News

Webcast: Charter school expansion debate; downtown office cap repealed

Weekly journalists delve into the Ravenswood City School District debate over a charter school's expansion proposal; recap Palo Alto's move to allow more commercial development downtown; and discuss Gov. Gavin Newsom's new vision for California's high-speed-rail project.

Watch the webcast here or listen to the podcast version of the episode here.

Subscribe to the new "Behind the Headlines" podcast

We now have a podcast! Listen to Behind the Headlines while you're on the go by downloading free episodes of our new podcast, now available through Apple or Google Play.

Webcasts are posted every Friday afternoon on PaloAltoOnline.com, as well as on Palo Alto Online's YouTube channel, youtube.com/paweekly.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

Check out previous weeks' episodes in the "Behind the Headlines" archive.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

— Palo Alto Weekly staff

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Webcast: Charter school expansion debate; downtown office cap repealed

Uploaded: Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 5:27 pm
Updated: Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 8:17 am

Weekly journalists delve into the Ravenswood City School District debate over a charter school's expansion proposal; recap Palo Alto's move to allow more commercial development downtown; and discuss Gov. Gavin Newsom's new vision for California's high-speed-rail project.

Watch the webcast here or listen to the podcast version of the episode here.

Subscribe to the new "Behind the Headlines" podcast

We now have a podcast! Listen to Behind the Headlines while you're on the go by downloading free episodes of our new podcast, now available through Apple or Google Play.

Webcasts are posted every Friday afternoon on PaloAltoOnline.com, as well as on Palo Alto Online's YouTube channel, youtube.com/paweekly.

Check out previous weeks' episodes in the "Behind the Headlines" archive.

— Palo Alto Weekly staff

Comments

Clarification
East Palo Alto
on Feb 16, 2019 at 1:12 pm
Clarification, East Palo Alto
on Feb 16, 2019 at 1:12 pm
4 people like this

I usually loved Elena's articles, but this time I have to make a clarification: The last deadline is April 1st, not March. It was very clear that the decision was taken on Monday, February 11, Special Board Meeting in front of the audience, and that meeting, the Board President mentioned that she was not going to close a school or displace Ravenswood students to make room for KIPP, nor she was going to agree to spend millions of dollars to add portables to the Aspire Charter School. The majority of the board members agreed with her. I think Elena was there because the next day there was an article about it, I am confused. Therefore, I am wondering why would Elena think that the decision was taken in closed session. Probably she has a lot on her plate to remember everything people say or do.
One more if Ravenswood School District improves, parents would take their kids back to Ravenswood when the Ravenswood School District improves or changes, but not at this time when the superintendent treats the teachers and principals so bad and retaliates against them. After she removed the Belle Haven Principal and Pulido renewed her contract regardless of the parents outcry, many good teachers from that school left, and many parents moved their kids to KIPP. Some of those parents were very happy when they heard that KIPP will be at Belle Haven because they could return to their home school but under new different leadership. Belle Haven Parents have gone through a lot, the DO even called the police on them when they protested the removal of the best principal they have had.


Elena Kadvany
Registered user
education reporter of the Palo Alto Weekly
on Feb 19, 2019 at 10:19 am
Elena Kadvany, education reporter of the Palo Alto Weekly
Registered user
on Feb 19, 2019 at 10:19 am
2 people like this

Clarification: Thank you for your comment. You're correct: The deadline for the district's final facilities offer is April 1, not March 1.

We did not state that any decision was made in closed session, rather that the board could have potentially discussed the preliminary facilities resolution under an anticipated litigation agenda item on Feb. 14. While the board discussed ideas and asked staff to bring back proposals on Feb. 11, the fully fleshed resolution was not publicly available until Feb. 14. Our discussion about that starts at 7:47 in the video.


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

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.