SCUSD Action Alert: Update concerning the challenge of protecting neighborhood schools targeted for closure
I would like to thank the DAC for giving me time on their agenda yesterday for an update concerning the challenge of protecting neighborhood schools targeted for closure - this year and in the coming years. It is my understanding that a motion of support for the following resolution will be an action item at the next meeting:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. Adopts the recitals that Governor Brown and Proposition 30 have significantly improved funding for public education and that disproportionate effects on Hispanic and African-American plurality schools can now be avoided.
2. Approves the neighborhood school recommendations, as presented to the Board, to keep Clayton B. Wire, Collis P. Huntington, Fruit Ridge, Joseph Bonnheim, Maple, Mark Hopkins and Washington open for the 2013-14 school year.
3. Finds that the recommendations are “categorically exempt” from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.18 and section 15310041 of the Guidelines.
4. Directs the Superintendent to create design teams for all district schools.
5. Further directs the Superintendent to take such further action as necessary to carry out this Resolution.
Please consider joining us each Thursday at Serna Center from 4:30 to 6 p.m. as we build support for this resolution.
Contrary to Board policy the Executive Committee has so far refused to place options to school closures on the Board's agenda. I have asked the Board's Executive Committee to schedule an appointment to discuss this refusal with a small representative group. There has been no response. I will be proposing Thursday that we consider holding a community forum at a targeted school and invite the Executive Committee.
There is no fiscal reason to close seven schools. SCUSD has increasing income and reserves above the required minimum. It has had only three deficit years in the last decade. This is not a structural fiscal deficit problem. (pg 10)
There is no enrollment reason to close seven schools. SCUSD has an increasing enrollment trend in K-3. It has lost about 9% K-12 enrollment and has closed 8% of its K-6 schools in the last decade.The Facilities Master Plan (1.2 M cost) estimates that we will regain most of the lost enrollment in the coming decade.
This is not a declining enrollment problem. (pg 7, 14 & 15)
There is no capacity reason to close seven schools. Most of the identified "excess" capacity is in portable, not permanent, classrooms. By design this is flexible capacity meant to be moved if needed. Students do not need to be moved to address capacity concerns. This is not an "under-enrollment" problem. (pg 11)
SCUSD is committed to the triple bottom line. Thus fiscal, equity and environmental criteria are all crucial to "Putting Children First" in SCUSD. (pg 5)
There are fiscal reasons to keep seven schools open. The process needs to be adjusted to include the cost side of closures. Past experience indicates that the targeted closures will result in a million dollar net loss to the funds available for direct services to students. Why is administration laying off counselors, social workers and other student support staff while spending funds on closure consultants and unnecessary portable moves? (pg 11)
There are social equity reasons to keep seven schools open. The process needs to be adjusted so that any needed closures are fairly distributed rather than only affecting Hispanic and African-American plurality schools. Why are administration identified "protected programs" mostly housed at mostly white plurality schools? (pg 2, 3 & 33)
There are environmental reasons to keep seven schools open. The process needs to be adjusted so that any needed closures create sustainable schools rather than requiring busing and crossing guards. Why is administration proposing closing larger facilities with more green space while crowding with additional portables smaller facilities with minimal green space? (pg 28-31)
In solidarity,
Leo Bennett-Cauchon