San Diego Unified School District is facing a sixth year of reductions in state funding. As part of its budget submission for the 2011-12 school year, it must submit the plan for the current year and projections for the next two years. The submission for the 2012-13 school year included $5 million that could come from "school realignments," which can include closing schools, changes to grade-level configurations, moving and consolidating programs, and the need for additional school sites, should additional capital funds become available. The District estimates it will save $500,000 per school closing.
The Point Loma Cluster consists of 10 schools with over 6,400 students. Schools include:
- Barnard (K-6, 275 students)
- Cabrillo (K-4, 195 students)
- Dewey (K-4, 433 students)
- Loma Portal (K-4, 409 students)
- Ocean Beach (K-4, 406 students)
- Silver Gate (K-4 / 540 students)
- Sunset View (K-4 / 441 students)
- Dana (5-6 / 786 students)
- Correia (7-8 / 873 students)
- Point Loma High (9-12 / 2,065 students)
To get detailed data about our cluster schools performance, enrollment, facilities, see:
The District's proposal for the Point Loma Cluster includes:
- Close Cabrillo Elementary effective July 2012.
- Close Barnard campus but keep the Mandarin Magnet K-6 program by relocating it to the Dana campus effective September 2012. Expand the magnet focus from Mandarin Chinese to a Pacific Rim Language Immersion K-8 program.
- Close Dana Middle School Grade 5 effective July 2012.
- Convert Dewey, Loma Portal, Ocean Beach, Silver Gate, Sunset View from K-4 to K-5 schools effective September 2012.
- Dana's current fifth graders will return to Dana for sixth grade in September 2012. The sixth grade program will share the Dana campus with the Pacific Rim. Language Immersion K-8 program for the 2012-13 school year.
- Completely close Dana Middle School effective July 2013.
- Correia's grade level configuration remains the same for 2012-13, but will convert to a 6-8 middle school in 2013-14. Correia will serve as the only middle school in Point Loma.
- Point Loma High School is not impacted by above recommendations.
The SDUSD staff and board is seeking and wants input from the community. The Point Loma Cluster Schools Foundation has scheduled a series of community meetings: Information Meeting Oct. 17, Informational Meeting October 18 and a Town Hall Meeting (Oct 24th).
To learn more and get the facts, see: Point Loma Cluster School Closing / Realignment.
34 comments:
My family probably could tolerate the proposed changes EXCEPT that Dana should be the 6-8 middle school, and Correia should be the Pacific Language Immersion K-8 school, not the other way around! Dana is geographically closer to Point Loma High and the larger enrollment elementary schools than Correia is. Dana is the nicer of the two facilities, and plenty of families will fight to save Dana as our middle school.
I agree... Geographically, Correia is closer to Barnard so that would displace fewer students who attend Barnard for proximity reasons and not the Mandarin Chinese offering.
Also, Dana is a split level school with two floors. This screams liability for K-3 or 4 students, doesn't it?
SDUSD get it together and listen to the constituents.
As parents of 2nd and 4th graders, we would love one more year of elementary school. We support the K-5 concept. However we strongly oppose the idea of making Correia the cluster's only middle school and making Dana the K-8 magnet. The current Mandarin program benefits only a handful of Point Loma families and seems like a waste of money. Dana is in a better location for the majority of Point Loma families and is a better facility to Correia. Giving Dana to the exclusive magnet program would be unfair and wasteful.
1. Where is the extra capacity for the increase to K-5? I do not see extra classrooms at my childrens school (in fact some are stuck in portacabins that have been there for many years).
2. Changing Dana as proposed is nonsensical. I think people at higher levels are being influenced to give away Dana at the expense of those of us who prefer traditional schooling vs immersion type models. They may wish to 'grow' the program (currently 275 students vs 400+ at all the other elem) but why at our expense??
I hope we will not be railroaded into this but it appears much work has been done at district level without any communication with the local community. Poor work SDUSD.
I don't see any reason for reconfiguring our schools in Point Loma. If the district needs to close Barnard & Cabrillo then have them do so but at the same time the district will need to limit the students in the Choice Program that feeds into our schools. The Point Loma cluster of schools has one of the highest number of students attending our PL schools due to the VEEP and Choice programs.
I don't like the thought of 6th graders at Correia (and, where will they go?) I don't see Dana being able to be filled with enough students for a Pacific Rim Language Immersion school.
A more active blog for this topic is at http://danamiddle.blogspot.com/2011/10/message-from-principal.html#comments
Get educated! With the exception of Cabrillo and Barnard our elementary schools are the most cost effectively run schools in the district. Run the numbers! Close Barnard and Cabrillo and the money is saved!
Barnard has been on the closure list for years, the district brought in the Mandarin Magnet as a way to save Barnard. What we didn't know was that they had plans of growing into our Middle School. And, what we don't know is what their plans are for their Mandarin High School . Barnard needs to find a district that needs growth and has space, not one that's over crowded. Magnets are expensive but needed in areas that need to be revived. You're in the wrong place Barnard.
Dana is a great school but it's an under performing school and our leadership has not been able to make an impact. Seminar parents are extremely happy with the education provided at Dana. Gate parents want more for their high achievers. Parents are happy because their children are getting good grades and many are on honor roll and yet Dana is an under performing school. How does that make sense. My Gate child got an can A in Science, mostly because he turned in a well decorated notebook. This same child got a basic on the Science CST that year. Up until this time he's scored Advanced on all CST areas. Something needs to be done about this issue.
Also, parents are reluctant to send their children to Correia. Patty Lad is doing an amazing job. She is providing the leadership and vision needed to make that school great. Gate parents are much happier with the learning environment at Correia. Seminar parents continue to be happy. Location continues to be an issue. Transient issues, high school kids hanging out their around the park smoking, facilities are in poor shape. They have 10 bungalows that are not certified. It's a campus in desperate need of repair. But I will tell you the education is better here than Dana. if you have a Gate child.
If we need to make changes and Patty Lad could be the leader of a 6-8th program at Dana, we would have an amazing facility and a great education program for all students!
Our elementary schools could go K-5 and Correia could turn into a satellite sports complex for our high school.
--I'm assuming that the realignment committee is looking for solutions from us?
--I'm also assuming that the majority are not going to think it's a great idea to close Dana to 5-6 students.
--If a Chinese program is a priority for the district, move the program to an existing property with shared use. My first thought is Ballard Center in Old Town that is open for Parent Trainings, etc., but does not have students present during the daytime hours. My second thought is to combine with another magnet program (Crown Point?) and run duel programs with similar focuses. I'm sure there are other properties that would work as well if Barnard is to be relocated.
--If the district is looking at 30 schools, why does PLC even need to be impacted? Our API test scores are all over 800. THis means that we are successful, so why mess with success?
--I do not think that the committee has looked at the actual situation, only the data, which appears to be less than precise. I think we should invite our school board representative and the closure committee to physically look at the sites.
--Cabrillo is a true Title I school. If it were to close, the programs that are making Cabrillo's at risk population successful would disappear and not follow the students to a new placement.
--Cabrillo, established in 1905 is the oldest elementary school in SDUSD. THere has been a school on this site since 1850.
I found it very distressing that the writer of the Talking Points document on the cluster website appears to be completely against an immersion language program rather than looking at all facts and helping cluster families make informed decisions. Immersion language programs are not for everyone, but they are definitely a good method for learning another language. Children who are learning Mandarin now and continue through college will be able to write their own job descriptions in the future!
I do question the board’s plans to move the Chinese magnet from Barnard to Dana, it will likely be years before the 200+ student K-6 Mandarin program will gain anywhere near the number of students to justify replacing 800+ students at either Dana or Correia. The Cluster has worked hard to provide a K-12 Mandarin language education program for our children. In addition to the Barnard students, Correia teaches 3 sections of Mandarin to approximately 70 students and Point Loma HS also teaches 3 sections of Mandarin. Don’t be so quick to kick the Mandarin magnet school out of our cluster, Mandarin Chinese is the key language of the future, immersion or not.
Apparently closing Cabrillo is a no-brainer. Consolidating the 195 students from Cabrillo into the five remaining K-4 schools, adds 39 students to each school. That is roughly 7-8 students per grade. This sounds possible and may be even less of a problem if the 99 non-resident students choose not to remain in the Point Loma cluster.
A bigger problem to me is closing Dana middle school and adding those 400+ 5th graders back into their prior elementary schools and those 400+ 6th graders into Correia middle school. If we keep the 5th graders at their elementary school for another year, we are adding approximately 79 students to each school, which brings most K-4’s in the cluster over their stated capacity.
Looking at the middle school statistics, it shows both schools have a total enrollment capacity at just over 1050 students. That allows for an increase of just over 100 students than the number attending today. Adding the entire 6th grade class to Correia will add 400+ students, where will we put them all? If we choose to use Dana middle school, the numbers of students and school capacity continue to have the same problem.
As a parent, splitting our middle school students into two schools, grades 5-6 and grades 7-8, has been an awesome thing for Point Loma. We don’t have to worry as much about our little ones interacting with kids that are much older and bigger, possibly having big kid/little kid bullying issues, or learning things about the world that we aren’t ready for them to know. I’ve learned that middle school is about kids working on social skills, more so than academics. If that is true, I would fight to keep our cluster with two middle schools separated by age group for these reasons.
We should be concerned with the facility chosen to house our middle school students. The facility that has the capacity, has been well-maintained, and has best options for our students should be selected. Geographic distance between Point Loma HS and Dana or Correia is probably not much different. This should not be a factor in the decision to choose a school.
On the surface, Dana may appear to have the best face, but let’s not forget what Correia has to offer: 6 science labs/classrooms compared to 3 at Dana, 3 computer labs at Correia vs 2 at Dana, a brand new video production classroom, a weight room, and huge sports field as well as the co-operative agreement with Peninsula YMCA for gym usage, and larger auditorium for it’s students (which still isn't big enough for everyone). I won't begin to praise Ms Ladd and her team. Correia is an awesome school, some of you just don’t know it yet!
Close Cabrillo, but the rest of the changes don't make sense. Point Loma cluster just doesn't have room in our schools to close a middle school.
Aside from those already at Cabrillo, most agree that closing it makes sense. Though it is sad. Most are warm to the idea of our elementary schools being K-5. We’ve heard/read that our community would like the district to consider using Dana as the 6-8 site instead of Correia. (Reasonable! Lets look into it!)
However, I am confused about the mud slinging around the Pacific Rim Immersion program. We’ve seen Barnard grow to capacity in a short time (with a waiting list). Correia and PLHS both have Mandarin Programs. Of course this program won’t be for every child, just like the music program isn’t for every child (but we all know it’s great). I am sure that if we asked Barnard parents and the parents/students of 7-12 graders enrolled in the program what they thought --- we’d see as many or more positive reactions to this opportunity. This is an amazing opportunity AS A CLUSTER SCHOOL.
Questions we should be asking: The immersion school needs to be apart of our cluster in every way---how do we ensure that? How will we accommodate the Immersion students (numbers and program) at PLHS? (And ensure PLHS will be the feeder school. All schools in our cluster should have K-12 focus & this would be great for PLHS). Will Mandarin still be offered at the middle and highschool (through World Language)? Have we considered PLHS---how will these changes impact them?
How can we look more closely at the big picture? Let’s engage more secondary parents, staff and students for a perspective that is well rounded. Collectively we will have clearer picture.
This is our community. These are our children and schools. Lets be thoughtful and proactive about what we could do here.
Dana Middle School parents and supporters: ENOUGH.
Go to Save Dana Middle School on Facebook. We need to go in force to the Board of Ed.
This process is designed to divide and conquer. Together we have a voice.
If we're looking at the big picture we should be looking at the fact that our school district is about to go bankrupt and should not be growing any program that depends on busing, is slow growing, eliminates teachers, and cost more per student to run.
Displacing 800+ students with more market share and commitment from the surrounding community with a program that doesn't have the market share and community support is a recipe for disaster.
The Board doesn't understand the PL Cluster. We don't have two middle schools. Dana does not have a full middle school budget. Our elementary schools are all running near capacity so Dana is a 5/6 school to accommodate our k-4 model.
When the K-3 plan to have 20 students per class happened in the late 90s our Point Loma cluster schools were small and we went with the idea of having a middle school and junior high and to have all elementaries go to K-4. We were reluctant then, but we came togetehr as a coummnity and wanted to make sure we kept our children in neighborhood schools. The district had rented out Dana to the SWAT team and the building needed to be repaired and repainted and up to code. This cost the district money. Parents began a foundation to pay for other improvments and has done so year after year. As a community we have embraced Dana and Correia and the experiences for our children have improved. A comment was made that we need to be more thoughtful, that we need to be more well rounded. Visual and Perfoming Arts, Creative Writing and Computers and world languages have been offered at Dana and Corriea. Computer labs have been established. Who are we excluding? Our community already has a magnet school - in High Tech Middle, Explorer and High Tech High. We don't need anotehr magnet in this area especially when we don't have room. Collectively this is the clear picture. This is the big picture. Opening up a K-8 Pacific Rim brings another middle school to the point, so I don't see the point in one saying we need to get rid of an already functioning middle school. This "amazing opportunity" to have a Pacific Rim" school in our cluster at the expense of shutting down our high funcioning neighborhood school is ill-founded policy. It is politics running amuck, simply put.
Cut and pasted from Facebook
Jim Boydston
Hi All,
Thank you for allowing me to join this group!
I am a Barnard parent, I'm on Barnard's SSC, a rep on the PLSCF board, and a member of the ad hoc committee. My wife is the PTA president(although she doesn't have an FB account...........yet) We're very active at our 2nd grade daughter's school, and committed to doing whatever we can to help raise the quality of education for *everyone* in the community.
I would like you all to know that many families at Barnard share many of your concerns regarding the SDUSD's proposal, and we want to work with the rest of the cluster to find a way through this that is best for all of our children, and gives everyone who has made an investment in Dana's future a fair and proper return on their investment.
I feel it's best for me not to volunteer an opinion here; this is not my forum, it's yours. What I'd like to offer is to be an informational source regarding what's going on at Barnard, especially with regards to the proposed closure/realignment. However, if you ask me, I'll certainly tell you how I feel. :-)
I can tell you this much; not a single parent or staff member at Barnard is happy about the prospect of kicking the current program our of Dana. While we need room to grow and are painfully aware of the poor condition of our facility, we do not feel wiping out another program for our sake is the way to go about it.
TM - I appreciate you sharing your opinion, Jim. Interesting to see that you also don't know where the heck this is all coming from!
Jim Boydston
Thank you, Tess. We found out about this the same time everyone else did at the cluster meeting on Oct. 3rd. It was also the first time anyone - including Ed Park - had heard about expanding into some kind of Pacific Rim Language Academy. T...here are some at Barnard who are even nervous about the prospect of that(i.e., will that possibly water down the Mandarin program?).
I and others have read the information Erin Ellis posted, and we wonder why we're not being sent to one of those facilities instead of Dana. Especially regarding her #3, which would put us in close proximity to the Asian community on Convoy and along Clairemont Mesa Bl. - something we believe would encourage more participation from that community. This is something the ad hoc committee ought to run with, IMO.
The only other issue I see that the cluster needs to address is whether having this magnet program in the cluster is a priority. I think it's a legitimate question that should be answered
Mr. Barnett,
I am writing today about the possible school realignment being proposed for the Point Loma Cluster. I understand the SDUSD’s requirement of budget cuts, and I further understand the cause for drastic measures in order to meet those budget cuts. However, a parent of two children in that cluster, I am writing to ask that you take the Dana Middle School campus off the proverbial chopping block. As a business person, I have to say, I am quite surprised to see it on the chopping block at all. I have heard no arguments and seen no empirical data that justifies the closure of Dana as a middle school; nor have I heard compelling arguments or seen data justifying Barnard moving into that campus. Neither make economic or logical sense. Thank you in advance for the opportunity to state my case as simply as I can:
FACT: Dana Middle School is functioning better in its current configuration as a 5/6 modified middle than most of the other middle schools in the San Diego Unified School District.
FACT: Enrollment at Dana Middle School has increased since bringing 5th grade in.
FACT: Dana Middle School garners 85% "market share" students – evidence of the community’s love for that school.
FACT: Most of the elementary schools in the PL Cluster are already over 90% capacity in their current K-4 configuration. Trying to accommodate bringing 5th grade back to their campuses would prove extraordinarily difficult.
FACT: There are several other middle schools in the SDUSD that are functioning well below the utilization and market-share percentages that Dana Middle School garners.
So my questions to you and the Board are simple:
1) Why would you close Dana as a middle school? And why would give that campus to Barnard?
2) Why would you choose to close a school that captures 85% market share (Dana) for a school that captures only 26% (Barnard) of their population from the neighborhood?
3) I understand the need to close the Barnard campus if it is not economically feasible to maintain. However, it begs the question: Why is the program not being shut down altogether? If it is too costly to operate at its current location, how can it possibly make economic sense to move it to a larger campus, requiring a full retrofit for its current students?
4) And where is the data that shows Barnard growing to require a campus of that size any time in the next decade?
If the District feels strongly about keeping the Mandarin Magnet program, Barnard should be moved to a location where it will revive a community, not negatively impact it, as it will undoubtedly do in Point Loma at the Dana campus. Barnard is a commuter school, plain and simple. Their campus can be located anywhere in the county. Why would you punish a community like Point Loma that has finally started sending their kids to their neighborhood school, by taking away a school that is currently being utilized by the community (remember – 85% market share!)?
Alternatives: Using spreadsheets of data published by the SDUSD (“Deputy Superintendent of Business, School Realignment/Closure, Rankings by Cluster”), I have compiled a list of other middle-school properties that would be better alternatives for Barnard:
See remainder of letter in next blog
Page two
Proposal #1: Henry Cluster: Three elementary schools at 75% utilization or lower. Pershing MS campus is roughly the same size as Dana, yet holds only 73.5% market share students and costs $200 more per student to operate. Move Barnard to Pershing Middle. Take 6th grade back to all elementary schools and make Lewis a 7-8 only. I guarantee Henry's cluster parents would like that configuration better than the current one, and your enrollment would increase.
· Proposal #2: Hoover Cluster: Wilson MS is operating at 31% utilization and costs more than $4000 per student. It holds only 34% market share students. Five of Hoover's elementary schools are operating at less than 75% utilization. Move Barnard to Wilson Middle. Take 6th grade back to all elementary schools and make Clark a 7-8 only. Again, I think you'll find that parents typically like the 7-8 configuration better than 6-7-8 and your market-share enrollment in that cluster would like improve.
· Proposal #3: Kearny Cluster: Both Taft and Montgomery Middle Schools are being under-utilized: Montgomery at 50%!! utilization and Taft at 72%. Montgomery attracts only 36% market share students and Taft only 54%. Both schools cost more than $4,000 per student to operate. If the data on your own spreadsheet is correct, one of these facilities could hold all of the students currently enrolled in the two schools. You could COMBINE Taft and Montgomery Middle Schools, without having to change the configuration of any other schools in the cluster, and move Barnard to the empty campus. Both facilities are more centrally-located than Barnard's current campus, which the commuter parents of Barnard would probably appreciate. (As an aside, three of Kearny’s elementary schools are currently operating at between 68% and 78% utilization – not much lower than that of Cabrillo, which is also slated for closure. You should look at the possibility of closing an elementary school in the Kearny cluster, too. The other elementaries could *easily* absorb those students.)
Again, my request is that you take Dana Middle School off the list as a potential for budget reduction. I believe what you are proposing will not actually save the District money (retrofits to the campus) and I firmly believe that the outrage you will cause in doing so will cost the District “market share” students. I also believe I have presented three viable alternatives, *all* of which make more fiscal (and logical!) sense than closing Dana Middle School. I sincerely hope you will take my proposals to the School Realignment Committee for consideration.
Respectfully,
Erin Ellis
Union Tribune Article Today
San Diego Unified would offset midyear cuts with about $24 million in reserves, selling property and laying off some nonteaching employees.
Now we can understand why the coastal schools are hardest hit. They want to sell the coastal properties.
Request (demand) that the district address all other excess (former schools sitting vacant) properties before closing more schools!!!
Point Loma parents have a lot of choices. We have charter schools for elementary, middle and high schools within the boundaries. We also have four private elementary schools and a private high in the cluster boundaries.
Do you think our parents are going to stick around if the district ghettoizes the schools, adding trailers and packing the kids in like sardines?
No enrollment will decline because we have choices in our own backyard.
Look at the facts. Moving a Mandrain school to Dana is not cost effective and would only serve a small minority of the local population. On the other hand, both Dana and Correia serve a large percentage of the local population and are acedemically and finacially sound. Both schools, with the help of the local community, have worked hard to get an amazing group of staff, teachers and facilities while improving test scores. Don't mess with a successful program and stop catering to a few. In times of limited budgets, money must be spent were it can do the greatest good for the greatest number of students. If Dana or Correia is short a few hundred students, why not recapture the Mission Hills community that use to feed into Point Loma. I hear their new middle school (that caters to the few) is a waste of District money.
I'm going to weigh in on this proposal's impact to the outstanding instrumental music program in our cluster. We have a terrific program at Dana under the direction of Ruben Flores. The program at Correia has grown due to Marc Dwyer's herculean efforts, and PLHS's program is also growing under James Sepulvado's leadership. What happens to our hard-fought efforts to keep these programs going? If music dies at Dana, we have no students to feed Correia's program - and thus PLHS' program. What we have at Dana and Correia is working. Close Cabrillo - leave Barnard as is or move it to another facility - not Dana.
I have to disagree to a certain extent that we have 'plenty of choices' of alternative schools available to us as PL residents. On paper there are LOTS of schools here in PL however:
1. Not everyone can pay for a private education.
2. The chances of us getting our kids into the local charter schools are 'slim' as they are based on a lottery system and have to reflect the demographic of 'the region' i.e. they only take a few from the 92106 and 92107 zips and then make up the rest of the student body from surrounding zips.
3. I could be wrong however it is my understanding Barnard as a Mandarin magnet school has a language requirement/test for anyone hoping to enter the school after 2nd grade. So unless you enrol your kids before then it's not an option unless you already have the language proficiency.
So what we are left with is a very narrowly defined path through the public school system in PL. They are for the most part GREAT schools and one of the reasons why we live here. It is a shame they are trying to mess with a functioning and successful system.
My son went to Barnard for the last 3 years and he did not benefit from the mandarin chinese program at all. Nor have any of his friends. The only one benefiting from the program is the school's principal Mr park. Not the kids. There has only been one kid who actually speaks any mandarin and he is showcased in all the events by mr park. The boy has been taking private lessons and is not a product of the language program at Barnard but of his own dedication to the language.
My son is very excited to be in Dana Middle school this year. He loves the school, teachers and especially the music program and Mr. Flores. Please evaluate the effectiveness of the "language program" before you accept it as it has been sold. It is not a tool for learning but for fund raising.
If the 5th graders are moved to the elementary schools as proposed will they be taught the same curriculum as they are now? Will a single teacher cover all subjects?
In answer to above blog question: Dana's teachers have the same teaching credential as K-4 teachers. It's a multiple subject credential (K-6)as opposed to a single subject credential used in the high school years.
Pt. Loma parents have organized and devoted countless energy and hours of time to improve our schools. Dana and Correia are providing great experiences for our children. Shame on you SDUSD school board and Scott Barnett for totally discounting this. Show us the numbers? Same amount of students have to be educated and school sites will have to be modified. It is sad to see Cabrillo and Barnard close but our other elementary schools provide great alternatives. Continue Dana and Correia at the same configuration. It works! The Mandarin program would be better served out of our community.
I suggest; Close Cabrillo (I suspect many kids within their boundaries have choiced elsewhere in the cluster already), close Barnard and move the Mandarin program elsewhere. Fremont in Old Town has bus, trolley and train access. PB Middle may be available too. Or maybe a site that ties into the IB program at SDHS.
Dana and Correia are efficiently run, keep our K-4, 5/6, 7/8, 9-12 model.
If worse comes to worse...and largely ending busing precludes K-4 model by lowering enrollment too much...then switch to K-5 for remaining schools and make Dana 6-8 campus as it is more centrally located in the cluster. If it must remain in our cluster Mandarin program should move to Correia as the flatter campus seems better orientated towards K-2 size students and it is on northern edge of the community which might help out of cluster students attend.
When it comes to these difficult reorg. discussions @ the SDUSD, the only two metrics that really matter are: 1) API growth rate; and 2) capacity utilization. Notwithstanding the hyperbolic drivel from the Dana parents, their neighborhood "sacred cow" is consistently near the low water mark in the Cluster in these two crucial areas or measurement. Perhaps this conversation would have never taken place if the administration and parents at Dana had been successful in delivering better results over the past few years?
When it comes to these difficult reorg. discussions @ the SDUSD, the only two metrics that really matter are: 1) API growth rate; and 2) capacity utilization. Notwithstanding the hyperbolic drivel from the Dana parents, their neighborhood "sacred cow" is consistently near the low water mark in the Cluster in these two crucial areas or measurement. Perhaps this conversation would have never taken place if the administration and parents at Dana had been successful in delivering better results over the past few years?
Part 2 of 3
Several people have also expressed real displeasure with the idea of Prop. S money, approved to improve existing facilities, being used to alter facilities for budget cuts. Lawsuits from litigious Point Lomans and other San Diegans are not unlikely if Prop. S funds are diverted from uses in the ballot language.
I actually think the argument about middle schools should go the other way. Instead of feeling two middle schools, one with fifth graders, needs to be justified, we should be touting the benefits of this model. The Point Loma cluster has a higher percentage of its students in cost efficient middle and high schools than any other, 58%, which makes sense since they start in fifth grade. Not coincidentally, it is likely that Point Loma has most efficient cost per pupil cluster in the district. Other clusters should really consider this model, as moving fifth grade students from expensive elementary schools to efficient middle schools could help save money district-wide.
I know the revised recommendations have now lessened the possibility of this, but another issue of confusion regarded moving the Mandarin Language Magnet program from a closed Barnard. Subsequently putting this program into Dana also seemed like an odd recommendation. Dana will require significant renovation for K-3 children. In addition, I know that transportation is one of the major district costs and possible savings areas. Barnard has the largest transportation burden of any elementary in the cluster due to it’s magnet status. On a related note, it is clear that several more geographically central elementary schools will also be on the closing/reorganization list. Being central to the district as a whole, and especially to the district’s transportation center, could save significant transportation funds. While by and large it is a pleasant feather in the cap for the Point Loma cluster to have the Mandarin Chinese Language school, it therefore seems that relocating or co-locating that program to one of the on-the cusp schools nearer the transportation center would be the most cost-effective solution to the district.
The last item of concern I wanted to mention was one that was discussed at length at the Site Council and the parent meetings, and that also concerns me. While there seems to be a consensus that sadly sees the logic of closing expensive elementary schools, there is a question about the targeting of the PL cluster. Without sounding parochial about spreading the impact of budget cuts evenly throughout the district, I think it is fair to note that 20% of elementary closings are proposed in this cluster, even though it has less than 6% of the elementary schools in the district. Closing two schools in the cluster is a pretty big hit, without any other changes.
Part 3 of 3
In addition, the school district draft recommendations for the PL cluster are VERY specific, unlike their recommendations for any of the other closure clusters. Those other clusters' recommendations (the other PowerPoints are available on the district website) were typically much more general, and even though they had been identified for closures some had no closure recommendations at all.
There were two theories espoused at the various meetings for why Point Loma was so targeted with both the school closings and the desire to change Dana.
One, the district formerly used Dana as administrative offices, and so figured it would be easy to do so again. Unfortunately, the Dana facility has undergone significant renovations since then, and is now a cost effective place to educate students, not a good office building.
Two, Scott Barnett is a new and junior member of the Board, and so perhaps there are those who think he might put up less of a fight against closures in his area than other Board members.
I personally doubt the second as I have met Scott Barnett, and he does not seem like a pushover. Still, it is strange that the PL cluster is seeing such a disproportionate impact.
To be honest, from a purely selfish standpoint, I love the idea of Silver Gate going K-5, as I have a daughter in 4th and would love to have another year at this great school. However, taking the logical, fiscal view, it is hard to see how the middle school reallocations/renovations make any sense. Closing Cabrillo and Barnard, expanding the remaining elementary schools for the displaced students, and co-locating the Mandarin Chinese Language program to an on-the-cusp school with more efficient transportation connections, seems to be the most efficient cost saving change for the whole district.
So, I know those are a lot of thoughts, and I bet no one actually read my whole post. Oh well, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Regardless, whoever you are, thanks for being in interested in our neighborhood’s schools, and sorry for going on so long here…
Scott Barnett is taken aback with the notion that he will have to ask his colleagues on the school board to support not one but two middle schools for our cluster. This is a misnomer. While Dana is called a middle school, our 5th and 6th graders have the same California acadmenic standards in their curriculum as their peers in K-5ths, K-6ths and K-8th configurated schools. They take the same state mandated tests as their peers in K-6th in other districts (La Mesa Spring Valley) as well as in their own district
K-5's- Bay Park, Dingeman, EB Scripps, K-6's Holmes, Lafayete, Whitman, K-8's Golden Hill, Grant yet without as much money. The district prescribed that we adopt this configuratin 14 years ago so we have been saving the district money from the budget each and every year. Our 5th and 6th graders are still elementary students, their school is just labeled as a middle school.We are not asking for two middle schools or entitlement. We are asking that you defend our neighborhood schools which has been cost effictive and has saved the district money in the overall SDUSD depleted budget.
Have been watching 4 hours of the televised SDUSD Board of Ed meeting tonight. Public commentary started at 8pm. Congratulations to Marvin, Cubberley, Crown Point, Vista Grande and Franklin parents, teachers and students who stayed on to make their comments on their schools on the closure list. Other board members need to hear from the Dana community instead of Scott Barnett, who showed his true colors at tonight's meeting. When will Dana go to the Board?
Thoughts on Scott Barnett after reading this from his website? Not sure he really follows his own beliefs by watching him and the other robots at Dana the other night.
http://barnettforschoolboard.org/
My promise to you is this: I will always put our children’s growth, development and learning first. They are our future.
I will take a parent’s approach to demanding first-class schools that prepare our children for college and 21st Century jobs, and a taxpayer advocate’s approach to safeguarding school funds and construction dollars."
Post a Comment