Properly funding our schools, enrollment, and the future of Cunha

By Roy Salume

I believe that the wise use of our construction bond money is one of the keys to solving our school district funding problem. We also need to address the REAL student enrollment picture, and the future of Cunha.

There's a lot of support for a parcel tax on the Coastside. Our two recent efforts to pass such a tax gained 54% and 62% of the vote. They both failed because we needed 67% to pass a tax. Dwight, Jolanda and I fully supported and worked for both initiatives.

By contrast, two of the LCP slate opposed the parcel tax, and chose to do so for political reasons. Now they decry the budget cuts that forced the District to trim our school busing programs.

But a parcel tax is only a temporary fix. The real long term cure for our budget shortfall is to increase our student enrollment. Here's the plan:

1) We build our new middle school, construct the Boys and Girls Club next to it, and select a site with additional outdoor recreation space (my choice is near the high school).

2) Next, we convert Cunha into an additional elementary school to relieve the overcrowding in our other elementary schools. I figure a great retrofit of that facility can be performed at a very modest cost.

3) We'll see increased enrollment of children who already live on the Coastside. That will bring us well over a million additional budget dollars from Sacramento.

Why? Well, an increased enrollment of just 300 more students will bring in an additional $1,458,000 into our school budget. Here's the math:

We earn from Sacramento $27 a day in charge-backs for each student who attends our schools. There are roughly 180 days in the school year.

300 students x 180 days x $27 = $1,458,000

That's almost the entire $1.6 of our state budget shortfall. Granted, there are some additional costs if we increase student enrollment, but we'd be moving the budget figures solidly in the right direction. If we can attract even more of those students, the picture gets even better.

Are those children already living here on the Coastside? Yes they are.

We have around 300 children going to the private schools on the Coastside. There are an additional 200 attending independent study and home schooling programs (I'm told the number is much higher). We also have at least 200 students attending Saint Mathews Catholic school, as well as schools over the hill in San Mateo and San Francisco (I've stood by the road and counted the cars with kids leaving during the morning commute).

That means we have between 700 and 900 children who could be going to our public schools but aren't.

At 900+ students on a campus designed for 400, Cunha is very overcrowded. When we build a bigger, newer middle school, and then convert Cunha into an additional elementary school, we will attract parents and their children back into our schools. What parent wouldn't want to give their kids the advantage of a free public education in new schools with great amenities?

Building our new middle school, and then keeping Cunha as our new elementary school, is key to getting our school district out of the California budget crunch and back on financial track for the long term.

Declining Enrollment? Think again:

The LCP candidates will say that our school enrollment is declining, and that we should "redefine the assumptions of a flawed Master Facilities Plan".

Folks, that's a clear misreading of our projected enrollment numbers and our current student enrollment.

The fact is that our Elementary and middle schools are highly overcrowded TODAY. They were overcrowded five years ago and, if we do nothing, they will be crowded 5 years from today. If you doubt this, talk to a teacher.

We need to right-size our facilities and plan our schools to house the Students who already live here.

The Master Facilities plan, which I helped to write in 1996, details these realities, and lays out clear solutions for the comming decades.

Misreading the numbers in the Master Facilities Plan, its recommendations, or it's projections for political advantage is just plain wrong. If someone can't read such a detailed report correctly, I would question their ability to sit on a board which would manage over $130 million of our school district money.

Is the CUSD planning to sell off Cunha? I don't think so:

An LCP candidate has warned that the CUSD has plans to "sell part or all of the Cunha campus to developers". That's wildly untrue!

First of all, I was there when that portion of the report was written. It was an option floated by the Superintendent at the time, Jane Martin. I agressively opposed the option, as did most of those who served on the Master Facilities Committee.

The LCP is quoting from the "Asset Management Plan" within the Facilities Master Plan. Both documents are PLANS.

And yes, they have it right, but the Asset Management Plan starts with: "The Asset Management Plan is a projection of the POTENTIAL revenues that COULD be attained through the utilization of surplus of surplus or excess District properties for uses other than school purposes."

It goes on to say: "For purposes of conceptional planning, the discussions set forth herein present a possible alternative for the future of excess District properties." (Section VI-11 of Facilities Master Plan)

I could go on to quote from the vision statements, the flexibility of the plan, the desire to keep long range plans and visions spotty, but the fact is, that nothing can be done with excess property until:

1) there is community input AND 2) there is a decision by the board all under the constraints of the education code

Sell off Cunha? I don't think so!