Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 25, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Let me just ask a question then ... I remember when Palo Alto shut down and sold a bunch of real estate, like Cubberly and Terman - probably many others ... so - what is the financial history of these decisions?
During growth times dumping such real estate is like pissing away a good investment, and now that we need more school room we have to pay right back for it.
Who benefited and what are the economics around this ... any information .... any hot young bloodhound reporters that can look into this, because it just seems like more that communism for the rich, giveaways of resources that should be owned in common to well-connected people, or just people with money who get a deal while the city and all its inhabitants take a hit.
Posted by Back when, a resident of another community, on Aug 25, 2012 at 11:17 pm
I remember Lytton before it was torn down and sold. It was a huge gray institutional-lookng building set back from the corner of Lytton Middlefield. Two or three stories. I recall driving by the building when I was a kid in the 1960s, but I think it was long closed as a school by then.
Lytton Gardens replaced it. We went from facilities for our kids to facilities for the elderly.
Posted by bait and switch, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
And yet, despite all this construction, many of those old problematic elementary and middle school buildings are going to be given a fresh coat of paint (maybe) with no plans to replace them or overhaul some of their significant problems. I voted for that bond because I thought we were going to do away with the aging structures and modernize for the next century.
Posted by Ken Dauber for School Board 2012, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Aug 27, 2012 at 8:44 am
Ken Dauber, candidate for school board in the upcoming election, has posted some thoughtful analysis about the past and future of facilities planning in the district on his website at kendauber.com/future. He advocates a data-driven planning process that will lead to a better collaboration with the City over the future of school sites.
"Preserving neighborhood schools. I remember walking with my son Elliot the few blocks from our house to Barron Park School when he was still only four, telling him that soon we would be walking together to school to start kindergarten. I didn't realize at the time that we weren't actually guaranteed a spot at our neighorhood school. Fortunately, he was admitted to Barron Park. But we need to ensure that we donít resort to overflowing our students around the city due to poor planning and overly simplistic demographic projections.
"In some cases -- like our choice schools -- having kids travel to school makes sense. In most other cases, it doesnít, and leads to traffic and safety issues as young children are forced to cross busy streets to reach their schools. Community members have purchased a home, as I did, with the expectation of walking their children to a particular school and the school district should honor the expectations that it has set through the drawing of attendance boundaries. The current system of overflowing students, often far from home, can feel like a "bait and switch" to parents who, like me, walked their preschooler over to the playground in their neighborhood, telling their son or daughter about the day when he or she would be going to "big kid" school there.
"It's impossible to get this right every time, but we could do much better. The school district needs better skills at long-range planning and demographic projection. We need to develop better organizational capacity for predicting where growth will come, and where it wonít, so that we can build in the right place, and in the right amount.
"As a cautionary tale, Iím reminded of what happened in the 1980s. The school board, faced with declining enrollments over many years, voted to close Gunn as a high school and open it as a middle school. JLS would have been sold off and Jordan leased to an engineering school, and the proceeds used to cover the operating budget. Had this happened, we would today have one high school -- at Paly -- and one middle school -- at Gunn. Imagine the city-wide traffic and transportation difficulties that would have ensued as every high school student in Palo Alto converged on Paly.
"Instead, a group of involved Stanford economists, parents, and citizens decided to looked at enrollment in kindergarten and first grade, and at trends in housing sales. They ran the numbers and found that enrollment was actually going to be increasing over the next 5 to 10 years. Some of them ran for the school board, got elected, and managed to reverse the school boardís decision before it was too late. And they were right -- enrollment did rise, and it turns out we did need 2 high schools and 3 middle schools, rather than one of each.
We're not facing declining enrollments now -- quite the opposite -- but we have the same need for careful thinking and expertise."
Posted by Not Ken Dauber, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Aug 27, 2012 at 9:53 am
Anyone thinking of voting for Ken Dauber in the school board election this November ought to first do a search on "Dauber" (Ken and Michelle) in the threads of this forum and read it all. This will give you a good glimpse of who this person is and what he's been trying to do.
I have read it all, I was very UNimpressed, and I will vote AGAINST Ken Dauber.
Posted by Gunn Alum Parent, a resident of Los Altos Hills, on Aug 27, 2012 at 10:42 am
When Terman was closed and sold to the city, some land was sold by the city--the land for the Terman apartments and Bowman International School. This made Terman a less than desirable middle school property as it cannot be expanded, hence the need for another middle school.
Why not use Garland in combination with Jordan as a middle school? Garland could be 6th grade only with 7th and 8th grades at Jordan. Fields and athletic facilities can be shared.
Posted by Concerned PAUSD Mom, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 27, 2012 at 1:11 pm
To "changes over the years":
PAUSD does not own Cubberley. The City Of Palo Alto owns eight acres of that site. PAUSD owns the rest. These governmental bodies are not the same.
I encourage everyone with kids in elementary school to pay close attention to the Cubblerley deal that is being discussed NOW. Your children will be the ones affected...and VERY few of you seem to be engaged with the process. That won't be good for your interests.
Posted by Cubberley?, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Aug 30, 2012 at 8:39 pm
What does it mean to be "engaged with the process" wrt Cubberley? I agree this is very big deal. But how can we find out what's going on, and what kind of input is it useful for parents to provide, esp those who don't have a particular background in facilities, demographics, etc?