Yes or No on the LASD Bond? | Town Square | Mountain View Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Yes or No on the LASD Bond?

Original post made by undecided voter, another community, on Sep 12, 2014

I am leaning towards no. I think we need a new school but it doesn't seem like that is the focus. I would vote yes if they were building a new k-5 school to serve at least part of the NEC. It seems like they are planning on wasting it on nice to have but not necessary projects. Some ideas like media centers seem like a project list from 1994 instead of 2014. It also seems like they are planning on dumping a bunch more money into Covington.

Comments (115)

11 people like this
Posted by Decided Voter
a resident of another community
on Sep 12, 2014 at 11:58 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


9 people like this
Posted by Informed Voter
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 8:15 am

I will also vote Yes. It doesn't take much research to know that the LASD bond benefits all children in the LASD schools and BCS. The two priorities of the bond is to develop space to accommodate growth followed by repairs and improvements to schools. What a new school looks like, grade configurations, who it serves, and where it's located all depend on what site will be made available. I too would like to see a school address the NEC population but I also want a school to get BCS off our Jr High lands and a solution that addresses containing district growth while maintain small schools. I don't think we will get all that but even just one of those goals is a big step in the right direction that can not happen without the bond. It's been made clear at our schools that no significant money will be spent on individual schools until the new space is found.


15 people like this
Posted by Umm...
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 10:14 am

This question has already been fleshed out with a recent Voice story and 159 diverse comments to date, link below.

Voice's article summary: "The $150 million bond measure proposed by the Los Altos School District faces sharp criticism as it heads to the November ballot. Opponents of the measure question whether the school district really needs the money to handle student enrollment, and say many campuses still have room to grow."

The bond has diverse critics because, among other reasons, "The Trustees have not demonstrated that they are efficient allocators of capital."

Smugly mischaracterizing "The only voters that are fighting this are the charter school fanatics" doesn't only reveal the sensibilities of the person who wrote that. By willfully ignoring reasoned criticisms of the bond and the Trustees, it alienates yet more people from the bond who are currently undecided, like me.

Web Link


12 people like this
Posted by Leaning No
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 11:06 am

I want to support the schools but I agree with Umm….there isn't a clear plan the campaign seems to consist of three messages TRUST US were crowded /vote yes or your a trader/everyone will get everything they need don't worry.

@ Decided Voter and Informed Voter

I am sure that you want this bond to pass, but your message isn't really going to sway the fence sitters. My kids are all grown up, they went to LASD schools but that doesn't mean that I hate the charter school nor do I think that parents there are evil.


6 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 11:29 am

DavidR is a registered user.

Voting YES is what I will do. It was very helpful reading over all the information on the LASD Measure N site, Web Link

There appears to be a process in place to fiscally manage the bond and study how it will be best used beforehand. This is not a "trust us" bond. All information about the committees charged to study and recommend a spend plan and design plan are in that link. There's information about the bond, a FAQ, and a new summary document on the Master Facility Planning direction, Web Link.


4 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 1:24 pm

DavidR is a registered user.

I guess all of the DavidR's registered on the Voice web site are divided on this issue. I don't agree with the presentation on the LASD Measure N Web site. First of all, it is absolutely illegal for a school district to operate a Web site supporting an issue that is before the voters. So there's that. The points raised here are compelling in my view, as a whole: Web Link


8 people like this
Posted by DRoode Strikes Again
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Vintage Roode -- put up a website with a bunch of spurious allegations of mismanagement and corruption by LASD, support it with loads of misleading "data" blatantly skewed to try to support his bogus arguments. Then, he references his own website claiming to find the points raised to be "compelling".
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


3 people like this
Posted by Tom
a resident of another community
on Sep 13, 2014 at 8:21 pm

No, wait, I changed my mind. That one guy did it. The facts are all there, and indisputable.


6 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2014 at 9:07 am

Mark S is a registered user.

Wow Roode, I hear you ignored my very sensible request to take part in the process by not giving any commentary at the last school board meeting or at the first facility planning committee meeting. You know, the two meetings where you could have made a difference. So instead you did what you do best and hid behind your computer writing up a thesis of perceived illegal and immoral behavior that no one will read and no one will take seriously?

I'll ask you the simple question again, David. Why do you choose to not take part in the process that will actually make a difference by attending meetings, face to face dialog with administration, talking with parents and visit our award winning schools?


3 people like this
Posted by DRoode Strikes Again
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2014 at 10:22 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


12 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Sep 14, 2014 at 10:48 am

Lee is a registered user.

I am going to vote no on measure N. I would support a bond in 2016 if it did the following:

1. Used existing LASD property to create a school for the north end. ( Use the current BCS site)

2. Used existing LASD property to create a school for BCS.

Wasting 80 million or more on property seems like a fool hardy idea. You can create both school sites without buying property:

- Move the six graders to the middle schools
- Move the BCS @ Egan Campus to Covington.
- Create a smaller school at the current BCS @ Egan site for the El Camino/San Antonio area.
- Move the district office to office space elsewhere.
- Add in buses to decrease traffic around each school.


I would vote for a bond that had a reasonable spending plan, like the one above. Planning to spend more than half the bond on noncontiguous, unavailable property is fool hardy at best. The end result will be bond misspent with nothing to show for it.


3 people like this
Posted by Voting Yes
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2014 at 4:37 pm

" 2. Used existing LASD property to create a school for BCS."

That's odd. The BCS crowd want to displace LASD students from a high functioning campus for their silver spoon children! How shocking!

Very low interest bond money to buy property to allow expansion of schools is a no-brainer investment. Property values will only increase over the long haul.

Voting Yes is the smart move.


12 people like this
Posted by No on N
a resident of another community
on Sep 14, 2014 at 5:45 pm

I am voting no.

This bond is really about not be willing to share. Specifically it is about the Covington School Community.
If you would rather not have the improvements at your own school then vote yes on N.
Here is the current plan for the bond:
1. Put in skylights at Covington while pretending that Covington is not up to code - codes from 1997 are so lacking don't you know. The cost? 38 million at a minimum.

So now we are left with around 100 million -
60 million for property that isn't available for sale and isn't contiguous, ( Apparently it is 3 or 4, one and two acre sites)
40 million to build a few buildings and to plop down some portables.

Then the lawsuits start all over again. There is no way that BCS will agree to move to 3 or 4 noncontiguous sites on very limited acreage. Do not forget that BCS has a five agreement to occupy the spaces at Egan and Blach.

So you have spent the entire bond on a lawsuit generator and some skylights at Covington.

Let's come up with a better plan. A plan that most likely includes repurposing Covington for BCS, maybe with the addition of Covington area preference for BCS.

It's up to everyone to choose wisely. You want to move six graders to the middles? Then create a good place for BCS to move to - i.e.- Covington.

Want to have money to spend on improvements at every campus? Then you should support moving BCS to Covington.

Want to stop potential over crowding at Santa Rita and Almond? Then support moving BCS to Covington. That will free up funds to build a campus for part of the NEC at Egan.

The Covington neighborhood has three other high functioning LASD schools so it won't be hard to find new great schools for current Covington students.

Vote No on N until there is a sensible clearly defined plan.


3 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Sep 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm

Lee is a registered user.

The Covington site is large enough that it could be shared. It is big enough for two schools or for one large school.


5 people like this
Posted by Vote Yes
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:33 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


11 people like this
Posted by Wen
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 15, 2014 at 6:47 am

No - taxes are already to high and they will wate it, just like last time.


5 people like this
Posted by Wen
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 15, 2014 at 6:53 am

Sorry, tiny keyboard mistake, they will waste the bond.


11 people like this
Posted by Another No on N
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 8:44 am

People who assume that the only ones against N are either a David Roode alias or an ardent BCS supporter are mistaken... I'm neither and I plan to vote No on the ill-defined bond.


11 people like this
Posted by Have not decided
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 8:45 am

I think someone in the yes camp, is trying to deflect attention from the real issue, which is discussing the pros and cons of this bond? Why do that? Please tell me why I should vote for it. I haven't heard any compelling evidence yet and your continued efforts to blame comments on some guy you don't like isn't swaying me.

If you don't like the message shoot the messenger? Why should I vote for this bond? I agree with Wen, taxes are too high, but I am willing to increase them if it is really needed.


4 people like this
Posted by No
a resident of The Crossings
on Sep 15, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Voting no we need a school up here but it looks like they plan to build and then give it to the charter.


5 people like this
Posted by BCS Parent
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 2:28 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


4 people like this
Posted by Another BCS parent
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 2:30 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


9 people like this
Posted by Actual BCS Parent
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm

I am a BCS parent --- it is obvious that those last two posts were by someone impersonating a BCS parent.
There are some BCS parents that support the bond. I am not sure how I am voting yet. It does seem like they have already promised more than the bond would generate.

There are crowded schools - two of them - BCI and BCS. We are keeping every other school from being crowded. It would be nice to have our own campus. I also think that the NEC is an entire neighborhood without a school.

It seems to me that the current board and Mr. Kenyon are trying to fool us all. We all know that there isn't property available that is large enough for a school, and the small plots of land up there are not for sale.

I don't want to see this money wasted. BCS gave up a lot in the five year settlement. If we are not ending up with our own campus then we need to know what the plan is. I want to hear an exact plan, one that explains were BCS will reside, and where a school for the NEC neighborhood ( not BCS) will be placed. ) If those things are better defined by the election then I might vote for the bond. Keeping everything secret isn't going to work.


4 people like this
Posted by Jean
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 4:26 pm

Why is it that Los Altos and Los altos Hills are not on the list of communities. and then you run an item, very controversial, concerning us and not even mentioning our towns on your list.

I will vote yes on school issues always. Since Prop 13 our taxes have been stable, but the schools have suffered. When we came out of college this state was number 2 in the nation and since prop 13 it has fallen to 48 or 49th.If we are failing it isn't due to failure of the schools, but failure of the funding.
Schools are struggling with costs. We have no extra land for schools because the district had to sell off Portola and Eastbrook and Purissima Schools long ago. Now the school population has increased and we have no vacant land.
So, we need to do something. I think putting 2nd stories on the schools would be the best remedy.


8 people like this
Posted by Marilyn
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 6:01 pm

I agree with you Jean, the schools really took a hit with prop 13. I just want to make sure that they spend the money the right way. Using space on existing campuses seems like the best plan, but that isn't want is being proposed. Instead they are planning on trying to buy very expensive (even for this area) property that isn't for sale and it isn't large enough for a school. If they were planning on using current LASD property to solve the problem I would vote for the bond.

I am voting no. They are asking us all to pay thousands of dollars in taxes because they want to keep some of existing sites, particularly Covington, very underutilized. I for one am very tired of the political poll of the Covington neighborhood, they kept us from getting a pool, and they will keep all of the other schools crowded.


5 people like this
Posted by David Roode
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 7:14 pm

I am a LASD parent with two childeren and believe that the school board cannot be trusted. We just need to give the charter school their own large campus even at the expense of our children's education. I will vote No.


5 people like this
Posted by Jacqueline
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 7:15 pm

Oops. I accidentally used my real name. The previous posting should be from Jacqueline.


7 people like this
Posted by Why vote yes?
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 7:49 pm

I have not heard a compelling reason to vote yes. It seems to me that yes supporters are more interested in playing games rather than posting helpful information. Instead of adolescent attacks on individuals, is there any reason that I should vote for the bond?

How will the bond make sure that schools are not overcrowded?
How will the bond make sure that the charter school gets a permanent school removed from the middle school campuses?
How will the bond provide a school to NEC community?

Any answers?


9 people like this
Posted by Just a taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 8:06 pm

It's unfortunate that there are some immature people on this site that pretend like they're others in an effort to disparage the "No on N" supporters. Frankly, I feel it does more to discredit the "Yes" cause than promote it because they look like idiots. Sensible people should be able to discuss a topic by pointing out the pros and cons of the issue without these childish antics.

I'm voting NO and I'm not a BCS fanatic nor an LASD hater. I'm a taxpayer with no kids in the district but I support ALL of the kids in the district and I support innovative education.

We don't need another school - BCS can move to Covington, 6th grade can move to the Jr Highs and that makes room for everybody. IF in the future the NEC community grows to a point that more room is needed, there's room at Egan to accommodate them. Lets shuffle the kids around and then examine the district's needs. If the LASD board then wants to propose a bond I'll consider it based on what they plan to do with the money.

Something else for all taxpayers to consider is that if an additional school is built it will require operating capital. Where's that going to come from? Operating an additional school on the same budget doesn't work unless they're going to eliminate programs and increase class size. Neither of those options contribute to excellence in education. Therefore it seems to me that the next thing they'll be asking for is another parcel tax in order to operate that school. Or then again, in two years they may decide that it's inefficient to be operating so many schools and they'll close one. That's the way it goes, isn't it?


7 people like this
Posted by Vote Yes
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 9:35 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Craig
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 9:39 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


3 people like this
Posted by Learn the facts
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 9:57 pm

[Post removed due to violation of terms of use]


8 people like this
Posted by No facts presented
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:22 pm

Closing Covington will not destroy the community. They have three other schools that they use to attend, add in a bcs preference if you need to.

Secondly, the committee is already being dictated to by the assistant underpants gnome, they just found out that overcrowding will be addressed, that is a given , now prioritize the list. Yep soindsmlikeman awesome plan. Thank you very much I am voting NO


And before everyone gets their.....panties in a bunch undeuirpants gnome is a cultural reference.


8 people like this
Posted by Another No on N
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:23 pm

@Learn the facts

says
"Fact: We can solve our school growth problems with the bond measure and the input from the facility master planning committee and citizen financial oversight."

Tell us specifically how the bond would solve that. I'd call it "wishful thinking," not "Fact."

According to someone who attended the recent facility master planning meeting, the committee members were directed to focus only on prioritizing the list of modifications to existing campuses, not to discuss dealing with enrollment growth.

The BoT wants taxpayers to sign a $150,000,000 blank check.



8 people like this
Posted by Tweak
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:38 pm

Step one, pass a bond
Step two,
Step three, no more overcrowding


5 people like this
Posted by Another No on N
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:42 pm

ahh, the famous "and then a Miracle occurs" cartoon

Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Stacy k
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:54 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


3 people like this
Posted by USA
a resident of The Crossings
on Sep 15, 2014 at 10:57 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Whoever
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:12 pm

Seeing these comments, it is clear that the people who plan to vote N do so because they think the school district management will waste the bond money. They do have good reason to suspect this. It is for the politicians to show they have a good plan. It does make sense not to hand them the funds and let them do as they please after the fact. Here we see actual evidence of irresponsible plans to buy operating items out of capital funds, to shift normal maintenance cost to capital funds, to buy the parents at each school the $10 Million in toys they want for their site, and basically to skip over the need to actually create 2 new schools.

This latest committee they have formed is a joke. The big issue is enrollment growth and the committee is rearranging the deck chairs at the schools we have now. Who cares how they arrange the chairs, when we need more schools! T


6 people like this
Posted by Whoever
a resident of another community
on Sep 15, 2014 at 11:26 pm

@USA Consider that you'll be "letting them crowd" if you provide the LASD morocrats with $150 Million to blow on fancy extra new types of classrooms and theaters at the existing schools. How does that prevent crowding? How often does the whole school have assembly? Can't fit all 550 kids in the current auditorium at once? Well, if you build 2 new schools there won't be 550 kids there any more. If you build one big enough to serve those around El Camino, you'll take 700 kids out of the other LASD schools. Then the school with 350 kids will have zero problems fitting in the auditorium.

So, who's crowding things? Seems like it's the ones who will blow all the money for fancy new features at the Los Altos sites. Instead we need 2 new sites dedicated to serving all the kids along El Camino Real in small local neighborhood schools.

That will uncrowd Almond, Covington, and Santa Rita. You can't say Gardner is crowded--only 280 kids attend that school. Get real! Don't yammer about crowding when you are going to spend the bond money on other things.


4 people like this
Posted by BCS parent alum
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:13 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Actual BCS Parent
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:00 am

Nice try alum…. but nobody that sent their kids to BCS actually thinks that. BCS parents know that we are paying thousands in property and parcel taxes that are NOT SHARED with BCS students. In fact for every student at BCS, LASD pockets around $5000 in tax payer revenue. Any money spent by LASD was because of their ridiculous facilities offers that were an attempt to destroy BCS.

There are some BCS parents that support the bond. Mostly because they support the NEC getting a school and they hope that BCS will some how end up with a school.


4 people like this
Posted by Actual BCS Parent
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:34 am

The previous posting is not from an actual BCS parent. However, I am.

People stating their desire for an NEC school are people wanting to gentrify their school even further by pushing MV students out of Los Altos. This is disgusting, so now we have decided to vote Yes on the bond.


6 people like this
Posted by m2grs
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:46 am

I incline to oppose the measure for the following reasons:

1. Covington is way under utilized. The school district occupies a cozy office complex for themselves. This should change before asking tax payers for more money.

2. Management of previous bond money was disastrous. That's the reason why BCS got started. They wasted so much money that they have to close Bullis.

3. This purpose of this bond measure is murky. Lots of smoke.

4. The state economy is doing well. Schools are getting more money from state these days. There is no state funding crisis.

5. LASD already has one of the highest parcel tax rates. Any room for future taxation must be reserved when it is absolutely needed. We shall not destroy the goodwill of tax payers. It will destroy the community.

6. Moving Grade 6 to Jr. High is doable. Both middle schools are handling BCS students right now. It'd be just a swap of student population.



3 people like this
Posted by Get a grip...
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:53 am

The level of immaturity on both sides of this argument is ridiculous. Calls to shut down Covington and disburse those students to other schools simply so BCS can have a campus of their own will never happen. No conceivable group of trustees will ever approve that -- even if Swan and McClatchie (both puppets of BCS) were elected, they still wouldn't have the votes. Get over it.

Students in NEC currently have no neighborhood school, are scattered across three campuses, and must commute further than students from any other school. The current LASD board should immediately poll residents of the NEC portion of LASD to determine whether or not they actually want a neighborhood school. Numerous unsupported claims on these forums suggest they don't, and that calls for a NEC school are primarily from Los Altos residents who don't want Mountain View students in their schools. Utter rubbish. But don't take my word for it. Let's get the facts. If the poll indicates that NEC does in fact want a school, then that should be priority #1 for the bond funds. Even if it takes Eminent Domain to secure the property. If they don't (and I'd be shocked if they don't), then the question becomes whether or not a new campus should be secured for BCS or if the current model is sustainable for another 10 years -- and the bond proceeds can be used for renovating and expanding the current campuses. Either way, boundary lines will need to be redrawn to some degree, but addressing the needs of the part of the community (NEC) most heavily impacted by the current alignment should be the first priority.


5 people like this
Posted by NEC school
a resident of The Crossings
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:16 am

HELLO out there in LASD land.

The Crossings is a pretty nice place to live as is most of the NEC. The problem is that you all up in Los Altos keep talking about "our small neighborhood schools" that's nice for all of you that have an actual school, close by, in your neighborhood, that you can walk to, with out crossing busy and dangerous streets. Most of us in the NEC don't have that option - unless we send our kids to BCS - the campus at Egan can be reached on bikes - safely. Otherwise we have to get in our cars and drive all of the way to Covington. Two other schools are closer, but we are not sent there.

If you are passing this bond to keep the schools small, then do the right thing and provide a school the neighborhood that doesn't have one, the NEC. Now I have heard some talk, posted on a facebook forum by one of my neighbors that LASD seems to be leaning towards putting BCS at the new NEC campus. That just doesn't seem right. The kids at the charter come from all over the district. Putting them up here in the north, where we don't have a school just doesn't seem right. Why not build a school up here and have it be an LASD school for this neighborhood? Please tell me this rumor is wrong. If that's the plan I am voting NO.


3 people like this
Posted by BCS Parent 2
a resident of Waverly Park
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:20 am

FYi We will not stay in these portables for 10 more years.


4 people like this
Posted by Greedy Charter
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:41 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


11 people like this
Posted by Another No on N
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:14 pm

There are a variety of potential No on N voters ..

- LASD residents unhappy about the way proceeds from the last bond were spent.

- voters who are concerned that the money might be spent on building a school on a neighborhood park. (the old board pledged not to take a park, but there will be a new board soon.)

- large property owners who don't want to lose their property via eminent domain.

- Los Altos residents who want to see Hillview Community Center renovated, not turned over to LASD. (Look next door for a precedence - Palo Alto lost the JCC and playing fields on Arastradero when the PAUSD decided to reopen Terman Middle School.)

- people who vote against taxes in general.

- new homeowners who are already looking at a sizable property tax and see no reason to make it still larger.


I'm a long time homeowner - long enough that my assessment is low enough to make the proposed additional tax not a concern. This will be the first time I have ever voted against a school bond at the state or local level. I'll be voting No because I value LASD and want to see a clear plan that will:

- provide a long term solution to the placement of BCS

- move to a K-5, 6-8 configuration

- define how current and future growth will be addressed, by some combination of re-balancing school populations and the possible acquisition of a new site. (that plan to include the budgeting for the ongoing operation of a new site if that is the proposed option.)


There is too great a likelihood that turning over $150,000,000 without clear direction will result in its being spread out over "nice-to-have" but not essential items. Come back in 2016 with a reasoned plan and budget and I'll happily vote Yes on a bond.


5 people like this
Posted by Get a grip...
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:39 pm

@BCS Parent 2 -- So "we won't stay in these portables for 10 more years"? Do you speak for ALL BCS parents now? I suggest you take this up with your Board member, Francis LaPoll. He agreed to the 5 year deal with no commitment for a new campus and repeatedly said "we're not asking for a shiny new campus" during the long term facilities discussions last year. You'll never have the political muscle to take over an existing neighborhood school, and the courts will never mandate a handover. If the facilities plan outlined in the 5 year agreement is so bad, then why not send "little Johnny" to private school -- after all, he'd probably be there anyway had you not won the BCS lottery and admission to your discount, boutique, charter...

Yes on N if it opens a new school in NEC and provides much needed renovations for ALL campuses (including both of BCS' campuses).


5 people like this
Posted by BCS Observer
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Funds for BCS have been on a steady decline compared to LASD revenues over the years. When BCS started, it received from LASD an amount equal to 75% of LASD's revenues per student. Then it got a bit more directly from the state that brought this up to 85-90% of what LASD students received. But last year LASD received $12,000 per enrolled student ADA! BCS only got $5,500 at first from LASD, LESS THAN HALF. At the same time the state paid direct to BCS about $500 more.

However, recently, the state has made clear to LASD that the state wasn't responsible for the $500 any more. No no. LASD has to pay that. Not only that but the formula means they replace the state's $500 with an $800 payment to bring their total funds transfer to BCS up to $6300 per student versus the $12,000 per student LASD collects in revenues from all sources.

But the fact is that the discrepancy has increased from 10-15% less spending by LASD on students opting for BCS at the beginning to a point where those students opting for BCS get 50% less money than do the students remaining behind in the district.

And BCS parents are really guilty about that?????


3 people like this
Posted by DRoode Strikes Again
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 12:50 pm

@Roode -- AKA BCS Observer: What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Enough of your usual misdirection and irrelevant nonsense. The topic is the bond: Should people vote for it, and what should be done with the funds if it passes. Get on-point or go away please...


9 people like this
Posted by Voter
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm

I am voting No..... I agree with the comments made by Another No on N


4 people like this
Posted by NO
a resident of Monta Loma
on Sep 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm

No to any new tax or feees!!!!!!!!!!


8 people like this
Posted by CWGriswald
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Not just No. Hell no!

Simple solution to this mess:

1) Close Gardner or Covington and give that campus to BCS
2) Move 6th grade to middle school
3) re-draw attendance areas

No expensive bond necessary!


3 people like this
Posted by It's gonna happen...
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 16, 2014 at 4:33 pm

I did a (unscientific) straw poll at our local block party last weekend. The results were: 9 "Yes", 3 "Probably", 2 "Undecided" and 1 "No". The lone "No" vote was the cranky old guy on the block who has owned his house for 40+ years and still feels over-taxed. Looks like Each Student Counts, David Roode, and some of the other hard-core "Not just no. Hell no!" types on this board aren't having much of an affect on the voters -- at least not in my neighborhood...


3 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:06 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Do tell
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:07 pm

"With the money to expand facility space, BCS could be easily offered space without disruption" Really? Where is this mythical campus?


8 people like this
Posted by Most people I know are voting NO.
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Most people I know are voting NO. Here are reasons:

1. Taxes are too high already.
2. There is no clear plan.
3. The last bond was wasted.
4. Political situation leads to bad choices.


That last one is in real evidence here. We here comments like - " You will never have enough political pull to get your own school" and " The district will never let Covington be turned over to BCS". Um Okay so that means that we should all vote for a bond so that Covington/District Office can continue as an underutilized space? Or maybe it means that we should vote for the bond so that Covington can get new skylights- it's only 38 million - really only a quarter of the total." Or maybe it means that the rest of district is happy to leave things the way they are with 7/8 middles and BCS growing larger over the next 5 years. No room to move six graders. I am quite sure that most at Covington DO NOT want to move six graders to the middle school - that means that they will have a smaller school
425 kids on 14 acres. But we are not done. There is also the big Covington counting lie. Covington counts special education students in pre k, K, and 1st that are not really Covington students. They are just there for special programs and will move to another school in second grade ( when their test scores count) That's another 50 or so students. So really Covington will really have less that 400 students.

Does that seem like a good idea? We are voting for a bond to relieve crowding when crowding could be easily solved by repurposing Covington. It's not worth $1000 a year to me. How about you?


5 people like this
Posted by Alicia
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm

I'm voting Yes. Let's support our school district. They've done an amazing job and deserve our continued trust.


6 people like this
Posted by Voting Yes
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:39 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Votes are private
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:40 pm

I tell everyone that I support the bond and will vote yes. But when it comes time to draw that black line across the ballot in the private booth, I'm going to think about my tax bill and vote NO.

This Measure N thing really looks like a crazy blank check to a bunch of bureaucrats who just want to do a bunch of pet projects like solar panels and new multi-purpose rooms. How is that going to help overcrowding?


4 people like this
Posted by Invest for Tomorrow.
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:49 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


3 people like this
Posted by Nice...
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:53 pm

@Votes Are Private -- so basically, you're telling us all here that you are a liar. Plain and simple. Most of the time "vote your conscience" is good advice. But clearly you have none, so I guess just go ahead and vote "No" as promised. I hope you didn't instill those same personal values in your own children...


8 people like this
Posted by Seeking Answers
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

The Question:

WHERE IS THE LAND AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

Answer that and I might vote for the bond.


4 people like this
Posted by Fiscally Responsible
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm

"WHERE IS THE LAND AND HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?"

This is why we have professionals running the district. They cannot enter into serious negotiations with land owners without having the line of credit a bond issue would bring. Even if they were to enter into non-binding negotiations, they would have to be kept confidential. Otherwise, the school district could lose the opportunity to other potential bidders. Or would have to pay significantly more for the same land.

Voting Yes.


6 people like this
Posted by Tweak
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:07 pm

Fiscally Responsible, underpants gnome


8 people like this
Posted by Tweak
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:09 pm

Step One: Pass the Bond
Step Two:
Step Three: Crowding solved


4 people like this
Posted by Seeking Answers
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:10 pm

Okay thanks… guess I will be voting NO.


4 people like this
Posted by Seeking Answers
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:11 pm

That wasn't me, but I don't feel like I got an answer yet. Leaning No.


12 people like this
Posted by Bart Carey
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 6:21 pm

My knee-jerk reaction has always been to support our public schools, including with financial requests. I was a strong supporter of the last parcel tax. I think a lot of the Yes support so far for the bond represents the same knee-jerk reaction to support our kids, and by itself that is commendable.

But I have not seen any specific plan tied to the bond money to solve the facilities issues (BCS and NEC) that remain the most pressing educational concerns in our community. Can someone point out from the bond language how these issues will be addressed?

Until recently I was not a big supporter of the idea to move 6th graders to the junior highs to free up space on an elementary campus, but I have become convinced this idea holds promise. When the alternative is to commit $150M to vague bond language, the K-5, 6-8 redistribution looks pretty good by comparison.

With the current proposal, looks like we could be $150M poorer, and back to lawsuits after the 5 year grace period, though with some nice campus upgrades to show for it.




6 people like this
Posted by Whoever
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:05 pm

Exactly, well said to Bart Carey. I seriously doubt that the LASD administration believes its own projects of future enrollment. They think they can fool people into passing a bond to handle enrollment growth and then use the funds however they please. Then when the enrollment growth actually materializes they will not have a response.

Why the heck are the 700 kids sure to live in the El Camino area not being provided with a walkable neighborhood school of their own? LASD indifference to these kids treatment.


7 people like this
Posted by Tweak
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:36 pm

"his is why we have professionals running the district. They cannot enter into serious negotiations with land owners without having the line of credit a bond issue would bring"

Are these the same professionals that blew most of the last bond on office space? Maybe the same ones that identified an old crumbling three acre school site in the Santa Clara School as a great location for BCS?

ooohhh maybe it the same professional that thinks you can build a great school on top of retail and housing space, "maybe with a play ground on the roof"

Oh Goody!

The schools are in the best hands.


5 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Sep 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm

Lee is a registered user.

The last bond was a disaster. This bond will be too, if the money goes to property or nice to have, but do nothing to solve the BCS and NEC crowding problems.


6 people like this
Posted by Gnome Killer
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Found a website against the bond already:

Web Link

Here's an article about the Facilities Master Plan Committee:

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Disaster
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 8:59 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


11 people like this
Posted by Sorry, it's a No
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm

This bond measure was rushed. The polling, while statistically significant, still doesn't feel quite right - it's not the real sentiment of the community. 2 LASD board members bail. Lots of new blood trying to get elected. No real details on how the funds will be spent. Still too much ill-will and rhetoric flaming from charter school and LASD zealots such that no one will be happy with however the funds are spent. So to that, I say, hit pause. Let's revisit this topic another year. This is a not life and death - it's a luxury that we can even have this kind of debate in this extremely wealthy community. Lastly, the seniors have not be swayed (or even frankly, addressed) as to why this is good for them. I think N will lose by a meaningful margin and I will do my best to convince neighbors that we need more time to figure this out.


5 people like this
Posted by Jay P
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:27 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Voting No
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm

@ Gnome Killer. Great site, looks like the No campaign is up and running, including some yard signs.


6 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Sep 16, 2014 at 9:44 pm

Lee is a registered user.

@ Gnome Killer

Thanks for the references. Both are very informative.

The article from Los Altos Politico has an interesting take on Facilities Master Plan Committee. It seems that they have narrowed down the current school projects to $158,000,000 and the new school is estimated to cost $50,000,000. So we are 60 million over budget before we even get started. Then we are supposed to some how purchase property and build a new school for 50 million. It's clear that they are not planning any new schools and this bond isn't about addressing enrollment growth. Instead it is about passing out goodies. Skylights for Covington and Springer, MPR for Santa Rita etc.

I am voting No


5 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:03 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Wherever
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm

School construction costs have been estimated by the district architect in data presented to the board already. These are for 560 student schools. K-6 would cost $32 Million in construction costs and K-8 would cost $36 Million in construction costs. These are construction costs alone, for 560 student schools. It's not clear what would happen if the site were for BCS. They are already at 750 or so students, and they are on track for 900. I guess the district would plop like 15 portables onto the site, which would cost another $5 Million or so. So $41 Million to build alone. That leaves 9 Million dollars to cover land acquisition, for a 12 acre site. Dream on. Professionals? Not real estate planning professionals, that's for sure.


10 people like this
Posted by Voting No
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:28 pm

The bond language does not spell out its plan to build new school(s). Tammy Logan even recently said she has no idea how much it will cost to buy and develop land but that the voters need to let them be "flexible" with the money. Not joking. How can anyone vote for something this huge with no plan?

No plan, no vote.


8 people like this
Posted by Yes?
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:40 pm

So to sum it up for,the yes on N ers

Vote yes, only grumpy old people are voting no
Vote yes trust our exalted leaders ( underpants gnomes)
Vote yes because we are and we are totally awesome.

Everyone on the no side is this david guy it has to be, or grumpy old tightwads, or school choice supporters. No choices needed here the exalted ones know best. ( underpants gnomes)


10 people like this
Posted by No from the Covington neighborhood
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:44 pm

Voting No on the bond doesn't mean I don't support the kids or LASD. It means I want my tax dollars spent efficiently and on the right things. I support improving education (and switching to a K-5/ 6-8 model is a better educational model) and I don't support wasting money on solutions based on politics rather educational outcomes. The comment that a commenter "doesn't have enough political clout" to repurpose Covington was very offensive. Vengeance such as that has no place in our community and we certainly don't want to model that attitude to the kids in the community.

Most of my neighbors are voting No. We want to see fiscal responsibility (tell us how you plan to spend the money), solid educational plans (move 6th grade to Middle schools) , best use of existing sites (move BCS to Covington, freeing up space for NEC at Egan if needed) and an end to litigation between BCS and LASD.

Once the BoT has reallocated the existing space I'll listen to the benefits of passing the bond, but not before. Vote No and make our BoT accountable.


4 people like this
Posted by David
a resident of another community
on Sep 16, 2014 at 11:58 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


8 people like this
Posted by Gnome Killer
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:04 am

I think the BoT really want more than $150 million. They just can't ask for more and win by 55%. If they ask for more, they would need a 67% margin of blind followers.


8 people like this
Posted by non grumpy old person
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:03 am

I am and old person, mostly happy, voting no. I would like to see a better plan before I vote yes. I usually support the schools, but I don't think there is a very good spending plan for this money.


3 people like this
Posted by Better plan
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:38 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


7 people like this
Posted by Lee
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Sep 17, 2014 at 6:07 pm

Lee is a registered user.

Interesting, all of those comments were the same person, that leaves maybe one or two others voting yes and everyone else either no or leaning no. Not exactly scientific but this bond seems to be in trouble. Come back with a clearly defined plan in 2016 and it will have a better chance.


6 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm

Trace is a registered user.

Voting No.

I read a yes on N sign today, it said small schools and successful students. Right now there are approximately 160,000,000 in projects for each campus. Most, if not all, have little to do with either small schools or student achievement. Consider the following project listed in an LASD document:

40 million for retrofitting at Covington and Springer. Really?

Retrofitting recently remodeled schools? The rumor, with most likely quite a bit of truth behind it, is that parents at Covington and Springer were super bummed to find out that the other schools had skylights installed. Skylights are super cool, but seem like a bit of stretch, really nothing to do with either small schools or student achievement. So the way to get around it is to claim the building isn't up to code, "my gosh all the roofs need to be replaced, might as well put in sky lights while the roof is opened." Bit of a chicken and egg situation.

Is it that if you want to put in a skylight then you must strengthen the roof? Or codes have changed since 1998 so now the roof isn't up to code? Either way it doesn't justify the expense. The roof is unlikely to fall in an earthquake. If they were really worried about this, they would be replacing every single portable, especially the very old ones at BCS, as soon as possible. Portables are much more likely to fall off of their foundations than any roof at a recently constructed permanent building.

It also might be that wiring standards or lighting standards are different. These change all of time, and the 40 million should be spent on creating small schools and successful students.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 7:58 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

That is a lot of lies coming from the No's above.

I know Springer parents, and Springer parents are not upset at all, especially about skylights. Most of the classrooms have tall and large ceiling windows, why would skylights even be needed? By the way, Springer is not requesting 40M, nor is Covington. Far from it. Do your homework before making up numbers. Most of the schools amounted to around 20M, some more and some less. We know most of those items are nice to haves and not required. We're more than happy to chop that list down to pay for the new school that will keep our existing schools from overcrowding.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

The Facility Advisory Committee cost list is not a final list and will be prioritized and further reduced by the master planning facility advisory committee. That committee has begun already.

Not all those projects are needed and we don't expect to receive 160+M in school projects. Start with a desired list and prioritize based on the reality of what is feasible. It's basic project planning. It's an open process to the public too, one which you can give public feedback. That is if you are willing to show up in pubic and take part in the process. Will you ever do that David Roode?

No one solution will be trivial. You can be like Mr Lutkin and demand a 1, 2, 3, prioritized list of sites beforehand, but then you'll be disappointed with the outcome. Site availability will determine everything else. This is what we were told at our school meetings and it makes complete sense. Who goes to what school will be determined by the location. How much money is left over for the school facility upgrades is determined by location. 6-8 or 7-8 will be determined by what is the better model for our kids. No school will be closed to be given to BCS. Go into this with the mindset of basically every LASD and BCS parent that we want small schools. Small is less than 600 kids. Put 6th grade to the Jr Highs and you easily have more than 750 kids at each site. Put BCS to Covington and all the neighboring elementary schools balloon to more than 650 kids.

This has been a public process that anyone could have participated in for the past two years. Many plans and financial plans have been generated in preparation for the many possible outcomes, again mainly determined on what site and where. Nothing is being left to chance, nothing is being fiscally irresponsible, and nothing is hidden. This can be done and it will keep our schools as some of the best in the state.

I am voting YES


8 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:24 pm

Trace is a registered user.

38 million in retrofitting for roofs at Covington and Springer. Presented by architect to the Trustees in one of June meetings. It's there on the "plan" as the first item. She carefully explained how when the roofs were opened that you could add in the skylights to make them similar to the other schools that also have high windows and tall ceilings as well as skylights. Its on the campus requests lists that were generated that spring at every campus. Covington and Springer both mentioned skylights. I don't know about you but I don't think that 1/3 of the bond should be spent on retrofitting classrooms that were just rebuilt.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

No one is demanding skylights. Again, these were all wishful items. Btw, "modernization" costs for Springer is only < 2M, which is where skylights would go. If you paid attention you would realize this itemize list for all the schools was not generated in the greater context of finding a new site for BCS and/or LASD growth. Surveys and site councils were held at each school that individually fed into generating these lists of upgrades the bond could support. The recent facility planning committee worked to prioritize all these items and assign costs. Now comes the next stage to get that list down to a workable set IN THE CONTEXT of a possible new site for the enrollment growth. There is nothing in here stipulating 1/3 of the bond will be spent on retrofitting recently remodeled structures. Have you read the reports? Have you gone to your schools PTA meetings? This has all been transparent from the beginning and advertised many times in many different ways.


5 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 8:58 pm

Trace is a registered user.

I am sure that it will be item number one. It has been cleverly disguised as a safety issue. I am tired of the clever political moves that have nothing to do with educating children.


6 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:03 pm

Trace is a registered user.

Tell me where the new school will go. Tell how much it will cost. That is useful information. Who will occupy the new school? Will the new school be started before any other projects, making sure that there is enough funds to complete the project? Will six graders be able to move to the middle schools, many many parents really want that to happen. Will moving six graders be the priority? If these questions were answered with clear answers before the election the bond would have a much better chance of passing. The record is very poor and doesn't seem to be improving. It might be better to wait until 2016.


7 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm

Trace is a registered user.

Isn't it true that the advisory committee will come up with a list order, but it is just a recommendation. The Board, can and will decide what projects should be built.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:14 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

"I am sure that it will be item number one. It has been cleverly disguised..." Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds, writing off the bond because of your conspiracy theory?

"Tell me where the new school will go. Tell how much it will cost. That is useful information. Who will occupy the new school? Will the new school be started before any other projects, making sure that there is enough funds to complete the project? Will ...Will ... " Did you not read what I wrote or even pay attention to the 2 years of committees and discussion that have gone on to address all these questions?

Go ahead then, jump on the David Roode bandwagon (if that's not you). Claim either a financial conspiracy, or that government is broken so they won't listen to me anyway, or ultimately kick the can down the road because you can't be bothered to interact with real people and be a part of the solution instead of a critic.

That reminds me. Hey David Roode, why have you still not answered the simple question of why you don't show up or sign up to be part of the public process to fix our schools, meet with parents, and learn what makes our schools the best instead of hiding on the internet where you will be constantly ignored, if not laughed at?


7 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm

Trace is a registered user.

In 1997 they went around and asked each school what they wanted as well as the district office staff. That is how we ended up with the over the top district offices ( check out the super expensive furniture in some of the offices) as well as new administration offices at every school including a giant two story office at Egan that apparently still isn't up to snuff, the windows in the principals office are apparently too large. Time to replace those, most likely a part of necessary retrofits. Wonder how much that will cost.

If this bond is about small schools then come up with a plan that reflects that.


6 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:26 pm

Trace is a registered user.

I don't think the location for a new has ever been discussed and they are not discussing it now. Apparently there are 3 or 4 parcels somewhat near each other in the north end that are not for sale. I have also heard Ms. Logan has several ideas for modern school design that really don't seem suitable to meet children's needs. I think that you are in a bit of a bubble Mark S. The meeting on wednesday didn't include anything about school locations.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

Funny how you are parroting the exact words Roode said in another thread. What a coincidence. Locations have been discussed at many different meetings and you obviously are cherry picking one tiny part of a quote and out of context without even taking the effort to learn the bigger picture. Or you're just trolling.

I'm more convinced this is Roode again under another registered alias. I'm done talking with you. Have fun with your cowardly EACH sign and childish website.


7 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Trace is a registered user.

I am not Roode. I have concerns that is bond is a repeat of last time. It seems to be all about political pull and nothing to do with small schools or successful students. I am not cherry picking. I have a long list of concerns listed above. Questions that need to be answered for the voters to vote yes. It is unlikely that voters, even those with school age children are going to vote to increase taxes if the end result is skylights and media centers.


5 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 10:20 pm

DavidR is a registered user.

It's very simple. If you are going to dangle new schools in front of two groups of people because of growth, you need to follow through. If you mount a bond measure to deal with growth, you better plan to use more than half of the bond to deal with that growth and to build those two new schools. Capping the max to spend on new schools at 1/3 of the bond is dishonest. No amount of retro-meeting by any number of committees can change that.

When you see that both of these 2 groups of people have 900 people, i.e. 1800 total out of the projected 5900 enrollment in 2018, you better follow through on your promises.

If you want small schools at the current average size of 500 each, then if you move to 5900 students, you need 12 such schools. Anything else is inconsistent with having small schools. Ok, for one of the 12 schools you can put 3 grades in middle schools and then you only need 11 schools. But that's still TWO NEW SCHOOLS.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 17, 2014 at 10:26 pm

Mark S is a registered user.

David Roode,

Why don't you show up at the next LASD board meeting, or the next facility master planning meeting and present your arguments. Better yet, why don't you come to one of our many PTA meetings where the district board has been discussing the bond measure with us. Why don't you take the time to really see what our schools are like, why they are some of the best, and why this bond is essential. Instead of hiding on the internet or spending what little donations you have with your hilarious EACH advertisements that any of our 5th graders could have put together (but would have been accurate, unlike yours)!

Why don't you participate in the public process instead of bitterly complaining online? What do you really think would be more effective?


6 people like this
Posted by Landers
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 12:08 am

Landers is a registered user.

@Mark S - "Small is less than 600 kids. Put 6th grade to the Jr Highs and you easily have more than 750 kids at each site. Put BCS to Covington and all the neighboring elementary schools balloon to more than 650 kids." WOW! That's not true!! Here are the most recent enrollment stats published:

Almond. 534
Gardner. 331
Covington. 508
Loyola. 579
Oak. 477
S Rita. 562
Springer. 544
Total. 3535 (of which 515 are 6th graders)
Blach. 470
Egan. 522

If you move BCS to Covington, move 6th grade to Middle School and distribute the remaining 3,020 K-5 students between the other 6 elementary schools you'd have 503 kids/ elementary school. This is still well below your definition of a small school and allows plenty of room for growth.

Moving 6th grade to Middle School increases total enrollment to:
Blach. 727
Egan. 779
These numbers are well below acceptable and typical enrollments for a 6-8 school. And IF in the unlikely event that growth exceeded current capacity there would still be room to add another school at the 20 acre Egan site.

We don't have an overcrowding problem that can't be solved by better utilization of our existing facilities. Lets be sensible, not wasteful of taxpayers' money and stop whatever charade is going by trying to scare people into thinking we need more schools. It simply isn't true. Vote No on the bond.


3 people like this
Posted by Mark S
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 12:35 am

Mark S is a registered user.

Stop deflecting and changing aliases David Roode. Come out from hiding and talk at the board meeting on Monday or continue to not be taken seriously. Will you be there? I'm beginning to wonder if you have a social anxiety problem preventing you from face to face discourse, which would explain your absence these past few years and anonymous online tendency. It's ok, we understand. There's help you can get.


4 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 1:52 am

DavidR is a registered user.

Hey Landers, where did you get those numbers? I had heard a slightly different total than you do for elementary schools, and no breakdown by school. Also your Jr High numbers are way lower than Jeff Baier has said publicly. I sure which LASD would publish these numbers clearly.

Comparing your numbers to last year, we see these changes
Almond. 534 up 24
Gardner. 331 up 13
Covington. 508 DOWN 4 (Jeff Baier has said it saw a big rise)
Loyola. 579 up 37
Oak. 477 DOWN 29
S Rita. 562 up 1
Springer. 544 up 22

As you can see, we saw some ups and downs.


5 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 1:58 am

DavidR is a registered user.

Hey Mark S. What are you talking about, expecting me to crash the task force meeting? They already have 28 delegates. Surely they can debate on their own. I do hope there is some representation there of different views.

If I am alone in seeing the lack of transparency, then it won't matter. Only if others agree is there a real issue for the district. I suspect there are quite a few people who see the problems. Why ask only me to confront the trustees. Do you think the others are intimidated? Anyway, we are going to see from the election outcome what the real polls say.

It's not too late to promise that 2/3 or so of the bond will be reserved for and dedicated to new schools. I do think that by using existing district owned land, this can be handled with that sum. I don't think you can declare it unaffordable if you mean "can't be done with $50 Million of a $150 Million bond.


4 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 8:49 am

Trace is a registered user.

LASD Enrollment: Trending Down.

I looked up the 2013/ 2014 school year enrollment by grade level for LASD on the California State Education Data Website, Dataquest, and I found out something very interesting. As predicted by the LASD demographers LASD enrollment is trending down, way down.

2013 - 2014 enrollment in grades k-3, 1883 (this years 1 -4 graders)
2013-2014 enrollment in grades 4-7, 2139 (this years 5-8 graders

2139 - 1883 = 256 students. In other words LASD is actually declining in enrollment in the lower grades.

In fact 256 students is almost an entire Gardner Bullis School - especially when you take out the Out of District Students attending there.

LASD doesn't need a new school, unless it wants to provide an actual neighborhood school to the NEC. If you waited two or three years to move six graders to the middle schools, you wouldn't need an extra school at all, in fact you might end up with 6-8 middles with less than 700 students.


5 people like this
Posted by Landers
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 8:49 am

Landers is a registered user.

@DavidR - I got the numbers from the Task Force report which was labeled 2012-2013 enrollment but with a notation at the bottom saying that the 2012 enrollment was projected. It's interesting to me the the actual enrollment stats are conspicuously unavailable. You'd think that with all the hullabaloo over "overcrowding" that enrollment stats would be widely available but they've been removed from all the normal sites (i.e they're not on on the individual school sites, the district site, GreatSchools site, etc). Every school obviously knows how many kids are enrolled but that info is not bring shared publicly.


5 people like this
Posted by Landers
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 9:03 am

Landers is a registered user.

Looking at the enrollment predictions, if an NEC school is added then the district is going to end up closing one of the other neighborhood schools in a few years. It's too expensive to operate that many schools with small enrollments.

In any case 6-8 middle school is still a better educational model and BCS needs a campus or we're going to be in court spending more money on litigation. Let's just reshuffle everybody now, be done with it and move forward. Under that scenario we'd be prepared for whatever the future brings without a big financial impact.


3 people like this
Posted by Trace
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 10:33 am

Trace is a registered user.

Here is a link to the 2013/2014 LASD enrollment data by school with district totals.

Web Link

Here is the enrollment for Bullis Charter School:

Web Link
BCS has added some additional classes in the lower grades this year, they now have 100 students in several of the lower grades. That should impact LASD district wide enrollment downward in grades k-4.


3 people like this
Posted by DavidR
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 12:23 pm

DavidR is a registered user.

Those enrollment numbers are actually old then. I do have more recent data than that for both 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 which is as you say on the state web site.

What is interesting is that based on the summary data I have for 2014-2015, the projections you posted for 2012-2013 are actually about 1% higher than the enrollment NOW, 2 years later, except as I said 7th and 8th grade are way higher now.


5 people like this
Posted by Landers
a resident of another community
on Sep 18, 2014 at 3:59 pm

Landers is a registered user.

Yes, based on the numbers posted on the state website, enrollment is trending down. 7th and 8th grade enrollments still easily allow room for 6th grade to move in at Blach and Egan. So why is it again that the district wants to add a school??? And why would the taxpayers want to pay to build and operate an additional school when the existing schools clearly have room for all the district kids? The overcrowding argument is simply propaganda. Shame on the LASD trustees.


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

Email:


Post a comment

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

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Palo Alto's Mayfield Bakery & Cafe permanently closes after 11-year run
By Elena Kadvany | 18 comments | 15,230 views

City staff is running Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 26 comments | 3,263 views

Couples: Are you Committed to your Vows or Dysfunction?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,621 views

Kids and sugar: A cautionary tale
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,614 views