sos

A year ago Pacifica was told that if we made painful cuts to the school budget we would be on the trajectory to a better place. Now we are at a 3.1 million shortfall and once again looking at cuts – this time the closure of the entire Ocean Shore School (OSS) campus. At some point this rush to solutions needs to stop in favor of thoughtful planning. 

At the heart of the decision-making process is a report produced by the King consultancy, which was commissioned to assess enrollment trends and help guide budgetary decisions. While the report is an important tool, a closer look reveals that the case for such drastic action is far from conclusive.

The King report, which projects an average enrollment decline of 1.9% per year over the next seven years, does not provide a compelling justification for immediately closing a campus. When this modest decrease is compared to the district’s budget deficit, it is unclear why such an irreversible decision must be made immediately – less than two weeks after the proposal was made public! The report itself recommends regularly updating its analysis to monitor enrollment trends in an implicit acknowledgment that trends may shift due to factors not fully captured in the study. This cautious approach starkly contrasts with the urgency behind the proposed closures.

Further complicating matters is the lack of a clear plan to address capacity issues at other campuses. The King data shows that SSR and IBL already face capacity limitations. If OSS families cannot be accommodated at these schools, what is the district’s plan to mitigate the resulting overcrowding?

The demographic implications of closing OSS are also troubling. Supplemental data, such as that from GreatSchools, highlights that minority students are already more concentrated at OSS and SSR than at other district schools. Closing one of the more diverse schools in the district risks exacerbating inequities and creating adverse impacts for minority students. How were these consequences considered, and what steps will the district take to ensure equity for all student populations?

Additionally, the King report does not account for how its projections might be influenced by district actions—or inactions. For example, actively marketing transitional kindergarten (TK) opportunities to newly eligible families could significantly boost enrollment. If efforts were made to reduce the gap between TK and kindergarten enrollment by half, the district could more than offset next year’s projected decline. Conversely, failing to stabilize the district by closing schools may drive families out of the district altogether, compounding enrollment losses.

The numbers tell a stark story here: if just 8% of OSS families leave the district due to the closure, the projected decline for next year could double. How can we move forward with closures without fully understanding the ripple effects?

The decisions we make now will have long-lasting consequences for our students, families, and community. Before taking such drastic actions, we must ensure that all potential solutions and impacts are thoroughly analyzed and addressed. Rushing to close OSS risks doing more harm than good—not just to one school, but to the entire district.

Rather than rushing to implement potentially harmful cuts, we must slow down, gather more information, and ensure that our decisions are based on a full understanding of all the factors at play. Our children, teachers, and community deserve better than to be swept up in a decision-making process driven by incomplete data and rushed conclusions. It’s time to reconsider our approach.

Especially since we are constantly revisiting this issue with fixes that are not working long term.

David Hashemi
Workforce Analytics Leader, Pacifica Parent

A version of this post was also published in Coastside News as a letter to the editor on January 21, 2025.

When it comes to closing a neighborhood school, shouldn’t the community have a voice? Yet here we are, facing the proposed closure of Ocean Shore School—a decision that was deliberately obscured from public view. The district buried this bombshell in a February 28th Budget Collaborative meeting—so quietly that most parents still don’t know their children’s school might close. There was no public announcement. No press release. No email to parents. Instead, this life-changing decision was slipped into a routine budget discussion, virtually ensuring it would go unnoticed by the community. This wasn’t just poor communication—it was a calculated move to avoid public scrutiny.

The cloak-and-dagger approach worked exactly as designed: months later, many families remain unaware their children’s educational futures hang in the balance. There have been no town halls, no community forums, and no opportunities for meaningful parent or teacher input. This isn’t just poor planning—it’s a complete departure from legal requirements designed to protect our community’s voice in crucial educational decisions.

California law doesn’t treat school closures lightly, and for good reason. These decisions reshape communities, disrupt children’s education, and can exacerbate educational inequities. That’s why the state mandates specific steps: forming specialized committees, conducting thorough community engagement, and analyzing impacts on our most vulnerable students. These aren’t bureaucratic checkboxes—they’re essential safeguards for our children’s futures.

Yet our district has bypassed these crucial steps entirely. Instead of forming the legally required 7-11 Committee—a specialized group designed to evaluate school closures with community representation—they’re relying solely on internal administrative decisions. It’s not just using the wrong tool for the job—it’s making decisions behind closed doors that should be made in the open. 

Even more concerning is the district’s selective reading of their own demographic study. The King Consulting report actually recommends monitoring enrollment trends, not rushing to close schools. It doesn’t even account for upcoming mandated housing developments that will bring new families to our community. Are we making permanent decisions based on incomplete information, without any community insight?

Most troubling is the complete absence of an equity impact analysis. In an era where educational equity is paramount, how can we close a school without understanding how it will affect our most vulnerable students? The California Attorney General’s office specifically guided districts to conduct such analyses—guidance our district appears to be ignoring entirely.

This isn’t about opposing necessary changes. It’s about demanding the transparent, inclusive process that our community deserves, and the law requires. Our children’s education is too important for backroom decisions and hidden agendas. The district’s secretive approach isn’t just disappointing—it’s potentially illegal. California education code exists because previous communities learned the hard way what happens when school closures are rushed through without public input: fractured communities, displaced students, and decisions that look shortsighted in hindsight.

We’re not asking for endless delays. We’re demanding our legal right to be part of this process through:

• Immediate establishment of a proper 7-11 Committee with genuine community representation
• A comprehensive equity impact analysis shared with the public
• A new timeline that starts with community engagement, not ends with it
• Updated demographic studies that include all relevant factors and are openly discussed

Our school board has an opportunity—and an obligation—to halt this secretive process and start over with real community involvement. Taking time to do this right won’t just result in better decisions—it will restore trust and show our children that their education matters enough to warrant proper public discussion. 

The choices we make about our schools today will affect our community for decades to come. Let’s demand the open, legal process our children deserve, not decisions made in shadows. 

Crissie McBride, Pacifica

This post was also published in Coastside News as a letter to the editor on January 21, 2025.

This week, the Pacifica School District’s Board of Education will vote on a proposal that could dramatically reshape the educational landscape for our middle school students. The proposal seeks to reduce the availability of the K-8 school model, which currently serves 43% of Pacifica’s 6th, 7th, and 8th graders, by limiting it to just one school, effectively making the K-8 option accessible to only 17% of middle-grade students. In doing so, the Board would eliminate two K-8 schools—Ocean Shore and Vallemar—leaving only Cabrillo as a K-8 option. Kindergarten lottery numbers tell us K-8 schools are by far the more popular choice among families with 67% choosing a K-8 school.

At first glance, the shift may appear to be a minor administrative change, but it raises an important question: Are we sacrificing something valuable in the process? The K-8 model isn’t just a convenience—it has been shown to provide distinct advantages over the traditional middle school model, particularly during the crucial years of early adolescence.

The Case for K-8: Why the Shift Matters

In the 1970s, U.S. education experienced a shift toward the middle school model, with middle schools increasing more than sevenfold between 1,500 and 11,500. However, in recent years, cities like Baltimore, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and New York City have begun re-adopting the K-8 model, reversing the trend. Why? Because research has increasingly shown that middle school can be a time of academic and emotional turmoil for students, and the K-8 model offers a safer, more stable environment for navigating those turbulent years.

Two studies published in 2010 and 2012—the Columbia Business School’s Stuck in the Middle and Harvard Graduate School of Education’s The Middle School Plunge—found compelling evidence that the traditional middle school transition often leads to academic decline, increased dropout rates, and emotional struggles for students. The research highlighted several key takeaways:

1. Academic Decline: Students transitioning into middle schools often experience significant academic setbacks.
2. Long-Term Setbacks: These students continue to struggle with their academic performance through the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades.
3. Dropout Rates: Students who attend middle school are more likely to drop out of high school compared to their peers in K-8 schools.
4. Emotional and Behavioral Challenges: Early adolescence is a particularly vulnerable time, and the disruptions of transitioning to a new school can exacerbate emotional and behavioral issues.

In fact, several studies, including those in New York and Florida, show that students in K-8 schools have better academic outcomes, more stable peer groups, and fewer behavioral problems compared to their peers in middle schools.

Smaller K-8 Schools Benefit Neurodivergent Students

Smaller K-8 schools provide a supportive environment that reduces the need for costly accommodations, benefiting both children and budgets. As parent Tarra Knotts explains, “These struggling children are met where they are at… they are not made fun of or ostracized, they are treated like family because they have known them for up to 9 years.” Moving children to a larger middle school, especially during the difficult tween years, can disrupt this support. Research shows middle schools often have higher suspension rates, particularly for disadvantaged or disabled kids. In his book Lost at School, Dr. Ross Greene, PhD says, “Kids do well when they can.”

K-8 Schools in Pacifica: Test Scores & Beyond

At the district level, the data from Pacifica’s schools in 2023-24 reveal no conclusive academic advantage between students at K-8 schools and those at Ingrid B. Lacy (IBL) middle school when it comes to test scores in English Language Arts (ELA) and math. But test scores alone don’t tell the full story.

School climate plays a significant role in student success, and this is where the K-8 model shines. The middle school years are notoriously challenging for students, and the stability of staying at the same school from kindergarten through 8th grade provides a sense of continuity and community that can be crucial for emotional well-being.

One key indicator of school climate is chronic absenteeism. According to the California School Dashboard, IBL is struggling with higher absenteeism rates compared to the K-8 schools in Pacifica. Similarly, suspension rates are higher at IBL than at Ocean Shore, Vallemar, or Cabrillo. These disparities reflect the difficulties that middle school students often face in the traditional middle school model, where they are more likely to feel unsupported and disconnected within their school community. 

The Hidden Impact: Special Programs and Inequity

K-8 schools are more than the sum of their parts. Take Ocean Shore, for example, the school boasts an award-winning Oceans 411 program that elevates 7th and 8th graders to serve as marine conservation instructors to younger students. This project-based, cross-grade program has been a tremendous success, thanks in part to the collaboration between elementary and middle school students. If Pacifica moves forward with the proposed cuts to the K-8 model, programs like Oceans 411 will be significantly impacted, depriving students of a valuable educational experience.

Moreover, the decision to eliminate the K-8 model would disproportionately affect the north end of Pacifica, where Ocean Shore is located. This area has a higher percentage of disadvantaged families, and taking away the K-8 option could further entrench existing inequities. For many families in these communities, the K-8 model provides a crucial opportunity for stability and continuity, helping to bridge the gap for students who may otherwise face greater challenges in the traditional middle school system.

Conclusion: A Call for Equity and Better Options

If Pacifica is truly committed to providing quality education for all its students, it should not reduce access to the K-8 model, which has been shown to support better academic outcomes, foster emotional stability, and contribute to a healthier school climate.

As the Pacifica School Board makes its decision, it should consider the long-term effects on students, especially those in disadvantaged communities who stand to lose the most from this shift. Rather than dismantling a model that has shown tangible benefits, Pacifica should seek ways to expand and enhance the K-8 option for all students, ensuring that every child in the district has access to the stability, community, and educational opportunities they need to thrive.

I am urging our school board and the citizens of Pacifica to stand up for K-8 schools and not take a step backward for Pacifica’s middle school students. Let’s keep our options open, and ensure that all students—regardless of their background—have the chance to succeed in a supportive and nurturing environment.

LiLing Pang
Parent at Ocean Shore School, Pacifica, CA

A shorter version of this post was published in Coastside News as a letter to the editor on January 21, 2025.

We understand the financial realities that school districts across the country and Bay Area are facing due to declining enrollment. We are aware of other Bay Area communities and districts that are dealing with those same realities as us right now. However, the way the district has collaborated with members of these other Bay Area communities in finding solutions to these issues is as different as night and day to how our district has tackled this issue.

Take, for example, Berryessa Union School District—a K-8 school district in San Jose—that voted in December to close 3 of its 10 elementary schools. The Berryessa board took 8 months to make its decision. In April 2024, the district school board officially formed a School Consolidation Advisory Committee, which held 9 public meetings over the course of 6 months. This committee then published its formal recommendations in a report to the board in November, with the final decision coming one month later in December.

Now, consider how the Pacifica SD board has tackled this issue. It did not officially form a School Consolidation Advisory Committee. In fact, no public meetings were conducted to discuss options for school consolidation, and parents were hardly engaged at all.  In Pacifica, a committee met in private to form its recommendations and then unveiled them to the board on Saturday, January 11. Less than two weeks later, on 1/22/25, the board will vote on these recommendations. 

Drew Schmenner
Concerned Ocean Shore Parent

This post was also published in Coastside News as a letter to the editor on January 21, 2025.