I am writing to you as an individual teacher, parent and member
of our community. My views are my own. Recent disclosure of the
district
’s building fund by Deputy Superintendent Bonnie Branco has
alleviated many of the concerns of the general public. This
reassurance is short lived however once a closer look at school
funding reveals a much different picture.
I am writing to you as an individual teacher, parent and member of our community. My views are my own.
Recent disclosure of the district’s building fund by Deputy Superintendent Bonnie Branco has alleviated many of the concerns of the general public. This reassurance is short lived however once a closer look at school funding reveals a much different picture.
As a school board, you are in an unique position to make decisions regarding building and operational projects – those projects will rely on two distinct revenue sources that are extremely different. On the one hand, you have a building fund that appears flush to undertake many of the district’s intended facility projects. On the other, you have an operational general fund that is inadequate for operating such facilities once they are built.
It would be very comfortable, energizing, even invigorating for you to loose yourselves in the optimistic outlook of the building fund. However, the day-to-day operations of the school district to which you will inevitably have to return must temper your building plans.
The deputy superintendent’s report had a wealth of information, most striking were enrollment projections which show continuing declining enrollment for through the year 2008. Secondary figures suggest that two comprehensive high schools would have enrollments of only 1,150.
But hey, that’s great, smaller schools equal higher student achievement, or so the research says … but wait a minute, a closer look at all the research listed in last week’s board packet indicates that every smaller school that showed improvement also had some other mitigating variable (most commonly smaller class size) that accounted for the difference.
Opening Sobrato as a comprehensive high school will not change funding and will not reduce class size. Increased operational costs will put a stress on the general fund that can only serve to increase class size. Just PG&E costs for the additional site equal about three or four teaching jobs. And research clearly shows that small schools with large classes have no difference in achievement from large schools. The research in fact shows no compelling justification to chase after the small school myth in current economic times.
And please keep in mind that one high school of 2,000 students would be considered a big school by local standards. By comparison to our neighbors, Live Oak at 2000 would be considered small to medium – as well as the smallest in our competitive athletic league.
But it is nice to have options. We can build whatever we need. What we have to avoid is building a luxury we can’t afford. It would truly be a shame to allow work at Live Oak to go unfinished to open a second high school that we can’t operate.
We have a five-year need for a capacity of around 2,400 grades 9-12. We currently house about 100 of these students at Central High School. In addition to this, there are over 100 students promoted to Live Oak annually that are unlikely to graduate due to excessive failure in the ninth grade. These students along with others that fail to meet the standards for promotion should not be attending Live Oak.
Instead, in the eloquent words of one of my esteemed English colleagues, Live Oak has taken on the feel of a remedial magnet. Another colleague has recently counted 18 special programs currently in place to support at-risk students. Live Oak has jumped on so many educational trends we are like the high fashion model of public education – we too have no visible bottom lines.
All the while, statewide objective test data shows declining scores for several years running.
Many educators are passionate. Many also believe passionately that the failure of providing real world consequences to those students that choose to be disruptive, unproductive and detract from the positive learning environment will ultimately do those students a terrible injustice.
Providing safety net after safety net to those most in need may seem an obligation, and yet the end result is to perpetuate in them the apathy, procrastination, and attitude of entitlement which will lead to a life on the public dole. And even more tragically, those attitudes are contagious and eventually can infect an entire institution.
Well, the sky’s the limit as far as the building fund is concerned, but how do you weave so many factors into a plan of action? First, keep an open mind.
Here’s some hypothetical fuel for thought. Close central, sell the land on Monterey Road, move Central to Encinal where it can house an increased capacity – replace a few portables at Live Oak and move the ninth grade there next year.
Purchase 15 acres behind Live Oak (currently on sale – no eminent domain required) and re-establish the softball fields, school farm, practice fields, and parking. Proceed immediately on all remaining projects at Live Oak – (after all if we possess costly plans that made their way through DSA you obviously intended the projects at some point). Continue Sobrato, but only for the capacity needed, planning to move Central there when ready.
And finally, use a portion of the building fund to secure options on other school sites so that we won’t be in this quagmire the next time around.
Five years from now, we don’t want our hearts to collectively be singing “nobody knows the trouble we’ve seen.” Instead, we’ll get to watch the test scores soar at both the middle and high schools as attending Live Oak actually becomes a privilege that has to be earned through hard work.
Glen Webb is a teacher at Live Oak High School. Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at
wa***@mo*************.com
or 779-4106.
