Old columns I call Oldies but Goodies. You be the
judge.
From our July 2003 issue
New CTE Poses Problems for Loma Board
Neil Wiley
If you haven’t attended any Loma Prieta school board
meetings about building a new school for CTE, don’t worry. You haven’t
missed a thing. At the June 9 meeting, the board admitted that they don’t
know how much money they have to spend, how much it will cost, or even
what kind of construction they will use. And they don’t know when they can
start building or plan for a completion date. They also don’t have an
interim-housing plan, including when and where CTE students will be
housed. In addition, recent revelations suggest revisiting the priority of
the Measure K wish list.
Some of the "not knowing" can be explained. The state
won’t tell the district how much money will be available until August or
September. The board doesn’t know the cost because bids for custom modular
construction were considered too high, so final construction costs have
not been bid. And they don’t have an interim housing plan, partly because
the community opposed their plan to place portables on the Loma
playfield/park, and partly because they don’t know when they will need to
move CTE students to temporary housing.
We do know some things. There is general agreement that
the primary objective of Measure K was to build a new CTE middle school.
And according to school board president Lydia Dobyns, even under the
worst-case funding, there is enough money to build the school ¾$4.9
million funding to pay the roughly estimated cost of $4.8 million. I also
agree with Lydia Dobyns that the Community Center should be retrofitted
for better earthquake safety. Estimated cost: $50,000 to 60,000. The
problem is that in this worst-case estimate, there is little or no money
left for interim housing, water system improvements, etc.
Faced with these conditions, the board made two
decisions. Although they didn’t vote, they unofficially agreed to postpone
some decisions until they have more information, especially on funding.
They did vote in a unanimous decision to temporarily move portables to a
location near the existing CTE, if necessary, in time for new school
construction. Although this may mean moving the portables twice, the many
unknowns make this a practical solution.
It appears that the move of interim housing to the Loma
playfield/park was proposed to satisfy the needs of Independent Home
Study. It seemed like an easy solution. Use the portables for temporary
CTE classrooms, then turn them over to Independent Home Study.
The problem is that this not a good location for either
school. The location is too far away from continuing CTE classes and the
Community Center and gym on the south side of Summit. According to CTE
principal Lorrie Wernick, the move would require 13 minutes extra per day
between classes, and two supervisors to watch children during the walk
between the two campuses. I’ve also heard that a bus and driver may be
necessary to move students during inclement weather.
Moving students back and forth between two schools
compromises health and safety, lengthens the school day, and makes
administration more difficult. It would also be a continuing problem for
Independent Home Study as they make greater use of school facilities and
resources.
It also presents the loss of an existing community park
and poor aesthetics. The portables are ugly, and they would continue to be
ugly for many years.
Although it is claimed that IHS must be moved because
of earthquake faults, this risk was known when the facility was placed at
this location. Also, it hasn’t appeared to bother anyone that the Building
Blocks pre-school is also sitting on top of a fault. Are younger children
more expendable?
So, placing portables across the road doesn’t make
sense except for permanent use by Independent Home Study. If, however, the
only use is for temporary CTE classrooms, other locations closer to the
school could be used. And they can be truly temporary.
Tough times for schools and citizens
With shortfalls in state support, local school
districts must make up the difference through local parcel taxes, bond
issues, formation of assessment districts, grants, and fundraisers. Our
local citizens are paying a regressive parcel tax and for a bond issue.
They are supporting the school through volunteer work and fundraising.
How long will they support an Independent Home Study
program where 85% of the students do not live in the district, and their
parents don’t pay our parcel taxes and bonds? Although at this meeting,
Independent Home Study supporters said they turned a profit for the
district, business manager June Salisbury reported that Independent Home
Study has not made money for the district for five or six years. In
addition, many IHS parents refused standardized testing, threatening the
school district’s academic standing and eligibility for added funding.
Can we solve our interim housing problem more easily by
eliminating Independent Home Study? And can we afford to lose local
community support for our local students in order to continue Independent
Home Study?
Several larger school districts in Santa Cruz and Santa
Clara counties have recently closed school buildings. Perhaps they could
better afford to provide this alternative education. I’m not sure that we
can.
What Does Our Community Need?
Neil Wiley
The Santa Cruz Mountains is a great place to live, but it’s a bit short when it comes to community infrastructure. We have little local government support, no chamber of commerce and no Rotary Club. Although we do have community social groups, they tend to focus within a small geographical area (Loma Prieta Club, Redwood Estates Community Club) or a special interest (Mountain Art Guild, Summit Riders).
Our mountain schools have tended to become our local community hubs. At least for families with children, the schools are natural centers where people can come together to socialize, recreate and work toward improving their community. But it is also natural that most of these activities are child-centered. What about adult programs and facilities? And what about building a community that embraces everyone, including those without children or a direct interest in schools?
For years, the Loma Prieta Community Foundation has been attempting to fill this need, at least for those living in the Loma Prieta School District. It now may serve as an instrument to serve a wider mountain community, including Lakeside, Lexington, Redwood Estates, Glenwood and other rural areas above Los Gatos.
In late November, the Foundation invited community leaders and volunteers to an evening meeting to discuss community needs. After an introduction by Foundation president Richard Lyness, past Foundation president Leslie Meehan outlined the role of the Foundation, its organization and special assets.
She did an excellent job of presenting the Foundation, and we can applaud Foundation efforts, even if my own view is slightly more critical.
Their most notable achievement is the Community Center. Although countless other organizations, volunteers, county governments and the voting public contributed, the Foundation provided the focus for development. Unfortunately, the Community Center has provided many problems and conflicts. Groups have complained about cost, competition for limited space and poor maintenance. The Foundation finally gave up ownership in return for school district maintenance. Hopefully, school boards and administrators will remember that the district has an ethical responsibility to support these facilities for public (but not free) use.
Even with these problems, the Center has lived up to its name. It is a center not only for the Summit area but also for schools and organizations throughout the mountains.
Theatre in the Mountains is a wonderful success story. Although the Foundation almost killed the Theatre by taking too much money out too soon, they did provide an instrument for large grants from the Packard Foundation and others. By joining the Foundation board, Theatre directors were able to make themselves heard, but as with many other mountain organizations, Theatre in the Mountains is successful because of a huge contribution by a very few people. If you have an interest in the performing arts, you could gain some great satisfaction, complete with laughs and tears, by volunteering for this group.
Recreation programs have been less successful, especially the adult programs. Enrollments have been spotty at best. Sports tournaments and childrens’ activities, however, have worked well. This fall the Foundation turned over the recreation program to Los Gatos Rec. Although it may appear that the Foundation simply gave up, Los Gatos Rec can bring a wider range of programs to a wider community, including local classes and activities for Lexington, Lakeside and Redwood Estates.
This service includes running Building Blocks at Loma Prieta, and possibly managing day care facilities for Loma and Lakeside. Los Gatos Rec already manages Lexington day care. The question --Will synergy and more resources more than balance the loss of local control? Los Gatos Rec has created an excellent day care program for Lexington. It doesn’t hurt that they underwrote a loan of $250,000 for a new portable building.
There is also concern that Los Gatos Rec summer camps will conflict with existing Kids and Company and Theatre in the Mountains’ TIMPACC. These groups must get together to thrash out the competition for facilities and students. Let’s find a way to support all working programs.
Whatever the decision, many of us would like to see all of Loma’s child-oriented programs (Kids and Company, Building Blocks and IHS) and their rickety old structures removed from the old school site, perhaps saving one building for a safety center for police, fire, etc. The State of California said that this area was not safe for a school. This area was abandoned before the earthquake because it wasn’t safe. The earthquake only proved it. These children are not expendable. The fact that school boards have ignored these warnings for over ten years is unconscionable.
This brings up the Old Loma Park, which the school board and administrators now call “play field,” probably because the State of California funded a play field, not a park. This said, there is no reason that the community can’t overlay this play field, not with unsafe structures, but with park-like accommodations, including a full-time bathroom, benches, play equipment, shade trees, landscaped gardens, the large donated gazebo, etc.
There are two ways to fund such a park. One is to find a source of public money through the Foundation. Another is to ask local organizations to adopt one phase of the park. For example, perhaps the Loma Prieta Club would assume responsibility for landscaping and gardens. Either way, we’ll need a project manager to coordinate the plan. I hope that Art Hunt, who managed to get the first phase built, will stay on to direct continued development.
Every dream comes with problems. You can’t keep people out of a public area. Maintenance is again a sticky, often “litterly” sticky problem. Who cleans up the mess? Who polices the bathrooms? And who pays for it?
I don’t have an answer, but perhaps you do. Write us or tell it to someone on the Foundation board.
The Foundation’s community breakfast has been quite successful. I only wish they would sponsor more events to bring people together. It doesn’t have to be a big deal, but more social interaction would help us know our neighbors better. It would make it easier to find volunteers, and it would be fun.
A closer relationship with the Red Cross, MERC, Sheriffs’ offices, CHP and mountain fire teams and the Foundation would improve disaster planning. Safety groups should be represented on the board.
At the November meeting, we broke into small groups to discuss what our mountain community needed. As you might expect, the list was long and often unrealistic. We talked about desirable services, new facilities, cooperative lobbying efforts and other ideas.
Although senior services appeared to be a need, further investigation indicates that many good programs, sponsored by churches, social groups and the two counties, already exist. The problem is that these programs need more publicity. (That’s one place where MNN can help.)
Although there was talk of a dedicated community center, I think it would be more realistic to modify and renovate existing facilities. I heard one idea for a new facility that sounds doable. Why not include a small auditorium/theater in plans for a new C.T. English? During the day, CTE could use the auditorium for assemblies, presentations and special events. At night, the theater could be used for plays, a concert series and other events. A bond issue providing a school and a theater could have wider appeal, especially for the majority of residents who don’t have kids in school.
In a memo distributed at the meeting, Foundation president Richard Lyness said, “We need a more organized and articulate way to represent our common interests (with county governments).” John Haak suggested that if each mountain organization would send one person to a Board of Supervisors’ meeting, we could be far more effective at presenting the needs of our area. What a great idea! We can get help without getting mad. We just have to show our political will.
The Foundation board has agreed that they should move away from providing services and programs to being a catalyst for collaborative projects. This makes sense. The Foundation could also serve the role of a venture capitalist, providing support for worthwhile services and facilities. I can see them as an unofficial “Chamber of Commerce” or Rotary Club that brings people and organizations together to network and share the load of big projects.
Most of the people I talked to agreed that the Foundation shouldn’t be some super steering committee. Rather than attempting “world government,” all the mountain organizations could join a loose confederacy of equal states. We can learn a lot from each other. So let’s keep the ball in play. Encourage the Foundation and members of your favorite organization to keep meeting. You have our support.
A sense of
community
When Loma Prieta district superintendent Mary Ellen
Lewis asked me to attend the fifth grade promotion, I thought about not
going. After all, the fifth graders are just going to another school on
the same site. And with four grown daughters, Ive been to many
graduation ceremonies.
But she coaxed me with a "photo
opportunity." Steve Wozniak was presenting some awards. I couldnt
resist. After more than thirty years of advertising and publicity work
in Silicon Valley Ive met many business and technology leaders. Of
these, three displayed a special quality. Bob Noyce, a co-founder of
Intel, Al Shugart, founder of Shugart Associates and Seagate Technology,
and Steve Wozniak, co-founder and soul of Apple Computer.
Among all the millionaire businessmen and
technowizards of Santa Clara Valley, these three men stand out. Not
because of their achievements. Not because of their money and power. But
because of their dedication to the public good and their sense of
community. All three men gave not only money. They gave of themselves,
contributing significant time to community.
I remember seeing Bob Noyce, who was then Intels
vice-CEO, spend hours to help a young student with a science project. I
worked with Al Shugart for many years. Although he was president of the
worlds largest disc drive company, he devoted many hours to political
and social causes. But perhaps I respect Steve Wozniak the most, because
in addition to inventing "the computer for the rest of us,"
and generous financial philanthropy, his gifts of time are the most
personal. He has read stories to school children, acted in plays and
presented hundreds of awards. And he does it all with a gentle humility
that is so good for children (and us) to see.
Steve was the perfect presenter of the
"Autonomous Learner Degree," to five students who completed a
new program discovered and implemented by Sharon Regner. In this
program, the student meets twenty broadly defined learning requirements
through independent study. (See Sharons articleAutonomous
Learning.) Its a great program that goes far beyond objective
education to develop initiative, stimulate love of learning and create a
more socially aware person.
It was also a beautiful experience to see the Loma
forum packed with happy, enthusiastic, respectful children supported by
parents, teachers, administrators and community members. What made it
even better was the knowledge that the recent parcel tax measure was
passed by an overwhelming 81% of those voting. This means that not only
parents, but the community at large support our local public schools.
Lakeside and Lexington schools also received more local financial
support last year, so its unanimous. The mountain community is going
the extra mile to get quality public education.
As the fifth-graders received their certificates of
promotion, each and every student spoke a few words about his or her
fifth grade experience. It was innovative, educational, entertaining and
charming. I believe that every person in the room learned something
about community, diversity and the value of public education. As one
student said, "In fifth grade I learned that schoolwork was
important but that relationships were even more of a challenge."
What wisdom! Our local public schools support
satisfying relationships and social interaction. They bring us together
in common cause. They are a basis for community.
Thank you, Mary Ellen, for helping me learn a little
more about learning and a sense of community.
The Second Class
Citizens of Schulties Road
Their road is considered by many to be one of the
worst county roads in Santa Cruz County. Schulties Road children go to
school under an "inter-district transfer" that could be taken
away at any time. And the name of their road isnt even spelled right.
Why are the residents of Schulties Road treated so
badly? They pay taxes. They dont seem to be any more incorrigible
than their mountain neighbors. And some are downright friendly. Yet they
are treated like dirt.
The "road"
As Schulties resident Frank Rosati says, "Schulties
Road is the worst through road in Santa Cruz County or at least in the
MNN area." In fact, the term "road" is an overstatement.
Although the first mile from Old Santa Cruz Highway is simply bad
(narrow, pot-holed and cracked), it becomes less than a road through
much of its 3.3-mile length. You know you are in trouble when you see a
cluster of mailboxes signaling the end of the postal route more than two
miles from the roads end. You also know you are in trouble when some
driveways are wider and in better shape than the main road.
Im not exaggerating. Some sections are so covered
with heavy rock that they couldnt be considered a good trail. Its
heavy going for a bicyclist, and not much better for my fat-tired
Corvette all the way down to Stage Stop Way. Did you ever drive through
a dry stream bed, rock garden or a gravel pit? Its like that, only
worse. The rocks are bigger.
This is one road that justifies the need for a SUV,
especially one with high ground clearance and four wheel drive. A tank
might be better, but the path is too narrow.
According to Mr. Rosati, Schulties Road was adopted
as a county road in 1900. In over a century, the road hasnt improved
very much. It certainly doesnt meet county standards for a road, or
for that matter, a driveway.
The "school"
In May, the Loma Prieta Board of Trustees turned down
a petition from Schulties Road residents asking that 16 parcels along
Schulties be added to the Loma Prieta School District. This decision was
made even though the school district is facing a continuing decline in
enrollment.
The petitioners had logic on their side. The top of
Schulties Road is only 1.9 miles from the Loma Prieta School exit. This
is a far shorter distance from Loma Prieta schools than from Hutchinson
or Mountain Charlie on the other side of Highway 17. The road is just
across Burns Creek from the Summit Tunnel, a short cross-country walk
from Villa del Monte.
Driving their kids to Scotts Valley would take twenty
minutes longer, and would require driving on a dangerous Highway 17.
And, of course, there is no bus service.
The board trustees attempted to justify their
position by claiming that the Los Gatos High School district was against
such an addition. I dont buy this argument. Our board wasnt
elected to represent the high school. Their responsibility is to our
mountain community and our children. Although the board voted three to
one to exclude these children from our district, they belong here.
They did say that they would continue to allow the
nine children on Schulties to come to Loma Prieta as inter-district
transfers. In other words, you arent our children, but well adopt
you on a temporary basis. If this impacts class size, the district can
drop you like an unwanted foster child.
On the other hand, the residents of Schulties Road
get the last laugh. While the rest of us pay an annual $150 parcel tax,
they dont. And why should they? They are treated as second class
citizens.
The "name"
Schulties Road is named for a mountain pioneer family
by the name of Schultheis. Somehow an "h" disappeared and
"ei" became "ie." This Bavarian family deserved
better. Sometime in the late 1800s, John Schultheis cut the 3 ½ mile
road down the hill through lumberman Hihns property to reach the
railroad. The road was used to bring fruits and grapes down to the
train. As important, the road brought their children down to school in
the town of Highland, later called Laurel. They certainly needed school
access. According to the 1870 census, John and Susan Schultheis had
eight children.*
The people of Schulties (Schultheis) Road are our
neighbors. They should have better roads and be a part of the Loma
Prieta School District. To give them less is to make them second-class
citizens.
Do you care? E-mail news@mnn.net or call 408-353-1901.
*MacGregor, Bruce and Richard Truesdale, South Pacific CoastA
Centennial, Pruett Publishing Company, Boulder, Colorado, 1982.
Donated to the Mountain History Group collection by William A. Wulf, Los
Gatos historian.
Skateboarding?
To Skate or not to skate?
That is the question.
During the last several Loma Prieta
school board meetings, hours have been devoted to discussing where, if
anywhere, skateboarding should be allowed. Although the number of
skateboarding students is small, perhaps ten to twenty, the board has
patiently considered skateboarding options.
My take is that there are three
alternatives:
1. Denial. Pretend that there is no
problem. Ignore skateboarders and other skaters who are using school
benches, walkways, driveways and parking lots.
2. Prohibition. Prohibit skating on
school property.
3. Pro-active investment. Build a
special skateboarding area, and limit skating to that area.
At first denial looks like the easiest
path. Life is casual up here in mountains, and nobody wants to spoil the
fun of a few boys. And nobody wants to take on angry parents who want
positive recreation for their kids.
The problem is that denial can be
expensive and dangerous. As the district superintendent told the board,
doing nothing gives tacit approval to the activity, and that means the
school district is legally and ethically responsible.
"Grinding," flips and other popular skating maneuvers are
dangerous. Only a few weeks ago, a neighborhood boy received a serious
concussion while skateboarding downtown. This brings up the real risk of
a lawsuit.
Hard wheels and slamming boards are
also destructive to school property, especially painted areas. Limited
maintenance funds preclude an easy fix.
Lawsuits and paint only cost money.
But more importantly, what school board trustee or administrator would
be willing to endanger a child? Doing nothing is imprudent and
irresponsible.
Alternative 2, prohibition, is an easy
answer. The school simply posts a sign saying "Skating and
Skateboarding Prohibited (Santa Cruz County Code Section 8.23.020."
This regulation states that it is unlawful for any person(s) riding in
or on, by any means of any skateboard, roller skates, roller blades,
coaster, or similar device to go in or on prohibited areas. The areas
include walls, steps, driveways, parking lots, etc. In Zone A of Soquel
Village, skating is also prohibited on streets and sidewalks. The
penalty is an infraction of a county regulation.
School administrators and teachers
could issue oral warnings. If that didnt win compliance, then the
skater could be ticketed by a sheriff or deputy sheriff. The penalty: a
significant fine.
Both Lexington and Lakeside schools
prohibit skateboarding. Raf Strudley, Lexington principal, says they are
considering posting the prohibition. Martin St. John, superintendent of
Lakeside, admits that enforcement is difficult over weekends. Both agree
that skateboarding is dangerous and destructive of public property.
This alternative is a reasonable
solution, but it doesnt give kids an opportunity to skate.
A third alternative is to create a
special skateboarding area, either portable or permanent. Sounds like a
good idea. One catch, however, is money. A permanent installation could
cost as much as $250,000. A portable might be doable, but a location,
other than the school, is necessary. Perhaps a group of parents could
set up a non-profit corporation to lease a property. Or perhaps they
could work with the Loma Prieta Community Foundation. In either case,
the parents must be the driving force or it will never happen. The
school district should not be responsible for such activities.
I would hope that any organization
formed to sponsor skating would take every possible measure to protect
safety. State law requires public agencies operating skate parks to pass
ordinances "requiring the use of elbow pads, knee pads and a
helmet." Santa Cruz County Parks Director Barry Samuel also
suggests that skaters younger than eight years old must be accompanied
by an adult. They must wear appropriate safety gear, including elbow
guards and hand guards. Adult supervision and a signed parent release of
liability are also essential.
Whats your opinion? Should skating
be prohibited? Or should we develop a skateboard park? We welcome your
letters.
What's wrong
with this picture?
Is this machine a victim
of the cola wars? It looks like commercialism is being imprisoned, right
there against the wall of the Loma Prieta Community Center in the no-mans
land between Loma Prieta School and C.T. English.
Ah, if that were only
true. The coke machine may not be the victim. In fact, it may well be
the victimizer of your sons and daughters. Its bright colors promise the
sweet buzz of sugar and caffeine but deliver an unhealthy stew of
chemicals.
O.K., Ill grant you
that soft drinks are not the biggest problem facing the universe. Narcs
dont grab folks off the street for drinking this stuff. Its
cheaper than more potent drugs. And its better than coffee, booze and
lots of other questionable consumables that pass for liquid refreshment.
But it troubles me that we are making these syrupy concoctions so easily
accessible to our children. Lets face it. Soft drinks are not a food
group.
Some researchers suggest
that one of the most important predictors of childhood obesity is
sugar-rich soft drinks. Teens are now drinking three times more
calorie-laden drinks than they did in 1978. According to that pillar of
medical wisdom, Dr. Dean, "Three out of four teenage boys consume
an average of three 12-ounce sodas each day. Teenage girls consume about
two cans a day."
So what? A typical soft
drink contains 14 to 22 teaspoons of sugar. According to Barbara Levine,
a Ph.D. nutritionist, this sets our children up for diabetes, certain
cancers, heart disease and obesity. Of course, there is also the short
run problem of "Mr. Tooth Decay." A sweet tooth can mean no
tooth.
But more than sugar lurks
in many of these popular drinks. They are also pumped up with Silicon
Valleys favorite drugcaffeine. A Coca-Cola has 45.6 mg of
caffeine, but if you want to really get a child spinning like a top,
give them a Mountain Dew, with its generous 54 mg of caffeine, or how
about a 100 mg caffeine jolt of Jolt Cola. Just the thought of it can
make your hands tremble.
The mix of sugar and
caffeine does some troubling things, too. English researchers found that
this combination fools the brain into believing that blood sugar level
is too low, even when it is above the level of hypoglycemia. The result
can be shaking, sweating, intense hunger, difficulty in thinking and
impaired performance.
Questions have also been
raised about the phosphoric acid that goes into all colas. Large doses
of phosphorus may upset the calcium/phosphorus ratio, leading to bone
problems. The acid may be a problem, too. It may produce acidic
conditions that some diseases love. Even the innocent-looking caramel
coloring has been implicated in birth defects.
I know that you have
heard some of this "scare" talk before, and an occasional can
of this liquid sludge probably wont do any great harm. But I wonder
if we should encourage our children to drink this stuff.
I have been told that a
portion of the money dropped in the drink machines comes back to our
school. Thats no justification. In fact, I think that commercializing
our own children is sick. Sweden has made advertising to children under
twelve illegal. Perhaps we should follow their example.
At the Mount Everest base camp, a sherpa will deliver
a can of cola to your tent for seven dollars. We are delivering our
children to the cola-makers for a little money to the school. Who is
paying too much?
|