There's both good news and bad news in the first round of the Wake County student assignment plan choice selection results.
As noted in today's article, the results showed that 74.9 percent of the 19,048 applicants got their first-choice school. Superintendent Tony Tata touted that 97 percent of students are going to the school they want by including with the successful first-choice applicants all the other existing families who took their preliminary assignment and didn't apply.
But problems include how some schools didn't get many applicants, particularly Abbotts Creek Elementary and Richland Creek Elementary, a pair of new schools slated to open for the 2012-13 school year.
Staff said they may recommend delaying one or both of the new schools. In the meantime, they'll present information on the capacity and number of applicants at the schools around Abbotts Creek and Richland Creek to show what could happen if they're delayed.
It was hard selling both schools because they're opening in modular campuses until their permanent buildings are ready.
Abbotts Creek would be housed next to East Millbrook Middle School in North Raleigh. Pending funding in the next bond issue, it would open next to the North Wake Landfill on Durant Road.
Richland Creek will be located at the DuBois Center in Wake Forest. The funding for the permanent campus off U.S. 1 near the Franklin County line is part of the unspent 2006 bond money that was recently reallocated for other purposes.
Staff previously told the board that, based on other districts which have used choice plans, it's generally not hard to fill a new school. They had told the board that new elementary schools might only open with K-3.
But only one student made Abbotts Creek his/her first choice. Only two students made Richland Creek their first choice.
If either school is opened, staff said they might have to fill it with newcomers and people who made it their second- or third-choice.
Comments
another hole in the plan....
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 15:31 — sam123456yet another hole in this 'wonderful' "choice" plan -- when will it stop before we realize that we need to delay for a year????
It's time for another cause buddy
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 19:06 — FSandYOUThis plan is THE plan and it is a done deal. If you did not, or don't, get the school you want you only have yourself and Kevin to blame.
If it means SOOOOOOOO much to you, as I can see it does, then it is up to YOU to sell your home and move somewhere else that meets your needs. As for Kevin, you didn't think he'd actually do anything to help you did you?
As for me, the plan means zip. We're going to a school that passes 2 others and we're going to deal with it.
Until the house sells.
Why is this a hole? WCPSS
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 17:55 — loriacWhy is this a hole? WCPSS got exactly what they should have expected ... modular only schools, very limited outreach or information - why would anyone choose these schools? The right thing should happen now - get them further along, provide more information - ie, fix them before forcing kids to go there.
We got reassigned so that we could help 'fix' a school. Guess what - we opted out. The old way is gone, thank goodness.
Sam, Here's a hole for you
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 16:17 — shearertwSam,
Here's a hole for you to consider....
Diversity busing made ED students perform WORSE!
Still want to trap these children on a bus so you and the other 3%-er's can get exactly what you want?
That's not true
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 21:52 — SatchHHIt's not true that busing made ED students perform worse and you know this if you've been following anything about Wake. The report Margiotta and JT (data idiots both) touted as saying this was revised to actually be correct. Hmmmm. Interesting that the false interpretations were put there in the first place. This is the same BS that the neighborhood schools folks trot out with their other BS like - oh, we'll bus less in Wake and that money will go to the classrooms. More falsehoods considering just about all bus savings go back to the state - not to mention that Wake has had very, very efficient busing. Sam is right. This plan is a mess. Tata has already said it's more expensive. And thanks to our former board, we have more high poverty schools - and it's going to get worse with this plan.
The truth is, we don't know
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:36 — shearertwThe truth is, we don't know if busing made ED students perform worse or not. What we do know is that the diversity policy did not help them perform any better and , by many measures, it appears their performance in WCPSS has either declined or not kept pace with their peers in other sytems. The WCPSS also suggest that ED students attending higher F&R schools actually performed better than their ED peers in WCPSS at lower F&R schools. All that said, there's a lot of data that suggest busing policy either made matters worse or at best had no positive impact on ED performance. There is NO data that suggest the policy improved ED performance. That's the bottom line. Under the new policy, these kids will have the opportunity to attend a school their parents believe is the best option for them. That's the major improvement. Whether that leads to an improvement in ED performance or not remains to be seen. Now that we know busing a kid to a far away school doesn't help, I think removing the sitting on the bus part and replacing it with attending a school your parent's find to be a better option has promise.
students need support
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 15:06 — turnerk1I would add that we also learned that kids who are having a hard time in school need extra support, no matter where they go to school. I do think there are benefits to diversity that will never show up on a standardized test. However, I think that in years past, staff and the board allowed themselves to think that the assignment policy would somehow replace programs designed to help kids who were having trouble. Particularly after Bill McNeal left, money and staff were diverted away from programs for at risk kids into other priorities, and it really showed.
Yes, I agree. Students due
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 15:20 — shearertwYes, I agree. Students due need support. In fact, all students need support. However, not every student needs the same type of support. If you spread students around who all need similar types of support, I would argue in makes it nearly impossible to adequately provide the support those students need in a bunch of different schools. For example, consider the differences between the AG support at base school vs an AG magnet. AG students are the "same", need the same type of support, but the ones concentrated at the magnet school get much more and better AG support. You see this in healthcare all the time. Some hospitals focus on cancer, neonatal care, cardiovascular, etc. They do this so they can become worldclass centers for treating these diseases by attracting leading experts, the best cancer Drs., nurses, etc. This is the reason I think the diversity policy failed. When you dilute the kids who have a specific needs out into a population that doesn't share that need, it doesn't getting "treated" effectively. The only way it could be treated effectively that way would be to ignore the needs of the majority population. That leads to a mediocre school system for everyone. I find it odd that the proponents "diversity" tend to think everyone needs to be treated the same.
well..
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 17:54 — turnerk1I think the flaw in your reasoning, however, is that a classroom is not like healthcare. People with brain cancer do not get worse if clustered together with other people with brain cancer. But a classroom that is full of too many kids with lots of needs (as often happens in schools with many at risk kids) tend to feed on each other and get worse. Also, it becomes very overwhelming for the teacher who is trying to function in the classroom. If you've ever hosted a playdate where one kid is difficult to handle and seen how one child's behavior can negatively affect everyone else in the house, you know what I mean. I'm certainly not saying that ED kids are all at risk or all have the same needs, but there is no question that there is a correlation between poverty and the need for extra support whether that is academic, social, behavioral, or whatever.
not talking about old plan
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 16:50 — sam123456...pointing out fact that there are MANY holes with this plan. when will you realize that -- oh I forgot you don't want see it because you benefit from this plan...tryanny of the majority!!
Sorry, nothing changed for
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 17:23 — shearertwSorry, nothing changed for me except that my kids HS is more predictable.
Perhaps you're right....we should go back to making 15% unhappy because 3% are still unhappy.
If you're not talking about the old plan, what plan do you want them to used for next year's assignments?
...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 17:06 — SideburnsForever suffer the consequences. Tyranny of the majority.
Did you apply to the school you wanted? How did Kev respond to your concern about those holes?
I'm just glad to see the meeting time has been changed back to 5:30pm.
sweep it under the rug
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 17:55 — sam123456i think you would prefer that everyone would blindly accept this new plan since the plan supports your cause. But remember that thousands of kids are negatively impacted by this plan -- does that mean anything?
...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 19:19 — SideburnsDoes what mean anything? You keep talking about holes and "thousands of kids". And you refuse to answer if you even applied for a school of choice. Or explain how your hero Kev has addressed your concerns.
...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 15:36 — SideburnsAnd he's back.
Did you apply to the school you wanted, sam?
Holes Holes Holes ARRGGGHHH
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 16:08 — starsonoursSam is too busy thinking about holes to answer questions....
blinders on
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 21:38 — sam123456you and many others have blinders on given that you benefit from the plan. You would see these obvious holes if your kids were part of the thousands negatively impacted by the plan.
No benefit
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 22:49 — starsonoursSam my youngest is a rising Jr. I am not benefiting from this. I am happy to know others won't have to endure what my family had to endure.
but there will be many
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 22:59 — sam123456but there will be many that will endure what you went through --- we are forced to change we we don't want to!
Join the club...
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:43 — midtownmomin enduring what so many others of us have dealt with for the last 20 years.
You're kidding...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:48 — starsonoursLOL nice try Sam. By the way are you ever going to answer the question?
Maybe change plans, but not schools...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:31 — raleighlauraNo one was required to change schools for this plan. Not one kid. Out of 140,000+. No one was told they had to leave their current school if they didn't want to.
You were not forced to change. Your options were not what they were previously, so you had to adjust to new choices or new expectations of the future, but you were not forced to change. That is a key difference between this plan and the previous assignment method.
I agree
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 16:07 — jedaviI live within walking distance of Brassfield and in the last eight years base assignment, MYR and enrollment caps have meant that my two children have attended three different elementary schools and two different middle schools. I'm really tired of hearing Sam's complaints that his younger child cannot attend the same schools that the older child attended. All of the schools in this area of North Raleigh are good schools, you just need to give them a chance.
stability???
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 17:49 — sam123456I am confused -- I thought this plan was supposed to offer stability. So in your mind it is ok for my child to be forced to go to a different school --- where is the stability for me and the other families. Oh I am sorry -- you don't care.
...
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 18:47 — SideburnsYou are confused. It does offer stability. Your older child will no longer be at that school (based on what you've previous written). Therefore, there is no priority for your younger one. But, once your younger child starts a school, they will stay there. That's called stability.
Did you apply for the school you want?
stability - you got to be kidding me
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 22:50 — sam123456one child at wakefield high and one way down at West Millbrook Middle....how in the world do you call that stability????? Stability would be both at the wakefield campuses like we have under old plan. Our other "choice" is to take one out of elementary school that they have been at for years...what kind of "choice" is that???? Is that stability to break them away from their friends and community???? This new plan breaks up families.
Sam, I see why you are upset, but you were not forced to leave..
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:25 — raleighlauraYour expectations and future choices changed and you don't like it. However, saying that it is now less stable than under the old plan is not true. You are now guaranteed a set in your child's feeder pattern unless you want to change. Never before were you given a guarantee, and as we all know, base assignments were changed, domino style, on a near annual basis in parts of our county. You not liking your future choices does not mean this is wholesale a bad plan. Be glad you are not being forced to change schools or calendars!
raleighlaura
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:28 — sam123456Changing schools requires changing tracks (already been forced onto MYR from previous reassignments so I do understand impact of reassignment for years!!). So -- again NO stability
So...
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 00:32 — Bob_SconceFirst of all, I've met Dr. Mutillo at West Milllbrook, and was very impressed. It's a good school.
Secondly, both West Millbrook and Wakefield HS are on the traditional calendar.
You're right, of course, that there's some churn along the way. Something about eggs and omlets. But, once the new plan is in place, it will be a lot more stable.
I'm sorry that you're upset with your situation. Personally, I think Brassfield should be at WMS/WHS, and Fox Rd should be at Millbrook. But, it is what it is, and you're going to give yourself a heart attack if you continue to stress over it like this. Your children are still going to good schools. Be glad you don't live in Detroit, where you measure the effect of reassignment in terms of "is it more or less likely that my kid will get shot here?'
Sorry to belabor the point, but you do have stability.
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 00:05 — raleighlauraYou know for a fact that you can go to the feeder middle school and then on to the feeder high school. That IS stability.
It is not the same school you expected, but it is entirely stable as you now know the next six years of assignment. That is more stability than families have been offered before. You don't have to like your options, and I think it is fair to dislike the plan since your options are not desirable to you, but to claim a lack of stability is disingenuous.
Kids negatively impacted- don't forget
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 13:36 — sam123456raleighlaura, you and others on this blog speak at a very high-level vs at a kid level. Try this conversation with an elementary school child --
Parent: This plan is great, you get to go to a different middle school and high school than where your siblings and the rest of the neighborhood goes.
Child: I want to go to the same school where my siblings have gone to -- that is where my school was assigned to before.
Parent: Ok...well with this new "great choice" plan we can can pull you out of your current school and move you to another elementary school in one of the later elementary school years (assuming that we get in 50% did not get their first choice). The plan "promises" that the feeder pattern will feed into Wakefield Middle and High forever.
Child: But I want the stability of staying at my current elementary school where I have friends, know the teachers, etc. By the way, you have donated your time and money to the school.
Parent: Don't worry, staff tells me that this new plan provides "stability" for you. And by the way, at the new elementary school you won't be on the same track that you are on now so you and your siblings will never have vacation time together. Isn't this new plan "wonderful"?
So...
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 13:40 — Bob_Sconce(1) Why is it "and the rest of the neighborhood"? Isn't every other family in your neighborhood (excepting those with students already in the higher grade) in exactly the same boat?
(2) My nephew had a similar experience last year, when his neighborhood was reassigned to Middle Creek from Holly Springs, and his older sister had just graduated from Holly Springs.
There's no doubt that transitioning to the plan causes some turmoil. But, that would be true of any new assignment plan.
I'm going to ask the same question that others have asked: with all the complaining you're doing, did you at least apply to get into Wakefield Middle?
Under the old plan I had 2
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:17 — starsonoursUnder the old plan I had 2 children in middle school assigned to different schools, one east of where we live and one west. Try that for breaking up families. Sorry Sam not getting the school you want is not as traumatic as you are claiming.
starsonours -- you are wrong
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:26 — sam123456you are wrong -- actually it is. The impacted children will tell you that! But of course you don't want to listen because you benefit from this plan. Can you please tell me why I should support this new "choice" plan???? As I pointed out above there is NO stability!!!
Sam You are wrong Actually it is not
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 08:57 — starsonoursSam I do not benefit from this plan, it is to late for me and my family, my youngest will be a Jr. next year. We survived having 3 kids in 3 different schools.1 high school 2 middle ( 1 middle YR 1 middle traditional). I wish we were given the ability to choose back then. So complaining about not getting the school you wanted is not instability.
PS Are you ever going to answer the question?
The old plan broke up different families...
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:11 — midtownmomIt bussed them to different schools on different campuses; and different schedules on the same campus. There is no plan that will make everyone happy. I can imagine how frustrating it is, been there, done that. We survived, you'll survive, it just makes life a little more stressful.
ok -- i am confused
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 23:22 — sam123456Actually, it continues to make life stressful. We have been impacted by reassignment for years and that will continue under the new plan. You mention that the "old plan broke up different families". So is it ok now that this new "choice" plan breaks up my family and many other families in similar situations? I think that most on this blog like this new plan not because it provides stability, or not because it increases student achievement, but rather simply becuase they benefit directly from the new plan.
Of course it's not okay if it's your family...
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 15:03 — midtownmombut it'g going to happen to some families, no matter what type of assignment plan is used. The only was to have true security is to go private or homeschool. Otherwise, there will be reassignment. That's just a fact. But I chose not to share all the stress with my children during the times it affected our family, and they were a lot less stressed about the moves than I was because of it. They shouldn't know enough to ask the previous questions you put forth. I personally feel it's a parents job to minimize the amount of info shared with children so they will not feel the same pressure. Just my two cents.
Here's what most are going to tell you Sam
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 08:28 — FSandYOUThe only benefit most of us will see from this new plan is that we no longer have to waste our time, and our children's futures, arguing, suing, fighting and bitching about reassignments.
...
Fri, 03/09/2012 - 08:21 — SideburnsIt is wrong to claim that this plan "breaks up your family" when your children do not attend the same school grade level. Your feeder pattern has changed. But, it's long-term and you can choose another school on your list. I fail to see how anyone could benefit more from this plan than anyone else.
Did you apply for the school you wanted for your child?
Time to find a real estate agent Sam
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 22:59 — FSandYOUIf you would stop spending your time whining and start packing to move you could solve your problem.
...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 22:40 — SideburnsWe all can benefit from this new plan. We all can grandfather, we all have choice and we are all guaranteed long-term stability in assignment. No one has blinders. What sort of benefit could anyone be getting that you won't?
We understand this plan isn't perfect. Heck, many of us never envisioned this sort of plan but were willing to compromise in order to rid our system of the reassignment shuffle and forced calendars.
Maybe you should have been more vocal before Goldman put the kibosh on the initial plan. Maybe you should have participated in a BAC or student assignment committee or community meeting to make your opinions known. Who knows? Maybe you have. Have you?
We'd all still love to hear what Kev had to say about your concerns but something tells me that you will never answer. And we will be back here tomorrow talking about holes again.
I think we may be missing
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 11:45 — shearertwI think we may be missing the forest for the trees here....
What if we had just assigned/forced a bunch of people to attend one of these "schools"?
The BOE would have had a couple of community meetings, heard from some upset parents, etc, and then went on their merry way with what they wanted to do in the first place. The parents would have been stuck with it and had to suck it up. The school system would not change one darn thing and would repeat the same process the following year.
Under the new model, it may seem "inefficient", but at least we now know the school system HAS to deal with schools (not just new ones by the way) that aren't very popular. Just like this case, the "unattractive" schools will be highlighted and the school system will be under a lot of pressure to do something about it. It may be that the school is new and there is a lot of uncertainty such as this case in which the school system should have done a better job communicating, marketing, whatever to make it more attractive. In other situations, it may be that the principal or the teachers suck and need to go. Or, perhaps the building is falling apart or doesn't offer the courses (in the case of HS) the kids are demanding. Either way, yes it's inconvenient, yes it appears ineffecient, yes..it's harder on the school system, but ultimately, it leads to more "attractive" schools for kids.
We all know that just telling people where to go is easier, but that doesn't lead to better schools.
this is troubling
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 08:15 — turnerk1How can we argue to the CC that we need more bond money if we can't get anyone to go to a new school? How can one open a school with "newcomers?" Do we really get newcomers concentrated in one area, conveniently only in elementary school? How does one open a school with a handful of children and then wait for more to come? I completely understand why people didn't choose these schools, and I wonder what staff is going to do about this problem. At some point the surrounding schools will become unmanageably crowded, but many parents may not see the issues or hope that others will transfer out so they don't have to uproot their own children.
So...
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 08:54 — Bob_SconceIn the current assignment plan, how do surrounding schools become unmanageably crowded?
I think the real message here is that if you're going to open a school, build the building and then open it. Nobody wants to go to a temporary campus.** The only reason that worked before was because the district was able to force people to go there.
(**Note: there might be a coordination problem here. It might be that people are happy to go to a temporary campus if they know that a bunch of other people will be there also. In that case, they may not have chosen these schools because they didn't think anybody else would. )
crowding
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 09:15 — turnerk1There is a limit to how many people they can assign to the surrounding schools, and if they can't open new ones because no one will choose them, what are they going to do?What are they doing with the kids that under the old plan would have been assigned to those new schools and now won't be? What are the capacity numbers like at the elementary schools in those areas now? Are the numbers inflated because they already have mobile units on the campuses? If those schools don't open, and new people move in, what are they going to do with them? Will they end up assigned somewhere with no transportation because there is no room at nearby schools?
I can understand why no one chose the schools too. But, is it cost efficient to build a new building, have it open by December so parents can go see it, and then have it sit empty until the following July or August depending upon when the school opens?
I obviously have lots of questions and I'm hoping the system has some answers.
Well..
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 09:57 — Bob_SconceWhat are they going to do? If everybody's 1st-4th choices are full, then they'll go to their 5th choice.
Like I said before, I think an actual, brand-new, physical school is going to be much more attractive than a temporary modular thing. And, if they need to attract more students, then they'll need to do something to make the school more attractive.
I don't think you need to have the school open in December -- I think you can have it close in December and give hardhat tours.
I personally don't think it
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 09:54 — JSBinNCI personally don't think it does make sense to do that (build it and have them sit empty...). but - they could have spent some time/effort/money trying to get information out about the schools - both short term about how the modular school will run and then longer term, the plans for the actual school. The wcpss future schools website shows the schools - but then there is nothing about them. It says go to their website for more info - but there are no websites. What calendar, what grades, who is the principal, bell schedules, construction plans, anything would be helpful. Put some video up with interviews with the principals of those schools so people can connect a face/personality to what is to come.
I agree about marketing the
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 13:35 — jenmanI agree about marketing the schools. I think I saw something once about an info session for Abbott's Creek but other than that I didn't hear anything. And I only saw one blurb somewhere about that info session so it's not like they heavily advertised it in the community.
I don't know much about the permanent location for the one in Wake Forest, but having Durant Elem right across the street from the permanent location of Abbott's Creek probably doesn't help. Why would you choose to go to a modular in an inconvenient location for a couple of years when a popular, good school on the same calendar is directly across the street? If there was no other school nearby I could maybe see the trade off for a couple of years in the modular being worth having a very close school. But if you can get that to begin with, why bother?
What are they going to do?
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 09:31 — FSandYOUHow about do what they've always done, raise capacity at all the full schools, get a waiver, change the rules, issue solved. Create a loophole in the new plan that says when this occurs the system has the obligation to reassign the kids within "X" distance of the new school(s) to fill those schools.
Otherwise there is about a 2% chance that a future bond will pass.