Panel backs plan for Henrico schools redistricting

sbhall—I disagree.  Not everyone has the free time to attend the public meetings—some kids need time to study, and some teachers spent their evenings grading papers and in course prep.  Calling the teacher lazy is rude, and showing up saying, “Hi, my name is sbhall, you are lazy, and you need to apologize” is ridiculous.  We both know the online materials lagged behind the committee votes, and a simple mis-reading of the materials is what started the confusion.  Even people who attended meetings didn’t have the facts straight—you had to engage committee members, administrators, and the consultant regularly because the rooms were noisy, and the agenda was fast-paced.

lldyer—I’m glad you are back in the conversation and my offer stands.  If you’d like a participant citizen to visit your class and engage in a conversation, let me know.

lptucker—your description of events pretty much nails this down as caused by a mis-referencing of online materials posted weeks earlier, and revised prior to Thursday’s vote.  On Thursday we were told to not expect the final maps and enrollment tables to be posted before Friday afternoon.  You had to be at the meetings last week to see what was actually voted on, know there were several revisions in the last week, and it sometimes required talking with committee members and looking at their revised materials to understand the latests revisions.

When students come into class distressed with newspaper articles in hand, I see it as completely appropriate to listen to their concerns.  I never thought that my students would be so fired up about this issue, but they are and that’s something I find inspiring.  These students are invested in their education and their futures.  The classroom is as appropriate a place as any to be a safe place for students to speak their mind and think freely. 
No matter what time the new numbers were posted or what committee members said at any meetings, nothing changes the fact that Tucker has received more than their fair share of bad press over the past few months.  This article by Ms. Crutchfield and the numbers that were linked to it on the HCPS website served as the catalyst to get the students actively engaged in the future of their school. 
When all is said and done, the students will have to live with the outcomes of all these decisions; their education will be impacted by where lines are and are not drawn; and when the students speak as candidly and thoughtfully as they did in my classes, WE should listen. 
In short, the capacity numbers and when they were and were not posted are not what’s important here, what is important is the fate of Tucker High School and the students who receive and want to continue to receive a first-rate education there.

As a Tucker HS parent, alumna, and teacher, I have tried to stay informed about the redistricting process. For the most part, I think the process has been open and accessible.

But somehow the flow of information went awry on Friday, April 3. Perhaps it was an oversight—I don’t know, so I am not pointing fingers.

Here’s what I do know. On Friday morning many of us at Tucker read in the RT-D that the Redistricting
Committee had voted to recommend “Pairing 2” to the school board. I looked on the HCPS web site to double check what the projected populations for Tucker would be. In this scenario, Tucker’s population would drop to 74% capacity by 2013. (In “Pairing 1” Tucker’s population would have dropped to 70% in 2013.) Neither pairing made sense to me if the goal of redistricting was to have school population equity across the county.

So on Friday morning, we at Tucker were very concerned. I also talked with my students about the possible impacts on Tucker if our population dropped. The discussion wasn’t speculation since Tucker had already struggled through a significant drop in population when Deep Run HS opened.

Sometime between 5 and 6 pm on Friday, I went to the HCPS web site again to print the “Pairing 2” information and found that the scenario had changed drastically. Tucker’s projected population through 2013 was set at 84-85%. The boundaries for a number of school zones had changed, and the projected populations were more equitable. Although I was pleased to see the new projections, I was confused. Why had the boundaries changed after the vote had been taken?

Apparently, the Redistricting Committee approved what should have been called “Revised Pairing 2.“ And, those changes should have been posted for the public to see before the vote occurred.

Again, I don’t know why dissemination of the “revised Pairing 2” was delayed. Perhaps there is a very reasonable explanation. I do hope that any changes made between now and May 28 will be shared with the public as quickly as possible.

Teachers at Tucker are responsible, dedicated professionals. We deserve better than to be accused of spreading “incendiary propaganda” when, in fact, we were responding to what was supposed to the most accurate information available.

“The overwhelming sentiment was NOT that parents didn’t want their children to attend any particular school, but that they wished to remain in their current school.“

That’s “grossly inaccurate”. I may come from Tucker, but I do know how to read, believe it or not. I’ve seen the parents lobbying, saying that they’d be happy as clams if their kids attended any high school—as long as it isn’t Tucker.

I encourage you to ask your teacher to review the updated information on the HCPS website and amend her commentary to her students.  What she stated as fact was never true—she either mis-referenced the online materials, or HCPS posted and then retracted the wrong versions of capacity tables, but either way, her statements were false.  Citing innacurate information is not an excuse for making false statements.  Pointing a finger at HCPS for posting the wrong information does no good—HCPS and the redistricting committee have worked hard throughout this process and were publishing information as fast as the public was requesting this.  If they got it wrong they corrected the problem quickly. 

I don’t know what to say about the “conspiracy theory” that is cited—map switches and last-minute revisions—other than to say it would be better to acknowledge a rush to judgment and perhaps reflect on what caused this rush to judgment.  Could it have been a teacher who deviated from a course plan and used a soapbox?  It wouldn’t be the first time, and it is not a crime, and it should no be discouraged.  We want teacher to relate current events to today’s lessons, and to not feel pressure to avoid any statements of opinion.  However, when the relations between facts and opinions break down because new facts are known and old ideas proved false, a leader will set the record straight.

Are you a leader?  And is your teacher a leader?

As someone who wore a t-shirt, participated in the process throughout, and watched the interplay of public policy and local politics, I think you and your teacher might be interested in talking with people who participated, know many facts, and have balanced viewpoints.  The whole process was complex and goes beyond what can be described in one blog entry.  It would make for a lively classroom discussion, but that would be of value only if it is an accurate discussion that involves people who watched and participated, and who can have a balanced viewpoint.