|
|
|
Alameda Unified School District Master Plan2009 and 2010Last Updated: April, 2011
|
At the March 24, 2009 Board of Education meeting, Superintendent Vital presented a proposal for creating a Master Plan for public education in Alameda. The Superintendent identified three scenarios to address the long term fiscal sustainability of public education in Alameda. Scenario One examines what is the impact on Alameda public education using State funding only. Scenario Two examines what is the impact on Alameda public education if AUSD becomes a charter district. Scenario Three examines what is the impact on Alameda public education if the local community provides additional funding to supplement State funding. Superintendent Vital proposed a timeline that involved Board workshops that will be open to the public. At the April 14 BOE meeting, a presentation on the work of prior task forces was presented with three questions. At the end of April, a Facebook Fan Page was created to encourage current and former students to participate in the Master Plan process. Prior to the May 20 workshop an announcement flyer was sent to the Alameda residents. Approximately 60 individuals representing 13 school sites attended the May 20 workshop where an overview of school funding was presented. Approximately 125 individuals representing 15 school sites attended the June 2 workshop where an overview charter schools impacts on AUSD was presented. Approximately 40 individuals attended the August 18 workshop where an overview of feedback on community values and possible strategies to address identified challenges were presented. At the August 25 BOE meeting, the Superintendent presented a recap of all three workshops along potential next steps for the Board's consideration and directional feedback. At he September 8 BOE meeting, the Superintendent asked the Board to approve the preliminary direction for further investigation. A presentation on magnet schools was given at the September 15 workshop. The Superintendent wrote an opinion piece for the Alameda Journal on September 25. Approximately 20 people attended a presentation on the fiscal impact of a charter school at Chipman Middle School was given at the September 29 workshop. Approximately 50 people attended a presentation on district office streamlining, furlough cost implementations and fiscal implications of increasing class size in grades K-3 at the October 6 workshop. Approximately 100 people attended a presentation on secondary restructuring, the fiscal impact of Chipman Charter, inter district transfer and results from the listenting campaign at the October 20 workshop. Over 200 students and adults attended the last of eight workshops on the Master Plan on November 17. The workshop included a report from Public Education Volunteers, an overview of parcel taxes and parcel tax structures, and a update on maximizing fundraising efforts (including grant systems and collaboration with community partnerships). A review of an inventory of programs at schools originally scheduled for this Workshop will take place at an upcoming Board meeting. At the January 8 Board of Education meeting, the Facilities Master Plan and recommendations from the Parcel Tax Advisory Group were reviewed. At the February 9 Board of Education meeting the working draft of the Master Plan was presented along possible structures and rates for a new replacement parcel tax. At the Februrary 23, 2010 the Board of Education approved the five year Master Plan. On June 23, Measure E did not get the requisite 2/3 vote to pass, as a result Scenario B from the Master Plan will begin to be implemented. In early September, the timeline for the community meetings for making decisions to reduce $4 million from the 2011/12 budget was publicized in a press release. The press release covered the school closure/consolidation process and a possible parcel tax as part of the budget reduction decisions that need to be made. On September 10, school consolidation scenarios were released. On November 23, the BOE placed a second parcel tax measure on the ballot.Measure A which passed in March, 2011. Staff presented an update on Scenario A after Measure A passed.
Major questions to be answered:
Major questions to be answered:
Major questions to be answered:
* The most favorable conditions for growth and success
Approximately 60 people from 13 school sites attended the workshop at Haight Elementary School. Superintendent Vital presented a 20 minute overview of how AUSD receives funding from State, Federal and local and where it is spent. The overview was based on background material prepared by School Services of California. The participants then held table discussions using the following questions:
Here is the feedback from the participants of the first workshop.
Approximately 125 people attended the workshop at Haight Elementary School. Superintendent Vital presented a 20 minute overview of how AUSD would be impacted if more schools were converted to charter schools. She then answered questions for 30 minutes. The participants filled out feedback forms using the following questions:
Here is the feedback from the second workshop.
Approximately 40 people attended the workshop at Wood Middle School. Superintendent Vital presented a 20 minute overview of feedback on community values for public education and possible strategies for addressing the identified challenges. The participants filled out feedback forms on the following :
Here is the feedback from the third workshop. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
Approximately 20 people attended the workshop at the Historic Alameda High School. The Superintendent presented a 20 minute overview of what a magnet program looks like. Attendees were encouraged to complete an online survey available on the District website. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
Approximately 20 people attended the workshop at the Historic Alameda High School. The Superintendent presented a 20 minute overview on the fiscal implications of converting Chipman Middle School to a charter school. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
Approximately 50 people attended the workshop at the Historic Alameda High School. The Superintendent presented a 20 minute overview of district office streamlining efforts, the cost savings of implementing use of furlough days and the cost savings of increasing class size in grades K-3. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
Here is feedback from the session.
Approximately 100 people attended the workshop at the Historic Alameda High School. The Superintendent presented a 45 minute overview on secondary restructuring, the fiscal impact of Chipman Charter, inter district transfer and results from the listenting campaign.
Here is feedback from the session. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
Over 200 students and adultse attended the eighth workshop at the Historic Alameda High School. Staff presented a report from Public Education Volunteers, an overview of parcel taxes and parcel tax structures, and a update on maximizing fundraising efforts (including grant systems and collaboration with community partnerships).
A review of an inventory of programs at schools originally scheduled for this Workshop will take place at an upcoming Board meeting. Here are the minutes from the workshop.
At a March 15, 2010 Special BOE meeting, the Board on a vote of 4-1 approved a resolution to conduct a mail-in election to be held on June 22, 2010. On June 23, 2010 the Registrar of Voters posted an update that showed Measure E failed with 65.6% Yes, one percent short of the need two thirds needed.
At the November 23, 2010 BOE meeting, the Board on a 5-0 vote approved a resolution to conduct an election on March 2, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the Registrar of Voters certified that Measure A passed with 68.01% Yes.
With the passage Measure A, we can move forward with the implementation of the Master Plan.
Parcel Tax Resolution 11/23/10
School Closure Scenarios 9/14/10
Timeline for Decision Making for Reducing $4 million including School Consolidation/Closure and a Parcel Tax 8/24/10
Approved Master Plan Document with Implementation Timelines - February 23, 2010
Superintendent Presentation - Democratic Club - February 10, 2010
Master Plan Document Workshop Number Eight - November 17, 2009
Workhop Eight Listing of Programs by School Sites - November 17, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Workshop Number Seven - October 20, 2009
Master Plan Feedback from October 20 meeting - October 20, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document District Office Furlough Days CSR - October 6, 2009
Master Plan Feedback from October 6 meeting - October 6, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Chipman Charter Conversion Fiscal Update - September 29, 2009
EdSource Publication - Local Revenues for Schools: Limits and Options in California - September, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Magnet Schools - September 15, 2009
Master Plan Strategies Direction September 8, 2009 BOE Meeting
Master Plan Review Of Work to Date - August 25, 2009 BOE Meeting
Master Plan Feedback from the August 18 meeting - August 24, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Scenario Three - August 18, 2009
Superintendent Letter to Community Regarding the Master Plan Process - June 26, 2009
Master Plan Feedback from June 2nd meeting - June 6, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Scenario Two - June 2, 2009 workshp
Master Plan Flyer for June 2nd meeting - May 27, 2009
Master Plan Feedback from May 20 Meeting - May 26, 2009
Master Plan Presentation Document Scenario One - May 20, 2009 workshop
Master Plan Background Documentation prepared by School Services of California - May 20, 2009
Master Plan Meeting Announcement Flyer - May 6, 2009
Master Plan Prior Work Review Presentation - April 14, 2009 BOE Meeting
Master Plan Process Presentation - March 24, 2009 BOE Meeting
November 17 Workshop
October 20 Workshop
October 6 Workshop
September 29 Workshop
September 15 Workshop
August 18 Workshop
Neighborhood Schools - Safe! The Island Blog August 19, 2009
Alameda Schools are Good - The Island Blog May 21, 2009
Master Plan - We Are All in This Together - Schools 94501-94502 May 8, 2009
They Got a Plan - The Island Blog March 25, 2009
Survey Says - August 6, 2009
Survey Results Conducted in July 2009 - August 6, 2009
Accountability and Assessment in Alameda - July 28, 2009
Alameda School Facilities - July 21, 2009
School Parcel Tax - Part Two - July 15, 2009
School Parcel Tax - Part One - July 13, 2009
AUSD Expenditures Review - July 9, 2009
AUSD Revenue Roller Coaster - July 7, 2009
Consolidating/Closing Schools in Alameda - July 1, 2009
Five Roles of Citizens in Community Problem Solving - June 29, 2009
The Road Ahead - Master Plan Process - June 26,2009
AUSD Budget and the State Budget - June 14, 2009
2008/09 AUSD Revenues Still Not Known - June 11, 2009
The System is Broken - May 22, 2009
AUSD Master Plan Process - March 23, 2009
At the 9/25/2007 BOE Meeting, the Superintendent presented a planning process to address changing district demographics, enrollment imbalance between schools, inconsistency of high-quality education programs and long-term fiscal solvency. The planning process was further refined at the 10/9/2007 BOE meeting when the Superintendent announced the formation of two task forces: Elementary Facility Capacity Task Force and the Secondary Education Task Force. These task forces were designed to generate initial research and analysis by studying the Demographic Study and Facility Capacity. In addition, potential program options e.g. district-wide charter, magnet schools, etc. were to be reviewed.
The Superintendent designed a system of communication feedback loops to integrate input from AUSD stakeholders by creating a Community Sounding Board of external community stakeholders, and provided for a series of community forums to share and receive input from the task forces. The continuous flow of feedback from stakeholder groups was to be the key to development and refinement of program and facility options. In addition, individuals send their comments to Board members.
Here is a pictorial representation of the communication feedback loops.
In December, the Alameda Journal published a story titled: Schools in search of more classrooms covering a workshop for the elementary task force work to date.
With the Governor's proposed and subsequent identification of a $4,000,000 budget crisis for AUSD, the work of the two task force was suspended. The Superintendent formed a new K-12 Restructuring Task Force charged with developing a fiscal solvent K-12 school system. The K-12 Restructuring Task Force met during the early months of 2008 and suspended its work with the passage of Measure H.
After the initial task force meeting, Rob Siltanen new Blog School 94501/94502 posted this entry: Restructuring AUSD?.
Parent February 10, 2008
I'm hoping the board will ask to maintain the sibling preference for border families (who will only be able to enroll in "choice" schools this year. As many of the speakers in ESNN stated well, it's our neighborhood schools that make AUSD special and it's a hardship to separate kids from a single family into different schools.
Without sibling preference, the "grandfathering" of household with kids on the border is hardly a true choice for families with more than 1 young kid. And I have a hard time believing that the variability in enrollment will be that great over the next 5 years. I can't imagine the hassle of trying to get one child to Edison and one to Otis. I loved having the choice available to us when we started school. We chose Edison mainly because it was much closer to us. That would be the same for all Edison Border households.
As a household on the Edison side of the border, I'm not writing because of concerns over the impact on our family, or our housing situation. I just think that the staff may be getting too specific on this one issue with very little gain.
Parent January 4, 2008
In following the analysis of the "mismatch" between enrollment and capacity, I am wondering if there is data on the students who register for kindergarten at their local school but are diverted. Does the District know how many of the diverted students actually enroll in another Alameda public school, versus those who opt for private school? It seems that in deciding between increasing capacity versus lottery/diversion at over-enrolled schools, data regarding lost funding and students due to declined diversions should be considered. Younger siblings in those families who enroll in private schools or other districts because they cannot enroll in their local Alameda elementary school should also be considered potentially lost funding, as presumably those families will maintain their child(ren)'s enrollment at the alternative schools. While some may consider this group to have a negligible fiscal impact, and may even perceive it as a way to alleviate the site-specific ! over-enrollment problem, this appears to be a growing trend which actually worsens the problems caused by declining enrollment District-wide. It also deprives the District of students who possess the characteristics to be successful, high achieving learners, and the parents who support them, and their schools.
Parent January 4, 2008
It is my understanding that one reason why NEA has the support of some Washington parents (even those who do not plan to send their children there) is that they know Alameda schools are unequal. Parent involvement and the ability of parents to raise money for particular schools makes for inequities and involved West End school parents saw NEA as offering something different for students.
It would be lovely if AUSD did consider a magnet school and Washington would be a perfect place to start. And what kind of magnet school would I like to see.....let me think about that for a second. Washington School for the Arts has a nice ring to it. The cost: hiring a credentialed art teacher. Seems like a cheap price to turn around diminishing enrollment and really putting Washington on the map.
Parent January 4, 2008
I think it's critical for the Board and AUSD to acknowledge the demand for program diversity within Alameda's public school system, and be proactive in addressing this in ways that are complimentary to AUSD, not damaging to it.
With the current budget crunch, it's a lousy time to be contemplating expansion of programs on offer within the District, but if some movement is not made in this direction over the next few years, I think the alternative could be much worse. We could see a procession of 'boutique' charter school applications draining funds from the District, with AUSD being slowly nudged into the role of 'public education provider of last resort'.
The Elementary Task Force recently ranked magnet programs as a low-priority item with respect to addressing the short term Elementary Capacity problem. That's an understandable position for them to adopt, given their mandate, but taking the broader view, I think magnet programs should be re-examined in light of the charter school threat. Another option that could be explored is creation of charters that are more closely-aligned with AUSD - for example, converting an entire existing AUSD school to a charter program, with differentiated educational programs and governance, but without the negative financial implications associated with charters that cherry-pick students from across the district for niche programs.
Parent December 21, 2007
Im really tired of hearing from a few people whining who just joined our island community and dont even have kids in the school system. The system has worked fine for years. If some how this group has success in moving school boundaries that have been in place for years there will be a war. There is no way my neighborhood will tolerate a hit on our home values and our neighborhood cohesiveness when we have owned and been in the Edison school district for years. This option or thinking is completely skewed and should be removed as a viable solution. We live on an island and we don't have new subdivisions being added to this area. Demographics related to children are uncontrollable and will change randomly. The boundary suggestion is brought forward with short sighted thinking from selfish people who only have their personal interest in mind instead of whats best for the community. Knee jerk reaction wont resolve this challenge but adding more class rooms will. This is a capacity issue, change the capacity and resolve the issue.
Parent December 12, 2007
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to work with the public on all the issues we are facing with the Overcapcity problem and more specifically Edison school. As a current Edison parent, I am curious as to how the Community Sounding Board Members are chosen. I have noticed two members listed as representing Edison school that are actually not Edison parents at all. Also, the two people listed are the founding members of Edison School Neighborhood Network, as I'm sure you are aware. This is the same group that is/was pushing for the whole Buffer zone thing. How are they representing a school where their children do not even attend? Please explain this process of selection to me.
Editor Note: The Community Sounding Board is a Superintendent committee. As such, the Superintendent selects all of the representatives on the committee.
Thank you for your response. Why on earth would two people be chosen that have exactly the same agenda? And represent a school that their children do not even attend? What can I do to get myself appointed on this Community Sounding Board? My children actually attend Edison. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!
Parent December 12, 2007
I was unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I have some feedback that I am hoping will be taken into account during this process. I have a son in kindergarten at Edison School. I am finding that there are some rather serious safety issues at Edison, especially around children (kindergartners) being left unattended by any adults during lunch and during transition times such as after lunch recess. I would be happy to document these issues in more detail if you would like additional information.
In short, it appears that Edison School is already groaning under the weight of an additional 20 kindergartners, for a total of 80 kindergartners. These now 80 kindergartners will of course mean 80 in each following grade. I know that many are calling to solve the capacity issue by simply adding portables. I am extremely concerned that adding more students into an already overcrowded school will not only lead to lower academic results but also increased safety issues. When students as young as four are left unattended outside near a school exit as a matter of daily procedure, the risks are large that something could happen to a student. I am assuming there are liability issues for the district around this.
Therefore I am very much hoping that the work group and the school board will continue to examine solutions to the problem that are more long term such as redrawing boundaries, creating buffer zones and using property that is currently sitting vacant, such as the former Island High property.
Educator November 23, 2007
I wish I could be a fly on the wall with the 6-12 task force to see how they are gathering their information on "what is" in operation and "what could be possible". One parent eluded to this in an earlier board meeting about the #'s of students who have left our district after 5th grade to other districts or gone private. I hope that this task force is gathering information on disciplinary actions at the current school sites. That is the elephant in the room that no parent wants to talk about let alone district personnel.
We have a progressive discipline policy in this district and it is not always followed through.
In my own site, the burn out for teachers is by one or two students in a class who continue to disrupt the learning environment and there are no programs to deal with these students academically. When you are at a Charter School, you can mandate that parents be involved or you let the student go. We cannot do that at Wood, so we need specialized smaller learning communitites with students who are behind academically and need behavior support. These are the students who are closing the achievement gap by slowing down the classroom pace to meet the standards by their continual disruption.
Educator October 23, 2007
According to the last minutes from the board meeting, the task force includes principals and other district personnel and teachers and parents(?) are not proposed until January on the timeline. Where is our transparency in our school system?
Educator October 10, 2007
I was disappointed to see that teacher voices are not included on the elementary task force and specifically that Bay Farm is not represented. There is a lot of history here, policies that have been modified and affect us in a negative way, and we have already lost a student this year to private school because she was diverted. We are in month one and have few seats available for the rest of the year in our school where there is definitely growth. In my neighborhood alone there were over 15 for sale signs just last weekend. We can all do the math. I'm not sure that we can afford the outcome.
Problem Statement:
Forecasts show district-wide elementary enrollment will stabilize over the next five (5) years. However, two school areas - Ruby Bridges and Edison/Otis - are expected to increase in enrollment over the next five (5) years, while their facilities are currently close to or at capacity.
Charge of the Task Force:
Timeline
| Date | Action |
| October, 2007 | Identify members |
| Oct, 2007 to Dec, 2007 | Task Force Meetings |
| October, 2007 | Neighborhood School Community Meetings - Enrollment Policy |
| Nov, 2007 to Dec, 2007 | Community Meetings, Facility Capacity |
| December 12, 2007 | Board of Education Workshop |
| February 4, 2008 | Community Workshop |
| February 12, 2008 | Board of Education Meeting (Information) |
| February 26, 2008 | Board of Education Meeting (Approval) |
| March 4, 2008 | Special Board of Education Meeting (Impact to Staffing) |
Members of the Elementary Facility Capacity Task Force:
Luz Cazares, Chief Finance Officer
Joy Dean, Principal, Earhart Elementary School
Dave Dierking , Student Affairs Officer
Jan Goodman, Principal, Ruby Bridges Elementary
Jeff Knoth, Principal, Otis Elementary
Leland Noll, Director of Facilities, Maintenance & Operations
Marcheta Williams, Principal, Edison Elementary
Leni Von Blackenese, Coordinator of Assessment
An audience of approximately 30 individuals participated in this workshop titled: Report on Options Explored to Date to Balance Elementary Enrollment with Capacity.
December 12, 2007 BOE Workshop Handout
December 12, 2007 BOE Workshop Powerpoint
EDITOR NOTE: The recap represent my recollection of what occurred during the workshop. If there are inaccuracies please contact me.
Workshop Summary
Problem StatementProblem Statement:
There is a mismatch between elementary enroll forecasts and current school capacity.
Forecasts show district-wide elementary enrollment will stabilize over the next five (5) years.
Purpose of Workshop:
To present the options explored to date
To solicit feedback from workshop participants and the Board to refine the options
Categories of Solutions:
There are four areas that can be explored to address the projected enrollment and school capacity mismatch:
Those options that are selected to examined to be potential recommendations will have additional analysis to determine impact on:
Increase Capacity:
There are 246 rooms that could be used for classrooms in the elementary schools. 193 rooms are currently being used for regular education classrooms, 14 for special education and 39 for miscellaneous purposes. See page 43 of this 85 page report for site specific room data. There are two primary ways to increase capacity:
Divert Overflow Students:
If we were to divert the projected over enrollment, there would be asignificantly increase of students we would be diverting annually. The intent of the enrolment policy is to divert a very limited numbers of students.
Create Magnet Programs:
Our elementary schools charge is to offer sound curriculum and instructional programs that implement differentiated CA standards-based instruction at each grade level providing the foundational and extending skills to meet the needs of all performance levels.
Change Attendance Boundaries:
There are three areas being examined when looking at changing attendance boundaries.
After the presentation, the participants provided additional feedback:
Participants Feedback: In prior meetings ther has been reluctance to explore changing boundaries. Why is there a reluctance to change boundaries and what are the issues?Board Member Comments:
MCMAHON: At this point, we have 2 months to come to place of creating some type of recommendation. My hope is that focus of the Task Force begins to hone in on what can be done for the 08/09 year, immediately, so that we can dispel/squash/etc. the uncertainty around the 2008/09 year. Thats first and foremost in publics mind. The recommendation should satisfy the broadest number of people in greatest way with least amount of controvesy, while continuing to work on a long-term solution.
FORBES: Looking at numbers, current and 5 years, we dont need to jump to the 5 year solutions right now in February, but we do need to address some immediate issues. Long-term, at elementary level, we neeed to investigate some different options that address the desire for charter/private schools. While not a short-term issue, I would like a commitment by February, to see what programs community would support, along with dollars attached. This could serve as valuable input into a future parcel tax.
An audience of approximately 30 individuals participated in abbreviated workshop where the Elemenaty Task Force presented their short term recommendations that were forwarding to the Superintendent. The workshop was shortened when a Special BOE meeting on Fiscal Impact of Governor's Budget was conducted an hour after the workshop.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SUPERINTENDENT
In the short-term (i.e., within two years), the Elementary Capacity Task Force recommends options that can be implemented with minimal disruption to our students and staff.
Staff reported that 65 completed packets were received at Edison, 71 completed packets at Otis and 48 completed packets at Franklin. If the Board approves increasing capacity at Edison and Otis, the lottery will needed at Franklin.
Problem Statement:
AUSD operates middle and high schools with severe enrollment imbalances, which do not maximize our resources to support equity and excellence across our secondary education programs.
Charge of the Task Force:
Timeline
| Date | Action |
| October, 2007 | Identify members |
| Oct, 2007 to Feb, 2008 | Research initial options for middle and high schools, i.e. magnet schools, district sponsored charter school, boundary alignment, etc. |
| March, 2008 | Board of Education workshop to review initial secondary education program options |
| Apr, 2008 to Aug, 2008 | Task Force finalizes options |
| Sept 24, 2008 | Staff recommends options for implementation for 2009-2010 to Board of Education |
| Ocotber 8, 2008 | Board of Education Meeting (Action) |
| Oct, 2008 to Jan, 2009 | Develop implementation plan and phasing for new secondary education programs |
| February 13, 2009 | Staff recommends implementation plan to Board of Education |
| February 27, 2009 | Board of Education Meeting (Action) |
| Mar, 2009 to Aug, 2009 | Staff implements secondary education programs |
Members of the Seconday Education Task Force:
Alysee Castro, Principal, Island High School
Jud Kempson, Principal, Chipman Middle School
Sean McPhetridge, Director of ROP
Wendy Ponder, Director of K-12 Curriculum
Debbie Wong, Assistant Superintendent for Education Services
Teacher Representatives to be added January, 2008
As of December, 2007
| Chris Allen - Alameda High School | Anne Neunsinger - Edison Elementary School |
| Christine Bailey - Alameda Park and Recreation | Cathy Nielsen - Social Service Human Relations Board |
| Brooke Briggance - Alameda Education Foundation | Ed O'Neil - Wood/Encinal |
| Donna Cala - Earhart Elementary School | Dianne Richmond - Gold Coast Realty |
| Ana Coleman - Encinal High School | Patrick Russi - Alameda Recreation & Park |
| Scott Hildreth - Edison Elementary School | Walter Schlueter - Chamber of Commerce |
| Rebecca Holder - Alameda Multi-Cultural Center | Christine Strena - Franklin Elementary School |
| Michael Kelly - Kane & Associates | Rafael Virgen - Paden Elementary School |
| Karen Kenney - Girls, Inc | Elisa Ruiz-Virgen - Paden Elementary School |
| Peg Kofman - Alameda High School | Deborah Walker - Otis Elementary School |
| Lisa Lewis - Ruby Bridges Elementary School | Karen Wellman - Bay Farm Elementary School |
| Kathy Moehring - West Alameda Business Association | Veronica Whitehead - Coast Guard/Ruby Bridges |
| Ron Mooney - Alamedans for Better Schools | Janet Wong - Lincoln/Earhart |
| Annalisa Moore - After-School Programs | Michael Yoshii - Alameda Multi-Cultural Center |
| . | Huruma Zulu - Bay Farm Elementry School |
Problem Statement (March, 2008):
AUSD operates K-12 schools with severe enrollment imbalances that are not fiscally solvent, and which do not maximize our resources to support equity and excellence across our education programs.
Task Force Charge (March, 2008)
Revised problem statement and charge published March 27, 2008.
Membership will consist of District employees and the criteria for serving on this voluntary task force are:
As of March, 2008
| Name | Site/Group | Grade Level | Title |
| Tracy Allegrotti | Encinal High School | 9-12 | Teacher/Career Tech |
| Alysee Castro | Island High School | . | Principal |
| Janet Castro | Haight Elementary | K-5 | Office Manager |
| Luz Cazares | District Office | . | CFO |
| Roxanne Clement | Bay Farm Elementary | Media Center | Teacher |
| Joy Dean | Amelia Earhart Elementary | K-5 | Principal |
| Kathy Duncan | Island High School | 10-12 | Teacher |
| Amy Frary | Lincoln Middle School | 6th Grade | Teacher |
| Gary Harris | Otis Elementary | 3rd Grade | Teacher |
| Gene Kahane | Encinal High School | 9-12 | Teacher |
| Karen Keegan | CSEA | . | CSEA President |
| Jud Kempson | Chipman Middle School | 6-8 | Principal |
| Monique Kern-McGovern | Lincoln Middle School | 6-8 | Office Tech |
| Katie Lyons | Lum Elementary | K-5 | Principal |
| Patty Osborne | Washington Elementary | K-5 | Teacher |
| James Peters | Wood Middle School | 7th/8th Grade | Teacher |
| Emily Ramos | ASTI | 9-12 | Teacher |
| Gerald Rawlins | Alameda High School | 912 | Vice-Principal |
| Patrick Russi | Sounding Board | Alameda Park Rec Dept | . |
| Patrcia Sanders | AEA | . | AEA President |
| Debbie Sutherland | Ruby Bridges Elementary | 1st Grade | Teacher |
| Anna Wall | Chipman Middle School | 6-8 | Counselor |
| Veronica Whitehead | Sounding Board | . | Parent |
| Debbie Wong | District Office | K-12 | Facilitator |
| Tanya Wynn | Alameda High School | 9-12 | Office Tech |
Meetings Schedule, proposed March 4, 2008
The first meeting of the task force was March 20th. Superintendent Dailey attended and led the setting the stage for this important work. The 25-member task force grounded themselves by examining the problem statement and charge for the task force and held grade span-alike group discussions to revise and/or expand these for better clarity. The Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent will revise the problem statement and charge based on feedback from the task force. Regardless of the parcel tax, we made it clear that this work is essential in sustaining the health of the District and that we could not live within our means without restructuring for the long term. The next meeting is Wednesday, April 2nd.
Due to length of time spent on refining the problem statement and charge, the task force did not have to review the handout from the Secondary Task Force on ideas for restructuring the District. Items on the list with asteriks were cost saving items.
Minutes from the March 20 were published a recap of ideas charted to keep of day's discussion. The following week, a revised problem statement and charge was published.
The third meeting of the task force was April 17th. Superintendent Dailey presented a revised problem statement and task force charge based on input from the Board of Education at the April 8th BOE meeting.
Problem Statement
In the absence of consistent and adequate funding, coupled with severe enrollment imbalances, AUSD is no longer able to support excellence and equity without restructuring our K-12 educational programs.
Task Force Charge
The task force spent the rest of the meeting examining facility capacity studies and examining the core academic programs offered across the District.
By Peter Hegarty, Alameda Journal, December 21, 2007
With elementary school enrollment set to climb during the next five years, district leaders are looking at ways to find more classroom space while not undercutting instruction.
What makes finding a solution difficult, however, is that the schools likely to face the crunch -- Ruby Bridges, Otis and Edison -- already are about full.
Among the ideas being floated to address the issue are installing portables at some campuses, shifting students to other schools and changing attendance boundaries.
The school board will vote on a recommendation in February.
"Enrollment is probably the biggest issue facing the district right now," Superintendent Ardella Dailey said. "It plays into how much money we have, the quality of education we can provide, everything."
None of the possible solutions is ideal: Sending children away from their neighborhood school is never popular with parents, while the cost of installing portables at some campuses still must be worked out.
A district task force -- comprising Chief Financial Officer Luz Cazares, Otis Principal Jeff Knoth and others -- met this month for a workshop to outline options and gather feedback.
Currently, there are 246 rooms that could be used as elementary school classrooms, according to Cazares.
Of those rooms not being used as classrooms, six house computer labs, 11 are used for day care and 22 are used for after-school and other programs.
The remaining 14 rooms are used for special education. One idea that emerged during the workshop was using portables for the day care programs -- freeing up the classroom space -- along with reducing the number of students attending Alameda elementary schools who don't live in the district. (Currently, there are about 149.)
Families moving into the city's new housing, such as the Bayport development near College of Alameda, are among the reasons cited for the enrollment jump.
About 10,000 students currently attend Alameda schools.
Ironically, the projected increase comes in the wake of district leaders deciding last year to close three elementary schools in the city's West End because of declining enrollment.
Some of the students from Longfellow, Miller and Woodstock were shifted to Ruby Bridges, one of the campuses now at capacity.
The former schools currently are being used for other district programs and are not likely to reopen. But the organizers behind the Nea Community Learning Center -- a proposed charter school -- are still hoping to open at one of the sites.
Trustee Mike McMahon noted that officials need to move quickly to find at least a short-term solution to put parents at ease for the upcoming school year.
"We need to develop a policy for how we handle a situation where two or three kids cannot get into a school," Dailey said. "And we need to look at demographic trends and what classroom space is available."
By Kirsten Vital
September 25, 2009
Like school districts across California, the Alameda Unified School District is facing a perfect storm of fiscal crises. The nationwide recession that has reduced state revenue has in turn significantly reduced state funding to the Alameda district.
In 2010-2011, we will face a $3 million deficit, and in 2011-2012, a $7 million deficit.
By 2012-2013, when funding from Measures A and H parcel taxes expires, Alameda Unified School District schools will face a devastating $16 million deficit.
Currently, negotiations are taking place that may result in the placement of a parcel tax on next year's ballot that would replace Measures A and H with a new tax structure. If approved by Alameda voters, that potential replacement tax could help prevent our district from facing such a devastating deficit.
At the request of the school district and John Beery, lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits seeking to overturn Measure H, an advisory committee is being established to work collaboratively with the community to develop a parcel tax that will replace Measures A and H. However, it is important to understand that should any potential replacement parcel tax fail to be approved by Alameda voters, Measures A and H shall remain in effect. Our goal is to find the best possible solution for all Alamedans.
No matter what happens with a possible replacement parcel tax, Alameda Unified School District must address this fiscal crisis now.
That is why the board of education and I have embarked on a master plan process that will give the district a solid fiscal and programmatic road map to follow, rather than waiting to react to fluctuating and declining state funding. The master plan will help Alameda Unified School District control its own programmatic and fiscal future.
But I need your help to undertake this important process.
The district's master plan will be developed with the help of a public process that seeks and incorporates the input of every Alamedan.
The proposed strategies to address the challenges facing the district will be presented for public comment at a series of community workshops from September through early November at the Alameda High School cafeteria, from 6:30-9 p.m. Please take time to attend and let the board of education know your opinions. The dates and probable topics for discussion are:
To view the presentations and proposed strategies on these topics after they are presented, visit the district's Web site at www.alameda.k12.ca.us or the Alameda Unified School District Facebook page.
I encourage everyone to participate in this incredibly important process. The feedback we receive will have a big impact on the master plan and will ensure it effectively addresses our district's challenges. Working together we can provide our children a world class education.
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community. FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.