Schools gets high marks from state Schools gets high marks from state (March 31, 2000)

Report notes one weak spot, up from 29 in last review

by Stephanie Ericson

California's education department gave Pleasanton schools a number of commendations in a review of the district's curriculum and student services. It also reported one area of non-compliance.

"Rarely does the state find a school district totally compliant," commented Jim Negri, assistant superintendent of educational services, at Tuesday night's school board meeting. Negri also noted that the state report praised the district's preparation for the review and its preceding self-review, a year-long effort led by Special Projects Coordinator Skye Larson.

The state's review of the school district four years ago noted 29 areas of non-compliance.

"This is amazing," said Trustee Juanita Haugen. "I've never seen one like this. We've come a long way... and I'm very proud."

The state review looked at how well supplemental programs are integrated into the district's core curriculum and whether students getting special services have equal access to instruction. It also reviewed safety, drug and tobacco education programs and staff development.

The district was found non-compliant in providing translations of complaint forms to parents into Spanish, Mandarin and Cantonese. The state asks schools to provide such translations whenever 15 percent or more students in a district or a school speak a primary language other than English.

While only 3 percent of Pleasanton students are non-native English speakers, 20 percent of students at Valley View Elementary School fall into that category, most speaking Spanish. Larson said the district will shortly have complaint form translations available.

In addition, she said, the district has been working on translating its notices to parents into Spanish. Valley View will be translating school notices into Spanish as well.

At the meeting, the board also revisited impact fees. Trustee Deborah Kleffman reported that the School Impact Fee Committee voted last week to revise the scenarios used to project future shortfalls for the school district's facilities expansion budget.

The committee abandoned the dual scenario approach adopted by the school board March 8, which approved budget projections for a new high school as well as for expanding existing high schools as originally planned.

Instead the committee adopted a single scenario for a new high school with land purchase of about 40 acres in 2001, projecting a cash shortfall in that year. This move explicitly asks two developers, Signature and Standard Pacific, to help underwrite a new high school.

Two parents critical of the proposed new high school suggested that this approach could end up in the courts and jeopardize an agreement that has worked well to fund school expansion up till now.

Trustee Kris Weaver responded that the board had voted not to choose this type of scenario.

But Kleffman, who favors asking developers to pay for the proposed high school, said that funding from most developers, who pay a higher flat fee, is not affected by the contract with Signature and Standard Pacific.

"I agree that the agreement has worked well so far... but I believe it is because it has not been tested," Kleffman said. This year would be the first time the school district would declare a cash shortfall, which, under the contract, these two developers would pay. In return they pay reduced flat rate fees.

"There is a legal argument that says Exhibit B (which lists the school district's planned expansion projects) can be changed without reopening the whole agreement," Kleffman said. "It doesn't mean we're going to do it, but it gives us the most flexibility." She also said she wants the district to take advantage of matching funds from the state for land.

Haugen disagreed and said that a court case would risk cutting all developer fees in half.

"Flexibility is a big gamble when it is not certain that state bond money would be available," she said.

The school board will review the committee's recommendations at its April 11 meeting. <@$p>