|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a move that may stir controversy in an already-crowded school district, a group of Palo Alto residents currently assigned to Mountain View schools is attempting to join the Palo Alto school district.
Feeling divided from neighbors and too far from assigned schools, a group of households at 670 San Antonio Road have petitioned the county Office of Education to redraw school district boundaries to include 18 units from the complex. The other 22 units in the San Antonio complex near Middlefield Road are assigned to Palo Alto schools, according to a petition signed by residents.
The division leads to a lack of communal harmony, the petition states.
According to Simran Raheja, who volunteered among neighbors to lead the petition effort, children who attend schools in different cities have disappointingly little interaction.
“Those two kids are almost of the same age and they don’t even play together. They dont know each other’s names,” she said.
And schools in Mountain View are farther away from those in Palo Alto, specifically Fairmeadow Elementary School, according to Subadhra Arunasalam, whose husband worked on the petition.
Public hearings regarding the proposed redistricting will be held Oct. 14, including in Palo Alto at 3:30 p.m. at the school district’s board room at 25 Churchill Ave.
The Palo Alto school district will likely oppose the boundary change, according to Superintendent Kevin Skelly.
“We’re very crowded,” he said, with little room for even more students than already anticipated. As enrollment swells, 420 new students are expected to attend Palo Alto schools this year. The exact number will be discussed at Tuesday’s school board meeting.
Although school boundaries follow a sometimes-illogical “crazy quilt pattern,” Skelly acknowledged, accepting new houses would set a poor precedent.
“[Crowding] would be a hard argument to make to other areas, if you say ‘yes’ to this area.”
There are many households within Palo Alto borders but zoned for Mountain View schools, such as along El Camino Real south of West Charleston Road, he said.
He hasn’t finished studying the issue but will likely recommend the school board oppose the re-drawing petition, the superintendent predicted.
The residents’ initiative could draw fire from families currently attending Palo Alto schools already frustrated with crowding.
Children have been overflowed from neighborhood schools to those farther away in recent years, as classrooms fill to the 20-24 student capacity allowed under the district’s class-size-reduction policy. That number jumped from 11 overflows in 2006-07 to 129 last year, Assistant Superintendent Scott Laurence said last fall.
Because of space concerns, the district also last year reclaimed the former Garland Elementary School from the private school to which it had rented.
However, Raheja said the territory transfer, if successful, would likely result in only five extra students for Palo Alto. Neighbors without children were supportive of the petition because it could foster community spirit, she added.
The Mountain View-Los Altos High School district is likely to oppose the petition, Superintendent Barry Groves said.
“We don’t believe in piecemeal territory transfers,” he said. The district is already serving its students well, he added.
As a so-called Basic Aid district like Palo Alto, Groves’ district relies mainly on property taxes rather than state money to fund education.
If the 18 parcels transfer to Palo Alto, their property tax will be lost to Mountain View-Los Altos, he said.
Groves called territory transfers a rare occurrence. He noted that the decision rests in county hands, not with individual districts.
Two public hearings regarding the petition to transfer 18 parcels from the Mountain View Whisman and Mountain View-Los Altos High School districts to the Palo Alto Unified School District will be held by the Santa Clara County Office of Education.
In addition to the Palo Alto hearing, a hearing will be held at 5:30 p.m. of the same day at the Mountain View-Los Altos district’s board room at 1299 Bryant Ave. in Mountain View.
“El Camino Real south of West Charleston”. Does that include the new Arbor Real complex and the new housing being built where the Elk’s Lodge was? Is that new development zoned for Mt. View schools?
Actually, the properties “on El Camino Real south of West Charleston” feed into Los Altos Elementary and not Mt View (but they do go on to MVLA for high school). Arbor Real students feed into Palo Alto schools.
The ironic thing here that even if they got in to Palo Alto schools, Fairmeadow is already overflowingly full* and the reality is, most of this group would likely be overflowed to Briones or Barron Park or Nixon – probably WAY farther away from where they live than their current schools. Just being in the PAUSD boundaries doesn’t give them an automatic reservation in their closest ‘neighborhood school’ – that concept has pretty much been blown out of the water for all Palo Altans by the advent of choice schools, and over capacity.
By the way, I assume these people are prepared to line up at the county tax assesors office to pay the extra PAUSD tax assessments?
*(Fairmeadow added pretty much its last realistically possible portable this school year – the school district two years ago under the direction of the previous Super Callan grossly miscalculated the amount of available space at that small school site, because they flippantly discounted the actual configuration of existing buildings there and the hard boundary with Mitchell Park and JLS. Any future portables will have to be placed on the field, thereby deleting already small field space. Skelly – its time to take a closer look at the CORRECT calculations and CORRECT configuration for available growth at Fairmeadow – don’t you think? We asked Callan and the board to do this two years ago, they didn’t think it was that important…
I can well understand Superintendent Shelly declining this request. A number of small PA neighborhoods including Monroe Park are assigned to Los Altos Schools.
There are other apartment complexes south of San Antonio Road, including I presume, the Palo Alto section of the proposed new Mayfield Mall complex who will attend Mountain View Schools. If all these apartment complexes follow 670 San Antonio Road and request inclusion in PA school, the School District will have to reopen Greendell ASAP.
Oh let’s call this what it is–an attempt to get into Palo Alto schools at Mountain View prices.
Why should I care about “community harmony” at an apartment complex? Why don’t they just throw a potluck if they want their kids to play with one another?
OP, this isn’t a “let’s get into Palo Alto schools at Mountain View prices”, this is let’s increase their property values to Palo Alto prices. As noted, there are only 5 kids involved here. Just by signing, all the other apartments get the property price increase anyway.
oh really,
Well, that too. Wasn’t surprised at all when the neighbors favored it.
Are the petitioning the ‘county office of education’? or the county board of education?
I wonder what our representative on the County Board of Education – Grace Mah will do to protect and defend the Palo Alto school district? It is worth watching closely Mah’s actions/positions on this because she is running for reelection for that seat. (Well, actually its her first election for that seat, because she was appointed to her current seat, but she is running as the incumbant.)
I assume she is visiting our PAUSD board members and other influential Palo Altan’s for support/endorsements in her reelection efforts? I assume she presumed she’ll get votes from Palo Alto?
Eds – will you be reporting specifically on Mahs words and actions around this issue?
Are these rental apartments? If so, the property value will be a boost to the landlord rather than the residents. Although, if any become vacant, the landlord will then be able to charge more in rent anyway. Come to think of it, their rents will probably be put up anyway. I suspect the tenants aren’t considering everything when they sign.
These are NOT rental apartments – they are town homes owned by the residents. I guess one of the commenters only believe that residents in the complex do not deserve their kids going to the same school as their immediate neighbors kids. One can argue it is more important within a complex than those living in single family homes; who probably need more of those potlucks.
School district boundaries are illogical at times, but splitting the complex itself wherein the next town home within in the complex boundary goes to a different school is plain ridiculous – that is what this petition is about. This should not be setting bad precedents, but at the same time, things that are acknowledged as illogical need to be fixed.
OP, property value is being overemphasized in this day given the real estate situation. Many residents in this complex have been there for ages, many 20+ years. So as you think, they may be just scrambling to get the extra quick buck to just sell and move out. yeah right! </end sarcasm>
If this has nothing to do with property prices then you wouldn’t have a problem with the petition being for all of the complex to move into the Mountain View district.
What? No? Thought not!
670resident,
There’s at least a $100,000 difference between identical properties in the MV and PAUSD districts. So, yeah, if I were a longterm resident, I wouldn’t mind an extra $100K added to my home’s value–and, in this miserable real-estate market being in one of the districts where people are still buying.
And oh really makes a good point–how eager are any of the PAUSD residents in the complex eager to be rezoned into MV for the sake of “community harmony”? I wouldn’t, if it were me, because my property would immediately lose value.
And since it is townhouses, it really is an attempt to get Palo Alto schools for Mountain View prices. I’d be a little less skeptical of the altruistic plea if this were between PAUSD and Los Altos–which are both strong districts–but Mountain View? C’mon, it’s got some good schools, but it’s also general revenue and faces issues we don’t have over the district border.
And, yeah, by the way, we don’t have the room.
Just to provide some perspective:
1) Kids from EPA can attend Palo Alto schools; they live in a different city & county.
2) City has been acquiring or building Below Market rate rental units; there are over 500 rental units already in Palo Alto; and these properties don’t contribute any property tax at all!
Common Sense,
Tinsley’s the result of a settlement. I suspect it could be challenged, but no one’s done it.
BMR seems kind of besides the point.
There will be 40-50 new condominiums built on the Mayfield Mall site which will be physically in Palo Alto, however they are located on the south side of San Antonio Road. Will they be assigned into the PAUSD or the former Whisman Elementary School District (now Mountain View)?
I thought everything south of San Antonio was in the MV or Los Altos district.
OP and ohreally, you seem to be harping on the PA schools at MV prices and property prices; but it is not the ground reality for the seniors who have spent a good part of their life there; nor for the young professionals who make quite a good living. I guess we can agree to disagree on it.
You have yourself pointed out that of course PA is a strong school district. So why shouldn’t residents of PA – who pay their taxes and utilities bills like other residents, not be able to have their kids attend school in their own community?
Maybe you don’t have kids or maybe you don’t care, but take it from someone who has and does; the quality education, and the ability to build that long term friendship and community with their neighboring kids in the same school means far more than you may imagine.
In addition, as you have yourself noted the difference between MV and PA schools, the “over the district” issues etc – for anyone with kids, this is concerning as well.
Someone asked if we would agree to the entire complex be moved to MV district. Of course not, and WHY SHOULD WE? If our geographic boundaries was in the MV zip code, your argument would be valid; but that argument is irrelevant and pointless when the entire complex is in the PA zip code and a majority of the complex goes to PA schools and only a fraction in the complex cannot send their kids to the same community schools that their neighbours kids attend.
And for the commenter who asked if the residents would pay the extra tax – the answer is yes. hope that settles that.
If there are genuine concerns – like the over crowding – that is a reasonable meaningful discussion to have. But to start branding anyone who raises a perfectly valid argument regarding an acknowledged, crazy, illogical district boundary division; to be just searching for a perceived property price increase, is plain condescending and conceited.
But then the same commenters who have such an issue with less than five PA kids attending PA schools; have resigned themselves to accepting EPA students (not the same city, even county!) attending PA schools – just because it is some “settlement”??? If you spend the energy used for opposing this petition; and instead raise the issue about that “settlement” and BMR rentals, I am sure the over-crowding issue can be resolved far more effectively.
The Tinsley “Settlement” was not settlement at all. It was forced on Palo Alto as the result of a lawsuit brought about by guilt-ridden Caucasian ‘leaders’ in San Mateo County including a prominent member of the Sequoia Union High School District and their counterparts in East Palo Alto and ordred by a very sympathetic judge. Palo Alto had nothing to do with this – and a recent Supreme Court decision may have negated the entire court order. This is a new lawsuit waiting to happen. At any given time, I understand approximately 600 students from EPA are in the PA schools….and at what cost to Palo Alto?
This has been going on for years and years, and now maybe parents who cannot get their own children into neighborhood schools will rise up with their own revolt.
“So why shouldn’t residents of PA – who pay their taxes and utilities bills like other residents, not be able to have their kids attend school in their own community?”
But they don’t. They paid MV prices for their houses and are paying MV level taxes. So why should they get to got to PA schools?
“Someone asked if we would agree to the entire complex be moved to MV district. Of course not, and WHY SHOULD WE?”
Because “community” is so important to you! You would have less problem moving into the MV district giving the overcrowding in PAUSD. If it has nothing to do with house prices and community is so important to you, then this should be a perfectly acceptable option. By your response, obviously that is not the case.
These people bought their cheaper houses knowing that their children would be going to MV schools. They paid their money and made their choice.
To correct some misimpressions:
The homes being discussed are in the city of Palo Alto and not in the city of Mountain View. They were built in 1972 and have been part of Palo Alto city ever since. But the townhouse complex is divided near equally between MVW and PA school districts. So it is a bit crazy with kids on one side of a road going to PA and the those on the opposite side going to MVW schools.
All the homeowners who have signed the petition are tax payers, voters, and in some cases been Palo Alto residents for more than 30 years.
Before you rush to judge our intentions, I hope you will put yourself in the shoes of the children in our community who are as much Palo Altan as any other kid in Palo Alto and in many cases are kids born in Palo Alto (Lucille Packard).
Is it okay for kids in Fremont to move to Palo Alto rentals and study in Palo Alto schools while kids in Palo Alto must go to Mountain View schools?
The state gives the school district close to $7000 a year for each child in school and this is derived from real estate taxes. So adding additional children does not mean thet this will be done without additional revenue.
“To correct some misimpressions”
SG, I don’t think there is any misimpressions here. People who bought houses in MV school district, look over the road and see the children going to better schools and want to send their children to those schools even though they paid house prices for a different school district.
“So it is a bit crazy with kids on one side of a road going to PA and the those on the opposite side going to MVW schools.”
All over PA, there are cases of kids on one side of the road go to different school to those on other side of the road. Everyone who bought their house knew what school district they were in. The property price would have told them if nothing else.
“I hope you will put yourself in the shoes of the children in our community who are as much Palo Altan as any other kid in Palo Alto”
I did, I looked at the school I wanted my children to go to and bought a house in the catchment area for that school. I paid extra for the house. I could have paid a lot less and gone to MV schools. These people made a different choice of a cheaper house for the MV school district.
“and in many cases are kids born in Palo Alto (Lucille Packard).”
Hundreds of children are born at LPCH every week and the majority of them do not live in PA.
SelfishGene,
We’re a basic-aid district, basically our revenue pie is of a particular size and then gets subdivided over and over again depending by the number of students. We get a minimal amount of money from the state. We’d get very little from the property taxes of the homes under question in part because people didn’t pay the premium to get into the PA school district.
Mountain View, on the other hand, because it is general revenue will fight the rezoning because it does get money from the state for its students.
PAUSD’s boundaries have never aligned with city boundaries. We serve about half of Los Altos Hills and even a weird little chunk of Portola Valley. There are Palo Alto kids who are in Los Altos as well as Mountain View schools. And I have friends in Mountain View who paid a premium to be in the Los Altos school district.
All of this is factored into housing prices. So, no, I don’t see that PAUSD owes you a redistricting.
I am quite certain seller real estate disclosures were made to those who bought in these sections that do not get to attend PAUSD schools. They bought with their eyes wide open. PAUSD is overcrowded and not in a position to accept additional territories.
anonymous,
I’ve seen those kind of disclosures made in real-estate ads–just because schools are such a huge issue.
Never trust realtors. A house on my street is presently for sale, I visited it last Sunday and the realtor proudly told me the house was in the Gunn High School area. He was quite shocked when I told him Gunn was closed to new students and any incoming students would go to Paly.
OhlonePar and others,
The issue is not one of property prices. The county has strict rules that if the homes prices of the divisions are not within 10% it will disallow the redistricting request. But there is such a diversity of home prices even within Palo Alto including housing for low-income groups. There is also a difference in taxes people pay depending on when the home was bought. So it is pointless to drag home prices into the debate. One can send one’s child to PAUSD paying $1000 for a studio apartment on Alma or buy a $5M house in Los Altos Hills.
“PAUSD overcrowding” is also a pointless issue – if that is a legitimate issue we should not allow residents of other cities from renting in Palo Alto and sending their children to school in Palo Alto. We even have parents in other countries renting in Palo Alto to send their children to PA high schools. Is that somehow more acceptable than residents of Palo Alto legitimately petitioning the County to have their children attend PAUSD schools?
There are many PAUSD schools that continue to be closed (Greendell, Cubberly,…) and Terman Middle was only recently re-opened. So it is not a question of space.
Imagine if the Mt. View school district is a better district than PA, then this group of ppl will not be complaining today. Perhaps the other section of those houses will. I have seen neighbors next door or right across the street assigned to a different school bounday within the same district. Needless to say, the house value are quite a difference depend on which school they are assigned to. Good try! but I doubt PAUSD will redraw the bounday. Bet on it!
SelfishGene,
Will being switched to PAUSD increase the value of your home? Yes. So, yeah, it’s about housing prices and better schools. I don’t buy that it’s about “community harmony”–lots of ways to do that. My street is harmonious and kids on it attend all sorts of different schools.
And if you check the districts rules, people who rent an apartment in Palo Alto, but do not live in it seven days a week are in violation of district rules. If you know such cheaters, I urge you to report them to the district offices.
Greendell is currently occupied as is Cubberly. In both cases, there’s a lease issue and a financial issue because the district is Basic Aid.
OhlonePar,
Terman too was occupied until it was needed again. The point is that PAUSD has historically had more students than it has now otherwise it wouldn’t have had to close so many schools. You also missed my point about the rental – people come from other towns and legitimately rent and live in Palo Alto in order to send their children to Palo Alto. PAUSD does not try to limit the number of such moves – so why dis people who are exercising their legitimate right as citizens and Palo Altans to redistrict their homes following well defined County procedures.
Also MVW/Los Altos school districts are also Basic Aid schools (read the comment above by Superintendent Barry Groves) and spend nearly as much money on their students as PA and have facilities that compare favorably with PA. They are not responsible for the demographics on the 101 side of El Camino that have caused their scores to plummet.
Everyone is well aware of how difficult it is to redistrict without the legislature or the courts intervening. But tone of the posts here are the bigger disappointment.
SelfishGene,
I started to correct your numerous errors, but decided you can read up on this.
Because what this all comes down to is that none of this changes my basic point–you want into a school district without paying a premium for it.
OhlonePar,
There are many homes in MVW/LA districts that cost more than homes in PAUSD so the issue of “paying a premium” is moot. Also paying a couple of thousand or so in monthly rent is not exactly a premium in the Peninsula.
Or may be you should tell us what premium you paid and get it all out of your system…
Here are the PAUSD boundary maps: http://www.pausd.org/parents/schools_sites/downloads/AttendanceBoundaryMaps.pdf
Arbor Real looks like it feeds to Gunn
SelfishGene,
Mountain View and Los Altos are separate districts and perform differently.
Why are you even pretending there’s no difference in Mountain View and Palo Alto school district housing prices?
Map gal: Thanks: from the map it looks like Fairmeadow will have to absorb the cheldren from the proposed 48 condos to be built on Palo Alto land at the Mayfield site.
Right now Fairmeadow will have to absorb children from both the Echelon and Trumark housing units under construction on East Meadow Circle, and kids from the 103 condo units being built on Fabian Way and sold by Actaire.
Good luck Fairmeadow!!!!!
OhlonePar – the homes under discussion have Los Altos high schools.
They made their choice when they moved in.
Space is not an issue for the PAUSD. They will have an option to take back Greendell in 2009. Most of it is rented to the Jewish Community Center for their preschool. In 2009 they will be moving into their new digs at the Campus for Jewish Life and Greendell will be largely unoccupied except for the Young Fives program which is run in conjunction with the PAUSD.
Pinewood is looking to build their own facility, so Fremont Hills may also be available in a few years. Together with Garland the School District is in good shape for elementary school space.
The City owns Ventura which could be sold back to the School District if they need it. Perhaps this could be accomplished with a land swop like Terman.
Grandma,
Half of Greendell is and will continue to be occupied by Preschool Family, so there won’t suddenly be room for a full elementary school there in 2010–it will be about half a school, which is why I think it would be a possibility for Mandarin Immersion.
Bringing up any of these schools to code is an expensive undertaking for the district. None of the spaces takes care of the overcrowding at the middle-school level.
Selfish,
But we’re talking about elementary schools–I just don’t buy it that a townhouse complex’s “community harmony” is a reason for opening up district rezoning.
Perhaps they would do better by demanding their kids be bused to the Cupertino schools.
Dear parents,
I’m sure that teachers in MV and PA schools have the same education level, credentials, knowledge and curriculum. So, why in this case PA School District is considered to have higher performance than MT-LA? Or why even Paly school is less desirable (at least for parents) than Gunn? What stands behind the statistics that put Gunn to be N1 High School? Students have such a stressful life because of parents’ pressure (we did so many sacrifices that you must be a perfect student), peers pressure (You don’t apply to Stanford? – Are you stupid or lazy? You got 2100 on SAT – Did you sleep during the exam? ). In such a competitive school it’s not even easy to get an AP class; spaces are limited. Gunn has more Asian students, whose life consists of work, work and more work. Is it kind of childhood we want your kids to have? I feel really sorry for my daughter, who is a senior this year, when I see her studying for numerous tests until 3 or 4 am, and still doing homework on weekends. I was against her 5 AP classes this school year, but “all my friends take 5 or 6 APs, I don’t want to be a looser …”
It’s not a healthy environment for sure, the students don’t have a time to enjoy the process of studying, they just have to get good grades. As a result it’s rather an exception if a student knows what exactly he or she wants to study in the university; the purpose for majority is just to get into a top school.
And the last but not least – almost every college would ask you student his or her rank in the graduation class; and to be in desirable by all selective universities top 10% in Gunn you need to have weighed 4.571 – 4.200 or unweighted 4.000-3.932 and still be alive:-(
The schools are different because the students are different.
be careful what you wish for. elementary curriculum in palo alto is confused compared to neighboring districts, especially math.
1. Monroe Park is a neighborhood along El Camino on the south side of Adobe Creek that is within Palo Alto, but outside the Palo Alto Unified School District.
2. The proposed development at the former Mayfield Mall property at Central Expressway and San Antonio Road is mostly in Mountain View with a sliver in Palo Alto. The sliver in Palo Alto is also in the PAUSD, while the portion in Mountain View is not.
3. If community harmony is desired, then the entire complex can move to the Mountain View school district.
This seems a very special case of one complex. It is not only schools that separate the kids but also almost all outside activities, for those kids who go to MV schools. I think it is a wrong that should be righted.
On the other hand, money seems to bother some people to no end. Do we rank Palo Altans by how much they paid for their houses? In that case, OhlonePar probably has deep hatred for people who bought their houses decades before her/him and have a lower tax base.
As a town it would be great to have all Palo Altans go to PAUSD but if that is not reality then we should have some compassion for this very unique case.
Ok, here’s what you do; levy a special fee say $50k for those in that complex who want to go to PAUSD. This fee can be paid now or upon sale of their house.
For community harmony, try block parties and team sports and the like. One does not have to go to the same school to know a neighbor’s name.
I think the second option would be for the complex to educate all the kids at MV schools. Sorry!
And I don’t know about this rash of people who rent a place here just to get the schools. If people are abusing the policy please do turn them in. That’s just wrong. And tough for those of us who are driving our kids across town because the local school is full.
“Community harmony…” I have kids in two different elementary schools in Palo Alto because of room – any thoughts on family harmony??
Mo Ball,
Special hatred for people who live here? No. I’m just not impressed with the arguments here. The district’s already bursting at the seams.
Charlie,
If the families live here full-time, it’s not against the district rules to send their kids here. It’s a little crazy and desperate, but not against the rules. Says something about how grim the situation is in a lot of districts–or how into the name-brand factor the parents are. I think there’s a mistaken assumption that Gunn and Paly are feeder schools into Stanford and the Ivy. Truth is, you’re better off being in South Dakota.
If this petition is granted based upon such a weak argument as “community harmony” it will set a bad precident for the benefit of a few. School district boundaries are somewhat arbitrary legal lines and quite often don’t correspond to city boundaries. Real estate agents are very aware of the price differences associated with school district boundaries and so are all but the most unsophisticated home buyers/sellers. There will always be people who feel that they are on the wrong side of the line and would like to get into the “better” schools.
From the limited info in the story it doesn’t sound like this complex is a very cohesive community: “Those two kids are almost of the same age and they don’t even play together. They dont know each other’s names”. I would be more sympathetic of a statement like “We live right next to each other and our kids play together all the time, but because of over-crowding at the local school my child was overflowed to another school”.
My neighbor’s daughter goes to a private school outside PAUSD but our kids still play together all the time. The kids won’t be in the same classroom, but that doesn’t mean we make no effort to get to know all the neighborhood families.
“Public hearings regarding the proposed redistricting will be held Oct. 14, including in Palo Alto at 3:30 p.m. at the school district’s board room at 25 Churchill Ave.”
I wonder if this meeting will accept public comment and whether it will make any difference.
“And I don’t know about this rash of people who rent a place here just to get the schools. If people are abusing the policy please do turn them in. That’s just wrong. And tough for those of us who are driving our kids across town because the local school is full.”
Yes, they are here! Kids from Woodside, Fremont, San Jose, etc. You can read an article that was written last year by Gunn students in their school paper about this issue. They interviewed students (without names) that have attended our schools for years, knowing that it is wrong, but they get away with it year after year. I wish the district would do a quick check at the high school level and see how much money they can save by eliminating the students that do not live (sleep) in this district. Just ask us to bring our proof of residency to school one day and I bet you would not hear complaints from those of us who are asked to donate time and money to support those students who are overburdening our schools when they should be elsewhere.
Remember, this affects your students class size, as well as ability to get into electives, journalism, class offices, sports teams, and every other aspect of their high school experience.
Is it morally right to attend a school just because you can get away with it? Is that a lesson we want our students to learn?
it’s really sad to see such snobbery comming from people that live in my community. Think about the kids for once instead of your money.
I have lived in this area fo 50 years. Alot of you sound like 2 year olds fighting in a sand box over the red shovel. The two year olds in the sand box at least are acting age appropiate. Grow up P.A. snobs!!!
There is lots of energy around this issue. The positive side is that there seems to be no disagreement from anyone that Palo Alto schools are too crowded, and this is making many of us frustrated enough to act. (or at least, complain)
What we need to do is organize this group of very knowledgable, often rational people and oppose what’s really clogging up the schools, the new housing developments. We need a moratorium on such developments, and an educated, calm, but determined group like this one could have an impact on slowing the boom in multi-family housing that is really filling up the schools. The reason for all the development is that there is still a LOT of profit for developers who can convince the city to cram more houses and apartments into smaller and smaller spaces. And the school district gets …. little to none of the financial upside.
Where and how are these developments being approved, and where are all of y’all when they get the green light?
Schools are too crowded as it is. The issue should be closed. Sorry. Wish it were not like this.
Yes, development is a problem. Developers should have to pay to the schools 100K for every new unit!
“Each petition for a so-called “territory transfer” must undergo a rigorous county examination to meet nine state criteria. Those include: …. or be motivated by concern about property values, rather than children.”
lol, so that’s why you so determined to say it’s not about property prices! Yeah right!
oh, really,
Yeah, I just saw the Weekly article today–it’s always a little strange to find my online alter ego in print . . .
But, yeah, no *wonder* the townhousers are so up in arms about the suggestion that money might be a factor here. Couldn’t figure out why they were overreacting to the obvious.
Given that only one kid in the 18 units is even in the public schools, the whole argument that the kids need to go to school together to play together seems really, really suspect.
And, yes, too many developments approved–south Palo Alto schools are getting swamped.
Regarding new housing developments, is PAUSD taking action such as Santa Clara USD did a few months ago when San Jose wanted to approve a major new housing development?
Isn’t it unrealistic for a municipality to approve such projects after considering the additional load on services like garbage collection, public safety, etc., but trust that the school district will be able to absorb the new students?
people who live in Palo Alto have every right to go to Palo Alto Schools.
How do we stop so much land develpment in the furture? Are there town meetings we can attend to oppose the money hungry land developers that compromise the whole community of Palo Alto in many ways???
Wow, got to say that after reading this thread, it seems people think that everything revolves around property values.
I think most people with school-aged children think about the quality of the education their children are receiving. Property values only matter when you buy and when you sell. As someone with school-aged children, I know I care more about what happens in their daily life vs. something that may, or may not impact me financially in the future. Palo Alto schools are good, in strong part, because of parents who value education, are involved in their schools and reinforce education at home. Where that doesn’t happen, you see lower test scores (as the current measure of school performance). If you follow school funding you’d find money is not as strongly correlated to success as other factors like those I mention above. (For more information, look at a recent Stanford study — “Getting Down to the Facts: School Finance and Governance in California,” p.42 and p.50).
A community of parents who are committed to education shouldn’t be a threat to others of the same mindset.