August 2, 2004

Meeting Minutes

The committee continued discussion on school consolidations. Bryan Richards (staff) explained the use of the least amount of savings expected from a school closure. The $ 257,000 takes into account that the actual staff at the targeted site with seniority would alter the personnel savings, since they would get reassigned and those with the least seniority district-wide would be released. The figure would be much higher but less accurate if existing salaries were used as the savings figure. Questions from the committee ranged from costs of portables, number of portables currently owned by the district, expected maintenance costs for closed sites, and expected use and potential revenue for closed sites. Staff fielded many of the answers to these questions, but many of them would be unknown until the sites were actually closed.

The committee's attention turned to the under-enrolled schools on the list. Alan Del Simone (staff) announced that schools selected for temporary closure would be included among the priorities for transfer application. The committee elected to continue with the consultant's presentation of data for each school on the list. Seaview was revisited when a member, who had polled some Seaview parents, asked if students could be diverted to three (Collins, Shannon, and Montalvin) instead of two schools, because of the transportation difficulties. The data for Seaview was reviewed again. The consultant said that it might be possible but she would have to consult with Jamie King to make sure there were no intake problems at Montalvin (the third intake site.)

The committee also wanted to know whether pre-and after school care was available at the schools under discussion, what specific criteria was used in determining school safety and how it pertained to student transportation routes. This data will be presented at the next meeting. The committee suspended making a recommendation on Seaview until the data could be presented. Karen Fenton asked the staff if information could be obtained from parents regarding student transportation usage. She also stated that before and after school care were managed by private entities and not a district requirement. Also, the district could not provide bus crossing guards and busing at this time. It was believed that most parents drove their children to school but an accurate survey would be helpful. Staff said it was possible to obtain the data and that it might already exist in the data files.

The discussion turned to Fairmont and Harding. The concern turned to the residents in the Richmond Annex and to the safety of the students who would have to cross major streets to get to Harding. It was pointed out that these residents already crossed these streets while attending Fairmont. They inquired about the status of Alvarado school, which was closed due to structural problems. No funds or plans to reopen Alvarado were in place.

A member asked whether the parents could forestall school closures by offsetting costs through fundraising and outreach and looking at school funding creatively. Karen Fenton offered that the district wide effort to save critical programs through private funding was difficult and that it was unlikely that individual schools could succeed within one year. Attention turned to charter schools. The district is required by Proposition 39 to provide school space to new charters but charters pick up all their operating costs. There is no revenue obtained from charters.

A member asked how long the district could operate without closing schools. This option was discouraged and the option of jeopardizing the entire district for a few under-enrolled schools was discussed. The committee discussed the pain and difficulty of these decisions.

The committee agreed to adjourn until August 16 th and to continue to deliberate on school closures and consolidations. The data they requested would be presented at the next meeting.