Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 1:51 AM

'Tough choices' ahead on school boundaries
School board to decide by June on lines for reopening Garland Elementary in 2011

by Chris Kenrick
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Beverly, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 11:09 am

Ohlone is not a neighborhood school to very many students. It is a shame that there is no possiblity of moving that campus to Garland. Most of those students are driven to the school. Remember Elizabeth Van Auken and De Anza neighborhood schools? They have been gone for a long time and the ideal of neighborhood schools has gone with them. I do not think that it is safe for children to cross Oregon Expressway, even with crossing guards. Would you want your child to do that each day?

Posted by Twin Mom, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 12:15 pm

There are many odd boundaries that should be corrected in this process. We live in a single neighborhood (Community Center) with 3 different elementary schools (Hays, Addison & Duveneck). Our children are driven 1 mile to school when we live 3 blocks from Walter Hays Elementary School. We requested a transfer out of an over subscribed school. Instead a reverse lottery was conducted to involuntarily remove students.

No boundaries should go down the middle of a residential street so that kids who live across a neighborhood street go to different schools. Harker in Community Center has this issue. Boundaries that run through a block, keep neighboring kids in the same school. There are many similar legacy issues around Palo Alto.

Boundaries should default to busy streets where possible: Channing, Middlefield, Oregon. Our children have to cross Newell and Channing to get to their school. If we could go to our closest school, they would cross NO busy streets.

The boundaries should be improved where possible. Neighborhood schools unite a community. They should be fostered and supported in this process.

Posted by What?!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Does this make any common sense? 2/3 of the students would live in south PA and attend a north PA school, then return to south PA for middle school? Just open a south PA elementary!

"Demographers Shelley Lapkoff and Jeanne Gobalet outlined one scenario in which Garland's boundaries would be roughly Embarcadero Road, Seale Avenue, Middlefield Road and Matadero Creek, encompassing neighborhoods both north and south of Oregon.

In that scenario, about two-thirds of Garland's households would live south of Oregon while one-third would live north. If middle-school boundaries remain as they are today, Garland would be split at Oregon, with about 175 graduates going to JLS and 100 going to Jordan."

Posted by What?!, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Notice that this week on North California Ave. there are hoses on the street monitoring how many cars are strolling through. They are located in front of future Garland and in front of Jordan.

Posted by Sue, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 1:06 pm

The move for the Midtown students to JLS and then back to Paly is an issue. They make friends at JLS then get uprooted and put into Paly where they dont know anyone. Some children take a year at least to make this adjustment when they already have a big leap being in the high school environment. I agree with the comment on relocating Ohlone to the Garland site and making the present Ohlone neighborhood school. I think that children north of Colorado should go to Jordan/Paly and south of Colorado should go to JLS/Gunn

Posted by Grandma, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Sue: When the new classrooms are built at Gunn maybe some re-arranging of boundary lines can take place. Right now Gunn is full, there is no more room for Midtown students at Gunn, therefore, if you want them educated in the PAUSD you will have to accept Paly.

Posted by don't get it, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm

why MI parents resist the idea of moving the program to Garland? They are commuters anyway! MI moving to Garland will open up rooms at Ohlone for possibly 2 strands of neighborhood students. That will alleviate most of needs to across Oregon.

The proposal of using Garland as a half neighborhood program and a half choice program should be on the table of discussions. After all, if 2/3 of a north PA school comes from south PA, it doesn't serve the purpose of a neighborhood school.

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 2:54 pm

Why don't we move all the language choice programs to Greendell when the JCC moves out? Ohlone has a huge waiting list.

Posted by oh what fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 4:18 pm

>Why MI parents resist the idea of moving the program to Garland?

Garland isn't going to be adopting the Ohlone style of education. You can suggest it though since everything looks like it's on the table from this report.

>MI moving to Garland will open up rooms at Ohlone

>for possibly 2 strands of neighborhood students.

If you can fit 2-strands of neighborhood kids at Ohlone, then that could be 2-strands of MI, which is the minimum requirement for an immersion program. No reason to move MI at that point.

Posted by still don't get it, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 4:25 pm

"if you can fit 2-strands of neighborhood kids at Ohlone, then that could be 2-strands of MI, which is the minimum requirement for an immersion program. No reason to move MI at that point."

the reason is then south PA will have additional neighborhood school and the need for crossing Oregon to Garland is reduced. Remember MI is a commuter program and they need to drive kids around anyways!

Posted by Ada, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm

I agree. Kids north of Colorado should go to Jordan/Paly and south of Colorado should go to JLS/Gunn. We live near Ohlone and have to go to JLS which is twice farther than Jordan. Jordan/Paly or JLS/Gunn succession is essential!

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Ada - since all of Terman goes to Gunn, the numbers won't work for all of JLS to go to Gunn and all of Jordan to go to Paly.

Posted by oh what fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 8:53 pm

>the reason is then south PA will have additional neighborhood school

>and the need for crossing Oregon to Garland is reduced. Remember MI is

>a commuter program and they need to drive kids around anyways!

Thanks, I understand now. You want the MI parents to give up an Ohlone education so you can avoid sending your kids across the street.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 9:11 pm

MI is a pilot program, yet it gets priority on its demands on location? How very strange.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 9:53 pm

The MI families are choosing MI, not Ohlone. They want MI, they get a place in MI. If they want Ohlone, they get Ohlone. If they have MI, they still have MI wherever it goes.

Posted by oh what fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:45 am

Really, Resident? I chose Ohlone and then MI. Not the other way around. If MI moves, I would prefer to stay at Ohlone and drop MI.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:55 am

Oh

Actually that is a very interesting comment. When all the furore about MI started and the possibilities were discussed, Ohlone was never part of the mix. The site was the last detail in the minds of those who were interested.

If there are some families whose first priority is Ohlone and then also opts for MI it raises some interesting factors. Did you have to win 2 lotteries to get your place in MI? Did you also enter the SI lottery? Are there other families who are perhaps siblings at Ohlone who decided to go for the MI program?

MI is a pilot program for 3 years. Nothing has been decided or even promised (at least publicly) as to what will happen after these three years. There has never been a guarantee that it will stay at Ohlone.

The JCC are moving from Greendell and there will be vacant space at that site. Moving a choice program there would make a great deal of sense, particularly as that site is ideal for a commute program, and MI without a permanent home after 3 years would be a good candidate.

I wonder if other families would leave MI and opt to stay at Ohlone if MI were to leave the Ohlone site?

Posted by oh what fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:59 am

Resident, who was the "second in command" at PACE and where did they send their child *before* MI went to Ohlone? I'm not the only one who wants MI to continue at Ohlone.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 10:54 am

MI is a self contained choice program - by definition, they are defining their own program, materials, teaching style, etc. If they want to run in an Ohlone style of education they can do that anywhere.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Its a commuter school, you'll go where you get put or you'll enter a new lottery, or you'll go back to a neighborhood school. (Just like everyone else in the district!)

Thanks for firing up the MI debate again though. I'll be more than happy to jump back in to this can of worms. By the way, that reminds me, we need full reporting on the academic progress of the MI experimental subjects. We'll have to write to Skelly/BOE to get that on an agenda ASAP.

Posted by C's parent, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 11:34 am

MI moving to Garland is not a complete solution in itself as it only frees up some space at Ohlone but that alone cannot fully meet the projected enrollment needs in the South. Remember that only 8% of the proposed North PA Garland area children goes to Ohlone. Restricting Garland to MI and North PA will not address the overcrowding issue in the South.

On top of that, Ohlone is still an alternative school so there's no guarantee that North PA residents will opt for Garland and not Ohlone. Maybe some quota system needs to be in place, something like 2-3 spots South resident for every 1 spot North to address the more egregious overcrowding issue in the South. This brings up the question of fairness for North PA parents who want to send their kids to Ohlone.

The other option of moving Ohlone School to Garland and making the Ohlone site a neighborhood school sounds like a better plan for the long run but we face the same scenario as above, you might have to implement a quota system and say preference be given to North PA residents to get into Ohlone. Also, the logistics of doing this would be a nightmare since most enrollees at Ohlone right now are still coming from South PA.

That's why I can see why the proposal that the demographers put out there to address the overcrowding issue is to plant a neighborhood school in the middle to pull in kids from the North and South to account for projected enrollment needs. This is also a more flexible setup to adjust for future enrollment changes in the North and South. Of course, the challenge is getting past the idea that Oregon expressway is the Great Wall of Palo Alto.

Posted by Concerned parent, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 12:45 pm

We need to remember that Mandarin Immersion (MI) is a pilot program and not guaranteed for the future. As such, it should be a lower priority on the list of factors to consider when school boundaries are re-drawn. In other words, we should NOT let MI considerations enter into the equation. Besides, the parents who got into MI would be willing to drive anywhere if MI was re-located to another school.

Posted by C's parent, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm

I studied Chinese as a foreign language when I was a kid and I can testify that Chinese is a tough language to learn. It requires a lot of rote memorization as there are thousands of Chinese characters that kids will need to remember. You also need to practice writing a lot to get the strokes correctly. This requires homework - lots of it. On account of this, I think MI would be better off at some other school other than Ohlone.

At any rate, like I mentioned above, moving MI out of Ohlone doesn't really solve the problem. You need to implement other measures and the chances of those happening are more relevant.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 3:19 pm

I have to jump in and put my two cents in on why Ohlone can't/shouldn't move to Garland:

1) No space for the farm. Very small site and backs onto residential neighborhood.

2) Not a good location for a commuter school next to already crowded middle school on a small residential street.

3) Ohlone already pulls 2/3 of it's students from it's neighborhood so it really wouldn't solve much to make it a neighborhood school.

4) The biggest problem that I see is that you'll STILL have kids crossing Oregon to go to the neighborhood school but this time it will be from the North to the South. That's what this is all about, right? It's not the solution.

Maybe there's a mix of some other solution but moving the entire Ohlone site to Garland is not it.

Posted by why not?, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Erin,

I think the proposal people are making is not about existing Ohlone (non-MI) students. They would stay where they are. Because they are building 12 new classrooms at Ohlone, this would be enough room for a 2 strand neighborhood school.

It might even help Ohlone. Right now a lot Palo Verde parents apply to Ohlone because it is close to their homes. If they had a neighborhood option, there would be more spaces at Ohlone for kids whose parents really want Ohlone philosophy.

There is also no reason the MI, no matter what school it lives at, couldn't follow Ohlone philosophy. They wouldn't get the farm, but hey, my kids don't either.

Posted by why not?, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Also,

Garland wouldn't only be a choice school - it would be mostly neighorhood school with 1 or 1.5 strands of mandarin immersion. I don't think traffic impact would be that big.

The traffic impact would be less than having 2/3 kids driven to school, which is what you will get with current plan.

Posted by oh want fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:23 pm

>Trustee Camille Townsend also asked that the Tinsley Voluntary

>Transfer Program be included in the discussion, with exploration

>of possibly grouping students in that program in lower-enrollment

>schools to free up spaces in more crowded elementary schools.

...

>Board members said they were particularly concerned about

>maximizing peer streaming

Oh what fun. Another issue that will raise some hackles. Tinsley students move away from the overcrowded North cluster of schools creating interesting choices when they then try to maximize "peer streaming". I can see the headlines now "All new Tinsley students destined for Gunn!"

Resident,

>MI is a self contained choice program - by definition, they are

>defining their own program, materials, teaching style, etc. If they

>want to run in an Ohlone style of education they can do that

>anywhere.

I gather you have no children in the program. So you know this...how? Of course Susan's earlier welcoming comments of "We'll just do what we always have done but in Mandarin" doesn't ring a bell? You might like the visit the school and you may change your mind.

Posted by Long Time Resident, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm

I have lived in the area 51 years. Children (starting in kindergarten) used to walk to school and home without their parents.

I can predict what will happen with the build up of Garland.

Parents will sit in their idling cars on Garland and Barbara Drive, waiting to pick up their children.

This same thing happens to the neighborhood surrounding the rear of Nixon school (an overflow school), and the homeowners hate it.

These schools were originally designed to be walkable schools.

The increase in the size of the school will mean an overflow of parking needed for staff and parents involved in school projects (plays, etc).

Single story schools are the norm in California, since we have earthquakes. Generous overhangs, windows with light, eliminate the need for air conditioning. They provide cool breezes, and ample light. The generous overhangs on many of the schools protect the children from the harmful rays of the sun in the summer, and allow students to walk from one classroom to another or to the office, or auditorium without getting wet.

Many of our Elementary schools were designed to work with our environment.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:40 pm

MI's an integral part of Ohlone? Give me a break--we're talking about a program that's been in residence for seven months.

And were there any non-MI parents arguing that MI was an integral part of Ohlone? Doesn't sound like it.

And the MI K/1 kids are on the opposite side of the playground from every other K/1 class. How integrated could it really be?

Translation: MI parents want a chunk of that nice new building that's going up and they're afraid of a more adversarial set of parents. (Not understanding that Charles has kept the peace, in part, by tacitly implying that she doesn't expect MI to be at Ohlone past its original expiration date.)

As for Ohlone at Garland--well, that was brought up earlier but nixed because of the central role of the Farm at Ohlone. Garland's a smaller site, so no room for the Farm.

Unlike MI, Ohlone's main program can take kids in the later grades and already has a high percentage of neighborhood kids. It would be a natural move to move MI to Garland or Greendell and expand Ohlone to take in kids from the neighborhood or off the waitlist.

But, no, there won't be a traditional neighborhood school at the Ohlone site if Ohlone's there--it will be Ohlone style. Remember, Susan Charles insisted on that with MI, which is why it's such an hybrid. She'll do the same with any expansion.

(And, what, Ohlone kids will do the Farm thing, while the neighborhood kids won't? The school works very much as a unit in a lot of ways--it's very much part of what it does.)

oh what fun,

Then you're an exception--when the original surveys were done, there was almost no cross-interest between the two programs. For good reason, I might add--project-based learning is problematic for immersion programs.

And, no, as I understand it, if MI moves, staying at Ohlone isn't automatic--you're part of the MI program, not Ohlone, itself. Ergo, if Ohlone turned into a neighborhood school, my offspring goes where Ohlone goes as my family's part of that program. (And, man, I hope it's not the Pinewood site,)

And you can apply for an intradistrict transfer and see if your child gets into the main Ohlone program. There's probably a decent chance if Ohlone expands at that point.

Oh, and a two-strand MI program ain't gonna happen. Very simple reason, too--the district doesn't have enough Mandarin native speakers to make it work.

Keep in mind, by the way, that *your* program bumped Ohlone's own half-strand expansion. There are would-be Ohlone families on a large waitlist. Ohlone's own program is quite a bit more popular than MI.

Parent,

We're not going to get any standardized test results for another year--wonder if they'll break it down by program?

What I find interesting is that the MI program isn't actually full--it's 39, not 40 kids. Wonder what happened there that they couldn't backfill it? Native speaker spot? Points to one of the issues with MI--it's inflexibility. It and SI are the two programs that don't readily take in new students past first grade.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:43 pm

I really have no problem with having a strand of MI at Garland, I think the Barbara Drive neighbors who are very concerned about traffic might be. There's still hope that if you keep Garland a neighborhood school that most kids will bike and walk.

My post was directed towards a post by C's parent and the notion has been brought up by others in the community to put Ohlone at Garland.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Oh want fun,

I visit and volunteer at Ohlone. You really want to make claims about how well integrated your seven-month-old program is with the school at large?

You really think the rest of us will really notice or miss anything if your program disappeared overnight? I mean, other than Charles and some teachers being a little less harried?

You may feel at-home at Ohlone, but excising MI would be a cinch, frankly. Your kids will never be in the same class as mine. They're certainly not meeting in Wednesday's afterschool language classes.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Erin,

I don't think there's enough difference in the Ohlone v. Garland site to make an Ohlone switch worthwhile. While the south is complaining, the north has had serious overenrollment issues for a number of years now. Neighborhood strands are needed in the north. I think the only reason a 2/3 south-of-Oregon proposal is on the table is because north parents will howl loudly at being moved from Addison/Duveneck/Walter Hays. It would make a lot of sense for a chunk of the Walter Hays region to go to Garland--the set that already crosses both Middlefield and Embarcadero to get to school. But that section's very rich and very entitled--so they won't take a swap lying down. Those of us in the upper end of the Green Gables triangle aren't in the same league and, frankly, having a true neighborhood school would be an overall plus. Oh my small street, the kids go to about five different schools. In part, I think, because nothing's convenient.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:59 pm

Wow, this is not "The Ohlone Way" I remember as a kid. Then again, I guess nothing is quite the same as it was here 20 years ago.

Boundaries are a mess. The district will never be able to make everyone happy. They have to do what they think is the best solution for the district and for the majority of the kids. I hope they can figure that out with the help of cool-headed people without agendas.

Posted by oh what fun, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:11 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Erin,

I am not an Ohlone student, I'm a parent--and while I'm a perfectly polite nice Ohlone parent, I'm also pretty direct.

Fact is, the MI program by its nature means that MI kids and mine will never be in the same class. Not because I would mind one way or another, but because of the MI program's restrictions. Ohlone main does its thing and MI does its thing. The claim MI parents are making that their program shouldn't be moved because they've become deeply part of the Ohlone community is ridiculous. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:21 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by not any more, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm

I was a MI supporter and had my sympathy when they were struggling for their program. Now after seeing their posts on this board, I'm changing my mind. They wanted a MI program, OK they got it. Now they demand MI to stay in Ohlone without the slightest courtesy to think for other kids in the district. How 2/3 of Garland kids will have to cross Oregon to go to their so-called "neighborhood" school? Well, as long as they get BOTH Ohlone and MI, nothing else is their problem.

Posted by Just curious?, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm

I wonder how the demographic team came up with the suggested boundaries for Garland? It is interesting that the neighborhood directly across Middlefield Road from Jordan Middle School (from Oregon to Seale ending at Alma & Middlefield) doesn't seem to be included in the proposed Garland boundaries. That Old Palo Alto neighborhood is much closer to Garland than some of the neighborhoods on the other side of Oregon and the neighborhoods closer to 101. If Addison is so overcrowded, why not divert some of the Addison kids to Hays & Duveneck and more of the Hays/Duveneck kids to Garland? The district seems to be cherry picking neighborhoods without regard to what areas are located closest to each of the schools.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm

not any more,

It's odd because originally at least some of them were counting on getting Garland when the three-year trial period was up. Until the big bond issue passed there was no room for a full strand of MI at Ohlone.

I still think the half of Greendell being vacated is a natural for MI--a true commuter location--big parking lot, near Charleston and Middlefield--and a chance for the MIers to do their thing whatever that is.

Despite what's happening on this thread, Ohlone, itself, is a very pleasant place. It has a lot of happy kids there and the adults are polite. I suspect some MI parents found themselves drinking more Ohlone Kool-Aid than they realized.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Just Curious raises a very good point. Crossing Middlefield is a much better option than crossing Oregon Expressway. Putting that neighborhood into Garland makes a great deal of sense.

As for those who say that they choose Ohlone over MI even though at present they are getting both, I am sure that the vast majority of MI families don't fall into this category. The MI families who threatened the district with a charter would have been willing to take any premises, and I feel sure that the one they had their eye on was Garland. PACE would be rubbing their hands with glee if the decision to open Garland had occurred while they were still making their initial persuasions to the Board.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Resident,

I think we're just seeing political clout from that area, but, yes, it makes sense to zone that area Garland. Some of them would be closer to Garland than Walter Hays or Addison.

The MI crowd is just bizarre--while it seems to hurt their feelings, I don't see why they would even think they'd be well-entrenched in the overall Ohlone committee after seven months with a couple of K/1 classes. Ohlone's parent community tends to be dominated by families with several kids--i.e. they're at the school for several years. For obvious reasons, the MI families aren't in that category. You see a couple of names on committees--but, then, we're all on committees. It's the nature of the school. Seriously, I really don't run into the MI crowd--there just isn't cross over.

Posted by Confused Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:43 pm

How about building pedestrian overpasses at the intersections of Middlefield and Oregon, Oregon and Cowper, Ross and Oregon (?), Louis and Oregon?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Confused,

I've wondered about that myself. Other people have said that that's done for freeways instead of expressways, but Louis/Oregon would serve Garland/Ohlone and Jordan and presumably improve traffic flow at rush hour.

Posted by pedsafe, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:05 pm

It is probably because pedestrian overpasses cost a lot, between $1 million and $4 million. (I googled pedestrian overpass cost...) I found a Website called pedsafe. At the pedsafe website they also listed many reasons why they are the choice of last resort.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:08 pm

So Garland will be a brand-new beautiful school. I think neighborhood children should attend and benefit from that, not a trial choice program (MI). I also think one would not want to have a commuter program there (MI) as there is already enough traffic.

Posted by why not?, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:11 pm

Web Link

I don't think you would have room for ramp and then kids probably wouldn't use it anyway.

Posted by why not?, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm

I think Garland neighbors are missing the point - if 2/3 of the kids have to cross Oregon to get there, you will have a ton of traffic.

To whoever suggested switching around North Palo Alto schools..there are way more kids before overflowed from south Palo Alto schools already and after some of the new developments are finished the situation will be worse. It is actually south palo alto that needs a new school.

Posted by Confused Midtowner, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Or maybe rerouting Oregon Expressway (Freeway, whatever) so it goes through the boundary of PA and MV and ends up in LA. Problem solved!!!

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:09 am

Hmmm, doesn't seem to me like pedestrian overpass would be that impossible. Given the $400 million bond, $1.5 million to ensure safe passage to three schools seems possible.

Louis would be a direct route for all three schools--Ohlone's between Louis and Greer; Garland's just west of Louis and Jordan's next to Garland.

As for room--there's some room on the north side because of the Oregon Ave. situation. The south side would be more of a problem, but there is a little used sidewalk alongside Oregon on that side as well that's quite wide. The freeway overpass on Oregon near Sierra is on a fairly narrow strip.

Posted by Teddie, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 11:24 pm

I am wondering if someone can clear this up for me. If the proposed Garland boundary is Embarcadero (North), Middlefield(East), Seale (South) where is Matadero Creek exactly as the (West) boundary? Thanks is advance.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 9:10 am

You have to look at the map for it to be clearer. I think Matadero Creek is the South boundary, Embarcadero angles and becomes both an East and North boundary. Middlefield is the proposed West boundary. I'm not sure where Seale cuts through exactly but I'm guessing it cuts into the current Duveneck area?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Matadero is just south of Colorado. It's the north boundary of Seale Park if that helps. So basically, houses on both sides of Colorado, the houses on Clara. So, just south of Ohlone (which has a back entrance that goes through the Friends Church parking lot onto Colorado.) It would be in walking distance of Garland--but with Oregon in the way.

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm

If you look at the drawings, it looks like Seale and Embarcadero are the North (Seale dead-ends into Embarcadero), Middlefield is the West boundary, Matadero Creek is the south boundary, 101 is the east. 2/3 of the of the students attending Garland will be crossing Oregon. Link to the Board Presentation

Web Link

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm

palo alto mom,

We're basically talking about, south of Oregon, a good chunk of what would be the Ohlone catchment area.

I think this is, frankly, an argument for moving MI to Greenfell or Oregon. The way the Garland area's being set up it will only be the school in the neighborhood for a third of its students. Speaking as someone who's in the situation of not having a truly walkable neighborhood school, the district should expect a lot of Ohlone applications from the south of Oregon area and expand Ohlone's program accordingly so it can take in more non-sibs.

But that only works if MI moves. The MI families are heavily weighted toward south and west Palo Alto--not surprising. Some neighborhood kids, but a lower percentage than Ohlone generally. So Greenfell feeding into JLS into Gunn would work for that program.

Posted by Been around a long time, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 11:09 am

Don't worry we're due for the next cycle of declining enrollment.

Previous School Boards and demographers have made the mistake of assuming declining enrollment forever; our present School Board is making the assumption that enrollment will continue to grow forever. History has told us that the curve goes both up and down. With the economic downturn it is quite likely that our 11th day enrollment figures will decline next year.

The inventory of houses for sale in Palo Alto is larger than it has been in years, this is one indication the enrollment curve may start to decline. By 2011 when Garland is ready for students it may not be needed.

Posted by Actually, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm

"I think this is, frankly, an argument for moving MI to Greenfell or Oregon"

Actually, it's an argument for moving the Ohlone program, expanding MI to two strands at the Ohlone site, and giving the rest of the school to the locals.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm

I've also been around a long time and Palo Alto is not what it used to be. I don't think we can count on history repeating itself and enrollments following a curve and trending downward. We have to build for future growth.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm

The growth in enrollment in Palo Alto is not over and won't be for some time. At present, there is a lot of new housing and will be more. Housing for Stanford's new developments as well as the number of aging individuals moving out to allow new families to move in and the number of empty nesters moving out to live somewhere cheaper also allows more families to move in. Also, as Scott Laurence mentions in discussions about enrollment, since the beginning of this calendar year, students are entering the district mid year probably due to financial reasons as they can no longer provide the private education they were previously paying for.

These reasons are not going away by next year's 11th day enrollment.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Actually,

No, again MI is too inflexible a program and the district lacks enough native Mandarin speakers. Already, the program's not full.

You guys just don't get the basic math problem with immersion programs. ALL programs have attrition, but immersion programs are the only ones that can't swap in students in the later grades. They *inevitably* create empty chairs in the later grades--particularly as the allowable numbers of students go up in later grades.

If you have an overcrowded district, it's idiotic to create magnet programs that can't take in kids past first grade.

Two-thirds of Ohlone's kids come from around Ohlone. So the main program is serving the neighborhood and COULD serve it more if it were expanded. MI does NOT serve the Ohlone neighborhood in terms of whom it draws, so moving it would improve the odds for kids near Ohlone and not hurt those in the MI program.

In other words, lots of locals are AT Ohlone, but not in MI. MI's not a good choice program for that area. It wouldn't be bad, though, for Greenfell. Remember, the waitlist for Ohlone is much larger than the one for MI. Ohlone's applications went up with the MI program debate.

But thanks for giving yet another example of the self-centeredness of MI's proponents. If you guys really valued Ohlone and were deeply part of its community, you'd understand why Ohlone current curriculum is wedded to its location. I don't expect The Farm to mean much to parents at the neighborhood schools, but Ohlone parents of any stripe should understand its value to "The Ohlone Way". Or to quote Susan Charles, who favors expansion more than I do, "The Farm is sacred."

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Farm or neighborhood school? Tough one that.

Posted by It happens, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:15 am

"They *inevitably* create empty chairs in the later grades" Not in my family as my son transferred from Nixon to Hoover to repeat 5th grade.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 9:33 am

Hoover is not a language immersion program. Those are the ones that produce empty seats in the higher grades.

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 9:34 am

It happens -

Your son transferred into a choice program, not an immersion program. Hoover and Ohlone can accept kids at any grade, there is no learning barrier, just a different teaching style. The need to know Mandarin or Spanish prevents transfers into an Immersion program after kindergarden or first grade unless the student is already fluent in the immersion language. From the PAUSD website description of MI (which currently has K/1 students) "First and second grade students will only be accepted on a space-available basis and will be assessed for Mandarin proficiency. " This greatly limits the class size flexibiity we need as an overenrolled district.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 9:34 am

Can we now officially call Ohlone the sacred cow of PAUSD?

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 1:07 pm

"Two-thirds of Ohlone's kids come from around Ohlone. So the main program is serving the neighborhood... "

That's odd. The fall 2008 K-5 Students by School Attendance Area of Residence for Ohlone shows the following:

37 - Addison

31 - Duveneck

37 - Hays

58 - El Carmelo

60 - Fairmeadow

110 - Palo Verde

17 - Barron Park

19 - Briones

12 - Escondido

10 - Nixon

25 - Ravenswood

17 - Not PAUSD or no street address

433 - Total

Not really the distribution that I'd expect for a school serving its neighborhood. How did you get to your 2/3rds number?

Posted by C's parent, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Apr 6, 2009 at 1:52 pm

resident,

Thanks for posting the real numbers. A lot of the numbers some posters throw around here are obviously pure conjecture and meant to serve self-interests. Another misinformed post is the claim that most of the overcrowding is happening in North PA. The numbers clearly say that North PA is net short 70 seats, while South PA is short 250 seats.

Posted by Math, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Palo Verde's 110 member representation, along with Fairmeadow and El Carmelo's are a substantial number of the Palo Alto resident's representation- 228/391 is almost 60%. This is hardly random - this would suggest the effective shortage in south Palo Alto neighborhood schools is even more than the official numbers.

There needs to be another neigborhood school in south Palo Alto, not just a neighbhorhood school masquerading as a choice school. The options:

Greendell or part of Ohlone or a part of Hoover.

Mandarin OR Hoover must find a home somewhere in north Palo Alto.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Here is a link to the demographer's report from December of 2008. Web Link

It shows the number of students over or under capacity at each school by the year 2013 without Garland opening, based on current school use (ie. using bubble classes in some cases like Addison).

Addison = over 94

Barron Park = under 64

Briones = over 5

Duveneck = over 22

El Carmelo = over 39

Escondido = under 16

Fairmeadow = over 70

Hays = under 65

Nixon = over 9

Palo Verde = over 121

While I'm sure there is a need for a school in the South, you can't deny that there is a need in the North.

Moving Hoover to the North would not solve any of our overcrowding issues. There is no school to move it to in the North. I'd say it would be doubtful that you'd have enough kids in the neighborhood just south of Fairmeadow to fill up the current Hoover site and still fill El Carmelo and Fairmeadow.

Posted by math, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Hays+ Addison + Duveneck = over 51

PV + Fairmeadow + El Carmel0 = Over 230

We need to find a way to open up neighborhood spots in the south - using the new space at Ohlone would do that. Turning Hoover back into neighborhood and having it share Garland would do that.

One of the choice programs has to move.

Posted by No Sacred Cows, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm

Ohlonepar,

Lots of hand waving and off-topic wandering, but not much sense.

Ohlone is a choice program, a commuter school. If it makes sense to move the program elsewhere, the district will do it.

You should get off your high horse and stop lecturing the rest of the district about your "sacred" program. I'm glad you're happy with it, but your choice constrains the district and shifts kids around. Ain't nothing sacred about Ohlone.

And as Hmmm points out above, your 2/3 figure is totally bogus....

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Ohlone is a choice program but it is pretty deeply rooted in its current location. You can move choice schools but the kids will move to the new locations and the parents will move to those neighborhoods with it. It's happened before and it will happen again if you move them.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm

"You can move choice schools but the kids will move to the new locations and the parents will move to those neighborhoods with it."

Odd comment. There doesn't look like any clustering around Hoover based on the presentation you posted.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 6:49 pm

"Not understanding that Charles has kept the peace, in part, by tacitly implying that she doesn't expect MI to be at Ohlone past its original expiration date."

Do people just make up comments on this forum? Check out the actual meeting minutes from the Ohlone ES meeting minutes from November 21, 2008:

"Susan, Bob, to meet with Kevin Skelly on 11.21.08 to discuss enrollment capacity. Options are to either add 6 new classrooms for the Mandarin immersion program and replace portables (12 total) or general expansion of Ohlone with 9 new classrooms and portable replacement (15 total)."

...

"Ohlone has a Mandarin immersion program. It was originally intended to be housed at Ohlone for 3 years, but now is a permanent program. It is an integrated part of the school."

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Not an odd comment at all if you look at the presentation. There are very few kids coming to Hoover from the North but I would bet that if you move it to the North new families in the district would move into housing close to Hoover if they intended for their children to attend that school.

Posted by JSD, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 7:53 pm

hmmm,

Do you have a link or citation for the sections you quoted above? I'm particularly intrigued at the comment that MI is a "permanent program".

What is an "ES"?

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Hoover parents will not move North. They want Gunn not Paly.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:20 pm

JSD, it's on the pausd site: Web Link

Erin, I simply take those stats as people further away from a choice school are less likely to apply to it. Though I have no data to back up the statement. Moving Hoover to Garland would make it more central and accessible to everyone in Palo Alto.

Posted by South of Oregon parent, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Beverly,

Many south of Oregon parents do not mind their kid crossing Oregon to go to Garland. When a child, I crossed a busy street with no street lights. We are overprotecting overbearing parents. Perhaps, initially southof Oregon parents in affected areas shoudl have a choice. Time will tell how big of a concern crossing Oregon is.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 8:33 am

Timely reminder. John Lents has sent out a mail about a reverse lottery to be run this week for next year's Kinders.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 10:40 am

Hmmm - what's a reverse lottery?

Yes, good idea. Move Hoover to Garland and have a full 360 student commuter school next to a crowded middle school in a small residential neighborhood. Great idea for traffic calming and the safety of our kids walking and biking in that area. Some of us will still go to neighborhood schools in that area.

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 11:14 am

From the email:

"Addison Lottery

A result of enrollment beyond capacity, and as directed by the district office, Addison will hold it's Kindergarten reverse lottery the morning of Thursday, April 9, 2009. Only those families whose names are drawn will be contacted by the Addison office staff. If you haven't been contacted by the end of the day, Thursday, you can be assured that your name wasn't drawn and that you have a place at Addison for the 2009-2010 school year."

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 11:34 am

Wow, that's an interesting way to do it. Do you have any idea how many they are over enrolled so far?

Posted by JSD, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 1:04 pm

hmmm,

Thanks for the link. It's very interesting to me that the architects' interpretation of that meeting was that MI was here-to-stay (both within the District and at Ohlone) (NB these are the architects' notes, not minutes from the District). When asked point-blank at a PTA meeting (which occurred after that meeting with the architects), the school board member in attendance said that no decisions have been made regarding MI after the pilot.

The party line was that we're making Ohlone bigger even though we don't know yet what "flavor" student will be occupying the extra space: MI, "regular" Ohlone, other. . . We just know the District will have more students and Ohlone has the physical space to add capacity. (Which makes sense to me.)

Posted by hmmm, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Apr 7, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Hi JSD,

Yes the minutes are from the architects but would have been reviewed and accepted by all attendees.

You also wouldn't expect the board member to say anything else at your PTA meeting given the potentially explosive environment. Any announcement would be carefully stage-managed.

Consider the unambiguous comments from the architects minutes with the board minutes for special meeting of December 15, 2008, which also state that "Ohlone needs expansion for Mandarin Immersion": Web Link

Posted by Interested in MI, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 7, 2009 at 12:49 am

Is there any information about how MI is doing? I don't know what is true, but I have heard that there are two new teachers who have never taught. One is good (but has the normal struggles of a new teacher) and one isn't as good. In addition, I have heard that some kids have already dropped out because there isn't enough English, in particularly for 1st graders who don't have a lot of English at home. Is there a board to start about this?

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 7, 2009 at 2:14 am

Interested in MI,

You should probably just start a thread for this one. I don't have the ins and outs on how the program's doing so far. The two teachers are non-tenured, so, yes, young and relatively inexperienced. We won't be getting any test scores for another year.

Ideally, the program should be 50/50 English/native Mandarin speakers--but because of the demographics here, the balance is actually 2/3 English speakers, one-third Native Mandarin speakers. That could be affecting the emphasis in the classrooms. I believe though the idea is that the native Mandarin speakers are learning in their own language the first couple of years and then switching to more and more English.

Ohlone's an open campus--so it's worth your while to schedule an appointment to actually observe the classes in session. Observe some of the older English-only classes as well to get a sense of how the Ohlone approach works.