Tuesday could go down in history as the first step toward the dismantling of Wake County's school diversity policy.
As noted in today's article, the calendar choice resolution adopted by the school board doesn't just call for the end of mandatory year-round assignments. It also calls for amending the application process for year-round calendar schools to remove the usage of diversity as a selection criteria.
Opponents of the resolution complained it would weaken efforts to keep schools healthy. But supporters of the resolution countered it would improve choice by giving more parents access to year-round schools.
The application criteria for year-round schools has been weighted to give priority to applicants from higher-needs neighborhoods. That's because most year-round application schools have relatively low numbers of high-needs kids.
“That’s an effort under existing policy to result in schools which are comparable with one another," said Asst. Supt. Chuck Dulaney on Tuesday.
Historically, few low-income students have voluntarily applied for year-round schools.
Click here for the latest year-round application criteria and results, which show that 23 percent of the 3,887 applicants couldn't be placed.
School board member Kevin Hill complained that the resolution was an attempt to "negate" sending a revised student assignment policy to the policy committee. The revised policy eliminates all current references to diversity.
School board member Carolyn Morrison said eliminating the use of diversity in filling year-round schools could lead to "have's and have not's."
School board member Keith Sutton said the resolution should have been sent to the new student assignment advisory committee for proper vetting.
But new school board members Debra Goldman and John Tedesco stressed how the change in the selection criteria will make it possible for more families to attend year-round schools.

Comments
the biggest cost of MYR
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 19:57 — cybercris2the biggest cost to WCPSS of MYR was the public's trust. from a budget standpoint YR schools have staff allocated in different patterns with support staff costing more in terms of months. Principals DO have the authority to customize their staffing patterns and budgets and will exercise that under either calendar option.
Have and Have-not
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:40 — KnightdaleParent"School board member Carolyn Morrison said eliminating the use of diversity in filling year-round schools could lead to "have's and have not's."
I am sure she doesn't want those unless they can control who gets into the haves (think magnet here).
This is ALL about "Have and
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:56 — shearertwThis is ALL about "Have and Have-Not" control. The new BOE majority clearly wants parents to Have control. The "old" BOE members such as Morrison clearly want control to rest in their hands. In the liberal governing world, giving up control to the peasants, I mean parents, is last thing you want to do.....They (parents/peasants) may not make the decisions they (the liberal elite such as Morrison) believe is best for them.
Exactly what I was
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:52 — jenmanExactly what I was thinking. It doesn't seem to bother her that we already have 'have and have nots'.
I wonder if she's visited
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:25 — JSBinNCI wonder if she's visited schools outside of her district. Our school doesn't have a foundation to help support it. When I was in volunteering the week before break they didn't even have soap in the bathrooms. BTW I'd like Dr. McLaurin's perspective on that... with the focus on health issues - they don't have warm water and soap to wash hands with after going to the bathroom.
Indeed - have's and have nots. Take a walk or ride around your county, dear BOE members... go look first hand at who has and who has not.
Soap in the bathrooms
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 19:51 — shank56Good grief,
Did you tell the teacher or front office?? This is a function of the custodial staff not filling the dispensers, of not placing order, OR of your principal choosing not to order and rely on donations. I bet the front office probably has no clue- this is a local issue.
Did you approach the front office to inform them and ask what they are going to do about it ? Geez....
Edit addition:
Please make this a WRAL On Your Side Issue! IF you are correct on your assertions of have and have nots, you will be doing your school a favor from a health stand point. Let's hear all about it--if you are credible.
Hi Shank - I did, and it was
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 20:38 — JSBinNCHi Shank - I did, and it was refilled.
There are no warm water taps though!! Can't fix that. It's those old fashioned kind of sinks that just have one turn on - and it's cold!
So based on your first post,
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 21:44 — shank56So based on your first post, you now concede that:
As far as having old facilities - cold water only faucettes- I've lived through that as well in all of my schools. I was more concerned with the AC working in interior spaces and non-moldy air blowing throught the vents when the AC and heat both worked. These are a have or have not issues and when BOE members like Bev Clark advocated for adequate facilities for aging schools- well, this is what led to renovations to some ITB school over the last 10 years.
So we agree on something.
What school do we need to help encourage the new BOE members to help renovate to correct your hot water problem? I wonder if and how many other schools have "no hot/warm water" problems ? Seems to me this is the type issue we all can rally around for the BOE and CC to correct.
Hot water in lavatories is
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 21:55 — ApexterHot water in lavatories is not required for sanitation purposes. Adding it introduces other issues --- it increases energy costs, and adds a requirement to make sure you have adequate tempering in place to make sure that no children are scalded by hot water.
So there is no real issue here
Sun, 01/10/2010 - 22:36 — shank56Well, this should make all of us , especially the Taxpayers Association very happy!
I doubt that she has. I
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:46 — jenmanI doubt that she has. I also doubt that McLaurin has either.
Our school got so screwed between major reassignments solely for diversity sake and being a traditional opt-out. Its still a good school but those years were hard. I really believe that people like Beverley Clark, McLaurin & Morrison think that everybody else has it so much better than they do. But I don't think they have any clue about the reality.
...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:36 — SideburnsIt is very clear to me now that MYR was all about diversity. I'm glad some are finally admitting it.
Better late than never.
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 14:03 — changewcpssBetter late than never. Time for reality.
Answer these questions.
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 11:58 — ncellagatorIf you are a parent that wanted out of YR and are now able have you been told where your child will be able to attend next year? How are staffing changes going to be handled regarding any changes to calendar choices if a school is mandated to be converted? From where is the funding going to be pulled to accomodate the implementaion and address resource changes that might be needed to accomodate remediation and ESL students? The system hasn't even finished working the budget for the $20M shortfall. Please don't cite the cost savings for busing-that funding is provided mainly by the state. The bulk of this has to come from the Wake County tax coffers. Are we sure all the tax payers are going to be willing to cough up the money for this? The number of tax payers certainly are greater than the number of families in the school system. They won't have the opportunity to voice their opinion in the survey.
I would have rather seen them wait 2 more weeks or so to have all the information needed to back their reasoning. For the new members sake I hope the survey results support their actions.
Sme way it was handled when the schools were converted
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 19:08 — stacy123This is not rocket science. we know where the kids were before and the staffing at a traditional school. easy enough. Just need to accommodate parents. I think most poeple look at a school district when they buy a house or rent (after all they need to know) and they are happy with the school or at least accept it. So now it is getting parents to the school where the expected to go and a schedule that is convenient for them. Will not satisfy all parents but will satisfy a much higher % than current.
In addition, GM has years
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 19:13 — jenmanIn addition, GM has years worth of data on year round applications. They know where YR is desired and where its not. They just placed their OWN agenda above that of parents' desires.
I don't doubt that
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 21:32 — pmThey just placed their OWN agenda above that of parents' desires.
I agree. Even as they tried to use YR to meet demand, they continued to overlay the diversity goals over it. Which is why I don't necessarily agree that YR and diversity are one and the same. If used alone, the YR assignments would have made more sense and been more effective.
Response to the last...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 12:30 — Bob_SconceI'm unaware that there will be substantial funding needs. If anything, this would allow the district to sell off a number of those movable cabinets.
Of course, I still think that it's really too late to convert for 2010-2011. (Don't get me wrong -- I think undoing MYR is the wrong move; I just don't think there's time for this year.)
Try savings galore.
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:34 — changewcpssTry savings galore. Movable cabinets will bring in income. Getting rid of MYR will bring savings; utilities, fuel, wear-n-tear on building, and the list is probably more than I know.
Parents have been begging for reversals for years. Fall 2010 is ideal time for long awaited change.
Can you be serious for just
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 15:47 — ncellagatorCan you be serious for just a moment? The change was in the mandatory assignment not a reduction in YR schools. That may be your hope but that is not what was voted upon last night. So there will be no garage sales for movable carts. The school system might need to purchase them for use in the portable units that may be needed to keep class sizes to state requirements. So that would be an added cost of this action. I can't think of a single school that shuts down completely regardless of calendar so no huge savings in utilities. And any decrease in utilities at one facility could be discounted by the cost of operating a portable unit. And as for wear & tear, if the same number of students will be utilizing the same number of buildings why would one expect wear and tear costs to decrease.
And it has been some parents that have been begging-not all. Again inaccurate reporting of numbers.
I am not a reporter, just a
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:15 — changewcpssI am not a reporter, just a parent whose family and friends have been forced to handle MYR. Which numbers are inaccurate?
You are obviously new to the scene if you believe your dribble. A 1st grader could dispute your ridiculous claims. Data regarding the cost issues for MYR failures nationwide is readily available if you care about stats.
Data exists
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:55 — louiselee44Yes, expenses will be both added and cut, and there's no way to know positively how things will come out in the wash. But numbers actually exist showing utility comparisons in some of the schools before and after conversion, along with enrollment then and now. I've posted that before, and some transportation numbers as well.
I keep reading statements with no data to back them up.
It's also interesting that if you look back at the dismal track record with MYR schools across our nation, the most common reason given for converting back to traditional is cost.
So...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:19 — Bob_SconceI suspect that if there's a change in mandatory assignment, that will lead to a reduction in the number of year-round schools. There's a range of parents -- from those who strongly oppose year-round schools, to those who dislike them but put up with them and then to those who favor them. I suspect that some of the parents who haven't been begging to be switched back will choose a traditional calendar anyway, as long as the traditional option is proximate.
Considering that the converted schools still, approximately, have few enough students to fill their pre-conversion capacities, I'm not too worried about extra trailers. And, frankly, I'd be happier with my kid being in a trailer than on a bizarre schedule.
As to utility savings, it's a LOT less expensive to cool a school that has no students in it.
There are also salary savings -- year-round schools need more maintenance, secretarial and food service help. Year-round schools also need school bus drivers more than traditional schools.
Consider total population
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:58 — pmThere are also salary savings -- year-round schools need more
maintenance, secretarial and food service help. Year-round schools
also need school bus drivers more than traditional schools.
Say that a school can hold 300 kids on a traditional calendar. That same school could hold 400 kids on YR.
Are you claiming that to service 1200 kids, 4 trad schools is cheaper than 3 YR schools?
You're missing 2 words: "IN THEORY"
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 00:04 — Apexter"Say that a school can hold 300 kids on a traditional calendar. That same school could hold 400 kids on YR."
Everyone loves to keep on passing out as a truism the statement that "MYR schools can hold 25% more capacity, so that we need to building only 3 schools instead of 4.
In practice, that has not been true. I will posit that it will NEVER be true of MYR.
To achieve this 25% in additional capacity figure, you would need to have all planned tracks fully utilized at every grade level. To expect that to happen based upon the mix of kids assigned via mandatory base assignments is ludicrous. If you relied on VOLUNTARY applications so that you could pick and choose among applicants based upon needing to fill certain tracks on certain grade levels, perhaps you could approach that utilization level ---- but, for this to work, you would have to plan on refusing assignments to a lot of kids in order to have a large enough pool of applicants to choose from to fill holes where needed.
Seriously, look at the recent applications to DPI (that have been denied) to try to get exemptions for larger class sizes. This, I think, is the biggest problem with MYR. In a traditional calendar school, when you start to have too many kids at a grade level, you can choose between maybe 5 or 6 classes to add one more kid to. When they've all reached the tipping point, you then organize a new class, pulling maybe 4 or 5 kids from each classroom. So what happens in MYR? If you get past the tipping point size for all the classes in one grade level, what are your choices? Do you pull kids from classes on each track, thus forcing 3/4 of the kids to face the disruption of a track change during the school year? Would that even be legal, since this could place some kids in the position of being able to attend fewer than 180 days in the school year? Or, do you end up having to reorganize and form new classes for more than one track? If so, there goes a major portion of your "extra capacity" that MYR was supposed to provide, and you've added the expense of an extra teacher(s) as well.
Does YR have the potential to stretch capacity? Yes, but nowhere near the THEORETICAL 25% that is continually claimed. And, keep in mind that the capacity addition will be most efficiently achieved when you are set up to pick and choose applicants to fill open slots in particular grade levels and tracks.
If...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:33 — Bob_SconceIf your assumptions were correct, then your conclusion would be correct also (at least mostly). But, for a variety of reasons, year round schools do not hold 1/3 more kids than traditional calendar schools.
Two other reasons apart from those you mention: (1) limits on school classrooms -- if you have 4 classrooms on a traditional track, then you can only have 5 classes on a year-round track; (2) unpopularity of certain tracks.
In theory, year-round schools add capacity. In practice, it just hasn't happened. My kid's school, for example, LOST capacity when it was converted. [And, no, I can't claim to understand how *that* happened. I must have missed some reasons.]
And, along the way, the year-round conversion added all sorts of unforeseen costs -- what do you do about the school buses that didn't have air conditioning? How do you run "Field day" in a school (or any of the other schoolwide activities) when 1/4 of the school isn't there at any given time? What do you do when inattentive drivers are surprised by kids walking to school in July?
Can you answer the question?
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:22 — pmI cede that hitting 100% utilization would be hard to do; grades are not equally dispersed. So a bubble may exist this year in K, move to 1st grade next year and so on. Further, the sunk cost of building a school has already occurred in schools that are switched from Trad to YR. And yes, I think the past assignments often left capacity on the table in order to satisfy diversity.
Now, given that you need to serve 1200 kids, are 4 Trad schools cheaper or are 3 YR schools cheaper?
"Now, given that you need to
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 21:52 — user12345"Now, given that you need to serve 1200 kids, are 4 Trad schools cheaper or are 3 YR schools cheaper? "
It seems the labor cost will be the same but the capital cost will be less since you need fewer buildings.
When I look at the elementary population it looks like a bulge is coming and we will need 7% more MS seats and 12% more HS seat without including any net increase in people moving here.
True...
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 09:24 — Bob_SconceThere was a building bubble in Elementary schools. Now, we have similar strains at the middle and, soon, high school levels. Lots of people moved to Wake County to start their families.
Also if woodstock is
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 10:55 — user12345Also if woodstock is successful in increasing the 54% graduation rate ... that will put more strain on HS seats ...
Of course...
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 18:31 — Bob_SconceIt doesn't really affect the year-round situation. There are no year-round high schools. And, has been discussed previously here, year-round high schools are not particularly practical. You were complaining about not enough students to fill some advanced courses? Try splitting the student body into 4 and then do it!
Are those not previously
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 18:26 — woodstockAre those not previously inclined to graduate heavier than the the who are certain to graduate? I'll have to see the data to beleive that. Also, I've seen some pretty large folks sit in those seats; they seem able to withstand significant strain.
grasping at straws. . .
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 11:34 — jenmangrasping at straws. . .
How did you arrive at that
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 10:59 — red_balloonHow did you arrive at that i.e., strain on HS if the schools do better?
red .. if 46% of 40% (round
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 11:11 — user12345red .. if 46% of 40% (round numbers) of the kids drop out today and do not graduate , a successful program could bring back 18% more kids back into HSs filling seats. The HSs "benefit" (in terms of seat count) today by discarding kids along the way. Ditto, 20% of Homeschool and Private school kids can choose to show up any time they choose.
Are there seats occupied by
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 11:55 — red_balloonAre there seats occupied by students who repeat grades? If yes, what would be the approximate percentage?
Increase achievement, bring
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 11:20 — changewcpssIncrease achievement, bring back all students, build the necessary schools. Baby steps.
Wouldn't that be wonderful to actually be the world-class system we pretend to be?
Applause!
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 12:20 — JanisTangoWouldn't that be wonderful to actually be the world-class system we pretend to be?
Yes, it's time we live up to the NC Motto
Thu, 01/07/2010 - 12:08 — TrailerParkGirlEsse Quam Videri
And your point is? Please
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:17 — changewcpssAnd your point is? Please keep up. When the capacity is not needed it is wasteful. Period.
Yes, but...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:16 — louiselee44that's just it - when MYR schools are operating under-capacity, and often with fewer students than they had when they were traditional - both of which are true for Wake County, then the YR schools are costing more.
This is not what's happening
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:14 — NWRaleighMomThis is not what's happening right now, for instance in NW Raleigh. Using your analogy, 1200 kids are distributed among 3 YR and 1 Trad school, all is under capacity. It will be much cheaper to have 2 or even 1 YR and let parents choose calendar option.
Better choice yes, cheaper, who knows...
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 17:25 — pmIt will be much cheaper to have 2 or even 1 YR and let parents choose calendar option.
Choice does not imply less cost. It may be more to the folk's liking, but I don't think that choice in this case makes it cheaper.
all is under capacity.
I would imagine that some of the "under capacity" is by design. Building is as much for current as expected growth.
So this was all done on a
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 16:40 — ncellagatorSo this was all done on a speculation of saving money not true data. As I said, I hope the survey data proves the point otherwise there will be a huge credibility issue with which the Chair and new board members will be having to handle as well as the rest of their agenda.
something to watch out for
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:55 — red_balloonOpponents of the resolution complained it would weaken efforts to keep schools healthy.
This would be true if underperformers gravitate toward a few schools. As SES based diversity comes to an end, having unhealthy schools is a real risk with a high probability. The BOE has to follow through by shifting resources and focus from "healthy schools" to "healthy students".
No Survey
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:14 — supportwcpssWhy bother with the survey now. They really don't care what everyone wants.
From my vantage point they
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 13:36 — changewcpssFrom my vantage point they do care about what everyone wants which is why they are doing a survey. Giving choice is fundamental to this process. Thank you for the resolution D Prickett and thank you to others who voted for parental choice.
Backwards, Actually, it
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:29 — shearertwBackwards,
Actually, it appears they DO care what people want, regardless of their economic status. The survey provides the data to help decide how many YR applicant schools are necessary. That way, we don't end up with more 3 track YR schools. Are you actually reading the articles or just posting what ever comes to you mind?
EXACTLY!
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 10:37 — JanisTangoWCPSS did a poor job of executing this YR mess. How else can you explain underutlized YR schools, over crowded YR schools, schools that had to collapse tracks due to lack of students, students not getting classes they would have in traditional because they aren't on the right track. If I was forced into a school where my kid didn't get full time AG I would want to get out...wouldn't you? If I wanted to take vacations with my family during non-peak times, that is my business. If I want traditional because my older kids can watch my younger ones during the summer, that is my business!
Here's your arrogance
Wed, 01/06/2010 - 09:52 — shearertwHere's your arrogance Chaboard-
-"Historically, few low-income students have voluntarily applied for year-round schools."
-"School board member Carolyn Morrison said eliminating the use of diversity in filling year-round schools could lead to "have's and have not's."
Low income students can apply for YR just like everyone else. Low income students are not discriminated against with regard to their application for YR.
Can Ms. Morrison or anyone else please explain to me how getting something you DO NOT want is a "have" and being allowed to keep want you DO want is a "have not"?