Just make space in each new gigantic highrise housing project for a school. Instead of BCS, just call each one BS - standing for Better School. BS-1 would be the first. BS-2 the second. And so on. Now please just send the achitect's fee to me.

Why is the school board hiring an architect when the land hasn't been secured?

It is more pragmatic to first secure the land in talks with the city and developers, ideally in partnership with MVLA. Then plan for in-fill of under-capacity Monta Loma (already the school for North Bayshore students) and under-capacity Theuerkauf first. That should get the community through 5-8 years. That gives the district time to talk with MVLA to see if there's possibilities to do a joint or adjacent K-12 campus, shared the cost and land.

The district is right to make sure they are part of the current development conversations to secure a parcel of land. But to design a building seems to be the last step, not the first, and early spending on a design will likely be wasted as unanticipated goals and needs arise later.

If the district has $396,000 facility funds to spare, why not furnish the middle schools innovation spaces with collaborative furniture that inspires innovation, its maker lab with maker equipment (the middle school maker space does not have a laser cutter despite HVAC being installed for such equipment), and a projector for its open space to use during gatherings. The middle school innovation spaces were meant to feel like Stanford dSchool or Palo Alto High's Media Arts Center. Lets make our current new facility investments amazing before dreaming up new ones.

Or in keeping with the community schools vision, adding smart keyless locks and entries on all community rooms and theatre spaces so neighborhood groups can use these tax funded facilities more easily and cheaply.

Strange to see immediate needs not met, yet large spending on unknown needs in the future.

Why is it that you are always critical of the district? You had your chance as a board member and you quit. You no longer are an informed member of the community. Makes sense to me to plan ahead. North Bayshore will be built up before long and the district needs to have a plan.

The district should plan, but planning is different from a 20-month/$396,000 plan to draft designs for new schools for a future neighborhood that continues to be a moving target on what and when it'll be built. Even the current Sobrato Pear project is being delayed. Planning can happen between the district office, board, city, and developers without paying for an architect. MVLA is not drafting North Bayshore school designs at this time.

Just five years ago, the district told the board and community it didn't have the students for a new school in Slater. Now we have a school in Slater, a right decision, but we also have under-enrolled schools, under-enrollment is hitting schools around the region with the changes in local social economics. I am confident that these factors mean a deeper discussion should happen before committing near half a million dollars towards new schools. The board approved payment for a housing plan at Cooper that was so intrusive in its scope, that it squandered good will in that neighborhood, so I think more scrutiny of facility planning is warranted.

Being critical is not the same as not being informed. I watch the board meetings, I continue to volunteer in MVWSD schools, and I live in North Bayshore. I hope everyone who has ideas or questions about schools speaks up, and I hope people encourage discussion rather than stifling it.

Rather than drink the developer/city coolaid that MVs future lies in urban-style schools, I expect our district and residents to push back. We are not NY. We are not SF. Undeveloped land exists (albeit for a price). MV residents should demand that new schools look similar to current schools - that IS STILL POSSIBLE.

On a somewhat related topic, today's Palo Alto Post had an Op-Ed with Lenny Seigel as one of the co-authors. As he tried to make the case for Stanford growing via planned communities with housing, services, schools, transportation...he pointed to how MV has been doing that in North Bayshore, East Whisman, etc. Really, Lenny? Can you point me to the schools and improved transportation you've created? It needs to be more than a pipedream. And I sincerely hope MVs idea of supporting schools isn't a compromised cop-out, via high-rise schools without playgrounds/fields, that have no place in a community with population under 100K.

Instead of building UP, how about building DOWN? Or would the builder be hitting life-threatening industrial pollutants down there? Maybe we need classrooms at major work sites. Dump the large school model. Let workers bring all of their children to work.

"Rather than drink the developer/city coolaid that MVs future lies in urban-style schools, I expect our district and residents to push back. We are not NY. We are not SF. Undeveloped land exists (albeit for a price). MV residents should demand that new schools look similar to current schools - that IS STILL POSSIBLE."

Why? Why does this matter? What is wrong with a multi-story school building?

@Christopher Chiang - I think it's wise to draft some architectural plans to assess what's doable in light of land constraints and state regulations for public school sites. It will only help in the negotiations. I hope the architect will also consider options for schools that are not standalone but part of a larger building (e.g. first 2 or 3 floors of a 8 to 10 stories office building).

@ Ted - when I last taught in NYC many moons ago, the 4th and 5th grades of my school were housed in the bottom floor of a local high rise, high end apartment house. It was wonderful - felt like a little private school. I really like your idea of placing a school in a high rise. Talk about creative solutions to overcrowding and unexpected enrollment surges.

I don't oppose mixed-use buildings, I too taught in such, they can be wonderful, as can be micro-schools, or K-8, or K-12, or mixed grade schools. I think we all value flexibility in trying to create innovative solutions to tough problems.

It's in defense of flexibility that should demand caution to the board's approval of $396,000 for a firm to draft school building plans over the next 20 months.

More work should be done to explore partnerships with MVLA or even with the companies (Oracle built Design Tech School in Redwood City), more work to be done on community discussions of innovative instructional models (that should then inform building design), and more work to be done to secure promises of what land is this building to sit on, all should happen first.

I saw in the past, money spent on building plans that were later changed, at great taxpayer expense. Those past plans were too far ahead of community decisions. I just don't want to see the district make the same mistake.

Community decision making doesn't have an hourly rate, versus architectural contracts are paid for each hour of work, so lets finish the community process before paying for roadmaps and blueprints that may not necessarily be used if done too early.

Same mistake was made with the paid contract for Cooper teacher housing planning. There too, community discussions should have proceeded architectural planning. Tragically, teacher housing at Cooper could have worked, but the rushed process has tainted good will in that neighborhood, making it all the harder.

California public schools requirements (mostly for safety) are pretty strict and rigid...not sure they would allow for a mixed use / shared building.

And, going back to my earlier post...I don't believe that small, tight school facilities are what our current families want...it's not the reason folks move here for schools. And, it's not necessary.

Take a poll of current school families: do you want the single story school with trees, fields and playgrounds, or the 5 story building with 2 hoops courts on the roof?

This is not NYC. (If it were, Vargas School could've been "PS #167")