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 09-20-2017, 06:05 PM
 
114 posts, read 89,688 times
Reputation: 47

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
But, I did see that directive from a BOE member to Cropper to move people back into the Porter Ridge cluster in the realignment emails posted on the UCPS website, so I can probably guess.
Where is that email?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2017, 06:53 PM
 
547 posts, read 537,151 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion View Post
Where is that email?
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/m...VlqOEpLX0FCSGM

It's amongst the emails at that link. It references another email and doesn't state such directly so you will have to read all the emails in the chain to get the meaning. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with the content of the email, but it was definitely a directive from a board member when the claim is that the board has zero involvement in the process.

I don't think the board needs to have zero involvement. They need to make key decisions about capacity, academic programming, and grandfathering; but for some reason cetain people are claiming the BOE has no involvement when some members clearly do and the Advisory Committee which has no authority or voting powers is getting scapegoated.

Last edited by BubbaHelms; 09-20-2017 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 04:29 AM
 
114 posts, read 89,688 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/m...VlqOEpLX0FCSGM

It's amongst the emails at that link. It references another email and doesn't state such directly so you will have to read all the emails in the chain to get the meaning. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with the content of the email, but it was definitely a directive from a board member when the claim is that the board has zero involvement in the process.

I don't think the board needs to have zero involvement. They need to make key decisions about capacity, academic programming, and grandfathering; but for some reason cetain people are claiming the BOE has no involvement when some members clearly do and the Advisory Committee which has no authority or voting powers is getting scapegoated.
This process, while seemingly setup to be transparent, methodical and involving the community will still ultimately come down to being what the BOE wants it to be, but with, as you said, scapegoats in place. I will give it to them, they know how to cover themselves and their intentions.

Some of that Advisory Committee have close ties to the board though, so it should come as no surprise to them. I am sure they are just doing the boards bidding. I would say do a FOIA, but this group made their living on those, they will have done everything off the record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 02:06 PM
 
631 posts, read 738,213 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/m...VlqOEpLX0FCSGM

It's amongst the emails at that link. It references another email and doesn't state such directly so you will have to read all the emails in the chain to get the meaning. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with the content of the email, but it was definitely a directive from a board member when the claim is that the board has zero involvement in the process.

I don't think the board needs to have zero involvement. They need to make key decisions about capacity, academic programming, and grandfathering; but for some reason cetain people are claiming the BOE has no involvement when some members clearly do and the Advisory Committee which has no authority or voting powers is getting scapegoated.
Thanks Bubba. Agree on your comments too.

For clarity, it's our board chair that is very clear that only her criteria should be used and not the rest of the items spelled out in the mission for the alignment committee.

"The goal and criteria for this Realignment was Neighborhood Schools and Improve
Transportation efficiency. I did not see that addressed in the first maps, and I have received
feedback/concerns from the Porter Ridge and Parkwood clusters. This is the feedback that I
wanted to pass along.

Melissa Merrell - Board Chair
Board of Education - District 4
Piedmont & Porter Ridge Clusters"


Here's the full list she doesn't care about: From June 27 meeting.
  • Maximize busing efficiencies in transportation of students
  • Establish clear feeder patterns and continuity
  • Balance school facility utilization
  • Account for future growth
  • Allow for grandfathering
  • Minimize the impact on students
  • Make every effort to establish contiguous zones
  • Use major roads and natural boundaries wherever feasible to define attendance zones

All criteria are in no particular order or priority, and the best plan is one that touches on all criteria but does not focus solely on one element of the criteria

Last edited by TooLogical; 09-21-2017 at 02:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 02:26 PM
 
114 posts, read 89,688 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooLogical View Post
Thanks Bubba. Agree on your comments too.

For clarity, it's our board chair that is very clear that only her criteria should be used and not the rest of the items spelled out in the mission for the alignment committee.

"The goal and criteria for this Realignment was Neighborhood Schools and Improve
Transportation efficiency. I did not see that addressed in the first maps, and I have received
feedback/concerns from the Porter Ridge and Parkwood clusters. This is the feedback that I
wanted to pass along.

Melissa Merrell - Board Chair
Board of Education - District 4
Piedmont & Porter Ridge Clusters"


Here's the full list she doesn't care about https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...JYbzNqN0Y0dE0:
  • Maximize busing efficiencies in transportation of students
  • Establish clear feeder patterns and continuity
  • Balance school facility utilization
  • Account for future growth
  • Allow for grandfathering
  • Minimize the impact on students
  • Make every effort to establish contiguous zones
  • Use major roads and natural boundaries wherever feasible to define attendance zones

All criteria are in no particular order or priority, and the best plan is one that touches on all criteria but does not focus solely on one element of the criteria
The board chair’s neighborhood, Emerald Lake, remained in Piedmont in all the original options (which you can’t see). It is now in Porter Ridge, which is really the whole reason she got involved. From CAPS Neighborhood Lead for Emerald Lake to BOE Chair to undo this horrible wrong foisted upon her and her friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:37 AM
 
547 posts, read 537,151 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion View Post
This process, while seemingly setup to be transparent, methodical and involving the community will still ultimately come down to being what the BOE wants it to be, but with, as you said, scapegoats in place. I will give it to them, they know how to cover themselves and their intentions.

Some of that Advisory Committee have close ties to the board though, so it should come as no surprise to them. I am sure they are just doing the boards bidding. I would say do a FOIA, but this group made their living on those, they will have done everything off the record.
My issue with the process is that options were limited from the start by the data Cropper was provided or not provided in some cases. A lot of questions from the Committee have gone unanswered in this process. It seems to me that the process can be manipulated by the Board or UCPS simply by failing to acknowledge issues and provide data. The Board can't just claim they can have no involvement until time for the final vote. The Committee and the community have a lot of questions that need to be addressed.

Some of mine are:


1. Why will the Board not adopt as policy a uniform method for calculating capacities?

2. Why are the school capacities not limited to the capacities of the core areas? Why is the focus only on classroom capacities? Did the Board vote on that?

3. Why does the core capacity of some cafeterias exceed the occupancy limits for those cafeterias?

4. Who came up with the idea to recalculate the cafeteria capacities using the four-lunch standard rather than the three-lunch standard recommended by DPI? Why do some of our schools have six lunches if capacity is based on four?

5. Why was no standard process used to calculate classroom capacities? Why are there so many footnotes to the capacity list indicating that rooms get included in the count at certain schools but not at others? Why do some schools have rooms excluded from capacity for special programs and others don't?

6. Why are undersized rooms of around 400 sf or less being included in classroom capacities at a certain elementary school when the minimum classroom size per DPI guidelines is 850 sf? Why when this was pointed out did UCPS and the BOE fail to correct the error?

7. Why is the Committee not being provided with the campus capacities (capacity available with mobile classrooms)? Is an unstated goal getting all students out of mobile classrooms in the first year which wouldn't even make sense at schools with rapidly declining populations?

8. How is UCPS going to address students being moved from year-round to traditional schools?

9. How is UCPS going to address students being moved from schools with special programs like Language Immersion to schools without those programs?

10. How is UCPS going to address the inequity in course offerings between schools when moving students to schools with fewer offerings?

11. How is UCPS going to address the lack of uniformity in instructional time among the middle schools leading to some students receiving almost 2 and 1/2 weeks less instructional time in core subject areas than students at certain other middle schools? For those not aware, this is a result of certain schools holding every student in a holding tank and wasting their time for a whole period so tutoring can occur during school hours whether or not a student needs tutoring. So, moving a student from one school to another could decrease a student's core instructional time by as much as 25 minutes per day. This also means students at schools with tutoring periods loose around 10 minutes of their already short lunch time.

12. Why will UCPS not disclose to the Committee the attendance zone for Benton Heights (encompasses Walter Bickett, East and part of Rock Rest and Rocky River districts but a map doesn't seem to officially exist)? What happens if Walter Bickett becomes part of the State's charter school district for failing schools? Students within the WB attendance area are currently allowed to choose between attending Benton Heights or Walter Bickett. Why is the Committee being told Benton Heights is outside their scope? Why did UCPS create a failing (moved up to a D) magnet school to start with? What is really going on here? Is it a relief valve for Monroe schools? Give people an option between the low-performing schools in the cluster so they don't transfer out into the other clusters?

13. Why is the BOE not modifying the scope of some of its bond projects based on the new capacity and population forecast data? Enrollment forecasts indicate that some of the classroom capacity additions simply aren't needed. The classroom capacities now show some schools have classroom capacities way over their core capacities and some middle school and high school pairs have a mismatch in capacity that won't allow for full utilization of classroom capacity at one member of the pair. Why add additional classroom capacity in those situations if it can't be utilized?

14. Why won't the BOE set a grandfathering policy? Are they backpedaling on that promise?

Last edited by BubbaHelms; 09-22-2017 at 11:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:52 AM
 
114 posts, read 89,688 times
Reputation: 47
Bubba,

Is the committee not aligned with the the Board?

The chairs of the committee seem to be close with a lot of the board members. One of the committee chairs is very close with the Board Facilities Chair and the other chair ran a campaign closely tied with the others.

You would think that would have them all in lockstep...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 11:59 AM
 
114 posts, read 89,688 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
13. Why is the BOE not modifying the scope of some of its bond projects based on the new capacity and population forecast data? Enrollment forecasts indicate that some of the classroom capacity additions simply aren't needed. The classroom capacities now show some schools have classroom capacities way over their core capacities and some middle school and high school pairs have a mismatch in capacity that won't allow for full utilization of classroom capacity at one member of the pair. Why add additional classroom capacity in those situations if it can't be utilized?
I had to look back at the bond projects.

Take a look at them...whose district are a lot of them in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:50 PM
 
631 posts, read 738,213 times
Reputation: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaHelms View Post
My issue with the process is that options were limited from the start by the data Cropper was provided or not provided in some cases. A lot of questions from the Committee have gone unanswered in this process. It seems to me that the process can be manipulated by the Board or UCPS simply by failing to acknowledge issues and provide data. The Board can't just claim they can have no involvement until time for the final vote. The Committee and the community have a lot of questions that need to be addressed.
Outstanding list!!!!! Great thinking.

I'll add they need one more step of transparency: a map with each BOE and Alignment Committee (and probably local politicians) members neighborhoods that can be overlayed on the options maps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2017, 12:56 PM
 
547 posts, read 537,151 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion View Post
I had to look back at the bond projects.

Take a look at them...whose district are a lot of them in?
It seems a little odd to me that UCPS is having to add a Day Treatment Program at Western Union Elementary and is excluding those classrooms from the school capacity. By doing so, they still only have the school at 78% projected utilization in 2018/19 and it is projected to only be at 71% utilization in 2026/27 based on current boundaries.

Option B & D have it at 76% utilization and Option C has it at only 61%.

To be clear, I'm not saying additions and renovations aren't needed; just that the scale of some bond projects needs to be analyzed.

There is also clearly a mismatch in the planned capacities between middle and high schools with the planned additions at Piedmont High, Sun Valley High and Porter Ridge Middle and High. It looks to me like the high school addition at Piedmont wouldn't be able to be utilized at all without also increasing the middle school capacity. The scale of the Sun Valley addition is also such that it probably couldn't be fully utilized without increasing middle school capacity. It also appears to me that the Porter Ridge Middle School addition needs to be scaled way back to better align the capacities at Porter Ridge Middle and High.

Per Grade Capacity After Additions

Pdmt Middle 988/3=329
Pdmt High 1712/4=428

SV Middle 1180/3=393
SV High 1782/4=446

PR Middle 1746/3=582
PR High 1924/4=481

Also, keep in mind that we have high school magnets but no middle school magnets; so middle school per grade capacity needs to be slightly higher in a cluster.
Attached Thumbnails
Union County School Board proposes new student realignment plan-screenshot-82-.png   Union County School Board proposes new student realignment plan-screenshot-85-.png  
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