Does it make sense for the Wake County school system to hold a public hearing in a part of the district where students aren't being reassigned?
Wake County school staff had proposed holding a few public hearings on the new reassignment plan in northeastern Wake, where the bulk of the moves would occur.
But at last week's work session, school board members told staff to schedule at least one hearing outside that part of the county for families who might have other questions about the plan, such as how the base declaration period will work.
Laura Evans, senior director of growth and planning, presented this list of possible meeting dates to the board. It lists six dates but Evans said they don't need that many meetings. The list was developed to give a range of dates that could be used.
“I don’t think we need a lot of dates because we’re not coming to you with a lot of reassignment changes," Evans said.
In past years where reassignment plans have been countywide, Wake has held public hearings in different locations across the district. This year's plan is supposed to be tightly focused on drawing up base areas for the new schools in the northeastern Wake area.
The list includes Panther Creek High in Cary, but Evans said she didn't think it’s a good location for the people who are going to be affected by the proposal. She said she's stick with Sanderson High School and in board member Chris Malone's district.
Instead of using reassignment to reduce crowding outside northeast Wake, Evans said they'd recommend capping schools.
Board members began to question the lack of hearings in areas outside of northeastern Wake.
Board member Jim Martin said a hearing should be in central Wake, with board member Christine Kushner saying Sanderson High, which is on the list, is central. Martin was assured that there's public transportation that runs by Sanderson.
Board member Susan Evans argued that people would be interested in learning about other parts of the plan, not just the nodes being moved. She said the hearings could be used as informational sessions to explain things such as stay-where-you-start and the base declaration period.
“There’s more that we’re doing here than just reassigning a few nodes," said Susan Evans.
Martin said the meetings should be scattered around the county.
Board member Debra Goldman also advocated for holding meetings outside of the northeast Wake area. She said the moves would have a domino effect on other schools so she'd feel much more comfortable with a "bonafide opportunity" for people around the county to attend.
“I’d like to see an opportunity for all of our constituents to have the ability to come and address the board on these changes," Goldman said.
School board vice chairman Keith Sutton asked about having three regional informational meetings and three meetings in the areas being reassigned. Laura Evans said they weren't planning on having six meetings.
The board ultimately agreed on three meetings with two in North Raleigh/northeastern Wake and one regional hearing. The dates and locations were left up to staff and will be announced on Tuesday when the draft assignment plan is unveiled.
Goldman suggested holding the meetings on different days of the week.
Temporary Superintendent Stephen Gainey said he would prefer to hold the hearings in November but can roll into early December if needed.
All the meetings will run from 6:30 to 9 p.m. In terms of the time allotted per speaker, it will be two minutes per person to get the maximum number of speakers.

Comments
Press Release?
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 13:33 — jenmanIn terms of the time allotted per speaker, it will be two minutes per person to get the maximum number of speakers.
So should we expect a press release from GSIW about how citizen comment is being suppressed because it's reduced from three to two minutes? Will they complain about it to the Feds like they did before?
you do have a right to be snarky
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 20:06 — snordoneJenman.
Two MAJOR concerns in all this. First, this is a reassignment policy for those who chose a school other than there 2011 base school. MANY parents who were bused to Title I schools chose to go to more proximate schools. So to tell them they have to go back to their old base is a reassignment. And we know parents don't show up when they are reassigned to schools that are low income and under enrolled.
Second, the stay where you are policy will have profound implications for our Title I schools. It was raised by John at the last work session and he suggested they should consider the under enrollment issue. The others said no thanks, they would rather focus on the over enrollment issue. So it is highly unlikely that the 'stay where you are' policy will last for long, but by then we will have more charters on the ground and parents can just choose a charter.
It is almost as if none of these board members lived here for the last decade.
"It is almost as if none of
Sat, 11/10/2012 - 08:34 — Apexter"It is almost as if none of these board members lived here for the last decade."
Oh, it's like they've lived here all right, but lived here as magnet parents. They've never faced the realities of capped schools, or having your kids reassigned to random schools outside the regular feeder patterns for the higher level schools, and being reassigned away to schools where none of your neighbor's kids go, or having your kids forced onto a year round track that may not be compatible with the parent's work schedule or even the track of other siblings.
It hasn't happened to them, so it doesn't matter.
Stay where you start, or not?
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 21:43 — realisticYour first paragraph - How is it a reassignment for those who chose a different school than their 2011 base if there is stay where you start? NO one is being told to go back to their base. Everyone is grandfathered unless they choose to go back to base, and there is room. So you are wrong there. Please explain if you think you aren't.
Then, 2nd paragraph - you reference stay where you start like its a bad thing. Its what the county's been begging for for years! What would you do with underenrolled schools? Reassign students? You talked about reassignment in the first paragraph like its a bad thing. Which is it? Either you are all for reassignment, or not. Either you are for stay where you start, or you aren't. Underenrolled schools need addressing - yes, but not through reassignment of current students. Again I agree - underenrolled schools need addressing, but not just with warm fannies in seats. John bringing it up during assignment talks - what about with progamming vs shuffling of students?
Its EXACTLY like these board members have lived here for the last decade. They seem to be implementing strategies to appease the last decade of the screamers.
I don't get your point
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 12:55 — snordonePart 1 - this is a reassignment if parents are asked to go backwards to their old base if they have chosen a new school. 'Stay where you start' will appease some parents at this single moment in time but will have downstream ramifications when they don't show up at their old base school that was an under enrolled Title I school. Now, if you don't reassign my nodes at all and make my new schools my base then you will be right, it is not a reassignment for me. 343.3, 343.1 - let me know what you decide to do with them. I can tell you that my neighbors who have little ones entering the system will see this as horribly wrong when my kids are at schools that are at capacity and thriving and they are being shoved into schools that are not.
These BOE members are not implementing new policies, they are trying to ease parents back into the old policy of demographic balancing. We all see it, we are not stupid.
What should we do about under enrolled schools? I will tell you for the 100th time, reassignment does not work, it never has and it never will.
Email Tony and ask him for his advice, he was doing it successfully. Laura Evans told me in an email it worked really well for Hilburn and they are considering taking the same approach at other schools. In other words - expanding Tony's approach because it worked.
Yep, Tata was the only one
Sun, 11/11/2012 - 14:19 — jenmanYep, Tata was the only one to recognize and do something about underenrollment issues. Trying to force families into schools never works.
And I'm worried Martin will try and kill stem schools
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 00:38 — raleighlauraHe has expressed concern over themed schools like the STEM and Global programs that have been so attractive to rim parents and have helped fill out chronically under enrolled schools. I fear staff has interpreted that as STEM doesn't matter. There is no provision for STEM program continuity or priority as kids from STEM schools move through the system, and I thought STEM education was a key priority for the whole NATION! We don't want to go back to 2008!
Unfortunately, back to 2008 seems to be where all this is headed
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 10:36 — nmoskalOne ramification of which may be that 2015 could be like 2009. I have to agree with FSandYOU on doing the time warp -
It's just a jump to the left
Then a step to the right
I also agree that it was predictable.
Seems this place is going in circles, which doesn't bode well for here long term. As the saying goes, doing the same thing again and expecting a different result is insanity.
I don't think so Nancy
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 07:16 — snordoneI think Barbara is right, it will be a district of charters. Parents won't waste time and energy over WCPSS anymore. By 2016 the CC will be talking about co-localizing charters in under enrolled schools to effectively use space and save the county money.
Had we stayed with the choice plan and kept Tony in place none of this would happen.
Wake County will forever go in circles
Mon, 11/12/2012 - 16:03 — FSandYOUIf you are hinting that 2015 could be like '09 with regards to elections, doesn't matter.
As the circles prove, the majority of voters in Wake County are not concerned about improving the schools or the children's chance for success.
Status Quo is good enough and Kevin Hill is proof of that.
...
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 21:56 — Sideburnshttp://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-leadership/board-of-education/work-session-materials/11-13-2012--work-session/presentation-of-the-administrations-proposed-2013-2014-school-assignment-plan-back-up-material.pdf
It seems we're back to grandfathering without transportation. Second step in reverse.
...
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:22 — SideburnsI love this part:
"Students participating in the Base Declaration will have a guaranteed seat at their base school for the new school year." Oh, there's more? "Unless the school becomes fully capped based on numbers requesting to return to their base school."
Sounds like the "first choice" problem that the choice plan haters complained about. LOL.
So predictable and beyond hilarious
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:29 — FSandYOUIt'S the Hill-Martin-Evans time-warp.
LET'S DO THE TIME-WARP AGAIN.
LET'S DO THE TIME-WARP AGAIN.
Why so much....
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:18 — PeacePopnegativity? I thought the purpose of this blog was to share information? You contribution just criticizes something not even related to Keung's post. Posting with that kind of attitude just makes people take note of your name and tells us the information you do share is not to be taken seriously.
Jenman's credibility can eat your cred for lunch, pops.
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 22:27 — raleighlauraAnd I don't mean that negatively, just constructively!
Our own CPA says
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:21 — FSandYOU“I don’t think we need a lot of dates...blah, blah, blah"
Which is the CPA's way of saying she's not interested in hearing what the public thinks. She doesn't care.
"Instead of using reassignment to reduce crowding outside northeast Wake, Evans said they'd recommend capping schools."
So when a school is capped the kids won't get reassigned elsewhere? To a school with capacity? More smoke and mirrors from Sue.
And pay attention to this one mommy and daddy,
"There’s more that we’re doing here than just reassigning a few nodes," said Susan Evans.
As happened earlier this week, but no one paid attention then either, you've been "forewarned".
You are mixing things up.
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 15:58 — KeungHui (author)You are mixing things up. All the things you are citing from the top of your comment are from Laura Evans. Since Laura Evans is first mentioned, I just say Evans on subsequent references until I mention Susan Evans for the first time. From that point on in the post, I say Susan Evans or Laura Evans to differentiate who is talking.
Well darn, I hate it when that happens
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 16:45 — FSandYOUHowever, take out Laura, insert the CPA and it's all the same thing.
It's the WCPSS way.
Welcome!
Thanks to Bob for his
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:51 — jenmanThanks to Bob for his comments. Eh, I'm allowed a little snark every once in a while.
?
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 14:41 — Bob_SconceOdd definition of 'unrelated.' The post says '2 minutes.' It would be unrelated if she were complaining about, say, football.
It's absolutely correct that GSIW complained when time at meetings was reduced from 3 minutes to 2 minutes in hopes of getting more people in.
As for the "not to be taken seriously" part.... I suggest reading a little bit more of the blog to see Jenman's contributions before jumping to that conclusion, lest you, yourself, not be taken seriously.