By Jon Chown
WATSONVILLE — A committee studying possible school closures in the Pajaro Valley Unified School District has asked for more time, with a proposal now likely to reach the Board of Trustees in January.
The 23-member Sustainable Schools Advisory committee was originally expected to finish its work in November, but Bill McGuire, a school finance and facilities consultant working for PVUSD, said at the committee’s Sept. 30 meeting that the work will continue likely into December.
“I think we are looking at a December finish with something possibly going to the board in January,” he said.
The delay comes after committee members said they needed more time to decide what programs and services schools should provide before recommending new attendance boundaries or campus closures.
No specific school has been selected for closure, and the Board of Trustees has not approved a closure plan. The committee will make recommendations, but the board will make the final decisions. Any approved changes are expected to begin in the 2027-28 school year.
The district created the committee because enrollment is expected to fall sharply during the next several years. A study commissioned by the district projects that PVUSD enrollment will fall from about 15,690 students in 2025 to 12,604 in 2032. That would be a loss of about 20%.g
The study blamed the decline on lower birth rates, high housing costs, limited housing construction and an aging population. The drop is expected to continue and is not a short-term problem.
Fewer students means less state funding. At the same time, PVUSD must continue paying to operate, clean, repair and staff campuses that may have hundreds of empty seats. District leaders say consolidating schools could allow PVUSD to save money.
Before drawing new boundaries, committee members want PVUSD to finish what it calls an Optimal Program Model, which would describe what an ideal school should include. That could cover school size, grade levels, dual-language programs, academics, after-school care, family involvement and other services. The committee could then use those models to decide which campuses are needed and where attendance boundaries should be drawn.
McGuire said the OPMs and boundaries for middle schools would be finalized at an Oct. 26 meeting, the elementary schools on Nov. 10 and start reviewing scenarios for the high schools from Nov. 16-20. Results of all this would be presented to the community in December.
Basically, because it’s an emotional, controversial topic, it’s been a slow process that will only get more difficult.
“We recognize that we are behind,” McGuire said, while pointing to “rich discussions” amongst the committee members as the primary reason. “We are getting closer to the finish line. So that has got to feel good in a way, but also in a way, a little bit of anxiety in terms of what’s to come.”
The Sept. 30 presentation also addressed how school consolidation could affect staffing. McGuire said consolidation would not automatically increase class sizes because that is controlled by state law and the district’s labor agreement with teachers. As an example: if two schools had 350 students each, and a ratio of 25 students per teacher, each school would need 14 teachers for a total of 28. A single school with 700 students would also need 28 teachers at the same ratio.
Instead of teachers, the savings would be more likely to come from administrative and support positions. Two separate schools would each have a principal and head custodian. One larger school might have a principal and vice principal, along with one head custodian and additional night custodians.
The committee spent much of the Sept. 30 meeting reviewing a survey for parents, employees and community members. Some members criticized earlier drafts of the survey. They said several questions were confusing, repeated the same ideas or could lead people toward certain answers. Members also warned that an online survey and a few public meetings might not reach a fair sample of the district’s families.
Suggestions to improve on this included distributing paper surveys, calling families, visiting parent meetings at individual schools, or speaking with people at farmers markets and other community events. Members also asked the district to gather opinions from teachers, classified employees and students.