Town Square

Post a New Topic

Petition to limit number of kids affected by LASD Boundary decision

Original post made by displacedanddispleased, Cuesta Park, on Jan 24, 2008

This story contains 275 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (3)

Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Bonte
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm

It should be noted that the original affected number of 387 was, to begin with, NOT the lowest number the Board could have moved. There were other plans on the table in June that would have disrupted far fewer kids than even that original figure. But to now announce that 800+ kids will be affected, many of whom didn't even know about it until letters went home last week, is just plain irresponsible on the part of the LASD. Especially when the reasons for the move still seem dubious to many concerned.

Like this comment
Posted by Matt Raschke
a resident of The Crossings
on Jan 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Meanwhile, the Board made a deal with PAUSD to grant multi-year transfers for PAUSD kids in Los Altos Hills to attend Bullis-Purissima (B-P). I guess LAH kids are more desirable than ours. ;-) I understand the Monroe Park portion of Palo Alto has been asking for that kind of a deal for a long time. Instead they get threatened with a boundary move to Covington.

I wonder who would get preference if more intra-district LASD kids apply to B-P than space available? Will the Hills PAUSD kids get treated equally or better than actual LASD kids?

In addition to signing the petition, everyone should fill out an intra-district transfer to B-P and see what happens. A kind of Civil Disobedience to throw a monkey wrench in the system.

The Board doesn't listen to petitions anyway. North of El Camino Coalition gathered over a 1000 real signatures to support "Scenario Fair" which used criteria that treated all district children equally. Perks and special treatment do not belong in public schools.


Like this comment
Posted by District Dad
a resident of another community
on Jan 25, 2008 at 5:49 pm


While it's true that the LASD Board seems to listen to only a select minority, I would encourage you and all the LASD residents to fill up that petition. If even just a few kids can be spared from that folly, it is worth a try.

To your question on who would get preference to transfer to Bullis-Purrisima;

Stunningly, some board members lobbied very hard to provide a preference for.... Hills PAUD kids.

The Board came to a "compromise" where Hills PAUD kids and District kids are on par (even Bullis Charter School doesn't do that). In addition, Hills PAUD kids can get an up to 7 years transfer while District kids will have to file every year with no guarantee they'll be able to stay.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


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

Local restaurants snag Michelin Bib Gourmand status
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 8,349 views

Response to Arguments Against Measure B
By Steve Levy | 19 comments | 1,434 views

Garden Zucchini Pancakes with Umami Tomato Meets Woodside Elementary
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 874 views