In a widely expected move, the Board of Education approved a new master plan for the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) at its Feb. 23 meeting. The vote was 4-1 for approval, with only Board Member Trish Spencer dissenting.

The master plan is a possible road map for the district to follow in case certain financial situations arise. In the last few months, many Alameda residents have been extremely curious about the plan and what it means for the district. The Alameda Sun asked some of the Board of Education members to express what they felt were the most important things for people to know about it. The responses were varied.

Board Member Tracy Jensen wanted to inform Alameda residents that "the most important thing to understand about the plan is that it is an appropriate, well-researched, focused response to the immediate fiscal challenges facing the district." Jensen also wanted to make it known that even though the school board may end up asking Alameda residents to vote for a new parcel tax to help fund AUSD, the master plan "includes substantial cost-cutting measures. In addition to these financial actions, the master plan contains a variety of actions to address the achievement gap that limits the success of some of our students."

Spencer focused a great deal of her response on letting Alameda residents know about the class size increases the Master Plan calls for to save neighborhood schools. She stated that the district could end up "increasing class sizes from 20 students to 24.5 students in K-3 and to 35 students in ninth grade at all schools," and the district could possibly "increase out-of-district students in under-enrolled schools"

Spencer also mentioned that as a part of the master plan, AUSD hopes to hire a development director. The director will have a $140,000 dollar yearly salary and will be responsible for raising "$1.2 million over the next three years by securing Alameda Education Foundation (AEF) to 'raise money and manage programs.'" Student Board Member Miguel Gamalinda wanted members of the community to understand that "the master plan at this point does not spell out doom for any schools in the district as there are two possible scenarios to the master plan." Gamalinda is referring to what the board calls plans A and B.

Plan A lays out a road for the district to follow if Alameda voters approve a new parcel tax. Under "A" no schools will close within the district. If the parcel tax fails to gain enough votes however, the district could end up following Plan B. In Plan B, there is a possibility that some city schools will close. There is mention in Plan B of an unnamed high school closing, which has been widely rumored to be Encinal. The possibility of Encinal closing has caused a lot of controversy within the city.

All members of the Board of Education who responded to the Sun emphasized the importance of a parcel tax in the master plan. If approved by Alameda voters, the tax would charge a $659 yearly fee to owners of condos, multiplexes and single-family homes. The taxes to commercial and industrial landowners, as well as to larger duplex owners will be based on the square footage of the buildings they hold, but no tax to them will amount to more than $9,500. If approved, the parcel tax will have an eight-year lifespan and will apparently help the district stay financially afloat during that time. A vote on the tax could come as early as June.

The idea of a new tax is a source of contention for many Alameda residents. Spencer as recently as three weeks ago expressed doubts the tax would pass. She mentioned that the last parcel tax Alameda voters approved passed with fewer than 100 votes, and that was in better economic times.

It should also be noted however, that in Jensen's response to the Sun, she pointed out that "all of the unions representing district employees have voiced their support for the master plan and for a new parcel tax. Our employees understand that unless this community can come together to pass a parcel tax, our neighborhood schools will close, our class sizes will increase to 30 or more, our school year will be a week shorter, and students will no longer have access to music, sports, counselors or after-school programs. That would be a tragedy."

Clarifications

Last week, the Alameda Sun published an article about a lawsuit filed against AUSD. In a description of the plaintiffs' motives, the Sun stated, "It seems the women are mostly trying to make the district not violate the law again." Jensen informed the Sun that the line seems to indicate the district violated the law, even though that has not been proven. We apologize; AUSD has only been accused of violating the law.

Also, it was indicated in the same article that the controversial LGBT curriculum, known as Lesson 9, was permanently added to the district's new anti-bullying curriculum. In reality, Lesson 9 will only be a part of the new anti-bullying curriculum until the school board approves more suitable lessons that meet the needs of LGBT families.