So it looks like Copit-Olsen was elected the voice of the school district. PTA leadership translates more as the school site busy bodies pushing mostly for their children's success over others. Sorry, but it's the Mountain View School Board and Superintendent that "has failed to understand the culture and the needs of Mountain View Whisman students" and has irreversibly harmed low-income and minority students as evidenced by one of the largest achievement gaps in the state. The sooner the school district is dismantled the better.

Where is/are the teachers' union(s) in all of this? Are they supporting and coordinating the PTA's activities? Traditionally, public school teachers' unions have opposed charter schools and school voucher programs for private schools because they view them as competition for their jobs and their better students.

MVWSD has one of the largest achievement gaps in the nation and yet their PTA leaders want to keep the status quo? What works for their own children is clearly not working for the under-represented and socio-economically disadvantaged students in the district. I support Bullis Mountain View's efforts to create education equity for all students in Mountain View.

There is minimal to no tuition fee nor an expectation of donation. Admissions are based on lottery and being part of MVWSD. Bullis has an amazing reputation and a very successful school. Then why is there such a big concern to set it up in MV?
While it does share resources with the school district it’s no different than opening another school in the district.
It’s a no brained to support Bullis. The alternative is that the more affluent families will enroll in private school taking away volunteers and contributions from the public school system as a whole.

Those who have observed the district over many years may notice there's a familiar pattern of mobilizing existing schools against new schools, whether it be district choice programs, a Slater school, or now a possible charter school. Since everyone on this issue is trying to make schools better, I think both sides could and can do more to avoid the escalating confrontation.

As someone who has observed classrooms in MVWSD, LASD, and Bullis and worked directly with teachers and students in all three, I believe that social economically disadvantaged students, along with all MVWSD students, could use more of the 21st-century work skills that Bullis promotes. Web Link The letter is correct that Bullis does not have a track record with at-risk students, something Bullis must answer fully before being trusted with at-risk kids. But their instructional approach itself is not without a track record.

See "Project-Based Schools Close Silicon Valley Gaps" Web Link

MVWSD itself has made progress bridging the achievement gap, but it's not anywhere close to a perfect system for at-risk students, so what harm is there in placing them in a system that affluent families eagerly seek for their own children? If Bullis works, great, lets make MVWSD more like Bullis, if it fails, the harm won't likely be much worse than the status quo.

Rather than vilify Bullis for trying to open a school for at-risk students. Why not focus that energy on insisting:
-Transparent enrollment plans in alignment with the district's enrollment plans (rather than stonewalling any conversation of coordination)
-Merging parent foundation work to ensure uniform central fundraising, as is done with district choice programs, rather than framing Bullis as a drain. Do we frame our district choice schools and local MV private schools as threats? Don't all schools serve children in the end?
-Help Bullis outreach to at-risk families that receive priority enrolment in their MV charter, rather than scaring them away. The district's fear tactics actually increase the chances that a MV Bullis ends up looking like LASD's Bullis.

To everyone currently favoring the Bullis charter school petition. What if the low-income and English learner population doesn't enroll in the school and two years from now BCS Mountain View is serving 30 students who are low-income and 290 students who are affluent - is that success? Is that the impact you're all screaming to see?

I read the parents' letter and agree with it. If you've yet to read it, I would encourage you to take a few minutes to do so.

If Bullis wants to make a difference there's a better way than opening a school that will likely become more, not less, affluent with time.

“I just see a lot of negatives," she said. "I see a lot of segregation and less equity in the community."

And I see a lot of positives. More choices and more individualized education. Our children are all different and have different needs. It would be wonderful to have every student in a school that was the best fit for them. Why should we dumb down every school to the lowest common denominator? Why shouldn’t we lift all schools up? Not every family is happy with what the MVWSD offers. Bullis could offer a reduction in class sizes, and give more families choices. I bet the waitlist at Stevenson will drop, and overall more kids will get placed in schools that work best for them. Bullis could be the breath of fresh air that this district needs. Maybe it will light a fire under those in charge to make our neighborhood schools more appealing.

And maybe the district is planning to close Stevenson and Mistral like it did with the ISP program. The district seems to think programs that offer something different are “not fair” and instead of making changes to every school to implement what parents clearly want, they just get rid of anything they don’t like. Best of luck to anybody that tries collaborating with this district.

@MVObserver - You said, "I support Bullis Mountain View's efforts to create education equity for all students in Mountain View."

You get that even if approved, BCS MV will serve a small minority of Mountain View's socio-economically disadvantaged students?

So why not take the approach of collaborating with the district on enrichment, after school classes, summer school classes, etc., for all socio-economically disadvantaged students in the district, instead of a school for a small number of these students???

@Non-Hyphenated Name - First of all, with your user name you appear to be making fun of a person's last name which is completely uncalled for.

You state, "PTA leadership translates more as the school site busy bodies pushing mostly for their children's success over others."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!? Do you know how hard PTA's at every school in the MVWSD work to serve the needs of ALL students at their school. PTA's fundraise, volunteer, oversee programming, and donate their time, effort and money for all kids, not just their own. PTA's pay for items and programs like field trips, after school enrichment classes, classroom materials, classroom aides, library books, to name a few.

So you are completely and totally WRONG when you state PTA leadership is in it for their own kids.

Lastly, did you read the letter written by these parent leaders from EVERY school in the MVWSD? Your "busy bodies" comment is insulting to every parent who volunteers in our schools.

Hey Kevin F,

I hope you can fix this line before you go to print tomorrow:

"The new boundaries and the planned opening of the new Jose Antonio Lopez school in the Whisman area of the city"

Greg C

[Post removed due to improper use of user name.]

I would like Kevin to interview the under privilege families.The district HAS FAILED THEM TIME AFTER TIME. I see more segregation with the new boundaries taking effect next year. Almost no low income families live on the side of Huff nor Bubb. And they are being forced to relocate to Castro, and other schools. So please don't say that Bullis is trying to segregate families. The more I see the more I understand all the divisiveness. A child falls behind as early as 1 and 2nd grade. What is the district doing to resolve the gap closure that they are always talking about? Blaming it on a Middle School principal last year didn't do anything. The root of the problem is on a early age, those students happen to have an even more difficult time during high school, and what is the result? drop outs! If Bullis bring something to the table to help and I was under the situation just described, I wouldn't doubt in a heart beat to try to register my child. Yes, PTA does help, and a lot but the district is the one failing. Go visit the families at schools like Castro, Graham, Therakauf, and ask them, is the district really helping you? would you consider enrolling your younger ones to Bullis?

Please read the article below and think about what is most important in this community. The achievement gap for both low income and Hispanic students with the rest of the students is unacceptable and an outrage in the heart of Silicon Valley. The fact that the MVWSD administration is indifferent and believes we're doing "great" is astonishing and should send shivers up the spine of all parents. Be aware that the PTAs are hijacked by the teachers' unions to promote their monopoly hold on education. The methods, culture and staff of BCS are a proven success with national recognition. Mountain View and MVWSD should be welcoming the amazing education and commitment to this community. Please consider the motives of those who are opposing and know that they don't have student's interests in mind at all. Fear Mongering to preserve the establishment should not be done at the expense of kids.

Web Link

An Excerpt: "A comprehensive study of test score data released by Stanford's Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA) found that the achievement gap in the Mountain View Whisman School District between white and Hispanic students is among the largest in the nation and consistently within the top 20. A report from CEPA, updated earlier this year, states that Bay Area cities like Berkeley, San Rafael and Mountain View share a common achievement gap along ethnic lines, due in part to high levels of socioeconomic inequality and segregation.

District officials didn't dwell on test results broken down by income or ethnicity at the board meeting, instead describing the scores as a mixed bag with an overall increase in students meeting state standards, as roughly two-thirds of all students met standards in both English language arts and math. Tara Vikjord, the district's director of curriculum and instruction, said Mountain View Whisman is consistently inching towards the high performance of the neighboring Los Altos, Palo Alto Unified and Cupertino Union school districts, where about 85 percent of students meet state standards in both subjects. "We're still underperforming (compared to) three of our neighboring districts but we're making gains, which is great," she said."

Please put your signatures on the petition in support of Bullis MV, speak in favor at the Dec 6 board meeting and defend your rights as parents to choose what is best for your children. Nearly 50% of Los Altos Kindergarten parents have applied for BCS and are exercising their choice of the best school fit for their child, whether traditional public schools with LASD or innovative charter public schools with BCS . The charter law was established to promote healthy competition and break the monopoly on public education. Bullis MV is a non-profit group of brave parents and school leaders committed to improving outcomes for the kids who are the future of this country.

First, I am a very strong believer in parent managed charter schools. Having brought my oldest child up through one of the best charter schools Florida has to offer, I have seen them work impressively well. My issue here is how the schools start off on the campus of an existing public school like a parasite, slowly draining away resources meant for the existing school. Teachers and staff will likely be affected at the chosen site. Which means the rest of the school could be harmed by the existence of the charter. This is problematic. I believe this is an issue that should be worked out in great detail as part of the planning for the school, in good faith, which is certainly possible.

Second, the data on low socioeconomically challenged students suggests that they don’t stick around, which I see as part of the reason the district has trouble with this subset of students. It’s too expensive here, and those families are leaving for more affordable areas in the center of the state or in other states. So, a fresh crop of students arrive and the process restarts. I’ve seen quite a bit of this as friends of my child have moved away through the years. The data we saw in our task forces did not indicate that this trend was slowing. I would expect that Bullis will see the same difficulty. I believe they can probably figure out a process for helping these learners. But I also believe it will be as difficult for them as the district has found it to be despite smaller classes.

I think Bullis can do itself a big favor and work a bit harder on the buy in for this project. Support from the district seems inevitable. Support from the community, less apparent. I think it’s as important that Bullis choose to work with us as it is for us to choose to work with Bullis. We are all in this for the kids which is the noblest of goals. It just needs to be done in the best way.

What does "affluent" really mean here? My family has a relatively comfortable Bay Area tech worker income, but there is no way we would be able to afford to send our 5 children to private schools, which demand $30-$50k per year per child. Are my children then condemned to mediocrity because I'm neither low income or extremely wealthy?

Thankfully, Bullis exists to fill that gap for us. All 5 of my kids have now attended Bullis, and it's been a tremendously differentiated experience, particularly compared to Graham Middle School, which my son had the misfortune of attending for a year before we came to our senses and got him into the Bullis lottery.

I do not yet know what to make a charter schools - especially Bullis which parents seem to like. But if rent control in Mountain View is repealed, Mountain View will not have many low or moderate-income families. And this time around the landlords will spare no expense and tell any stories to get it done.

It is entirely reasonable to be suspicious of the stated goals of Bullis, given its track record in Los Altos. The proponents from Bullis seem to believe that us MV residents haven't been watching what Bullis has done in and to Los Altos for years, and particularly how Bullis has not made any noticeable effort to reach out to and educate those kids in Los Altos who might need the most help. If anything, from my vantage point as a longtime resident of Mountain View, Bullis has actively made an effort to avoid supporting all learners in the community in Los Altos. Watching the history of Bullis in Los Altos, the idea that Bullis is suddenly genuinely interested in ameliorating the achievement gap in Mountain View is laughable.

I'm willing to learn more, but right now, Bullis doesn't have the track record to support the claims it's making, and therefore it's very reasonable to be highly skeptical of its motives.

@CFrink, Economically Disadvantaged do stick around when their students are in MVWSD. They have community and family here. This surprising fact wis contained in data on Pupil Retention that you can see from various state databases. There is low student turnover - matching Huff, even in the poorest areas of MVWSD! (data-based decision making anyone)

@Miley of Slater, I hope the MVWSD does not try to scare off charter school parents. It is not yet ENROLLMENT LOCK_IN time in MVWSD. So, if parents are on the BMV interest list - that is as it is. Just like you can be on any school district's tentative list (this is not Double Voting mam).

From former MVWSD Trustee Lambert: please look at the comment from this fellow in the article. Keven did an excellent job of interviewing and reporting (direct quotes). It now seems that 4 former Trustees on Dec 20th, Coladonato, Chiang, Nelson, and Lambert, will have publicly come out with - 'give the charter a try, there has been a stall in reducing academic achievement AP.'

MVWSD would be better for a local charter's "oversight". The rights of the parents signing up for a public charter school are MINORITY RIGHTS - guaranteed in the California Constitution and also clear in Education Code. Minority rights of families, for public education in California. Don't mater what the sub-majority of loud parents want.

LASD Bullis is fraught with mistrust, in order to predict how it will act in MV, we should rely on the facts.

Facts are:
Pg 131 of Bullis MV's charter grants, quote: "students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (“FRPM”) and who reside within the Mountain View Whisman School District" [end quote] as the first general enrollment category, with no cap. So technically, the whole school could be free and reduced lunch if those families applied. Web Link

In early November, I asked Bullis to produce a list of events to show their genuine outreach, Bullis:
- Hosted several Spanish meetings at MV Community Senior Center
- Hosted 2 coffees at Spanish bakery on Latham Street
- Had Spanish meeting at Panera Bread
- Handed out 200+ fliers outside Castro school on minimum days
- Created Spanish Leadership team of interested parents
-Created Spanish family contact database of over 250 contacts
- Had meetings with the city's of MV Spanish outreach coordinator
- Had meetings with Head of MV Day Worker Center
- Had meetings with Listos MV
- Spoken with InPlay about Spanish Outreach

The district, on the other hand, has openly communicated to families that they may lose their neighborhood seat if they go on record showing interest in attending Bullis (a different distinction than what is used for district choice programs, there is a difference from interest and enrollment) and that Bullis can't instructional serve their children well (an issue worth debating, but the district can't tet say for certain which program is best).

If Bullis MV gets approved by MVWSD, county, or the state, and if they don't enroll social economically disadvantaged students, it can be pointed to the district's efforts, not Bullis. It will be tragically ironic if affluent MV families see through MVWSD's effort and enroll, and yet social economically disadvantaged families fearing repercussions stay away from Bullis.

I understand people are suspect of Bullis MV's intentions, but their facts and actions encourage one to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Alternatively, I know that mobilizing courageous neighborhood communities against a new school, fueling passions with premature and histrionic claims of future financial cuts were used against Slater in the past, so I can't so easily give the district the benefit of the doubt on their current response to a new school seeking to disrupt the achievement gap. Pitting MV families against each other should never be a tactic encouraged by the district leadership or school board. Linked is a social media post showing how unhealthy this confrontation is getting: Web Link

Please sign this petition against Bullis coming into MV and please help to spread the word by posting it on Facebook. Web Link

Does Bullis have a good track record in Los Altos? 4 lawsuits so far, right? Did they really care about low income kids there?

Looking at this article it appears that they are now trying to open a Monster School in Los Altos with 1800 students. Will they try and do that here eventually? Web Link

"Unfortunately, I think things are starting to change," he said. "Recent events have made it clear to me that BCS is no longer willing to work collaboratively with the district."

@ Chris Chiang,

You state that the district has in the past, "fueling passions with premature and histrionic claims of future financial cuts were used against Slater in the past." What on earth are you talking about? It is a fact that Bullis will pull about $1.6 million out of the MVWSD budget. Since you are no longer a member of the board and your access to information is limited, please don't represent yourself as an expert on the situation.

You view everything about Bullis through your lens as a charter school supporter. Many people don't support charters because of this very disruption that we are seeing in the community. How about you take a step back and allow others to have their opinions just as you have yours?

This new program would probably be better supervised by the County Board. That's what will happen if MVWSD turns it down.

As for the impacts on the district, the only reason $1.8 Million in funds is lost is because the new school will handle 168 of the 5125 students based on 2016-17 numbers. The MVWSD budget was about $70 Million back then, or $13,600 per student. I am sure that it has risen since then. I believe MVWSD spends about $15,000 per student this year. So for the 168 students moving to the charter, the district will lose about $10,600. That seems completely fair to me. Every school in the district deserves a budget. Why should these 168 students be different? The data shows more need for concern that the funding would be so much LESS for the charter school than it does for anything else.

A concern I have is that MVWSD is seeing increasing disparity between schools. Some of the elementary schools have 80% disadvantaged kids. Huff and Bubb have much less, and yet the district has redrawn boundaries so that they will have even fewer disadvantaged kids.

LASD--LASD not the charter school-- has voiced all these concerns that no school should have more than 25% disadvantaged students. Theirs all have under 5% except for two where it is 11% or so. That's the reason LASD cites for deciding not to open a neighborhood school on the new 10th site on California Avenue--that it would have maybe as much as 30% disadvantaged students. But in Mountain View there are multiple schools with more than 50%!

So if this new charter reaches its goal of 38% disadvantaged, and draws the disadvantaged students from some of the Mountain View schools which have high numbers, won't this help the situation? Theuerkauf and Castro will lose some students, but they are mostly disadvantaged. The new charter school will take those on. It MVWSD wants to help things, then it should just locate the charter school at Theuerfkauf. I believe the charter is prepared for the possibility that there might be more disadvantaged kids than they expect. Theuerkauf has room to house the existing school and the new school.

@ResidentSince1982

"A concern I have is that MVWSD is seeing increasing disparity between schools."

High percentages of "free and reduced lunch program" kids in certain schools is true, but then that's always been the case, this has not been increasing, if anything, some gentrification in certain areas has reduced the percentages of FRLP kids in some schools.

In fact, the percentage of FRLP kids in Theuerkauf has reduced to the point where the MVWSD Board recently voted to LOWER the threshold for which schools should get extra Federal money because TH had already fallen BELOW the old threshold. The new threshold they agreed on was 50% (as best I recall).

"Some of the elementary schools have 80% disadvantaged kids."

Well, maybe one, Castro.

"Huff and Bubb have much less,"

Indeed, Huff in the single digits and Bubb close.

"and yet the district has redrawn boundaries so that they will have even fewer disadvantaged kids."

NO, the purpose was NOT to reduce FRLP kids in Huff/Bubb, it was to reduce total enrollment in three schools, Huff, Bubb & Landels to the level their facilities were designed to properly handle AND to add a ninth K-5 school for the Whisman/Slater area.

One side-effect is that Huff is probably going to have the lowest percentage and Bubb will probably fall into the single digits and Landels will reduce somewhat, but that is a function of where people of various income levels live, NOT the intentions of the district.

"LASD--LASD not the charter school-- has voiced all these concerns that no school should have more than 25% disadvantaged students."

That's nice, but LASD has fewer FRLP kids in their whole district than Huff by itself has, so they have the luxury of setting whatever limits that suits them, it's not very tough in the LASD case.

"But in Mountain View there are multiple schools with more than 50%!"

NO, we have 2 schools above 50%, Castro and Theuerkauf. And those two schools are given extra money as a result.

"...charter reaches its goal of 38% disadvantaged, ... won't this help the situation?"

ONLY if Bullis honestly makes every effort to focus on the FRLP kids AND they know what they are doing to better educate FRLP kids AND they can convince those families to gamble on Bullis AND they can somehow deal with the transportation issues, sure, Bullis might be great for the FRLP kids.

I think the more important questions is, how will we know and when?
It's more than just getting the percentages.

"MVWSD wants to help things, then it should just locate the charter school at Theuerfkauf."

Clearly, you have NOT visited the Theuerkauf campus and surrounding block recently!
Theuerkauf is NOT alone, in fact, the same block of land (called Stevenson Park), contains Theuerkauf, Google preschool, Stevenson Elementary, a new district preschool AND the District Office. Add to those buildings, 3 public-use softball fields (all heavily used), a soccer field a batting cage, a city-owned 3-court tennis field and 4 substantial parking lots to support all that.

If there is any MVWSD owned site that does NOT have room for yet another school (would be the 5th school on that site) it would be Theuerkauf.

The parking and traffic issues alone would be a nightmare.

"I believe the charter is prepared for the possibility that there might be more disadvantaged kids than they expect."

You mean WANTING to join Bullis? Historically, that is highly unlikely.
The number one problem for the Dual-Immersion Mistral school is trying to convince more Spanish-speaking families to join.

"Theuerkauf has room to house the existing school and the new school."

No, it certainly does not.

Maybe Monta Loma, but Theuerkauf would be the worst choice with Castro/Mistral being the second worst choice.

If the Castro site could be substantially expanded by buying more adjacent properties, then that would work.

I wonder if Bullis would be willing to help the MVWSD buy some more land?

The state has designated a determination of disadvantaged students as the unduplicated percentage of FRPL, ELL and foster children. The state provides more money per pupil to those pupils who fall into this designation. Theurkauf in 2017-2018 had 263 such students out of a total enrollment of 369, or 71%.

The state calculates extra funding such that 35% more funding is provided for each of the student in the unduplicated percentage. This is a substantial amount. The current year funding formula provides about $8000 per ADA. The extra amount works out to $2800. The district isn't forced to use this extra funding to help the disadvantaged students, but it should. At Theurfauf with 263 such students the extra amount is $736,000. This is not federal money. The Federal money is less than that, you can be sure. The problem is that MVWSD does not use the added funding to benefit the students who need it.

The population changes have reduced the state-defined disadvantaged population at Monta Loma. In 2017-2018 it was down to 47%. In years before that, it too was above 50%. Progress? Still, the district-wide average was 38% and Huff and Bubb are far below that. Monta Loma is serving an outsized share of the disadvantaged kids, even if it no longer exceeds 50% of enrollment.

@In Favor of Public School Choice

I too am a big supporter of school choice, my child attends Stevenson PACT and I fought hard to prevent the MVWSD from closing Stevenson.

"The achievement gap for both low income and Hispanic students with the rest of the students is unacceptable and an outrage in the heart of Silicon Valley."

Since the PRIMARY variable that predicts student achievement is and has ALWAYS been the educational background of the PARENTS, it would be a miracle if MVWSD did not have one of the largest "achievement gaps" in the USA!

What Mountain View has more than even other Silicon Valley cities is a massive employment draw for highly educated workers while still having a very substantial population of people with little or no college and even many with no high school education.

Mountain View is a 2-hump camel with an ever increasing percentage of families with BOTH parents having advanced degrees of 4 years or more while the other portion of Mountain View residents have no degrees or even no diplomas. Mountain View has very few families in between those extremes.

As more high-tech jobs have come into Mountain View, the "achievement gap" has increased in direct proportion to the high-tech employees who live here.

Income level and ethnicity are NOT the primary difference, they are both related to the main issue, which is the education of the parents.

Higher educated people normally make much more money.
Lower educated people normally make less money.
In Mountain View, the people who make up most of the lower educated families are historically Hispanic.

What is totally FALSE is the assumption that it's whites versus Hispanics.
In fact, the high-tech jobs draw people of all ethnic groups and from all over the world to Mountain View, so in the higher-educated group we have very high ethnic diversity, but in the lower-educated families there is very little ethnic diversity.

Stevenson by itself has people of 26 different native languages from about 50 countries and of all major ethnic groups. (I mean, I don't know about really small ethnic groups)

The "achievement gap" issue is and always has been the education of the parents.

Theurkauf is a local school which STILL serves a population with 70% disadvantaged. The fact that techies are moving in and buying up houses does not change that. There are a lot of apartment buildings where Techies won't raise kids. You have low income families in those apartments. This isn't going to change very fast.

There is extreme variation in the fraction of disadvantaged students from school to school. Theurkauf has a very high resident fraction of disadvantaged students. It would be a good place to locate the charter school, especially considering its overall enrollment has already been declining over time, probably as Techies with no kids force low income families out of rental housing. Saying you can't use that site because Google rents part of it for a preschool, now that's offensive.

250 kids at Theurkauf brand new remodel to serve 450.

@ResidentSince1982

"The problem is that MVWSD does not use the added funding to benefit the students who need it."

Since the "extra" money is going specifically to Castro and Theuerkauf and the district just changed the percentage threshold to make sure the money only goes to those 2 schools, your statement does not make sense.

You are aware that those are not the only 2 schools that has low-income kids, right? So, just because every possible dollar has not been diverted to Castro and Theuerkauf does NOT mean the kids who need the money most are not getting it.

By the way, one added complication is that quite a few families who could qualify as "Free and Reduced Meals Program" choose not to fill out the forms to apply for that status.

Tell me how to deal with that problem? Actually, the district would love to know how to get all potentially qualified families to apply.

Another complicating factor, the school district cannot know who is FRMP when they enroll. So the district has no good way of planning, they just have some statistics they can use after the kids are already attending the schools.

@ResidentSince1982

"There are a lot of apartment buildings where Techies won't raise kids."

Have you seen the rents? (and no, I don't support rent control, it's self-defeating)
$4k apartments are common around here and yes, techies are moving into them and yes, starting families but they tend to upgrade to a house when they can afford it.

Techies also are buying up all the Eichler homes built in the 1940s-50s and tearing them down to build custom houses to suit their styles. They do this in the heart of areas where historically lower-income people have lived for many decades. The lower-income people who are lucky enough to have homes purchased decades ago get a windfall profit for their properties and move away.

"You have low income families in those apartments. This isn't going to change very fast."

Nobody said it was fast, but it is getting faster than it was and in any case, the "achievement gap" does not really change at all because the "gap"
in parental education does not really change at all.

"Theurkauf has a very high resident fraction of disadvantaged students. It would be a good place to locate the charter school,"

Only when your only factors for consideration is how "easy" it may be for the kids to walk to a TH located Bullis and how many low-income kids are in the area.

On other factors, Theuerkauf is certainly NOT a reasonable choice.

"Saying you can't use that site because Google rents part of it for a preschool, now that's offensive."

Nor did I say that, but do remember that the operational budget of the MVWSD is carefully balanced and INCLUDES the rent paid by Google at Stevenson Park (where TH is located) as well as Google rent at the former Slater location.

Losing the Google rent would put quite a crimp on the MVWSD budget and would hurt the low-income kids the most.

ST parent you have your own perspective. You're repeating what I already understood but drawing different conclusions. We do have rent control and a lot of apartments are occupied with low income families who can afford them, if barely so. But sure sometimes circumstances cause them to move out and then an apartment which maybe had 3 or more elementary kids is taken on by a Techie with no kids. So enrollment goes down. When those Eichlers are bought they are too expensive for low income kids. But a lot of them were the source of the minority number of non-disadvantaged kids all along, so it's no change. The FACT is that Theurkauf overall enrollment is going down, not up, for whatever reason. I see a possible explanation in the thing where Techies taking over an apartment (as opposed to buying a house) are less likely to have kids.

Then there's your talk about use of the added funding for disadvantaged kids. The amount should vary from school to school depending on the disadvantage level. Theuerkauf should get more than Monta Loma which should get more than Landels. But you talk about some arbitrary cutoff to either get or not get funding. I think you are talking about something different which relates to some Federal grant money and its use, which is a smaller amount than the differential funding formula used by the State of California. It's called LCFF in the state.

When a charter school is formed, by definition the amount varies depending on how many kids get the extra $3500. The low income kids do, and so do the ELL unless they are also low income in which case they already qualified. This is a lot of money. MVWSD does not deploy state dollars variably related to this funding bump.

@Christopher Chiang, I too agree that we should look to the facts here. What I am personally looking at when I consider this issue is the factual history of Bullis in Los Altos, and specifically the record of Bullis with respect to reaching out to and providing access for all learners in its existing community. From what I believe are understood facts, Bullis does not have a very good track record with respect to being inclusive of all students, including, among others, English language learners and disabled students. Understanding that background, it's hard to fully credit the stated intentions of Bullis, as its stated intentions do not appear to be consistent with its past practices.

As of now, I agree with the letter referenced in this article, not because I am opposed to Bullis per se, but because I am skeptical of the stated goals of Bullis in view of its history in Los Altos. I disagree that it should be given the benefit of the doubt, as I do not see what Bullis has done in its history in Los Altos to deserve such consideration. While it is commendable that Bullis has started to have coffees and occasional meetings with Spanish-language families, these facts pale in the face of the multi-year history of Bullis in Los Altos.

If, perhaps, I have misunderstood the factual background concerning level of accessibility and effort towards all learners that Bullis has historically shown in Los Altos, I'd appreciate it if you could provide those contrasting facts. Personally, I believe that is entirely reasonable to look at the history of the school when considering this issue, rather than focusing only on its very recent outreach efforts.

If Bullis does, in fact, show a credible history of reducing the achievement gap effectively, and can point to evidence highlighting those historic efforts and results, I believe that this will become an entirely different conversation, so it would be good to have those records made available.

First of all, if MVWSD turns down the charter petition, it will be approved by the County Board. The only question is who is going to supervise the independent charter going forward.

Secondly, the county board basically ASKED Bullis to foster a charter school in a different district. The problem is that LASD has only about 150 TOTAL Spanish-speaking ELL low income students in the entire district of 4300 kids + 900 in the existing charter, i.e. 5200 kids total. Bullis has demonstrably tried to reach out to the few low income kids in LASD, but they are rare. LASD has basically blocked BCS from access to meetings to recruit low income disadvantaged students. The problem is that a large portion are from Mountain View. In any outreach to low income Hispanic students in the area, they are about 90% students in MVWSD. So it is not surprising that outreach efforts were difficult, since MVWSD students are only able to get into Bullis Charter in grades 7 and 8 due to high demand from all of LASD for every other grade.

So there you have it. Saying Bullis didn't reach out successfully to low income kids in LASD is true and relevant only because there are so VERY FEW such students within LASD's boundaries. LASD has fragmented them between two main schools, Almond and Santa Rita, and it is difficult for BCS to identify these students and encourage them to enroll.

In the MVWSD program, they are targeting around 1/3 of their enrollment to be low income Spanish-speaking kids. They have designed their program to meet special needs from this group. The program has been advertised extensively and there is nothing like it in MVWSD -or- LASD. There's no way to do such a program in LASD. That's why the county board will be happy to approve this proposal to extend Bullis successes to low income students.... it doesn't matter what you think. You might direct MVWSD's board to develop a similar program, since it will be far less costly than what MVWSD is now spending on its own students.

Bullis doesn't care about low income Spanish Speaking kids. This is the Trojan Horse to get into our school district and privatize our public commons.

Look at their track record, Look at the facts.

"A quick look at the Academic Performance Index scores for the Los Altos School District shows that BCS has performed abysmally in serving socioeconomically disadvantaged students," Song says.

This article is interesting. Web Link

I am not a parent in MVWSD but have seen the petition with hundreds of signatures against BCS opening a school in MV. Ok, so say MVWSD decides not to charter BCS and then the charter is punted to the County to oversee. It seems like either way, BCS Mountain View will establish roots in MVWSD. One or the other will oversee the charter. What exactly is everyone hoping will happen? It seems like a done deal before the fun has even started. There is no valid reason that MVWSD can actually deny the charter petition.

Instead, the parents should be writing letters asking the MVWSD Board to oversee the charter so they have direct oversight. If left to the County, it will be a nightmare. Instead, time would be better spent asking the Board to place parameters on the charter school in terms of location, students who are enrolled, ELL services, learning support, and anything else. I think it is the wrong focus to demand the Board not accept the charter. They may not have a choice unless they punt to the County. Instead ask the Board to hold the charter school accountable for what they say they want to do in exchange for accepting the petition. BCS can implement a priority in the charter for certain percentage of low income/ELL students, I believe. Hold BCS accountable for what they say they want to do.

That is really silly to bring up an article from 8 years ago. Now people are getting really desperate in their mud slinging efforts. None of these articles, ranting, or creating weird Trump images are going to stop BCS from landing in Mountain View. Sorry. The train has already left the station.

This phrase used by Silvie Fuentes is something odd that I have only seen on the Voice site in comments. Who calls schools "public commons." What the heck does this phrase mean. The other poster using this phrases names himself Miney Core which is a play on the name of a law firm that is expert in charter law.

I can't believe a bit that Bullis is interested in privatizing anything public for the sake of that. I think they have a specific educational program that they think should be given a wider view. What's interesting is that nothing blocks MVWSD from adopting elements of this model for their traditional schools. In LASD, BCS has been copied by LASD. In this case, MVWSD could copy in advance. THAT seems to be a proper response to try to deal with the staggering achievement gap for the low income members of the MVWSD student population. Saying that the problem is caused by parents not having a high educational level overlooks simply addressing the issue. What can be done in a special program to fill in gaps for students not supported by a high educational level of their parents. It seems like there are things that would supplement in that case. Some extra features of the school program that are unneeded by the general population, but which are highly useful for progress for those lacking parents with a high educational level.

@ResidentSince1982 If Bullis wishes to take the position that it couldn't possibly have reached out to low income families in LASD, then I believe it is appropriate to look to Bullis's record with respect to access and encouragement to other groups of learners within the LASD community as a proxy for its efforts.

Therefore, perhaps Bullis or its supporters could provide some background facts to show that Bullis has a strong, effective, and multi-year track record of reaching out to, encouraging, and educating a variety of members of the Los Altos student community, including traditionally more marginalized students such as students with disabilities or English language learners. My present understanding is that Bullis has, in fact, a rather lackluster record with respect to reaching out to and making efforts to enroll and meet the educational needs of students with disabilities or English language learners, for instance, but I would be happy to have that understanding corrected with facts and records.

I'm not speaking for Bullis. If you can't see the difficulties posed by the fact that there only being 150 out of 5200 students who are low income Spanish speaking in LASD, then I can't inform you. It is likely that you are not really aware of the situation within MVLA's two elementary districts. That's fine. Let the County Board oversee the new charter school. But for the sake of MVLA future success, it would be good if the lower income students got a better education in elementary school. The difficulties from the shortfalls in early childhood education persist clear through high school. It has nothing to do with LASD having less than its share of low income students suffering from this problem, nor with Bullis Charter within LASD.

Bullis MV Hearing - Board Questions and Bullis Response (2:37):
Web Link

Bullis MV Hearing - Community Comments (1:11):
Web Link

Bullis MV Charter Text:
Web Link

Bullis MV Online FAQ:
Web Link

MVWSD's Communications Page on Bullis:
Web Link

If Bullis doesn't attract it's target group, can the district then get the school to dissolve if MVWSD approved the charter with the understanding that BMV would deliver on its goals as stated in its petition?

Also, if BMV can't attract its target group and/or it cannot close the achievement gap as it hoped, will the charter then dissolve itself due to its lack of success?

Is the fear that BMV will turn into another Bullis Los Altos, or even a Stevenson (which is not socioeconomically representative of MV) legitimate? Is there any self-limiting accountability built into BMV's charter?

I listened to all of Bullis' comments to MVWSD. From my end, after listening to all of that, I'm saddened the school has decided to come into MVWSD, although I recognize that the pro-charter current state of the law makes it an inevitability. The responses to the Board questions sounded disingenuous at best. My impression from the responses provided is that Bullis is cynically claiming it will serve one demographic for the purposes of the charter petition, but is uninterested in doing the hard work of actually meeting the needs of that demographic.

There were steps Bullis could have taken to make sure it met its stated goals: hired a community engagement officer to reach Spanish-speaking families (rather than having their office manager do that work, as currently planned); or given enrollment priority to SED families (priority for SED kids is actually just the 4th enrollment priority rather than the first); taken significantly more time to make sure families they are supposedly targeting are reached rather than having a few mere weeks after the filing the charter petition to enroll (and then, with the sibling preference in place, locking the school's population in place).

But Bullis did none of that. Essentially, as far as I can tell from listening to the board meeting and reading the documents, at every step that Bullis could have taken to make sure this school did in fact meet its stated goals, it elected not to take that step.

I don't think MVWSD will have a choice. But I wish it did, and I wish this school weren't looking here. I wish I could feel like I was welcoming an entity genuinely interested in helping MV's SED population, rather than an entity cynically using those kids as a way of expanding its existing campus. It's a sad, difficult situation.

thank you Christopher for re-posting the link to the MVWSD Superintendent's postings.

Dr. Rudolph brings up some good points (Nov 6), what is the total effect? (of BMV) WHICH BEGATS THE QUESTION: What is the total effect of the WEALTH SEGREGATION that is the demonstrated effect of MVWSD's Stevenson/PACT "choice" school over the last decade?

And of course, we must ask the same question of the very vocal Mistral leader "Sara". Christopher and I voted to let the Dual Immersion Spanish language program from within Castro school, separate and form Mistral. The very vocal leaders of the DI parents at that time wanted their own school. Their own completely Choice school. What is the total effect of the Mistral separation?

Sara - has it resulted in a measurable academic achievement GAP reduction in the DI program? Or an improvement in the Hispanic kids academic outcomes in the Castro School program? Has it resulted in ANY of the MEASURABLE improvements Sara, that 'the advocates' so strongly promised in 2014?

I think not. QED

Stevenson and Mistral schools; Choice total effect; 100% Rudolph's responsibility. Where is the report my man?
(Mr. Nelson was an element in bring Dr. Rudolph from out-of-state to head the administration of MVWSD)

And the non-profit scam that these Charters like to hide under only makes it easier for them to hide where the money goes, pay executives more and people at the bottom less.

This is a good read. Web Link