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.
Curious - I have seen several conversations suggesting keeping sibling together (conversations including some of the BOE candidates). Honestly, my quick thought is that it sounds like a reasonable request. I assume someone could say if the older child felt this was important – they could opt out of the grandfathering – however – I do not like the idea of asking a rising junior or senior to change schools.
Where this may get a little interesting – what happens when the older child graduates? Do the siblings get sent back to the new school? I would assume that would be the case – but that could just prolong the adjustment period.
Example
If you had a rising 10th grader a rising 8th grader – would the rising 8th grader need to change schools as they enter 11th grade ? Or would they be able to finish at their original school.
Keeping siblings together is not an accepted option, is it?
In your example, once the older one graduates and sibling(s) are in HS, they should finish there.
Keeping siblings together is not an accepted option, is it?
In your example, once the older one graduates and sibling(s) are in HS, they should finish there.
It may be a consideration in the appeal process – not policy. Based on the comments I have seen – I do not think people have been very successful with this as a means of getting an exception.
The suggestion being thrown around on some of the other forums is that they would like to see this become policy. I think we will see this topic discussed more and more as we get closer election time.
It may be a consideration in the appeal process – not policy. Based on the comments I have seen – I do not think people have been very successful with this as a means of getting an exception.
The suggestion being thrown around on some of the other forums is that they would like to see this become policy. I think we will see this topic discussed more and more as we get closer election time.
But it is a bit too late for that, is it not?
I would love for that to be an acceptable solution, however registration has been made for the next school year, kids have "accepted" they will be separated and most affected parents accepted defeat for the good of majority...
I would love for that to be an acceptable solution, however registration has been made for the next school year, kids have "accepted" they will be separated and most affected parents accepted defeat for the good of majority...
I think you are correct – I think the vision of some would be to have this applied to the students that were impacted this year. I think if they were to consider this - it would need to be something to be applied in any future movement opposed to retroactive.
And it they did – it would really need to be well thought though.
The sibling issue seems simple enough on the surface - "Sure, they should be together!" - but gets complicated in the details. I think it would have been good to have the rising 6th and 9th graders with siblings in the same school, to be able to stay together. And that would work well for families with 2 kids that are 1-2 years apart. It gets more complicated when there are 3+ children spread across 5+ years in age differences. At some point, when does the youngest need to move etc.
There are really two options
a) the current way - every child is moved to the new cluster and the family can opt to not have the kids together by keeping some in their current school.
b) allow all siblings to be grandfathered into their cluster. Of course there are issues with it, but it could work.
That being said, I think if option b was available, certain CAPS members would have been adopting 5800 kids and claiming they are all siblings.
The sibling issue seems simple enough on the surface - "Sure, they should be together!" - but gets complicated in the details. I think it would have been good to have the rising 6th and 9th graders with siblings in the same school, to be able to stay together. And that would work well for families with 2 kids that are 1-2 years apart. It gets more complicated when there are 3+ children spread across 5+ years in age differences. At some point, when does the youngest need to move etc.
There are really two options
a) the current way - every child is moved to the new cluster and the family can opt to not have the kids together by keeping some in their current school.
b) allow all siblings to be grandfathered into their cluster. Of course there are issues with it, but it could work.
That being said, I think if option b was available, certain CAPS members would have been adopting 5800 kids and claiming they are all siblings.
Quite honestly, I was suprised at the scope of the "grandfathering" mainly around issues like this. We went thru a resdistricting before and the only grandfathering was rising seniors. It cut down dramatically all of the sibling arguments. I guess I come from the hardcore group that says if you want your kids at the same school you have to make a difficult decision. The more I read other forums I see many who don't ever want to make hard decisions the kids might not like.
Quite honestly, I was suprised at the scope of the "grandfathering" mainly around issues like this. We went thru a resdistricting before and the only grandfathering was rising seniors. It cut down dramatically all of the sibling arguments. I guess I come from the hardcore group that says if you want your kids at the same school you have to make a difficult decision. The more I read other forums I see many who don't ever want to make hard decisions the kids might not like.
Exactly. This is not the first redistricting we've been through in UC. In fact, many of the folks angry this time c/o the fact that they've been through redistricting at least once before. I don't know why there is an expectation for a brand new set of rules this time.
Please correct me on the details- in the past, upperclassmen were often allowed to finish at their existing HS rather than move to a newly opened school. That 'grandfathering' has never applied to 'all near relatives in their household in perpetuity' as a birthright. As always, any student has been able to petition for a transfer based on hardship- I'm sure many tried. If the transfer policy was different for each prior redistricting, the board should certainly clarify the rules for this one. If the rules have been consistent, it's more open-and-shut.
I believe when Marvin opened, only rising seniors were allowed to stay at Weddington. When Cuthbertson opened, again, only the rising seniors were grandfathered at Weddington, I believe Jrs and Srs were allowed to stay in Marvin and the younger HS students were moved to Cuthbertson
I wasn't referring to Union Co. But it seems that allowing so many grandfathers is causing everyone to make assumptions. Again, if you want your kids in one school that can be accomplished without a hearing....either put them both in the new school or go private. You can't call having to take a junior to (and I'm making up schools so hush) Cuthbertson and a freshman at Weddington a hardship...
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.
