Posted by drumsnwhistles on March 14, 2008 at 12:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent decision on the part of Sacramento. I'm amazed that PVSD is pushing ahead with this, given the missteps they've had with their own K-8 schools over the past year.

If there is going to be a vote, it's only fair to include Oxnard voters. And when those voters weigh in, I'm guessing there will be no unification, which is a good thing.

This was an idea conceived for all the wrong reasons, and hopefully this vote will lay the issue to rest once and for all.

Posted by moethebartender on March 14, 2008 at 3:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not unify all the elementary districts within Oxnard Union? It's a fine district and all, but I think this geographically extensive district has outlived its purpose, which was to provide a high school education to students in the rural areas of the Oxnard Plain. (From what I know, the Conejo Valley was part of Oxnard Union until Conejo Valley Unified was founded in the 70s or so.)

So ... here's a simple unification plan I just came up with that allows most areas to keep their autonomy. All districts include poor and wealthy areas, along with both white and minority neighborhoods. In addition to Camarillo Unified, my ideal unification plan would include:

Oxnard Unified
Elementary district: Oxnard
High schools: Pacifica, Oxnard
Areas served: Most of Oxnard, except RiverPark and southern areas

Del Norte Unified (after Rancho Santa Clara del Norte)
Elementary districts: Rio, Mesa Union
High school: Rio Mesa
Areas served: RiverPark, El Rio, western Las Posas Valley and part of the Spanish Hills area

Channel Islands Unified
Elementary districts: Hueneme, Ocean View
High schools: Hueneme, Channel Islands
Areas served: Port Hueneme, South Oxnard, Point Mugu and Malibu Post Office

I figure in such an arrangement, the combined districts could still cooperate in running Pacific View, the continuation schools and the pregnant/parenting teen school, so that such services could continue. Such an arrangement isn't unknown; Ventura and Ojai jointly run a deaf/hard of hearing program and other special education services. Under the Camarillo Unified plan, I'd imagine Camarillo teens would at least lose the pregnant/parenting program.

Posted by frank14 on March 14, 2008 at 5:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's insane to force Camarillo students to attend a school 15 miles away in Oxnard. But the educrats and libs of Oxnard think they know what is best. Oxnard has over 200,000 residents but for some reason they have a need to meddle in the lives of the 60,000 citizens of the city of Camarillo. Like it or not, after River Park builds out there will be no room for the social engineers and Oxnard control freaks to continue to force 700 Camarillo residents to attend Rio Mesa High. But since the vengeful OUHSD has held Camarillo hostage by denying the construction of a second high school in Camarillo, there will now be no place for the former Rio Mesa bused Camarillo students to go. Good job OUHSD!

Posted by sawyerfamily on March 14, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

George Ceja says there would be reduced opportunities for minorities to take advanced classes if you pull out the Camarillo students - huh? Are you kidding me.

What, only the Camarillo kids can take advanced classes? You can't keep offering the advanced classes to the minority students? Aren't they taking them now? Sounds kind of racist to me.

This unification will never pass now, who in Oxnard would vote to have less money for THEIR schools. You saw the numbers - Oxnard 67,000 and Camarillo 37,000.

Posted by goinbrokeinpv on March 14, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now that a defeat of unification is all but certain, perhaps the PVSD school board can give up on the Unification Will Save Us Fantasy and deal with the current mess they have gotten themselves into with teachers. Sadly though, I predict things getting much worse before they get better-- and I am not talking about the budget mess either. This decision was the worst possible outcome for those in favor of unification because it keeps the issue alive, but will inevitably will lead to devisiveness in both Oxnard and Camarillo communities. Fasten your seatbelts folks, it's going to get messy.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can PVSD request a delayed vote to one where there is less turnout? - It's a presidential election in November.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sawyer-
What he said is, and I was there, that by removing the high achieving Camarillo students it would drop the number of students in AP to a point where it would not be viable to offer the classes.

Also, the IB program would be at risk because of the percentage rise in sub groups.

Posted by hotwildflower on March 14, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Camarillo resident who was forced to attend Rio Mesa, I have to agree that making us send our children to a school that far away is ridiculous.

Because I had to attend a school so far from home, I missed out on many things such as sports. I come from a single parent home, I had to take the bus to school and had no way home after practices to enable me to participate in sports, something I would have loved to of been a part of and have for my high school memories.

I doubt my story is the only one like this. I think it is time that the people deciding on this unification stop thinking about themselves and their own agenda and start thinking more about the children who are being affected.

In closing...build the new high school already! We have children who deserve a new school!!!!

Posted by Armando on March 14, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LOL!!!!!
Now maybe the PVSD can focus on their issues! PVSD consists of elementary and jr. high schools and is having trouble running them! There is NO WAY they could ever run a comprehensive high school in addition to their existing problems.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I took Speakman's advice and read the unification documentation. Let me tell you, there is absolutely NO details on how the 800 additional high school students will be housed. I'm not talking about a detailed analysis, just the simple whos, whats, wheres, and hows:

WHO will go to Los Altos High?
WHEN will the unknown students go there and for how long?
WHEN will the new high school be built?
HOW will it be paid for?
HOW much of the cost will be covered by state funds?
HOW much will be local bonds?
WILL the bonds get 2/3 vote? If not, is the idea to house kids at Los Altos High forever?

I'm not necessarily against unification, but I'm also not a faithful "believer". I'm waiting for the road show. Those lame documents don't make the cut.

Posted by kellymills on March 14, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard that the OUHSD was much more prepared and organized yesterday at the SBE. Surprising isn't it, PVSD has no plan for what will happen if they unify. This is just asking for failure. It looks like the SBE is following the law. This should go to the ballot in Nov. We can't afford to spend more money on this debacle and a special election.

Posted by norcalmom on March 14, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe the best thing is to have the election in November. However, I'm not sure how PVSD can concentrate on a unification campaign, deal with teacher negotiations, deal with over a million dollar shortfall in budget, plan for a unified district (none of this has happened).
My prediction - they put 95% effort into unification and 5% effort into the students and teachers in their current district! Sad, sad, sad.

Posted by hotwildflower on March 14, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sadly, unification or not...I don't care, just build the new dang high school...whichever gets that done the fastest will get my vote.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure Weis's phone is ringing off the hook right now.

PV does NOT want this on a presidential election ballot. Too much Oxnard plain turnout, and with Obama heading the ticket, there will be a huge Democratic climate.

If Weis delays past November, he'll have a lot of explaining to do.

Posted by JeanB on March 14, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sawyer- you hit the nail on the head when you asked, "who in Oxnard would vote to have less money for THEIR schools?"
You're right. Who in Oxnard would vote to let Camarillo residents keep the money generated in their city for the high school that serves their children?
OUHD has been using Camarillo's money to build high schools in Oxnard for years. High schools with performing arts centers, beautiful gymnasiums, swimming pools, state of the art(and too expensive) architecture, none of which exists in Camarillo. Apparently Camarillo residents are last on the list to receive the benefits of their own money. It's ridiculous and unfair, but it's not going to change. Like Sawyer says, who in Oxnard is going to vote to have less money for THEIR schools?

Posted by norcalmom on March 14, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Noah,
I understand the conflict, but if this passes, then we are all left with the consequences. We won't be able to take them back and our children will be the ones to suffer.
I think that the district should get its house in order and try again in the future, when the full support of the community is behind it and its consequences.

Posted by hamskid on March 14, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How can you call 89% of the students the minority?

Posted by vstiling on March 14, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope PVSD board will do the right thing finally and concentate on getting their messed up agenda in order. First of all giving the teachers a much needed pay increase. Remember folks this is an election year for 2 of the current PVSD board members. Maybe this is a good time to refresh the board with members who are concerned with the current K-8 district not unification.

Posted by 2smokingbarrels on March 14, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First and foremost, I am against unification. However, I hope they do so they can reap the consequences of their ignorance. The teachers at Cam High would leave. Nobody wants a 20% pay cut. The PVSD cannot handle their current fiscal issues and as far as buliding a high school now is simply idiotic. Why would OUHSD build a new school if the people want to unify? Go ahead and unify, everyone knows the star will still blame Oxnard for everybody elses problems. Boffos!

Posted by 2smokingbarrels on March 14, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The sad part is that if these talks of unification never took place, Cam would have a new school already. How you like them apples?

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2Smoke - I'm afraid you may be right. There's a chance that PVSD may have cost us a new school.

No one can know for sure, but unification most certainly didn't help.

Posted by ebrockway on March 14, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm all for unification, but PVSD is so messed up at the moment (watch any board meeting on TV), the whole issue needs to be tabled until the PV district gets its other problems handled.
They seem to be unable to handle the problems they have, how can they be trusted to handled new BIG ones?

Posted by BeaHappi on March 14, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm an Oxnard resident and I'll vote against the unification...not because I want to keep the Camarillo $$ coming to the Oxnard schools (my kids to go private school...doesn't help them in the least), but because it's apparent that the PVSD is in no position to take on anything new.

After the debacle last year that caused so much grief, stress, and turmoil for Camarillo parents and their kids who in their right mind would vote for unification with PVSD at the helm?

As for Rio Mesa...what are the boundaries for Camarillo kids to attend that school? I mean some areas of Camarillo seem to be closer to Rio Mesa than to Camarillo High, but where do the boundaries lie?

Posted by hibufarshi on March 14, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

frank14 and hotwildflower

All of my siblings and I attended Rio Mesa and now my daughter is there, none of us ever felt forced to attend. The kids from Camarillo that attend there love their school and are proud of it. When given the choice, my daughter picked RM over ACHS.
hotwildflower:
I also lived in a single parent home, but was able to participate in sports...it's called "carpooling". I'm sorry that you were unable to feel like part of the school. How would you have gotten home from ACHS if you had been on a sports team? If you lived in RM boundaries, home would have been a long walk from ACHS.
The way for Camarillo to get a new school is for the PV board to drop the whole unification issue. They have spent untold amounts of money in the last 10 years. OUHSD would have (so I've been told)completed the new high school this Fall. I refuse to send my students to Los Altos High!

Posted by vstiling on March 14, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bea you are correct Rio Mesa is much closer to my house than Camarillo High and the proposed site of the new school. I live in the PVSD and my kids attend Mesa Union because of the mess at PVSD. This business of school location is ridiculous. PVSD board is doing a poor job period. The goal is a great education for all the children. As much as i would like to see a new state of the art High School built in Camarillo the education is not in the building it lies with the teachers, administrators, envolved parents and the community as a whole. Lets drop the unification debate and get back to the job of educating our children.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BeaHappi - with a few exceptions south of the 101, the RM kids are drawn from the area west of Arneill Road.

Posted by BeaHappi on March 14, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vstiling...ahhh, the voice of reason!

CAPEDad - thanks for the info. And congrats on the success of CAPE. We have close friends who are also a CAPE family and they are very happy.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 14, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Alamillo
What are your predictions on the possibility of OUHSD building a new school on the proposed site? If the vote goes in favor of not unifying, do you think that they will break ground soon?

Posted by norcalmom on March 14, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bea
As an Oxnard resident, you should look for mailers from unification proponents exploiting "low" test scores from OUHSD. This could be there way of getting Oxnard residents to "let go" of Cam High through unification.

Hibu
You and everyone in Camarillo should be very aware of PVSD's current plan to utilize Los Altos as a magnet high school. Everyone should be querying the board as to how they are going to determine boundaries for this high school? Will it be determined by boundaries or lottery? If Cam High is determined by lottery, could it be that students who live across the street from Cam High might not be able to go there?
If it is by boundary - How can you force an entire side of town to attend a make-shift high school?

Posted by skeptical on March 14, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cracks me up that all these rich Camarillans want to pull their kids from Oxnard. May the new high school never be built so you are forced to interact with someone other than rich, white snobs.

Posted by norcalmom on March 14, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Skeptical
I'm not sure that everyone in Camarillo is a rich white snob.
When I first moved here, I couldn't believe we didn't have our own high school and was on the unification band wagon, too.
After some investigation, however, I discovered that it wasn't the right time to make that move. Now, its even less the right time!
My child will go to Rio - where she will receive a great education in an ethnically diverse community; one that will more accurately reflect real life!

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We could have been moving into a new school in 2010.

Right noe there are about 2400 students at ACHS and 819 at RMHS.

Someone through out a number of 200+ at NPHS 600 at Bonny some at TO and others at Moorpark.

School size will be determind by enrollment. It unfortunate that many have chosen other schools when ACHS and Rio have done a great job with our kids. Some may have had a bad experieance but that may not be the schools fault. We see kids comming back from Bonny and Oaks quite often.

I just had this conversation with an administrator for OUHSD. His comment was "If unification fails in Sac. he would be on the hook to build two school." The intent to build is still there.

Our discussion turned to what would be logical with the given enrollment. My suggestion was to come back to the community for further advice like they had done with the Camarillo Educational Design Committee in 2001.

The educational structure could be determined and a campus designed around that with the infrastructure for expansion. I would envision a 12-1500 seat campus at this time with practice fields and gymnasium. It would require partnering with the community for additional items like a pool or performing arts center.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Skeptical- I would not classify myself as a rich with snob. And my friends Biff, Winthorp and Buffy aren't either.

JeanB-
You really need to do some research on th funding for the new schools in Oxnard. What you find may suprise you.
Those of you that keep repeating "all our taxes are going to Oxnard" need to find out how education funding works.

While there are districts that derive their revenue from property taxes PVSD and OUHSD don't.

Monticieto is an example of a 'Basic Aid' district where each year the school tax is added to their property tax bill.

We split deveropers fees with OUHSD with PVSD getting 70% and OUHSD getting 30%. This money can only be used for facilities. Being that Camarillo is nearly built out there would not be enough money for that to b a factor in your thought process.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, the approval to vote was not suppot for unification. I had the opportunity to speak with the President and a board member of the State Board of Education while at the airport.

Pres. Mitchell said he "did not know if unification in Camarillo was a good thing or a bad thing but being a Stonewall Democrat he felt it was better to let the voters decide." Mr. Bersin agreed with his position.

Lets be clear, the county supervisors, the city council, the Ventura County School Board, the Ventura County Committe for School District Reorganization and no the State Board of Education have only said the petition meets, in their opinion, the nine criteria to make the issue available for a vote.

None of these bodies have ever said it was good or bad, just that it is.

On a side note:
After the vote I approached Ron Speakman and said "No harm, No foul." I figured neiter of us got what we wanted.

His exactwords to me were:
"John, it takes a craftsman to build a barn and a jackass to knock it down. You are no craftsman."

When I told him he should look in the mirror as he has, in his 10 years on the board destroyed a district my family has been in for over fifty years his only response was "well you were there for four of the ten."

In essance he doesn't deny he has sacraficed the bird in the hand for a dead bird in the bush.

Posted by vstiling on March 14, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John - you go! You and Susanne are the only board members who brought perspective on behalf of he kids and teachers to the PVSD board in the past ten years. Can we do a recall for the other 4 on the board now!
I would not classfy myself as a rich white snob either. My kids will go to Rio Mesa a recieve a quality education. I don't want them going to a make shift Junior High for high school.

Posted by hotwildflower on March 14, 2008 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe I was too proud to ask for a ride from other kids parents, considering my friends didn't play sports, so I would have initially had to ask strangers to go out of their way to get me home...

Then, I also attended Cam. High for summer school because I was unable to get back and forth to Rio Mesa because there are no buses in the summer so believe it or not...I rode my bike to Cam High and it wasn't too far out of my way.

Apparently, I was and am an exception, at the time I lived right near the cut off near Carmen, I believe, and now I am right at the cut off as well but thankfully, my kids are on the Cam. High side so they don't have to access a freeway to get to and from school.

Yes, I felt forced to go to Rio Mesa, what options are there when the line is clearly drawn? I was terrified of RMHS, ...the gang members running thru with bats and chains was nice and something I will never forget. Listen, I know RMHS has changed but the fact that some students have to travel that far to get to school and have no other means of transportation for after school activites unless they hit up another parent or are fortunate enough to have parents who are able to get them is just downright wrong. At the very least, give parents an option instead of this being so cut and dry.

Posted by hotwildflower on March 14, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this the Mr. Alamillo who was principal at Valle Lindo?

Man, I loved that guy as a kid...such a sweet and kind man.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hotwildflower-
No I am his son.

It's a shame you couldn't find the support you needed. As a parent with kids in sports I am happy to provide transportation.

I don't find that Rio is that far off the beaten path. For me, and I live near Carmen, it is a 10 minute ride to either school and I will take the freeway to get to Cam anyway.

Posted by hotwildflower on March 14, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the info, John. I only attended Valle Lindo for a year and can barely remember my teachers name, but your dad stands out to me...great man!

Unification or not, isn't even an issue for me at this point, my kids attend private school so I have been on the outside of all the current upheaval in the PVSD, but my kid is going to start within the public high school system this year and the fact that there has been talk of a new high school for as long as I can remember and then watching as Oxnard has had how many built..? I am not even sure, but I believe it is more than two...it is really a slap in the face as a Camarillo resident. Worse comes to worse, I will go back to private schools.

By the way...I am not a rich white snob either, just someone who has busted their butt to get ahead..don't be a hater..

Posted by CAPEDad on March 14, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JOhn,

As Ron's YouTube performance shows, he knows quite a bit about barns and what you're liable to step in if you're not careful.

Posted by olreliable on March 14, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah!! Finally the Camarillo people are able to vote about this CAMARILLO issue. Kudos to the PVSD board for pushing through this unification, so "we the 'Camarillo' people" can make our own decisions. Democracy is alive and well in Camarillo.

I was wondering, and losing hope, if the few in this town against unification would ruin it for the rest of us.

Posted by parent on March 14, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John,

The SBE DID support unification. They denied the two appeals opposing unification. Even if the SBE had done nothing at this meeting yesterday, unification would be on the ballot.

The only thing they could have done to deny unification would have been to support the 2 appeals. They did not.

Interesting that they did not follow LAFCO guidelines, as per recommendations by the California Department of Education AND the SBE attorney by restricting the election area to only the segment of the population that's affected. (and - removing 819 students from RMHS, some of which are minority would not have had any substantive effect on OUHSD.)

I wonder if the threatened lawsuits by LULAC and NAACP had anything to do with that? Not sure who they would sue, SBE?

So, they took the easy way ... place all of OUHSD in the voting area. It might sound equitable on the surface, but it's not.

Posted by parent on March 14, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding Rio Mesa losing courses because of the lack of the high quality Camarillo students ...

OUHSD parents should be OUTRAGED. If it takes Camarillo students to increase the scores enough to provide these courses, they ought to be asking what's wrong with the program that the rest of the students don't qualify. Or, what's wrong with their students that OUHSD feels they don't deserve the programs?

Posted by parent on March 14, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

2smokingbarrels, there would have been no school in Camarillo with or without the talk of unification. They stopped that project 4 years ago. AND, they've sat on the money so long, they probably can't even build the one school they desperately need in Oxnard.

To others ... as far as the "messed up" PVSD, every school district in California is facing horrible budget cuts. If I had to make a choice of paying for unneeded facilities (our student population is declining) or paying for programs, my choice is to pay for programs.

No one thinks that teachers deserve more pay than I do. But, I and many others also deserve higher wages. I don't have the facts in front of me, but I believe that the teachers received a substantial pay raise last year. And, unification laws mean that teachers in the unified district would get increased wages.

And, if you are so hell-bent in dissatisfaction about your current PVSD board of trustees, a unified district requires a new board to be elected.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 14, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Parent-
The SBE did not support unification. They found it met the criteria to be placed on the ballot. Big difference in how you can spin support.

The SBE followed LAFCO as in one case but there was a different guideline in other cases. LAFCO is not cut and dry.

As I stated above the two board members I spoke with felt it was the right of all affected citizens to have a say. There was a survey by OUHSD that found 52% of Oxnard supported unification. As there will be impacts to all involved it was the right thing to do. From being there if the motion, which was made to accept the county committees findings and include the whole area, would have failed and a new motion made to limit the voting area unification would be dead yesterday.

You truly don't understand the educational piece at RMHS. The OUHSD parents should be greatful the district considers ALL students important.

The SBE report states that the new board would be elected at the next election after the unification takes place. Not at the time of the unification election.

OUHSD still has the bonding capacity from Measure 'H'. They did not want to issue bonds that would be difficult to split should 'U' happen and would not want to turn over a un-finished project even if they did.

People are not upset about the looming budget cuts, they are upset about the boards role in dismantling to schools, being unresponsive to the community and down right rude to it's constituents. YouTube Ron Speakman for a taste of what he really thinks of citizens.

Teachers will get a raise, but as Ms. Feckety pointed out at the board meeting in March there is no idea of how much. The high school teachers will 'Y' rate. A recent survey shows that 75% of ACHS teachers would stay with OUHSD. In time when it hard to find teachers for some subject it would be interesting seeing how a new district would staff a high school.

Posted by norcalmom on March 14, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Parent
I knew it would only be a matter of time before a pro-unifier started throwing blame toward OUHSD for low test scores or an inability to provide quality programs for Oxnard students. That is what you meant when you say "what's wrong with THEIR students that OUHSD feels THEY don't deserve the programs?" Who are THEY? Oxnard students or OUHSD students? Shame on you!

Posted by Camman on March 14, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Camarillo students get stuck with going to the dump that is ACHS or have to travel 15 miles? HAS ANYONE EVER NOTICED HOW NICE OXNARD'S HIGH SCHOOLS ARE? They resemble a modern junior college and even come complete with an outdoor 50M Olympic sized swimming pool!!!

It is time for Camarillo to get the high school they deserve.

This is ridiculous!

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 15, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Camman-
Are you talking about Channel Islands or Port Hueneme?

Are you refering to the one and only "dump" that will be "Camarillo Unified High School"?

Just so we're clear:

Oxnard High School was build with federal money when they condemed the old Oxnard high because it was in the flight path to Oxnard airport.

Pacifica was a$60M high school that with OUHSD's matching fund allotment cost $27M in bond money. We pay $9M.

A new Camarillo district has a very marginal amount of matching capacity. At this point it is probably around 12-15M.

You do the math on which way is more ecomonical to you as a taxpayer.

I will be spending my Saturday at the "dump", my Alma Mater.

Posted by parent on March 15, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John, let me put it to you this way on the SBE vote.

Unification had already been approved. Thursday's meeting was about the appeal. The appeals were denied.

SBE's approval or disapproval of unification was not even the issue.

Did the opponents succeed in their appeal? NO!

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 15, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A vote had been approved, not unification. Why, if it is your deocratc right, don't others have the right to appeal under the statute?

Posted by SDmom on March 15, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a citizen of Camarillo that was also at the SBE, If the SBE board would have voted on Unification alone, I feel there was still a very good chance that they would have gone against the staff recommendation regarding unificaton.

One of the appeals was the voting area. I don't know how anyone can say that OUHSD would not be affected. Not only would Rio Mesa be affected but it would be a devastating hit financially. All of the ACHS teachers would stay with Oxnard. This would leave them with a very large number teachers on the high end of the salary scale. They would have to lay off the teachers on the lower end.

Oxnard has the right to vote on this issue!

If PVSD and their teams think this is such a great idea then why don't they go door to door in Oxnard and try to explain to those residents why this is a good deal for them. I know I will be spending the next months trying to explain to the residents of Camarillo why this is not a good idea. Beleive me this is just an idea, PVSD has no plan on what to do if it does pass.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 15, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seanroth - I couldn't agree with you more. I've repeatedly asked WHO and WHERE the students will be housed. No one seems to know. The "Facility Master Plan" is nebulous on the subject. All it says is that Los Altos will be a magnet high school. Well, that's not enough for me to take a leap of faith in this board's decision making skills.

We've all seen what Speakman, Miller, and Lerner will do after the last ballot is counted. Suddenly the district is in financial ruins and schools need to be closed. We don't need any more post-election surprises like last year's fiasco.

Posted by olreliable on March 15, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There will be enough teachers to fill a high school if unification goes through. Have you noticed that pink slips went out to half of California? There is a recession in our economy right now. Teachers would love to teach at a Camarillo High School, it is a highly desired school to work at now and it will be when Camarillo is unified.

Posted by norcalmom on March 15, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

parent
AB780 was the process that allowed the appeal to move to the SBOE. AB780 was the legislative process led by Audra Strickland, who is a unification supporter and works closely with many who were up at the SBOE - Berg, Speakman, Miller, Lerner & Valenzano. AB780 was written with the provision that the appeals be allowed to be heard. As John indicated, unification did not "pass" at the SBOE. It was merely the process for being allowed to go to a vote which was upheld.

Posted by G_Ceja on March 15, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sawyer-

In my speach i said that there would be reduced oppurtunities for everyone left at Rio Mesa not only for minority groups.Just to clarify something else I am far from being racist,I would like to know your ethics on clasifying me racist.

Posted by SDmom on March 15, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obviously Sawyer was not there to hear G_ Ceja's speech. It was amazing!
G- You are an amazing young man and you are a incredible example for all students in Camarilllo and Oxnard.

I would love for you to come speak to our 8th graders and let them know all the oppurtunities they can have at Rio Mesa if your work hard like yourself.

Keep in Touch

Posted by parent on March 15, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

norcalmom.

You're right. Unification did not "pass" at the SBE. It had already passed the necessary requirements.

The SBE involved the appeals, which failed.

Posted by parent on March 15, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, no one said that opponents didn't have the right to appeal.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 15, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Parent-
I would still argue there is sufficient disparities between the SDE report and law to appeal the appeal.
My hope is that doesn't happen.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 16, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess not ONE of the pro-unification people can answer my question of WHO would be forced to go to Los Altos High.

Well, I live a few blocks off Temple. I guess it's my kids that will be jammed by the board again....I'm waiting for Berg's road show.

I'll be sure to let the midtown people know where their "new" high school is.

Posted by truth_be_told on March 17, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe your kids should look into the on-line charter public high school called Insight School. The info meeting is on April 21st at 6pm in TO at the main library. Insight came to Camarillo last spring for an info meeting, which I attended, but not very many people knew about it. This is a FREE program with a free laptop, printer, scanner. It is not something that all students would like, but it is a good option. They have 200 students now, and have field trips, dances, and a real graduation planned. This is a quality program, run nationally. There are live teachers, live interactive classes. Students can still do sports locally, but they won't get class credit, because they can only enroll in one school, so Insight gets the ADA, not the Ventura County school. Sports enrollment also is governed by local league rules, so check that out first, if that is important to you. Otherwise, this is a good option if you don't want your young daughters getting pregnant like the majority of teen girls do in the West County. What ever happened to shame and guilt about having bastard children out of wedlock? Oh, I forgot. Ethics have gone out the window because talking about it might hurt someone's feelings.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news...

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 17, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

CAPEDad-
According to law, once the issue becomes a ballot issue the district, as well as the board members, cannot support or oppose it.

I agree that the road show will be interesting. What's wacky is I asked for plans for years and the only answer was the new board will work that out. I'm sure there is a scramble to throw a idea or two around.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 17, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

truth_be_told-
What kind of a wack job are you?
"Otherwise, this is a good option if you don't want your young daughters getting pregnant like the majority of teen girls do in the West County."
If this is your basis to attend this school you go for it.

Posted by Debra on March 17, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

norcalmom:
You need to do a bit of fact checking on AB780. While your wild scenario on it's genesis and passage fuel your anti-PVSD bias, they are completely inaccurate. I actively participated in the writing, lobbying and passage of AB780--which was authored by Cogdill. Audra Strickland was never at the table or even consulted on the legislation. AB780 passed through every committee meeting and the floors of the Assembly and the Senate UNANIMOUSLY.

Posted by Debra on March 17, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John: While you know I'm not a fan of name calling, I don't think what Ron Speakman said to you privately is really a big deal. It was your choice to post it on this Blog.

I'm more concerned, and have been somewhat sick to my stomach since the hearing, about the portrayal of our Community and the things OUHSD folks said about us. If there is a tape of the meeting, there is some pretty disgusting material available for YouTube. It would be very enlightening for people in Camarillo to hear testimony from board presidnet Irene Pinkard--who said that the people in Camarillo don't want the minority students in Oxanrd to have nice facilities; John Hatcher, President of the NAACP who was recruited by OUHSD to talk about what a racially biased city Camarillo is--he supposedly "remembers" when blacks couldn't by homes in Camarillo and had crosses burned on their front yards (I wish I was kidding); and Mr. Ochoa, who implied that our "vastly white" community was insensitive to the issues of minority students. Make me wonder why they would even want tax dollars or students from our community!

John--I know you have said that you don't see unification as a racial issue. But I find it disappointing that you can align yourself with a group that does. Telling me privately doesn't take much bravery--condemening it in front of the state board would've been nice. It seems that as long as you all got the decision you wanted, this deplorable tactic was okay. OUHSD is painting a picture of our community that is ugly, ugly, ugly And let's all please remember--that rhetoric is coming from the Oxnard Union High School District.

For those of you who REALLY believe that OUHSD plans to build a high school in Camarillo, please carefully read the language on the ballot for Measure H AND all of the minutes of their meetings from August 2003 throu June 2004. The record reflects that OUHSD fast-tracked putting Measure H on the ballot after being unable to get permission to declare Ventura County a "Special Facilities Improvement" County--which would've allowed them to pass a bond in the Oxnard area ONLY and build high schools where they really need them--in Oxnard. There wasn't enough time for that option, so after declaring that the district would not pass a district wide bond on June 4 because it was bad policy, they did exactly the opposite two weeks later and put Measure H on the ballot. There is a good reason the bobd language is so vague--they can wiggle out of it and blame the delay on unification. And for those of you who remember the campaign for Measure H--OUHSD stated over and over and over again that unification would have NO EFFECT on building a high school in Camarillo.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 17, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra,

You seem to be the voice for unification on this blog and one who knows the history and details.

I live in Arneill Ranch. Would you PLEASE tell me where my kids will go to HS if unification passes?

I'm not asking you to split the atom! Just tell me what you housing plan is and stop hiding behind this lame documentation.

Your facilities plan and the "impressive in scope" state report tells me NOTHING.

The more I peal the onion back, the less prepared you all look....I'll be waiting for an answer.

I'm afraid it's Los Altos High.

Posted by SDmom on March 17, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra,
Many of the people that attended the hearing were not speaking regarding the racial issue or white flight, which are words that your side brought up not ours . Part of the appeal was that it did not meet all the criteria. We all spoke on diffrent criteria. Mr. Hatcher and Mr. Leary were not on our list of 10 speakers. Some of our 10 speakers were some of the Cam 11 to make it easier for the board to understand since their were 2 agenda items. We did not send 25 people up there to say the same thing over and over. It seemed to irritate the board, don't you think?

Regarding what Mr. Hatcher said, you need to go look at the library and the archives of the newpapers and you will see that unfortunately these type of incidents did happen. Camarillo is far from that type of city now but it was a part of life long ago.

I didn't see the implication that you are referring to from Mr. Ochoa. But unfortunatly we are vastly white in Camarillo. When looking into different grants and monies for our school. We were way below the line of ethic diversity and were not eligible. I wish that was not so but it is what it is.

Oxnard is not painting an ugly picture of Camarillo. Your side is putting bites out that that ar not supported by facts. ex: Oxnard doesn't have representation on the board for Camarillo. What about Mrs, Lopez Hansen or I guess Jean Daily didn't matter either.

This is the same type of rhetoric that PVSD continues to dish out.

Unification will be on the ballot in November. as I said before If your team thinks this is a great idea (for what ever reason) start getting your message out there. Go door to door in Oxnard and tell them your story. I will be informing everyone I can that this will not work for Camarillo. PVSD and Cam unified don't even have a plan if this passes. My children are pretty much safe from this debacle. But I refuse to let PVSD use the remaining k-8 students as their sacraficial lambs.

PVSD continues to make poor decisions over and over. The school closure mess that was supposed to save them money really came back to bite them.

We don't get to elect a new board immediately if unification passes so Speakman and Berg have plenty of time to muck it up.

Final note: Mr. Speakman did not make those comments in private. He said it in the lobby with about 50 people present. I was one of them and I heard every word. The only one that looked like a "jackass" was Mr. Speakman.

Posted by fujo on March 17, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra, It seems disingenuous to accuse OUHSD of making this a racial issue when PVSD had over 20 speakers, almost all of whom talked about race. OUHSD had about 10 speakers, each talking about different issues - segregation, PVSD's fiscal incompetence, PVSD's dubious handling of past educational issues, accessibility of AP and IB classes.

If you want to talk about speakers making questionable statements, how about PVSD's assertion that Camarillo hadn't had representation on the OUHSD board for over ten years - which was a great point - until one of the current OUHSD board members stood up to point out that she lived in Camarillo. That's just like PVSD to throw out misinformation, in the hope that it will go unchecked.

Speaking of misinformation, how are those teacher raises coming along? Will they be put on hold while PVSD invests in flyers, banners, and misinformational speakers in the political battle over this election?

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 17, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra-
I agree with Sddmom. I will say it, and have said it publically, race doen not figure into my opposition to unification. I do recognize law and laws that pertain to this case. Law says the unification will not "promote segregation." There is nothing about "cause" which is the tack the proponants took.

I also agree that your sides flagrant racial bombardment of the SBE was discusting. Were most of those brought by CU? Classic example: Rodger Lund announcing to the SBE that" My birth mother is Mexican."

I guess I should have given my heritage. Grandson of immigrants, on both sides one set from Mexico and farther back from Europe.

Nice spin on Ron, it was said in public, not private. Again, he did not argue he and his 'crew' have screwed up only that I was there for four years of it. Maybe if he would have listened on occasion...

Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on March 17, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra -

You asked people to carefully read the language on the ballot for Measure H AND all of the minutes of their meetings. I googled Measure H, and came up with the link to the full text of Measure H:

http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/business_s...

It provides for two new high schools to be built; and in the School Bond description section, there are plans listed for only one new high school - in Camarillo.
Land has only been purchased for one new high school, 77 acres in the Somis School District - in Camarillo.
There's been an Education Design Committee established for one new high school - in Camarillo.

I don't see anything listed for a new high school in Oxnard.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 17, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LP Mom - Why are you reading documents and ballot language? There's no need for that - just BELIEVE! Oh you of little faith!

Now, listen to me: close your eyes, say a prayer, and click your heels together three times.

There now...aren't you a believer? Good.

Posted by hazeltine on March 17, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's be real here everyone. The only color in this debate is green -- as in money. PVSD board wants unification because they see it as the silver bullet to get them out of the horrendous financial mess they contributed to by burying their collective heads in the sand in regards to the years of dropping revenues. OUHSD only cares about the money the Camarillo kids bring into the district. The only legitimate issue I've heard so far was from the Rio Mesa student about the potential loss of AP clases because not enough students would qualify. That is an issue I was not aware of and would have to be addressed.

My wife grew up in Camarillo and went to RMHS. She bristles everytime we hear, and we hear it all the time, "I would move if my child(ren) have to go to Rio Mesa." These are ignorant comments. Rio Mesa has many positive attributes, including more AP classes than Cam Hi.

The only other thing OUHSD cares about from Camarillo is the kids' test scores, which of course translates into money.

Unification has been decided by the State Board of Education. It would be a waste of time, money and effort to even put it on the ballot. And that's just fine, whether you are in favor or against Camarillo unification, because the money, time and effort that would be wasted on this issue at this time would be much better spent getting PVSD repaired and making sure OUHSD fulfills its promise to build a new high school in Camarillo. At the end of the day, all anyone should want is the best opportunities for our kids, regardless of who runs it, as long as they run it well.

One last question, though? When/if a new HS is built in Camarillo and all of those kids move to that school, then what happens to the AP classes at Rio Mesa? What happens to the "culture" of RMHS? Just by building a high school in Camarillo isn't Oxnard doing the same thing the pro-unification people wanted, which is to put all of the Cam kids at schools together in Camarillo? The OUHSD district may look as if it has the same racial breakdown on paper, but they will effectively be doing what the pro-unifers wanted. Why? Like many complicated issues, the answer is not black and white ... or brown. It's green.

Posted by norcalmom on March 17, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra,
You know what - I may not have the "genesis" of AB780 100% correct. I will give you that.
You helped author the bill? Lobby for it?
Was Sandra Berg there as well?
Rather convenient that a unification proponent helped create and pass this legislation.
By the way - never claimed it didn't pass unanimously. Actually never said anything one way or the other about how I felt about AB780. Just indicated that it had a built-in appeal opportunity, which was ultimately utilized.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 17, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hazeltine-
You are correct. when the school gets built the kids will not be at RMHS. When the thought of a new campus started Riverpark was just on the radar. The thought was Riverpark would backfill RMHS with enough kids to keep programs alive.

With a new school 4-6 years out I think the residential housing market will rebound for this scenerio to take place.

I often told proponants that if they would wait for the new school to be built and filled with our kids it would be easier to draw the line.

Posted by norcalmom on March 17, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hazeltine,
my beef with unification has nothing to do with the race issue and you bring some valid points.
And I agree with you about kids being the priority. I just don't think that PVSD keeps that in mind. The past few years have shown me differently. Frankly, my kids will get stuck right in the middle of this mess and thats not ok.
I just wish that PVSD would call a spade a spade. Tell us what the plans are; what the hurt will be. Then allow people to decide for themselves if the long run will be worth it. All we've been able to get is vagueness. CAPEdad has been asking for days about Los Altos high. No one, not one person for unification has addressed it. Not addressing it will not make it go away. Nor will enticements of larger salaries and better articulation.

Posted by hazeltine on March 17, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Norcalmom
I think we will be waiting a long time before we get a straight answer from the current PVSD board. I have been to many board meetings over the school closures, spoke to the board on the attempted closing of Santa Rosa Tech. Magnet School and went to all the closure meetings. The one thing that has stood out, to this day, is: How the hell did this board, with most having held their posts for at least eight years (except Patty Lerner) allow PVSD to get into its current financial situation with no communication to parents/citizens until we "suddenly" have to close three schools. It is truly a travesty of the public trust, whether intended or not.

I truly believe now that the board was banking (literally and figuratively) on unification passing to try to get them out of the mess they, at the least, fascilitated if not outright caused. That is gone and now they have to deal with the situation they created.

The board is vague because they either think we won't like the answer or they don't know. Trust me, if it was something else they would be crowing it's virtues.

I believe the plan would be to make Los Altos a "temporary" high school, likely a magnet school. I have no problem with that as long as there was the funding to upgrade the school to handle state-of-the-art technology. All we should really care about is that a school there would offer an excellent education with enough resources to make it a high school. It has many positives -- it's in mid-town, it is next to the best fields in town for PE, the revamped pool and the B&G club for after-school activities. The programs, teachers and administration are what's going to make a great school, not that it used to be a middle school or it's not brand new. If it can be upgraded, who cares.

But that's a moot point and I only mention it because people have made it an issue and rightfully so.

But unification is dead. It cannot pass when two-thirds of the eligible voters live in Oxnard. Would Camarillo citizens vote differently if the roles were reversed? Of course not. The state Board of Education ended the debate with its decision and that's OK. That's what it's there for whether you agree with the decision or not.

The irony is that both sides of the debate want the same thing and it's a noble thing -- the best public education we can get for our kids. Both sides just have different ideas on how to do that.

Again, it's been decided so let's Camarillians put our collective efforts into curing PVSD (my first suggestion would be a radical amputation of two board members that are up for re-election in November) and making sure OUHSD fullfills its promise to build a new high school in Camarillo.

I believe a magnet high school should be the goal. A magnet school would be open to all students in the district after the neighborhood kids are admitted. This way we can hopefully reflect the true colors of our district and community. If that's the case, we'll all win.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 17, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hazeltine,

Is unification DOA? If so, I suppose my complaints are mute. But, I think you're really overestimated the draw of this "magnet". Has anyone polled the draw of a magnet? Any data whatsoever? What would it be? Art? Technology?

What if the school doesn't draw the required 800 kids that spill-over from ACHS? Where will the mandatory boundaries be drawn? For how long?

I haven't seen ONE answer to any of these scenarios. Have you?

Am I asking for too much? Amazing. Simply amazing.

Posted by norcalmom on March 17, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hazeltine & CapeDad,
While my own opinion and soooo many of those in the community indicates that unification is indeed DOA, you can bet that CU/PVSD will try and revive it.
They will make promises that are impossible to keep - evening out of teacher's salaries will be the first promise, I'm sure.

The reason I keep bringing up the point about Los Altos High isn't because I think it may be substandard education. It is because so many people in Camarillo have been bamboozled into thinking that the only way to get a NEW, comprehensive high school is to unify. In the SBOE support information, PVSD clearly indicates that Los Altos High would work for the short term and QUITE POSSIBLY, PERMANENTLY!
That is all well and fine, but you just know that there are parents in Mission Oaks, who are thinking -no problem - won't affect my child; I live right across the street from Cam High! That is why everyone should demand answers as to how these boundaries and enrollment protocol will be determined!
As you can see-CAPEdad has been trying to get an answer to no avail!

Parent -
You're wrong. Unification has NOT been approved! The only way it can be approved is if the voters approve it when it is placed on the ballot.

Posted by hazeltine on March 17, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unification can be put on the ballot but it has no chance of passing because of the numbers. So for all intents and purposes, it's dead.

It's only my opinion, but I don't think a new high school, including a magnet, would have any trouble being filled. First, you'd have the 800 Cam kids that go to Rio Mesa and I'm assuming this would be their neighborhood school. Of course, some may decide to attend Rio Mesa for sports or other reasons. If it's a magnet school, the remaining spots would be filled by a district-wide lottery, meaning any student in OUHSD could enter. If there are still open spots, then out of district kids can enter, such as Moorpark, Conejo, etc. Ventura opened Foothill Technology magnet and it was so popular that it quickly filled and is now only open to Ventura district kids, no out of district transfers.

Hopefully, the citizens would have input into what type of magnet it would be. The key to a magnet is that it opens the door to all kids and I think diversity is an important attribute. Los Primeros is switching to a magnet format and they are in the school administration polled parents. They seem to be leaning to a Science and Arts magnet K-8. When Santa Rosa became a magnet, the parents had a big say in what it would be.
I would be a proponent of a magnet school regardless of whether it's run by OUHSD or a new unified district.

But there will be no unified district. The numbers just don't add up. With 67,000 registered voters in Oxnard and 37,000 in Camarillo, unification would need 25% of Oxnard votes to agree and that's if 100% of Camarillo voters elected for unification and we all know that is not even possible. Let's say 60% of registered voters vote, that would be 40,200 for Oxnard and 22,200 for Camarillo. Even if Camarillo went 75% for unification, 35% of Oxnard residents would also have to vote for unification in order for it to pass. You can be assured that OUHSD will make sure that it's not even close. Remember, they've spent a lot of money fighting unificaton. That's why I think we need to move on. I personally, don't want to see either PVSD or OUHSD spend another dime on unification. I don't think it's even worth the money it's going to cost to put it on the ballot at this point.

As to what would happen if there's a new unified district, it's anyone's guess and that's why you can't get an answer. If a new district is formed, it would require an entirely new board so whatever is decided now can likely be changed.

Posted by CAPEDad on March 17, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hazeltine - I agree with what you say, but your assumptions (again - I understand these are just assumptions) are:

- The 800 kids that go to Los Altos High are the poor CUSD-RMHS refugees.

- Remember, Foothill Tech was a BRAND NEW facility, not an old, broken-down middle school.

But again, I'm probably raising concerns of no concern to anyone.

Nice talking to you guys. Catch you later on the next unification blog.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 17, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hazeltine-
Thanks for being so thoughtful. It's obvious your concern is for the kids. While I would dis-agree that that is the reasoning for many of the original proponants.

The arguments have always been
1. We pay ALL our taxes to Oxnard
2. Cam high is a dump
3. We want local control
Only recently have we incorporated the articulation piece.

Much of the info we have presented to us regarding academics at ACHS consist of material that is not dis-agregated. While Camarillo scores are in the 800's when you break out ACHS from OUHSD the scores are not that far off.

Is Conejo that much better than us or is there a socio economic factor? I think when you break it down SRMTS is not a better education but a different population.

There was a survey done by OUHSD. It found that 52% of Oxnard residents FAVORED unification. These results do not spell a death nill for CU. What the biggest objection to the increased area is the increased cost to promote the issue.

The SBE pres. and a board member said to me, as I posted above, they didn't know if it was a good thing or bad, just that everyone affected needed to have a voice. If the vote would be limited many of my friends that attend PVSD schools would be left out of the vote because they live in Mesa's district. There are those that attend Mesa that live in Somis who would get to vote. The logical area would have been PVSD, SUSD, MUSD and RUSD.

I would strongly suggest you do some research and then some simple accounting. My feeling is we can't afford unification.

Posted by SDmom on March 17, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John - I agree with you that we can't afford unification. There are many reason not just financial.

The arguements the proponents had that it does not affect anyone but PVSD and SUSD is ridiculous. I think Mr. Ceja's speech was a perfect example of that.

Unification is not DOA.I think PVSD has the much harder battle to try to convince their case county wide. They dug their hole so deep last year , they lost many of their key supporters. Oxnard supporters will still have to work against unification but their job has become easier. The political climate favors Oxnard in a big way.

Posted by Debra on March 17, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sdmom and John: "white flight" and the issue of race were a major focus of the appeals filed by both the citizens and OUHSD. Larry Shirey from CDE addressed those issues in his report to the board. As we met with members of the SBE in the weeks before the meetings, every single one of them told us that Mr. Ochoa had made the accusation that this was a "white flight" unification and that Cam Hi was 80% white, 20% minority-- which is inaccurate. Board members all indicated that they wanted to hear more about those issues. You have to admit that Ms. Pinkards' statement was pretty appalling.

Norcalmom: Yes, I participated in writing and advocating for AB780. Unification is not a controversial educational philosophy--it's the system the States' Master Plan calls for. I've worked on several pieces over the years--the others dealt with gender equity in the classroom. We worked on this legislation with a number of educational leaders up and down the state. While the law only applies to three counties right now, there is some legislation in the works that will make the process outlined in 780 available to school districts statewide.

CAPEDad: sorry that your questions haven't been answered, but much of what you are asking won't be decided by the current board--the law doesn't allow it. Los Altos is a possibility, and when the state looks at these petitions they look for possible seats for students. When Conejo broke away and unified they did not have seats--so they went to double session days. Not a good thing. I think it would be possible (haven't checked the law on this so please don't freak out if I'm wrong :) to have PVSD or the City Council appoint a citizens committee to flesh out some options and hold town hall meetings to see what the community wants. I think it should be something more open and inclusive than the process that OUHSD had. I think people like you should be on it--you obviously care about education and have kids in the district. I will make some inquiries and see what the next steps might be.

On board member representation: If Socorro still lives where she did several years ago, it is outside of both the city limits in the unincorporated area. I am pretty sure she lives in the Mesa School District, and if so she does not vote in Camarillo City Council or PV elections.

Posted by LP_Estates_Mom on March 18, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra -

The lack of OUHSD Board representation in Camarillo has been noted on a number of occasions in the past. I have checked, and Socorro Lopez Hanson does live in the City of Camarillo, the incorporated district.

Question: If the CUSD were concerned about the lack of Camarillo representation, why did Ms. Lopez Hanson, Dr. Irene Pinkard and Robert Valles run unopposed in the last election?

Candidates ran against Mr. Alamillo in the last PVSD election.

If you (the general, not the personal "you") don't like your elected official, you have the opportunity to try and change them, right?

Posted by julsthemom on March 18, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LMAO. The insulting way Speakman behaved towards John is typical of the man. He's a little guy and obviously suffers from "little-man-syndrom". If you have to say "its" big, then you need a microscope to see it. John, thanks for going up to Sac. and representing those of us who do not believe that unification is right right now. Many, many of us in Camarillo (I am not rich, but perhaps a tad snobbish) truly appreciate you for taking your own time and money to travel on behalf of something you, we believe in. How many other board members besides smallman where their? How much of the district money did they spend. Did they stay at Days Inn or was that below their "caliber". Did they eat at Denny's or did our district dollars go to fine dining?

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 18, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Debra-
The OUHSD presentation was based on three criteria and the area of election. The criteria were:
#4 'That the unification not PROMOTE segregation'
#6 That it not impact programs
#9 Financial impact
If you choose to dwell on just one of the appeal points thats your decision.

PVSD argument was focused so much on racial they took their eye off the other arguments and area of election. I guess if you believed the Ochoas would only argue #4 then you were given a sucker punch. In a boxing analogy, lead with the left and follow with a big right.

In the near past there has been representation from Camarillo on the OUHSD board. During the 90's there were three from Camarillo, Lindgren, Koch and Daily-Underwood. And just a history lesson one of the first member last name was Camarillo. Couple these with Dullam from Somis and Brown from Camarillo and your argumet fails. If you run I will vote for you.

Why ask for ideas now. Had the proponants listened to the community early in the process many may has been more positive. As the SDE states, the new board will be elected in the election AFTER the election for unification. The sitting board members will be the ones to make decisions. That will be your biggest hurdle. They have time and time again spoken with forked tongue. They have made one reason for issues not openly what the issue is.

Example:
Closing Los Altos was discussed in 1999 as a way to house a high school. Closing it may not have been all due to unification but it did show available seats as presented by PVSD. Moving Los Primeros was, in my opinion, directly linked to unification with the thought being close a site where we have educated kids for over 100 years to help fund the modification of a middle school to a high school. My opinion is you will have neither a middle school or a high school in the end.

Julsthemom-
From what I understand the board members "paid their own way." My guess is Camarillo Unified paid, their option. I won't fault anyone for being there. As far as district expenses they brought 3 administrators. I don't know who paid for the teachers.

Posted by lunachick4life on March 18, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't kid yourselves. You are looking at a financial issue that will become a race issue as fast as blame needs to be assigned.

Just look over the hill at CVUSD. This board is calling is School Closure. Your board is hiding behind Unification. Wasn't the frying pan bad enough?

If ACHS is so great, why is NPHS well above capacity due to the demand from Camarillo residents? It surely isn't about the quality of facilities. Could it be more of the white vs. right syndrome that is alive and well in Conejo.

Hey John, the CVUSD Board needs new blood and some common sense. Interested?

And truth_be_told can be found blaming, point and inciting as demonstrated by the disgusting comments made here and other places.

Posted by G_Ceja on March 18, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think everyone needs to stop being adults and look at this in my perspective or in the perspective of the students who will be affected.

Sure almost all OUHSD is predominantly minority but that all happened naturally pulling out all cammarillo students is not very natural.

To take that many students out of one school is absurd.You'd be ruining the oppurtunities of future Rio Mesa students.

Also do we really wanna trust PVSD with the futures of these students.They can't even keep there schools in tact.They have no money.No experienced teacher is going to want to take a pay cut which would force students to be tought by rookie teachers.Your also depriving them from the IB program.

I just think PVSD needs to take into consideration their own schools and do what they can do to fix their situation and then maybe think about forming this "CAMARILLO UNIFIED" school district.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 19, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The general population needs to be educated on what unification would mean for our students. Most people that I talk to think that it's the fastest way to a new high school facility. As with most issues, a lot of citizens in Camarillo and Oxnard are ignorant on either side of the issue. I sure hope that there will be meetings dicussing both sides of the issue before we are expected to vote on it. It would be great to get the students at Rio Mesa to have a voice....some of them are voting age. My feelings on why this has become such a mess is that it's been going on for so long that most have become deaf to it. They figure,"hey, it won't affect my kid. So what." Ten years ago kids weren't fleeing to go to NPHS. Personally, I want my freshman to stay at RMHS and for my now 7th grader to attend as well. Think of the #'s that will leave when they are told to go to Los Altos High! If the school closure fiasco last year is an indicator on how the PVSD Board operates, let me out now!

Posted by hockeyfan3144 on March 19, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing I keep wondering about is why Camarillo residence have to send thier kids to a diffrent city? Why can't Camarillo keep thier kids in town? If Oxnard wants white kids at Rio Mesa why not ship the white kids from the Oxnard beach community to Rio Mesa? Why can't Ventura send kids to an Oxnard school? Why doesn't Oxnard bus thier kids 15 miles to Camarillo or Ventura? I am not white and I am not racist I just don't think it is fair to ship any child off to a diffrent city. My child currently attends a private school and at this moment none of this really affects me. But, I would like the option, if and when the time comes, to send my child to a high school near by.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 19, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kids from Camarillo have been attending Rio Mesa for years, I'm not sure how long, but I graduated from there in 1982. I never even questioned why, I lived in the Rio Mesa boundaries, as did all of my neighbors. I actually went to school with kids from my street. It's a different story now. my daughter attends Rio Mesa, we live within the boundaries...my neighbors kids go to ACHS. I don't know why? No one is "shipped" off....it is their school. By the way, some kids within ACHS boundaries choose to go to RMHS. I would much rather have my kids at Rio Mesa, they are both into water sports....have you seen the beautiful facility there? Parents are responsible for it being there. Cam students use that pool for their "home" pool. What will happen to that if unification goes through? No Cam Unified high school will have a pool for its students. Rio Mesa is a great school, terrific teachers, coaches and administrators. Would you like to send your student to Los Altos High?

Posted by conejoabc123 on March 19, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

George Ceja, you are a glimmer of hope when looking at what the future has to offer this country.

Although many people don't like the fact that their agendas are threatened by legal action, the reality is that unification will create separate and unequal schools in your community.

John Hatcher, President of the NAACP and David Rodriguez of LULAC would be excellent contact points for you and your leadership team of young people.

There are many opportunities for young people who desire to become community activist and who desire to make a positive, lasting impact and reject the arguments and activities that promote nothing more than biased rhetoric. LULAC and NAACP can help you strategize and organize in order to secure your community’s future at Rio Mesa.

You might also be interested in the Conejo Valley families who, in response to separatist activities in the Conejo Valley, are forming a local chapter of LULAC. I am sure they would be willing to support or sponsor a youth chapter as well.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 19, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hockeyfan,
I just looked it up...Rio Mesa opened its doors in 1966.
Also, if PVSchool board had dropped the unification issue, you would be able to send your children to a school nearby. I have been told,(how true it is I don't know)that Camarillo would quite possibly have had a new high school by fall of 2008 or 09 if our school board had dropped the unification issue. Why would OUHSD build a school in Camarillo just to give it up to Cam unified? by the way, the unification issue has been on the table for 10 years. I encourage you to go check out Rio Mesa, it's a great school!

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 19, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lunachick-
Besides living out of your district I am way to busy with the "majority of teen pregnancies in west county" to consider moving.

Hockeyfan-
I graduated Monte Vista Middle School in 1974 (ACHS in '78). At that time the boundry was Rosewood.Today the boundry is Arniell.

For me it is the same in distance and time to either HS. As stated there are kids from either side that go to either school.

Posted by tyfys on March 19, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a very complicated subject with many layers, however, I think some people need a reality check.

OHUSD will not be building a new high school in Camarillo. This is not due to unification but rather due to declining enrollment in Camarillo schools. The big sign by the farmland at the library is a farce. They talked it up big when they wanted to pass the school bond, and then put on the brakes (supposedly due to unification). However, I clearly remember during the election to pass the bond, OHUSD said unification efforts would have no impact on building a new school for Camarillo. In their glossy mailers they said the school would be built in spite of ongoing unification efforts. This is why I voted for the bond and was glad to see it pass. It was a litmus test for me to see once and for all if OHUSD was serious about building a new school here.

For years, I have heard it said over and over what a wonderful school Rio Mesa is. Now that my own kids are students there, this is not our experience. The honors program is watered down. Kids bring home good grades making parents happy, but are not well prepared for college. Fights break out on campus on a regular basis. The facility is old and run down. I have no idea how Rio Mesa compares with other high schools, but this is our experience. I have no idea why people think it is such a great school. In my opinion, the quality of education goes downhill when students leave PVSD for OHUSD. Unification may not be the best idea for now, but things are not quite as rosy as some people would have you believe.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 19, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tyfys,
I guess each individual has his/her own experiences. Of course there are problems, no school is perfect. I don't mean to paint a "rosy picture", I just want people to do their own research and decide from there which school is best for their child. I am friends with a recent graduate of RMHS, he went on to USC. You get out of it what you put into it.

I have heard so many different stories regarding the building of a new high school. I didn't imply that what I said was written in stone. I take it all with a grain of salt. The BIG question I have is do you really want PVSD to run a high school?

Posted by tyfys on March 19, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Technically, PVSD wouldn't be running a k-12. If and when Camarillo unifies, it will be a new school district, with a newly elected school board. I don't know if administrators would be kept on. Do I believe the people of Camarillo are capable of running a k-12 school district? Yes, I do. Is this the right time? No, it is not.

I've heard the "you get out of it what you put into it" line before. It's a little unrealistic to think students will push themselves more than the teachers will. Kids tend to do what is required and no more. When was the last time your kid did a research paper? When was the last time they took an essay test? My kids do all that is required, but do very little writing or research. Again, I don't know if this is normal for high school, but I do know my kids worked harder at Monte Vista than they do at Rio Mesa.

Posted by hibufarshi on March 19, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tyfys,

I don't know if that's normal for high school either. I guess you'd have to speak with kids from other high schools. I really don't have anything to compare Rio Mesa to. I just know that my student is enjoying her freshman year, yes she could be studying more, but I don't recall doing any more homework than she is doing. She is doing quite a bit of writing in her Literature class. (maybe even a little less than in middle school)
I don't mean this in a bad way, but there are other options. Check out Cam High. I've heard that the honors there is even less than at Rio Mesa. That could be wrong...I have heard it from parents who have their kids there. Who knows!

Posted by Debra on March 19, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tyfys--you are absolutely correct about Measure H. OUHSD, both in campaign speeches and in their literature, stated over and over that unification would have NO impact on building a high school in Camarillo. It is convienient for OUHSD to blame the delay on unification, but it's dishonest.

Posted by lunachick4life on March 19, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, come on John....

Tyfys...be concerned if your children do not expect more than is being provided. Children who succeed as adults demanded more from those who provide for them; whether it is home, school or employer. When they are complacent it is because they know someone is behind them cleaning up the mess.

Posted by JohnAlamillo on March 19, 2008 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My recolection is not the same. I am trying to find the mailers for both OX and Cam and will report back.
As a ballot measure I thought the district could not speak to it. Who was out speaking?

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).

Posted by norcalmom on March 19, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tyfys
I've heard so many different comments regarding the educational programs at RMHS! "AP is great!" "AP is watered down." "My child wasn't prepared!" "My child got a full scholarship!" I think each child is going to be different. HOwever, I do think that the new IB program will offer a yardstick that is comparable to other IB programs ( i.e. NPHS). There are higher authorities to which the school needs to report. And everyone I talk to about the IB program says that it is not for the faint at heart! As it is new, I guess we'll have to see how it plays out. I, for one, am thrilled!

Posted by tyfys on March 19, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LP--I'm sure your info is all accurate and good. I'm just referring to the promises made during the election. These were printed on the mailer--probably not part of any official document. I'm kicking myself that I never saved any of the mailers sent out. The best I remember is that there were two mailers--one for Oxnard which didn't mention a new hs for Camarillo, and one for Camarillo that specifically promised a new hs here. At the time, unification was already in full swing and everyone called into question why they would promise a new hs for Cam. until unification was decided one way or another. It didn't make sense. But, then again, it did make sense. They needed to pass the bond. Oxnard was in desperate need for another hs as the city continued it's rapid growth. They needed the support of Cam. to pass the bond, and Cam. would not vote for a bond to build more new hs in Oxnard, so they promised us one too. I remember it clearly that the hs would be build in spite of unification efforts. The explanation given was that even if PVSD unified that PVSD w