BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
All three Palo Alto school board candidates are willing to close schools if enrollment continues to drop, but only one of them said he’d be open to selling a campus.
“If we’re not using it, why not?” candidate John Craig said in an interview.
Palo Alto’s enrollment has been steadily declining each year, from 12,287 students in 2017 to 10,209 students last year, according to data from the California Department of Education.
The smallest schools are Juana Briones Elementary School with 244 students and Barron Park Elementary School with 258 students.
Candidate Avery Wang said he hopes to avoid closing schools because it’d be extremely unpopular, and the district may be adding students from state housing mandates.
“We need to look ahead to see what’s going on there. If it has to happen, it has to happen,” Wang said.
Candidate Linda Henigin said she wouldn’t maintain a school with one or fewer classes per grade, but she would never sell a campus.
“I don’t know why we would release an asset that we may need back again. Leasing, sure,” she said.
All three candidates acknowledged the emotional impact and logistical challenges that closing schools would have. “You don’t want to react too quickly,” Craig said.
The district’s enrollment peaked in 1967 at 15,575 students. Enrollment began to decline in the 1970s and continued through the 1980s. The bottom was reached in 1989 when total enrollment was 7,452, according to the district.
The configuration of schools then stood at 11 elementary schools, one middle school and two high schools.
Today the district has 12 twelve elementary schools, three middle schools and two high schools.
“We can’t pay teachers enough” and “double the parcel tax” is not an education strategy—it’s a blank check.
The Bay Area already spends enormous amounts on education, yet simply spending more has not produced commensurate student outcomes. Before asking taxpayers for another $1,600, I’d like to hear something more substantive: What specifically will the money accomplish? What metrics will improve? How will we know the spending is working?
“Children are our future” is a slogan, not a strategy. If raising taxes and increasing salaries is the candidate’s primary answer to every education challenge, voters should ask whether there is actually a plan to improve the system—or just another request for more money.
Our students deserve better than a candidate whose biggest tool in the shed is the taxpayer’s wallet.
I agree. Palo Alto student outcomes are better than the state average, but the average is very bad. We’re seeing this at the University of California level where many students who are seeking careers in STEM subjects haven’t mastered high school math. If things are that bad for students who have been admitted to UC you have to wonder what junior college and California state university students are like. I never hear the teachers’ unions address this topic or the school boards who seem to rubber stamp the unions’ needs and desires.