LASD is a bully. But, irrespective, Bullis Charter continues to provide an excellent program to its students and is the envy of LASD. History will tell how wrong LASD is/was.

Yah, yah, Strong is going to post next. We all know what he/she has to say, blah, blah, blah

Sorry, it's not Joan- it's me.

LASD isn't a bully. We require everyone who uses District facilities to sign a Facilities Use Agreement. Bullis has done it in the past, and their parents did it last summer when they wanted to use District space for a summer camp.

Despite the tone of the most recent letter, I am grateful for the constructive engagement in other parts of the prop 39 process this year. I remain hopeful that calm voices can prevail, and will set the tone for future discussions between the parties.

400 pages. 3 day deadline. Boilerplate not. Say no more. Not enforceable.

Yoda am I.

The dark side wrote that one sided alleged contact. May the force be with BullisMdjs

Web Link is a link that applies.

If you follow any of this, then you would know that LASD and BCS have been in negotiations over the facility use agreement and other parts of the Prop 39 process. What was in the FUA was negotiated over that time and should not come as a surprise. In other words, delivering it to BCS 3 days before the due date was just a formality. The text was known by BCS members on the Prop 39 committee weeks in advance.

Let's stop the accusations here and now work together get a bond past that will be of benefit to all.

No way way on God's Green Earth am I going to vote for a bond to help clean up this mess. Ask the lawyers they have the money now.

Yes, let's do pass a bond that benefits all public school children. I hope LASD fixes the language they will use for the bond. At this point, there is no indication in the beautiful LASDmailer that BCS will benefit from the passing of the bond. Who paid for those beauties anyway? Maybe LASD can wish for a second bond to pay for fancy marketing materials.

That's a load of hooey. The 400 page contract delivered at the last minute 4 days after the original deadline from the facilities offer to have a finalized version signed. If there were no changes on the part of the district, then why delay in presenting it. The problem is that the district hadn't finished its own requested agreement in time to present with the final offer of facilities. They were still making material changes after that. The entire contract is sullied by the failure to have a clear picture of the intent on each side of the agreement. That's why these things have a normal way of unfolding, a back and forth where the originator of the agreement stops making their own changes that are not responsive to requested from the correspondent. In this case, LASD made itself the originator by requiring agreement to this contract as a condition of the facilities offer which it is required to make by state law. This is wrong in so many ways it is not even funny.

One major thing is that the district sets itself up as a court to make judgement on legal matters. The district is not empowered to determine matters of law. For that, they have to go before a judge, as with any contract dispute. One side has no more power than the other. They can only allege violations of the agreement or of the law. They cannot make a 'ruling'.

These people dilly dallying until the last minute and then presenting this agreement on a short fuse are rank amateurs who ought to seek legal advice before so acting.

Hi Roode. Read what I said above, BCS and LASD board members have been meeting for weeks over the language. This was discussed and mentioned in public meetings. All knew what was coming with the FUA. Have you written a 400 page contract in under 30 days? Takes time to write down what both parties agreed to in advance. Wanny is just trying to put on a show for the press, which is unfortunate.

And how is all of this related to Mountain View exactly?

The Los Altos school district serves 75% of Los Altos, 60% of Los Altos Hills, a small neighborhood in Palo Alto, some unincorporated Santa Clara County, and yes, 20% of the City of Mountain View. The entire San Antonio shopping center redevelopment, for example, is included in the Los Altos School District (for elementary school).

If you are wonder what other school districts there are, 40% of LAH is served by PAUSD, 80% of Mountain View is served by Mountain View Whisman SD, and 25% of Los Altos is served by Cupertino Union School District for elementary school and Fremont Union High School District for High School.

I think it's all terrible.

Three step plan for solving this mess:

Step 1: Close Gardner and give that campus to BCS
Step 2: Move 6th grade to Egan/Blach Middle Schools
Step 3: Re-draw attendance boundaries for the remaining schools

Problem solved! No expensive bond measure necessary!

Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.

Too bad the reporter didn't do more investigation to offer appropriate history in this article on the FUA and the meetings/conversations/correspondence that transpired in the lengthy process that led up to the 400 page manifesto. Specifics from the text are required in a balanced news article and more importantly, the reporter going to meetings and interviewing real people the FUA affects might help make this a real article and not the incomplete news story it is.

Giving LASD access to funds from a bond measure makes no sense since they have not been able to demonstrate that 1) they are fiscally reasonable, 2) can work amicably w/ BCS, 3) set aside individual, emotional, ideological perspectives (yeah, Doug Smith, I'm talking about you), and 4) collaborate w/ other organizations in the greater Los Altos area (city council, LAHills, etc).

Vote no on the bond. No more taxes!

I'd like to point out that the homeowners residing within the LASD boundary currently pay ~$55 per $100,000 AV of their property for the 1998 bond measure that paid for modernization of the 9 schools. The new bond will tax us additional $30 per $100,000 AV - I know they don't mention the current bond payment at all in any of the bond-campaign material. And there's the $790 parcel tax on top of it all. So for a 2 million dollar house, the LASD tax alone will be nearly $2500, not to mention the high school district tax and the community college bond tax.
I'm not saying that we should not vote for this new tax - I'm saying that the LASD needs to make a great case to the voters, be as transparent as possible and be crystal clear in its objectives for this bond and actually follow it. The Board of Trustees have lost confidence of some of the voters that it can deliver on its promises - they really really need to convince us that we should pay this much in additional tax to the school district.

Right now I am voting no on the bond. My vote might change, but only if Smith, Logan and Gaines do not run for re-election.

And what improvements is LASD contemplating with this $150 Million bond measure. Well for one they are looking at an additional 8000 square foot Multipurpose room alongside the existing ones at Blach and Egan. There's also of course a Gym at those schools, a 9000 square foot one each. And then they want to make larger libraries with computer rooms at every elementary school. The ones they have are large enough, and having a computer room is so 80's. It's just not the way things are done these days with laptops. You can move 30 cheap laptops from room to room and the students can use them as part of their regular classes rather than going to some 'media center'.

Also, they want to replace portable classrooms that are in fine shape with fancier ones that are built at the school. But wait, some of those portables hold the 6th grade students, and they really should be switched to attend Jr High. But there are some parents in LASD who want their 6th graders to stay in a K-6 configuration. Well, make up your mind. For crying out loud don't build more classrooms at the K-6 schools and only THEN switch the 6th grade to the Jr High schools and make them into middle schools.

Or make a plan to have 4 classes per grade level instead of the current 3. With the K-6 configuration the district has around 3 classes of 22 in K-3 and then 3 classes of 26 in 4-6 which counts on their being more older kids per grade at each school. In any event they have around 21 classes and 520 students. Take away the 6th grade and you lose 75 kids and only have 445 kids in the school. At that point it makes the most sense to go to 4 classes per grade typical and a total of 24 classes, not the current 21. These 10 acre campuses are a waste of land to only serve 445 students. Buy more land at $8 Million per acre to create additional 450 students campuses? What a waste! And where will you find this land, and how will it work. Put a 450 student campus in north of El Camino and where are the other 300 North of El Camino kids going to attend school? 2 miles away at Covington or Almond? I don't think so. It makes again more sense to have have a larger school so that all the kids in that neighborhood can go to the same school, in general. Matt Pear is RIGHT! Don't mess around spending $75 Million on more land.

For the record, I did not post that message above that used my name, I generally never post on the MV Voice anymore and haven't for a long time*, and I don't have much of any opinion on this particular subject (the FUA).

(*That somebody is playing games like this is why I don't post here. The MV Voice draws a very childish crowd for some reason...).

It's really sad how many of the above hateful and spiteful comments are word for word from Roode's non stop Facebook rantings on false and misleading accusations against our schools. He's an admitted anonymous poster of many aliases on these types of forums. This is a time when our community needs to come together and work towards healing. Actions like David's serve nothing more but to continue the online hate.

I'm a parent in LASD and this is terrible.

Web Link

Heal is off the mark. This article is about an actual wound to Bullis. The district may claim this is a healing positive step, but it's not. It's rubbing salt in existing wounds and creeating new ones. No one can look at the details of the forced agreement and say that it in any way allows healing. The details are not covered in the article, and that's a concern that another commenter mentioned as well. There are continued taunts in the agreement, such as having allocated space restricted in usage resulting in the space sitting idle. We know the number of students used to size the space is more than a 10% underestimate. The district talks in the agreement of eviction possibilities WITHOUT ANY COURT SUPERVISION. The charges for space usage are excessive and a break with the district's own past practice, as Doug Smith admits. Why would they have not charged accurately before? They left expense money uncollected? I don't think so.

I guess its the public alternative for the Pinewood ineligible. Too bad they only cave when pressure is brought in regarding their admission records.
As long as they don't get a dime of my money, go for it. Pay for what you want in your private school, or open it up to ALL including matching the percentage numbers of ESL and special needs students that the other schools do.
Make it questionnaire-less lottery, any and all welcome, and it your name gets picked, you're in. Then it would be worthy of public funds.

I absolutely will never understand why this fight continues. I know why it started - but, to continue is unacceptable to the tax payers of Los Altos. The amount of money spent in the fight is unconscionable!!! Los Altos School District is rated as one of the highest in the State of California. Go on great schools dot org - and see the scores.
The concept of charter schools throughout the United States are necessary when existing school districts are failing to educate the students. Simply not the case in this town.

The post by Barbara illustrates perfectly why the 'fight' continues. There is no question that the Bullis Charter School is sanctioned by state law. You're not going to get rid of it. The state constrains the resources diverted to it. It's a PLUS for LASD. In Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino there are at least 2 (4 for PAUSD) district-wide magnet programs offered to all the students in the district, where they switch away from their default school. Certain parents in LASD fight this kind of choice for selfish reasons. They argue that the 40% of parents who want them are selfish. This is circular logic. Special programs are EVERYWHERE. Bullis is meeting part of that demand (but not all). So long as you attack that choice itself, you have a conflict. You are in fact objecting to state law which is not a local control problem. So of course that burns up resources. LASD is not "TOO GOOD" for charter schools. LASD offers zero Mandarin as part of any of its school classes, for example. Bullis is the only way students in LASD can have that. For that matter, LASD offers zero Spanish to grades K-6, and at Bullis starting in 5th grade, students can choose Spanish. Offering spanish instruction is not that special. Many schools do this, and there are choice programs for elementary schools to have that in Palo Alto and Mountain View.

So, we have the root of the conflict. Some parents in LASD think because they dont' care about Spanish, Mandarin, or other things, then the Bullis parents have no right to either.

And as for that Pinewood crack, keep in mind that 30% of the LASD school age population is ALREADY in private school. That doesn't excuse the public schools serving the other 70% from offering many common subjects like Spanish in elementary school This is not education for the super elite. Bullis is available to the entire district and has all income levels, even though the median income in Los Altos is astronomical compared to the rest of the county. Bullis is a public school, and a good one. It's not super fancy or elitist, and its budget per student is way within the means of LASD. Bullis and LASD both spend 1/2 the amount on each student as is done in the Woodside School District.

Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.

LASD just got $2.5 Million in private funding to build a showplace library on the Gardner Bullis campus. LASD uses private money to cut its class sizes in Jr High down to 22 or so students in Math, Science, Language Arts and Social Studies in 7th and 8th grades. Public schools in Mountain View Whisman have class sizes closer to 30 in these grades, and it is foundation money paying for the difference. LASD has PTA's spending $1000 per student at some schools and at least $500 per student at others. This is above and beyond the $3.2 Million raised annual for their district foundation to serve 4500 students. LASD gives short shrift to the special needs of the 100 or so very low income kids or even the 200 low income by their count. LASD is driven by the parents who donate money to the district. They object to Bullis because it is driven by DIFFERENT parents, and it is more egalitarian between the parents. This myth that Bullis is all Los Altos Hills kids is highly inaccurate. Bullis has plenty of kids from Mountain View. Bullis is not offering a program that is any more private school like than LASD already does. Just look at the school buildings--all portable--in which Bullis operates. They're asking for a few more portables, not for a palace like the LASD wants to build with its bond money. Adding a full scale theatre to Almond School when their existing multipurpose room was just redone in 2003 unlike the other schools? 2 multipurpose rooms and a Gym for a 500 student Jr High school? Outdoor stages at EVERY school? This sounds like a private school to me.

I have kids and no one in LASD thinks 6th grades might from being at middle schools. The don't needs access to subject specialist teachers for math, science or technology. They don't need the bigger library. They can wait to take Spanish until they are in 7th grade. This idea is too progressive. All the other school districts do it wrong.

They are pumping private money into Gardner for two reasons:

1) to make it more attractive to LAH residents

2) to keep it away from BCS

This despite the fact that letting BCS have Gardner is the easiest and most cost effective solution to the problem.

Despite the wide variety of aliases used above, the vast majority of the previous posts are from one, maybe two, notorious BCS fanatics. These same lies and distortions are posted on every forum imaginable in a flawed attempt to create the impression that there is broad based opposition to LASD and it's policies. It's. Just. Not. True.

As was stated above, the FUA was jointly negotiated by the LASD and BCS leadership. Wanny claims it's under "duress and protest" because one of her primary job functions is to protect and preserve the BCS-as-victim narrative. Not exactly a good way to facilitate an end to the conflict. But then again, I don't believe for a second BCS leaders actually wants the conflict to end... They have a broader agenda.

I can just see the LASD narrative now.

"Gee, BCS, we'd like to give you Gardner but the community has put over $10M of private money into that school. It's not ours to give away anymore. But how about we give you this patch of grass over at the Jr. High school? Doesn't that sound fair?"

@Los Altos Parent -- First, continuing the decade old demand from BCS to take away an existing neighborhood school campus is a great way to make friends and positively influence people. Even if LASD did offer up the GB campus to BCS, the charter school's aggressive growth agenda has resulted in enrollment that now exceeds the capacity of GB to handle. Unless of course BCS was willing to take less than their "fair share" -- which they've shown zero inclination to do. It really is moot at this point though. The community will never support handing over a neighborhood school to BCS and the courts will never force that outcome. Give it up.

That's where the dirt lies, and that is why Bullis gets VEEEERY nervous whenever it is brought up.

When Bullis has equal ESL and special needs student numbers as do our other district schools, I won't call them elitist and exclusionary.
If they are serving the entire district equally, there should be no questionnaire, there should only be a number drawn from a hat.

BCS actually has around the same number of special needs students as LASD.
BCS starts out with more ESL kids in kindergarten - it just moves them out of the program much faster. LASD has a very poor ESL program kids are staying in there for ever.

Does Bullis Charter School support special-needs kids?
The short answer is, BCS calls out exactly 0% of their budget for special-needs kids, so clearly they don't spend much (if any) money on the problem.

The longer answer shows just how cynical BCS can be when it comes to lying in order to make themselves look better.

In short, BCS says "yes, we take special needs kids". What they in fact mean is that they will provide a mechanism to hand these kids off to the County, where a parent might expect to be able to attend a school in some other town.

So in short, a special-needs education at BCS consists of giving BCS $5000/year so your child can be shipped off to some other school that students in any other school in the county might attend. This is along side of our own most excellent local options in our neighborhood public schools.

One can surmise, therefore, that the reason BCS apparently spends near zero dollars on special-needs is that virtually nobody would take them up on this "deal".

This issue is very important because it speaks to the financial model for BCS. The reason why BCS has so much more money than our District to spend on typical students is that they leave this very expensive problem for our District (and us parents) to deal with.

private schooling is the way to go. Anything run by govt is a failover over time. NO competition, = complacency. IE VA, USPs, soon the Obamacare will turn the same. No accountability in Big Govt business.

I'll vote no on any bond. They already get enough money, but like this the Public schools are helping feed the lawyers with money that was meant for the kids. This is a shame!!

If parents paid for their kids education, i'm sure their interests in the schools affairs would be number 1.

The draft appeals court motion is due on Tuesday 5/27. This is the appeal relating to Judge Lucas' decision to create Groundhog Day for BCS with every years' non-compliant facilities offer.

Should be an interesting read. Oral arguments from each side are due this summer.

Get your popcorn. Web Link

@nan "BCS actually has around the same number of special needs students as LASD. BCS starts out with more ESL kids in kindergarten - it just moves them out of the program much faster. LASD has a very poor ESL program kids are staying in there for ever."

That's a myth Lynn Reed keeps posting on Facebook. A very arrogant and naive one too, especially since Lynn is a teacher at BCS. Truth is the level of ESL students between LASD and BCS is likely different (difficult vs easier), otherwise why hasn't BCS offered to share the secret of their "superior" program? Lynn should be ashamed.

THe truth can be upsetting, but LASD is not perfect. The problem is that when certain zealots try and discredit BCS they run into a problem, LASD just doesn't do that well with certain groups of students. Facts are facts. Teachers understand the stats because it's part of their job. Should we just ignore the achievement gap?

I think BCS teachers and administrators would be happy to share their programs and methods with LASD. Ask the LASD union teachers why they don't want to collaborate.

Unfortunately, the core of BCS is rotten. They promulgate lies as revenge for a good decision by LASD to close an under-subscribed school.

The rest is just greed by BCS to take public funds for use in a private school. A complete bastardization of the charter school law. Shame on them!

Bullis does provide a very good program to it's students but at the expense of LASD. Let's take only the top rich students and give them an elite school and take the money from LASD and split the community. There are many other schools that provide excellent programs to rich people. Consider Harker, Stratford, Challenger, etc. The difference is that those are funded by their own students. They don't take public funds to educate those rich kids.

Bullis has talked of expanding beyond the currently planned 900 students up to 1200 or 1500 students or even 2000 students. Well, that would be fair. This line about not matching LASD is crazy, because that's what's making BCS grow--expanding. Being 50% of the district in size would at least mean that no one can accuse them of taking just the top 10%--see what I mean? Really, it's a random lottery anyway, but, whatever is needed.

I can't believe that some clown is still trying to paint Bullis Charter as the "Richie Rich school" LOL… who believes that crud? Stop trying to insult my intelligence. A bunch of my neighbors are sending their kids to the charter school, and they are the same as us, doing alright, but not rich, just like most everyone else in the southern reaches of Mountain View.

Yes there are some really wealthy people in Los Altos Hills , and some of them send their kids to public schools. I heard that one of them just gave a huge donation to Gardner Bullis. If you want to point to a public school with some really wealthy families I would start there.

I wonder how that will work out? Will the best teachers get moved to Gardner Bullis to meet the needs of the wealthy donor?

This is why Bullis refuses to share enrollment information without a court order. It looks so bad that their school is predominately wealthy families with kids that have no special needs. Better hide the data!

Of course there are students in BCS that are not mega-wealthy. However, that is not relevant. What is relevant is that the charter school system was put in place to help improve poorly performing school districts. In this case, it is merely an attempt to divert public funds to a private school. To benefit whom? To those who don't need it!

Corruption, pure and simple...

So many half-truths and outright lies are being said here. I would like to believe that most rational adults will not simply believe everything they read online, but I have to wonder how many will actually do their own homework to really understand this complex and messy issue... At the minimum, I hope you all will refrain from simply repeating whatever you read online...

Don't forget to read the 400 page "usage agreement" whereby the school board attempts to take back the sharing required of it based on the number of its own students who have choosen the charter school. 400 pages is indeed a long read. Part of it is where the school board illegally sets itself up as a court with the power to judge and to enforce compliance with its legal obligations to provide Bullis with a school site. It thinks it can side step the need to go through a judge and require that it itself be the arbitrator for dispute. This is laughable since arbitration doesn't let either party weigh the disputes and make the decisions. This is where it attempts to say that Bullis voluntarily agreed to give up access to space and to abide by unreasonable limits on the charter's program. This is where it says that the LASD schools have an inalienable right to operate after school sports programs but Bullis has not such ability. There's no reason on earth why Bullis would agree to these limits since they are procribed by state law, but LASD would have us believe that this was a voluntary usage agreement NOT required as a condition of access to state mandated sharing of an equivalent amount of facilities....

Please ignore the garbage put out by the bullis crowd. They are trying to complicate a very simple issue:

Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.

No need to look further. The rest is just legal technicalities in an attempt to cloud this simple truth.

I could be going out on a lim here…. but I am fairly certain that the reason the BCS doesn't turn over the names of its enrollees LASD is because it's not there job to do so plus they want to protect privacy. Enrollees will let the their current schools know that they are switching schools or are not enrolling for next year.

Also if you were enrolling in BCS would you want your current LASD school to know? I can think of nothing more scary that an inquisition by the Hutts and their school district cronies. They already have some intimidating rovers working over the preschool moms. There are some active scare your neighbor groups in the Covington and Almond neighborhoods. The groups are a bad idea and I think the Hutts should rethink this strategy, who would want to have their kids at an LASD were people are trying to scare you into attending?

Corruption pure and simple -- Take a look at the LASD trustees:

Misusing 1998 bond money to build themselves posh district offices and a board room, while district kids still have portables.

Pushing another capital improvement bond while taxpayers are STILL paying off the 1998 bond with its projects left uncompleted.

Misstating its own Enrollment Growth Task Force's recommendation to build two new school sites as a vague recommendation to "renovate facilities and add more classrooms."

Taking "donations" from a resident in exchange for providing legal services to that resident trying to obtain the videotaped deposition of a charter leader.

Using taxpayer dollars to wage war on the most successful charter school in the state.

Using taxpayer dollars to conduct a survey measuring their own popularity.

Misusing their power to protest the development of a senior assisted living facility adjacent to their home (getting fined $5k for this misuse of power).

****
By comparison, a public charter school created by the legislature and receiving 60% of the funds given to district schools, that is providing an award-winning DISTINGUISHED education with EXEMPLARY programs in STEAM, performing arts and individualized education, whose demand exceeds spaces by 6:1 -- now that's a GIFT to taxpayers.

Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.

Public money used to fund a public school for students chosen by random lottery because it is so popular, at 60% of the cost to educate district students.

That's a bargain for taxpayers. Pure and simple.

Public money funding a public school at 60% of the cost. This makes sense in ANY community.

"Public money used to fund a public school for students chosen by random lottery because it is so popular, at 60% of the cost to educate district students. "

By random lottery? Really? What percent of Bullis students were chosen randomly? Answer? Zero.

Why? The lottery only comes into play if there are spots open after all of the wealthy families in a specific geographic area. The priority system is documented for all to see. A very wealthy geographic area. Of course there are never any spots left open.

The costs to regular LASD students is staggering as the Bullis mafia continues to abuse the court system in an attempt to punish the school district for a perceived past transgression.

If their system was truly 60 pct of actual, then they should be able to buy their own campus and run their school as other private schools do. But it doesn't... It is propped up by the .1 %'s donations.


Ignore their babble and remember:

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

It's that simple.

@ Reality Check -

That's a fantastic list let's add a few more items to add the LASD Trustees hit parade:

Spending tax payer dollars to pursue an illegal purchase of land in the far reaches of Sunnyvale.

An

Starting a Machiavellian disinformation campaign to spread lies about BCS - and recruiting various PTA members to get the ball rolling.

Excusing the behavior of the "resident", infact blaming the residents very scary blog post on BCS. i.e. he was driven to his bad behavior because he couldn't get video tapes to make parody movies.

Bullis advocates are sometimes mentally ill as evidenced by the ranting. Remember, ignore that and remember...

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

Wow…. I guess BB thinks that if you repeat something over and over it makes it true. so sad really.

People like BB are working really hard to take away school choice from all parents. Not just those in the Los Altos school district, but parents all over the state. That's really sad, because competition works to make better schools for everyone, even in places like Los Altos. Schools are more than test scores ( even though Bullis Charter is tops there as well) Parents should have the ability to choose the best school for their child, regardless of income.

Its great to have a choice. We need both types of schools, schools of choice and schools assigned by address. There is nothing wrong with having both.

Bullis really wants to come up with a workable solution that doesn't close a single LASD school. All LASD has to do is share the unused spaces at Egan and Blach. That would be super easy to do but our board refuses. Why? Because they want to destroy BCS AND they really want the court battles to continue. It takes the pressure off them. Painting BCS as the bad guy helps to distract everyone from the real issue, which is creating truly great schools. It's much easier to blame bcs than it is to make any real changes.

Wow. BB just keeps repeating the same lie. Over and over. It may stroke his own ego but doesn't change the FACTS:

Public money spent on innovative public schooling for 60% of the cost of conventional schooling is a good thing.

Calling a charter school "private" doesn't make it so. Calling charter families "wealthy" doesn't make it so.

Stroke on, BB.

Bullisbully has summarized the problem so well. Thank you!!! I do think it is more than greedy corruption. There is also vengeance and some mental illness involved as well.

LASD is one of this nations top performing school district, so the argument about "choice" is ridiculous. Private schools are available, as they always have been.

If BCS really wants to be about choice without regard to zip code then eliminate the priority system and go to straight lottery. Never happen of course, because then students that don't live in multimillion dollar homes would attend.

Restricting choice to those who can afford private schools is elitist. Not wanting lower income families whom LASD is failing to have options is anti-freedom. Believing that LASD is too good for choice is arrogant.

Cheering on someone who repeats the same lie and name calls someone else a bully is a sign of mental illness.

I feel sorry for you Trisha and for everyone who thinks like you.

You know Bullis Charter School vs. Los Altos School District is now cited frequently in Charter School court cases all over California. That must be tough on the LASD Trustees, I am sure it doesn't make them very popular and School Board Conferences and other statewide events. I think that is just one of the reasons why they want the litigation to continue so that they can try and "fix" it. It might also be why they keep putting in things that are clearly not legal in the FUA's and Facilities Offesr. They are hoping to turn things around, maybe make a better name for themselves. The problem is that they are spending tax payers dollars to do that.

Spend money on kids in classrooms not on litigation, make peace with BCS.

What percentage of Bullis students are at or below the poverty line?

Right.

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

LASD has done an admirable job defending itself from countless lawsuits, most started by BCS: Web Link . It's unfortunate that BCS lawyers see this as an opportunity to make broader case law rather than keeping an interest on the kids at the heart of the issue. LASD has been upheld in the court countless times, with the only a correction of the details how facilities are to be calculated (include the "useless shrubs" at existing schools factor). Raynor was not a suit against BCS but a request by LASD to get a judicial motion on the conditions of out of district siting. In fact, LASD had ask BCS to partner up on this ask of the court, but instead BCS file their own motion.

I would love for these lawsuits to stop. Why is the FUA 400 pages? Because BCS is armed to fight every minor condition in court. Why is BCS not allowed to use temporary unused field space? Because BCS is ready to sue for any deviation of the written agreement not in their favor. Get away from the trigger happy lawsuits of the BCS board and lawyers and I guarantee you will see more flexibility and honest partnership between LASD and BCS.

The original decision granting Bullis significantly more facilities than the LASD had deigned to provide was by the 3 judge panel in the state court of appeals. It was then upheld against requests for rehearing by both the full appeals court district and the state supreme court. This reverse a local judges finding that all was fine.

Now the district has been disregarding more and more of the appeals ruling with each passing year. But the original case was kept open and the matter is back to the appeals court right now. Over the summer we'll have a ruling on whether the judges want to stick with or expand their oriignal ruling about the errors made at the local level. It's premature to say that anything has been won or lost until now.

What is true is that the district has hired more and more legal services to drag things out this long. You have to ask your self the question, after spending an extra $5 Million, what if the appeals court returns a reinforcement of its original ruling? The decision to try to discourage Bullis and end its existence by inadequate facilities is a risky one.

Filter the misinformation out and this is what's left:

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

More like public money spent on lawyers to protect the schools near the trustees' houses from being used for public students at the charter school. LASD is a disgrace. It's terrible.

"LASD is a disgrace. It's terrible. "

One of the best school districts in the nation and yet "It's terrible."

True motive behind the lies:
***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

The thing is that LASD does operate what would appear to be private schools, compared to what Mountain View Whisman can afford. Just take a look. They both have around the same revenue, but the difference is that MVWSD has 100 more special education students than does LASD and it also has 50% low income and ELL students with a lot of overlap between the 2 groups. By comparison, LASD has less than 10% ELL and less than 5% low income with not so much overlap between the two sets of kids.

Even Bullis charter has 7% ELL and a few per cent low income students, but both it and LASD could equally be called out as having programs like private schools compared to MVWSD. LASD also lets actual private preschools operate on their grounds, and there is no provision at these schools to permit enrollment by low income families on a subsidized basis. Instead of a preschool for disadvantaged kids, LASD has chosen to provide longer kindergarten days (5.5 hours or so total) for all the well off kids in the district. Why? Isn't the low income preschool more important?

But notice: if a low income kids lives in zip code 94040 and even if he will attend an LASD school, he is still eligible for the MVWSD preschool program. The problem is that LASD doesn't get the word out to help these kids Why?

Preschools on the LASD campus charge something like $18 per hour for their services. So this is a pricey option and only well off families can afford to use these schools.

That's why they are located only in the most well off areas of town like Oak, Loyola Blach Jr High, and Gardner Bullis. CCLC runs some of these schools and that's the place where Google parents can pay $57,000 to send their kid to daycare for a year. Yeah, right. Very egalitarian and mindful of economic need.

There is a lower grade of preschool at Covington since MVLA kicked it out of Los Altos High school, but otherwise, Santa Rita, Almond and Springer only have day care run by a group like the Y, which is a different proposition than the ritzy schools that also offer preschool.

Don't forget the Stepping Stones preschool at Blach. Stepping Stones is a private operation where many LASD employees have their kids. They get cheap rent and field use. In fact it appears that is perfectly safe for the 3 and 4 year olds to use the field space. Something that Ms. Logan and Mr. Smith should look into since they seem to be under the false impression that anyone under the age of 12 can not safely use the facilities at Blach or Egan. Oh wait let me correct that lets say under the age of 11, because that is the only way that Mr. Kenyon could get anywhere close to making it look a semi-effort to follow the law.

California ed code requires the district to grant land use first to public school students, yet another way the corrupt trustees and Mr. Kenyon are violating the law. Time to throw the bums out.

Fortunately, the truth can be found in the document that Bullis Charter School must publish on an annual basis by law. Thank goodness that in America, the rule of law is enforced by our excellent court system. Otherwise, BCS would continue to take public money with absolutely no transparency on who benefits from it whatsoever.

Here is the report: Web Link

On page 5, there is a Socioeconomic Status of Students chart that spells out BCS’s shame:

Students: Free & Reduced:
BCS: 1%
LASD: 3%
This means that BCS has only 1% of it’s student population on a Free or Reduced lunch program. The percentage of LASD’s population on this program is over THREE HUNDRED PERCENT HIGHER!!!!

Only 6% of BCS school system is considered a special education student, contrasted with 9% of LASD. THAT IS OVER 50% HIGHER! (And, the dirty secret that Bullis doesn’t want you to know is that they don’t even help those students out, but they skim the tuition donation from their parents and then pass them off to another school!!!!!)

Unfortunately, there are just one or two “individuals” who will persist in publishing misinformation. They try to make it appear that the BCS is all about CHOICE and all about IMPROVING EDUCATION. How could anyone argue against that? Well, it’s easy. They are recruiting the “cream” of the LASD area, take public money, disrupt school system operations and tie everyone up in court…EVERY YEAR! It’s one thing if LASD was a badly performing school district, but it is one of the top in the nation. So..what is their motive?

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

If they were truly interested in making large improvements in education, recruit from one of the LOWEST performing districts in the nation, not the TOP!

You are so right BB. BCS is not doing it's fair share, we have at least one poor kid in every grade Santa Rita. Not to mention the 10 kids that didn't go to preschool and don't speak english, and we have at least 5 special day class students. I paid big bucks to live where I do….. BCS needs to bear more of the burden.

Pass the popcorn because this sure is entertaining. The things that go on the other side of tracks sure are interesting. Happy to be over here in mid-century paradise. Here are some more stats for you:



Students: Free & Reduced:
BCS: 1%
LASD: 3%
Monta Loma: 61%

This means that BCS has only 1% of it's student population on a Free or Reduced lunch program. The percentage of LASD's population on this program is over THREE HUNDRED PERCENT HIGHER!!!! The percentage of Monta Loma's population is TWO THOUSAND PERCENT HIGHER THAN LASD!!!!!!!! SIX THOUSAND PERCENT HIGHER THAN BCS! IN FACT THERE ARE MORE KIDS AT MONTA LOMA ON FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH THAN THERE ARE IN THE ENTIRE LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT!

While I agree that the Board of Trustees has some corruption problems I think the worse problem is they govern from their own self interest. It's okay when that helps our schools but most of the time it doesn't.


- Mark Goines seems most interested in his own Santa Rita Neighborhood and his daughter's all day kindergarten program. I know many families at Springer that are not very happy…. they didn't want all day kinder, they thought it would be an option and now it's being forced on everyone- unless you got into BCS and every year we are losing more and more great families to BCS. Plus he was really nasty in the 2007 redistricting which really changed messed up Springer. I personally think that BCS thing should have been solved by turning over the old Bullis Campus or Covington to BCS back in 2007.

-Tammy Logan is a shill for the teacher's union. We have some good teachers but I am tired of LATA protecting senior teachers. There are some bad ones that we are stuck with. Plus she seems really interested in buying real-estate. I wish that she were more concerned with fixing up existing schools. We have way too many portables here.

-Doug Smith is just interested in his own political future. I hear he might run for Los Altos City Council. He seems way more interested in litigating with BCS than in actually improving Los Altos Schools. Maybe it's because his father's law firm gets the money. Too bad it's not his own money that he spending.

City Council? Doug Smith? Are you kidding? Next thing we'll see Joan Strong running anonymously for City Council. She'll go to debates with a paper bag over her head, baggy clothes and an electronic synthesizer disguising her (deep) voice.

No, I don't think LACC needs a bellicose individual like Doug Smith.

Unfortunately, there are just one or two "individuals" who will persist in publishing misinformation. They make unsubstantiated personal attacks on LASD board members and hide beyond the anonymity of web postings.

It doesn't matter though as long as we all remember what the core of BCS is about:

***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

BCS supporters consistently use the classic method of blaming others to either justify or defend the behavior of their own leaders. The constant whining about the alleged "corruption" of our elected school board is pathetic. What they fail to address is the fact that this is probably the third or fourth incarnation of the BoT since the last bond and the founding of BCS -- yet somehow each and every one of these boards have drawn exactly the same conclusion: BCS is a threat to the high performing schools in LASD and is a perversion of charter laws that should be resisted with all legal means. "Corruption" also implies that officials act in their own personal interests to the detriment of their constituents. How exactly have any LASD BoT members personally benefitted from the conflict with BCS? Did any of them get rich from this fight? Did any use this as a launching pad for greater political ambitions? No, and No. None of our various BoT's over the past decade have been perfect, but they have all faithfully defended our schools in the face of vicious and well funded attacks by BCS.

I have to agree with Blame Game on this. Who will run for public office if the mud gets slung around in what I can describe as a soap opera. Pass the popcorn.

And while we're on the topic of alleged "corruption", BCS supports continually (and with mind-numbing repetition) accuse the LASD BoT of corruption yet never bother to explain how board members are personally benefitting from their actions. A couple of real world examples on the BCS front are worth considering though: What about a potentially illegal ~$250K "personal loan" to the BCS "Superintendent" as an inducement to accept the job? Or, what about a boondoggle conference trip for BCS staff and administration that used funds earmarked for Special Ed services? (The latter earning them a formal rebuke from the SCCBOE) Now those seem a lot more consistent with the definition of corruption I'm used to...

You know what's really mind numbing? The LASD fan ( most likely the person or persons behind Joan J Boring) that keeps posting really stupid stats here. Wake up! You are sitting in Silicon Valley - what do think most of us do for a living? We all understand math and your stats are just plain ludicrous. Plus just about everyone is this town at this point knows someone who has their kids at BCS and knows they are not Billionaires. If I were you I would spend my time encouraging the LASD Board Member to make peace with BCS. Before the court forces you to. It will work out better for you all in the long run.

"Just about everyone is this town at this point knows someone who has their kids at BCS and knows they are not Billionaires."

There is no question that there are students at Bullis that are not billionaires. There are many whose families have net worth of only the hundreds of millions. See how economical diverse Bullis is??

Remember, behind all the libelous statements against the LASD, is the BCS mission statement:
"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

BB you must realize that you are going on and on and really it is mine numbing… so Boring Yawn. Do you actually live anywhere near here? Do you actually know anyone with kids in the schools here? BCS kids from every school attendance area and people all over Los Altos and Mountain View know them. They know they are about as well off as they are, so easy to verify because they live next door.


The Billionaire donation btw is not going to BCS, it's going to LASD. To rearrange the furniture, but only to one school, the school with wealthiest students, but with the least amount of low income students (zero) and the least amount of English as a Second Language Learners. What's most interesting about Gardner Bullis is that it is also the lowest performing LASD school.

Wow, again Roode takes it all on his own to post anonymous after anonymous comment full of mistruths. For what, to further stroke controversy? Case above as "Justice", same wording and same rhetoric that David has posted endlessly about on facebook. The HAE interviewed all candidates and the reason for not endorsing Amanda had nothing to do with a spite against BCS. Only Roode has gone on at length about how majority vote elections are unfair in small towns.

David, if it wasn't for your thousand+ posts it would be easier for you to dupe those of us who really care about ending this conflict. Do us a favor and show yourself publicly and participate in the process to improve both BCS and LASD schools. Hiding behind your keyboard, reinterpreting what little publicly accessible info there is, and barraging your conspiracy theories everywhere isn't doing your image any good.

Wow these LASD Hutts and BOTS are pretty nasty. Can't think of a single thing that was posted about an LASD Trustee that was incorrect. Self Interest is what is driving the lot of them. Except for David Roode who as far as I can tell just doesn't like the corrupt and wasteful actions of the Los Altos School District Board of Trustees.

Remember the BCS mission statement:

"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

And on, and on, and on, it goes.... Why, BCS supporters, why do generation after generation of *democratically elected* LASD board members oppose BCS? Is the LASD electorate stupid? Ill informed? Apathetic? Or, could it be that the majority of people in the community see BCS for what it is, and elect intelligent, responsible people committed to our community and to our schools? BCS is on the wrong side of history, and we will look back on this sad chapter in our journey and wonder how such a small, and small minded, group of segregationist fanatics could put one of the best examples of public education at risk for nothing more than their own selfish interests.

More misinformation.

From bullis' own website:

"Siblings of current BCS students who reside within the Los Altos School District (LASD) have first preference.
50% of the available openings for students residing in the former Bullis-Purissima School attendance area as defined by LASD in 2003 have the next priority"

If this was truly a school to service all of LASD, then why are virtuality all spots reserved for the elite "former Bullis-Purissima School attendance area" ? Why not give equal preference to all of LASD.

Oh, that's right:

Remember the BCS mission statement:

"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

I wonder why Elite?bb they think will successful in their efforts?nMaybe they just don't understand that the citizens of the Los Altos School District are very sophisticated. People are leaving Los Altos District schools all of the time to go to BCS. Everyone knows families that have chosen to send their children to BCS.

BCS is growing to meet the demand. There are students at BCS from every part of the district. There are approximately ( rounded to the nearest 10):

110 students from the Almond Attendance Area
150 students from the Gardner Attendance Area
60 students from the Covington Attendance Area
80 students from the Loyola Attendance Area
30 students from the Oak Attendance Area
100 students from the Santa Rita Attendance Area
70 students from the Springer Attendance Area

I wish that we could stop this fighting. LASD schools are good. BCS seems like a very interesting program that is very successful. Why not live in peace? It doesn't need to be one or the other, we can have both. Choosing one type of school doesn't make the choice others make wrong. If you are a control freak, let go. It's completely negative. Let parents decide what's best for their own children.

@Stats Fan claims "People are leaving Los Altos District schools all of the time to go to BCS" yet the vast majority of BCS students enter the school in Kindergarten, their families having zero actual experience with the LASD programs. They are not exercising "choice" because LASD failed them. Instead, they have been influenced by the sophisticated (and expensive) anti-LASD marketing program that BCS has been executing for years. This recurring theme from BCS supporters that people are fleeing LASD because their kids are somehow too bright for the so-called "cookie cutter" curriculum is patently ridiculous. People are choosing BCS because it is a heavily subsidized, private-school-like, program, which has managed to segregate out disadvantaged segments of the population.

Actually what happens every year at BCS is families with kids already enrolled in an LASD apply and get their kinder student in.

And a few more points….

- Parents do not chose a program because of marketing
- All kids should have access to a private school program. BCS and LASD spend the same per student.
- Last year BCS added an additional First, Second and Third grade class, most of these students came from LASD.

It's just one person who is posting all the lies about how Bullis is benefiting LASD. Writing style and errors are the same, so we're not talking about the brightest con artist here.

"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

David Roode, you are so very critical of LASD. What about BCS? Have they done no wrong? Surely after a decade of facility conflict there must be blame and resolution to come from both sides. What's your view of BCS Roode?

"Saying they have the use of an area and then requiring that it go idle for large portions of time is illegal, as well as making no sense whatsoever. "

Ah, it's illegal? Better call 911.

LASD provided facilities. The court agreed. It's over.

The problem is BCS wants a facility that will displace and disrupt top performing and quality schools. Sorry, but the charter school is not intended to ruin the educational opportunities of others. Hopefully, Santa Clara will someday revoke their charter and the millions of dollars lost and major distraction fighting off BCS can be channeled back to the students.

"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

First of all Yawn. Your cheerleading for the Trustees is dull in numerous ways. Maybe you are a trustee? Frightening.

So anyway, how does using unused space at Egan and Blach -the two schools that BCS has been assigned by the LASD BOTS- displace students at either of those schools? LASD has actually scheduled time in the day for many facilities to stay empty. Yes that's right no one, not even LASD students can use them. They are doing this to make their convoluted formulas work. That's why they need a 400 page FUA.

Heh! I just realized that actually is keeping LASD out of facilities at Blach and Egan BUT IT IS LASD THAT"S DOING IT.

Way to go Trustees, LASD Legal and Mr. Kenyon. LOCKING OUT YOUR OWN STUDENTS. Nice!

If it's true much of the above has been written by David Roode, I can say very well that he does not speak for us. Yes, we want equitable facilities but we also want better cooperation between our two schools and a peaceful way to end this conflict. My kid is happy at BCS where she gets a great experience despite the facilities. I would rather see better relations between the BCS board and the LASD administration rather than this fight over acreage and permanent vs portable. I may not like some of the actions of the LASD board, but I also don't agree with the behavior of some of the BCS board. I think I speak for most parents who want to continue the excellent education our kids receive and end this bitterness.

I happen to know that some parents have communicated with this David Roode, who is not parent at any of our schools, encouraging his behavior on the forums as a way to stir up distorted controversy against LASD. This Mr. Roode, and these parents, doesn't speak for our prime interests.

It is not Mr. Roode or the BCS Board that is keeping this issue from being settled. They want BCS to end. Yet our tireless board keep trying, hoping that Mr. Smith will actually not back stab them time. It's likely the courts will have to settle this, hopefully by the end of summer.

Whoops! I should have said:
It is not Mr. Roode or the BCS Board that is keeping this issue from being settled. It's the LASD Trustees that are keeping this from being settled. They (the LASD Trustees) want BCS to end.

I am not David Roode.

I am not Harold Barton or David Roode….I am neutral but think both sides are crazy.

It's clear that BCS is "creaming" by pulling students from the wealthiest of areas. Very smart. Their kids are the least expensive to educate, yet they can effectively lean on their parents for the highest donations. In the meantime, they demand to use campus space *unsafely* and leave LASD in the liability seat, which is the reason for the FUA.

It's too bad that the less affluent students of LASD must suffer these manipulations. There is a special place in hell reserved for BCS supporters--hope they enjoy it!

@ Reality Check -

Thanks for pointing that out, I don't really get that either. Are kids in Los Altos Hills easier to educate than kids that live in Blossom Valley?

My real name is David Roode. I think this is all terrible.

Let the misinformation fade away and it still boils down to:

"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

Can someone please explain about Blach students being locked out by the Trustees? Is that why they don't use the MPR? Why are they keeping rooms from not being used? My son is going there next year, this is the first that I have heard of this.

Yawn

It's amazing that this thread keeps going. Bullis Charter lost in court, but one or two angry, obsessive wing nuts tie up the social networks for no reason. The judge doesn't read these sites.

I'm forced to agree with the user who keeps posting...
"***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***"

Thank you for this clear cut analysis!

Bullis Charter won in court, very clearly in 2011 after the school year had begun. Then with the 2012-2013 plan for housing Bullis, the district continued to violate the court order. Bullis took the district to court, and that continues to be in court even now. There are 2 separate cases progressing and we should get more of a result over the summer. Both of these cases are related to 2012-2013 specifically, but there is the point that when these matter can be dragged on for so long by the district choosing to p#$$ away millions and millions of educational dollars, justice is not possible. Here we have seen the abuses continue in 2013-2014 and again for 2014-2015. There has been no final result about this, not yet.

Very sick individual who keeps posting lies and misinformation to this thread and other sites. Bullis won a single issue with how space was calculated years ago. The rest is just obfuscation and obstruction. At some point, they will not only get their charter revoked, but will damage all of the good charter schools in poorly performing school districts have been doing. Very shameful.

And the motive is...
***Public money used to fund private schooling for primarily wealthy families. Corruption--pure and simple.***

I doubt the judges on the 6th District Court of Appeal are going to be very happy with LASD. In general upper court judges don't like to have their rulings ignored. It's unfortunate that the LASD Board of Trustees refuse to negotiate a working sharing agreement at Egan and Blach. Instead they seem to be listening to our own local teachers union support PAC, the Hutts, that as Mr. Tagilio put it, " want a more punitive approach" to BCS.

Oh come on @Doom (Summer of Roode) -- LASD can show clearly that they did not ignore the prior ruling, and in fact went to great lengths to be technically compliant with the court's direction. You, and many other BCS supporters, simply don't like the outcome.

It's also patently false that LASD didn't negotiate the FUA with BCS. They spent the past few months doing exactly that. They didn't unilaterally write a 400 page document, then drop it on BCS unannounced. Your continual and deliberate mis-characterizations are really getting boring...

15 hours ago, "A BCS Parent" made a very balanced, very reasonable comment. I sincerely hope that view reflects a significant and growing portion of the BCS population (and that they can effectively influence BCS leadership). I believe most LASD parents feel similarly. We aren't pushing our Board to destroy BCS, we just want to protect our neighborhood schools, not bankrupt the district, and find a way to peacefully co-exist. People like Roode, Ron Haley, Lynn Reed, et al do nothing to further the cause of peace in our community.

It's pretty clear that what will decide this is indeed the judges' various rulings. Those who say nothing is pending are the deceptive ones. One case is in mediation now after the judge has seen all the discovery and other delays that took up 1.5 years. It's the LASD lawyers which are not negotiating in good faith, but regardless, this judge is going to have to rule on the basic issue at long last, if nothing does work out from mediation. The other comment is right, the appeals judges are literally being asked "did you mean what your last ruling said?" so it seems unlikely that they will do other than say "yes." And LASD maintains that they are in the right and nothing is up for decision.

Look how Bullis had grown and improved as time has gone on over the last decade. It may have started out primarily serving 300 kids from a closed school that was the last one in Los Altos Hills. But since then, its mere existence has caused the LASD district to reopen a school in Los Altos Hills, one which serves 300 or so students today. Along the way the Bullis Charter program matured, and it pioneered many educational techniques that are quite impressive. It now will serve over 700 kids next year, 670 or so from LASD and another 30 or so from other districts such as Mountain View Whisman. These kids now come from all over LASD, and growth is planned at least until it reaches 900 students. It's ELL participation has gone up a lot as the enrollment has expanded and Bullis had an excellent ELL and special education program now too, which came along with the growth. It continues to be the only school in LASD that offers Spanish to 5th and 6th graders. It includes Mandarin instruction for all the kids starting in Kindergarten when language learning is fun, natural, and mind expanding.

LASD has learned from Bullis programs and has added fab lab and Maker tools to its program at least at Gardner. It has added a science teacher to every school. LASD has had to add differentiated instruction to its schools in order to compete. The Geometry parents who were irate that LASD had no way to offer kids Algebra I in in 7th grade and Geometry in 8th grade were aided by the existence of Bullis, since Bullis had 20% of its kids taking Geometry in 8th already. Countless parents have been treated nicer because the district knows they could choose Bullis Charter. Having this choice option in the district has improved the district. People are even moving to LASD areas in order to apply to Bullis Charter School.

I guess what I would tell BCS Parent is that we all want the conflict with LASD to end. I am certain that our board wants it to end. The problem is not with really with the BCS board. They don't really have any control over facilities. They are ready and willing to negotiate with the LASD Trustees. In fact they pretty much begged them to sit down and talk about a long term agreement and a short term agreement - using space at Blach and Egan so that not a single LASD would be displaced from their current school. LASD refused. It's not our board that is preventing peace.

I think the main problem is that there is a small but vocal faction of the LASD community that does not want to live in peace BCS. They don't want BCS to exist. They might say that they want peace, but in their vision peace results when BCS ceases to exist. The LASD Trustees listens to this group, in fact a few of the trustees are leaders of this group. To accomplish their goal of ending BCS they make it as difficult as possible for BCS to carry out its operations.

Making sure the facilities are as minimal as possible is a very costly choice. You need to pay lawyers to write 400 page facilities use agreements, as an example. How many billable hours did that take? What could have LASD done with that money instead? I don't know about you but I think that's money that should be spent in classrooms.

LASD parents please encourage the LASD Trustees to sit back down with the BCS Board to create a fair and reasonable space sharing agreement with BCS. We just want to educate our kids, just like you do. We don't want to close any of your schools.

@BCS Parent 2 is part of the problem, not the solution. "A BCS Parent" earlier acknowledged the failings of BCS leadership (and the counter-productive nature of trolls like David Roode) while clearly defending the program and pushing for greater support and flexibility from LASD leadership. In other words, a constructive approach. "BCS Parent 2" on the other hand, places 100% of the blame for the conflict on the LASD board, and accuses the BoT of actively participating in some alleged conspiracy theory with an unnamed "group" or "faction" who supposedly will only be satisfied with the closure of BCS. Ok, and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in my backyard, along with his copy of a map to Area 51...

Finally, it's utterly hypocritical to complain about potential legal fees associated with drafting the FUA when the history of litigation, and money spent on lawyers by BCS dwarfs that of LASD. BCS has essentially converted it's $5M+ "facilities fund" into an endless supply of money to fuel litigation. Oh, and speaking of money better spent in the classroom -- how about that $500 per student BCS spends each year on aggressive PR campaigns from Jay Reed? I'll bet many BCS parents don't appreciate over 10% of their annual "donation" going to fund hostile, anti-LASD PR and Marketing campaigns...

"I think the main problem is that there is a small but vocal faction of the LASD community that does not want to live in peace BCS. They don't want BCS to exist. "

Of courses this can be seen in all the posters with Bully in there Names. What are the local Union run schools afraid of? A little competition never hurt.

I guess the group that concerns me is the HAE. They seem really interested in shutting BCS down. They also have members like their founder, Joe Seither that are lobbying to end school choice for every parent in California. Not very nice.

Ms. Logan and Mr. Smith seem to very involved with this group. They endorsed Mr. Tagilio and Mr. Luther in the last election. As well some LA Council members and Mr. Cortright for the county board

@Factions -- what evidence do you have that Doug Smith or Tammy Logan are "involved" with the HAE? They, and all members of the BoT, listen to their constituents (which include HAE members), but that isn't the same thing as being a member of, or "involved" with that "faction". Drop the conspiracy theories. They're not helpful, and just make you look silly.

@ Factions?

Totally unrelated to the topic discussed here but I believe the District had direct contact with a resident that was seeking a video tape of a deposition given by a BCS Board Member. Didn't the school district pay for the resident to try and get the tape? I believe that Mr. Smith commented on it. Not sure if the resident is a member of the HAE but I think that the HAE endorsed him for County School Board.

@ Factions?:

I have another question to ask you - Is the following factual?

I guess the group that concerns me is the HAE. They seem really interested in shutting BCS down. They also have members like their founder, Joe Seither that are lobbying to end school choice for every parent in California. Not very nice.

Seems truthful to me, or is the HAE not involved in a larger statewide effort? Isn’t their goal to shut down BCS, the top performing charter school in California?

@K-K-K-Kool-Aide -- To your first question, to me it seems that the BoT simply supported a legitimate request for access to a video that should legally be in the public domain already. I also have no idea if the requester is in any way affiliated with the HAE, but it's irrelevant anyway. The right to access public documents is independent of any PAC affiliation.

To your second question, I don't know what the "mission statement" of the HAE is, but even if you are factually correct, you still haven't shown that any LASD trustees are in any way involved with the HAE or in any way give HAE input disproportionate weight. There are many, many of us not affiliated with the HAE who lobby the trustees to continue protecting our schools from the threat of BCS. Why not turn your vivid imagination to the Bilderbergs or better yet, the Illuminati...

That is a complete lie about the Huttlinger Alliance for Education. The HAE was originally formed to assist LASD by providing legal submissions to active lawsuits against the district to prevent the closure and significant disruption of our kids education. The HAE also acts to promote government candidates that value and will preserve our schools. They are not out to shut down BCS and all charters. If you follow their legal filings and public relations efforts it's quite clear they are not anti-charter or anti-BCS, but pro-education in general.

Since the logins were turned on, this article has gotten crazier and crazier. Dread Pirate Roberts? LeeroyR? Just Say No to Kool-Aid? The names made more sense when logins were not required. The last 2 in particular look very much like they are the same person. How much posting has been from that guy all along? He's obviously a BCS-hater.

@Mort -- First of all, I'm not LeeroyR. Second, how do either of the last two posts reflect "hatred" of BCS? I think both simply represent a desire to protect our outstanding local schools from the negative economic and operational impacts of the current BCS model. There's clearly an opportunity for peaceful co-existence if both sides are willing to compromise. As long as most BCS leaders and hangers-on insist that 100% of the fault in this conflict lies with the LASD board, and that no changes are necessary at BCS, then I'm not optimisitc about finding a solution.

BCS has offered a compromise- agreeing to site on two separate campuses as long as enough facilities were at Blach to make it work as a second location. Instead we get terrible conduct by LASD which refused to share the unused empty spaces with BCS. Trapping kids in little tiny areas and insisting that younger students couldn't be there - at a location right next to the ………..preschool.

So what's the LASD compromise? Love to know about it

BCS has offered a compromise- agreeing to site on two separate campuses as long as enough facilities were at Blach to make it work as a second location. Instead we get terrible conduct by LASD which refused to share the unused empty spaces with BCS. Trapping kids in little tiny areas and insisting that younger students couldn't be there - at a location right next to the ………..preschool.

So what's the LASD compromise? Love to know about it

BCS has offered a compromise- agreeing to site on two separate campuses as long as enough facilities were at Blach to make it work as a second location. Instead we get terrible conduct by LASD which refused to share the unused empty spaces with BCS. Trapping kids in little tiny areas and insisting that younger students couldn't be there - at a location right next to the ………..preschool.

So what's the LASD compromise? Love to know about it

Darn Browser it was a good point… but doesn't need to be repeated.. already had enough of that here