Feb 13th BOE meeting: more on community involvement

The agenda posted for the Feb 13th BOE meeting has a couple community engagement pieces you might want to learn more about: “My Family’s Promise Plan Pilot” and a draft of a new policy to support Community Schools “Policy 831 – Community Schools“.

 

I had an excellent chat with Orlando Thomas and Angela Smith last week. I had asked a few questions about discipline, and came away from the meeting being very much encouraged about the work going on in Unit 4. One of my take-aways is that the school district yearns for more collaboration with the community. And it seems that the two agenda items listed above is very much in line with the need for more partnerships.

 

Another take-away was that our public schools could really use more mentors (eg the one-to-one mentoring program and also TALKS mentoring). So much so that when I asked Orlando how the community can help right now, that was his number one request. In fact, Orlando has been asking for more mentors for many years now. As a one-to-one mentor myself, I would be happy to talk to anyone else if you are interested.

The new referendum

re: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2015-01-09/updated-dr-howard-now-mix-champaign-ballot-proposal.html

 

At a reduction of about 3.36%, the overall price-tag of the proposed bond issue is not much different at all. The big element of change is what exactly that money is going towards: totally rebuilt Dr. Howard, needed upgrades and work at the current Central, at the cost of significantly reduced work at Centennial and no “turf” at the new Central. In my talks with Kerris, board members had also discussed a different version that weighed in at $139 million – still, not much but at least a token gesture. 🙂

 

I’ll say it up front – as I told Denise Martin and Dan Ditchfield (chairs of the 2014 “YES” committee), right now I am leaning towards a “yes” on this vote. But I still have big hangups (six, in fact) that I fear never will be addressed.

 

Hangup #1

Why can’t we vote on pieces of the referendum? Why is it all or nothing? I think it is outstanding that the board and district administration FINALLY put Dr. Howard in the spotlight, and FINALLY decided to put HVAC at Central (tired of the trolls about holding Central students hostage?). I am still dumbfounded why those were left off the table in 2014. But we still have a $94.5 million high school being planned for Interstate Drive (I am not even going to get into Dodds Park thing now). That’s a lot of money, and still at a site that a large number of people do not support. From my point of view, it totally sucks that we have to vote for all of it or none of it.

 

Hangup #2

All the focus is on location, capacity and addressing the issues of aging physical plants. Show me the correlation between $1 spent and an increase in academic achievement. In 8+ years of talking, why do we still have unanswered questions in regards to how a referendum will boost the “output” of our school district? We have some excellent educational initiatives, including CTRL-Shift, CU Cradle to Career, and At Promise of Success, but these are not rolled into the language of the referendum at all.

 

Hangup #3

While I appreciate that board members met with each other, and someone met with some “no” voters (who talked to whom?), I don’t like that so much is happening behind closed doors. I appreciate that board member Kerris Lee has been filling me in on a number of details (like the $139M alternative that we still have not seen), but why is so much hidden from public view? I don’t get it that “we have been talking about this for 8 years” but then in a last ditch effort to “tweak” a failed referendum, some very important items are put on the table. There is something very wrong with this picture.

 

Hangup #4

I still very much want to see a super-majority vote. Counter to what the article says about the expected results for the 2014 referendum, I expected things to be close. I actually thought it might be a little closer. I expect this tweak is going to win over a few more votes; it is hard to say what the expectation will be given how voters in Champaign vote quite differently in a Spring Consolidated Election. But personally I want to see a vote that is 75% united. How do we get that? See my previous post about a successful school board and community engagement. There is a lack of ownership and concensus that is going to continue to make public support challenging.

 

Hangup #5

I still don’t see a big overall plan. Yes, we have the 20-year facility plan (which will now have to be updated to account for changes at Centenial, the current Central and Dr. Howard); yes, I understand that took a lot of work to compile, and yes, I realize it signifies that someone is trying to do some planning. But more importantly, how are we going to keep ourselves from winding up in this stupid place again? Tom Kacich had a good response in today’s “Tom’s Mailbag” about why we are where we are:

“As to how Champaign got into the predicament, my take is that school administrators and board members for decades were preoccupied with other issues and ignored their aging buildings and growing enrollments. Now that those issues have finally been addressed school leaders have taken note.”

Yes, decades!! That should be a little scary.

Here is the problem with the current referendum and 20-year facility plan – nobody is painting the big picture that we are going to have to go out for YET ANOTHER referendum to fix up all the still existing problems. My understanding is that we have a number of “Health/Life/Safety” (HLS) issues that are supposed to be paid out of a HLS fund, but my understanding is also that we have no such fund. I am still trying to seek out the facts about that. Beyond HLS, what about the expansion work at Centennial that is supposed to help us prepare for future enrollment? Who is going to pay for that? We have a number of things that are stacking up that might get paid when 1% sales tax money becomes available again (2024?). We seem to be spending money we do not have, hence our current annual $8 million debt service and the need to go out and get a $144 million bond issue. Ouch.

 

Hangup #6

We are getting a minimum of 3 new board members in April; in other words, at a bare minimum, three people who worked on crafting the current referendum will not even be on the board after the vote. The number of new faces could potentially be as high as 5 (out of a total of 7). And if Board President Laurie Bonnett should happen to win Frerich’s old seat and choose to resign from the board (my understanding is that this is her choice, it is not required), that will be a maximum of 6 or a minimum of 4 new faces. That’s got to be a little rough.

 

Conclusion

So with these hangups, am I stupid crazy to be leaning towards a “yes”? We have been totally screwed over by previous boards and administrative officials. As the general rule in Illinois now, we have for too long borrowed against the future, and now our debts are due. In fact, for me personally, it is more imporant who we vote in as board members than how we vote on the referendum. That is the reason why I wrote my previous post, and why I intend to follow-up with another post about characteristics I am looking for in board members (and the board president). If we want better results, we must change the very process itself. Unfortunately, it is easier to address the “surface” issues of a school site or whether we put in HVAC at an old building. I hope we begin to wake up to the fact that we will forever have disagreements about many of the details, but at some point we must work, and even collaborate, on the bigger issues.

 

A framework for a successful school board

Over the past couple of months, I have been going through the IASB’s (Illinois Association of School Boards) website, and reading through two of John and Miriam Carvers’ books on Policy Governance (“Boards the Make a Difference“, “Reinventing Your Board“). While the IASB uses the Carvers’ work as a backdrop, they have clearly shaped it into something much more practical (it seems) and relevant for school boards, especially boards here in Illinois. This post will be my attempt to bring this framework even closer to home, outlining what I would like to see in Unit 4. Having said that, I readily acknowledge that there is a lot of work involved, and that these things do not just happen overnight. As the IASB is prone to say, the entire thing is a process, not a project. I also acknowledge that the IASB borrows a lot from Diane Ravitch, whom some of you may not hold in high regard.

 

The IASB has listed six “Foundational Principles” (<- please read!) that comprise this framework:

1. The Board Clarifies the District Purpose
2. The Board Connects With the Community
3. The Board Employs a Superintendent
4. The Board Delegates Authority
5. The Board Monitors Performance
6. The Board Takes Responsibility For Itself

I especially appreciate the opening salvo under number 1:

“As its primary task, the Board continually defines, articulates and re-defines district ends to answer the recurring question — who gets what benefits for how much? Effective ends development requires attention to at least two key concerns: student learning and organizational effectiveness.”

Basically, the board, having “connected with the community”, establishes a primary goal for the school district and then sets the wheels in motion to make sure that 1) the district stays aligned and on path towards the goal, 2) continually communicates with the “owners” to clarify said goal. In some ways, it might seem overly simplistic; the board tells the Superintendent to do a certain job, and that’s it. The board does not micromanage, the board does not necessarily care about report after report after report, the board does not have to bless every single decision the district staff makes. The board’s main purpose is making sure that the “ends” decided upon by the “owners” are being met. And I believe the IASB framework provides the steps to make sure that happens.

So even though clarifying the district purpose is listed as number 1, and I believe that indeed is the primary purpose of the school board, the second item, true “community engagement”, is the means by which the purpose is defined in the first place.

The IASB has published a paper called “Connecting with the Community: the Purpose and Process of Community Engagement as part of Effective School Board Governance“. It is 46 pages, and makes a strong argument for a better way of allowing the “owners” to have ownership. What does that mean? Who are these “owners”? From page 10:

Community engagement addresses “owner” concerns. It is not designed to address “customer” concerns. Customer concerns, such as dissatisfaction with a particular teacher or textbook, or questions about day-to-day operations, are best addressed by professional educators. For school boards, owner concerns are long-term, big picture issues about values and beliefs, mission, vision and goals — the community’s core values. School boards are uniquely qualified to address these owner concerns because they are elected, volunteer citizens who can engage their neighbors in these important conversations about the community’s purposes for its schools and the resources the community is willing to provide for its schools.

 

I believe Unit 4 has slowly been improving the way it addresses owner concerns, starting with the creation of a Community Relations Coordinator position. Here is a roadmap of sorts presented on page 22:

Clearly, Unit 4’s Community Relations Coordinator has embraced the first stage very well and has done much to better INFORM the community. The focus groups, surveys and meetings done with DeJong-Richter were an example of the CONSULT stage. The district will say they have also done a number of workshops under the INVOLVE stage, such as planning Carrie Busey before it was built, the current programming going on for the new Central, and a number of other cases. These latter examples (from the INVOLVE stage) are typically not well published or well-known, but they do happen. To truly give ownership to the voters and tax-payers, I firmly believe we need to fortify what the board does for the last two stages, INVOLVE and COLLABORATE. I will reiterate that the responsibility for this work falls under the board; whether they set out to achieve all four stages directly or delegate, it should be clear that the board’s fingerprints are all over the efforts involved.

 

From page 23:

“It is important to keep in mind that as the board builds these partnerships with the community the ultimate end goal of community engagement is to enable school boards and public schools to work effectively as truly democratic institutions that provide a collective benefit. The benefit is public education.”

After going through all these materials, I started to wonder, if the IASB provides a bulk of the training for school boards, why do we not see this framework behind the work of the board? I think I might have an explanation – it is my hope that once we realize what we have been doing, we can set about a new direction.

The IASB provides two “classes” as part of the “mandatory*” board member training (* mandatory as in required by Illinois State Law). One is the Open Meetings Act (OMA), which can be done either through IASB, or even online through the Attorney General’s office. The other is “A minimum of 4 hours of Professional Development Leadership training, including Education and labor law, Financial oversight and accountability, and Fiduciary responsibilities”. Isn’t it odd that the “Foundational Principles” are not even part of the training? When talking to representatives of IASB, I learned that they view themselves as an advisory group – they do not audit, police or monitor boards to ensure that they are actually following the IASB stated “best practices”. I will also note that the training events hosted by the IASB tend to be a little expensive, which is really a shame. Maybe we sponsor a single passionate board member (or candidate?) to attend one significant training event with the expectation that they will then be able to train others. Any other ideas?

 

Bottom line

So here is my challenge for current and future board members:

1. Commit to reading, researching, and practicing the “Foundational Principles” as espoused by the IASB
2. Commit to reading, understanding, and implementing the “Connecting with the Community” paper
3. Sign this promise

 

Next post: I plan to follow-up with a post about what characteristics I am looking for in a board president and board members. My goal is to vote on April 7th (Consolidated Election) for those that are willing to sign the promise, or at least give me a very good explanation of why they cannot. *grin*

 

Chat with Arlene Blank about the PMPK committee

I had a fantastic talk with Arlene Blank recently. For those who may not be aware, Arlene has been with Unit 4 for several decades, employed in various positions (she reminded me how she hired Greg Novak way back when as the librarian at Edison) both before and after retirement and has served on the board for multiple (different) stints. Arlene also mentioned that she played a role in the 1% Sales Tax referendum; as the Board President of the time, her name was on the document that went to the County Board to be put on the ballot, so she felt some responsibility in being involved in the Promises Made Promises Kept Committee when it was formed in 2009. Although not her intent, she was elected as the board chair and has been so ever since.

 

It quickly became clear to me that there are many different opinions about the PMPK committee (not just between Arlene and I, but with others in the community as well). I hope to do justice to various perspectives and most importantly, keep the door of communication open as the invitation to disagree remains standing.

 

Before going further,

A challenge: where would I put a new high school?

Mr. Craig Walker recently observed that I have not offered any alternative sites, while expressing in my “diatribe” a discontent for all current sites. Point taken. So here we go.

Disclaimer: I am not an architect, a planner, an educator, or any other  relevant profession nor do I claim to have a higher education in any relevant field of study that pertains to where to place a high school. What I express here is simply an answer to an implicit question, one that I felt was a valid question and worthy of a reasonable response.

First, we have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Why do we need a new high school? While some might posit that the current building that houses Central is “crumbling down”, I personally have not found that to be true at all; granted, it is an older facility and lacks common amenities like central AC and the structural power grid for upgrades. Based on the various demographic studies we have, most notably from DeJong-Richter, there is a very likely chance that our student population is going to continue to increase, and we are told that the high schools are already at (or maybe even over) capacity. We are also told that it is a huge pain in the ass to accommodate the needs of the athletic teams, since Central has no grounds attached to the site for practice or games. In the end, I agree, we need some way to manage a higher number of high school students and the various programs to support their educational experience.

But why are we locked into a two high school scenario? That confuses me the most. I am going to offer several alternative sites, but they all assume a three high school scenario (with variations on a theme), which has not been talked about much at all even though the DeJong-Richter discussions, surveys, dialogs and conversations suggest that this might be a good thing. I assume that in a three high school scenario, we could keep Central as a “tech/career” school, and that by having three high schools, we reduce the required capacity at each school individually. I am also going to focus on a location that is north of University, south of I-74, west of First and east of Mattis. The reason I wish to bound my suggestion in this manner is because the DeJong-Richter demographic information tells me that the highest populations of students is in and around Garden Hills; furthermore, the highest population of future high school students (using today’s data) is currently located in the same area. I further assume that community/family engagement is a huge priority, and that in order to realize this priority, we MUST consider transportation costs, even to the point of weighting them higher than the development cost of a potential site. My oversimplified version of the Consent Decree is that African-American families were getting jilted because they were overly bussed due to having underperforming and/or neglected local schools, not to mention a significant number of related equity issues including disproportionate representation in Gifted programs and discipline. I still see how the scars of that battle impacts the thinking of community members today, and I wish to make it a priority by reducing busing (as I have made it a priority in Schools of Choice as well). I would also point out that it is not only African-American families that are impacted by this; I would focus on those families that do not have the freedom to choose alternatives to public schools.

One more thought: I am torn about the need for athletic fields in general. But I’ll save that for another post.

With that said, here are some sites – not one, but three (happy Cyber Monday):

1. The old AC Humko site, stretching to the land east of it as well. I realize this is no longer a feasible candidate, since Kraft has set it eyes on it. But consider this; the City wants to turn this area into a TIF district because it is “blighted” (a word I have many isses with). Yet this site is very close to a dense demographic population, and relatively easy to access. A high school at this location could beautify and enhance the surrounding area, and still have plenty of room for athletic fields.
2. I still very much like Imani Bazzell’s Great Campus idea (as stated several times in other posts). Combined with Pattsi’s idea of utilizing all four corners of the Neil/Bradley intersection, this could be a viable high school location. The City has already planned to do drastic things in the Bristol Park area – I have to believe that if athletic fields are indeed a priority, we could work something out, maybe with Human Kinetics, maybe with the areas surrounding the Canadian National line. I am very much against displacing huge numbers of low-income families – is there a way to collaboratively make this idea work?
3. Multi-campus locations: this is an extreme hybridization, and perhaps too radical for consideration, but if all we have are small sites within the stated boundaries, what about having tracks at various locations? Is it possible to have, say, all four grade levels in different buildings, or Fresh/Soph at one and Jr/Sr at another? I know, there are lots of bad things to go along with this – I was asked for alternatives, so I am giving alternatives. For instance, the Judah site (again, which is now not available but at one point there was a possibility), the Spalding Site (staying north of the railroad), and what used to be a gated housing development north of Bradley and west of McKinley, and the old Alexander Lumber Company (another site that is now spoken for, I believe).

A word about the reasons why the other two “internal” choices (Clear Lake Tract and Country Fair) were already dismissed as possible candidates. I was disappointed that the cited reasons included things like how a certain study might reduce acreage, or how dealing with local obstacles might increase development costs, or that there are IDOT costs. I mean, which school site is not going to have IDOT costs? Show me the hard and fast numbers of how much it WILL cost, and then we can weigh whether or not the costs are worth it. Right now, we do not have those numbers, yet we already went from 15 to 6 sites, and tonight we go down to 3.

To repeat, my suggested alternative sites make a few assumptions, namely:

• a three-high-school scenario, not two
• transportation and accessibility is a huge priority
• bounded by Mattis, I-74, First and University

References

• Current 6-site candidate map: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FinalSixHSSites_0.jpg
• Original 15-site map: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/15siteoptions.jpg
• Regional Planning Commission’s version of orginal sites: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PotentialSitesMap.jpg
• DeJong-Richter (DR) district snapshot: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/District_Snapshot_01292013_amg.pdf
• DR Community Dialog presentation: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Champaign_CD_Presentation.pdf
• Fallon surveys: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Key-Findings-for-Focus-Group-Sessions.pdf
• DR Draft Results report: http://futurefacilities.champaignschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Results_Report_Summary_20121217.pdf
• Google Map of school district with elementary schools: http://lottery.cb-pta.com/other/cu-k-maps.html

more on engagement (part 1.5)

In reference to an earlier post.
Found some very interest (and quite dusty) sections in the Board Policy.

811/R – Education Equity Excellence Committee

Purpose
“The Board of Education’s goal is to provide an educational system that meets the needs of all students and leads to the attainment of educational excellence by all students, including students of diverse backgrounds. The Board recognizes that educational excellence and equity require open channels of communication with the community. The Board believes the District will be most successful when the community is aware of and understands the District’s efforts and goals. The purpose of the Education Equity Excellence (EEE) Committee is to foster a climate of equal opportunity, educational excellence and success for all students. Additionally, the committee will foster two-way communication and collaboration between the District and its stakeholders.”

oops. It is my observation that the community is quite clueless about much of the District’s efforts and goals. I agree that the District would “be most successful when the community is aware of and understands” these things. On the bright side, I see the efforts of Dr. Wiegand, Dr. Taylor and several other administrators that are trying to build bridges and form pathways of collaboartion. It is very slow, but it is progressing. Having said that, I still believe the EEE should be disbanded as it exists today.

805 PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM

“The Board of education endorses the concept that public schools belong to the people by virtue of the fact that the public schools are created by the people and supported by taxation of the people. Public support enhances the Board’s goal to provide an educational system that meets the needs of all students and leads to the attainment of educational excellence by the students.
Continuing support for public schools depends on the community’s awareness and understanding of the District’s efforts and goals. The Board recognizes its responsibility to provide the community with information regarding the policies and programs of the District. The Board intends to provide channels of communication through its own efforts and those of the administrative staff to carry out its responsibility.

The Board directs the Superintendent to plan, and implement a public relations program. The District’s public relations program will be driven by the following objectives:

1. To develop public understanding of all aspects of school operation; to ascertain public attitudes toward issues in education; and to discover the public’s aspirations for the education of their children.
2. To secure adequate financial support for a sound educational program.
3. To help citizens feel a more direct responsibility for the quality of education provided by their schools.
4. To earn the good will, respect, and confidence of the public with regard to the schools’ staff and services.
5. To

en·gage·ment (part 1 of 2)

From the Free Dictionary *:

en·gage·ment  (n-gjmnt)

1. a hostile meeting of opposing military forces in the course of a war
2. a meeting arranged in advance
3. a mutual promise to marry
4. the act of giving someone a job
5. employment for performers or performing groups that lasts for a limited period of time
6. contact by fitting together
7. the act of sharing in the activities of a group

*the initial definitions at the top of the page are bogus; “the act of engaging”, something that engages… seriously?!?

Typically when I use the word “engagement” on this blog, I have in mind definition #7, one of collaboration and mutual involvement. It is with that thought in mind we gathered at Houlihans this past week for a fun and very tactile discussion of where to put a new Central High School.

It was a good trial run; I personally rather enjoyed working with such a large format, being able to draw circles, move the little red monopoly hotel around, etc. I even cut out a rough 1.5 mile radius polygon to scale, and it was HUGE – things like this really give pop to the details. Most significantly, in my mind, the options that we explored were totally independent of the ones “discovered” by the Public Engagement firm (there’s that word again) hired by the school district. I make this point because it is interesting that we (in general) have so many different opinions and so many different ways of making our opinions heard.

So one big announcement; we decided to postpone plans for March 24th since that is coming up way too quick. Instead, we are aiming at April 7th (location and time TBA, but probably 1-4:pm). This will give us more time to better prepare and advertise. We will be attending the March 25th Board Meeting to invite participation, as well as contacting the local media (press release?). Our plan is to do two more before the end of May. Note to self: generate a PDF which can be sent to schools and posted on websites.

I am told that the Steering Team has decided on their final recommendations to be made to Dr. Wiegand later in April, and those recommendations will be presented to the Board in May. However, after asking several times and several people, no one has shared with me what those recommendations are.

What exactly are we doing on April 7th?

photo courtesy of Chuck Jackson

Unity in Action Magazine : Jan 2013 issue

The latest “Unity in Action” magazine has come out, with two short but good articles to read ([note: the software used to browse the magazine is a bit kooky, not unlike the NG epaper]). The first is about government and us voters taking responsibility for those we vote for and holding our government accountable, of making your voice heard and perhaps most significantly, focusing on community. This is very much like the “Letter to the Editor” I wrote last month. Good stuff! The second article is an interview with “Big D”, a poignant and succinct account about coming out of the prison system; his last statement really hits home – “The issues with felons is something that is really destroying our community.” I feel for this guy, and others like him. I have known a couple convicts and tried to work with them on re-entry issues, and the system is totally screwed up; most often, it is easier and more lucrative for felons to go back to a life of crime. We have totally failed that segment of society.

 

Why is this on a blog about schools? Because I firmly believe schools are not silos, they are not independent of the society, the culture and the community around them. We have to be cognizant of all the players and all the moving pieces. If we build better communities, we build better schools. If we build better schools, we build better communities (the last is from the Unit 4 PR stuff). And trust me, you don’t want the alternative.

Recent email exchanges

I am beginning to think that perhaps email is not the best tool for me to use when I try to engage larger groups as a whole. 🙂 I am going to post three emails that I have sent in the last month or so; my point and purpose is to expose my own thinking, to see where the train of my thought is going. My second point is to generate discussion (that should be implied on this blog – if I post it, it is my hope that we can start talking about it).

 

[I have to apologize ahead of time for the awful way WordPress totally mangled the formatting of the below notes – I tried to make them look better, but I am still struggling with it]

 

Suggested changes to Schools of Choice (Policy 705.09)

I sent the first few notes before I had an opportunity to listen to the November 5th Board Meeting. After listening to said meeting, I realized the board had some good questions for Dr. Zola and ultimately tabled the part of eliminating Proximity – however, on tonight’s Consent Agenda the Board will vote to approve (or disapprove as the case may be) the other two recommendations (1. merging Magnet registration a little more with “regular” registration, 2. changing when wait lists expire). Still very curious about the Choice Task Force and what work Alves has done and will do.

 

 

Transparency and Accountability

I sent this note to the PTA Council officers at first, and then forwarded it to the PTA Council email list. I have received zero responses so far, but two folks have told me that they agree 100%. While that is certainly gratifying, I yearn to find those who disagree as well. 🙂

 

 

Working Together

After listening to the Nov 5th Board Meeting, I was quite impressed with several things. I sent this note with a sincere desire (and perhaps unspoken expectation?) to learn what the Board thinks the community can do. I am still waiting to learn.

 

 

PS – email communication is funny. And challenging. I do not make it a practice to post emails because there is an expectation that the message stops at the target audience, and I want to be careful about how to treat that expectation. Again, my point is to give context to where my thinking has gone and to generate discussion. And ultimately to provide ground for action steps.

Advocacy: what comes to mind when you hear/see that?

At tonight’s inaugural Parent Advocacy Committee meeting, the one major action item is to go out and ask other people how they define “advocacy”. It is expected that we all have different mental images of this concept, different dictionary definitions. And since I blog, you are my lucky audience and in this case, participants.  Don’t worry, I know a number of you trollers so I’ll be dropping you a personal email in the near future to ask about this. 🙂 I am hoping that at least 20 of you make a comment below.

What is Advocacy?

For those that want to read the meeting documents first, you can skip down to the bottom of this post.

The first meeting, as you might expect, was a “sending out the feelers” kind of gathering. Tony Howard and Cheryl Camacho introduced themselves and how Dr. Wiegand charged them to essentially research what advocacy is and how the district can best implement it; this idea came out of the June 21st Board Retreat, along the lines of creating safe environments for discussion and empowering parents to become more involved. Both Tony and Cheryl have done a lot of planning and both are obviously very passionate about this topic. In fact, when listening to Mr. Howard introduced himself, it was a pleasant surprise to hear how involved in the community he is. I am reminded that people all around us are already doing amazing things and most of the time we simply do not know it. One thing in particular is that Mr. Howard will be hosting a Minority Parent Round Table for anyone that considers themselves a minority at the Champaign Public Library next Tuesday from 6:30 – 8:00 pm. It sounds like this will be a great listening event when staff from Edison will simply listen to what Edison parents have to say. He has hopes of doing something similar with a larger audience and at venues like the Douglass Branch Library (there was a conflict for this time around).

As other committee members introduced themselves and spoke about