JoJo – the only reason projections could possible show CVES lower in four years is because a big part of the Ridge community have already been redirected to other elementary.

Also, to my preanalysis, since they are redirecting all growth areas to North Bend, without really incorporating those into the growth projections, I suspect that we’ll be revisiting this issue again in no more than two years. The only difference is that this time, CVES and SES will be full, but NB will be the growth problem. The likely outcome? Worse for everybody. SR neighborhoods shifted to FC, Deer Park/new shifted *back* to SES, etc.

Regarding the possible timing of another boundary change, the numbers are misleading.
Actually, district projections have CVES with less students 4 years from now than there are today.

However, in terms of process, I’ll have to disagree. What I hear you saying is basically that the small print allows them to make up a random recommendation at the last minute that is different from all of the publicly discussed options (per your quoted text above), so since they gave themselves that out, that makes it okay. That still doesn’t make it a good process in my eyes, when we’re talking about an issue affecting so many families.

A through F were all published and had opportunity for public review, feedback and comment. All of them had surveys fielded at least once, and some of them multiple times.

Modified C did not. That means that the only opportunity for comment is this past week after the committee made their recommendation but before the board decides. As your neighborhood did, many people are now expressing their opinions as is their right.

I personally haven’t completed my own analysis of the various options, but I don’t have to in order to know that I am disappointed by how this recommendation was introduced at the last minute and endorsed without a similar amount of time for discussion and public scrutiny as the other options.

Again – no criticism of your active neighborhood, they should keep fighting to stay at CVES if they want.

And the great thing is, if Modifed C is adopted, we can continue this discussion again in only 2 years! Woohoo!

Nobody from the Option C folks met privately with anybody from the board or the committee when we presented our case. It was emailed.

“I read the recommendation of the SVSD Elementary Boundary Committee last week with great disappointment. Yes, our household was affected, but that is not why. I was disappointed that, after developing and following a well-defined, criteria-based process for two months, the committee chose to throw the process out the window, let themselves be influenced by vocal interested parties”

“April ?. A group of families privately submit an 7th alternate option, which appears to have ultimately been adopted in its entirety and proposed to the School Board.”

The number of families involved, and yes we did meet, was a group of 50 to 60. After much work, we did provide the committee with our feedback and suggestions. The good folks of Deer Park did the same previously. They put together an alternative, presented it to the committee, and the committee believed it was worthy of a new option, option F.

Back in March we were frustrated that a new option (F) could be added without a chance for public comment. But then, we did noticed this on the SVSD site:

“After receiving community input on the draft scenarios detailed above, the committee will review the input, make adjustments, and then post a short list of options.”

We understood now that the committee could and would make adjustments to options.

The notice on the SVSD site, posted weeks before the April 15th recommendation announcement, clearly stated this:

“Committee members will consider input from the meetings and online submissions in making a final recommendation to the Board. The committee may decide to recommend one of the options discussed tonight as is, or may modify one of the options, based upon ideas which had not been previously considered.”

It should not have come as a surprise that the committee changed or added an option, they had already done that before after a presentation by the option F folks. We simply did the same thing. Option F was not added “publicly”, it was presented privately to the committee by the Deer Park residents. The committee clearly stated that the ultimate recommendation could be a modified option. There was a chance for feedback after the recommendation, and you you good folks have put together your petition, arguments and rebuttals and they have been delivered to the board as you should have.

The committee unanimously voted for the recommended option.

I have to be honest, at the two public meetings back in March, after the choices were narrowed down to the new option F, C and A, option F and C folks appeared to be out in force. Almost all comments and questions were from those two groups. Option A supporters seemed strangely absent. We knew when we saw the new option F that the committee would alter options, would listen to new ideas and we got to work.

None of the options are perfect, they all have their faults.

Thanks, Jonesy.

Jordan