San Carlos has made tremendous strides over the past twenty years. Turning itself from a once sleepy, mostly overlooked town, into one of the premier locations on the peninsula. This notion is supported by the fact that San Carlos has been able to not only hold property values steady through the nationwide mortgage crisis, but it has been one of the few towns in the United States to actually see a property value increase. Excellent elementary and middle schools, the resurgence of downtown and an invigorated community have all led to San Carlos’ ability to climb the ladder of premier peninsula towns. Don’t get me wrong, while San Carlos has come a long way it cannot compete with the likes of Burlingame and Palo Alto…..but its not out of the realm of possibility.
Certainly our weather is better than in Burlingame and our downtown is not as congested as in Palo Alto……so why are we a step behind? The answer is found with the most common concern of buyers moving to San Carlos: We need a HIGH SCHOOL. Both Palo Alto and Burlingame have excellent high schools. Buyers give me the same facial expression each time they ask the question of the assigned high school for the particular San Carlos property….I would equate their facial expressions to that of a golfer who just hit his golf ball out of bounds and with his eyes shut and teeth clenched, he is praying not to hear the sound of screeching tires or a broken window. This is not a knock against Sequoia and Carlmont. The difference is that people will settle for Sequoia and Carlmont whereas in Palo Alto and Burlingame people are moving there because of their high schools.
Creating a high school which could be managed under the San Carlos School District is the Final Frontier for San Carlos. The founding of such a school would cement San Carlos’ reputation among the elite towns on the peninsula.
Those that have been around San Carlos long enough, will remember San Carlos High School at the present-day location of Highlands Park and Stadium Field. The school was closed and the city sold the land to a housing developer. This is often referred to as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of San Carlos. So how do we get it back? And how do we make sure that the San Carlos School District has control of the school rather than the Sequoia Union High School District?
Start with the basics. Where would the new San Carlos High School be built? Many are quick to say that we are out of land. This is not necessarily true. The city owns a nice piece of property off of Crestview that could possibly be used for this purpose. Additionally, with the redevelopment efforts about to take place on the eastside, certainly there is room to at least examine the possibilities.
Let’s suppose that a site can be identified. The most important question is up next, “Where will we get the money?” Certainly, the school district would have very little to pump into the construction of a new school. Everyone is going to need to do their part. Parcel taxes, utility taxes, localized sales taxes, grants and bonds would all need to be put into motion. The undeniable fact is that the people of San Carlos would pay for the school. As mentioned in the blog post a few weeks ago regarding the comments made by Mayor Brad Lewis, sometimes you need to spend a little to get a lot. Nobody likes additional taxes. However, for those who could take a long term view and treat the taxes as an investment in their property, I believe they would see one of the best investments they could ever make.
The new San Carlos High School would erase the one glaring blemish on the city’s resume. It would be the single greatest thing we could do as a town to increase our current property values and offer San Carlos students the opportunity to acquire a first class education without leaving the City of Good Living.
31 Comments
I agree 100% Bob. I would be willing to pay more taxes to have a high school controlled by SCSD. I am a SC resident and am planning to send my kids to a private high school when the time comes. I would much rather send them to an excellent public high school in San Carlos and not for financial reasons.
I also think it would increase property values and the prestige of our community. I may have missed it, but I don’t recall hearing any discussion from the City Council or school board about this.
Thank you for your very interesting Blog!!
We love San Carlos!
Carlmont and Sequoia are both “California distinguished High School”!! and they are full of San Carlos kids!
Catherine
Hi Bob,
I stumbled on your blog again because of your reference to schools in your latest posting. I totally disagree with what you have written and encourage you to learn more about the High School situation in our community. I don’t believe that San Carlos needs a high school of it’s own. The San Carlos School District is a k-8 district and all of the high schools in our area are under the Sequoia Union HS District. Both Carlmont and Sequoia offer rich programs for our youth and starting a new high school would be a lose/ lose proposition for our community. We would never be in a position to build a new high school due to deep budget cuts at the State Level and high construction costs in California. I’m guessing but building a new high school would be about $40 million. That wouldn’t include start up fees and on-going salary and benefit costs. Why would we spend that kind of money when we already have great options?
The decision to take down San Carlos High was made by the Sequoia Union District during the declining enrollment decades. By running fewer schools the Sequoia Union High School was able to offer more options at each of it’s 4 sites. Each school has a variety of programs to meet the needs of a diverse student body.
My 14 year old will be starting high school next year. Although he applied to two of the most prestigious private schools on the peninsula, he has chosen to attend Carlmont.
Several years ago, there was a movement to start a new Charter high school in San Carlos. It failed because it could not compete with the rich offerings of Sequoia and Carlmont. Once the new school was open, most San Carlos families chose not to send their children to the school. That school eventually had to move out of San Carlos due to lack of enrollment.
Many prestigious Bay Area Communities do not have high schools of their own. What about Portola Valley, Woodside, Hillsborough and others?
I’m not entirely sure but I also don’t believe that all Burlingame residents attend Burlingame High School. The school district in Burlingame is a K-8 District like ours. I believe some Burlingame residents attend San Mateo High School.
I was at a City meeting recently and the subject of a San Carlos High School came up. An angry audience member rose from her chair to remind everyone that we already have incredible high school options in our community. I hope this helps as you talk to people about what we already have in our community.
Carrie Du Bois
Coldwell Banker Real Estate Agent
Trustee to the San Carlos School Board
Member San Mateo County School Boards Association and Delegate to the California School Boards Association
Carrie,
Thanks for your post. However, I think you may be misinterpreting the purpose of the post. The post was in no way intended to imply that the Sequoia Union High School District is inadequate or not a suitable alternative. I have friends with kids at both Carlmont and Sequoia and they all speak very highly of each school. They also speak in glowing terms with regard to the dedication of the staff and faculty at both schools. Additionally, both schools have made improvements to their facilities and API numbers with Sequoia up to 699 and Carlmont up to 800.
The purpose of the post was to show that a high school for San Carlos, managed by the San Carlos School District, would almost assuredly increase the desirability of San Carlos. Many people in San Carlos attend Carlmont instead of Sequoia and are on edge with Carlmont nearing capacity. Those homes in San Carlos that are not pre-assigned Carlmont are expressing concern that Carlmont is their first choice and are worried that their transfer may not be accepted in the years to come. I do not have enough information to be able to assess whether the desire for Carlmont over Sequoia is justifiable or not (as APIs do not come close to telling the whole story), but I can tell you that it is a major issue for folks in San Carlos right now. Perhaps someone who is going through this decision currently can write in and add some perspective.
There is no doubt that the financing is an imposing, if not impossible obstacle. The question is whether or not the enormous financial burden on San Carlos would later pay off with the overall desirability of San Carlos.
Bob Bredel
REMAX Today
Realtor
We live in White Oaks and have heard that we probably won’t get into Carlmont when the time comes. Bob is right. I know many residents in White Oaks who are worried about sending their kids to Sequoia. The API of 699 is not an acceptable API score in my opinion. True, API does not tell the full story, but it does tell me that some of the students who go there either aren’t interested in their education or aren’t able to get an education for other reasons. I hope that the majority of kids there don’t fall into that category, but it is cause for concern. People are willing to pay a premium to live in Palo Alto and Burlingame because they can send their children from public kindergarten through public high school without worrying. Schools are a huge factor in real estate value.
Completely disagree with your assessment about Carlmont High School and here’s why: I too was a disbeliever–until I met Principal Andrea Jenoff, the most dynamic educator I’ve come across in a long, long time.
When you look at the numbers in a vacuum, test scores, 4-year college matriculation, etc., it does look like Carlmont is not performing as well as Burlingame, for example. But I submit that has more to do with the socio-economic diversity of the student body, and the financial ability of those students to go to 4-year schools, not the curriculum.
In fact, having just recently submitted the registration forms for my incoming 9th grader, I was absolutely floored by the academic opportunities available at Carlmont. In reviewing their course catalog, they have a broad array of Advanced Standing and AP courses, not to mention a very prestigious biotech program.
But best yet, I was really impressed by the dedication of the guidance counselors in a recent presentation to parents–they are committed to working with all kids to drive them to be successful college students. (In fact, having a stepson who attends private Serra High School, I would argue Carlmont is much better in this regard.)
San Carlos doesn’t need it’s own high school. It would be a waste of taxpayer money. As for those who are districted for Sequoia, they have a fabulous IB program there. A friend who lives in Emerald Hills and currently sends her son to Northstar Academy, will be sending him through that program at Sequoia with no trepidations whatsoever.
The high school debate has been a hot issue for San Carlos residents since SCHS was demolished. Obviously, there are pros and cons to every scenario. Facts however, speak for themselves. In an above entry it was noted that Portola Valley and Hillsborough do not have high schools within their city limits. This is a true statement. Hillsborough has a 4-8 program educating 477 students. Portola Valley has a 4-8 program educating 374 students. San Carlos has a 4-8 program educating 1131 students, but I will get to that in a moment. Woodside Elementary, a single school district, feeds into Woodside High and Burlingame school district feeds their 4-8 program of 786 into their community high school BHS.
Let’s take a look at the student population in the high schools. Woodside’s enrollment is 1,928; Menlo Atherton is 1,919; Burlingame High School is 1,384; Palo Alto High School is 1,690. Carlmont’s current enrollment is 2,161 students, the largest by far. San Carlos is producing one of the highest amount of junior high kids, and has no neighborhood high school to offer them and in turn feed into the largest high school.
We are spoiled in San Carlos because our teacher to student ratio has been a priority for our staff and families. As a former teacher in San Carlos and member of the San Carlos Strategic Planning committee one of our goals was to build communication between the elementary schools and middle schools to ensure success for our students. Imagine if we could offer a similar collaboration between middle school and high school. No child would be susceptible to falling through the cracks, routines practices would stay consistent.
As a new home owner in San Carlos, the lack of a neighborhood high school is at the forefront of our mind. Budget cuts are predictable. There will NEVER be a surplus of money in any school budget to produce a high school. We must rely on our community, residents and businesses. Didn’t PAMF just donate over 1 million dollars to San Carlos? As a property owner I can only imagine that investing my taxes in a high school is in turn investing money in my property value. Honestly I would rather donate towards my own property instead of a bucket of money that gets thinned and disbursed all around.
I do agree that Carlmont has come a long way and offers many wonderful programs for students. I too have heard great things about the administration at CHS. I don’ think anyone can deny the strides they have made over the last 10 years. My point is we are a growing community (1,131 4-8 graders) and we farm them into the highest populated high school. If it benefits our property value and most of all our children, why wouldn’t we try to reopen communication with Sequoia Unified?
My son goes to a school on the peninsula which is an accredited IB elementary school. Some of the families who are transitioning out of the 8th grade into high school have looked at the IB program at Sequoia in the hopes that they could continue their excellent IB education. They have not been impressed with the IB offering at Sequoia and are choosing other high schools. I think over time though the IB program there will develop into something worth considering. If you have to go to Sequoia now, the IB program would definitely be the way to go rather then the regular or AP academic program.
Sabrina, your point about socio-economic diversity and financial ability not curriculum regarding Carlmont is a good one. The perception others in the south bay and on the peninsula have regarding our high schools is that they are second tier. It seems over the 10 year period that I have lived here, the elementary and middle schools in San Carlos have just gotten better and better and that is starting to be recognized by others outside our community. That recognition comes in the form of people wanting to move to our neighborhoods because of the great schools. Great high schools would only increase the value.
March 13, 2006 there was a staff report suggesting the City Council consider moving City Hall. This proposal would have cost around 40-50 million dollars. Fortunately, the proposal seems to have gone nowhere. It seems to me that if the Council were considering such a silly proposal they could at least consider researching the feasibility of a new high school which would be much more beneficial to the community. I would also be interested in the School Board or City Council researching the possibility of expanding Carlmont instead of building a completely new high school to accommodate all of San Carlos.
As to the angry audience member at the City Council meeting- I wouldn’t call either high school an incredible option – decent options, but not incredible.
Jennifer:
Here’s why a new high school in San Carlos will never open in SUHSD: Sequoia is under full enrollment. As long as existing high schools serving the district are not at full capacity, there would be no financial incentive for them to build a new school, especially not in this environment of cost cutting.
When both Sequoia and Carlmont are operating beyond capacity, then you might have a case.
Bob:
Interesting discussion, but you don’t address the fact that, only a few years ago, the San Carlos School District sponsored a high school (exactly as you’re recommending) and it failed!
I was on the School Board when the school charter was approved (in 2002, I believe). I was a dissenter, in part because I didn’t believe two critical questions had been adequately answered: where will it be located and how will it be paid for? The promoters insisted that neither would be a problem because there is such high demand for a San Carlos-based high school. In fact, the lack of answers to both questions contributed to the school’s closure just a few years later.
As I see it, this experiment proved at least one thing. While many San Carlos residents would like to have “our own” high school, what they want is the big campus with a comprehensive academic program, athletics, drama, music, etc. That couldn’t be provided in an office building on Industrial Road (where San Carlos High rented space) and it can’t be provided on four acres on Crestview. The kind of high school San Carlos would like takes 15-20 acres and $150 million or so. Not very realistic.
Meantime, we have two strong, comprehensive schools, one literally on our border and one a half mile from San Carlos. Perhaps that isn’t “neighborhood” enough for everyone, but it’s awfully close!
Did you say that Sequoia High School was a “strong, comprehensive school”…? Uh….I am not sure what criteria you are using for this claim….but its a real stretch.
Ms. Du Bois writes “Several years ago, there was a movement to start a new Charter high school in San Carlos. It failed because it could not compete with the rich offerings of Sequoia and Carlmont. Once the new school was open, most San Carlos families chose not to send their children to the school. That school eventually had to move out of San Carlos due to lack of enrollment.”
Mr. Von der Porten writes “Interesting discussion, but you don’t address the fact that, only a few years ago, the San Carlos School District sponsored a high school (exactly as you’re recommending) and it failed!
As someone who voted for Ms. Du Bois, I am disappointed that both Ms. Du Bois and Mr. Von der Porten use the argument that a high school run by the San Carlos School District was already created and failed. To compare the building of a brand new high school with a curriculum as rich as those found in Palo Alto as Bob suggests with that pitiful Charter School is unfair. I doubt a high school such as Gunn would fail in San Carlos due to the lack of “rich offerings” as the Charter school did.
As others have already stated, it is not the lack of interest in such a school, but the necessary financial resources and possibly even space which it would take to create. I don’t think anybody is advocating mindlessly running out and building a new high school. Instead, I think this issue has to be addressed and researched every so often to judge the feasibility. As more new young families move into San Carlos this is going to become a hot topic once again.
As is evidenced by the disparity between the dollars Ms. Du Bois a current board member guessed at (40 mil) and Mr. Von der Porten an ex-board member thought (150 mil) it would take to build such a new high school no one really knows what the cost would be and what that would mean for the tax payers. One thing would be for certain, if we had a high school like Gunn our property values would sky rocket!
Lisa,
The Charter High School in San Carlos was not run by the San Carlos School District. It was a charter school run by a private corporation. The San Carlos School District is not able to open, or run, a high school because we are not a unified school district (k-12). Our district is a K-8 district. Burlingame, Redwood City, Belmont, San Mateo, Woodside, Hillsborough, Portola Valley and most Peninsula districts are K-8 districts.
I do consider the Sequoia and Carlmont offerings rich. My mind was changed after a tour of Sequoia with trustee Loraine Rumley and Principal Morgan Marchbanks. It makes me sad that so many in our community don’t have all the facts about Sequoia. Last night I attended a reception honoring Bill Somerville. If you don’t know Bill, he was one of the founders of the Peninsula Community Foundation. He now runs a foundation called Philanthropic Ventures in Oakland. He is one of the heroes to many of us involved in philanthropy. Last night he was honored by Jackie Spear and others because he has just written a book about grass roots Philanthropy.
In a recent conversation with Bill about education, he named the top 5 people involved in education on the Peninsula. His number 3 pick was Morgan Marchbanks(the principal of Sequoia). Senator Joe Simitian recently selected Sequoia for a photo shoot with our Governor. He chose Sequoia because the governor wanted a campus with good kids and an award winning program. Of all the choices on the peninsula (Joe represents San Carlos through Santa Cruz), Senator Simitian selected Sequoia.
The Teacher of the Year for San Mateo County this year, is a teacher from Sequoia. He was honored for his vision for small learning communities at Sequoia. He went to Harvard and is passionate about education. I heard him speak recently and I found him to be absolutely inspirational.
The woman who runs the math department at Sequoia is Laura Larkin. She is one of our own. The former President of the San Carlos Education Foundation and an awesome educator.
There are many great stories that can be told about our high schools.
Carrie
I agree with Carrie regarding the excellence of the administration/teaching staff at Sequoia and appreciate her response. I don’t think anyone could argue that they aren’t a dedicated passionate group of educators. These posts are in no way a criticism of our school board. From what I can see, Carrie has worked very hard for the schools as is evidenced by the increase in quality which has come about while she has been on the board. She was also an important part of the Ed foundation which we can all thank for volunteering their time to raise much needed money to make the schools better.
The perception held by many on the peninsula that Sequoia is a second rate school is probably due to the fact that it has the 3rd lowest API score in San Mateo County that is not a charter, continuation, or Special Education school.
API Scores highest to lowest (don’t have time to list all)
Mills High School (Millbrae) 821 – highest
Burlingame High 813
Carlmont 800
Aragon 800
Redwood High 776
Hillsdale 774
Sequoia 695
Jefferson (Daly City) 655
Thornton (Daly City )557 -lowest
I am not an educator, but I think I have heard that API scores may be related to the economic conditions of the students. Sadly, those in lower income communities score lower on tests while those in higher income communities score better. Since Redwood City is a community with a wide range of incomes, I don’t think the economic conditions will change much anytime soon for those attending Sequoia and the API scores will remain some of the lowest and the perception will continue. These scores most likely are what’s causing the anxiety for people looking to buy or who will be sending their kids to high school soon in San Carlos. The question would be could your child achieve to his/her full potential at that school? Some would say of course, some wouldn’t want to take the chance.
I’ve been involved in many discussions about high school options for San Carlos students over the years (I’m currently on the SCSD school board).
Rather than create another high school — which is expensive, and quite difficult to do, politically (e.g., I believe it would have to be approved not only by a majority of San Carlos residents, but also by a majority of Sequoia Union High School District residents) I’d like to see San Carlos get more creative about lobbying the Sequoia Union High School District to meet our needs.
Because the underlying problem, IMHO, is not that we don’t have a high school of our own, but that (a) we’re split between two schools; and (b) the one that “officially” serves most of San Carlos — Sequoia — doesn’t currently meet the needs of the San Carlos community.
Those needs include offering a full suite of AP classes, a robust music and dramatic arts program, a comprehensive athletic program, etc. The IB program is nice, but it >>isn’t
Okay, I think I’ve figured this out; the site doesn’t like using certain characters. Sorry, Bob!
I’ve been involved in many discussions about high school options for San Carlos students over the years (I’m currently on the SCSD school board).
Rather than create another high school — which is expensive, and quite difficult to do, politically (e.g., I believe it would have to be approved not only by a majority of San Carlos residents, but also by a majority of Sequoia Union High School District residents) I’d like to see San Carlos get more creative about lobbying the Sequoia Union High School District to meet our needs.
Because the underlying problem, IMHO, is not that we don’t have a high school of our own, but that (a) we’re split between two schools; and (b) the one that “officially” serves most of San Carlos — Sequoia — doesn’t currently meet the needs of the San Carlos community.
Those needs include offering a full suite of AP classes, a robust music and dramatic arts program, a comprehensive athletic program, etc. The IB program is nice, but it isn’t the same as the AP program in the minds of parents, and that’s what counts when meeting community needs.
If the Sequoia District were to duplicate the programs that are at Carlmont over at Sequoia I think they’d find a lot less resistance from San Carlos parents about sending their kids to Sequoia. Would that cost money? Sure. Would it be cost effective in the beginning? Of course not…which is one of the main reasons why it hasn’t happened yet.
“If you build it they will come” may work in the movies, but it’s not something a budget-constrained public entity is going to do without a lot of prodding.
So let’s do some prodding, by engaging in good old fashioned political activism.
If it were up to me I’d organize the community to go to the Sequoia District and say “You want us to be happy with some of us sending our kids to Sequoia and some of us sending our kids to Carlmont? Fine. Give us identical offerings in those areas that are important to us (we’d have to agree, as a community, on what those are, but I’m pretty sure we could do that). Absolutely identical; none of this it’s-as-good-as stuff. Then demonstrate to us, with data, that all San Carlos kids, on average, get an equally good education at either school.”
I think that message, delivered by a broad-based coalition of the San Carlos community, would, over time, get the Sequoia District to address the issue that Bob identified. More importantly, I think it’d be a lot easier to achieve than creating a new high school.
I forgot to mention that I’m pretty sure the Sequoia District could demonstrate today that kids get an equally good education at Sequoia HS and Carlmont HS. But they don’t tend to think about “selling” that result.
Interesting comment, Mark. Sequoia “doesn’t currently meet the needs of the San Carlos community.” What’s that based on — frequent campus visits, interviews with staff, parents, students, graduates, reviews of student data, reviews of class offerings? Or none of the above?
It’s certainly not based on conversations with the dozens of parents who have gotten involved over the last year, informed themselves about Sequoia’s offerings, worked with the school and district staffs to enhance the program in a couple of areas, and are now enrolling their students at Sequoia for the fall. A big part of the “problem” is that people don’t inform themselves and, as you say, don’t get involved. In this case, however, they have. It’s unfortunate you weren’t willing to join the effort!
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a satisfied Carlmont parent. However, I’ve encouraged the development of Sequoia’s program for many years. It was great to see that, this year, when more San Carlos parents took a close look at Sequoia, most found that Sequoia has a great deal to offer. They also found it’s not the school described by the rumor mill.
Apparently the same conclusion was reached by nearly 100 families from throughout the Sequoia district — including Atherton, Menlo Park, Woodside and San Carlos — who chose to request transfers to Sequoia this year, rather than attend their neighborhood school. I expect that, in another year or two, the conventional wisdom about Sequoia will be quite different, just as the public perception of Carlmont changed significantly in recent years.
Incidentally, Bob, would you be interested in touring both schools?
I am very impressed with Mark’s well thought out possible solution to the high school disparity (my word not his!) and his willingness to get involved and make changes. This is a very hot political issue and I admire both Mark and Carrie for taking the time to respond .
If a new high school could not be created would there be a possibility of just expanding Carlmont for all San Carlos students instead of trying to add more programs to Sequoia? I think it is already a pretty large campus and that may not be possible, but I’m not clear about the numbers of students that have to go to Sequoia instead of Carlmont. Do all the Belmont kids get to go to Carlmont or can some of them be moved to other high schools too?
One other thing I don’t like about Sequoia besides the low API score is the gangs. As gangs become more and more violent I have to admit I would be reluctant to put my child in that school. I don’t know if Carlmont or most of the other peninsula high schools also have this problem so maybe there is no getting away from it. It is something I worry about though.
One of Bob’s questions was “Perhaps someone who is going through this decision currently can write in and add some perspective.”
I surveyed my neighbors (White Oaks) and of the 5 kids who have either recently graduated or are in high school 4 are/were in private high schools. The one non-private is at Sequoia despite the fact that the siblings went to private. The parents said the kid is non-academic and chose to go there. They seem happy with Sequoia and think it was a good decision.
The rest of the families have elementary school children and tell me that White Oaks School is fabulous. (Mine are in private so I can’t offer personal experience.)
Does anyone know if any of the current San Carlos Board Members requested to transfer into Sequoia for the upcoming year or have students attending Sequoia instead of Carlmont? It would be great to get their first hand experiences especially if they are satisfied. It would give everyone more confidence in the program.
Lisa, I think I get the picture better now. With (younger?) children in private school, you’re not plugged into the active efforts of middle school parents to make sure the public high schools meet their families’ needs. These efforts have been ongoing for many years. Most recently, there was a series of meetings last spring and fall that led to changes in Sequoia district policy, as well in the course offerings and outreach efforts of Sequoia High School.
I’d strongly encourage you to get more informed and involved as soon as possible. If you want the high schools to meet your needs, it’s best to start early. I started attending high school meetings when my oldest child was in third grade. I got some funny looks for sure, but this led to some very rewarding experiences. A great place to start, especially since you live in the White Oaks area, is the Central Middle School 8th grade transition web page. Here’s a link:
http://www.central.sancarlos.k12.ca.us/fp_outgoing_8thgrade.html
As you’ll see, parent liaisons are listed for Sequoia and Carlmont. These people are great resources, as are the schools themselves. Best of luck as you navigate the range of school choices for your children!
Lisa,
I have been impressed with your well thought and eloquently stated position on these issues. However, your lack of knowledge about Sequoia High School popped up in your latest post, much like stepping on a garden rake.
Gangs? Please give us a specific date and details of the last time there has been a gang incident at Sequoia. Good luck finding it.
Let me give you my perspective as the parent of a high-school bound teenager. We toured both Carlmont and Sequoia extensively, and emerged with greatly different impressions than what we started with.
Sequoia: Principal Morgan Marchbanks actually took the time to give parents a special tour of her school, answering any and all questions about the curriculum, the AP and IB programs, and yes, the “gang” reputation at Sequoia. I was very impressed with Principal Marchbanks, and how she has her finger on the pulse of everything that happens at that school. When our daughter shadowed at Sequoia for an entire day, she was extremely impressed with the respectful nature of ALL of the students, regardless of their socio-economic background.
Carlmont: My daughter’s shadow day started off with both of us witnessing a student physically acosting a parent in the Senior parking lot (yes, a student pounding on an adult) — it’s on both the school and Belmont PD record, so you can confirm this. The rest of her shadow day went fine — the big difference in her mind was how crowded the classrooms were versus those at Sequoia.
My point is that “reputations” exist and survive largely because of unfounded comments and rumors like the one you made regarding gangs. I highly encourage you to tour both schools for yourself before you make a judgement either way.
Things haven’t always been great at Sequoia. But nor has it been at Carlmont — if you saw the school 10 years ago, you’d be shocked at how bad things were.
Please give both schools a fair shake by doing your homework before you make a passing yet damaging comment like you did on gangs.
Thanks for your interest in the topic.
I want to respond to Eric’s comment that I become more informed. Eric is correct. I do have elementary school children and younger.
I sent my oldest child to a private elementary school because of Central Middle School. Years ago, when I made the decision to spend 15k at a private school, I felt it was necessary to get very informed because over a long time period with several children it turns into a very big financial investment. At the time, Central could not compete with the education I was able to get at the private school I chose. In the meantime, most of my neighbors (who I am also good friends with) chose to send their elementary school children to White Oaks and as the time came Central.
My friends have discussed in depth with me the changes that have occurred at Central (they are part of the group working to make our schools great) and are satisfied with the education they are receiving. Eric is correct. There are a large number of very active parents who are intent on making even greater improvements.
I no longer feel it is necessary to send children to private schools for academic reasons at the elementary and middle school level in San Carlos and am looking forward to sending my youngest children through our public schools.
Eric is also correct that some of the parents of Central students who are very actively involved are transitioning into Sequoia and will continue their efforts.
I still don’t agree with Eric that Sequoia is equivalent to Carlmont. I think Mark is right on and I am so happy to see that he will be willing to work for change with my friends whose children will be transitioning from Central to Sequoia.
I have been reading Bob’s blog for the past several months for real estate reasons (I’m not a realtor or educator just find it fun) and was pleased to see someone voice what many of us are thinking about our high school situation. I chose to respond to his thoughts because, despite the fact that I don’t have high school age children and can afford to send my children when the time comes to private high schools if I think it necessary, some of my friends and neighbors cannot afford to do so. I passionately believe that all the children of San Carlos should have the same high school opportunities.
I have enjoyed the discussion and am glad to see people out there are thinking about this issue!
Lisa, you are right on the money. Sequoia is currently not a school that I would find acceptable for my children for a variety of reasons. Upon a review of the API report, I was very alarmed to see that more than half of of 1,032 students used in the API calculations were classified as “English Learners”. Compare this percentage (slightly more than 50%) to the percentage of English Learners in the San Carlos School District (5%). If more than 50% of the students in the API calculations are English Learners, then it is only logical to assume that more of the school’s efforts have to go toward classes and programs supporting improvement on the English language.
Again, it seems that there is quite a bit of progress being made at Sequoia, however, it also appears that there is quite a way to go. We are living in what is perhaps the most educated part of the world. You would be hard pressed to find an area where its residents put more effort on education than the residents of the Bay Area, especially the peninsula and Silicon Valley.
ChuckG, I wasn’t going to post anymore, but after re-reading my only comment about gangs at Sequoia, I decided you are quite right. I did step on a garden rake regarding the gang issue.
I should have said that another concern of mine is that Sequoia has gang members. I did not mean to imply there are large gangs of kids roaming the campus terrorizing everyone. I am glad Principal Morgan Marchbanks addressed the “gang” reputation at Sequoia on your tour ChuckG since it is how many people view Sequoia. It sounds like if there was an issue with this it is under control and you feel satisified. As you pointed out, other campuses also have school safety issues and not just because of gangs.
ChuckG is also correct “Gangs? Please give us a specific date and details of the last time there has been a gang incident at Sequoia. Good luck finding it”
In fact, there has not been anything recently published that I could find in the local newspapers regarding gang violence on the Sequoia campus. All the articles I read indicate that gang members are committing their crimes off campus.
I was very impressed to see the following info I found on the Redwood City Police Dept web site. It is clear Sequoia High School takes the matter of safety on their school campus seriously:
“The school resource officer program for Sequoia High School began in September of 2000 with a working agreement between RCPD and the Sequoia Union High School District. The focus was again on providing increased police services to the high school. The School District and RCPD equally funded the SRO position for a full-time officer for 40 hours per week.
One of the goals of the SRO programs is to create a safer environment on campus for all the students and teachers. Duties of the SRO would include the investigation of criminal activity, counseling juveniles and their parents, early intervention with students that are identified as “At Risk”, truancy and tardiness issues, coordinating and attending special school functions, attending staff and teachers meetings, and maintaining a positive police presence with students and teachers.
The response from school staff on the success of the SRO programs at the middle schools and the high school has been very positive. The overall incidents of assaults and threats of violence on campus have been reduced. “
Lisa,
Believe me, no one will fault you for having the perception of gang problems at Sequoia. I had exactly the same thoughts and concerns that you did only a few months ago. After all, things haven’t been very good at Sequoia for many years.
It wasn’t until Morgan Marchbanks took over the reins 9 or 10 years ago did things slowly start to change. Turning around the “battleship of bad behavior” (and its corresponding reputation) has taken a long time — and there’s always more work to do.
I thought Principal Marchbanks and her staff responded marvelously to the racially-fueled attack from some of the Half Moon Bay High School players and fans during a football game. They were on it immediately, and that’s how she runs her school.
The socio-economic diversity of Sequoia is definitely a double-edged sword, and it’s not a fit for every kid. But regardless, it’s a pretty good indoctrination to what our kids will face when they go into the “real world.” Best of luck with your children’s education, whichever path you choose.
Thanks again for your thoughtful insights.
Chuck
No matter how I look at it, I can’t accept the argument that we cannot build another school or offer excellence at the schools we have because of a lack of funds. I simply can’t believe that all the $10K+ tax property tax bills most of us pay can’t support a quality education for each kid in San Carlos.
It reminds me of a pamphlet I received in college that tried to justify our mandatory, sub-par foodservice program that cost more per meal than would a decent restaurant. It’s easy to simply accept the PR spin, but in the end slop is slop, and dollars are dollars. By the same token, $10k/year is $10k/year, and that should buy you a safe school for your kids where the only limit is what they can do.
I believe that you can only achieve change by having either 1) competent people who care with the power to do something, or 2) pressure on the gatekeepers. It sounds like Principal Marchbanks @ Sequoia is an example of the former. But he – and others like him – lack the influence on the fiscal end. The only way, in my view, to really cause long-lasting change is to put political and financial pressure on the people who have caused and expect us to swallow this impossible financial equation. But is anyone willing to do this?
MattW – I share your frustration regarding the financial aspects of this. Prop 13 is usually the answer one gets whenever school budgets or the lack of funds are brought into question.
I found the following info interesting. Since I am not an expert on public school financing, I had to do some digging to understand a bit of how it works. I have taken info from the San Carlos Education Fund web site FAQ. The SCEF provides funds to all seven schools in the San Carlos School District. (Apparently, we can thank this org and those who donated for some of the extras San Carlos students get.) I don’t think SCEF provides funds to the high schools as they would be in the Sequoia Union District. Not sure how high schools get extra funding. It really gave me some good insight into school funding in general though.
(http://www.scef.us/faqs.htm):
“Public school is supposed to be free. Why do I have to pay?
You certainly don’t have to pay for a public education, but the alternative is a state-funded only education that we believe is sub-standard in today’s competitive environment. Unfortunately, the state allocation to our district is less than the bare minimum. Bottom line, California’s revenue has not kept pace with an increased student population and increased costs thus making public education one of many under-funded state programs. We encourage you to learn more by going to the resources page and to stay involved in district issues by attending school board meetings.”
Tell me more about “basic aid” school districts.
A basic aid district is one in which local property taxes meet or exceed its revenue limit. A basic aid district keeps the money from local property taxes and still receives the constitutionally guaranteed state basic aid funding. There are a number of districts that do not quite meet their revenue limits with local property taxes but are less than $120 per student below that number. They receive general purpose funding of the full $120 per student, some of which is revenue limit funding, and some of which is basic aid.
San Carlos does not receive basic aid from the state as our property taxes do not meet or exceed our revenue limit, or the amount of funding guaranteed by the state. For more on this visit EdSource Online.
END
I followed the link and
here is what the EdSource on line says:
“What Are Revenue Limits?
Public school districts receive funding from a variety of local, state, and federal sources. Some of the funds are earmarked for specific purposes, such as Special Education and K–3 Class Size Reduction, while the rest are for general purposes. The amount of general purpose funding a school district receives per student (using ADA—average daily attendance) is called its “revenue limit.” It is a combination of local property taxes and state taxes. Each of the nearly 1,000 school districts in California has its own revenue limit based on its type (elementary, high, or unified), size (small or large), historical spending patterns, and a multitude of other variables, which together make for a complicated and lengthy formula.
The Bucket Analogy
State and local funds are combined to make up a district’s revenue limit funding. A simple analogy can help illustrate this. Imagine a bucket. Each district has a different-sized bucket, representing its individualized revenue limit. Revenues raised through local property taxes are dumped into the district’s bucket, and if the bucket is not filled all the way, the state comes by and tops it off with state tax revenues.
If the bucket is completely filled by local property tax revenues, the state has no need to “top off” the bucket. If the bucket overflows with local property taxes, the district gets to keep the overage. Districts whose buckets are filled by local property taxes are called “basic aid” or “excess revenue” districts.
Basic Aid District Funding
In the past, the state also gave these districts with high property tax revenues an additional $120 per ADA (or $2,400 per district—whichever was greater). The California Constitution says that the state should contribute this additional money to fulfill its constitutional guarantee to provide all public schools with “basic aid.” However, because of budget constraints in 2002–03, lawmakers decided to eliminate the $120, saying that the state met its constitutional obligation to these districts with other state funding from categorical programs.
Based on local property tax revenues, each year there have been from about 60 to 80 “basic aid” districts out of a total of almost 1,000 districts. Because local property tax revenues and enrollments fluctuate from year to year, some districts are basic aid one year but not the next. At the time of the second principal apportionment (which is made in June), the California Department of Education officially certifies which districts are basic aid for the school year that is ending.”
End
MattW – There are plenty more resources with even more confusing explanations one can find out there!
Some districts like Palo Alto, Menlo Park Atherton, and Hillsborough opt out of the Ca state funding system because they generate enough money from their property taxes. They are also able to raise significant funds from parcel taxes.
For example: “Piedmont homeowners bear the highest school parcel tax burden in the state $1800/yr. In the South Bay, Palo Alto residents pay $493 a year per lot. Moraga property owners pay two taxes, $325 annually to benefit local elementary and middle schools and $189 a year to the Acalanes high school district, a total of $514 a year.”
Shirley Dang and Katherine Tam, Contra Costa Times, June 24, 2007
San Carlos is around $98 parcel tax.
The above doesn’t answer the question as to where the funds go, but I guess it answers where they come from.
I actually spent time this past election really paying attention to what the SC City Council Candidates had to say and really putting a lot of thought into who I would vote for. I usually don’t take time to do this at the local level which is actually quite silly since these are the officials who have the ability to directly impact our daily lives. (For example, do we want to be a green city, how do we want the downtown to look, the utility tax coming up etc.) As Bob frequently points out on this site, SC is in a period of transition and who we put into office is going to influence how our city turns out.
Anyway, to get to your point MattW, I couldn’t agree more about your desire to achieve change. I now see that the same attention must be paid to who is voted onto the school board. (I am not saying that the current board doesn’t meet our needs, just that we need to make sure we are always aware of who we are voting for.) I do believe that the local elected officials pay attention to what we say and do take our concerns seriously. As we have seen in prior posts Carrie (board), Mark(board) and Eric(ex-board) all took the time to respond to a discussion on a real estate web site (not a site about schools) whether you agree or not with their posts. It is clear to me that if we want change (be it a new high school, better high schools etc or even no change at all) we must be willing to attend board meetings so our voice can be heard.
I forgot to say the $98 parcel tax seems awfully low compared to what other residents in cities who place high priority on education are willing to pay ie: Palo Alto.
1) Not sure that Burlingame High Schools are that distinct from Carlmont. Certainly I would not equate Burlingame with Palo Alto. In terms of API scores, which are the lingua franca of school rating, Burlingame and Carlmont are much closer to each other than to Palo Alto schools. Most recently, Carlmont was 800, Mills was 821, Burlingame was 813. Meanwhile Gun was 899 and Paly was 883. That said, if San Carlos could create its own school, and pull API number in the 850+ range (Like Los Gatos – which San Carlos resembles demographically) , that would be a real boost to San Carlos real estate values.
2) There was a report on the feasibility of a San Carlos High School commissioned recently (last 5 years) by some sort of committee in San Carlos. I read the report on the net, but cant find it now. The result was that the report did not think it feasible to have a new, full size public high school in San Carlos. The fact the the district in not near capacity now and the costs were cited as reasons.
3) You are correct in stating that much of San Carlos is going to be headed to Sequoia or private schools very soon. The district was pretty slammed by the civil grand jury in Dec of last year. http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grand jury/2007/reports/sequoiaopenenrollment.pdf THe upshot of these report is that the district ignored it own rules when it added students to Carlmont in 2007 instead of just denying the transfers. I don’t believe the civil grand jury has much muscle, but I would also imagine the district will not ignore it.
The district has said they will reduce transfers from approx 200 to 70 at the next cycle. The head of the teachers union advocated ending all transfers to speed reduction of enrollment at Carlmont.
Be prepared for lots of outcry in about a month or two when all those transfer apps are rejected. I imagine the Trustees will be glad for the grand jury report, as it will give them something to point to as to why they are restricting transfers.
Bill
Fast forward to 2013. I’m looking to buy a house and the only thing keeping me away from San Carlos is that they don’t have their own high school. If San Carlos had their own high school, I wouldn’t hesitate for another second. But instead, I’m looking at in the Baywood area of San Mateo where my child can go to Baywood Elementary, Borel Middle, and on to Aragon High School.
I grew up in Palo Alto and went to Palo Alto High School. I believe in public education and want my child to go to a great high school with all of his friends.
SAN CARLOS NEEDS A HIGH SCHOOL! Make it happen, and SC will be the new Menlo Park.