Sweetwater Union High School District Proposition Bb

Additional Recommendations 9

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

• R24
  “It improves the image of the school.”
• R25
  “Sports are important; they attract a lot of high-risk kids who would drop out of school.”
• R26
  “The school has won lots of awards for athletics. And that helps the students’ self- esteem.”
• R27
  “The gyms are classrooms, there’s learning going on in PE classes.”
• R28
  “Both of the gyms—they’re identical—have a couple of classrooms for dance and for Special Education students.”
• R29
  “They’re state-of-the-art, they even have retractable bleachers, and can serve as auditoriums for special events; now we can host volley ball, wrestling; even a football team.” Other observers—many parents and teachers, in particular—reported that they did not agree with the concept of building a new athletic complex when other safety and academic-related needs of the established, in-use classroom buildings are deteriorating. Academic Status of High Schools The District’s philosophy, that ‘gymnasiums are classrooms’, may be correct but, to the parent or teacher with expectations that the improvements listed in the FIP and on the ballot were going to be implemented quickly, the Phase 1 constructions may have been a disappointment. This issue is particularly pertinent to the situation at the high schools where the new gyms and tennis courts were built. 162________________________________________________________________ The Superintendent and the School Board President, as well as the school principals, frequently reminded the Grand Jury that the SUHSD has received “many awards”. The Grand Jurors found that most of the awards at the two schools in question were for athletics, music, art and ROTC. Few were for academic success. The following figures indicate that the two schools with the new gymnasiums had some of the lowest academic scores in the SUHSD and in San Diego County.5 While these test scores may have improved since 2000, it is important to note that these were the scores available at the time when the decision was made to build the new gymnasiums. Figure 1. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Mathematics High Schools Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Year 2000 All San Diego County 58 52 54 All Sweetwater Union 50 46 48 Mar Vista 50 41 47 Sweetwater 37 23 28 60 50 All San Diego County 40 30 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 10 Sweetwater 0 Grade 9 Math Grade 10 Math Grade 11 Math Figure 1 shows data from the Stanford 9 test results for mathematics during the 1999-2000 school year. It is presented in table format and, for visual clarification, the same information appears in bar-graph format. Specifically, as demonstrated here, the two high schools tested below the averages of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11. Figure 2. Stanford 9 Comparative Test Results for 2000: Students at or Above National Average in Reading High Schools Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading 5 The San Diego County K-16 Report 2001. San Diego County Office of Education: August, 2001 ________________________________________________________________ 163 Year 2000 All San Diego County 42 40 43 All Sweetwater Union 29 29 31 Mar Vista 28 20 28 Sweetwater 15 12 17 45 40 35 30 All San Diego County 25 All Sweetwater Union 20 Mar Vista 15 Sweetwater 10 5 0 Grade 9 Reading Grade 10 Reading Grade 11 Reading Figure 2 shows that the same two high schools also tested below the average of both the SUHSD and the entire County of San Diego in grades 9-11 for reading skills. Figure 3. Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT 1) Comparative Scores, 1999-2000 School Year High Schools Averages SAT Verbal Score SAT Math Score SAT Total Score U.S. National 505 514 1019 California 492 517 1009 San Diego County 490 506 997 Sweetwater Union 449 465 914 Mar Vista 427 450 877 164________________________________________________________________ Sweetwater 404 427 831 1200 U.S. National 1000 California 800 San Diego 600 County Sweetwater 400 Union Mar Vista 200 Sweetwater 0 Verbal Math Total Figure 3, the SAT 1 results for the 1999-2000 school year, shows that Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools’ averages—in verbal and math skills as well as overall score—ranked below the averages for all high schools
• R30
  in the State of California
• R31
  and in the entire United States! The presented data on the comparative academic status of Mar Vista and Sweetwater High Schools seem to indicate that there is a need for greater emphasis on basic academic instruction. Poor science labs and poor classrooms (among other factors) are doing a disservice to many students in the SUHSD. The SUHSD does deserve recognition for its other, positive efforts: The Grand Jury learned that 19 of the 23 schools in the District have received the Distinguished School Award in the past 10 years. That Award is based on a school-generated application that includes an extensive ‘self- analysis report’ and a confirmation visit by State inspectors. The report covers 4 areas: curricula, school safety, parental involvement, and professional development. Chula Vista Middle School Built in 1930, the Chula Vista Middle School (CVMS) is one of the oldest in the SUHSD. There are 5 elementary ‘feeder’ schools, one just across the street. CVMS has a total student population of 1300. About 150 are English Language Deficient students and about 450 are Limited English Proficient. About 72-73% of the students are on the State-funded free/reduced lunch program. In 1996 CVMS won a Distinguished School Award and it has also received ________________________________________________________________ 165 awards for the creative and performing arts. Academically it is on the rise: The average API score for the 2001-02 school year increased 34 points, to 592. Insurance payment: CVMS received $2.7 million as the insurance settlement following the fire in February 2000. The amount was based on a detailed analysis from construction experts (retained by the insurance company) who estimated that it would cost $2,182,437 to replace the cafeteria. The remaining funds were for the classrooms and their contents. The new Administration Building: The Grand Jurors were very impressed with the fine Administration Building on the first visit to the site on November 21, 2002. We also noted the large plaque by the front door declaring that the building had been built with BB Bond funds. On October 23, 2002, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that teachers at CVMS picketed in front of the school to protest the building of an administration building before a student cafeteria. California Education Code 17573 states: “The governing board of every school District shall provide a warm, healthful place in which children who bring their own lunches to school may eat the lunches.” The newspaper also cited District officials as saying that the insurance money was not enough to build a new cafeteria. This is contradicted in the Audit Report provided to the Grand Jury by the County of San Diego’s Auditor and Controller. The District officials added that a new multi-purpose building currently in the planning stage would include a state-of-the-art cafeteria facility. Staff and faculty at CVMS indicated that a cafeteria is a priority for their school. A District spokesperson was also cited in the newspaper as saying that “the renovated and expanded administration building isn’t just for the comfort of the principal. It is the welcoming center for parents and community members.” When the old Administration Building was torn down, two structures were installed to serve as temporary offices during construction; those now house new classrooms. In total, 16 classrooms have been added since the fire—that’s 6 more than were lost. The cafeteria facilities in November, 2002: When touring the campus, Grand Jurors viewed at an open area holding about 20 old, splintery benches that might seat perhaps 100 students. This area is provided for students who bring their lunch. Asking where students ate when it rained, we were told that they sat on the floor in hallways and in sheltered walkways. This, we were told, is only a temporary cafeteria area; students who did not bring lunch were not mentioned. Nearby was a white structure with two food-service carts in front of it. An old sign near the door to the building said that it was the metal shop classroom. Actually, the building served as a temporary kitchen. There were a pass-through window and two small rickety food service carts in front. The cafeteria facilities, 6 months later: The Audit Report delivered in late April 2003 spoke of sheltered seating areas and “a state-of-the-art” kitchen facility. So, on May 13, 2003, the Grand Jury returned to see those changes. The rows of splintery benches have increased in number, now seating an estimated 300 students, based, Grand Jurors were told, on ten children per bench. That number may be overstated. A 166________________________________________________________________ bench might hold ten if they were primary age and sat straight and still. A more realistic count might be six middle school youngsters while eating. Another outdoor eating area with rows of benches is now in place across from the front of the building that houses the kitchen. It seats another 300 students—on similar old benches—we were told. (Perhaps another overstatement.) This dining area has two joined tent-peaked tarpaulin covers, installed about February 15, 2003. We were told that a roll-down ‘wall’ is in storage until they decide which side of the structure needs the protection. So it is that the school now has two outdoor eating areas seating, by their count, some 1200 students (600 x 2 lunch periods.) School officials considered it adequate for the school population of 1300. It was also mentioned that “these kids don’t like to eat indoors; they like this outdoor arrangement.” The Grand Jurors did not recognize the old metal shop and were astonished at the improvements since the last visit: The building now houses a bright, expansive kitchen with large (apparently new) windows high on a side wall but no pass-through window. It truly does merit the description as “state of the art” and includes a dining area for staff/teachers. In front of the building, under a roof extension, is an organized area of four molded-plastic food-service carts, one with an umbrella. All appear quite new—or very well maintained. Jurors asked when the kitchen was refurbished and were told that it was done 2-3 months after the fire; i.e., some two years earlier. Yet, Grand Jurors who participated in both visits did not see this new kitchen on their first visit. The SUHSD released a newsletter called the “School Bond Update” (dated Winter 2003) reporting that, “A new covered lunch shelter will temporarily replace the cafeteria destroyed by fire two years ago.” Who is to be believed? Did the Grand Jury’s November visit trigger some much-needed action? The New Long-range Facilities Master Plan In February 2002, The San Diego Union- Tribune reported that the “Architect Hired to Prepare Long-range Facilities Master Plan”: expected the Plan to be delivered in July 2003. The article continues, saying that the new Plan will consider the present and future needs of the District’s ten middle schools and ten high schools, look for future sites and for the support facilities needs of the district, and establish facility standards for educational programs and materials. It will replace the original Facilities Improvement Plan. The Grand Jury found that the SUHSD is committed to a total of $309,250 for this LRFMP and that Proposition BB funds will pay for that bill. The Grand Jury now wonders what will happen during the interim, pending receipt of the LRFMP, to the repair and improvement processes already in progress? What about other actions already initiated on the basis of the original intentions? Recommendations: Given the demographic and economic differences between the various schools in the Sweetwater Union High School District, the Grand Jury recommends that the SUHSD officials do the following: ________________________________________________________________ 167
• R32
  Work closely with the developer(s) of the new Long-range Master Facility Plan to assure that individual schools’ needs are met. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2002-2003 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Sweetwater Union High School District: 03-85: Strengthen and improve efforts to inform the community on the status of the projects funded with the proceeds from the sale of Proposition BB bonds by expanding its periodic updates to the public. 03-86: Issue reports of bond expenditures; modernization project status; and estimated project timelines to the Bond Oversight Committee so that body can make them available to the press and to interested community members. 03-87: Provide Proposition BB bond updates to school administrative and teaching staff who have direct contact with parents and the community. 03-88: Revise its Guidelines for the Bond Oversight Committee members selection process to ensure that situations which can be perceived as inappropriate by the community are avoided. 03-89: Open a regular formal dialog with the Bond Oversight Committee that gives more consideration to that body’s advice and recommendations and the rationale for them. 03-90: Work closely with the developer(s) of the new Long-range Master Facility Plan to assure that individual schools’ needs are met. 03-91: Comply with California Education Code 17573 for Chula Vista Middle School. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing