Wake County school board member Debra Goldman split with her colleagues tonight and backed a revised resolution that says it’s the goal, but not the guarantee, that mandatory year-round school assignments will be eliminated.
The board approved by 5-3 a resolution saying that every effort will be made to eliminate mandatory year-round schools. The original resolution, which had been first approved Jan. 5, said that there would be no mandatory year-round assignments beginning in the 2010-11 school year.
Goldman backed the amendment proposed by Keith Sutton, normally part of the board minority.
Goldman cited her concerns about having to guarantee in all cases a seat for parents who don’t want a year-round assignment.
“When you’re dealing with absolutes, there are unintended consequences and I’m vehemently opposed to mandatory year-round but I’m imagining situations where students can’t be seated,” Goldman said.
Ending the diversity policy and mandatory year-round schools were among the campaign promises made by the new board members who were elected in the fall.
Despite the change in the wording, board members did stress that the resolution said that they strongly oppose mandatory assignment of students to year-round schools.
The modified resolution left in the wording that every effort will be made to accommodate families into the calendar of their choice. It also eliminates the use of diversity in filling voluntary year-round seats.
UPDATE
Supt. Del Burns said that the revised wording doesn't change their proposal to provide virtually unfettered acces in and out of year-round schools next year.
Here's the revised wording that passed:
We strongly oppose the mandatory assignments of students to year-round calendar schools and support calendar choice for all families. Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, every effort will be made to eliminate mandatory year-round assignments and to accommodate families into the calendar of their choice. This applies to year-round or traditional options, at a school within proximity of their residence. We will no longer deny calendar applications based on socio-economic status. We will use each and every seat efficiently.
Here's the original resolution:
We strongly oppose the mandatory assignments of students to year-round calendar schools and support calendar choice for all families. Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, there will be no mandatory year-round assignments. Every effort will be made to accommodate families into the calendar of their choice, whether it is year-round or traditional, at a school within proximity of their residence. We will no longer deny calendar applications based on socio-economic status. We will use each and every seat efficiently.
Comments
Very Disappointing!
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 09:45 — woodstockGoldman's compulsion to leave no thought unexpressed and need to be the center of attention have gone from merely annoying to extremely concerning. Now these attributes are impacting the change that must occur to alter the path of failure that WCPSS has been heading down over at least the past decade. Goldman explicitly stated that she is "vehemently opposed to mandatory year-round school," then refuses to pass a resolution that ends assignments to them once and for all. She says one thing, but does another. Very disappointing!!!
So...
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:57 — Bob_SconceIt's a prudent change. This is all happening very quickly with a lot of moving pieces, and it may not be possible to complete the unconversion immediately.
I don't expect the members I support to work in lock-step with each other, and I don't think they expect that either.
Agree
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:09 — OSWhiteI agree it is a prudent move to take the time to sort out all of the moving pieces. In my case, I live a stone's throw from Leesville and can walk to school. We happen to really like the YR calendar. Since the movement is to convert Leesville to "traditional" how would my and others YR choice be fulfilled ? be bused to Sycamore ?assuming it stays YR - if not then what ? So here I am, walking distance to the "neighborhood" school and I face a high likelyhood of being bused. So much for the neighbor school and less busing. The realities are starting to settle in. With the Hurricanes playing so poorly, this whole school thing will be good sport until March Madness arrives (basketball, not school RE-assignments)
So...
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 15:11 — Bob_SconceRecognize that there are people at Leesville in exactly the opposite situation. That's a situation where, unfortunately, it's impossible to make everybody unhappy. In that case, the district should minimize the total amount of misery. That probably means "busing" your kids to Sycamore. I know that's not the ideal situation for you and your family and I'm sorry.
I suggest that it is less busing. For one, Sycamore is a lot closer to you than the current traditional calendar alternative is for those who prefer that calendar.
Well, Hilburn (trad) is
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 15:57 — NWRaleighMomWell, Hilburn (trad) is approximately the same distance as Sycamore (YR).
I am more concerned about LRMS. There is no reasonable alternative (YR or trad).
My understanding in regard
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:18 — changewcpssMy understanding in regard to the Leesville area is that there is a lot of space in a yr school less than 5 miles from them? I would expect that to be your yr option.
Maybe BUT
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:07 — OSWhiteMaybe or maybe not, it all depends on what the demand is for year round vs traditional. Which we will not know for nearly 2 weeks. However, at today's enrollment if roughly 50% from Leesville and Sycamore select YR - then Sycamore would be very very tight. The same would be for Leesville once capacity is adjusted down from YR to Traditional. If the mix is different than 50/50 the assignment will be even more challenging. And we haven't even considered growth. Also as I understand it, the new resolutions eliminated the 3 yr rule. So if one is in a high growth/change area, one could conceivably be reassigned every year. I applaud Goldman for the courage to want to better understand the ramifications.
On the map Sycamore Creek
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 21:35 — changewcpssOn the map Sycamore Creek Elem looks to be a mile or so away from Leesville Elem. The Hilburn Drive Elem shows that it can accommodate more traditional students as well. It seems that Leesville Elem and Leesville Middle will be switched to traditional for calendar continuity on that campus. Could Hilburn Drive and Leesville Elem accommodate traditional students in that area and Sycamore Creek Elem accommodate yr students? How far is the Brier Creek Elem? That looks relatively close as well and has yr spaces.
what was your yr option
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:14 — jenmanwhat was your yr option before Leesville's conversion?
I know Goldman does not cover Leesville
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:11 — OSWhiteI know Goldman does not cover Leesville., Hopefully Goldman's actions will serve as a wake up call.
Huh? She is clearly against
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:25 — changewcpssHuh? She is clearly against M YR as they all are. She sees that there is a chance they may not be able to guarantee placement but will give more choice than we have ever had. It looks like your schools should have been left alone when the MYR conversions took place and it is only logical to get your schools back to the same schedules. How far is the closest yr to Leesville Elem?
Goldman's compulsion to
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:09 — shank56Goldman's compulsion to leave no thought unexpressed and need to be the center of attention have gone from merely annoying to extremely concerning.
Apparently, you do not like:
Women who think, act , and speak for themselves and
Elected officials who do not keep their mouths shut and follow the script as they were given
You can attempt to read
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:22 — woodstockYou can attempt to read between the lines and imagine all the craziness you chose, but that is not what I said. Why would you want to turn this into a gender issue?
Why are you so
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 11:01 — shank56Why are you so concerned about an elected official publicly asking questions and verbalizing her concerns- whatever they may be?
A whole lot of people
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 12:09 — woodstockA whole lot of people have worked long and hard to get to a point where we could end mandatory assignements -- people that voted for Goldman -- and with certain success in sight, she decided to concede power to the opposition. Why did she do that? To what end? Was it her desire to be liked and accepted by the likes of Kevin Hill? Was it because she could not endure the outcry from the opposition?
I am quite certain I am not alone in my disappointment.
If you remember, Goldman also orchestrated putting off the elimination of policy 6200. She is not who she said she was and she needs to called on it.
Not sure she has conceded
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 13:28 — changewcpssNot sure she has conceded anything, has she?
I'll just quote the subhead
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 14:31 — woodstockI'll just quote the subhead on the N&O article on the subject:
"Board retreats on pledge to eliminate mandatory seats."
It should read "Goldman retreats on pledge to eliminate mandatory seats."
"Retreats"
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 18:06 — g88ky07that's pretty much what I'm getting out of it!
.
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 09:29 — Voice_of_Reason_.
Farr gets a sweet deal with no limits
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 23:43 — user12345"Hill wants to amend the resolution so as funds not exceed $50,000. .....The board votes 5-4 against Hill's amendment ....After much discussion and talk of other amendments, the board finally approves the resolution to hire Farr."
disappointed
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:42 — tc_apexAlthough I do respect Debra and can see that she is trying to be responsible, prior experience tells me that ANY wording that is not explicitly defined will be skirted by WCPSS. For example, converting 22 schools and saying they were giving parents an "option". It was known far and wide and even referred to by Chuck Dulaney that the options provided were by design odious!
This new BOE majority is
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 08:07 — shank56This new BOE majority is in control now. If they don't like what is brought to the table, they can have it changed.
Very true. I look forward
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 09:25 — changewcpssVery true. I look forward to the new majority challenging the staff to provide honest backup instead of stale spin.
I like Goldman!
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:35 — shank56Don't know her or much about her. But I like how she questions all and appears to be responsible to us all. Good for her!
They are questioning Farr's contract..which should be amended and they may doing that as we speak. I think they all okay to approve the audit, but are unsure of open ended rates for unknown services.
gong??
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:44 — shank56Goldman votes one way after the motion is read. And now she decideds at impact to change her mind and they voted to rescind. It is crazy.
Remember that scene in Dumb and Dumber when the big bad dude tailing Carrey and Daniels takes a bunch of pills ?? Bet that's how Majestic and some of the other BOE members feel.
I'm not watching. What's
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:50 — jenmanI'm not watching. What's going on?
I try to block out all memories of seeing Dumb and Dumber. :-)
The new BOE is playing
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:55 — shank56The new BOE is playing Who's on first. Laughing and at the same time -- it is a sad .
Ron is getting PO.ed
WRAL is streaming
....
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:28 — SideburnsDefine "effort".
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering
Tue, 01/19/2010 - 22:37 — jenmanYeah, I'm kind of wondering the same thing. Two things in our favor: 1) Chuck will be gone 2) the new board actually cares about this.
I am skeptical, but I definitely agree with Debra that we need to avoid unintended consequences. I guess everybody will have to continue their due diligence.
Only an idiot would
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 07:57 — user12345Only an idiot would guarantee some thing will happen when you don't know the plan, logistics or costs yet .... thanks Debra for not locking us into some thing potentially foolish that may not be possible..
Wake County school board member Debra Goldman split with her colleagues tonight and backed a revised resolution that says it’s the goal, but not the guarantee, that mandatory year-round school assignments will be eliminated.
Disappointed at the BOE
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 23:01 — Solon77Conditions are different today than there were 3-4 years ago when the board went down the path of mandatory year round. My criticism of the BOE is in their approach. Given how charged the issue is, the BOE would have been better served if they took the approach of: Conditions have changed, growth has slowed, and as such it is prudent to revisit mandatory year round and other policies to better the performance of the schools. Recommendations/decisions to be based on data shared and public comment sought. Instead we have resolutions passed and actions taken without input from parents, teachers and taxpayers across the county. We have agenda items added at the last minute and a lack of data in support. It is clear they have not thought through the implications of ending mandatory year round, asking the administration to present information when the survey will not be completed and available for another 1-2 weeks, only now engaging teachers input - their thought process is worrisome. If they can't demonstrate process and acumen for reassignment - why would I trust them with decisions on the best way to educate my kids. I was expecting better.
Only a group of idiots ...
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 09:32 — Voice_of_Reason_Only a group of idiots would continue policies that was not getting results at the expense of taxpayer's money and the expense of some children's education.
I think mid-course adjustments are in order when facts are presented. I do not have a problem with MYR as long as there is a goal to eliminate the manditory status. The original decision showed everyone that they were serious about keeping their promises to the electorate of their districts, it was also done to expidite the process of eliminating them.
User1234 do you think Chuck and Co at GM would have given them an unbiased view of the implications of eliminating MYR?
VOR ... I am surprised of
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 10:47 — user12345VOR ... I am surprised of all people who has seen the "see saw" direction given the military by politician over the years and how much it costs and how demoralizing it can be when politician bounce from end to end each year ... this is not a mid-course correction ... this is "I want eveyone out of Iraq by the end of the week" direction ... some people want something ... fine .. so, plan for it / understand the impacts / costs.
Second is these BOE members are so stupid that one person can pull the wool over their eyes they need to be fired ... there must be a billion people who know every nook of Leesville and they can not seem to get the number straight for that school ... so "newbie" go to Leesville, count the classrooms, multipy by 25, tell that many number of parents to show up for traditional Monday, and tell all the other to find another school to go to.
User1234
Wed, 01/20/2010 - 12:05 — Voice_of_Reason_On your first point, in the military, change is the only constant, so your point is lost on me. We dealt with it. I realize this is a radical change, but so was the whole idea of MYR and that didn't happen that long ago. Changing M to V isn't as radical.
Second, Chuck is retiring, so he did everyone a favor. Your proposed solution is, at best, has way too many variables to be that simple.