Just to reiterate, the title of this series is not meant to condescend at all. Rather, it is a look from the ground-up about this mystifying registration process. And actually, I could almost conclude this post with the simple statement that Registration has become overly complex for no good reason.

What if Registration was merely putting schools (all 11 of them) in order of preference, with the distinct and clear explanation that if they do not get into one school, the computer will try the next one. No mention of proximity, no mention of priority, no mention “choice”. I would chop off the last “R” from Review, Rank and Request. Or combine them into one. They see all 11 schools, look at them on a map, see a summary of what each school has to offer, maybe see pictures, have a chance to visit them, go to a display like the ones at the current community forums…. they do whatever review satisfies them, than fill out a sheet that orders all the schools (online, on a smartphone, at the FIC, or just call somebody up). If they want to see more data, then you can open up the can of worms and unload. But until they get to that point, Keep It Simple, Silly.

In light of keeping it simple, I would actually urge for one exception on the Administrative side; put as much online as possible. Put Edulog (the program that displays how far the bus goes from the pickup nearest your house to any said school) online. Generate maps so people can see their house in relation to the schools.

One further thing; actually simplify the algorithms behind student/school assignment. I contend we do not need the services of EnrollEdu (Dr. Alves) – the 3rd-party neutrality he represents is boiled down to a computer. We have lots of computers here. What he uses for “fair” and “equitable” Low SES calculations, while with good intent, are inherently flawed because they make assumptions. For the sake of discussion, I publicly wonder if merely using “free/reduced lunch” status is enough of a consideration. If you think I am being callous or have no regard for others not like myself, then let’s talk – I want to hear from you.

While I do want to delve deeper on that last topic, I digress from my main point. Make Registration as painless and as user-friendly as possible. Do this by:

• get rid of keywords like “proximity”, “priority” and “choice”; encourage parents to put all 11 schools in some sort of order
• continue on the path with helpful videos; generate maps and a brochure that quickly summarizes all schools
• put stuff online (ie, edulog or whatever replacement comes down the pike)
• emphasize that all the schools are really good – the Magnet program is a great start, but have to show how not everything revolves around AYP to help bolster “underchosen” schools (and don’t use that word )

That last point may be the most important. I think we might make much ado about relative molehills. While I have a lot of constructive criticism for the Administration, my one suggestion to parents is to take a chill pill. Yes, definitely choosing the right school is a huge deal and a big responsibility. I am on the same page – I have been there. But it ain’t the end of the world. If you are unhappy with a school, then transfer. Or better yet, get involved and work for change. What an awesome role-model for your little one. And you know what’s really cool? Parents are already doing that! I love it.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen,

The video is a huge hit! It is such a huge improvement over the previous forms of communicating information. It is exciting to see Unit 4 and the FIC moving in this direction.

While several of us were talking after the presentation, several things came up – specifically about getting information online and maybe even making a couple posters:

1. put edulog online
2. while #1 is being talked about, I have a google maps + javascript solution that gets pretty darn close
3. Show people a map with the school district boundaries and the location of each school. Maybe a 4′ x 3′ posterboard and people can insert pushpins (I have done this elsewhere with great success).

Jamar, Orlando and Judy asked for the URLs for my projects. Feel free to share these  with others if you wish (for instance, I cannot locate Michelle Brown’s email address).

Google map + approximate 1.5 mile circles around each school (the javascript for making the circles fade is flaky)
http://lottery.cb-pta.com/other/cu-k-maps.html
Google map + calculator for distance from your address to EVERY elementary school:
http://lottery.cb-pta.com/other/cu-walking-to-school-static.html

Lastly, I have an online database of the Kindergarten lottery data from 2009 – 2011. Some of it is really technical, but here are two fancy charts derived from the data:
2010 : http://lottery.cb-pta.com/test/visualize.php?year=2010
2011 : http://lottery.cb-pta.com/test/visualize.php?year=2011

I would be more than happy to entertain any more questions or comments. In fact, I humbly ask for your thoughts and honest feedback.
Have a most wonderful Friday!

It is rather strange watching the forum unfold. After the video, there were assorted questions on various topics. A couple came in asking about Priority, and then Trevor popped up a slide attempting to explain it better and it went to hell. The slides (which I do not yet have) do indeed explain what Proximity is at the basest level, but it does not help explain Priority in the same sentence. Jamar and I were chatting and we both think it would be best just to stop talking about Proximity altogether – it stresses parents out and it provides an unnecessary, unwanted, ungainly level of information at that stage in the game. It is good to have that information available, but not right when people are learning about the assignment process in the first place. Especially when the process is still called “Choice”.

We talked a little about  the impact of UC2B, and Tino expressed a bit of enthusiasm bespeaking the benefits of getting neighbors online and getting used to acquiring skills that are in such high demand these days. He is excited about this. We also chatted a little about work that Brian Bell is doing at Parkland with his free computer literacy classes.

While I personally remain skeptical that UC2B will open up the doors to the workforce in such utopian ways, I certainly feel the compelling attraction – people like Tino who have grown up in Champaign and intimately know all the small quirks and have the context of history know that “idle hands are the devil’s tools”, and very much want to see those idle hands getting jobs. And right now, apparently the perception is that if you can work a computer well, or have some rudimentary web skills, you can do just that. Is this in fact true? I understand the logic, but does having those basic skills really open up doors?

In any event, I am excited about the upcoming Economic Forum.

I did seriously consider whether or not this post belongs on a blog supposedly aimed at a school district. After debating with myself, I am clicking “Publish” because I see a very vital and critical connection between the community and what the school district is supposed to be doing. And where I am at right now, community forums seem like an awesome way to pull otherwise diverse people together. Much more so that any electronic medium I have come across. And much more so than any meeting I have gritted my teeth through.

http://fast.wistia.com/embed/iframe/57f6eaeb23?videoWidth=630&videoHeight=354&volumeControl=true&playerColor=3853a4&autoPlay=true&endVideoBehavior=reset&popover=true

You can get there from the new registration website:

http://www.unit4registration.org/

They did a really swell job with the video – very impressive! I wish they spent a little more time explaining why the one parent did not get any of her 5 choices since that kinda sticks out like a sore thumb, but there is the implication that the parent finally get in via the waitlist. Proximity is described in much better detail, which helps. I still wait to see an online map and real-life examples.

Trevor Nadrozny has short outtakes in many of the sections (the “process flow” from the website), and does a lot of the explaining in the longer video. The repetition of the three R’s does indeed drive home the point of what one does, and I appreciate that Trevor acknowledges the pain points.

I am pleased that Unit 4 found someone to do such a snazzy video on such short notice. I hope they look to supplement the video and website with even better stuff for next year.

So here is a question to let your subconscious chew on while you read the rest of this. How do people share ideas and information with each other? You and I probably represent somewhat of a niche in that regards in that I am writing a blog post and several of you are reading it, either via an email subscription, rss feed, google hit or syndication. There are many other forms of communication that we use today.

G David has been involved with Unit 4 on the PTA and tech side for quite some time (going to hit a decade in a couple short years ). He gave us  some excellent background and historical context for why we are (almost literally) banging our heads about the current state of websites, and especially PTA websites, within Unit 4. If I may paraphrase, it seems that the general mentality of tech folks in this arena have fallen prey to a couple basic … syndromes, for lack of a better word:

1. more often than not, it is a one-man show
2. combined with a one-trick pony
3. which leads to “my way or the highway”

This is not isolated to the IT staff, we have observed that inevitably this happens with PTA volunteers as well. And in a way, you can see the natural progression; someone sees a deficiency or a hole, they offer to fill the gap but they only know one “trick”. So everything is cast in that mold. Once that person exits stage left, the curtains come down and Google retains their ever-stale work for posterity. There has been a lack of “hand off” or suitable transition. Not that IT Directors have not tried; we were regaled with a story of how one year staff had to go through a 3 or 4 hour training session on creating websites. And where are those websites now?

It is not my intent to be negative, pessimistic or see the glass half empty. I believe G David’s intent is, truly, to provide a foundation based on history that helps to describe where we are now. So where are we? We can keep lighting these little fires that burn for a year or two (thinking specifically of PTA websites). Or we can work on building a furnace (my words – editorial benefit *grin*). The “furnace” applies also to IT in Unit 4; I know they keep trying to come up with a framework that supposedly makes it easier for schools to simultaneously broadcast their individuality while operating under the umbrella of the Unit 4 brand/image. And I’ll give them partial credit, they got at least part of that down.

As frustrating as it seems, G David feels that we must go back to the drawing board to build consensus and get buy-in from various players. I confess I am rather befuddled why this has not happened in the past decade – what is the big obstacle. I realize that the mentality of pushing solutions, regardless of the problem, can lead to fractured and segmented societies. Which is pretty much what we have now. So I have to ask, what really are the problems? We have formed this loose “Tech group” because we really (really really) want to see each school PTA have a website. And we know how to do it. In fact, we were trying to find the meeting times of the PTA Council and… “what, they have no website!?!?!” But as G David reminded us, the age of email is growing older; his perception is that kids these days use twitter and texts, and maybe even Facebook (probably). Only a certain kind of person looks for and expects full-blown websites.

And this got me thinking about how we communicate, how we trade information with one another. I found some fascinating RSA Animate talks that are slightly tangential to this topic (1 and 2 if you are still curious – please stay away from youtube), but the upshot is that while times and technology are changing, the root of what we wish to communicate and the models we fall into doing so pretty much stay the same. Sure, we can build fancy websites with social media hooks (even bi-directional hooks)  - that might be the rave right now. But what about 5 years from now? 10? Perhaps what we need most are people who want to communicate. We can throw up whatever technology best suits, but without the desire to share ideas and connect, you have nothing. Which makes Facebook a most excellent research topic. But what about circles that do not involve computerized technology? (such a thing exists?!?)

I am still a website person. I am going to email 4fr. And I don’t see myself tweeting. But I want to find out how other people plug into the morass of humanity.

http://www.chambanamoms.com/2012/01/24/urbana-school-redistricting-meeting-poorly-attended/

I was keen to read about the ideas they had concerning “community schools” and “sister schools”. In fact, the latter almost sounded similar to the Academy Prep idea in Unit 4.

PS – the problem described by the author seems endemic to most community meetings I have witnessed.

I almost called this post something like “To the readers: what are your thoughts?”. But I figured I needed to seed the conversation first.

“I will start by starting.” (Paulo Freire)  In some sense, it seems like these news items are brand new. And they are rather big. I am sure Administration and the BOE have had these things on their minds for a while. But I personally was not aware of them. Were you? In previous interviews, Dr. Malito has told us that he is concerned about “rigor”, the high school options and the the middle school buildings. Dr. Wiegand has repeated some of those issues in recent interviews. Nothing was ever said about filling positions, that I know of. Of course, there is a lot I do not know (and a lot I will never know). But why do these positions need to be filled in the first place? That is my number one concern right now. Why was there never a discussion about what these job roles did? I saw absolutely no invitation from the Administration to the Community to partake in such a discussion. I fear we are just doing “the same old thing”. Granted, good could come out of this. But I much rather we be intentional about that good instead of just walking the same worn path all the time. Do we really need these Assistant Superintendents? The answer might be “yes”. But it might be “no” as well.

And then money. $15.5 million sounds like a lot. We are told this is needed for improvements at the middle schools, wireless technology, laptops and a new transportation building. I don’t necessarily have a qualm with the transportation building – I have heard that the building really does need some attention (like a wrecking ball). And I know the middle schools could use a bit of work (because, somehow, Unit 4 has not had a great long-range plan and our buildings are falling apart). I hope that we don’t pour a few million into a school like Edison only to have it repurposed due to the high school shell game. And thus another big concern I have. It feels like we are rushing into these decisions, when we do not even know what we are doing with the high schools (and by corollary, with the middle schools). And finally, electronics. *sigh* First off, I know that we get a bunch of funding for computers and equipment through several Federal grants. That is not enough? What is not covered? Worse, I have been a recipient of at least two bad stories about laptops. In one story, laptops were purchased for a school but then the delivery took well over 6 months and I believe they still have not been delivered. In another case, laptops at one school all started to fail after one year.

These things concern me. I do not know the full ramifications of a large cash bond, other than the details that were provided in the NG articles (ie, property taxes go up and we do not get to vote on it). I am not comfortable with my taxes going up while I have no say in how they are spent. I am not comfortable with the District moving ahead with no input from the community. I am but one person.

It is my personal opinion that these kinds of things make other folks, other tax-paying voters, feel uncomfortable as well. I could be wrong. At some point, Unit 4 is going to draw up a referendum to raise money for whatever we decide to do with the high schools. Do you really think that will fly if we are uncomfortable?

Update: I found some helpful documentation that was included on BoardDocs

Phase II Funded by Working Cash Bond Issue
http://champaignunit4.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/phase-ii-funded-by-working-cash-bond-issue.pdf

Logas’s explanation
http://champaignunit4.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/logas_cash_bond_explanation.doc

Administrative Appointment
January 24, 2012

Dr. Laura Taylor has been appointed Assistant Superintendent for Achievement and Pupil Services for the Champaign Unit 4 School District. The appointment will become effective July 1, 2012.

Dr. Taylor holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois, Masters Degree from the University of Miami and a Doctor of Education from the University of Illinois. In addition to her work in public schools, she also serves as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Illinois, teaching graduate level courses in the College of Education. She is currently the Principal at Urbana High School. During her tenure in Urbana, the high school made the College Board Advanced Placement Achievement List for two consecutive years and was awarded a bronze medal by U.S. News and World Report.

“Dr. Taylor will be a great addition to our District. Her background in secondary education will be such a great asset to our students, faculty and parents,” said Dr. Judy Wiegand, Superintendent.

I am curious about two things:

1) Do we need this position to be filled? I realize we have taken on a lot of interims to fill the void of the previous administrative vacuum, but it is not clear to me that we actually need these positions. Do we?

2) So I am really happy for Dr. Taylor. But what about the community she is leaving behind? Not only a high school, but she is being taken out of the Urbana school district. Is it a good thing to keep moving good people up the food chain, creating little vacuums? Maybe yes – I can see how this creates room for others to grow and improve. But on the other hand, what happens to Urbana High School? I guess we will see if it continues to make the College Board Advanced Placement Achievement List.

I am really glad that the high school options discussion was first on the agenda. During the “Public Comment” section that preceded everything else, Holly got up to introduce herself and basically state that she is interviewing people about the high school options. I must confess, her voice is really soft and I have a slight hearing loss so I did not hear everything she said. Judy Wiegand next started the powerpoint slides rolling, annotating as she went. A majority of it was a simple rehash of Dr. Malito’s presentation last year. The first slide gave a little context as to what has influenced the options (Consent Decree <=> equity, Promises Made Promises Kept <=> Finances, Great Schools Together <=> “World Class” education). She also mentioned a “timeline” and that the community needs to be brought to the table and need to continue discussing these things. Note she said this to a roomful of chairs.

She also summarized the input they have received from the community as a result of the online survey.  However she read through them rather quickly and I did not get a chance to get them all. I am very curious why this presentation was not made available online, especially as part of the BoardDocs thing they have going. If they want more people at the meetings, give them a carrot or something.

UPDATE: The powerpoint was provided to me.

Here is my summary of her summary, in WordPress HoriBad tables:

Wiegand then displayed a map showing current and possible future sites; I will not attempt to describe it, but I found it confusing.

Wiegand concluded with her recommendations for the Board:

1. Take option 5 off the table
2. Need 3rd party to poll the community and collect opinions
3. Possibly look at additional architecture firms

Lynn Stuckey then got up and made an extremely good point that none of the options even touched on the possibility of doing K-8. That caught my ears because Pattsi had said the exact same thing at a previous “Wednesdays at Houlihans”. I want to find out why that has not been added to the possibilities.

Each Board member was then given a chance to respond. Keep in mind I am writing from my notes and memory – these are not to be taken as an authoritative source. I do make mistakes. Some times.

Tom Lockman was unable to pinpoint any positives that came out of the “one high school” solution (Options 3 & 4). He also expressed concern about the impact on extra curricular activities.

Dave Tomlinson wants to take the Boulder Ridge site off the table because it is stinking (my words) away, given his recent experience driving an emergency firetruck out that way. He agrees that renovating Central is a Very Bad idea.

Stig Lanesskog also wants to take option 5 off the table (sense a pattern?). Extremely concerned about the size of a large high school (the “one high school” option). Agrees about getting a PR firm involved, wants to drum up excitement about the high school options. He is trying to figure a very positive angle for the community and how we can all benefit from this. He is very much against the Olympian sites as they contribute to sprawl.

Kristine Chalifoux seemed rather undecided. Likes the idea of having two high schools; instead of hiring a PR or architecture firm, thinks it would be key to get a planning firm on board.

Unfortunately, I had to leave before Kristine concluded and the others (Jamar Brown and Sue Grey) were able to share their thoughts. Hoping Meg Dickinson can fill in some blanks spots for me. *grin*

I had a few thoughts while sitting there and trying to take this all in.

• Why is this not online? Why is the summary of the survey results not yet available to the other 89,982 members of the community?
• Option 5 seems really dead.
• Really like the idea of pursuing K-8 – want to know more about that
• Absolutely no mention of involving the University at all. Wow. And here we had a UofI Master student sitting in the audience. They want to hire PR, architecture or planning firms, but not talk with the University? Or did I simply misunderstand “firm”? I am confused.

As I told Holly a few days ago, I really want to learn more about Central for myself. I want to learn exactly why it needs to be replaced. And Edison for that matter. I mean, I have read the papers, I have heard folks talking about it, heck, I even walk in the hallways of Edison once a week. One of the biggest issues in planning for such large-scale changes is that Unit 4 is going to have to sell it to the community at large just to get a referendum through. This community has shown it has tight hands on the purse strings (and perhaps for a good reason). If Unit 4 wants people to vote in favor, not only must they paint of picture of schools needing help, but of how the community can provide that help.

And it ain’t that shabby. I am reading through it now to see how palatable it is. Feel free to leave comments.

I am a masters student in UIUC’s Urban Planning program and I was a 2004 Central graduate. Given recent discussions in Unit 4 about building a new Central, I decided to focus on the school siting issue for my thesis project. I have been coordinating with the City of Champaign and Unit 4 but I’m also very interested in perspectives of community members. My research focuses on the impacts of choosing various sites (I selected five sites, meant to be demonstrative of a whole range of options), including transportation, social, environmental, and cost impacts. I completed the transportation analysis last semester and will likely be presenting the results at next Monday’s [Jan 23rd] school board meeting.

My goal with the project is actually not to make a specific recommendation (although I’m happy to share my opinion), but to make tradeoffs more explicit. I think we as a community can make a better decision if we know more about potential impacts. No solution is going to satisfy everyone but I think we can all be better negotiators if we can lay out the tradeoffs that must be made in order to reach a compromise.

If anyone is interested, please let her know. I am having an interview with her tomorrow (Friday) and can report back.

• NewsTalk 1400  http://www.wdws.com/audio/2012-01-19/dr-judy-wiegand-1-19-12.html-0
• News Gazette  http://www.news-gazette.com/news/education/2012-01-19/prairie-fields-favorite-name-new-savoy-school.html

NG focuses on the potential, possible, maybe new name of the new Carrie Busey building. The NewsTalk feed only covers it for about…. 45 seconds or so. But NG also has a 25 second sound bite from Savoy Village Manager Dick Helton (who has been very involved in the district for quite some time).

Highlights from the NewsTalk show:

• A little bit of background on why Dr. Wiegand submitted her application for Superintendent late. She mentions that there was a lot going on, she was taking on more responsibilities and how Dr. Bob Malito was a huge influence.
• Talk of how she, representing the Administration, will be going back to the BOE with high school options they have been talking about. A bit of the interview is devoted to this topic, discussing how Adminstration has been reviewing all the survey responses we the public have been giving and what they are learning about the sites. I also have knowledge that a Master Student at the University is currently studying these options and it will be interesting to see what kind of research comes out of that work.
• As previously mentioned, only a small amount of time was given to the possible (inevitable?) new name of Carrie Busey. Given that they will keep the Carrie Busey name with the current building on Kirby, there is talk of what to name the new building. And perhaps, as the NG boldly states, they may call it “Prairie Fields”. Wiegand also mentioned how the current building will be used, first by West View then others, as schools are upgraded.

So here is an issue for me. In Helton’s sound bite, he mentioned that the Village Board heard from “members of the Prairie Fields Home Owners’ Association”. While this is technically true, I believe that more specifically, they heard from the Board of Directors, and even more specifically, one or two people in particular. On the other hand, I am hearing from parent’s that they do not feel represented at all, as nobody asked them what their opinion was, and here we have elected officials out stating an opinion for the entire neighborhood. They are a tad upset about that.

What should have been done? How should these one-off conversations have proceeded in such a way not to alienate groups? I think, even if the Boards involved would have put out an email or something in a newsletter that said something to effect of “hey, Carrie Busey will probably get a new name, tell us what you think” would have been a good start. And now we are going to have parent’s reading this in the news and on TV/radio and be like “Hey, that is not what I think!!” Regardless of whether they might eventually be on the same page or not, this is not a good first step, IMO.

Update: I started a discussion board for this back in November:

http://www.cb-pta.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=21

[note to self: Ughn, going to have to change the name of the website....]

Putting that aside, there are whole chunks of conversations that are happening (and probably more that need to happen) surrounding the high school options. I sure hope we have more public forums to discuss those. And I was excited to hear about a researcher out of Urban Planning that is looking at the options. Woot! Good news.

I must say, in closing, that I glad that Dr. Judy Wiegand is getting the news out to the public. That is great! Even if it disturbs the bees’ nest. In fact, I might go so far as to say that opening a can of worms is a good thing, in that it gets people talking and thinking, hopefully down the path of thinking critically.

One of the issues we discussed is the top-down management style prevalent in Unit 4 Administration. An example at Stratton was used whereby a majority of parent’s wanted to retain the longer school day, but the teachers (allegedly represented by the teachers union, the Champaign Federation of Teachers) did not. It sounds like the CFT approached Administration and eliminated the longer days. From what I hear, the parent’s were not involved in the decision making process at all. In another example, the CFT so constrained the hiring of particular support staff such that only a certified teacher could fill the position, and there is speculation that the position could have been better filled. Granted, I don’t have all the sides of the story. So please feel free to fill me in. Yet, we do observe these types of situations occurring - the Administration makes a decision, and presto-bingo, those are the new marching orders. I am also aware that a previous CFT President occasionally reads these posts…. just saying.

We talked a bit about the role of the ombudsperson, and how it is important for community members to have a safe place in which to release their opinions; not such much to air dirty laundry or rag about anything, but more to show that people are valuable and worth listening to, and to extract key issues from such sessions in which to present to the School District in the hopes of finding compromise or solutions. Comparisons were made to CARE3 and Community Citizens Concerned about Quality Education. I have heard a lot about CARE3, but I was never directly involved and it is difficult to find much information about them via google (although you can follow the rabbit trail to Mark Aber and Access Initiative). In retrospect, our little gathering at Houlihans is just one more example of a group of concerned people that want to make a positive impact on the community, one among many others. Which further makes me think, why is there not more collaboration? Why are we all so isolated?

My one action item is to talk to Wiegand about Grinnip. I am trying to think of how to phrase this. Allow me to diverge on a tangent briefly.

So we have UC2B being rolled out as we speak (you have probably seen crews laying out long orange tubes underground along streets). Unit 4 has made the single largest contribution towards UC2B, over and above the University of Illinois and other vested partners. This is amazing in and of itself. And with two strands of fiber, they will certainly have a heck of a lot of bandwidth. What are they going to do with it? Let us think about the purpose of UC2B (at least, what they publicly say about themselves):

“an open-access fiber-optic broadband network throughout the Champaign-Urbana area”

“This direct connectivity will enable improved access/support to health care, educational and recreational institutions, public safety and government agencies, and social service and religious organizations, as well as increased access to public computing centers. and a sustainable adoption and educational outreach program for vulnerable populations. Training, entertainment, and social networking opportunities will also be enhanced.”

There is a ton of information about UC2B online. Were is the Wiki entry? Anyway, all this focus on bringing a fatter pipe to the internet to “anchor institutions” and various low-incoming housing. And it seems that the sole purpose is merely to “connect” them. I am bit confused why we need this. We have 0$ for computer literacy, but we have over 30$ million to lay down infrastructure and buy a bunch of really cool brand new toys. Interesting.

So bringing this back to Grinnip. All schools will be “connected” to this fat pipe. Unit 4 is planning to not provide public wi-fi. So here is what I propose first and foremost (in this context). Let’s have a sit-down chat with Grinnip and other folks in Unit 4 IT and with the parents of Unit 4 children, and let us, at the same table, figure out what is needed, what is desired and how to achieve those goals. Together.

Personally, I am bit tired of hearing about how we “need” UC2B – from my point of view, it seems like “we” are providing an answer to a question that has not been asked. We should be asking, “what do you need?” What problems are you facing, and what issues make your life rough?

I received an email from a mom who was concerned about her choices. I’ll not divulge too much information, but she has given me permission to relay the story here for learning purposes. She is considering Private school but wants to give Public school a shot if it will work out.

“We have no proximity A school, no siblings, and a high SES.  So, if I’m reading your blog and other info correctly, we really have a very limited “choice” of schools and realistically will have to choose between Kenwood, Garden Hills (our proximity B school), Stratton, Washington, and Dr. Howard. I’d be interested to know if you think that conclusion is correct. Would there be any use in making our first choice Westview, Robeson, or Southside, where the number of people who made it their first choice was below the actual number of seats available last year?”

After reading through the rest of the email and commenting on the subjective nature of perceptions, etc, the objective part of my response was as follows:

You already have a good grip on how the cards are stacked. Last year, if you put Westview or Robeson as your first choice, you would have gotten it. Will that happen again this year? Probably. South Side was chosen by 48 people as a First Choice and only 46 seats were available. With more people choosing Carrie Busey as a First Choice (probably – its a brand new school), South Side might have some First Choice slots open. Keep in mind that the odds last year were pretty darn good – only 3 out of 48 did not get their First Choice for South Side. (I know, you are thinking “Wait, 48-46 = 2, not 3!” It turns out that one other Proximity A parent was denied because of the reserve for Proximity B parents). However, your chance of getting Westview or Robeson as a 2nd Choice are a little more grim; 6/52 [6 out of 52] Robeson 2nd Choices were fulfilled and 8/74 [8 out of 74] Westview 2nd Choices were fulfilled. Those are not betting numbers.

Bottom-line: If you makes you feel better, you have a pretty high chance of getting into Westview, Robeson or South Side if you make one of those your first choice. Again, we are talking about chances based on historical data. Keep in mind you will be wait-listed for your first choice as well.

Cons

• The old-school power-point presentation (and the subsequent reading of those slides) just doesn’t cut it. Lots and lots of people had questions of all types that were obviously not answered during the “short” presentation.
• I like Doretha Simmons, but a more charismatic speaker would go a long way in making the session palatable.
• The TV guy tonight was a bit obnoxious – never seen anything like that before. He stood 2 feet in front of Ms. Simmons while she was talking, blocking most of the room.
• The definitions and descriptions of the “choice process” I think only made things worse.
• I still dispute the use of the claim that Controlled Choice reduces involuntary busing. It is better than without the adjective, but I think they should take it off altogether.

Pros

• The presentation was  a tad shorter, and there was a little more time for Q&A.
• Michele Brown was on-hand to provide some in-depth expertise.
• Again, good to be introduced to school principals and district administration.
• Doretha Simmons did a good job of making it clear that they have heard dissatisfaction with the Choice process and they are doing something about it. (but what exactly?!?)

Some suggestions

• Get rid of the power point, use real-life examples (I hear this in the works for Jan 26th).
• Tonight there were a lot of questions about proximity, priority, curriculum and magnet programs, with emphasis on the first two (IMO). I think the presenters get caught up in the moment of trying to answer the questions to the best of their abilities, but it might help to take a step back and say “Hey, a lot of you are asking similar questions. Did you know that we have some improvements for Jan 26th? Here is what we will do differently….”
• Use charts, pictures and demonstrations
• Use real data from previous years; make said data available to everyone. I’ll keep hosting it if they link to it. Or they can host it.
• I am torn about the time spent introducing principals and staff; on the one hand, it is great to make those connections with parents, but on the other, it also delays the presentation.

I connected a lot of faces with names, which for me is one of the best reasons to go to meetings. I finally met Judy Wiegand and Doretha Simmons, as well as some blog trollers. *grin* I also met Trevor Nadronzy and had a most excellent talk with him. Things I personally found quite noteworthy:

• Dr. Wiegand and Trevor are looking carefully at the “We the People” White House example, and seeing if they can do something like that in Unit 4. Woot!
• Is setting up a time with Dr. Lizanne DeStefano (one of the Choice Evaluators from the University’s I-STEM branch), and we hope to be able to sit down and have some serious talks about what can be done about perception and the “Lottery”.
• Mentioned that he is working with a guy from the bus garage to see if they can do something online with the Proximity data. Maybe even replace EduLog (my words, not his). I contend that the front-end application (EduLog) is not the important part, it is the proximity data that is provided by the bus garage. And we can make the web the front-end.

I like Trevor; he seems earnest and sincere about connecting with parents and addressing whatever issues they have. He is technically the Head of Curriculum, but he is tackling a number of what I would consider “out of scope” topics, and I appreciate his current modus operandi.

I have to mention something about Dr. Wiegand as well. She called me before the meeting to follow-up with the suggestions that I made at the Board Meeting last night. This is something that Dr. Malito made a habit of doing, and I am tickled pink that Dr. Wiegand is picking up on these little nuances. This is a huge factor in bringing folks back to the table. It’s almost as if Unit 4 is actually listening to people! (btw, that is a good thing)

Finally a closing thought about websites and web design. Lynn Peisker hired a Missouri consultant to whip up a couple websites for registration. I have already mentioned the Magnet school site; the other brand-new site (which is not even ready, yet) is http://unit4registration.org/. I am excited that these changes are coming down the pike. Awesome! However, I am saddened that we did not use local talent.  I just started a night class at Parkland (tonight, in fact) that teaches the basics of Graphic Design. The instructor told me that Parkland is saturating the local market with quality web and graphic designers. Hmm… what to do with people who are anxious to put several semesters of hard work and training to practice? For example, at least one of the main guys over at surface51.com is a Parkland graduate. Seen their signs and billboards around town?