Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 3:14 AM

Garland re-opening may be put off to 2012
Stalled elementary enrollment growth linked to recession

by Chris Kenrick
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Crowded Classrooms, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 4:12 am

At the same time they are increasing the size of elementary classrooms to 22/23 for next year.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 7:22 am

Clarification is needed on this article. Board members did not specifically mentionany choice programs when asking to change the language to open the possibility that Garland house more than just neighborhood kids but it sounded clear that Garland will be mostly, if not all, a neighborhood school.

I think the only possibility some Board members are thinking about is moving MI. There was no mention of Hoover.

Posted by Neighborhood School?, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 8:44 am

How would Garland be a "neighborhood school" when 2/3 of the students would travel from South Palo Alto, mostly by car?

Posted by Oliver, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 10:17 am

I'm a parent of twin babies who will be attending Garland under the most current boundary proposal. I've been following the opening of Garland very carefully. There are three points that jump out at me.

1. Peer Streaming

A major concern is that peer streaming (the process by which students move to the next school) is done in a fair way. The initial proposal has future Garland students "double split" from their classmates, first on graduation to middle school and then again on graduation to high school. Garland students would be the only non-choice students facing a "double split" scenario. Hopefully in new boundary plans, this "double split" problem will not exist.

2. District Planning

I've participated in meetings the district has held about opening Garland and taken a close look at the boundary documents. Even though I may disagree with some of the specifics of the old plans, I have been impressed with both the listening and the reasoning that district staff have used in planning for boundary changes. In fact Assisant Superintendent Laurence's openness in soliciting new ideas motivated me to study the enrollment numbers in detail and propose an alternative plan.

3. Process moving forward

At last night's meeting, some board members suggested a study session related to Garland and boundaries if it is revisited in the Fall. This is a great idea. Given the potentially explosive nature of boundary changes, it would be great if the board can give more feedback to district staff before the board is faced with simply a yes/no vote. Hopefully this will help avoid stark contrasts in community opinion that happened with the elementary math textbooks adoption. Modifying the process for important issues, like boundary changes, is good for the community, the district, and students.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 11:20 am

Oliver

I want to comment on your concerns regarding peer streaming and your double split scenario.

What you say is true that those who attend Garland from south of Oregon will be on a JLS/Paly stream unless other changes are made. But, the split at JLS between Paly and Gunn is really 60/40 approximately and not just a small percentage of JLS students going to Paly. Historically JLS did stream into Gunn, but that has changed with the opening of Terman. At first it appeared that those on the JLS/Paly stream were ignored, but a large effort has been made to make this split feel easier. On top of that, you may find that your kids friends are all Paly bound also and sometimes those that are Gunn bound want to go to Paly with their friends and get that transfer much easier than those who wish to get from Paly to Gunn.

Believe me, I have had this experience with my kids and also put some time into investigating this and although it seems unfair to go through it twice, at the JLS/high school stage there is no viable alternative option to splitting the 8th grade class 60/40.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 11:33 am

Well, this jibes with the word at Ohlone that the longterm plan was to move MI to Garland.

I think the district really needs to, however, look at what's going to become a bad high school situation. While a lot of districts have okay elementary schools, there's a shortage of good public high schools. Families will make the sacrifice and rent here to send their kids to high schools. With the other districts crashing and falling, we can expect to see more, not less of this.

There needs to be some sort of Cubberly solution--even if it's not a full high school, but some sort of more limited academy.

Posted by Palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 11:40 am

I agree that the high schools will be the biggest issue, there is definitely a shortage (partly perceived, partly real) of good high schools.

I don't agree that Cubberly is the solution. There are many things that could happen to make Gunn and Paly feel smaller.

An IB program on one of the campuses.

Setting up "Freshman only" classrooms for core classes.

Another choice program (arts, science)?

These could all share the administrative and athletic facilities while keeping the feel of the school smaller.

Posted by palo alto parent, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 12:25 pm

I think an obvious explanation is being overlooked by the administrators. With all the news of budget cuts to public schools, parents who can afford to do so are more likely to consider sending their kids to private schools instead. I would expect that phenomenon to mostly hit kindergarten classrooms, since no one wants to disrupt kids who are already comfortable at their school.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Palo alto mom,

Interesting thoughts. Would campuses within campuses work at Gunn and Paly? It seems to me that we're bumping up against space limitations, but I don't spend time on either campus.

Though creating specialty programs--IB, etc., would make it easier to move a program if the space constraints became too much.

Posted by Sweet, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Hi OhlonePar,

Do you have a link for this info below?

"the split at JLS between Paly and Gunn is really 60/40 approximately".

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm

The term "neighborhood school" in Palo Alto only means that it is not one of the choice schools. Don't get technical with the definition. There are currently many, many people driving to neighborhood schools because they are too far to walk to. I won't be walking or biking to Walter Hays next year even though it's my neighborhood school.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Hi Sweet,

That was Resident's comment. Many, many people know more about the middle and high schools than I do.

Posted by Former PAUSD Parent, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 2:53 pm

If the opening of Garland is indeed delayed a year, then it seems silly to have Stratford's lease end during a school year (in November). Unless Stratford has already found another location, it seems like it would make sense to extend their lease through June of the following year, thus getting an exta year's rent money from the school. That would still leave time to renovate at least part of the campus to open to a small number of students that fall.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm

They need 18 months to renovate Garland. If they start construction as soon as Stratford vacates they'll be done just in time for the Fall of 2012. The district does not want to have students on the campus during construction if they can help it. Opening during construction was a worst-case scenario if enrollments were at the max levels. Now that enrollments are down a bit they can take more time and finish the school before kids move in. They were planning on opening the school without the library and multi-purpose room completed. The kids who moved in that first year would have missed out on two important elements of a the campus.

I would love to have Garland opened as soon as possible because my kids will go there but it makes more sense to me to wait and have the campus complete before the kids move in. I just hope the district considers starting with more than just K-2 now that they're pushing back a year. I know many people with Kinders starting this Fall who were planning to move their second graders in 2011 and those second graders will now be third graders in 2012.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 3:53 pm

I hunted round a bit for the numbers of JLS students going to Gunn and Paly but had no luck. I know I have seen them somewhere for one year's 8 grade graduating class. If anyone can lead me in the right direction, thanks. It may be possible to get this year's figures, but I think the ones I saw relate to last year.

Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 3:59 pm

@ Palo alto mom: regarding Freshman only core classes. Generally that is the case for Social Studies, English, Science (Biology) and most Math courses. The mixing happens with languages, arts, PE and some math (usually because that the higher lanes are populated with a mix of students).

Paly has a great program called TEAM. 100 kid limit, first come - first served. The core clases are partitioned for Freshman only and the program provides some unique learning programs (at a cost). The kids have a 2-day team building offsite, a week at the Yosemite Institute, environmental volunteer programs, etc. TEAM also utilizes senior class students as mentors (called Lunas) to help with in class and outside class programs. Generally speaking, the core subject teachers only work with kids from TEAM (vs. the general Paly population).

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 27, 2009 at 4:07 pm

There's a bullet on Slide 26 of the Garland Boundary Analysis presentation from March that says that in Fall 2008 36% of JLS residents were assigned to Paly. The presentation goes on to state that if all of Garland is streamed into Jordan then only 20% of JLS residents would go to Paly. Is that the data you were looking for? Here's the link: Web Link

Posted by Sweet, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 am

Erin,

Thanks for the info. This is what I was looking for.

I also have the impression that quite many JLS "residents" intra-district transfered to Jordan in order to peer-stream to high school; consequently, in reality, even less percentage of JLS "students" attend PALY.

Posted by Neighborhood School?, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 9:05 am

Erin,

Big deal that kids will start Garland in 3rd grade instead of 2nd?

It's better for kids to start at a school where they do not have to hear noise from construction while they are learning.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 9:24 am

Neighborhood- I agree with you.

My point is that their plan originally was to open Garland with 4 strands of K and First for those within the new boundary and 2 strands of Second grade for those who wanted to move their kids over but you would have the option to stay at your current school if you wanted to. I merely asked that they consider opening a few strands of Third grade for those of us who want to move our kids now that they're pushing the opening out a year.

Posted by Concerned Parent, a resident of the South of Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Just please, please, please find a way not to make children walk across the expressway. That road is NOT SAFE for small children and families!

Posted by Ada, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 7:32 pm

For those Concerned parents who are concerned about crossing Oregon, please do not overreact, butto make people who are concerned more comfortable, the residents south of Oregon should be given a choice to stay in Palo Verde or go to Garland. It will be interesting to see how many midtown families would choose to stay.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 7:37 pm

The original proposal for Garland was to "grow" a school, the same way Barron Park was reopened. To "grow" a school would mean starting the first year with a couple of kindergarten strands. The following year would be kindergarten, 1st grade, with perhaps a 3rd kindergarten strand. Next year, open 2nd grade, etc. This would be less disruptive to the kids involved. True, some families may prefer to change schools rather than drive across town, but many get used to the community where they are and imo would be reluctant to change and would rather stay where they were, particularly if it was only for two years, 4th and 5th grade, if they have already had several years in that school.

Posted by Niko, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on May 28, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Sweet wrote: "I also have the impression that quite many JLS "residents" intra-district transfered to Jordan in order to peer-stream to high school".

This is actually an untrue statement, there are less than 7 kids in all of Jordan from JLS area, I checked by addresses published in Jordan directory myself. The district does not do such transfers any more, so the only reason you have JLS area kids in Jordan is because the families moved within PA.

Posted by Lena, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm

If all Garland students stream to Jordan and then Paly, I am sure parents would agree to put up with crossing Oregon and construction and other inconveniences, because it is very important to allow kids to stay with their friends all the way. I absolutely hate the way some of midtown kids are assigned to Palo Verde elementary, then go to JLS and then leave their friends behind to go to Paly, while most go to Gunn.

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 7:53 pm

Resident-

I understand the intention to "grow" the school but I also think there are many families who will want to move even once they've been at a school for a few years just because Garland is so much closer and the schools here are so crowded. Plus, we're talking about a school with a new MP room, library, and 2-story classroom wing, not just an old remodel with updated insides. I say, "build it and they will come."

As for the intended "growing" of Garland, per the District's presentations to the community it was to be 4 strands of K, 4 strands of First, and 2 strands of Second in 2011 as I stated above.

Posted by Sweet, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 28, 2009 at 8:15 pm

Niko,

Checking Jordan directory to figure out how many students are from JLS area probably is not accurate, as many families do not list themselves in the directory.

In one of the board meeting document, it said there were 47 "JLS residents" transfered to Jordan in 2008-2009. Not sure how many of these are for peer-streaming, though.

Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 6:30 am

Considering we are a Basic Aid District with the majority of our school money coming from property values..and the fact that our real estate values have dumped AT LEAST 15% in PAUSD, in some areas 20%, I would expect at least a 15% ( roughly..the formulae are tricky) drop in money to the District.

Good news for buyers, bad news for sellers and everyone who relies on the property taxes.

I am sure this is weighing on the decisions.

Posted by agenda, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 7:16 am

130 fewer kinders this year; flat growth for next year; greater need for a neighborhood school in south Palo Alto; change to the wording to include choice programs; Susan leaving Ohlone.

Ohlone's moving to Garland!

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 9:05 am

Ohlone is NOT moving to Garland. Kevin Skelly made it very clear that there are expectations that most of Garland be used as a neighborhood school. The Board still has to decide on that but they'll be met with a ton of opposition from neighbors and Ohlone parents who won't want Ohlone at Garland. I can't even begin to list all of the reasons Garland isn't the right site for Ohlone but they include traffic and safety and campus size and Board members and district officials know about all of these.

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 11:27 am

A number of the "JLS area" students who go to Jordan were there for the Spanish Immersion program. Of course, Spanish Immersion is now just advanced Spanish classes in 6-8 (wonder what that means for Mandarin Immersion?)

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm

No, Ohlone's not moving to Garland. North Palo Alto has the most overcrowded school (Addison) and south Palo Alto has two potential school sites (Greendell and city-owned Ventura) whereas north Palo Alto has just one. The one site available as a neighborhood school in the north will not be turned over wholesale to a choice program at this point.

The main Ohlone program is the most popular choice program in the district. Keeping Ohlone at the Ohlone site was basically the deal Susan cut when she agreed to take on on MI for a few years.

Unfortunately, the district's growth plans for the Ohlone site are now seriously out of control, and includes chopping off part of the Farm for expanding the fire road, which is why I've been posting about it.

Being large is one thing, being huge is another. The district needs to start actually thinking about its mission instead of how to doublecross Susan Charles and the other principals who led the insurrection against Callan.

Classic case of a bureaucracy forgetting that they work for *us*.

MI, on the other hand, is expected to go to Garland. In a lot of ways it makes sense--you have a strand of classes where people are willing to make the commute. This in turn should mean that Garland pulls less from south of Oregon, reducing the number of families that have to cross Oregon.

MI would also fill some upper-grade classrooms without moving kids from their current neighborhood schools.

Posted by proof please, a resident of the Triple El neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 3:31 pm

MI is not moving to Garland, because no choice program is moving to Garland.

Every document that discusses Garland or boundaries states that Garland will be a neighborhood school. The boundaries discussion packet distributed at the neighborhood meetings says clearly that Garland will be a neighborhood school (I have this information in front of me and I am looking at it in black and white). Can you send a link to any document that says otherwise?

Posted by Erin, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Proof-

The Board asked that the term "neighborhood" be taken out of the document that the Superintendent brought to the meeting on Tuesday so they can have flexibility when duscussing boundaries and options in the Fall. I'm sure it will be in the minutes and you can get a transcript of the meeting as well.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 3:55 pm

Proof,

Take a look at the article to which this thread is linked where the board asks for change in language so as not to rule out the possibility of a choice program at Garland.

Nothing's been officially decided, doesn't mean the board won't do it by any means. Garland would still be a neighborhood school, but with an MI strand--so the Escondido model. It makes a certain amount of sense for the district--the truly local draw area for Garland isn't big enough to fill four strands. MI, frankly, appeals mostly to the South Paly segment,

So Garland's three neighborhood strands would take some of the pressure off the very full north Paly schools, while MI would get volunteers from the south, alleviating pressure there without require too many kids to cross Oregon.

If, of course, the choice program is continued. It's on a three-year trial, so deciding to put it anywhere is premature. Despite some of the rantings on the other thread, its losing a quarter of the native speakers before the first year is up is not a great sign.

Also working against it is a board that's very conscious of the cost-neutrality factor. MI's spending a lot of money to get "into orbit" to quote the last board meeting. In favor of its continuing is PACE's quiescent charter threat. (Something that's less potent if the program can't keep up its enrollment numbers.)

That said, Churchill has gotten into the bad habit of making decisions before they're publicly discussed. Even if they, say, violate the district's own bylaws.

Posted by proof, a resident of the Triple El neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm

OMG.

maybe I should have read the whole article before posting, I could only see the first 2 lines the way I was viewing it. I am REALLY confused now.

Why would they spend the time and effort to do a "road show" of neighborhood meetings if the board can just come in and change it later. Shouldn't they (board, staff members) have it figured out first? I feel annoyed, what a waste of time. I even got a sitter so I could go to the meeting, maybe I'll stay home next time.

I actually think that the having a Mandarin Immersion program is great for PAUSD. And long overdue, haven't we had Spanish for 14 years or something? It sounds like it is thriving at Ohlone, so I don't think they should move it (not that anyone is asking me). It also sounds like a cool combination (hippies, a farm and Mandarin Chinese).

Honestly, if they were going to move MI, or Ohlone, or Hoover, great, but then I just wish they had said that at the neighborhood meeting.

It feels like a bait and switch.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on May 30, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Proof,

MI's not doing great at Ohlone. It severely overcrowds the school and takes up space that had already been approved for an expansion of Ohlone's own program, which has its own lengthy waiting list.

The district also is supposed to limit site's the size of Ohlone to 520 students. Without any public discussion of the matter, they've drawn up architectural plans that would put Ohlone well over 600 students.

Talk to some of the Escondido parents if you want to see the board in action. Not only was their neighborhood school expanded to more than 500-plus kids, the board did it by opening a second strand of SI that was only open to kids from the overcrowded north cluster--in contradiction to the district's own policy on choice programs.

You can call it bait-and-switch, it's also business as usual. Welcome.

Posted by Mom, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm

Is there anyway we can information on MI? I would be interested in how many kids applied for each grade, how many spots there were, length of wait list, how are the teachers (I heard one got early tenure, another got the boot), how much English reading and writing is being taught per week, is more English being used in the class room because the kids don't understand, any true evaluation of the situation? How are we, as parents, able to evaluate it? There was no real patents meeting on MI, it was just on the Ohlone Way. Susan Charles just said "Trust us", but what does she really know about Mandarin Immersion??? There needs to be a full meeting about MI, not just Ohlone.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Mom,

Some of the information on MI was presented a couple of school board meetings ago--that's why we know about the four Mandarin-speaking families dropped--and why they dropped.

Not sure why there hasn't been an MI-specific parents meeting. However, MI was Susan Charles' baby. I've never heard of Bill Overton, the new principal, as being one of the teachers involved in it. (I know that one of the K/1 teachers and one of the 2/3 teachers was involved in curriculum development.)

The lottery numbers, including number of applicants and slots should be public knowledge--as in you can probably get the info. at Churchill.

Ohlone has been an open campus--in other words, parents interested in the school can make arrangements to observe the classes. I strongly encourage anyone interested in either program to do that.

As far as amount of time spent doing English, I don't know. There are some limitations--PE, art and music are handled by outside teachers (though I think there's a parent doing music in Chinese), so those subjects are in English. There was also an issue with not being able to get math textbooks that met curriculum requirements in Mandarin, so those are in English.

With Susan Charles retiring midway through the trial program, it does leave a lot of unanswered questions.

Posted by Mac, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Wow, that would be something, re-opening Cubberley. That's where us po' folk went to HS back in the 1970s, before we all had to move away.

Posted by Mom, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Why did they drop out? Probably not enough English. When I mean English, I mean reading and writing. PE, Art, etc. should be in Chinese, fine. But they need an hour a day of reading and writing in English. I assume that frightened away the the Mandarin speakers (primary language).

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2009 at 12:00 am

Mom,

Yep, the Mandarin-speaking families didn't feel that their kids were learning English fast enough. I don't know, but I'd guess you're right--the Mandarin families probably want their kids writing and reading in English more than they would be in the early years of an MI program.

I wonder if this is going to continue to be an issue. Recruiting enough Mandarin speakers has always struck me as the big issue with MI in Palo Alto. In some ways, I have to wonder if the Yew Cheung approach, which isn't immersion, but has a heavy second-language portion each day might have been a better fit with this community.

Posted by Mom, a member of the Duveneck School community, on Jul 15, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Will children who live in Duveneck/Walter Hays areas still be able to attend those schools or will some be forced to attend Garland?