What's the question; what's the answer?

In 2009, the parents of Wake County spoke. They elected a majority on theWCPSS School Board who supported the end to the mindless reassignment of their children. These School Board members bravely broke the mold after decades of diversity busing. Busing that not only adversely affected the education of suburban students but was eventually proven by WCPSS itself to have no positive impact on the education of the poor students targeted for those long distance assignments. After a few immediate and key resignations and retirements, many doors were opened to the changes needed in our school system.

The assignment policy was amended. Diversity goals were removed. An emphasis was placed on the educational needs of students and the involvement of parents. After years of mandatory year-round assignments and families split by school calendars, choice was resurrected. The ’09 School Board members ran on a platform of providing the necessary resources to students – not busing students for diversity under the guise of a better education. Their policies promoted stability, community involvement, and predictability in assignment in their attempt to create a school system that was responsive not critical.

But that didn’t last long.

Some were outraged at the very thought of removing diversity as a goal in assignment. They did all they could to create and spread fear around our community of what could happen. They painted their own message in the media of resegregation and the isolation of minorities. In 2011, a new majority-Democratic Board was elected to save and restore diversity.

So how is it that just last week the N&O published in an article that states the number of high-poverty schools has more than doubled under the direction of the new School Board? Let that sink in….more than doubled – from 18 to 46. Twelve WCPSS schools now have populations of more than 70% low-income students. There were none under the ’09 Board.

The current School Board has had five years to undo the changes they deemed as “destructive” and “racist” and yet have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Not only have they not taken any action on the changes made back in ’09, their inaction and apathy have done more to make their fears a reality than anything else. And their friends - who raised a ruckus and feigned concern about the “loss” of diversity - are now silent and uninterested because their Democratic friends are faithfully leading the charge.

Or are they?

The N&O editorial this past weekend addresses this issue. It questions these numbers but it totally misses the mark. The question we should be asking is not “Do we pursue diversity or do we let segregation return?” That is a lazy, simple-minded question and only serves to create the same fearful rhetoric we heard years ago.

What we should be asking is “What can we do to improve education for every child in Wake County?” It’s a tough question with many answers and just as many opinions. I agree that we are at a crossroads as a county and community. But diversity is not it. There are so many others ways to improve education and address the needs of our students than assignment. There are better conversations to have. Our crossroads is ensuring we don’t go back to the way it was.

Although our current School Board has managed to create a school system that reflects exactly what they claimed they were against, we simply can’t let the diversity pendulum swing completely back.

D before E

Have you ever wondered if diversity really trumps education in Wake County? I mean, honestly... you can read my posts from the past two years and listen to my opinion but I'm sure you've thought: 

"Yeah, yeah. You're just political and hate this School Board" or 

"My kids are fine. Diversity is a good thing (as long as we don't get reassigned)." or 

(in a whisper...) "That woman is crazy."

Well, I feel your pain. This School Board has not made it easy. In the past 3 years, they have made many damaging decisions (like going through 4 superintendents in 2 years) and many non-decisions (uh, after 3 years and whole lotta talking, still no assignment plan?).

But, are they really so focused on creating diversity in our schools that the educational needs of our students run a far second?

Here's some clarity. 

Last week, the N&O had an article about the WCPSS School Board ending a successful and effective program that was running at 5 low-income schools in Wake County.  While Mr. Literal, aka School Board Jim Martin, tried to berate the N&O and claim that the Board never canceled this program, the reality is the funding has ended and this program, one that has helped thousands of low-income children, is over. Don't let Mr. Martin's patronizing twist on the truth make you believe otherwise. 

In the end, the program was ended because this Board doesn't like helping all sorts of poor kids together in one school. In the Board's opinion, it's wrong for poor families to choose to attend school together and then have the school system provide extra resources to help their children. The success of that program isn't what's important to them. The diversity of that school is important. Diversity over education.

But, do you care? After all, not my children.

So, let's talk about something that you might care about. Something that really speaks to the Board's one and only concern: diversity.

At their last work session (the meeting before the official Board meeting), there was a discussion about the placement of the new schools that will be built from the 2013 bond money. You know, the bond you voted for last year because "it's for the children".

WCPSS staff has been working to identify areas to build schools around the county in order to best serve the growing population of Wake County. To make it easy, I'll recap that discussion for those of you who live in SW Wake. 

Here's what your unsympathetic and magnet-focused School Board member Susan Evans had to say:

"We've been having various other conversations about student assignment and the magnet program and I think this is probably a good time for us to put it out there on the table. We have to be forward thinking about all of that stuff and I don't know what the decent answers are but, I've said this before and I'll say it again."

Here it comes, people...

"While I understand that the density of new neighborhoods is strong along that Western corridor and will be strong along the most Southern corridor, so that looks like that's our immediate need, I have a concern from a long-term perspective that, in 20 years when those neighborhoods have aged up and we've got a bazillion schools around the perimeter of the county, is that going to serve us well? We need to think globally about the positioning of schools with long-term in mind and build more towards the center of [the county]."

Globally? Uh, ok. So, even though we have been recognized as the fastest growing area of the county...  And, even though you have been told by Susan Evans that you matter and she will work for your family and your children...  And, even though you honestly believed that your support of the 2013 school bond would result in new schools in your crowded neighborhood...  Even though there is an "immediate need" (her words, not mine) for schools in our district, we're not going to get them.

As quoted in the N&O, "It’s easier to assign children to schools in the central areas of the county to balance population and diversity than to send them to schools farther away."

Let me say that in plain English. 

Schools will be built closer to Raleigh so diversity will be easier to achieve. And your kids are the next pawns in that system.

So, the joke's on you. Do you care now?


 

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/21/3954206/wake-county-leaders-debate-where.html?sp=/99/102/110/112/#storylink=cpy

Happy Holidays! You don't matter.

WCPSS just responded in writing to a complaint filed with AdvancED - the organization that accredits our high schools. In the original complaint, the Wake County Taxpayers' Association asserted that the liberal group Great Schools in Wake (GSIW) is basically pulling the strings on the School Board. Considering 3 of our current Board members are members of GSIW, it's not really a hard puzzle to put together.

GSIW wanted to end the choice plan. Done.  
GSIW wanted to go back to base assignments. Done.
GSIW hated Tata and wanted him fired. Done.
GSIW wants diversity quotas in assignment. Coming in the 2014-15 assignment plan. 

Not surprisingly, WCPSS claims in their response that the Choice plan was not dropped due to "extreme influence" from GSIW but due to the "...many complaints they received from constituents...". That's quite an ironic statement since the overwhelming majority of people who spoke out against the Choice plan wanted MORE choice and better defined neighborhood schools. Instead, the Dems on the school board voted to end choice and move backwards for a "do over" of past assignment plans. 

So, did the Democrats on the School Board really vote to drop the Choice plan because people complained? C'mon. Parents complained for years under the old assignment plan about reassignment, lack of stability, odious options and mandatory year-round to no avail. Maybe it's who you are - not what you're complaining about. Or maybe the Democrats on the School Board don't give a damn about what parents want - just what they (and GSIW) want.

Take, for instance, a reply from Kevin Hill - who was the Board Chair that led the charge to fire Supt. Tata without cause. In an email reply to a constituent in regards to Tata's firing, Hill said:

"My main and overarching concern is the institutional culture of the WCPSS.. I have 30+ years being part of that culture and I cannot let it erode further."

Protecting the institutional culture of WCPSS? I thought Hill was elected to serve the people of Wake County -- to listen to the people; to represent the people - not the school system.

Add this to Hill's email in which he calls parents selfish and arrogant, and it's very clear that you don't matter - you never did and you never will. Hill's head is buried in 30+ years of a culture that treats parents like the enemy and our children as pawns in a science experiment gone wrong. And he is making policy decisions to protect that culture - with complete disregard for what parents want. That makes GSIW very, very happy.

But let's not stop there.  

Back in April 2012, Jim Martin sent an email to all Board members discussing the parent survey about the Choice plan. (Yes, there was supposed to be a survey.) Once again, in true fashion, Kevin Hill replied - but only to Martin:

To: James Martin/Superintendent/WCPSS@Staff
From: Kevin Hill/Superintendent/WCPSS
Date: 04/30/2012 03:08PM

Subject: Re: Assignment Plan Survey

Jim,

I do not believe we need to survey parents at this time . . . . We can talk.

Kevin L. Hill, Chairman
Wake County Board of Education
District 3
Email: KLHill@wcpss.net
Vmail: 919.850.8867
Fax: 919.841.4377 

 

"We can talk" for Kevin Hill is code for "Quit sending me stuff in writing. Let's just deal with this privately." Martin concurred and Hill sent back this warning in his reply:

From: "Kevin Hill" <klhill@wcpss.net>
To: "James Martin" <jmartin4@wcpss.net>
Date: 5/1/2012 8:36:47 AM
Subject: Re: Assignment Plan Survey

At this point, I believe the oft repeated phrase "Just say no," would be appropriate. We will waste money and the 95% (?) who did not participate will say they love the plan. The survey would simply become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kevin L. Hill, Chairman
Wake County Board of Education
District 3
Email: KLHill@wcpss.net
Vmail: 919.850.8867
Fax: 919.841.4377  

The Board Chair was so convinced that parents would say "they love the plan" that he refused to survey them. That's right. He refused to ask parents of Wake County about the Choice plan because he already knew the answer - and he didn't like it.

Now, go back to the beginning of this post - where the Board majority tries to convince the public that the Choice plan was dropped due to complaints from parents and GSIW has no influence on their decision. It's getting harder to believe, isn't it?

Bottom line - the Democrats on the School Board believe your opinion about choice, stability and the school assignment for your child is irrelevant. 

But, you've already learned that. I hope.

Your future is your past

Have you seen your future?

WCPSS has posted the recommendations for the "bridge" plan for 2013-14. And it provides some very good insight into what is coming down the pike with the BIG reassignment plan in 2014-15. 

If you didn't know already, the new Board majority voted to move back to base assignments - which caused great disruption and upheaval to our children and families for the past decade - rather than continue with the Choice Plan, which promoted proximity and promised stability. And, yes, nodes are back too.

In a quick reading, here are some things we all should be concerned about:

1. Anyone can choose to move back to their base assignment based on their 2011 node assignment. Or can they? In the proposal, it states: "Students participating in the Base Declaration will have a guaranteed seat at their base school for the new school year."

Sounds great! But, wait...there's more. 

 "Unless the school becomes fully capped based on numbers requesting to return to their base school." Huh? That's a guarantee? Some will get their base assignment; some will not. How is that any different than not receiving your first choice, which the anti-Tata's so whined about as a problem with the choice plan?

2. This proposal includes a stay-where-you-start policy. The Dem majority on the Board have touted the implementation of this sort of policy in their push back to base assignments. In his editorial rant, Kevin Hill referred to this new policy as a way to provide stability. Well, what he didn't say is that this Board's version of stability will not, in most cases, come with bus transportation. Read it and weep.

3. Those who participated in the Choice Plan last year are now being told that their promised feeder patterns "...will be honored, to the extent possible." Doesn't sound promising, does it? And, once again, your choice to maintain that feeder pattern may not come with transportation.

Keep in mind -- this is just the beginning. This proposal mostly addresses the opening of a few new schools. Next year, the Board will address what they have coined as "hot spots" across the county - and more than likely use the same guidelines as listed in this proposal.

No bus, no choice, no stability, and no recourse. Welcome back to 2008.

Out of focus

Let me start out by saying that I believe assignment - and how students are assigned - should have nothing to do with achievement. For decades, the solution to addressing student achievement in WCPSS was always to fall back on student assignment. If a school wasn't performing, students were moved to other schools to make the school "healthy" once again. That solution didn't actually do anything positive to the education of those who were moved - you simply can't make a child smarter or perform better just by reassigning them. But, it made some people feel good. Really good. It was a cheap, feel-good way to perpetuate the awards for diversity and the perception of "no bad schools". It also, however, created much unnecessary instability, did nothing to improve achievement and ticked off many parents royally.

WCPSS was on its way to untangling assignment from achievement with the new Choice Assignment Plan. All parents were given choice - with a mix of proximity, calendar, and magnets. All families were promised stability at every school level and a predictable future as their children aged up. Plain and simple - this plan provided what parents wanted for their children and families -- and had little to do with raising achievement.

As a result of this new focus, Supt. Tata and his staff have worked to understand the educational needs of different schools and students and have implemented academic solutions to address achievement -- and we are now seeing very successful results. Just last week, the NC Department of Public Instruction released performance data for Wake County schools -- and the results are incredible. There have been gains across the district - at many schools and subgroups. (You can look up your school here.)

So, rather than fret over the demographics of a school and how to create and maintain a utopian mixture of students, it's obvious that our focus should remain on how each school population could be served better academically. We've seen the success - and it could be only the beginning.

Instead, however, the School Board has thumbed their noses at parents and chose to direct staff to link assignment with achievement once again. They didn't even wait to see how many more successes could be achieved. The new Choice Assignment Plan has been nixed (without even getting a chance) and we're moving back to "healthy" schools, set aside seats for certain types of student, limited choice and quotas for every school.

Back to a system that believes assignment and "diversity" will magically increase achievement. In reality, it will only serve to make the Democratic Board members feel good about themselves. After all, that's all it's done in the past.

Were you even awake?

Well, Wake County, here's what you elected.

The School Board waited until 12:53 A.M. (yes, A.M.) to rush through a vote -- without public input -- that will drastically alter the new choice assignment plan. 

You know, the plan that our superintendent and staff have worked on for the past 2 years, the plan where everyone has already made their choices for next year, the plan that gave our families choice and our children stability, the plan that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. 

And guess what? They have directed staff to go back to a multi-year, node-driven assignment plan that incorporates socioeconomic and academic achievement goals. 

Gosh, that sounds awfully familiar. 

During the meeting on Tuesday (and into Wednesday) and just before voting on the directive that will probably reassign your child, School Board member Susan Evans felt it was important to remind everyone who she is and what she thinks of us -- in her usual arrogant and condescending fashion.

"While I acknowledge that, first of all, the Raleigh Chamber and the Wake Ed Partnership are valuable partners in our community, and I respect the input of all citizens, at these board meetings on the blogs, wherever they choose to give their input, I just wanted to remind Ms. Prickett and the board that we are the elected officials charged with making these important decisions on behalf of the school system."

In other words, everyone can go pound sand.

Wake Education Partnership called this vote a "...late-night, partisan debate..." with the "...abscence of a collaborative approach."

The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce also issued a statement to the School Board warning them -- and reminding them of the past: 

"Based on our research we believe that an address based approach advocated in the directive will require mandatory assignment to fill schools." "With a sizeable majority of parents satisfied with the current choice plan we anticipate a change will create disruption among a new group of stakeholders."

Disruption is putting it mildly.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/greater-raleigh-chamber-of-commerce-disappointed-in-wake-county-school-boards-student-assignm#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/greater-raleigh-chamber-of-commerce-disappointed-in-wake-county-school-boards-student-assignm#storylink=cpy

So, where do we stand now? That's a good question. Some are claiming this was merely a directive; others are calling this the creation of a new plan for 2013-14. Regardless of what this turns out to be (and, let's be honest -- this really is a return to the days of yearly reassignments), you should be awake and be concerned.

This is just another step in the wrong direction.

That's what friends are for

Now wait just a minute.

Board member Jim Martin said what?

Martin said the provost of N.C. State asked him to help out.

For May 29th's policy committee meeting, Martin, the chair of that committee, added an agenda item to discuss "Student Assignment for Extended Family Professional Leave". And then, at the meeting, proceeded to talk about how to create a policy specifically to serve his colleagues at NCSU.

Is this really a pressing issue? Well, for Mr. Martin, a professor at NCSU, it is. After all, this is his employer we're talking about.

I questioned Mr. Martin about the unethical nature of creating a policy to serve his friends and co-workers at the request of his boss. His response, in a nutshell, was..."The Provost is not my boss."

Martin goes on to say in his email..."You must realize that NCSU is one of the large employers of Wake County. It is for that reason that we should pay attention to matters impacting that employer. Careful attention should be paid to policies that impact any of the County's major employers."

He isn't concerned with, as he called them during the committee meeting.."the lowest common denominator". In Martin-speak, that would be those people who aren't as fortunate to have professional opportunities but have to leave the system for a short period for other reasons.

According to Mr. Hui on the WakeED blog.."[Martin contends]...that it's not equitable to say that because famlies of transient students have less resources than professionals that it's a reason not to go ahead with a leave policy."

So, let's boil it down....

Martin isn't concerned about you and me. He isn't concerned about those with less opportunities and less resources. He only wants to serve those he works with, those that attend his son's school and those who are just like him.

So, how do you feel about that? If you work for a major employer...let's say...NSCU, for example... Mr. Martin will pay careful attention to you and your children. He'll work to create policies to help you to ensure you're happy.

If you don't, well, you know...

You're an afterthought. After MYR and years of reassignment, it's an attitude those of us in Apex are familiar with.

It appears that attitude is making a comeback.

Ethics, schmethics

Do you remember when Susan Evans was questioned about her continued involvement with GSIW? In this email, she claimed:

"I am neither actively involved in their [GSIW's] activities, nor am I given any advance notice of the content or distribution of their press releases."

Hmmm. Really?

So, how does GSIW already know what is going to happen at the June 5th Board meeting?  

Here's an email I just received:

From: Calla Wright <ccaac_aacca@yahoo.com>

Subject: [CoalitionofConcernedCitizensforAfricanAmericanChildren] Fw: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED

Date: May 20, 2012 4:25:20 PM EDT

To: coalitionofconcernedcitizensforafricanamericanchildren@yahoogroups.com

Cc: parentsfordiversity@yahoogroups.com

--- On Sat, 5/19/12, yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com> wrote:

From: yevonne brannon <ybrannon@gmail.com>
Subject: May Meeting Notes, YOUR HELP NEEDED
To:
Date: Saturday, May 19, 2012, 11:11 AM

I am very sorry that you missed our meeting on Tuesday.  Your help is needed!!

Here are the meeting notes.  Please review and let us know how you can help.  ACTIVATE your friends to join you!  It is very important NOT to stand down in the month of June!! We still have many opportunities to make a difference! Some of  the critical decisions facing the board in June---from the magnet study results, the results of round one and two of assignment plan, to voting on the budget, and directives needed NOW for the 2013 Student assignment plan—let’s make sure we have a strong voice at the June 5 and June 19 board meetings.

 

Work to DO: 

1.  JUNE 5 Board Meeting: We are going ALL out to get a lot of speakers at this meeting.  We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN.  We need everyone to show up and speak.  We can help you with speeches. PLEASE talk to Amy W and Lynn and coordinate this effort.  Here’s the bottom line: June 5 will be the last board meeting before school is out.  We need to let the BOE know how well they did this school year!! GIVE them their Grade for the school year, did they pass?? Did they make appropriate progress in a year?  Come on, this could be fun!!!!  (other topics include the budget, the transportation mess, the horrid behavior of the feeble four, the horrid CHOICE plan in summary, the need for NEW PLAN directive for staff to start working on now!)

2. Research:

1)      Amy Lee is working on the update on Round Two of the student assignment results. Patty is working on the web site update and on various fact sheets.  Please contact Patty if you can help with the fact sheets.

2)      Call/email Amy Lee and Sharon if you can help with the IMPACT of the Choice Plan on our schools.  This is critical research and will help us in other legal actions.

 

3. Letters to the Editor: Please consider drafting a ton of LTES right away on the following three topics:

1)      Lack of transportation for those assigned without transportation. This is just as wrong as the Unassigned.  If you were an unassigned, then you will especially understand this issue. Use the I contact today to draft a short LTE.

2)      Let’s find a better way:  NEED a lot of push as the next school board meeting (JUNE 5) to MAKE A NEW PLAN for 2013.  Start by getting a lot of LTEs on asking for a directive that stops using the CHOICE proximity model and starts using a RESIDENCEY based assignment plan.  We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs.  If you draft, send to Patty who will edits and give to Amy W and Lynn to get published. 

3)      VALUE of magnet schools.  Clearly, magnet schools are under attack.  PLEASE take the survey and write an LTE supporting the many important objectives of the magnet program. See I contact you received for points to make.

 4.  TAKE THE SURVEY on Magnets:

1)      Yes, this is not appropriate to have a thrown together –shallow survey—only online!! But we need to make sure it is balanced in the responses.  Please get your pta to print copies or your church/synagogue and get those mailed in to central office.

2)      Make sure you add in the comments how unfair and hasty this approach to magnet reviews is and how it is not ethical to continue to attack one of our best options at attempting to keep our schools well utilized and balanced.

5.  Let’s Find a Better way.org :  Please keep putting in your stories here—this is our way to document the tragedy of the Choice Plan.  Let your contacts know of this web site.

September 29, 2012 FORUM: We are planning a statewide forum for this date.  Working title: Protecting the Public in Public Education, or Public Education is the Better Way or something positive but urgent about how we need to fight against the attacks on Public Education (lack of funding, charter schools, vouchers/tax credits for private schools, revitalization of schools services, the reformers etc.)  If you have suggestions for focus of workshop, speakers etc. please let Patty or me know ASAP. We have started a planning committee---are you interested in helping?  This will be done with GSNC (now Public Education First).

 

6.  UPDATES:

Great Schools in NC has changed to a new name due to issues with domain names/searches etc. We will now be called Public Education First.  We have new web site, Public Education First.org 

More details later.  We will have work to do in changing out our current web and face book page.  We are still seeking funding.  We had a great one day retreat this week and hope to see more progress on this statewide effort soon.  If you want to work on this project, let me know. Also, please nominate names or organizations of folks across the state who should be involved in this coalition of individuals and groups to advocate for public education. Here is revised draft of the GSNC=PEF mission: Public Education First mobilizes citizens to advocate for a system of high-quality, equitable, and diverse public schools for all North Carolina students.

Lots of work to do, let me know how you can be a part of our important work.

Peace and love, Y

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either Evans or Kushner (maybe both?) are continuing to guide the direction of GSIW and giving insider tips to what they believe are the necessary next steps in stopping the new assignment plan.

Some of these statements are quite particular -- and some use definitive terms.

"We are still working to get the board to at least direct the staff for the 2013 assignment PLAN."

"We need to set the stage for the June 5 meeting with LTEs."

Still working? The 2013 assignment plan? Set the stage? 

Since when is there a 2013 assignment plan? 

Does this mean that the Board majority really is going to completely ignore the cries from parents for a neighborhood school (and choice and stability and predictability) and move back to node-based assignments because that's what GSIW wants? (See my last post.)

Sounds to me like there's been some improper discussions going on. How else would 
Brannon know how to "set the stage" for the next Board meeting?

I think Supt. Tata apologized to these two way too soon. 

Facing reality

Some members of the School Board are now talking about changing the assignment plan. They claim the plan is flawed and needs to be fixed. But, are they really just going to fix what’s not working? Are they really listening to what parents are asking for?

I’ve listened to the relatively few complaints over the past months. Parents – whether they have current WCPSS students, rising K’s, charter, private or home-school students – want a neighborhood school. Some were frustrated that they were left unassigned (and rightly so). But, most of them were concerned over the distance of their assigned school or their feeder pattern schools.

But, the comments made by some School Board members about this plan, once again, seem completely disconnected to reality.

Susan Evans speaks about the new assignment plan in some way at every Board meeting. Most of what she says is to satisfy her friends in the audience – you know, the GSIW crowd. The issues she raises during these soapbox speeches, however, have nothing – nada – zero – to do with the new assignment plan.

She says some parents are unhappy with their predictable feeder patterns because it keeps them in the year-round calendar rather than at a more proximate school. Evans knows full well that the problems we have with YR in our district – and throughout the county – are a direct result of MYR and previous Board’s imbalanced distribution of that calendar.

I completely agree that we are still feeling the aftereffects of MYR in our district – but Evans is intentionally misleading parents by pinning their discontent on the new assignment plan and letting them believe that changing this plan will address their concerns.

At last week’s Board meeting, Christine Kushner indicated she would like to explore a hybrid assignment model for the future – a cross between addressed-based assignments with expanded choice. I’ve written to Ms. Kushner about her comments so she can elaborate but haven’t heard back yet.

After decades of base assigning students and knowing that base assignments WILL LEAD TO REASSIGNMENT, I am baffled that any School Board member would even suggest bringing them back. It may serve to satisfy a few (magnet parents who want to opt back into their neighborhood school, realtors want a school assignment attached to the home) but we all know that base assignments are too rigid for our school system, are unable to effectively address growth, create more problems than they fix and will never be able to provide long-term stability. Who in their right mind would consider bringing them back?

Well, since writing to Ms. Kushner, I found this statement from GSIW and the NC Justice Center from last year which calls for a “fine tune” of the old node system. Both Evans and Kushner were still active leaders in GSIW when this paper was published.

Are these comments about the new assignment plan from Kushner and Evans just another example of GSIW pulling their strings? It’s no secret that GSIW and Evans, in particular, do not like Supt. Tata or this plan. Are these Board members just following their agenda with complete disregard to what parents really want?

Is this School Board interested in facing reality? 

Desperate times

I think we are now witnessing desperation.

The N&O recently ran a couple of columns by Burgetta Eplin Wheeler about how “disturbing”, “confusing and upsetting” the new student assignment plan is. Oh, the drama.

Ms. Wheeler’s first column addresses the “alarm bells” of this plan. She paints a picture of uncertainty and leftovers (not surprisingly, it is mostly magnet-driven fear – as Ms. Wheeler is a magnet parent herself). She ridiculously calls the plan “nearly incomprehensible”. 

I have found that most people who find the plan confusing or “nearly incomprehensible” haven’t taken the time to actually read it. It’s not rocket science. Spend a few minutes reading it, Ms. Wheeler, and check your alarms while you’re at it.

I’m fairly certain that Ms. Wheeler wrote that column to simply taunt parents and taxpayers because opposition to this plan is losing traction. She uses phrases like "casualty count" and "collateral damage" in an attempt to paint a dark picture. Instead, it comes across as a weak last-ditch effort to stop the plan.

Just days later, the N&O published her second column about the plan. In this one, Ms. Wheeler addresses the “mystery” of student assignment as it relates to realtors in Wake County. Somehow Ms. Wheeler managed to find the only 3 realtors in Wake County that have either had their heads in the sand for the past few decades or have been lying repeatedly to each and every home buyer. The realtors claimed they are worried about not having a base assignment to help sell a house. There has never been a guaranteed assignment in Wake County. After decades of yearly reassignments, any realtor that sold a house based on the currently assigned school was being deceitful – and they knew it.

In my opinion, these columns are clear signs of desperation. The so-called pro-diversity groups have lost the battle and they are now losing the war. 

So, where do Brannon and her GSIW cronies fit in? That’s hard to say. They’ve bashed and insulted Supt. Tata, have said this plan was rushed from the beginning and that it’s too confusing to parents, and have even given awards to their School Board friends (Evans & Kushner) in hopes of halting this plan.

Yet, strangely, in today’s N&O article, the leader of GSIW, Yevonne Brannon, states: 

 "A large majority of the folks we are hearing from do not understand this plan; they think it's too complicated; they'd like to go to school closer to where they live, with vibrant options to move out."

Huh? Did she just admit that the parents want to attend a school closer to where they live? A neighborhood school, perhaps?

After two years of protests, disruptions, candlelight vigils, lawsuits and arrests in response to moving WCPSS towards a more family-friendly, proximity-driven assignment plan, Brannon is now asking for a more defined neighborhood model to allow more students the opportunity to attend school close to where they live.

Is this another sign of desperation?

GSIW and the NAACP have lost the diversity battle in Wake County. The election of their leaders hasn’t really panned out. And, most damaging to their rant, parents are speaking loudly that they like this plan -- and those who don’t seem to like it actually want more neighborhood options (as I addressed in a previous post) -- not a return to diversity quotas.

If you ask me - Brannon's comments are just another desperate attempt from a group trying to remain relevant. They no longer have a target on the School Board. Their demons are gone and they have been left with nothing. Their membership is nil and their press releases have become ludicrous. There's nowhere else to go and have now shown they are willing to say anything (even "more neighborhood schools") to have a continued purpose. They are backed into a corner and will say anything just to survive.

I’ve said all along that if you let these people argue long enough, eventually they will end up in support of neighborhood assignments.

I think we might almost be there.