There IS an easy solution, but LASD has forbid the 10th site committee from considering the reconfiguration of LASD’s 110 acres of land. We are headed down a rabbit hole of litigation, overspending and new bond measures if we don’t come together as a community and insist on fiscally responsible management of the current bond funds. Even our youngest students could come up with a better plan to accommodate LASD and BCS students equitably using LASD land.

At the June 19 City Council meeting, two members of the Bullis Charter School board spoke under oral communications. They proposed that the new school site being sought in the San Antonio-California Street area be a new K-5 Bullis Charter School. The Los Altos School District will not agree. The Mountain View City Council has not yet restricted city financial support to any particular use of the site (except that it must provide some neighborhood park space). But this war between school districts and charter school advocates and operators is interesting. How much public money is up for grabs?

The public money question is as follows. The Los Altos School District spent $14,957 per ADA (Student attending on average). It's revenue per ADA was $14,382. The state required the Los Altos School district to divert some of its local property tax revenue to fund the charter school, not included in the revenue per ADA of $14,382. The amount required to be transferred was only $7425 per Bullis ADA.

So, you can see, LASD's traditional students are benefiting financially from the charter. LASD has a plethora of revenue sources that generate twice as much revenue per non-Bullis student as the amount Bullis shares with the charter school. LASD actually spends $7532 more on each of its 4292 average day students than the $7425 it has to provide to fund its share of the charter school's average day students. To put it another way, if the charter school didn't exist, the extra revenue LASD students enjoy would need to be stretched further to provide its standard of service to an extra 850 or so students on the average day. I.e., it would need to fund its high cost of opening another school and hiring teachers and staff to serve more students.

It's worth noting that the situation in California and in our area is different from many other states. The issue with private charter schools profiting off the operation is almost entirely related to providing real estate to the school. The legacy schools of the traditional system sit idle, and the state funding for each student at the charter has to be used to pay rent somewhere. There is a lot of wiggle room in real estate matters. Just ask Donald Trump. So these non-California charters are able to tap into some of the state funding through their real estate arms. In California the public funding is more limited and school districts are generally required to share their land and buildings on an equal basis with the students who are enrolled in the charter school. In an area like ours, that's what makes charter schools viable. The charter school funding required by the district can only be used for legitimate educational expenses. A maintenance fee is charged by LASD for the facilities used by the charter school, but not rent. Of course LASD's own students don't pay any rent either. That's why there is no incentive to the district to effectively use all of its land. It doesn't cost it any more to give the 500 students at Covington 16 acres of land and a dozen permanent buildings than it would if a more reasonable sharing arrangement took place, that didn't tie up so much land at one small school out of 10 operating in the district.