Town Square

Post a New Topic

Parents say big questions still remain over Teach to One

Original post made on Mar 9, 2017

Parents in the Mountain View Whisman School District are still uneasy about the handling of a controversial digital math program.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 9, 2017, 11:53 AM

Comments (63)

63 people like this
Posted by MV Parent
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 9, 2017 at 1:21 pm

I agree with Blakley that The Voice is beating this horse to death. And it sounds like a select few parents have the ear of Kevin and are making the most of an all red meat BBQ.

I also think the whole board needs to take a hit for this. Jose Gutierrez is the board spokesman and leader as president. However, he could not have released the letter unless the board was behind it and knowledgeable of the content and message by at least 3 to 2. From what I've read, they were behind it 4 to 1. So let's call a spade and spade and spread the blame out starting with the previous Board President Wheeler under whose watch this whole sad state of affairs got started.

As far as Rudolph, 99% of the issue is on his shoulders. He never should have got the district hooked into it if there was no money allocated to pay for it. He attempted to sneak it through but got stung. If he had taken it to the board and kept them informed all along, I'm sure things would have gone much better. The board needs to severely reign him in or release him. We need a supe that follows Ed Code and board guidance and directives.


33 people like this
Posted by Monty
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

"Among the claims in the letter, Rudolph and Gutierrez wrote that the original cost of the program which was projected to be $521,000 in December, according to the district's own interim budget report was 'inaccurately reported.' The district never signed the contract, and on Feb. 28 was able to negotiate down the costs of licensing and service fees to the New Classrooms Innovation Partners, Inc., the company that developed Teach to One, to $149,000."

The original cost of the program was not inaccurately reported. It's just that the original cost of the program ended up not being the final cost because they ended up settling for less. If parents didn't raise a stink and if the board approved that item on their consent agenda then the cost would have been $521K.


45 people like this
Posted by Lynda Meyer
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 9, 2017 at 3:31 pm

Teach to One was/is a half baked program which was touted to be something wonderful but in fact is a halfbaked mess. The people who "sold" this program misrepresented it. I can't imagine how it appeared to be anything but "iffy" to school board and administration and that it was implemented anyway. What other schools used it and what did they have to say? And NO, the Voice is not beating a dead horse. As things stand I don't think anybody has accepted responsibility for this disaster and there is no plan in place that will prohibit it from being repeated. Doesn't somebody need to be fired?


24 people like this
Posted by MV Parent
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 9, 2017 at 3:34 pm

@Monty

The final cost of a program is the final negotiated, approved and paid for cost. In this bizarre case, the final cost was $149,000, not the original $521,000that was quoted by TTO, illegally signed for by Rudolph and put into a deceptive budget hoping the Board would not notice . Yes, thank's to Rudolph's poor handling of this it could have been higher, but it would have come out of his pocket given he signed a contract he had no authorization or funding for. He's the one that creates budgets for Board approval. And the Board didn't approve it. He's scheme didn't work. Yes he should be fired for this, but we live in California where getting public employees fired from just about any job for doing just about anything wrong is almost impossible.

The Board corrected Rudolph's bumbling, bad judgement and poorly executed "pilot program" and it's now time to move on. Unfortunately we are stuck with Rudolph for three more years unless the Board can find a way to get rid of him sooner. That can be expensive. On the bright side, maybe it's better that we have a superintendent that is not being closely watched and held accountable. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.


19 people like this
Posted by MV Parent
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm

CORRECTION: On the bright side, maybe it's better that we have a superintendent that is NOW being closely watched and held accountable. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.


46 people like this
Posted by Take responsibility
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 9, 2017 at 8:17 pm

Parents are going to beat the horse until someone takes responsibility. It's as simple as that. Nothing fancy or expensive is needed.

I agree with the parents quoted, including Brigitte Cash, Vince Brown, and Alan Wessel, and am really glad they had a chance to say what the rest of us are feeling.

Own up and we can all stop talking about this. Keep hiding behind new lies in new emails and parents will keep fighting for responsibility to be taken, Ms. Blakeley.


21 people like this
Posted by Interested Observer
a resident of another community
on Mar 9, 2017 at 9:21 pm

I agree with Ms.Blakely. It's time to move on!! Mistakes were made and responsibility for that has been taken. I do not agree with those "blaming" Ellen Wheeler for this situation. She may have been president of the Board but..... she is only 1 vote out of 5 and that includes the hiring of the current superintendent.


14 people like this
Posted by MV Parent
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 10, 2017 at 6:54 am

Any one involved in education knows that the beating a dead horse approach doesn't work. You just have to keep trying, change change course if necessary, understand that everyone makes mistakes and keep focused on moving forward to the goal of educating children. Again, this problem has been solved with a new awareness all around. Perhaps The Voice and the parents who continue to be upset should start focusing forward for the common good rather than back. The Voice can start by focusing their attention and public records requests on city hall. There is most likely plenty there to satisfy the meat eaters. Parents can volunteer in the classroom.


62 people like this
Posted by Parent of two Graham students
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 10, 2017 at 9:25 am

This scandal is not about making mistakes. I agree that everybody makes mistakes and hindsight is always 20/20.

This scandal around A. Rudolph is about intentional misleading the public and the Board on key facts of the events that led to the TTO debacle. The public record requests have uncovered communications in emails that contradict how events are presented to this day by the Superintendent to the public. And that the Board Chair J.Guiterrez is an accomplice instead of overseeing the Superintendent is appalling.

It is not the initial mistake or even the poor decision making process that is still riling the parents. It is the intentional misleading and the communication of "alternative facts". In any other professional environment such a person would be fired for cause after caught on multiple misrepresentations and even lies.


64 people like this
Posted by @ Interested Observer
a resident of Bailey Park
on Mar 10, 2017 at 9:34 am

Perhaps I've missed something. could you point me to any official statement where responsibility has actually been taken?

Saying "We apologize for any stress that you or your student felt around math this year" is the closest I have seen, but (putting it crassly) many abusers say that to their victims without accepting any responsibility or blame.

Instead what we get are statements in the latest email such as:

"Teach to One (TTO) was reviewed and vetted before implemented."
"MVWSD ... followed its process for pilots."

As Alan said, these are clearly "counter-factual statements".

As Brigitte said "I really don't think there has been sufficient ownership"

As Vince said ""I think it's time for them both to take accountability and admit they made a mistake"

As Pete said "One hundred percent of the district's sixth graders were in Teach to One. That's very far from any common-sense definition of a pilot"

Hats off to these parents for taking the time to sit through the last board meeting and for having the courage to get up and address the board. Unlike most people commenting (myself included) their names are printed here in black and white.


25 people like this
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 10, 2017 at 10:42 am

I think we are all concerned about how the district is getting ran in general! They also need to look into how the special education department is ran! There is a lack of compassion and assistance for those children who have disabilities and need services at school to get the FAPE! If you start looking into the district special education, you will notice parents with right to a lawsuit against the school!


64 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Update. The District admitted yesterday it had no "claim for damages" from the corporation that provided the failed math program. Such a claim is ordinarily required before a public entity may be sued for damages (money). The Superintendent was just in a hurry to close out the public controversy and his own potential personal liability. So he scheduled a special meeting on February 28 with one basic agenda item: a closed session permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act to meet with legal counsel concerning pending or threatened litigation (CA Government Code section 54956.9). In response to my Public Records Act request, the District (aka Superintendent) admitted yesterday that no legal counsel attended the closed session either in-person or by hook-up. Instead, it was a closed meeting with the Superintendent who claims to have talked to a lawyer and to have had access to one. Of course, the purpose of the closed session under the law is to enable the members of the legislative body to talk directly with legal counsel - not to get legal or illegal advice from the Superintendent. Honest legal counsel might have insisted that the Superintendent leave the room as he had interests contrary to the school board. The attorney might have suggested that the school board look into suing or firing the Superintendent. In any event, the school board, aided and abetted by the Superintendent, violated the Brown Act by participating in the closed session. And this Superintendent just supervised another mailer in support of the May 2 mail-only parcel tax. See Education Code section 7054 on when a school district may use public funds to discuss its own ballot measure. The district may only provide "fair and impartial information." The glossy mailings with pictures of school children (probably borrowed from the internet) are not limited to providing any such information. They are campaign pieces in my book. Stay tuned.


15 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 11, 2017 at 3:21 pm

If there is one thing to be learned from this expensive debacle then it is the following. Our school district needs far more capable board members than it presently has. It's not enough just to care passionately for the education of our children. Board members must also be sufficiently well-educated, experienced, and intelligent to make rational decisions on issues that sometimes can be quite and complex and subtle.


13 people like this
Posted by parcel tax mailings scandal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 11, 2017 at 3:48 pm

I agree with Gary. The two pro-parcel tax mailings sent by the district but paid for by taxpayers are a scandal. I have sent out mailings in my business and documents like these are extremely expensive. The district had to pay writers for the propaganda, graphic artists to create the layout, the cost to print the multi-color documents and last but not least around $1 postage per card. They also had to pay for district personnel to manage this--locate, interview, negotiate and hire the people who put it together, inspect their work product, coordinate the various tasks. The mailing easily cost tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps much more since government is always less efficient than private industry. And as Gary showed--all of this contrary to state law.


11 people like this
Posted by Old Steve
a resident of Rex Manor
on Mar 11, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Apparently, Local school districts with high aspirations will always have angry parents. Since school district personal can't be perfect somebody will always be at least agitated. Look at LASD and their legal relationship with Bullis Charter. In Palo Alto we can choose from budget assumptions, OCR relationships, Homework (and the list goes on). Locally of course, we elected Mr. Chiang and Mr. Nelson, and then got angry when they did not meet our expectations. I assume that most of those are now angry with Ms. Wheeler voted for her last time. School District Trustees always have to balance on the line between setting policy and giving the Superintendent enough room to do his job. We can reduce his independence, but at the sacrifice of innovation and forward thinking. Lastly, comparing consequences to the private sector is a fools' errand. Overreacting because the Superintendent cannot be fired immediately accomplishes nothing except to help poison his relationship with the board and the community. We all need to get over ourselves so that our students and our school district can concentrate on their studies.


10 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm

IMHO, any state or local revenue bills, like taxes, fees, bond issues, minimum wages, etc., must be legally restricted to ballots for bi-yearly national elections in Nov; and NOT during any "special elections". Revenue bills must be restricted to elections that draw the greatest percentage of voters. For too long, our local schools have been sneaking through tax increases by placing them in low turnout special elections, in which the school districts blatantly lobby parents to vote for school bills that never could pass during a general election. This is a highly corrupt and cynical violation of democratic practices by our local school boards, and it is no better than "so-called prez Trump" is trying to do with our national democracy.


8 people like this
Posted by @Old Steve
a resident of North Bayshore
on Mar 11, 2017 at 7:03 pm

@Old Steve would have been a fine trustee, and the hours he volunteered in committees, he pretty much gave the same civic service as one, arguably more than one. The community also would have benefited from the the expertise of Darrah and Pollart, both of them understood how to be critical in ways that would move the district forward.


15 people like this
Posted by @ Gary
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 13, 2017 at 8:22 am

Just wondering (as I am not familiar with Brown act requirements) what happens next?

There are two items up for discussion in closed session this Thursday. I suspect one of them may be finalization of TTO.

What recourse do we have to get the Board to properly disclose what they are doing and to hold the Superintendent responsible for getting us into this mess?


36 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 13, 2017 at 9:52 am

Gary is a registered user.

The day after the February 28 unlawful closed session, the Superintendent and a represenative of the out-of-state corporation that provided TTO signed a 1-page settlement agreement. I have just formally demanded that the District "cure or correct" the Brown Act violations (I now count three) which can be done by placing the settlement on an agenda as an open session item. I have also just formally demanded that the District "cease and desist" using a closed session under Government Code section 54956.9 unlawfully - as occurred. The District may agree or be sued. But the Superintendent unlawfully imported TTO and engaged in a conflict of interest (to avoid personal civil liability) when he attempted to get the school board to unwittingly approve the half million dollar contract for TTO on the no-discussion "consent" calendar on December 8 and then obtained board approval of a settlement on February 28 in a closed session not even attended by legal counsel (except through the Superintendent as a self-described "intermediary." In addition, this Superintendent has overseen two campaign mailers from the District not limited to providing "fair and impartial...information" about the proposed parcel tax (Measure B) in evudent violation of Education Code section 7054. So more than a civil suit is properly on the horizon. Stay tuned.


8 people like this
Posted by About the mailers
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 13, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I haven't seen any evidence presented that the mailers violated the rules. Just because they have pictures and are glossy?

What is the specific language that you find in violation of the "fair and impartial" information rule? I'm no fan of the Spt. but the mailer didn't raise any red flags for me.


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Gary is a registered user.

@About the mailers. Read Ed. Code section 7054 and give me your best argument that the mailers DO violate it. That is your assignment.


9 people like this
Posted by @ Gary
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Supporting Gary's statements, CA Education Code 17604 Web Link clearly specifies:

In the event of malfeasance in office, the school district official invested by the governing board with the power of contract shall be personally liable to the school district employing him or her for any and all moneys of the district paid out as a result of the malfeasance.


4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Gary is a registered user.

But in this case, it appears the Superintendent had no actualvor even apparent authority to contract for TTO. But the New York corporation still provided the program. The District may not have been liable for a dime. But the Superintendent might well have been liable to the NY corporation. So the Superintendent got the school board in an unlawful closed session, with no "legal counsel" there or even on the line, to approve a settlement that may only have benefitted himself. As to Education Code 7054, maybe the guy or gal who provided the link in the ladt post can do so to 7054. I would not know how. I never took TTO.


10 people like this
Posted by Greg
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm

It's not too hard to look at a mailer and guess the intent.

If I want you to vote yes, I include pictures of happy kids raising their hands. Some cheerful blue boxes to list the benefits, perhaps.

If I want you to vote no, I include a black and white image of the budget with questionable items like Teach to One circled in red. Some threatening red boxes to show how the district wasted money in the past, perhaps.

This was designed to get you to vote yes. No sense in pretending otherwise.


10 people like this
Posted by @ Gary
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

Here's the link to 7054 Web Link. (Hint: to add a link in the Comments section here just paste the URL and the commenting software automatically turns it into "Web Link".)

Personally, I'm not offended by the brochures and suspect all districts carry out similar mailings with equally radiant kids (perhaps even the same kids?).

As to whether the district can PASS a parcel tax with this mess going on, now that's a different question!


2 people like this
Posted by Long Gone
a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:52 pm

The underlying problem is pretending that some trick teaching method will teach things to kids who can't learn it. You might as well bring in NBA players to teach kids how to dunk. Not everyone can learn algebra or dunk a basketball.


12 people like this
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Everyone's calling this a pilot, but maybe this was more like a beta test for Teach to One. After a little browsing online I read that Teach to One went out to schools only in 2016-17, exactly when MVWSD adopted ("piloted") it. So if my quick internet browse is right, our schools were among the first schools to use it. As a tax payer in this district, I would like to ask that our district NEVER be among the first schools to pilot/beta test a software program. I'd like that to be part of our policy.

Even more important, I've read that schools with good teachers generally do better to keep teachers teaching, rather than turn to online teaching. We have good teachers in this district. We shouldn't turn them into online education administrators. Often when low-income public schools show test score improvements after using teaching programs, score gains do not pan out for higher-income schools with better teachers. In other words, replace your teachers with machines if you have inadequate teachers, but let teachers continue to teach if you have good ones.

Here's one article that says this and more about online learning Web Link.



13 people like this
Posted by No on Measure B
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 18, 2017 at 9:13 am

Be sure to vote NO ON MEASURE B. These people can't be trusted with still more money.


22 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 18, 2017 at 10:17 am

Christopher Chiang is a registered user.

If someone is unhappy with the district governance, then vote for different trustees, participate in meetings, and serve on committees. Withholding local funding to our public schools is the least effective means to improve our schools. At a time when the federal government is rolling back their funding, and other districts all around us are upping theirs (luring our teachers away).

If one saw how hard teachers in MVWSD work to mask the gross funding inequity from their students through making personal sacrifices not asked of teachers in other communities, they would know that this parcel tax is about supporting teachers and students, and not a place for a political rebuke of district leadership. This is not the time (it is never the time) to punish children for the mistakes of adults.

From a past MV-Voice article, "Neighboring Palo Alto Unified School District passed a parcel tax increase of $120 to $758 per parcel, which would bring in close to $14.7 million each year in revenue -- over five times the amount the Mountain View Whisman School District receives. The story is the same for other nearby school districts. Los Altos School District, which draws about 20 percent of its students from Mountain View, raked in just shy of $10 million in parcel taxes in the 2014-15 school year, which amounts to a flat $790 per parcel. Menlo Park City School District has four parcel taxes currently levied, which in the 2014-15 school year amounted to $6.4 million in supplemental funding for schools." Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 19, 2017 at 9:02 am

Gary is a registered user.

The point to which you purport to respond is that the persons now in charge of this School District should not be entrusted with more money to spend or waste and worse. Since you were a trustee, how about explaining why it is in the best interests of students for the District to have entered into long-term leases of SLATER SCHOOL and WHISMAN SCHOOL. Leases get more money for what exactly? Where does that money go?


2 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 19, 2017 at 11:12 am

Christopher Chiang is a registered user.

I do believe the parcel tax will be spent well because the parcel tax contains its own citizen oversight committee and is dedicated to things that directly impact teachers and students. To reject the parcel tax because of TTO is basically saying to students, you had a terrible year in math, and next year, we are going to take away your STEAM programs too, and that teacher you like, well he/she can get paid $10k-40k more in the district next door, so lets see how long they can bear it here.

Who do you really punish in that outcome? Will a poorly funded district lead to fiscal wisdom or a revolt in the next board election? I think only an enlightened electorate will do that. Fiscal crisis will actually mask any governance issues that need to be resolved.

Historically, it's bonds that are trickier for districts because school districts often have very little institutional experience how to manage those funds effectively.

When Measure G passed in June 2012, the district had a list of items far larger than the bond. This made immediate implementation impossible. Cost saving measures like modulars were rejected despite their robust use in nearby districts like Milpitas. As cost continue to escalate, subsequent boards and district leaders have embraced scaled back promises, some modulars, and floated extended site leases as a means to cover construction.

I was not on the board for passage of Measure G, nor was I on the board for allocating lease revenue for construction, so I can not speak to their rationale. I would say that construction likely remains the area where the district has the steepest learning curve. The community would have been well served to have elected trustees with construction experience when it had the chance, or to have retained such expertise in district committees.


9 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 19, 2017 at 4:17 pm

Gary is a registered user.

The District already receives money for "teachers and students." If the District gets more money "for teachers and students" (or for any other broad purpose) it would free other money for more administrators or higher administrator compensation or other wasteful expenditures. So let's dispense with the pretense that Measure B would limit the use of funds to proper expenditures. It would not. Surely you would agree with this: if voters do not trust the persons in charge of the money, they should not give them more money.


34 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 19, 2017 at 5:24 pm

I received an anonymous flier on my porch today full of misinformation and FUD about Measure B and the Mountain View Whisman School District.

It mentioned the Mountain View Voice, so I bet the author reads the comments section here. Have the dignity to hand it to me in person and defend your positions instead of secretly leaving garbage on my porch like a coward! I was unsure how I was going to vote, but I'm certain I'll vote yes now and will tell everyone I know to do the same!

Vote Yes on B!


10 people like this
Posted by No on Measure B
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 19, 2017 at 6:16 pm

You go by the name "SPAM," complain about unspecified statements in a flyer and then make-believe you had not previously decided how to vote on Measure B. You must think readers are completely stupid. Post the flyer "SPAM"


4 people like this
Posted by Christopher Chiang
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 19, 2017 at 6:51 pm

Christopher Chiang is a registered user.

The data below is from a year go, but it shows that even after adjusting for home values, Mountain View homeowners pay 1/3 what other districts provide their schools.

I am not shy in sharing some of Gary's concerns on good governance, but to deny funding to a K-8 school district that already does not get its fair share of Mountain View's community resources compared to the high school district, is unfair and cruel to the children and teachers.

Many problems fall directly on the shoulders of the district leadership, but it is no accident that poorly funded districts often find themselves with more problems to begin with. Likewise, it's easy to praise school districts like MVLA or PAUSD where the community funds extra programs and teacher salaries generously. You can demand good governance and also support additional funding for MVWSD/K-8 district (not to be confused for MVLA/9-12 district).

Mountain View Whisman SD (per pupil revenue: $10,683)
Mountain View Education Foundation: $600,000 raised
Current parcel tax: $127
$951,000 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.01% of the current median home sale price)

Mountain View Los Altos HSD (per pupil revenue: $16,792)
MVLA High School Foundation: $1.3 Million raised

Los Altos SD (per pupil revenue: $11,805)
Los Altos Education Foundation: $3.2 million raised
Current parcel tax: $790 per parcel ($193 increase in the last election)
$2,342,500 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.03% of the current median home sale price)

Palo Alto USD (per pupil revenue: $15,217)
Palo Alto Partners in Education: $5.3 million raised
Current parcel tax: $758 per parcel ($120 increase in the last election)
$2,165,500 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.03% of the current median home sale price)


25 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm

@No,

Yeah, I get really angry when people leave anonymous SPAM fliers on my porch. If this is what the No campaign is up to, they should be ashamed. I'm not going to republish the nonsense from that coward.

I don't have or plan to have any kids, so I don't give a HOOT about the schools. What I do care about is people anonymously leaving garbage on my property.

Yes on B!


3 people like this
Posted by No on Measure B
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 19, 2017 at 8:14 pm

Well "SPAM." Readers cannot know what you are complaining about when you hide the ball. You could work for the District for all anyone knows.


20 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm

@No,

People know exactly what I'm complaining about: someone who is against B is anonymously littering in my neighborhood. It wasn't even affixed to my door or anything! Just a piece of paper on my porch. I was home, they could have knocked on the door and I would have listened to their pitch. Even the kids hocking magazines have more self-respect than these cowards.

Yes on B!


3 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 19, 2017 at 8:55 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Dear Mr. or Mrs. Spam: You seem to say you knew nothing about Measure B or the District but received a flyer against the measure and now, suddenly and for no reason that makes sense, you are a now a supporter of the measure. Something is fishy. Maybe it is the Donald Trump approach to bad news. Just warn everyone to disregard anything heard or read as "fake."


24 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 19, 2017 at 9:13 pm

@Gary,

No, I said I was undecided, not that I was unaware. Are you deliberately trying to be misleading, or are you just having difficulty reading?

I've made it abundantly clear that I have a problem with people anonymously littering in my neighborhood. Why is that so controversial?

Further, anonymous litterbugs don't deserve my vote. People resorting to these shady tactics disgust me.

Yes on B!


3 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Mr. or Mrs. Spam. I got your point about being angry about receiving a flyer. it just did not make sense that you would vote based on what you call anonymous litter - something you have now brought to this thread. You offer nothing about the merits of Measute B. You provide no pertinent information about a flyer. You probably have onvinced no one of your position. Get some sleep. Even school employees need to get up most Monday mornings.


16 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 19, 2017 at 9:50 pm

@Gary,

So we've progressed from people denying that the flyer exists to implying I'm a District employee? Someone opposed to Measure B are leaving anonymous litter on people's property! They don't even have the courage to discuss it with the people whose property they are littering.

Answer me this, Gary, if you were to be canvassing in opposition to Measure B, would you use anonymous flyers? Or would you proudly put your name on it?

Yes on B!


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 20, 2017 at 4:54 am

Gary is a registered user.

Answer this "Spam": If you were NOT a school employee and had some particular complaint about the content of a flyer, wouldn't you identity the particular complaint and proudly put your real name on the post? Instead, you have "littered" this thread with a broad and anonymous assertion that a flyer is inaccurate and that someone should have "discussed" or cleared it with you first. Not helpful. But no doubt you will persist.


16 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 20, 2017 at 8:34 am

@Gary,

What? I answered that above already, I'm not going to freely republish that coward's flyer. Since they directed people to the Voice, I'm happy for anyone reading this to see the defense of this anonymous litter by you and @No.

Sylvan Park is adjacent to Whisman Station, and you conveniently ignored answering my question. Gary, are you the person that left this anonymous flyer on my property?


Like this comment
Posted by GreatBanter
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2017 at 9:17 am

.."When you are too smart to run for the school board, you are destined to be "schooled" by those less smart..."

There is no accountability save the exceptional vote, just talk-talk and more bond measures.

Public servants are similar to weather celebrities. Either never have to be smart about anything to become successful, but they need to look good and speak well (and somewhat controversial) to stay in the public eye.


3 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 20, 2017 at 9:44 am

Gary is a registered user.

To Mr. Sham, Scam, Spam or whatever. Post your real name and address and I will answer your question directly. Meanwhile, if you "have a problem" with a flyer you did not clear for distribution, go see a mental health professional for help. But anonymously decrying a flyer as false just because you don't like it is underhanded or nutty.


12 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:05 am

@Gary,

Thats a tacit admission of guilt if I've ever seen one.

I, along with all of my neighbors, have a problem with someone coming into my neighborhood and anonymously littering. Because you didn't bother to even use tape and affix them to people's doors, likely because you were afraid you'd get caught and have to actually defend your views, the garbage you left is flying around my neighborhood. It's strewn about on the sidewalks and streets, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Either clean up after yourself or stick to littering in your own neighborhood.

Yes on B!


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:24 am

Gary is a registered user.

I made you an offer. You seem to just want to argue. You could be anyone. Of course, you may remain anonymous and keep lying if you like. I could call your response some kind of "admission" but it would not matter. Good luck with your campaign for Measure B.


14 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 20, 2017 at 10:34 am

@Gary,

Why the heck would I give my name and address out on the internet? That's like Online Safety 101.

You know quite well that I'm not lying, and anyone can take a stroll through Whisman Station to see for themselves. I have no patience for people who litter in my neighborhood. That this is the depths that the No campaign is stooping to speaks volumes.

Yes on B!


4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 20, 2017 at 11:18 am

Gary is a registered user.

I must admit you are funny. If you received a flyer (you had not cleared behandhand) and it was not attached to your door with the tape you mention - and the flyer criticized President Putin, would you anonymously attack the flyer on the internet and urge folks to support Putin? I would guess NOT - unless you were actually a Russian spy. So it may be with Measure B. Contrary to your statements, you apparently were and remain a supporter of the measure. That is the bottom line on many of your posts. Good for you.


12 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 20, 2017 at 11:45 am

@Gary,

You're spending a lot of words to avoid denying you littered in my neighborhood.

I've said multiple times here, I was previously undecided on the issue, but the underhanded and disrespectful tactics that the No campaign has engaged in my neighborhood has helped me make up my mind. That none of the No supporters have the sense of decency to apologize for the litter strewn about my neighborhood is shameful.

Yes on B!


5 people like this
Posted by No on Measure B
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Hey SPAM. Your explanation for supporting Measure B is irrational. Maybe you are just a hothead.


10 people like this
Posted by Spam
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 20, 2017 at 12:37 pm

@No

Surprise, surprise, yet another lack of apology for the garbage strewn in my neighborhood.

All the No campaign cares about is themselves, with no regard for anyone else in the community. Littering in our neighborhoods is fine by them, since they didn't have the dignity to put their names on the trash they dumped.

Yes on B!


2 people like this
Posted by TooFunny
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 20, 2017 at 2:25 pm

You can afford B or you can't. The politicians come and go but they remain the same. They want your money.


31 people like this
Posted by Robin Colman
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 20, 2017 at 5:45 pm

Dear Mountain View Neighbors,

I strongly opposed TTO and very publicly shared my views about it with the board, the superintendent, other MVWSD parents, and the media. Nonetheless, I ask my Mountain View neighbors - please do not vote against the parcel tax because of TTO. The victims of a "no" vote will be our children, not the superintendent or the board. If you don't think the superintendent behaved appropriately with TTO, pressure the board to remove him. If the board doesn't respond as you wish, vote them out. Don't sacrifice our children's education to make a point. The superintendent and board members will not be harmed by larger classes and fewer resources. But our kids will. That outcome will hurt everyone.

Thank you for listening.

Robin


2 people like this
Posted by Mt. View Neighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 22, 2017 at 11:02 am

The current belief and teaching methods taught to teachers is that teachers can have a class of thirty students and still cater each and every lesson to every individual child. This of course, is impossible. Until this administrative belief changes across all of California and the country, students can't possibly get what they need. Until this belief changes, we are needlessly experimenting with our children, dumbing down the system, and running teachers ragged.

The other issue no one wants to deal with is that in any type of learning, people do best when taught at their level. To teach above or below, decreases learning capacity. To do this, kids need to be tracked, and no one wants tracking. This also, is understandable because no one wants their child tracked out of their capability. So you have to provide tracking with students' learning capability, since some students learn faster than others. Ideally, students would work in small groups with a teacher going between groups, and groups would be adjusted as needed. But this is costly, and requires small classes.

My thought is to hope local administrators have the guts to buck the system, go back to basics, support teachers and students by providing more teachers and being willing to do something different than the mainstream crap that resulted in "new math" and other teaching/learning disasters.


12 people like this
Posted by concerned
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 22, 2017 at 12:06 pm

We can not deny the children money from the parcel tax. We need to make the school administration accountable for spending it wisely. Not only did we discover that TTO was an epic failure, but we discovered that the superintendent and the school board are incompetent on several levels. I find the board meetings long and tedious. The superintendent should've held more of a town hall meeting to address the TTO fiasco where he would have to answer questions as opposed to his TTO Study Session where he spun it as a learning experience. An assistant superintendent is retiring at the end of the 2017/18 school year. The superintendent has appointed the current Special Education Director to replace her without posting this position to the public. The Special Ed Director was not qualified for that position and now they are hiring a new Special Ed Director. The assistant superintendent will be staying on to train new assistant superintendent for a year. Does that mean the district will pay 3 six figure incomes to train 2 people? Did the board approve this? We must make them accountable.


7 people like this
Posted by @concerned
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 22, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Thank you for the info.

It sounds like they need Measure B to pay for 2 Assistant Superintendents.

How did this new asst. get swept in without some kind of vote? Why are more pieces of wool being pulled over our eyes? Clearly this is unstoppable.


34 people like this
Posted by Trust
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 23, 2017 at 3:37 pm

It's hard to deny children money needed to provide a quality education. However, it is also hard to entrust money to a Superintendent who has shown he will just waste it and a Board who is unwilling to provide proper supervision.

How could Rudolph negotiate a half-million dollar TTO contract without providing details to the board?

Why did the district settle with TTO for $149,000 given that no contract was ever ratified and the services were completely substandard. Why pay anything except to get Rudolph off the hook?

How will the district spend new parcel tax money? The latest budget shows a $4-5 million dollar deficit because district spending has gone completely out of control.

You could say that shows how much the tax is needed, but even with the parcel tax there is a $2 million dollar hole. The board is already talking about delaying new instructional materials in order to fund Rudolph's latest pet projects. How much more money will he waste?


22 people like this
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 28, 2017 at 11:13 am

Here's a challenge to the district:

You want our money, explain what you're doing with it!

You approved a $149,000 TTO "settlement" on Feb 28 in closed session. It has been 30 days. When do you plan to provide some information regarding this expenditure of public funds?

Please do this in a public forum, allow for questions and provide responses.

Then we can talk about whether we should approve Measure B.


Like this comment
Posted by Interested Observer
a resident of another community
on Mar 28, 2017 at 5:56 pm

I simply don't understand how posters can ask, " What will the parcel Tax funds be spent on?" Give me a break: pay attention and read the measure that was passed - the expenditures need to be and were spelled out.


10 people like this
Posted by Elaine
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm

In addition, to the $149K expenditure, I really think IF they want Measure B passed, the district has to outline exactly what the funds will be spent on . It can't be vague like the literature suggests since the district has created distrust among the community. I do not feel comfortable voting for Measure B without a guarantee on what my tax $$ will be spent on. I don't want it left to the Superintendent's discretion.


2 people like this
Posted by @ Elaine
a resident of Shoreline West
on Mar 31, 2017 at 1:17 pm

Good point!

Note that the current Parcel Tax specifically called out funding for GATE (Gifted and Talented Education). Then when the State moved responsibility for GATE to local agencies, MVWSD just killed off all GATE programs while funding some token "enrichment" programs.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Food Party! 420
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 2,100 views

What Are Your Gifts that Must Be Shared?
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,088 views

 

Best Of Mountain View ballot is here

It's time to decide what local business is worthy of the title "Best Of Mountain View" — and you get to decide! Cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 29th. Stay tuned for the results in the July 21st issue of the Mountain View Voice.

VOTE HERE