Is today's vote on returning the Lacy to Stough nodes a case of political payback or a righting of a wrong by the old Wake County school board?
As noted in today's article, families in the three Lacy Elementary nodes worked hard to back members of the new school board majority who are poised to reverse the assignment today.
Residents in the three nodes gave more than $2,600 in last fall's campaign to either the candidates directly, the Wake Schools Community Alliance or the Wake County Republican Party.
New school board member Chris Malone said the campaign contributions had no impact on his support for sending the students back to Lacy. He said returning the nodes to Lacy is in keeping with the community schools model being advocated by the new majority.
"It was their community school," Malone said of the Lacy nodes. "It was the right thing to do. We righted a wrong."
Malone said he felt it was "inappropriate" how Stough parents had lobbied the old board for the Lacy nodes. In addition to helping fill the school, the Stough parents wanted the nodes to help reduce the percentage of low-income students.
Malone said the board would address the Stough capacity issue as part of a long-term plan for helping the school.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta also stood by the plan to move the students back to Lacy, which had gotten a tentative 5-4 vote last week.
"I used (Lacy reassignment) as the poster child of everything that was wrong with the assignment system,” Margiotta said. “Stough is one of the schools that has the highest percentage of base students that have moved out for magnet schools. How do you let your school lose all of their base students?"
But critics of the new board see the Lacy moves as payback for the support the nodes gave to the new board majority.
In a blog post last week, Rob Schofield, director of research and policy development for the liberal N.C. Policy Watch, pointed in particular to the efforts of Dana Cope.
Cope, executive director of the State Employees Association of N.C., worked hard to elect the new members after his kids were reassigned from Lacy to Stough.
"Now, it appears, the new and far-right, Republican-backed (and undoubtedly non-union-friendly) School Board members will pay Cope back for his support by switching his node back to Lacy over the objection of the member representing the district in which both schools are located," wrote Schofield, a former Stough parent, last week.
(You'll note in the story that we do mention that N&O Publisher Orage Quarles is on the board of directors of the N.C. Justice Center, which established N.C. Policy Watch. Despite what some of you conspiracy theorists might think, I didn't know until it was pointed out recently on the blog that Quarles is on the group's board.)
N.C. Policy Watch is also a member of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition. Another GISW member is the Stough Elementary PTA. A number of Stough parents have become GSIW leaders.
Former Stough PTA President Mary Kelley is scheduled to be a speaker at an April 22 GSIW forum. In today's article, Kelley accused the new board majority of giving "preferential treatment" to the Lacy nodes.
Comments
Garner to SouthEast
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 08:08 — Dove314The Lacy-Stough stuff has been a boiling pot for a while. There is another reassignment that seems much more clear on the political paybacks -- Tedesco's own reassignment of the 132 students from Garner HS to SouthEast without warning, with no hearing, and not a part of the 3 yr plan, after Tedesco himself said in an interview they were following the three-year assignment plan until their zone model is in place. Keith Sutton objected to the move.
From today's paper:
Sutton said Monday that the move was made to fulfill board member John Tedesco's pledge to political supporters. "It gives the appearance of political motivation when most of the other moves were requested by parents in their respective communities"; Sutton said.
But Garner Mayor Ronnie Williams, who has long complained about Southeast Raleigh students being bused into the town's schools, said the school board's decision is a step in the right direction. Tedesco, who did not return calls Monday, is making good on his campaign promises, Williams said.
Absolutely right...
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:14 — Bob_SconceCandidates should definitely not be expected to live up to their campaign promises. What sort of a world do we live in where politicians don't lie to voters to get into office then do whatever the heck they want once they get there? We need politicians who don't view themselves as accountable to the voters. We need candidates without integrity.
Which promise did he live up to?
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:20 — Dove314The one where he was going to make objective, data-driven decisions?
The one where parents would be listened to and be a part of the process?
The one where he promised stability to families?
The one where he stated the 3 year plan would remain in place until the zones were determined?
Or the backdoor promise to his buddy, Mayor Williams?
You yourself have expressed doubts about the wisdom of this decision in other threads and whether it wouldn't have more merit to allow those involved to study this one further, obtain feedback from those affected and that waiting a year wouldn't have made a difference.
So...
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:27 — Bob_SconceI replied because you bolded the "making good on his campaign promises" as if it was a bad thing.
IIRC, the 3-year plan remaining in effect was a statement made after being elected, and I wouldn't take that as a statement that they wouldn't make any changes, just that they weren't abandoning it lock, stock and barrel.
I don't see any reason to believe that this wasn't an objective, data-driven decision. The rationale makes sense.
I think what I said was that they should give families more notice and
opportunity to provide feedback. I'm a big fan of advance notice, and it's late in the game to make this sort of decision. However, I don't know that it needs any more
"study."
Mayor Williams should
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 08:34 — danofncMayor Williams should request that Garner High School be stripped of its magnet program immediately.
He has made it clear that he doesn't like kids from other areas being bused into Garner. He and his town basically put Tedesco in his seat to get those kids out of Garner.
Magnet schools are meant to bring kids in to schools from outside their local area, right?
Take it away.
good point... Keung we need
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:41 — carson79good point... Keung we need a separate blog post about the Garner to SERHS moves. The discussion is "new" - there are tons of Lacy - Stough threads already, I worry that this will get buried if you don't blog about it. I know that's what Tedesco wants but I don't want people to ignore what's happening here!
Torches and Pitchforks
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:07 — Duhhuh666Get the torches and pitchforks...if you dont do as we say we will punish you!!! Last time I checked school resources were there to support everyone, not used to punish or reward.
If schools were actually
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 10:00 — user12345If schools were actually fair and here to serve everyone, you would not see the disparity in offerings and performance between the rich and poor schools.
Population
%F&R
ED EOC
NED EOC
Gap
% in AP
95%
Resources can be
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 10:56 — Duhhuh666Resources can be equal...outcomes are up to the individual. Using your theory Magnet schools should be the best performing schools in the system. They receive more resources, show a chart with thier outcomes?
But we know magnets are
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 11:19 — user12345But we know magnets are segregated by race / income ... what Todd calls a school within a school ... so that is not fair ... The fact that poor schools like Knightdale and Garner only have 14 AP classes and Apex and GH have 19 does not give the students in those schools all the same opportunity.
so to contiue the with the
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 12:19 — Duhhuh666so to contiue the with the diversity program ensures we have segregated schools, the very thing opponets to community schools say will happen if we have community schools. If the difference is only 5 AP classes (about 17% more) between the schools is hardly unfair. Look at the 50+ AP classes at a magnet (about 75% more), that is unfair.
So you are lying?
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 13:56 — carson7950+ AP
Ok, so you are just lying now?
Enloe has less than a handful more AP's than Wakefield.
did i say a magnet or
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 14:44 — Duhhuh666did i say a magnet or enloe...yes a magnet
huh? your response doesn't
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 17:21 — carson79huh? your response doesn't even make sense.
Enloe has the most AP's but only a few more than Wakefield...
Garner is a magnet. Also,
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 14:01 — user12345Garner is a magnet. Also, advanced courses at school like magnets are acceptable if they fill under capacity schools and pospone building a $70M new building. That should be the purpose of magnets to "attract" people to schools that are inconvenient to attend and naturally under capacity.
I would expect students from
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 14:19 — shank56I would expect students from the high growth Cary /Apex /Morrsiville schools to have seats at Garner HS for the IB program.
It's not about torches and
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:39 — danofncIt's not about torches and pitchforks. It's about giving constituents what they want. Isn't that the promise of the new board members?
Mayor Williams has repeatedly been quoted as saying Garner schools should be for Garner kids. He has specifically said he didn't want SE Raleigh kids in Garner schools.
If he wants Garner schools for Garner kids, the last thing he should want is a magnet school bringing kids into Garner from outside the town.
the last thing he should
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 10:19 — Duhhuh666Your statement is correct, he should want a Magnet school for the citizens of Garner, not a Magnet school for kids outside of Garner. Do the people of Garner not deserve a magnet or are they only for outsiders?
Magnet schools have a
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 11:16 — danofncMagnet schools have a purpose, and I believe that purpose is to attract kids from other areas (hence the name "magnet").
If he doesn't want kids from outside Garner in his schools, he shouldn't want magnet schools.
So a magnet only attracts
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 12:11 — Duhhuh666So a magnet only attracts things that are far away? A magnet should have strongest pull on object that are the close, the pull should weaken with distance. If we had magnets through out the county they would then act as magnets.
Ironic that the
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 09:50 — CaryCurmudgeonIronic that the Republican-backed, conservative, Luddy-loving, Pope-worshipping board is now getting pasted for taking action on requests from two leading Democrats, Dana Cope and Ronnie Williams.
Forked tongue
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 10:37 — Dove314Non-partisan standard issue board hypocrisy.
I completely agree
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 08:38 — HereWeGoYou make a very good point.
Equal Treatment?
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 07:56 — EqualtreatmentThe proponents of moving the Lacy nodes back to Stough cited the following arguments:
- Lacy is our neighborhood school - we live closer to Lacy than Stough
- We can walk to Lacy
- Lacy is where our children have been going for many years
- We attended Lacy when Lacy was not the "cool" school
- We helped rebuild Lacy to its current reputation
Board member Chris Malone remarked that the move was "righting a wrong."
How interesting, then, that the new Board chose not to return Node 8 (Meredith Woods), to Lacy at the same time. The current Board is aware that this node had been transferred from Lacy to Stough for EXACTLY the same reasons as these nodes—only it happened four years ago. Ironically, two of the neighborhoods now being returned to Lacy were supposed to have gone with Meredith Woods four years ago to relieve overcrowding at Lacy and to refill Stough after the opening of Brier Creek ES, which took 100+ Stough students. Using their influence with the old Board, these nodes had their neighborhoods pulled out of the reassignment plan.
Meredith Woods can make ALL of the above arguments used by the Lacy nodes for why it should be back at Lacy. Why did the new Board choose not to move them back? Why no equal treatment?
Why no equal
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 08:09 — user12345Why no equal treatment?
Lack of donations and WSCA connections?
This move would never have
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 07:44 — kidstimeThis move would never have helped Stough. The parents involved were so alienated by the actions of the Stough parents that they are determined to never send any child to that school. Grandfathering will go away, but more children will be sent private and most of the families affected have kids hitting middle school anyway. Let's not forget we are speaking of 5 children. Was it worth it in the first place? It was never about crowding at Lacy for as they supposedly were moving 60 out they were moving 50 in from Conn. If G&P was really concerned about crowding, that would not have been the case. Also it was to address the diversity piece, but after repeatedly being told that it would only involve a few children, it was done anyway. I doubt five kids changes the %F&R at all.
"Now, it appears, the new
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 07:06 — shank56"Now, it appears, the new and far-right, Republican-backed (and undoubtedly non-union-friendly) School Board members will pay Cope back for his support by switching his node back to Lacy over the objection of the member representing the district in which both schools are located," wrote Schofield, a former Stough parent, last week.
Stough is in Prickett's district and she supports the move. Lacy is in Morrison's district and she supports keeping the Lacy students at Stough because "she wants to help Stough."
The Stough parents are active in the diversity movement with Morrison. Plus, the chair of Morrison's District Board Advisory, Anne Sherron, backed the Lacy moves last year while serving on Chuck Dulaney's Student Assignment Advisory . Morrision also has appointed Sherron as her district rep to the new board's parent assignment group.