Tomahawk committee did a good job

Dear Editor,

As a member of the Tomahawk Creek Middle School redistricting committee, I was shocked and outraged by the statements [Matoaca School Board member] Omarh Rajah made about our committee at a March school board meeting. At the request of several committee members, Mr. Rajah met with us on Apr. 15 to discuss his comments. Everyone had a chance to speak his/her mind, and we heard Mr. Rajah's point of view. Mr. Rajah apologized, saying that he did not mean to offend us. All of us appreciated the opportunity for an open dialogue. I truly believe that Mr. Rajah has the best intentions for the children of this county. And, I also believe he misunderstood some of the statements made during the committee meetings he attended. I also think he was influenced by a group of parents that were critical of the committee process.

In reference to the comment, "They didn't want children with single parents from apartments to attend that school," I was at that meeting, and neither I nor any other committee member with whom I have spoken, heard that comment. The committee discussed the apartments next to Tomahawk Creek. We were questioning whether the number of children the county had given us from that area was accurate and reliable since the number was rather low. One member said that some people who live in apartments may be transitional since she knew of several families who lived in those apartments for a short time while their house was under construction. Another member said that some single parents live in apartments. Was that stereotyping? Maybe. Another member said that we did not have any data to support either statement, and it wasn't part of our criteria. Did anyone say, "I don't want those children attending the school?" Absolutely not. It was an irrelevant point and certainly not worth the press it has received. There are children of single parents and/or students who live in apartments in every school in the county. Does anyone really believe that a volunteer would specifically say they didn't want their children to attend school with them?

Mr. Rajah, to my knowledge, never followed up with the person who made the comment. If he was really offended, he should have followed up immediately with the person he believed made such a comment or with the committee facilitators.

In reference to Mr. Rajah's comment, "They didn't want their children to go to school with those heathens," the word "heathens" was whispered by a committee member as a sarcastic remark to another committee member at the end of a frustrating meeting. This person was referring to a group of non-committee parents who came to that meeting. The meeting got out of control when they invited themselves to be a part of our work process, in the attempt to make sure that we didn't propose moving their children to a school that is currently under capacity by 200 students. The person immediately apologized to those who heard the comment, and apologized again at the end of the meeting. No one ever called children heathens or said we didn't want our children to go to school with them. Mr. Rajah did not hear that statement firsthand. I believe he was told about the incident from someone who had his own personal agenda.

People misinterpret what is said all the time. I believe that is the case here. The volunteers on this committee gave their time and energy to try to find a solution for a school that was built in the wrong place. We were concerned about finding a workable solution for all students. No child was ever discriminated against. We had to work with ineffective facilitators and inaccurate data. It was predicted four years ago when the site for the school was approved, that neighborhoods would be pitted against each other. That's exactly what has happened.

There are too many other critical issues that need to be addressed with our school system. Let's stop the accusations and move on.

Sharon Ritter

Woodlake