Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane is speaking out against the new Wake County student assignment plan, and Superintendent Tony Tata says they make changes to address her concerns.
As noted in today's online article by Thomas Goldsmith, McFarlane said the new assignment plan is beginning to hurt efforts to recruit businesses to the area. McFarlane said she is starting to hear that some businesses have second thoughts about coming here.
“With us trying to recruit businesses to come here, we are trying to compete with municipalities all around the globe,” said McFarlane at today's joint meeting of the school board and Wake County Mayors Association. “The big thing is, ‘Where are my kids going to go to school?’ And there’s no answer. That’s a deal breaker.”
The heart of the issue seems to be that the choice plan doesn't include base assignments, which would have more of an impact on new families moving to the area.
Tata said he took McFarlane’s comments seriously and would work with the school board on meeting concerns from company executives and others who worry about the placement of children from newcomers’ families.
Tata said the school board and he would consider moves such as increasing capacity at some schools, even though that would run counter to the plan’s goal of reducing overcrowding by making best use of all schools’ capacity.
“There are some things we can perhaps do better,” Tata said. “As you implement, you learn lessons and take those lessons and try to improve.”
As an example of a means to accommodate more newcomers, Tata said that instead of reducing a given school from 120 percent of capacity to 100 percent, the system could explore going halfway to 110 percent. That would mean the school would have 10 percent more children in attendance than its stated capacity.
Comments
Keung Help Please--Question about affiliation
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 22:31 — spiffy1Is Mayor Nancy McFarlane's husband, Ron McFarlane, the one listed as being on the Board of Advisors for WakeUP (found here: http://wakeupwakecounty.com/cms/about)? Interestingly enough, when you go to WakeUP's site and look under their "growth issues" tab-go over schools--Greater Schools in Wake Coalition pops us and it leads you here: http://wakeupwakecounty.com/cms/greatschools ; meanwhile the WakeUP banner is still displayed...
If so, is anyone in the media willing to ask her if this would have any impact on her opinion about this plan or at the very least have this information somewhere in the article?
Thanks!
He is...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:11 — Bob_SconceCheck out today's blog post.
As this plan...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 19:51 — bpuli9999is turning into a mess, the republican BoE members are strangely quiet. Not a peep out JT, CM, DP or DG. They were vociferous on adopting this plan 6 months ago. Neighborhood schools, they said. Now that it turns out that the plan does not do that, they jumped on to the "stability" bandwagon. Like it is important right now to know what high school the kindergartner will go to. Now that the feeder patterns stink, they are probably trying to figure what they are going to have to say about this plan.
And don't forget the kids
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 18:02 — TarHeelFan3And don't forget the kids whose parents are so lacking in interest in their kids'education that they do not select a school. They will all go to the same crappy school that no one else wanted their kids to attend. Wait until those folks are young adults in 10 to 15 years.
Maybe mommy and Dada should pay closer attention
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 20:54 — FSandYOUThey are the ones causing their kids to suffer when they don't. No one else is to blame except mommy and dada.
They are 6 year olds! Do you
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 21:28 — TarHeelFan3They are 6 year olds! Do you not have an ounce of humanity. How am I going to blame the kids parents when I am paying to build the prisons that we'll need to house this kid and his classmates?
Do you think they all are 6 yrs old?
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 22:59 — FSandYOUYou need to catch up!
In between your prison building.
My apologies...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 19:14 — willynillyfor breaking in here, but this is important. Some time ago I posted many times how schools (charter and public) have abused teachers and tried their best to go in the opposite direction of progress. Someone on this very blog asked if "have you ever considered that the problem is youu?" Well, I answered honestly and said that I had considered this. Well, anyone who has been following the developments of East Wake Academy in Zebulon may now reconsider their position.....or........one may consider that I may have been correct abouth the WCPSS ......... AND EWA. Ahhhhhh, the fun of politics ansd November right around the corner......right former chair of the WCPSS board? Can you spell FOX news Ron? Yeah, you din't get the mail.....the registered mail with your signature. Yeah, politicians have your word on these things. Hmmmmm.....I love election years. I tried to do this quietly. Honestly, I don;t care if I ever teach again after this all goes public. Now........who to give the interview to......and the emails......and the documents.
Now Tata please don't act so surprised.......
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 13:55 — BeverleyClarkAs the myriad of problems with this crazy Lottery Assignment plan unfold, it brings to mind Donald Rumsfeld’s quote: “You have your known unknowns and then you have your unknown unknowns.” As a result of inadequate planning and minimal public input this plan is having a hugely negative impact on the success of our community---too many unknown unknowns.
In January of this year, Great Schools in Wake put out a position paper that itemized 10 clearly “known” flaws with the plan. (http://wakeupwakecounty.com/cms/sites/default/files/GSIW_Position_Paper_on_Student_Assigment.pdf ), see points # 6 and 8. On January 9, in an email exchange, a PTA President sent Mr. Tata a link to that position paper. Tata replied, “Thx, Leslie. Always appreciate your input. It seems the document you provide is filled with inaccuracies so I provide a cut/paste counterpoint to it from another citizen on the Wake Ed Blog.” (That citizen was ‘For Wake’)
Now really....a Superintendent answering a PTA Pres. with an anonymous blog posting?
However, Tata knew that the post's author “For Wake” is his good friend aka Brenda Berg. The citizens of Wake County might be interested to know that Ms. Berg has had access to all the algorithms and planning assumptions---since last summer. She is neither an elected official nor an accountable staff member, but she has had more information than any other private citizen; in fact she has had access to more of the plan's details than the newly elected Board members! I guess this is what Tata calls transparency.
It is pretty disingenuous of Tata to disregard the very prescient concerns that GSIW raised months ago as “False and Misleading”. It is Ms. Berg and her good friend Tony who are guilty of misleading the public!
It is time to take this plan back to the drawing board. We need an assignment plan that gives every address an assignment, that doesn’t penalize newcomers and the real estate market, and that provides stability for families-this lottery fails on every count!
ps. this is my first blog posting; I have no alias.
The point of these plans is...
Sat, 04/14/2012 - 23:21 — eztaylorThe 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."
No one who did their homework before buying this plan should be at all surprised by this outcome.
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.
Sun, 04/15/2012 - 00:08 — eztaylorBeing a former insider
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 21:29 — occum_sharpewho would you say was/is responsible for keeping the democratic board majority from pulling the emergency brake on this train wreck? Is the board in bed with WEP and/or the Chamber of Commerce? Are they holding back because Kevin Hill won't vote with them? It is just really suspicious to me that this board complains a lot about how things are, but yet they have a majority, can stop the plan, and refuse to even address it.
You are part of the reason the new plan exist Bev!
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 21:02 — FSandYOUHad Beverley Clark not voted to mandate the life schedule changes of over 10,000+ kids through that MYR fiasco, one that cost this county more money than it saved, had Beverley Clark not voted to reassign kids on a yearly basis, had Beverly Clark not shut out parents and their opinions the entire time she was on the board ...
We would never have had a need for this new plan to be created!
As it is, YOU Beverley Clark can look in the mirror everyday and blame yourself for this one too! Funny how your partners Patti and Lori are nowhere to be found on the issue.
As for the plan going "back to the drawing board", keep dreaming. Your MYR schools start in July. Or did you forget that too?
Why are you attacking Brenda?
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:06 — snordoneShe has been your friend for years. The point of this is to compromise, to work together to balance all the different interests and concerns. Brenda and I have had our disagreements, but she does not deserve this degree of malice simply because she chose to work with Tony rather than blindly agree with Yevonne's crazy notions of how this system should work. GSIW has become so extreme and in doing so has lost all opportunity to sit at the table and be part of the discussion. Brenda chose to be part of the conversation, thankfully. She has something constructive to contribute. Do you?
...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 15:54 — SideburnsYou have some nerve. You sat on that Board for (too) many years and reassigned family after family, year after year and now you come on this blog and demand stability? You are completely disingenuous and, like the rest of your GSIW team, hateful.
You may not have an alias but I think many on this blog have a name for you.
Done with....
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 19:48 — bpuli9999all the emails already?
Eh...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:37 — Bob_SconceThe plan's problems come mainly because the district is very tight on capacity. The solution is to get looser on capacity -- build more schools. Until that happens, we will either have (1) lots of people reassigned every year, or (2) newcomers getting put into whatever schools have capacity. It's not possible to get rid of both of those unless there's some spare capacity.
The plan does provide stability. Under this plan, I know where my kids are going to go to school next year, the year after, and so on until they graduate. When your namesake (I don't know if you're the same Beverley Clark who was on the board) was on the board, nobody ever knew that. Sure, there's some transition pain, and some rough edges. But, both of those will be substantially smoothed out before next year.
As to GSIW, they're a fringe group. If they want to be paid attention to, then they need to act like adults, not spoiled children with their catcalls, booing and "Liar liar pants on fire" moments.
The stability of knowing
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:55 — tropicalgirlThe stability of knowing where your child will go is valuable and I'm glad you and so many others are getting that from this plan. But that stability is a cold comfort to people who were assigned to feeder patterns with middle and high schools far away that they never would have chosen and are now playing the lottery trying to get out. And going through the choice process has been the opposite of stability with rules, deadlines and answers changing on a daily basis. I hope you're right that the rough edges are smoothed out in the coming year but that is also cold comfort to those of us who feel that are children are being treated as collateral damage.
Yes....
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 15:06 — Bob_SconceI agree with your complaints about how the plan was pushed out and changed along the way. I count those as rough edges, and I believe that next year will be substantially smoother.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but somebody is going to get the raw end of any assignment plan -- there's just no way of getting around that. In this case, it's unfortunately your kids. That stinks.
The only real solution will be to get some more capacity into the district. In that, there is one benefit to the new assignment plan: we now know where those schools need to be. Where? I think you know the answer -- somewhere close to your house.
are you saying
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 20:51 — EBDarcyI don't know how you can claim that this plan tells WCPSS something it didn't know before. Do you think they didn't know where the most overcrowded schools were? The schools that people were trying to get into via application or transfer or other means? Wasn't familiar with the growth patterns? Tata has been talking about where schools are needed since last fall. The schools that were underchosen is no surprise, nor are the ones with long waiting lists.
And I thought
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 20:41 — Solon77And I thought the issue all along was the diversity policy. To your point there is very little flexibility due to lack of capacity. That is not likely to change anytime soon so I don't know why we should expect anything different next year .
So...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 21:20 — Bob_SconceThe diversity policy certainly increased the extent of previous reassignments by adding an additional consideration into the reassignment mix. But, worse, it was a failure. You only have to compare the performance of WCPSS ED students with those of ED students elsewhere in the state.
Look at the new Walnut Creek ES -- before that school opened, those kids were being sent to the Leesville area! How screwy is that?
Next year, we should have 2 new elementary schools on-line (The two that didn't open as modulars this year). That will help some. In addition, the district will have had a year to smooth out the rough edges on the assignment plan. But, the long-term solution is clearly additional capacity. I suspect part of that will come from modulars, and part will come from permanent structures.
The board's main goal, therefore, should be to get a new bond referendum passed. To do that, the board is going to have to start acting like grown-ups and some of them will have to put their professorial egos away.
new elementary schools?
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 21:35 — turnerk1I wasn't aware that there were any elementary schools opening other than the two modular schools, and I can't find anything about them on the website. What schools are these and where are they? Currently there is no funding to build permanent campuses for Abbotts Creek or Richland Creek.
?
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:12 — Bob_SconceI was only talking about the two modulars. I was under the impression that the permanent campuses were funded under the old bond.
nope
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:41 — turnerk1One of the schools has yet to be funded at all, and the funding for the other was reallocated to other projects. I'm assuming they are planning to build them with money from the new bond offering (whenever that will be).
No relief in sight
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 12:34 — Solon77No relief in sight for ES. For HS we have the convenience of Rolesville. It will be interesting to see how that one plays out.
Amen to this: As to GSIW,
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:44 — jenmanAmen to this: As to GSIW, they're a fringe group. If they want to be paid attention to, then they need to act like adults, not spoiled children with their catcalls, booing and "Liar liar pants on fire" moments.
I was thinking about your building more schools comment and how do we fill new schools. I wonder how much different the numbers would have been if the two new elem schools were opening in their permanent buildings rather than modular campuses. I don't recall offhand how far away Richlands Creek is from the Dubois modular campus, but I don't blame parents for not choosing Abbotts Creek. I wouldn't want to go all the way down to Spring Forest & Capital when I could go to Durant or Wakefield instead. It's hard selling a modular campus much farther away to parents when they can choose something else.
Yes...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:47 — Bob_SconceModular campuses worked when you could force students to go to them. They don't work when people have choices.
Private citizens having
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:36 — jenmanPrivate citizens having access to assignment policies and procedures is nothing new. I don't like the fact that Berg (or any other private citizen) has that much inside info either, but let's be real here. Dulaney had his secret assignment committee. Bader and Sherron certainly had as much information and influence as Berg does now and they weren't elected or qualified either. In what is the sickest thing I've heard, I met the parent who was given the task of deciding who would be moved out of Wildwood Forest to make room for the Riverside neighborhood. Dulaney invited this parent to come in, use the assignment software and figure out who would have to go. That's a disgusting position to put a parent in.
Some of GSIW's positions and info are misleading. Just like many of Student Assignment's statements have been. I don't like this plan either but you guys have missed the mark time and time again. January is too late for anybody to come up with a 'cease and desist' order, no matter how good the arguments might be.
If this plan had been approved by a 5-4 party line vote I would have some sympathy. But Morrison and McLaurin voted for this plan. I was shocked at how little discussion there was and how few of the obvious, see them coming from a mile away issues/questions were raised. Even Hill & Sutton didn't bring up much of anything beyond concerns about diversity. Where was everybody?!?
I do appreciate you posting here under your real name. Takes guts to put yourself out there, although I know you are no stranger to speaking your mind and taking the arrows.
Show me what is False and Misleading here...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 14:58 — BeverleyClarkFrom GSIW's position paper...
"(6) The plan threatens home values and does not accommodate our County’s ongoing growth.
All across the country prospective homebuyers make decisions based on the schools their children will attend if they live in a particular neighborhood. That security is no longer guaranteed, as the plan deals with growth by dividing neighborhoods, reassigning people to unpopular schools, and inevitably discouraging people from moving to Wake County—unless they can afford a private school education. Home values will plummet as new buyers will be stuck with whatever schools are leftover in a school system that is quickly running out of vacant seats.
The plan is based on "available seats," while not accounting for the fact that there is a projected seat deficit for elementary school seats starting in four years, middle school seats in about six years and high school seats in two years, with deficits currently in existence in certain geographic areas. The uncertainty of the current plan casts a looming shadow over the bond referendum required to accommodate future growth.
(7) The voters rejected the previous Board 5-0 this fall.
The fall election was a referendum on the policies and practices of the last two years. The current version of the plan reflects and embodies those failed policies. Citizens recognized that the plans afoot were costly and poorly conceived which is why those who supported this plan in the election were defeated. Our community wants this plan improved now to avoid making expensive fixes later. To do otherwise is simply defies best business practices.
(8) The plan shuts out newcomers.
The uncertainty created by this new plan discourages people from moving to Wake County, which makes this plan bad for our economy. Newcomers to the area, as well as kindergarten students or students transferring from private, charter, or home schools to public schools, are only given access to what everyone else didn’t choose. Realtors are already reporting that people who had intended to move to Wake County are either choosing a neighboring county or not coming at all. We will be forcing many families to choose homes based on their best “shot” at getting a seat in a preferred school."
Regarding Bob's comment about consistency of where you go to school. No doubt about it, there was too much reassignment in my day.....the number of students almost doubled in 10 years and we had the National Superintendent of the Year. At least you knew where your address was assigned; when you were moved you were moved with your neighbors---not child by child. As to the solution being build more schools.....Don't count on it. Any thought of a Bond is DOA...imho....
(6) The plan threatens home
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 16:44 — jenman(6) The plan threatens home values and does not accommodate our County’s ongoing growth.
All across the country prospective homebuyers make decisions based on the schools their children will attend if they live in a particular neighborhood.
Interesting that you would make this argument considering that's exactly what the old boards, including the one you served on, said that Wake County residents should not and could not do. We could be moved at any time to any school that you saw fit.
That security is no longer guaranteed, as the plan deals with growth by dividing neighborhoods, reassigning people to unpopular schools, and inevitably discouraging people from moving to Wake County—unless they can afford a private school education. Home values will plummet as new buyers will be stuck with whatever schools are leftover in a school system that is quickly running out of vacant seats.
I agree that the security of a base school is not there anymore and that newcomers will be divided from current residents in many cases. But who is getting reassigned to unpopular schools? Nobody is getting reassigned. Once you are in your elem school you know where you will be for the rest of your school career. You can choose to apply elsewhere but you will not be reassigned against your wishes.
I find it interesting that now it's okay to talk about property values and assignment when for years that was taboo and elitist. Some areas will have a problem with seat capacity while other areas won't. Just like in previous assignment plans some areas were screwed and others weren't.
The plan is based on "available seats," while not accounting for the fact that there is a projected seat deficit for elementary school seats starting in four years, middle school seats in about six years and high school seats in two years, with deficits currently in existence in certain geographic areas. The uncertainty of the current plan casts a looming shadow over the bond referendum required to accommodate future growth.
This plan deals with future growth better than the old system. Nodes don't have to be moved once a school gets overcrowded or a new neighborhood gets built. Students aren't continually crammed into an overcrowded school--they are assigned to a different one. In the case of newcomers entering after K, they may get assigned to a school farther away but at the entry level, proximity will take over.
I agree that the capacity at our schools is an issue in many areas, but that is true no matter what the assignment plan is. It's not as if going to a base assignment is going to change that. Getting a bond referedum wasn't a sure thing before this plan either so you can't really use that boogeyman. People were not satisfied with what was happening before so it's not like we've eroded some big support for a referendum.
(7) The voters rejected the previous Board 5-0 this fall.
The fall election was a referendum on the policies and practices of the last two years. The current version of the plan reflects and embodies those failed policies. Citizens recognized that the plans afoot were costly and poorly conceived which is why those who supported this plan in the election were defeated. Our community wants this plan improved now to avoid making expensive fixes later. To do otherwise is simply defies best business practices.
The election had absolutely nothing to do with this assignment plan. You're right that the election was a referendum on the practices of the 2009 board, but it had nothing to do with the assignment plan. Heck, most people had no clue about the assignment plan at all, let alone voted for their school board members based on it. People wanted change in 2009, they just didn't like how the board went about it. The 2011 elections weren't about the diversity component being gone from assignment. It was about how the board did things and fear played an important factor. The whole Art Pope/Tea Party thing was a bigger factor than assignment was.
(8) The plan shuts out newcomers.
The uncertainty created by this new plan discourages people from moving to Wake County, which makes this plan bad for our economy. Newcomers to the area, as well as kindergarten students or students transferring from private, charter, or home schools to public schools, are only given access to what everyone else didn’t choose. Realtors are already reporting that people who had intended to move to Wake County are either choosing a neighboring county or not coming at all. We will be forcing many families to choose homes based on their best “shot” at getting a seat in a preferred school."
Our assignment policy has always been a issue for newcomers. 5 years ago I could have made the same statement: "Realtors are already reporting that people who had intended to move to Wake are choosing another county or not coming at all". This is nothing new and doesn't really tell us anything. Which Realtors? You're likely only hearing from ones that really don't like the plan. Just as I was likely only hearing from Realtors who didn't like the previous assignment policies.
So...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 15:56 — Bob_SconceNewcomers are the definite losers under the plan -- basically, they have to choose whatever seats are left over after all the current residents get their choices. Whether that's a feature or a bug depends on where you're sitting.
As you pointed out, when you were on the board, new growth was a significant factor in the number of reassignments. In that game, current residents were the losers, and newcomers were the winners.
I'm not much of a fan of pitting those two groups against each other -- we all benefit from growth in many intangible ways. But, growth also imposes costs. So, there has got to be some way to get growth to pay for itself, whether it be through impact fees or exactions or whatever.
One benefit of Mayor McFarlane's discomfort with the current assignment plan is the new pressure on her to find a way to get growth to pay for itself. Realize that her problem isn't really the assignment plan -- that just came about because people were fed up with decades of reassignments caused by growth that wasn't paid for. She wants growth? Great. Find a way to build enough schools to accommodate it.
It's not just the newcomers
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 16:21 — parent1It's not just the newcomers who are the losers. Some of us are life-long residents of Raleigh. Those of us who have children who will be transitioning to a new school next year (K, 6th, or 9th) find ourselves with NO choices. All 3 high school choices for those who live in mid-town Raleigh are full with waiting lists. I've had children in Wake County Public Schools for 13 years. I attended Wake County Public Schools from 1970-1983 (except for 3 years at Catholic school when my parents didn't feel like moving to avoid a less desirable school). My mother attended Raleigh City Schools. We are NOT new to Raleigh and we would like our youngest child to attend the same high school that her older sibling currently attends (12th grader so not a sibling). All of her friends and neighbors will be attending that high school except for a few others like her who are stuck in limbo - some will be attending private schools because they have already given up on getting a spot at one of their "choice/lottery" high schools. Our neighborhood high school is 3 miles away. We have 2 other high schools within 4.5 miles but they are also full. For those who think our situation is unusual, it is not. There are lots of families in similar situations. There are 200+ with no assignment at all and there are 800+ who have been pre-assigned to distant schools with no transportation and did not get into one of their "choice/lottery" schools during the first round. Many are on waitlists and the "proximity" waitlists have not been worked - we are waiting and waiting. It's easy to say that this will be fixed for next year but that does not help those of us with rising K, 6th, and 9th graders. Our hands are tied.
Oh...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 16:33 — Bob_SconceSorry, didn't mean to imply that they're the only losers. But, between newcomers and old-timers, the newcomers are the losers.
Doesn't your rising 9th grader have a feeder school? Are you just upset because it's not the same school as your older child is graduating from? Aren't all her school friends going to that feeder school?
Recognize that the situation you're talking about -- where the younger student doesn't go to the same high school as the older student went -- used to happen all the time under the old assignment plan.
In any case, yours is a transition problem that will solve itself over time. Next year's kindergarteners know what elementary, middle and high schools they'll go to. Under the new assignment plan, the rug won't be pulled out from under them.
I suspect that your rising 9th grader is in a magnet middle school -- am I right?
Yes, she's at a magnet
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 17:13 — parent1Yes, she's at a magnet middle school. Most of her friends are there as base students so will not be on the same feeder pattern. Those who are there as magnet students find themselves in the same predicament. Some who live in our area will be going to private or charter schools. Most of the magnet students at that middle school live much further away in Cary, Apex, or North Raleigh past 540 - those students have different schools to choose from. She's been pre-assigned to Enloe with no transportation and given 3 other choices all of which are full with waiting lists. Enloe supposedly has 228 students on the waitlist which we assumed would work in our favor. Some of the rising 9th graders at Broughton are on the waitlist for Enloe. After 2 months of waiting, the waitlist hasn't changed at all - we have exactly the same number we had 2 months ago.
Yeah...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 20:02 — Bob_SconceSo, magnet parents are understandably upset -- they went into the magnet program assuming that the underlying assignment scheme would stay in place, but that assumption has now been broken.
Would you send your child to Broughton if she had the chance? I'm assuming the answer is yes.
I would hope that the assignment algorithm would be able to detect loops like yours -- your daughter wants to switch from Enloe to Broughton; there are students who would like switch from Broughton to Enloe. It ought to be possible to make that happen. Unfortunately, I know the programming involved, and suspect it's a manual process. If you can identify somebody at Broughton who's on the waitlist, you'd think you could call up the student assignment folks and play "let's make a deal." The downside, though, is that the deal-making should really start at the top of the waitlist, now somewhere 1/2 way down where you are.
Perhaps you can also address my situation...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 22:17 — eztaylorWe are not newcomers. My daughter is a rising 9th grader coming from a charter school that only goes through 8th grade. She attended Brassfield Elementary before moving to middle school, so we are not newcomers.
We were given three proximate choices, selected them in proximate order, and have no assignment. We are 150 on the list at our first choice. No one will be moving off this list because all three schools have wait lists.
We have no feeder pattern to return to, no seat at all, and yet others who already have seats were given seats at our three choices before we were even considered.
There are admitted errors in the algorithm and I was promised that our proximity points would be awarded and we would move up the list - hasn't happened.
There is indeed gridlock, and while there are people who would be willing to switch assignments with each other - for us that is no option because we would come to the table WITH NOTHING. We have no seat to barter or exchange.
9.28% of incoming 9th graders (from private, charter, new to system) remain unassigned. That is 57 students whom are being told to wait and trust in the system.
As we wait, others are being given seats ahead of us, and more people are moving to the area.
Oh, and by the way, several people have accepted private and charter school 9th grade seats but have no will or even way to relinquish their current assignments - those seats will be empty come August. Surely the board can develop a method to allow people to give up seats they have no intention of filling.
why can't they relinquish their seats
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:11 — EBDarcyWhy don't the people leaving the system call the school they are assigned to and growth and planning and tell them? Other people have been calling/writing to pull their kids off waiting lists. Of course there may be a disconnect between that info being received and the results info being updated.
When a student leaves to
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 12:32 — DrActualFactualWhen a student leaves to attend a different school (say private) the parents fill out a "withdrawal" slip and the system is notified that their space will no longer be required and they should remove them from attendance rolls. Perhaps for the choice plan a new form or a new deadline for official withdrawl could be enacted. In the meantime, perhaps a non-emergency, computer banner message could be sent to parents requesting early notification to the system of their decision to withdraw their child would help "work the seat count" for waiting list purposes.
That idea might work...
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 13:10 — eztaylorHowever, there is no way to require a parent to relinquish a seat until school begins in August - well after the waitlists are dissolved.
I do think that WCPSS should require charter schools to have parents provide proof of withdrawal before they can accept their charter school seats.
I think that was tried, but interestingly, come August, the public schools still had charter students on their roster. Seems like a communication problem to me.
When I pulled my son out to
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 13:29 — loriacWhen I pulled my son out to private school, I called the schools (his old and reassigned school) to tell them he wouldn't be attending. On both calls, there was surprise that I was actually doing this. Then, I was still getting notifications from both schools as if he were still enrolled. That is a process that is not done well.
Schools will establish their
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 14:34 — DrActualFactualSchools will establish their ADA (average daily attendance) usually during the first 10 to 20 days of the school year (locally this student count practice varies somewhat from what I have encountered in other states due to the use of YR and traditional schools). Schools here seem to "pad" their roster by not removing students they know are attending elsewhere (private or even at a system magnet) since the MOE might be dependent upon these numbers I am not surprised they are not quick to remove the students names.
I'm not sure why the wait
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 23:06 — parent1I'm not sure why the wait lists are being dissolved at the end of June. I think they should remain intact until after school starts because that is when they will know how many empty seats they truly have. Many rising 9th graders are holding seats that they will not be using - they will be attending charter and private schools; some may even move away. Until they start taking attendance, they have no idea who will be a no-show. In the case of high school, why can't they figure out a way in advance to determine these numbers? I'd be thrilled if we got our first choice even if school had already started! My child registered for classes at both the "undesired" school with no transportation and at the school where she is on the waitlist. Surprisingly, when she signed onto SPAN, it included both schools. These registrations were due before spring break. My idea is to have them check who has and has not registered for classes. Those that have not registered (provided they are assigned to a school) should be reminded to register and given a deadline. If they still do not register, they should be contacted and asked if they intend to attend that particular school. If they do not, have them sign a form giving up their spot. Then, numbers can be adjusted and they can take students off these long waitlists. In our case, I know of students going to both Raleigh Charter and St. Marys - quite a few of them. Those students know now - why not give them a chance to give up their spot? My other suggestion if we get desperate (aren't we already desperate!) is to conduct an audit on current students - anyone who has cheated during the previous assignment process should be removed from the school - that would create quite a few spots also. By cheater, those who have falsified their address, gotten a favor from administration, etc.....With the new system, the cheaters are grandfathered into their desired feeder pattern - isn't that nice? Next year, they won't be considered cheaters anymore.
So
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 07:17 — Bob_SconceI'll presume that waitlists are being dissolved at the end of June because the school year starts in July, and it's just an administrative nightmare to move students around after that. At some point, they have to say "Ok, this is what it is."
The no-show is an interesting thing -- I was under the impression that you could call student assignment and tell them that you won't be there.
Your idea about reaching out to those who haven't registered seems to be a good one.
Year round may start in July
Thu, 04/12/2012 - 09:47 — parent1Year round may start in July but not all schools. No high schools start in July. In the past, we have been aware of students getting in a week or two after school starts. For those of us willing to do that, they should allow us. Otherwise, when seats open up at the end of August or beginning of September, who will get those seats?
You bring up another good
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 20:29 — parent1You bring up another good point, some of those at the top of the waitlist live twice as far away - so much for the "proximity" plan.
...
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 20:45 — SideburnsDoes anyone else find it ironic that parents are now clawing over each other for their most proximate assignment? And that even GSIW is now touting the importance of stability? Gosh, what a difference 2 years has made.
We are certainly moving in the right direction.
issue not really proximity
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 14:00 — SatchHHI don't think people are clawing over each other for proximity, rather an assignment in the plan that is in line with the previous plan. So many of these students have been bumped out of their former base assignments (which often were most proximate!) and now they just want one of their choice schools. The plan claimed to favor proximity, so folks are pointing out that claims are not being met except in the case of the first choice. This is a huge problem wiht the information sent out about the plan. Knowing that all of the priorities (proximity, sibling) only applied to one's first choice school and then you go into a general lottery wasn't widely known.
There was WAY more stability under the old plan!!!
Well said! We want our base
Fri, 04/13/2012 - 15:49 — parent1Well said! We want our base assignment. The "proximity" issue is coming up because that's the way they marketed the plan. It sounded like a good idea; but in some cases, the feeder patterns have prevented that from happening. Under the old plan, our younger child would go to the base high school which is 3 miles away. Under the new plan, she is pre-assigned to a school 7 miles away with no transportation. So, "proximity" is not relevant in our case. And "choice" has been removed because the feeder pattern students from other middle schools took up all the seats at the 3 high schools that were on the "choice" list for our neighborhood. Bottom line for us is no proximity and no choice....and like 800 other families, no transportation. I have lived here all of my life. I have never heard of a child being assigned to a school without transportation UNLESS they voluntarily applied to attend a school without transportation. Round 2 ended yesterday and not one student has gotten into our former base school. When they calculated the number of feeder students, they underestimated and now no one living in the middle of Raleigh can get into a high school.
Perhaps
Wed, 04/11/2012 - 22:41 — Solon77Perhaps another explanation is that a majority of the people were already going to their proximate school and had a high degree of stability. The silent majority if you will. Now with the assignment plan - these people are being sent to schools not proximate, that is if they have been assigned and their stability is up in the air because of being reassigned via feeder patterns. But don't read much into it because the parents that are clawing over each other represents a fringe minority - much the way you were two years ago. It is a zero sum game - make 2,000 parents happy and tick off 2,000.