. this is setting a pattern of what is to come, but there is something to be said if it is not going to make a difference, so if you can just expand a little bit on the and help me to understand that, thank you. >> we agree completely. the foundation about this is all about equity and access, which is why we are doing the feeders, because we think they provide more equity and access than what is existing in our system, and a lot of choices for those not contiguous, i know where it was talking about recommendations built on historical trends patterns, and the number of families who are actually

choosing to and attending these schools, and we want to continue to support them. just to put some context behind this, we think it is equitable and will provide equitable access. why we are recommending the feeders above the ctip is that we want to encourage through a choice system the development of these feeder patterns. parents will only get beefeater tie-breaker if they have actually listed it as a choice. otherwise, the tie-breaker will not exist, so in the event that a parent lists as a choice a small that supports the kb amica 8 feeder that we are eventually going to, they would get this tie-breaker -- this kindergarten through eight tie-breaker feeder.

i think is important. if they do not was the choice, there is no tie-breaker. they are not compelled to request schools that are part of the feeder tie-breaker, but if they are, we want the system to support bop what we are trying to achieve over time, and, again, we do believe the whole foundation of this is equitable. i hear and understand what the others are recommending, and we believe that this peter proposal is grounded in equity and access, and we want to structure it in such a way that it supports through a choice process the development of these feeder patterns, so by the time we get to an initial offer, we hope the entire system will be organized around creating this free choice, and that is why we are recommending it. does that answer your question?

commissioner: do a follow-up on that. the simulations are quite startling. not only is there absolutely no difference between putting ctip above or feeder first, but the difference between that or not having the feeder pattern at all is pretty -- so that is quite stunning. however, this is only if they happen to choose or make a request for a score that will be a feeder, right, so that is a big weakness of the simulations. understanding that you have no other data. i understand that perfectly, but that means that we have to try to take, you know, analyze something and make some

presumptions, lots of presumptions about what may happen in the future, so i just want to suggest that if there is no difference, and then i do not see why we should not " -- " put ctip above feeder. to change the choice patterns into change in attendance patterns. but since we do not know yet, having no data that takes into account feeders, it seems to me that a more important message is how we put what we value into the order in which we place these things, so i am with the let's put the equity issue above the feeder issue, because, actually, i have been kind of

nervous about -- i think we have made a lot of presumptions about people wanting these proposed so-called things, but i am not sure. we made a judgment about what we thought people would value without actually having any data on which to do that, so i still think since there is absolutely no data with which to make such an analysis more than what we have here, and i appreciate that we have tried that here, that that is what we ought to do, because that would send the message that i am more interested in sending. also, and this is just an idea that came to me, the things we are talking about tonight, the elementary attendance patterns and feeder areas and monitoring make me think that one of the things we really ought to say is that particularly the order in which we put tiebreakers is the

kind of thing that we may want to change over time during the transition period based on what the monitoring tells us and making sure that we ask the right questions, like how does this equity issue work? commissioner mendoza? commissioner mendoza: thank you. my question was about the ctip, and we have pulled the data on that to see where they are currently going. is that correct? do we know where our c it is not fresh in my memory. you can see they are distributed in this process throughout middle schools, but we can certainly do that. good >> i am curious where they

are and if the facts as they have an -- if the schools would be the ones they would end up having priority because they were the ones they were going to feed them into, so whether they were feeder, they are going to end of a the school, because they are trying to -- end up at the school because they are trying to do the pattern many of our families are choosing, so i am curious if that will -- it is not going to show a difference how we place a. is it really going to matter looking at some of the patterns that have happened if they are going to get placement any way? that would be helpful for me to consider also, and i am with the

commissioner in terms of what our values are. i guess theater is the pattern they want to consider. it who -- feeder is the pattern they want to consider. it is nice not to have to change it again or to switch priorities for those who do not stay in touch with what is happening, so i would love to have a consistent process, being able to make the adjustments but to have something that people know there is some consistency on that, so my decision is getting sorted out. new thank you superior -- thank you.

>> i am leaning towards not changing the order of preferences, as recommended by the superintendent. i feel like we do not know what the impact, and i think the one thing we do know is that all of the systems we have tried in the past have had unintended consequences but we did not envision, so i am worried about doubling down on this mechanism that we do not understand. we have no data on its. this was supposed to encourage people in areas where people who were not participating in the

choices. it was supposed to give them an extra encouragement towards participation. do we have any data that shows whether there were more applications? i want to see what the impact was before we start stumbling down on who is using it. i was saying and it's totally the only people i know who receives the preference are middle of -- i was saying the only people i know who received a preference are middle-class people. i am not convinced it has the equity of fact we are assuming it has a very good >> i think that is very true, and the other thing is i do not think the choice is between equity and feeders.

i think that is an important thing. it is very difficult to do analysis until the children turned up in school, because there's so much movement. we agree it is hard not knowing how effective this is, and i do not think we will have a full chance until january. our specific guidelines on the factors we should consider when we are monitoring the feeder patterns, particularly in the event that if schools open or close but we would consider looking at enrollment and balancing the availability of facilities, the coherence of

highways, and this was actually tilted in as part of the ongoing evaluation and with specific guidelines, because it is true we cannot contemplate unintended consequences, and we know we have to constantly monitor it and stay on top of fat. -- on top of that. i think the commissioner made a good point. it is a limited amount of data. that is why we were not going out and saying with with the simulations told us. this was just to take a look of limited data to see if it would tell us anything other than what we were already contemplating. we are sharing it as a preliminary finding, and i will see what information we can get tomorrow.

>> i have two comments and three questions. i want to emphasize the 4/8 about families wanting detailed action plans. it seems to me we have a good plan about language orientation. i really want to urge the we focus on these detailed plans for honors differentiated instructions, specialization, because of the feedback i am getting is the families want to know is what they can expect from a particular and middle school three or four years down the line, so i think that is really important in planning. on the transportation issue, i

think it is worth mentioning that we have a good analysis of how long it takes and how many transfers, but there is also an expense involved, so this is an argument in favor of neighborhood schools. we are talking about $20 a month times nine months, so that is $180, and if you have two kids in middle school, that is $360. gooour leadership and works cloy to make a fast passes free to students. i did not know how long that can continue, so i think it is important to note that we are asking families for additional expense in their planning, and the question i have is first we

lay out the processes on page 12, the transition and full implementation. my question is about the second and third round, because i think when you have here is what happens during an initial assignments and tiebreakers, but i got a lot of feedback from families who suddenly realized they were not going to be at the top of the line for around two or round three, so i would like some elaboration about the initial stage and what happened subsequently. my second question is about program placement and my firm

belief that one of the successful strategies is soon -- to replace language programs in schools, and i would like to ask -- we have an opportunity to bring the program. i do not know that we are making a pitch for strong music. my final question is we have some families saying they do not want to go to hoover, and the

staff responsive and suggestion for families who would do the right thing and give people access to middle schools who may not necessarily be in their curriculum -- what would you say to these families? >> on the first question about the program, as we were designing the system, we found one of the greatest inequities' about the old system is a prioritized on time applicants. choice is not mentioned as .

tuesday with the same set of priorities all the time -- to stay with the same set of priorities all the time, it would reduce the opportunity or incentive to put a fine choices -- to put down choices they might not want. the program placement fees -- piece i will not be able to elaborate on except that you were suggesting how can we make sure that all of our schools are attractive and what do we need to do to provide that opportunity to families? i think it is part of a broader

discussion they are having in looking at what are the changes we need to make. in terms of monroe and some of the families not wanting to go to hoover, i think that is one of the features to going first with a choice that is going to increase transparency and provide an opportunity for greater accountability with the district as well. until now, your customers are basically anyone who this view was a choice. we will be able to anticipate -- anyone who listens to you as a choice. we will be able to anticipate, follow up with parents, get a deeper understanding, and it provides an infrastructure that is going to make it a lot easier to have a deeper understanding of why schools are more appealing are less appealing,

and because of this choice, they will not have to list it as a choice, and we will be able to see what they are telling us about a parent's desire and how our system is working. >> is it possible that the 622 applicants in the middle school is actually 662, because you said there were 622 carrier -- there were 622. is that the arch will number -- the actual number? that means every applicant got a school they requested. that means it is working. good >> what affect is it having

on the system? it is working in terms of being a revised. -- being prioritized. >> i do not know if anything -- anyone has anyone else they would like to say. >> i would like to talk about elementary schools, but really about the review we were going to do on an annual basis. i believe what we agreed upon was also that we would look ratner -- look at our overall policy also, so what i am seeing is an annual analysis.

we'll get -- we looked at the areas, having changed, and what does that tell us thomas -- what does that tell us? it is a rapidly changing demographic with new housing developments in jamestown. 1147 new units, so we see a rapid change of demographics in that this still means there are

students that i believe are underperforming, so also when we were saying we want to monitor itsel about what our student society process is hitting in terms of goals, so when i see some of these guidelines for the review, i wonder about the measures we are using to use student assignment. after we heard you have over a certain percentage of a certain population, it is much more difficult to get over the systemic policies that make it harder for schools to actually have higher achievement. buwe heard from our sandford

folks, and i think we heard it from our own research and accountability is curator of we saw a lot of staff on it. -- accountability. we saw a lot of data on it. it is really the whole process in general, because we have heard so much information. we knew we cannot get to exactly where we want it. i want to know about that. when i think about what makes schools more attractive, i would

like to think they close the achievement gap. we stood also look to things of help us close the gap, -- that would help us close the gap. and we were looking at keeping than in mind. -- keeping that in mind. is it a school that is equitable in the school? are we trying to reach all students? i'd think i am wondering is whether this evaluation is monitoring the measures, the goals. this is such a small piece of it, but this tells us much more

about how the student assignment process is helping us meet the goals of our student assignment plans but also our strategic plans. >> i was just asking about those furs their egos -- asking about those areas. they make it a responsibility to look at those things and actually decide if we want to change them for the coming year. that is the responsibility, and of course we are voting on the feeder half turns, so we want an update. -- feeder patterns, so we want and of faith. this is about monitoring and

having the board members come through. i do not know if we are specific enough about the testing things we would like to be monitored. i would like to have more information about the students and how the process works when we have the-so, there are other the yanks -- other things. i am assuming that is the overall suggestion. i am presuming that is what the monetary -- monitoring committee will do. that is their corn job. >> they are the advisor rich

commission -- the advisory commission. we are sure they are doing it on a voluntary basis. we are going to share if and suggest feedback the superintendent will be able to bring forward. i think a lot of commissioners have asked questions about the policy itself, but we will be able to work with the feedback, and we will be able to share what we are recommending, and if we want new commissioners to make suggestions, but i think in

terms of your question of general feedback, i have gotten a general sense, and we can keep the dialogue going and in august finalized questions. >> i have one subjects i would like to put on the table, just to reiterate one thing i think we need to explore, but we need to find a way to monitor and do research with the results of aren't on system and give some -- of our own system and to give evidence of feedback is the actual choices that our families are making. i think we were surprised we did not see a different pattern of choosing thisye