Board ponders Addison Elementary boundary change | March 2, 2012 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - March 2, 2012

Board ponders Addison Elementary boundary change

Minor shift is part of city-wide discussion of enrollment, facilities

by Chris Kenrick

School officials are pondering changes to the attendance boundaries of the crowded Addison Elementary School as a temporary fix among longer-term, citywide challenges of matching new classroom buildings to where children live.

This story contains 843 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Staff Writer Chris Kenrick can be emailed at


Like this comment
Posted by it's a start
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 29, 2012 at 7:55 am

This would just deal with some of the "overflows" but not with the bubble classes. The use of bubble classes at Addison has now become endemic. Every second year there is a bubble class, there is no longer any question of whether there should be one. The bubble class teachers at Addison should be given tenure!

Like this comment
Posted by Sarah
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 29, 2012 at 10:12 am

City of PA should consider school capacity and traffic flow before they approve the multi unit condos and townhouses.

Like this comment
Posted by palo alto mom
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 29, 2012 at 10:32 am

Sarah - unfortunately, the City can't legally consider school capacity when approving or disapproving housing. Can you imagine what will happen if the ABAG requirement of 3500 more housing units is implemented?

I think changing Addison's boundaries is a good idea. Turn Garland into a new middle school (or maybe 6th grade only?) and Greendell into another elementary school.

Like this comment
Posted by Start paying atttention to your government, people
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 29, 2012 at 10:46 am

To understand how state government is pushing housing infill,Google SB375. It will make your stomach churn.

See Web Link Evaluating traffic impact of a project will be difficult if they are exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act).

Like this comment
Posted by AA
a resident of Palo Verde School
on Feb 29, 2012 at 11:00 am

I simply don't understand Superitendans Skellys reasoning. Yes there may be some slight changes for the first year or so of the new K eligible dates but the numbers of kids overall in the district won't change. Let's try and get a handle on things now, not in three or four years when it will be another game of catch up. The board voted against re opening Garland a few years back only to reverse itself. Let's talk about Middle and High School options now. We all know where enrolment is headed so for once can we please try and get ahead of the curve?
Palo Alto really needs to get out of the business of choice schools. People want neighbourhood schools, scores are so close these days is there really an advantage to having increased traffic around Hoover & Ohlone? Make them Charter and lose funding or have all schools cater to their neighbourhoods. Honestly Palo Alto is already exclusive enough. If you want specific things from an elementary school you should be welcome to pay for them, our tax dollars shouldn't.

Like this comment
Posted by Mary Carlstead
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 29, 2012 at 11:45 am

A message to the City Council. Dig in your heels and say NO to the outrageous ABAB demands - thousands of new houses, condos. If we don't have room in our schools now, think what will happen in the future under ABAG quotas. So what if the State threatens to withhold $$ from Palo Alto ? It doesn't have any anyway. About forty years ago then-mayor Frances Dias in a dramatic speech before the Council and residents when the jobs-to-housing-imbalance first got into the civic vocabulary, said "The time is coming when Palo Alto will have to say 'we have no more room' OR the quality of life will be destroyed for those who already live here." The time has already come. I was at that meeting, and I'll never forget that warning. Our city, our way of life is under attack. And for you younger people, you will have to take up the fight for Palo Alto that we seniors have done for many years. It was a wonderful family community. Fight for it. DON'T LOSE IT. We have no more room.

Like this comment
Posted by Not a bubble or a blip
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 29, 2012 at 11:56 am

Waiting is a bad idea. This is no bubble.

12 of the 14 houses that have sold in the past five years in our immediate neighborhood, went from an elderly or empty nester owner to a family with 1-3 pre-school or elementary school age children. A few others have become rentals to families with children in PAUSD.

PAUSD remains the "safe bet" district for people coming here for tech jobs. Not that I am proud of the lack of vocational diversity, but who else, but a family w/young kids would pay the premium to live in many of the run down houses around here?

Like this comment
Posted by No surprises here
a resident of Addison School
on Feb 29, 2012 at 12:10 pm

Mom says unfortunately, the City can't legally consider school capacity when approving or disapproving housing.
That doesn't prevent them from using their brains. They don't want to control it, they keep approving more and more, they don't have to.
Housing growth in North Palo Alto has been, and continues to be huge. Superintendent Skelly is surprised at the bump in the elementary school? Guess he hasn't been reading the papers.

Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 29, 2012 at 12:17 pm

I own a house on Stanford campus - Stanford should be made to contribute more to PAUSD. They love to recruit people on the merits of the Public schools, but then they hide in the corner and expect everyone else to pay. Stanford constantly approves visiting scholars form other countries who pile their kids into the public schools for a year or two and never give a cent to PiE or PTA. It's wonderful to have foreign visitors - but Stanford ought to take responsibility for the cost of these scholars' children and the massive drain it puts on the schools - particularly Nixon. There is a reason Nixon suffers with PTA donations - the school has a huge number of visiting scholar kids who are lovely, wonderful, amazing families, but who never give one penny to anything. Many of them are extremely wealthy. And it's not one or two families - the revolving door often makes up close to a third of the school and at the kinder/first grade it's more like half.

Also, Stanford should not be allowed to build even one more tiny condo until they begin to actually enforce the leases in the community. There are people with ZERO affiliation to Stanford living for YEARS on campus to use the schools, and the University it too lazy to bother to get those people out. My next door neighbor has ZERO affiliation with Stanford, has kids in PAUSD and rents from a professor who moved away YEARS ago - Everyone knows - and the University does nothing. There are at least two other families like this within two blocks of my house.

Like this comment
Posted by Dear Landlord
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm

"Stanford should be made to contribute more to PAUSD"

Supplying the land for Palo Alto High School and Gunn High School doesn't count?

Like this comment
Posted by Nixon parent
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm

I guess the 10 million dollar payment to the school district doesn't count either.

Like this comment
Posted by Escondido parent
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm

Stanford also gave the land for Nixon and Escondido, Elizabeth.

At Escondido we have all the children of all the graduate students living in Escondido village, and most of those parents are not in a position to donate to PIE or PTA either. But the diversity is a plus and it all comes out in universe's karma.

If you know a lot of non-Stanford afilliated people living in on-campus homes please call the Faculty-Staff housing office and report that specifically. You say "everyone knows" and the University does nothing. Well make sure the right people know and make them do something!

Like this comment
Posted by Solon
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Mar 1, 2012 at 9:54 am

What is the relationship between school boundaries, and safe paths to schools?

It seems safe travek, e.g., Professorville can only walk to Addison without crossing El Camino, Embarcadero, or Middlefield.

What is the relationship between reasonable expectation of house purchaser to know where her/his family will go to school?

Seems fair if you buy a house within a boundary, or start a child in a boundary, that family, that child, should attend that school if they wish, even if boundary changes, like zoning, it best would include "existing uses."

Would't this add to stability and predictability, and fairness?l

Like this comment
Posted by Jim H.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 1, 2012 at 10:59 am

Gotta love the people that want Stanford to give more. Always amazing.

Like this comment
Posted by paly parent
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 1, 2012 at 11:40 am

Solon - The District tries to have the fewest crossings of major roads possible to keep kids as safe as they can.

If a child/family is already in a school, the District has never forced them to change schools because of a boundary change. For new students and incoming kinders, there is no guarantee that there will be room at their "neighborhood" school. House purchasers are/should always be advised that they need to verify school availability with the District (though not all real estate agents are up front about that).

No surprises here - if developers are within the existing zoning, the City doesn't really have a choice about approving their applications for housing. They could stop giving exemptions and changing zoning to increase our housing. Unfortunately, according to the ABAG, we are supposed to add 3500 units of housing (which I figure would add somewhere between 3000-7000 new students if that happens). While there are many existing residents without kids, the majority of new residents move here for the schools, just ask the real estate agents.

Like this comment
Posted by Kerry
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 2, 2012 at 8:48 am

This is no bubble. I live in midtown, we feed into Palo Verde. Four homes very close or adjacent to me have been bought basically so the kids can attend school here. The house next door just sold to family with 2 children so they could go to Gunn. The School District and City should look at projections/data and also take into account "transitional" families", just here for the schools. At our school, there are so many families that dont contribute to the Auction, Outings, fund-raisers, restaurant nights who could easily afford to do so. It is so disheartening for the PTA, and I'm sure for the teachers to have almost no support for PIE from SOOOOO many families at our school, and I'm sure the data could be aggregated to make the case for a few other schools too. Why are all the supportive families going to Walter Hayes, Duveneck, Addison, and Ohlone and I'm sure other schools?
Consider Garland for just 6th grades.....

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