That's 1 BILLION with a B, right?... not a typo?  Surely the N&R got that wrong.  If the schools need one Billion dollars worth of repair I wonder how they are standing.

Also the article cited a GCS report on suspension rates which shows a HUGE decline in total short-term suspensions: "A breakdown of racial/ethnic data, however, showed that on a percentage basis, African American students are suspended at a significantly higher rate that white students."

The suspension rate disparity is not new, it has existed for years and the school system has instigated many safeguards and corrective measures to try and insure fairness in suspension guidelines.  Board members Deena Hayes and Johnny Hodge are calling on the Board to look into the disparity again.   Hayes stated, "My kids are appearing here in large numbers, which might say something's wrong with this institution."

As I see it, there are two scenarios for the ongoing suspension disparity.  Either our school system is "institutionally" racist and disproportionally suspends black students more readily simply because they are black, or... black students are misbehaving at a proportionally higher rate than other ethnic groups.

Either way, the problem needs to be fixed because the situation IS alarming and unacceptable.

Related post: Nov. 20, 2003

Note to media... I can assure you that Guilford County students didn't improve their behavior enough in one year to account for 3,500 fewer suspensions as the article reports.  I know from experience that what is happening is that there is a big push to have the classroom teachers deal with disruptive students instead of referring them for suspension and these policies are harming the kids who are there to learn.

Guilford County no longer has an "alternative school" for disruptive students so all but the very worst behaved students are retained in the regular classroom.  Sure, suspensions are down, but learning has dropped with it.  The teachers aren't allowed to talk about it, but the story is there.

10:08:20 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Updating yesterday's post on the Sutton-Kennerly gloom and doom engineering report (PDF) on the structural condition of War Memorial Stadium:

During yesterday's Parks & Rec Commission meeting (N&R) I asked facilities director Mark Bush if he had seen the report and he said he had not, but he is not alone.

I took the report to John Hammer at the Rhino yesterday and he was as surprised to hear of it, but he did dig a bit.  Today's Rhino Times reports (not yet posted) that they asked Council members Yvonne Johnson and Tom Phillips about the June 3 report and they didn't know about it either.

Hammer called Engineering Director Butch Simmons about why the report is just now available even though the cover letter states it was completed on June 3.  Simmons insisted that the report was brand new.  "Thats exactly right, the report was finished in January", says Simmons.

I am hoping that there is a good explanation as to how a report's cover letter that indicates a completion date of June '03 could be considered "finished" in January '04.

I loaned my copy of the report to N&R reporter Matt Williams after yesterday's Commission meeting but will get it back today.  I will scan the report in OCR and make it available in case I don't get the report in PDF format as promised by Simmons-Kennerly.  There is a time stamp on the cover page indicating when it was received by the City and I'll let you know what it says.

10:34a - Updating the update:  I just called reporter Matt Williams who has my copy of the Sutton-Kennerly WMS report and he told me the time stamp on the report's cover indicates it was received by the City at 9:15a on June 9, 2003.  Matt says that he is working on a story about the report for tomorrow.  Something is starting to stink to high heaven.

8:05:05 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Responding to yesterday's post on the subject, Greensboro Zoning Commissioner Janet Wright is defending her vote to approve rezoning for the new Battlegroud Ave. shopping center by saying her decisions are based on what is best for the "ENTIRE community".

Commentator Tom asks, "Who's interests are left when a vote favors the "entire" community minus the area's neighbors, minus the planning board, minus the community-wide Comprehensive Plan committee?"  Indeed.

Join in, but be nice.

5:43:03 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks