Magnet Winners

Once again we are in magnet selection season.  The new selection criteria are not well publicized, but it still isn't a true lottery.  After siblings and feeder pattern magnet students are placed, priority goes to applicants who live in 'high performing nodes'.   You can look up your node's performance rating here.

What exactly does this mean?  I decided to map the high performing nodes to see who gets first choice of magnet seats.  It confirmed what I'd suspected--that large swaths of the county will be virtually shut out of the magnet 'lottery'.

Am I the only one who finds this disturbing?  Disgusting, even? Superintendent Tata recently explained this priority, as reported by Keung Hui on the Wake Ed blog:

"The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnets schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don't want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools.  That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive."

Does anybody really think that WCPSS staff is worried about a sudden rush of low performing or low income kids applying for magnets?  Or is the fear the same as it has always been: that high performers/middle to upper income kids from low performing/high poverty schools will leave for magnets?  Looks like if you live in Eastern Wake or Garner and have your sights set on a magnet, you'd better move.   

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.” 1323026393 Magnet application period opening amid changes and questions The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.” 1323026393 Magnet application period opening amid changes and questions The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.” 1323026393 Magnet application period opening amid changes and questions The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.” 1323026393 Magnet application period opening amid changes and questions The News and Observer Copyright 2011 The News and Observer . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

“The magnet program is designed to prevent the creation of high-poverty schools, at least for the Group 1 magnets," Tata said. "If you connect economic disadvantage or economic advantage with achievement and performance as the research shows, what you want to do is get higher-achieving students into the magnet schools and then as you displace students that have traditionally lower performance, you want to give them priority as I just talked about in some of the higher-performing schools. What we don’t want to find ourselves in is a situation where we have the magnet program yet what we do is we invite more poverty into the magnet schools. That would seem to be a little bit counterproductive.”

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/magnet-application-period-opening-amid-changes-and-questions#storylink=cpy

Manipulating Capacity to Fill Unpopular Schools

Why would the Long Range capacity at Durant Road Elementary be changed from 935 to 772?  Maybe because a brand new school is opening across the street from DRES next year.  Actually the school (E-20) is opening in the modular campus next year, which is located on Spring Forest Road about a block east of East Millbrook Middle School.  Its permanent location across the street from Durant Road Elementary won't be open for a few years.  Somebody has to fill that school and what better way than to have less capacity at Durant Road Elementary?  

I am having an a-ha moment as I type this.  Another nearby elementary school also had some strange things happening with its capacity.  Wildwood Forest's capacity is 793 in the 2010-11 Facility Utilization Report, 644 in the assignment plan and has a current student population of 863.  Interesting. 

In the new controlled choice plan, filling new schools is all done by 'choice'.  Nobody is reassigned to that new school and the new schools will open with only grades K-3.  They keep emphasizing that nobody is assigned to a school--that we all choose the school we want our kids to go to.  But if there isn't any capacity or there is reduced capacity, how much of a choice is there? 

In the Student Assignment document document, they list the capacity for each grade at each school.  You can find the 2011-12 student membership numbers for each school broken down by grade here.

Referring to those documents, you can see that for both Wildwood Forest and Durant Road Elementary schools, there are more students per grade than will be allowed under the new capacity figures in the assignment plan.  They aren't going to kick any students out of those schools, but when newcomers enter the system, there won't be any seats for them at those schools and they will be sent somewhere else.  Somewhere like E-20 or perhaps an under enrolled school that nobody wants to go to. 

It will be very easy for WCPSS to manipulate the capacity numbers at schools in order to funnel kids where they ultimately want them to go.  One of the selling points of this plan is supposed to be that staff will be able to tell very early on which schools are "under chosen" and then do something to help those schools attract families.  First, we don't need a choice plan to tell us which schools are unpopular and will be under chosen.  We've known for years and we've done nothing about them before.  Second, it won't matter if a school is "under chosen"--if it's on your list you could end up there.  Somebody has to go there and with the ability to manipulate capacity numbers at surrounding schools it will be easy to fill all of the schools.

I know that I am being very skeptical here, maybe even a bit paranoid, but after spending more than 6 years following WCPSS issues, I've earned my skepticism. 

Capacity in the Controlled Choice Plan

 Looking over the capacity figures that were part of the Student Assignment Plan document presented to the board 2 weeks ago, I noticed some inconsistencies.  Last year, WCPSS came out with the 2010-11 Facility Utilization Report that listed the capacity for each school. 

Capacity is looked at in two ways:  Long Range School Campus Capacity (LRSCC) and Annual School Campus Capacity (ASCC).  LRSCC is the School Building Capacity plus the optimum number of temporary classrooms.  In other words, the capacity of the brick and mortar building plus the optimum number of trailers for that campus.  Now it could be argued that trailers are not ideal at all, but WCPSS has come up with a way to determine the optimum number for each campus.  You can find this info on page 6 of the Facility Utilization Report that I referenced above.

ASCC is the actual capacity of the school as we are using it today, which can include more than the optimum number of trailers.  In fact, most of our schools have more than the optimum number of trailers and some have less.  ASCC also includes adjustments for programs such as Pre-K and self-contained classrooms.  That part gets a little confusing and is really fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.

So what does this all mean in the Controlled Choice Plan?  The plan says that it uses LRSCC for the capacity numbers but the numbers they are using in the plan don't always match up to the 2010-11 Report.  I've asked WCPSS why this is but I haven't heard back from them yet.  Many of the school capacities only differ by less than 50 students but some differences are perplexing.  What is really concerning, however, is that many of our schools are well over the LRSCC yet we are now going to fill schools according to that lower number.

An extreme example is Durant Road Elementary.  The LRSCC in the 2010-11 Report is 935, in the Assignment Plan it is listed as 772, and the actual student population this year is 1030.  Those are some huge differences.  The Kindergarten capacity in the assignment plan is listed as 126 but there are 202 Kindergarteners at Durant Road this year.  That's 76 students who would have to go somewhere else in the new plan.  Where would they go?

This leads me to my first of two big questions regarding capacity in this assignment plan.  Will staff manipulate capacity numbers at certain schools in order to steer students where they want them to go?  Since this is getting a bit long, I'll answer this question in the next post.

Little Known Details of the Controlled Choice Plan

Going through the Controlled Choice plan, I found some interesting details that aren't widely known. 

•  Your choices are determined by your node.  The choices themselves are determined by the distance from the center of your node.  But the proximity of your choices is determined by your specific address.  People within a node can have proximity priority for different schools.
•  Transfer requests can still be made, but only to a school not on your magnet or base school choice lists.  So if all of your neighbors got into School A and your child is the only one going to School B, you cannot apply for a transfer to School A.  If School A was your first choice, you will be placed on the waiting list but you cannot apply for a transfer.
• You can no longer turn down a year round school because of the track.  Track allocations are made after school assignments are given.  If you don't like your track and the school is unable to change it, the only recourse you have is to apply for a transfer.  But remember--you can't apply for a transfer to a school on your original choice list and you won't have transportation if you get a transfer. 

Blue or Green: False Choice

How many people actually looked at the other 7 plans that the Student Assignment Task Force came up with?  I'm guessing not very many.  The task force 'developed' 9 plans and then presented the two front runners to the public for comment.  I found it very convenient that the two plans were: 1) pretty much the same thing we have now and 2) a slightly modified version of the Alves plan.  What were the other ideas and could they really find nothing better than these 2?

I looked at the other seven proposals and all I could do was shake my head.  My favorite was the Teal Plan, which was basically a big flip of the bird to neighborhood school supporters.  The Teal Plan called for every student to attend the absolute closest school, no matter how overcrowded or under enrolled some schools ended up.  The most asinine part of this plan was that magnets and year round schools were filled only with proximate students.  Nobody could apply to these schools.  We would still fund magnet programs but nobody would be able to apply to them.  We would still have year round schools, but nobody could apply.  Nor could the students assigned to the year round schools apply to a traditional option.

I still shake my head when I think about this 'plan'.  The recurring question in my mind is "We paid for the task force to come up with THIS?!?"  Truly, this is the best that this task force could come up with?  And then they presented the blue and green plans to us as the two most feasible options?  It sure seems to me that they had the Alves plan in mind all along and needed a way to shove it down our throats under the guise of having done due diligence.

Priority Round Manipulations in the Choice Plan

We jumped a huge hurdle last year when the board eliminated socio-economic discrimination from the magnet selection process. Now it appears that it is creeping back in, albeit in a different form.

WCPSS has posted the latest assignment plan presentation on their assignment website: "http://assignment.wcpss.net/next/board-work-session-presentation--09-20-2011.pdf" It includes the following priority rounds:

Priority 1: Incoming siblings of current WCPSS students

Priority 2: Students who live within 1.5 miles of their first-choice school

Priority 3: Students whose nearest school is more than 1.5 miles from their home and who select that school as their first-choice school

The first 3 priorities are the same as they've always been and besides the fact that you're still not guaranteed a spot in rounds 2 and 3, there's really nothing to complain about here. Well, I take that back. One factor not addressed here is feeder patterns for middle and high school selection. This question was asked at the Millbrook High info meeting and they said that feeder pattern comes before siblings. So for middle and high schools, the first priority goes to students following the feeder pattern, then they move on to siblings. Since the feeder patterns are designed to fill the middle and high schools naturally, how many seats will actually be available for those who want to leave their feeder pattern or for newcomers to the system?

Priority 4: Group 2 Proximity and Group 3 magnet students rising into 6th or 9th grade that have attended a Group 2 or Group 3 magnet elementary school whose first choice is the magnet middle or high school for their magnet program pathway

First, a reminder of what Group 2 and Group 3 elementary magnets are. Group 2 are: Brooks, Combs, Conn, Douglas, Joyner, Underwood, & Wiley. Group 3 magnets are: Farmington Woods, Smith, Wendell & Zebulon. Group 2 magnets are located in middle to upper income areas and are to be filled with 40-45% Magnet students/55-60% Proximity. They say that Group 3 magnets are located in the further reaches of the county and are there as 'equity magnets'. Wendell and Zebulon were indeed opened as equity magnets, but I don't think Farmington Woods was and Smith definitely wasn't. Group 3 magnets are to be filled with 10-20% magnet/80-90% proximity students.

Second, the magnet lottery is separate from the 'regular' lottery so I wouldn't think that too many of the Group 3 elementary magnet students would have the magnet middle and high schools on their 'choice lists'.

Third, I find it interesting that Group 2 Proximity students get priority for the middle and high magnets but the Group 3 Proximity students don't. Why is that? Will there be an explanation? Is there a way for Group 3 Proximity students to get a 'magnet' seat so they can automatically follow the feeder pattern?

Priority 5: Students residing in a node designated as “low-performing” whose first-choice school is a regional school choice (R1 or R2)

It appears that instead of calling them 'achievement' or 'high performing' schools, WCPSS is now calling them 'regional school choices'. They have divided the county into 4 regions, starting from central Raleigh/Inside the Beltline. The 'achievement' school choices are within your region.

They are obviously trying to balance for achievement, but I wonder if this will backfire on them. A few years ago, Chuck Dulaney and the previous board came up with an idea for attracting more low income families to Year Round schools. They changed the selection criteria for year round so that if you lived in a high poverty node and were assigned to a high poverty school, you had priority for a year round school. It backfired and middle class families in those nodes who had previously been denied YR were finally accepted.

I am not against giving families an 'achievement' choice, just pointing out that WCPSS may not have thought this through very well if their goal is balancing the schools by 'achievement'.

Priority 6: Students residing in a node designated as “high-performing” whose first-choice school is a magnet school and/or is located in a low-performing area

This is where the sneaky manipulation really comes in. First, since the magnet lottery is separate, are we talking about nodes having magnet schools on their 'choice lists'? Which nodes have which magnets on their lists? Are these all proximate nodes or are they farther away? I ask because as I've illustrated in a previous post, there are nodes north of I-540 that had Brentwood and Millbrook magnet elementaries on their choice lists when there were more proximate schools not on their lists.

Second, this could play a part in filling the Group 2 magnet proximity seats. If there aren't enough students in the middle to upper income areas surrounding those magnet schools to fill the 55-60% proximity seats, then they have to start drawing from students who have those schools on their 'choice list'. Each student whose closest school is a Group 1 magnet (those located in low income areas) has the following choice list: closest Group 1 magnet, next closest Group 1 magnet, proximate Group 2 magnet, 3 Regional Choices, proximate traditional non-magnet and proximate year round non-magnet.

I think that most of those families will pick their closest and second closest Group 1 magnet as their first 2 choices. There are not enough proximity seats at those magnets to fit all of the students who will choose them, so they will be moved on down to their 3rd choice. My guess is that the 3rd choice will be the proximate Group 2 magnet or the proximate tradtional non-magnet, whichever is closer. Since there aren't many proximate non-magnets in those areas, I would think the proximate Group 2 would be chosen as 3rd. This might create a problem if 'too many' of the kids from the low achieving areas were given seats at those schools. By placing a priority on students applying from high achieving nodes, they ensure that won't be a problem. It would be interesting to see who has each magnet on their regular choice list. I've requested maps showing this for each school, but was told they don't exist.

Third, and most important, we are introducing a new form of discrimination into the selection process. They finally got rid of SES as a factor but they are now substituting 'academic performance'. So if you are in a "high performing" node you deserve the magnet extras but if you're unfortunate enough to live in a "low performing" node you don't.

Priority 7: Students whose nearest school is severely overcrowded and select a school that is not overcrowded as their first choice

How does a school get severely overcrowded in a controlled choice plan? One of the main selling points of this plan is that they set the capacity of the school and fill the school to that capacity level through the lottery. Once that school is at capacity, students are sent to one of their other choices. The only way I can really see this coming into play is in the first couple of years if a student who is currently at an overcrowded school applies for a less crowded school on the choice list. We all supposedly get to stay at our current schools if we want to so some schools will remain overcrowded. But for any newcomers to the system it shouldn't be a factor at all.

Who Likes the Choice Plan?

I attended a candidate question and answer session at Baileywick Park last night, which was truly wonderful. My favorite part of campaigning is talking with people about the issues. Not just telling them my viewpoints, but hearing theirs and having conversations. This has been true for me during all my years of advocacy on various school issues. I always come away with something positive from these conversations: an argument I had never thought of, a different interpretation of an argument, and always something to think about. So last night was wonderful because we had conversations. It got a little heated at times, but it was respectful and productive and I walked away with all kinds of thoughts spinning in my head.

The greatest conversations for me were about the Choice Plan. I rarely meet anybody who likes the choice plan and the ones who do say it's because "I get to pick which school I want". When we start talking about the lack of guarantees, however, they aren't so enthusiastic. But last night I heard from some parents who really like the choice model and for a good reason: nobody gets kicked out of their current school.

The parents I met have high schoolers and older children who went through the system. They've lived in Raleigh for many years--before developments like Falls River, Riverside, Bedford and Wakefield existed. As additional schools were built to handle the new growth, these families got reassigned from their 'neighborhood schools' to make room for newcomers. Not fair, in their eyes, and I completely understand their point of view. They want to stay in the school community they've been a part of for years.

I keep thinking about communities moving forward under this plan. I worry about the new family who moves into a neighborhood where most of the kids go to a school that isn't even on the new 'choice list' (this is the case for my node) or is so full that rising kindergarteners and other new students get bumped to a farther away school. What happens to our sense of community then? Or to the support that our communities at large give to our schools?

Complicating the situation is the fact that we've never had 'normal' reassignments. When a new school opened up it wasn't just the logical neighborhoods that were moved to fill the school--'diversity' was always taken into account, which often ended up creating a domino effect moving more students than truly necessary. Would parents have been as upset if the moves were logical? Would a family-friendly grandfathering policy have made a difference?

Whatever the new plan ends up looking like, we need to make sure our decisions are based on how things should be and not based on a reaction to the nonsensical moves of the past. There are still a lot of questions to be answered and many that haven't been asked yet. We all need to continue to talk about the assignment plan and ask questions. I was encouraged last night at Baileywick Park and I hope people continue to engage each other in conversation. It's the only way we'll ever get where we need to be.

A Few More Maps

I've decided to go ahead and post some of the other maps I did for addresses in District 3.


View 2308 Lemuel Dr in a larger map



View 7409 Bolero Way in a larger map

This last map is a little different. The green schools are elementary, blue are middle and red are high schools.


View 4600 Pooh Corner Dr in a larger map

Why Transparency is Key

In my letter asking the board to stop work on the blue plan, I stressed that transparency was essential for any assignment plan to be successful. After the turmoil of the past decade(s) not knowing when and why our neighborhood might be targeted for reassignment, we need an assignment policy that makes sense and is open to scrutiny. When Wake Education Partnership first unveiled their "Alves Plan", upon which our new assignment model is based, one of my first thoughts was that it was too easy to manipulate. Without maps to see who has which schools to choose from, it's impossible to know what is happening.

The elementary choices that my node has are the 5 closest schools. That's what we've been told--that our choices will pretty much be those in closest proximity to us with the addition of an achievement school that might be further away. I decided to look up some other nodes in District 3 to see if that was the case and unfortunately it isn't. I found nodes in North Raleigh that have Reedy Creek, Dillard Drive and Weatherstone as some of their choices. How does that make any sense?

The choices often varied a lot for people who lived fairly close to each other. I found 2 nodes that were a perfect example of this and mapped them in google. The green and blue push pins represent an address and the matching colored teardrops represent the elementary schools those addresses each have to pick from. The two red teardrops are schools that each address has in common: Wildwood Forest and Durant Elementary.



View Farmlea Cir & Riverside in a larger map


Why are the options so different for these two nodes that are directly across the road from each other? This illustrates to me that it will be so easy for WCPSS to manipulate your choices in this plan to steer you where they want you to go. No longer will we be able to see entire nodes getting moved and question it--it will all be done under cover and we will never know about it.

** Edited to add: These school choices are so ridiculous that Wake Forest Elementary barely even shows up on the map. It's green and is way up at the top.

The Blue Plan Debacle

Following is the letter I sent the Wake County School Board asking them to stop working on the blue plan and get more feedback from parents:

To the Members of the Wake County Board of Education:

On behalf of the parents and taxpayers of Wake County, I request that you immediately stop pursuing the “Choice-Based Plan” (formerly known as the Blue Plan) and begin looking for an alternative model that meets the true needs and desires of Wake Schools families. From the beginning, you’ve forced the public into a false choice between the "Blue Plan" and “Green Plan”, ignoring common sense approaches. Thursday night’s information session made it clear to me that this plan will not be ready for implementation in a few months as planned. After the never ending controversy and upheaval we experienced with previous assignment policy, it should be clear to you that any new assignment plan must have transparency to be successful. Under this controlled choice model, parents may not get their first, second or even third choice in this plan and they will never know why. We need an assignment plan that addresses the core principles that voters have asked for, including base assignments to schools which are reasonably close to home, magnet and calendar choice options for those that seek alternatives to their base school, diversion of transportation spending back into the classroom, and simplicity in how the plan is administered.

Consider the following:

• The public has insufficient information to evaluate these options. How many students live within 1.5 miles of each school? How many have each school as their closest school? Where are the maps illustrating these numbers?
  

• The Blue Plan is overly complex and is lacking in the transparency in assignment decisions that voters demanded in the 2009 elections.

• You asked parents if choice was important and they responded with a resounding ‘yes’, but you failed to ask the critical questions: Do parents really want to choose from 5 base schools? Or do they want a choice of calendar and magnet programs? You must answer these crucial questions before proceeding any further. Rather than asking parents what they want, it seems the question was designed to fit the plan that staff already had in mind.

• Feeder patterns are disruptive in many areas.

• The proposed assignment model may result in bus transportation to numerous non-magnet ‘base’ schools being provided to students living on the same street. We simply cannot afford to spend money on school buses instead of teachers in this challenging economic environment.

• The model’s use of “achievement schools” is perilously close to repeating the mistakes made by previous school boards: attempting to use an assignment plan to address an educational issue – something Wake County voters resoundingly rejected in 2009.

• In Cambridge, MA, which uses a similar controlled choice model, only 83% of families received their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice for the school year 2009-10. What factors contributed to this and could that be repeated here in Wake County?

• Transportation costs have still not been calculated for the plan and one Student Assignment Task Force member expressed concern that those costs will ‘blow up the plan’.

• Magnet programs and how they fit in the assignment model have not been adequately discussed and neither have our new ‘themed’ schools. We cannot develop a lasting student assignment plan without an objective review of those schools and their roles in the system.

Once again, the needs of parents and students have been forgotten, and your “Blue Plan” only takes us further from a path to a sensible assignment model. Please don’t waste any more time and resources toward developing this flawed model. The results of the Blue Plan "test drive" made it clear that the factors most valued by parents were proximity and calendar choice. We only have one chance to get this right. For the time being, let’s focus on fixing any onerous school assignments remaining from the previous assignment policy and let’s have a discussion about magnet programs and themed schools. Staff should be able to quickly develop a sensible assignment model which reflects the desires of Wake County parents and taxpayers in a transparent and user-friendly manner.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mansfield
Wake County taxpayer, parent of 2 WCPSS students, and long time advocate for equity in Wake Schools

Speaking Out About the Blue Plan

I spoke at the July 12 BOE meeting to share some thoughts about the Blue Plan. You can hear my comments here at the 29:30 mark.

What are your thoughts? Are there too many choices? Are your choices different enough to matter? Do you just want to go to closest school or do you have a reason for wanting a different school? I'd love to hear your thoughts. You can comment here on the blog or email me privately at voiceforequity@gmail.com.

Rick & Donna Martinez: Rick & Donna 07/28/11

Rick & Donna Martinez: Rick & Donna 07/28/11: "School Board candidate Jennifer Mansfield comes in-studio to tell her plans for Wake Co. Schools. MP3 File"

Blue Plan--What's Missing?

Before the BOE votes on which of the two plans to pursue, they really need to take some time to think about what information is missing from these plans. There are several pieces of information that I would like to see released and questions answered so we can better understand how the plan will affect each of us.

Proximity & Capacity

• How many students live within 1.5 miles of each school?
• Maps showing each school's 1.5 mile assignment area.
• How many students have each school as their 'closest' school?
• Maps showing each school's 'closest school' assignment area.
• How many seats are available in each school? How is that capacity determined? Will capacity be manipulated to ensure achievement balance?
• How many 'achievement choice' seats are being set aside in each school?
• Maps for each achievement school showing which low performing nodes have that school as an achievement option.
• Maps for each school showing which nodes have that school as one of their base options.
• Which schools have enough capacity (after the achievement seats are set aside) to accommodate all the children living within 1.5 miles? Which can accommodate all children who have each school as their closest? How many seats are left over at each school after accommodating all 'closest' and 'achievement' students?
  

Magnets

• What is the percentage of magnets seats set aside for magnet application students? Will it be the same percentage for each magnet school? If not, how will the percentage be determined for each magnet? Currently, magnets range from about 7% to 73% magnet application students.
  
• How will the magnets located in higher wealth areas be handled? We currently have several magnets that have their low income students bused in from outside the surrounding base nodes. Those are also the magnets that have experienced overcrowding and lowered the number of magnet acceptances to deal with that crowding.
• How will magnet seats be doled out? Will it be a true lottery? The green plan mentions using achievement as the criteria but there is no mention of any criteria at all in the blue plan. (Unless I am missing something--I looked and looked. If I'm wrong, somebody please point it out to me!)
  
• "In addition, a set percentage of non-magnet school seats will be reserved to accommodate calendar and achievement choices for students living in close proximity to magnet schools". What exactly does this mean? Are there seats set aside in each of the non-magnet choices on their list? What percentage?
• Is there enough room for all students who live near magnet schools to get a traditional calendar? Is there enough room in their proximate school options for all who want to stay close to home? Washington Terrace students (node 76), for example, are given the following elementary school choices (in proximity order): Hunter, Powell, Olds, Green, Dillard & Weatherstone. Hunter and Powell are both magnets with a limited amount of seats available to area students and Olds is one of our smallest elementary schools. How many students living in node 76 can be placed in those 3 schools? Green is Year Round, which has proven to be unpopular with lower income families. That leaves Dillard and Weatherstone as their remaining 2 traditional options; Dillard is about 6 miles away and Weatherstone is 16 miles away. I fear that low income children will still be bused far away for 'balance' whether they want to be or not.

Calendar

• What will be done to ensure calendar choice for people who only have one traditional or year round choice in their list of schools? If the only school with the calendar you desire is not your closest school, what are the chances you will get in?
• Will track continuity be guaranteed for elementary and middle school? The plan states ". . . track preferences will not be guaranteed other than the assurance that families with more than one student in a year-round school will be guaranteed track continuity within the family." Does that mean more than one student in a particular year round school or more than one student on the year round calendar? I would assume that it would be the latter but I have learned over the years that you can't assume anything.
  

Achievement

• Will we have access to achievement scores for all schools, with the data for each component of the calculation? Is it possible that an achievement school can be failing its low achieving students?
• Will feeder patterns be logical or will they be developed with achievement balance in mind? For instance, will a high performing, sought after elementary feed into a lower performing under enrolled middle school to increase achievement? Will a low performing elementary school feed into a high achieving middle school for balance?
• If parents do not participate in the choice process, where will they be sent? The plan states "Families who decline to make selections will be assigned to a school by the school system based on available seats consistent with the overall intentions of the plan". Will they be assigned to one of the base schools on their list or could they be placed anywhere the system wants to send them for achievement balance? If the latter is the case, then there isn't much incentive for WCPSS to promote parent participation.
  

It's Official!

I am very excited to announce that I have decided to run for School Board in District 3! If you are interested in helping me in my campaign, please contact me at: jennifer@mansfieldforwakeschools.com or 696.7247. As many of you know, monetary donations are important, but volunteers have just as much, if not more, impact in an election. Any level of support is greatly appreciated. I'd also love to hear your input on the issues that face District 3 and WCPSS as a whole.

Jennifer Mansfield Will Run For Wake
County School Board District 3

Jennifer Mansfield will file with the Wake County Board of Elections to run for the District 3 Wake County School Board seat in the October 11th, 2011 election.

A founding member of the Wake Schools Community Alliance, Mansfield began her involvement in Wake County educational issues by exposing the shortcomings and limitations of previous board assignment policies, leading to the launch of her blog, www.voiceforequity.com. She is known across Wake County for her willingness to help parents understand and navigate the magnet application process, and for her depth of knowledge in matters of assignment and academic achievement. A regular contributor at school board meetings and community forums, Jennifer has earned a reputation as a pragmatic bridge-builder, willing to consider facts and opinions from all sides of an issue.

Families and schools in District 3 are each faced with unique challenges:

• The pains families feel in calendar continuity and stability of assignments
• The pressures associated with high population growth
• The frustrations and negative impacts of schools enrolled both under and over capacity

“Every day, I hear from my neighbors and fellow residents of District 3 that our voices are unheard and our concerns are not represented. I intend to change that and bring a passionate advocacy to the school board on behalf of our students, their families, and taxpayers across District 3 and the wider county”, states Mansfield.

While Wake County has made some good progress toward community schools and calendar choice over the past two years, too often our school board has let partisan politics get in the way of doing what’s best for our children. This year’s election gives the voters of District 3 a chance to tell the school board that we are tired of the politics and political maneuvering, and that we want leaders who are beholden to the students and to the voters, not to party politics. Jennifer is an Independent voter and a dedicated supporter of community-based schools and academic excellence. Mansfield notes, “Wake County voters have grown tired of school board members bickering, of issues with high school accreditation, and of the politicization of our school system. For me, politics are--and should forever be--irrelevant in school board proceedings. We need to focus on our core mission: providing excellent educational opportunities and building a track-record of increased student achievement. I’ll bring a students-first approach to the school board, and become the voice of the many Wake County parents who want education, not politics in our schools.”

Jennifer Mansfield’s priorities for Wake County schools include:

• Improving calendar choice and calendar continuity
• Establishing a strong baseline of academic opportunity and rigor in each and every school.
• Responsible stewardship of school funding, with the willingness to ask for what’s needed to fund a world-class school system.
• Finding and implementing programs that improve academic performance for our struggling students.
• Maintaining strong magnet schools with a renewed focus on ensuring all students an equal opportunity to benefit from the programs
• Ensuring that each school is led by an effective Principal.

A parent of two students in Wake County Public Schools, Jennifer has volunteered at her children’s schools in many different capacities. She considers her involvement as a coach and coordinator with the “Odyssey of the Mind” programs at Joyner and Wildwood Forest Elementary Schools as her most rewarding contributions to date. In addition, Jennifer continues to be active in Wake Schools Community Alliance, which is a grass roots, non-partisan organization of parents and stakeholders across Wake County committed to community-based schools that make academics a top priority.

Jennifer Mansfield will be reaching out to Democrats, Republicans and Independents across District 3 and the rest of Wake County, to ask for their support in the October 11th School Board election. If you have any questions or would like to get on board with Mansfield’s campaign, please contact her directly using the above email address or telephone number.

Magnet Lottery 2011

So what are your chances for getting into a magnet school next year? If WCPSS uses the same criteria as last year, they will be as follows:

Rounds 1 and 2: Your base school must have a current crowding factor at least 95% of the adjusted building capacity. Round 1 is for applicants who submitted an application for the same program last year.

Adams YR
Apex
Aversboro
Baileywick
Baucom
Brassfield YR
Brentwood magnet
Briarcliff
Brooks magnet
Cary
Cedar Fork
Combs magnet
Davis Drive
Dillard Drive
Douglas magnet
Durant Road YR
Farmington Woods magnet
Forest Pines
Forestville Road
Fuller magnet
Green Hope
Heritage YR
Hodge Road YR
Holly Springs YR
Hunter magnet
Jeffreys Grove
Jones Dairy YR
Joyner magnet
Kingswood
Lockhart YR
Lynn Road
Millbrook magnet
Mills Park
North Forest Pines YR
North Ridge
Northwoods
Oak Grove YR
Olds
Partnership magnet
Poe magnet
Powell magnet
Root
Stough
Swift Creek
Underwood magnet
Wake Forest
Washington magnet
Wiley magnet
Yates Mill

Carnage magnet
Centennial magnet
Davis Drive
Dillard Drive
Fuquay-Varina
Heritage YR
Leesville Road
Ligon magnet
Martin magnet
Wake Forest-Rolesville
Wakefield

Athens Drive
Broughton
Cary
East Wake School of Arts, Education & Global Studies
Enloe magnet
Garner magnet
Green Hope
Holly Springs
Leesville Road
Millbrook magnet
Panther Creek
Sanderson
Wake Forest-Rolesville

Round 3: Base school must have a current crowding factor of 90% or greater.

Brier Creek YR
Carpenter YR
Conn magnet
Fuquay-Varina
Lacy
Leesville Road
Morrisville YR
Pleasant Union YR
Rolesville
Sycamore Creek YR
Turner Creek YR
Vance YR
Vandora Springs
Wildwood Forest

Apex MS
East Millbrook magnet
Reedy Creek

Apex HS
East Wake School of Engineering Systems
East Wake School of Health Science
Fuquay-Varina


Round 4: Base school must have a current crowding factor of 85% or greater.

Bugg magnet
Fox Road
Holly Ridge
Laurel Park YR
Lead Mine
Middle Creek YR
Olive Chapel YR
Timber Drive YR
West Lake YR
Wilburn YR

Durant Road YR
Lufkin Road YR
Moore Square magnet
West Lake YR
West Millbrook

Knightdale HS
Middle Creek
SE Raleigh magnet


Last 10% Round: 10% of magnet seats are reserved for students applying from schools with less a crowding factor less than 85%

Alston Ridge 42.7% YR
Ballentine 81.3% YR
Banks Road 61.6% YR
Barwell Road 79.5% YR
Carver 71.7%
Creech Road 74.3%
East Garner 76.5% YR
Green 72.8% YR
Harris Creek 71.4% YR
Herbert Akins 71.1% YR
Highcroft Drive 71.9% YR
Hilburn 68.3%
Holly Grove 78.1% YR
Knightdale 80.2%
Lake Myra 52.5% YR
Lincoln Heights 58.6%
Penny Road 83.7%
Rand Road 67.9% YR
Reedy Creek 68.1%
River Bend 61% YR
Salem 83.7% YR
Sanford Creek 83.7% YR
Smith 79.9% magnet
Wakefield 76.9% YR
Wakelon 79.6%
Weatherstone 72%
Wendell 79% magnet
Willow Springs 81.9% YR
York 72%
Zebulon 79.9% magnet

Carroll 79.7%
Daniels 80.9%
East Cary 63.2% YR
East Garner 84.2% magnet
East Wake 71.7% YR
Holly Grove 58.3% YR
Holly Ridge 79.3%
Mills Park 84%
North Garner 81.6% YR
Salem 84% YR
Wendell 80.8%
West Cary 60%
Zebulon 57.9% magnet

East Wake School of Integrated Technology 74.8%
Heritage 48.9%
Wakefield 82.9%

A Partial Victory

As you may know, WCPSS changed the magnet lottery last year to remove the F&R status of your node and your assigned school. This was a great step towards making the magnet lottery a fair process for all students, but it is still not a true lottery. Your base school's crowding percentage is what determines whether or not you get into a magnet school now. While I do understand the reasoning behind this, we need to give all of our students an equal chance to take advantage of these amazing opportunities.

In addition to wanting an equal shot for each student, I'm concerned that the capacity numbers being used to determine your fate are not accurate. I spoke at the last board meeting and gave 3 examples of schools whose numbers were a bit misleading.

Daniels Middle School is listed by WCPSS as being at 81% of capacity, which would place Daniels in the last 10% round. But at a recent work session, that capacity was called into question. It seems that while Daniels has extra classroom capacity, they do not have cafeteria capacity to handle that many students.

Wakefield High School is listed at 83% of capacity, but much of that extra space is unused trailers that are going to be moved. I don't think that a date has been set for moving them, but it was pretty clear at that same work session that they have no intention of using those trailers anytime soon.

Wakefield Elementary School was one of the 22 schools converted to the year round calendar and has been under capacity ever since. It is currently at 77% capacity and the BOE has declined to convert it back to traditional, citing the need to save that capacity for future growth. In the meantime, those students are penalized in the magnet application process.

See for the facilities utilization report that lists the capacity and student population figures for each school.

Please send an email to the board members asking for a true lottery. All of our students deserve an equal chance to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that magnet schools provide.