READER’S EDITORIAL: GUHSD BOARD ENDS HOPE FOR NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN ALPINE

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 By Bill Weaver

 
 
  
October 2, 2011 (Alpine)--The September 29, 2011 Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) Special Board Workshop did not turn out as we expected. We expected full consideration of all available demographic data when the Board voted on new boundaries for all schools in the district. We did not get that.
 
The GUHSD Board discussions totally avoided data and charts that offered reasons to build the District’s 12th high school in Alpine. The majority of Board members rushed to hasty judgments, made unfounded conclusions, and then voted to kill the Alpine and Blossom Valley-serving 12th high school (HS12) project.
 
 
 
The vote result was four in favor of the HS9 Boundary Committee (BC) option, with one Board member opposed (Priscilla Schreiber). The HS9 option sets new district attendance boundaries without any consideration of a future 12th high school. Two other options were discussed, then quickly dismissed. HS12 Option assumed a 12th high school would open as planned in September 2013. HS12 modified considered a delayed opening of the future 12th high school.
 
Had this GUHSD Board adequately reviewed and considered all of the data available, understood the charts, and delved further into the material, to fully comprehend the narratives contained in the Boundary Committee Reports, they would have a hard time justifying the majority of this Board voting for the HS9 choice. The data simply does not support this choice.
 
I am mystified, but I must say I am not surprised. This current GUHSD Board defies logical patterns of behavior, thinking, and consideration for due process. Their most recent decision makes mystical nonsense of its past actions, including its July 14 action, with its almost total disregard for the BC student recovery analysis which predicts substantially quicker recovery of lost students with a new 12th high school. I have observed this Board ignoring or avoiding bountiful positive data, and concentrating on snippets of only negative data over and over.
 
Under consideration on Sept 29 were three GUHSD Boundary Committee recommendations:
 
Option 1) The HS9 option was to move forward, and balance the student populations throughout the district with reasonably no more than 450 or so students from the highest populated campus to the low campus. The current disparity is 1248 students. This option was to be done without considering the 12th new GUHSD high school’s existence in the formula for redistributing district students within new attendance boundary areas. 
 
Option 2) The HS12 option was to assume the 12HS would open as planned in 2013 and to accommodate such, this option would reduce disparity to 398 students and begin to transition students into HS12 upon opening. 
 
Option 3) Dubbed “HS12 modified” or “HS12 delayed”, was shuffled into the report four days prior to the July 14, 2011 Board Meeting. This third option became necessary for the BC to add because of information learned, of a proposed board resolution forthcoming to delay building and opening the HS12 new school. Resolution #2011-05 to delay HS12 was introduced within minutes of the Board being presented with the BC findings and recommendations on July 14. This third option was inserted in consultation between BC Chair Doug Deane, Supt. Ralf Swenson, GUHSD staff member Gary Schartzwald, and demographer Vince O’Hara.
 
It was expected that the GUHSD Governing Board would endorse the HS12 modified option. Again, mystically they did not endorse this, the most logical option. After only 80 minutes of discussion, that didn't touch on any reasons for why the HS12 should be built, a vote was taken. The vote result was four in favor of the HS9 option, with one opposed (Priscilla Schreiber). The Board's Resolution #2011-05 and the HS9 option chosen, is fraught with contradictions when considering all of the data, the charts, and telling narratives contained throughout the BC reports. This Board voted in an illogical and unfair manner in choosing the HS9 option. The data doesn't support this choice.
 
Now the HS9 option is to be vetted with the public at several community meetings to be held over the next three weeks. After this the Board will meet and vote to finalize its acceptance of a more vetted HS9 plan. The new 12th high school has (effectively) been killed by way of HS9, which indefinably, or likely forever, delays the 12th high school.
 
Why? The Governing Board's Resolution #2011-05 places covenants and conditions on when, and how the construction of the 12th HS may be resumed, and even this is subject to being re-approved by the Board. Because these covenants and conditions will not likely be met until many years again pass, I feel the project that results in a 12th high school actually opening its doors as the GUHSD 12th HS, is effectively dead. I have only a smidgen of optimism that still exists.
 
These Governing Board decisions have not taken into account all the data and facts available. There are statistically derived predictions saying a 12th high school opening in 2013 will bring revenue gains, and gains in the total number of students attending the GUHSD. There was no discussion of these, or many other benefits that would enhance the GUHSD as a School District, by moving forward with the construction of the 12th high school ASAP.
 
Further, The GUHSD Governing Board ignored the regional economic stimulus that could bolster our region’s school property tax base, and increase revenue to the GUHSD. They discounted the CA ADA gains that the HS12 project would bring. They did not consider the safety gains with reduced crowding at Granite Hills HS, or the cost savings associated with not replacing many dilapidated portable classrooms at GHHS, costs only saved if the 12th HS is opened as soon as possible. Nor did they adequately investigate the transportation safety gains, or cost savings due to opening a local Alpine area HS, or the reduced collective transportation hours, saving thousands of hours of wasted time traveling back and forth to school.
 
They ignored the fact that students (some lost to demographic shifts and hundreds lost to charter and private non-district high schools) would be recovered much more quickly if the HS12 were built and opened ASAP. Much of this data is contained within the pages of the Boundary Committee reports. These are pertinent facts and predictions that were never thoroughly delved into or discussed adequately. The GUHSD Governing Board decision made on September 29, 2011 ignored every benefit that the HS12 project would offer. Many more benefits exist than this report can touch.
 
This decision to endorse the HS9 option defies good fiscal policy, and goes against what is in the best interest for educating all of the district’s students.
  
Bill Weaver is an East San Diego County education and civic advocate who was named
Alpine Leadership and Public Service Citizen of the Year – 2009. The opinions in this editorial reflect views of its author and do not necessarily reflect views of East County Magazine. To submit an editorial, contact editor@eastcountymagazine.org.
 

Error message

Support community news in the public interest! As nonprofit news, we rely on donations from the public to fund our reporting -- not special interests. Please donate to sustain East County Magazine's local reporting and/or wildfire alerts at https://www.eastcountymedia.org/donate to help us keep people safe and informed across our region.

Comments

Alpine High School

In 2004 my oldest son was in Elementary School, and Prop. H was just being put on the ballot.
I read the measure and realized there was nothing in the wording of the proposition that required GUHSD to build a High School in Alpine.
I then wrote an opinion piece in the Alpine Sun opposing the bond, stating that due to the fact that GUHSD was not required by the bond measure to build the school, and given GUHSD past reputation for credibility, it was clear to anyone looking at the issue the High School would never be built, and advised against the bond measure.
Mr. Weaver responded to my opinion piece in the next issue by supporting the GUHSD and encouraging a yes vote on prop H.
He defended the GUHSD and assured the people of Alpine the High School would be built.
Four years later my oldest son was in Jr. High School and nothing had been done as far as building Alpine a High School despite the passage of Prop.H.
GUHSD then put Prop.U on the ballot promising this time they would build Alpine the badly needed High School.
Once again I read the proposition and found no wording requiring GUHSD to build the new school.
I then wrote another piece in the Alpine Sun advising against the bond and indicating the only way a High School would ever be built in Alpine was for the Alpine School District to do it themselves.
Once again Mr. Weaver responded by defending GUHSD.
Prop U passed and the citizens of Alpine endured yet another lien placed against their homes to finance a promise they would never see.
My son graduated Jr High School, and went on to attend a High School at which he had to spend 4 to 5 hours a day being bused back and forth.
This is despite the fact that funds for the school he should have been attending in his own town were borrowed and secured by the people of Alpine nearly a decade before.
Now GUHSD has finally admitted they have no intention of building Alpine the High School we have paid for, and Mr. Weaver says he is "mystified".
I now have another son in Elementary School in Alpine and I know the only way he will ever attend a High School in Alpine is if the Alpine School District, who is directly responsible to the people of Alpine, builds it.
We need to file legal action against GUHSD to recover funds acquired under false pretences, and use the funds recovered from that action, along with a new bond to unify Alpine School District and begin construction on a promise long ago made.