Members of Wake County's school board majority wants to leave their options open in case they make any student assignment changes for the 2011-12 school year.
Laura Evans, senior director of Growth & Planning, had asked for a change in board policy to move up the deadline for annual adoption of the student assignment plan from May 1 to March 1. Evans said this year's April 6 adoption had made things "very difficult" for her office.
But Debra Goldman, chairwoman of the board's policy committee, said at Wednesday's meeting she won't recommend moving up the date. She said she didn't want to limit the student assignment committee from being able to make changes for the 2011-12 school year.
“I have concerns that March 1 will cut off the critical work of the committee,” Goldman said.
Goldman said she could support moving up the date to March 1 after the new community zone model is put into effect.
The community assignment directive passed in March gave the school board nine to 15 months to develop the new model. The directive says Wake will "remain engaged" in the three-year assignment plan that runs through 2011-12 while leaving open the possibility of some adjustments.
Goldman said Wednesday that if the new plan goes into effect for 2011-12 that a March 1 adoption could be a "cause of concern." Her remarks surprised Don Haydon, chief facilities and operations officer, who said he thought that 2012-13 would be the implementation date of the new plan.
Goldman said that she doesn't know what the potential phase in would be for the new plan.
After Goldman raised her concerns, Haydon said they'll pull the change from the table and address it later on after seeing the new plan.
Some of the ambiguity might be eased at Tuesday's committee of the whole meeting when staff presents a transition plan for the new model. The community assignment directive gave staff until June 30 to develop this transition plan.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta wasn't at the policy meeting but he said he also supports holding off on moving up the adoption date to March 1 before the new plan is developed.
Comments
Staff as enemy
Sat, 06/12/2010 - 07:59 — virginiadareLooks like the majority is taking John Hood's advice (as stated on NC Spin) to treat staff as the enemy.
So...
Sat, 06/12/2010 - 13:33 — Bob_SconceIf you're talking about hte NC Spin from last fall, I don't think he specifically referred to them as the 'enemy,' but did indicate that there were a handful of people at the top who would need to go or they would try to slow or block the new board's plans. And he was right -- that's exactly what Del Burns did.
John Hood did specifically
Sat, 06/12/2010 - 15:06 — virginiadareJohn Hood did specifically refer to all the staff as the enemy and advised the new board members to treat them that way. Go back and review the tape. And Del Burns did not try to slow or block the board's plans. He did exactly as requested by the board until he decided that he could not in good conscience continue, at which point he submitted his resignation. I hate to think what the morale at Central Office as well as in the schools must be right now when any suggestion or recommendation they make is shot down by the new board.
Ok...
Sun, 06/13/2010 - 00:11 — Bob_SconceTell me which episode to look at -- I just reviewed the one I was referring to (#574), from right after the election, and it was actually Joe Maveric who said that the top 10 people would need to be fired "by Christmas". But, I don't watch every show and it's possible that I missed the one you're referring to.
And, you must be living on another planet if you don't think that publicly disagreeing with the policy preferences of the school board constitutes trying to "slow or block the board's plans." Why else would he do it? If he just wanted to resign, he could have done the professional thing and informed the board about it in advance. And, what was the purpose of a day of media interviews? Wasn't that realistically calculated to stir up opposition?
Episode #582. John Hood
Sun, 06/13/2010 - 13:12 — virginiadareEpisode #582. John Hood repeatedly refers to staff as the enemy and says they must be treated that way in order to avoid having them "outmaneuver" the board. Burns resigned out of respect for the newly-elected board members, so that they could carry out their agenda without him having to implement it. If he wanted to slow or block their plans he would have been in a better position to do so as superintendent and would not have resigned. Of course the media would want to know why the superintendent of the state's largest school system resigned. He probably thought that a day of interviews would get it over with so he could return to the work of transitioning the system to a new administration. Burns merely answered questions honestly, with no disrespect toward the new board members. He spoke of his love for the community he had served for over 30 years and his fear that high-poverty, re-segregated schools would be created.
Being treated like the enemy would have to affect the morale of central office and school staff negatively.
Uh...
Sun, 06/13/2010 - 21:46 — Bob_SconceOk, so I just watched it. He did call them the 'enemy,' but only once. And, the reference to being "outmaneuvered" was referring not to the staff, but to all the people who were on the losing side of the election -- he was saying that they had to meet in private and not provide their agenda in advance, to avoid having a big fat target for NCAE, the former board members, CCAACA &c to throw darts at for 60 days. (Whether you agree with his view or not, it's clear that's what he was referring to.)
And, the fact is that the highest levels of the administration -- Burns and Dulaney especially -- were integrally committed to the diversity policy; it was their baby. They've been the enemy to parents for years; I have no issue with Hood pointing that out.
My problem wasn't with Burns resigning -- if he didn't like the new board's policies, then he had every right to do so. But you can't reasonably claim that he chose his method for doing so out of respect for the school board. The most obvious disrespect was his surprise announcement at a public meeting; the respectful and customary thing would have been to inform them in advance.
"the respectful and
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 09:17 — danofnc"the respectful and customary thing would have been to inform them in advance."
Respectful and customary? If "respect and custom" mattered, then Kevin Hill would have been chairman until tomorrow's meeting. And the first meeting would have been the normal "hey, nice to meet you" meeting that the first meeting of new board members usually is.
No matter how much you agree or disagree with the new board members, citing "respect and custom" as a reason for someone to behave differently towards them rings very hollow, since they haven't followed respect and custom themselves.
Watch it again. Hood was
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 08:28 — virginiadareWatch it again. Hood was definitely talking about the staff when he said "outmaneuvered." It was Maveretic saying the new board would have had to deal with 60 days of all those groups throwing darts.
The diversity policy was not the baby of Burns and Dulaney. It was the baby of the entire Wake County community and had been for decades. Citizens of Wake County had worked to maintain balanced schools which helped to increase the prosperity the county has enjoyed, leading to the uncontrolled growth that caused the problems. Almost every school board member, Republican and Democrat, since merger has been behind the idea of having balanced schools, except for Ron Margiotta. Republicans include Bill Fletcher, Tom Oxholm, Roxie Cash, Judy Hoffman, Amy White, Carol Parker, Patti Head, Horace Tart, and many others on past boards, as well as other community supporters such as the Chamber of Commerce, which is not exactly a Democratic organization. There had been no partisanship regarding the diversity policy until this past election. School board votes had never been along partisan lines. The only partisan attacks had come from people like Russell Capps and Gary Pendleton who wanted to starve the beast by underfunding the schools, and they succeeded, which was the other main cause of the issues parents complained about. The only parents who saw Burns and Dulaney as the enemy are the ones who recently moved here, causing the growth, and wanted the schools to be like the ones they had left, which had required them to pay so much more in taxes, and left the minority and disadvantaged kids to be warehoused in inner-city, high-poverty schools, which is, sadly, the norm. Out of sight, out of mind. With the new zone plan, downtown Raleigh will become like the decaying cities they left.
Burns did not show any more disrespect to the board by his resignation announcement than they showed to him and the rest of the citizens of Wake County at their first meeting.
Finally
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 09:31 — Bob_SconceI dispute the idea that it was about partisanship -- the push to drop the last board and its policies was bipartisan, as was the support for the last board. Frank Eagles over in Rolesville is a Democrat, as is Ronnie Williams in Garner. Lots of the WSCA folks were Democrats. Heck, the president of the State Employee's Union (a dyed-in-the-wool democrat) supported booting the old board out.
did you leave out something?
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 07:30 — Athey01Based upon the above, Burns and Dulaney were committed to the the diversity policy. Next sentence, .."they've been the enemy to parents for years.". Therefore, are you saying that since they were committed to the diversity policy, that made them enemy to parents? I hope that is not what you are trying to say.
Missed a step
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 09:20 — Bob_SconceBut, not a big one. The problem wasn't their belief in the diversity policy -- it was that they abused families in carrying it out.
Burns and Dulaney did not
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 11:09 — virginiadareBurns and Dulaney did not abuse the families in carrying out the diversity policy; they and the past boards only made the necessary but unpopular decisions required to deal with the massive growth and underfunding that had been prevalent for the past decade. There would have been no reassignments or mandatory year round otherwise.
WEll..
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 12:03 — Bob_SconceYou seem firmly stuck to your position, so I guess I'm not going to convince you. But, please explain to me why "massive growth and underfunding" require so-called "spot nodes" or require ED students to be reassigned from schools were they do moderately well to schools where they do poorly, even though there was still space at the original school. (See some moves from Fox Rd. for example.) Why did it require converting a school to year-round so it could be run on only three tracks? Why did it require busing students past their nearest school to do to a more distant school when the nearer school had space?
I don't recall anyone ever
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 19:25 — virginiadareI don't recall anyone ever saying that each and every one of the thousands of assignment decisions made were perfect. The issues involved in assignment were complex and made more difficult by the growth and underfunding. There would have been no need for those reassignments if it hadn't been for the growth and underfunding. It required converting schools to year-round to create capacity, needed to prepare for the unrelenting growth which didn't slow until the economy crashed. No one saw that coming. If growth had continued at 8000 students a year that capacity would have been needed.
What upsets me the most is that people on this blog and during the last board campaigns called the staff the enemy and accused them of abuse. The staff are, for the most part, good people, trying their hardest to deal with difficult situations in which they will never be able to make everyone happy. Many, including Burns and Dulaney, have spent most, if not all, of their careers devoted to the Wake County community and to students, putting in brutal hours and working as hard as they could to make WCPSS the best it could be in the face of limited resources. Even if you don't agree with the decisions they made, it's not fair and it's not right to portray them as being enemies and abusive. It is especially upsetting when the comments come from people (or board members) who have only lived here a few years and have absolutely no understanding of the issues we have been dealing with for generations, and who will probably just be moving again in a few years. Treating the staff as the enemy is not the way to build morale and to get the students the education they deserve.
"Treating the staff as the
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 04:53 — HJ2ss2"Treating the staff as the enemy is not the way to build morale..."
I fully agree with that statement. You have just described the general functioning of this system and behavior that is rewarded by the administration.
Double edged sword
Tue, 06/15/2010 - 07:34 — Dove314It's not right for the BoE to treat WCPSS staff at all levels as the enemy nor is it right for the higher ups in the WCPSS to treat the rank and file as the enemy nor is it right for members of the public to advocate for such positions for political gain. Using an adversarial posture when in a position of power or authority may work in the short term but rarely works out well on any level in the long term.
So...
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 20:01 — Bob_SconceIf a school needed to be converted to year-round, the sensible thing would have been to have done so when the capacity was needed, not years in advance. My kids' school was converted 3 years ago and still has empty trailers and tracks.
Richard Nixon was also hard-working.
Absolutely
Mon, 06/14/2010 - 21:35 — g88ky07Tell the kids in the schools who were needlessly converted, many who have less now then they did 3 years ago, it's all "growth's fault". Tell them that they were separated from their friends, family in some cases, and neighbors that poor ole us, growth just overcame us like a disease. We just had no idea people were moving here did we.
Of course the staff better
Sat, 06/12/2010 - 08:41 — zandeOf course the staff better not speak out about it since they work at the "pleasure of the Board."
That fits the timeline
Fri, 06/11/2010 - 19:51 — duvalBack in Feb. they started throwing out the 9-15 month date on rolling out the new plan.
This reminds me of when we began talking about when to have our first baby. We decided it should be in 2 years. People kept asking when we were going to start a family, and we would say in about 2 years. After 1 year I overheard my significant other saying "We are planning on having a baby in 2 years." I had to point out that 1 year had already past, and that we were now only 1 year away from beginning a family!
Wow!
Fri, 06/11/2010 - 17:43 — DrActualFactualHaydon didn't know the date for implementation...that's odd. Why would a staff member have to wonder about the deadline date for implementing a plan this important.
Keep in mind the directive
Fri, 06/11/2010 - 17:52 — KeungHui (author)Keep in mind the directive talked about following the three year plan adopted by the old board, which covers the 2011-12 school year. It's not unreasonable to assume the new plan wouldn't really get going until 2012-13.