They wrote from Tripoli Court in Los Altos Hills, a street whose school is Nixon. Nixon stood no chance, whatsoever, of becoming the site for MI, now or anytime in the future. Expedient of them to be disappointed, isn't it?
How can anyone interpret the history of MI in the way these two do? Plummeting funds in the District when the moratorium on new programs was instituted is suddenly "shabby treatment" of MI. Creating a choice program policy BEFORE instituting a new choice program is suddenly seen as throwing hurdles before MI, not PLANNING. And, how did these two conclude that the Board required MI proponents to fund the feasibility study? I remember a certain person waving a check in the air to the Board and promising more where that came from.
Asserting for the umpteenth time the high success of the SI program, given that it is a FACT that there are children coming out of it who STILL are not biliterate and bilingual in Spanish, is manipulative. And lends credence to the opponents' claim that we need to set criteria for deciding which languages we teach.
If not, we end up with 2 poorly documented immersion programs being used as clubs to beat the District into accepting another one, instead of just one poorly documented immersion program.
It is laughable that these 2 actually think we shouldn't plan for the "logistics" of program placement before instituting one, as if it is perfectly natural to plunk 240 students into a new program in the district without planning for how, when, and in what context to do this. At least it is consistent with their dismay at the Board for creating a policy for new choice programs several years ago before instituting one.
The piece de resistance is the urging of proponents to start a charter school. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online.] At the very least, it smells fishy.