The blue plan has emerged as the early favorite to be Wake County's new student assignment plan but there are questions about how it would work.
As noted in today's article, it's uncertain how much all the various base choices will impact transportation costs. It's also uncertain how much they'll be able to get low-performing students to attend higher performing schools.
School officials don't know how much transportation costs could change with families getting multiple base options to choose from. Also add in the fact that you still have magnet school choices.
Superintendent Tony Tata said that, based on what's happened in other districts using choice plans, 80 percent of families will choose their closest school. He said this could result in some transportation efficiencies over current costs.
One thing they're weighing is how much usage of neighborhood busing as opposed to express busing.
Another wild card is how well they'll carry out their goals of avoiding creating pockets of low-performing schools and maintaining the current number of magnet seats. A big answer to that will come in how families of low-performing students make their choices.
Every family in the county would get an "achievement choice," meaning a school in the top third of that grade span based on test scores and the concentration of highly effective teachers.
Tata said they're not going to designate any magnet school as an achievement choice in order to preserve the application seats there.
For low-performing students, Tata said they're looking at offering them two achievement choices. By excluding magnets, you could offer Southeast Raleigh families two achievement choices out of their area.
Of course, it's uncertain whether the Southeast Raleigh families will still opt for their closest schools anyway.
Wake could get some answers to the transportation and school selection issues soon. Tata said they'll soon "game" the blue plan by inviting parents to simulate what they'd do.
Based on what the parents do in the simulation, Tata said they'll develop the "business rules" they'd adopt for the blue plan.
No other details are being provided now about the simulation, including how families will be asked to participate.
But with all these questions, supporters of the blue plan are touting benefits such as greater choice and no fear of future reassignments.
Enrollment caps would be used to keep schools from being too crowded with applicants being given a lower-ranked school which has the space.
Instead of reassigning students to fill new schools, it would only be populated by people who choose to attend. Now this could result in some really underpopulated new schools in the beginning.
Comments
sideburns' garbage cont'd
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:02 — danofncBack to your original comment:
Why don't you think a leader of the NAACP could "side" with a white kid? That's what I'm hung up on.
Actually, what you're hung up on is being an argumentative _____ for no good reason. I should ignore you. Barber doesn't spend much time talking about "poor kids"...he spends time talking about African-American kids. I don't believe he spends very much time at all worrying about the plight of white kids (poor or not). I'm not totally convinced he really has the best interests of any kids at heart.
And I didn't ask about the differences between your interests and those of the NAACP. I asked "Are your interests that much different than a person of color?".
I'm pretty sure I answered that already, when I said something along the lines of "In a perfect world, they would be identical. We don't live in a perfect world."
The reality is that if you talked to ten different parents about the school system, you'd very likely get 10 unique views of what constitutes a good or bad school. I wouldn't begin to pretend that I know all that much about any one particular group's interests, unless it was the group that I am a part of.
There are concerns about fairness and equality in our schools that persons of color are right to have. While I am also concerned if there is an appearance of iniquity, I am honest enough with myself to know that I am not as concerned as the parent of a child who would be a victim of that unfairness would be. That's human nature. The busing situation doesn't affect my family, so while I am interested in how it all shakes out, it isn't at the top of my list of concerns. My kids are basically 100% locked in to their MS and HS, and every assignment plan allows you to grandfather at your current ES.
If I lived in SE Raleigh and reassignment meant the difference between a school in Apex for my kids or a school down the street, I'd be much more concerned about the process....and about what plans were in place for the school down the street to be as good as the one in Apex down the road.
For me, the reassignment debate hinges on where you live, not the color of your skin. A person of color in Fuquay probably has similar views to me. A person of ANY color in SE Raleigh probably has very different views that I wouldn't claim to know or question.
Now, go ahead and find a few sentences here to take out of context to try to turn me into some bad guy.
...
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:39 — SideburnsIt seems you're the one being argumentative for no reason. You're not affected by busing and are not interested in "how it all shakes out". Your kids are "100% locked in to their MS and HS" and can grandfather to their ES. So, what's your beef then? Just bored? Do you blog to kill time?
(BTW, what word fills in the blank? Just curious.)
RIF. I AM interested in how
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:00 — danofncRIF.
I AM interested in how it all shakes out, I just don't expect it to affect me and my family. I think there are sound arguments for both sides of that debate, and I certainly don't think either side is 100% right in their stance.
My "beef", as you call it, seems to be with you. I've been back around here for two weeks or so after going quite a while without posting, and you seem to have made it your life's mission to question and twist every word I say. I don't understand it.
If I, as a resident of FV, was sitting here spouting about what the people of SE Raleigh, should do, should expect, should want, or anything else where I put my values up as the "right way", I wouldn't have much of an argument if someone called my view jaded.
When shearer talks about them, I question why he thinks he knows what's best for those people who live there. When he talks about his concerns for his kids, I don't question him at all. That is his job as a parent.
He said "Don't think I'm a racist, but...." or something along those lines. All I told him was that when you start a statement like that, people generally feel like you're saying something you know you shouldn't be saying. I told him that because it's the truth. If you say "No offense, but..." to someone, you know you're saying something that may be considered offensive.
I doubt very seriously that I would have ever thought to comment about shearer and his stance on race at all if he didn't begin his statement that way. I don't believe I'd ever considered him a racist prior to that (and I still don't), and he had made similar comments on multiple occasions. He wasn't breaking any new ground.
You can fill in the blank with whatever word you like....if you think you've acted like an angel during this discussion, use that.
....
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 14:11 — SideburnsYou have a beef with me? Get in line. :)
I'm not trying to twist your words. I'm just trying to understand them better.
I don't recall shearer claiming he knows what is best for parents from any area of the county. From what I've read, he is questioning policies and decisions by our school system that affect all of us.
Dan, You've totally taken my
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:18 — shearertwDan,
You've totally taken my statement, "Don't think I'm a racist....." out of context. Sideburns has been trying to tell you that all along but you refuse to listen.
When I used those words, I was specifically addressing the attitude of the diversity busing proponents about those of us who have a different view about the best way to address high poverty schools. What I was saying was that these folks tend to call you a racist everytime you disagree with them on this issue. Despite having data and logical arguments to back up my case, they, and now you, consistantly claim our view are racist.
I NEVER prefaced any of my comments with that statement as you are suggesting.
If Raleigh has a bunch of
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:51 — danofncIf Raleigh has a bunch of high poverty schools and the people that live there think those schools will only succeed with a student teacher ratio that is lower, why shouldn't they fund that? Or...perhaps they think before and after school care would be more beneficial, then they fund that instead or both if they can tolerate the higher taxes. Under the current scheme, Raleigh just sends their "more expensive to educate" out to the suburbs and takes in "less expensive to educate" in return. Then, we throw out an "equal" level of resources and no body gets what they need in the end. Those of us on the receiving end are supposed to just accept this because, without Raleigh, we'd all just be a bunch of hicks living off honeysuckle. If Raleigh wants me to pay for their kids, at least just be honest about it. Don't call me a racist if I think all this redistribution stuff is ridiculous. Just come out and say, "Hey, we want more resources for our high poverty schools we've created in DT Raleigh and we want you to pay for it." Perhaps then, I may tolerate some higher taxes just to avoid the constant guilt trip I get for wanting my kid to go a decent school near where I live and I don't want to live in a city.
Here's the quote where you said it. The entire thing, when read, doesn't make you sound like a concerned citizen. It makes you sound like someone very happy in his little Holly Springs cocoon who wishes that those people in Raleigh would stop stealing your lunch money. I would love to know who gives you the constant guilt trip I get for wanting my kid to go a decent school near where I live. I'm pretty sure your kids go to a better than decent school that is in Holly Springs.
We've been though the finances. I'm pretty sure that Raleigh represents about 40% of the tax base in Wake County. THEY are PAYING for YOU and for ME. It IS NOT the other way around the way you keep trying to say it is.
There are plenty of people who are going to claim racism either way. Bus the kids, and you're racist for taking advantage of them and treating them as a number. Put them in schools where they live, and you're racist for "warehousing" them.
You're complaining about how the county spends "your money", and you're complaining about the "redistribution", failing to understand that while busing may not have been much of academic boost, it was certainly a vehicle for efficiency. The high-poverty schools will be more expensive to operate, which will mean less funding elsewhere unless the budget increases. Will you be able to tolerate that?
Much of the development you complain about started out in the county.....it was given a Raleigh address and some has since been annexed. You act like it is 100% on the shoulders of Raleigh's City Council, and it's not. We are where we are, and there's no real way for you to look good by complaining about how we got here.
Unless you're going to go the GA and get the laws changed, we are all in this together. We have to figure out the best way to educate all of the kids. You constantly take a very "us vs. them" tone when you talk about Raleigh, and this was one of the poorer examples of it. Especially since Raleigh isn't saying "We want more resources for our high-poverty schools". They would prefer to keep the levels balanced, but the school board took away that option.
Raleigh (in general) wants
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 16:22 — shearertwRaleigh (in general) wants to balance the schools by tapping into resources in the suburbs (i.e. lower poverty schools in the suburbs). All I was saying is I wish they would just come out and say they'd like to use the resources available in the suburbs to reduce the burden of higher percentage F&R on the ITB schools. Then, perhaps we could have an open and transparent debate on what the best "resources" should be to help that situation. Perhaps redistributing those kids through reassignment is not the best approach. Perhaps directly bring extra resources into DT Raleigh schools in the form of more teachers, TAs or special programs in a better, more effective approach. However, it is my opinion that, many on the "diversity busing" side of the argument refuse to have that open debate and instead wish to call the other side inflammatory names, etc. You've appear to have joined them. I just want to debate the merits of the various options without being called names which are completely false, inflammatory and just downright disgusting. The purpose of the post you quoted was simply that. Let those of us who have legitimate complaints and ideas for how to make the system work better for everyone, including the ED students, participate in the debate without it degrading to calling us racist.
Is that too much to ask?
st "resources" should be to help that situation. Perhaps redistributing those kids through reassignment is not the best approach. Perhaps directly bring extra resources into DT Raleigh schools in the form of more teachers, TAs or special programs in a better, more effective approach. However, it is my opinion, that many on the "diversity busing" side of the argument refuse to have that open debate and instead wish to call the otherside inflammatory names, etc. You've appear to have joined them. I just want to debate the merits of the various options without being called names which are completely false, inflammatory and just down right disgusting.
Raleigh (in general) has no
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 17:22 — danofncRaleigh (in general) has no say in the schools except for the board members that represent it. Garner withheld certificates of occupancy on school buildings to force WCPSS to meet their demands....did you complain about that?
WCPSS administration, until 2009, determined that the best method for dealing with pockets of poverty was to distribute those students among several schools. Raleigh didn't dictate to the schools. The diversity policy was put into place in a much different environment than the one that existed in 2009. If we were starting from scratch, and the diversity policy never existed, there is no guarantee that it is the route that would have been chosen by anyone.
What was a potentially good idea for a 80-100,000 student system wasn't the best choice for a 140,000 students system. Different dynamics means different tactics....that's where we are now.
The people of Raleigh could easily counter your argument by saying "They stick us in these old, run-down schools with a couple of extra classes here and there while the people in Holly Springs are all going to brand new schools that our tax dollars and bond money go to build and run." No matter where you are, you can find something to gripe about if you look hard enough.
You know that I think the additional TA's and teachers in high poverty schools are a great idea. I also think that it is close to impossible to pay for without drastically impacting other schools, which I don't think would go over very well.
The debate is NOT between Raleigh and the suburbs about how to educate Raleigh kids, even though that is how you try to paint it all the time. The problem that I see with the debate is that no one in a position to actually do anything about anything talks about "after" reassignment. We are supposed to let them just do whatever they are going to do in assignment and then trust that they do what is right in the classrooms. After all the years of distrust people had for the old board, I can't imagine why they don't understand a little skepticism toward that approach.
there was NEVER a "diversity
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 17:46 — AngelaWthere was NEVER a "diversity policy"--the previous Policy 6200 was an ASSIGNMENT policy that become consumed by distributing diversity amongst schools.
and yes, skepticism abounds still as "achievment" seems to be replacing "diversity".
and FWIW, the Renaissance schools are about what you mentioned. Starting with the 2011-12 school year, classrooms in the four schools will be outfitted with the latest technology, and additional teaching staff will be provided for each grade level. In addition, there will be flexibility in the school day and school year to provide more instructional time
Semantics. That's all
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 18:32 — danofncSemantics. That's all you're arguing.
Any ASSIGNMENT policy that has any means of balancing students by a metric other than raw population will ultimately fail.....especially if the other goals include no reassignments and guaranteed stability.
It's like promising a cell phone that acts as a phone, internet connection, personal cooling station, beverage dispenser, radar detector, .22 caliber handgun and designated driver. Sure, you can promise everything to everyone, but when it actually has to perform it's going to be underwhelming.
I'm pretty sure the schools you mention have special funding through grants that isn't guaranteed to stick around. What happens when that special funding dries up? That's the hard question in all of this. How much sacrifice are the suburbs willing to put up with in order to properly staff the high poverty schools that are likely to pop up in Wake County? Will Green Hope be OK with a smaller budget and fewer AP classes if it means that Walnut Creek ES gets extra teachers and smaller classes?
The pie isn't likely to get any bigger....we are just going to have to decide how big a slice everyone gets.
As a person of non-color
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:23 — shearertwAs a person of non-color (for lack of a better term), do I also have a right to be concerned about fairness and equity in our schools?
I believe there is inequity in the school system specifically with regard to:
1. The magnet system (location and access to)
2. Distribution and access to AP courses and other special programs for AG/high achievers
3. Distribution and location of calendar options, particularly traditional calendar schools
4. Distribution and location of "stable assignment" nodes.
Do I have to be of a certain race or subgroup for these concerns to be valid?
Do I have to be of a certain
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 12:47 — danofncDo I have to be of a certain race or subgroup for these concerns to be valid?
I should have added that all
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:08 — shearertwI should have added that all of these concerns don't necessarily affect me or my kids directly, just inequities I see and believe should be corrected. You see, I'm not just concerned about myself or whatever subgroup you think I should belong to.
1. Underenrollment should never be a concern in a growing school district. Just assign people to the school. The magnet program has inhibited programs from being implemented into the non-magnet schools in an effor to draw higher achieving kids to the magnet schools. The problem is, the location and acceptance policy into the magnet programs does not provide equal acess. That is not fair, period.
2. The AP "stuff" is more complicated but clearly not equal accross the district.
3. Everyone has an "option" but access and feasibility of the option varies widely depending on where you live.
4. I have little faith that Raleigh will ever allow this to happen in the suburbs.
1. I admittedly don't know
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:21 — danofnc1. I admittedly don't know much about the magnet program, but I don't think they are all achievement-based. Maybe the AG ones are, but I think for most it's just a school with a specialized program. When you "just assign kids to a school" you end up with complaints, too. The district needed a way to ease crowding in some schools out in the suburbs...do you think those people would have accepted just being assigned to a school in downtown Raleigh without causing a bit of a stink?
2. I don't agree that it needs to be equal. Each high school need to meet the needs of as many students as possible. In some schools, the need for AP classes may not be as great. It is really a supply and demand issue. I'm not saying the way things are now is right, but I don't think the answer is a cookie-cutter, "everybody gets 21 AP classes" approach, either.
3. Where you live will always impact assignment options. If you're in an area that is more crowded, you have fewer options and those options are likely to be less desireable. That's the way the world works.
4. Contrary to what you believe, it's not up to Raleigh. The school board votes, and after this year's redistricting the power will be in the hands of the suburbs. We could talk for days about whether that's good or bad (it's probably both), but that's how it is.
1. There are
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 13:32 — shearertw1. There are “complaints” and then there’s equity concerns, they are not the same thing. I agree people will always complain, I don’t care 1 iota about that.
2. I don’t agree that it needs to be equal either. The needs should be specifically designed to meet the needs of the population at the school. However, when you constantly are trying to mix up the population, what is a principal to do? That leads to kids being underserved with their needs.
3. I don’t disagree with you, however, back in the MYR days, “options” were specifically meant to be undesireable. More specifically, traditional options for YR schools were often totally illogical (by design I believe). That needs to be corrected.
4. I was up to Raleigh, thankfully, it no longer will be totally up to them. It will, however, take some time and pain to untangle the mess they made.
1. Weren't magnet seats
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 14:01 — danofnc1. Weren't magnet seats filled by weighted lottery? That, by definition, isn't "equitable". I don't think anyone claims that it was "fair". If you're using magnets as a vehicle to ease crowding, you need to take more kids in from the areas that are overcrowded.
2. For the most part, I don't think high schools shift assignment all that much. They did for a few years, but there was a new school opening about every year so it was to be expected.
3. The calendar options were worse (IIRC) in the most crowded areas. Isn't that logical? Out in Wakefield, should they have assigned people farther away from home on their base assignment in order to leave nearby opt-outs for parents there? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose? Once again, I'm not saying it's ideal, but it was a desperate measure to deal with explosive growth.
4. Whatever.
1. The magnets were never
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 08:11 — shearertw1. The magnets were never just for "crowding". The were/are one the primary diversity tools of redistribution.
3. Several of the former BOE members expressed a desire to make the entire county MYR, not because it was "supposed" to be more economical, but b/c they "felt" it was a better way to educate children. I believe those members were very spiteful to parents who disagreed with them and it was their intention to make life miserable for people who preferred to stay on a traditional calendar. Yes, giving parents logical options DID defeat the entire purpose of trying to control people and that is exactly where both the Green and Blue plans are heading.
1. I didn't say they were
Fri, 06/03/2011 - 08:37 — danofnc1. I didn't say they were just for crowding. I provided an example as to why the selection process could never be "fair" if the magnets were going to do what they were designed to do. If they shipped poor kids out, then it was very unlikely that a poor kid from some other part of the county would get in.....that would defeat the purpose.
3. Or, they could have felt (known) that giving people traditional options instead of simply making everyone MYR would limit the effectiveness of the YR transition. It's too bad WCPSS isn't a "charter district", because they could have just told people "Sorry, we're full" and not had to worry about how to deal with the phenomenal growth.
I'm pretty sure with someone
Thu, 06/02/2011 - 08:12 — shearertwI'm pretty sure with someone goes about calling someone names like that it must be game over.
Let's go over the facts once again...
- 115 government agencies in place at the time of the crash regulating the financial industry. Was the 116th agency going to make a difference?
AND
- 4500 new pages of regulation put on the books between 2001 and 2007
AND
- Over 1 Trillion $ in NEW regulation cost place on the financial industry during the same period of time.
Those are the FACTs but I'm sure you'd rather stick with conspiracy theories that Bush appointees were just looking the other way.
You can go back in your hole now.
duplicate
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:03 — shearertwduplicate
What is the purpose of magnet schools in the blue plan?
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 09:24 — loriacFrom the Blue plan description:
'Allocating magnet schools to enroll no more than a set percentage of students living in close proximity will maintain a healthy achievement balance at those schools and ensure they remain attractive choices for parents, recognizing that magnets are located both in the downtown Raleigh area as well as other parts of the district.'
Wow - don't worry, not too many of the neighborhood kids at the magnet schools. But if they are magnets, why shouldn't they have 0 base?
'Allocating non-magnet schools to enroll no more than a set percentage of students living near magnet schools will maintain a healthy achievement balance and attractiveness at non-magnet schools.'
I've read this sentence 10 times and still can't figure out what they are saying. Anyone understand this?
Is the magnet selection process in the Blue plan the same as any other school? Why isn't a magnet considered an achievement choice? Funny they take that off the table, as if they never will be. How can we justify putting so many resources in the magnet schools in the Blue plan?
...
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 13:59 — SideburnsIt means seats at non-magnet schools will be set aside for those children who live near a magnet but aren't given the choice of attending. And each non-magnet school will have a 'set percentage'. Sound familiar?
wow
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 17:15 — loriacI never would have figured that out.
So - magnet schools are not achievement schools. We have to keep too many neighborhood kids from attending them, as well as keep too many neighborhood kids from attending non-magnet schools near the magnet schools.
We are talking all around this, but it's still about how to spread the Raleigh kids around, no talk about educating them.
Don't you see that in
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 18:29 — shearertwDon't you see that in everyone of WhalerCane/Perry's post?
They are all about.....Wake County is just one big happy family....Wake County is our community.....la dee da da. Then, when challenged, he'll say stuff like, WF and HS are nothing without Raleigh, etc, etc. Then, when all just sit back and take a look at the big picture, Raleigh has all the magnets, Raleigh is the one busing out poor students, etc. The ONLY people who get a net benefit from this school system are the rich, white kids that live in Raleigh. They get to go to stable neighborhood assignments which are often magnet schools. The rest of us, living outside the castle walls (i.e. ITB), well, you know how it goes for the peasants. In times of plenty, all is well. When resources it tight, the peasants starve while the king and all the kings men stay fat.
...
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 19:42 — SideburnsAnd the appendages had to suffer with MYR so more Raleigh kids could be bused out.
duplicate
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:27 — shearertwduplicate
Plan?
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 09:06 — bpuli9999I wonder what the WCPSS folks are thinking when they put out a "plan"? Uh, we don't what we are going to do, how much it going to cost or what parents will do. That's a plan? Making some random pie-in-the-sky statements without any basis or numbers to support it is not a plan. At least, coming from folks who are getting paid to do this.
Thanks for the phone call Mr. T
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 07:34 — FSandYOUbut maybe we need to be more clear, parents can't 'simulate' what they might do based on information they do not have.
Or comment either for that matter.
WakeReassignment.info
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 06:33 — nriemannI posted on my perspective of the relative merits of blue and green at my blog
http://wakereassignment.info
I'm going to post my
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 09:17 — shearertwI'm going to post my perspective on the merits of the blue and green plans right here:
Green plan - Policy 6200, Part II
Blue plan - "Nightmare on Elm Street", my street, your street and everyone else's street too.
My plan - Closest school as possible (note I said as possible, not just closest). Raise property taxes in DT Raleigh to supplement DT Raleigh schools to pay for additional and/or higher quality teachers, allow any suburban town to do the same if they choose do. Spend the balance of the WCPSS staff and BOE's time on figuring out the best way to teach kids vs. assigning them.
Raise taxes...
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 10:51 — bpuli9999on businesses downtown? Or raise taxes for those people (residences) just in the downtown area? Define downtown also. I am not sure how either one of them is going to work (or possibly even be legal).
The Town of Cary has
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:48 — shearertwThe Town of Cary has "appropriated" money to schools in the past. I'm not sure what vehicle they used or where the money was spent, etc so presumably there is some legal precedent for this. If the City of Raleigh said to the county, "Hey, we want to send you X amount of $$'s we've collected from special tax Y and in exchange, we want our student:teacher ratios at schools A, B and C to be Z." Why would WCPSS have a problem with that?
That money the Town of Cary
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 14:39 — CaryCurmudgeonThat money the Town of Cary collected has been sitting in limbo for some time. Unfortunately, state laws would have to be changed, to allow municipalities to collect money for schools and to allow them to flow those funds to the school system.
Stan Norwalk actually had this one right with his proposal to implement county-wide impact fees. But even with a Democratic majority, he couldn't get it done.
We are going to be stuck having taxpayers bear the cost of building new schools on their backs while the developers continue pave our county.
You can't "double dip". If
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 09:48 — cmalone1You can't "double dip". If your forcing developers to pay for road improvements and connections to water and sewer et al, then you can't force them to spring for an impact fee. At least that was how it was explained to me on my first day on the job as a town commissioner years ago.
Mr. Malone
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 13:05 — WhalerCaneIf only we could have had that debate before the last election. The biggest corparate subsidy in our County has been to the development industry in the form of investments to infrastructure. It has been good for our comunity. That said, it is responsible to have growth help pay more for itself.
Impact fees are a perfectly appropriate means of helping to defray the costs of growth that the homebuilders have spent a great deal of money to oppose. If you do not think so, ask your friend Mayor Weatherly who has financed many community improvements with I believe the highest impact fees in the County.
How about this idea. Let's trade every municipal impact fee for parks and roads for a single county wide school construction impact fee. That way property tax dollars can stay in existing classrooms. Growth is coming. School Construction another causulty of yesterdays of draconian Senate Budget. Do believe that the $2 billion dollar price tag for school construction alone should be born solely by existing property tax payers?
Do you support Superentendent Tata when he called House budget 'draconian' and that the cuts will be painful, and will you stand up for the already austere budget that you voted for?
Perhaps you need a new
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:11 — shearertwPerhaps you need a new explanation....
As danofnc said below, people won't but a home in a neighborhood without roads, sewer or running water......I'd just add a school to send their kids to to that list.
That is not double dipping, it's just getting your one full scoop.
I'm all for a healthy level of growth, but not on the backs of the current resident tax payers and that is exactly what the current system does.
Well...
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 11:10 — Bob_SconceThe school board has other ways of exacting $$ from developers if you don't mind being a little advesarial. You could, for example, tell a developer: "If you don't build a school in your N. Raleigh development, then all the students in your development will be assigned to Fuuay-Varina elementary school, and you'll never sell any homes." School funding could get easier once developers start to understand that they need to pay tribute to the district.
How did you get to be
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 11:43 — danofncHow did you get to be Republican?
You're supposed to be pro-development and pro-business. You must have missed a day of training.
Heh....
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 14:12 — Bob_SconceI'm pro free-market and anti free-riding. Businesses are often pro free-market until they get into a dominant position, then they look for govenment protection. I'm in favor of the first kind, and opposed to the second.
Amen, from another
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 14:16 — shearertwAmen, from another conservative republican (I honestly don't know if you are or not, just going off what Dan said).
This is not a "double-dip,"
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 10:35 — CaryCurmudgeonThis is not a "double-dip," it is assessing an impact fee for school construction along the exact same lines as what's assessed for other infrastructure like water, roads, fire stations, etc.
Yeah....you're not really
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 11:08 — danofncYeah....you're not really "forcing" the developers to put roads into their neighborhoods or to connect water and sewer to their houses. That is just part of the business of being a builder. Is anyone in 2011 going to buy a house without running water?
.....or a school to send
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 12:07 — shearertw.....or a school to send their kids to?
Double dipping, that ain't double dipping, it's just getting you one full scoop.
True and unfortunate. Darn
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 15:51 — shearertwTrue and unfortunate. Darn common sense not jiving with the developer/realtor/lawyer pocket book again.
All property within city
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:27 — shearertwAll property within city limits. Legal or not can always be dealt with (i.e. changing the law through the GA). Tax rates already not equal across the municipalities. In my opinion, until we link the municipalities to the schools in some way, both with regard to growth and "additional resources requirements", we'll never get this issue under control.
Legal or not, the idea of
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 11:40 — danofncLegal or not, the idea of Raleigh residents paying some sort of special tax is crazy.
Look at all those shiny new schools in your area (all the "Holly"s), and then look at the new ones in my area (Banks Road, Herbert Akins), and tell me how you think Holly Springs and Fuquay-Varina would look tax-wise if they had to raise revenue to supplement their construction.
Did Apex contribute anything extra for all the new schools out there when growth was going crazy? How about Wake Forest?
Hmm...
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 12:58 — Bob_SconceYou're talking about costs of construction. I read the OP as talking about ongoing operating costs, and allowing municipalities to give more so schools in their municipalities can have more. So, for example, Wake Forest ought to be able to sponsor a bunch of advanced courses in Wake Forest HS, beyond the base level that WCPSS provides. That makes sense to me, but does imply something about student assignment that may not work.
Bob, You captured my
Tue, 05/31/2011 - 16:08 — shearertwBob,
You captured my original intent perfectly, with the WF example. Not sure I understand your statement "does imply something about student assignment that may not work." WCPSS could distribute the base ppf level based on a student:teacher ratio of X. If Raleigh has a bunch of high poverty schools and the people that live there think those schools will only succeed with a student teacher ratio that is lower, why shouldn't they fund that? Or...perhaps they think before and after school care would be more beneficial, then they fund that instead or both if they can tolerate the higher taxes. Under the current scheme, Raleigh just sends their "more expensive to educate" out to the suburbs and takes in "less expensive to educate" in return. Then, we throw out an "equal" level of resources and no body gets what they need in the end. Those of us on the receiving end are supposed to just accept this because, without Raleigh, we'd all just be a bunch of hicks living off honeysuckle. If Raleigh wants me to pay for their kids, at least just be honest about it. Don't call me a racist if I think all this redistribution stuff is ridiculous. Just come out and say, "Hey, we want more resources for our high poverty schools we've created in DT Raleigh and we want you to pay for it." Perhaps then, I may tolerate some higher taxes just to avoid the constant guilt trip I get for wanting my kid to go a decent school near where I live and I don't want to live in a city.
One additional note, I do think the general concept could apply to construction cost, perhaps simplified with impact fees, etc.
Well...
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 07:08 — Bob_SconceThe assignment problem is that if a municipality is going to chip in more for "their" schools, they're going to want to make sure that "their" kids attend "their" schools. So, if you have an assignment pattern where a bunch of WF kids get sent to a school in Raleigh (or vice-versa), then you're going to meet with a lot more resistance to adding additional funding. Even if you could get that in one year, I doubt it could stand up over time as long as the county has a single school system.
"Just a bunch of hicks living off honeysuckle" does seem to describe the old ITB attitude nicely.
Personally, I think I benefit when high-poverty students are educated, and I lose when they're not: how many inmates at Central Prison have High School diplomas? Crime has an enormous cost. And that doesn't capture the lost opportunity cost -- the economy loses when somebody sits in prison instead of producing goods and services others want. (I suppose somebody has to make the license plates, but I doubt that's the highest and best use for many people.) So, I'm willing to pay too, as long as the extra $$ actually goes to work on education.
"....as long as the county
Wed, 06/01/2011 - 08:06 — shearertw"....as long as the county has a single school system." IS the problem, no doubt.
Since, back in the real world, we are in a single county-wide system, I'm fine with provided EXTRA funding for high poverty schools to ensure those students get the education opportunity they need. The debate is WHO should pay for it. If Raleigh creates pockets of high poverty, should the folks in WF or HS pay for that? Perhaps...but that where the debate should be centered instead of around this assignment game, which, in reality, is the same debate with a mask on.