I hope Mountain View residents rise up in protest and put a stop to this. What exactly do we get out of giving away precious land and development rights? A small part-time park, a fabulous school our kids can't attend, and 900 cars coming in and out of the area every school day while our kids still travel long distances?

Not good enough, not by a long shot.

Bullis parents and your lawyers--have at it.

This is an expensive, non-solution to a serious problem that has gone on too long. If you are a MV student, not only will you have to travel miles past a shiny new school, the LASD school you have been farmed out to will be out of date and in need of repairs. A losing proposal for MV kids and LA kids stuck in old schools with no money left for renovation. But at least we've spared some people's "feelings" so I guess that's good?

If Bullis moves, it should provide equal access to Mountain View residents (no more preference for Los Altos). Let's see how that goes over. No way we should sell out our city for Los Altos' benefit. This would create SO MUCH TRAFFIC in Mountain View, for a school our kids cannot attend. NO WAY.

Is the enrolment of the Charter School chosen by lottery?

Bullis has been a thorn in LASD's side since the beginning. It is clear LASD just wants them gone, and dumping them in MV would serve LASD's desires, but certainly not the residents in MV. Why do we need to transfer our development rights to the district for little, if any, benefit to MV students? There is no requirement that Bullis take kids from the surrounding neighborhood, unless of course they meet their own narrow requirements for admission.

@BAD deal for Mountain View,

I am a Los Altos resident and I don't want this deal either. One of my kids is due to attend Egan in few years and we live in walking/biking distance. If Egan moves to the corner of Showers Drive and California Street, he would need to be dropped off, becoming a source of traffic as well as being in one.

If you ask me, Bullis should just build a multi-floor high density campus like the new Mariano Castro Elementary.

I’m struggling to understand why MV would give the LASD land and/or $$ when the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly LA kids. This makes no sense for MV at all. And really doesn’t make sense for Bullis either as it will outgrow the space in a few years and we’ll be right back in the current argument. This plan reeks of LASD wanting to “protect” their core schools/residents at the expense of Bullis students and MV taxpayers. They don’t seem to be considering the more sensible options - guess it’s obvious which schools those board members represent.

If Los Altos had saved more open public space, then maybe they'd be able to find a place to relocate Bullis within Los Altos' city borders.

Step 1 - Close Covington and move BCS to that campus
Step 2 - Move 6th grade to Egan/Blach and re-draw attendance areas
Step 3 - Spend the measure N bond funds to upgrade existing LASD schools

And in case anyone is wondering, here is how the $150M bond funds should be spent:

$30M Blach
$30M Egan
$15M Almond
$15M Gardner
$15M Santa Rita
$15M Oak
$15M Springer
$15M Loyola

This should not happen! I agree with the person above. Build 2nd stories at the Egan location. Expand upon what you have.
As a MV resident, I’m not so sure my tax money should be building LA schools.

When both parties go away mad, you'll know you've reached the right decision.
or
Somethings just can't be bought.

They should accept more MV kids.

Yes, admission to BCS is by lottery and here is no preference
for Los Altos. Last night the task force heard data that said just under 200
of the BCS 879 students come from Mountain View. That's proportionate
the overall LASD makeup. Mountain View gets its fair share of BCS slots.

It's not like there are no drawbacks to moving Egan to this new boondoggle site,
but overall traffic would be better. Currently the 900 BCS students come about 90 from the area, so 810 will be commuting in if LASD's stupid plan is followed to put all of BCS on this site. If Egan were moved there, there would be about 600 students total, but about 150 of them already live in the area, so a net in commute would be 450. Which is less, 450 coming from that half of LASD, or 810 students coming from all over LASD?

But again, I see drawbacks to using the site for Egan.

Here's a better plan that the committee never even addressed. Limit the site to 600 students for BCS. The other 600 students in BCS would need to be on a different location. One could hope that things would work so 100 or so of the BCS 600 on the site would live locally, meaning 500 commuting in to the area.

Of course, you would still have all 680 local students commuting OK to 4 different LASD schools (including Egan). So it's much less logical than a neighborhood school. At least if only 600 fit in the building, then SOMEDAY LASD might be able to open a local school for the neighborhood there. If it's built for 900, there's no way it could be fully used if it is a neighborhood school (more like 500 students).

Pretty sure that there are still three different legislative bodies that must approve this 1) LASD Board - the task force is just an advisory group for the LASD Superintendent. 2) The Bullis Charter School Board. 3) The Mountain View City Council.

This may be a very interesting 'candidates question' for LASD and MV Council candidates.

Very interesting to watch "the LASD process" where two months of deliberative meetings were just skipped. Or were these just 'taken private' by the Superintendent?

Voice reporter - it now seems that McAllister is not required by (recent?) FPPC decisions and regulations to recuse himself from LASD property-related decisions unless those decisions are directly related to the specific property that he leases/rents from LASD. Seems counterintuitive to me ... but ...

LOL! Was there ever any doubt that Bullis would be built there? It was a given once our MV Council members abdicated their responsibility to look out for MV residences. The task force was just for show, as these school task forces usually are. Rather than complain on this forum, I suggest we take a look to see who voted to abstain from insisting the LASD build a school on that site that more MV students can attend, since we've essentially bailed them out of their shortsightedness when they sold off all of their old campuses and lands.

This really is the best choice. LASD gets a new school site for BCS leaving room to change from JR Highs to Middle Schools if desired. If BCS chooses to be larger than 900 kids, LASD can add space for kids elsewhere, maybe Covington.

If MV parents want to attend, they have every right to apply to BCS and can go free. Just like in LASD they are asked to donate, but it is a public school.
The entire Mountain View community also gets 4 acres of part time park space with fields plus 2 acres full time at a very low price. Every child who plays outdoor sports can benefit. Since BCS has a middle school, there should also be a new gym.

One more thing that may not be positive for some LASD parents, those 900 BAD kids get a brand new school, instead of the portables that they have complained about for years. With the creative do ancing, ther may even be money left for some district improvements.

Spell checkers! BCS not BAD.

@Simple Solution to this Mess

While I understand your reasoning as Covington has larger space, it is the highest performing non charter public elementary school in Los Altos and Mountain View districts. And I am not sure they will prefer to send their kids to Bullis, which while an excellent school ranked #3 in CA in terms of test score, is known for entirely different disciplines and focus, not to mention unease mingling with far more economically affluent parents.

BCS is not a middle school. It doesn't make sense for it to have a gym. None of the LASD K-6 schools have gyms. What is needed is a multipurpose room without a special basketball floor.

A K-8 school needs a kindergarten area in this case for 140 kids. They don't play basketball.

all the other schools including covington are shrinking in size. B_c_s is the only 1 that is growing if you move 6 grade to middle school covington will be down under 500.

so if you can fit 900 kids on this new site under 10 acres certainly you can set 1000 at covington with 16 acres nothing to do with covington maine good performing school.

I would have no problem with Covington parents deciding to send their kids to BCS. In fact, I say give the Covington campus to BCS in exchange for an admissions preference to the current Covington attendance area. Support of the idea from the other 8 existing LASD schools can be bought with Measure N bond funds. $30M for each Jr High and $15M for each elementary school. It's a win-win-win solution.

Cool but who's going to fill all those empty LASD schools?

The Task Force was not allowed to look at any solutions using LASD land. Given that the Task Force was hand-picked by the LASD Board, the outcome was predetermined. Please, people, let's not forget 'Common Sense's solutions we are not allowed to talk about:

Step 1 - Close Covington and move BCS to that campus
Step 2 - Move 6th grade to Egan/Blach and re-draw attendance areas
Step 3 - Spend the measure N bond funds to upgrade existing LASD schools

I don't understand all the negativity about having BCS at the new site. I don't know the demographics, but if, as everyone here seems to say, that neighborhood is the poorest in LASD, than it would be almost certain to end up with the lowest test scores of any school in LASD. Suddenly people will not want to go there. Look at MVWSD where people are desperate to cross major roads to avoid going to Theuerkauf, or Castro. Move BCS, and suddenly BCS becomes more accessible to MV kids. Probably more slots open up for MV kids too since some LA parents will want a school their kids can walk to.

I do like the idea of having Egan move to the new site but the chances of that passing the LASD school board are zero.

BCS may be great but it is not easy to get in. Mountain View city resources should only be used to buy the site for the 10th school ON THE BINDING CONDITION that the site will not be used for BCS in exile UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL (not the city manager) is persuaded to later vote otherwise. Now that Councilmember John McAlister has been caught voting with a CONFLICT OF INTEREST for letting the LASD decide, the LASD will need to agree to any condition required by the new City Council majority (requiring for approval one of the female members of the Council).

I'm just so happy that Tom means is off the RHC, I'll comment everywhere!

Either give Covington campus, in its entirety, to the Charter School and relocate the current Coyotes to the existing Bullis Charter site (on the Egan Campus) or give the entire Egan Campus to the Charter School.

But will Covington be large enough to accommodate 1200 students? Doubtful.

Demographics aside this area is primed for a major economic slowdown. Does Los Altos truly need a new school for $150 million dollars? And think about the time it'll take to build a new school - three, four years in the best of cases. Five years is more realistic.

BCS has the same proportionate representation of students from Mountain View as is found in the district as a whole, about 24% or so. I don't think that's an issue about why BCS use for the site goes against the grain for Mountain View.

Maybe the issue is that LASD doesn't really need any new land. It already has schools that have twice as much land per student (even counting BCS students too) as do the schools in Mountain View Whisman. Why is Mountain View giving land to LASD when it already has so much land per student? Mountain View Whisman is growing and LASD is shrinking, in total students. Why give more land to LASD? Why does Mountain View fund it? It was based on a lie that LASD was short of land due to too many students from Mountain View. THAT'S what rings insulting to Mountain View residents. The whole lie was that there was a need for a local school in that area due to too many students in that area. We know know the number is about 800, with 100 going to BCS (and 100 more from Blossom Valley). So we have 700 kids around San Antonio even counting Palo Alto Monroe Park, and of these 200 are in Jr High, so the total number of elementary students from the area is 500, and has been for 10 years more or less.

So it was a LIE when LASD said it needed land to handle the students being added in that area, because they aren't going to open any new schools for them. Nope. Lies make people get rankled.

@Claudia - I wasn't at the meeting but unless things have changed, there is a lottery preference for BCS. They give preference to those students who are part of LASD, which includes the kids in the Crossings neighborhood who are technically Mountain View residents. Mountain View residents that are zoned for MVWSD are in the lottery with the rest of Santa Clara county. So, unless they plan to consider more kids from Mountain View, this seems like a bum deal for MV residents.

@James Thurber,
The Covington campus doesn't need to accommodate 1200 students. In return for getting the Covington campus, BCS would sign a legal contract agreeing not to outgrow the campus.

It's a myth that the area is really low income. It's probably higher income than any school area in Mountain View Whisman, except for Huff. Do we need to replace all the Mountain View Whisman schools with charter schools?

Right now the area is split across 3 schools in LASD to rig the demographics relative to low income students. One area, The Crossings + Old Mill is assigned to Covington. Very few low income students at Covington, even with those from Mountain View. The other two areas are split across Santa Rita and Almond. Of course Jr High schoolers go to Egan. LASD says 80% of its low income students come from Mountain View, like that means something. The thing is, it's sill very few low income students, 238 students out of 4500 back in 2016-2017. Mountain View Whuisman had 1751 out of 5125 low income students. LASD says 80% come from Mountain View, so that works out to 192 low income students from Mountain View in all of LASD. Out of the 238, 47 are in Junior High, so 38 from Mountain View, not possible to attend a new elementary school because they're the wrong grade. 77 at Santa Rita means 71 from Mountain View. 55 at Almond means 44 from Mountain View. So the issue is that if they put them together, out of around 500 students in San Antonio, it would be 115 low income, out of 500. This is not really that large a contingent of low income kids at the school. Theuerkauf is 242 out of 368. Castro 228 out of 274 as low income. Even Stevenson is 46 out of 394 low income. Closest size is Monta Loma with 463 students. Monta Loma has 200 low income students. Cry me a river LASD. There's no need NOT to form a local school for the San Antonio area based on the number of low income students.

More reasons to be p.o.'d at LASD. On this new site, they want to put 900 students and they say they need the new land. But at Gardner Bullis they have 300 kids on 10 acres of land. At Oak Avenue Elementary they have 350 kids on 10 acres, and at Loyola they have 400 kids on 10 acres. I don't know why every talks about Covington. Right now they have 560 kids, more than these other schools. Oh, they do have 16 acres of land. Best not to overload the land with too many students. Need more land from Mountain View.

As Gary says, LASD has twice as much land per student as the Mountain View schools have - yet LASD needs Mountain View land and funding? This is more than ridiculous, it's insulting. LASD has battled with BCS for many years, and they see this as a way to dump BCS here in MV, and get them out of Los Altos. Can you even imagine the gridlock of having a large school in a shopping center? What thinking person believes this is a good idea? BCS is not intended to - nor will it be - a true "local school" for the local children. To believe it would be is naive and falling for the LASD con.
It seems the cards are purposely stacked against MV by LASD, and it will be enlightening to see WHO on the MV Council votes to have MV taxpayers support this fiasco.

MV Residents: tell your MVCC that this is unacceptable to permit a charter school that serves majority of Los Altos/LAH families in MV. All valid concerns about why LASD is doing this and not making the best financial decision for the entire community will continue to fall on deaf LASD trustee ears. They don't care. The plan has been for a very long time to give BCS the smallest site possible no matter the cost. Moving on. Make a difference in the City of MV and tell your MVCC members that this is not ok. It is election year for some of them. Hold your MVCC members accountable for LASD's irresponsible decision to place a charter school instead of a neighborhood school on that site. Demand that a public/non lottery school that serves your children be built on that site. Maybe it's Egan/maybe it's a neighborhood school. Why allow a bunch of Los Altos residents on that task force decide on a school for the City of MV? All very corrupt process. They were hand selected to represent the desires of a school board, not the people of MV.

Sending 100% support to MVCC for this SOLUTION. It's happening folks. It might not be your pet, arm chair idea, but this is happening. Time to adjust. Drop your kid off there and drive away. It's finally over. I'm just glad I don't have to deal with any of this mess.

Bullis is a cancer on the Los Altos school district. It pulls high functioning kids and active parents away from neighborhood schools. Don't let it metastasize into Mountain View. If Mountain View wants to spend money on a park, then build a park.

Dear Zoop, although Bullis Charter originally appeared to be a problem so many Los Altos (and other) parents have embraced the school and its programs that it would be difficult to make that argument today. It's part of the community and will likely remain so.

I believe the issue is primarily demographics. Will the Valley continue to grow AND provide more elementary / junior high students, therefore requiring more school facilities?

An idea passed on by a former student of mine was to simply build a community park with the option of placing portable classrooms around the perimeter, the play / recreation area being in the center. If / when a school was needed portables would be placed on the site and the park would become a school. WHEN the students moved on (which they will do, students numbers rise and fall, like a tide) the city could cheaply / easily return it to a community park status.

Sometimes students have the best ideas. Too bad they don't appear to be advising the LASD or Mountain View School Board(s).

Dear James Thurber and Joel Latcher, thanks for being 'continuously involved' community members who, like Christoper Chiang, post their informed "civics opinions" in a respectful manner and without anonymity!

The demographic, as Thurber points out, are important. I'd say vital (as a MV City resident, and MVWSD resident). This is not really a "Mountain View" school board issue. MVWSD is not the local elementary (K-8) and MV-LA (high schools) is not in any of the negotiations. So, if the Charter School is chartered by the County - why do Mountain View City families, that live close within the County, not get to attend? As we have seem in MVWSD, priorities and 'grandfathering' effectively prevent new families, from ever becoming significantly represented in schools where the have "NO PRIORITY" or only in-the Second-Line status.

I pay no taxes to LASD - my tax money does not support their facilities bonds or operational expenses. The proposed Transfer of Development Rights, will absolutely affect me and every other MV City resident that is not within the Los Altos School District. It will affect every family sending kids to MVWSD schools, in SOME (complicated) way. It certainly will affect every LASD kid and family who lives within the City of Mountain View.

It is a complicated problem. Not unlike the MVWSD's 'empty Quadrant' problem with a Slater-Whisman neighborhood elementary. Democracy, representative democracy, is never ever 'an easy' process.

SN is a retired Trustee of the MVWSD, and a candidate for the MV-LA Board in Nov. '18.

@SN .... "candidate for the MV-LA Board in Nov. '18."

As a self-professed democracy supporter, you ought to know that MVLA Board Trustees are elected to represent ALL of their constituents regardless of city or elem school district of residence. As an education supporter, you also ought to know that successful feeder elementary school districts are key to MVLA's success.

For this voter(*), your parochial comments clearly confirm you're the wrong choice comes November.

(*) MV/LASD/MVLA resident - MV/LASD/MVWSD/MVLA taxpayer

Claudia, don't know where you got this nonsense about MV having equal access to BCS enrollment but what you said is totally false according to the BCS web site which lists the 2018-19 priorities as follows:

1) Siblings of current Bullis Charter School students who reside within the boundaries of the Los Altos School District;

2) For no more than half the total available openings for each grade level, students who reside within the boundaries of the former Bullis-Purissima Elementary School attendance area, as drawn by Los Altos School District in the 2002-2003 school year***, limited as follows:

For incoming kindergarten classes for the 2018-2019 school year, preference 2 will be limited to 10% of total available openings.
For incoming kindergarten classes for the 2019-2020 school year, there will be no preference for this category.

3) Children of BCS staff members who reside within the boundaries of the Los Altos School District.

4) Children who reside within the boundaries of the Los Altos School District;

5) Siblings of current Bullis Charter School students who reside outside the boundaries of the Los Altos School District but within California.

6) Children of BCS staff members who reside outside the boundaries of the Los Altos School District but within California.

7) All other applicants who reside within California.

We should all be contacting our city council. Is there an email that emails them all?

@@claudia - ......

Claudia is NOT wrong. Did you read #4 on your own list? You do understand that there are MANY children in MV that attend LASD schools, don't you? The MV kids in the LASD district JUST as much access to BCS as any child that lives in Los Altos.

That said, it is about time that Mountain View give up some space to educate the hundreds of children that their recent building spree has added and will add to LASD. The MV city council should refrain from attempting to try to get their way on this and allow the district to do their job. They are doing a poor enough job with everything else on their plate, so they should not try to involve themselves in anything else.

Bullis should go to the new school. Although it is unfortunate that they will get a brand new set of buildings while the rest of the district children will have to get by on what they have now, it is far more important not to disrupt the current school communities in the district. BCS should count themselves fortunate and stop their campaign to take a district school in order to avenge themselves for perceived past wrongs.

Abe-Koga is crazy to think that Egan should be uprooted in a vain attempt to fulfill her notion of a "fair" solution. The kids at Egan love their school. Why should they lose it just because Margaret Abe-Koga says so? I guess I need to e:mail her to help disabuse her of her mistaken notion. Her comments only serve to underscore the fact that city council members think nothing of treating children like interchangeable Lego parts rather than humans with feelings and needs. Legos don't care if they move away from the other parts they were with in the last building - Children do care.

The truth of the matter is that LASD does not need a charter school for any reason. Charter schools are supposed to exist to provide a better alternative in areas with poor schools. LASD has no schools that fit that description. BCS only exists to needle LASD. It's purpose is to serve the bruised egos and long-term resentments of some adults, not the needs of the children of LASD.

Build the school, give it to BCS and then concentrate on the kids for a change.

The MV kids who go to BCS are those who reside within the LASD boundaries.

Anyone who resides in the MVWSD boundaries has a zero percent chance of getting a spot in BCS, in case you're wondering.

Preference categories 1-4 are all tied to residence in the LASD boundaries.

There is a very long list of kids from within the LASD boundaries who never get a spot every year.

If you move out of the LASD boundaries after getting admitted, you will be pressured and shamed to leave, as the teachers and principal will talk of how the school loses ~$8k every time a kid who is admitted and enrolls moves out of the LASD boundaries while continuing at the school. The shaming comes in the form of the common knowledge that in order to make up that $8k gap caused by a kid moving out, the school will need to admit extra students, causing crowding and spreading existing resources thin, thereby, diminishing the quality of the education every BCS kid can receive.

Also, the $5k "donation" is bluntly known to be a mandatory fee. Anyone who doesn't pay is freeloading.

No thanks to the culture of the school. This is a loss for MV.

One could argue that Mountain View's development has saved LASD. Enrollment is actually now going down, not up. The only reason it is not going down further is because a couple of specific areas of Mountain View are within LASD's boundaries. Enrollment is declining much more so in the other parts of LASD. That's why LASD has schools with 300 or 350 students, while they say the schools can go up to 560 or 600. Only the schools that serve gerrymandered parts of Mountain View are able to keep enrollment up.

As for the new development adding kids, this is overstated. There are in the San Antonio area apparently 780 or so students. This number has been pretty consistent over the past 10 years. In 2008, LASD cooked up this scheme as to how to gerrymander these kids. They are split between 4 different LASD schools and the charter school. So you have roughly 100 at the charter, 150 at the Junior High, and 140-200 at each of Covington (3 miles away), Almond (1.5 miles away), and Santa Rita (1 mile away). This has been key to keeping these 3 schools above 500 students each, for 7 grades, K-6. LASD schools are larger than MVWSD because they include 6th grade.

PSR, I understand that you live in The Crossings and are in the Los Altos SD but that is a very small portion of the entire city of MV.

MOST kids in MV have next to zero chance of getting into BCS because they are in category 7. So the entire city giving up land and development rights in exchange for traffic and a small slice of the city to have a small chance of getting into BCS is a terrible deal.

This project is solving Los Altos' problem with Bullis at MTV residents expense. LA can buy the space for the school within LA. The residents of LA are choosing not to because of the property costs.

If the residents of Los Altos want to pay MTV to move the school to MTV, that is fine, so long as they pay the full, actual, cost. The cost of this should not fall to MTV taxpayers.

The net to MTV:
* Cost to build/maintain the school
* Loss of tax revenue from existing businesses on the land
* The land is not available for other projects

Gain to MTV:
* A 2 acre park.

MTV could turn the whole thing into a 10 acre park for less.

@psr, you are sadly mistaken if you think that moving BCS to a new school at the Kohl's location will provide a solution to the BCS problem. BCS will just continue to aggressively grow their enrollment until they have 25% or more of the total students in the district. And then what? It is almost a certainty at that point that the courts would step in and force LASD to hand over another campus or two or swap Egan. We are all better off to nip this problem in the bud now by moving BCS to Covington in exchange for a long term agreement from BCS that they will not outgrow that campus. Stop whining about the kids at Covington. They can easily go to another nearby high performing LASD school and will be just fine. Losing Covington would be unfortunate. Losing Egan would be an absolute disaster. When are you and your HAE ilk going to understand that?

Look, I am against this whole fiasco, but I hate to see wrong arguments.

It's not a 2 acre park ALONE. There's 2 acres in Park Land funded by Greystar as part of the development of the old Safeway+Office buildings. That's EXTRA and has nothing really to do with LASD. But the LASD site is 9.5 acres and they are claiming they will lay this out with as much as a FIVE ACRE park in it. I don't believe LASD. However, they should be able to lay it out with an extra 2.5 ACRES of park land in their parcel, while using 2.5 acres of the open space for blacktop play areas with 4 square, ball on rope (rope-ball), and the usual play apparatus found on non-grass surfaces at schools, in 3 separate areas based on grade levels because they are all outside at once. They are drawing this as all playing fields, but it's really got to have the school type outdoor blacktop areas and the areas with the foam bases under play structures. This could fit in a park but it's not all playing fields.

What's wrong for LASD is that the charter has continuously been growing and the interest is strong. Last year they reached about 900 but there's no reason they would slow down adding 50-100 kids per year when they have interest enough to grow another 1000 students. LASD should be thinking about this site as just a typical site, with 600-700 kids on it, and if they want to use that for the charter, then fine, but they need another site for another 300-600 kids too, because there is so much interest in the charter school.

Interestingly, the charter school spends less per student than does LASD these days. Ha ha.

Perfect spot, but lets move on this! No more delays!
DO IT FAST!!!

As a resident within the MVWSD borders I would be annoyed with either scenario - a LASD jr high or Bullis Charter School that my child has zero or slim chance of being able to attend (with BCS - I gather maybe there is a chance in 7th grade). Since Mtn View and Los Altos High School districts are merged, couldn't Los Altos and Mtn View elementary and middle school districts also be merged?

The solution is easy. Move BCS there BUT share parcel taxes collected from all taxpayers with EACH student equally.

The issue isn't that kids from the surrounding area may not be as smart*, it is that families can't make the same contribution to cover the funding shortfall LASD withholds from students at the charter school Build them a new school and send their share of the parcel taxes along with them. That should solve the problem. Unless of course, LASD is trying to marginalize the both Charter school kids AND Mt. View kids from the area.

*my prediction: the BCS kids (no matter where they are from or where you place their school) will continue to run circles around the rest of the district students. Sad, but true.
my second prediction: sharing the parcel taxes will never happen. Nor will any other LASD campus have funds for their own upgrades after this expensive folly.

@Bullis Info. Night Attendee - You act as if requiring a student who moves out of LASD to leave BCS is a bad thing. A child attending school in any district is required to leave the school once they move out of the district. BCS is a public school. Why should LASD taxpayers support a kid whose parents don't pay LASD taxes? There need be no "shaming" involved - the kid should just be required to leave.

This fiasco was designed entirely to stick it to BCS and the lengths that LASD has gone to to accomplish that is astounding. LASD was never going to give a neighborhood school to NEC. That carrot was dangled only to get voters to buy into passing the $150M bond. They have neither the enrollment nor the budget to administrate an 11th school so in order to open an NEC school they'd have to close one of the existing elementary schools which would have to be, in all practicality, Covington since those kids all have another neighborhood school. Give Covington to BCS and be done with it. As an LASD taxpayer I am sick of the money waste to fuel the egos of whomever "lost" to BCS more than a decade ago. The purchase of any new site is entirely unnecessary. We have plenty of land and plenty of space within the existing schools if they move 6th grade to Egan & Blach. The $150M bond money could be used to make the much needed improvements to all the schools. Too bad the LASD BOD is self-serving and not interested in best serving all district residents and most importantly, all LASD kids.

More of that bad info on here, allegedly from a BCS Info Night and then from someone responding.

First of all, ALL charter schools in Calif. allow students to remain enrolled regardless of their moving once enrolled, so long as they don't move out of state. Of course, if it's too far, the student may withdraw for distance reasons.

The charter school gets the SAME funding per student REGARDLESS of where the student lives. If the student is low income or ELL, the charter school gets more, no matter where the student lives or moves to.

Hence, no worries, BCS Is not going to shame anyone into leaving. They get their $8K (more if ELL or low income, less if not) support even if the student moves.

Now, where does the money come from? Well if the student lives in MVWSD or any other similarly funded district, then LASD has to pay for that student, paying BCS. If the student is from Palo Alto, there is a deal in place that causes PAUSD to refund LASD's expense. If the student happens to live in a state-funded district (say Ravenswood), then the State pays the money directly to BCS.

So if BCS conducts 7th grade in the Kohl's school, and if BCS has empty spaces at that grade level, the admittees from Mountain View Whisman can not only attend BCS, but LASD will pay for those students (more if they are low income and/or ELL).

Them's the facts. I guess you could look at it like if BCS does 7th and 8th grade at this site and if that's notably more convenient than the site 1/2 mile away where they are now (at Egan), then it might increase the enrollment from say the Monta Loma area, who CAN go to BCS if there's room and they apply, AND LASD will cover the cost.

There many kids that live in MV AND Palo Alto that attend schools in LASD, not just the crossings. AS for my kid going to BCS, that would never happen. BCS is openly hostile to children with special needs of any kind. I would never expose my child to that kind of environment.

As for merging MV Whisman with LASD, are you kidding? Why would LASD agree to anything so foolish? MV-Whisman has a board that does whatever new thing comes along, even if it's expensive, unproven and poorly evaluated. Prior to Common Core, LASD made the pages of the Economist with their math program, which used the much better (and FAR less expensive) Khan Academy as a teaching aid. Want to merge? Then start making better choices for the kids, not the rookie supervisor of schools.

Interesting to see that BCS has a lot of people writing in to the Voice. I've been to LASD meetings and this plan is what the parents and students want. What I read here is what the BCS parents claim. You aren't fooling anyone, except perhaps the MV city council, which isn't too high a bar to clear.

With John McAlister disqualified from voting, the Mountain View City Council will not likely support the plan to exile BCS to Kohls in Mountain View. Charitable gifts sometimes come with CONDITIONS (see above).

@PSR,

I know who you are, and you live in Monroe Park. Monroe Park is NOT the Crossings. Please change your neighborhood designation to reflect that. You weren't forced to move your kids to Covington. Everyday is a struggle for us to get our kids back and forth to school.

Wherever you live, if you are a US citizen (and therefore a California citizen) you may file and run for your city council, local or county school board(s), or any other local or state elective office. It is disrespectful to insult the councils and the boards that the electorate chooses. Disagree, yes, insult, many do not agree. The democratic process allows many people to be candidates - if you have such wonderful ideas, the public will surely support your eventual election, to some elective office.

And then you will not be able to vote with anonymous impunity.

So it's unequal treatment for Mountain View residents in LASD. This is the crux of the matter. It seems to be perceived by many in Mountain View even outside of LASD areas. Some blame BCS so I do not think they are from there.

Here is a fact:

LASD will never, ever place a neighborhood school in the NEC. They need the NEC kids at Almond, Santa Rita and especially Covington. They are a corrupt outfit, driven by three camps, which are as follows -- Stick it to BCS, Love for Covington, Heads in the sand.

The Stick it the BCS group is willing to spend any amount of money to try and get rid of BCS. They are the main drivers and they are willing to spend the entire bond fund if they need to. They just need to try this one new thing- moving hem in the NEC, that is sure to finish them off. . Then they can rent out the BCS Campus when they have finished them off. It's a pipe dream, like all of the other stuff they tried, but there is no stopping them. The end result -- no neighborhood school and no bond funds for other LASD campuses.


The second powerful group that is really a subset of the first is Love for Covington. This group controls the board and will do anything to preserve Covington just the way it is. They don't want to share and they don't want to close. This group is the main blockers of a neighborhood school for the NEC, because without the Crossings and Old Mill they do not have enough students to justify a campus especially with so many other schools close by.

Here are the numbers
Students at Covington - 550
Students from the NEC at Covington - 150
Six graders at Covington - 75

With out the NEC they are done to 400 students
Without the six graders 325.
Oh! one other thing all 325 of those kids ( and the current 550) Have it least one other school that is just as close ( if not closer if you are a Crossings/Old Mill resident)
So you can see how they are never going to build a school for the NEC -- they need to trap the NEC at Covington to justify not sharing it with BCS. Imagine what it would look like in court when you try and explain why 300 kids get 16 acres and 900 kids get less than 10. So sorry NEC no neighborhood school for you.

The last group is the largest one - Let's call them heads in the sand. This group is not paying attention. They don't understand what the first two groups are doing or they just don't care. They think there is money coming to fix their child's school, and that's sad. This group includes most of the residents of LASD as well as Mountain View MWUSD residents because it effects them as well. Wake up! There will no neighborhood school and there will no improvements at other campuses. Building a 900 student school in the NEC will leave no funds for anything else and will back up traffic and send congestion to other areas ( that includes the rest of MV)

I recommend that everyone start paying attention to what is going on. Get the MVCC to stop it before it is to late.

Time to wake up! Do not let the LASD Trustees get away with it.

If attendance is only for Los Altos residents then I would be deeply offended if this were allowed to proceed.

@Kyle,

The site considered is within Los Altos School District boundary, which includes part of Mountain View. BCS is primarily for students within the same boundary. Let's be clear, LASD includes a large chunk of Mountain View.

If BCS is moved to the site I think the number of students from Los Altos will go down, because it becomes impractical to commute to the new site for many Los Altos residents. Therefore the number of Mountain View students, who are within LASD boundary, will increase. Let's not forget given the exorbitantly high housing prices in Los Altos, which also lacks rental units, K12 student population in Los Altos is projected to go down substantially. If so many MV students in the neighborhood will end up enroll into BCS.

@psr: "Interesting to see that BCS has a lot of people writing in to the Voice. I've been to LASD meetings and this plan is what the parents and students want. What I read here is what the BCS parents claim. You aren't fooling anyone, except perhaps the MV city council, which isn't too high a bar to clear."

I'm not sure to whom you're referring as BCS people but I'm not one of them and you shouldn't assume that anyone that wants the LASD/BCS feud to end is a BCS supporter. I have no kids in school but I support the taxpayers of LASD and ALL the children of LASD (including the BCS kids). This plan to move BCS to a shopping center at a busy intersection in Mtn View is ridiculous and is fiscally and environmentally irresponsible not to mention unsafe for children.
BL hit the nail on the head on every point.

Well lots could happen. BCS was forced to split so now it is on 2 sites 7 acres at Egan with 600 kids and 2 acres at Blach with no fields at Blach. So BCS has K-4 there cause they can make do with less space. But Egan has K-8.

So say BCS gets this new site with the park but has grown to 1200 by the time it opens. So LASD has to provide another site too. Si it can't be worse than Blach. Maybe 3-4 acres elsewhere but maybe still Blach. Problem is why stop at 1200? So maybe they get more 7th and 8th graders at the new site but K-4 dont need to commute too far because theres a choice of Blach or Kohls School for 5 of 9 grades. The extra space means more room for 7th and 8th grades where Mountain View kids can get in from out of LASD. This is half of 4 grades found only on that site with 130 kids per grade. Other grades are 75 at Blach and 65 at Kohls. LASD helps BCS grow easier once again.

So in 7th and 8th grades 40% switch schools to Blach Egan or elsewhere. So no weird commute to Kohls for them. Substitute closer kids from Mountain View. It really seems pretty good. Oops LASD didnt mean to do that. Silk purse from sows ear once more. :)

So if LASD really wants to spite BCS, they could take Blach away from them and give them 2 acres
at Covington. That would mean both locations would be in North Los Altos and those coming from further
away would not have Blach as a closer option.

But this commute is not really so bad. After all all 800 kids K-8 living in LASD north of El Camino do currently make said commute, just in the reverse direction, i.e. to 5 different schools in North Los Altos. To drive from North Los Altos to Egan is not much different at all than to drive from North Los Altos to Kohl's. I'd say LASD is just weird for thinking they can spite BCS with this set up. McAlister is misinformed.

For those BCS parents who don't live in Los Altos Hills, I want to say that the "dream goal" for the founders of BCS is to take over the Bullis Elementary in Los Altos Hills.

If LASD gives them Bullis site BCS founders will be ecstatic and call off all fights. But what will be left for you? Will you commute to Bullis, the secluded far corner for the ultra rich? Look at the map. You kids will probably have to find some other school to attend because it becomes impractical to commute.

The end result would be a re-segregation. A K12 school only for the super rich. Is this what we want for the society? Think about that.

With 1200 students the Gardner Bullis site is too small. Even with last year's 900 it would have been too small. This year is even larger. But it's not really out of the way. It's close to Foothill Expressway. It's probably closer to the geographical center of LASD territory than Egan is.

Now, of course, there would still be Blach as the 2nd site.....

@Other take, who said BCS has to take 1200 students?

Right now they take more to agitate LASD. They have the resources to do this. If they get Bullis site they will gradually shrink down to fit the school site. It's so easy. Too many excuses to reject applicants. And they can afford lawyers to fend off any complaints.

The goal is to create a charter K12 school in LAH, an elite mini school district within LASD.

For those current and wannabe BCS families who cannot afford to live in Los Altos Hills, the new school site may be your best long term solution going forward. If the founders give up and dissolve BCS you will end up with a neighborhood school anyway, not too bad either.

The article is really about whether the Mountain View City Council will hand over $100 million for BCS in Mountain View. The school district's plan seems obvious. Without preschool co-owner John McAlister voting, the answer from the City Council will surely be NO. The offer will likely require no BCS at the site - absent a later vote of the City Council (which is always possible). But if some folks want to argue here over whether BCS's program is better than the regular program in the LASD or whether some "founders" will be happy or unhappy here or there, feel free.

@BL:
You've got it. You have correctly described the 3 distinct groups that fester in this community. Now they are Mountain View's problem.

MV residents- please do not believe that any MV children can attend BCS at Kohls. They must reside within LASD boundaries and obtain a seat through the lottery. The only thing that may help the wider population of MV kids is if BCS continues to grow to 1200 and thus more seats will become available to more kids. But the problem is it will be difficult to legally use that site for 1200 kids. Let's see who gets their way in the end. It may not be LASD afterall once the courts get involved.

The charter school is on 2 sites now so it would continue that way with this site. 900 is too many for this site. I think the city council should put that constraint. Tops 700. Lots to object to with LASD. Other sites have average 500 kids. 10 acres or larger some 16 18 19 acres. Patsies if they let this site be double or triple dense with kids not from local. Bait and switch.

So Gary there's more to it. If the site is only 500 kids more will come from local. Local kids are 150-200 Jr high 500 elementary. 700 other kids from Mountain View too

I was at the committee meeting, and there was a concept plan presented for the
school buildings. A cluster of multistory buildings would be created. There would
be 2 stories for a neighborhood school and 3 stories for an oversized 900
student school. Previously the difference in price for the 2 options was
mentioned as about $25 Million. So, there's a reason that the charter school
if it is assigned this site, should not use it for more kids than a neighborhood
school. Doing so would lock in the use as a specialized 900 student school due
to that extra $25 Million expenditure. Keep it at 2 stories. Then it could
be either a part of the growing charter school -or- it could be used as
a neighborhood school once the need overwhelms LASD enough to be
put into action.

Consider that the other LASD school are headed down to 350 or 400 students for elementary
school and 700 or so for middle school. Building for 900 here would take
away future flexibility and raise a pronounced level of inequality for the school
there and the LASD stated goal of small neighborhood-focused schools (except
for Mountain View).

Egan parents are starting to mobilize and freak out that they might lose their campus to BCS via Margaret's proposal. Tell your district to move 6th grade to Egan & Blach, build a NEC neighborhood school at current Egan/BCS camp site, and share Covington's 17 acre land with 1200 BCS kids. Forget purchasing a 10th site site and spend the Measure N money on your schools. Continue to enjoy your even smaller neighborhood schools (including Love for Covington School- no disruption there!) with new NEC school and middle school model in the district. Win-win for all except maybe the district's budget that will have to be robust enough to maintain 8/10 tiny schools. But oh well, better than blowing all of the bond money on a ridiculous site in MV that does not logically serve anyone. You can solve the problem. It's in your hands.

While LASD drags their feet with BCS facilities for next school year, it leaves the gates wide open for BCS to grow and grow and grow. They will be legally responsible to provide facilities to an even larger BCS. LASD parents continue to move their kids over to BCS. BCS will accommodate all of those who want to go since there is no cap on enrollment after this school year. They are already enrolling for next year. They will become too big for the Mtn View site at the shopping center by the time they build it and try to stick BCS there. The land will be a wasteful purchase because no LASD school wants to go there and Measure N money flushed down the toilet. That leaves Covington and Egan as logical sites to place a 1200+?? BCS. A judge will decide that if LASD doesn't make a sensible decision now and work with BCS. BCS is clearly not going away.

I like your proposal but LASD should cap Bullis Charter enrollment right now. Yeah, put them at Covington in exchange for a cap enrollment of 900 students or whatever they have today. They'll take it. Having a permanent site is the highest priority for them. But they won't stop growing if they are destined for that site in Mountain View. They don't want it. Best way to avoid is to grow. This shouldn't be such a drama. It is very clear what needs to happen to stop all of this nonsense. Bullis growing to 1200 is crazy. It would be impossible to find enough space anywhere around here for 1200 plus staff. This is an urban area now. Not the 'burbs. Anyone think about the number of teachers, staff, etc that would be needed to run a 1200 student school? Traffic?? Parents?? The COST to run such a school? Geesh. Crazy talk. Cap Bullis enrollment right now.

@Freaking out - LASD doesn't have the enrollment or the budget to open an additional elementary school so it can't open an NEC school without closing one of the existing schools. Sharing Covington with BCS won't work. They need to give BCS the entire Covington campus. Maybe see if BCS will cap their enrollment in exchange for the Covington campus.

That is very interesting. Then why has LASD talked about opening an NEC neighborhood school but never mentioned they would have to close another existing school? I thought Measure N was passed to accommodate "enrollment growth" North of El Camino? Also known as 10th site? I guess your statement reveals the truth behind Measure N. The district lied to the voters and district parents as the bond was really to pay for a new site for Bullis, not accomodate "enrollment growth". I know. Sharing Covington will never work because no one wants it to work.

All Mountain View residents should write to the Mountain View City Council with your thoughts on this. The email address that will get to all members of the Council is citycouncil@mountainview.gov so please send your email today, to make a difference.
Four on our Council - Lenny Siegel, Ken Rosenberg, Chris Clark and John McAlister actually VOTED FOR having Bullis Charter School in San Antonio Shopping Center. They need to be reminded that the $100 million of OUR tax dollars they voted to give to Los Altos School District, should go towards a school for OUR students - and Bullis Charter School is not that school. We demand their further votes to have Bullis Charter School on this new shopping center campus, should be a resounding NO.
Read above the list of priorities for acceptance, and you'll see that Bullis Charter has Mountain View children last on their list of acceptable students. Let LASD fund their own schools - this is a massive scam by LASD and we owe it to our children not to fall for it. Remind the MV City Council that at the very least, of Mountain View's tax dollars should go to a school for OUR students.

@Zoop, your comments comparing BCS to cancer are offensive, misinformed and "so 2013" (ie. pre-5 year agreement). As a cancer survivor, I feel qualified to let you know that actual cancer eventually damages, weakens or kills the host body, wreaks havoc on surrounding organs and terrorizes your loved ones. BCS on the other hand, has made the host (Los Altos School District) accountable, raised the level of student performance community-wide, and forced the surrounding community to pay attention. The creation of BCS has made education in Los Altos a "win" for ALL students. If it were so terrible, would the "super donor" (Google's founder) who made the Grizzly Center a reality at LASD ($10mn+ donation), now be sending his kids at BCS? Please do your homework before spewing your ignorant rhetoric!

BCS should build a new campus on Grant Park site.

Why shouldn't any student who wants a BCS education be able to have it? As much as I picked BCS because was small (years ago) I also don't feel like only a kids who pulls a low number in a lottery should be able to attend. No matter where the school is located (and it is starting to look like that may be over multiple sights) why wouldn't our community want educational choice available to all in the district?

LASD is shrinking at almost everyone of their campuses. Maybe it is time to reconsider redrawing the attendance boundaries and shifting kids to schools that are closest to their homes. Use the 150M to improve EVERY campus instead of just one.

I see BCS as a good thing. We should use the MV site as an opportunity to open up the BCS enrollment priorities to include MV students. Let's support BCS and give it the opportunity to support more students and not less -- including MVWSD students.

BCS is in a prime spot to support students who are being move around as part of the district's "neighborhood school" program. We are trying to push people back into Thraukraft and Castro -- it's not going to work! Let's give them a real option; because if the district doesn't, expect more charter schools in the future.

Stating upfront that I have no kids in school.
Unless required to be a neighborhood school by MVCC, it is not possible for BCS to give a preference to MV kids who are not in LASD. Also, given that BCS has an oversubscribed lottery, even if BCS and the County agreed to a charter change with a MV geographic preference (unlikely I think), the only openings in any number would be in Kindergarten.

Only a LASD neighborhood school would ensure that neighborhood kids actually get to attend a new school.

MV is offering things of value yet the CC is not requiring LASD to agree to definite things in return. Bad deal for MV.

If all the good intention folks behind BCS wants to come to MV, then let them apply for, and start another charter school in MV giving MVWSD students preference.

Today as it stands, BCS is taking ~900 students away from 6 or so LASD local schools. Let's not forget that intelligent caring parents who live in LASD went out of their way to move their children to BCS. If BCS continues to grow, say to 25-30% of the student population, then that's a sign of a school district not listening to their constituents. The best practice for LASD to start transferring one school after another to BCS until parents stop wanting to move their children there. [This obviously assumes that special needs children are taken care of properly, If that's not the case today, then this should be the focus of the conversation and not location of a school.]

MVWSD should learn what not to do by learning from LASD.

BCS parents keep saying that LASD schools are shrinking and practically empty. Do you have real numbers on this? We’re at Santa Rita (LOVE it, as an aside) and it’s by no means shrinking. It’s actually full...overfilled with happy families. So is Almond. So while Gardner Bullis might be somewhat small, NOT all schools are “shrinking”. That is a false statement.

OK, so the only things I know about Bullis is what I read on the MV-Voice web-site, I have no personal or direct knowledge of Bullis.

I do have a great deal of knowledge about Mountain View schools and the MVWSD. I am well known to the Board and Super and many others, and I write pretty good speeches...

Basically, I would like to know in more specific terms WHY I should try to prevent Bullis from coming to Mountain View.

Vague and generalized statements that boil down to "Bullis=BAD" wont cut it. I need good solid reasons and specific details before I can decide to work against Bullis.

The complaints I have read so far have no meaningful information and the way people complain all sounds like it's just a personal grudge.

If there are actual facts and events and actions or other specific reasons why Bullis is bad, then please someone educate me so I can take action.

OK, let's get specific folks!

Why do you hate Bullis?

@BAD deal for Mountain View
"I hope Mountain View residents rise up in protest and put a stop to this."

Please educate me as to why you feel this way? Be specific.

@MVFlyer
There is no requirement that Bullis take kids from the surrounding neighborhood, unless of course they meet their own narrow requirements for admission."

What exactly are these "narrow requirements"?

I am aware that portions of the city of Mountain View are actually within the official LASD boundary. Many kids live in that area and they have as much chance of getting into Bullis as any other kid living in the LASD boundary.

It seems to me that Bullis rules for enrollment would allow for kids who live outside of the LASD (which includes portions of M.V.) to get in the lottery for a spot in Bullis. It looks like if they leave the LASD, they are NOT required to leave Bullis. I'm not sure I agree with that idea, but I can see how families could move into LASD, get lucky on the lottery to get into Bullis and then move away to cheaper housing.

Anyway, I still need more specific facts about Bullis to decide if I want Bullis to move into that portion of M.V. that is within the LASD boundary.
Factual information.

Mountain View, please understand that LASD is not looking out for us.
LASD claims that the strength of their model is their neighborhood schools. Yet, it is mostly kids in Los Altos who actually get one. The last time LASD re-direw attendance boundaries, the kids that moved around were mostly from Mountain View. We used to walk Almond, but were moved far away to Springer. It wasn't just us -- they moved the Crossings/Old Mill to Covington. In all I think about 400 students were moved more than half were from MV.

They did this all to fill up Covington, an area of Los Altos that already had 3 other schools close by. But, hey, that's not enough -- so they gave them an extra school. Then they moved the Crossings there -- very far away from their neighborhood. The end result is that only two areas of LASD MV, Blossom Valley and Waverly Park, actually have a neighborhood school. All others must drive their kids to school. Most of LA LASD can walk/bike.

In addition, LASD does not allow interdistrict transfers. Some areas of MV are very close to LASD schools but are not allowed to attend. However Palo Alto Unified are allowed to go to Gardner Bullis -- I think they do this to keep BCS from getting that campus, but really not fair to Mountain View.

Mountain View residents in LASD should be equal to those in Los Altos. LASD can even things up by opening a neighborhood school in the NEC, not a new school for Bullis. If it is not a neighborhood school, then MVCC should block it. LASD is evil until they prove otherwise.

I think that using the new school site for BCS won't hurt BCS at all. I think they are worried about the false perception that they are keeping LASD from opening a neighborhood school in the location. This construction in this set up is going to be highly expensive and it will be most expensive buildings in LASD. BCS did not ask for that. They do not WANT it. They don't believe it is a prize.

But I suspect they wouldn't mind accepting it, so long as it's clear that wasting the money this way is not their idea.

The only remaining issue is this idea of putting 900 kids on the site. It really should only be a site for 700 kids max, not 900. It was good that LASD said they would not ever put 1200 on the site, but Mountain View should get that in writing! LASD has been bonkers before. Keep the memory of no more than 900.

Santa Rita has shrunk for sure. It's just not as great as the reduction in size in all of the other schools except Covington where some odd games can be played by transferring in the children of teachers. Santa Rita was 22 kids fewer last year than 3 years earlier. Almond was 37 fewer kids. Both serve 1/3 of the fabled North of El Camino area in Mountain View that is supposedly growing by leaps and bounds due to all this new construction. Huh?

These numbers compare last year to 3 years earlier. Loyola is the biggest one to drop. It was down to 425 from 526. That's 101 fewer students. Gardner Bullis has not particularly shrunk. It went from 337 to 309, less than a 10% drop. Springer dropped to 495 from 538. Oak dropped to 409 from 459. Egan went to 611 from 619 with larger numbers in between. Blach 525 to 517 with smaller numbers in between. Covington grew to 580 from 553. Covington is the only growth in the district, and that was not by as much as Almond, Loyola, Springer each shrunk. These are public numbers reported to the state, and they are not hard to find.

So Covington, almond, and santa Rita (not mentioned) grew? Egan and Blach essentially remained stagnant. This is not a “HUGE” decline, except for one school, Loyola, over time. That’s a school though, not a district. We could compare enrollment growth or decline in MVWSD. Perhaps there is a pattern as families are pushed away from the Bay Area.

“Santa Rita has shrunk for sure”. By 22 kids??? Out of 550+? How is that a huge shrink? It’s full. I’m at santa Rita. We are full. I don’t understand how 22 kids less than overfill last year is a “huge shrink”. That’s just crazy.

Who said anything about huge? Why, that was LASD. They foretold a HUGE
increase to justify a bond back in 2014. Between 2014 and 2018, LASD shrunk 272 students down to 4403 year over year in the first apportionment enrollment numbers. Whether or not it is huge, it is 272 out of 4403. It's *NOT* any sort of increase, which is the lie that was told.

Actually, I think this decline is quite significant, because the trend is going to continue. Based just on time progressions, because the enrollment is much smaller at the younger grades, the enrollment will slowly decline (Yeah, I said slowly) by ONLY 100 or so students total per year, but it will hold steady as a trend for the next SIX years, so it will aggregate into 600 MORE students LOST.

Now that will be HUGE.

But maybe Santa Rita will feel less of the decline because it is bulked up right now and much larger than the 3 lowest enrollment schools, Loyola, Oak and Gardner Bullis.

@ST parent
> Basically, I would like to know in more specific terms WHY I should try to prevent
> Bullis from coming to Mountain View.

1. It is true that portions of the city of MV are within the official LASD boundary, and those kids have as much chance of getting into BCS as any other kid living in the LASD boundary. This is true whether BCS is located in LA or MV. If BCS locates to MV, even within the LASD boundary of MV, then the city of Mountain View, and indirectly the residents, will loose out on opportunity cost: not have the benefits of businesses that could have been there, loss of revenue from existing/potential businesses on the land, miss out on apartments that could be built on that land, etc. All of this without any upside.

2. The portions of MV within LASD are being built up with apartments (e.g. San Antonio area) and there will be more and more MV residents within LASD. At the same time, number of LA kids in LASD is flat or slightly on decline. The last time LASD school borders were drawn, many MV neighborhoods had to go past the closest school to get to their assigned one. If this trend continues, a local school would be needed for MV folks. Finding space to support two schools would be made more difficult if BCS moves to MV.

From my reading of the situation, this move solves a LA problem at MTV residents expense.

Let me ask the reverse question: I'd like to hear in specific terms WHY Mountain View should give up land to host any school in LASD when per-child density of schools in LASD is so much less than MVWSD?

If you tell me the new BCS will give preferential treatment to MV students, then I'd say go ahead!

@LASD land for LASD, MV for MVWSD

"1...then the city of Mountain View,...not have the benefits of businesses that could have been..."

OK, I get that one, I'm not sure how big that would be, but I see your point.

"2...MV within LASD are being built up with apartments...there will be more and more MV residents within LASD."

Indeed, we also have the pending huge addition of housing North of 101 to consider. All over Mountain View we have new housing being built.

"...LASD school borders were drawn, many MV neighborhoods had to go past the closest school to get to their assigned one."

I see, well, for each given MVWSD "neighborhood" school, we had about 30%+ kids going to some other school farther from home. We drew new boundaries and new enrollment rules to fix that as of 2019-2020.

"If this trend continues, a local school would be needed for MV folks. Finding space to support two schools would be made more difficult if BCS moves to MV."

We already need to find new room for schools for another 1000-2000+ kids because of all the new housing going in.

"From my reading of the situation, this move solves a LA problem at MTV residents expense."

Perhaps true, but MV is expected to expand the number of kids, we just can't be sure exactly when.

"I'd like to hear in specific terms WHY Mountain View should give up land to host any school in LASD"

Well, I can't give you a good answer for that if the bulk of the kids attending would come from LA, but if we get a significant number from MV and if they do focus on lower-income families and if MVWSD will LEARN something useful from Bullis, then it may make good sense in the long-run. I don't know enough to decide yet.

"If you tell me the new BCS will give preferential treatment to MV students, then I'd say go ahead!"

I agree with you there, but I don't know yet.

Actually, it is wrong to say that Mountain View is losing out on opportunity costs for businesses. They are simply transferring that density elsewhere with the TDR's. 610,000 sq ft of commercial space (mostly) will be built still, but just at a different location. 1/4 is right next door at Merlone Geier's final phase on
the corner of San Antonio and California. Some is over in the East Whisman/Middlefield areas. But it's still being built.

The land being eyed was supposed to be 2/3 residential and 1/3 commercial. So those residential units which would have been more LASD students aren't going to happen. Very little of the TDR's went to residential uses, just 10,000 ft I believe. So there's actually MORE commercial being built than zoned, but in different spots, and then fewer apartments where LASD has to serve them. The apartments basically aren't being built anywhere in the city. So lack of housing is the penalty paid by MV for the generous gift to LASD.

To be clear, in 30 years or 40 years when the Walmart lease runs out, there will
still be housing there (and part commercial too). That's also part of Federal Realty's 30 acres. Once LASD thought they'd eventually see 2500 apartments on the land. Now with this 10 acre school condemnation, that's at least 500 fewer total apartments that can be built. This is on top of shifting the 610,000 sq ft of mostly commercial projects off the 10 acres and onto other areas of the city. So LASD constrains some of the demand for schools for future students, by building a school on top of what would have been apartments.

BCS - Simply control the growth in current site.

Where is all problems originally coming from?

Heard once before about BCS - "socializing the cost and privatize benefit."

The thing is the Bullis program is better and 75% of the district want in. The district messed up big time by not making a partnership and going for antagonizing everyone. Now there's a real problem. If they succeed in derailing the program, a lot of people will be very upset with the district. And it's not the wealthiest people. Plenty of wealthy people use private schools anyway. The wealth levels are very equal between the two programs. Consider that the enrollment at BCS comes from all over LASD, not just the rich areas. The issue is that LASD serves only rich areas except for the San Antonio area. The total low income enrollment is below 5%. BCS is perfectly willing to enroll 5% low income but the only way they can do that is to expand more, because there is so much demand. The district actively impede BCS reaching the incoming kids in K, which is when either program begins. At the upper grade levels there are hardly any openings at all, for anyone, before 7th grade. In 7th grade a lot of Mountain View Whisman kids get in because LASD has a boutique program in 7th and 8th grade that resembles private school more than BCS.

So don't be so quick to judge.