This question has been going on for years now. I feel to save money you do need to close a school especially with the 6th graders now going to Parkside. This is just my opinion.

My recommendation is to sell the district office property. Take the money to finish phase 2 of parkside and build a second floor above the auditorium for a new district office on site at parkside. More staff shows more supervision for our kids.

Kudos to this group for asking the right questions. It will be interesting to see what TSS comes back with in terms of property values. Other data points such as the breakdown of age groups by neighborhood and the cost of investment in green energy initiatives, such as solar, might prove useful.

Interesting questions. Hmmm. HOW do you take socio-economic questions into account? HOW do you factor in "funding resources"? Is this an auction? Been a curious debate recently. When we talk about school closure, then the ability of a particular site is discussed as though it is an "asset" to the District. On the other hand, when the discussion turns to funding "equity", sites start saying "don't touch our $$$."

Not sure how staffing costs can really be evaluated. You have a certain number of kids at each site, and need a certain number of teachers. Pure $$ don't really tell the tale. Some schools have more senior (and therefore more expensive) teachers. However, if a school is closed, and staffing reduced, the teachers with more seniority will still stay, though there will be staff movement.
Also, extra costs like Special Ed and ELL will still follow the student, no matter what campus they go to.

Chew on this for awhile --> If the SBPSD closes down a school then they should give the affected parents a $7500 - $10000 voucher each year for each child they have in the SBPSD so they can choose to hand the voucher in to the SBPSD and send their student(s) to another SBPSD school or use the voucher(s) to send their child or children to a private school.

"What are the actual per-pupil costs at each of the schools, taking into consideration all staffing and all sources of funding?"
This is a great question, I would love to see a detailed answer by the district. Some schools get additional funding due to ELAC, program improvement, etc. Since the district is now in program improvement, does this mean additional funds for all schools? Some schools do not get additional support (teacher aides for example) and some PTA (PTO) raise funds for this. I also want to know why the consultant considered the train tracks a hindrance but San Bruno Avenue (a section above 280 - no sidewalks) and Skyline Blvd. (no sidewalks) not a hindrance when coming up with the "suggested" boundary lines last year.
Bill, $7,500 to $10,000, are you suggesting giving parents more than the school receives per child each year? Where will the district come up with the additional money? I did not know this was legally possible in California.
Chris, when you talk about equity funding? Are you talking about PTA (PTO) funded items, funding based on individual school status, in general or what?
Solar, I really hope the districts decision to do solar at all schools (including the school(s) that may or may not be closed) works out.
I like the idea of selling the district office location, no solar to dismantle, drawback is that the district office location is very small site.

Good points, Chris, but if what you say is true, the PTA's/O's can't have it both ways. One one hand, the SBPSD should keep their hands off the money, no equity policy. However, when it comes to school closure, it is suddenly a district asset and should be a factor. There is simply too much gray area. Personally, I believe that the skill and track record of a PTA/O's fundraising should not be a factor of any school closure discussion. As far as equity policies are concerned, if they can work for big money powerhitters like Burlingame or Belmont-Redwood Shores, they can work in San Bruno.

From my viewpoint, the scope of this committee's task is sadly vague. They were given criteria to apply. Those criteria can be read broadly. Nevertheless, each factor seems aimed at choosing WHICH school should be closed. None of them are particularly relevant on the subject of whether ANY school should be closed.

In one sense, that is appropriate. The real decision on whether to close any school lies with the Board.

On the other hand, there has been NO clear statement from the Board that it needs to close a school. So there are lots of folks coming to committee meetings asking "why are you closing a school?". If the Board had made a clear statement, or given clear reasons, then people could take that issue up with the Board.
Sure, even if that happened, there would still be lots of arguments about what to close, and no one would be "happy" about it. But at least you wouldn't have a whole bunch of folks felling like no one will give them answers to very, very important questions.

The criteria are so vague, I don't know how anyone is supposed to interpret them. When I hear that the closure should be "least disruptive," I think about things like how families without a car are going to get their kids to school, especially since there is no bus service. Yet last night at the meeting a couple of committee members were talking about disruption referring to programs. This is just one example of how one criterion is open to interpretation -- and there are multiple criteria, so factor that in ...
Other criteria, like proximity to city services in case of disaster, aren't even on the table.
Last night Dr. Hutt said closing a school would not save enough money to make up the budget shortfall, so of course people ask why close a school. (And from some of the questions in the audience, it's also clear a lot of people have no idea about how school funding works, nor do they seem to read the paper or online news about what's going on in Sacramento).
As for how much money a PTA/PTO raises, that -- in my opinion -- should be off the table. That depends so much not just on demographics and the economy, but on the kind of people who are willing to volunteer -- sometimes a PTA has a dynamic group that really knows how to bring people together, and other years the core group is too burned out to do much or too cliquish and turns people off.

I'm going to come completely out of left field and ask another question that I don't think has been asked yet with these school closure discussions. Since a possible school closure would affect the entire community, not just the school district, why hasn't anyone brought in some of the city government or business leaders to this discussion?

I know the committee and the district have a lot on their plates, but perhaps those missing perspectives could give the school district new ideas for how to fund public education in San Bruno. The San Bruno Education Foundation tries to raise money for the schools, but I keep hearing it's not enough.

So why not reach out to YouTube or Walmart.com or many of the untapped businesses that call San Bruno home? They may not have listened before, but maybe they'll start listening now once they see how the whole city could be affected (positively or negatively).

Also, why doesn't the school board bring up the idea of a bond measure or parcel tax again? A parent brought this up last night, and the idea got some support from Dr. Sanchez.

If the funding was there, it seems like school closures wouldn't need to be discussed anymore. Just my two cents.

Martin, you are showing your hand here. If you think the SBPSD needs more funding, why don't you open up your checkbook and write a big check to the San Bruno Park Educational Foundation (SBEF)? It is a fact that the numbers aren't there to pass a SBPSD bond measure requiring a 55% yes vote. The probability of the SBPSD getting 66-2/3% of the voters to pass a parcel tax is also not real high. Perhaps you could share your political strategy for winning a parcel tax measure in San Bruno?

One of the problems with fundraising (either publicly through taxes, or privately, through donations) is that people want to know what they are getting for their $$$. People can add. If there is a $960,000 budget deficit, folks know that a $1,000,000 parcel tax isn't going to get them anything new.
So will they vote for the $$ to just keep things the way they are? Depends on whether they like what they are getting, or whether they think that would just be "enabling" the Board members and Administration that have steered the ship to this point.
San Bruno keeps voting the same folks in, so the voters must think things are just fine. I disagree.

From a financial standpoint, the SBPSD Board and Supe have a very narrow range of choices for solving the SBPSD's financial problems. By not passing Measure O, the voters in the SBPSD have assisted the Board and Supe by narrowing those financial choices even further and providing the SBPSD Board and Supe with more specific direction as to how they want to see financial matters handled in the SBPSD. I trust that the elected officials on the SBPSD Board have gotten the message and will make the appropriate financial decisions for the SBPSD that reflect the result of the Measure O vote.

Heidi, as I said, I trust that the elected officials on the SBPSD Board have gotten the message. If they haven't, we can use the appropriate legal and political tools to deal with them.

Trust everybody, but cut the cards.