Budget Blues
The new budget reductions are out and on Tuesday the School Boardwill have a special meeting at Chipman Middle School to take action on the reductions as well as make a final decision about the parcel tax.
Here is a chart put together by Mike McMahon to illustrate the differences from the first round to the second round:
The biggest difference, as you may notice is that JROTC is again off the chopping block, but this time the elimination of class size reductions for Third Grade is helping to bridge a considerable gap. The Vice Principal that was proposed to be completely eliminated from Encinal High School looks to be a part time position now. It also appears that AP classes will be “realigned” with enrollment, I’m not really sure what that means, but it sounds like there will probably be less not more AP classes for students to choose from which really is a detriment to students.
I can understand the lack of enthusiasm that a lot of people have for paying more taxes. Personally, I like to keep my own money in my pockets as well. I don’t have the benefit of a cushy Prop 13 property tax bill. I even pay an additional assessment (a Mello Roos type tax) to pay for city services everyone else in Alameda (with the exception of some homes on Bay Farm) get for free for the price of their property tax. I’m not rolling in money and I don’t live extravagantly, I would rather have the extra $120 a year to pay for groceries, etc… But I also realize that my $120 if combined with my neighbor’s $120, and my neighbor’s neighbor’s $120 can start adding up and doing some real good in this fiscal crisis that ALL school districts throughout California are facing. Of course, except school districts like Piedmont whose populace is willing and able to shell out REAL money for their schools and see a marked benefit from it. Piedmont realizes that it’s not just their fancy houses and nice landscaping that brings value to their homes, but their exceptional schools that add a premium to their homes that you can’t find in Antioch or Pittsburg.
Here’s how I see it, to save Class Size Reductions for third graders only the proceeds from only 834 homes could fund it.
To keep the counselors in Middle School: 750 homes
To maintain the current level of AP classes: 542 homes
Of course this doesn’t even take it the amount of money that could come from businesses around Alameda. A chunk of $7500 from Wind River here, another $7500 from Peet’s there, another $7500 from Perforce and we are halfway ($22,500) to keeping the Independent Study teacher fully funded for our exceptional students like dancers and athletes who may need flexibility for their schedules.
So while we can all dig in our heels and blame the budget problems on the lack of AUSD to plan ahead or administrative staff unwilling to take a paycut — as though that will magically create a $4 million surplus. After all, how many of you out there would be willing to take a paycut because your sole funding source decided that it wasn’t going to give you the money it had promised and instead is only giving you a portion of that. Anyone? No, you’d just quit and find another job if faced with that decision. How much do you think a Superintendent of an entire school district should get paid? How about a CFO of a school district who must understand complicated funding formulas and obscure government codes and regulations?
$10 a month, that’s all they are asking for and that $10 will go a long way to providing for the future of Alameda.
Something I think Alameda homeowners need to weigh in as a factor of “expense” to themselves is how much do they stand to lose in terms of property value if the school system winds up going down the toilet. Yes, that’s a rather cold, mathematically calculated question, but the reality is that Alameda has a squeaky-clean, “family friendly” reputation that has demanded a premium for those seeking to live here.Schools play a huge role in the cost of areas in the Bay Area. If the city loses it’s schools, then it will suddenly lose it’s single biggest financial asset. At the same time, those who cling to their precious home values can kiss a big chunk of that bye-bye if the schools fail.
So while $120 might sound like a lot, keeping the schools open is in their best interest, and $120 pales in comparison and sounds rather cheap to what they stand to lose come the day that Alameda schools become non-viable options for school children.
Pay it. Help the schools. Help your kids, and help yourselves.
Comment by edvard — March 3, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
If the board is serious about pulling in each possible dollar - I found $245,280* to start. According to Mr. McMahon, in 2007, there were 2044 senior exemptions for the parcel tax. The current proposal includes individuals on disability - so let’s add a conservative $5,000 to the exemption pot. $250,000! Please don’t tell me you’re declaring an emergency, but allowing for exemptions.
I agree, $10/month isn’t a show stopping amount. It’s one movie ticket, less than a month’s subscriptioin to Netflix and much less than one month of cable.
Board - if it is so dire, then ask everyone to chip in toward a worthy cause. Think what an extra $250,000 can do for the schools.
*=$120/yr
Comment by Basel — March 3, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Easy for folks who rent (edvard) to ask the others to pay it!
Comment by James Chen — March 3, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Dear Superintendent Dailey and Members of the Board,
It is easier to find funding for music, art and sports using outside funding streams such as PTA, AEF, and team fund raisers, than to try to use outside funds to try to re-institute CSR. Isn’t it?
Our youngest students need the most help in training their focus. For the student’s sake; give those teachers a break - at that age kids brains are at more varied stages of development - those classes require more personalized attention. I am certain 9th graders will deal with larger classes better.
ON THE TAX PROPOSAL BEING CONSIDERED…
How do you evaluate the benefit of quality public education to a parcel of land?
Is it different by size, value, or zoning of parcel?
How do you evaluate the benefit of quality public education to the people in a community? Is it different for parents, singles, couples, newlyweds, the elderly, those with mortgages, or those who rent?
How do you evaluate the benefit of quality public education to businesses in a community? Is it only of value to businesses that own land, or those that make increased profit from students because of their proximity to a school?
Shouldn’t all parcels, all people, and all businesses be taxed to some appropriate level?
(I’m even staying out of the problems with re-development funds.)
How do you determine a “fair” school tax?
Is it “more fair” to those parents with public school students, who physically use the resource of our quality schools? (Some might say parents work hard enough for the schools – and this may be true in some cases.)
Should each piece of dirt be taxed the same, or taxed by the size/value of the piece of dirt?
Do households with more people receive a greater amount of benefit from living in a community with quality schools than a household of one person? Should each person receive a small tax as well?
Is it fair that all to be taxed will be charged the same amount regardless of their ability to pay?
Shouldn’t there be an income based factor as well?
How do you determine what an “adequate” school tax is? Because we can only control locally the programs we can fund locally, how can any amount be too much?
How can you determine the maximum voters will approve?
What will happen next year if State funding is again reduced?
Without somehow having answers to all these questions how can you push for a new tax on the basis of so little study, so little research, so little planning, and public communication?
Don’t we know we are going to need more before 2012? Wouldn’t you take that bet?
While I think that AUSD has done a remarkable and responsible job at throwing this together, I think that our elected officials of the BOE should throw it out, and make clear in absolutely certain terms that the Governor’s proposal is unacceptable, out of order, and off the table. To do otherwise is to send the wrong message to Sacramento. It is time to draw the line.
Is there a way to determine how much of Alameda property tax SHOULD be going to fund State education? And most importantly; is this amount more than what Alameda receives in return?
Aside from all the ‘special assessments’ on property tax bills – is there a specific percentage of base property tax that could be determined, as earmarked for K-12 education? I would really like to know that number, if it could be determined. I know many who would choose to send this portion directly to AUSD, even if it is just for the sake of the message.
What will happen to a new local tax proposal if the State edu budget is increased to satisfy Prop 98? Will there be language to cancel this ‘Band-Aid’ if our State officials do the right thing?
I am sorry to ask so many questions in such a compressed time concept, and most of these questions are not intended to be rhetorical. This is just a symptom of this action being far to ‘rushed’ to make sense.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 4, 2008 @ 12:09 am
“Easy for folks who rent (edvard) to ask the others to pay it!”
James, I really, really resent that comment. I never said that I personally have no problem whatsoever paying additional taxes if it means helping local schools. If what you mean is that by being a homeowner, you or others have a problem paying for additional taxes because what I assume must be a hefty mortgage payment, then who’s fault is that? Why that would be the fault of the person who painted themselves into a financial corner, that’s who, and not the school system.
I come from a 150 year long tradition of teachers in my family, who all taught public school- mind you- and still do so to this day.
The fact of the matter is that the education of today’s children is the single most important element in our society. The advancement of knowledge and confidence in our youth is the only means we have towards a bright and prosperous future. The world isn’t going to sit and wait while the US grows dumber. China has over 70,000 graduate engineer students… every single year. The same numbers are prevalent in India. Yet we, the richest state in the country within the richest country in the world can’t afford to keep our public schools running? WTF?
I find it amazing that there are people who are actually making a fuss over what? 100 bucks? Seriously- that’s pittance money. As someone on this blog already stated, they were on the lower end of the earning scale and THEY would be more than happy to contribute. This whole subject disgusts me.
Comment by edvard — March 4, 2008 @ 7:59 am
Edvard -
I agree with you about the need, and that we ALL benefit because our community has quality public schools that deserve our financial attention.
Just to be clear - how much $ have you contributed to AUSD since you moved to Alameda?
Comment by David Kirwin — March 4, 2008 @ 10:27 am
#4 - “While I think that AUSD has done a remarkable and responsible job at throwing this (parcel tax) together, I think that our elected officials of the BOE should throw it out, and make clear in absolutely certain terms that the Governor’s proposal is unacceptable, out of order, and off the table. To do otherwise is to send the wrong message to Sacramento. It is time to draw the line.”
It is not ok to use our kids as political pawns! You are basically saying we should sacrifice the education of those in the system today for the greater good of those to come. By all means beat up Sacramento for not providing school funding but don’t use my kid as the stick!
Not voting to fund the cuts locally (parcel tax) will force sacramento to take them off the table? Are you willing to bet 4 million dollars on that?. This government has cut the funding for schools in alameda by 7.7 million in the past 7 years and many of those years the economy was booming. Chances are there will be cuts. I am disgusted that you ask the Board of Education to vote against a parcel tax (the only way they can currently provide the funding to provide basic education to our kids) and the reason you ask them is for a political move. The Board of Education is there to help the district to provide the best education they can for our kids and as such I hope they vote for a parcel tax.
I think we should all rally together to sending a message to sacramento (as you say), send letters, emails, go up to demonstrate, donated to the AEF (who has a long term plan to try and fix the bigger picture).
Comment by Alameda Mom — March 4, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
RE#3 Why do people think renters don’t pay a parcel tax? Of course they don’t directly but what landlord doesn’t up the rent at the end of a lease or annually. Maybe I am a mean property owner but I pass the cost on to my tenants as part of the cost of rent.
Comment by Barbara M — March 4, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
#8
The tax is on a parcel of property, not a unit. The tax from a single family home would be the same as a 100 unit apartment building if they both occupy one parcel. As for raising rents, rising costs are a factor, but so is the market. You may be able to pass the parcel tax along to the tenant if the market will bear it. In the case of a one-hundred unit apartment building on one parcel, that cost would only be a little over a dollar a year per unit.
There will also be many more budget blues coming. At this point, I would expect the number of police officers to be cut. Rising crime will cut property values fast. There may be a need for a parcel tax to preserve police services — or keep the animal shelter open.
The news has not been good lately.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 4, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
“Just to be clear - how much $ have you contributed to AUSD since you moved to Alameda?”
None because frankly, I don’t have any kids and thus until recently was unaware of Alameda Schools having problems. Your question didn’t have anything to do with the topic on hand which has been about whether there should be a broad tax to help the schools… of which my response was that I support it, and even if that means we as renters also have to pay, then so be it.
I’m rather tired of this back and forth pandering, so I’ll be blunt ( which I usually am anyway) but I’m going got spell it out.
With what’s going on with the economy, I hope most of you see why there’s a budget shortfall: because California got caught up in speculative fever, spent it’s allowance money in advance, and now has no base in which to collect money within current guidelines.
I blame this in some part to the housing market, which just like the state, was powered by a populace that was uninformed, careless, and speculative. This in turn created the destructive atmosphere that led to where we are now.
The answer for now calls for drastic measures, which for many people means something unpleasant like extra taxes or other immediate options. But the truth is that the system here is still broken and unless the issues that keep causing this cycle to repeat, then these problems are only going to get worse.
This means that more efforts are going to have to be created that creates stable communities. A healthy community has citizens who can afford where they live and have enough leftover for contributing to the economy. A balanced community means a healthier community.
This means better communication between citizens and elected officials. It means a better grasp on economics by both the government and the individuals so that they will know how to cope with financial decisions more effectively versus digging themselves into debt. It means building communities that aren’t simply one-sided and beneficial for one class of people only. It means developing a fostering environment where change, new ideas, and growth are seen as organic, necessary, and cross-beneficial.
In other words: Change.
Anyhow, I think that over the year or so that I’ve been here on this blog, I’ve made an attempt to represent the other side of the argument. I represent what many of us younger families feel. We want to have our own chance here as well. It is sad that about the only way we can is by waiting for devastating crashes in the real estate market like we’re having now. That alone tells you how messed up things are here because frankly, things were NEVER like that back where I came from, and neither should it be here. Then again, I’m sure many of you can simply keep on pretending that this is totally normal. I tend to think otherwise.
I’m taking a sabbatical from this blog. I hope we all can come to a resolution that benefits everyone.
Take care-
Comment by edvard — March 4, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Alameda Mom:
I am not saying that we should not fund the things we want for our kids. I am saying we have to send a clear message to SAC. If they do not obey the rule of law in at least providing the lowest legal limit of funding, then I feel we should use the funds we have to provide for what we want most to fund. That may mean using the 3% reserve to help, despite what SAC says; it may mean we move funds earmarked for state mandates and use them to fill other needs. It may mean that the County BOE will not like the way we are re-proportioning the various school budgets.
Of course I do not mean that two wrongs make a right, I mean it is the State forcing us to take such action.
As for using our kids as pawns - isn’t that what SAC is doing?
Would you be willing to send a portion of your taxes directly to AUSD and not the State’s “meddling middlemen” who are misappropriating our funds and disrespecting the laws passed by the voters of the State? I would, and I would like to know how to evaluate what the figure is.
I do also recognize your point, I too want what is best for our kids, - it is also necessary for the elected officials at State level to abide by the voters. Obviously they do not care what we say, whether we call or write. (But let’s do that too!) They do not care about the laws we pass! They seem to only care about getting elected and they only respond to the movement of money. Arnold eliminated certain taxes that were needed by the State, now he is trying to make up for it by taking money that, by law, belongs to public education. I don’t feel we should go along with that. If we choose to further tax ourselves for our children’s education I will go along with that, but it should be to provide additional services for our children, not to save a politician from the embarrassment of admitting he was wrong and having him re-institute a tax that should never have been eliminated. Aside from the new vehicle tax, CA ‘s spending is off the chart in many regards, from the corporate welfare programs to the criminal justice and prison systems. I heard a report today that CA spends 3X as much as Texas on the prison system, yet Texas has more prisoners and also less repeat offenders. That alone is impressive – (3) times the money spent for fewer inmates that because of the way the system is structured, are more likely to commit more crime when they have “paid their debt to society.” Ca’s problem is not the amount of taxes they take in, but they way they spend to curry favors from special interests.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 4, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Barbara M. your post #8
Why do people think that renters don’t pay parcel tax.? BECAUSE THEY DON’T.
They pay rent, they pay a very small portion of a parcel tax if any. Yet they still use our schools just like a family that owns a home. Our parcel taxes are very unfair towards the middle class, we are expected to carry the load.
A person owning a home worth $300,000. pays the same parcel tax as a person owning a home worth $3,000,000. A person owning a home worth $300,000. pays the same parcel tax as a person owning a $30,000,000. 200 unit apartment building as long as it is one parcel. I just don’t think that is fair.
I just read the text of the proposed new parcel tax, it is $120. per parcel period. Then it is .15 cents per square foot for industrial or comm. with a maximum of $7,500. It has a minimum of $120. for industrial or comm. under 2000 sq. ft.
I still think that we some how need a parcel tax that takes into account value and the amount of units so it would be more fair to all of us.
The one saving grace about this parcel tax is that it ends June 30th 2012.
I have no children in school and I turn 65 in April, but I will support it and pay it just like I hope everyone else does.
John P.
Comment by john piziali — March 4, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Hahahaha! Edvard has contributed $0 towards AUSD and yet talks a big game. What a hypocrite! And, I don’t buy the argument that you didn’t know about AUSD finances until now.
So long edvard, until you resurface under another moniker.
Comment by James Chen — March 4, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
No James,
I’m not talking “Big game”, I’m talking about the truth, which almost all of you here fail to realize and simply ignore, which is that whether you want to admit it or not, the problems come from people like you and everyone else here who seems to be incapable of grasping the simple concept of making real changes to their community that would enable basic amenities like ( gasp) schools that actually function and hospitals that stay open.
The truth is that NIMBYism, umbrella laws,the manipulated demand it creates and the subsequent artificial housing-based economy on which the state counted too heavily on are ALL interconnected. The whole tree structure if corrupted and rotten.This is what leads to budget cuts and infrastructural problems.
I thought I made it very clear above: If you want a community that functions, then guess what? You’re going to have to make it palletable to future residents and yes- that means making developments that real people can afford without bankrupting themselves in the process. This in turn creates a better foundation to build on, both literally an figuratively.
It really is that simple.
All I know is that California is going to lose over 107,000 teachers this year. There is also a severe nursing shortage, as is with Police officers, Firemen, Doctors, and other vitally important public professionals. Some of that is because the state can’t afford them. But the other is because these people can’t live the life they want to live that is easily obtainable elsewhere. THAT’s the problem. That’s where having a stable and fostering environment helps encourage people like these to stay and contribute. Frankly, My hat is off to any teacher in California who actually stays because I know I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Anyhow, I’m tired of wasting my time here since nobody seems to really want to make any changes that would start addressing these issues in the first place. I just spelled it out real plainly for you. I’ve said my peace. Now I really am on my sabbatical.
Comment by edvard — March 5, 2008 @ 7:41 am
I think two things need to happen…
1. Sue the state for proper/equal funding for schools.
2. Increase the parcel tax to moret than $120/parcel. If the new tax only raises $3.9 million less the expense of the election then AUSD is still cutting programs. Let’s go $150 or $200 parcel and keep the low income/ederly/disabled exemptions. Perhaps hit larger property owners (landlords) for a little more. I’d even support a progressive property tax based on current assesments so that the tax hits those that are more able to pay it the most (I would be one of those people). It can still sunset in 2012 and we can look at it again at that time.
Comment by castromjc — March 5, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Let’s also word the ballot measure to serve what we want served. The wording is a re-hash of the last measure - the one the unions raided because it was “new income” and they deserved their share. AUSD Admin should be aware of the consequences of the words they chose and what the language in the union contracts includes. The well respected Chairman of the Oversight committee recently resigned over this issue, and now we are using the same wording!
My understanding is that the wording was chosen by a “select group” of Franklin parents. Not surprising their main concern is to prevent the district’s tiniest schools from merging. It is the largest elementary schools which serve the district most efficiently and that are honored with the most State and National awards. Why merging elementary schools not discussed by the BOE? Gold Coast parents and the BOE member who puts his kids into private school have an unfair influence on the direction of the cuts.
In brief the ballot measure as proposed is both inadequate in $ collected and lacks specificity in what it can be used for. It looks like somebody has personal interests to protect. Are wealthy parents more deserving of having their interests protected? I think not!
AUSD should clean up the ballot to something that can get passed because AUSD needs the money, but this re-hash is the wrong approach.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 5, 2008 @ 8:08 am
Dave Kirwin’s comment about “me too” raises tacked on by the various unions is a perfect example of why this parcel tax is a bad idea.
One of the many reasons Vallejo is tetering on the brink of bankruptcy is the huge and unsustainable wage increases over the years.
In the end (as always) it is the Gold coast elite vs the rest of the island … guess who wins every time?
Comment by Phil S — March 5, 2008 @ 8:43 am
castromjc, your ideas are NON starters. Unless you are living under a rock and haven’t kept up with the state of the economy … people are tired of any new taxes and will flatly refuse to approve! Witness the recent fiasco involving Oakland Children’s hospital? Despite all the “heart tugging” letters supposedly from the kids, the initiative LOST big time. I predict our mailboxes will be flooded with similar syrupy letters from AUSD … they are headed straight for the recycling bin.
Comment by Phil S — March 5, 2008 @ 8:52 am
It may make some feel better to bash the “Gold Coast Elite”** but last I checked, the GC contains a fairly small pctg of voters and an address on San Antonio or Palmera still means 1 vote per citizen.
And DK, WRT to merging the schools, wouldn’t that require a significant construction effort? I’m all about efficiency, as my posts about budgets & governance indicate, but a lack of operating funds indicates a lack of construction capital.
——
*** definition of elite: anyone more successful than or having 1 more dollar than the poster of the term
Comment by dave — March 5, 2008 @ 9:27 am
#18 give me a break - Childrens hospital tax was doomed since it was a private non-Alameda entity. Why should we tac on more taxes of this variety- will it be the coliseum next? Parcel taxes should only support local programs.
I’m strongly in favor of a parcel tax to support our local schools, local causes - a permanant parcel tax to ensure Alameda schools are tops.
You vote this down – then as a home owner – I’m sure your property value will suffer. # 1 question of anyone moving to a town – how are the schools? (maybe it isn’t #1 but it has to be up there…)
And this gold coast envy… you can walk down any tree lined street in Alameda to see beautiful homes. That of course is the draw.
Comment by ChrisO — March 5, 2008 @ 11:50 am
14
The good news is you’re going on a sabbatical, the bad news is your sabbaticals only last a day.
Comment by anachrofella — March 5, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
The City is also facing a budget crisis. A number of police officers are retiring this year. The question remains how many of those will be replaced? Crime is out of control in Oakland. Some of us are concerned that Alameda is an easy target. Those that killed Iko came armed to Alameda to commit crimes. We cannot afford to have any cuts in police services. Oakland plans on hiring more police. If we do not do the same, then we become easy prey.
I think that the first question people ask about a community is how safe is it? How many murders, robberies, beatings, assaults, rapes and burglaries do you have in this neighborhood?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 5, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
In response to 22.
Good points but also seem to support yet another parcel tax - that would be equally worthy (I really hope it doesn’t come to that.) If they were going to drastically cut the police - would you not be in favor of a parcel tax for that purpose?
I sound like a tax happy person - no way - I do not want to pay these things - but I cannot stand by and see the schools distroyed.
Comment by ChrisO — March 5, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Indeed the city does face a budget issue, though it’s not at the same crisis point the school district has reached.
One way for the city to improve its financial outlook is to change its retirement system from pensions to a 401k style plan. Those retiring police will cost the city for many years to come. A private sector type of retirement will go a long way to shoring up the city’s finances.
As for crime issue, I completely agree with you. A reform of the pension system will make it easier to hire more police.
Comment by dave — March 5, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
#19 dave - AHS cannot absorb EHS population, even if the portables were put back where they were during the last phase of construction, and a 2nd story of portables were added like they have been at Lincoln. (I’m not sure of the greatest number of portables that would fit at AHS)
I would guess that a single HS would be possible when the interim library is returned to useful classrooms if the Administration and Adult school were also converted back to HS use. But just returning the ‘Interim Library’ back into classrooms is a very expensive endeavor. (Last set of numbers presented to Measure ‘C’ Oversight Committee was $12M.) We are not sure whether the current amount left in Measure C money even when coupled with other facility $ such as the city developer fees, State growth funds, State Modernization funds etc will get us through all the Measure C plans which did include the HAHS. I would not advocate merging the two main high schools.
Last night, mergers of elementary schools was not discussed - (Good God we can’t touch Edison or Franklin - where Don Perata’s grand daughter goes to school, yet this tiny school of about 250 students costs the full spectrum of administration. Last night BOE Member David Forbes did talk about how the delay of the other mergers cost the District dearly (I think in the millions), and Superintendant Daily did say that we would likely be reduced to two Middle Schools. Why does the language of the new Parcel tax start with the idea that it is for “Minimizing School Closures”?
We should be encouraging school mergers if it will save other programs. These tiny schools mean that the cost per student way way more expensive than at the larger schools. Spending more per pupil at those schools means loss of programs for the rest of the district. Is that fair? I was told the language of the measure was in a large part determined by Barbara M and company, and that district PTA and the community at large were not allowed to be part of the process, not even the full BOE was invited to participate.
IS THIS TRUE??
I would like to see the operating cost breakdown for all our schools – a breakdown that only relates # students to on-site teachers and staff, as well as utilities etc, but not the extra district assistance such as the cost of district maintenance work done at the sites, or extra-curricular activities, which relate to overall district costs for students and not costs related to the facility itself.
If we are going to crunch numbers I think these are vital statistics. I think we will see the cost effectiveness of large schools. I would caution that there is a limit and a problem beyond diminishing returns. As schools get too large, students can “get lost”. The school becomes more impersonal, the relationship of adults to students can be diminished. Berkeley HS was once up to 3600 - 3800 students when they 1st added 9th grade (late 70’s - early 80’s) When I started to work at BHS in 2002 there was a movement to “small schools” - even though there are now only about 3,000 students, it is broken down in to several ’small schools’ based on varied curriculums. This is an attempt to keep students feeling “a part of” within their academic involvement. Obviously sports and socializing are very important to students and to their development at this impressionable age.
Comment by David Kirwin — March 6, 2008 @ 12:10 am