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.
RDB1905. Excellent post. TooLogical - nice response as usual. This is what we need more of, thoughtful, level-headed discussions. Some ideas/suggestions may not work as presented. But maybe it can be used as a base for other ideas.
Which is why I'm confused that the "Chinese Fire-Drill Rezoning" option didn't gain more traction.
RDB1905, TooLogical. I know the stepped-redistricting wasn't well received when Mr Pigg suggested it at the last BoE meeting. But I agree with both of you that it has merit. I think getting buy-in from the families is important in whatever option is offered. So I'm going to throw this out there for your comments.
Same principal as your post RDB, but lets tweak areas being redistricted. Lets try and give the parents what they want, grandfathering throughout. So whatever cluster you're in you stay. Any new developments would fall into the new assigned school. A new development should be predefined. Let's say any new phase of a development not built out to XX% (whatever percentage is logical) as of 01/01/14 is considered a new development. For example, this will grandfather in the existing Millbridge and Lawson developments but would assign new schools to the new planned phases. The new phases would get the same opportunity to move into a neighborhood school or remain in the school they're at if capacity drops.
Both ideas don't resolve the capacity issue over night. Both deal with the growth. Both have the same potential drawback, transportation.
I know one argument will be, with RDB's option, that as the ES and MS graduate it eases the bubble by moving those children to under capacity schools.
But wouldn't the bubble ease with this idea also? It may not move the bubble as easily but the growth will slow at all the schools because there's no longer the increase of new students. You may get some net gain or loss at the grandfathered developments as families move in and out, but the net should be negligible in either direction.
As with RDB, I didn't run any numbers. It's just an idea. I know it's been presented before but I would like to hear some level headed comments on why it may not work vs the other stepped option.
Thanks!
Have a great day!
Thanks Cowboy21. I try to stay levelheaded, but sometimes my head hurts from hitting the wall too many times.
Some random thoughts:
This sounds like a reverse grandfather plan? As space frees up, subdivision X can move back in? I wonder if they'd have to do it by grade or school level (ES, MS, HS)? That could make busses crazy like we talked about above, but it's an option.
Would new people in current subdivisions be able to attend, or would they be moved out too (like the cap is today). If they are moved out, the bussing is complex again, plus I think that's super awkward on the "new kid" that just moved in. (personal opinion - no one wants to be moved, but there are strength in numbers. Having a whole neighborhood seems better than signaling out a small handful of kids)
I'd also think this ends up having to redraw the lines again every year. If I'm the BOE and I see a map with holes and pockets all over the place, I think that would be a tough sell considering they look at things from an optimization standpoint. (don't laugh - any business or bureaucracy works that way to some extent)
I know this all hints around the "I was here first" concept and that's understandable. It's like the long time YMCA member frustrated with all the newcomers every January. HA! Hypothetically, one way to solve the overcrowding is to implement this plan (no new subdivisions) and then ALSO remove the most recent subdivisions built until we are below capacity. Can you imagine that conversation?
I have to agree that the capping on the "new kids" really isn't in the best interest of neighborhood harmony. It would take a VERY strong person to accept a home sale condition like that. It would have to be entire neighborhoods (not to mention selling one's home with the prospect of the new kids not going to the same schools...sheesh.Neighbors would "tut tut....poor you". I would never buy into that ).
I have to agree that the capping on the "new kids" really isn't in the best interest of neighborhood harmony. It would take a VERY strong person to accept a home sale condition like that. It would have to be entire neighborhoods (not to mention selling one's home with the prospect of the new kids not going to the same schools...sheesh.Neighbors would "tut tut....poor you". I would never buy into that ).
Yeah, I agree. Folks that currently live in the neighborhoods may be okay with that, but boy would that wreak havoc on the future of homes sales, neighborhood unity, etc. I can't imagine that would work very well with bus routes either? Just picking up random new kids here and there, multiple buses for different schools, etc... I can see a child getting on the wrong bus and headed to the wrong school accidentally.
There has been a lot of talk, and some survey's regarding a multi-track system to alleviate the need to redistrict at this time. Can someone provide insight to me as to how that would work? How would day camp, or afterschool, or even extra curricular activities be run? As a two parent working household this has been on my mind for some time. Any insight would be great. Thanks!
This sounds like a reverse grandfather plan? As space frees up, subdivision X can move back in? I wonder if they'd have to do it by grade or school level (ES, MS, HS)? That could make busses crazy like we talked about above, but it's an option.
Would new people in current subdivisions be able to attend, or would they be moved out too (like the cap is today). If they are moved out, the bussing is complex again, plus I think that's super awkward on the "new kid" that just moved in. (personal opinion - no one wants to be moved, but there are strength in numbers. Having a whole neighborhood seems better than signaling out a small handful of kids)
I'd also think this ends up having to redraw the lines again every year. If I'm the BOE and I see a map with holes and pockets all over the place, I think that would be a tough sell considering they look at things from an optimization standpoint. (don't laugh - any business or bureaucracy works that way to some extent)
I know this all hints around the "I was here first" concept and that's understandable. It's like the long time YMCA member frustrated with all the newcomers every January. HA! Hypothetically, one way to solve the overcrowding is to implement this plan (no new subdivisions) and then ALSO remove the most recent subdivisions built until we are below capacity. Can you imagine that conversation?
TooLogical. Agreed on the head banging! And I appreciate your response.
I guess reverse grandfathering is an appropriate term. I agree that it would cause the same amount of anxiety on transportation as the stepped option.
To stay consistent the community is grandfathered. Now this may cause a problem to the capped schools if a family moves out that is an empty nest or there's not a one-for-one swap (ES for ES student). Again the numbers would have to be looked at to see what the net changes could be. I think keeping the neighborhood kids together would be critical.
I think under any option lines would have to be redrawn if in fact the end game is to build new schools. It overcrowding won't ease until development levels off (which I'm sure isn't in the near future). Even with new schools lines would be redrawn. One "benefit" to this plan is that you can let the pockets know if your neighborhood school falls under the cap there's the possibility to choose the neighborhood school. It's not like the current redistricting where no one knows until the maps are released.
As far as your hypothetical scenario, I elect you to lead the Contraction Committee.
I would do it but I'm already heading the Chinese Fire-Drill Rezoning Committee
RD is Chair of the Stepped-Redistricting Committee.
That leaves the Reverse Grandfathering Committee open for leadership.
I'm looking at some of the cap numbers and then read posts on FB and there is clearly some misunderstanding going on. Please share with any of your friends if you can so they understand capacity, watch level and "cap".
This is a post I read in multiple places today:
"Here are some numbers to consider. The BOE is rushing to uproot 5800 current students to accommodate a "projected overage" of 284 students in only 4 schools. They are moving 14% of the student population, to accommodate .7%. (Less than 1% PROJECTED population). That is according to their numbers."
That 284 is based on this document (http://www.ucps.k12.nc.us/documents/...assignment.pdf) and is the difference from 2014-15 numbers shaded in red and the "Cap" level in the second column for KES, CMS, PRMS and MRMS.
They don't understand that the "Cap" is well over the desired capacity for the school. Look at this original version based on the 20 day enrollment figures (https://webcp.ucps.k12.nc.us/forms_m...eet_20_day.pdf). That lists the intended capacity for each school. They have since added what they deem a good "Watch Level" and a "Cap" level.
If we look at those numbers, there are 16 schools over their desired capacity. I think its good they added the Watch and Cap levels so they do allow more students in without sticking the their desired capacity.
Here's a fun analogy: It's the equivalent of knowing you can still fit into your size 32 jeans (desired capacity), then you hit the "watch level" where you can't quite bend over, its difficult to button and you have to walk a little funny. Finally, after those last few cupcakes (pun intended) the "Cap" is when your seams rip and your button shoots across the room.
Last edited by TooLogical; 01-31-2014 at 11:21 AM..
TooLogical. Agreed on the head banging! And I appreciate your response.
To stay consistent the community is grandfathered. Now this may cause a problem to the capped schools if a family moves out that is an empty nest or there's not a one-for-one swap (ES for ES student). Again the numbers would have to be looked at to see what the net changes could be. I think keeping the neighborhood kids together would be critical.
I'm not statistician but can you imaging trying to model not only how many new kids might move into an area vs moving out but at what school level (k-5, middle, etc.). I don't know if you can project that. I guess it's moot as I agree that keeping the neighborhood together is critical.
As far as your hypothetical scenario, I elect you to lead the Contraction Committee.
I would do it but I'm already heading the Chinese Fire-Drill Rezoning Committee
RD is Chair of the Stepped-Redistricting Committee.
That leaves the Reverse Grandfathering Committee open for leadership.
Who's running the "Build a Pop-Up Ikea School NOW or I will vote you out and sue you" committee?
Here's a fun analogy: It's the equivalent of knowing you can still fit into your size 32 jeans (desired capacity), then you hit the "watch level" where you can't quite bend over, its difficult to button and you have to walk a little funny. Finally, after those last few cupcakes (pun intended) the "Cap" is when your seams rip and your button shoots across the room.[/quote]
TooLogical. Agreed on the head banging! And I appreciate your response.
As far as your hypothetical scenario, I elect you to lead the Contraction Committee.
I would do it but I'm already heading the Chinese Fire-Drill Rezoning Committee
RD is Chair of the Stepped-Redistricting Committee.
That leaves the Reverse Grandfathering Committee open for leadership.
SIGN ME UP! Where can I get a copy of all the land deeds?
I'm looking at some of the cap numbers and then read posts on FB and there is clearly some misunderstanding going on. Please share with any of your friends if you can so they understand capacity, watch level and "cap".
This is a post I read in multiple places today:
"Here are some numbers to consider. The BOE is rushing to uproot 5800 current students to accommodate a "projected overage" of 284 students in only 4 schools. They are moving 14% of the student population, to accommodate .7%. (Less than 1% PROJECTED population). That is according to their numbers."
That 284 is based on this document (http://www.ucps.k12.nc.us/documents/...assignment.pdf) and is the difference from 2014-15 numbers shaded in red and the "Cap" level in the second column for KES, CMS, PRMS and MRMS.
They don't understand that the "Cap" is well over the desired capacity for the school. Look at this original version based on the 20 day enrollment figures (https://webcp.ucps.k12.nc.us/forms_m...eet_20_day.pdf). That lists the intended capacity for each school. They have since added what they deem a good "Watch Level" and a "Cap" level.
If we look at those numbers, there are 18 schools over their desired capacity. I think its good they added the Watch and Cap levels so they do allow more students in without sticking the their desired capacity.
Here's a fun analogy: It's the equivalent of knowing you can still fit into your size 32 jeans (desired capacity), then you hit the "watch level" where you can't quite bend over, its difficult to button and you have to walk a little funny. Finally, after those last few cupcakes (pun intended) the "Cap" is when your seams rip and your button shoots across the room.
Thank you for this post. I am concerned that the baseline is somehow being moved to the core capacity numbers. The schools were designed for the 100% numbers. Core capacity is approximately 120%. We should be striving for the 100% not accepting 120% as the new normal. Accepting 120% as an ok standard will come back to bite us in advocating for a new school.
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.
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.
HA! Hypothetically, one way to solve the overcrowding is to implement this plan (no new subdivisions) and then ALSO remove the most recent subdivisions built until we are below capacity. Can you imagine that conversation?
