Coalition's Response to the Chancellor's Counter-Proposal

February 1,1999

Chancellor Stephen Portch
270 Washington St., S. W.
Atlanta, Ga. 30334

Dear Chancellor Portch:

Thank you for your letter of January 20, 1999, responding to the proposal we submitted on September 30, 1998. We appreciate your consideration of our proposal and desire to continue to try to resolve this matter in a timely fashion. On receiving your letter, we shared it immediately with as many affected families as possible, given the geographic dispersion across the state of the 60,000 students we represent, and the ten-day deadline you imposed. The response to your letter from individual parents and leaders of support groups and associations has been generally negative for reasons summarized below.

As you know, the Coalition worked for six months to produce a proposal with clearly articulated principles that addressed in detail the admissions policy, considering the needs of both the USG and the affected students. Obviously, we want an expeditious solution to the problems inherent in the current admissions policy.

As we see it, there has been no substantive dialogue between your office and the affected community in the development of either the existing policy or your counter-proposal. The result is that we cannot fully evaluate or support the counter-proposal as described in your letter because it appears to contradict essential principles articulated in our proposal and because many important details of both principle and implementation are not clearly spelled out. Nevertheless, we are unwilling to abandon our pursuit of a fair policy.

The February 1, 1999 deadline imposed by your letter should not force either you or the affected community into decisions or actions that have undesirable long term consequences, nor should it prevent you from implementing some immediate changes in policy. In order to not continue to exclude deserving and desirable applicants from the admissions pool while we address our lingering disagreements, we suggest proceeding in this fashion: l) Let's agree that applicants from the affected population will be allowed into the admissions pool based on scores on the SAT I and an appropriate nationally normed and grade referenced achievement test, specifically as outlined in our proposal. 2) Let's agree that these students should use the Academic Studies Report to describe their course of study, specifically as outlined in our proposal. 3) Meanwhile, let's begin a genuine, face-to-face dialogue in which questions can be asked and answered, and the merits of the issues on which we continue to disagree can be respectfully and thoroughly challenged and discussed, with the intention of settling this matter in a satisfactory way for all concerned--especially the students.

Let's act on our points of agreement and begin a real dialogue to resolve our disagreements. Most importantly, let's not resort to "take it or leave it" ultimata on issues of such importance.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Millie Beverly
for the Coalition for Equitable USG Admission