You can download an easy to read/print version of the following document here.

VILLA HEIGHTS ACADEMIC CENTER RESPONSE TO CMS PROPOSAL: MEETING RECAP

A Villa Heights stakeholders meeting was held on September 11, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. in the Media Center.  Parents, teachers, staff, other stakeholders and CMS Board of Education Member Tom Tate were in attendance.

As a result of the meeting the following committees were established:

Communication with Dr. Gorman -- Lauren Carter -- Lauren_Carter2003@msn.com

Communication with Board of Education -- Bill Burkholder -- burkphoto@aol.com

Communication with the Media -- Claudette Green -- Claudette.Green@yahoo.com

Communication with CMS staff responsible for proposal -- Jeanine Tabaczynski --Jeanine.Tabacznski@wachovia.com

Create Villa Heights DVD -- Leslie Esposito& Krista Barry -- lae@djinni.homeip.net & KristaGBarry@msn.com

On Monday 9/15 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. there will be a District 3 open meeting at the Education Center on Martin Luther King Blvd.  George Dunlap is hosting the meeting.  Dr. Peter Gorman is expected to be in attendance.  The agenda for that meeting is:

1. •George Dunlap will present opening remarks
   

2. •CMS proposal will be presented
   

3. •Question and answer session
   

4. •Closing remarks
   

The format of the 9/11 meeting was largely an open discussion which is outlined below.

Art Johnson, PTA President, kicked off the meeting by outlining the purpose:

1. •Develop a strategy
   

2. •Devise a plan to implement the strategy
   

3. •Define the format(s) for communication
   

4. •Plead case to key decision makers to keep Villa Heights as is
   

5. •Develop a clear, concise and consistent message to make our case so that when it is   time to make a decision, the BOE decides in our favor
   

Kelly Burgess wrote a petition which was circulated and signed during the meeting.

What is the background for this proposal and how did the recommendation to close Villa Heights and move students to Lincoln Heights come about?  Response was that based on discussions with Robbie Kale

1. •transportation costs in general are high
   

2. •buses have capacity to transport 60 students, but buses to VHAC may only transport 10-15 students
   

3. •the waiting pool for Kindergarten is high and more capacity is needed
   

VHAC has a formula for success.  A smaller school and family-like environment are components of success.  Other components of success were then mentioned were the fact that VHAC is a Full LI/TD Magnet with an outstanding staff and curriculum.

There is a need to demand an answer as to why this proposal is being made. 

There was a discussion as to whether or not this was an actual recommendation or a discussion topic.  Questions were raised regarding the decision status and decision making process.  Over the summer a series of community meetings were held to discuss proposes magnet changes.  The issues were tabled and more specific recommendations were requested.  CMS Staff members responsible for Board proposals have come back with findings and specific proposals.  The VHAC closing is one of these.

These changes, should they be adopted, would be effective for the 2009-2010 school year.

There was a great deal of concern expressed about the fact that this proposal had never been mentioned during the community input meetings.  Stakeholders questioned “Why Now?”  The VHAC closing/move to Lincoln Heights move was never on the agenda.  The issue of fairness and open discussion was raised.  Furthermore, does the community now have sufficient lead time to respond and provide input?

A person in attendance recommended not shutting down a full magnet, but instead moving the Lincoln Heights LI/TD students to VHAC.

Recommendation was made to bring VHAC school designation banners to the 9/15 meeting.

Question was raised as to whether LI/TD would be preserved as a separate program at Lincoln Heights.

Point was made that previously schools have changed from Full to Partial Magnets.  Although parents sign the contract, the requirements of the program have been more than the expected in some cases.

Slogan for preserving VHAC as is should be: “Replicate this model; don’t relocate.”

VHAC should be viewed as a laboratory that works.  The success of VHAC reflects on CMS as a whole.  VHAC as an LI/TD magnet makes this success possible for the whole city.  Why gut a CMS success?

If the demand is not met by the current facility, replicate.

Is it possible to add on to Villa Heights?  There is a size limitation; this is one of the reasons for the move to Lincoln Heights.

Lincoln Heights is a struggling school as evidenced by test scores.  A move of the VHAC population would make averages look better.

A point was made that all stakeholders have concerns.  The VHAC group needs to address Dr. Gorman’s concerns and rationale for considering the proposal.

Lincoln Heights is a ‘Focus’ school.  The school’s ABC’s are in the 50th percentile.  It is designated a Title 1 school which results in additional funding in order to lower teacher/student ratios and provide other support.  If VHAC students are moved into the school it will likely jeopardize Title 1 funding.   If additional support resources are required to assist Lincoln Heights students, where will these resources come from?  How would it impact TD/LI resources to which  VHAC students currently have access?  This recommendation is a Lose/Lose situation.  Has the BOE been told that this is the situation?  Is the BOE considering this or merely looking at school capacity and transportation?

The understanding of the group is that the proposal is to reduce the number of TD/LI Magnets from 6 to 5.  Only Lincoln Heights and Villa Heights would be impacted.

This is not a Magnet issue.  This is an LI/TD issue and CMS should look at the overall program. 

Throughout the meeting there was discussion and speculation regarding Dr. Gorman’s position on Magnet schools in general.  It was mentioned that at the elementary level students may not know ‘what they want to know’.  LI/TD students are in these programs not because of ‘what they want to know’, but because of ‘what they are’ and what their academic talent and potential is.

This issue should be evaluated from a business perspective.  If it is driven by facility issues and will be handled like a merger then there will likely be administrative power struggles and decisions made regarding ‘who and what’ ‘stays or goes’.  This model works.  It isn’t broken and should not be fixed.

VHAC needs to provide business justification for keeping the model and business reasons why the model should not be moved.

1. •Transportation is not a valid argument for the VHAC closing and move to Lincoln Heights because both schools are centrally located and would require transportation.
   

2. •Move will be to the financial detriment of Lincoln Heights.  Need to be sure this fact is captured and included.
   

Is the recommendation about kids or numbers?

The action plan for the VHAC stakeholders was outlined:

1. •Get children involved
   

2. •Form a group of parents who focus directly on BOE members.  Each parent should choose a BOE member to contact via phone, email, post cards.
   

3. •Form a group of parents responsible for contact with CMS staff responsible for proposals.
   

4. •Form a group of parents responsible for contact with Dr. Gorman.
   

5. •Inundate the local media with information about VHAC and the proposal, including calling tv reporters
   

6. •5th graders are already writing editorials
   

7. •Pamela Murray had post cards printed.  These were distributed, along with a list of address.  It was recommended that parents and students sign and send these.
   

8. •Make a ‘We are Villa Heights’ video and distribute to decision makers to allow parents and students who will not be speaking in public meetings to be seen and heard.
   

9. •Have friends and family members outside of the VHAC community, including those outside of Mecklenburg write and express their support for VHAC
   

10. •This proposal represents a threat to Magnet programs in general.  Ask friends and acquaintances at other Magnets for support.   Make this an issue for the community at large, not just Villa Heights.
    

Dr. Gorman should explain what prompted this proposal.

Children’s input should be included.  Every student should be something on paper.  Teachers should require this.  Students need to be heard. 

The stress of this process on students needs to be managed.  There is confidence that the teachers can handle this with their classes.

Can/have BOE members visited Villa Heights?  Need to challenge BOE members to visit.  Need to notify media.

Some BOE members say/believe VHAC facility is in disrepair.

Video should include view of classrooms, Media Center (including banners) and other facilities.

The proposal ignores school status.  It is purely about money.  VHAC needs to offer solutions.  The proposal is not about students.  It is not about a working program.  The proposal is about a money crunch.  What can VHAC do to offer solutions about how money be saved?

Question was raised, who was involved in the decision to make this proposal?  The status of the facility prompted a review.  CMS planning staff initiated facility conversation.

A summary of the BOE responses to phone calls with a VHAC parent were provided:

1. •Ken Gjertsen is in favor of full magnets, small schools.  He is under the perception that VHAC is a poor physical facility.
   

2. •Molly Griffin supports VHAC.
   

3. •Larry Gauvreau spoke at length to a VHAC parent.  He does not support Magnet schools that do not have a distinct purpose.  In general he supports VHAC.
   

4. •George Dunlap supports VHAC.
   

5. •Velma Leake’s only comment is that she wants to help more children.
   

6. •Tom Tate’s phone conversation was summarized as some support, but along with Dr. Gorman, generally ‘on the fence’ regarding Magnet programs.  He was on a committee that diluted TD earlier when full magnets were changed to partial magnets.  He was also in favor of changing TD rules to allow partial TD classes.  During the call he asked if IB middle school guarantee were the reason for sending children to VHAC.  The VHAC parent response was that there needs to be TD middle schools.  (These comments were made prior to Tom Tate’s arrival and participation in the meeting).
   

The BOE knows VHAC is doing well.  Stakeholders need to focus efforts on why is this school threatened?  Is it a physical plant issue?  Why are Myers Park Traditional and Elizabeth Traditional not threatened?  The demographics for these schools are different.  VHAC stakeholders need to ensure they are recognized as a politically powerful group as well.   VHAC should not compare itself with Lincoln Heights or other low performing schools.  VHAC should be compared with peer schools, top performing schools.

Involuntary busing ended 5 or 6 years ago.  Magnets are completely voluntary.  VHAC is a community of diverse race, economic status and ethic backgrounds.  It is a beacon of hope in a city that is becoming more segregated by communities and neighborhood schools.  VHAC is doing well for all students.

VHAC meets all criteria for a valid Magnet option as defined in the outcome of the summer, 2008 Magnet review.    Why should it be eliminated?

Tom Tate joined the discussion at this point. 

1. •He came to listen to VHAC concerns.
   

2. •The proposal is a staff recommendation.
   

3. •The BOE is divided on the issue.
   

4. •His daughter attended VHAC in the early 1990’s.
   

5. •While VHAC has racial and ethic diversity, it does not have socioeconomic diversity.  22% of VHAC students have free/reduced lunch.  The district average is 47%.  Some schools have up to 90%.  Success is greater when there is greater equity in the district.
   

It was reiterated for Mr. Tate’s benefit that Lincoln Heights is a Title 1 school.  The consequences of the VHAC merge were summarized.

Tom Tate responded that it was his preference that Lincoln Heights be a full magnet, possibly even K-8.  He has asked CMS staff to look at wait pool numbers to see if a new larger magnet would be better for all.

VHAC parent responded that this is a ‘bunch of numbers’, especially the comparison of the economic differences between VHAC and CMS averages. 

Focus should be about TD/LI.  The discussion is actually about statistics and money.

VHAC parent wanted to know what are the rules of the game and what is the driving force in coming to a decision so VHAC can respond.

Is the driving force to fill up a new school and bring their performance numbers up or is the driving force to allow more children to participate in the magnet program?

There are 200 children on a waiting list for VHAC.  Could VHAC be replicated to help meet demand?  It is unlikely any more 15 classroom schools would ever be built.  The cost is too great for support teachers.  Clarification was made that there are waiting lists for K and 1st grades, but there are still open seats in the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades.  The classes were full, but some families opted out prior to the start of school.  There are 20/21 in 3rd grade and 18 in 4th.

There was a lot of discussion regarding whether or not free/reduced lunch was a valid measure of diversity.  VHAC parent response was that the fact that parents pay for their children’s lunch should not be used against them.  VHAC is not a community of rich people.  We are not an upscale community like Myers Park.  Point was made that it was disingenuous to talk about averages when free/reduced lunch metrics were clusters of 80% and 20%, not really clusters of 47%.  Furthermore, it was stated the free/reduced lunch statistics may not be accurate.  There may be a ‘pride’ issue were families that could qualify are not using reduced lunch.

The lottery process was discussed.  VHAC is open to all.  Those who opted in and were selected by the lottery process happen to be paid lunch.  A question was raised as to the lunch status of waiting list families.  This data is not known.

Question was raised again, why has the theme changed since the Community Meetings?  Tom Tate responded that after the community meetings staff came back with recommendations.  VHAC was not a bullet point at the community meetings; however, there are summaries of these sessions.  It was not clear if these summaries were available for public review.  A concern was raised that the staff making the recommendations had not interacted with VHAC representatives.  The general feeling in the group was that what was on the agenda for discussion and what happened in the community meeting is different than what has come out in the recommendations.  Unsuccessful magnet programs were under review.  Villa Heights does not fit the definition of an unsuccessful magnet school.

VHAC should be modeled.  North-side schools have a high number of black middle class students, but they still have low test scores.

The diversity at Villa Heights cannot be replicated.

The TD program lost enrollment this year (2008-2009) because the identification process was completed after the enrollment process.

LI/TD schools like Shamrock dilute the program.

VHAC parents should be at home with our children doing schoolwork with them. (instead of being in this meeting)

VHAC student test scores would be brought down by the move.  All VHAC students are currently performing well as measured by testing, including the 22% on free/reduced lunch.

What are the drivers for the proposal?  This is a wonderful school, look at the whole district.  Don’t destroy what is working well, but if it can be improved or expanded, then consider it.

Make other schools full magnets.  Expand the program at Barringer.

What is the process and the dates?  Response from Tom Tate:

1. •A determination should be made during the 1st meeting in October.  The 4th Tuesday of each month is a work session.  The 2nd Tuesday of each month is when the public can speak and decisions are made.  The agenda is available one week before the meeting.  Proposals should be available to those who want to see them by the Wednesday before the Tuesday meeting.
   

2. •In general there is no sentiment ‘against’ Villa Heights.  There is pressure from Lincoln Heights. 
   

3. •5 of 9 board members need to be convinced.  3 are pretty sure they favor retaining VHAC.  A couple are sure they are going to vote the other way.  The remaining BOE members’ positions are not known.  Tom Tate stated he does think he is a friend to VHAC, but he does not make a final decision on any issue until he has heard all discussion.
   

4. •Email to the BOE members is a good communication method.  Weekly on Fridays mail is delivered.
   

Don’t kill something this powerful. 

Would bigger be better?  Do we expand the LI/TD program by duplicating/replicating instead of moving?

VHAC staff stated that they like the small school.  Success would require all teachers, staff and students to move.  This would probably not be the case in reality.

Has the board requested that the CMS staff study what makes VHAC successful?  This should be analyzed.

Tom Tate stated that Dr. Gorman is not opposed to Magnet schools.  He is in favor of the LI/TD program.

VHAC parent stated that he participated in a session to look at how to attract middle class working families to CMS versus private and charter schools.  The LI/TD program is a draw for CMS.

VHAC stakeholders thanked Tom Tate for his attendance and participation.

Other magnet schools that Tom Tate mentioned included:

1. •Idlewild is a successful partial magnet.
   

2. •Oaklawn is a successful partial Paidiea school.
   

3. •Elizabeth Traditional and Myers Park Traditional were deemed to not be academically distinctive magnets.  There was clarification regarding Elizabeth Traditional – the surrounding community would not fill Elizabeth, so it is a good magnet option.
   

Tom Tate recommended continued communication with the BOE and to not let down our guard.  He did recommend being generous when working with the BOE.  Letters can be sent to 701 Martin Luther King Blvd.  He recommended contacting the board member where you live.  Kay McGarry, Trent Merchant and Joe White are at large members.

A decision needs to be made by early October in time for the 2009-2010 lottery process. 

Art Johnson then asked that parents select and break into their action groups. 

He compiled a list of stakeholders who will be prepared to speak at the 9/15 meeting.

Stakeholders are urged to call and be put on the speaking list for the 1st BOE meeting in October (second Tuesday).  If VHAC speakers want to talk back to back, they need to call in that order.  Speakers are ordered on the agenda by call order.