Exacerbating Overcrowding after losing the 2014 Measure Q $54M Facilities Bond: January 2015 to June 2015

January 13, 2015 – City Council members:

1. Peter C Tucker - Mayor

2. Michael DiVirgilio

3. Nannette Barragan

4. Carolyn Petty

5. Hany S Fangary

6. Tom Bakaly – City Manager

February 10, 2015 - Email from Hermosa resident Julie Nunis to Hermosa Beach City Council members c/o City Clerk Elaine Doerfling regarding empty classrooms during the daytime at the Community Center dated February 10, 2015.

“Please do move forward with considering existing buildings to alleviate overcrowding. A few things to think about:

- Population ebbs and flows, using existing buildings could save the city money and construction headache if/when our beach population ebbs.

- I have worked at both the theater in the Community Center and can attest to empty classrooms during the daytime, they could be used for classes.

- We have many unused spaces that could be used for extended classes for the middle schoolers”…

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 - HBCSD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED TO MOVE ALL 3RD GRADE STUDENTS FROM VALLEY SCHOOL TO VIEW SCHOOL STARTING IN THE 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR – SEVERELY OVERCROWDING VIEW SCHOOL 10 MONTHS BEFORE THE DISTRICT’S NEXT $59M DOLLAR FACILITIES BOND VOTE.

1. In November 2014, HBCSD lost the vote for their $54M facilities bond, Measure Q.

2. Prior to the November 2014, Measure Q $54M bond vote Decision Insite’s March 2014 enrollment report projected an increase in students for only one year; the 2015-2016 school year. After that, from 2016 through September 2023, DI projected stable enrollment with a decline of about twenty two (22) less students in the district.

3. On February 11, 2015, three months after losing the $54M Measure Q bond vote and three months before enrollment consultants Decision Insite May 2015 enrollment projections predicted an increase in future enrollment*, School Board members voted to move SEVEN classrooms of 3rd grade students (149 students in all) from Valley School to View School starting in September 2015. The school board’s decision would completely overwhelm an already overcrowded View School with additional students only 10 months prior to the June 2016 $59M Measure S bond election.

See also:

Lie #25: The district’s enrollment projections supplied by Decision Insite seemingly ignored evidence of declining K-12 enrollment from the California Department of Finance, Demographics Unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Lie #26: HBCSD enrollment consultants inflated Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and Kindergarten (K) enrollment and seemingly did not take into account the full-time to half-time change in TK and K classes even as their May 2015 report was titled “Conservative 5-year Projections, Assuming Return to Half-Day Kindergarten.

Lie #27: Less than six months after the district won it’s $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD’s enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increase in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

Lie #28: Needlessly moving all 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School starting in the 2015-2016 school year. Severely overcrowding View School ten months before the district’s next $59M facilities bond vote.

4. *NOTE: Only Six months after the district’s $59M facilities bond passed in June 2016, Decision Insite’s changed their May 2015 Enrollment Projections from 1,543 students in 2019 to that of only 1,234 students in 2019. DI changed their enrollment prediction to a 309 student DECLINE at HBCSD by September 2019 from the May 2015 enrollment projections.

See also:

5. In the meantime, LAUSD, in both their May 2012 and June 2015 enrollment projections, was projecting significantly lower enrollment in Los Angeles County from 2012 through to the 2023-2034 school year.

Please see:

(a) LAUSD Projected Public K-12 Graded Enrollment from Enrollment Decline and K-12 Education: Trends and Implications for Southern California, LAUSD Master Planning and Demographic Unit, of May 21, 2012.

(b) DOF K-12 Public Graded Enrollment Projections for LA County (2014 Series) from Projecting K-12 Public School Enrollments: Monitoring and Evaluating Data Changes for the Los Angeles Unified School District, LAUSD Master Planning and Demographic Unit, of June 1, 2015.

See also:

6. There were no large housing projects planned for Hermosa Beach that would bring in more students to the district.

7. At the February 11, 2015 school board meeting, 1:19:42 mark, Superintendent Pat Escalante states:

“…it [moving third grade to View School] matches the, um, class size reduction school formula. It, we, um, had some nervous moments by having third grade out there over at Valley, um, because the formula is based on a school-wide ratio average [for K-3rd grades], and when you have just one grade level at the school, you cannot go over the 24:1 or you lose your funding for the entire district, which for us is around $500,000 dollars.”

The above statement by Superintendent Pat Escalante is misleading, incorrect and makes no sense.:

1. Moving third grade to View School does NOT necessarily “match” the “class size reduction school formula”. By “class size reduction school formula” it is assumed that Superintendent Escalante is referring to Grade Span Adjustment (GSA) requirement of not more than 24 students per classroom in grades K-3.

(a) Class Size Reduction (CSR) was disbanded by the CDE in the 2012-2013 school year.

(b) Class Size Reduction (CSR) was replaced by K-3 Grade Span Adjustment (GSA) in the 2013-2014 school year.

2. Moving third grade to View School does NOT “match” the class size reduction school formula or Grade Span Adjustment (GSA) requirements. The only requirement is 24 students per classroom in K-3rd grade. 24 students per classroom can happen at either View School or Valley School.

3. Grade Span Adjustment does NOT include and does not affect student enrollment per classrooms in grades 4-8th at Valley School.

4. Any school district can override the GSA requirement of 24 students/classroom and still receive full GSA funding if they negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for higher class size provision ahead of the school year. A collective bargaining agreement could have been made for 25 students per classroom instead of 24 students to insure HBCSD would not lose the GSA funding for the district. The agreement needed to only be for a year or two until enrollment dropped as was projected by enrollment consultants Decision Insite and as it happened, actually occurred.

5. Bottom line: HBCSD did not have to move 150 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School to comply with GSA funding rules.

See also:

Lie #29: Misinformation and misleading information provided by Superintendent Pat Escalante to justify moving 3rd grade from Valley School to View School in September 2015.

Lie #30: The enrollment facts at the February 2015 school board meeting did not justify overcrowding View School with an additional 149 3rd grade students.

Lie #31: Was the School Board’s February 2015 decision to egregiously overcrowd View School actually a response to losing the November 2014 $54M Measure Q bond vote and not about class size reduction funding?

6. If the district had taken the temporary collective bargaining step of increasing class size to 25 students per classroom (25:1) for at least 3rd grade in 2015-2016 school year, HBCSD and taxpayers could have saved the $721,476.00 that was spent on three temporary classrooms and a temporary restroom facility at View School when the district shifted approximately 150 3rd grade students from Valley School to View School in September 2015.

7. It did not make sense for school board members to egregiously overcrowd View School just to accommodate one year of possibly going over the 24:1 ratio for 3rd grade at Valley School. Even losing all GSA funding for the district (which according to Pat Escalante was about $500,000/annually) would have cost the district and taxpayers much less than purchasing and installing 3 portable classrooms and one portable restroom at View School for $721,476.00 and severely overcrowding View campus. Not including the cost and inconvenience to staff of moving seven classrooms worth of desks, books, etc to View School from Valley School for only one year of anticipated increase. See HBCSD Temporary Facility Costs 2012-2015.

8. From 2013 to 2016 HBCSD kept available reserves as high as 25.9% or $3,384,821. HBCSD is only required to hold 3% of their undesignated fund balances in reserve. Some of the $3.4M reserves could have immediately been spent to improve North School or the Community Center for student use. In addition, school board members could have used the $721,476 spent on temporary classrooms at View School to renovate either North School or the Community Center for student use instead of allowing View School to remain overcrowded.

9. NOTE: Pat Escalante does not hold a Doctor of Education degree, nor did she have any prior experience as a superintendent. School board members who hired her should have been aware of her lack of qualifications to advise them of their options. Don’t school board members do their own research before making such an impactful decision to students, HBCSD staff and taxpayers? (Of course school board members already had thoroughly researched and considered all the facts surrounding their $59M bond before putting it on the ballot!)

See also:

Lie #20: Misleading the public that Pat Escalante was well qualified to be a superintendent.

10. Why would school board members choose to overcrowd and overwhelm View School when there were other less impactful options to accommodate Grade Span Adjustment? Didn’t school board members and Superintendent Pat Escalante recognize that moving 150 more students to an already severely overcrowded View School might panic the staff and parents of View School students? Wouldn’t panicked View School’s parents be more motivated to work to pass a bond that their children might benefit from than the parents of older children at Valley School who would soon be graduating out of the district? HBCSD had already lost one bond vote, $54M Measure Q. Therefore, it would make [sick] sense for Superintendent Pat Escalante and school board members, possibly following an unspoken mandate from the Cabal, to overcrowd View School and possibly garner more support for their $59M facilities bond from parents of younger students. Leaving 3rd grade students at Valley School would have less panic-inducing “benefits”. And, best of all, Pat Escalante and school board members would always have plausible deniability for their actions.

See also:

Lie #19: Claiming that HBCSD was over capacity by 500 students prior to the district’s 2016 $59M bond vote.

11. After overcrowding View School with an additional 150 3rd grade students from Valley School, HBCSD (with the help of HBCSD attorney Terry Tao) was able to get parents to send 103 emails into the Coastal Commission in July 2019 to pressure the Coastal Commission to allow HBCSD to demolish the iconic circa 1934 North School campus and build a brand-new, now unneeded 510 student campus.

See also:

Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.

March 30, 2015: 5 ways Los Angeles County’s population is changing, by Brenda Gazzar, Daily News, published March 30, 2015, updated August 28, 2017.

“Fewer young children.”

“LA County lost nearly 18 percent of its children under the age of 10 between 2000 and 2013. This was due to a confluence of factors: the baby boomer generation stopped having babies; immigrants stopped coming here in large numbers… the birthrate has gone down significantly…”

May 2015 - DECISION INSITE’S MAY 2015 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE 2015- 2016 SCHOOL YEAR PREDICTED RISING ENROLLMENT PRIOR TO THE JUNE 2016 $59M MEASURE S BOND VOTE.

1. Decision Insite’s enrollment projections were released in May 2015 three months after the February 2015 school board meeting decision to move 150 third grade students from Valley School to View School. The new Decision Insite May 2015 enrollment projections predicted a 58-student increase at HBCSD in 2015-2016 school year.

2. In April 2015 (one month before the new May 2015 DI enrollment projections were released) total district enrollment had dropped by 12 students since the start of the school year (September 2014). Did Decision Insite consider this decline before making the projection of significant increase in district enrollment in their May 2015 projections?

3. The actual HBCSD enrollment for 2nd graders in the 2014-2015 school year was 159 students at April 2015, one month before DI’s May 2015 “Conservative 5 Year Projections” was released. The 159 2nd graders in the 2014-2015 school year would become the 3rd graders for 2015-2016 school year. Although there had been a decrease of four 2nd grade students from September 2014 to April 2015, DI’s May 2015 Enrollment Projections increased the amount of 2nd graders moving to 3rd grade in September 2015 by eight additional students for a total of 167 3rd graders projected for September 2015. Increasing the third grade count by 8 students is a large projected increase considering our district’s relatively overall small enrollment.

4. Offering full-day transitional kindergarten (TK) and kindergarten is supposed to increase enrollment in a school district because it attracts working parents with small children. HBCSD began offering full-day kindergarten in 2011 which acted to increase enrollment at HBCSD. It is believed that Manhattan Beach Unified School district did NOT offer full-day TK and K.

5. Decision Insite’s May 2015 enrollment report used the heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection – Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten”. However, DI’s projections for TK and K on the May 2015 enrollment report did not reflect any less TK and K students in the district when “Assuming Return to Half-day Kindergarten”. In fact, DI’s projections for TK and K enrollment used higher projections than the historic average at HBCSD for full-day TK and K enrollment. How would returning to half-day Kindergarten result in MORE TK and K students each year at HBCSD in the future as Decision Insite indicated on their May 2015 enrollment projections?

6. The May 2015 enrollment report used the heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection – Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten”. The heading “Conservative 5 Year Projection” on the report had the effect of alluding to a possibly HIGHER actual enrollment increase in the future, thus a need for the district’s $59M bond without DI actually predicting more students.

7. Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected 30 TK students/year from 2015 to 2019. At September 2015, eight months before the June 2016 bond vote, actual TK enrollment was only 17 students.

8. Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected 143-145 Kindergarten students/year from 2015 to 2019. At September 2015, eight month before the June 2016 bond vote, actual Kindergarten enrollment was only 127 students.

9. Decision Insite’s May 2015 “Conservative 5-Year Projections, Assuming Return to Half Day Kindergarten” had projected a total of 1,517 students enrolled at HBCSD as of September 2015. The actual count at HBCSD was 1,427 students in September 2015. A difference of 90 students less than projected by DI only four months earlier in May 2015.

10. All indications from the California Department of Finance demographic unit and the Los Angeles Unified School District predicted that enrollment was significantly DECLINING in Los Angeles County and in ALL coastal communities in California. In addition, there were no new multi-unit housing developments planned for Hermosa Beach that would possibly increase the district’s student count. How then did Decision Insite determine that enrollment was rising in Hermosa Beach right before the district’s $59M bond vote?

11. Given the dramatic change to Decision Insite’s enrollment projections in four months (from May 2015 to September 2015), why didn’t HBCSD school board members request an updated enrollment projection in the spring of 2016 before the district’s $59M bond vote so taxpayers could make a better-informed decision as to the need for the district’s $59M bond?

12. *NOTE: Only Six months after the district’s $59M facilities bond passed in June 2016, Decision Insite’s changed their May 2015 Future Enrollment Projections from 1,543 students in 2019 to that of only 1,234 students in 2019. DI changed their enrollment prediction to a 309 student DECLINE in HBCSD by September 2019 from the May 2015 enrollment projections.

Please see:

June 1, 2015 - DOF K-12 Public Graded Enrollment Projections for LA County (2014 Series) from Projecting K-12 Public School Enrollments: Monitoring and Evaluating Data Changes for the Los Angeles Unified School District, LAUSD Master Planning and Demographic Unit, of June 1, 2015.

LAUSD’S June 1, 2015 enrollment projections, one year before HBCSD’s 2016 facilities bond to build a brand new campus at North School, predicted a 6.5% DECLINE in K-12 grade enrollment at LAUSD through 2023-2024.

June 30, 2015 – HBCSD Available Reserves (school district savings account) at June 30, 2015.

In 2013 available reserves were $1,532,480 or 14.9% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,355)

In 2014 available reserves were $2,184,876 or 20.2% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,385)

In 2015 available reserves were $2,949,713* or 25.5% (Average Daily Attendance is 1,422)

NOTE: HBCSD is required by law to hold at least 3% in reserves.

NOTE: In 2000, before Measure J $13.9M facilities bond was passed, HBCSD reserves were 13.5% or $722,932 (Average Daily Attendance is 920 students).

NOTE: In 2005 School Board member Greg Breen had stated that HBCSD had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 construction bids that came in $2,612,000 over and above available Measure J funding. However, in 2005 district reserves had fallen below the mandated 3% level to 2.9% for a total of only $225,960.

HBCSD School Board members would ultimately spend $11M on the new construction at Valley School (gymnasium, two replacement classrooms, library) and NOT build or supply any additional classrooms for future growth. The 2002 Facilities Master Plan had recommended that HBCSD provide 13 more classrooms by 2012.

See also: November 7, 2002 – School bonds approved in a landslide, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News

(a). “Hermosa voters overwhelmingly approved a $13.6 million school bond to revamp the city’s two aging public schools, build at least 13 new classrooms, acquire more land and build a gymnasium on the Valley School campus.”…

(b). “The bond is needed “to completely bring both schools up to the current standards of construction and technology, and to build the necessary classrooms to handle anticipated growth in the district,” school board President Cathy McCurdy said.

NOTE: School board President Cathy McCurdy does not mention the gymnasium as the main focus of Measure J bond money in this article.

*NOTE: By 2015 HBCSD school board members had amassed reserves of $2,949,713 or 25.5% of available funds. In other words, $2.9M was held back from being spent on students or plant services while school board members waited to pass a $59M facilities bond.

NOTE: By June 30, 2016, the year the school district’s $59M Measure S was passed, HBCSD reserves were 25.9% or $3,384,821!!! (Average Daily Attendance was 1,384 students). These are funds withheld from district operations which also had the effect of panicking parents, staff and the community to pass the bond.