There's really not much doubt that if the new Wake County student assignment plan is implemented for the 2012-13 school year that it will be changed from what was adopted in October.
But, as noted in today's article, the jury is out on how extensive the changes would be. The starting point will be the Jan. 3 work session in which board members will go through their concerns in detail with staff.
"We’ve got one chance to make it right and for everyone to feel a strong level of comfort,” said Democratic board vice chairman Keith Sutton. “The problem is we’re not getting that comfort level. To raise that level of comfort will require some give and take.”
Sutton said he didn't think that would involve "insurmountable" changes.
Republican school board member John Tedesco said it’s understandable that the new board members want to learn more about the plan. But he said the board should avoid making major changes considering how families made decisions on whether to apply for magnet schools, whose application period ended Monday, based on the choices they had from the assignment plan.
“It would be very concerning and disrespectful to put in changes after the process has already begun,” Tedesco said.
Tedesco suggested that the board review the first year of the plan and make changes for the following year.
Tedesco said making a few feeder pattern changes would not be major. But he said that setting aside a fixed percentage of seats at regional choice schools for students from low-performing nodes would be a major change.
Democratic school board chairman Kevin Hill said he hasn’t heard any talk from board members or staff about delaying implementation. But he said that they’ll have a better idea of the status of the plan after the work session.
New Democratic school board member Christine Kushner said she wants to find out more information on issues such as how Wake will monitor implementation before deciding on the new plan.
“It’s my responsibility to make sure that this is the right fit for the community,” she said.
Sutton said it was "more than likely" that they'll implement the plan in 2012-13 with some changes. He said it's possible that some elements such as the timelines for the application periods may need to be pushed back.
New Democratic school board member Jim Martin said a thorough review is needed because the board had approved it in October with “too many questions unanswered.”
"The most important thing is to have a successful and sustainable student assignment plan," Martin said. "There are some passionate people who are saying it should be delayed. There are some passionate people who say it should be approved as is. The reality is probably something in between."
Tedesco countered that if there so many questions with the plan that it wouldn’t have been supported by outgoing board members Anne McLaurin and Carolyn Morrison or by the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce.
Hill said he's hoping the work session and future discussion on the plan will lead to consensus.
"The purpose of the work session is for the board to come together to talk it out and try to come to a consensus," Hill said.
Comments
Brassfield changes needed
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 07:56 — sam123456Hopefully now that the board is looking at this reassignment plan, the school staff will see that Brassfield needs to either be changed back to Wakefield or have a split feeder pattern. Otherwise many childer will be forced to be bused to schools further away and they will not attend schools that their siblings have.
Have you talked with Hill?
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:25 — jenmanHave you talked with Hill? What has he said?
Kevin Hill said last night they can't make everyone happy
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 09:23 — FSandYOUThen I think I heard him mumble oh well as he shrugged his shoulders.
How come you guys weren't protesting with the others yesterday?
Protesting?
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 09:32 — sam123456Do those protests really help? It seems to be better to try to work with the Board members. Having said that, there is definetly a lot of concern about this new "choice" plan from across the county. The staff, for some reason, has tried to rush this through the process. Probably, the best thing to do now is to hold off for a year so that everyone can truly understand the plan.
Carpenter was organized last
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:12 — finalfrontierCarpenter was organized last time around too and they had Mrs. Goldman's backing. Their efforts resulted in DDMS being overcrowded.
Sam you sound like you don't get it
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 09:59 — FSandYOUHave you been here long? If so, have you not paid attention to how the previous boards, the ones with the same type of people as this new one, treated parents? Do you think posting your wishes here really helps? Are you trying to work with board members? Are they trying to work with you? Is Kevin 'oh well' Hill?
I disagree about this being rushed. This has been in the works for 2+ years and desired for 2+ decades. If they delay it the plan will never happen, but my guess is that's what this liberal majority was told to accomplish by their handlers and what they want to do. If they don't halt it then my guess is those protesting with signs and bull horns will get changed before those who wish for the changes to be made on an irrelevant blog.
But I'll keep praying for the Christmas miracle for you.
not so
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:51 — EBDarcyIt has been less than a year since the task was assigned to Tata. The public meetings were practically a waste of time since the full details of the plan were not released prior to them. And the Rep-led board rushed to get it on the agenda before they lost the majority. Feeder patterns were not announced till after it was approved.
What's unclear to me is Tata's motivation for rushing this through. There is absolutely no reason this needs to be implemented for next year. He's taking a big risk here.
Sure...
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:09 — Bob_SconceThis year was the last year of the old 3-year assignment plan. The alternative was to do a bunch of reassignments.
I don't know how you can claim this was rushed through -- there were lots of public meetings, the framework has been known for months, and Tata stuck to the schedule that had originally been approved by the board. You and I both know that the first year won't go perfectly, but that fact isn't going to change by the passage of time.
Frankly, I think it's really too late to make any significant changes -- the district has undergone a huge effort to educate parents, and the assignment process is already starting. People have made their magnet selections already, based on what they thought the rest of the plan would look like. The district should not pull the rug out from parents at this stage.
Oh it's never too late Bob
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:14 — FSandYOUAs Kevin said yesterday, can't make everybody happy.
Heh...
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:19 — Bob_SconceIt's true that you can't make everybody happy. But, that doesn't mean that you should try to make everybody unhappy.
Apparently stopping this plan
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 12:57 — FSandYOUwill make many, many people happy, but I don't think this board cares about who is and who isn't happy. Matter of fact I'm quite sure of it.
It's like reliving the Burns-Dulaney era all over again. And they're just getting started. ;)
But..
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 11:07 — JanisTangoTata can't rush anything through...he doesn't have that kind of power. He was given a deadline and he met it. The board voted 6 to 2 to go forward.
Magnet selection
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 18:23 — jenmanOT, but I just posted a map that shows where the high performing nodes are that will get first dibs on open magnet seats. http://voiceforequity.blogspot.com/2011/12/magnet-winners.html
I agree - its's disgusting
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 22:48 — loriacI agree - its's disgusting that more than half the county is effectively shut out of magnets.
one lottery
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:34 — turnerk1The other change I'd like to see is one lottery instead of splitting between magnet lottery then proximity lottery. That way the system would have a clear idea of all the available open seats and we wouldn't risk having students stuck in an assignment simply because the seats weren't open during the lottery they participated in.
I would like to see set aside seats
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:42 — snordonenow that children in low performing nodes have the option of going to schools that really will meet their needs. My problem with the old plan is that children were assigned to schools based on their demographic profile, but once they got there no one asked or cared if they were receiving an education. Central office put together a list of RC schools that are meeting the needs of all subgroups - REAL healthy schools where all children succeed. To not allow children to attend these schools would be horrible.
How will the set asides work?
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 00:10 — nmoskalAre they going to set aside X% of seats in all RC schools? Which students "count" toward the set aside seats? I can see how they might "work" for RC schools that are in almost strictly "high-performing" areas, but what happens with the RC schools that aren't in those areas and have a number of low-performing and medium-performing proximate nodes (for example Adams, Cary, Dillard and Reedy Creek)?
Are the set asides only for students from Group 1 magnets? If so, will students from proximate low-performing nodes still be "allowed" into their proximate RC schools or will they be displaced and we will end up back at "passing kids around the wheel"? If seats are set aside for those from Group 1 magnet areas + the proximate low-performing node students are still "allowed" in, what will be the level of low-performing students overall at those schools? What will this do over time to the level at which that school will be "chosen" by proximate families? For that matter, if people proximate to RC schools want to avoid "low-performing" students will they purposefully avoid RC schools knowing in advance those schools have been designated to have X% of students from "low-performing" nodes? Did the staff consider the level of proximate low-performing nodes to RC School X when determining how many low-performing nodes from magnet areas would have RC School X as a choice?
http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/reports/book10.pdf (see page 113)
What happens if less students from low-performing nodes than X% (whatever set aside %) desire to attend the RC school and ranked the RC school lower on their choice list? Will the "formula" add points for the RC options and place them into that school ahead of one of their higher ranked choices in order to fill the set-aside seats and because that is where other people think they should go because that's what's "best" for the system or because they think they know what's "best" for "those" people?
People really need to think all this through - are they going to address this with full thought and consideration of performance of proximate nodes and a scalpel or one-size fits all bull in china shop with an ax? IMO Wake, as a community, has a history of not really thinking through these types of issues and what happens when you put labels, presumptions and percentages into play.
Not to mention through this entire set-up, IMO you largely let schools off the hook for not being a truly healthy school.
Excellent, excellent post!
Wed, 12/21/2011 - 10:02 — jenmanExcellent, excellent post! I've been wondering about many of the same issues as well. Particularly the RC schools located in low performance areas.
"concerning and disrespectful"
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:26 — EBDarcyTedesco is a hypocrite. It was apparently not concerning and disrespectful when he had students reassigned to SERHS without notice, after the public hearings had concluded, and with no request for additional meetings to gather parent comment.
You must be confused
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:31 — FSandYOUYou're talking about your boy Martin. He will be THE biggest nutcase to ever sit in a seat on that board. He has let his cat out of the bag and it's going to scratch the eyes out of many parents over the halting of this assignment plan. It is very clear now that there will be no new assignment plan for next year. Tata is going to go ballistic and parents are going to be beyond livid.
Get some Prep-H Jim cause yo' butt is gonna need it.
WOW
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 12:07 — jgegbgmgAnother comical reaction from a loser. Keep it up as I enjoy my morning coffee when reading your blogs.
From the article...
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:02 — Bob_Sconce"We have to get real information about what the plan is going to do to capacity and demographics in schools," Martin said. "We have to find it out before we can make a decision."
Of course, since it's a choice plan and students haven't yet chosen, there's no real way to know this now. And, that's the real thing that's rubbing him raw -- he wants to be able to say "you go here, you go there," just like in the old Chuck Dulaney era. Or, as his predecessor Lori Millburg famously put it, "these people just need to go where we tell them."
I would like them to look at
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 08:32 — mnordbergI would like them to look at doing away with feeder patterns. It gives the school system flexibility and actually gives parents more flexibility and more choice. Right now a decision made to where a kid goes in K decides middle and high school (Yes, you change each year but at the mercy of available seats which limits choice). I would like to see that all seats are open from ES->MS and MS->HS so that parents get 3 primary choice opportunities during a child's stay in wake county schools. This would allow more timely educated decisions for parents (you can't tell me that you know the best MS and HS for a child when they enter K based on the kid or based on the schools that change over time). This would make the plan more choice based and not choice based on limited open seats at major decision points. It would also give the school system more flexibility to control growth because feeder patterns are relatively rigid. It also eliminates all the complaints about feeder patterns which seem to make little sense. (How exactly can the closest middle school for some nodes send kids to the 5th or 6th closest high school. It makes no sense).
Same with magnets
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 10:02 — loriacAnd maybe they should do away with the guaranteed magnet feeder programs as well, and make the magnets an open lottery for K, 6th, and 9th grades. This would give kids a real opportunity to attend magnet schools.
agree
Tue, 12/20/2011 - 09:34 — turnerk1I agree with you. I understand that they were trying to respond to people's pleas for stability with the feeder patterns. But, to have a "choice" program that primarily offers choice only to Kindergartners and no one else seems disingenuous. They could put something into place that gives people preferences to certain schools that could be similar to a feeder pattern, but not as rigid.