There are two more problems I have found with instigating mandatory school uniforms at Aycock Middle School next year.   These are in addition to my concerns regarding the methods being utilized by Aycock's school improvement committee to garner support for the policy.

As far as I can tell, Guilford County Schools have not been designated as one the five "pilot programs" authorized by the N.C. State Board of Education under G.S.115C-15.

"The State Board of Education may authorize up to five local school administrative units to implement pilot programs in which students are required to wear uniforms in public schools."

Locally, Guilford County School's student handbook will need to be changed.  The "dress code" policy section of the document is succinct on the freedom of student's to choose their own clothing within reason:

"The Guilford County Board of Education respects a student's right to choose his or her style of dress or appearance."

If a "standard mode of dress" policy is going to be experimented with here in Guilford County it must be done right.  The school system needs to either follow the laws and policies that currently govern uniformity of dress or the laws and policies will need to be changed to reflect the new sentiment.

Also, what specific problems are uniforms supposed to solve?  How will we know if uniforms are successful at helping solve those problems?  What measurements will be used?  What is our "exit strategy" if uniforms don't produce the measurable result?  What will the public's perception be of Aycock if uniforms don't improve whatever problems that uniforms are supposed to help solve?... will Aycock be regarded as a "bad school" if discipline problem persist among students who all dress alike?  What further measures will be taken if uniforms don't produce the stated results (whatever they are)?  Why don't we try those first?

10:36:30 PM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Ed Cone points out a classic cart-before-the-horse situation regarding sound abatement efforts to benefit Greensboro residents who will need such remediation when the Fed Ex Hub at PTI Airport is completed and operating.

Another instance of local government's "ready, FIRE... aim" way of doing business.

10:34:28 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

On Tuesday the Guilford County Board of Education lowered the threshold of the percentage of poor students attending a particular middle school it takes to qualify it be eligible for Title I status from 60% to 49%.  Title I status makes a school eligible for Federal money over and above what other schools receive.

Aycock Middle School was one of the schools who has now been declared in need of Title I funding which is supposed to be spent on improving the school's services to "highly impacted" students.

What this means is that Aycock will receive a big chunk of money next year - around $100,000 from what I've heard.  This represents approximately $275.00 in Federal funds for each of the school's 363 students (55% of the 660 total) who receive free or reduced prices on school lunches.  In reality though the money will be used to improve education for all of Aycock's students.

The money is needed and welcome.

10:07:04 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

The City of Greensboro has responded to Project Homestead's explanation of the many irregularities found in a recent audit of the non-profit's business practices... it ain't pretty (PDF file via N&R).  N&R article here.

The City's Internal Auditing Department uses the phrase. "should have known/required/excercised" about a zillion times as it replies - point-by-point - to the excuses that Project Homestead's Board of Directors provided as to why they didn't know/require/exercise their authority in making sure that the public's money was being spent correctly.

So far the N&R has done an amazing job of following the blame trail for the Homestead fiasco but I get the feeling that the "buck passing" won't end with Homestead's inept Board of Directors.

Since the City's auditors insist that Project Homestead's Board of Director's ignorance of how taxpayer money was being spent is no excuse for allowing bad (or perhaps fraudulent) business practices to flourish, shouldn't that same logic be applied to those who continuously approved their funding?

9:33:35 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks