Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
B. Interpretation of Districts & School Profiles <br />As described in the district profiles in Part A, a comparison of the Chapel Hill - <br />Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS) districts reveals a story <br />of apparent similarity in achievement at the elementary school level. This story of <br />similarity, however, is followed by examples of disparity that we find between the two <br />districts, which begin at the middle school and grow wider during high school, with CHCCS <br />students surpassing OCS students. In what follows we will explore the constraints on <br />resources and instructional supports that, we believe, may contribute to these disparities. <br />This section describes and discusses the disparities in terms of district resources, <br />instructional supports, and demographic characteristics. While significant differences <br />become measurable at the middle and high school levels, the story begins at the elementary <br />level in district decision- making regarding allocation of resources and personnel. The <br />discussion continues with an examination of the differences at the middle and high school <br />levels, followed by a look at other demographic characteristics between the districts. <br />Bulleted paragraphs in italics are excerpts taken from interviews of school <br />principals from both districts. They are included to convey the complexity and specificity <br />of the school programs as well as some of the opinions and concerns expressed in the <br />interviews. <br />a. The Elementary Schools <br />Both districts primarily use self- contained classrooms taught by grade level teams. <br />In CHCCS two schools currently use looping in limited cases. Looping brings a teacher along <br />with her class into the next grade; for example, after moving from first to second grade <br />with one group, she will return to pick up a new first grade. Two other schools have used <br />looping previously, but have discontinued it. In OCS one example of looping and team <br />teaching is cited. Two other OCS schools have used looping or multi -age grouping previously, <br />but have discontinued it. <br />Reference to the table of Economically Disadvantaged Students by District (see <br />Part A, Table 7) indicates that in all OCS elementary schools but Hillsborough (the only <br />year -round elementary school in either district), economically disadvantaged students <br />constitute over 25% of the student body. Two of the schools, Central and Efland Cheeks, <br />have percentages of economically disadvantaged students of over 50% (66% and 57.6% <br />respectively). In contrast, of the nine CHCCS elementary schools, only two schools, <br />Carrboro and Frank Porter Graham, have populations of economically disadvantaged students <br />of over 25% (28.5% and 27.5% respectively). Of the remaining seven, Ephesus has a <br />population of 24.2 %, but the others are all under 20 %. <br />There is considerable research to indicate that poor children start school at a <br />cognitive disadvantage compared to advantaged children and that very poor children are at <br />increased risk compared to children just under or above the poverty level (Inequality at the <br />CHCCS /OCS Final Report 44 <br />