ABC Unified board weighs three Whitney configuration options as parents, alumni press for clarity

The ABC Unified School District board on Jan. 20 heard more than two hours of public comment and staff detail on three proposals for Whitney High School as the district moves sixth grade to middle schools.

District staff presented three options: keep Whitney as a 7–12 magnet (Option A); expand it to 6–12 by adding roughly 165 sixth-graders and about five or six classrooms/portables and related restrooms/locker capacity (Option B); or split Whitney into a separate Whitney Middle School and Whitney High School and pursue adding about 275 out‑of‑district students to the high school footprint (Option C). Staff said Option B’s incremental facility work was estimated in the mid‑single‑millions and that Option C would require larger one‑time renovation work but could bring net ongoing revenue if new seats are filled.

Why it matters: Whitney is a long‑standing district magnet with a combined 7–12 structure that community members say supports mentoring and continuity. The board must balance those instructional and community considerations with districtwide enrollment declines and the need to use Measure BB and general‑fund resources prudently.

What speakers said Rick Torres, a Whitney alumnus and parent, urged the board to “walk back the decision to convert junior highs into middle schools” and said the consolidation has not delivered fiscal benefit and would disrupt students through multiple campus moves. He told the board that spending millions on costly reconfigurations risks wasting scarce resources. (Rick Torres, public comment.)

Andy Sheay, co‑chair of the Whitney Foundation, presented preliminary results from a family/alumni survey (nearly 200 responses so far) showing a majority preference that middle‑ and high‑school students remain together; he said families worry that opening new seats to out‑of‑district students could change Whitney’s culture. (Andy Sheay, public comment.)

Ray Gar, president of the ABC Federation of Teachers, urged the board to treat the configuration as an opportunity to grow successful programs districtwide and said expanding Whitney could be a way to attract new families and revenue if done carefully. (Ray Gar, public comment.)

Board reaction and next steps Several trustees said they were not ready to approve a specific plan and asked staff for more precise analyses: itemized, campus‑level facility costs (one‑time and ongoing), facility maps showing where portables would be placed at Whitney (Option B), and scenarios that vary the number of out‑of‑district seats and show the projected staffing and ADA revenue implications. Trustees also asked staff to show how Measure BB funding and the district’s remaining renovation budgets would be applied.

No vote was taken. The board treated the presentation as an informational item and directed staff to return with the requested details, including cost breakdowns, maps, and revenue sensitivity tests. That additional analysis will shape whether the board later moves to adopt one of the options, or to retain the status quo.

Context and caveats Staff emphasized the figures cited in the meeting were preliminary estimates. For example, staff said the projected ongoing net revenue cited for Option C (roughly $2 million annually) is an initial calculation based on adding roughly 275 additional students at a per‑student funding level and subtracting estimated staffing and support costs; trustees asked staff to provide the underlying assumptions and a multi‑year cash‑flow projection. The board also asked staff to model scenarios that prioritize resident students while allowing some out‑of‑district slots as a potential phased approach.

What comes next District staff will prepare an itemized financial and facilities report and sample reconfiguration maps for board review at a future meeting. The board’s decision point will follow community outreach and the additional analysis requested at this meeting.