The fact that San Benito High School needs help is beyond dispute. The help school leaders are asking for is outlined in Measure G, a $42.5 million property tax bond, but the key question for the voters is will the money actually go to sorely needed academic facilities or will a huge chunk of it go to sports fields and stadiums?
The academic performance of SBHS has been mediocre at best. The 2013 API of 759 failed to reach the state minimum of 800 in spite of being in the last year of the mandated five-year Program Improvement brought on by poor performance. The 2012 API comes in at 56th place when compared with 100 other California high schools with similar demographics. The “Measurable Objective” scores are nowhere near the 88% proficiency target; 74% for white students in English and 67% in math; 48% and 44% for Hispanic/Latino students. Fixing and modernizing the school would help, but only if the funds were used properly.
California Proposition 39 allows school facility bonds to pass with only 55% of the vote provided they meet special provisions – one of which is that the measure must contain, “A specific list of projects to be funded …”
Rather than list specific projects as required, Measure G’s list is a smorgasbord of general statements such as, “Construct, improve or renovate PE and athletic facilities if needed for student welfare or to accommodate other school, classroom and lab improvements.” What does that even mean?
Upgrading the sports facilities is located in Category 1, while improving labs and adding vocational support, items that are critical to academic achievement, are in what appears to be a lower priority, Category 2. Most important, the specific list in the measure is not specific at all on the amount in dollars or percent to be spent on athletic facilities. A specific list containing more than 70 items with detailed cost estimates already exists. It’s for an (old cost) $86 million plan – 24% of which, more than $20 million, is earmarked for athletic facilities such as a new stadium ($3.1 million), an aquatic center ($2 million) and six new ball fields ($7.1 million).
That is simply too much money and too big of a budget slice for athletics. Considering the crying need to improve the academic performance at SBHS, the school board members should make a public pledge not to spend more than 10% of the bond proceeds, $4.2 million, on athletic related facilities. That is a lot of money, more than enough to mitigate any safety or access issues.
Unfortunately, Measure G appears to put athletic facility spending in the top priority, Category 1, while many classroom and lab improvement are in Category 2. I have a difficult time convincing myself this was happenstance.
It the board cares for the students, then trustees need to take the pledge – 10% maximum for athletic-related facilities, and 90% for all the rest. It’s a reasonable split for an underperforming school and it would get my support and should get the support of the community, while there is still time to do it right before election day. So far, only board member Ray Rodriguez has publicly committed to that plan.
SBHS needs academic and vocational support more than new sports fields and stadiums built to stoke local egos. First and foremost the mission is education – and that mission is not going well. Until the public gets that commitment, voters should reject Measure G and tell the board to come back with a plan for education. Let’s get our priorities straight.
