You forgot to mention that eliminating all "sibling priorities" is also a big change called for by one of the plans. This should have been in the story too. It's probably too late to include this important detail in the printed edition.

I hope that the district does not choose a one-size-fits-all solution to the choice school priorities. Mistral already has a diverse student body, with a percentage of low income students that is similar to the district average. Mistral already has students from all over the district. The school has traditionally aimed for a 50/50 English/Spanish mix with waiting lists primarily on the English side. Seeing as Mistral is located in a traditionally Hispanic community, it draws many local students who are often both low income and Latino. This has been the mission of the program since it's inception.

I hope the community pushes for a delay in any major decision that could have such a big impact on the fabric of our community until the board and Superintendent are replaced - esp in light of the disastrous decisions that have been coming out of this leadership group.

@Graham Alum Family

"I hope the community pushes for a delay in any major decision that could have such a big impact on the fabric of our community until the board and Superintendent are replaced..."

I think it's very safe to bet that wont happen.

Some new set of rules will come down on time to accommodate the opening of Slater in the Fall of 2019.

There is a published date when new rules will be adopted and I cannot imagine any way that date wont be met, except if the Board really cannot come to a 3-person agreement on some set of rules, but I can't see that happening either.

@Different strokes

"I hope that the district does not choose a one-size-fits-all solution to the choice school priorities."

Maybe you should go to the MVWSD web site and look at the 27-page presentation and maybe come to the Board meeting tonight as well.

A big open secret is that there are children outside of the district enrolled in MVWSD schools. The Superintendent had promised to institute home checks after last years debacle with kindergarten enrollment, but reneged on this promised. MVWSD spends approximately $9000 per student per year.

Schools in Sunnyvale and PAUSD are far more diligent requiring students to prove residency with documents every year. Really districts like PAUSD are properly enforcing state law, while MVWSD is remiss. And that does carry over into MVLA, because no residency check is done on students of MVWSD when they register for high school.

And why does it matter?
1) MVLA is asking for a new bond measure ($295 M), because of the increase in enrollment in their schools.

2) Children who live in neighborhoods with oversubscribed schools have no guarantee they will get to go to their neighborhood school and that affects the sense of community that MV sorely needs.

3) Increased traffic from parents who have to drive their children across town when to non-neighborhood school (kids who didn't get into Huff were assigned to Monta Loma). That's up to 24 mins in rush hour traffic. And increased traffic from outside the city, because of children coming from outside the district.

4) Lack of accountability of tax dollars. It seems that this board and superintendent enjoy spending our money on feasibility studies, poorly implemented untested curriculum, and interviewing new principals. They then eliminate very cost effective programs like ISP that spends half the amount per student. Of course, they think they can just come to us with hat in hand asking for a new bond measure, because we've never refused them before.

Maybe the board and Sup can insure that residency laws are actually being followed, while they get their enrollment priorities sorted.

@ Srsly?

"A big open secret is that there are children outside of the district enrolled in MVWSD schools. The Superintendent had promised to institute home checks"

The real secret is that we have no idea and no way to guess how many families are lying about where their kids actually live.

So, why don't you come to the Board meeting tonight and get up and ask the Board to require yearly residency checks for all kids in the MVWSD?

@ Srsly?

Be careful with what you wish for. They might move into RVs that park outside your home, now that the city decided to consider them bona fide MV residents.

We have no idea of exact numbers, so that's why the district should be more fastidious. If you talk to parents at these schools, they all know someone who doesn't live in the district, but they aren't going to snitch on people (and their kids) they see every day.

Providing schooling to homeless children isn't an issue that should be conflated with the issue of people who are committing fraud and the board and superintendent that fail to enforce their own policy and state laws.

BTW, I have previously contact the board about this issue and they don't think it's a problem.

I also don't want to take a comment card from the other parents who are going to be speaking at tonight's Board meeting on a different topic. Who knew the most exciting event in Mountain View would be the MVWSD Board Meeting.

The Board has a growing laundry list of matters they need to account for.

I'm constantly amazed at how many uninformed people crowd onto these message boards and spread so much misinformation.

1). First, with regards to those who would "replace the Board and Superintendent before such big decisions are made"....LOL....obviously, you've not been paying attention. This is the third superintendent who has tried to implement these much needed reforms. The first two were also unable to execute these always painful policies. This work needs to be done, it's rare that anyone is ever happy about it and the last Board should have completed this work under Skelly ahead of his departure as an interim.

2). We already do residential checks in this district. Every year. And there are a small number of people in the district as I understand it, who either started in the district and moved elsewhere or have requested a seat in the district...but the district does receive funds for these students.

3). Finally, everyone acts as if the SuperIntendent and the Board are doing this work alone. This is the third year that I have worked on this issue as a parent of the district and a member of this community. In fact there are several parents, teachers, community leaders and former board members involved in this process as we have been for the last three administrations. So, the idea that people are somehow being subjected to the whims of the Board or the Superintendent are ridiculous. We, as a community, are doing what's best for the school district. Not one school, not two schools, not any one student or any annoying parent who's just woke up and heard about this work. We're working for the entire district. You're welcome to jump in and lend a hand rather than spouting inaccurate fallacies here whenever you're ready.

It's really a matter of degrees. You can have a form where parents check off that yes, they live in the district. Or you can have a situation where documents have to present in person every year with random home checks.

Here's an interesting link to PAUSD.
Web Link

And a link to SSD. Web Link

But amazingly MVWSD allows for interdistrict transfers, but may stop open enrollment within the district?

And of course the state gives money for each student enrolled in a district, but they don't confirm the residency of each funded student. And that doesn't make up all the money spent on each student. Otherwise why would we need these parcel taxes.

Yes... just woke up and discovered all this work on redistricting. Actually I'm pretty sure the committee had a limit on the number of parents and community members from each school. But no? We can all participate? Are these open committee meetings? Let me come. Really.

@Annoying Parent

The task force recruited participants months ago (and all parents in the district were sent the invite, which was also published multiple times in the schools' newsletters). There was a limit on numbers and a requirement for balanced participation from all school communities, so no, you can't decide to join now.

But the meetings are open to public observers, so you are free to attend.

All the info about the task force is available here: Web Link

@Annoying Parent,

Information will set you free. Please attend. Next time, you can be on the committee.

@Cleave Frink

"I'm constantly amazed at how many uninformed people crowd onto these message boards and spread so much misinformation."

OK, Mr. Frink, then may I?

"2). We already do residential checks in this district. Every year."

When a kid is first going to attend a school in the district, the parents have to provide some sort of paperwork, like a utility bill or mortgage bill and the district does not go around to the addresses to check if the kids actually live there.

After the first year of attendance, they just send an email to the email address you give them to provide a link to a web-site where you simply click on a question asking if the child will continue in the school next fall. No further questions about residency and certainly no further documentation required.

So, no, the MVWSD does nothing to check residency.

They could simply send a postcard out to all of the registered home addresses to be returned with a signature and the answer to some question the parents should know. If that was done without announcement, that would catch the bulk of residency cheaters and it would be cheap to do.

"And there are a small number of people in the district as I understand it, who either started in the district and moved elsewhere or have requested a seat in the district...but the district does receive funds for these students. "

No, Mr. Frink, nobody has any idea how many families have an incorrect address on their kids registration. It may be a small number or it might be a huge number, but nobody has any factual basis for giving an opinion.

So, you were saying?

Look just because you're on a committee, doesn't mean you're the most informed person in the district. Even the board had no idea what was going on with TTO for a very long time. Very few people just wake up and decide they were going to troll the local newspaper discussion forum.

I do know the Enrollment Priorities Task Force did discuss doing home checks, but some members were concerned about the homeless children and it became a non-starter. However, the McKinney-Vento Act protects these children so that's not really an issue.

No2Siblings has a very reasonable suggestion for doing some kind of residency check. Honestly if there is just one neighborhood kid who can't get into their neighborhood school because their spot was taken by someone outside of the district, that isn't OK.

Being able to transfer from one elementary school to another saved our son’s enjoyment of school and interest in learning. Please don’t take school choice away from parents.

I think it might not be factual that Mistral has a “huge”wait list every year. I believe it has been consistently much shorter than the wait list for PACT.

@ Frink You have a factual mistake in your posting Cleave.

2). And there are a small number of people in the district [ students] as I understand it, who either started in the district and moved elsewhere or have requested a seat in the district...but the district does receive funds for these students.

Here is your error: MVWSD is a "community funded" district under LCFF. This means that we get more from our state allowed local property tax than the state would normally allocate to us through state channels. That is an anomaly in the state (95% "state funded" districts) but not for the local high-property-wealth districts.

We get to keep (under current law) All THAT TAX REVENUE no mater how many students we have or do NOT have.(*)
Web Link [ed100.org is a CA PTA sanctioned site for schools information]

We do not get one cent more, for any student that comes in from employees who live out-of-district. I know that this provision applies to teachers (it's an employment incentive - gosh- we need this right Cleave). I am not exactly sure if it applies to credentialed administrators, or other employees. Should it?

best

(*) I do not know for sure if we have to pay ADA minimum state support to any public charter school, that MVWD's students may transfer to. I think that this is what happens to LASD, when students transfer to BCS (BCS gets a state minimum per student, not the full LASD $ per student revenue)

GRANDFATHERING I think the term, as I heard it used at the Board Meeting presentation is ill-defined. "Recommendation A" contains a lot of 'sibling priority' and 'prior year's attendance priority'. To me, that is "grandfathering" meaning - it is NOT your current neighborhood of family residence, but the PAST neighborhood of family residence that "gives you priority" to attend a school.

If this type of 'prior privilege' is permanently built into "Recommendation A" I'd say it pretty much would match the dictionary definition of "grandfather clause" (1900) a clause creating an exemption based on a circumstances previously existing.

This is exactly what the prior Board (my Board) wished to avoid and I was very glad to hear that a "magic majority" +1 (4) also seemed to favor "Recommendation B" which completely eliminates those TWO permanent 'priorities' (former attendance + YES2Siblings).

I'd agree with No2Siblings, as I heard most of the elected school Board. (we live in a representative local democracy - not LOUDEST-mob-rules)

now Trustee Gutierrez - how to help fix de facto housing segregation effects?

@Steven Nelson

I think your confusion comes from the huge change in mind-set from the current enrollment rules that care only for Kinders where a kid lives versus the future enrollment rules that are based solidly on where K-5 kids live. Currently, at least 30% of the K-5 kids in the district don't attend their neighborhood school because of various liberal uses of intrAdistrict transfers and the fact MVWSD never bothers to actually check residency.

"GRANDFATHERING I think the term, as I heard it used at the Board Meeting presentation is ill-defined."

OK, then let me split that hair for you.
What is being currently debated as "grandfathering" is the length of the transitional period for kids currently NOT attending the school which the SAATF map would have them in. Mainly, how many school years it will take to fully open Slater with all grades populated.

Three basic choices are being debated:
(1) Full-reset instant transition. The kids attending neighborhood schools will all be moved into the school designated as their "neighborhood school" according to their address as outlined in the SAATF boundary map as of the start of the 2019-2020 school year. Meaning a full-open of Slater first year all grades.

(2) Multi-year slow transition. To allow some kids to remain in their current school for some number of years beyond 2019. This may or may not include younger siblings, which is also part of the debate. Meaning a slow gradual open of Slater over a number of years, starting at kinder certainly open the first year.

(3) 1 Year transition only for 5th graders. To allow 5th graders to remain for graduation from the schools they have been in up until 2019. Again, may or may not include younger siblings. Meaning Slater opens without a 5th grade for the 2019-2020 year.

""Recommendation A" contains a lot of 'sibling priority'"

Recommendation A contains a mention of 'sibling priority', just like the current enrollment priority rules do, no more. This is in relation to things like district employees kids and for the special cases or hardship cases where the district could grant an intrAdistrict transfer under some circumstances.

It also is mentioned as in current rules for the 2 choice schools. And this is still under debate.

""and 'prior year's attendance priority'. To me, that is "grandfathering""

Again, the "prior year" attendance mention was intended to cover employees and special cases and is also under debate.

"meaning - it is NOT your current neighborhood of family residence, but the PAST neighborhood of family residence that "gives you priority" to attend a school."

Which was the long-standing rule in this district and is now under debate in the EPTF.

"If this type of 'prior privilege' is permanently built into "Recommendation A":

Absolutely not.
These were just first-drafts and lots of stuff if still on the table for discussion.

"I'd agree with No2Siblings,"

About what exactly?

"(we live in a representative local democracy - not LOUDEST-mob-rules)"

Since we just lost 4 principals in one year, obvious the LOUDEST parents objections did not "rule".

"now Trustee Gutierrez - how to help fix de facto housing segregation effects?"

To do that, we would need to throw out all school boundaries and set demographic quotas to be the same for each school and adjusted each year with kids assigned to whatever school to meet the desired diversity goals.

Or, Mr. Nelson, are you only targeting one specific school and allowing the other schools to slide on the issue of diversity?

If diversity honestly matters to you, then you need to address it globally, not just make a fake show of your concern for diversity by targeting one school for change so it looks like you "did something" instead of actually accomplishing something real for all the kids of the district.

@Mike Laursen
a resident of Monta Loma

Mr. Laursen,
The first question is what grade(s) is your child in now?
If 4th or 5th, then none of this will change anything for your child.
If 3rd, then the option being discussed of allowing 5th graders to remain would also keep things as they are for your kid.

If younger, then the next question is, is your child in one of the 2 "choice" schools?
If yes, then none of this will change anything for your child in a choice school as of 2018-2019 school year, but may effect a younger sibling's chances of getting into that choice school.

IF you currently live within the new SAATF boundaries designated for Monta Loma and your child currently attends some other "neighborhood school", like Huff for example, then I would assume your child will be moved to Monta Loma as of 2019-2020 or 2020-2021 school year.

"Being able to transfer from one elementary school to another saved our son’s enjoyment of school and interest in learning. Please don’t take school choice away from parents."

I understand this very well myself. How the new rules that get approved effects your family is very specific to the ages of your kids and school and address.

"choice" schools may be greatly impacted as well.

@ Steve Nelson

Thanks for the clarification.