WakeEd

The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How much will the new Democratic majority on the school board do to undo the changes made by Republicans since 2009? Will the new student assignment plan be a hybrid of the last two models or primarily be a return to the use of busing for diversity? Who will replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a likely request in 2013 to borrow potentially more than $1 billion to build and renovate schools?

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

Debating whether to have more than one redistricting map

Bookmark and Share

Should the Wake County school board have requested an additional redistricting map to review before approving the lines that will be used for elections over the next 10 years?

As noted in today's article, the issue of only having one map split the board in the 5-3 vote. Kevin Hill, Anne McLaurin and Keith Sutton unsuccessfully urged the board to ask Kieran Shanahan to come up with an additional map to consider before holding a final vote.

The other school board members said they were reasonably satisfied with the map and felt there was not a need to draw up any other options.

The discussion began with Shanahan addressing the board and the criticism from the Great Schools in Wake Coalition and Knightdale about the map.

Shanahan acknowledged that they may have mislabeled the written description for some of the precincts. But he said the maps they provided were accurate and that people could have blown them up enough online to tell which district they're in.

"We do stand by the maps we provided to you as being accurate and consistent," Shanahan said.

On the concerns of Knightdale being split into multiple districts, Shanahan pointed to how Raleigh is split as well. School board member Chris Malone quickly added that it shows Knightdale is "not being singled out."

Shanahan brought up the example of how Wake County is represented by three Congressmen. He said that having multiple school board representatives could help Knightdale.

Shanahan said that splitting up Knightdale wasn't intentional and he  doesn't believe they’re harmed by it or treated any differently from other municipalities.

Noting that District 4 had gotten part of Knightdale to help it grow, he said that redoing the map could result in a ripple effect.

Shanahan said his ability to redraw the lines was limited by the board's desire to not dramatically change the boundaries. He said the current general boundary lines between Raleigh and county board seats were agreed to by the General Assembly as part of the merger.

School board member John Tedesco asked if was possible to make all of the Inside the Beltline area into one district. Shanahan's answer was yes.

Shanahan defended his map as he said he had looked at the data for alternative maps submitted by other groups. But he said some of their data was "inaccurate" and did not include the input from school board members.

"I feel comfortable we have submitted a proposal that meets all the guidelines," Shanahan said.

School board chairman Ron Margiotta brought up the private small-group meetings that Shanahan held with board members to address concerns.

"We made an attempt working with our advisors to satisfy us as a board," Margiotta said.

Sutton said he appreciated having his input heard. But he said the "flaw in the process" was that the meetings weren't done in a public setting.

Margiotta replied back on how the board has traditionally received private briefings from staff about student assignment.

McLaurin said Shanahan had "presented a good plan." But she said they can ask him to draft another good plan that would address issues such as her district and Knightdale.

Hill said there was "no doubt" that the map would pass constitutional muster, But he says he wished they had worked with other groups, adding he "can't think of anyone more unbiased than the League of Women Voters." (Considering that LWV has opposed ending the diversity policy, Hill would get disagreement from some other board members.)

Hill said he'd liked to have developed a map that didn't split precincts.

Hill complained that the board hadn't had a "dedicated work session" to discuss changes to the plan, calling Tuesday's discussion "just show and tell."

Margiotta shot back that Hill always calls the work sessions "show and tell."

McLaurin asked if they could ask Shanahan to come back with a map that kept Knightdale in one district. Margiotta replied he really didn't think they could really do that at this point.

Board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman said that coming up with an alternative map would mean the new suggestions would outweigh those that were already made.

Margiotta said he wasn't particularly happy with the changes to his district but he could live with it. McLaurin said she could propose trading some precincts with Margiotta.

Board member Chris Malone pointed to how "barely anyone showed up" to speak at last week's public hearing. Sutton responded that those who did come suggested changes.

"I’m not completely happy with what I see here," Malone said. "I’ve gone over the maps because the people of Knightdale asked me to. It’s problematic seeing what else we can do.”

“I don’t know what else we could have done in my district," Malone added. "I know Mr. Shanahan has done a very fair job that will pass constitutional muster and met all of our requirements.”

Goldman mentioned the concept brought up at the February board retreat about board members not agreeing on everything but at least being "reasonably satisfied."

"It’s not a question of being fair or the quality of Mr. Shanahan's work or being reasonably satisfied," Sutton replied. "It’s a question of having a couple of options."

McLaurin said Shanahan can make two good maps, prompting him to say that it could lead to complaints from a whole new group about the changes. He said board members "can’t be too parochial to favor yourself."

Malone said he's been hearing criticism from both sides, including "people on our side." When that drew grumbling from the audience, he qualified his remarks to say he was talking about people who were pro-community schools. He said they could have drawn up maps to favor more of those people.

Goldman said that while she understood Knightdale's concern, she said the map was moving in a positive direction by reducing how many districts Cary and Morrisville are split into.

Hill said he wasn't asking about "blowing things up." He said he just wanted to give suggestions for "some tweaks."

Board member Carolyn Morrison asked board attorney Ann Majestic if there was anything "illegal" about the maps. Majestic declined to answer, saying she wasn't an expert in the field.

Tedesco brought up how Majestic had said in April that the map appeared to be fine. But Majestic replied that while the map sounds compliant with current case law that she wasn't current on election law.

Sutton said he wasn't questioning the product because Shanahan did a "good job." But he said he's questioning how they only had one option

Margiotta replied that if Sutton was happy with the product then he should vote for it. Sutton responded that he wasn't saying he was happy with the process. He was just saying he was unhappy with the process used.

If staff could work on nine student assignment proposals and whittle it down to two, Sutton said they should be able to emulate that with more than one redistricting map.

Morrison said she feels comfortable with the changes to District 6 and that no one in the district had complained about the lines. She said she was willing to make changes if it didn't negatively impact District 6.

Both Goldman and Sutton said they also liked how their districts looked in the map. But Sutton said he was still questioning the process.

Hill said he was only talking about some tweaks that wouldn't necessarily have a domino-effect on eight or nine districts.

McLaurin added that the trade she wanted to make with Margiotta wouldn't affect other districts.

Tedesco said he wasn't happy with his district, considering how he's losing part of Fuquay-Varina and now getting part of Holly Springs

Tedesco said that if they were going to look at other options then he wanted to look at a "substantial change" with District 5 becoming the Inside the Beltline district. He said District 4 could be pushed eastward to Knightdale.

Despite his qualms about the map, Tedesco said he liked the process that was used. Like Malone, he pointed to the low turnout at last week's hearing to say there weren't many "disgruntled residents."

The ensuing straw vote went 5-3 to use the Shanahan map, the same as what later took place during the regular meeting. As she voted for the Shanahan map, Deborah Prickett joined Tedesco in saying she'd want to look at a major rewrite if they looked at other options.

A motion by Sutton to insert the guidelines used for the map in the resolution adopting the districts was defeated in a 5-4 vote. In this party line vote, the majority members said it was unnecessary to do so.

Margiotta closed out the discussion by saying he would have voted for the Shanahan map if it was needed to break a tie. He called it the "most non-partisan plan" that they could have adopted.

Comments

Comment viewing options

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

...

Sutton said he wasn't questioning the product because Shanahan did a "good job."

Both Goldman and Sutton said they also liked how their districts looked in the map. But Sutton said he was still questioning the process.

What is wrong with this man? First he boycotted the Superintendent search vote and complained about who was picked. Now, he says he likes what his district looks like after the redistricting and that he's happy with the overall product but votes against it because of the process followed.

So, if he's content with the process but doesn't like the product (Tata), he just doesn't attend the meeting, Yet if he's unhappy with the process (even though he was part of it) but likes the product (the new map), he votes against it. Geez.

Well, it is pretty obvious

Well, it is pretty obvious that Sutton is just Barbar's puppet on the board... race hustlers need a wing man and Sutton is relishing that role.

Puppets

And it's obvious that Prickett, Malone, Margiotta, Tedesco, and Goldman are puppets of the Republicans (though Goldman less so). It's comical how they won't even advocate for funds for our students - to keep per pupil expenditure even - because it will put pressure on the Republican BOC. The folks who are losing are our kids in all of this.  Can't wait to hear all the Republicans bash our schools even more after starving them for funds for YEARS. We're 4th richest district in the state and 93rd in student spending. Sick.

"We're 4th richest district

"We're 4th richest district in the state and 93rd in student spending. Sick."

Duh...Low income students (generally speaking) are more expensive to educate for variety of reasons.  Therefore, a district's wealth SHOULD be inversely proportional to student spending.

Huh? LOL Way to stay on

Huh? LOL Way to stay on topic. Your argument is just silly. Name a single government entity that did not have its budget cut. That the new board was able to retain their budget is an enormous success considering we are STILL experiencing the worst economy since the Great Depression. One would have to be suffering from profound ignorance -- or unabashed partisanship -- to demand a budget increase. You are denying reality to make such a preposterous suggestion... but you already know that.

Politician throughout

He is what we all complain of - strictly a politician. It is so evident in his actions exactly as you have described. 

Yeah, reading those comments

Yeah, reading those comments made me feel like he (and others) weren't saying what they really wanted to say.

Honestly, I have to wonder

Honestly, I have to wonder how much Sutton is playing to the GSIW crowd/constituents and Hill/McLaurin (also running) by going along and voicing displeasure on their behalf.  If McLaurin didn't participate in the process, deriding the process doesn't make much sense to me.  I found it very interesting the Morrison indicated she hadn't heard objections from anyone in her district and then voted along with the Republicans (A. Sherron is supposedly Rep.) perhaps that vote was to help her along.  The fact they are running for reelection leads me to believe there is a LOT of strategy and posturing going on.  I hope the other candidates that plan to run announce sooner rather than later.

That is exactly what I was

That is exactly what I was thinking about Sutton and McLaurin.  They've got to keep GSIW happy by objecting to something about it. 

I also thought it was very interesting about Morrison not hearing any negative comments from her constituents.  I didn't think about it from the Sherron angle.  Interesting.

Didn't consider online comments

It seems that online comments were ignored. I specifically questioned several things (yes, complained) about the changes to Dr. Morrison's district.  It's a joke that she both lost population to Hill and gained population from Hill. If that isn't blatant tweaking for political purposes, I don't know what is.

Do you know more than

Do you know more than Carolyn Morrison? She seemed very pleased with her new district. Is she not properly representing her constituents?

I had a hard time believing

I had a hard time believing that nobody 'complained'.  What do you think was political about it? 

 

funny how the Plan "SPLIT THE BOARD 5-3"

Did anyone notice this sentence?  I actually think a 5-3 vote on the re-districting plan is actually the more consensus and agreement on any major issue than any other Board vote that I can remember.

And, it would have been 6-3

And, it would have been 6-3 if Margiotta voted on it. It had TRI-partisan support. Democrats, Republicans, and whatever Goldman is agreed it was a reasonable plan.

Mislabeled the written description?

So Shanahan could not provide the public an accurate written description of the lines from their own maps, but says the public can look for themselves using the zoom feature.   I can't figure out who should be labeled "stupid" here - Shanahan for not being able to figure out a written narrative from his own maps, Shanahan thinking the board is for blindly accepting shotty work, the board thinking the complacent public was a voice of approval,  Tedesco thinking the public cannot see through his "so you think this is bad - if you request a redo, we'll make it worse".....

Pfft...

Or you for thinking that any of this matters.  There's a lot of complaining about something really minor.  The main purpose was to create legally sound districts, and they got that.  As long as that's true, does it really matter where the lines are drawn?  

Personally, I wish the board had taken the time spent dealing with redistricting and used it to deal with the task of educating 140k kids.  Ultimately, the line is irrelevant.

PFFT back at cha, Bob

For thinking incompetence paid for with tax dollars is minor. Yes, it matters. Its the process, not the lines, I'm having trouble with.

So...

8 of the board members were involved directly in the assignment process.  A small number of very outspoken members of the community complained that they didn't get quite the level of detail that they wanted, and then when they did get the detail, they complained that the general description didn't quite match the detailed description.  But, the difference was immaterial -- they could not rationally claim "Oh, if you look here at the detailed description, you'll see a reason that you should vote against this plan that wasn't apparent in the general description"

That same outspoken group also wanted the board to provide a variety of plans for the public to review, implying that the board should adopt the one that the public liked the most.  Unfortunately for them, this is not a direct democracy -- we elect the board to make those decisions; they're not left in the hands of the public. Eight of the board members were involved in the redistricting process at a much tighter level of detail than any member of the public was. 

This is pretty much how I expect the board to address issues which most people don't particularly care about. 

Let's pretend that the board had waited two weeks after the precise shapefiles were released, to give the public time to digest them.  What would have happened?  Nothing -- the same group would have come back, with about the same comments they made the first time.  Jim Martin would still have wanted to have been able to run against Margiotta.  GSIW would still have been upset about McLaurin's district.  And the NAACP would still be calling everybody a "segregationist."

The only thing I'll say

The only thing I'll say about this is that the split precincts were likely to be the most compained about areas, and since the exact spot where they were being split wasn't known it would be pretty hard to make a comment about any specific one.

I think that instead of splitting precincts they could have put all of precinct "a" into one district and all of precinct "b" into another.

But in all reality the new districts appear to be legally viable, so all the complaining is just wasting time.

Why?

Why are the split precincts more likely to be the complained about areas?  I would have to look at a map to tell what my precinct number is, or what its boundaries are.  The Board of Elections regularly splits precincts without any actual advance public knowledge.  They're just an administrative tool.  The reason you don't want to split precincts is that doing so makes the job of the Board of Elections a bit harder, not because people in that precinct are bound together by mystic chains of friendship or anything.

Here's an example of why you can't just go with whole districts:  Divide the following precincts into districts, such that the two districts are within 1% of each other (numbers listed are population of the precincts):   7,000; 650; 160; 2,000; 1,200.   It just can't be done.  (And that example ignores location -- precincts 650 and 2,000 may be on opposite sides of precinct 7,000).  

Are those actual numbers or

Are those actual numbers or did you just throw them out for fun?

No...

Not actual numbers, just an example.  If every precinct were the same size, the job would be a lot easier.  But, there are precincts around 10,000 people, and others under 500.  It's a really tricky puzzle. 

The lines really aren't

The lines really aren't irrelevant.

Dividing Knightdale into three separate districts is worse than dividing Cary, IMO, because I don't think Knightdale has the sprawling, irregular boundaries that Cary has.  I can't prove it, of course, but I suspect that route was taken because it put Malone's seat at less risk in two years than it would be if he had more of Knightdale.  He is obviously a very "north Raleigh-centric" person.

I can leave my house in Fuquay, drive down 42 to Clayton, and pass houses with Raleigh addresses, so saying "Raleigh is divided, too" isn't really being honest about the situation.

For the record, I am not really pro- or anti-diversity.  I see some benefits in the old diversity policy, but I don't think getting rid of it has to be the worst thing ever.  I am anti-choice (blue plan) and pro-base assignments (green plan), though.  I think (and always have) that we should assign people to a school, do our best to give them a calendar option, and be done with it.

They should handle assignments the same way they handled redistricting:  Come out with a logical, fair plan and tell people "Here's the plan".  Trying to give everyone 3-5 different choices is just going to change the names of the people complaining, not eliminate the complaints.

Yeah... Ok...

They're not irrelevant, and I do care a bit about where they are.  But, my point is that this is really a side show to the school board's purpose.

The problem with Malone's district is that Knightdale is at the other end from Wake Forest, and Malone lives in Wake Forest.  If you want to put all of Knightdale in that district, then the district is just too big.  If you take Knightdale completely out of Malone's district, then where does it go?  You really only have two options: Tedesco and Sutton, and neither of those are great either.  If it's Tedesco, that means shifting NE, creating a long skinny district and a hole (where McLaurin has to go, pulled even further out of downtown).  If it's Sutton, that means a probable NAACP lawsuit for diluting the voting power in his majority/minority district.

The rules about trying to keep new boundaries close to current boundaries and trying to keep board members in their own districts had a serious impact. 

I'm with you on the blue plan/green plan thing.  The board needs to listen to citizen input, but should not set up the expectation that it will do whatever the loudest voices say.  

If it weren't for having the

If it weren't for having the keep the current members in their districts, I think a solution could be to move the northern part of Hill's district into Malone's.  I'm not sure where that line would be in terms of population--the Neuse or Durant Road seem possible.   Then maybe there could be some other shifting around to allow Knightdale to move as one into somebody else's district.   Knightdale as gotten the shaft for years and this new map just adds insult to injury.  But there's not a lot we can do if we've got to keep board members in their current districts.

I'd really love to see a map done without regard to current boundaries or board members at all.  If we were to start from scratch, what would make most sense?  Of course that will never happen, but I think it would be interesting to see nonetheless.
 

I discussed just that.. from

I discussed just that.. from east of Rolesville west through Wake Forest to the watershed area...  but I dont know if that would have been practical.

Difficult...

It probably would have violated the principles of being reasonably compact and of trying to make as few changes as possible.  It's a shame you couldn't take advantage of the indecision of the two doctors on the board -- taking those restrictions away may have freed you up.

Go Scotty.

Goldman's comment interesting

That she thought it was good that the new plan created fewer splits in Cary and Morrisville. Interesting that the same couldn't be done for Knightdale.  I'm sure Knightdale could have been split into two rather than three if anyone had put in 2 cents of effort.  This $10,000 going to Sheehan is a supreme waste of our funds. I'd rather have it spent on students than this crappy work. We should all be insulted that he didn't even bother to write the plan up, put decent maps on the web site that had enough detail to have a clue where the boundaries were, and explain the need to split pricincts.  I give him a D and I think Wake County should expect more for our precious funds.  But then....he contributed to some G5 campaigns.  Guess that makes his lack of effort for Wake OK.

How?

I tried to put Knightdale into two districts, and it created a mess either way.  It's like trying to compress a balloon -- you push in on one place, and it pops out in a different place.

Why is splitting precincts bad?  

"I am anti-choice (blue

"I am anti-choice (blue plan) and pro-base assignments (green plan), though.  I think (and always have) that we should assign people to a school, do our best to give them a calendar option, and be done with it.

They should handle assignments the same way they handled redistricting:  Come out with a logical, fair plan and tell people "Here's the plan".  Trying to give everyone 3-5 different choices is just going to change the names of the people complaining, not eliminate the complaints."

I can't disagree with any of this part of your post....I'd just add that "logical" should include distance from your home.  It's illogical to drive past several schools your child could attend on the way to your kids school.  That sort of assignment plan can't afford stability either given the way populations shift over time. 

I'm completely with you with regard to stopping all the choices.  All the choices keeps people from committing and making their child's school better if need be, i.e. stop your complaining (not you dan) and start helping.

But I do agree with Bob that this is much do to about nothing, just another smoke screen/ distraction from people who have an entirely different agenda.  Leave it to Keung to harp on this issue for more few weeks.....

Distance from home would be

Distance from home would be included in logical.  You can't promise everyone their closest school, but you can promise everyone a close school.

Ever since the election, it has been apparent that our next assignment plan would be proximity-focused, so I personally stopped coming up with ideas that would involve busing.

I would still use the current nodes, because you'll still have to have reassignments for growth and crowding issues.  Nodes make that process simpler.  The massive yearly reassignments would be over as soon as you gave everyone their base schools because you wouldn't be trying to keep F&R numbers balanced.

Refreshingly, we continue

Refreshingly, we continue to agree.

Who knew that could happen!

Who knew that could happen!

What would be the purpose of

What would be the purpose of additional maps? If you follow the agreed upon criteria, consider the input provided and factor in the legalities required to devise a plan, what information would you use to come up with a 2nd or 3rd plans?

All of the board members agreed that the plan was reasonably acceptable and could not identify a single specfic change they wanted to see. So, it seemed the request for "tweaks" by Hill, Sutton and McLaurin-Meeker was intended only to delay the process and/or to gain some political advantage. It is also notable that McLaurin-Meeker chose not to offer her input during the planning process.

Did you miss Dr. McLaurin's comments

about switching some sections with Margiotta.  That was a very specific comment that you conveniently dismiss.  I'm sure there are others. 

?

You complained in earlier post that changes were made for political purposes. But seem to be OK if McLaurin suggests a change for political purposes?

One plan....

  Then I guess the same logic applies to the assignment plan.  Tata should come out with one plan, no context, no other options, only vague descriptions of the methodology – then just shove it down our throats. I am sure parents would love that.  How is that any different from voters having some concept of their options when looking at redistricting?

I agree. Tata should present

I agree. Tata should present one well-considered plan that aligns with the revised Policy 6200, considers the input received from the board members and the public and meets any legal requirements that may apply. We are not ordering a stock assignment plan where you pick personal options. This is public policy that impacts an entire country where we elect leaders to make sound recommendations. If the assignment plan goes half as well as the redistricting success, we will be in an excellent position for moving forward.

I have no idea what you are referring to in regard to context, methodology or shoving things down ones' throat.

There would be only one purpose

more stall tactics from the obstructionists.

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