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 02-24-2014, 01:21 PM
 
305 posts, read 659,615 times
Reputation: 216

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
If development slows or stops, they don't need new schools. Why take on that additional cost today when they don't need it today? If development continues (and thus the tax revenue continues rising), then you can make a case. But again, we don't know that and should be fiscally conservative about it - today.
I agree with all of this except your statement about the tax revenue related to the development. At least in the Western section, the development is mainly residential -- which is the wrong kind because the tax revenue being generated is nowhere close to covering the services (mostly the education costs) those houses require. It's been pointed out that it costs about $7,500/year to educate a student in Union. I bet most of those big developments generate about $4K/house (at most) in taxes, but have 2, 3 or 4 kids in them. Losing math.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Those against redistricting should not approach this argument from a cost to taxpayers standpoint... You will quickly see the 85%+ majority of the county who are not impacted by a proposed redistrict get a voice. This is not something you want to be on the wrong side of come the next round of elections.
This.

I've said it before, the tax s**t is really going to hit the fan in Union in the next 5 years. We are facing development that is still out of control, we're looking at a reval by 2016, and as much as those ostriches would like to stick their heads in the sand, the county will have to pay out the $91M to the schools. That's before we even think about many more millions to build schools.

 
Old 02-24-2014, 01:24 PM
 
631 posts, read 736,674 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by catonc View Post
Just to play devil's advocate here, if that is the case, then why leave room in Cuthbertson for "future" students? You are saying you can't plan schools based on supply yet we can redistrict to leave room for that same supply?
Great point. It's a no win situation for them: If they move too many students, 5 years from now everyone is mad that they moved for nothing. If they move too few students, 2-3 years from now we'll be right back in the same spot.

From looking at their first proposal, it appears they tried to stay as close to the capacity of the cluster as they could (not the 120% "cap" number). If they went into watch levels, it's at schools less likely to have excessive growth. I don't have all the numbers, but that's how it looks on the surface.

Some school specific numbers look over/under capacity because they are working in the cluster model - ESx3 feeds MS feeds HS.
  • ES example: The capacity issue in the Marvin cluster is at the MS/HS level. To keep that number in check, we see high vacancy in Rea View and Marvin ES. The growth is coming from the Sandy Ridge feeder, and adding any more kids to RVES or MES would eventually impact the MS/HS.
  • MS/HS example: The capacity issue in the Cuthbertson cluster is at the ES level. Kensington and New Town are packed to the gills! By keeping them just between capacity and watch level for the next 5 years, the MS and HS have some vacancy, but start to fill up in 4-5 years. This is why you'll see grandfathering going on for the HS kids. They don't have to go yet... but the existing ES kids do.
 
Old 02-24-2014, 01:47 PM
 
9 posts, read 9,474 times
Reputation: 26
Proposal

How about this:

1> Lift all caps at April vote- that is currently capped students are guaranteed to return to ther home school the following school year (not immediately of course)
2> Grandfather all grades- meaning if students opt to be grandfathered, the parent must provide transportation AND THE STUDENT WILL BE REDISTRICTED AT THE NEXT SCHOOL TRANSITION POINT ( after 5th, 8th, etc)

3> Notification is immediately sent to all families in redistricted areas after the vote in early April
4> Families must respond by May 1st (or sooner) if they wish to be grandfathered AND they must sign that they agree to be responsible for transportation. If they do not respond they will be redistricted immediately by default.
5> There should also be an addendum on this notification that the Board may rescind Grandfathering (let’s say by June 15 for example) for certain grades if the numbers in the May response show crowding will not be alleviated in certain schools
6> Based on those May numbers, the schools can see how the percentages are shaping up for possible relief of overcrowded schools through acceptance of redistricting

7> If the numbers show that Kensington, MRMS, PRMS or any other school is endanger of still being capped at year open- THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE
8> Contingency A or B goes into effect to alleviate those particular trouble spots
9> Contingency A could be to simply force redistricting and rescind grandfathering for those grades
10> OR Contingency B move around those problem clusters with the K-6 shuffle:, that is MRMS and PRMS send their 6th grades down to elementary schools
11> Kensington (which has not been mentioned as a K-6 switch scenario candidate due to its lack of an additional elementary school) could shift its K, and maybe first grades over to Waxhaw elem, and Western Union
12> If the district sees that capping is once again becoming a possibility after next fall, they could give 60 days notice that they will institute caps on all newly built addresses (by C.O.) going fwd in the crowded area at the crowded grade levels only

All this is going on concurrently with repairs, gradual redistricting, and new schools coming online
 
Old 02-24-2014, 04:25 PM
 
133 posts, read 288,059 times
Reputation: 110
https://www.facebook.com/ucps.nc/pos...52206445788116
 
Old 02-24-2014, 06:02 PM
 
1,226 posts, read 2,051,302 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by catonc View Post
Just to play devil's advocate here, if that is the case, then why leave room in Cuthbertson for "future" students? You are saying you can't plan schools based on supply yet we can redistrict to leave room for that same supply?

This is a consequence caused by the very same group that is being hurt by it.

Redistricting is a natural occurrence in a county run system. It doesn't have to be drastic, agreed. I find it absurd that we are making room for people not here yet, and would much rather see a progressive shift.
But people start demanding: plan for the future!! Long term plans!! Don't do this every few years.

Ok, so here you go. To plan for the future, you need to leave room. Be careful with what you ask for, you might just get it.
 
Old 02-24-2014, 06:38 PM
 
2,086 posts, read 3,571,026 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
This is a consequence caused by the very same group that is being hurt by it.

Redistricting is a natural occurrence in a county run system. It doesn't have to be drastic, agreed. I find it absurd that we are making room for people not here yet, and would much rather see a progressive shift.
But people start demanding: plan for the future!! Long term plans!! Don't do this every few years.

Ok, so here you go. To plan for the future, you need to leave room. Be careful with what you ask for, you might just get it.
Why would anybody criticize the "planning for the future" and/or "long term plans"???
Is it because it requires skills/understanding and good project management instead of finding excuses?

Are you advocating to stay in a reactionary mode and shuffle kids every 2-3 years (only when schools are at 120% and past caps)?

Last edited by 28173; 02-24-2014 at 06:51 PM..
 
Old 02-24-2014, 06:44 PM
 
451 posts, read 608,524 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by West&East View Post
What group on FB do you think is the BOCC mouth piece?
Just curious.

https://www.facebook.com/UCRFPOS

The county clowns started posting over there on Tuesday during the BoE meeting after one of the admins started texting with Bundy during the BoE meeting.



The other one basically the same stuff is for the real Kool Aid drinkers (same admins of course) is closed group but Aikmus is now a member of that select group so drink up...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/UCRFPOS/
 
Old 02-24-2014, 07:44 PM
 
631 posts, read 736,674 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurkerbooboo View Post
Proposal

How about this:

1> Lift all caps at April vote- that is currently capped students are guaranteed to return to ther home school the following school year (not immediately of course)
2> Grandfather all grades- meaning if students opt to be grandfathered, the parent must provide transportation AND THE STUDENT WILL BE REDISTRICTED AT THE NEXT SCHOOL TRANSITION POINT ( after 5th, 8th, etc)

3> Notification is immediately sent to all families in redistricted areas after the vote in early April
4> Families must respond by May 1st (or sooner) if they wish to be grandfathered AND they must sign that they agree to be responsible for transportation. If they do not respond they will be redistricted immediately by default.
5> There should also be an addendum on this notification that the Board may rescind Grandfathering (letís say by June 15 for example) for certain grades if the numbers in the May response show crowding will not be alleviated in certain schools
6> Based on those May numbers, the schools can see how the percentages are shaping up for possible relief of overcrowded schools through acceptance of redistricting

7> If the numbers show that Kensington, MRMS, PRMS or any other school is endanger of still being capped at year open- THAT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE
8> Contingency A or B goes into effect to alleviate those particular trouble spots
9> Contingency A could be to simply force redistricting and rescind grandfathering for those grades
10> OR Contingency B move around those problem clusters with the K-6 shuffle:, that is MRMS and PRMS send their 6th grades down to elementary schools
11> Kensington (which has not been mentioned as a K-6 switch scenario candidate due to its lack of an additional elementary school) could shift its K, and maybe first grades over to Waxhaw elem, and Western Union
12> If the district sees that capping is once again becoming a possibility after next fall, they could give 60 days notice that they will institute caps on all newly built addresses (by C.O.) going fwd in the crowded area at the crowded grade levels only

All this is going on concurrently with repairs, gradual redistricting, and new schools coming online
If they go through with the redistricting, then this seems like a great idea for the rollout. It would help to assess the class sizes, etc well before the year and allows adjustments to be made along the way.

I don't think they will grandfather every school through transition. Some will be off the list from the start. I also don't think they'll adjust the grade levels per school (i.e. having a few with K-6, or some K-1 in just some areas). I understand the idea and know it can work, but the district will want consistency across all the schools.

Good deployment plan.
 
Old 02-24-2014, 07:58 PM
 
397 posts, read 518,691 times
Reputation: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
If they go through with the redistricting, then this seems like a great idea for the rollout. It would help to assess the class sizes, etc well before the year and allows adjustments to be made along the way.

I don't think they will grandfather every school through transition. Some will be off the list from the start. I also don't think they'll adjust the grade levels per school (i.e. having a few with K-6, or some K-1 in just some areas). I understand the idea and know it can work, but the district will want consistency across all the schools.

Good deployment plan.
I agree with TooLogical. Lurkerbooboo (makes me laugh everytime I say it out loud), this has some good points. The GF'ing has to be done in conjunction with Redistricting. I think the odds of too many accepting the GF opportunity (well above the 40% average) make it necessary to only all GFing for 5th, 8th and (perhaps) all of high school (let's hope not).

The natural transitions is a must. You don't solve any issues without this. The numbers don't work. And I, for one, like my little ones at the same school. That's just me.

You put a lot of thought into this. Thanks
 
Old 02-24-2014, 08:02 PM
 
397 posts, read 518,691 times
Reputation: 201
also...can you imagine the "OUTRAGE if you sent the GF "opt in" letters and had a short reply time
"We had a beach trip planned and couldn't reply...the BOE is trying to rip the kids from the beach." "hurry...take some pictures of them in the waves and send it to the BOE"...ugh
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 12:17 AM.

© 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