"Essentially any of these options are equivalent to building a new school," Lambert said. "Really, we're talking here about building another new school in the district, and it's going to be called Stevenson, for roughly $30 million."

Yes. We don't have the money for that. It's not just going to "appear" even if we allow PACT parents to talk the district into a new school and let Bubb,Huff, and Landels shave even more off their tiny budget.

Thank you, Mr. Lambert, for being a sane and positive force on the school board.

"I don't think price is the number-one criteria," Wheeler said. "I think design and serving the school communities takes priority."


And here my friends is a textbook example of politicians finding it easy to spend other people's money. Expecting a construction project to come in UNDER budget? I'm speechless.

Stevenson is sure sounding a lot like Bullis Charter. The have's and the have not's, and the have's are used to having whatever they want. Before they complain about their facilities being "significantly smaller" they need to go visit the homes of some of the 40% of our kids who are on free/reduced price lunch and see firsthand how an entire family can live in one bedroom WITHOUT complaining about it.

The voters gave MVWSD $198,000,000 with Measure G. You can be certain they won't be interested in a Measure H and a higher property tax bill. The district will just have to make do with $198,000,000. I hope that the teachers, who have the best knowledge of facility needs, have a big say in these decisions.

The vote was to turn the price guestimates on the two non-shared plans into a proper budget and figure out how to reduce costs. The more expensive plan was 30% over budget if they don't use modular buildings but the parents are advocating for modulars.

Nobody at the meeting was in favor of shaving the Bubb/Huff/Landels budget. Not the board, not the parents, not the administration. It does make a good scare tactic to sell more newspapers though.

The author of the article calls the district office changes "serious renovations" when the quote is that Rudolph says a "couple of things" need to change. That seems inconsistent.

Of course nobody is in favor of shaving money off the Bubb/Huff/Landels budget. They didn't speak of that- it's a side effect of Stevenson's proposed $30m plan:

"The more popular proposal, and the overwhelming favorite among Stevenson parents, calls for relocating Stevenson to where the district office is, at the corner of San Pierre Way and Montecito Avenue, and building a separate multipurpose room and library on the new campus. This would require the district office to relocate to the existing portables at Stevenson, which would prompt some serious renovations to make it "serviceable," according to Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph."

Do they need to move the district, add their own library and multipurpose room, and cause changes to be made in district offices in the name of $30M? I think not. It's a choice school. Monta Loma was just passed over the last two times and is up next for renovations due to dry rot, classrooms falling apart, and lack of a multi large enough to fit 1/3 of the school at a time for lunch. It's being asked to trim the budget. It's a neighborhood school. It's nearly impossible to trim the slim budget. Enough of the have and have nots. Maybe PACT can raise some money for their extra renovations? ML is going to do the same for an outdoor canopy for lunch tables and they've got 66% free/reduced lunch students. Surely PACT can raise some awesome funds instead of taking from the schools and district in need.

Agreed. Ellen Wheeler has made ridiculous comments about the budget (or how she doesn't feel the need to stay within one at all) and that's scary. Construction costs always go over and you cannot spend money you don't have.

Ellen has talked about getting everyone in the Bubb/Huff neighborhoods into their overpopulated schools but cares not about the wait list at Landels.

If you are at Bubb, Huff, or PACT, it seems Ellen cares about you. Otherwise...burned toast. Why is that?

(All above references have been quoted in this newspaper)

I agree, the neighborhood schools should get priority for funding. I'm already appalled that the DI program is using so much. These are choice programs. If you don't like the facilities then don't choose to go there. With 130 kinders on the pact waitlist this year, my guess is people aren't concerned about the facilities. If any pact parents are frustrated by their buildings and thinking of leaving, we will happily take your spot with buildings as is.

Really the schools need more flexibility. Population shifts and changes will continue. Educational trends come and go. Does it make sense to have two schools on that campus in the long term? Maybe one day all our schools will offer students what pact does and there will be no need for a segregated program that gives only some a wonderful education. Will we need a permanent site for them then?

The pact program probably does need some upgrades, but that community should focus and the most urgent and save the funds for the others school.

@Frustrated & @Parent, anyone else too, Trustee Lambert was wrong.

It's actually $12.8 million for Stevenson, not $30 million!
Stevenson is budgeted to get less money than any of the other schools and requires the most work to meet required district/state standards!

Even in the best plan, Option E, Stevenson gets less than $20 million!

Slater is the school which will cost $30 million or more, more than any other K-5 school. Not to mention the cost of moving and rebuilding the preschool currently located on the Slater site.

The most recent budget shows $26 million is split between Theuerkauf and Stevenson as follows:

TH was getting 13.2 million
ST was getting 12.8 million

Theuerkauf will spend $13.2 million on modernizing it's classrooms and to expand their MUR to over 5,800 square feet. No new buildings are required at TH.

Leaving $12.8 million for ST to accomplish vastly more work!
All the other schools will be getting more than ST!

Stevenson has zero rooms and zero buildings that meet state or district standards, all rooms are undersized and most don't meet earthquake safety standards. To make Stevenson meet required standards, ST needs to have all new buildings.

To save money, Option E re-purposes the Board Room building to be the Stevenson Library because it's already the right size/place. The current ST library is a tiny classroom in a portable, less than a third the size of libraries at the other schools.

Both of the old octagon "pod" buildings are in very poor condition and obsolete and not worth pouring more money into them now. However, the existing Stevenson Admin building and newer classrooms could serve the District staff quite well for decades.

By flipping the District Offices into the Stevenson buildings and demolishing the obsolete pod buildings to place a new Stevenson where the District offices are now, all the major problems can be addressed with a single construction project. This saves a great deal of money and saves all of the existing buildings which still have decades of useful life in them.

So, stop claiming Stevenson is getting $30 million when in reality Theuerkauf is getting $13.2 million and Stevenson might get somewhere between $12.8 million and less than $20 million.

Is it too much to ask the Stevenson community to consider keeping the student drop-off/pick up area where it is? I can't even begin to imagine the traffic congestion that would happen at that busy intersection of Granada and Montecito Ave if the drop off area was moved to that tiny parking lot.

Stevenson is not a neighborhood school. Thus many of us live in the shadows of this great school, without ever being allowed to attend it. We've tried to be good neighbors over the years. We put up with the increased noise, traffic and parking issues that come with a school that draws in many people from outside our wonderful neighborhood. When your children walk down my street to talk to people in the community as part of one of their projects (has happened to me twice), I've been supportive and listened to their comments, even knowing full well that MY children are not allowed to attend.

In short, many of us suffer all the discomfort of having Stevenson in our neighborhood (which was not here when we moved in), with none of the benefit that a neighborhood school would offer. Can you please consider how any future designs will impact your neighbors, even those who are not able to attend your school? Thank you.

@AA said "Is it too much to ask the Stevenson community to consider keeping the student drop-off/pick up area where it is?"

Option E does not use the existing tiny parking lot for drop-off. A new longer narrower drop-off-only loop would be created that only starts at that intersection and lets out further west on Montecito.

The designs as presented in the sketches were not designed by the Stevenson community, they came from the architect and District staff.

The Theuerkauf and Stevenson communities gave general input at a couple meetings, but the actual details of Option E were as big a surprise to many of us in ST and TH as they were to others.

As for the drop-off change, that came out of 3 points.
First, San Pierre now supports traffic for Thueurkauf, Google preschool, tennis courts, baseball diamond, Stevenson and the visitors to the District Office. The current parking lot behind the D.O. is for the exclusive use of the D.O. staff during office hours, not drop-off.

Second, it just so happened to physically fit in that location where the existing 4-way-stop intersection is already.

Third, normally schools have their drop-offs right near the Administration building and the Option E plan has the Admin over by Montecito.

Personally, I think it's a great solution that helps spread out a portion of the traffic now crowded onto San Pierre, but I would not complain if that part of the details of Option E were altered.

As far as attending Stevenson, it's open to everyone equally to apply to the School District run lottery to get your kids into Stevenson. You may apply to the lottery every year. I know people who got into ST at 1st grade and others at 2nd or 3rd. It's simply a matter of luck who the District Lottery gives a seat to. The Stevenson community has no control of any sort over the lottery.

There has been many false perceptions about how the MVWSD school enrollment lottery functions, get the facts before you assume your kid has no chance to get into ST. My kid had the same chance as anyone else.

@ST Parent

I'm very familiar with how the Stevenson lottery works. We have tried for many years now with multiple children, with no success. We are not the only ones. Please don't lecture me on how the school lottery works. FYI - you would serve your community better if you stopped posting on these forums. I'm asking for a little consideration from your community when developing these plans, that's all. Shouldn't be too hard for a school community that teaches social-emotional learning, understanding, taking other's perspectives to their children, right? That's all.

Thank you for the 'pretty good' reporting Kevin F.. However - it was also very clear (by a 'community letter') that the Theuerkauf community, (parents and staff organizations) also supported Option A (least expensive) and Option E (most expensive). At least it seemed clear to me! Separate schools. There was a community representative from each school, that each gave verbal Community Comment.

The design option that Kevin reported on is the more expensive Option E. Trustee Gutierrez, supported Option ?. Was it E?
There were no emails that Trustees@mvwsd.org got, that came from individuals at TH, that supported Option E. There were 12 individual letters from parents at ST, that specifically only supported Option E. The community group letter from ST, that Kevin mentions, supported both Option A and E.

These letters are public correspondence. The MVWSD does not aggregate or post it's public correspondence like, for instance, the Menlo Park City Council does.

SN is a MVWSD Board member - these are only his personal observations.
The public correspondence mentioned is available to you from the MVWSD through a Public Record Request.

@ST Parent - thank you for not using so many exclamation points in your second post. Your first comment hurt my eyes.

What's the Stevenson policy regarding siblings? Do they get any preference?

You get one anchor kid in and you're good to go!

Just another example of how dysfunctional our school district is these days. Make a decision.. then one group complains about it until the board relents and changes the decision.

Of course another group will complain about that.. and so on and so on.

There's no compromise left in our community We all feel entitled to everything.

I really don't see why it's so hard to share a library and a multi-purpose room. The schools are too "different?" Is that some kind of code for racial and economic differences? The "trek" across the field is a few hundred feet at most and with a little planning it would be easy to manage.

The excuses seem like a real stretch and I think the district needs to exercise some leadership, tell the schools what they can and can't have based on the BUDGET, and stop all this nonsense.

Yes, siblings have preference at PACT. Get one in and if you have 5 kids, you're all in.

This might be why the WL gets longer- not necessarily because the school is getting better. (Well, maybe also because our district is getting worse...)

It seems that some from certain preschools do as well. THAT would never be admitted though. It's just a long-standing pattern.

To the parent who keeps trying to get in: honestly, I think you're probably better off where you are. Not all of us have one tiny desire to be at pact and that's ok :)

Does this school board have a backbone? Remember when Dad made a family decision and you couldn't argue him out of it?

It seems like every time the school board makes a decision, someone complains (usually multiple $omeone$), and they change their mind. There's no order in this courtroom.

It's costing us interest everyday. No, not us, our kids.

Why can't they make decisions based on what's best for all the kids (not just the rich ones) and stick to them even when pressured by the rich parents?

Exception: Bill Lambert- thank you, sir.

I agree with "Don't get it." Mistral and Castro are sharing a library and multipurpose room. How can the needs be so drastically different when we are talking about gathering places and books?

I think Stevenson has been stuck with some lousy resources for a while, but that doesn't mean we should recklessly spend more to overcompensate. How about staying within budget and sharing the big buildings?

Well, when we were kicked out of our school, Slater, by the School Board, there was talk about becoming a charter school. However, the School District Staff and Board talked a good talk.

We were moved to Castro and we were going to be able to grow. THEN...there was not enough room for us to grow. So, we were kicked out of another school.

We moved to Stevenson site and promised upgraded buildings. "Stevenson would be the FIRST to be rebuilt" - that because most of the buildings that do not meet State standards. That promise came in 2009.

NOW we are being compared to Bullis Charter? Really?

TO ALL CURRENT ST PARENTS: I WILL COME AND VOLUNTEER MY TIME TO TAKE OUR SCHOOL INTO A CHARTER NOW. WE WILL AT LEAST HAVE FACILITIES THAT MEET STATE STANDARDS. WE MAY HAVE TO MOVE....BUT WE OBVIOUSLY KNOW HOW TO DO THAT VERY WELL.

@ Former ST,

Bullis Charter is a reaction to a school closure decision. In many ways, so is the current state of Stevenson Pact. Had there been a waitlist for Pact back in the day, the board could have just designated Slater as Pact. The facts were, that even with both neighborhood and choice operating at Slater, it was still the best closure option for the financial conditions at the time. As you may recall, broad economic conditions in 2009 would have meant near certain failure of any bond measure, so none was offered. Under current conditions, the more renovation money is invested in Stevenson Pact, the more likely is the crowding and waitlisting to continue. Now the programming aspect of shared facilities changes the budget requirements, as well as the staging of construction. Change is constant in modern life, otherwise, our kids would not need to learn calculus at all.=)

A former Stevenson parent is so offended by the comparison to Bullis Charter that she's threatening to... help the school go charter?

And all this over maybe having to share a library with less fortunate kids?

PACT, you need to be better than this.

Sigh. Just put the Admin offices into the worst buildings and move those students from the worst buildings into the former Admin buildings. Problem partially solved. Until ALL parents and students have true equality, the Admins get NO SPECIAL PARKING PLACES and stay in the worst buildings in the District. If The Big One hits, we will not lose much and the future will stay bright for our children; after all, why do we have schools in the first place?
Also, what has happened to the original Whisman school property?
As the son of another District Assistant Administrator, I see lots of talk and wasted assets that have been happening for several decades in Mountain View. A MVHS Graduate of the OLD school on Castro ( named after the Cuban Leader no doubt by the way these Administrators are acting ) of 1973. My brothers and sister WALKED to Whisman School every day.....

What's missing in these conversations is the question, what should schooling look like in the 21st century?

Making sure each school has "district standard size" facilities in itself has no impact on learning. Efforts to standardize most things in schools place the bureaucratic desire for hypothetical efficiency over the real differences between schools or classrooms. For example, safe travel routes and living density patterns alone make standardizing every site and boundary problematic.

We have a dedicated district staff and a well-intentioned school board. I hope someone can step up with a vision to guide the remaining Measure G funds towards lasting upgrades that directly inform a forward-thinking instructional vision.

Discussion of multi-purpose room, library, or administration building have little educational value unless they are tied to conversations on expanded performing arts and community use of multipurpose rooms, maker spaces in libraries, and flexible student/staff learning spaces in an administration buildings that facilitates more staff collaboration and innovation. See Milpitas Unified School District, who passed their bond our same year, and are done with their construction: Web Link

Without such a vision, I hold out for a more moderate hope that at least Measure G will provide every school site safe sufficient classrooms for the kids it currently has, not the kids it wants to have, kitchens that can serve fresh food, and broadband ready for a data heavy future.

What we really need is a public that demands more leadership from the district, rather than just making demands for one's own school community. The chorus of localized demands just make it harder for the fractured board to develop a clear instructional vision.

For an example of a clear instructional vision, see Lindsay Unified School District: Web Link

Wouldn't keeping the current 'Budget', while using one of the school-community-preferred Options be OK?
Both ST and TH community organizing groups were fine with the Option A, only 8%, $2M over "allocation" (Bond Allocation Summary) . With the proper 'value engineering' ("modular" construction is part of that now) what would be wrong with their preference, if it was adjusted to the "allocation"? About $26 Million

I can't see any Real Big Problem. It keeps the 'Budget'. It listens to these two localized communities. It keeps the design and construction schedules on-track.

Mr. Tod Lee and CBO Dr. Clark have proven (to me at least) that they can further "value engineer" as needed.

SN is a MVWSD Trustee, but these are just his observations/opinions

The Board seems to operating with a belief system that assumes additional funding beyond Measure G, based on the Slater and Stevenson/Theuerkauf decisions.

It would help to see these projects divided into specific phases, where Phase 1 is within the Measure G budget, Phase 2 is what Future Unknown Funding Source covers, and Phase 1 is something that people can live with for an extended period of time, if necessary.

Dear Peter N., former member of the 2015 District Facilities Committee (thank you!). Please see Dr. Clark's (CBO) document called Bond Allocation Summary (BAS). There will see, I think very clearly, the line by line, site by site "allocations".

They should match the work that you finished, with Mr. Lee in mid 2015. The Bubb, Huff, Landels sites are as your committee recommended. Month Loma is there, and ST'TH is there. Castro/Mistral, as the DFC mentioned had been taken 'off the table' by the Goldman Administration. But it is also in the BAC that the CBO and the Program Manager, Mr. Tod Lee, compiled.

Stevenson and District Office are both, off the bottom/ below consideration in Measure G's round of facilities! Read this carefully please - for it is very very important. There is a BLACK bottom line, of about 1/4 million dollars. There is no RED INK in the BAS as it now stands. (the 21st vote was not for finding, this is, no approval of dollars and no approval of changing the BAS). There is also an companion 'project time-line' sheet, to go along with the BAS. Very professional and clear (IMO).

best,

steven

Sorry Patrick! I was mixing names with Peter, who was on the earlier Board Facilities Committee, in 2014.

I need to edit more slowly and more carefully! Slater not ST, is off the bottom / below consideration in Measure G's round of facilities. [let me turn this thing OFF]

My kid is attending Stevenson kindergarten now, and I like the school despite the fact that the kids are packed in a shed looking structure. Parents and kids are learning together. The shed maybe more comfy than the world class brand-new school building that is half empty??

I am not saying the district should take the funding away from Stevenson. I only question why a school with close to 200 student on the wait-list not getting more funding for building a real classroom.

Parent XYZ. I am sorry for that situation. As a Board member - I take partial personal responsibility.(1/5, 1/3?) I am trying my best to follow CBO Dr. Clark and Program Manager Mr. Lee advice that we can 'fast track' all this 'buildings' work. I am going to be consistently voting to plow-ahead ASAP.

There are significant problems with the 20 yr-old leaking modulars at Bubb (my kid was 'in one of leakees'). And other places with bad/un-maintained roofs (Monta Loma dry rot).

Bullis Charter School and Stevenson PACT do not suffer academically from modulars. The research is very clear - School Bond funded buildings, do not have a statistically significant effect on academics. Data from over two decades of Calif. school bonds shows this to (micro-economics) researchers. Your experience as a parent, "I like the school", is what the research supports - the social and academic environment is significant in academic achievement. The teachers are vital.

ah - made 'that' terminology mistake -> BCS and PACT have movable "portables" and not permanent "modular construction".

@Otto Maddox and To Otto,
You folks said:

"What's the Stevenson policy regarding siblings?"

You meant to ask: "What policy did the MVWSD Board of Trustees set about siblings in every one of the MVWSD schools?" Because the siblings policy was established many many years ago and applies to every public school in the MVWSD.

"Yes, siblings have preference at PACT. Get one in and if you have 5 kids, you're all in."

The "sibling" rules for ALL schools is exactly 100% the same for all schools in the MVWSD.

There are ZERO "special rules" for Stevenson or Mistral on lottery or on enrollment priorities for siblings or any other enrollment priorities.

Stevenson and Mistral have the same rules for these things as all the other schools in the MVWSD.

The only rule that is different about Mistral and Stevenson is the residency rule. Meaning, as long as you live in the MVWSD your kid may apply to Mistral or Stevenson and once you apply, your kid is then subject to ALL the same rules as other schools.

The MVWSD School District Staff has 100% control over the enrollment lottery and the MVWSD Board of Trustees has 100% control over the enrollment and sibling rules.

Neither Mistral nor Stevenson has any control of any sort over the rules or the lottery.

Stevenson has ZERO control over which kids "win" the lottery and never has.

"This might be why the WL gets longer-"

No, the wait list changes due to word of mouth and school ratings and what the public perceptions are about the other schools.

The people who have the highest incomes buy homes over by Huff in order to get their kids into the school perceived to be the best public school that you can buy your way into without facing the risk of the random lottery that anyone who applies to Stevenson faces.

People who live anywhere in the MVWSD have an equal chance in the MVWSD controlled random lottery to get into Stevenson. Income and residency or other demographic factors are not relevant to which of the applicants will win the lottery run by the District Staff.

@AA, I'll try it this way.
AA asked "Is it too much to ask the Stevenson community to consider keeping the student drop-off/pick up area where it is?"

No, not too much at all.
I'd be happy to keep the Stevenson drop-off/pick up exactly where it is today. That change was a total surprise to me.

I then learned the various reasons why that change was put in by the District Staff and now I understand why the District Staff thought the change was a good idea. I would be happy either way, but remember, the Stevenson community has no authority to order any changes in future site design drawings.

I'd be happy to forward your concerns to the Superintendent by email, as anyone can do if they have any comments about the design suggestions made by the District Staff.

I was very surprised when I first saw the "Option E" drawings designed by the District Staff and the architect. I was surprised by many things, including the change to the drop-off.

The Board of Trustees may eventually vote to approve a specific drawing designed by the orders of District Staff to the architect, or the Trustees may vote not to approve any drawing and delay construction further.

The Board can make suggestions about what changes they would like to see, but the District Staff makes the actual design decisions. The Board may try to micro-manage and threaten not to approve anything, but still, the District Staff makes the design decisions.

Not the Stevenson or Theuerkauf communities.

@Frustrated who said "I'm already appalled that the DI program is using so much."

You're saying the 700 kids on Castro site do not deserve as much Measure G money as the 600 kids at Crittendon or 700 kids at Graham did? Those schools got $100 million.

Mistral-DI (400 kids) did not get $42 million by itself, Castro (300 kids) gets at least half. That's about $21 million per school.

Stevenson (400 kids) is budgeted $12.8 million for a total rebuild, Theuerkauf (300 kids) gets $13.2 million for classroom & MUR "modernization", no new buildings needed at TH.

Yes, 2 smaller 450 capacity schools on one site is far more flexible and manageable and future-proofed than one giant 700-900 capacity school.
FYI, Stevenson has been a school on the same block as Theuerkauf for decades, it didn't just appear in 2009.

If DI never existed, would those 400 kids just vanish leaving behind only the 300 Castro kids? NO, those kids would still need updated classrooms & schools somewhere in the district.

Measure G was passed by the voters for the reconstruction of ALL our schools, not just the poor performing schools, not just the neighborhood schools, not just your school, not just the schools any Trustee is personally loyal to, but ALL THE SCHOOLS and for ALL the kids!

@Patrick Neschleba who said "The Board seems to operating with a belief system that assumes additional funding beyond Measure G, based on the Slater and Stevenson/Theuerkauf decisions."

You mean the same Board which spent over $100 million on the 2 middle schools first with no plan on how to budget the elementary schools?
Leaving about $95 million for all the elementary schools to share?

The Board where Trustee Lambert repeatedly and falsely claimed that Stevenson was getting $30 million?

The current Stevenson budget is the smallest of any school at $12.8 million for a required total rebuild. More work needed than any school, but with less money to do it than any school.
Theuerkauf modernization of existing buildings is budgeted at $13.2 million.
Castro gets at least $21 million.
The other schools get somewhere in between $14-$21 million.

There is a big difference between Slater being short over $30 million (they also need to relocate/rebuild a county preschool which is in the way) on the one hand,
and an entirely different matter of a possible 0 - $5 million shortfall for the required total rebuild of Stevenson (because none of the current buildings meet state or District standards and cannot be fixed).

The guessed-at Stevenson shortfall is before any efforts have been made to see if that first-guess number can be pushed down while still ending up with something like the Option E drawing.

Many, many community meetings were held about the scope of the middle school renovations. Some of us would argue that so many meetings were held that valuable time was lost against escalating construction costs. Both Middle Schools will get new performing arts centers also available for use by nearby elementary schools for certain types of events. Consensus became that both Middle Schools "deserved" similar arts facilities. It is certainly likely that without all of those community meetings, and further without the new arts facilities, we would not be arguing about Elementary School cost breakdowns. This is unfortunately an unreasonable hypothetical, and the board election following the bond election featured at least two winning candidates who had insisted on more community involvement as part of their campaigns. So we got what we collectively voted for, and now many of us have decided to continue to complain about it!