Gary Eberhart, MDUSD's Board President, has written on his blog about the process going forward regarding the school closure decisions ahead. First, the Board Study session (joint with the School Closure Advisory Committee members), will take place Weds January 19th at 5:30pm at Northgate High in the Little Theatre. Mr. Eberhart has noted they will be trying to stream this meeting live so those unable to attend will be able to witness the process. There will be a 30 minute public comment at the end of this study session meeting.
The recommendation for closure will be brought officially to the Board for consideration at the Tuesday, January 25th board meeting, with the final decision to be made at the February 8th board meeting.
Read it all here at Mr. Eberhart's blog: MDUSD BLOG
His blog says February 8th, not 9th. Also could be found on the MDUSD website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mdusd.org/Lists/UpcomingEvents/DispForm.aspx?ID=146&RootFolder=%2FLists%2FUpcomingEvents
thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe Board and Supt are trying to rush the school closure decision by Feb 8 because of the impending announcement by the CDE that MDUSD has been named a Program Improvement school under No Child Left Behind because of its poor performance. Once CDE notifies the District, it has to inform parents within 30 days, which now will happen after February 8.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon 11:40 am
ReplyDeleteDid you mean to write the MDUSD will be named a Program Improvement "District"? Or are there certain schools that will be named Program Improvement "Schools"?
Also, for some of us, the decision being made on Feb 8th is not "rushing". Some of us would rather know the decision earlier than later so we can make plans for this coming fall (in case we want to move to a new neighborhood or apply to another school/district).
The district also needs to make the decisions as early as possible because of possible layoff notices to staff or transfers etc... Also so families affected by school closures have time to put in transfer requests.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:40, where did you get your information? Please provide links with facts to back up your statement.
I think anon 11:40 meant "district" which is defined as "LEA" Local Educational Agency. The MDUSD results are posted on the CDE website -- although not been updated since October with the "PI" status. You can see that MDUSD did NOT meet the criteria two years in a row. That status will change in the next couple of weeks. http://ayp.cde.ca.gov/reports/AcntRpt2010/2010APRDstPIReport.aspx?cYear=&allCds=0761754&cChoice=PI9b
ReplyDeleteanon 1:14,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct and yet the board is in LALA land contemplating closing down three of their highest performing schools while keeping the worst schools open.
Someone is making some money from this deal. Follow the money that is the only way to explain what is going on.
Maybe the Board will use the District's Program Improvement status as an excuse not to follow the School Closure recommendation ?
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:27 You're right -- follow the money. The District would have to give back the federal School Improvement Grants for the underperforming schools and for the district. Did they already get the cash and spend it ? Isn't it funding a bunch of the district office ?
ReplyDeleteAnon 1:14
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I am reading this correctly but the cde website has data that was updated on 1/7/11 that shows MDUSD not in PI. Am I missing something?
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tidatafiles.asp
anon 1:54 It is my understanding that the "official" placement into Program Improvement has not yet occurred for new districts but will soon happen. You can see the requirements to stay out of PI have not been met.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:14 It looks like MDUSD may have escaped by meeting the graduation requirement as an exception. Frankly, its all very confusing.
ReplyDeleteWell and I don't know what you all are talking about! First of all, no PI schools are on the short list/scenarios being offers up, so this giving back money thing is ridiculous. Secondly, the board is only considering these options because the scac came up with the scenarios. You saying the board is considering.. Is a reach. Yes they will be considering, but only because its one of the choices thrust upon them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the seq//mg option got the fewest votes, so if the board is committed to following the committee recommendations it will be scenario 1 or 2 . Frankly I think they should do both 1 and 2!
Anon 2:41,
ReplyDeleteYou sound just like the person(s) who were telling all the Sequoia parents "don't worry the choice school option is only in the list of 10 options to make the process appear fair. The choice schools will never be presented to the board."
Well guess what either you were wrong or intentionally trying to mislead us. And here you are trying to do it again. Sorry bub, as the saying goes, "Fool me once......
Another comment from the school board meeting leads to an interesting question. Since the NCLB transfers are limited to a small list -- only Wren is on the proposed NCLB school option list and listed in closure option 1a -- would a school be added to replace Wren on the NCLB list ? Has anyone run the numbers to determine how many NCLB spots will be available under either of the three closure scenarios ? Presumably there would be less spots available with larger populations. Won't the NCLB choice list have to be expanded to accomodate the larger number of NCLB transfer requests from parents whose child goes from a current "high performing" school to a NCLB school ? Or will the board reduce parents choices to practically nothing under NCLB which includes the district paying the transportation ?
ReplyDeleteThere are 7 schools you can transfer "to" if you are currently zoned for an NCLB school:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mdusd.org/Departments/studentservices/Documents/intra-faq.pdf
Ayers
Bancroft
Hidden Valley
Mt. View
Sun Terrace
Westwood
Wren
And there are 2 middle schools to transfer "to" if you are currently zoned for an NCLB middle school:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mdusd.org/Departments/studentservices/Documents/intra-faq.pdf
Diablo View
Pleasant Hill Middle
If Wren is closed, what school would replace it on the NCLB "choice" list ?
ReplyDeleteYou mean they are going to close the high performing schools and force those children to attend the low performing schools, without providing more spaces for transfer out of the NCLB schools ? What are they thinking ?
ReplyDeleteNo Anon 9:10 no one has said they are going to close the high performing schools. Do not believe what you read on these blogs. Sadly many jump to conclusions, post their conclusions without facts and then cause hysteria.
ReplyDeleteYou can go to the MDUSD website and click Community. Then you can read all the agendas, information and minutes from the School Closure Committee. You will see how they came up with their recommendation list. Every school in the MDUSD was subject to the same criteria.
I did not attend the SCC meetings, but I took the time to read all the information. I then attended the last PAC meeting. These meetings are open to all parents. Ask at your school site if they have a representative that attends these once a month meetings, if not consider being your school site representative. I have been going for about 6 years and they are very informative and I have learned a lot about how complicated our State makes school district budgets. It has been very eye opening.
Anon 11:04 -- But isn't it true that a child redirected to another school which happens to be "low performing" under NCLB because of school closure is limited by the district to which schools he can apply to transfer to ? And don't they limit the number of transfers ? I just don't think it is fair that a child involuntarily transfered cannot have a full selection of schools to transfer to under NCLB.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11;04,
ReplyDeleteHow do you explaing the fact that the choice schools did not end up in the bottom quartile of ANY of the selection criteria, yet are still one of the top three choices?
If you can answer that one, then how about explaining how Northgate High school got 4 votes when the SCC wasn't even supposed to address High Schools?
Trust me the process was not conducted fairly. Certain members of the committee have vendettas and now the board has to try and figure out how to account for personal vendettas in the selection process.
Anon 12:31
ReplyDeleteI believe SMS, SES, and MG made the list because they will be easy to close. No new boundaries and no arguments over property values.
How nice for the adults having to make the decision. How sad for our children who depend on having choices outside of their failing neighborhood schools.
I do not believe this Board will close these schools. I believe they will do what is best for the kids.
Anon 12:31 I don't trust you become you obviously were not at the SCC meetings. You are tiresome and you post a lot, saying the same thing over and over, assumptions with no facts.
ReplyDeleteNGHS does not have the capacity for a larger student population. Plus if Crossings and Crystal Ranch attended the schools closer to them then enrollment would drop further at NGHS. But this is a mute point because a high school was not going to be closed.
I do agree with Anon 1:28 that the BOE probably won't close SES, SMS and MG.
Are you going to attend the 1/19 Study session? Did you attend the last PAC meeting where a lot of your accusations would have been proven nonfactual? Have you read all the agenda, meeting minutes and notes on the SCC on the MDUSD website?
1:28, I agree that the reason given for putting SMS, SES and MG on the list is that some people believe it would be easy, or want everyone else to believe that. It's actually not true. Closing them will result in millions spent on new classrooms when the students go back to their home schools that do not have room for them. Or, they could make things even more complicated and re-draw the boundary lines for Pleasant Hill. Pleasant Hill Elementary and Strandwood Elementary won't have room for all the displaced students when they attempt to "return" to these home schools. I imagine they could move some of them over to Gregory Gardens. Imagine if not only do these children get kicked to the curb when the only school they've ever known closes, but to add insult to injury, they cannot even attend their home school because it is full and now the boundary lines are changed. I wonder what Mr. Pleasant Hill Elementary Parent, who is so eager to have the choice schools closed, will think if his kids are moved to Gregory Gardens. Talk about a crash of property value, to have your home school go from an API score of 917, to one of 818!! Or a great schools rating of 9, down to a 6! There will be nothing easy about closing choice schools. What I can't figure out is why the Silverwood community seems to think their property values will take a dive if their school closes. They would be taking a step up if they go to Ayers. Certainly there will be no dip in their property values, and at least the kids will be moved in 3 big groups. Most likely they'd be moved with lots and lots of kids they already know. The poor kids at the choice school will take 2 maybe 3 acquaintances with them to their new school...
ReplyDeleteIs there room for all the children to be put into Ayers and still have it a "NCLB choice" school ? How many "NCLB choice" children will then not be able to attend Ayers ? I think the term "choice schools" is being used in different contexts and is becoming confusing. "NCLB choice" appears to be the limited list of schools to choose from under by childen at the NCLB underperforming schools. "Choice schools" also refers to the schools without boundaries that are chosen for their academic focus. And some people are using "choice schools" to indicate high API performing schools.
ReplyDeleteI think most people are using the term "Choice Schools" to describe SES, SMS and MG, as that is the official term that the school district has designated them as. Previously they had been described as magnet or charger schools, but various board members have corrected their designation.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:12 I think the issues you identified might be relevant but I am not sure they can be verified. I think one of the reasons there is such confusion is depsite the hard work of the committee, the committee was not well staff supported, the staff was inexperienced in closing schools and couldn't anticipate all the questions that needed to be asked and the consultant beyond the initial report supplied litte for the high price tag. No wonder Trustee Cheryl Hansen who had experience in closing schools objected. I will be most interested in her comments at the workshop.
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:09,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my question, lets assume that you are correct and everything is appropriate with the way the SCC conducted business.
How then did a highschool (NorthGate) receive four votes for closure? You said yourself that highschools were not to be considered.
Maybe it is not as you say, and there are personal vendettas on the SCC?
Anon 2:58 Why did Staff even put Northgate on the voting list ? Or allow the vote to be placed on there ?
ReplyDelete2:53, Here is the page that details the number of classrooms required to be built (under the current class size, as well as under the Class Size Reduction that is anticipated in a couple years) http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/scac/powerpoint/12-06.pdf (page 38).
ReplyDeleteI would then direct you to http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/scac/prosncons.pdf. Under the "cons" you will note a $3.5 million expense, this is the cost of the additional classrooms.
The idea to shift the boundary was simply mine (so I can't verify that one for you), as I can imagine if they did close the "choice" schools, they may try to avoid the $3.5 million price tag. Changing the home schools in Pleasant Hill is the only option I can come up with to do that.
If you go to greatschools.net, you can see for yourself that Ayers, Moutain View and Highlands (the three schools that the Silverwood kids would be moved to) are actually better schools with higher test scores.
One other thing, it is curious that the only "pros" they came up with in the scenario to close "choice" schools is the dispersal of high testing students and highly involved parents. Unfortunately, those highly involved parents will more than likely take their kids out of the district, rather than place the burden on children to increase test scores at lower performing schools.
Anon 3:09,
ReplyDeleteAnon 2:58 here, I have no idea. I personally think this is an indication of the lack of a process and objectivity. Not by the entire SCC but rather by select individuals with vendettas.
Can you propose an alternative explanation?
2:53, in response to your comment that my points can't be verified... (I typed this out and somehow it didn't show up, so I'm doing it again!)
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the additional classrooms that will be required, please refer to http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/scac/powerpoint/12-06.pdf, page 38. This report details how many additional classrooms will be needed under the current class size, as well as under the Classroom Reduction size.
As for the cost, please review http://www.mdusd.org/Community/Documents/scac/prosncons.pdf. Under the "cons" of closing the Sequoias, it refers to the $3.5 million price tag. This is to build those needed classrooms. The cons (second page) even comes right out and says that the home schools don't have room!!
The idea for re-drawing the boundary lines and sending kids to Gregory Gardens was my idea, as it is the only idea I can come up with to avoid the $3.5 million cost if they are to close the "choice" schools. So, I suppose I am verifying my own idea.
If you review greatschools.com and compare Ayers, Highlands, Mountain View and Silverwood, you can see for yourself that Silverwood actually has the lowest test scores. Sending the kids to those three schools would appear to be a step up.
Anything else I can verify for you?
At the PAC, it was explained that in addition to the scenarios, the committee decided to individual schools. Each member was given 4 votes. When the votes compared to the scenarios, the votes individual schools with the most votes were the same as the top scenario.
ReplyDeleteThey criteria used was the same as for the scenarios.
Anon 2:58 First off NGHS was not the only high school to receive votes (they received the most), YVHS received 1, the other high schools received none.
ReplyDeleteTHERE IS NO PERSONAL VENDETTA, I suggest you really examine your mind and thoughts. Closing schools is horrible and it won't be easy for anyone. Part of the criteria was API score, however this was only one small part of the big picture.
Threatening, accusing people of vendetta's, calling names, etc. does not serve any purpose.
Attend the meetings, review the information and recognize MDUSD has no choice, schools are going to have to close. We should feel lucky it is only 3 or 4 right now. Fremont Unified has 32,000 students with 42 schools, MDUSD states on its website it has 36,200 students with 54 schools. But with declining enrollment I believe MDUSD has about 34,000 students, which does not justify 12 more schools.
Anon 3:48,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I KNOW THE MDUSD HAS TO CLOSE SCHOOLS, I personally think they should close twelve of them to bring us in line with Fremont Unified.
What I'm arguing against is the closure of your top performing schools. Doing that is the craziest idea I've ever heard in my whole life. The district should take the 12 worst performing schools and shut them down. No questions asked. Then maybe we can start to head in the right direction.
Anon 3:28 -- The person conducting the vote was asleep at the wheel ? Oh, excuse me, it was an Assistant Superintendent. That couldn't be could it ?
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:48 Were the high schools supposed to be on the potential closure list or not ? If not, what is your explanation for why they were on the ballot ?
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:28 While I am not sure 12 is the correct number, only closing 3 schools is like cutting the tail off a dog an inch at a time. With the funding issues announced by the governor today, I think they had better look carefully at closing 6-8 schools and try and save close to half of what they need to close the budget gap. Even under the rosiest budget of the three proposed by MDUSD there needs to be about 12 million cut. And not all of the 10 "persistently underperforming schools" can be closed either -- MDUSD cannot afford to have these small elementary schools.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:07
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Three is a drop in the bucket. Won't we be back to revisiting this idea again in a few months?
This is what happens when you work without a plan... have those strategic planning meetings started yet?
We should strategically close the correct number of schools. We should consider the overall performance of schools and keep those that are working, if we can. I recognize we may not be able to use that criteria in every instance for many reasons.
The entire district's boundaries will need to be reevaluated and most likely changed, in order to accommodate all of the displaced students without building new classrooms.
All of this could actually work if it was within the context of an overall innovative strategic plan to improve the quality of education in this district.
But no... once again it is a reactionary measure with good intentions but errors on what is easiest (still difficult) not what is best.
Strategic Planning -- LMAO
ReplyDeleteDidn't Gary say they were going to have a workshop this month to "begin" the process ? What's with that Gary ?
Anon 5:10,
ReplyDeleteYou forget board members are first and foremost politicians. Therefore they are willing to say and vote for whatever is "good for them" at the time. They don't really intend to follwo through with anything. Hell there is another election to plan for in two years.
Remember a politicians first job is to get reelected.
Anon 3:59,
ReplyDeleteYour question is the perfect question to ask. Unfortunately, anon 3:48 won't be able to answer that one because it totally destroys their argument.
At the PAC meeting last week it was explained that each member of the SCC had 4 votes. Based on these votes the top 2 recommendations were made for school closure. The SES, SMS and MG scenario was not in the top 2, I believe it was 3rd or 4th. It was decided at that time to have each member cast their votes by individual school, that is how some high schools received votes (2 out of 6 high schools received votes, NGHS-4, YVHS-1). It was asked at the PAC meeting if a high school was going to close, we were told no. There is no reason to panic that NGHS will be closing.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that the school's API score was just a small piece of the criteria used to come up with the recommended closures. Attend the 1/19 Study session to learn how the SCC used data and came up with their recommended list. Also, the final decision will be made by the BOE.
Anon 8:12 I think you missed the point. If high schools were not to be considered for closure, how did they even end up on the ballot ?
ReplyDeleteStill I see people screaming to close underperforming schools. No one EVER says where those kids should go. These kids don't disappear, folks. They need to be educated somewhere. How about close Cambridge and Meadow Homes and send them to Monte Gardens and Sequoia Elementary? That way the underperforming schools can help those poor unfortunate children be successful. What say you, MG and SES parents?
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:27,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how your logic is any better. You say close MG and SES and send the high performing children to Cambridge and Meadow Homes?
Sorry but I will stand up for my children's right to go to a school where English is spoken.
The high schools weren't "on the ballot". There was a recommendation by one SCC member to post all of the schools in the district individually, in addition to the scenario ballot casting.
ReplyDeleteThe idea was to break down each school site individually since the scenarios included multiple schools and some people might feel that some of the schools in a given scenario should or shouldn't be closed.
The individual school vote tally was never intended to be used to go to the board. It was just a way to complement the scenario vote.
If you would have attended meetings instead of getting all your misinformation third hand, this information would have been made clear to you. It was also mentioned at the recent PAC meeting.
Anon 8:38,
ReplyDeleteWhat you are not addressing is the following:
If no high school was supposed to be closed, how in the hell did ANY high schools end up on a list where it was even possible for them to be voted for?
Was the meeting facilitation incompetent, or are individual SCC members incompetent? Or are both the facilitators and the members incompetent?
Why do you keep dodging the question?
wow anon. Ok. So when this process started EVERY SINGLE school was reviewed. Have you read the report of criteria? All schools were ranked in a rating system. From that and the research presented scenarios were formed. It so happened no high schools made the short list... The rest you can see answered several times now.
ReplyDeleteLet's say theoretically, every SCAC member voted for College Park HS to be closed in the final round of voting, what recommendation would have been sent to the board?
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to have high schools on the list in the first place, if they were never being considered for closure. The fact that the high schools were on the list for the final round of voting makes it *appear* that the process wasn't designed well, and it makes it *seem* like some committee members may have misunderstood the process or instructions.
And, yes, I've been following developments closely for the SCAC since April 2010 (when applications went out for volunteers to participate).
Good god, why are you all wasting so much time on what list they used for the individual votes?!?! Who cares if high schools were listed? They aren't closing any!!! Someone probably just printed out a complete list of all schools because it was easy. Now can you stop debating this completely irrelevant question???
ReplyDelete9:06pm- Following the meetings isn't the same as being there and listening to the entire dialog.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, there were no high schools that made it in any of the scenarios. The point of the individual school list was to show what members thought about each school site SEPARATE from the scenarios.
That part of the vote was NEVER going to go to the board. It was just a way to show what committee members felt based on their evaluation of the data and possibly, personal feelings, about what schools should close.
If you look at the votes though, they do track with the scenarios. It wasn't about having high schools on the list. Every school was on the list and it was just a list to complement the scenarios.
By the way, I am not dodging anyone's question. I haven't posted on this blog in a long time because I was tired of trying to inform people of what the process was, only to have some parents repeatedly make immature and incorrect assumptions.
And I am sure they will begin again in 1, 2, 3...
Anon 8:54 When the data was presented on the high schools, it was not to consider them for closure, but to help evaluate which schools that fed into them should be closed. Closure of high schools was clearly off the table the whole time. The SCC rejected Lawrence's crazy idea of making a 6-12 idea. Its surprising that Locke never put his idea forward earlier during the process if there was to be consideration of altering the high schools.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:21,
ReplyDeleteNo, I will not stop debating this question until we have an answer for how a highschool ANY highschool ended up getting voted for.
Again, was it gross incompetence by the meeting facilitators, gross incompetence by SCC members, or gross incompetence by both sides?
I think this is a clear indication of a flawed process that has produced an out come that is illogical and unethical.
Anon 9:21 The point is that doing so makes the whole process suspect of its validity.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:25 You conclusion mirrors the way the district is run. Remember who the administrators were on the committee.
ReplyDeleteTo Anon 9:22
ReplyDeleteIt was just a way to show what committee members felt based on their evaluation of the data ...
This is where I'm confused. If the committee members evaluated the criteria and data properly, there should have beenzero votes for high schools since the SCAC received guidance that no high schools were being considered for closure.
Since there were 4 votes for Northgate and 1 vote for YV, it's very confusing, and it does make it seem like some committee members must not have followed the given criteria and data -- e.g. the SCAC was given criteria that said close Elem and Middle schools only and then some people voted for high schools?
The process allowed members to vote for any school and allowed members to ignore the given criteria and data (vote for HS, and vote for schools that did not match the criteria). So this suggests that in addition to the Northgate and YV votes, there could be other votes where members ignored the criteria.
A proper process would have enforced that members voted on the criteria and data and would have resulted in no votes for high schools.
Anon 9:22 Finally the voice of reason! This poster constantly on the NGHS vote thing obviously just wants to stir the pot, constantly. They most likely never attended a single SCC meeting, PAC meeting, etc...
ReplyDeleteSchool closures are painful, very painful. If you think the process was flawed, did you apply to be a part of the process? Did you attend all the SCC meetings? Did you attend the recent PAC meeting to hear and learn about the process of the SCC meeting? If not, then you are passing judgement and that is it! Frankly most of us are tired of judgement and accusations like yours, it serves absolutely no purpose. If you are that unhappy then I suggest you move, far, far away.
Frankly I don't care if our high school received votes, I know they are not closing one. But who knows about the future, California is in serious trouble and everyone is going to have to take hard hits to pull this State out.
If we can close 6-8 schools and get back the $5 mil on mental health cuts, then we have a balanced budget according to the first proposal set forth by Richards.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:40pm- Where do you get the idea that the criteria said no high school should be closed? That wasn't part of the criteria.
ReplyDeleteDuring the review process, it was determined that closing a high school would create too many problems, so energies were focused on elementary and middle schools. That doesn't mean that some of the committee members didn't feel that a high school should be closed.
As was stated before, this part of the process carried no weight in the decision. The purpose was just to see how committee members felt about individual schools.
After the voting for the scenarios took place and a ranking of those votes were achieved, the individual tallies were helpful to see what the committee felt about each school.
Get over the NGHS vote! It's not part of any scenario. If a committee member who sat through 12 meetings came to the conclusion based on the data they reviewed that it should be closed, then they had the right to vote for it.
If you didn't attend any of the meetings then you really have no idea how they were conducted. Reading minutes and graphs and charts is less than half of knowing what went on.
As an outside observer who went to the meetings with the specific purpose to ensure they were conducted fairly, I was more than satisfied with the process. There is no validity to the comments about inadequate facilitation, overly aggressive committee members or stacked groups. It just didn't happen.
Anon 8:17
ReplyDeleteSo why aren't we closing 6 -8 schools? I will tell you... because there is no plan.
The board plan states saving $1.5 million in savings fir school closure
ReplyDeleteWho said that the board won't close more schools? If the board agrees with all 3 recommenations then more schools will be closed. Also the board will need to determine how the property will used. There is a committee - Dr Lawrence called it the 7-11- that will look at property uses.
Anon 8:30,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to know alot about the process.
In your opinion, how did the choice schools that were not in the bottom quartile of any of the "criteria" come to be one of the three options for closure?
Anon 8:56 Do you have the criteria information? Because I sure do not and I have attended meetings. Please provide your links to your statement.
ReplyDeleteWe have elementary schools with 700 plus. If we divide the total number of elementary children by 700, how many elementary schools could we have ? Do the math from the 29 we now have. I don't know the exact numbers but lets say we have roughly 16,000 elementary students. At a 700 per school target we would only need 23 schools instead of the current 29. Now, yes, I know that not all have that current capacity, but we have to start thinking economies of scale.
ReplyDelete8:56am- I seem to know a lot about the process because I attended almost every meeting, not just the last two where the voting procedure was discussed or when the vote was taken.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't have the criteria list right now. It was given out in the very beginning of the process and I shared it with someone who wanted to see all the hand out materials. There were seven criteria that covered everything from age of facility to whether nearby schools could absorb the population of a closed schools.
The Sequoias and MG did not come in at the bottom of the ratings, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be included in a scenario. The whole process was a process. In the end, if people felt that closing schools that were not anchored by individual neighborhoods was the best choice, that was their prerogative to vote for it. There's more to making decisions than just putting data into a computer.
As was stated over and over again, closing the choice school was a third option. A distant third option that had a distinct split vote of 14 to 10. The other two scenarios votes were unanimous, if not overwhelmingly in favor of putting them forward.
The district serves more than just those families who attend choice schools and I don't think the committee were wrong to include that as a scenario. If everyone in the district has to face potential closures then choice schools should be looked at also.
That being said, I don't think the board will vote to close them, nor should they. In a district such as the MDUSD where you have many schools that are under program improvement, you need to have a balance of schools that have high API scores or the entire district will be in jeopardy of becoming a program improvement district.
I am not speaking for the board, and I have no idea how they will vote, but I think it is a long shot at best that they will exercise this option. But who knows?
In my 14 years of being an active district volunteer, I have seen over and over parents who claim they don't have to be on the board or go to a meeting to have an opinion, only to have them complain about the outcome. The only time people come out of the woodwork is when decisions affects their children. It really is tiresome to read these posts that rant and rave with no basis in fact, despite the efforts of others to try and provide the truth.
I know that I am not going to change anyone's mind about this and with only have one more year left in the district, I am less inclined to care. If you think that reading a blog or downloading data from the internet is being involved then you will likely be dissatisfied with the decisions that are made.
It's great to help out in your child's classroom, but try attending PAC meetings, join the budget committee, or any other committee to make a difference. That's the way to help all of our children.
I have said all I care to on this thread. I do hope that people attend the Jan 19th study session and respectfully make their case during public comment at the end of the meeting.
Anyone know anything about the Facebook threat at Northgate High as reported in the Times ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_17065044
At 9:56, you make alot of good points. People SHOULD use these sites to support and share truthful information and not to rant and rave and bee offensive to others but I guess people can't help it. I think there has been a great lesson learned for me. I'm at one of the possible school closures and I never would've thought our school would've got on the list. I learned that our Parent Rep for PAC does not attend therefore we were not informed. Anyhow, I will admit I was clueless about alot of what was going on until it affected me directly. Since then I have been attending all meetings possible. Its never to late in my opinion and I will be sure to stay involved after this process is complete. I hope more parents do the same.
ReplyDeleteI do think the threat was yesterday.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the choice schools are going to be shut down given how appreciative the board was of all the Siverwood parents tonight.
ReplyDelete9:07, your comment actually made me laugh... the board was being polite. But I admire your efforts to convince yourself otherwise. Sadly, all the facts and data support a Silverwood closure.
ReplyDelete