A recent survey conducted by the Montezuma-Cortez RE-1 District Accountability Committee showed overwhelming opposition among parents, staff and community members to the proposed reorganization of Mesa and Kemper Elementary schools.
If passed, one of the elementary schools would house all district kindergarten through second grade students, and the other school would house all third through sixth graders.
Though the reorganization hasn’t come up in recent school board meetings as an item on the agenda, it is still reportedly being discussed.
Among the 46 survey respondents, many expressed concerns over potential disruptions to students relationships, family logistics in getting children to and from school and the overall quality of education students will receive.
According to survey results, 76.1% of respondents said they strongly opposed the reorganization, with only 2.2% expressing strong support. A little over 15% were only somewhat opposed.
Out of those who responded, 56.8% were parents, nearly 20% were school staff and 8.7% were community members. Others included grandparents.
Prior to the survey, concerns that had been brought before the district included the potential separation of siblings and parents having the burden of trying to coordinate dropping off and picking up children at separate locations. In the survey, one parent shared they would have to go to all four schools for their children, including the middle school and high school, if the proposed reorganization passes.
Parents shared worries about added stress from managing different school locations, including longer commutes and challenges with parent-teacher conferences. Some noted that current bus routes already exceed two hours daily for certain students, and the change could exacerbate this.
Other potential impacts discussed were emotional trauma from breaking established bonds with students and teachers, and others warned of larger class sizes, behavioral issues in upper grades and a potential decline in volunteer engagement, as well as protecting students with social emotional well-being, especially those with history of trauma.
Instead of children changing schools when they go to middle school and high school, they would also be required to change schools in the middle of their elementary school years.
“I think that the district is overlooking the fact that no one wants this,” one respondent said. “Or they just don’t care about how this change will negatively affect the teachers, students and parents.”
Others spoke of the already declining rate of enrollment in the district, saying that a change like this could cause more families to enroll their students in other nearby districts. Another mentioned teacher retention and how tax dollars will be used, as well of the affect of separating older students from younger.
“Younger students look up to older students have the opportunity to serve as role models,” another respondent said. “The proposal removes that opportunity for both ends of the age spectrum.”
Instead of reorganization, some respondents suggested investment in smaller staff-to-student ratios, reading interventionists, after school programs and more, rather than structural changes of this kind.
Some addressed the school board and school leadership, asking for greater transparency and consideration of all input. They also asked that surveys and other means of collecting input be provided by the district.
“The board should take a hard look at the real problem facing our schools,” one responded noted. “This proposition is creating a nonsolution to a nonproblem.”
The Journal did to receive a response from Superintendent Tom Burris regarding the current status of the reorganization, as of this writing.
