The school board is sticking with the reassignment of students from Lacy to Stough elementary schools
School board member Beverley Clark said, after having a friend from SAS review the data yesterday, that she feels the staff data for Lacy and Stough are good. She said she wasn't going to ask for reconsideration of the moves, especially with the crowding at Lacy.
"Will the students from Lacy receive an excellent education at Stough?" Clark said during the meeting. "The unqualified answer is yes."
Clark had raised hopes of some Lacy parents on Monday by asking the board to review the school at tonight's work session.
UPDATE/CORRECTION
It looks like the board decided to move the Lacy students to Root Elementary in 2009 in all. I'm sorry about any confusion over this item.
Comments
parent--I have found that
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:40 — jenmanparent--I have found that the 'bad reputation' thing is so very subjective. I've met people who live in the base area for Joyner who *still* won't send their kids there and think its a bad school. We were there for 4 years as a magnet family and thought it was wonderful. There are people who make negative comments about our current school--Wildwood Forest because the F&R has gotten higher through the years. We're happy here. Is the absolute best elem school in WCPSS? No, but its a good school. So much of life is what you make it. Back in 05-06 those parents decided that Stough wouldn't be good enough so they bailed.
I am enjoying this conversation and I don't mean to be on the attack even though it will sound like it. But frankly, the Lacy parents back in 05-06 sound like whiny elitists. In the grand scheme of things they still had it pretty darn good. Stough was still a good school and they were all assigned to a magnet middle and high school. You all have been pretty da*n lucky if you ask me. Until the de-mag this year, you have all attended a magnet high school and a magnet middle school that have low F&R% and where your children get all the extras that the rest of are denied at our base schools. Some Lacy families will STILL get to attend a magnet--Martin--where their children will take elective courses that the rest of our kids can only dream of. (Unless we win that 'lottery' that's heavily weighted towards wealthier parents at wealthier schools.)
I'm not sure that these Lacy parents who have formed this PAC realize that without the diversity policy, Broughton, Daniels and Martin would all have F&R% far above the county average. These policies have actually helped you all of these years, often at the expense of other children around the county.
I know this sounds like an attack and I truly don't mean it to be a personal one. I am enjoying getting your perspective on this issue. I think that we all have preconceived notions or stereotypes of what families from a certain school or part of the county are like. I certainly admit to having those, but I do strive to keep an open mind about people and their motivations. Whether that happens or not, I can't objectively say (lol) but I am enjoying this dialogue with you and the other Lacy parents here on the board.
lacymom--but was Stough in
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 14:23 — jenmanlacymom--but was Stough in such sad shape before that proposed move? Looking at the previous years NC Report cards it doesn't seem so.
In 05-06, the difference between Lacy and Stough wasn't that great. Certainly not enough to warrant fears of being sent to a 'bad' school. That year, 93.3% of Lacy's NED kids passed both EOGs. 89% of Stough's did. 58.2% of Lacy's ED kids passed, 59.7% of Stough's did. Overall, 84.2% of Lacy's students passed, 79.9% of Stough's did. Lacy had an F&R of 24% that year, Stough's was 31%.
Why are so many wealthy families leaving Stough? Because the following year Stough's F&R went to 41% and has climbed every year since. People start leaving when the F&R goes up that high. If the nodes originally slated to attend Stough in that move had gone there, I don't think Stough would be in the shape its in now. Now the school system is left with two schools about 2 miles from each other with very different demographics and test scores. All because some families didn't want to change schools in the first place.
That's fine--I understand not wanting to change schools. But something's got to give and now it has. You can thank them for the mess you're in now I guess.
3 years ago even with the
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 16:29 — parent3 years ago even with the similair scores, Stough had a bad reputation. I knew nothing of either school and began to ask around and visited each. The base did not go then as I found out when I met families from the base. They did get one Lacy node that year and a good Brooks node later. Only 8 of the 42 in the Lacy node went and of those, 3 are left. Of the 3 Lacy nodes slated to go now there are only 30-35 kids that will not be grandfathered. Getting some of those 42 or even getting some of the 24 elementary kids from Bridgeton Park that do not attend would make up for those 30. And parent from that base should be willing to support Stough. As it stands now, the Lacy parents have no desire to support a PTA whose members gleefully stood in front of us and asked that we be willing to have our children's education disrupted so that their school could be better. "Our school is wonderful" but we need you to make it "healthy". How can it be both? Private school here we come. Guess they won't be getting that 30 either. Perhaps that school board will give it even more nodes - that will do the trick.
Here is what I know about
Sun, 02/01/2009 - 15:38 — raleighreaderHere is what I know about the situation:
The 2006 reassignment plan has students being moved from Stough to help fill Brier Creek when it opens.
Stough has to get new students from somewhere so GM proposes moving several nodes from Lacy to Stough.
Lacy parents complain and get most of their nodes dropped from the plan. Instead of 170-something students, its now 40 something getting moved.
The remaining Lacy parents scheduled to move to Stough suggest moving kids from Brooks instead.
I don't think that this is about Stough trying to 'tear apart' Lacy. When a new school opens, shifts must be made. For whatever reason (political pressure?), the majority of the Lacy nodes were removed from the plan. This left Stough underenrolled. Why is it wrong for Stough to ask for backfill of non-F&R nodes when they were left with a higher F&R after the opening of Brier Creek?
I understand that those families then and now don't want to leave their school. But we can't open new schools without having a 'chain reaction' of moves. Stough is less than 2 miles away from Lacy. Why should Lacy remain untouched when it comes to these sorts of reassignments?
Like I said, I understand not wanting to move. But what is WCPSS supposed to do when they open a new school? There *have* to be *some* shifts and the Lacy to Stough one in 2006 was not unreasonable. Their base areas are adjacent and the schools are very close to each other. Lacy nodes weren't being bused out just so the F&R could be raised, which happens frequently in far flung schools.
They shouldn't open new schools!
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 09:25 — g88ky07Until they have a need in THAT area! How do you reassign kids to schools that aren't even built? Aren't even funded?
Guess we didn't really, don't really, need a school that can't be filled with locals huh!
The Problem
Sun, 02/01/2009 - 20:02 — lacymomThe problem for Stough is not the kids who were moved to Brier Creek.
Stough already can't pull children from its own healthy nodes. And this problem will still be there next year and two years from now and so on until the fundamental problems with the school are fixed.
The bottom line is that parents are not sending their kids to the school because the education they get there is not good.
You are correct that the physical difference between Lacy and Stough is not great. But the test scores are about 30 percentage points different in reading and math between the two schools.
Once again, parents will avoid Stough at whatever cost. And once again WCPSS will ignore the real problem.
Lacy used to be a school that was not the best. It had a prinicipal that apparently was horrible and then Dr. Alford was brought in and she has made it what it is today and utilized the parents to re-make the school. Sadly, the Stough prinicipal is apparently like the previous Lacy principal. No Dr. Alford there, either.
Our property has just been seriously devalued by WCPSS. Hopefully that will mean our massive tax increase from last year can go down a bit freeing up some money for private school. And for donations to the Childrens PAC in order to try to keep the BOE from doing this to any other community.
Oh and what about Cary’s
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:09 — vsheehanOh and what about Cary’s property values? You didn’t care about them when you voted for a school bond that would turn a majority of Cary schools MYR. I know you were not dumb enough to believe that the MYR was about growth. I know you know it was about bussing Raleigh’s LI into more Cary schools. The BOE had already wreaked the property values of the homes around Cary Schools the BOE had bussed your city’s poor to for years. The bond was about making more room for the LI kids you do not want in your school and decimated the property values throughout Cary. Of course the fact that you can vote for Raleigh initiatives to help your cities LI population should not mean you should suffer the consequences of not doing so. That’s what the other cities in Wake are for, to deal with the mess your city ignored and did not try to fix.
Oh wait what am I saying?! I am only a racist to think Raleigh should deal with the mess it has made. How mean of me to think NRaleigh parents should suffer the consequences of their actions.
Ehhh...
Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:59 — Bob_SconceWell.... It's true that Hope Carmichael's group supported the bond only after Lacy was taken off the MYR list. It was a shrewd political move by the board. But, I really don't think there was any sort of plan to bus low-income kids out of the beltline to keep ITB property values high. I just don't buy that. Besides, it was three years ago and many of those involved don't have kids at Lacy any more.
Right now, the best approach is to let bygones be bygones, find common ground and build a broad base of support.
But...
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 13:11 — supportwcpssIsn't the enemy of your enemy your friend...
Hmmm
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 09:35 — Bob_SconceHow much of Lacy's success do you attribute to the Principal and how much do you attribute to a community of involved parents? The Lacy parents I know are *very* involved. I don't know any Stough parents.
I need to better understand the mission of the Children's PAC better before I contribute.
Success...
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:07 — lacymomTakes everyone - principal, parents, and teachers.
A good principal can get the teachers on board and will create a culture of success that inspires and motivates the parents to donate even more time, talent and resources.
Yes, Lacy parents are very involved, as are parents at a good many Wake County schools. But I think we realize that our involvement would only go so far without an excellent Lacy administration to do the day to day work which keeps the school on track.
I have no opinion on Stough parents. They clearly worked hard on lobbying the BOE, so they are committed. But this has not been enough to turn things around at Stough.
The problem is that the amazing efforts of Lacy parents and parents at other school that turned themselves around is not likely to be seen around Wake County anymore.
There is no incentive to build a community school when the BOE is just going to turn around in a few years, dismantle the school and inform the parents that there "are no neighborhood schools" as Rosa Gill likes to say.
Lack of a sense of community and belonging is a recipe for failure. WCPSS will realize this only after we are a city like Atlanta where most citizens left public schools for good long ago and where they still haven't fixed the schools.
The only way to keep this from happening is take political action this November.
Again - what was Beverley thinking?
Fri, 01/30/2009 - 08:32 — lacymomBromhal -
That's absolutely right. After the grandfathering, you're talking about 30-35 kids.
Stough parents have lobbied extensively for this. It's not about the numbers. God knows it's not about the children. Based on the comments of virtually every Stough speaker at the public hearing in Wendell, it's about "if we had to go, you should too". It was absolutely unbelievable. One after the other they stood up and told the audience what a great school Stough is (and wow, that sure shows in their abysmal test scores), and in the same speech said how they needed our kids.
If Stough was so great, grown people would not be lobbying and attending a public hearing to take other people's children out of a neighborhood school they love. And if that's representative of a Stough parent, then they made the case for a number of us that night. Leaving there the one thing we agreed on was that no matter where our kids go, it won't be Stough.
I wish Stough luck rebuilding their school. And I hope they one day see the wisdom that it won't happen by tearing apart another.
I should have added... There
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:55 — BromhalI should have added...
There aren't 107 kids that are being moved. Regular grandfathering took about 50, sibling grandfathering took another 20 (or at least the total was ~70).
So we're talking about a max of 30-35 kids affected.
Let's not forget the real losers in this decision-
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 17:30 — wakewearyUltimately, Stough loses here if indeed the plan is approved because their LI numbers will be marginally if any improved next year. By the time the students in these nodes are grandfathered back to Lacy, magneted out of Stough, or choose another alternative (after all, they will be Stough base nodes then so when in Rome...), the percentages won't look like any of that data. Maybe Bev can have lunch out at SAS again after that to get some more data analysis help because Stough will be back at the Board asking for more relief next year, you can bet money on it.
One year later
Thu, 01/21/2010 - 16:40 — shank56Just looked at the numbers for Stough
2008 -09 attendance 608
2009-10 attendance 529
stop talking that sense!!!
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 22:53 — BromhalI'll have to come back and edit with the exact numbers Clark cited as a result of her SAS mission. But she claimed the nodes would take Stough from 80% capacity to full capacity. And it would make F&R/LI numbers drop all the way from 40 to 36%.
All this trouble for 4 measly percent.
And the Stough parents apparently eat it up. I don't know - not one of them has said anything of factual nature as to "how great of a school it is". They seem, again based on the lack of this information, to believe that by capturing 3 pretty daggone high-qulaity nodes, all their ills will be fixed.
I've said it before - several high-quality nodes have been added to Stough's base over the last several years. But very few (we're talking <10%) of the kids attend.
If students from these nodes won't attend, what do theyt hink students from higher-income nodes are going to do?
I don't think anybody said
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:39 — raleighreaderI don't think anybody said that all kids in private school were 'pulled out' of public school. But I think that the number of parents pulling their kids out is increasing. I agree that it would be interesting to see the numbers.
I can see what Bob is saying
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 13:21 — raleighreaderI can see what Bob is saying and I agree. WCPSS has alienated many of the middle to upper class families that they rely on. I never saw Bob say that people still in WCPSS don't care. WCPSS relies on middle to upper class families to donate money to their children's schools, to volunteer in the classroom, and to provide the 'good example' for the troubled or low performing kids to emulate. When more and more of those people leave (which they are), Wake is shooting themselves in the foot.
I can see the being more
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:13 — raleighreaderI can see the being more involved thing in the private schools if you look at it from a time committment thing. In terms of transportation & some of the volunteer work that is required at various private schools and charters. Doesn't mean that they care more about their kids. But I can see where people who are making an effort to look at other options are probably more involved/interested in their childrens' education as a whole than the rest of us are as a whole. People who don't care at all and view school as just something their kids have to do/day care are in that group with the rest of us as a whole.
Private school parent
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 09:03 — deannemMy oldest is in the fourth grade and would be in his third elementary school if we hadn't decided to do without a lot and put him in private school. We tried to deal with WCPSS but found them either unresponsive or bullying. It is sad to see that there is constant turmoil that never seems to get resolved.
Thanks Keung. I agree that
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 09:00 — raleighreaderThanks Keung. I agree that some of those parents are probably hoping they get dropped in the meantime. I can see their point about going to the modular and then the perm building. Doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request.
Does anybody know what the
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 23:18 — raleighreaderDoes anybody know what the argument was for moving Lacy nodes to Root in 2010 rather than 2009? Just curious since I've only heard about the parents not wanting to go to Stough. Haven't heard anything about the nodes going to Root.
Wake wants to restock Root
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 08:11 — KeungHui (author)Wake wants to restock Root after it moves back to its permanent home, especially as the magnet students thin out during the demag process. The Root parents had been asking for Wake to send more kids to the school. The Lacy parents argued that Root's enrollment will actually be much larger on its own. They say parents decided not to go this year because Root is located in a modular school while the campus is being renovated.
Staff wanted to mve the kids to 2009, a year earlier than 2010 to help reduce the number of staff who might have to leave Root. But the Lacy parents argued that delaying the move a year wouldn't have the staffing impact that was warned about. Lacy parents also talked about how hard the transition it would be for kids to be at Lacy this year, Root's modular school this fall (the renovations won't be done until October) and Root's permanent building in the winter.
While the Lacy parents didn't want to leave, their fallback was to push the move to Root to 2010. They, and I suspect a number of other folks, hope the board will drop some moves should they tweak the plan next year.
It should also be pointed
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:26 — MH683It should also be pointed out that the original revised reassignment plan released in December proposed reassignment of Lacy students to Root in 2010. Just a couple of weeks ago, staff suddenly requested that Lacy students be moved to Root in 2009. These Lacy parents are asking the Board to do what staff originally proposed and not to go with this last minute change to the plan.
Restock, as in *cans on a
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:34 — Big_PictureRestock, as in *cans on a grocery shelf*? Yes, that sounds exactly like something our warm, caring, sympathetic school board would put as an action item.
Hope Cope nails 'em
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 22:57 — citizenqYou're right, g88. Definitely a lot of groups out there. But have you read anything about Dana Cope? His bio's on this blog. Not the kind of guy who plays. "Dr. Del and his henchmen" may be doing themselves and BOE in this time. Having been screwed by the BOE more than once, I love that a heavy hitter has decided to play!
No Glee - Just Truth
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:45 — al_in_garnerNo parent wants their children moved like pawns in order to facilitate Chuck's Grande Design. You can't present logic to a Master on a Quest.
No where else in this country do parents have to ( or would they ) put up with such contortions.
When your told the truth, that this scheme is not about Growth but Diversity, can you not understand that? Or don't you want to believe it?
Honesty, facts, good intentions will get you NO WHERE with this BOE. They are lead by the nose by Dr Del and his henchman Chuck D.
Civil disobedience or cutting off their funds are the only answers I can offer. Or going private, or moving out. You decide.
The answer is right here in Wake
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 07:02 — fiestamomYou see the answer to your last sentence. I don't think it's a coincidence that Wake County has one of the largest homeschool percentages in the country. (And it's not all 'religious folks')- Look at the private schools opening as well. Ron M. said as much about 6 months ago, that WCPSS was going to have to take the flight from schools seriously.
It's an excellent point
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 09:20 — Bob_SconceFrom one point of view, it's fantastic that kids are moving to private and home schools -- that's one fewer kid that WCPSS has to educate. In effect, the parents are subsidizing WCPSS.
But, it's not a great thing for the district -- those parents are the ones who are involved with their kids education. Had they stayed in the district, they would be volunteering in the schools and active in the PTA. If there is any sort of "osmosis" effect between kids, their kids would help it along. Instead, they are outside the district, with a bad taste in their mouth. As a result, they are likely to be antagonistic toward WCPSS. How are they going to vote on bond issues now?
It's circular: the diversity policy pushes these families out of the WCPSS schools, which means more busing around of remaining kids, which pushes more families out, etc.... In the end, the whole thing is self-defeating. It may be that the only thing keeping it afloat is the steady stream of newcomers.
faulty logic...
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 09:48 — supportwcpssI think your logic that those who "home school or send to private are more involved". First, I know a number of parents who are in the F&R group who decide to home school and aren't close to qualified. While they might be more 'involved' they are actually having a negative impact. More importantly, sending your kids to private school in no way means you are more involved in your kids schooling. Now you mean that simply bu putting having money to do it is involved then I guess yoy are right. If it means actually being involved I argue their is no correlation.
supportwcpss - You're
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:39 — Eric_Bsupportwcpss -
You're being rather ridiculous with these statements... How can we tell what people in general value? It's all in how they spend their time and money. Homeschoolers spend the time. Those sending their kids to private school spend the money.
That's not to say those in WCPSS schools are not involved. Many parents do volunteer and give money to their schools, but those parents are often the ones most alienated when their kids are moved out of their local school to be bused elsewhere.
Missed the point
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:31 — supportwcpssEric - you missed the point completely. Bob made a direct sastement that those in private school (I'll leave out homeschooling for now - different topic) are the more involved families and would volunteer and be the PTA members. I was simply disagreeing with this statement. I know plenty of 'wealthy' families in our school who never volunteer or contribute. I never questioned their values or how they spend their money or time. Nor did I say people in WCPSS are not involved or contribute.
So exactly what point were you making???
Ok.
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:56 — Bob_SconceMaybe my statement was too strong. I don't think EVERY parent like that would otherwise be involved. I do believe, however, that the group that cares enough to watch what's going on in the public schools and decides to pull their kids out to put them in private schools is more likely to be involved at whatever school their kids attend. It's a generalization and, as you point out, there are exceptions.
Richmond, VA, schools have a huge problem -- nearly everybody who is even remotely affluent has pulled their kids out of the public schools. I suggest that WCPSS is inching its way toward that scenario by alienating many of those affluent parents. (The EOG results aren't going to help.)
Big assumption...
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:20 — supportwcpssAnd I think you are making a big assumption that everyone in private schools was 'pulled' out of public schools and that the reason was because of their impression of how bad it was.
I know plenty of people who do it for a lot of other reasons including the fall back of religion, because they feel like their kid has a better shot at Harvard, and because they were in private school. I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to know how many 'pulled' out because of their hatred for the public school system.
Not assuming that....
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 17:45 — Bob_SconceI don't assume that every private school was pulled out because of their parents' "hatred for the public school system." If that were true, private kindergartens would start every year off empty.
My point is that WCPSS' can policies alienate parents who have other options and who are the ones who would, in a typical district, be the backbone of support for the schools. The lion's share of the people who leave probably never get all the way to hatred for the district -- they just stop at apathy.
I'm in this position a bit myself -- Mrs. Sconce and I occasionally consider pulling the Sconce children out of public school. Right now, there's a decent chance that they will go to private middle school and high school. We'll see.
If that happens, you probably won't see me post here because I won't be nearly as vested in what WCPSS does anymore. You may disagree with how I think WCPSS should be run. But, at least I still care how it is run.
I agree with Bob. I am a
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 14:03 — NWRaleighMomI agree with Bob. I am a working parent with little children. I put much more hours volunteering. in a public school with high F & R compared to what I did in private school I don't, miraculously, have more time on my hands, but simply teachers need much more help and very few parents volunteer.
Well...
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:31 — Bob_SconceI assume that you will agree that, for the most part, those doing home schooling or sending their kids to private schools (admittedly two different populations) lean toward the affluent end of the spectrum? It's certainly not true for all -- the F&R parents you know are an exception. But, in general, I suspect it's true.
And, if that's true, then aren't these the sort of family that the school district is trying to expose F&R to by busing them into affluent areas?
If you really want to disprove my argument, you'd have to show that affluent parents who send their kids to private schools or who home school are actually LESS involved than their peer affluent parents. If they're equally involved, then it still holds up -- what would happen to the diversity policy if every "affluent" parent yanked their kids out of the publc schools?
What is your criteria?
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:17 — Dadof3What is your criteria as to what qualifies a parent as an adequate home-school teacher for her children?
Do you intend your readers to take you seriously?
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:40 — Dadof3You've made an astonishing statement -- you should at least clarify what you mean, unless you're not serious.
And
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:18 — supportwcpssWhich statement would you like clarified....
This one
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 15:25 — Dadof3http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/staying-with-the-lacy-to-stough-moves#comment-36885
wcpss and newcomers
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 09:28 — loriacInteresting point about newcomers.... when our neighborhood initially geared up for this 'fight', I heard from a lot of neighborhood 'old timers'. To a person, the reaction was 'I can't believe WCPSS is still at it, count your days until you can get your kids out of the system and tell them to.... ' well, you get the point. I guess every year they have a fresh set of newbie parents who don't stand a chance (heck, even the Lacy seasoned lobbyists didn't stand a chance).
So - the headlines this morning are all about the $2B budget shortfall. Again - why is Wake Growth Mgmt immune? I heard nothing on my inquiries of why a cost/benefit study was not done on this proposal. Think how much money/time/effort/Advil could be saved if we didn't go thru this annual shuffle.
Growth Management
Mon, 02/02/2009 - 23:19 — SDR256We finally received a packet describing Growth Management. I haven't gone through it all, but it shows that there are 20 employees who are fully dedicated to moving children around - not finding a solution that works, mind you - but with titles that reflect what a de-facto variable busing is. Of course they don't want a study. They would be out of jobs.
The working budget for Growth Management is 1.5 million, in addition to about a million in salaries (includes benefits, etc). At first glance it seems every one of the directors has a secretary - so there are 5 or 6 secretaries in the group of 20. It would seem even more curious at their slow or even lack of response to the public therefore, with so much adminstrative help at hand.
It is to their benefit that the churn continues. Actually fixing the problem would put them out on the street. This organization is the heart of the cancer and Chuck Dulaney is the head of it. The BoE does almost everything 'staff' (aka King Charles) advises.
I also meant to add, and ask
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:17 — BromhalI also meant to add, and ask some of the veterans...
Does Patti Head seem to have an unusual number of these assignment/diversity/school quality issues in her district?
It depends
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:23 — local23She has Preston in her group but she has not really listened to anyone else IMHO. One time she answered my email (I think 4 years ago) and she never really answered direct questions..you know the ones of the shuffling, % of F&R, etc.
What is official? That the
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:15 — BromhalWhat is official? That the BOE is leaving the Lacy to Stough proposal in the plan?
I was led to believe the actual vote was Feb 3rd.
I'm sad that one seems to take such glee at the disheartenment of other parents. I hope you're not on my welcome wagon next August when my daughter starts school there - assuming of course it passes on the 3rd.
It's not official in the
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:51 — KeungHui (author)It's not official in the sense that the final vote is scheduled for next week. But the odds of getting dropped at the board table next week after the work sessions are very small.
g88ky07 - you are a sad and
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 21:03 — oldparentg88ky07 - you are a sad and pathetic person to be happy that children are being uprooted from one school and moved to another. I guess you think only kids OTB should get any sympathy in the reassignment process.
You have no idea
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 22:11 — g88ky07the level of my sarcasm, obviously.
Anger Management
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 07:33 — Voice_of_Reason_At least I believe your venting on this blog is theraputic to you. I wonder about the people that have nowhere to vent. Some days I think I will turn on my TV and listen and see our school board on the front burner of Fox or CNN headlines. If your type of anger is out there in the wrong hands and I were on the school board, I'd be wearing a vest and praying a lot. I think there is a breaking point when some people lose control and say enough is enough.
Anyway G88 ... Breath in deep, breath out....