The San Bruno Park School District superintendent has apparently threw a new twist into the school closures discussion by recommending ahead of Wednesday's school board meeting that two schools should be closed.
Leading up to Wednesday's special board meeting, the focus has been on what could happen to Crestmoor Elementary. The San Bruno Park School District committee tasked with making a recommendation about school closures and move the school population to a nearby neighborhood school because it would be the least disruptive to the students.
However, Superintendent David Hutt said in a staff report accompanying Wednesday's agenda that El Crystal Elementary should now also be considered for closure.
That recommendation is based on the findings in the boundary study that Total School Solutions completed for the district in which the firm said that closing both Crestmoor and El Crystal—which would be left with the smallest school populations once sixth graders are moved to Parkside Intermediate next year—would help balance enrollment throughout the district and allow "each of the remaining five schools to have the capacity for sustained enrollment growth over a longer period."
"Having to close a school is not a desirable action to do or to consider," Hutt said in the report. "It is an action that is warranted in order to guarantee the quality of educational programs for all students and the professional support of staff."
The report also seems to indicate that Hutt is recommending that school closures, if approved by the board, should take place in the 2013-14 school year. The district isn't expecting to get a clear picture of its budget and enrollment numbers until October, he said.
What do you think?
1. care about customer satisfaction 2. have clear vison and solid decision making processes 3. preserve infrastructure for unforseen future circumstances None of the above the school board possess. It seems they are really good at creating confusion and chaos to the community.
The numbers for nearby districts are as follows (data from 2010-2011 SARC reports): Millbrae (K-5): 4 schools (291 to 377 enrolled) for 1376 students, 1 per 344 students. Burlingame (K-5): 5 schools (294 to 549 enrolled) for 1932 students, 1 per 386 students. San Carlos (K-4): 4 schools (302 to 458 enrolled) for 1604 students, 1 per 401 students. Hillsborough (K-5): 3 schools (280 to 374 enrolled) for 1013 students, 1 per 337 students. Belmont-Redwood Shores (K-5): 6 schools (265 to 497 enrolled) for 2301 students, 1 per 384 students. Closing Crestmoor and El Crystal would give SBPSD 5 schools (331, 333, 337, 340, 349 enrolled) for 1728 students, i.e. 1 per 346 students (data for 2012-2013, projected by Total School Solutions). This is similar to nearby districts which incidentally have many high-performing schools.
NO school in SBPSD will have 88 students enrolled nor even close to that small amount! In addition, San Carlos, Burlingame, and Redwood Shores all are trying to find more space for students.
The point I was trying to make was that the size of our 5 schools under the District's proposed reconfiguration need not preclude academic excellence and may even promote it through the benefits of reduced combination classes, etc. We would retain our excellent teachers. Two nearby schools in South Francisco, Monte Verde and Ponderosa, also have high API scores and have 534 and 435 students enrolled. The assumption seems to be that there will be a compromise on academic quality and I just wanted to examine whether it is justified. I am not a teacher and am making assumptions based on my observations. Many schools, not just those closed, will be affected if the district adopts the recommendations. Finally, according to the school capacities in Appendix A of the Total School Solutions report, calculated by the DDAC committee, each of the 5 schools after the proposed configuration would have enrollments at 46-68% capacity.
Focusing solely on the numbers to close a school is a problem. It may be the most "objective" measure, but closing a school should benefit the district -- and not just in money, but programmatically. As flawed as the criteria were the DDAC were asked to consider, the committee did look at factors beyond enrollment, and I think they came up with a much better report/recommendation than the superintendant did. I am disgusted by his lack of respect for a committee that did the job it was charged to do.
What makes a great district supervisor? Charima? Collaborative skills? Communication skills? Compelling vision? What are the positive traits that make our current supervisor worthy of his paycheck? And what is that paycheck? $160,000/yr? Bonuses? And what are his performance goals? Close 2 schools? Just wondering...
Actually, the K-8 configuration WAS considered by the a District Committee (I think Long Range Planning) in 06-07. Some people liked the idea, but more opposed. It was decided that there wasn't enough support to justify forcing ALL the families in SB to go K-8. The Committee recommended that Parkside be made 6-8 for educational reasons, AND that the District look at establishing a SINGLE K-8 campus, that anyone in the District could apply to. (A District K-8, not a neighborhood K-8, so it wouldn't have favored any particular kids). That would have made the changes needed at Parkside, and left a safety valve for parents who were sold on the K-8 model. If the Board had moved ahead at the time, both pieces of that puzzle could have been done quickly, likely by the start of the 9-10 school year. They were too busy, however, with their creative financing of the deficit. They dropped the issue until the community demanded in 09-10 that they do something about Parkside. By that point, local politics had given the K-8 concept a bad connotation.
I think this would be a great option for the SBPSD since we are in T1. Belle Aire is in the last years of T1, so something has got to happen.