1. School Closure/Consolidation Composition of School Closure Committee (SCC) Closure/Consolidation Criteria Timelines

2. Principles and Assumptions: Guiding Principals Outcomes intended to improve/sustain academic effectiveness and preserve a focus on improved student performance while realizing operating efficiencies Equity : To the extent possible, implementation does not disproportionately impact any community or feeder pattern disproportionately Minimize disruption to students, families, staff and the community

3. Principles and Assumptions: Essential Assumptions Student redistribution (boundary changes) will be included in the SCC recommendations and will be considered/adopted by the Board as part of closure/consolidation plan. Timeline for decision-making cannot be extended. School closure is categorically (statutorily) exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) but CEQA studies must be completed when, as a result of enrollment shifts (redistribution), a receptor school needs to add ten (10) classrooms or increase capacity by 25% - whichever is less. A robust and detailed transition plan is critical to the school closure process and must accompany recommendations from the SCC.

4. School Closure Committee (SCC) Four (4) representatives from each of the six (6) comprehensive high school feeder patterns: one (1) administrator, one (1) teacher, one (1) parent and one (1) community member One (1) representative from the Special Education Community Advisory Committee (CAC) One (1) representative from the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA) One (1) representative from the classified bargaining associations One (1) member from the Measure C Oversight Committee 28 total SCC participants (excluding facilitators)

5. Closure/Consolidation Criteria (unranked) Facility Condition Capacity Utilization Operations and Maintenance Costs Adjacent Facility Capacity/Geographic Equity Academic Performance Improved Facility Conditions for Students Cost of Closure/Consolidation

6. Facility Condition Conditions include all building and mechanical/ electrical systems necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the plant (e.g. roofing, plumbing, power, HVAC, playground, technology infrastructure, fire and life safety systems, etc.). Facility age and extent of modernization and improvements as well as status of present and projected major and minor repair needs would be considered. Extraordinary projected maintenance and repair costs should be identified.

7. Capacity Utilization Site enrollment, both current and projected would be assessed. Site utilization which is significantly below optimal would serve as an independent criterion for consolidation or closure. Sites would be ranked using enrollment as a percentage of student capacity. (Capacity includes all permanent and portable classrooms)

8. Operations and Maintenance Costs The current annual cost of utilities (gas, electricity, phone, water, sewer, solid waste), site administration and classified support (clerical and custodial) costs would yield a per pupil cost value. This per pupil cost would serve as a criterion for closure/consolidation.

9. Adjacent Facility Capacity/ Geographic Equity School sites would be assessed based upon relative proximity or adjacency to other sites with presently available capacity or are expandable with sufficient infrastructure and space for additional classrooms. To the extent possible, school closures should allow the District to continue to operate schools/programs which effectively serve a geographic area or feeder pattern.

10. Academic Performance Academic performance including API scores and API growth would serve as a criterion in the closure/consolidation process (low longitudinal growth [over several years] in student performance). Consider consolidating schools/programs when a small, high performing, well- enrolled school is near a larger, lower- performing, under-enrolled school.

11. Improved Facility Conditions for Students Sites considered for closure would be evaluated on the basis of the percentage of students which would be relocated to sites with improved (relative to closed site) facility conditions (e.g. moving from site with no classroom AC to a site with AC, increased acreage, etc).

12. Cost of Closure/Consolidation Sites considered for closure would be assessed based on aggregate cost of closure and student/staff relocation. Such costs include expenditures related to moving, interim housing, additional classroom construction and capital improvements and facility modifications necessary to accommodate special programs.

13. Process Seven (7) criteria weighted individually then collectively by SCC. Larger group of twenty-eight (28) to be broken into seven (7) sub-groups of four (4). No representatives of the same feeder patterns shall serve in the same sub-group. Each of the seven (7) sub-groups shall be assigned responsibility for evaluating sites using one (1) of the established criterions. Sites will be assigned a sub-group score in a fixed range (e.g. 1 to 5 or 1 to 10) with the lower score indicating a site is more likely a candidate for closure (based on the single criterion). Scores will be totaled by the larger SCC and each site assigned a composite score.

14. Timelines 4/13/10 School closure/consolidation criteria, timelines and SCC composition. 4/19/10 Letter sent to all site administrators soliciting applications to serve on SCC (one administrator, one parent, one teacher and one community member). Applications to be submitted to individual site administrator/site council for review. 5/7/10 Final day for applications to be submitted to site administrator/site council. 5/10 - 5/19/10 Site Council/administrator review applications. 5/21/10 Site Council/administrator submit names of one parent, teacher and community member to Superintendents Council for final selection. 9/30 – 11/30/10 SCC Evaluation Process. 12/14/10 SCC presents recommendations to the Board. 1/11/11 Board makes closure/consolidation decision.