paige 7

4/4/2010 2:28:04 AM

Quote :

"Lacy, which recently opened a new building, is already at capacity, and will need temporary classrooms next year to accommodate the influx of students. Stough is about 100 students under capacity. "

So some kids now get shoved into expensive trailers while another school runs under capacity. That makes sense.

4/5/2010 1:49:13 AM

make changes now, consider consequences later.

4/5/2010 10:02:54 AM

Seems like someone who plays Sim City could make better reassignment choices

4/6/2010 1:29:56 AM

Quote :

"RALEIGH -- Wake County's environmentally green schools may be costing too much financial green for members of the school board's new ruling majority to keep in building plans. Chris Malone, chairman of the board's facilities committee, called Tuesday for a financial review of Wake's green building efforts, which have led to features such as waterless urinals, natural lighting and recycled building material. Malone said these features can increase costs by as much as 5 percent and may no longer be justifiable when cash-strapped school leaders will need to ask voters in the next few years to approve a school bond referendum for hundreds of millions of dollars. "If we want a bond issue approved, we have to show voters we're saving dollars," said Malone, one of four newcomers swept into office in the fall. But supporters of green schools said abandoning these efforts would be shortsighted. Green-school features are supposed to save money in the long haul, with lower electric and water bills because of greater efficiency. "I understand that these are hard economic times, but the costs will ultimately come back to the taxpayers," said Bae-Won Koh, chairman of the Triangle chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council. "They'll have to pay more later." Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/14/436070/green-schools-may-cost-too-much.html#ixzz0l5b96LTe "

Quote :

"Wake school administrators have noted that waterless urinals reduce water use by 20 percent and that designing buildings to use more natural lighting instead of electric lights can cut energy use by 20 percent to 30 percent. Doug Brinkley, past chairman of the Triangle chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, also touted how green schools can help improve student learning by ensuring good air quality. Schools can use paints that don't release as many chemicals into the air that can irritate people. "It's more than just about saving money; it's about the health of those inside," Brinkley said."

4/14/2010 11:38:33 AM

waterless urinals are disgusting

4/14/2010 11:53:08 AM

I don't see how natural lighting and waterless urinals increase costs. Anyone have any info on that? And if they do, how do they increase on the back end, which is the only place we can save now?

4/14/2010 6:42:01 PM

Quote :

"The new school board said the old school board was unresponsive to parents and parents didn't get a say. So the new school board listens to affluent parents and gives them exactly the reassignments that they want. Then the new school board turns around and immediately reassigns less affluent kids with no notice and zero opportunity for parental input--a move that the old "unresponsive" school board never attempted... "

4/14/2010 7:04:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how natural lighting and waterless urinals increase costs. Anyone have any info on that? And if they do, how do they increase on the back end, which is the only place we can save now?"

I'd wager that they're not referring to upkeep costs, but installation and replacing older systems costs.

A little googling reveals the parts costs alone for waterless urinals is like 3x the regular old flush ones. Which is retarded, since it's just a teflon bowl right?

4/15/2010 9:51:46 AM

I always wondered as a kid why urinals had to flush....it seems like you could just flush them twice a day and save money if they were designed correctly.

4/15/2010 10:34:44 AM

Cause then some idiot takes a shit in one and then where are you?

Granted, this is a danger with all things, but I guess that's what hoses are for.

4/15/2010 11:08:16 AM

waterless urinals are disgusting because they dont ever properly drain all urine so they end up smelling awful in between cleanings. I cant imagine what kids would do to them.

4/15/2010 11:48:03 AM

Quote :

"I'd wager that they're not referring to upkeep costs, but installation and replacing older systems costs. "

That would be my guess as well. Why worry about long-term costs when you can just tout short-term benefits

4/16/2010 8:41:09 PM

Cause then some idiot takes a shit in one and then where are you?

4/16/2010 8:43:21 PM

Super layoff party at Wake Co. Schools today. One of my friends got the axe

4/20/2010 10:44:10 PM

What's the average size of a classroom in Wake County these days?

4/20/2010 11:14:02 PM

^^ I had a friend last year who barely missed a layoff.

IT

IS

RIDICULOUS

.

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 1:37 AM. Reason : ^too many!]

4/21/2010 1:37:25 AM

My friend said over 70 people were laid off, btw. In Wake County's defense, she was one of those people who wrote grants for the magnet school program, and since the school board's recent decisions have rendered Wake County ineligible or unlikely to be selected for a lot of the grant money they used to get every year, they don't really need grant writers anymore.

4/21/2010 11:04:44 AM

Also just found out she's going to continue to work on the grant she was in the middle of for free because she doesn't want the schools to get fucked over by firing everybody one week before the due date.

4/21/2010 1:52:09 PM

god forbid that government employees be confronted with the same economic realities as private sector employees.

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/21/2010 1:54:02 PM

If the school system is struggling for money, you probably shouldn't fire the people WHO GET THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THEIR MONEY.

4/21/2010 3:47:47 PM

http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/cms/2010/04/20/five-things-to-remember-during-the-budget-debate/

Quote :

" Here are a few things to remember as the budget debate begins to help navigate your way through all the distortions. 1) North Carolina's current budget woes have not been caused by out of control state spending. The N.C. Budget & Tax Center finds that state government spending per person is now lower that it has been in 13 years. And that is after last session's tax increase passed to keep budget cuts to merely devastating levels. 2) North Carolina is not a high tax state. A conservative columnist recently concluded that overall state and local taxes are about average. The right-wing Tax Foundation says the state ranks 28th in state and local taxes per capita. Even the Foundation's deeply flawed "Tax Freedom Day" analysis found North Carolina slightly better than the national average, ahead of neighboring states like Georgia and Virginia. 3) North Carolina business taxes are among the lowest in the country. Anti-government forces like to cherry pick individual tax rates to claim that state taxes on business are too high and responsible for driving jobs out of the state. It is simply not true. 4) North Carolinians are not buried in public debt. The folks on the Right want you to believe that state lawmakers have over borrowed to pay for infrastructure projects at universities and community colleges, but that is simply not true either. The conservative Tax Foundation says North Carolina ranks 40th in the country in per capita state debt. 5) Last year's budget cuts inflicted damage on public education and human services that will take a decade to repair. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education recently voted to lay off 600 teachers and that number may rise to 1,000. Education Week ranks North Carolina 11th of the 12 Southeastern states in spending for public education."

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/04/nc-voters-think-they-have-higher-taxes.html

Quote :

"NC voters think they have higher taxes Tuesday, April 20, 2010 Every week it seems there's a new study or statistic that some interest group or other can use to claim that North Carolina does or does not have an unusually high tax burden. When it comes to the perceptions of voters though it's no contest- North Carolinians think they pay higher taxes than people in other states. 59% of voters in the state feel that way compared to 26% who think North Carolina's taxes are about the same as other places and 10% who feel that the state has lower taxes. It's a sentiment that there's bipartisan consensus on- 70% of Republicans, 56% of independents, and 52% of Democrats think that residents of the state pay more than average. So do these numbers spell big trouble for Democrats as they try to keep control of the General Assembly this fall? I doubt it. Only 3% of voters in the state say taxes are the most important issue to them. "

Overall we're a pretty well run state. Our constitution requires a balanced budget, the LGC has made us a model for the rest of the country in many ways. We are in a weak economy, so we either have to cut past the fat into the bone, or we have to have an unpopular tax increase. There may be patches of fat to be cut, but there isn't much. We have people arguing here for less spending cuts, and we have people in the amazon thread arguing for keeping that as a tax loophole even as more and more purchases are moving online (I oppose the amazon tax applying retroactively though).

I mean we have a weak economy so we cant maintain the current level of services and taxes, so we either have to do things like fire teachers & the public complains, raise tax rates & the public complains, or find new revenue sources amazon purchases & the public complains. If we split the burden between each of those, maybe we'll find the least painful balance, but we can't keep arguing for less taxes and more services during a weak economy.

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/21/2010 4:12:53 PM

Quote :

"we can't keep arguing for less taxes and more services during a weak economy."

Sure we can. It's the American way

4/21/2010 9:07:57 PM

Quote :

"Education Week ranks North Carolina 11th of the 12 Southeastern states in spending for public education.""

WOW

4/21/2010 9:28:54 PM

it's been a rough day in the county. people were called last night and told not to show up to work this morning.

i'm pretty shocked by the layoffs at project enlightenment! even tedesco voted against these cuts. this program has been breaking grounds in early intervention for years and is well known throughout the country! (http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/7462479/)

i think people misunderstand the severity of this issue. this school board does everything backwards and is in my opinion completely inept. let's vote to end the diversity policy, but we'll figure out what to do instead at a later date. let's pass a budget cutting millions of dollars from our schools, and then decide where to make cuts in closed session. it just doesn't make any sense to me!




[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ]

4/21/2010 11:19:44 PM

damn and all this time I thought layoffs would be easy

4/21/2010 11:23:59 PM

wow you're a douchebag

4/22/2010 12:16:52 AM

^^^ Those cuts really surprised me as well. I'm concerned about what this is going to mean in the long run.

4/22/2010 10:44:51 PM

Seriously! Early intervention is NOT the place to be making cuts. How about these idiots who sit at a desk all day checking their Pampered Chef orders?! Their most important goal is not screwing up the take-out chinese lunch orders for everyone in the office. The state could stand to lose more than a few of those.

4/23/2010 10:15:19 AM

Quote :

"Families would be able to choose from a variety of schools in their zones, such as a newly created vocational education school and new themed academies. They'd also be able to apply to magnet schools outside their zones, including most of the existing magnet schools and possibly a few new ones. The key to Tedesco's concept is the development of a new formula, which he called an assignment algorithm, that would weigh various factors to determine where each child would be assigned. "

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/24/452067/school-zone-concepts-see-first.html

Okay, so where is the money supposed to come from for "vocational education schools," "new themed academies," and "a few new [magnet schools]"?

4/26/2010 10:29:22 PM

AHA, they've botched this miserably.

A lawsuit is inevitable at this point.

4/26/2010 11:19:46 PM

Quote :

"The key to Tedesco's concept is the development of a new formula, which he called an assignment algorithm, that would weigh various factors to determine where each child would be assigned. "

Wait, What? So basically what Tedesco is saying is that he is going to divide the district into zones, use the assignment plan that the district has been applying to the county as a whole, shine it up with a new fancy name, and call it his own...

4/27/2010 12:24:25 AM

Quote :

"Okay, so where is the money supposed to come from for "vocational education schools," "new themed academies," and "a few new [magnet schools]"?"

exactly what i came here to post

4/27/2010 6:41:17 AM

^^ Yep, that's how I read it too. So instead of a kid having a 45 minute ride to school they'll have a 40 minute ride

4/27/2010 9:38:09 AM

Surprise! A hiring freeze has been implemented for the 2010-2011 school year

4/27/2010 12:38:38 PM

^^^^He's going to factor in things like parental education levels and median housing values.

It's totally different!



But seriously, they're not gonna do shit. In 15 months, when the plan comes due, it's gonna be precisely what we think it will be: a bunch of economically disparate zones awkwardly drawn to include enough schools in each zone. Everybody will get assigned to a school in their zone--in some instances still driving past their closest school to go to another (oh the horror!). Less affluent students will get the choice to opt out of their assigned school in order to attend a different school in their zone, but alternative buses may not be provided.

Then you dress up a couple schools as "themed academies," and voila! neighborhood schools with choice and socioeconomic diversity!



^AHA, this is just ridiculous.

[Edited on April 27, 2010 at 12:56 PM. Reason : sss]

4/27/2010 12:53:30 PM

"Hypothetical community assignment zoning"

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/hypothetical-community-assignment-zoning/Content?oid=1299903

Don't know if anyone posted this already.... don't feel like reading back 7 pages. This is not Tedesco's plan, just a "hypothetical" zoning plan the Indy created based on his ideas.

4/27/2010 6:40:41 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/education/story/7506227/

Quote :

"Cost-cutting measures that have been floated to deal with the newest cuts in state funding include four-day school weeks, selling naming rights to athletic fields, pay cuts, larger class sizes and fewer school supplies."

wat

4/29/2010 8:01:05 AM

Whew, that hypothetical map is scary. Here's the real one:



Segregation now, segregation forever!

4/29/2010 8:35:25 AM

^^ Man, and parents were bitching about Wacky Wednesdays. Can't wait to hear what they have to say about Fainéant Fridays

5/3/2010 4:32:36 AM

Honestly, I think what the new school board is trying to do is great, as long as they allow the students from low income areas to go to better schools (schools out of their zone) if they meet eligibility.

It does not make sense to bus people in from low income areas to high income schools just to 'diversify' the schools. It ends up lowering the quality of education in the high income areas. Its dumbing down the schools for the appearance of integration. However, all students in low income areas should be allowed to attend better schools if they have the desire. Otherwise, I see more advantages having community based schools. With a community based school, you can taylor the education to meet the needs of the community you serve. In low income areas, that is going to be more trade classes, more after school programs aimed to keep kids clean. In higher income areas, it would be tuning classes to segway better to college education, etc.

5/3/2010 11:17:33 AM

Maybe it shows just how out-of-touch I am with this thread (and this topic) that I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

Quote :

"It does not make sense to bus people in from low income areas to high income schools just to 'diversify' the schools. It ends up lowering the quality of education in the high income areas. Its dumbing down the schools for the appearance of integration. However, all students in low income areas should be allowed to attend better schools if they have the desire. Otherwise, I see more advantages having community based schools. With a community based school, you can taylor the education to meet the needs of the community you serve. In low income areas, that is going to be more trade classes, more after school programs aimed to keep kids clean. In higher income areas, it would be tuning classes to segway better to college education, etc."

Oh, and I love the switch from "eligibility" to "desire".

The poor kids can move to the good school if they meet requirements and test scores. You know, so any of them who want can get a college-oriented education. It will be entirely based on the prerogative of the student. You know, those students who never grew up with the idea that they would/could go to college will just decide for themselves. This will turn out great.

I really have totally lost where that sarcasm line is.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 12:39:12 PM

Eligibility can mean a number of things. The desire to go to a better school could be the eligability, and if you dont keep your grades up when you are there, you are unenrolled from that school, and must go to a school in your district. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But the kids that are living in underprivledged areas aren't out in the cold. Money would be spent to enhance those schools to better deal with unique problems that are found in those communities, rather than pretending they dont exist (which is what you are suggesting).

And really when it comes down to it, it is about school choice. If someone in good school district 1 wants to go to a good school in district 2, they should be allowed as long as their grades are maintained, otherwise they default back to district 1.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 1:44:29 PM

Quote :

"The desire to go to a better school could be the eligability, and if you dont keep your grades up when you are there, you are unenrolled from that school, and must go to a school in your district. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me."

this is some of the most ridiculous shit i have ever heard. if a child can't "keep their grades up" then this should be dealt with among parents, teachers, specialists, and administrators. why would you punish a child for their learning deficiencies??

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2010 5:21:18 PM

Quote :

"It ends up lowering the quality of education in the high income areas. Its dumbing down the schools for the appearance of integration. However, all students in low income areas should be allowed to attend better schools if they have the desire."

Exactly. If parents are that determined to have their kids go to a school within a more "affluent" area than they can move.

Even the suburban schools have a trailer park somewhere within their school zones. Busing is stupid. Maybe in 1960 it was
necessary but in 2010 it is a waste of time and money.

Quote :

"You know, those students who never grew up with the idea that they would/could go to college will just decide for themselves"

You can bus the kids and diversify the schools all you want. The kids who do not care or don't have their parents pushing
them are still going to take the "regular" classes along with all the other underachieving students. Bussing poor kids
to more affluent schools is not going to be some life altering event that turns an otherwise drug dealer into a future doctor.

Poor income parents merely want someone to blame for their childrens failure instead of taking a look at their own parenting ability.
This attitude often carries into other parts of their life as well ( i.e. obesity, unemployment, bad job, etc)

Quote :

"But the kids that are living in underprivledged areas aren't out in the cold. Money would be spent to enhance those schools to better deal with unique problems that are found in those communities, rather than pretending they dont exist"

exactly.

5/3/2010 5:47:00 PM

Quote :

"as long as they allow the students from low income areas to go to better schools (schools out of their zone) if they meet eligibility"

I agree that in theory this seems like a good move forward, however I reconsider when I realize that I (and perhaps you) am applying my social values/education/upbringing to the situation. In practice, creating community schools and then having an opt out clause simply means that at-risk schools will quickly fail. Look no further than our neighbors to the west. Durham implemented a similar plan a number of years ago and what resulted was an exodus of affluent students from largely poor schools. Just last week, their board released a report on their failing schools that went so far as to recommend closing some schools which are not improving. Do we really want to risk this in Wake county?

Quote :

"But the kids that are living in underprivledged areas aren't out in the cold. Money would be spent to enhance those schools to better deal with unique problems that are found in those communities, rather than pretending they dont exist"

Its a pretty tough sell in this economic climate to throw money at a problem and expect for it to go away, particularly when it is coming from a republican majority board (isn't this more of a democratic tactic?).

Quote :

"Poor income parents merely want someone to blame for their childrens failure instead of taking a look at their own parenting ability. This attitude often carries into other parts of their life as well ( i.e. obesity, unemployment, bad job, etc)"

So you're suggesting that we should set these children up for failure in order to expose poor parenting at home? Blaming the son for the sins of the father?

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM. Reason : am not are]

5/3/2010 6:29:37 PM

Quote :

" this is some of the most ridiculous shit i have ever heard. if a child can't "keep their grades up" then this should be dealt with among parents, teachers, specialists, and administrators. why would you punish a child for their learning deficiencies??"

You obviously would have been one of those kids shipped back to his neighborhood school.

Being placed in a select school outside of your district should be considered a privilege. It doesnt matter if you have an IQ of 80 or 150 or have a learning disability or not. There are classes that are designed to allow you to succeed if you are properly placed. If the students can't pull their weight, then they don't deserve to be in a choice school.

On top of it, what good is it doing someone to go to a good school if they aren't making the grades, anyway? They might as well waste space somewhere else.

And to Ski:
I'm not saying my plan is perfect. But I honestly dont see the good in the current system. Im sick of the diversity bullshit. That simply isn't a good enough reason.

[Edited on May 3, 2010 at 9:37 PM. Reason : .]

5/3/2010 9:31:32 PM

Quote :

"Money would be spent to enhance those schools"

What money?

5/4/2010 12:31:34 AM

I wouldnt be opposed to a small property tax increase if they could pull it off. I am not going to accept the current situation as a good one like most of you seem to be doing. We can do better.

5/4/2010 9:32:39 AM

CarZin, what experience do you have with these topics? You seem to be really off base with your understanding of the way schools work:

1. Bussing does not lower the quality of education in more affluent areas. There is absolutely zero evidence to support your claim that it does. If anything bussing increases the quality of education, as students are exposed to people outside of their neighborhoods and are better prepped for college and working in a global economy.

If you want to create a decline in the quality of a child's education, your best bet is to follow through with your plan. Isolating all our less affluent students in a handful of schools is unfortunately a guarantee that they'll get the shaft. I mean, you're already planning out the decline by creating some schools "taylored" with trades and other schools set up as "segways" to college. (Sorry about the quotes. You're being a bit of douche bag about which school twoozles would go to, and you can't even spell.)

2. Access to a quality education is not a privilege. You cannot plan to send some kids to schools with less emphasis on college prep just because of where they live. Add to that the fact that the neighborhoods we're talking about are largely separated by race, and what you're suggesting is unconscionable.

You're literally describing a public school system separated by class and race with distinct and purposeful tracks arranged to ensure some kids go on to college and some do not. Currently, that is precisely the opposite of what public schooling is all about. Of course, trade courses should be available, but the system you're describing is crazy!

3. I think the issues you are having stem from a lack of experience with schools and with people in less affluent neighborhoods. I mean, let's say thirty percent of students receiving free and reduced priced lunch pass their EOGs. That is not good. But you're talking about the entire group as potential "space wasters" who need to meet special rules if they want to access rigorous college prep. Lots and lots of people go on to college, regardless of their family's income--even people who flunk courses or get expelled!

Furthermore, you're talking about these students like they're all adults who can make their own decisions. Remember, a lot of the school failure occurs when kids are still in elementary school. Honestly, our high schools are so big that it's not that hard to keep them diverse. It's elementary and middle school that you're talking about overloading with poverty. I mean, you seem to realize what you're suggesting is wrong--otherwise, you wouldn't allow students the option of going to another school. But they probably won't opt out until after they've gotten behind, and then you'll be standing over them, "You can't keep your grades up! You don't deserve this privilege! I'm sick of diversity!"


We all fantasize about schools that would meet the "unique challenges" of less affluent students where kids will thrive. Unfortunately, this has yet to play out. The schools end up getting less qualified teachers who don't stick around and less resources since their PTAs don't make the cut. Furthermore, they are quick to fall victim to the soft prejudice of low expectations. I know I'm not supposed to admit that such a prejudice exists, but there are all-black charter schools in Raleigh where virtually none of the students are passing their EOGs but these schools are still considered good because they teach about the importance of fatherhood. It's fucking perverse.


It's 2010, and the truth remains: separate cannot be equal. The proof is in your post.

5/4/2010 11:42:20 AM