Town Square

Post a New Topic

Thirty teens dropped from Palo Alto school rolls

Original post made on Oct 13, 2010

Thirty students were dropped from Palo Alto public school rolls this fall when their parents were unable to verify their residency in the school district. In a crackdown on non-residents trying to sneak in, Palo Alto required all incoming ninth-graders to submit fresh documentation proving residency.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 9:27 AM

Comments (155)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by fitz
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:47 am

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Dozens of students use the palo alto addresses of their cousins, friends, etc. so that they can go to palo alto schools.
Why doesn't someone do a little investigative reporting - or maybe reporters don't do that anymore. They would come up with a goldmine of students whose actual address is not palo alto. This is a bigger prob that anyone can imagine.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PaloAltooldtimer
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:16 am

Another paper says that a PA detective chases down kids who don't actually live in district and are renting an address, which it says certain websites advertise these addresses. Guess it is more difficult to prove if you use a relative's house, because you could actually hang the kids clothes up in the closet if the detective came by.

Why don't they just offer to charge out of district sneakins and then makeup lost revenue that way?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:26 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Gee, if 30 sneak-ins cost a million bucks, what does Tinsley cost us?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by DK
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:32 am

With all the townhomes being built, of course our enrollment is going to go up and continue to rise. Everywhere we look, a building is being demolished and being replaced with 6 or more homes. Where is the planning when it comes to that type of development and the impact it has on all resources?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gunn HS parent
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:53 am

I am a Palo Alto resident and live in my mother's house. Each year I've had to file a family affidavit with PAUSD. A couple of years ago a representative from the district office stopped by our house and asked to see my daughter to verify her enrollment! Is that common practice?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shocked!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:12 am

I always find it interesting that Palo Alto school kids do not have access to bus service. Yet we see Palo Alto Unified buses all over the place. The buses are apparently only for the kids brought in from outside Palo Alto and for sports.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Richard Placone
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:14 am

Why won't this work? At the beginning of each school year, have every student bring a current utility bill to school to prove residency. The address they claim must be on the bill as well as their parents name. If by chance the student has a different last name, then a simple letter from the parents could offer a justification, as in the case of a divorce. I think I'll pass this on to the school district.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter walter walter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:21 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:28 am

> She reached that number by calculating the $6,500 marginal cost
> of each student (about half the full per-student expenditure of
> $13,000) and multiplying it by 30 students.

Why are these illegals being charged off at half the full-time costs?

And what about using the total-source-of-funds (which includes the capital budget) to come up with the costs of educating these (and all) students in the district.

It's a shame that charges could not be lodged against the parents of the children--who clearly have tried to steal from the district and the taxpayers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Former PA resident
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:54 am

In Carmel every student is required to show proof of residency each year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm

> At the beginning of each school year, have every student bring
> a current utility bill to school to prove residency.

There are almost 1,000 students in the PAUSD that don't live in the district. VTA, and all of the children of Staff comes to 900-1,000 extra students. So, these students would be exempted from such a procedure.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by T
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Gunn HS Parent, I'm not sure if it is common practice but the same thing happened here. One of the kids was in bed after a surgery and (after eyeballing the one kid) the other had to get out of bed (on crutches) and come out and be eyeballed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter walter walter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Why does Walter Wallis object to the Tinsley program? Is he against the decision because of whom it will benefit?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jenny
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Shocked says: "The buses are apparently only for the kids brought in from outside Palo Alto and for sports." Palo Alto Unified School District buses bring in kids from Los Altos Hills and Palo Alto Hills. These kids are part of the PAUSD and parents pay for the buses.

Richard Placone: Do you know how easy it is to get hold of a Utility bill and change the name on it? It is one of the easiest documents to forge!!! The School District needs to get copies of custody agreements after divorces, and see if the custodial parent actually lives in PA.

When my son was at Gunn he had a friend in school who lived in Santa Clara. He came to school on the train every morning, he was not alone a number of kids got off the same train. Maybe the School District should check out how many PA students get off trains at California Avenue and ride their bikes to school.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:20 pm

This is happening a lot more than most of us think. Anecdotally, I have heard many stories, including some who live in the Paly side of town and use addresses on the Gunn side of town to get into Gunn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:24 pm

Also, with the divorce thing, both parents have to remain in Palo Alto so that the kids are here every night - or so the gossip goes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mary Carlstead
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:34 pm

The legal basis of the Tinsley Decision should be re-examined IF Tinsley is causing negative effects on the PAUSD. Remember that Tinsley was championed by proponents on or with close ties to the Sequoia Union High School District Board of Education. It was so long ago, but I graphically remember the uproar. The intent was to bus children from Ravenswood Elementary and Ravenwood High School in SAN MATEO COUNTRY which was to close (used to be about where IKEA is now) to Woodside, Menlo Atherton, and Sequoia High Schools and other schools in SAN MATEO COUNTY in order to get a "better equal education".This was a time of mandatory court-ordered busing nationwide. By some stretch of the imagination - by the judge, proponents, and even some vocal Palo Altans, the ruling included Palo Alto in SANTA CLARA COUNTY. When Ravenswood High School was built in the 50's, wise people warned the Sequoia High School District NOT to put it in a pocket on the border of two counties in an area that was rapidly changing color due to rampant 'white flight' in the mid-50's. The Sequoia High School Board of Education would not listen. Southern San Mateo County does not have a 'unified" school district as does Palo Alto. It has a separate high school district and multiple elementary districts all over Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park and Atherton. The old Menlo Park Recorder (predecessor of the Menlo Park Alamnac) had a 3-part article on "East Palo ALto - How it all began." Palo Alto should never have been legally mixed up in this in the first place. It's not even in the same county,. But that was a time when all the rage in Palo Alto was "sensitivity training", "multiculturalism", the hiring of Sid Walton as Multicultural Director, and Black Panthers invited to lecture in our high schools. Palo Alto had its vocal advocates for the program. In about April 1962 with no notice or hearings, the Sequoia HS District announced that the Willows District between the Creek, Middlefield, Willow Rd., and Bayshore, and I think a portion of the area between Willow and the seminary, would henceforth have to go to Ravenswood High School - and that there would be no recourse and no busses. The Willows was within a short walking distance to MA. It was already in the Ravenswood Elementary District. Students would have to walk, ride, or bike over 101. It was done in order to balance the racial make up of Ravenswood HS. It also meant going through the notorious intersection of Willow and Newbridge where "MIckey's Blue Room" used to be. The bottom dropped out of the real estate market for years in the Willows. I know - we had bought our first home there in 1960 and had one child. Eventually the decision was reversed. Don't remember the year. Reviewing the court decision legal basis may be a timely exercise if there is a problem.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm

Let them come--spread the wealth!! Think how many well-educated voting adults we are producing?! Isn't that the 'godly and righteous' thing to do?!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul Brenner
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm

Let's look at the root of the problem and fix it. Out of residency students are costing the PAUSD lots of money. The school should generate a dismissal letter for those affected students - perhaps more than 30 - unfortunately. There should be no half price student expenditures. All should get the same rate because supposedly all live in the qualified zones or living areas. As for determining how to validate residency, I don't think any parent should get a knock on the door to have their son/daughter eyeballed - that's uncomfortable and unprofessional.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by moreball
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 13, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Forget the utility bill. They're not bullet proof either.
Use the property tax bill.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by T
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:00 pm

@moreball - a property tax bill wouldn't work for renters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:10 pm

It all balances in the end--you do realize, of course, that we are not alone in this problem?? Districts throughout the County have the same dilemma...x 10. But we have greater resources with which to accommodate these students. If tomorrow were your last day, would this be how you would wish you'd spent your 2nd to last day on Earth? Remember, elsewhere on the planet, someones child stepped on a grenade while walking to school. Be grateful today.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kerry
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:23 pm

I love this quote from Skelly about enrollment, "clearly, we have to come up with more (classroom) capacity."

There was a solution for that and you backed off on it. Admit it. You gave Garland back to Stratford. How short sighted can you be? Good news Barb you will NOT have to shave your head afterall. (see story below as a reminder)

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:26 pm

Here's another wrinkle:
Family owns home elsewhere yet has the $$$ to also rent/lease a place in PA during the kid's (or kids') school years! - Not a big place, but that still must have run into sum $$$ (kid graduated so it's over and done...)
One clue of phony PAUSD students is when a kid is never available during weekends. They aren't available bc they aren't THERE. They may share why w/trusted peers after awhile.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Al
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm

> I love this quote from Skelly about enrollment, "clearly,
> we have to come up with more (classroom) capacity."

Mr. Skelley, have you forgotten the $375M Measure A Bond authorization that was passed shortly after you came to Palo Alto? Seems like you're trying to act like the PAUSD doesn't have money to build more class rooms? Not trying to set the stage for yet again another new Bond, are you?

And what about increasing class size? Any idea how many students you could house if class size were increased?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gunn parent
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm

To prove residency, these are the required documents, as taken from the PAUSD website:

1) Parent's Photo ID

2) Current Lease Agreement with Manager's contact information OR Current Property Tax Statement indicating a Homeowner's Exemption

3) Current Bank Statement OR Current DMV Vehicle Registration

Note: Utility bills are not accepted as a 2nd proof of residency

Joint custody situations are handled individually.

I'm glad to see PAUSD step up their efforts to make sure every students is attending school legally.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jenny
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm

A home on my street was purchased several years ago by a wealthy family from Hong Kong. The parents established their 14 year old son in the house and he went through Gunn high school. The son lived alone, no parents. After some years the house was sold.

I understand this is happening in other parts of Palo Alto where condos are occupied by high school students whose parents own the property but live out of State or even out of the country.

Do high school students necessarily have to live with their parents when they are old enough to live alone? If the property is owned by the parents is that enough to get you into high school?

I think the School District has one huge problem here because there are so many ways you can get around the rules to enter high school.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Parent2
a resident of Meadow Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Totally support this. Wonder why it wasn't done previously. Local residents pay for school costs. If you're not living here, then you're not paying your fair share.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by new in town
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Imagine the (im)moral lesson the kids are getting when their parents purposely cheat their way into a "better" school district.

While I hope great care is taken to ensure no one is falsely accused due to something like a joint custody situation, some of the above examples given of real cheating, if true, are reprehensible. What kind of parent willfully demonstrates for their child exactly how to cheat and does that spill over into cheating at school, too?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 2:15 pm

"Totally support this. Wonder why it wasn't done previously. "

This is nothing new, it's done all the time.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alice Smith
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm

I recently heard the story of a family that rented a room in a house in Gunn High School district, moved the whole family in and the kids went to Gunn (and may be Terman) . Not sure that the zoning permits 4 people in a room, and the others in the house were also renting from the owner who lived there. Suspect 6 or 7 people lived there. One of the inhabitants told me he thought the family were amazing as they put education over their other personal needs


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Cheating? Really!!! Isn't it 'cheating' to have a district with such excessive wealth merely because (most of) it's residents are lucky enough to come from middle to upper middle class, college-educated families when we are surrounded by poor districts and communities full of families who are just as hard-working but not born into enough wealth to get to college? That is the society we built. Institutional racism and classism are what put us in the predicament of having "amazing" families who put education over their other personal needs (in order for their kids to get a great education) by piling up in one or two rooms. Be careful people. Wake up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by D
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 3:06 pm

I know how to keep the riff raff out!
Let's have all "our" kids wear a distinguishing emblem of some sort. Better yet, we can brand it on so it can't be transferred and there is no room for funny stuff or pay for play.
I have a beeter idea yet, how about all the folks worried about keeping PA schools pure and keeping its money for its own kids, contributea substantial donation each year to the neighboring school districts so that their per pupil allowance paralels yours, and arrange it so that the colleges and universities that PA feeds to will handle all the admisiions and testing equally when choosing between "your" kids and thos nasty outsiders who also study hard and do well in their ratty schools.
And here I thought PA was supposed to be a bastion of progressive liberal thought. I guess it is as long as it is about doing justice somewhere far distant and remote that doesn't demand anything personal from us!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by homeowner
a resident of Stanford
on Oct 13, 2010 at 3:19 pm

PAUSD should apply pressure to Stanford Faculty Staff Housing to enforce their own lease laws. Ask any Stanford homeowner and they will tell you there are PLENTY of people illegally renting houses on Stanford Campus -- and surprise surprise - almost all of the renters have kids in PAUSD.

Under Stanford terms, faculty are permitted to rent their homes to non-Stanford affiliates only in cases when the faculty member is on leave, and only for two years or less. Faculty who leave from more than two years MUST sell their homes. Not enforced. Not at all. My neighbors (non-Stanford) have been living on campus for YEARS - the real owners are "away" -- and of course - the renters (who talked the elderly owners into a sweet deal of "house sitting") have kids at Terman/Gunn.

Off the topic slightly - but when Stanford says it needs more housing it's a lie. They need to enforce the lease laws they have now. Residents have been BEGGING the University to get rid of all the non-Stanford moochers living on campus..... I wonder how many kids that would knock out of PAUSD - quite a few, I imagine.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 3:35 pm

D, you said it! and btw--thanks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by $$$$ mom
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 13, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Like everything, it comes down to available resources.

To the people who think it's just fine to have all these extra kids - great - open your pocketbooks and pony up the $$$ to pay for them. Are all of you in the "anti-greed" camp giving the maximum you can to PiE? If so, thank you!

If not - well - then - you're advocating for something you're not willing to pay for - and that's not right. Time to open your checkbook.... PAUSD needs more than your lofty ideals - it needs your $$$$$$ to PiE.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Wow. Dear Palo Alto: Do you go to church? I don't...but this all sounds disturbingly familiar, doesn't it? Check back to the drama around integration and the Brown vs Board of Ed. case. Amazing that the exact same argument was used to prevent the integration of schools way back then.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by T
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 5:02 pm

@ AntiGreed - if you want to argue that education in this country "isn't fair" I'd agree with you (though really, what in life is?) But it really isn't the same argument at all. Too, what on earth does going to Church have to do with it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pta mom
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm

HI Anti Greed,
I'm not sure you can say the opinions here are a reflection of the general community's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Use Your Head
a resident of University South
on Oct 13, 2010 at 5:51 pm

It seems that some are suggesting any child should be able to attend a Palo Alto school - regardless of where he or she lives. What resident would agree to be taxed to pay for the extra schools and teachers? The cost would be prohibitive.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. This is why we have school districts in the first place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Zelda
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Settle down Anti-Greed and D. The article is about non-residents in general (which--who knows--could include rich capitalists and racists) sneaking into schools on Palo Alto taxpayers' money, NOT about East Palo Alto kids sneaking in while rich stingy racist Palo Altans (which as you know, includes all of us except you) try to prevent it.

If you're talking to people (such as Walter) who may be against VTP, your name-calling and accusations of racism, although probably not helpful (such rants never are), at least are more on point.

Let's just be clear and have a civilized discussion about the issues and how to handle them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by muttiallen
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:09 pm

I work in Ravenswood District, and have been there over 10 years. They would love for the Tinsley program to go away. It drains the most committed families out of the district. Now that Ravenswood schools have test scores that are about the same as those for minority kids in PAUSD, maybe it's time to drop Tinsley. And the Ravenswood scores are on the rise, with twice the gains as PAUSD in 2010 for 'socioeconomically disadvantaged' students.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:52 pm

The elitists posting here make me sick. The bottom line $$ argument is understandable, at least. Ha, Shallows Alto, you reap what you sow - annexing EPA years ago means that racism and classism don't acknowledge county lines, which so many of you think are all that matters.

Yes, being progressive amongst your own & re matters far, far away is so much more convenient that being progressive in your vicinity. Good luck w/that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stretch
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 6:54 pm

hmmmmmmmmmm.....kind of reminds me of illegal aliens coming to the US to get schooling, social services, etc. Yup, time to put a stop to it all! No more kids born here to illegals are citizens, no more register your kid from San Jose and we'll pay for his education.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 7:05 pm

As usual when Palo altans discuss enrollement they focus on Tinsley. There is nothing new, not even the ignorance , which is always present of what the VTP is and what the Tinsley agreement is and is not. People should save their ink and first inform themselves and then speak (write).

As far as establish residency I know of no law that forbids someone to have a second residence somewhere else and spend week ends and vacations at that second place. People do that with beach, country and ski houses to name a few. None of the PAUSD business where and what people do on weekends. There are also fiscal rules for establishing residence.
i certainly wouldn't admit someone in my house, just on their saying they are a PAUSD investigator: they would have to bring a warrant. If PAUSD wants to check on residency PAUSD should be the responsible for its own conclusions.
In fact an affidavit is all that's required for school registration.
If I read correctly some posters want to limit WHO lives in Palo Alto. Renters live in Palo Alto. There isn't and there can't be ( freedom of association, The CONSTITUTION , remember?) a litmus test on living WITH other people, though a square footage requirement can be implemented (if there is one).
Of course, when goods are scarce all kinds of nastiness appear. But the people complaining ARE part of the problem. Up till the 80's, before schools were sold for housing (and after Tinsley started) and McMansions invaded Palo Alto, we were fine as to school enrollment. It's the people who occupy those new housing units who by and large gave the schools their overcrowding. And now they are complaining....and pointing fingers.... So much for rationality.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 13, 2010 at 7:15 pm

Stretch, the Bay Area is full of people born in other countries, who are big part of the wealth producing and who did not spend a cent of US money obtaining their education, not even higher education. The US has benefitted from the FREE brain drain of other places and from the allure of capital in the US. That's fine and good, but in fact foreigners give more than they take EVEN considering illegal immigration. This forum is about school overcrowding not immigration, legal or illegal. Only the most primary irrationality make a case of school overcrowding, which in Palo Alto has little to do with immigration, by spewing as much venom
as possible as if they depend on such venom to carry them through life. What nice people!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Oh Well!!!
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Tinsley can only be dropped if all six school districts involved agree to drop it. That is written into the agreement. So far all six school districts have agreed to disagree, so Tinsley continues and will do so until an agreement between all six school districts can be agreed upon!!

In fact it was written so tightly that I bet it will still be going strong 20 years from now, and you'll all be blogging against it!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 8:19 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Walter walter walter, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 7 hours ago

Why does Walter Wallis object to the Tinsley program? Is he against the decision because of whom it will benefit?

Anyone who thinks an hour in a bus equals an hour in a desk knows nothing of either.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom of 3
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 13, 2010 at 8:22 pm

The article states that 50% are minority and included Asians, who are NOT minorities. AAs, Hispanics, Tongans and Samoans are minorities but Chinese, E. Indians, Koreans, Japanese (all Asians) are NOT minorities. Don't think that Asians are being accepted into universities based upon minority status! They are being accepted based upon their own merit and hard work.

I knew of a girl whose parents rented out their small PA home but they all lived in Los Altos in a larger house. One early morning, PAUSD knocked on their door and said child was not living there. They had to move back to PA and the girl was so relieved because the lying was wearing on her and she could never have playdates.

Thank you for posting the Tip Line phone number. It's not good for the children to have to live a lie.

I WOULD PREFER IF WE HAD TO PROVE RESIDENCY EVERY YEAR, even though it is a hassle for families.

There should be some sort of hefty fee that cheating families should have to pay before being accepted into PAUSD again.

@Mary Carlstead: paragraphs would be helpful - your posting is unreadable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 8:52 pm

This has been going on for years. I knew kids at Paly who didn't live there & were followed home. Some things never change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:05 pm

Excuse me, but why are we required to pay for other people's kids to attend school? I don't understand that. We limited the number of kids we have to what we are able to afford, and work very hard to keep a roof over their heads, buy insurance, make sure they have what they need. We pay extra taxes to make the schools here good schools. We volunteer, donate to charities, give what we can to others in need. We are not 'greedy'. Why is it required that we also pay to educate more children?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Yeah, I do the same, Observer...except I have no children. Why must I pay for them to get educated?

Why do you bother getting this upset over something that happens all over, all the time, & then kids leave because they get caught, then a new batch comes in. That's the way it is & it's not gonna change any time soon.

I'm not saying people who are sneaking their kids in are doing the right thing. But the NIMBY, elitist, entitled attitudes in your town are really obnoxious. People from surrounding cities laugh constantly at Palo Alto attitudes & expectations, espec those who work just as hard, have just as much money and education.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:26 pm

It has everything to do with church -- so many rich people preaching one thing and doing another. Pull-leeze. And,as D pointed out, it has to do with keeping the riff-raff out. Anyone outside of a rich community could tell you that straight off after reading this whole shameful conversation. Oh--did anyone go see the Dalai Lama in San Jose this week by the way?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stretch
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Jeez, narnia - is it too hard for you to figure out the comparison of illegal aliens to illegal schoolchildren? Illegal is the key word here, and everybody talks about not wanting to pay for services to out-of-town schoolkids, just as they talk about social services for people who are in the country illegally.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by paly student
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:36 pm

so i have this really good friend that was going to be a junior this year. and they were living part of the time in epa under the tinsley act with their grandma and part of the time with his mom across the bay. and i mean this was a REALLY good friend. so what about the kids that are split between houses, not legally because they can't pay the legal bills and the district person follows them home one day and the student happens to go to the union city house that day. so they find out in june that they can't return to a school where all their friends are the next year because they went to the wrong place on the wrong day. just because palo alto offers one of the best educations in the country we cant offer the people who cant afford to live here that education, so one day they could live here?

and why are you parents so worried about this? is it really infringing on your kids learning? NO ITS NOT. so get over yourselves. i mean 30 kids isnt that big of a difference.

and also im beginning to think some of you aren't parents anyway....

oh and btw-what if your kid was getting sent out because you wanted the best education for them but couldnt afford to live in the right place?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Former Palo Alto Student
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm

There are SEVERAL issues that people are completely mis-understanding. As a former Palo Alto student (for most of my life) I have seen several situations that make these investigations seem not only ridiculous but disgusting.

For example, what if a child grew up in Palo Alto and all of a sudden the parents divorced? This is such a stressful situation on kids and families. Not only do their parents get divorced, but if one or both move out of Palo Alto, and the child is DROPPED FROM THE SCHOOL, this causes 10 TIMES the stress on the student. What if they are in high school and went to Palo Alto schools their entire lives? Or near the end of high school? Even in middle school...they have all their friends, connections, their reputation, everything lies in their school district. It is like a sense of home and how could you take that away from a child that has called Palo Alto home for several years. Their parents might move from one place to another - out of Palo Alto temporarily (for example, if a single mother all of a sudden has financial issues) and back to Palo Alto and somewhere in between. Please be mindful of these types of situations!!

Along those lines, what if a parent loses their job or some other type of financial stress or other type of similar stress happens within a family and ALL OF A SUDDEN they have to move out of Palo Alto....?? This may be a TEMPORARY change, who knows. With the economy these days, things could happen. You can't move students out for these types of reasons..say if the family moves two streets over and is now technically in "Mtn View".

What if a child has some other type of similar situation where they are often living with a relative or something like that? Palo Alto is SUCH a bubble. People dont understand these things. I found that to be true through many of my years in Palo Alto. Few people know what its like not to have money, struggle in other ways, or live in a broken home. SAD. VERY SAD.

I think if any investigations are to be done...they NOT be done by knocking on people's doors!! Set up a meeting, send a letter, do something else. I'm sure that there are kids that legitimately sneak in to the school district to go to Gunn right at the start of high school or are completely living a lie and doing nothing to try to change that. They should be warned. But I think other factors need to be considered like divorce, number of years in the school district, what the family has gone through, etc.

It's disgusting how people automatically want to throw out kids that appear to possibly be living somewhere else. I can just see other kids reporting fellow students because they feel more entitled than them to attend Palo Alto schools, or Palo Alto parents who live in that little sheltered bubble and may not understand a situation to tell school administrators without taking to the actual family or parents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ayooo student
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 13, 2010 at 9:54 pm

oh also dont old people try to like brag about diversity? if you take out tinsley how much diversity (economic/other) do you think there will be?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anti Greed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Thank you former palo alto student and current student and good nite all...and don't worry, we know it's not 'all' palo altans. Nite.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by taxpayer
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:22 pm

I am surprised by Jenny's comment:

"If the property is owned by the parents is that enough to get you into high school?"

--the answer is simple, yes


"I think the School District has one huge problem here because there are so many ways you can get around the rules to enter high school"

--purchasing a home within PAUSD = paying property tax = entitlement for children of that family to attend PAUSD schools = following the rules


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 13, 2010 at 10:24 pm

It is a lot more than thirty children. If every child in the Bay area who needed a better education than the one they can get where they live came to Palo Alto to attend our schools, it would not work. The pressure comes from the unfortunate tax law, Prop 13, which limits tax revenues to schools in California. Palo Alto is unique, in that we voted extra taxes on ourselves in order to fund our schools. We did not do this in order to oppress children from everywhere else. Palo Alto can not afford to make up the disparity for every deserving young person. My family can not afford to take on the burden of educating other people's children. We would love to be able to, but we can't. By insinuation, some of the posters here are saying that if we are unwilling or unable to do this, we are somehow morally bereft and deserving of scorn. I think people who force charity on others in order to make themselves feel morally superior are deserving of scorn. Here's mine. Please go find some cause that you can devote yourself to. Stay out of my financial life. You have no idea whether I'm elitist, racist, greedy, or anything else. Students, I'm sorry your friends' parents have put them in this awful situation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by kb
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:48 pm

this same thing happened in my old district Fremont Union (many good schools including Homestead, Monte Vista and Lynbrook). they found 200 kids who did not live in the boundaries. this adds up to real money. my husband and i work very hard to be able to live in palo alto and have our kids attend the schools here. i agree with the proof of residency checks every year even though it's a hassle.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rmer Palo Alto Student
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 11:52 pm

Observer:

First of all, this is not some sort of forced charity where we try to pick kids off of the street and have people hand over their money. These are people that have lived in Palo Alto. They have paid taxes, made contributions, etc. and for one thing, someone like yourself or a friend of yours could end up in this type of situation. It seems like those that are financially stable, or in good fortune are assuming that things will always stay that way, but you never know. It could be you that is suddenly forced to move because you lost your job or something unexpected happened. It can cause psychological distress to ANY child - yours, your neighbors, etc.

Along those lines, you never know what types of contributions students or families have or can make to schools. I am talking about long term Palo Alto residents here (students that have been in the school system for several years that were forced to move due to unforseen circumstances). I am sure that many of them win contests, have amazing SAT scores, can become leaders. What I'm saying is that we have ALL made contributions - in TAX DOLLARS (paid for many years potentially), community oriented ways, donations (potentially) and possibly other positive ways to schools that are not even measurable by dollars. I know many former Palo Alto students that come from great families who have no appreciation and definitely had nothing to do with Gunn being ranked at the top of national high schools.

Lastly, why can't we look out for each other? I understand your concern for people that can afford to live here but don't, or can easily continue their kids on in a different school district, etc. I am bringing up a different issue..just trying to make people think about this from a different perspective because I have seen the other side of things, first hand.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:38 am

Student, Actually, I think you make a good point. The district would be best if students in the situations you describe were given a break while their situation stabilized. Unfortunately for everyone, there are so many people who find ways of sneaking kids in when they don't live in Palo Alto, that we have these crackdowns in order to cut down on the numbers. This means that someone whose family has contributed, as you say, in any number of ways, and is not here just to take advantage of the rest of us, is tossed in the same pile and sent away. It's a shame. And I'm very much aware that my own situation, along with that of everyone else, is tenuous. And when people assume that because we have food on our table and live in this town, we are greedy and selfish and should be forced to support everyone else in need, it's just wrong. Goodwill, charity, sharing of resources are all acts that come from the heart, not from outsiders who judge. Being forced to carry another's burden breeds resentment and apathy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom of 3
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:13 am

Thanks to kb for stating that cheating occurs elsewhere too.

I agree with observer that we have to draw the line somewhere. We cannot allow all children to attend our schools.

As for Former PA Student's rant, life is not fair. I guess you did not learn that at Paly.

I am not sure how strict they are about divorced parents if one parent still lives in PA. I have no problem with that or the teenager living alone in PA.

It's the ones who live out of town and are using a PA address or renting an apt. to gain access to PAUSD who should really be busted. Other people follow the rules, why shouldn't they? Cheers to PAUSD for following students home!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by crackdownBS
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:19 am

The news is so riíPdicíPuíPlous,.. How much do they pay for hiring the enforcement officer for doing the "crackdown" work? She needs to subtract the cost from her calculation.. I guess the overall "saving" is not enough to cover the cost of hiring a single school admin.. Go find some real work to do!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mj
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:43 am

I knew a family who lived in San Mateo and had five children. Rather than send their five children to private school they thought it was a better deal to buy a small condo in Palo Alto and enroll their FIVE children (kindergarten on up) at Escondido! During the school year the mother used the condo whenever convenient. But, since the father commuted from San Mateo to Palo Alto for work any children that spent the night at home could easily be dropped off at school in Palo Alto in the morning. The children were taught to lie.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 4:23 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

In the spending of public money government owes it to the taxpayer to spend that money as effectively as possible. If your house catches fire it is most effective to send trucks from the nearest firehouse to extinguish the fire. It would be fatuous to, to compensate for past unequal fire protection, wait for a Woodside truck to fight an East Menlo fire. The rational way to compensate is to IMPROVE THE NEAREST FIRE STATION!!! My children started school at Costano and one daughter graduated from Ravenswood. My son in law drove a school bus. Generations of EPA and East Menlo children have been denied the best use of their education hours for a failed slap at White Flight. As satisfying as such revenge may have been, to game the involved children as an instrument of that revenge is criminal child abuse and a tragic waste of education dollars and hours. Now go ahead and unfurl your Nork, Nazi, Calcified, bitter, racist, Neanderthal, rich [ha!] insults, but you know in the end I am right and you lack the guts to stand for education and against racial classification.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by My Turn.........
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 14, 2010 at 4:49 am

I could hardly finish reading all the $%^&*( above...

WHAT is going to happen if the "riff raff" doesn't get educated? (And why would you put that type of label on a CHILD, anyway? He/she may start to BELIEVE it and act accordingly).

My God, we are trying to raise BRIGHT young impressional minds and make this world a better place...black, white, green, brown, whatever the color. EVERY child deserves a education.

Paly was built before you ever came into town, paid for with my parents and grandparents money. With the bonds they paid for over the years. The tradition continues.

Our "problem" smacks of the problems that the State of Arizona is having, asking people on the streets for their Identifications.........
One poster above~ worried~was mentioning how we may i.d. the kids...what if we just tatooed a big red X on their forheads when they qualify with their much needed Utility bill? Is this what is to become of solving this problem? I sure hope not. I love this town, grew up here, parents born here also..Let's all work on this for the benefit of all of us, not making a mockery out of the innocent children.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by thanks PA
a resident of Palo Verde
on Oct 14, 2010 at 6:36 am

wow, i hope it isnt illegal to immigrate to palo alto EL 101 is a bigg free way. will i be deported back to EPA. i guess we never get away from it


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:00 am

If a family legally rents a home in Palo Alto but lives out of town, they are in effect paying rent and therefore property tax to live here. The sleeping aspect is therefore moot. Whether this is ethical is a different situation. Likewise, if a family allows a teen to live in Palo Alto in a legitimately rented home while the family lives elsewhere then this is legit. However, I think they should be charged with child abuse or child abandonment or something.

For a family who is teaching their child to lie and cheat they are doing something much more damaging to that child than they are gaining by a Palo Alto education.

As difficult as it seems, if a family has a legal means for a Palo Alto address it is a completely different than if they are using an accommodation address belonging to a family member but have no legal residence there. Teaching children ethics must come from the parents.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Interested
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:22 am

mj, isn't there a law in California that if a parent works in a particular city, his or her child can attend school in that city? In the case you cite, the San Mateo dad worked in Palo Alto, so the kids would be entitled to attend school there (if this law still exists).

I agree that only people living (or working) in Palo Alto should be able to send their kids to Palo Alto schools--I think it's a simple matter of honesty and fairness. Unfortunately, the line has to be drawn somewhere. However, I think many people assume that if kids don't go to school in Palo Alto, they'll automatically be in some much worse school and their lives will be ruined. Although that could be the case, it's unlikely--the fact is that there are many good schools in the Bay Area (and other parts of California) where it's much, much cheaper to live. Parents make these kinds of tradeoffs all the time. They may only be able to afford to rent a 2-bedroom apartment in Palo Alto but could buy a small house in, say, Pleasanton, which also has highly ranked schools. Some will choose the Palo Alto rental; others, the house in Pleasanton. (I realize Pleasanton isn't exactly cheap, but it's still a lot less than Palo Alto.) Unfortunately, life isn't fair and, for most people, it does involve these sorts of tradeoffs. I do feel for students whose family circumstances change, necessitating a move to another, less well-regarded school district. But this isn't necessarily the worst thing in life--compare the situation to what children in Third World countries must cope with. I think a more global perspective could help here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter walter walter
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

"Anyone who thinks an hour in a bus equals an hour in a desk knows nothing of either. "
Walter speaks and the truth comes out. Plenty of children spend time on school busses. But the question of why you are against Tinsley goes unanswered (by you, personally, but some of us can guess).

"Now go ahead and unfurl your Nork, Nazi, Calcified, bitter, racist, Neanderthal, rich [ha!] insults, but you know in the end I am right and you lack the guts to stand for education and against racial classification. "
SOme people, who make it a policy to lash out constantly against those that do not go along with their fanatical way of thinking, canot take any criticism themselves. Seems that Walter has developed very sensitive feelings in his golden years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:00 am

Interested, I agree with your focus: parents make choices based on all kinds of factors. It's a parent's responsibility. These choices begin long before the children are born and they will have an impact on the children. My problems with Tinsley are many. Mainly, I've seen first hand how it drains the local schools when students are bussed away from them, how it puts all the kids in a difficult situation, and how it damages a community when the members are scattered. The teachers involved are not equipped to handle the student stress that comes from being educated away from home, neighbors, etc. There is no proof that Tinsley is of benefit to the students beyond the benefits of staying in their community and drawing to the schools there the support that comes with their presence. There is nothing inherently superior about being educated amid one demographic mix over another.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 9:48 am

Mom of 3,

Asians ARE minoritities. Minority means according to any reputable dictionary " :
the smaller in number of groups constituting a whole or : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control
3
a : a part of a population and often subjected to differential treatment

Asians, a word that defines people of Asia (Chinese, Taiwanese, Fillipino, Indians, Pakistani,Cambodian, Uzbeks, Vietnamese, Koreans, and many others) are a minority because there aren't enough of them for them to be a majority (differing from others in some characteristics and they were and are subject to differential treatment).
I always find it funny when some subset of people doesn't want to be considered a minority. I even found Italians calling themselves Anglo. When informed that their ancestors came from the Spanish Kingdom of Naples, they were shocked. It's just that they were ignorant and didn't know what anglo means.
So , Mother of 3,
Asians are a minority whether you want it or not.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Father of 2
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:46 am

narnia, can you look up "affirmative action" in your collection of reputable dictionaries too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 10:56 am

Yes, I can and plenty of asians have benefitted from it.

In any case Asians of all nationalities are a diverse lot. Some are well off, some not, some are educated, some not, etc. The US census bureau(you know mandated by the Constitution more than 200 years ago) considers them a minority-there aren't enough of them to constitute a majority . And unless you want to repudiate the centuries old notion that a majority is more than 50% of something and a minority is likewise less than 50% of something, I am at a loss for what you can reasonable consider a minority/majority without making it sound like an uneducated remark. (learn a bit of math please)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:05 am

What does the fact the Asians are (or are not) minorities have to do with non-residents enrolled in our schools?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:22 am

Palo Alto Mom,

I didn't raise the issue. I was responding to two previous posts and a direct question to me by Father of 2. I agree and I said that before on this post that the question should be overcrowding, but a substantial number of posters go off topic and decide to write something that is substantially untrue. Blame them for wanting to introduce off topic remarks and many times factually untrue statements and then ask direct questions like you did.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:28 am

Many of the comments in this thread seem to be unfamiliar with the funding structure of California schools. In the early 1970s, Serrano-Priest shifted school funding to the State—allegedly to provide more-or-less equal funding for all schools. This funding source is called: Average Daily Attendance (because schools are funded on a daily, based on the daily attendance. Somewhere along the line, Basic Aid Districts were invented, which allowed certain "wealthy" communities to not be funded by the ADA approach, but to use local property taxes to run their schools. In this case, "wealthy" means that the property taxes generated exceeded the cost of running the schools. So, the State found that Basic Aid Districts would reduce the State's obligations to raise funds for its schools. (There are about 60 BADs in CA now, saving the State about $2B in direct revenue generation.)

At the core of the BAD funding model is a relationship between the number of students, and the taxes generated by taxes. Given that Prop.13 limits tax increases, if there were to be a huge increase in students without offsetting property taxes, then deficits appear—which require better manage of costs in the schools, or increased taxes on the property owners. Palo Alto is pretty much "built out", so there isn't a lot of room for new business. To make matters worse, Stanford enjoys a roughly $6B tax exemption, and every new non-profit are generally tax exempt (and also take up space that tax generators might occupy).

The funding of a BAD is difficult to model, but can be done. Unfortunately, schools find it easier to just "raise taxes" than to actually manage their resources like a business might. As a result, virtually all of the details of how this funding model works are unknown to most people living in the PAUSD.

The cost of educating students has been doubling every ten years of so. The way the District has published its costs have traditionally only included the general fund costs, rather than the "total-use-of-funds" number, which includes capital costs. If this number were properly computed, the per-student costs-to-educate would be much higher, certainly pushing $20K per student.

Prop.13 has created tiers of taxpayers in the PAUSD. The people in Los Altos Hills generally pay the most in property taxes, the people of Palo Alto pay in the middle tier, and the properties on the Stanford lands are in the lowest tier. While Prop.13 has saved many people from being forced out of their homes, it also has produced unfair taxation levels within the same school districts.

The idea that the PAUSD should open its doors and invite "thousands of students to spread the wealth" is either poor sarcasm, or a sad commentary on the education level of residents in this town—at least where education financing is concerned.

Basic Aid School Districts are so complicated, that the State's education funding framework would be better off without them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:35 am

Numbers, you explained it well except that you forgot to say that as a Basic Aid District, PAUSD gets its money from the property taxes and regardless of the number of students, the money stays the same. In other words, the more students we have the less per student money we have.

That is the reason why we are careful to get rid of those who should not be here. No other reason.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

This is great, concise post about funding. Newcomers pay most property taxes thanks to proposition 13 .People want great schools, great roads, great institutions, but they are unwilling to pay for them. It's a classic story, I'm afraid.
Most taxes are paid to Santa Clara county, (not individual towns) and so I think a case maybe made that all in Santa Clara county should be able to attend school wherever they wish that has space.
Funding, however, is only part of the problem. Overcrowding is about lack of space.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wtf
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:39 am

Re"People from surrounding cities laugh constantly at Palo Alto attitudes & expectations" darn and I thought all that laughter was with us :-(

I find it bizarre that so many people seem to 1) expect that Palo Alto has an social obligation to educate more than their own residents and Tinsley kids -especially given that schools are near capacity, and 2) think that children will not be successful academically and doomed to a lesser life if they are educated in the non-Palo Alto communities in which they actually live.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:59 am

The obligation to educate Tinsley kids is a legal one. PAUSD has a binding agreement with EPA, (not a court order), proposed by Palo Alto to settle a suit. The agreement is binding until PAUSD fulfills the conditions set by the agreement for it to cease to remain in force.

It would be a good idea for posters to read the agreement and know its history before they emit opinions that are just a result of frustration and ignorance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by crackdownBS
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:01 pm

I agree this kind of topic is quite unhealthy to Palo Altan. Why bother?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Legal or not, binding or not, that doesn't make Tinsley a good thing for the kids being sent away from their communities to be educated. I have read all about Tinsley and it has been a disaster for the schools these kids leave behind.

In my opinion, there is no good reason why one group of people should be obligated to pay for the education of other people's children. This is especially so when those children are being told to come here illegally. I support the rewriting of prop 13 in a way that is fair, that people can live with, and that raises the level of all affected schools. For now, we need to enforce the district rules here in Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Park
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Ravenswood school district had been a disaster before Tinsley. That is why I was part of a group of parents that in the early 80's succeeded in moving the willows school population from Ravenswood to Menlo Park. My oldest child attended Oak Knoll school in the first year of the move.

What I cannot understand is why posters think it's illegal for some kids to attend PAUSD, when clearly it's not. Renters, children living with other than parents, people who own second homes, if they factually live in Palo Alto they are residents. Even homeless can claim residence, if they factually live in a city.
I too support revising prop 13, but that is not going to make more space available, just more resources (good thing). I support a moratorium on new housing and want to know where are the idiots of palo alto board of Ed that in the 80's sold perfectly good schools and school sites, making an increase in school population inevitable and pressing unrealistic demands on a school district which cannot make itself into available land for infrastructures.
Where are they and how do they defend their disastrous decisions on schools' sales?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:07 pm

If kids are taking the bus from Santa Clara because that is where they live, they are not pausd students. If they are pretending to live in Palo Alto, but, in fact, live elsewhere, they are not pausd students. If they have to lie about where they live, fake residency in order to register, or otherwise pull the wool over the eyes of the district in order to attend Palo Alto schools, they are not legally pausd students and are not supposed to be in classes here. I strongly agree that the district resources have been squandered by those charged with these decisions. One only has to look at Cubberly for proof of that. We need the current incumbents to reclaim what is left, modernize it, and work to make the schools accessible to students who are supposed to attend.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Random comments:

Tinsley does hurt the Ravenswood district because the state transfers a good portion of the ADA funding (per pupil) to PAUSD. It is a fact that PAUSD spends more per student than ADA - so the residents of Palo Alto are supplementing the education of non-residents. Not a criticism - just pointing out the facts of Tinsely funding.

So the net effect on the Ravenswood district is that they loose the kids whose families are more motivated and concerned about academic progress. They also lose the potential for on-campus volunteers that would naturally come out of those motivated families. The loss of state funds - I don't know whether that has an effect or not - since the child is not at the school anyway.

PAUSD does provide a process for "displaced" families or students to apply to remain within the school district. In fact, most of the surrounding school districts (in both counties) have the same process. The problem is that the "resident" school district also has to agree to the transfer --- the majority of the resident school districts turn down the request because they want the state/ADA funding that the displaced student represents. So blaming PAUSD for being insensitive, etc. is not necessarily the right target for your criticism.

The PAUSD detective is a part-time employee. Just catching one non-resident student pays for this person's salary by the factor of 10.

SUHSD (Sequoia), MtnVW/Los Altos, Saratoga, Los Gatos, FUHSD --- all of these high school districts have very good performing high schools. They all have the same problems with non-residents --- this problem (and process) is not unique to just PAUSD. Vilifying PAUSD may feel good - but the facts are that all of the school districts in the area are checking (and removing) non-residents. This is not new. Frankly, the mistake was that PAUSD decided to go public with the results the recent crackdown.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm

Observer,

a friend of mine is a PAUSD teacher. They live in san Jose. Her child takes the 22 bus to the train station and then the train home so that she doesn't have to wait for her mother. she is a legal student in PAUSD, but she doesn't live here.
I do think that putting order on the matter students who shouldn't attend PAUSD schools is not a bad thing, provided that PAUSD doesn't violate the law.
But wanting to remove a student who one thinks is removable just because of a flawed interpretation of the law is a bad thing. Let the district deal with the matter, but don't jump to conclusions based on faulty and sometimes downright illegitimate interpretations, that are fruit of ignorance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Of course, in some cases, as you point out, the non resident student is attending a Palo Alto school legally. In these cases, I'm sure the family can provide proof of this and their child will still be admitted to class. Since this is obvious, you don't need to point it out. This discussion is about students who are found to be attending Palo Alto schools when they are not supposed to be. Perhaps you might read what came before and catch up.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 2:04 pm

> a friend of mine is a PAUSD teacher. They live in san Jose. Her
> child takes the 22 bus to the train station and then the train home
> so that she doesn't have to wait for her mother. she is a legal
> student in PAUSD, but she doesn't live here.

This is true ONLY because this student is a dependent of a PAUSD staff member. This is not a "right", but a gift to the Staff--paid for by the taxpayers. This component of non-resident students is becoming fairly large, and is costing the taxpayers somewhere in the $1M range.

The PAUSD could rescind this cross-district transfer in the future. However, most PAUSD Board of Educations seem to be oblivious to costs to the taxpayers.

Parents who work in Palo Alto can petition the PAUSD to allow their children to attend school here, but its at the discretion of the BoE. Allen Law transfers have been very low over the years, however--mostly denied by the BoE.

> Tinsley does hurt the Ravenswood district because the state
> transfers a good portion of the ADA funding (per pupil) to PAUSD.

The State cut back the ADA transfer funds sometime back (maybe to even zero $$$). This funding is subject to change at least once a year.

> What I cannot understand is why posters think it's illegal for
> some kids to attend PAUSD

One of the biggest problem has been "parking" a child in a family member's home for the first couple weeks of school, thereby providing a Palo Alto address. Then, the child moves back home, and the parent drops them off at school for the rest of the year. Remember, for Basic Aid School Districts to work, the number of students needs to be (somehow) offset by property taxes. While there is no clear mathematical relationship, having people not living in the District attending school here can create imbalances that will ultimately require additional taxes (parcel taxes) to make up the deficits. Yea, thirty kids out of 12,000 may not seem like a lot, but given that Stanford does not pay property taxes, about 10% of the total student body either does not live in the PAUSD, or does not live on property that pays taxes to the PAUSD for schools. Suppose that 100-200 kids entered the schools "illegally" every year, this would grow to maybe 4,000 kids one of these days--perhaps growing to 15%-20% to the student body. This would not really be a good thing for the District, or the taxpayers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 2:18 pm

From the article, it sounds that these 30 kids were just from 9th grade.

From this should we assume that there are at least 30 kids per grade and it is only because 9th graders were reaffirmed, would we have found a lot more in other grades? Should we consequently find that this is happening a great deal more in high schools than the lower grades?

The point really is that people are cheating. Whether we agree with the cheating is another issue, but teaching our children to cheat is wrong, wrong, wrong. If kids learn to cheat about whether they live in the school district, they will learn that cheating about their homework, their grades or anything else is OK too.

Adults cheating for themselves is one thing, but teaching their kids to cheat with their approval is one lesson that good parenting shouldn't let happen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jb
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:33 pm

Have you ever noticed how fortunate the people are who try to ram "Life isn't fair," down other peoples' throats? Have a little compassion, guys.

This conversation sounds like the only thing to be done is to stomp into bloody stumps the fingers of the hands clutching the sides of the lifeboat, because it isn't their lifeboat.

Whatever is done can be done thoroughly, thoughtfully, and with an offer to assist the families in making other arrangements. This would be a brand-new experience for Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jb
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:49 pm

About the teacher cross-district transfers: We get a lot of good teachers in Palo Alto. Many of them cannot afford to live in Palo Alto. Many of them would not teach in Palo Alto if they had to leave particularly elementary aged children in their town of residence.

Parents need to be able to attend parent-teacher conferences during school hours. Teacher parents are presiding over these meetings in Palo Alto and are required to attend them in their town of residence.

Different districts have different holiday and promotion schedules. Have we ever discussed this in Palo Alto? Do you go to your 8th-grader's promotion or the Paly graduation? This is worse if both events are in another community.

How many of you attend extracurricular activities your children participate in?

These kinds of concerns cause many corporations establish child-care for their employees. Cross-district transfer works the same way for school districts, and most of them do it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm


Numbers-Numbers-Numbers says,
"....Stanford does not pay property taxes, about 10% of the total student body either does not live in the PAUSD, or does not live on property that pays taxes to the PAUSD for schools...."

Leaving aside the question of Stanford property taxes which is a moot point, because of prop 13, there are many houses that pay a very little amount in property taxes. So, is your point then that people whose kids attend PAUSD school should all pay similar amounts? If that's the case lots of resident students shouldn't be able to attend PAUSD schools because they don't pay enough. And when is a property tax too low to justify removal of a student?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 4:12 pm

> Leaving aside the question of Stanford property taxes which
> is a moot point, because of prop 13,

Prop.13 has nothing to do with Stanford's exemption. Stanford managed to get an exemption for Stanford written into the State Constitution before 1900. This Constitutional exemption was replaced with a State law around 1970, which extended the property tax exemption to all universities (if memory serves).


> there are many houses that pay a very little
> amount in property taxes

Maybe 20% of the homes in Palo Alto pay $1,500, or less. These are people who lived here before 1976, or who have willed their property to their children (and are now dead). Keeping in mind that the base assessment for market-valuation of property, $1M homes pay 10,000 a year (before all of the add-in taxes are considered), and $2M homes pay $20,000, and so on.

The average assessed value for the homes on the Stanford lands (maybe 1,200 properties) is maybe 30% lower than the average Palo Alto assessed value.

> So, is your point then that people whose kids
> attend PAUSD school should all pay similar amounts?

No. Prop.13 makes this impossible. One could consider a replacement for Prop.13, which would involve creating a new taxation model. But it's not very likely that anyone would ever agree to a model that has everyone paying the same amount of money.

For people who are thinking about doing away ith Prop.13, you might want to consider what a new tax rate might be. If the taxation rate were to be linked to market value, then the average tax bill for Palo Alto would jump to the $10,000 at the 1% rate. If the tax rate were to be 2%, then the average tax bill would be a minimum of $20,000 for most people. If the tax rate were to be 3%, then the tax bill would be $30,000. So, be careful what you wish for.

Your basic point about Palo Alto being too expensive to live it would become a reality very quickly, particularly with people who are seniors.

> And when is a property tax too low to justify removal
> of a student?

Don't understand the question.


And when is a property tax too low to justify removal of a student?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 5:05 pm

What I meant was :
Because of prop 13, there are many houses that pay a very little amount in property taxes...

stanford's tax exemption has OBVIOUSLY nothing to do with prop 13 and that is why it's a moot point.

you say:
"No. Prop.13 makes this impossible. One could consider a replacement for Prop.13, which would involve creating a new taxation model. But it's not very likely that anyone would ever agree to a model that has everyone paying the same amount of money.

For people who are thinking about doing away with Prop.13, you might want to consider what a new tax rate might be. If the taxation rate were to be linked to market value, then the average tax bill for Palo Alto would jump to the $10,000 at the 1% rate. If the tax rate were to be 2%, then the average tax bill would be a minimum of $20,000 for most people. If the tax rate were to be 3%, then the tax bill would be $30,000. So, be careful what you wish for.."

Funny that you should say that. My East Coast second dwelling, whose property taxes and value are as you describe-very high. Millions of us pay those amounts (which are tax deductible if your AMT considerations allow). What I know is that my neighbors, seniors included, pay similar rates. It's good for the schools. And by the law of averages, property taxes could be lowered for many a fair share is implemented if prop 13 is repealed.

you say (based in my question, And when is a property tax too low to justify removal of a student?)

Don't understand the question.
And when is a property tax too low to justify removal of a student?
Easy answer.

This is what you said "having people not living in the District attending school here....... about 10% of the total student body either does not live in the PAUSD, or does not live on property that pays taxes to the PAUSD for schools.

If you think that those whose families who do not pay property taxes to SCC and by extension to Palo Alto shouldn't have their children attend the schools you should also, by the same token dismiss those whose families pay less than their fair share. What about the family I know all living with the grandmother in a house deeded in trust to them and pay less than $1,000.00/year in property taxes? If the issue is how much is payed than what's good for the goose...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm

By the way, this situation about removing "illegals" comes up yearly --

News - Friday, June 23, 2006 (PA Weekly)

Clamping down on student scofflaws
School district looking to hire inspector to investigate students who don't live within Palo Alto attendance boundaries

The number represents a huge increase: The year before, just 12 non-resident students were caught. The number of tips the district received on possible scofflaws also jumped — from 70 in 2004-'05 to more than 130 this year, according to district officials.

In addition, other area districts have been clamping down on the problem, putting more pressure on the Palo Alto Unified School District to do the same. In April 2005, administrators with the Fremont Union School District, which oversees schools in Sunnyvale, Cupertino and San Jose, purged more than 200 non-residents to cut costs. Some Palo Alto residents encouraged the district to follow in Fremont Union's footsteps, rather than asking local property owners to dig deeper into their pockets.
---

The number of tips (130) should give people a clue as to the size of this problem in the PAUSD. Fremont Union had a much larger problem about the same time.

> by the same token dismiss those whose families
> pay less than their fair share

The problem is that CA law says that "education shall be free", so a school district can not link access to public education to a family's ability to pay. That said, the "mathematics" of Basic Aid School Districts can not sustain open enrollment--which some people seem to suggest.

As pointed out in a previous posting, if the PAUSD were to not enforce this residency requirement, it would not be long before hundreds, if not thousands, of non-residents would be enrolled. (In fact, Stanford has predicted adding several hundred students as a byproduct of its general expansion.)

The hidden factor in the equation is the capital costs to provide classroom space. Portables have been fairly effective for a long time, but have generated some negative response by some parents. The $375M Measure A Bond Authorization (about $750M to retire) should provide some insight into the massive capital required to expand school capacity, and refurbish older buildings. The Facilities Master Plan actually calls for another $375M behind the Measure A Bonds (or about $1.5B in total).

So, to summarize .. it is imperative that the PAUSD hold the line on "illegals". The costs to the District/Taxpayers to provide classroom space in the grand scale that the real estate agents, and teachers, have come to expect--means $1B-$3B in new property taxes to provide capacity for students who don't live in the district.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Comment
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 6:18 pm

It seems like its all about the numbers. Taxes. Money.

There are so many spoiled kids in Palo Alto getting nothing out of their education and yet taxpayers are paying for them to go there. We are supporting a large number of them, in fact. I would like to have a say, as a taxpayer, in these kids as well. I would like them to be moved out of Palo Alto schools so that my money can go toward students that actually want to learn and don't spend all of their time shopping, partying, and using drugs. But obviously I can't get what I want. We can't always get what we want. Most of the outside kids work much harder because they know they are privileged to go to Palo Alto schools. I would rather support them. Many of them have ties to Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hmmm - to Comment
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Your post, while totally unrealistic, made me laugh. It's so true in so many ways. I know a lot of nice kids in PA, really special, wonderful kids. But the ones who also stand out in my mind are awful, from way back in my day to the awful kids I know now.

When I was at Paly, the Tinsely kids did well & I don't think people considered what a drain it was on Ravenswood at that time.

But the whole idea of being followed home from school is really disturbing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by f00l$
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

well if youre (im talking about people not necessarily right above this) so worried about over crowding and you pay sooo much money to live here for your kids education why dont you take your money and go buy a house somewhere else where the schools are practically empty?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom of 3
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 14, 2010 at 7:59 pm

@Narnia,

Your posting is equivalent to looking up a definition in the dictionary and using the word in a sentence without seeing it in context, thereby using it incorrectly. By definition, perhaps Chinese, Japanese, Koreans are minorities because there are more Caucasians. However, do we reap any affirmative action benefits? Not at all. My main point was that in education, we are NOT considered minorities because we are over-represented in college. So our college applications have to be as strong as the apps of the Caucasians. Affirmative action in academics applies to Hispanics, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, all of who are under-represented in colleges.

As I stated, life is not fair.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by I wish they'd kick them out
a resident of Gunn High School
on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:15 pm

as a gunn high school student our school is overflowing with people.

I hate that some people try to cheat their way in. friends or not it's unfair and they don't live here so they shouldn't go to these schools unless they have a fair reason. lots of people sign transfer forms and get denid because we have so many illegal kids here

so please leave thank you


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stanford tax payer
a resident of Stanford
on Oct 14, 2010 at 9:26 pm

Just so everyone is clear, Stanford home owners pay property taxes at the same rate as every other California homeowner. Even we don't own the land and pay Stanford rent every month, we still pay taxes on the assessed value, most of which is the land value.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by REE
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:28 pm

Stanford tax payer,

But unless I'm mistaken, your "assessed value" is artificially low since you can only sell to Stanford-related staff, etc., so your taxes are artificially low.

Numbers3,

"For people who are thinking about doing away ith Prop.13, you might want to consider what a new tax rate might be. If the taxation rate were to be linked to market value, then the average tax bill for Palo Alto would jump to the $10,000 at the 1% rate. If the tax rate were to be 2%, then the average tax bill would be a minimum of $20,000 for most people. If the tax rate were to be 3%, then the tax bill would be $30,000."

They could also be lower--it all depends on how it's done. In any case, it should be possible to reduce the huge inequities in how much people are paying--reassess every year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:36 pm

Actually, Mom of 3, Many of the human beings you are labeling 'caucasians' are actually minorities who come from places all over the world. Lumping many ethnic groups under that heading and counting up the numbers is meaningless, racist, and oppressive. We don't enter college in clumps based on skin tone. We enter as individuals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom of 3
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Oct 14, 2010 at 11:51 pm

@Observer: Affirmative action IS based upon skin tone and is alive an well. Racism is alive and well but is only talked about behind closed doors. Everyone knows what Caucasian means. You are living in your own dream world.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:58 am

You are right, Mom of 3. Racism is alive and well. But I am in good company with my dream. "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outraged
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 9:58 am

As a Palo Alto resident living in a 1300 sq. foot home with a wife and three kids I am outraged at the cowardice of our political leaders who refuse to put a serious verification program in place.

We could have afforded a much bigger home elsewhere, but we moved here for the schools. We should be doing in-home spot residency checks-- they are only "intrusive" if you don't really live here. People can come to my house every day as far as I'm concerned-- it will be obvious to anyone who does that my kids really live here.

We should root out all of those DEFRAUDING the system, and force them to pay back Palo Alto taxpayers for the money they have stolen from us.

And we ought to get rid of the Tinsley program too, which has long since outlived whatever legitimate purposes it once had.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Debbie
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:36 am

This problem has been going on for years. The school district does not have enough employees to solve this situation. I agree with others that at the beginning of the school year certain documents be required from each student to verify that they do actually live in Palo Alto.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shameful
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:51 am

I agree with "paly student" and "former palo alto student". Some of these decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Keep in mind: 1) not every resident pays property taxes, so basically anyone in PA who is a renter is getting "free" education. Are you going to kick all of them out? 2) kids' lives do change and there needs to be some kind of grandfather clause that allows a child to finish out his schooling in PA if it started here. It's very disruptive to yank a child out of a district where friendships and bonds have formed. 3) It's a misconception that PAUSD gets no state money. They actually get $6,500 per student which is why the PAUSD official (disingenously, for not explaining it), used that figure.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HaHa
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 11:56 am

Sorry "Outraged", but you're an idiot for moving here "for the schools". "The schools" are vastly over-rated. Test scores are high because a lot of Stanford kids go here and they discuss molecular chemistry around the dinner table. I mean, ok, if you can get your child to be best friends with one of them, then s/he can discuss molecular chemistry next time they have a sleepover, but ... for the most part ... for the vast majority of students ... PA schools are the proverbial pig in a poke. You're going to pay a fortune in outside tutoring and when it comes time for your children to apply to colleges, there's a limit to the number of kids from any one school that a University can admit. So, for the same SAT your child will be better off coming from a school where there aren't 127 other kids who scored that high or higher.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:12 pm

> But unless I'm mistaken, your "assessed value" is artificially
> low since you can only sell to Stanford-related staff, etc.,
> so your taxes are artificially low.

If one looks at the online property records on the SCC Assessor's web-site, one sees that many of the homes ownership dates go back before 1976, meaning that the basic assessed values are linked to the price of homes on the Stanford lands at that time. It would seem that Stanford Staff that retire have continue to live there (or maybe are still working into their 70s/80s), so the properties have not turned over as frequently as homes in Palo Alto, and Los Altos Hills. Also, the homes which are owned by Stanford seem to have been granted Stanford's "educational exemption", which is zero $$$--thereby lowering the average assessment of all of these homes. Homes being sold currently (subject to Stanford approval), seem to be going at more-or-less market value of the surrounding communities, and so are paying more-or-less the same property taxes as people buy homes currently in the surrounding communities.

> They could also be lower--it all depends on how it's done. (Prop.13)

Well, sure .. anything is possible. But with CA running $20B structural deficits, and maybe $100B-$200B in deferred maintenance of State-owned buildings/properties, and no clear understanding of how much is needed to deal with educational deferred maintenance and new site construction, it's not very likely that a taxation model that might be proposed for Prop.13 would do anything but raise taxes, by whatever method, to pay for all this past-due, and future, spending.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm

Shameful says "1) not every resident pays property taxes, so basically anyone in PA who is a renter is getting "free" education. "

Not true. Taxes are paid indirect;y through the landlord. The rent reflects property taxes.

and HaHa is absolutely right. It's even more difficult for a PA student to get into top colleges because competition is fierce and there are many PA students who qualify. But as Haha says colleges rarely admit more than 1 student( sometimes they will go up to 5 for exceptional students , but the rule is 1) from a given high school so if your child is not a star in academics AND extra curricular activities a PA education will not substantially increase the chances of a good education. Actually, you pay for it in tutoring.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 15, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Shameful - I don't believe the district will "just kick out" a student. I think the family is given the opportunity to actually move to Palo Alto and become a legitimate resident. I also think senior (grade on citizens) are grandfathered if their family moves.

We know people who live in Woodside, Portola Valley, Redwood City, etc. who have used an office address or rented a one bedroom apt while actually living in a 3-5000 square foot house to send their kids here. It is much more of a problem in high school because Paly and Gunn are perceived to be so much better (the cynical me would say that we have less children of color in our high schools) than the Sequoia Union High Schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm

> Shameful says "1) not every resident pays property taxes, so
> basically anyone in PA who is a renter is getting "free" education.

Actually, this is not true, not by a long shot. There are a number of property tax exemptions that need to be considered. For instance, many residents live in "assisted care" facilities, which are tax exempt. Examples are: Channing House and Lytton Gardens. The residents pay no taxes (as a part of their rents), but have the right to vote taxes on the rest of us.

Housing for the "economically challenged", like Webster Woods, and a number of other "low income/affordable housing" projects also are tax exempt. Examples are those managed by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation.

The housing project operated by the Hyatt corporation does not charge rent, so residents there do not pay property tax--but are also voters. The Hyatt Corporation does pay property taxes for the complex, so this is kind of a moot point. However, when it comes to voting taxes on others--the residents of this complex do not see a property bill (as a condo owner might), or see higher rents, to give them occasion to wonder how higher taxes would affect them economically.

The exact number of residents living in Palo Alto who live in property tax exempt housing is a little hard to know accurately, but it's probably in the range of 3,000+ (and growing)--all of whom are potential voters. This "block" comes to about 8% of the registered Palo Alto voters who pay less for their residency than the rest of us.
In the case where there are children housed (like at the Homeless Housing Center on El Camino), these people are most definitely getting a "free education".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by juggler
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:53 pm

To the people who believes "colleges rarely admit more than 1 student( sometimes they will go up to 5 for exceptional students , but the rule is 1) from a given high school ", dare you guess how many seniors got admitted to MIT from one of the Fremont Union high schools last year? Your ignorance is laughable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by juggler
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm

"The residents pay no taxes (as a part of their rents), but have the right to vote taxes on the rest of us."

representation without taxation ... with 47 percent (US household) pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009, don't say you are surprised by this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:27 pm

HaHa & Narnia,

You are so wrong - you have no idea what you're talking about.

Below is the Palo Alto HS 2006-2010 college acceptance and enrolled data. Simple mathematics prove that there is an overwhelming number of colleges/universities that accept more than 1 student per year. I don't have the Gunn data - but it wouldn't surprise me to see identical numbers (or better).

For example, Princeton accepted 25 Paly grads in a 5 year period. Harvard accepted 17. Brown 25. Yale 23. Stanford 72. Cal 220. Davis 463. UCLA 196. Michigan 57. Washington (St. Louis) 62. MIT 16. CalTech 13.

Nice try.


Accepted Enrolled
Academy of Art University 7 4
Allegheny College 2 0
American University 45 4
Amherst College 8 3
Arizona State University 55 12
The University of Arizona 77 14
Bard College 4 0
Barnard College 7 3
Bates College 5 2
Beloit College 8 2
Bennington College 6 0
Bentley University 4 0
Boston College 24 2
Boston University 99 22
Bowdoin College 5 2
Brandeis University 16 5
Brigham Young University 12 10
University of British Columbia 17 2
Brown University 25 14
Bryn Mawr College 12 1
Bucknell University 28 8
University of California at Berkeley 220 86
University of California at Davis 463 80
University of California at Irvine 242 19
University of California at Los Angeles 196 42
University of California at Merced 86 3
University of California at Riverside 165 17
University of California at San Diego 368 71
University of California at Santa Barbara 369 39
University of California at Santa Cruz 458 69
California College of the Arts 5 2
California Institute of Technology 13 3
California Institute of the Arts 6 2
California Lutheran University 15 3
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 48 2
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 127 32
California State University, Channel Islands 14 1
California State University, Chico 62 9
California State University, East Bay 24 5
California State University, Fresno 10 1
California State University, Fullerton 19 1
California State University, Long Beach 43 1
California State University, Los Angeles 17 0
California State University, Monterey Bay 36 2
California State University, Northridge 19 3
California State University, Sacramento 23 2
California State University, San Bernardino 4 0
California State University, San Marcos 5 0
California State University, Stanislaus 6 1
Ca�ada College 5 5
Carleton College 4 3
Carnegie Mellon University 45 7
Case Western Reserve University 8 1
Chapman University 64 14
College of Charleston 3 0
University of Chicago 13 6
Claremont McKenna College 10 6
Clark University 15 2
Clemson University 2 0
Colby College 10 3
Colgate University 15 2
University of Colorado at Boulder 117 21
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs 4 1
University of Colorado at Denver 5 0
Colorado College 14 6
Colorado State University 10 0
Columbia College 5 0
Columbia University 14 8
Concordia University 2 2
Connecticut College 3 0
University of Connecticut 2 0
Cornell University 34 11
Cuesta College 15 14
Dartmouth College 18 4
Davidson College 1 0
De Anza College 20 19
Denison University 1 0
University of Denver 11 1
DePaul University 6 1
DePauw University 4 1
Dickinson College 9 0
Dominican University of California 5 2
Drew University 6 0
Drexel University 11 0
Duke University 18 9
Earlham College 5 1
Eckerd College 3 2
Elon University 1 0
Emerson College 12 6
Emory University 22 5
Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts 4 2
The Evergreen State College 15 0
Florida State University 4 0
Foothill College 163 169
Fordham University 13 0
Franklin and Marshall College 7 2
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering 1 1
The George Washington University 39 8
Georgetown University 14 8
Georgia Institute of Technology 7 3
Gettysburg College 4 0
Gonzaga University 13 2
Goucher College 8 2
Grinnell College 3 1
Hamilton College - NY 5 2
Hampshire College 8 4
Harvard University 17 16
Harvey Mudd College 10 4
Haverford College 3 3
University of Hawaii at Manoa 18 1
Hobart and William Smith Colleges 4 1
Hofstra University 10 1
Howard University 2 1
Humboldt State University 61 14
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 24 3
Indiana University at Bloomington 28 6
Ithaca College 9 0
Johns Hopkins University 9 2
The Juilliard School 2 1
Kenyon College 5 3
Knox College 4 2
University of La Verne 8 2
Lafayette College 3 1
Lake Forest College 4 0
Lawrence University 5 2
Lehigh University 13 1
Lewis & Clark College 48 7
Linfield College 10 2
Logan College of Chiropractic 4 0
Louisiana State University 3 1
Loyola Marymount University 47 13
Loyola University Maryland 3 0
Macalester College 15 1
Manhattan College 3 0
Marist College 5 1
Marquette University 3 1
University of Maryland, College Park 10 2
Marymount College 5 3
Marymount Manhattan College 5 1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 16 6
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 10 1
McGill University 6 2
Menlo College 10 5
Miami University, Oxford 12 0
University of Miami 15 1
Michigan State University 2 0
University of Michigan 57 10
Middlebury College 9 3
Mills College 11 6
Mission College 7 6
University of Missouri Columbia 4 1
Montana State University, Bozeman 5 0
The University of Montana, Missoula 4 1
Mount Holyoke College 18 7
University of Nevada, Las Vegas 1 0
University of Nevada, Reno 4 2
University of New Mexico 4 0
New York University 59 15
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 4 1
Northeastern University 39 3
Northern Arizona University 13 1
Northwestern University 38 8
Notre Dame de Namur University 8 2
University of Notre Dame 5 2
Oberlin College 8 1
Oberlin Conservatory of Music 1 1
Occidental College 68 12
The Ohio State University 1 1
Oregon State University 26 4
University of Oregon 207 41
Otis College of Art and Design 4 0
Pacific Lutheran University 2 0
University of the Pacific 59 11
Parsons School of Design, New School University 3 0
Pennsylvania State University, University Park 11 2
University of Pennsylvania 8 2
Pepperdine University 13 1
University of Pittsburgh 6 0
Pitzer College 20 4
Pomona College 15 4
Portland State University 5 0
University of Portland 7 1
Pratt Institute 5 2
Princeton University 25 15
University of Puget Sound 92 16
Purchase College 2 0
Purdue University 25 4
University of Redlands 48 10
Reed College 17 3
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 11 1
Rhode Island School of Design 10 4
Rice University 6 0
University of Richmond 3 1
Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon 4 0
Rochester Institute of Technology 5 1
University of Rochester 17 1
Saint Mary's College of California 29 8
San Diego State University 60 7
University of San Diego 29 3
San Francisco State University 110 16
University of San Francisco 34 7
San Jose State University 151 31
College of San Mateo 15 13
Santa Barbara City College 14 12
Santa Clara University 74 20
Santa Fe University of Art and Design 2 2
Santa Monica College 4 3
Sarah Lawrence College 2 1
School of the Art Institute of Chicago 4 0
School of Visual Arts 4 1
Scripps College 24 7
Seattle University 5 1
Skidmore College 7 0
Smith College 13 4
Sonoma State University 107 12
University of Southern California 150 51
Southern Methodist University 14 4
Southern Oregon University 9 2
St. John's University - Queens Campus 4 2
St. Lawrence University 3 0
St. Olaf College 5 2
Stanford University 72 50
Suffolk University 4 1
Swarthmore College 11 6
Syracuse University 26 2
Temple University 6 2
Texas Christian University 7 1
The University of Texas, Austin 9 0
Trinity College 9 2
Trinity University 5 0
Tufts University 49 13
Tulane University 23 4
Union College 4 1
University of California at Davis Extension 4 1
Ursinus College 5 1
Utah Valley University 3 2
University of Utah 5 2
Vanderbilt University 15 4
Vassar College 7 3
University of Vermont 9 3
Villanova University 12 0
University of Virginia 2 0
Wake Forest University 13 4
Washington and Lee University 1 0
Washington State University 7 1
Washington University in St. Louis 62 20
University of Washington 67 14
Wellesley College 19 7
Wesleyan University 13 4
West Valley College 4 4
Western Washington University 4 1
Westmont College 3 1
Wheaton College MA 11 0
Wheaton College IL 2 0
Whitman College 31 7
Whittier College 30 4
Whitworth University 4 0
Willamette University 50 6
College of William and Mary 2 1
Williams College 9 5
University of Wisconsin, Madison 23 4
Woodbury University 3 1
The College of Wooster 3 1
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 9 0
Yale University 23 12


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Crescent Park Dad,

my math is correct. here is what I said :"But as Haha says colleges rarely admit more than 1 student( sometimes they will go up to 5 for exceptional students , but the rule is 1)"
As the wife of an Ivy League professor I know a little more than most about admissions and my nunbers are correct. Up to 5 exceptional students I said. it's you who doesn't read posts, right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Narnia is correct, if you look at the Harvard, Yale, Princeton numbers for 5 years, they have admitted less than 5 per year (guess we have exceptional students!). I would venture to guess some of those are the same kids - got into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. So yes, it could be easier to get in from another school, or maybe the Ivy's are pretty aware of how rigorous PAUSD is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Charlie
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Look like Crescent Park Dad working for the school district.. Interesting!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:17 pm

"The rule is one"... except that the average is approximately 3+/year for the 4 select Ivy's. Add in Stanford and Wash/StL and the average goes to 6+/year Hardly the "rule is one" for Paly grads.

Add in the top public schools (Cal, UCLA, UCD, UCSB, UCSD, Michigan, et. al) and we're way above "1".

Shameful states: "But as Haha says colleges rarely admit more than 1 student( sometimes they will go up to 5 for exceptional students..."

Whether you're talking about a single college or a group of schools, Paly HS grads blow out "the rule is one" on an annual basis. This is not the exception - it is the norm.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Mom of 3, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, 18 hours ago
says :
"Your posting is equivalent to looking up a definition in the dictionary and using the word in a sentence without seeing it in context, thereby using it incorrectly."

I am not using any dictionary definition. And the question is "who must be the master?" In that case the traditional definition stands. Mother of 3, you are not caucasian. You will never be.

By definition, perhaps Chinese, Japanese, Koreans are minorities because there are more Caucasians.
Perhaps mother of 3? Where did you learn your math?

And where did you learn your geography? Fillipino, Indians, Pakistani,Cambodian, Uzbeks, Vietnamese, Mongols, Kurds and many other are Asian, right?

However, do we reap any affirmative action benefits? Not at all.
Of course. In a not so distant the past all Asians did. And they do still.

My main point was that in education, we are NOT considered minorities because we are over-represented in college.
No, you-asians- are not. Numbers my dear, numbers...

"So our college applications have to be as strong as the apps of the Caucasians"
Which caucasians are you talking about?
those with good grades, obtained by work or tutoring, or those with lower skills?

You seem to choose who you want to be an Asian, pushing others out of your definition.
That is wrong and quite contrived and doesn't put you in a good light. Quite arrogant.. You are Asian. A pakistani is too. A cambodian is too, whether you want it or not.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:23 pm

Not working for the district. I just don't like people posing "data" without the facts. I simply went to the Paly college guidance website and pulled up the report. Very easy to do and absolutely verifiable.

If someone is going drop absolute opinions or numbers in a discussion, then they should be able to back it up. HaHa and Shameful made incorrect assertions based on what may be a national standard --- but you can't place a national standard against Gunn or Paly...so their attempt to "poo-poo" the education at these schools is unfounded if they base their opinion on the "data" they presented.

They may dislike the schools for other reasons - some listed as other necessary efforts to succeed - athletics, tutoring, etc. They are welcome to do so. But they cannot dispute the facts that these kids are far above the norm of "1 per school".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:32 pm

I am sorry.. I thought that smart people understood that I was talking about students per year, OBVIOUSLY (because it wouldn't make sense, let alone common sense that MIT had admitted only one student or up to 5 in the whole of its existence) . After all, it was not so obvious for some people. I need to explain this to some.
I meant admittance of x students/year,
0 ≪ x≪ 5.
Is that understood now?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred Smith
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Two years ago I met a Gunn High School student who casually mentioned that he actually lived up the peninsula but was able to attend Gunn since his parents used his grandparents' address in Palo Alto. I promptly reported this to the phone number listed for in PAUSD -- they are supposed to do "bed checks" to ensure that a student "resides" within the district.

Nothing happened and the student graduated in 2010.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by momof2
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:09 pm

We all know somebody like this.

These are children. Let them go to school. Their parents pay taxes somewhere or provide services we've all grown accustomed to.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:32 pm

narnia - we understood what you said...you said 1 is the rule and that the exception is up to 5 on an annual basis.

My point is that 5 is not the exception for PAUSD high schools, it is the norm - not "sometimes" as you state. PAUSD HSs are above the "norm" as you and haha have declared as 1. So to say that PA education will not substantially increase the chances of a good education is bogus based upon your misrepresentation of the data.

"But as Haha says colleges rarely admit more than 1 student( sometimes they will go up to 5 for exceptional students , but the rule is 1) from a given high school so if your child is not a star in academics AND extra curricular activities a PA education will not substantially increase the chances of a good education."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Numbers-Numbers-Numbers
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm

> Let them go to school
> Their parents pay taxes somewhere

Just "paying taxes" is not sufficient justification for allowing students to go to school anywhere they want. Capital costs for school "plants" are paid for, by-and-large, by the taxpayers of the local jurisdictions. While the PAUSD has done a miserable job of modeling their educational costs, some back-of-the-envelope numbers get the per-student costs at $20+K/student/year. This cost has been doubling every 7-10 years in this district. Virtually all of the capital costs, and around 70% of the operational costs are paid for by local taxpayers/revenue sources. The idea that hundreds, or thousands, of non-local students enrolling in the district, and the local taxpayers having to pick up the costs for new classrooms, equipment and possibly staff, would mean parcel taxes at $1,000-$2,000 per parcel (in the early days), and hundreds of millions of dollars of new bonds to pay for new classrooms/facilities--all for kids that don't live here.

What would you say to being taxed by other school districts to pay for new facilities in those districts--so that their children could stay closer to home. Who's up for a $500-$1,000 property-based tax for other school district's building programs?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by education is a public value
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm

I'm concerned about the tone of a lot of comments on this thread, such as:

"In my opinion, there is no good reason why one group of people should be obligated to pay for the education of other people's children."

Of course we should pay for the education of other people's children! It's called public education and provides a great societal value (including, by the way, some nice benefits in terms of property values for people living in Palo Alto).

That doesn't mean that the costs should not be spread more fairly -- between all property tax payers (not just recent purchasers due to Prop 13). Numbers is right that the property tax base is not growing, so the economics of educating an ever increasing number of students on the same amount of money simply don't work out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 4:56 pm

Education, You are restating what I said. You just don't understand it. Also, the 'nice benefit' of property value increases doesn't benefit all of us. For many of us, in order to live here and provide a good education for our children, we had to pay a huge price for not much of a home. Also, to those who suggest leaving the area, for many of us, this is not an option as our jobs are here and not elsewhere.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen
a resident of another community
on Oct 15, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Thought I would drop in and see what was up in Palo Alto. I went to Garland, Jordan, Paly in the 50s and 60s. This is still going on? I was pretty sure this had all been settled. Hmmm...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 15, 2010 at 9:37 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Crescent Park Dad, just out of curiosity, what percentage of those Palo Alto grads admitted were Tinsley students? What percentage of those EPA students attending all the diaspora schools were admitted to those colleges? How does this compare with EPA students who stayed home in various academies. In other words, does anyone besides me care about the students and whether Tinsley helped or harmed them?
Every time Tinsley comes up someone says "This is a legal agreement and can't be changed... yada yada yada." - You better believe that once the harm Tinsley has done becomes common knowledge, I.E. once someone not "in" on it finds out, Ravenswood will go back up even if they have to raze Ikea to build it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by laura
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 16, 2010 at 7:45 am

My son knew of a family who lived in Milpitas but their son attended Gunn with him. They were using their grandmother's Palo Alto address. I'm sure this is extremely common.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Capbreton
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

30 kids? Big Whoop.

There are hundreds -- yes, hundreds -- of kids living in the PAUSD boundaries whose parents pay taxes and yet send them to private schools.

Looked at through this prism, the PAUSD is not losing money on these 30 kids, it just cuts down their gross profit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 15k/yr prop tax
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 16, 2010 at 12:29 pm

"Every time Tinsley comes up someone says "This is a legal agreement and can't be changed... yada yada yada."

Your failure to understand the US legal system does not mean that the US legal system does not exist. As for the Tinsley SETTLEMENT,its existence is not relevant to the issue of identifying how many PAUSD students are illegally in the schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by narnia
a resident of Menlo Park
on Oct 16, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Walter ,
Nobody said that Tinsley can't be changed. What has been said is that Tinsley cannot be changed unilaterally by the defendants to the suit. It can also be changed, one at a time, by the districts that has fulfilled the conditions for cessation. One district has and that district is out of the Agreement.

Of course, 15k/yr prop tax is right: the identification of students who illegally attend PAUSD schools has nothing to do with Tinsley. Tinsley students are legally attending PAUSD schools.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Hope spring eternal that some day someone will think of the EPA children that Tinsley has cheated of an education. The rest is just BS.
15K, Our schools are overcrowded. Should the next school be built here, or should it be built in EPA specific to the needs of EPA, and just incidentally easing our crowding? I understand the US legal system and I understand a live wire issue. No one in authority has the guts to be first to suggest that Tinsley has to be considered along with all other aspects of the problem. Makes one wonder what Tinsley supporters really have to atone for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 16, 2010 at 5:13 pm

If find it ironic that Ravenswood School District would like to (and benefit from) get rid of Tinsley, all the participating schools would benefit and even the head of the Boys and Girls Club of EPA has stated that it would be great to have a K-12 system, yet no one is challenging the settlement.

Most importantly, if a quality high school was built and well staffed in EPA, the students and the community would benefit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob2
a resident of Woodside
on Oct 17, 2010 at 4:34 am

Yuck, this sounds like some middle east conflict. You can have your schools, moldy libraries and boring downtown to yourselves. Hope Muffy and Buffy have fun at Harvard. I'll be over here in reality-land if your kids screw the world up so much they need a bailout.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 17, 2010 at 5:19 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

This is Politically Correct to the ultimate suicidal denouement. It is gutless closet racists defending a diaspora and re-segregation because they lack the conviction to openly discuss the problem because, behind their civil mask, they really do not understand equality under the law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tinsley
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 18, 2010 at 11:18 am

I know one student who cam through the Tinsley program since Kinder years and is being looked at by Stanford for athletics and his grades qualify him. Success? I would say, according to most, yes. Legally attending PA schools, most definitely!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 18, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Check out the last graduating class from Ravenswood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter Hays mom
a resident of Walter Hays School
on Oct 18, 2010 at 10:56 pm

In my son's Kindergarten class at Walter Hays out of 22 kids 3 have East Palo Alto addresses (and Latino last names), this is 7.3% of the class that is given to Tinsley. How many Tinsley kids PAUSD has to accommodate every year? I have no problem with Tinsley concept at all, in fact I think it is a very good idea, but having over 7% is a bit high in years when schools are overenrolled.. We no longer have kinder classes capped at 20...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 19, 2010 at 5:59 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Was time in the bus more valuable than time in the classroom?
Busing is for adult satisfaction, not child education, just the same as in the mid-century South.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 am

Hays mom - the district enrolls 60 Voluntary Transfer Program (Tinsley) kinders each year. Hays is one of the larger schools, so I would assume they have more of the kids. They also keep siblings in the same school, so if any of the kids had older siblings at Hays, they would go there even if it means a few extra at one school.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 20, 2010 at 1:52 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

60x12=720/20=36 ideal classrooms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2010 at 8:09 am

Walter - actually, it would be 60x13 (K-12) except a lot of VTP kids leave between middle and high school. Maybe because we stop bussing them and they have to find their way to school on public transportation (which I imagine takes even longer than the school buses did).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ed Fan
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 20, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Do we know how those kids did after they presumably moved back to their neighborhood schools for middle & high school? For example, how did their grades compare to their neighborhood peers in their new schools, and to their Tinsley peers who stayed through graduation at Paly?

Did they transition and assimilate well into their new schools? I've heard that some parents opt for Tinsley to get away from drugs and gang influences; was that successful?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lena
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Oct 20, 2010 at 12:37 pm

Does anyone check if the district accepts no more than 60 Tinsley kids? I recall that we once counted the number of kids with EPA addresses in Jordan directory and there were a lot...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Oct 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm

Lena -

The District can accept 60 kids per year and if some leave, they can accept more, but only in K-2nd grade. The example they gave was that one year, they accepted 77 kids because 17 had left the year before. The link on PAUSD Web Link

We have 3 middle schools and based on the size of the schools (Jordan is the largest), there should be 70-80 VTP students at Jordan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by JDPHD
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 20, 2010 at 5:27 pm

These Tinsley arguments are confusing. Tinsley has nothing to do with students who are illegally in PAUSD. Getting out of the Tinsley settlement would require very complex and expensive negotiations. Where will the funding for such negotiations come from? I believe there were 8 school districts in the litigation. Just because the settlement costs PAUSD money is not an argument that anyone in EPA would find attractive. If you want to renegotiate the settlement, what you offer EPA? Would you transfer the money PAUSD spends on VTP to EPA? As far as I know, the VTP has more applicants than the 60 slots allocated (I don't remember how many slots there are in the other districts). Presumably, many parents view VTP as a desirable option.
The busing arguments are puzzling and smell like a recycled term paper. VTP is optional, there is no forced busing. Or are you suggesting that you know better than the parents of VTP students?
If you want to save PAUSD money, track down illegal students. If you want to gain PAUSD more money, repeal Prop 58 and Prop 193.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Geez
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 20, 2010 at 6:15 pm

To everyone stating that we should go to church to learn to share better, all come from "wealthy" families and are just "lucky' so we should "share" better, are just greedy, blah blah blah blah because we don't want to pay the State taxes to educate everyone else AND our property taxes to educate our kids AND have the local kids that are being paid for by us squeezed out of their classrooms or their schools by illegals.....

tell you what, I think you are greedy and selfish and need to go to church if you don't use that couch to sleep someone else who can't pay you...after all, you paid for it, yes, but you can afford to let someone else use it when you are in your own bed, right? Doesn't matter if it is your apt and your living room and your couch you worked for, it would just be wrong not to let anyone else use if off the street who wants to crash for the night.

And that car you have...please know that I am going to condemn you if you don't let someone without a car who isn't as rich as you use it whenever they want to use it..who cares if someone else is using it when you need it? After all, you don't want to be greedy!!

Geez. I know there have always been folks who don't have a clue and always will be, but it is still irritating to see the same old stuff.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 21, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Our schools are crowded so opening new ones is being considered. I suggest that building that school in East Palo Alto may well be the best investment. It takes a special kind of blindness to ignore the education missed because of the bus ride. Interesting that in none of these arguments has anyone made any reference to statistic evidence of more effective education. Numbers were the justification for Tinsley - where are the numbers to prove it worth the cost?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,508 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,718 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,637 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,455 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 896 views