School Closures-The Real Story (edit this)
The SF School Board had its school closure meeting last night. With a smaller crowd than last week (approximately 300-400 people), the one hour of public testimony on the process turned to one hour on why the District shouldn’t close schools.
Monique Bradford stated, “This process hasn’t been transarent.” Amos Brown said, “Come let us reason together.”
The votes for the closures and mergers were as follows:
1. Move JBBP West currently in outer Sunset to Rosa Parks at O’Farrell and Webster. The testimony centered on the Board’s concern that the school will become more segregated with the middle class, Japanese and white students of JBBP not uniting with the mainly African-American and Latino students at Rosa Parks. The District stated that they would monitor the situation.
Ayes to Move JBBP West to Rosa Parks-Wynns, Chin, Mar, Yee, Kelly and Sanchez
Nos-Lipson
2. Merge John Swett Elementary Students located at Golden Gate and Franklin with John Muir Elementary School at Webster and Haight
Ayes-Kelly, Wynns, Chin and Yee
Nos-Lipson, Sanchez and Mar
At the end of that vote, a parent cried out, “I have had seven children in that school. Why are you doing this to black students?” As he cried out his anguish to the Board of Education members, he was led out by SF Police officers. It was the most heart-rendering point of the meeting.
Eric Mar specifically asked Chris Hayashi if the District was going to use the school for administration (it is across the street from SFUSD’s HQ). Hayashi referred the question to Deborah Sims, Chief Academic Officer who referred it to Myong Leigh, Chief of Planning and Process. His answer was that it was ultimately up to the Board of Education.
3. Merge New Traditions with Grattan. Sarah Lipson moved and Norman Yee second that the action item to merge the two schools be taken off the resolution-in effect to keep New Traditions open.
Ayes-Kelly, Lipson, Chin, Yee, Mar, Sanchez, Wynns
4. Dan Kelly made the motion to change the original resolution of International Studies Academy (ISA) and Maxwell Middle School merging together to closing Enola Maxwell Middle School and moving ISA to the former Enola Maxwell site.
Motion to close Maxwell and move ISA to merge site:
Ayes: Kelly, Yee, Chin, Lipson, Mar and Wynns
No: Sanchez
5. Yee then made a motion to pull off the item to have Daniel Webster Elementary School at Missouri and 20th merge with Starr King at Carolina and 22nd. Lipson seconded it.
Ayes: Lipson, Chin, Yee, Kelly, Mar, Sanchez and Wynns
6. A motion to take Newcomer off the resolution (so it would stay where it is) was made by Eric Mar. Much of the discussion was surrounded by the $700,000 that the District would receive from City College to rent the site. Mar pointed out that “big bucks should not trump our students’ needs.” Eric Mar also asked about gang activity near the proposed new location for Newcomer. Frank Tom, assistant principal for high schools, essentially said that there is gang activity throughout the City and he was assured by SFPD that there was not a great deal amount of gang activity near the proposed new location for Newcomer at 22nd and Dolores.
Motion to keep Newcomer at their site on Jackson and Fillmore (the actual item was to remove the action item about Newcomer from the final resolutioin). The votes were:
Ayes: Chin, Mar, Sanchez
Nos: Kelly, Lipson, Wynns, Yee
There wasn’t any discussion on where the students of Edison Charter would be moved to-since they are now at the new location at 22nd and Dolores for Newcomer High School.
7. Motion to move AIM High from DeAvila site at Haight and Central to Luther Burbank at LaGrande.
It was accepted by consensus.
8. Motion to move the item to merge Willie Brown Academy and Gloria Davis Middle School off the list, so both Willie Brown Academy and Gloria Davis Middle School can stay at their current sites was made by Dan Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Sanchez, Wynns, Mar, Chin, Lipson, Yee
Nos-None
9. The resolution to move Downtown High School at 18th and Valencia to the current ISA site at 400 Vermont was not commented or voted on. This means that the original recommendation to move Downtown to ISA’s current location stayed in the resolution and Downtown will be moving to 400 Vermont next year.
10. Motion to take Peabody off the list and not close it was made by Eddie Chin. Eric Mar seconded it.
Ayes-Chin, Lipson, Mar, Wynns and Yee
No-Kelly and Sanchez
So Peabody will stay open at its current location.
11. Sanchez made the motion to phase out the closing of Burbank over one year. The motion failed:
Ayes-Chin, Sanchez
Nos-Kelly, Lipson, Mar, Wynns, Yee
With that, the original action of closing Burbank Middle School was left in the resolution-and thus Luther Burbank MS was closed.
12. Motion to take the action of closing both Sheridan ES and Ortega ES off the list (and thus Sheridan and Ortega would stay open) was made by Commissioner Sanchez. The motion was passed by consensus of the entire Board. But staff was directed to explore creating a K-8 model with Sheridan, since Sheridan has the space and the neighborhood just lost its middle school (Burbank).
13. Motion to take McKinley ES off the list was made by Lipson and seconded by Kelly.
Ayes-Lipson, Sanchez, Mar, Wynns, Yee, Kelly and Chin
Nos-None
14. Motion to take Malcolm X Academy (ES) off the list was made by Mar. There was no discussion on item before the vote.
Ayes-Chin, Lipson, Mar, Sanchez, Yee
Nos-Kelly, Wynns
15. Motion was made to not open Dianne Feinstein Elementary School. General Counsel David Campos stated that since the item was not noticed, it couldn’t be discussed.
16. The item to close Cabrillo was never discussed-which meant that the action to close Cabrillo remained in the resolution-which was passed. In other words, Cabrillo was closed without discussion.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:16 am e
Thank you for this useful detail, Kim. I found reading the details of the motions and votes important information.
I do have to note, again, the confusion in this line:
>>
Commissioner Mar IS the District. He’s a 6-year veteran BOE member and just finished a term as BOE president. It’s not possible to be MORE “the District” than that.
Also, leftinsf readers may be interested in an unscientific poll on the school-closure issue taken on the sfschools listserve — Yahoo lists have a clever poll feature.
There happened to be 100 participants as of this morning. Voters could check as many as they liked.
The most interesting point is that an option proposed by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi (I am still not clear if any BOE members supported it) as a legitimate stopgap solution is the ONLY poll choice to get zero legitimate votes. This is the proposal for an advance against Prop. H funds. (The poll shows one vote, but the voter posted on sfschools that she checked that by mistake.) And that’s despite a plea for support posted on sfschools a few days ago by a Mirkarimi staffer.
Other key points are that “…close some schols … get it over with and do it now” got 21 votes, compared with “…closures should be put off at least till next year,” which got 12. “The district can find the money to keep (all schools) open” got 1.
“Balancing the district budget is critical” got 25 votes, compared with 3 for “keeping schools open is worth not balancing the district budget.”
“State takeover of SFUSD … may be necessary” got 5 votes. I noted in a post on sfschools a couple of days ago that schools would DEFINITELY close, and
probably with no community input at all, if the state took over the district. I noted that this option got no votes after that point was made, for what it’s worth.
I would be curious to ask the 5 individuals who cast those votes if they still think a state takeover is an acceptable option given that aspect of it.
Below are the poll results.
SFUSD should not close any schools. The district can find the money to keep them all open without taking money from the city. Votes: 1
SFUSD does need to close some schools, and it’s going to be painful and divisive whenever it happens, so the district should get it over with and do it now. Votes: 21
SFUSD does need to close some schools, but the process needs to be more fair and effective, so the closures should be put off at least till next year. Votes: 12
The city should give the money to SFUSD outright to prevent any school closures this year. Votes: 8
The city should lend SFUSD the money to prevent any school closures this year, but not as an advance against Prop. H funds. Votes: 3
The city should advance money to SFUSD against future Prop. H funding to prevent any school closures this year. Votes: 1
(Note: the person who cast the vote above says she did it by mistake, so this is really zero)
No schools should be closed this year, and a Community Advisory Committee should be created to study and recommend a process on future closures. Votes: 11
Balancing the district budget is critical. Votes: 25
Keeping schools open is worth not balancing the district budget. Votes: 3
State takeover of SFUSD is a last resort, but may be necessary. Votes: 5
A Community Advisory Committee on school closures would not lessen the painful impact, so there’s no point to creating one. Votes: 10
##
January 20th, 2006 at 9:22 am e
Sorry for the confusion at the beginning of my reply above. Symbols I used must have caused the program to eat the section I pasted, referring to Eric Mar speaking of “the District” as though he were not part of the District.
Then I noted that that part is not in this leftinsf post anyway, but came from the slightly longer version Kim posted on sfschools. But since I started here, I’ll finish. The section below, again, refers to Eric speaking to the District as though he were some kind of rebel outsider. Au contraire — a 6-year BOE veteran and recent past BOE president is the ultimate District insider.
Here’s the section in question:
Commissioner Mar reminded the District and the audience that students at closed schools (including students who had chosen closed schools for this year’s Round 1) got priority in this year’s Round 1.
He then pressed the District about students from merged schools or relocated schools
January 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pm e
thanks so much for the detailed info! much more informative than the chron…
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 am e
I thank you Kim for the detailed post. Due to family issues I could not stay. i must comment on the sfschools poll, with all due respect to Caroline and her dedication and hard work, but I, one of the despised posters of the list tried to vote but my dysfunctional computer did not register the vote. I also think that the poll is unscientific as all voluntary polls always acknowledge. I did not choose the one mentioning the Prop H funds per se because it really was the factor in other options, like how could we implement any postponement without Prop H funds or have the opportunity to keep the schools open while creating a Community Advisory Council with out the city advance. I do not have all the answers at my disposal as I type but hope my point is made. The Prop H really is part of the other answers not a stand alone answer. Although there are about 500 negative critical nay-sayers on her listserve, I’d say 6000 students, dozens of district employees, thousands of parents and community member recognize and support Supervisor Mirkarimi’s dedication, commitment and concern. Sup. Mirkarimi has demonstrated leadership when other leaders have dismissed us, he has given the voiceless and powerless a voice.
January 22nd, 2006 at 5:33 am e
I agree with Tami’s assessment of Supervisor Mirkarimi’s efforts, and I want to point out that, although he has been accused by some as “grandstanding” with this issue, it has been obvious to those of us who have been working with him on the school closing issue that his feelings and statements about this problem were heartfelt and genuine. He was willing to stick his neck out for the parents and children of this City, which is more than I can say for the Mayor.
January 29th, 2006 at 11:51 am e
Tami, you are not a “despised” poster. All views are welcome on sfschools; views that appear to agree with yours appear frequently and vigorously; and those who agree with each other on one issue frequently disagree with each other on another. There are 700-plus members of the listserve; many only lurk; many post very rarely; and of those who do, I don’t think 500 of them could possibly be described as “critical naysayers.”
People are not inherently “critical naysayers” just because they disagree with you, or with me. In my opinion, effective advocates understand that they can still respect people who disagree with them — and remember that disagreeing on one issue doesn’t mean disagreeing on every issue; alliances shift, and shift back.
Re the sfschools poll — yes, it’s unscientific by its nature. However, there were plenty of heated voices on sfschools supporting Mirkarimi’s “don’t close any schools” effort, and Mirkarimi’s aide posted a message promoting his push to use Prop. H funds to keep schools open. So it’s quite striking that that option in the unscientific poll got only one vote of 119 — now we know it should have two, if Tami was unable to vote.
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:25 pm e
I just was able to locate this post and see Caroline’s response. Yes, I am despised, but that is neither here nor there. I have copied and pasted below the poll option that most closely states my opinion.
“No schools should be closed this year, and a Community Advisory Committee should be created to study and recommend a process on future closures. Votes: 11″
Make that 12, but this does not preclude Prop. H as this is probably how this goal would be accomplished.
I do not call people “negative nay sayers” for simply disagreeing with me, but because that is my interpretation of their views. I have posted ad nauseum on sfschools why I am unable to accept the schools board’s decisions but no matter what I say, you disagree. Your right of course but in my opinion, insensitive to MY community’s realities. I have no vested interest in Newcomer, but I know the Peruano that works at the coffee shop I buy my lattes at in Pacific Heights and attended Newcomer, a guy, I am sure has never read our listserve and probably has NOTHING to do with the SFUSD politics has spontaneously commented to me things like “It is safe here”, “Too many gangs where they want to relocate the school” and the most obvious, “RACISM”. These are his opinions and I trust them as accurate. I was moved by the Calvary Church’s appeal to keep Newcomer at its present location because of a community/ school partnership they have created. I got tired of the exchange on gangs on sfschools but the Sunday Chronicle following our exchange had an extensive article on the increase in gang violence and the rise in the Latino mortality rate because of this. So as much as my opinion was dismissed and ridiculed, the facts speak for themselves. Do we need children from Newcomer murdered to validate the community’s concern? I am one for prevention.
On a more positive note, as unpleasant as I find your posts to me and as much as I oppose your comments regarding Mirkarimi’s effort to assist his district and the entire SFUSD community, there are times you post wonderful comments, your facts, your comments are most welcome. I was even emailed your Examiner article on charter schools by a labor activist I know who opposes charter schools as strongly as you do! So I agree with your comment, even political polar opposites can find common ground sometimes!
February 5th, 2006 at 2:27 pm e
Thanks for the compliment, Tami!
A few of important points here that go beyond just our own comments on sfschools and into the greater community discussion:
We are not at all political polar opposites, especially in the greater scheme of things. I bet if you picked 10 crucial political issues, I’d agree with you on most of them. We disagree on some points from an overall similar perspective (as your comment on my charter criticism indicates).
It’s completely normal to agree on some issues and disagree on others. This happens with my closest friends, my husband, people I work closely on advocacy issues,e tc. So assuming “this person is my enemy because she disagrees with me” is both counterproductive and unsupported. We may well (and probably will) end up shoulder to shoulder on some future issue to come along.
Surely it’s not accurate that “no matter what (you) say,” I disagree with you. I undoubtedly agree with you on many issues.
Disagreeing with you is not the same as dismissing, despising or ridiculing you. It’s a healthy aspect of free speech and democracy.
I’m posting these comments publicly because I actually do think this is a characteristic at the far ends of the political spectrum, too — the notion that disagreement is really, really bad. It’s not! It’s normal and healthy. It would be creepy, scary and repressive if no one dared to disagree or debate.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:19 am e
Caroline,
Thanks for the nice words. I never had heard of LeftinSF until the posts on SFSchools! It is hard to track down these posts, so I at least wanted to acknowledge that I read and appreciate what you wrote, and will certainly think over the points you made to me.