WakeEd

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 Ed Partnership warns of reassignment from ending MYR

Bookmark and Share

The Wake Education Partnership is also raising the specter of reassignment caused by the school board's vote to end mandatory year-round assignments.

In this week's issue of In Context, the partnership's e-newsletter, the group points to the reassignment of students out of year-round schools if they're converted to a traditional calendar for 2010-11.

The newsletter says some students would be reassigned because there's no longer room for them under the lower capacity in a traditional calendar. Others would be the year-round application students who'd want to stay in the program after conversion.

The newsletter raises the possibility of the students being reassigned without public hearings, noting that the board members didn't discuss holding them.

The newsletter also says it will be too late to add mobile classrooms for next year because of permit requirements and other constraints.

In addition to the reassignment issues, the newsletter warns that principals will have much less time now to know how many teachers to hire for next school year.

Reassignment issues had also been raised by the Great Schools in Wake Coalition.

Comments

Comment viewing options

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

That dog don't hunt.

I'm so tired of hearing that argument.

For the last decade, I've been part of the group arguing about the unfairness of the implementation of the diversity policy. All this time, when we brought out large numbers of people to complain, we were told that we were just a loud minority, and that the silent majority had made their choice by voting in the leaders that were on the board.

Finally, the old board got egregious enough in their inequity of treatment of people around the county, and it mobilized enough people to vote to change the board majority.

Like it or not, that's the way the electoral process works. 5 of the 9 board districts now have elected leaders who believe that the status quo was harmful and need to be changed. We all know the stakes, and we all had the opportunity to elect our board members, either this year, or two years ago. 5 of the 9 board districts have decided we need to change our direction. And keep in mind that two of those board districts (districts 1 and district 8) represent more than twice as many student families than some of the status quo districts (Sutton's district in particular).

If there is indeed a "silent majority" who felt differently than the people who voted (this year and two years ago), well ---- sorry. Our system of governance offers individuals the chance to speak out via the ballot box. If you don't take that opportunity to do so, the responsibility belongs to the person in the mirror.

It's all a ruse.

It's just another way to stifle reform and preserve a failed school system that was resoundingly rejected by voters.

7%

7% of the eligible voters voted. 5 districts did not vote.

Actually, we had 13% voter

Actually, we had 13% voter participation (If you're going to whine, at least do it with the right number).  You can find the correct numbers on wakegov.com.

Let me clarify

I meant about 7% (probably more like 9%) actually voted for those that won. 

You can all throw various arguments about who did and didn't vote but no matter your argument this far from a mandate which was my point to everyone who preaches it is.

The people who the new

The people who the new majority replaced on the board were voted in with a lower percentage of voters. Regardless, this is how our system works. It IS indeed a mandate.

Even when one does not vote, it is choice one makes. Not voting says as much as casting one's vote. 

I did some rough math and

I did some rough math and for the October 6th election for only the school board races, voter turnout was 11.65% and the percentage of registered voters who voted for the current school board members was 6.82%.  However, since John Tedesco did not win, if you want to remove his district from the calculation the numbers are 12.5% and 7.63%, respectively.  If you use District 2 numbers from the runoff then the numbers are 12.47% and 8.10%, respectively. 

But in our system of

But in our system of government, we never base the results of an election on a percentage of registered voters.  The results are based upon the percentages of people who voted.  For example, because JT didn't get 50% of the people who voted in the October election, he didn't win outright, and had to go to a runoff.

There was more than ample opportunity for anyone in these districts to vote if they so chose.  If they choose not to make their vote count, then, in my opinion, it doesn't count.

"Mandate" is an apt

"Mandate" is an apt description. "Overwhelming mandate" would be inaccurate.

The remaining 93%

The remaining 93% participated too. They weren't shipped off to Siberia to skew the result. If they chose to vote I-don't-care-either-way by staying at home, that's their prerogative. As for the other five districts, they had their turn and continue to have representation by board members, whether selected or elected. That some members were selected would be a cause for concern if the selected member and elected ex-member held diametrically opposite views i.e., if there was a malicious intent to sabotage fair representation through the selection process.

I don't buy that argument

I don't buy that argument because you can say that about all the previous elections too.  The previous board members were also voted in with a small % of eligible voters. 

BLAH BLAH BLAH

The previous board was elected by less and not all districts voted.  What's your point?  For the 93% that didn't vote....it's a little too late to complain now.  They had a chance to support their position at the ballot box and didn't so get over it!

I respectfully disagree.

Tim Simmons has been factual and balanced when I've spoken with him, even when I've raised issues that are not easy for him to investigate. He spent some time answering a capacity question for me, and I couldn't poke any holes in his analysis. I know that the WEP is a booster for the schools, but that is not a bad thing. We still need their support and will need the business community behind us if we are going to tackle the graduation rate issue and be able to get ALL schools to offer spanish ( not just Joyner ;), and to implement the WEP's vision of world-class schools. Don't throw the WEP baby out with the crusty leadership bathwater.

It's been tail wagging the dog

"will need the business community behind us"

True, but up to now the tail has been wagging the dog. Time for the dog to wag the tail. WEP has put lipstick on the school system for use as a "business development tool" rather than businesses being used as an educational development tool to raise achievement for ALL students. There's a difference.

Exactly!

Exactly!

WEP does have some value

WEP does have some value they could bring to the table.  I had hoped that with the new board's election, they might start to "partner" with the leaders of our schools and work toward solving real problems instead of cranking out PR -- but do not appear to have an open mind to any way except the old way.  Tim Simmons is a good guy.  Maybe his editors are to blame, but he comes out with some horrible articles.

WEP has made it clear that they will be part of the opposition, not part of the solution.  And that is a shame.

Yeah, I gotta agree with

Yeah, I gotta agree with Mudge here.  Tim Simmons and Julie Crain are both nice people who I think have the best intentions.  But these newsletters are making it abundantly clear that they are not interested in working with the new board to make things better.  Heck, Ann Denlinger even acknowledges some of the faults that parent opposition groups bring up.  So why not address them with the new board?  Work on what you know you agree on instead of focusing on tearing down what you don't agree with.

I didn't have much faith in them before--I've always known that they are more interested in business' interests than students interests.  But now they've just absolutely carved their intentions in stone.

you guys might look in the

you guys might look in the mirror instead of going to the devil made them do it card.  Your team hasn't been playing nice. Wink

But WEP is supposed to be a

But WEP is supposed to be a non-partisan non profit group.  That's not how they are behaving.  Have they EVER criticized the previous board's decisions or actions?  These newsletters have been more editorial in nature ever since the elections started heating up.

On a side note

who enjoyed the brief Stan Norwalk interview this evening?  NBC I believe.

I am so tired of hearing the sky is falling...

Every time the new board does something its going to be the end of the world as we know it. Resegregation, reassignments, over crowding, crisis of the week....Where were these people when the old board was ramming their changes down everyone's throats? When people actually do what they say they are going to do, do things that make sense and give parents a choice they MUST be stopped.

sure... but it will be a parent-chosen "reassignment" for once

enuf said.

ot-alert

WCPSS schools will open on a two-hour delay on Friday, January 8.

WCPSS Communications Department Notification Service

Awwww

You beat me to it!  You're so on top of things! Thanks!! :^)

 

anytime Louise, anytime!  

anytime Louise, anytime! Wink  it's not often I "beat you" to anything!

Has Wake ED Partnership EVER

Has Wake ED Partnership EVER before commented on reassignements? Why all of a sudden do they care about this?

The BoE needs to cut off all funds to this clearly partisan organization...immediately

The BoE needs to cut off all

The BoE needs to cut off all funds to this clearly partisan organization...immediately

----------------------------------------------------------

Does BoE fund this organization? I thought WEP was supposed to raise money for WCPSS.

No

No, none of their funds come from government.  It's all private and grants.  But I don't expect this person to actually do their homework.

And they aren't supposed to raise money directly for WCPSS.  Read the website.  Google will help but here it is.

http://www.wakeedpartnership.org

I think you are in for a

I think you are in for a surprise.

They Are Also Non-Profit!

They are also non-profit.    Some of the propoganda I have seen is kind of interesting coming from a non-profit that is suppose to be neutral! 

Sorry, but you are

Sorry, but you are mistaken.  WCPSS funds a full-time position for WEP.  In addition, proceeds from the annual WCPSS Pieces of Gold event (which features Wake County Students performing) go to WEP.  Together these are worth $138k/year.

Provide data

I'll say I'm wrong if I am but could you provide the data please.  Which of these positions are funded by WCPSS?

 http://www.wakeedpartnership.org/about/staff_bios.htm

I looked at the Donor list and the onlly thing i see is Wake County Public School System Workplace Giving grant which is in the 5-10K range. 

As for the event I see where the two organizations collaborate but I don't see who funds it.  I believe it's money from the sponsors.  Collaborating andcontributing money are two different things.

Triangle Leadership Academy

The money in question is associated with Wake County's participation in the Triangle Leadership Academy, a joint venture between the 5 RTP school districts and WEP. There is nothing sinister about it.

triangleleadershipacademy.org

Nobody said it was sinister,

Nobody said it was sinister, just that there was a financial relationship. In my view, that should end. WEP is working against the new board.

It was implied that there

It was implied that there was an effort to obfuscate WEP's funding sources. 

Can the new Board just break the partnership that was mentioned that several Triangle boards are in and be done with it?

CaryCurmudgeon, can you

CaryCurmudgeon, can you respond if you have other information?  woodstock too if you have "done your homework".

Nice edit

Nice edit

huh?  what is hte point of

huh?  what is hte point of this?  I mixed up sideburns and woodstock!  who are you and why do you post this type of stuff?   Second thought, I take it back, no one cares. 

The information is available

The information is available in their form 990 Federal tax return, which is publicly available.

Gimme your email address and I'll send you a copy :)

Ah...

I took a look at the 990.  Now I see your spin Joe.  I guess the 'new' WSCA has the right leadership and I better understand Sideburns recent comments regarding the organization.

Why?

Don't you provide answers to my simple questions.

You should have done your

You should have done your "homework." I accept your apology.

WEP always comments on

WEP always comments on reassignments, and always manipulates the data to make them appear as minimal as possible.  For example, they claimed that about 1% of last year's reassignments were for socio-economic diversity, while at the same time prophesizing that the world would end if the diversity policy were discontinued.  WEP's mission is to put a "happy face" on our school system, so that businesses will not be afraid to move here.  They are completely bought into the "schools as an economic development tool" mindset, which means hiding at-risk students to promote a vision of "healthy schools."

Yes, you are correct! 

Yes, you are correct!  (said in my best Ed McMahon voice)

Perhaps I should have asked

Perhaps I should have asked if they ever commented negatively on the reassignments.

I'm wondering this too.  I

I'm wondering this too.  I doubt that they have. 

WEP claims to just be

WEP claims to just be passing out info to people but good grief do they ever have an agenda. Interesting that they never had anything to say about the SAS report.

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

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.
Advertisements