Patience is a virtue that newcomers to Wake County need as they register their children for school this fall.
As noted in today's article, the implementation of the new choice-based student assignment plan changed the way registration takes place in the Wake County school system. In the past, newcomers could come any time of the year to register at their child's base school.
But since June, newcomers have had to go to Central Office in Cary. Parents are told to expect to spend at least two hours as they go through the process of waiting to register their children and then making the school selection.
The choice plan is supposed to prevent overcrowding by limiting how many students a school can have at each grade level.
With schools running out at seats at some grade levels, Judy Peppler, Wake’s chief transformation officer, said it made more sense to have families register in a central location where student assignment staff would know how many of the constantly changing number of seats are still available.
“We waited as long as we could to let families register at the schools,” Peppler said. “We didn’t want families to go to a school and choose and be told, ‘Sorry, we don’t have room for you.’”
Registration lines were extremely crowded in early July when year-round schools opened. The rush has slowed down somewhat to about 150 to 200 families a day.
The pace is expected to pick up as it gets closer to the first day for traditional-calendar schools on Aug. 27. Peppler said they've got school data managers, the people who used to handle registration, to come in to Central Office to come in to help with the coming rush.
The first thing families do when they arrive is to take a number. They then wait in the school board meeting room for their number to be called.
If they haven’t yet done so, they’re asked to fill out an enrollment packet. When the number is called, a member of the Office of Student Assignment reviews the information and, if it’s all correct, tells parents to go back to their seat and wait for a different staffer to call them.
When their names are called again, the parents are directed to wait in the building’s lobby. At some point, they’re called into the Office of Student Assignment to make their school choice and find out what they’ll get.
Some parents are finding their choices are limited, as this updated list of school seat numbers shows. The result is that some families are being told their option is to go to a year-round school that's already in session.
Parents can try to request the very popular track 4, which started July 30. But they may wind up getting tracks 1, 2 or 3, which started July 9.
“I’m serious as a heart attack,” said Amber Nichols of Apex, who found out Wednesday that her 10-year-old son, Dakota, was given Salem Elementary, a year-round school. “If I had the money, I’d move out of Wake County.”
Nichols, who recently relocated from Sampson County, had tried to get into Apex or Baucom elementary schools because they're on a traditional calendar. But neither school has openings in fourth grade.
UPDATE
Nichols went to Salem on Wednesday. The school notified her today that her son would get track 2, putting him a month behind his new classmates.
Comments
Higher class sizes in low
Sun, 08/12/2012 - 23:16 — jeffrey1Higher class sizes in low poverty schools has been implemented with some success in other districts. Your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, there are schools in Wake that could benefit from such a policy.
When my kids were reassigned to a high poverty Raleigh ES (in the height of the Wake County growth), our 2nd grade classroom had 17 kids in it. I would have gladly accepted assignment at any of my nearby schools with class sizes almost double that. I believe most suburban parents would accept larger class sizes in exchange for proximate and stable assignments.
Sideburns, Obviously you
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 11:32 — danofncSideburns,
Obviously you think I called him a racist. For about 3 years now, you've accused pretty much anyone who disagreed with you a race-baiter. Why would I expect you to do something different now?
I am not afraid to talk about race when it comes to school issues. It's not fun, and it's not always easy, but it is a fact of life that WCPSS policies will impact different groups in different ways. Economically, racially, academically....no matter what groups you divide the students and families into, you impact those groups with policy changes.
If you implement a policy that causes a bunch of schools to end up with a large minority population and a high number of high-poverty schools, and you do nothing to help those schools succeed, it looks like something......especially if, at the same time, you also create a bunch of low-poverty schools that are 80% white kids.
That wouldn't mean that the people who created the policy were racist, and it wouldn't mean that the segregation was the intent of the policy. But, if that's what results from the policy, I don't think intent matters.
My biggest problem with shearer is how he talks about what people are owed. I'm not supposed to say "he" in that sentence, because he talks about the 40% of taxpayers who are "footing the bill" as a group.
I don't look at them as a group. I think you should look at each person individually when it comes to taxes, and I don't think anyone is paying more than their individual share. There's a parable in the Bible that covers this for me. I need to look at my life, my tax burden, and determine if I'm paying a fair amount. If I am, then I don't need to worry about what anyone else is paying or not paying. That is jealousy and envy.
So, he says that "the 40%" deserve schools that are proximate and assignments that are stable because they are paying the way for everyone else. The problem with that logic is that doing things that way would also create high poverty, racially-identifiable schools, and call me crazy, but it just seems a little strange to hear someone complaining about a group "footing the bill" who also claims that the same group would be OK paying more to keep class sizes low and add other resources to those high poverty schools. That just doesn't make sense to me. Creating those assignment patterns without increasing funding to the high poverty schools would negatively impact the students (mostly minority) in those schools....and what do we call a policy that negatively impacts a minority racial group?
I've said a million times that if I was in charge of assignment, I'd have a sliding scale that correlated class size and poverty levels. I think it would be the most argument-proof solution. Suburban parents are happy because they're close to home. The NAACP can't complain about the treatment of poor, minority kids, because they're in smaller classes designed to increase their achievement. The problem is that it's expensive and unlikely to happen.
I try to come up with the best-case scenarios that I can based on whatever policy is at the time.
As for shearer and taxes:
"However, while we have public funded education, we have to consider the impact on how those kids will be educated and that cost all of us money. Therefore, unfortunately, we all have a stake in how many houses you build per acre. Small homes crammed on small lots are of less value and bring in less tax revenue per child. That's reality. That difference is made up out of my pocket, not yours. If the municipalities in WC had to take one responsibility for building schools to accomodate the construction they allow, things would be a lot different. Right now, in WC, areas of slow/no growth are paying for areas of high growth. That's simply not right in my book. If a city wants high growth and the people in that city want high growth, have at it but don't force other areas that don't want high growth to pay for it. You're not living in reality if you think what you're desribing is "market forces". That fact that others are paying for the growth you're not paying for is distorting those market forces. If those people had to pay the true cost those high density developments have on communities, they wouldn't do it....and I think you know that."
That's from a guy that lives in a town that has grown by 8k residents in 5 years, and over 13k in ten. Do you think that all those houses are on half-acre lots?
More:
"People who live in low growth areas are paying for the high growth with no net benefit for them. If a municipality wants to allow high growth, they should be responsible for paying for the consequences. If they want to pass that on to all their citizens that live in that city fine....people get to vote for their city leaders who are behind that and can agree or disagree with it with their vote. New growth cost more because of the initial cost of schools and road construction, etc. I know you know that. You want that cost distributed to everyone because that helps.....you....it doesn't help everyone. If you want to be free to do whatever you want on your land then I recommend you pay for all of it and stop asking us all to "share the cost" unless you're willing to "share" the profits!"
That's from the same guy. Does he sound like someone OK with taxes? Does he sound like someone who lives in a town that is one of, if not the, fastest growing in Wake County? Or does he sound like one of the "ITB elites" that you and others loathe so much?
Certain people here like to post from different viewpoints in different threads and pretend that people have never read anything else they've written. He is claiming that he lives in a "slow growth" area because his neighborhood is apparently built-out, but ignoring the fact that his town has been exploding and has hundreds of millions of dollars in new schools that the entire county paid to build.
One more thing:
"I value low classroom sizes, reasonable traffic, low taxes and a peaceful place to live..."
That's from the same guy who said that parents in the suburbs would be OK with larger classes if it meant schools close to home.
OK, I’m going to have
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 13:04 — shearertwOK, I’m going to have to take a few minutes and address some of these bogus statements:
If you implement a policy that causes a bunch of schools to end up with a large minority population and a high number of high-poverty schools, and you do nothing to help those schools succeed, it looks like something......especially if, at the same time, you also create a bunch of low-poverty schools that are 80% white kids.
No one, and certainly not me, is suggesting we “do nothing”…That doesn’t even jive with what you say below where you attack the “solutions” I propose!
I don't look at them as a group. I think you should look at each person individually when it comes to taxes, and I don't think anyone is paying more than their individual share. There's a parable in the Bible that covers this for me. I need to look at my life, my tax burden, and determine if I'm paying a fair amount. If I am, then I don't need to worry about what anyone else is paying or not paying. That is jealousy and envy.
And if you think you ARE paying more than your fair amount AND/OR are not getting equal benefit from paying those taxes, then what? For example, you take taxes from me to support the Army but don’t send Roman soldiers to protect my village from the Barbarians? Should I complain about the high taxes or the lack of protection?
So, he says that "the 40%" deserve schools that are proximate and assignments that are stable because they are paying the way for everyone else. The problem with that logic is that doing things that way would also create high poverty, racially-identifiable schools, and call me crazy, but it just seems a little strange to hear someone complaining about a group "footing the bill" who also claims that the same group would be OK paying more to keep class sizes low and add other resources to those high poverty schools. That just doesn't make sense to me. Creating those assignment patterns without increasing funding to the high poverty schools would negatively impact the students (mostly minority) in those schools....and what do we call a policy that negatively impacts a minority racial group?
If you’re going to complain about my “logic”, perhaps you could accurately describe the logic in the first place. First, I submit that 100% of us (not 40%) deserve schools that are proximate and stable (as a top priority). We all know that with growth, etc., we won’t be able to meet that goal 100% of the time. Yes, some high poverty (I choose not to talk about “racially-identifiable” schools because I’m not sure why the race of students matters) would be created. You last part is not my logic at all….I’m advocated for increasing funding and resources to the high poverty schools. I’m advocating for implement programs that cost more….I’m advocating for adding teachers to lower class sizes…I’m advocated for increasing teacher pay at those schools to attract higher trained teachers, etc. So, either you’re not reading my post (which, based on the evidence that you’re stalking my post, we know that is not true) or you’re simply lying about what I say. Finally, I absolutely think the “40% footing the bill” would be OK with sending additional resources to high poverty schools if that meant they would have stability and proximity in assignment. I also think the “40% footing the bill”, including me, would even support paying even more of the bill if they were giving this little tiny bone. One of the reasons they do not support addition taxes now is the fact that they have been jerked around by Democratic BOE members for more than a decade. Just think about a few of Rosa Gill’s, Lori Millberg’s or Kevin Hill’s statements about Wake Co. parents over the years.
I've said a million times that if I was in charge of assignment, I'd have a sliding scale that correlated class size and poverty levels. I think it would be the most argument-proof solution. Suburban parents are happy because they're close to home. The NAACP can't complain about the treatment of poor, minority kids, because they're in smaller classes designed to increase their achievement. The problem is that it's expensive and unlikely to happen.
How is that any different than what I’m saying other than I don’t believe it’s as expensive as you think? You’re simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, you decrease resources here and move them over there…..
As for shearer and taxes:
That's from a guy that lives in a town that has grown by 8k residents in 5 years, and over 13k in ten. Do you think that all those houses are on half-acre lots?
My house is on 0.6 acres…
Not sure why my living in a town means I agree with everything that is or has gone on in that town.
That's from the same guy. Does he sound like someone OK with taxes? Does he sound like someone who lives in a town that is one of, if not the, fastest growing in Wake County? Or does he sound like one of the "ITB elites" that you and others loathe so much?
Of course I’m OK with taxes….we must have some taxes. However, taxes should be fairly distributed such that, as much as possible, you’re paying your way in through life and not placing your burdens on others. Again, what does where I live have to do with the opinions that I am allowed to have?
Certain people here like to post from different viewpoints in different threads and pretend that people have never read anything else they've written. He is claiming that he lives in a "slow growth" area because his neighborhood is apparently built-out, but ignoring the fact that his town has been exploding and has hundreds of millions of dollars in new schools that the entire county paid to build.
I’m not pretending anything or suggesting that I’m in a “slow growth area”. I’ve never said that. You seem to have a copy of everything I’ve ever written, please provide that quote…
If a new neighborhood goes in across the street, I want it paying for the infrastructure cost to build new schools, etc. instead of coming to me 2 years later and asking to share the cost of the new school that development just forced the Co. to build.
That's from the same guy who said that parents in the suburbs would be OK with larger classes if it meant schools close to home.
Of course, who doesn’t want those things. The problem, which you don’t seem to get, is that we’re currently paying pretty high taxes (not necessarily too high) but we’re not getting any of those benefits. We don’t have stability in schools, we don’t have proximity, we don’t have lower class sizes and we darn sure don’t have high quality schools. You want us to pay for everything and get nothing in return. That’s the part you’re missing.
...
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 11:47 — SideburnsFor about 3 years now, you've accused pretty much anyone who disagreed with you a race-baiter.
I honestly stopped reading after that sentence. Don't you dare peg me with that statement. Never have I called anyone a race-baiter. Do you even read what I write? You're just as bad as some of the trolls on the blog.
Actually, I am being
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 15:53 — danofncActually, I am being trolled, and you fed him by saying I called him racist.
You are being trolled?
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 07:53 — shearertwYou are being trolled? Based on your eerie, stalker-like post about me above, I'm wondering if I should get a restraining order!
Yep..I consider it trolling
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 11:19 — danofncYep..I consider it trolling when you shift your talking points depending on the direction of the wind, the subject, or whatever it is that you use, simply to get a rise out of someone.
As far as "stalking" is concerned....I think I was searching for something about the county commissioners and their stance on tax increases, and the post with all of the quotes from you was on of the first things to come up. Sorry if it stings a little.
You've said before that you live in Holly Springs. That's not news. So, when I read about how you thought it was so wrong for slow growth areas to have to foot the bill for high growth areas, I was perplexed, since I'm not sure there is a higher-growth area in Wake County over the last 10 or 15 years.
First, I've been posting on
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 12:21 — shearertwFirst, I've been posting on the blog for over 5 years and my stance has NEVER changed. 99.9% of the people who have been here consistently over those years would absolutely confirm that they know exactly where I stand. I seriously doubt ANYONE here could state your position. What does that say about who is and isn't "trolling"? Sometimes, you do have trouble keeping up with the argument, perhaps that's because you don't have one.
I really don't care if you're stalking me or not.....whatever gets you through the day. FYI-I stand by every thing you quoted above in the context in which they were stated. Some of those positions would be difficult to explain to someone like you so I won't bother.
Finally, not that it matters, but the home I live in was built in 1993, not exactly a "high-growth" era for Holly Springs. My issue with "high-growth" is that I believe much of the current contruction practices in high growth areas which tend to bunch houses together on 0.12 acre lots does not pay for itself with regard to infrastructure (particular schools). I believe that if those high-growth areas were forced to support their growth by refunding the county for some of the burden they place on infrastructure (i.e. schools), the growth would not get so far ahead of school construction, etc. As it is now, the municipalities get a benefit from high growth (local business and tax revenues) which they are not paying for b/c of the disconnect between growth and school construction responsibilities in this county. That disconnect favors realtors, real estate lawyers and developers which tend to be deeply involved in Wake Co. school politics. I'm not sure why where I live precludes me from pointing out that "where there's smoke, they could be fire".
You seem to want to place restrictions on people's opinions based on where they live. Can you please explain your logic behind this? How should I think if I live in DT Raleigh for example?
and you clearly overstepped
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 16:27 — AngelaWand you clearly overstepped into never-never land calling Sideburns a race-baiter. that's a helluva thing without a shred of proof. not.one.shred.
you may disagree with Sideburns' stance on the choice plan, but you are a liar when you claim race-baiting.
I used "accused" when I
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 12:09 — danofncI used "accused" when I should have used "called", so I posted a poorly written sentence, but I think it's still fairly obvious that I didn't call sideburns a race-baiter.
...
Mon, 08/13/2012 - 14:23 — SideburnsNo, but you accused me of calling people that. And that's wrong.
I actually don't hate that
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 08:29 — danofncI actually don't hate that idea. I think I actually floated the idea of linking class size and poverty level two or three years ago, and nothing has happened to make me think differently about it. Contrary to what some people believe, I don't argue just for the sake of arguing.
But, I do wonder how you are going to average 21 kids per K-3 class in the district when the biggest class size you suggested was 21. I don't think it's possible to average 21 kids per class without having some classes at the maximum.
Plus, the reason I say it's more expensive is that there's no real way to assign kids to schools to achieve these goals. I think it would lead to reassignments, because you'd need to have grade-level populations that allowed you to reach your goal average if you were going to do it your way.
If you are assigning based on addresses, the only real way to reach the average class size goals is to see how many kids are registered and then give them the number of teachers required to get as close as possible to their target.
If a school had 105 kids in all four grade levels (K-3), it would average 21 kids per class per grade. There's no cost-free way I can think of to adjust that number without force-assigning more kids into the school or force-assigning some kids out of the school. You could perhaps a couple of classes that were combined with two different grade levels, but I'm not sure that would be a great thing to do.
To drop the average to 18, all you have to do is add one more class at each grade level.
But in old assignment plan
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 07:24 — SatchHHBut in the old assignment plan, the parent could actually have done research and know which school her child would have been attending if they moved to X house or Y house and made an informed decision. If they chose the YR location, they would have been prepared. As it sounds in the article, she expected to go to a traditional school - probably based on old node information or proximity information. But - with this new messy assignment, the rug is constantly shifting. This "choice- but-not-a-choice plan" really is a terrible assignment model.
Factor in constant reassignment,
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:01 — FSandYOUwhich we will be enjoying again starting next year,
and no one had a clue what school they would attend from year to year. And I might add, many more parents/families were upset with that route than with what we have now. Remember the THIRTY THOUSAND that were reassigned JUST during the last 3 years of the Dulaney/Burns fleecing? Wave your flag for those 30,000. Many of them will be moved again next year msot likely.
If this upset newcomer expected to go to a traditional school with alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll that has, and still is, gone on in this school system over the last several boards disastrous reigns, then she hasn't been paying attention and it's no one's fault except her own!
Let's say she should have
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:39 — tropicalgirlLet's say she should have done all her research on the school system. Given that it would take weeks to even understand the goings-on of the current and previous school boards and the ins and outs of the choice plan and the assignment plan that preceded it, I'm not sure anyone who hasn't lived through it would truly understand what impact it would have on them. Or believe it - I know anyone I know from outside this area thinks our school system is nuts. I've been here 8 years, educated myself on all the plans, followed all the debate and still was blind-sided by this plan's impact on my family.
But let's say this woman educated herself and truly understood what she was getting into - by her own words, she would not have bought a home in Wake County. Hmmm, sounds like people who raised concerns about home sales may have actually had a valid point. Probably not an issue for people who would prefer that those nasty newcomers stay away, but hope you never have to sell your house - those newcomes who do their research are going to run across articles like this one - and settle elsewhere.
So newcomers can either move here, find themselves in undesirable schooling situations and be called stupid for not knowing enough about the plan or can educate themselves and move elsewhere to avoid its negative affects. Either way, I truly hope you're not on your neighborhood's welcome wagon!
So...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:33 — Bob_SconceI tend to discount threats made in anger by parents talking to news reporters. It's conceivable that they would not have bought a home here had she known it would have taken her a couple of hours to register her kid for school. But, I doubt it.
I guess I didn't read it
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 15:57 — tropicalgirlI guess I didn't read it that she wouldn't have bought a home if she knew it would take a few hours to register - if that's the case, she has bigger issues. I read it that had she known that moving here would result in her son missing a month of school and going to a school different from the neighborhood she bought in, she would have gone somewhere else. To me those are much more substantial issues than I stood in line for two hours and I believe that anyone would have the right to be upset about them.
There are traditional calendar schools with space.
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 21:36 — RWTWhy couldn't he be assigned to one of them, like Farmington Woods or Weatherstone? Or to Laurel Park, which has lots of space and may have something on track 3 or 4?
If it were my child, i would accept responsibility for transportation if it meant he didn't have to start off behind his class.
I hope the school plans to catch him up during the break.
Catch up?
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 16:34 — tsgcoupI think some elementary schools still have off track remediation, but that requires a staff member and space. Most year round schools I know do not. The students track out and the teacher too. The track teachers work 10 months just like their traditional counterparts. Track out remediation at the school level is an extra expense for a year round school.
I find it ironic that he was
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:27 — tropicalgirlI find it ironic that he was sent to Salem - our neighborhood goes to Salem and Turner Creek and we were told REPEATEDLY there was no capacity at either so we accepted Laurel Park to get on a feeder pattern with our neighborhood for middle school. Every morning, our daughter gets on an empty bus that comes through the neighborhood just for her while a block away in both directions, buses pick up kids for Salem and Turner Creek. And now both those schools show seats. I'm not going to argue about the rights and wrongs of the choice plan, but I will say as someone who suffered through it, it was mismanaged from the start.
And putting a kid on a track that started school a month ago is idiotic. If they can't manage year-round better than this, then make all the schools traditional.
make all the schools traditional?
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:39 — FSandYOUCan't do that, they'd whine about needing a 10 BILLION dollar bond and some would believe their spokepersons, the Goodnights.
Yes, they've been mismanaged. We were lied to about them from day one and still to this day, 3 school boards later, most are still not at capacity.
Newcomers can fix that, assign everyone of them to track 2. With 4,000 new kids joining the system next year, so the spin masters say, that should fix the problem!
Right, assign the newcomers
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:37 — DrActualFactualRight, assign the newcomers to track 2--for those that they did that to in our area schools that seems to last thru about 1/2 the students matriculation period. Somewhere along the way they seemed to experience student attrition and wound up redistributing track 2 students onto other tracks and collapsing track 2 for 4/5th grade. In the past students who didn't like track 2 moved to other schools via magnets, charters, homeschooling, etc. And yes, some just sold and moved. Net result is still not filling track 2. When you combine that attrition with parents that have older siblings who want out of their MS YR school assignment before the term is up (so that they don't have kids on split calendars) you have a lot of movement within those schools that you wouldn't get at traditional school calendar campuses. Traditional calendar schools and schedules are appearing to be the most desirable for student instruction based on how parents are choosing. Whether the public want to pay for them or not, it seems that the demand is clearly for traditional calendar schools.
Lots of Holes with this plan
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:32 — sam123456The list of holes keeps getting longer...does anyone agree now that the plan was rushed through by the previous board???
1. Families split
2. Longer bus rides
3. Inefficient registration process -- wait for 2 hours???
4. Choice is not necessarily real -- "Some parents are finding their choices are limited, as this updated list of school seat numbers shows. The result is that some families are being told they're option is to go to a year-round school that's already in session.
Parents can try to request the very popular track 4, which started July 30. But they may wind up getting tracks 1, 2 or 3, which started July 9"
Holes and choices?
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 14:24 — FSandYOUOR Choices and Holes?
When the new Martin/Evans Plan kicks in next year, and they reassign tens of thousands, again, here's what will happen Sammy,
1. Neighborhoods will be split. Again.
2. Kids will still endure long, over crowded and unsafe bus rides.
3. Heaven forbid one of the new comers have to wait. Why everyone knows you move to Wake County because you are important and therefore should be moved to the front of the line for all things YOU!
4. YR already in session? Wow, guess the new comers didn't do their research, before they decided to invaded the area, to figure out school was already in session for many. Maybe mom and dad are just too busy making all that money, and feeling important, to even be bothered with it and don't even realize they'll need be a tad inconvenienced once they move to a new area.
Tell the newbies if they want to go to the front of the line they should offer to take a spot on track 2. I hear they'll be taken in immediately!!
Oh, and also tell them that if the bond fails because most voters are beyond fed up with politics and the wake county school board, forget the kids, this ain't about them and never was, then it's quite likely the school they end up at will be forced over to year round, if it ain't already, and even worse,
their kid just may have to go to school in a closet! OMG!!
BTW, Someone should tell Nichols that maybe they should've done better research before they decided to move in after the school year started and THEN complain about it. What's the matter with track 2 anyway.
Try it, you'll love it.
Or, you can move back to where you came from.
And please take the other complaining newcomers with you.
Showing your true colors
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 07:34 — SatchHHWow - FS and You - perhaps all of those "newbie" outsiders who came in and wrecked our system a few years ago (old board, some still on" should just go home too = Margiotta from New J. (oh, good, he's gone), Goldman (here how many years - 5 or so?), Tedesco (same as Goldman - just a few years in NC). Why so hostile to newcomers?
In response to your list -
1. Under "choice" plan, neighborhoods aren't split, they're shattered. Kids going everywhere. My neighborhood was in one node before and all the kids went to the same base school. Now - all of the rising K on my block are going to different schools - and ALL would have preferred our old base school.
2. Funny - you folks used to complain about empty buses taking kids every which way. That's probably what we'll have now, so your rhetoric changed to saying the buses used to be overcroweded. And unsafe buses? Hmmmm - back that one up.
3. Again - why so hostile to newcomers? Fact is, this new assignment plan is a train wreck. The ONLY reason they're waiting so long is because of the new system. Previously, schools took care of this and it made sense. Even if your home was assigned to a distant school, you still knew where to go to register and knew you'd get in and you had transportation. 4. Thus, you could DO your research.
It's called reality
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:10 — FSandYOUtry visiting it sometime.
Why "newcomers"?
They are just the most current group of cry babies and I'm sick of hearing all of them bitch and moan. Every last one of them. If you pick up and move to a new area and are clueless as to what's gone on, and is going on, you have not a soul to blame except yourself.
It's your fault, tell your kid that's why he or she missed the first month of school.
Had she been in the group of the 200+ families who got the call that Jr. missed his first week because oh yeah, we changed you to a different track and didn't bother to inform you of it until the end of the first week of school, then she'd have every right to bitch and moan.
Although she would need to expect that she would not get any coverage of her problem here. They would be too busy waiting on test results or whipping a few dozen newcomers into a frenzy for that.
FSandYOU - smallnumbers???
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:09 — sam123456Why are you now so worried about such a small number of students (200)??? Previously you have told me that small numbers don't matter.
It's all holes & choices Sam
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:33 — FSandYOUholes & choices.
not understanding
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:56 — sam123456FSandYou, not sure that I understand your response -- could you please elaborate?
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:35 — SideburnsLOL. Mr. Holes wants someone to elaborate.
sideburns
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 14:03 — sam123456You, FSandYou, and some others on this blog have scolded me many times that my situation does not matter simply because only a "small" number of people are impacted. FSandYou's new found concern about something that impacts an even smaller number of people surpises me. The response that I got back was cryptic so I just wanted to better understand.
Understand? The holes make it impossible!
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 16:30 — FSandYOUThe difference?
You knew darn well what was going on with this current plan, for months and months. You either didn't bother to apply or just like to belly ache cause it didn't line up with your vision. Probably another hole related issue.
The difference with these 200 families and your personal issue, they were forced off their tracks #1 and #2 not notified until a week after school started!
Since someone was on vacation, it wasn't important enough to get answers after the fact and report on that story. But I'm so thrilled the newcomers are getting some coverage of their frustrations.
Now back to your holes & choices.
Or is it choices & holes?
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 14:23 — SideburnsNot true. We have asked for more information about your situation -- and how this plan and the choice process panned out for you. But you just repeat the same old "holes" mantra. And then you move to your "you're being disrespectful" comments. Then you repeat the process over again.
And you want FS to elaborate? It really is comical.
100% true
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 15:25 — sam123456Actually it is 100% true -- when I tried to state my case I have been told, scolded, etc by FSandYou, you, others that it does not matter because it only impacts a "small" number. I am just wondering why now 200 is enough to care about as that is also a small number.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 16:35 — SideburnsNope. Not me. What I have been debating with you - or attempting to - is your definition of "holes" (everything's a hole to you), your new definition of stability and if you actually participated in the choice process - which you never answer. So, to see you ask someone else to elaborate is hysterical.
Do you know why she had to
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 19:19 — danofncDo you know why she had to relocate?
With all the griping you've done about people missing a week of school, it seems like you'd have a little more compassion for someone with a child that has missed a month.
Even if she'd been assigned to Track 3, she could have spent a week and a half trying to get her son caught up while Track 3 is out. As it stands, he went to school today, he has 6 more days, and then he's out for 3 weeks.
...
Thu, 08/09/2012 - 21:12 — SideburnsAnd yet people like sam will continue to wrongly blame these issues on the Choice Plan. I'm sure this has happened over and over since '07 - at least in Apex - land of MYR.
but newcomers knew
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 07:36 — SatchHHBut newcomers knew when they moved which school their child would be in. Not which track on MYR, but at least which school. The "choice" plan has caused many more problems than the old plan. You all just need to confront that fact and start advocating for something better than this year's train wreck.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 09:50 — SideburnsAnd then the next year, students were reassigned out of their base assignment because it was filled with too many newcomers. Or that newcomer had their address reassigned to another school.
So, is it better to place a newcomer in a school that has capacity - knowing they can have a stable assignment? Or seat a newcomer in a base-assignment -- knowing that someone will have to be reassigned out the following year?
I think it depends on
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:20 — tropicalgirlI think it depends on whether you value the stable assignment or the ability for your child to go to school with others in the neighborhood. I don't think that you can understand how isolating it is to have your child be the only one going to a completely different school. No one to talk to at the bus stop. No backup for parents - other working parents in the neighborhood can leave their kids with the group and not worry that their child will be stranded if the bus doesn't show. And the friends your child makes at school all live in other neighborhoods so there's little opportunity for interaction beyond school. Those are just a few things that others may deem unimportant but that do impact the fabric of her school experience.
I chose that willingly years ago when we were new to the area and chose the magnet. I'm sure I'll get blasted for not doing my research. Then we saw how isolating it was and we tried to move back. But the plan was changed and we couldn't. That's on me - I would never have made the choices I made years ago if I had understood how isolating they would be.
But now we have a choice plan that has kept us isolated. And it's hard to watch your child struggle in ways you cannot imagine until you live through it. We have consistently presented everything in a positive light and we hope that next year will be different.
I'm not saying that either value is superior to the other and I get why stability is a huge priority. But for us and many families like us stability came at the price of community. I guess if I could wave a wand, I would want a system that could provide stability and neighborhood schools.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:42 — SideburnsI don't think that you can understand how isolating it is to have your child be the only one going to a completely different school.
Oh, I understand. Been there, done that. Ironically, all those friends my daughter made at her 'isolated' elementary school are now choosing to attend the middle school we're at. Not all, but some -- because it's their choice to do so.
Sorry, but I believe stability in assignment is more important than whether you go to Salem or Turner Creek or Olive Chapel. They're all proximate (although I do think this plan went overboard on the # of choices) -- and they're all YR. You, on the other hand, may be happier being reassigned to 3 different schools with your neighbors over the elementary years -- as long as you're all together.
In regard to your last
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:47 — tropicalgirlIn regard to your last statement, you're right.And I am in no way along in that. And I've had this discussion at length with all my surrounding neighbors and they all feel they would rather have us all together and be reassigned together than apart. I believe they went through two reassignments - and forced year-round - during their children's elementary school years so they certainly have more experience with both plans than I do. You and your neighbors may completely disagree. And who knows, whatever comes of a "new plan" may unite us all either for or against.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:55 — SideburnsIMO, stability is a more important factor in a child's education.
So, are your neighbors fighting to ensure all the poor Raleigh kids have the same opportunity to attend school together? And to be reassigned together? Something tells me they aren't.
I wouldn't presume to answer
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 15:53 — tropicalgirlI wouldn't presume to answer that question for my neighbors. I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting to ensure that all the poor raleigh kids have the same opportunity to attend school together." A neighborhood school is a neighborhood school and if that were built into the assignment plan then it would apply to poor kids of Raleigh - as you call them - as well as the kids in our subdivision. Besides, I would expect the parents of those children to decide what's best for them and to fight for that themselves.
Stability is one factor in a child's education - whether it tops community cohesiveness and support will have to remain your opinion.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 19:46 — SideburnsStability is one factor in a child's education - whether it tops community cohesiveness and support will have to remain your opinion.
Agreed. I'm all for community cohesiveness (although that shouldn't mean everyone in your neighorhood has to do the same thing) and support (which comes from offering stability) as well.
A neighborhood school is a neighborhood school and if that were built into the assignment plan then it would apply to poor kids of Raleigh - as you call them - as well as the kids in our subdivision.
That's a very, very naive statement -- especially with the current Board in charge.
The statement is not
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 20:04 — danofncThe statement is not naive. If she had said that neighborhood schools were on the way, that would be naive, I think. But the statement itself is correct.
As far as community cohesiveness goes, I think it would suck to be the only kid in your neighborhood to go to a particular school. I think it would suck worse to be the only kid in your neighborhood to go to a particular school if you didn't want to be there. I think it would suck worse than that to be the only kid from your neighorhood to go to a particular school if you didn't want to be there and you had to constantly listen to people talking about a great assignment plan that gave parents choice.
...
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 20:55 — Sideburns"A neighborhood school is a neighborhood school and if that were built into the assignment plan then it would apply to poor kids of Raleigh..."
That isn't necessarily a correct statement as you claim. It's not false either. But, it is naive, as I said. Her vision of "everyone could have a neighborhood school if that's what we wanted in a plan" is pie-in-the-sky. Sure, it's all warm and fuzzy but it's a completely unrealistic statement.
Did it suck when her child was the only kid from her neighborhood at the magnet school she chose?
Apparently, it did
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 22:08 — danofncApparently, it did suck....according to her:
"I chose that willingly years ago when we were new to the area and chose the magnet. I'm sure I'll get blasted for not doing my research. Then we saw how isolating it was and we tried to move back. But the plan was changed and we couldn't. That's on me - I would never have made the choices I made years ago if I had understood how isolating they would be."
...
Sat, 08/11/2012 - 10:10 — SideburnsYes, I can read. That was my point. Her priority was magnet academics for her child at one point and now it's about not being 'isolated'. I wonder if, after she gets forcibly reassigned because a few too many new neighbors moved in, that she will determine that stability is more important.
Stability is one factor in a
Fri, 08/10/2012 - 15:59 — shearertwStability is one factor in a child's education - whether it tops community cohesiveness and support will have to remain your opinion.
Well...WCPSS has somehow manage to avoid achieving all three (stability and community cohesiveness and support).