The spin from both supporters and critics of Wake County's new student assignment plan is well in progress.
As noted in today's article, critics like the Great Schools in Wake Coalition and some parents dispute Superintendent Tony Tata's assertions that the first round of the selection process was a success.
But Michael Alves, who is being paid by Wake to consult on the plan's implementation, and Wake Education Partnership Vice President Tim Simmons say the results are encouraging.
"They used choice to provide stability, didn't create additional high-needs schools and met the academic needs of the students," Simmons said. "It looks good so far."
Simmons points to how so many people got their first choice, how they're not projecting any additional schools will go above 40 percent F&R, how they filled all the requests from displaced magnet proximity students to get into high-performing schools and how many people were placed under the first three selection priorities.
Chief Transformation Officer Judy Peppler said that they accommodated all requests to keep siblings at the same school.
Peppler said that they're still finalizing things but think they'll seat every student who applied for kindergarten, sixth-grade and ninth-grade to a walk-zone school.
As for priority three, Peppler said they'll wind up seating most of the applicants who applied for kindergarten, sixth-grade and ninth-grade who requested their closest school that was more than 1.5 miles from home.
This comes after critics, especially those leaving charter schools and private schools, complained that feeder patterns meant they wouldn't be able to keep siblings together or go to their closest school.
"I’m not being insensitive to the parents who are worried about their child’s situation, but from a systemwide perspective the results are encouraging,” Simmons said.
Simmons said there are things that Wake needs to do better, such as marketing to families why they should apply to attend new schools. Peppler said that if they open Abbotts Creek or Richland Creek elementary schools this year they'll aggressively market them to the families who attend the surrounding schools.
Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, took a far more critical view. She charged that the district overcrowded schools to increase placement rates.
“I think the system is bending over backwards to give people their choices, but I don’t think it’s a sustainable method,” Brannon said.
Brannon said that results of the first round of choices have resulted in underenrollment at some new schools, overenrollment at more high-profile schools, an increase in high-poverty percentages at some schools and fear among parents to request changes for their children because of uncertainty about the results.
Brannon said that parents she’s talked to had reasons other than satisfaction for not registering a choice for their children. The new plan was rushed into place without giving parents enough time to learn about the school options, she said, adding that a more developed plan would have included more magnet schools to spread out demand and maintain diversity.
“A large majority of the folks we are hearing from do not understand this plan, they think it’s too complicated, they’d like to go to school closer to where they live, with vibrant options to move out,” Brannon said.
“Some are not registering their complaints because it does not affect them right now.”
Brannon said the increases in percentages of F&R kids at schools is a leading indicator of trouble with the new plan.
“I don’t think it’s a healthy sign that we are trending to high-poverty schools and underchosen schools,” Brannon said.
Comments
I think there is some
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 09:49 — tropicalgirlI think there is some validity to the concerns about real estate sales. I understand that things were not ever definite under the old assignment plan. However, your address was part of a node and that node did have base schools so you had some inkling of where you would go to school when buying a particular house. In MOST cases, if you were reassigned, your whole node was moved so again, you were grouped with your neighbors. Under the new plan, your address has no base assignment and if your surrounding schools are filled when you move in, you are sent to a school further away and you are not with your surrounding neighbors. And you are then on a feeder pattern that keeps your child isolated unless you are one of the lucky 49 percent that gets to move in a non-entry grade or the lucky 69 percent and less that gets to move in 6th or 9th (based on the latest choice results). The uncertainty level regarding where they will go to school for newcomers exists under both plans but the new plan seems to add a huge potential for isolation for incoming children. I don't know how to address that but I can see the concern. I moved twice while growing up and had it not been for the repetition of seeing kids from the neighborhood at my school, it would have been much more of a struggle to fit in.
I agree completely, and
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 10:20 — kymreneeI agree completely, and think this is a real problem. I understand that neighborhoods have always had a variety of schools represented (public, magnet, private, homeschools), but at least in kid-heavy neighborhoods, if your node was reassigned to a different base school, others in your neighborhood went with you; there was a sense of community, at least for those at the base school. I think it's going to be potentially very isolating for newcomers, and I do think that will affect real estate sales.
Maybe the newcomers should pay close attention
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 13:42 — FSandYOUbefore they just pack up and move south. Newcomers have always moved to this area blind of the true reality of the school system. Things will be no different going forward. They ask the question, they are told all is well and that we're one of the top school systems in the nation and that's the end of it.
Now where did I put the moving box with that school info for Jr.?
Agree here too. It will be
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 10:28 — jenmanAgree here too. It will be very interesting to see what happens when newcomers move in after the selection rounds are over. It would certainly be a factor for me. We were in the process of buying a house at a time when Brassfield was capped. Even though we were at a magnet, we wouldn't look at anything assigned to Brassfield. What if we wanted to leave the magnet or what if we had to move? We didn't want the worry of our house being assigned away from the neighborhood.
To answer the question
Sun, 03/11/2012 - 20:17 — occum_sharpeWhat happens to those who didn't register?
They get placed into whatever seats are left. Most likely, these unregistered students are poor minorities that will be placed in a school that others considered "less desirable".
These schools will probably see a rise in free/reduced lunch students. The question is, what if these students are over represented in an area where all of their proximity schools are full?
...
Sat, 03/10/2012 - 19:20 — Sideburnshttp://my-3-minutes.blogspot.com/2012/03/desperate-times.html
Trying
Sat, 03/10/2012 - 23:49 — Solon77trying to remain relevant.
I see you are struggling with the same. Not to worry there will always be something to argue over.
more evidence of holes
Sat, 03/10/2012 - 18:02 — sam123456more evidence of holes in the plan...especially with only 50% of interim grades getting first choice. I thought there was capacity to support 85% ...shouldn't this be cause for alarm???
You go Sam
Sun, 03/11/2012 - 00:07 — Solon77You go Sam. Jeffery and Sideburns have been at it for years. So by their standards you are just getting started. I certainly understand you wanting the younger siblings to follow in the school path that your oldest child. The school that you and your neighbors have invested in and developed a community. You would think they would have some empathy. Well their true colors are shining through. Good luck.
So...
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 07:19 — Bob_SconceThere was a lot of empathy when Sam first started posting before the October election. But, eventually, his repetition got tiresome, even annoying.
As far as investing in and developing a community at a school, I couldn't agree more -- when you've poured your time and money into a school; when you've made relationships with teachers and other families; when you've gone through the learning experience of knowing which teachers to take, and which to avoid, you have an ownership interest in the school, and that ownership should not be casually ripped away.
And, that's precisely one of the arguments I made against the old busing-for-diversity program, where families were pulled from some schools in order to "balance" others. Happened with Davis Drive Elementary a few years ago, and the then-administration's response (either Burns or Dulaney; can't recall which) was to blow it off, saying that he was sure parents who were active at DDE would continue to be active at their new school. The Lacy->Stough move was similar, and eventually just drove parents to private schools.
The big advantage of the new assignment policy is that that stuff ends after this transition year.
Stuff ends after this transition year
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 20:43 — Solon77Do you really believe that ? We will be in perpetual transition. Feeder patterns are problematic and when enough parents don't get to go where they want we will start the whole process all over again.
Yup..
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 22:37 — Bob_SconceI recognize that there is a risk that the school board will fiddle with it year after year and there will never be stability again. I hope that doesn't come to pass -- if Evans/Martin/Kushner block can be kept in check, hopefully it won't.
I certainly understand you
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 02:58 — jeffrey1I certainly understand you wanting the younger siblings to follow in the school path that your oldest child. The school that you and your neighbors have invested in and developed a community.
At long last, the words that I thought I would never hear. With conversions like this, can Rev. Barber be far behind?
You just don't give up, do
Sat, 03/10/2012 - 21:09 — jeffrey1You just don't give up, do you?
If you did not participate in the first round, you made a choice. You chose to stay in your current school or remain in your feeder pattern.
Overall, 97% of students received their 1st choice.
But go ahead and drink the GSIW kool-aid Sam.
97% - be careful
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 11:30 — sam123456That 97% number is being thrown around -- but be careful. Remember that 50% did not get their first choice for the non transition grade levels --- that is a horrible percentage! Where is the stability in that? Staff told us that the number would be in high 80% --- so what is causing the difference???
...
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 14:21 — SideburnsMoving from one school to another at a non-transition grade level is not stability. Is that what you chose to do?
You didn't ask me but yes,
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 14:49 — tropicalgirlYou didn't ask me but yes, we chose to do that. We accepted a magnet assignment because we were told that if it didn't work out, we could return to base. Since we have to provide our transportation and my husband no longer works near her school, we realized that we would need to move her back. Plus she was beginning to have problems being isolated from the kids in the neighborhood. Our promise to return to base no longer exists and we are now on a feeder pattern to downtown magnets that we never asked for. The only way to stop that train is to try and move her now - so that we can get some stability in the future.
...
Mon, 03/12/2012 - 16:33 — SideburnsUh, no. You could stay in your current feeder pattern and have stability in the future too.
But, my point was to sam. He has his own definition of stability. I was pointing out that choosing to move your child mid-school grade level is not stability. Being allowed to stay -- wherever you are, which this plan does -- is.
NOT stability sideburns
Tue, 03/13/2012 - 11:17 — sam123456"Being allowed to stay -- wherever you are, which this plan does -- is"
Being allowed to stay does NOT provide stability when the feeder pattern suddenly changes as part of this plan. In does NOT provide stability when that new feeder pattern buses children to middle and high schools further away. And there is certainly NO stability when children can't follow their siblings to the same middle and high school -- the very same schools where parents have invested time and money.
lack of BOE member support for your situation
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 22:48 — snordonewas the cause of your problem, not the plan. We suffered from exactly what you are now dealing with for years - sudden change in feeder pattern to a HS very far away that did not offer half of the electives that our current school offered. And it happened because our BOE member - your BOE member - believed that balance was more important than stability and school resources.
What is the solution in your opinion? We have had an I win-you lose system for years, how do we fix it? The current plan is as close to a solution that I have ever seen, I have to leave my old feeder pattern but now have choice and stability. And I am now out of district 3, which is a huge benefit. I feel for your situation, you had a great feeder pattern and your new choices are not as good.
solution?
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 16:28 — EBDarcyI don't know how this solves the winners and losers problem. There are winners in this plan and there are losers. In some cases they are the same kids as in the former plan. Based on the comments here some of the people who considered themselves in the loser category in the past now feel like they got what they wanted. Some people thought this plan would give them what they wanted and are realizing it doesn't. It actually creates a whole new category of losers doesn't it? Kids who move here after k, kids who move here after the lotteries take place, people who move within the district, charter and magnet families, homeschoolers, and anyone who doesn't gets their 3rd, 4th and 5th choice are all potential losers under the new plan.
...
Tue, 03/13/2012 - 13:05 — SideburnsBeing allowed to stay does not provide stability?
Did you apply to the school you wanted?
Isn't that like saying
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 01:29 — allkidsfirstIsn't that like saying people whose schools were switched to year round had stability because they could stay if only they would be willing to give up their summer? It was such a poor choice you successfully labled it "mandatory" year round. It's an especially true for families who chose to provide their own transportation for next year, not all the way through High School.
They were promised that they could always return to the same school as their friends in their node. In fact, they would do so automatically in 6th or 9th grades unless they applied. If life changes understandably got in the way of spending 1.5-2 hours driving to school each day, they could go to school with their neighbors in their node. Now they get whatever is the least popular school in their choice area as salt in the wound of something like a job loss or having to return to work to make ends meet. In our area, that amounts to mandatory year round. It's mandatory year round for newcomers and charter students too.
The newcomers will love MYR
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 07:38 — FSandYOUJust try it, you'll like it. ;)
...
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 07:15 — SideburnsI never claimed MYR created instability. I chose to leave MYR once we were given the option to do so. I created that unstable assignment for my child to avoid the ridiculousness of two school calendars for my family. That was my tipping point.
sam keeps trying to claim that the change in his historical feeder pattern is causing his family instability -- and that's not true. Both of you can continue on the stable feeder pattern provided for your child until 12th grade -- or you can choose to apply to your old feeder pattern and, if you get in, maintain stability in that feeder pattern. sam doesn't have two children in the same school so changing his feeder pattern isn't splitting his family as he has tried to allude to.
I'm not convinced that providing a predictable feeder through the magnet system was the right thing to do in this plan. Then again, I don't think magnet parents should be able to chose at a whim to return to their neighborhood school. I understand the issues created with the magnet feeders -- I just find it ironic that, of all groups, the magnet parents are speaking loudly in support of a neighborhood assignment -- because that was just another luxury they've had all along.
Not Neighborhood
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 13:28 — Solon77the magnet parents are speaking loudly in support of a neighborhood assignment
Not neighborhood assignment - base assignment. There is a distinct difference. And yes, what parent would not want some certainty of a base assignment versus going where the next available seat is. We all know from the data published so far trying to break out of the feeder pattern is low probability.
...
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:57 — SideburnsWell, considering the base assignments for the magnet families from the suburbs were normally located in their neighborhood, I would call that wanting a neighborhood assignment. Those parents do have the certainty of a base assignment -- the school they are in right now.
I really believe this plan could have been different. But, the Rev, GSIW and magnet parents wouldn't allow it. Be careful what you ask for.
Families from the suburbs
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 20:50 — Solon77You mean like the families from Apex, West Raleigh (Leesville area), Wake Forest/Wakefield ? The horror of them trying to get back to a school that is proximate to their resident.
As far as the plan being different - the assignment was taken on by Tata, the GOP choice for superintendent and endorsed unanimously by the GOP and two Dems. The current board has supported the plan 100% and have resisted all efforts for change. So I am at a loss as to how you can accuse the Rev, GSIW and magnet parents for shaping the plan.
On another topic, following is an excerpt from the Cambridge, MA choice plan providing guidance.
1. Maximize Your Chances in the Kindergarten Lottery
During the Kindergarten Lottery, a computerized system will attempt to fill as many #1 School Choice selections as possible before moving on to fill as many #2 and #3 choices. Therefore, the order in which you list your three choices is important. In many cases, listing a program where your child has an increased chance of being assigned is a wise strategy.
...
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:10 — SideburnsNo, you're right. The Rev, GSIW and magnet families certainly didn't shape this plan. Thank goodness.
I think some people are
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 18:02 — jenmanI think some people are upset about not having a base school but I think many of those same people are also upset that they don't have a neighborhood school. Many of the recent complaints have been from people who want to go to School A. "My neighborhood has always been assigned to School A" "I bought my house so my kids would go to School A" "I don't want to go to School B. It's not my neighborhood school."
Didn't you recently say that your child wants to leave the magnet path and go to high school with her neighborhood friends? I guess technically, you have a base school--your feeder pattern school. But you want to return to your neighborhood school. (I don't mean to be picking on you and I hope it doesn't come across as aggressive or accusatory. I don't intend it that way--just generating discussion.)
Picking on you
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:20 — Solon77You are not. My daughter was considering going to the HS the neighborhood was assigned to under the old plan. Again the school the neighborhood is assigned to is not necessarily the closest school. In the new plan the feeder pattern is completely different and would have sent her to a school that none of her friends go to. Her friends would be grandfathered at the current base school. In the end she decided to stay in the magnet program. However, it makes me think about others who face similar situations, parents/students of home schoolers, charters, private, or newcomers that want to return/enter the public school system. They are taxpayers, why should they receive different treatment ? Unlike sideburns, I do not believe these families should be punished. Personally I believe the cradle to grave feeder pattern is a mistake. A good compromise would be to guarantee stability K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 and getting full choice at the break points. This way there is greater flexibility for the parents and the district as demographics change.
So...
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 09:52 — Bob_SconceThey are taxpayers, why should they receive different treatment?
For administrative convenience and for stability of people in the plan. Governments make decisions all the time that treat taxpayers differently.
I'll point out again that most of the issues we have this year are transition problems stemming from (1) magnet/charter parents and parents who selected traditional-calendar options, who believed they could always 'return to base,' only to discover that base schools no longer exist and (2) people, like Sam, who are dissatisfied with the feeders for their current school.
In time, these will go away. (1) because now everybody understands the new rules, nobody should feel like the rug has been pulled from under them, and (2) over time, people will get into the feeder pathway that they want.
I'll note that this really isn't trying to punish anybody -- they just want to make it possible for the large majority of parents to not do anything and to provide some certainty about the future, which is what feeders do.
These will go away
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 13:25 — Solon77You are kidding yourself if you think the issues raised are transition issues and not to repeat. There are a lot of people in the middle years sitting on the sidelines watching to see how things play out. Elementary school kids rising 1-5 are not going to be looking to move as are rising 7-8. Once this round is over it gives them a whole year to express their concerns. To think that once this year's choice process is over everything is going to be wonderful is a fantasy.
As far a making it so that a large majority of parents to not to do anything and some certainty about the future - I guess it is a matter of perspective. Our neighborhood was reassigned once in 17 years as is the case of the majority of the neighborhoods surrounding us. I take it that you have not been reassigned - what more certainty did you need ? The reality is that the majority of the parents have not had to do anything for years and they have had a high degree of certainty, otherwise Tata would have been competely foolish to offer a 13 year guaranteed assignment track. All that has been done is to make 5,000-8,000 unhappy parents happy at the expense of others. Under the Old and the New a claim could be made that the majority of the parents get what they want.
Glad that you weren't
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:55 — jenmanGlad that you weren't offended by my comments. :) I agree about the feeder patterns being a mistake. I'd rather see choice implemented at each school level as well. Although I suppose if that was the plan, we'd all be second guessing that too. Whichever way we go, somebody will be upset.
We are hoping to return to our local school instead of staying in the magnet program so I understand your point about not punishing charter, magnet, homeschool & private families who want to return to the system. I'm getting anxious for Friday to find out our fate.
Horrors - local school
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:03 — Solon77Oh horrors, trying to get back to a local school :) (see sideburns above) I wish you luck and if you get in hopefully your kids will not be subject to a public flogging or ostracized having to wear a scarlet M on their cloths. If you see neighbors coming down the street with torches and pitch forks you may want to slip out the back door.
...
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 21:13 — SideburnsYes, their local school -- not just a base assignment.
And, don't get me wrong, I think it's terrific that everyone wants a proximate assignment. I just don't think magnet parents should have the luxury of choosing it on a whim.
If magnet parents had the
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 08:51 — tropicalgirlIf magnet parents had the "luxury of a whim" (which I find insulting - none of my decisions for my child's schooling were made on a whim), it was because that was the rules of the system that we were operating under. Our magnet required that we provide transportation. Because of my husband's job location, that was possible. But we made sure before accepting the assignment that if we needed to move back to our base school because of no longer being able to provide transportation, we could. That was what we were promised. Now the rules have changed and that promise has been broken. Unfortunately for us, we cannot provide transportation anymore either. Under the old plan, she would have moved to her base school with surrounding neighbors and the move wouldn't have been as traumatic for her since she would know some of those kids. Under the new plan, there were few seats and many applicants for her former base school so we chose the next one and if we're lucky enough to be selected, she will not know anyone at that school. But that option is still better than leaving her on a feeder pattern that would have us continuing to travel to downtown Raleigh with no guarantee that we could get out of it. Oh and the feeder patterns break another promise that was made to us - that we could return to our base middle school.
You may not like the old rules and I get that but don't keep making snide comments about the parents who were operating under those rules. Promises were made and broken - sound familiar? - but apparently since it affects magnet kids, that's not an issue. Hmmmm, where exactly is that scarlet M?
...
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 16:19 — SideburnsI already said that I don't think creating a magnet feeder pattern in this plan was the best decision. (Then again, how many would stay in their magnets knowing they can easily get the same stability and predictability back at their neighborhood choice?) I also think those who are still attending odious tradt'l opt-out schools should be provided some special provision to get back to their neighborhood.
And, I stand by my "whim" comment. Who else in WCPSS could move their child back to their local school assignment "just because"? No one but magnet families.
BTW, we had an assignment without transportation and dealt with it. Make the system work for you -- and if you don't like it, work to change it.
I think that VYR students
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 16:57 — jenmanI think that VYR students always had the option to return to base as well.
...
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 19:30 — SideburnsYes, you're right. And they could deny their acceptance into VYR if they didn't like their track assignment and return to base.
so could you
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 21:03 — EBDarcyYou could decline the seat you were offered at a traditional calender opt-out school and stay at your base. And you could return to your base if you didn't like the new school.
I'm sorry but traditional
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 16:45 — tropicalgirlI'm sorry but traditional opt-out families should get to come back to the neighborhood but not magnet families? Really? You base this on the fact that opt-out families were escaping MYR - well, guess what, there were definitely magnet families who made their choices to escape MYR as well.
I'm glad you were able to deal without transportation but it doesn't mean that you have the slightest clue about walking in my shoes - or anyone else whom you disagree with.
Your whim comment remains offensive particularly when so many of us have tried to explain our concerns in reasonable terms. Your continued maligning of magnet families says more about you than about any of us.
Off to find my scarlet M...
...
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 19:28 — SideburnsI never claimed to know anything about you or your shoes. I've shared my experiences. I have stated my opinion. Take it or leave it. I don't care.
And I don't necessarily disagree with you. I hope, unlike the many others I've heard complain over the years, you stay involved and make the system better for everyone -- even magnet families. ;)
WCPSS made promises? No it
Thu, 03/15/2012 - 15:36 — starsonoursWCPSS made promises? No it wasn't a promise it was the rules of that assignment policy. That policy does not exist any more so those rules do not exist. Bemoaning the parts of the old policy will not bring it back. The new policy is your new reality, claiming promises were made will not change anything.
Is there really any value in
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 13:47 — shearertwIs there really any value in a base assignment if it changes every 3 years?
The value in a base
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:42 — kymreneeThe value in a base assignment is that when someone moves into a neighborhood, they know that their kids can go to school with other kids in the neighborhood. They don't get sent to the new school that no one applied to, or to their 3rd choice school because the first two are full. In the old plan, base schools may have changed, but nodes still moved together. When my child was reassigned to a new school, about 150 of our neighbors' kids moved with her. We weren't thrilled at first but quickly came together as a community and became excited about being part of a new school. In the new plan, I see real potential for newcomers to be isolated from their neighborhoods involuntarily (unlike the voluntary isolation chosen by magnet, private and homeschool families).
When we moved here 5 years
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 16:51 — shearertwWhen we moved here 5 years ago, the 8 ES age children within 200 yards of my home went to 5 different WCPSS schools.
same here
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 17:20 — EBDarcyThat was true for my house last year. 10 kids, 5 public elementary schools. Plus 2 in private. This year only 4 public schools and 2 private schools represented because a couple kids aged out.
clearly there must be
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 15:45 — EBDarcyClearly there must be or there wouldn't be so many people upset. And while bases schools may change frequently in some of the high growth areas or to fill new schools there are plenty of neighborhoods that have been assigned to the same schools for long periods of time.
Unspoken massive reassignment
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 19:30 — Solon77There are plenty of neighborhoods that have been assigned to the same schools for a long period of time. In the 17 years we have lived here we have been reassigned once when Baileywick was opened and we were moved to Leadmine. However under the new plan our neighborhood has been reassigned by way of the feeder pattern changes. While there is this process called "choice" we are learning it is a forced selection.