Hollister
– San Benito High School District Superintendent Jean Burns
Slater spoke to the County Board of Education at an
emotionally-charged meeting Thursday night opening negotiations
concerning the future oversight of San Andreas Continuation High
School.
Hollister – San Benito High School District Superintendent Jean Burns Slater spoke to the County Board of Education at an emotionally-charged meeting Thursday night opening negotiations concerning the future oversight of San Andreas Continuation High School.
For 20 years, SBHS has contracted out its continuation school services through the San Benito County Office of Education, allowing the county to provide for students who cannot succeed in a conventional large high school setting. With the advent of state progress measures such as the Academic Performance Index and the federal No Child Left Behind Act, however, SBHS is held accountable for the performance of San Andreas students. The continuation school is still within the SBHS district and San Andreas’ students scores on standardized tests are combined with the district’s.
For this reason, SBHS wants to rewrite the contract so that the SBHS Board of Trustees will make all policy decisions regarding the continuation school.
“This isn’t about revenues, it’s about accountability,” said Slater. “How can we be required to be accountable when we have no oversight of the program?”
The proposal is not popular with the County Board of Education Trustees, many of whom have taught in an alternative setting or otherwise been involved in the field. After two decades of running San Andreas, the feel trustees they have established a very strong program and are not eager to turn it over to SBHS.
“These kids need very special attention,” said Trustee Mary Anne Filice. “You (the SBHS Board) have a big enough job as it is without taking on extra people… I understand that you’re concerned about accountability, but we’re accountable to every student at San Andreas, we’re responsible for serving students in every way possible.”
COE Trustees also expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the County Board had not been consulted earlier regarding any possible changes to the contract. It was originally drafted by an SBHS subcommittee, but the SBHS school board voted to postpone action after County Superintendent of Schools Tim Foley informed them that he would advise the county board to vote against it.
The contract also asks for about 10 percent San Andreas’ state allocated funding to cover SBHS’ indirect costs associated with sending students to San Andreas, such as identifying which students might perform better in a smaller setting, counseling them, marking attendance, etc. Burns Slater said Thursday it is unclear how much that figure would equal in dollars. Foley argued that because San Andreas is such a small school, a 10 percent cut could have a substantial impact on students.
“The elephant in the room here is really money,” said Joan Campbell-Garcia, President of the County Board.
Both sides agree that the concerns presented Thursday night are the result of a contract written with the understanding that at one time SBHS had little interest in alternative education students.
“For a long time there was a washing of hands, a ‘Now we don’t have to look at you,'” said Slater. “But now that these accountability factors put us on the same page we have to step up and our board cannot wash its hands.”
The County Board called for a joint board meeting – for SBHS and county trustees to come together and discuss a possible compromise allowing the county to continue to run the San Andreas program, but giving SBHS officials a greater role in policy-making. Whether such a compromise is even possible, however, is still up for debate.
“There may not be a way to reconcile this as it stands,” said Foley. “But our students are with us and they will always be with us, if not at San Andreas than somewhere else.”
Should either side decide not to alter the contract, and if the current contract is not renewed, SBHS would ultimately be responsible for finding a new location for an alternative high school and operating it with their own employees.
“I don’t believe that our board feels this is what’s best for our kids, and that’s what we’re concerned with,” said Filice. “And I don’t believe that institutions over individual attention are what these kids need.”
The County Board of Education will be addressing the issue again at their May 11 meeting.
