EDITOR: We are writing in response to the front page article in
the March 2 edition headlined
“First-year Sobrato costs: $750,000.” Our district is
struggling, along with many other districts in California, to make
sound fiscal decisions in a time of budget cuts.
EDITOR:
We are writing in response to the front page article in the March 2 edition headlined “First-year Sobrato costs: $750,000.” Our district is struggling, along with many other districts in California, to make sound fiscal decisions in a time of budget cuts.
Trustees must analyze the entire district budget and make cuts. Even if Sobrato were not a factor, cuts would still need to be made. This remains the unfortunate state of our economy. While it may be convenient to use Sobrato as a scapegoat for the district’s budget woes, we need to consider the financial realities and what fits the best interests of our district’s children.
First of all, the dollar figure in the headline is grossly inflated. Much of the staffing costs are not new expenditures; existing staff within the district will transfer over – teachers, counselor, librarian, assistant principal and clerical. Some new staffing costs do occur, such as site principal, athletic coaches, additional clerical staffing, etc.
These costs have never been hidden. They are the known costs of opening and maintaining a new high school. It is true that the operating costs outlined in the article will be new expenditures for the district. However, these costs are not surprises. Electricity, water, and maintenance are normal costs associated with operating any facility. Total operational costs for Live Oak in 2002-03 were approximately $360,000. Opening a new, more energy-efficient school building with fewer than half the student population would cost closer to $200,000-$220,000.
The cost figures attributed to district Director of Construction and Modernization Al Solis were taken out of context. In addition, staffing costs will not be $400,000, but closer to $280,000. Estimated total costs have been proposed to the board as $513,000, not $750,000 – a big difference. To expect the community to believe that these costs come as a surprise to the board at this point in the construction process is demeaning.
Morgan Hill voters approved a bond that would build a second high school so all local students would enjoy the benefits of a nine-12 high school configuration. The construction of Sobrato has been a long process that now nears completion.
One option proposed as a cost-saving measure is to lock up Sobrato for at least one year. Minimum maintenance of an empty facility will cost approximately $150,000, including costs of fire alarms and upkeep. Not one student will benefit from this option. It also is a broken promise to the community.
A second option (presented by Live Oak teacher Glen Webb at the Feb. 23 board meeting) was opening Sobrato as a large continuation school, a move that would provide a “bridge” transition program for “qualified” students. This option would not be a cost-saving measure. Operating costs would remain the same as opening a 9-12 high school. Expanded staffing needs would be similar to opening Sobrato as planned. This plan is not only immoral, but unlawful, representing segregation and tracking in their most dramatic forms.
Can we afford another lawsuit – one that we surely would not win? In education we strive to educate all students, even if they come to us unmotivated and struggling. Currently, no models or data exist to suggest that a dual-track system would increase student achievement.
Other options presented at the board meeting and outlined in the article, including opening Sobrato as a ninth-grade-only campus or a nine-10 campus with Live Oak being an 11-12 campus are not cost-saving suggestions. These options suggest fear and insecurity about having two high schools.
Likewise, these are not research-based alternatives and therefore no data exist to suggest that these configurations would improve student achievement.
We acknowledge that in the next few weeks, the district and board will have to make some difficult budget decisions. Yet, if the number one priority for this district for over 20 years has been to move the ninth graders from the middle schools, then the single most destructive decision would be to not open Sobrato.
It has been suggested that “opening a school that will offer little gain to the district’s educational goals … is not justified.” Can we honestly say that opening Sobrato and offering the students of this district a ninth through 12th grade experience at two academically rigorous and caring high schools would not meet the district’s educational goals for our children?
We are educators with more than 61 years of combined service to the district.
Christina Filios, Tracy Murphy, Fawn Myers and Sandra Swan, Morgan Hill
Editor’s note: The cost figures used in the March 2 story were presented Feb. 23 to the district board of trustees. The figures were not taken out of context.
