Lynne Varner at the Times is the latest to weigh in on the problems of changing the assignment plan (and here we thought it was going to be hard to draw the boundaries). As usual, her rhetoric is overblown and it's as if she is taking Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson to task for things that other superintendents and Boards did before she got here. At least she hired Don Kennedy who had the courage to tell the truth (outloud and in public) about the situation. She did have one line of good sense:
"Better to have lasting policy than short-lived plans made in haste."
I agree. Director de Bell and Director Martin-Morris seem urge to forge ahead.
Which do you want - forge ahead with the plan to change the high school enrollment process by the fall of 2009 (but with the understanding that if the system blows there will be mass confusion on a huge scale) or make sure they do it right and commit the time and resources to both the system and the assignment plan and thus postponing any changes? (Of course, the question could also be asked that if it implementation is postponed, would they still only do high school or could they do the whole plan at once because of the new computer system that could handle it?)