Welcome to this Blog!
We as a community feel strongly about the decision the school board has made to close two elementary schools in the CVUSD effective Fall 2009. Here is a forum where you can gather information, and share information regarding the school closures. We think Conejo Valley has wonderful schools, and closing them would be detrimental to our community at large. Thank you for taking the time to visit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
A few things to think about while regarding the school closure selection process.
1) It seems that most appealing attributes of a small “neighborhood school” model come up as the most damaging attributes in the criteria process for the closure selection process. Is this turning out to be a referendum leading to the end of the “neighborhood school” concept?
2) Considering the potential cost / benefit ratio of school closures, is there any information that indicates the relative financial impact of the closing of one school over another? The council members indicated that this problem doesn’t boil down to looking at any one school in this way and that this was a district wide problem. If the approach were to look at how to make all schools solvent, on a school-to-school basis, the budget problem might look quite different.
3) The process of determining the population of a school and not including school choice and special needs attendees invalidates the statistics. The number of students in a school is the number of students in a school. Moreover, it seems that special needs students should not only be included, but given even more consideration due to the nature of the education, the impact of change on them and the acclimation time of the general population of the school in creating a positive environment for mainstreaming the students.
4) If truancy at the high school level and unexcused absences at all levels cost the district a great deal of money in lost revenues, why does the district not bill the parents for reimbursements?
5) At school board meetings, the board asked citizens to be creative and come up with ideas on how to avoid school closures. When the citizenry asked for information on the budgetary and other processes, in order to attempt to provide realistic solutions, none was provided, including trimming the budget in other areas such as administration.
6) If the district closes a school and leases the property, is the cost of reacquiring the property or building a new school if the lease can’t be terminated, out weigh the financial benefit of the closure? With property values falling, people could actually become more mobile in real estate and move into areas that were not possible before.
7) If the secondary criteria for school closure were included in the first criteria, wouldn’t the standings change significantly?
8) A political scenario:
Option 1- a school with high test scores is closed and the population is distributed to surrounding schools, some with low test scores. Those schools test score averages go up.
Option 2- a school with low test scores is closed and the population is distributed to surrounding schools, some with high scores. Those schools test score averages go down.
Which one is politically advantageous to the school board?
The school board mentioned that ethnic diversity and income level diveristy exempt some schools from being considered for closure. Why is the special needs program not considered a diversity? We need to be just as careful how these children are moved around and treated, just like the other diverse groups.
Also, the board said that they were not looking into future school populations as a consideration, and that is a mistake for the autism programs. The number of children with autism grows greatly each year. The schools need to be ready for a big increase of children with autism entering the school district. The parents of these children are going to be looking for good, established autism programs that Maple and Ladera offer. Moving these programs is not a good idea.
A friend of mine told me over a year ago that Maple was going to close. I can't help but believe that they had plans all along to close the school, and they are trying to find "criteria" to fit nicely with this decision.
Last night, he also mentioned something about Easter Seals leasing our building. I am wondering if there is a way to research this - it cannot be legal for them to have found someone already, if in fact the process is not complete.
Hey all, this is Michelle. I am the District Advisory Council (DAC) rep for Maple and I just want to set the record straight in regards to the comment above by anonymous in the interest of moving this process forward in the most constructive of ways. I mean this in the nicest of possible ways and I am trying just to pass on what I know after all the years of serving Maple both at our school site and at the district level. Here goes....
I have been hearing about school closures at the DAC meetings for almost 2 years now. I have been sharing those findings with Maple's school site council (a council where I have been a member for 6 years...these meetings are open to any parent who wants to attend as far as I know). There is something that I think is imperative to be clear about. The district absolutely did not have a school pegged prior to this process. When the issue of closures started to become obvious I started to express concern to district officials due to the fact that we were one of the smallest schools, I was told not to be nervous...to relax, etc. This was prior to the criteria being set and even as the criteria was being set. I honestly think that the officials I worked with didn't think Maple was any more at risk than anyone else. They were NOT targeting the smallest school. There is a lot of respect for our school district wide, if this hadn't been a blind study I think the affection felt for our school could have tainted the process in our favor. They went to great pains to keep that from happening for everyone's sake.
What I witnessed was that all involved set out for months to create a mutually agreed upon set of criteria. (I know many disagree with that criteria but the process has been very open while the committees in charge of creating it hammered out the criteria). Every Elementary school in the Conejo Valley with the exception of Lang and Sycamore were at risk. I don't think anyone wanted Maple to land here. The criteria was set for certain reasons, it was an attempt to determine which schools made the most sense to close fiscally after a set criteria was established. No one targeted Maple. We may disagree with their notion that it is fiscally responsible to close a school but that is the place they are operating from. It was unfortunate that we landed where we did but conspiracy theories at this stage of the game won't help to move the process forward. We need to work with what we have....hit them with facts that will help keep Maple open, show them why it may not be fiscally responsible and how we can make up the short fall, point out the effort put in to make our inclusive campus such a success, etc. We are all here to try and figure out what those "facts" are....in the mean time...trust those of us who sat in on virtually every meeting when we say that the people in charge of this process did not target any specific school.
As to leasing it, it is my understanding that there have been inquiries for years about leasing facilities if they aren't in use from the district. As far as I know no one guaranteed, leased, promised and attempted to lease Maple's property (or anyone other school in the area). It is my understanding from things that I have heard that after schools were closed in the 80's and the district leased out those buildings that they had some idea who else they could lease to, should it ever become an issue again. All the people I worked with in this process prayed enrollment numbers would go back up, that the Governor's budget speech would have good news, etc. They all still hope that it won't be necessary, this process was set to move forward in case it absolutely becomes necessary to their way of thinking to have to close a school. It is that thinking that we should try to change.
Ok, just my 2 cents. I want this process to stay on track for Maple's sake...let's use all of our brain power to find a way if possible to save her.
My husband was able to obtain the raw data which was used in the blind case study. Already, we have found several glaring errors in numbers that need to be addressed. I believe that they have been honest mistakes or typos, but they can drastically change the balance of numbers. Andrew is working hard to put all the information together to bring to the board and we will not let this go unchecked.
I have already written emails to everyone on the board as well as to the Star and the Acorn. I am not going to sit idly by and let the school board continue down this road. Remember, elections are coming up soon and we have a powerful voice. We need to not just stop at the school board level. Why is it that California is so far behind on money spent on education? Other options need to be explored more thoroughly before the district makes that decision to close down schools.
I want to thank Michelle for the constructive comments; I too have sat on the District Advisory Council, and I found it a very eye-opening experience. Sit in on several months worth of those meetings, and you may have a different view of district officials; when you hear the reasoning behind what seems like utterly ridiculous decisons, what you thought you knew suddenly changes. After attending those meetings for a couple of years, I have the utmost respect for the leaders of this district and believe that they have the best interests of all the children of the district in mind. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I do respect them as educators who have spent years in classrooms as students and teachers and think public education is a sacred responsibility.
No one at Maple wants to see it closed; Michelle and I are in the same boat; our children will be through at Maple after this year, but we both live so near the school that our houses and property values will be directly impacted, so we definitely have a vested interest. I would hate to see Maple close for that reason alone, but I think we need to understand the reality of the situation.
California underfunds its schools and has for years and years; we now rank about 40th in the country in funding per student and more than $1,000 per student below the national average. Prop 13 took funding options almost completely away from local schools. Schools get what they get from the state, and they have almost no way to make up that money locally as they do in other states. As a result, our schools already offer much less than schools in many states in areas such as music, art, athletics, foreign languages; gifted and talented programs and put more kids in each class in crummier facilities for shorter school days. (Most of my relatives live in Texas so I have direct comparisons to the kind of education my neices and nephews receive in similar districts there.)
And yet, the governor, who dares not raise taxes because he knows what happened to the last governor who tried that, has proposed cutting funding to schools by the largest margin in more than 20 years! Our district would be fiscally irresponsibe if it were not looking at the facts here. Not only has enrollment declined by a huge number in the past few years, but two of the county's largest employers are laying off workers.
Are very small neighborhood elementary schools the best use of the district's very limited funds? That question is certainly open to debate, but I think it's important to at least think about what that means. If enrollment keeps declining, you may be looking at schools with only one class per upper grade level. Is that really what we want?
I think if we want the school board to hear Maple parents, we need to focus less on decisions that have already been made -- whether you agree with those decisions or not -- such as the decision to close two schools and the decision not to close Manzanita. We have some very valid arguments that can be made that closing the autistic program would be very detrimental to the kids in that program, and the point that was made about the autistic population growing is a very good one.
Another point that did not seem to be addressed on Thursday night is the one of future development. Maple is the only school in Newbury Park targeted for closure; that means most NP schools are already at or near capacity and will be even more so after they absorb Maple students. Yet, housing is still being built in NP, and there are many "starter homes" in this area. If the housing market drops enough that families can afford to come back here, Newbury Park may be growing again, and the school board should address what would happen in that scenario. Several of the other schools being looked at for closure are in much closer proximity, which I think would give those areas more capacity for growth even if one school is closed. Has the closure committee or the school board studied this area?
We can still bring legitimate points to the discussion in this case, but name-calling and looking for "villains" will not help Maple.
Tammy Ditmore
Thanks to michelle and all to the clear response. I was not trying to be a conspirator....I merely thought if in fact they had already decided on Maple it was all pointless. I think you are all correct that we just need to focus our argument.
Karen
If the district had gone strictly by student population, Maple would have been at or near the top of the list. Even counting all choice and SDC kids, Maple historically has been one of the very smallest schools in the district. I think the fact that they created a committee to factor in school population along with other considerations actually works in Maple's favor, but we can't hide the fact that we're very small.
I have to ask the people who feel strongly that Manzanita should be closed if they have thought about what Maple would look like if that happens? Maple would most definitely absorb a large number of those students: it would no longer be one of the smallest schools in the district, it would have a number of English Learner students and a number of students whose families don't or can't participate in the way we're used to at Maple. Be careful what you wish for.
In rereading my earlier post, I think I may have written something that sounded much more negative than what I meant, and I want to apologize if my words or tone offended anyone. As I wrote earlier, I live next door to the campus, so personally, I'd love to see Maple remain open no matter what and I would have no objections at all to Manzanita students at Maple.
Mike Dunn has said that he is going to propose throwing out the committee recommendations and instead closing Meadows and Manzanita. If the Maple community wants to support him in that, we just need to be realistic about what that move would mean for the future of Maple. That was really what I was trying to point out and did not mean to imply anything else.
Karen, had I known it was you that wrote that comment I wouldn't have responded because I know you are as informed as anyone in this process AND you are very even minded. I heard some comments the other night from many who I know are not informed and I just wanted to be sure that those who may not be aware of the process understand that the district wasn't setting out to close Maple.
Unfortunately for us Maple due to size, demographic/location, API, etc. falls in an area that makes us vulnerable at every turn. I think the only thing at this point that will save us is finding a way to show the district that fiscally it isn't necessary to close a school, or to show them why it doesn't make sense to close Maple.
I hear what you are saying Tammy about the face of Maple changing should any school close. No matter what happens, if Maple closes or a neighboring school it will bring change to our area.
I think closing a school that receives Title 1 funding (Conejo, Manzanita, even Walnut) will probably never happen. Even though the school who receives the funds is the only one that benefits from the money the district indirectly benefits because that is money the school receives to educate those of low income that they would have to find elsewhere. If they disperse the population of children who are receiving free and reduced lunch to other campuses, the percentages that receive it verses those who don't receive it would eliminate much of the funding that the district (indirectly) receives from Title 1. Again, this is just my opinion. I think Mike Dunn may have a steep hill to climb if he tries to go after Manzanita. They have some incredible programs over there via Pepperdine and the SHRUBS program. I don't see the district going after them at this point, not after all the criteria has been set and they have come out clear.
The only way I see us dodging this bullet is through the secondary criteria. We have to show them that some things are worth more than money. A safe inclusive environment for children of special needs to work alongside typical kids benefits learning for everyone. Some things matter more than others...I personally feel that children who are learning English as a second language don't have learning deficits generally speaking, they just speak a different language. From what I have seen studies show that kids who are learning English as a second language actually succeed better in the end if they are mixed with children who speak the new language. Kids with special needs have more specialized needs. They often have communication issues that can't be solved by learning a new language, often times they are still learning to speak a first language. They need a safe, organized environment to learn. I feel the biggest mistake in the secondary criteria is putting those with special needs in the same criteria as those with "diversity" and those who have to travel certain distances over major highways. Let's be real folks, most kids are driven to school these days...what does it matter if the kids have to drive over a major highway. In my opinion a program (an inclusive campus) that has taken as long to develop as well as they have developed it, is way more important in the end. It shouldn't be disrupted, that to me matters WAY more than whether or not a kid has to cross a major highway. To weigh those things equally is crazy to my way of thinking.
I am posting this here as well as on the new blog....
Cathy Carlson from TO here: Please know that according to Caifornia Open Meeting Acts, the public MUST be allowed to speak during a public comments section after Committee meetings of government entities.
Here is the link:
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/bagleykeene2004_ada.pdf
To read the notes at the bottom of page 9, you hold down your control button and use your scroll feature on your mouse to enlarge it. Or just print the page. I will give you more government links later today.
As you may know, the DA, John Swartz, wrote the CVUSD a long 6 page letter recently, warning them that he will not tolerate continued violations of the Brown Act and violations of citizen's rights.
Hi,
Here's the link to the Brown Act about public comments.
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_BrownAct.pdf
You should know that the CVUSD has already consulted their lawyers about having public comments at committee meetings, because they FALSELY were not allowing us to speak at the Sex Ed Committees (Health Ed). This is exactly the same kind of committee. They KNOW they must allow time at the end for public comment. The problem is that when the chairman gets around to it, the committee members start standing up and leaving! Somebody needs to bring a video camera, and if this happens, call the DA's office and talk to John Swartz.
Jeff Barstaadt was WRONG to say that the public will not be able to speak. Boy, I wish I had brought a tape recorder to that meeting at Maple. However, many people heard him.
Get your PFA to send this info out right away. Tell your principal that she must send a communication about this open meeting law. She will not be taking sides. She will be explaining the rights of the community. Remember, the CVUSD is a government agency, not a kingdom, or a private club. They MUST follow California law, or face the consequences in court.
Let's all learn more about the Charter School law-
There are many advantages to becoming a charter such as controlling the local school budget, more available funds and having a local "Board of Directors"
instead of being a part of CVUSD.
The current school board would then become "irrelevant"!!!
Hallmark asks some thought provoking questions.
This process has in fact turned out to be a referendum on the “neighborhood school” concept. Although it appears that the most damage has resulted to the “smallest” schools, that simply isn’t true. It identified the schools in neighborhoods with the "smallest resident” population.
The CVUSD Board policy 433 reads:
“The Board of Education is committed to the provision of quality educational opportunities in every school within the District. The Board believes in the concept of neighborhood schools and recognizes that student safety, parent involvement, and neighborhood/school peer relationships are three (3) important reasons for students to attend the school closest to their residence."
The decision to include this data as primary criteria although perceived as harmful is well within the scope of the Board’s Policy.
It has been harmful to the extent that Board policy 433.1, School Choice, also provides parents with the right to have their child attend schools of their choosing; and in complying with 433.4 these schools have encouraged and accepted school choice enrollment and are now being penalized for it.
However, it is stated that neighborhood schools is the Board’s intent. If parents and the Board desire to have School Choice drive policy, then it should be amended as such.
Realistically the cost benefits are in closing the smallest schools, period. All schools have the minimum staffing levels. It is clearly less expensive, not optimal, to have 475:1 then 250:1 for a custodian, Principal or Office Manager. The cost to operate a smaller school is almost double.
I believe the reality of the current situation is that there is little potential for a positive cost/benefit outcome in closing just two schools. Financial solvency of a bureaucracy is incongruous with rational thought.
The reality of the situation is that it is easier to sell 2 schools in 2 years instead of 5 in 5. The fact remains that as enrollments drop less monies are available, the cost of operating continues to rise without a mechanism to increase revenue. There are scenarios that could keep all schools open, but I don’t think parents are willing to sacrifice the current level of staffing and programs to make that happen. I am sure teachers are unwilling to work for free.
In the United States we have a publicly funded system of education: Compulsory education. By law children are permitted to receive and governments to provide and pay for education. Parents can not be compelled to pay for these absences until truancy is established and that is only a fine to the District Attorney's Office.
All absences cost the district money. The state no longer reimburses the districts for “excused” absences: illness, religious observation or death in the family, etc. The delineation between “excused” and “unexcused” is simply a matter of semantics which over time enables the district to compel a parent to fulfill their obligation to send their child to school by calling them a "truant."
People do not ask for budgetary information and other information. They demand, threaten and rant about it. Budgetary information is readily available at your school or the district office for those who want it. A recommendation would be for the concerned citizenry to take this data to a private firm and have them analyze and propose scenarios. Clearly district personnel are not trusted to provide an accurate financial picture. Would these people believe what alternatives the district presented? Not unless it conformed to their desires.
Although families may be more mobile, I would suggest it would not be within the area with the same cost of living, therefore not creating any significant growth in the targeted clusters. Additionally, most leases would be for terms that would make short term growth manageable based on the capacities of most adjacent schools and have clauses that would permit termination of the tenancy.
The argument for the invalidating of statistics can be made for including or not including non-resident students. This argument seems to be about weighing the special programs. Nobody disagrees. You may recall the Board was asked to include SDC programs in primary criteria as well as weighting in secondary criteria. However, Dr. Barstaad advised the Board it was too subjective and thus the Board decided against community recommendations. The same is true for the “diversity” criteria.
One post states "the school board mentioned that ethnic diversity and income level diversity exempt some schools from being considered for closure." You are missing the point. The Board did not want to increase the ratios at Title 1 schools, further segregating the populations that currently attend these schools. This bias is precisely what is keeping the district, Board and community from delineating and addressing the different issues current in discussion and adhering to Board policy with respect to balanced schools.
It is a fact that children learning English as a second language will assimilate language quicker when surrounded with an enriched English speaking environment that includes English speaking role models. Children will also acquire a second language faster when literate in their primary language. I am not sure how this is related to the fact that some of these children in fact have "learning deficits" in addition to the barriers created by learning a second language. This assumption underlies the problem that either over identifies or under identifies learning disabilities that exist in minority populations.
Moreover, the assumption that closing a Title 1 school will cost the district directly or indirectly is simply wrong. Funding is triggered by eligibly in the Federal School Lunch program, POOR. The schools are designated Title 1 once they hit a threshold of about 21%. The district could simply pass thru the monies but has decided on a “school-wide” model. When a school reaches a population of 40% Title 1 funds can be spent “school-wide” on any student identified as "at-risk". That includes student in special education and others who are not performing well on the standardized tests.
Be real, given the current economic situation and immigration trends does anyone think this population and the money will simply go away? Simple mathematics, if you take all the students eligible for Free and Reduced lunches and evenly distributed them across all CVUSD campuses, there are enough students for every school to have a Title 1 designation. NIMBY does not apply here!
The fact is that change is going to occur and there are ways to facilitate the process that benefits all children. It may not make everyone happy, but it benefits all children in the end. The term “benefits” should not be confused with “satisfies.” As pointed out, the means to end may achieve undesired results.
Post a Comment