September 21, 2007

Evergreen SchoolScene

Some Evergreen parents up in arms over Matsumoto overcrowding

Group insists on proof of residence checks before
realigning boundaries

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

At least 250 people crowded the Quimby Oak gymnasium on Thursday, Sept. 20 to present petitions with 900 signatures and complain that the Evergreen School District is not strict enough on its proof of residence at the Evergreen School District’s Board of Trustees’ monthly meeting.

Many of those complaining live in the area designated for Matsumoto Elementary School, which was built for a maximum of 829 students. Current enrollment is at about 100 students higher than the preferred maximum enrollment and newly enrolled students have been sent to Evergreen Elementary School to eliminate overcrowding.

However, many of the parents chose to purchase a home so that their children could attend Matsumoto, whose Academic Performance Index scores of 950 in 2007 were among the top of Evergreen’s 15 elementary schools. Evergreen Elementary’s API score was 893.

The parents were initially given 15 minutes to voice their concerns, but were allowed upwards of 20 minutes to request changes to the current proof of residence screening and the upcoming boundary realignment process. They claim the realignment process needs to be more open, that it is “shrouded in secrecy” and that the data and composition of the committee members is “questionable.”

Earlier this summer, the district formed a 15-member boundary realignment committee. Committee members were chosen because of their leadership roles in their community or school. The meetings are closed to the public, in order to allow the members to discuss solutions without outside influence. EESD will hold four forums at different schools with time allowed for community input and comments.

Stricter identification
The group of parents asked that instead of two pieces of identification, such as a driver’s license and utility bill, enrollment should be verified annually by a property tax bill or copy of a lease agreement, a driver’s license and a W2 or tax return.

“We will not tolerate getting thrown out of our neighborhood schools,” said one parent at the meeting.

“We want a fair, transparent and open process, and we won’t accept anything less,” another parent said.

School board members listened attentively and took notes, but made no response other than to allow the speakers to finish their presentation.

After the presentation, one parent, who is on the boundary realignment committee, said she felt threatened by some of the remarks the concerned parents made.

Others attending the meeting, however, told the Times they were there to seek the truth.

“I’m skeptical,” said Virginia Gonzalez, a parent whose children attend Quimby Oak Middle School and Carolyn Clark Elementary, which is another one of the overcrowded schools.

Gonzalez said her sister-in-law was approached at home to sign the petition.

“She wasn’t sure what was going on. That’s why I’m here to figure what the hype is all about,” she said.

Another parent, whose children are too young to attend school, but are slated to go to J.F. Smith, came to the meeting to find out what is going on.

“I’m worried that my children may have to attend schools that may not have the best test scores,” the parent said, who asked to remain anonymous.

Others viewed test scores as only part of the equation in finding the right school for their children.

“I think people should care less about the test scores and concentrate more on what the schools are doing better [in comparison to other districts],” added another parent, who also asked to remain anonymous.

Another parent agreed, noting that test scores shouldn’t be the only thing to recommend a school. She noted that the schools with special day classes and with English as a Second Language classes tend to score lower on tests. “Matsumoto has no special day classes,” she said.

Cortese asked to help
Earlier this summer, the parents met with Vice Mayor Dave Cortese, who represents the Evergreen area in district 8. After the meeting, he wrote Sylvia Alvarez, President of the district’s board of trustees to request the board “continue to be responsive, open and transparent with the parents and do whatever they can to listen to suggestions of nearby residents and parents,” he told the Times.

The letter, dated Aug. 27, said the parents visiting Cortese “say the method employed by EESD to verify student residency does not appear to be successful in mitigating this situation. I would therefore urge the Board of Trustees to ensure that more strict measures are utilized, such as requiring proof of residency on the part of each student via additional documentation not currently being requested.”

There has been additional checking done by school principals, said Kathy Gomez, the district’s Director of Educational Services. She cited one instance where a principal found two families living at the same address. When the principal checked, he found that both families were living in the same home.

“It was legitimate,” Gomez said.

One parent at the meeting told the Times that her family found it hard to find a rental in the same area they were living in after the owner of their home decided to sell.

“We found that there were three and four families living in the same home, and some of these were not monster homes. It’s easy to pay $3,000 per month, when each family contributes $1,000,” she said.

Gomez said that she understands the parents’ frustrations.

“Currently we require two pieces of ID that proves a family resides in the district and the given school’s boundaries – a current driver’s license and a utility bill,” she said, “We are studying what other districts require to see if we are in line. We will change our process if we need to.”

“These parents are very strong in their desire for us to change the methods we use for proof of residence,” Gomez added. “The policies and practices we use are district-wide and if we make any changes it will be for the entire district. But all of our teachers in the district are trained in the same instructional strategy and use the same curriculum to teach to the same standards.”

She also noted that some Matsumoto parents have children at that school and younger ones at Evergreen Elementary, because the younger were enrolled more recently. While Gomez sees this as a big problem, she said many of those parents aren’t complaining. Superintendent Clif Black noted that the district has been aware of the problem for quite some time, adding that boundary realignment might offer some solutions.

We've known for a couple of years that we have an enrollment imbalance in the southeast corner of the district, specifically at Chaboya, Clark, and Matsumoto Schools,” said Superintendent Clif Black. “We had hoped to incorporate a brand new school east of Matsumoto to not only serve the potential new homes but also to alleviate overcrowding at Clark and Matsumoto. With the City Council's decision not to allow additional housing in the very near future, it's now incumbent on the district to level enrollments by other means, specifically boundary realignment.”

“Regarding the concerns from the Matsumoto parents, we have a difference of opinion as to the number of students who attend Matsumoto School using false addresses,” Black said in a statement sent to the Times. “Our parents were asked to register their children-using district wide proof of residence requirements and they have done so. I have long held to the belief that I will treat all schools equally and I believe that has been a strength of the Evergreen School District. Should the Board of Trustees decide to alter proof of residence requirements, I will support that decision for the 2008-2009 school year for all schools."

Boundary realignment meetings are scheduled for Nov. 7 at Cedar Grove Elementary; Nov. 8 at Chaboya Middle School; Nov. 28 at Quimby Oak Middle School; and Nov. 28 at LeyVa Middle School. If community members cannot attend any of those meetings, they can comment electronically on the district’s Web site from Nov. 15 to Dec. 12.

A final decision by the board of trustees will be made in January or February.