|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
At a special Saturday morning school board meeting, trustees directed district staff not to move forward with planning for a new standalone elementary school, but rather explore options that include adding a K-5 program to an existing middle school.
The board also indicated they want to maintain current district guidelines for school size ranges while adding a theoretical K-8 range to the standards.
The direction came near the end of a roughly three-hour-long facilities workshop, which consisted of presentations and discussions regarding the size of PUSD schools and the need to address overcrowding in north Pleasanton elementary schools. No formal action was taken on Saturday.
“We have to look at our current students, absolutely, (and) current facilities, but we have to look at the future as well,” said board vice president Valerie Arkin during the weekend workshop. “(A new elementary school) is included in the bond and I think it would be extremely irresponsible of us to not do what is listed in the bond.
“I think we do need to address the capacity — in which way we do it is up to us,” she added. “But I think we do have that responsibility.”
Saturday’s meeting was the second facilities workshop held by the board this school year in light of the school facilities bond Measure I1 passed by Pleasanton voters in November 2016.
At a study session in September, the board reviewed the district’s strategic plan and data on PUSD facilities, including guidelines regarding the size of schools and estimated costs affiliated with a prospective new elementary school. Trustees came up with a number of ideas relating to future facility needs, including finding a parcel near Hart Middle School for a new elementary campus and splitting grades K-5 between Donlon Elementary and a new school on the property.
No decisions were made at the initial workshop, but at the time administrators indicated such discussions would continue at a second future facilities workshop.
Saturday’s meeting kicked off with opening remarks from Superintendent David Haglund, who reminded trustees about “evidencing and demonstrating fiscal responsibility with regards to the investment the voters made into the schools through the Measure I1 process.”
“This is about building community trust — that when we say we’re going to do something we do it, and that we thoughtfully proceed forward in a method that both applies the goals of the ballot proposition but in alignment to the strategic plan that you’ve established as a board of education,” Haglund said.
After Haglund spoke, residents gave initial thoughts during the first of three public comment periods.
Speaking on his own behalf, Pleasanton Partnerships in Education executive director Steve McCoy-Thompson conveyed feedback that he said he’s been getting regarding Measure I1.
“I know one of the items under discussion is whether or not to build a new school,” McCoy-Thompson said. “But the feedback I’ve heard from the majority of people is they really question whether we should use money for that purpose and that there are other needs, particularly infrastructure needs, and maybe the money should be devoted toward that.”
He added, “I think it’s important to convey to the public that the I1 bond was not necessarily intended to cover the full cost (of the need).”
To that point, resident John Bauer said many citizens were under the impression that $270 million — the amount of tax revenue that Measure I1 is expected to generate — would cover the district’s identified facility needs.
“Most people read the ballot language — $270 million dollars to me would certainly be more than enough money to put new roofs on every school, put new air conditioning in every school and fix everything,” Bauer said.
Jill Buck, who served as co-chair of the Measure I1 bond committee, said she and others were straightfoward with community members that a 2012-13 facilities master plan showed $500 million worth of need districtwide. She added that the community was not polled on the possibility of a new school.
“It wasn’t like we never talked about a new school, but I can also assure you that when we were going out to all the PTA groups there was no time, not one person who ever said, ‘You know what, this sounds great and I’m really excited about all the modernization and improvements, but I’m really concerned about a brand new school,’” Buck said. “Everyone was asking, ‘What’s my school going to get?’”
Residents Julie Testa and Kathleen Ruegsegger, a former Pleasanton school board member (1990-93), spoke strongly in favor of the district using bond money as stipulated for a new school.
“I want to thank Dr. Haglund for mentioning the promise, because in that 75-word bond language is the promise of a new school — K-5, K-8, something needs to be done for kids who are in portables, schools that have over 800 students and all the things we’ve talked about for a long time,” Ruegsegger said. “I think if you don’t do something in that direction with this bond money, the $270 million, then you break that promise if you spend it elsewhere.”
After the initial round of public comment, administrators delved into presentations that included an update of what’s happened since Measure I1 was passed; enrollment figures as of Dec. 17; California Department of Education guidelines on building square footage per student; and availability of state funding for modernization work and new construction.
The updated enrollment numbers reaffirmed the overcrowding issue in north Pleasanton elementary schools. As of Dec. 17, Donlon had 814 students, Fairlands had 785 and Walnut Grove a total of 728 students.
Adopted in 2013, the district’s current guidelines establish a preferred school size range of 600-700 students per elementary school, 1,000-1,200 per middle school and 2,400 — plus or minus 10% — per high school.
Whether trustees wanted to maintain or change those guidelines was a focal point of the board’s discussion Saturday.
“When I look at school size, it’s, does every student get the same benefit as all the students in the district?” said trustee Steve Maher. “If we could get our school sizes fairly consistent, then everyone would get the benefit.”
Ultimately, the board indicated to staff that they wanted to stick with the district’s current school size range targets while also incorporating the state’s guidelines on building square footage per student. They also expressed an interest in maintaining the neighborhood schools concept; limiting “overflow,” which occurs when a student is placed in a school outside their neighborhood due to space limitations; and minimizing the use of portables moving forward.
Presented with a list of programmatic options for a possible new school — ranging from a K-5 STEAM magnet to a dual immersion Mandarin program — trustees expressed a strong interest in the K-8 model.
“I think the K-8 option in the north Pleasanton area is a good idea and it’s worth exploring,” Arkin said. “I would like to see maybe some proposals that include IDing other properties in this town that could be possibilities…and using any other resources we currently have. The district office property is one of them, the Neal property is one of them. There needs to be a whole thoughtful approach to going forward with how do we do this with the funds from the bond as well as other resources we can leverage.”
Added board president Mark Miller, “I’d like to look at creative models for using that $35 million that address the capacity issue that don’t necessarily mean one new block of land for a whole separate elementary school. I don’t think $35 million will pay for one, quite honestly.”
Trustee Jamie Yee Hintzke emphasized an interest in further exploring how the district office property could be utilized.
“We are not utilizing the district office property well at all with how much acreage is here and how the buildings are being used,” Hintzke said. “It should really be looked at differently.”
Haglund said district staff would bring back options for resolving the capacity issue that would deviate away from standalone concepts and include a K-8 model, “which, conceptually would be adding a K-5 to an existing middle school,” he said.
Staff plans to take direction from Saturday’s workshop and use it in their work with the facilities master plan committee, which is coming up with a recommendation for how to proceed with Measure I1 projects. The committee plans to present the proposed facilities master plan at a board meeting in March, after which it would return for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
A third facilities workshop is slated for the spring. A date for it has not yet been confirmed.
At the end of Saturday’s workshop, trustee Joan Laursen asked those in attendance to “temper our expectations a little bit.”
“All of this stuff takes a really long time,” she said. “Of course we’re going to keep pressing because we want to see really great stuff that we’ve got planned for kids happen as soon as possible. But just understand each step of the process involves lengthy planning and then approvals and then submissions — it is a lengthy process.”
Since the passage of Measure I1, PUSD has been working to determine how an estimated $270 million in tax revenue will be expended on a list of projects approved by the school board in 2016 and outlined in the Measure I1 ballot language. The list includes updated learning technology and facilities, safety and security upgrades like new fire alarm systems, and a new elementary school among other projects.
The new elementary school has been a large part of Measure I1 board discussions so far.
In February the board directed administrators to explore building a new school on PUSD’s Neal property, located at 1689 Vineyard Ave. in the southeast part of the city. Trustees acknowledged then that while the property isn’t in the most impacted part of the district, potentially building there would save time and money by not having to purchase another site.
The district briefly explored the former Evangelical Free Church of Pleasanton property in the Valley Trails neighborhood, but pulled back after learning PUSD was precluded from pursuing the site based on a mitigation agreement the board had previously approved between the district and the site’s developer, Ponderosa Homes. The City Council later approved Ponderosa’s proposal to build 36 homes on the property.
In August, the school board authorized the first issuance and sale of Measure I1 bonds with roughly $1 million from the $72 million initial series earmarked for a new elementary school feasibility study.
Trustees and community members have pointed to the continued use of portables as a reason for the need for a new elementary school, along with current and projected enrollment numbers. Although the district’s demographer found in February that student enrollment is projected to decline over the next decade, the same report determined that 11 total elementary schools will be needed once PUSD reaches maturity the unknown point in time when all land zoned residential in the city will be built on.
The report from Davis Demographics also showed that existing elementary schools in northern Pleasanton — Donlon, Fairlands and Walnut Grove — are impacted and expected to stay that way.
The board is scheduled to receive an updated demographer’s report next month.
Passed with a 69.1% yes vote, Measure I1 imposes a tax of $49 per $100,000 of assessed value on Pleasanton property owners. The ballot language stated that the school board could not guarantee the bond will generate enough money to complete all listed projects and that regardless of funding availability, inclusion of a project on the list does not guarantee it will be completed. However, only projects listed could be funded by Measure I1 revenue.
Oh, does this mean that the trustees will be getting sweetheart deals on new houses to be constructed on the Neal property?
Title of article couldn’t be more off base to article content.
We get it. Infastructure is a permanent investment. It’s our f#ckin g money. Build it.
I am glad PUSD is looking at options that do NOT include a new standalone elementary school. Doing so would obligate PUSD to incur fixed costs associated with a standalone site.
With PUSD contribution rates increasing at this rate for CALSTRS (teacher’s retirement system)
July 1, 2016 12.58%
July 1, 2017 14.43%
July 1, 2018 16.28%
July 1, 2019 18.13%
July 1, 2020 19.1%
(source: https://www.calstrs.com/calstrs-2014-funding-plan)
and CalPERS contribution rates going up for CALPERS as well
2016-17 13.888%
2017-18 15.8%
2018-19 18.7%
2019-20 21.6%
2020-21 24.9%
2021-22 26.4%
(source https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/circular-letters/2017/200-009-17.pdf)
Note the above contribution costs are on top of salary costs.
It would be fiscally irresponsible to build a standalone school, knowing what we know about the above projected costs, especially if other less fixed-cost-heavy solutions can be found.
Kathleen – nail / head. You hit it.
Going with the K-8 model to fix a structural problem is a horrendous idea. K8 schools are a whole different philosophy. They should be small by nature and deliver a different experience than a K-5 and middle school. Please research K8 schools before considering this as an option. Large K8 schools will fail. I moved from a district that added a K8 school to fix a structural problem. It was horribly implemented because the district had no experience in K8 education environment. The district treated it as an elementary and a MS and not as one entity. The problem is that it isn’t. An elementary principal has to have a different approach than a MS principal. A K8 school should have the same kids from K to 8 and should be small. The 6 to 8 can’t have all of the programs of a MS. Don’t do it.
Kathleen, why would you think they’d keep the Neal site? It’s not big enough for a large school, and it’s in the “wrong” part of the city if they want to build in the north. Since the only other use of the land is housing, the district should, given what they said, sell it to a developer to fund building a school in the north.
And once they do so, if you don’t believe that the trustees won’t gain some sort of personal benefit from the buyer of the Neal site, I have a house in Dublin to sell you. They promise to build a second high school…no wait. They sold it to developers.
The school district has played a shell game for years where they have a site then hold on to it, say they have a different site, then sell the original site to developers for housing. This is how the district operates because the union tells them not to build any new schools.
They sold the middle school site along Vineyard already to the failed savings and loan, Amador Savings and Loan, when PUSD said there would never be housing along the Vineyard Avenue area that that they identified the ‘new’ middle school site in the Fairlands neighborhood to correspond to growth in North Pleasanton. Of course, they never build the new middle school in Fairlands.
They need to keep Neal because at some point there will be housing in East Pleasanton along Stanley Blvd. Any site along Stanley is too close to the Livermore Airport for any state agency to ever approve a school site under the flight path.
The big mistake is that the voters created a ‘unified’ school district in the 1980s. You can be that if there was still a separate elementary district, then the board of the elementary district would not have let things deteriorate to a state of massive overcrowding. If there was still an elementary district, there would be two more elementary schools than there are now.
As it is, the Board just is stuck in perpetual analysis paralysis and will never initiate building a school. After all they had struck a deal for Signature to advance the District over $8 million at one point and the District dragged its feet so long and refused to go forward. Signature rightfully sued PUSD and won.
No wonder parents in the PUSD withdraw their kids from the local public schools. What a nightmare.
Analysis, thank you for making that point. Yes, I may be being too cynical when I say that the trustees are planning to benefit from the sale, but my fear is that this shell game will in fact continue. And looking at Dublin, we can see where it ends, where the trustees inexplicably failed to plan for a second high school and the city turned a blind eye to it and overbuilt. Now, there’s no proof that either the Dublin school board or city council were corrupt. However, the alternative explanation seems too crazy to be true: how could they have failed so deeply and so openly for so long?
My fear—and I bet a fear of many readers—is that PUSD is engaging in the same path. Our schools’ physical plants are a mess; our teaching quality is mediocre at best; and we certainly are not getting the quality of new schooling that would correspond to the level of building that is going on. One merely need look to Irvine to see how the developers align with the districts to build fantastic schools as a conscious selling point, rather than as a necessary evil worth suing over later. And that’s where the city comes in. Smarter zoning and developer fee management would allow us to select or filter towards developers who seriously want new schools, without running afoul of state housing law or private development rights.
I just fear that that is not our city, nor our school district. I can’t tell if having kept a separate elementary district would have helped—most examples of good school cities have unified districts—but I must say that this district should be building more capacity as job one, removing portables as job two, then repainting and restuccoing. Doing full tear downs seems to benefit the builders more than the district.
Also, the district must remember that there will never be a cheaper time to buy land than today, and never be a cheaper time to sell debt than today. Waiting is stupid, if not an outright breach of duty.
Kathleen, you say “And the current active lobbying to NOT build a school is coming from a citizen with access to PTAs”.
Who is the citizen? Can you at least describe their motives, why they have access to multiple PTAs, and why the PTAs would adopt such a position?
Also, clearly the district moving out of its offices and restoring the buildings for schooling will be part of any reasonable solution.
Totally agree with Analysis Paralysis. Been here for 20 years and have heard this same story EVERY year. A school will never, ever be built. The limit has been 600-700 in elementary schools for at least 20 years and that has never happened. The demographer’s report is a joke. I could write it and get paid-same story, different year. This district will never build another school, especially with some influential residents still running the show. They should have built the Neal School 20 years ago and then we wouldn’t be in this cycle EVERY, SINGLE year….. Maybe the focus should be on class size reduction – I think that is super important and actually has a chance of happening. Give up on the school – never going to happen.
PS I have always appreciated Kathleen’s dedication to doing the right thing and her patience. Keep up the great work!
The crusade of Jill “never build another school” Buck is in full force again. She is like a broken record. The problem is that the old guard does not want to see so called new residents attend a better more modern school than their own kids attended. So they go on a crusade over and over saying building a new school will take funds away from existing schools. And their children will be HARMED!!! Why should kids new to Pleasanton attend a better school than your precious darlings? Any progress is awful. Portables are the answer! New residents should have to send their kids to trailer park schools because we were here first!!!! And so on.
Oh boy, the world is crumbling again according to several of the posters on this site. Some of you forget PUSD is one of the best districts as far as outcomes in the State so stop trying to act like it’s a terrible place to send your kids to school. If it was you wouldn’t pay a ridiculous amount to live here.
Yes, there are issues that need to be addressed, but please stop acting like PUSD is soooooo terrible. Move to Hayward or San Leandro if PUSD is so bad.
Kathleen-
While I agree with you on most points – spent 10 years trying to get a new school and it fell on deaf ears. I’m pretty sure I know who you are talking about because I think she single handedly was able to get the Neal school not built for fear her kids school wouldn’t be rebuilt. So I do not encourage another group of parents to do this. It is super frustrating and you feel like you are hitting your head against a wall every day! If by some miracle a school gets built – then great – but as long as their is resistance from certain people it’s not going to happen. Not to mention I remember watching a school meeting where a retired teacher got up and proclaimed we did not need another elementary school. This was probably 15 years ago – so that pretty much convinced me things will never change here. Not a lot of guts to make the tough call or actually make a decision from the district or school board.
School sizes per se are not the problem. Small enrollment on a small lot works just as well as large enrollment on a large lot. It’s the amount of crowding that’s the issue.
Reusing the DO as a school site will clearly make a difference in issues of crowding. The DO itself should be in a compact multistory building on a small footprint.
It’s just numbers.
Missed opportunity – nail on head!!
And Jason nobody is saying Pleasanton isn’t a good school district. But I do think the numbers get a little skewed because a lot of parents pay A LOT of money for tutors. For what we pay to live here and how much money this district gets it could be so much better. That’s all people are asking. Oh and to quit the lying – false promises have been prevalent for 20 years. If this district didn’t have so much parent involvement the numbers would be A LOT different! Believe me my kids still talk about how great their elementary experience was but we also had reduced class size.
$1 million for a “feasibility” study, as referenced in the article? Thanks for wasting the additional $$$ I’m forking over. What a joke/rip-off.
As far as infrastructure goes, has anyone been to either of our two high school gyms?
They both look like something from the 1980’s film “Hoosiers” (which was set in the 1950’s). Very poor lighting, among other things. Long in the tooth to put it mildly. Dublin and San Ramon gyms are far better facilities.
That said, is updating our outdated high school gyms a top priority for I1 funds?
No, but, here’s my point, PUSD school board and Mr. Haglund–if you’re gonna throw $1 million of our taxpayer dollars away on a frivilous “feasibility” study, please stop/don’t do that. Instead, please spend it on something TANGIBLE, that provides benefits to our children and those who will come after us, instead of making some consulting outfit laugh all the way to the bank.
Idiotic and incredibly wasteful. Nothing like spending other people’s money–some things never change.
And to think PPIE keeps extending their hands, asking us to please give them more money so they can fund this, that, and the other thing–ah, sorry, PPIE, but I gave a considerable amount already to PUSD at the Alameda Tax Collector’s office–substantially more per the I1 bond measure–and will be giving substantially more for years to come.
Kathleen: Oh, so one person whom won’t be around when it is implemented has a least a working knowledge of a K8 school. What could go wrong with that.
Read up on the K8 model.
Again, I have experience with this exact situation.
The “product” of the educational system in Pleasanton is: A unified K-5, 6-8, 9-12 system of schools that is uniformly good. This system is actually fairly rare in the Bay area. The further you deviate from this system, the higher the probability of screwing it up. A K8 will be outside the core competency of this district.
Pleasanton needs another neighborhood elementary school. It also needs another MS. Own up to it, find a proper site. Probably need another bond. Bond’s only need 55% (easy bar to clear). Make it excellent. Stop with the half measures. Strive for excellence without compromise. Taxes will pay more themselves in higher property values if the system is excellent.
Kathleen, absolutely we should always be looking for ways to improve. No argument there. I get a bit frustrated with this site because some seem so negative about everything. A healthy debate about the situation is something the community needs to have. My kids attend Alisal, which I believe has the lowest enrollment in the district. Then you go a mile over to Walnut Grove and it’s a MESS. So yes, something needs to be done and people voicing their opinions in a positive way is what’s needed.
From what I’ve gathered the City and School District have a pretty good relationship so hopefully they can work with the community to find solutions.
Yeah, but you are not changing the whole system to K8… Philly did that.
You are setting up one school different from the rest. On the contrary, Public education does not do change very well. It just isn’t set up for it.
I agree with passing a bond to get enough money to stop with half measures and do it right. Pretty much every school needs some major refresh. Other districts have capital campaigns and bond measures and do these refreshes. Not sure why Pleasanton can’t. I can only say that the high schools are an embarrassment for a supposedly better than average district, and some of the elementary schools are no better. I’d rather pay now and get the job done right.
And if that means a new middle school and elementary school, then do it without delay.
If the issue is that some people fight new schools for fear that their existing school won’t get refreshed, sell a bigger bond and solve that problem too. This is not rocket science. It’s not even science. What it is in inexcusable.
And that is why posters are negative. Because everyone is correctly identifying that something is wrong, but the offered solutions won’t solve it.
If this is the solution: “but rather explore options that include adding a K-5 program to an existing middle school.” Where you are going to add a K-5 next to Hart, and somehow combo it to HART and label it a K8, then you haven’t read a single article on how a K8 is supposed to operate. If you like the K8 model, then go all in on it and make a standalone K8. Own it. Instead, you are creating a false K8 to solve your structural problem. It has been done before. It fails because the philosophy is wrong. It isn’t innovative. It isn’t positive change.
Good luck with that.
Do it right.
Do it right:
At this workshop price out the options:
A) A top tier neighborhood school where you need it. XXX million.
B) A top tier magnet school outside of the growth area. YYY million.
C) Some weird not really K8 school with facilities shared with HART that no one really wants. ZZZ million.
D) Portable pack em in. SS million.
A what people want. It is why they moved here because it is what we have. Already voted for it with feet. If option A requires another bond, then sell it. Explain to the voters what they will get and how it will be beneficial to all. Use current bond money for all the other schools. If you easily passed the current bond without any plan, imagine what you could do with a couple of new school renderings. It sells itself. There will always be the vocal minority screaming about too many taxes, past missdeads, lack of trust, blah, blah, blah… Get on a plan of excellence.
The acres that were sold off of Vineyard to Amador Savings and Loan were supposed to be of a combined middle and elementary school. PMS is next door to Hearst and Harvest Park is next door to Walnut Grove. It is very easy to put a K-5 next to Hart.
If the District wants to save administrative costs, there should be one principal at for instance the combined PMS and Hearst and one principal at the combined Harvest Park and Walnut Grove.
Whether it operates as a K-5 and co-located 6-8 or a K-8 does not matter. What is important is that K-5 be placed near Hart just like a K-5 is near Harvest Park and PMS. Also, there are many 4th and 5th grade students that are held back in certain subject areas and should be able to take a 6th or 7th or 8th grade course.
Many school systems in the East Coast do not treat K-5 children as babies and instead starting with 2nd grade, the kids change classes throughout the day. They aren’t stuck with one teacher for the entire day like the antiquated one room schoolhouse concept of bygone days like something out of Little House on the Prairie.
Sticking a child with one teacher a year at the K-5 level can be a nightmare especially if the child is stuck with one of those teachers that: 1) can’t teach 2) leaves campus on and off all day and 3) basically is RIP (“retired in place”) meaning young or old, they just simply spend the day doing basically nothing.
St. Elizabeth Seton and St. Augistine both have ample land for schools. Why are there no Catholic schools in Pleasanton. I’m sure it would help with any overcrowding problems. Is it the church, or the city, or the unions…There has to be a reason. If I had a choice between a Catholic school and a public school I know I would go with the Catholic school. Does anybody have an answer…do you know something that I don’t.
James:
You should direct your question the to Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese.
The Reverend Michael C. Barber SJ. Diocese of Oakland.
2121 Harrison Street, Oakland California 94612.
I already know the answer, Michael, I was just curious if anybody else did.
There is St. Raymond’s in Dublin and also Catholic schools in Fremont and Castro Valley, but I think these are most if not all K-8 schools.
It would nice to have a Catholic high school in the local community, but I would suspect that the fear would be that the city of Pleasanton would work in conjunction with PUSD to sabotage such an effort because of the negative experiences other private schools have encountered. The “Peyton Place Syndrome” is alive and well in Pleasanton. Look what happened to Carden West.
Would be interesting to know if the citizens that voted to give PUSD a pile of
Cash expecting problems to get fixed are the same people that voted to also give BART a huge pile of cash?? When will the voters learn from past mistakes, way past time to put an embargo on the money train!!
What is fiscally irresponsible is to let pensions prevent our students from having the facilities they deserve. The demand for pension contribution increases is a state problem and needs to be addressed by Sacramento. We get a new demographer’s report in February. The last one said we needed two elementary schools. A K-8 school, if possible, provides additional capacity at the elementary and middle school (also impacted) levels. No one is talking about selling Neal, but to suggest a board member would get a deal on a house on that land is ridiculous.
Superintendent Haglund spoke of the importance of the intended educational program and training staff. And I believe it was noted he has experience with K-8. No matter the configuration, how to serve the student population will be a big and constant part of the planning. Remember, if they started today, it will take 3-5 years to build. They chose Lydiksen first, so it will be 2019 before there are bonds sold that might address this school, so it’s already 5-7 years away. No one is going at this willy nilly.
Neal was never intended to be a large school; it’s an elementary site. The district has held onto this property for something like 20 years. I don’t think they are ready to sell it now. There is $35MM in the bond to put toward a new school, and possible partial matching dollars from the state.
There may still be need or creative ideas like a magnet school that make keeping Neal prudent. No board member is going to benefit from a sale of Neal. I talk to most of them; don’t think anyone is in the market for a new home. How do you see any of them personally profiting?
Do you mean, technically, a fourth high school and the Sycamore property? (Amador, Foothill, Village, something new?) I certainly don’t like the situation at the high school level–Village is in surprising disrepair; Amador and Foothill are over capacity and littered with portables. Maybe a future bond could build a small magnet high school on Neal? Selling the district site, something the city would like, could fund a DO/Village on the Neal site or, frankly, someplace else. There is room for creative thinking to benefit the community’s children.
Unifying was not a mistake and was in the best interest of all of Pleasanton’s students.
Disrepair and other problems, and Signature lawsuits, fall at the feet of at least one prior superintendent. And the current active lobbying to NOT build a school is coming from a citizen with access to PTAs; I have not seen teachers stuck in portables for years or union leadership arguing against a school.
The saddest part is parents don’t seem to realize they need to advocate for a new school—to benefit the 169 students overflowed from their neighborhood schools, to lower enrollment on many campuses including the ones their own children will remain attending, to get students out of portables costing taxpayers more than $200K a year for many years and many in need of repairs costing more tax dollars.
It does not appear parents are being told their schools will be fixed with over $200MM in bond funds. The new school is not a threat to those dollars. We should be advocating together as a community for all our students TK-12.
You can watch the tape on Saturday’s meeting (here–when it gets posted: http://www.tri-valleytv.org/school-pleasanton.html ).
I don’t know that a school on the DO site is practical; likely cost prohibitive given the topography. It barely works for Village.
In 1988, this much smaller community gathered to become a unified district. It followed through over about a ten year period, passing two bonds to upgrade schools (about $150MM? in total). It was relatively visionary at the time. The people who supported these efforts, in large part, never benefited from those upgrades and often our children lived through the disruption construction causes. But we (many hard working people at every school site) knew this was the right vision for future students, some including their grandchildren 30 years later.
We have grown well beyond that earlier vision and the community population of 30,000 and watched maintenance of those structures deteriorate through purposeful neglect and with little intent to address growth and over enrollment other than slapping up a portable every time new students arrived.
I happen to remain on the side of providing the best education with adequate and proper housing for our students and their teachers.
Agree, even if we could afford it, we can’t get class size reduction without the facilities to house the students. :o)
Jason, yes, we have great schools. Mostly, great, well-educated parents, and a majority of dedicated teachers who continue despite being in portables. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t change their circumstances.
The money for a new school exists–$35MM. What we need to override the “no school” push is the will and support from the community.
Anon, The organization isn’t one person and I certainly hope we won’t have turnover in that office for quite a few years. There is plenty to read and much seems favorable to K-8 schools.
I don’t know what your experience was and whether it was as a parent or educator. There is opportunity for a programatic differences: competency based learning, where students can move up (or down I suppose) to meet their individual talents and needs; project based learning, where students have opportunities to collaborate; and mentoring opportunities for older students, empathy building, and even stretch goals for some of the younger.
Anyway, it all has to be planned and people trained as the school is being built, not when it’s done.
Thank you all for this discussion. Whether or not to build a another K-5 or K-8 school needs a thoughtful process and have a long term vision. But what are we going to do about our current overcrowding? Some school are at or near 800 students. Some schools are well below 700. This inequity needs to be addressed now. If students are overflowed its because there is a problem with the boundaries. I know any changes to boundaries will be a huge fight. It’s always an ugly process. But this needs to be addressed now. We need our school board to do both jobs.
To help me be better informed I know there is info about “Students per Sq. Ft” or some thing like this. Can some one post a link to that info. Thanks everyone.
Current overcrowding at several schools, depending on the preferred size of a school (and that is impacted by site acreage, building square footage, and other factors) breaks down like this:
Using 700 as a school size: Donlon, Fairlands, and Walnut Grove are already over by a collective 227 students. PLUS the 169 overflowed (majority of them from Donlon). That’s 396 students. If you use 600 as a school size (and the board states a range of 600-700), you can add 300 more students (so 527, plus overflows).
The rest of the elementary schools exceed 600 by a total of 233, but some of those also include the overflowed students. AND we are not likely to get to schools of 600. These number do not include students currently in portables.
The answer has been to let things ride and to count portables as permanent capacity in demographer reports.
Elementary enrollment currently stands at 6,160: divided by 9 current schools and trying to have a balance via a boundary change and you would have 684 students per school, almost the top of the range at every single school (space for 16 more students per school or total capacity for only 144 more students).
As a side note, middle schools were pegged for a max of 1,200, and high schools at 2,400 +/- 10%. All five of those schools, again, include capacity via portables — I think a board member said Amador refers to it’s 10 portables (on the basketball courts) as Section 8 housing. There’s something to be proud of.
Anon, the district used to be K-6, 7-8, 9-12. It changed with the “Caught in the Middle” research suggested 6-8. Change can happen without it being negative.
Jason, yes, Alisal is the smallest at 622 according numbers presented this past Saturday. The district has bond funds for a school. The City can collaborate (shared gyms is one) and help with land purchase and zoning. And expressing opinions is a necessity, and directed to the board via email or attending a meeting(s) is best.
Anon, I would much rather the school be one K-8 structure; point is well made. However, both PMS and Harvest Park have elementary schools next door. I don’t know hether that’s opportunity for 3 K-8 sites.
The board has agreed that absent the school, whatever it might be, the $35MM in bonds will not be used elsewhere. The bonds will not be sold. Trust was no small issue in this district, but I hope it’s changing.
James, can you tell us why then?