The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How will the new student assignment plan balance diversity, stability, proximity and stability? How will Jim Merrill replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a $810 million school construction bond referendum on Oct. 8 ballot? How will this fall's school board elections impact the future of the district?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Choose a blog

Wake County school board members go "On The Record" about student assignment directive

Bookmark and Share

The concept of healthy schools and the significance of the student assignment directive, along with how it was passed by the Wake County school board, were among the topics on WRAL's "On The Record" show on Saturday.

David Crabtree, the host of the show, asked whether the passage of the directive meant the Wake County school system was headed back to where it was before the 2009 school board elections. School board chairman Kevin Hill said the directive calls for staff to “look at the best pieces of the past several assignment processes we’ve had and move forward.”

But school board member Deborah Prickett answered that “this plan is looking to me that it is slipping backwards." She said the directive “is a fundamental change" to the choice plan and "is actually going after the structure of the plan.”

Both board members were asked about the idea of healthy schools, which was the hallmark of the old diversity policy.

"I’ve heard the term so-called ‘healthy schools,'" Prickett said. "And I guess a school would be healthy depending on the values and the judgment that the person that comes to the school would bring. Healthy to one person may not be healthy to another."

Hill differed in his response.

“We live in a diverse society and I believe our students need to be exposed to different layers of diversity," Hill said. "But also the research has been very clear in terms of the academic achievement of students at schools that have high needs as opposed to the academic achievement of students at schools that might be a healthy school.

I have a definition of healthy schools. It’s essentially what we’ve had in Wake County. This has been the definition: High academic achievement for all students, strong parental and community support, strong and effective leadership, a highly trained and effective staff, a diverse student body, a safe, orderly, inviting learning environment, attractive and appropriate and learning facilities.”

Crabtree said he's heard from some people that they're against bringing down their child to bring up some other child academically. He asked if that's a "legitimate argument."

"I think it absolutely is legitimate," Prickett answered. "I think parents should have choice in this process. And what has happened with this directive is it has taken away choice from parents and I believe that parents know what’s best for their children. And as a school board member, I do not want to be telling parents which school their child needs to attend."

Crabtree asked Prickett what about parents "who may not have an equal capacity to understand how to make that choice?"

“It’s our job as a system to educate the parents," Prickett answered, pointing to the community meetings on the choice plan.

Crabtree asked Hill if it's a “fair argument” that parents have they're worried about lowering standards to help some other students.

“If that’s what was happening that would be a fair argument," Hill answered. "But I don’t believe that’s what’s happening. I think the goal of every educator — from board member to classroom teacher — is that we want to push every student to their full capacity.”

Crabtree restated the question, asking if Hill understands the arguments of parents who said not having their child go to a school near where they live lowers standards for them to raise standards for someone else.

“I don’t believe there a suggestion that there’s going to be massive reassignment," Hill answered. "We’ve talked about stay put. We’re looking at down the road to have a base address to make it more attractive for folks to look at moving to Wake County.

But secondly, there is abundant research that shows all students benefit when you have a healthy school in terms of improved academic achievement just as if you have what might be considered a high-needs school it hurts academic achievement of all students."

Crabtree asked Hill that since the old system “wasn't exactly working” before the 2009 elections, why will that theory work now.

“We’re not looking at going back to the system that was in place," Hill answered. "We are looking at a system that will tie base address and have an element of choice. I’ll just leave it at that.”

Later on the show, the way the board approved the directive in the marathon meeting that lasted past midnight was also discussed.

“Are you running the board differently than your predecessor?" Crabtree asked Hill. "Open free discussion? That was a criticism of your predecessor at times."

“Yes sir," Hill answered. "That’s why we ran so late that evening a couple of weeks ago because I’m hesitant to limit discussion. I’ve received many suggestions tied to Roberts Rules on how we might be able to do that.

But no I think everybody needs to be involved. We need to have discussions and parse things out amongst ourselves before we vote on issues."

Crabtree then asked Prickett if she felt that board meetings are being run fairly.

“The night of the new directive, I would have liked to have had a few more things to say and I was cut off," Prickett answered. "I do think Chairman Margiotta was very good about listening to all sides and letting things go on the agenda. As board members, we can ask for things to be put on the agenda and he would do that even if it was something he maybe felt differently about. He would at least let it go on the agenda for discussion.

So I do think Chairman Hill is trying to give everyone a chance to speak, but I did feel a little rushed the other night. Even though it was getting late in the night, this was a very major topic and this information came in our board notebooks on a Friday afternoon, the Father’s Day weekend. And it was just something that just kind of hit us out of left field.

And after the staff had spent so much time on this assignment plan, this was very discouraging to me to see something that would be an element that would take away choice from parents. When you try to tie in a base assignment address with each house in a county this large, what happens is some parents are stuck with mandatory year-round schools which doesn’t fit for their lifestyles and it takes away choice from parents.  

Crabtree asked Hill if Prickett should have had more time that meeting.

"In terms of again allowing everybody to have comment at the table, we had gone on quite some time," Hill said.

But Crabtree said that's it not like a basketball game where the clock runs out so Hill could have extend the clock.

“I felt that I had," Hill answered. "What I try and do, what we’re directed to do, is to alternate discussion between people with various positions, try to recognize everyone who has not had a chance to speak before somebody has a second chance to speak."

Crabtree then asked Prickett, "in all fairness," did she think she would have changed anyone's mind if she had been given 10 hours to speak.

“This is a public board meeting and it was being taped," Prickett replied. "I do think the public needs to hear all the different sides because there are so many families affected.”


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Did Crabtree ask Hill about parental choice in the new plan?

I really want to see how he frames choice in light of his statement below...
"  I agree with the following:  " 'Parent choice' proceeds from the belief that the purpose of education is to provide individual students with an education. In fact, educating the individual is but a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. 'Family choice' is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the 'wants' of a single family rather than the 'needs' of society." -Association of California School Administrators".

Reject socialism!

Man am I glad I don't live in California.  Really!?!  If the goal of public education in this district becomes "creating a viable social order to which individuals can contribute and by which they are sustained" count me out.  Where's my charter school voucher?!!  Here's my check private school (don't care if takes me working two jobs). 

The last time I checked if you provide each individual student with the best possible education, society as a whole benefits.  Wake up WCPSS Board!  We want parent/family choice!  I agree the program needs "tweeks" (private/charter entry; transportation; capacity), but not the kind Hill's talking about (busing for diversity).   

NOTE TO HILL - BUSING FOR DIVERSITY DOESN'T WORK!!!  It buries the problem so that your numbers look good.  Wake County is a very diverse and as a whole, a very educated populace.  Don't make the mistake of thinking we're stupid enough to grant you credit for masking the performance of ED students by diluting them in other schools.

Why not be progressive and actually address the issues faced by ED students.  If theme schools and certain magnet programs are proven to help these families then spend your time and "reassignment" energies getting those kids to those resources. 

OT - And by all means please re-do the assignment criteria for the AG magnet program.  A general lottery for the other magnets is fine, but AG kids should be placed in an AG magnet school based on need.  We already have that defined as Very Strong/Strong/Moderate.  Start at the top and when you get to Moderate then place on a general lottery.  Living in a low-performing node shouldn't be a hurdle a Very Strong / Strong AG identified kid has to climb.

Hill knows busing doesn't

Hill knows busing doesn't work with regard to helping ED students but that's not his goal.  His goal is to find a cost effective means by which WCPSS schools can appear good while preserving the magnet/private schools funded with public money seats for his rich, liberal friends who like to take their children to Paris for the summer.  If those parents had to pay for their kid's private school, they actually may have to take vacation at the beach next year like the rest of us peasants and that is completely unacceptable.  Without busing, the only way WCPSS could make those high F&R schools look good is to spend extra resources and actually teach those children to read.  That may make it necessary to raise property taxes, which again, may cut in to those trips to China.


Living in a low-performing node shouldn't be a hurdle a Very Strong / Strong AG identified kid has to climb.

You are so right. Please send an email about this to all of the board members.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/comment/reply/49441/265599#storylink=cpy

Not directly.

Not directly.


Why did Kevin Hill have a definition of "healthy" schools at his fingertips? And whose definition is it? I think he removed the bullet point that said:

  • Create viable social order



maybe because they focus on EDUCATION rather than BUSING?


No busing?

Their buses travel 50000 miles a day - according to their website. With 600 buses.

don't be obtuse...

you *know* as well as I do, I meant busing "for diversity".

stop acting so *simpleminded*

You are the one...

who is truly simpleminded. All you can come up with is the "forced busing" ideological crap. Or whine about the 12m that is spent on the magnet program. At the same time you are okay with a "choice plan" - that does not provide any choice and nobody knows how much it is going to cost.

Once Again...

Tony Tata has stated on several occassions that it cost 2 million and the costs would decrease  over time.  I'm still waiting to get the cost figures for the 3 year assignment plan that Chuck Dulaney refused to give.  Do you know what those might be? 


yes, forced busing IS idealogical crap...truly educating all children is and should be the goal, not busing them to learn by osmosis.

find me a post where I am whining about 12m in magnet money....find it and then we'll chat..in the meantime..go pound salt.

BTW, you never answered one simple question from many posts ago.  Do you currently have child(ren) in the WCPSS. ?

That's a contradictory statement

“We’re not looking at going back to the system that was in place," Hill answered. "We are looking at a system that will tie base address and have an element of choice. I’ll just leave it at that.”

What we had before was a base address with an element of choice.  I applied multiple times to magnet and year round schools only to be turned down even when those schools had vacant seats, but I was "needed" at my base so I couldn't go to those schools.  How does anyone expect that this will not be the same as the system that was in place?

So your are now....

sending your children to the school of your choice?

seriously? after all the

seriously? after all the complaints about how long that meeting went on, Prickett wanted MORE time to keep talking??

Cars View All
Find a Car
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Homes View All
Find a Home

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.

About the blogger

T. Keung Hui covers Wake schools.