Did Wake County school board member Kevin Hill make a political mistake by voting against the student assignment plan on Tuesday?
The no vote has given Heather Losurdo, who announced this week that she supported the plan now, something to campaign on against Hill in the Nov. 8 runoff. In a column Tuesday for the liberal Independent weekly, Bob Geary writes that "a yes vote was the better choice for Hill politically."
"But Hill, like his fellow Democrats, is not a politician and he doesn't think like one," Geary writes. "(Sutton is the exception, and he was thinking like a politician; unfortunately, Morrison and McLaurin either didn't get it that he was giving them a good reason to vote no — with Hill — or they simply couldn't bring themselves to cast a political vote.)"
Geary adds that "sure enough, John Tedesco started Facebooking and Tweeting immediately that Hill's vote was partisan, and naysaying." Geary accuses Tedesco of spreading around a "fictitious campaign" that a new Democratic board majority would fire Superintendent Tony Tata.
Comments
Hill
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 22:29 — gregishereHill is an educator first and foremost. He voted against this plan with each student in Wake County in mind. He did not think of his political fortunes. I am proud to support him.
You are right. He is an
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 17:36 — NoRalNerdYou are right. He is an educator. And he's damn sure not a representative of the parents and taxpayers of District 3.
I am proud to vote against him every chance I get.
NoRalNerd: Have you ever
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 21:22 — zandeNoRalNerd: Have you ever tried to contact Mr. Hill as a constituent in D-3? I have on a few occasions and found him to be very open, available and helpful. I am a parent and taxpayer in D-3 and he has my vote.
Interesting...
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 07:42 — Bob_SconceHe must dole out his magnaminity sparingly. I know of at least three issues in my neck of the woods where parents reached out to him and he did nothing -- in at least one of these, he never responded: The Forest Pines -> WF-RHS part of the assignment plan; the WMS 'dress as Hitler' fiasco; the mouse infestation in the WES trailers a few years ago. In all of them, members of the current majority were more helpful than Hill was.
It is the decisions and board votes that matter
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 06:19 — woodstockIt really does not matter how Hill may be as a person ("open" and "honest" in your view), it is the decisions he and votes he makes the regarding policies and practices that impact students and families. From that perspective he has failed miserably and must be defeated in the run-off.
Did Hill ever say....
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:09 — bpuli9999he would vote for the plan? I don't think so. Yet he got 49.7 of the vote, didn't he?
Is it because he wants to
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:27 — woodstockIs it because he wants to return to busing for diversity? If he is elected that is exactly what will happen.
As opposed to Heather...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 07:57 — bpuli9999who has no opinions of her own and will be a rubber stamp for JT.
That is just pure
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 06:20 — woodstockThat is just pure fabrication.
So....
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:24 — tabdjbWhy does everything have to be about political parties. It amazes me how most people on this forum don't believe anyone has a mind of their own and can make their own decisions. This is why everyone is so upset with Debra Goldman. She wasn't suppose to vote how she felt, she was suppose to vote with the majority. No one is looking out for the kids, most are so dead set on deciding which party is going to rule they can't see past that. Not voting "yes" does not mean he does not support the plan or idea behind it. A lot of people are asking questions in his district and so he is doing the same thing. Tedesco never mentions the kids when he talkimg about elections, he only thinks on party lines and anything thing against them is based on politics and othing else.
I don't recall anyone saying that Losurdo has asked any more questions than before and I would be more worried about the one who keeps changing her mind and just goes with the flow. And if I am correct, the Brassfield group was against part of the plan ecause they did not like the feeder patterns.
Brassfield to wakefield
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 23:24 — sam123456Yes, we are against the plan. Brassfield has a split feeder in the previous plan. Now we will all be forced to go to the Millbrooks. For those in northern part of Brassfield this will cause significant change as a students will be bused further distances to the Millbrooks vs Wakefield. This will disrupt our families, neighborhoods, and communities. It is imperative that this is changed.
It is political because, as
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:29 — woodstockIt is political because, as a party, the Democrats are hell-bent on returning to forced busing for some bastardized definition of diversity... Hill reiterated that position at the board meeting on Tuesday. Also, the Democrat Party has spent a couple hundred thousand dollars demonizing their opponents through race-hustling and lies.
Other folks -- a bipartisan coalition, by the way, that supports Losurdo -- desire common sense assignments that address proximity and choice.
There is NO BI-PARTISAN
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 22:09 — auroradaveThere is NO BI-PARTISAN coalition that backs Lorsurdo-- Woodstock, what are you smokin?
Yes, there is. There are
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 06:23 — woodstockYes, there is. There are many, many non-GOP citizens/voters who will support and vote for Losurdo... and the WSCA has just endorsed her because they know she is the only hope to prevent a return to forced-busing and constant reassignements for what the left likes to call "diversity."
This isn't 2009
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 10:22 — Dove314This isn't 2009, that ship has sailed, and a new argument beyond "the sky will fall" is needed. There is apparently already forced-busing for diversity with the current BoE and the brand new assignment plan, just theoretically with more stability, as evidenced by the Brassfield / Fox Road feeder patterns.
Eh...
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 13:52 — Bob_SconceEven under the new assignment plan, I don't think you can call that 'forced.' There is still a choice element, which never existed before.
There is, however, a serious concern that a win for Hill will, indeed, return the district to pre-2009 policies. For one, there's a good chance that Martin, Evans and Kushner will go along with Hill and Sutton, both of whom voted against the assignment plan, to put it off. And, if that happens, then there will be 7,000 forced reassignments next year.
Details?
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 16:14 — HereWeGoCould you give us the details of which 7,000 students will be reassigned? What is your source?
That number is based on averages.
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 22:12 — raleighlauraTata used that 7,000 number as the average number of kids who would be forced to be reassigned each year if we didnt fix the assignment system to accomodate future growth. The number is based on the actual reassignments of the last decade under the node system. I think that number is low given that we are expected to grow to 200,000 and that number is from a decade when our largest enrollment was around 140,000.
so...
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 18:00 — Bob_SconceTata Gave the number in advance of tuesday's vote.
Dodging it there
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 14:31 — Dove314My point is the forced assignments are just deferred until a child changes from ES to MS or MS to HS apparently but there is still a component of forced busing that is going to occur for individuals who are currently already in a school where the feeder pattern has been changed for "diversity" or "ED" or whatever you want to call it. And, while a few groups got Tata to change their pattern (e.g. Jeffrey's Grove), others are not having the same success. So, there will be a cohort of rising 6th graders who will be forced to a new MS next year along with a cohort of rising 9th graders who will be forced to a new HS option. While some may be able to jump patterns by going through the choice roulette wheel, not all will have success.
The increased stability in assignment is a good thing. And proximity will be true for many. But you need to acknowledge that this is happening and not try to brush it under the rug. There are unhappy parents such as the Brassfield parents who are in this situation and are speaking up.
As a result, I'm not sure you can make the argument that either majority on the BoE has not put a plan in to action with a component of "forced busing for diversity".
Stability Will Occur
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 19:52 — JanisTango...don't you think parents will choose their ES options based on where they want their children to go to MS and HS. I know a lot of parents purchased homes in a specific area because they wanted specific schools for this children. I know over time things will change and my hope is if the parents want a different option as their children get older that choice is there.
There is also a big difference between this plan and the former Policy 6200. It takes into account where the schools are needed instead of building a school where ever because previously they didn't care because they would just end up busing the kids. If areas of the county are expanding, the county commissioners need to get on board and make sure land is set aside for the schools that will be needed. I don't understand why we do things the way we do here, because in almost ever major city in this nation there is planning done for things like that. I'm appalled that a major development like Brier Creek was built without any thought behind the schools that would be needed ES.
In regards the changes at JGE. We were fortunate that we had our school board member, principal and PTA behind the fight! Mr. Tata realized that the feeder pattern that was being proposed would hurt a school that has dealt with constantly changing student populations for years. This school like many others in the area are in desperate need to stability. I hope Brassfield has the same success with their fight.
ES? Sure.
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 02:35 — Dove314Will rising kindergartners choose their ES based on feeder patterns? Sure. But that won't help those already in ES who now find themselves in an altered feeder pattern, or those at the MS or HS change point.
Want to be very clear -- I'm personally not bothered by assignment except to have it be settled. As we've discussed, I see it as more of a distraction from where we need to be focused. There just seemed to be some effort to portray this plan as having eliminated "forced busing for diversity" when it does not, as there is "busing for diversity" in the way the feeder patterns have been created. But, after a short period of instability as everyone tries to jump choices to the one they want, it does bring stability which will be beneficial.
As for where schools are built, I'm not yet sure what the criteria are for where to place a school. Are you saying that the BoE will now be required to build a new school in a specific local when the density of unmet need/seats is sufficient? Based on the current Policy 6200? Can you point me to where these criteria are listed about required density of unmet need/seats? I have not seen anything about a focus to continue to place more schools in SE Raleigh where there is a clear lack of seats. Instead there is continued discussion about new schools in the 'burbs.
That coalition does
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 07:58 — bpuli9999exist and it consists of woody and his one democratic friend. Just like when JT said he had a black girlfriend.
It's only been about
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:40 — virginiadareIt's only been about political parties since the Republican take-over in 2009. Before that, votes were very rarely broken down based on party affiliation. That's what the Democrats have stated they want to get back to - a nonpartisan school board. Kevin in particular has been looking out for the kids in this community for his entire 35 year career and does not base any of his votes on the politics of it, sometimes to the detriment of his political career.
virginia, we can't move
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 18:48 — snordoneforward until we start dealing in the truth. The vast majority of reassignments were not directly growth related, they may have been associate in some way (back-filling old schools, balancing for SES when parents fled a school for magnet/charter/private), but it was plain and simple mismanagement of our system that caused our problems. We had a profound "people" problem (i.e. those who were in charge at the time), and we all know it and have discussed it at length - before the election and for 2 years after. The "non-partisan" BOE kowtowed to staff, staff was unresponsive to families, and here is where we are today. We have excellent new leadership in central office, we have an assignment plan that will lead to balanced schools with a pull instead of a forced push, and you guys have got to get on board and stop dwelling in false beliefs. We can't go backwards and we still have a lot of problems to fix, most importantly of which is equity in resources and access to education. These problems were well documented in the curriculum management audit, and they are still there.
As a parent in district 3 I can tell you that Kevin has NEVER supported the children because he has not supported our schools. We are under-enrolled, under-resourced and profoundly unstable because we have had no advocate since Carol left. Kevin supported the old guard in central office, which is the equivalent of political cronyism.
Analysis done
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 20:33 — valsparStaff was asked to state how many moves were for diversity when they introduced the three year plan, and it was less than 5%. Therefore, the "vast majority" of the moves were indeed growth related. Your under enrolled, under-resourced and profoundly unstable school has experienced these conditions since 2009 as well even though you have had John Tedesco out to your school to address the issues. Are you just as mad at him?
actually it got better this year for the first time
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:37 — snordoneour projected enrollment was 380 (capacity is 525, we have lost approximately 30 kids/year, give or take, for 5 years) but because we got a small school status we are at 425. They also funded art, music and pe full time for the first time in 6 years. So, no, I am not mad at JT, I appreciate his help.
That said, we have major funding formula problems and are severely under-resourcing our title I schools. We have had no advocate in district 3 since Carol left, and it has left this region of the county in rough shape.
The report you reference
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 17:16 — NoRalNerdThe report you reference reflected 5% of moves "for diversity" only included those that were made for diversity alone. This bit of semantics allowed them to hide considerably more diversity-driven reassignments by giving them a second driver. So if a move was for both diversity and growth, it was no longer counted under the "diversity" bucket.
Just another example of how WCPSS and its staff has been trained by the Dulaneys and Holdzcombs to make sure that they don't have the data that people really want -- and if they do have it, to find someway to cloud it so that it supports their position.
...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 20:46 — SideburnsCan you provide a link to that analysis?
Video
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:28 — valsparDulaney stated it when he delivered the 3 year plan to the board. I do believe the N&O reported on it as well. Dulaney mentioned it was hard to determine only one driver determining a move, many new schools were opening. He stated his staff found growth was the main driver. Diversity for diversity's sake was far down the list. You and I have tussled with this before. I remember it, you don't. If you want more, go to Ron's library of board meeting videos. It's there.
...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:36 — SideburnsThe video on "Diversity for diversity's sake" must be between "Banning books" and "The War on Christmas". I'll take a look.
So, there is no analysis.
betting no, it's the Lori
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 21:11 — AngelaWbetting no, it's the Lori Millberg approach, "we just know"....
And they also said no
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 20:43 — starsonoursAnd they also said no records were kept. How do you come up with a number when there are no records to backup your claim? Its called a guess if you don't have the data.
You are wrong. Who do you
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 20:04 — virginiadareYou are wrong. Who do you think had the courage to call for a curriculum audit and was trying to address the problems that were revealed and was working to complete the action steps suggested? If you will recall, this was also when they were admitting 8000 new students a year and trying to find a place to put them all and fighting for adequate funding. They didn't have time to be responsive to each indidual family who was dissatisfied with their school assignment! I also know that the previous board did NOT kowtow to staff! There were many instances of staff not getting what they recommended behind the scenes. They just didn't go public with it. I hope this plan will lead to balanced schools, but it will not if they do not set aside seats at the high performance schools in high growth areas, in which case the kids in poor neighborhoods will not have a true choice at all, just as Kevin as said. I know you have a personal vendetta against Kevin, but if you really think that someone with the character and ideology of Losurdo will do a better job, you are dangerously mistaken. Kevin DID support your schools by looking at the big picture and trying to make the whole district better. He and the others he was working with were thwarted by the growth, lack of funding, the lawsuit, and then the lies told during the 2009 campaign which led to the Republican majority that threw this district into chaos. Hopefully a new majority after Kevin is reelected will right things again.
it is not personal
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 19:54 — snordoneI have never asked Kevin for anything, but I did get to see how he operates up close as his BAC chair and it was disturbing. I think it is wrong to tell parents things that are blatantly untrue, I think it is wrong to manipulate information to suite your purpose. As he said in those GSIW emails, I am an "activist." I know that our policies and procedures have damaged children, and I have been very vocal about what we must change. And he has been very persistent in his quest to change nothing.
Again, he has not supported the schools, the children, or the teachers. He supported central office. The democratic leadership should have chosen a different candidate, they would have won and we would not be having this discussion.
There are two sides to every
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 15:43 — virginiadareThere are two sides to every story, and I believe Kevin's side over yours. I have read many things you have posted on this site that are "blatantly untrue." Central office has always tirelessly supported schools, children, and teachers, as has Kevin. They may not have always done it in the way you would have chosen, but it is wrong to mischaracterize their intent. Morale among staff and teachers over the past two years has hit rock bottom, and has shown no signs of improving with this new administration. It is the Republican leadership who should have chosen a different candidate to support, rather than the grossly unqualified partisan they and all of the Republican members of the board endorsed. Kevin won a strong plurality of the vote October 11 and I am confident that the voters of District 3 will finish the job and give him a decisive win in the run-off in order to make a change in the divisive, partisan, uncompromising majority we have had incompetently governing our system for the past two years.
I am sure
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 17:24 — snordonethere are 2 sides to this, and I am sure it is entertaining. It started with EVAAS and inclusion of minority and ED kids in higher level courses and has gone on from there. I don't lie Virginia, I say a lot of unfiltered things, but I don't lie. I'd love to show you some of the emails - the "memo" from NCDPI that Kevin sent me that dismissed EVAAS as being irrelevant and inaccurate. Someone sent me the same memo that same day, but with the header and signature - it was written by David Holdzkom. There are many examples of this, another just a few weeks ago where I sat and listened to him blatantly lie and tell parents the inequity between Baileywick and Pleasant Union was due to their wealthy PTA. I corrected him, he backed out of his first answer but lied again and said it was Fund 6. I stopped, it was not worth my time, but he knows why there is a disparity in funding because we both saw the same data. Pleasant Union has an afterschool program, and they are very profitable. That money goes into TDA, not fund 6. Continue to believe him if you want, but eventually you will see him for what he is.
Why would I believe you have
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 12:20 — virginiadareWhy would I believe you have a better handle on funding issues than Kevin, who managed the budget of a school as principal and has been dealing with funding on the board for four years? I know that he is much more familiar with all the details than you could possibly be. He has also been exactly right regarding EVAAS, which is not the magic bullet your side is portraying it as for "reforming" schools or even for making sure qualified students are placed properly in Algebra I. It is a only a tool, which can also be misused. He has been trying to make sure that doesn't happen, as well as make sure we don't end up like Montgomery County, Md. and push too many kids into Alegebra I too early so that they struggle and can't make it in the higher math classes in high school. Read up on why they have changed their policies. Maybe you could learn from them and realize that we need to strike a balance, making sure that any student who is qualified and can handle it be placed appropriately, while not risking failure and subsequent hatred of math for those who can't.
At any rate, Losurdo will be a disaster for our county school board and I can't imagine that any person who values public education or truly wants to help disadvantaged children would vote for her.
If you will recall, this was
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 23:43 — jeffrey1If you will recall, this was also when they were admitting 8000 new students a year
A bit of an exaggeration, don't you think (we never reached 8000 new students in any year):
Annual increase in enrollment by year:
Jeffrey... Look at your own
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 21:44 — zandeJeffrey... Look at your own data. That is astounding. How in the world could a system deal with that kind of increase in capacity even come close to the sort of success WCPSS has had? How many new schools had to open each year to accomodate that kind of growth? No wonder there were multiple reassignments. Consider the alternative....
The school system I attended as a young person worshipped at the altar of "neighborhood schools." My elementary school was one mile from my house so we walked there every day. We lived on the outer edge of the neighborhood so we had to hike. No big deal and it kept us in shape. I wish I still walked two miles a day... I would not have the middle age paunch I seem to be gaining....
My Jr. High school (northernese for Middle School) was literally in my backyard. By the time I got to that school it was so overcrowded that we had to go on what were called "split shifts." Basically one building and two schools. I went to school from 1pm to 7 pm. The other shift was from 6am to 12pm. Not very good for families but still... we had our coveted "neighborhood schools."
By the time I got to HS my elementary school was seriously underenrolled. It eventually was mothballed. The system got very expensive and lots of ppl started moving to the burbs. There was no unified county school system so the taxes were a lot higher than they are here and the schools in the big city became increasingly lower income and lower performing... but we had our neighborhood schools!!!
Yikes.... we want and need better here.
"..thwarted by the growth,
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 20:11 — starsonours"..thwarted by the growth, lack of funding, the lawsuit and then the lies told during the 2009 campaign.." In other words "He has failed and accomplished nothing but don't hold it against him" We elect people to make a difference not to make excuses. Is the motto of his campaign "Its not my fault" "Don't blame me, its because of ______"
VD
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 16:43 — JanisTangoyou say it wasn't about politics in the past. How about this...it was about an ideaology that was hurting families and more importantly hurting the very children they thought they were helping. In the words of Lori Millberg....we don't want to study policy 6200 because we know it's working. Guess what Lori...we studied it our school and we have the proof that it did hurt the kids!
The instability was because
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:08 — virginiadareThe instability was because of the growth. It was not the diversity policy that was hurting kids. I believe you when you say that the kids who had the most instability were doing the worst in your school, but one of the problems poor students face is that they move more. I'm sure that contributed to their being in many different schools during their elementary years, and was not solely because their nodes were moved. The new majority moved just as many if not more poor students to get them back to "their" neighborhoods, which contributed just as much to their instability.
Not True....
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 17:14 — JanisTangomany of the kids that came to our school during the last few years were displaced from magnets. How does that have to do with growth? They were displaced so they could have more application students. They wanted to increased the percentage of non-ed kids and decrease the percentage of ed kids. I know growth was an issue and was mismanaged, but it wasn't the only reason so many kids were shuffled like cards. You need to stop using that as your only excuse for the instability many of these kids faced.
All of these problems....
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 08:02 — bpuli9999will be solved if just keep those kids downtown, right? I am so touched by the concern the suburban parents have for those ED kids downtown.
Is that your response to
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 08:45 — starsonoursIs that your response to every post?
Just Keep Believing...
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 09:03 — JanisTangowhatever you want......I personally don't care where the children from our school comes from as long as the parents have some say. I also would like them to leave these children at our school so we can give them the consistency to be successful. I guess you are OK with making more seats available for rich, white kids from the burbs that really just want a private education on the public dime! Who is kicking kids out of their neighborhoods exactly? Seems to me the magnet schools don't want too many of 'those' kids at their school?
District 3
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 15:17 — sam123456A big question for the candidates in District 3 will be how they propose to fix the Brassfield situation under the new plan. This impacts many families in the district
And importantly
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 18:19 — erikhughesWhat would he do as part of the majority? How do you support him if you can't answer that question? Check his website or statements for an answer (nothing). Although I did find his mission statement interesting ... Full text at the bottom.
So if you have Tedesco as your rep, it is pretty easy to know whether you want to vote for or against him. With Kevin Hill as the swing vote, I just don't think he or anyone else is providing a reason to give him another term (unless your financial plan is buying lottery tickets from last week that didn't pay out). Again, what will he advocate as part of the majority and what will that majority do wrt the new assignment plan (where his most consequential statement is we won't go back to the diversity plan that he previously supported). So what will he support as the majority and where will he lead anything (probably nowhere and I think District 3 has had that for long enough personally) For me, the weight is on him as an incumbent and as the determining seat in the majority.
"As a Board member, my responsibility has been to represent the children and parents of District 3, as well as all Wake County citizens. I believe that the key to making complex decisions is in seeking community input as part of the process, including public comment at Board meetings and public hearings, PTA/PTSA concerns, input from teachers and administrators, and finally, through outreach efforts to our underrepresented students and parents. While taking all concerns into consideration, final decisions must be data-driven, transparent, and with the needs of the school system in mind. Making decisions based on facts and evidence increase the likelihood that our schools are efficiently run and ultimately create financial benefits for everyone in Wake County as a result of a greater return on our investment in education"
Ms. Losurdo the week before
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 14:34 — WhalerCaneMs. Losurdo the week before the election said, "There are too many questions for me right now, if I were on the board, to pass the plan." She also said it should be delayed a year. Now in an effort to help her failing campaign, she has flipped and said she would have voted for it.
Mr. Hill has consistently said he supports the priciples of the choice plan of proximity, student achievment, stability, and choice, but could not vote for it for immediate implementation with out assurance there are seats for at risk kids in high performing schools. He has never voted for 'political' reason. In 35 years of service to the kids of Wake County, Kevin has always put students first.
Mr. Hill just followed through with what Ms. Losurdo promised voters before the election she would do. It is pretty obvious who is putting politics first and being partisan. The obvious is a vote for Ms. Losurdo would likely make Mr. Tedesco Chair.