Northgate HS Attendance Boundaries Likely to Change

20 Responses

  1. Daniela says:

    Another huge disappointment, MDUSD. And you wonder why we are trying to get out from under your thumbs? How is NHS not at fire hazard level yet? It’s not discrimination; it’s simple math.

  2. Withheld says:

    If they add Montecito, will Montecito become part of the new Northgate district if it evetually passes and is approved by the county? How does this decision impact the Northgate proposal?

  3. Jim Mills says:

    The language in the petition refers to an April “as of” date that does not include Montecito, because it was not part of any assigned feeder pattern into any of the five Northgate schools. So subsequent MDUSD attendance boundary changes should have no impact on the proposal for NUSD.

  4. Gina Haynes says:

    Thank you Jim Mills for a recap of the Board meeting. I wanted to follow up with some information that i received yesterday from the MDUSD Student Services office. Felicia Stuckey Smith said that the decision that they will make to designate a home high school for CVCHS attendance area does not have to follow Board Policy 5116 (proximity of school plants, safety, capacity/enrollment….) because they are not changing the attendance area but simply designating a home high school. I believe this is setting the stage for the Board to make any illogical decision with no further studies required. Felicia Stuckey-Smith confirmed that no new studies have been done. In addition, this item was not placed on the agenda by District staff, which only leave Board President Hansen and her own personal agenda. Wait, where do you live? This item was placed on the agenda as information, yet no information was presented and it only provided a platform for the Montecito neighborhood to present their case to be included in the Northgate attendance area. Board President Hansen appears to be using the momentum from this neighborhood to include the entire CVCHS attendance area when the Montecito neighborhood was only requesting a change for their neighborhood.

  5. Lalita Subas says:

    Time to focus all energies on NSUD. Or first make Northgate a charter to get out of MDSUD.

    • Jim Mills says:

      Lalita,
      Only Northgate teachers could convert a Northgate school to a charter, as happened with Clayton Valley Charter High School. And there are significant governance challenges with “teacher-conversion” charters that can make them difficult to run. Resident citizens can only petition to convert a local school to a charter if it is one of the bottom-performing schools in CA, which is not the case in Northgate, although it might be possible for certain other MDUSD schools. So that was never considered as an option by Northgate CAPS. Our only path to more responsive, accountable public schools for our area is to create a separate, community-based public school district. And for that to happen, we need to finish the petition! Please ask all of your friends and neighbors to sign–and even gather signatures if they are willing.
      Jim Mills

  6. G.H.S says:

    I am so appalled by the way in which decisions are made by this current Board. It defies all logic and is frankly irresponsible. MDUSD parents and students deserve better than this. We all have a right to know what factors, criteria, and/or studies the board members have considered before they vote on any boundary change or home school designation. They also have a responsibility to explain to us the reasons for their vote. If they are truly committed to being a “transparent” district, they need to do this. At a minimum, explain to us why you are doing this? The alleged claim that Clayton has been “discriminated against” is not a valid reason and is completely irrelevant.

    Did you as a board –
    1. Consider the current student populations of a school?
    2. Consider the maximum occupancy of a school?
    3. Consider the existing infrastructures at the school?
    4. Consider the student to teacher ration at the school?
    5. Consider the environmental impacts of such a change?
    6. Consider the current and future traffic conditions of the surrounding neighborhoods?
    7. Consider the FUTURE housing construction developments in the greater surrounding areas?

    I am specifically talking about the future development of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Based on early reports, the city of Concord has chosen Lennar Urban as the development company that will transform this area of Concord into a community that will consist of not only retail and office space, but also housing. The project calls for the development of 12,272 housing units with Lennar to build a K-8 school, but NO HIGH SCHOOL. What will be the home high school of the students in this new community? Are there efforts to force Lennar to build a high school?

    There are so many more factors that I am sure you can all think of. But were any of these factors (which are pretty basic and straight forward) discussed/studied by the Board? NO. This boundary change was initially voted on in April 2016. I was at that Board Meeting in May 2016 where they rescinded the boundary change after many members of the community spoke up against it. Many of us also expressed to the Board that they needed to conduct more research and investigation into the impacts of this boundary change.

    So what has the Board done since April to try to be more informed about making this boundary change vote?? Absolutely NOTHING. It is so irresponsible and is a complete disservice to ALL students in MDUSD.

  7. JL says:

    I just wish to thank all of you for your continued hard work on this issue. As a parent I appreciate the information and effort. I am connecting with one of your volunteers to go around my neighborhood to get signatures. A BIG thank you.

    • northgatecaps says:

      That is great. Thank you. Volunteers collecting signatures will make all the difference in this effort. This is a high threshold even with the huge support from this community.

  8. Montecito Resident says:

    Hi all – I am a Montecito resident, and want to point out why it makes sense to include Montecito in the Northgate attendance area. We are geographically closer to Northgate than to any other high school – we are closer to Northgate than the already included communities of Crystal Ranch and the Crossings, and we are even slightly closer to NG than Limeridge. And, importantly for Northgate area residents, Montecito students will have no impact on traffic patterns, as we are a TINY neighborhood with never more than 10-12 high school students at any given time (and more than half of that group choose to attend private or charter). We play sports with you, we are on the same swim teams, and our children have grown up with your children. Somehow, our tiny pocket of homes, located next to Limeridge open space on Ygnacio, right at the Walnut Creek/Concord border, was completely left out of districting lines. Montecito’s proximity to Northgate makes the addition of Montecito an obvious and sensible choice.

  9. Gina Havnes (Fix the Split) says:

    Hello Montecito resident. Wow you really came out strong on Tuesday night and I was really impressed how you were able to get that all together in 5 days1-the shirts, the representation, the petition. Unless you were already working with the District board/staff and had knowledge that this item would be on the agenda before Friday, October 21. What concerns me is that the item on the agenda was to designate a home high school for the Clayton Valley Charter High School attendance area. It was not to change the boundaries for the Montecito neighborhood. In my opinion, Board President Hansen is using your neighborhood to represent all of the Clayton Valley Charter High School attendance area. No other residents from the rest of Clayton Valley Charter area were at the Tuesday meeting and also they did not attend when the Board voted to rescind the decision to designate NG earlier this year. So it really is not the 10-12 residents from your neighbor they are talking about it is the entire CVCHS attendance area. It is really easy for President Hansen to encourage your group to attend, if that is the case, then use your group for the greater good (all of CVCHS attendance area). That is just my opinion.

    To change attendance boundaries they do have to follow Board Policy 5116 that looks at things like location to school plants, safety, capacity. That is not what they are doing with this item, Felicia Stuckey Smith (Student Services) informed me of that on Wednesday. BTW using mapquest you are closer to both Concord High School and Ygnacio Valley High School. Yes you are a little pocket that appears to be left out but I know of another little pocket that splits in Elementary School, that continues to get left out. Be very careful you are not being used to represent the entire CVCHS area because your 10-12 would include many, many more than that.

    • Montecito Resident says:

      I completely agree with your goal to fix the Bancroft split. Please be fair and recognize that Concord High is NOT closer to Montecito -it is farther from Montecito than Northgate (Concord is 4.3 miles away, where Northgate and YV are 3.6 miles away) . Besides, using geography as the key determining factor does not work in Bancroft’s favor, as Bancroft residents are much closer to YV than to Northgate. I think that your goal is to keep Bancroft kids together, and in Montecito, we feel the same way. Montecito kids attend school with kids that feed into Northgate (just as Bancroft kids do), and Montecito kids do Scouts, swim team, soccer, baseball, etc. with these families (just as Bancroft kids do). This small community just wants to be formally included – it is sad to see our families go private or move away to avoid the uncertainty of which HS their children might end up in.

    • Montecito Resident says:

      I saw this post and felt compelled to reply to clear up any implied dealings of our neighborhood with the MDUSD School Board. Our community did reach out to the Board in writing before the meeting we attended. We had planned to present our case during public comment at the beginning of the meeting but were told that we could not because a similar agenda item was already listed. So we had to wait. Trust me, our families including many young kids did not want to wait as long as we did. Furthermore, we made it explicitly clear that we were only there to speak up for our community not the entire CVHS attendance area.

  10. Gina says:

    I am going to have to correct you on a few things. First we have never made the argument that we are closer to NG, we only want to keep our kids together. Second 80 percent of Bancroft already go to Foothill and Northgate and a majority are already closer to those schools so your argument that Bancroft residents are closer to YV is false. Your current High School split is only because of a developer sweetheart deal for Crystal Ranch, that was only temporary but due to litigation the District made it permenent. This action for Montecito will only make a larger split. No disrespect to Crystal Ranch more power to them. Lastly I did a mapquest and it showes Concord High closer coming down Cowell to Treat, but I have a feeling the decision the Board will make will not be done with logic, data or common sense.

    • Montecito Resident says:

      I think we can all agree its not about distance, its about our kids and our communities.

  11. Denise Pursche says:

    Also, to let you know, virtually all parents within the CVCHS feeder pattern do NOT want to attend any other school that Clayton Valley Charter High School. There are only two I know who want to attend another high school within MDUSD boundaries. Many people are asking the board to leave the CVCSH boundary as “undesignated/unassigned”. As Cheryl Hansen said, most residence are attending the high school of their choice – CVCHS. Not sure why you are focused on CVCHS area when by and large the majority and I’d say that would be in the 99% are happy with CVCHS.

  12. Denise Pursche says:

    Just so you know this is the verbiage of the item on the MDUSD Board October 21st Meeting.

    15.1 Presentation on Intradistrict and Interdistrict Transfers Info

    Summary: Staff will review the process and timelines for intradistrict and interdistrict transfers.

    10/25/2016 – 7:00 PM
    Category: Reports/Information
    Type: Info

  13. Caridad Cobaruvias says:

    I am not from Montecito! Just CAPS follower…Its does not make sense to send Montecito kids to either YV or Concord High due to distance, fairness, DOE’s fundamentals, etc. Here’s common sense question: Which one is closer to YV? Limeridge, Crossings, Montecito? So if Montecito kids will go to YV, does that meant Limeridge, Crossings would have to be YV designated HS also since these communities are closer to YV? Therefore, District owes Montecito the NG HS designation. Let’s be considerate of others, leave it to the experts, and be part of solution!

  14. NG Parent says:

    The board owes it to the children of Northgate to make sure they have a school with classrooms that are not overcrowded and they owe it to the Northgate neighborhood residents to complete a full and complete traffic study before adding more schools to the attendance boundary.

    • northgatecaps says:

      We wish they would have done the right thing and made an informed decision last night. Instead they created a situation where those currently living in the Northgate area could find themselves in a lottery in order to send their kids to Northgate. The question was asked and confirmed by Felicia Stuckey-Smith last night. They made the decision knowing that they did not have adequate information.