Suspend Implementation of New High School Boundaries for One Year.

The following letter was sent today to the Grossmont High School District board members and superintendent.  The opinion expressessed is mine alone and I am not speaking for any of the organizations with which I volunteer.

February 9, 2012

To the Grossmont Union High School District Board Trustees:

I am a parent of two children currently attending elementary school in the La Mesa Spring Valley School District.  Although I am one of those who would be directly impacted by the new school boundary changes, my concern is not so much with where the lines were redrawn, but rather the process of that change. 

I am a parent volunteer serving on the LMSVSD Budget Study Committee.  This body has the unfortunate job of reviewing district spending and making recommendations for targeted program reduction to the board to help compensate for the cuts in state education funding. 

I fully understand the need to sometimes make difficult and potentially unpopular decisions.  This said, however, I am deeply concerned by why the GUHSD district once again acted in a manner wholly ignoring the concerns of the K-8 feeder districts whose children will one day be attending area high schools. 

One of the boundary committee members recently stated that there was no need to talk to La Mesa Spring Valley as the high school district had nothing to do with them.  If this were an isolated incident, it could be regarded a regrettable oversight. 

Unfortunately, this kind of separate worlds thinking has been all too common in our area.

La Mesa Spring Valley, Cajon Valley, Santee, and all the other K-8 districts are absolutely linked to the Grossmont High School district.  Our 4th graders will be your 9th graders in less than five years. 

All districts have an obligation to regularly communicate on matters of educational standards, technology, parental concerns, and other issues common to all schools.  I have no doubt that the lack of local coordination and meaningful dialogue is not exclusive to our area. 

However, this kind of artificial separation is one of the things impairing educational improvement across the nation.  From kindergarten through 12th grade, and even into higher learning, it should be a smooth and seamless road. 

For the boundary review issue, the Grossmont High School District should have done extensive outreach at the point when the committee was first being formed.  The local K-8 superintendents should have been asked to request parent volunteers to serve and give input on the boundaries. 

The final decision, of course, would be with the GUHSD board, but at least there would have been a broader and more inclusive review.

As the entire process has been correctly labeled a failure of outreach, its validity is now in question.

During these difficult times of repeated cuts to education funding, we cannot afford to be dividing ourselves due to preventable errors in judgment. For the good of our children, the schools which serve them, and our communities at large we should draw together in support of education. 

This is a difficult proposition when so many have called the decision-making into question.

Because of this, I would respectfully suggest that the board vote to suspend full implementation of the new boundaries for one year.  During this time, outreach would be done through the surrounding K-8 districts to gather input from both parents and district staff. 

The conclusions and boundary change decisions reached might well be the exact same as recently adopted, but at least the impacted populations would be more fully included. 

This would give needed legitimacy to the new boundaries and district leadership in general.  Beyond this, it is my fervent hope that the lesson will be learned and school districts across our area will become a model for active and dynamic educational communications across grade and boundary lines.

Sincerely,

Jay Steiger