|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Marking one of its most significant decisions in recent years, the Mountain View Whisman School District school board this month unanimously approved major changes to student transfer policies that will move hundreds of children out of their current schools and end the free-flow of students to any campus with available space.
The new policies mean that, come January next year, families in the district will no longer have the option to sign up their children for any school in the district, and will instead be funneled toward sending their kids to the nearby neighborhood school. The 5-0 vote at the June 14 school board meeting caps off years of controversial debates over school attendance boundaries, overcrowding, diversity and equity for all of the district’s neighborhoods throughout Mountain View.
The enrollment policies, set to take effect in the 2019-20 school year, state that students who live within a school’s attendance boundary have top priority to attend the school, followed by children of district staff. Families can still apply to transfer their children to “under-enrolled” schools with at least 25 percent of excess capacity — which today means Castro, Theuerkauf and Monta Loma elementary schools — but must reapply for the transfer each year and can be rejected if the school fills up.
Once implemented, the new policies will be a big departure from what the district has today, which allows large numbers of children to attend a school outside of their attendance boundary. More than 100 students at each of the three of the district’s most popular campuses — Bubb, Huff and Landels elementary schools — are from outside the intended region, and will be effectively “reset” back to their intended campus come fall 2019, Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph told board members at the June 14 meeting.
“Any student who is out of their current bounds would be either sent back to their (neighborhood) school or required to apply for one of the intradistrict transfer exemptions,” Rudolph said.
Demographic data presented to the board shows nearly 500 students will be out of compliance with the new policy and would not be eligible to stay at Huff, Bubb and Landels in the 2019-20 school year, and many more would have to reapply on an annual basis to stay at under-enrolled schools.
The new policy sets up a formal transfer application process that skirts these new rules, but only for special circumstances. This could include children who need to be moved because of bullying or compliance with federal Title IX civil rights, as well as special education placement for special day classes at designated school sites.
The criteria for enrollment priorities is a streamlined, heavily simplified version of the old transfer policies, which allowed parents to sign up their child for any one school in the district along with their neighborhood school. If the district allowed a child to transfer into another school, the student had a guaranteed spot through graduation and locked in a higher enrollment priority for any siblings. Those policies, Rudolph told trustees, led to high-performance schools like Bubb and Huff being slammed for space, with large cohorts of students coming in from all over the district.
“Some of our exemptions and former priorities created the mess that we’re in,” he said. “Once you attend a school, you stay at a school until you leave.”
A strict approach to grandfathering
At the same June 14 meeting, school board members also unanimously backed a plan to implement new school attendance boundaries — including a large carve-out of Whisman neighborhoods slated for the new Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School — at a quick pace, denying requests for special exemptions and rules that would have allowed some kids to avoid being displaced in fall 2019.
The modified attendance boundaries are set to take effect in the 2019-20 school year, and propose shifting several neighborhoods from one school to another. Shoreline West residents, for example, would be zoned for Landels Elementary in lieu of being zoned for Bubb Elementary.
School board members agreed to allow fifth-grade students and their siblings to attend their current school regardless of boundary changes in the 2019-20 school year, allowing them to finish their final year at elementary school without being uprooted by the new attendance zones. Trustees played with the idea of exempting specific neighborhoods from having to adhere to the new school boundaries, but ultimately decided against it in order to give equal treatment to the entire school district.
The school district has a number of incentives for imposing the new boundaries as soon as possible. The new zoning means a large number of students will no longer attend Bubb and Huff, which have both been overenrolled for years. District officials have dealt with the overcrowding by placing additional portable classrooms on the blacktop space, which will remain until enrollment decreases. Construction plans at the schools call for building 18 classrooms accommodating 450 students, but both schools house closer to 600 kids.
But residents from the Willowgate neighborhood urged the school board to reverse course on the strict grandfathering policy, requesting an exemption specifically carved out for their neighborhood. This would have allowed the children in the area attending Landels Elementary to stay at the school instead of moving to Theuerkauf Elementary as is called for under the new attendance boundaries. Parents described the current trip to school as a comfortable bike ride down Stevens Creek Trail to a closer campus, and lamented that they would no longer have that option next year.
Rudolph acknowledged that the displacement of children is a tough pill to swallow, but he strongly encouraged the even-handed approach as a means to avoid infighting between neighborhoods that he has seen since his first day on the job. At the same meeting the school board announced it was hiring Rudolph, board members faced intense opposition to school boundary changes that did not include opening a new Whisman school — a proposal that trustees ultimately scuttled later that night.
Giving special treatment to specific regions of the city through grandfathering exemptions, he said, would essentially pit one community against another for the next five years, perpetuating a problem he has witnessed since he picked up the top role in the district.
“I am uncomfortable that this community, that Mountain View — a community I’ve grown to love — has started to fight each other because of a process that has taken us two to three years to resolve,” Rudolph said.
Although Willowgate residents were present at the meeting to advocate on behalf of their neighborhood, Rudolph cautioned that other communities would catch wind of any special treatment and question why the district played favorites. In past meetings, the school board also heard requests to exempt families living in a small area of the city rezoned from Huff to Bubb.
“What I’m afraid of is that some voices that are not here, for one reason or another, will come back and they will say ‘Well why is this community, this neighborhood, valued more than my neighborhood,'” Rudolph said. “As a superintendent, I am not comfortable with the arguing and the finger-pointing that is currently taking place.”
Trustee Wilson set a tone of professionalism that gave this long process a credible and fair resolution.
Although it would have been better to have kept Willowgate in the Landels area in order to preserve safe routes via the Stevens Creek Trail, and achieving that through allocating one or two more blocks of Shoreline West to under-capacity Castro, both moves would have reduced traffic, overall, the district made great progress in making logical boundaries.
Within a decade, the district will need to adapt to how North Bayshore housing effect the schools, hopefully through infilling existing under-capacity Monta Loma and Theuerkauf via the approved boundaries map, rather than pursuing a future new campus in North Bayshore.
These new boundaries approved in June are a pragmatic step forward.
Castro is a failed school. No amount of shifting a few blocks of Shoreline West into Castro will save that place. That’s just socialism’s “we all fail together” esprit de corps leaking out.
@Viva Fidel
“Castro is a failed school.”
No, the school and teachers are doing as good a job as the teachers of any of our MVWSD schools. The test scores used to “judge” the “school” are not providing any insight into the quality of the school itself, but rather, all the data about Castro is simply a direct reflection of the educational background of the parents of the kids.
It follows that when the parents have little/no college or even no High School diploma, then their kids are at a clear and insurmountable disadvantage to the kids who’s parents had higher educations.
So, when people talk about “disadvantaged” kids, the true “disadvantage” kids face are their own parents lack of education. The school district has no realistic way to significantly increase the education of the parents, thus the district can only do so much in an effort to compensate for the lower education levels of the parents.
Logically, first generation immigrants from poor countries usually have very little education compared to later generations that got to the USA earlier. Thus logically, the first generation born in the USA kids are handicapped NOT by the schools, but by their parents lack of education. This does not mean these kids cannot learn or cannot as individuals rise above their parental disadvantages, but as an overall statistic, the kids born to poorly educated immigrants will do better than their parents, but not better than the other kids who have more highly educated parents.
This cuts across all economic and ethnic and nationality groups. Even 4th generation born in the USA kids who’s parents, for some reason, got little education will find the same problem. Their kids will do better than they did, but not as well as kids who’s parents were well educated.
There is nothing about any of our schools that is of significant difference so to cause the test score gaps we see between our various schools. This “gap” maps perfectly to the educational background of the parents.
“No amount of shifting a few blocks of Shoreline West into Castro will save that place.”
Castro needs no “saving”, the kids are learning as well as their parental disadvantages allows them to. The school and district have no blame in the situation.
“That’s just socialism’s “we all fail together” esprit de corps leaking out.”
Well, if you find any USA school district where every school test scores have no “achievement gap”, that will have test scores that seem to indicate all of the schools are failing together.
It’s rather easy to reduce the “achievement gap” by just pushing down on the best achievers until they are also failing kids. Works for the politicians because they get to crow about having “solved” the “achievement gap”.
Of course, since the “gap” has NOTHING to do with the schools and everything to do with the parents of the kids, then nothing can be done politically to “solve” the problem, so politicians grasp at anything, no matter how destructive it is, that will make it look like they “did something”.
The law of unintended consequences takes over.
Ellen Wheeler, Greg Coladonato, and other current MVWSD trustees that we all know read and post on these articles:
Do the posts above by EPTF Member, whom you all are familiar with and communicate with non-pseudonymously, reflect the opinions of the school district? If not, where is he wrong, and why is he continuing to guide policy in our district?
@Fidel
My child goes to Mistral and I frequently volunteer at castro to work in classroom and read to the kids. They are great kids, and the teachers are amazing. They are trying to cross a huge gap, and we need to be helpful and approach with empathy and aid, not telling over scores and wrath. If you are so worried about Castro, then step in and volunteer like others do!
Willowgate got screwed during the new boundary assessment whereas Shoreline West had enough political clout (and representation on the committee) to wrangle re-assignment to Landels. (Yes, much better to cross Shoreline to get to the “good” school than to walk a few blocks to Castro.)
So Rudolph tells us, if you don’t manage to game the system by your representation on a committee, don’t bother trying to undo a wrong because I’m just going to laugh in your face and say: “As a superintendent, I am not comfortable with the arguing and the finger-pointing that is currently taking place.”
Don’t worry, Willowgate residents, brown kids at Theuerkauf don’t bite! This is your chance to support poor people seeking asylum in the US, much better than marches. Kids there are nice and eager to learn, it’s too sad their white wealthy neighbors don’t want anything to do with them.
@ Elephant in the room
My issues with being assigned to Theuerkauf:
1. For kids currently assigned to Landels, need to move to new school midway through.
2. For ALL families, creates a HORRIBLE school drop-off commute. Previous commute was short and car-free along the hike-and-bike trail.
I agree with others who have pointed out that quality of schools is mostly the same and scores are better or worse depending on familial support and academic background.
@Willowgate, EPTF member also had some issues with being assigned to Theuerkauf. Fortunately for him, he just chose to abandon his neighborhood school for Stevenson. Then he comes here and lectures us about how all the performance gap is just something to be expected.
Steve Nelson, the science fair is in the evening right? If there is no transportation from Castro, this may prevent some families from attending. Otherwise, I don’t see any obstacles (except it is hard to venture out after a full day of often physical labor).
@Willowgate, I agree these are inconveniences, especially changing schools midway. But your child won’t be the only one transferring? I hope he or she gets to stay with some of his friends.
Is there any official reasoning behind reassigning Shoreline West to Landels and not Castro?
They should have kept Willowgate at Landels but reassigned the mobile homes on Moffett to a better School. That would have been something!
Cleave, what is it about these new school boundaries that will “give way to an invested and motivated group of parents who will advocate, volunteer, and work for their school to make it the school they wish it to be” that the previous boundaries did not have. What is the specific difference in the boundaries that will lead to that change?
@ Cleave
Just repeating something over and over again (as you have done in your comments her in the Voice) doesn’t make it true! If you’re just going to be dishonest about things, I would prefer you not serve on any future committees!
“All of the school assignments were chose to balance the number of students and ensure that each school’s student population had a walkable or bikeable route to the school in question.”
Per Google maps, it takes 13 min for me to walk to Landels (actual is a bit less) with no major road crossings. To get to Theuerkauf is 26 min crossing Moffett and Shoreline. That’s just not practicable (or safe) so we’ll be driving to/from school and playdates and after-school activities. It’s a ten minute walk from any part of Shoreline West to Castro (with no major roads).
You say Shoreline West *just* didn’t want to get split up? Well, neither did we (from the rest of the Landels community), but we didn’t get involved early enough. We all heard the squawking about loss in property values for Shoreline West if they got zoned for Castro. Shoreline West successfully played a political game and you’re not willing to be honest about it. Nor is Rudolph!
@Honest question
“Is there any official reasoning behind reassigning Shoreline West to Landels and not Castro?”
I wouldn’t call it an “official” reason, but Castro will be a newly built school with a capacity of 450. If S.W. was also inserted into the new Castro, then it would instantly become over crowed from the first year while Landels would be far below it’s capacity. Willowgate into Landels would not help the enrollment at Landels, but it would hurt the enrollment at Theuerkauf.
Remember, our mandate was to come up with a map that would do the best we could to balance the enrollment for each school in the district in relation to the permanent capacity of each school. These choices had to reflect the population projections that were available for the next several years out.
The BATF and SAATF carefully examined nearly 100 different boundary ideas trying to find one map that would indeed allow all schools to have enough kids, but not too many kids. This was based on population projections of the 2019-2020 school year and beyond.
If you have not been involved in the process, then it’s pretty easy to second-guess and it’s pretty tough to understand all the work that went into finding a map that actually came to the best practical outcome.
“They should have kept Willowgate at Landels”
You mean because the 16 kids who use the Stevens Creek trail each school day from Willowgate? The rest drive the long way around.
As has been pointed out, the first time I heard any objection to the SAATF map from Willowgate was long after it was approved and we were already deeply into the EPTF. There was also the issue of Theuerkauf being under enrolled to consider. Where were Willowgate families over the prior 4 years, like during the BATF?
“but reassigned the mobile homes on Moffett to a better School.”
The only choices would have been Vargas, which will be over crowded soon enough already or Landels. But how do you justify giving special treatment to a specific set of families just because they live in a mobile home?
@Willowgate
“@ Elephant in the room”
“My issues with being assigned to Theuerkauf:”
“1. For kids currently assigned to Landels, need to move to new school midway through.”
Same for all of the hundreds of kids being moved out of the other schools to a new school, nothing different for Willowgate kids.
“2. For ALL families, creates a HORRIBLE school drop-off commute. Previous commute was short and car-free along the hike-and-bike trail. ”
Only a fraction of the Willogate kids use the Stevens Creek trail to go to Landels, as I have been told by several parents now. Something like 16 at most? The rest all drive anyway.
Had Willowgate gotten involved in the BATF, or even came to the meetings years ago and made objections known, I can’t say if the outcome would have changed, but decisions get made by those who show up DURING the process, not after the decisions have been made.
Why did the school board decide that the rules they voted on unanimously don’t apply to them or the district staff?
“Students who live within a school’s attendance boundary have top priority to attend the school, followed by children of district staff.”
I can see how this is fine if you’re working at a school, it’s convenient for your kids to go to the same school. THAT is the exception they should have voted on. But as stated, it seems like the board didn’t want a taste of their own medicine, allowing district staff to have the option to bump anyone else on the waiting list for high performing schools like Bubb or Huff, even if the staff parent doesn’t work there.
Look, if anyone feels they need to blame someone for all of this, then the group that started all of this was the Whisman/Slater families who desperately wanted to have a school in their neighborhood after they lost 2 schools in the last 18 years.
Whisman/Slater lost Whisman due to the Clinton era decision to drastically reduce Moffett Feild towards closing it. Then in 2006 the W/S area lost Slater. This meant their kids got scattered all over the district and thus they lost all sense of “neighborhood” and community.
The W/S advocates began a years long campaign to get a new school and their repeated refrain was all about the importance of “neighborhoods”. They endlessly pressed the point that kids living next door to each other didn’t know each other because they went to different schools.
Year after year the MVWSD Board heard countless times about the importance of neighborhoods, so when Measure G passed and gave the district only enough money to build 9 450 capacity schools, they did so with the concept of neighborhood front and center.
Also, I guess you could blame the voters for not giving MVWSD all the money that was required to fully upgrade all our schools to fit 600 kids. That would have not only allowed W/S to get a huge new school, but all our schools could have managed all the kids we have now and manage most of the new huge wave of kids that are projected to come from North Bayshore in the next decade.
In any case, when you have been sitting on the outside all these years, it’s easy to criticize what you don’t know anything about.
@Alex M
“Why did the school board decide that the rules they voted on unanimously don’t apply to them or the district staff?”
The Board continued a standard policy of the past and of many, maybe most school districts.
Remember when and where we expect our teachers and other staff members to be at the time their kids are supposed to be arriving at school. Teachers and staff are supposed to be in school at the very time their kids are supposed to be dropped off at school. How would they manage that other than allowing them to bring their kids to work with them?
“”Students who live within a school’s attendance boundary have top priority to attend the school, followed by children of district staff.””
“I can see how this is fine if you’re working at a school, it’s convenient for your kids to go to the same school.”
A little more than just convenient in fact.
“THAT is the exception they should have voted on.”
They DID. It was part of the discussion all along and was always considered a good policy.
“But as stated, it seems like the board didn’t want a taste of their own medicine,”
At the time if the vote, only one Board member had a kid and he lives in the district already.
This long-standing policy is mainly used by teachers and in any case, it does not have a significant impact on any of our schools, but has a huge impact on the district staff effected.
“allowing district staff to have the option to bump anyone else on the waiting list for high performing schools like Bubb or Huff, even if the staff parent doesn’t work there.”
FALSE! The staff kids CANNOT “bump” neighborhood kids from ANY school!
Neighborhood kids have FIRST priority!
You didn’t even read the quote you provided!
The balancing map from the SAATF was our best effort to make sure that all the neighborhood kids could get in to their neighborhood school. The idea of limited “intra-district transfers” has a yearly re-aproval involved, so even if a staff kid got into Huff one year because there was space, does not mean they get to bump a neighborhood kid or even a kid who wanted a transfer to Huff.
And you seem to be forgetting that voluntary transfer requests are NOT available to any school that is already less than 25% below it’s permanent capacity.
So, kids may transfer in to ML, CS and TH, but not to HF or BB.
I could see a teacher at Huff getting their kid into Huff, but only if there are open seats, NOT to bump out another kid.
Dr. Rudolph has said all of this will be put into official language and a published policy for all of us to see, if they get it wrong, then we have reason to request change or clarifications, but for now, I am fairly certain this wont be a problem.
“You mean because the 16 kids who use the Stevens Creek trail each school day from Willowgate?”
Well yeah.
It is good to reward those who use our trails and bike and walk instead of driving. It is super safe to get to Landels using the trail (and only 0.8 miles to boot).
It’s 1.8 miles to get to Theuerkauf, and you have to cross Shoreline to get there.
For that whole Moffett Blvd/85/Central Triangle: Landels makes a WHOLE LOT more sense, even if the boundaries aren’t so pretty.
(By the way, I don’t even have elementary school age kids and I rent so it doesn’t make any difference to me personally. It just makes common sense.)
To reassign mobile homes would be good for the balance of demographics. Unfortunately Theuerkauf and Castro have too large a concentration of residents of low income housing.
Part of it is natural due to multiple cheap apartment complexes next to Castro especially; but part of it could be reduced by reassigning some farther out residences.
@EPTF Member: “Teachers and staff are supposed to be in school at the very time their kids are supposed to be dropped off at school. How would they manage that other than allowing them to bring their kids to work with them?”
Seriously? How does every other member of the community handle getting their kids to school later than they themselves have to be at work? It’s called private childcare or before/after school care provided by the district. All working families deal with these issues. Sheesh!
@Steven Nelson
IMO, transportation and absence of subsidized/free daycare (akin to YMCA or Beyond the Bell) is the reason why ED families do not attend Stevenson.
Not to mention: multiple requests for donations, “obligatory” parent participation, and weekend parent training events.
I understand that Pact would not be possible without parent participation, but just showing that attracting more disadvantaged families would require a massive amount of effort. But I digress, sorry.
@Steven Nelson
Here is the truth that hurts: PACT can only accommodate so many non-volunteering, non-financially contributing families. I am not happy about this, but it is reality. What will be the make or break percentage? 10? 34?
Buses CAN be provided, as well as aftercare (Theuerkauf options are just a short walk away, after all). This is not the core issue. Maybe even financial contributions issue can be solved. But what about volunteering?
Here is what I would like to avoid: the demand to attract and retain more low income families as a precursor for effectively killing the program (because it could not be done, or because it was done all too well).
The problem is also that it is hard to say all this without sounding “racist” or “segregationist” to at least some.
What could the solution be? Should every school have a mini-PACT, walkable, and accessible to all who wish to enroll? Something else?
While more can be done to help with diversification of Stevenson, I’m wondering if the education that students receive is worth the effort to make it work for low ses students. If we look at how Stevenson does with their Low SES, and other underrepresented populations is it actually better than Castro? Monta Loma ? Theuerkauf? Bubb? We know overall, the students do well, but as someone already pointed out state scores are largely reflective of parents education. While I think many more parents want access to Stevenson, I don’t think it’s parents from the the low SES population.
@Elephant, this is how falsehoods get propagated. The whole “it’s just the parents fault” line is a narrative pushed by folks like EPTF Member in order to make him feel better about the results of the task forces he’s guided and his own personal choices to abandon his own neighborhood school.
Look at his discussion about how there’s no way to reduce the achievement gap unless you just make the “good schools” worse! This is someone who’s guiding policy in our district! The classist undercurrents here are disgusting.
I sincerely believe schools can and do have an impact on student learning, but I also know that test performance is highly correlated to parent education. This has been proven multiple times. It’s ok to acknowledge that.
I just and questioning If the teaching/ opportunities at Stevenson are that much superior to those at our other neighborhood schools? Do the outcomes for their low SES students show better results then Bubb or Castro fornthatbsubset?
Correlation is one thing, but I’d like to see the robust statistics that disentangle that from wealth, especially given how economically segregated our society is.
What there is strong causal evidence for is that sending low income students to high-performing schools improves their chances of success without harming the other students, which is strongly contrary to what EPTF is pushing. But, again, he engaged in white flight from his local school and has pushed these policies, so he’s got a lot psychologically tied up in writing them off as a lost cause.
@Another elephant
“I sincerely believe schools can and do have an impact on student learning,”
Of course, for example, a school with a high percentage of native Spanish speaking families can greatly benefit the kids by having all the teachers and staff also fluent in Spanish. Communication between parents and teachers is critical. And since transportation is a huge issue for lower-income families, having their school within easy walking distance makes it a lot more common for parents and teachers to communicate.
The main thing about MVWSD is that the district has bent over backwards to try to make all the schools great schools and you would be hard pressed to show there is any substantive difference in the quality of the teachers at any of our schools. And as far as I know, the basic curriculum is the same at each school.
“but I also know that test performance is highly correlated to parent education.”
Yes, this has always been the case.
Remember that up until 2012 there was a state run system that was supposed to “rate” the quality of all the schools in the state. When that system was studied scientifically, it was determined that the only thing the system was actually measuring was the education of the parents (usually the mothers) who were most involved in their kids education.
The old system provided ZERO meaningful data about the schools themselves.
Which is why it got shut down.
“This has been proven multiple times. It’s ok to acknowledge that.”
These days speaking any factual truth that is not “Politically Correct” is not considered “OK” with some people.
“I just and questioning If the teaching/ opportunities at Stevenson are that much superior to those at our other neighborhood schools?”
Not superior, just applied differently because kids are not made in a factory all from the same mold.
“Do the outcomes for their low SES students show better results then Bubb or Castro for that subset?”
Actually, I do recall one report at a past Board meeting that did not show any improvement at Stevenson over the other schools when it came to the “free/reduced lunch” kids. I think that year Huff showed some improvement, but I don’t recall being all that impressed by the numbers.
I know these stats are available, but I don’t have them on hand.
@Another elephant
“While more can be done to help with diversification of Stevenson,”
Indeed I have strongly suggested several ways of doing this that are practical and would work.
You may not be aware that from 2006-2009, PACT was located at Castro and had a very substantial percentage of local low-income Hispanics that joined PACT and were quite happy with that choice. The problem, as is so often the case, was transportation once PACT was moved to Stevenson. So virtually all of the low-income Castro area kids left PACT because they could not manage the transportation.
“I’m wondering if the education that students receive is worth the effort to make it work for low ses students.”
I think it has nothing to do with lower-income kids in general benefiting from Stevenson, but rather that the style of education at Stevenson reaches certain kids (regardless of income/ethnicity/native language/educational background of parents/etc.) better than the standard style of education does.
I think that we must trust the parents to know their own kids best so as long as the parents get a full and detailed understanding of what PACT is and how kids are educated at Stevenson and then parents make the decision if the PACT methods are best for their kids or the standard style is best or dual-immersion is best.
“If we look at how Stevenson does with their Low SES, and other underrepresented populations is it actually better than Castro? Monta Loma ? Theuerkauf? Bubb?
From the data I’ve seen reported in a Board meeting, Stevenson does no better for low-income kids than the other schools and only Huff showed a significant benefit for low-income kids.
“We know overall, the students do well, but as someone already pointed out state scores are largely reflective of parents education.”
Correct, and more educated parents are more likely to either live on one job or work jobs that can allow the parents quite a bit of flexibility to volunteer time at the school.
“While I think many more parents want access to Stevenson, I don’t think it’s parents from the the low SES population.”
From the PACT@Castro experience, I think we could increase the low-income families if we provide improved benefits for such families.
In the past, the facilities at Stevenson were so cramped and outdated that it was all we could do to fit the bare minimum educational services into the buildings. With the new Stevenson construction, we may well have room and better facilities to allow for additional benefits to help lower-income families to make it work for them.
Just to give you a sense, Stevenson never had a MUR, no indoor place to eat, no kitchen, no outdoor shaded area for the pic-nic tables so almost all of the kids ate lunch sitting on the blacktop. Also, we had no library building. All we had was one of our small classrooms stuffed with book shelves. In many ways, the old Stevenson made it nearly impossible to do anything to attract low-income families.
This fall, our new campus will open, well, most of it anyway, so now we could do more.
OH, and we have a new preschool right next door, so maybe that could also help low-income families too?
Note that EPTF member has plenty of time to respond to everyone else, but dodges the difficult issues of his white flight. Rich, can’t handle the tough questions?
@ Elephant in the room
I think you’re confused on a couple critical bits of information later in your post, but you got a great start!
“IMO, transportation and absence of subsidized/free daycare (akin to YMCA or Beyond the Bell) is the reason why ED families do not attend Stevenson.”
CORRECT!
When PACT was at Castro, we had a substantial percentage of local low-income families. When PACT was moved (due to extreme over crowding at Castro) to Stevenson, the low-income families of Castro did not follow.
And the good news is that Stevenson now has a new preschool opening right next door AND Stevenson will finally have a full normal set of full sized classrooms and an actual library and an actual MUR. The result is that Stevenson will be able to devote room(s) to after school care!
Something PACT has never had in 20 years, extra room!
“Not to mention: multiple requests for donations,”
I would ask you to check all of our schools, this request for donations happens at all our schools. Stevenson make an ask at start of school, then offers some opportunities during the year for fund raising in other forums. Ask any parent of any other school.
Heck, the YMCA has an ask for donations pretty much every month during the school year.
” “obligatory” parent participation,”
The term “obligatory” is no longer valid and was NEVER enforced.
In the past the hundreds of parent participation schools in California had been told that making volunteer hours mandatory was perfectly legal, but a judge in 2013 decided that the laws had been misinterpreted by the state and he ordered that no public school can make volunteering or donations “mandatory” and the paperwork had to be changed to reflect this change on the understanding of the law.
In any case, PACT has NEVER kicked-out any kid because their parents made a promise to volunteer or donate and then just didn’t do anything. NOBODY keeps a log book of hours volunteered by parents. What we do is make due with whatever volunteer hours or donations that our parents do give.
“and weekend parent training events.”
Thew weekend parent training was ADDED due to some parents preferring weekend parent education over a week night session. In any case, there are only TWO sessions required and ONLY for the specific parent who intends to be in the classroom each week for a 2-hour shift. If a parent is only going to be involved with things like “Arts Focus”, there is no need to attend parent education.
“I understand that Pact would not be possible without parent participation, but just showing that attracting more disadvantaged families would require a massive amount of effort.”
In the past, the old Stevenson facilities and lack of a preschool would have made it impossible to bring low-income families from Castro, but with the new campus and a full set of rooms and a new preschool next door, I think it is now quite possible without a huge effort.
@Steven Nelson
“[MVWSD poor = 34.3%, Stevenson 6.9%, TH = 65.8% ]”
Say, Mr Nelson, why don’t you also post the “poor” percentages for ALL of our schools?
Why just compare ST to TH?
Same year, for Huff, Bubb, Landels, etc…?
I would also find it interesting to know how our middle schools compare.
OH, and from what I have heard in a couple Board meetings, our “metric” fro determining what the percentage of “poor” we have is a very poor metric itself and does not reflect the same percentages other methods do.
I do recognize it’s the only metric we legally have access to, but I wish we had more meaningful metrics.
Funny that EPTF is very sensitive to Stevenson vs Theuerkauf demographics. White flight is a real issue, even here in California. Lots of words, yet nothing to respond to the issue of your own white flight?
@EPTF member, when I talk about “obligatory” volunteering and fundraising, of course I know it is not mandatory, but a lot of parents who are not well off are not free loaders and they do feel bad when they just don’t have the flexibility to come volunteer, or are two tired on the weekend from working several jobs, or are trying to work some extra gigs. Also, they don’t have the means to contribute to teacher appreciation week, then end of school, then sometimes a teacher’s birthday gift. Yet, they feel bad always saying “no”. Ask me how I know!
As for fundraising and volunteering at other schools, yes, parents are asked, but it is a different level of intensity so to speak. In fact, as far as I know, TH and Castro are not asking parents for donations except in rare cases. I cannot of course compare first hand, but the only complaints about fundraising I hear come from ST parents.
Anyway, this is not to bash ST, but just to show how subtle factors can be at play when attracting low-income families.
@Weird, I have to say that the traditional public school system is not suitable for every child. Discipline, forms of teaching, etc – this is the main difference of ST vs other schools. Unfortunately too many parents know nothing about PACT philosophy except that the school is rated 10, and keep applying just because of the rating.
Having grown up in New England towns rated among the best in country for public schools (and not tremendously wealthy towns, to Take that excuse off the table), having students go to their local neighborhood school is an important, positive step for Mountain View families and students.
However one HUGE issue, remains the lack of busing provided for most students. It’s embarassing that a progressive area like Silicon Valley has the most pathetic pubic busing coverage compared to New England towns, requiring hundreds of parents to drop off and pick up their kids daily. It causes massive traffic, carbon emissions, and tremendous psychological and logistical stress on families for something that should be provided as part of our (high) taxes. Basic access to education, should include easy transportation for students to and from school. Count this new englander as absolutely baffled at how wrong California has it in terms of lack of public busing for all neighborhood students eligible to attend their local school.
@Elephant in the room
You’re making quite a few assumptions that directly contradict my 5 years experience at PACT.
However, your last point was your best point, so I moved it up front:
“Unfortunately too many parents know nothing about PACT philosophy except that the school is rated 10, and keep applying just because of the rating.”
That is a problem we have struggled with for many years and now, with the support of the district office, we plan on correcting that problem.
PACT is supposed to be about fully informed families CHOOSING the PACT style of education because, in their best judgement, the PACT methods are the best fit for their kids. NOT because of some idiotic rating system.
The new rules for enrollment are expected to make it mandatory for parents to attend an informational meeting at one of the neighborhood schools or at Stevenson to become fully informed before making the decision of applying to Stevenson.
“when I talk about “obligatory” volunteering and fundraising, of course I know it is not mandatory,”
OK, then you simply used the wrong term, it happens.
“but a lot of parents who are not well off are not free loaders and they do feel bad when they just don’t have the flexibility to come volunteer,”
So, you’re a mind-reader?
Or do you personally know how “a lot of parents” at Stevenson “feel”?
Or are you just assuming?
Or are you telling us how you think you would feel?
In any case, you’re not addressing how things are for the kids educationally, which I would think should be the whole point.
If a parent decides that the PACT style of education fits their kids needs best, then the parents have done their primary job and if the parents end up “feeling” badly about themselves, well, that’s called being a parent.
It’s all about what’s best for the kids, not the parents “feelings”.
“Also, they don’t have the means to contribute to teacher appreciation week, then end of school, then sometimes a teacher’s birthday gift. Yet, they feel bad always saying “no”.”
In 5 years I have NEVER been asked directly to contribute to anything on the spot, nor have I ever seen or heard of a list kept on who did or did not contribute. The opportunities to contribute are in broadcast emails, not person to person and any donations end up in a collective spot with no names attached.
“I cannot of course compare first hand, but the only complaints about fundraising I hear come from ST parents.”
I doubt that, but again, it’s not really about the parents “feelings”.
Are these same supposed parents also complaining about the phone calls and letters from the MVEF? I have gotten “reminders” from the MVEF at least 4 times a year and they ask for $500 per year to start!
“just to show how subtle factors can be at play when attracting low-income families. ”
If you were correct, then you’re claiming that low-income parents are more interested in their “feelings” about themselves than they are about their kids education. In my experience, low-income parents are just as, if not more, driven to set aside their own feelings if they can find a way to do what’s best for their kids.
@Elephant in the room
“PACT can only accommodate so many non-volunteering, non-financially contributing families….What will be the make or break percentage? 10?34?”
You’re making more huge assumptions.
It’s not about the percentage of families who do “nothing”, but more about the total amount of volunteer hours/donations given by the group. What happens is that those parents who can give more, do give more and whatever the total ends up being is used to the best we can to provide the kids with the best we can. We are highly flexible and highly organized to make best use of whatever we get.
If we don’t have enough parents that can drive a full class of kids to some field trip location, then a broadcast email is sent out letting everyone know we need another driver. If no additional driver is available, the trip is simply canceled.
Life goes on.
For Arts Focus, we have a set of types of art and we need one parent to be the lead on that style of art, if nobody signs up for that particular style of art, then that style is just not represented that year.
Life goes on.
If we have extra money in the donations pot at the end of the year, we usually will give a big portion of that to the teachers fund for professional development, if we don’t have extra money, then we don’t have it.
It’s not a cliff-point, it’s simply a matter of what parents choose to give of themselves and nobody gives exactly the same amount of hours or money. And no two years are exactly the same in terms of how much we get to do or what gets dropped in any given year.
Let me give you a physical example, this year our pottery kiln was not available because of the construction at the site, so we just didn’t have that as part of Arts Focus this year. We don’t yet know if it will be available next year either.
Life goes on.
If nobody gave time or money, then no kids would benefit from the PACT style of education, if everyone gave what they could afford to give, then every child would benefit as would the teachers.
Get it?
EPTF Member, you have lots of words for the minutiae of Stevenson, yet nothing to respond to the issue of your own white flight? Your silence speaks volumes.
@EPTF parent, you are so easily dismissing what you call “feelings” of parents who cannot afford to donate. There is a thing called dignity, and it is pretty fragile in people who are not well-off. It is also a powerful deterrent for doing things that might further damage that sense of dignity.
I have the privilege of being fairly educated, which many poor families do not. They have no idea of ST educational style. They won’t be able to make decisions based on that alone. They assume all schools are ok as long as there is transportation and aftercare they can afford. Of course I am not talking about ALL poor families. But the majority, yes.
As for donations, of course I haven’t done a valid research, but I have spoken to a few people on how they feel. Of course no one is asked on the spot.
Look, this is not to shame Stevenson. I am just showing you a slightly different perspective. I am sure I am not the only not so well off person who feels that way.
As for amount of parents who do not donate: imagine your funding available for arts focus (and the number of parent volunteers) is permanently reduced by 34 percent. Will life still go on?
@Elephant in the room
You really don’t get anything about how PACT operates.
“@EPTF parent, you are so easily dismissing what you call “feelings” of parents who cannot afford to donate.”
So, you “feel” that when Theuerkauf (with 65% low-income) has a fund raiser it makes all those 65% of families “feel bad”? Even though nobody knows who donates what? I guess you would cancel fund raisers so to spare the fragile feelings of those 65%?
You’re missing the point again! And again and again.
Since I grew up in a low-income family to the point where we got free lunches at school my whole school life and we got so called “government surplus” cheese, powdered milk & eggs, and a whole host of other surplus food from the government, I know exactly how it felt and what my parents felt and how we handled it.
WORSE YET, ALL the other kids knew which were the poor kids because the schools gave us poor kids a lunch voucher so we didn’t pay at the checkout.
UNLIKE at PACT! Or any other public school today!
NOBODY has any way of knowing who does or who does not donate or who does not put in the hours, or how much, NOBODY can tell who is a poor kid or a low-income parent.
“There is a thing called dignity, and it is pretty fragile in people who are not well-off.”
Again, I know all this quite well, but you make a choice for your kids to deal with your feelings without letting your feelings poison your child.
“It is also a powerful deterrent for doing things that might further damage that sense of dignity.”
And yet when PACT was at Castro, lots of those local poor families joined PACT and managed to cope just fine. They didn’t seem to have a dignity problem, just a transportation limitation.
“I have the privilege of being fairly educated,”
Goodie, so were my parents, but they never managed to turn their educations into a proper living for their 3 kids.
“They have no idea of ST educational style.”
Exactly MY POINT!
In the past the district office did NOTHING to help PACT explain what we had to offer.
“They assume all schools are ok as long as there is transportation and aftercare they can afford. Of course I am not talking about ALL poor families. But the majority, yes.”
I agree, the problem has been total lack of support from the district office, something I am trying to change with our new super.
“As for donations, of course I haven’t done a valid research,”
Good to see you recognize this.
“but I have spoken to a few people on how they feel.”
OK, I could find a “few people” to say they “feel” pretty much anything about anything.
“I am sure I am not the only not so well off person who feels that way.”
As a liberal and former poor person, I have noticed a huge amount of unwarranted and useless self-imposed “guilt” among those who “feel” they are well-off (or at least not-poor) and they routinely over-compensate out of their own internal shame of being not-poor. I’m not well-off, but I’m no longer a free-lunch family either. I see nothing productive coming from any type of “guilt” related to family income.
“As for amount of parents who do not donate:”
While it would be nice if every family donated something, even if it’s just one dollar, PACT manages just fine with what does get donated in total.
MVEF also drives really hard to get every family in Mountain View to donate something, even if it’s just a dollar, they still manage just fine with the total that does get donated.
“imagine your funding available for arts focus (and the number of parent volunteers) is permanently reduced by 34 percent.”
You really don’t understand how budgeting works.
The PACT Foundation gets the donations and they decide how it is to be spent to best support the kids and teachers with whatever amount gets donated.
There is no such thing as targeted donations or targeted exclusions.
” Will life still go on?”
My “feeling” about Arts Focus, personally that is, I don’t really care one way or the other about Arts Focus, but I am happy that other families who do care will benefit from the donation I can afford.
Get it?
@Tom
“However one HUGE issue, remains the lack of busing provided for most students.”
It was also that way when I was a kid in the 1960’s in San Jose and other towns in the general bay area. My mother did not have a car, so I walked about 4 blocks to/from school in San Jose as a kinder on a busy main street. The first time I rode a bus was when we lived one year in a highly forested area with one windy road. All the kids rode the same bus to/from school K-9.
My wife also had no bus help when she went to school in Mountain View in the 70’s. She had to take 2 different city buses to make it to/from Los Altos High School. They didn’t even subsidize the costs in spite of the fact that she was free-lunch kid.
“It’s embarassing that a progressive area like Silicon Valley has the most pathetic pubic busing coverage compared to…”
Other states have done a far better job of school transportation than California has.
I have to believe that many areas of California must have a much better system for school buses. Out away from the cities, it seems unlikely that the schools could operate any other way.
EPTF Member, are you really that scared of confronting your white flight? If the schools don’t matter, as you’ve stated, why did you abandon Theuerkauf, your neighborhood school? You have so much to say about everything else, on the order of thousands of words now, why are you silent on this? Are you that scared?
@Elephant in the room
Hey, E, your pop-psychology theories trying to explain why PACT at Stevenson does not have more low-income families totally ignores that fact that when PACT was at Slater, it had a pretty good percentage match to the area demographics and when PACT was at Castro, it had a far more than that of the low-income families attending PACT.
All those many low-income families seemed to find a way to overcome how “fragile” you “feel” they are to attend PACT for the first 11 years of PACT.
As I and some others have said, the issue is simply transportation.
Of course, it would also help if the district cooperated in explaining about PACT to everyone in the district, but were working on that.
Your assertion that low-income families are just too fragile and too ashamed to be poor, even though NOBODY at the schools have any way of knowing who is or is not poor, simply flies in the face of the historical facts.
I grant you that in decades past it was obvious, in so many ways, who was poor and who was wealthy, but today that’s not only illegal, it’s also impossible to tell by looking at the kids or parents or even their cars.
When I was a kid, you could take one look at a kid’s clothes or a parent or their car and you could tell pretty accurately what their income group was.
Clothing styles alone were such an accurate indicator of income that some schools went to uniforms to make it harder to tell the income difference.
But, most schools made it easy to tell who was poor.
Today, I couldn’t begin to guess which kids at Theuerkauf or Stevenson were low-income, not from their clothes, not from their parents, not from their cars, not from their native language, etc…
When Stevenson kids and Theuerkauf kids are in the YMCA after school room, you couldn’t possibly tell by sight or speech or what car their parent drives which kids go to which school (unless you knew them already).
EPTF Member: RT white flight.
Sounds reasonable.
As a retired Board member I would also agree with Christopher Chiang. “These new boundaries approved in June are a pragmatic step forward.” They are not perfect. “Willowgate” aside (is that a conspiracy like “Watergate”?) there were also other slight area modifications that could have decreased segregation: pre-office Laura Blakely’s suggestion of Gemello to Castro – it is after all the very close ‘historic school’ for that area!
But – the vote AGAINST the recommendation of the now-ancient administrative Boundary Adjustment Task Force of Goldman/Skelly was also UNANIMOUS (0:5). This is “a pragmatic step forward” (5:0) in allowing all neighborhood families to attend elementary schools within their own neighborhoods.
@ETPF member has a clear view of what is the root cause ( 0.8 correlation coefficient for API scores over their last decade) of most school achievement differences. Now – will the MVWSD ‘break the mold’ that has developed around not using ALL the Enhancement Grant money (20% for each Economically Disadvantaged student), to give those Castro/Theuerkauf kids their extra hours/days/weeks/months of learning opportunities per year? [example – what #, what % of Economically Disadvantaged will participate in the July 5th Summer School Science Fair at Crittenden?]
To Willowgate point 2): I think you are exactly right. But, given the information that one San Mateo county elementary district solved the distance-assignment problem algorithmically, with a ‘whole district’ optimization computed from BING’s ‘walk distance’ data, the MVWSD Board and the MVWSD administration chose to ignore this ‘new analytical way’ of solving the nearest-neighbor/nearest-classroom problem.
Maybe the next decade? [does not solve your issue 1). ] But – if some kids move to new school assignment and some don’t, you still have a problem with ‘lost closest school friends’.
All of the school assignments were chose to balance the number of students and ensure that each school’s student population had a walkable or bikeable route to the school in question. It’s not perfect but it gets us pretty close in each school case. The Shoreline community didn’t advocate for any particular school as much as they advocated to remain at one school community. This advocacy was done by parents attending meetings, writing letters, and getting involved. There was a large enough pool of students in Shoreline West that Castro was not likely the best option because of it’s current enrollment numbers. The thing that I love about the new boundaries is that while folks are going to belly ache for a year or so, that will eventually give way to an invested and motivated group of parents who will advocate, volunteer, and work for their school to make it the school they wish it to be. This is what’s been missing at a couple of our schools in the past and I am certain that the future is bright for all of our schools given the Board’s recent decisions and policies.
– Former BATF, SAATF, and EPTF Member
We should start a pool on how soon the first “exceptions” are voted on and passed by the board.
I applaud the MVWSD School Board for ripping off the band aid and demonstrating solidarity and leadership. I only hope they don’t walk this back over the next 12 months. While not ideal for each and every specific family situation, they made the best decision for the district as a whole. Maybe I should have renewed faith in the competency of the incumbent board members. This was an impressive decision.
The ‘best we can do for now’ feeling of elected public officials is a real feeling. Just listen to the recorded worries and suggestions of various Trustees, over the years, on this closed-neighborhood schools / enrollment-boundary issue(s). Policy direction is a sociological-political process. In a local democracy it is done openly and PAINFULLY in the best of times. It is done secretly and PAINFULLY in the worst of times.
@ Willowgate is entirely right (IMO) on using algorithms/big data to attack 21st Century public policy problems. But the reality of democracy: you have to pay attention and you MUST participate. Whisman/Slater and Shoreline West and Willowgate (for better or worse, for noble or myopic reasons) are all examples of players in this game. It is quite open that “the property values” issue drove some SW realtor-driven task force participation and suggestions. That’s politics, that’s democracy.
@Alex M and @Honest Question: Please note that the Voice reporting tends to shorten-the-reality. You may get tired of reading through WPTF member’s very long postings, but they are generally correct in their details (which he tries to distinguish from His Opinions). [And sometimes he and I get riled-to-rant “you don’t know anything about”]
Neighborhood families get priority in neighborhood schools. The new Administrative Regulations are yet to be written (cast in Public Policy language). Staff are allowed to register their students in MVWSD. Staff should not (in the new AR language) be able to displace neighborhood families or to get their own ‘grandfathering’ (which is being eliminated across the district). Trustee Wilson absolutely DOES NOT QUALIFY AS STAFF and does not get any staff privilege for her son. @Alex? Where/why did you make that up?
@Elephant in The Room- Exactly! If the MVWSD organization cannot understand (still!) that Economically Disadvantaged families ALWAYS NEED FREE TRANSPORTATION for themselves and their students, and that the MONEY IS AVAILABLE in LCFF Enhancement Grant millions, it is continuing to be class-deaf. RESERVES in the General Fund should not (IMO) accumulate further when TRANSPORTATION NEEDS are ignored for the poor families in our school community. Trustee Gutierrez – that Act of Omission leads to increased Segregation (by economic class).
@Elephant. I know and EPTF member knows. The neighborhood community around Rex Manor knows (go to any of the informal weekend picnics the group has had around TH play area). The Board has a short institutional memory (DI parents explaining directly to Board why you can’t move DI program/school across town to Whisman/Slater area ALREADY FORGOTTEN?).
The CHOICE SCHOOL enrollment (New?) policy is the next enrollment issue that will (hopefully) be publicly and openly discussed, debated, pondered, and decided (changed) SO YOU ARE NOT DIGRESSING too far. If you absolutely hate the way Stevenson (PACT Choice Program) enrollment is now working – now is the time to study and organize. If you Love the Economic Segregation Choice that Stevenson now represents, circle your wagons! [MVWSD poor = 34.3%, Stevenson 6.9%, TH = 65.8% ]
be an INFORMED community member/ your OPINION will then be more respected
official state education database
https://www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Clara/Mountain-View-Whisman
It sounds like one of the issues is that $$ raised by parents varies from school to school. That used to be a huge issue in Palo Alto, with some schools raising huge amounts more than others which lead to inequities in programs and staffing. The issue was made better (not totally resolved, there is still a wealth and volunteer time imbalance) but the inequities were reduced by having a district-wide foundation that raised money then distributed it on a per-student basis (for example, every elementary school would get X amount per student). In addition, only the school district or the fundraising arm could pay for school personnel. The individual PTAs can still raise money for “stuff”.
To all the comments about lack of school buses – the answer is simple – money (or lack of) in education in California.
I never understood why Mountain View didn’t have neighborhood schools period. Its a bit crazy that people can transfer their kids to other schools that are not in their enrollment area. Neighborhood schools are great in so many ways, kids can potentially walk or bike, you get to know more of your neighbors and it strengthens a community.
@Fundraising should be shared district-wide
Why limit it to district-wide? Why not only county-wide, or state-wide?
“It sounds like one of the issues is that $$ raised by parents varies from school to school.”
As with pretty much every public school district in the USA, unless they only have one school of course. The PTA’s of each school do what the families of that school support. Nothing stops a PTA from going outside their school families to find donations.
“… by having a district-wide foundation that raised money then distributed it on a per-student basis…”
I suggest you look up the MVEF, the Mountain View Educational Fund.
It raises money from the entire district and asks every parent of the district to donate whatever amount the families feel they can. The basic “ask” is $500 per year, but they say they would rather get 100% of families donating something.
Oh and you may want to look up the Los Altos Educational Fund, they raise more than double what the MVEF manages to raise!
The MVEF also works with companies to try to get matching funds and outright donations from anyone they can think of.
The MVEF has a good history of spreading the wealth across the schools on the basis of equity and getting the most educational bang for the buck.
“In addition, only the school district or the fundraising arm could pay for school personnel.”
I’m a little confused as to what that means, could you explain?
Do you mean the employees of the district should rely on the utter unpredictability of donations for their pay????
That would never fly, so I hope you meant something else.
“The individual PTAs can still raise money for “stuff”.
Exactly, but then some people will still insist that PTA fund raising should be banned and only district-level fund raising should be allowed.
“To all the comments about lack of school buses – the answer is simple – money (or lack of) in education in California.”
I suggest you look up “Proposition 13”, that explains quite a lot.
“I never understood why Mountain View didn’t have neighborhood schools period.”
MVWSD always has had “neighborhood schools” what we did not have was strictly enforced boundaries. This is partly due to the past history of school closures and the resulting upheaval across the district.
It also is due to efforts at experimental social engineering.
Look up the “Wagonwheel” area of Whisman/Slator getting assigned to Huff.
“Its a bit crazy that people can transfer their kids to other schools that are not in their enrollment area.”
Well, it lets the district off the hook on a whole lot of responsibilities they should be dealing with but kept shoving the problem down the road.
And the district does not have to do any checking to find out if people actually live where they claim they do.
EPTF Member, are you really this scared of little old me? I guess it’s true what they say about bullies, stand up to them and they show they’re just cowards…