Our new superintendant of schools is a big believer in 2-story school buildings, not just for Gunn but for all the new buildings at any campus. One reason is it leaves more space for playing fields, but the earthquake hazards aren't being taken seriously enough. Even if a 2-story building doesn't collapse, it will be harder for those on the 2nd floor to escape, and those in wheelchairs will have a very hard time as the elevators probably will be out.

Gunn is a higher risk than most campuses because the Stanford fault runs mainly beneath the bike path and supposedly can generate a 6.5 to 6.9 quake. Our other schools, Barron Park and Briones also are at risk from that fault.

The bond money we approved for school construction supposedly also was to be used to upgrade all the schools and make them earthquake safe, but I haven't heard that the job has been completed yet.

Thanks for the specific info --

I think in most cases, the alternatives to 2-story construction have not been fully explored so that we could achieve the goals while getting the extra classrooms. Especially at Gunn, the 2nd-story square footage is such a tiny fraction of the buildable area of the campus, it seems just smarter space design would be the cheaper and safer option.

You couldn't persuade people to think your way on the other thread - so now you're trying this angle. Why?

We get it - you think 2-story buildings are too expensive. And, now, you think they are dangerous. Anything else?

Excuse me -- what other thread are you talking about? There are quite a few and although I've made a few comments occasionally, there are many people taking up this issue, I have no idea who they are.

Why are you so afraid of analysis and facts? Our kids are worth our dealing with facts and erring on the side of safety.

The fact is, the architect for the Gunn high school construction stated publicly that a 2-story building would cost more per square foot. The state of california studies on school cost say 2-story construction is vastly more per square foot.

Two-story buildings do inherently come with more hazards from falls, disasters, fires, and everything I said above is true -- even if they are designed to protect life in an earthquake (depends on the size), they typically are not designed to be usable.

If the two-story construction were buying us something worth the extra risk, it might be one thing. But the reasoning through the construction planning has been poorly thought out -- it was really pre-determined by Skelley before he even know our district.

Our kids deserve better. Okay, maybe you disagree. I welcome the district opening this discussion to the light of day.

There is plenty of empirical evidence that 2 story buildings can be built safely. Stanford has plenty for example and they are still stading. There is plenty of empirical evidence that single story structures can be built unsafely, several churches that had to be condemed after the sylmar earthquake come to mind. What do you know about the proposed structures that makes them unsafe besides they are to be "2 story buildings"? Would you take your child to the Palo Alto medical clinic or the Stanford hospital, or do you insist your child avoid all 2 story buildings. During the Loma Prieta earthquake, how many modern multiple story buildings in Palo Alto failed and killed its occupants? How many 2 modern story structures in Plao Alto merely had to be condemned?

Now the building in ChristChurch was a 6 story building. What do you know about its failure to indicate all multi story buildings are unsafe? What failure analysis has been completed on the structure? Was it a soils failure? Was it a design failure? Was it a construction failure? Please point us at the completed failure analysis report for this building and explain how this failure applies to the high school buildings that are being proposed.

Your arguments are not logical. It's like saying smoking isn't bad for you because your grandmother smoked and lived to be 90 and you can point to many non-smokers who died younger. (And tobacco companies got away with that kind of false reasoning for decades and killed how many people?)

The fact is, FOR THE SAME CARE AND CONSTRUCTION VALUES, a single-story structure is far easier to make survivable and usable after a major quake than a taller structure.

Sure, you can make unsafe single-story buildings -- but if you included the same aspects of them that made them unsafe (such as age, old building codes, etc.) two-story buildings are much less safe.

You have further brought up a 6 story building as if it is somehow inherently less safe. Actually a 6-story building is an engineered building, whereas a 2-story building typically is not.

The fact is Gunn high school does run over a fault line with many unknowns, except the likelihood that there WILL be a quake.

If you contact the USGS as I did, you can get an idea of what size quake they THINK it is capable of, and where to see the unknowns. Point is, far too many people do the same kind of handwaving you do, but every disaster teaches us the dangers of hubris.

Is the consequence of being wrong acceptable? If you are wrong, lots of children die. If I am wrong... what? We end up erring on the side of safety and going through the analysis we should have done to make our high schools better and cheaper.

Our kids deserve our erring on the side of safer and better schools.

The other point is that we parents voted for this tax to improve our schools. Sure, we could probably make a very safe two-story building if it was worth spending whatever it took and we didn't care what the purpose of that building was. We could probably make a very safe skyscraper, too -- but we're building a school.

The fact is, the state of california says two story school construction is far more expensive than single story for the same square footage, so much so, multi-story doesn't even make sense when factoring land costs.

The other fact -- consult Structural Engineers Association of California if you want expert help -- is that current standards and codes in seismic design are to make structures survivable but with partial destruction. Kind of like your car in an accident -- the structure is designed to preserve life but not the structure. The multi-story structure is inherently far less likely to be serviceable after a quake than a single-story, even if it is as "safe". That's a big expense to consider -- and what it does to kids after a major disaster that their school isn't usable.

Why are we being asked to pay for these two story schools? In order to make mega-sized high schools. Is it worth the tens of millions we will spend? There are arguably no educational benefits and many significant negatives.

Again, maybe you disagree. Maybe you think the potential for improving connectedness, improving quality, saving money, and erring on the side of safety, isn't worth the effort or analysis. I do. I think our kids are worth it. Again, I welcome the district bringing such a discussion to the public for just that input.

P.S. Your relying on a few unusual examples to make your point is perhaps empirical observation but not "empirical evidence".

Empirical evidence disproves the conclusion you are trying to draw from a few observations taken out of context. Empirical evidence is why we know well-built single-story structures are more likely to be the safest kind of building in earthquakes.

"You have further brought up a 6 story building as if it is somehow inherently less safe. Actually a 6-story building is an engineered building, whereas a 2-story building typically is not."

You brought up the failure of the 6 story CTV structure as evidence that PAUSD should not build 2 story structures, not me. Your reasoning has flaws, I just pointed them out. I actually know a lot about structural engineering, I was giving you the benefit of that knowledge. My apologies if I stepped on your agenda If you want to kill this project, try another angle other than earthquake safety. Cost is more of a legitimate argument.

@so
Are you "crescent park dad" or "resident"? I didn't bring up the 6 story structure, resident did, and resident was taking your side. You are arguing with yourself, not having read the thread. Go back and read first.

Since you apparently didn't get the point, the point is this: before every disaster, there are people like you who claim to know everything and shoot down anyone who wants to err on the side of safety, and after every disaster, there are people like you throwing up their hands saying, We just never expected it to be so bad. With our kids involved, we should err on the side of safety.

If you look at the standards by which the 2-story structures are being built, and the specific assumptions that are being made FOR THIS PROJECT (about the fault line under Gunn, etc), there is room for concern. You don't have those same concerns if you spend the same amount of energy working out a safe single-story structure.

And you can't argue with the fact that even a "safe" 2-story structure is not designed to be usable after a quake, it's designed to try to save lives but with partial destruction. A single story structure with the same design values will far more likely be usable and an important resource for the children and community after a disaster. (And at least not a huge repair or replacement expense.) The schools are more likely to be safe AND usable after the same size quake.

Second point: the biggest concern here is what is best for this district to get the best schools for our money. That is my agenda. I have watched this process and that hasn't been the guiding principle. The guiding principle per Mr. Skelley's own admission publicly has been to make our high schools large schools with two story buildings because he doesn't want to redraw the boundaries. He stated that very early on, before Measure A was voted on, it hasn't changed, and there hasn't been any more in-depth analysis of the facts to problem solve something better AT ALL.

If he had understood our district OR been willing to carefully reconsider his decision when he learned more OR been willing to educate the public about the implications of his early choice and listened to what they want, he might have changed his mind. Or the public might have changed it for him.

Cost and safety are just more reasons that we should be examining this issue and having this discussion in the public. I welcome arguing over facts, with the public fully informed.

If you are concerned about cost, you should be demanding the same.

"I didn't bring up the 6 story structure"
From your opening volley...
"The collapse of the CTV building.."
The CTV building is a 6 story structure.

"before every disaster, there are people like you ..."
people like me ;-) Now thats just silly.

Anyway you dont have the background to declare 2 story buildings are inherently unsafe in an earthquake, so again I advise you to take another tack if you dont want them built. I'll leave you to your rants now.

@ so,
Why the nastiness? Just because someone says something you don't like doesn't make it a rant, and doesn't make it wrong. I've pointed you to some very solid sources, like the state of california -- you haven't backed up your accusations with anything at all.

I apologize about the confusion over the CTV building, I was talking about the forest and you were lost in the trees. You're right, I quoted a story using the CTV building, followed by,

"The lesson is not that we need to avoid this or that type of building (this time), but that EVERY quake and disaster brings new lessons, lessons that come at the price of death and terrible loss. And no matter how much we think we know and how advanced we think we are and how safe we assure the public we can make the buildings, we always THINK we're smarter than we really are."

Our kids deserve our erring on the side of safety. Maybe you disagree with that. That's the point of my post. It's easy to stick your head in the sand and criticize others who won't, and hard to do the right thing, to err on the side of safety, in the face of uncertainties.

I'll say it again: before every disaster, there are people like you who claim to know everything and shoot down anyone who wants to err on the side of safety, and after every disaster, there are people like you throwing up their hands saying, We just never expected it to be so bad. With our kids involved, we should err on the side of safety.

We don't know the future. If we knew with certainty that these buildings were absolutely safe under possible conditions, we'd never have disasters.

Our KIDS are worth ERRING on the side of safety.

So I assume that, given all this posting, that you've taken the time to present your concerns, research, and alternatives to the people at 25 Churchill and the individual site committees. There have been times for public comment and I'm sure a concerned and informed citizen could get a one-on-one meeting (or at least email responses or telephone calls) if s/he pursued it. So what did they say?

I ask because like most, I don't have time to chase down whether there is an issue here or not, and rely on the people we've hired at the district, plus the consultants, architects, and builders they hire, plus the state officials who review all the designs, to be sort it out and take appropriate action. It's possible that they screwed up, but I'm curious why you think they did - do you think they are ignorant, or cavalier, or have an ulterior motive, or ?

@curious/resident,
Many concerned parents have been taking this up with Churchill in the past two years. The "public comment" you mention is laughable. Planning has been open to the public, mostly during work hours, and public comment was limited to a card submitted in writing at the start of the meeting, limited to two minutes, with no opportunity for response or rebuttal if the question wasn't answered. Original questions and transcripts did not go into the record, rather someone's loose (and sometimes misattributed and mistaken ) interpretation of what was asked. The public had no opportunity to affect what was discussed in the meetings.

Two local parents who are major project engineers have separately told me after attending planning meetings that the people running this "don't know how to manage a major project."

The biggest problem is that parents have called for the district (in private and public) to communicate the direction of this project better with the public, and they continue to avoid doing so.

Your question is answered in many ways in detail in other threads on this issue, on school size, on connectedness, other school discussions recently on Town Square, by other people who say it better than I could.

Back to the topic of this thread --

Here's yet another of copious object lessons in how easy it is to dismiss safety planning until it's too late. Tonight on KTVU 10pm news, it was just reported:

"Evidence grows that the utility in charge of the [Fukushima] nuclear reactor failed to prepare for a major quake." ... "An Associated Press analysis found the company's worst case scenario virtually ignored the possibility of a huge quake and tsunami. Tepco used a relatively mild quake as the worst case, and disregarded reports of stress on the fault lines."

The planning at Gunn HS acknowledges unknowns about the fault that runs under the school and uses a relatively mild quake as worst case scenario, with little/no additional analysis over the depth (it's shallow -- the milder shallow quake did more damage in Christchurch than the larger one earlier, and did damage to buildings thought to meet the highest modern seismic standards).

The Japanese have much stricter oversight, high standards for seismic construction, more experience with nuclear power construction in recent years, and a far stronger social contract than we do. Nuclear power plants are capable of widespread destruction affecting far more lives if the worst happens. Yet they failed to ERR on the side of safety. For a nuclear power plant!!

Well, we're not building a nuclear power plant here, we're building a school for our kids that we parents initiated and passed the tax for in order to improve our schools. We deserve better accountability.

We deserve the analysis that Skelley stubbornly refuses to do simply because he decided before he even know our district that we needed larger two-story schools. (And working with the same construction professionals he worked with previously...probably the initial contract wasn't a conflict, but the fact that the administration still refuses to discuss these important issues with the public despite numerous requests from parents, and that they have failed to do analysis to compare options, does bring potential conflicts into question.)

That last sentence of the nuclear power plant report rings eerily like what is happening with the new building at Gunn -- they are using a relatively mild quake as worst case scenario. It's not the only reason we should be considering spending our money more wisely -- it's very possible we could reopen Cubbereley for the same money or less than we are spending building these mega schools, and get better and more connected schools in the process -- but it's another, important reason.

We should be erring on the side of safety with our kids.

P.S.
The AP story about the nuclear plant uses some apropos phrases:

"misplaced confidence
"downplayed"

"overly optimistic assumptions"

and (a common safety planning failure):
"... they [the Japanese, us] rely heavily on what has happened to figure out what might happen, even if the probability is extremely low. If the view of what has happened isn't accurate, the risk assessment can be faulty."

"We assessed and confirmed the safety of the nuclear plants,"

"overly optimistic assumptions" is what I would call "curious's" assumptions about the high school panning.

@concerned - so is the answer that your only effort to communicate your views has been via public comment at meetings? Or maybe not even that? And so you have never communicated your views to anyone in authority on the project? And that a major datapoint for you is that a couple of people you know dissed the project's architects and contractors (who are pretty substantial, experienced firms)?

It sounds like you are not a serious person on this topic, sorry.

Sorry concerned. I'm still not buying this from you. I have read your other posts and you have railed against PAUSD over 2-story buildings over what you believe to be too expensive and not cost effective. Which is your prerogative and you have every right to your opinion.

But from my POV, you are now grasping at a new straw called tsunami/earthquake feardom. You are looking for any emotional chip in the armor to get people to help you to stop 2-story buildings - even though your primary reason for criticism has been for something far different.

A leopard cannot change his spots...

"Excuse me -- what other thread are you talking about? "

I think he might be referencing this thread.

Web Link

Hey, thanks for finding that for me! Please read the comments I made there, and follow through to find other threads by others on this issue. It seems like there have been many lately, and others who have made the same points far more eloquently than I have.

@so/CPDad/curious/mrbg - I don't see anything intelligent at all in your comments except a curious need to attack me personally. There are many threads lately with other parents making comments about the mega school/expensive multistory problem. Do read the one linked above, and then find those. It seems, though, that you have an agenda, and that doesn't seem to be discussing the facts.

You haven't bothered to read or provide actual facts supporting your vitriol to counter, for example, state reports pointing out that multi-story buildings dramatically increase the cost of school construction or the copious research on very large schools that weigh evidence very much against our getting good schools by spending all this extra money to enlarge them.

Facts:

1) Mega schools usually bring lower academic standards and increase stress on kids -- per the weight of education research.

2) Mega schools will cost tens of millions we could be spending on real improvement instead, because we have to build these multistory buildings to get them. That's money we could be spending getting three improved, optimally sized schools instead.

3) Skelley made decisions about this direction before he knew the district, before we suffered these tragedies, before we had these sobering enrollment increase numbers, and hasn't re-examined that direction, all the while maintaining a cozy relationship with the construction people he worked with before. The district has done no specific analysis for comparison to see if we could reopen Cubberley instead.

4) The district has failed to communicate to the majority of parents the cost, educational, and social implications of mega-schools, and that the only reason it is spending the money on these expensive two-story schools is for making these large schools.

5) Skelley and district administrators have failed to do this despite calls by many parents, in the paper, in school board meetings (on record), by email, in person, in other public forums he attended such as the ones focused on connectedness, etc. They've been asked for years by many, yet have avoided this essential communication about the direction of our schools that we parents are paying for.

6) There are assumptions that have to be made about the fault line running under Gunn, and even before recent disasters, they seemed overly optimistic. We should have the humility and care for our children to learn the lessons of these disasters for the safety of our kids. Call that alarmist if you wish. Japan could have used a little more of that. Our kids are at stake here, we should be erring on the side of safety.

You clearly would like to argue against my push for safety, why don't you join me and other parents in asking the district administration to have that discussion publicly so you can?

What are you afraid of? Please explain why it is so important for you to attack me, while you make no effort to have an intelligent conversation or deal with the facts. I am concerned for our kids. I wish to err on the side of safety. I want the district to discuss with parents the facts and implications of their decisions and be willing to hear what they want. I want intelligent decisionmaking to give us the best schools that support our kids for the future, and I want our money well spent. If that deserves name-calling where you come from, so be it. It won't stop me or anyone else from working to protect our kids.

To quote the "Godfather": It's not personal, it's just business.

Your first campaign was to open a third HS via this thread on 2/25 under the name concerned parent:

Web Link

Then on 3/5 (same thread) you changed names to "observer" and then went through the exact same arguments (btw, word for word to this thread) against 2-story buildings over cost. You also introduced mega schools and the fault line under Gunn.

But hardly anyone agreed with you - in fact, most people opposed you.

Then in this thread Web Link you switch back to "concerned parent" and started up the anti 2-story and mega school argument. Again, no one agreed with you.

Now in this thread, as "concerned parent", you are repeating your arguments from when you were "observer" and now you are stooping down at an attempt to leverage a terrible tragedy as a means to whip up support for your original desire: a 3rd HS.

It just comes across as disingenuous and opportunistic to try the "safety of our children" ploy to hopefully attract some people to your original campaign argument - open Cubberly instead of improve and update Paly and Gunn.

That's all. Nothing personal - just my reaction to what appears to be the use of multiple screen names and over-reaching at emotional and catastrophic events just to serve your 1-person campaign.

I understand why you may think it is personal. Sorry, it's not. I just don't have patience for people who solicit support for a cause, get turned down, change names, try again using other possible emotional ploys, get turned down again and now changes names again, trying the ultimate ploy via a gigantic human tragedy. Not cool.

BTW - if I'm wrong about any of my assertions, then I apologize.

@ Crescent
If it's not personal (your word, not mine -- I just pointed out that you were calling names, assuming a lot of wrong stuff out of thin air, and making accusations, yet studiously avoiding the issues), what is your agenda? You still don't seem to have anything at all to say about the actual business, just attack me. What's your stake? I've asked now several times.

Sorry, the link you gave was to an op-ed that wasn't me. There are of people with the same opinions on that thread, I wish I knew who they are. I'm working on it!

I have posted on this issue, we've already discussed that -- When I post I try to be consistent with my moniker within the post, but often there are other people who use the same moniker, even for opposing/similar views in the same thread, so it can get confusing. These issues have been talked about on Town Square for years now. Most of the things I brought up are not new, and weren't originated by me. You're a little paranoid there, don't you think?

Isn't it ironic that you would assume I and other parents haven't approached the district about this, and criticize me for it, then you criticize me for making my views public more than once. People don't always read every thread. People like you criticize without ever reading the thread we're on.

I wish I deserved credit for being an original, but most of what I have to say is condensed from things have have gone around town for a few years now, including in school board meetings and on Town Square:

*I did not coin "mega school" or any of the other terms for overly large schools, though thank you for the unintentional compliment. The term may even come from educational literature, which is pretty damning of these MEGA SCHOOLS which our administration wants to spend our money giving us in Palo Alto.

*People have been talking about reopening Cubberley for years -- Measure A was clearly written to allow the school board the option to do that if they chose, and the fact that they haven't even properly evaluated the option has mostly to do with an agenda Skelley brought with him before he knew our district.

*I never thought it was personal. I was just calling a spade a spade. You have gone on the attack without ever actually dealing with the issues. And still you are spending your time trying to find a way to smear someone you don't know in order to ... avoid talking about the issues. ("The guilty flee where no man pursueth" comes to mind.)

*It would be nice if you would share your motivations for your aggression. We need to learn from tragedies. (Those who do not remember the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them.)

The disaster we call Hurricane Katrina was mostly a preventable man-made disaster that many people had been making specific calls to prevent before it happened. The tsunami in Japan was not unprecedented; the nuclear tragedy we see unfolding was the result of downplaying risks -- just the kind of impulses your posts express.

We live in an earthquake-prone area, an earthquake-prone area that has experienced terrible tragedy and with the potential to experience much worse. People have a lot of inertia around safety and emergency preparedness and tragedies are often the reason people finally do the right thing. There is much we can do to prevent tragedy here. There is a fault line that runs under Gunn. The assumptions that have been made there have been overly optimistic. Are you even familiar with them?

It's pretty clear you have an agenda for attacking me that you don't wish to share here.

I am concerned for our kids. I wish to err on the side of safety. I want the district to discuss with parents the facts and implications of their decisions and be willing to hear what the parents want. I want intelligent decisionmaking to give us the best schools that support our kids for the future, and I want our money well spent. If that deserves name-calling where you come from, so be it. It won't stop me or anyone else from working to protect our kids, even if you keep at the name-calling as you have.

I invite you to raise the level of your discourse and argue over the actual issues in public, and call on our district administrators to do their due diligence on whether we could open Cubberley and have three optimally-sized, cheaper, and probably safer schools with better improvements instead.

Whether we learn the lessons outlined by the state of california in how to save money in public school construction, or the lessons outlined in educational literature from the many schools around the country and world on how ultra-large MEGA SCHOOLS suffer degraded school quality and connectedness (and cost money), or the lessons in psychological literature on how improving connectedness is an important factor in whether kids who consider suicide act, or the lessons of terrible tragedy after terrible tragedy in how easy it is to eschew humility and thoughtful evaluation and not err on the side of safety -- any of these lessons is important.

Let's hash out the facts in public, call on the school district to do the right thing.

@Crescent,
You were wrong in most of the assumptions and barbs you leveled at me, so thank you for the apology. I can't say whether you are wrong in your beliefs and facts, because you have studiously avoided discussing the actual issues. I would have preferred that to a hollow apology.

@Crescent

BTW, from your post above, you said:
"Your first campaign was to open a third HS via this thread on 2/25 under the name concerned parent:"

I looked at your link -- there were two people posting as "concerned parent" on that thread, from different neighborhoods, and neither of them were me.

I did some more looking because you asked, and you have been attacking parents about this issue on many threads. Yet you never deal with the actual issues. You do admit that you have older kids who have benefitted from the schools when they were just north of optimally-sized, yet you rail against parents with younger kids who want the district to spend our money wisely and provide the same advantages your kids enjoyed for their kids.

@Crescent,

Actually, former city councilman Bob Moss brought up the fault line under Gunn in this thread, and like many others I learned about it some time ago, I think from him -- he is an honest and outspoken advocate for our community -- but you can verify at the USGS.

The more I read per your invitation to do so, the more I see you've been active in attacking parents who want the district to focus on connectedness, improve mental health, examine the direction of our school construction. Why the animus? That was a very rambling, paranoid, and mostly wrong set of accusations above.

If our community suffers because school quality declines from choosing ultra-large schools (and spending tens of millions unnecessarily to do so), your property values will suffer like everyone else's. If you don't care about the kids coming after your kids, isn't your wallet worth holding the district accountable over? (Or maybe that's why you are attacking parents -- please explain your agenda.)

My agenda is simple:
- mental health issues should not be blamed entirely on the schools.
- the bond package had one bullet point (out of 70+ points) on possibly opening or reopening a new site --- however an overwhelming majority of the package is clear: repair/update and expand existing campuses. I think we've debated this already and I have linked the document in the past. I can do so again if you need it.
- if you want a 3rd HS (for any reason), that's fine - don't derail or delay what has already been approved and now is in-progress.

Re-opening Cubberly or additional grammar schools will take significant dollars. Not only for re-building and updating, but also for year-to-year overhead once on-line. To do so will take an additional bond/parcel tax. That's what you should do, not try and take away or delay what has already been approved and welcomed by an overwhelming majority of voters.

If you get a bond on the ballot for Cubberly, I'll vote yes. (I vote yes on every school bond).

Fair enough?

BTW - there has been some discussion on what the future Cubberly HS should be:
- another Ivy track school like P or G but smaller, or;
- humanities/liberal arts, vocational, alternative grading system

What would be your choice? Either is OK for me, just curious what you'd like to see.

@Crescent,
I don't know what you think you've discussed in the past, but I think we have already established that you have mixed me up with a lot of other posters. We have also established that you have been spending a lot of posting time attacking those other posters and me without dealing with the issues. Sorry, but your belated explanation fails to explain your animus and aggression on this issue.

Not to overlook the first hopeful glimmer of discussion from you in your last post.

You said,
"Re-opening Cubberly or additional grammar schools will take significant dollars. Not only for re-building and updating, but also for year-to-year overhead once on-line. To do so will take an additional bond/parcel tax. That's what you should do, not try and take away or delay what has already been approved and welcomed by an overwhelming majority of voters."

First of all, read the actual Measure A. It was clearly written to include the possibility of repurchasing the property at Cubberley and improve it if necessary. We don't need another bond, we've approved one. Requiring that the bond be spent intelligently and with fiscal responsibility is a given and IS fulfilling the will of the voters.

Secondly, your garbled and poorly thought-out points are exactly why we need to have this discussion in the public, and why the district should be systematically examining our options. Most parents don't even know that the district is planning to enlarge our high schools to be ultra-large schools because the superintendant came in with a vision for mega schools, and really for no better reason. (Sorry, I have that from solid sources from within district staff. Skelley talked about this publicly then anyway.) Parents don't know that there has been no specific or serious fiscal examination of the options.

You say, reopening Cubberley would take additional dollars. Oh? Exactly how many? How many extra dollars is our current course going to cost us? And what will we get for that money? Don't stick your finger in the wind, where is the specific analysis? There are serious quality degradations that are virtually guaranteed to come with the expansions of the existing schools. We voted for Measure A to improve our schools. (But what do you care? Your kids got to go to Paly as more optimally-sized schools. You got yours, so what about other people's kids, right? We might even spend less money doing right by them. What's your agenda that you endlessly harangue other parents online hoping no one will try to find out?)

Nothing I am suggesting would derail improving Gunn or Paly, virtually all of the IMPROVEMENTS would remain. I'm just suggesting we be fiscally responsible and spending our money wisely to get something good for it. On that topic, why exactly have so many of the proposed IMPROVEMENTS been delayed into other phases while the costly building for expansion has been put first?

Building two-story buildings WILL take additional dollars, tens of millions. When the state of california examined what causes costs to increase in school construction, they said going two-story is so expensive, it's not worth it even to save land costs.

According to the state, the alternative to save money is to create an actual one-story alternative and bid them both. The architect admitted publicly that the extra cost of the going two story is at least 15% more for the same square footage. For just that first $20 million dollar building at Gunn, that's $3 million, just to have a two-story building. Building a nice one-story building there for a more reasonably sized Gunn would be more on the order of the other one-story going in, $8million. That's $10-$12million in savings from just one building, and Gunn still gets all of its improvements.

Adding up all the two-story high school construction PLUS the square footage in classroom space that wouldn't be necessary if we weren't having to prioritize making Gunn and Paly take 2500 students each (but instead spent that money JUST on IMPROVING those campuses), that could be $20million to $80 million, depending, to renovate Cubberley. (If the district isn't too late to partner with Foothill, that's another $40million in building improvements...)

So what about those year-to- year expenses? Two-story buildings have significant life cycle costs. They will almost certainly have to air condition where the other buildings on campus right now are not, adding significant energy costs (or making the buildings unlivable if the district can't afford the A/C). Two-story's have regular elevator maintenance and inspection costs. Custodial and maintenance costs are higher. Liability costs and workman's comp are higher as falls with stairs are a fact of life. The buildings are not designed to be usable after major seismic events (seismic design is to prioritize life, with partial destruction of the building). Are we required to have sprinkler systems that wouldn't be necessary for single-story? Again, more costs and liabilities.

The teachers have to be hired whether they are at one school or the other because of the extra students. If Cubberley were a commuter campus, students could still access unusual extracurriculars and sports at the other campuses while the school is still small.

The alternative of schools-within-schools at Gunn and Paly to reduce the negative effects of such large schools is likely to be much more expensive than just having a Cubberley choice school. Schools-within-schools are essentially that -- in order for them to work, they literally have to be separate schools, with separate administrations, even separate entrances. They may share some facilities under contract, but they don't' usually work unless they are separate schools. So to really do schools within schools at both Gunn and Paly, that's FOUR school administrations, not three. Schools-within-schools are for districts seeking the benefits of more optimally sized schools where they don't have the ability to actually get another school. Most school districts don't have a decommissioned site somewhere with a bond already passed that could repair it and put it into use.

The other reason Cubberley could save significant funds running is that it would allow the administrators -- assuming its a choice program that draws from both areas -- control over enrollment swings. That in turn helps with staff hiring and planning in a way they can only dream of now, with huge potential savings.

Let me ask you this, Crescent. What if reopening Cubberley meant saving money or costing no more, getting better academic outcomes, providing better connectedness and community/social environment, provided more opportunity for our high-achieving youth (three school newspapers, not two, etc), didn't change the majority of improvements already proposed for the schools, and could happen even sooner if we started dealing with it today? Wouldn't that be worth a look and some public discussion? Shouldn't district parents be given the information if their administrators are choosing, without due diligence, an expensive alternative likely to result in degrading academic quality and the social environment they have expressed so much concern about?

@Crescent,
You said......"..... what has already been approved and welcomed by an overwhelming majority of voters."

Most voters have no idea of what is being planned and the implications. Calls by many parents, including directly to the board and Skelley at mtgs, have been met with silence.

If what is welcomed by an overwhelming majority of voters is important to you, why wouldn't you welcome informing the public of the direction of the construction? Most people have no idea.

This link is very helpful - an index of what work is slated for what campus. Information is readily available and provides "direction of construction":

Web Link

Notes, agendas, presentations by campus:

Web Link

Link to bond description...follow this link, then click on "click here" in the 3rd paragraph --- a pdf download of the bond project list. It is 15 pages long. Out of the 15 pages, there is only one (1) bullet point (page A-5) that mentions any thought of buying/leasing additional properties. The remainder of the entire document is about fixing existing facilities and expanding as appropriate. You may not agree, but if you weigh the overwhelming emphasis on remodeling and expansion vs. acquisition...well, there's no contest.

Read the doc: Web Link

Also - school sites have tons of information about their projects. For example, the Paly site:

Web Link

For Gunn:

Web Link


To say that building information is a secret or not available is not an accurate statement. It is available for anyone who has a keyboard and a mouse.

@Crescent,
What you have provided above makes no point at all.

The bond description is meaningless and has no legal standing; go read the actual bond text. It clearly gives the board the power to buy whatever property it deems necessary and repair (Cubberley) if it deems necessary. It wisely left the board's options open.

As for everything else you have provided, they only highlight my point. Lots of little trees, no forest. District administrators owe parents in this district a conversation about the fact that they chose to put us on a path of having large megaschools with almost no analysis, and that the larger size of our schools has consequences, such as significantly greater building expense for the same square footage (for the necessary multistory) and guaranteed challenges to school quality, community, and connectedness, all things parents care about.

Where is the comparison there between the outcomes and costs of the current project, and any viable alternatives, such as reopening Cubbereley?

Most parents have no idea what the choices and options are in the construction, and like you, make poor assumptions.

(What of own interests, eh Coach? Weekly, he has admitted on recent threads he invited me to read that he is a coach (with disclosed ties/bias toward the district) with older kids -- who will be long gone when the impacts on school quality happen -- yet has persistently avoided disclosing his own reasons for such opinionated aggression on the high school threads.)

Parents have stood up in school board meetings and argued for more communication with the public; they have simply been ignored.

Back to the original point of this post, that people are complacent about safety, and that we should learn the lessons of other disasters to protect our kids -- that we should ERR ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY WITH OUR KIDS - this timely report came out tonight on Channel 7 news ABC7:
Web Link
"CA public schools not meeting seismic standards"

“Thousands of public schools around our state are not meeting mandated seismic standards. That’s the finding of California Watch, the non-profit, bipartisan project of the Center for Investigative Reporting. They sifted through documents provided by the Division of the State Architect, and found serious lapses that may put your children in danger during a major earthquake.”

“Under a state law known as the Field Act, all school construction projects must be earthquake resistant..."

[By the way, the Office of State Architect is the only control there is on seismic safety, there is no actual seismic building code for public schools. The DSA has been on furlough with other state workers which has added to their already sizable backlog. Our putting in for multi-story construction ensures we have a longer delay there, if you're so concerned about delays as you claim, Crescent -- a delay, or a virtual guarantee that our project might have insufficient oversight, too.]

..."A year long California Watch investigation finds, thousands of school construction projects completed state wide don’t comply with the Field Act. ..."

Reporter Corey Johnson: 'There’s upwards to 20,00 school projects that do not conform to these Field Act standards.'

From the television version:
Noyes:
“In fact, this DSA report from 2006 said, ‘Some school projects were being completed without adequate oversight, sometimes with dangerous construction flaws.”

Earthquake engineer Peter Yanev:
“What that tells me, is that we’re building schools in California that are not properly designed and checked in the field to make sure they’re properly built. That’s a problem.”

Dan Noyes:
“Back in 2002, the DSA prepared a list of schools the state itself called ‘Likely not to perform well in an earthquake’ — more than 7500 additional buildings statewide. But 9 years later, California Watch found most sit unrepaired. Former State Architect David Thorman says, many of those schools need to be looked at right away.”

Former State Architect Dave Thorman:
“The priority has to be answering the questions that you’re answering in terms of ARE THE SCHOOLS TRULY SAFE” [emphasis mine]


That's right. It should be a priority. It should be at least as much of a priority as safety planning when people build a nuclear power plant for heaven sake, and look at what happened in Japan. And damage in an earthquake because of unplanned magnitude quake or construction flaws is very, very possible here. The board CAN'T say we couldn't have foreseen it.

It would be one thing if the vastly more expensive multi-story construction was a well-thought out decision after much analysis of the options, but the fact it, it wasn't. It's going to be more expensive, and guarantee challenges to quality and connectedness.

The district has failed to communicate with the public over the direction parents want for the money they have taxed themselves, and failed to communicate the big picture about the direction this construction is taking us. Further, they have failed to do due diligence to get us the best outcomes for the least amount of money and safeguard our children's education and lives. Our kids and our parents deserve better than that.