Response from Dr. Alves (re: unassigned students) – Part II

I am providing a copy of Dr. Alves response – keep in mind that it is scan of a paper print-out, thus not the most convenient or mobile electronic format.

Alves Memo (Response to Schultz) 6-10-10

[Edit: Here is a cleaned up version, ready for the web]

I cannot argue with numbers. It would help if I had the numbers in front of me, so at least I am thankful that Dr. Alves has generated some reports for us to see. Yes, 85% rate of first-choice assignments is definitely very impressive, not to mention 96% of all top three choices. I do not (cannot) argue against this as a “good thing”. It is interesting that subjective descriptions of my recommendation are inserted amidst the numbers. But let us assume that my position is “illogical” – where is the proper place for me to learn about that? How do I enter into a dialog such that me, and folks like me who have questions, can learn about these things, both their historical context and their present day ramifications? “Unwarranted”, “illogical”, and “incongruous” sound like judgmental words – as this is written text only, I have no idea what kind of tone he is using when he thinks these things, nor why he chose these words over others. I am glad, in all seriousness, that Dr. Alves points out how if my suggestions were to be implemented, it has a high potential of making things unfair for some district residents. Far be it from me to introduce unfairness!

Having said that, I am glad Dr. Alves chose to elaborate a bit on his own position, and that of the School District. For instance, I had no idea that Unit 4 had rejected an initial recommendation of “mandatorily assigning students who were not assigned by the lottery to the school that was nearest to the students’ home” (all typos my own, as I cannot copy’n'paste) was rejected and instead the FIC (Family Information Center) was chosen to enter into a discussion with each parent about a good fit. It was my understanding that students simply went on the waiting list for their First Choice school, however long it might be. I am glad to hear that the FIC is supposed to contact parents – how come I have not heard about this from parent’s responding in this forum? Interesting.

Furthermore, I agree that the unassigned students are but a temporary situation. Perhaps I have made too much of an issue about Proximity A and unassigned households. However, I would argue that even if my initial stab into the dark mysteries of Controlled Choice was off the mark, I can “clearly” state that there are still underlying issues of the system as a whole; I get the impression that parent’s are lacking in confidence when they step in the FIC to make a choice. In the first full paragraph of page 4, Dr. Alves describes how more students would have been assigned if parents had made different choices, specifically if said parents had chosen undersubscribed Proximity A (or Proximity B) schools, instead of oversubscribed schools. This is a huge problem! Nobody knows for sure which schools are oversubscribed when they make a choice. It is like nobody knew “The Great War” was only going to be the First World War. On top of that, very few parents have any indication which schools are historically overchosen.

In conclusion, I will grant that perhaps I am making much ado specifically about something that may be rather small (unassigned students). However, I have to point out that there are bigger issues at play; communication being a critical component, and the lack of confidence and respect on both sides of the fence.

I welcome your thoughts.

Response from Dr. Alves (re: unassigned students) – Part I

I am calling this Part I, as this is my intial take on Dr. Alves’ response. I am considering a simple cut ‘n’ paste of his response, but I want to be fair and verify that nothing in it is confidential. Fair to him – I intend to spill as many beans as possible. :)
So here was one of my email requests, sent to the School Board and Sandra Duckworth:

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the Unit 4 School Board,

In reviewing the Kindergarten Lottery 2010 data, I see that (at the time) 55 students were unassigned to any school. I would first like to request that all residents within the Unit 4 School District be granted at least one Proximity A school and one Proximity B school. According to the data for unassigned students, one (1) student has absolutely no proximity (I am not sure how that is even possible), and 33 have no Proximity A schools (but they do have a Proximity B school). That is 33 out of 55, or 60%. The other 22 students have no Proximity B but they do have at least one Proximity A. In fact, 4 students have proximity (within 1.5 miles) to 6 schools, yet were unassigned! That is amazing.

Secondly, I would request that in future lotteries, all students are assigned to a school such that none are unassigned. Please retain the waiting list for the Choice schools (any schools that were selected as a preference, according to current policies).

Lastly, I am curious what the rationale behind the current practice is. Please note that I am not trying to be judgmental or critical; I am curious and seeking truth. Perhaps giving Proximity A to all tax paying residents was never considered, or perhaps it was deemed impractical or perhaps no consensus could be reached on how to achieve the goal. Whatever the case, I would like to know.

I sent that on June 7th, as a follow up to previous questions I had asked and after hearing back from several readers here. Dave Tomlinson (Board President) responded right away and requested the Dr. Culver address this. On June 24th, I sent yet another follow-up and asked about the status of this. Mr. Tomlinson thought there was a mention of this in a “packet” somewhere. Today, June 29th, someone was kind enough to forward me a copy of Dr. Alves response, which he apparently delivered on or around June 6th (did you catch that?) and copied to the Board on June 10th. I find it very strange that nobody informed me that a response was delivered and in fact has been in-hand for 19 days.

What is worse, however, is that I have no direct bi-directional interaction with the authoritative source. Dr. Alves made some very strong arguments and even some good points in his rebuttal (for lack of a more appropriate description), and I would love to continue a dialog. But as you can see, he did not even communicate with me, and I get the impression that the Board has not yet officially included me on this conversation, either. Why? Why so round about and backwards? A number of people in this community have questions about the system (I can count at least 10 based on those who have interacted on this blog) – how are they expected to engage in meaningful conversation about this? How do I follow-up with Dr. Alves?

I hope to present a copy of Dr. Alves’ response shortly – as I mentioned, he provides some interesting data points and perspectives. I first want to figure out why all the secrecy about this. Color me flabbergasted.

Proximity

Dictionary.com says:

prox·im·i·ty

[prok-sim-i-tee]  Show IPA

–noun
nearness in place, time, order, occurrence, or relation.

I recently filed an FOIA to get all school students addresses and proximities to schools. I was given two spreadsheets, neither of which have address information. But at least one thing pops out to me; in the “Proximity A” spreadsheet, I see one household that is 7.18 miles from school. In fact, I have 1131 students (out of 3644, almost 30%) that are over 1.5 miles from a school of “proximity A”. Odd, isn’t it?”

I can account for this in a couple ways. First, if you live near a school and them move, you can still send your child to the original school, even though you might live 7.18 miles away now. Or if the school moves (ala Carrie Busey), same thing. Now what if you live out in the boondocks and the closest school actually is 5 miles away? It is my understanding that “Proximity A” is defined as households that are 1.5 “walking” miles from the school. What if my understanding is not quite correct?

More to follow on this.  Hmm… I just noticed that the “Proximity B” spreadsheet has 1134 households listed. Only 3 more than 1131. Hmm….

A technical read – using TIGER/Line shapefiles and Google Maps

You might be wondering “what they heck does this have to do with Champaign schools?” Good question. :) I tend to be a picture-oriented person, so let me draw your attention back to the Kindergarten overlap map:

http://lottery.cb-pta.com/other/cu-k-maps.html

There are several steps involved here. If you take a peek at the javascript (including the drawDistrictLine.js file), you will see that I am hardcoding all the geocodes for the school addresses and the school district boundary line. I am doing that for speed – otherwise, I have to resolve all those points when you load the page. I like speed.

The School District Boundary line

To get the school district boundary line, I started asking a bunch of questions (seems to be my modus operandi). I was not able to find anyone within Unit 4 that had the exact data points for the district boundary, so I started looking around http://www.census.gov/. There is a ton of crazy stuff out there and it completely blew me away. But for the most part, it is largely unintelligible, even for me. *grin* I poked around with some local resources: Tom Laue with the Champaign GIS Consortium, Karen Hogenboom of the UI’s Library Gov Information department, and Marilyn Ruiz of Pathobiology (not sure how Vet Med got such a huge interest in Spatial relationships, but hey). Ms. Hogenboom took the time to show me the ArcGIS system that the University has a license for. Wow, is that beast complicated. I tried to play with it for a little while, but ultimately gave up in light of easier solutions. What easier solutions, you say? Ms. Hogenboom also pointed me to the TIGER/Line shapefiles. Mumbo jumbo, I know. So I needed a way to convert these shapefiles to something I could read. Thanks (again) to Google, I came across two utilities, Shape2Text and shp2text. Don’t bother with the former (I did not even include a link for it). I like the second better for a couple different reasons; 1) it works, 2) the source code is included so I can see what it is actually doing. This utility will read the complex shapefile that you download from TIGER and spit out a human-readable text file. The format is a bit strange, but workable. I grabbed the shapefile for Illinois Unified School Districts, converted it with shp2text and stripped out the information that was pertinent to Unit 4. Oddly enough, the school districts is technically defined as two separate sections, which you can see on the map. What did I strip out? I grabbed all the geocode points that define the boundary. These are lat/long (latitude and longitude) pairs, for example 40.10620700 -88.35058900 (40 degrees north, 88 degrees east, or negative 88 degrees west). More about these geocodes in a second.

School circles

For the schools, I had several things to overcome. At first, I grabbed all the addresses and called a Google Map API function to resolve them to geocodes. However, I found that the page was taking a few microseconds to load them, not to mention that the API call is execute asncronously, thus if I want to attach them to the map with special identifying information, I have to somehow build a DOM array to keep track of the asynchronous calls. Big pain in the arse. So to massively simply things, I opted to make the geocodes static. The next part is actually drawing the circle. Fortunately, I found an example to follow. I love examples! So I altered the code from the example and drew 1.5 mile circles around the center, marked by the geocode for each school, with its appropriate marker. Next, I wanted a dynamic way to shade the circles. I came across a fading menu button example, which I adopted for my circles. I am not entirely happy with it, yet – you will see that there is a precedence if you mouse-over the circles, and some circles are really hard to light up due to the low precedence and high amount of overlap (especially South Side – there is only a small area that will allow you to see the brown circle).

Putting it all on the map

So, finally, adding the pieces together. Chronologically, I did the circles first, so I simply reused the circle idea to draw the district boundary line(s). Basically, you build an array of lat/long pairs and pass that into a polygon generator function that Google provides. Google also provides a polyline function, but polygons can be filled. :) All the lat/long pairs are passed into the the polygon function to created that crazy, all-over-the-place district boundary. Next, I use some math (again, copied from the example) to generate an array of points – if you look closely at the circle (max zoom) and the source code, you will see that I only use 52 points to describe the circle, much like a 52-sided polygon. After generating the polygons, I have to add them to the map. Or, more accurately, pass the map into the polygon with the “setMap” function. I found that I had to add the district boundaries first, or else they would have higher precedence and you would not be able to mouse-over the circles.

I still want to pop up an info tab, much like what the fine folks at LocalSchoolDirectory have done. Their site is really slick, and I hope to make mine a little more fresh in terms of colors, shapes and general appeal. Maybe some day….. (/me has design envy). On the other hand, if you want that extra info, you can always go visit them. =)

No response on inquiries

This is a tad frustrating, and unforunately I do not have a way to set my expectations realistically. I have made several inquiries and submitted questions over the past month and I am getting nothing.

  • May 3: asked several questions of Dr. Alves and Ms. Duckworth pertaining to details of the Kindergarten Lottery. The only response I received to date was that Dr. Alves asked which Kindergarten lottery I was referring to.
  • May 25: reiterated those questions to Ms. Duckworth, also asked again about assigning Priority A to all residents of the school district such that each household has a Proximity A to one school.
  • June 3: Asked EEE Committee and Dorland Norris for some feedback on the June 3 meeting – the meeting was switched to 1:pm and I could not make it.
  • June 7: Asked the U4 BOE about 1) assigning Proximity A to all households, 2) making sure that in future lotteries there are no unassigned children.

I am not exactly sure what the best plan of action is. I will keep reminding various U4 admin and board members that I am waiting for responses – I have no idea if “they” have been meeting 8 hours a day to discuss a possible way to address these questions, or they if simply fallen by the wayside and forgotten among the weeds of minor issues. I just do not know what is going on.

I am keeping a misnamed FAQ (not “frequent” at all, but FAQ has become loosely associated with a list of questions any one person might ask) – looks like I need to update it as well:

http://lottery.cb-pta.com/lottery/php/faq.php

Welcome to Lynn Peisker

At the very bottom of a very short Jodi Heckel article:

Also on Monday, the board approved hiring Lynn Peisker as the coordinator for community relations for the district. Peisker is currently the volunteer connections coordinator for the United Way of Champaign County.

Woot! I have been waiting for that position to fill, and better yet I know Lynn. I think she will be an excellent addition to the team and am really excited to see what she brings to the table. Now I have to exercise patience and not scare her off with a mountain of questions.

Hat tip to Chuck Jackson for the heads up.

updates on Unit 4 projects (Promises Made, Promises Kept)

Last night I attended the 4th “Promises Made, Promises Kept” Committee meeting. This was my first time at this meeting, and my first time meeting some folks like Arlene Blank, Peg O’Donoghue, Roxann Bossenbrock, Mark Ritz, Anita Broeren, Ken Nelson and the other folks from OWP/P. It was two hours of being overwhelmed on a couple different fronts. I will attempt to spell it out here in a somewhat lucid manner. :)

Before I dig in, here are some announcements:

  • Ground breaking
    • BTW – June 22nd, 3:30 pm
    • Garden Hills – June 22nd, 1:30 pm
  • Next PMPK meeting – September 9th

First off, the agenda was not made public prior to the meeting. I have not checked to see if it has been posted, yet, but I would not even know where to look – the Unit 4 website does not have a separate location for the PMPK Committee from what I can tell. So I emailed the U4 Board of Education (BOE) and received a couple copies of the agenda and attached financial reports that Gene Logas generated. Looking at the agenda, I knew it was going to be rough; “Review of expenses”, “Update on Projects”, Update on this, update on that. I glanced briefly at the financial reports prior to the meeting and they were pretty much mumbo jumbo as I had no idea what I was looking at, nor the importance of it (no context).

I was early, and Gene Logas showed up early as well. We shook hands (never really talked face-to-face before). Gene is very open and willing to talk about what he does. Almost a little too talkative. *grin* However, I think I prefer someone in his position is more talky than less. I mentioned that I would love to have this information accessible online for public consumption, and he agreed that it would be good to provide taxpayers with a public review and possibly even an updated report. Especially on projects (remodeling at BTW, Garden Hills, new Savoy school) that are going on and have quite an impact on the district. I hope he was serious about that and moves on it. I wrote it down so I can hold him accountable. =) In fact, on that note, here is what I am asking Gene to follow-through on:

  1. A progress meter or check-list to show how promises made by the School Board are being kept. I had in mind one of those colorful fund-raising type poster-sized boards.
  2. Regular updates on projects so that the public knows what is going on
  3. Clear-language qualification about the Board’s promise to reduce the property tax in light of the 1% Sales Tax. It was made clear that the Board is actually extremely limited to what degree they can directly affect the property tax. Gene Logas argued quite passionately that, within those set limits, the Board has indeed kept its promise in the very narrow scope of a specific area of the property tax. However, there is a general misconception exactly what would be affected and how. That needs to be clarified and perhaps corrected.

First up was Gene. In fact, he dominated most of the time. For the first hour (perhaps 70 minutes), Gene covered a review of expenses. He started off and explained, perhaps for my benefit, that there are two major funds that this committee is keeping watch over:

  • Fund 60 – includes all the major projects like the remodeling/reconstruction at BTW and Garden Hills, the new Savoy School, paying off bond-related debts, etc
  • Fund 61 – between $1-$2 million for “extra” projects or “leftovers”

Gene started off by describing that in the context of the Savoy school, the land was supposed to be “free”. Supporting the adage that “nothing is free”, the Board ended up having to pay $7328 for the land that was supposedly “donated”. It turns out that the developers actually wanted more for the land, and this was a compromise. As Gene and others point out, in the big picture of things, 7 grand for that size of a lot is still really low. It is just money that was not expected to be spent.

On the heels of that discussion, Arlene Blank brought up the potential possibility (yes, I realize the double-vagueness) of naming the Savoy school something other than Carrie Busey. Culver and Dick Helton weighed in on various sides, but ultimately the discussion was declared “not appropriate for this group”. Very interesting, though. Apparently Arlene actually met the person Carrie Busey, and is concerned that the building that was dedicated in her name should retain the name in her honor. Interesting though. As a resident of Prairie Fields and future parent of a Carrie Busey kindergartener, I quite attached to the name despite its location. *grin*

Gene continued on, covering Fund 60 and Fund 61 in detail, more detail than I cared for. Various committee members (Arlene, Tom Lockman, Anita, Roxann, Greg Novak) all had some excellent questions about things I had not even considered or thought about, mostly questioning why the expenditure was necessary or what need it was aimed to meet. In retrospect, this is probably a core function of this committee. I am glad I am not on it. :)

Some other agenda items were covered in turn (see above for Ground Breaking announcements). Arlene turned it back over to Gene for a update on the “tax abatement”, which took another 15-20 minutes or so. Greg Novak put Gene on the spot about the Board’s promise to reduce the property tax. To be honest, I was lost in the talk about “abatements”, “debt service fund”, “assessed values”, etc. It was very hocus-pocus to me. Gene diligently pointed out, number by number, how the Board is limited by tax caps and “levies” (I do not claim to understand these terms either) and how this affected that. Again, I have the handouts but I would like to see this stuff online. I realize only a very small handful of community residents are ever going to care about these things, but at least they will be public, which is where I believe they belong. Not merely in the “public domain” and just waiting for an FOIA, but actually, literally, publicly available 24/7. In the end, the tax rate is not going down 7% or anything near that. Gene argued that one could say that the Board has striven to prohibit the tax rate from going up 8%, as it well could have. Again, please do not ask me to explain it.

So with about 30 or less minutes left, we finally turned to the developers (OWP/P and BLDD). BLDD presented some pretty pictures showcasing the new Garden Hills, but I could not help but feel like it was smoke and mirrors. Very impressive, though – an international theme with a myriad of international flags, murals of remote landmarks throughout the world adorning huge, well-lit hallways and a monstrous theater. They are aiming for a LEED score of 62 which will grant them a “Gold Certificate” – I do not have any clue what any of that means, but some folks seem to think it is impressive. OWP/P talked about the plans and community events they have had in relation to the schools they are working on (BTW and Carrie Busey). In fact, in terms of CB, I was impressed to learn that they met for 7 hours (!!) on Wednesday with CB staff, parents, community members, a PFHOA Board member and even Dick Helton and Jeff Scott. They covered themes, designs, lots of planning, shaping, modeling – an overwhelming amount of topics and directions. OWP/P showed some draft ideas of how the school would be situated and laid out. Again, I will ask about getting those online somewhere. After that gauntlet, Jeff Scott brought up the idea of getting the students involved, and OWP/P jumped on it. It sounds like incoming first- and second-graders will be asked to give their ideas. I also wrote down these dates from a slide:

  • September 9th: Carrie Busey Design Steering Committee Workshop #1
  • June 2010 – March 2011: Design Phase (Schematic design)
  • April 2011 – July 2012: Building & Construction (how are those two different?)
  • Fall 2012: School opens

There was some discussion about the geothermal going on. Apparently, a group from the University of Illinois is involved (didn’t catch the name or the contacts), and they have a drop-dead date they are trying to meet in order to qualify for grants. Testing is currently happening at Bottenfield, Robeson and Westview to see how the geothermal wells will behave. Kenwood will not get geothermal, but instead the current A/C will be overhauled and improved.

I think that was it. There were some times of hearty laughter over one thing or another, and moments of some really great discussion. But the meeting just totally drained me.

Google Map of schools

Just stumbled across this today – Of course Google Maps would make this easy! :)

http://www.localschooldirectory.com/city-schools/Champaign/IL

I am sure it would not be hard to plot a 1.5 mile radius circle around each public school, either. Well, not hard for someone – I have no idea how to do it.

UPDATE: Google Map API rocks!

CU4 Kingergarten Overlap Map

Another look at the unassigned students (from the 2010 Kindergarten Lottery)

Someone pointed out that even though they live within 1.5 miles of 5 elementary schools, they were not assigned to any school. This just blew my mind. So I took a peek at the data and come up with this:

Following is a table of all unassigned students. The first 3 columns (ch1, ch2, ch3) are the “Choice” school that the applicant requested. The next 11 columns (2 letter representation of a school name) say “Y” or “N” if the applicant is within 1.5 miles of that school. Proxb says which school is the applicant’s Proximity B school. The last column counts all those proximities and gives a sum. Note the surprising numbers at the bottom – keep in mind that these applicants were not assigned to any school.

ch1 ch2 ch3 ba bo cb dh kw ro ss st wv wa gh proxb sum
1 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N NULL 0
2 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
3 BO BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
4 BO BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
5 BA BO SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
6 BO SS WV N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
7 BO BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
8 BA SS WV N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
9 BO BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
10 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
11 BA BO WV N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
12 BO BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
13 BA BO SS N N N N N N N N N N N BA 1
14 BA SS BO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
15 BO BA RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
16 WV SS BO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
17 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
18 BA BO SS N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
19 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
20 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
21 SS BO WV N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
22 BO RO WV N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
23 BO BA WV N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
24 BA BO SS N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
25 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
26 SS BO WV N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
27 BO BA RO N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
28 WV BA SS N N N N N N N N N N N KW 1
29 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N RO 1
30 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N RO 1
31 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N RO 1
32 BO SS RO N N N N N N N N N N N ST 1
33 BO WV SS N N N N N N N N N N N ST 1
34 BO BA WV N N N N N N N N N N N ST 1
35 BA BO RO N N N N N N N N N N N ST 1
36 BA WV BO N N N N N Y N N N N N NULL 2
37 BA WV RO N N N N N Y N N N N N NULL 2
38 BA BO WV N N N N N Y N N N N N NULL 2
39 WV BO SS Y N N N N N N N N N N NULL 2
40 BO SS RO Y N N N N N N N N N N NULL 2
41 BO NULL NULL N N N N N N N Y N Y N NULL 3
42 SS WV RO N N N N Y Y N N N N N NULL 3
43 BO BA RO N N Y N N Y N N N N N NULL 3
44 SS WV RO N N Y N Y Y N N N N N NULL 4
45 BO BA SS N Y Y N N N Y N N N N NULL 4
46 BA BO SS N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N NULL 5
47 SS WV BA N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N NULL 5
48 BO BA SS N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N NULL 5
49 BO SS RO N N N Y N N Y Y Y N N NULL 5
50 BO SS WV N N Y Y N N Y N Y N N NULL 5
51 SS BO WV N Y Y N N Y N N Y N N NULL 5
52 SS BO WV N Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N NULL 6
53 SS BO WV N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N NULL 6
54 SS BO BA N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N NULL 6
55 SS BA BO N Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N NULL 6

After reviewing this data, I fired off another note to the U4 Board of Education:

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the Unit 4 School Board,

In reviewing the Kindergarten Lottery 2010 data, I see that (at the time) 55 students were unassigned to any school. I would first like to request that all residents within the Unit 4 School District be granted at least one Proximity A school and one Proximity B school. According to the data for unassigned students, one (1) student has absolutely no proximity (I am not sure how that is even possible), and 33 have no Proximity A schools (but they do have a Proximity B school). That is 33 out of 55, or 60%. The other 22 students have no Proximity B but they do have at least one Proximity A. In fact, 4 students have proximity (within 1.5 miles) to 6 schools, yet were unassigned! That is amazing.

Secondly, I would request that in future lotteries, all students are assigned to a school such that none are unassigned. Please retain the waiting list for the Choice schools (any schools that were selected as a preference, according to current policies).

Lastly, I am curious what the rationale behind the current practice is. Please note that I am not trying to be judgmental or critical; I am curious and seeking truth. Perhaps giving Proximity A to all tax paying residents was never considered, or perhaps it was deemed impractical or perhaps no consensus could be reached on how to achieve the goal. Whatever the case, I would like to know.

Thanks for your time.

I’ll update this post when I hear something. Anyone know when the Administrative staff is at a relative slow time? Is summer excessively busier than other times of the year? I am trying to set realistic expectations on when to hear back from the Board, and what frequency I should keep bugging them.

Open discussion for June 3rd EEE Committee meeting

An open post for folks to comment on the June 3rd Education Equity Excellence Committee meeting. I was not able to make it, so I am scavenging for feedback. :)

Who showed up?

What was discussed?

How did it go?

What did I miss?

New document detailing the 2010 Lottery data

I am recently in receipt of a memorandum from Dr. Alves that describes various aspects of the 2010 Kindergarten Lottery:

http://champaignunit4.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/alves-memorandum-5-10-10.pdf

It is 6 pages of descriptive text and 16 pages of supporting tables and charts. Unfortunately, the quality is a bit low as it looks like a copy of a fax, or a low-quality xerox of a print-out. In any event, the paper documents the various changes from the 2009-2010 school year lottery and higlights significant areas including SES integration, a break-down of first-choice and priority assignments, Special Ed, unassigned students and even a blurb about Carrie Busey and how that is changing.

First, let me say that I am glad to see this kind of a report come from Dr. Alves. It looks like he generated the report on May 10, 2010, several weeks after delivering the 2010 Kingerten Data on April 20. However, I am confused why I only learned about this report on June 3rd (and received a copy late on June 4th). I have been in contact with various members of the Unit 4 Administration and even Dr. Alves himself, and yet none of them spoke of this report. Very strange. Not only that, but this report is not publicized at all. Why is that? Please note that I am not speculating, I am not suggesting reasons or possible answers to these questions; I merely pose the questions. *grin*

There are two things I hope Unit 4 will be willing to follow through on:

  1. Make all such reports publicly available by default (as opposed to waiting for a FOIA request). At the very least, make an index of such reports available – how would one even know what to request if one does not know what is available?
  2. Deliver reports, charts and tables electronically, preferably via a website. Personally, I prefer a database back-end with a nifty web-enabled front-end opposed to spreadsheets, but I’ll take the latter if that is the only thing available.

I am wondering if I should FOIA all past Kindergarten lottery, including any memorandums and communication between Unit 4 and Dr. Alves. If I say my goal is to publish it all online, would that blacklist me? =)

UPDATE:

Unit 4 has a position open for a “Public Information Officer / District Support Personnel (DSP)”:

http://www.generalasp.com/roe9/champaign-vacancies.htm?category=District+School+Service+Personnel

It is hoped that this position will help make the information flow (both in and out) between Unit 4 and the community a bit better. To be honest, I thought it might be interesting to apply, but it is a full-time employment and the job description involves more than I want to chew. But I hope to become BFF with this person. *grin*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers