Has the new Wake County student assignment plan discouraged businesses from coming to the area?
As noted in today's article by Thomas Goldsmith, Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane caused a stir when she raised the issue during the joint meeting of the Wake County Mayors Association and the school board. McFarlane said she is starting to hear that some businesses have second thoughts about coming here.
Harvey Schmitt, president of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce and a backer of the new choice plan, said he was not aware of any company that has chosen not to relocate to Raleigh because of the school system. Schmitt said that McFarlane was, understandably, reacting to anxiety expressed by constituents in pockets of town where schools are in high demand and overcrowded.
Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, was skeptical of the Chamber's influence.
"The Chamber is a downtown Raleigh-focused group," Brannon said. "They don't represent the parents. They don't represent the community."
Brannon also denied that Great Schools or its parent group, WakeUp Wake County, influenced McFarlane to speak out Wednesday. Ron McFarlane, the mayor’s husband, was on the board of WakeUp Wake County, in 2011 and is now listed on the group’s non-voting board of advisers.
“What you’re seeing is the business community finally turning their attention to student assignment and telling the school board and city councils why it won’t work," Brannon said. "It’s flattering to say that it’s because of us.”
McFarlane's public comments caused the Raleigh Regional Association of Realtors, to issue its own statement on Wednesday.
"This is a very complex issue and because we don’t have all the facts at this point, it’s impossible for us to take a position," said the RRAR statement. "However, it is very important to our members, our association and parents in Wake County. We will be keeping a very close eye on the situation.
We are eager to continue working with the school system and will be closely evaluating this as it unfolds. We want to make sure we continue to have an excellent school system and that Wake County remains the growing, dynamic area that we all enjoy."
Brannon is still hoping to persuade the school board to delay implementation for the 2012-13 school year.
“We have a big problem and the sooner that we deal with the problem, the better," Brannon said. "If we wait until the summer it will only get worse.
We’re going to lose so much confidence in the community that it will be a bad situation to ask the public to raise taxes for a school bond. We can’t sit around and wait another year with that much unhappiness in the community.”
Comments
...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 11:07 — SideburnsApology accepted. It's the hardest job in the world. I'm sure your wife will agree. And it certainly doesn't diminish one's opinioin or value in this discussion.
What's the fatal flaw?
And I do much more than just blog about the past. But you know that.
Several: no earthly idea of
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 11:45 — YouMustBeKiddingSeveral: no earthly idea of the transportation costs; no base assignment schools for each address; Random Numbers discriminating against families w fewer children; Random Numbers & available seating (the lottery) determining a parent's 2nd - 5th choices (despite even Board members, such as John Tedesco, being surprised that the priorities factors did not follow into those latter choices); basically proximity flying out the window due to the above factors &, of course, the ever-present capacity issues.
...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 12:53 — SideburnsWhile I can understand why you believe these are flaws, I certainly don't see any of them as "fatal".
Transportation costs have been discussed -- and busing has been reviewed. Would you prefer no transportation with the grandfathering option? That would save a bundle. What were the costs for the old plan? Did costs increase/decrease with every reassignment under the old plan? Funny how no one cared back then but suddenly it's the most important factor.
Not having base assignments isn't a flaw. IMO, it allows current families to have a stable assignment while better managing growth. Rigid base assignment don't allow for flexibility -- as neighborhoods grow or age out -- without, of course, reassignment.
I don't understand the complaints about priority. Giving priority to someone based on whatever factor is putting someone else at a disadvantage. Perhaps we should get rid of all priority factors and make it a level playing field? Would you prefer a strictly proximity-driven plan?
And capacity will always be an issue -- regardless of what plan is in place.
Here's the fatal flaw:
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 18:58 — eztaylorThe problem is transparency. Priority points weren't even implemented as shown in the algorithm.
I know of several families where "errors" were made in the calculation of their points. Either this was programmed into the system (they all happen to affect only private or charter school students), or the system was written with unintentional flaws.
We all have been treated as a beta test (think Microsoft) and the assignment office appears to be making corrections manually for those smart and brave enough to call in and explain their own errors to them. I say "appears" because I have no way of knowing what the task force is up to.
There has been no apology for these errors. I understand that no one wants a public relations nightmare, but at least stand up and take responsibility for your errors, apologize, and fix the problems.
Stop pointing the finger at parents and admit that there are mistakes in the program. Explain exactly what you are doing to fix them.
It is bad enough to make the mistakes, but lying about their existence just causes the pubic to question the integrity of the system and the people who are responsible for it.
Rep. Todd Weiner didn't resign over his actions - he left becuse he was caught lying about them.
Set a good example for our children.
Are you really waiting on an apology?
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:35 — FSandYOUYou'll be waiting until Hades turns to ice. Ain't gonna happen. Never has.
So since no one has tossed out the real question I will.
How many people are we talking about that are PO'd over this plan because of any negative impact that it might have on their child, children and/or family?
1000? 2000? 5000?
Out of 144+ thousand that seems small in comparison to just the THIRTY THOUSAND they reassigned just over the last 3 years!
You can beg for Alves to run back down and save the day, but why would he? He gets paid either way. Go to the Chamber and complain. This is THEIR plan and I don't hear them complaining!
So I'll ask again, maybe Hui needs to find the answer to this one, ask him, but how many are we talking about out of 144,000+ that are currently not happy?
Any guesses?
Very good point...
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 00:05 — eztaylorThanks for pointing out that others have suffered before - of course, that really is not justification for continuing to come up with plans that cause suffering to any.
My point above is that the assignment office hasn't been transparent, even though Tata touts transparency whenever he can.
As for the chamber, I wonder if they realize that the point of these plans is, in Mr Alves words, to "break the hostage relationship between real estate interests and educational interests."
The quote continues, "Public schools rightfully belong to all the people and should...not be reserved exclusively for those who live in selected neighborhoods."
From the Boston Post and Courier, May 3, 1998 - page 12A. If you find it online through Google news, it is page 7 of 80.
The WCPSS will never justify anything
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 11:03 — FSandYOUThe mess we are in, as I've said and will continue to say until goats fly, is because of the voters #1, who never seem to really know what they want, and #2 because of those who the voters elected and/or were mislead in continuing to support year after year after year. By a few rouge groups with a few dozen loud mouths I might add.
But I digress, so I'll ask again because the "silence is deafening" as some would like to say,
HOW MANY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE CHAMBERS' PLAN????
100? 500? 1000? 5000?
I challenge you to show me
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 18:14 — YouMustBeKiddingI challenge you to show me when, where & in what study transportation costs were evaluated to any reasonable degree.
Not having base assignments, however, will be the flaw that ultimately kills this Plan. The Wake County business community, especially the realtors, developers, home builders and economic developers - who are only now figuring out that this was buried in the Plan sold to them by Mr Tata & Mr Schmitt are already starting to be up in arms. It is an unsustainable system - just ask the realtors who are trying to find Wake County homes for new employees to the area of existing businesses, particularly Red Hat and First Fidelity. Far too many are already opting for Orange & Durham Counties.
Priorities may be necessary - not that I like them without base assignments. However, the priority system that was sold on page 28 of the 87-page plan approved by the BOE in October is no longer the same priority plan after parents wasted their first choice - all other choices 2d to 5th are based on a discriminatory lottery-like Random Number. Even John Tedesco was surprised and upset when that was publicly revealed over the past 2 weeks.
Yes, we agree on one thing - capacity will always be an issue.
As for whether this Plan is doomed, I & many others believe it is; you and many others do not. None of us are soothsayers so I guess we'll just have to wait & see.
...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:26 — SideburnsWell, the WCPSS Transportation dept. just did a review of busing efficiency. And the Board approved a new bus routing - along with bell schedule changes which resulted in a savings of almost $5M.
http://www.wcpss.net/news/2012_mar27_bell-modifications-update/
So, your view of the fatal flaw is from a real estate agent's perspective? Are you suggesting that people would rather relocate to Wake County knowing that their child will probably be reassigned every so often than have a stable assignment from the get-go?
There is an answer to the question Mayor McFarlane asked. "Where will my kids go to school?" To one of the schools on your choice list. Type in the address and you will find a list of schools with different calendars and different programs. Most are proximate, some (magnets) are further.
How did Mayor Meeker answer that question to businesses relocating here in the past? "Your children might attend this school one year, this school the next and even a third one before middle school?" C'mon. Either real estate agents have been lying to their clients for years -- or not having a base assignment will have zero effect on house sales. I believe the latter.
not so fast...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:29 — eztaylorSideburns -
unless you are unassigned, do not speak as if you know the truth.
The truth is, some of us were given a list of choices and there was NO CAPACITY at any of those "choices".
So, yes there are lists, and yes, they think they may be able to send you to a school on those lists, BUT, there are no promises, and they may make you wait until everyone else has a seat, and may make you wait a little more, just to be sure.
And then, they may send you wherever there happens to be a seat. Oh, and by the way, there may be no transportation provided.
I know what you are reading in the plan, and while it really should work just like it says, the truth is that it hasn't, and with the current leadership not even admitting and explaining in detail the problems that exist, and offering real, real time solutions, it won't work.
...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 19:34 — SideburnsI've already said that I think it was huge mistake to leave families unassigned. Not only that, it is wrong to keep these families waiting for an assignment. Your situation should never have occured but that doesn't mean the whole plan won't work. Consider that this plan is on its initial rollout. It's not perfect and, imo, will get better moving forward.
Is your child entering K or a transfer into the WCPSS system?
she is a rising 9th grader
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 22:39 — eztaylorShe is a rising 9th grader from a public charter school. The system made an "error" and did not award us the priority 3 proximity points for our first choice.
Really no idea why it took them 2.5 weeks to admit the error, and they still haven't fixed it. We aren't the only ones the system shorted. There are several other families whose students were victims of the "errors". We may never know how many, because there is no transparency. We are being told to trust them and "sit tight".
Meanwhile, they continue to seat students who are "illegally" ahead of us on the waitlist.
If you really think about it, any student, current or newcomer, who did not get a seat in the choice rounds is technically unassigned. Every child on a waitlist, who did not get their 1st through nth choice is unassigned. We only label newcomers "unassigned" because they have no fall back school.
I'd like to see those numbers - I guarantee there are many more than 223.
FYI - about 9.28% of rising newcomer ninth graders are unassigned - 57 students who have no seat and are being made to wait until who knows when.
All I want is an apology, an explanation, and a fix - publicly. Because right now, I have no trust left in the system.
...
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 08:51 — SideburnsWell, not everyone who didn't get their choice is unassigned. That's a little dramatic. Current WCPSS students who participated in the process yet didn't get a different assignment still have an assignment.
Had you been awarded a seat as promised after Round 1, would you still have a beef?
Hmmm...
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 09:56 — eztaylorTo clarify, if anyone (seated or not) participated in the choice rounds, and was waitlisted (not given a new seat from their list of choices), they were "unassigned" by this new plan.
It didn't work for them and they were given no real choice. Choice implies that one can select from a variety of options, and get one of them. Otherwise, why bother participating.
The unassigned plight is more glaring because there is no fall back assignment for these students.
I don't mean to be dramatic, but when evaluating the plan, all participants need to be considered, not just newcomers.
And, to your point, if I had been assigned in round 1, I probably wouldn't have spent time investigating the plan and its outcomes. But, I was unassigned and remain unassigned, so did investigate.
I don't think you can
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 13:46 — jenmanI don't think you can consider people who already had a seat but entered the choice rounds and didn't get the seat they wanted as unassigned. If we do consider them unassigned, then you'd have to consider anybody who applied for a voluntary year round school in the past but was denied as unassigned. They still had an assignment but they wanted something different.
I don't like the plan either, so I'm not trying to persuade you of its merits. Just pointing out where I think that particular argument breaks down. Kids who were given no seats at all as well as those who were assigned to schools with no transportation and haven't been given a different choice are unacceptable situations. The rest start to get greyer for me.
They've updated the wcpss
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 15:06 — parent1They've updated the wcpss website and state that those who are "unassigned" will have an assignment by April 26th. There is no mention of the 800+ students who have been pre-assigned to a school with no transportation and did not receive an assignment to a school on their choice list during round 1. I understand this is a difficult task but updates would be helpful. We moved up 3 spots yesterday on the waitlist which was strange since it was Saturday? We moved up 2 spots on Thursday so a total of 5 spots since this process began - 43 more spots and we are in!
...
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 11:05 — Sideburns...if anyone (seated or not) participated in the choice rounds, and was waitlisted (not given a new seat from their list of choices), they were "unassigned" by this new plan.
Not true. Current WCPSS students didn't have to participate in the process because they have an assignment. Also, they didn't have to prioritize all their choices -- just the ones they would prefer more than their current one. Their current school could be their 2nd "choice". Therefore, at the end of the round, they are assigned.
Choice will always be restricted by capacity issues. That's not new with this plan.
I think you need to understand the history of assignment in Wake County. In the past, current students were pushed out to make room for newcomers. Magnet parents had guarantees of returning to their neighborhood school. So did charter, private and homeschoolers when they wanted back into the public school system. That, in my opinion, was wrong. That doesn't explain you being left unassigned but it does explain why a few are upset over the rules being changed.
plan negatively impacts many
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:41 — sam123456and now businesses won't come here. if i was being relocated here now I would move to chapel hill. instead now I am one of many whose kids will be forced to be bused to schools farther away and whose families will be split apart.
Do you Believe
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 16:01 — local23Everything that this Mayor and/or journalism says? You should pick up the local papers, because believe me there are a many businesses moving here and others are expanding! Schools are one factor, not all encompassing. The school system is still pretty good, not great, but pretty good, but really with all of the choices being offered to the parents it's a ton better than being forced into only one school or a less desirable school.
While I know that you are having issues with your situation, please let me know what schools you applied for? What is your base and your current school? so that we can direct you to the correct staff member and/or board member to help address your issues
That anaysis is logically
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 16:40 — TarHeelFan3That anaysis is logically flawed. the isue is not how many moved here but how many more would have moved here.
And the problem is not just now. Over time as this system of have and have not schools starts producing have (an education) and have not citizens, then you will really see employers locating elsewhere.
And...
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 16:53 — Bob_SconceThat has a flaw of its own. How do you find what would have happened? That's just hand-waving.
BTW... This system ALREADY produces have- and have-not students. I don't know if you've noticed, but ED students in Wake County underperform their peers elsewhere in the state.
...
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 16:09 — SideburnsDon't bother. sam doesn't answer questions.
Last time I checked, CH is
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 07:59 — shearertwLast time I checked, CH is still allowing people to move there.
So much arrogance and ignorance
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 21:25 — Apexter“What you’re seeing is the business community finally turning their attention to student assignment and telling the school board and city councils why it won’t work," Brannon said. "It’s flattering to say that it’s because of us.”
So much arrogance and ignorance, all in one sentence.
The business community (as in the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce) finally turning their attention to student assignment?
The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce is one of the primary drivers behind the huge discord in the system over the past several years. When WCPSS was considering using some MYR as a means to reduce the size of a bond issue several years back, GRCofC "helpfully" volunteered to pay for a poll to help determine how much bond voters would be willing to pay for. They produced a monstrosity of a push poll. It started with a question asking if the people knew how year round schools worked. (The majority admitted they didn't know much). It then gave a Pollyanna-ish explanation of year round schools, extolling all its virtues while ignoring any potential downsides, followed with blatantly loaded questions along the lines of "If you knew that converting schools to year round increases their capacity by a third, which would you prefer --- having a billion dollar bond to build X number schools, or converting some schools to year round, and paying a lot less?" They then used the answers from this loaded poll to convince the board and the commisioners that the community wouldn't support a bond issue without MYR. And, conveniently enough, the vast majority of all that MYR would affect the folks living outside of Raleigh, so Raleigh real estate prices were left sitting pretty, while those in certain communities were looking at families split among different calendars.
Then, after being responsible for the MYR mayhem inflicted on the county, when the backlash resulted in new board members coming in trying to reform a system that concentrated all the favorable inequities (magnet schools) in Raleigh and the unfavorable inequities (forced MYR, schools intentionally weakend in order to make magnets look better, long distances from magnets, and MYR) in the outer edges of the county, the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce then stuck its nose in again and brought us the Alves plan -- which is essentially what we are stuck with today.
Don't flatter yourself, Ms. Brannon. The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce has been sticking its nose into assignment issues for some time now, to the detriment of our community. If you'd bothered to learn about the problems the system had been facing for years, you'd know that. Believe it or not, it's not all about you.
Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/questioning-whether-the-new-wake-county-student-assignment-plan-is-hurting-business-recruitme#comments#storylink=cpy
Don't forget Beverley Clark was a yes vote for MYR
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:56 — FSandYOUThat's where the real mayhem was inflicted on the county and that's the point when oodles of parents and voters said screw that, enough is enough. Add that to constant reassignments that Clark was a big fan of and the oodles of parents she, and they, simply shut out and low and behold, we have a NEW assignment model.
Wow, I bet she never saw it coming.
Wonder if Head and Millberg did?
I remember Clark being
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:40 — jenmanI remember Clark being quoted as saying that she was hearing from her constituents that they were in favor of MYR. Of course they were, it lowered the bond amount and none of them were forced to go year round. It was terrific for them.
Her Lacy constituents were
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 23:07 — ApexterHer Lacy constituents were violently opposed to MYR until Lacy got pulled from the plan. As long as it was other peoples' kids, though, MYR was just peachy.
Thanks for the info,
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:05 — jenmanThanks for the info, Apexter. I had no idea about the push poll they did. I guess I may have known about it back then but I've forgotten. Very very interesting.
Schmitt is happy as long he can take visiting leaders to all of the great magnet schools downtown and brag about how all of our schools are wonderful. (Never mind that Knightdale and the rest of Eastern Wake County has been taking a back seat for years). I wonder how happy Schmitt will be with the Alves plan now that the affluent people living downtown aren't all getting seats in their local schools.
...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 14:50 — SideburnsBrannon is busy picking up supporters here and there. She's passing out business cards and attempting to rebrand GSIW with a friendly "Let's find a better way" campaign. Sadly, many parents will be fooled into believing GSIW wants to help them. In reality, they just want to make noise and continue throwing their tantrums in an attempt to bring back diversity. They don't really care about stability or helping families get proximate assignments.
I bet they miss the good ol' days of candlelight vigils, filing complaints and dressing up in costume for Board meetings. You can't do that when you have the majority. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
What arrogance!Yevonne
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:26 — shearertwWhat arrogance!
Yevonne Brannon, chairwoman of the Great Schools in Wake Coalition, was skeptical of the Chamber's influence.
"The Chamber is a downtown Raleigh-focused group," Brannon said. "They don't represent the parents. They don't represent the community."
Newsflash Yevonne! You don't represent but a few wacko parents that is NOT a representation of the WC community at large. I'm willing to bet that 95% of WC parents have never heard of you or GSWC.
Actually...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 18:44 — bpuli9999the Chamber does NOT represent parents - they represent the local business community. And interests of both groups might not always converge.
Didn't say they did...just
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:33 — shearertwDidn't say they did...just said GSIW didn't represent anyone relevant ...retread my post.
Deviations from the original 87 page plan...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:31 — eztaylorMy apologies to those who saw this post on a different blog story, but I wanted this information to be read and understood by as many as possible:
There are two significant deviations from the original 87 page plan.
1. Priorities were to be applied to first choice schools (page 27) and then, if necessary, proceed through a sequential priority process (see page 28), reapplying priorities to second choice schools, and on until all students were seated or capacity was reached.
The algorithm applied priorities to first choice schools ONLY, then placed students who did not get thier first choice in a single pool where they were ranked by their random lottery number (more power to you if you have more than 1 child, as the highest # was assigned to all of your children). The justification was that this would maximize first choice success rates. Another justification, per Mr. Overman, was that Mr. Alves said this would be easier for parents to understand.
I've worked the math, and you can apply priority to a second choice school without at all reducing the first choice success rate, as long as you process all first choice schools first, and not displace any students seated in that first choice round. It is a win/win for more students and promotes neighborhood schools. As it stands, if your first choice is overcapacity, you are in a random lottery for all other choices.
2. The other big deviation is wait lists. The task force apparently spent much time on setting wait list expiration dates. From the plan, waitlists were to stay in place until the 10th day of the school year. They are now to be dissolved as of June 29, 2012.
The justification is that per pupil funding is assigned to a student and if that student leaves after school begins to attend a newly open seat at another school, the funding does not follow him.
This justification is without merit: if Johnny leaves school A to occupy a newly open seat at school B, the seat at school B already has funding left over from the student who vacated the seat. School A keeps the funding, which can then be used to educate the student that who takes Johnny's old seat.
The plan now calls for waitlists to dissolve, and when seats open in July and August they will be filled on a first come first serve basis - NOT OPEN TO ANY STUDENT WHO ALREADY HAS A SEAT. Only newcomers can get these seats.
I predict overnight campouts in front of the popular schools - just like lining up to buy a concert ticket - not exactly what the school board should be encouraging.
Does Harvey...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 09:02 — bpuli9999know of any companies that did not come here when the old plan was in place?
Thanks KEUNG
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:52 — spiffy1Thanks for including the very important information about the Mayor's husband. It's something I think the public needs to know.
No surprise there
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:52 — TarHeelFan3Another unkept promise by WCPSS staff. The level of incompetence is astonishing.
Hold on...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:57 — Bob_SconceThey're not incompetent; they're just severely overworked. A primary way that the district has dealt with round after round of budget cuts has been to shrink the central office -- the Broad Academy thought they might be too lean, and then it was cut again.
Between now and next year, they need to automate big parts of the process that are clearly being done manually right now.
Not so sure...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 08:57 — bpuli9999about that. Headcount numbers never really include the hundreds of contractors they employ. And you'd be surprised at the rates they pay the contractors - especially for the IT related stuff. Never quite understood the outsourcing of processes that could be done in-house for a lot cheaper. Except for the fact that they can say how low their headcount is....
Well if they do not thave
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 08:02 — TarHeelFan3Well if they do not thave the resources to make the transformation, why did they elect to impliment a new plan when 95% of the parents were satisfied with the schools they were assigned to under the old plan?
Again, incompetence. I doubt ole tony would have walked into battle if he lacked the troop to win and yet you are suggesting that is what happened here.
Point of correction-troops
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 12:42 — DrActualFactualPoint of correction-troops get ordered into battle and often go without the appropriate supplies like uparmored vehicles or enough troops by their side--you must have forgotten the requests made before congress for troop surge and the administrations decision to go with fewer troops prior to their enlightenment that a surge of troops was needed.
?
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:19 — Bob_SconceEvery single one of those parents (other than the ones who have to move on to a new school) can stay at their school. You can't take the survey numbers as an indication the people were satisfied with the then-current assignment plan. I know I said I was satisfied with my kids' school, even though I detested the assignment plan.
They (the staff) did not
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 08:15 — starsonoursThey (the staff) did not elect to impliment a new plan, the BoE decided to do that (7-2 vote). The staff is doing what the BoE instructed them to do.
Yep 95% were satisfied with the school they were attending, did anyone ask if they were satisfied with the assignment plan that placed them there?
A year ago March,
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 09:44 — ScoreOneTata asked for, and received permission to take on the student assignment question. It was Tata directing a handpicked team of employees that came up with this plan after six months from behind locked doors.
The Board voted for it after being told umpteen times, it was too late to make substantive changes, to wait and let the process play out, to tweak it later.
The BOE elected to implement
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 09:37 — tropicalgirlThe BOE elected to implement the plan on the say-so of the superintendent and his staff who should have been well aware of whether they had the capacity and resources to successfully put the plan into place or not. And quite frankly, if the vast majority of parents are happy with this plan and the assignment they have, the staff should be able to address the minority who have problems in a better manner than they have. Changing rules, deadlines and information are not acceptable for people who are stuck going through this process. The website still reflects March 26 as the date people on the proximity waitlists would receive word on whether they were moved or not. That has been moved to April 9 and now seems to have no timeline attached to it, yet the website provides none of that updated information.
So it is possible...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 08:59 — bpuli9999to be happy with the school you are sending to your kids to but unhappy about the process that got them there? So people are now happy about the process but unhappy about the schools?
lol
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 09:58 — EBDarcyThanks for pointing out the silliness of that argument, that's been made by the GOP and supporters ever since the results of the survey they order came back and didn't provide the policital cover they thought it would. Now we have people unhappy with the process and unhappy with their school. Or lack of a school. That's an improvement?
They are two separate
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 15:16 — starsonoursThey are two separate issues. You can like the process and dislike the school you can like the process and like the school, you dislike the process and dislike the school, you can dislike the process and like the school. Saying you approve/disapprove of one does not mean the same is true of the other. The silliness is how you and others try to link the two together. If I were to ask you did you enjoy your vacation and you said yes. Then explained the 4 layovers 3 missed flights, lost luggage, and 3 nights spent sleeping on the floor of the airport. But once I got to my destination I enjoyed myself. Can I conclude you enjoyed how you got there and would not want to change anything? Well according to you the answer is yes you enjoyed the destination and the way you arrived there.
not sure
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 16:29 — EBDarcyNot sure you are responding to me, but if you are its not a good analogy. A one week vacation is over and done with in a week, though you might be telling the story of the adventure getting there at dinner parties for years :)
On the other hand if your child gets there 4,5,6, or 7th choice for kindergartern that locks them into that school as well as the middle and high schools on that feeder pattern. 13 years. Sure you can try to get to another school but your chances of getting into the more desirable schools past k are very slim.
Your right the old
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:41 — starsonoursYour right the old assignment plan was much better. You did not have to worry about we're you would be k-12 there never was a predictable path! You had the opportunity to change schools and feeder patterns constantly! It was so full of surprises and instability ooh what fun it was.
Sounds like what we have now.
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 23:14 — TarHeelFan3Sounds like what we have now.