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 01-16-2014, 09:01 AM
 
1,226 posts, read 2,051,901 times
Reputation: 1864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpl77 View Post
cc0789:

I am convinced no one on the BOE, no one working for the superintendent, and no one on the BOC is poorly qualified or incompetent. .
well, I wouldn't go THAT far, lol. I tend to disagree, but for the purpose of this discussion, yes, I do agree that none of them have done anything incompetent regarding THIS issue.

I defend their methods not because I am a fan of these people, but more so of small government, legal rights, and laws. I am familiar with the process because I have had to make myself aware of the legal right they were not following, and have had to follow the line all the way up to the top (state and federal level), and am not afraid to make heads roll if things are not followed by the book. So no, I am certainly not saying all these people are perfect, far from, and I have often wondered if all the doctorates at the county level were handed out of pez dispensers, but I digress.........



Quote:
Originally Posted by tpl77 View Post
It is, however, a system that isn't working well anymore. No one mentioned above wants to see any kid in a school with garbage cans collecting water (for years) and no one wants to do harm to any child whatsoever, nor cause families hardship. This needs to be stressed, yet this is the outcome of the proposal. Very little gain. There must be a "time out" taken on this matter. Look at the method. Look at how disruptive the proposed solution is. Look at how many kids and families are affected. Look at the amount of gain it will offer. Re-evaluate the re-districting process and ask if it's working like it used to. In the exact same way the district maps are ever changing, maybe the process should change to make what's best for everyone's child.
So what is the alternative solution? I do hate that all these kids are getting shuffled, but that is just the nature of the problem when there is a fast growing county.

If you are aware of all the facts, you start to see why all these other alternatives just don't make sense. In a county dominated by republicans, you are going to see that people demand fiscal responsibility. It does just not make sense to not use resources that you have.

The only other alternatives that make some sort of sense to me are multi track year around schools (more costs and very difficult at middle and high school level), or doing away with the "cluster" system with the "feeder" schools.

 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:20 AM
 
22 posts, read 30,032 times
Reputation: 31
Tpl77 thank you for your post. It's one of the most reasonable ones I've seen. Let's also remember that redistricting every three years isn't FREE. It carries a financial burden of its own. I'd be curious to know how much taxpayer money has been spent on Union County redistricting in the past decade. And from what I can see, the returns are minimal if any. Sun Valley gets crowded, "Quick! Move the kids to Weddington! Oops, now Weddington is crowded! Quick! Move them back to Sun Valley!"
Were I, as a parent, to make it standard operating procedure to move my children from their familiar school environments every three years into unfamiliar ones, I'd be widely thought of as irresponsible and it would be universally recognized as detrimental to their well-being. This would be true REGARDLESS of whether or not they were moving from a good school to another equally good school. Continuity is better. Period.

Furthermore, Weddington is NOT exceeding capacity, nor is it projected to do so until 2018, when it will exceed by 47 students. FORTY SEVEN STUDENTS. Ater 2018, growth is projected to start declining again. Attempt to impune my character all you want; This is not sufficient justification for my sophomore to be moved from a school that he's familiar with to one that he's not in his junior year, arguably the most important year of his high school career. Additionally, while some Marvin Ridge schools are capped (conveniently allowing those existing students to remain safely nestled in their desks) Weddington schools have NOT been capped. So my flesh-and-blood students are getting the boot to allow room for *projected* students from subdivisions that have YET TO EXIST. Oh yeah, and we have to take on Marvin and Cutherbertson students because of Marvin's growth, which shows no signs of stopping.

This is no way to run a district.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:26 AM
 
36 posts, read 99,661 times
Reputation: 28
^^I completely agree! Knee-jerk reactions rarely work in the long run.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:28 AM
 
103 posts, read 143,190 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc0789 View Post
But Lacrosse is probably not offered at some schools because of interest, as its an expensive sport.
Lacrosse at the high school level in the county is supported at the club level and not by UCPS. If UCPS adds lacrosse in the future, it will be offered at all schools.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:29 AM
 
98 posts, read 145,566 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
Here's a post from the UCPS Redistricting page on Facebook detailing an interesting option to the proposed plan from Tuesday night:

Another great viable solution! This is not a done deal people. Don't stop fighting!!! Read the proposal below and make your voices heard to the BOE...

"From another Page--a twist on the "new construction" proposal...seems this might solve the bus dilemma--with neighborhoods being moved miles past closer schools with railroad tracks and major highways in between, this efficiency rating can't be much (if any) worse! Sorry it's so long, but it's worth the read!

"Tracy and Melissa, you have both mentioned a plan similar to one I outlined and sent to the BOE. It's long, but I'll share it here. Maybe we can all get behind this alternative.
"I propose that you move forward with “capping” the clusters that are over 120% of capacity (which I understand to be “core capacity”), BUT that UCPS BOE grandfather in ALL existing homes and subdivisions that have closed escrow on at least 75% of their existing housing permits[1]. For example, if there are 800 existing homes in Millbridge, and they have permits/plans to build 200 more, then Millbridge would be grandfathered into their current school- the subdivision would be 80% complete. If instead, the developers add 500 more homes (meaning it is only currently 61% complete), then the entire subdivision would be “capped out” of the Cuthbertson cluster and reassigned.

This cap would also apply to small subdivisions and new construction built on property where there is no existing home. Developers would have to disclose to potential buyers that, until enrollment in the neighborhood school drops below 110%, children in that subdivision would be bussed to a school that is not over capacity.

The many benefits to this plan would include:

1.This plan communicates and demonstrates that the UCPS BOE values and respects the citizens of Union County. It allows parents the opportunity to choose the school environment that best fits their child when they make a housing decision. Citizens are not at the mercy of elected officials who seem to prove, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
2. This plan keeps entire neighborhoods and clusters together; simplifying bussing, saving money, fostering long term relationships and stability for children and families. It cannot be cost effective to bus the very small number of children currently affected by the current caps.
3. This plan should also allow “reassigned” students the option to choose another UCPS for their child, providing the school is under 110% capacity and the parent provides transportation.
4. This plan allows UCPS BOE to take a more conservative “wait and see” approach. The prior McKibben report grossly overestimated the current number of students; and the current one predicts only minor, temporary increases in numbers of students. The schools may balance themselves out in the next few years as our economy adjusts to the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates.
5. Although the state has misguidedly made it illegal to have developers pay impact fees, and county municipalities are issuing building permits without allocating for the increased costs; this plan will encourage the developers and towns to creatively collaborate on other options to encourage planned, supported growth in the future.
6. Rather than further damaging and depressing existing home values, this plan will make the existing, established neighborhoods more desirable because buyers will have confidence in the schools their children would be attending. This demand is what helps older neighborhoods thrive rather than decline.
7. This plan will provide economic benefit to the county as a whole. As housing values rise, so will tax revenues that can then be used to supplement the lack of revenue in the more rural areas of the county.
8. This plan will promote family pride, support of, and involvement in their schools. Parents will be willing to invest their time, energy and dollars into PTSO, booster clubs etc. if they know they won’t be shuttled off to a different school each year.
9. This plan keeps families within a reasonable geographic distance from their school so that they can volunteer and provide the involvement that separates good schools from bad ones. It reduces traffic on the already overburdened rural roads, and reduces the distance young teen drivers are travelling to and from school and activities.
10. This plan honors the parents, students and teachers that have worked so hard to raise money, volunteer their time and talents, and fill-in the gaps so that even with budget cuts, pay freezes, and lack of resources, have partnered in creating High Achieving Honor Schools of Excellence."
Not sure I fully understand this. So what your saying is Millbridge should be bused to Parkwood ?? Is that what you are saying?.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:38 AM
 
98 posts, read 145,566 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
Here's a post from the UCPS Redistricting page on Facebook detailing an interesting option to the proposed plan from Tuesday night:

Another great viable solution! This is not a done deal people. Don't stop fighting!!! Read the proposal below and make your voices heard to the BOE...

"From another Page--a twist on the "new construction" proposal...seems this might solve the bus dilemma--with neighborhoods being moved miles past closer schools with railroad tracks and major highways in between, this efficiency rating can't be much (if any) worse! Sorry it's so long, but it's worth the read!

"Tracy and Melissa, you have both mentioned a plan similar to one I outlined and sent to the BOE. It's long, but I'll share it here. Maybe we can all get behind this alternative.
"I propose that you move forward with “capping” the clusters that are over 120% of capacity (which I understand to be “core capacity”), BUT that UCPS BOE grandfather in ALL existing homes and subdivisions that have closed escrow on at least 75% of their existing housing permits[1]. For example, if there are 800 existing homes in Millbridge, and they have permits/plans to build 200 more, then Millbridge would be grandfathered into their current school- the subdivision would be 80% complete. If instead, the developers add 500 more homes (meaning it is only currently 61% complete), then the entire subdivision would be “capped out” of the Cuthbertson cluster and reassigned.

This cap would also apply to small subdivisions and new construction built on property where there is no existing home. Developers would have to disclose to potential buyers that, until enrollment in the neighborhood school drops below 110%, children in that subdivision would be bussed to a school that is not over capacity.

The many benefits to this plan would include:

1.This plan communicates and demonstrates that the UCPS BOE values and respects the citizens of Union County. It allows parents the opportunity to choose the school environment that best fits their child when they make a housing decision. Citizens are not at the mercy of elected officials who seem to prove, time and time again, that they cannot be trusted.
2. This plan keeps entire neighborhoods and clusters together; simplifying bussing, saving money, fostering long term relationships and stability for children and families. It cannot be cost effective to bus the very small number of children currently affected by the current caps.
3. This plan should also allow “reassigned” students the option to choose another UCPS for their child, providing the school is under 110% capacity and the parent provides transportation.
4. This plan allows UCPS BOE to take a more conservative “wait and see” approach. The prior McKibben report grossly overestimated the current number of students; and the current one predicts only minor, temporary increases in numbers of students. The schools may balance themselves out in the next few years as our economy adjusts to the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates.
5. Although the state has misguidedly made it illegal to have developers pay impact fees, and county municipalities are issuing building permits without allocating for the increased costs; this plan will encourage the developers and towns to creatively collaborate on other options to encourage planned, supported growth in the future.
6. Rather than further damaging and depressing existing home values, this plan will make the existing, established neighborhoods more desirable because buyers will have confidence in the schools their children would be attending. This demand is what helps older neighborhoods thrive rather than decline.
7. This plan will provide economic benefit to the county as a whole. As housing values rise, so will tax revenues that can then be used to supplement the lack of revenue in the more rural areas of the county.
8. This plan will promote family pride, support of, and involvement in their schools. Parents will be willing to invest their time, energy and dollars into PTSO, booster clubs etc. if they know they won’t be shuttled off to a different school each year.
9. This plan keeps families within a reasonable geographic distance from their school so that they can volunteer and provide the involvement that separates good schools from bad ones. It reduces traffic on the already overburdened rural roads, and reduces the distance young teen drivers are travelling to and from school and activities.
10. This plan honors the parents, students and teachers that have worked so hard to raise money, volunteer their time and talents, and fill-in the gaps so that even with budget cuts, pay freezes, and lack of resources, have partnered in creating High Achieving Honor Schools of Excellence."
Yeah that's what I think your saying. F the people in a Millbridge so you can stay in your school. Millbridge won't be built out for many yrs. and if the go to Parkwood then the developer may as well go bankrupt. You should watch who's toes you are stepping on. If you want to fight the BOE go ahead but don't throw communities under the bus for your benefit.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:51 AM
 
985 posts, read 1,650,760 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
Lacrosse at the high school level in the county is supported at the club level and not by UCPS. If UCPS adds lacrosse in the future, it will be offered at all schools.

Lacrosse will NOT be a club sport starting in 2014-2015 school year they already announced it, Union County has made it a school sport
 
Old 01-16-2014, 09:52 AM
 
451 posts, read 608,588 times
Reputation: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINYTransplant View Post
4. This plan allows UCPS BOE to take a more conservative “wait and see” approach. The prior McKibben report grossly overestimated the current number of students; and the current one predicts only minor, temporary increases in numbers of students. The schools may balance themselves out in the next few years as our economy adjusts to the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates.
Lets look at the initial premise that the McKibben report was wrong in the past because it grossly OVERESTIMATED the current number of students, therefore is wrong now and therefore no redistricting needed. I won't even talk about the effects of the Affordable Care Act and increasing interest rates comment.

How was the 12/2009 McKibben report wrong?

It actually UNDERESTIMATED Growth for the most part. If you could update the economists on all Facebook groups out there with some facts that would be great.

Forecasted 2015 Elementary Area Population:
12/2009 = 200,040
11/2013 = 217,730

Forecasted ES Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.......18,147.............17,107
11/2013.......18,591A...........19,041


Forecasted MS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.........9,971...............9,686
11/2013.......10,180A............10,527

Forecasted HS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.......12,189..............13,553
11/2013.......12,376A............14,166


Forecasted Total UCPS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.......40,307..............40,346
11/2013.......41,189A............43,776


Forecasted Kensington Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009..........717..................643
11/2013..........997A..............1,217


Forecasted MRMS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.........1,315..............1,446
11/2013.........1,438A............1,411


Forecasted PRMS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009........1,485...............1,438
11/2013........1,433A.............1,373


Forecasted Cuthbertson MS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009.......1,130................1,120
11/2013.......1,341A..............1,752


Forecasted Cuthbertson HS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009........1,291...............1,521
11/2013........1,449A.............2,133


Forecasted Weddington MS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009...........932.................982
11/2013........1,152A.............1,280


Forecasted Weddington HS Enrollment:
.................2013-14...........2018-19
12/2009........1,245...............1,223
11/2013........1,440A.............1,747
 
Old 01-16-2014, 10:36 AM
 
631 posts, read 736,736 times
Reputation: 305
Please stop with the facts. We all know this is emotional and we have no need for silly facts.
 
Old 01-16-2014, 10:42 AM
 
98 posts, read 145,566 times
Reputation: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Please stop with the facts. We all know this is emotional and we have no need for silly facts.
Thought we were fighting this as a county?? Seems like some want to turn this into a community against community. Yeah that's the way to get everyone involved huh? Now true colors come out. I was willing to help fight the cause but when they start throwing your community under the bus ( no pun intended) then it's everyone for themselves as I see it.
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 03:10 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