The Great Schools in Wake Coalition is opposing a proposal to allow up to 14 under-enrolled Wake County multi-track year-round schools to switch to a single track for the 2011-12 school year.
In a press release today, GSIW says the decision should be postponed until after the new comprehensive long-term student assignment plan is developed. The new plan wouldn't go into effect before the 2012-13 school year.
“A piecemeal approach to assignment is precisely what got previous Wake School Boards into trouble,” said GSIW Chair Yevonne Brannon in the press release. “As Superintendent Tata and his staff are currently working on a long-term plan, it seems logical to look at the bigger picture before impacting overall school capacity. We are sensitive to the desire of parents who wish to have their children on a single calendar, but we don’t want projected growth to cause another upheaval when we need room for new students.”
Tata has talked about how the shift to single track would make it easier to convert the schools back to a multi-track schedule if the need arises while potentially savings $50,000 per school for this fall. That's why he has said he didn't recommend putting the schools on a traditional calendar.
Even though the press release talks about delaying a decision until after the new long-term assignment plan is in place, it doesn't look like GSIW would want to do the schedule changes then either. In an accompanying report, GSIW lists out a variety of reasons for leaving the 14 schools on a multi-track calendar.
GSIW focuses on the capacity that would be lost from the change, particularly in high growth areas such as near Highcroft Drive Elementary.
"Great Schools in Wake appreciates the efforts to accommodate parent input around yearround programs where utilization is lower than desired," according to the GSIW report. "However, in order to spend Wake County tax dollars wisely, we must maximize the use of all school facilities."
Also in the report, GSIW brings up issues such as insufficient notice of the change to families and their belief that the schools will become overcrowded by the return of families who opted out for a traditional calendar but would return if the schools were on track 4.
Wake is currently conducting an online survey of parents, teachers and students at the 14 schools. The survey runs through Friday but some preliminary numbers are supposed to be presented at Tuesday's school board work session.
Comments
Yvonne, enough of the gaping wound called your mouth!
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 16:02 — FSandYOUAs many have now told the General, and as he can clearly see for himself now, most of these schools should NEVER have been forced into the YR scam that the miserable Millberg, Head, Gill and the rest forced upon us. If this system does not have the spine to undo this damage and make these schools traditional again, for good, then the least they can do is exactly what is being proposed, ONE TRACK and TRACK 4 is the ONLY choice.
Bob, sorry to disagree with you, but the time factor is not a factor. No more excuses, no more waiting. We've been waiting years for our community to have the band-aids removed so that we can be one again. People will be upset no matter how or when it goes down. Yvonne will bitch and moan no matter what or when and she is not our concern. Never will be!
If YOUR school is 1 of the 14 then you get a say and can spout your baiting lips off about it like you do about everything else. However, if YOUR school is not in this mix THEN SHUT THE ....... up and then GO JUMP YVONNE!
And take Barber with you for a floatation device!
I really hope you get to
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 17:42 — Andrew95I really hope you get to represent your side on the local news sometime.
Heh...
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 16:15 — Bob_SconceNo offense taken. If I had my choice, at least one of those schools would be fully converted back to traditional. I'm just pointing out that GSIW seems to be criticizing a straw-man and not the plan itself.
Intellectually dishonest
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 13:43 — Bob_SconceSo, they have some good points --there's really very little notice and the switch will cause problems with families with kids in two YR schools, but on the same track. Further, although they don't mention it, there's the problem of having to re-convert back in a few years if the assignment committee thinks the capacity will be needed.
However, they seem to presume that the single-track conversion is permanent -- they fuss about all the extra schools which will be needed to make up for the "lost" capacity. But, if there's a need for capacity, the schools could easily be converted back to a multi-track calendar.
Further, they don't consider the schools individually. Wakefield ES, for example, probably really doesn't need the extra capacity -- that part of the county is pretty well built-out, and the school has been under capacity since it was converted. Other schools may be in similar situations. In the end, it'll probably be a school-by-school decision, not an all-or-nothing decision.
Question for Bob
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 17:39 — valsparBob - I always enjoy your posts even when I do not fully agree with them. That said, I'm confused on one of your points. You point out the "problem of having to re-convert back in a few years", then say the schools "could easily be converted back". While I understand both of your statements, because it is quite simple on paper to convert and reconvert, don't you feel the issue is the student & family disruption to single track and then back again to four track for capacity's sake? Will those schools converted resist reconversion? Most likely - which would necessitate a bigger reassignment out of the school if it becomes overcrowded, or a bigger bond to recapture the seats lost - which I see as one of the GSIW paper's points. Valspar's "quarts" have never attended year round but looking at the year round calendar, I can see logistical problems, and then the same problems going back to four track. I would enjoy FS's comment on such - how would FS feel about a flip flopping school? Is the possible short term single track worth the potential reconversion or reassignment due to growth? Hard to believe I am going on record with that statement - but I would.
So....
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:38 — Bob_SconceYeah, I can see how that's confusing. No conversion is painless and I think I probably used the word "easily" too cavalierly there. There is disruption both ways, and I'm not a big fan of doing conversions willy-nilly. If a school is going to be put back onto a single-track schedule, there should be some reason to believe that it will stay there for, say, 3+ years.
My main point was that GSIW completely glossed over the fact that the conversion to a single-track calendar is not permanent. Yes, there's inertia to keep schools on their current schedules, but it's always possible to switch them back.
In my view, the biggest problem with the mandatory conversions in 2007 was that a fair portion appear to have been done for the purpose of making a public statement: "Ok. We got the bond through. Now let's convert some schools!" As a result, some schools were converted that did not need to be and, as a result, the district wasted a lot of money keeping under-enrolled schools on a year-round calendar. If schools are to be converted to year-round calendars, the conversions should happen where, and when, they are needed for capacity. Not before.
Incidentally, here's a problem that nobody's thought of: On a single-track schedule, employees who were previously on a 12-month schedule will have their hours reduced by 1/4, but won't get the benefit of a long summer break (which, on a traditional calendar, workers can use to work a side job). Meanwhile, some of them will have to do more work while they're there -- a cook feeding an entire school works harder than one only feeding 2/3ds of a school (assuming that track 2 is empty). How will those people feel about being paid less, doing more work, without summer vacation? I imagine they won't be happy.
Wasted money
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 05:25 — valsparThe difference is which side of the accounting saw the so named 'waste'? Capital or operating? It can be said that four track year rounds have higher operating expenses standing on their own, but when you consider the capital costs year round saves....
Imagine we had no 4 track year rounds, and the demand for capital costs were high - too high for the voting public. The voting public demands efficiency - empty schools for the summer! Blasphemy! Use schools more efficiently, says the voting public, so we don't have to build so many of them. But it will cost 50K a year more to operate them, says the school system. A bargain - says the voting public. We'll pay that to keep from building more wasteful multi-million dollar structures. "We can't possibly be growing like the projections say..........."
But we did.
Isn't that how it happened? Somebody ask Russell Capps.
I feel we should wait for the new assignment plan, and incorporate the change all at once, based upon geographic need and choice.
I and many others don't feel we should wait another second
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 09:44 — FSandYOUfor an assignment plan to deal with this issue. It should have been dealt with when this new board was elected!
Why sit around and wait for Debra Goldman to screw it up again? Or the other bunch of do nothing's on the board to try more of their stall tactics? Why should we wait for Barber to sue us again? Or Brannon, Sherron and Bader to have another fit and cause it not to happen because they don't like DIVERSITY not being on the list of criteria.
Nope, no more waiting. The General pulled this one out of his hat and now he either has to make it happen or answer why he shot his wad too soon.
The idea is not that we will
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 08:26 — jenmanThe idea is not that we will never uses those schools as year round, it is that we do not need the capacity in those schools right now. That's why Tata isn't looking at converting them back to the traditional calendar. He's looking at having all the students on one track while they are underenrolled and can all fit on track. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I was a parent who wasn't thrilled about the yr calendar and would rather go trad, but I understand what he's doing. Going to one track leaves open the possibility of going to multi-track when/if we need the capacity. I imagine that switching from one track year round to multi track yr would easier than converting from tradtition to YR.
We don't see any capital savings right now from schools like Wakefield ES that are operating on 3 tracks. In fact, plans for a new elem school at the former landfill are still on track last I heard. So we have excess capacity at WES and we're building a new ES school not too far away.
Well...
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 07:08 — Bob_SconceNot all year-round conversions save capital costs -- that savings only comes in if the conversion results in additional students being enrolled at the school. The schools under discussion would enroll the same number if they were on a single track or a traditional schedule as they do now on a multi-track schedule. As a result, the district is wasting operating money by running them on multiple tracks AND it doesn't spend capital money by converting them back. (At least not until it needs the capacity, at which point it has the option to build a school or to convert one or more schools to multi-track year-round.)
You bring up an excellent point with Russell Capps. Before the '06 bond referendum, there were a fair number of hard-line conservatives who wanted schools run year-round to save money. Once that started playing out, most of them switched sides and talked about how out-of-touch the old board was in converting schools to year-round. Now, you really don't hear them talk about how great year-round schools are. But, you'll never hear any of them admit to being wrong before. (I don't really know where Capps himself was/is on the issue. . .)
Capps and his WCTA group
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:00 — CaryCurmudgeonCapps and his WCTA group lobbied hard against the previous bond, the failure of which is blamed for the later board decision to go to MYR. I've been to WCTA meetings; nice bunch of people, but I don't happen to agree with them on their anti-tax stance. There are less than 100 of them -- hardly a political force, and I doubt they can be credited with killing a school bond issue. Nonetheless, we learned the hard way that converting all those schools was unneeded, as most are still under capacity even five years down the road.
I've seen two County Commissioners pay the price on MYR. Phil Jeffries remained adamant that every Wake County School should be MYR, and he got hammered at the ballot box by Lindy Brown, who said she was against it. When Lindy did her flop, she paid the same price.
I think there could be a major schism at the next bond issue. Plenty of parents have learned to live with YR schedules, but not nearly enough have become comfortable with track 2, so overall this is a money-loser. The Republican board members campaigned on choice and traditional calendar options, which means more tax dollars for construction. Something's gotta give.
Yup...
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:15 — Bob_SconceThere's no doubt that the next bond referendum will be interesting. If WCTA is going to take the same position, they'll have to turn against the conservative wing of the school board to do so. Similarly, if Bill LuMaye would have to go against his darlings on the school board to oppose the bonds. All told, having a conservative block on the school board seems to make it more likely that a bond will pass -- it blunts the more vocal opposition. (Just as the liberals are a lot quieter about the Libyan situation than they ever were about Iraq and Afghanistan, since their guy is running this show.)
I'll be glad to address your question(s)
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:38 — FSandYOUHowever, you'll probably find my answers self-centered. I've simply had enough of the
asinineassignment/calendar issues and all other things related to everything BUT educating our kids.Like many, we were forced onto a calendar we did not ask for and never agreed with. We have been threatened just about every year since to have our calendar changed, against our will if need be. We busted tail like many others helping get a better set of human beings elected than that last lying, miserable, parent hating bunch that ran our schools, but we have been disappointed with what has not been accomplished. We are absolutely beyond fed up with the obstructionism of Brannon, Barber and the rest who continue interfering in our children's futures with their butt puckering ridiculous racist garbage. I could go on, but you probably get this part.
Most of the 14 schools being proposed to be changed yet again should be. We told the Millberg, Head, Gill Parent Haters Club that their agenda would cost us more money, divide our communities and families, was wrong, not wanted, never needed and guess what? All came true.
As for changing to 1 track and then back to 4 somewhere down the road, I personally don't see that ever being an issue. Growth Projections are a joke. It's time to work with facts and screw projections. They're never right and they have cost us enormous money with this fiasco. If a school becomes overcrowded and runs out of seats then those who move here after that time are at the mercy of where ever seats can be found. Don't like it, don't move here. That simple.
As for reassignment due to growth, isn't that supposed to be the "new" idea behind the "new"
asinineassignment plan, to end that garbage? Isn't the Alves Plan going to handle that problem for us and no child will ever need to be reassigned because of growth again?Our school has flip flopped plenty and we will be onto the next one soon, so what happens down the road is no longer my problem. Bad attitude? Blame the last board, not me. What is in front of us is our concern now and is our problem now.
As for resisting reconversion down the road, since when do schools being converted, or reconverted, get a say? Doesn't happen in Wake County. Except for the occasional worthless survey.
Clarifying - -
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 05:34 — valsparForced calendar - don't you have a traditional calendar option school assigned to you? What is the issue for you with attending that school?
"Our school has flip flopped plenty" - please explain.
You won't be able to relate
Tue, 04/26/2011 - 10:02 — FSandYOUbut we didn't move next to the school our kids are at several years ago so that we can go 10 or 15 miles down the road AND that school is an undesirable school for us for many reasons. Chuck helped see to that!
As for the flip flopping, maybe I used the wrong term, but I call it that to avoid saying what I really think here. For the last 3 years plenty have been forced to change tracks to deal with the under capacity issue, 100's have been sent to other schools and have had to deal with "starting over" based on track availability etc... and every year it's been something.
Now it's possibly back to a single track for another year, hopefully, before the Alves Plan kicks in and we currently have no idea what we'll get hit with that. That's a lot of flip flopping of schedules. We're sick of the flip flopping, the ying yanging or whatever you want to call it.
We want these people to worry about bettering the education for all of our children, yours, mine, all of them, and stop this crap of spending each year yanking us around over assignment. That's it. Is that too much to ask? I say hell no it's not!
Completely ironic
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 13:06 — nancyncTo quote ol' Yvonne: but we don’t want projected growth to cause another upheaval when we need room for new students.
No complaints when students were shuffled around over growth, whereas this change doesn't involve moving students to different schools, rather addresses compressing into one track to cut back operating costs, something they would complain about if it impacted other areas.
The single largest
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 16:48 — CaryCurmudgeonThe single largest "upheavel" in our schools was the mass-conversion of 22 schools to MYR, all in the name of projected growth. Those schools were converted in 2006, and they are almost all underenrolled 5 years later.
Many in this county are still waiting for a remedy to the YR conversions of five years ago. Citizens in Kevin Hill's district were left hung out to dry on conversions, hopefully they finally get a voice this Fall. Highcroft/Salem schools also would have been converted back to traditional if a pod hadn't taken Goldman's place. I say go forth and convert, mighty general, and do it quickly.
Ron M. and JT said "the
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 17:10 — DrActualFactualRon M. and JT said "the folks from Salem will get to go to Mills Park" and then hung many out to dry because they didn't look at the nodes closely enough, didn't understand the process well enough, or didn't want to move them. Ron M. asked staff if it would be "easier" to open Mills Park as traditional MS rather than convert Salem MS back. Don't attribute all the fallout for Highcroft and Salem to Goldman alone. RON is the one that is supposed to be representing that District 8 area and he could do better. I realize Supt. Tata is looking at underenrolled YR schools but look at the attendance area map for Turner Creek ES--it is like a splatter blot. Just because some of the YR schools are full doesn't mean they are popular, just that lots of students have been mandated to attend that school. It sounds like Tata will look at giving some of the underenrolled school STEM programs or other such incentives, meanwhile other schools with kids that have NO CHOICE but to attend that school on a 1-4 track basis will also receive no consideration for programming--that's a double-whammy for ya!
...
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 19:00 — Sideburns"RON is the one that is supposed to be representing that District 8 area and he could do better."
Bull. Ron has represented D8 very well and has fought long and hard to do what is best for his district and the system. Meanwhile, Goldman cleared out DDMS for who? Not just the Carpenter Village folks....
While I don't think that the Salem schools have the capacity at this point (they have a lot of students bused in for diversity still), I do believe Highcroft should have been converted back. It was clearly Goldman that voted against that -- and her decision was after the public hearings in which many parents from those schools came out and spoke in support of the conversion.
And those "splatter blot" assignment maps could have been taken care of as well -- but, well....you know what happened.
a lot of students bused
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 20:45 — Solon77What would be your definition of a lot of students bused in for diversity ?
...
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 21:38 — SideburnsNot sure if that's really a question or just a set up.
You can't continue to blame the overcrowding of schools like Salem Elementary and Middle on growth in Western Wake when hundreds of children are being bused out to them.
Hey, it works for Wakefield
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 23:06 — jenmanHey, it works for Wakefield High. Bus approx 1000 kids in from farther away then say there's not enough room for kids living 2 miles away to attend because of the massive growth.
...
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 12:51 — SideburnsWouldn't you think that Tata has instructed his task force to consider the possible calendar changes of those 14 schools in their long-range plan? Duh.
Brannon obviously had a lot of downtime over the holiday.
Wrong
Mon, 04/25/2011 - 12:04 — NWRaleighMom-----------------------------------------------------------------