|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A demographer’s report shows Pleasanton Unified School District enrollment numbers will provide little relief for the high schools as only a nominal decline is expected in coming years.
Tom Williams, president of Enrollment Projection Consultants, presented data to the school board Monday showing “relatively stable” enrollment over the next five years. In 2012, he predicted a total of 25 fewer students in the district, with 91 additional students in elementary school, 79 fewer in middle school and 37 fewer in high school.
He also added that the senior class is the largest ever for the district but said he doesn’t believe the large growth seen in recent years will continue over the next 10 years.
John Casey, district superintendent, said that he was a little surprised by the numbers.
“It was a smaller decrease [than I thought] at the high school,” he said. “I thought it would go down more than what the demographer predicted. On the other hand, the high schools are not going to increase. The elementary numbers are higher than I thought they would be. The need for Neal Elementary School continues to exist.”
The findings also showed that there may not be merit to the bubble theory, where enrollment increases and then bursts, showing a dramatic decrease.
“I hope we can get past the bubble theory and say things as they are now,” School board trustee Steve Brozosky said. “Student enrollment is flat for at least five years and beyond that it is difficult to predict since those kindergarteners are not even born yet.”
Julie Testa, a parent and longtime advocate for a third high school, said the bubble theory was something she and others have tried to dispel. Previously she felt there was an impression of a dramatic decrease in enrollment.
“They thought there would be a temporary overcrowding,” she said. “It’s absolutely not the case. It’s a zero decrease by that bubble and in all probability could be an increase.”
In the discussion of overcrowded high schools, community members and parents spoke before the board. Some were in favor of building another high school while others said they didn’t want to go into debt and have other programs suffer.
Paula Plunk, who several years ago was outspoken against a new high school said she has since changed her stance after her son was “lost” in the system.
“You have chosen to have 2,000 students at a school when there should be 1,000 or 1,500,” she told the board. “It makes a huge difference. It’s not about ‘Surviving 101.'”
School board members said a new school would be too costly, especially considering the current high school master plan is underfunded.
In addition to those who spoke at the meeting, Brozosky said he received emails from parents who are concerned with the overcrowding. The emails basically stated that being a “rich community,” Pleasanton should not have schools as crowded as they are now.
“I thought we had a good discussion about a possible ‘annex’ school which has some special classes/programs but where the students would still be enrolled in the comprehensive schools,” Brozosky said. “Building a small, flexible campus would allow us to add some vocational/career tech possibilities and could give the feeling of a small campus for some. These thoughts are in the early stages, but worth looking into.”
While she will continue to keep an open ear on the subject, Testa said she doesn’t feel a need to personally pursue the issue. She wrote on the Weekly’s online Town Square forum that as a parent, the outcome of Monday’s meeting was unfortunate, but as a taxpayer, it was great.
“They have made a decision to house as many students as possible at the existing sites to concentrate our students’ ADA and facilities dollars,” she wrote. “This makes the maximum amount of dollars available for salary, program and facilities needs. Permanent overcrowding is the price our kids will pay for that concentration of dollars.”
High school master plan approved
The board also decided to approve the high school master plan projects, involving gyms, fitness rooms and lobbies. In order to cuts costs, they decided to reduce the square footage of the lobbies. They were also able to schedule portions of the multi-phase projects at the same time to increase efficiency.
I am dissapointed with the this board
It’s solutions to the High School overcrowding issue are:
A. Build more capacity at Village High continuation school.
B. Expanding capacity at Amador and Foothill ( There is no room for this).
C. Build an Elementery School for Ruby Hill!
Regarding Village High: I would be furious if my children were sent to Village
High to resolve overcrowding at Amador. Is this Mr Ott’s position?
Regarding expansion of facilities at Foothill and Amador: These schools are currently extremely overcrowded and there is no room for expansion. That is unless you continue to jam 2,500 kids into facilities that were designed for 1,500 at the maximum. I would like to know what the maximum capacity of these schools.
Is it 2,500, 3000, or 5000? I want a number.
Regarding a new elementery school: I am puzzled as to why this issue keeps coming up. Neal Elementery School is not needed and would be a waste of valuable resources. The elementery school population could be absorbed by the numerous elementery schools throughout the city. It is at the High School level that the overcrowding has become unacceptable. Does anyone know how much money the board has wasted persuing litigation over the Neal School issue? If anyone knows, please post it because the Board and the Ruby Hill developer have been in litigation for years.
Rick
The district has collected fees from over 1,000 new homes in the Vineyard corridor. Why should these homes not have the school they have already paid for instead expecting existing to schools absorb additional population along with the community and existing neighborhoods absorbing additional traffic generated from transporting kids around town to schools twice a day. Help fix the traffic problems in Pleasanton by building Neal as long promissed.
Perhaps the real fix for the school-time traffic problem involves the return of school busing and incentives for teens to not drive their parent-purchased cars to school.
School site traffic is not an issue at Amador for more than 10 minutes per day. I cannot speak for Foothill as I’ve never experienced it myself. I can say that traffic at all 3 Middle schools is far worse than anything I’ve seen at Amador, probably because _none_ of the middle school kids drive themselves, or there is more than one point of egress Amador has 4 vs basically one at each of the middle schools. There are many open parking spaces available to be seen any time you drive by the campus on Santa Rita and school is in session.
Regarding “over crowding”… again I will comment as an Amador citizen. Having had 3 students go through the school graduating in 04, 07 and my youngest in 08, I have spent large amounts of time at the campus over the last 8 years at all hours and have never “felt” the campus to be “overcrowded”. I continue to see “marketing statistics” site support for proving the campus is over 150% of capacity? While not perfect, the only facillites at the campus that ever seem “over crowded” are the Football stands during Friday night games and the Gymnasium during a few Basketball games during a good season? The only other “practical” need are more all weather sports fields so more teams can practice simultaneously?
Our test scores continue to place Amador and Foothill very highly and don’t indicate that quality of education is suffering at all for class or school size? Soo much in our society is driven today by fear and misinformation….
There is a brand new middle school that was built in the new town of Mountain House in anticipation of growth in the town. With the current econonic climate that school cannot afford to go operational based on the number of actual students that would be served by that school? I would seem completely irresponsible (and many would want accountability in arrears), to build an additional High School (small technical school or otherwise), given today’s budgets and economy. I’d personally rather see common sense prevail and our existing 2 schools be made as capable as possible.
Oh by the way, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville all have very similar high schools with very similar enrollments (around 2500 each give or take 200). I don’t see any similar arguement of over crowding and the facilities are very similar in size and scope?
pleasanton definately needs a new highschool, it is getting too big, and how many additions can you do to foothill, and amador. they are both running out of room and don’t have the openess or feel alot of us had going to those schools