Some Wakefield Elementary parents are speculating that the school will be converted back to a traditional calendar for 2010-11.
But as a discussion at the Jan. 5 committee of the whole meeting showed, Wake County school administrators are pointing to reasons why the school board may want to keep Wakefield on a year-round calendar.
During the COW meeting, Asst. Supt. Chuck Dulaney pointed to Wakefield as an example of the challenges of converting a school back to traditional. Click here for the sheet he shared with the board.
In the 2006-07 school year, Wakefield had 1,109 students with 19 trailers that took up most of the play space at the North Raleigh school. Dulaney said Wakefield was "one of our most egregious examples of an overcrowded school" before conversion.
Since conversion, Dulaney said Wakefield is now down to using 11 trailers. He said the other eight trailers have been "mothballed" and are still on campus.
Dulaney said the eight unused Wakefield trailers haven't been moved yet because of the $40,000 or $50,000 cost of moving each one. He said they won't be moved until the expense for relocation is justified.
This year, Wakefield is listed as having 831 students. Dulaney said it might appear that Wakefield is a candidate to go back to traditional. But he added that the capacity would only be 745 students with the 11 trailers now in use.
Dulaney said you could increase the traditional capacity to 929 if you also used the eight vacant trailers. But he said that would eliminate the possibility of freeing up the play space.
Dulaney told board members they'd also have to decide, if they convert Wakefield, what to do with the families who want to stay on a year-round calendar. He said there's no year-round application capacity anywhere in the northern part of the county
"Wakefield is a good example of where when you look at the data in detail some of the competing problems that confront you as a board of education start to come through," Dulaney told the board members.
Another challenge could be persuading school board member Kevin Hill to back the conversion. Wakefield is in his district.
Comments
Chuck, hurry up and retire
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:04 — Voice_of_Reason_First if you eliminate or reduce the busing, it would free up space [and significantly improve the school performance]. There are THREE elementary schools 1.2 miles away from each other there Forest Pines & Forest Pines North are two schools (right next to each other), one YR and the other traditional. No trailers there. Wakefield Elementary is right next to Wakefield Middle and High (both traditional). They didn't remove the trailers. The traffic on Wakefield Pines Drive is confusing because of the different schedules. I could go on and on. This would be a great test case for voluntary year round, you already have Forest Pines set up for year round.
This is a no brainer Chuck, it can be done easily.
BTW- Of course, you are not taking into account the loss of many students at Wakefield Elementary that went private after the conversion because of what happened to the school's performance afterward (further accelerating the downward performance trend)
VofR
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:09 — louiselee44Pleeeeease share this with all School Board members. They need other "food" than what they're being fed by staff.
Louise I have
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 09:14 — Voice_of_Reason_I got the ear of one of two of the new board members off line on this a couple of weeks ago. They were very receptive and mentioned another school (I leave it out for now) that was being looked at.
Can you give me a hint? Is
Fri, 01/29/2010 - 11:07 — changewcpssCan you give me a hint? Is it in D2? I assume it is Leesville but hopeful we'll get a conversion reversed too.
I agree with louise.
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 14:08 — jenmanI agree with louise. VOR--send this info to all the board members. Have all your friends do the same. Make sure you don't just send it Kevin Hill--I think he and Chuck are very much in sync so I think your info would be ignored.
Do not even bother wasting your time!
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:22 — stacy123I have shared info. as have countless others we also did with the old board no one is going to use your info. over the garbage (and I can truthfully say this) that Chuck Delanay and the WCPSS staff continue to spew forth for whatever purpose - it seems so intentional but I can not fathom their purpose other than to purposely tick off and inconvenience peole.
Their egos are bigger than
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:03 — changewcpssTheir egos are bigger than their concern for families and communities. Period. I believe the new majority is on the right track but they need to put some calendar conversions into play now to keep their promises.
Just FYI
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:10 — louiselee44There are 3 capacity figures that the WCPSS calculates. The ones used in Mr. Dulaney's report are from the "Annual School Campus Capacity...generated by all temporary classrooms in use at each school." So he's being consistent in his figure comparisons.
What I just wish they would have included are the 2006-2007 capacity numbers so that it would be easier to compare membership vs capacity the year prior to conversion - just to see how full those schools were back then.
There's a link to that info., but it would help to have it all in one place to avoid confusion by those who are mistakenly comparing the projected traditional capacity figure with the the 2006-2007 membership numbers to figure the % crowding that year. Now that's comparing apples to oranges!
If there are families at
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:56 — KRCIf there are families at Wakefield that want to stay YR, North Forest Pines is right in the neighborhood, and I guarantee that there will be families there that will want to switch to traditional, so Chuck's problem is solved.
consider...
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 14:08 — louiselee44In 2006-2007 (on a traditional calendar), Wakefield's capacity was 1,009, so they were a little over with a membership of 1,109. Now, the projected capacity if they were converted back to a traditional is only 745. That's a lot lower. I know capacity figures vary based on things such as how many special-ed classrooms there are (I think they can only have 9 students), etc.. Still, that's a big fall in capacity as a traditional.
Keung - can you find out why it went from 1,009 to 745? I would ask myself, but Mr. Dulaney is probably tired of my questions. :^) Thanks!
You may be mixing apples
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:09 — KeungHui (author)You may be mixing apples with oranges here. The 1,009 traditional capacity in 2006 was based on 20 trailers. The 745 figure is based on 11 mobiles. The 929 figure is based on 19 mobiles. A decent chunk of the drop from the 1,009 figure is the reduction in class sizes mandated by the state in K-3 since 2006.
WCPSS is mixing Apples
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 11:34 — PrivateSchoolDadLook at the numbers Chuck is using. Currently there are only 13 students on track 2. Thus the school during 3/4 of the year is housing almost the entire population. So how will changing the calendar to traditional change the utilization of the school(thirteen kids)? The answer is it will NOT. This is a shell game that WCPSS is using.
Also how do you get a 4 track calendar school capacity that is a number that is NOT divisible by 4? Can a certain track(s) hold more students than another?
There are several schools that are like this or in the system. To get a true picture of YR usage. The capacity and utilization needs to be done at the track level. as well as the number of students in a school at any given time.
Right on...
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 12:05 — Bob_SconceTHe school can clearly handle its current population on the traditional schedule because for part of the school year, practically the entire school population is in the school!
So, year-round schools are premised on getting more classroom-days usage out of an individual school by having tracked-out classes vacate theirs classrooms so tracking-in classes can move into them. The district even bought large rolling cabinets for tracked-out teachers to store their materials in. Yet, since WES was converted, this has NEVER happened (not that I'm complaining, mind you): when a class tracks out, its classroom stays as-is, unused, until that class tracks back in. As a result, WES is not getting more classroom-days per year -- it's just shifting when in the year capacity is unused.
As to your last question -- a number not divisible by 4 -- that's actually not that hard. If, for example, there are 4 kindergarten classrooms, then you can have a maximum of 5 year-round kindergarten classes (2 on one track, 1 on each of the other 3 tracks).
Bottom line -
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 13:45 — louiselee44The 2006 conversion to MYR was done solely (we were told!) for capacity purposes. Those 22+ schools are not needed for that purpose anymore. Convert some back.
No can do. We have an
Thu, 01/28/2010 - 13:50 — red_balloonNo can do. We have an independent thinker on the BOE.
thank you
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:56 — louiselee44Thanks, Keung - it's apples to apples, but now we know why the capacity figures differ - mobile usage, and class-size mandates.
Is there a difference in
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:31 — red_balloonIs there a difference in capacity between a mobile and a trailer? Or do they mean the same?
There's probably a technical
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:57 — KeungHui (author)There's probably a technical difference but I tend to use the two the same.
Not long ago someone here
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 14:25 — changewcpssNot long ago someone here had seen C Dulaney's screwed up formula used to figure capacity. If I remember correctly, according to C Dulaney's method each school will show that it holds 200 fewer students than it actually can.
Any news on possibly
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:58 — changewcpssAny news on possibly converting back some schools in D2?
I can understand the
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:39 — red_balloonI can understand the administrator is trying to present facts to the board. I wish there were explanations to the following:
1. How does YR capacity go up by 37% over traditional?
2. In the traditional model, if 23 students are assigned to each classroom, what happens to the remaining 15 classrooms? Labs? Music? Arts?
3. Could some of the eight mothballed trailers be used to increase capacity while freeing up some play area by moving out the remaining mothballed trailers?
4. Are there other rooms that could serve as classrooms but not included in the total classroom count?
Ask your board reps to ask
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:40 — shank56Ask your board reps to ask him these questions? That's what they are supposed to do to make good decisions.
Nice to find something I can
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:53 — CaryCurmudgeonNice to find something I can agree on with Shank. These questions should be posted to all the board members. Better yet, follow that up by speaking at the next meeting. Chuck Delayney does not run the system, and "staff says we cannot do it" does not cut it as an answer.
I suppose the BOE can go on
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:50 — red_balloonI suppose the BOE can go on a forensic data mining expedition but it really should fall to the admins to point out how the numbers were arrived at. When the admins are aware of conflicting calculation models, they should present those too and point out why they disregarded those models. Such an approach presents a complete picture to the BOE who can then make a decision rather than go through the motions of making a decision when in reality they may have been shepherded down a path.
Chuck laid out the facts
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:18 — shank56Your BOE can vote to convert. It is not Chucks decision. Now that your people are in, it seems you don't like them having to make tough choices.
I say covert to traditional, fill up all the trailers , let the kids play in green grass at home. Will save the taxpayers $$ from not moving the mobiles.
NOT THE FACTS
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:55 — Bob_SconceLook at the handout. It just doesn't add up.
The traditional calendar capacity should be no less than the capacity of the school on three tracks. After all, on a year-round calendar, three tracks are always in at the same time.
Chuck D. is claiming a year-round capacity of 745 students. Yet, somehow, the school manages to have 832 students in three tracks.
WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?
Secondly, this "there are 8 mothballed trailers" comment is silly. Basically, he's saying "If you convert back to traditional, then at some point in the distant future, we may not be able to return the play space that the trailers sit on." I think most parents would prefer the year-round calendar to some possibility of a traditional calendar in the future with additional play space. (There is play space there now; only part of it is consumed by trailers.)
Bob, was this incorrectly worded???
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 13:29 — stacy123"I think most parents would prefer the year-round calendar to some possibility of a traditional calendar in the future with additional play space. (There is play space there now; only part of it is consumed by trailers.) "
I think most parents would give up some (not all of the playspace) for a traditional calendar rather than year-round with the possibility of getting more playsapce in the remote future. Funny that for those students/fmailies impacted this will after they leave the school!!
Yes....
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 14:00 — Bob_SconceDefinitely incorrectly worded. I meant "I think most parents would prefer the TRADITIONAL calendar to some possibility of additional play space in the future with a YEAR-ROUND calendar."
thought so...
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 14:54 — stacy123Wonder how many board members felt the same way after a vote!
I agree .. just do it and
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:29 — user12345I agree .. just do it and see what happens ... but please new BOE take full credit BEFOREHAND for all the "savings" and assignments so every voter knows who to "credit" for the outcome especially any families wanting YR or who get kicked out.
Yes. As our friends at
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:31 — changewcpssYes. As our friends at Nike say, just do it. The capacity shown on Mr. Hui's attachment is probably much lower than actual anyway. Is that correct Bob? Let this be one of many who receive MYR reversals.
That's correct.
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 11:15 — Bob_SconceEven on a year-round calendar where teachers do not have to switch classrooms, there are a number of classrooms and trailers which are unused. Figures lie and liars figure. I'll let you decide what that says about Chuck D.
I am guessing you think
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 11:09 — user12345I am guessing you think there will still be a seat left for you .... that would be funny if you got your calendar but got bumped from the school.
So
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 12:45 — Bob_SconceBarring a mass influx of school-age children to a tent-city in the Wakefield area, there's no way that could happen unless the Administration does something purely vindictive.
Of course, the administration HAS ALREADY done something purely vindictive: Instead of saying "we won't consider F&R status in year-round applications" (which would have meant giving each student the same chance, instead of giving students from different schools different chances of being admitted) they said "we will just admit EVERY year-round applications student." Sure, that gives every student the same chance of getting in -- 100%! -- but, it's an unnecessary step beyond what the board wanted. Effectively, the administration is trying to overcrowd the year-round application schools so they can say "Well, you didn't want us to consider F&R status. Now look what happened."
How pitifully sad that you
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 12:04 — changewcpssHow pitifully sad that you would actually find pleasure at someone getting bumped out of a school. Nice compassion there. Not a surprise, but rather sick.
There are consequences when
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 12:35 — user12345There are consequences when the BOE acts without thinking or planning which means you might not get what you expected. Obviously, if the # of students is smaller after conversion, someone has to go.
Oh yes I understand
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 13:45 — changewcpssOh yes I understand consequences. Many of us are living the consequences of the snake oil salesman's MYR conversions. Post conversion you will have less available capacity. That is a fact. If the base students can be accommodated on the traditional calendar and applicants have a reasonable YR alternative that should be a good indicator. Inconveniencing famiies and wasting our hard earned tax dollars is just plain wrong.
I thought the intent was to
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 12:49 — NWRaleighMomI thought the intent was to grandfather all existing students.
Mr. No Can Do Dulaney? Say
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:15 — changewcpssMr. No Can Do Dulaney? Say it isn't so. Chuck is still pulling out all stops to justify the MYR failures he created? What a shock.
In most cases BoE needs to ignore his recommendations and do the opposite.
What recommendations??
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 10:23 — shank56"Wakefield is a good example of where when you look at the data in detail some of the competing problems that confront you as a board of education start to come through,"
It's the Board's decision..not his..and he did not make any recommendations.
For every action, there is going to be a reaction. Can the new BOE handle the pressure and deliver on the promises it made ?
What Shoddy Math!!!
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 13:04 — stacy123Okay let's look at this closely - everyone pay attention especially BoE members:
"In the 2006-07 school year, Wakefield had 1,109 students with 19 trailers that took up most of the play space at the North Raleigh school. Dulaney said Wakefield was "one of our most egregious examples of an overcrowded school" before conversion."
So traditional calendar with 19 trailers =1,109 students
"This year, Wakefield is listed as having 831 students. Dulaney said it might appear that Wakefield is a candidate to go back to traditional. But he added that the capacity would only be 745 students with the 11 trailers now in use."
So the 8 trailers provided 1,109-745 = 364 addl. capacity 45.5 addl. kids per trailer - which would mean each trailer would accomodate 2 classrooms? or are we to believe the new estimate (same article")
"Dulaney said you could increase the traditional capacity to 929 if you also used the eight vacant trailers. But he said that would eliminate the possibility of freeing up the play space."
929-745 = 184 addl kids / 8 trailers = 23 students/trailers. HMMM typically WCPSS Graoth and mgmt math! Hopefully the BoE will hire someone to review and repiudiate all the poorly contrived math that Mr. Dulaney keeps putting out.
Additionally it was so over-crowded that they did not have enough play space so they inconveniences everyone by switching calendars and voila they still do not have play space! So it was a LOSE-LOSE For all teh parents and students! Typical WCPSS I'll keep correcting the mis-direction and falsities but guess teh BoE does not want to stick up for it's families. Per the article this is in Mr. Hill's distict - ya think he would have reviewed and argued tooth and nail on this one -typical
Good reasoning. I believe
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 13:27 — red_balloonGood reasoning. I believe these numbers can be manipulated. The BOE needs a new Chuck or someone who can validate Chuck's findings and recommendations.
You think Chuck manipulate
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 15:13 — user12345You think Chuck manipulate individual numbers? Come on .. managing a school system is hard enough with all the budgets, legal issues, BOE, parents, etc. to spend any time caring about one school and manipulating a few numbers ... Like I said before, all you need to do is go look at the fire marshal's maximum capacity and that is the limit period ....
YES
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:12 — Bob_Sconce'Manipulate' may be the wrong word... Massage may be more appropriate, or maybe just "fail to tell the full story behind."
If it fits what CHUCK thinks the school district should do, then YES, I think he does the above.
The actual max is presumably far below what the Fire Marshall says, due to maximum class sizes.
Yep, you're right (as
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:15 — jenmanYep, you're right (as usual), Bob. Please tell me that you're thinking of running for Kevin Hill's seat.
Hah...
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:26 — Bob_SconceBy this point, I have so much of a paper (or blog) record that I would be eaten ALIVE in any school board race. Even my strong resemblence to George Clooney wouldn't overcome that.
I'm now picturing Bob as
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 17:03 — Eric_BI'm now picturing Bob as some kind of Michael Clayton lawyer fixer guy... Bob/Michael, maybe you can help fix this school district. :)
I don't think you have a bad
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 16:48 — jenmanI don't think you have a bad record here on the blog at all. Quite the opposite. And definitely the Clooney qualities will overcome any negatives. It has for George. :-)
Well...
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 17:03 — Bob_SconceIn any case, Hill is going to be up for election after the districts are re-done. I expect that Wakefield, where I live, will probably be part of what is now Chris Malone's district.
I hadn't thought about the
Wed, 01/27/2010 - 17:08 — jenmanI hadn't thought about the districts being redrawn, or at least not us being moved out of our current district. (I'm not far from you)