Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:transfer policy

Expand Messages
  • betsywb@juno.com
    Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it more difficult and
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it more difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know anything firsthand. Betsy
    • Cathy Travlos
      Betsy- Here s the wording from the recommendations of the redistricting committee: Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Betsy-
        Here's the wording from the recommendations of the redistricting committee:

        "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
        redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-resident students
        transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
        implementation process."

        Poor grammar, but I assume this means they are recommending that students
        who currently have transfers will be back at their neighborhood schools
        unless they get a transfer again. All the minutes and recommendations are
        posted at http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/redistrict/index.htm. I'm sure this
        will be a hot topic at the redistricting hearing on Nov. 4 at ECHS.

        Cathy

        At 06:37 PM 10/14/2004, you wrote:


        >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers
        >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it more
        >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
        >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know anything
        >firsthand. Betsy
      • Kevin Rivard
        The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is: Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of redistricting so that
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:

          "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
          redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-resident students
          transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
          implementation process."

          Majority voting process
          Yes=8
          No=6
          Abstain=1
          Total:15

          Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
          Recommendations Update 10/4/04

          During the first year all transfer students at all schools will be sent back
          to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for transfer back to
          their school of transfer without any special privileges and only on a per
          space available. A student who has been going to the school of transfer for
          three years would have the same chance as a student who has never attended
          that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order for the
          new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students and had
          transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school the new
          boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.

          If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope this is clear
          enough and if not please ask for a clarification.

          Kevin

          Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee

          >From: "betsywb@..." <betsywb@...>
          >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
          >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
          >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
          >
          >
          >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers
          >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it more
          >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
          >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know anything
          >firsthand. Betsy

          _________________________________________________________________
          Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
          School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
        • c_cowens
          So, Kevin, Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other votes. What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition to this and
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            So, Kevin,

            Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
            "votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition
            to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?

            As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
            spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
            population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at Downer
            now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
            resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the effect
            of this resolution would have on this understanding?

            Thanks,
            Charley Cowens

            --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
            > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
            >
            > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
            > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-resident
            students
            > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
            > implementation process."
            >
            > Majority voting process
            > Yes=8
            > No=6
            > Abstain=1
            > Total:15
            >
            > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
            > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
            >
            > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will be
            sent back
            > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for transfer
            back to
            > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only on
            a per
            > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
            transfer for
            > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
            attended
            > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
            for the
            > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students and
            had
            > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
            the new
            > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
            >
            > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope this
            is clear
            > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
            >
            > Kevin
            >
            > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
            >
            > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
            > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
            > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
            > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
            > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
            > >
            > >
            > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers
            > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it
            more
            > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
            > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
            anything
            > >firsthand. Betsy
            >
            > _________________________________________________________________
            > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the
            Back to
            > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
          • garzacathy
            I would like to clarify a transfer policy point made by Kevin. It is true that the PAC is recommending that no transfers be grandfathered, as school
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I would like to clarify a transfer policy point made by Kevin. It
              is true that the PAC is recommending that no transfers be
              grandfathered, as school populations were analyzed based
              on "resident" numbers, instead of existing attendance populations
              (which take into account transfers). The PAC DID NOT and IS NOT
              recommending transfer policy; we discussed leaving this up to
              a "Transfer Policy" type of committee after redistricting
              hearings/decisions are made. So Kevin's point about someone who has
              attended a school for 3 years being considered equally as someone
              who has is requesting a transfer for the first time is incorrect.
              The "transfer policy" committee will determine priorities...none of
              these details have been worked out yet.
              Cathy
              Kensington PAC rep
              --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "c_cowens" <c_cowens@y...> wrote:
              >
              > So, Kevin,
              >
              > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
              > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
              opposition
              > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
              >
              > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
              > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
              > population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
              Downer
              > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
              > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
              effect
              > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Charley Cowens
              >
              > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...>
              wrote:
              > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
              > >
              > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
              purposes of
              > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-
              resident
              > students
              > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
              > > implementation process."
              > >
              > > Majority voting process
              > > Yes=8
              > > No=6
              > > Abstain=1
              > > Total:15
              > >
              > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
              > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
              > >
              > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will
              be
              > sent back
              > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
              transfer
              > back to
              > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only
              on
              > a per
              > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
              > transfer for
              > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
              > attended
              > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
              > for the
              > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students
              and
              > had
              > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
              > the new
              > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
              > >
              > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope
              this
              > is clear
              > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
              > >
              > > Kevin
              > >
              > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
              > >
              > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
              > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
              > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
              > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
              > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
              transfers
              > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
              make it
              > more
              > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
              > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
              > anything
              > > >firsthand. Betsy
              > >
              > > _________________________________________________________________
              > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in
              the
              > Back to
              > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
            • Kevin Rivard
              Thank you Cathy. Cathy s point is correct that the final decisions for a revised transfer policy will go through another committee. We did however have a
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Thank you Cathy.

                Cathy's point is correct that the final decisions for a revised transfer
                policy will go through another committee.

                We did however have a discussion and one of the specific questions was the
                example I cited. My point is that for those who are concerned about what
                might be in the new revised transfer policy you should keep your eyes and
                ears open as to when the new committee for revisions is formed and perhaps
                attempt to get on that committee and or go to the meetings to stay on top of
                the changes. Hopefully it will be inclusive of the total community from the
                inception of the committee and not like the redistricting committee where
                the groundwork was laid before the parents were included.

                Kevin

                >From: "garzacathy" <cathygarza@...>
                >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:58 -0000
                >
                >
                >I would like to clarify a transfer policy point made by Kevin. It
                >is true that the PAC is recommending that no transfers be
                >grandfathered, as school populations were analyzed based
                >on "resident" numbers, instead of existing attendance populations
                >(which take into account transfers). The PAC DID NOT and IS NOT
                >recommending transfer policy; we discussed leaving this up to
                >a "Transfer Policy" type of committee after redistricting
                >hearings/decisions are made. So Kevin's point about someone who has
                >attended a school for 3 years being considered equally as someone
                >who has is requesting a transfer for the first time is incorrect.
                >The "transfer policy" committee will determine priorities...none of
                >these details have been worked out yet.
                >Cathy
                >Kensington PAC rep
                >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "c_cowens" <c_cowens@y...> wrote:
                > >
                > > So, Kevin,
                > >
                > > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                > > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                >opposition
                > > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                > >
                > > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                > > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                > > population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
                >Downer
                > > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                > > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                >effect
                > > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                > >
                > > Thanks,
                > > Charley Cowens
                > >
                > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...>
                >wrote:
                > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                > > >
                > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                >purposes of
                > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-
                >resident
                > > students
                > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                > > > implementation process."
                > > >
                > > > Majority voting process
                > > > Yes=8
                > > > No=6
                > > > Abstain=1
                > > > Total:15
                > > >
                > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                > > >
                > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will
                >be
                > > sent back
                > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                >transfer
                > > back to
                > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only
                >on
                > > a per
                > > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                > > transfer for
                > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                > > attended
                > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                > > for the
                > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students
                >and
                > > had
                > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                > > the new
                > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                > > >
                > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope
                >this
                > > is clear
                > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                > > >
                > > > Kevin
                > > >
                > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                > > >
                > > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                >transfers
                > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                >make it
                > > more
                > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                > > anything
                > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                > > >
                > > > _________________________________________________________________
                > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in
                >the
                > > Back to
                > > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                >
                >
                >

                _________________________________________________________________
                Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
                School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
              • c_cowens
                Kevin- Everything from the PAC is a recommendation. This is one of those recommendations listed just like all of the other recommendations in the official
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Kevin-

                  Everything from the PAC is a recommendation. This is one of those
                  recommendations listed just like all of the other recommendations in
                  the official document of recommendations available online. (Someone
                  should proofread the wording of these things.) I understand that this
                  is a recommendation for a temporary not a permanent change in transfer
                  policy.

                  Anyway, if you could help me, I would still like to know:

                  * More about the discussion pro and con for Recommendation #10
                  * Whether as part of this discussion there was any mention of
                  pre-existing things like the Downer understanding I brought up

                  Charley Cowens

                  --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
                  > Thank you Cathy.
                  >
                  > Cathy's point is correct that the final decisions for a revised
                  transfer
                  > policy will go through another committee.
                  >
                  > We did however have a discussion and one of the specific questions
                  was the
                  > example I cited. My point is that for those who are concerned about
                  what
                  > might be in the new revised transfer policy you should keep your
                  eyes and
                  > ears open as to when the new committee for revisions is formed and
                  perhaps
                  > attempt to get on that committee and or go to the meetings to stay
                  on top of
                  > the changes. Hopefully it will be inclusive of the total community
                  from the
                  > inception of the committee and not like the redistricting committee
                  where
                  > the groundwork was laid before the parents were included.
                  >
                  > Kevin
                  >
                  > >From: "garzacathy" <cathygarza@s...>
                  > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                  > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                  > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:16:58 -0000
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >I would like to clarify a transfer policy point made by Kevin. It
                  > >is true that the PAC is recommending that no transfers be
                  > >grandfathered, as school populations were analyzed based
                  > >on "resident" numbers, instead of existing attendance populations
                  > >(which take into account transfers). The PAC DID NOT and IS NOT
                  > >recommending transfer policy; we discussed leaving this up to
                  > >a "Transfer Policy" type of committee after redistricting
                  > >hearings/decisions are made. So Kevin's point about someone who has
                  > >attended a school for 3 years being considered equally as someone
                  > >who has is requesting a transfer for the first time is incorrect.
                  > >The "transfer policy" committee will determine priorities...none of
                  > >these details have been worked out yet.
                  > >Cathy
                  > >Kensington PAC rep
                  > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "c_cowens" <c_cowens@y...> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > So, Kevin,
                  > > >
                  > > > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                  > > > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                  > >opposition
                  > > > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                  > > >
                  > > > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                  > > > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                  > > > population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
                  > >Downer
                  > > > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                  > > > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                  > >effect
                  > > > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                  > > >
                  > > > Thanks,
                  > > > Charley Cowens
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...>
                  > >wrote:
                  > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                  > >purposes of
                  > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-
                  > >resident
                  > > > students
                  > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                  > > > > implementation process."
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Majority voting process
                  > > > > Yes=8
                  > > > > No=6
                  > > > > Abstain=1
                  > > > > Total:15
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                  > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                  > > > >
                  > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will
                  > >be
                  > > > sent back
                  > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                  > >transfer
                  > > > back to
                  > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only
                  > >on
                  > > > a per
                  > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                  > > > transfer for
                  > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                  > > > attended
                  > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                  > > > for the
                  > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students
                  > >and
                  > > > had
                  > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                  > > > the new
                  > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope
                  > >this
                  > > > is clear
                  > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Kevin
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                  > > > >
                  > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                  > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                  > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                  > >transfers
                  > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                  > >make it
                  > > > more
                  > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                  > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                  > > > anything
                  > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                  > > > >
                  > > > > _________________________________________________________________
                  > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in
                  > >the
                  > > > Back to
                  > > > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  > _________________________________________________________________
                  > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the
                  Back to
                  > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                • Kevin Rivard
                  Charley, The following is my opinion and not that of the committee. This committee was set up to give the district cover to close schools. The had hoped that
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Charley,

                    The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.

                    This committee was set up to give the district cover to close schools. The
                    had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with the same
                    conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.

                    When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us decide that
                    the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes or no vote
                    because the group could come to a consensus without a great deal of
                    animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put their
                    opinion and still feel comfortable.

                    With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the questions were
                    more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group whittled
                    its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more complex and
                    difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to me on one
                    question there was no movement because some felt they could not vote in any
                    of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were having is
                    that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we should make
                    a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.

                    Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons for closing
                    schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we voted on
                    those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had previously voted to
                    close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never voted on by the
                    group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote, rescind it and
                    revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created reasons that now
                    had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                    undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close Seaview and
                    might not now be present. I argued that had we the same standards for
                    closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have merit but
                    since we're now going forward with different reasoning for closure it just
                    made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure the new
                    rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while longer and when
                    no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview closure,
                    my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview closure
                    using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded in the
                    recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some of the
                    votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of rescission
                    was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was decided to go
                    with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the gradation voting
                    could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of voting, so
                    another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is recorded in the
                    10/4/04 document.

                    When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up on 10/4/04
                    (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a gradation
                    vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had missed the
                    meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we have changed
                    the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were now using
                    another standard.

                    Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your question, >Why
                    was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other "votes."

                    In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive answers that
                    could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and when a
                    vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For instance,
                    Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of Fairmont.
                    When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure unconditionally. 7
                    of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was prior to
                    level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in particular, is saying
                    the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been yes/no it would
                    have had a different outcome. But now it is open to interpretation.

                    The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability in the kids
                    education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that. Others can
                    chime in please.

                    As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this will be
                    decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general discussion
                    from our group was everyone should go back to their resident school to be
                    fair to everyone.

                    I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on what happened
                    and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of the groups
                    opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even attended as
                    public members that are interested will respond.

                    Again, this is my opinion, only.

                    Kevin

                    >From: "c_cowens" <c_cowens@...>
                    >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                    >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                    >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                    >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                    >
                    >
                    >So, Kevin,
                    >
                    >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                    >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition
                    >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                    >
                    >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                    >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                    >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at Downer
                    >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                    >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the effect
                    >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                    >
                    >Thanks,
                    >Charley Cowens
                    >
                    >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
                    > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                    > >
                    > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
                    > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-resident
                    >students
                    > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                    > > implementation process."
                    > >
                    > > Majority voting process
                    > > Yes=8
                    > > No=6
                    > > Abstain=1
                    > > Total:15
                    > >
                    > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                    > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                    > >
                    > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will be
                    >sent back
                    > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for transfer
                    >back to
                    > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only on
                    >a per
                    > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                    >transfer for
                    > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                    >attended
                    > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                    >for the
                    > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students and
                    >had
                    > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                    >the new
                    > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                    > >
                    > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope this
                    >is clear
                    > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                    > >
                    > > Kevin
                    > >
                    > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                    > >
                    > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                    > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                    > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                    > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                    > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers
                    > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it
                    >more
                    > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                    > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                    >anything
                    > > >firsthand. Betsy
                    > >
                    > > _________________________________________________________________
                    > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the
                    >Back to
                    > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                    http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                  • rcs101@att.net
                    --Kevin: Thanks for your interpretation of the committee s voting process. I must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 15, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --Kevin:

                      Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting process. I must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that was so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community to be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will do most anything to confuse the involvement process.

                      Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear about the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change the transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights. (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school, they may remain at that school until they have completed the highest grade level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the same applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the district plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the parents will win every time if they file a complaint.

                      It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this district. The re-districting should have been done before they started building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers to students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.

                      Scottie Smith




                      -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" : --------------

                      >
                      > Charley,
                      >
                      > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                      >
                      > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close schools. The
                      > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with the same
                      > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.
                      >
                      > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us decide that
                      > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes or no vote
                      > because the group could come to a consensus without a great deal of
                      > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put their
                      > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                      >
                      > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the questions were
                      > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group whittled
                      > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more complex and
                      > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to me on one
                      > question there was no movement because some felt they could not vote in any
                      > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were having is
                      > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we should make
                      > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                      >
                      > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons for closing
                      > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we voted on
                      > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had previously voted to
                      > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never voted on by the
                      > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote, rescind it and
                      > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created reasons that now
                      > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                      > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close Seaview and
                      > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same standards for
                      > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have merit but
                      > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for closure it just
                      > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure the new
                      > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while longer and when
                      > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview closure,
                      > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview closure
                      > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded in the
                      > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some of the
                      > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of rescission
                      > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was decided to go
                      > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the gradation voting
                      > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of voting, so
                      > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is recorded in the
                      > 10/4/04 document.
                      >
                      > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up on 10/4/04
                      > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a gradation
                      > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had missed the
                      > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we have changed
                      > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were now using
                      > another standard.
                      >
                      > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your question, >Why
                      > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other "votes."
                      >
                      > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive answers that
                      > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and when a
                      > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For instance,
                      > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of Fairmont.
                      > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure unconditionally. 7
                      > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was prior to
                      > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in particular, is saying
                      > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been yes/no it would
                      > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to interpretation.
                      >
                      > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability in the kids
                      > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that. Others can
                      > chime in please.
                      >
                      > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this will be
                      > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general discussion
                      > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident school to be
                      > fair to everyone.
                      >
                      > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on what happened
                      > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of the groups
                      > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even attended as
                      > public members that are interested will respond.
                      >
                      > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                      >
                      > Kevin
                      >
                      > >From: "c_cowens"
                      > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                      > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                      > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                      > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >So, Kevin,
                      > >
                      > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                      > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition
                      > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                      > >
                      > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                      > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                      > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at Downer
                      > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                      > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the effect
                      > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                      > >
                      > >Thanks,
                      > >Charley Cowens
                      > >
                      > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                      > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                      > > >
                      > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for purposes of
                      > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of non-resident
                      > >students
                      > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                      > > > implementation process."
                      > > >
                      > > > Majority voting process
                      > > > Yes=8
                      > > > No=6
                      > > > Abstain=1
                      > > > Total:15
                      > > >
                      > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                      > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                      > > >
                      > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools will be
                      > >sent back
                      > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for transfer
                      > >back to
                      > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and only on
                      > >a per
                      > > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                      > >transfer for
                      > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                      > >attended
                      > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                      > >for the
                      > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident students and
                      > >had
                      > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                      > >the new
                      > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                      > > >
                      > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope this
                      > >is clear
                      > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                      > > >
                      > > > Kevin
                      > > >
                      > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                      > > >
                      > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                      > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                      > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on transfers
                      > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to make it
                      > >more
                      > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                      > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                      > >anything
                      > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                      > > >
                      > > > _________________________________________________________________
                      > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the
                      > >Back to
                      > > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      > _________________________________________________________________
                      > Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                      > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • betsywb@juno.com
                      Also, Kevin, would all transfers be prohibited for the first year after redistricting (2005-2006?) or would this reapplication process for transfers occur in
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 16, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Also, Kevin, would all transfers be prohibited for the first year after redistricting (2005-2006?) or would this reapplication process for transfers occur in the summer of 2005 for 2005-2006? Or what timing is intended?
                      • Eduardo Martinez
                        In the discussions of the size of the school and the effects of redistricting, not only the parents, but also the staff at Downer was told that students
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 16, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In the discussions of the size of the school and the
                          effects of redistricting, not only the parents, but
                          also the staff at Downer was told that students
                          currently at Downer would contimue to go there. We
                          are very aware that the district has a short memory,
                          but we do not. We will not accept any more broken
                          promises.

                          Downer teacher,
                          Eduardo

                          --- c_cowens <c_cowens@...> wrote:

                          >
                          > So, Kevin,
                          >
                          > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed
                          > to the other
                          > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the
                          > 6/15 opposition
                          > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                          >
                          > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent
                          > activist last
                          > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about
                          > lowering the
                          > population at Downer that anyone currently going to
                          > school at Downer
                          > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no
                          > matter what the
                          > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you
                          > think the effect
                          > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > Charley Cowens
                          >
                          > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard"
                          > <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
                          > > The number 10 recommendation from the
                          > Redistricting Committee is:
                          > >
                          > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be
                          > amended for purposes of
                          > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering"
                          > of non-resident
                          > students
                          > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                          > redistricting
                          > > implementation process."
                          > >
                          > > Majority voting process
                          > > Yes=8
                          > > No=6
                          > > Abstain=1
                          > > Total:15
                          > >
                          > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory
                          > Committee (PAC)
                          > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                          > >
                          > > During the first year all transfer students at all
                          > schools will be
                          > sent back
                          > > to their resident schools and they will have to
                          > reapply for transfer
                          > back to
                          > > their school of transfer without any special
                          > privileges and only on
                          > a per
                          > > space available. A student who has been going to
                          > the school of
                          > transfer for
                          > > three years would have the same chance as a
                          > student who has never
                          > attended
                          > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this
                          > was that in order
                          > for the
                          > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on
                          > resident students and
                          > had
                          > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the
                          > transfer school
                          > the new
                          > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                          > >
                          > > If you have any other questions please send them
                          > along. I hope this
                          > is clear
                          > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                          > >
                          > > Kevin
                          > >
                          > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent
                          > Advisory Committee
                          > >
                          > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                          > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                          > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the
                          > policy on transfers
                          > > >within the school district? Someone told me that
                          > changes to make it
                          > more
                          > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were
                          > broached by the
                          > > >administration via the redistricting committee,
                          > but I don't know
                          > anything
                          > > >firsthand. Betsy
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          _________________________________________________________________
                          > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help
                          > and more in the
                          > Back to
                          > > School Guide!
                          > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                        • Glen Price
                          Vince: Good morning! I am attaching below several messages below regarding the Parent Advisory Committee¹s recommendation on changes in transfer policy as it
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 17, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Vince:

                            Good morning!

                            I am attaching below several messages below regarding the Parent Advisory
                            Committee¹s recommendation on changes in transfer policy as it relates to
                            Downer Elementary School and commitments made there by staff last Spring.

                            Obviously, the whole issue of changes in transfer policy in this regard is
                            something that has yet to be taken up by the board and I am looking forward
                            to our study session on 11/4 as an opportunity for discussion and dialogue
                            on this topic. In the meantime, could you clarify the impact of staff and
                            PAC recommendations for Downer school?

                            Many thanks.

                            Glen Price
                            Member, Board of Education
                            ------ Forwarded Message
                            From: Eduardo Martinez <ezedmartin@...>
                            Reply-To: <wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com>
                            Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
                            To: <wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: Re: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy

                            In the discussions of the size of the school and the
                            effects of redistricting, not only the parents, but
                            also the staff at Downer was told that students
                            currently at Downer would contimue to go there. We
                            are very aware that the district has a short memory,
                            but we do not. We will not accept any more broken
                            promises.

                            Downer teacher,
                            Eduardo

                            --- c_cowens <c_cowens@...> wrote:

                            >
                            > So, Kevin,
                            >
                            > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed
                            > to the other
                            > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the
                            > 6/15 opposition
                            > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                            >
                            > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent
                            > activist last
                            > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about
                            > lowering the
                            > population at Downer that anyone currently going to
                            > school at Downer
                            > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no
                            > matter what the
                            > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you
                            > think the effect
                            > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            > Charley Cowens
                            >
                            > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard"
                            > <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
                            > > The number 10 recommendation from the
                            > Redistricting Committee is:
                            > >
                            > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be
                            > amended for purposes of
                            > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering"
                            > of non-resident
                            > students
                            > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                            > redistricting
                            > > implementation process."
                            > >
                            > > Majority voting process
                            > > Yes=8
                            > > No=6
                            > > Abstain=1
                            > > Total:15
                            > >
                            > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory
                            > Committee (PAC)
                            > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                            > >
                            > > During the first year all transfer students at all
                            > schools will be
                            > sent back
                            > > to their resident schools and they will have to
                            > reapply for transfer
                            > back to
                            > > their school of transfer without any special
                            > privileges and only on
                            > a per
                            > > space available. A student who has been going to
                            > the school of
                            > transfer for
                            > > three years would have the same chance as a
                            > student who has never
                            > attended
                            > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this
                            > was that in order
                            > for the
                            > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on
                            > resident students and
                            > had
                            > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the
                            > transfer school
                            > the new
                            > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                            > >
                            > > If you have any other questions please send them
                            > along. I hope this
                            > is clear
                            > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                            > >
                            > > Kevin
                            > >
                            > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent
                            > Advisory Committee
                            > >
                            > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                            > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                            > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the
                            > policy on transfers
                            > > >within the school district? Someone told me that
                            > changes to make it
                            > more
                            > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were
                            > broached by the
                            > > >administration via the redistricting committee,
                            > but I don't know
                            > anything
                            > > >firsthand. Betsy
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            _________________________________________________________________
                            > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help
                            > and more in the
                            > Back to
                            > > School Guide!
                            > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com

                            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

                            ADVERTISEMENT
                            <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12963maqk/M=315388.5500238.6578046.3001176/D=g
                            roups/S=1705946590:HM/EXP=1098068178/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https://ww
                            w.orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS>


                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                            * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
                            *
                            * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            * wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            <mailto:wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                            *
                            * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                            ------ End of Forwarded Message



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • c_cowens
                            Scottie- I can t find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District from implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing intra-district
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 18, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Scottie-

                              I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District from
                              implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                              intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?

                              Charley Cowens

                              --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --Kevin:
                              >
                              > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting process. I
                              must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                              parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that was
                              so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community to
                              be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will do
                              most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                              >
                              > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear about
                              the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change the
                              transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                              (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school, they
                              may remain at that school until they have completed the highest grade
                              level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the same
                              applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the district
                              plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                              parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                              >
                              > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                              district. The re-districting should have been done before they started
                              building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the
                              larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                              district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers to
                              students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                              >
                              > Scottie Smith
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" : --------------
                              >
                              > >
                              > > Charley,
                              > >
                              > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                              > >
                              > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                              schools. The
                              > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with
                              the same
                              > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.
                              > >
                              > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us
                              decide that
                              > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes
                              or no vote
                              > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great deal of
                              > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put
                              their
                              > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                              > >
                              > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                              questions were
                              > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group
                              whittled
                              > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more complex and
                              > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to me on
                              one
                              > > question there was no movement because some felt they could not
                              vote in any
                              > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were
                              having is
                              > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we
                              should make
                              > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                              > >
                              > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons for
                              closing
                              > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we
                              voted on
                              > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                              previously voted to
                              > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never voted
                              on by the
                              > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote, rescind
                              it and
                              > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                              reasons that now
                              > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                              > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close
                              Seaview and
                              > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same standards for
                              > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have
                              merit but
                              > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for closure
                              it just
                              > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure
                              the new
                              > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while longer
                              and when
                              > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview
                              closure,
                              > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview
                              closure
                              > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded in the
                              > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some
                              of the
                              > > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of
                              rescission
                              > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                              decided to go
                              > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                              gradation voting
                              > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of
                              voting, so
                              > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is recorded
                              in the
                              > > 10/4/04 document.
                              > >
                              > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up
                              on 10/4/04
                              > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a
                              gradation
                              > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had
                              missed the
                              > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we have
                              changed
                              > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were
                              now using
                              > > another standard.
                              > >
                              > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                              question, >Why
                              > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other "votes."
                              > >
                              > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                              answers that
                              > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and when a
                              > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For
                              instance,
                              > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of
                              Fairmont.
                              > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                              unconditionally. 7
                              > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was
                              prior to
                              > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in particular,
                              is saying
                              > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been yes/no it
                              would
                              > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to interpretation.
                              > >
                              > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability
                              in the kids
                              > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that.
                              Others can
                              > > chime in please.
                              > >
                              > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this
                              will be
                              > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general
                              discussion
                              > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                              school to be
                              > > fair to everyone.
                              > >
                              > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on what
                              happened
                              > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of
                              the groups
                              > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                              attended as
                              > > public members that are interested will respond.
                              > >
                              > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                              > >
                              > > Kevin
                              > >
                              > > >From: "c_cowens"
                              > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                              > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                              > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                              > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >So, Kevin,
                              > > >
                              > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                              > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition
                              > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                              > > >
                              > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                              > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                              > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at Downer
                              > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                              > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                              effect
                              > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                              > > >
                              > > >Thanks,
                              > > >Charley Cowens
                              > > >
                              > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                              > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                              purposes of
                              > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                              non-resident
                              > > >students
                              > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                              > > > > implementation process."
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Majority voting process
                              > > > > Yes=8
                              > > > > No=6
                              > > > > Abstain=1
                              > > > > Total:15
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                              > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                              > > > >
                              > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools
                              will be
                              > > >sent back
                              > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                              transfer
                              > > >back to
                              > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and
                              only on
                              > > >a per
                              > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                              > > >transfer for
                              > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                              > > >attended
                              > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                              > > >for the
                              > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                              students and
                              > > >had
                              > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                              > > >the new
                              > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope
                              this
                              > > >is clear
                              > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Kevin
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                              > > > >
                              > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                              > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                              > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                              transfers
                              > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                              make it
                              > > >more
                              > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                              > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                              > > >anything
                              > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                              > > > >
                              > > > > _________________________________________________________________
                              > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in
                              the
                              > > >Back to
                              > > > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > > _________________________________________________________________
                              > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                              > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                            • Jennifer E. Felix
                              Charlie: According to my spec. ed. handbook, both of my children have IEP s which both state they are to attend a school out of our area. As Scottie said,
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 19, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Charlie:

                                According to my spec. ed. handbook, both of my children have IEP's
                                which both state they are to attend a school out of our area. As
                                Scottie said, when I file my complaint to keep my kids' transfers I
                                will win. Even the districts own handbook sent home with every kid
                                states "Q: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer
                                remain in effect?

                                A: An approved transfer will remain in effect only as long as the
                                student's attendance, grades and behavior are satisfactory and until
                                the highest grade at the school of attendance

                                Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an
                                approved transfer will attend his/her middle school of residence
                                after completion of the 5th grade.

                                Example: A student who attends a 6-8 middle school on an approved
                                transfer will attend his/her high school of residence after
                                completion of the 8th grade."

                                This comes directly from the district's own website and FAQ page on
                                transfers. So the district will be in direct violation of their own
                                handbook if they recind any transfers, PERIOD!!! No excuses, No
                                exceptions!!



                                --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "c_cowens" <c_cowens@y...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Scottie-
                                >
                                > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District
                                from
                                > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                >
                                > Charley Cowens
                                >
                                > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --Kevin:
                                > >
                                > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting
                                process. I
                                > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that
                                was
                                > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community
                                to
                                > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will
                                do
                                > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                > >
                                > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear
                                about
                                > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change
                                the
                                > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school,
                                they
                                > may remain at that school until they have completed the highest
                                grade
                                > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the
                                same
                                > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the
                                district
                                > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                > >
                                > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                > district. The re-districting should have been done before they
                                started
                                > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the
                                > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                > district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers
                                to
                                > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                > >
                                > > Scottie Smith
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" : -----------
                                ---
                                > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Charley,
                                > > >
                                > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                > > >
                                > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                > schools. The
                                > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up
                                with
                                > the same
                                > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year
                                ago.
                                > > >
                                > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us
                                > decide that
                                > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a
                                yes
                                > or no vote
                                > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great
                                deal of
                                > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to
                                put
                                > their
                                > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                > > >
                                > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                > questions were
                                > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the
                                group
                                > whittled
                                > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more
                                complex and
                                > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to
                                me on
                                > one
                                > > > question there was no movement because some felt they could not
                                > vote in any
                                > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were
                                > having is
                                > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we
                                > should make
                                > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                > > >
                                > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons
                                for
                                > closing
                                > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and
                                we
                                > voted on
                                > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                > previously voted to
                                > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never
                                voted
                                > on by the
                                > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote,
                                rescind
                                > it and
                                > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                > reasons that now
                                > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I
                                was
                                > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to
                                close
                                > Seaview and
                                > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same
                                standards for
                                > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have
                                > merit but
                                > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for
                                closure
                                > it just
                                > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make
                                sure
                                > the new
                                > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while
                                longer
                                > and when
                                > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the
                                Seaview
                                > closure,
                                > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of
                                Seaview
                                > closure
                                > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded
                                in the
                                > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like
                                some
                                > of the
                                > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of
                                > rescission
                                > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                > decided to go
                                > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                > gradation voting
                                > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels
                                of
                                > voting, so
                                > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is
                                recorded
                                > in the
                                > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                > > >
                                > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came
                                up
                                > on 10/4/04
                                > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to
                                take a
                                > gradation
                                > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who
                                had
                                > missed the
                                > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we
                                have
                                > changed
                                > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we
                                were
                                > now using
                                > > > another standard.
                                > > >
                                > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                > question, >Why
                                > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the
                                other "votes."
                                > > >
                                > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                > answers that
                                > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and
                                when a
                                > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used.
                                For
                                > instance,
                                > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure
                                of
                                > Fairmont.
                                > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                > unconditionally. 7
                                > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This
                                was
                                > prior to
                                > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in
                                particular,
                                > is saying
                                > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been
                                yes/no it
                                > would
                                > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to
                                interpretation.
                                > > >
                                > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness,
                                instability
                                > in the kids
                                > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like
                                that.
                                > Others can
                                > > > chime in please.
                                > > >
                                > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post
                                this
                                > will be
                                > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the
                                general
                                > discussion
                                > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                > school to be
                                > > > fair to everyone.
                                > > >
                                > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on
                                what
                                > happened
                                > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority
                                of
                                > the groups
                                > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                > attended as
                                > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                > > >
                                > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                > > >
                                > > > Kevin
                                > > >
                                > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >So, Kevin,
                                > > > >
                                > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the
                                other
                                > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                                opposition
                                > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                > > > >
                                > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist
                                last
                                > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
                                Downer
                                > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter
                                what the
                                > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                                > effect
                                > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                > > > >
                                > > > >Thanks,
                                > > > >Charley Cowens
                                > > > >
                                > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting
                                Committee is:
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                                > purposes of
                                > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                > non-resident
                                > > > >students
                                > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                redistricting
                                > > > > > implementation process."
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Majority voting process
                                > > > > > Yes=8
                                > > > > > No=6
                                > > > > > Abstain=1
                                > > > > > Total:15
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee
                                (PAC)
                                > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools
                                > will be
                                > > > >sent back
                                > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                                > transfer
                                > > > >back to
                                > > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and
                                > only on
                                > > > >a per
                                > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the
                                school of
                                > > > >transfer for
                                > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who
                                has never
                                > > > >attended
                                > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that
                                in order
                                > > > >for the
                                > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                > students and
                                > > > >had
                                > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer
                                school
                                > > > >the new
                                > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I
                                hope
                                > this
                                > > > >is clear
                                > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Kevin
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory
                                Committee
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy
                                on
                                > transfers
                                > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes
                                to
                                > make it
                                > > > >more
                                > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached
                                by the
                                > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I
                                don't know
                                > > > >anything
                                > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                _________________________________________________________________
                                > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and
                                more in
                                > the
                                > > > >Back to
                                > > > > > School Guide!
                                http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                _________________________________________________________________
                                > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > >
                              • rcs101@att.net
                                --Charley: Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies: WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office (August 21, 2001) Frequently
                                Message 15 of 20 , Oct 19, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --Charley:

                                  Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies:

                                  WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office (August 21, 2001)
                                  "Frequently Asked Question About the WCCUSD Open Enrollment Process" Page 2,

                                  Question: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer remain in effect?

                                  A: An approved school transfer will remain in effect as long as the student's attendance and behavior are satisfactory, and until the highest grade at the school of attendance.

                                  Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an approved transfer will attend his or her middle school or residence after completion of the 5th grade.

                                  It continues on with middle and high school examples.

                                  On page 5 of manual it also states in a chart that Intradistrict transfer (residence of WCCUSD) require a renewal during school year of highest grade at school. I have a couple of copies of manual.

                                  WCCUSD Board Policy 5116.1(a) (Intradistrict Open Enrollment, BP 5116.1(b) Enrollment Priorities: Note after item 6, "Once enrolled a student shall not have to apply for readmission while at that school". I received a copie of this board policy on June 18, 02, via fax.

                                  For those that are interested in Interdistrict transfers please not Ed. Code 48209-48209.16.

                                  I think this should be enough citations to get you started, also, the WCCUSD Manuel has other refercences to ed. code as does the Board Policies.

                                  So, unless something has changed which I am not aware, this is the lastest information.





                                  Scottie Smith




                                  -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------

                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Scottie-
                                  >
                                  > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District from
                                  > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                  > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                  >
                                  > Charley Cowens
                                  >
                                  > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --Kevin:
                                  > >
                                  > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting process. I
                                  > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                  > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that was
                                  > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community to
                                  > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will do
                                  > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                  > >
                                  > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear about
                                  > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change the
                                  > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                  > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school, they
                                  > may remain at that school until they have completed the highest grade
                                  > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the same
                                  > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the district
                                  > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                  > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                  > >
                                  > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                  > district. The re-districting should have been done before they started
                                  > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the
                                  > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                  > district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers to
                                  > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                  > >
                                  > > Scottie Smith
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" : --------------
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Charley,
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                  > schools. The
                                  > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with
                                  > the same
                                  > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us
                                  > decide that
                                  > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes
                                  > or no vote
                                  > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great deal of
                                  > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put
                                  > their
                                  > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                  > questions were
                                  > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group
                                  > whittled
                                  > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more complex and
                                  > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to me on
                                  > one
                                  > > > question there was no movement because some felt they could not
                                  > vote in any
                                  > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were
                                  > having is
                                  > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we
                                  > should make
                                  > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons for
                                  > closing
                                  > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we
                                  > voted on
                                  > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                  > previously voted to
                                  > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never voted
                                  > on by the
                                  > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote, rescind
                                  > it and
                                  > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                  > reasons that now
                                  > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                                  > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close
                                  > Seaview and
                                  > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same standards for
                                  > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have
                                  > merit but
                                  > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for closure
                                  > it just
                                  > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure
                                  > the new
                                  > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while longer
                                  > and when
                                  > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview
                                  > closure,
                                  > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview
                                  > closure
                                  > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded in the
                                  > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some
                                  > of the
                                  > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of
                                  > rescission
                                  > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                  > decided to go
                                  > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                  > gradation voting
                                  > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of
                                  > voting, so
                                  > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is recorded
                                  > in the
                                  > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up
                                  > on 10/4/04
                                  > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a
                                  > gradation
                                  > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had
                                  > missed the
                                  > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we have
                                  > changed
                                  > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were
                                  > now using
                                  > > > another standard.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                  > question, >Why
                                  > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other "votes."
                                  > > >
                                  > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                  > answers that
                                  > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and when a
                                  > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For
                                  > instance,
                                  > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of
                                  > Fairmont.
                                  > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                  > unconditionally. 7
                                  > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was
                                  > prior to
                                  > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in particular,
                                  > is saying
                                  > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been yes/no it
                                  > would
                                  > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to interpretation.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability
                                  > in the kids
                                  > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that.
                                  > Others can
                                  > > > chime in please.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this
                                  > will be
                                  > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general
                                  > discussion
                                  > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                  > school to be
                                  > > > fair to everyone.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on what
                                  > happened
                                  > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of
                                  > the groups
                                  > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                  > attended as
                                  > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Kevin
                                  > > >
                                  > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                  > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                  > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >So, Kevin,
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                  > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15 opposition
                                  > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                                  > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                  > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at Downer
                                  > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter what the
                                  > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                                  > effect
                                  > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >Thanks,
                                  > > > >Charley Cowens
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                  > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting Committee is:
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                                  > purposes of
                                  > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                  > non-resident
                                  > > > >students
                                  > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the redistricting
                                  > > > > > implementation process."
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Majority voting process
                                  > > > > > Yes=8
                                  > > > > > No=6
                                  > > > > > Abstain=1
                                  > > > > > Total:15
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee (PAC)
                                  > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools
                                  > will be
                                  > > > >sent back
                                  > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                                  > transfer
                                  > > > >back to
                                  > > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and
                                  > only on
                                  > > > >a per
                                  > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the school of
                                  > > > >transfer for
                                  > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who has never
                                  > > > >attended
                                  > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that in order
                                  > > > >for the
                                  > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                  > students and
                                  > > > >had
                                  > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer school
                                  > > > >the new
                                  > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I hope
                                  > this
                                  > > > >is clear
                                  > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Kevin
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                  > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                  > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >
                                  > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                                  > transfers
                                  > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                                  > make it
                                  > > > >more
                                  > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached by the
                                  > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I don't know
                                  > > > >anything
                                  > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > _________________________________________________________________
                                  > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in
                                  > the
                                  > > > >Back to
                                  > > > > > School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > _________________________________________________________________
                                  > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                  > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • c_cowens
                                  Scottie- It doesn t matter what current District-level policy and documents say. Recommendation #10 is intended to be adopted by the Board as a (temporary)
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Oct 19, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Scottie-

                                    It doesn't matter what current District-level policy and documents
                                    say. Recommendation #10 is intended to be adopted by the Board as a
                                    (temporary) change in District-level policy.

                                    The key is what the State Ed. Code says about anything like Rec. #10.
                                    I think I found what you were thinking of...maybe. It's 35160.5.(b) .
                                    Here's the beginning of it:

                                    35160.5. (b) (1) On or before July 1, 1994, the governing board of each
                                    school district shall, as a condition for the receipt of school
                                    apportionments from the state school fund, adopt rules and
                                    regulations establishing a policy of open enrollment within the
                                    district for residents of the district. This requirement does not
                                    apply to any school district that has only one school or any school
                                    district with schools that do not serve any of the same grade levels.

                                    (2) The policy shall include all of the following elements:
                                    (A) It shall provide that the parent or guardian of each schoolage
                                    child who is a resident in the district may select the schools the
                                    child shall attend, irrespective of the particular locations of his
                                    or her residence within the district, except that school districts
                                    shall retain the authority to maintain appropriate racial and ethnic
                                    balances among their respective schools at the school districts'
                                    discretion or as specified in applicable court-ordered or voluntary
                                    desegregation plans.

                                    Charley Cowens


                                    --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --Charley:
                                    >
                                    > Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies:
                                    >
                                    > WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office
                                    (August 21, 2001)
                                    > "Frequently Asked Question About the WCCUSD Open Enrollment Process"
                                    Page 2,
                                    >
                                    > Question: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer
                                    remain in effect?
                                    >
                                    > A: An approved school transfer will remain in effect as long as the
                                    student's attendance and behavior are satisfactory, and until the
                                    highest grade at the school of attendance.
                                    >
                                    > Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an
                                    approved transfer will attend his or her middle school or residence
                                    after completion of the 5th grade.
                                    >
                                    > It continues on with middle and high school examples.
                                    >
                                    > On page 5 of manual it also states in a chart that Intradistrict
                                    transfer (residence of WCCUSD) require a renewal during school year of
                                    highest grade at school. I have a couple of copies of manual.
                                    >
                                    > WCCUSD Board Policy 5116.1(a) (Intradistrict Open Enrollment, BP
                                    5116.1(b) Enrollment Priorities: Note after item 6, "Once enrolled a
                                    student shall not have to apply for readmission while at that school".
                                    I received a copie of this board policy on June 18, 02, via fax.
                                    >
                                    > For those that are interested in Interdistrict transfers please not
                                    Ed. Code 48209-48209.16.
                                    >
                                    > I think this should be enough citations to get you started, also,
                                    the WCCUSD Manuel has other refercences to ed. code as does the Board
                                    Policies.
                                    >
                                    > So, unless something has changed which I am not aware, this is the
                                    lastest information.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Scottie Smith
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Scottie-
                                    > >
                                    > > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District from
                                    > > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                    > > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                    > >
                                    > > Charley Cowens
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --Kevin:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting process. I
                                    > > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                    > > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that was
                                    > > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community to
                                    > > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will do
                                    > > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear about
                                    > > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change
                                    the
                                    > > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                    > > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school,
                                    they
                                    > > may remain at that school until they have completed the highest grade
                                    > > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the
                                    same
                                    > > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the district
                                    > > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                    > > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                    > > district. The re-districting should have been done before they
                                    started
                                    > > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the
                                    > > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                    > > district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers to
                                    > > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Scottie Smith
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" :
                                    --------------
                                    > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Charley,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                    > > schools. The
                                    > > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with
                                    > > the same
                                    > > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us
                                    > > decide that
                                    > > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes
                                    > > or no vote
                                    > > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great
                                    deal of
                                    > > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put
                                    > > their
                                    > > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                    > > questions were
                                    > > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group
                                    > > whittled
                                    > > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more
                                    complex and
                                    > > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to
                                    me on
                                    > > one
                                    > > > > question there was no movement because some felt they could not
                                    > > vote in any
                                    > > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were
                                    > > having is
                                    > > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we
                                    > > should make
                                    > > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons
                                    for
                                    > > closing
                                    > > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we
                                    > > voted on
                                    > > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                    > > previously voted to
                                    > > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never
                                    voted
                                    > > on by the
                                    > > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote,
                                    rescind
                                    > > it and
                                    > > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                    > > reasons that now
                                    > > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                                    > > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close
                                    > > Seaview and
                                    > > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same
                                    standards for
                                    > > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have
                                    > > merit but
                                    > > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for
                                    closure
                                    > > it just
                                    > > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure
                                    > > the new
                                    > > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while
                                    longer
                                    > > and when
                                    > > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview
                                    > > closure,
                                    > > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview
                                    > > closure
                                    > > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded
                                    in the
                                    > > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some
                                    > > of the
                                    > > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of
                                    > > rescission
                                    > > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                    > > decided to go
                                    > > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                    > > gradation voting
                                    > > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of
                                    > > voting, so
                                    > > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is
                                    recorded
                                    > > in the
                                    > > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up
                                    > > on 10/4/04
                                    > > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a
                                    > > gradation
                                    > > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had
                                    > > missed the
                                    > > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we
                                    have
                                    > > changed
                                    > > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were
                                    > > now using
                                    > > > > another standard.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                    > > question, >Why
                                    > > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                    "votes."
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                    > > answers that
                                    > > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and
                                    when a
                                    > > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For
                                    > > instance,
                                    > > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of
                                    > > Fairmont.
                                    > > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                    > > unconditionally. 7
                                    > > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was
                                    > > prior to
                                    > > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in
                                    particular,
                                    > > is saying
                                    > > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been
                                    yes/no it
                                    > > would
                                    > > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to
                                    interpretation.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability
                                    > > in the kids
                                    > > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that.
                                    > > Others can
                                    > > > > chime in please.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this
                                    > > will be
                                    > > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general
                                    > > discussion
                                    > > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                    > > school to be
                                    > > > > fair to everyone.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on
                                    what
                                    > > happened
                                    > > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of
                                    > > the groups
                                    > > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                    > > attended as
                                    > > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Kevin
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                    > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                    > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >So, Kevin,
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                    > > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                                    opposition
                                    > > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                                    > > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                    > > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
                                    Downer
                                    > > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter
                                    what the
                                    > > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                                    > > effect
                                    > > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >Thanks,
                                    > > > > >Charley Cowens
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                    > > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting
                                    Committee is:
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                                    > > purposes of
                                    > > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                    > > non-resident
                                    > > > > >students
                                    > > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                    redistricting
                                    > > > > > > implementation process."
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Majority voting process
                                    > > > > > > Yes=8
                                    > > > > > > No=6
                                    > > > > > > Abstain=1
                                    > > > > > > Total:15
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee
                                    (PAC)
                                    > > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools
                                    > > will be
                                    > > > > >sent back
                                    > > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                                    > > transfer
                                    > > > > >back to
                                    > > > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and
                                    > > only on
                                    > > > > >a per
                                    > > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the
                                    school of
                                    > > > > >transfer for
                                    > > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who
                                    has never
                                    > > > > >attended
                                    > > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that
                                    in order
                                    > > > > >for the
                                    > > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                    > > students and
                                    > > > > >had
                                    > > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer
                                    school
                                    > > > > >the new
                                    > > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I
                                    hope
                                    > > this
                                    > > > > >is clear
                                    > > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Kevin
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                    > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                    > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                                    > > transfers
                                    > > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                                    > > make it
                                    > > > > >more
                                    > > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached
                                    by the
                                    > > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I
                                    don't know
                                    > > > > >anything
                                    > > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    > > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and
                                    more in
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > >Back to
                                    > > > > > > School Guide!
                                    http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > _________________________________________________________________
                                    > > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                    > > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                  • rcs101@att.net
                                    --Charley: 3560.5 is just one, I can t find all references, but look at Ed. Code 48980, section I and J, (I think), also, when you get copies of the manual and
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Oct 19, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --Charley:

                                      3560.5 is just one, I can't find all references, but look at Ed. Code 48980, section I and J, (I think), also, when you get copies of the manual and board policy, you will find other references. I think if you check the ed code section on interdistrict, it has references to intradistrict.

                                      This is sad that parents must do this work, because they feel the district is trying to pull a fast one. The main thing that parents must be willing to do, is to appeal the process of their child's continual enrollment to the county level. This will solve the problem for all and the district must be prepared to show how legally they can stop students from participating in the open enrollment process of the state of California.

                                      The reasons are clear for open enrollment, now if this board wishes to try something new, they must be will to legally fight parents. Oh I forgot, they do this often and have lost many times, why is OCR in here now.

                                      Scottie Smith




                                      -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------

                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Scottie-
                                      >
                                      > It doesn't matter what current District-level policy and documents
                                      > say. Recommendation #10 is intended to be adopted by the Board as a
                                      > (temporary) change in District-level policy.
                                      >
                                      > The key is what the State Ed. Code says about anything like Rec. #10.
                                      > I think I found what you were thinking of...maybe. It's 35160.5.(b) .
                                      > Here's the beginning of it:
                                      >
                                      > 35160.5. (b) (1) On or before July 1, 1994, the governing board of each
                                      > school district shall, as a condition for the receipt of school
                                      > apportionments from the state school fund, adopt rules and
                                      > regulations establishing a policy of open enrollment within the
                                      > district for residents of the district. This requirement does not
                                      > apply to any school district that has only one school or any school
                                      > district with schools that do not serve any of the same grade levels.
                                      >
                                      > (2) The policy shall include all of the following elements:
                                      > (A) It shall provide that the parent or guardian of each schoolage
                                      > child who is a resident in the district may select the schools the
                                      > child shall attend, irrespective of the particular locations of his
                                      > or her residence within the district, except that school districts
                                      > shall retain the authority to maintain appropriate racial and ethnic
                                      > balances among their respective schools at the school districts'
                                      > discretion or as specified in applicable court-ordered or voluntary
                                      > desegregation plans.
                                      >
                                      > Charley Cowens
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --Charley:
                                      > >
                                      > > Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies:
                                      > >
                                      > > WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office
                                      > (August 21, 2001)
                                      > > "Frequently Asked Question About the WCCUSD Open Enrollment Process"
                                      > Page 2,
                                      > >
                                      > > Question: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer
                                      > remain in effect?
                                      > >
                                      > > A: An approved school transfer will remain in effect as long as the
                                      > student's attendance and behavior are satisfactory, and until the
                                      > highest grade at the school of attendance.
                                      > >
                                      > > Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an
                                      > approved transfer will attend his or her middle school or residence
                                      > after completion of the 5th grade.
                                      > >
                                      > > It continues on with middle and high school examples.
                                      > >
                                      > > On page 5 of manual it also states in a chart that Intradistrict
                                      > transfer (residence of WCCUSD) require a renewal during school year of
                                      > highest grade at school. I have a couple of copies of manual.
                                      > >
                                      > > WCCUSD Board Policy 5116.1(a) (Intradistrict Open Enrollment, BP
                                      > 5116.1(b) Enrollment Priorities: Note after item 6, "Once enrolled a
                                      > student shall not have to apply for readmission while at that school".
                                      > I received a copie of this board policy on June 18, 02, via fax.
                                      > >
                                      > > For those that are interested in Interdistrict transfers please not
                                      > Ed. Code 48209-48209.16.
                                      > >
                                      > > I think this should be enough citations to get you started, also,
                                      > the WCCUSD Manuel has other refercences to ed. code as does the Board
                                      > Policies.
                                      > >
                                      > > So, unless something has changed which I am not aware, this is the
                                      > lastest information.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Scottie Smith
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Scottie-
                                      > > >
                                      > > > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the District from
                                      > > > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                      > > > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Charley Cowens
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > --Kevin:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting process. I
                                      > > > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                      > > > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process that was
                                      > > > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of parents/community to
                                      > > > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district will do
                                      > > > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very clear about
                                      > > > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to change
                                      > the
                                      > > > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                      > > > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school,
                                      > they
                                      > > > may remain at that school until they have completed the highest grade
                                      > > > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the
                                      > same
                                      > > > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the district
                                      > > > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                      > > > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                      > > > district. The re-districting should have been done before they
                                      > started
                                      > > > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know where the
                                      > > > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                      > > > district is in for another mess because they have grant transfers to
                                      > > > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Scottie Smith
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" :
                                      > --------------
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Charley,
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                      > > > schools. The
                                      > > > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come up with
                                      > > > the same
                                      > > > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a year ago.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she "helped" us
                                      > > > decide that
                                      > > > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than a yes
                                      > > > or no vote
                                      > > > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great
                                      > deal of
                                      > > > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place to put
                                      > > > their
                                      > > > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                      > > > questions were
                                      > > > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When the group
                                      > > > whittled
                                      > > > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more
                                      > complex and
                                      > > > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to
                                      > me on
                                      > > > one
                                      > > > > > question there was no movement because some felt they could not
                                      > > > vote in any
                                      > > > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some were
                                      > > > having is
                                      > > > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels and we
                                      > > > should make
                                      > > > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted reasons
                                      > for
                                      > > > closing
                                      > > > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list and we
                                      > > > voted on
                                      > > > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                      > > > previously voted to
                                      > > > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never
                                      > voted
                                      > > > on by the
                                      > > > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote,
                                      > rescind
                                      > > > it and
                                      > > > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                      > > > reasons that now
                                      > > > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant that I was
                                      > > > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to close
                                      > > > Seaview and
                                      > > > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same
                                      > standards for
                                      > > > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might have
                                      > > > merit but
                                      > > > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for
                                      > closure
                                      > > > it just
                                      > > > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to make sure
                                      > > > the new
                                      > > > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while
                                      > longer
                                      > > > and when
                                      > > > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the Seaview
                                      > > > closure,
                                      > > > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of Seaview
                                      > > > closure
                                      > > > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded
                                      > in the
                                      > > > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out like some
                                      > > > of the
                                      > > > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the passage of
                                      > > > rescission
                                      > > > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                      > > > decided to go
                                      > > > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                      > > > gradation voting
                                      > > > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many levels of
                                      > > > voting, so
                                      > > > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is
                                      > recorded
                                      > > > in the
                                      > > > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing came up
                                      > > > on 10/4/04
                                      > > > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to take a
                                      > > > gradation
                                      > > > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont who had
                                      > > > missed the
                                      > > > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we
                                      > have
                                      > > > changed
                                      > > > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised we were
                                      > > > now using
                                      > > > > > another standard.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                      > > > question, >Why
                                      > > > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                      > "votes."
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                      > > > answers that
                                      > > > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and
                                      > when a
                                      > > > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was used. For
                                      > > > instance,
                                      > > > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the closure of
                                      > > > Fairmont.
                                      > > > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                      > > > unconditionally. 7
                                      > > > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained. This was
                                      > > > prior to
                                      > > > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in
                                      > particular,
                                      > > > is saying
                                      > > > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been
                                      > yes/no it
                                      > > > would
                                      > > > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to
                                      > interpretation.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness, instability
                                      > > > in the kids
                                      > > > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such like that.
                                      > > > Others can
                                      > > > > > chime in please.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her post this
                                      > > > will be
                                      > > > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the general
                                      > > > discussion
                                      > > > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                      > > > school to be
                                      > > > > > fair to everyone.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on
                                      > what
                                      > > > happened
                                      > > > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even minority of
                                      > > > the groups
                                      > > > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                      > > > attended as
                                      > > > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Kevin
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                      > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                      > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >So, Kevin,
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                      > > > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                                      > opposition
                                      > > > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent activist last
                                      > > > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                      > > > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to school at
                                      > Downer
                                      > > > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter
                                      > what the
                                      > > > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you think the
                                      > > > effect
                                      > > > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >Thanks,
                                      > > > > > >Charley Cowens
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                      > > > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting
                                      > Committee is:
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended for
                                      > > > purposes of
                                      > > > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                      > > > non-resident
                                      > > > > > >students
                                      > > > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                      > redistricting
                                      > > > > > > > implementation process."
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > Majority voting process
                                      > > > > > > > Yes=8
                                      > > > > > > > No=6
                                      > > > > > > > Abstain=1
                                      > > > > > > > Total:15
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee
                                      > (PAC)
                                      > > > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all schools
                                      > > > will be
                                      > > > > > >sent back
                                      > > > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to reapply for
                                      > > > transfer
                                      > > > > > >back to
                                      > > > > > > > their school of transfer without any special privileges and
                                      > > > only on
                                      > > > > > >a per
                                      > > > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the
                                      > school of
                                      > > > > > >transfer for
                                      > > > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who
                                      > has never
                                      > > > > > >attended
                                      > > > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that
                                      > in order
                                      > > > > > >for the
                                      > > > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                      > > > students and
                                      > > > > > >had
                                      > > > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the transfer
                                      > school
                                      > > > > > >the new
                                      > > > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I
                                      > hope
                                      > > > this
                                      > > > > > >is clear
                                      > > > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > Kevin
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory Committee
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                      > > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                      > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the policy on
                                      > > > transfers
                                      > > > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that changes to
                                      > > > make it
                                      > > > > > >more
                                      > > > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached
                                      > by the
                                      > > > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I
                                      > don't know
                                      > > > > > >anything
                                      > > > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > > >
                                      > _________________________________________________________________
                                      > > > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and
                                      > more in
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > >Back to
                                      > > > > > > > School Guide!
                                      > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > _________________________________________________________________
                                      > > > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                      > > > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • c_cowens
                                      Scottie- I and J don t really deal with the issue of whether Recommendation #10 is illegal or not. 3560.5(b) is the only that thing that really deals with the
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Oct 20, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Scottie-

                                        I and J don't really deal with the issue of whether Recommendation #10
                                        is illegal or not. 3560.5(b) is the only that thing that really deals
                                        with the issue of Rec. 10's legality. What's "OCR" anyway?

                                        Charley Cowens

                                        --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --Charley:
                                        >
                                        > 3560.5 is just one, I can't find all references, but look at Ed.
                                        Code 48980, section I and J, (I think), also, when you get copies of
                                        the manual and board policy, you will find other references. I think
                                        if you check the ed code section on interdistrict, it has references
                                        to intradistrict.
                                        >
                                        > This is sad that parents must do this work, because they feel the
                                        district is trying to pull a fast one. The main thing that parents
                                        must be willing to do, is to appeal the process of their child's
                                        continual enrollment to the county level. This will solve the problem
                                        for all and the district must be prepared to show how legally they can
                                        stop students from participating in the open enrollment process of the
                                        state of California.
                                        >
                                        > The reasons are clear for open enrollment, now if this board wishes
                                        to try something new, they must be will to legally fight parents. Oh I
                                        forgot, they do this often and have lost many times, why is OCR in
                                        here now.
                                        >
                                        > Scottie Smith
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Scottie-
                                        > >
                                        > > It doesn't matter what current District-level policy and documents
                                        > > say. Recommendation #10 is intended to be adopted by the Board as a
                                        > > (temporary) change in District-level policy.
                                        > >
                                        > > The key is what the State Ed. Code says about anything like Rec. #10.
                                        > > I think I found what you were thinking of...maybe. It's 35160.5.(b) .
                                        > > Here's the beginning of it:
                                        > >
                                        > > 35160.5. (b) (1) On or before July 1, 1994, the governing board of
                                        each
                                        > > school district shall, as a condition for the receipt of school
                                        > > apportionments from the state school fund, adopt rules and
                                        > > regulations establishing a policy of open enrollment within the
                                        > > district for residents of the district. This requirement does not
                                        > > apply to any school district that has only one school or any school
                                        > > district with schools that do not serve any of the same grade levels.
                                        > >
                                        > > (2) The policy shall include all of the following elements:
                                        > > (A) It shall provide that the parent or guardian of each schoolage
                                        > > child who is a resident in the district may select the schools the
                                        > > child shall attend, irrespective of the particular locations of his
                                        > > or her residence within the district, except that school districts
                                        > > shall retain the authority to maintain appropriate racial and ethnic
                                        > > balances among their respective schools at the school districts'
                                        > > discretion or as specified in applicable court-ordered or voluntary
                                        > > desegregation plans.
                                        > >
                                        > > Charley Cowens
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > --Charley:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office
                                        > > (August 21, 2001)
                                        > > > "Frequently Asked Question About the WCCUSD Open Enrollment
                                        Process"
                                        > > Page 2,
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Question: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer
                                        > > remain in effect?
                                        > > >
                                        > > > A: An approved school transfer will remain in effect as long as the
                                        > > student's attendance and behavior are satisfactory, and until the
                                        > > highest grade at the school of attendance.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an
                                        > > approved transfer will attend his or her middle school or residence
                                        > > after completion of the 5th grade.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > It continues on with middle and high school examples.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > On page 5 of manual it also states in a chart that Intradistrict
                                        > > transfer (residence of WCCUSD) require a renewal during school
                                        year of
                                        > > highest grade at school. I have a couple of copies of manual.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > WCCUSD Board Policy 5116.1(a) (Intradistrict Open Enrollment, BP
                                        > > 5116.1(b) Enrollment Priorities: Note after item 6, "Once enrolled a
                                        > > student shall not have to apply for readmission while at that
                                        school".
                                        > > I received a copie of this board policy on June 18, 02, via fax.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > For those that are interested in Interdistrict transfers please not
                                        > > Ed. Code 48209-48209.16.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > I think this should be enough citations to get you started, also,
                                        > > the WCCUSD Manuel has other refercences to ed. code as does the Board
                                        > > Policies.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > So, unless something has changed which I am not aware, this is the
                                        > > lastest information.
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Scottie Smith
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                        > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Scottie-
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the
                                        District from
                                        > > > > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                        > > > > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Charley Cowens
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > --Kevin:
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting
                                        process. I
                                        > > > > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                        > > > > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process
                                        that was
                                        > > > > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of
                                        parents/community to
                                        > > > > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district
                                        will do
                                        > > > > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very
                                        clear about
                                        > > > > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to
                                        change
                                        > > the
                                        > > > > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                        > > > > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school,
                                        > > they
                                        > > > > may remain at that school until they have completed the
                                        highest grade
                                        > > > > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the
                                        > > same
                                        > > > > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the
                                        district
                                        > > > > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                        > > > > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                        > > > > district. The re-districting should have been done before they
                                        > > started
                                        > > > > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know
                                        where the
                                        > > > > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                        > > > > district is in for another mess because they have grant
                                        transfers to
                                        > > > > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > Scottie Smith
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" :
                                        > > --------------
                                        > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Charley,
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                        > > > > schools. The
                                        > > > > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come
                                        up with
                                        > > > > the same
                                        > > > > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a
                                        year ago.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she
                                        "helped" us
                                        > > > > decide that
                                        > > > > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than
                                        a yes
                                        > > > > or no vote
                                        > > > > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great
                                        > > deal of
                                        > > > > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place
                                        to put
                                        > > > > their
                                        > > > > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                        > > > > questions were
                                        > > > > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When
                                        the group
                                        > > > > whittled
                                        > > > > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more
                                        > > complex and
                                        > > > > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to
                                        > > me on
                                        > > > > one
                                        > > > > > > question there was no movement because some felt they
                                        could not
                                        > > > > vote in any
                                        > > > > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some
                                        were
                                        > > > > having is
                                        > > > > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels
                                        and we
                                        > > > > should make
                                        > > > > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted
                                        reasons
                                        > > for
                                        > > > > closing
                                        > > > > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list
                                        and we
                                        > > > > voted on
                                        > > > > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                        > > > > previously voted to
                                        > > > > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never
                                        > > voted
                                        > > > > on by the
                                        > > > > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote,
                                        > > rescind
                                        > > > > it and
                                        > > > > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                        > > > > reasons that now
                                        > > > > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant
                                        that I was
                                        > > > > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to
                                        close
                                        > > > > Seaview and
                                        > > > > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same
                                        > > standards for
                                        > > > > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might
                                        have
                                        > > > > merit but
                                        > > > > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for
                                        > > closure
                                        > > > > it just
                                        > > > > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to
                                        make sure
                                        > > > > the new
                                        > > > > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while
                                        > > longer
                                        > > > > and when
                                        > > > > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the
                                        Seaview
                                        > > > > closure,
                                        > > > > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of
                                        Seaview
                                        > > > > closure
                                        > > > > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded
                                        > > in the
                                        > > > > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out
                                        like some
                                        > > > > of the
                                        > > > > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the
                                        passage of
                                        > > > > rescission
                                        > > > > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                        > > > > decided to go
                                        > > > > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                        > > > > gradation voting
                                        > > > > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many
                                        levels of
                                        > > > > voting, so
                                        > > > > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is
                                        > > recorded
                                        > > > > in the
                                        > > > > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing
                                        came up
                                        > > > > on 10/4/04
                                        > > > > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to
                                        take a
                                        > > > > gradation
                                        > > > > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont
                                        who had
                                        > > > > missed the
                                        > > > > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we
                                        > > have
                                        > > > > changed
                                        > > > > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised
                                        we were
                                        > > > > now using
                                        > > > > > > another standard.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                        > > > > question, >Why
                                        > > > > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                        > > "votes."
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                        > > > > answers that
                                        > > > > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and
                                        > > when a
                                        > > > > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was
                                        used. For
                                        > > > > instance,
                                        > > > > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the
                                        closure of
                                        > > > > Fairmont.
                                        > > > > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                        > > > > unconditionally. 7
                                        > > > > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained.
                                        This was
                                        > > > > prior to
                                        > > > > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in
                                        > > particular,
                                        > > > > is saying
                                        > > > > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been
                                        > > yes/no it
                                        > > > > would
                                        > > > > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to
                                        > > interpretation.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness,
                                        instability
                                        > > > > in the kids
                                        > > > > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such
                                        like that.
                                        > > > > Others can
                                        > > > > > > chime in please.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her
                                        post this
                                        > > > > will be
                                        > > > > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the
                                        general
                                        > > > > discussion
                                        > > > > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                        > > > > school to be
                                        > > > > > > fair to everyone.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on
                                        > > what
                                        > > > > happened
                                        > > > > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even
                                        minority of
                                        > > > > the groups
                                        > > > > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                        > > > > attended as
                                        > > > > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Kevin
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                        > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                        > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >So, Kevin,
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to
                                        the other
                                        > > > > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                                        > > opposition
                                        > > > > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent
                                        activist last
                                        > > > > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                        > > > > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to
                                        school at
                                        > > Downer
                                        > > > > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter
                                        > > what the
                                        > > > > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you
                                        think the
                                        > > > > effect
                                        > > > > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >Thanks,
                                        > > > > > > >Charley Cowens
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                        > > > > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting
                                        > > Committee is:
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended
                                        for
                                        > > > > purposes of
                                        > > > > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                        > > > > non-resident
                                        > > > > > > >students
                                        > > > > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                        > > redistricting
                                        > > > > > > > > implementation process."
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Majority voting process
                                        > > > > > > > > Yes=8
                                        > > > > > > > > No=6
                                        > > > > > > > > Abstain=1
                                        > > > > > > > > Total:15
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee
                                        > > (PAC)
                                        > > > > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all
                                        schools
                                        > > > > will be
                                        > > > > > > >sent back
                                        > > > > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to
                                        reapply for
                                        > > > > transfer
                                        > > > > > > >back to
                                        > > > > > > > > their school of transfer without any special
                                        privileges and
                                        > > > > only on
                                        > > > > > > >a per
                                        > > > > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the
                                        > > school of
                                        > > > > > > >transfer for
                                        > > > > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who
                                        > > has never
                                        > > > > > > >attended
                                        > > > > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that
                                        > > in order
                                        > > > > > > >for the
                                        > > > > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                        > > > > students and
                                        > > > > > > >had
                                        > > > > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the
                                        transfer
                                        > > school
                                        > > > > > > >the new
                                        > > > > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I
                                        > > hope
                                        > > > > this
                                        > > > > > > >is clear
                                        > > > > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Kevin
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory
                                        Committee
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                        > > > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                        > > > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                        > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the
                                        policy on
                                        > > > > transfers
                                        > > > > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that
                                        changes to
                                        > > > > make it
                                        > > > > > > >more
                                        > > > > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached
                                        > > by the
                                        > > > > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I
                                        > > don't know
                                        > > > > > > >anything
                                        > > > > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > > >
                                        > > _________________________________________________________________
                                        > > > > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and
                                        > > more in
                                        > > > > the
                                        > > > > > > >Back to
                                        > > > > > > > > School Guide!
                                        > > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        _________________________________________________________________
                                        > > > > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                        > > > > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                      • c_cowens
                                        Glen- Any word from Vince? Charley Cowens ... Advisory ... relates to ... Spring. ... regard is ... forward ... dialogue ... staff and ...
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Oct 20, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Glen-

                                          Any word from Vince?

                                          Charley Cowens

                                          --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, Glen Price <glen@g...> wrote:
                                          > Vince:
                                          >
                                          > Good morning!
                                          >
                                          > I am attaching below several messages below regarding the Parent
                                          Advisory
                                          > Committee¹s recommendation on changes in transfer policy as it
                                          relates to
                                          > Downer Elementary School and commitments made there by staff last
                                          Spring.
                                          >
                                          > Obviously, the whole issue of changes in transfer policy in this
                                          regard is
                                          > something that has yet to be taken up by the board and I am looking
                                          forward
                                          > to our study session on 11/4 as an opportunity for discussion and
                                          dialogue
                                          > on this topic. In the meantime, could you clarify the impact of
                                          staff and
                                          > PAC recommendations for Downer school?
                                          >
                                          > Many thanks.
                                          >
                                          > Glen Price
                                          > Member, Board of Education
                                          > ------ Forwarded Message
                                          > From: Eduardo Martinez <ezedmartin@y...>
                                          > Reply-To: <wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                          > Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
                                          > To: <wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com>
                                          > Subject: Re: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                          >
                                          > In the discussions of the size of the school and the
                                          > effects of redistricting, not only the parents, but
                                          > also the staff at Downer was told that students
                                          > currently at Downer would contimue to go there. We
                                          > are very aware that the district has a short memory,
                                          > but we do not. We will not accept any more broken
                                          > promises.
                                          >
                                          > Downer teacher,
                                          > Eduardo
                                          >
                                          > --- c_cowens <c_cowens@y...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >
                                          > > So, Kevin,
                                          > >
                                          > > Why was a majority process used for this as opposed
                                          > > to the other
                                          > > "votes." What were the arguments against this by the
                                          > > 6/15 opposition
                                          > > to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                          > >
                                          > > As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent
                                          > > activist last
                                          > > spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about
                                          > > lowering the
                                          > > population at Downer that anyone currently going to
                                          > > school at Downer
                                          > > now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no
                                          > > matter what the
                                          > > resolution of the redistricting process. What do you
                                          > > think the effect
                                          > > of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                          > >
                                          > > Thanks,
                                          > > Charley Cowens
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard"
                                          > > <kfrivard@h...> wrote:
                                          > > > The number 10 recommendation from the
                                          > > Redistricting Committee is:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be
                                          > > amended for purposes of
                                          > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering"
                                          > > of non-resident
                                          > > students
                                          > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                          > > redistricting
                                          > > > implementation process."
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Majority voting process
                                          > > > Yes=8
                                          > > > No=6
                                          > > > Abstain=1
                                          > > > Total:15
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory
                                          > > Committee (PAC)
                                          > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                          > > >
                                          > > > During the first year all transfer students at all
                                          > > schools will be
                                          > > sent back
                                          > > > to their resident schools and they will have to
                                          > > reapply for transfer
                                          > > back to
                                          > > > their school of transfer without any special
                                          > > privileges and only on
                                          > > a per
                                          > > > space available. A student who has been going to
                                          > > the school of
                                          > > transfer for
                                          > > > three years would have the same chance as a
                                          > > student who has never
                                          > > attended
                                          > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this
                                          > > was that in order
                                          > > for the
                                          > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on
                                          > > resident students and
                                          > > had
                                          > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the
                                          > > transfer school
                                          > > the new
                                          > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > If you have any other questions please send them
                                          > > along. I hope this
                                          > > is clear
                                          > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Kevin
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent
                                          > > Advisory Committee
                                          > > >
                                          > > > >From: "betsywb@j..." <betsywb@j...>
                                          > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                          > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the
                                          > > policy on transfers
                                          > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that
                                          > > changes to make it
                                          > > more
                                          > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were
                                          > > broached by the
                                          > > > >administration via the redistricting committee,
                                          > > but I don't know
                                          > > anything
                                          > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > _________________________________________________________________
                                          > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help
                                          > > and more in the
                                          > > Back to
                                          > > > School Guide!
                                          > > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > __________________________________________________
                                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                                          > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                          > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                          >
                                          > ADVERTISEMENT
                                          >
                                          <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12963maqk/M=315388.5500238.6578046.3001176/D=g
                                          >
                                          roups/S=1705946590:HM/EXP=1098068178/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https://ww
                                          > w.orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS>
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                          > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wccusdtalk/
                                          > *
                                          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          > * wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          > <mailto:wccusdtalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                                          > *
                                          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                                          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ------ End of Forwarded Message
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Kevin Rivard
                                          Office of Civil Rights ... _________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Oct 21, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Office of Civil Rights

                                            >From: "c_cowens" <c_cowens@...>
                                            >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                            >Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 06:39:18 -0000
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Scottie-
                                            >
                                            >I and J don't really deal with the issue of whether Recommendation #10
                                            >is illegal or not. 3560.5(b) is the only that thing that really deals
                                            >with the issue of Rec. 10's legality. What's "OCR" anyway?
                                            >
                                            >Charley Cowens
                                            >
                                            >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > --Charley:
                                            > >
                                            > > 3560.5 is just one, I can't find all references, but look at Ed.
                                            >Code 48980, section I and J, (I think), also, when you get copies of
                                            >the manual and board policy, you will find other references. I think
                                            >if you check the ed code section on interdistrict, it has references
                                            >to intradistrict.
                                            > >
                                            > > This is sad that parents must do this work, because they feel the
                                            >district is trying to pull a fast one. The main thing that parents
                                            >must be willing to do, is to appeal the process of their child's
                                            >continual enrollment to the county level. This will solve the problem
                                            >for all and the district must be prepared to show how legally they can
                                            >stop students from participating in the open enrollment process of the
                                            >state of California.
                                            > >
                                            > > The reasons are clear for open enrollment, now if this board wishes
                                            >to try something new, they must be will to legally fight parents. Oh I
                                            >forgot, they do this often and have lost many times, why is OCR in
                                            >here now.
                                            > >
                                            > > Scottie Smith
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                            > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Scottie-
                                            > > >
                                            > > > It doesn't matter what current District-level policy and documents
                                            > > > say. Recommendation #10 is intended to be adopted by the Board as a
                                            > > > (temporary) change in District-level policy.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > The key is what the State Ed. Code says about anything like Rec. #10.
                                            > > > I think I found what you were thinking of...maybe. It's 35160.5.(b) .
                                            > > > Here's the beginning of it:
                                            > > >
                                            > > > 35160.5. (b) (1) On or before July 1, 1994, the governing board of
                                            >each
                                            > > > school district shall, as a condition for the receipt of school
                                            > > > apportionments from the state school fund, adopt rules and
                                            > > > regulations establishing a policy of open enrollment within the
                                            > > > district for residents of the district. This requirement does not
                                            > > > apply to any school district that has only one school or any school
                                            > > > district with schools that do not serve any of the same grade levels.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > (2) The policy shall include all of the following elements:
                                            > > > (A) It shall provide that the parent or guardian of each schoolage
                                            > > > child who is a resident in the district may select the schools the
                                            > > > child shall attend, irrespective of the particular locations of his
                                            > > > or her residence within the district, except that school districts
                                            > > > shall retain the authority to maintain appropriate racial and ethnic
                                            > > > balances among their respective schools at the school districts'
                                            > > > discretion or as specified in applicable court-ordered or voluntary
                                            > > > desegregation plans.
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Charley Cowens
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > --Charley:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Below are reference to Open enrolloment policies:
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > WCCUSD Student Transfer Reference Manual, Student Transfer Office
                                            > > > (August 21, 2001)
                                            > > > > "Frequently Asked Question About the WCCUSD Open Enrollment
                                            >Process"
                                            > > > Page 2,
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Question: If a transfer is approved, how long does the transfer
                                            > > > remain in effect?
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > A: An approved school transfer will remain in effect as long as the
                                            > > > student's attendance and behavior are satisfactory, and until the
                                            > > > highest grade at the school of attendance.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Example: A student who attends a K-5 elementary school on an
                                            > > > approved transfer will attend his or her middle school or residence
                                            > > > after completion of the 5th grade.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > It continues on with middle and high school examples.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > On page 5 of manual it also states in a chart that Intradistrict
                                            > > > transfer (residence of WCCUSD) require a renewal during school
                                            >year of
                                            > > > highest grade at school. I have a couple of copies of manual.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > WCCUSD Board Policy 5116.1(a) (Intradistrict Open Enrollment, BP
                                            > > > 5116.1(b) Enrollment Priorities: Note after item 6, "Once enrolled a
                                            > > > student shall not have to apply for readmission while at that
                                            >school".
                                            > > > I received a copie of this board policy on June 18, 02, via fax.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > For those that are interested in Interdistrict transfers please not
                                            > > > Ed. Code 48209-48209.16.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > I think this should be enough citations to get you started, also,
                                            > > > the WCCUSD Manuel has other refercences to ed. code as does the Board
                                            > > > Policies.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > So, unless something has changed which I am not aware, this is the
                                            > > > lastest information.
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > Scottie Smith
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > -------------- Original message from "c_cowens" : --------------
                                            > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Scottie-
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > I can't find an Ed. Code section that would prevent the
                                            >District from
                                            > > > > > implementing Recommendation #10 (suspend all new and exististing
                                            > > > > > intra-district transfers for one year). Do you have a number?
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Charley Cowens
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, rcs101@a... wrote:
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > --Kevin:
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > Thanks for your interpretation of the committee's voting
                                            >process. I
                                            > > > > > must say, the district is paying consultants to come in and drive
                                            > > > > > parents/community members crazy. To participate in a process
                                            >that was
                                            > > > > > so confusing shows a strong will on the part of
                                            >parents/community to
                                            > > > > > be involved in their schools. It also shows that the district
                                            >will do
                                            > > > > > most anything to confuse the involvement process.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > Now the issue of transfer students. The Ed Code is very
                                            >clear about
                                            > > > > > the process, it appears to me that the district now wish to
                                            >change
                                            > > > the
                                            > > > > > transfer policy with hopes that parents do not know their rights.
                                            > > > > > (Once a child has been approved for a transfer to another school,
                                            > > > they
                                            > > > > > may remain at that school until they have completed the
                                            >highest grade
                                            > > > > > level at that school). (If a child has transferred under NCLB the
                                            > > > same
                                            > > > > > applies, plus they have first call on transfers). So if the
                                            >district
                                            > > > > > plans on sending transfer students back to their home school, the
                                            > > > > > parents will win every time if they file a complaint.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > It is sad that they continually do things backwards in this
                                            > > > > > district. The re-districting should have been done before they
                                            > > > started
                                            > > > > > building and remodeling schools, therefore you would know
                                            >where the
                                            > > > > > larger population and needs for school improvement were. Now the
                                            > > > > > district is in for another mess because they have grant
                                            >transfers to
                                            > > > > > students and want to take them back. Which legally they CAN NOT.
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > Scottie Smith
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > -------------- Original message from "Kevin Rivard" :
                                            > > > --------------
                                            > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Charley,
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > The following is my opinion and not that of the committee.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > This committee was set up to give the district cover to close
                                            > > > > > schools. The
                                            > > > > > > > had hoped that if properly guided the parents would come
                                            >up with
                                            > > > > > the same
                                            > > > > > > > conclusion as what staff was going to recommend over a
                                            >year ago.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > When the consultant came into the first meeting she
                                            >"helped" us
                                            > > > > > decide that
                                            > > > > > > > the gradation of voting Level 1 to Level 4 was better than
                                            >a yes
                                            > > > > > or no vote
                                            > > > > > > > because the group could come to a consensus without a great
                                            > > > deal of
                                            > > > > > > > animosity and argument because everyone would have a place
                                            >to put
                                            > > > > > their
                                            > > > > > > > opinion and still feel comfortable.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > With a larger group as we had in the beginning and when the
                                            > > > > > questions were
                                            > > > > > > > more broad this consensus building seemed to work. When
                                            >the group
                                            > > > > > whittled
                                            > > > > > > > its way down to 12 from 19 and the questions became more
                                            > > > complex and
                                            > > > > > > > difficult people had a harder time voting. When it seemed to
                                            > > > me on
                                            > > > > > one
                                            > > > > > > > question there was no movement because some felt they
                                            >could not
                                            > > > > > vote in any
                                            > > > > > > > of the levels available I suggested that the problem some
                                            >were
                                            > > > > > having is
                                            > > > > > > > that their vote was not represented by any of the levels
                                            >and we
                                            > > > > > should make
                                            > > > > > > > a Level 5 which was essentially equivalent to a NO vote.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Then there came a time when the group formally adopted
                                            >reasons
                                            > > > for
                                            > > > > > closing
                                            > > > > > > > schools. A list was made, revisions were made to the list
                                            >and we
                                            > > > > > voted on
                                            > > > > > > > those reasons. I brought up the point that the group had
                                            > > > > > previously voted to
                                            > > > > > > > close Seaview based on reasons that were different and never
                                            > > > voted
                                            > > > > > on by the
                                            > > > > > > > group and felt we should revisit the Seaview closure vote,
                                            > > > rescind
                                            > > > > > it and
                                            > > > > > > > revisit the closure of Seaview based upon the newly created
                                            > > > > > reasons that now
                                            > > > > > > > had an official standing. I was told by the consultant
                                            >that I was
                                            > > > > > > > undermining the work of previous members that had voted to
                                            >close
                                            > > > > > Seaview and
                                            > > > > > > > might not now be present. I argued that had we the same
                                            > > > standards for
                                            > > > > > > > closure throughout the months of debate her argument might
                                            >have
                                            > > > > > merit but
                                            > > > > > > > since we're now going forward with different reasoning for
                                            > > > closure
                                            > > > > > it just
                                            > > > > > > > made sense to me that in fairness to Seaview we need to
                                            >make sure
                                            > > > > > the new
                                            > > > > > > > rules were used for Seaview. The debate went on for a while
                                            > > > longer
                                            > > > > > and when
                                            > > > > > > > no one seemed to be moving I made a motion to rescind the
                                            >Seaview
                                            > > > > > closure,
                                            > > > > > > > my motion received a second and we voted on rescission of
                                            >Seaview
                                            > > > > > closure
                                            > > > > > > > using the gradation voting process which did not get recorded
                                            > > > in the
                                            > > > > > > > recommendations of 10/4/04 but the vote was spread out
                                            >like some
                                            > > > > > of the
                                            > > > > > > > votes you will see when you get that document so the
                                            >passage of
                                            > > > > > rescission
                                            > > > > > > > was open to interpretation. That was the meeting where it was
                                            > > > > > decided to go
                                            > > > > > > > with a yes or no vote because the group realized that the
                                            > > > > > gradation voting
                                            > > > > > > > could not be clear enough in some cases due to the many
                                            >levels of
                                            > > > > > voting, so
                                            > > > > > > > another vote was taken using the new yes/no vote which is
                                            > > > recorded
                                            > > > > > in the
                                            > > > > > > > 10/4/04 document.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > When the final vote for rescission of the Seaview closing
                                            >came up
                                            > > > > > on 10/4/04
                                            > > > > > > > (wrong year recorded in document), I asked are we going to
                                            >take a
                                            > > > > > gradation
                                            > > > > > > > vote or a yes or no vote. The representative for Fairmont
                                            >who had
                                            > > > > > missed the
                                            > > > > > > > meeting where the yes/no vote was created asked, "You mean we
                                            > > > have
                                            > > > > > changed
                                            > > > > > > > the way we vote, when did this happen?" He was surprised
                                            >we were
                                            > > > > > now using
                                            > > > > > > > another standard.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Charley I needed to go over all that history to answer your
                                            > > > > > question, >Why
                                            > > > > > > > was a majority process used for this as opposed to the other
                                            > > > "votes."
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > In MY opinion the yes or no vote was used to get definitive
                                            > > > > > answers that
                                            > > > > > > > could be used, in some cases, to the districts advantage and
                                            > > > when a
                                            > > > > > > > vagueness would better suit the argument gradation was
                                            >used. For
                                            > > > > > instance,
                                            > > > > > > > Charles Ramsey is saying the Committee recommended the
                                            >closure of
                                            > > > > > Fairmont.
                                            > > > > > > > When you look at the vote only 5 of 12 approved closure
                                            > > > > > unconditionally. 7
                                            > > > > > > > of 12 voted with some type of reservation or abstained.
                                            >This was
                                            > > > > > prior to
                                            > > > > > > > level 5 or a yes/no vote. Now the district, Charles in
                                            > > > particular,
                                            > > > > > is saying
                                            > > > > > > > the Committee recommended closure. I believe had it been
                                            > > > yes/no it
                                            > > > > > would
                                            > > > > > > > have had a different outcome. But now it is open to
                                            > > > interpretation.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > The arguments against the grandfathering unfairness,
                                            >instability
                                            > > > > > in the kids
                                            > > > > > > > education, day care needs, work related needs and such
                                            >like that.
                                            > > > > > Others can
                                            > > > > > > > chime in please.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > As far as the Downer question, as Cathy had said in her
                                            >post this
                                            > > > > > will be
                                            > > > > > > > decided from another committee on transfer policy but the
                                            >general
                                            > > > > > discussion
                                            > > > > > > > from our group was everyone should go back to their resident
                                            > > > > > school to be
                                            > > > > > > > fair to everyone.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > I hope this gives a little insight. Again this was my take on
                                            > > > what
                                            > > > > > happened
                                            > > > > > > > and does not necessarily reflect the majority or even
                                            >minority of
                                            > > > > > the groups
                                            > > > > > > > opinions. I do hope others that were on the committee or even
                                            > > > > > attended as
                                            > > > > > > > public members that are interested will respond.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Again, this is my opinion, only.
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Kevin
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >From: "c_cowens"
                                            > > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            > > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            > > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                            > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:40:19 -0000
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >So, Kevin,
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >Why was a majority process used for this as opposed to
                                            >the other
                                            > > > > > > > >"votes." What were the arguments against this by the 6/15
                                            > > > opposition
                                            > > > > > > > >to this and the 1/15 abstention to this?
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >As a side note, I was told by a Downer grandparent
                                            >activist last
                                            > > > > > > > >spring that in discussions with Kilmartin about lowering the
                                            > > > > > > > >population at Downer that anyone currently going to
                                            >school at
                                            > > > Downer
                                            > > > > > > > >now would be grandfathered in to stay st Downer no matter
                                            > > > what the
                                            > > > > > > > >resolution of the redistricting process. What do you
                                            >think the
                                            > > > > > effect
                                            > > > > > > > >of this resolution would have on this understanding?
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >Thanks,
                                            > > > > > > > >Charley Cowens
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >--- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Rivard" wrote:
                                            > > > > > > > > > The number 10 recommendation from the Redistricting
                                            > > > Committee is:
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > "Recommend that the current Transfer Policy be amended
                                            >for
                                            > > > > > purposes of
                                            > > > > > > > > > redistricting so that there is no "grandfathering" of
                                            > > > > > non-resident
                                            > > > > > > > >students
                                            > > > > > > > > > transfers be allowed during the first year of the
                                            > > > redistricting
                                            > > > > > > > > > implementation process."
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > Majority voting process
                                            > > > > > > > > > Yes=8
                                            > > > > > > > > > No=6
                                            > > > > > > > > > Abstain=1
                                            > > > > > > > > > Total:15
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > Above verbiage referenced from: Parent Advisory Committee
                                            > > > (PAC)
                                            > > > > > > > > > Recommendations Update 10/4/04
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > During the first year all transfer students at all
                                            >schools
                                            > > > > > will be
                                            > > > > > > > >sent back
                                            > > > > > > > > > to their resident schools and they will have to
                                            >reapply for
                                            > > > > > transfer
                                            > > > > > > > >back to
                                            > > > > > > > > > their school of transfer without any special
                                            >privileges and
                                            > > > > > only on
                                            > > > > > > > >a per
                                            > > > > > > > > > space available. A student who has been going to the
                                            > > > school of
                                            > > > > > > > >transfer for
                                            > > > > > > > > > three years would have the same chance as a student who
                                            > > > has never
                                            > > > > > > > >attended
                                            > > > > > > > > > that school of transfer. The reason behind this was that
                                            > > > in order
                                            > > > > > > > >for the
                                            > > > > > > > > > new boundaries to work they had to be based on resident
                                            > > > > > students and
                                            > > > > > > > >had
                                            > > > > > > > > > transfer students been allowed to continue in the
                                            >transfer
                                            > > > school
                                            > > > > > > > >the new
                                            > > > > > > > > > boundaries would have overcrowded the schools.
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > If you have any other questions please send them along. I
                                            > > > hope
                                            > > > > > this
                                            > > > > > > > >is clear
                                            > > > > > > > > > enough and if not please ask for a clarification.
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > Kevin
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > Richmond High Representative on the Parent Advisory
                                            >Committee
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > >From: "betsywb@j..."
                                            > > > > > > > > > >Reply-To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            > > > > > > > > > >To: wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com
                                            > > > > > > > > > >Subject: [wccusdtalk] Re:transfer policy
                                            > > > > > > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:37:56 GMT
                                            > > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > > >Does anyone know whether changes are afoot in the
                                            >policy on
                                            > > > > > transfers
                                            > > > > > > > > > >within the school district? Someone told me that
                                            >changes to
                                            > > > > > make it
                                            > > > > > > > >more
                                            > > > > > > > > > >difficult and less attractive to transfer were broached
                                            > > > by the
                                            > > > > > > > > > >administration via the redistricting committee, but I
                                            > > > don't know
                                            > > > > > > > >anything
                                            > > > > > > > > > >firsthand. Betsy
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > _________________________________________________________________
                                            > > > > > > > > > Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and
                                            > > > more in
                                            > > > > > the
                                            > > > > > > > >Back to
                                            > > > > > > > > > School Guide!
                                            > > > http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            >_________________________________________________________________
                                            > > > > > > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                            > > > > > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >

                                            _________________________________________________________________
                                            Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
                                            http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.