I think part of the difficulty in this analysis may be equating sites with schools. Schools are not buildings, they are communities. If you could have the Balboa staff take over Burton augmented by high performing Burton staff, and automatically transfer the students that choose to stay from both sites, it is arguable that the quality of Balboa could be preserved at the new site. The active parents in the PTA at Burton who remain would probably help improve the new PTA as well, as there will be more highly dedicated parents to form the new core. I am not sure if this solution would survive review and certainly not implementation unscathed, but my point is that any consolidation should give the highest priority to preserving competence and dedication in administration, teaching, and PTAs.
I actually thought of exactly that solution - moving Balboa's whole staff to Burton. It makes sense but I didn't write about it for three reasons:
1) I wanted to make the point about it being impossible for every demographic group to be equally affected (some board members refer to this repeatedly) and, if I had suggested closing Burton, that would have skewed the numbers further;
2) as a writer, it felt like a bit of a cop out to pretend that hard decisions could be avoided. The district is going to end up closing schools that are doing just fine. Maybe they'll be the schools I mention; maybe not. A decision to close a school shouldn't be taken as an indictment of the school (even though I know it probably will be).
3) I'm uncertain whether displacing staff in this way is allowed with the unions. Maybe it is.
Fair points. I am certainly aware that the devil is in the details, but creative solutions require questioning assumptions (double loop thinking). Thank you for your excellent analysis and insights as always.
Appreciate the analysis, would be very interesting to see how the community would react to the closing of Galileo high school. Many first- and second-generation Asian immigrants have matriculated there over the decades given its proximity to Chinatown
I like this level-headed analysis, devoid of partisanship, agenda and recommendations. It was a pleasure to read.
Regarding the criteria and the data therein, I wonder whether the district would properly respond to a public records request? I know (from experience) that they try to deflect if they can find anything approaching a plausible excuse, but it might be worth a try?
Either they'll release all the underlying data at the time they release the Composite Scores or they won't. I'm not inclined to do a public records request. The district would have a lot of time to respond and it wouldn't be newsworthy by the time they did.
The district has talked about the "art and science" of constructing the new portfolio of schools. The "art" bit means they don't have to choose schools by order of Composite Score. I expect the discussion to quickly move on from the construction of the Composite Scores to the specific schools they choose to close.
I think part of the difficulty in this analysis may be equating sites with schools. Schools are not buildings, they are communities. If you could have the Balboa staff take over Burton augmented by high performing Burton staff, and automatically transfer the students that choose to stay from both sites, it is arguable that the quality of Balboa could be preserved at the new site. The active parents in the PTA at Burton who remain would probably help improve the new PTA as well, as there will be more highly dedicated parents to form the new core. I am not sure if this solution would survive review and certainly not implementation unscathed, but my point is that any consolidation should give the highest priority to preserving competence and dedication in administration, teaching, and PTAs.
I actually thought of exactly that solution - moving Balboa's whole staff to Burton. It makes sense but I didn't write about it for three reasons:
1) I wanted to make the point about it being impossible for every demographic group to be equally affected (some board members refer to this repeatedly) and, if I had suggested closing Burton, that would have skewed the numbers further;
2) as a writer, it felt like a bit of a cop out to pretend that hard decisions could be avoided. The district is going to end up closing schools that are doing just fine. Maybe they'll be the schools I mention; maybe not. A decision to close a school shouldn't be taken as an indictment of the school (even though I know it probably will be).
3) I'm uncertain whether displacing staff in this way is allowed with the unions. Maybe it is.
Fair points. I am certainly aware that the devil is in the details, but creative solutions require questioning assumptions (double loop thinking). Thank you for your excellent analysis and insights as always.
Appreciate the analysis, would be very interesting to see how the community would react to the closing of Galileo high school. Many first- and second-generation Asian immigrants have matriculated there over the decades given its proximity to Chinatown
I like this level-headed analysis, devoid of partisanship, agenda and recommendations. It was a pleasure to read.
Regarding the criteria and the data therein, I wonder whether the district would properly respond to a public records request? I know (from experience) that they try to deflect if they can find anything approaching a plausible excuse, but it might be worth a try?
Either they'll release all the underlying data at the time they release the Composite Scores or they won't. I'm not inclined to do a public records request. The district would have a lot of time to respond and it wouldn't be newsworthy by the time they did.
The district has talked about the "art and science" of constructing the new portfolio of schools. The "art" bit means they don't have to choose schools by order of Composite Score. I expect the discussion to quickly move on from the construction of the Composite Scores to the specific schools they choose to close.