newsobserver.com |WakeEd

Comments:

Comment from: Dallas Woodhouse [Visitor]

10/24/06 at 23:35
It is clear that our message of reform is resonating with parents and the tax
weary public,â€? said Francis De Luca, State Director of Americans for Prosperity
of North Carolina. â€œThe School Board and the bureaucracy have lost the trust and
confidence of parents and taxpayers. Our mission is to support fundamental change
in the current system that will produce better schools and more choices. Defeating
the $1 billion dollar School Bond Tax on November 7, 2006, will force the school
board to open their eyes and consider alternatives to meet the needs of Wake County
students and families including: supporting additional public charter schools, sensible
construction practices, fundamental system reform and opening up to creative solutions
to deal with the challenge of expanding capacity in the school system. While these
poll numbers are encouraging to those who support school reform in Wake County,
we will not rest until the polls close on November 7th

Comment from: Dallas Woodhouse [Visitor]

10/24/06 at 23:36
It is clear that our message of reform is resonating with parents and the tax
weary public, said Francis De Luca, State Director of Americans for Prosperity
of North Carolina. The School Board and the bureaucracy have lost the trust and
confidence of parents and taxpayers. Our mission is to support fundamental change
in the current system that will produce better schools and more choices. Defeating
the $1 billion dollar School Bond Tax on November 7, 2006, will force the school
board to open their eyes and consider alternatives to meet the needs of Wake County
students and families including: supporting additional public charter schools, sensible
construction practices, fundamental system reform and opening up to creative solutions
to deal with the challenge of expanding capacity in the school system. While these
poll numbers are encouraging to those who support school reform in Wake County,
we will not rest until the polls close on November 7th

Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]

10/24/06 at 23:57
I am sure this will quickly become a forum for rhetoric and vitriol befitting a "close to home" issue with a big price tag.

However, this is a great chance to do some education of the public (as opposed to public education - ha!) about surveys and polls in general.

Specifically:
1) Could you publish the +/- for each sub group?
2) Could you publish the question path?
3) Could you publish the response rate?
4) Could you publish the percentage of respondednts who did not complete the survey, and the methods for dealing with incomplete respondednts?
5) Finally, could we bring pressure to bear on the other polling companies to do the same?

As an intial observation, it seems that y'all in Wake won't support anything - not bonds, tax incresae, impact fees, etc. That should make a for a fun next few years.

From a research perspective, this will be a fabulous natural experiment if the bonds do not pass; I suspect someone will reach peer-review glory doing the post mortem: if the bond supporters are right, everything will fall apart. If the bond detractors are right, a bond defeat will release creative, entrepeurial energy and school reform will blossom in Wake. That's a dissertation either way - maybe even a book. Somebody call Gary Orfield and/or Checker Finn!

Sorry for the typos,
GS

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 00:11
GS --

I think a majority would easily favor impact fees -- they shift some of the burden of paying more for schools from the current taxpayers onto those people who aren't here yet. That's a recipe for a political winner -- all the benefit, none of the pain. Unfortunately, they're illegal.

I'm interested in the reasons why people are voting against the bonds. It may be that the same bond amount pushed by a different board with different priorities would be a winner.

Comment from: kay [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 07:46
"It may be that the same bond amount pushed by a different board with different priorities would be a winner."
I think Bob is right. Would love to see the N&O look into this further.

Comment from: no2edicrat [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 08:17
In the N&O today:

"It's frustrating to me that people don't get it," said Ann Goodnight, co-chairwoman of Friends of Wake County, the nonprofit group formed to get the bonds passed. "It shouldn't be an emotional issue."

NO Ann, YOU don't get it. There are parents that are sick and tired of Wake County shuffling their kids off to a socail experiment that has, and is, failing. Teachers are tired of being abused by incompetent administrators in schools where children are used to "see if putting 5 or 6 regular ed students in classes with 30 special needs kids....some of those severe." These groups have had enough. For the record.....this cannot be unemotional. This poll is showing what many of us have already known. Your bond is serious trouble and this mess did not happen over night. This means it will not be fixed over night. When you people GET IT then we can start to fix it. The BoE, WCPSS and the commissioners have turned a deaf ear long enough. It will only be when the loud thud of this bond dropping on the trash heap wakes you up. You have the money and you have the special interest groups and you have the hired croonies ALL payed for with our tax money. We have one thing that you do not have.....THE VOTES!!!!!!!!!!! If this bond (as the poll seems to indicate) to defeat this bond....then guess what is going to happen to you office holders the enxt time you come up for re-election? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?????!!!!!

Comment from: Blog Observer [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 09:44
I thought one of the most exciting things was hearing the school bond proponent on WPTF this morning.

He indicated that if the bond failed we'd have alot of consequences.....one of which might be Wake County Public Schools breaking into smaller districts.

Donna Martinez jumped on it right away...when he realized what he said, he tried to back off from it.

But if the message gets out that WCPSS might get broken up into smaller districts as a result, the opposing votes might really shoot up!

NOvember!!

Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 10:00
Bob:

I was looking at the results posted on the website - impact fees went down in _flames_- 59% opposed to 27% for. Real estate tax? 55% against. Local option sales tax? 47% against, but only 43% for.

This is what makes Wake so interesting - the poll refelcts a general distaste for ANY public fundraising. I wonder if we polled on desired services, how many folks would feel the county is over servicing them? That's a legitimate concern.

Tiebout (1956) advanced the notion that the public "shopped" for communities that offered a desired basket of goods at a desired tax burden. Perhaps Wake folk want a smaller basket/smaller burden. It is worth considering. Of course, there is a tipping point where the basket becomes too small and a municipality begins outmigrating. Unfo, no one knows where these points lie.

In Nashville, 35% of kids go to private schools, no one supports bonds or taxes for public education, the public schools are "schools of last resort" for poor and/or minority and/or misbehaving students. Folks who want out of regular public school usually find a way: through magnet schools, privtae school scholarships, etc. it is not a perfect situation, nor, i would opine, a just one, but no one seems too exercised about it. Basket/burden.

Sorry for the typos,

GS

Comment from: Gene [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 10:01
Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]
As an intial observation, it seems that y'all in Wake won't support anything - not bonds, tax incresae, impact fees, etc. That should make a for a fun next few years.

I think Gradstudent is correct... the public does not want to spend anything. The rhetoric of both sides of bond issue are falling on deaf ears. My wife said it's a matter of economics. We have spent our money on our homes, medical insurance, gas, etc. Wages have not kept with our spending. You can't spend what you don't have... and you are not going to voluntary to spend more.

Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 10:03
PS - Thanks N&O, for great coverage of the poll - you posted the question path, as well as the definaition of a confidence interval, and polling demographcs.

Now, how about those response rates?

Were reposnes weighted to adjust for over/underrepresentation of certain demogrpahics?

-GS

Comment from: JacksonTodd [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 10:29
Did Co-Chair of Friends of Wake County Call Wake County Voters Stupid? According to the early on-line version of the News and Observer:

It's frustrating to me that people don't get it, said Ann Goodnight, co-chairwoman of Friends of Wake County, the nonprofit group formed to get the bonds passed. We're supposed to be the third most educated city. It shouldn't be an emotional issue” News and Observer October 24, 2006 11:15

The quote was edited down for space and is not in the printed version and is now no longer on-line.

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 10:40
GradStudent --

Yes. The more detailed results came out after I made my post. I suspect, though, that the "No more money, no way" view is informed largely by a weird dichotomy: people view the school system as generally doing a good job of education, but there's general discontent with the school system as being out-of-touch and bureaucratic. If that's your view of the schools, why would you give them more money? -- the schools don't appear to need any more, and the bureaucracy is likely to waste whatever more you give them.

I'm familiar with Tiebout, but I think you may be misapplying him here. I would argue that the Wake County "basket" is unstable. In other words, people like Wake County in part because it has reasonably good schools, good roads, not that much traffic congestion (when compared with, say, Atlanta), and pretty low taxes. But, these things cannot continue to coexist -- that basket is too attractive to too many people. As more people move here, traffic gets worse and schools get more and more crowded. Increasing revenue can diminish those problems, but that implies some increase in taxes. So, in the end, you get a different economic problem: the tragedy of the commons.

Impact fees help solve this problem by untying good schools and taxes. They allow that "low tax/decent school" basket to exist.

Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 11:46
Bob:

This is a great discussion for this thread! And this a good corrective to my post. i think Tiebout sees the basket/burden dynamis as an equilibrium problem. That is, the point at which the basket balances the burden only holds temporarily. As folks moveinto a community with high services/low taxes, the equilibrium shifts because folks are free-riding.

Then it is just as you have described: with the burden must increase or the basket must get smaller. either decision leads citizens to 1) commit to a stay ina community or 2) leave in search of another high services/low burden community.

Extensions of Tiebout have rightly noted that not all citizens in a community have the resources or capacity to pick up in search of abstract economic equitlibria.

Some would argue that divorcing tax revenue from school funding may be the wrong way to go. Fischel (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/Fischel-SerranoVote.12Aug03.pdf) in a different context, argues that state assumption of educaitonal spending made a tax revolt more palatable for CA voters in 1978. Fishcels sub text is that Tiebout equilibrium only works when there is a direct connection between taxes and services. Since Fishel supports teiboutian movement, he does not want that split.

I can see in the short term whay divorcing taxes from schools would be palatable, but long term it may harm other services and divorce a crucial connection between the vox populai and the government.

Of course, it seems that Wake voters do not need a "tax revolt" to be made MORE platable :)...But that's probably a post for another blog and another time...

Typos, sorry, etc.

-GS

Comment from: Lucy Anne [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 11:49
Jackson Todd, I fail to see the word STUPID in this post. You and Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Woodhouse need to cease an desist with your lying tactics.

Comment from: NOtoMYR [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 12:43
Lucy Anne,

Me thinks you doth protest too much--I got the same impression, and I have seen this inferred in many of the posts on this blog, and in many of the email groups. Bond proponents tend to think that the voters of Wake County are too ignorant to decide by themselves whether to vote yes or no on any important issue. They maintain that voters are easily manipulated by the evil bond opponents and by Kueng, the "cheerleader." It is a very condescending attitude and I have seen it over and over. We are not uninformed, ignorant mouthbreathers. We are educated people who have chosen, of our own volition to say no.

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 12:44
As president of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce I get the opportunity to talk to many newcomers...both companies and individuals. The one reason that consistently comes up as the reason why companies choose our market is the quality of our workforce. Over the past 12 months 19,000 net new jobs have been created in Wake County (that represents more than and 68% of the total net new jobs in our 13 county region.) These numbers do not include the many announcements this year (400 at Credit Suisse, 300 at Novartis and over 2000 at Fidelity.) And as has been noted in previous posts folks will keep coming until the mix of benefits that we offer fails to satisfy the market (like any product.) IBM in a recent study for the Research Triangle Foundation referred to this as the “success curse” where the things that make your community attractive begin to deteriorate when folks fail to continue to invest in infrastructure. By any objective standard we have one of the very best economies in the world and with a smart population we could have an even better future. But remaining successful is harder than getting to success. It requires an understanding that life is not static…what is good today is transient and to succeed in the future requires commitment, leadership and yes a willingness to make the necessary investments to keep up.

The opposition with its myriad of suggestions, complaints and discontent does not offer any solution for the immediate future…25,000 new students in the next three years. What they offer is a litany of coulds and shoulds. Many of these suggestions will require the same deliberate dialogue that went into the year long development of the plan currently before the public. Many will demand the acquiescence of other elected bodies and who will have no clearer view on November 8 than they do on November 7 about a better solution because none has been offered.

What a “no” vote does is put Wake County further away from a reality that will not go away. Land prices will be higher, construction cost higher, and there will be many new students requiring seats. By August of 2007 no one will have made the election of School Board members county wide; we will not have 30 new charter schools open; use Public/Private Partnerships to build schools “without borrowing money” won’t happen; Wake County Public Schools won’t be divided into smaller districts; volunteer impact fees won’t pay for the huge needs, we won’t find a way to lower the cost of construction by having every student go to a virtual school; we won’t avoid year round schools; and we won’t magically get the hotel-motel tax to cover school construction costs. What we will have is a year or more of wrangling over a series of band aids or radical changes that have fragmented support and are likely less politically viable than the current plan. We will also have 8000 plus new students looking for a seat in August of 07. At the end of all of this we will realize once again it is pay me now or pay me later. If anything should be obvious is that the future requires investment. We drink from a well we did not dig to quote someone…we need to dig wells for those who follow us. According to the poll we are about to just dig a hole.

Comment from: Year Round [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:07
Just my own personal observation from reading these posts and talking with people in the community, but there does seem to come a point for all families, individuals, etc. where the cost of "continuing to invest in success" outweighs the benefits from acheiving the success. For example, I, as well as many other mothers in this area, invested a great deal in our education and careers in our younger days, But then, we had families and while we could have continued to invest in our success by continuing on whatever career path we were on, we decided that the cost of that success was too great for us and our families to bear. I went to school for 18 years, spent another 10 developing on a career path toward being CEO and decided that I not longer wanted to be on that path and changed it. It seems to me that Wake County is in a similar situation - for a while the benefit of the growth was worth the cost - but now we've reached a point where the community is saying that the cost is not worth the continued growth. When the politicians across all levels understand that, maybe they'll be more responsive to what the community wants.

Comment from: Sunny [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:12
The Wake Ed blogs are populated by the most mean-spirited and critical people I have ever seen. It just sickens me to see such hatred and spite. Wake County needs the bond to pass. We need the new schools, the older schools need repairs, and the funding is going to come one way or the other. It's not a question of whether or not taxes are going to be raised. They will be raised one way or another. We need to do it with the most sensible solution - pass the bond!!!

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:14
"What they offer is a litany of coulds and shoulds. Many of these suggestions will require the same deliberate dialogue that went into the year long development of the plan currently before the public. Many will demand the acquiescence of other elected bodies and who will have no clearer view on November 8 than they do on November 7 about a better solution because none has been offered."

Wrong! Suggest you read some of the previous blogs, Mr Commerce.

NOvember

Comment from: Year Round [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:20
Just a clarification to my earlier post - the very definition of sucess is as transient as the means by which you remain successful. What one considers success at one stage of life is very different from what is considered success at another. Communities are no different.

Comment from: Blog Observer [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:43
Maybe Ann Goodnight should talk to Bill McNeal to see whether Wake County Parents & Voters are "Educated/Smart" or not.....

Bill McNeal "A significant amount of our progress is due to the fact that very intellectually astute people move to this area, and intellectually astute people also have intellectually astute children who come to the Wake County Public School System".

Mr. Schmitt: Maybe a failed Bond will alert those thinking of moving to the area to reconsider. I'm not saying that slowing down growth is the only answer, but at least those outside Wake County might see that although WCPSS has had success as measured by NC standards, living here with reassignments, a Board of Education that does whatever they want, etc. isn't all that the Chief Communications Officer of WCPSS says it is. And maybe those across Wake County will know we need new Board members to take us in a new direction.

Comment from: Keung Hui [Member]

10/25/06 at 13:48
Grad student,

I'll answer the questions I know off the top of my head. The pollster used filtering questions to garner likely voters. But he also tried to get a demographic mix that's fairly close to the county's population. If anything, he might have oversampled for Democrats, a group that would be considered more pro-bond. He made around 2,000 calls to get the list of 600 for the poll.

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 13:51
Harvey --

I agree with much of what you said, and I happen to be planning to vote in favor of the bonds. However, I would point out a scenario that might address many of your concerns: the bonds go down to failure; the majority of the school board resigns, to be replaced by others without the same political baggage; the new board adopts many of the policies pushed by those voting against the current bond and recommends a somewhat smaller bond that covers fewer years of capital requirements; and that bond is approved in a special election in the spring.

(I don't know how realistic that is, not having investigated what happens when a board member resigns, or the law on special elections and so on.... But, you get the point.)

The people voting against the bonds do not all share some common view of what's wrong -- it's a coalition of people opposed to mandatory year-round, charter-school advocates, anti-taxers, neighborhood-school proponents, those generally fed up with the school system, and so on. Getting a bond passed is just a matter of turning several of those groups to your side. For example, if the board had wholeheartedly endorsed increasing the cap on charter schools, more of the charter school advocates would probably vote for the bond. It's hardly a radical step.

I have another plan B for you: just sell certificates of participation. After all, it's the implied consequence of the "best way to pay" campaign.

Comment from: Marty [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:04
So, we have basically two groups fighting the bond issue, those who want the bond b/c they do not want to be inconvienenced by more year round options (because their kids NEED the long summer break) and those that are voting NO because they do not want more year round conversions. There are actions the WCSB can take to make this a little easier to swallow by all that are effected. Make MORE schools year-round and include middle and high schools in the year-round conversions. Ensure every family that all of their children will be on the same track regardless of the school they attend (Elementary, Middle and High school). Students do not need a long summer break, I have three daughters in public year round school and they are quite happy with the breaks throughout the year. The school board needs to increase year round conversions in order to best utilize the space currently available. Until this happens, I will never vote YES to give them more money to BLOW. Those voting NO because they do not want more year round schools are cutting off their nose to spite their face. What options with the WCSB have for space if the bond does not pass? More year round schools. Why is there a limit on Charter schools? Why is the only option to fix this mess an almost 1 billion school bond? There is no way that I will vote for this bond until some options are explored that can provide a quicker more logical fix to our overcrowding. WCSB, grow a spine and utilize the space that we have to it's fullest and then let's talk about real space needs...

Comment from: Sunny [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:18
The bond is not about Year Round Schools. It's about providing space for the students coming in and providing renovations to the schools that desperately need it. The needs will remain regardless of whether or not all the schools go year round. Why not support the bonds and get the funding at a lower rate. Prices for construction are only going up, including costs for land acquistions. Let's get the money now. Taxes will go up either way. Why not choose the most logical, fiscally responsible manner.
And Mr. Sconce, while I would love to see some of the school board members resign, along with a number of County Commissioners (e.g. Mr. Jeffreys and Mr. Gurley), I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking!

Comment from: Gradstudent [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:20
Thanks, Keung. The four or five of us who shuttle between this blog and Pollster.com thank you!

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:31
Sunny asks:

The needs will remain regardless of whether or not all the schools go year round. Why not support the bonds and get the funding at a lower rate.

Because, Sunny,
The proponents of the bond are supporting all the "wants", to include the inefficiencies of busing, and computer buys, and social engineering, and are pushing this agenda to fuel the unrestrained overgrowth for their own profit, and that of the WHBA.
The Opponents of the bond want to fund the "needs", without the fraud, graft, and bloat, and without the greedfest.

That's all that need be known to make an informed decision November 7th.

Comment from: Marty [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:33
Perhaps it's not about year round schools but what other option is there to increase seats with the inventory (schools) we currently have available? Why should these schools (the limiting factor) sit idle for 2-3 months every year?

On another note, why can we not build schools that are more than one-story? It is my understanding that you can create more space by building up instead of out. I know elevators cost alot but are they more expensive than more land? Safety my be an issue but surely these intelligent people running the show can solve those problems with less than 1 billion. And why do all of these new schools need to be designed so vastly different? Can you not build 15 of the same schools cheaper than you can build 15 different designs?

Comment from: Francis De Luca [Visitor] · http://www.afpnc.org

10/25/06 at 14:34
Lucy Ann - please document my lying!

Comment from: Terry Stoops [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 14:56
Harvey,

Thank you for joining the discussion.

I challenged Ed Bonner on the point you are making, but he was unable to substantiate the claim. So, I ask you to please send me research that shows that companies are moving to Wake County specifically because of our public K-12 schools. Couple that with data that shows that potential employees rank the public K-12 school system high on their list of reasons why they plan to live in Wake County. In all seriousness, I would not hesitate to vote for the bond if such data could be presented.

Otherwise, one could explain the influx of companies as a product of any number of factors including attractive state and local incentive packages, favorable tax rates, nice weather, proximity to competitors or suppliers, college and university graduates, the number of private and charter schools, housing options, barbecue, the existing (and not potential) workforce, etc.

Comment from: Year Round [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 15:17
I'm all for all schools going year round, if that could be done for middle and high schools as well, and throughout the county, not just centered in specific geographic locals. We all pay the same taxes, we should all have the same benefits of choice. The principle of EVERYone or NOone should apply. However, from what I understand, no one across the country has been able to successfully make high school year round - I wish they could figure it out - we love the year round schedule and think it is better educationally for our family. That being said, though, I also believe splitting families apart is extremely harmful - loss of family unity, your center, etc. and the harm of splitting families apart outweighs the benefit of making seats at the elementary and to a lesser extent, middle school level. Also, there are other reasons families have trouble making year round work - I won't go through those reasons again - but they are valid and important too.

As for going up rather than out, or using the same floor plan for all elementary, middle, high schools, I'm all for it. What's wrong with a two story elementary school? Or the same school floor plan all across the county? Don't you basically need the same structure - gym, cafeteria, classrooms, etc.? Why haven't any of these alternatives been investigated seriously and why can't the BoE give specifics if they have been?

Comment from: Marty [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 15:32
I believe those ideas have not been explored to the fullest because it is so much easier to ask for 1 billion from tax payers than to look for alternatives. These ideas will be looked at more closely after November 7th as the alternatives will be much smaller...

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 15:47
Terry,
While I don't have a study to back up the case I do have 35 years of experience in recruiting companies (25 years in South Carolina, Florida and North Carolina.) The normal negative attributed to communities in the south has been that the public schools are bad. If you move a company into those markets it will require you to pay your employees a higher rate so they can send their kids to a private school. Whenever you can make a case that you have an outstanding public school you have a leg up on costs. I know for a fact that schools are important. In fact we send personnel to visit with the people who are being transfered and the most questions are always about schools. Corporate makes a decision but employees make the move and what is important to the employees with kids is "How are the schools? "
To disregard good public schools as a motivator on personal and corporate location decisions is like disregarding comfort in buying a bed or fit in buying a suit.
You don't need a study to know it makes a difference.

Comment from: 3kidsinWCPSS [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 15:55
Will someone tell Ms. Goodnight that WCPSS "customers" aren't wrong just because we don't like her issue? I am a voter who doesn't want my taxes raised. WCPSS puts out the lie that the bussing is economic not racial. I don't like being lied to by WCPSS, so they are not getting any more of my money. Trust me, Ms. Goodnight, I do get it.

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 15:59
'What they offer is a litany of coulds and shoulds. Many of these suggestions will require the same deliberate dialogue that went into the year long development of the plan currently before the public." to quote you Mr. Commerce.
You want facts from the no bond people but due to your great experience, we are to swallow what you state as fact! Sounds strangely like what the BOE has been dishing out for years now. Thanks but no thanks.

NOvember

Comment from: Blog Observer [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 16:10
Hey Keung: Do you pick the article titles or is that decided for you? I thought the one listed last night was good "Bond Proposal in Big Trouble, poll shows". I was thinking this would have been a little better: "Big Bond in Big Trouble".

But "Voters Leaning Against School Bond"? Leaning?? Even with a 4% +/- margin of error, if the Bond got every single voter in the 11% undecided category and picked up the 4% margin of error, it would still be a 50/50 split. And it's not reasonable to assume they'd pick up all that. So that's called LEANING? Hmm...

so that's why I'm wondering if that's your decision or the "higher ups". Thx for your reply.

Any idea how long it'll take for the N&O's editors to write a "shame on you" editorial for anti-bond voters in an effort to get the Bond to pass? (just rhetorical)

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 16:12
Marty/YR --

In answer to a few of your questions:

(1) the majority of the land at a school goes to things like parking, athletic fields, playgrounds and so on. So, a two-story school does not save anywhere close to half the land cost. Then, with a two-story school you not only have the added cost of things like stairs (which take up real estate) and elevators (to comply with the ADA), but the construction is more expensive as well. On top of that, building codes require that young students be able to exit on ground level -- making the second story of a 2-floor elementary school inaccessible to half the school population. And, that limits how flexible you can be in using the space.

High Schools are typically multi-story.

(2) The district actually has been doing a lot more design reuse than they used to. Compare, for example, Green Hope and Wakefield high schools. But, you always have issues like different lot dimensions, run-off, different in/egress requirements and so on. Commercial construction has not yet caught up to the residential model of having 12 different floor-plans and you pick the one you like.

Comment from: Marty [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 16:22
Actually I think there are charter schools that use practically the same design over and over and over, so that answer seems convienent at best. So it would not save money to not have to build two sets of athletic fields, play grounds, parking lots, etc? Again, not an answer that will get me to change my mind. Could a two story Elementary school not put 4th and 5th graders on the upper level? I guess a better question would be, Can you define "young students"? And I don't think it matters how tall the school is, everyone would need to exit on the ground level....

Comment from: Francis De Luca [Visitor] · http://www.afpnc.org

10/25/06 at 16:26
Bob,

I think saying ""commercial construction has not yet caught up to the residential model of having 12 different floor-plans and you pick the one you like." is not accurate.

Look at drugstores, food establishments, grocery stores, office buildings, big box stores - you name it and they all re-use designs to death. One of the reasons that no matter where you are in the US it looks a lot like somewhere else.

Unfortunately WCPSS (unlike next door Johnston County) has not learned how to do what residential and COMMERCIAL builders already do.

This is one of the reasons we advocate that WCPSS get out of the building and maintenance of business - they are so bad at building and maintaining schools

Comment from: Blog Observer [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 16:31
One other question, Keung. How much money did the News & Observer contribute to Friends of Wake County?

Or is that something that the N&O can just choose not to disclose? Thx.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 17:02
Bob Sconce,

Please show me the consistency in the arguments that are advanced by the pro-bond group that the use of multi-story schools is a bad idea
So, a two-story school does not save anywhere close to half the land cost. Then, with a two-story school you not only have the added cost of things like stairs (which take up real estate) and elevators ... [snip]
, when it is basically this same group that has argued for density in our housing patterns? If they want us to be sandwiched like sardines in $400,000 homes on .1 acres of land, why do they need so much land, and so much space to sprawl our schools? Bob, Stan, anyone want to field this question????

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 17:19
Marty --

I *think* younger students is K-2, but I wouldn't bet on it. It may be K-1. You are right -- you could put older kids upstairs, and that is how two-story elementary schools work. But, that imposes a cost in terms of flexibility. You caught me in a mistake: I meant that the students have to be on ground-level -- no stairs to get out.

Francis --

Except for smaller stores like drug stores and restaurants, I think you'll find that the footprints of commercial space are often quite different. For example, there are three Home Depots in N. Raleigh, and each has different outside dimensions (often determined by the lot shape and features). When you're basically just lining up racks inside, the different shapes aren't a big problem. When the inside is composed of walls, halls, bathrooms, classrooms and offices, a change in the outside dimensions forces a bunch of design changes in the inside.

I don't count grocery stores because they're just tenants of larger strip-malls. And, the footprints on strip-malls vary a lot.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about reuse. I just doubt that an entire school design can be reused as easily as, say, the design for a cafeteria, library, gym, entryway or auditorium. I think the school will do much better by trying to construct schools out of existing elements than by trying to duplicate an entire school.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/25/06 at 17:22
Some Dude on Monday had it right --

School Bonds + NO Vote = Slower Growth

Slower Growth = Lower Profits for "Friends of Wake Bounty"

Don't Forget -- the Goodnights are one of the largest developers in Wake County and some Island on the coast. Also, don't forget why the Goodnights built the Cary Academy -- if I recall because their executives didn't like the commute to Ravenscroft and SAS as having problem recruiting top executives because of WCPSS.

I live close enough to Cary Academy that my boys could walk there. However, WCPSS has seen fit to reassign my node to 3 different High Schools in 9 years. Yep, lots of faith in the WCPSS -- NO in NOvember.

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 17:23
Daryl --

Don't lump me in with the folks who want more high-density housing. I think you may be mistaken about the two groups being the same.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/25/06 at 17:24
Question - why do the Home Builders of Wake County care so much about this bond issue?

What is their real concern?

Comment from: lib [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 17:34
Harvey Schmitt wrote:
"As president of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce I get the opportunity to talk to many newcomers...both companies and individuals. The one reason that consistently comes up as the reason why companies choose our market is the quality of our workforce. Over the past 12 months 19,000 net new jobs have been created in Wake County (that represents more than and 68% of the total net new jobs in our 13 county region.) These numbers do not include the many announcements this year (400 at Credit Suisse, 300 at Novartis and over 2000 at Fidelity.) And as has been noted in previous posts folks will keep coming until the mix of benefits that we offer fails to satisfy the market (like any product.)"

In other words, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. 19,000 new net jobs --- if just a quarter of those new jobs bring in a family with one school aged child, we're talking 4,750 new student added in a year. It's generally accepted that growth is good --- but is growth at this rate a good thing for Wake County? We're way behind on school capacity, and our roads and other infrastructure are having difficulty keeping up. Just a year or so ago, we faced severe water restrictions because of drought. Do we have water enough to accommodate all this new population? How about vital services, such as fire, police, and health care facilities?

We're not imposing impact fees, even though the taxes we will gain from the new homeowners will not pay for the added services they require for a long time to come.

I want good quality schools, and I'm willing to pay more for them. Like many, however, I want there to be an equitable school system throughout the county --- and we appear to moving further and further from that every day. I don't appreciate being scolded and told that it is my duty to pay more taxes for schools so that they will remain attractive so that you can use them as a lure to attract even more new industries with tens of thousands of new homeowners who don't want to pay impact fees, and expect to pay the tax rate that would support the level of infrastructure that we needed a decade ago rather than the one we need today.

Comment from: Keung Hui [Member]

10/25/06 at 17:41
Blog Observer,

Headlines are handled by the copy desk. Story placement is handled by the editors.

N&O Publisher Orage Quarles gave Friends of Wake $10,000 in a decision made independently of the newsroom. We weren't consulted ahead of time.

Comment from: kay [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 18:24
The many thoughtful posts on this thead are much appreciated, even though I don't agree with all of them.

Mr. Scmidtt stated "The opposition with its myriad of suggestions, complaints and discontent does not offer any solution for the immediate future…25,000 new students in the next three years. "

That's not true.

The Wake BOE's original plan with a slightly smaller bond that would convert almost all ES and MS school to year round, and modify the HS calendar to provide more time together for families was a reasonable solution.

As to the poll info, thank you Bob, Gradstudent and Keung Hui for the interesting posts. Could you comment on why the poll did not ask supporting a sales tax increase for schools? I get the impression that this is one alternative funding source that a majority of people support, although it too requires action by the General Assembly.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/25/06 at 20:14
Scmidtt wrote: "Mr. Scmidtt stated "The opposition with its myriad of suggestions, complaints and discontent does not offer any solution for the immediate future…25,000 new students in the next three years. "

That's not true. They don't have to move to Wake County. Don't forget Johnson, Franklin, Durham, Chatham, and other nearby counties. If we let folks know up front that there is no room at the "inn," they will move somewhere else, or not come here at all. Works for me. Growth does not benefit existing taxpayers in Wake County.

If the bond passes, this will be our future:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKp3mdsjI2c

Comment from: tiredparent [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 21:16
Me. Hui,
Did the Goodnight's children even attend public schools or did they go to Cary Acadamy?

Comment from: Grit [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 21:51
You people are unbelievable! Harvey Schmitt has 35 years experience dealing with economic development and growth in communities and you doubt what he says?! How many years of experience do you have? The same people complaining about the growth in Wake County and leading this NO campaign are probably the ones that are causing all the problems - transplants from somewhere else! How many years have you been here - 4, 5 - maybe a few more?

As for Ann Goodnight's quote I don't see anywhere that she called Wake County residents "stupid." If I were her I would have just hung up the phone with my attorney preparing the lawsuit for slander against Francis DeLuca.

You No voters absolutely do not get it! The people are coming with their kids! All of your suggestions - more charter schools, impact fees, breaking WCPSS into smaller school districts - all of these take legislative action and that will take TIME which we do not have. Am I happy with the WCPSS - no, but I also recognize the fact that I want my children to go to public schools that are clean and safe -
with up to date technology. Maybe we can luck out and be like Charlotte - where everyone sends their kids to private school b/c the public school is so bad. Keep it up and that's what we will get!

The bottom line is you get what you pay for and if you are not willing to pay for a great public school system then you will not get one!

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 22:09
Wow! The real heavyweights have come out of the wood work since the "debate" on WRAL! Bringing Attorneys into the fray?

The bus parts company didn't pay for nothin, they got about 5 million.

I am VERY afraid the NO voters do get it. We didn't get it, but we NOW get it. All 54% of us, according to the WRAL poll.

NOvember

Comment from: Dallas Woodhouse [Visitor] · http://www.afpnc.org

10/25/06 at 22:32
I just want to point out that, Patty Head, and Beverly (I will sue you if I do not like the election results) Clark did not come down from the mountain with Moses with Stone tablets on how to run a school system. The voters do and should have a say.

Mr. Harvey Schmitt, whom I know well and respect, does miss the point. We all want good schools. But fraud and waste do not make a good school system. He has a powerful lobby group, he can help get the cap on charter schools raised, he can help develop to create better construction practices> We live in the United States of America, the greatest nation God gave man...the idea that we CAN'T find a better way is a JOKE.....

AND BY the way I am sick of people telling me" this election is not about the cost of construction, this is not about MYRS, this election is not about the system that can't or won't control waste and fraud"

you know THE VOTERS have a funny way of picking what elections are about

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/25/06 at 22:58
Dallas...thanks for the props...miss seeing you on the TV...BTW as a victim of fraud in my own organization in 1997 I can say that even the best systems can be outdone by colusion. The good news is that all of the bad guys faced the music (serving time) and the School System wound up recapturing all of the loss and then some.
This is not about fraud...it can happen in any organization. It is about 8,000 kids next year and 9000 the next year and another 10,000 the year after...try as we might there is no "easy" button.

Comment from: Ed Bonner [Visitor] · http://www.aol.com

10/25/06 at 23:03
Terry,

I'm new to "blogging" so I didn't realize you had challenged me on this web site to provide you information with regard to my position that a quality education system produces a skilled workforce that attracts good jobs and stimulates the economy leading to a high quality of life in our community. Pretty much common sense, right? I guess Benjamin Franklin was right when he asserted "common sense is the most uncommon sense of all."

Well since you didn't understand the economic relationships when I described them and didn't seem to get them a second time when Harvey explained them; allow me to point you to "Expansion Management Magazine". This publication is one of the primary sources companies use to gather information, ranking and statistics about areas they are considering for a relocation or expansion of their business. They also happened to rank our public schools #1 in the nation in 2006. The article containing the rankings also conveys some realtively basic information linking a quality education system to the development of a capable workforce and the relative importance of these factors in making corporate relocation and expansion decisions.

After you read the article, feel free to give me a call. I'd be happy to spend a little time with you to help you understand the economic relationships between education, workforce development, economic development and community quality of life. You seem like a nice young fellow and I really don't hold your disagreement with me against you as I understand you don't have much of a background in practical business matters. I'm willing to invest a little time in with you for the opportunity to swing your vote on the bonds to "YES".

After all, your "YES" vote is one more vote to continue to support world class education in Wake County. I think we can help you understand that a "no" vote will put us on the same slippery slope our friends in Charlotte have slid down over the past 10 years. In the mid 90's the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System was an excellent public school system. Bond opponents successfully rejected a series of bonds over the past 10 years that have resulted in the rapid deterioration of their public education system and property taxes 27% higher than those in Wake County. Bond opponents definitely found the "wrong way to pay" in Charlotte. Unfortunately they're trying to teach Wake County "the wrong way to pay."

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 06:33
World Class education system? That must be what explains the horrendous drop out rate in Wake County. I wonder if that also could bridge to why the test results (by our own measure, which from the looks of it, the bar contintues to get lowered) spiral lower and lower?

We may have had a world class system years back. Today we have world class bus transportation and layers upon layers of immovable, bloated Administration.

Mr. Schmidt, it is about fraud, and attitude and totally ignoring the pleas of parents for what THEY think is best for THEIR childern and about the in your face, out and out lies by the BOE and the ADMIN, the list goes on and on.

Its about Ms Head telling us what we "really mean when we say we want choice, we actually mean we don;t want change". That level of thinking got us where we are, and a new way of thinking is going to get us where we should be!

NOvember

Comment from: Terry Stoops [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 08:45
Ed –

The "challenge" that your refer to was related to our debate for the Capital Area Republicans. At that time, you were unable to produce factual information, including any reference to Expansion Management Magazine, that substantiated your rhetoric about the relationship between economic development and K-12 schools.

I have never denied that there is some kind of connection between school quality and economy. I trust Harvey’s experience and instincts on the matter. By the way, I have nothing but respect for him, and I find it a bit disturbing that some bloggers are blaming him for Wake County’s growing pains. Geez, it’s like blaming the Yankee’s ALDS loss on Derek Jeter.

But it seems to me that many factors have an economic impact on the area, and you and other proponents of the bond focus on school quality at the expense of the others. Affordability, for example, is an important factor for economic development, but this and subsequent bonds - by way of tax increases associated with them - will make Wake County a decidedly unaffordable place to live and work.

During last night’s WRAL debate, you were unable to answer the question about the future tax impact of this and other bonds. According to a Wake County government analysis, bonds totaling $3.8 billion in the next ten years (a conservative estimate by most accounts) will raise taxes by a total of 45.9 cents per $100 valuation, nearly a 75 percent increase over the current Wake County tax rate. The tax increase would mean that the owner of a $200,000 home in Wake County would pay over $900 a year more in property taxes than they currently do - for school construction alone.

The $3.8 billion plan would also produce an annual payment on new debt (for school construction alone) of $190 million by 2016. Annual debt service today is around $130 million, and the county still has around $1 billion in outstanding debt to pay off. This does not include the debt the county will incur to build new criminal justice facilities or possible bonds for Wake Tech, parks and recreation, open space, etc. One does not have to have a “background in practical business matters” to understand that this will seriously hurt Wake County’s economic vitality and appeal. I would be happy to sit down with you and show you the top-notch analysis put together by the Wake County government’s budget office.

My background in practical educational matters tells me that good teachers and administrators, not school buildings, create a world-class education system. There is simply no conclusive evidence (from peer-reviewed publications) that certain kinds of school buildings produce higher educational outcomes, help to recruit or retain teachers, or enhance the perceived quality of the school system. A 2005 Peabody Journal of Education article concluded that investments in facilities by themselves are unlikely to improve student learning. They found that, "very little empirical evidence supports this common belief that high-quality school facilities are a positive factor in student achievement."

If you or anyone else would like more information about this, please read my policy report, “Feng Shui Schools: Wake County's Unenlightened School Building Program,” at www.johnlocke.org.

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 10:36
Terry,
Thanks for the feedback regarding the continued growth of the market and the reference to Derek Jeter. I would offer the following observations. First the current plan is a recognition that business cannot be done as it has in the past subsequently the move to more year round schools. From my perspective your tax containment arguments will run smack dab into the anti MYR crowd after the election. They will want more resources to avoid YR schools and you will be advocating for virtual schools and more charters neither of which can match the costs in play. Second the public private partnership options passed during the most recent legislative session have just been adopted and the WCPSS was an advocate of this change and I am sure they will be part of the solution in future years. In fact at our Community Success Forum 18 months ago almost all of the School Board and County Commission members were in attendance to hear about these partnerships from Bob Hughes, InRe, Greenville County, South Carolina and Dale Scheideman, Clark County, Nevada Public Schools regarding the methods used in addressing rapid growth (and yes YR was part of their solution.) Third regarding the motivation of companies on relocation decisions…both cost and quality do play a role in decision making. As a community we would not compete with communities like Columbia or Knoxville on price…but our prospects are not looking at price as their primary decision point. Their primary decision point is going to be the quality workforce and the things that attract that workforce, quality schools, roads, arts, entertainment and environment. That’s why as we establish our position in a global marketplace we must make investments to attract the quality people that attract the quality companies. Ken Atkins from our staff just returned from China and he saw first hand a society bent on being a world class economic competitor and investing in quality at every turn. Our competition for the quality jobs of the future will not be our current competitors San Diego, San Jose, Austin, Boston and other domestic high quality/high tech markets it is going to be Shanghai and Bangalore and host of other places we’ve never have heard of. Our only differentiation is going to be the quality of life we have to attract the brain power to be successful long term. Our economic success is all about a quality workforce. It is interesting to note that given all of the options that people (workforce) have in our region to locate they chose Wake County overwhelmingly…not sure of the stats but Wake gets 7,500 net new students, Durham approx 250, Orange 100 and Johnson 1,800. The price value exchange for Wake County is what is driving the decision. Now if we raise taxes to pay for new schools will that p/v exchange be damaged? No, as we are already the low cost provider in the market and will remain so. Will we be at risk further down the road as you suggest?…perhaps but that is a decision for future discussions not the current one especially since after a year long discussion the School Board and the County Commission both chaired by conservatives offered us a near unanimous option that addresses many of the issues that we all want addressed i.e. quality and affordability. I think we will need to look at a variety of options over time and the discussion of those options is healthy and has been going on for some time…not just the last 90 days. We need to pass this bond now and continue to work to find a variety of solutions many of which you have offered. But avoiding investment is not an option it is a myth. This issue is not going away because like it or not with 8000 new students next year and 9,000 the next and 10,000 after that we are winning the economic battles of the 21st century. We have the opportunity to be someplace very special not just today but for generations. Our only real enemy is our timidity in accepting the fact that we can be truly a globally important economy and community in this century and beyond.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:01
Harvey Schmidt wrote"
....regarding the motivation of companies on relocation decisions…both cost and quality do play a role in decision making. As a community we would not compete with communities like Columbia or Knoxville on price…but our prospects are not looking at price as their primary decision point. Their primary decision point is going to be the quality workforce and the things that attract that workforce, quality schools, roads, arts, entertainment and environment. That’s why as we establish our position in a global marketplace we must make investments to attract the quality people that attract the quality companies.

Well, that's Harvey and the builders, and the sound of them making money at our expense. There it is for all to see, that they plan to continue to attract more and more people to come here, even as we drown in the onslaught. This billion dollars is just seed money for their empire. They don't care about the children, and they don't care about WASTE county. But they do care about their bottom line. Read that part again, just so you "get it",
we must make investments to attract the quality people that attract the quality companies.
They not only want the school bond money this time. No, their solution is (drum roll please) a growth frenzy to solve our overgrowth. Ann Goodnight may have not used the word "stupid" in her condescending remarks about us that said the same thing in so many other words, but I'm beginning to wonder if the bond supporters themselves don't fit that definition when the solution they offer is so bass-ackward!!! More growth is their answer, when in fact even the present growth is excessive.... and that is all the reason in the world to say No in November.

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:31
Darryl,
I do care about the kids (btw I have two daughters employed in this county and both are products of our public schools)...Your kids and my kids must compete in a global economy. We owe it to them to give them the best we can. And it is not about growth, it is about meeting the challenges of a constantly changing economy. We have such a great community and I would hope that everyone would want to be a winner in a global battle for jobs. Unfortunately just because we might like to step away from the reality of competitive economics we can't. So if my choice is progress over regress...count me in for progress because I just can't "gress."

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:43
Having been to China for various business reasons, I think the deciding factor on business placement there has been the OVERRIDING deflated value of their Yuan! I don't think it's their schools systems!

Oh and don't forget the piracy both software and hardware, and the government subsidy on every thing from housing to health care!

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:47
Harvey,

I'm sure, based on your just-posted comments, that you and your "Fiends of WASTE county" will be amending your radio ads to reflect the change in your approach, away from growth and more people and all the
investments to attract the quality people that attract the quality companies.
and redefine yourselves (again) as being, (here it comes again), "For the children".

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:52
Harvey,
Please tell us why so many companies are sending their operations overseas, and in particular to Mexico? Are Mexican schools really so attractive, or is it corporate tax concerns that drive them to relocate to Mexico?

Comment from: concerned mom [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:52
Harvey,

Business cannot be done as it has in the past how about using impact fee's to contribute to infrastructure needs created by growth rather than mandatory year round. If the Home Builders Association was really a Friend of Wake County they would be lobbying FOR alternate sources of funding including impact fees rather that this bond that puts the burden squarely on the shoulders of Wake County Residents. Wake County citizens will speak Nov. 7 rather than the very vocal, highly organized and financed groups we usually hear from. You are right, this issue is not going away because like it or not with 8000 new students next year and 9,000 the next and 10,000 the year after we will be faced with even greater problems in the very near future. Unfortunately current plans call for more bonds in 2008 and 2010 to pay for these new students and very likely more mandatory year round! We all want a better quality of life; we all need to share in the cost. With out a change to the current plan of a never ending series of bonds to finance growth needs we will never reach your vision of a very special place for generations to come

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 11:58
Daryl (sorry for the earlier misspelling)
The jobs going to Mexico are the same jobs leaving China. We need to compete at the highest levels not the lowest. The cost of labor is the cost that affects the corporate decision not the schools in Mexico. So when you cannot compete on price you better be competing on quality.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/26/06 at 12:02
Though I can no longer find it on the web (???), over a year ago, the NC Bankers Association put out a report. One line was something like this: " In order for NC to compete in the global economy, it will need to have a large low/unskilled labor pool. " (Just like China's!)

What I see going on here is FOWC and that crowd protecting their own wallets at the taxpayers expense. Most of us don't care one bit about ED - too many people already,

It is not about the money,
it is about being abused by the School Board,
it is about finiancial scandals,
it is about poor management,
it is about being bused 15 miles from home,
it is about student reassignments that make no sense,
it is about loss of community schools,
it is about no faith in the BoE and the WCC,
it is about a BoE that won't listen to parents,
it is about a bloated administration
it is a about no TRUST of the BoE/WCPSS.

and every bond issue, we see the same lies, again, and again. Nothing has gotten better, except the FOWC profit margins.

NO in NOvember

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 12:09
Mom,
I agree...we cannot do as we have in the past and this plan is not in any way a status quo effort. Is it a plan that has been processed thoroughly? Absolutely the County Commission and Schoool Board wrangled on the specifics for over 6 months. They did not come to these decisions without recognizing the passion associated with cost and year rounds. Did they have other options immediately availble to them...no. Will we need to continue the dialogue going forward regardless? Absolutely because we are a succesful place more people will want to be part of our success.
But voting for "NO" plan is not a solution it is a complaint. Voting for the plan and continuing the dialogue is the way to make us a better place.

Comment from: Terry Stoops [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 12:42
Harvey,

Will super nice school buildings help us compete in a global economy? Clearly, our Asian and European competitors do not invest much in school facilities.

As you know, the NC Public School Forum publishes a series of reports on schooling in high performing nations in Asia and Europe. According to the report on education in South Korea,

As previous International Studies delegations observed in Japan, England, and The Netherlands, the United States has a different concept toward facilities and supplies than do other nations in which students are high performing. As in the other countries, school facilities in South Korea are, for the most part, very unimpressive. They do not have large open areas; the architecture is uninspiring. They are, however, well maintained and clean.

Notice that the report says that the United States has a “different concept” toward facilities. Does the United States know something about school facilities that our Asian and European competitors don’t? No. Instead, we have the legacy of John Dewey, who said, "The school building is treated not as a collection of rooms in which lessons are learned and recited, but as a well-equipped and organized environment for carrying on certain modes of work, and thus securing certain experiences and the formation of certain habits."

Sound familiar? In the Spring, 2006 Growth Matters, Bill McNeal said, "The most important thing to remember is that schools are not in the business of ‘housing’ students. The goal isn’t just to find ‘spaces’ for students. Our schools are learning communities. We must do everything in our power to ensure that teachers and students have the resources they need to achieve academic excellence."

I digress. The report on South Korea continues,

One of the starkest contrasts is in the limited amount of technology in elementary and middle schools. While teachers are well equipped – almost all with a computer and large-screen projection devices – there are relatively few computers available for student use in the lower grades. … Nor do schools have large amounts of land dedicated to athletic fields. There will be an area for outdoor physical activities, but nothing that would compare to a North Carolina school complete with football and baseball fields and bleachers, tennis courts and oval tracks for organized competition.

This is next quote is very interesting,

A quick glance at a South Korean high school underscores different philosophies toward education and toward youth in the United States and South Korea. In one country, athletics and automobiles are viewed as distractions from the primary job of a student – learning. In the other, sports and cars are seen as an entitlement – part of what it means to “be a kid” growing up in America.

Could it be that we build schools that actually distract students from leaning and thus makes them less competitive?

These next quote is from the NC Public School Forum report on India,

"Our education system is built with brains, not bricks.” This was how one education ministry official described India’s educational system and, even a casual visit to an Indian school would confirm that. By American standards, India’s school facilities are modest. Halls are not as wide as those in North Carolina schools. Common areas are much smaller. Schools occupy far less real estate. The absence of student-driven cars eliminates the need for acres of parking lots. India’s education dollars are not going into expensive school buildings and equipment.

If this post gets any longer, Keung will banish me from the blog, so I will stop there.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/26/06 at 13:08
American schools went from being the best in the world to around 13-15th (depending on who's data) in less than 50 years. Why?

When I went to NC State, most of my classes where on Hillborough Street. Guess what, that was orginially the "textile mill" that was converted to classrooms. We need to really look around and see what is happening in the world. However, the power that be won't take off their blinders.

Great Post, Mr. Stoops.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/26/06 at 13:22
Somebody else has "seen the light." This is a Blog in Cary and the webmaster there and done a true graph to what the above poll really means. Check it out:

http://carypolitics.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=31851#31851

Shinning a light in the dark corner where the FOWC doesn't want you to look.

Comment from: Year Round [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 13:34
Harvey - you state that voting for "NO" plan is not a solution, but a complaint. You are correct on this. The public is letting you know loud and clear we don't like this plan. You are basically asking the public to vote yes on the only plan they've been presented, whether they like it or not, becuase it's the only plan. I've said it before, but if this was how I presented something to my boss - endorse and fund the bad plan I put together and am presenting to you or there's nothing - I'm sure I would no longer be reporting to that boss.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 13:35
I have a recommendation that's even better than impact fees, (and obviously growth paying for itself is a joke). WCPSS wants another billion dollars, so where can we find that kind of money. I HAVE AN IDEA. Seeing as how our school system is up for sale anyway, why not profit from the subterfuge and just advertise this fact "for the sake of the children". Why not follow the lead of our favorite stadiums, and sell the naming rights to the new schools to be built in support of the empire. Just like we had the ESC that became the RBC Center, we could put a giant logo on the DPI building, (I'd recommend the name be sold to Wake Homebuilders Association), becoming the new and newly decorated WHA Center!

My choices for other naming rights? Herewith are some of my selections:

Cary High School? Wouldn't that be a good choice for Cary Towne Mall HS - the Imps mascot could become the Impire, with two vertical green lines through the little green devil to make him look more like a dollar sign!

Some other new facilities, and some new logos:

Holly Springs High - Western Wake Partners HS
E19 Elementary - Thomasbuilt Buses Elementary School and Transportation Center
Harris Creek Elementary - Shearron Harris Elementary

Please feel free to add your own suggestions, after all, we need to "think of the children".

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 13:43
I didn't get to vote for reassignment (3 times in 4 years)
I didn't get to vote to have my kids picked up at 6:00AM for the bus
I didn't get to vote to be forced to year round schools
I didn't get to vote to have one kid on track 1 at the elementary and another on track 4 at the middle school.

I DO GET TO VOTE ON NOV 7th. Go Figure!!!

NOVember

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/26/06 at 13:56
Darylb - you crack me up. A least we have a little humor/satire going on.

Reedy Creek Middle/Elementary = SAS School
Panther Creek HS = KB Homes High School
Green Hope HS = Centrex High School
Cary HS = Westwood Properties High School
Holly Springs HS = Waste Industries High School

Yeah, we can have some fun as well.

Rally Ann - you bring a tear to my eye. Thanks for bring home the message.

Comment from: Keung Hui [Member]

10/26/06 at 16:06
Kay and Tired Parent,

The poll did ask people about a half-cent local-option sales tax for schools. It was opposed 47 percent to 43 percent with 10 percent undecided. it's still within the margin of error so it's technically too close to call. Click on the link at the bottom of the blog post to see the subgroup results.

All three of Goodnight's children attended Wake public schools. One graduated from Cary High. Another graduated from Broughton High. The third child was in the school district through middle school before attending private school for high school.

Ann Goodnight said they started Cary Academy because they wanted to set up a 21st Century school using the latest in technology. She said many Wake teachers have received training from Cary Academy.

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 16:13
Keung,

You said:
Ann Goodnight said they started Cary Academy because they wanted to set up a 21st Century school using the latest in technology.

A quick question about Cary Academy.... how do they procure their technology? Is it by direct purchase, lease, or is it via SAS?

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 16:25
Another point Keung,

Although I know you and the N&O want to do what you can to support the Goodnight's and their bond proposal, I think there are some N&O archives that quoted Jim Goodnight's frustration and dissapproval with the status of WCPSS as being a primary reason for constructing Cary Academy.... I'm sure as a good journalist, those quotes are still availble to you?

Comment from: Harvey Schmitt [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 16:36
Terry,
You said...
(A quick glance at a South Korean high school underscores different philosophies toward education and toward youth in the United States and South Korea. In one country, athletics and automobiles are viewed as distractions from the primary job of a student – learning. In the other, sports and cars are seen as an entitlement – part of what it means to “be a kid” growing up in America.

Could it be that we build schools that actually distract students from leaning and thus makes them less competitive?

These next quote is from the NC Public School Forum report on India,

"Our education system is built with brains, not bricks.” This was how one education ministry official described India’s educational system and, even a casual visit to an Indian school would confirm that. By American standards, India’s school facilities are modest. Halls are not as wide as those in North Carolina schools. Common areas are much smaller. Schools occupy far less real estate. The absence of student-driven cars eliminates the need for acres of parking lots. India’s education dollars are not going into expensive school buildings and equipment.)

Near as I can tell you are arguing for school facilities that rival those of India and South Korea. I am not certain that will appeal to the parents of kids entering our system. I could be wrong but I suspect they would expect conditions similar to those of other schools they have experienced here in the States. Offering schools without amenities associated with national standards sounds like a competitive disadvantage. But perhaps that is the focus of your argument. Drive the public schools to the lowest common denominator in facilities so that neither teachers nor parents will choose the public school system. Interesting approach to sustaining our success as a community.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/26/06 at 16:39
My kid's sort of have friends at the Cary Academy, but due to homework loads, not longer available to hang out, except weekends. However, I found out that this year all the kids were given electronic "Notebookss" and the school is now "paperless." Good use of technology, especially in a more control environment.

Though I disagree with the Goodknights on their stance on the Bond issue, the Cary Academy shines as beacon of what education in America should be about. I just wish they would step it up a notch and also build a small College of Technology next door to the current Academy.

Hey, in a perfect world.....

Comment from: Bob Sconce [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 17:41
Terry --

You asked: "Could it be that we build schools that actually distract students from leaning and thus makes them less competitive? "

Here are two counter-examples: (1) the best private schools in the US have plenty of such distractions (check out www.exeter.edu/athletics. They have crew, golf, hockey and water polo in addition to the typical sports); and (2) our higher education system is widely regarded as among the best in the world -- it's why there are so many foreign students enrolled. Yet, these institutions also have plenty of such distractions. I don't see anybody arguing that Duke's basketball program hurts student performance (except maybe at Carolina.)

Comment from: Ed Bonner [Visitor] · http://aol.com

10/26/06 at 17:56
Terry,

Sorry, I'm not going to engage you in a childish game of "internet challenge". I'm going to give you credit for being a little more mature than that and move on to answering your posts.

I'll take some satisfaction in getting you to, at least, admit some relationship between quality education, a skilled workforce, economic health and a high quality of life in our community. You've come a long way from your contention the night of the Republican dinner to "just import the labor from Mexico". I'm proud of you.

I'm also comfortable with my answer on the long term tax impact of future bond needs. The ultimate cost to taxpayers will be a product of many factors including, but not limited to; the future growth rate of our county and school system (both may progressively slow in the future due to the deterioration of our school system if this bond fails, which will reduce the capital need for future building projects); potential cost savings from introducing public-private partnerships and virtual schools into our educational system, potential to add additioal Charter Schools to our system once we better understand how to prevent one-in-five Charter Schools from failing (John Locke Foundation Education Alliance Report on Charter Schools notes one-in-five Charter Schools fail); the impact on facilities requirements if and/or when our school system goes 100% Mandatory Year Round per the recommendation of the John Locke Foundation's spring poll report presented to the Blue Ribbon Commission; decisions on which combination of financing instruments to use to address capital needs at different times over the next 10 years (General Obligation Bonds, Certificates of Participation or proceeds from the county's General Fund); the county's credit rating at the time the funds are needed (former Governor Jim Martin shared today at the NC Policy Watch luncheon that Mecklenburg County's credit rating for all county borrowing was threatened with unfavorable action as a result of failed bond resolutions). As I've said before, I don't take your stated or veiled criticisms personally. I know your business background is limited, but do think you're a bright fellow. Plus, I only had 10-seconds to answer the question.

Best Wishes,

Ed

Comment from: Terry Stoops [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 20:38
Harvey and Bob,

Thank you for your comments. My point is simply that investments in public K-12 school buildings yield little return. I have described, here and elsewhere, the qualitative and quantitative research that substantiates that claim.

I should point out that comparing public school amenities to those found in private schools or universities is not an apples to apples comparison.

Ed,

Hilarious!

Comment from: Ed Bonner [Visitor] · http://www.aol.com

10/26/06 at 21:41
Terry,

You're right, I guess it was "hilarious" to try to give you some credit for moving away from your position at the Republican Dinner that we should import labor from Mexico to satisfy the workforce needs of our businesses (public record on Ryan Teague Beckwith's blog archives. He also has your comments on tape.). Your buddy Dallas Woodhouse didn't think your comments about importing labor from Mexico were so "hilarious" when he was stuck having to take accountability for them in front of the "Que Pasa" reporters today. He, in fact, angrily tried to distance himself from you and your "hilarious" comments.

I can excuse your "hilarious" comments regarding business issues knowing your background and understanding it's not where your experience lies.

What is not "hilarious" is that someone who has the background you do in education would sell out kids whose future ability to compete in a highly competitive, global job market depends on the quality of education they receive, to do the "bidding" of those who are intent on bringing down one of our nation's top public school systems. That's "sad".

As for your "hilarious" comparisons of our school facilities to those in South Korea and India, I'm sure we could extrapolate those and find somewhere in the world where they're educating kids in a field. Then we could really save some money.

By the way, I read a letter from John Mabe (a respected member of the Citizens Facilities Oversight Committee who actually shows up to conduct the work required to try to have a positive impact on helping our kids and community). John said he thought your LACK of commitment to understand the facilities needs of the school system by NOT showing up for the school facility tour the committee did the other day was "hilarious", ...or did he say "sad."

Comment from: NOtoMYR [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 22:14
Let the politics of personal destruction begin.

Comment from: wakeParent2 [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 22:49
Mr. Bonner,

Friends of Wake Spokesmen - Do you talk to all your 'Friends" that way?

I glad to see that voters aren't the only people your group talks down too.

Comment from: very concerned local parent [Visitor]

10/26/06 at 23:00
Ed, Harvey and Others...

I am in total favor of great quality schools, but not all the time at the expense of the middle class in this county and definitely not at my expense again again again in wasteful use of funds, resources and very little controls or accountability for a system that is considered the equivalent to a corporation. What about teaching our children fiscal responsibility? You cannot always have everything you want and not on credit either. How will this bond affect the taxpayers? Property tax payers? If this great community wants to attract even more big companies, then maybe those big companies should seriously think about helping with the financial problems along with the builders and please get any government out of the building business, key word business!

If you are so bent on competing globally, then you better think about have the children go to school 285 days a year, for 8 hours a day, just like my cousins in the Netherlands do and continue to raise the standards not lower them!

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/27/06 at 07:41
Sounds as if Mr. Bonner is ready to take his seat on the BOE. Same tone. Same holier than thou attitude. Just keep talking your talk Mr. Bonner, undecided voters are still reading this blog. You help immensley. Appreciate it.

Comment from: John Hood [Visitor] · http://www.carolinajournal.com

10/27/06 at 08:23
Mr. Bonner:

I am sure that Terry will respond in due course, but I feel the need to step in here. If you think your condescension, mischaracterizations, and combative insults are serving the cause of Friends of Wake County, I think you are sorely mistaken. If you are frustrated with the difficulty of making a case for an excessive and unpopular bond package, I can sympathize, but surely there are better ways to channel your energies.

You are perhaps willfully, perhaps unintentionally, misrepresenting the arguments that Terry and others have been making. When Terry challenged you to provide evidence supporting your position that Wake County's economy is dependent on passing this bond, and more generally that school quality (real or perceived) is by far the most important factor influencing the modern economy, he was not suggesting that education is unimportant. Terry is an educator and parent. Our organization (the John Locke Foundation) has spent nearly 17 years arguing for fundamental school reforms to improve education for all children, with a special emphasize on disadvantaged students (we operated a school-voucher program in Charlotte for many years).

Nor was Terry suggesting that school quality (real or perceived) had no impact at all on a local economy. What he was correctly arguing is that you and other bond supporters were advancing the preposterous notion that school quality is in a class by itself (pun intended) in affecting economic growth. Sorry, but that is empirically false. Economic growth is influenced by a variety of factors, including purely business ones (proximity to market, technological innovation, etc.) as well as those that can be significantly affected by public policy (traffic, energy costs, tax and regulatory costs, public safety, quality infrastructure, etc.) One reason that education, while important, is not of overwhelming importance, according to the data, is that dynamic regions routinely import and export labor, be it low-skilled labor from Latin America or high-skilled labor from Europe or East Asia. Thus, to assume that what educational level and skills exist in Wake's workforce are determined by our public schools is to grossly exaggerate. Again, this is just basic knowledge about how economies work. In our own surveys of NC business execs, for example, school quality always ranks fairly high in perceived importance in economic decisionmaking, but consistently lower than factors such as tax and regulatory costs.

More importantly, though, Terry has been challenging -- rather effectively -- the notion that building expensive school buildings has much of anything to do with school quality, real or perceived. That is what the data show. That is what the international comparisons show. A cardinal rule of debate is not to set up your opponents' argument. But that's what happened here. You can't claim that Asian countries are setting the stage for outperforming us on educational quality -- which is true enough -- without inviting the obvious point that it isn't their school buildings that make the difference. That doesn't mean we should build schools like they do in Calcutta. What it does mean is that, once again, improving schools is not at all the same thing as building new, expensive, inefficient school buildings.

As for your general attacks on Terry's experience and intentions, if Friends of Wake County wants you to perpetuate the theme of arrogance and nastiness that is already evident in the public statements of its other leaders, then I guess you are carrying out your mission. But if you really believe that only those with long years of experience in commercial business should have an opinion on this complex and important public-policy issue, I will be happy to supply you with a list of experienced businessmen, some owning and operating large businesses employing hundreds or thousands of people across North Carolina and beyond, who agree entirely with Terry's analysis. Perhaps you and they can talk in some secret code that Terry and I haven't mastered, and progress will be made.

Comment from: John Hood [Visitor] · http://www.carolinajournal.com

10/27/06 at 08:26
Oops. Second paragraph, meant to say "emphasis," not emphasize.

Comment from: RallyAnn [Visitor]

10/28/06 at 09:12
Thank you Mr. Hood. You have eloquently expressed what more than a few of us are feeling.

Now I understand what he means when my husband tells me not to "bring a knife to a gunfight".

RallyAnn

NOvember

Comment from: wakeParent2 [Visitor]

10/28/06 at 15:37
The John Locke Foundation better look out!!

Mr. Bonner and the Friends of Wake have a new stratgy - if the can't beat you (up) in the arena (pun intended) of ideas -
The maybe their new pitchman Cory Stillman can beat you up on the ICE.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakepol/index.php?p=5853&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more5853

It doesn't matter who is says it, the message still doesn't connect with the voters in Wake County.

Comment from: Uncle Ruckus [Visitor] · http://wakedems.org/democrats

10/28/06 at 17:04
With over a 1/2 million to spend, they also just added a 3rd ad to their campaign. Got to protect those profit margins and ensure that the taxpayer pays for the growth instead of the development community.

I just hope the educationed citizen of Wake County see through all the smoke/mirrors and send a very strong message.

We don't TRUST you with a billion bucks!

Comment from: Daryl Baker [Visitor]

10/30/06 at 15:12
Bottom line, if they had a good message, it wouldn't take the richest man in the state to back it. That said, it's going down in flames even with the best financing of an ad campaign in recent memory. You've got to have a really messed up message to fail with those odds.

Comment from: Marty [Visitor]

11/07/06 at 10:36
I voted "NO" today and I feel great. Time for the board to do their job and find some alternatives that make better sense. I hope this will teach them to never let us vote on re-assignment, I don't think they could handle the reality of the public opinions of their "solutions"....

	WakeEd	Home / Blogs / WakeEd

	N&O Blogs: Welcome to N&O blogs \| Readers' Corner \| Triangle Grammar Guide \| Get Out! Get Fit! \| WakePol \| Notions \| The Editors' Blog \| On the Beat: David Menconi on music \| Uncle Crizzle \| Epicurean: The Blog \| 2007 N.C. State Fair \| ACC Now \| WakeEd \| TV Eye \| Crosstown Traffic \| What's The Big Idea? \| Lord Stanley's Blog \| Bull's Eye \| Orange Chat \| SWakechat \| Backyard Buzz \| Between the Lines \| Best Blog \| Blackwater Current \|

Tuesday, October 24, 2006