The Parents' Committee of Inland Congregations United for Change, which is made up of parishioners from various churches and whose children attend multiple schools in the San Bernardino City Unified School District, has been conducting trainings and research in order to have a say in the changes soon to take place at the schools designated by the state for intervention.

Our goal is to form a comprehensive plan, along with the district and other community partners, to reduce the dropout rate and improve education quality throughout the district.

Realizing that the problems within the district are vast and that our resources are very limited, we decided to start at one campus. Since many of us have children who attend or are soon to attend Pacific High School, and recognizing the great need for changes at that school, we have focused our attention there.

We attended the community forum held at the campus on March 29, where we raised our concerns and asked questions about the intervention models available.

We also attended another gathering at the school on April 28, once the decision had been made to convert the school to a charter, and again asked questions and raised concerns.

We met with teachers, district officials, and the new principal to get a better idea of what the transition to a charter would look like, and how parents and concerned community members could be involved in the improvement of the school.

In short, we feel we have done everything possible to make sure that we fulfilled our part of what the state requires for our schools to receive the resources they so desperately need in the form of the School Improvement Grant offered to low-performing schools by the state.

And then, behind closed doors, the school board changed its mind and decided that they preferred the "transformation" intervention model, according to Judy White, "to simplify the process." We did not even find out about the decision until Saturday's newspaper article ("Charter school plan dropped," The Sun, July 10).

This abrupt decision has left not only a sore spot, but also a number of unanswered questions.

For one, doesn't the law require local elected boards to make these types of decisions in public? The education of our children, and therefore the future of our society, is at stake. In a democratic society, we are supposed to have a say in the decisions that affect our lives. The board, by making this decision behind our backs, has betrayed that principle and set a poor example for the youth they are supposed to be serving.

In applying for the School Improvement Grant, the district committed to consult with relevant stakeholders. It committed to incorporate our input into the development and implementation of the chosen model, or, when that input was not taken into consideration, to provide a rationale as to why not. How can the district be in compliance with the terms of the grant for which it is applying when it collected input for a plan proposal it subsequently dumped? How can the input provided by the community be applied to an intervention model that was not even on the table during public discussions?

The grant application also requires that the district explain how the intervention model chosen "will create a significantly different instructional model and school culture." With the localized governance structure that a charter would have brought, there was potential to create such a substantive change. Now that the school board is maintaining its grip over Pacific and the other schools, it would appear that window of opportunity for change has been vastly diminished. So has the district fulfilled the requirement to make significant change?

The district claims that it has "discovered" that due to the high rate of staff turnover at Pacific and the other schools, which is actually one of the problems plaguing poorly-performing schools, the school is eligible to apply for the grant for "transformation." But the California Department of Education itself requires that staffing changes be made as part of the reform - not just because teachers tend to flee failing schools. Will our schools still be eligible for the money when our educational leaders are making a choice based on convenience rather than because that decision will actually produce change?

These are questions that we would like to have answered publicly, especially if the district is looking to shore up its claim that it is complying with the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by involving parents and community in decisions concerning school improvements.

The state is requiring that the district and the board make changes to broaden the opportunities available to students both in school and after graduation. These are precisely the types of changes that we, as parents, are pursuing. So with pressure from both above and below, why is our leadership choosing "the path of least resistance"?

In our research, we have discovered that no school improvement plan is complete without a strong family/community participation component. How can the district expect to create a comprehensive plan to improve our schools when it shuts out the very community that it needs to create that positive change?

Fabiola Cardenas and Maria Quero wrote this on behalf of the Parents' Committee of Inland Congregations United for Change, a nonprofit, faith-based community organization serving San Bernardino and Riverside counties.