Reply to School Board Member Doug Ireland’s explanation of why some properties in Piedmont are not paying the School Support Tax.
With due respect to PUSD Board Member Doug Ireland, there is an obvious misunderstanding. First, the school support tax is a special assessment tax and not a property (ad valorem) tax as defined by the Assessor and the State Board of Equalization. Secondly, the measure approved by the taxpayers on March 5, 2013, is the law and not the resolution approved by the Board of Education. The full text of Measure A unequivocally said there could be an exemption only for homeowners who qualify for SSI.
Regarding Ireland’s four bullets:
• The California Constitution and the Revenue and Taxation Code exempt church-owned properties from the ad valorem portion of their tax bills but not from the special assessments.
• City of Piedmont taxing policy is not restrained by the same rules that dictated Measure A, and is not relevant.
• So-called “minor” parcels can be subsumed by the larger under some circumstances but the owner must have two parcels to begin with (only 22 of the 56 exempted have two parcels) and the owner had to apply to the assessor for this exemption within 90 days after the effective date of the measure. There is no evidence that this was done by any owner. (This exemption was allowed in the resolution but not in the tax measure itself.) To avoid paying the tax twice, owners of two parcels can very simply combine them into one, as Ireland pointed out, and this was done in three cases.
• A dozen or so single parcel lots split by the boundary line have an Oakland address but are partially in Piedmont. The measure says each parcel wholly or partially in Piedmont must pay the tax. There is no exception based on historical precedent or school eligibility. Many of the current exemptions are based on past practices, which the Appellate Court ruled could not be continued. The measure itself would be illegal if it allowed these exemptions.Bottom line is that voters are entitled to believe in what the measure says. They are also entitled to know why it is worth a million dollars to exempt these particular parcels but not others with similar lots, even those side by side on the same street.
William Blackwell, Piedmont resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Why are some properties not taxed for the Piedmont School Support Tax?
Over the last several months, PUSD has received inquiries about our collection of the School Support Tax (Measure A) that was passed with resounding support by the community in spring of ’13. In question is whether the district is applying the tax to all the appropriate properties.
Let me start by saying, the district administration and school board is appreciative of the overwhelming support we receive. The community contributes substantially to maintain our excellent schools and we are grateful for that. We do not assume it will be forever thus and we aim to earn your support at every election and with every decision. Where we fail, we hope to learn and improve.
And vigilant community members play a vital role keeping a watchful eye on our performance. It is a healthy process that we appreciate.
The parcels in question fall into four categories for potential assessment or exemption. They include; church parcels, public parcels, “minor” parcels adjacent to existing taxed parcels and parcels straddling Piedmont and Oakland.
Our law firm, Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost has worked closely with district staff, our financial agents NBS and the County Assessor to review the parcels in question and the prevailing jurisdiction.
Having reviewed their opinions, having ourselves investigated the parcels in question and legal precedent, we are convinced of the proper performance of the parties to assess and collect the appropriate monies. It breaks down like this:
-Under the California Constitution and Revenue Code, church properties used for religious worship are exempt from property tax. While the School Support Tax is a parcel tax, it is also a property tax and therefore exempt.
-City of Piedmont properties are similarly exempt.
-With respect to “minor” parcels in Piedmont, the owners of homes including such parcels already pay the School Support Tax on their main parcel–the question is whether they should pay twice. Under Government Code Section 53087.4, parcels created under the Subdivision Map Act are treated as a single tax assessment unit and other parcels are treated as separate tax assessment units only if deeded separate from adjoining parcels. Moreover, property owners can simply combine their minor and principal parcels through the assessor’s office, as they surely would if the District attempted to tax them twice.
-There are parcels sitting astride Oakland and Piedmont. Historically, homeowners have the option to pay one or the other, and are assessed by Piedmont only if they chose to take advantage of our school system. Those parcels straddling the border with children in the PUSD schools pay our School Support Tax. One might argue that the option of sending children to Piedmont’s fine schools represents an intrinsic value to their home and should therefore be responsible for the tax. But it goes against precedent and would potentially invite litigation that the district, mindful of ongoing budget constraints, is loath to take on for the modest additional revenue it may represent.
We seek to comply with the law while avoiding potential litigation pitting us against the Piedmont residents we serve.
We hope this makes sense to the community. The Superintendent and the Board will continue to run our schools to the best of our ability with prudence and good judgment. Thank you for your ongoing interest and support in our efforts.
Douglas M. Ireland, Piedmont Unified School District Board Member
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Read William Blackwell’s opinion here.
Schools may follow City in seeking taxpayer approval for new tax funding.
On March 23, starting at 7 p.m. the board of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers.
(Read the complete agenda here.) Item VII.A. will be a discussion of the PUSD Facilities Master Plan beginning at approximately 8 p.m.
The Facilities Master Plan process combines the goals of PUSD’s Education Specifications and the information collected by the design team (including facility assessments) into a comprehensive plan for the schools of the Piedmont Unified School District. The main product of the facility needs assessment and Facilities Master Plan is a detailed proposal for renovations and/or additions to be made at each school campus.
On February 10, Mark Quattrocchi of Quattrocchi Kwok Architects presented its $136,800,000 Facilities Master Plan to the PUSD board. Assistant Superintendent Song Chin Bendib reported the district’s bonding capacity is $38.3 million to $65.7 million.
The November 2016 election is now the earliest opportunity for a ballot measure to seek voter approval of a school bond for the Facilities Master Plan.
Facilities Master Plan includes:
- Razing Alan Harvey Theater;
- Adding classrooms;
- Demolishing the 10s building;
- Constructing a two-story administration building;
- Building a new, two-story classroom building on the Millennium High and Piedmont High campus.
- Building a new 450-seat theater, drama classroom and office; modifying the amphitheater
- Converting the lower floor of the 40s building to four classrooms; new entry plaza;
- Kindergarten classroom, improved drainage, shade at Wildwood;
- Fencing, a new retaining wall, better climate control, another kindergarten classroom at Beach School;
- Two kindergarten classrooms, more shade, more blacktop and climate control at Havens,;
- Enhanced security.
Meetings of the School Board are broadcast live on Channel 27 and on the City’s website.
CalSTRS contribution rates increase –
Students raise issues of school buildings overheated and underheated, a fence around the high school would imply danger, smaller classrooms and more warning about SAT Subject Tests. Parents express concern about reduced art class time in the STEM vs STEAM debate.
March 9, 2016 School Board Meeting Report –
At this School Board meeting, five members of the School Board met to discuss progress on the Second Interim Report, Master Facilities Plan, and Instructional Program Design for the elementary schools. These members include School Board President Andrea Swensen, Amal Smith, Doug Ireland, Superintendent Randall Booker, and Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Song Chin-Bendib. As noted on their agenda, the School Board’s mission is to “cultivate a learning community where students are engaged in their learning, strive for excellence, and are supported to achieve to their potential.” In other words, their purpose is to improve and maintain the schools in the Piedmont Unified School District. To fulfill this purpose, they meet every month, and sometimes even more frequently than that.
Student Recommendations
First, students spoke out about community issues they wished the board to address. Piedmont High School (PHS) senior Meredith Aebi was called first, and expressed concern about the school’s heating system. She believes the language building is underheated while the 30s building is overheated. Next, PHS senior Maggie White spoke out against the idea of a fence around the high school, noting that it would make her feel less safe because it implies there is something to be protected against. PHS senior Allie Frankel then addressed the Master Facilities Plan, and argued for more, smaller classrooms over less, larger ones. PHS senior Lizzie Bjork supported this notion, and cited that her AP English class is too large, creating a burden on the grading agenda of her teacher. Ashley Gerrity and I also spoke during this public comment portion, and argued that students should be given more warning about SAT Subject Tests. While most students are familiar with the SAT, many do not find out about Subject Tests until their senior year of high school. Since many colleges require that students submit 2-3 tests, seniors must then go back and re-learn materials from their sophomore or junior year in order to prepare. We asked that teachers notify students in February and March about the Subject Tests in June so that even underclassmen students, who may be unfamiliar with the college application process, can take Subject Tests immediately after taking the class instead of re-learning the material in senior year. We believe that this simple act of informing students about the tests would make a significant difference in stress during senior year and improve SAT Subject Test scores for students. After this public comment section, School Board president Andrea Swenson thanked us for our input and said she would consider it in the future.
Next, Song Chin-Bendib spoke about the Second Interim Report, which detailed the PUSD budget for the next quarter. She hoped the Board would approve the report with a positive certification in order to pass it. Chin-Bendib described how costs to the District would increase within the next quarter because of the increasing CalSTRS contribution rates. This would mean an increase in cost of $330,000 to $334,000 to the District. The main topic of discussion was the CalSTRS On-Behalf Payment, which meant the District had to deposit $35,000 to the reserve due to a State measure. Swensen expressed her frustration with this measure, as it led to more money tied up in the bank, to which Chin-Bendib agreed. Despite the minor discontent, the School Board all voted to approve the Second Interim Report with positive certification.
Next, Superintendent Booker discussed the Master Facilities Plan for Piedmont High School. He noted that the new plan’s goals are to not only improve the physical learning environment, but also ensure the District is a “21st century learning environment.” According to Booker, this means courses should include more preparation for college and careers along with flexible classrooms that could be adapted for many subjects. For example, a science classroom that is suitable for chemistry, engineering, and biology. Booker also expressed that in the future, he wants to incorporate more STEM facilities to keep up with private schools. School Board member Doug Ireland agreed with Booker, and noted that he had toured some other impressive private school STEAM facilities too, and would like to see them implemented in PHS. Booker then stated that we wanted the community to get involved with the Master Plan as well, and would consider taking parents on tours of the school to give them a better idea of the amenities needed.
Finally, the principals of Havens, Beach, and Wildwood elementary schools gave a presentation on their plan for next year’s elementary school schedule. With their new plan, they hope to create opportunities for integration of curriculum, support flexibility and creativity, and minimize transition times. They also would like to implement a “STEAM rotation” where grades 2nd through 5th would take classes on computer science, arts, and basic engineering. The School Board requested that the principals provide a detailed schedule with the minutes of each class. However, they were unprepared to do so. Instead, they argued that they trust the teachers to teach equal proportions of each core subject and cover the material needed. After the principals presented their work on the elementary school plan, the School Board allowed for public comment.
First, president of PAINTS Hillary Davis expressed her concern with the new elementary school schedule. With the increased focus on the “STEM” of “STEAM,” the schools were planning to cut art time for students. She said she was appalled at the fact that six elementary school art assistants were fired and replaced with one certified instructor. Yet Booker said that this was false information as no one was fired and no new teacher was hired yet. Despite this correction, Davis was still upset over the cut in art hours. Next, Piedmont High School teacher and Piedmont parent Auben Willats affirmed the concern about reduced art hours. She noted that her children love art at school, and would be upset to see it cut. Community member Cami Cobb then also agreed that art at school is important and should be preserved during school. Finally, John Chaney continued the pattern of upset over reduced art hours and supported the idea of more poetry, art, and reading time in school.
I also believe that art in school is important, yet STEM programs are also equally and perhaps even more crucial. In elementary school, I enjoyed art class, however I do not believe school is the only place for art. Rather, I often did art at home as well with plenty of free time in elementary school. However, STEM subjects are not typically available at home. Parents are more likely to gift their children crayons instead of a microscope set, and therefore the community should recognize that it is the school’s responsibility to focus on subjects that cannot be learned at home. The community members also may have overlooked the fact that STEM subjects can involve creativity. For example, most computer programming learning websites and resources for kids are very visual and involve plenty of creativity. With further education on the content of the STEM classes, perhaps the community members would be more receptive to a “21st century learning environment.”
After the meeting adjourned, I interviewed Auben Willats about her concern about the reduced art hours. She stated that she volunteers at after-school art classes, and came to the meeting because she believes her daughters will be fine academically, and, therefore, could benefit from more art. Willats also noted that Wildwood currently has the most art hours, and hopes that the other schools will rise up to meet those hours rather than having Wildwood sink down. In order to further express her concern, she will attend a meeting on March 17th about art in school, and also inform the other third grade and kindergarten parents.
By Rachel Fong, Piedmont High School senior
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Board of Education Hears Reports on Voice Cooperative, Food Drive, SAT Testing, PUSD Budget, STEAM, Taxation for Facilities Master Plan, and Student Recommendations –
On March 9, 2016, the Piedmont Board of Education held one of their bi-monthly meetings that take place on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The Board of Education meets to discuss various aspects of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) to ensure the best possible learning community, where students are engaged and have the support to reach their full potential.
This meeting began with Jenny Hosler, a representative to the Board from Piedmont High School, giving a brief update on what is going on at the High School this month. She described Voice Cooperative, a student run club that brings in inspiring speakers for lunchtime talks, the two plays that are being performed this week, and the food drive for the Alameda County Food Bank. Hosler announced that Piedmont High School is the Alameda County Food Bank’s second biggest donor, only after Safeway, averaging 12,000 pounds of food each year. This year, it is now possible to donate online, so the hope is to reach out further into the community for donations.
Student recommendations
Board President Andrea Swenson then opened the floor for public comments. Four groups of high schoolers shared their perspectives on current matters that are being discussed. Ashley Gerrity and Rachel Fong addressed SAT subject testing, saying they wished teachers would suggest that underclassmen take the corresponding SAT subject test to their AP and Honors classes while the material is still fresh in their minds. Meredith Aebi brought up the heating system that is possibly broken in the 10s building of the High School and proposed a solution. Maggie White explained how she believes building a fence around the school would have a negative impact on the learning environment; and finally Lizzie Bjork and I spoke of our positive experiences with small class sizes.
Budget
Assistant Superintendent Song Chin-Bendib then gave the 2015-16 Second Interim Report. She spoke of long term budget changes and about how the PUSD budget is in its 3rd year of funding under the Local Control Funding Formula. She explained the burden of the CalSTRS (California State Teachers Retirement System) payment, which now due to the “phantom” pension expenditure, causes the District to have to record a reserve of money of $1,692,093 as an expense. She also stated that there is still over half a million dollars set to be used for the 2017-18 school year. After this budget summary, Board member Amal Smith mover to approve the budget for the 2015-16 school year and for two fiscal years, seconded by Board member Doug Ireland, which was approved by the Board.
Taxation for Facilities Master Plan
Superintendent Randall Booker spoke next of the Facilities Master Plan, which will be discussed in greater depth at the next meeting. He gave an overview of some of the major themes that are emerging from meetings with staff and students as the most important goals for this Facilities Master Plan. The first goal he spoke of was improving the physical learning environment, which includes updating the antiquated energy system as well as making changes to transition to a 21st century learning environment that preps students for future college and career readiness. The key for this change is to have spaces that are ready for maximum flexibility, like a science room that can be used for chemistry as well as engineering or outdoor space that is ready for experiential learning. He also spoke of the interest in improving the athletic facilities and changes to mitigate parking. He announced that the goal to have completed by the April 27th meeting is to partner with the community to create a survey to find out what the appetite is for these changes and for taxation, so that at that meeting there can be discussion about what changes the community really will want to implement and what the priorities are. President Swenson then emphasized that these changes will not happen without community support and urged the community to email, call, attend meetings, share opinions, and show support in any way possible.
Elementary School Program Design – STEAM
The Educational Service Report followed, given by the three elementary school principals, Michael Corritone, Anne Dolid, and Carol Cramer. They spoke of the Instructional Program Design that they have been working on for the elementary schools and where they are in the process. They have been conversing with a consultant for over a year and are developing in depth prototypes. Some of the main aspects that they are including in the prototypes are STEAM rotations, allowing every student to be taught art and computer science by a specialist in grades 2-5. The idea of these STEAM rotations is to create a system where art and computer science are integrated into the curriculum, and these STEAM rotations would be taught by certified specialists. The principals also explained other opportunities that have grown from the prototypes in the works, like a library commons system and a full kindergarten day.
President Swesen then opened the floor to public comments again, and Hilary Davis, the president of Paints, an organization that strives to promote art in the schools stepped up to the podium. She said that she was shocked to hear that with these prototypes, all six art specialists had been let go with the plan to hire one certified specialist and that the time for art in schools had been cut in half. Superintendent Booker then spoke, wanting to assure everybody that nobody had been let go yet, and there are contracts that go until the end of the year. Auban Willats then stood to state her concern as a parent for what seems like a drastic reduction in art and music education in these prototypes. Elementary school art teacher, Kammy Cobb then stood to share her expert opinion that cutting art class to 40 minutes does not allow enough time to accomplish everything that goes into an art class, like a demo and clean up. Finally, John Chainey, a Wildwood parent, stood to state his support for more art, music, writing, and poetry in the schools, and brought up the idea of bringing the resource of the talent of the community into the schools.
After the meeting, Suzie Skugstad, shared her cause for attending in an interview. She is one of the Wildwood art teachers who is being let go, since she is not officially certified. She believes that these new prototypes will “decimate the art program by cutting the amount of time the kids will get art to less than half and maybe even one third.” She believes that the prototypes are also cutting out “art for art’s sake,” by making much of the art tied into other subjects and assessed and critiqued. I agree with her that while integrating art into the curriculum can enrich the materials of the other subjects, it is also extremely important to have art alone, solely for the sake of creating art. Her next step is to attend the March 17 meeting and find out if the prototypes are available to parents online.
Allie Frankel, Piedmont High School senior
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Piedmonter offers parking idea for Piedmont schools plan.
The current version of the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) facilities plan would take away a number of parking spaces on the High School/Middle School campus. School Board Vice President Sarah Pearson has brought up several times her concern about parking, and expressed her view that somehow the new facilities should include parking spaces for staff and teachers. Per the school architect, the cost of adding a parking floor to a standard building is around $40,000 a space.
School Board Member Doug Ireland has expressed his desire to see the City and the District work closely together to solve this problem (and many others). So maybe the City could provide much needed parking.
I talked with the CEO at Park Works, a local supplier of Puzzle Parking. Bottom line his solutions are still expensive: $20,000 to$30,000 per parking space, occupying about a third of side-by-side ground parking. The company claims to have installed 1.6 million parking spots in Japan and 1 million in Europe. There are an 82 unit storage system installed in San Leandro and a 20 unit one in Berkeley at 1218 7th Street (a BMW repair shop).
I then found a Chinese company who sells Puzzle Parking structures as a kit to be assembled on site. There is no need for excavation for installation. Here is their product spec for 26 level puzzle parking. The company claims that the cost is between $2,000 to $4,000 per spot, with a very reduced footprint. Their full catalog is available at: Full catalog.
Would Puzzle Parking be a solution for PUSD?
Does anybody have any experience with Puzzle Parking?
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
puzzle parking
Chinese 6 level puzzle parking
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Announcement:
Piedmont Unified School District
TK-5 Elementary Enrollment Day
Please join us for the
PUSD Elementary Enrollment Day on March 8th.
Location: Ellen Driscoll Playhouse:
325 Highland Avenue
To minimize wait time, please sign up in advance to confirm your time slot:
http://data.piedmont.k12.ca.us/elementary/
Please visit the district website for more information on enrollment, required documents and other information: www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/district-info/enrollment
No tax on parcels results in over $1 million School District revenue loss.
On February 11th at the invitation of Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Superintendent Randall Booker, I met with PUSD attorney Mark Williams to hear his perspective on issues I had raised about the legality of exempting certain assessors’ parcels from payment of the school support tax, Measure A. The discussion turned out to be relatively pointless, however, since the District had already quietly decided to continue all current exemptions based on Mr. Williams’ assurances that these exemptions would withstand a legal challenge. This was done with the concurrence of the School Board in spite of a substantial loss in revenue.
His presentation was thorough — although at times confusing, especially on points seemingly irrefutable. Nine months ago Mr. Williams himself said only owners who qualified for SSI were legally exempted. He now believes the other Piedmont exemptions are perfectly legal, based on his review of case law. However, the relevance of case law is questionable. The very court filing that necessitated Measure A in the first place said, “The courts cannot recalibrate the taxing power statutorily delegated to local entities;; any adjustments in that regard must be made by the state Legislature.”
There was a lengthy discussion about exemptions given to church-owned parcels. The State Board of Equalization defines Measure A as a special assessment tax and not a property tax, and makes it clear that churches, while exempt from property taxes, are not exempt from special assessments. A clause initially in the proposed measure that would have allowed this exemption was not in the full text of the final measure. My research shows that other churches in Alameda County cities are indeed paying their respective school taxes as a special assessment.
The attorney did not cite a law that allows a property owner to exempt only the Piedmont school tax from his other special assessments such as the city municipal services tax. Also, the exemption given to small, unimproved second parcels, which enable an owner to pay the school tax only once, may be an equitable district policy but is evidently not a law that would take precedence over Measure A. After the measure became effective, three owners legally combined their two parcel lots into one, and thereby avoided paying the tax twice without need of an exemption.
The meeting was ended without discussing the single parcel lots that have an Oakland street address but are also partially in Piedmont. According to the measure, parcels partially in Piedmont are to be taxed. Two are paying the tax but ten are not.
In summary, I heard scant justification for continuing the exemptions that I believe to be unlawful based on the documents I have read. The measure itself allowed no such exemptions, and would be unlawful if it had.
Several questions remain unanswered. Why are some parcels in a given group exempted but others are not? For every parcel that is being exempted, I have identified a similar one that is not being exempted — several even side-by-side on the same street. Only 15 of the 77 vacant residential parcels are exempted. The district is well aware that these exemptions are being made but no one has as yet taken responsibility for making them.
At the very least, Piedmont Unified School District owes the taxpayers a plausible explanation as to why it makes sense to continue these exemptions. Seven more parcels have been added since the measure became law. What does the district gain in exchange for giving up more than a million dollars in revenue over the eight-year life of the measure?
William Blackwell, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Time to join the Piedmont Unified School District (PUSD) Administration’s effort to plan for a 21st century education –
Last August, the School District launched a process to develop a plan to upgrade our secondary school facilities. Our superintendent organized a number of meetings with parents, teachers, students, and the community at large, with the broad ambitious goal of looking far ahead asking two fundamental questions: How should we educate our students to best prepare them to function in our 21st century economy? What facilities do we need to support these evolving methods?
The process is on-going and the plan is in the early stage of formation. The superintendent put no boundary on the scope of the plan. Many needs have been identified some driven by the educational vision, some by the nuts and bolts issues of decaying mechanical and electrical equipment. The goal is to develop such a compelling plan that the community says: “This is the obvious thing to do for our children; let us find a way to finance it, and work out all the problems to make it happen”. Hopefully we can recreate the success that the new Havens School has been.
A number of documents are available on the District web site: a DRAFT Facility Site Assessment Report; a DRAFT Educational Specifications Report; a Draft Master Plan put together by QKA, the architect hired by the District to help in the planning; and a presentation by KNN, the District Financial Consultant. Most of the plan is focused on the High School and Middle School Magnolia campus.
Today, I am impressed by the ambitious scope and the work done to-date. I support the viewpoint expressed on this web site by the PiedmontMakers Board of Directors. The foundation of the Bay Area Economy is creativity. Creativity is rooted in the arts, in engineering, and in the laws of physics that underpin engineering. Our children needs to acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to thrive and contribute in that environment. Making things from an early age is a great enabler to achieve these goals.
I am also grateful to the teachers and parents who have made the arts alive and well in Piedmont. The self-confidence, debate and people skills acquired through the performing arts are key to effective leadership in every profession and to achieving a fulfilling life.
It is very significant that the most popular TED talk of all times is the one by Sir Ken Robinson making an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity. So the citizens of our country interested in new ideas have voted that nurturing creativity is the most important educational goal for our future.
As community, let us make a strong statement about our commitment to the Arts and Sciences through the construction of two new buildings one for the Arts and the other for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) on both side of a new entrance.
As a scorecard, the District should use the STEM Public High School Achievement Index published by U.S. News. The index is based on the percentage of all the Advanced Placement (AP) test-takers in a school’s graduating class who took and passed college-level AP STEM Math and AP STEM Science tests. The higher a high school scores on the STEM Achievement Index, the better it places in the Best High Schools for STEM rankings. In 2015, a dozen schools in the Bay Area place ahead of Piedmont High School. Let us set the goal to become the best STEM public high school in the country within the next six years.
Please get involved and let your opinion be known through this great forum.
Bernard Pech, Piedmont Resident
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those the author.
The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Unified School District Board on Feb 8, 2016.
PUSD Master Facilities Plan.
To the School Board,
We are writing in strong support of S.T.E.A.M. (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts & Math) focused modernization at Piedmont High and Piedmont Middle School to be prioritized in the PUSD Master Plan and funded by a November 2016 bond measure.
Piedmont Makers is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit parent support group focused on S.T.E.A.M. education advocacy in town. Our group is relatively new (we formed in January 2014) but we have been quite active in creating monthly K12 Makerspace events at the Piedmont Middle School shop, monthly Tech Social community gatherings, and organizing the yearly K12 Piedmont School Maker Faire, among other activities.`Our board is made up of Piedmont parents with students in the elementary, middle, and high schools who have come here to build our careers as engineers, designers, entrepreneurs, investors, artists, and architects on the doorstep of Silicon Valley because we believe it is the best place in the world to create. We in turn moved to Piedmont because we felt it was the best community in the Bay Area to raise our families and educate our children in the public schools.`The need for better S.T.E.A.M. education to prepare students for 21st century careers is clear. Local companies that are driving the global economy like Apple, Pixar, Google, and Tesla are built upon the intersection of S.T.E.A.M. disciplines to create incredible products, movies, apps, cars, and more. It is exciting to see Piedmont educators already teaching across S.T.E.A.M. disciplines today with projectdriven courses like Mr. Saville’s Maker elective at Piedmont Middle School and Mrs. Chamberlain’s Physics of Alternative Energy at Piedmont High School. But we need to do more. We need to give our teachers and students best in class facilities to put our children in the best position to succeed in an economy that is is increasingly S.T.E.A.M. driven.`With two years of experience running S.T.E.A.M. programs in Piedmont, we can confidently say the demand for more S.T.E.A.M. educational activities is strong. Recent Friday night Tech Social events like Learning Minecraft Mods and Learning Animation (led by a Pixar Piedmont parent) attracted on average 100 students & parents. Recent Sunday Makerspace events like 3D Printing! and Learn to Solder have sold out all available seats in the Piedmont Middle School shop. Our 2015 School Maker Faire attracted over 80 student, teacher, and community Makers to exhibit their projects to nearly 1,000 attendees.`We ask the district and the school committee to be bold. Much as Piedmont led California in the adoption of K12 Computer Science standards two year ago, we ask the school board to again lead to bring our secondary school facilities into the 21st century. We cannot continue the outdated education models that keeps art separate from science, and makerspaces separate from computer labs. The emerging Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) clearly call for creating more flexible spaces to encourage interaction between disciplines and can withstand more messy, creative activities. We need new facilities that support building the skills in our students that we see every day in our jobs artists collaborating with scientists, entrepreneurs pitching ideas, engineers working with designers, and more.`Imagine if the gateway to the Piedmont High School campus were a new S.T.E.A.M. building that combined disciplines, facilitated project-based learning, and inspired our students to create. What a gift to Piedmont that would be.`Thank you for your consideration,`Piedmont Makers Board of Directors:David Ragones, President, Beach Parent. Bryan Cantrill, Secretary, Beach Parent. Ayyana Chakravartula, Treasurer, VP Tech Social, Wildwood Parent. Patrick Collins, VP School Maker Faire, Beach Parent. Jane Lin, VP Makerspace, Beach Parent. Sally Aldridge, VP Makerspace, PMS Rep Wildwood, PMS Parent. Wendi Sue, VP Makerspace, Wildwood Parent. Dion Lim, VP Tech Social, PMS Parent. Noelle Filippenko, VP Tech Social, Havens Parent alumni. Kurt Fleischer, VP Mentorship, Beach, PHS Parent. Jason Meil, VP Art & Design, Havens, PMS Parent. Larraine Seiden, VP Art & Design, Havens Parent. Vince Monical, PHS Rep, PHS Parent.
Editors’ Note: Opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Content on the PCA website by Piedmont Civic Association is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Some icons are Copyright © Yusuke Kamiyamane