I just wanted to bring up a small but important detail. When BATF was given their charter, one of the assumptions was that they should be targeting between 450 to 600 kids per school. However, when the Greystone West building contractor studied the changes needed for the schools to fit 600 kids, it turned out that the costs were going to go up dramatically. This is because the schools would need bigger common areas and more bathroom capacity to meet code.

The new task force is going to aim at 450 students more as a sweet spot than a minimum, which is a significant difference in strategy from BATF.

Good luck with this. Lots of people will be upset no matter what you do (including keeping things as-is).

This is another instance of good reporting from the Voice (Kevin F.) The reference I made (indeed in quotation) was from the former Trustee Gloria Higgins in her election run in 2004. The Voice article quoted her: “We do not need to treat race and poverty like the elephant in the room anymore,” she said.
Web Link

The recent District Quality Review mentioned in a number of places, that the Board had failed to “provide leadership.” I think this is another instance where the Board, failed to provide leadership.

I was not able to convince a majority of the Board to direct the administration on two items that I personally consider are public policy priorities: (1) distance from the school (not just maintaining South of El Camino) and (2) the Economic Diversity of the new assignments improving the older segregated model. Dr. Skelly urged the Board in the public meeting of June 2015, based on his experience in California school administration, we should try to allow parents in families of economic distress, to work with and along side families of means, in the same school settings. Otherwise, as he mentioned, how do we leverage the strength of our diversity? (6/11/2015 Video2 )

Gloria Higgins mentioned as a Trustee in 2004, a goal that I agree ‘explicitly’ working toward: “Each school should look like the entire district, so we don’t have segregated schools."

Action of the Board requires a majority, so does inaction of the Board. Lame ducks can still fly.

Steven Nelson is a Trustee of the MVWSD, and these are just his current opinions

With so many smart people in Mountain View, you would think we would be able to take care of stuff. But this city is run on auto mode or something. Nothing is EVER done to improve the city. Where are the new parks? I look at other cities and there's so many dramatic improvements in parks for kids, libraries, incredible downtowns. What the hell has Mountain View done? NOTHING... what a freaking waste of tax payer money.

@MountainView are you really complaining about our parks, library, and downtown? Maybe you're trolling and it's gone over my head. If not, you're free to move elsewhere with "new parks."

Entire city council needs to be gone. Please do not vote for any of the incumbents. They have done nothing to improve the quality of life for people in Mountain View. There's practically no improvements in the last 10 years. Who are these people that's suppose to be our public servants and why havent they done anything?

It will be interesting to see what the new boundaries end up being given that BATF did an excellent job evaluating 32 possibilities and found none matched the Board's criteria.

Sincere question: does it makes sense for all or most of the children from military families to be zoned for the same elementary? What about spreading the impact of having a fairly transitory population around a bit more?

I don't have a child at Monta Loma yet (we are a few years away) but I hear that it can be hard to establish a sense of community at a school where a large number of families may only be there for a short time. This is nothing against these children or families that are in the military. They add a lot to our city. I just wonder if that is a factor being considered in the boundary discussion?

Its no wonder the previous, BATF, had such troubles when their task included the contrary goals of avoiding segregation (each school looking like the whole district) and also being geographically based, neighborhood schools. There is a natural degree of segregation that exists and will always develop over time. Glad that Rudolph has taken away that conflicting goal.

Alarming to me is the talk of needing to add 2 more grade schools and a middle school. Mostly I am just concerned that the city accurately estimates the cost of land and buildings to do that and appropriately charges the developers for that cost, so that existing residents are not charged for that expansion.

Excellent point. It's true. It's hard to have families in and out all the time, when your kids make friendships and then their friends move. I'm sure it's harder for the military kids, but it's also hard for Monta loma.

With opening a new school (Slater) basically guaranteed being part of the new boundary, what would be the timeline for it to take effect at the earliest?

When we first moved to Mountain View, it never dawned on me how important it was to have a home near or within the boundaries of a great school. We, by almost pure luck, were fortunate to have our children attend Huff for almost 8 years. At first, when I found out the distance of our assigned school, it seemed too far and I wanted to request transferring out, but was persuaded by folks at the district not to. Huff was that great of a school as well as the parents that we met along the way and community that supported the school in general.

It was a daunting task of driving the kids to school every morning and picking them up from one end of town to the other, fighting traffic, bicyclists, beating red lights, learning the crosswalk count-down trick between Phyllis/El Camino, etc. Although the drive was a slight inconvenience, I'm glad we stuck with it and our kids turned-out much better as students and people.

I couldn't understand why our school was so far away and the problem still exists until now. The entire district map should be arranged by distance to home and if that factor requires another school to be built because there are too many kids for the school's capacity, then do so. It will make it easier for the kids to walk or ride their bikes and peace of mind for parents that their neighborhood school is nearby. My kids never had that luxury of living nearby and being able to ride their bikes to school with their friends- that's probably one of the experiences they missed out on as being an Elementary student.

@DChin You are mistaken that, in 2014 & early 2015, the Board (by majority vote) gave any direction or criteria to the superintendent's Boundary Adjustment Task Force. This was set up by the former superintendent - and the district administration (not the Board) set the criteria! @Rossta, the previous superintendent and CBO set the criteria - not the Board. Yes, democracy is difficult and it is impossible to reach perfection. (Measures W and V) But what is the direction we, the majority of the citizens wish to go, intense segregation (that can be arranged), or lessened economic and cultural segregation (which can also be arranged)?

SN is a Trustee of the MVWSD, and these are just his own opinions and comments (the Board majority decides if it wants to set any criteria or wants to provide any leadership)

@Impact of Military

As was the case on the BATF, there is no discussion, nor will there be any attempts to split up the children of military families into different schools. The effects of military life on children demands that these children have a community of their own. These children encounter circumstances that are slightly different from the challenges faced by other families. Therefore, they have their own built in support mechanisms that promote successes in their community. Neither the military families, nor the base commander would support splitting all those kids up into different schools for the sake of the schools. In addition, despite the flow of these families, nota Loma is their home and the military is a part of the culture of that school. In our efforts, we must consider what's best for the children and it is evident that splitting this community up would not be in the best interest of the children of military families.

Cleave Frink is a member of the SAATF but does not speak for the task force and any comments here represent his own opinions.

@Rossta

Not sure there's any talk in the district for any new schools other than Slater. At this point, opening this one school will evenly distribute the student population. Financially, this school was a pretty serious proposition. Similarly, the middle schools will even themselves out in the coming years and will likely be able to handle any growth after construction is completed. So, only one new public school, not three as you suggest.

Cleave Frink is an SAATF member but these comments do not represent the task force and are his own opinions.