This is exactly why some people's objections to building more affordable housing are misplaced (they fear, among other misperceptions, that housing would overload our schools). If multi-family housing were allowed in the Fletcher assignment area, under-enrollment would not be a problem. Palo Alto needs affordable housing urgently -- including housing for all of PAUSD's teachers.

No surprise given how expensive Palo Alto housing has become. Too expensive for even upper middle class parents to live here.

We've essentially become a big retirement community. We should start seeing golf carts and wheelchairs running around on our streets soon.

EDIT: And I disagree with Rebecca. We need market rate housing. Period. Below Market Rate housing is simply bad policy.

Fletcher being a smaller school is a far better experience for students compared with Green or JLS.

An interesting point, this is the only middle school west of the Caltrain tracks and it might suit anyone who doesn't want to cross the tracks on a daily basis.

Another interesting point is that both our high schools are west of the tracks and presumably half our high school students have to cross the tracks daily.

These factors are rarely mentioned when discussing the schools and it strikes me that it is important to think about it.

Fletcher has a low # of students and the other two appear to be facing declines in enrollment as well. I hope the board looks collectively at the MS enrollment and not just Fletcher. Greene and JLS are not as populated as they were in the past, which is positive, in my opinion.

With the lottery will PAUSD be robbing Peter to pay Paul?

What is the desired population per school across all three?

And let's hope Austin and the board factor in this trend when considering a 3rd HS at Cubberly.

When Eric Filseth, Tom DuBois, and Lydia Kou leave the City Council and RHNA takes effect, the new housing to be built in Palo Alto will help add students.

The current City Council is stuck in the 1970's when Palo Alto was still growing. Right now, the school district is facing another period of declining enrollment.

And Joe Simitian blocked the new Stanford GUP because he didn't like the fact that Stanford would not build a new school for PAUSD.

Where are the respected leaders to call out the folly of our politicians?

Some seem to believe that allowing more multi-family housing in Palo Alto would make housing "affordable". Because of the super-high price of housing in the area, that can't happen without someone providing even multi-family housing with a 50% or higher subsidy. People were worried about the high and rising cost of housing in Palo Alto already 40 and 20 years ago; we will have to do what they did -- just learn to live with it.

Did anyone ask or answer *why* Fletcher's enrollment has dropped disproportionately?

I would take this one step farther. My understanding is that 50% of people living in PA are renters. I imagine that this number is even higher for families in PAUSD (since many owners have lived in PA a long time and no longer have school aged children). Many of us renters have to move within PA as landlords decide to move back in the house, sell or jack up the rent. It would be great if we could lock our kids in 1 track (elementary school, middle school and high school) so we can have more flexibility as we move within PA and don't need to worry so much about having to move our kids to new schools.

If I'm not mistaken, the district has a policy for the high schools that neither one can get "x" bigger (or smaller) than the other. I forget the number, but I think they keep them within a few hundred students. If that gets out of line then new students are automatically distributed to the lower enrollment school.

I would assume the middle schools have a similar standard. If they don't, I would question why not.

If the numbers don't work for Fletcher then the district needs to look at redrawing the boundaries or closing Fletcher. Greene and JLS used to have enrollments of 1200. The Fletcher students could be absorbed by those two schools with similar enrollments.

Back in 1985 Jordan closed for lack of enrollment and reopened in 1991. Terman was closed for 20 years for similar reasons before reopening. No reason to run a school at 70%, unless the savings are the same. I doubt PAUSD is seeing 30% savings at Fletcher this year.

So, either find a way to get more students there, or redistribute the students.

PAUSD lost 1000 students over 5 years by 2020. The 2020-2021 school year saw a loss of another 1000 students. The loss is not all due to the pandemic. It's happening to every school district in the state. There's been a consistently lower birth rate for about 8 years now, with no signs of that increasing. So there you go. Yeah, they'll probably end up closing one of the middle schools, and pretty soon. The bubble of the lower birth rate is just starting to reach grade 6. It's going to get way lower over the next 3 years in the middle schools.

People using this to keep beating the overdevelopment drum is shameful.

In past, PAUSD schools were so good compared to neighboring schools, regional drops in enrollment didn’t affect us. But overbuilding especially in this side of town has been almost so exclusively quality-of-life-harming, many starting a family would want to get away from, not sacrifice for. Palo Alto used to be fantastic for families but the overbuilding/traffic and lack of focus on even distribution of amenities for youth—far better in the north—have hurt quality of life so much here.

First questions for PAUSD should have been: how many students transferred to private schools or other districts? How many feeder elementary students and MS students filed PSAs (private school affidavits) after Covid hit? How many filed by Fletcher families, I.e., how many decided to “homeschool” there vs. other schools because of how badly PAUSD handled pandemic education and people not wanting their kids to be abused by hours of zoom seat time every day? I.e., how many realized their kids did better with more educational control? Were there interdistrict transfers for programs offering remote independent study? It’s mostly data the district could provide.

How many families/wannabe parents moved away seeking QUALITY OF LIFE for families they could afford? (Building that destroys quality of life for families reduces school enrollment longterm.)

There are other factors, eg, Older PAUSD bldgs are horrible for people with allergies & asthma. Fletcher is probably worst. I know people whose kids didn’t go for that reason. PAUSD persistently bordered on negligent in how they’ve dealt with air quality/asthma long before the pandemic; beleaguered asthmatics aren’t going to say it. In a pandemic of respiratory illness in which air quality can’t be all fixed by filters, and air quality issues increase incidence of all infections going around, PAUSD was always going to pay for past misbehavior on this issue.

The District needs to redraw the boundaries so JLS students who already feed into Gunn actually attend Fletcher to begin with. This would also open up more space at JLS for the Connections program (which has a very large waitlist to begin with every year). Splitting JLS into Paly and Gunn students is ridiculous given half of JLS students eventually feeds into Gunn.

Would be interested in seeing this decline in enrollment was impacted by parents pulling their kids out of PAUSD and enrolling them into surrounding private schools?

The followup question would be, why were parents dissatisfied with PAUSD and why the sharp drop in enrollment? Asking Superintendent Don Austin and the Board of Trustees to shine the light on loss of enrollment to surrounding private schools is the same as asking the fox to guard the henhouse. We are not going to get a honest and transparent answer.

But we see the loss to private schools nearby. Let's get to the real issue Don & Board.

Another car-centric choice school in south Palo Alto. Thanks, PAUSD. (Please note sarcasm.)

PAUSD, please focus on improving the quality of site management in order to encourage neighborhood families to choose Fletcher instead of private schools or requesting transfer to other PAUSD middle schools. The district has an administrative problem at this site. This proposal is not a solution to the enrollment problem. It is a band-aid. People who don't know about these problems might participate in the lottery. Once they are there, they will quickly figure out what the real problem is. Fix the root cause of the problem.

Ha! All of the sites at the middle and high school level in PAUSD have an administrative problem. The district shuffles them around or promotes them to the district office. At PAUSD incompetence flows uphill.

@Consider your options - wow, so the middle school principal is the reason for declining enrollment at the feeder elementary schools? That's quite an impact! It reminds me of the line from the old movie Diner: "I'll hit you so hard, I'll kill your whole family!"

The obvious choice here is to either move the existing Connections program from JLS to Fletcher or start another version it, since it is oversubscribed. Having two sites might even reduce traffic, since some kids from the Fletcher area are going to JLS Connections today.

@Palo Alto resident,
The Connections program is unfortunately oversold. The philosophy is wonderful but students only get a couple of classes in the program by 7th or 8th and there's nothing like it at the high school level. It's like they're trying to gently transition Ohlone kids away from the Ohlone philosophy, there is absolutely no commitment to the philosophy even for the entirely of middle school. You are right that it's oversubscribed, which indicates the interest in that philosophy. But the district does not share that commitment. If parents want it to expand, you'll have to get way more involved.

Your idea won't work because Fletcher has a kind of "competing" direct instruction philosophy that comes from the Hoover kids who tend to go to Fletcher.

The obvious choice is to create schools within the schools at the Gunn level so that students who choose Ohlone and Fletcher have a path from start to finish within that educational philosophy. Then you could move a chunk of kids from JLS to Fletcher and have a Connections program at both.

It's pretty clear from the other article about increasing applications at private schools that they did not absorb all the students our district lost by a long shot. The district would have data on who filed transfers and "private school affidavits" (meaning, they formed their own microschool or homeschooled. If people did that well during the pandemic, I think a lot would be loathe to return to our district, maybe move. Once you can see what your kids can do when they have more agency and independence, it's hard to go back to such a controlling educational model.)

Fletcher is the worst site of the 3 for asthma conditions (with Greene coming in a close second -- they all have problems but Greene and JLS have some new buildings). If I realized because of the pandemic that my kid didn't have to get sick for 2 weeks every fall because it was the school site, it would weigh in my decision not to go back too.

Just to correct misinformation, there hasn't been a DI program at Fletcher for maybe 10 years. It was never a school "philosophy" - it was a discrete program that was ended. There isn't even DI at Hoover anymore - DI isn't really consistent with the Common Core or PAUSD's adopted programs (eg, Readers and Writers Workshop).

As for the "district sharing the commitment" to Connections - huh? It's a popular program that has been in place for many years. It used to be less popular, now it is more so. The biggest barrier to expansion is whether there are teachers interested in teaching it (it was home-grown at JLS). The other option is simply to move the existing program to Fletcher.

I've never seen any evidence about indoor air quality issues at any of the schools. The idea that you can rank middle schools on air quality seems pretty far fetched.

Connections phases out over the course of middle school and there is no HS equivalent. Hardly a strong commitment from PAUSD despite demand.

School buildings of PAUSDs MS vintage/build have indoor air quality problems unless districts adopt strong frameworks for indoor air quality mgmt, which ours has not.

Using complaints from bldg users is an essential part of scientifically evidence-based indoor AQ mgmt plans; our district has no framework for this. PAUSD history is to belittle and ignore such input.

In a global pandemic in which indoor air quality increases (or decreases) airborne diseases going around, people most affected, like teachers & students whose asthma worsens on-site (and who noticed improvements from staying away), would make their own decisions about returning with their experiences and how they were treated in mind; PAUSD would have no inkling of why they left.

A few of other red flags:
JLS has a long history of leaks/flooding/abysmal drainage prior to recent renovations but didn’t remediate by evidence-based best practices. According to CDPH, & CA DoE, water=>indoor AQ problems. Fletcher had groundwater problems before AND after renovations.

As I recall, some Fletcher/Terman kids did a science project after getting sick from AQ probs in 2015. PAUSD tried to bar them but a well-connected Dad read them the riot act. Some poor kid at JLS with less-connected parents whose project was teacher-approved was forbidden from doing the same that year.

“Three students from Terman Middle School in Palo Alto planned to present their findings of poor air quality in classrooms—which they say affects students’ health and academic performance …[begun] because a lot of their classmates were feeling tired and suffering from ailments such as asthma.”

People don't see what they don't want to see. These problems are hiding in plain sight, and would be one factor affecting some people's decisions to return during a pandemic like this.