the greater good

[stephinately]

I totally agree with Karin. There has been much conversation about
"serving the larger good" and questions about the rationality of
taking away one of the real successes in the school district (the k-8
model). But if you look at the fact that the middle school really
serves so few families and measure it against all of the neighborhood
families that are shut-out of their neighborhood school you have to
question which "larger good" is in fact larger. The small number of
families who don't have to worry about where their children will
attend middle school? Or the 20 or so families every year whose
children are denied entry into their neighborhood school, not just for
middle school but for any year at all. Would I love for my children to
attend Hillcrest through middle school? Yes! Was that our original
intent buying in this neighborhood? Absolutely. But I have to be
honest as a parent of two pre-k children without siblings already at
Hillcrest it is more important to me that my children have as large an
opportunity as possible to attend Hillcrest even if it means k-5.
Obviously that is preferable to nothing at all.

The honest and painful bottom line is really the question of whether
it is more just for fewer kids to get to attend Hillcrest for more
years (k-8), or should more children to be given access to their
neighborhood school for k-5. I realize it is easier for me to make
that statement given that I don't already have children at Hillcrest.
But I do believe that first and foremost Hillcrest is a NEIGHBORHOOD
school. At the moment it happens to be a k-8 school. But it is a
neighborhood school first and I believe that fairness and equality of
access has to be high on the list of considerations on this discussion
and decision.

I realize that the attendance projections show that closing the middle
school will not completely resolve this issue but for me the honest
truth is that anything that increases my childrens' chances of
attending their neighborhood school is a positive step. I am willing
to have to struggle with the question of where to send my kids for
middle school if that's the price I have to pay. It seems to me that
if this approach is taken in conjunction with expanding the capacity
at Montclair and possibly shrinking the boundaries for the catchment
it might go a long way to addressing the problem of grade school
overcrowding in the hills for the long term. Then the Board needs to
address the issue of building up the middle schools in the district
overall.

[Rhonda Woo]

As a Hillcrest pre-k LRPC representative with no children currently at
Hillcrest, I have appreciated reading the thoughts of some of the other
pre-k parents over the last few days. It seems that the divide is based
upon whether a pre-k parent has children currently at Hillcrest or not.
As a result, planning actions on behalf of the group will be impossible.


Specifically, if you are a parent who is not in favor of maintaining a
middle school at Hillcrest, a plan of action could include contacting
the Interim Superintendent, Roberta Mayor at
robert...@ousd.k12.ca.us, ASAP to advise her that you think it would
be a good idea for Hillcrest to become a K-5. Contacting her is
important because the Special Committee and at least some of the OUSD
staff do not support removing the middle school. Timing is everything
right now because Superintendent Mayor appears to be one of the few who
would support such a change. If the Superintendent does not hear from
the parents who support the change that she initially supported but
apparently is re-working at the request of the Special Committee, the
Superintendent might back down.

If you are a parent who supports Hillcrest as a K-8, the plan of action
might be to let the Special Committee do it's thing, which means the
parents take on a wait and see approach. If the Special Committee does
what it says it would do, which is to support a K-8 school, then the
parents just need to be vocal about backing the recommendation.

Bottomline: The Hillcrest pre-k LRPC representatives are comprised of
some with children currently at Hillcrest and some without. We can
continue in our efforts to keep the group apprised of upcoming events
that we believe involve enrollment at Hillcrest. It terms of taking
actions consistent with our personal views, it might very well be that
the pre-k parents with no children at Hillcrest might need to band
together now and do whatever it is that they think will be necessary to
achieve their goals and vice versa.

***********************************

----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry’s and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[mon...@marcone.us]

I am responding to the discussion about neighborhood Pre-K families
promote closing Hillcrest Middle School. As a parent of a Pre-K, I
have some engagement with this group discussion. However, to be
clear, I also have 2nd and 5th graders currently at the school.

Preserving Hillcrest for the most elementary school children is one
choice to look at…but I don’t think it achieves the broader goal to
provide an excellent, local school for the maximum number of kids. I
believe we have a collective responsibility to make choices to
optimize several important goals, including this one. Promoting the
one narrow option that best suits your family is attractive, but it is
not productive. Our responsibility as a community is to seek the
scenario that provides a good long-term solution for the most people.

Most, I think, would agree that it is important to implement a plan
that does (at least) the following as much as possible:
1. Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible …
first and foremost!
2. Nurture and grow what is working for kids educationally and
socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD
3. Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in
general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district
for private school

Closing Hillcrest Middle School does not get us closer to these
goals.

1) Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible:

The argument to increase access to Hillcrest for incoming
Kindergarteners (by 8-10 kids per year max) at the expense of the
Middle School presupposes that the Kindergarten alternatives being
discussed are either not excellent schools, or not local.

The schools discussed as alternatives are in the neighborhood, an
average of two miles away from Hillcrest. Many Hillcrest kids
actually live closer to Chabot or Montclair than Hillcrest, for
example. And if the boundaries for all schools are rationalized, the
kids on your street and those surrounding will be going to the same
school as your child. That is local.

The hills schools are all high achieving. I believe you can get as
good an education at Chabot, for example, as at Hillcrest. A strong
school community – teachers, administration and parents – are more
important than a few points on a standardized test score. These are
good schools.

Sadly, there is currently no other excellent public middle school
option. So you are asking families who have poor Middle School
alternatives to move aside for families who have very good
Kindergarten alternatives. The result is that there are fewer kids in
good schools.

2) Nurture and grow what is really working for kids educationally and
socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD:

Recent research bears out what we are seeing on a local level: small,
integrated middle schools are significantly better than big, separate
middle schools, both academically and socially. There are so many
things not going well in our district. Why would we shut down the
best model for how it could and should be done?
You can argue that what is working somewhere else might not work
here. But you cannot possibly argue that the larger middle school
model is working here in Oakland. On the other hand we have one
example of the K-8 model working amazingly well.

It is unlikely to happen, but wouldn’t it make sense for us all to
stand behind an initiative to organize as many OUSD schools as
possible into a K-8 model? We are closing campuses. Can’t we relook
at the way we use our capacity and plan to roll out more small,
integrated middle schools that work?

I would be happier to send my 3rd child to Chabot and keep the
outstanding Middle School at Hillcrest. This is something that
should be celebrated, not dispensed of.

3) Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in
general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district
for private school:

Given the available options for Middle School, the majority of
families who would be displaced by the closure of Hillcrest Middle
School will leave OUSD – our family included. These are people who
support public education, and have contributed a huge amount of time
and money to their local schools.
At a time when enrolling students is critical to the financial
stability of the district, sending people away (net lower enrollment)
seems foolish. Again, shouldn’t we be looking for ways to expand
the successful K-8 model so that even more families can stay past 5th
grade?

Finally….
The above considerations are in addition to the fact that opening up a
couple of classrooms will not provide the space needed to register the
projected number of incoming Kindergartens per year who live in the
area.

Until now, I have sat out of this debate, directing my time and energy
toward helping at school – spending several hundred volunteer hours at
Hillcrest in the last two years alone. But it is hard to remain
silent when neighbors are saying, “thanks for building it, now please
leave”…particularly when the alternatives for those families are good,
local schools.

[Rhonda Woo]

At tonight's Board of Education meeting at 5 p.m. at 1025 2nd Ave in the Board Room, one topic of discussion will include a discussion about what to do with North Oakland Elementary schools, including phasing out Claremont Middle School and converting some/all of the K-5 schools into K-8.

Currently, Hillcrest can not accomodate all the children within the current boundary. What are some people's views about:

1. Supporting making some/all North Oakland K-5 schools into K-8;
2. Redrawing the current Hillcrest boundary so that Hillcrest can remain a K-8 and accept all neighborhood children, with the neighborhood no longer in the current boundary becoming a part of Chabot and Montclair, with the OUSD intent being that Chabot and Montclair are to become K-8 by a date certain?

Bottomline: It might make sense for all pre-k families who support the K-8 model not only at Hillcrest but all North Oakland elementary schools to attend tonight's meeting and state this position so that the BOE can gauge how much effort should be focused in making this happen and the time frame in which to make it happen.

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mon...@marcone.us
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's

Subject: Re: the greater good


I am responding to the discussion about neighborhood Pre-K families promote closing Hillcrest Middle School. As a parent of a Pre-K, I have some engagement with this group discussion. However, to be clear, I also have 2nd and 5th graders currently at the school.

Preserving Hillcrest for the most elementary school children is one choice to look at...but I don't think it achieves the broader goal to provide an excellent, local school for the maximum number of kids. I believe we have a collective responsibility to make choices to

optimize several important goals, including this one. Promoting the
one narrow option that best suits your family is attractive, but it is
not productive. Our responsibility as a community is to seek the
scenario that provides a good long-term solution for the most people.

Most, I think, would agree that it is important to implement a plan that does (at least) the following as much as possible:

1. Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible ...

first and foremost!
2. Nurture and grow what is working for kids educationally and
socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD
3. Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in
general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district for private school

Closing Hillcrest Middle School does not get us closer to these goals.

1) Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible:

The argument to increase access to Hillcrest for incoming Kindergarteners (by 8-10 kids per year max) at the expense of the Middle School presupposes that the Kindergarten alternatives being discussed are either not excellent schools, or not local.

The schools discussed as alternatives are in the neighborhood, an
average of two miles away from Hillcrest. Many Hillcrest kids
actually live closer to Chabot or Montclair than Hillcrest, for
example. And if the boundaries for all schools are rationalized, the
kids on your street and those surrounding will be going to the same school as your child. That is local.

The hills schools are all high achieving. I believe you can get as
good an education at Chabot, for example, as at Hillcrest. A strong

school community - teachers, administration and parents - are more

important than a few points on a standardized test score. These are
good schools.

Sadly, there is currently no other excellent public middle school option. So you are asking families who have poor Middle School alternatives to move aside for families who have very good Kindergarten alternatives. The result is that there are fewer kids in good schools.

2) Nurture and grow what is really working for kids educationally and socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD:

Recent research bears out what we are seeing on a local level: small, integrated middle schools are significantly better than big, separate middle schools, both academically and socially. There are so many things not going well in our district. Why would we shut down the best model for how it could and should be done?
You can argue that what is working somewhere else might not work here. But you cannot possibly argue that the larger middle school
model is working here in Oakland. On the other hand we have one
example of the K-8 model working amazingly well.

It is unlikely to happen, but wouldn't it make sense for us all to stand behind an initiative to organize as many OUSD schools as
possible into a K-8 model? We are closing campuses. Can't we relook
at the way we use our capacity and plan to roll out more small, integrated middle schools that work?

I would be happier to send my 3rd child to Chabot and keep the
outstanding Middle School at Hillcrest. This is something that
should be celebrated, not dispensed of.

3) Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district for private school:

Given the available options for Middle School, the majority of families who would be displaced by the closure of Hillcrest Middle

School will leave OUSD - our family included. These are people who

support public education, and have contributed a huge amount of time and money to their local schools.
At a time when enrolling students is critical to the financial stability of the district, sending people away (net lower enrollment)
seems foolish. Again, shouldn't we be looking for ways to expand
the successful K-8 model so that even more families can stay past 5th grade?

Finally....

The above considerations are in addition to the fact that opening up a couple of classrooms will not provide the space needed to register the projected number of incoming Kindergartens per year who live in the area.

Until now, I have sat out of this debate, directing my time and energy toward helping at school - spending several hundred volunteer hours at Hillcrest in the last two years alone. But it is hard to remain silent when neighbors are saying, "thanks for building it, now please leave"...particularly when the alternatives for those families are good, local schools.

[Hervey, Andy (US)]

Expanding the K-8 model may not be the panacea we're looking for. Unfortunately, if you look at the scores produced by the K-8 model in OUSD, you find that it is clearly not the model that is a success. Hillcrest is clearly the exception to the rule.

Reading Math
Hillcrest 90.70% 94.60%
Ascend 30.60% 31.50%
Dolores Huerta 14.40% 24%
Ernestine C. Reems 33.40% 39.10%
Lighthouse 27.50% 32.30%
Millsmont 24.10% 34.90%

The premise presupposes that it would be possible to recreate the hillcrest-like K-8 at the other schools in lieu of the larger middle schools. It is true that smaller size helps. But, if you carry that concept out to the rest of the district, it doesn't look feasible. Taking the very small number of 6-8 students enrolled at Hillcrest, converting this model to the rest of the hills only offers a mere 140 kids a middle school enrollment opportunity (only about 40 for Chabot and Montclair together). So, the smaller middle school concept, is really just a winning solution for a very, very small number of student - not really the greater good - to the detriment of all of the families that will not be able to send their k-5 kids to the best school, in the hillcrest school boundary they paid so dearly to buy into.

That said, I really appreciate your offer to send your third child to Chabot. Now maybe my child will get into Hillcrest. Hurray! ;-)

FYI:
Reading Math
Hillcrest 90.70% 94.60%
Chabot 79.40% 80.60%

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of mon...@marcone.us
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 2:05 PM
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's
Subject: Re: the greater good

I am responding to the discussion about neighborhood Pre-K families
promote closing Hillcrest Middle School. As a parent of a Pre-K, I
have some engagement with this group discussion. However, to be
clear, I also have 2nd and 5th graders currently at the school.

Preserving Hillcrest for the most elementary school children is one

choice to look at...but I don't think it achieves the broader goal to

provide an excellent, local school for the maximum number of kids. I
believe we have a collective responsibility to make choices to
optimize several important goals, including this one. Promoting the
one narrow option that best suits your family is attractive, but it is
not productive. Our responsibility as a community is to seek the
scenario that provides a good long-term solution for the most people.

Most, I think, would agree that it is important to implement a plan
that does (at least) the following as much as possible:

1. Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible ...

first and foremost!
2. Nurture and grow what is working for kids educationally and
socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD
3. Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in
general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district
for private school

Closing Hillcrest Middle School does not get us closer to these
goals.

1) Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible:

The argument to increase access to Hillcrest for incoming
Kindergarteners (by 8-10 kids per year max) at the expense of the
Middle School presupposes that the Kindergarten alternatives being
discussed are either not excellent schools, or not local.

The schools discussed as alternatives are in the neighborhood, an
average of two miles away from Hillcrest. Many Hillcrest kids
actually live closer to Chabot or Montclair than Hillcrest, for
example. And if the boundaries for all schools are rationalized, the
kids on your street and those surrounding will be going to the same
school as your child. That is local.

The hills schools are all high achieving. I believe you can get as
good an education at Chabot, for example, as at Hillcrest. A strong

school community - teachers, administration and parents - are more

School will leave OUSD - our family included. These are people who

support public education, and have contributed a huge amount of time
and money to their local schools.
At a time when enrolling students is critical to the financial
stability of the district, sending people away (net lower enrollment)
seems foolish. Again, shouldn't we be looking for ways to expand
the successful K-8 model so that even more families can stay past 5th
grade?

Finally....

The above considerations are in addition to the fact that opening up a
couple of classrooms will not provide the space needed to register the
projected number of incoming Kindergartens per year who live in the
area.

Until now, I have sat out of this debate, directing my time and energy

toward helping at school - spending several hundred volunteer hours at

Hillcrest in the last two years alone. But it is hard to remain
silent when neighbors are saying, "thanks for building it, now please

leave"...particularly when the alternatives for those families are good,

This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then
delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use,
disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior
permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting
software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on
any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss
or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this
communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client
privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive
similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the
sender to this effect.

[Karin Foust]

Dear all,

I stand by my position that phasing out the middle school appears to me to be a solution that is fair to the neighborhood and the district.  

A large part of my position on supporting the phase out is looking at this district as a whole.  The schools are full and the district has no money.  There are seats at Montera and Claremont and that is where the other schools are expected to go. It requires no new buildings or expansions.  If we are looking to make the best use of our resources, filling the middle school seats is a good step.  If all the families knew they were going to a middle school, wouldn't we unite to make it better. Aren't we doing that for Oakland Tech?  

The current middle school model is not expected to fill the needs of all the kids in the school.  So a lottery for seats sounds simply awful.  Its painful enough for kindergarten, but after being in the same school for so long with the same kids and parents it sounds bitter.

It just feels to me like it is ultimately a more unified platform that provides a quality education.  Parents have forever threatened to leave the district for one reason or another.  You hear that threat at every meeting. I choose a school that serves its neighborhood more fully.  What about the kids that move into the Hillcrest area and are not able to go to the school?  If Hillcrest were not K-8, perhaps kids would be able to join in other grades and meet the kids in the neighborhood.  I doubt Hillcrest will ever have trouble filling the seats that someone might be willing to give up.  Perhaps it would even be able to take in kids from PI schools if a K-5 model is simply not a good enough education.

The idea of expanding K-8's further in the district sounds beautiful and idealistic.  I don't see the district having the money and resources to dedicate to such a venture.  We've seen how hard it is to achieve in even the most affluent and supported school in Oakland.  I strongly believe that the success of the middle school kids is because of the love and support of the parents they have and not solely because they are Hillcrest middle school.

In the end, I think compromise on all fronts is required.  Phase out the middle school along with some less dramatic boundry changes.  Make the future clear and parents can make the choices they see most appropriate for their families.

Karin

[Rhonda Woo]

I understand that it might not be the panacea but it might be a start.
I understand that the other schools have not done so well but I'm
wondering whether the demographics of the North Oakland population would
suggest that the success of Hillcrest can occur at other Oakland Hills
school.

***********************************

----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry’s and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[Hervey, Andy (US)]

The demographics may help the scores, but, I do not see how the overcrowding issue - the core issue we are trying to solve for here - would be helped. If you convert the remaining hills schools from K-5 to K-8, you will not be able to increase the enrollment of K-5 (the grades 6-8 students will take up classrooms that could otherwise have been used for more K-5 students). In fact, you may need to decrease enrollment, further compounding the issue. The K-5 families redirected from Hillcrest are then shifted further out, or, more likely, hastened into private school.

[Rhonda Woo]

I agree that if capacity were not increased at the relevant North
Oakland schools to accommodate an increase of 3 grade levels that
overcrowding would not be resolved and would be worsened. My assumption
when I saw the proposal in the handout was that the proposal of
converting some/all of the North Oakland schools from K-5 to K-8 would
only occur if capacity could be increased. At this time, it's clearly
too early to figure out where the OUSD will go in this regard. I just
wanted to get a sense of what people thought about converting some/all
of the North Oakland schools from K-5 to K-8. If there were enough
interest in this regard, my thought is that we can begin coordinating
efforts to help move the OUSD in this direction.

On a related subject, I attended the BOE meeting last night. I attended
in the hopes of figuring out where the OUSD was headed with respect to
North Oakland schools. However, I was unable to get any clarity in this
regard. Phase 1 of the staff's proposal involves the OUSD closing some
schools in the very near future. Before the directors of the BOE so
act, they want the staff to come back with detailed numbers of the cost
savings for each and every school that the staff has identified as a
school that might need to be closed versus the estimates provided by the
staff in the handout attached to that agenda, which only contained
estimates of cost savings of closing a typical school. The BOE wanted
details on where the students would go, where the staff would go, what
the facilities would then be used for, etc. The staff will provide it's
recommendation to the BOE on December 10, 2008 and the BOE is expected
to vote on December 17, 2008.

With respect to Phase 2 of the staff's proposal, which includes changing
some/all North Oakland schools from K-5 to K-8, there was no discussion.
The focus of the meeting understandably was on Phase 1 above.

----->>>>>ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S)

----->>>>>NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client
----->>>>>communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and

----->>>>>confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this
----->>>>>message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an
----->>>>>intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
----->>>>>received this message in error, and that any review,
----->>>>>dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
----->>>>>strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error,
----->>>>>please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist
----->>>>>return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients
----->>>>>are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal

----->>>>>advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry &
----->>>>>Berry's and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry &
----->>>>>Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[Rhonda Woo]

I arrived late at approximately 8 a.m. for the 7:30 a.m. meeting. In
addition to the three scenarios suggested in the handout for this
meeting (Scenario A-Cap Hillcrest at 40 incoming kindergarten students,
conduct lottery at 5th grade for MS; Scenario B-Phase out MS by 2010;
Scenario C-Phase out MS by 2010 and re-draw the boundaries), a fourth
scenario was suggested: Scenario D-maintain Hillcrest as a K-8, redraw
boundaries (the same proposed re-drawn boundary in Scenario C), and
increase capacity at Montclair to accommodate the current Hillcrest
families from Harbord to Moraga that will become a part of Montclair if
the boundaries are redrawn.

There were many parents in attendance from Montclair, Chabot, Hillcrest
and there were a few parents with preschoolers who will not attend any
OUSD school for a couple of years. There was some amount of animosity
between Chabot and Montclair parents against Hillcrest parents. A part
of the animosity seems to be because Hillcrest parents got involved in
the game earlier than the Chabot and Montclair parents, causing Chabot
and Montclair parents to feel like Hillcrest parents were dictating the
show. Some responses from Hillcrest parents were that Hillcrest parents
saw the problem of overcrowding earlier, started the process of
resolving the issue earlier, contacted the principals at Montclair and
Chabot only to be told that overcrowding was not a problem at the time
the principals were contacted, etc. In short, Hillcrest parents saw the
problem sooner and became pro-active once the problem was identified.

Some parents at Chabot and Montclair feel that the overcrowding at
Hillcrest is caused by Hillcrest families. Specifically, if Hillcrest
families would allow Hillcrest to convert back to K-5, then Chabot and
Montclair would not have to bear the "brunt" of the Hillcrest redirects.
These parents seem to oppose redrawing the boundaries because again,
they would bear the brunt of increased enrollment of students who
previously were in the Hillcrest boundary and would be a part of the
Chabot and Montclair boundaries if the current Hillcrest boundary were
re-drawn.

Some of the opinions expressed included the following: 1) the opinions
of the pre-K families with no children currently in any OUSD school
should be heavily weighted because they are the families most impacted;
2) we need to explore increasing capacity at Hillcrest through the use
of satellite sites (using Far West, a vacant house across the street
from Hillcrest, unspecified open land on Clarewood Drive) to the extent
that physical capacity of the Hillcrest site simply can not be
increased; and 3) the K-8 model should be utilized at other current K-5
schools.

Bottomline: Everyone recognizes that overcrowding in the North Oakland
hills is a problem. Everyone agrees that whatever solution is chosen
needs to be discussed publicly to allow as much input and notice as
possible. Whatever solution is decided upon will not be universally
accepted.

For now, the SAAB is exploring Scenario D: Keep Hillcrest as a K-8 and
redraw the current Hillcrest boundary. One or more members of the SAAB
will attend the November 18 Monclair PTA meeting to discuss redrawing
the Hillcrest boundary and hope to have numbers from the OUSD staff to
advise regarding how many students are expected to become a part of
Monclair should the current Hillcrest boundary be redrawn. The SAAB
will reconvene on Friday, November 21, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. at 1025 2nd
Ave.

[Hervey, Andy (US)]

Thanks for the update. Is there a map of the proposed re-draw?

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rhonda Woo

[Rhonda Woo]

The proposed boundary is the one that is currently proposed in Scenario
C, which is page 6 of the powerpoint presentation for today's meeting,
which is attached to the agenda for today at the OUSD website.

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hervey, Andy
(US)
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:07 PM
To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com

----->>>>>ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S)

----->>>>>NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client
----->>>>>communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and

----->>>>>confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this
----->>>>>message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an
----->>>>>intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have
----->>>>>received this message in error, and that any review,
----->>>>>dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
----->>>>>strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error,
----->>>>>please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist
----->>>>>return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients
----->>>>>are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal

----->>>>>advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry &
----->>>>>Berry's and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry &
----->>>>>Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[Hervey, Andy (US)]

For some reason I am unable to download it from the website. Not sure if anyone else is having this difficulty. Could you do the immense favor of forwarding to the group?

[Rhonda Woo]

I will do my best.

[Rhonda Woo]

I can't seem to open it now either. If you can find the handout for the
cancelled October 3, 2008 meeting or the boundary suggested back in
December 2007, I believe that they are all the same proposed re-drawn
boundary.

In the event that you are uanble to locate any version of the proposed
boundary then this is how I would describe it: if Highway 13 is north,
Moraga is east, Clarewood Drive is south and Acacia is west, the new
western boundary is Broadway Terrace, the north boundary is Highway 13,
the eastern boundary runs from Sheridan to Harbord to Hilltop, and the
southern boundary is Clarewood Drive. The families on the western side
that were previously a part of the Hillcrest boundary would now be a
part of Chabot and the families on the eastern side of the Hillcrest
boundary would now be a part of Montclair and possibly Kaiser.

[b...@aol.com]

Here's the original one from Hillcrest website

http://hillcrestpta.org/news/enroll/BoundaryMap12-07-07.pdf

---

Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download Now!

[Hervey, Andy (US)]

And does anyone know if they resolved whether border streets will continue to be split down the middle (one side in, one side out)?
Andy Hervey
VP/Associate Director
Americas Transactions, Lease and Tax Administration & Reserve Property Management - Sun Microsystems Account
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.
One Front Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94111
415-395-7243

[Sally Ann Friedman]

Having been a pre-k rep last year on the LRPC and the only one of the three with a pre-k child still, I really want the pre-k group to understand the numbers.  We ran them numerous times in our retention and incoming class size model.  Please note the LRPC's recommended target capacity for Hillcrest was 310.  The OUSD agreed with that # and the guidelines and codes used to get to that number.  I believe this year that number has been exceeded by at least 20.  IF retention rates are as they have been in the past couple of years, and no better (worse is doubtful given the high middle school scores), and IF the K incoming classes are limited to 40, the student body numbers get out of control - 374.  (Look at Appendix Secton F of the LRPC report).

I and the other pre-k reps fought long and hard to get the incoming K class size to be 40 (at minimum!) in the model and the presented report.  The rest of the LRPC was pushing for the incoming K class to bear the brunt of the overcrowding (i.e. shrink down to 20).  If middle school enrollment is not limited (by a lottery once proposed by OUSD) or phased out, the numbers don't work.  I want current Hillcrest parents in this group to understand that.  Even if no kids were enrolled in an incoming K year - and this would never happen. 

I do hope OUSD can find a solution that increases the pie, but I am just not hopeful. 

I want to reiterate my continued support for letting all pre-k kids in who live in the catchment.  I fought hard for the 2007 class to all be accepted even knowing my children's chances at attending might be impacted.  It was the fairest thing to do and still is.  I sincerely doubt the incoming class sizes wil be more than the 8-10 over 40 as discussed (and probably less if the middle school is limited).  While I sympathize with current parents re: the middle school and indeed hope for a solution other than shutting it, limiting the middle school enrollment may just be necessary. 

Sally Ann Friedman

[stephinately]

Unfortunately the alternatives being offered to those that are
redirected are not good schools with the exception of Chabot. Peralta,
Kaiser, Horace Man and Sankofa are nowhere near the quality schools
that Chabot and Hillcrest are. It's one of the reasons we pre-k
parents are so upset about this. There is no way Chabot is going to be
able to take all of the redirected students. And that means that at
least half (if the application numbers this coming year are comparable
to last year and actually the survey work says they will be even
larger.) of the redirected students are going to be slotted to attend
substandard schools. At least last year if you got redirected you were
guaranteed placement at Thornhill or Chabot. This year, because of the
way the board structured this, Thornhill is not an option. I'm
actually really surprised I haven't seen more discussion regarding our
redirect options here. Because if this next years incoming class is,
as projected, the largest yet, there are going to be at least ten
families who are given a school other than Chabot as their redirect
option.

I think we all appreciate the tremendous amount of work parents have
done at Hillcrest. But if you look at it from our perspective, closing
the middle school (even if it only opens up one additional K
classroom) is valid if it means it provides 20 additional neighborhood
children with access to their neighborhood school. We are only asking
for the same privilege your children have been fortunate enough to
have.

[Wendy Chow]

I think we have to remember that (a) even closing the middle school will NOT open up one additional K classroom and the most additional K's that could be let in is likely 10 (see prior postings) and (b) Montclair (which is an excellent school) also is one of the redirect options. Given (a) above, I agree that pre-K families should seriously consider how to structure a proposal for redirect, since it seems inevitable that some families will be redirected.

Wendy

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of stephinately
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:33 PM
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's
Subject: Re: the greater good

> choice to look at...but I don't think it achieves the broader goal to

> provide an excellent, local school for the maximum number of kids. I
> believe we have a collective responsibility to make choices to
> optimize several important goals, including this one.   Promoting the
> one narrow option that best suits your family is attractive, but it is
> not productive.   Our responsibility as a community is to seek the
> scenario that provides a good long-term solution for the most people.
>
> Most, I think, would agree that it is important to implement a plan
> that does (at least) the following as much as possible:

> 1.      Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible ...

> first and foremost!
> 2.      Nurture and grow what is working for kids educationally and
> socially; build on the positive things going on in OUSD
> 3.      Support OUSD in specific, and the concept of public school in
> general, by minimizing the number of families who exit the district
> for private school
>
> Closing Hillcrest Middle School does not get us closer to these
> goals.
>
> 1) Provide a local, excellent school for as many kids as possible:
>
> The argument to increase access to Hillcrest for incoming
> Kindergarteners (by 8-10 kids per year max) at the expense of the
> Middle School presupposes that the Kindergarten alternatives being
> discussed are either not excellent schools, or not local.
>
> The schools discussed as alternatives are in the neighborhood, an
> average of two miles away from Hillcrest.   Many Hillcrest kids
> actually live closer to Chabot or Montclair than Hillcrest, for
> example.   And if the boundaries for all schools are rationalized, the
> kids on your street and those surrounding will be going to the same
> school as your child.  That is local.
>
> The hills schools are all high achieving.  I believe you can get as
> good an education at Chabot, for example, as at Hillcrest.   A strong

> school community - teachers, administration and parents - are more

> School will leave OUSD - our family included.   These are people who

> support public education, and have contributed a huge amount of time
> and money to their local schools.
> At a time when enrolling students is critical to the financial
> stability of the district, sending people away (net lower enrollment)
> seems foolish.    Again, shouldn't we be looking for ways to expand
> the successful K-8 model so that even more families can stay past 5th
> grade?
>

> Finally....

> The above considerations are in addition to the fact that opening up a
> couple of classrooms will not provide the space needed to register the
> projected number of incoming Kindergartens per year who live in the
> area.
>
> Until now, I have sat out of this debate, directing my time and energy

> toward helping at school - spending several hundred volunteer hours at

> Hillcrest in the last two years alone.  But it is hard to remain
> silent when neighbors are saying, "thanks for building it, now please

> leave"...particularly when the alternatives for those families are good,

[Sharon Murphy/Richard Nelson]

Here's where we all need to be on the same page regarding what is
physically possible.

It is my understanding that given the physical space constraints at
Hillcrest, an additional kindergarten class cannot be added. This
would be true even if the two classrooms that comprise the middle
school were freed up for elementary use. You might be able to
establish a third K class for one year or maybe two but that would be
it. This is because you would have added a third class to each grade
as the larger cohort moved forward (3 k's turns into 3 1st grade
classrooms needed the next year, which turns into 3 2nd grade
classrooms needed the next year and so forth with the continuation of
the 3 classrooms needed in each grade because a third class of
kindergarteners would continue to be admitted). Right now, each grade
k- 3 has 2 classrooms. There is only one 4th grade classroom and one
5th grade classroom. Eventually, if retention rates remained the
same, if you kept a third k class, you'd need one more classroom at
each grade for k, 1, 2, and 3 and one more classroom each for 4 and
5th grades (which have higher student to teacher' ratios in the
teachers' union contracts than the lower grades) There aren't enough
classrooms and space available to do this. Or am I missing something
here about how a third k class could be added for the foreseeable
future?

Sent by Sharon Murphy's iPhone

On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:32 PM, stephinately <stepha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Rhonda Woo]

The "greater good" depends on the perspective of the speaker.
Objectively, we can all agree that there is an overcrowding issue in the
Oakland Hills, including Hillcrest. Hillcrest currently is a K-8 school.
It is successful. It is physically small. Expanding capacity at the
Hillcrest site is unlikely. Such success should not be limited, should
expand if possible, and should be replicated at other OUSD schools if
possible. One of the power points in the OUSD handout for the meeting
on November 5 indicated that the OUSD might want to consider
redesigning/reincubating Far West. We might want to consider
exploration of Far West as a satellite facility for Hillcrest or any
other site rather than focusing on limiting the number of kindergarten
children at Hillcrest, which serves to polarize the pre-K parents with
no children at Hillcrest from Hillcrest parents or focusing on
limiting/eliminating the middle school, which serves to polarize the
Hillcrest parents from the pre-K parents with no children at Hillcrest.

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sharon
Murphy/Richard Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:49 PM
To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Hillcrest Pre-K's
Subject: Re: the greater good

>> choice to look at...but I don't think it achieves the broader goal

>> to
>> provide an excellent, local school for the maximum number of kids. I
>> believe we have a collective responsibility to make choices to
>> optimize several important goals, including this one. Promoting the
>> one narrow option that best suits your family is attractive, but it
>> is
>> not productive. Our responsibility as a community is to seek the

***********************************

----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry’s and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[Sally Ann Friedman]

Perhaps the LRPC could take the Far West expansion idea on?  As I understand it, the committee is neither undertaking any new surveys or reviewing capacity....

Much thanks,

Sally Ann Friedman

> Subject: Overcrowding
> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:57:19 -0800
> From: Rho...@BerryAndBerry.com
> To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com

[Josh Hannah]

This discussion of the middle school has been very helpful.  I had considered closing it an interesting solution, but it seems not viable.

For the avoidance of doubt, what I am hearing is:

* Closing MS frees two classrooms
* To add K students to HC over current level, you have to put them somewhere every year thereafter
* Closing the MS opens up two classrooms
* Simplistically, with two classrooms freed, you can let K in this year, then next year they go to 1 and new K comes in, but then after that, there's nowhere to go because there are no more classrooms for the new students
*  There is no possibility at HC to add more classrooms.


Does anyone want to put forward an argument or facts that run contrary to the conclusion that closing the MS is not a viable choice for adding more students due to the reasons above?

In the absence of that, can we permanently take closing the MS off the list of alternatives under discussion?

-------

As a separate thread, could someone with MS experience at HC can email me directly (jha...@gmail.com) rather than the whole group to answer this question:
How do you have what everyone thinks of as a great MS experience at HC with just two classrooms?  As I think of my middle school experience, that seems very odd.  Where's the woodshop?  How do they have enough domain-specific teachers -- or do the same teachers teach you math, art, english, PE?  Is MS run more of just a continuation of K-5?  Is HC MS only "really great" in the sense that all the alternatives are just really bad?


Thanks!
Josh

[Lawrence Busansky]

I believe your summary is right. Only nuance is that there is a third room used as a lab currently. I don't believe it changes the fact that capacity is really a step function, not smooth, so to adequately provide for a classroom for more kids, you need capacity at each grade they progress to - it can't really be allocated evenly on a square foot per kid per grade basis.

 

Here's the current status on the Special Committee of the Board's directive to explore changing boundaries and expanding capacity at Montclair - summary below verbatim from a summary put together by several LRPC members. 

 

What has happened recently:

On Friday, November 7, 2008, the OUSD Special Committee directed staff to prepare an enrollment proposal to serve as the basis for a motion and recommendation to the full board of education that would: (1) maintain K-8 at Hillcrest; (2) add capacity to Montclair; and (3) potentially redraw boundary lines towards Montclair and/or Kaiser. The biggest piece of this was that there needs to be confirmation that getting a new building at Montclair is feasible in a reasonable timeframe. Note that the point of building at Montclair is to resolve both Montclair's overcrowding issues and the overcrowding that is occurring in the Hills generally. This is not a Hillcrest only solution, which is critical for all to understand.

On Tuesday, November 11, 2008, several LRPC members discussed with OUSD staff the slides presented last week that indicated a very low capacity number for the Hillcrest site as compared with the 310 capacity OUSD had previously been using. We learned at this meeting that these are general guidelines but not mandates.  Also, we learned that the district is following the committee's instructions from the November 7th meeting.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, Interim Superintendent Roberta Mayor visited Hillcrest for about 1.5 hours. She toured the school and attended opening ceremony.  She briefly addressed the students. Three members of the LRPC plus Neal Finkelstein, Donna Somerville and Principal Rothenberg helped with the tour and subsequent discussion of Hillcrest community service activities and the history of the building project. Dr. Mayor did see the value of the 15-year-old Hillcrest K8 philosophy and learned a lot about our philosophy (and deeds) with regard community outreach. She was very generous with her time and seemed to want to gain a complete understanding of this complicated situation in an effort to solve the problem for us and all our neighboring schools. Dr. Mayor wants to explore whether capacity can be increased directly at the Hillcrest site, not within our classrooms but with the possibility of another new facility. In the spirit of cooperative, joint problem-solving and to honestly demonstrate to the entire community our willingness to continue to look at all options, the LRPC said it would explore ideas for how we might add more physical space at the Hillcrest site.

What's next:

1) Thursday, November 13 - 7 p.m.: Hillcrest PTA meeting, preceded by the PTA Board meeting at 6 p.m.  As always, any PTA parent is welcome to attend both the board and general PTA meetings. 

2) Monday, November 17 - 7 p.m.: District 1 Community meeting @ Piedmont Elementary (4314 Piedmont Avenue, just up from the theater) led by board member Kerry Hamill and in-coming board member Jody London. Topic: Parent support for school teachers. Leader: Monica Marcone. All parents are strongly encouraged to attend and join these community-wide discussions. Meet your OUSD parent neighbors.

3) Tuesday, November 18 - 7 p.m.: OUSD Special Committee on Enrollment meeting at Montclair to discuss the possibility of increasing capacity (adding a building) at Montclair, the largest (area-wise) campus site in the Hills to meet area-wide burgeoning demand for student seats.

4) Friday, November 21 - 7:30 a.m.: OUSD Special Committee on Enrollment meeting at District headquarters at 1025 Second Avenue at 7:30 a.m.  It is our understanding that the only option being discussed is the option that Director Hamill and Director Dobbins put on the table on the 7th (see above).  We are working to confim/ensure that remains the case.  We need your continued support and participation (that means lots and lots of you to attend the November 21 meeting just as you did the 7th meeting) and to support a cross-community/whole community approach to solving overenrollment in the hills generally – in a rational (no caps or multiple exclamation points in emails and respectful, balanced statements at the meeting - just like last time), to mitigate the impact of those voices in Oakland who may still misunderstand the situation and seem to believe that phasing out 6th to 8th grade at Hillcrest will solve the hills overcrowding problem or that Hillcrest families are uncaring or unwilling to work with other schools. We have worked extremely hard to reach out to other schools over the past several weeks, but some individuals at some non-Hillcrest sites advocate for a K5 Hillcrest.  Remember that, as unfair as these efforts may be, it's imperative that we remain the reasonable and calm voice. Moreover, we will continue to reach out and engage all parties. The board members and OUSD staff recognize that we have been working cooperatively with everyone – so let's keep it up.

5) Wednesday, December 10 - about 6 p.m.: Likely date of full board meeting to hear any motions coming out of the Special Committee on Enrollment but we will know more about this once we know what happens on the 21st of November.  For now, just mark your calendar (and hold the 17th also if you can).

 

  

[Mike]

I've tried my best to stay out of this, but just can't. I was very
outspoken last year (as a pre-k) and feel I am still paying the price
now that I'm in HC. That said, full disclosure:

1) I have a daughter in HC kindergarden now, and a pre-k 2011 son.
2) I support closure of the middle school.

My rationale is simple, this area is a special, tight knit
neighborhood. Anyone who thinks that you can just draw a arbitrary
line down some street and not rip apart the fabric of this
neighborhood does not understand it (or is not being honest). The
argument that other non-HC schools are fine schools is disingenuous.
Neighbors should not have their kids at two different schools - it's
not a neighborhood anymore. This is as true for K-5 kids as it is for
6-8 kids. It's better to keep all the same age kids together rather
than have best friends ripped apart. Also, there is no proof that
that taking out the middle school is somehow going to degrade to
performance of the K-5 kids. Yes, the 6-8 families will have to work
to make their new middle school better - but that serves the greater
OUSD good, not just maintaining the status quo for 40 kids.

The argument that closing the MS will not free up any space is non-
sense. If you take 40 kids out of the system, that makes room for 40
more. Yes, there may be a transitioning period to get the balance
throughout the school right again, and it make take a few years to
settle out - but 40 out, 40 in (spread across 6 grades in a K-5 model
that's almost 7 new kid a year). Remember, it's not just classroom's
that are impacted, it's the playground and the auditorium. Will that
allow all pre-K's in over the next few years? No. But some is better
than none if it allows us to keep the neighborhood intact.

All of that said, if I've learned anything about this over the past
few years, it's that all this arguing about the MS does not help
anyone. It's like a union contract negiotiation over healthcare
benefits. We need to find common ground. The Hills schools are
overcrowded. Demographic trends show this will continue. We need to
stop arguing over who gets a slice of the pie and work to make the pie
larger. All the schools need to be altered to take more kids. I
personally don't accept the argument that HC can't take any more
kids. Yes, maybe it can't take a portable, but maybe it's time to
tear the whole thing down and build a brand new state of the art
building - sorry to the parents who raised $1.5M (or so) already, it
wasn't enough. Why not work on putting together a Special Assessment
District or a Mello-Roos Distrcit. I know it might be a long way off
to achieve anything - but isn't it these sort of things the LRPC
should be working on? Doesn't the L in LRPC stand for Long?
Hopefully we could do better planning this time and not build a 2
bedroom 2 bath house where a 6/5 is needed. How much could a new
school cost? $30M? spreadout over 30 years and 2000 homes that's a
bargain.

Just my two cents. Now I'll go back to biting my tongue to stay out
of this.

Don't give up Pre-K's.

On Oct 5, 5:29 pm, stephinately <stephanie...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mike]

One other point I forgot to make.

The argument that closing the middle school won't allow more
kindergardener's makes the assumption that nothing else changes. Yes,
if all you do is free up two class rooms and keep the other classes
split the way they are now then there is probably very limited
benefit. But the principal of HC has been a master of assembling
classes to maximize use of the space. Obviously the way classes are
split would have to change to take advantage of 40 new spaces. If
anyone could figure it out, Beverly could.

> > overall.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Rhonda Woo]

I was unable to attend the Montclair PTA meeting, which was really open
to North Oakland families, but I have heard back from others who did
attend. I am advised that Directors Dobbins and Yee were present and
our incoming representative, Jody London, was in the audience. A number
of Chabot and Hillcrest parents were in attendance. Juwen Lam presented
a power point presentation indicating that kindergarten attendance at
Montclair is increasing and that attendance would increase even more if
the northern part of the current Hillcrest boundary were redrawn to make
a certain portion of the northern boundary a part of Monclair. (Note:
Interim Superintendent Mayor suggested that she would not recommend
redrawing of current boundaries. It remains unclear whether the BOE
would vote to redraw boundaries even if not supported by the Interim
Superintendent.) Timothy White put on a presentation regarding how
capacity could be added at Montclair, including a discussion of adding
portables and adding a new building. There was some amount of public
discussion from Montclair and Chabot parents with OUSD representatives.

Finally, just a reminder that there will be a meeting of the Special
Committe on School Admissions, Attendance and Boundaries on Friday,
November 21, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. at 1025 2nd Ave. in the Board Room. It
is expected that parents from Chabot, Montclair and Hillcrest will
attend in large numbers. If you are able and would like to voice your
opinions, attendance is highly recommended. The Board of Education is
expected to act on recommendations of the Special Committee in December
2008. It remains unclear how many public meetings will occur between
now and December 2008.

[Rebeca...@mckinsey.com]

One additional item from the Montclair meeting may be of interest to the group. In response to rumors about Far West housing Hillcrest's middle school, one of the staff commented that any decision to close Far West would not happen until December 2009. Essentially Far West is on a watch list and is off the table as an option until the end of next year.  


Rebeca Robboy
External Communications
McKinsey Global Institute
www.mckinsey.com/mgi
T:  415.318.5107
M: 650.743.1542
F:  415.318.4895

"Rhonda Woo" <Rho...@BerryAndBerry.com> Sent by: hillcres...@googlegroups.com 11/19/2008 04:16 PM   Please respond to hillcres...@googlegroups.com

To <hillcres...@googlegroups.com> cc Subject Montclair PTA Meeting November 18, 2008 and Special Committee Meeting Friday, November 21, 2008

+=========================================================+
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged
information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to
receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose or take any action based on this message or any
information herein.  If you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.
+=========================================================+

[Rhonda Woo]

I attended the above meeting but I arrived after 8 a.m. When I arrived,
it was the public response portion. A number of parents from Montclair,
Chabot and Hillcrest were present. Some Chabot parents supported
Claremont Middle School and invited Hillcrest parents to help make
Claremont Middle School a better school by having Hillcrest become K-5
and having Hillcrest middle school children attend Claremont Middle
School. Some non-Hillcrest parents wanted to know why their school
couldn't become a K-8. Hillcrest parents supported Hillcrest as a K-8
school. I don't recall much of the comments of Montclair parents
regarding whether the parents were for or against placement of portables
to expand capacity at Montclair.

My concern was what the details of the staff's recommendations meant.
Specifically, Recommendations Nos. 3 and 4 were to determine the
feasibility of expanding capacity at Hillcrest and making Kaiser the
home school for Hillcrest overflow, respectively. With respect to
Recommendation No. 3, I asked whether it meant that if capacity could be
expanded at Hillcrest at some future date, did that mean that if my
child were denied admittance that my child would be invited back at a
future date when capacity had been expanded. Additionally, I stated
that I still didn't have a sense of whether the Special Committee was
leaning towards Scenario A, B, C or D or whether future scenarios would
be considered. I did ask that the short-term solution be consistent
with what they believed the long-term solution would be. (Specifically,
in a prior Board of Education meeting, the staff indicated that closing
Claremont Middle School might need to be considered in 2010. At the
same time, the current recommendation is to make Claremont Middle School
a "school of choice.") The response I got was that I could re-apply in
the future and I received no response regarding whether Scenarios A to D
were still on the table. Some directors were nodding their heads when I
stated that the short-term solution be consistent with long-term plans
but that's the only response I received. With respect to Recommendation
No. 4 regarding Kaiser, the scenario would be as follows: If I selected
Hillcrest as my first choice, Chabot as my second choice and no other
school thereafter, if my child were denied admittance at both schools,
my child would be accepted at Kaiser.

Kerry Hamill was not satisfied with the staff's recommendations but
voted in favor of the recommendations to keep the process moving along.
She said that she didn't care whether the staff called Claremont Middle
School a "school of choice" or not. She just wanted Claremont Middle
School to be a better school. She did not understand why all of the
Hillcrest overflow would be sent to Kaiser when, for example, the south
east border of the Hillcrest boundary is so far away. Christopher
Dobbins voted in favor of the recommendations. I believe that by the
time of the vote that Gary Yee had already left for some other
appointment.

Bottomline: The Special Committee supported the staff's
recommendations, which are: 1) Make Claremont Middle School a school of
choice; 2) expand capacity at Montclair; 3) explore feasibility of
expanding capacity at Hillcrest; and 4) make Kaiser the home school for
Hillcrest overflow. No decision was reached regarding whether Hillcrest
would remain a K-8 or whether the 5th graders will enter a lottery for
middle school at Hillcrest where 1/2 of the 5th graders will be accepted
and the others will attend middle school elsewhere.

[Karin Foust]

Rhonda,

 

Do you know when the board meeting is?  I saw a blank December calendar online. 

 

Karin

[Rhonda Woo]

Off the top of my head, the next meetings with the BOE directors is December 10 and December 17, where the December 17 is the meeting where a vote is expected.  The December 10 meeting I think will be the Special Committee submitting its recommendation to the BOE.

---

From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karin Foust
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:24 PM
To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Friday, November 21, 2008--Results

[Karin Foust]

What is the LRPC doing at this point? 

[Rhonda Woo]

I am on the LRPC sub-committee regarding exploring expanding capacity at Hillcrest.  The first meeting in this regard is tomorrow evening. I am unaware of any other actions taken by the LRPC.

---

From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Karin Foust

Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 3:40 PM