We have now moved out of Palo Alto. Our moving experience has brought some fresh perspective to earlier issues which I
will try to flesh out over the next few missives.
Chapter 1:
First order of business is to close a Palo Alto-related issue-- schools. I have gone on (and on and on, sorry) about the relentless obsession of the Palo Alto Unified School District's (PAUSD) with "mo' money!" We didn't leave
Palo Alto because of the schools but they sure didn't show us anything which made us want to stay.
It's one thing to spend over $10,500 per child (CA average $7,272) and give them a gold-plated education and school experience. It's something else entirely when that $10,500 per child continually
exploits parents' able to pony up but gives the kids only the barest of amenities.
It turns out there are even more lengths to which PAUSD will go for "mo' money!":
-PAUSD imposed a moratorium on itself from soliciting parents for more funds. Perhaps there was embarrassment from doubling
up last year's $325 /year PTA contribution to $650 after all?
Unfortunately, a couple of clever school principals decided the moratorium only applied to PTA funds and requests for $100
and even $200 in additional "supplies" went out to the parents of several schools. Oops! (One teacher's description to us
of needed supplies: "technology stuff.")
-My child's elementary school happened to be attached to a "Junior Museum" with a small collection of animals plus a city
park and municipal pool. We were dunned for $475 toward the maintenance and improvement of these facilities.
-PAUSD is reviving the "Black and White Ball." The story behind the name escapes me but the purpose is clear: Get local
companies and bigwigs to kick in for the facility, refreshments and entertainment, then pocket $125 per ticket, plus any cash
Hewlett-Packard or the VC's are willing to give. With 1,000+ attendees expected, this is a nice little paycheck. Particularly
since PAUSD's original planning budget was laid out before the revival of this event was announced.
-Don’t think for a minute this means anyone took their eye off the parcel tax. My child's teacher and the administrators
in our school hammered the Parcel Tax at every opportunity. (Measure "I" on your Palo Alto ballot). Incredibly, my ballot
includes a column titled, "County Counsel's Impartial Analysis of Measure I".
This "impartial" analysis includes, "the tax is to maintain high quality education in neighborhood schools, avoid deeper
cuts to classroom instruction, maintain manageable classroom sizes, preserve educational programs that attract the best teachers
and school employees and enhance student achievement…"
Where do I start with a critique? The very title is laughable. When was the last time you heard one government employee
tell another their department already has enough money? Did the attorney even bother to sit down and write her own thoughts?
When you re-read the comments, you notice every bullet explains how this parcel tax is for the benefit and convenience
of the teachers and staff. "Avoid deeper cuts to classroom instruction", "manageable classroom sizes", "preserve
programs that attract the best teachers and staff." Finally, at the end they remembered to mention the children. Oh
yeah, those darn kids…
All of this "mo' money!" really comes into context when we learned how standard practices in our new district compare to
Palo Alto. Our new school district is run for the convenience of the children and their parents, rather than the benefit of
the teachers and administrators.
+Our new district meets their 20-child per K -3 class requirement by combining classes within a school. Rather than run
a 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade class with 12 -15 kids each, put twelve 1st graders with eight 2nd graders. Take the other seven
2nd graders and put them in with the twelve 3rd graders. Instead of three classes you run two. Even with this mixing, our
current school district puts out higher API scores than Palo Alto.
Palo Alto mostly avoids mixing by farming "excess" kids out to non-neighborhood schools. Palo Alto even splits up siblings,
forcing parents to deliver their children to two or more different schools. PAUSD's 14-page disclosure on planned uses for
the new parcel tax makes no mention of any effort to get more kids into their actual neighborhood school. If you're in, you're
in. If you're out, you're out.
+We are convinced Palo Alto staff further manages this farming process by directing kids based on what their parents do.
(Why else would they demand rent/own and job title info on forms required to enroll your child?) Long-time residents get into
Duveneck, which was supposed to be our neighborhood school. Children of CEOs, doctors, lawyers and politicians tend to end
up at Hays which is the most central and has the nicest grounds (and the highest demand for extra funding.) Children of tech
worker bees, especially if they are renters, are sent to El Carmelo, which has the highest percentage of renters in the Palo
Alto system.
We broke this "system" by complaining repeatedly to the local politicians. Within 48 hours of our state assemblyman's office
putting a call into an assistant superintendent (and there are a bunch of these assistants) the five-child "waiting list"
at Hays magically emptied and our child was admitted. This was still not our neighborhood school but at least were driving
two miles rather than five. Further eroding the credibility of the whole process, our child's class only had 19 kids in it
for half the year.
+Our new district offers busing to any child who has to cross a major road (which we had to do in Palo Alto) or any child
unable to get in their local school.
Even when you are bounced out of your neighborhood school, Palo Alto offers no busing. (High school kids can ride the city
bus to school if their BMW is in the shop.) Parents must deliver their child to their non-neighborhood school. If you have
children bounced to different schools, you have to deliver them both. (Yet the city council still can't figure out why city
streets are clogged with traffic in the mornings and mid-afternoon...)
+Our current neighborhood school says they have never turned away a child in the last nine years. Everybody gets to attend
their neighborhood school.
Our Palo Alto neighborhood school was planning to turn away nine 1st graders last year. Presumably an additional number
of Kindergarteners, 2nd and 3rd graders as well.
+Our current school's PTA requests $17.
I can pound out more examples (minimal day, ski week, magnet school admissions,…) but you get the point.
Bottom line: One school system is run for the convenience and benefit of the teachers and administrators. Another school
system puts the benefit and convenience of the children at the top of their priority list. Which one is more likely to use
new tax money for the education and benefit of the children?
