In the Friday, Feb. 11, 2005 edition of the Free Lance a large
portion of the front page was devoted to
”
High School considering $3.3 million expansion.
”
Editor,
In the Friday, Feb. 11, 2005 edition of the Free Lance a large portion of the front page was devoted to “High School considering $3.3 million expansion.”
The expansion being a new sports facility. I am certain this would be a welcome addition to the high school and the town. I understand the coaches feeling that “sports tend to get short shrift by the administration.” My concern is that the entire student population at SBHS gets short shrift in providing the services and learning environment to which they are lawfully entitled.
In light of the fact that API scores are declining, fights are escalating, and a “closed campus” is impossible to maintain with approximately 2,800 students and there is not enough administration or campus security to control the continual flow of students coming and going to the school throughout the day, I have a hard time seeing a new sports facility as being the possible No. 1 priority to justify pulling money from the general fund.
The consideration of building a life skills center for the severely handicapped is worthwhile even if they are only a small portion of the school. What about earmarking the money so the kids who constantly “fall through the cracks” in our school system don’t really get left behind? Many kids fall into this category.
Improving communication with parents and the community about the needs and concerns of the school is worthwhile and needn’t take a huge chunk of money from the general fund.
When my child comes home and has multiple teachers discussing with their classes the need to bring up test scores by 20 percent to avoid future state intervention, and I only know what my child shares with me and what is written in the local paper, I get concerned.
By the way, I applaud those teachers’ efforts. Thank you for caring and getting the word out to students. As a result, I have been doing research, making phone calls, and am trying to get some answers.
Phone calls to some high school staff were very enlightening, while other calls were status quo admin response such as, “API scores were sent to parents in September.” That information is required to be made public, but it was not an answer to my continual question of “When are parents going to be notified of what our students are being told by their teachers?”
Eventually, I was able to learn that there has been discussion and a decision made to accept state funds to hire an outside consulting firm to come in and make suggestions as to how to correct problems and improve the high school. Sounds good, but it is a requirement that the school do this. Take a look at the California Department of Education site.
I would love to have been notified of the concerns and implications rather than have to do my own research. Yes, the information about the decision to accept state money and hire outside consulting is supposed to be made available to parents in the March newsletter, but if teachers are concerned and students are concerned, why is the administration not giving priority given to notifying parents?
The discussions between teachers and students have been going on for several weeks now. Why wait for the newsletter?
Are parents aware that when a school fails to meet AYP for two consecutive years it is deemed in need of improvement and students must be offered public school choice with transportation to be paid by the school? After three years, the school is labeled in need of improvement and other actions must be taken. Years four and five require much more including restructuring of the school. Are good teachers going to want to be associated with a failing school? How will this look when applying to colleges?
It takes very little to do the research.
Kim Taylor, Hollister
