First the Board orders a demographic study, then they waste money on another one. THEN they say the decision about opening a school isn't actually about demographics (Lambert) and they themselves are the true experts in demography (Nelson)?

A more bumbling and self-interested group is hard to imagine. I'm sure I'm not the only one deeply uncomfortable with the people in charge of our kids education and considering private school.

Did the board factor the impact of their own incompetence into their demographic study?

Well, if the facts don't support your justification for getting what you want, and you can't change the facts, then the only thing left to do is switch to a new justification

K-8 enrollment in 2020-21, according to the two reports:

October 2014 demographic study (Web Link

"Low" projection (page 64): 4998
"Most Likely" projection (page 65): 5141
"High" projection (page 66): 5210

November 2015 demographic study (Web Link

"Conservative" projection (page 33): 5251
"Moderate" projection (page 32): 5502

This year's study's Conservative projection is higher than last year's High projection. And this year's Moderate projection is ~250 new students higher than that. The total increase of 292 is approximately equal to the current enrollment of Castro or Theuerkauf.

Again and again, Reopen Slater is portrayed as being crazy or selfish. The presentation given on 11/12 showed that we really do have a case for a school in our neighborhood. We are looking forward to some very overcrowded schools within 5 years, especially with North Bayshore. We need to plan for that now! We would be happy with some portables behind the Google preschool and just K-1 so there are smaller kindergarten classes throughout the district. I want my community, walkable school. I will work to get a new bond or parcel tax to pay for it. But we have to start planning now!!!

Contrary to what the article implies, the ReopenSlater group is extremely encouraged by the 2015 Demographic Report . It shows healthy enrollment growth projections that are much more in line with what we would expect from what we see happening in our neighborhood and in Mountain View in general.

A few highlights:

K-8 enrollment growth in 5 years (by 2020)
2015 Report "moderate" projection = 438 Students
2014 Report "most likely" projection = ~ 43 (no, that is not a typo!)

3 schools are projected to have over 600 students by 2020. Note that the target school size is 450, according to Todd Lee.
Bubb - 622
Landels - 611
Huff - 605
Bubb, Landels, & Huff are all currently well over 500 students (555, 530, & 581 respectively for the 2014/2015 school year)

Similar to the last report, it shows the largest growth in the NE Quadrant, at over 14% for K-5 from 2015 to 2020. Note that "over 14%" was the highest bracket available.

The question that the Board SHOULD be answering isn't "Should we reopen Slater?" It's "How quickly can we reopen Slater?"

Christine,

You mention North Bay housing, but that housing is years away, and they are talking about most of it being 1 bedroom or studios (mirco units) that are not likely to have kids. It could be 10 years or more before "north bay houses" produces kids in any significant numbers. Also, my understanding is many of our current schools still have room to grow. Monta Loma and Landels still have capacity, and Theuerkauf is certainly not full with only 300 kids. I still struggle to see how the slight increase in kids over the next 5-7 years can't be accommodated at the current school sites.

Can't we address more kids from North Bay in 3-5 years when we have a better idea of how many (if any) kids those units will bring? Why must we address it now, especially when budgets are tight? I just don't get it.

Thank you-- I totally agree. This seems way, way premature. There is lots of capacity at the other schools and we simply don't have the money for Slater.

This isn't just about the demographic reports and picking them apart. Its also about the choices being made in our district and how they affect our students.

On slides 6 and 7, you can see *actual* data, not just projections from demographers reports.
Web Link
16/Community_Member_Presentation%20Potential_Slater_Reopen.pdf

Slater closed in 2006 and since that time, enrollment has continued to grow in the district. We've added enough students to fill the missing Slater school, but the district has made other choices. Many of our schools are getting full enough that those zoned and living nearby aren't able to get in. Huff is an example, which is why they proposed rezoning the Huff-A part of Whisman-Slater last Spring.

One problem is, our school programs are structured in a way that they end up very polarized, and as a result some schools are overcrowded and some are under filled. We started talking about STEM at Slater - as a neighborhood school, because it is something that can attract families who have the means to consider private school, and can also help give a boost to kids who aren't getting exposure to sciences at home. Programs like this throughout our district could help balance out the demographics of our schools and boost the opportunities all our kids have when they graduate from High School.

The district has a lot on its plate, none of the problems are easy. I strongly believe reopening Slater can be a huge positive asset to the district and community.

To "I still don't see it" Please look at Vicki Chang's comment above yours for a more detailed look at the numbers, and those are without North Bayshore. The fact is it is so expensive to live in this area that there are families squeezing into to one bedrooms, or families in row houses who end up with two or three kids packed in.

There are some 830 houses and apartments being build in the Slater area within the next 3 years. The district seems to assume a lot of the kids in these homes will simply go to private school, rather than offering them a different solution with a school in Slater. If I have to fight traffic to get my daughter to Theuerkauf or Huff (Landels will be packed in 3 years to over 600), it makes it that much easier to decide to try private school and get a lower class size for kindergarten.

If we want a new school, it will take 4-5 years. We have to work on getting the financing through a new bond or a parcel tax, and we should have a plan in place BEFORE that in order to be able to start immediately (not like with the MEasure G costly wait).

I want a community, I want to walk or bike to school. Look at the maps about where the schools are, and take into account becuase of Whisman parcel tax rules we pay more than anyone else in Mtn View toward schools, but we HAVE NO SCHOOL. We need a plan in place to try reduce class sizes and provide a neighborhood option to the whole city.

The link I was trying to include in my post comes from the mvwsd.org website; trying again using a short link: Web Link

Hmmmm.. Our lovely board voted yes to giving rental income revenues to the OpenSlater group, gave them cash for a second demographic study, and now is saying it's more than just demographic studies that justify opening a new school?? The board has no issue spending our kids money for education... it's monopoly money to them.

I'm sympathetic to the Slater/Whisman area wanting a neighborhood school. Why does it have to be a STEAM/STEM program (another Choice program)- and why that standard should not be for all children in the district. The group claims to have polled their neighbors. I want to know how many of their projected low SED families " who would benefit", actually want the STEAM?

Ask for a school in your neighborhood, but don't as for the sun, moon and all the stars while you are at it.

I believe most of us want a neighborhood school. It would be a great proving ground for a STEAM program that could be rolled out to all of Mtn View. It would not be a choice school. I think with a shared campus with the Google Preschool, we could work with Google to do some amazing things!

If we ask for a neighborhood school, we are greedy. We try to plan in detail and build a case for why such a school would benefit the entire city, and we are accused of wanting the sun, the moon and the stars. What we want is to not have the cross major roads or assume the cost of private school along with the higher property taxes.

I want to try and think ahead. Density is increasing, and families are living in smaller spaces. School are a place of community, and a resource for kids having access to technology. Let it be a resource within walking distance for our community.

En Serio- Slater must absolutely be a neighborhood school - not a choice school. And yes, all schools should really have STEM programs. We're putting in the effort to push for this at Slater because that is the school we are trying to get opened - most of us don't even have kids in school yet, we are focusing on the school where we hope our kids will one day attend. Which doesn't preclude a focus on STEM district wide.

@ En Serio

We are hearing some confusion regarding the STEAM aspect, so I'll attempt to clarify.

The ReopenSlater group is not asking for another Choice program. We are asking for a traditional neighborhood school - a school in which homes are assigned, but with a STEAM focus. It doesn't have to be a STEAM focus, we are simply sharing the fact that we have gotten feedback from our neighborhood that this is what will bring people back to public from private, and will also benefit SED families. We have been actively reaching out to leaders who work closely with many SED members of our community, and the feedback that we have gotten is that a STEAM program would be hugely beneficial.

Hope that helps, and thank you for your support of our neighborhood school!

"Which doesn't preclude a focus on STEM district wide."

Well, given our districts track record it probably does. PACT/Stevenson was supposed to be a lab school and if successful, elements of that program were *supposed* to be spread to the neighborhood schools so that all MVWSD kids can benefit. That has never happened, despite the high demand for the popular program, and I doubt that will happen any time soon. Just want to be sure we are not kidding ourselves in thinking the district is capable of testing a program among a small group and then spreading the goodness to all our kids.

Reopen Slater folks who reside within the old Whisman district do have higher bond based property taxes. That is not everybody in what Trustee Nelson calls the NE Quad (east of 85, north of Central/Caltrain). When Slater closed there were plenty of kids, not nearly enough enrolled students. That is still the case. "Build it and they will come!" hardly seems like a decision a fiduciary would make. I'm guessing most folks bought or rented knowing the school situation, but now want all district taxpayers & students to assist in improving their personal decisions. Let's find parents of kids currently stuffed into Huff & Bubb willing to commit to enrolling in the next grade at New Slater next year, move around some portables, and see who actually shows up. Meanwhile, planning and design can move forward. Permits and Construction need of a permanent campus need to wait for 400 students and $25 million not already funded. I have a $250 donation to MVEF that says we can't voluntarily fill six K-2 portables.

What do you expect from the School Board? They're not the brightest bulbs on the tree because they're mostly ex-teachers and administrators. Those who can't do teach. Those who can't teach, administer. Least common denominator comes to mind.

I actually don't support your group. You have managed to go about it in a polarizing manner which has turned many people off. I understand steam vs stem, so thanks for clarifying... You should get your slides consistent before presenting. don't assume I'm stupid because I attended a non steam or stem school.

Ugh....Seems like so many people were not paying solid attention to the discussions the Facilities Committee and the BATF had for the entire year.

Our comments and findings were not based solely on enrollment projections. We also in part based our recommendations on the possible damage to the other schools as well as existing enrollment and ability to adhere to district policy. The reality is that the District for reasons good or bad, has decided that economically, our schools need 450-600 students per school. Some of that decision applies to educational reasons, some of it applies to faculty and staffing reasons, some of it applies to economies of scale for running schools. We as a district are welcome to push those numbers down lower if we wish. Such action would be necessary before opening a new school. Opening a new school will drop enrollment at a number of schools over the long term and the district needs to be prepared to ensure that resources at those schools is not adversely affected.

The option to open a new school amid an effort to fix so many other problems just seems a bit short sighted. I get that the Whisman/Slater folks want a school. I live in that area and my child would have attended that school as well. But the reality is that at the moment as our current budget is crafted, we can't afford to open a new school and continue to provide the educational differentiation and flexibility we currently offer at our schools without some additional efforts and budget restructuring. Again, it's not that these things are impossible to do. However, given our currently set of issues, it's difficult to see how it's a worthy endeavor at this time.

I am certain that a school should be rebuilt at some point in the near future. I just do not believe it should happen now, or even in the next couple of years.

Finally, I would remind everyone that the District took on this additional study to appease a number of people who discredited the original study that seems to have come to similar conclusions. At the time of the initial study, enrollment projections were not the only factor so it stands to reason that it still wouldn't be the only reason now that a second study has been done as well.

Lots of work to do, folks. I think we should be focusing on crafting a solid recipe for success at all our current schools rather than adding in yet another school before we've corrected our current set of issues.

@ En serio

If my response to you seemed to imply that I felt that you are stupid, I apologize. That was not my intent, nor did I feel that way when I wrote my initial response.

The point that I was attempting to clarify was focused around choice school vs. traditional school, not STEM vs. STEAM. We believe that Slater should be a traditional school, not a choice school.

The reason we had STEAM on some slides and STEM vs. others is because when the original survey was issued, the question asked was around a STEM program. Since then, we have learned more about STEAM programs and feel that this may be an even better fit for Slater. That's why most of our proposal centered around STEAM. However, in order to maintain the integrity of the data which we were presenting, we had to label the survey as "STEM", instead of "STEAM".

I'm not sure why you feel that we have come off as polarizing, but I really hope that it is not based on the fact that some Trustees previously stated that we would need to close one school in order to reopen one in the NE quadrant. Since then at least two Trustees have admitted that that was a mistake and that instead, they should have been focusing on more creative solutions to benefit the entire district.

@cfrink

I know folks on the BATF and the Facilities Committee and I spoke with the DFC about Special Education needs. You folks worked your butts off, I know. But from what I understand, you were specifically instructed not to consider certain options or situations, and changes in that information could have really affected your considerations. I truly believe that a quality STEAM program at Slater and other district schools will attract families back to public school. I believe the amount of development is very high and density will increase.

I also believe that Mistral and Stevenson don't need to be schools for 450 kids, but that is probably a lost cause. I want a plan in place that once money is made available, a school could be rapidly developed at Slater. We don't have the money now. But promises have been made for years. I want a firm plan of action if I am going to be voting in another Bond or working toward an expanded Parcel Tax.

@ Cfrink

I definitely agree and understand that the BATF and DFC were initially told to aim for 450-600 students. So the initial direction was to build 24 permanent classroom at each neighborhood school, and larger MURs and libraries to match. Since that was way over the budget, Todd Lee and the DFC settled on 18 permanent classrooms at each site. That then resulted in a target enrollment of 450 at each standard site.

I'm skeptical that North Bayshore will yield lots of new students. The units are projected to be small afaik. I'd like to see the final development plans before I let anyone spook me into breaking new ground.

I'd personally like to see existing Mountain View schools get the modernization and expansion that they need. If we can pay teachers more so we have less of a teacher shortage, I'd like to see that before a new school too. As painful as it is for parents around Whisman Station (sorry!). Prices in Mountain View will definitely restrict access for families.

@Old Steve: you said,
"When Slater closed there were plenty of kids, not nearly enough enrolled students. That is still the case."

Completely sincere question: why was that? What were the numbers from back in 2006?

Saying it is still the case is just a prediction, but I'm curious why you think that would still be true nowadays. This neighborhood is pretty different from back in 2006.

Why exactly *must* this proposed school be only for your neighborhood? Slater folks claim to be collaborative and not selfish but I don't see it.

I would think making it a choice school, perhaps with Slater area preference, would solve help resolve any questions about whether there is sufficient enrollment. Perhaps other residents in MVWSD would also like a chance to send their kids to a STEM school.

So tell me again how you aren't thinking only about your own little corner of the district?

@"@Jeanie"

We don’t think that Slater should be the only STEAM school. However, we don’t think that it is appropriate for us to speak for other neighborhoods.

Personally, I do feel that we should have more STEAM schools in MVWSD, but would like to be respectful of the fact that the residents in other neighborhoods know their own areas more intimately than I do. And therefore we are not the best people to provide input on what type of school might work best for the schools in other neighborhoods.

Well, that's the whole point of a choice program. You don't have to speak for other neighborhoods, you can offer an approach in a certain school and every family can decide for themselves if it's a good fit.

The idea that parents in Silicon Valley would NOT be interested in a STEM choice school if it were offered seems pretty far fetched.

And I would like to point out that there is no precedent for this idea-- every other specialized school in the district is a choice program. I don't think it's fair to ask the whole district to support a special program that's only for one neighborhood.

Sorry, I understand why you want a school but I just don't think this idea is equitable.

@ Christine Case-Lo

I am a member of three different school related committees all of which touched on the process of Boundaries, or Facilities or budgets. I can tell you with certainty there was nothing that we were told "not to consider." People may have had perceptions what we could or couldn't do. But the district laid out a couple of specific guidelines: We should avoid traveling kids across major thoroughfares and that schools needed to maintain enrollments of between 450-600 students for fiscal and resource reasons. That's pretty much it. There were no other requirements.

@Vicki C

Mr. Todd Lee is not the "District." The District intends to and still does hold enrollment to be between 450 and 600 students. The reason for that involves academic flexibility and differentiation. This allows schools to have multiple levels of instructions in the same grade to accommodate students needing remedial work and students who might be slightly advance. Falling short of 450 takes away this advantage, going for more than 600 students on our sites means too many kids in the classroom. 450-600 is the number that the district has worked out for our schools.

@ “@vicki” of Rengstorff Park

Hmm, I’m curious as to what you think of this idea:

What if each neighborhood school had its own “flavor”, to be determined by input from each individual neighborhood? For example, maybe 3 neighborhoods want STEAM schools, 1 wants a bilingual mandarin school, and another wants a music and/or performance arts focused school, etc... In this scenario, there would still be neighborhood preference for the school, but any additional slots would be opened up to the rest of the district.

I’m not sure how feasible this would be, or if there would be a demand for this, but am just throwing the idea out there in the spirit of brainstorming.

@ Vicki C

Such ideas have been thought of and are being discussed but take years to implement.

These young Google children will someday become grown-up Googleites with families of their own. If they still work at Google, they are going to want something more family orientated and their kids will still want to go to school. Saying that these homes will not produce children for the schools is wrong, it may just be that they will not produce children yet, and yet is a big word.

@PA Resident

And conversely, the children currently in school will graduate and leave room for the next generation, turning that never-ending wheel we call life, isn't it grand?

I sure hope LASD doesn't get wind of this. They might actually have to spend the $150M of Measure N bond funds wisely instead of wasting it on a new school that is not needed!

We have gotten so far way from actual educating our kids. Seems like education has become brainwashing an agenda. Stop wasting our money and educate.

Cfrink:

1. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. It's good to get your insight in here.
2. How old is your data pertaining to the 450 to 600 student range? I ask because we were told by another committee member (recently) that the upper bound was now around 450. Is it possible that this could have changed? Or do you feel that we were misinformed by the other committee member?
3. When you said "Such ideas have been thought of and are being discussed but take years to implement," does that mean that they've been dismissed because they take years to implement? Or were they dismissed for other reasons? Or are they actually being thought of as an option? It would be disappointing if they were dismissed for taking years to implement, because teaching children in general takes years to implement. That seems like a pretty poor reason IMHO.

Steve

600 students would be 24 classrooms at each school. Well above the Meas G budget if each school is to be of similar size. 18 class rooms at each school handles the projected K-5 enrollment without New Slater, and provides 3 strand instruction. So if enrollment does not expand, AND LCFF revenue declines without existing temp taxes, a new school could force hard choices in the future.

@Old Steve! You're back. Still curious about this one:

@Old Steve: you said,
"When Slater closed there were plenty of kids, not nearly enough enrolled students. That is still the case."

Completely sincere question: why was that? What were the numbers from back in 2006?

Saying it is still the case is just a prediction, but I'm curious why you think that would still be true nowadays. This neighborhood is pretty different from back in 2006.

---

Sorry, I'm also not following your math in your latest post. Are you saying that it's not a problem to have Landels, Castro and Huff all at > 600 students? Or you're saying that 600 students is bad because it's over budget? Which 600 students are you referring to?

True, so if enrollment doesn't expand, and revenue goes down, hard choices would have to be made. It's hard to imagine that enrollment will stay flat based on the data, though. Check out:
Web Link
Pages 6, 7 and 8. Or just drive around the city, there is construction all over the place. More people will mean more taxes as well, plus the extra $2M being brought in by the extended leases at Whisman and Slater. It's kinda like worrying that Google will go out of business, and then the population of Mountain View would plummet. It's totally true, but also very unlikely.

@ Steve Bell,

I posted my answers to your questions well above. Sorry for being obtuse. As to the "drive around" factor, just remember that when smaller affluent families buy in, somewhere in the district, a larger, perhaps SED family might be getting priced out. It is possible to gain population and lose students. Before Google was Google there was SGI, and before SGI, many of my parents contemporaries worked for LMSC. If you don't recognize the abbreviations, it just shows how much change is possible. The only way our current schools can hold 600 students is by continuing to use aging portables after all the remodeling is done. Many current parents would likely choose to keep their students in a "high achieving" portable where they are grandfathered, rather than move to a new school they could walk to.

Whatever decision the school board makes on December 10, many voters and parents will be displeased. Fortunately, we can act on that displeasure next year as the terms of Lambert, Nelson, and Guitierrez (sic) will be up.