Also, with the building of the development off 680 near the new Safeway, what are the effects on Hearst Elementary and PMS (I assume those kids will go to those schools?)?

Will the PUSD revive the plans to build Neal Elementary School?

The district is preparing itself for a new bond measure for 2014 to bring to the voters (in addition to the one we are already paying for and is higher than should be because the district previously did illegal cash-outs). The district has already squandered the fees previously collected to things other than growth. They have also over-extended themselves on other lines of credit (COPs) and they will want a bond to get themselves out of the situation they put themselves into. During the whole time of the city approving more housing, the school district has been silent so expect serious school problems for decades now thanks to the lack of leadership at the school district.

"in addition to the one we are already paying for and is higher than should be because the district previously did illegal cash-outs"

I read about those cash-outs a while ago. Anyone know if it was the current people running the school district, or have the ones who did the cash-outs moved on?

The more schools the better...smaller student/teacher ratio.

I don't think any of those who did the cash-outs are still there but the current administration keeps defending the illegal activity of the past. As long as the current administration denies that was a problem, they are still part of the problem.

The more schools the better, except the district has not been planning for the new schools. In the past, the district worked with the city to ensure there were sufficient schools AND funding from the new development to pay for the new infrastructure. Today's administration is letting all the new development occur without having them pay for their impacts, and instead is asking the current residents to pay for the new growth. Many/most of the current residents already paid their impact fees for the impacts they made to the school district. Now they are going to be asked to pay for the new development (a double hit).

I also cannot see how they can add two elementary schools and not do anything to the middle and high schools. The high schools are already over-capacity according to the state standards.

As for smaller teacher ratios, that is not what they are talking about. They are going to keep the same ratio but add more classrooms/schools for the additional students. The more students we add, the less likely we will be able to have smaller classes. The more students you add, the more costly it becomes. If we cannot afford classroom size reduction with the current number of students based on the amount of money we receive from the state per student, adding more students just digs the whole deeper.

Correction: hole and NOT "whole".

Who funded this study? Was it the city? Was it the school district? Was it the Teachers union?

Whose projections of population growth was this study based on? Can the city slow growth to ensure we aren't are building schools that will eventually be closed, as has been the case in Dublin?

Can we audit the districts records to ensure Pleasanton students are the only students being included in these calculations (as opposed to non-residents enrolling their children in the district while paying taxes elsewhere?). Schools cost huge dollars to construct, especially the schools that are currently being built. Maybe it's possible to lease shuttered facilities from our neighbors in Dublin? And they're shuttered because there is a natural ebb & flow to the school age demographic.

Like always, the devil is in the details.

Many children who are enrolled in our schools do not live in our city. If you work in Pleasanton your child can go to our schools. If you wany your child to go to these schools then move here and pay the taxes I pay!!

Gee, a new elementary school. Couldn't have anything to do with the city approving projects from rich developers that will add pack and stack housing to the city, right?

Ridiculous.

Our school are already over capacity. However, the unions do whatever they can to fight the building of a new school (Neal site was one of them). Their reasoning is that opening a new school will add to the costs in the district which means less raises for teachers. There is an administrative cost to running a school and the teacher's union sees this as taking money away from them.

Local has the correct facts. I fully agree with Local's statements. One of the School Board male members, may have been on the Board at the time. I am pretty sure, that currently he has been on the Board the longest. Everyone should check out the FACTS and learn before the Board asks tax payers for more money.

Marie...if you can't appreciate that children attend schools and learn how to read, write, and speak English, and what it takes to become a good American citizen, then leave town.

I don't believe that anybody gets through life without paying some kind of tax.

Perhaps joining the US military and serving your country would help you grow up and understand what it means to pay your fair share.

and I mean it...life is not just about who payes the most tax

Please see out updated story at: Web Link

I am grateful to all the people who came before me and made this a great town, state, and country. I want to build good schools and have a good system in place for those that come after me. Paying taxes for that is a privilege to me, not a burden. I am very glad to live here. We can and should pay attention to the details and take responsibility, not another shot of crazy juice, we are talking about another school for our children. Good problem to have.