Sounds like it's standing room only so far. There will be public comment, beginning about 6:50pm and will be limited to about 30 minutes. (3 minutes each speaker, though may be shortened per board discretion)
Go to Gary Eberhart's MDUSD.net blog for live streaming to view the meeting :
http://mdusd.blogspot.com/
Also, you can see the agenda HERE and also see the presentation (powerpoint) online. AGENDA
Theresa Harrington (Times) posted a side by side comparison of the Mt. Diablo schools recommended for closure. You can view that HERE.
7:34pm,
ReplyDeleteGary finally takes a stand and gives Sherry a smackdown. Gary says that closing choice schools don't make any sense.
Sherry showed her true colors tonight.
ReplyDeleteClosing choice schools makes the most sense. If what you are saying is correct, Gary deserves to be recalled!
ReplyDeleteNo, Sherry should be recalled at the soonest opportunity.
ReplyDeleteGary Eberhart, Sherry Whitmarsh and Lynn Dennler appeared to favor removing option 3 (closing Monte Gardens and the Sequoias) from consideration. Superintendent Lawrence also appeared to support looking at Options 1 and 2.
ReplyDeleteThe Board made the right decision in holding off on a decision tonight. It is obvious that the closure committee put in a lot of work to reach their recommendations. Additionally, it would have been a mistake to have removed option 3 prior to hearing from the public.
I must say I was surprised when Gary Eberhart recommended removing opiton 3 AND that Sherry was quick to agree...not what I expected at all but can't say I mind. But you're right they did make the right decision to holf off. I know the schol closure committee put in alot of work but the Board has additional information and concerns to provide... as you could hear at the end of the meeting they had alot of other possible options or issues to address.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the superintendent say that option 3 wasn't even possible, it would cost money? It doesn't make sense to even keep it as an option. If it isn't possible the right thing to do would have been to remove it from the list.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:32
ReplyDeleteI don't think they will choose option 3 after what was said tonight. It is crazy that the committee was told not to consider the adjustment of boundaries. If we have declining enrollment why on earth would we build classrooms under any scenario. Just adjust the boundaries.
Eberhart, Whitmarsh and Dennler didn't just appear to favor removing option 3, they were in agreement to remove it. But because it was not unamimous amount the 5 board members they held off. Which really is just a technicality at this point, we now know that the 3 of them will not vote for option 3.
ReplyDeleteEberhart stated the obvious reasons for not considering #3, the $3.5 million price tag and also the fact that they are the highest performing schools.
The reason it isn't feasible though, according to the Superintendant, was because they need at least 7 months to either build new classrooms or get portables ready. Option #3 would require 16 of them! Option #1 would require none and would cost no money, and would still leave the affected schools with capacity.
Wonder how many of those who voted for Cheryl Hansen and Linda Mayo in November now wish they had voted for Brian Lawrence instead...
ReplyDeleteHold on there Anon 11:42. I had a renewed respect for both Mayo and Hansen for not going along with removing an option last night. They wanted to hear from the community before making any decisions.
ReplyDeleteI have not made up my mind yet about Dennler though. She either is a deep thinker, not saying much until she has something profound to say, or she simply has nothing to contribute.
I think Cheryl Hansen is just what this board needed. She has come in strong, and doesn't seem to back down. Good for her.
And Linda Mayo, it is obvious that she truly has the best interest of all at heart, and understands the turmoil this is all causing.
Hansen and Mayo were simply being diplomatic. There were a few hundred people at the meeting, and it was only fair to let some of those people speak before taking an option off the table. I believe had Eberhart waited until after the public comment section, he may have had Mayo agreeing with him as well. I don't think it was any indication of how Hansen and Mayo will vote, I simply believe they were taken off guard by Gary's suggestion and weren't prepared to go there yet. Mayo even said she may have the same opinion, she's just not prepared to go there yet.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about politics people. Don't forget the board members are politicians!
Curious how and why the SCAC came up with a scenario that would cost 3.5 million? The purpose of these school closure is based on money, isn't it???? If that is the case how did Option 3 make it? Obviously by votes, but was it fair considering the costs involved? It is no wonder Gary Eberhart made the recommendation he did. You could see by the numbers. It might have been disappointing to the community and 2 of the Board Members since they wanted to hear from the community but that was all for appearance. They will not be making their decision based on what we think or feel but on the data provided. It is unfortunate situation for students, parents and teachers but hopefully the board could save one more school..perhaps Silverwood? They did mention possibly saving one more school at the end of the meeting. SCAD worked hard on this process but ultimately the Board makes the final decision.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was a good idea to suggest that they could possibly save one more school. That was really giving some of the parents false hopes. Sure, it's a good idea, and would be great if they could pull if off. Let's not forget that the school board must submit a balanced budget by June 30th, before the tax payers vote on Jerry Brown's new budget - which assumes the taxpayers approve an extension of taxes. According to Gary, the school's budget needs to assume we don't get the tax extensions, so they'll need to come up with additional cuts even beyond the $1.5million savings from school closures. Apparently they are working with the teachers to make more concessions, which might not be that easy to do. He mentioned it could even be possible to close more than 3 schools down the road if they don't get these concessions. So, given all that, to say they could possibly save a school was a bit irresponsible in my humble opinion. All things considered, we're lucky if they only close 3 schools.
ReplyDeleteClosing the choice schools never should've made it through the first winnowing down of the options from 10 to 3.
ReplyDeleteI think the meeting went off in an odd direction at the end. I had no problem with Mayo and Hansen taking the "choice" decision off the table. While I think it is wrong to close those three schools I also think it is wrong not to honor the process. Hansen said it best when she said "I only want to do this once and I want to do it right." and "I ran for the Board because I felt too many decisions were reactionary and made too quickly." These are not direct quotes but close.
ReplyDeleteWhere I thought things went in an odd direction is when they started talking about building a new high school with Measure C dollars. It first sounded like they would remodel the former Pacifica HS and then they started talking about looking at all land available in Bay Point. They did not mention having to close a high school if they did this until the Superintendent finally said something about taking 800 students from Mt. D.
At the same time they started talking about using the closed school sites for other district needs and needing to evaluate remodel costs. They talked about utilizing the space for the small high schools and special ed.
Something does not sit well with me. I understand closing schools and leasing/selling properties. I do not understand closing schools, displacing children, remodeling those properties and using them for other children.
Did I misunderstand the conversation?
Anon 1:04,
ReplyDeleteYou have misunderstood, you have mistakenly thought that this process was above board. It is not. I suspect we can get to the true motivations by following the money.
I cannot begin to understand anyone who thinks option #3 was a good idea?! The facts are this:
ReplyDeleteIt would cost over $3 million to close the choice schools.
There is not enough time to build those extra classrooms that would cost that $3 million.
It would effect the most number of children as not only would the displaced choice school students move to other schools, they in turn would bump other children from those schools back to a whole other school.
Those are facts. Financially and logistically it just doesn't work. How does anyone argue those facts? And I'm not even making this about the API scores.
Anon 10:41
ReplyDeleteI completely agree those schools should not be closed.
I do however have an issue with the argument that it will cost $3mil to close the schools. If we have declining enrollment it should not cost a dime to close schools. That $3mil number, or any number associated with building additional classrooms, is there simply because the committee was instructed to not address boundary changes.
Think about how stupid it is to build classrooms when you are closing schools because you don't have enough students. I guess it is okay because Measure C dollars don't really cost anything!
I am reading lots of posts and blogs. I think the BOE should rely solely on the outside consultants report to make their decisions. No matter what schools are closed someone, somewhere is going to cry "foul, conspiracy, conflict of interest", etc.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be painful no matter what. I do not envy the BOE at all and wish I had some magic solution to offer.
Save WREN AVE
ReplyDeleteLots of conflicts of interest on the school closure committee. No wonder a crazy moronic "close Monte Gardens" option made it into the list.
ReplyDeleteThe committee members should resign in shame.
Yes please save Wren.
ReplyDeletemy kids get great grades and love going to school.
We love Wren
Save Wren
Save Wren
Save WREN