Santa Rosa school board narrows closure plans, keeps two phased models for vote after public equity concerns

The Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education on Feb. 18 removed a widely discussed “4-4-0” consolidation scenario from consideration and directed staff to bring two alternatives back for the board’s meeting the next day: a 3-3-1 pattern and a phased 3-4-0 model that includes 7‑through‑12 campuses. The move followed more than an hour of public comment and two hours of trustee discussion about enrollment trends, budget shortfalls and community equity, particularly concerns about Southwest Santa Rosa and Elsie Allen High School.

The board’s study session was framed as preparation for a vote. “These are scenarios we really need to hear from the board today around what else do you need from us, to really be ready for a vote tomorrow,” Superintendent Dr. Enrique Morales told trustees as staff opened the presentation.

Trustees debated the feasibility and equity consequences of each model. Several trustees said the 4‑4‑0 plan — which would consolidate many elementary sites into a small number of “mega” elementaries and convert middle schools to 7–12 campuses — was not implementable on the compressed timeline. “Currently, I have no interest in [the] 4‑4‑0 plan,” Trustee Jenkins said. Trustees then asked staff to mark the 4‑4‑0 option as eliminated from the slide deck.

Why it matters

District staff told the board that the district needs roughly $22 million in combined savings and revenue changes across staffing, site consolidations and central office reductions to stabilize future budgets. Staff said that no single scenario as currently configured produces all of those savings in the first year; phasing is intended to buy time for some measures and reduce implementation risk. Trustees said they needed financial and map details to compare models by impact on student assignments, program continuity and transportation.

What trustees and the public raised

Public commenters — parents, teachers and community advocates — urged the board to weigh equity and student supports before finalizing district patterns. Speakers pressed the board to keep all high schools open, or at least to avoid closing Elsie Allen High School in Southwest Santa Rosa because of the concentration of low-income and historically underrepresented students in that area.

Several speakers described local programs and supports they said would be lost if a particular campus closed. “Middle school is a magical place,” Megan Covey, a seventh‑grade math teacher at Slater Middle School, told the board during public comment. Parents and community members described the Montgomery campus’s International Baccalaureate program and extracurricular offerings; other speakers described the cultural and transportation challenges families would face if Elsie Allen closed.

Board members repeatedly emphasized that program continuity and special education services must be preserved if a consolidation is adopted. John Fisher, the district’s special-education director, told the board staff intends “absolute continuity” for specialized programs and would seek to move clustered classes together to limit disruption. Fisher said staff would avoid re‑evaluating eligibility and identification status for students the same year they change campuses when possible.

Budget, timing and enrollment details discussed

- Staff told the board the district’s overall target is about $22 million in reductions and new revenue across multiple years; not all scenarios meet that target in year 1. - Special-education revenue reductions were estimated at roughly $1.8–$2.0 million in the first year and about $4 million when fully implemented in year two, which would increase general‑fund pressure. - Trustees and staff discussed current enrollment and capacity: staff reported Elsie Allen had about 1,004 students (roughly 921 residents) and Montgomery about 1,231 students; capacity and portable counts differ between campuses. Staff said Elsie Allen’s permanent capacity reported in the committee materials was about 1,695 (no portables), while Montgomery’s listed capacity was 2,028 with 1,404 permanent classrooms (figures reflect the district’s current dataset and building projects at varying stages). - Average daily attendance (ADA) for the year was cited as roughly 88.6% at Elsie Allen and 92.5% at Montgomery. - Staff said closing Elsie Allen and reassigning its students would increase the number of students requiring district transportation by roughly 480 students, with an associated incremental cost staff estimated at about $30,000 (staff noted the number is a planning‑level estimate tied to routing and walking‑distance standards).

Board directions and next steps

Trustees asked staff to return to the board the next evening with two packages: (1) the 3‑3‑1 scenario with a variant that treats Elsie Allen as the closed campus and (2) the 3‑4‑0 (phased 7–12) option for comparison, together with updated maps, enrollments, projected savings by year and implementation timelines. Trustees also requested clearer transfer priorities and administrative regulation language to protect students displaced by closures and to prioritize continuity for students in specialty programs.

Staff said they would prepare detailed boundary maps, updated savings projections that reflect recent budget changes, and a plan for transfer prioritization that would explicitly include students from closed schools. Staff confirmed administrative regulations provide some flexibility for transfer priorities and that the district can add priorities (for example, “students displaced by school closure”) to the intra‑district transfer order of priority.

No formal vote

The session was a study discussion; trustees recorded no formal motions or votes on closures during the meeting. Board members explicitly framed the session as an opportunity to narrow options and ask for additional data and maps ahead of a decision scheduled for the following board meeting.

What to watch next

The board’s next regular meeting will include staff’s updated scenarios, boundary maps and budget projections. The district also said it will provide additional detail on transfer priorities and the transition plan for students in specialized programs, and will present timelines for phased implementation if the board selects a phased model.

Ending

Trustees said they wanted to balance the fiscal imperative with the community harms of school closures and to buy time for careful implementation where possible. “We want the option that reduces student movement and gets us to financial stability while allowing us to do the transitions thoughtfully,” Trustee Cameron said during the session.