Expanding parental choice options for 2010-11

I absolutely disclose who I am, my address and whose district I live in.  I tell the board what my concern is.  It is usually the distance travelled or the lack of public transportation to the specific school.  Sometimes I know people in those nodes, sometimes I don't.  I don't 'protest' assignments, I bring up issues and situations that the board may not be aware of.  I absolutely did protest the removal of Washington Terrace kids from Joyner because I knew some of those families and knew they didn't want to go.  They wree happy at Joyner and Joyner was already 'healthy'. 

I email each board member because frankly, I don't trust some of the board members to disclose all of the comments they get.  Another reason is that while one board member may not see something as an issue or problem, another one might.  Finally, the board cannot possibly go through the entire assignment plan with a fine tooth comb to see where the kids are going. 

Policy 6200 has several factors listed as being used to determine assignments.  Proximity, SES balance, feeder patterns, etc.  They haven't prioritized those factors.  They let Chuck D make the value judgements and they trust that he will make the best decisions.  I asked Chuck once how the board knows that he is giving them the plan that they ask for if they don't give him any priorities.  His response was that he was certain that the board carefully evaluated the assignment plan to make it sure it aligned with their goals.  I'm sorry but there is no possible way that this can happen.  These plans are so complicated, the school system is so incredibly huge and they simply do not have enough time to comb through this plan.

When the BOE did their review of magnet schools a couple of years ago, they had a 'matrix' that measured certain attributes of each magnet to determine how well the schools were fulfilling the goals of the magnet program.   The magnet office prepared this matrix.  One of the attributes  measured was how well the magnet reduced pockets of poverty.  They looked at how much the magnet program reduced the percentage of F&R at each school and rated the schools from 1 to 4, with 4 being the 'best' score.  Underwood Elem received a 4 on this because the base population was 71% and the school had an F&R of 31%--a significant reduction.  BUT, what the magnet office failed to mention and the BOE members failed to notice was the location of the base nodes.  Underwood is located in 5 Points--hardly a pocket of poverty.  2 very low F&R base nodes are adjacent to Underwood, and the F&R nodes are bused in from downtown.  Underwood's magnet program isn't reducing F&R.  It may be helping to fill seats at a school that would otherwise be underenrolled, but it is NOT reducing poverty in the base.  If the BOE members didn't notice this when they were only looking at 37 schools (former BOE member told me she didn't notice until after decisions were made), how can they possibly know what's going on with the system wide reassignment plans?  They can't.  

I'm sure you're talking about the minority members on the Board. Perhaps you should direct it to the member who reps the area and then find out if there are efforts in the area to organize and oppose the assignment change.