GUHSD Attendance Boundary Work Was Exhaustive, Comprehensive

The following letter was in response to an inquiry from La Mesa Patch and reacts to earlier letter by parent Gregory Kerrebrock.

To the editor:

I was chair of the [Grossmont Union High School District] Boundary Committee, but I’d like to make it clear that I speak only for myself.  The opinions stated below are mine only, and are not necessarily the opinion of the GUHSD or its trustees or administrative staff.

I regret that there are citizens in the district who felt that they were not notified of the boundary changes.  I’m sure that the district did everything within reason to let its residents know that a boundary study was under way, and that recommendations were being considered which would change many of the district’s high school boundaries. 

Considering the current budget issues faced by all the districts in the state, I don’t believe that sending a mailer to each and every family within the district’s boundaries would be practical, or fiscally prudent.  I’m sure that, short of such a mailer, the district did everything in its power to notify parents of the proposed changes.

If there are parents who do not believe that they were given reasonable notification, then it’s their right to show up at a future board meeting, in order to share their feelings with the trustees.  I encourage them to do so.

Concerning the boundary changes, I’d like to emphasize that our deliberations were exhaustive, comprehensive and that we solicited public feedback during our deliberations and afterwards. 

The basic challenge with the old boundaries was that populations had shifted dramatically during the decade since the boundaries were last redrawn.  Some areas had grown substantially, while others were in decline. 

There was (and still is) a huge disparity between the most heavily attended high school (Granite Hills at 2,751) and the least attended high school (Santana at 1,503).  That’s a difference of over 1,200 students, and considering that both high schools were designed for a student population of 2,000, there are some substantial problems.

The schools that are overpopulated are forced to use temporary classrooms in order to accommodate the additional numbers of students, but that doesn’t address infrastructure issues like cafeteria space or bathrooms.

The schools that are underpopulated are not able to provide the same rich array of educational options and extracurricular activities that are provided by the larger schools.

Our goal in the Boundary Recommendations was to balance the student populations at each of the nine existing [noncharter] high schools, while maintaining neighborhood integrity, student diversity, student safety and the needs of each of the communities served. 

I think that it must be agreed that in order to balance student populations, that boundaries must be redrawn.  One cannot happen without the other.  So there will inevitably be homes that are moved from one high school to another, and there is really nothing that can be done about that, other than leaving the status quo, which is unacceptable.

The district has tried to mitigate parents’ concerns by adopting these policies in regard to the boundaries:

• No student will be moved from one high school to another.  If they have already started at a district high school, they will be allowed to finish at that same school.
• If a family has had one or more student attend a district high school that is now outside their new boundary, all siblings will be allowed to attend that same school.
• If a family has a student with special educational or extracurricular needs, they may apply to the district for permission to attend a high school outside their boundary.  There is, admittedly, tightened criteria for allowing such transfers, but the option to request it is still available to parents.

I am completely satisfied that the new boundaries are equitable and will result in an improvement in the educational environment for all students throughout the district.

Sincerely,

Doug Deane
Alpine