Wake County Schools Superintendent Tony Tata apologized today for the delays in releasing updated student assignment results on Thursday while also continuing to say that most families like the schools they're getting.
During his press conference, Tata said he took "full responsibility" for problems that first delayed the posting of the results on Thursday and then led to the site being shut down for three hours. He said they hadn't encountered this problem in rehearsals in which the front end of the system where people logged in wasn't connecting to the back end where the results were located.
"I personally apologize to parents who needed faster service and better information," Tata said. "However, as I did mention, we did work into the night to fix the problems."
Families who haven't gotten off a waiting list shouldn't give up hope. Tata said they'll continue over the next few days to place students off waiting lists as more seats opened up from filling magnet seats and placing people off waiting lists from round one.
Two themes that Tata kept hitting on today was that most families are satisfied with the new plan and that the old node-baaed plan led to problems they're now having to confront.
Tata argued that the old plan put the problem of crowding at the school level rather than having it confronted at the district level. He said the node plan let schools get overcrowded, forcing principals to find space where they could.
"Instead of passing the problem on passively to principals, which the old node-based plan did, we’re taking a systemwide look at it," Tata said. "Capacity is a system-level responsibility."
He brought up the example of teachers using counselors' offices because there's no other space. He said the new plan is causing them to confront the problem as they try not to overcrowd schools.
"We have to give teachers the room to teach," Tata said. "The hard thing is accepting the sharp criticism of overcrowding that has been allowed to happen and is in existence and doing something about it instead of the easier wrong, which is accepting the status quo."
On the issue of the Mordecai and Oakwood parents who didn't get any assignment in round one due to lock of capacity, Tata said he had personally visited four elementary schools in the area looking for extra space. He said they found some empty classrooms and filled them after determining that the feeder middle schools and high schools could handle the impact down the road.
Tata was asked about real-estate agents saying the new plan is causing people not to come to Wake. Tata called it "a little bit of an urban legend being built," as he related how he's talked with Fidelity Investments officials who plan to relocate thousands of workers to the area.
Tata said capacity exists for those newcomers, the wait lists will dissolve and that the old plan created uncertainty too.
"There has always been uncertainty in assignment around here," Tata said. "It’s taking a look at what issue do you want to deal with. Do you want to pass the problem to the principal and feel good about it at the system level because you don’t have to worry about it and now the principal is teaching in counselor’s offices.
Or do you really want to take the hard right and begin to address this despite the criticism up front while still trying to take care of as many parents as possible and students as possible. And that’s the path we’ve chosen here.
The path is one where we do have a high satisfaction rate of parents. Those that are not satisfied, we are dealing with them individually attempting to give them something that is satisfying to them and their student.”
I asked Tata how he'd respond to people who say the computer glitch showed the plan isn't ready and has holes.
"The implementation of the plan has satisfied most parents," Tata responded. "And because we had a computer glitch that does not discount really what is a year of extraordinarily hard work. This is a hard business."
Tata also talked about how lean the team was that's implementing the new plan.
"To the extent that we created anxiety for parents, we apologize and I personally take responsibility for that," Tata said.

Comments
Most families are satisfied
Sat, 04/28/2012 - 11:16 — disappointingMost families are satisfied with school assignments? Awesome. Am glad we did better than the 95% school satisfaction rate reported earlier. Way to go Mr Tata. Now that the circus is over, what say we focus on student achievement?
They are updating wait
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:14 — parent1They are updating wait lists. Just checked and moved up 14 spots since last night. Everyone that is still on a wait list - keep checking!
They are still updating and
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 16:30 — parent1They are still updating and we just got in - everyone keep checking!
Glad to hear it! I kept
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 16:51 — jenmanGlad to hear it! I kept thinking it was such a shame for you to be stuck at Enloe when so many people want in there.
There are a couple of flaws with TT's logic
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 13:28 — ScoreOne"Two themes that Tata kept hitting on today was that most families are satisfied with the new plan and that the old node-baaed plan led to problems they're now having to confront".
Capacity and overcrowding has been a problem in this county since the failed bond of 1999. The past BOEs, as much as they are loved to be be hated on this blog, tried to accommodate families through the appeals process, therefore, minimizing the effectiveness of the "old F&R/Node"plans. The approval rate of families asking for waivers under the old policies were around 50% even in the face of 4,000-6,000 net growth of student populations in the mid 2000's.
When Tony Gurley was chair of the commission at time of the last bond, he flatly told the BOE and Administration that the number being asked for in the bond couldn't start with a "B" if the BOE wanted the Co. Commissioners to support it. It was $950M, even though CC staff and school staff agreed on the need for more to meet projected growth in this county.
"Tata argued that the old plan put the problem of crowding at the school level rather than having it confronted at the district level. He said the node plan let schools get overcrowded, forcing principals to find space where they could.
The move to mandatory year round school calendars was a system response to underfunding and overcrowding (especially in the west). In fact, the manager of the town of Apex was quoted when asked about unregulated growth in the suburbs that effectively "that's the school board's issue." As unpopular as it was, that was the tipping point for this county and overcrowding. This is not a problem that the good general inherited due to lack of previous management. His logic that "we suck less than before," doesn't cut it. It is an insult to this community and its leaders who put in the hard work here, long before Tony Tata ever heard of Wake County.
Instead of passing the problem on passively to principals, which the old node-based plan did, we’re taking a systemwide look at it," Tata said. "Capacity is a system-level responsibility."
Tata was stupid enough to think he could parachute in and manage this historical political problem from the outside, and unfortunately, his lack of situational awareness has caused the problems that we have today. Like in the past, those who were spared reassignment, or got what they wanted, are happy.
We have more poorer schools today than we did before the "reform" board took office. We have less resources to support them. That is probably why they are all running for the cover of state-wide office. The magnet schools, which were the underpinning of the health of this system is being "reviewed" by someone with no comprehension about educational systems. I hope the Broad Academy has a remediation program.
Own that Mr. Superintendent.
How Condensending
Sun, 04/29/2012 - 11:00 — local23You sound, especially when you write 'those who were spared reassignment, or got what they wanted, are happy'!
If you feel that you could do a better job running a billion dollar one of the largest school systems in America, then apply for the job!
Yes, I agree that appropriate funding was probably not given in the previous bonds but this cuts two ways - there has ALWAYS been irresponsible glut and spending and not enough oversight in WCPSS, so sometimes people just don't want to pay more for a non-return on investment and there-in lies one of the problems with public taxpayer support. You have got to prove that the system can be one of the best with a controlled budget and spending plan. Yes, there has been a tremendous growth in all areas, not just Cary or Apex, you should also look to North Raleigh, Wake Forrest, Knightsdale, etc.
You can throw blame on many areas, but the management of growth and reassignment nightmares is really from the Dulaney and Burns, they kept trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. They did not address this big system to handle growth appropriately and if they would have quit whining and trying to alway make the social economic plan be the number one concern, then we would not have been in this predictment that we are in today. This General was hired amid a huge problem, growth, uncertainty and yes politics, but guess what, there are many, many parents who are willing to let this new system he is trying to implement be given a chance, even thou are kids will most likely be long gone when they right this ship. It take time to fix, after all the Dulaney group managed to put this big system in a spiral in less than 4 years (and we are still paying), so don't you think you should give this new system a chance, how about atleast 2-3 years?
Before you go blaming him and his leadership (gosh that is just so cool to say 'Leadership') with his teams, the new vision and the support of the BOE, you tell us what great suggestions you have to make atleast 90-95% of the parents happy? There will always be some parents who do not get their 1st or 2nd or even 3rd choice, but I will caution you to first tell me were they a magnet or charter parent or an original transfer or YR student first, because it's those changes they are having the most difficulty with. Some of the parents expected to hold two seats in case they didn't like their first. I'm not saying they thought of every contingency, but they are trying their best to deal with the 500-1000 parents/students and respond to them one on one. That is a very small percentage of parents compared with the 15000 -25000 reassignments that were done year after year.
Yes, I have seen this system well before the 2000 changes, but times change and you need quality people and teams to deal with it, which I believe they are finally trying to get to for hopefully one day our grand children will enjoy!
Always irresponsible
Sun, 04/29/2012 - 12:40 — Solon77there has ALWAYS been irresponsible glut and spending and not enough oversight in WCPSS, so sometimes people just don't want to pay more for a non-return on investment and there-in lies one of the problems with public taxpayer support. You have got to prove that the system can be one of the best with a controlled budget and spending plan.
What burden of proof do you require ? The fact is private businesses as well as publicly funded have an element of waste. The fact is wcpss ranks near the bottom, state and nationally, in spending per student. So your claim of irresponsible glut of spending is just empty rhetoric.
you tell us what great suggestions you have to make atleast 90-95% of the parents happy?
If you consider approximately 9,000 students entered the choice process, so the other 135,000 (94%) of the students must have been happy with what they already had. If the assessment is no matter what model is put in place the best that can be achieved is 90-95% then anything beyond that is a diminishing return. So we have spend two + years, millions of $ in extra programs, extra busing, schools having to market themselves and all for what ? Next year there will be another wave of reassignments ( people entering the choice process) because they are not happy with the feeder patterns that they were reassigned to this year. Although next year will be tougher - more students and no new schools. The fact is in order to make a choice plan work there needs to be capacity in the system, capacity we do not have.
?
Tue, 05/01/2012 - 11:56 — Bob_SconceThe assignment plan was designed so that most people wouldn't want to enter into the choice process. That's why, among other things, there was grandfathering and feeder patterns. You can't use the plan's success in meeting that goal as an indication of failure.
If you consider
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 21:41 — jeffrey1If you consider approximately 9,000 students entered the choice process, so the other 135,000 (94%) of the students must have been happy with what they already had.
Not entering the choice process was a CHOICE.
...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:19 — SideburnsThe past BOEs, as much as they are loved to be be hated on this blog, tried to accommodate families through the appeals process, therefore, minimizing the effectiveness of the "old F&R/Node"plans. The approval rate of families asking for waivers under the old policies were around 50% even in the face of 4,000-6,000 net growth of student populations in the mid 2000's.
Huh? Can you please support this statement? And what "waivers" are you referring to? Do you mean transfer requests?
Yes,
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:26 — ScoreOnethe requests were directly in the face of the policy and the guidelines outlined in it. Those transfers undercut the effectiveness, and minimized the policy as it was intended. The families who were "assigned" asked for transfers that were incongruent with the policy (waivers). Sorry if semantics gets in the way of the facts.
Mr. Hui has written articles at the time of the number of families asking for, vs. receiving transfers (albeit waivers from the strict policy) they were in the 40-50 percent range during the high growth years.
Those accommodations affected the FR Balance that everyone loves to bash, the overcrowding numbers (parents said....I'll take overcrowded schools), etc.
...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:44 — SideburnsThe BOE approved 573 transfer appeals in 2009. Are you suggesting 573 children affected the F&R balance in our system?
I am going to type really slowly
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:57 — ScoreOnecause I know you might have trouble keeping up.
First of all you mention 2009, I am talking about historical trends starting back in 2003 (ish) when we were adding 6,000-7,000 new students a year to the system.
Second, after a family was assigned to a school using the old (hated) system wanted to transfer, they applied....if it was rejected (and it was automatically in order to trigger a transfer appeals hearing), the Board and then later---staff, heard the individual family issues and then made a recommendation.
Those recommendations, approved by the old-BOE, that tried to accommodate families, were not aligned with the F&R guidelines setforth in policy. These approvals (in the 40-50 percent range, over time in a high growth period with no new capacity being generated) caused many of the problems we encountered with overcrowding and F&R imbalance.
And to your point, 573 students is the equivalent of an elementary school. Yes, that number of students, when concentrated in a particular part of the county (Apex, Cary, SE Raliegh), when faced with limited capacy can affect the balance of our system over time.
...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 16:48 — SideburnsWell, you aren't providing a source to support your claims so I looked at previous blogs from Hui. The first one I found is from the summer of 2009.
And, no, transfers weren't automatically rejected. Many were automatically approved -- as long as they fell within the transfer request guidelines. Grandfathering back then was considered a transfer. Only 573 appeal transfers (the ones that were rejected by staff and brought before the Board) were approved in 2009 -- and they all weren't from one area of the county.
Are you really suggesting that previous Boards undermined the purpose of the student assignment policy to balance F&R? Did Dulaney know? How about Burns? Was it just for certain people -- or did they do it for everyone that appealed?
Apparently,
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 17:22 — ScoreOneyou were still in New Jersey when all of this happened, therefore I can't expect you to understand the dynamics of this process, nor its history.
As one of Ron's peep's the data you have is the information he passed along. 2009 is not really indicative of what I was talking about.
Oh, well....have a nice weekend anyway.
...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 18:06 — SideburnsBut I asked you to provide the data that supported what you said and you didn't. And still haven't. If the data I found from 2009 is not indicative of the "dynamics of this process", please provide something that is.
Just make....
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 22:09 — bpuli9999a FOI request or is that only for Evans's emails?
Sweet Pea,
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 18:38 — ScoreOneyou mentioned searching this blog for data. If that is your only source of information, then puddin, we have nothing else to talk about. The data is a matter of public record from WCPSS, Mr. Hui and many other people have the files---they are public records.
It's not my place to convert the unconverted. I said what I neeeded to say, the facts will speak for themselves.
Period
...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 18:42 — SideburnsYeah, I figured as much. If you can't prove your point, just be condescending.
everyone here knows who is
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 19:01 — ScoreOnespeaking the truth. It isn't you.
No the one not telling the
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 19:47 — starsonoursNo the one not telling the truth is YOU. Back up your claims with facts, the appeals process during the time frame you mentioned was a chance to plead your case before your case was dismissed.
Zactly!
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 21:26 — FSandYOUThere must be a time warp in Texas.
He's probably stuck in Waco!
If this system sucks
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 13:43 — FSandYOUfor YOU now, more than before, you have a fix you know,
pickup your kids up from school and take off !!!
At least then you'll be contributing something positive, unlike your babble above, when you free up a few extra spots to help remove others from the waitlists!
Looks like you are...
Mon, 04/30/2012 - 08:19 — bpuli9999a "do as i say, don't do as i do" kinda guy. You seem to still have your kids in the system although you have been complaining/whining about how burns destroyed the school system?
more sarcasm...
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 14:59 — sam123456here we go again...
Your "love it or leave it"
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 14:01 — ScoreOneschick didn't work for Nixon and Archie Bunker and it won't work now.
I'm sorry if I care about what happens to my kids, and yes, even yours.
And I said that it was Tata's argument that "we suck less now than before." His strategy, not mine.
But thanks for asking Dallas.
Get with Sam and create some protest signs
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:16 — FSandYOUThanks for playing, Houston.
mocking
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 17:22 — sam123456First sarcasm and now mocking those that disagree with the plan. When will you realize that the plan negatively impacts our children????
When will you get a life
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 19:16 — FSandYOUand come up with some new material?
I know, holes.
Bless your heart
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:18 — ScoreOneI expected nothing more from you and, once again, you met my expectations.
duplicate
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 15:19 — ScoreOneduplicate