Whether the Wake County school board can stick with the Rolesville High School site or has to go back to the Forest Ridge High site will be decided today by county commissioners.
Supporters of the Rolesville site are mobilizing for the public comment section of today's meeting before the commissioners vote. They'll be joined by opponents of the site, urged on by County Commissioner Stan Norwalk's call to draw a line in the sand against the school board majority.
One of Norwalk's arguments for going back to Forest Ridge is that the traffic concerns about the site have been resolved. The residents of Chesterfield Village strongly disagree.
"The major deficiency of the Forest Ridge site, a major access road (Canyon Drive) through the narrow streets of a subdivision (Chesterfield Village), has been resolved with the selection of a new access road (Leyland Drive) suggested by Chesterfield village homeowners," Norwalk wrote in a sheet distributed by the Great Schools in Wake Coalition.
But Terri Cook of Concerned Citizens for Chesterfield Village said they still oppose the Forest Ridge site. Cook said that using Leland Drive isn't a permanent solution to the neighborhood's traffic problems.
Cook said the concern is that if Forest Ridge High is built, the school district will also go ahead with plans to build an elementary school on the site.
Cook said school staff told them at Canyon Drive would still have to be built as the entrance to the elementary school.
Cook said they've repeatedly brought to Norwalk's attention their concern about Canyon Drive still needing to be built.
Today's meeting starts at 2 p.m. in the seventh floor of the Wake County Courthouse, 335 S. Salisbury Street in downtown Raleigh. Click here to read the handouts on the land purchase.
UPDATE
County commissioners approved the Rolesville High School land purchase. The vote was 4-3 with Lindy Brown breaking ranks with her fellow Democrats to back the deal. Click here for the online story.
Comments
get a map
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:08 — prescott2Woodstock, you clearly do not live in this area or you would fear as many do, that teen drivers commuting across congested Capital Blvd and onto back country roads with no shoulder and no lights will be far more dangerous. Think about coming home from football games, homecoming, and practices. Is Norwalk Partisan? Are Tony Gurley, Paul Coble or Joe Bryan? Paul Coble is Wakefield's representative. has he ever been to Wakefield High School to check out the stresses on that facility? Answer: NO. Has Norwalk visited? Answer; YES.
Uh...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 21:25 — Bob_SconceThe commissioners are elected at-large.
As Jenman pointed out, there's not reason for students to cross Capital NOW -- it's perfectly reasonable to assign west of Capital to Wakefield and east to Heritage (or WF-R).
In any case, Forestville Rd. is much more of a back country road than Rolesville's main street.
How Many get reassigned?
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 23:07 — reasonablevoiceHave you looked at a student assignment map, Bob? Don't know if you are serious or not, but that east west idea will move thousands of 9-12, . I thought this was the stability plan. I thought JT told student assignment employees to hold the high school boundaries, and rearrange the elementaries and middles under them. Did anybody else watching the live feed hear that?
So..
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 07:09 — Bob_SconcePlease see my post below about the people who live (or actually don't live) in those nodes. Also look at the '09-'10 assignment map here: http://bit.ly/c9XSxR . Note that the white nodes on the west side of Capital which aren't assigned to Wakefield are occupied by the Wakefield 9th grade center, Target, Home Depot, some other retail, a hospital, a movie theater, Kroger, a farm that's up for sale, a quarry and a car dealership.
Comparing that to the '10-'11 map (http://bit.ly/98I8uY ), the logical thing would have been to move the east part of the Wakefield map to Heritage while keeping the west part at Wakefield. And that would have done exactly what I was talking about.
The area North of 98 and West of Capital is slated for WF-R, and makes sense to stay there. (And, in fact, used to go there).
Stability, yes. But
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 00:24 — jenmanStability, yes. But keeping assinine, nonsensical assignments just so we keep stability, no. That's a ridiculous argument from new majority opponents/GSIW.
You do bring up a good point about starting with high school boundaries and moving from there. I'm not sure how they are going to deal with that and if staff and JT are clear with each other on how that works. It makes no sense whatsoever to strictly go by current hs school assignments since there are spot nodes and assignments that don't make sense.
The idea to start with the higher level, larger hs assignment boundaries and then move down makes sense if you're starting with 'normal' assignment areas in the first place.
That's a good question,
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 00:12 — magnetParentThat's a good question, reasonablevoice. I was just looking at the assignment areas for each of the high schools in the NE corner of the county, and Wakefield is the only one west of Capital Blvd and north of 540. Seems to me that they should have looked for a new site more towards the northern part of the county (maybe somewhere near 50 and 98) if they want to rezone high schools by major roads. The way it is now, if they follow the east-west idea, Wakefield will still be severely overcrowded.
Frankly, I think that the
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 00:29 — jenmanFrankly, I think that the need is much greater over by Brier Creek than NE Wake.
I think there is a lack of suitable land to build a hs in the area you mentioned because of the watershed. Also, I think a major reason why Capital seems like a harder boundary is the fact that there isn't any residential development along that road. For instance, when you look at the assignment map for Heritage, it seems like a contiguous area, but there is a huge gap between the neighborhoods off of Falls and Heritage itself. Many of the nodes are industrial or retail with no residential areas at all.
Gotta swing at this one Jenman
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:05 — reasonablevoiceYou are right Jenman - Brier Creek wins over Rolesville's 212! :>) Somebody had to swing at that one - sorry. But seriously, speaking strictly from demand/ supply - the greatest need is somewhere nearest Wakefield and WFR High - they are the two highs with 9th grade centers. Too bad there could not be suitable land found. But the Rolesville site will help out, if they use a domino effect to assign students. The effect has to be felt all the way to Millbrook. There is certainly no more adequate and affordable land closer to Raleigh. Isn't Heritage opening next year with two sets of 9th & 10th - one Heritage, and one, well, Forestville now Rolesville High?
LOL, reasonable voice. :-)
Thu, 07/08/2010 - 12:04 — jenmanLOL, reasonable voice. :-) But I gotta take a swing at that 212 figure. I know that Stan has passed that figure around, but I don't think its accurate. I addressed this before, but perhaps there are only 212 hs students living in Rolesville, but what about the unincorporated areas? Stan isn't lying when he says 212 but he's not telling the whole truth, either.
I agree that the Brier Creek
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 00:47 — magnetParentI agree that the Brier Creek area is in need of a high school and remember issues they have with finding suitable, available land. I just mentioned the 50/98 area as an identifiable location in that part of the county. Somewhere between that and Brier Creek, maybe. It seems like there are a lot of nodes in the northern part of the county that have a long distance to any high school. The discussion about Capital Blvd was more about not having high school (new) drivers have to navigate that road every day. Regardless, it seems like any "mending" of non-contiguous areas will result in a huge reassignment - doing that at the high school level could be difficult. In the past, they made an attempt to not move 11/12 graders (by grandfathering them at their old school) so as to not disrupt their college prep, etc. With the size of the reassignment that this plan could create, that will be difficult to manage.
So...
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 07:00 — Bob_SconceUnfortunately, most of the area we're talking about is in the Falls Lake Watershed. No way to build a high school there. Heck, the district had to abandon plans to put an elementary school up there. The good thing is that even though there's a lot of land area, it's sparsely populated due to development restrictions (IIRC, houses have to be on at least 2 acres of land). And, the high-end homes that result presumably send more kids to private schools.
As to the contention that realigning assignment boundaries would mean moving thousands of kids, the assignment maps don't tell the whole story. A big portion of the west-of-Capital land assigned to Heritage is industrial, not residential. And, of the occupied west-of-Capital land assigned to Heritage for next year, much of it (i.e. Bedford) was assigned to Wakefield this past year and the parents there have lobbied to stay at Wakefield. Look at the 09-10 assignment map and recognize that nodes immediately adjacent to Capital (on the west side) are commercial to see what I mean.
I understand about the
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 08:02 — magnetParentI understand about the watershed issue, and I am not real familiar with that part of the county. It just seems like they should have placed a high school somewhere west of Capital Blvd - maybe even somewhere near Pleasant Union ES - to help alleviate the Wakefield overcrowding. Also note that there are nodes currently assigned to Wakefield that is east of Capital Blvd which also would have to be moved. The other area, just by looking at the assignment maps are the nodes west of Capital that are assigned to Wakeforest Rolesville - if those are moved to the only high school west of Capital (Wakefield) it is a lot of nodes to move (granted they are not densely populated) and will further overcrowd Wakefield.
Yeah..
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 08:17 — Bob_SconceSo, when I was talking about the area west of Capital, I was thinking south of 98.
The nodes on the east side of Capital should be assigned to Heritage or, eventually, to H6. I think they should have been moved for the 10-11 school year instead of moving nodes on the west side of Capital to Heritage. But, that's a remnant of the old assignment policy and of Kevin Hill's intransigence.
The watershed is generally the area west of Falls of Neuse and north of Strickland and it curves a bit up to the Northwest around Leesville. I think Pleasant Union may be the one school in the watershed. I agree that another HS up there (say off Creedmoor, north of 540) would be excellent, but I just don't think it's possible.
I am not sure what to make
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:55 — woodstockI am not sure what to make of all that. It sounds as if you are just making stuff up. Most of what you stated is completely false.
More divided or not?
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 19:42 — RKCurtrightOur own perception becomes reality unless we have the ability to look beyond our own opinion and our own circle who, most likely, agree with us. Who we communicate with regularly makes our reality a bit skewed. This is why merely aligning ourselves with our own "groups" goes against what is needed, which is a diverse perspective of what changes should be made within our school system.
The survey done by the BOE majority showed most parents who took the survey were happy with their childs' education. Based on the BOE election, it is safe to say there were enough in opposition to successfully elect a board majority.
In terms of theatrics: It can also be called an expression of what is valued and needed . We all express ourselves differently and there is value in all views. Trying to understand where we all are and taking into consideration what is important to all children in our public schools is the most important step. I hope we can move in this direction or we will be no better and will lose valuable opinions and overlook change that will sustain us.
....
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 21:59 — SideburnsYet a mere 6 months ago...
"Ron and the people that have supported them are of an extreme," said Rhonda Curtright, a North Raleigh parent and leader of BiggerPicture4Wake, a parents' group that backed school board candidates who ultimately lost.
It is becoming more and more
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 13:20 — woodstockIt is becoming more and more evident that Norwalk's relentless partisanship and hard core ideology is clouding his judgement. He seems entirely unmoved by the traffic concerns that residents in the area have and, more shockingly, the very real safety concerns expressed by parents of the children who will attend the school if Norwalk gets his way and politics wins over common sense and respect for citizens.
Of course a elementary
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 10:19 — WhalerCaneOf course a elementary school produces less traffic than a high school, and we we not all for schools being in 'neighborhoods'.
The simple fact is this issue is data versus politics. Politics always costs more.
Forest Ridge site was determined best by 19 member blue ribbon panel of thirty sites within five mile radius that research from NC State determine would be best for H6. New site is three miles outside of that radius.
New Board promised 'Neighborhood schools' but this site is not near a major neighborhood.. They are against 'forced busing', but this will require more busing.
3000 kids at Wakefield in school built for 1600. Just over 200 kids in Rolesvile in school built for 2200. We do not need to spend $70 million dollars plus to help Rolesvile grow. We are 3 high schools short with current growth we should build before serving more new growth.
New site is foreclosed land because they couldn't sell homes. Why bail them out? Build Forest Ridge now to relieve overcrowding, and Rolesville can spend their tax dollars to land bank new site.
Intentionally misleading, or arguing without the facts?
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 20:51 — Apexter"Almost 800 kids were assigned from Wakefield to Forest Ridge to reduce overcrowding at Wakefield. They have all been sent back to Wakefield with this delay. Keeping Wakefield's enrollemnt at an insufferable 3000.Wakefield High School is not just Wakefield neighborhood. Heritage HS is a small footprint high school with little room for trailers and can't accommodate the numbers needed to bring Wakefield back to 2100-2200 students. Wakefield by the way was constructed to hold 1660." ---- prescott2
"3000 kids at Wakefield in school built for 1600. Just over 200 kids in Rolesvile in school built for 2200. "---WhalerCane
Are the two of you intentionally providing misleading information, or do you honestly just not know the facts, and are arguing without the correct information?
Enough already with the drama of claiming that Wakefield HS has 3000 kids shoved into a school built for 1600. Go to the WCPSS website to get the facts. The demographics report ( http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/reports/book09/III-quick%20facts.pdf) has the high school capacity and enrollment information on page 12. It states that Wakefield HS had an enrollment of 2813 (not 3000) on a campus with a capacity of 3077. Now, have you forgotten that Wakefield HS has been split off so that it has a 9th grade center, with only grades 10,11, and 12 housed on the main campus? Go to another page in the demographics report ( http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/reports/book09/VA-membership.pdf ) and look at the membership by grade. This report shows (on page 7) that the 2813 total students is broken into 797 students at the 9th grade center, with 2016 students in grades 10-12 at the main campus. Is that close enough to bringing it "back" to 2100 to 2200 students for you, prescott2?
And I totally don't understand where you came up with the statement that ""Almost 800 kids were assigned from Wakefield to Forest Ridge to reduce overcrowding at Wakefield. They have all been sent back to Wakefield with this delay." To the best of my knowledge, the 3 year assignment plan only went to 2012, and Forest Ridge was not included in the assignment plan. I don't know where you came up with a concrete number of 800 students assigned there. There absolutely was never any reassignment from Wakefield to Forest Ridge planned for the upcoming school year.
So...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 10:43 — Bob_SconcePerry: So, you're not addressing the core issue. Even if everything you say is correct and moving the school is a bad decision, what is the role of the commissioners? Should they be telling the school board "We know better than you do, and we don't think you picked the right site here, so we're not going to approve it"?
Point of fact: this isn't a bail-out. The land isn't foreclosed. The builder is in Chapter 7 and the district is getting a good deal on the land -- even Norwalk agrees with that. Also, $70M is the cost of the high school, and will be spent anyway. The only money being spent to "help Rolesville grow" is the marginal cost, over time, of running this school (if any).
Helping Rolesville grow
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:17 — prescott2Proximity to a new high school ( and by the way Rolesville is also getting a new supersized middle school too) will be an attractant for prosepctive developers/ homeowners in that area. I am sure the builder wished he had that advantage before he started development. One of the reasons wcpss doesn't land bank is because it increases housing speculation. Mayor Eagles is certainly betting on that field of dreams.
Lead
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 12:25 — RKCurtrightThe BOC provide a check and balance for the BoE. Which site should be H6 simply depends on where our bond money it is best-spent and the expert analysis already has already been achieved. The Rolesville site should be land-banked, and Forrest Ridge should have already been started to help attend to the growth in that area.
The decisions today are, again, focusing an unhealthy concentration on things not related to academic success in students. Each political promise made requires the BOE to lose focus on helping to create high-quality schools in terms of academic achievement.
More money for education is necessary.
Bob, you blogged in 2008: “The school district shows an amazing inability to effectively spend money to improve education. A large part of the problem, I think, is that the district and the State don't face the right incentives. Like all bureaucracies, they're motivated by empire-building and the approval of their peers (influenced largely by the flavor-of-the-day education theory). Unfortunately, neither of these hinge on student success. “
Bob and all, are we doing a better job today as in 2008? Bob, you also said in 2008, taxing authority connected to at-large school board elections would be a good thing -- the current division creates an incentive for the district to misspend, and an incentive for the commissioners to under-fund. Making the district responsible both for raising the money and for spending it would go a long way.
We need to come together on changes which bring us together as a district. We are more divided as a school district as we were 2 years ago. I hope we can, as citizens, come together to focus on what is best for Wake County. Building consensus, spending money responsibly with the focus on academic achievement, while respecting our diverse community is what is best. Trusting the experts goes a long way in getting away from micro-managing the School Board duties. Our School Board WANTS to focus more on what is going on in the classroom. We need to lead them in this direction.
Wow...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 13:33 — Bob_SconceKudos for going back to 2008. My first comments were really directed at the then-current Superintendent, and I'm hopeful that the new one may show different motivations. My second mirror my thought that the battle between the two boards is perverse.
As to the purpose of requiring BoC approval of BoE land-purchase decisions, I don't think it's supposed to be a check-and-balance, because the Commissioners only have two measures of control: (1) budget, (2) approve land purchases. However, I haven't found the law that gives the BoC authority to approve land purchases, so I can't really tell what the intent was. On first blush, it appears that the BoE should have the authority to buy land all by itself.
I generally agree with listening to the experts, but note that there are lots of experts and that being a professor of education does not necessarily make you one. The Education Academy is considered "multi-disciplinary," and some of those disciplines are more persuasive than others. We've all known folks who have spent too long convincing their fellow professors about how things should be, an not long enough thinking about how things can be.
"We are more divided as a
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 13:21 — woodstock"We are more divided as a school district as we were 2 years ago."
That is not at all true. As a county we are much more together than we have been in decades as we are finally realizing the education, not transportation, is the solution. The opposition to the powers-that-be is just louder, more crass and significantly more politically motivated. When the status quo BoE was in place, the opposition consisted of concerned parents, students, grandparents and other taxpayers from a broad political spectrum pleading their case in intelligent, respectful and heartfelt ways. Now, the opposition -- which is much smaller in numbers -- consists of politically motivated and connected organizations and agitators fueled by anger with an ideological axe to grind; and, they are, for the most part, anything but respectful to the new BoE members and the voters who elected. them.
So...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 13:54 — Bob_SconceIt's worth noting that there has always been an opposition to the board majority, regardless of who that majority was. The identity of that opposition recently switched. The fact that the new opposition chooses more flamboyant tactics to express their discontent does NOT mean that they disagree more.
I have a tough time picturing the WakeCares folks holding up a school board meeting by singing and invading board seats. The Rev. Barber's histrionics may be good theater, but do not indicate more divisiveness.
I suspect that Ms. Curtwright sees an increase because her side was in power 2 years ago. It's a lot harder to play defense.
have you forgotten
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:30 — prescott2have you forgotten the No Mandatory Year round protesters, bumper stickers, buttons, t-shirts, filling the seats at BOE meeting, parading their kiddies with signs? Maybe they didn't sing, but their chanting from the streets was very audible and they were successful at getting several schools off "the list". How about Wakefield parents denigrating an entire neighborhood as drug infested/child molesters- pretty ugly tactics if you ask me. Peace.
No...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 21:27 — Bob_SconceNot forgetting them at all. They were much better behaved than Rev. Barber and his crew.
So...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 08:22 — Bob_SconceIt would be a very dangerous precedent if the Commissioners decided to substitute its own judgment about the best location of H6 for that of the school board (or, worse, using the H6 vote to vent their displeasure about unrelated school board policies). Their role is properly limited to determining whether the district is getting a good price, not rehashing the school board's decision-making process.
dangerous precedent
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 09:09 — HereWeGoIs it not a very dangerous precedent for the school board to be changing a High School site without consulting the county commissioners first when the school board was not following staff recommended?
No...
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 09:33 — Bob_SconceI don't think so. What is the precedent that you think is being established? See my previous message -- it's not up to the Commissioners to decide whether a site is appropriate or not. The internal deliberations of the school district should be of no concern to the Commissioners.
I agreed with Norwalk that the Commission had no business interfering in the business of the School Board when the Commissioners tried to tell the school board how to spend its budget. The principle shouldn't change when Norwalk is the one trying to interfere with the schools.
In any case, I believe that the staff did recommend the Quarry Rd. site.
More hypocrisy from Stan
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 09:47 — CaryCurmudgeonMore hypocrisy from Stan Norwalk. Before last year's elections, Stan was an outspoken critic of commissioners who meddled in school board business. And after he got elected, Stan provided the swing vote to hold the school board less accountable for details on their expenditures. Bob has it right, Stan has other issues with the school board and is just looking to use this as a bludgeon.
Hey Stan, how's it going so far on that campaign promise to implement a county-wide APFO to fund school construction? You have had two years with a party majority. Could it be that your allies in the fight to preserve forced busing are not so crazy about hiking impact fees because it might damage their development businesses?
I believe that the staff did recommend the Quarry Rd. site
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 09:47 — HereWeGoI was at the Committee of the Whole meeting in December when staff recommended staying with the Forest Ridge site. That is the meeting the 15 million additional cost came from. After the school board went against this recommendation then the staff picked the Quarry Road site. The staff preferred site is still Forest Ridge.
As a taxpayer I do not want the Bond money wasted.
1st School Board Meeting
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 07:41 — HereWeGoAt the 1st school board meeting on December 1 when they stopped work on the Forest Road site Keith Sutton ask if they should not include the county commissioners in the decision and Malone told him they did not need the county commissioners approval they could do what they wanted. Today he may find out that he should have included the county commissioners in the decision.
yes, perhaps if they'd
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 11:49 — xmarkspot62yes, perhaps if they'd gotten buy-in and consensus from the commissioners, we wouldn't be at this point
This sad part
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 12:11 — HereWeGoThe sad part is the students in an over crowded Wakefield High is who is getting hurt.
Wakefield?
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 12:36 — ego7601Why would Wakefield kids go to Forest Ridge anyway? If the point is to put people in neighborhood schools and if Wakefield is all that crowded (which I know it is), why not send the kids to Wake Forest-Rolesville (which is 5-6 miles from WHS) or Heritage (which is 4.6 miles from WHS)? The Forest Ridge site is 6-7 miles from WHS. WF-R is under capacity and I'm guessing there will be plenty of room at Heritage to house some of the kids from Wakefield.
You don't understand Wakefield's assignment area
Tue, 07/06/2010 - 20:44 — prescott2Almost 800 kids were assigned from Wakefield to Forest Ridge to reduce overcrowding at Wakefield. They have all been sent back to Wakefield with this delay. Keeping Wakefield's enrollemnt at an insufferable 3000.Wakefield High School is not just Wakefield neighborhood. Heritage HS is a small footprint high school with little room for trailers and can't accommodate the numbers needed to bring Wakefield back to 2100-2200 students. Wakefield by the way was constructed to hold 1660. Neighborhoods that had been assigned last go-round to WF/R objected to having teen drivers commute across Capital Blvd to WF/R. Old board agreed with them and reassigned them back to Wakefield. Which brings me to the point of what neighborhoods are going to be happy to cross Capital Blvd and drive back country roads with no shoulders to fill the 2400 seats at the Rolesville site. Rolesville itself only has 212 high school students?
Uhh...
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:23 — Bob_Sconce"back country road with no shoulder" describes Forestville Road to a T. And those would have had to cross Capital to get to that school anyway. Why not assign the Wakefield students already on the east side of Capital to Heritage/Rolesville?
I drive by Heritage regularly (on Forestville Rd, I might add) -- it's huge. Why do you call it a "small footprint high school"?
Is this true?
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:00 — zande"They have all been sent back to Wakefield with this delay. Keeping Wakefield's enrollemnt at an insufferable 3000."
I knew WF was overcrowded but I had no idea by how much. Does anyone know how many students will be at Heritage HS next year? I suspect a lot less than at WF.
Not sure - the building
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:22 — magnetParentNot sure - the building capacity is 1663 for both Heritage and Wakefield. I believe that Heritage will only house 9 & 10 grade next year, but I could not find the projected enrollment for that school. Wakefield accomodates 3000 students with the addition of 39 trailers. Wakefield has 109 acres and Heritage has 93 acres - though I don't know if there are land restrictions to adding trailers to Heritage.
"Not sure - the building
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 21:02 — Apexter"Not sure - the building capacity is 1663 for both Heritage and Wakefield. I believe that Heritage will only house 9 & 10 grade next year, but I could not find the projected enrollment for that school. Wakefield accomodates 3000 students with the addition of 39 trailers."
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, Wakefield is currently housing 2813 students divided between 2 campuses --- the main Wakefield campus and the 9th grade center. The demographics report shows that it has a capacity of 3077.
I don't have proof, but I think that "39 trailers" number is suspect. I rarely have occasion to drive by Wakefield, so I couldn't say for sure, but I'll be my hat that they don't have 39 trailers. My guess is that they probably have some multi-classroom modular units and some mobiles, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were counting some of the classrooms at the 9th grade center in that 39 trailer total. (The 9th grade center is actually a former Winn Dixie.)
I haven't seen the proposed enrollment for Heritage published, either. However, this past school year, it housed the 10th, 11th, and 12th grade from Wake Forest-Rolesville HS, which totalled 1336 students. In 2010-2011, it will have only the 9th and 10th graders assigned to Heritage.
So...
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:25 — Bob_SconceWakefield also has a 9th grade center in a converted grocery store at the intersection of 98 & Capital. From what I understand, parents generally think its a great transition between 8th & 10th grade.
Another side
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 21:15 — Solon77Work colleagues have students at the 9th grade center and they are not very happy. A year of isolation does not help with the transition and provides challenges if in advanced math.
I have the feeling there
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:11 — ApexterI have the feeling there will be some that love it, some that hate it.
I'm surprised that the advanced math was a problem. I've heard it stated here that Honors Algebra II was offered only to the students who had completed Algebra I in 8th grade. That being the case, I would expect it to be a predominantly 9th grade class. If your child was super-advanced, though, and had already taken Algebra II in middle school, perhaps the option wouldn't be there.
From my personal experience,
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:43 — Tony_LucasFrom my personal experience, Honors Geometry is after Algebra I in 8th Grade and it is a mixture of 9th and 10th grade students. After that is Honors Algebra II, which is made up of primarily 10th and 11th graders, sometimes a ninth grader. I would assume that the ninth grade center offers only Honors Geometry as the advanced course. They may offer Honors Algebra II but depending on interest it may be offered once a year during one block or there might not be enough students to justify offering the course (happened to me at Middle Creek). For some students, if their parents are able or if they work out a deal with the principal can take the courses at another location, such as the 10-12 school.
I tutor high school math and
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:49 — jeffrey1I tutor high school math and have students from several different high schools. At some schools, the sequence is:
while at others the sequence is:
I've had 9th graders in all three courses.
So..
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:35 — Bob_SconceI think you're thinking of Honors Geometry, which is soon to be extinct.
For reasons I can't comprehend, the state is mixing up its math courses -- the lineup used to be Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II. Now, it's "High School Math A, Math B and Math C," and they've mixed up what's in those. It's especially bad for Geometry, which should be a foundational stand-alone course (it's the first class where you do proofs, and helps not just in math, but also in persuasive writing, science, any place you have to go from A to D).
Ahh...
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 22:00 — Bob_SconceYes, I've heard problems if you need to take classes at the main campus. From the parents I've talked to, it eases the high school transition since 9th graders (especially boys) are often physically just a lot smaller than 10th-12th graders. But, that's anecdotal and clearly isn't a universal opinion.
Interesting to get that perspective -- thanks.
I don't disagree - except
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:48 — magnetParentI don't disagree - except for issues with accommodating those math genius' that are ready to take on (in some cases) Algebra2. But my mention of 9&10th grade at Heritage is only because it is a new school and they don't like to move the 11&12 graders. Eventually it will be a 9-12 school.
I don't know what your definition of "huge" is, but the specs have it laid out as a building capacity of 1663 (the same as Wakefield), which seems to be the norm for most of the newer high schools.
I have no idea how accurate
Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:16 — JSBinNCI have no idea how accurate or true the WCPSS site data is - but for wakefield, their adjusted capacity is over 3K.
Not at ALL saying that is IDEAL - but it's what the WCPSS site states.