Wake County school board member Kevin Hill says he wants to correct "misinformation" about Baileywick Elementary School that was spread by Heather Losurdo during her unsuccessful bid to unseat him.
Under the words "Rock Bottom," Losurdo had put out a campaign mailer saying "Baileywick Elementary School is a high needs declining enrollment school in Raleigh that deserves Federal funding under the needs-based formula instead of being funded on a per-pupil basis." She charged that "Hill has refused to advocate for them, so they have been unable to get the funds and resources they need."
During Tuesday's board meeting, Hill said it was "really important to give Baileywick a good shout out," as he pointed to the school's academic accomplishments.
"Over the last month or so, there was a little bit of misinformation distributed in the community about Baileywick Elementary," Hill said. "And I feel it really important to give Baileywick a good shout out.
Contrary to some of the information that came out during the campaign, they are a School of Distinction that has exceedingly high expectations for their children. It was stated their enrollment was declining. They're up 50+ students this year.
They have the highest AG (academically gifted) target in terms of target growth, growth targets with their AG. And their Title I is one of the top schools in the district in terms of a year-and-a-half of growth for each year with their Title I program.
So I just feel it's important to thank Kathy Hartenstine and the entire faculty and the Baileywick family for what they're doing with all of our children."
During the campaign, the mailer had prompted some letters to the editor from people who said that Losurdo had disparaged Baileywick.
Baileywick's enrollment last year was 456 students. With projections showing enrollment could drop to 400 students for this school year, Superintendent Tony Tata in April designated it as one of five schools that would receive additional teachers as a "small school."
Baileywick's enrollment for this school year, as of the 20th day of classes in September, was 442 students.
Comments
Isn't Hilburn...
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 09:34 — bpuli9999in Prickett's district (7?)? How come she never says anything about anything?
We have Tata to thank
Sun, 11/27/2011 - 21:48 — snordonefor the additional resources, as do all the rim schools. The STEM at Hilburn, the small school status, the promise of foreign language. Parents in these schools have tried for 6 years to get someone to pay attention to their declining enrollment and lack of program equity. And as I remember from the blog, Heather mentioned their excellent academic achievement and was asking for program equity. But I did not see the mailer. How was it disparaging?
So...
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 08:59 — Bob_SconceMaybe I am confused.
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 15:56 — uBnice1. Mailer: Declining Enrollment
Hill: Increased Enrollment
2. Mailer: High needs based
Hill: School of Distinction
The blog specifies that Hill said this is exactly what he took issue with.
high needs based doesn't
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 16:21 — jenmanhigh needs based doesn't mean a school can't be a school of distinction. I think that high needs based probably refers to the fact that they have a relatively high percentage of ESL students yet schools are funded on a per pupil basis. In that case, the principal may have to use her MOE for more ESL support instead of something else that the rest of us might take for granted. From what I understand, Baileywick's principal has actually been teaching an AG class herself because additional MOE needed to be spent on ESL, yet she didn't want to short change AG students.
According to
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 16:07 — jeffrey1According to Keung:
Baileywick's enrollment last year was 456 students.
Baileywick's enrollment for this school year, as of the 20th day of classes in September, was 442 students.
See the link...
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 15:59 — Bob_SconceBaileywick was projected to have declining enrollment.
And, it's possible to be a school of distinction and still be high-needs.
The point of the mailer wasn't that Baileywick is a crappy school -- that's certainly not true. The point was that it was being underfunded, and Hill hadn't done anything about it.
our actual projected enrollment for 2011-2012
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 18:27 — snordonewas 380, which is why Tata gave us small school status. We applied for a STEM program but did not get one. Tata also gave us full time specials for the first time this year. I am sorry, but Tata is the only one who can be given credit for this stuff. The old guard truly believes that schools should be funded based on enrollment. Kevin has talked about how the time might be right to change funding formulas, and I sincerely hope he does try. But he has not been a strong advocate for the rim in the last 4 years, and in my opinion it is very manipulative to try and take credit for the hard work of a principal and teachers who have done it without his support for the last 4 years.
Kevin did advocate for the school
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 14:30 — tartexanOne of the areas that was wrong about the statement was that the principal will tell you that Kevin was able "to advocate" for the school and get funds for 2 addtional staff members. Another example of Kevin operating in the background and not beating his chest like JT.
...
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 20:58 — SideburnsAnother example of Kevin operating in the background...
Do tell. What else is Mr. Hill doing in the background?
Your recent posts and letter
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 22:36 — zandeYour recent posts and letter to the editor certainly seem to indicate a great deal of angst and bitterness Sideburns. I hope that those feelings soon ebb and that you can work together with all of the community in a collaborative and helpful way. You seem to have a lot of energy and passion and those are traits that we will need to move forward for the children of Wake County.
are you offering a free
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 07:31 — AngelaWare you offering a free "consultation"?
...
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 07:30 — SideburnsI have been working in a collaborative and helpful way. Have you noticed the many positive changes over the past 2 years? No MYR, guaranteed stability, sensible feeder patterns. All things I've been hoping for. I think the children and families of Wake County are much better off now than a few years ago.
Ineffective antagonist
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 09:55 — valsparYou did not achieve "no MYR", your side lost the lawsuit appeal, correct? WCPSS can mandatorily assign students to year round if they want to. They do not. WCPSS chose to offer traditional calendar option schools for anyone who has a base assignment to year round long before Ron and Co. came into power, and before the ruling of the lawsuit was rendered, therefore no one is forced into year round. What you whine about is you don't like your traditional calendar option school. SO, you attempted to change the calendars of schools (some successfully) and also created more seats for yourself by using this board to implement their version of neighborhood schools. That is what you changed, and it was not collaboratively and helpfully.
If you want year round to be 100% choice, then put your so called collaborative helpfulness towards the next bond, and build enough traditional schools to hold the students in the higher growth areas. It is for that reason alone - not enough seats, regardless of students bused from outlying areas to you or not - that we have students assigned to year round schools. The new choice plan gives greater access to western schools than the node based system ever did, if Tata's original plan of set asides is implemented. It would be very helpful to have even more high achieving schools on the traditional calendar in western Wake to offer as choices for the chronically low performing nodes in other parts of the county.
...
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 12:30 — SideburnsWCPSS can mandatorily assign students to year round if they want to.
Sure they can. But we have a majority of people on the Board right now that don't think that's the right thing to do. That will change shortly, I'm sure.
What you whine about is you don't like your traditional calendar option school.
I love our tradt'l options -- both the elementary (although far away) and now our middle school. But there are many others who did not appreciate Dulaney's odious options.
SO, you attempted to change the calendars of schools (some successfully) and also created more seats for yourself by using this board to implement their version of neighborhood schools. That is what you changed, and it was not collaboratively and helpfully.
Tell the good people of Apex that the few un-conversions, the guarantee of long-term stability, the ability to choose and the predictability of feeder patterns was not helpful. I only need 2 seats. Believe me, I didn't stay involved for my own good.
Screw a bond!
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 10:16 — FSandYOUBonds have proven they don't solve the problem because by the time they build anything several more years pass and create a bigger problem that you can never build your way out of.
MYR? Yes we still have it and awlays will. All the kids who were FORCED into it and couldn't/didn't leave sure as heck won't now, even with a new plan that we may or may not be using after next week, because their parents are too complacent. Oh yes friend, MYR is alive and well and was designed from within to always be that way. Thank Del and Chuck for that F up. That will always be on them and those socialists who served on their board!
Ignorance is no excuse
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 10:56 — valsparNormally I don't read your posts, because they are dribble. But this one begs for a response. This post shows your ignorance to the issues, especially your first line. The school system has learned they cannot present a bond package that will solve the seat issues this county faces because the last time they did, it was voted down. (1999). This county is still feeling the effects of the delay, and the scaled down bond after that, plus the removal of restoration funds in it (ask Goldman). The seat issues have been in existence since the growth of the 80's, and Gary Pendleton. (If you have to ask who is Gary Pendleton, then you ain't from around here...). I'm tired of people blaming the school system for lack of seats. It is not their fault. They present how many they need at every bond drum roll. The blame for the lack of seats lies in the laps of the County Commissioners and then the taxpayers. Year round was developed as a response to more seats needed + less funding, period. If you don't like it, opt out to your traditional seat. You have one, whether you like it or not. If everyone that did not like year round opted out, it would show the county commissioners how many schools we need, by demand. And of course year round is by design - there are not enough tradtional seats to go around! If you want more traditional seats, quit whining and ask for them. Then, pay for it.
You're forgetting the effect
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 08:22 — jenmanYou're forgetting the effect that the divesity policy had on capacity issues. I often hear Wake's growth compared to "trying to get a drink from a fire hose", yet WCPSS routinely placed the diversity policy at a higher priority than the efficient use of seats.
Every year families were denied YR because they weren't the right demographic while traditional schools were bursting at the seams. I'm not denying that growth was an issue, but some of the inability to address it was due to WCPSS's own decisions.
Speaking of Ignorance
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 22:52 — jeffrey1The 1999 bond referendum was defeated largely because it included a lot of waste. Things like irrigation systems for football fields, etc.
Wake County citizens overwhelmingly passed a much better bond referendum just 12 months later. The defeated 1999 bond referendum included 15 new schools and 58 school improvements. The 2000 bond referendum included 14 new schools, major improvements to 25 schools, and other improvements to 65 schools, yet was $150 million less than the 1999 referendum. And as you know, opt-outs were purposely designed to be undesirable to limit the number of families that opted out.
WCPSS lost less than 1 year because of the 1999 defeat. Stop blaming that defeat for current conditions.
With regard to YR schools, the purpose of the 2007 conversion was to gain an additional 3000 seats, but the enrollment that came in that year was nearly 3000 seats short of projections. 17,000 families were FORCED to convert, yet not one of those conversions was necessary.
Supporters of YR schools claim they can increase a school's enrollment to 133% of capacity, yet that figure is never accomplished. The most popular tracks (1 and 4) are often fully populated, yet the less desirable tracks (2 and 3) are never fully enrolled. Tracks are often collapsed, and classrooms go empty when tracks 2 and 3 are in school. Yet the costs of operating YR schools (think bus routes and summer air conditioning) often outweigh the limited benefits of increased usage. Hundreds of school districts across the country that tried YR schools eliminated them a short time later when they realized there were NO cost savings associated with them.
As far as WCPSS needs for extra space, note that capacity of the district as a whole has been decreasing over the years:
Excellent job sticking a fork in the '99 bond failure lie
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 08:48 — FSandYOUValspar hovers over open paint cans regularly, so things take a while to sink in.
Obviously.
Lets look at what you aren't saying...
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 23:52 — valsparWhat capacity numbers are you referencing in your yearly count? Certainly not brick and mortar capacity, or if all schools operated on a traditional calendar capacity, or even at their optimum capacity with the proper number, not excess number of trailers. Capacity is a tricky stat to throw around - looking at your numbers, there's room for 14,000 students. Where? In those year round spaces not being used, and in parts of the county that do not have enough students to fill the school (perfect example on the horizon - Rolesvile High). So Tata's Choice Plan will fill them, but will those parents be happy with their 5th choice where there is an available seat for them? We'll see. And with the defeat of the 1999 bond, we were indeed put a critical year behind. And that's just the beginning of what that defeat accomplished. That's also not saying every child had a seat in 1999 - they didn't. Not by a long shot. Add that year to smaller bonds since then because the school system and the county were in fear of another defeat during some the highest percentage growth years we've experienced, with none of the bonds gaining ground on permanent seats. Add to that all schools k-8 (supposed to be) opening year round to save on construction costs (that made parents happy, now didn't it?). Results - We have a higher percentage of students mobile units today than in 1999, even with more year round schools, and more discontent with calendar options and feeder patterns. Yes, I do blame the 1999 bond defeat, and what it represented. The fact that it was defeated showed the county's commissioners then, since then, and now have their head in the sand when it comes to addressing growth and adequately providing permanent seats for students. They can't even build enough to get mobile capacity down to the "optimum" 8% - its around 15% now. The kids who were in Kindergarten in 1999 are in high school now, and have been to school during our highest growth on record. And the adults still can't get it right.
What capacity numbers are
Wed, 11/30/2011 - 01:51 — jeffrey1What capacity numbers are you referencing in your yearly count?
The official ASCC (Annual School Campus Capacity) statistic used by WCPSS. It includes all classrooms on a school campus (including mobiles).
looking at your numbers, there's room for 14,000 students. Where?
There are dozens of schools operating well below capacity. Here are just some of the elementary schools (notice how many are YR):
So Tata's Choice Plan will fill them, but will those parents be happy with their 5th choice where there is an available seat for them?
5th choice is unlikely for two reasons: As evidenced above, lots of capacity available at a wide range of schools. Also, grandfathering will allow students to remain at their current school.
And that's just the beginning of what that defeat accomplished. That's also not saying every child had a seat in 1999 - they didn't.
No. Until the 1999 defeat, WCPSS routinely passed school bonds, and citizens never bothered to ask for the details. In 1999, WCPSS tried to sneak a lot of waste past the citizens, and they were caught. The 2000 bond was $150 million less, built 14 new schools (1 less than the 1999 bond), and improved 100 schools (42 more than the 1999 bond). WCPSS learned that they needed to be fiscally responsible when submitting referendums to the public.
Furthermore, any time "lost" because of the defeat was made up in the next bond referendum, which was approved in 2003, and based on the needs of the school system at that time.
Add to that all schools k-8 (supposed to be) opening year round to save on construction costs (that made parents happy, now didn't it?).
Based on the capacity figures of some of the YR elementary schools cited above, it's likely that YR schools are actually costing the county more money in operating costs than it might be saving in construction costs.
The fact that it was defeated showed the county's commissioners then, since then, and now have their head in the sand when it comes to addressing growth and adequately providing permanent seats for students.
No, it showed WCPSS that they can no longer expect citizens to fund extravagant spending on schools (e.g. irrigation systems for athletic fields).
They can't even build enough to get mobile capacity down to the "optimum" 8% - its around 15% now.
8% is the long term goal. Mobile capacity has remained in the 15-18% range since at least 2006, and probably longer (I can't find any mobile statistics earlier than 2006). Over the past 4 years, there are actually 89 fewer mobile units on ES campuses, and 10 fewer mobile units on MS campuses. Over the past 3 years, there are 28 fewer mobile units on HS campuses.
That tired, sad ole groan of
Tue, 11/29/2011 - 15:05 — FSandYOUbecause the 99 bond was voted down ...
Don't ya' got anything better? You're like stale bread. Or dried paint?
As for asking Goldman, is she taking interviews again?
Uhh...
Mon, 11/28/2011 - 15:13 — Bob_SconceNo... That was part of rejiggering the funding formulas, which was instigated largely by Tedesco and Tata and approved by the board. It's the same rejiggering that ensured that base middle schools all had full suites of electives. See http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/addressing-underutilized-traditional-calendar-and-year-round-schools for a discussion about this.
You cannot claim that everything good was because Hill was "operating in the background." Even if he was, that sort of "operating in the background" is precisely the sort of meddling which board members should NOT be engaging it -- action needs to happen at the board level, not because individual board members are asking individual administrators to do things. AdvanceEd ding'd Burke County when their board members did precisely what you're claiming Hill did in this case.