Oops, a typo made it into the article--the interim housing proposal at Van Meter would use portables that have been on-site at Van Meter for 12 years. These portables were originally slated for removal as part of the 2001 Measure B plan, and now they are scheduled to be removed after Van Meter's new classroom building is completed.

First off, this comments section should follow the story not way down here...just $.02.

My thinking is if you have a kid at VM, you'll be totally upset about the plan but if you have a kid at Lex you will see VM parents as being inflexible. Personally, I don't think it's fair for VM to carry this load...because I have kids at VM. :)

Thank you for your comment. I agree, it is confusing to have the comments all the way at the bottom, after last week's re-cap. I'll ask my editor about this formatting issue.
Regarding Lexington School, I think the school board/district should take several steps back and look at the big picture. Yes, everyone is concerned about cost, but our primary concern is what is best for every student in the district. Would having interim housing for Lexington at Van Meter provide the best learning environment that the district can provide for those 800-plus children during the construction period? Regarding a new Lexington School, has the district considered alternatives to its current plan? It seems to me that a special and unique school like Lexington, with its IB World School designation, should be nurtured, supported and proclaimed. I also think children from anywhere in the district should have an equal opportunity to attend a special school like this. That means that the school needs to have the capacity to accept more students. Maybe we should consider converting one of the other three schools to the IB World School model? Perhaps move the Lexington program wholesale to one of the other schools and divide the 200 displaced students between the other two schools? We'd still need a new school in the mountains, but Lexington would be safe, and the district could take a hard look at projected growth and figure out how big the mountain school needs to be.

Hi, Dyan. Very well written article and good questions are being raised. I do want to point out that the California Department of Education makes RECOMMENDATIONS about student density per acre but unfortunately there is no hard and fast requirement to adhere to those recommendations. Special funding is available for Critically Overcrowded Schools, but as overcrowded as we are, we are not at that threshhold. As to capacity at Van Meter, remember that we have 6 or 7 classes currently in the portables, so 6 or 7 classrooms of the new 10 room addition will be filled. Plus this year we have one of our 4th grade classes in one of our flex rooms, so that fills another classroom. Add to that expected growth in the surrounding district, and we may be forced to add 2 more classrooms, so in my mind, that is all 10 classrooms filled and we still do not have a computer lab or a music room as other elementary schools. Thanks for keeping the dialog going. I personally interested in seeing how this all plays out. I am hoping for some rationality. I am hoping to see the removal of the portables from Van Meter after a long 12 years of service. See you Tuesday night!

Thank you, Carol, for clarifying that the CDE makes recommendations, not requirements. Folks also might want to check out the Patch article that has a table showing how many classrooms are available at the different schools in the district-- go to "news" and "school news" or try this link:
http://losgatos.patch.com/articles/los-gatos-schools-near-capacity

Well, tonight's meeting should be fun. I am stuck in the middle. I live in the Lex district but my kids went to VM. They started out at VM so I kept them there.

I believe that Lex should be rebuilt. I believe that it should stay in the mountains. I think it should be built to hold more kids and we should consider using alternative energy in the planning of the project. (None of the other schools are green which I believe is irresponsible and a huge mistake.)

Lexington school should not be housed at VM. It would be too crowded and there fore not a good learning environment for all involved.

More and more houses are being built and people are moving into the area to take advantage of the school system. We have already paid taxes for the new schools perhaps people moving into the area and new developments should pay a special school tax. If this is already being done, excuse my ignorance. There, I said it, now both sides can be mad at me.

Update: the word going around is that the school district is not going to use Van Meter for Lexington interim housing during construction. (If all goes according to plan, the Lexington project is supposed to be "shovel-ready" by June 2012. If that deadline slips, the price tag goes up at least another $800K, at which point the school board said it would meet again and reconsider next steps.) So much is still up in the air, but it looks like at least the issue of interim housing at Van Meter is behind us. All Lexington and Van Meter families should be happy about that, since I heard at the board meeting that Van Meter is currently at 117 percent of capacity. Now we all need to work together to get Lexington built and address the current and future district-wide capacity issues. On Superintendent Abatti's blog http://superintendent-blog.blogspot.com/, she mentions that she and Assistant Superintendent Paulides will hold community meetings to discuss how to plan for future growth in the district, as part of the district's update of its 10-year facilities master plan.