OK, why is not a solution to having a mixed economic school to have LOS ALTOS kids attend a new NEC campus? Easy enough to send some kids currently attending Santa Rita and/or Almond to a new school in NEC.

Perhaps because LASD believes only NEC students should travel? There is no trustee representing MV interests and it's shocking that the assumption is that students from NEC should always be the ones who are inconvenienced.

Why not the Los ALtos students? That's discrimination....

Proximity to local schools is factored into housing prices by the free market. Homeowners in Los Altos have paid a premium to be within walking distance of LASD neighborhood schools. Conversely, homeowners and renters in the NEC are getting an inherent discount because they are not within walking distance. The residents in NEC knew this when they bought or rented. They are getting LASD schools at Mtn View prices. Sorry if that sounds snobby but it is the truth. Ironically, building a new school in NEC is going to drive up rents in that area and many of the current renters will be priced out.

Would BCS be willing to compromise and cap their enrollment at 900?

I'll be honest, I've been called pro-BCS by some friends even though my kids go to a LASD school, but the wish to increase the enrollment cap to 1,300 is turning me off. I understand the desire to satisfy the demand. However, I am afraid BCS is only going to alienate more LASD residents and make them dig in their heels, then we head to the courts and everyone loses except the lawyers.

If that NEC site does go to the charter school, perhaps it can be for K-6/K-5 students, then the older grades in BCS can continue at Blach or Egan (but not both), creating a more equivalent experience with the other LASD schools which do not follow the K-8 model. Giving NEC students enrollment priority would also be a nice gesture.

I've been watching this fight since my now-elementary-school-age kids were in preschool, and understand the dilemma for all parties involved, but we all have to give at some point. There is no perfect solution out there that will make everybody happy.

The district staff leading these meetings is determining the outcome. So much bad data and so much important stuff not being factored in. Permanent home for the charter? Really? So forever denying the nearby residents a local school? That's really planning ahead! Of course, they admit they may not get that land, and they say they have other locations in mind as well. However, this doesn't increase the amount of land. It's more likely 6 acres than it is 8.6 acres.

The new school won't open for 4 more years. There surely won't be any track on this site! It's just too small. The district has put out draft plans for a generic K-8 school, and it requires 11 acres for their stripped down school. There's no room for any track.

Here's a better compromise, and there are more that I can think of.

Don't dump a bigger school on Mountain View than any other place. Build a new
school for the typical 500 students with a capacity of 600 like LASD has standardized on. It's already less land than other sites.

Then let the charter school be split across two sites, the new school and where they are now at Egan. Don't force any arbitrary cap on them. Why would you do that? This just affects the people who can't get in. And don't tell them how
to split grades across the sites. They are responsible for their own program.

The issue is why does LASD have so many disaffected families that flock to the charter? What's the problem at LASD schools? BCS can't force people to apply! Maybe one issue is the way LASD just talks non stop charter. It really is like not having one is all they care about. Give it a rest.

Besides the last idea being a compromise between BCS and LASD, it is also fairer to Mountain View. They wanted to get a park there. A 900 student school or a 1200 size one are both too much. Yeah, cap that SITE at 600 but provide BCS more room nearby. You know, years ago, Doug Smith, the famous LASD BCS-hater, came up with this idea to force BCS to split off to Blach. First they tried it with 3 classrooms, which was ridiculous, so they didn't even bother using them. But then LASD kept on adding classrooms there and that's how BCS was able to grow so much by having a convenient site for Oak and Loyola families, at Blach. Thanks to Doug Smith.

I cite 900 because that's where they're currently at. Just like I wouldn't like my school being told to shrink our size, it would not be fair to tell BCS to shrink theirs.

People flock to BCS because it's available and an alternative to pricey private schools. Some people like it for its Mandarin program and other offerings not available at the typical LASD school. Based on what I hear from my friends there though, it is no longer the small, tightly-knit community like it was just a few years ago. Is it really better? That's quite subjective and there's really no one answer.

Families leave LASD schools, private schools, as well as BCS. They just play musical chairs, that's all. It's all about choice.

A compromise means both parties get something good but not quite as much as they want.

LASD is threatening BCS with this expensive new site because they don't care how much the district spends or who is hurt beyond BCS. The facilities are worse than what BCS has now for the current 840 in district students. The ways the new spot is worse are numerous. It's only the same amount of indoor space, when you consider there are no outdoor connections between classrooms and so that hallway space counts by LASD's twisted measurements. The site is bogged down in traffic at drop off times and at pick up times too, much worse than the current locations. But the biggest reduction comes to the outdoor space. This new site would be much smaller outdoors than what BCS has now.

So this "compromise" is telling BCS that they can have a reduced quality of facilities compared to what they have now if they agree to freeze enrollment and engender ill will by not keeping up with demand. The fact that the space is so much more expensive than the current facilities is not a plus for BCS at all. It's another way the district is trying to cause ill will toward BCS. Not much chance of it flying.

Public schools and publicly-funded charter schools are WELFARE FOR (mostly) THE WEALTHY. School should be free to poor families - not rich families.

If it wasn't for Bullis, the pressure to keep quality high at LASD schools wouldn't exist. As a BCS parent I doubt its significantly much better, but I think it secretly does LASD a service by making them work a bit harder by garnering the various awards, offering music, arts, Maker Lab, etc. Competition is good.

Getting a new campus might actually be a change and a pain for most BCS parents despite all the claims of wanting better facilities. I secretly hope it stays as is till my kids get out!

I don’t care how much you paid for home. Your children will still need to attend public schools with other children who have a different skin color.

@Brullis - I find your commentary fascinating. You're suggesting that BCS is saving LASD from mediocrity. How noble. What did LASD ever do before BCS existed? Oh yeah, it topped statewide achievement rankings for years. But by all means, if that's the narrative that makes you feel good, keep drinking that koolaid. LASD parents have expected, supported and LASD students have received top-shelf elem education for decades, and after BCS is gone they still will.

What awards did LASD win? I'm curious. I doubt any parent is at Bullis with a feeling that it is no different and no better than LASD. Why bother? And considering that it will be maybe 5 more years before any new school is built on Greystar land,
it's not much to wish that things don't change for the currently enrolled students.
They'll be done by then for the most part. It's the same way for the current residents of the San Antonio area sending their kids so far away to school. Nothing's going to change before 4 or 5 years.

LASD is always griping about their bad facilities too. You know, they shouldn't worry about it so much. Bullis is the proof of that. Bullis has the worst of the worst of the LASD facilities and they do pretty good. All the LASD parents seem to do is to spend time worrying about traffic and buying sofas for their kids to sit on at recess. No room for outdoor sofas at the charter school. Who suffers from lack of a sofa at elementary school?

From what I understand, the owner of this property does not want to sell, I can only imagine how much 6 acres of land in Mountain View is worth!

I cannot believe how BCS parents were duped into supporting Measure N. This new school is going to be a nightmare for them. The facility itself will probably be very nice but morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups will be miserable. That area is already on the verge of total gridlock and it is only going to get worse with all the new housing and Facebook moving in across the street.

You can count on Los Altos to conjure up a politically correct reason, one that sounds socially conscious, while actually exploiting the Mountain View residents.

They are not aiming to be inclusive. Believe me, they are deceitful, and they have an expensive, well paid top law firm to help them. They use it often, to fight parent groups and parents. No, LASD is not particularly supportive of their students. Better your child is at the top of her/hisclass. Is Mountain View aware that LASD's slick public relations is actually...fake news? They will not save money, they won't get a fair shake for students living in the San Antonio area.

A discount? Seriously? A tiny little townhome with no yard is going for $1.3M in the north end these days. Where's the no school discount? Darn, I missed the coupon! We're all paying ridiculous prices on homes, and we're all paying the exact same parcel taxes and yet, no neighborhood school for the north end of the district even though the rest of the district is shrinking, and the north end is growing. Why? Because $1.3M isn't enough?

The most interesting piece of information from this article is the statement from Margaret Abe-Koga that she wants to "require" a neighborhood preference for BCS. And if BCS refuses? Then what? LASD gets stuck with an expensive new neighborhood school that they never really wanted and all hell will break loose.

What I'm hearing from some BCS families is that they are open to 3 campuses - 1 new one built for them in NEC, 1 existing one at Egan and 1 existing one at Blach. In return for the fragmentation, they will seek to cap their attendance at 1650 (or 550 per campus). The NEC campus would allow them to test some new curriculum for the more diverse population that they will be serving as they are interested in proving their curriculum works as BCS has grander ambitions beyond Los Altos and Mtn View (other cities in both Santa Clara and San Mateo County).

In the short run, LASD can protect its neighborhood schools, offer a smaller teacher to student ratio and feel good about themselves. There will not be much available for LASD school upgrades but the LASD Trustees are maniacally focused on getting one over on BCS.

But the short sighted tactics will come back to bite LASD in the long run. LASD enrollment is stagnating and not growing. BCS has excess demand. My prediction is 10 years is that one of the LASD neighborhood schools will get turned over to BCS as a 4th campus in the area. As LASD populations dwindle, all it takes is one slight economic recession in the area to upset the apple cart. And then we'll be back talking about LASD school closings or transferring schools over to BCS and finally redistricting LASD kids b/c the populations can't support it.

This is the greatest travesty of the last decade and the fight btwn LASD and BCS.

The scenario described above by So Disappointing would be an unmitigated disaster for LASD. With that many students at BCS, one could envision LASD teacher layoffs, BCS friendly candidates winning LASD board seats, neighborhood schools being closed and handed over to BCS. It looks like LASD is playing to win the battle and BCS is playing to win the war.

Egan Parent, why would BCS's growth impact teacher layoffs at LASD schools? That doesn't make any sense. Most teachers in LASD are tenured. LASD schools benefit from district kids attending BCS since they retain some of the school taxes that are not shared with BCS. Financially, LASD district makes out better with district kids attending BCS. LASD can continue to enjoy smaller school populations especially if a whopping 1650 kids are at BCS. (That seems a little over the top but anyway.) Clearly LASD will fight tooth and nail to keep each little current neighborhood school open and functioning. As for BCS friendly candidates on the LASD Board. You must mean you are afraid of individuals who do not hate BCS joining the Board. Yes, what a travesty. Imagine a trustee who doesn't hate a school (children, really) winning a position on that LASD Board. That would be nice actually since there seems to be a lot of hate in the world these days and unfortunately exists right here in this community.

This is a school being built in Mountain View, which means Mountain View will be paying the cost in terms of construction disruption, noise, dust and traffic every weekday morning and afternoon during the school year. It's not acceptable for Mountain View to pay the costs while Los Altos or Los Altos Hills residents get all the benefits. The City Council needs to insist that Mountain View residents get to attend the new school in Mountain View, otherwise construction should not be allowed.