Four year-round schools have made the list that Wake County school administrators will present to the school board on Tuesday for consideration for conversion to a traditional calendar.
The schools are Wakefield Elementary, Leesville Road Middle, Salem Middle and Mills Park Middle. Leesville Road Elementary is not in the group.
Administrators are stressing that they're not recommending that those four schools be converted. They're just saying they're the ones they think the board may want to consider, not that it will stop Deborah Prickett from proposing Leesville Elementary as well.
The one thing that separates those four year-young schools is that a majority of parents who responded in the calendar survey said they'd prefer the traditional calendar. That includes Mills Park Middle, the new school slated to open in July.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta had asked for the information to be given to the board today so that they'd be in a better position to discuss the issue on Tuesday. The vote could come as soon as tomorrow.
Click here for the handout that was e-mailed to board members today.
Comments
Those 4 schools are a start,
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 23:13 — changewcpssThose 4 schools are a start, but if the board does not add a few more it will be disappointing.
The Leesville Road elementary is a sure bet. Putting one calendar 4 one campus is a sure bet.
Staff misleads whenever they get the chance, and the new board has to realize that.
Funny
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:46 — choice4allhow some of the wording that was in the handout of the resolution was almost word for word (listen to the tape) of what I heard from the Little picture people at the Leesville meeting. It was almost like, gosh, listening to Chuck Delany speak.
Prediction
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 21:17 — tc_apexJohn Tedesco will make a motion to have all 4 schools operating on a YR calendar next school year. Deborah Prickett will second. It will come to a vote and Debra "swingvote" Goldman will sell out once again and say we need more time to study the situation. So predictable......
Salem MS could still go back
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 06:03 — DrActualFactualSalem MS could still go back to Traditional. It loses 618 students to Mill Park MS opening (which is almost half the school population). If the BOE wants to get any of the lower income they have slated to reassign there to attend it would be better that Salem MS operates as a traditional to draw them in. Also, if the 55% of parents wanting traditional are not the 618 that get reassigned out, many of them will opt out and the BOE will have to explore every effort to seat them in the calendar of their choice. Goldman sounded very clear on what she wanted to do yesterday on WPTF so you may have a chance yet.
Let me get this straight
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:30 — NCParentAt LES, approximately one third of the parents prefer a traditional calendar, and one third would move if the school reverted to traditional. One third will be happy with whatever. So to me, that means that both sides have a very strong argument. And then you thrown in the fact that just slightly more than half of the teachers prefer year round. It will be interesting to see how this goes. I'm betting (as I've said before) that LMS reverts to traditional and LES stays year-round.
another cut at the LES parent survey results
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 22:43 — awake1While LES non-base parents strongly support the YR calendar, the MAJORITY of LES base parents also support the YR calendar:
Q3: How satisfied are you with your experience so far with the calendar for this school? 77% of base parents and 83% of non-base parents are “very satisfied” or satisfied.
Q6: Between these two types of calendars, which do you prefer for this child? 59% of base parents and 74% of non-base parents said they prefer year-round for their child.
Q11: Would you still desire a year-round calendar for this child if he/she could not have the track that you wanted? 51% of base parents and 66% of non-base parents said they still desire a year-round calendar.
Q12: Assuming that your child were to stay at his/her current school, would you prefer that the school keep the same calendar or change to another type? 64% of base parents and 74% of non-base parents said they prefer to keep the YR calendar.
In addition, what better indicator could there be for support for the YR calendar at Leesville Middle than looking to parents of future middle schoolers? Note also that 58% of Leesville Middle school parents prefer the traditional calendar, yet 55% of them are very satisfied or satisfied with their experience so far with the YR calendar. When given the chance to weigh in that so many parents have been wanting, the majority of LES parents -- base and non-base alike -- support YR! And, the results of the middle school parents' responses are fairly ambivalent.
It will be interesting to
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:49 — danofncIt will be interesting to see what happens.
There will be some parents who are tickled to death that "they won", and their school is going back traditional. They will be thrilled right up until their neighborhood is reassigned because of overcrowding.
The numbers presented in that report (which I'm sure are just made-up fairy tale numbers) paint a clear picture of a) why they put the schools on a YR schedule and b) why they should stay on a YR schedule.
Made up numbers
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 21:17 — NCParentYes, I definitely got that, too. It would appear that pretty much ALL schools are at capacity, really close to capacity, or overcrowded. Math's never been my strong point, but it sure seems like they've got no place to put anyone.
capacity figures for NW Raleigh YR schools
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 22:26 — awake1Here is some info on capacity/utilization of YR schools in NW Raleigh from the December 2009 WCPSS report (Four-Track Year-Round Utilization in WCPSS):
NW Raleigh YR elementary schools, with a capacity of 5,416, were serving 4,919 students – have a utilization rate of 91%, higher than the district-wide rate of 85%. This compares to a utilization rate of 112% if these schools operated on a traditional calendar. While the overall utilization rate is 91%, 4 of the 6 YR schools in this area operate near or over capacity: Brassfield (99%),Durant Road Leesville Road
Also, there is an estimated 1,400 to 1,500 kindergartners coming into the system next year, more than usual due to the temporary dip in kindergarten enrollment this school year (due to the change in the birth date cutoff date). In total, the school system is looking at adding 3,800 new students next year. Has anyone looked at the impact of reducing school capacity in the face this growth?
why is LRES the applicant school then
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:00 — tsgcoupthe fact remains that LRES is that crowded because of application students. Why isn't Sycamore, Brier Creek or Green the Application school?
The survey results also don't surprise me at LRES, one half of the school (K-2) have never known LRES as traditional and how it was to be one campus on one calendar. Also all of the staff hired in the past 3 years has wanted the year round calendar so that statistic is not a surprise either.
Its about using the seats now, not 5 years from now. Brier Creek is in Year 4 and they never change classrooms = no capacity gain. Sycamore Creek - year 2 never changes classrooms = no capacity gain. Green doesn't have a track 2 = never changes classrooms = no capacity gain.
Year round is not the problem, it is a calendar that some choose for their children, but right now supply is exceeding demand and parents should have more choice for traditional in this area of town. There are many areas of the county that this is true.
AMAZING
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:25 — local23How this information can acurately account for the survey reponses from Parent whose children will be attending Mills Park MS!!!!
They should have shown the rising 5th graders from Mills Park Elementary who will be the biggest base!!
We could not even answers questions on a survey for our new MS.
Alston Ridge has not even opened, yet they are claiming those nodes will come to Mills Park MS and they plan to open the Alston Ridge MS in 2013.
We have the largest MS opening, send Reedy Creek students back to Reedy Creek, Send Carpenter to either West Cary or Mills Park (preference), Dillard node needs to go back to Dillard MS, and some of the nodes that are being sent from Salem and West Cary MS (actually are closer if not next door to those schools), need to return to those MS..this in effect will leave us approx 850+ students with PLENTY OF ROOM FOR GROWTH. There will always be students who elect a Magnet or YR application which will lessen this number.!
Every action has a reaction
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 16:35 — shank56If staff numbers are correct as far as capacity, and the impact of conversions is measured pro and con- then there is no bias, IMO.
If the BOE has different facts and numbers , they can justify their decisions on those numbers.
Regardless, the BOE can do anything it wants tomorrow. They (the majority) will have to live with their decision and face the consequences of their actions either way.
Not correct...
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 16:54 — Bob_SconceThe staff numbers are incorrect. The traditional capacity of a year-round school should be no less than the total population of the three most populated tracks. (Assuming, that is, the year-round school isn't over its year-round capacity.) Yet, somehow, the adminsration's Wakefield ES capacity figures break that rule.
And THAT is why people have trouble trusting the administration.
Don't forget that the
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 17:02 — danofncDon't forget that the trailers at Wakefield are the same ones that are going to make abandoning Forest Ridge not cost 15 million dollars.
If they use the trailers to convert Wakefield back to traditional, that option goes away.
Not needed.
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 23:42 — Bob_SconceYou wouldn't need the trailers. Each class already has its own room without touching the 'mothballed' trailers.
Let me be more clear: If you immediately moved every Wakefield ES student to a traditional calendar, every student would remain in their classrooms, their daily schedule would be unchanged, they would have no more students at school than they do now (at least 1/4 of the time) and there would be no additional classrooms or trailers used. The only thing that would change is the actual days on which they went to school.
There is no reason for this school to be on the year-round schedule. The theoretical "extra capacity" is unused.
How is that true? I've
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:29 — danofncHow is that true? I've never been there, so I honestly don't know. All I know is that they say the school was built to hold approximately 600 students and there are 831 enrolled there now.
The district website shows that the school capacity with 11 trailers is over 1000, which means that if they are using the trailers now that would explain why there is a classroom for every class. It would also explain why the trailers were scheduled to be mothballed.
Aren't the trailers sitting where a playground for older kids is supposed to go?
Is operating at capacity, with no room for growth (and 15 full classroom trailers), really what's best for Wakefield? For the county?
Is appeasing the loud voices of complaining parents at WES (or the other 3 schools) really worth the ripple effects that changing the calendars will cause in those parts of the county?
So..
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:32 — Bob_SconceYeah. I understand where you're coming from -- if you believe the district's numbers, what I posted doesn't make any sense. Either I'm wrong or the district's wrong; we can't both be right. And, I know I'm right. You don't have to believe me, but if you know anybody whose kids go to WES, call them and ask.
The 11 trailers are currently unused -- they're "mothballed" right now. Locked. Not a student or teacher in them. Just sitting, waiting for the district to move them someplace else.
OK....I'll go through what I
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:47 — danofncOK....I'll go through what I get out of the district's numbers, and you tell me what you know that is different.
WES was built to hold about 600 students. YR conversion should add about a 1/3 to that total, right? That would be in the neighborhood of 800. Current enrollment is 831.
Of that 831, there are only 3/4 (approximately) on campus at any given time. Wouldn't that mean that the school currently operates at or a little above its intended capacity (without trailers)?
In the report, I don't see anything about YR capacity. The report talks about capacity if WES is converted back to traditional. If that happens, the trailers that are now empty would have to be utilized to accomodate all the students that are there.
You keep saying you're right, but you don't really explain what you're right about. What numbers in that report are you claiming are incorrect? Are there not really 831 kids at WES now? The report doesn't say the trailers are being used...it just says they are there. It also says they are scheduled to be moved, but cannot be moved if WES is converted back to TR.
OK one problem with your reasoning DanofNC
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:13 — Voice_of_Reason_Eliminate the children bussed in for economic diversity and get back to us with the numbers. Any school can have their numbers manipulated. The fact is three elementary schools is enough capacity for this area. One of those schools was designed ground up as YR. Two have no trailers, one has a playground full of them.
Yes, I have a gripe with the CC's of old. Wake county did allow too much growth without considering the schools. I think the use of trailers for other than for an interim quick fix is wrong. I mean, is Wake County going to get smaller in the future? Why are we wasting our money on these trailers instead of building more and larger schools. They have a shorter lifespan, are not energy efficient, and put a tax on a school infrastructure. Some forward thinking school districts in this country ban them completely. Developers could have been brought in to help financially with building those schools, but WCPSS won't guarantee seats in return for that help because of yes...the economic diversity policy. It might of driven up home prices everywhere in this county and also brought in additional tax revenues.
In addition, if towns had more "ownership" of their schools, maybe growth would be better planned.
Obviously never been there danofnc
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 08:56 — Voice_of_Reason_The school's (WES) infrastructure was never meant to handle the additional students brought to it by the added capacity of the trailers. Students have to start lunch at 1030. The library, media center, gym/lunch room, are not designed with that many kids in mind. When WES was converted we were told that the trailers would be moved, that didn't happen of course. The playground is incredibly small for an elementary school. In addition, two new elementary schools opened only 1.3 miles away from WES the year after conversion. There are less students assigned to the school after the conversion, less TA's too. The middle and high school right next door are traditional and the school zone signs are confusing in the summer to say the least. We don't need room for growth, NEW Forest Pines and Forest Pines North can handle it. Need I go on.
Sorry for rambling, but I think you should do your homework before making such statements. The school was converted without good reason and should be converted back.
According to everything I
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 09:37 — danofncAccording to everything I can find, Forest Pines and FP North are already overcrowded. How do you figure they can handle growth?
It seems as though WCPSS has tried to lower enrollment at WES so that they can do away with the trailers. It also seems that they have made progress toward that goal. That progress will be useless if it is converted back to TR.
WES had 1100 kids and 20 trailers the year before the conversion. Since the school was designed for about 600 kids, is that really the standard you want to use to prove a point?
I think your anger is misdirected, anyway. The county commissioners (along with the leaders of a few different municipalities) allowed growth in that area to go on basically unchecked. WCPSS had to respond to that growth. I think it's a little illogical to move into a place that is literally exploding with growth and then get mad when school assignments aren't stable.
...
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:53 — SideburnsI can't believe you said that. Take a step back and think about the '06 bond and the 22 conversions. Those 22 schools were told to bear the burden of the so-called "capacity crisis" so others schools and families wouldn't have to. And then we were given crappy traditional options so we would stay. Do you know the history of those conversions -- and which schools were taken off the original list? Those loud voices of complaining parents (nice way to belittle them, btw) deserve to be heard. You obviously were untouched by MYR.
Yep, I was at a PTA meeting
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 12:14 — jenmanYep, I was at a PTA meeting where Virginia Parker from FOWC spoke. It was discussed that without the bond the conversions would be 'worse'. Those schools absolutely had to 'suck it up' for the greater good. And those who escaped conversion were quite happy to let them do it.
I remember when Beverley Clark said that she heard from many of her constituents who agreed with the year round conversions. Funny how none of her constituents had to face YR conversions.
Untouched? Yeah, that's
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 08:44 — danofncUntouched? Yeah, that's true. At the time of the conversion, I think my oldest child was 2 or 3.
We lived in Garner, and would have been assigned to Yates Mill ES, which is a pretty good ride. We moved to F-V, and my daughter has had two schools in two years. We were reassigned after K to a new YR elementary school.
In looking at the enrollment numbers (which must be false, right?), I'd say that either the conversions were necessary (since most of the schools have more kids than they'd have as TR schools) or people wanted their taxes to go way up to build a lot more buildings.
When you start talking about taxes rising, you start getting the attention of people who don't have kids in the system. I'm sure most of those people prefer the more cost-effective solutions.
I didn't follow the conversions all that closely, so I don't know the history you mentioned. You'd have a hard time convincing me that it was any more politicized than the current situation, though.
"You'd have a hard time
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 08:51 — woodstock"You'd have a hard time convincing me that it was any more politicized than the current situation, though."
You're not kidding when you say you don't know the history.
...
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 10:09 — SideburnsThanks woodstock. Those jumping at the 11th hour look foolish making such statements.
Read up a bit on the conversions before you call parents "loud" and "complaining". You have no idea what you are talking about.
Way to go, guys
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 11:03 — NCParentThanks to the media attention this is getting, you've got parents trying to figure out WTH's going on in this county -- including parents of kids who live here. I don't think snide remarks help the situation or win any supporters.
duplicate post
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 08:51 — woodstock"duplicate post
You're mixing up the ES and
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 17:05 — Eric_BYou're mixing up the ES and the HS. The HS will have extra trailers when students are reassigned from Wakefield HS to Heritage HS.
Make up your mind
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 17:09 — danofncFirst
of all, they estimated $10 million to purchase new trailers and locate
them. There are plenty of free trailers including 6-8 at Hilburn that
are unused, 3 at Jeffreys Grove, and 11 at Wakefield Elementary.
That's quote from you, Eric, from a blog post on Feb.17th.
I was going to look for something a little more official, but since you wrote the post I thought you'd believe it.
Oops, you're right, but the
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 17:38 — Eric_BOops, you're right, but the HS will have at least 11 trailers freed up by the hundreds of students reassigned to Heritage in any case.
11 trailers from Wakefield hs
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 00:33 — prescott2how can you predict which students reassigned to Heritage from Wakefield will request transfers to remain at what they consider to be THEIR neighborhood? And since this board is sooooo family freindly surely they will accomodate these requests. Is that in your crystal ball?
After reading the document presented to the board...
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 16:17 — midtownmomby staff, it is so completely biased against changing calendars I don't even know why they bothered. These were written in such a way to essentially make sure these schools were not converted back to traditional. Del Burns et al knew what they were doing when they completed these handouts. It will be very interesting to hear what happens at the mtg. tomorrow. These are extremely biased.
I completely agree
Tue, 03/02/2010 - 07:39 — tsgcoupI completely agree - I had to go back and read the post to make sure these were the four they recommend changing back to traditional. (between the lines...Doom and gloom - we are right, you are wrong....)
But this board has already had the record of making thier own decisions. "Staff" did not want them to change the HS site in WF/Rolesville are, but they did.
I think they will make up their own decisions.