Friday, October 7, 2011

October 7th Message From The Principal

Dear Dana Families,

San Diego Unified School District needs to close ten schools in order to address next year’s budget deficit.  On October 3rd the District’s School Closure Committee presented the following recommendations to the Point Loma Cluster Foundation.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE POINT LOMA CLUSTER:
  1. Close Cabrillo Elementary effective July 2012.
  2. Close Barnard campus but keep the Mandarin Magnet K-6 program by relocating it to the Dana campus effective September 2012.  Expand the magnet focus from Mandarin Chinese to a Pacific Rim Language Immersion K-8 program.
  3. Close Dana Middle School Grade 5 effective July 2012.
  4. Convert Dewey, Loma Portal, Ocean Beach, Silver Gate, Sunset View from K-4 to K-5 schools effective September 2012.
  5. Dana’s current fifth graders will return to Dana for sixth grade in September 2012. The sixth grade program will share the Dana campus with the Pacific Rim Language Immersion K-8 program for the 2012-13 school year.
  6. Completely close Dana Middle School effective July 2013.
  7. Correia’s grade level configuration remains the same for 2012-13, but will convert to a 6-8 middle school in 2013-14.  Correia will serve as the only middle school in Point Loma.
  8. Point Loma High School is not impacted by the draft recommendations.
We are receiving feedback from parents regarding the proposal to end the instructional program at Dana Middle School. We believe the collection and sharing of information is critical in working towards a consensus of ideas on this topic. We developed this blog to share information as it becomes available and collect comments/feedback.  Please click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this post and tell us what you think.

A Point Loma Cluster Foundation Ad Hoc Committee has been formed and is scheduled to meet on October 12 to generate questions and concerns for district personnel regarding the proposed school changes in our cluster.  I will attend this meeting and will share the questions/comments posted on this blog.

Some parents have expressed an interest in contacting school board member Scott Barnett and school board president Richard Barrera. Please consider posting letters to board members on this blog for the purpose of incorporating your ideas and opinions into one collective body of information.

The district has developed a very compressed timeline for this process.  Your immediate feedback is needed and appreciated. Please click the "comments" link at the bottom of this post today.

Timeline for Action:
  • October 12 - PL Ad Hoc Committee meets with district personnel
  • October/November Date TBD - Point Loma Cluster Town Hall Meeting
  • November 29 - First reading of school closure recommendations by Board of Education
  • December 13- Final reading and approval of school closure recommendations by Board of Education
  • January to August- Site and district preparations for closure, movement, and change
Sincerely,

Ms. Diane Ryan
Principal

111 comments:

  1. As a PL cluster parent, I would be thrilled to have our strong elementary schools go K-5 like other SDUISD schools. I have reservations about a 6-8 middle school and have not heard enough about the proposed size of such a school. Also, if the Dana campus is bigger than Correia, why can't the Mandarin Language School go there? If the thought is that the 6-8 middle school will have sufficient cluster enrollment so that less enrollment will come from outside of the neighborhood that should be made known. Prior cluster meetings have noted high local enrollment in the elementary schools which drops off through junior high school. The neighborhood schools are WONDERFUL and the cluster is such a great community. Let's get more info on the 6-8 middle school to see if that is an outcome we really want. A Mandarin Charter sounds great; where should still be discussed. School has been GREAT at Silver Gate and my older one was fine at Dana. I would be happy to leave my fourth grader at Silver Gate another year. After that, we will see. I never thought we would leave public schools for the private school world but we did with our older one. We need to address the large class size issue for our kids, not just where they will be schooled. We know the 30+ class sizes do not work. We have to address that or risk losing more cluster children to private schools or other charters. It is the middle/junior high school class sizes that scare cluster parents away. Just a local mom from Pre-K to 6th....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. There needs to be more clarification about the make up of Correia. I am personally not in favor of "bussing in" and if class sizes are 30-35, that is just too many kids to service. Our neighborhood schools should be serving our neighborhood kids. I too have been leaning more toward private school or charter options for the 2013-14 school year. Its a sad thing, but my kids deserve to be treated and educated personally and not merely as a number. Secondly, I am in favor of the elementary schools becoming K-5. I think this helps in keep the children "children" a little bit longer as middle school, especially one that would be 6-8, poses more chance for influences none of us would want for our children yet. Another thing that saddens me is that Cabrillo is closing. It is such a wonderful school with so much history. It serves so many military families on their way to/from work. THEY deserve a great and convenient school as the fearlessly serve our country. Additionally, I believe Cabrillo is the only PL elementary school that has free before and after school care through Prime Time. When I was enrolling my chdren in school, this was HUGE for us and we had to rule out Silvergate, Loma Portal, and Sunset because of this. Point Loma is not a cheap place to live at, so any extra costs are detrimental to our budget. So does this mean we will not have his available with Cabrillo closing? But back to the class size issue....I'm sorry. I am just becoming more and more frustrated with the increases in class size. There are an incredible amount of needs, academic, social/emotional, physical, that our kids need tending to, to become successful and cramming so many kids into a room just to say "we did it!" is not okay. Parents be loud and voice your opinions. We DO pay for our schools even though it is called "free public school..." There is nothing free about it. There is no way to differentiate to meet so many needs in a classroom when a teacher has that many students. -A saddened mother/teacher

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think closing Dana to the eight hundred 5th and 6th graders it services is insane! There are under 300 kids at Barnard! Where are 600 more kids that want to join the new Pacific Rim school going to come from?? I doubt there will be many 3-8 graders who are proficient enough in Mandarin to join the school and keep up with their peers who have been at Barnard since Kindergarten.
    Where are they going to find enough CREDENTIALED teachers who speak Mandarin to teach 800 kids?? Will they lay off teachers to hire new ones who speak Mandarin? CTA get on board with this-your teachers are going to need you!
    Dana has been closed once before in 1983 and sat vacant for 10 years before becoming a district admin building. It did not open again to serve children until 1998. in less than 14 years the staff at Dana has developed a strong school the community loves and serves. There HAVE to be other options on the table that do not displace 800 students for less than 300. We have a good thing going. As parents and community members we need to speak out and tell the district this is not acceptable!! Spread the word!

    ReplyDelete
  4. When did Barnard become a Mandarin Magnet school? Why? Was it because they needed a way to attract students because they were facing declining enrollment? So...did it help? Not unless you think 275 is adequate enough to keep a school afloat. Close Barnard.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please keep the system the way it is. I think the 5-6 middle, and 7-8 Jr High is perfect. It is being forced to change only because of a Mandarin program? The numbers don't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love the way the schools are set-up now. I think that k-4th, 5-6 and 7-8 fit together perfectly developmentally. I would think that a Spanish immersion would be more appropriate for our region but that is beside the point at this time. It sure seems like a lot of jostling around to keep one new program. I would like to see the data on Mandarin immersion programs and the benefits to K-8. I am sure there are some benefits, but at what costs???

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am a fan of K-8 and see the benefits of children learning a second language at an early age. I would consider sending my children to such a program, but disagree with the district's lottery program. I believe that the neighborhood kids should have options to go to charter and magnet schools in their area.
    The main problem I see with their plan is the location for the new Mandarin school. In my opinion, Correia should become the new Mandarin School and Dana could configure to a 6-8 middle school. Correia has better access to freeways while Dana is in the heart of a neighborhood that most kids can walk or ride to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The district can save a lot of money if they stop transporting students around the city on buses. Without those children, we do not have enough neighborhood children to occupy all the space at all seven elementary locations and two middle schools.
    The district needs to cut major costs, what is left. What school would you close?
    We must consider all factors and benefits to new ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why is the language magnet program being saved at the expense of the entire community? It obviously was not a draw, otherwise Barnard would have a larger student body and would not be on the chopping block. If Barnard and Cabrillo must close, that's unfortunate, but the enrollment at both those schools are so low that the remaining elementary schools can absorb the students. Why mess with Dana at all? I don't see the necessity. Plus, I do not think 5 yr olds should be going to school with 13 yr olds - it's a prime environment for bullying. It's a large school and there is not enough adult supervision

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why isn't anyone talking about what's really going on here? Cabrillo is a PRIME piece of land. They want the school closed so the district can sell the land to developers. It's a sad situation and the kids are hardly the priority anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We Love Dana AS IS. Closing it doesn't make CENTS! The District needs to provide CONCRETE DATA that shows closing the most efficient school on the point saves money - and they haven't, because it doesn't!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I love the way Point Loma has Dana and Correia. It takes the 5th & 6th graders away from the little ones but keeps the 7th & 8th graders away from corrupting the younger kids. My children felt very grown up going to Dana but the staff still kept in mind that they were children. Dana closed years before and it was a shame. Now that we finally have things working, you want to change it again? I don't feel that the magnet program at Barnard will draw enough kids to warrant a large beautiful campus like Dana. And what about the teachers that have worked so hard to make Dana successful? Will you farm them out to the remaining elementary schools? I HATE what you are talking about doing and am thankful that my children will be old enough that it won't effect them! I'm sorry that enrollment at Barnard & Cabrillo are down, but that should have no effect on Dana & Correia. There is room at the other elementary schools to move them in and leave the rest alone!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I understand the budget deficit we are facing as a school district, but in order to understand any of the proposal the district needs to put some $$ and head count around them and make this clearer. Currently our children are thriving. Each year the test scores continue to slowly climb and I would hate to disrupt a system that is working without thinking this through clearly. I personally would rather close Cabrillo or Correria over Dana. Dana is in the heart of our community & is where all the elementary schools currently feed into & the campus is perfect for our children. Also, I would assume by making Dana a Pacific Rim Language Immersion K-8 program the traffic there would become a nightmare. There are so many things to consider. Please do so very carefully. I think the point loma cluster truly faces losing good families to private schools if they aren't careful.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Would love 5th back into our elementary schools. However, Dana is our neighborhood school - give us 6th, 7th, 8th in Dana & reduce busing. Give the Chinese magnet school Correia.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is a letter I sent to Mr. Barnett:

    I’m sending this note as a Silver Gate Elementary parent (I’m also on the School Site Council).

    I just left a large group of concerned parents that had gathered to talk to Principal Sandy McClure about the possibilities for reorganization and school closures in the Pt. Loma cluster.

    While difficult and frustrating, the general mood was that people understood the need to make tough fiscal choices, of which school closures where a part.

    There was a consensus that people could understand how closing Cabrillo and Barnard saved money, as they are small, inefficient campuses.

    However, as a group, there was a lot of difficulty in seeing the cost savings in moving the Barnard Elementary Chinese Language program to Dana Middle School as a magnet K-8, and distributing the Dana 5 and 6 students to other campuses. You should be aware that there was a lot of passion in this group against the idea of removing Dana from the general Point Loma cluster track.

    I personally see a variety of problems with this approach. The district’s own numbers list Dana as one of the more cost efficient schools in the whole district, let alone the Pt. Loma cluster. That makes it a poor target for reorganization. Moving a smaller number of younger children there would make it far less efficient. In addition, Dana would require significant infrastructure improvements to handle K-3 size students. Things like bathrooms and play structures would require major renovations or replacement, and that kind of work is certainly not what Prop. S funding was meant for.

    In addition, the displaced Dana students would be difficult to place. Correia would have trouble accommodating all the 6’s without additional infrastructure, and several of the elementaries in the cluster, Silver Gate among them, are already at capacity and would have difficulty accommodating the 5’s. Add this to the fact that the displaced Cabrillo and neighborhood students from Barnard will also have to be placed in these same schools.

    I know that transportation is one of the major district costs and possible savings areas. Barnard has the largest transportation burden of any elementary in the cluster. In addition, it is clear that several more central elementaries will also be on the closing/reorganization list. Being central to the district as a whole, and especially to the district’s transportation center, could save significant transportation funds. While by and large it is a pleasant feather in the cap for the Point Loma cluster to have the Chinese Language school, it seems that relocating or co-locating that program to one of the on-the cusp schools nearer the transportation center would be the most cost-effective solution to the district.

    To be honest, from a purely selfish standpoint, I love the idea of Silver Gate going K-5, as I have a daughter in 4th and would love to have another year at this great school. However, taking the logical, fiscal view, it is hard to see how the Dana reallocation makes any sense. Closing Cabrillo and Barnard, expanding the remaining elementaries for the displaced students, and co-locating the Chinese Language program to an on-the-cusp school with more efficient transportation connections, seems to be the most efficient Pt. Loma Cluster cost saving change for the district.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would also like to add that I really don't think we want to lose Dana OR Correia. There have been some less than positive comments about Correia recently, and perhaps they were accurate about a decade ago. However, those people who have been there in the last 3-4 years have been raving over the quality and impressive improvement of the school. It's not as pretty as Dana, and some people on the Point aren't crazy about all the apartments over there, but the students also don't have to take their lives into their hands walking across the street. Dana and Correia are both great instructional assets to the community.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One unanswered question so far: what's the difference between a Mandarin immersion program and a "Pacific Rim" immersion program? Does that mean other languages will be added? Which ones? Possible candidates could be Spanish, French, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, Thai, etc. I think multiple languages are a great idea, but at some point there isn't enough demand for certain languages...it's tough to maintain a K-8 language immersion program w/o having to manage varying demand.
    Second, normally it's tough to break into a language immersion program in the middle grades...it's just too hard to catch up. However, with the start-up of this new school, will they be open to students starting in the 5th or 6th grades?
    Bottom line, it's apparent that this change is being driven by budget and the need to close schools. It's unfortunate that a successful school like Dana is threatened as a result. However, I've often thought that a linguIstically diverse city like San Diego needs more language education in the early public school years, and this could be a way to end up with an even better school at Dana.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My daughter is now an eighth grader at Correia, and my son is a fifth grader at Dana. I do not want to imagine sixth graders being forced to deal with more mature content because they are attending a school with eight graders. It is a world of difference between sixth graders and eight graders, and I guarentee if the two were at the same campus there would be more negative discipline and academic problems. Is that what we want for our children?

    I was weary about my son attending Dana because I was used to traditional elementary schools (k-6), but he has become very independent and mature. My daughter was also very successful when she attended Dana, and it prepared her wonderfully for Correia. Why change what is working? The school district should focus on improving, and adjusting schools that are less successful and leave the ones that are working alone!

    I understand that the schools need to adjust because of budget cuts, but closing schools will only increase the number of children in classes which will negatively impact their education. How are the already crouded campuses at Dana, Sunset View, Loma Portal, and Silvergate going to adjust to the influx of students from these proposed closed schools? My son attended Sunset View and was already in a portable classroom with no heat and no air conditioning. Where are they going to add the extra portable classrooms to these schools? There is no space left! Not to mention a reduction in parking, recess areas, and the job losses that will occur because of the closures. There must be a better solution to the budget problem.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just curious...but does Barnard receive special funding from Chinese Banks, Associations, Government, etc. By looking at the Barnard website it appears there are some heavy hitters backing them. (see logos at bottom, video, etc.) If so, is this funding swaying the District in this proposal? If so, this needs to be public information.

    ReplyDelete
  20. working parents need to plan. Ahead where is prime-time going to be at which schools?

    ReplyDelete
  21. It seems as if those planning this reconstruction do not have a foot in the Point Loma community. The Point Loma parents, for the last eight to ten years, have put serious effort into ensuring that we all keep our children in our neighborhood schools, so that they could have the security and the confidence of being not only close to home, but also by being surrounded by their friends, neighbors and possibly family. At least in my neighborhood, the discussion started back when our kids were three and four years old. Now, having two children in the fifth grade at Dana, after five successful years at our neighborhood school, Loma Portal, has so far been a very positive experience. The girls thrived in Loma Portal, and with so many families keeping their kids in the public school system in the fifth and sixth grades, as opposed to pulling them out in fifth grade (which is what we all assumed we would have to do when we enrolled our kids in preschool), Dana truly is a neighborhood school with a terrific location and set-up for our Point Loma families. It seems insane that the district would choose to restructure this school that so many families have chosen BECAUSE of its recent growth and success. Yes the class sizes are large, but they are large in the entire SDUSD. And with seven elementaries feeding into this one middle school, larger classes are just inevitable.

    Furthermore, having gone to a middle school back in the 80's myself, where 6th graders were interacting with 8th graders, I can say it is a terrible idea. We have enough to worry about in our society today with our kids all online, on facebook, etc, without worrying about your little girls going off to school with teenage boys. Some sixth graders will be as young as 10 when they would enter Correia. I may only speak for myself, but I think 10 year old girls and 14 year old boys could be a bad combination, and a bad environment for learning.

    As far as the Chinese magnet school is concerned. The traffic to and from Dana, which is smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood, would definitely be a nightmare. Our district planner should try to drive down Chatsworth and/or Nimitz now, when the neighborhood kids (many of whom walk, ride their bikes, or carpool) are trying to get there. We live one mile away and it takes me 15 minutes to get there by car, due to the congestion. The location as a magnet school attracting so many outside community members, logistically, would be a traffic nightmare to everyone who lives anywhere near the school.

    As it is today, I am impressed throughly with Dana. Why is the district trying to change something that has been such a strong attraction for the cluster? Please rethink this plan.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Why, with all the disgusting schools with no air conditioning that are run down that SDUSD continues to fund, would you close the only air conditioned campuses that have been recently renovated. There are many inner city schools that are a mess that should be closed. The only air conditioned schools are under the flight path. Most districts have all their schools air conditioned. SDUSD should break off into several smaller districts. They ate out of compliance in Special Education and would sink if ever audited.

    ReplyDelete
  23. For geographical reasons, Dana should be the 6-8 middle school, and Correia should be the "Pacific Rim Language Immersion" K-8 school -- not the other way around! Dana is centrally located within the cluster, is closer to PL High and the high-enrollment elementary schools, and would function better as the middle school. Correia is on the periphery.

    ReplyDelete
  24. All over the country, K-5 elementary and 6-8 junior high is very common. Also, students usually go to the school in whose district they reside. Choice-in and bussing-in within the Point Loma Cluster could be reduced to accommodate 5th grade at the elementary level.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Folks, the plan is to have Dana become a Pacific Rim Language Academy, K-8.

    This is an incredible opportunity for the children of Point Loma, and San Diego as a whole.

    It is a crime that we don't take advantage of children's ability to learn another language -- and the ability to track K-8 will mean that kids will emerge being fluent in the languages of the 21st century.

    Traffic?! These schools have been here for decades. No one moved to their homes not understanding that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And by Pacific Rim, we're talking Chinese, Japanese, Korean, maybe Vietnamese and Tagalog...maybe Hindi. That's what would be worked out in coming years. It's crazy to turn up our noses at this.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The person above mentioned that Dana Middle would become a Pacific Rim Language Academy. This would be true if our definition of Dana is only connected to the physical building itself.

    I see Dana as more than the walls. I see it as an educational program that puts an emphasis on the visual and performing arts (drama, theater, instrumental music) and digital tools. Almost 75% of the electives at Dana focus on one of these two areas.

    In my point of view, we are ending a program that puts a focus on the arts and digital tools and replacing it with a program that emphasizes pacific rim languages.

    I am not trying to lessen the importance of language, instead I want to voice my support for the existing focus. Our community has supported the arts for years. I'm not ready to throw that away.

    If I wanted to send my child to a school that focused on pacific rim languages then I would send them to Barnard. That option already exists. Please don't take the other one away.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Again, we are not trying to take away the Pacific Rim Language School. But "folks", the community of Point Loma has already spoken, as the current enrollment for Barnard at K-6 only sits at 274 students. The enlarged Pacific Rim Language School will NOT be made up of community neighborhood children. So please, do not take our Community Neighborhood School away from us. As has been stated before, Dana is centrally located and our kids would be able to continue to walk/ride to and from school. (it is not conducive to do this from Correia) Dana is a beautiful school and is in the center of our community-located perfectly to the High School and all of the elementary schools that feed into it. Enlarge the Pacific Rim Language School to a K-8, but the kids attending that school will be MOSTLY from out of the neighborhood, which means parents will be driving their kids to and from school. Therefore, it only makes sense to have it at Correia; where it is closer to the freeway and not in the center of town.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The enrollment at Barnard is artificially low, to put things in perspective. AFAIK, over 200 children were turned away this year, due to lack of facility. Even with the year having started and kids being placed elsewhere, I believe Barnard still has a waiting list of ~100 children. To use their current enrollment as evidence is at least inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that small schools cost more per pupil to run than large ones…but does the current proposal address this?

    According to the SARC report posted on the sandi.net website – Barnard’s 09-10 enrollment was 244. The same website lists their 2006-07 enrollment at 152 (I selected this year because I believe it was the year before Barnard converted to a Mandarin Chinese Magnet). This represents a growth of 92 students. Since that time Barnard also increased their grade range from K-4 to K-6.

    I don’t know how large each grade level is, but assuming the lower grades are slightly larger than the higher ones because of the influx of students who are entering the program at the starting level, I am guessing that aprox. 50 students are enrolled as 5th and 6th graders.

    If this is true, 54% of the growth of Barnard could be contributed to simply retaining their upper grades (and not an interest in the community for Mandarin Chinese). The current proposal has the new magnet school configured as a K-8 (two additional grades). Therefore I am assuming within two years the enrollment at Barnard would be at least 354.

    A person above posted that Barnard has 100 students on the waiting list. Let’s add 100 to 354 for a total of 454.

    The SARC reports show that during the last few years, Dana Middle has been running at more or less 800 students. There was a minor dip the last two years (of aprox. 25 students) but I am assuming that is related to the fact that Barnard no longer sends students to Dana.

    Even at 454, Barnard represents only 56% of the enrollment that Dana currently has. How is operating the Dana facility with an enrollment reduction of 44% financially responsible? Keeping Dana Middle open will actually cost our district even more money than it does now.

    I have one more comment. I heard that Point Loma residents would have “top priority” for enrolling at the magnet school. This isn’t new…..any parent in Point Loma could have enrolled their K-6 child at Barnard this school year.

    Ms. Ryan, please ask the Point Loma Ad Hoc Committee to answer the following question….. “How many students attending Barnard actually live in the boundaries of Sunset View, Silvergate, Loma Portal, Ocean Beach, Dewey, or Cabrillo”? I only know of one family who pulled their student from our neighborhood elementary (Loma Portal). I am sure there are others but I have no idea how many there are.

    In an era of “community-based reform”, I am wondering if this proposal represents the needs of the Point Loma community in general or only the advocates for Mandarin Chinese.

    Ms. Ryan, if the Ad Hoc Committee says dozens of Point Loma families are pulling their children from neighborhood elementary schools and sending their students to Barnard, then it would make sense to convert the Dana facilities to meet our needs. If not, then who’s needs are we really meeting by closing Dana?

    I have a feeling that politics is winning over fiscal responsibility and community-based reform.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The closure of the two elementary schools with low enrollment makes a lot of sense as does the move to make our elementary schools consistent with the rest of SDUSD at K-5.

    However, the Point Loma and Ocean Beach communities have invested tremendously in both Correia and Dana schools over the past several years. To close either campus and give it to SDUSD for any magnet or charter school would be a huge loss. These types of schools will restrict enrollment of residents of our cluster, if not immediately, in the near future. This part of the proposal makes no sense for the Point Loma Cluster-especially residents.

    3 Alternatives to the current proposal:

    1. Move to K-5 and keep Dana as our 6th-8th Grades Junior High.

    Dana School Campus is the largest, most centrally located school to the Point Loma and Ocean Beach resident communities. Dana should be the campus that remains the Point Loma Cluster 6th-8th Grade Junior High. It has a safe and easy approach for walkers, bicyclists, public bus and private car commuters. Dana is a beautiful, well-maintained campus with an outstanding administrative team and faculty that support our students, and are partners with parents and the community.

    Correia is situated nearer major roads and the I-8. It is a difficult approach for pedestrians and bicyclists from south of Nimitz. A magnet school of any kind will be enrolled largely with students travelling from all over the city by school bus and private car. It is the better choice, if any to give to a magnet campus.

    2. Close only Cabrillo and let Barnard grow in place.

    The magnet school has failed to attract enough students as a K-5 school and is slated to close. Why move it to a larger campus? If the school district is not ready to give up on it yet, let it grown in place and move when it outgrows its current campus. Leave Dana and Correia in their current configuration and our elementary schools at K-4.

    3. Close Cabrillo and Barnard, make the elementary schools K-5 and make both Middle Schools 6-8.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I thInk many of the parents are expressing the same concen regarding Dana Elementary. It truly makes no sense to remove 700 plus neighborhood students in favor of 300 person charter. Although closing one elementary school is disappointing it maybe needed a budget standpoint. Displacing 700+ students for less than half the student population makes absolutely no sense. The closing of Corriea and relocation of the charter to the elementary just seems more logical IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Point Loma parents unite!

    They're not taking Dana from us without a fight!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Congratulations Barnard Elementary! You are obviously a success story. Mr. Park, you took a failing school and turned it into successful magnet with a 100-student waiting list. You’re doing everything right in the campus you occupy now. I see no reason for you to move.

    Are you looking for more space? Additional classrooms? I’m sure I speak for 99% of the Point Loma Cluster members; if you need a bungalow or two, we’ll gladly donate funds to your school. Just ask.

    Regarding the SDUSD’s committee’s realignment of the elementary schools: if it is absolutely necessary for the budget, then make the elementary schools K-5, and then give the 6-8th graders Dana Middle. It is centrally located. Students walk or ride their bikes to school. That is impossible for students attending Correia. There are unsafe intersections, morning commuters on their way to the 5 and/or the 8 freeways, and there are undesirable areas along the sidewalk that children have to pass. Don’t believe me? Check out Bill Cleator Park’s “slope of bushes” on any given morning.

    Point Loma locals have donated money to Dana (Dave Wells, Ann Tripp Jackson). Parents and community members donated over $20,000 for a new theatre system. Do you think we’ll just walk away from that? This is OUR school. The Point Loma High School baseball team plays their games on Dana's campus. Speaking of PLHS, their campus sits on 6.7 acres and has 2000 students. Dana Middle sits on 10.7 acres; so don't tell me that it can't accommodate 1450 6th, 7th & 8th graders. Sure - it will take some retrofitting; but Correia would need those same upgrades to house all of the 6-8th graders.

    On the topic of Correia, why not turn it into a satellite school for PLHS? Build an olympic-sized pool for the swim team & water polo. Make a softball field. Heck, go crazy - build a lacrosse field! Point Loma residents have already shown that they like, no LOVE throwing money at Point Loma sports team causes. The buildings at Correia might even be a possible site for the Normal Street SDUSD offices which need a new home?

    Again, kudos to Principal Edward Park at Barnard Elementary. Your campus is thriving, just like all the others in the Point Loma Cluster.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Removing Dana, a fantastic resource for our community is simply a RIDICULOUS idea. First of all Dana holds a 86% market share of its population. Enrollment at Dana is up 68% since 2000/2001. This is a school that hardly fits the school closure list. Barnard holds only a 26% percent market share (these figures are from SDUSD). Not only that Barnard only has 275 students, only 34 of whom are from the cluster (save the students who live near Barnard). To me this states that the cluster has spoken. I, for one, do NOT want a commuter school at the geographic center of my community. Dana offers a strong music, theatre, and art program that should not be sacrificed at the HIGH cost of a magnet that our cluster community does not support. It also boasts a high number of cluster kids that walk and bike, which is just not a safe option at Correia. The middle and high schools have already worked with Barnard to offer Mandarin classes at their sites. Why does Barnard even need to go K-8? Further, doesn't anyone think this timeline is extremely compressed given this realignment committee had 9 MONTHS to make their recommendations?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree with Debbie. Barnard can remain at their campus and remain K-8. Both Longfellow (a K-8 Spanish Immersion Language School) and Grant (a K-8 School in Mission Hills) have LESS acreage than Barnard. Longfellow has 5.3 acres, Grant has 5.4 acres and Barnard has 5.8 acres. They also have the same number of permanent classrooms. Barnard can simply add portable classrooms using their own Prop S. funds and leave Dana alone.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why does Barnard need a K-8 school when Correia and Point Loma High have adjusted their curricular offerings to accommodate the Mandarin language option?

    Why are we even looking at Magnet schools when they are extremely costly in such a fiscally tragic time? Didn’t SDUSD just shut down Grant and farther back Silver Gate’s magnet programs due to cost?

    ReplyDelete
  38. DO NOT CHANGE DANA!!
    I am Dana parent, previously a Grant parent in Mission Hills. We choose to go the Point Loma route rather than the San Diego High route. Why? Among other reason, because of Dana. We could have transfered over in 7th grade or 9th grade, but we did so in 5th grade because of Dana. Dana is the best thing going in Point Loma. It has extremely effective, very caring teachers and administrators that are so intune to the students. It offers something for every child through it's great variety of electives. Dana has almost half of its student body in some kind of performing arts. Dana has a beautiful theatre which I understand has about $200,000 worth of improvements since Dana became a 5/6 school. The campus feels like a middle school, was built to be a middle school and should stay a middle school. Throw all this away?? Are you kidding??

    I applaud all the other comments on this site that also want to keep Dana in tact. If Dana no longer exists, you are loosing what exemplifies the best in education. We don't want to leave Dana, but it might be a consideration again to look elsewhere if you dismantle this exceptional learning environment.

    SDUSD powers that be and board members, are you listening??????

    ReplyDelete
  39. From the 9/22/11 "Peninsula Beacon":

    "School improvements meet with celebration
    Parents, students and staff at Dana Middle School are celebrating the completion of a $25,000 project to upgrade the school’s Ann Tripp Jackson Auditorium. All funds for the project were raised by the community, including $7,000 donated by more than 60 friends and family members of Jackson. The state-of-the-art venue now boasts a new ceiling-mounted video projector, Blue Ray DVD player, digital signal-processing equipment and control panels paired with a new sound mixer. In addition, previous deficiencies were resolved by movement of the screen while audio issues, including annoying feedback, were eliminated by movement of speakers. The project makes the auditorium a premier community performance venue. Dana Middle School, at 1775 Chatsworth Blvd., serves more than 800 students in grades 5-6. Jackson, who passed away in 1990, was a former president of the Point Loma Association who led a lengthy
    community battle beginning in 1983 to prevent the San Diego Unified School District from selling off or leasing the expansive Dana site. Her efforts led to a permanent re-zoning of the site for educational use."

    Fellow Parents, why on earth would we give Dana Middle away to Barnard? Why would Scott Barnett want us to??

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dana is the CENTER of our Point Loma community! Community Parents have given lots of time and money to this school! Why is Barnard's needs priority to Dana's?? Dana is OUR community's school and as a community parent I strongly disagree to the proposed revisions. Save some money by doing away with all the bussing! Our community's children should come first! All these changes and bigger class sizes are the reason why so many Point Loma parents are sending their children to private schools! SAVE DANA and keep it the way it is!!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. How many students at the Bernard Mandarin Program are actually residents of Point Loma? Point Loma residents should have say and presidence on this ridiculous proposal! You can't take Dana away from us! It's a great school as is!!! Sorry Bernard but it's just not fair to accomodate such a small school at the expense of Dana's students.

    ReplyDelete
  42. To the commenter above; 34. There are 34 Point Loma Cluster students who are choicing-in to the Barnard program. Thirty-four.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This makes no economical or logistical sense. The district realignment committee took nine months to come up with this money saving plan for the PL Cluster? Who believes you can save money by displacing 800+ local children for a costly magnet school that 34 students from Point Loma have chosen to go to? Who was on the realignment committee, Edward Park and Lilly Chen’s family Members? What a waste of tax payers’ money, every paid employee on the realignment committee should be fired. The realignment plan makes no economical or logistical sense to the PL Cluster.

    The Barnard Mandarin School had the opportunity to communicate with the realignment committee on what their needs were, so they’re featured in the realignment plan. How did that happened? Isn’t Barnard part of our cluster? Shouldn’t our cluster board have been contacted? How would you feel if one of our other elementary schools operated outside the cluster, behind closed doors, to get their needs met? Had we known that the Mandarin School coming to save Barnard was a “Pet Project” with plans of moving into a larger space on the Point, we would not have welcomed them. In 5 years this school will be in need of a high school? You don’t put a costly magnet school that has plans to expand in a cluster that has space and money issues. This is not a cost savings plan!

    The Point Loma Cluster has 6 weeks to give input, but no town hall meeting has been set, make that 4 weeks - hardly enough time to decide what is best for our cluster.

    We need to look at our Cluster and develop a long-term solution so we don’t end up on the chopping block every 5 years.

    I like the K-5 Elementary, 6-8 Dana, Correia becomes District Offices and satellite sports complex. Close Cabrillo (sorry☹). We need to make public the cost of the Barnard School per student to see if it continues to make since in our budget crises.

    Other thoughts?

    PLHS/Correia – They have 2000+ students on 6.7 acres. They need field space. What about using the Correia site as a satellite school sports complex. YMCA, Bill Cleator Park and Correia could be an amazing complex. Maybe a football field with lights, swimming pool, baseball field, etc. We could have District Office space here at this site, too.

    Cabrillo has had declining enrollment and been on the school closure list for some time. What about leasing this site to a private school (Montessori?)

    Cluster Elementary Schools – Go K-5 – We have to figure out a way to keep our 5th grade music program alive.

    Dana, 10.6 acres in the middle of our community, becomes our 6-8th school. We use the allocated Prop “S” money to bring this school back to a 6-8th school for the entire cluster. Yes, we’ll need to expand the school.

    Barnard stays where they are. They are currently spending Prop “S” money so they should stay and enjoy their improvements. Who is Lilly Chen and Edward Park and why do have so much power?

    ReplyDelete
  44. If you want to be educated about what's happening on the realignment, go to Barnards website. They are motivated to get to Dana so they are directing their community to show up at the upcoming cluster meeting. See below and make sure you show up, too! Wish our schools were more organized.

    WEIGH IN ON BARNARD'S POSSIBLE MOVE TO LARGER CAMPUS NEXT YEAR!

    POINT LOMA CLUSTER MEETING 10 A.M. WEDNEDAY OCT. 12, DANA MIDDLE SCHOOL

    The San Diego Unified School District announced plans to close Cabrillo school and Barnard's present campus. Barnard would move over to the Dana middle school campus, which would allow our program to expand into a Pacific Rim language academy -- eventually teaching more than just Mandarin. (See details here.)

    Not everyone in the Point Loma Cluster is thrilled about this. Meetings are planned over the next six weeks, when schools and the community will make counter-proposals.

    Let the powers-that-be know your thoughts. Here are email addresses for the school board and key administrators:
    sbarnett@sandi.net
    rbarrera1@sandi.net.
    kbeiser@sandi.net
    johnleeevans@sandi.net
    sjackson@sandi.net
    wkowba@sandi.net
    pstover@sandi.net
    Here are the district's draft recommendations for Point Loma Cluster:
    1. Close Cabrillo Elementary School for the 2012-13 school year. Students would receive priority consideration to attend the school of their choice.
    2. Move the Barnard Language Immersion Program to Dana Middle School and close the current Barnard campus in 2012-13. Over several years, the Barnard program on the Dana Middle School campus would evolve into a dedicated magnet program, a Pacific Rim Language Academy (K-8) focusing on the teaching of multiple languages. Point Loma students will have priority to attend this new program. Dana would undergo renovation to fully accommodate lower elementary grades during the 2012-13 school year.

    Timeline for Action:
    *September to mid November -Cluster input
    *October 25 -Board update
    *November 29 -First reading of recommendations by Board
    *December 6-Board Workshop (Tentative)
    *December 13 -Second reading of recommendations and Board approval
    *January to August -Site and district preparations for closure, movement and change

    ReplyDelete
  45. Someone please help SDUSD "Stop the INSANITY" and "Special Interests". It's time for PL to unite and fight back for our children and community.

    Why in the world is SDUSD focused on spending more money on a small and exclusive magnet program? Maybe it is time to realize that the public school system can't afford the frosting on the cake. Isn't SDUSD better to focus their limited financial resources on basic educational needs such as standard educational curriculums with electives, keeping teachers in the schools and decreasing class sizes? Crazy concept right? Not really, we're already doing it on a daily basis at Dana.

    Why would SDUSD ever think of closing the best performing and most efficinet school in the cluster and the entire district? Why spend more tax payer money (Prop S or not) to tear apart Dana, isn't it already in great shape?

    Why add more traffic congestion to the PL area with a commuter school? How about your real eastate value with more traffic congestion? Spread the word to everyone in PL beacsue this affects everyone in the community regardless of school aged children or not.

    PL residents understand the budget issues; school closures will occur. But, let's at least make sure we close the correct ones to help the budget, while still maintaining a quality cluster for our children and community.

    It's time for PL to unite and fight the INSANITY and Special Interests of a few. Don't just complain, get educated on the issues and take action to help save our schools and community.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Our families have worked very hard at making Dana the school it is with the improvement to the facilities and other areas. It would make more sense to move the mandarin chinese magnet school to Correia. It is already on that side of Point Loma. Dana is centrally located and safer for our children to walk and bike there. The area around Correia is NOT safe.
    In addition, why not leave the current 5th & 6th graders at Dana, which next year will be 6th & 7th graders. The 8th graders could finish at Correia, sharing their campus. The following year, you could then include new 6th graders, with the 7th & 8th graders already there. Move teachers to accomodate the students, allowing students to stay at Dana.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Displacing nearly 800 students from Dana and 195 from Cabrillo into a system that currently has capacity for 262 in elementary and 92 at Correia results in unacceptable overcrowding at the traditional schools. Without the question of what to do with Barnard, closing Dana as a middle school would never have come up as a discussion since there isn't a logical, economic or logistical reason to do so. So, send the topic of what to do with Mandarin/Pacific Rim to a "magnet cluster" discussion and focus on reasonable configuration, cost and attendance in the traditional schools. Since when is it district policy to disrupt the feeder pattern for 2500 students in a successful cluster in favor of a 245 student magnet? Our cluster has had problems attracting attendance from local students in the past and has successfully overcome those over the past 10 years. Don't disrupt what is a currently successful, low cost model by removing Dana from our local feeder pattern

    ReplyDelete
  48. test post from i.e. 8.0 try 2

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm both a PL cluster parent and reside a block from Dana. I am concerned about how this will affect our kids and my property value!! The congestion of traffic will be a nightmare if this program changes. I pay way too much in property taxes for living in my beautiful community and refuse to not have a say in all this. Think about OUR neighborhood kids!! Why would they mess with a great program at Dana that has been so successful? Non of these proposals make sence! DO NOT BRING THE BERNARD PROGRAM TO DANA....PLEASE!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Here's a thought.....cut the bussing in and save district money that way!! SIMPLE!

    ReplyDelete
  51. I thought part of the district’s plan for saving money was reducing the number of busses.

    Want to know how many busses are used to bring students to a magnet school? Try driving by Mission Bay High School at dismissal. Mission Bay High is a magnet school that gives “top priority” to neighborhood students, yet they have over 20 busses! Obviously Mission Bay High is a high school…and therefor will always have a larger enrollment….but….

    The most recent SARC report for Mission Bay lists their enrollment as 1622. Barnard will probably never be that large…but if you make the assumption Barnard would grow to 500 students (almost 300 less than what Dana has right now), that could potentially mean six busses parking in front of Dana every day.

    This is making the assumption that a magnet school 30.8% the size of Mission Bay would have 30.8% of the number of busses.

    Did you think picking up your child after school is hard enough now? Dana currently has only ONE bus. With six, the entire front of the school would need to be a loading zone.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I agree with 99% of what has already been posted. No need to duplicate it. WHEN and WHERE do WE ALL show up to make our voices heard?

    My children are 3rd generation PL kids. Through THOUSANDS of donated dollars from the PL parents and community businesses we have successfully turned our schools around. And now you want to tear it all down? PL families are finally choosing to stay in the PL schools instead of going to private/charter schools. Are you trying to kill the momentum? This will all but guarantee that more PL families will leave the PL schools....AGAIN.

    Lastly, here's an idea....STOP busing in kids to whatever school they feel like attending! This will save the district millions! PROBLEM SOLVED.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Just a factoid to share....

    Someone above posted that Barnard has 100 students on a waiting list.

    The school district distributed a document regarding school closures which listed the maximum capacity for each site. Barnard's max. capacity was listed as 346. This is aprox. 100 students more than what they have right now. If they have space for more students then why do they have a "waiting list"?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Proposed Closure of Dana Middle, how it affects instrumental music students.

    I believe most of you received the informational e-mail from Principal Ryan regarding the proposed closure of Dana (you can find that info here http://danamiddle.blogspot.com/). I have received many questions from instrumental music parents on how this would affect their instrumental students. After talking with Principle Ryan I have come up with these critical questions / outcomes that would result from closing Dana as described in the proposal plan.

    1. If this plan happens will instrumental music be offered to the returning 6th graders for the 2012-2013 school year? Would this mean the current 130+ students who have instrumental music now will be “out of luck” for next year?
    -Problems I see arising from:
    1. Those kids basically lose this year of instrumental music and the work done this year is a net loss for the instrumental music programs on the Point.
    2. Correia would experience a huge drop off in instrumental students because they would not receive the usual 100-120 incoming students without a 6th grade instrumental music program. This is a drop off that could never be recovered from, impacting PLHS within two years.
    3. Cancelation of DIMA’s elementary program this year because those students will not have an instrumental music program to continue in as 5th graders in the 2012-2013 school year. I am going to hold of starting the program this year until we know what is going to happen with the closer (January 2012).
    4. Wholesale closing of one of the, if not the, biggest instrumental music program in San Diego Unified School District.
    2. Will the new “K-8 Dana Charter School Pacific Rim Language Immersion program” want instrumental music? Who makes that decision?

    Principal Ryan will be investigating these questions at the “PL Ad Hac Committee meeting with district personnel” Tuesday October 12th. I also hope you will make your opinions known about this proposal as an instrumental music parent. Below is the information that Principle Ryan listed in her original e-mail for you to make your opinions known.
    “Some parents have expressed an interest in contacting school board member Scott Barnett and school board president Richard Barrera. Please consider posting letters to board members on this blog for the purpose of incorporating your ideas and opinions into one collective body of information.”

    ReplyDelete
  55. The "fact" that Barnard has a 100 student waiting list is what Barnard will tell you if you call their school. They're very vague; I'm not sure if they can produce an actual list of 100 names.

    I found all of this on the SDUSD (sandi.net) website:

    Education Code Section 17387 specifies the Legislature's intent that there be community involvement "before decisions are made about school closure or the use of surplus space..." While this Section specifies a legislative "intent," not a mandate, its application is common sense and should be an integral part of school-closure decisions (see "Form a Committee" above for recommended membership and responsibilities).

    From the California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/LS/fa/sf/schoolclose.asp)

    School Closure Best Practices Guide

    "Form a committee to gather the facts. It is a legislative intent, but not a mandate, for a district to have and use a District Advisory Committee (DAC) "before decisions are made about school closure" (Education Code Section 17387). But whether an intent or a mandate, the advice is good. The job of the superintendent and board members is to evaluate facts, not gather them. And the process of gathering the facts must be as credible, transparent and non-political as possible.

    Better still, the DAC should be expanded to include a cross-section of community members who have an interest in and may be affected by school closures.

    Business community
    Professional groups
    Labor organizations
    Municipal governments
    Teachers and administrators
    Religious organizations
    Recreational entities
    Collective bargaining groups
    Student representatives
    Public agencies
    Environmental planners
    Civic organizations
    Land owners/brokers
    Parents
    Parent groups
    Service organizations
    Demographers"

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'm a parent of a child in Dana, a child in high school who went to Dana, and a child who will begin kindergarten next year. While I understand there are budget concerns, it's also an important time to see what's working and not working. Dana is a well-run school that offers important arts programs such as musical theater, dance, and instrumental music, and creates a strong link to upper grades for students pursuing music that actually begins in elementary school. It would be a mistake in the name of efficiencies to lose important investments by parents and the schools into these specialized programs. Moreover, the proposal does not explain how it will save money: by putting k-8 together in one specialized charter school, it is not clear that this emerged from community interest nor that there won't be costs associated with converting the Dana campus into one that could accomodate these different age groups. Finally, from my experience, Dana has a principal and many dedicated teachers who have years of experience that still can benefit this community. Both my sons have been in the seminar program and I cannot say enough good things about the quality of the teachers and the rigor & depth of the program.

    It seems to me that this community could come up with cost-saving ideas but that the work must be done with the community in order to identify what resources to preserve and to keep growing resources that attract parental investments. Just because there is a budget crisis does not mean that we should be short-sighted about investments in our kids' potential that will last a life-time: the arts are critical as are high caliber academic programs and should not be a casualty of these immediate budget needs. I'm a great fan of language immersion -- maybe that could be integrated throughout the schools in more creative ways. I also think we need to step up our work in math/science/engineering that will prepare our kids for the 21st century work-force. But let's work on the solutions as a community: let's preserve programs and great teachers and administrators that can be shared amongst schools and sites, figure out how to grow and maximize our investment in the highest rigor academics, and see if we can do that even if buildings are not preserved.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Barnard 100 person waiting list is most likely for Kindergarten children. You can't get into this program after Kindergarten unless you have command of the Mandarin language at the grade level you will be entering. When people move or leave the program they create openings for students with Mandarin language experience only. It's Mandarin immersion with 40 minutes- 1 hour of English per day.

    ReplyDelete
  58. PL parents don't be so ready to give up Correia land. We need to think about the needs of our entire cluster. Barnard has plenty of room to grow where they are currently located. They were brought here to keep Barnard open. They have a waiting list now, they are doing what they were brought to the cluster to do. Leave them alone. Don't give them more space.

    I like the idea of a PLHS Satellite sports complex on Correia's 15.7. Now here's a school that needs more space. Over 2,000+ PLHS students on 6.7 acres. Barnard, you have 5.4 acres for your 274 students, you have plenty of space.

    We could build fields with lights to extend usage past daylight, a pool, tennis courts, etc. Somebody contact the PLHS Athletic boosters so they can weigh in on their needs.

    We need to look at the big picture and not fill bullied by the SDUSD realignment committee who has not taken our cluster needs into consideration with this plan.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I agree with above. PLHS has lost their baseball fields, their tennis courts and can't have night football games. We have to send our kids all over the county for practice and "home" games unlike other SD high schools. Correia is valuable. They just set up an alliance with the YMCA next door to share facilities and now we want to loose that? If Barnard needs more space, use Cabrillo. You could have K-4 at Barnard and 5-8 at Cabrillo or is there something we don't know about, like the city wants to develop that land for something else?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Magnet schools cost us too much money and increase traffic congestion. Don't let them expand into our cluster! We need a money savings plan!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Education Code Section 17387 specifies the Legislature's intent that there be community involvement "before decisions are made about school closure or the use of surplus space..." While this Section specifies a legislative "intent," not a mandate, its application is common sense and should be an integral part of school-closure decisions (see "Form a Committee" below for recommended membership and responsibilities).


    I found this in the Sandi.net website:

    From the California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/LS/fa/sf/schoolclose.asp)
    School Closure Best Practices Guide
    "Form a committee to gather the facts. It is a legislative intent, but not a mandate, for a district to have and use a District Advisory Committee (DAC) "before decisions are made about school closure" (Education Code Section 17387). But whether an intent or a mandate, the advice is good. The job of the superintendent and board members is to evaluate facts, not gather them. And the process of gathering the facts must be as credible, transparent and non-political as possible.

    Better still, the DAC should be expanded to include a cross-section of community members who have an interest in and may be affected by school closures.

    Business community
    Professional groups
    Labor organizations
    Municipal governments
    Teachers and administrators
    Religious organizations
    Recreational entities
    Collective bargaining groups
    Student representatives
    Public agencies
    Environmental planners
    Civic organizations
    Land owners/brokers
    Parents
    Parent groups
    Service organizations
    Demographers"

    ReplyDelete
  62. One of the main questions I have is why out of 10 schools that need to close does Point Loma have 2 - other areas should take some of this burden too. Maybe one in Point Loma but not 2!?!

    I love that Dana has the 5th and 6th graders and then Correria has the 7th and 8th graders - there is alot of differences between a 5th grader and and 8th grader. I really hope that the district can find a better solution than this!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Bringing in a 'bulk' of outsiders to Dana - buses, etc. is going to create havoc in our already overcrowded Point Loma neighborhoods. Keep Dana local. This is no longer a school issue, but a community issue. Please contact Kevin Faulconer asap.

    202 C Street, MS #10A
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Phone: (619) 236-6622
    Fax: (619) 236-6996
    Email: kevinfaulconer@sandiego.gov

    ReplyDelete
  64. As a parent with two children in the Point Loma cluster I am appalled that SDUSD would even consider such an idea. We finally have a system of public schools in our neighborhood that are desirable to neighborhood families as well as choiced-in families from all over San Diego. Why would you want to alter a system that is succeeding so well in educating our children?

    DANA is an incredible school with incredible, dedicated teachers. Our children are thriving at Dana!!! Our community is proud to send their children to our community public schools because our community has worked hard to make it what it is. Why would SDUSD want to drive these hard working families and teachers out?

    We have an amazing music program on the Point. What happens to that? Ruben Flores, Dana’s instrumental music teacher, is a genius in the way he engages his students. What happens to him!!!! You lose him then you might as well fold up the equally amazing music departments at Correia and PLHS. What are you people thinking!!! Music education is just as important as language, if not more, for our children. It is a fact that children who play an instrument or sing do better in reading, learn coordination, goal setting, concentration and cooperation. They are more likely to do better in math and science because music helps build reasoning skills and cognitive development, which are important to both math and science. They get along better with their peers and have a higher self-esteem and are more likely to go to college. The musical theatre and art programs at Dana are thriving as well. If a magnet is what SDUSD needs to help the budget then by all means consider Dana to be a performing arts magnet not a language magnet.

    I totally understand that the District needs to make some crucial cuts in our cluster but displacing 800-plus children at Dana does not make any economical or logistical sense. What makes sense is:

    • Close Barnard and Cabrillo. Sell or lease those properties. (I’m sure you could get a ton of money for them.) Relocate Cabrillo’s children to the other cluster elementary schools and move Barnard to a less thriving more centrally located location outside of the cluster but within the SDUSD. Everything else stays the same.

    • Close Cabrillo. Sell or lease property. Relocate Cabrillo students within the cluster. Barnard stays where it is as a K-8 magnet. Move 5th grade to cluster elementaries and Dana becomes 6-8. Correia is used for other purposes like sports, PE, admin, teacher training… for all Point Loma Cluster schools.

    • Close Cabrillo and Barnard. Lease or sell properties. Relocate Cabrillo students within the cluster. Move 5th grade to cluster elementaries, Dana becomes 6-8 and Correia becomes K-8 Mandarin magnet.

    It would be a huge costly mistake to have the Mandarin magnet relocated to Dana.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why are we being forced to 'pick' which middle school to close? This is ridiculous. Close Cabrillo to save money. Keep Dana. Keep Correia. Fix Barnard and build up, use your space efficiently. Keep it the Chinese Magnet program. Don't let the smoke and mirrors distract from this.

    ReplyDelete
  66. In this time when education is struggling both at a state and federal level, how can we justify closing a school such as Dana that is one of the highest performing, cost efficient schools in the district? The community has applauded Dana's performance by choosing to send their children there vs. a private school. The cost per student at Dana is close to a $1,000 less per student than at Barnard. It would be a terrible blow to this community to close one of its shining stars.

    I am a Silvergate parent, and asked the question of our principal once we heard this news if the cluster receives any type of financial incentive to have a language immersion school located within the cluster. The answer that I received was "No". Nor does a language immersion magnet school need to be located within the PL cluster. There are schools in other clusters (ex: Claremont) that unfortunately will be closed due to low enrollment, but could provide the facilities and a more central location to families within the county that want to choose Barnard.

    All of us can understand the incredible economic pressures that the district is facing, but to take a high performing , economically efficient school with an outstanding level of community support and close it does not make financial or practical sense, particularly for replacing it with a school that could be located elsewhere and potentially improve its attendance numbers in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Welcome to the world of the charter school system. The closing of true public schools was an inevitable eventuality when charter schools were allowed to take a strong foot hold. Have you ever seen the enrollment size of any charter school? The newest charter Old Town Academy has less students than any one of our elementary schools, yet the classrooms are equipped as if they served hundreds of students.

    My son rides his bike to Dana this year, if this proposal goes through his brother will have to lottery into a school that we pay to keep open. The charter movement coming to our community will limit how many of our children will have access to our schools. Like other charter schools will we only have one class of each grade level? We all know how wonderful the explorer and high tech high system is but how many of us who are paying taxes here actually have the access the this first class education?

    Millions of dollars are being diverted away from our local schools to support a few schools, as long as it wasn't on our front door most didn't care. Well here we are it has arrived and made itself comfortable in our living room. Local children will not be serviced by this agreement, it will only serve to overcrowd classrooms that are full.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Wow I wish I knew the real estate developer who finally convinced the San Diego school district to sell Cabrillio. We all know it's about developing that prime piece of land. Guess it didn't work out trying to take over the land that Sunset View Elementary sits on. This whole deal is shady, the emails that went out over the summer said nothing about point loma cluster being affected by the realignment. So I'm also left wondering how the board members of the PLCSF are reacting to this?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yes. Keep Dana. Keep Correia. Build up Barnard. Surely, anyone can see needed modifications made to Dana will cost as much or more than simply adding to the current Mandarin campus. Its time for our community to stand up and fight for our children and our community.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Dear Mr. Barrera and Mr. Barnett,

    Closing Dana for a more expensive and less populated Mandarin Magnet program sounds like a colossal mistake. If you vote to do this to the Point Loma community could you at least buy us dinner or a drink first?

    ReplyDelete
  71. I keep seeing support to move the elementary schools to K-5 and to close Correia in favor of Dana. Logistically this is a terrible idea for the PL cluster and could result in us having to bus middle schoolers to schools off of the point. Looking at enrollment numbers in the cluster by grade here are the projected number of students headed towards Dana and Correia over the next few years and what enrollments will look like.

    Sum of enrollments by grade for Dewey, Ocean Beach, Silver Gate, Sunset View, Loma Portal, Cabrillo for the 2010-2011 school year. These enrollment numbers are from the 2011 Star Test Result sheets.
    2nd - 462
    3rd - 444
    4th - 441 (these students are this years 5th graders)
    5th - 362
    6th - 403
    7th - 414
    8th - 425

    Using these numbers this is what it predicts:
    2011-2012, the current school year
    Dana 5th and 6th - 803, the actual enrollment at Data is 786 this year (-17 students).
    Correia 7th and 8th - 817, the actual enrollment is 873 (+56 student).

    2012-2013:
    6th = 441
    5th + 6th = 885
    7th + 8th = 765
    I did not report the 6th, 7th, 8th value b/c SDUSD is not proposing it for the 2012-2013 school year.

    2013-2014
    6th, 7th, 8th = 1247
    5th + 6th = 906
    7th + 8th = 803

    2014-2015
    6th, 7th, 8th = 1347
    5th + 6th = can't calculate b/c I don't know this years 1st grade enrollment
    7th + 8th = 885

    Correia has a capacity of 965 and Dana has a capacity of 1056 according to the SDUSD spreadsheets posted at:http://pointlomacluster.com/digital_filing_cabinet.jsp?a=Point%20Loma%20Cluster%20Schools%20Relalignment

    As neither Correia or Dana can support a grades 6-8 program, if we do not rally a a community to the cause now to keep BOTH Correia and Dana open, in a couple of years we will have a bottle neck at the middle school level with only one 6-8 grade school and will not have capacity in our cluster to support all the 6-8 grade students. At that time we will need to determine how to decide which students in the cluster get to continue in the PL cluster and which ones need to find other schools off the point to attend. Point Loma residents don't be complacent about this; >85% of enrollment at Dana and Correia reside within the resident boundaries for those two schools. So yes - your kids too could be selected to be bussed off the point. Oh and by the way - I haven't even factored in the kids from Barnard yet should it relocate to another cluster and some of the kids choose to forego the opportunity to learn Mandarin in favor of the convenience of their neighborhood school.

    We need BOTH Correia and Dana to keep the high quality education program that has been put in place by the hard work of our community over the past 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I do not like this idea at all. Closing Dana!?!?! My child is very happy there and has a lot of friends. No. I refuse to agree with this!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. This is absolutely ridiculous! I will not stand for it! Go tell the point loma cluster/SDUSD people "NO WAY"!!!!!!!!!! I hate this idea completely and totally! I REFUSE!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  74. --I'm assuming that the realignment committee is looking for solutions from us?

    --I'm also assuming that the majority are not going to think it's a great idea to close Dana to 5-6 students.

    --If a Chinese program is a priority for the district, move the program to an existing property with shared use. My first thought is Ballard Center in Old Town that is open for Parent Trainings, etc., but does not have students present during the daytime hours. My second thought is to combine with another magnet program (Crown Point?) and run duel programs with similar focuses. I'm sure there are other properties that would work as well if Barnard is to be relocated.

    --If the district is looking at 30 schools, why does PLC even need to be impacted? Our API test scores are all over 800. THis means that we are successful, so why mess with success?

    --I do not think that the committee has looked at the actual situation, only the data, which appears to be less than precise. I think we should invite our school board representative and the closure committee to physically look at the sites.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It's a sad day when our community, that has worked so hard to succeed in education, is now being railroaded by Chinese special interest. Are we so poor and desperate that we can allow this foreign money to influence the powers that be? I have to believe this is a backroom deal with special matching funds..maybe from HON that is what is prompting this idiotic proposal. Barnard, rebuild your OWN school in YOUR location. Our EXPENSIVE property taxes are NOT going to be used to fund this boondoggle.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mr. Barnett,



    I am writing today about the possible school realignment being proposed for the Point Loma Cluster. I understand the SDUSD’s requirement of budget cuts, and I further understand the cause for drastic measures in order to meet those budget cuts. However, a parent of two children in that cluster, I am writing to ask that you take the Dana Middle School campus off the proverbial chopping block. As a business person, I have to say, I am quite surprised to see it on the chopping block at all. I have heard no arguments and seen no empirical data that justifies the closure of Dana as a middle school; nor have I heard compelling arguments or seen data justifying Barnard moving into that campus. Neither make economic or logical sense. Thank you in advance for the opportunity to state my case as simply as I can:



    FACT: Dana Middle School is functioning better in its current configuration as a 5/6 modified middle than most of the other middle schools in the San Diego Unified School District.

    FACT: Enrollment at Dana Middle School has increased since bringing 5th grade in.

    FACT: Dana Middle School garners 85% "market share" students – evidence of the community’s love for that school.

    FACT: Most of the elementary schools in the PL Cluster are already over 90% capacity in their current K-4 configuration. Trying to accommodate bringing 5th grade back to their campuses would prove extraordinarily difficult.

    FACT: There are several other middle schools in the SDUSD that are functioning well below the utilization and market-share percentages that Dana Middle School garners.



    So my questions to you and the Board are simple:



    1) Why would you close Dana as a middle school? And why would give that campus to Barnard?

    2) Why would you choose to close a school that captures 85% market share (Dana) for a school that captures only 26% (Barnard) of their population from the neighborhood?

    3) I understand the need to close the Barnard campus if it is not economically feasible to maintain. However, it begs the question: Why is the program not being shut down altogether? If it is too costly to operate at its current location, how can it possibly make economic sense to move it to a larger campus, requiring a full retrofit for its current students?

    4) And where is the data that shows Barnard growing to require a campus of that size any time in the next decade?



    If the District feels strongly about keeping the Mandarin Magnet program, Barnard should be moved to a location where it will revive a community, not negatively impact it, as it will undoubtedly do in Point Loma at the Dana campus. Barnard is a commuter school, plain and simple. Their campus can be located anywhere in the county. Why would you punish a community like Point Loma that has finally started sending their kids to their neighborhood school, by taking away a school that is currently being utilized by the community (remember – 85% market share!)?

    See next blog for the remainder of this letter

    ReplyDelete
  77. See above blog for the beginning of this letter

    Alternatives: Using spreadsheets of data published by the SDUSD (“Deputy Superintendent of Business, School Realignment/Closure, Rankings by Cluster”), I have compiled a list of other middle-school properties that would be better alternatives for Barnard:



    · Proposal #1: Henry Cluster: Three elementary schools at 75% utilization or lower. Pershing MS campus is roughly the same size as Dana, yet holds only 73.5% market share students and costs $200 more per student to operate. Move Barnard to Pershing Middle. Take 6th grade back to all elementary schools and make Lewis a 7-8 only. I guarantee Henry's cluster parents would like that configuration better than the current one, and your enrollment would increase.



    · Proposal #2: Hoover Cluster: Wilson MS is operating at 31% utilization and costs more than $4000 per student. It holds only 34% market share students. Five of Hoover's elementary schools are operating at less than 75% utilization. Move Barnard to Wilson Middle. Take 6th grade back to all elementary schools and make Clark a 7-8 only. Again, I think you'll find that parents typically like the 7-8 configuration better than 6-7-8 and your market-share enrollment in that cluster would like improve.



    · Proposal #3: Kearny Cluster: Both Taft and Montgomery Middle Schools are being under-utilized: Montgomery at 50%!! utilization and Taft at 72%. Montgomery attracts only 36% market share students and Taft only 54%. Both schools cost more than $4,000 per student to operate. If the data on your own spreadsheet is correct, one of these facilities could hold all of the students currently enrolled in the two schools. You could COMBINE Taft and Montgomery Middle Schools, without having to change the configuration of any other schools in the cluster, and move Barnard to the empty campus. Both facilities are more centrally-located than Barnard's current campus, which the commuter parents of Barnard would probably appreciate. (As an aside, three of Kearny’s elementary schools are currently operating at between 68% and 78% utilization – not much lower than that of Cabrillo, which is also slated for closure. You should look at the possibility of closing an elementary school in the Kearny cluster, too. The other elementaries could *easily* absorb those students.)



    Again, my request is that you take Dana Middle School off the list as a potential for budget reduction. I believe what you are proposing will not actually save the District money (retrofits to the campus) and I firmly believe that the outrage you will cause in doing so will cost the District “market share” students. I also believe I have presented three viable alternatives, *all* of which make more fiscal (and logical!) sense than closing Dana Middle School. I sincerely hope you will take my proposals to the School Realignment Committee for consideration.



    Respectfully,


    Erin Ellis
    Silver Gate and Dana Parent

    ReplyDelete
  78. I do not agree with the planned closure of Dana Middle School. It is a wonderful school where our "older, but not that old" children have a transitional education experience that guides them in both learning and growing up. The atmosphere at Dana regarding learning fosters excitement and optimism and every one of the staff that I've ever met or worked with has been supportive and encouraging, knowledgable and graciously professional. This school works! This school is doing what everyone says schools should do, that is educate our kids. The music program at Dana is outstanding in every sense of the word and continues to produce young musicians in spite of the cuts to the music programs at the elementary level. Dana's theater arts program is also excellent and creates enthusiasm in the students that flows into all other subject areas. With cooperation between the community along with these two programs the theater at Dana has been updated wonderfully. That the district wants to close Dana absolutely stuns me. Surely there are other alternatives, plus the fact the three of Point Loma's ten cluster schools are slated for closure? Unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  79. So, to recap: Pt. Loma families: you get whatever you want and nobody else matters. Wait, I forgot the exclamation point (!)

    ReplyDelete
  80. 1. Where is the extra capacity for the increase to K-5? I do not see extra classrooms at my childrens school (in fact some are stuck in portacabins that have been there for many years).

    2. Changing Dana as proposed is nonsensical. I think people at higher levels are being influenced to give away Dana at the expense of those of us who prefer traditional schooling vs immersion type models. They may wish to 'grow' the program (currently 275 students vs 400+ at all the other elem) but why at our expense??

    I hope we will not be railroaded into this but it appears much work has been done at district level without any communication with the local community. Poor work SDUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Our family is starting our second year of public school after several years of private education and we are glad to have the perspective of both. Our experience at Dana has been most impressive with its organization, communication, staff, facility and dedication to specifically serving the minds and wellbeing of 5th and 6th graders. While our area is unique in the K-4 process, Dana works! It serves as an excellent transition for this age group. Thanks to the bloggers who have put a sharp pencil to proposal, we hope to see more of that kind of in-put.

    ReplyDelete
  82. It’s pretty shocking that the entire realignment committee can meet behind closed doors since January 2011 "attempting" to decide the fate of our schools. What’s even more shocking is that the board has had 9 months to come up with a plan to help save our district money. If this is truly the best option the committee has come up with, I question the intentions behind the decisions.

    I echo the same thoughts about looking at the bigger picture here. Where do the children in this program go to high school if this were to happen? In 5 years will there be a proposal to build a Pacific Rim Academy High in Point Loma? Or is Point Loma High already targeted for that? By definition, “immersion” means that our kids will ultimately be expected to completely understand and speak the language in every single class, i.e. take a math test in Mandarin in addition to other classes all in Mandarin. How will the kids who have never had Mandarin background going to survive in immersion classes where they have to do math homework in Mandarin? If kids are older than 2nd grade, they won’t be able to enter an immersion program like this because they won’t have enough background in the language to survive. They will then be turned away from this school thus causing our neighborhood families to choose outside schools. This presents a very big decision to those families who bought a home here specifically to go to Dana. There isn’t a huge demand for a magnet school for our cluster families otherwise we would all be sending our kids to Barnard.

    I need to address one comment saying “we shouldn’t turn our noses up” to this. To the one person on this blog who disagrees with the PASSION we have for Dana staying the way it is, here’s my thought: It’s not about being a snob or turning our noses up to the idea. We welcome all cultures into our community and we are all fully capable of realizing the importance of learning other languages. This is extremely impactful to our community and to the educational options available to our kids. We didn’t choose to live in this neighborhood only to have our children be forced to be educated in another language.

    I agree with the configuration of having K-5 at our remaining elementary schools and 6-8 at Dana. Having Correia turn into the sports facility platform is another great idea. Correia has come a long way and can benefit from more help to make it even better. I also think it’s a great idea to lease out Cabrillo to a Montessori School.
    If Barnard wants to expand, they should go through the same steps all of our schools in the cluster need to take in order to get their needs met and there shouldn’t be any special favors. How is it that Barnard’s website stated they were moving to Dana before the decision has officially been made? We are supposed to be a cluster and help support all of our children in our community. It feels as though we are on the outside of this process and Barnard has only been privy to important information. If Barnard wants to expand, they should request to be given the space needed at their current location and use their Prop S funds that are allocated to that site, not try to take over Dana.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dana teachers and cluster elementary teachers...what is CTA's take on this? Can a magnet school hire new teachers to staff Dana if it becomes a "Pacific Rim" school because they speak Mandarin thus displacing teachers already employed by the district who do not speak Mandarin? Where will these Mandarin speaking teachers come from? Will they hold California teaching credentials?

    ReplyDelete
  84. I read through the information presented by the Realignment Committee and think that there is a gross misperception on the part of the Realignment Committee pertaining to the non-resident composition of students enrolled in the Point Loma cluster. When I first read through the district's spreadsheets, it looked like almost 40-50% of the students in the elementary schools were choicing into the cluster b/c the non-resident numbers seemed so high. On closer inspection however I learned that is not the case. Rather a significant number of students within the cluster are choicing into other schools within the cluster, e.g. a Silver Gate resident choicing into Sunset View and vice versa. Really only ~15-18% of the students are true non-cluster residents - which is on par with the other clusters in the district. I think this misperception is what is influencing the Realignment Committee's position to close middle schools and attempt to reduce enrollment numbers within the PL cluster. I infer this b/c the committee specifically states in their presentation that the cluster should work towards taking fewer non-resident students. Although moving the Pacific Rim Asian Language program to Dana is counter to that specific recommendation that they make (?). Hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  85. In response,

    "So, to recap: Pt. Loma families: you get whatever you want and nobody else matters. Wait, I forgot the exclamation point (!) "

    Yes, we have have worked and donated long and hard to have good Local public schools. And others do matter, and many choice in.

    ReplyDelete
  86. As a freshman college student this year, I am extremely saddened to hear that Dana is being considered one of the schools to shut down. As an Alumni, if you will, of Dana Middle school, I can speak from experience when I say it was the absolute best two year of my life.
    When I was a kindergardener at Silver Gate Elementary School, the system was in fact K-5. It wasn't until my 3rd grade year that it was changed to K-4. I remember as a 2nd grader, playing on the playground and hearing the older 11 year old 5th graders scream profound words while playing four square because they had just entered the world of "pre teen" curiosity and discovered how exciting cussing can be. The older kids felt the need to share these behaviors with the younger children and I'm sure you can assume the impact it had as it encouraged "bratty" behavior.
    When I got to Dana as a 5th grader, I was ecstatic. The transition from all-day classes to class periods and schedules was unbelievably thrilling and prepared me for Junior High. If I was sent to Correia as a 6th grader, and had to spend five days a week with hormonal and MEAN 7th and 8th graders, I would have had some serious issues.
    Personally, I feel that since Dana is such a populated school for only two grades, other plans of attack should be considered before completely shutting it down, like possibly reducing the number of bussed in kids. Dana has been so involved in our community and it would be terribly upsetting to see all that we have worked for and grown up with, as Point Loma kids, go to waste.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I would like to suggest that the people in charge of this do some thoughtful planning, bearing these points in mind:

    1. OB/Point Loma is essentially an island, which gets very hard to get into and across during peak hours (such as school start and end times);

    2. Dana is a centrally-located in Point Loma; therefore, many of the neighborhood kids can walk or bike to it, without having to contribute to traffic. Even so, the traffic anywhere near Dana at school start and end times is terrible. Imagine the chaos if this campus becomes the site of a magnet with most students being bussed in;

    3. Correia is located right at the entrance to Point Loma. Now this is the sensible place to have such a new magnet school with students being bussed in, if that does indeed have to happen;

    4. Ocean Beach, Silver Gate and Sunset View simply do not have enough space for a year 5 to be added in their current configuration. The only way I can see that being possible is if the number of students who live outside Point Loma is reduced. This would also solve the numbers issue and also solve part of the traffic issue.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Kristin (Silver Gate and Dana Parent)October 10, 2011 at 11:43 PM

    Hi Scott,

    I'd like let you know that your constituents are asking where you stand on the Dana conversion issue. We have not heard from you; you need to let your voters know if we have your support and put out a press release. About 25 years ago the school board representative from Point Loma (Kay Davis) was not in sync with the neighborhood on a use for the Dana site. After she failed to represent the neighborhood who'd supported her, she was summarily voted off the board and her political aspirations were over. I understand we need to cut a significant amount from the budget, $110 million was the most recent estimate I saw. However, Dana has great parent involvement, a strong foundation, and is one of the most cost-effective schools in the P.L. Cluster. What I'm hearing in the Point Loma neighborhood from the core people who supported your candidacy is a huge groundswell of opposition regarding this conversion to a Pacific Rim languages magnet. Everyone I have heard from is overwhelmingly and zealously against this conversion. If you don't get out in front of this issue it would seem to me to be a very serious problem for your political well-being. I strongly suggest you let your opposition be known as soon as possible. You could torpedo this conversion and come out on top as a real hero.

    I hope to hear from you soon.

    Sincerely,
    Kristin
    Parent of three children
    at Silver Gate Elementary and Dana Middle School

    ReplyDelete
  89. To Whom It May Concern,
    My family moved to Point Loma from out of state a little over a year ago from a town of 10,000 with 1,000 kids enrolled in K-12 in 4 schools (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12). After years of annual school budget fights, layoffs, cuts and eventually the closing of the school that was 3rd -5th grade we were elated to have a first terrific school year with one child in 3rd and one in 6th at Dana last year. While the move to San Diego was prompted by a job transfer, we picked to live in Point Loma because of the excellent public schools. We figured we could pay either for tuition or real estate and have been content with our choice thus far. I haven't had the time to research district wide statistics but do know that our former district spent close to $8000 per child and after closing the upper primary school & having to renovate the K-2 school to accommodate 3rd graders and the 6-8 school to accommodate both 4th & 5th grades AND pay for the upkeep, maintenance & heat of the empty 3-5 school (which was much higher than they anticipated) they were nowhere near any of the black #'s that they had promised the voters that passed the bond for the renovations and agreed to the school closure .... Next on the Council members agenda was closing the high school & bussing the kids to the next town for a mere $10,000 a head .... Our elementary school here is great, 6th grade at Dana was great, 7th grade at Correia so far has been good (great until last Friday's schedule change due to an unexpected 7th grade Language Arts teachers departure). I think it's wonderful that there is such community involvement in the PL cluster schools, that the language program is amazing and worthwhile, & that the music & arts programs are also terrific and worthwhile. So, for what it's worth, as a relative newcomer to the district - all aspects of any changes need to be addressed. What will happen to Cabrillo if/when it closes? If it is sold or leased out, when will that happen? Who pays for its upkeep until then? Take into consideration mortgages and playground/field upgrade costs and future enrollment #'s. It sounds as if Barnard maybe has space to grow into the school it would like to be where it is? If there's 10 schools in the district that need to close then why are 2 in this cluster? Are there clusters with lower costs per student or better test scores or more community support/involvement? Are feasibility studies done district wide to figure out the best plan overall and also for each cluster? If not, is there someone in the PL community that could do that for us? Also, does the district have jobs for the displaced teachers from closed or merged schools? (It's pretty appalling the way the teachers/staff are treated - a month into school & you get a transfer in the case of my 7th graders ELA teacher or in my 4th graders case it was a classroom appointment 2 days before school started? I thought the pink slips last spring were bad but these 2 things were terrible & I'm sure they aren't isolated events). The goal is the education of children - surely we can do better?
    Kind Regards,
    Meredith Sudborough

    ReplyDelete
  90. Does the PL Community input matter or is this a done deal?

    Article in the Union Tribune on August 22, 2007, “If the Barnard program goes well, the district plans to extend it to middle and high schools in the Point Loma area.”
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070822/news_1m22chinese.html

    2009 “If the buses stop, the options stop,” said Barnard Principal Edward Park.
    HOduMawv4shttp://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/2149911/article-Magnet-school-busing-cuts--sharing-of-principals-blasted

    2009 Barnard School performs for the Board of Education
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HOduMawv4s

    Letter from Edward Parks to his community asking them to go to the SDUSD Board meeting in May of 2011
    http://www.chamerin.com/News/Title/Barnard+Manderin+Program+Facing+Elimination,+Principal+Calling+for+Support


    6/22/11, San Diego, San Diegans for Great Schools (SD4GS) hosted a roundtable meeting with media representatives and business and community leaders from the Asian American community to share facts about and get support for its ballot initiative to reform the San Diego Unified School District, an idea suggested by Dr. Lilly Cheng, Professor at SDSU and Managing Director of Confucius Institute.
    See article
    http://www.chamerin.com/News/Title/SD4GS+Seeks+Support+from+Asian+American+Community

    San Diego Public Education..In need of a better report card
    “Asian families are very involved in education and new immigrants are here looking for the American dream. This is why I think it is important for all of us to find ways to make great schools and have great students who are able to compete in the 21st century,” Cheng said.
    “As an immigrant from Hong Kong myself, I know how important and the priority the Asian family puts on the value in education,” added Lew. “We want the best public education for our kids and grandkids in preparing them for their future career path. Our city deserves a much better school system.” And, she added, “We need the best leadership at the top level to stay away from politics, to commit for making the best policy to provide best education in K-12 for our kids to go to colleges.”
    Read article here…
    http://www.asiamediainc.com/site/c.enJNKQNlFiG/b.7540907/k.F5DE/Asian_For_Education.htm

    ReplyDelete
  91. Magnet schools have three distinguishing characteristics:

    Distinctive curriculum or instructional approach
    Attract students from outside an assigned neighborhood attendance zone
    Have diversity as an explicit purpose

    Moving the Barnard Magnet school to Dana will have an Environment Impact. Eddie Parks has stated publiclly that he has children driving to Barnard from as far as Oceanside and El Cajon. There are currently only 34 area children. The remaining children will all be driven into the PL area.

    In California you can't build a new school without an Environment Impact Report. If Barnard moves to Dana they will be building a new school, K-8, Magnet and will need an Environment Impact Report. Is there an environmental impact report for this new school? If not, who will pay the estimated 1,000,000 this report will cost?

    ReplyDelete
  92. I applaud those of you who have taken time to research the issues and concerns with this proposed realignment. My vote is close Cabrillo and Barnard. Relocate Barnard to a more central location. Keep Dana and Correia, use Prop S money to build fields at Correia for joint use with PLHS.
    If the economy continues to nose dive we will see more neighborhood families opt back into public school. Our community has finally embraced the current configuration of k-4, 5/6 and 7/8. Let's not mess with a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I have 3 children that all attend my local schools, Sunset View Kindergarten and 2nd grade and Dana 6th grade. I would like to express my thoughts to you regarding the closures of some of our local schools. Please don’t change our schools. The configuration works for Point Loma/Ocean Beach.

    My son attends Dana and our experience has been wonderful. I was not sure about 5th and 6th graders being in school while traditionally schools are K-5 and 6-8 then 9-12th. But I must say I am so pleased that our cluster is not traditional. My son went to Sunset View K-4 and has been at Dana 5th and 6th. He has matured since being at Dana but is still allowed to be a child not being influenced by older kids. His confidence is sky rocketing and his grades have always been wonderful. He does not have to worry about “big kid” issues and can focus on learning. The gap between a 6th grader and an 8th grader is huge. Having that extra year to mature especially in boys works.

    I have some questions that I would like to bring to your attention. The idea of changing our elementary schools to 5th grade would mean more money needed to accomidate the growth at our cluster schools. How would that save money? Where would Point Loma High School baseball team practice? Our test scores are showing improvement what would the impact of a different school structure have on our tests? Where will the wonderful teachers from Dana go? If only 34 students at Barnard are local families why is the campus not moved to a more central location in San Diego? Where would our music program go that our 5th graders have at Dana? Why would you change a public school system that works?

    As a community we have put Dana back in operation and with funds from generous donations have made so many improvements. Changing the dynamics of this school would be a slap in the face to all those who have donated time and money. We as a community work hard and are involved with our cluster to make sure it is run with our children in mind. We as a community should also have our opinion heard, there has to be a better solution to the closures.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Kristin and Steve (Silver Gate and Dana Parents)October 11, 2011 at 1:46 PM

    The proposed conversion of Dana Middle School into a Pacific Rim languages magnet school is a discretionary action on the part of the San Diego School Board, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant CEQA Section 15357, a project is a discretionary action if it requires judgment or deliberation by a public agency. The proposed conversion of Dana would have a potential direct or indirect significant impact on the environment and must undergo a full analysis of potential environmental impacts. Most notably, there would be severe traffic and parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The vast majority of Dana students are from the Point Loma area, and walk, bike, or are driven to school. Currently, only 35 local students attend Barnard Elementary. It is our understanding that the proposed Magnet School would accommodate up to 1,000 students, the vast majority of whom are from out of the Point Loma Area. Traffic in the vicinity of the Dana area is already at a substandard if not failing level of service (LOS). Parking is also severely impacted at the beginning and end of each school day. The proposal would result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips in the area. The impacts of adding so many additional vehicles to the area must be fully analyzed in a traffic impact report performed in compliance with CEQA by a qualified traffic professional. It should also be noted that adding another grade level to Correia would severely impact a failing traffic situation in the area of Correia in the am and pm peak school hours. This must also be analyzed in an appropriate environmental document. The proposed actions of the School Board are clearly subject to CEQA and the Board cannot take any action without appropriate environmental review.

    ReplyDelete
  95. There have been some very interesting, rational and logical alternatives posed above. The Point Loma Cluster is an elite system based on community involvement, commitment, investment and passion. Suggesting to close Dana, in the heart of the community, where families can walk to school, traffic flow is much improved over Correia and facilities are updated for our children seems like someone didn't really think it through.
    Dana becomes 6-8
    PLC Elementary becomes K-5
    Close Cabrillo
    Relocate Chineese immersion program to Correia or conver to district offices and combine Barnard with other immesion school outside PLC.

    Please don't take Dana away from the community children... the community has endured so much to bring Dana BACK!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Just to correct a misapprehension in several posts - enrollment at Barnard is up, not down. The school had to turn away applicants this year as well as last.

    Yes, the Mandarin program was initiated to attract students, and it has succeeded very well.

    However, the decision to consolidate schools was not made purely for the sake of Barnard, as some are suggesting. The district is hurting for money. Many of us were involved in appeals to the school board and to the state to increase funding for the year so we could all retain teachers. We still have the specter of possible midyear budget cuts haunting us.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dana is a great school *because* the parents and community have made it so. Displacing nearly 800 students at Dana (over 600 of them residents) for the under 350 at Bernard (only 111 of them residents) doesn't make sense. The realignment committee's stated effort to take geographical realities and traffic patterns into account does not mesh with the plan to make Dana a magnet school, drawing students from all over. Dana is in the heart of Point Loma and many, if not most, students walk or bike to Dana---it's a true community school.

    I understand the reality that some schools might have to be closed, but following the guiding principal of the greatest good for the greatest number of people dictates that most schools in the Point Loma cluster (including Dana) stay as they are. Since 60% of Bernard is non-resident students, find another home for the magnet school, closer to its core group of students.

    If closures have to be made, close Cabrillo, and Bernard. The resident students can be absorbed by the other elementary schools in the area.

    I'm in a unique position to comment on traffic patterns at Correia and Dana, as I've lived a block from Correia for most of the last 10 years and live two blocks from Dana now. There are about 3-4 times the walkers/bike riders to Dana as there are to Correia. Don't close Dana and mess with a formula that works!

    ReplyDelete
  98. "My vote is close Cabrillo and Barnard. Relocate Barnard to a more central location."

    I second this. I know of no one from the cluster (other than Bernard parents) in favor of converting Dana to the location of the magnet school.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think Erin Ellis had a very thought provoking post re alternative possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  100. We respectively disagree with Mr. Barnett’s statement that “In these awful times, academic success is unfortunately not the over-riding issue.” Is his over-riding issue the labor contracts that he and the district have inherited and not academic success? Academic success should be at the forefront of all district considerations – it is an ongoing process that involves students, parent, teachers and school administrators; yes, it must be tweaked from time to time however, not at the expense of our children. Our country cannot afford to let labor contracts trump our children’s access to the best education possible.

    Presently, the California State University (CUS) system has a remediation rate of approximately 40% (freshman students). More specifically and to the point, CSU students are not prepared to perform college level work upon entering their freshman year at a CSU. As such, the CSU provides remediation classes, taught by high school teachers (because “they” can teach at the high school level) for 37% of college freshman math students and 45% of college freshman English students. This is unacceptable – and the district’s focus is on their “labor contracts”???

    Clearly, there is a straight forward educational gap that is a California wide problem. Our focus should be on the “three Rs”; not top flight/nationally recognized language immersion programs. As such, let’s work together to ensuring our students have access to strong science, math, history, English and music programs – programs that will foster critical thinking, writing, and well rounded science and math learning and achievement.

    We understand that a solid k-6 education is the key to junior and senior high success and, ultimately college, trade school, or other post high school endeavors.

    Perhaps closing a couple of the elementary schools within the PLC is warranted; however, reconfiguring Dana Junior High School for alternate language immersion program does not put our children and their education first ( perhaps if our overall student achievement was on a stronger and healthier path, introducing language immersion programs would be viable – but, not now).

    Haste makes waste – let’s not sacrifice our children’s education for the sake of unwieldy labor contracts and alternate educational programs (language immersion) that we clearly cannot afford. Let’s get back to the basics; keep Dana’s 5th/6th structure intact; tackle the dreadful college remediation issues (working with our K-4th, middle, junior and senior high schools)!
    The following links support the statistics notated above.
    www.asd.calstate.edu%252Fperf
    www.asd.calstate.edu%252Fremediation%252F06%252FRem_Sys_fall2006.htmormance%252Fproficiency.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  101. Aside from the success of its program, Barnard has had NOTHING to do with SDUSD's decision-making process regarding school closure/realignment. As a matter of fact, many Barnard parents are concerned at the prospect of the facility closing. The district's plan is of their own making. There is no vast Chinese conspiracy, no multinational corporate sponsorship, and Ed Park has no more influence over anyone in the Superintendent's office or the board than anyone else in town. No one from Barnard hatched a scheme to steal Dana from the cluster. Is that clear to everyone here now?

    Personally, I don't want to see the 5-6 program at Dana closed - I, as well as others at Barnard, completely understand the dedication to the investment in making Dana a great school and wanting to maintain ownership of that investment. But it isn't up to me, or anyone else at Barnard.

    While we may not be the crown jewel of the cluster – and we’re reminded of it far too regularly here and other places, we are proud of the achievements of our children, as well as the dedication and hard work of the staff to bring this program and this school back from the brink. That 144% increase in API scores wasn’t handed to us on a silver platter. The families and staff here have taken our own interpretation of the district’s “community-based reform” mandate, and have spent many hours and many dollars to make our tired old school clean, tidy, and presentable, in the face of outright neglect from the district(eg., last fall, we went four months without a visit from the landscaper, so we took on the task ourselves – to this day), in some instances.

    There are many at Barnard who would like to see the program taken to a more centrally suitable location, if it has to move, to more economically accommodate the outliers. Me, I like Erin Ellis' input, too. Maybe the district will listen to something like that. But it's not up to us.

    However...

    Seeing the level of palpable vitriol, contempt and condescension directed here on this blog at Barnard speaks volumes of how, in our modern age of information and awareness, we can still be blind to our own prejudices and biases. We're supposed to be just another school in PLCSF, but talk like this - and this blog isn't the only place these sentiments have bubbled to the surface - makes us - ALL of us at Barnard - feel like a bastard stepchild, not a member of the team.

    Please, just stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  102. I don’t have children at Barnard, but I’m a homeowner in the area and I care about the Barnard Community and believe that we deserve a school that works, too! Why move a school that is FINALLY working in the Barnard Community to a school that doesn't need assistance? It's not fair!

    Barnard residents/homeowners we need to stand up and be counted. Children in our neighborhood need to be able to walk to school because many come from single family homes or both parents work. How will these children get to school, if you move the school? Will buses be provided? The children in the Barnard neighborhood deserve to have an innovative school that attracts high performing students, active parents, and amazing teachers. The need to be exposed to the cultural shows and arts of the amazing Mandarin Community.

    Yes, the Barnard program will need a Jr. High and High School, soon. Correia will be the best spot for both these schools.

    We're happy our school attracts people from outside our area. We are proud of our Barnard Mandarin Immersion School.

    PLEASE DON'T MOVE OUR SCHOOL, IT'S WORKING!

    ReplyDelete
  103. QUESTION? WE HAVE TWO CHILDREN WHO ARE CHOICED INTO SUNSET VIEW. COULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO FIND A NEW SCHOOL, IF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS GO K-5? WOULD WE BE FORCED BACK TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL? PEOPLE TELL ME THAT ONCE YOU'RE IN A CHOICE SCHOOL IT'S A BINDING AGREEMENT, BUT I CAN'T GET ANY INFORMATION ON THIS. ANYONE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION?

    ReplyDelete
  104. To Kristin and Steve (Silver Gate and Dana Parents) -

    While you are correct about CEQA, do not be fooled in to thinking that it applies to the school district. The District in May voted to exempt itself from CEQA so it could proceed with 16 stadium projects at high schools around the city, including Point Loma. They did it because they are hiding behind "education" in the name of "development." What they plan to do at the PLHS stadium with not only ruin Loma Portal and reduce property values, it will permanently erode the quality of life and safety that everyone, including students at PLHS, has enjoyed for 85 years.

    These realignment projects all have hidden development agendas. The district knows how to bend the laws to get what they want, and has the money and legal staff to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dana Middle School has been in operation since 1998.The art, theater and music programs at Dana are the perfect balance to an exceptional education that my daughter received at Dana Middle School. She learned how to write an essay at Dana and remain a young sixth grader and not grow up to fast. Dana prepared her for junior high school and changing classes. Once she got to Correia I believe she felt confident in herself and was able to excel in junior high and high school because of her wonderful experience at Dana. The program at Dana is a well oiled wheel that shouldn't be broken. If two elementary schools close, don't these children have to go to the remaining 4 elementary schools that remain open? Which will add to their population. If we are really talking about saving money here doesn't it make sense to keep Dana the way it is? I don't think there are many parents on the Point that want their sixth graders at Correia with 7th and 8th graders. Wouldn't Correia need to be expanded then? If we sent our 5th graders back to the elementary schools with Barnard and Cabrillo closing wouldn't they really have to be expanded? If K-8 Mandarin came to Dana wouldn't that involve changing toilets, sinks etc?? Why are we going to give a neighborhood facility that has benefited approximately 720 neighborhood students to 220 students for Mandarin Chinese of which 22% are neighborhood students. Another possibility is to combine Dana 5,6 (720 local students with Mandarin Chinese K-8 (240 students at Dana Middle School?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Would be happy to have 5th back at our elementary schools. However, Dana is centrally located in the heart of Pt Loma and absolutely should not be converted to an 800+ language immersion school. Give us 6th, 7th, 8th in Dana & reduce busing. Give the Chinese magnet school Correia. I am all for having 3 schools vs 4 but not at the expense of bringing in a language immersion school of 800 children of which most are not going to be from Point Loma. This poses incredible issues with parking and traffic congestion making virtually no sense not having this immersion school located closer to a freeway access for those hundreds who will be commuting!!!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Keep Dana the way it is and add the K-8 Mandarin Chinese to Dana. It could be two separate schools within the building. Dana could co-exist with the Mandarin program. It could work.

    ReplyDelete
  108. whoa, guys.

    this is getting very ugly.

    honestly. ceqa to turn a school into...a school?

    ReplyDelete
  109. barnard cannot "expand in place."

    that would require... money.

    precisely what the district does not have.

    that is why we're having this conversation to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Our concern should be, what can we as parents, teachers and a community do if push comes, to make this transition better for the children.

    Each school is unique with wonderful programs that promote well rounded student achievers. There is no need to speak derogatory against any of these schools.

    I appreciate what Barnard brings to the community. Much needed diversity and global educational opportunities for our children. This is a wonderful, innovative program for our community as a whole.

    Lets stop pointing fingers at a school that is progressing. The parents and staff at Barnard Elementary put a lot of care in their school.

    Who really wants to see a school close? I don't!

    I don't believe it was in Barnard's plans to close their campus and move to an already occupied school campus. The proposed decisions all made by the SD district.

    So there is no need to beat down a school that is doing their best to provide a forward movement in global education for our children.

    I wish we could see how valuable Barnard Mandarin Chinese Magnet School truly is to our children and to the community.

    ReplyDelete