Wake County school board candidate Heather Losurdo is calling the Nov. 8 runoff election a battle to decide whether there will be "forced busing" in the district.
In an interview today on the Bill LuMaye Show on WPTF, Losurdo told the conservative talk show host that "there is a very clear choice on Nov. 8th." She then pointed to Kevin Hill's no vote on the student assignment plan as an example of what will happen if Democrats regain the board majority.
"With the four people who were elected to office on Oct. 11th, you can be sure that if my opponent wins this race there will be forced busing in Wake County," Losurdo said. "And he made that very clear in a nice bipartisan vote on this new assignment policy, that is family friendly and gives parents choice for proximity schools, that he would not vote for it.
And he stated, I forget what his exact words were, but he wants us to be able to bus kids around from school to school. He, I think, just believes that that's the best way to educate kids, where I will look at the school, the individual child, find out why they are failing, either the individual child or the school, and address that head on."
Also during the interview, Losurdo on a couple of occasions portrayed herself as the financial underdog to Hill.
"They will outspend us, but we have heart on our side and I believe this is a very winnable district for me," Losurdo said.
The final reports before Oct. 11 showed Losurdo had raised more money than Hill. But the outside help from the Wake County Democratic Party and the various 501 and 527 groups has likely put those backing Hill with more money than her side.
Also during the interview, Losurdo commented on why the Republican school board candidates did so poorly on Oct. 11.
"Some of the complacency comes in and people don't really remember how bad it was here two years ago and prior to that with the old board," Losurdo said. "It was not good and therefore you saw the uprising in 2009 where a lot of people turned out to vote, more than had ever before in an off-year election like that.
And then the pendulum swings and there were some wonderful things that happened in the last two years in our education system. The communication wasn't always great and I think people looked more at personalities and communication style than the fact of what actually happened for our kids."
Comments
Hmm..
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 02:24 — Dove314Hypocrisy abounds. It is important to continue to point out that there is forced busing involved in this new plan (which Ms. Losurdo now, unlike during the first election cycle, supports). It is not mathematically possible for everyone to be able to "choose to change" to the feeder pattern to go to the MS or HS they would previously have attended. As a result, some of the same issues of being stuck in a school or progression they do not want will continue to apply for at least the next 5-6 years until all the children in ES age up.
This current plan also has embedded "busing for diversity" into the feeder patterns (e.g. Brassfield/Fox Rd), apparently to prevent high concentrations of ED students in schools, just as the previous policy did.
What the current assignment plan does provide is stability and that is good. However even this is going to be tempered by a period of major instability as people attempt to jump schools (by choice) to get the feeder pattern they want for their children. I'm not sure instability for children is suddenly fine if the reason shifts to "because my parents wanted me in this school instead of that school so I go to a different MS or HS".
It is time to stop trying to make 2009 accusations stick in 2011. Both HL and her supporters, along with KH and his supporters would do better to tell us what they propose to do on achievement and how they would improve the system rather than mudslinging without telling all the facts and trying to fearmonger by conjecturing what "the other guy" is going to do.
Hypocrisy abounds. It is
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 21:35 — jeffrey1Hypocrisy abounds. It is important to continue to point out that there is forced busing involved in this new plan
Doesn't it depend on your view of the term "forced busing?" For me, forced busing is "You're going to a distant school, not your local school, and you don't have a choice in the matter." This plan does provide choice, and it's harder for me to call it "forced busing."
Tell that to all these
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 21:59 — danofncTell that to all these Brassfield parents.
I am not to sympathetic of
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 00:21 — jeffrey1I am not to sympathetic of the Brassfield parents. They are not being uprooted from one school to another. Those currently in their desired high school can remain there. Those who are currently in their desired feeder pattern can remain there with transportation. And they will continue to have a choice at each level.
That's far different than removing kids from their current schools without choice, sending siblings to two different schools at the same time, and not providing options to grandfather.
Frankly, I find it curious that so many on here, who remained silent for so many years during the busing fiasco, are coming out of the woodwork to criticize a plan that is orders of magnitude better than the previous plan.
They can only remain at
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 07:46 — danofncThey can only remain at their current school with transportation. When they change grade spans, they aren't guaranteed transportation.
It's very simple why people are coming out of the woodwork. The new plan impacts them in a way they see as negative.
There's a chance you wouldn't be so vocal about the old assignment plan if you hadn't been reassigned to a school that was farther away than 23 other elementary schools.
The point is....the new plan is going to have its problems, and to the families affected, those problems will seem just as huge as any problems there were with the old plan.
Any plan will have problems,
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 08:28 — starsonoursAny plan will have problems, this plan has less problems than the previous one had.
That's a matter of
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 08:44 — danofncThat's a matter of perspective. And, at this point, it's all based on theory.
Until you see the plan in operation, and hear people talk about the results, you just don't know.
The only thing we know is that it will have different problems.
Its a reality. A good plan
Fri, 10/28/2011 - 12:24 — starsonoursIts a reality. A good plan now is better than trying to create a perfect plan. The perfect plan does not exist and the soon the good plan is in place you can make changes to it and perfect it. Constantly looking at a plan and trying to make tweaks to it before implimentation will create the never ending project that never gets past the planning stage.
absurd
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 23:40 — natsieWhat a joke -- decrying someone for being negative and then calling her a racist. Forced busing isn't a set of code words, it is, or was, a disgusting reality here in Wake County. When Kevin Hill was chairman, 26,000 children were ripped from the schools they were attending, and without their parents having a thing to say about it, put on buses and sent wherever in the county it was that Hill and his cronies wanted to send them. Tata's plan does away with that, and gives parents a real voice and some real choices in where their kids go to school. It passed with a bi-partisan 6-2 majority. Even Mayor Meeker's wife voted for it. Hill voted no because he still wants to play sociological games with our children. Losurdo stands behind the new plan, and only if she is elected will our children be able to have safe, stable assignments and paths that aren't changed every year on the whim of some principal who wants a few less f & r students gumming up his nice little fiefdom. Former principal Hill only represents his old buddies in the admin jobs -- that's why none of them got fired in his day, even though he gave pink slips to 600+ teachers. The guy is incorrigible -- he's gotta go, gotta go now.
You are showing that you are
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 16:20 — virginiadareYou are showing that you are just as ignorant of the facts as Heather Losurdo. There were not 26,000 children "ripped from the schools they were attending." That figure represented the number of students in the three-year plan who would end up going to a different school in future years than their node would have gone to before the new plan. Most of those changes would not have involved a student having to leave a school he was currently attending. After grandfathering was considered, the number of students having to actually change schools during his or her elementary, middle, or high school years would have been around 3000, which was actually pretty remarkable considering the growth that we were experiencing and expected to continue. Yes, many parents were unhappy that sometimes the schools their neighborhood had traditionally attended were changed, but children were not "ripped from" their schools in most cases. And the busing wasn't any more "forced" than in any system where students are assigned to a school and bused to get there. Wake County gave more choices to parents than the great majority of districts in this state and the country.
...
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 18:52 — SideburnsMy, how quickly you whittled that down from 26,000 to 3,000. How many of those students could actually take advantage of grandfathering? Remember, transportation wasn't provided back then.
One of the "exceptions" to the 3-year plan was to allow those who would have been reassigned twice in 3 years to have their transfer request to stay at their current assignment automatically approved. Twice in 3 years. Again, no transportation. How gracious of them.
That was Dulaney's song and dance alright
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 20:59 — FSandYOUOr was it Horace Tart who told us it was really only 3000? I said it then and as I am laughing my ARSE off I'll say it again,
BULL S*#^!
She's right. The number of
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 23:23 — eddie2She's right. The number of "achievement balance" set-asides for each school is the key to turning this into a forced busing scheme. That's why Hill and Sutton voted "no", because the set-asides weren't high enough to guarantee the amount of forced busing that they and Rev. Barber want. If Hill wins, they will be.
why did she come, then?
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 21:15 — stepbystepSome of the complacency comes in and people don't really remember how bad it was here two years ago and prior to that with the old board," Losurdo said. "It was not good and therefore you saw the uprising in 2009 where a lot of people turned out to vote, more than had ever before in an off-year election like that.
Things were bad here then, yet people kept coming.
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 21:48 — raleighlauraMost people, even people who generally disagree with each other's premise, would agree that there was much disagreement with the "behavior" of the System in 2008. I think mandatory year round caused a number of folks to see a tremendous inequity between the largely manget/traditional calendar schools inside the beltline and the largely forced year round schools in the other parts of the county. The PLT or Wacky Wednesday situation made everyone uneasy, whether it was because you felt like you had to defend professional learning teams for teachers or because you felt like a system of 140,000 people should be able to find a time other than Wednesdays to have it. I think many people still moved here for economic opportunity and were not irresponsible about it- they just voted for change at that time to make the system more family and child friendly. I don't blame Losurdo for coming here then, and I bet others who arrived at that same time don't think they made an irresponsible decision for their families based on the actions of the school board, either.
The ONLY forced busing that
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 20:50 — ruthlissThe ONLY forced busing that will take place is sending her BACK to PA. On the other hand, neighborhood busing will work just fine, to VA.
and...
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 20:50 — Bob_SconcePretty accurate. Add Evans, Martin and Kushner's no votes to Hill's and Sutton's and the new assignment plan is dead in the water. Recall that the last 3-year assignment plan is over this school year. So, without the new assignment plan, next year will mean another round of reassignments -- 7,000 by Tata's count.
Hill made it clear: he wants to assign kids based on their test scores.
Memory lapse
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 21:02 — prescott2Tata's plan already includes achievement as part of assignment. How convenient for you to forget that. Kevin has stated unequivocally that he supports the plan. He voted 'no' because the plan lacks critical details as to how Tata intends to administer achievement as part of the assignment process. Spreading lies and fear of mass reassignment is completely unsupported and a pitiful attempt to influenec voters who have already shown they are tired of inflammatory polticiking.
Pfft....
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 22:00 — Bob_SconceSo.... I'll refer you back to this blog:
Hill cited the lack of seats specifically set aside at high-performing schools for students applying from low-performing areas for his vote.
That doesn't sound like a missing detail or two.
As to "lies and fear of mass reassignment":
(1) Tata said that the vote needed to happen Oct. 18th in order for the new assignment plan to be in place for next year.
(2) If the new board rescinds the decision, the new assignment plan won't be in place for next year.
(3) Tata has already said that if the new assignment plan isn't in place for next year, then they'll need to reassign 7,000 students. That sounds like a massive reassignment to me.
It seems like YOU'RE the one trying to influence voters by politicing.
misrepresentation
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 23:05 — prescott2You're still missing the point that factoring in achievement is part of Tata's plan. You keep representing it as if Hill is interjecting the achievement factor and that is blatantly false. If Hill had voted 'yes' and Tata and staff came back with set asides who would you be blaming then? There is no reason to believe that Tata himself won't interject set asides.
You continue to mislead.
No misrepresentation...
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 06:37 — Bob_SconceTata wanted it to be a factor. Hill wants it to be THE factor -- remember the "I can't compromise" line?
It seems to me that you're doing the misrepresentation -- frankly, it almost doesn't matter what Hill wants -- what do Sutton, Kushner, Martion and Evans want? Answer: * the old plan *, or as close to it as they can get. Hill will go along with whatever they say.
Uh, Tata can't come back
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 23:56 — jeffrey1Uh, Tata can't come back sith set asides. He can't change policy. He needs the vote of the board.
If set asides were introduced, however, what makes this plan any different than busing for SES diversity? Instead of SES busing, we bus according to achievement, which everyone know is a proxy for SES (which in turn was a proxy for race). And then parents get their 3rd, 4th or 5th choice for an ES, because they live in a node whose "achievement" level isn't needed in their 1st or 2nd choice. We're right back where we started.
Perfect example
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:18 — valsparPerfect example of how you get things backwards, Jeffie Boy. What makes it different is that Tata is focusing on educating students the most cost effective way possible using actual performance data, not race or SES as a proxy to keep low performing schools from being created by design from the get go, which has been proven to cost more. Too bad your board buddies put academic performance so low on the list. So are you saying academic performance should not be on the assignment algorithm at all? I'll ask you like I've asked your buddy Woodie - are you ready to write that million dollar check per low performing school? Tata made public how much Walnut Creek costs. Ever wonder why that info became public? Connect the dots. Your board wouldn't ask for additional funding this year. Their pot of gold runs out this year. What are you going to do then? Your board buddies have not even started thinking about next year. Tata is. And he has a board that is making his job harder, and harder, and harder.
Count me in the $1,000,0000 crowd
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 00:19 — nmoskalI'd much rather write that $1M check toward raising achievement for low-performing students than for a system that rewards families for living in a "high-performing" node, which is likely segregated, with priority access to a private-school level education.
So are you saying academic
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 21:33 — jeffrey1So are you saying academic performance should not be on the assignment algorithm at all? I'll ask you like I've asked your buddy Woodie - are you ready to write that million dollar check per low performing school? Tata made public how much Walnut Creek costs. Ever wonder why that info became public?
Bob already made the point, but I'll reinforce it. Educating low achievement kids costs money. It doesn't matter if those kids are hiding in healthy schools or exposed in a high poverty, low achieving school.
Until now, Wake never bothered to allocate money for those needy children. They were hidden in schools, where they continued to fail miserably. So yes, I'd rather write that million dollar check for Walnut Creek, than write the thousands of smaller checks that would be necessary to educate these kids under the old assignment plan.
Hmm...
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:29 — Bob_SconceI'd rather write the million dollar check to actually improve those kids' performance at that "low-performing school" than have those same kids fail silently in schools all over the county.
Besides, nobody is trying to keep those kids out of high-achievement schools -- if their parents feel those so-called "high achievement schools" are the best schools for them, then they have the same chance as anybody else of getting into them. What happens if their parents don't want them there? That's the next step from the Hill camp: FORCE them to go to those high-achievement schools, regardless of what their parents want. That was the district's attitude when Hill was chairman: "These people aren't smart enough to know what's good for them." Does anybody actually believe they won't return to that attitude?
...
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 13:42 — SideburnsWhat happens if their parents don't want them there? That's the next step from the Hill camp: FORCE them to go to those high-achievement schools, regardless of what their parents want.
Exactly. That's what people should be asking Hill. He has clearly stated that he wants a certain percentage of set-aside seats but what if the parents don't choose them? What if they decide proximity is more important to them or having their child attend a school close to where they work or where Grandma lives. There are many reasons the high-achieving school would not be picked. My bet is Hill (& Co.) will ensure the system chooses for them.
I don't think it's true to
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 10:49 — danofncI don't think it's true to say that "they have the same chance as anybody else of getting into them", since the achievement factor is so far down the priority list.
I'm not even trying to argue that achievement should necessarily move up, I just don't think that's an accurate statement based on how the plan is currently set up.
?
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:07 — Bob_SconceI must be missing your point. It seems to me that if the achievement factor is on the list at all, then they have a better chance than anybody else. Consider, for example, students in the dubois area of Wake Forest, which is a low-income area. Their nearest schools are probably Wake Forest, Rolesville, Forest Pines, N. Forest Pines, and the new ES off Capital. Wake Forest is the highest ranked school of the bunch, and they have the same chance of getting into it as anybody else. If they had multiple priorities, then it would be a higher chance. (Recall that the priorities are additive.)
I think most people miss this last part -- if achievement is in there *at all*, then students in low achieving areas have an automatic leg-up on similarly-situated students in high-achieving areas.
With proximity as the
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:27 — danofncWith proximity as the highest priority, wouldn't the Dubois kids be left hoping that WFES didn't fill up until it was "their turn"?
If students in low-achieving areas had the leg up that you claim, there wouldn't have been any need for discussion of set-asides.
So...
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 11:52 — Bob_SconceWF-ES is the closest school for those students.
As to your second sentence, I think you made my point.
Let's say that there are two students, A lives in a high-income neighborhood near the school. B lives in a low-income neighborhood near the school.
According to p. 28 of the assignment proposal, A gets a "Priority Number" that is whatever set amount is assigned to "students who live within 1.5 miles." (Priority 2). B gets that same number plus whatever set number is assigned to Priority 5. B's score is higher, so when it comes time to assign kids into the school, if there's only one spot, B gets in but A doesn't.
#1. There's nothing I've
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 13:06 — danofnc#1. There's nothing I've seen that says what those numbers are, but I bet it's safe to assume that the "set amount" for Priority 1 is higher than the "set amount" for Priority 5. That's part of the "behind the curtain" stuff that the public won't see, but should.
#2. This part of this conversation didn't start with people talking about kids who all lived close to a school, so I'm not sure why you included that in your hypothetical. If kids of various income levels live within 1.5 miles of a school, they should all get in because 1.5 miles is one of the guaranteed metrics, right?
Well..
Wed, 10/26/2011 - 13:35 — Bob_Sconce#1. I agree that those numbers should be made public.
#2. I don't think 1.5 is a guarantee -- if there are too many people in that range, somebody will have to go elsewhere. But, if you're poor, it's an achievement school in the 1.5 mile area, then you have a much better chance of getting in. I just picked the Dubois area because it was a low-income area relatively close to my home. Recall that the lion's share of the poor students in the county aren't downtown -- they're scattered throughout the county.
So, the question is this: Wake Forest ES is a school of distinction which, in this neck of the woods, unfortunately probably qualifies it as an "achievement choice" school. Assuming it has more applicants than spaces, should it be the case that every poor student within walking distance can get in, but not ever non-poor student within that distance?
??
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 22:14 — turnerk1If the current plan has everyone staying in their current schools, does anyone know why Tata feels he needs to reassign so many students if for some reason the new plan wasn't implemented?
Think about that for a second...
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 22:40 — Bob_SconceThe reassignment isn't for the current students -- it's to handle the X thousand new students who will show up next year. Recall the chain-reactions that we used to have: school A becomes overcrowded, so you move students to school B, which then becomes overcrowded, so you move students to school C, ad nauseum....
Negative politics
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 20:23 — LKoscielniakI am so disheartened by Ms. Lasurdo's bashing of her oponent!! I have listened to her and have great concern that she is not in-touch with Wake County education or the system. She had minimal knowledge of the system and this community! She is not telling us what positive impact she can bring to the table, but rather spreading negative poison to divide a community!! This is ugly politics which I do not see Kevin subcombing to. Our children, schools, and community deserve and need an honest individual in this position!!! Nov 8 will show what kind of community we are currently living in.
WSCA's Choice?
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 19:39 — Just_ask_RonHow many times in the past two years did WSCA supporters beg Tedesco and Margiotta to stop saying stupid things on the Bill LuMaye show? Does WSCA really want even more of the same?
"Forced bussing?" How long before she uses the word "Negro," but, you know, only in a good way, not a bad way, right? Is anyone on her team checking her Facebook page to be sure she is keeping things safe for work?
A License to lie
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 19:02 — truthBtold"And she stated, I forget what his exact words were, but he wants us to be able to bus kids around from school to school. He, I think, just believes that that's the best way to educate kids, where I will look at the school, the individual child, find out why they are failing, either the individual child or the school, and address that head on."
Really? She said....I forgot what he said...so let me tell you what I wanted him to say, whether he said it or not, I mean, just like I wanted him to say....."
What a loser !
With This And The Previous Post
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 18:48 — chaboard....you see the clear difference in tactics and message. A real honest, issue (that this election will decide the Chairmanship) vs. just flat out lying and making up scary negative attacks using terminology that for decades has been deployed as racist dogwhistle ("forced busing").
Pretty stark difference.
So "forced busing" is just a
Tue, 10/25/2011 - 23:47 — jeffrey1So "forced busing" is just a code word? What would you call it when your child is pulled out of the 1st grade in his neighborhood ES, and told that he's going to the 23rd closest ES to his home, that he is not allowed to apply for a magnet seat, and there are no grandfathering options? Busing? Definitely. Forced? Absolutely.
It still amazes me how many people here refuse to acknowledge the fact that thousands of us in Wake County were forcefully bused to distants schools for the soul purpose of balancing SES.
Let's see now, "forced busing" is just a code word, "neighborhood schools" is just a code word. Do us a favor and publish the code word handbook for dummies like me.