Wake County school board committee talks about imbalanced year-round school track utilization

Agree with your assessment.  I also think the county has to do a lot better of a job in funding school construction and quit being so reactive in the planning for new schools.  In some ways I think the towns and the city should have much more responsibility in ensuring adequate capacity.  Maybe it's time to split the WCPSS into different semi-autonomous regions and make them responsible for school planning capacity and construction.   There's certainly economies of scale and savings gained by having county wide school system but the county is almost to divergent to have one single system now.  Once issue if you split the system into regions up how you prevent having three or four really good regions and one or two really bad regions.  I wouldn't want to see the county look like a Northeastern US model or a Memphis/Shelby county model.  Not sure of the solution to the problem.

Does anyone know how this will work? Is the plan a gradual one where new kindergartners are assigned to the track evenly so that in the long run, middle schools come up even? Or should all the people on heavier tracks expect track reassignments next year, particularly those moving up to middle school?

I don't understand the desire to double track 2 at Brassfield as Brassfield now feeds West Millbrook MS which is traditional.  When MYR hit Brassfield 6 years ago they tried to double tracks 1 & 2 and many of the parents forced to track 2 either changed tracks as soon as they could or left the school.  By the 4th year track 2 was completely eliminated in what would have been 4th grade for our child.  We left that very first year as our 1st grader was assigned to track 2, our 4th choice, becasue we had a 6th grader on a traditional calendar.  It would make more sense to double track 4 at Brassfield as it is the closest match to its feeder school calendar.

leaves me laughing and shaking my head.  This conversation is past, it's old and it's basically irrelevant now.

We told the Head, Millberg, CLARK, Gill board this was not wanted and would not work and guess what, the proof has been here since day one, it does not work in most cases in this county.

You can have discussions with Kushner all you like, you can listen to Boy Wonder Martin, and side kick CPA or Not Evans, tell you something different all day long, but none of them have the guts to do what should have been done day one, fill the schools/tracks!

And even if they did now it's too late.  When they go to forcing people around again the backlash will be ten fold what it's been in the past.

That backlash will be very evident next year, at bond time.

Just sayin'.

So what is the most pressing problem that drives so much of the rest of the conversationin wake schools?   Capacity and growth.   It drives a lot of the money discussions, bond discussions, transportation discussions, assignment discussions and is at the root of the problems wake county has had over the past few years and in the future.

So I don't understand how the central administration can have such a hands off approach in leaving how to administer year round schools up to the principals.   Capacity has to be known for assignment planning and school construction planning but prnicipals are given the opportunity at year round schools to arbitrary reduce school capacity by running more classes of one track and getting rid of tracks that impact their school capacity but also other feeder school capacities as kids are linked to stay on the same track.    Why is there not a more centrally managed team responsible for this with such important impacts ont he school system?   Complete lack of wake county school institutional controls.

Also, so this capacity impacting changes being done at the schools, what does that mean for assignment.  Are capacity numbers published for each school in year round assume an even distribution of classes per track fully utilizing the school or is it based on the reality the principals have created by having more classes of one track and cutting classes in other tracks or tracks all together.    Seems to be yet another behind the scenes non-transparent activity going on in the assignment plan that could have a big impact on capacity and getting into a school.

1: "school administrators say they're working to ease the problem over time."

That's a problem all in itself. There should be, and always should have been, a standard procedure in place to handle this issue. It should NEVER be left up to one person to do what he/she wants.

2: "capacity figures are based on ideal long-range capacity, which is designed to reduce the number of modulars and mobiles on each campus."

Tell that to OCE and several others!  Once again, wrong formula.

3: "It's posed problems for year-round middle schools who at times have forced families to change tracks after the school year has started because track four is too crowded."

Like at the recent school that got ZERO COVERAGE???  Where the kids missed their first entire week before the parents were notified about their tracks being forcibly changed without their input or concern???  This should NEVER take place AFTER the school year starts and again, this is why issues as major as this should NEVER be left up to a principal. 

4: "The imbalance reflects how some year-round schools have partially or completely collapsed some tracks"

Those schools should be converted back to traditional YESTERDAY!  How much more money do we need to waste?  Filling year round schools, saving all the capacity and money

5: " Christine Kushner ... added that families with two working parents have told her that track two works better for them." 

Maybe at one school, but most of the rest of the schools that were forced into this farce could care less for track screw, I mean two.

6: "Jim Martin said that the year-round schools didn't really come from the school system"

Once again good ole Jim proving he has no clue.  The CC's did not force the issue Jim, oh those who don't agree with them will always believe that, thanks to the brainwashing that went on by the school board and it's leaders back then, but the rest of us didn't buy it then and we sure ain't buyin' it now.

7: "In theory, a properly balanced multi-track year-round school can hold up to 33 percent more students than a traditional-calendar school."

Well, theory is nice, if you're at a Magnet school and can get it, but reality says the WC school board that created this mess never had any intentions of filling those schools.

8: "Martin also said he had a hard time seeing how Brier Creek Elementary could be at 213.2 percent of capacity on track four this year but only at 13.6 percent on track two."

Again Jimmy, we know reality is hard for you to deal with for the common folk, but simple fact probably is, NO ONE WANTS TRACK TWO!  Except Kushner's friends.

9: " But she, Evans, added that "the reality is we’re overly penalized with less options."

Blame your buddies Head, Clark, Millberg and Gill.  If you can get them out of hiding that is.  I hear Clark is her own person now, she might be easier to reach!

10: "Evans said that more year-round middle schools would allow families to "tolerate" the situation longer."

Cough, cough, LAUGH LauGH, thanks for that throat clearing belch Susan.  What a joke, but oh so something Susan Evans would say isn't it.  Just tolerate it a little longer, you'll be done soon.  Pathetic!

also from Evans, "Evans added that it doesn't make sense for Carpenter Elementary School to be at 221.4 percent of capacity on track four but only 25.2 percent on track two."

Uhh, are you not paying attention Sue?  NO ONE LIKES TRACK TWO!!!  Except Kushner's buddies.

and finally, "It informs the greater conversation," Kushner added"

A conversation that has been going on for decades in Wake County because every previous school board has gotten it wrong and the voters haven't been far behind. A conversation that most of us are just simply tired of having.  You'll see next year at vote time.