The Coarsegold Union School District and the Yosemite Joint Union
High School District are currently studying the feasibility of unification.
The two districts have contracted with the firm of Nigro Nigro &
White to conduct a study and then make a recommendation to the two
boards whether or not this would be advantageous to the educational
process.
Christy White, a partner in the firm, is conducting the study. She
summarizes the boards’ responsibility this way: “The task
before the board is to decide whether or not the voters should have
the opportunity to vote on the question of unification.”
The State of California has nine criteria for unification. In order
for the proposal to be able to go to the voters for approval or denial,
all nine of these criteria must be addressed.
The unification being considered by CUSD and YJUHSD is called a Thompson
Unification after the state legislator who wrote legislation allowing
unification of only two districts when there are more districts whose
students attend the same high school.
Students from the Bass Lake School District and Raymond Knowles School
District also attend high school in the YJUHSD.
According to Bill McCabe, superintendent of both the CUSD and YJUHSD,
the other two districts have not expressed any interest in unification.
Coarsegold and Yosemite have shared many administrative services for
the past three years including the superintendent, business manager,
transportation manager and cafeteria manager.
“We felt that it was appropriate for us to consider the possibility
of unification,” Mr. McCabe said. “The feasibility study
is just the first of many steps that must be taken. The final step,
should it progress that far, would be a vote by the people in these
two districts.”
The nine criteria for unification, and the study issues are:
1. The new
district is adequate in terms of number of pupils enrolled.
Study issue: None; minimum enrollment is 1,500
2. The district is organized based on substantial community identity.
Study issue: Does community identity exist?
3. The proposed unification will result in an equitable division of funds,
obligations and property.
Study issue: A division will not occur but legal clarification about outstanding
bonded indebtedness is needed.
4. The proposed unification will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination
or segregation.
Study issue: Not an issue, but demographic analysis is required.
5. The proposed unification will not result in any substantial increase
in costs to the state.
Study issue: Not an issue unless necessary small schools or a basic aid
district (i.e. property tax funded only) results.
6. The proposed unification will not significantly disrupt the educational
programs in the affected districts and will continued to promote sound
educational performance.
Study issue: Probably not an issue.
7. The proposed unification will not result in a significant increase
in school housing costs.
Study issue: Probably not an issue, assessed valuation, bonding capacity,
enrollment growth and Proposition 47 eligibility evaluated.
8. The proposed unification is not primarily designed to result in a significant
increase in property values.
Study issue: Not an issue unless the proposal is primarily designed to
increase property values.
9. The proposed unification will not cause a substantial negative effect
on the fiscal management or fiscal status of the proposed districts or
any existing district affected by the proposed unification.
Study issue: Not an issue if both districts are fiscally stable.
After the study
is completed, both district boards will vote on whether or not to continue
the process. If either board votes against it, the process ends.
If both boards approve moving forward, then the County Committee on District
Reorganization must take action. If they vote to continue the process,
it then goes to the State Board of Education. It could take as long as
a year for the State Board to take action.
If the State Board approves the process, based on the responses to the
nine criteria, the issue then goes to the voters in both districts. If
the voters approve the unification (50 percent plus one vote is required)
then the transition period begins.
The transition period, during which time there are three districts operating
– both original districts and the unified district – must
last a minimum of six months and must include the month of December so
the county can change the property tax rolls.
If the petition to unify is submitted in May of 2003 and is approved at
every step, unification could become effective July 1, 2006. If the county
committee and the state board accelerated timelines, it could become effective
July 1, 2005.
“Clearly this is a lengthy process as it should be,” Mr. McCabe
notes. “This process can be stopped at any of the levels if it is
not approved by a majority of the members of the given board.”
A Fact Finding Committee was formed in January to study the possibility
of unification. Members of the committee are employees of both district,
board members from both districts, parents and community members.
Committee members have traveled to other districts that have unified to
talk to people and find out what their opinion is now that they have unified.
This information is included with other data the committee has collected,
including information on the financial impact of unification.
If the districts unify, a common salary schedule will be adopted. The
state has special funds to pay for this “leveling up” of salaries
and will pay up to a 10 percent increase. These funds are outside of the
state budget and are required through the Education Code.
Mr. McCabe is hopeful that the boards will be able to consider the feasibility
study at a May meeting. This would be the first step in a multi-step approval
process.
School News
Home
|