basis for this standard in experience and common sense, as borne out by the pertinent social science literature. Research by various experts indicates that for effective participation and healthy interpersonal interaction among students, an ethnic or racial group in the numerical minority should ordinarily comprise at least 20% of the student body. Twenty-five percent gives a group a “presence” in a school, and is a sufficient number to form an effective bloc. Also, when historical trends are examined it appears that once a school, which had previously been virtually all-anglo, attains a 25% minority representation, it is very likely that this percentage representation will increase, rather than stay constant or decrease.”
• Morgan v. Nucci (831 F.2d 313, 320)(1987): “We decline to decide whether 80 percent or 90 percent is a better gauge of racial identifiability in the Boston schools, for under either standard we do not find that the number of one-race schools indicates a constitutionally impermissible level of segregation. . . . Applying either an 80 percent or 90 percent standard, and taking into account that all of the one-race schools are in compliance with the court’s orders, it does not appear that the number of one-race schools in Boston precludes a finding of unitariness in the student assignment process.”

Based on the cases out there, it looks like there is some support for using numbers between 75% and 90%, but that a slim majority tends to trend downwards.

Either way you cut it, though, analyzing the effects of the school rezoning plan a different way (either by using a lower number like 75% or 80% to represent racial isolation or using a ± 20% off overall district demographics to designate racial isolation) would likely yield fairly different numbers.  Of all the schools in Metro, (based on publicly available 2008-2009 numbers), the schools below would not be counted as “racially isolated” using a 90% cut-off, but would be “racially isolated” using a 75% cut-off:

Maplewood High School (80% black)

Whites Creek High School (85.1% black)

Creswell Middle Arts Magnet (86.1% black)

maybe (depending on the new data) Bailey Middle School (74.3% black)

KIPP Academy (88.1% black)

LEAD Academy (89.6% black)

Alex Green Elementary (86.1%)

Bordeaux Enhanced Option School (89.1% black)

Carter-Lawrence Magnet Elementary (83.8% black)

Cumberland Elementary (87.5% black)

Fall-Hamilton Enhanced Option School (74.7% black — rounded up)

Harpeth Valley Elementary (77.9% white)

Hull-Jackson Montessori Magnet Elementary (82.4% black)

Inglewood Elementary (81.2% black)

maybe Andrew Jackson Elementary (74% white)

Kirkpatrick Enhanced Option School (89.3% black)

Ross Elementary (80.5% black)

Warner Enhanced Option School (88.9% black)

Even if you leave out the charters and the magnets, that’s still an additional 10-12 MNPS schools (aside from the ones that have 90% or more minority students and would be captured by Mr. Mueller’s definition) that would change from “not racially isolated” to “racially isolated,” depending on the methodology used (90% vs. 75%).  In a system of 137 schools, that could roughly equal a 10% increase of racial isolation in the system, a pretty large bump in my opinion.

The point of this post is that the Defense, in using a 90% cut-off as a signifier of “racial isolation” may be underselling the amount of racially isolated schools in Metro.  At the very least, there is a legitimate argument over what number should be used, an argument that will almost certainly (or should, anyway) show up in both sides’ briefs to Judge Nixon, and an issue that he will have to study carefully, especially as it relates to segregative impact.

EDIT (12/1, 11:17 am): Just for reference, according to the 2007-2008 Facts about MNPS, the district is 48.18% black, 14.35% hispanic, and 34.06% white.

Seriously, Though: Lottery Tickets Probably Aren’t a Good Gift For Kids

From KAKE in Kansas, a story cognizant of the (apparent) youth gambling epidemic:

Results from a recent study showed that 19% of high school students received one or more lottery tickets or scratch cards as gifts, of which 86% came from a family member. This, coupled with the growing concern of adolescent problem gambling, prompted the National Council on Problem Gambling, the International Centre for Youth Gambling problems and High-Risk Behaviors at McGill University, the Kansas Lottery, and other lotteries around the world to collaborate this holiday season to increase public awareness about the effect of giving lottery products as gifts to minors.

I just gotta ask, are people giving unscratched lottery tickets as gifts?  ‘Cause if so, there’s a good chance that you’re giving the recipient something worthless (if the ticket doesn’t pay out).  What kind of a gift is that?  Maybe some sort of lame stocking-stuffer?  Bad idea all around…  Sheesh.

The History of School Desegregation in Nashville [and upcoming posts]

Just a quick one, folks.  I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving — I’ve come out the other side with more work than I imagined, so this one will be short.  First, a preview of some upcoming posts:

• Calculating Racial Isolation: What percentage of minority students makes a racially isolated school?  What percentages have courts used?  Would a different number have made a difference in the Spurlock v. Fox case?
• The Seattle/Louisville case: The Supreme Court case prominently mentioned by Mark North during his testimony knocked down two progressive, race-conscious student assignment systems in both a post-segregation (Louisville) and non-segregation (Seattle) context.  What exactly does this case say, and what bearing does it have on the Spurlock case?
• Smrekar/Goldring: The lynch-pin piece of research to which the Plaintiffs in Spurlock referred constantly.  Mark North thought the recommendations of the Task Force basically followed the prescriptions of the article.  The Plaintiffs clearly disagreed.  What does the article actually say and recommend?

In the meantime, you should really check out this article by John Egerton, entitled “Walking into History: The Beginning of School Desegregation in Nashville.”  It’s a fascinating look (with pictures!) at the beginning of school desegregation in Nashville, as well the troubles and violence that ensued.

 

Spurlock v. Fox Day 11 Wrap-Up

Sorry this took so long, but here it is: The wrap-up for the last day of the trial I attended (the second-to-last day overall).

The next-to-last day of the Spurlock v. Fox hearing featured two witnesses, an expert witness for the Defense named Milan Mueller (of the Omega Group), and Chris Henson, CFO of Metro Schools.  Mr. Mueller testified first.  Mr. Mueller’s testimony began with a discussion of his qualifications and job.  Mr. Mueller is President of the Omega Group, a firm that consults with municipalities concerning police coverage, fire coverage, and education, among other areas.  Mr. Mueller’s background is in geography, with a focus on demography and planning.  He testified that he has worked with hundreds of districts on their student assignment and rezoning plans.  Early on in his testimony, Mr. Mueller made a key point:

He testified that he considered a “racially isolated” (read: segregated) school to be one that has a student body composed of 90% or more of a single race.

As a preliminary matter, Defense Attorney Klein jumped right into a summary of Mr. Mueller’s opinions.  Echoing other witnesses, Mr. Mueller stated:

“The new plan offered more choices to the students than the old plan” and that districts across the county have been moving away from noncontiguous zones and towards more choice.  As well, Mr. Mueller stated that he “believe[s] that Nashville to to be more progressive in their choice plan.”  Later, Mr. Mueller added, “The District increased the number of choices for students as to where they could attend school.”

On school utilization, Mr. Mueller stated:

“The number of underutilized schools decreased from the old plan to the new plan.”

Mr. Mueller also noted that school utilization rates were affected by student-teacher ratios.

In a bit of testimony no doubt surprising to the Plaintiffs and many Nashvillians, Mr. Mueller stated:

“[T]he new student assignment plan increased diversity throughout the district,” the data showed him that “over time, diversity is increasing throughout the District” (due, in part, to the growth of the Hispanic population), and that “the new student assignment plan increased diversity.”

Mr. Mueller then went on to discuss his definition of diversity.  One measure, he testified, was whether there was any single race comprising 50% or more of the students at a school.  On that measure, MNPS schools became more diverse from the 2007/2008 school year up through the current 2008/2009 school year.  According to his analysis, the number of schools with 50% or more of a single race, year over year, looked like this:

	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010
Black*	65	62	58
White*	27	30	28
Hispanic*	5	5	2

*Schools with >50% of the population of this race

Another measure of diversity, according to Mr. Mueller’s testimony, was whether a school was “racially isolated,” which he defined, again, as a school which has 90% or more of its students belonging to a single race.  Based on this methodology, Mr. Mueller calculated that there was

“[A] minimal impact on isolation” at Pearl-Cohn and that “[t]he plan did not increase isolation.”

According to his calculations, the number of racially isolated schools, year over year, looked like this:

2003-2004	2004-2005	2005-2006	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009
12	10	12	15	10	10

Overall, Mr. Mueller admitted, the percentage of black students at Pearl-Cohn did increase (from 89.6% to >90%), but when asked his opinion about why this happened, Mr. Muller said,

“I attribute that change to the parents exercising their choice,” reiterating this point later saying some change in demographics should be “attributed to families making that choice.”

Finally, on the issue of rezoning Germantown and Downtown into the Pearl-Cohn cluster, Mr. Mueller echoed Mark North and others in their testimony, opining that such a decision resulted in

“[B]ringing in a greater mix in socioeconomic status background, which can have long-term implications . . . for the region.”

Asked, one last time, to summarize his opinions, Mr. Mueller did so thusly:

1. The plan “does not have a segregative effect.”
2. There is “increased diversity” with the new plan over the old plan.
3. There are an “increased number of choices” now available that were not before.
4. There is also the availability of transportation.

Cross-Examination

Mr. Woods led off his cross-examination with a fairly standard effort to call into question the witness’ bias, finally finishing his questioning with the quip,

“So that’s what?  $30,000 for a three-page report?”

In perhaps the most compelling bit of testimony heard in days, Mr. Woods then engaged Mr. Mueller on the subject of his methodology, specifically questioning the 90% number that Mr. Mueller used to determine whether a school was “racially isolated.”  Mr. Woods pointed out the case of N.A.A.C.P., Jacksonville Branch v. Duval County School (273 F.3d 960), a school segregation case in which, by agreement of the parties, “an identifiably black school ha[d] a student body over 75% black” (273 F.3d at 962 n.4).  Mr. Woods then made the key point:

Depending on the definition of “racially isolated” used, there may appear to be a greater or fewer number of racially isolated schools in a district.  Specifically, by using such a high number (90%), the Defense was artificially lowering the number of racially isolated schools that show up on a demographic analysis.

Unfortunately, Mr. Woods did not present how many schools would be considered racially isolated in MNPS using his 75% methodology, nor was a satisfactory answer given as to why either number should be preferred.  Latching on to this line of questioning, Mr. Woods asked,

Doesn’t using 90% instead of 75% “minimize the impact” of racial isolation caused by the rezoning plan?

Mr. Mueller demurred, and Mr. Woods asked instead if he had testified during direct examination that the increase in black students in the Pearl-Cohn cluster was “insignificant,” followed by a question on whether Mr. Mueller considered the 630 children that this increase represented to be “insignificant.”  The final piece of this discussion was a question by Mr. Woods on whether any research, aside from a single case cited by Mr. Mueller, supported the use of the 90% number, to which Mr. Muller replied vaguely that “some other” research did.  Finally, Mr. Woods asked if Mr. Mueller considered a school with between 80 and 89% of one race to be racially isolated, to which Mr. Mueller responded,

“No.”

On the issue of choice, Mr. Woods asked Mr. Mueller if he agreed with the statement, “The choice between a good school and a bad school, that’s not a choice.”  There was some confusion, and attempt to give a vague answer, but Judge Nixon interrupted.  He asked Mr. Mueller,

Whether such a choice is a “realistic choice,” further asking, “So you think a parent would choose a bad school for that child?”

Whether or not this question from Judge Nixon is an indication of his thoughts/possible leanings on this issue or the outcome of the case remains to be seen.  At this point, Mr. Woods asked if Mr. Mueller had ever studied the possibility of assigning students in a district based on socioeconomic status (a topic on which I have posted), or whether it is a possibility that should be “looked at.”  Mr. Mueller replied that socioeconomic status is “usually not the deciding factor” in school assignment plans.  When Mr. Woods attempted to restate the question (i.e. “Should plans that assign students based on socioeconomic status be considered?”), Mr. Klein objected, which objection was sustained.

At this point, Mr. Woods returned to the topic of Mr. Mueller’s definition of diversity.

One of Mr. Mueller’s other definitions of diversity was a school with three or more racial groups with 10% or more of each race represented.

Mr. Woods asked whether this meant that a school comprised of 80% black students, 10% white students, and 10% Hispanic students would be considered “diverse,” but Mr. Mueller said that it would not, based on his final definition of diversity (mentioned above):

A school in which there is no race that has a 50% or greater majority.

Soon thereafter there was some discussion as to whether this 50% or less definition of diversity was included in Mr. Mueller’s demographic analysis and reports, with the result being that it was included in some reports, but not included in some exhibits.  Mr. Woods then pointed out that, of 137 total schools in MNPS, less than half would be considered “diverse” under Mr. Mueller’s definitions.  Mr. Woods asked if this was an “acceptable performance,” to which Mr. Mueller responded:

There “has been an increasing number every single year.”

Finally on this topic, Mr. Woods asked if applying the 50% ceiling would have “lowered the number of diverse schools,” to which Mr. Mueller responded:

“Yes.”

This result would be because some of the schools considered “diverse” under Mr. Mueller’s calculations (which were used to support his overall conclusion that MNPS had become more diverse as a result of the rezoning plan) included schools labeled “diverse” which had a large majority of one race, but greater than 10% majorities of at least two other races (the 80-10-10 example Mr. Woods mentioned earlier in cross-examination).  Mr. Woods also pointed out that Westmeade got a “lot whiter” (i.e. this is where the 600 students that moved into the Pearl-Cohn cluster came from).

Finally, Mr. Woods inquired as to whether a plan could have been designed with the goal of less 90% or higher single-race concentration schools in mind.  Mr. Mueller initially said he was unprepared to answer the question that that it came down to the assumptions of the District.  Mr. Woods replied,

“The way the student assignment plan comes out has a lot to do with the way you want it to come out — the parameters you set.”

Rephrasing, Mr. Woods asked if MNPS could have designed the plan with fewer 90% schools, with an interjection from Judge Nixon as follows:

“…if that had been the highest priority.”

Mr. Mueller’s answers were:

“I suppose so” and “Yes.”

After a short redirect, Mr. Mueller was excused and the Defense called its next witness, Mr. Chris Henson, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of MNPS.

Chris Henson

Credit: The City Paper

Mr. Henson’s testimony was geared towards one simple fact (and was cut short several times by the judge in the interests of efficiency): The “extra funds” that the Task Force recommended be applied towards the rezoned districts that could possibly experience an influx of high-poverty students (i.e. Pearl-Cohn) were 1) included in the 2009-2010 MNPS budget, and 2) currently being paid out and/or implemented.  Mr. Woods offered numerous times to stipulate to these facts.  The actual extra resources are included in the 2009-2010 budget description and, according to Mr. Henson, totaled an additional $5,347,400 in resource outlays.

The cross-examination of Mr. Henson was geared around a few key points:

1. The rezoning plan didn’t actually save MNPS any money, though many Defense witnesses testified that this was a key (if not the key) objective
2. Wharton Elementary School has no Pre-K this year because of actions taken directly related to the new student assignment plan
3. Pearl-Cohn was not “fresh-started” and thus the same teachers as had been there before the new rezoning plan 1) got the “bonus” professional development days (which equaled the same amount of pay as the 5% raise the fresh-started school employees received), and 2) the same teachers who get a somewhat dismal yearly ACT average out of their students would be teaching the additional AP classes, which were part of the “extra resources” given to the Pearl-Cohn cluster.

That, with the exception of Director of Schools Jesse Register’s testimony on Friday, November 20th, was the end of the evidence before Judge Nixon.  As Jeff Woods and Clay Carey have reported, Judge Nixon has urged the parties to try to settle the case.  Barring that, both sides now have an opportunity to brief the issues of fact and law for the judge, after which he may call for arguments (but probably not), and make his decision.  My guess is that we won’t have a decision until mid- to late January, at best.  Stay tuned in the next few days for a full wrap-up of the case, along with analysis and predictions.

Campfield: It’s Not That We’re Not Educated, It’s That Dey Took Hurr Jobs

Le sigh.

Rep. Campfield (I need to get some new reading, but he’s one of a small-ish number of Tennessee legislators who have blogs and he posts on education issues) takes stock of an article in the Knoxville News Sentinel about the new VW plant in East Tennessee and the droves of applicants it’s attracting.  George Korda, in the News-Sentinel piece, focuses on the need for education (since the positions require at least a 2-year degree):

That’s the future – as well as the present – McIntyre said. The days of a young person in the U.S. dropping out of high school, or barely graduating, and finding a job that will create a good living are disappearing. Rapidly.

Teachers, Brewer said, are being asked to do more than ever. Along with teaching classes they are acting as de facto guidance counselors, dealing with the No Child Left Behind legislation and staring down the barrel of ever more stringent state and federal requirements.

He said his conversations and interviews with area business owners indicate that they are thinking about their workforce five and 10 years down the road. They are concerned about the education level of the workers who will be available to them.

The problem is evident in the numbers.

According to the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Tennessee had a 69.5 percent 2006 graduation rate, placing the state 32nd in the nation.

But Rep. Campfield takes a different road, “see[ing] the need in areas bigger then education.”  His point, such as it is, is that Tennessee has more than enough people graduating from college to fill those 2,000 jobs (there are expected to be over 100,000 applications for these 2,000 available jobs), and that the lack of jobs, not education, is the real problem:

Well, lets do some math. In the article it talks about how 40,000 people had already applied for a job at the new VW plant. 100,000 were expected to try and fill the 2,000 positions. Probably the known stipulation that a two year diploma was required to get a job kept some away.

Fine. Lets just say at least half of them knew and fit the requirement going in. No, Lets make it even harder then that. Lets say only one in ten had the requirement. Even though Tennessee has a much higher college graduation rate then that (it is in the mid 20’s) we still have at least 4,000 well educated and qualified people to fill 2,000 job openings and that is an absolute minimum. I would expect it is more like half to two thirds knew and have the education and qualifications to fit the bill. That is more like ten people trying to fill every position. If we double the number of college graduates or even tripled it, would that suddenly in and of itself produce more jobs? No. You would just have 8,000 or 12,000 qualified and educated people trying to fill those same 2,000 jobs. Lack of a good education is obviously not the only thing holding people back from a good future.

The problem is clearly more a lack of jobs no matter what the qualifications are. Not the lack for educated people to fill those positions. What are we competing against? places like India, China and Japan who have an innovative, educated workforce willing to work at the same type job for pennies on the dollar compared to US employees.

I can’t help but sigh.  Rep. Campfield is right, in that he’s saying that lack of education is not the only thing keeping folks from getting jobs, but it sure is more of a big deal than his exploration into statistical modeling would lead us to believe.  Let’s not get distracted here — the jobs of the future are going to require a MUCH higher level of education than the jobs of the 20th century.  It’s a fact of life.  So while we certainly need to focus on creating jobs in the United States, an arguably more important focus is to train our citizens to be able to fill those jobs, both a home and abroad.  After all, it’s bright, curious, intellectually-stimulated people who made the United States into history’s greatest innovation incubator and inventatorium™.  Let’s nurture those people and encourage the kids who might want to drop out or skip college to find something they’re interested in and get ready to create the future.

In fact, to give him credit, that’s where Rep. Campfield eventually ends up:

Education is great and yes, it is an important part. But if we do not start developing our own next generation of inventors or business people like Henry Ford (who they say couldn’t print his own name) then no matter how educated we are, we will be in trouble. Our governors and presidents will forever be recruiting factories overseas. We will forever be begging for scraps off another mans table instead of dining at our own banquet of success.

I wish our guber candidates, instead of always talking about how with a new super educated student what a great foreign job recruiter they will suddenly be, would once in a while talk about how they will start motivating, incentivizing our own people and companies to start, expand and stay here.

My only problem is with the nascently negative view lurking in Rep. Campfield’s tone.  “Education is great and yes, it is an important part.”  You can just hear the “but…” coming.  What’s wrong with education?  At this point, to invent anything, a fair amount of education is a prerequisite.  Sorry, but inventing the cat-flap (thanks, Sir Isaac Newton), not to mention the incandescent light bulb or the automobile, out of thin air isn’t really a possibility anymore.  The real innovations are coming from folks who have been educated in computer science, engineering, etc.  You can’t just be an intellectually curious and bright person and invent a new way to fabricate microchips or prosthetic limbs.  It ain’t like the old days.  Education is it.

Hey — look what I did: I took an article with a completely different point and used it as a jumping off point to discourse on my own opinions!  Maybe Rep. Campfield and I aren’t that different after all…

Data Quality Campaign Ranks Tennessee Highly on Student Data System

The Data Quality Campaign, a collaborative non-political initiative funded by the Gates Foundation, has released its 2009 Annual Report on State Data Systems.  Thanks to the implementation of TVAAS, Tennessee ranks at the top of the report, along with 10 other states.  The Campaign measures states on 10 key elements of good data systems:

1. A unique student identifier that connects student data across key databases and across years
2. Student-level enrollment, demographic and program participation information
3. The ability to match individual students’ test records from year to year to measure academic growth
4. Information on untested students and the reasons they were not tested
5. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students
6. Student-level transcript data, including information on courses completed and grades earned
7. Student-level college readiness test scores
8. Student-level graduation and dropout data
9. The ability to match student records between the P–12 and postsecondary systems
10. A state data audit system assessing quality, validity and reliability

The other 10 states that met all 10 criteria are Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Delaware, Wyoming, Utah, and Washington.

It’s odd, then, if you consider how many researchers and institutions laud Tennessee for such a rich data system, and yet the reaction here in Tennessee has been consistently negative.  Take, for example, Erick Huth’s column on tenure in the MNEA newsletter:

As in past years, there are bills in the legislature to eliminate and or curtail tenure. One even ties tenure to TVAAS gains. The obvious problem with the TVAAS approach is only a fraction of the teachers in our state have any TVAAS scores to assess. Another problem is the TVAAS methodology, which is supposed to measure an individual teacher’s impact on students, actually uses current performance of one’s past students to readjust previous scores. This fact seems strange if not contradictory to many teachers and even some statisticians.

I’ll be honest — I don’t think Erick or others who have problems with TVAAS fundamentally oppose student data systems; it’s just that they find fault with the one we currently have.  However, the solution here is to improve TVAAS, while recognizing that robust student/teacher data systems are essential to improving education in Tennessee, particularly in urban settings such as Memphis and Nashville.  Along those lines, the Data Quality Campaign offers some guidelines for future improvement that Tennessee officials would do well to heed (10 State Actions to Ensure Effective Data Use):

Expand the ability of state data systems to link across the P–20/ workforce pipeline.

1. Link state K–12 data systems with early learning, postsecondary education, workforce, social services and other critical state agency data systems.
2. Create stable, sustained support for robust longitudinal data systems.
3. Develop governance structures to guide data collection, sharing and use.
4. Build state data repositories (e.g., data warehouses) that integrate student, staff, financial and facility data.

Ensure that data can be accessed, analyzed and used by multiple stakeholders including educators, parents and researchers.

1. Implement systems to provide all stakeholders timely access to the information they need while protecting student privacy.
2. Create progress reports with individual student data that provide information educators, parents and students can use to improve student performance.
3. Create reports that include longitudinal statistics on school systems and groups of students to guide school-, district- and state-level improvement efforts.

Build the capacity of all stakeholders to use longitudinal data.

1. Develop a purposeful research agenda and collaborate with universities, researchers and intermediary groups to explore the data for useful information.
2. Implement policies and promote practices, including professional development and credentialing, to ensure that educators know how to access, analyze and use data appropriately.
3. Promote strategies to raise awareness of available data and ensure that all key stakeholders, including state policymakers, know how to access, analyze and use the information.

Go data!

Spurlock v. Fox Case Wrap-Up and Analysis Coming Soon

Some extra case research is going into the case analysis, but the Day 11 Wrap-Up (Milan Mueller and Chris Henson) should be posted tonight or tomorrow, along with a full case wrap-up tomorrow or Wednesday.  Stay tuned.