On April 1, trustees of the Sequoia Union High School District approved a final offer of facilities for Everest Public High School and in doing so acted in opposition to the best interests of all the students and families they are elected to serve.
The board’s offer for a cluster of portable buildings in East Palo Alto was prepared by district staff and knowingly included inaccurate and misleading information. The report conceals the fact that the district spent $3.9 million to purchase a Redwood City site intended for a charter school — a site that should have been considered for Everest.
The board continues to rely on data about Summit Prep that district staff knows is false in a transparent attempt to perpetuate an unfounded perception — one they created — that the school is elitist. Finally, the board claims that if Everest does not locate in East Palo Alto, it will increase the racial isolation of schools east of U.S. Highway 101, communities where the district itself has not operated a school for over 30 years.
The result is a clearly illegal offer that fails to meet the basic requirements of state law to provide a “reasonably equivalent” facility. Everest offered a counter proposal for a three-year solution in a needy part of Redwood City that would require no human resources from the district at half the cost of the district’s one-year solution. Although board members implored Everest to reconsider this final offer, neither staff nor trustees had the courtesy to consider Everest’s proposal.
Unfortunately for our community, the board hasn’t learned from past mistakes. In 2002, the district lost a similar Proposition 39 lawsuit to the Aurora Charter School, which resulted in the district financing the private facilities of that school for its entire existence. The trustees shouldn’t be surprised when the courts reject this equally insufficient offer.
For the past 10 months, the Sequoia superintendent and trustees have argued that Everest’s educational program is unsound and designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. At their April 1 meeting, those same people argued that Everest must be located in East Palo Alto because it is such a high-quality program. “It’s a gift,” said one smiling trustee.
The state Board of Education unanimously overruled the district on the charter petition and all evidence points to a similar outcome in the courts with a Proposition 39 lawsuit. The expense of litigation and resolution will undoubtedly be more costly than reaching a reasonable agreement with Everest today. I suggest the trustees wake up — this is going to be an expensive lesson for the district.
The best interest of our community is served if all students are engaged in schools that succeed in preparing them for prosperous futures. Rather than spending precious tax dollars trying to defeat perceived competition, the trustees should be investing in schools like Everest that are innovative, cost-effective models with a high degree of parent satisfaction and student success.
Paul Goeld lives in Woodside, where he has served two terms on the Town Council and two terms as mayor.
YouTube 'auditor' provoked, pepper-sprayed shopper at Mountain View Costco, police sayApril 8, 2026 12:23 pm
