Feb 05, 2004

SJUSD public school closure hearings
Second meeting is calmer, gentler with underlying tension

By Carol Rosen
Editor

While emotions continued to run high, the second public meeting to discuss the closures of Hammer, Erikson and Hester elementary schools was a much quieter discussion, allowing parents and teachers from the three schools to point out strong, important facts for not closing their schools. Even parents from schools that aren’t closing got the gist of these details and expressed concern about the possibility of losing some valuable educational programs at the second meeting held Feb. 3 at 6 p.m.

Although many parents from the three schools exhibited resignation that their schools would be closed, some still hoped that the public forum would allow them to get their points across to the entire school board. Unlike the Jan. 29 meeting, all board members were present.

Recommendations not cast in stone, but…
In fact, SJUSD Superintendent Dr. Linda Murray told the Times that it’s not likely the recommendations will change, although “it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The staff worked diligently as did the 21-member task force to include the best thinking in their recommendations,” she said.

The purpose of holding the public meetings is to try to understand the concerns of the parents and teachers and to determine if there was any factor that was not considered by the task force or the staff. “We want to ensure that the communities are involved,” she added. The communities will be allowed public forums at the next two board meetings, Feb. 12 and March 4. But the board will vote on the recommendations on March 4.

The meeting began with the district’s incoming superintendent, Don Iglesias, explaining the major considerations in closing the schools. These include cost savings, transportation, neighborhood schools, population diversity and declining enrollment with the goal to close one school in the north of the district, one central school and one magnet.

Choices for consolidation
Dr. Murray then explained the reasoning behind the schools chosen for consolidation.
In the case of Hammer, the goal of a magnat school is to increase diversity in a school. Galarza Elementary was chosen for the magnet’s consolidation school because there is a better chance of desegregation. She added that the district must meet its desegregation purpose to justify its desegregation funding. Hammer will remain a “school within a school” with its own identity along with its own API index.

She later told The Times that Hammer’s Montessori program can expand by attracting students from Galarza. “It [Hammer] has a natural community to recruit from,” she said. Magnet schools are not designed to provide a choice for a privileged few, and “we want to ensure that magnet schools are meeting the purpose we started them for.”

Erikson has a multi-cultural population and a collaborative cultural environment. In addition, its special education program allows students to be integrated, saving money and bringing students to grade level. However, the school has had a declining enrollment that is projected to continue to fall. Dr. Murray said that every school has a given focus, and that’s she’s hoping that as the teachers move to other schools they can bring their best thinking with them and share and blend that knowledge and expertise in the new school’s environment.

Erikson parents, teachers argue
Parents and teachers argued that closing Erikson is a breach of trust of the families who have raised funds and grants for the school’s programs. They said their children and students are comfortable, safe, secure, happy, productive and successful, which is not likely to be the case when the students are moved to two or three different schools.

Hester, the only downtown school to be closed, also has seen a significant decline in enrollment. In addition, there are equity issues. Dr. Murray then reiterated the point that the desegregation scrutiny, under which the district operates because of a unique court order, weighs heavily on the decisions of where children can attend.

Parents from the school noted that it would be devastating to remove ESS children who are stable in their current environment. They also claimed that small schools are where students really achieve, and consolidation doesn’t consider the success of the student. Another suggested that cutting top administrators would save a good deal of money on salary and benefits.

Budget cuts
The district also noted budget reductions since the economic bust in 2001.

--Central administration budgets were cut $500,000 in 2001/02.

--An additional $1.4 million in personnel from district offices, custodial, ASB cost recovery, consultants, attorneys and travel was the first round of cuts in 2002/03.

--Second cuts in 2002/03 were $4.8 million in reduced maintenance staff and supply and equipment budgets (district offices), additional consultant cuts, eliminating after-retirement contracts, reduced CSR costs and implementation of night cleaning teams. The second round of cuts also cut school site allocations 30 percent, eliminated overtime and substitutes at the district office, froze hiring, reduced warehouse staff, moved eligible costs to desegregation and started summer school in July.

--In the third round of 2002/03 cuts, the district cut $2.1 million by reducing assistant principal and clerical positions, reducing teacher staff allocations along with central administration positions and budgets, restructured police management, further reduced custodial positions, cut district budgets for materials and reduced resource teachers.

--The board cut the budget $13 million this year by eliminating class size reduction in K-third grade (although kindergarten has been restored) and in ninth grades, increasing class sizes at the secondary level, eliminating librarians, funding library media aides by categorical funding and reducing assistant principals, nurses and clerical office assistants at school sites, decreasing central management by 15 percent, increasing special education class sizes and case loads, reduced transportation routes and implementing hiring and spending freeze.

--The district has to cut a further $10 million from the 2004/05 budget, with proposals to implement a new health plan, obtain further energy savings, reduce central management and local school administration, increase summer school class sizes, consolidate/close schools and reduce instructional programs.

There will be a public information hearing at the Feb. 12 school board meeting. At this time the superintendent will provide her recommendation to the board. On March 4, the board will consider and take action on that recommendation. Parent letters will go out on March 5 with the board’s action, the student transition placement options and the student assignment process. Three transitions forums will take place March 8-20. On March 21, the SJUSD board and staff will meet with the affected staff to develop transition plans.

Raucous first meeting
In contrast, the first public meeting held on Jan. 29, a week after the district announced school closures, was anything but quiet. Feelings ran high and many parents were quite vocal in their feelings about the unfairness that their children’s schools should close.

One noisy group of parents noted that their school has a special program. It shouldn’t close, they insisted. Instead, the district should close Willow Glen Elementary, which had been on the long list the task force presented to the board of education. Other parents and teachers said they understood the need for closure, but wanted an explanation about what they were supposed to do.

No new boundary lines were delineated, although there are indications that some tentative redistricting is in the works. One Erickson Academy teacher indicated that about two-thirds of that school’s students, those living south of Highway 85, will be attending Allen, while the other third—or those living north of Highway 85—will attend Terrill.

SJUSD explanations
The district used the first half-hour of the meeting to provide some details about the changes in boundaries for the schools that are affected. The board also provided some comments about the selection process and why these three schools were singled out.

Erikson and Hester have had over 17 percent lower enrollment the last few years and the trend continues to fall. In addition, the district will have to bus fewer students when they are transferred to new schools. The need to meet voluntary integration goals was mentioned for Hammer.

The next 90 minutes was given over to parents and speakers from the schools. Each speaker got two minutes; each school took turns with five speakers and when the initial 15 were complete they started over again. At about 8 p.m. the district wrapped up the meeting and noted that it would address all concerns in writing by the Feb. 12 board meeting.

Probably the most vocal parents were from Hammer, the Montessori magnet school. They complained that the district is limiting kindergarten classes to two from five and strongly demanded the district commit to the Montessori program. They want to keep their principal and they want details of how the Montessori program will work as a school within a school.

While nothing is committed to stone, it does not appear that the school board will change its mind. However, they still have a month for planning and discussion before the final announcement on March 4.