Sequoia Union trustees launch data-driven process to consider Tide Academy’s future after outpouring of public comment

The Sequoia Union High School District Board on Dec. 10 opened a public review process to examine the long‑term viability of Tide Academy after hearing more than an hour of public testimony from students, parents, teachers and community partners who urged the district not to close the small school.

Superintendent Leech presented a process and timeline the board requested after a November subcommittee report. Leech said district data show Tide’s current enrollment at 195 students and cited a recent accountability figure presented at the meeting that the district is spending roughly $39,000 per Tide student versus about $22,467 per student at other district high schools. She told trustees the district will convene two community meetings on Jan. 13 and Jan. 15, present data at a Jan. 26 board study session and aim for a recommendation to the board by Feb. 4.

The meeting featured nonstop public comment. Parents, educators and students described Tide as a small, supportive campus serving a high share of students with individualized needs: “Tide has achieved a 100% graduation rate for students who often face the steepest barriers,” said a teacher who recommended keeping the school open. Students testified that small classes and an on‑site wellness center were critical to their success.

Community members pressed the board on the district’s cost figures. Alan Shen, a parent, asked the board to reconcile differing per‑pupil numbers cited at recent meetings and in the state’s accountability reports: “We need to know what the per‑student spend is when adjusted for students with IEPs, English‑learner status and low‑income status,” he said. Several teachers and special‑education staff said Tide serves a substantially higher share of students with IEPs and 504 plans and that those higher needs drive site costs.

Trustees described the action taken at the Nov. 12 meeting as a request for a structured process, not a decision to close the school. “No decision has been made,” Trustee Gin said. Board members asked staff to produce disaggregated, apples‑to‑apples financial comparisons that isolate the cost of specialized services (special education, EL supports), transportation and program investments such as dual‑enrollment partnerships.

Trustee Thompson, a member of the subcommittee, addressed concerns about conflicts of interest raised by some commenters and said she has no disqualifying legal conflict that would bar her from participating in the review. Student trustees urged the board to make space for student perspectives in the analytic package.

Superintendent Leech said the district will analyze enrollment trends, special‑education and English‑learner percentages, staffing ratios, facilities implications and program quality (including career and technical education and dual enrollment with Foothill College). She said staff will also model scenarios in which Tide operates at staffing ratios closer to district averages and consider alternatives such as program consolidation or structural changes.

What happens next: the district will publish the data presented at the January community meetings, hold the Jan. 26 study session for deeper analysis and bring recommendations to the board in early February. Community members said the mere suggestion of closure had already harmed enrollment and trust; many asked the district to pause any closure planning while the review proceeds.