Town Square

Post a New Topic

Opening 13th elementary school voted down

Original post made by Palo Verde parent on Feb 7, 2007

I'm discouraged about the 3-2 vote last night NOT to proceed with re-opening Garland. But I'm more concerned that the school board doesn't seem to have a clear trigger point for when that decision will be necessary. While I would have supported a decision now to begin steps to reopen a school, I'm comfortable with waiting. But there would be lots less angst in the community if an enrollment level was set that everyone agreed would be the point at which the process of opening a 13th school would commence. Keeping it so subjective just invites division within the community and a sense that it's all a moving target.

Comments (30)

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2007 at 4:58 pm

I agree with your post. I would go further and say that the Board seems to have decided nothing last night. According to the report in today's PA Online, they seem to have no consensus of opinion on anything and rather than moving forward on the issue, they have just used delaying tactics everywhere. I am very concerned that the new housing in the city plus the fact that families are moving into the area at an alarming rate will crowd out our schools. I think that when it comes to the elections for school board this year, enrollment should be the major topic. To me it is even more important than the FLES discussion which already is on the cards for being the major topic. We need to get candidates for the board who are particularly willing to act rather than delay.

Posted by A neighbor, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 8, 2007 at 4:46 am

I think the School Board made the right decision. We have four elementary schools on the West side of town with empty classrooms. What needs to be done is a realignment of students to fill these empty classrooms. It would cost the District over $1M. to reopen another elementary school.

If another elementary school were to be opened in the future, why Garland? The obvious school to reopen would be the former Greendell Elementary. Greendell is located in South Palo Alto where much of the new development is taking place. Garland is leased to the Stratford School and generates a big rent for the District.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 8, 2007 at 8:56 am

Where is Greendell and what is it being used for currently?

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2007 at 9:07 am

Greendell is where Young 5s is situated at the South end of the Cubberly campus. As well as Young 5s, the JCC is also using the space. There may be some other similar preschool programs there as well. It is a site that was once an elementary school. There is also the Ventura site in the area which is between Alma, El Camino, Charleston and Meadow. This old school does not belong to PAUSD any more but has the right of first refusal if the site is ever to be sold. There is also another site up in the hills, but that is very complicated as it is a thriving private school which has invested lots of money on the site.

Posted by Lorraine, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Susan Charles, Principal at Ohlone, stated at a BOE meeting during the MI discussions, that Ohlone can accomodate up to 6 additional modules. Extra space is needed in the south, so how about moving the Hoover choice program to Ohlone? Before everyone gets too excited, I propose that both choice programs can co-exist, with separate Principals to ensure that the Ohlone way and the Hoover way are preserved, but with cooperation. Perhaps a very interesting concept.
This makes space available at the Hoover site to accomodate the new students which will be generated by new housing in the south, without increasing traffic to that 4-school complex (Hoover, JLS, Fairmeadow, Challenger), as will happen with the proposal that is being floated right now. As currently planned, there will ultimately be 85 new students at Fairmeadow, and 50 additional at JLS. Why add this burden to the already badly congested corridor?
By placing the two choice programs at Ohlone, the cross town traffic generated by the choice model will be directed towards the outer edge of town, rather than directly into the Middlefield/East Meadow area.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2007 at 12:54 pm

I am also disappointed but I think they did the right thing given that they are not convinced that the current sites are being used to their optimal capacity - yet.

As community members, the way to change the board's minds on this before they go spending 4.5M+ on modulars, is to convince them that they schools are already at capacity, even if they are not four strands, 420 kids, or whatever arbitrary maximum numbers that are set down in policy statements.

Each school site has different available usable space, has different building configurations, different common facility constraints, different traffic issues, etc., and so the board needs to hear the public say resoundingly that we believe the schools are already full.

If there are a few that have more room - maybe we don't hold them accountable to full capacity, because of their location, or other reasons.

The reason the board is stalling is because they are going to have to go out for a bond request to meet their 20 year facility planning, and perhaps for some of the money to open another high school, increase size of middle schools, and open their 13th elementary school. They have to be able to convince the community that they have done all they reasonably can with the existing capacity. And to them, it sounds like they can add Level One modulars without much pain to the community.

If they aren't convinced, then the community needs to convince them. (Write to the Board!)

The ideas of staggered lunch times, kids in portables, too small MP rooms, not enough library, field space, basketball hoops, unbearable traffic congestion in the morning (take a drive down East Meadow between 8:00-8:30 am if you aren't sure about the traffic concerns!)

all needs to be brought to the board. If they understsand that the community is willing to stand behind it (financially and with community support), they'll be moved. So far, its been a very wishy woshy message from the community. They need a sign...

Posted by huh?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2007 at 2:53 pm


I don't quite follow your logic and I'm not sure that you have the number of portables that Ohlone can accomodate correct. At any rate, you're suggesting to reduce the number of students at Hoover to two strands and open a new site for around 85 children?

Or are you assuming that all of the Fairmeadow families that currently go to the choice programs will migrate back to their "neighborhood" school? Frankly, I was amazed to see the number of students that "opt out" of Fairmeadow and thus would be creating more traffic across town to the "new Hoover" campus.

BTW, if you're walking or biking to Fairmeadow, the automobile traffic around Hoover and Challenger shouldn't have much effect, since I would imagine that those families go through Mitchell Park to get to Fairmeadow.

Your solution doesn't do anything to resolve the overcrowding (current and projected) in the North cluster.

Perhaps the boards real hesitancy in opening a new school is based on the mistake to move Hoover in the first placce and reopen Barron Park.

Posted by Lorraine, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I do indeed try to walk the kids to school. But there are folks who live in that area who deserve some consideration as well. I don't think the school decisions exist in a vaccuum. Maybe we'll hear from them before it's all said and done.

Posted by Parent, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 8, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Often people fixate on "too many people" as the sole cause of capacity issues. But single variable analysis is not a good way to solve problems. There's at least one solution that I can think of that has not been explored at all, but it wouldn't involve more portables or reclaiming school sites now used by others. It's year round school, where only 2/3 or 3/4 of the students are at school during a particular part of the year.

Of course, it would be disruptive to families who have a cabin in the Iwoods or other summer traditions, but it's also disruptive to our neighborhoods to put up with elementary schools where former play areas are covered with portables. And it's much easier for children to fall through the cracks when there are 500+ students instead of 300 as they were designed for. The principal can't get to know all the kids and bullying becomes a much more significant problem on the school grounds. There's no way to have an all school assembly in the MP room. There are long lines at lunch, which means less play time.

And how about when the school imposes parking permits since the available parking is so inadequate -- meaning that the cars of all the parents and auxiliary staff who don't merit parking permits are filling neighborhood streets? Spreading out the school year would also virtually eliminate the traffic backups that all those parent drivers trying to beat the bell cause every morning. And it's not just my neighborhood -- this kind of spillover is happening all over town.

I'm not trying to make a big argument for year round school here, only trying to encourage a creative approach that may also be a greener approach and one that might allow a smaller, more nurturing school size, especially for grades K-8. Maybe we need to reconsider the issue of biggering and biggering our campuses, more bond issues etc.

Posted by gunn parent, a resident of Gunn High School
on Feb 8, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Huh, in response to your comment, the Board of Ed moved Hoover and reopened Barron Park as a neighborhood school because in the early to mid-90's Briones was overflowing a class a year. Kids were sent to Nixon, Escondido and Fairmeadow usually. My son was one of 16 students who started at Escondido in his kinder year. Fifteen of them attended Escondido until 5th grade since there was no room to transfer back to Briones.

Posted by huh?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2007 at 11:55 pm

gunn parent,

I know why the board did what they did with Hoover and B.P., but it troubles me that at least one of the current board members seems to feel this might have been a mistake in light of the fact that J.B. and B.P. have trouble filling classrooms every year. Lorraine's solution does nothing to correct the exact same situation that is happening in the North and the experience with opening B.P. seems to be keeping board members from considering reopening Garland.

Ironically, my SIL and another family voluntarily transferred out of Briones to go to Nixon and left the school in a precarious situation of having created a one/two combo class because there were 22 first graders that year and then they both transferred out just a couple of days into the school year! I'm at least happy to see that this year the school district cracked down on these types of intradistrict transfers which seemed to help forced overflows quite a bit.

A complaint I heard during public comment from a parent at B.P. was that choice programs were detrimental to this school because the affluent parents found a way out of the neighborhood. Her comment does bear some weight considering the number of families tranferring out of B.P. (and Briones) relative to their respective school populations.

I'm curious, having had first hand experience with overflowing, did the overflowing have a devastating effect on your son and his classmates? If not, then why are people complaining? If so, then why are we not opening another school in the North cluster to alleviate the overflow and overcrowding that those neighborhoods have been tolerating for years?

Posted by been there, done that, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 3:26 am

In answer to your last comment, many parents transfer their children out of BP for other reasons than the allure of choice programs. Many just are not comfortable with the culture of the school and feel their children need to move in order to learn well and safely. During the MI debate, Mr. Kaplan was impassioned in his comments, but many former BP parents have a different perspective. It would be interesting to see the numbers for how many parents (or what percentage) opt out of BP for chioce programs and voluntary intradistrict transfers combined, as compared to those at other schools in the district.

Posted by Moi, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Feb 9, 2007 at 7:37 am

No matter what the district does - whether it opens a new school, overflows kids, redraws boundaries, gives transfers - there will be outcries. The district can't win for losing. We are all spoiled. PAUSD should just redraw the boundaries to redistribute the kids, and get the pain over with. Kids and siblings can be grandfathered in their present placements so the sense of established community remains. Newcomers won't "miss" anything because they will simply enjoy their new experience wherever they go to school.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 7:43 am

I completely support the comment about looking at more than just facilities options.

I have watched the year round school and the all day kindergarten idea drop like a lead balloon several times at the Board meetings, and at the AAAG.

Non-facilities solutions just can't get enough air to sit up and speak.

It is really too bad. I wish that the Board would call for a Task force to study NON-facility solutions, NOW, to truly see what options have been tried and succeeded elsewhere. Moving schedules seems like such a simple and INEXPENSIVE...solution.

Posted by PV Parent, a resident of Palo Verde School
on Feb 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

Could someone please explain the year round school concept? I have heard of it (I think they have it in Los Angeles), but I just don't understand how it is coordinated.

I'd like someone to explain very specifically how a school with "500+ students instead of 300" would be divided and how the time would be split up.

Regardless of my not being able to get my head around this concept (for lack of familiarity with it), my suspicion is that it has dropped "like a lead balloon several times at the Board meetings" because of teacher/union contract issues.

Posted by All round Parent, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Feb 9, 2007 at 9:22 am

As a parent of students at each level, high, middle and elementary, I feel that some of the parents here who have children only in elementary are not aware of some of the issues which crowded schools put on families. One of the things I am really happy about is that my youngest is in the local elementary school which is so close. As it is, our middle and high schools are both 3 miles from our home in opposite directions. This means that our morning and after school routines take forever. Usually the two older children are able to ride to school, but there are often times when this is not possible, either during rain (like today) or when they have extra stuff to take to school which can't go by bike (like today). I can't carpool with others on a regular basis because my car is full of my own kids and I end up getting at least one of them to school much too early and another is late.

The reason I am posting this is because we do need to have local schools for all our kids. The further away a school is, the harder it is for families. Firstly, it takes away options in how to get them to school and secondly it takes away the independence you try and teach them if you constantly have to drive them. I know that with middle and high schools the distance is power for the course, but elementary schools should be local. I feel sure that those opting for choice schools do not take this into account when starting off. It is easy enough to drive across town for one child, but what happens when you have children in two different schools, or in different schedules at the same school. We do need to have small local elementary schools, not large multi purpose ones. Please call them neighborhood only if they are in your neighborhood, otherwise it is a misnomer.

And as for year round school, I can see how it may serve an elementary school, but as they get older, it would be very difficult to see how a child could get involved in sports, drama, choir, band, orchestra, robotics, etc. if the school always had one group on vacation. It would have to affect electives detrimentally and a family could easily end up with different siblings in different groups, almost eliminating any chance of family vacations. So please, do not go down that road. I enjoy the fact that we have a unified school district rather than two autonomous ones that can arrange completely different calendars.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 9:39 am

good points about the High School portion, for families with kids in multiple levels.

but, I still want to "go down that road", if only to see if there is a solution that would work for everyone. In other words, exploratory.

There may be a district that has already solved this problem. For example, what would happen if the High School associated with a cluster of elementary/middle schools was on one of the "tracks" for the year round concept, and all the families with multiple kids were automatically put in the same track as the High School track. That would put each family in the same track, and solve one of the problems of making sure all HS kids had the same options they have now.

I have no clue how that would work for sports teams. On the other hand, should an entire district revolve around the schedule of the sports team? I am not trying to start trouble, I am just asking the question. I have no idea how many high school kids are on a sports team at each High school, but if I combine all the athletics, I can guess that each season has about 200 kids involved in sports teams. So, the question is, do we revolve an entire district's schedule around the sports teams, or do we say that the kids who have sports need to have families that will support them, even through staying in the area for their kids to go to the sports events during their "off" time from school?

I don't know the answer. I DO know that we shouldn't shut down exploring any idea because it is potentially threatening. I say this, by the way, as a parent of a child who is very athletic, and I have absolutely no doubt will be on High School Sports teams. But, if we go down the year round school route and we have to choose whether or not to stay "in town" and support the sports aspect when school is out, then that is a choice we will decide then.

Posted by All round Parent, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Feb 9, 2007 at 9:59 am


To answer your points (and I feel that this is a good discussion, I just happen to be someone who tends to see potential problems) I was not just talking about sports, but music, drama, robotics and probably others I am not aware of. At the high school level, a student would probably have to choose their track dependent on whether they were interested in sports, or music, or robotics, or whatever. This would be fine for him, but if a second sibling comes along, either in high school or even in middle school, who chooses to be more interested in a different category, then he would be more likely to be pushed into having the same interest to enter the same track. If, for example, your first child was interested in sport, he would be in track A to follow the sports programs. If sibling number 2 came along and he was interested in music, he would either have to follow his older sibling into track A, or go with his interest into music which would mean he would have to opt for track B. This then follows that two siblings would be "on vacation" at different times. This could then be exaggerated by sibling 3 who comes along and is interested in robotics, or drama, or debate, and end up in track C.

I have heard of systems in other parts of the country where, despite the best efforts of parents and staff, siblings end up in different tracks for at least one academic year. I have nothing against the idea in theory of year round school, but I can't see how it can work when families have two or more children, with different interests, or when more than one interest exists in the same child.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 10:49 am

The elementary to middle to high school 'track' is not in perfect alignment. There are elementary schools that are split between middle schools, and all three middle schools are also split (again) beteween high schools. not by 'choice' but because you have 3 feeding two, so boundaries don't create perfect streaming.

There is no such thing as a track, so there would be no such thing as being able to keep 'tracks' on the same year round schedules.

And would year round school really be 'free'? How? Seems like you'd have to pay all the people year round instead of paying them for 9 months of work. Or are we saying everyone is already being paid for 12 months of work anyway, and so all the teachers and administrative staff would be just as happy to show up for work June, July and August.. I dont' get it.

(Seems like it would be cheaper to pay 12 teachers and a handful of admins for 9 months, than all teachers and all admins for 12 months...)

People costs are the most expense part of the operating budget.

Aren't there developer fees to pay for building and operating additional school's needed when the city council goes hogwild crazy on building new houses.

Maybe 'there ought to be a law' which requires developers in Palo Alto to actually build schools when they load up the city with high density housing. And if they ARE paying for this already - what's PAUSD doing with the money??!!

Maybe the city of Palo Alto should switch from favoring new housing to favoring new business - so we can stop strapping our city services, including schools, traffic, parks, libraries, shopping, etc. to the max. Its getting miserable around here.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 10:53 am

Agreed, if we had different tracks WITHIN the High School, that sounds untenably complicated to me.

I was, simplistically perhaps, imagining that the High Schoolers ALL go to school on the same track, and it is just the elementary kids who get split up into different tracks, but every kid who has a sibling in High School is automatically in the same track as the high schooler.

Middle Schoolers I haven't even thought of.
Keeping all the High schoolers on campus at the same time doesn't address the issue of increasing HS enrollment down the years a bit.

Obviously, I am not saying I have all the answers. I am just saying it would be nice to research what all of our options are, including non-facilities options like tracking into a year round school. Finding out if another combined district has solved this already would be great. I would just like to put some organized brain power into seriously exploring it.

But, it is kind of a dead issue, in any case, because whenever the idea is floated, it is popped. I think it is too bad.

Posted by All round parent, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:05 am

Another down side which has just occurred to me is what would happen to summer programs. At present, summer school takes place for up to 6 weeks in some of our schools and some students are required to take these classes. For others, there is enrichment summer school which may or may not be a source of income to the district. Also, I believe the city rec. dept., ymca, etc. hold camps and other summer activities on some of the campuses and if these were to go, that could not only be an income source problem, but taking away what is a source of fun to many of our children.

I would like to mention the idea of split kindergartens though. Having an early bunch and a late bunch, with adaptable use of classrooms, library time and child care rooms taking the time when both bunches are at school at the same time, might be worth exploring. It may only save the use of two classrooms (modulars) at the larger elementary schools, but I know that at least one principal is keen on the idea and it could work.

Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:48 am


Greendell has two classes for Young Fives, not sure how many for JCC and, I think, about six for PreSchool Family. I read somewhere that the big argument against turning it back into an elementary is that it's too small a site and, since it's right off Cubberly, an inappropriate site for an elementary school.


Susan Charles may have said that Ohlone could squeeze in six cubicles, but that was not okayed--the official expansion no. is three portables--60 kids, not 120. Either number puts Ohlone well over its official capacity. My guess is that the Board will, at some point, approve another half strand expansion of Ohlone. The demand's there and it would be relatively easy to do. And people would be going there by choice instead of being forced to leave their neighborhood school.

Of course a ton of families opt out of Fairmeadow. A lot of them live in the area because they want to send their kids to Hoover. When they get in, of course they send their kids there.

Why Garland? Because overcrowding's a problem in the south, but right now, it's an even bigger one in the north.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Yup, the summer schools/camps would have to adjust.

I suspect that the financial incentive of having 1-2 week enrichment programs throughout the year would provide enough incentive to the current providers of programs to figure out a way to be more flexible.

Not trying to make light of it, though when I just read what I wrote it seems that way. I just am hoping to figure out a way to use our district money in the most flexible and cost efficient way possible. Imagine us adding the millions of dollars worth of modulars..and then we decide we HAVE to open Garland or some other site, to the tune of millions more and the loss of lease income, yet we have already spent how many millions increasing the size of our schools.

And then in 10 years our enrollment drops. And there we are again, taking modulars OFF, etc.

How much easier to move the numbers of employees up and down, and change schedules, than to sink millions into hard and inflexible materials that can't be undone. Yes, it would cost more to hire more teachers for a year round, but we would have to hire them anyway to absorb the growing enrollment. The difference is in trying to keep us flexible to more or less easily adapt to increasing or decreasing enrollment.

It demands that families with kids be flexible, so that we may have different schedules every couple years. I know this would be a little hard on some families, but on the other hand, it is getting harder and harder on some families now for other reasons. So, it becomes a trade off, for the long term good.

Well, that is my mindset, anyway.

My BIG goal is to convince PA that we are spending its money as wisely as possible, to set it up to let us ask for more money from all of us when/if the time comes. I am afraid that if we don't try to think like individual families think ( how many of us buy a 5 bedroom home before we are sure we are going to have that 3rd or 4th kid, whatever the trigger is for us?) individual families will not trust our district with more facilities bonds etc that are coming up.

That is my long term thought.

Posted by A neighbor, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 9, 2007 at 10:47 pm

When I studied the 11th day enrollment figures last fall, I was surprised to see that only 16 of Lucille M. Nixon's 18 classrooms were being used for 1st thru 5th grade. Obviously, there are empty classrooms in the existing schools, therefore, the School Board made the correct decision. Palo Alto's elementary population needs to be redistricted to fill these empty classroom before spending Millions opening another elementary school.

Posted by Bill, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 10, 2007 at 9:28 am

To "A Neighbor": Yes, it will cost millions to put 20 modulars over the next 3 years on existing smallish playgrounds at 12 Elem schools. About 5-6 mil for these 20 modulars. It will cost LESS to reclaim Garland. Note what the modulars do for North PA overflow traffic and attendant parent expenses: virtually NOTHING. Only 1 modular in Level 3 at Hays. That overflow traffic will worsen in the next few years. Are on-going expenses fairly portrayed, when considering Garland vs. Modulars? I think not. E.g., Garland classrooms and their students would entail increased expenses for such items as Maintenance and Psych Counseling. Not so at the modulars, where the kids apparently have no psych problems and do the maintenance themselves. Is it possible that the financial data has been presented in a skewed fashion, and no one notices??? By contrast, what does Menlo Park intend? 1. Get rid of modulars. 2. Upgrade of school yards---plan out better play areas and athletic fields. 3. What comes first in MP: it's the kids, the kids, the kids. Their welfare. Hardly ever mentioned in our District's presentations, where dollars are constantly discussed. Bottom line: at a time when PA needs student classrooms, we lease out one of our perfectly good schools to Stratford, and pretend we're being clever. The school-years of all 5,000 of our elementary school kids are being degraded for a few cash dollars, supported by fuzzy math. I have no kids in PA schools, but what I see so saddens me that I spend a lot of time worrying about what has happened to my town.

Posted by reader, a resident of another community
on Feb 10, 2007 at 11:16 am

All of Nixon's classroom are being used by K-5 classes. If Nixon were to add another class there would need to be a modular classroom added to the site. Not sure where the info of two empty classrooms at Nixon came from.

Posted by Parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 10, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Getting facts straight rather than skewed.

Increased enrollment whether by putting extra students in an extra school or extra classrooms, cost money. Not just for the classroom teachers, but for library time, travelling teacher time (music and pe) and if we increase the number of classrooms wherever, these costs will amount to the same. The same with admin and janitorial staff.

Schools use a couple of classrooms for things like resource teachers rooms at each site. In other words, ell teachers, remedial reading, maths, school psychologists, speech therapists, etc. who may be only part time at the school, still need somewhere to meet with the students they reach. These resource rooms are shared by these staff and usually they are in constant use at any elementary school.

The reason why we don't have an even bigger enrollment problem in Palo Alto is due to the fact that we have many private schools in the area. Many of the kindergartners in the North who could not get into their own schools, instead of travelling to Barron Park, probably ended up in private schools. If it wasn't for this then there would be more students in PAUSD. And where do you think most of the students at Stratfort School live? Let me say, that if there was a sudden downtown in the economy again and something like the bust in 2000, many more students would suddenly appear at our schools as families had to make financial decisions when their incomes were suddenly affected.

Posted by Bill, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 10, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Parent, I agree with your points in general.

Increasing enrollments cost plenty, and "developer fees" don't begin to cover them. I once
estimated developer fees of $2,250,000 from enough new housing to fill a 400-student
school. Does anyone think PA can build a new school, land included, for 10 times that?
The old story: welcome a few developer dollars today, and ignore big expenses that are
around the corner.

As to Garland's present student mix, I have never been able to find out . Do understand that students are dropped off there as early as 6 a.m. and some are picked up at 7 p.m. These would obviously be out-of-towners.

Does anybody know? How many Garland students are from PA, and if Garland used for
the PA public school system, would some number of those students from PA continue
with Stratford elsewhere?

Posted by A PARENT, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 5, 2007 at 9:01 pm


Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 6, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Greendell's been considered and is thought to be too small and poorly situated, given its proximity to Cubberley.

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 23 comments | 1,987 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,387 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,263 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 413 views

Twenty-five years of wedded bliss
By Sally Torbey | 0 comments | 63 views