First, a fun little test just so you can deal with any preconceptions. Which of these statements is true?
1) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, no statistically significant difference was found between scores of low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools and those of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.
2) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools are two years ahead of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.
There's a new Board of Education in Wake County, North Carolina, which encompasses Raleigh and surrounding areas and is the 18th largest school district in the USA. It seems, though this is a critical fact I'm unable to confirm, that a majority of the Board consists of new (?) members who were endorsed or supported by the Tea Party (i.e. elements thereof). The Washington Post saysthe district has "a new majority-Republican school board backed by national tea party conservatives..." but I can't find any more detail this AM before I gotta' run off. (Maybe one of you can dig a bit deeper?)
It seems that the first order of business for this new Board has been to radically alter a policy regarding diversity and integration that's had bipartisan support for decades. As a result, the NAACP has initiated protests, legal proceedings, and other courses of action (?) to oppose the move. The District is in danger of losing its accreditation. Among the organizations not supporting the School Board is the county Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the previous policy was indeed bipartisan.
In addition to the WAPO article linked above HEREand HEREand HEREand HEREare relevant articles or blogs that aren't too much alike.
I could not find much that lays out the case for this change in policy, but I don't wish to have the possibility that the change is justified ignored. Wouldn't it be refreshing if one of you who is hostile to the Tea Party took it upon themselves to do that research and post the best info to be found? Absent such evidence, it seems at least superficially reasonable to see this as a case where the NAACP is justified in getting involved - in other words a change being proposed by unreconstructed racists.
Now of course we can't (ever) say that the TP folks who supported these candidates are generally representative of TP folks, or that they did so with any knowledge or expectation of anti-diversity policies being high on the agenda. The articles to which I've linked, however, generally make that case. If "the TP" can't ever be held responsible because they're not united, that in itself is something of a dangerous development. In any case, the press is making this look like a case of TP racism. Is that justified? You decide.
My point is simply this: if you're a TP-backed candidate, and you want the TP to grow in power and prestige, and not suffer from suspicions/charges of racism, making this policy change your first order of business is probably not a bright idea.
Which of the two statements at the top is true? It's number two.
1) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, no statistically significant difference was found between scores of low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools and those of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.
2) On the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) in math, low-income fourth graders attending more affluent schools are two years ahead of low-income fourth graders in high poverty schools.
There's a new Board of Education in Wake County, North Carolina, which encompasses Raleigh and surrounding areas and is the 18th largest school district in the USA. It seems, though this is a critical fact I'm unable to confirm, that a majority of the Board consists of new (?) members who were endorsed or supported by the Tea Party (i.e. elements thereof). The Washington Post saysthe district has "a new majority-Republican school board backed by national tea party conservatives..." but I can't find any more detail this AM before I gotta' run off. (Maybe one of you can dig a bit deeper?)
It seems that the first order of business for this new Board has been to radically alter a policy regarding diversity and integration that's had bipartisan support for decades. As a result, the NAACP has initiated protests, legal proceedings, and other courses of action (?) to oppose the move. The District is in danger of losing its accreditation. Among the organizations not supporting the School Board is the county Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the previous policy was indeed bipartisan.
In addition to the WAPO article linked above HEREand HEREand HEREand HEREare relevant articles or blogs that aren't too much alike.
I could not find much that lays out the case for this change in policy, but I don't wish to have the possibility that the change is justified ignored. Wouldn't it be refreshing if one of you who is hostile to the Tea Party took it upon themselves to do that research and post the best info to be found? Absent such evidence, it seems at least superficially reasonable to see this as a case where the NAACP is justified in getting involved - in other words a change being proposed by unreconstructed racists.
Now of course we can't (ever) say that the TP folks who supported these candidates are generally representative of TP folks, or that they did so with any knowledge or expectation of anti-diversity policies being high on the agenda. The articles to which I've linked, however, generally make that case. If "the TP" can't ever be held responsible because they're not united, that in itself is something of a dangerous development. In any case, the press is making this look like a case of TP racism. Is that justified? You decide.
My point is simply this: if you're a TP-backed candidate, and you want the TP to grow in power and prestige, and not suffer from suspicions/charges of racism, making this policy change your first order of business is probably not a bright idea.
Which of the two statements at the top is true? It's number two.