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 03-17-2017, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,430,740 times
Reputation: 4818

Advertisements

Let's be careful not to selectively edit history. I'd dig up our previous threads on the last redistricting if the forum search wasn't currently saying it's under maintenance. I'll find and add it later.

Rewind to November 2013... Marvin Middle was capped and there was an "uproar" about snowflakes having to share lockers and crowded halls. Capping an Elem is one thing, but capping a Middle is a bigger deal - especially in Marvin where there are 3 shiny brand new Elems. So instead of 1/3 of the area being capped for K-5, you now have the entire cluster under school lockdown - you buy a house anywhere in Marvin you're being bussed to Parkwood for Middle school. It was proclaimed that there was a "MS bubble working through UCPS" that would hit the High Schools, older building maintenance was an issue, there was trailergeddon (similar to grizzlies eating kids, we needed to be afraid of kids in trailers due to active shooters)... oh and BTW the school district was suing the county for 100s of MM $$, which was loosely equivalent to a teenager suing parents for back allowances. The BOE and BOCC were acting like 2 preteen brothers fighting over use of the Xbox. But, the reality was they were spending our tax dollars on lawyers to fight each other. The sh^tshow only picked up more and more steam from there going into that infamous 2014 reassignment vote.

Cap and capacity were moving targets. There was the use of the term "core capacity". There are still issues with defining capacity today... Now, I would tend to call the previous reassignment a failure because it was like N Korea using an anti-aircraft gun to kill a traitor - it was a firehose to extinguish a spark. Did it "leverage open seats throughout the county", "push school assignments East", and "address the cap"? Sure... but it was complete overkill in moving thousands more kids than necessary - and that's if you completely believe Webb's 5 year forecast. We could have easily be sitting here having moved 1/2, a 1/3, or less kids and still have addressed the cap. The shiny new Marvin Elems are woefully underused, Cuth still only has 2 packed Elems, and the older buildings are crowded. We all knew we'd be back looking at reassignments right about now regardless and it could have been way less families impacted. I'm still shaking my head.

So, the truth of whether the last redistricting bought us the needed extra time versus the stance that we didn't need to do anything is somewhere in the middle. We can all debate that - let's just not pretend something different happened 3 1/2 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2017, 07:36 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,886 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Did it "leverage open seats throughout the county", "push school assignments East", and "address the cap"?
I think that's the crux of the matter; it leveraged a lot of FICTIONAL open seats in the center of the county.

Whatever crowding there was at Marvin Ridge Middle that precipitated the fiasco doesn't even compare to the crowding they created at Parkwood Middle to alleviate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 07:50 AM
 
2,199 posts, read 2,377,886 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Let's be careful not to selectively edit history. I'd dig up our previous threads on the last redistricting if the forum search wasn't currently saying it's under maintenance. I'll find and add it later.

Rewind to November 2013... Marvin Middle was capped and there was an "uproar" about snowflakes having to share lockers and crowded halls. Capping an Elem is one thing, but capping a Middle is a bigger deal - especially in Marvin where there are 3 shiny brand new Elems. So instead of 1/3 of the area being capped for K-5, you now have the entire cluster under school lockdown - you buy a house anywhere in Marvin you're being bussed to Parkwood for Middle school. It was proclaimed that there was a "MS bubble working through UCPS" that would hit the High Schools, older building maintenance was an issue, there was trailergeddon (similar to grizzlies eating kids, we needed to be afraid of kids in trailers due to active shooters)... oh and BTW the school district was suing the county for 100s of MM $$, which was loosely equivalent to a teenager suing parents for back allowances. The BOE and BOCC were acting like 2 preteen brothers fighting over use of the Xbox. But, the reality was they were spending our tax dollars on lawyers to fight each other. The sh^tshow only picked up more and more steam from there going into that infamous 2014 reassignment vote.

Cap and capacity were moving targets. There was the use of the term "core capacity". There are still issues with defining capacity today... Now, I would tend to call the previous reassignment a failure because it was like N Korea using an anti-aircraft gun to kill a traitor - it was a firehose to extinguish a spark. Did it "leverage open seats throughout the county", "push school assignments East", and "address the cap"? Sure... but it was complete overkill in moving thousands more kids than necessary - and that's if you completely believe Webb's 5 year forecast. We could have easily be sitting here having moved 1/2, a 1/3, or less kids and still have addressed the cap. The shiny new Marvin Elems are woefully underused, Cuth still only has 2 packed Elems, and the older buildings are crowded. We all knew we'd be back looking at reassignments right about now regardless and it could have been way less families impacted. I'm still shaking my head.

So, the truth of whether the last redistricting bought us the needed extra time versus the stance that we didn't need to do anything is somewhere in the middle. We can all debate that - let's just not pretend something different happened 3 1/2 years ago.
So, if all this is true, how do we bridge to McKibben saying he can redistrict and it will last 10 years? How many students move in that case?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,430,740 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by getatag View Post
So, if all this is true, how do we bridge to McKibben saying he can redistrict and it will last 10 years? How many students move in that case?
Well, I took lots of wise acre cracks to try and be funny - but, that aside the highlights of what I stated from history are true.

- Marvin Middle was capped, there were Marvin parents complaining about crowding
- Short term options to address the cap were taken off the table (i.e. trailers)
- The BOE and UCPS Admin wanted to go big pushing students East and South to utilize open seats throughout the county. The intention of avoiding to build schools or have to redistrict again "soon". Well, the BOE minus Marce and Sherry.
- The BOE and BOCC did not work together, acted childish, which led to a lawsuit, and the taxpayers paid for the lawyers
- True school capacity was never properly addressed and it still remains an open issue today

As for McK... I'm not sure what you mean by "bridge". The last time he was contracted for a population study ONLY and the UCPS Admin (under the direction of the Facilities committee) created the new boundaries. This time he appears to be contracted to do an actual redistricting study - although as I mentioned before, it would be nice to know why the "housing study" part of McK's proposal was removed - besides the obvious to save some money.

Most of this, especially the Facilities committee, operates with little to no transparency. So, if there is factual evidence to contradict my memory, I'm more than willing to review. Short of that, I think the "scandals", the UCPS Admin leadership quick fall from grace, and the election results speak volumes to the dysfunction that existed previously. Now, I'm not foolish to think that this BOE is "better" than the last one, but the optimist in me hopes they have learned from past mistakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 08:39 AM
 
114 posts, read 89,603 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
Now, I'm not foolish to think that this BOE is "better" than the last one, but the optimist in me hopes they have learned from past mistakes.
My opinion, and I know no one cares, is that they have an agenda and don't care about past mistakes or potential future ones. They are in there to undo the wrongs caused to Wesley Chapel. And I am by no means glossing over the mistakes past boards made, they made them in droves as well.

I just hope the citizen council is made up of some fresh blood. We don't need to see failed candidates, angry bloggers, neighborhood organizers.

Last edited by Phocion; 03-17-2017 at 08:47 AM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 08:43 AM
 
114 posts, read 89,603 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
I think that's the crux of the matter; it leveraged a lot of FICTIONAL open seats in the center of the county.

Whatever crowding there was at Marvin Ridge Middle that precipitated the fiasco doesn't even compare to the crowding they created at Parkwood Middle to alleviate it.
I wonder why they didn't put Parkwood Middle on the bond then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 09:05 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,886 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by getatag View Post
So, if all this is true, how do we bridge to McKibben saying he can redistrict and it will last 10 years? How many students move in that case?
This can't just be a redistricting plan if UCPS wants to avoid redistricting for ten years. The redistricting has to be based on the bottle neck which is the middle schools. The middle schools are currently at 96.59% of county-wide capacity if you believe UCPS's inflated county-wide middle school capacity of 10,300. I suspect we may actually be over 100% of middle school capacity. According to McKibben, the target utilization rate should be about 90%.

The redistricting is going to have to go hand in hand with revising UCPS's CCEP (construction plan). They need to go back to the drawing board. The middle school capacities need to be increased to better align with the high school capacities.

UCPS supposedly currently has 13,950 high school seats including the two magnets. That means there are 3,433 seats per grade in middle schools and 3,488 seats per grade in high schools. Keep in mind that enrollment decreases in high school as students drop out so seats per grade in high school should be the lower number.

If UCPS doesn't come up with a sensible and economical plan to address the middle school capacity issue to go along with the redistricting, this redistricting won't last ten years.

The recently passed bond focused on adding more high school seats (1,070 seats across three high schools vs. 400 seats at one middle school) further exacerbating the mismatch. After construction, UCPS will have 3,755 high school seats per grade and 3,566 middle school seats per grade. So UCPS would need at least 567 more middle school seats to align middle school and high school capacities not even factoring in student attrition in high school or UCPS's inflation of middle school capacities to justify the last redistricting.

The point being, UCPS needs to scrap the CCEP and come up with an economical long-term construction plan that actually focuses on adding capacity in the areas of high population concentration. Capacity is a totally separate issue from maintenance or renovations. The CCEP plan is an attempt to mix the two resulting in pushing the student population into the older schools which may not be anywhere within close proximity to the population concentration. I think the CCEP plan was one of the main reasons the last redistricting turning into such a boondoggle. The last redistricting was based off that construction plan.

Unless UCPS comes up with a plan to address the middle school capacity issue to go along with the redistricting, this redistricting won't last ten years. There will constantly be a fight over which middle school is the most crowded and needs relief.

Last edited by BubbaHelms; 03-17-2017 at 09:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 09:22 AM
 
547 posts, read 536,886 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion View Post
I wonder why they didn't put Parkwood Middle on the bond then?
It wouldn't be economical to add capacity to Parkwood Middle School in my opinion. Unfortunately, we have several forty year old middle schools utilizing that out-dated design that doesn't allow for cost-effective expansion of the core. UCPS already wastefully increased the classroom capacity over the core capacity at that school resulting in excessive crowding in the cafeteria, gym, bathrooms, and hallways.

If McKibben determines that the population is going to continue to increase in the Cuthbertson area, it makes much more sense for the students redistricted to Parkwood to be allowed to return to Cuthbertson and to add a classroom wing there where the core of the school would not require expansion.

Also, you get a lot more life out of investment in additional classroom capacity at a new school vs. a forty year old one.

At our middle schools with out-dated designs, renovations to modernize and maintain make sense but major expansions do not. It would be more economical to let those schools ride out their remaining lives at lower capacity levels.

Last edited by BubbaHelms; 03-17-2017 at 09:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,430,740 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion View Post
My opinion, and I know no one cares, is that they have an agenda and don't care about past mistakes or potential future ones. They are in there to undo the wrongs caused to Wesley Chapel. And I am by no means glossing over the mistakes past boards made, they made them in droves as well.

I just hope the citizen council is made up of some fresh blood. We don't need to see failed candidates, angry bloggers, neighborhood organizers.
All opinions welcome. You may very well be right... if we see the likes of Sean Maher and Angry Dad on the committee, that would certainly support your theory.

Stay tuned...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,787 posts, read 8,430,740 times
Reputation: 4818
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
It wouldn't be economical to add capacity to Parkwood Middle School in my opinion. Unfortunately, we have several forty year old middle schools utilizing that out-dated design that doesn't allow for cost-effective expansion of the core. UCPS already wastefully increased the classroom capacity over the core capacity at that school resulting in excessive crowding in the cafeteria, gym, bathrooms, and hallways.

If McKibben determines that the population is going to continue to increase in the Cuthbertson area, it makes much more sense for the students redistricted to Parkwood to be allowed to return to Cuthbertson and to add a classroom wing there where the core of the school would not require expansion.

Also, you get a lot more life out of investment in additional classroom capacity at a new school vs. a forty year old one.

At our middle schools with out-dated designs, renovations to modernize and maintain make sense but major expansions do not. It would be more economical to let those schools ride out their remaining lives at lower capacity levels.
This makes sense, but logic doesn't always apply... We both thought they would build another Elem in Cuthbertson, boy were we wrong. Then again, if they expand on CMS, I would think they need to add Elem capacity. Which could be the 2nd floor on NTES that was proposed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 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