"Our aim is really to be collaborative..."

Then act like it. Rudolph asked for you to follow guidelines from the California Charter School Association for a springtime submission which you ignored. You know what the district is going through with attendance boundaries next year.

Lies from the start.

Bullis officials have been meeting with MVWSD officials, including Dr. Rudolph, for the last year. The petition should come as no surprise. The only people who would suffer from a one year delay are the socio-economically disadvantaged students who could benefit from this school choice.

I don't understand why Dr. Rudolph keeps insisting there will be a "reduction in force". From the last board meeting, his staff member shared that they hired 49 new staff members, including teachers and this is the number the District typically hires every year. His own demographer predicted 500 new students entering MVWSD in his "conservative" projection. All this data is publicly available under the reports section of the MVWSD website or under the board meeting video or notes. If BCS starts with 168 students (and grows to 320) that is not taking away students from current schools which are already over-crowded. The demographics of MV are changing - more personalized options are needed to keep our educational choices competitive. District staff including Rudolph need to focus less on how this makes his job more challenging and more on how he can improve education for the students. Let's keep it about the kids.

It's a sign of the times. Hide then force your agenda on others using the cover of legality while damning the obvious community-building opportunities and present yourself as actively ignorant and/or self-absolving of the ill will you've create along the way.

The means to an end doesn't matter anymore. Here comes Bullis.
(Is it pronounced "Bullies"?)

Superintendent Rudolph may not have been aware of exactly when the BCS number two application would be submitted. But he has admitted that he knew it was coming as he has publicly stated and been quoted by The Voice.

Trustee Wheeler should have known this information also, and informed Rudolph at her monthly private meetings with him. Ellen Wheeler as served as the official League of Women Voters (LWV) "Observer" for the Bullis Charter School board meetings. For over a year, she has been attending and writing LWV public reports. Did she understand? Did she follow what was developing? Wheeler gave no real answer to the charter school question when it came up in the recent MVWSD candidate meeting.
Bullis LWV "Observer"
Web Link

This is just another reason why I, like former Trustee Christopher Chiang, endorse Coladonado and Conley (and I also like Patterson). Accomplished younger professionals with very sharp minds and the ability to understand complex data, not just feelings, and the ability to answer hard policy questions in a straight forward manner.

It's a sign of the times. Hide then force your agenda on others using the cover of legality while damning the obvious community-building opportunities and present yourself as actively ignorant and/or self-absolving of the ill will you've create along the way.

The means to an end doesn't matter anymore. HERE COME NEW PRINCIPALS REPLACING AWARD-WINNING AND BELOVED PRINCIPALS DISCARDED BY THE DISTRICT!

Bullis, on the other hand, has been completely above board with their plans. No Need to delay the start of their charter!

@Reform must happen: Generally agree with you! Reduction in Force does not necessarily mean a layoff of current MVWSD teachers. So, for instance, about 50 new teacher per year have been hired by MVWSD, partially because it has one of the worst teacher retention histories in Santa Clara County (lowest or near lowest average teacher years-of-service, state database).

Instead of MVWSD hiring all these teachers - instead Bullis in Mountain View will be hiring enough to teach 168 students in K-2nd. So the number of new teacher NEEDED in MVWSD will be reduced by that number. And - who knows how many MVWSD teachers (probably younger ones) will want to jump ship and work for a public charter school like this?

There is just about zero likelihood that any MVWSD experienced/vetted/tenured teacher will be 'reduced'. At 168/25 = 7 teachers it is rather absurd to think the public charter school will have a material effect on MVWSD teacher employment (NO reduction in 'current' force).

If Bullis behaves in MV anything like they did in Los Altos, as soon as you let them in, they will start suing your school district left and right for more space, resources, etc. etc. because they claim to be a public school even though they really aren't.

@Schmedly The only reason Bullis sued was because the school system actively tried to not fulfill their obligations anywhere they could, essentially because the teacher's union hates charter schools and sees them as a threat. They even tried to limit child resources and recess time at one campus because they apparently just see kids as pawns in their battles.

And what on earth are you talking about them NOT being actual public schools. They ARE, by both law and charter. They are actually the ultimate public school, as they are organized by the public, run with public resources, and unlike most "public schools" you think about, are actually accountable to the public.

"...founding board members Bertha Alarcon, Greg Brauner, David Jaques, Clara Roa and Patrick Walsh. Two of those board members -- Roa and Jaques -- serve on the Los Altos Bullis Charter School board of directors. "

Who are the people on the board of directors? Do they have children currently in the MVWSD? How did they get connected with BCS? I struggle with the idea of wehther or not there is true altruism from Bullis or just an attempt to appease critics who find fault with the homogeneous nature of BCSI.

Hi @Downtown Mom. We do have children who would attend MVWSD within the next calendar year. I was born, raised, live, work and went to school in Mountain View. I joined the board to help bring an innovative model with priority enrollment for socioeconomically disadvantaged students to our community. I believe we as parents should have a variety of options when it comes to educating our children and the Bullis model truly focuses on the whole child. I am excited about the opportunity Mountain View is being presented with and I hope our community will approach the charter with an open mind.

Bullis Charter has been very popular in Los Altos and should likely be so in Mountain View. It's doubtful that parents will be able to contribute as much as the Los Altos parents do but I suspect they'll try.

As usual the biggest problem(s) include predicting student load and providing a working school site. In my (rather crummy) opinion I believe that all the current options are too "industrial" for a school site.

The best school(s) exist in neighborhoods consisting of single family dwellings and perhaps a few apartment buildings. So far Los Altos has been unable to locate a suitable site for a new school despite having $150 million available. I suggested purchasing the Fenwick House and giving that site to the Bullis Charter School but that was dismissed.

Too bad. The Fenwick House is readily available and has plenty of land to expand. It's also in Los Altos Hills which would work perfectly for the regular Bullis Charter School site.

And it is NOT along a major street like the original proposals such as 5150 El Camino (awful) and the current thought process focusing on the Safeway location at California and San Antonio.

And, best of all, it's only $50 million which would leave $100 million to build up / expand the campus.

And the location? Extraordinary!

I love it when "progressive" ideas backfire.

Let's allow groups to create their own schools. It will be so great. Under served groups will come together and start charter schools.

Where are the poor huddle masses yearning for an education?

Is the Fenwick house near St Nicholas? Is it for sale? If yes to both (couldn’t find on map), wonderful idea.

Sigh. I've read everything I could find in the MV and LA papers about BCS coming to Mountain View, and my takeaway is the BCS is a bully, who gets to play by rules the rest of us can't play by, and who looks out for personal interest over greater good. To hell with the wake their coming to MV leaves for the neighborhood schools as long as BCS gets what they want.

I know a) BCS doesn't care, and b) they're clueless about the differences in the LA and MV school communities, but for those of you who are a parent at a MVWSD elementary school I want you to think about what it will mean for your school when BCS opens. One school will eventually lose its campus and its students will be re-zoned, but even bigger than that, there's an elephant in the room, and the ramifications will hit every school hard year after year, and its our MVWSD kids who will pay the price.

BCS, seriously and respectfully, find another district, you're the last thing we need.

And for those saying, "Oh, but BCS wants to help socio-economically disadvantaged students." Get real. Within it's first few years BCS Mtn View's demographic will look just like BCS Los Altos - high income, college educated parents, donating the max amounts suggested by the school each year.

Lastly, for those making this a Dr Rudolph vs BCS fight, it's not. I'm a parent in the MVWSD and not one parent I've spoken with wants BCS in Mtn View. This has nothing to do with Dr. Rudolph and kudos to him for actually standing up to the bullies from BCS and looking out for our students best interests.

As I understand it, BCS-I is chartered by the Santa Clara County School District?/System? and sited in the Los Altos School District at their direction, requiring LASD to house BCS-I. State per-student funds go to LASD or BCS-I, depending on who teaches the student. A lot of the arguments about capacity, number of students, placement, etc are ways of dealing with this fact. For example, LASD's talk about lost revenue refers to the fact that students they no longer teach (ie, BCS-I students) are no longer earning per-student revenue for LASD. LASD is trying to manage a declining LASD-only student population and revenue base with an increasing LASD+BCS-I classroom, student population and revenue base.

It seems to me that if MVWSD accepts the BCS-II application and BCS-II becomes a MVWSD charter school instead of a Santa Clara County charter school, then the per-student revenue problem becomes a problem of allocating resources, eg, classrooms, sites, and students, among MVWSD schools. This is not a new problem for MVWSD.

I hope MVWSD recognizes that since BCS-II wants to be a charter school in the MVWSD, MWSVD will be better able to manage the change if BCS-II is a MVWSD charter school instead of a Santa Clara County charter school. In other words, I hope MVWSD accepts BCS-II's application to become a MVWSD charter school.

LASD managed the requirement to house BSC-I by adding classrooms to existing LASD school sites, not by converting an LASD school site to a BCS-I site or building a new site for BCS-I.

BCS-II proposes to start very small, and it will be tempting for MVWSD to follow LASD's path. If BCS-II grows as planned, this path will cause as much trouble in the MVWSD as it has in LASD.

Wow, get ready Mountain View residents. Bullis Charter School has wreaked havoc on LASD by taking time, money, and resources away. They claim to be a public school but in reality they are not. They have no transparency in how they use OUR public tax $$ and how their students are selected. They have been asked time and time again but don't disclose everything.
One of the parents of Bullis students is running for a LASD Board member position. If you look at her webpage, you can tell she has NO idea of how public schools run. BCS is run like a corporation. I have talked to a teacher who left that school to work for LASD. Horror stories about Administration. It is a good school IF your child is gifted and you have money and time to donate....sounds just like a private school.

Get ready Mountain View! It ain't gonna be a happy next few years for ya'll!

@Doug Peterson, I'd agree. Your explanation and analysis of the funding & planning implications are clear - and seem to reflect both of our understandings of California PUBLIC charter school law. The transfer of operational funds (distinct from facilities) is based on the ADA dollar-per-student Base rate for public school elementary students. Add to that, the 20% extra for every Target Student (Economically Disadvantaged for instance). That money - for MVWSD - is less than the property tax and lease and parcel tax revenue (per student) that the District currently gets. So, some operational money will be withdrawn from MVWSD and transferred to BCS-II each year, based on BCS-II attendance (ADA). The amount transferred per student will BE LESS than the MVWSD will have per capita for it's similar students.

Facilities are an entirely separate calculation - that IMO was one of the giant fight issues in the last decade of BCS-LASD battles. I hope the MVWSD organizational leadership is up to it! I am going to vote for the two candidates who have made their views on this very clear.

BTW - short term v. long term facilities are also separate issues FOR SURE! Sylvan Park has 10 acres designated as reserved for a "PUBLIC SCHOOL"! That is the property agreement that City & MVWSD and it's predecessor school district has had in place for decades and decades! The MVWSD or the City can provide you with the legal document, and the County Assessor Maps show where that designated property is within the land currently used 100% as a neighborhood park. (I dug down and studied this school public property resource issue when I was a Trustee of the MVWSD).

@Seth - Castro parents of underperforming students chastised the 2014 Board (inc. me) and Administration for 'lying' to them about the academic performance/ GAP between White and their own Hispanic students. Research by Professor Reardon at Stanford University has proven, (statistically - 95% confidence interval) that those Latino moms were RIGHT! Insanity definition? keep on doing ....?

Yes, the Fenwick estate is for sale. 45 acres, $50m, at 28011 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills. I have not seen this spot proposed before. It's a radical and interesting idea.

It's a beautiful spot, but access is difficult. Access really matters, because this would be the largest school in the district and you are chewing up time in thousands of people's schedules.

It's 10 minutes from the Los Altos Library via Foothill/Atrascadero.
It's 16 minutes from The Crossings via El Camino/Atrascadero.
It's 12 minutes from Rancho via FootHill/Atrascadero.
It's 10 minutes from Foothill College via Elena/Robleda/Purissima.

About 3 minutes could be shaved from most of those times via changes as detailed below.

Purissima Road and Elena Road are not currently fit to carry 1200 dropoffs. One possible remediation would be to purchase one of two houses off Twin Oaks Court, which is a little stub off Arastradero just before it goes under 280. Bulldoze the house and make a parking area for parents to drop off kids. This would suck for the owner of the other property on Twin Oaks Court... probably the best thing to do would be to buy both of them. Zillow doesn't list prices but nearby similar-sized houses go for $3.5m.

About half the parents would forgo 280 and come directly up Foothill to Arastradero to turn left at Twin Oaks. That's going to cause a backup, requiring a stoplight and left turn lane at that intersection.

Since this is a new entrance to the property, I'd recommend that the property be divided and the house sold off with 5-10 acres of land, leaving the school with the remaining 35-40 acres. That's a gigantic amount of land, plenty to hold a 1200 student school and keep some in reserve for community resources.

The thing is Mountain View has to follow the LCFF. They either receive or must pay any charter school extra funding for disadvantaged students, defined as low income, foster chold, or English learner. This is a 20% bump on the base amount for all students state-wide, equal between district. Then MVWSD gets a small per student bump based on historical payments which don't get increased based on disadvantaged status. I'm not even sure if this amount has to be shared with any charter school serving some of the students, but it surely isn't indexed to increase for status of the particular child.

See: Web Link

So, across MVWSD the disadvantaged portion is 43%. If the new school matches the district, then the amount MVWSD must transfer to the charter is the same as the average, or about $8K to $8.8K each. It might be 10% higher if they get 100% disadvantaged enrollment, which is unlikely. So say it's about $9k to $9.5K per student. At 168 students, that's around $1.5 Million to $1.6 Million.

One reason Rudolph is upset is that MVWSD uses the extra payments for disadvantaged kids to benefit all kids, rather than using it to address the achievement gap. The other reason there is concern is that the new charter has drawn a bead on the achievement gap, and they will do much better than MVWSD does at bridhing it.

Another thing that shows up in the application for a charter is that they are drawing in outside funding. They are going to serve 3 more birth months of TK than the state funds, with about 12 slots for such kids. MVWSD won't lose any money for those kids. So the funded portion of the 168 kids is only 156 kids.

@Funding - thanks for posting the good & basic State Department of Education financials link! I cannot read Dr. Rudolph's mind - why is he is administering - and THE BOARD APPROVING spending so much (about half) of the LCFF Enhancement Grant (poor kid extra 20% share = $3 M +) for "ALL students" at "ALL schools'? (last LCAP of the MVWSD)

Just don't know - and I'm very disappointed in the guy on this extremely significant equity matter!

Wheeler - I now just expect that from her. She does not pay attention to 'details' and is a great advocate for no discussion of extra programs/money (beyond PK-K) for disadvantaged kid programs on Saturdays, after school or summers.

First of all, I doubt that their enrollment policy with a "weighted preference for children who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals residing in the school district" is legal. I would hire a legal team to fight this.

Second this is an attempt to profit off the backs of our kids and a way to privatize our public schools. The conservative billionaires groups are backing this push to divide and conquer our public commons. CCSA and Bullis is licking it's chops at this Charter model of priority enrollment given to children from low-income families. They haven't cared about low income families in the past so why now? This is a tool to "break into" successful school districts in order to set up camp and slowly divide and bankrupt our public commons.

The Walton's will be sending in hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money to prop up this business model charter. Don't let it happen because once they set up shop the Prop 39 and Charter laws are heavily favored to the charter schools and it's like a cancer once it gets established. Are their board members elected? That's not public! Young Minney and Corr and CCSA has argued that charter schools aren't public when they need to use it in an argument in court and also tried to argue they are public when that argument works for them. Don't let the conservative billionaires and hedge funds privatize our public schools. VOTE for TONY Thurmond for public education and NOT the billionaire backed Marshall Tuck!! SAVE our public schools!!

The collective, shared benefits far outweigh the value of any individual “choice.”

Read this great article below. I am very worried for our community. Please let's not create a system that tries to validate the segregation of our kids all under the veil of "Choice".

Web Link

I looked at the Bullis MV charter petition. There is an absolute priority for low income families if the charter school is oversubscribed. The whole program of the charter school is designed to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged kids without as much support at home (in the way of activities and support for learning). The school day will be longer and the school year will be longer. They will accept a half TK class full of kids who are too young to qualify for state-paid education (and so they will use other money to fund those kids) This means the education for those kids will start earlier, i.e. they will get preschool.

The state wants to encourage such support and that's why the LCFF funding model gives district extra funds for such kids. In the case of this charter school, they will seek even more added funding (as does MVWSD) from private sources.

There's no doubt on the legality. I doubt any well-off kids will have families complaining. They don't need the extra features of this particular program as much. They aren't allowed to complain about the kids getting free lunch. Why should they have legal status to object to the special program for disadvantaged kids. MVWSD has 43% low income kids. These kids are all at a disadvantaged compared to the other others. It's time there was some effort to do a comprehensive program to address their needs. MVWSD tries but they aren't reaching all of them. Choice or not, this will provide 168 kids next year with something to address their disadvantage and let MVWSD keep on working to serve the others.

Bullis doesn't care about disadvantaged kids. Please. This is a ploy to get support to open up a charter in order to dissolve our public schools. How many charter schools will it take to bankrupt our local district public schools?

Bullis is backed by the Koch brothers, Waltons, Gates foundation and Doris Fisher among others.

This is a Trojan horse. Wake up Mountain View! Time to organize and fight this before it is too late.

Ignoring duplicate addresses, names, and incomplete information provided in the petition, there are signatures from plenty of Drs., Lawyers, and Tech Mgrs. and not as many from the targeted community they look to serve. The lobbying & marketing plan (or the "Outreach and Enrollment Plan") seems to have saved this population issue for later in the game. Real questions are arising as to who really wants to utilize this school.

BCS-II's integrity should be measured by how sincerely their charter is written to purpose: serving the SED population. If there is increased demand from the SED population, then growth should be allowed. If enrollment from that group declines, the school should shrink accordingly. Growth/available space should be unrelated to other student groups' attendance rates.

@Integrity to Purpose,
I just looked at the petition, and there is no place on the parent signature pages for people to indicate their profession so how do you know that signers are doctors, lawyers and tech managers? I question your claim there are no signatures from low SED families. In looking through the document, I see plenty of names that sound Latino (the majority of low SED families in MVWSD speak Spanish).

Also, the charter petition is asking MVWSD to be the charter authorizer so if Bullis Mountain View is not serving the intended demographic as outlined in the petition, the authorizer has the power to close it down.

You seem ignorant or you are someone working for a teachers union....your comments smack of standard union anti-charter lobbyist lingo. That manipulation might work in the East Bay, but parents here are a little more informed than you might be have been hoping.

@Your Integrity is being Questioned
There are reasons people have to identify themselves in a *public* petition process which allows anyone to look up publicly-available corroborating information.

You said: "I question your claim there are no signatures from low SED families."
I never made that claim. You have fabricated this position.

Authorizers can simply close down charters under some specific conditions but other areas are messy. Charters can be written in such a way where too few objective measures are available for arguing either side, so the tie goes to the runner (i.e. the charter).

Asking for BCS-II to include size-to-enrollment language isn't unreasonable if they are truly purposed to serve the SED community. Perhaps there is a reason *you* don't want to have that language included in the charter, but accountability is a good thing for both sides. Enrollment could be a transparent measure for success. Success with the SED students will drive enrollment demand. If the enrollment for (only) SED students is wait-listed the district would have a clear reason to allocate more resources, wouldn't it? This would put the district, as authorizer, in the position of having to give BCS-II increased support without wasting precious funds on legal fights. Strange you'd be against this as someone who seems to be a charter supporter.

"You seem ignorant or you are someone working for a teachers union...."
An ad hominem attack followed by wild speculation. Umm...

"your comments smack of standard union anti-charter lobbyist lingo"
I'm not sure of what they would say. I'm not a supporter or member of any pro- or anti-charter lobbying group. I hold my own opinions independently.

"That manipulation might work in the East Bay..."
That you didn't bother to read that I am located in "Another Mountain View Neighborhood" and not in the "East Bay", well, I just can't help you get to where you want to go. It certainly makes me wonder what I've missed out on over there. Something to look up I guess. Can you (or anyone else) be more specific? Thanks in advance.

You've offered no reason why the language to tie size/growth to SED enrollment shouldn't be specifically made part of the BCS-II application/authorization. Your strange reaction, attempting to attack me and dodging my proposal, only strengthens my concerns about BCS-II supporters not being truly purposed to help the SED community long term.

Supt Rudolph says he can't figure out which site to use. Picking the site has a big effect on making the SED numbers high. To ensure max SED enrollment, just pick Castro/Mistral. That's the only site with side by side 2 450 student schools, so that the charter can be split between classrooms from each of them when it grows. Both are unlikely to reach their full 450 student size for a long time. The district is banking on getting 900 kids there somehow. Seems like this new charter is just helping out! There are problems with the dual immersion because they can't get enough Spanish speaking to participate to grow it. So seeing that as a permanent or long term 300 student max school makes a lot of sense.

By locating the charter at that site, the district will ensure SED student interest in the charter. It's in their power.

Integrity to Purpose:
This is what you wrote: "Ignoring duplicate addresses, names, and incomplete information provided in the petition, there are signatures from plenty of Drs., Lawyers, and Tech Mgrs. and not as many from the targeted community they look to serve."

Per your comment above, you cyberstalked 150 petition signers and figured out their professions, per your claim that you could figure out who were doctors, lawyers and Tech Mgrs from "publicly available corroborating sources"? And then you were able to figure out that of the 150, the majority of the folks on this list were not SED?

Wow, just wow...not creepy at all.

@Wow
Again, the petition is part of a public process and because the petition is requesting control of public funds it should be scrutinized. I can't help if the public scrutiny portion of the civic process wasn't explained by Bullis to those whose signatures they were busy procuring. Motivations for the petition are in question. I've provided only aggregate, publicly available data - no specific individual's data and certainly not anyone's SED status. I can't help it if you don't like or care about transparency and accountability in government. If you prefer to stay out of the public eye, either don't participate in government affairs or go and start a dark money organization or something.

As to the targeted SED community (Castro, Monta Loma, and Theuerkauf according to Bullis), *petitioners were asked in Bullis' petition* to provide the name of the neighborhood school that has been assigned to serve them.

Almost a third of the assumed-to-be-valid petitioners provided inaccurate responses like: blank, Whisman (not an active site), some form of Mountain View or MVWSD, Mistral or Stevenson (these are Choice and not "Neighborhood" schools), etc.). Some people signed multiple times - how many votes do *you* get when you go to the polls? That information can be corrected for using information from the district's 2019-20 boundaries and the addresses the petitioners provided. After correction, the data shows about 60% of self-reported/corrected petitioners came from Bubb, Huff, Landels, and Vargas service areas, the highest from Landels (twice as high as Bubb) followed by an almost equal number of petitioners from the not-yet-opened Vargas, and Huff. Of the almost 40% that came from Castro/Monta Loma/Theuerkauf neighborhoods, there was a somewhat even split between the three with a slight lean toward Castro.

Interest seems 150% higher in areas with fewer numbers of SED families (as identified by Bullis or using district data). This could mean several things, some not so pleasant to discuss. Bullis' marketing/lobbying plan seems to predict this problem and press to round up in-community voices to correct for this imbalance. Their actions will signal their intent.

@Integrity to purpose
I doubt the folks signing the petition are abusing the process. I suspect some folks would have put down "Whisman" as their school given the district was referring to Vargas as Whisman before it was named. Signing up per kid that they have "meaningful intent" of sending their child to BMV (I recall reading out one person listing out their triplets) seems like an easy enough misunderstanding.

Technically a charter only needs to collect 50% signatures of parents that have meaningful interest. Given BMV handed well over that requirement I suspect there's enough even after de-duping.

I think it's fair game (but not sure on the legality) for the district to call up folks on the list to verify that it includes at least 42 parents in the targeted neighborhoods with children that would qualify for free lunch . BMV claims strong relationships with the community so it doesn't seem like a high bar.

@dk
I agree that there were likely many simple misunderstandings and not all parents understood what was being asked. Some parents just wrote down what other parents wrote. You are asking a lot from parents who are likely new to the district and may not already know their designated neighborhood school or anything about the boundary changes. "Whisman" was a slightly odd answer considering the time it has not been in use. That there were so many confused parents raises questions like: If you don't know what school your child would attend, what information are you basing your decision on and who are you getting it from? Do you understand what "meaningful intent" represents in the process? Etc.

I don't question that Bullis has gotten the signatures it needs and I'm sure the district will (if it even bothers) be able to verify the minimum intent needed to move forward from the petition.

Looking at objective demographics to see who is interested and when still adds context to the application and to the process going forward including which schools are affected and how. Where does Bullis go? It is easier to get support from families whose neighborhood school wouldn't be affected, isn't it? Why is that ratio of non-SED to SED communities so high?

At the core of my concern is what kind of school is Bullis really proposing? One that is specifically targeting and serving SED families? Or one that serves SED for show while simply providing another opt-out for non-SED families like Stevenson? How far is Bullis (and their non-SED supporters) willing to commit to SED students?