"I'm not sure we can dispute them"

But I'm sure we'll dispute the numbers if they aren't saying what we want to hear.

Did the previous study take into account the effects of the gentrification which is occurring? You know, where 2 low income families living in an apartment are forced out by rising rents. Then a childless set of occupants moves in. There went 5 kids from the school district.

I wonder how this can be estimated?

How about I save the district $11,000. Excluding Bubb and Huff, only 35% of people select their neighborhood school. That's very low. What makes the Whisman neighborhood think that opening a new school in their neighborhood would change that? Likely a new Whisman school would result in the same, at best 35% selecting to send their kids there.

There has been talk of opening a STEM program in Whisman, and that might bring in new enrollment, which sounds likely. But it's not a new neighborhood school that is bringing most people back, it's a popular choice program. The answer has been staring the district in the face for years now. Open another choice program! Expand the popular PACT program, or create a new, similar-themed school at another location. (These programs can be run without requiring parent participation, by the way, so these schools don't need to be exclusive.)

The last demographer said there was a large bump in district enrollment when Stevenson expanded, most likely resulting in people choosing Stevenson over private schools. Hello! There's your answer.

Yes, population in Mountain View is growing, but enough people are choosing other options for their kids so actual enrollment stays flat.

Maybe instead of trying to read the tea leaves to predict future enrollment, focus on your customers - the children and parents you serve - and see what they want, then do it. The district has the power to increase enrollment by offering what parents desire. Make your own destiny, don't sit back passively trying to guess how many people may or may not enroll. Give them a reason to enroll!

All we need now are "hanging chads" to complete the picture.

Let's go do 2 out of 3, to get the politically desired results, then 3 out of 5, then 7 out of 10...

Decision Insite (new Demographers) knows that Jack Schrader (2012 & 2014 Demographers) got publicly trash-talked by the W/S advocates and the J.S. report got thrown out.

Design Insite knows what results the W/S advocates want to see in this new report. It will be micro-examined for the slightest imperfections, unless of course their report matches what the politically desirable result is, then any flaws will be over-looked.

If the district efforts were being put towards actually increasing the number of real K-5 kids coming into our district by actually improving our district (rather than always relying on "if you build it" movie fantasies and wishful thinking and manipulating numbers) then more people would want to move here to raise K-5 kids.

Unfortunately, the standard practice is pitting our schools, groups of parents, and neighborhoods against each other. This "zero-sum-game" Standard Operating Politics prevents useful collaboration and just makes everything worse.

Florida made itself a national laughing stock with it's re-re-re-counts, but I guess it's to be expected here?

Mountain View is too expensive for young families to afford. Furthermore, there aren't a lot of women of child bearing age. Enrollment will decline as long as this is the case.

This further waste of time and money stinks of Greg Colodonato, who refuses to let anything stand in the way of opening a new public school in his personal neighborhood--thereby increasing his property values--whether the data shows we need one or not.

Don't like what the report says? Stall, complain, and spend some more taxpayer dollars til you get one that supports the decisions that you've already made.

Meanwhile, our district's standardized test results show a dire achievement gap. Instead of focusing on that, we are bickering over opening a new school we don't need, and spending more of our scarce funds on this nonsense. We should be fixing the schools we already have.

I keep hearing that we can barely squeak by budget-wise with the schools we have. Since most of us agree then that Whisman deserves to have a neighborhood school just like every other neighborhood in the district, then that means another has to close.

Closing another neighborhood school would simply transfer the problem Whisman has to another neighborhood.

So, what can we do? Perhaps we are spending too much money somewhere? A review of budget items are in line. Let's figure it out and get it done.

I think the idea of cutting PACT comes from the fact that it is a fair solution for the school district overall. Sure, the parents in PACT will be upset, but we have many more parents in Whisman that are impacted by doing nothing.

It was a mistake to grant the PACT program the status of a school, given the economics in the district. It should have remained a program that could be more easily scaled back or terminated to satisfy budget constraints.

Anyway. let's CONSTRUCTIVELY find a solution that would give the Whisman families their school back by school year 2017. If we can't come up with a solution that is no-impact, then we need to make the tough call. If that impacts PACT, so be it.

I'm excited to hear a study that could possibly "check" the numbers of the first demographic study. As a member of the Boundary Area Task Force, it was very peculiar why the people who did the first demographic study had so many personal opinions regarding different scenarios that were put fourth. They should have been a neutral party, reporting about numbers only. When they began to interject opinion after opinion, it made me question the study itself.

The schools have the ability to communicate with parents of students fairly easily. It is still my opinion that those parents should be asked for input regarding boundaries. There is a huge percentage of students who live in certain boundaries, yet attend a different school. Knowing the reasons for this is pertinent information before any decisions should be made regarding boundary changes which displace families from their current schools and cause huge potential inconvenience.

If there is a way to get input from parents whose children are not attending public schools, (mail) that would be even more information to help understand why forecasts for attendance are they way they are, and whether we can anticipate a change or more of the same.

We must understand that Silicon Valley, it's heart being located in Mountain View, is not the same as it was even ten years ago. We are responsible for providing public schooling for the world's most educated population's children now. We are the US's strongest economy in Silicon Valley. We need services that reflect that, and we need them now.

Thank you for taking another look at this issue. I would like a local school in Whisman if at all possible without bankrupting other schools, and getting solid numbers including new development and accurate house-use numbers is key. If there aren't enough kids, fine, but don't give up and assume all new kids are going to private school. Our district has potential to be great!!

Well compared to the bond money the district is spending to built 2 schools on one small site at Castro School, $11K is not that much. You know the saying, "Measure twice and cut once."

On the other hand, these are just guesses on the part of the demographers. It means a lot more to look at the actual enrollment numbers from this fall now that they are almost in. Did the district see a rise or a fall? Gosh, it would be silly to make this decision to commission a study without knowing the answer to this. K might be up, but what about the overall totals? Do these parents claiming K enrollment was up split the K numbers into Tk and regular K? 2013-2014 saw 661 K students but in 2014-2015 there were only 564 1st graders. That tells me that 97 or so of the K students from the previous year were in fact in TK. In 2014-2015, K rose to 704, but here again a lot of that rise was TK. Another month of birthdates was eligible for TK, a 33% rise. So you'd expect 30 more K students from the added TK's, AT LEAST. TK awareness rises too. What looks like a rise could have been a decline in future 1st graders.

OK, pay a demographer to do the arithmetic.

I appreciate that the parents are being heard.

But, by the time they pay for all the reports, they will decide they need a new school, but we will be unable to afford to build it.

There is nothing wrong with the study done and throwing more money in that direction will not change things for people that will disagree with the results of any study that does not support their viewpoint. It will be nothing but wasteful use of much needed monies that could be used for more productive uses. Bob Dylan said "the times they are a' changing." and they certainly are in this area. Compared to Palo Alto the public schools in Mountain View are going nowhere with Castro being a prime example of the state of public education and the low priority of education in the lives of many city residents. With rising rents and demand for high tech worker housing there is no need for further expanding a school system that will shrink due to the above reasons and the fact that families that highly value education will not be using public schools that have such dismal academic results.

I am happy to see that another study will be done to "check" the first demographic study presented to the Boundary Area Task Force (BATF). While serving on the BATF, I found it very peculiar that the people presenting "the numbers" to us from the first demographic study were forming opinions continually regarding scenarios the BATF was putting forth. When I asked them what benefit they had in any decision, they answered, "Oh, none. We are a neutral party." It was only at this point that they stopped having the opinions. So, I'm onboard for a different report to check the first study.

Secondly, it was our specific job to displace and inconvenience as few families possible in any type of boundary changes. What was being encouraged by staff was a rushed decision without thorough information. I am so happy that responsible members of the BATF did not get pushed into making decisions that affected families and children before it is necessary to do so.

Thirdly, I appreciate having the opportunity to have met with the operations committee and understand budgeting issues and constraints before making any suggestions. Once that factor came into play the BATF had a better chance at focusing on what would be possible, financially, should we suggest it.

We need to find out why so many children who would normally be going to Mountain View schools are not. This can be done and definitely should be. We need to also understand why so many children living within a school boundary are going to a different school. These two things are primary before boundaries should be changed.

I propose that in the future, we: a) Get all committees that influence the decisions together earlier and more frequently for clear communication; b) Are presented numbers and no member of the demographic study is there to interject any opinion of any kind, just clarify numbers when asked questions; c) Contractors for the proposed projects can speak with the committees to suggest best use of dollars for proposed upgrades.

Let us not forget that we are a public school district. We are now housing the world's most educated population and trying to educate their kids. Let us rise to the occasion to meet their children's needs and stop looking at the public school system as a burden put upon us. We have local resources that can be used much better to serve all of the children of Mountain View's needs.