School Boundary Meeting - Oak Meadows
I attended the school boundary meeting this evening at Oak Meadows Elementary. This one was sparsely attended compared to Monday's meeti...
http://www.menifee247.com/2008/01/school-boundary-meeting-oak-meadows.htm
I attended the school boundary meeting this evening at Oak Meadows Elementary.
This one was sparsely attended compared to Monday's meeting at Ridgemoor. By the time the meeting started at 6:00pm, I counted 10 adults in the audience, not counting their kids, and not counting myself and nor the district faculty. The meeting ended just 30 minutes later, and by that time another 5 adults had trickled in.
The presentation was pretty much the same as Monday's, except abbreviated to cover only the new boundaries for Oak Meadows, since the attendance was so small.
One person in the audience mentioned Measure B, and the district wanting to wait until after the results of the Feb 5 vote, and Linda Callaway, the superintendent, quickly stated that this meeting was only about the boundary changes, and not Measure B.
Callaway then went on to clarify that the boundary changes were being made due to the introduction of the two new elementary schools, #8 and #11.
I responded with the question, "Is it then correct to say that the boundary changes has nothing to do with the district's plans to move to a single track?"
Dan Wood replied "Not directly".
Callaway added that while the move to a single track doesn't really affect the boundary changes at this point, it will make it possible to implement the single track down the road.
But, if the boundary changes has nothing to do with moving to a single track calendar, then why does Ridgemoor's boundaries have to change? Why can't the new elementary school in Quail Valley relieve the attendance at Menifee Elementary, and leave Ridgemoor's attendance alone?
On the other hand, if the move to a single track calendar is indeed what's driving all this, then I agree the district needs to shrink Ridgemoor's boundaries. In that regards, I think the "Todd Reed Proposal", is a good idea, where the district can define new boundaries for Ridgemoor, but only enforce them with new students.
This one was sparsely attended compared to Monday's meeting at Ridgemoor. By the time the meeting started at 6:00pm, I counted 10 adults in the audience, not counting their kids, and not counting myself and nor the district faculty. The meeting ended just 30 minutes later, and by that time another 5 adults had trickled in.
The presentation was pretty much the same as Monday's, except abbreviated to cover only the new boundaries for Oak Meadows, since the attendance was so small.
One person in the audience mentioned Measure B, and the district wanting to wait until after the results of the Feb 5 vote, and Linda Callaway, the superintendent, quickly stated that this meeting was only about the boundary changes, and not Measure B.
Callaway then went on to clarify that the boundary changes were being made due to the introduction of the two new elementary schools, #8 and #11.
I responded with the question, "Is it then correct to say that the boundary changes has nothing to do with the district's plans to move to a single track?"
Dan Wood replied "Not directly".
Callaway added that while the move to a single track doesn't really affect the boundary changes at this point, it will make it possible to implement the single track down the road.
But, if the boundary changes has nothing to do with moving to a single track calendar, then why does Ridgemoor's boundaries have to change? Why can't the new elementary school in Quail Valley relieve the attendance at Menifee Elementary, and leave Ridgemoor's attendance alone?
On the other hand, if the move to a single track calendar is indeed what's driving all this, then I agree the district needs to shrink Ridgemoor's boundaries. In that regards, I think the "Todd Reed Proposal", is a good idea, where the district can define new boundaries for Ridgemoor, but only enforce them with new students.
In my opinion, the boundary changes ARE directly related to the desire to move to a single track, (or traditional, or modified traditional, or whatever people want to call it), school year. If I remember correctly, during the meeting at Ridgemoor, it was specifically mentioned that changing the boundaries at some of the schools would allow them to move to a single track system earlier than they could without boundary changes. The same holds true for Measure "B", if it passes, and funding for the two additional elementary schools and one additional middle school is secured, it will allow the district move forward with the idea of moving to a single track system. So while the boundary changes and Measure "B" are not directly related to each other, it would seem that each of those, on an individual basis, ARE directly related to the districts desire to move to a single track system.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent of children that attend Ridgemoor, who live behind Stater Bros., I believe the Todd Reed proposal can work and be accepted by those of us affected. The problem that arose with the Board was the lying and deceit. It appeared that the board thought they could make any changes they felt like, tell us that it was the plan the whole time, and we as parents would “roll over” and do nothing.
ReplyDeleteOne thing the board needs to remember is they are making decisions that can affect CHILDREN for the rest of their lives. Let’s hope they won’t forget this.
The mistake the district is making is not being up front about the fact that a single track system has academic advantages to all students. Scores are higher when all students and staff are on campus at the same times and when NO teacher is packing up their tons of stuff and their students to move to a new classroom every month! Single track is best for students. Ridgemoor is overcrowded and that is that. Face it, some kids have to go. Roving teachers and roving students are not the ideal. Measure B does not have to pass to go single track. I am not voting for it.
ReplyDeleteCurrently there are 880 students attending Ridgemoor, while single track capacity is over 900, with attendance on the decline at this time. So nobody needs to go anywhere. The district can implement a plan of leaving existing students at Ridgemoor and sending any students moving into the “changed” area to Evans Ranch or Quail Valley, depending on the area chosen.
ReplyDeleteMeasure B does have to pass for the district to move to a single track schedule. The middle schools cannot accomodate the students on a single track schedule right now. We need the 3rd middle school to go single track. As a teacher in the district who has had to rove (move classrooms every month) and move out for a rover every 3rd month, I beg you to reconsider Measure B. Please get all your facts before you make up your mind. Yes we are opening 2 new elementary schools, which will alleviate their crowding, the other 2 are for later, we need that 3rd middle school! Single track is so much better for all students!! It makes a better school community of learners.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why those of you who want measure B to pass want more money taken from us. Why don't you just hold those in charge accountable for the money they do have. I'm sure you would find a lot of wasted. spending. I'm voting no on measure B
ReplyDeleteAccording to the school board the process for the 3rd middle school has begun. Dan Wood stated that the board was taking bids for the building of it last week. I assume if they are taking bids they must have the funds necessary to go through with it? So if the previous comment, by the teacher, is correct this middle school will allow the district to go to single track, at least into the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteI have to take much of the responsibility concerning the districts desire to move to single track. When I ran for school board I ran on the issues Unification, single track and better district communication with the community. Clearly more work is needed on the third issue. Now that unification is under way, I worked to convince the other members of the board and staff to move to single track. It was my impression that the community wanted to have a single track system when I ran for school board. I believe that single track is better for educating students, better for family planning, and better for the district financially. The staff was directed to take measures to move the district toward single tack. Since single track is a direct result of school over crowding, both the boundary issue and Measure B are related to the issue. Nothing can be done over night and many plans have to be in place years, in advance, to work toward any changes on unification or single track. Having enough classrooms at each site to accommodate the number of students is the first step in the plan. If measure B fails the issue is mute, and there is no need to discuss how we want to implement single track. I agree Todd’s proposal is a good one. It remains to be seen if it keeps us on line with the time line to move to single track but I will be recommending it either way. After reading through some of the comments I am not sure that the community really supports the move to single track. I may have to rethink my motives. It makes no sense to me to implement single tack when so many people are opposed to idea. Just bear with us, contrary to how some of the comments sound the board is not a piece of wood they are people just like yourselves that have opinions and make mistakes. Please come and give us your input by attending board meetings, writing emails or just calling us. Your thoughts are what help us make decisions.
ReplyDeleteI don't think most people are opposed to single track. I think most people are FOR it if their kids don't have to change schools. I think single track would be a great thing. I know many families who have kids on different tracks because there is no room to keep them on the same tracks. This does not make them happy at all. Single track means they are all on the same schedule so we won't have that problem anymore.
ReplyDeleteLet's be real here:
ReplyDeleteSchool overcrowding is not the result of the multi-track system, it is the GOAL of multi-track to accomodate students' educational needs with fewer expensive schools and buildings. Measure B wants to build the additional buildings making a single-track system perhaps possible.
"Overcrowded Schools" is being used as a political term.
Ridgemoor is not overcrowded and there are few classes that move each month. Freedom Crest and Oak Meadows are indeed over full, but that situation will be fixed when the Lakes school opens in July.
To Fred
ReplyDeleteWe do want SINGLE TRACK but not at the cost of moving my children from their current school. I LOVE the idea of being single track. No more going to school for 3 months & off for 1 month. I don't think they really learn that way. Not to much the fact that they have to go to school in the summer when its 100 plus degrees outside.
To: "Let's be Real"
ReplyDeleteAs long as our schools are running on multi track and accommodate more students than they could on traditional (or single track), I consider them over crowded. Many of our schools have added portables that further expanded their capacity beyond originally planned. Just because you add classrooms doesn't mean that schools are no longer overcrowded. They still have the same restroom space, lunch room and even less play space. We could add more classrooms to any school but a plot of land covered in portables, does not a school make. We have to plan for future growth and the current lull will not last forever. We can"t build schools over night. As for "political" anything involving schools, money or votes is "political" Get Real.