I have to wonder what the board members are smoking that they believe they have any chance of passing another bond next year to pay for a school. They have mismanaged the current bond construction so much so that over $20 million has been lost due to their delays. That could have funded a large portion of a school in the Slater area. Dream on, trustees.

I would love to see the MVWSD ask property owners to chip in a little more to reduce overcrowding in kindergarten classrooms district wide and work towards open a school in Whisman/Slater. Properties in MV have nearly doubled in value in the past 5 years. Even the most modest of Mountain Views condos are up in value over $400,000 since 2010. Asking wealthy property owners to chip in a few hundred more dollars a year is very, very small price to pay for maintaining good quality schools in all parts of our community.

I am so grateful that the school board is leaning towards reopening an elementary school on the Slater campus. Our neighborhood has had both of its walkable schools closed for far too long. The district is looking at surging enrollment in the next 5 years primarily from new developments in this neighborhood. I think a shared campus with Google would be an amazing opportunity for the school district. Google employs amazing educators and I am looking forward to a partnership that helps bring a STEAM focus into our school district.

I think its time that changes are made to a school system that is drastically failing its students on one side of el camino and achieving rewards of excellence on the other. I believe that the way forward is to carve out another "choice" program, to complement the already superb Dual Immersion and PACT program, then should the district fall on hard times we can allow children from Sunnyvale or Los Altos or Palo Alto to attend our schools. Lets not worry about the numbers that may or not exist. Lets build a school to build a community, and continue to improve the schools we have, but lets make the changes that are necessary for the children to learn! and not worry about how beautiful the school is!

In terms of operational costs, a Whisman/Slater school would be completely self-funded. This is because when the Whisman School 30 year lease was signed, the lease amount was doubled. The incremental difference (the difference between the amounts of the new lease and the old lease) was to be set aside for the operational costs of a neighborhood school. It works out to about $1M per year. By giving up one neighborhood school, and also sharing a site with Google, this allows for the w/s neighborhood to not only fund their own school, but also provide additional lease money to fund other schools in the district. Given this, parents with fears similar to Jenny Shroder can rest easy knowing that a new school won't cut into the operational budgets of the existing ones.

I'm thankful that the Trustees are seriously considering reopening a school in the NE quadrant.

Regardless of whether or not Slater reopens, major boundary changes are coming. The fact is that after Castro and Mistral split, Castro is left with 304 student for the 2015/2016 school year. At the same time, Bubb, Landels, and Huff are all projected to be over 600 students within 5 years. If Slater does reopen, then at least the district can redraw the boundaries in a way that makes sense for all students in the district, including the hundreds in the NE quadrant.

Even Trustee Lambert, the only Board member who remains skeptical, mentioned that a new school can benefit the whole district by rebalancing the boundaries in a thoughtful way.

It irritates me greatly that two “programs” have been trumping the basic need for a school in every neighborhood. In educational perspective, this only exacerbates the widening gap between the political haves and have-nots within the district. The political 1% get their schools and Slater gets to pound the chalk out of the black-board erasers.

Perhaps the city council’s new plan to push for 9100 new “nerd nests” housing units for N. Shoreline will move the needle.
I do hope that this is a new beginning for the neighborhood.

Why did they ever sell Klein School on California Street? Kids have to go way across Rengstorff to Castro now.

to @reopen klein
get your head in the game Klein no longer exists.

I am glad they will open a new school in our neighborhood. It is long overdue!! I wan just worried that my already Huff student who I will not volunteriy move to Slater will be forced to move. I wil happily enroll my youngest gets into Slater when it is time for him to go to school provided it is open.

Having a neighborhood school once again would revitalize this neighborhood. Families would once-again choose this as their home; no one with kids wants to move into a neighborhood with no school. Hooray for Ellen W and the board members who are supporting this. I think Google and Slater could share this campus and there would be many benefits to the community.

I've supported the district for years through donations to MVEF and to my child's schools and would almost always say yes to a school bond.

But there is no way I would agree to tax myself more to open a single school when our district doesn't need one. We might want one, but I'm not at all convinced that we need one. I'm also in agreement with Jenny Schroeder about the potential harms to other schools.

If the pro-Slater folks want to make this work, I think they need to consider that a tax of a whole city to support a single small neighborhood's project would stand a much better chance if it included something for everyone. Make the school a choice school that everyone could attend. Or structure the bond to support maker spaces at every elementary school. I might support funds for an additional school if the whole district benefits, but otherwise it's a no-go.

@Jane P. of Old Mountain View

"Need", or lack of, depends on correctly predicting the future of K-5 public school enrollment demand.

You wrote:
"...no way I would agree to tax myself more to open a single school when our district doesn't need one....the potential harms to other schools...If the pro-Slater folks want to make this work, I think they need to consider that a tax of a whole city to support a single small neighborhood's project would stand a much better chance if it included something for everyone..."

From the Board meetings, and doing the math, I must assume Measure G will run out before a penny gets spent on Theuerkauf, Stevenson, Slater or District Offices. Cost-over-runs at the schools already on the build schedule will burn-through G.

And yet, the Board has already said, with great confidence, they will get the money for Slater. Personally, I believe them (in this specific case).

Where/how they will get the money is not what worries me.

A new bond measure would be marketed to the public by lumping Theuerkauf, Stevenson, Slater and the D.O. together and asking for enough bond money to do all those projects. Preschools and Special-ED could get tossed into the money-salad to help the marketing of a new bond.

Also, remember the "extra" money from the German School lease and the expected huge increase in the Google lease when that is renegotiated into a 30-year lease (like the German School did). Those both could be used exclusively for Slater.

The Board has mentioned at least one more strategy specifically for the Slater School, so I fully expect the money will be found for Slater one way or another.

Regardless of what they will have to do to get it, they will get the money.

Again, the Board finding money for Slater is not what I'm worried about.

#Small price, big impact of Old Mountain View
You wrote:
"I would love to see the MVWSD...Asking wealthy property owners to chip in a few hundred more dollars a year..."

Sounds like a great idea, and in fact, one of the things the Board has asked our new Super to do is be highly pro-active on finding voluntary private sources of money to be used for our schools.

Also, lets not forget the independent organization, the MVEF, which campaigns for private donations and is considered very trustworthy in how they spend that money for all our schools.

So, it's not like nobody is working on donations, or did you mean taxes?

The courts have made it pretty clear about limiting what a school district can and cannot do to vote taxes onto companies and private citizens.

Property taxes may "feel" like the answer to those who rent, taxing companies may "feel" like the answer to people who don't run companies or make the decisions about where to locate companies and those jobs...etc. Sales Tax? Income Tax? Sin Tax (alcohol/tobacco)? Fancy Car Tax? Any option has it's drawbacks.

The legal and customary methods of taxation for school funding are our best bets.

Donations from private citizens or companies are great, but unpredictable and unreliable, so planning and year to year budgeting is virtually impossible. You almost need to have a very compartmentalized purpose for private donations to bring in serious money.

Taxes are more predictable, but you need to sell them to the public and the behavior of the Board and District effects the voters attitude towards taxes.

If we had $421 million (this number includes the existing Measure G) for construction and a seriously reliable revenue stream to pay for the operation of all 12 schools, then we could do everything on our wish-list.

Private donations should be encouraged by all, but they are not going to be the solution to all problems, no single solution could be.

@Jane P: barring a sustained windfall from the State, I think a parcel tax that funded STEAM education at all schools would be very exciting & could include the necessary operational funding for Slater as well... then lease revenue could support construction financing & there might not be a need for a school-specific construction bond (which, as you point out, might have issues with support). Looking forward to hearing how much that tax would need to be.

The numbers are really close... in the conservative projection, we still don't need a new school. But the important thing to realize is that if the moderate demographic projection comes to pass, and the 8 elementary schools are built out per the District Facilities Committee's recommended standard, every permanent classroom in the District will be filled just to support K-5. Personally, I think that presents a pretty serious facilities problem. We'll have TK in portables (for which there is no budget), kids relocated across boundaries to smooth local bubbles (or extra portable classroom costs and overcrowded multi-use rooms, see: Huff), and no room for class size reduction beyond 25 kids per class. That starts to look kind of tough for our kids and the District staff who probably want some flexibility. And of course it's completely broken if City Council goes nuts with new housing that's not in the current plan. Put capacity for 450 kids at Slater and we can keep Monta Loma around 450 kids, de-crowd Huff, fill Theuerkauf/Castro/Mistral, and have space for ~150 left, in the event that housing explodes or the Board decides to reduce class sizes.

As we said when we talked to the Board last year about facilities: build the current schools out to a solid standard & you'll see people coming to MVWSD. That's starting to happen... what a great reason for needing another school!

Maybe we should raise money for the district by having PACT parent pay tuition for the private school his/her children get to attend. Comparable private schools charge $25,000 per child, right? That should raise enough money to open Slater. Consider feathers ruffled. Now fire away! (wink)

Hopefully Pact Parent is enough of a grownup not to take your troll bait.

Pact is the cause of all the displaced students in the district. Let's keep it real. . It's time to clean that mess up and closed pact.

no troll, just stating a fact.

No, you are stating your opinion.

Since WHISMAN is part of the name of the district, how well is the SCHOOL being utilized? Before my parent became the Assistant Administer of the SJUSD, teaching in PORTABLE CLASSROOMS was the norm. Is the WHISMAN SCHOOL properly being utilized? Can the Google babysitters be moved to the WHISMAN SCHOOL if it is being underutilized at the present time?
Funding GREAT schools is never a problem, plenty of admini$trators know who $upport$ their $ucce$$ful campu$e$. It is when a district is doing " not so good " when $chool $ponsors $top giving out the bread. the situation turns into the parable of " a turd sandwich ".
So if you want the bread, you have to prove you are capable of doing the task at hand NOW instead of making promises about the future. Set GOALS and MEET THEM would be a way to show that this district is able to do the job of teaching our future adults how to be able to have all the tools they need to live in the future.

Everybody is rich here in Mountain View. To get the money, raise taxes or place
a fee on the parents to get the money needed. Really really raise the taxes or fees

Typical. This is a classic strategy designed to keep the people quiet. Don't ruffle any feathers...be nice... get your hopes up....ya right, next thing you know, the school board will go in a completely different direction when they think no one is watching! If you want a school in your neighborhood, now is the time to make noise. Good luck.

@jr hgh teacher-graham of Old Mountain View wrote:

"Everybody is rich here in Mountain View."

I think most people of Mountain View would disagree with your claim.
Many Mountain View kids qualify for free-lunch/etc programs.

What do you mean by "rich"?
Almost everyone in the USA gets called "rich" by people in other countries.

"To get the money, raise taxes"

MVWSD is working on a new parcel-tax land-owners and a new school bond.
The legislature and courts have pretty strict rules on how a school district may do such things.

"or place a fee on the parents to get the money needed."

A violation of the law which defines what a "public school" is, as has been made crystal clear.

"Really really raise the taxes or fees"

If "Everybody is rich here", then just dis-band the public school system and make every kid go to the private school of their parents' choice and can pay for.

"jr hgh teacher-graham" you can compete without tenure or other protection for your job against other teachers (maybe not even with a teacher's union) and you would be subject to the business whims of private companies.

I would re-apply an old saying:
The public school system is the worst possible school system, except for all the others.

What we got is what our elected representatives, voters, employers, tax-payers and courts handed us.

@Beware North Whisman of North Whisman wrote:

"Typical. This is a classic strategy designed to keep the people quiet."

OK, I can be as skeptical, cynical and distrusting of politicians as the next guy, maybe more so.
I have said the same words about our Board many times over the past couple years...albeit from a different point of view...and for clear reasons.

However, given everything I've seen/heard/read about the Board' intentions on the Whisman/Slater school issue, I am confused as to exactly what you are responding to?

I've never heard anyone suggesting the Slater people should be "quiet", nor do I find any evidence to support your other assertions.

"Don't ruffle any feathers...be nice..."

Exactly what we at Stevenson have been told literally dozens of times in the past few years!

Wise people ignore such "advice" so that these issues get lots of public input to the Board.
Of course, the Board has proven it ignores public input when enough Board members have their minds made up already. Like in 2005.

"get your hopes up....ya right,"

Again, a virtually direct quote from myself several times.

I have yet to see the momentum move in the opposite direction.
Granted, things can't possibly move fast "enough" for some, but the movement has always been in one direction all along.
After all, the Board virtually tossed-out every concern raised by both of the past citizen committees.

"next thing you know, the school board will go in a completely different direction"

So, where exactly has there been a reversal of the movement towards opening a school in the Whisman/Slater area?

"when they think no one is watching!"

Another confusing assertion, since when has no one been watching?
The Whisman/Slater school issue has been on the agenda repeatedly and these meetings have been heavily attended and well reported in the MV Voice.

"If you want a school in your neighborhood, now is the time to make noise."

Again confusing, when did anyone go quiet on this issue?
Go look at the past videos and minutes of Board meetings and articles in the MV Voice.

"Good luck."

Ah, that one is clear.

It's good to see the Board come to some decisions on this. The work that the BATF did was to provide recommendations. However, the Board and the District can certainly figure out ways to properly fund all the schools. The catch is that the District and it's parents need to make sure that a new school doesn't siphon off resources from some of the other schools as enrollment slightly declines at each of the other schools as a new school opens. This is a reality as there are only so many children to go around. As others have mentioned, there are already a lot of other challenges but I believe the District and our new Super can walk and chew gum at the same time and get all these things done provided that everything is properly funded.

As for the funding, I believe any new bond measures need to go to ensuring that all our schools have the best possible resources for the coming 25 years or so, rather than having a new bond exist for a particular school (which is less politically viable). Both the Parcel Tax AND a Bond Measure need to get done. We seem to know what we want the district to do now, so we just need to make it happen.

Finally, I would add that this nonsense about closing this school or that school needs to stop. It's divisive and quite frankly, stupid. The PACT Program (which really isn't a PACT program in the truest sense anymore) and the Dual Immersion program are incredibly successful programs that anyone can attend. What we need to do is to continue crafting other niche programs at our schools that can attract more students. Many parents are interested in a STEM program. I have also been lobbying quietly for a foreign language program at one of our schools. Coding might be a great focus for another of our schools and a couple of traditional focused schools to round out the bunch. We only have 6 traditional schools so this would be a great set up for our district.

So many opportunities. I'm happy our school leaders are getting started on this. We've thought about it long enough, we have plenty of information. They've not rushed to any judgements. So, let's make it happen.

This will impact other schools. Monta Loma for one will lose students, which will mean less classrooms, less teachers, and less resources.

Right now Monta Loma enjoys 4 classes per grade. They can split grades up by skill level. Students get taught according to their level.

You start losing classes and you lose that ability to focus the resources.

So anyone who says opening a new grade school won't impact any other schools isn't being honest.

Thankfully the district will have to ask the voters to pay for this new school and I doubt a bond measure will pass.

@Otto Maddox:

What you are trying to say is that you *predict* that this will affect Monta Loma. There are an extra 1000 students in the district from the time that Slater was closed. Neither of us actually knows exactly what is going to happen, so calling other people dishonest for providing their own predictions seems kind of protectionist of your own school to me.

I think the success of the district has a lot more to do with the loss of kids to private schooling. If we can attract families away from going private or losing the district, then the whole district can win from opening a ninth school. No one knows the real numbers, but something like 30% of the kids in MV go to private. That's a lot of kids!

I explained above how Slater will be self funded, but just so people don't have to scroll, here it is again: There is more than enough money in the difference between the new and old lease amounts for Whisman to pay the operational costs of Slater. This doesn't count the increased lease of the Google portion of the Slater campus, plus all of the extra housing being built in MV. There's no reason to think that Monta Loma will lose out if we can work together to make all of the schools successful.

@Cfrink

I love your ideas about alternative programs at other schools. I have also been lobbying the district for years to do this, but my efforts have gone no where. At this point my kids will be out of elementary school before they get the chance to experience a pact like program with project-based learning. A STEM program would be great, especially if it incorporated project-based learning approaches that are sorely missing from the traditional schools. Unfortunately it will be too little too late for us.

You stated, "The PACT Program and the Dual Immersion program are incredibly successful programs that anyone can attend."

This is not true. These programs are successful programs that anyone can enter to win the chance to attend. Only half who enter will actually win. Those who don't will be asked to suffer in silence and "make the best of their traditional school". Better luck next time. It's time to stop pretending this is fair and offer more of these opportunities to any child and family who want it.

If the board votes to reopen Slater on Thursday and the parcel tax fails next spring, then what? The district would have to cut about $3 million for the budget. Vote to close it again? Maybe they should wait to see if a parcel tax passes before morning forward.