After all of that school board member Susan Lovenberg asked a very simple but key question of the Superintendent, I’ve heard what we cannot do, what will your recommendation be?
After all of that, the Superintendent before a dwindling audience got up and said, he did not want to close Emerson. He would recommend against it. The remaining audience roared in delight.
Board Member Tim Taylor then said that he needed to see how they were going to make this work fiscally on Thursday night.
Let us step back a second. Back in January, Superintendent James Hammond worked long and hard with the Valley Oak petitioners in an attempt to get the Valley Oak Charter School approved. But he could not convince his board to take a leap of faith.
I met with him a few days after that meeting and he was as genuine as could be. The only thing he regretted was that he didn’t have a few more days to convince the board to take a chance on the Charter School. He believed in it. He was truly remorseful that he was unable to convince the board about it.
I had always liked James Hammond, on that day, I recognized however that Hammond was a man of compassion and principle. So I believe him when he says he does not want to close Emerson Junior High. I guarantee you he believes that and I guarantee you he will find a way to make the numbers work.
The difference between the 4-1 to reject the Valley Oak Charter Petition and a possible vote to keep Emerson over is that it seems that Richard Harris and Susan Lovenburg support keeping Emerson open. Whether they get a third vote is another question. Richard Harris seems to believe it however, he apparently was telling parents not to worry, they would not close Emerson. I am not certain how he could know that for certain given Brown Act restrictions, but at the same time, I may also believe him.
On the other hand, they are going to have to find another $400,000. This is not a situation they can exactly play around with. If they do not get it right, if they do not cut enough, the County will take over the district. This was a point made over and over again last night.
I am all for creative solutions, I am all for keeping Emerson open, and I believe in Superintendent James Hammond, I just want to see the numbers. I am with Tim Taylor, show me how the numbers work and I am all for it. I am all for making it work. Hopefully come Thursday night, we will all believe.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Every time I see or hear Hammond I am impressed. He is a real leader in this stressful situation. I absolutely disagree with keeping Emerson open, but admire the way he puts himself out front. I had no beef with Murphy until this whole Tahir thing came to light, but under his tenure I noticed so many of the district and board are were interested in covering their own backsides, and making fear based decisions, so Hammond is rather refreshing.
Perhaps it is because he is an “outsider”, but he hasn’t sem to have fallen prey to the “Davis Way” of being; that is, the seeming sense of entitlement and assumption correctness in all things. I don’t mean this to sound so hostile- I am quite fond of Davis but juast don’t always trust Davis-ites when it comes to self-governance.
Still, back to Emerson… I just don’t see how the numbers can work. No matter how emotionally appealing the argument to keep Emerson open is, the numbers should dictate the decision or it will not be fair because too many others will suffer as a result of keeping it open.
Every time I see or hear Hammond I am impressed. He is a real leader in this stressful situation. I absolutely disagree with keeping Emerson open, but admire the way he puts himself out front. I had no beef with Murphy until this whole Tahir thing came to light, but under his tenure I noticed so many of the district and board are were interested in covering their own backsides, and making fear based decisions, so Hammond is rather refreshing.
Perhaps it is because he is an “outsider”, but he hasn’t sem to have fallen prey to the “Davis Way” of being; that is, the seeming sense of entitlement and assumption correctness in all things. I don’t mean this to sound so hostile- I am quite fond of Davis but juast don’t always trust Davis-ites when it comes to self-governance.
Still, back to Emerson… I just don’t see how the numbers can work. No matter how emotionally appealing the argument to keep Emerson open is, the numbers should dictate the decision or it will not be fair because too many others will suffer as a result of keeping it open.
Every time I see or hear Hammond I am impressed. He is a real leader in this stressful situation. I absolutely disagree with keeping Emerson open, but admire the way he puts himself out front. I had no beef with Murphy until this whole Tahir thing came to light, but under his tenure I noticed so many of the district and board are were interested in covering their own backsides, and making fear based decisions, so Hammond is rather refreshing.
Perhaps it is because he is an “outsider”, but he hasn’t sem to have fallen prey to the “Davis Way” of being; that is, the seeming sense of entitlement and assumption correctness in all things. I don’t mean this to sound so hostile- I am quite fond of Davis but juast don’t always trust Davis-ites when it comes to self-governance.
Still, back to Emerson… I just don’t see how the numbers can work. No matter how emotionally appealing the argument to keep Emerson open is, the numbers should dictate the decision or it will not be fair because too many others will suffer as a result of keeping it open.
Every time I see or hear Hammond I am impressed. He is a real leader in this stressful situation. I absolutely disagree with keeping Emerson open, but admire the way he puts himself out front. I had no beef with Murphy until this whole Tahir thing came to light, but under his tenure I noticed so many of the district and board are were interested in covering their own backsides, and making fear based decisions, so Hammond is rather refreshing.
Perhaps it is because he is an “outsider”, but he hasn’t sem to have fallen prey to the “Davis Way” of being; that is, the seeming sense of entitlement and assumption correctness in all things. I don’t mean this to sound so hostile- I am quite fond of Davis but juast don’t always trust Davis-ites when it comes to self-governance.
Still, back to Emerson… I just don’t see how the numbers can work. No matter how emotionally appealing the argument to keep Emerson open is, the numbers should dictate the decision or it will not be fair because too many others will suffer as a result of keeping it open.
I attended the meeting last night until midnight. I got there about 9 p.m., so I think I missed a chunk of public comment.
Based on what I saw, I would qualify DPD’s report. Hammond recommended against any broad reorganization of the secondary system for next year. And I think that’s what more of the later discussion leaned on. I think there is recognition that the current numbers don’t support continuing w/ 3 JH campuses, but trying to come up w/ a change/closing/reorganization w/ in a month is too fast. Emerson is not necessarily off the hook in the long term.
Tim Taylor clearly is driving discussion towards reorganizing secondary schools next year. His position seems to be that if we know we need to reorganize the secondary very soon to save money, then lets do it this year and start getting our savings early. It was Taylor who first suggested consolidating JH campuses at the March 3 special meeting.
DPD, I think I already count 2 votes against doing any reorganization for next year, and that doesn’t count Harris. Based on Harris’ public comments, I did not necessarily hear a commitment from him against reorganization.
Susan Lovenburg’s public comments seem to indicate a position against doing any reorganization next year, as you suggest, DPD.
Whether the trustees collectively lean toward reorganization next year or not depends largely on what they think the May revise and the economy will be w/ respect to next year’s funding.
In response to anonymous 6:39, your last summary is good, but larger scale reorganization for next year (and closing Emerson) may result in potential loss of money for the district if they don’t get the reorganization right. It is really too complex a matter to execute on such a short timeline. The district really needs to get this decision right or they will lose enough credibility that any possibility of passing an emergency parcel tax will vanish.
I attended the meeting last night until midnight. I got there about 9 p.m., so I think I missed a chunk of public comment.
Based on what I saw, I would qualify DPD’s report. Hammond recommended against any broad reorganization of the secondary system for next year. And I think that’s what more of the later discussion leaned on. I think there is recognition that the current numbers don’t support continuing w/ 3 JH campuses, but trying to come up w/ a change/closing/reorganization w/ in a month is too fast. Emerson is not necessarily off the hook in the long term.
Tim Taylor clearly is driving discussion towards reorganizing secondary schools next year. His position seems to be that if we know we need to reorganize the secondary very soon to save money, then lets do it this year and start getting our savings early. It was Taylor who first suggested consolidating JH campuses at the March 3 special meeting.
DPD, I think I already count 2 votes against doing any reorganization for next year, and that doesn’t count Harris. Based on Harris’ public comments, I did not necessarily hear a commitment from him against reorganization.
Susan Lovenburg’s public comments seem to indicate a position against doing any reorganization next year, as you suggest, DPD.
Whether the trustees collectively lean toward reorganization next year or not depends largely on what they think the May revise and the economy will be w/ respect to next year’s funding.
In response to anonymous 6:39, your last summary is good, but larger scale reorganization for next year (and closing Emerson) may result in potential loss of money for the district if they don’t get the reorganization right. It is really too complex a matter to execute on such a short timeline. The district really needs to get this decision right or they will lose enough credibility that any possibility of passing an emergency parcel tax will vanish.
I attended the meeting last night until midnight. I got there about 9 p.m., so I think I missed a chunk of public comment.
Based on what I saw, I would qualify DPD’s report. Hammond recommended against any broad reorganization of the secondary system for next year. And I think that’s what more of the later discussion leaned on. I think there is recognition that the current numbers don’t support continuing w/ 3 JH campuses, but trying to come up w/ a change/closing/reorganization w/ in a month is too fast. Emerson is not necessarily off the hook in the long term.
Tim Taylor clearly is driving discussion towards reorganizing secondary schools next year. His position seems to be that if we know we need to reorganize the secondary very soon to save money, then lets do it this year and start getting our savings early. It was Taylor who first suggested consolidating JH campuses at the March 3 special meeting.
DPD, I think I already count 2 votes against doing any reorganization for next year, and that doesn’t count Harris. Based on Harris’ public comments, I did not necessarily hear a commitment from him against reorganization.
Susan Lovenburg’s public comments seem to indicate a position against doing any reorganization next year, as you suggest, DPD.
Whether the trustees collectively lean toward reorganization next year or not depends largely on what they think the May revise and the economy will be w/ respect to next year’s funding.
In response to anonymous 6:39, your last summary is good, but larger scale reorganization for next year (and closing Emerson) may result in potential loss of money for the district if they don’t get the reorganization right. It is really too complex a matter to execute on such a short timeline. The district really needs to get this decision right or they will lose enough credibility that any possibility of passing an emergency parcel tax will vanish.
I attended the meeting last night until midnight. I got there about 9 p.m., so I think I missed a chunk of public comment.
Based on what I saw, I would qualify DPD’s report. Hammond recommended against any broad reorganization of the secondary system for next year. And I think that’s what more of the later discussion leaned on. I think there is recognition that the current numbers don’t support continuing w/ 3 JH campuses, but trying to come up w/ a change/closing/reorganization w/ in a month is too fast. Emerson is not necessarily off the hook in the long term.
Tim Taylor clearly is driving discussion towards reorganizing secondary schools next year. His position seems to be that if we know we need to reorganize the secondary very soon to save money, then lets do it this year and start getting our savings early. It was Taylor who first suggested consolidating JH campuses at the March 3 special meeting.
DPD, I think I already count 2 votes against doing any reorganization for next year, and that doesn’t count Harris. Based on Harris’ public comments, I did not necessarily hear a commitment from him against reorganization.
Susan Lovenburg’s public comments seem to indicate a position against doing any reorganization next year, as you suggest, DPD.
Whether the trustees collectively lean toward reorganization next year or not depends largely on what they think the May revise and the economy will be w/ respect to next year’s funding.
In response to anonymous 6:39, your last summary is good, but larger scale reorganization for next year (and closing Emerson) may result in potential loss of money for the district if they don’t get the reorganization right. It is really too complex a matter to execute on such a short timeline. The district really needs to get this decision right or they will lose enough credibility that any possibility of passing an emergency parcel tax will vanish.
I was somewhat heartened by the recent mention of making Harper a 4 year high school and keeping Emerson and Holmes as 2 years junior highs. I always thought that is what they should have done in the first place. They could move Da Vinci to Harper instead of to Emerson. If moving Da vinci to Emerson was ever considered, why not put them at Harper and also add regular high school students as well. Davis High is way too big.
Anonymous, I really appreciate your insight about the “Davis Way”. Building Korematsu because people in Mace Ranch were ‘promised’ they would have a school there when they bought their homes, and yet ignoring the huge public outcry to save Valley Oak proves that the developers and their promises get a weighted vote. The school district really needs to make sure that when people buy new homes and there is land set aside for a school, that the buyers know that a school may never built, as happened with the Grande property.
Maybe having the county take over our school district is not such a bad idea after all.
P.S. DPD, maybe you could number these posts so when people post anonymously, we can respond to Anonymous #1 for example.
I was somewhat heartened by the recent mention of making Harper a 4 year high school and keeping Emerson and Holmes as 2 years junior highs. I always thought that is what they should have done in the first place. They could move Da Vinci to Harper instead of to Emerson. If moving Da vinci to Emerson was ever considered, why not put them at Harper and also add regular high school students as well. Davis High is way too big.
Anonymous, I really appreciate your insight about the “Davis Way”. Building Korematsu because people in Mace Ranch were ‘promised’ they would have a school there when they bought their homes, and yet ignoring the huge public outcry to save Valley Oak proves that the developers and their promises get a weighted vote. The school district really needs to make sure that when people buy new homes and there is land set aside for a school, that the buyers know that a school may never built, as happened with the Grande property.
Maybe having the county take over our school district is not such a bad idea after all.
P.S. DPD, maybe you could number these posts so when people post anonymously, we can respond to Anonymous #1 for example.
I was somewhat heartened by the recent mention of making Harper a 4 year high school and keeping Emerson and Holmes as 2 years junior highs. I always thought that is what they should have done in the first place. They could move Da Vinci to Harper instead of to Emerson. If moving Da vinci to Emerson was ever considered, why not put them at Harper and also add regular high school students as well. Davis High is way too big.
Anonymous, I really appreciate your insight about the “Davis Way”. Building Korematsu because people in Mace Ranch were ‘promised’ they would have a school there when they bought their homes, and yet ignoring the huge public outcry to save Valley Oak proves that the developers and their promises get a weighted vote. The school district really needs to make sure that when people buy new homes and there is land set aside for a school, that the buyers know that a school may never built, as happened with the Grande property.
Maybe having the county take over our school district is not such a bad idea after all.
P.S. DPD, maybe you could number these posts so when people post anonymously, we can respond to Anonymous #1 for example.
I was somewhat heartened by the recent mention of making Harper a 4 year high school and keeping Emerson and Holmes as 2 years junior highs. I always thought that is what they should have done in the first place. They could move Da Vinci to Harper instead of to Emerson. If moving Da vinci to Emerson was ever considered, why not put them at Harper and also add regular high school students as well. Davis High is way too big.
Anonymous, I really appreciate your insight about the “Davis Way”. Building Korematsu because people in Mace Ranch were ‘promised’ they would have a school there when they bought their homes, and yet ignoring the huge public outcry to save Valley Oak proves that the developers and their promises get a weighted vote. The school district really needs to make sure that when people buy new homes and there is land set aside for a school, that the buyers know that a school may never built, as happened with the Grande property.
Maybe having the county take over our school district is not such a bad idea after all.
P.S. DPD, maybe you could number these posts so when people post anonymously, we can respond to Anonymous #1 for example.
We are facing a budget issue- but a some people are using the pretext of the budget to make changes to the structure of the Davis educational program with no discernible financial benefits. The shift to a four-year high school and whichever arrangement of Junior high schools isn’t solving the problem- it is simply using the smokescreen of the budget to make changes already desired by some.
The most obvious solution to our immediate problem is to simply fill the $4M budget shortfall. This actually isn’t that difficult to do. The result would be no lay-offs, and no fooling around with long-established schools, classes and educational plans. I have looked at our problem as a businessman, not an educator, but here is a possible solution to our budget issue:
1. The current proposal is laying-off over 112 people with about 100 of these being teachers from the school system.
2. A typical teacher is assumed to teach over 25 students (in some cases I know they teach significantly more)
3. This means that under the current scenario we have 2,500 excess seats in the school system (100 x 25). It isn’t that neat and orderly, but there are extra seats throughout the system. There are empty classrooms, partially filled classes and entire campuses that the district sees as surplus. From a business perspective, we have what is known as “excess capacity”. One way of solving this is to see it as a problem and fire people. The other way to look at it is an opportunity to let some new students take advantage of our school system.
4. For each transfer student who came and filled one of those 2,500 empty seats, Davis schools would receive $5,781. If 691 students transfered into our school district, we would receive $4M with no discernible additional cost. If we filled all of the seats, we would receive $14.5M…
5. According to Pam Mari, the Director of Student Services for the district, in 2006-07 there were 90 student transfers into our district. This current year there are 147 coming in and 8 going out. This is done in spite of the widely held belief that there is “no room” in Davis schools. Adding an additional 691 students would have an impact on class sizes, retention and promotion rates etc., but faced with the choice of being laid-off or being flexible about classes, wouldn’t some of the instructors help make sure that this new group of students could be accommodated?
6. The greatest asset newcomers to Davis come looking for is our schools. It is the selling point for many buyers of Davis real estate.
7. So this begs the question- given the fact that people want the best possible education for their children and we have an excellent, highly-desirable program, why are we dismantling it rather than let some additional students receive its benefits and keep it afloat at the same time?
8. UC Davis is having a dreadful time attracting good instructors and staff who can afford to live in Davis, not all of the 30,000 employees can live here. The city has the same problem for teachers, firefighters and police. There are a lot of people who make this community thrive, but can’t afford to have their own children attend the schools here. Why not give them the opportunity?
9. Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area. In some places, like West Sacramento and Woodland, some schools are far more crowded than in Davis and the test scores languish.
I have requested a meeting with Dr. Hammond and Pam Mari to discuss this proposal. I have offered to pay for an outside educational consultant to review the school’s staffing levels to determine exactly where we have “extra” seats so they can be made available.
We are facing a budget issue- but a some people are using the pretext of the budget to make changes to the structure of the Davis educational program with no discernible financial benefits. The shift to a four-year high school and whichever arrangement of Junior high schools isn’t solving the problem- it is simply using the smokescreen of the budget to make changes already desired by some.
The most obvious solution to our immediate problem is to simply fill the $4M budget shortfall. This actually isn’t that difficult to do. The result would be no lay-offs, and no fooling around with long-established schools, classes and educational plans. I have looked at our problem as a businessman, not an educator, but here is a possible solution to our budget issue:
1. The current proposal is laying-off over 112 people with about 100 of these being teachers from the school system.
2. A typical teacher is assumed to teach over 25 students (in some cases I know they teach significantly more)
3. This means that under the current scenario we have 2,500 excess seats in the school system (100 x 25). It isn’t that neat and orderly, but there are extra seats throughout the system. There are empty classrooms, partially filled classes and entire campuses that the district sees as surplus. From a business perspective, we have what is known as “excess capacity”. One way of solving this is to see it as a problem and fire people. The other way to look at it is an opportunity to let some new students take advantage of our school system.
4. For each transfer student who came and filled one of those 2,500 empty seats, Davis schools would receive $5,781. If 691 students transfered into our school district, we would receive $4M with no discernible additional cost. If we filled all of the seats, we would receive $14.5M…
5. According to Pam Mari, the Director of Student Services for the district, in 2006-07 there were 90 student transfers into our district. This current year there are 147 coming in and 8 going out. This is done in spite of the widely held belief that there is “no room” in Davis schools. Adding an additional 691 students would have an impact on class sizes, retention and promotion rates etc., but faced with the choice of being laid-off or being flexible about classes, wouldn’t some of the instructors help make sure that this new group of students could be accommodated?
6. The greatest asset newcomers to Davis come looking for is our schools. It is the selling point for many buyers of Davis real estate.
7. So this begs the question- given the fact that people want the best possible education for their children and we have an excellent, highly-desirable program, why are we dismantling it rather than let some additional students receive its benefits and keep it afloat at the same time?
8. UC Davis is having a dreadful time attracting good instructors and staff who can afford to live in Davis, not all of the 30,000 employees can live here. The city has the same problem for teachers, firefighters and police. There are a lot of people who make this community thrive, but can’t afford to have their own children attend the schools here. Why not give them the opportunity?
9. Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area. In some places, like West Sacramento and Woodland, some schools are far more crowded than in Davis and the test scores languish.
I have requested a meeting with Dr. Hammond and Pam Mari to discuss this proposal. I have offered to pay for an outside educational consultant to review the school’s staffing levels to determine exactly where we have “extra” seats so they can be made available.
We are facing a budget issue- but a some people are using the pretext of the budget to make changes to the structure of the Davis educational program with no discernible financial benefits. The shift to a four-year high school and whichever arrangement of Junior high schools isn’t solving the problem- it is simply using the smokescreen of the budget to make changes already desired by some.
The most obvious solution to our immediate problem is to simply fill the $4M budget shortfall. This actually isn’t that difficult to do. The result would be no lay-offs, and no fooling around with long-established schools, classes and educational plans. I have looked at our problem as a businessman, not an educator, but here is a possible solution to our budget issue:
1. The current proposal is laying-off over 112 people with about 100 of these being teachers from the school system.
2. A typical teacher is assumed to teach over 25 students (in some cases I know they teach significantly more)
3. This means that under the current scenario we have 2,500 excess seats in the school system (100 x 25). It isn’t that neat and orderly, but there are extra seats throughout the system. There are empty classrooms, partially filled classes and entire campuses that the district sees as surplus. From a business perspective, we have what is known as “excess capacity”. One way of solving this is to see it as a problem and fire people. The other way to look at it is an opportunity to let some new students take advantage of our school system.
4. For each transfer student who came and filled one of those 2,500 empty seats, Davis schools would receive $5,781. If 691 students transfered into our school district, we would receive $4M with no discernible additional cost. If we filled all of the seats, we would receive $14.5M…
5. According to Pam Mari, the Director of Student Services for the district, in 2006-07 there were 90 student transfers into our district. This current year there are 147 coming in and 8 going out. This is done in spite of the widely held belief that there is “no room” in Davis schools. Adding an additional 691 students would have an impact on class sizes, retention and promotion rates etc., but faced with the choice of being laid-off or being flexible about classes, wouldn’t some of the instructors help make sure that this new group of students could be accommodated?
6. The greatest asset newcomers to Davis come looking for is our schools. It is the selling point for many buyers of Davis real estate.
7. So this begs the question- given the fact that people want the best possible education for their children and we have an excellent, highly-desirable program, why are we dismantling it rather than let some additional students receive its benefits and keep it afloat at the same time?
8. UC Davis is having a dreadful time attracting good instructors and staff who can afford to live in Davis, not all of the 30,000 employees can live here. The city has the same problem for teachers, firefighters and police. There are a lot of people who make this community thrive, but can’t afford to have their own children attend the schools here. Why not give them the opportunity?
9. Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area. In some places, like West Sacramento and Woodland, some schools are far more crowded than in Davis and the test scores languish.
I have requested a meeting with Dr. Hammond and Pam Mari to discuss this proposal. I have offered to pay for an outside educational consultant to review the school’s staffing levels to determine exactly where we have “extra” seats so they can be made available.
We are facing a budget issue- but a some people are using the pretext of the budget to make changes to the structure of the Davis educational program with no discernible financial benefits. The shift to a four-year high school and whichever arrangement of Junior high schools isn’t solving the problem- it is simply using the smokescreen of the budget to make changes already desired by some.
The most obvious solution to our immediate problem is to simply fill the $4M budget shortfall. This actually isn’t that difficult to do. The result would be no lay-offs, and no fooling around with long-established schools, classes and educational plans. I have looked at our problem as a businessman, not an educator, but here is a possible solution to our budget issue:
1. The current proposal is laying-off over 112 people with about 100 of these being teachers from the school system.
2. A typical teacher is assumed to teach over 25 students (in some cases I know they teach significantly more)
3. This means that under the current scenario we have 2,500 excess seats in the school system (100 x 25). It isn’t that neat and orderly, but there are extra seats throughout the system. There are empty classrooms, partially filled classes and entire campuses that the district sees as surplus. From a business perspective, we have what is known as “excess capacity”. One way of solving this is to see it as a problem and fire people. The other way to look at it is an opportunity to let some new students take advantage of our school system.
4. For each transfer student who came and filled one of those 2,500 empty seats, Davis schools would receive $5,781. If 691 students transfered into our school district, we would receive $4M with no discernible additional cost. If we filled all of the seats, we would receive $14.5M…
5. According to Pam Mari, the Director of Student Services for the district, in 2006-07 there were 90 student transfers into our district. This current year there are 147 coming in and 8 going out. This is done in spite of the widely held belief that there is “no room” in Davis schools. Adding an additional 691 students would have an impact on class sizes, retention and promotion rates etc., but faced with the choice of being laid-off or being flexible about classes, wouldn’t some of the instructors help make sure that this new group of students could be accommodated?
6. The greatest asset newcomers to Davis come looking for is our schools. It is the selling point for many buyers of Davis real estate.
7. So this begs the question- given the fact that people want the best possible education for their children and we have an excellent, highly-desirable program, why are we dismantling it rather than let some additional students receive its benefits and keep it afloat at the same time?
8. UC Davis is having a dreadful time attracting good instructors and staff who can afford to live in Davis, not all of the 30,000 employees can live here. The city has the same problem for teachers, firefighters and police. There are a lot of people who make this community thrive, but can’t afford to have their own children attend the schools here. Why not give them the opportunity?
9. Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area. In some places, like West Sacramento and Woodland, some schools are far more crowded than in Davis and the test scores languish.
I have requested a meeting with Dr. Hammond and Pam Mari to discuss this proposal. I have offered to pay for an outside educational consultant to review the school’s staffing levels to determine exactly where we have “extra” seats so they can be made available.
The State legislature will be making additional cuts in next year’s budget. There are some monies to backfill the education budget for this year only but NONE for next year’s budget. The School Board cannot look for more money(perhaps even less) than the cuts that are being talked about now. Additional tax revenues appear to be the only path and “whose ox is gored”; the upcoming legislative budget process looks to be a real struggle..
The State legislature will be making additional cuts in next year’s budget. There are some monies to backfill the education budget for this year only but NONE for next year’s budget. The School Board cannot look for more money(perhaps even less) than the cuts that are being talked about now. Additional tax revenues appear to be the only path and “whose ox is gored”; the upcoming legislative budget process looks to be a real struggle..
The State legislature will be making additional cuts in next year’s budget. There are some monies to backfill the education budget for this year only but NONE for next year’s budget. The School Board cannot look for more money(perhaps even less) than the cuts that are being talked about now. Additional tax revenues appear to be the only path and “whose ox is gored”; the upcoming legislative budget process looks to be a real struggle..
The State legislature will be making additional cuts in next year’s budget. There are some monies to backfill the education budget for this year only but NONE for next year’s budget. The School Board cannot look for more money(perhaps even less) than the cuts that are being talked about now. Additional tax revenues appear to be the only path and “whose ox is gored”; the upcoming legislative budget process looks to be a real struggle..
Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area.
The district has been accepting interdistrict transfers for the past 2 years. There are already quite a few out of district kids in the Davis schools. However, while some were younger, most applicants were from the high school age range, which makes sense – most school problems in other districts are at older ages. That applicant pool doesn’t solve the lack of kids at the K-8 level at the moment. In addition, the district from which they come has to say yes and that may not happen every year if they are also facing declining enrollment.
Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area.
The district has been accepting interdistrict transfers for the past 2 years. There are already quite a few out of district kids in the Davis schools. However, while some were younger, most applicants were from the high school age range, which makes sense – most school problems in other districts are at older ages. That applicant pool doesn’t solve the lack of kids at the K-8 level at the moment. In addition, the district from which they come has to say yes and that may not happen every year if they are also facing declining enrollment.
Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area.
The district has been accepting interdistrict transfers for the past 2 years. There are already quite a few out of district kids in the Davis schools. However, while some were younger, most applicants were from the high school age range, which makes sense – most school problems in other districts are at older ages. That applicant pool doesn’t solve the lack of kids at the K-8 level at the moment. In addition, the district from which they come has to say yes and that may not happen every year if they are also facing declining enrollment.
Why not promote Davis schools to 691 parents who work at the University or in town and have them transfer their students from out of the area.
The district has been accepting interdistrict transfers for the past 2 years. There are already quite a few out of district kids in the Davis schools. However, while some were younger, most applicants were from the high school age range, which makes sense – most school problems in other districts are at older ages. That applicant pool doesn’t solve the lack of kids at the K-8 level at the moment. In addition, the district from which they come has to say yes and that may not happen every year if they are also facing declining enrollment.
There isn’t a lot of creative thinking on the board right now. They need to look beyond the 7 alternatives and see if they need to reconfigure other schools as well, so that enrollment can be balanced across the City, with the goal of having local schools within walking distance. This might mean shifting boundaries, or closing a facility, but should definitely not mean Emerson students have to go across town for Jr. High.
There isn’t a lot of creative thinking on the board right now. They need to look beyond the 7 alternatives and see if they need to reconfigure other schools as well, so that enrollment can be balanced across the City, with the goal of having local schools within walking distance. This might mean shifting boundaries, or closing a facility, but should definitely not mean Emerson students have to go across town for Jr. High.
There isn’t a lot of creative thinking on the board right now. They need to look beyond the 7 alternatives and see if they need to reconfigure other schools as well, so that enrollment can be balanced across the City, with the goal of having local schools within walking distance. This might mean shifting boundaries, or closing a facility, but should definitely not mean Emerson students have to go across town for Jr. High.
There isn’t a lot of creative thinking on the board right now. They need to look beyond the 7 alternatives and see if they need to reconfigure other schools as well, so that enrollment can be balanced across the City, with the goal of having local schools within walking distance. This might mean shifting boundaries, or closing a facility, but should definitely not mean Emerson students have to go across town for Jr. High.
Unfortunately there have been a lot of ideas that have come forward from the community, the basic problem is that most of them are not practical and some run up against state laws.
Unfortunately there have been a lot of ideas that have come forward from the community, the basic problem is that most of them are not practical and some run up against state laws.
Unfortunately there have been a lot of ideas that have come forward from the community, the basic problem is that most of them are not practical and some run up against state laws.
Unfortunately there have been a lot of ideas that have come forward from the community, the basic problem is that most of them are not practical and some run up against state laws.
I am also concerned about changing the grade alignment in our junior highs & high schools under a short time frame, unless it is being done because it is necessary in order to consolidate schools, and unless that consolidation is driven by financial imperative. While making the high schools 9-12 is probably a good idea, such a significant change needs adequate planning. I am dismayed by the recent consideration of making the high schools 9-12 for next year even if there in no closure of a junior high.
I remain skeptical that the numbers will work without closing a secondary school. Based on the proposals we have seen thus far, that can only happen if more teachers are laid off and course offerings/programs are further reduced, i.e., by making Davis schools mediocre. Perhaps there are creative ways to keep teachers and keep Emerson open, but I haven’t heard how that is possible.
All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.
The problem at Emerson (in addition to problems with the facility) is precisely the problem that the Best Uses of Schools Task Force identified at Valley Oak, namely, an insufficient number of kids in the neighborhood. I did not agree with the decision to close Valley Oak because, in that case, there were other programs at that school which brought up the enrollment numbers at the school, and it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.
But how can we justify keeping Emerson open after having closed Valley Oak for precisely the same reasons that the Board is considering closing Emerson? And I suspect the savings from closing Emerson far exceed the savings from closing Valley Oak.
I am also concerned about changing the grade alignment in our junior highs & high schools under a short time frame, unless it is being done because it is necessary in order to consolidate schools, and unless that consolidation is driven by financial imperative. While making the high schools 9-12 is probably a good idea, such a significant change needs adequate planning. I am dismayed by the recent consideration of making the high schools 9-12 for next year even if there in no closure of a junior high.
I remain skeptical that the numbers will work without closing a secondary school. Based on the proposals we have seen thus far, that can only happen if more teachers are laid off and course offerings/programs are further reduced, i.e., by making Davis schools mediocre. Perhaps there are creative ways to keep teachers and keep Emerson open, but I haven’t heard how that is possible.
All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.
The problem at Emerson (in addition to problems with the facility) is precisely the problem that the Best Uses of Schools Task Force identified at Valley Oak, namely, an insufficient number of kids in the neighborhood. I did not agree with the decision to close Valley Oak because, in that case, there were other programs at that school which brought up the enrollment numbers at the school, and it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.
But how can we justify keeping Emerson open after having closed Valley Oak for precisely the same reasons that the Board is considering closing Emerson? And I suspect the savings from closing Emerson far exceed the savings from closing Valley Oak.
I am also concerned about changing the grade alignment in our junior highs & high schools under a short time frame, unless it is being done because it is necessary in order to consolidate schools, and unless that consolidation is driven by financial imperative. While making the high schools 9-12 is probably a good idea, such a significant change needs adequate planning. I am dismayed by the recent consideration of making the high schools 9-12 for next year even if there in no closure of a junior high.
I remain skeptical that the numbers will work without closing a secondary school. Based on the proposals we have seen thus far, that can only happen if more teachers are laid off and course offerings/programs are further reduced, i.e., by making Davis schools mediocre. Perhaps there are creative ways to keep teachers and keep Emerson open, but I haven’t heard how that is possible.
All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.
The problem at Emerson (in addition to problems with the facility) is precisely the problem that the Best Uses of Schools Task Force identified at Valley Oak, namely, an insufficient number of kids in the neighborhood. I did not agree with the decision to close Valley Oak because, in that case, there were other programs at that school which brought up the enrollment numbers at the school, and it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.
But how can we justify keeping Emerson open after having closed Valley Oak for precisely the same reasons that the Board is considering closing Emerson? And I suspect the savings from closing Emerson far exceed the savings from closing Valley Oak.
I am also concerned about changing the grade alignment in our junior highs & high schools under a short time frame, unless it is being done because it is necessary in order to consolidate schools, and unless that consolidation is driven by financial imperative. While making the high schools 9-12 is probably a good idea, such a significant change needs adequate planning. I am dismayed by the recent consideration of making the high schools 9-12 for next year even if there in no closure of a junior high.
I remain skeptical that the numbers will work without closing a secondary school. Based on the proposals we have seen thus far, that can only happen if more teachers are laid off and course offerings/programs are further reduced, i.e., by making Davis schools mediocre. Perhaps there are creative ways to keep teachers and keep Emerson open, but I haven’t heard how that is possible.
All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.
The problem at Emerson (in addition to problems with the facility) is precisely the problem that the Best Uses of Schools Task Force identified at Valley Oak, namely, an insufficient number of kids in the neighborhood. I did not agree with the decision to close Valley Oak because, in that case, there were other programs at that school which brought up the enrollment numbers at the school, and it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.
But how can we justify keeping Emerson open after having closed Valley Oak for precisely the same reasons that the Board is considering closing Emerson? And I suspect the savings from closing Emerson far exceed the savings from closing Valley Oak.
“it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.”
That depends on which neighborhood family you are talking about. Opinion was not uniform.
“it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.”
That depends on which neighborhood family you are talking about. Opinion was not uniform.
“it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.”
That depends on which neighborhood family you are talking about. Opinion was not uniform.
“it was not the neighborhood families who were concerned about the low neighborhood enrollment.”
That depends on which neighborhood family you are talking about. Opinion was not uniform.
Robin said…
“All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.”
I think you open up a whole other can of worms on this issue. Maybe other blog readers have more knowledge.
The original superintendent/staff recommendation when Harper opened was to split the graduating population of North Davis between Emerson and Holmes. At the time there was concern that splitting an elementary population was a bad thing, so the board (w/ Sallee, West and others) responded by having all of NDE go to Holmes.
Another connected issue is that the JH GATE program siphons off about 90 students from the EJH attendance area, mostly to Holmes. The EJH administration and staff have been very resistant to Emerson housing a GATE strand like the other two campuses. Emerson is not a neighborhood school to GATE students who live in west Davis.
600 students has been cited as a minimum number for a JH to have standard curricular offerings. You can easily get to that number by either shifting attendance boundaries or moving a GATE strand to Emerson.
The current staff of Emerson wants to turn the campus into a theme magnet school (highlighting green/environmental themes, I think), and attract students districtwide that way. Personally I don’t think it’s a very effective way to draw extra attendance.
The “Emerson neighborhood” is an artificial construct. If there were proactive leadership from the district or EJH administration, we could have balanced attendance at all three school under a 7-9 configuration.
By the way, w/ all the talk of having 7-8 middle schools, why not have 6th graders moved up to JH campuses? That is traditionally what a middle school is.
Robin said…
“All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.”
I think you open up a whole other can of worms on this issue. Maybe other blog readers have more knowledge.
The original superintendent/staff recommendation when Harper opened was to split the graduating population of North Davis between Emerson and Holmes. At the time there was concern that splitting an elementary population was a bad thing, so the board (w/ Sallee, West and others) responded by having all of NDE go to Holmes.
Another connected issue is that the JH GATE program siphons off about 90 students from the EJH attendance area, mostly to Holmes. The EJH administration and staff have been very resistant to Emerson housing a GATE strand like the other two campuses. Emerson is not a neighborhood school to GATE students who live in west Davis.
600 students has been cited as a minimum number for a JH to have standard curricular offerings. You can easily get to that number by either shifting attendance boundaries or moving a GATE strand to Emerson.
The current staff of Emerson wants to turn the campus into a theme magnet school (highlighting green/environmental themes, I think), and attract students districtwide that way. Personally I don’t think it’s a very effective way to draw extra attendance.
The “Emerson neighborhood” is an artificial construct. If there were proactive leadership from the district or EJH administration, we could have balanced attendance at all three school under a 7-9 configuration.
By the way, w/ all the talk of having 7-8 middle schools, why not have 6th graders moved up to JH campuses? That is traditionally what a middle school is.
Robin said…
“All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.”
I think you open up a whole other can of worms on this issue. Maybe other blog readers have more knowledge.
The original superintendent/staff recommendation when Harper opened was to split the graduating population of North Davis between Emerson and Holmes. At the time there was concern that splitting an elementary population was a bad thing, so the board (w/ Sallee, West and others) responded by having all of NDE go to Holmes.
Another connected issue is that the JH GATE program siphons off about 90 students from the EJH attendance area, mostly to Holmes. The EJH administration and staff have been very resistant to Emerson housing a GATE strand like the other two campuses. Emerson is not a neighborhood school to GATE students who live in west Davis.
600 students has been cited as a minimum number for a JH to have standard curricular offerings. You can easily get to that number by either shifting attendance boundaries or moving a GATE strand to Emerson.
The current staff of Emerson wants to turn the campus into a theme magnet school (highlighting green/environmental themes, I think), and attract students districtwide that way. Personally I don’t think it’s a very effective way to draw extra attendance.
The “Emerson neighborhood” is an artificial construct. If there were proactive leadership from the district or EJH administration, we could have balanced attendance at all three school under a 7-9 configuration.
By the way, w/ all the talk of having 7-8 middle schools, why not have 6th graders moved up to JH campuses? That is traditionally what a middle school is.
Robin said…
“All of this needs to be viewed against the backdrop of Emerson’s complaints over the last few years that its underenrollment made it difficult to offer as many offerings as the other junior high schools. For two years, the Board has been supplementing Emerson (with one time funds) so it can offer courses which its enrollment does not justify.”
I think you open up a whole other can of worms on this issue. Maybe other blog readers have more knowledge.
The original superintendent/staff recommendation when Harper opened was to split the graduating population of North Davis between Emerson and Holmes. At the time there was concern that splitting an elementary population was a bad thing, so the board (w/ Sallee, West and others) responded by having all of NDE go to Holmes.
Another connected issue is that the JH GATE program siphons off about 90 students from the EJH attendance area, mostly to Holmes. The EJH administration and staff have been very resistant to Emerson housing a GATE strand like the other two campuses. Emerson is not a neighborhood school to GATE students who live in west Davis.
600 students has been cited as a minimum number for a JH to have standard curricular offerings. You can easily get to that number by either shifting attendance boundaries or moving a GATE strand to Emerson.
The current staff of Emerson wants to turn the campus into a theme magnet school (highlighting green/environmental themes, I think), and attract students districtwide that way. Personally I don’t think it’s a very effective way to draw extra attendance.
The “Emerson neighborhood” is an artificial construct. If there were proactive leadership from the district or EJH administration, we could have balanced attendance at all three school under a 7-9 configuration.
By the way, w/ all the talk of having 7-8 middle schools, why not have 6th graders moved up to JH campuses? That is traditionally what a middle school is.
Hammond may give one story, but the School Board gives another, as in the closing of Valley Oak. Furthermore, the business about “declining enrollemnts” is subterfuge. As Don Shor has pointed out numerous times, THERE IS NO DECLINING ENROLLMENT – only shifting enrollment. Enrollment at any one school is determined by boundary lines, which are artificially created by the school district.
I also believe the nonsense about Emerson not being up to code and in need of fixing is nothing but subterfuge. It’s not being up to code did not become a real issue until a fiscal crisis hit. There was never any talk of closing Emerson until word came down of severe cuts by the governor, and the school district had to scramble to correct previous financial mismanagement somehow – and Emerson was chosen as the sacraficial lamb, as was Valley Oak earlier…
There is an ugly pattern developing here, in case you hadn’t noticed. The School District/School Board are figuring out how best to keep frills, while doing away with basics. Hence keeping DaVinci open while closing Emerson. The idea is, and this has been used in the past, is to temporarily cut basic programs, to get folks all in a tizzy, and then ask for another parcel tax. More taxes goes over much better if it is needed for basics instead of frills.
Think about it. How many Davisites would vote for another parcel tax to pay for DaVinci, versus how many would pay another parcel tax for Emerson, teachers, librarians? It is all a shell game, played with the budget, to cover up fiscal mismanagement.
Nor do I trust Hammond…either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual. How can you call him a leader, when he clearly cannot lead??? Valley Oak was slated for closure, is still slated for closure, and was voted down in its attempt to become a charter school. Emerson is pretty much slated for closure.
Now I am not sure I am correct, but isn’t this the first time the schools in Davis have ever been closed because of tight finances? Closing schools is a pretty drastic remedy – brought on by horrible fiscal mismanagement by too many schools being built with no money to fund them. If questions were raised about the efficacy of building new schools, we were always told “building facilities comes from a different pot of money than classroom funding”, as if that somehow should satisfy the question raised.
Davisites have been complacent for far too long, trusting in the School Board and District to make the right decisioins. We are seeing the folly of that trust. Pressure needs to be kept up not to allow basics to be done away with, in vain attempts to balance the school budget. Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense. I am hoping to see Valley Oak reprised as a charter school in 2009/2010. If Emerson is slated for closure, then I would advise having it go charter too. Going charter will save teachers jobs as well, by the way.
If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over. If the pubic’s suggestions are being shot down, I would not necessarily presume that the public’s suggestions can’t be done, as is suggested by the article. I am not that trusting of the School Board/District, and that includes Hammond.
Hammond may give one story, but the School Board gives another, as in the closing of Valley Oak. Furthermore, the business about “declining enrollemnts” is subterfuge. As Don Shor has pointed out numerous times, THERE IS NO DECLINING ENROLLMENT – only shifting enrollment. Enrollment at any one school is determined by boundary lines, which are artificially created by the school district.
I also believe the nonsense about Emerson not being up to code and in need of fixing is nothing but subterfuge. It’s not being up to code did not become a real issue until a fiscal crisis hit. There was never any talk of closing Emerson until word came down of severe cuts by the governor, and the school district had to scramble to correct previous financial mismanagement somehow – and Emerson was chosen as the sacraficial lamb, as was Valley Oak earlier…
There is an ugly pattern developing here, in case you hadn’t noticed. The School District/School Board are figuring out how best to keep frills, while doing away with basics. Hence keeping DaVinci open while closing Emerson. The idea is, and this has been used in the past, is to temporarily cut basic programs, to get folks all in a tizzy, and then ask for another parcel tax. More taxes goes over much better if it is needed for basics instead of frills.
Think about it. How many Davisites would vote for another parcel tax to pay for DaVinci, versus how many would pay another parcel tax for Emerson, teachers, librarians? It is all a shell game, played with the budget, to cover up fiscal mismanagement.
Nor do I trust Hammond…either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual. How can you call him a leader, when he clearly cannot lead??? Valley Oak was slated for closure, is still slated for closure, and was voted down in its attempt to become a charter school. Emerson is pretty much slated for closure.
Now I am not sure I am correct, but isn’t this the first time the schools in Davis have ever been closed because of tight finances? Closing schools is a pretty drastic remedy – brought on by horrible fiscal mismanagement by too many schools being built with no money to fund them. If questions were raised about the efficacy of building new schools, we were always told “building facilities comes from a different pot of money than classroom funding”, as if that somehow should satisfy the question raised.
Davisites have been complacent for far too long, trusting in the School Board and District to make the right decisioins. We are seeing the folly of that trust. Pressure needs to be kept up not to allow basics to be done away with, in vain attempts to balance the school budget. Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense. I am hoping to see Valley Oak reprised as a charter school in 2009/2010. If Emerson is slated for closure, then I would advise having it go charter too. Going charter will save teachers jobs as well, by the way.
If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over. If the pubic’s suggestions are being shot down, I would not necessarily presume that the public’s suggestions can’t be done, as is suggested by the article. I am not that trusting of the School Board/District, and that includes Hammond.
Hammond may give one story, but the School Board gives another, as in the closing of Valley Oak. Furthermore, the business about “declining enrollemnts” is subterfuge. As Don Shor has pointed out numerous times, THERE IS NO DECLINING ENROLLMENT – only shifting enrollment. Enrollment at any one school is determined by boundary lines, which are artificially created by the school district.
I also believe the nonsense about Emerson not being up to code and in need of fixing is nothing but subterfuge. It’s not being up to code did not become a real issue until a fiscal crisis hit. There was never any talk of closing Emerson until word came down of severe cuts by the governor, and the school district had to scramble to correct previous financial mismanagement somehow – and Emerson was chosen as the sacraficial lamb, as was Valley Oak earlier…
There is an ugly pattern developing here, in case you hadn’t noticed. The School District/School Board are figuring out how best to keep frills, while doing away with basics. Hence keeping DaVinci open while closing Emerson. The idea is, and this has been used in the past, is to temporarily cut basic programs, to get folks all in a tizzy, and then ask for another parcel tax. More taxes goes over much better if it is needed for basics instead of frills.
Think about it. How many Davisites would vote for another parcel tax to pay for DaVinci, versus how many would pay another parcel tax for Emerson, teachers, librarians? It is all a shell game, played with the budget, to cover up fiscal mismanagement.
Nor do I trust Hammond…either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual. How can you call him a leader, when he clearly cannot lead??? Valley Oak was slated for closure, is still slated for closure, and was voted down in its attempt to become a charter school. Emerson is pretty much slated for closure.
Now I am not sure I am correct, but isn’t this the first time the schools in Davis have ever been closed because of tight finances? Closing schools is a pretty drastic remedy – brought on by horrible fiscal mismanagement by too many schools being built with no money to fund them. If questions were raised about the efficacy of building new schools, we were always told “building facilities comes from a different pot of money than classroom funding”, as if that somehow should satisfy the question raised.
Davisites have been complacent for far too long, trusting in the School Board and District to make the right decisioins. We are seeing the folly of that trust. Pressure needs to be kept up not to allow basics to be done away with, in vain attempts to balance the school budget. Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense. I am hoping to see Valley Oak reprised as a charter school in 2009/2010. If Emerson is slated for closure, then I would advise having it go charter too. Going charter will save teachers jobs as well, by the way.
If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over. If the pubic’s suggestions are being shot down, I would not necessarily presume that the public’s suggestions can’t be done, as is suggested by the article. I am not that trusting of the School Board/District, and that includes Hammond.
Hammond may give one story, but the School Board gives another, as in the closing of Valley Oak. Furthermore, the business about “declining enrollemnts” is subterfuge. As Don Shor has pointed out numerous times, THERE IS NO DECLINING ENROLLMENT – only shifting enrollment. Enrollment at any one school is determined by boundary lines, which are artificially created by the school district.
I also believe the nonsense about Emerson not being up to code and in need of fixing is nothing but subterfuge. It’s not being up to code did not become a real issue until a fiscal crisis hit. There was never any talk of closing Emerson until word came down of severe cuts by the governor, and the school district had to scramble to correct previous financial mismanagement somehow – and Emerson was chosen as the sacraficial lamb, as was Valley Oak earlier…
There is an ugly pattern developing here, in case you hadn’t noticed. The School District/School Board are figuring out how best to keep frills, while doing away with basics. Hence keeping DaVinci open while closing Emerson. The idea is, and this has been used in the past, is to temporarily cut basic programs, to get folks all in a tizzy, and then ask for another parcel tax. More taxes goes over much better if it is needed for basics instead of frills.
Think about it. How many Davisites would vote for another parcel tax to pay for DaVinci, versus how many would pay another parcel tax for Emerson, teachers, librarians? It is all a shell game, played with the budget, to cover up fiscal mismanagement.
Nor do I trust Hammond…either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual. How can you call him a leader, when he clearly cannot lead??? Valley Oak was slated for closure, is still slated for closure, and was voted down in its attempt to become a charter school. Emerson is pretty much slated for closure.
Now I am not sure I am correct, but isn’t this the first time the schools in Davis have ever been closed because of tight finances? Closing schools is a pretty drastic remedy – brought on by horrible fiscal mismanagement by too many schools being built with no money to fund them. If questions were raised about the efficacy of building new schools, we were always told “building facilities comes from a different pot of money than classroom funding”, as if that somehow should satisfy the question raised.
Davisites have been complacent for far too long, trusting in the School Board and District to make the right decisioins. We are seeing the folly of that trust. Pressure needs to be kept up not to allow basics to be done away with, in vain attempts to balance the school budget. Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense. I am hoping to see Valley Oak reprised as a charter school in 2009/2010. If Emerson is slated for closure, then I would advise having it go charter too. Going charter will save teachers jobs as well, by the way.
If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over. If the pubic’s suggestions are being shot down, I would not necessarily presume that the public’s suggestions can’t be done, as is suggested by the article. I am not that trusting of the School Board/District, and that includes Hammond.
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.
not believing it said…
“Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense.”
Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program? I know I must seem stupid for asking, but it doesn’t look like frill to me.
They teach all the basic content classes that DHS teaches, just the method of teaching is different. You can have your regular traditional class at DHS where you are usually locked down to your desk for 50 minutes and expected to soak up content in a somewhat passive mode. Or you can have a more active model where you are expected to do stuff to learn the content.
There are students who thrive under each mode of delivery. What’s wrong w/ sustaining that kind of variety?
“If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over.”
This is actually also a democratic process. The school board is not a dictatorial council, but a democratically elected body.
It might be easier and cheaper to run for school board or find a colleague who represents your values to do so. I look at what happened to the VOC effort and it doesn’t look like it is necessarily a viable alternative, don’t you think?
The next school board election is in November of 2009 and three seats will be up for election.
Looking at what happened to the VOC effort, trying to step up and take over in the way you describe doesn’t always seem to work.
not believing it said…
“Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense.”
Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program? I know I must seem stupid for asking, but it doesn’t look like frill to me.
They teach all the basic content classes that DHS teaches, just the method of teaching is different. You can have your regular traditional class at DHS where you are usually locked down to your desk for 50 minutes and expected to soak up content in a somewhat passive mode. Or you can have a more active model where you are expected to do stuff to learn the content.
There are students who thrive under each mode of delivery. What’s wrong w/ sustaining that kind of variety?
“If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over.”
This is actually also a democratic process. The school board is not a dictatorial council, but a democratically elected body.
It might be easier and cheaper to run for school board or find a colleague who represents your values to do so. I look at what happened to the VOC effort and it doesn’t look like it is necessarily a viable alternative, don’t you think?
The next school board election is in November of 2009 and three seats will be up for election.
Looking at what happened to the VOC effort, trying to step up and take over in the way you describe doesn’t always seem to work.
not believing it said…
“Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense.”
Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program? I know I must seem stupid for asking, but it doesn’t look like frill to me.
They teach all the basic content classes that DHS teaches, just the method of teaching is different. You can have your regular traditional class at DHS where you are usually locked down to your desk for 50 minutes and expected to soak up content in a somewhat passive mode. Or you can have a more active model where you are expected to do stuff to learn the content.
There are students who thrive under each mode of delivery. What’s wrong w/ sustaining that kind of variety?
“If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over.”
This is actually also a democratic process. The school board is not a dictatorial council, but a democratically elected body.
It might be easier and cheaper to run for school board or find a colleague who represents your values to do so. I look at what happened to the VOC effort and it doesn’t look like it is necessarily a viable alternative, don’t you think?
The next school board election is in November of 2009 and three seats will be up for election.
Looking at what happened to the VOC effort, trying to step up and take over in the way you describe doesn’t always seem to work.
not believing it said…
“Frills must go first and foremost. If folks want to keep DaVinci open, then let parents pay for it if necessary, or have it go charter, which actually makes a lot of sense.”
Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program? I know I must seem stupid for asking, but it doesn’t look like frill to me.
They teach all the basic content classes that DHS teaches, just the method of teaching is different. You can have your regular traditional class at DHS where you are usually locked down to your desk for 50 minutes and expected to soak up content in a somewhat passive mode. Or you can have a more active model where you are expected to do stuff to learn the content.
There are students who thrive under each mode of delivery. What’s wrong w/ sustaining that kind of variety?
“If the School Board and School District cannot do the job, then parents and teachers need to step in and take over.”
This is actually also a democratic process. The school board is not a dictatorial council, but a democratically elected body.
It might be easier and cheaper to run for school board or find a colleague who represents your values to do so. I look at what happened to the VOC effort and it doesn’t look like it is necessarily a viable alternative, don’t you think?
The next school board election is in November of 2009 and three seats will be up for election.
Looking at what happened to the VOC effort, trying to step up and take over in the way you describe doesn’t always seem to work.
“either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual.”
Or, he figured they would fail on their own (not enough students to be financially viable) and didn’t want the staff OR the board to take the heat for denying it, but rather to let them fall on their own swords.
“either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual.”
Or, he figured they would fail on their own (not enough students to be financially viable) and didn’t want the staff OR the board to take the heat for denying it, but rather to let them fall on their own swords.
“either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual.”
Or, he figured they would fail on their own (not enough students to be financially viable) and didn’t want the staff OR the board to take the heat for denying it, but rather to let them fall on their own swords.
“either he is in on the subterfuge, saying he is against closing schools while aware that the School Board will do the dirty work that is needed; or Hammond has no influence over the School Board when he makes recommendations, which makes him pretty ineffectual.”
Or, he figured they would fail on their own (not enough students to be financially viable) and didn’t want the staff OR the board to take the heat for denying it, but rather to let them fall on their own swords.
” Huh? said…
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.”
If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.
“Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program?”
DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.
Thus this program had seed money to implement it, but not necessarily enough money to sustain it. Typical of this school district. They create new schools, but cannot sustain them, so will close prior existing schools to make way for the new schools that have some particular appeal. NOT FAIR.
You make some fair points, that DaVinci students still have to be served by the school system. However, DaVinci has its own principal, instead of using the one at DHS, an extra cost. I suspect that to eliminate DaVinci would save a few faculty and one administrative position. Nine from DaVinci are slated for elimination – quite a cost savings. How can DaVinci survive with only three teachers?
Hammond wanted to take DaVinci off the “hit” list, but close Emerson – an existing school that serves the entire west section of town, offering basic course work. To close it will force students to either commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes, over dangerous ground including railroad tracks; or take the bus, of which there is only one that runs at that time. How do you fit 500 students on one Unitrans bus?
If DaVinci is closed, the worst that happens is they are absorbed back into DHS, which is certainly less disruptive than closing Emerson. Not to mention the overcrowding at all secondary schools should Emerson be closed. The impacts that result from closing Emerson are far more catastrophic than if DaVinci is closed.
That being said, I don’t want DaVinci to go away either, but given a choice, Emerson is far more critical to maintain than DaVinci. However, as I said before, a parcel tax will likely be supported more to keep Emerson open than DaVinci. In my opinion, that is why things are going down the way they are with frills being exalted over basics – to prepare the community for another parcel tax to dig the school district out of its trouble bc of fiscal mismanagement.
If either DaVinci or Emerson is slated for closure, then it might be worth a try to have them go charter. Yes, VO’s attempt thus far has failed – mainly bc they were out there alone in their quest and sabotaged at every turn by the school district. But now we have the possibility of three schools in jeapordy – which has caused the public to pay more attention to what is going on.
If the School Board starts getting bombarded with requests to approve charter schools, maybe they will start rethinking some of their poor choices. My view is parents and teachers need to stand up and fight for what they believe in. If you truly believe in DaVinci, and it ends up slated for closure because it has been so gutted of faculty positions, then think about having it go charter. Yes it is a long shot, yes it is a hard way to go. But what is the alternative – to let DaVinci die bc the School Board does not have its fiscal act together?
” Huh? said…
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.”
If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.
“Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program?”
DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.
Thus this program had seed money to implement it, but not necessarily enough money to sustain it. Typical of this school district. They create new schools, but cannot sustain them, so will close prior existing schools to make way for the new schools that have some particular appeal. NOT FAIR.
You make some fair points, that DaVinci students still have to be served by the school system. However, DaVinci has its own principal, instead of using the one at DHS, an extra cost. I suspect that to eliminate DaVinci would save a few faculty and one administrative position. Nine from DaVinci are slated for elimination – quite a cost savings. How can DaVinci survive with only three teachers?
Hammond wanted to take DaVinci off the “hit” list, but close Emerson – an existing school that serves the entire west section of town, offering basic course work. To close it will force students to either commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes, over dangerous ground including railroad tracks; or take the bus, of which there is only one that runs at that time. How do you fit 500 students on one Unitrans bus?
If DaVinci is closed, the worst that happens is they are absorbed back into DHS, which is certainly less disruptive than closing Emerson. Not to mention the overcrowding at all secondary schools should Emerson be closed. The impacts that result from closing Emerson are far more catastrophic than if DaVinci is closed.
That being said, I don’t want DaVinci to go away either, but given a choice, Emerson is far more critical to maintain than DaVinci. However, as I said before, a parcel tax will likely be supported more to keep Emerson open than DaVinci. In my opinion, that is why things are going down the way they are with frills being exalted over basics – to prepare the community for another parcel tax to dig the school district out of its trouble bc of fiscal mismanagement.
If either DaVinci or Emerson is slated for closure, then it might be worth a try to have them go charter. Yes, VO’s attempt thus far has failed – mainly bc they were out there alone in their quest and sabotaged at every turn by the school district. But now we have the possibility of three schools in jeapordy – which has caused the public to pay more attention to what is going on.
If the School Board starts getting bombarded with requests to approve charter schools, maybe they will start rethinking some of their poor choices. My view is parents and teachers need to stand up and fight for what they believe in. If you truly believe in DaVinci, and it ends up slated for closure because it has been so gutted of faculty positions, then think about having it go charter. Yes it is a long shot, yes it is a hard way to go. But what is the alternative – to let DaVinci die bc the School Board does not have its fiscal act together?
” Huh? said…
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.”
If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.
“Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program?”
DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.
Thus this program had seed money to implement it, but not necessarily enough money to sustain it. Typical of this school district. They create new schools, but cannot sustain them, so will close prior existing schools to make way for the new schools that have some particular appeal. NOT FAIR.
You make some fair points, that DaVinci students still have to be served by the school system. However, DaVinci has its own principal, instead of using the one at DHS, an extra cost. I suspect that to eliminate DaVinci would save a few faculty and one administrative position. Nine from DaVinci are slated for elimination – quite a cost savings. How can DaVinci survive with only three teachers?
Hammond wanted to take DaVinci off the “hit” list, but close Emerson – an existing school that serves the entire west section of town, offering basic course work. To close it will force students to either commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes, over dangerous ground including railroad tracks; or take the bus, of which there is only one that runs at that time. How do you fit 500 students on one Unitrans bus?
If DaVinci is closed, the worst that happens is they are absorbed back into DHS, which is certainly less disruptive than closing Emerson. Not to mention the overcrowding at all secondary schools should Emerson be closed. The impacts that result from closing Emerson are far more catastrophic than if DaVinci is closed.
That being said, I don’t want DaVinci to go away either, but given a choice, Emerson is far more critical to maintain than DaVinci. However, as I said before, a parcel tax will likely be supported more to keep Emerson open than DaVinci. In my opinion, that is why things are going down the way they are with frills being exalted over basics – to prepare the community for another parcel tax to dig the school district out of its trouble bc of fiscal mismanagement.
If either DaVinci or Emerson is slated for closure, then it might be worth a try to have them go charter. Yes, VO’s attempt thus far has failed – mainly bc they were out there alone in their quest and sabotaged at every turn by the school district. But now we have the possibility of three schools in jeapordy – which has caused the public to pay more attention to what is going on.
If the School Board starts getting bombarded with requests to approve charter schools, maybe they will start rethinking some of their poor choices. My view is parents and teachers need to stand up and fight for what they believe in. If you truly believe in DaVinci, and it ends up slated for closure because it has been so gutted of faculty positions, then think about having it go charter. Yes it is a long shot, yes it is a hard way to go. But what is the alternative – to let DaVinci die bc the School Board does not have its fiscal act together?
” Huh? said…
Going charter will save teachers jobs as well
How exactly? Having charters doesn’t increase funding for the district.”
If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.
“Could you justify why Da Vinci is a frills program?”
DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.
Thus this program had seed money to implement it, but not necessarily enough money to sustain it. Typical of this school district. They create new schools, but cannot sustain them, so will close prior existing schools to make way for the new schools that have some particular appeal. NOT FAIR.
You make some fair points, that DaVinci students still have to be served by the school system. However, DaVinci has its own principal, instead of using the one at DHS, an extra cost. I suspect that to eliminate DaVinci would save a few faculty and one administrative position. Nine from DaVinci are slated for elimination – quite a cost savings. How can DaVinci survive with only three teachers?
Hammond wanted to take DaVinci off the “hit” list, but close Emerson – an existing school that serves the entire west section of town, offering basic course work. To close it will force students to either commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes, over dangerous ground including railroad tracks; or take the bus, of which there is only one that runs at that time. How do you fit 500 students on one Unitrans bus?
If DaVinci is closed, the worst that happens is they are absorbed back into DHS, which is certainly less disruptive than closing Emerson. Not to mention the overcrowding at all secondary schools should Emerson be closed. The impacts that result from closing Emerson are far more catastrophic than if DaVinci is closed.
That being said, I don’t want DaVinci to go away either, but given a choice, Emerson is far more critical to maintain than DaVinci. However, as I said before, a parcel tax will likely be supported more to keep Emerson open than DaVinci. In my opinion, that is why things are going down the way they are with frills being exalted over basics – to prepare the community for another parcel tax to dig the school district out of its trouble bc of fiscal mismanagement.
If either DaVinci or Emerson is slated for closure, then it might be worth a try to have them go charter. Yes, VO’s attempt thus far has failed – mainly bc they were out there alone in their quest and sabotaged at every turn by the school district. But now we have the possibility of three schools in jeapordy – which has caused the public to pay more attention to what is going on.
If the School Board starts getting bombarded with requests to approve charter schools, maybe they will start rethinking some of their poor choices. My view is parents and teachers need to stand up and fight for what they believe in. If you truly believe in DaVinci, and it ends up slated for closure because it has been so gutted of faculty positions, then think about having it go charter. Yes it is a long shot, yes it is a hard way to go. But what is the alternative – to let DaVinci die bc the School Board does not have its fiscal act together?
“If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.”
Not really. The money is a fixed pool per child, whether they are in a charter or in the regular district schools. As a result, there are no more teaching spots available with a charter than without one, because there isn’t any more money to pay for the teachers. The teachers are being fired in reverse order by seniority, not by a school closing. Only newer teachers in the district are losing their jobs. More senior teachers at VO or elsewhere can “bump” more junior teachers at Korematsu or other schools out of their jobs.
“commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes”
Really? An hour? That’s some slow biking. The farthest distance is maybe 4 miles for in town bikers.
If there are really 500 students Unitrans might be willing to add one or more buses to the route.
“If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.”
Not really. The money is a fixed pool per child, whether they are in a charter or in the regular district schools. As a result, there are no more teaching spots available with a charter than without one, because there isn’t any more money to pay for the teachers. The teachers are being fired in reverse order by seniority, not by a school closing. Only newer teachers in the district are losing their jobs. More senior teachers at VO or elsewhere can “bump” more junior teachers at Korematsu or other schools out of their jobs.
“commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes”
Really? An hour? That’s some slow biking. The farthest distance is maybe 4 miles for in town bikers.
If there are really 500 students Unitrans might be willing to add one or more buses to the route.
“If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.”
Not really. The money is a fixed pool per child, whether they are in a charter or in the regular district schools. As a result, there are no more teaching spots available with a charter than without one, because there isn’t any more money to pay for the teachers. The teachers are being fired in reverse order by seniority, not by a school closing. Only newer teachers in the district are losing their jobs. More senior teachers at VO or elsewhere can “bump” more junior teachers at Korematsu or other schools out of their jobs.
“commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes”
Really? An hour? That’s some slow biking. The farthest distance is maybe 4 miles for in town bikers.
If there are really 500 students Unitrans might be willing to add one or more buses to the route.
“If any teachers from VO lose their jobs bc the school was closed, they can be “rehired” by VOCS. It keeps more teaching positions open.”
Not really. The money is a fixed pool per child, whether they are in a charter or in the regular district schools. As a result, there are no more teaching spots available with a charter than without one, because there isn’t any more money to pay for the teachers. The teachers are being fired in reverse order by seniority, not by a school closing. Only newer teachers in the district are losing their jobs. More senior teachers at VO or elsewhere can “bump” more junior teachers at Korematsu or other schools out of their jobs.
“commute by bicycle one hour each way to Holmes”
Really? An hour? That’s some slow biking. The farthest distance is maybe 4 miles for in town bikers.
If there are really 500 students Unitrans might be willing to add one or more buses to the route.
I have a few questions and am hoping someone can fill in some gaps. I am asking sincerely for information.
1. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the outdated facilities, why is option G being considered when this school site would then have about 800 students, including the technology campus?
2. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the enrollment at only 550 students, why are options considered for JHs to have only 450/500 students on the other 2 school sites?
3. I read on three school ranking websites that DaVinci has a 1:43 teacher to student ratio, whereas the HS has a 1:22 ratio. Also, fewer administrators, less overhead, and textbooks at this school. What is the true cost of educating a child in each of these HSs? I think the boosters pay for the laptops and upkeep, so why is this campus ‘elite’ in some discussions?
I have a few questions and am hoping someone can fill in some gaps. I am asking sincerely for information.
1. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the outdated facilities, why is option G being considered when this school site would then have about 800 students, including the technology campus?
2. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the enrollment at only 550 students, why are options considered for JHs to have only 450/500 students on the other 2 school sites?
3. I read on three school ranking websites that DaVinci has a 1:43 teacher to student ratio, whereas the HS has a 1:22 ratio. Also, fewer administrators, less overhead, and textbooks at this school. What is the true cost of educating a child in each of these HSs? I think the boosters pay for the laptops and upkeep, so why is this campus ‘elite’ in some discussions?
I have a few questions and am hoping someone can fill in some gaps. I am asking sincerely for information.
1. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the outdated facilities, why is option G being considered when this school site would then have about 800 students, including the technology campus?
2. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the enrollment at only 550 students, why are options considered for JHs to have only 450/500 students on the other 2 school sites?
3. I read on three school ranking websites that DaVinci has a 1:43 teacher to student ratio, whereas the HS has a 1:22 ratio. Also, fewer administrators, less overhead, and textbooks at this school. What is the true cost of educating a child in each of these HSs? I think the boosters pay for the laptops and upkeep, so why is this campus ‘elite’ in some discussions?
I have a few questions and am hoping someone can fill in some gaps. I am asking sincerely for information.
1. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the outdated facilities, why is option G being considered when this school site would then have about 800 students, including the technology campus?
2. If Emerson is the ‘obvious’ choice for closing in some discussions, due to the enrollment at only 550 students, why are options considered for JHs to have only 450/500 students on the other 2 school sites?
3. I read on three school ranking websites that DaVinci has a 1:43 teacher to student ratio, whereas the HS has a 1:22 ratio. Also, fewer administrators, less overhead, and textbooks at this school. What is the true cost of educating a child in each of these HSs? I think the boosters pay for the laptops and upkeep, so why is this campus ‘elite’ in some discussions?
not believing it said…
“DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.”
You make a good point about adminstration of DVHS; maybe there’s a good argument that DVHS doesn’t really need a full-time principal.
But running DVHS comes out of the same pot of money as running DHS. I don’t think you really save classroom money by closing DVHS. You still spend the same money covering those students in DHS, plus you lose some curricular variety in the district.
It would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… 😉
not believing it said…
“DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.”
You make a good point about adminstration of DVHS; maybe there’s a good argument that DVHS doesn’t really need a full-time principal.
But running DVHS comes out of the same pot of money as running DHS. I don’t think you really save classroom money by closing DVHS. You still spend the same money covering those students in DHS, plus you lose some curricular variety in the district.
It would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… 😉
not believing it said…
“DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.”
You make a good point about adminstration of DVHS; maybe there’s a good argument that DVHS doesn’t really need a full-time principal.
But running DVHS comes out of the same pot of money as running DHS. I don’t think you really save classroom money by closing DVHS. You still spend the same money covering those students in DHS, plus you lose some curricular variety in the district.
It would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… 😉
not believing it said…
“DaVinci is a wonderful program, but not “necessary” as a separate entity. It was started by a grant from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation. However, money to start a school does not necessarily provide money to run the school. That had to come out of the school district’s coffers.”
You make a good point about adminstration of DVHS; maybe there’s a good argument that DVHS doesn’t really need a full-time principal.
But running DVHS comes out of the same pot of money as running DHS. I don’t think you really save classroom money by closing DVHS. You still spend the same money covering those students in DHS, plus you lose some curricular variety in the district.
It would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic… 😉
I may be wrong but I thought the current principal of DVHS voluntarily is taking on teaching responsibilities as well. Therefore he is not a full time administrator.
I may be wrong but I thought the current principal of DVHS voluntarily is taking on teaching responsibilities as well. Therefore he is not a full time administrator.
I may be wrong but I thought the current principal of DVHS voluntarily is taking on teaching responsibilities as well. Therefore he is not a full time administrator.
I may be wrong but I thought the current principal of DVHS voluntarily is taking on teaching responsibilities as well. Therefore he is not a full time administrator.
Closing Da Vinci would not save any money, for the reasons stated by others. The district would still have to provide teachers, books and facilities for those students. The Booster Club pays for repair and replacement of the laptops. With Matt Best teaching part-time and there being no Vice Principal at DVHS, the administrator to student ratio doesn’t significantly differ from DHS — and will be just about the same soon, as new classes at DVHS are each significantly larger than the classes that entered the first few years.
I have trouble understanding the idea that Emerson is being treated as a sacrificial lamb, but that it is okay to get rid of all the elementary science teachers, almost all school librarians, the EL program coordinator, and the many high school course options that will disappear because of the increased number of lay offs necessary if Emerson stays open.
As for the “necessity” of having a junior high in any particular neighborhood, keep in mind that South Davis has never had its own junior high. These are not elementary school children, like in the Valley Oak neighborhood. Kids of the junior high age can use the exercise AND there are already regular Unitrans bus routes from West Davis to Holmes.
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.
Closing Da Vinci would not save any money, for the reasons stated by others. The district would still have to provide teachers, books and facilities for those students. The Booster Club pays for repair and replacement of the laptops. With Matt Best teaching part-time and there being no Vice Principal at DVHS, the administrator to student ratio doesn’t significantly differ from DHS — and will be just about the same soon, as new classes at DVHS are each significantly larger than the classes that entered the first few years.
I have trouble understanding the idea that Emerson is being treated as a sacrificial lamb, but that it is okay to get rid of all the elementary science teachers, almost all school librarians, the EL program coordinator, and the many high school course options that will disappear because of the increased number of lay offs necessary if Emerson stays open.
As for the “necessity” of having a junior high in any particular neighborhood, keep in mind that South Davis has never had its own junior high. These are not elementary school children, like in the Valley Oak neighborhood. Kids of the junior high age can use the exercise AND there are already regular Unitrans bus routes from West Davis to Holmes.
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.
Closing Da Vinci would not save any money, for the reasons stated by others. The district would still have to provide teachers, books and facilities for those students. The Booster Club pays for repair and replacement of the laptops. With Matt Best teaching part-time and there being no Vice Principal at DVHS, the administrator to student ratio doesn’t significantly differ from DHS — and will be just about the same soon, as new classes at DVHS are each significantly larger than the classes that entered the first few years.
I have trouble understanding the idea that Emerson is being treated as a sacrificial lamb, but that it is okay to get rid of all the elementary science teachers, almost all school librarians, the EL program coordinator, and the many high school course options that will disappear because of the increased number of lay offs necessary if Emerson stays open.
As for the “necessity” of having a junior high in any particular neighborhood, keep in mind that South Davis has never had its own junior high. These are not elementary school children, like in the Valley Oak neighborhood. Kids of the junior high age can use the exercise AND there are already regular Unitrans bus routes from West Davis to Holmes.
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.
Closing Da Vinci would not save any money, for the reasons stated by others. The district would still have to provide teachers, books and facilities for those students. The Booster Club pays for repair and replacement of the laptops. With Matt Best teaching part-time and there being no Vice Principal at DVHS, the administrator to student ratio doesn’t significantly differ from DHS — and will be just about the same soon, as new classes at DVHS are each significantly larger than the classes that entered the first few years.
I have trouble understanding the idea that Emerson is being treated as a sacrificial lamb, but that it is okay to get rid of all the elementary science teachers, almost all school librarians, the EL program coordinator, and the many high school course options that will disappear because of the increased number of lay offs necessary if Emerson stays open.
As for the “necessity” of having a junior high in any particular neighborhood, keep in mind that South Davis has never had its own junior high. These are not elementary school children, like in the Valley Oak neighborhood. Kids of the junior high age can use the exercise AND there are already regular Unitrans bus routes from West Davis to Holmes.
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
“Robin said…
As for sending North Davis Elementary students to Emerson to balance population — the bicycle commute time for many NDE students to Emerson is as much or more than the bicycle commute time for Emerson students to get to Holmes. If that bike ride isn’t too far for NDE kids, it isn’t too far for Emerson kids.”
That’s a valid point if moving all of NDE to Emerson were being considered.
I only wanted to point out that at one time the district staff recommended that the western half of the NDE attendance area was proposed to attend EJH, as part of a larger plan for making JH enrollments even.
The school board at that time decided that it was a bad idea to split that elementary population in that way. It was known 5-6 years ago that this situation would result.
If the criticism of Emerson is that it has low enrollment, there is nothing wrong (that I can see) with shifting boundaries so as to even out the population.
Clearly it is far for some kids from the west NDE to bike to EJH, but it is also almost as far to bike to Holmes. Plus what is proposed, if you close Emerson, is that you inconvenience a larger population of kids.
If you have 7 or 8 elementary schools, you will never get an even split w/o dividing an elementary population.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
Everytime I see or hear Hammond I am thoroughly unimpressed. He is an extremely skilled people person. How else could a former basketball coach (his teaching experience) become a school Superintendent so quickly? I am more interested in Hammond using his staff to find creative solutions to the problems that currently exist rather than taking publically popular stances. I would also like the School Board to be more quantitatively skilled on the issues regarding enrollment projections. Some of the graphics in past meetings have predicted a 5% decline over a 10-year period. This result is clearly within error of a 10-year projection and thus one could conclude the K-12 population within Davis to be flat. A much less alarming result than the “precipitous decline” that is chronically reported.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?
At Monday’s meeting, Richard Harris (with the help of 3 other board members) directed the staff to explore the idea of leaving 3 elementary schools (Patwin (and Fairfield), Willet, and North) without principals. Are we willing to sacrafice three elementary programs– at least 1500 students, probably 75 staff members? Are we going to leave them without on-site leaders during a time when as cuts are made at the District office more and more responsibilities are falling on the site administrators in order to save a jr high with 500 students? This sacrafice feels too big to me. I am a parent at Valley Oak, and we have had 3 principals in the last 5 years. I will tell you it is absolutely crucial to have an effective, permanent, present site administrator.
I have tremendous empathy for the Emerson community. It is painful to have your school threatened and even worse to have it closed, but, as a community, we have to be willing to accept hard decisions. I raise the question, “If we could find the money to keep Emerson open, is that how we should spend that $?” After it was clear that Korematsu was going to open, I had the same question regarding Valley Oak– and that was before our current $ crisis. If we found the money to keep EJH open, is that the best item to save– What about elementary science? libraries? music? Jr high class size reduction? English teachers?? The list goes on.
I do not know what the right answer is, and I am glad I am not up there making these decisions, but our situation is ugly, and there is a chance that it is going to get even uglier. I am just having trouble with the fight to keep EJH open at the expense of academic programs (elementary science, libraries, etc.) that benefit all of the district students. I know it is a long way for those kids to get to Holmes, but the academic needs of each of those students will continue to be met at their new school site.
With our backs against the wall like this, I think the quality and depth and breadth of the education that we can provide to all of our students is more important than the location. I say this with apologies to the Emerson community because I DO know how it feels.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
“voe parent said…
During this fiscal crises that we find ourselves in, whenever you choose to preserve or protect one program you then are also choosing to sacrafice something else. I think people in the community have bent over backwards to not “pit one program against another”, but unfortunately, that is what is happening whether we name it or not. When the BOE submitted the 4mil. in proposed cuts to the County, Emerson was among those cuts. In order for us to stay in good stead, we have to cut that money, so if isn’t Emerson then it has to be something else. What is it going to be? What are you willing to cut or sacrafice to keep Emerson open?”
Points of clarification, here.
Emerson was not on the original list of $4M cuts. It was an idea originally suggested by Tim Taylor in the March 3 special meeting.
The district originally proposed shifting 9th graders to HS for **next years** (2009-2010) budget. That was seen as part of a bigger plan to reorganize the secondary system (and maybe close EJH). The district staff was recommending other cuts take place this year to reach $4M, but not reorganizing the secondary system.
Yes, you are right in identifying a faction of people who are saying, “not my program” and want to have 3 JH campuses forever.
But I think you are overlooking a very large number of people who may accept that EJH or another campus may close very soon, but who are really worried that this is way to short a timeline to be making changes like that. In certain reorganization scenarios, there is only a very small amount of money saved, like $100,000. If what is in question is another $500,000 to reach $4M, then that looks like excessive stress to be inflicting for such small savings.
Personally I accept that Emerson may have to close, but I would be more willing to accept it when I see that more thought has taken place.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!
Other relevent action: the board also okays Hammond to fill three vacant principals for next year.
wdf, thanks for the news scoop. There was nothing on local/area news, and the live video of the meeting did not work
wdf, thanks for the news scoop. There was nothing on local/area news, and the live video of the meeting did not work
wdf, thanks for the news scoop. There was nothing on local/area news, and the live video of the meeting did not work
wdf, thanks for the news scoop. There was nothing on local/area news, and the live video of the meeting did not work
I’m currently working on my story about this, aiming for 10 am but it might be on sooner.
I’m currently working on my story about this, aiming for 10 am but it might be on sooner.
I’m currently working on my story about this, aiming for 10 am but it might be on sooner.
I’m currently working on my story about this, aiming for 10 am but it might be on sooner.
“wdf said…
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!”
DPD, I was only making a good natured ribbing. I know it’s hard for one person to cover everything going on in Davis.
School board meetings (and I guess most public meetings) are long hours of sleep-inducing discussion, punctuated by a couple of minutes of drama. It’s tough, sometimes, to sit through it all.
I think that it’s important to know that the decision was made more on the basis that such a major change probably could not be pulled off under present conditions, under a short timeline. This decision *is not* a ringing endorsement for 3 JH campuses forever. The trustees made it clear that they intend to revisit this issue next year.
The good thing is that this removes, for now, a significant amount of community uncertainty that was distracting from the DSF fundraising and the larger cuts of teachers. It allows the secondary principals to begin building schedules for next year. So much was on hold, waiting for the school board to make its decision.
“wdf said…
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!”
DPD, I was only making a good natured ribbing. I know it’s hard for one person to cover everything going on in Davis.
School board meetings (and I guess most public meetings) are long hours of sleep-inducing discussion, punctuated by a couple of minutes of drama. It’s tough, sometimes, to sit through it all.
I think that it’s important to know that the decision was made more on the basis that such a major change probably could not be pulled off under present conditions, under a short timeline. This decision *is not* a ringing endorsement for 3 JH campuses forever. The trustees made it clear that they intend to revisit this issue next year.
The good thing is that this removes, for now, a significant amount of community uncertainty that was distracting from the DSF fundraising and the larger cuts of teachers. It allows the secondary principals to begin building schedules for next year. So much was on hold, waiting for the school board to make its decision.
“wdf said…
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!”
DPD, I was only making a good natured ribbing. I know it’s hard for one person to cover everything going on in Davis.
School board meetings (and I guess most public meetings) are long hours of sleep-inducing discussion, punctuated by a couple of minutes of drama. It’s tough, sometimes, to sit through it all.
I think that it’s important to know that the decision was made more on the basis that such a major change probably could not be pulled off under present conditions, under a short timeline. This decision *is not* a ringing endorsement for 3 JH campuses forever. The trustees made it clear that they intend to revisit this issue next year.
The good thing is that this removes, for now, a significant amount of community uncertainty that was distracting from the DSF fundraising and the larger cuts of teachers. It allows the secondary principals to begin building schedules for next year. So much was on hold, waiting for the school board to make its decision.
“wdf said…
School Board Votes to Keep 3 JH and a 10-12 HS for Next Year.
Remember that you read the scoop first in the comments section of the Davis Vanguard!!”
DPD, I was only making a good natured ribbing. I know it’s hard for one person to cover everything going on in Davis.
School board meetings (and I guess most public meetings) are long hours of sleep-inducing discussion, punctuated by a couple of minutes of drama. It’s tough, sometimes, to sit through it all.
I think that it’s important to know that the decision was made more on the basis that such a major change probably could not be pulled off under present conditions, under a short timeline. This decision *is not* a ringing endorsement for 3 JH campuses forever. The trustees made it clear that they intend to revisit this issue next year.
The good thing is that this removes, for now, a significant amount of community uncertainty that was distracting from the DSF fundraising and the larger cuts of teachers. It allows the secondary principals to begin building schedules for next year. So much was on hold, waiting for the school board to make its decision.