By Denae Brewer
Editor in Chief

Dejected and disgusted, parents in District 9 stormed out of a school board meeting, angered that their calls for a crucial vote postponement were ignored.

"This is an outrage!" shouted Deborah Green as fifty parents chanted, 'No notice, No vote!' With tears in her eyes, Ms. Green went on to say, "I'm frustrated with the whole process. How can these few people be the only ones who have a say in my children's education? How can they know what's best for the kids?"

In an effort to cultivate greater participation in their child's education, parents say the school board's pivotal impromptu meeting - which saw the recommendation of a new school's superintendent - hindered thousands of parents from attending.

Scheduled during spring break, the parents say they were not given enough notice. Furthermore, the parents said the information they did receive was vague at best.

"Finding out about this meeting the day before spring break is not adequate notice," chastised Oswald White, a representative for the Community Collaborative to improve District 9 Schools.

The collaborative members contend that the school board is trying to keep the parents in the dark. "If our group hadn't kept calling the Chancellor's office, then we would have never known about what they called a special public meeting being held on April 1," said collaborative member Ana Garcia through an interpreter.

The cloak and dagger like atmosphere surrounding the true agenda of the "special" meeting only fueled the parent's outrage. Comparing it with some type of April fool's joke, the flyer they received via fax from the school board's office had no mention of topics to be covered.

School board president, Gwen Primus apologized to the parents for what she called "technical" errors on the flyers, but said that the meeting would go on as planned in accordance with the board's regulations and the support of the central office.

"This is one of the most important decisions the board will make - the final step in the C-37 process," said Ocynthia Williams, also from the collaborative. "For the parents and public not to be included in the process, is an outrage and an insult."

With a majority of the children in District 9 performing far below state and citywide educational standards - only 23 percent of the 30,000 students met reading standards in 2001 - the collaborative was formed by parents, community-based organization and an educational institution to ensure that they have a say in what improvements should be enforced.

"Proper notification was not given," said Ms. Williams. Reiterating the collaborative's opposition to the "special" meeting, she went on to say, "We demand that this meeting be postponed. No notice-No vote!

However, the board did vote. In a unanimous decision, a resolution recommending Jacquelyn Young and acting superintendent Stanley Mims to chancellor Levy passed.

Outraged parents vowed to continue their fight and take the issue up with the central board and the Chancellor.

"This would have been the one opportunity for the parents and public to voice their opinion on the board's choice," said Ms. Williams-Watson. "This is the person who is going to be in charge of our district-in charge of our children."