Home › Education › Education: K-12
Judge won't stop school district vote
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Education: K-12A federal judge this week ruled in favor of a November election that will allow voters throughout the Oxnard Union High School District to decide whether to create a new, unified Camarillo district.
If approved, the plan would allow about 3,000 Camarillo and Somis students to leave the district. They would be included in a new district along with students from Camarillo's K-8 Pleasant Valley School District.
The state Board of Education decided in March the issue should go to a ballot, but a group of Camarillo residents and unification proponents sued, contesting the area of the election. They wanted only Camarillo and Somis residents to vote, but the state board said the entire district, including Oxnard and El Rio, should get to vote.
Citizens for a Camarillo Unified School District and several individual plaintiffs asked the judge in June for a preliminary injunction to stop the measure from going on a ballot until the issue could be resolved in court.
That request was denied in a written order Monday by U.S. District Judge James Otero, who said a November vote would not cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs.
"It's not a setback in any way," said Camarillo Unified President Debra Creadick, who said the burden of proof is "very high" for an injunction. She called the decision reasonable, saying the group would drop the lawsuit if the unification measure passes, which she thinks will happen.
Plaintiffs charge the state board went against its past practice by expanding the election area to include residents outside of the proposed Camarillo district's boundaries. The state board did so on the basis of race, they said, "a single, predominant and impermissible factor."
A significant portion of Oxnard Union's non-minority students would be removed if Camarillo and Somis residents join the new district. The plaintiffs say state board members were concerned about allegations the unification movement was driven by "white flight" — something that legally should not have been considered.
Plaintiffs also have pointed to a local committee's decision to set the area of election as solely Camarillo and Somis, and to a report from California Department of Education staff that recommends the state board also limit the election to those areas.
Otero said plaintiffs have demonstrated little likelihood of their success. The board was required to determine whether unification promotes racial segregation, he wrote, so it wasn't surprising that board members discussed that topic.
The board also recognized it was "a close case" whether the unification proposal met conditions set by state law, he wrote, and the board's decision "reflects the common-sense idea that close cases should be submitted to the entire affected community."
None of the involved districts was listed as plaintiffs or defendants in the suit.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 5:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before you draw the line on your ballot make sure you know what you get and what you don't get with unification. This is a bad idea for our children and education in Camarillo and Oxnard.
If you vote yes hang on to your wallet and remember...unification is brought to you by the same incompetent leaders that brought you school closures 2007, CAPE denial and most recently spending the funds set aside to pay long term debt. Genius!
Posted by frank14 on August 6, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A bad idea for our children is busing them into another city to go to school, all in the name of political correctness.
I want to know where the 700 Camarillo kids who are bused to Rio Mesa are going to go after incompetent leaders allowed a massive housing tract to be built in El Rio without requiring the builders to contribute a penny to building a new high school.
Posted by dotkay on August 6, 2008 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its about time that Camarillo students attend school in Camarillo. At one time T.O. was part of the Oxnard Unified School District. Now it is time for Camarillo to have its own unified district with all Camarillo students attending school in Camarillo. Of course by letting voters in Oxnard vote on this issue is going to make it more difficult to pass (they won't want to lose Camarillo money). Good luck Camarillo in November.
Posted by SDmom on August 6, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone needs to educate themselves on the facts of Unification.
This is not a good idea for the students and teachers of Camarillo, Somis or Oxnard.
Stop listening to the rhetoric of Cam Unified.
Currently the only people running for Cam Unified
Sandy Berg
Ron Speakman
Patty Lerner
Bill Little
seems like pretty much the same incompetent leadership that is currently serving the PVSD.
Lets pass unification so the can destroy the 9-12 district as well. Great Idea!!
These people have NO PLAN!
Don't let the Children of Camarillo, Somis and Oxnard suffer at the hands of these people
VOTE NO on MEASURE U
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Frank14-
Measure H, paseed by OUHSD, was for the construction of two high schools one in CAm and one in Oxnard.
OUHSD has the land, paid for by COPS tha the new district would have to absorb, they have the plans, the experiance nad the money.
Building a school in Cam relieves the Rio Campus.
Dotkay-
Whats your point?
Posted by Dan46 on August 6, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
reh58,
I AGREE!!!!!!
They have bascially ruined our K-8. They would need a new bond to build a high school. Who is going to pass that during these hard economic times.
OUHSD has the land, money and experience. Unifcation fails and a new high school will be built next to the library.
Posted by Dan46 on August 6, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The teachers in Camarillo are fantastic and they keep getting slapped in the face by PVSD.
The schools are great because of them and the parents.
I think the teachers have finally realized unification won't give them the raise they deserve either.
Im sure Oxnard would love schools with high parent involvement like PVSD to bring up the scores. ex: approving CAPE charter
PVSD would love to continue to disseminate all the schools with parent involvement ex: Closing LSOS and denying the CAPE Charter, basically ruining Los Primeros.
I think concept of unification is good. the problem we have here is THEY HAVE NO PLAN! the yahoos running for CAMUNIFIED are the same ones we currently have. this is not the time or place for this to happen. This will not work VOTE NO!
Posted by BeaHappi on August 6, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that the low Oxnard scores are less about the district and more about the parents and students. Not to mention that a large percentage of Oxnard K-8 students are ESL which takes more work on the part of the teachers and students. And if the parents of these kids don't speak/read/write English, it just multiplies the difficulties even more.
In my opinion teachers are often forced to teach to the lowest common denominator. Which is horrible for those students who are above average.
My kids go to a great private school but we still are involved with their education. You can't just leave it all to the schools. Kids only spend so much time there. Plus it serves us all better if we know what's going on with our kids in their classrooms.
The Camarillo parents that I know and trust are not in support of unification. And these are parents who were very involved when their school was closed as part of the PVSD debacle.
Posted by Starreader on August 6, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a Camarillo resident with a 5th grader, so I have a vested interest in what happens here.
I hate OUHSD! I hate that they have ignored the youth of Camarillo. Moving the school boundary year after year, sending more and more kids to Rio Mesa in order to put of build a new high school is inexcusable! OUSHD bought the land in Camarillo years ago. Have they done anything with it, “NO!” They have shown me just how much they care about the youth of this community.
Leaving OUSHD in charge of Camarillo's high school is preposterous. I too have my reservations about what PVSD is thinking and doing, but I can tell you dumping OUHSD will be in the best interest of our kids. Camarillo is a great town and like the other posters have said, “The parents involvement is what makes the difference,” that is what our town has going for it. We love our city and it’s people, and we love our kids. I know we can do this people, if we pull together.
Here’s the answer to what needs to happen: 1) PVSD needs to re-open the closed schools. 2) Put the 6th graders back in the elementary schools where they belong. 3) Make Los Altos, Monte Vista, and Los Colinas Junior high schools, 7th 8th & 9th grade. 4) Make Camarillo High School, 10th 11th & 12th grade. I never have like the 9th graders in a school with the 12th graders any how. Problem solved!
And 5) Go after OUHSD for the property and money they have that came from the bond measure passed and paid for by Camarillo voters!
Posted by pjlove10 on August 6, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Get off your high horses people. Just because you live in Camarillo doesn't mean the parents care any more than Oxnard parents. Such an ignorant assumption on your parts. Go vote, then be quiet. Enough already.
Posted by CAPEDad on August 6, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Judge Otero just made unification DOA in November.
Sorry folks - it's a simple fact.
Posted by pjlove10 on August 6, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
reh58, I thought everyone from Camarillo owned one. No horse left behind? ;) I agree with you more than disagree to be honest. But assuming can be dangerous in this sense. It's a real slap in the face to those parents that reside in Oxnard that truly care and participate in their children's studies. I know of MANY, in Oxnard and Camarillo alike.
Posted by BeaHappi on August 6, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
pjlove - of course there are tons of parents in Oxnard who are involved and who care about their kids. Heck, we're two of them!
Starreader...even if unification passes, do you honestly see your plan coming to fruition?
CapeDad...I'm sure you know the answer to this question. Isn't part of the reason that the new CAM HS hasn't been built because of this unification battle? I don't remember the details but I do remember reading something about that.
Anyone?
Posted by Dan46 on August 6, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its like this why would they build a new high school here when if unification passed they would have to give it to them.
I think you guys will be really surprised to what happens when it fails.
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Starreader..I too have a vested interest with two children currently in PVSD and have been in this district since kindergarten. The current PVSD school board, who also happen to be key unification supporters have driven this district into debt and, frankly, are all an embarrassment to the voters. Would I like a school in Camarillo...sure...it's closer to home....I would drive my kids...they would never ride on a school bus. Since Unification will not pass, I look forward to them going to Rio Mesa and will be happy to drive them there. I have many friends with children at RM and have heard nothing but wonderful things about the teachers, parent groups and administration. I also have many friends who have "had" (key word had) children at Cam High only to move them to RM.
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
also...fyi....Speakman, Berg and Learner have all finished their paperwork should by some act of God they get their Unification, so that they can run for the school board. LMAO
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi - OUHSD would love you to believe that unification is the reason why a new school has not been built in Camarillo, but the truth is, they never intended to built a Camarillo high school. And, if you want to be real honest about it - I don't think building a new school in Camarillo is the smartest thing to do. If I were on the OUHSD board, my vote on where the first schools should be built would be in South Oxnard. THAT's where they are needed the most.
SDMom - I think you have some personal axe to grind. Do you now have to drive your kids to school? School closures are hardly indicative of mismanagement, and for crying out loud, Bill Little is the former city manager of Camarillo!
Camarillo parents have been far too spoiled expecting everyone to have a school within walking distance. I could give you the ole walking to school in the snow at 40° below, but while true ... a bit trite. You should ask yourself where you want the limited and reduced money spent ... on programs or on facilities. My choice is programs.
JohnAlamillo - rather than just hang a carrot out there about money and your wallet, why don't you produce some facts? After all, the Ventura County Board of Education and the State Board of Education know absolutely nothing about schools. All the independent studies are flawed in their analyses. Only you have the figures and the knowledge, and we all should just trust you. NOT.
Local administration of schools is a good thing. It's good for Camarillo students and it's good for Oxnard students. Oxnard should attend to their schools and let us deal with ours.
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parent... "OUHSD would love you to believe that unification is the reason why a new school has not been built in Camarillo, but the truth is, they never intended to built a Camarillo high school"...they had every intention of building a school in Camarillo until the Unification Posse started saddling up. The facts speak for themselves. As far as your comments to Alamillo....at least he states FACTS and FIGURES and does not embellish. He should run for board again...betcha he'd get the most votes.
Posted by Dan46 on August 6, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Staronline.
You vote in the new board for Cam Unified on the Nov. Ballot with Measure U. You dont get to do it later. The only ones who have pulled papers is the current board members at PVSD
Posted by hazeltine on August 6, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dan46 is correct.
There will be elections for two boards on Nov. 4. The PVSD has two of the five trustee spots up for election (Sandra Berg and Suzanne Kitchens). If unification fails, this will be the PVSD board.
There will also be an election for a Camarillo Unified Board, for which apparently most of the PVSD trutees have filed paperwork. This is done through the county. This board will run CamUnified if unification passes.
For those interested, the deadline for both is this Friday, although the PVSD deadline could be extended into next week of Kitchens and/or Berg decline to run. There is no cost to be a candidate unless you want your statement in the mailed voter information, in which case it will cost you $1,150 for PVSD spot and $750 for CamUnified spot.
Posted by hazeltine on August 6, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately, the Nov. 4 election may not decide anything. If unification passes, then that's that. But if it fails, as the above article indicates, there will be yet another law suit, this one over the fact that the vote was not limited to Camarillo and Somis residents. I would assume, that would mean OUHSD would be hesitant to build a new high school in Camarillo, if that is, indeed, still its intention.
Posted by freethought on August 6, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The parents of the Oxnard kids don't stress school,I know I lived there in the 60's,and its only worse now."
reh58 - Things have changed since then. Unfortunately, for the worse. In Oxnard AND Rio school districts, many parents feel tha education is the sole responsibility of the teachers. Why that is, I will never know.
Posted by SDmom on August 6, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parent,
I have always had to driven my kids to school, My neighborhood school was substandard at the time. Look at some of the schools in Camarillo and they aren't that far from Oxnard.
Do I have a personal ax to grind. You betcha!! I have school age children and I am a property owner and taxpayer in this city.
I have watched these one track minded board members time and time again deceive our community.
local control of schools is a great idea and I would support it at a different time. These people have NO PLAN! They continue to throw out lies about what it will do for our community.
Our current K-8 students and teachers will be the sacraficial lambs for their dream agenda.
As for John Alamillo - has always given facts and figures and he has always been honest. Why do you think Ron and Sandy didn't want him on the board? He just didn't fit into their plan.
As far as the studies that have been done. Look who is behind them. Lets all remember too, that not all the studies came out in Cu's favor they only want to tell you about the ones that did.
The truth and facts will come out for everyone to see between now and Nov.
Posted by SDmom on August 6, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hazeltine,
Cam unified lawsuit is to be heard March 09' at this point. Judge Oteros ruling was for the injuction to stop the vote. If unification passes, I am sure it will be dropped. If it fails the lawsuit would be to overturn the vote.
Posted by hazeltine on August 6, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's what I was trying to say but maybe wasn't clear. If unification fails it's going to lead to another lawsuit and I'm sure that will keep OUHSD from moving forward on a Camarillo HS until it's is resolved, as it has up to this point.
Posted by SDmom on August 6, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hazeltine,
I really doubt at this point unification will pass. It may get close 50% in Camarillo. I think Cam unified had a much better chance of getting more in Camarillo if new blood was running. At this point the only new one is Bill Little.
As for the lawsuit it is the same one a new one will not be filed. The SBE is asking for it to be thrown out and have asked for their attorney fees as well. Ouch!
As for Oxnard I think you will be very surprised what happens if it fails.
Posted by lilmamma on August 6, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Camarillo and Somis should vote on this unification issue. It has nothing to do with people in Oxnard. Camarillo high school looks old and run down from the freeway while Pacifica and Oxnard High School look like colleges. Everyone needs to put aside their own agendas and think about the children. All children are entitled to state of the art schools and a quality education.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parent-
The numbers below are conditions and the summery from the county's feasability study. No's are not good.
7. The proposed reorganization will not result in a significant increase in school housing costs.
POTENTIALLY
YES
6. The proposed reorganization will not significantly disrupt the educational programs in the proposed districts affected by the
proposed reorganization and will continue to promote sound educational performance in those districts.
NO
9. The proposed reorganization will not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal management or fiscal status of the
proposed district or any existing district affected by the proposed reorganization.
NO
Either you trust this or you trust nothing. These comments were made by the professionals, not part time board members. Take notice of not only financial but programs and housing.
And here's the kicker. Some on the PVSD board make a big issue of the Master Plan calling for unified districts. It does. What those who like presenting half truths and partial information forget to tell you is the following:
Recommendation 29
The State should take steps to bring all school districts into unified PreK-12 structures.
Recommendation 29.1 – The Legislature should develop fiscal and governance incentives to promote local communities organizing their local schools into unified districts, and should eliminate all fiscal and other disincentives to unification.
Anyone of the proponents ever told you about "all fiscal and other disincentives to unification."? If not why not?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lilmamma-
You need to research 'HOW and WHY and HOW MUCH' was spent for the two schools in Oxnard.
If you don't like Camarillo High just know that
THAT IS THE SCHOOL THAT COMES WITH UNIFICATION!!!
Not Pacifica
Not Oxnard.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Alamillo-According to the testimony by Larry Shirey from School Fiscal Services Division at the March 13th State Board of Education Hearings, the VCOE determined that all criteria had been met. I believe that the document you are referring to is dated 2005. Both the VOCE and the CDE support unification.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parent-
The document is from the county. Stop the spin. No committee or board has supported unification. They did allow it to go to a vote.
But wait! If the CDE was right on finances how can they be wrong on area of election. Which is it are they right or are they wrong?
How do you explain Rec 29.1:
Recommendation 29.1 – The Legislature should develop fiscal and governance incentives to promote local communities organizing their local schools into unified districts, and should eliminate all fiscal and other disincentives to unification.
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As I stated...Alamillo gives sound arguments which are backed up by documentation, studies and facts. Anyone that disputes his facts, before posting, should have adaquate documentation and not just lip service.
Posted by Oranges on August 6, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh SNAP! Parent your going to have to do better.
Come out of the shadows and be a proud supporter.
Alamillo and Hazeltine have the guts to put their name on what they say. You, Parent, are a poser.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Me stop the spin? You were in Sacramento. You should have listened. The VCOE and the CDE DID support unification. The folks that posted selected excepts from the video of the testimony on YouTube could have easily posted that as well. Not to worry - it will get done. The public will get to hear exactly who said what.
And, by the way .. the feasibility study you are quoting is not the VCOE decision - it's a consultant's opinion. There are a lot of those out there, too.
Oranges - no posing here. At least I'm a parent. What are you?
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Parent...while your at it, can you also post Speakman's childish behavior towards Alamillo when he did not get his way up in Sac...several people overheard his rant....would love to see THAT on youtube.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
julsthemom - I'd love to. Unfortunately, since it was not part of the testimony, it didn't get recorded. Don't think it's really necessary though, Alamillo repeats it every chance he gets.
Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, you are mistaken on this one John. Both the County and the State DID approve the unification. I can't link to the document, but anyone who wants it, post your email and I'll forward it to you.
The election order from Superintendent Chuck Weis to the elections department states:
"At its March 13, 2008 meeting the California State Board of Education (SBE) affirmed the decision of the Ventura County School District Committee on Organization to APPROVE a proposal to remove the Pleasant Valley School District (PVSD) and the Somis Union School District (SUSD)
from the Oxnard Union High School District (OUHSD) and create a new unified school district to be known as the Camarillo Unified School District."
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
parent...I have not seen that Alamillo repeats it...I've heard about it from SEVERAL people that actually witnessed Speakman's temper tantrum...one of many I might add. I agree with Oranges on the poser comment.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly "APPROVE a proposal" not support unifcation. Stop I'm getting dizzy.
Parent-
Is the CDE right or wrong? Have you ever noticed how when you or Debra don't like the question you ignore it?
Recommendation 29.1 – The Legislature should develop fiscal and governance incentives to promote local communities organizing their local schools into unified districts, and should eliminate all fiscal and other disincentives to unification.
What are "...all fiscal and other disincentives to unification."?
You say I pop off what about you? At minimum I can cut and paste factual information. For you and your ilk it's lies and innuendo. I don't want it inmyendo so I will vote no on Measure 'U'.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My identity is immaterial, my opinions, comments, etc. are just as valid whether or not you know who I am.
You can check out several of the blogs here on the star in regards to Speakman's comments, which by the way, hardly could be described as a temper tantrum. Some have been known to equate his comments as a statement of fact.
Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I posted a link to the page that has minutes from the March 14 SBE meeting below. Those minutes also confirm that the State Board of Education also voted to APPROVE the Camarillo unification. Here is the section regarding the motion and approval:
Action: Member Bersin moved to
• Affirm the finding of the County Committee that the proposed unification will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation.
• Affirm the action of the County Committee to approve the proposed unification, but expand the election area so that the unification vote includes all the voters of Oxnard, as well as Pleasant Valley and Somis.
Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-2.
When you access the document, you'll find the section on the unification at the very end of the minutes.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Alamillo - I never said you pop off. Kindergartners can cut and paste too.
Posted by julsthemom on August 6, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck. I'm guessing you think his "methane gas" comment was also a statement of fact. Get real. Just checked the camarillounified website...has not been updated since 10/06...hmmmmmmmmmmmm...these are the people who expect support. I'm voting no on measure "u" as is most everyone I know.
Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John--all due respect, but you are the one who is "spinning" the clear approval by both the County and the State. You have repeatedly said that both boards only approved the vote, but that's not true. PEOPLE ONLY GET TO VOTE IF THE SBE APPROVES THE UNIFICATION! If it was denied or rejected, WE WOULDN'T GET TO VOTE!
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK Debra, neither of us will agree. I will say the three SBE members I spoke said they did not know if this was good or bad, just that they thought we should vote on it.
Parent-
Do you answer questions? Something tells me you have never been able give a factual, re-searchable answer.
Your credability is nill as a poster with no fact only opinion.
Posted by parent on August 6, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course I answer questions. However, there comes a point in time where it's pointless to argue.
You haven't posted any facts to support your argument. You call people names, you say they are incompetent - but nothing you have said points to incompetency. You talk about unification costing tax payers money, but you don't have any facts to support that. You quote a 2005 study done by a consultant as the absolute truth, and dismiss studies done by the CDE as inconsequential. And, you seem to think that same study trumps the vote of the County Committee and the SBE. It's real easy to claim the current board is inept, but your only justification for that is because you don't agree with them. School closures are indicative of several things, reduced enrollment and poor economic times are two of them. It would have been incompetent to either keep schools open when there wasn't a real need for them. It also would have been incompetent to close schools that were brimming to capacity. Neither one applies to PVSD. I think it's interesting that your 3 SBE board members told you that they didn't know if unification was good or bad. Maybe they were talking about the expanded voting area and not unification. It seems to me that with the consensus of opinion being that an integrated, unified school district being the best educational model, and that the state provides extra funds to districts that unify … that you could assume that SBE supports unification. Debra's argument that if the SBE opposed unification, they wouldn't allow it to go to a vote is also with merit.
I don't know what I said that wasn't factual or researchable. What was it that you couldn't find?
Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John- I would address your question about "disincentives to unify," but I don't really understand what the question actually is. If you could provide a bit more info I would respond.
I don't think it's fair to attack Parent because you feel s/he is posting opinion instead of fact, when that's exactly what the majority of folks on this blog are doing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and sometimes we're going to disagree...but that doesn't mean one side is evil and one side is good. I'm hoping we can all call on our better angels and remain civil.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 6, 2008 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Recommendation 29
The State should take steps to bring all school districts into unified PreK-12 structures.
Recommendation 29.1 – The Legislature should develop fiscal and governance incentives to promote local communities organizing their local schools into unified districts, and should eliminate all fiscal and other disincentives to unification.
You tell me. What are "all fiscal and other disincentives to unification."? DeeDee Alpert and her panel didn't just put that in for laughs.
Every one here should read the following link:
www.everychildprepared.org/docs/5finance.pdf
2.1.3 or page 17 of 34 to page 19 of 34
Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the complete text of the Master Plan's recommendation on unification authored by Senator Alpert--who is a huge proponent of unification and a supporter of this unification specifically.
Still not sure exactly what you are referring to as disincentives, but I believe some of them might included the length of time a unification takes and the expense of the process. My understanding is that part of the reason that newly unified receive a higher level of funding is to offer some fiscal incentive upon completion of the process. The County Superintendent has prepared an analysis of Measure U that will appear in the Voter Guide, and it states: "The estimated revenue limit for 2007-08 is approximately 12% higher than the average 2007-2008 revenue limit of the other unified school districts in Ventura County." So Camarillo Unified will have substantially more funding than other unified districts.
Recommendation 29 The State should take steps to bring all school districts into unified PreK-12 structures. District governance structures should support the objectives of focusing on meeting student needs and enhancing student achievement. Such focus is necessarily served when the governing board has responsibility for the comprehensive educational interests of the students in its charge, as opposed to each student’s interest for a limited portion of his or her experience. By contrast, our public schools are governed by a variety of structural arrangements, many of which perpetuate isolated approaches to education delivery within a particular sector, rather than the more aligned and collaborative approach advocated in this Master Plan. At the state level, this student focus is supported by the development of academic standards, which should inherently provide a certain level of curricular alignment among districts. However, our vision of a coherent system of schools, colleges, and universities would be fostered by the adoption of unified school districts throughout the state. The unified district approach reinforces the goal of achieving course alignment and articulation across grade levels. The Education Trust has provided data indicating that other states pursuing reforms aimed at improving student achievement have been most successful when they have chosen a unified PreK-16 approach. Recommendation 29.1 – The Legislature should develop fiscal and governance incentives to promote local communities organizing their local schools into unified districts, and should eliminate all fiscal and other disincentives to unification.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you read the section in the Govenor's report about school financing? Unified districts the worst funding structure we have.
" Unified districts receive less than the blended average of high school and elementary districts. One might
reasonably expect that the unified funding levels would be roughly the blended average of the high school and elementary
school funding levels. However, because of the equalization method the state has used in the past, the funding level for
elementary and high school districts are higher than the unified rate."
" Unified district funding fluctuates as large cohorts move through the system. As mentioned above, unified
districts receive the same revenue limit regardless of the grade levels of its students. The cost of educating high school
students is recognized to be higher than for other grades. Therefore, when large cohorts of students are in the high school
grades compared to large groups of students being in the elementary grades, unified districts are forced to absorb higher
costs within a static budget, creating significant financial hardships. The graphic “Elementary and High School Enrollment
Growth” shows statewide enrollment growth since the early 1980s for elementary and high school age ranges. In the late
1980s, most unified districts in the state benefited from having high growth in the number of “cheaper-to-educate”
elementary students and slow-growing or declining high school populations, which were more expensive to educate."
Ms. Berg has stated the teachers will get a 15% raise. At $350,000 per percentage point that equates to $5.25M or 8.75% of the budget. Factor in the items not included or under estimated and you go into the red quickly.
Posted by SDmom on August 7, 2008 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was standing there when John spoke to the Board members stated they weren't sure they supported unification or if it was the right thing to do. They also stated that at the SBE board meeting and it is in the minutes as well. You can also see their comments in Judge Oteros ruling against the injuction.
Debra you are just like the atty for cam unified you only provide partial information to support your point (spin). the SBE atty provided the whole transcript of the SBE board meeting to support their arguments. Judge Otero didn't buy your argument and either will the public.
Posted by Debra on August 7, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SDmom: I'm not sure what "partial information" you question. My posts above answer questions John has asked.
Regarding the SBE members and their vote: It doesn't matter if they thought unfication was the right thing to do or not--their job is to determine if the unification meets the criteria for approval. They determined that it did, and voted to approve it. Your conversations with them are interesting, but at the end of the day they are heresay and unsubstantiated--you know, the kind of partial, unlinkable, unverifiable information that you assail others for offering. But your comments have pretty much confirmed who you are :)
John: Is your most recent quote from the Master Plan for Education? That's what you were focused on all day yesterday, so that's what I attempted to address. I posted the entire section, which was a strong statement in support of unified districts. Maybe that made you unhappy and you've now found a report-du-jour that supports you view. If this is going to be a meaningful dialogue, how about you respond to my response? That's how conversations work.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra-
If you took the time to see who wrote the report I quoted from you would may understand this is not a
"report-du-jour" but more of a financial companion to the Master Plan. Herein lies your financial disincentives. Let go of emotion and dig deeper into the realities a bad idea.
By yhe way, at the Transition Farce Committee you stated that Foothill Tecnology High School was a converted middle school. For the record that is incorrect. foothill was constructed as a high school from scratch.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is the root address for the document I reffered to.
www.everychildprepared.org
Posted by Debra on August 7, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John: Well unification seems to be working well for Conejo, Simi and all of the other districts in the state. By every measurable standard, they outperform OUHSD with LESS funding!!! If it's so perilous, dangerous, and harrowing, why are these districts unified?
The Transition Task Force isn't mine--it's for the community to help prepare and plan for unification should it occur. That's why there are people from all facets of the community who are participating. Despite your negativity, participants are excited about what lies ahead. Perhaps you should share your opinion of them when you attend the next meeting? It would be a great ice breaker :)
Posted by SDmom on August 7, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra,
The people attending the Task Force mtgs maybe from all facets of the community. They all either work for PVSD or are in the lawsuit for Cam Unified. There were only a couple of people there that actually asked hard questions one of them being John.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We can sunshine all the reasons in a true public forum. I look forward to it!
Posted by Debra on August 7, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gosh SD--I had no idea that people from CSUCI, Cam High Athletic Boosters Club, Pleasant Valley Park and Rec, the faith based community, the Citizens Finance Committee and the Chamber had all been hypnotized in favor of unification. That's who's been attending. But of course, you're the anonymous-yet-definitive source on unification, so if you say those people are tools or fools, then by gosh they must be! CAPE was invited, as were all private schools in Camarillo.
I personally invited some teachers and administrators from Camarillo High. They want to attend but said that they would face serious repurcussions from the district and the union. Too bad.
Posted by SDmom on August 7, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra,
Maybe you dont know who I am. I was at the first meeting and there was someone from CAPE there as well. Try one of their board members. The majority of the group are PVSD employees. Shoot, they barely even let us in the meeting.
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on August 7, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unification never used to be the issue.
It was the fact OUSHD never build the new school.
They have had the funds and location for what? 20 years now?
OUSHD is racist, they don't want the same opportunity for those who don't live the 'gangsta' lifestyle that is promoted in OxNards.
Posted by CAPEDad on August 7, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Readmylips - You're not helping your cause. Very slowly count to ten before you hit the 'post' button.
Posted by Incognito247 on August 7, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN THIRTY YEARS AGO . . .
_____
“Rio Mesa High School, built in 1965, was the fifth school in the district. Because of the crowded conditions at ACHS, students from the western end of Camarillo have been included within Rio Mesa’s school boundaries. . . .”
* * *
“Camarillo citizens have been organized, under the leadership of Dee Villano, to assist the high school district in a search for a site for another high school in Camarillo. They are also currently investigating the means whereby such a high school can be constructed.
Unification of school districts has long been discussed by representatives to the Ventura County Committee on School District Organization. The creation of Conejo Valley Unified District was accomplished in 1974. Agreement on further unification proposals has not been reached by the many boards of trustees concerned.”
White, David. Greater Camarillo ... Then & Now. Camarillo: 1978.
_____
Unification “talk” has been going on a very long time. I believe OUHSD conveniently uses it as an excuse not to step up and serve our children. It was very interesting that a fancy drawing posted on a large sign on the property near the Camarillo Library seemed to pop up on the eve of a school bond vote - remember? The sign has been there so long they’ve had to reprint their drawing, the first one was in tatters ... like a long forgotten promise
Have we been very well served by OUHSD? Our HS was inadequate in 1965! We can do better!
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 7, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
incognito247: Well, if you're quoting famous authors, here's mine: "I can't stand it". - Charles Schulz.
Because, seriously? You're quoting from an 80 page pamphlet published by the Camarillo Chamber of Commerce:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greater-Camar...
These are highly interpretive....I hesitate to call them "facts". All due respect to Mr. White.
Actually, this reminds me of the old myth about Christopher Columbus, and how he thought that the earth was flat. Only he never did. This urban legend sprang up from a biography written by Washington Irving in the 1800s, and mushroomed from there:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8519
The moral of the story: Don't believe everything you read - or hear :)
*Especially* when it comes to unification.
Posted by dotkay on August 7, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Couldn't agree more with Incognito and readmylips, Oxnard USD, spends all the money on Oxnard schools and ignores Camarillo. John Alamillo who made you the expert on unification? You think if you write long boring explanations, people will think you know what you are talking about.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you interested in factual information regarding API relative to schools and sub-groups use the link above.
For those of you that have no intention of presenting facts continue with the spin.
Quick Facts:
40% Cam seniors took the SAT in 06-07 scoring an average of 1627
The whole of OUHSD had 24% with an average of 1483
Camarillo non-hispanic (white) students scored 825 on API
Rio Mesa non hispanic- 797
Newbury Park- 824
TO- 840
Westlake- 848
Now for those that make blanket statements here is the rest of the story-
Socio Economic Disadvantaged
Cam 223
NP 176
TO 204
W 162
Rio 616
Incognito-
I if you base your basis of service on measurable items than yes OUHSD has served us well
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 7, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dotkay: JohnAlamillo *does* know what he's talking about.
Those long, boring explanations (like the one above this post) contain facts.
We're fortunate to have a lot of knowledgable people posting here regarding unification.
Debra's post at 9:24 pm on 8/6 said that "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and sometimes we're going to disagree...but that doesn't mean one side is evil and one side is good. I'm hoping we can all call on our better angels and remain civil."
Unfortunately, by 7:58 am on 8/7 she'd changed her mind: "SDMom: "Gosh SD--I had no idea that people from CSUCI, Cam High Athletic Boosters Club, Pleasant Valley Park and Rec, the faith based community, the Citizens Finance Committee and the Chamber had all been hypnotized in favor of unification. That's who's been attending. But of course, you're the anonymous-yet-definitive source on unification, so if you say those people are [t--ls] or [f--ls], then by gosh they must be! CAPE was invited, as were all private schools in Camarillo."
The only person to call unification proponents [t--ls] or [f--ls] was Debra herself. If you do a search on those words in this article, you'll see for yourselves. Which is why I didn't type it out :)
If you're interested, here are a few links to previous unification articles that have some good information from both sides:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 7, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dtkay-
Sorry to bore you with researchable info. From now on I will post only opinion. Maybe if you were willing to educate yourself on the issues at hand the information wouldn't be as boring to you.
Just keep following the lemmings butt in front of you, they must be going somewhere good!
LP_Mom-
Once again you have shown the 'it's OK for me, but not for you' sentiment of some posters.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 7, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnAlamillo: You're kidding, right? :) Facts are sometimes few and hard to come by regarding unification! Don't stop now!
The best teachers that I used to have in school always counseled me to solve problems based on facts, not feelings.
Having said that, something's always bothered me about the proposed Camarillo Unified School District.
It's not unified.
Only 2 out of the 3 Camarillo school districts are in the proposed new district.
Does that strike anyone else as odd? Or humorous? :)
Posted by Debra on August 7, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP: Please, I don't need ethics lectures from someone I don't know. FYI: A "tool" is someone who blindly follows others, a "fool" needs no definition. Not sure what dictionary your were looking in. It was a sarcastic but harmless post in response to SDmom's inaccurate characterization of the PVSD Task Force, which was:
"They all either work for PVSD or are in the lawsuit for Cam Unified. There were only a couple of people there that actually asked hard questions one of them being John."
But while I'm posting, thanks for setting the record straight on how useless Mr. White's 80 page published- by-the-Camarillo-Chamber-of-Commerce- highly-interpretive-pamphlet is. This clearinghouse service you are providing is extremely valuable. You're right on the money as far as Mr. White's insane ramblings about a promise to build a high school in Camarillo 40 years ago: I'll reluctantly confirm that back in 1978, Mr. White was actually in cahoots and controlled by Camarillo Unified! We're so good at spin that we can go back in time and do it!!! But first thing tomorrow morning, you should probably contact the Ventura County Genealogical Society first thing tomorrow morning: they actually have that ridiculous pamphlet listed on their website as a reference! Yikes!!!
http://www.venturacogensoc.org/Resear...
Brought to you by my best, most civil angel..with her tongue planted firmly in her cheek!
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 7, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra: I also listed you as a knowledgeable person regarding unification.
That's about the only part of my post that you didn't see fit to judge, "correct" or misinterpret :)
Play nice, Mrs. President of Camarillo Unified. Play nice.....
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on August 8, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually I could care less at this point.
My son will be going to Newbury Park HS (along with 8 of his friends).
Do the math, that is 40K per year, times 4 years, or 160K that OUHSD or PVSUD will never see because of their bickering.
Posted by Spartan4Ever on August 8, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Camarillo Residents please wake up!
Do you realized that if the Camarillo Unified School District takes over the responsibility of educating your high school students over 85% of the current teachers at ACHS will transfer to another school in the OUHSD? How can you expect a quality Advanced Placement and college prep. program without qualified teachers? There are not enough qualified secondary teachers to teach the rigor needed at the secondary level. Where would Camarillo Unified find their teachers? The PVSD teachers would need to be retrained and prepared to teach in the high stakes environment of the high school level. Futhermore, ACHS would lose its excellent agricultural,vocational and special education programs if Measure U passes. Please understand that the PVSD currently can not afford the teachers they will need to hire, or the facilities they will need to improve. It was unfortunate that the PVSD teachers believed that their school board and district actually cared about their professional contribution. The closing of schools did not improve the teachers' pay, or assist in educational programs. We all know that PVSD used their teachers for the benefit of unification. It is also the understanding of many that Los Altos Middle School will be the new site to help house the students they strip from Rio Mesa High School. As a parent, I would not want my kids to attend a middle school without all the amenities of a comprehensive high school. Please educate yourself before you vote on Measure U. I urge you to vote NO ON MEASURE U, because it is bad for the students and the communities involved.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 8, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Readmylips-
You would be wise to invest in energy stocks as the only benefit derived from going over the hill is profit to the oil companies.
Camarillo High is a great school. Don't just swallow the bait go sniff arount the campus yourself. Call the principal and get a tour. Your a fool to think the grass is greener on the other side.
Posted by CAPEDad on August 8, 2008 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fredrick - You're right on target. Every mid towner needs to understand that Los Altos WILL be the high school for their kids. Go ahead and vote yes on U and put your kids in a run-down middle school. Don't let the 'Task Farce' fool you. Ventura Tech Magnet was a brand new facility.
Most importantly for everybody to understand - U will not give us a new school. It's actually quite the opposite.
On another note by Frederick, I was at a BBQ when I asked a ACHS teacher if the rumors were true that 90% of the teachers were against U. He looked at me in shock and asked, "Are you kidding me!". By his reaction I thought that I might have over- estimated the negative attitude of the teachers. Then he said "It's more like 99%!".
Posted by Debra on August 8, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAPEDad you are correct: Foothill is brand new. However, the buildings are exclusively portables. Santa Susana High in Simi Valley, an award winning school on many levels, is a converted elementary school.
There are a number of reasons why people chose to go over the hill for high school. From the May 27 edition of the Star:
"In this year's U.S. News & World Report ranking, several local schools received honors, including Westlake, Newbury Park, Oak Park, Moorpark, Santa Susana, Thousand Oaks and Foothill Technology high schools."
Posted by mistral on August 8, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a less than 1 year resident of Camarillo I am saddened that my soon to be 7th grader will have to be bused or driven to Rio Mesa as it is our assigned school. I know that Rio Mesa is a fine school with many opportunities for all students who choose them as I went to school with a few of them. However in this age why a city the size of Camarillo does not have a Unified School District or a High School District is mind boggling. Former and current residents should be ashamed of themselves for not solving this issue years ago when Thousand Oaks left OUHSD. I do realize that many of the residents of Camarillo are retired and feel that this will not affect them however they are wrong as their property values will decrease if the quality of our cities educational services/schools are not up to thte standards that State and Federal Agencies mandate. Great school and parent/grandparent voluteerism & involvement go hand in hand for student success. As a new resident many people gave us advice about where to send our son to HS when his time comes as they were not sending their kids to Rio Mesa but to St. Bonaventure, N.P. or Oaks Christian. Isn't it time to stop the busses and carpools? Wouldn't Camarillo benefit from 2 in town HS's that both promote a united community spirit?
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 8, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra: I was recently at Foothill Tech; there seem to be a blend of portables and permanent structures on the campus.
You're correct, Santa Susana High is a converted school:
http://www.santasusana.org/counseling...
CAPEDad brings up a good point regarding the conversation of Los Altos Middle School.
Out of all of the high schools in Ventura County, only Santa Susana High is a converted school.
And Santa Susana High was not converted to accommodate 800+ students in one year.
It was converted by an already unified school district over a period of years.
CAPEDad has been trying for months to get an answer regarding Los Altos High.
Debra, as the president of Camarillo Unified, can you provide any additional information on this issue?
mistral: Actually, as of the 2008-2009 school year, Newbury Park is no longer the only Ventura County High School with an International Baccalaureate program! Rio Mesa HS now shares that distinction.
You should check it out: http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/sites/rmhs...
It's too bad that Camarillo Unified wants to pull students away from an award winning program.
P.S. Debra, here's the link to the May 27th Star article that you were referring to:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by mistral on August 8, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP Estates Mom-
That was not the point NP and RM having an IB program. As I stated RM is a great school. I have seen the web page before. However I am
one
--not for bussing or driving
two
--Camarillo should support a Unified School District so that the untried can be tried here. Why can't we convert Cam Heights with it's small enrollment into a Tech High School? or an Arts High School? Why are our kids stuck with what the past dictated?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 8, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra-
You kids chose Camarillo High. Lets recap:
One graduated from Kansas(?) and is now a teacher.
One is on scolarship to Davis. Is that full ride?
I spent the weekend with a Cam grad that will be attending UCSB. And his friends will be at Cal Poly and Stanford.
Yep, Newbury is way better!
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ Get your own answers. The site is hard to figure out but has great, factual relative information.
mistral-
If you would like a tour of Rio Mesa please let me know. THe school, just as all schools, should not be judged on it's aggregate API but on the sub group, the offerings and the effort you child puts out.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 8, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mistral: I'm confused. You're a less than one year resident of Camarillo, but you went to Rio Mesa? "I know that Rio Mesa is a fine school with many opportunities for all students who choose them as I went to school with a few of them."
I think that Rio Mesa has an awesome community spirit, as evidenced by the "pool moms" and their successful drive for the new pool at Rio Mesa.
Camarillo High School has an awesome community spirit as well. Debra may not like me very much, but I think she was a dedicated, enthusiastic volunteer during her children's years there.
Anyway, if you're like me, then you've lived off and on in Camarillo for the past few decades. I happen to have been a bused kid, and was happy for the experience. It was my choice, and enabled me to attend academically superior schools.
I've never heard Cam Heights being discussed as a potential high school; the parents there are pretty involved, and seem to want very much to keep the school intact as an elementary school only :)
Los Altos is being discussed since it is a closed campus. It could have been Valle Lindo, but that campus has now been leased to CAPE, formerly known as Los Senderos.
Posted by mistral on August 9, 2008 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LP Estates Mom-No I did not go to HS at RM but went to HS in my hometown with some of the current teachers at RM.
Cam Heights Elem serves a small part of the city whereas El Descanso and Los Posas serve a wider area. It(Cam Heights) would be perfect as a magnet HS.
Most likely this ballot measure will not give Camarillo a USD so my son will be a RM and I am sure it will be fine. I think we'd like the choice to bus or not to bus, I am sure your mother told you just because everyone else does something does not mean you have to. I am sure Los Altos would be a fine option for an additional HS.
End of my discussion...
Posted by Debra on August 9, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John: Both my kids went to ACHS, both will tell you that it was pretty much a cake walk compared to the workload and classroom expectations they had in PVSD. If you actually talk with kids and parents, that is a common and shared experience. For many, the difference between PVSD and high school is frustrating. I still go to games at the high school, and parents always come up to to get an update on unification: "When are they going to let us go?"
My Cam Hi graduates, for what it's worth: Oldest, now 25, went to Moorpark JC for 2 years and then received a partial athletic scholarship to Kansas State, where he still holds the hammer throw record and was silver medalist in the Big 12 conference. Got a BS in Life Sciences and just completed his Masters in Ed. Simply amazing young man.
Youngest is the smartest member of the family and he breezed thru Cam Hi with a 3.8 gpa. He's at UC Davis where he is double majoring in Sociology of Law/Political Science. He's on a football scholarship, which was initially partial. Kid is driven and has exceptional work ethic, talent and coaches love him, so now he's on a full ride.
Both of them make their dad and I look like better parents than we probably are :)
So I'm assuming your point is that my kids went to Cam Hi and are now successful? True.
Posted by CAPEDad on August 9, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra, Please tell us the CU plans for Los Altos. When will the task force go on record with the following:
Who will be forced to attend if the magnet doesn't attract the required numbers?
How much to upgrade? Where will the $ come from?
Where will the kids park? Are the neighbors aware that their streets will be flooded with student cars?
Related: How much and from what funds will the new high school cost? Do you expect to pass a bond? When? With what funds will you upgrade the 'dump' ACHS?
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 9, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As have generations.
My best friend went to Stanford on an academic to play football.
"Both of them make their dad and I look like better parents than we probably are :)" Could be they had a good education and teachers from ACHS.
I only mention this because you tout NPHS as superior because a magazine says so while your, and many other, kids did very well.
Lets go back to your reasons to support unification
1. Treatment of a former superintendent who is opposed to the idea
2. Your tour of Pacifica generate campus envy.
Not very compelling...
Posted by Debra on August 9, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John: Both of my kids would credit their success to factors mostly unrelated to Camarillo High. I won't go into it on these blogs, but in many respects they succeeded in spite of their experience at Cam High. Family motto is Einstein's quote: "In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."
CAPEDad: First, I recommend that you read the EIR completed by the County Committee during the hearings. Gives a good background on some--not all--of your questions.I believe it is on the VCOE website and will try to find a link to post.
Second, PVSD is getting a jump on the planning process by beginning now, prior to the election, which is a good thing for the community. Most districts who unify begin this process AFTER unification. My understanding is that the Task Force will provide more details about the choices our community will have for housing high school students prior to the election.
The EIR contains some scenarios for expanding Cam High into one large school for all--which is what Moorpark has decided to do rather than build an additional high school. It also includes scenarios for converting Los Altos into a smaller magnet and for building a new high school.There are pros and cons to each solution, but our community will get to decide.
For those who think we are going to get a new high school if unification fails, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Cam Unified will have their website updated in the next week or so and we'll be posting all of the documents that reveal what OUHSD was planning a week before they approved a district wide general bond: to form a Special Facilities Improvement District (SFID) that would levy a property tax on Oxnard folks and NOT Camarillo to build a high school in Oxnard, not Camarillo.
Problem was, they had delayed the process for so long that they missed statutory deadlines for forming the SFID. Only option left: district wide bond. Only way it passes: promise, even though AB 780 has already passed thru commitees and the movement to unify has accelerated, to build a new high school in Camarillo.
The citizen's petition had already been approved by the county committee and was waiting in line at the SBE. So claiming that unification somehow stopped the process for building the high school that OUHSD unconditionally promised is dishonest.
Posted by Debra on August 9, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CAPEDad: Link to the EIR and materials from the county hearings is on the VCOE site. Link is below.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 9, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So the plan is Oxnard bad, PVSD good. Speakman, Berg Lerner new unified board. Unified=PVSD=Good?
The task farce is nothing but a fishing trip to find objections the community has. As stated above there are not many "community" members attending and the ones that have didn't return for the second one.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 9, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From Debra: "So claiming that unification somehow stopped the process for building the high school that OUHSD unconditionally promised is dishonest."
Actually, unification has stopped the process of the new high school being built in Camarillo.
I discussed this with tyfys back on March 19th as part of this Star story:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
"Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on March 19, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tyfys:
On March 17th, I posted a link to the official text of Measure H, and the subsection of the OUHSD website regarding a new Camarillo High School.
So why *don’t* we have a new high school in Camarillo yet?
Here’s what I’ve found. And it was boring as heck, so I’ll try to sum it up quickly.
When Measure H was passed, the OUHSD purchased 77 acres of land in Camarillo. The land fell into the boundaries of the Somis School District, and wasn’t subject to unification. So a site plan was started, an Education Committee was formed, et cetera, as seen on the website.
Then the PVSD incorporated the Somis School District into the official unification petition in March of 2005.
If unification was successful, the new CUSD would acquire the land. It was at that point that plans for a new high school died.
If I’m wrong, someone please, *please* correct me. Just put the links to the whys and wherefores in the post. Thanks! I got my information on the PVSD incorporating Somis from this link:
http://1.pvsd.k12.ca.us/Portals/PVSD/...
(One last point: I thought, well, hey, it might be random that the PVSD incorporated the SSD into the unification petition. And it might, but if you go to June 17th, 2004, it states that Dr. Davis (the OUHSD Superintendent at the time) notified Dr. Dase (the PVSD Superintendent at the time) that they would be entering into negotiations to purchase the land in the Somis School District)."
And again, only 2 out of 3 Camarillo districts are involved in the unification petition. PVSD has been involved from the beginning, Somis was recruited after the OUHSD purchased land within its boundaries, & Mesa Union turned PVSD down.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 9, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before I forget, here's an acronym recap: :)
OUHSD: Oxnard Union High School District
PVSD: Pleasant Valley School District
Somis, SSD: Somis School District
Mesa Union: Mesa Union School District
Debra and JohnAlamillo: Did either of you attend both unification task force meetings?
I heard that the turnout rate was under 30 people (much less than the 100+ turnout rate for the meetings regarding the new Camarillo Prison hospital) for the first meeting, and less than 25 for the second.
JohnAlamillo and others have said that of that small number, over half was PVSD staff/employees.
This is from the PVSD website:
http://pvsd.schoolwires.net/pvsd/site...
"Invitations were sent to key stakeholders in the district asking for representatives from their organizations to attend Task Force meetings that were held on June 18 and July 9."
So, given that community leaders and businesses were actively recruited to participate, that doesn't seem like a rousing endorsement of unification.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 9, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to the second one and as I said it was more about the objections to unification than planning for a transition.
Posted by julsthemom on August 9, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can someone explain this sentance to me "Eleven of our fifteen schools had an Academic Performance Index (API) above 800" which was a letter received from the PVSD Sup. Where did he get 15 from? Looking at the website there are only 12. Can anyone explain this for me.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 9, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnAlamillo: Thanks for the info.
julsthemom: That is puzzling.
The letter you're referring to is here:
http://pvsd.schoolwires.net/164110511...
According to the PVSD website, here is their listing of schools:
http://pvsd.schoolwires.net/164110513...
These are the schools listed:
1) Camarillo Heights Elementary School
2) Dos Caminos Elementary School
3) El Descanso School
4) La Mariposa Elementary School
5) Las Colinas Middle School
6) Las Posas Elementary School
7) Los Primeros Arts & Sciences Magnet School
8) Monte Vista Middle School
9) Rancho Rosal School
10) Santa Rosa Technology Magnet School
11) Tierra Linda School
Maybe Dr. Villegas is including the charter schools? But they're not listed in the PVSD website with the others.
On a side note, the PVSD State of the District reports that the district is growing at 6,600 students.
But they've actually dropped 400 students since the 1999-2000 school year. (Page 7 of the report linked below):
http://pvsd.schoolwires.net/164110511...
Why didn't the PVSD approve CAPE again? :)
Posted by julsthemom on August 9, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks LPMom...the letter really painted a picture of PVSD as a whole bunch of "shiny Happy people holding hands"...When I read the letter, my first impression was that it was a crafty way to promote Unification, using district money. John, do you have any idea where the "15 school" number comes from?
Posted by CamAlum on August 10, 2008 at 3:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As a Los Altos and Cam High Alum, I have actually survived the system and will be graduating from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in the Spring. I also opted to take summer school classes offered at Channel Island High School and Rio Mesa High School. I believe, having a parent who has been teaching in PVSD for the entirety of my life and most of my older sibling's life, I have seen both sides. Not to imply that I have any authority what so ever, just to bring to attention the perspective of the student. As I understand, the Board of Education vote was simply to allow the community affected (including the affected OUHSD)to vote on the matter of unification, not whether the Board agreed or disagreed with the proposed action, their decision was to leave the vote to the community. If they had voted on whether they agreed or disagreed with the action, the community would not have to vote about the issue. Which is why it went to Judge Otero in the first place, because the unification people didn't want the whole community, affected by the proposal, to vote about it in November...right? The reaction of the unification "camp" makes it seem as much. How democratic is that?
I agree with OUHSD in the reservation of their rights. If the unification camp complaining is about not having the same updated campuses Oxnard and Pacifica have, how will those be afforded to the students if the proposed unification is already running in debt, as identified by the tables on page 17 in the final draft of the unification report? The truth is that they wouldn't, and the unification proposes using classrooms provided by OPSC as stated in page 12 of the unification report. Understandably this would be until enough money was available to build a state of the art school. I think the idea of unification is an amazing idea... however the issues associated with the current proposal have me concerned. I think a better way to go about it would not to try and prove why we would be better on our own.... but how OUHSD would be better without us, and negotiate a deal that would help us get on our feet!...instead of forcing one.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CamAlum-
I'm one too. Last year my son was a freshman at Rio. I had a hat made with a Scorpion and a Spartan that reads Cam Grad/Rio Dad.
Your comment is very insightful. Years ago, pre-780, I had a conversation with Rory Hernandez, one of the original petitioners. I proposed retracting the petition if we could get a commitment from OUHSD that they would build a school.
In return we could would create a timeline for unification. My thinking was instead of, like you said, forcing one we could work backwards from a turnover date. By doing this our relationship with OUHSD would be more annulment than divorce.
If at the end of the 10 year planning process we had any issues within the unified structure that could not be cleared we would continue with OUHSD.
While Rory was open to discussion, the other petitioners would not waver from their damn the torpedoes approach. Shortly after our conversation did the proponents come up with AB780.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
julsthemom-
I think I figured his logic:
1) Camarillo Heights Elementary School
2) Dos Caminos Elementary School
3) El Descanso School
4) La Mariposa Elementary School
5) Las Colinas Middle School
6) Las Posas Elementary School
7) Los Primeros Arts & Sciences Magnet School
7a) Los Primeros Middle school
8) Monte Vista Middle School
9) Rancho Rosal School
10) Santa Rosa Technology Magnet School
10a)SRMTS Middle School
11) Tierra Linda School
12) PEEP
13)Pre-K
Posted by julsthemom on August 10, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see what your saying John. I still think it was a way to pass on Unification info using district funds. If his logic is the way you figured, then his logic needs some disecting. After all, PEEP and Pre-K do not take the tests, as you know, they don't start testing until the 2nd grade. I just really find it an odd letter.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For a better County Board Member check this out.
Posted by Debra on August 10, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, when I looked up PVSD's most recent API scores (2007) on Dataquest, they list 15 schools:
1.) Cam Heights
2.) Dos Caminos
3.) El Descanso
4.) La Mariposa
5.) Las Posas
6.) Los Primeros
7.) Los Senderos
8.) Rancho Rosal
9.) Santa Rosa
10.) Tierra Linda
11.) UPS Elementary
12.) Las Colinas
13.) Los Altos
14.) Monte Vista
15.) University Charter Middle School
The district probably made a decision to report what was on the state website. Personally, I think it's kind of confusing. Besides, if the district is trying to "look good" for unification as some have suggested, it sounds WAY better to say that 10 of 11 schools have over 800 API.
One question for the folks who are critical of PVSD: what kind of job do you honestly think OUHSD is doing? A few facts: No distinguished schools, no 800 API schools, the highest drop out rate in the County, and borrowing $1.8 million from their teachers union to balance their budget.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 10, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra: Here's the link to the schools that you are listing. I actually poached it from JohnAlamillo - he'd listed it earlier:
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigati...
So the PVSD is including 2 defunct schools? Including a school whose charter they'd rejected?
Seriously, debating the merits of PVSD and OUHSD is kind of like the Confederacy and the Union debating over whether or not the Civil War was a good idea.
OUHSD has:
1) a California Distinguished school ( http://www.achs.org/campus.php ) ,
2) just added the International Baccalaureate program to Rio Mesa,
3) has some of the highest paid teachers in the district, and
4) unlike PVSD, *didn't* cut summer school.
I think you're seriously reaching if you're implying that OUHSD is experiencing the same sort of budget shortfall as PVSD.
$1 million in ADA money from Los Senderos - where did it go?
Spin spin Debra :)
Posted by Debra on August 10, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP: Think you might be doing a bit of spinning yourself--AWAY from any discussion about accountability measures that the state cares about. OUHSD isn't doing so well there, are they?
And since I'm married to a teacher I think they should make lots of money--but high paid teachers should be getting better results on test scores and keeping kids in school.
Let's re-cap:
No 800 API schools is okay with you.
Highest drop out rate in the county is okay with you.
One distinguished school--12 years ago in 1996--is totally enough.
And all of the above are okay because:
There will be a new IB program at Rio Mesa this Fall
Teachers are well paid
OUHSD didn't cut summer school.
Is that really your argument?
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 10, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny, I didn't see words being put in my mouth.
Yet there they are.
Don't tell me, this is like your previous discussion with John:
"Posted by Debra on August 6, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John- I would address your question about "disincentives to unify," but I don't really understand what the question actually is. If you could provide a bit more info I would respond.
I don't think it's fair to attack Parent because you feel s/he is posting opinion instead of fact, when that's exactly what the majority of folks on this blog are doing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and sometimes we're going to disagree...but that doesn't mean one side is evil and one side is good. I'm hoping we can all call on our better angels and remain civil."
Well, if you have the time, I have a mind...to do a little civil discourse....
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 10, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't really have an argument. I don't like to argue.
I prefer to debate. Lincoln-Douglas, Marquess of Queensberry rules, etc. - just not a brawl.
It's undignified. :)
1) "No 800 API scores is okay with you". A district with falling API scores is not okay with me. I'm okay with a district whose API scores improve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, elementary and middle schools tend to test higher than high schools.
2) "Highest drop out rate in the county is okay with you." The OUHSD also has the largest migrant population in the county. That's also why they have so many Title 1 schools - for which they receive more money. Money that Camarillo Unified would lose access to should unification succeed.
http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/educationa...
3) "One distinguished school--12 years ago in 1996--is totally enough." Um, earlier, you said that the OUHSD had *no* distinguished schools. I fully expect that after the IB program gets off the ground, Rio Mesa will join Camarillo. Hopefully, other schools in the OUHSD will be able to be IB-accredited as well.
http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/sites/rmhs...
Debra, you stated that: "And all of the above are okay because:
There will be a new IB program at Rio Mesa this Fall
Teachers are well paid
OUHSD didn't cut summer school.
Is that really your argument?"
Actually, that sounds like the beginnings of an compelling rationale *against* unification.
Thanks for spelling it out like that :)
Posted by julsthemom on August 10, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LP_Estates Mom...You go girl. You'll have to be patient with Debra....I've noticed she tends to "snap" sometimes. Kindof reminds me of certin board members and unification proponants. It's all the mind set of, if ya arn't with us, your against us.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, I can't wait to see the CU website. We can all get together, sing the dradle song and review partial documents. I'll bring the dramamine. And if you leave out the 'mine the site will be all 'drama'.
Posted by kelly13 on August 10, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's break it down real simple....should Camarillo kids have their own school to go to or should they be bussed out of town? If they live in Camarillo, their friends are in Camarillo, their lives are in camarillo, why should they have to go to school in Oxnard?
Posted by Debra on August 10, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right about scores typically dropping as kids get older and they start to realize that the API testing doesn't have consequences for them personally. And I don't think you can fully measure a school by test scores alone, but as long as it's the accountability measure through which the state and the feds look at a district, then districts need to get take it seriously. In looking at the API and AYP data, I didn't see improvement.
Additionally, in the similar schools ranking, which is supposed to compare like schools, OUHSD doesn't do well either.
OUHSD may have the largest population of migrant students, but if that population is what is spiking the drop out rate--and I haven't drilled down the data to see whether that is true or not--I'll submit that they need to do a better job serving those kids.
And on the distinguished school: the "award" lasts for 5 years, at which time you can reapply.
On the topic of why OUHSD decided not to build a high school in Somis: You premise is interesting, but it's not supported by the record. In his Unification Viewpoints published on October 6, 2003, Dr. Davis responds to a question about what has happened to OUHSD's plan
to purchasing property in at Las Posas and Somis Road with the following"
"However, OUHSD will follow legal counsel's advice and cease activities related to the purchase of property until after the unification issue is resolved. If the OUHSD were to purchase the preferred property at this time, and if voters approved the unification proposal, then the Camarillo property would become the property of the new Camarillo Unified School District, and the OUHSD could possibly be left with the obligation of payment for that property."
So OUHSD knew what could happen before they promised in Measure H, June 2004, to build a high school in Camarillo. Again, "we stopped because of unification" isn't supportable with facts.
Here's what I don't get: Camarillo and Somis residents are paying for a bond that built Pacifica and contributed heavily to the additional developers fees that went to Pacifica ($3.7m as of 2001) and Oxnard High($4.1m as of 2001). Had OUHSD built the high schools in Camarillo and Oxnard, Camarillo residents would finally get a school and help foot the bill for another one in Oxnard. Wouldn't it be fair for residents to get what they had paid for?
Posted by CamAlum on August 10, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Mr. Alamillo for that information, I've actually decided to write a policy brief, for my political science class this summer, on this topic. We get to choose a topic close to home:)
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It' not really out of town by anything other than name. From my house, which is pretty central, it's the same distance to either school. My kid goes to school with his friends and has made friends that are non-Camarillo.
The real issue is not where the school is but that unification will not be a benefit to education in Camarillo.
Then there is financial:
www.everychildprepared.org/
" Unified districts receive less than the blended average of high school and elementary districts. One might reasonably expect that the unified funding levels would be roughly the blended average of the high school and elementary school funding levels. However, because of the equalization method the state has used in the past, the funding level for elementary and high school districts are higher than the unified rate."
And we know some will claim 12% higher than other unified disrticts read the whole document to find the truth. Basically it says nothing is known and you will not be the highest, should that happen, for long.
Posted by CamAlum on August 10, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait, I'm confused... how is the fact that OUHSD doesn’t want to pay for something that they might have no jurisdiction over not a justification for why they have stopped on their progress? If someone wanted to take something away from me, I wouldn't want to still be financially responsible for it. Of course they would wait until the threat has died down, or gone away.. how fiscally responsible would they be to OUHSD if they proceeded at this juncture?
So, Debra, you would be fine and dandy if OUHSD had already built a school in Camarillo? Why don't you help that process along and offer suggestions/ work with OUHSD, instead of trying cut yourself off. Wouldn't a cast that allows healing and usability in a couple months be much better than amputation? Maybe I’m to naïve.
Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on August 10, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Debra: Again. I didn't *see* the words being put in my mouth, yet there they are :)
"You're right about scores typically dropping as kids get older and they start to realize that the API testing doesn't have consequences for them personally."
Er, what I said was "A district with falling API scores is not okay with me. I'm okay with a district whose API scores improve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically, elementary and middle schools tend to test higher than high schools."
For the record, you were the one who brought up test scores in the first place.
But since you did....PVSD did not score well in the similar schools ranking. In fact, their scores are dropping.
Debra, I could continue to debate with you, but I'm seeing a disturbing trend.
Whenever I point out an error of yours, your response is, "Well, yeah but..." and you proceed to throw another incorrect statement out into the wind.
The information that I provided regarding the Somis land is correct. You haven't been able to provide a link or a factual rebuttal to it. Yes, OUHSD knew what it was doing by purchasing land in Somis as of 2003. They knew that they were purchasing land *outside* of the unification (PVSD) zone.
Somis School District was not approached to join the unification petition until after the land was purchased.
And again, only 2 out of the 3 Camarillo districts are involved in the unification petition.
Camarillo Unified can't even get a unified Camarillo!
As for your final "here's what I don't get" statement, as JohnAlamillo has repeatedly pointed out, the new Oxnard High School was primarily built with state funding since the old Oxnard High School was shut down by the state since it was too close to Oxnard Airport.
And this seems like a good call, given that:
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And the 'Somis' property was 'purcased' with Certificates of Participation (COP's) which are not so much buying as financing the new district would need to buy it.
Posted by julsthemom on August 10, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is CU making a new website? The currently have one http://www.camarillounified.org/ which is quite informative...if you are time traveling back to October of 06. Yep, this group is on the ball...
Posted by kelly13 on August 10, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnAlamillo...I know the distance isn't the big problem and you say it is not much more than the name. But that is a big point. Camarillo kids would go to Camarillo High School. They would have a unified identity. They would have school spirit and a town to support them. They would be Camarillo. Oxnard would be Oxnard. It doesn't seem to be that complicated to me. Just my opinion but I think it makes sense to have your own school in your own city. And to say Oxnard should have a vote on what goes on in Camarillo doesn't make any sense to me either. Everyone can make this as complicated as they want but it seems so simple to me.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 10, 2008 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And there would be half the opportunity for things like atheletics and leadership that are afforded now. I am a Cam grad. Many of my friends from Monte Vista went to Rio. It has never been as big an issue as some would like it to be. In the end that is not the reason you should vote for or against unification. Spend some time finding factual complete info.
Posted by mistral on August 11, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks to hamskid!! Yes, all these bloggers are making this issue so confusing and drawn out with acronyms and technical terms. Yes I want my 93010 student to attend High School in 93010.
Posted by julsthemom on August 11, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yikes!!! Ignorant people deserve the facts...stupid people do not. Mistral and hanskid...talk about wanting to bury your head in the sand. Some of us actually want the facts and not just lip service. I thank those that are unafraid to post the facts. Hope you're more concerned with the Presidental Race facts than you are with this.
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 11, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Uhh, Cam High is in 93012.
Posted by norcalmom on August 11, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CAPE DAD -
Did you get your answer about the Los Altos High School from the link that Debra gave you?
If I recall from reading the documents from the SBOE hearing, the unification proponents specifically gave Los Altos High School as an adequate place to house new high school students. I'll have to search for the link...Anyone have it handy?
Posted by norcalmom on August 11, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am thrilled to have my kids go to RMHS. The educational opportunities there are great! And I can't wait to interact with parents who are "doers" and not "whiners".
RMHS is closer to my house than Cam High is, has great programs, great families. If unification were to occur, my kids would still go to RMHS.
PVSD has mucked things up so much - I really don't think that the board has any idea of what is going on financially in the district. The poor staff has taken on the huge burden and baggage of the former staff that did...I don't know what. I was stunned to see that the district is raising the school lunch price because the district has been running a defecit in this area for years. At least three of the board members indicated this was the first time they had heard of food services running in the red. UNBELIEVABLE! Who is running this asylum?
Posted by norcalmom on August 11, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the event that a Camarillo Unified finds that a converted Los Altos School provides sufficient additional high school capacity to augment Camarillo High, it might be possible to avoid the expense of constructing a new high school altogether, or at least for several years. For the time that it is avoided, this would be a cost savings for both the Camarillo Unified School District and the State School Building Program.
The above is in the supporting material from the SBOE March 8, 2008 Meeting agenda, Agenda item 28, Attachment 9, page 3 of 3.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ag/ag/yr08/a...
Posted by JohnAlamillo on August 11, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My point was not about zip codes or location. The point is people, like mistral, can't or won't get simple information correct. With a decision as great as this with are kids at risk the least you can do is research. Don't take my word for it. Don't take the proponents word for it. Do your own thinking and validate what people are telling you.
Hence the links and boring information I and others post.
Posted by CAPEDad on August 12, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Norcalmon - I haven't looked at Debra's post yet on the County site. She referred me to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the question I had about student parking at Los Altos High.
Let's be perfectly clear about something readers - There is NOTHING stated about WHO will attend the Los Altos High School if boundaries are required. So, if you live around Temple, there's a decent chance that this will be your school. BTW, go ahead and drop your home equity a few points as well.
I will not vote for a measure that is going to force my kids to attend Los Altos, gut the faculty of ACHS, and throw the district into financial turmoil. I just hope Oxnard shows pitty on us and votes it down.
Posted by mistral on August 23, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!! Since I have lived here less than one year I really needed the geography/zip code lashing from JohnAlamillo. I think all of you have way too much time on your hands to be spending this much effort on unification and are spinning this way out ot proportion. My only point was that I feel(this is not a fact but my personal feeling) that I'd like the choice of where my child attends HS and while we will not agree on this issue I think that my feeling is my right.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 124 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.