Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center May 4, 2015 Next Steps Committee’s Phase Two Engagement: Summary of Process and Results Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center May 4, 2015

Overview of Tonight’s Presentation of the Results of Phase Two Engagement Short Review of the Engagement Process Participant Data Highlights of Results for Each Component

PCRC’s Engagement Process Guiding Principles Content of Town Halls and Forums Handouts and Supporting Material Roles of NSAC and PCRC Important to address the design of the forums and town halls was to encourage a cross section of participants by having a variety of locations, times and dates

Phase Two Engagement by the Numbers Town Halls—6 with 220 participants Forums—22 scheduled with 301 participants Survey—3,559 completed (3544 in English and 15 in Spanish) Total Participants– 4,080 One forum with no attendees which includes several who participated in more than one opportunity: This number is duplicated, some attended (although about 3K didn’t attend a forum) Good news was on the survey link page there was a link to the NSAC video, to prep for the survey

Highlight Data on Participants Town Halls—220 total Forums—301 total BOTH Town Halls/Forums 60.3% San Mateo, 24.7% Foster City, 15.1% Other or didn’t complete; 75.6% Parent of current student; 24.4% Other (Community member, parent of future student, staff) Survey- 3,559 Respondents Community of Residence: 63% San Mateo, 34% Foster City, 4% Other 42.3% Parents of Current Students, 37.8% Parents of Future Students;13.6% Community members, 5.34% Staff Good representation across communities Twice the number of participants than in Phase One—especially on the Survey were there were 1100 respondents in Phase One Foster City Survey participation fairly equally distributed throughout the City San Mateo Survey participation was concentrated west of 101—82% due in part to the Components and Options impacting schools west of 101 On Survey 6 Schools provided 72% of the Parent Responses—all of which were directly or indirectly affected by the Components and Options Low survey response of one school directly affected—Sunnybrae with less than 1% of the Total Survey Respondents Ethnic/racial representation was better than in Phase One

Context to Key Results Wide diversity of opinions expressed on all three “opportunities” Both qualitative and quantitative data analyzed Care needed in comparing results Data has been disaggregated for major subgroups and included in the Report Appendix is very large because it has all of the individual data including all comments Results are summarized tonight for each Component and Option —Town Hall and Forum Discussions, Town Hall and Forum Worksheets, and Survey because of differences in Town Hall and Forum attendance and Survey Respondents - Huge number of individuals (jumping 3x) in the last 4 days. (this seemed to be across the board – might be due to the call out and additional reminders) Additional forums were scheduled for the last week which could have contributed to the increase in survey participants

Components 1 and 2: San Mateo Elementary and Middle School Capacity Very similar results for both qualitatively and quantitatively Rated between Good and Excellent by All Respondents and subgroups Major attractions Meet classroom needs in San Mateo Replaces LGIs with Multipurpose Rooms in Component 1 Adds new gyms in Component 2 Major challenges/concerns Large student enrollments Traffic Component 2—lack of inclusion of Bayside STEM

Component 3: North Central San Mateo Neighborhood School In general, Option 2 was favored over Option 1 Option 1: Build new NC SM Neighborhood School on the vacant lot at College Park Less support on the Worksheet Least favorable rating on 4 point scale on the Survey (1.5) and 9.4% including it in their Part III budget parameter choices with variations between groups Most cited attractions Provides a neighborhood school Smaller school with greater potential for success Mandarin Program could stay at College Park Most cited challenges/concerns Increased traffic Quality of education

Component 3: NC SM Neighborhood School cont. Option 2: Renovate and reopen Knolls School, relocate Mandarin Program to Knolls, and establish a NC SM neighborhood school at College Park Most favored Option in Component 3 66% favored on Worksheets 3.51 rating on the 4 point scale on the Survey 90.6% included in Part III of the Survey in budget Variations in favorability among subgroups Most cited attractions Creates additional/more capacity More cost effective with more classrooms than Option 1 Room for the Mandarin Program to grow Uses the Knolls site Most cited challenges/concerns Disruption to the Mandarin Program High concentration of low SES students at the NC SM neighborhood school Lack of integration Low performance history of previous school in the neighborhood

Component 4: Foster City Elementary Capacity Great diversity of opinions, both quantitatively and qualitatively Foster City residents had more evenly weighted responses than San Mateo respondents only and All Respondents

Component 4: Survey Responses Option Survey/Part II All rating FC rating * Subgroup rating Survey/Part III All % FC SM * Sub-group % 1. Charter Square 2.16 2.44 2.68 13.4 21.7 7.3 39.7 2. Boothbay Park 2.09 2.26 2.45 13.6 16.9 11.2 30.3 Brewer Island & AM/PM kindergartens * Is the Subgroup that took the Survey after attending a TH/Forum 3.05 2.74 2.25 74.3 63.6 82.5 33.6

Component 4: Worksheet Responses Option Worksheet All % Worksheet Foster City Brewer Island Parents % Audubon Parents Foster City Parents 1. Charter Square 18.9 38.4 45.11 25 77.8 2. Boothbay Park 45.7 65 22.2 Brewer Island & AM/PM kindergartens 35.5 23.2 13.2 10

Component 4: Attractions and Challenges/Concerns Option 1 Attractions and Challenges/Concerns—Charter Square Attractions: More classrooms, 4th elementary school in Foster City, room for SM transfers Challenges/Concerns: Costs, unrealistic, traffic Option 2 Attractions and Challenges/Concerns—Boothbay Park Attractions: 4th elementary school in Foster City, location in area of need, room for transfers, cost effective Challenges/Concerns: Increased traffic, lack of availability/opposition, loss of park space, cost Option 3 Attractions and Challenges/Concerns—Brewer Island Attractions: Cost effectiveness, District ownership of site; addresses immediate need Challenges/Concerns: Resulting large sizes of all 3 FC elementary schools, AM/PM kindergarten concerns including equity, desirability of FC schools, fewer instructional minutes than SM schools

Component 5: Bowditch Middle School Capacity Option 2 (new classroom building) was favored on Worksheets (69.9%), Survey Part II rating of 3.29, and 84-94% included it on Part III of the Survey Results were similar to the totals for Foster City subgroups Option 1 (Replace office/drama classroom buildings with 2 story building) Attractions: modernizes/rebuilds part of Bowditch, adds new space for drama and music Challenges/Concerns: not as cost effective as Option 2, provides fewer classrooms, potential size of the enrollment Option 2 (New 2 story classroom building on vacant part of site Attractions: More classrooms for less money than Option 1, transfer choice for SM students Challenges/Concerns: potential size of the enrollment, doesn’t address needs to rebuild Bowditch

Final Thoughts for Committee’s Report Provide Rationale for each recommendation Include Rationale for not providing any “no cost, low cost” options if there are none recommended Include a separate recommendation about new developments and the importance of the District working more closely with developers and cities to address the impact of new developments on schools and equity Include a recommendation about the future of Knolls if it is not included in a recommended package