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 rejects motion to pull student assignment directive off agenda

Bookmark and Share

More to come later, but the Wake County school board voted 5-4 against a motion from board member Debra Goldman to pull the student assignment directive off tonight's meeting agenda.

Goldman said the directive should be referred to policy committee first. Other board members said there's been lack of notice to the board and public for a vote tonight.

But board chairman Kevin Hill said it was time sensitive to act now so they can make changes for the 2013-14 school year.

The vote went along party lines with the five Democrats voting against Goldman's motion and the four Republicans voting yes.


It's not likely the board will vote before 10:30 p.m. so stay tuned. At 9 p.m., they've got one more information item and five action items before getting to the assignment directive. Since Goldman was unsuccessful about getting the Richland Creek Elementary item off the agenda, expect plenty of questions on that one too.

At 10:22 p.m., the school board went into recess so some members could use the restroom. Hill said he intends to continue the meeting past 11 p.m.

After an houe-discussion, Hill called for a 11:48 p.m. recess.

The recess is stretching to 30 minutes as Democratic board members wordsmith the directive. Board attorney Ann Majestic had raised concerns that it was specifying too many things.


Comment viewing options

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

What utter tripe

"Goldman said the directive should be referred to policy committee first. Other board members said there's been lack of notice to the board and public for a vote tonight.

But board chairman Kevin Hill said it was time sensitive to act now so they can make changes for the 2013-14 school year."

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/home#storylink=cpy

The comments on lack of notice to the board and public was perfectly on track.

Hill's claim that this is time sensitive enough that the decision had to have been made right now in order to make changes for the 2013-2014 school year is an absolute joke.  


Keung, Do you know how the


Do you know how the final version got an outline added to it and this was not even read outloud during the meeting last night?

Notice Policy Development--Policy 6200 and a Stability Policy

Choices...look at those

And...Family Assingment Counselors and Satellite Outreach Centers.

Did the board ever get a copy of this page before the vote since it was not included in the original doc?

Sutton edited it with the

Sutton edited it with the consultation of board members during that final 40-minute recess. He actually had the only copy when he read aloud the portions of the final version that were different from the earlier one. Some GOP members said it didn't include the changes they suggessted to Sutton that would have allowed them to vote yes.

Keung, My question is in


My question is in direct regards to page 3; he never read that outloud, so if he never read it and no other BOE member saw it, how could it be included in the final version of what passed?

Does this make sense?

Thanks for all your info!!

I'm not a parliamentarian

I'm not a parliamentarian but Sutton did say he was only reading the parts that were different from the original version.

Thanks Keung.  Interesting

Thanks Keung.  Interesting that this did not exist in the original that you posted and was not shared.....

So...Bob....you still want

So...Bob....you still want to give these people more money to waste?

You people are amazing. 

You people are amazing.  Nothing happened tonight other than the board saying "we are hearing of problems with the new plan  . . . Staff. go tell us what a plan that addresses these problems would look like."  God forbid the board should simply ask the staff to investigatge alternatives designed to address concenrs raised by voters. 

The facist were really good at surpressing ideas contrary to thier own.  I sure hope wake citizens are not scared to debate the merits of alternatives to the current and much criticized plan.   What's the harm in discussing the issue?

"What's the harm in

"What's the harm in discussing the issue?"

No problem with that...has been and needs to continue; however, it does not mean that you need to direct staff to create a reassignment plan--node base assignment.

Also why not include the public in the discussion..oh, wait...that's right according to Susan Evans....while she does welcome input, she needed to remind the BOE that they are the elected officials...reallly?

Why not table the vote until a discussion can occur...

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/wake-county-school-board-rejects-motion-to-pull-student-assignment-directive-off-agenda#new#storylink=cpy

That's a chicken and egg

That's a chicken and egg problem.  How do you discuss it if you do not know what it will look like?  That is the reason for having the staff work up a proposal so we can discuss it.  You cant discuss it if it does not exist. 

How Do You Know The Choice Plan...

wouldn't have been gradually better for families as time went on.  Oh yeh they don't....they didn't even give it a freakin year!  This new 'plan' is going to be no better and you know it!

no...you can discuss

no...you can discuss problems/successes with the current plan; you DO NOT need to give staff a directive to even do that; it's already being done

Also giving staff the directive to create a different plan...node-based reassignment...is not discussing the issues with the current plan or can you not understand that?  Perhaps watching the discussion by the BOE members last night could help you...Remember DP reading the resolution taht passed in Oct. 2011?

It's putting staff working on two different plans at the same time and the public was due notification.  Anytime things are done in such a sneaky manner...it's never any good, especially when elected officials are involved.


Nothing happened tonight other than the board saying "we are hearing of problems with the new plan  . . . Staff. go tell us what a plan that addresses these problems would look like."

Nothing happened?

This isn't just telling staff to go address these problems. This is a whole new assignment plan - with a completely different set of parameters.

Why the rush? This was pushed through with absolutley no public input.

Input on what?  We need the

Input on what?  We need the staff to work up a proposal so we can have input and discussion.  Its chicken and egg.  How can you have input on something that does not yet exist?

deja vu....

all over again.

Which is why they would have

Which is why they would have been wise to heed Tedesco's words: "Learn from my mistakes."

So Which Set of Problems...

So you solve some existing problems by replacing them with a new set of problems. That is a good thing? You seem to want to avoid answering the questions that has been asked of you on this blog of lately. Which base kids do you recommend to be removed from a base school when a school becomes overcrowded? People have mentioned keeping neighborhoods together. What happens when my new neighbor moves in next door and our base is crowded. Do you tell them the base assignment doesn't really mean they have an assigned seat. Do you keep cramming kids into an overcrowded school until several base nodes can be removed in the next reassignment. What about neighborhoods that complain that we've always gone to these schools? They are naive to think they will not be reassigned. The wording of the new directive already alludes to reassignments every three years! How do you stop these problems from happening. I'm really concerned about what this directive does to a potential bond from passing in the future. People are fed up!

Instead off sitting here telling us about al the problems it will solve, please enlighten us about the solutions for the problems it will create!

and with that....we are all

and with that....we are all screwed!

ammended wording still says

ammended wording still says multiyear addressed based....hold on tight wake county.


Sitting here, it sounds like the democratic board members are deliberating on the directive during a recess. Legal?

I think the article says

I think the article says they were working with counsel on wording.  I don't know how much you work with lawyers, but there is this thing called the attorney client privilege that is waived if you have those conversations in  public.


The board should be going into closed session to consult with its attorney (see NCGS 143-318.11); that didn't happen. And I don't see any reason why they'd be worried about privilege in that situation, but not in countless other situations where Majestic comments publicly on wording.

Susan Evans'

Susan Evans' comments--wow.  "We are elected officials" and while she welcomes the input from the community, she needs to remind the BOE they are the elected officials...Well Ms. Susan Evans, I surely did not vote you in and never would.

Your lack of respect for families to have any input is shameful!

She wants to be hated more than Head & Millberg

ever were.

Funny thing is she accomplished that before she ever got elected.

I dont think its a

I dont think its a popularity contest.  Its all about fixing the mess the tea party made of our nationally recognized public school system where the Brookings Institute  found that the low-income and middle/high-income students' test scores exceeded test score expectations more than in any of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.


you cannot possibly even believe that....if you've been paying attention at all.

Ms. Tarheel is obviously

Ms. Tarheel is obviously just clueless. Her posts are consistenly way off the mark in terms of facts and perspective. Personally, it think she's just a teen already bored with summer vacation who decided to post things she's overheard and does not understand.

Coming from a chubby over

Coming from a chubby over that is priceless. 

Try making a substantive reply.


What is a chubby over? Is that a Southern thing?

Meant "lover" and its

Meant "lover" and its someone like woodstock who loves fat bottomed girls.  Hey, if he wants to call me a name (in this case, teenager), I am ready to flame back.  I don't see how that advances the debate, but hey . .  bring it. 


10 weeks, and an "expert" already....

wow...if you belive that,

wow...if you belive that, then you are completely out of touch and are too scared to look at reality, which would make your comments on this blog make sense.

You mean if I believe the

You mean if I believe the Brookings Institute, the most respected nonpartisan think tank in the world?  You mean that is what makes me irrational?

Look, do your self a favor.  There are public heath clinics you can go to to get some help b.c you are clearly living in a different wold.  In the meantime, try laying off the Limbaugh for a while, that may help you restore some sense of reality. 

wow.  If you think the

wow.  If you think the Brookings Institute is nonpartisan, then you are the one that needs assistance seeing reality. 


I don't need Limbaugh or anyone else to give me common sense that gives me the ability to look at REAL numbers of REAL kids per school per cohort and see how the WCPSS is failing on various levels.

Perhaps, you need institutes or celebrities  or JM or SE or CK or KS or KH to guide you, but don't force that upon me.  I have the ability to think for myself and look at the entire picture and NOT be so narrow minded.


From BI's web page: "To

From BI's web page:

"To protect the Brookings Institution's commitment to nonpartisanship, staff members will observe the following policy with regard to political activities. In keeping with the Institution's mission, they may provide analysis and recommendations on matters of public policy on a non-exclusive basis to public officials and candidates for public office. However, if they advise candidates in a fashion that constitutes or connotes support for those candidates, staff members must do so in a personal capacity, outside regular business hours and without use of Brookings resources. They must make clear that they are acting as individuals and not on behalf of Brookings. They should refrain from representing or counseling candidates at public events or media appearances. Staff members must request a leave of absence if their political activities interfere with, or take time away from, their Brookings obligations. The president and vice presidents of the Institution will not affiliate with any campaign, provide exclusive advice to any candidate, even outside official hours, or make personal endorsements of candidates. Individuals who are not on the Brookings staff, but who are affiliated with the Institution, are expected to follow this policy."

The reason BI has such credibility on both sides (as both sides routinely cite it) is b/c it IS non partiasian.

I agree Tarheel...

...just for fun, let's see what happens when I type the name "Diane Rehm." 

wow...JM all over that doc

wow...JM all over that doc with KS during the "recess"...SE in the background and AM.  Guess they are still trying to get it up to par....why rush it?  Sad that this type of directive is being "ammended" still right before a vote. 

Why are they scared to give parents time to find out what's going on?  What do they have to hide?

Interesting that Mr. Sutton

Interesting that Mr. Sutton was instrumental in killing JT's initial plan and now here he is writing another document to kill the choice plan...it is like he doesn't want anything different from the former plan, what a coincidence.

Looking like this is his

Looking like this is his gift to some special interest groups....

Why continue to work on the directive past midnight...why not table it for a while.

It is crazy how scared they are to give parents time to become informed and have a chance to respond....what do you have to hide KH< KS<CK< SE< JM???

If Dr. Martin writes any

If Dr. Martin writes any more of that directive you know he is gonna insist that he is the principal author and gets his name first on the paper.

An 11:48 p.m. recess to do what

pee again?

This pathetic bunch once again threatens, but can't produce.

It the 2 debbies would stop

It the 2 debbies would stop wining, maybe the board could actually get down to business.  Goldman does not even understand the difference between "and" and "or."  She is an idiot.  God forbid she beomces state auditor.


Goldman was concerned about 3 schools in three years - which EXACTLY what happened to children when they moved poor kids out of Leesville and Middle Creek.  Malone - Complained that they don't have the data from the new plan yet - they didn't have data two + years ago when they altered the three year plan!  This is cracking me up. And, Anne Majestic - sweet to my ears to hear the history the board has created in the last two years allows a directive now. 

I hope you will still

Be laughing when your kids are reassigned!

And Keith Sutton has left

And Keith Sutton has left the room....think he's on the phone...trying to figure out what to do next?  Kind of odd that the "creator" of this directive is not even listening to the discussion on it.

Now a recess...think they

Now a recess...think they are regrouping.Way to go DP and DG and JT and CM!!  Still getting them shaking even when you are outnumbered!

What a sad and cynical

What a sad and cynical comment.  Fact is that Sutton was trying to craft language to help reach a consensus, but in the end the little Debbies were too entrenched.  Nice statesman like gesture by Sutton.  Should have figured it would fall on deaf ears. 

He Will Reap What He Sows..

I can't wait for the community engagement meeting that will happen when they try to start reassigning kids out of Walnut Creek! I think I will make plans to attend that one!

parties lines///what a

parties lines///what a surprise.

Keung, Can you post the


Can you post the resolution Prickett's reading?

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.