Comments on: CSD’s Official Note on Redistricting Work Session

By: karass

karass — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:20:38 +0000

I’m just saying that I heard and saw (retroactively) the emails and listservs back in the day, the previous reconfiguration. Not seeing or hearing that now. If you have a point of view about Options 1-7, speak up loud and often now, and not just here on this blog. But don’t get into this school vs. that school. Not only does it become unpleasantly divisive in our community, but it’s one of the most effective techniques politically–divide and conquer! Many, many, many folks were concerned about the projections and options presented in 2003-2004. But the Clairemont vs Westchester closing distracted everyone from the real issues.

By: karass

karass — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:11:49 +0000

I agree that the data about free/reduced lunch students by elementary school needs to be compiled if it isn’t already, shared, and considered. Or any other proxy for family income that the school system has. The problem may be that this year’s data are not officially compiled yet. So why not use last year’s? And if that’s not acceptable–too much change this year–then let’s use preliminary data from this year. There must be accounts of which kids are allowed to get free/reduced lunch. The lunch ladies (I have no idea why there’s no lunch men–too low pay?) check everyone in at the hot lunch and milk counters. We’re a small enough system that someone could collect the free/reduced lunch lists for the three current elementary schools and College Heights, check the grade level from a school or system roster, put the information in a table, and then add up row and column totals with a calculator. The preliminary data might not be perfect but it should be useful for the purpose of prediction.

By: Primadonna momma

Primadonna momma — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:09:57 +0000

I’m with Wonderbread on this one. The school board has shown before that it will bow to the wishes of well-to-do Clairmont parents — who I’m sure would be quite pleased by options 6 & 7, which shift public housing kids out of their school.

It’s easy to make fun, and call it a conspiracy theory, but it’s a reality in politics that money talks -even at the local level.

By: Primadonna momma

Primadonna momma — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:59:55 +0000

I was at the meeting last night and the consultant recommended either map 4 or 7, partly because they would pave the way for re-opening Westchester. However, it doesn’t sound like that would be a good option since only 4 classrooms would be needed at Westchester in the foreseeable future, according to him.

Personally, I think a key issue here is free and reduced lunch students. I don’t believe the school board or members of the public can make an informed decision without knowing (or giving the public) those numbers. We should be aiming at an even distribution of lower-income kids as well as racial diversity.

Looking at option #7, which apparently is favored by the superintendent, you can guess that there would be many more free and reduced lunch students at Oakhurst than there are now. However, the numbers would tell us for sure.

By: Judd

Judd — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:00:47 +0000

Any news to report from last night?