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.
Um, that's effectively redistricting ever couple of years on a capped school by school basis, grade by grade...
I disagree. It's adjusting the schools so the ones that have room get used on an individual school basis. Maybe you could argue to me that this would be some sort of "micro- redistricting" or something, but with this option, you aren't spreading the problem out- you focus on where the attention is needed.
Redistricting is not the best solution. Consider other options as in depth as the BOE has gone with redistricting.
- schools with projections that show this bubble can have certain grades (only) move to a school with room for them for one or two (even three) years. As their "home district" gains room, they can return to their school and move on. Sports teams wont lose spirit, friendships can remain. The BOE has already looked at the drive distances and determined the lowest costs, so just apply all this research to a better approach. Example: grades 7&8 go to a neighboring school, then return to their district for 9-12...
- research the efficiency of the current bus usage and trim some buses from the schools and use them to help the capped schools. I have yet to see more than ten kids on a bus at any time. So many kids get rides from their parents to school (or drive themselves when they become of age) that that 1/4 full bus can be filled up and the bus you save can be used to help elsewhere. The safety issue of a kid on a bus for another 20 minutes doesn't float. Safety is paramount and the driver isn't pushing the bus down the road. He/ she is driving it and must be capable of an extra 20- 30 minutes without fatigue. If a parent doesn't want the kid on the bus that long, just pick him/ her up then. Most do anyhow.
You could even combine all 3 points above. Add some trailers, move the congested grades temporarily, AND review the bus usage.
The current solution being proposed just is not the best solution. If I leave for work this morning and see my tire is flat, I can put air in it, then continue on my way. Tomorrow morning I see the tire is flat again, so I fill it up with air. Am I fixing the problem? Yes I am, but for just a little bit more effort and a few bucks, I can pull that nail out of it and plug the tire. It's a better solution to my tire problem.
So in the same post, you want to utilize buses more efficiently while at the same time moving only certain grades, so you'd have many kids in the same neighborhoods going to different schools? Seems a little contradictory.
Nobody said trailers per se are unsafe. Overcrowding is unsafe and they are trying to address it. There are trailers being utilized fully at all of the capped schools. Blindly adding more trailers will not address the core issue. Wait, and eat lunch at their desks?? So you are already asking the kids to be in a trailers all day as it is but want them to now eat in there as well?
I'm amazed with with preocupation with the trailer solution. I assume it is mostly coming from parents who's kids currently aren't in trailers or don't have a lot of experience with trailers.
Before moving to UCPS our kids went to a school with 12 classrooms and 30 trailers. K and 1st got the classrooms, everyone else got trailers. Or as we liked to call them "student bungalows". Computer lab in a trailer. Special Ed in a trailer. There were actually bathroom trailers so the kids wouldn't have to walk the 100 yards or so into the school. The kids hated the trailers.
And there is a safety issue beyond a potential tornado or hurricane. While the schools have been made secure after the Sandy Hook ES incident, UCPS trailers are not secure because the campuses are open and not fenced off. My kid's old school was a closed campus completely fenced off, none of this open stuff. The kids in the school are safer and more secure than the kids in the trailers. All it takes is one incident. That's why trailers aren't a solution.
After moving here the kids got 1 year in a real classroom where they didn't have to put on a coat or grab an umbrella to go to the bathroom. They loved it. This year back to their trailers. Oh sorry, student bungalows.
Last edited by SunshineCJ; 01-20-2014 at 06:31 AM..
Am I'm a little confused as well by this piece of information. Talked to a few (people) we'll say. And guess everyone wants to know why Parkwood is only 70% full? Well yes it's rural I get that. But here's another reason. Developers and builders have tried to purchase land to try and build communities to bring growth to the area. Well guess what I learned? The people there DON'T want it. Every time they submit a purchase the community and board deny it saying they don't want it. So then why try and flood a school that doesn't want growth. They are happy and content just the way it is. So let's put that out there instead of saying nobody wants to go there. It's the BOE that's sending kids that are really not wanted. There is no building there because they don't want it. And that's fine. I myself like the country setting that's why I moved here. So I'm saying don't force something on someone that doesn't want it.
If they keep track of permits then they can keep track of the children coming into and area. They can also have a box to check how many kids and ages in household when buying to keep track of the growth.
I like the idea of better tracking. It appears there is a massive disconnect between building permits at the city and county level and school projections. It shouldn't be hard to create a centralized database to track current housing, approved future building, permit timing, etc. The schools track the students per subdivision (at least ours collects the data at the beginning of the year with the student contact info).
Just another thought, and i am not attempting to be a "Conspiracy Theorist", even tho it will probably come across that way. Could the BOE be using the overcrowding as a smokescreen? What i mean is that we know there are a few schools that have a capacity issue, but looking at the plan, they are basically revamping the entire western side of the county. Again, just a thought, but could they be moving students from higher performing schools to a lower performing school in the hopes that it helps raise test scores and contributes to a higher ranking for that now lower performing school? Following that, if this school improves dramatically, it would become a more desirable area for newcomers and thus help developers in that particular area sell more houses. More houses = More $$$$ for the BOE and the County as a whole….IF, and i said IF, that is even remotely the case, that is flat out wrong. To use kids as Guinea Pigs is not right. Again, it was an idea, not trying to convey it as FACT and not attempting to stir any pot. what bothers me is why such sweeping change in such a short period of time for only a few schools that are overcrowded
Redistricting is not the best solution. Consider other options as in depth as the BOE has gone with redistricting.
- Trailers are an excellent method to handle increases especially if it's a bubble. They can be moved from one school to another, the trucking isn't expensive as they aren't going across country... just across county. They meet all codes, so our BOE needs to stop stating that they are unsafe (if they keep calling trailers unsafe, they better get all those trailers off school property TODAY so the kids aren't in harm's way currently). They can be set in place and wired in 2 days. They currently use them, so any argument against them is weak. Cafeterias are a great place to serve food, but you can eat at your desk. I've eaten at my desk for 20 years at my job. -quote]
Dear Lord....please do not lock me in a tin box with 33 children for 8 hours straight everyday.
Are you serious with this line of thinking? I feel like perhaps we've lost focus of the issue and are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. So now the thinking is, "stay at my school at all costs, regardless of the negative consequences it will have for my student, their education and their safety"?
I think you should take the "I've eaten at my desk for 20 years" argument to the BOE and see what their response is.
FYI, trailers are not nearly as inexpensive as one might think. They are in fact, tin boxes. They do not come cleaned, wired or furnished. Schools have to spend money to furnish each trailer. If a school has to buy bookcases, smart boards, desks, teacher desk and chairs for say, four trailers, those are a lot of dollars that have now been taken away from the school's funds for other items. And yes, the school buys those items, not the county.
Trailers do not meet any codes when they are delivered to a school. They must pass inspection after being hooked up, foundation laid, concrete poured, furnished, wired for AC/heat, power, etc.
If nothing else, this issue has brought to light how little the public and parents know about what really goes on "behind the scenes" to make a school run. It's not magic folks.
I guess there are folks who truly believe that the BOE will listen to such suggestions. At this point I think they will shut down any and everything that involves the words "scores", "trailers", "friends", "emotional trauma", "bus ride", "underperforming", "socioeconomic", "propery value". Side note: they MAY consider the idea of hundreds of kids carrying lunch trays through the halls and back into the trailers (rain? who cares) - oh and then all of these kids traveling back to the cafeteria after they are done eating to throw away their trash/return the trays. There's a 20 year study to back it, afterall, and to speak to the lack of any negative effects long term.
ok, so instead of trailers lets add on wings to the schools to make more room. In other words make the school bigger instead of building new schools just add on wings to over crowded schools. bigger schools less crowding.
Some facts on trailers courtesy of the UCPS Temporary Growth Plan, September 2006. This was before the Nov. 2006 bond referendum. I could not find an update so lets go with it. And obviously if you read the plan some of the issues identified have been addressed, some haven't...
Union County Public Schools (UCPS) is experiencing tremendous growth upwards of 10% per year. This trend shows no signs of slowing over the next couple of years. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Future Schools Planning document strive to plan for brick and mortar schools that will address this growth for years 2007, 2008, and 2009; however, the rate of growth far exceeds the existing plans (see Exhibit A).
Estimated capacity based on issued permits (Exhibit A1):
• 21 elementary schools
• 5 middle schools
• 4 high schools
To just catch up with growth, the needed capacity for current trailer student population is (Exhibit A2):
• 5 elementary schools
• 1 middle school
• 1 high school
The Capital Improvement Plan, if fully funded, contains the following schools thru 2010:
• 5 elementary schools
• 2 middle schools
• 2 high schools
As you can see, the CIP basically takes care of the current trailer student population. There is an extreme need to review the issued permits, determine rate of home construction, and adjust and accelerate the CIP accordingly.
However a more immediate need exists to develop a plan to address temporary and semi-temporary measures to deal with the growth in a safe and orderly manner.
Points of Consideration
Class-size reduction is a good, but not well-thought out idea. In Union County, class-size reduction has the affect of needing an additional 3 elementary schools. Since Union is experiencing such tremendous growth and is about 2-3 years behind in it’s building needs, the majority of the “class-size reduced” students will attend school in questionably safe trailers, thus defeating the purpose behind class-size reduction and the educational process. A White House Report issued in September, 1999 states “these trailers will not be sufficient for the task at hand.” The principle reason according to the report is “that research shows student achievement and behavior can be linked directly to the physical condition of school buildings and their overcrowding…..Such facilities also present possible safety issues (including fire hazards and security considerations heightened by such tragedies as the Columbine High School shooting)”
However, with so much growth, the overall demand for the classrooms never decreases. Minimum mandatory safety requirements are needed to address student safety and educational experience.
State Statute 115C-521(b) states the following:
“It shall be the duty of the boards of education of the several local school administrative school units of the State to make provisions for the public school term by providing adequate school buildings……The boards of commissioners shall be given a reasonable time to provide the funds….for providing their respective units with buildings suitably equipped…”
“Upon determination by a local board of education that the existing permanent school building does not have sufficient classrooms to house the pupil enrollment anticipated for the school, the local board of education may acquire and us as TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS….relocatable or mobile classroom units…”
The design of portables appears to be relatively unchanged and remains unimaginative and rigid. Trailers are placed on school sites, often haphazardly and as though there for a temporary amount of time. In several instances, these trailers have become a permanent addition to schools. Wesley Chapel Elementary has contained trailers for over 14 years, adding trailers every year, with the current majority of student population housed in trailers rather than brick and mortar. Weddington Middle School currently has too many trailers and is maxed out on available land to house additional trailers. Several new schools in the county have opened with trailers or obtained trailers shortly after opening. Over two-thirds of our schools are over-capacity and more than one-fourth of our schools are over 120% capacity. It is time to reassess the design and safety requirements of trailers at our schools in Union County.
Security for Trailers
Currently, the security of our students within trailers is woefully lacking. Teachers and students should not need to wait for violence or accidents to occur before such risks are assessed and addressed. We screen our volunteers in-depth, yet we don’t have adequate systems in place to protect children that are placed outside the school building. Our strategic priority of safe and orderly schools is being compromised. As trailers are required and necessary to deal with the tremendous growth, we must also require resources to support the safety of our children and teachers in trailers.
There appears to be a lack of security for teachers and students working in portable classrooms. Often times, trailer doors are propped open to allow for air circulation, however, this also allows easy access to undesirables. Without a secured area (i.e. fences) access to trailers is easy for undesirables. Immediate access to a system of safety support appears to be non-existent for an area that is isolated from the main building and is a cause for concern.
It has been reported that the "bad air" levels are particularly bad in brand-new trailers that haven't had time to air out. Many modular classrooms aren’t properly ventilated and we often stack trailers up closely side by side, which prevents fresh air from flowing into the buildings.
In recent years, the most serious and potentially widespread problem has centered on air quality in modular classrooms. Four years ago, the California-based Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a study saying that children in the classrooms are exposed to higher levels of cancer-causing toxins than their peers.
At the same time, the state's Department of Health started a longer-term study of contaminants in modular classrooms. The state hasn't released its findings, but a preliminary report backed up what EWG had said. The investigations led to a lawsuit against the state's modular classroom builders.
Statue Statute 115C-105.47 – Local safe schools plans – requires local board of education to “…consider the special conditions at their schools and to incorporate into their school improvement plans the appropriate components of the local plan for maintaining safe and orderly schools…”
Last edited by SunnyKayak; 01-20-2014 at 08:42 AM..
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.
I guess there are folks who truly believe that the BOE will listen to such suggestions. At this point I think they will shut down any and everything that involves the words "scores", "trailers", "friends", "emotional trauma", "bus ride", "underperforming", "socioeconomic", "propery value". Side note: they MAY consider the idea of hundreds of kids carrying lunch trays through the halls and back into the trailers (rain? who cares) - oh and then all of these kids traveling back to the cafeteria after they are done eating to throw away their trash/return the trays. There's a 20 year study to back it, afterall, and to speak to the lack of any negative effects long term. 
