Town Square

Post a New Topic

Voter Guide: 'Achievement gap' issue in school election

Original post made on Oct 13, 2011

This fall is decision time for voters, with three seats open on the five-member board governing the Sequoia Union High School District. The district is home to Woodside, Menlo-Atherton, Summit Prep and Everest high schools among others. Five candidates are running in the Nov. 8 election, including two incumbents first elected in 1999.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, October 13, 2011, 11:13 AM

Comments (5)

Like this comment
Posted by Fresh Perspective
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Oct 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm

I'm not always in favor of a "throw the bums out" stance. But in the case of school boards there does come a point when they hang around too long to be independent and impartial. They forget that they're supposed to represent parents and the community, and over time they morph into unpaid school employees. Been there, done that, protecting my former decisions, not listening. Thanks Olivia Martinez and Lorraine Rumley for your past service but TWELVE YEARS IS TOO LONG. This is not a career -- it's an oversight body and you need to have perspective. Yes, there's a learning curve with incoming trustees but it's worth it to get some new energy.

Like this comment
Posted by MP mom
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Oct 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm

Agree that having a child *currently* in the district should be a requirement for being on the board.

Like this comment
Posted by Former Trustee
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2011 at 10:25 am

To MP Mom:

As a parent and a former trustee (not in this district) I respectfully disagree. The school board represents all constituents, not just parents and having a current student should not be a requirement. In fact, it is important for a trustee to guard against making decisions solely because it is best for one's own student. Sometimes what is best for an individual student is not what is best for the District as a whole.

That's my perspective, having been there..

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 14, 2011 at 10:30 am

Why should taxpayers without children in the school, who pay the majority of the school tax revenues, be disenfranchised?

Having a child in the schools is as sensible a requirement for Board membership as it would be for paying property taxes to the school district - total nonsense.

Like this comment
Posted by University Hts. Mom
a resident of Menlo Park: University Heights
on Oct 17, 2011 at 10:08 am

In my opinion, this is the one race where voting for the incumbent is crucial. At a time when school budgets are being cut and the district facing so many unknowns, I find it inconceivable that one would advocate for an inexperienced board.

How can 12 years be to long when most of us who have any long-term connection with the public high schools have seen so many positive changes that have occurred since the late 1990’s? We owe it to all of our students to provide proven leadership and experience?

Having a child in the district definitely should not be a requirement , I agree with Former Trustee this can be a conflict of interest, especially when all the trustees have children in the district. I do believe it is a good idea for the Ravenswood district to have representation on the board.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 3,772 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,242 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 864 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 267 views