Need another high school? Need another high school? (April 28, 2000)

Debate over proposed new high school sparks passions on both sides

by Stephanie Ericson

One of the reasons Julie Testa moved to Pleasanton was the quality of the schools. Coming from a community where schools were crowded, she was pleased that her youngest child would be attending Vintage Hills Elementary, which had only a little over 300 students at the time.

"It was wonderful for many years," Testa said of public education in Pleasanton, "but I became concerned when I saw proposed developments all around and there didn't seem to be plans to build more elementary schools."

As a result of overcrowding, Testa said, she saw kids cut from talent shows, traffic become unmanageable, and children from the same family split up and sent to different elementary schools.

Testa became more uneasy when the district sold land at Del Prado and at Sycamore. Although the district maintained that these were not appropriate sites for schools, Testa has a different view. Regarding Sycamore, she said, school officials "assured me at the time they would never have large numbers of high school students. I challenged that because there was a bubble of kids coming along... my kids were in that bubble."

"They later said it wasn't a good site anyway, but that was not the discussion at the time," she added.

Today her son, Chris, is 15 and a freshman at Amador Valley High School, and it is the size of high school enrollment that has her attention. Last March, along with Tim and Deborah Kleffman and others, she formed ROCA, Reduce Overcrowded Campuses Alliance, to push for building a new high school. Deborah Kleffman withdrew from the group upon her election as school board trustee in November. New school becomes hot topic

Building a new high school became a major item of discussion at school board meetings during the last year. Proponents for the new school continue to argue that high school enrollment is likely to be about 5,000 at Pleasanton's buildout of 29,000 homes, and could be as high as 5,500. This, they say, would make education more depersonalized as well as create logistical problems, such as traffic congestion, parking and inadequate space generally.

Present high school enrollment in Pleasanton is 3,700, with 1,900 at Amador Valley High School, 1,650 at Foothill High School, and 150 at Village High School.

Opponents counter that larger schools offer students a greater variety of programs and note that the low end of the enrollment forecast range is less than 4,200.

Last fall, a school district committee recommended that the school board consider three options: expanding the existing high schools, as called for in a 1992 facilities master plan; building a smaller academic or stub high school; or building a third comprehensive high school. On Jan. 25, the school board voted to "explore" the second option and to begin looking into possible land to purchase. Opponents fear premature actions

Since then, the debate has continued to rage as opponents fear the new board will take premature and possibly irreversible actions toward building the school, and proponents become impatient with the continuing debate.

Parent Vicky Reinke, a member of the recently formed PRIDE (Parents for Responsible Input and Decisions in Education), explained why she thinks the board should approach the matter cautiously.

"As this thing unfolded, I immediately became concerned when there were parents pushing for new facilities because they are very expensive and we have limited funds," she said. "It's not the building so much, but the operating costs once it's built. It costs much more money to run a separate campus."

Not true, say proponents. The school district has estimated that a third comprehensive high school would cost more to run, but that a smaller school of 900-1,000 without many of the extracurricular amenities would cost about the same as increasing enrollment at existing schools by the same amount. Nature of school not yet determined

However, many remain skeptical and it is difficult to predict costs precisely. In large part, this is because the exact nature of the new school won't be determined until after the school district completes an extensive review of high school programs in late fall. This review will include broad public input.

"Until we know that, we aren't sure what we should be building," said Deputy Superintendent Buster McCurtain, who added that the findings will determine costs. "That kind of tells us if there's going to be another high school... and if it still fits into the model."

Reinke and other PRIDE members are also concerned that smaller high schools will offer less variety. As Pleasanton's high schools have grown over the years, they have added new programs.

"Foothill is a good example," said PRIDE member Mike Moran. "Eight to 10 years ago, parents came to board meetings demanding more support to match Amador High School programs, such as drama, advanced placement English classes and other advanced placement courses. Now... the schools are on a par."

In addition to size, Moran credits a cooperative teamwork by teachers in which some teach large classes to allow others to teach smaller ones. He would rather see the high schools add a seventh period to give students more program options than devote any additional operating costs necessary to support a new school.

Moran and Reinke believe the issue should be academic quality, not size, and argue that smaller schools do not necessarily enhance academic achievement. Teachers raise concerns

Some Pleasanton teachers are also raising concerns about the idea.

"My disappointment was that the board or the district or the ROCA group didn't ask to survey the teachers before they got this far," said Sonia Howes, president of the Association of Pleasanton Teachers. The association recently conducted its own survey of all teachers in which 90 percent of respondents opposed a new high school.

The association did not publicly release its fact sheet that accompanied the survey, leading some to suggest the survey was biased. Association officers would also not reveal what percentage of teachers filled out the survey, but said it was more than they expected. Small schools gaining advocates

After decades of school consolidation, the idea of small schools has gained more adherents across the nation in recent years, including the support of U.S. Secretary for Education Richard Riley.

"I ... believe that we need to find ways to create small, supportive learning environments that give students a sense of connection," he said in remarks made to the National Press Club last September. "That's hard to do when we are building high schools the size of shopping malls. Size matters."

Advocates for smaller schools argue that students feel anonymous in large schools, rubbing shoulders with different students in each class and having fewer opportunities to build rapport with teachers.

"Students don't know their classmates as well," said Deborah Kleffman, "(and) as a former teacher, I know you have less contact with your principal. You don't know your staffmates as well."

Small school proponents point to a number of studies which show that students in smaller schools demonstrate increased attendance, better behavior, less violence and, often, greater academic achievement. In a 1996 study, "Breaking Ranks," the National Association of Secondary School Principals recommended limiting secondary school size to 600 students.

However, Riley and others say that another way to make students feel more connected to school is to create schools, or academic houses, within schools.

Moreover, smaller schools may be more important in some communities than in others. As reported in a recent research survey, a 1995 study suggests that disadvantaged students appear more dependent upon small schools for success than do others. The study, by V.E. Lee and J.B. Smith, was published in the "Sociology of Education" journal.

Nevertheless, even with an additional high school, the high schools in Pleasanton would not be that small. At buildout, with a new school of around 1,000 students, the low end of projected enrollment at each of the comprehensive high schools is estimated to be about 1,500.

Testa thinks the district should build a new comprehensive high school.

"With every new student comes ADA (average daily attendance) dollars," she said. "Pleasanton has traditionally operated with 1,200 to 1,400 students in the high schools with teachers at the top of the pay scale ... and we've had good, successful high schools." What is most efficient size?

Some studies conclude that large schools may be economically less efficient to run than smaller schools, although they differ on what the most efficient size is. But with the low level of per student funding in California relative to other states, the situation here is different, said McCurtain.

"In California, the funding model allows you to do only limited things," he said, explaining that this typically forces districts to choose between small schools, higher teacher salaries and excellent programs.

"In Pleasanton, we've been real fortunate to have been able to do a little of all three because we are operating in an efficient manner to offer more without having the enrollment water things down."

"California says they are all for small schools, but we are funded 41st in the nation," was how Superintendent Mary Frances Callan put it. "The state does not provide the money for small schools."

It's this relatively low funding that has alarmed members of PRIDE, who observe the district investigating possible land sites and worry that the district will purchase land before the high school program review is completed.

"There is no way that any board could act on purchasing land without (the process) being public," Callan said. Board looking at options

School board President Cindy McGovern said the board has to look at options now to ensure flexibility later, especially given new state environmental regulations that lengthen the time for state approval of new school site property.

"It's a two-part process and being dealt with under different constraints - getting land and state funding," she said. "That's part of the financial plan, to have the flexibility to prepare for the future."

Trustee Weaver agrees.

"I think we need to keep all our options open and I'm looking forward to getting input in the high school program review."

McGovern said the district's options are still open even if it does purchase land. If enough students don't move in, the school does not have to be built and the land can be sold, she noted. "We did sell land at Sycamore for $7 million, which was used for technology," she said.

The district is counting on the state to pay 50 percent of the land purchase, but it must get in line before funding from a 1998 state bond measure runs out. Or hope for new state funding in the future.

But Trustee Juanita Haugen is far from ready to sign off on buying land.

"I'm not opposed to building another school if there's a need and if we have the financial wherewithal," Haugen said, "(but) I don't feel we should buy property before we are sure we're going to need it." She recalled when the district sold land in the past, due to tight finances during an economic downturn, because growth occurred in different areas of the community than had been expected and because the district was forced to pay property taxes on the bond.

She said even if the bond money runs out next spring, as expected, she believes that the state will provide more funding in the future, "because we're in a growth mode in California and the lack of facilities all over this state is quite obvious."

Weaver said she would like to see a new high school, but she is not ready to go forward without seeing business plans for the different alternatives.

"I don't see how people can just say, 'Just build out the high schools' or 'Just build a new high school,'" she said. "I think it is premature to take a stand." <@$p>