While it's commendable to see the City working towards the goal of improving the Ravenswood Schools one has to question the motives behind form such a proposal coming from a developer and builder friendly City Council. WIth the major increase in new office space more (Facebook) professionals are being encouraged to relocate to Menlo Park. Belle Haven and the Ravenswood school district has never been a priority for our Council. a Gentrified Belle Haven will require much improved schools for the young professionals now moving in. UNlikely that the current residents will be able to afford the higher rents that come with the gentrification nor will they benefit from seeing the Ravenswood School district make the improvements that should have started years ago.

[Part removed. Please make your point without negative characterization of other posters.]

@gentrification - I am so tired of the same old play book in Menlo Park. This education effort is amazing and way overdue. To try to tar it with anti-development rhetoric is just sad. It never amazes me the lengths people will go to in an effort destroy good things so they can discredit others for political purposes. Good work Ray! The far vast majority of us appreciate you. Don't let the naysayers stop you from helping these kids.

Thank you Ray for a thoughtful and very needed proposal. Hopefully we can all work to support this effort.

Ravenswood is having great success passing bond measures. Voters overwhelmingly approve Ravenswood schools bond measure Web Link Is there anything stopping the Ravenswood school board from rebuilding Willow Oaks school?

Until we stop separating ourselves with others, or even one other, in any manner or forum, the manifestations of cooperation, compassion and personal growth will be beyond that person's bigoted viewpoint.

Menlo Park schools have had for a long time enough money to build new, tech-heavy schools, so why don't we help other districts that don't have those resources (parcel tax, fund-raising, etc). All the children will be living in proximity to many others unlike them, and with the population explosion that's a factor, we'd better all begin to practice being "neighborly."

In fact, I'm all for helping out Redwood City schools, or others around here. If you don't 'get' what and why I'm saying this, go look over their schools. Begin with the one east of Sigona's (or Costco) . Then return here and tell me why those kids should live with less opportunity

Gentrification makes excellent points. The timing of this is suspicious. This should've been addressed decades ago.

There's lots of construction within the Ravenswood district from Facebook and Sobrato among others. These are all multi-story high end office buildings, which should increase the property tax revenue dramatically without adding more students.

And, of course, the homes that sell within Ravenswood are also increasing in price along with the rest of the county. EPA properties are increasing at 7.5% per year and Menlo Park properties are increasing at an average of 12%.
Web Link

This positive revenue direction should help Ravenswood improve their bond capacity and ability to support higher parcel taxes.

@Gentrification and @Hmmm,

Yes, good points I missed them before - probably going too fast.

Wonder where Ravenswood District would be if Facebook or any other massive company hadn't come to town. Follow the money.

@Beth, @Gentrification, @hmmm

Logically if Facebook and other "development" interests wanted to give money to the Ravenswood School District, why wouldn't they just give money to the Ravenswood School District?

It is time to consulate the school districts in San Mateo County. All schools should be equal. Money saving would benefit all. Why do we need all this duplication?

Spock - you missed my point.

Thank you for the article.

Ravenswood City Elementary SD’s (RCSD) performance is a problem that has been ongoing for generations; setting up a group focused on improving this district is likely overdue. RCSD has had plenty of time to fix this without intervention, and clearly they’ve been unable to do so.

However, I respectfully disagree with the thrust of the article, that RCSD’s issues have at their root a funding shortfall. Let’s look at the numbers:

Rough average of revenue per student, all San Mateo county elementary school districts, 2014-2015 school year: (21,553+21,498+16,799+16,584+15,214+13,740+13,060+10,731+10,605+10,149+9,591+9,573+9,373+9,319+9,060+9,043+8,696) / 17

County average revenue/student 2014-2015: $12,622

RCSD average revenue/student 2014-2015: $13,060

(source, ed-data.org : Web Link )

RCSD’s revenue is average to above-average in comparison to the rest of the county. Let’s look at a few example elementary school districts for the 2014-2015 school year:

RCSD: $13,060 /student
MPCSD: $13,745 /student
Redwood City ESD: $10,731 /student
San Carlos ESD: $10,149 /student
Redwood Shores/Belmont ESD: $9,591 / student

A few things jump out from these examples:
* Redwood City ESD deals with some of the same issues as Ravenswood, but generally performs better with significantly less funding per student (I do think Redwood City should get more funding though…a topic for another day).

* Redwood Shores/Belmont has a similar student population size, but drastically outperforms RCSD with substantially less money.

* MPCSD funding/per student is actually not that much higher than RCSD, but drastically outperforms RCSD. Somewhat ironically, MPCSD is used as the standard-bearer in the article as an example of a relatively well funded school district, but the numbers show they’re relatively close.


RCSD underperforms in all 3 major areas:
* student performance is well below average for the county;
* Teacher pay is below average;
* Facility quality is well below average;

RCSD has average/above-average funding by county standards, but performs poorly in all 3 above areas. Where is the money going????? I understand that the challenges of teaching non-native-english speakers increases costs, but clearly with the underfunding of teachers and infrastructure, that issue is financially addressed, yet the performance is still substantially under par.

The inescapable conclusion is that RCSD doesn’t have a funding problem, it has a managerial/structural problem. I hope this new group can address this deficiency.


(note: keep in mind that GO bonds (construction) do not show up in school district budgets, so the real revenue per student is higher than reported in California public school budgets)

SteveC's suggestion to consolidate all the school districts and put them on an equal funding relationship would result in less money for education in San Mateo as it would reduce the subsidy from the state. Consolidation's major benefit is to save the State money sent to San Mateo school districts. Currently of the 23 school districts in San Mateo, 9 are community funded which means that they receive property tax revenue above the LCFF (the State's guaranteed minimum funding per student)which the State refers to as excess property taxes. With consolidation the excess property taxes distributed to all the former districts would have the net effect of reducing the State's need to supplement funding to San Mateo. With consolidation all students would receive the guaranteed LCFF funding including the former Community Funded Districgts.

Pearl, whether you approve or not there are immigrants who don't arrive speaking fluent English but still need to be educated. They are children who had no say in their situation, and to ignore them to prove a point is to pave the way for a generation of uneducated, unemployable, angry and desperate people. Part of the American Dream was -- and still is, and should be -- that everyone has an equal right to be educated. Trust me, these children want to speak English and learn to read and write like everyone else, and if we ignore that to make a point about immigration we will all pay the price when the price is much higher.

There are lots of good comments in this strand but having volunteered in these schools I can tell you it's a complex mix of issues. Ravenswood attracts inexperienced and marginal teachers because it can't offer the perks of a Menlo Park, Palo Alto or even a Redwood City teaching position. Perks not only in terms of better salary and benefits, but also in a lack of adequate classroom facilities, supplies and support from parents (most of whom work multiple jobs to survive). Teachers are often long-term subs because the regular teacher has left for a better job somewhere else, or had personal problems or whatever. Many of the students are transient -- the children appear at school mid-year and leave before the end of the year, or stay through the following semester and then move. That's the fate of their families who can't find adequate, affordable housing and work, and so the children suffer.

You can't fix any of this with one magic formula -- it has to be a holistic approach. Some RWC schools are becoming "Community Schools" that offer full-family services such as pre-school and adult education so parents can learn English while their children are in school. A model similar to that, or a "sister-school" model where a more affluent school partners with a lower-performing school to offer some shared educational opportunities that enriches both groups of children may eventually offer solutions.

Train Fan wrote:
"RCSD underperforms in all 3 major areas:
* student performance is well below average for the county;"


The biggest contributor to student performance is not teacher nor facility quality, it's the home environment. If a good home environment is not available, no amount of money spent on schools and teachers can solve this problem. There's a mistaken belief that if we only spent more on schools all of these education problems will be magically solved. More spending can solve some of the problems. Then, you hit a point of drastically diminishing returns.

If the parents have to work at nights or decide not to take an active role in in their child's education, that hurts student performance. It is especially hard in a single parent household. Moreover, if the parent doesn't emphasize how important school is for their child, it affects child behavior. The child will likely pay less attention in class and be more likely to have discipline problems.

I would be interested to see the test results from children in the Tinsley program when compared to their schoolmates. In one sense, Tinsley parents are motivated to give their child a better education. Otherwise, they would not ask to be part of the program and have their kids commit to the longer commute. But from a socioeconomic point of view, they are not at the same level as the average Menlo Park, Palo Alto, and Las Lomitas school district area family.

Tinsley results would be indicative of the upper bound of what better paid teachers and higher quality facilities can do.

Whatever happened to Nairrobi School and Gertrude Wilks? That was a cost-effective means for producing a quality education in a nurturing environment without coercion.

I would suggest that merging all districts in Menlo Park, into a unified district like Palo Alto. Las Lomitas, MPCSD, Ravenswood and Menlo Atherton HS should be combined. Operating efficiencies and a broader funding base will benefit Ravenswood and enable the combined district to upgrade the physical plants and alleviate disparities in teacher salaries. I would also suggest that as educational quality improves in the lower performing Ravenswood schools, it will result in a better prepared student body entering high school. I applaud Ray Mueller for his efforts but it is only a beginning. All Menlo Park students deserve the high quality educational opportunities found in the wealthier micro-districts. It is a matter of equity in my opinion, and founded on the principles that made America great.

Mark Gilles, please read my earlier post. Merging the school districts will increase the funding base but will benefit the State more than the local schools, as the broader funding base will reduce the state subsidy to guarantee around $8,000 per student. In all likely hood the total amount of funding will decrease as the "excess property taxes" going to Menlo Park, Las Lomitas will now just reduce the state subsidy that goes to Ravenswood. Mark is right that a merger's broader property base would support a GO Bond for Ravenswood's physical plant. Merging districts does not save that much on administration staff as you would still need the same number of principals and would need some number of assistant superintendents and assistant financial officers to manager the new larger district.

I too support Ray's proposal. It is a great first start in reducing educational inequality in our county.

Apple makes a good point. A major difference in outcomes is parental involvement.Las Lomitas, MPAEF, and M-A all have very strong PTO's that enable those districts to support enrichment. Parents that value education and make it a priority make the difference. parents in the Ravenswood District have proven their commitment by a 90 percent yes vote on the recent bond issue.

Apple and Mark make very good points about the wealthy school districts able to provide additional funds through PTO and Foundations to enrich their schools student experiences. Those funds, along with property taxes are deductions from income and thus the Federal and State Government is contributing around 30% of those funds through reduced tax revenues. This is another factor that contributes to the inequality of educational opportunities across school districts in San Mateo County.

Excellent proposal, Mr. Mueller, and much needed for far too long.

All great ideas; however, I do not support more funding until there is full transparency and accountability. The current administration is using our tax payers money to expand government jobs and their bureaucratic corporate business style as well as for their legal defense. The Common Core was implemented without proper planning and without the necessary resources; creating a crisis within a crisis. Our schools are supposed to provide safety, equity, and quality education for all. Yet the reality shows that despite the increased spending California remains at the bottom of all 50 States and the achievement gaps continue to widen. Graduation rates might have increased, but that is because the current administration got rid of the exit exam and implemented a new rating system that is adjustable. This administration helps students graduate through group efforts and now many students graduated without the necessary skills to enter the workforce. It would be nice if our policymakers and our elected and appointed officials would uphold the funding requirements and uphold the promise of safety, equity, and quality as stated in our education laws, government laws, and Constitution, and would fulfill their promise to reduce the gang and drug activity, stop the bully culture, improve the learning environment with qualified teachers, and stop the cheating, the incivility and stop the sexual assaults. We do not need new legislation because we have the laws in place. The laws just need to be enforced.