1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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