The Growth and Planning Department is making one change in the magnet and year-round selection process this year.
In a nutshell, they won't use the same set of criteria for every magnet school and year-round school. Instead, they'll adjust it depending on the demographics of that particular application school.
Whether it's a major change remains to be seen.
Click here for last year's criteria.
Historically, Wake has given priority for applicants from low F&R schools to get into magnet schools. That's because magnet schools are usually in areas where they need application students to lower the high F&R totals from the base.
It's been the opposite for the year-round schools. They're generally located in the suburbs where there are few F&R students. In those cases, priority has been given to applicants from high F&R schools.
But obviously there are exceptions in both cases.
Asst. Supt. Chuck Dulaney noted that Wilburn and Green elementary schools both have high F&R rates so it doesn't make sense there to give a preference to year-round applicants from high F&R schools.
There are also some magnet schools whose F&R bases are so low that it doesn't make sense to give priority to kids from low F&R schools.
This year, Dulaney said they've asked the computer programmers to give them more flexiblity to adjust the application criteria depending on the school. Dulaney said this doesn't mean dozens of separate criteria will be used.
But Dulaney said that they will give priority to kids leaving high or low F&R schools depending on what they want to get in that magnet school or year-round school.
Dulaney said his department will determine which critieria to use for each school closer to the selection period in early March.
Click here to apply for a magnet school, year-round school or traditional-calendar school.
Comments
Stan really is an idiot.
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 00:37 — aspienatStan really is an idiot. -----Original Message----- > From: Stan Norwalk [mailto:stann@nc.rr.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:19 PM > To: 'Calla Wright' > Subject: FW: disturbing agenda of the WSCA > Importance: High > > > > -----Original Message----- >
Please don't post when you're clearly...
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 23:44 — RiversideRealist... ignorant about what's being discussed..
Btw, I assume you mean that 40% pay 50% of the NYC income tax not property, payroll or sales tax right. Normally, when the total of all taxes are measured there is not quite the skew.
No, not 40% -- it was FORTY THOUSAND OF THE EIGHT MILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN NYC PAY 50% OF THE TAX ROLL.
I'll say it again.
FORTY THOUSAND OUT OF EIGHT MILLION.
Those were Mayor Bloomberg's words.
Sorry, you are right .. I
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 11:46 — user1234Sorry, you are right .. I meant 40k of the people pay 50% of the NYC city tax which is only a portion of the total tax bill with also includes - payroll, sales, property, etc. Wealthy people pay a disporportional amount of income tax while lower income folks pay a dispoportional amount of other taxes. Ultimately, everyone when all taxes are included pay about 18% across the board. I just wanted to make sure we were clear that the 40k for NYC income tax was only one of many taxes people pay.
Payroll?
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 13:19 — Voice_of_Reason_Payroll taxes are federal and relate to Social Security. I do believe the very rich get a break there, but it is SUPPOSED to be a manditory savings program for old age, not a tax to take care of the poor. But that has changed over the years and I doubt if I ever see a penny of it. Sales taxes are the most fair, with property taxes right behind. They are voluntary in a sense because you chose to pay what you like through your level of consumption. And last time I looked, the rich paid a lot more of both; but everyone contributes and EVERYONE benefits if the money is spent right.
You are right that rich
Mon, 02/23/2009 - 11:39 — user1234You are right that rich people pay more in total but the same in % of income.. It is interesting to see how societies grapple with collecting taxes (e.g. progressive / regressive) and people cite total vs. % depending on the point they are making. I will admit one weakness here …. While everyone pays about the same amount as a % (total tax) but the lower income folks actually get more service per dollar of tax contributed than wealthy folks. The real battle for the rich should be on expenditure not collection. Ultimately, a society has to work these issues out on who pays and gets paid. Also, lower wealth people get their income in the form of a salary that is taxed at a higher rate than most wealthy folks who get their income in the form of capital gains that is taxed at a lower rate. You are going to argue that playing the stock market or inheriting stock is more valuable than earning a salary? There are lots of complications.
VOR … you asked about school funding at one time and I was not sure I saw the answer. I thought Wake’s $5180 came from State income tax redistributed to each county and the $2400 came from property tax collected in the county? I also though that low wealth counties got a little extra from the state to compensate for not having enough local property tax? Do you know the answer?
vsheehan – “So in the end I pay more taxes in NC and get a below average education for my children. In VA I paid less taxes, shared those tax dollars with all of VA and got an amazing school for my kids. “
Do you pay more taxes here because the rate is higher or your home is more expensive? I assume you moved here for the opportunity and that you upgraded homes and have a more expensive home here than when you were in VA? Maybe not. Second, many people here would consider putting all your money in a pot to shared equally socialism or communism since it rewards the poor and laggards so be careful.
Funny I was just talking on
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 18:14 — vsheehanFunny I was just talking on another group about how NC spends its Taxes dollars. When I lived in VA I paid less taxes and sent my children to an outstanding, diverse public school. The area in VA I lived raised more Tax dollars then the rest of VA but Va takes all the tax money pools it then sends the same amount for each kid in a public school no matter where that public school is. So in the end I pay more taxes in NC and get a below average education for my children. In VA I paid less taxes, shared those tax dollars with all of VA and got an amazing school for my kids.
good work if you can get it
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:37 — loriacThis whole convoluted process results in job protection for the Wake Growth Management board. Look how many people it takes to maintain this, program all these exceptions, etc. Why would they want anything straightforward?
Exactly. The same with
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:39 — NWRaleighMomExactly.
The same with the Magnet Office staff- create programs to benefit few chosen people.
Eric--you took the words out
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:49 — raleighreaderEric--you took the words out of my mouth. If they don't have a significant enough F&R base then WHY ON EARTH are they magnet schools?
Did anybody see the real estate section of the paper today? The featured neighborhood, The Oaks at Fallon Park, that sells for $750-900K? Those kids walk to a magnet elem. Nice, huh?
A road to wealth
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:04 — user1234If you can get WCPSS to build $10-$70M schools in your neighborhood on say $1-$3M of donated land it probably is worth $100-$300k more you can charge for the homes. Having a de facto private school built with public funds in your neighborhood can be a quick way for developers to make huge profits and the first homeowners to build wealth.
Hmmm
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:45 — Bob_SconceMy recollection of the deals is that they turn out a bit better for the distrct than you imply, where the developer contributes the land and pays a significant chunk of the construction cost. The district should always negotiate the best deal it can.
I see nothing wrong with property values in a community going up because the local schools are good. After all, the community's involvement in the schools is a big part of why they are so good. The district unfortunately sees community involvement as something to be mined--by sucking the value out and redirecting it to the district's chosen beneficiaries. That's counter-productive (abusing parents makes them less involved) and unethical (the community has intended targets for its generosity; what right does the district have to override their choices?)
Bob, I don’t think is bad
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:22 — user1234Bob, I don’t think is bad to try to secure public works projects for your personal benefit... it almost an American pass time … Smart neighborhoods are always trying to secure a library or public park to enhance their property values. I think it is great when local schools are good but they should not be >$100k home price better than the next school … if one school is worth that much more than the next one, there is some serious disparity that is not consistent with a public school system. It seems logical that after this round of massive disruptive reassignments that things will settle down as fewer people move here because of the economy, fewer new schools open and more current residence will turn their attention to just staying employed and keeping their homes.
User1234 - OK I need to vent
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 19:30 — Voice_of_Reason_If you had your way those people with money would have lower property values and ALSO lower property taxes. The result would be less money coming to the public treasury. In addition, poorer peoples house would have a higher value and they would have to pay more property taxes. So the rich would get a break and the poor would suffer. I guess that would be fair if everyone gets the same mediocracy. You see class warfare is a two edge sword. I would prefer if government took care of their best customers (the higher paying taxpayers), so they would want to stay and contribute more of their treasure to the public treasury.
In NYC, the mayor came to that realization when he said this week that only 40,000 people in NYC paid over 50% of the taxes, what would happen if they left? The discussion was raising taxes with emphasis on the rich. I think we need to take care of the geese that lay the golden eggs, not punish them.
I understand we need to
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 21:11 — user1234I understand we need to coddle rich folks so they don’t move on but public school is the great equalizer in society and the way we build a strong middle class and incubate the rich folks of the future.
Btw, I assume you mean that 40% pay 50% of the NYC income tax not property, payroll or sales tax right. Normally, when the total of all taxes are measured there is not quite the skew.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012212.php
No I was right only 40,000 people, about 1% of population
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 22:38 — Voice_of_Reason_http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/02/20/michael-bloomberg-on-raising-taxes.html
I do assume that was income tax, but the article did not specify. I do think that some people in NYC are getting too much compensation for their work in public traded companies; I would rather let stockholders vote compensation packages rather than boards. NYC is unique because of the number of "uber wealthy".. in the US, the top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes. When you speak of wealthy user1234, I believe you lump people making over $100K a year with the multi-millionaires. Those that make over $200 rarely send their kids to public schools.
BTW- How can public school be an equalizer if private schools exist? I won't beat this one anymore. I do think public schools should provide equal opportunity to achieve, equal outcome is a pipe dream only achieved by dragging the top down.
Also, If you call getting better service for more pay coddling, then what do you call service for little or no pay (the other extreme)?
A parable (forgive the length)
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 19:14 — Bob_SconceA certain town built two identical libraries, one on the east side of town, one one the west, and stocked the two libraries with the same books, a typical cross-section of fiction, non-fiction, reference works and childrens books. The libraries had the same hours and were each staffed by the same number of professional librarians,
Now, the people in the east side of town got very excited about their library -- they would drop off their old books to be reused at the library and even buy new books when they found something they thought their neighbors might like to read. They would volunteer their time at the East library and would read stories for the local kids.
Eventually, the town library board noticed that the East Library was much better than the West Library, which still had its original books and librarians. So, the library board decided to take some of the books which had been donated to the East Library and give them to the West Library. The library board also decided that the West library needed some more volunteers. So, the board told about half the volunteers at the East library that they were no longer allowed into that library -- if they wanted to volunteer, they would have to go to the West library.
It didn't take long for the people in the East to notice -- "I don't want to drive across town to volunteer at a different library. East library is MY library!" they would say. And, so those people never decided to volunteer at East library. "What happened to the encyclopedia I donated last month? I needed to look some thing up! That's that last time I donate to the library." they would say.
But, still some people donated and some people volunteered at the East library. Then the library board looked and said "East library is still better than West library. Let's move more over to West library. And, let's tell more volunteers to stay out of East library."
The cycle repeated. The library board would take more books from East library, but far fewer books would come in to replace those. And, more volunteers were told to stay out of East library.
In the end, The libraries had the same books, but only because nobody was bringing any new ones in. And, they had the same number of volunteers, but only because nobody volunteered at all. But, they were equal, and the library board was happy.
Spot on Bob, and truly
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 13:36 — Big_PictureSpot on Bob, and truly disgusting for the Wake County schools (I mean libraries).
Well said
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 19:33 — Dadof3Excellent parable!
Either you have MPD or more
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 18:16 — vsheehanEither you have MPD or more then one person uses your log-in. The writing style is different and the philosophy behind the statements are completely different with no rhyme or reason for the change.
Fix the schools
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:42 — Eric_BIf a school has too low of an F&R percentage, it should not be a magnet school. These schools should be servicing a significant number of low-income base students along with magnet students. If Growth & Planning cannot come up with a large enough low-income base to balance out the magnet application students, the school simply should not be a magnet school!!
Why are they going through all these convolutions to change their software and criteria to have the criteria vary on a per-school basis? How is this possibly transparent? How do parents know which schools they have the best chance of getting accepted into so that we know where to apply?
No parent can possibly understand this process! There are already a large number of parents that believe the magnet lottery is a true random lottery and don't understand the various selection rounds.
Why don't they publish it
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:17 — NWRaleighMomWhy don't they publish it now? Parents would select the schools according to the chances they have.
how is this NOT classified
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:12 — AngelaWhow is this NOT classified as discrimination?? at least before they could fall back on their convoluted "lottery" system, now if they go school by school, it changes EVERYTHING, it DISCRIMINATES against certain schools.....doesn't ANYONE else see this?!?!?!?!?
It is discrimination
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:46 — Bob_SconceBut, it's legal discrimination. As long as they're not doing it on the basis of race, national origin or sex, they're pretty much in the clear.
AHHHHH!!! I thought th BOE
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:57 — vsheehanAHHHHH!!! I thought the BOE voted note to change the criteria?
It's not technically a
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:59 — KeungHui (author)It's not technically a change in the criteria. It's a change in how it's applied toward individual schools. They didn't even feel a need to take a thumbs up vote on it.
Criteria will vary per-school
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:49 — Eric_BHow is this not a change in the criteria if it will now vary per-school? How is this not a change if Growth & Planning must modify their software to allow different acceptance criteria on a per-school basis?
I don't understand how this could not be considered a change in criteria. You even said in your post:
"In a nutshell, they won't use the same set of criteria for every magnet
school and year-round school. Instead, they'll adjust it depending on
the demographics of that particular application school."
Doesn't that mean changing the criteria per-school?
The actual criteria, with
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:07 — KeungHui (author)The actual criteria, with the rounds and pct filled randomly are not changing. It means that some magnet schools will use the year-round critieria that favored applicants from high F&R schools. Some year-round schools will use the magnet criteria that favored applicants from low F&R schools.
Last year's criteria
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:51 — Eric_BLast year's criteria clearly laid out the selection criteria for:
- Elementary magnets
- Secondary magnets
- Year-round calendar
- Traditional calendar
Many of us assumed that the same criteria would be followed this year, but now staff apparently has latitude to decide which of their 4 different criteria to use on a per-school basis.
I would say it is nitpicking to say that the criteria is not changing. If you are looking at a magnet school that is having its criteria changed to the year-round calendar criteria, then of course that is a change in criteria for the school.
So now there will be even
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:43 — SouthEastWakeMomSo now there will be even less transparency in the whole magnet application process because the Growth & Planning will be able to change the acceptance criteria at will to further their agenda of diversity at all costs.