Matthews to discuss boundaries for high schools

A Community Forum on Public Education will be held at 7 p., this Sunday, June 7, at Matthews Town Hall. Anyone who would like to voice an opinion on public education issues, and the proposed CMS high school boundaries is invited to attend.

Matthews Mayor Lee Myers will moderate the meeting. This is not an official Matthews Town Board meeting. However, members of the Town Council are interested in hearing what the public has to say regarding issues pertaining to education. At 7 pm on Monday, June 8, during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Matthews Town Board, the board will discuss and consider action on the proposed CMS pupil assignment plan.

Share
10 comments on “Matthews to discuss boundaries for high schools
  1. How utterly disappointing to see today’s headline- “CMS staff sticks with original boundary map”. Any idea “why” Scott McCully is so against the plan presented by Mayor Biggers, the commissioners and area residents? From his negative comments it is clear he is not even entertaining the option. He states “Generally speaking, the board goes with the staff recommendation” and “in his nine years in CMA planning, he cannot recall a board voting for boundaries other that the one presented to the board by staff.”
    McCully saying “it’s never been done before – so we can’t even consider it now” – sounds like a giant cop-out!
    Our mayor and town residents have worked diligently to come up with a fair plan, that is in the best interest of our town and our children. It is also fair and equitable to the surrounding high schools. Common sense says not to split up our children and not to bus in children from other areas to our Mint Hill High School.

    Our family, friends and neighbors hope the CMS staff will open their minds and accept the supported school option. We hope everyone will continue writing and calling the CMS BOE. They can expect hundreds in attendance for the June 9th meeting. We remain positive and optimistic the board will make the right decision!

    Thank you to the Mint Hill Times for it’s support and today’s thoughtful and supportive editorial. We are fortunate to have the Long family in our community. :-)

  2. I feel the Planning Dept is against the Mint Hill plan because it doesn’t work well. This plan buses kids in from Piney Grove to Butler when East Meck is right next door. This plan buses in kids from Lebanon Rd when Independence is right next door. This plan buses in the south Bain area when Butler is right next door. That is alot of busing in of kids which will not only waste time but our taxpayer money in the long run.

    Also, it seems that the Mint Hill plan also “sticks it” to Independence giving it 61% free and reduced lunch.

  3. “Sticks it” to Independence? The current staff plan already has IHS at 59% if I remember correctly. 59% vs 61% is an immaterial difference. The Mint Hill plan keeps Bain, Clear Creek and Lebanon Rd. together, while reducing crowding at IHS, East Meck and Butler. It also leaves a little bit more elbow room in the new school, which will be needed as Mint Hill is still growing. If you want to talk about busing, the staff plan wraps around the back side of the Independence district all the way across Harris Blvd and up The Plaza to pull in students who are right next door to Garinger!

  4. CMS BOE-Sometime politically correct is not the best answer. It can easlity turn into patronizing! Please consider Mayor Biggers option. It takes the entire scope of this area! Bain, Lebenon, and Clear Creek are uniquely different than other areas of Charlotte. It would be in the best interest of the children to stay together. Why can you not see that!? Do you really think the other kids want to be on a bus for that long? What ever happened to “community”?

  5. Taking JW Grier and Reedy Creek out of the picture busing wise, as no matter which school they attend, IHS or the new one, they are traveling far. Both schools are not anywhere near them. There is no way CMS is going to send MORE kids to Garinger with all the trouble Garinger is having. So the busing with Reedy Creek and JW Grier is a moot point.
    Then as you stated the frl%s are a moot point. Fine. The building utilization works fine with both plans so that is a moot point. The only thing left of importance is busing. Taking JW Grier and Reedy Creek out of the picture, which one is busing kids more? The Mint Hill plan is the clear winner of busing kids which wastes time and our taxpayer money. CMS just learned it had to cut another $33 million off the budget…busing kids around so Mint Hill can have all the kids together is not fiscally responsible especially in this current economic situation.

    The staff recommendation sends kids to the school closest to them. That just makes sense. Do I agree that CMS screwed up in placing that school where they did? Of course. It should have been placed in closer to 485 in Mint Hill and then all of Mint Hill could have gone and the busing would have worked. But CMS with no help from Mayor Biggers did a lovely job of messing it up for everyone for what? To gain retail tax dollars in Mint Hill so they buy land where it makes no sense at all at the expense of our children’s education. When all is said and done, Mayor Biggers must go. He screwed all of us and showed no leadership at all until he was forced to do something and then he acted. He should have been acting from the start.

    So as a result we are stuck with the school where it is and no money to bus kids anywhere but the closest school to them which is what the staff recommendation does.

  6. I think Mayor Biggers has done the right thing with the Mint Hill plan. I applaud him and all involved for their effort. The Mint Hill plan has no more busing than Hopewell, North Meck, Olympic, or the current Butler layout. Just look at the maps for the whole CMS system. Hardly any school is placed “Bulls-eye” in the center of it’s boundary map. At the edges of every district there are always kids being bused away from a closer school. If it were only as simple as attending the school closest, that would be great- but it’s not. The Mint Hill plan creates a sense of community and lets our kids play, learn and grow together. Let’s get behind this and have a new school we can all support.

  7. We need a school that keeps our children together, utilizes the building well and gives a good frl balance in the area. I think the Mint Hill plan does this.

    As for the CMS plan, like it or not, the frl numbers are very closely linked to the overall academic performance of a school, as well as the number of discipline and safety issues. All the schools need to share the load! Under the CMS plan, Butler will be heads and shoulders above the others in the East learning community while placing an unfair burden on the rest.

  8. Mint Hill should annex the Clear Creek area since it is unincorporated county zoned, thereby increasing the town tax revenue (I would pay more!) and seceed from CMS – and create it’s own school system. CMS has enough Title One schools. Why make another?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>