EDITOR: Recently, a position paper favoring the opening of
Sobrato has enumerated positive reasons to open the campus, as well
as the alleged flaws in any alternatives. Such alternatives as
opening Sobrato as a ninth-grade campus, as a continuation high
school, or as some format other than the most expensive
comprehensive high school currently planned have Sobrato proponents
worried.
EDITOR:
Recently, a position paper favoring the opening of Sobrato has enumerated positive reasons to open the campus, as well as the alleged flaws in any alternatives. Such alternatives as opening Sobrato as a ninth-grade campus, as a continuation high school, or as some format other than the most expensive comprehensive high school currently planned have Sobrato proponents worried.
The source of their fears is two-fold. First, after such a long and arduous road to realize their idealistic dream, the appearance of last moment obstacles is terrifying. Second, other alternatives are gaining notice because they are much more realistic and fiscally sound.
To combat these fears, Sobrato proponents are doing all they really can do. Appeal to emotions and muddy the waters so that indecisiveness can allow the runaway train to continue.
Bemoaning whether or not the operating cost of Sobrato is $500,000 or $750,000 is mundane when current unallocated resources in the general fund are counted in single dollars with those soon to be cut by millions. Claiming that operating costs are overstated is ignorant of the operating costs not included in the estimates, as well as ignorant of the fact that these costs will continue to escalate each year as Sobrato adds grade levels. Consolidating the campuses as satellites allow for expenses to be controlled by not having to duplicate services.
Likewise, advocating the opening of a school when enrollment is declining and budgets are being gutted flies in the face of any possible intellectual argument. Current budget draft proposals include cutting employee pay scales, as well as reducing workdays, not to mention the wholesale elimination of all extracurricular athletics in grades 7-12. Where is there no mention of upper level administrators forgoing their senior board member guaranteed and obscene longevity bonuses?
Advocating the type of budget cuts enumerated last week so as to allow the opening of Sobrato is outrageous. Claiming that this is all being done for the betterment of the students is a smoke screen.
Will prompting an increased exodus of students and the ADA resources they take with them be good for our remaining students? Will the loss of experienced educators and the inability to attract the best and brightest new teachers be good for our remaining students? Will continuing to bolster our enrollment by taking every expelled student from neighboring districts that we can quietly sneak through the back door be good for our remaining students?
The nearly 2 percent proposed pay cut is most indicative of the on-going priority district leadership has placed on opening Sobrato. COLA funding best indicates the impact of the economic times. Despite their wish to hide behind the poor economy, Sobrato advocates fail to acknowledge that our problems are only partly due to the economy – most are self inflicted by misguided leadership.
Teachers well remember nearly 6 percent in COLA paid to the district over the past four years, and the fact that less than 2 percent of it has been passed on to employees. All employees, teachers and classified, are presently due a 4 percent plus raises to simply return us to where we should be. Instead, we will now be asked to take pay cuts to fund a luxury that we can’t afford.
Sobrato advocates label the option of opening Sobrato as a continuation school as immoral and illegal. Not only is this statement inaccurate, it flies in the face of the reality that every school district runs continuation schools or remedial programs. The only hint of litigation regarding our continuation school is that it needs to expand its services, not reduce them (specifically as it regards the need to offer some special education services).
Apparently Sobrato advocates are so arrogant as to believe that their school will be the only one meeting student needs and that education does not occur in a continuation school.
Finally, Sobrato proponents argue that not opening Sobrato will violate the public trust and promises made during the school bond. What an interesting argument when Live Oak stands only half finished and the building fund somewhere between $30 million to $50 million overspent. Voter mandate is no less of an argument for completing Live Oak than it is for opening Sobrato.
Opening a new comprehensive school in the current economy and with declining enrollment will merely expand the base of problems plaguing our district.
Glen Webb,
Live Oak High School
