U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-24-2014, 12:54 PM
 
305 posts, read 661,127 times
Reputation: 216

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by catonc View Post
Another cost for redistricting that is not listed is teachers. We were told that redistricting would not impact the classes a child can take. So if Weddington offers AP or Honors classes that Sun Valley does not, don't they now need to hire another teacher so that classes can be taught at both schools? And that means adding another classroom to that school as well in order to house that class.

Just thinking out loud here.
Not necessarily. To teach an AP class you need to go to AP training, which is offered in the summer. So if a teacher at a school that needs to add AP classes is willing to get trained, problem solved. If no teachers step forward, they may transfer teachers from a high school that doesn't have need for as many classes now.

 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:15 PM
 
141 posts, read 172,138 times
Reputation: 63
Some more food for thought from someone who is staying unnamed... "I was looking at the new data last night that UCPS provided about redistricting (the 13/14 student data that was added to the "distances" spreadsheets on the UCPS website) and found the following: Numbers indicate that they will be moving 1712 students out of the Cuthbertson Cluster and only 190 current students into it (all from Marvin Ridge Cluster). The data shows the following: Students moved out of Cuthberston Cluster: Kensington Elem. - 54 NTES - 545 CMS - 527 CHS - 586 Students moved into Cuthbertson Cluster from other Clusters Kensington Elem - 0 NTES - 82 students (I did not account for the 226 students from Lawson being moved from Kensington Elem to NTES as they are staying in their current cluster) CMS - 47 CHS - 61 So they are moving a net of 1522 students out of one cluster to make room for students that do not currently live in the district, in houses that are not even built yet and in doing so, they are decimating the populations of CMS and CHS! Also - the Cluster data 5 year projections after redistricting show that Cuthberston HS will remain underutilized for the next five years - meaning it will not even be at its core capacity (# of students it was built to hold and putting it at 100% utilization), while Sun Valley High will be over capacity in 1 year and remain on the "watch" list for the next 5 years: CHS Core capacity is 1600, Sun Valley High School Core Capcity is 1460. Here are the projected enrollment numbers with the redistricting: 2014/15 CHS: 1195/1600=75% SVHS: 1422/1460=97% 2015/16 CHS: 1297/1600=81% SVHS: 1610/1460=110% 2016/17 CHS: 1434/1600=90% SVHS: 1626/1460=111% 2017/18 CHS: 1500/1600=94% SVHS: 1654/1460=113% 2018/19 CHS: 1559/1600=98% SVHS: 1567/1460=107% The middle school numbers are much the same (CMS vs SVMS) and I can't find the data for Parkwood Cluster as is it not on the website (which I find a bit suspicious). My question is this - if the redistricting is supposed to be fixing the over capacity problem, the data doesn't jive. They are not fixing the problem, they are simply moving it!!!"
 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,435,498 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
...My question is this - if the redistricting is supposed to be fixing the over capacity problem, the data doesn't jive. They are not fixing the problem, they are simply moving it!!!"
Pretty hard to read due to formatting, but I understand the overall gist... I think your unnamed source is not understanding that "the problem" is all the over cap schools now and in the next several years. If they were just worrying about watch levels, they wouldn't do anything right now.

This "fixes" the issue as in takes away all the caps and they can be at watch level until they can get new schools on the radar.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 01:58 PM
 
397 posts, read 580,357 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by iwand2014 View Post
UCPS Student Assignment Plan guidelines:
1. Maximize benefits to students
Not happening IMO. How are my children benefiting by traveling 20 minutes extra each way?
3. Provide same quality education to all students
Does SV offer Chinese in MS? I have not heard of that. Do they offer all the advanced classes my children are currently taking? Am I wrong assuming they are not?
4. Adhere to neighborhood schools concept
Not happening in my opinion. I live 3 miles from Cuthbertson and 2 miles from Weddington. 13 miles from SV.
6. Minimize the negative social/emotional impact on students being separated from classmates
Nope. Not at all. Only one neighborhood going to SV from Cuthbertson. Rest of them to Parkwood.
7. Utilize long-term planning
Who are we kidding. This is why we are in this situation to begin with. It was not done.
8. Minimize transportation costs and ride times
On who? Me? Nope. I will have to have my kids in car alot longer with county roads. not to mention my commute. There are neighborhoods further from Cuthbertson staying in the cluster. The lines do not make sense when you factor in commuting.
12. Be fair and equitable
nope. Not at all
13. Maximize quality of life/stability
Nope. Added stress and pressures to my kids.
14. Maximize community/school relationships
Have you seen the message boards and petition? It is ugly. No school unity when this happens. Divisions will be seen. There will be Weddington kids and SV kids hanging together. The comments are out on the petition pages. Cuthbertson kids will be the minority.
18. consider negative impact on students, staff, and faculty
Have you heard comments from teachers? The ones I have talked to are not in favor of this.
22. Consider input from staff and administration
Have they asked the principals etc. what they think?

Wasn't it recommended last evening for parents to talk with the principals of the capped schools to get their perspectives? What about you, have you done that? If not then you are not looking at the issue here which is overcrowding and anticipated continued growth. None of the above statements are absolute - thus the "minimize" and "maximize" terminology. Nothing can happen 100% of the time. Many of your issues involve your own children, but the school board must look at the county as a whole. I certainly don't think teaching the Chinese language is mandatory for schools to offer. If you want your child to learn Chinese perhaps you could buy a Rosetta Stone CD (just a thought). As for AP classes, I'm pretty sure that all high schools have them. Heck, I had all kinds of AP classes at SV back when I was a kid (and that was a long time ago!) With regard to negative comments, that is human nature. People aren't fond of change and they like to complain about it. And are you really worried about "divides" being in the schools? Because I'm pretty sure there are already divides without redistricting. And when schools like SV and Parkwood are being ridiculed by those at Cuthbertson and Weddington, ummmmm yeah! They aren't going to be very welcoming at first. So perhaps if the upset parents would accept reality and move forward, their children would to.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:04 PM
 
141 posts, read 172,138 times
Reputation: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Pretty hard to read due to formatting, but I understand the overall gist... I think your unnamed source is not understanding that "the problem" is all the over cap schools now and in the next several years. If they were just worrying about watch levels, they wouldn't do anything right now.

This "fixes" the issue as in takes away all the caps and they can be at watch level until they can get new schools on the radar.


I like that Mikey, and if they would come out and say that, i don't think it would be well received, but its understandable, flawed, but understandable….but here is the thing. They are presenting this as a "longterm" solution. If you are talking new schools, then this should not be the solution you should be looking at. Being fair, if they do build new schools, you are going to have to shuffle the county around….AGAIN!!!! is that the ultimate goal, to do this every 4-5 yrs?
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Pixley
3,521 posts, read 2,243,450 times
Reputation: 1858
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
Some more food for thought from someone who is staying unnamed... "I was looking at the new data last night that UCPS provided about redistricting (the 13/14 student data that was added to the "distances" spreadsheets on the UCPS website) and found the following: Numbers indicate that they will be moving 1712 students out of the Cuthbertson Cluster and only 190 current students into it (all from Marvin Ridge Cluster). The data shows the following: Students moved out of Cuthberston Cluster: Kensington Elem. - 54 NTES - 545 CMS - 527 CHS - 586 Students moved into Cuthbertson Cluster from other Clusters Kensington Elem - 0 NTES - 82 students (I did not account for the 226 students from Lawson being moved from Kensington Elem to NTES as they are staying in their current cluster) CMS - 47 CHS - 61 So they are moving a net of 1522 students out of one cluster to make room for students that do not currently live in the district, in houses that are not even built yet and in doing so, they are decimating the populations of CMS and CHS! Also - the Cluster data 5 year projections after redistricting show that Cuthberston HS will remain underutilized for the next five years - meaning it will not even be at its core capacity (# of students it was built to hold and putting it at 100% utilization), while Sun Valley High will be over capacity in 1 year and remain on the "watch" list for the next 5 years: CHS Core capacity is 1600, Sun Valley High School Core Capcity is 1460. Here are the projected enrollment numbers with the redistricting: 2014/15 CHS: 1195/1600=75% SVHS: 1422/1460=97% 2015/16 CHS: 1297/1600=81% SVHS: 1610/1460=110% 2016/17 CHS: 1434/1600=90% SVHS: 1626/1460=111% 2017/18 CHS: 1500/1600=94% SVHS: 1654/1460=113% 2018/19 CHS: 1559/1600=98% SVHS: 1567/1460=107% The middle school numbers are much the same (CMS vs SVMS) and I can't find the data for Parkwood Cluster as is it not on the website (which I find a bit suspicious). My question is this - if the redistricting is supposed to be fixing the over capacity problem, the data doesn't jive. They are not fixing the problem, they are simply moving it!!!"
Very interesting granular data. I mentioned this the other day, although this person's numbers seem to be off a bit. (example CHS is at Watch Level at 1800 and Cap level at 1900 according to the posted data sheets). I also had to point out that SVHS is never technically over the Cap level because they will be 6 kids under in 2017/18, yet CHS will remain 20% under Watch level for the next 5 years.

Why disrupt the lives of all those kids in the Cuthberson cluster and still leave a 20% cushion? Just in case some unexpected growth happens or they didn't want a half empty brand new school? Additionally, all the kids currently in Cuthberson were just used as Cuthberson filler until a future redistrict (the now proposed one) could move the bubble from the west eastward.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,435,498 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
I like that Mikey, and if they would come out and say that, i don't think it would be well received, but its understandable, flawed, but understandable….but here is the thing. They are presenting this as a "longterm" solution. If you are talking new schools, then this should not be the solution you should be looking at. Being fair, if they do build new schools, you are going to have to shuffle the county around….AGAIN!!!! is that the ultimate goal, to do this every 4-5 yrs?
I think your answer is in the presentation from last night... "Long term" in the context of accurate forecasting. They only addressed a forecast for 5 years out because they knew the accuracy dropped way off after that. They were instructed to "Stave off new school construction for about 5 years" and "Focus on areas identified by the 2013 Demographic Study with the greatest growth potential for the next several years; (McKibben’s accuracy is within 2% nationwide and 1/4% with UCPS system wide.)" I would suspect this is why you saw Cuthbertson gutted the way it was because of the "growth potential". I thought it was clear last night they could accomplish the goal with many of the options. Some were better than others and there are cost implications of each.

I've been trying to view this whole thing as if I was on the Board and get into their heads... From all accounts they aren't evil people. They are just confined to certain parameters and, unfortunately, budgetary constraints are top of the list.

and, yes - you're partially right... If they're smart they'll redistrict this year, contract an updated forecast next year, and decide where to break ground for the new school/cluster to be ready at the 5 year mark from this forecast - at which time they can redistrict again if required. Hopefully by then most of the pockets will be filled in and that will hold longer than 5 years. Might a good time to start lobbying for a new school near you now.

It's the nature of the beast when there's so much land out there to develop... and they have zero control or input into how it's allocated. Your beef is much more with the BOCC than the BOE.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:24 PM
 
451 posts, read 609,666 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
Some more food for thought from someone who is staying unnamed... "I was looking at the new data last night that UCPS provided about redistricting (the 13/14 student data that was added to the "distances" spreadsheets on the UCPS website) and found the following: Numbers indicate that they will be moving 1712 students out of the Cuthbertson Cluster and only 190 current students into it (all from Marvin Ridge Cluster). The data shows the following: Students moved out of Cuthberston Cluster: Kensington Elem. - 54 NTES - 545 CMS - 527 CHS - 586 Students moved into Cuthbertson Cluster from other Clusters Kensington Elem - 0 NTES - 82 students (I did not account for the 226 students from Lawson being moved from Kensington Elem to NTES as they are staying in their current cluster) CMS - 47 CHS - 61 So they are moving a net of 1522 students out of one cluster
No shock here. A few were saying this before last Tuesday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
Also - the Cluster data 5 year projections after redistricting show that Cuthberston HS will remain underutilized for the next five years - meaning it will not even be at its core capacity (# of students it was built to hold and putting it at 100% utilization)
Again not a shock. Cutty only has 2 elementary schools. Everyone else has 3 or even 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
while Sun Valley High will be over capacity in 1 year and remain on the "watch" list for the next 5 years: CHS Core capacity is 1600, Sun Valley High School Core Capcity is 1460. Here are the projected enrollment numbers with the redistricting: 2014/15 CHS: 1195/1600=75% SVHS: 1422/1460=97% 2015/16 CHS: 1297/1600=81% SVHS: 1610/1460=110% 2016/17 CHS: 1434/1600=90% SVHS: 1626/1460=111% 2017/18 CHS: 1500/1600=94% SVHS: 1654/1460=113% 2018/19 CHS: 1559/1600=98% SVHS: 1567/1460=107%
Ok, but its not over the cap level.

So you want to move more kids out of SVHS to PRHS or Monroe HS which would cause more kids to move out of them to Piedmont and Forest Hills.

We go from moving 5,800 kids to moving 7,000 or so. Man that's cruel and cold hearted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by First and Ten View Post
They are not fixing the problem, they are simply moving it!!!"
They are. They are filling up seats across the district to justify a bond issue in 3 years. Got fill all the seats first, before asking for more money.

Next...
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:27 PM
 
7 posts, read 8,768 times
Reputation: 15
Waxhawmom75, please calm down. You seem angry whenever you post. You also seem very condescending when people do not agree with this "plan". We all should be able to state what our thoughts are without the attitude you seem so eager to display.
I have talked with several faculty and administrators as I do business with them. They will tell you off the record that they are in fact not in favor of this. Parkwood teachers I have spoken with will tell you this. This is disruptive to all kids involved, not just mine. My brother teaches at SV and he tells me this off the record. He does not mention this to anyone else as he loves being employed!
I would agree with you that there are parents of Cuthbertson and Weddington families who have been out of line. No school or kid should be treated that way. We are all not like that. We all want what is best for our kids.
Yes, I am worried about divides. As the ONLY neighborhood going to SV, the WO kids are at an enourmous disadvantage. Not all of our kids are extroverts and some do not make friends easily. The first year of high school is a challenge academically and socially, so yes, it does concern me that my daughter will not have a single face to look to that she recognizes. I would like to accept this reality, it just does not make any sense to single out one neighborhood.
It has been stated that people think mobile units are unsafe. So, if we redestrict and get the numbers back in line, are we going to see the mobile units disappear from our schools. No way. Not going to happen. Mobile units, unfortunately, are here to stay. My son is in one everyday. He seems fine. No issues. Leaves 2 times a day for AIG.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,435,498 times
Reputation: 4818
Let me say this in case I'm coming off heartless... the BOE should adjust the current proposal based on feedback from the communities and where true factual data and logic dictate those adjustments. They need to listen to the communities taking a constructive approach - if they don't, I will line up to throw rocks, too.

But at the end of the day, they may hide behind "butterfly effect" and approve as is... I hope they don't, but they might.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:45 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top