Seth Rosenblatt – San Carlos School Board

This has been an interesting week. It was dominated by discussions regarding our facilities master plan, and specifically the plan for a 4/5 school at Tierra Linda. (There is little dispute about our plans to build a 4/5 school at Central and remove 4th grade from both White Oaks and Brittan Acres).

Let’s start with the background. Enrollment and capacity have been significant issues since I started on the board, and in fact led to the boundary changes almost three years ago. Those helped rebalance enrollment among the schools, but of course didn’t change the fact that our overall growth continued to climb and all schools (with the exception of Heather) were exceeding their intended capacity. As an Arundel parent, I witnessed first-hand the loss of “quality” space as more rooms had to be converted to classrooms. Among Arundel, Brittan Acres, and White Oaks, that has meant some combination of the loss of science rooms, art rooms, and outdoor facilities, as well as the addition of portable classrooms. Some years back, many (including me) assumed that the solution would be to build a new elementary school, but after researching this idea, we ran into three problems. The first was the lack of available space in San Carlos (and especially in a place that it made sense to create another neighborhood school). Secondly, even if we found a new space, it would require changing the boundaries again and perhaps changing the feeder patterns to the middle school. And lastly, doing this wouldn’t help the growing enrollment and capacity challenges at the two middle schools. With help from the administrative team and a facilities and enrollment committee comprised of representatives from each school, Dr. Baker proposed an interesting solution at our March 8, 2012 board meeting. This solution — creating two 4/5 schools, one each at Central and TL, and removing a grade from the four elementary schools — was elegant in that it both evenly addressed facilities issues while also creating an opportunity for an amazing pedagogical environment in our new 21st Century learning mode (you can read more about the pedagogical rationale here).

Since last March, this has been the assumed plan. Of course we always knew that we had the right to change it and do more research. But as we discussed it more (both among board members and with the larger community), it became apparent that this solution was very exciting because it gave us an opportunity to build these new 4/5 schools in a 21st Century Learning environment while leveraging the assets and programs already at the middle schools, all the while reducing overcrowding and traffic at each of the elementary school sites. For most of 2012, there were dozens of forums where our facilities and enrollment issues — and this proposed plan — were discussed and shared with the community to inform and get feedback into the process. The Superintendent held community forums on the topic, he led multiple meetings at each school site (including with both faculty and parents), the Superintendent presented this plan to the San Carlos city council, we had many public board meetings on the topic, and of course I wrote about it extensively on this blog. There were naturally some open issues, primarily whether CLC would stay on its existing campus or move to Heather school. In any case, Measure H had to pass, which is did by 68%!

Since the election, the administration has hired architects to begin renderings of designs for both Central and TL. Through that process and some additional feedback received, the architects were also asked to look at renderings if we were to have smaller 4/5 schools located each at Arundel and Heather. The architects reviewed each school site and held community meetings at Tierra Linda, Arundel, and Heather. Through those meetings, a number of parents — particularly at Arundel school — expressed some serious concerns about the plan to locate the 4/5 plan at Tierra Linda. A few of those parents were particularly active, and the board members received quite a few e-mails in the last week leading up to last night’s board meetings. I offered to speak to each person that contacted me, and a few took me up on the offer.

Before I get into the substance of the issue, I did want to note one important matter. Although I would say that about 90% of the folks who contacted me were very constructive in their dialog (and in fact appreciated that regardless of their opinion, they recognized that it was a very complex puzzle and appreciated that the board really did have the best interest of our students in mind). However, there were a select few that took a different approach. It saddened me to see people insulting me on e-mail or being snarky and disrespectful through comments on this blog. Those who know me, know that I call people out on bad behavior, and I remind them if their goal is to influence policy, then insulting the policy makers is generally not a winning approach. Unfortunately, there are a minority of people who imprint their overall view of politics and politicians onto their local school members while not appreciating that we’re a different breed. If you’re interested, you can read a recent article I wrote in EdSource related to this topic. Threats, insults, and childish antics don’t work. Again, this is only a small number of folks doing it, but I hope that these people realize that my colleagues and I volunteer thousands of hours for no purpose other than to do the best thing for students. We have no other agenda — we have no political donors or parties to serve, we have no higher officer to run for, and no political career to protect. Regardless of our agreement or disagreement on any issue, I will always engage with anyone in this community who takes a constructive approach to the dialog.

This brings me to last night’s meeting, which had a reasonably full house in attendance. Other than our annual board re-organization (my term as President ended), most of the meeting was devoted to the Facilities Master Plan, the findings and analysis of the architects and their teams, and discussion among the board on how to proceed. About a half dozen Arundel/Heather parents spoke, largely echoing the concerns sent to us earlier on e-mail.

It would be impossible to do justice to the presentation, as it was two hours long (you can view the slide deck here), but I can’t imagine anyone coming away from the evening not appreciating at least two things: (a) the issue is incredibly complex and involves multiple factors that need to be balanced, and (b) the district has really done it’s homework. The presentation was universally viewed as outstanding.

The board then proceeded with its discussion. Here is my analysis of the issues we discussed.

Although some elementary school parents expressed some safety concerns regarding their child being on a middle school campus, I think most people in the room generally understood that there really shouldn’t be any such concern. Dr. Baker presented a bunch of local school districts where elementary and middle schools are co-located, and of course there are many examples of K-8 schools (such as our own CLC). In fact, we were all reminded that there have been Kindergarten and Pre-School students (from Montessori) on the TL campus for decades!

A second category of concerns from some parents was about the community and cohesiveness of their schools and the fear that some of that would be lost by removing the 4th grade. Having been heavily involved at both the schools and the district for a long time, that is counter to my observation. I believe that community is driven by the people (staff and parents) rather than the grade configuration. We discussed the fact that, for example, the Las Lomitas school district has a K-3 and 4-8 with incredibly strong community involvement. If anything, I believe making these schools smaller — as part of our original intent — actually better promotes the sense of community at an elementary school. There is some perception among Arundel parents that TL is less of a welcoming community, and although parents definitely participate less in the classroom (and I agree there are things we can do to make it easier for more parent participation), it’s largely a moot point as the 4/5 kids would be going to a new school, which by its very design would not only encourage, but likely require, greater parent involvement at a much higher level. That is part of the 21st Century design.

Another issue that emerged was traffic. Clearly there would be additional traffic issues if we were to add a 5th grade to Arundel. The architects talked about some mitigating solutions, but they all had real issues as to whether they would work or what their cost would be (such as adding another entrance from Wellington Drive). Of course, if we were to add the 4/5 school on the TL campus and not move CLC, then we’d increase the traffic problem there. Regardless of the ultimate configuration, the architects suggested some very strong designs to improve traffic flow at TL.

Lastly, we discussed equity — the notion that kids from anywhere in town will get the same education. An important distinguishing characteristic of this school district has been promoting such equity and symmetry of path. I would argue it’s something we do extremely well, and given the relatively small size of the community, its absence would have serious ramifications. Even something like the success of the San Carlos Educational Foundation is an expression of that cohesiveness, equity, and knowing there really is no difference in your schooling path regardless where you live. I would argue this approach to equity strengthens the whole community. We know that even with the existing symmetry, it takes effort to push this equity — the recent discussion about middle school math is a great example. So although a few parents expressed the thought that symmetry was not required for equitable outcomes in the district, I find that in practice it actually is in our community like ours. I can only envision how the school programs will begin to diverge and that if we were not to place the 4/5 school at TL, five years from now we’d have hundreds of parents very upset about the wonderful environment that kids on the other side of town are getting that their kids aren’t.

The other big issue discussed by the Board was the scale of these 4/5 schools (meaning having a sufficient number of kids). I think most of us were in agreement that this was a real asset. Given the nature of the 21st Century Learning environment — including much more self-directed work and more flexibility and choices — scale is needed to make that work in practice. We risk not being able to the provide that level of flexibility and opportunity for the smaller number of kids that would be in the mini-4/5 schools at Arundel and Heather. In addition, the middle schools have real assets — both physical and programmatic assets — that would be leveraged by the 4/5 school to implement such flexible and diverse programs. We can try to imitate that on the elementary school environment, but it would likely be less powerful.

Lastly, the Board discussed the future flexibility gained by any of the possible options and in fact asked the Superintendent to come back with more analysis in this regard. I await that analysis, but I suspect the mini 4/5 option at Arundel — due to the nature of the way the school is wedged in a residential area and up against a hillside — would box us in both physically and from a configuration point of view if enrollment were to grow beyond our projections.

The board needs to make a decision, and it was the original goal to have such a decision by December 20th, with the notion that some groundbreaking would begin next summer. We of course reserve the right to delay that decision and even delay construction. But here is my analysis. Although I recognize and appreciate some of the parents’ concerns (and many of those I would have shared when I was first at Arundel), we need to recognize that the board must take into account all of the pieces of this puzzle knowing that we are making a long-term decision. In effect, we need to see around corners. In my research leading up to this board meeting, I also spoke to many middle school parents, and as one may suspect, they have a different view than many of the elementary parents. Their experience and perspective is of ones who have been through a greater portion of the SCSD experience. I’m quite certain that if the district were to decide to do the mini 4/5 schools at Arundel and Heather, it will rank up there with one of the all-time mistakes we’ve ever done. TL parents already told me that they’d be very upset if their 4th or 5th grader didn’t have this same experience as the new school adjacent to Central. I also know how much we’ve lost at our elementary schools in terms of quality space and what a gift we’d be giving back to Arundel and Heather by reducing that enrollment. It would provide a much better educational experience for those K-3 kids.

I would say the most board members recognized that building the 4/5 school at TL while at the same time moving CLC to a new location was probably the most elegant solution for a number of reasons. It accomplishes the pedagogical goals (while retaining the scale and leverage of the original 4/5 plan) and would reduce crowding and traffic at every school site. The challenge with this plan is that it’s dependent upon an unknown — whether we can obtain a new site for CLC and (perhaps in partnership with others) fund it so that it is not materially be more expensive than other options. So, we all agreed we need a back-up plan in case we can’t do this, as well as a timeframe to attempt to secure such new site. The board was less in agreement last night as to this “back-up plan,” and certainly we will discuss that further at our next meeting on December 20th. Although not perfect, I believe the next best plan is to still have the 4/5 at TL while moving CLC to Heather. Although it would of course impact the Heather campus, traffic could be mitigated by coordinating different start/end times for the two schools. And Heather still has the biggest parcel of land available with the lowest density of students. And regardless of which of the above two paths we take, I am confident that we will make the best-long term decision for all students and accomplish a number of goals:

• Create 4/5 schools with enough scale in a location that allows for easy leverage of assets and programs while having a tremendously strong parent community
• Give us the best tools for continuing to promote equity throughout the district
• Provide the most flexibility going forward in the case enrollment grows even higher
• Reduce traffic at Arundel
• Give back quality space back to both Arundel and Heather
• Allow for a smooth transition for students

And at the end of the day, I believe this will provide the best outcome for kids. I’m sure that all my colleagues and I have no other interest.