The “Six Point Plan,”
created by Trustee Loretta Edelen, took up much of the AISD Board of Trustees
meeting on Monday. Among other things, the plan calls for “full restoration of
funding for the lowest socioeconomic level schools” and for the contracts of
principals and teachers at those schools to be tied to the academic performance
of the students for whom they are responsible. It also calls for using
“successful programs” (noted black educator Marva Collins has been invoked
often) and for providing “necessary support services to schools to help
students be academically successful.”
In recent weeks and months, Edelen’s fellow trustees expressed an
unwillingness to adopt the plan in toto, believing her initiative to be
more of a plan for management and not a policy statement. The board’s role in
the school district is to set policy, but leave management to the employees
they hire. Liz Hartman, in particular, has articulated this point again and
again. She introduced a resolution that she believes pays heed to the concerns
raised in the Six Points, but does so within the long-term goals and other
policies previously adopted by the board. The board voted 7-1-1 for Hartman’s
resolution, with Edelen voting against, and Diana Caste�eda
abstaining.
Angry supporters of the plan vowed Monday night to retaliate by fighting
approval of the upcoming $370 million bond proposal. By press time, trustees
will have held a work session on the bond issue. A public hearing on the bond
package will be held at 7:00pm at AISD headquarters, 1111 W. Sixth St. On
February 3, the board is scheduled to adopt an order for an April 13
election.
In other action, the trustees unanimously approved separating the class
rankings between students of the LBJ Science Magnet Academy and students in the
regular academic program. The issue, for many, was fairness, but taking action
proved to be a bit more complicated than was originally thought. That’s because
students at Johnston High School host a magnet academy (for liberal arts) as
well. It seemed only fair to include Johnston in the deliberations, since
presumably, Johnston students were in the same predicament as LBJ kids.
Representatives from Johnston on a task force assembled to study and debate the
issue, however, revealed that their magnet program includes more students who
are assigned to Johnston in the first place — some 30%. (This is not the case
at LBJ.) Therefore, the task force recommendation was to leave Johnston out of
the new plan to separate the class rankings — for now. The board discussed
this at some length.
Another wrinkle that emerged during their deliberations is the potential
problem of science academy students who may drop out of the program and join
the regular population in order to improve their class ranking. But a maneuver
such as this is really no different than, say, students who transfer from one
school to another for the same reason — to gain an advantage in class ranking.
AISD policy does not prohibit either scenario from occurring.
“It’s not a perfect plan. But I think it is the best we can do right now, and
it will give the students some relief,” said Larry Shannon Hargrove, a parent
of an LBJ student who may now have a better shot at a well-deserved college
scholarship as a result of this more equitable class ranking system. “This is
an issue that we’ve discussed for years,” said Mary Long, director of the
science academy. “I’m delighted.” Still, the plan, hastily cobbled together as
it is, represents a solution for this year’s graduating class only. Trustee
Loretta Edelen asked that a final resolution be brought forward by June 1.
This article appears in January 26 • 1996 and January 26 • 1996 (Cover).