Here is a list of events leading up to BCS and LASD going back to court.

5/7/12
Joint statement read at both board meetings.


5/14/12
Doug Smith Presents Long Term Tentative Agreement to LASD Board Meeting


5/21/12
Draft of Long Term Agreement issued by LASD. The Long Term Agreement is quite different from the Joint Statement and what was presented on 5/14/12.



5/22/12
Ken Moore sends out letter to BCS community which includes the top 10 Objections to the 5/21/12 long term agreement. The Objections are also sent to the LASD Board of Trustees.


5/31/12
Court issues Writ


5/31/12
LASD issues a Term Sheet. The term sheet is very similar to the Long Term Agreement issued on 5/21/12. It is very different than the terms agreed to in the Joint Statement issued on 5/7/12



6/1/12
Ken More sends email to Mark Goines in response to the term sheet: He asks Mark Goines to return to the agreed upon terms of the 5/7/12 Joint Statement

6/1/12
Mark Goines sends letter to LASD community explaining that LASD has given BCS a term sheet. It does not mention that BCS has already objected to most of the terms in the sheet.


6/8/12
Letter is sent from Ken Moore to LASD BoT asking them to return to terms agreed upon in mediation which were listed in the 5/7/12 Joint Statement.


6/8/12
Letter from Mark Goines to LASD Community explaining that LASD will be going back to court.

Here are the links related to time line. They will be posted in the next several messages. The links are two the documents mentioned on the time line.

5/7/12
Joint statement read at both board meetings.
Web Link

5/14/12
Doug Smith Presents Long Term Tentative Agreement to LASD Board Meeting
Web Link

5/21/12
Draft of Long Term Agreement issued by LASD.
Web Link

Web Link

5/21/12
Draft of Long Term Agreement issued by LASD.
Web Link

Web Link

Sorry about the double post. Here is the continuation.
5/22/12
Ken Moore sends out letter to BCS community.
Web Link

Top 10 Objections to the draft of the Proposed Long Term Agreement.
Web Link

5/31/12
Court issues Writ
Web Link">Web Link

5/31/12
LASD issues a Term Sheet. 
Web Link">Web Link

6/1/12
Ken More sends email to Mark Goines in response to the term sheet:
Web Link

6/1/12
Mark Goines sends letter to LASD community
Web Link

6/8/12
Letter from Ken Moore to LASD BoT asking them to return to the May 7th agreement
Web Link">Web Link

6/8/12
Letter from Mark Goines to LASD Community.
Web Link">Web Link

disgusting...simply disgusting on so many levels. I feel sad for the kids. Its a shame some are so hungry to keep OUT those they decide are not worthy of being at a PUBLIC school.

"The move surprised officials at LASD, according to Goines. The district's board of trustees approved an interim agreement with Bullis at a its June 4 public meeting."

Instead of just taking Goines' word for it, how about doing some research on how the events unfolded? The "move" could not have surprised anyone - the LASD board voted on their version of "interim agreement" which they knew wouldn't be acceptable to BCS, as it was no longer based on the actual framework the two sides have agreed upon and announced together on May 7th. The LASD Board members were personally served the writ of mandate from the court at the start of that board meeting (due to the fact that the district attorneys declined to accept it on their behalf). It was apparent that the District had already prepared the Press Release to that effect - the superintendent sent it out as soon as they were out of the court room on Friday.

Your reporting makes it sound like the two sides came to an interim agreement, the LASD board voted to approve it, but was surprised to asked to be back in court under the 'writ".

I sincerely hope the reporters everywhere would be little bit more diligent in getting to the facts, and not show any bias toward either side.

It is surprising to read that the Goines stated that the "move surprised LASD." After BCS countered with 10 objections to LASD's proposals without BCS's input, LASD expect BCS to accept to what them come out with? It is clear that LASD BoT presented a bad faith offer and going back to court seems to be the only consequence that could happen. Not surprising at all.

It's hard to imagine that the judge will find the offer from LASD compliant. It still has the K-6 on less space than any of the other BCS schools. They moved the middle school but unfortunately put all the extra acreage over with the middle school. I think that the judge will not view this favorably, and yet another example, of bad faith.
I too feel sorry for all the kids--LASD could have solved this problem long ago without displacing anyone.

This article contains many errors. Please read the original documents by following the links that I have posted above.

It is no wonder that the community is so divided and confused.

Sadly the writer of this story did not even do a minimum of homework and truth seeking before writing this story.

The reality is that what Mark Goines says is simply not true. THe truth (supported by the minutes of both BCS and LASD school board meetings) is that LASD changed the agreed upon framework and removed the very two things (a campus by 2014 and a long term arrangement) that motivated BCS to give up a) attorney fees, b) a campus sooner and c) a cap additional space even if enrollment increases.

LASD knew this but painted the agreement they voted on as the mediated framework even though it included neither a) a campus by 2014 or b) a long term agreement yet still had the BCS giving up everything. To hear Mark Goines speak, what they proposed was exactly what resulted from the mediation. Shame on Mark for once again misleading the community.

LASD showed more of the bad faith that the Appellate Court cited. They delayed things enought to keep from giving a campus this year but certainly have damaged any credibility they had left. The Emperor has no clothes and the community is realizing it.

Disappointing article from a publication which typically covers this issue well.
The timeline posted by a reader above, helps clarify Goines' malintent.

As for Egan Parent's comment...I've pondered that question many times; is he a liar or an idiot, or both? but by stirring the community into a state of panic & worry that their school will be closed and by unilaterally pulling out of negotiations in which he 'leaked' the wrong agreement & blamed it on BCS...
I wonder is he's an evil genius. Is he just hoping to keep offering garbage to BCS in the hope that they'll give up & just accept the subpar facilities & space they already have?

The BCS parents I've met don't want to take anyone's school away, but they would like their children to be treated fairly & reasonably under the law of California (and under common decency).

You need 5K per year to get into Bullis. You cannot be an ESL student or have any learning disabilities. Its a club mentality used to keep out the "less desirables".
Have you ever seen their application? Lots of questions asked to wed out the above that are not asked on any other application I've ever read
Blech.

BULL-S School commentor you are WRONG! My daughter was LUCKY to get in through the lottery. There is no REQUIRED tuition fees. All schools ask for donations. Bullis students get less money than all other LASD students. I have personally watched the events listed above by Lynn Reed unfold this year. The documents are there for anyone who cares to know the truth. The LASD have acted unethically and deceitful and I hope that everyone begins to realize that. Bullis had no choice but to go back to court. Also, my daughter has had an amazing educational experience there and I feel extremely lucky for that.

Bull-S , you are indeed full of Bull, but I guess you already knew that you were making that stuff up.
BCS does not charge tuition
BCS does not select or keep out students.
BCS is a public school. Charter schools are public schools. They are just run by someone other that the school district.

MV mom of Bullis student says: "The LASD have acted unethically and deceitful and I hope that everyone begins to realize that. Bullis had no choice but to go back to court."

The BCS Board wants you to believe that. But it's not true. There was enough common ground remaining in the agreement that something could have been worked out. But the BCS Board gave up and decided to go back to court. That was their choice, but it was not their only choice.

BCS ansolutely discriminates against ELL, special needs and lower socio economic students. Families from 2004 to present have horrific stories to share. Their voices will eventually be heard.

Doug Smith says he backed out of the mediated agreement because the parents told him "they had built their lives around the current school structure and they didn't want their children to change schools". Really? That's all it takes for the district to scrap their plans? The trustees are catering to the few vocal minority who values convenience of walking to school over everything else. Is this a case of "squeaky wheel" getting what they want? I would take the non-elected, appointed, self-perpetuating non-profit board of directors who focus on the mission of the body they are serving over this wishy-washy elected trustees who panders to the loudest lobbying group.

To "Seriously?"
Do you have the facts to back up your discrimination allegation or are you simply repeating hearsay?

It is time that the Bullis Charter Community pitch in to help find a site OTHER THAN ONE OF LASD's existing NIEGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS.
Past wrongs and LASD Board Members' mistakes aside, it is clearly wrong NOW to want to displace a community's neighborhood school just because you CAN if you sue enough times.
Unfortunately, BCS is not a typical "public" charter school because there are endless funds in the BCS budget to continue legal battles over facilities which just don't exist in the LASD. It is too bad that BCS doesn't just take the high ground and do the RIGHT thing by using those legal funds to build themselves a great school.

Let's GIVE Lynn Reed, who is a teacher at Bullis, her own column. Too much to read. Lynn Read, I also graduated from Foothill College with a degree in Special Education. In one of my classes, I presented to the students, the facts, in that Bullis is a disservice to disabled students. Even with my theatrics, most yawned because of too much info. This scenario is all part of a bigger cultural problem: just like my parents attitude, there's no money for education, whether it's for their own kids, and certainly not for other community kids. Those that have extra deep pockets, feel senselessly entitled. It's a shame they can't put their energy to better use for the good of the greater community. Enough with the lawsuits. Move on.

To "Kathy"

It's not about "Past wrongs and LASD Board Members' mistakes aside," and it's not about displacing "a community's neighborhood school just because you CAN if you sue enough times.".

The demographics have changed since the last boundary change of 2007, which by the way was predicted by the demographers and Trustee Mark Goines to not last more than 5 years. Enough children have left the district schools for BCS to fill an entire campus. (460+ as of 2011-12 school year.) The empty spaces left by the movement of these children mean that trustees should consolidate the remaining students and redraw the attendance boundary, and provide a proper campus to house those 460+ kids. School districts everywhere shifts boundaries as a fact of life. Trustees who are elected to oversee the public resources should be fair in distributing that resources to all children, not just to those who complain the loudest - "they had built their lives around the current school structure and they didn't want their children to change schools". Really?? Is that the best reason for a Trustee to back out of a mediation?

Hello "Prove it",

Yes, I have facts to base this on, not hearsay.

let's see those facts!

Oh "Be Rational" take your own advice and look at the expected growth from N. El Camino + other new housing in the district. There is no "extra space" anywhere. Time to be responsible for choosing BCS and play a part in finding a respectful solution to the facilities issues we all face.

To "Kathy" -
Yes, the space up north is tight - that's even more of a compelling reason to move BCS to either Covington or Gardner Bullis campus, and develop the Egan Camp site (where BCS is now) into a proper district school, for about 350 kids. That'll relieve the overcrowding at Santa Rita (and return the kids living in Yerba Santa Triangle area back to Santa Rita from GB) and Almond (and return H2G kids back to Almond from Springer), return the kids in Crossings to their "closest" school from Covington, as well as having some room for future growth from the new developments. Here's a quote for you from Mark Goines, made in 2007 when he was voting NO to reopening of Gardner Bullis and the new attendance boundary:
""The new attendance areas will not last more than five years," Goines said in an e-mail to the Town Crier. "These boundaries will relieve some of the overcrowding at two of our schools, Santa Rita and Almond. According to forecasts, one or both of these schools will again become overcrowded and, when implemented in 2008, turn too many walkers into drivers.""

OR - I am not sure I get your point. I posted a time line. I posted it so that people could go and look at the original documents for themselves. I then posted the links - and the format here only lets you post a few links at a time. It became a long list. If you don't want to read it, then no one is forcing you to. I am not sure I get your point about Foothill. I went to Foothill as well. I didn't study Education there though - I was a geology major . If your point was to personally attack me, that didn't work very well either.

Oh "Be Rational'....again you are not being rational. You do not see the value of something that, in fact, prompted the opening of BCS in the first place: NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS.
That is what this is about.
It doesn't matter who said what when. We are here today. And today BCS seeks to displace roughly the same number of children that are in their own community out of a school so that they can inhabit that school.
It is clearly a disservice to the families in the area surrounding the school for which BCS seeks to seize. Perhaps jogging the numbers here and there will allow space enough for BCS to be housed at one of the existing sites and for that school community to dissolve into all the others, but BCS will never escape the selfishness of the action. That seems like an irrational move for anyone who cares about a sense of community.

Be rational — I think that is a great solution. Currently Covington has two neighborhoods that attend the school, the area around Covington and The Crossings. If you opened a new school for Covington North at the current BCS site, you could really solve a number of pressing problems. You could install a smaller LASD school at Egan - making sharing easier. This school could draw from the neighborhood around Egan as well as the Crossings and some of the other NEC neighborhoods. This school could prevent crowding and wouldn't cost nearly as much as acquiring a piece of commercial property and building a school there. Even with a 350 student school there you could still eventually move six graders to the middle schools.

In the area around Covington most people would still have a school very close by. Opening the new school would open up space at Almond. In addition Springer is very close by, and Loyola is not much further. GB could pick up the south of Foothill area that currently goes to Covington as well as the area west of El Monte. Or current Covington students could opt to attend the new school with their classmates.

Using the current Bullis camp site you could put this plan into action right now.
Let's do it.

I suspect that Kathy is David Cortright/ Joan J Strong

To "Kathy" -

Where do you think the BCS kids came from?
You use words like "inhabit", "seize", "selfishness"... as if the kids descended upon this area. The BCS kids are from LASD. They would be going to one of the 9 schools if BCS program didn't exist. Yes, we are here today. And since the BoTs, with all their good intentions, couldn't provide reasonably equivalent facilities for the last 8 years, the courts will now do it for them. Perhaps they were powerless to do the right thing in part because they were fearful of offending parents who insist that "they had built their lives around the current school structure and they didn't want their children to change schools".

Still waiting for the facts from Seriously

"sleuth".... I am not Dave Cortright or Joan J Strong - I am one of MANY parents who want to see a better solution to the facilities issue than closing one of the neighborhood schools.

"hmmmm"....unfortunately, when demands are made from the BCS board that seek to do a disservice to others for the sake of their own, the act is frankly -'selfish' (not to mention the 'exclusive use' demands). The BCS goal is to 'inhabit' a different site (is this an incorrect assessment?) and using the courts to 'seize' a school is EXACTLY what appears to be the intent of the BCS board. Obviously none of OUR children are responsible for this, the boards and parents are.
here is a word that you left off your vocab list: COMMUNITY - perhaps you should study the meaning of that word and how to apply it all of LASD.

Sure there are lots of parents that might POST what you did. Putting some words in CAPITALS gives you away though. Most people do not do that as often and as consistently as you do. That's not the only reason that you gave yourself away. Your new aliases usually originate here. Town Square rather than on Patch or the TC. I think it may be because you don't have to post your email address. Not sure.

Lynn Reed: I'm sure you're a wonderful teacher and I would support you and all other great teachers. However, I would not suggest readers are full of Bull. Within Bullis's website, Web Link the paragraph states that each BCS student costs $11,131 to educate per year. Correct? So, BCS receives 6000 of taxpayer money. That means, someone has to pay the 5,131 dollar bill! Most of us can't be lottery winners. Through generous tax-deductible donations, those funds could cover kids whose parents can't afford the school. Suppose the entire student body were low-income with a high disabled population whose parents work in retail, work as gardeners, maids, drivers and such. Could the school financially survive? No. You can tout FREE all day long but some portion of the parent demography has to pay and pay is definitely "encouraged" by the admissions counselor through the Moore Challenge Grant. The facts are on your own website.

Simple question: What is the percentage of special need students (including ESL) at BCS in comparison with other schools in the district?

I would suggest that if the lottery was held before one had to fill out the application form with so many questions that could be used to weed out ESL and others who could not pay 5K per year, that the numbers would be more in line with the district average. Just because people can say with a straight face that BSC does not try and limit acceptance of these students does not change the obvious reality that the numbers clearly show.

'sleuth'....how funny you are trying to make it seem that only two people disagree with closing a neighborhood school. You can pretend that you can narrow down who I am by the CAPS i use.....Chances are, though, I am one of your next door neighbors- or someone who buys milk in line next to you - or someone sitting next to you watching their child's sports game from the stands. I represent most parents in the LASD who want to find a solution to the facilities problem without closing a neighborhood school. I am simply one of MANY parents who disagree that the way to solve the problem of our facilities shortages is to beat down on a single community of families. I represent parents who want to see peace in our community - who want the best for ALL students.
Displacing an existing school is clearly NOT the answer because of the animosity it will create in our community. I think almost everyone can agree on that.

@ Kathy: It's unfortunate that you don't see that BCS students have been "displaced" illegally by the LASD for the past 8 years. LASD BoT have been shifting boundary every 5 years. LASD parents raised their voices whenever there was a boundary shift. However, in the end, the best way to focus the children's education is help them adjust to the new school environment and move on. LASD is due for another boundary shift. Wouldn't it be less disruptive if it can be done with accomodating all the children in LASD?

"concerned".....attending BCS is a choice made by parents in the district and elsewhere. They are all aware of the facilities when they apply at the school. I didn't start out at our school thinking "gosh someday I would love to encroach on a different site here in the district and displace 400+ students." Or "my school community deserves a better facility, that school over there looks better, I want that.....let's go to court".

I don't believe that most of the parents at BCS feel that way either. I am guessing that most parents at BCS would like to find an alternative to displacing another school. I believe that the majority of all LASD parents want a solution that offers peace. Displacing a school does NOT offer peace and no matter how scorned BCS feels about the site they are in now, it just cannot escape the ethics of the situation.

OR - You are correct, BCS receives $6000 per student. BCS is a public school so like any other school it is funded through tax dollars. LASD receives $10,500 per student in tax dollars. About $4500 more per student than does BCS. It would be great if public tax dollars were shared equally between all public school children. They are not. Parents at BCS make up the difference in funding. This doesn't mean that they are anymore well off than other residents of the Los Altos School District. (The vast majority of which are well above the average family income level for Santa Clara County) There is no requirement to pay. It is not tuition. It is the exact same thing as LAEF. Some parents pay $5000, some pay more and some don't pay anything at all. The parents who pay more make up the difference for the parents who can't afford to pay. I do not know which families are not paying. It really isn't a topic of conversation at BCS. I do personally know of some parents who do not pay or pay less than the ask. I know because they told me. That is the only way I would know that.

I am a parent as well as a teacher and I pay the $5000 because I value the programs that are offered at BCS. If my son was attending Loyola ( Our assigned school - not really in our neighborhood though) I suspect that we would pay the $1000 donation that is asked by LAEF. I think that is important to support your child's school. I don't think we should be having a contest about who donates less money. That money goes to paying teachers salaries and instructional materials. It's supporting programs that wouldn't exist without the funding. Programs that I am sure we all value. I encourage everyone to donate what they can afford to their PTA and Education Foundations. As a teacher I really appreciate it, and I want to thank everyone who donates. I also really appreciate the time that many parents donate to their child's school. Thank you all for your efforts.

If you would like information about BCS please visit the BCS website. Here is a link to the Accountability Data:
Web Link

@ Kathy: The legal obligation of LASD BoT is to provide fair facility to all school-aged children who reside in LASD boundary. It has nothing to do with the existence of BCS. And you are right. The parents who chose BCS for their children because they believed in BCS's innovative programs and it's commitment to put education first. They did not choose it because of its facilities. Prop 39 was created to protect all the charter schools in the state from unfair treatments from the local school districts. It is not displacing a local "neighborhood" school. It is sharing all school facilities equally with all pubic school students.

'concerned'....
it is simple:

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

I notice nobody from the pro Bullis contingency has posted the percentage of special needs and ESL students they have compared to the district average.

A glaring omission so far. THIS is why they started the charter in the first place, to keep out the riff raff, and their numbers show that they are doing that quite well. Accepting a minimum of tokens may satisfy the legalities, but the reality is there for all to see.
Its so sickening in today's society.
Increase the number of ESL/Special needs students to match the district average, or continue looking stupid when you say you don't actively work to keep those student out.

"It is sharing all school facilities equally with all pubic school students."

Then they should open up enrollment to all PRIOR to them knowing how much money the family makes or what the primary language at home it.
Suggest that and see them bristle and run for the hills!
Oh, and they're using our money to do this all.

@Kathy: I agree with your quote.

"Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.

But I guess we just have different interpretation of it. I believe in this case the right thing to do is to share all facilities with all students.

Just another example of the government (LASD) spending virtually unlimited resources (your tax dollars) to fight this in court.

Where they have lost at every turn. Yet they keep fighting.. because it's not their money.

Like it or not BCS is owed what they are asking for. It's California law. When charter schools were created, by law, I'm sure people didn't see this happening. But that's how it goes. Unintended consequences and all that.

Otto-great point. It's the law. And if LASD just complied with the law, or common decency the lawsuits would end.

BUT LASD board members, rather than being incompetent, are Machiavellian geniuses--they know that if they end up in court they can blame it on the charter which allows them to distract their constituents from the board's own short comings. The more discord the make, the better it is for them.

Why else would they threaten every LASD school that they may be closed? To build up anti-charter activists.

Why else would they walk away from the negotiations they were so cared about? Why else would they 'leak' the WRONG data sheet?

To protect their entrenched interests, not what's best for all our children. Not look forward to the challenges of the 21st century, but to look in the rear view mirror.

Why doesn't LASD just give the people what they want? Which is MORE charter, not less?

What's my basis for that statement? The 450+ kids who apply to the Bullis LOTTERY every year.

So I beg the LASD Board STOP THE DISCORD, FOLLOW THE LAW and GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT-Palo Alto does & would do so.

Don't distract your constituents from the real issue, and feed on their resentment that the admission lottery didn't go their way.

PS The nerve of Lynn Reed to give facts & data, free of opinion, hence letting people know what their LASD board is really doing! And the nerve of her to use her real name and be proud of it! Gosh, Joan J Strong and Cortright's cronies hide behind aliases. Shame on Lynn for properly informing the community.

My kid has an IEP at Bullis.
It's not anyone's business but mine & my child's...I don't need to broadcast it--we've been very happy with the services we've received.
Was it easy? No. Is it ever easy with an IEP? No.
You know who provides the services for any kid with an IEP?
The county, not the school, not the school district.
So stop with the lies.

'concerned'..you only mean equal sharing of facilities when it applies to someone else's school. If BCS dissolved, the children could go back to their home LASD school, which may help with our overcrowding issue {though I still see a need for more facilities with the growth occurring in new housing units}.
But that isn't considered by BCS folks is it? They only want equality when it means that their school stays intact. So it isn't really about EQUAL and 'for ALL LASD kids'- only those that don't go to BCS.

So you don't really UNDERSTAND the quote.

I agree 90% chance that Kathy is Joan J Strung
Maybe she was banned from this forum. So much for the branding.

Still no comparative percentages as to how many special needs or ESL students are accepted into Bullis compared to the district average, just anecdotal info(tokenism)
Seems mentioning this is like mentioning illegals at the day worker center in MV: "Don't bring THAT up, we'll look bad."
Equality runs both directions Bullis exclusionists. You need to go private IMO. Seems you're acting private with public funds, which means you're screwing over the district.

The Bullis vs LASD issue in a nutshell. Enjoy!

Web Link