News

PUSD previewing north side enrollment solutions ahead of board workshop

Also: Raises for classified workers and management, board reorganization, budget update

The Pleasanton school board is set to hear a preview for and proposed recommendations to address over-enrollment issues in the northern part of the city at its regular meeting Tuesday night.

The discussion comes a week before a long-awaited workshop on this very issue. Currently, staff and board facility subcommittee members are recommending that on Dec. 18, the district “A) move forward with the new school option on the Donlon property, and B) place the work at Hart Middle School on hold until such time that we begin the work of improving the middle school science labs," according to the staff report.

Donlon Elementary and Hart Middle school are two of the primarily impacted campuses, and enrollment talks have revolved heavily around these two sites.

The board's staff report doesn't elaborate further on moving forward with the Donlon property would entail at this stage. The “work at Hart Middle School” mentioned in the recommendation refers to any work-related to enrollment solutions.

In recent reports, district demographers have predicted that growth in northern Pleasanton is on the rise, a growth that has been seen over the last few years. The area is expected to see a peak enrollment of nearly 2,900 students in 2023, an increase of about 460 students from fall 2017. On the other hand, southern schools’ enrollment are expected to remain stable or even decrease.

This year Donlon, located within the Val Vista neighborhood, was especially impacted -- as of Aug. 7, 103 Donlon resident students were overflowed to another campus.

PUSD has been evaluating various options to address the increased population, conducting surveys, holding community forums and partnering with the city to look into traffic studies and more. Options included adjusting school boundaries, building a new elementary school, converting Donlon and/or Hart Middle School (also impacted) into a K-8, and increasing enrollment capacities by expanding select school sites.

No action will be taken at Tuesday’s open session meeting, which will take place in the district office boardroom at 4665 Bernal Ave. beginning at 7 p.m., following a closed session at 5:30 p.m.

In other business

* Kicking off the night, the board will hold its usual reorganization meeting, at which time they will select a new president, vice-president, along with appoint the representatives to various regional and local committees.

*The board will hold a public hearing on and consider approving a tentative agreement with the Classified School Employees Association (CSEA) for the 2018-19 fiscal year. In line with the recently approved agreement with the Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT), a major component of the CSEA agreement is a 2.5% raise, retroactive to July 1, 2018.

* Trustees will also consider approving a 2.5% raise for management/confidential employees, along with for unrepresented classified employees.

* Trustees will honor of Sarah Banholzer, an Amador Valley High School student who was named a Tri-Valley Hero by the Pleasanton Weekly this year.

* The board will consider approving summer programs for 2019.

* Board members will discuss approving a positive certification of the first interim budget.

* Board members will consider approving a request for allowance of attendance, in light of the district’s school closures on Nov. 16 due to poor air quality. If approved, the request will then go to the county and the state for review; if PUSD qualifies, they will not be penalized in terms of funding or need to make up instructional time.

* Trustees will weigh appointing community members to the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee. The two candidates up for appointment include Arne Olson and Louis Asbury.

* The board will debate terminating existing contracts with HKIT Architects for portable replacements at Amador Valley and Foothill high schools, and consider approving new contracts with HKIT at the two sites that will include science lab upgrades along with the portable replacements.

* The board will consider approving a contract with CPS HR Consulting to conduct a classification and total compensation study.

* Board members will discuss the fiscal year 2017-18 capital funds financial report.

* During closed session beginning at 5:30 p.m., the board will consider undisclosed personnel actions, confer on ongoing labor negotiations with APT and CSEA, consider rejecting a claim brought forward by a student against the district, and consider readmission recommendations for two students.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by Livermore Parent
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 10, 2018 at 12:23 pm

Looks like Pleasanton district staff is taking a page out of the Livermore School District book and plans to deficit spend to force a Parcel Tax.


4 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 10, 2018 at 1:36 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

Shouldn't the consultant review of compensation come before the proposed approved 2.5% raise? And if that applies to management - didn't Haglund just get a 1yr retroactive 2% raise a few days into the job?

If we're overcrowded, why would readmission be on the table for 2 students?

I really don't think there should be any raises, especially for management (decision makes on a new school), until after that issue is settled.


4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 10, 2018 at 3:34 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

“On the other hand, southern schools’ enrollment are expected to remain stable or even decrease.”

Given the failure to predict the change in the north, I don’t know that this prediction is credible.

Providing the cost associated with raises below. With the teachers’ raises, belt tightening was predicted. Haven’t seen where that will occur yet, so adding these amounts will be cause for concern as more gets tightened.

*The board will hold a public hearing on and consider approving a tentative agreement with the Classified School Employees Association (CSEA) for the 2018-19 fiscal year. In line with the recently approved agreement with the Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT), a major component of the CSEA agreement is a 2.5% raise, retroactive to July 1, 2018.

Web Link

* Trustees will also consider approving a 2.5% raise for management/confidential employees, along with for unrepresented classified employees.

Web Link

Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 10, 2018 at 3:41 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

PP, I would guess the review of compensation is to determine if we are low on pay and if so, by how much and whether we should pay more. The superintendent’s contract is separate and is likely to be up for this raise and another bonus. That may also be true of deputy superintendent and/or assistant superintendents.

If they are our students, I think we mostly have to accept the students if they’ve met the requirements (likely after suspensions). I am supposed to get the breakdown of interdistrict transfers this week, after the meeting, unfortunately.


3 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 10, 2018 at 4:04 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

I figured, a little tongue and cheek on my part as well.

I really don't see how any administrative office can accept a raise when they've essentially stolen our bond money (at this point) with no effective plan for building a new school.

I also think they need to make a stand on drawing new school lines - I may not like the outcome, but from putting myself in their position if I'm being screamed at to solve a problem, and that is one of the tools I have to address it, I'm not doing my job if I'm not pursuing that (and it should come in concert with a new school at the same time anyway - but can be executed in advance of to help with immediate constraints).


Like this comment
Posted by JC
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Dec 11, 2018 at 1:23 pm

@ Pleasanton Parent: I'm with you on the boundary changes. The district needs to seriously look at that. I do think, though, when a family buys a house, the schools are part of the decision making equation in that purchase. It doesn't seem right to change that on people after they've spent so much money. We specifically bought a house on the Amador side of town because my kids were interested in programs that were stronger at that school (band, Comp Civics at the time). We'd have been very unhappy if they changed the boundaries on us midstream.

Isn't there a way to grandfather in the boundary changes? That would at least get the ball rolling for new residents in the years to come. Amador has like 700 more students than Foothill. And then there are all the other issues stated previously with elementary and middle schools. The district should change the boundaries but phase it in over time. That way we also don't have families with siblings split between different schools of the same level.


Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Dec 11, 2018 at 2:52 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

JC, grandfathering is how it’s been done in the past. The question usually is whether you allow only those at the given school to stay or whether you allow all the unenrolled siblings to follow also. That obviously can take far longer.


Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 11, 2018 at 8:35 pm

I agree with both of you, but this is where the community needs to give a little- someone will get "negatively " impacted by a boundary change even with grandfathering, but it has to happen to support the community ask that improves education (housing values still in tack).


3 people like this
Posted by John Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 13, 2018 at 6:52 am

Does anyone know the number of illegals who attend our schools or the number of children of illegal aliens (anchor babies) who attend our schools?


1 person likes this
Posted by Map
a resident of Del Prado
on Dec 13, 2018 at 8:46 am

Should have never given up that property in Valley Trails, at the least it would have been a better traffic flow at drop off and pickup then what is being proposed at Donlon school. Same old story where the property is sold, too many homes are built on that property with the kids in those new homes being squeezed into our overcrowded schools.


1 person likes this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 13, 2018 at 10:46 pm

Pleasanton Parent is a registered user.

John Paul - I’ve heard eleventy two percent


2 people like this
Posted by John Paul
a resident of Downtown
on Dec 14, 2018 at 7:28 am

PP,

2%? The number is lower than I thought and probably not a drain on our resources. The reason why asked is that my gardener lives in Pleasanton and his 4 children attend our schools. He does not pay taxes so I wondered the overall situation.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Differentiating Grief from Clinical Depression
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,615 views

Jammed BART trains demand innovative thinking moving forward
By pleasantonweekly.com | 9 comments | 1,078 views