School Closures Advisory Committee

• With regard to Criterion 6, what do the orange and green colors represent?  I understand the concept of nearby schools with capacity, but was confused by the color scheme and numbers.  So I have deducted that the number is miles from the school, and green means have capacity and are within some un-named close proximity of miles.  Is this correct?  Then does orange mean the school is too far?  And has the district calculated added transportation costs for moving students?  (I also have a bit of concern that for some schools, the closest schools may also be on the "chopping block" for closure, based on the criteria.)
  • ANSWER: In Criterion 6, the numbers represent miles between schools. The green indicates the three closest schools and orange represents the schools furthest away.  So for ATLAS the three closest schools are Citrus, Juanamaria, and Junipero Serra. When you look at the total excess capacities it is adding those three schools excess capacities and sees if the three closest schools can absorb ATLAS' students.
• With regard to criterion 4 regarding transfers, has data been collected about why parents choose to transfer their students out of one school and into another school?   I wonder if the reasons are more about their neighborhood school, or more about the school they want to attend.  Also, it is my understanding that if a parent transfers a student, then the parent(s) are responsible for transportation to the new school.  Is that correct?  
  • ANSWER: In Criteria 4, regarding transfers, we do have data on why parents choose to transfer, and there are a variety of reasons, including programs, school popularity, special education services, dual immersion, neighborhood preference, proximity to a parent’s workplace, bullying, and safety concerns. However, for the purposes of the committee, we are focused on the net number of transfers rather than the specific reasons behind them. 
• With regard to Criterion 2, I understand the meaning of UPP, and that the district UPP is 58.97%.  I don't understand why the variance is from 50%, and not from the district's UPP.  It seems like the variance should be reflective of the district's UPP, so if a school is within 10% of the district's UPP, that would be more normal and reflective of the community.   Is the variance prescribed by some state formula for school closures under AB 1912?  
  • ANSWER: For Criteria 2: Because UPP is a statewide measure used by California to evaluate demographics, equity, and funding needs across all districts, it makes sense for Ventura USD to apply the same framework consistently at the school level. Using a common statewide standard creates a neutral benchmark and allows schools to be evaluated within a broader equity framework rather than solely against the current demographics of one district at a single point in time. UPP is being treated as a continuum from 0–100%, where: lower percentages generally reflect more affluent populations, higher percentages reflect larger proportions of low-income, foster youth, homeless, and English learner students. In this framework, 50% functions as the midpoint of the socioeconomic spectrum, So using “distance from 50%” is a way to measure whether a school is more socioeconomically balanced or concentrated at one end of the spectrum.  The goal here is of maintaining consistency between how the state evaluates districts and how the district evaluates individual schools. If the district instead used Ventura USD’s current district-wide UPP average of 58.97% as the benchmark, the methodology could unintentionally normalize demographic imbalance that may already exist within the district. By using the statewide midpoint of 50%, the district is evaluating whether schools are concentrated toward either end of the socioeconomic spectrum, rather than simply comparing them to the district average.
• What sources were used for the Demographic study regarding residential projects?
  •  ANSWER: “We used an interactive map of the proposed projects that is on the Ventura Planning Department website and then reached out to each of the major developers to collect any details they would share regarding the anticipated timelines and building rates. We are only looking for projects with 25 or more residential units. We leave out any small projects as they will not have a significant impact on the enrollment.” Ken Reynolds, SchoolWorks.
• The classroom capacity of each site does not seem to account for special program needs.  This needs further discussion, especially regarding special education classrooms as special education classrooms often utilize more space per pupil than general education classrooms.  Hence schools housing special education programs may not be able to house the same number of students they could if they only had general education classrooms.  Which schools house special programs like special education and how many classrooms do these programs need to run smoothly?  How does this impact the capacity at these schools.
  • ANSWER: Classroom capacity at each site was based on the demographer and VUSD facilities team reviewing what classrooms to include and exclude from the loading criteria.  This includes consideration of special education program needs. This is documented in the demographer’s report.
• Intradistrict transfers.  The data shows the number of intradistrict transfers this year, but what is the trend for intradistrict transfers at each school?  Are the numbers/rates staying stable or fluctuating?  What are the projections for these intradistrict transfers moving forward and what is that data based on.
  • ANSWER: Intra/inter district transfer data was presented by the demographer, and transfer rates were incorporated into projections based on the previous four years of data.  As noted in the demographers report VUSD historically account for approximately 7%–7.5% of total VUSD enrollment, and projections assume this rate will continue. Specific reasons why families choose to transfer cannot be disclosed, as doing so could violate student data privacy laws. However, the demographer’s report illustrates enrollment patterns showing which schools families are selecting based on their residence.
•  What year was this population analysis conducted? 
  • ANSWER: The demographic and enrollment analysis referenced was completed and presented to the Board in March 2026, using certified CALPADS (Census Day) data from October 2025 (Fiscal Year 2025–2026), not from Fiscal Year 2021.
• What is being done about the issue? Second, how can young people help?

  • ANSWER: In response to your first question, the School Closures Advisory Committee was created to help review different information and criteria related to schools as part of the school closure discussion process. The committee looks at a variety of factors and makes recommendations to the School Board about possible closures. Community involvement has been an important part of the process, and public comment is encouraged so community members can share their thoughts and feedback. Meeting information is available to the community at this link, and we encourage people to visit the website, watch the meeting videos or attend a meeting to follow the process and better understand the discussions taking place.

     Regarding your second question, student representation on the committee was very important to Ventura Unified School District, so we recruited members that included students. In fact, the Vice Chairperson of the committee is a student from Foothill Technology High School. Young people can help by participating in public comment, attending meetings, visiting the School Closures website to see how the process is unfolding.

• The K-8 Schools were upgraded to accommodate middle school (w/ science labs, etc. at Sunset, Lemongrove & ATLAS.) I don't remember the financial investment for these facility upgrades, but I vaguely remember it was significant.

  • ANSWER: The K-8 schools were upgraded to support middle school programming, including the addition of science labs and other specialized facilities at Sunset, Lemon Grove, and ATLAS. While the exact financial investment is not readily available, the upgrades represented a significant commitment to support the K-8 model. Both Lemon Grove and ATLAS have also received investments to remodel classrooms to accommodate K-8 instructional needs. These improvements were funded through non-bond sources, and the scope of work did not meet the threshold requiring review by the California Division of the State Architect (DSA).

• Should fire risk be noted for schools closest to high fire zones? 

  • ANSWER: Fire risk is not proposed as a factor for consideration in this analysis. The environmental factors being evaluated are those that could affect the future use, lease, or sale of a property. While wildfire risk is an important operational consideration, it would not materially impact the property’s suitability for future educational or alternative uses in the context of this study.

• Is the Dean Dr. EIC enrollment included in the Pacific numbers? 

  • ANSWER: No. The enrollment figures presented for Pacific include only TK–12 students who generate enrollment-based funding. EIC students are not included in these totals.

• Is the ATLAS EIC enrollment included in the ATLAS numbers? 

  • ANSWER: No. Similar to Pacific, the enrollment figures for ATLAS include only TK–12 enrollment-generating students. EIC students are excluded from the enrollment counts. However, it should be noted that classroom utilization assumptions at both ATLAS and Pacific did not include available capacity to continue operating the EIC program at those sites.

• So, will you add the K-8 schools to criteria 10?

  • ANSWER: To answer your question regarding K–8 infrastructure and whether it can be added to Criterion 10, the answer is no at this time, based on the information presented to and agreed upon by the committee. However, this question will be added to the Q&A webpage and shared with the committee. If the committee feels strongly that K–8 infrastructure should be included, they have the option to revisit the issue and consider adding it to the criterion.

• To confirm, are you saying we did not count the EIC students, but we DID count the EIC classrooms in the utalization rates? Or that we did not count the students, AND we did not count the rooms? 

  • ANSWER: To clarify, we did not count EIC students, and the classrooms were also excluded, meaning not loaded.  Those were the corrections the demographer made, and we provided the committee with a revised demographer report at our facilities meeting, along with the classroom utilization report. Meaning those programs could stay on their campus. Also, meaning if a school were to close and students were to come to Atlas or Pacific, we are counting those classrooms to remain as EIC classrooms.

• Does the EIC have a separate fund, like VACE? Or, are they included in the general fund?

  • ANSWER: No, EIC does not have a separate fund like VACE. It is accounted for within the General Fund, but it receives restricted state and federal revenues that can only be used for authorized Early Childhood Education programs and expenditures.

    Also, we have Fund 12, the Child Development Fund, which is a special revenue fund used to account for child development programs, such as:
    • Other state- and federally-funded child development activities
    • Before- and after-school child care programs (when applicable)
    • Child care and development services
    • State Preschool Programs (CSPP)

• I was wondering if it would be possible to get current data regarding the middle schools enrollment with regard to which elementary school their students attended previous to middle school.  Is that possible?

  • ANSWER: 

    • This information reflects where current 6th graders enrolled at Anacapa, Balboa, Cabrillo, and De Anza attended elementary school the prior year.

    • Figures cover 1,064 current 6th graders. Of these, 975 are enrolled at Anacapa, Balboa, Cabrillo, or De Anza; the remainder attend K-8 sites (Sunset, ATLAS, Lemon Grove, Homestead) that are outside the scope of this review.
    • 853 of those 975 students have a named elementary school of prior enrollment on file. The remaining students' prior school was recorded as an out-of-district placement or a K-8 continuation site and is not included in the table or chart below.
    • Percentages reflect each elementary school's matched 6th graders and may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Middle school placement by elementary school: Percentages are of each elementary school's matched 6th graders.

• Several elementary schools show a single middle school accounting for the large majority of students: Montalvo (92% Anacapa), Loma Vista (92% Cabrillo), Lincoln (89% Cabrillo), Juanamaria (85% Balboa), Sheridan Way (88% De Anza), Will Rogers (85% Anacapa), and E.P. Foster (84% De Anza).
• Other elementary schools show a more even distribution across two or more middle schools, including Portola (44% Anacapa, 34% Balboa, 21% Cabrillo) and Mound (67% Cabrillo, 21% Balboa, 8% De Anza).
• De Anza's enrollment is concentrated among a small number of elementary schools — primarily E.P. Foster and Sheridan Way — rather than distributed broadly across all elementary schools represented in this data.

• What happens in grades 6, 7 and 8?  Why is there a dip in enrollment from original Kindergarten class, that is not present in the 9-12 grades?  Do parents home-school some of the students or send them to private schools?  Do you have any data or evidence of what happens during those years and why
  • ANSWER- What we generally see in grades 6, 7, and 8 is that some families choose to enroll their children in private schools during the middle school years and then return them to the District for the comprehensive high school experience in grades 9-12.
  • This pattern helps explain why enrollment may decline from the original kindergarten cohort during the middle school years and then increase again in ninth grade. While the enrollment data demonstrate this movement, the District does not necessarily receive information from every family explaining why they leave or later return. Therefore, we cannot attribute every enrollment change to a specific reason. However, transfers to private schools during middle school, followed by students returning for high school, appear to be a significant factor in the pattern.
    • Do you know if this pattern holds true with the 3 K-8 "middle school age" enrollments, or just the traditional 4 middle schools?
      • ANSWER- In looking at the three K-8 schools "middle school age" enrollments, we do see smaller classes in the 6th grade when compared to the 5th grade in the year before that are consistent with the District average. ATLAS grades 6-8 is still new enough that we could see trends improve but they are currently half the size of the elementary grades (~30 in 6th compared to ~65 in 5th). Lemon Grove grades 6-8 are also about half the size of the elementary grades (~15-20 in 6th compared to ~30-40 in 5th). Sunset grades 6-8 are also smaller than the size of the elementary grades (~30 in 6th compared to ~50 in 5th).There is an uptick in SDC from 5th to 6th to 7th (~22 SDC in 5th, ~43 SDC in 6th and ~70 SDC in 7th) and since these get pulled from their grade level and categorized as SDC, this can look like it "exaggerates" the loss from 5th to 6th to 7th.

• It has been brought to my attention that Citrus Glen currently has a construction or remediation project happening on it's campus and some members of the community are concerned that it has not been spoken about in our meetings or brought to the committee's attention. This made me circle back to VUSD's facilities inspection report that should be completed by the end of this month. Is it possible to share the findings of that inspection report?

  • ANSWER: Regarding Citrus Glen, the District currently has a flooring repair project underway in a few classrooms. This is a relatively minor maintenance project, estimated at approximately $200,000, that was approved by the Board over summer break. Because it is a routine maintenance matter and does not substantially affect the overall condition, capacity, or long-term viability of the campus, it would not ordinarily fall within the committee’s purview. The broader facilities inspection report is separate from this flooring project. Once that report is completed and finalized, the District can evaluate the findings and determine what information is relevant to the committee’s work.

• I wanted to make sure that I understand the data correctly pertaining to those students attending high schools via Inter-Ins. Does that number mean that those students have transferred in from another district or a private school? (Example would be 19 students listed for Foothill for 2025/2026). And do we know if all of the transfers in from other districts are able to be accommodated at each school or are many turned away due to capacity issues? It would also be helpful to obtain data from this school year to see if the trends are fairly consistent.

  • ANSWER: The 19 “Inter-In” students listed for Foothill Technology High School in 2025–26 represent students transferring into VUSD from another school district or from a private school outside VUSD. Criteria 5 examines each school’s enrollment and permanent capacity by adding back students who transferred either into or out of other school sites within the District. This provides a clearer picture of whether each school could accommodate the students who would otherwise attend based on their assigned school. Based on this analysis, all high school sites appear to have sufficient permanent capacity to accommodate their students. Census Day is in October; however, those enrollment figures will not be finalized until the end of October, and the District may continue making corrections into November.

• It was my understanding that after all  the meetings, combing through all the numbers and criteria, we were then supposed to review the data and rank schools for possible closure, based on the criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong. As you are aware, at... meeting [held on 8/20/26], some members ranked schools based on the data and others named schools that did NOT meet the criteria. For example, the data does not support in any way, closing Pierpont or Mound schools. Am I missing something? 

  • ANSWER: You are also correct that Pierpont and Mound do not rank highly for closure when the adopted criteria are considered collectively. You are welcome to restate that observation during the committee’s public deliberations and explain how the data support your position. At the same time, the committee is an advisory body and may make recommendations that are not fully captured by the numerical rankings. Any departure from the criteria should be clearly discussed and supported so that the reasoning behind the final recommendation is transparent.

• One issue that occurred with some committee members last Thursday['s meeting] is transportation and how students would get to another school, if their current school closed. In my humble opinion, there needs to be clarification on the task at hand. The school board and VUSD will handle transportation issues and the like, not the committee, therefore I focus on the data. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

  • ANSWER: Regarding transportation, we will continue to direct the committee back to Criterion 6, which identifies potential receiving schools based on their distance from each site and their available capacity. The committee may reasonably consider this information, but determining future attendance boundaries, student assignments, and transportation arrangements is not within the committee’s purview. Those matters would be evaluated by the District and ultimately addressed through the appropriate Board processes after recommendations are made.

• Additionally, we are asked by the mediator/ moderator to list the top 5 elementary schools, which is roughly 29%. That being said, why were we then told we then need to rank all the middle schools and then three high schools? With all due respect, why would we rank all and not 29%? Mathematically speaking we would continue with the middle and high schools, as we did the elementary schools, therefore 29% of the middle schools and high schools would be one each. This makes more sense and still gives a compiled list of seven schools. Please clarify. 

  • ANSWER: Regarding the number of schools to be ranked, the facilitator, asked the committee to rank all middle and high schools because there are significantly fewer schools at those grade levels. This does not mean the committee must recommend all of them for closure. Similarly, when the elementary schools were considered, not every group submitted the same number of recommendations. The request to rank the schools is intended to show their relative order based on the committee’s assessment; it is not a determination of how many schools will ultimately be recommended. Your mathematical comparison to the elementary process is understandable. However, the approximately 29% figure was not established as a formula that must be applied equally to every grade span. The committee’s final recommendation does not necessarily need to consist of five elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school.

• When we get to the high schools, it does not make sense to me to rank all three. They are not equivalent. One is a  continuation school, another is an independent study at the college and one operates as a traditional high school. 

  • ANSWER: You also raise a valid point that the three high school programs are not directly equivalent. A comprehensive high school, a continuation high school, and an independent-study program serve different student populations and operate under different educational models. Committee members should consider those distinctions when reviewing the data and determining whether meaningful comparisons can be made. Subjective judgment cannot be eliminated entirely from an advisory process. However, the purpose of adopting and reviewing the criteria was to give the committee a consistent, fact-based framework. The final recommendations will be more credible if committee members clearly connect their conclusions to that framework.

• Am I, [a committee member] able to reach out to [a Board member], and share my comments at this point or is that forbidden with the Brown Act?  I  want to abide by all the rules. 

  • ANSWER: Individual communication with a Board member is not automatically prohibited by the Brown Act. However, communications cannot be used to develop concurrence among a majority through a series of contacts or intermediaries. More importantly, the Board has intentionally remained separate from the committee’s deliberative process until the committee completes and presents its recommendations. For that reason, although you may communicate with [a Board member], I do not believe contacting [them] individually at this stage would assist the process.

• What specific, data-driven frameworks were used to establish the scoring cutoffs for each criterion, and why were strictly factual, standardized metrics not used across all categories? Specifically, how did the District ensure that the chosen thresholds would preserve equal mathematical weighting among criteria, rather than inadvertently creating skewed results? What detailed rubrics, formulas, or evaluator guidelines were provided to ensure that binary (1 and 2) scoring assignments would yield a balanced score distribution (a mean close to 1.5) across schools? How do evaluator guidelines account for criteria, such as Criteria 1, 2, 3, where extreme cutoff values concentrate "good" or "bad" scores into tiny fractions of schools, thereby inflating the criteria' weight in the overall calculation?
  • ANSWER: The District is following the California Department of Education’s Best Practices Guide for Potential School Closure. The CDE recommends a process that includes forming an advisory committee, engaging the community before decisions are made, gathering and publicly presenting a comprehensive range of data, establishing locally appropriate evaluation criteria, considering equity and disproportionate impacts, and clearly distinguishing the committee’s advisory role from the Board’s authority to make the final decision.

    The CDE framework identifies nine broad categories that districts should consider:

    • Condition of school facilities

    • Operating costs and potential savings

    • Capacity of remaining schools to accommodate displaced students

    • Special programs and specialized facilities

    • Environmental and safety factors

    • Pupil demographics and potential disproportionate impacts

    • Student transportation needs

    • Aesthetics and impacts on the surrounding community

    • Feeder-school attendance patterns 

      Importantly, the CDE does not prescribe a mandatory scoring formula, require districts to use identical measurements across dissimilar categories, establish particular cutoff values, or require that scores produce a mean of 1.5. Instead, the CDE provides possible data points and resources and recommends that districts develop equity-impact metrics suited to their local circumstances. The CDE recognizes that school-closure decisions require consideration of multiple types of information rather than application of one uniform mathematical measurement. California Department of Education—Best Practices Guide for Potential School Closure C

Consistent with that guidance, the District established an advisory committee, presented the criteria and supporting data through public meetings, provided opportunities for questions and community input, and used multiple measures to evaluate the schools. Those measures included enrollment and demographic information, school capacity, facility conditions, operating considerations, special programs, proximity and receiving-school capacity, transportation implications, and other operational and community impacts.

The committee’s work and recommendations are advisory; the Board retains responsibility for considering the complete record, receiving public input, and making any final decision.

The District’s scoring framework was designed to give each criterion the same possible numerical contribution to the total score, not to produce an equal number of “1” and “2” scores across schools. Each criterion was scored using the same two-point range, and no criterion was assigned a multiplier or additional points. Accordingly, each criterion could affect a school’s total score by no more than one point. A mean score of 1.5 was not a stated requirement of the methodology, nor is it required to establish equal mathematical weighting. Requiring every criterion to average approximately 1.5 would force the thresholds to divide schools into roughly equal groups regardless of the underlying facts. That could distort genuine differences among schools and turn the process into a predetermined relative ranking rather than an assessment of each school against the established criterion.

Standardized, factual information was used wherever a category could be measured objectively. However, a single standardized metric could not reasonably be applied across all categories because the criteria measure fundamentally different conditions and use different units. Enrollment is measured in students, utilization in percentages, distance in miles, facility needs in condition assessments or costs, demographics in student-group proportions, and special programs through programmatic and facility considerations. Treating those different subjects as though they were mathematically identical would not necessarily produce a more objective or equitable analysis.

For each criterion, the same data sources, definitions, cutoff values, and scoring instructions were applied to every school. The binary scoring system was intended to limit evaluator discretion: based on the established threshold, a school received either a 1 or a 2. Evaluators were not permitted to create individualized standards or change a threshold for a particular school.

The fact that a criterion produced more scores of 1 than 2, or more scores of 2 than 1, does not mean that it was given greater mathematical weight. It indicates that the underlying school data were not evenly distributed around the selected threshold. A criterion would be mathematically overweighted if it had a larger point range, a multiplier, or more points available than the other criteria. That was not the structure used.

For Criteria 1, 2, and 3 specifically, the thresholds were not designed to guarantee a balanced score distribution. If relatively few schools met a particular condition, the resulting concentration of scores reflected the underlying data and the distinguishing purpose of the criterion. Adjusting the cutoff solely to make the average score approach 1.5 would change the substantive standard and could reward or penalize schools merely to create a preferred statistical distribution.

There is also an important distinction between equal mathematical weighting and equal practical influence. The criteria were equally weighted mathematically because each had the same possible one-point effect on the total. A particular criterion may nevertheless distinguish more sharply among schools because of the actual distribution of the data. That is an ordinary consequence of applying equal-weight criteria to real-world conditions and does not, by itself, establish that the scoring was skewed.

Finally, consistent with the CDE’s recommended approach, the scores are not intended to operate as an automatic formula that independently determines which schools should close. They are one tool for organizing and comparing a broad range of information. The committee must consider the complete body of data, community input, equity implications, and operational feasibility when developing its recommendations. No final school-closure decision has been made; that authority rests with the Board.

• Did the playground projects for Sheridan Way and EP Foster happen this summer?
  • ANSWER: The playgrounds were not installed over the summer. Projects at elementary schools are at a pause pending outcome of the Committee recommendations to the Board.