Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
At the August 2016 community engagement sessions for the Student Assignment Review, small groups of
participants shared input and feedback by writing on individual and table comments sheets and had
their discussion captured on the whiteboard. This document is a verbatim compilation of the
comments and discussion notes from the meeting. You can access the scanned version of the actual
comment sheets and photos of the whiteboard on the CMS website as well as copies of the handouts and
session presentation at http://bit.ly/SAR-Feedback.
Meeting #/Location:
South Mecklenburg
Transportation Zones
What Matters Most to You in Creating Transportation Zones? Why are these
attributes important or not important to you?
Balance Percentage of Students in Poverty
Why most important (6)
 Creates communities of schools w/global thinking
 Make schools more equal, need creates more burden on schools (test
scores)
 SES was diverse at my child’s school and I liked that
 Non-diverse schools cannot educate all students fairly
 Entire school composed of high poverty is setting it up to fail
Why least important (5)
 It will just happen as a result of good planning
 Different learning styles should be the focus
 Diversity through other means
Similar Programs in Each Zone
Why most important (16)
 As a parent of a magnet student, wanted diversity and without option it
would have been discouraging; everyone should have access
 Was able to attend, enjoyed diversity and equality; so many parents want
kids to go but there are not enough
 Equal opportunity for choices, should not be left out of a choice because
of how CMS zones
 Equity—all zones should have same programs
 Options can help negate effects of high-poverty schools
 Options for all
 Tension created by lack of opportunity/imbalance
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
Why least important (1)
 Feasibility in large district
Size of Zone
Why most important (7)
 Wouldn’t want kids on a school bus for 2 hours
 Student in poverty shouldn’t have to ride a bus for hours to get to better
school
 Hard on parents who have to deal w/long rides
 *this is not an issue because I drive child
 Magnet might not be appropriate for all children and would be difficult to
have one in different zone
 Don’t want a long bus ride
 Shuttle stops worked well faster than the bus
Why least important (11)
 A 15-20 minute ride versus 5 minute not a concern
 Family drives kids—doesn’t use transportation
 Size is not as important consideration
 Traffic patterns vs. geographic size
 TIME
 Population concentrations
Intact High School Feeder pattern
Why most important (22)
 Had privilege and chose it and wanted to know they’d go to school in
elementary trajectory
 Hard to be a kid, wants consistency for relationships
 Proximity and mini community
 Affects afterschool activity and parental ability to stay involved
 Consider those who had choice and investment in house—w/this gone,
may pull out of CMS
 Connections w/peers
 Social/emotional concerns
 High school serves as larger community
 Student relationships
Why least important (1)
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
Other comments
 Will a new plan “rip” out students who have been @ a school and are
upperclassmen when new plan instituted?
Whole Town within single zone
Why most important (4)
 Outside towns can get left out
 Common institution is school (community identity)
Why least important (18)
 All live in CLT
 Don’t live in a town
Other comments
 But what about strain on local schools if others come in?
 Clear up definition of “intact towns”
Which is the best option overall for CMS families & children? Why? Do you have
any suggestions to improve this option?
 3 zones would allow students access to more magnet schools, more
equitable access. Possibly saving money by not running buses that are less
than 50% full.
 **overall, seems like group liked the 3 zone option**; 4 zones (A)—total
student amounts seemed unbalanced with grey and violet zones having
half student numbers of blue and green zones; more full magnet options
seems more equitable for choice
 Did not reach consensus but felt 3 gave more options, more choice.
Regardless, need more magnet schools further out from city center
 4A fits best for our sample
 4A = less potential for excess sized zones and a good mix of magnet
choices
 Option 3—b/c spreads out magnets more; 4B—would encourage kids to
go to homeschools b/c less magnets (making decision on how magnets are
now but they will change); 4A—I believe in equity and it looks like most
equitable distribution. Zones are same size, magnets are aggregated most
centrally; 4A—most compact zones; 4A—was clear favorite in this group.
 Option 3 provides the most transportation options for the highest
concentration of poverty
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
 4A—4 zones is more manageable; keeps high school feeders intact;
poverty levels are similar
 Equal option; option 3 zone (3 colors)—break up poverty zones while
keeping neighborhoods intact; total # of students and EDS by zone
 4A—size of zones, while maintaining the most choice; open most magnets
in zone green and grey
 **3 of 4 people picked 4A; I abstained**; not enough information to
determine based on anything but size of zone and EDS %. Major
consideration for our group was intact high school feeder patterns and
similar programs in each zone; 4A best option (like neighborhoods more
intact)
 #3—0; #4A*—1 parent preferred because the violet is not jetting into
other areas; #4B—0
o *all parents (6 of them) liked this option. We felt it more evenly
distributes the magnets in the zones. Example—less in the purple
and more in the green in option 4A
 #1. 4B—shorter transportation (bus rides) very important to many
families; #2. 3—offers a lot of options to each zone, but concerned about
potential long bus rides
 3 zones and 4A zones tied—choices, distance, more magnets
In your opinion, which is the least preferable option overall for CMS families
and children? Why?
 4B is less balanced socioeconomically and breaks up the county in an
unnatural way
 Four zone A—hard to determine balance based on quick look at numbers
 4A—doesn’t look like districts were really taken into consideration;
equality not there
 Option 3 is equitable but has longer bus rides, which we feel will not solve
the problem
 4B = limited magnet options for grey, blue and green zones
 4B—because it encompasses 90% of the of the full magnet options, not
fairly distributed. A lot of full magnet programs are in the same area. Too
concentrated; 3—because zones are too large. HS students have to get up
too early.
 Option 4B because of the high concentration of full magnets and because
levels of poverty are not evenly dispersed
 4B—does not keep high school feeder patterns intact; SM area loses all
elem. magnets; all magnets in one zone (violet)
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
 Zone 4B seems divided wonky and doesn’t keep towns intact
 Zone 3 is way too large to accommodate a relatively reasonable amount of
time on the bus while maintaining a sense of community
 Remaining magnets in blue zone w/4B are not good options; 4A—why is
there a chunk that should not be blue, should be purple?
 #3—6 (all parents agreed it is too big); #4A—0; #4B—0
 4A—gray zone doesn’t have as many magnet options as other zones
 4B zones—too many gaps, more expense
What is most important for your table to share with CMS about transportation
zones? (Please summarize – in a sentence or a few key points )
 We want balance both size and socioeconomically; equitable access to
magnet options
 Similar access is key and our group feels can be achieved through focus on
percentage of students in poverty and similar programs in each zone
 Generally, not most important—feeder system is greater priority
 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT is going to make improvements—finding ways
to engage local communities with the local school; equal opportunity to
choose a magnet and a way to get there; shorter bus rides for all zones
 More transparency regarding what is on the table for Phase 2; are you
taking into consideration the outcome of the initial survey where 75-80%
of polled said they were happy where they were currently?
 Can’t understand fairness of programs from maps; can’t make decision
now b/c magnet programs may change—hard to make decision; single
parent says proximity is important
 All of the options for transportation zones show a need for more magnet
options; this exercise does not factor in the impact of each zone to the
non-magnet schools and population changes that may result
 SM and MP should remain in the same zone. The high schools have
historic rivalry; most of these families consider this area their “town”
within the community
 Breaking up poverty and providing equal options to all
 Magnet locations need to be more geographically dispersed across each
zone rather than geographically centered in the center city; have we
considered a central zone that is shared between zones to help better
manage choice?
o Magnets should not have geography as a factor in the lottery
because transportation zones already address that
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
 EDS & zone size are not our top priorities for determining zones; the
assumption appears to assume transportation in each zone would be the
same. It would not be the same; magnet placement within the zones
needs to be equitable; no option here gives equitable full magnets in
zones. They are all clustered in the center of the zones; why are we being
asked about transportation zones first? This should be the last part of the
discussion
 Common theme of feedback was parents like the option that seemed to
provide the most options for magnets in each zone. 4A seemed to be most
evenly distributed.
 For families on the border of 2 zones, is there a way to allow them to
choose a different zone?
o 1 parent did not feel there was enough time to study in order to
comment
 Distance, length of bus; choices; shuttles work to reduce stops
Any other comments about Transportation Zones?
 Some transportation isn’t needed, Touchstone neighborhood does not
need bus service to McAlpine. Carrington/Rosecliff/part of
Raintree/Windswept do not need transportation to South Charlotte
Middle
 Intact towns should include intact neighborhoods vs. “defined” towns*
o + HS feeders
o + zone size
o *that’s what was key point
 Not as important as neighborhood school; no larger than they are
currently
o similar programs
o % poverty (socioeconomic)
 Intact HS feeder patterns (best option overall); intact towns (least
preferable option); bus times per student need to decrease. I’d love to see
bus rides less than 30min
 Most important—similar programs in each zone, economic diversity; least
important—intact HS feeder
 Intact towns; % students in poverty; similar programs; size of zone; intact
HS feeders
 Feeder patterns; size of zone; intact towns
 Most important transportation zone factor—size of zone, intact HS feeder
patterns; least important—intact towns
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016




Most important—intact high school feeder patterns
Most—similar programs in each zone; least—size of zone
Size of zone; similar programs in each zone
Transportation zone considerations
o intact HS feeder patterns
o similar options in each zone
o size of zone
o percentage of students in poverty
o intact towns
Lottery
Which do you believe is the best option overall for CMS families & children and
why?
 We are answering based on FULL MAGNET… we think B is the best option
because it has equal distribution, proximity to school stays intact. We like
Option C, just unnecessary confusion
 Scenario A speaks to our group based on its simplicity
 Choice B—those who live within ½ mile should have ability to attend local
school, but others within that SES group should not be excluded because
they fill up the slots
 We believe there is not enough information to make an informed decision
 Scenario A = equal shot for everyone and feels most diplomatic
 Proximity weight; majority liked C best
 Scenario B because proximity priority is not limited
 B—½ mile people should be able to go to close school; ½ mile people
should not count in SES, because most likely will fall in same category,
which will take spots away from community
 Scenario C—SES and proximity is important
 Scenario A—makes the magnet option available to those students who are
most interested while achieving socioeconomic diversity
 A—all prefer this but w/different distribution. Should reflect county SES %.
Proximity to school is not a priority to us for magnet schools.
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
 A is fair for everybody. Concerned about high SES families buying their way
into homes close to desirable schools. High SES families already have more
options.
 B—was preferred since it gave weight to the families that lived within the
zone
o However, we felt an option should then distribute the remaining
seats to balance the SES shake up of the school
 A or B for full or partial based on abilities
Which option do you believe is the least preferable overall for CMS families and
children? And why?
 Option A since it does not include proximity especially when Partial
Magnet is the (sentence ends here)
 Scenario C seems more complicated in determination—and our focus for
magnet choice is not as much about proximity
 Choice C because if school is in low income area, low SES spots would fill—
children from further out w/need would not get in. Same for magnets in
high income area
 Scenario A seems to continue the problem
 Scenario B
 Option B is the least favorite—depending on where the school is sited, will
change the SES diversity
 Scenario A because no proximity priority
 A does not consider homeschool for ½ mile people
 Scenario A—neighborhood schools relationship are very important;
proximity is not a consideration
 Scenario B—because it is based on geography and promotes proximity
versus interest and socioeconomic diversity. Local students will tend to fall
into one SES bucket therefore negating the idea of SED
 B—proximity seats do not take SES into consideration; lacks diversity of C
 B has potential to skew SES and we are concerned about that
 C—uncertain on how selection and data gathering
What is most important for your table to share with CMS about the lottery?
(Please summarize – in a sentence or a few key points)
 Keep proximity intact; consider SES
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
 First come first served seems a much easier way to handle lottery entry for
some @ our table, but there is a con thought too as to making it unfair for
some parents who don’t fully understand the lottery process
 True diversity in schools is the focus of our group
 The lottery needs to include neighborhood children. Neighborhood
children should be able to go to their “home” school and be included in
the magnet program.
 We feel as though we have NOT been given a full picture. I would like to
understand which % of students choose to engage in magnet by zone. I
feel like we are solving for a small # of students
 Proximity weighting is important b/c develops ties by neighborhood in a
full magnet—less important if partial magnet b/c rest of school
 Leaving the neighborhood intact and able to attend the magnet
 Clarification and transparency on lottery. Are Title I weighted? Do
schools/admin have choice? Seems to be an uneven system. Do people in
unsuccessful schools have advantage in lottery? Does that keep magnets
strong?
 Communities of how the lottery system works; knows their options from
language barriers, technology knowledge; can a parent get 1:1 education
on what “lottery” means
 Magnet lottery should be focused on program interest and not location.
Location guarantee should be for neighborhood schools
 That everyone in the zone have equal opportunity to attend; distribution
by SES should be mirrored to county SES %. If low is 60%—magnets should
be 60% low
 We would like to see higher % of seats available to low SES students
 All students must meet criteria of the magnet. Ability-based magnets
should be full magnets
Any other comments about Lottery Priorities?
 B is best; A is least preferable
 Transportation zones achieve geography goals. Proximity to a magnet
should not be a factor in the lottery.
 Transportation zones should be equal across
Magnet/School Options
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
EXISTING MAGNETS: Choose up to 3 programs –IN RANK ORDER – you think are
most important for CMS expand or replicate. And why?
Top-why?
1. Language
2. STEM
3. Arts
1. STEM—focus pertaining to WORLD STAGE
2. World Language (cool & global focus)
3. Traditional (provides diversity)
1. Languages—lack of language in elem.
2. IB high school to address transportation distance
3. STEM—expanding interest
Why don’t you take the money for magnet schools and put it into home
schools. What about investing in schools, so people want to move to poor
areas because the schools are good and they are safe.
1. Languages reflect the world
2. STEM
1. STEM
2. LITD
3. Lang. Immersion
1. Learning Immersion/Talent Development—nonexistent in south CLT,
need continuation to IB at MPHS
2. STEM
3. World Languages—language immersion
1. Language (dual or immersion)—popular, waiting lists, learn differently,
reading, writing, international competitiveness
2. STEM
3. Montessori
1. Blended Learning—provides flexibility to all regardless of schedules,
weather
2. Visual & performing arts—need a school in south CLT
1. Trade school for high schools like BOCES in New York
2. Visual and Performing Arts (middle and HS only)
3. Expand language immersion in elementary programs
1. STEM—need more of this; relevant to society needs
2. Learning Immersion/Talent Dev—increased academic rigor in lower
grades
3. Language Immersion
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
*need additional arts high school
**need definitions of what the type of magnets are
1. Montessori—high demand, low # seats available
2. STEM—important focus for future jobs, attract best teachers
3. World Languages—improve language skills
1. Learning Immersion
2. Montessori
3. Visual & Performing Arts
4. Language
1. World Languages
2. Learning Immersion/Talent Development
3. Montessori
*data for applied not admitted would help
New School Options And Magnet Programs Under Consideration For 2017: Are
there options in the pipeline you believe CMS should not pursue? Why?
 With computer & coding in elementary, we feel it is important to only
supplement the curriculum not be all encompassing
 No—we like having options!
 None
 All of them. Connect the programs that we currently have and use the
money that would have been spent on magnets and info cons schools
 Sedgefield Montessori
 Museum—not good resources to support; Micro Society—too much for
magnet
 We don’t have opposition to the list but the list does not address 1 or 3
above (LITD and World Languages)
 All look good—but both coding magnets are north area
 No
 Honestly, we feel that we should stop expanding magnet schools and
integrate this curriculum into our neighborhood schools to improve their
performance and retention
 Coding—should be middle schools, elem. too young; what is iMeck?—too
many missing descriptions and definitions
 Don’t see need for 6-8 grades to attend health sciences HS; don’t
understand iMeck offerings/needs
 Museum magnet—fold it into another option; Micro-society
 None, all seem appropriate
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
Themes NOT CURRENTLY in CMS: Choose up to 3 magnets not currently offered
by CMS –IN RANK ORDER – that you would most like to see at CMS. Please
include your own program idea if it is not included on this list. Why for each
choice?
1. Civic
2. Prep
3. Expeditionary
1. Micro Society—POSITIVITY, teaching leadership
2. Additional career based—CTE—to reach a broader base of students
3. Civic engagement—leads back to WORLD STAGE FOCUS
1. Career Based Themes
2. Single Sex Preparatory
3. Civil Engagement
Invest in the teachers
1. Micro Society or Civic Engagement/Commu. Leader
2. Expeditionary
1. Multiple Intell.
2. Career-Based Themes
3. Young Men/Women Prep
*Civic Engagement, Expeditionary Learning
1. Cambridge (Bradley MS, Hopewell HS)
2. Expeditionary Learning
*provide TD related program to South CLT
1. Career-Based—people need job skills, can move into CPCC
1. Young Men’s Prep/Young Women’s Prep—advantage of same sex can
compete w/private schools
2. Additional career—former ethnicking for kids w/strong interests and
talents; builds on STEM
3. Civic Engagement
1. Trade schools
1. Health Sciences
2. Alternative Energy (green eng.) or Career-Based Themes
3. Agriculture/Environmental Science
*more early/middle college HS
**trade magnets—plumbing? certifications, etc.
We do not like any of these ideas. We prefer a more limited # of themes which
can be then offered to more students. CMS does not need to be all things to all
people.
1. Vocational/Trade
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
2. Computer Technology
1. Expeditionary Learning—very engaging, reach all learners
2. Multiple Intelligences
3. Additional Career-Based Themes
*why could get company backing
Billingsville Elementary: Based on its location, would you view that as a viable
option for your child? If so, what theme would make it most attractive to you?
 Language Magnet
 No viable option because of distance partnership w/Mint Museum
 Language immersion
 No—too far
 ¾—no; ¼—yes
 Yes if Talent Development Magnet
 Too far. Language magnet (full)
 No
 No, location is not viable. Should consider another location not currently
near the bulk of our magnet schools
 Yes, Environmental Science/Agriculture
 No—concerns about safety in surrounding neighborhood. Strong
preference to have a school very close to our homes
 Billingsville—either Learning Immersion or Language or Montessori
 Yes, if it’s the right program for child & family museum
What barriers to accessing to magnets CMS must address?
 Transportation, distance, navigating the application process
 Communication & simplification of magnet process—better website,
clarity of form
 Giving all students the services they need
 Better education about how to sign up, what is available, benefits, etc.
 Different magnet than what’s already offered; performing arts
 Transportation; application process accessible
 Locations; long bus rides; late school times
 Communication, language, education level of understanding the
“MAGNET” program, level of poverty
 Geography is the barrier. We need to streamline to fewer magnets open
to everyone and more specialized schools. Geography becomes less of a
factor when we focus on our neighborhood schools
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016




CMS should connect w/businesses and industries in comm.
Distance from home/time on bus. Availability of high demand programs
Parent education & knowledge of options; get the message out
Location distance
What is most important for your table to share with CMS about Magnets/
Options? (Please summarize – in a sentence or a few key)
 Magnets provide a safety valve for lower performing home schools;
magnets provide a comforting option for people who are not happy
w/their home school
 Magnets are currently not equitably diverse
 What about our “home schools”—what about investing in those!!
 Computer science & coding is important—differential from STEM
 Partial magnets do not draw people unless separated in school. IB
magnets at elem. level are not effective
 Need definition around what does ‘traditional” mean; or “Blended
Learning”; or what is “Service & Protection”
 We need to streamline our magnet programs to the critical few (visual
arts, trade schools, language immersion) and then redirect the remaining
to our neighborhood schools
 Magnets we offer (Expeditionary Learning) should reflect needs and
relevance in the community; trade magnets—culinary, auto mech.,
cosmetology
 Why aren’t magnet schools more geographically disbursed—i.e. few
options in North; consider decreasing # of themes offered in order to
increase seats @ high demand themes
 Integrity of program; look the part
Individual Comments: Magnet/School Options
Billingsville Elementary: Based on its location, would you view this as a viable
option for your child? If so, what theme would make it most attractive to you?
 No
 No, too far—not another centralized magnet!
Any other comments about Magnet/School Options?
 Existing Magnets:
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016






o STEM, IB, Language Immersion
o Visual and Performing Arts, STEM
New School Options & Magnet Programs Under Consideration for 2017:
o High School Programs—YES!
Themes Not Currently Offered in CMS:
o Career Based Themes, Young Men/Women, Civic Engagement is
good but drop the “social justice” BS (social justice = socialism!)
o Trades for high schools
What barriers to accessing magnets must CMS address?
o They are concentrated in poor areas
It seems that most full magnets are in poorer parts of town. Living in South
Charlotte, we don’t have access because we’re not going to send our kids
into those areas. Definitely not worth the drive and hassle
We need to strengthen our neighborhood schools by improving talent
development and IB programs as well as Personalized Learning. This will
keep magnets focused on themes and improve neighborhood schools
Please add a description of magnet programs
 Would like to see the Micro-Society magnet curriculum offered as an
enrichment program at several schools rather than a magnet
Other
Optional Transcriber Observations:
 Overwhelming theme of this meeting seems to be inclusivity/equality,
whether with bus transport times, access to magnet schools, or
consideration of SES/proximity within zones
o intact neighborhoods/towns/communities = important
 Transportation zones:
o 4A = majority liked
o 4B = majority disliked
 Lottery:
o A/B seemed like most-liked options; dislikes vary
o again, inclusivity seems the priority (calls for true diversity, inclusion
of neighborhood schools)
 Magnet/school options
Student Assignment Review Phase I Community Meetings, August 2016
o STEM and Language Immersion/World Languages seem the most
popular options
o again there seems to be a desire for more global/practical skills—
career-based themes and trade schools
 Safety of children in various areas (some magnet schools are not in areas
considered “safe” by some parents?) also came up a couple times