I have to raise an inaccurate reporting :

"Peruri said that Bullis board members have indicated they don't favor an option in which the school remains divided among multiple campuses, and that they would be open to a "permanent split" solution if the district can't find a site large enough to house the entire charter school."

That is quite inaccurate -what he said was: "I’ve had multiple BCS board members tell me they are quite pleased with split site solution". This was quite a shock to the audience. It now sounds like Mr. Peruri was making a grand-standing statement, and has since backtracked in separate conversation with the reporter.

"Help me Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope." That was the wishful thinking many had for Sangeeth. Well, that honeymoon is over. Buckle up to see how much bait & switch will occur. LASD vs BCS is better than Game of Thrones. BCS is the Stark family - slowly but surely getting sliced up but there's a little Arya Stark in the background who will have her day of reckoning on LASD.

I think this quote being misrepresented in the article is important to note, but it's not as bad as the first poster indicated. Here's the actual 60 seconds out of the board meeting. Judge for yourself: Web Link

The comment by Sangeeth is in response to one from Steve Taglio where he rightfully indicated BCS should be consulted on any idea of giving them a solution which required a split. Sangeeth's comment is only in response to that, and his point is that it is not out of the question. And it is something that the process has not taken into account. Back when Doug Smith and Randy Kenyon came up with the split site as a source of punishing BCS, they overlooked the fact that despite the legal arguments, the split itself is not what made the particular current implementation bad for BCS. Many factors did that. One of them is illustrated by the agreed changes for next year. The space for BCS will be double what it is now at Blach, by simply not renting out land to a private preschool alongside them. That micro space the district formulated at Blach till now was a punishment, and not necessary at all.

This talk of leaving BCS in place at Blach and Egan permanently is not so simple. Both sites need improvements. In the case of Blach, BCS should get as much land at the site as would Oak Avenue Elementary school if that harebrained option had been used. You'd need to rearrange Blach substantially to give BCS enough space there long term.

The quote in question was paraphrased inaccurately and has since been fixed. Thanks for point that out.

The idea of splitting BCS 3 ways is totally un believable. It originated in the meeting with Mr. Ivanovic. He made that comment. The reported must have talked to Ms. Logan subsequently and she repeated it. The idea just will not work. Ultimately the test is simple. They'd prefer to remain as they will be next year, at Blach and Egan, to all of the new options that have been listed to date, and to the 3-way split. They have that right for the next 4.5 years, by promise from the district. Beyond that point, you get into Prop 39 issues again, and a 3 way split is not going to fly with this history and the district's resources.

Dear LASD Trustees,

You have a chance to leave a great legacy, don't blow it. It is going to be tough, but you are smart enough to pull it off. Here are your magic key threes for a bright future:

1. Don't purchase retired Trustee Goines 5 acre toxic waste site in the NEC. It is too expensive, and much too small for a school. No one wants their kids at a toxic waste site, even one that has been "cleaned up". That money is better spent elsewhere. If you go through with it you will have nothing but trouble. It smacks of cronyism. Mountain View needs that area for housing. I predict massive lawsuits it you go down this path.

2. Don't let the love of your own kids school stop you from making difficult decisions. The lowest impact solutions involve fully using the Covington Campus. Most parents want to keep their kids at the school that they are at now, they do not want another boundary redraw like we had in 2007. Most parents also are interested in moving six grade in middle schools, as they view the middle schools as the top LASD program. Please consider the solution which places BCS at Covington. Consider a bus system for the entire district to help with traffic problems. Many LASD schools would benefit from a bus system. Parents would be grateful.

3. Accept that BCS is here to stay. Stop trying to cook up schemes, such as a three site solution, that punish BCS. Both systems are good, leave it at that.

4. Spend the money wisely. Improve every campus. Improve the facilities for every student.


Sincerely,
JK
Hopeful LASD resident and voter

.

Thank you to "3 sites for BCS" who corrected the error implying that I supported this option. No, the reporter did not talk to me after the meeting.
While making corrections ...
- Doug Smith and Randy Kenyon did not decide to split BCS nor do it to punish BCS. It was a board decision made after considering multiple options and, in fact, holding a public workshop to discuss how to handle BCS growth.
- It is difficult to imagine how JK can read a clearly stated priority of finding and building a new school site for the sole use of BCS as a failure to "Accept that BCS is here to stay".

I'm with JK. The obvious (and least expensive) solution is to move BCS to Covington, allowing them room to grow and absorb the district growth, redistribute the Covington kids to the appropriate nearby elementary school and move the 6th graders to Blach and Egan. In that scenario everybody has a small, neighborhood school, the 6th graders are better served, BCS has a place to grow and no new school is needed. Unless it is decided that NEC needs a school in which case there is still room to put it on the existing Egan campus. If those living VERY near to Covington squawk then give them BCS preference. It will raise their property values and they'll be happy.

Hey, next time you come begging for more money on top of the absurd sums you seem to be mismanaging how about having a concrete plan for what it will be used for first.

Of course, this model allows a shell game with the funds going forward that will make it more difficult to measure effectiveness and assign accountability...which is probably why this model exists.

@ Fake BCS Parent- here we go again with the "David Roode" nonsense. For what it's worth, I'm certainly not David Roode, not affiliated with BCS and never have been, have no children in the district and never have. I'm just a taxpayer that would like to see the district children well served and my tax dollars wisely spent. And you should know that there are a lot more people than David Roode that share my perspective (if he even shares my perspective- since I don't know him I have no idea what he thinks). And btw where on earth are you going to build BCS a new campus for the same cost as moving them to Covington?

Here's hoping that this go-around sensibilities will prevail and the decision makers will replace anger with logic.

Whatever you say David.

It's very sad that you continue to post anonymously under multiple aliases to attack the public school system. Sorry that you lost your war against the public, but these persistent mini-attacks are annoying--not effective.

I was David Roode. Now you all know. There you go.

And Covington is not the most beautiful campus. It just happens to be the one that has extra wasted space beyond the 7 acres used at most all of the other elementary schools for core programs. The others have back lots like Almond which are mostly used as community parks, or they have a preschool like Oak, Loyola and Gardner Bullis. These preschools take up an acre or so of the school site. Covington manages to use about 12 acres just for the school itself, and then has another 4 acres used variously for Board and Administration functions, warehouse, storage, leased land to unaffiliated preschools with no participation in the after school program, etc. Covington is not the most beautiful school, but it happens to be the one with all the extra land.

No one ever thought of this, but you could leave Covington on that site, and yet add a 2nd school to the same LASD-owned 16 acre parcel of land. Wow, that wouldn't displace an existing school. Actually, I think that a lot of BCS parents think of this when they look at the crappy little scraps of land they are assigned to at Blach. That's why that posting above labeled "BCS Parent" is not at all by a BCS Parent. They would see the awful irony of the district littering so much land behind its board room with shipping containers used for storage, and the confining BCS to under 1 acre of land at Blach. Revenge? They just want equal treatment to the shipping containers.

Coming Out of the Weeds, Staying Out of the Box.

Why does the Board of Trustees seem so determined to purchase this small, expensive, toxic waste clean up site in the North End? I just don't get it, something isn't right here. Purchasing the land in the MVW School District doesn't find a permanent home for BCS and it doesn't solve current and future crowding problems. ( much too small for any school larger than 300 students) You are not going to be able to move BCS off of either Egan or Blach with that tiny parcel, so it doesn't solve future growth problems --- again too small for that. Plus it is going to cost somewhere between 40 - 60 million dollars. That is just for the real estate. Then you need to clean it up and build buildings on it. Sure, it's new land but that is about it. Buy this and you will have nothing left to spend anywhere else, especially after you do the "bringing up to code" 40 million at Covington. About the only thing going for that parcel is that it is owned by former LASD Mark Goines.... Nice for him.

Here are a couple of non-crazy ideas that start with the purchase St. Williams ---- they are talking about consolidating the three parishes down to two - so it is likely to be on the market. All of these solutions provide the same or more schools than we have now, leave enough funds to make improvements at each school campus AND accomplishes the STATED GOAL of prop N, which was to reduce current and future crowding in LASD schools.

Least out of the box:
1. Place all of BCS at Covington along with Covington. Use Rosita for field space.

more out of the box:
2. Build a state of the art middle school at Covington/St. Williams/Rosita move Egan there. Egan shares the campus with Covington. Put BCS at current Egan site. Build a new LASD school the current BCS site.

Most out of the box:

3. Build a state of the art middle school at Covington/St. Williams/Rosita move Egan there. Move Los Altos Park and Rec to St. Williams or current BCS site. Build a new state of the Art school for the Covington Community at Hillview.
Move BCS to Egan.

In 2 and 3 LASD gets the new cool schools, no toxic waste involved. No land owned by a former LASD Trustee making the entire deal look shady. No one looses there school. BCS has enough room but are still located near the north end so that they can draw from that area. LASD doesn't have to worry about how much nicer Blach is than Egan anymore - because we all know that all Egan got out of the last deal was some new office space. Blach has way better classrooms, labs, and performing arts spaces.


To the lets throw in any and every excuse to keep wasting land at Covington crowd -A track can fit at Covington if you include Rosita and reconfigure. Rosita will still be park it will just have a track. No buildings, no school still a park, a park with more useful facilities.

This "toxic waste site" owned by Goines is a red herring thrown out there to discredit the Measure N efforts. This was never discussed by the board.

Some of you above have quickly forgotten that Covington was once considered a possibility to share with BCS. Do you not recall the public outcry, from residents and the city, about the effects of traffic, access, noise, and safety? This wasn't a NIMBY reaction. These were real concerns that could not be solved for up to a 1200 kid site. Now we're talking up to 1500.

BCS was never promised a sole site or even that they must be the beneficiary of a new site. Let the land availability and enrollment growth prioritize who gets the new site. If it requires BCS modernizing at their existing split location then that should be considered as well.

Diversion and denial is present in the last post. Covington was never seriously considered as a possible co-home for BCS. The idea was dragged up at the last minute in the facilities process for BCS's Prop 39 request one year. First, it would have been a problem because with no advance preparation, BCS could no tbe relocated on a whim like that. What ended up happening that year was the 4 portables placed in isolation at Blach--and those portables were not even used that year. How much traffic did that create?

The concept of sharing of the Covington site would require some relatively simple planning to stagger the arrivals and departures. That would make it work. Also, removal of the existing district offices needs to happen in conjunction with this sharing. This too was not brought up the last time the issue was debated so briefly by the board of LASD.

Note that there was for a long time a very large Jr High School at Covington. In the same era, Rosita Park was the parish school for St Williams, and it operated the same school days as did Covington Jr High. Egan back prior to 1980 had a been a very small school as had Blach. The largest Jr High was Covington, and this also operated a swimming Pool and tennis courts used by the community at large, not just the Covington neighbors. Fooey on the people who try to nay say on a reasonable approach to optimize use of land resources already owned by the district. Covington is not some sacred cow that has to be kept at a sub-500 student elementary school and a whopping footprint of district offices and TWO count them TWO private preschools operating already on the site, but subject to relocation.

Dear LASD Trustees

Thank you Ms. Logan for your reply. My hope is that you are really trying to find a permanent site for BCS. A site that treats all the students there fairly and equably. As I stated before, you have a chance to leave a great legacy, don't blow it. People are still angry about what happened last time. Money was wasted, a great deal of money was wasted. We ended up closing a school were we needed one - in Los Altos Hills. We also ended up with a new neighborhood school in a neighborhood that was already well served with neighborhood schools. Many people think that it might have been much better if Covington had been opened as a magnet school, but it wasn't. Many people think that it would have been better to close Loyola and move that school to Covington, but Loyola had pull on the board and Bullis didn't. We have the same thing happening right now, we are about to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's try not to.



Parent has some excellent suggestions --- why not consider them? Either we can waste a bunch of money and end up with some campuses that are very crowded - Egan, Blach, Almond and Santa Rita. Or we can fully use the space already owned by LASD, which means better use of Covington. The truth is if we spend all the money on real estate there will be nothing left to spend at each campus. Leaving BCS at the middle schools means that six graders stay at the elementary schools - is that really what you want.

Trying to split BCS up further will not work. You are lucky that they were willing to make this agreement, they sacrificed, it was the right thing to do.

Not using Covington to its full capacity hurts everyone, not just the kids at BCS.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?