🚨 Schools of Tomorrow Harms Special Needs Students

District's own metrics prove every proposed plan makes special education worse

72% → 61%
Special Ed Gets Worse
(Options 1 & 2)
800-1,100
Students Lose
Walking Access
(8-11% of all students)
All 3
Options Worsen
Facility Quality

⚠️ Special Education Students Will Be Harmed

Options 1 and 2 make special education WORSE than doing nothing.

72%
Status Quo
SDC at Ideal Cluster
61%
Option 1 & 2
(11% decline)
6
Schools with SDC
Closed (Opt 1)

Students with autism, developmental disabilities, and other special needs will see their programs disrupted and split up. This contradicts the district's stated commitment to serving our most vulnerable students.

🚨 Critical Finding

If the schools being closed had lower scores on district metrics, closing them would improve the overall averages. Instead, every single metric gets worse.

This proves that ALL THREE OPTIONS close schools that score ABOVE the district average on multiple critical criteria - facilities, walkability, and location convenience.

The Evidence: What District Data Shows

All Three Options Make These Metrics WORSE

  • Special Ed Options 1 & 2: 72% → 61% of SDC students at ideal cluster → Disrupts programs for students with disabilities
  • Facilities All options: Drop from 9.9 to 8.6-9.1 → Closing schools with higher facility scores
  • Walkability All options: Drop from 87% to 76-79% → 800-1,100 students lose walking access
  • Travel All options: Increase from 1.58 to 1.66-1.70 miles → Closing convenient schools
  • Equity All options: 54-64% displaced are low-income (vs 47% average) → Disproportionate impact

Conclusion: The schools being closed have higher facility quality scores (9.9 vs 8.6-8.7), serve more walkable neighborhoods (87% vs 76-79%), and are more conveniently located (1.58 vs 1.66-1.70 miles) than what remains after closures. The district is proposing to close schools that score above average on its own metrics while harming vulnerable students in the process.

Detailed Analysis by Option

Option 1: The Worst for Students with Disabilities

9 Schools Closing: Bachrodt, Anne Darling, Olinder, Lowell, Gardner, Canoas, Carson, Almaden, Simonds
SDC Programs Disrupted: Anne Darling, Olinder, Lowell, Canoas, Carson, Simonds (6 schools with SDC programs)

❌ Metrics That Get WORSE in Option 1:

1. Special Education: GETS WORSE THAN DOING NOTHING
Status Quo: 72% of SDC students at ideal cluster → Option 1: 61% (11% decline)
6 schools with SDC programs closed (Anne Darling, Olinder, Lowell, Canoas, Carson, Simonds) - most of any option. Options 1 and 2 are the only options where special education gets worse than the status quo.
2. Facility Quality: WORST DROP
Status Quo: 9.9/12 → Option 1: 8.7/12 (1.2 point decline - worst of all options)
3. Enrollment Balance: MOST UNEQUAL
Status Quo IQR: 195 → Option 1: 289 (creates highest imbalance - some schools overcrowded, others empty)
4. Community Fragmentation: HIGHEST
639 students split from their peers (highest of all options)
These are students assigned to different schools than the majority of their classmates - particularly harmful for students with IEPs who rely on peer relationships.
5. Equity: MOST DISPROPORTIONATE
64% of displaced students are low-income (vs 47% district average)
21% of students forced to change schools have IEPs (vs 15% district average)
Highest disparity of all three options - harms the most vulnerable families
6. Walkability
Status Quo: 87% → Option 1: 79% (8% decline = approximately 800 students lose walking access)
Students with IEPs can walk: 58% → 53% (many students with disabilities lose independent access to school)

✓ What Improves in Option 1:

Students at Ideal Schools: 24% → 51% (27% improvement)

VERDICT: Option 1 harms students with disabilities and closes schools with above-average scores. Along with Option 2, it makes special education worse than doing nothing. Evidence: nearly every metric gets worse, proving the schools being closed score higher than those remaining open on multiple criteria.

Option 2: Highest Achievement, Highest Cost to Vulnerable Students

9 Schools Closing: Bachrodt, Empire Gardens, Olinder, Lowell, Gardner, Terrell, Carson, Reed, Williams
SDC Programs Disrupted: Olinder, Lowell, Terrell, Carson (4 schools with SDC programs)

❌ Metrics That Get WORSE in Option 2:

1. Special Education: WORSENS
Status Quo: 72% → Option 2: 61% (11% decline)
4 schools with SDC programs closed (Olinder, Lowell, Terrell, Carson) - students with special needs see their programs disrupted.
2. Facility Quality: WORST OVERALL
Status Quo: 9.9/12 → Option 2: 8.6/12 (1.3 point decline - absolute worst)
3. Walkability: WORST
Status Quo: 87% → Option 2: 76% (11% decline = approximately 1,100 students lose walking access)
Students with IEPs can walk: 58% → 52% (6% decline - many students with disabilities lose independent school access)
Tied for worst with Option 3
4. Travel Distance: WORST (tied)
Status Quo: 1.58 miles → Option 2: 1.70 miles
Students with IEPs: 1.88 miles → 2.01 miles (particularly burdensome for families with disabilities)
5. 90th Percentile Travel Distance: WORST
Status Quo: 1.72 miles → Option 2: 2.17 miles
Students with the longest commutes face significantly worse travel distances - many with special transportation needs.
6. Low-Income Students Walkability: WORST
Status Quo: 79% → Option 2: 70% (9% decline - low-income families lose walking access)
7. Traffic/Capacity Issues: WORST
1,215 students above 10-year peak enrollment at receiving schools
Creates the most overcrowding and traffic congestion - particularly challenging for students with sensory sensitivities.

✓ What Improves in Option 2:

Students at Ideal Schools: 24% → 65% (41% improvement - HIGHEST)
Enrollment Balance: IQR improves to 169 (best balance)
Community Fragmentation: Only 410 students split from peers (least disruption)
⚠️ Equity Issues:
54% of displaced students are low-income (vs 47% district average) - still disproportionate
16% of students forced to change schools have IEPs (vs 15% district average)

VERDICT: Option 2 achieves the highest goal (65% at ideal schools) but at catastrophic cost to students with disabilities and vulnerable families. It disrupts special education, closes the most walkable schools with the best facilities, forces 1,100 students to give up walking to school, and creates the worst overcrowding.

Option 3: Least Goal Achievement, Creates Chaos

8 Schools Closing: Empire Gardens, Grant, Gardner, Galarza, Carson, Reed, Almaden, Williams
SDC Programs Disrupted: Grant, Carson (2 schools with SDC programs)

❌ Metrics That Get WORSE in Option 3:

1. Enrollment Balance: ABSOLUTE WORST
Status Quo IQR: 195 → Option 3: 339
Creates massive inequality - some schools severely overcrowded, others remain small. Worst of all options.
2. Walkability: WORST (tied)
Status Quo: 87% → Option 3: 76% (11% decline = approximately 1,100 students)
Students with IEPs can walk: 58% → 52% (same as Option 2 - significant harm to students with disabilities)
Tied for worst with Option 2
3. Low-Income Students Walkability: WORST OF ALL
Status Quo: 79% → Option 3: 69% (10% decline - worst impact on low-income families)
4. Facility Quality: WORSENS
Status Quo: 9.9/12 → Option 3: 9.1/12 (0.8 point decline - better than Options 1 & 2 but still worse)
5. Community Fragmentation: SECOND WORST
647 students split from peers (second only to Option 1's 639)
Particularly harmful for students with IEPs: 12% split from peers

✓ What Changes in Option 3:

Students at Ideal Schools: 24% → 37%
LOWEST achievement - closes 8 schools for barely any improvement!
Special Education: Maintains 72% (same as status quo - at least doesn't make it worse)
Travel Distance: 1.66 miles (slightly better than Options 1 & 2)
⚠️ Equity Issues:
56% of displaced students are low-income (vs 47% district average) - disproportionate impact
16% of students forced to change schools have IEPs (vs 15% district average)

VERDICT: Option 3 is incoherent. It closes 8 schools but achieves almost nothing (only 37% at ideal vs status quo's 24%). Creates the most unequal school sizes and worst walkability for low-income families. Maximum disruption for minimum benefit.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Criterion Status Quo Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Winner
SDC at Ideal Cluster 72% 61% ↓ 61% ↓ 72% → Status Quo / Opt 3
IEP Students Can Walk 58% 53% ↓ 52% ↓ 52% ↓ Status Quo
Facility Quality (0-12) 9.9 8.7 ↓ 8.6 ↓ 9.1 ↓ Status Quo
% at Ideal Schools 24% 51% ↑ 65% ↑ 37% ↑ Option 2
% Can Walk to School 87% 79% ↓ 76% ↓ 76% ↓ Status Quo
Avg Distance (miles) 1.58 1.70 ↓ 1.70 ↓ 1.66 ↓ Status Quo
Enrollment Balance (IQR) 195 289 ↓ 169 ↑ 339 ↓ Option 2
Students Split from Peers N/A 639 410 647 Option 2
% Low-Income Displaced 47% baseline 64% ↓ 54% ↓ 56% ↓ All fail
% IEP Students Displaced 15% baseline 21% ↓ 16% ↓ 16% ↓ All fail

Legend: ↑ = Better than status quo | ↓ = Worse than status quo | → = Same as status quo
Blue rows = Metrics affecting students with disabilities

Key Takeaways

All Three Options Harm Vulnerable Students

The Evidence:

  1. Options 1 & 2 make special education worse → Disrupts programs for students with autism and other disabilities
  2. All three options reduce walkability for students with IEPs → From 58% to 52-53% can walk independently
  3. All three options disproportionately displace students with IEPs → 16-21% displaced vs 15% district average
  4. All three options worsen facility quality → Proves the schools being closed have higher facility quality scores
  5. All three options disproportionately affect low-income students → 54-64% displaced vs 47% district average

Specific Option Problems:

Option 1 Problems

  • 🚨 CLOSES 6 SCHOOLS WITH SDC PROGRAMS (most of any option)
  • Worsens special ed metric (72% → 61%)
  • Worst facility score (8.7)
  • Most enrollment imbalance (289)
  • Most community fragmentation (639)
  • Most disproportionate to IEP students (21% vs 15%)

Option 2 Problems

  • 🚨 CLOSES 4 SCHOOLS WITH SDC PROGRAMS
  • Worsens special ed metric (72% → 61%)
  • Worst overall facilities (8.6)
  • Worst walkability for IEP students (52%)
  • Worst 90th percentile travel (2.17 mi)
  • Most traffic/crowding (1,215)

Option 3 Problems

  • 🚨 CLOSES 2 SCHOOLS WITH SDC PROGRAMS
  • Worst enrollment imbalance (339)
  • Worst low-income walkability (69%)
  • Worst walkability for IEP students (52%)
  • LOWEST goal achievement (37%)
  • Closes 8 schools for minimal benefit

Why This Process Is Fundamentally Flawed

Beyond the data showing that all options harm vulnerable students, the process itself has serious structural problems that prevented meaningful community input and predetermined the outcomes.

🚨 Timeline Comparison

6 months
San José Unified
Sept 2025 - Feb 2026
18+ months
Oakland Unified
January 2023 - ongoing
2+ years
San Francisco Unified
2019-2021 closure process

Result: San José's compressed 6-month timeline is 3-4 times faster than neighboring districts, preventing adequate community engagement, thorough analysis, or consideration of alternatives.

Major Process Problems:

1. Predetermined Outcomes Through "Ideal School" Framework
The district defined "ideal schools" as 500-750 students, which mathematically guaranteed closures before any community input. With current enrollment, reaching this target required closing schools - the outcome was built into the starting assumptions.
2. Undemocratic Committee Selection
All committee members were appointed by the Superintendent. No elections, no community voting, no mechanism for parents or teachers to select their own representatives. The committees had no independent mandate or democratic legitimacy.
3. Severely Limited Public Participation
• 2-minute speaking time limits per person
• 20-minute total time limit for all public comments combined
• No requirement to respond to public input
• No mechanism for ongoing community dialogue or Q&A
In a district with thousands of families, only 10 people (at 2 minutes each) could speak at any meeting.
4. Staff Controlled All Information and Options
• District staff determined which options to analyze
• Staff controlled what data was presented and when
• Committees could only choose from pre-selected options
• No independent analysis or outside experts brought in
The committees were advisory only - staff predetermined the viable options.
5. No Accountability for Disproportionate Impact
Despite tracking data showing:
• 54-64% of displaced students are low-income (vs 47% district average)
• 16-21% of displaced students have IEPs (vs 15% district average)
• Special education worsens in Options 1 & 2 (72% → 61%)
There was no mechanism to reject options that disproportionately harm vulnerable students.
6. No Appeal or Reconsideration Process
Once the Board votes, there is no process for:
• Communities to appeal based on new information
• Reconsidering if implementation problems emerge
• Adjusting based on changed circumstances
This is a one-way decision with no safety valve or course correction.
7. Inadequate Transition Planning
The process focused on which schools to close, but provided minimal detail on:
• How SDC programs will be reconstituted at receiving schools
• Traffic and parking impacts at receiving schools
• Actual capacity constraints (1,215 students above 10-year peak in Option 2)
• Support for students with IEPs during transitions
Plans focus on closures, not on successful student outcomes.

Process Verdict: The compressed timeline, undemocratic committee selection, severely limited public input, staff control of all options, and lack of accountability for disproportionate impacts combine to create a process that appears designed to implement predetermined outcomes rather than genuinely engage the community in shared decision-making.

The Logical Conclusion

If the schools being closed had lower scores on district metrics, closing them would improve the overall averages.

Instead:

This proves that ALL THREE OPTIONS harm our most vulnerable students and close schools that score ABOVE the district average on multiple criteria.

Data Source

All metrics are from the San José Unified School District's official "Schools of Tomorrow Implementation Committee (STIC) – February 10 Metrics Summary Tables" document, publicly available in the February 10, 2026 STIC meeting materials.

This analysis uses ONLY the district's own data and official metrics. No alternative scenarios or external data sources were used.