WakeEd

The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How will the new student assignment plan balance diversity, stability, proximity and stability? How will Jim Merrill replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a $810 million school construction bond referendum on Oct. 8 ballot? How will this fall's school board elections impact the future of the district?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Choose a blog

Allison Backhouse questioning Wake County school board member Jim Martin's involvement in student assignment leave policy

Bookmark and Share

Allison Backhouse is criticizing Wake County school board member Jim Martin's efforts to help professionals such as his fellow N.C. State professors keep their children's school assignments when they return from sabbaticals.

In a Sunday blog post, Backhouse writes about "the unethical nature of creating a policy to serve his friends and co-workers at the request of his boss." Martin says the provost who made the request to him and others in the school system for an extended family professional leave policy isn't his boss.

Martin also responded to Backhouse that he's "not working to 'benefit my friends.'" Martin writes that "careful attention should be paid to policies that impact any of the County's major employers," such as N.C. State.

Backhouse fires back in her post by pointing back to how Martin had told staff that not implementing a leave policy because transient people have less resources is "defining equity by the lowest common denominator." She charges that "Martin isn't concerned about you and me."

"If you work for a major employer...let's say...NSCU, for example... Mr. Martin will pay careful attention to you and your children," Backhouse writes. "He'll work to create policies to help you to ensure you're happy.
If you don't, well, you know... You're an afterthought."

The issue was discussed at the May 29 meeting of the policy committee that Martin chairs. Martin said the item was added at the direction of board leadership.

For some additional context, here's the June 4 email, with the subject line "Unethical," that Backhouse sent to the board and staff:

Board Members,

How is it not a conflict of interest and completely unethical for Mr. Martin to discuss the possible creation of a policy simply to "help out" his boss at NCSU? Did Mr. Martin actually have the gall to put this item on the policy committee's agenda simply because his friends asked him to? What other decisions of his have been influenced by outside people?

And, why was Mr. Martin willing to spend time discussing solutions to help out his friends at NCSU but not to help others - or, as he so eloquently called them, "the lowest common denominator"?
Board Policy 1005
It is important that a Board member is nonpartisan in dealing with school matters and that he/she not subordinate the education of children and youth to any partisan principle, group, interest, or personal ambition.
Mr. Martin should be removed from this committee immediately due to the flagrant use of his Board position to personally benefit his NCSU employment.

Allison Backhouse
Apex, NC

Here's the response that Martin sent back later that evening:

Dear Ms. Backhouse,

I did not ask that this possible policy be placed on the agenda for the policy committee.  This was addressed at the directive of the Superintendent, Staff, Chair and Vice Chair.  Yes, NCSU contacted the school system, including me.  The matters being addressed are not unique to NCSU.  They directly impact any college or University, as well as many research businesses in the area.  The issues also would impact families undergoing a one-year military deployment, or a missionary assignment, etc.  

Furthermore, you clearly do not understand the University employment structure.  The Provost is not my boss.  As a full professor, I have responsibilities directly to my department, and to my profession, but not directly to the administration of the University.

Please work to get your facts correct before making such accusations.

Respectfully,

Jim Martin

Here's the June 6 reply from Backhouse to Martin:

Mr. Martin,

Are you purposefully being obtuse? Do you not see the unethical nature of requesting a discussion specifically about creating a policy for the people you work with? I have absolutely no concern about the employment structure at NCSU. I couldn't care less who you report to or whether or not you are a full professor. My concern is that you are using your role as a WCPSS Board member to benefit your friends and colleagues at NCSU.

On another subject, I watched the Board meeting last night. You claimed that you voted against the bell schedule changes initially because Middle Creek was not on the list. Can you please tell me when you first brought that up? I don't recall ever hearing you say that was one of the reasons you voted against it. In fact, I remember you claimed the bell schedule changes were politically motivated. Was this one too?

Please be respectful to all families in Wake County. You don't just serve families from Carnage or those whose parents work at NCSU. Please gain some understanding of what some of our children have been through over the years. We are all in this together yet, for some reason, you and Mrs. Evans don't seem to understand that.

Allison Backhouse

Here's the June 6 response from Martin to Backhouse:

Allison,

For your information I do not even know the folks at NCSU who were having issues with sabbatical planning.  I am not working to "benefit my friends."  You must realize that NCSU is one of the large employers of Wake County.  It is for that reason that we should pay attention to matters impacting that employer.  Careful attention should be paid to policies that impact any of the County's major employers.

With respect to the bell schedule, I voted against the original proposal because all the changes were being made after the end of Choice round 1.  I strongly believe any changes to bell schedules needed to have been decided before parents selected their choices.  Further I was and continued to be opposed to all shifts of school start times to after 9:00 am.  Such changes are costly to families in many ways.  I said nothing about the politics of the decision until after the vote when I went back and looked at which schools were allowed to avoid the undesirable bell schedule changes, and which were not.  To imply as some have that I opposed bell schedule changes to a school such as Sycamore Creek is disingenuous.  The record clearly shows I worked on behalf of those families too.  My no vote would equally not have changed their bell schedule.  The yes vote selectively saved some schools from change, and forced major change upon others.  

I do understand the problems of reassignments, mandatory calendar assignments, etc.  I argued against such in the old plan, just like I argue against effectively forced reassignments in this current plan.  I do believe there are solutions that can minimize reassignments, maximize opportunities, and ensure all schools are healthy diverse schools.  That is what I will continue to work for.

Sincerely,

Jim Martin

1339440766 Allison Backhouse questioning Wake County school board member Jim Martin's involvement in student assignment leave policy The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Something to think about.....

This issue of "holding" spots for children would not even exist if every address had base schools attached to it. This is yet another unforseen consequence of an assignment plan that was rushed to implementation.  

...

And, yet, under the old plan, if their node was moved during their temp leave, they were moved too. Seats were never "held".

And 200 years ago there

And 200 years ago there would have been one school house for every kid, no matter what grade they were in.

History is fun.

...

Another really dumb comparison.

Whatever. You don't have to

Whatever.

You don't have to be comparing apples to apples to point out hypocrisy.  If you spend a bunch of your time asking for convenience for parents and family-friendly policies while you slam the school board, and then you turn around and tell the parents of ~25,000 students that they should learn English if they want to communicate with the schools, that hypocritical.

And, the old assignment policy is gone.  It doesn't matter how we used to do things.  If we were talking about politics, would you like it if I blamed something that Obama did on George Bush?  It's the same thing to try to make something that isn't right (or as good as it could be) about the new assignment policy look better by talking about how the old policy worked.

...

I never said parents should learn English.

I said..."We also need to ensure we communicate with parents about their child's education." I also said..."Like it or not, we have people who don't speak and/or read English in our country. We cannot ignore them and hope something happens."

Although you never commit to any side of the issues, I think you and I agree on this one.

My response was to a post that said this issue would not exist with base assignments. The last plan was a base assignment plan. I pointed out that having base assignments (aka, the old plan) never saved a seat. Very valid point -- and nothing to do with one room schoolhouses.

If we were talking about politics, would you like it if I blamed something that Obama did on George Bush?

Sure. I despised George Bush.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/comment/reply/48947/263280#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/comment/reply/48947/263280#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/new-federal-civil-rights-complaint-accuses-wake-county-school-system-of-discriminating-agains#storylink=cpy
 
wake-county-school-system-of-discriminating-agains#storylink=cpy

We do seem to be on the same

We do seem to be on the same side of this issue.

For some reason, you've still chosen to defend a hypocrite and talk trash about me in the process.

...

Who did I defend? I pointed out that your comparisons were wrong.

You're trying way too hard to tie people together with the issues.

First, I seriously doubt

First, I seriously doubt that the parents of 25K kids in WCPSS can't speak or read English.  They may be Hispanic but that doesn't mean they can't read or speak English. 

Second, the school system is located in NC which just happens to be part of the US which is an English speaking country.  I do not believe it is hypocritical to tell parents they should learn English if they want to communicate with the schools in NC.  It actually sounds like some pretty common sense, practical advice.

There are 16,869 kids in

There are 16,869 kids in WCPSS who are identified as LEP or ESL.  While it's certainly true that not all of them are Hispanic, the vast majority are.  It's safe to assume that if the kid is ESL or LEP, the parents are probably in the same boat.

It's also safe to assume that a good portion of the non-LEP and non-ESL Hispanic population are first generation citizens and that their parents are not very fluent in English (if they understand it at all).

So fine...call it 18,000 or 20,000.  Whatever.  We're still talking about a significant portion of the population.

You are always saying that the district should cater to the needs of parents.  Well, these parents need more information in Spanish.

...

instead of uselessly spewing on a blog, please note that there ARE people working to help both within the school system and the state.

Latino families are more likely to experience a variety of economic and educational disadvantages, including poverty, language barriers, low literacy as well as adapting to a foreign culture.  In the last decade, the number of Spanish speaking household in North Carolina has increased by nearly 400%, and now account for 7.4% of the state's total population.  In light of this dramatic trend, the NC Parent Information and Resource Center (NCPIRC) has designed a project to support the implementation of successful and effective parent involvement policies, programs, and activities that lead to improvements in student academic achievement and that strengthen partnerships among parents, teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel in meeting the educational needs of Latino children.

 

This project focuses on:  (1) Helping  Latino families to understand school data so they can make informed decisions about how to best support their child's progress, and  (2). Preparing educators to effectively engage with Latino families while also supporting family leaders to become active participants in school improvement plans. Research indicates that family and educator engagement typically leads to improvement in all outcomes of students.  

 

Services are provided on a fee for service scale and can be bundled together to create an individualized school plan based on the unique needs of the schools.

 

Menu of Servces  

 

Family Friendly Walkthrough: The Family Friendly Checklist is a tool to help schools assess their "Family Friendly" practices.  

 

Latino Focus Groups:  Coordination and facilitation of two focus groups, one at the beginning of the school year and a follow up at the end of the school year.  

 

Information and Resource Exhibit in Spanish:  An exhibit of information and resources in Spanish including a mobile lending library with books and DVD's that Latino parent's can check out.

 

Latino Parents as Collaborative Leaders Training:  This day and a half research based leadership training helps Latino parents become effective leaders and advocates.  

 

Latino Parent Engagement Activities/Workshops: 50-60 minute Spanish presentations/workshops on a variety of educational and parenting topics based on identified needs to help participants gain additional knowledge and develop their skills in specific areas.

 

Staff Development: Staff development services include workshops, consultations, and/or information to support staff in enhancing their skills to improve Latino parental involvement.

 

Staff Development Webinars:  These webinars will examine practical examples and discuss promising practices on Latino parent/family engagement as well as other assessed needs.

 

Translations:  Written translation of educational materials from English to Spanish is available to schools that need help disseminating their school related informational materials to Latino families.

    

For more information contact:

 

Monica Bernot

1-800-962-6817 ext 316

Mbernot@ecacmail.org 

                                                                          

Paula Hutshison
1-800-962-6817 ext  322
Phutchison@ecacmail.org

 

Please cite the post where I

Please cite the post where I said "the district should cater to the needs of parents".

These parent's need to be responsible and learn English for themselves and their children.  In the mean time, they should find alternative means for translating any documents written in English.  They could even form a support group within their local Hispanic community, for example, or just head on down to the library.  This is a completely unnecessary burden to place on the public school system of NC. 

Since proximity is the #1

Since proximity is the #1 factor in the choice plan, if you choose your most proximate school, you will likely get in. So, essentially, the base school argument is moot.

Making this an issue is just an attempt by some perpetual malcontents to undermine what is a very successfully implement plan... a plan that was literally years in the making, reflective of other successful choice plans implemented in other areas of our state and across the coiuntry, and included a tremendous amount of public involvement including from the business community through the Great Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and WakeEd Partnership.

"You will most likely get

"You will most likely get in" is a fairly subjective statement when it comes to students other than those entering kindergarten. I lived within 1.5 miles of my most proximate school and I did not get in. I also did not get in to the other four choices on my first round list. The base school argument is moot only to those who already are in their most proximate schools or at schools where capacity is not an issue.

We once had a "base school"

We once had a "base school" that was 18 miles away... then were reassigned to one 7 miles away, then reassigned again to the original one 18 miles away during the reign of terror orchestrated by Burns/Dulaney and the pre-'09 board. So, I don't see how an assignment like that -- and the subsequent reassignments -- is preferable to having a choice plan that includes stability. History shows that having base schools guaranteed NOTHING!

Also, I find it difficult to believe that you never got into any of your 1st five choices. You mentioned "1st round," so I am guessing you are being a just a little bit disingenuous and that things were ultimately worked out during the process.

Likely get in

How reassuring.  Under the old plan one was likely to be assigned to the most proximate school. 

Unless your node was 'needed

Unless your node was 'needed for its numbers' at a high F&R school - so we were assigned to 5th closest ES.  Definitely not the closest, and not even one of our choices now.

Unless...

You lived in a "Spot Node"

Unless, of course, you

Unless, of course, you happened to be ED and live in Raleigh.

Proximate school until..

Until you were reassigned to another school, then another, then another....

Well...

Sure, that's the entire reason Martin's complaining.  However, this is such a fringe issue involving such a small number of people, I doubt it would have been considered even if the assignment plan had been delayed by a year or two years.  Whenever you make a change, there are ALWAYS consequences you didn't foresee.   

Heck, even if they had forseen this problem, it's such a small issue that it's unlikely that the assignment plan would have been changed, at all, to deal with it.

New assignment plan

When the system started a new assignment plan without bases, issues like this were bound to pop up, and it is one of substance.  What is best for the student should be the end answer.

What I have not liked about the new choice plan all along is how it is being altered in progress, as the issues arise. Signs of a rushed plan.  As for Ms. Backhouse, I got a little chuckle out of her writing - What other decisions of his have been influenced by outside people? She   """

I guess she was hiding in the turnip truck during the Republicans' first two years in office.  Now she's fallen off!

WC interests

There at many Wake County organizations that have made their interests known to the school board - this includes the Chamber of Commerce, the real estate agents, Wake County Tax Payers Association, various parent activist groups, etc. Why should NC State be any different? I was actually impressed that Martin was straight forward that the provost asked him to bring this up - at least he didn't try to hide who was dirving this issue, as opposed to other more shady organizations in the area. If someone goes on a professional sabbatical, they keep their Wake County residence, and continue to pay state and local taxes while they are gone. 

So...

Of course NC state ought to be able to state its case.   The problem is the appearance of using leverage over one of their own employees who happens to also be a school board member.  

Martin can claim that he doesn't report to the Provost, but I have a hard time believing that any professor wants to get on the wrong side of the Provost either.

Do they continue to pay state and local taxes?  Property taxes, of course.  But, if Martin were to go be a visiting professor at, say, Harvard, I have a hard time believing that Harvard is going to submit NC income taxes and not MA income taxes.

Provost

Yes, I also have trouble with the provost asking Martin directly to look into this, but that's an issue with the provost being inappropriate, not the request itself, in my opinion (and while Martin may not want to admit it, being the head of the academic arm of the university the provost is most certainly his superior). As far as local taxes, it probably depends on the source of support. It would be highly unlikely that Harvard (or any school) would pay the full salary for a visiting professor on sabbatical. More likely would be that the salary would come partly from State, and partly from a fellowship or grant that could be administered different ways.  At any rate, keeping a residence in WC, and returning after one year, are the important points, I think. 

Curious about this Policy

Curious about this policy proposal.   Would this policy  apply only to children of NCSU professors who take a sabatical?  What about employees who work at the large, multi-national corporations in RTP?  If they leave the country for a 1 year work assignment in China, will their children get their school spots back too?  Will there be a parental income requirement - ie, if the parents make over 100K a year, their children's spots will he held?   Otherwise, the school board fears that these parents would leave WCPSS and send their children to private school when they get back here.

What about Joe the mechanic?  Say he leaves for a 1 year temporary assignment in Charlotte.  Will his kids be able to get their spots back at their WCPSS?  Or is he (and his children)  "defining equity by the lowest common denominator" that  Dr. Martin refers to?  

My point is, will this policy be applied fairly for all Wake County families?  Or would this be just another  "special program" that only a few will be eligible for?  

It should be applicable...

to all the people (or corporations -its the same anyway as corporations are people too) that can afford to hire lobbyists (or blackmail the government) into giving them tax breaks or to change the law in their favor. That would be the most simple and fair solution.

Special Program or Joke?

Who in their right mind, not Jim Martin obviously, thinks ANYONE should be allowed to have their spot held for them because THEY, or their employer, decide to send them packing for a while?

No special program needed.  If you leave you go to the back of the line.  Problem solved.

Now let's move onto ANYTHING that this dysfunctional board can actually accomplish.  I mean it's been more than 6 months already, when exactly do they plan to accomplish something meaningful?

Do you really want a board

Do you really want a board that includes Martin and award-winning GSIW members Evans and Kushner "to accomplish something meaningful?!" That scares the hell out of me. I'd be happy to let them take the rest of their terms off and  have Tata and staff continue to run with the new choice plan.

My point is, will this

My point is, will this policy be applied fairly for all Wake County families?  Or would this be just another  "special program" that only a few will be eligible for?  

I actually think it will be both.

I don't know of many companies that send their mechanics on 1 year assignments.  I think that is just something you pulled out of your, well...you know, just to be argumentative.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/comment/reply/48947/263081#storylink=cpy

That's exactly the point.

That's exactly the point.  What if Joe the mechanic is injured on the job, and the whole family has to go live w/ grandma in Charlotte while he recuperates (since no income).  Will the spot be held for those kids?  What exactly are the criteria for holding a spot - and why should it be limited to job assignments?   The answer - it shouldn't, and it's just opening up a can of worms.

Then they wouldn't have a

Then they wouldn't have a residence in Wake County and there would be no reason to hold a spot for his kid(s) in a school.

We're talking about people who live in Wake County, are leaving for a set time frame for job purposes, and then are coming back to their same house.  We're not talking about people who are moving away but hoping to come back.

nitty gritty

When folks go on assignment, they are usually not paid for 2 residences.  Ie, they have to rent out their house, which theoretically means they have no residence in Wake County.  This is a very specific instance to be making policy around.

If they rent out their house

If they rent out their house for six months or a year, but everyone knows that they will be back in that house at the end of that time, that's a much different scenario than someone moving out of an apartment but saying "I'll be back" like they are the Terminator.

What if they are renting to

What if they are renting to begin with? Do you make them continue to pay rent in order to guarantee them a spot when they return?

If they are not going to

If they are not going to maintain some type of presence in Wake County, I'd be OK with not giving them a guaranteed spot at their current school.

If someone is renting (especially renting a house), they can't even really be sure that they'll live in the same area when/if they return, so I don't know why we'd give them a secure spot in a school.

That's the problem with the

That's the problem with the whole idea. Once you start down the road of devising a complicated set of rules, you pick winners and losers.

Telling someone they have to maintain their residence (effectively forcing them to maintain two residences) creates winners and losers.

Telling someone they have to work for a "major" employer creates winners and losers.

Telling someone that a reassignment to Europe is OK, but not moving in with the inlaws for a year to get back on your feet, creates winners and losers.

I'd prefer one simple guideline: leave school for up to one full year, and if you establish a residence in the base area of the school you left upon return, you get to keep your seat.

I don't think the rules that

I don't think the rules that I would have are all that complicated.

When are you leaving?  When are you coming back?  Will you be living in the same place?  Would your kid still be in the same school?  Will your employer submit paperwork describing their plans for your next _______ months of employment?

Everything creates winners and losers, if that's how you choose to describe it.  Personally, I think that if you have a job, and your employer sends you on a temporary assignment in a place that is cool enough that you want to take your entire family, it isn't really WCPSS choosing you as a winner. 

If your school gets electives a and b instead of c and d, some people are happy and some are sad.

One particular high school giving up its magnet status to stay "neighborhood" and then being allowed to keep its IB program creates winners and losers.

I don't think for a second that this policy would be geared only to "major" employers.  That's just where the suggestion originated.

Basically, I think this is a good idea, but only if it's limited in scope.  If the rule was made as general as you suggest, it would then become something that created a hassle.  Everyone who left WCPSS for whatever reason would file "safety net" paperwork in case they changed their mind.

Someone moving in with their in-laws for a year to get back on their feet has hopes of moving back to Wake County, not a documented, verified plan.

Two questions too many! When

Two questions too many!

When are you leaving?  When are you coming back? 

Fine.

Will you be living in the same place? 

So you exclude those that say:

  1. "No, I need to  sell my place because my temporary assignment is located in an area that has a much higher cost of living, and I need the funds to find a suitable place to live, but I do plan on purchasing one of the new homes that is being built in Phase 2 of my current neighborhood upon my return"  or...
  2. "No, my temporary assignment will triple my salary, and I plan to purchase that mansion that's currently under construction down the street upon my return"   or...
  3. "No, my father has terminal cancer, and I have made an agreement with my siblings to take care of him over the next 6 months. I need to sell my place to raise funds for the home health care nurses, but I plan to rent a unit in that apartment complex down the street upon my return"

Would your kid still be in the same school? 

Fine.

Will your employer submit paperwork describing their plans for your next _______ months of employment?

So you exclude those that say:

  1. "My temporary assignment is unrelated to my employment. We're going to sail around the world and give our kids the adventure of a lifetime."   or...
  2. "My son was just diagnosed with a rare disease. We plan to be at St. Jude in Memphis for 6-9 months of treatment, and will return to school if the treatment is successful.

Just like the thousands of appeals that are currently being held, each case is different, and deserves to be considered on its own merits. I don't have a problem with requiring parents to document their leaves, but I do get concerned when we try and set parameters that are sure to reward some while unnecessarily excluding others.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/allison-backhouse-questioning-wake-county-school-board-member-jim-martins-involvement-in-stud#new#storylink=cpy

Good grief, man.  Let's be

Good grief, man.  Let's be a little realistic, OK?

1.  Who would really accept a temporary assignment of a year or less that would require that much family drama?

2.  "Sorry...if that all works out you can try our appeals process"

3.  Are all the sibings in your family selling their houses? 

In the bottom scenarios, I think we've just seen an example that shows Wake County would work with both of those kids to ensure that they kept up with their work.  It's not like either of those kids would be enrolling in another school system, is it?  Just think....a couple of years ago you could have said "What if my son was going to Hollywood with American Idol, won it, and then needed to go on tour with Brad Paisley?"

In scenario #2, the school would likely do all it could to help.

Good grief, man.  Let's be

Good grief, man.  Let's be a little realistic, OK?

All examples were based on real-life situations.

But that's not even the point. The point is, as others have said, this will most likely affect just a handful of people each year. Why do you want to write a set of rules? Why not just work with the families when the situation arises?

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/comment/reply/48947/263184#storylink=cpy

Having a set of rules that

Having a set of rules that made some requests easier to approve wouldn't mean that you couldn't handle other situations on a case-by-case basis.

Having a set of rules would also help out whoever was handling the case-by-case requests, because everyone is going to have a compelling case to reserve their seat, but you can't tell everyone "Yes".

The reason I said "Be realistic" is because you act like a school would kick out a kid who had to stop attending for cancer treatments, when in reality they have and will continue to help those kids keep up with their peers whenever possible so that they can come back to as normal a situation as possible.

I guess I just believe that

I guess I just believe that you can' t legislate EVERY possible scenario that may arise in a district of 150,000 people. If a temporary leave was common in Wake (hundreds of cases each year), then perhaps a written policy might help. But we're only talking about a handful of affected families each year. Trying to legislate it, while also conceding that there may be other cases that apply will only confuse things.

There are thousands of situations that affect only a handful of people each year. If you legislate temporary leaves of absence, why not legislation, for example,  for the handful of kids that get car sick when riding more than 10 minutes on a bus. Before you know it, your policy manual is 1000 pages long, with 90% of it affecting very few people.

If you were to go to the 4000 thousand appeals hearings on transfers, my guess is that you will find 1000 different reasons why people want to go to a school other than the one they are currently assigned. Should we write a policy for every situation that arises? Of course not. Just handle each situation on a case by case basis. Same thing for holding onto a seat upon returning from a temporary leave.

Staff

How many people will be needed to sort through all the request, appeals and appeals of the appeals? Do we have admin staff sitting around in need of a task? This is a ridiculous waste of resources for a problem that affects a fraction of a fraction of a percent of students. We have problems larger than this that need to be solved.

Make up your mind. If it's

Make up your mind.

If it's only going to affect a fraction of a fraction of a percent of students, it won't take very much staff time at all.  In fact, I suspect that most cases could be handled at a school level, just like Garner High handled Scotty McCreery's junior and senior years.

If it is 1 it still takes

If it is 1 it still takes some to administer it, someone to write the policy, someone to review and follow up on the applications. Do we have an unlimited supply of staff that they are in need of extra work? This is a waste of time and will snowball if implemented.

Well..

The problem is that while this issue only affects a fraction of a fraction of a percent (I'd guess that distrcit-wide, fewer than 30 students would be affected), there are potentially a lot of other issues that each only affect a fraction of a fraction of a percent.  And, now, things get complicated: you have a general assignment plan with 8 pages of exceptions.

Only your...

problems deserve staff time. Everything else is a waste of time and resources.

No just being a realist and

No just being a realist and understanding that we can create a system that holds seats for "certain" people. I never looked at a seat in a school as my property and should be guaranteed to me even if I move out of the County. I guess after so many reassignments I have learned that my child is just a temporary occupant of that seat and could be placed in any other seat in any other school in the County.

How is it exactly that they leave their home

and have it to come back to? Just board up the windows, lock the doors, tell the neighbors to grab the papers and keep making your payments so that it's there to come back to? How many people would actually fall into this ridiculous set of circumstances, 4? 8? 20?

This board has done nothing except WASTE OUR TIME with stupid crap since day one and Jim Martin continues to lead the heard right down the trail of stupidity.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.

About the blogger

T. Keung Hui covers Wake schools.
Advertisements