Saturday Morning Update

The full abstract from that study:

Quote:
Anything is worth discussing, but pulling a random out-of-context quote to make an indirect point doesn't help. If anything, Denton's four single-member districts plus two at large is a fair compromise. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that even with districts there are going to be social divides. Everybody knows the differences between district 1 and district 4. At the end of the day, though, the members have to work together to create a better city, not simply focus on a particular area. The city council should not be another legislative congress; that's an invitation for disaster.
-BC

I think it's something that should be looked at - more so in LISD than in the City, but I don't necessarily think it's a matter of a racial or ethnic minority being shutout. With LISD, the district is huge, so campaigning is expensive. Areas with high turnout compared to population are disproportionately represented. They carry their own drawbacks though, and you can see how that works by looking at some of the other cities around us who have SMDs. You get politicians who have a hard time focusing on the big picture, because they want to serve their own district first.

We'll have a guest column on this topic soon.

I agree wholeheartedly. LISD is one of the largest districts in the state. Even some 4-3 hybrid could be considered with three at large seats and four single member districts. Always hard to change, but seven at large seats in a district this large is a logistical nightmare. If LISD does not address this issue, it will eventually be forced to by the feds. Someone will file a voting rights/discrimination complaint and the courts will decide. Why not be proactive now and avoid that headache?

I would think that it would need to be a 5-2, one for each feeder pattern and then two at large seats. The way it is right now there are some areas with no representation on the board.

The way it is set up currently, every feeder pattern is represented by every board member. The board members aren't elected to represent a certain area but I understand that you believe they could be biased towards their neighborhood schools anyway. I don't know if that is true or not. It is probably dependent on each person and whether they choose to do what they were elected to do - represent the best interests of all of the kids in LISD - or play politics.

My question for those that want single member districts is this - if there is one vote per feeder pattern then you know that the person representing each feeder pattern will vote what is best for their feeder pattern to the possible detriment of one or more of the other feeder patterns. So, except for the 2 at large positions you propose, you will have institutionalized the bias that you think is present in the current situation. I am aware that there are examples of single member school districts so please don't answer me back with that. I really want to know how this would be expected to work without making fiefdoms throughout the school district.

Wouldn't it be better to have every area have a little bit of bargaining power, rather than none at all? Should one area get to control the fate of every other area of the district? In my opinion, there have been numerous situations where certain schools seem to have been favored and others treated unfairly. I'm in favor of having single member districts -- I could care less if board members have to do a little compromising in order to get the votes they need for their school. That would be far better than having one little area protected while the others are ignored. I want ALL the schools to be treated properly and considered equally. LISD isn't at that point yet, but I think the situation is far better than it used to be!

And I counter your first statement with "wouldn't it be better if the current members of the school board did what they were supposed to do and represent the interests of ALL of the students in LISD?". Why would we want to institutionalize the bias that several on this thread seem to believe already exists? How does that help any of the kids on the East side of Lewisville? And, to fvaughn, if no Latinos run for school board now how would you expect Latinos to pop up and run for a district that represents the east side of Lewisville? I understand that there are those that are unhappy with the way the school board is currently run but there will always be unhappy people no matter what change you make. No one is answer the original question that I asked and that is how do single member districts work in a large school district that makes that change any better than the at large system that is currently in place.

*by the way, the phrase is "COULDN'T care less".

By the way, no one needs for you to correct errors or point out your intellectual superiority, especially when you made your own error:

"No one is answer the original question..."

My point is to say that we all make mistakes, including you.

Disclaimer: This post may contain errors, as I am not perfect.

Editor stepping in here. Both of you made your point; lets not continue this particular exchange about typos.

I think the desire for single member districts is born out of the Lewisville High School 9/10 split debacle. Every single meeting I went to I did not see any parents or students speak out for the plan. Yet, it was approved anyway. As far as a every feeder patter being represented by a board member, who represents LHS? When we were struggling with the LHS campus not one council member said they represented us, the end users.

Who do we elect or defeat for this issue? Without single member districts, there is no way for the poorer, less organized East side to have a political voice in the process and hold trustees accountable. Our political voice is diluted in an at large election.

As far as institutionalized bias, I argue we have that now with almost all of the trustees elected form Flower Mound and voting in favor of their neighbors. The key is to elect candidates that have the overall good of the key stakeholders in mind- students, teachers, parents and not just voting for their own neighbors interests.

It seems like most of the claims of inequity relate to either rezoning or facilities. So here's what I wonder:

What if you could roll rezoning recommendations into the purview of the Bond Oversight Committee, and make sure that this committee was equally representative of each high school zone? Right now, reviewing the list of members, I recognize some names as being Lewisville folks, though it's not explicit that they represent a specific zone.

I realize this wouldn't keep the board from making unfair decisions, but they would presumably have to overrule the recommendations of the BOC if they wanted to go out of their way to do so, and that would be fairly visible.

Another possibility if you just had to have SMDs would be to draw school board districts that overlap 2 high school zones. So, for instance, you might have one district overlapping LHS and FMHS zones, one overlapping LHS/HHS, One MHS/FMHS, One MHS/TCHS, One TCHS/HHS. That way each zone has two reps responsible for it, but you have less chance for fiefdom.

One big concern I have is the lack of diversity on the current board. for instance, With such a large number of Latino students, why don't we have more Latino representation?

At large elections cost more to run, limiting opportunities for minorities to run.

There aren't more Latino board members because Latinos apparently choose not to run. A Latino has to run to be elected. However, I personally don't believe that only a Latino can represent Latino students. I'm white, I think I could represent the needs of all of the kids in LISD. I don't have to be Latino to see what their needs are and it really upsets me when people think that they can only be represented by someone like them...same ethnicity, same gender, same age, same socio-economic level, etc. Select good leaders that will govern wisely and let them govern. If they don't govern wisely, vote them out the next time but hold them accountable by being involved while their term plays out.

Just curious, what do you see as the needs of Latino students at LISd? What can be done structurally to make these students successful, or do you think they have everything in place now?

I'm not qualified to judge the specific "needs" of the latino students. My take is from just observing the LHS students around the school grounds when I go to the Post Office, or Sam's Club. They look like high school kids look every where I've ever been. My personal hope is for all to jump into the incredible melting pot created by our ancestors. Inclusion is good, exclusion is bad. Sounds simplistic, but the alternatives are dreadful.

I've followed this Single Member District thread closely, I thank everyone for educating me on this issue. Now that we have a fiscally responsible LISD Administration I don't know if we need to make any changes. Under the Roy Administration I would have voted for anything that could have prevented the rubber stamping indulged in by the ex board members.

I feel strongly about one issue, and I hope to direct some attention to it. I believe there is one very reliable method to prevent the sort of favoritism demonstrated by the previous board and administration. Put a policy in force to not have a mixture of educational projects and extracurricular expenditures in the same bond. Including the construction of much needed elementary schools in the same bond to finance 4 million dollar fieldhouses should not be permitted (not to mention extravagant stadiums).

I'll vote for any bond to build or improve schools, or finance wage incentives to retain teachers, but if it includes ANY extracurricular projects my vote goes negative. From speaking with my neighbors, some of whom are teachers, I found full agreement with the separation of the types of bonds.

I welcome any suggestions on putting this policy change forward.

I have heard that perfectly good (and in some instances almost new) facilities are going to be destroyed at FMHS and MHS so they can build ninth grade campuses on the same site as the main campuses and build gymnasiums of the same caliber as the new one built at LHS. I have no doubt that the ninth grade campus issue is the right way to go, but why can't LISD wait until the existing sports facilities get old and need replacement? Is the "athletic equity" theory still in play??? Why is LISD indulging in this kind of "keeping up with the Jones" sports stuff anyway? LHS got a new building ONLY because it was the only high school without a sprinker system, and it was really old. Tearing up perfectly good sports facilities and replacing them with extravagant and unnecessary new ones is a ridiculous waste of money.