Was it fair to move some 100 Garner High School students to Southeast Raleigh High this fall without prior notice or a public hearing?
As noted in today's article, the way the Garner High students were moved for this fall still leaves a bad taste in some people's mouths. Unlike past practice, the moves were made without a public hearing for those families. It was also done on very short notice.
The moves were first publicly proposed by school board member John Tedesco on March 23 at a student assignment committee meeting. They were approved by the full board on April 6.
School board member Keith Sutton points out that the nodes weren't part of the three-year assignment plan that was approved in 2009 by the old board.
“I’m not against moving them but it had to be more of an open process,” Sutton said.
Sutton argues it was done to fulfill Tedesco's campaign promise to reduce the percentage of low-income students in Garner's schools. Garner civic and business leaders have long complained that the F&R percentages in the town's schools are too high because kids are bused in from Southeast Raleigh.
But Tedesco argues that the students had to be sent to Southeast Raleigh High to relieve crowding at Garner High. He said that they were under such tight deadlines that they couldn't hold the public hearing that was given to parents by previous boards.
Tedesco points out these families can be grandfathered to stay at Garner High. But with 48 percent F&R in those nodes, it won't be easy for a lot of families to provide the transportation to stay at Garner.
Tedesco said those nodes were chosen because it made sense to reassign Garner High students who were in the northernmost part of the attendance boundary. He said some of the students being moved are in Southeast Raleigh High's walk zone.
Tedesco said he's envisioning eventually moving the 10 most northern Garner High nodes to Southeast Raleigh. But it would have been too much of a disruption to do it at once so that's why he only pushed for moving those four this year.
During the March 23 committee meeting, Tedesco had also talked about moving in high-poverty nodes located near old downtown Garner. They're now at Middle Creek High. But he said he had to drop his call to move those nodes to Garner High because it's still too crowded.
Comments
How is the move in line with
Tue, 04/20/2010 - 12:26 — carson79How is the move in line with any of Mr. Tedesco's earlier statements? Have yall seen the Tea Party speech video?? The quotes are even more bold than what has been on the blog or in the articel.
I am so dismayed by this move of students, given the inconsistencies with all other discussions.
I know a lot of people have said that Garner has complained for years about having too many poor kids in its schools - and I guess my problem is that this argument CANNOT be used AFTER THE FACT to justify a move that was publicly stated to be about crowding at Garner High. It's so wrong to now say that Garner wants to "own its poor kids" or whatever nonsense has been spouted on the blog when the reason for the move that was discussed had nothing to do with this. It's WRONG WRONG WRONG. If Garner wants to have a community discussion about getting poor kids out of its schools, then that should have been a part of the 9-15 month process! Tedesco is not a dictator and he should not be using his power to leave populations out of the process.
If this is what we can expect from Mr. Tedesco everyone that cares about equality will need to ready up and start paying attention, he's shown that he'll do these things secretly and under false rationale.
F&R again? These numbers are
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 10:20 — woodstockF&R again? These numbers are meaningless in terms of education. They are inaccurate -- fraudulent actually -- and they do not in any way reflect the ability of individual students.
Here are some things to consider about Wake's F&R stats. Wake County's poverty rate is 8%, the accepted current F&R rate is 31%. That does not jive with me. Also, the F&R rate in 1998 was 19%. How did we get from 19% to 31% in such a short time? Some like to claim that our award-winning school system attracted well-paying jobs and economic growth; however, based on the tremendous increase in the F&R percentages -- a 12% increase in just 10 a decade -- it seem a lot of the growth was in the area of low-paying jobs and low-income folks. Apparently nearly 1/3 of families with school-aged children in Wake County find it a challenge to provide food for their children. That is
just sad. I wonder how Harvey Schmitt and the Chamber of Commerce would explain this.
This Crap Again?
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 14:07 — chaboardYou've never given a single bit of evidence to support your ignorant claims of fraud. And your use of the numbers - such as the idea that the general poverty rate should be commensurate wih the F&R rate - betray the fact that don't seem to be aware of even the most basic facts about the subject you insist on spammng about. Do us all a favor and either start to back up your claims with some actual logic and data or stop spewing your baseless filth.
Google It
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 16:53 — JanisTangoGoogle it or check out this blog. It's pretty well documented the F&R has fraud not only in NC, but across the US. You can decide whether or not it's 'reputable'. I think any program that doesn't have the appropriate checks and balances is going to have fraud!
http: blogs . newsobserver. com / wakeed/ increased-fr-lunch-applicants
Incentive
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 19:04 — Bob_SconceSo, part of the problem is that the local districts don't have the incentive to find fraud.
A friend of ours lost his job a while back & had his kids on F&R lunches for a few months until he found a new job. He sent a letter to the WCPSS F&R people telling them to cancel it. Toward the end of the year, when he realized that he had never been asked to put more $$ into his kids' lunch accounts, he realized that the district just kept them in the system.
I do believe at this point
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 08:57 — CaryCurmudgeonI do believe at this point that if John were sighted spraying ant-killer in his yard, he would be accused of cruelty to animals and someone would file a complaint with PETA. Every statement he makes is dissected, and often used out of context. God forbid he shows up at any large meeting that either Bob Luddy or Art Pope also (and independently) choose to attend. Even if they never speak with each other, the N&O headline will read "Tedesco receives school policy guidance Luddy and Pope."
All's fair, I guess, as I recall being fairly critical of some of the old board members. If I had had the N&O, NC Policy Watch, WEP and the NAACP on my side, I could have had a field day.
The closest node is about
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 08:36 — magnetParentThe closest node is about 3.5 miles on the other side of I-40 down Rock Quarry road. No sidewalks. Hardly walkable. Tedesco has obviously never been in that area or he would not have said that. Also, the "over capacity claim is without counting trailers. With trailers Garner High is at 86.6% capacity. For Lacy, they counted the trailers and for Garner they did not. They seem to make the rules up as they go to fit their agendas.
Garner High was also one of the few Garner schools that was NOT high F&R (38.7%), so moving these nodes really had no purpose other that to get them out of Garner because they wanted them out.
Also, their traditional calendar option was set to Middle Creek (18+ miles) as opposed to say, maybe, Garner High (8 miles)? Does this make any sense at all? Certainly does not fit the neighborhood concept.
Garner HS has more trailers
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 09:55 — Eric_BGarner HS has more trailers (at 40) than any other HS is WCPSS. It even has a trailerteria (cafeteria trailer). To say it is not overcrowded is outrageous.
Lacy has 0 trailers right now with 1 or 2 scheduled to be installed this year even before the Stough -> Lacy moves. They didn't "make up the rules as they go."
Many Garner residents right across 70 are assigned all the way out to Middle Creek right now as their base school, so it seems wrong to complain about calendar options when many Garner residents have to travel 15 miles to Middle Creek right now. In any case, the calendar option makes sense if Garner HS is overcrowded and Middle Creek is not.
Pick one - neighborhood
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 10:38 — magnetParentPick one - neighborhood schools or uncrowded schools - you won't get both. They are willing to overcrowds schools in Cary (Cedar Fork) to keep from "forcing" kids to travel "all the way to" Weatherstone (oh my, an additional 6 miles?) for their traditional option. But they don't use the same logic for the traditional option of those sent to Southeast?
I did not say that Garner did not have alot of trailers (how many of the 40 are classroom trailers as opposed to the trailerteria?), but they need to use the same guildelines when making these decisions to (re)assign nodes - Do you count capacity with trailers? or without? Do you only address areas on the 3-year plan or not? They bend the guidelines/rules to fit their agenda.
Re: Students being assigned from Garner to SE Raleigh
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 10:10 — acsimsWhat is everyone missing here? In the last 8 years, SE Raleigh in 27610 has exploded in growth with thousands of homes being built. One of the neighborhoods is more than 2500 homes, but yet only 1 elementary school has been built. Why? Where else has this happened in Wake County? If you have this much growth, it is totally irresponsible to not have infrastructure in place to accomodate these kids. Why is it o. k. for Garner to shoulder all this responsibility? We in Garner would love to have an Exploris, a Washington Magnet, an Enloe. If we were truly a community school system in Garner, we would be the epitome of the perfect school system with the perfect diversity. But, left up to the old school board, we have not faired too well because our voices are being drowned out by the voices in Raleigh. Build schools where they are needed ! Or better yet, take a ride down Poole Road, Rock Quarry Rd, Pearl Ridge, Barwell, Battle Bridge, and envision that all these houses do not have a school home. The only option for them is to board a bus everyday. There is something very wrong with this program.
To: Sachivalay
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 11:52 — acsimsGarner has not exploded. SE Raleigh has! Last time I looked at my map, it was still inside the city limits of Raleigh, not Garner!
Is East Garner Elementary
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 12:06 — danofncIs East Garner Elementary School in the Garner city limits? When I lived there, the city limit sign was on Garner Road heading toward downtown away from Jones Sausage, and the school is on Jones Sausage.
There are a lot of SE Raleigh kids that are closer to that school than Garner kids.
Re: East Garner Elementary
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 14:44 — acsimsYou are absolutely right, I believe that E. Garner Elementary does indeed accomodate all the growth in SE Raleigh. Was that by design from the old school board? That is the kind of thing that Garner has put up with for the last would you say 30 years?
Exactly..explosion of growth.. Nothing WCPSS created
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 11:33 — sachivalayIf Garner is exploding what did Garner do to manage explosion. Do they even do school facilities analysis before approving 2500 house development? If they do not, stop complaining about busing kids miles away. When you do not plan, somebody plans for you.
What about Lacy?
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 07:33 — HereWeGo"We had to begin to maximize effective use of our capacity," Tedesco said. "One school is over-enrolled, and the other is under-enrolled."
What about Lacy?
Listen to the parents
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 06:51 — HereWeGoMr. Tedesco ran on a "listen to the parents" platform - what happened Mr. Tedesco?
Do you only listen when it is convent for you?
What happened to no MYR? Will theses families have an "opt out" period like all other MYR students received?
So how big are high school
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 06:39 — kbrooks500So how big are high school walk zones? It looks like all these nodes are 2-5 miles from SE Raleigh. Yes they are closer than Garner, but not what I would consider walkable.