Let the games begin...

I'm always supportive of another choice. I just hate the way Bullis came in to Mountain View. That said, I wouldn't send my kid there. The term "guinea pig" comes to mind. I wouldn't judge anyone who thinks that's best for his/her child, though. This is going to be an interesting experiment.

So the games begin. Instead of voting up or down on the Bullis application the Board "approves" with unacceptable conditions. If they had out right rejected, Bullis could go directly to the Santa Clara county board for approval. Now after Bullis rejects their conditions, the Board will probably sue them to keep them from going to the county. The Board is going to spend $Million of the taxpayers' money in legal fees fighting Bullis and losing just like the Los Altos board did. This money would be much better spent improving the education of the students in the failing Mountain View Whisman School District. What a waste!

Do you have a crystal ball? You think MVWSD is going to sue Bullis? Probably not. One of the worst reactions is to assume something will happen and make it a fact. Fear mongering is our worst enemy and is not productive.

So glad that our elected representatives and Sup't put sane conditions on it! Otherwise Bullis will just take our kid's money and not be accountable to anyone that represents us!! Thank you board!!

Totally agree with the "fear mongering" comment above. No one is talking about MV suing anyone. BCS is the one that sued Los Altos 4 times - THEY cost everyone extra money in legal fees on top of what they already took from that district!!

The conditions sound perfectly reasonable to me - if they say they gonna priortize SED kids, then put it in WRITING and be held accountable. Sounds pretty reasonable to most MV parents there last night. The Los Altos BCS parents, Bullis MV principal and board don't like it - just goes to show they were never really serious about their intentions and don't want to be held accountable to what they say they purport to do!! Duh!!

@Disgusted with Board

If you think demographic parity and provable achievement gains are unacceptable conditions you are openly advocating for skimming. shame on you!

The Trojan horse of the conservative billionaires is entering Mountain View. Sad for our public schools, teachers, kids and our community.

The best way to counter them is to fight to keep their enrollment down. I suggest our community start a campaign showing the real motivation behind Bullis, and how it will impact our truly public schools. We need to organize and stand up now more than ever to protect our public schools.

This is about privatization of our public commons and market share, and has nothing to do with Bullis really wanting to help low income families. All we have to do is look at what our neighbors in Los Altos are going through to get a glimpse of what we are in for.

CCSA is the evil machine that is supporting this privatization backed by conservative billionaires.

Here are two great articles that are must reads on who is profiting and backing this privatization movement.
Web Link
Web Link

Thank you to the board and the superintendent I haven’t always agreed with decisions you’ve made but last night’s meeting made me proud to support our district. Many of the community opinions were well stated by Dr Rudolph and the Trustees. I truly hope that Bullis listened, accepts the conditions and works towards improved collaboration.

The superintendent and the board are saying they have no choice but to approve, so they are going to do their very best to sabatoge BMV (ex: 3 year approval). Perhaps BMV should reject MVWSD's contingencies and go to the county.

Gutierrez says MV already has choice, but not everyone does--many sit on waitlists for choice programs and thus don't get to have a choice.

way to go Ayinde and board for showing some spine and trying their best for standing up for our kids - too bad the charter laws driven by well-paid lobbyist tied their hands!

like the poster says above, we need a movement to save our public schools. if people like betsy devos champion charter schools, then you know something's up!!

how do we do it? any ideas? count me in!

Dr. Rudolph,
You wasted an opportunity to show real leadership last night. You tearing into BMV rallies more hostility in our community. BMV will have MV children attending their school. Do you intend to sabatoge their education out of anger and revenge? If you really advocate for equity for all kids, then you should support and help BMV achieve their mission. But we suspect you will do everything you can to make them fail (at the expense of children) to "win." Sad politics and fear mongering.

@sabotage

sabotage?? really?? so it starts my friends. giving them a 3 year charter to see if they will do what they claim **as the law allows** is *sabotage*? i guess now we know what kind of "dialogue" and "collaboration" we are in for the next few years. lolz. god help us.

yea, maybe you should go to the district, as you say.

hey folks who are worried about this charter school hurting our city, go to the following link that someone previously posted and email the county board of education your thoughts! the only reason this got approved last night was because if they didn't do the county ed board would with no local oversight. this is our tax dollars people!! let the county board know what you think about that!! i am going to type up a letter to the county and will share on this forum. feel free to cut and paste and send off the county board. and if anyone else has a letter they are willing to share, please do so! i know our power is limited as parents but i still want my voice heard.

Web Link

Joseph Di Salvo
Rosemary Kamei, President​
Grace H. Mah
Peter Ortiz
Claudia Rossi
Anna Song, Vice-President
​​Kathleen M. King

@Wasted a chance

you say "Do you intend to sabatoge their education out of anger and revenge??

seriously??

all he said is that the WAY they did this is what he didn't like and he wished they had been more communicative and forthcoming and collaborative and gotten more community buy-in and given us more time rather than coming in at the last minute. something the board trustees AND many MVWSD parents AND MV Voice echoed. so this is what you call "revenge"?? wow ok. like i said so it begins. sorry he didn't lay out the red carpet for you and hand you all of our money without any of the accountability with a big smile on his face. let me get my tiny violin out for BCS.

just read this in newsletter. sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. doesn't sound like revenge or sad politics to me as BCS supporters saying. if BCS rejects this, then you know their true intentions of actually serving SED kids!! lets hold them accountable just like we do the rest of our schools!

The District’s expectations of BMV:

- BMV amend its enrollment priorities. Students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (“FRPM”) and who reside within the attendance boundaries of Castro, Theuerkauf, and Monta Loma Elementary Schools and students who are eligible for FRPM and who reside within MVWSD be afforded first and second enrollment preference.

- To address the potential fiscal impacts of the inaccurate estimates, BMV is to revise its budget assumptions to match the District’s demographics (FRPM rate of 42%; English Language Learners rate of 24%; and Socio-Economic Disadvantaged rate of 35%.).

- To effectively compare academic performance to measure the expectation that BMV exceed Districtwide assessment results for all pupil subgroups by not less than five (5) percent, BMV should utilize the same benchmark and reading assessments used by the District each school year, conduct such assessments on a trimester basis, and meet assessment reporting deadlines as designated by the District.

- The majority of BMV’s Board members should reside within the boundaries of Mountain View and/or the Mountain View Whisman School District, to address potential conflicts of interest, governance concerns, and ensure local participation in BMV’s governance.

Just read the expectations in district newsletter as well. Good. They totally need some oversight. So far have not earned the public's trust. Quite the opposite as far as I can tell.

Hey folks--encourage Bullis MV principal Jennifer Anderson-Rosse to accept oversight. Are we as taxpayers allowed to email her? If anyone has her official BCS email please do share. If my taxes are going to pay her salary (BTW anyone know how much that is?) then I should be able to relay my concerns.

We need to organize meetings and send out letters to preschools/aftercare programs and summer school programs. Bullis will be spending a fortune on advertising and marketing to try to enroll kids there. I can see them in their yellow t-shirts standing outside preschools,at markets and parks trying to convince parents their program will be better. Is it worth organizing a protest after our holiday break?

Time to get the word out, mobilize and get organized! Is there a current web link of a group of parents organizing against Bullis yet?

Why is priority given to "students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (“FRPM”) and who reside within the attendance boundaries of Castro, Theuerkauf, and Monta Loma Elementary Schools?"

Why isn't priority given to "students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (“FRPM”) through out the district, no matter which neighborhood? Aren't all at-risk students equal?

Yes please let me know where to protest if there is org or website. This is a democracy and we should speak up and exercise our basic rights. Enough is enough.

Web Link

janderson@bullischarterschool.com

I read that majority of the new mountain view bullis school is NOT from mountain view? How many are from mountain view? Anyone know?

wanted to correct my typo in my earlier post.

I read that majority of the new mountain view bullis school *BOARD* is NOT from mountain view? Is this true?

Also I read that Bullis charter school is allowed to take kids outside of Mountain View? Is this true?

Please someone correct me if I am wrong. If these are true then that seems really really wrong. I am so not OK with that.

It appears that many of these comments are anti-charter activists from outside of the Bay Area. Moderators, please ban these comments.

Charter schools are encouraged by the state, and parents of children have a right under California law to enroll their children.

On the other hand, there is no right granted by California to prohibit other people's children from enrolling in charter schools.

Please STOP encouraging protests against a school that educates our children. We don't need outsiders encouraging divisions within our community.It's appalling they keep on posting here.

@Please ban anti-charter activists

There are so many things wrong with this person's post, I don't know even know where to begin.

How do you know who is posting from outside the bay area and who is posting from inside the bay area? You don't think parents from around here can have a problem with your approach of bulldozing your way into our lives and comment in their own local newspaper?

And most importantly - this is a public forum of a NEWSPAPER for god's sake - with a freedom of speech - who are you to tell a newspaper to ban someone with views different from yours? Trump getting into your head much? (And how do I know if you aren't some ANTI-public school-accountability Betsy De Vos-paid activist? Lol.)

Is this what they teach the Bullis parents? If this is how you guys think, then our community is in a whole lot of hurt.

So I guess that answers the question posed above: Bullis in Mountain View which takes funds from the MVWSD district CAN enroll students from outside this city. I guess we will be paying for kids who are from Los Altos who have been on the Bullis Los Altos waitlists? Did everyone hear that?? Yikes.

See - it ain't outside the bay area activists. Have you guys been listening to this community? It sounds like a lot of parents certainly don't think so. Don't take my word for, take if from the horse's mouth.

Parents rally against Mountain View charter school
by Kevin Forestieri / Mountain View Voice

An open letter signed by a broad coalition of Mountain View Whisman School District parents is calling on Bullis Charter School to drop plans to expand into Mountain View.

The letter, sent to the board of directors of Bullis Charter School in Los Altos, argues that the charter school's leadership has failed to understand the culture and the needs of Mountain View Whisman students, and that planting a charter school in the district would further segregate schools and harm the low-income and minority students it seeks to serve.

AND

Editorial: Bullis should hit pause on Mountain View plan
by Mountain View Voice editorial board

"...But if they want to start off on the right foot and avoid a contentious relationship with Mountain View Whisman School District officials and residents -- like the one they have with LASD officials -- Bullis representatives should withdraw their petition for now and take the time to do this in a more thoughtful manner."

So you were saying...

"the decision came with a whole lot of strings attached, with board members and district officials demanding significant modifications to the charter petition -- the school's founding document -- in the moments leading up to approval". This makes me wonder if the Board's highly reluctant and restrictive decision to "approve" another charter school is in compliance with State law requiring proper recognition of the legal and educational rights of charter schools. Get ready for dueling lawyers.

@Question
The reason the MOU stipulated priority to FRPM residents from the attendance boundaries of Castro, Theuerkauf, and Monta Loma Elementary is because this is what Bullis explicitly called out as targeted neighborhoods in their petition.

As a follow-up to my earlier comment (I couldn't edit in time), I think that anyone posting here who is professionally associated either with MV Whisman School Board or Bullis Charter (such as teachers, staff, or administrators) should consider themselves ethically required to declare their positions and their potential conflicts of interest.

This is not just a struggle over education. It is a struggle over scant state funding and also a tawdry power struggle over who controls education in MV Whisman.

Wow, look at all the haters coming out of the woodwork. It's almost as if there were an organized opposition, riling up the community with sensational claims about evil BMV conspiring with bad people to do bad bad bad... oh wait.

BMV is here to educate children. Public charters in California (backed by Democrats) are set up explicitly for accountability to elected officials. Since charters are also intended to introduce competition, the rules are set up to provide some protection from dirty tactics by incumbent institutions and special interests which have a well known history of charter-busting shenanigans.

The conditions demanded of BMV are clearly designed to breach this protection by controlling admissions policy, budget calculations, performance measures and governance. BMV should be wary of these conditions and the intent of MVWSD.

"Special interest...??" You mean taxpaying MT View parents whose kids are set to lose under charter schools?? I think actual special interest is not public schools - who are 100% accountable to duly elected school board - who the community chooses - but rather charter schools supported by Betsy De Vos and her ilk. I don't trust politicians - who are influenced by well-funded charter lobbyists - over my own community members. Who is BCS accountable to? Not our duly elected board of trustees whom WE selected to represent US. All the other schools are but not Bullis. Fine, but then don't take our money.

Edsource article:
California’s largest charter group pushes its agenda with money and people power
Web Link

HuffPost
A Look At The Private Interests Funding California’s Charter Schools
“They like charters in part because they decrease the publicness of public schools.”

KTVU
Charter schools cost three California school districts more than $142 ...
www.ktvu.com/.../charter-schools-cost-three-california-school-districts-more-than-142...
The Oakland Unified School District lost $57.3 million and San Jose’s East Side Union High School District $19.3 million, according to In The Public Interest.
The report also found that the San Diego Unified School District lost $65.9 million by the "unchecked expansion of privately managed charter school."

The Intercept
How the Charter School Wars Turned an Obscure Race Into California’s Second Most Expensive Election
Web Link

The California charter school lobby is testing its influence in the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, turning an election for a somewhat obscure statewide position into a notably expensive battle. ...The race, largely understood as a proxy war for the future of California charter schools, is the second attempt by the state’s charter school lobby to demonstrate its influence this election cycle.

@correction

"I read that majority of the new mountain view bullis school *BOARD* is NOT from mountain view? Is this true?"

As best I recall, the BMV Board is almost all from Los Altos, perhaps one member may be from Mountain View.

Bonus info: Of the dozens of speakers supporting BMV at the Board meetings, only 2 lived in Mountain View.

One former BCS student even spoke to slam BCS.

"Also I read that Bullis charter school is allowed to take kids outside of Mountain View? Is this true?"

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!
Charter schools have ZERO district limits on where their students live.
At best, they may be limited to Santa Clara County residents, but I'm not even sure about that.

"Please someone correct me if I am wrong. If these are true then that seems really really wrong. I am so not OK with that."

Well, the only bit of good-ish news I can give you is that IF MVWSD does complete the approval of the charter, then the MVWSD gets to appoint ONE member of the BMV Board, HOWEVER, the BMV Board can be INCREASED to as many as 9 members, so that one wont really ever matter.

Mountain View needs more choice programs. Waitlists for existing schools are long and practically impossible to get into. I know. My child goes to a Campbell Charter School because after 4 years of trying we weren't able to get in.

The Mountain View Whisman School district needs COMPETITION to make our public schools better. Right now there is very little in the way of competition and no real need to push the boundaries and try new things. When an average child falls through the cracks despite the constant pleas of the parent that they need more help something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.

I don't agree with Bullis's methods to get into Mountain View but I support the right of CHOICE that they will provide.

@Please ban anti-charter activists

"a resident of another community"

No big shock there.

"It appears that many of these comments are anti-charter activists from outside of the Bay Area."

Since about 95% of the BMV supporters are from OUTSIDE of Mountain View, I think it's only fair that people from outside Mountain View can comment on their experiences with charter schools and offer their informed advice.

"Moderators, please ban these comments."

Ever heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT?
I should be surprised that BMV supporters would want to silence it's experienced critics.

"Charter schools are encouraged by the state,"

"encouraged" is NOT the correct word, I would say "empowered", since all the power is in the hands of the charters.

"and parents of children have a right under California law to enroll their children."

Sure and REGARDLESS of WHERE they live!
Which is why Bullis chose Mountain View so that they can enroll more Los Altos residents that don't fit into the available facilities of BCS.

"On the other hand, there is no right granted by California to prohibit other people's children from enrolling in charter schools."

NOBODY is "prohibiting" enrollment, critics of Bullis are trying to express their opinions to discourage BMV enrollment. There is a huge difference.

"Please STOP encouraging protests against a school that educates our children."

"our" meaning those Los Altos parents who couldn't get into BCS.

"We don't need outsiders encouraging divisions within our community.It's appalling they keep on posting here."

OMG!!!!! This is the very DEFINITION of IRONY!!!!

@@Please ban anti-charter activists

"How do you know who is posting from outside the bay area and who is posting from inside the bay area? "

Well, I can be pretty sure that anyone who uses the phrase "public commons" is certainly NOT from Mountain View or even Los Altos, they are indeed from another county.

But, so what? They have an experience opinion on the issue and a RIGHT to speak their minds.

MVVoice quotes:

"Mountain View Whisman School District board members voted 4-1 Thursday night to approve a new charter school -- Bullis Charter School's first expansion outside of Los Altos."

I think I would call this a "slip of the keyboard" that is more telling than a more technically accurate statement would be.

Technically, "BCS" is not expanding, it's throwing off a "clone" with the advertised purpose of "serving" the low-income families of Mountain View.
However, as we learned from The Twilight Zone, "To Serve Man" was a cookbook.

MVVoice:
"But the decision came with a whole lot of strings attached, with board members and district officials demanding significant modifications to the charter petition -- the school's founding document --"

The "modifications" are in every detail doing nothing but requiring BMV to put into WRITING their OWN ASSERTIONS about their intentions and their confident statements about outcome of their efforts.

If BMV really MEANS what they are SAYING VERBALLY, then they should have ZERO objections to the modifications, the MVWSD is merely holding BMV accountable to their own words!

"It was unclear at the end of the meeting whether charter school leaders were willing or interested in following all of the stipulations."

IF BMV rejects the changes, then we can be 100% certain that they don't even believe their own propaganda and never had any intentions of helping the low-income families of Mountain View.

Let me be CLEAR, BMV may turn out to be a great school for Mountain View, I am not rejecting the idea of a charter school or even a BMV in Mountain View. I am only objecting to the behavior of BMV leadership and the way they are going about forcing their way in and their total lack of accountability and transparency.

More MVVoice quotes:

"Regional members of the California Charter School Association"

In other words, people from OUTSIDE our area trying to interfere with our local decision making processes!

Seems it's OK for pro-Bullis outsiders to weigh-in, but evil for outsiders that oppose Bullis to present their opinions, right?

"bristled at the idea, sending a letter to the board Tuesday calling the idea of approving the charter with conditions "legally questionable.""

Meaning that the MVWSD may well have found a LEGAL manner to hold charter schools to their own WORD on their intentions and results. GREAT, hooray for MVWSD leadership for finding a method of making charter schools live up to their grand promises.

"The letter, signed by regional director Janine Ramirez, goes on to say that anything less than a full five-year term would "undermine" a new charter school and would leave it with far too little testing data from which the district could judge performance."

How could that be true? The MVWSD judges our own schools on a yearly basis and everyone fully understands how to evaluate a school program on a yearly basis, certainly BMV would show some clear indications of it's progress by 3 years data.

To be CLEAR, I would be willing to approve BMV for 5 years IF BMV was willing to delay it's opening date to fall of 2020.

"Because the school proposes a slow-growth model ..."

But, then why is Bullis in such a hurry to open rather than taking it's time to get to know Mountain View and alliw us to get to know them?
Are the leaders of BMV afraid that Mountain View residents will indeed get to know them and thus be inspired to even higher levels of opposition?

"an abbreviated three-year term will require the school to submit its petition for renewal with only a single year of state testing data,""

OK, then negotiate with the MVWSD for an additional testing method to produce more data to be evaluated.

"In a statement Friday morning, BMV officials called the vote a milestone in the organization's plans to serve district students, and that they looked forward to working with the district's leadership and sharing the charter school's "unique educational model" with the community."

Well, to me this sounds like BMV leadership is trying to once again verbally assert that they are indeed going to accept the MVWSD conditions. If the WORDS of BMV can be believed on this, then I see this as a positive sign, but it could be another propaganda ploy. We shall see.

""We would like to thank all of the gracious and hardworking BMV supporters," Bullis board member Clara Roa said in the statement. "We certainly could not have achieved this outcome without their help." "

Well, yet again I see the WORDS of BMV seem to be accepting the reasonable modifications approved by MVWSD, if BMV really means what they are saying and do indeed put this in WRITING by making the appropriate changes to their charter petition, then we may move forwards in a constructive manner.

I wouldn't put money on it, but I can hope.

@MomOfFailedStudent

"Mountain View needs more choice programs."

OK, then WORK to form a new home-grown choice program fully under the control of the MVWSD, just like PACT (currently at Stevenson) and Dual-Immersion (currently at Mistral) did.

This is the proper way to form choice schools and this is how they get born and allows vital oversight by the MVWSD and held accountable to the familes who live in Mountain View, UNLIKE BMV who wants no oversight from the MVWSD.

"Waitlists for existing schools are long"

For Stevenson the waiting list was created by the old Stevenson facilities limitations. The new Stevenson facilities can hold over 450 kids, which is why Stevenson now has 4 kinder classes.

For Mistral, the issue id not capacity limited, it's the difficulty in recruiting native Spanish speaking students so the Dual-Immersion program can operate properly.

"and practically impossible to get into."

No, it's simply the lottery results don't pay attention to how badly some parents will insist on not attending their neighborhood school.

"I know. My child goes to a Campbell Charter School because after 4 years of trying we weren't able to get in."

Well, I think you've shown that BMV asserts that it would NOT be about serving your kids anyway, because your family clearly has the resources to allow you to transport your kids all the way to Campbell.

BMV claims they are all about serving the low-income families of Mountain View, such families are certainly NOT in a position to send their kids to a charter school clear across the county.

Thanks for providing a heloful example of BMV supporters.

"Wheeler said. "We don't know if it's a good school for a large number of low-income (English language learner) students."
Really Wheeler? Considering the abysmal job that MVSD is currently doing for the low-income kids what do you have to lose? Do you really think it's going to get worse?

@Maria Gonsalez: "We need to organize meetings and send out letters to preschools/aftercare programs and summer school programs. Bullis will be spending a fortune on advertising and marketing to try to enroll kids there. I can see them in their yellow t-shirts standing outside preschools,at markets and parks trying to convince parents their program will be better. Is it worth organizing a protest after our holiday break?"

Maria, your name suggests you are Hispanic. Have you not noticed how low the test scores of the Hispanic/low income kids are relative to those that are not low-income? Those kids are ill-prepared for high school let alone college and subsequent decent paying jobs. Why on earth would you want to "protest" and discourage these parents from enrolling their kids in a program that MAY pull these kids out of the gutter? They have absolutely nothing to lose. If they stay where they are the writing is on the wall- they're going to fail. Give them a chance and stop buying into the negativity that the anti-BCS/BMW crowd are intent on selling. That attitude will not help your friends, neighbors and relatives.

And BTW, those summer school programs? Do you mean the FREE summer school programs that the "evil" BCS has been offering for years to low-income kids? Be grateful that somebody cares enough to want to help your kids.

Rudolph said. "I have employees that are gonna lose their jobs, I have teachers who are talking about the loss of programs because of the additional funds that we're going to have to pay for you."

If the teachers that would lose their jobs are good teachers they can apply to work for BMV. If they're not good teachers then the district hasn't lost anything of value. As for the loss of funds, those funds will be used to educate MV children. The district isn't "losing" anything - the money is just being transferred to a different site.

"As for the loss of funds, those funds will be used to educate MV children."

You mean "and maybe educate Los Altos kids too." Don't forget that BCS can take kids from other districts and probably will - the Los altos kids on the BCS Los altoso waitlists. Not that I'm against teaching neighbor city kids, but we not exaclty a rich district.

"The district isn't "losing" anything - the money is just being transferred to a different site."

And actually no it doesn't really work that way. Obviously, this poster hasn't been paying an iota of attention to how things really work - just a whole lot of usual talking points and buying into the propaganda - "oh you just move money from this place to that place." It costs EXTRA to have the same number of student and funding per pupil, but still have to pay for yet another site/lights/maintenance, etc. MVWSD expects to spend EXTRA $2 atlesat on top of per pupil state funding they are to lose. Do you get that? So that means less funding for the majority of the SED/ELL kids that won't be at BCS. All for 156 kids. choice is great except for when it benefits the few at the expense of the majority. I think there is a word for that...

Why do you think there is so much anger and opposition.

Hey BCS, here's an idea - maybe get a board member or two who is actually from Mountain View and who is also from SED/ELL community. (Most board is NOT from MtView.) Don't you think that might help if you are gonna figure out what your stated expected enrollment of 35-40% SED kids need, considering you have experience with BCS los altos that has a paltry 1% SED kids? Someone that represents them - don't you want insight into that community and how reach them for enrollment, what their true needs and struggles are? Oh, wait, you know what's right for them. Like some parents pointed out at the district board meeting, you didn't even ask them what they needed, only came to get signatures after you had made up your plans. How condescending. Not exactly collaborative attitude i would say.

Something stinks in Denmark.

And don't even get me started on "If the teachers that would lose their jobs are good teachers they can apply to work for BMV." Wow. Just wow. I dare you to say it to our hard working teachers' face.

"Wheeler said. "We don't know if it's a good school for a large number of low-income (English language learner) students."
Really Wheeler? Considering the abysmal job that MVSD is currently doing for the low-income kids what do you have to lose? Do you really think it's going to get worse?

The reason Wheeler is saying this is because:
1. BCS Lost Altos has only 1% SED kids compared to 6% in LASD. If they wanted to help SED kids, why could they not bring up their SED enrollment in Los Altos in all those years to match overall LASD? Hmmmmm......does that bother anyone??

Let's do that math: BMV will start off with 156 kids. So if even get 35% of SED kids in their first year that is only 54 kids at best. So an extra $2 million bucks to teach 54 SED kids. Maybe take that $2 million and do something that helps ALL the SED kids. News flash. Funding matters in education. You can't have a relatively poor district and then say, "oh you are failing low income kids, so let me unburden you by taking away a couple of million dollars from existing kids for a whole new school that has no experience in SED kids, only teaching already relatively previleged kids."

How are people able get away with this?? I guess well-paid Charters lobbyist win the day! And our kids lose!

"Be grateful that somebody cares enough to want to help your kids."

Yes lets line up to kiss your pretty los altos millionaire-backed feet for helping us poor ignorant Mountain View commoners.

@@Amazed: My goodness, you expend a tremendous amount of energy hating a system that doesn't even exist yet. Are you SO sure BMV will be an evil institution that will harm all of MV?

As for the funds, MV is not going to be building BMV a new school - if they use an existing school from where the majority of low income kids are pulled they can probably use existing classroom space or portables and share the outdoor space + MP rooms, etc.

Your quest for ELL board members belies what actually exists now. The kids are failing. What part of that do you not understand? It's not as if there is a working system in place now. Do you think these ELL parents know how to best educate their kids? If that were true they would be performing at a higher level.

As for your "wow, just wow!" comment re teachers, what is that supposed to mean? I said, if they're GOOD teachers they can probably work at BMV. Is that a problem? To my knowledge, the teachers at BCS are not unhappy. but they have to prove themselves because their jobs are merit based, not tenure based. Which is ALWAYS in the kids best interest.

Re BCS Los Altos being under-represented in ELL kids, I'm not sure why some want to beat that dog to death - it's not relevant to what they want to do in MV. If you want to help LI kids you'll need a specialized program tailored to THEIR needs. Plopping a few of them into a fast-paced classroom full of kids from affluent, highly educated families will not serve LI kids well. And that's the situation in Los Altos- they have a very low LI population at all the schools and the % at all but 3 of the schools is equal to BCS so there is no huge disparity.

Give BMV a chance - by doing so you might be saving some children whom are currently doomed to failure. As for the money, if this animosity leads to legal battles you'll be spending far more on attorneys than you'll be losing to start up costs for the new charter school.

For what it's worth I'm not a BCS parent or affiliate but I do value excellence in education and I know from experience that the LI kids in MV are not being well served so trying something new should be welcomed with open arms.

@@Amazed - and BTW I don't really think you have to worry about BMV being flooded with Los Altos kids. LA already has 100% high performing schools. I don't think many that lose the BCS lottery are going to be clamoring to enroll their kids in a school in another city that has 40% low income kids enrolled. Also, while it's true that charter law allows kids from other districts to attend, BMV can assign priority to MV kids.

"Yes lets line up to kiss your pretty los altos millionaire-backed feet for helping us poor ignorant Mountain View commoners."

Wow. Somebody's got a chip on their shoulder. Resentment for the haves trying to help the have nots. SMH.

TEST SCORES- MVWSD LOW INCOME STUDENTS

Castro: Math- 38% proficient / English- 44% proficient
Theuerkauf: Math- 39% proficient / English- 48% proficient
Monta Loma: Math- 36% proficient / English- 40% proficient
Landels: Math- 35% proficient / English- 38% proficient
Bubb: Math- 39% proficient / English- 40% proficient
Huff: Math- 52% proficient / English- 54% proficient
Crittendon Math- 33% proficient / English- 40% proficient
Graham Math- 31% proficient / English- 35% proficient

PERCENT OF LOW INCOME STUDENTS AT LOS ALTOS SCHOOLS

Oak 1%
Almond 8%
Loyola 1%
Springer 2%
Covington 2%
Santa Rita 13%
Gardner Bullis 1%
Bullis Charter 1%
Blach JHS 3%
Egan JHS 7%

Bullis Charter School percent of low income kids mirrors most of the other schools in Los Altos. The low income kids are concentrated in one small area of the district and so attend one of two schools nearest them.

Thanks @Amazed - you just proved my points.

"Wow. Somebody's got a chip on their shoulder. Resentment for the haves trying to help the have nots."

Do you really think that most parents in MV don't believe that BCS (haves) is coming to MV (have nots) to help them. Wake up. Most people can read all your posts above and see for themselves the hypocrisy, misinformation, condescending attitude and lack of common sense logic (like you shouldn't have SED parent representation on the board since they don't know what they are doing.)

And this one is a real doozy:
"Do you think these ELL parents know how to best educate their kids?"

Oh boy. We are in for a ride MV!!

It sounds like Rudolph wants to give extra funding to the new charter. Those extra conditions set the school to qualify for Title I funding. Lets see what location they decide to share with the charter. If some of the new conditions are illegal that can be handled later. I think the board are not very good especially the guy who voted no. He claimed the district was doing well which is just a lie. Excuse me fake news.They should address what happens if the district keeps doing worse and worse each year. Does the charter have to beat the district performance now or what it drops to then?

How about we all open our own Charter schools and compete with each other? I'll call mine Walmart Charter School and you can call your's Gap Charter School or Netflix Charter? Let's all divide and fight over our kids. Competition is great and we can pay our teachers less and even do away with them having to have experience or credentials to teach. I'll give every kid an new iphone if they join my school? What ideas do you have to entice kids to join yours? This is really exciting.

The issue isn't competition. The issue is that 38% of the students are doing way less well than the others. The schools are optimized for the well off kids such as those who live near Huff Many of these kids pay for private school so the district responds by favoring that background of student who remains in the district school. That's the place competition plays a role. This new public school is not trying to be another school for the haves but rather is trying to serve the have nots who aren't ever going to leave the public schools.

@BMV Board member, Clara Roa,

Assuming this is a correct quote from you...

"We would like to thank all of the gracious and hardworking BMV supporters," Bullis board member Clara Roa said in the statement. "We certainly could not have achieved this outcome without their help."

Your statement actually provides further proof that the BMV leadership has NOT been listening to anyone but themselves and their Los Altos based supporters.

If you think that your supporters speeches before the MVWSD Board were helpful to your goals, you are simply deaf. Of all the speakers supporting BMV, only 2 managed to advance your goals and your public image, all the rest were counter-productive for your cause.

Your supporters are simply not hearing themselves the way the actual Mountain View residents hear you. You are simply not speaking nor listening to the same language the rest of us are.

Hey, I suggest your supporters start speaking French, you wont do yourself so much damage and French sounds so cool it's hard to dislike people speaking French.
(Or maybe that part is just me?)

There’s a lot of inaccurate information being spread in these comments which unfortunately is inflaming people unnecessarily.

1. The BMV Board is 50% MV residents: it’s states it on their website: Web Link
and they have said they would add additional members, with the majority of the Board from MV. Since our District trustees do not have really have members that reflect the MV student demographic, I’m ok with that. There are no Asians for instance on the board currently and Jose Gutierrez is not SED nor does he really speak Spanish (his Spanish is high school level). Ask any SED family from Castro, and they will tell you he does not represent them.

2. No student from LASD can enroll in BMV unless they reside in MVWSD. Even if somehow there was a loophole, under Prop 39 MVWSD does not have to provide any facilities for out of district students so I highly doubt that BCS is creating BMV to stick their existing students there. They’re growing in LASD, remember?

3. BMV is proposing an enrollment preference for FRPM students. This is something Stevenson should also consider. Why are parents from Stevenson so threatened by BMV? It seems the haves in MVWSD are the loudest voices against BMV. Perhaps this is why.

4. Charters by law have to outperform District schools. Otherwise authorizers can shut them down. The District is trying to get BMV to use their own assessments instead of the standard state assessments. This will come back to bite them. If they decide in 3 years to shut down the charter because it didnt meet all the unrealistic stipulations set by the District, BMV may then go back to the County. So this can wind up being a lose-lose if the MVWSD isn’t more strategic in their thinking.

Dear Alvin Cole,

Please don't attack our hard working community members and stop dragging our other schools into this. It really doesn't help gain respect for you or BMV and might even "inflame people unnecessarily" as you state above.

Jose Guitierrez as well as the entire board of trustees are all fairly and duly elected in an free election by Mountain View community and accountable to its voters. You remember democracy, right?

And Stevenson is fully integrated part of MVWSD and is 100% accountable to the district and our duly elected board that represents this community's interest.

Which begs the questions, who elected your board and who are they fully accountable to?

Thank so much :-)

I guess I have a question or two (trying to fully understand the facts here.)

You say:
2. No student from LASD can enroll in BMV unless they reside in MVWSD. Even if somehow there was a loophole, under Prop 39 MVWSD does not have to provide any facilities for out of district students so I highly doubt that BCS is creating BMV to stick their existing students there. They’re growing in LASD, remember?


As I understand it, the law says that charters schools can't deny students from other districts. Aren't there a bunch MV residents that are on Bullis waitlist? Why would they put themselves on the waitlist for a school they are not allowed to get into, I guess is a question. I know for certain the Sunnyvale Spark chater school that was shut down a few years ago for not meeting standards allowed to MV residents. I'm confused. If anyone has the proper facts on this matter, please share and I will stand corrected.

Thank you Alvin for weblink, according to which, these are the board of directors.

BMV BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Clara Roa (Chair)
David Jaques (Treasurer)
Patrick Walsh (Secretary)
Bertha Alarcon (Mountain View Resident)
Greg Brauner (Mountain View Resident)
Jordan Hwang (Mountain View Resident)

But it doesn't have any info on them except their name. I am sure they are fantastic people, but us taxpaying public would love to get some more info on them:

- Where do Clara, David, Patrick reside - why is this info missing?
- What are these director's affiliations and background that enable them oversee an MV publicly-funded school? I know MVWSD board's full bios and so much more, so its reasonable that people would be curious about this board - why bare bones info?
- Who elected them/how were they elected, what is the term?
- Any concrete plans to include MVWSD parents/SED/ELL parents this year or next year?
- The MV residents - do they have students in the MVWSD district, or live within the MVWSD boundries? No personal info needed here please for privacy's sake, just a basic yes/no. If BMV can update the website that would be help.

If you don't have this info, then can you point us to someone who does? Do they have email addresses? Or should I email Jennifer the principal? There is just a generic email newschool@bullischarterschool.com (650) 947-4100 listed on website. I can email email any one of my board members at any time and get a response. Info and bios, official contact info are always helpful for these types of public positions.

----BMV folks: can you please update your site with bios and info and official contact info on those that has oversight over this MV public school? Why so limited? And any upcoming board meeting open the public that we can attend - there are a lot on outstanding questions. The devil is usually in the details! Info would be be super helpful - thank you!

@MV parent, I don’t work for BMV so am not “them”. I know a thing or two about charters as I used to teach for one. I’m retired now, but following this closely ;).
I saw some bios of the board members when they first submitted their petition back in Oct - it’s publicly posted on the MVWSD website under Superintendent section. I noticed the MVWSD website doesn’t have bios either. (Web Link also does not have board member bios (neither does BCS Los Altos). I suspect in this age of privacy concerns, people don’t want their personal info too public. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I did recall on one of the posts that one of the board members said he had kids in the District.
Most charters do not have elected boards. They are private entities, they can’t raise public bonds, and the expense and effort associated with running a general election doesn’t serve the small set of students the board serves well. In this day and age of election shenanigans, this is a good thing for charter schools.

Another important question:

According to MV Voice article on Oct 181, 2018, it states:

"Enrollment selection for the school will go through a lottery system, with a weighted preference for children who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals residing in the school district. Lotteries will be held for each enrollment preference "category" -- starting with siblings of current charter school families -- until all available spaces are filled, according to the petition."

So after FRPM preference category, the next preferred enrollment category is **"siblings of current charter school families"** Does this mean siblings of current Bullis LOS ALTOS families?? If so, WHOA!! The devil IS in the details! I guess that would be why MVWSD board wants some conditions on enrollment priorities!! I hope i'm wrong.

BMV - please clarify. Where do we get clarifications to all this?

According to the BMV website, they list their enrollment prefs on their FAQ page: Web Link

I don’t see anything about “siblings of charter school families”. Why would siblings of BCS Los Altos want to attend BMV if their siblings can priority in the Los Altos Charter. By your claim, then anyone attending any charter (and there are MANY in Redwood City, East Palo Alto, and San Jose) could go to BMV. You need to stop and think before saying inflammatory, illogical statements.

My guess is that the enrollment preferences that BMV list on their website may be adjusted in their MOU with the District since the District is requesting that FRPM students from Monta Loma, Castro and Theuerkauf get priority. I am not sure if this pref is legal. If I’m a FRPM student attending Landels, I think I have a pretty solid case for a discrimation lawsuit...just sayin.

The way most enrollment prefs work in charters is that the first priority gets filled first, then if still available seats, they move onto all the kids who applied and met the criteria for the second pref and so on. In Bullis Los Altos, MVWSD students never had a shot at BCS because LASD residents were higher up on the pref list. At BMV, siblings of existing BMV students get first pref. Many charters do this for family simplicity, and it’s in the district’s best interest to permit this. You don’t need parents telling other parents in different schools what’s so great or not great about your different programs.

I don’t think any LASD students will apply to BMV. Even the best MVWSD schools still perform only so-so against the worst LASD schools so I can’t imagine why those parents paying the property taxes and rents they do in LASD would be banging down the door to BMV. They will definitely get a lot of Sunnyvale bangers, buf likely very little from LASD. All theoretical anyway since I would bet a large fortune that BMV will be oversubscribed from
MVWSD families.

If you want to get into BMV, you probably have the best shot with a second grader. Most people don’t really want to pull a kid out in second grade so I suspect there will be fewer applicants in that grade. If you have a second grader who gets in, then the younger sibling would move up the priority list. I think the school will be oversubscribed in TK and Kinder years so having an older sibling is a real lottery advantage. I bet any student that has a second grade sibling will get into BMV, FRPM or not.

If I were BMV, FRPM should move up their pref list if their intent is truly to serve these families. In my 20+ years of experience, FRPM families usually go to school where they live so BMV’s success in serving theses students hinges entirely on where the school will be located.

If MVWSD decides to play games and situates this school say at Slater and then simulatneously tries to put in some super onerous FRPM enrollment targets, BMV can appeal to the County for re-authorization. They don’t have to remain authorized by MVWSD if it’s a bad relationship. There’s an out for charters. Since MV taxpayers (I being one of them) are now forking over $4-5mn to BMV over the next 3 years, I hope the District doesn’t squander this money by placing too many restrictions on the Bullis program. The whole point is to see if the Bullis approach works with FRPM kids. Why go through all this drama just to set them up to fail and do a bad job with students. To use Ayindé’s own words, that would be the veritable path to pergatory if there ever was one.

The District is pregnant now - this happened the minute the petition showed up. They could have tried to abort it, but they chose to keep it. You don’t deprive this new “baby” of resources and treat it any less than your other kids just because you can’t stand the mother, the pregnany happened for the wrong reasons or you didn’t like how the pregnancy sneaked up on you. These kids at this school are still your kids. We as a community have an obligation to co-parent with respect and civility so these students still end up well-educated and poised for life success. Egos and scheming need to come to an end.

I see my misunderstanding - I was thinking "current charter" meant "current Bullis Los Altos charter" but it probably means "future current" students in BMV. Sorry for misunderstanding! Its been a long day. But still want to confirm if BMV can/can not take LASD students. I will check out the pref listed in their application as compared to mvwsd' pref request.

My guess - and according to previous poster - is that district wants in writing that they will prioritize Monta Loma, Castro and Theuerkauf students because those are most SED schools and that is what they specifically stated in their application they are targeting and district just wants to make sure they actually follow thru on what they say. But giving priority to certain SED neighborhoods may not fly in the end is my guess.

Agreed, gotta do what's best for the kids. This mess is not their fault! I think district/board will; they didn't get into this area to deliberately setup kids to fail.

But I honestly think that district conditions are pretty reasonable. Mostly just codifying what Bullis says they are gonna do. I think getting all in writing is best way to go for all parties rather just hanging hat on verbal promises and good intentions. I don't blame district for being extra cautious given the controversial and contentious Bullis Los Altos history and they way that this all went down. In my experience, a solid agreement before hand goes a long way towards saving future headaches. I think that is what MV voters would expect them to do.

BMV - Enrollment preferences will be as follows:

1. Siblings of students admitted to or attending BMV that reside within the MVWSD boundaries
2. Children of founding board members
3. Children of BMV teachers and staff not to exceed 10% of the total Charter School enrollment
4. Students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM) and who reside within the Mountain View Whisman School District
5.Students who reside within the Mountain View Whisman School District
6. Siblings of students admitted to or attending BMV who reside outside of the MVWSD boundaries
7. Students who are eligible for FRPM and who reside outside of the Mountain View Whisman School District
8. All other students in California

The MVWSD District’s expectations of BMV:

- BMV amend its enrollment priorities. Students who are eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (“FRPM”) and who reside within the attendance boundaries of Castro, Theuerkauf, and Monta Loma Elementary Schools and students who are eligible for FRPM and who reside within MVWSD be afforded first and second enrollment preference.

- To address the potential fiscal impacts of the inaccurate estimates, BMV is to revise its budget assumptions to match the District’s demographics (FRPM rate of 42%; English Language Learners rate of 24%; and Socio-Economic Disadvantaged rate of 35%.).

- To effectively compare academic performance to measure the expectation that BMV exceed Districtwide assessment results for all pupil subgroups by not less than five (5) percent, BMV should utilize the same benchmark and reading assessments used by the District each school year, conduct such assessments on a trimester basis, and meet assessment reporting deadlines as designated by the District.

- The majority of BMV’s Board members should reside within the boundaries of Mountain View and/or the Mountain View Whisman School District, to address potential conflicts of interest, governance concerns, and ensure local participation in BMV’s governance.

@Alvin Cole

Alvin, you clearly do NOT understand how public schools (other than charters) actually work.
For example, Stevenson has ZERO control over their enrollment process or priorities.
ALL enrollment selections are done by the MVWSD District Office.

AND, if there is one MVWSD school which will NOT be effected in any manner by BMV, it is Stevenson. We have a waiting list much longer than the entire enrollment expected for BMV.

"There’s a lot of inaccurate information being spread in these comments which unfortunately is inflaming people unnecessarily."

Thanks for confessing to spreading it.

"3. BMV is proposing an enrollment preference for FRPM students."

NOT in their actual charter petition, which is why the MVWSD want that change made in the official petition in WRITING.
Most of the important promises and claims made by BMV leadership are NOT found within their written charter petition.
That's why the MVWSD is asking them to put their promises in writing.

"This is something Stevenson should also consider."

Again, the MVWSD DISTRICT OFFICE sets the enrollment process and priorities and selects the enrollment for EVERY existing MVWSD school.

Stevenson CANNOT do ANYTHING about it's percentage of SED or ELL kids at all, those are all DISTRICT decisions.
ONLY the District Office can help Stevenson accomplish the SED and ELL enrollment percentage goals we would prefer.

At MOST, Stevenson is allowed to offer as many "informational meetings" as we wish to try to get families to come out and visit and learn about Stevenson and our PACT program. In the past we have even tried having info meetings in Spanish.

THEN the families go to the District Office to apply for a transfer to Stevenson. Again, all of this is done by the DISTRICT, NOT by Stevenson.

"Why are parents from Stevenson so threatened by BMV?"

WHAT are you talking about? WHERE did you get that idea?????
If there is one group of families who are open minded towards BMV, it would be the families if Stevenson!

Stevenson families have NOT taken a position against BMV opening, we just want BMV to put their verbal promises into writing in their official petition.

We would love it if BMV were to voluntarily delay one year for the actual opening so BMV leadership has time to really get to know Mountain View and so we can get to know BMV.

We only want the district to have a mutually beneficial relationship with BMV.

"It seems the haves in MVWSD are the loudest voices against BMV."

Really?
Which Mountain View group do you think is against BMV coming to Mountain View?

Oh, wait, pretty much everyone EXCEPT Stevenson families and we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is BMV just keeps on piling up the doubt with their behavior.

The enrollment preferences listed on the BMV website seem to be the same as what’s written in their charter petition so the FRPM preference is already there and in writing. I too agree that waiting for one year before BMV rolls out would serve the entire district better. I suspect the District decided to pull the bandaid quickly instead of taking in parent input. Ayinde has a history of this (4 principals comes to mind). Unfortunately our trustees give him a long leash to make these kinds of executive decisions in a silo.

The District has enrollment restrictions around Mistral so it can easily do the same for Stevenson. The problem is that Stevenson parents wield a lot more influence (ie.$) than Mistral parents. Perhaps seeing how BMV can roll out their preferences legally will be a good eye opener for the community. I still don’t think the District can legally give pref to certain group of FRPM students over another. Sounds like something a county judge would over rule.

@ST parent, my youngest attended Stevenson when it was a truly diverse school and located at Castro. Stevenson has changed a lot since then, and needs to take a hard look at itself. It is the BCS of our District. And yet, when I looked over the signatures in the parent petition letter, the largest group seemed to come from Stevenson. Maybe other parents chose not to state their schools, but it felt sanctimonious to see the parents with the most haves (yes, Stevenson has the most haves) in our district try to deny a school that is giving a high enrollment preference to FRPM students. I can’t support cleverly disguised segregation in our public schools. If BMV becomes another Stevenson, you can bet your retirement savings that I will be fighting hard to shut it down too.

Bullis to the rescue! Coming to Mountain View to save all the free and reduced lunch families. Interesting target market they picked here. It is the opposite of who they targeted in Los Altos. Why? Because they have a heart and because they really care about low income families here? Please. This is a scam to get enrollment.

Anyone happy about giving up your neighborhood public school to a private school that takes public funds with less oversight and non-elected board members? Guess who is getting rich off this scam?

Great Link/Article below on how to get rich off opening a charter school.

Web Link

@ResidentSince1982

You CANNOT conflate public and private schools to prove your points.
The much screamed about "achievement gap" does NOT even count the private school kids in calculating the "gap".

MVWSD has near the highest "achievement gap" in the USA because we have the highest "parental education gap" in the USA!
Parental education is the primary determining factor for student achievement.

"The issue is that 38% of the students are doing way less well than the others."

Indeed, because that "38% of the students are doing way less well" you identify are the children of parents who don't have advanced university degrees, most have no college and many have no high school diplomas.

The group you call "...the others." (nice subliminal jab there) are the kids of parents who DO have diplomas, college degrees and most have advanced university degrees.

How well a student does in school is NOT driven by wealth, or ethnicity, or even native language, but rather by the educational background of their PARENTS.

The reason family wealth SEEMS to determine educational performance of the kids is that when their PARENTS have higher education they will get paid much more than parents who don't even have a diploma.

Parental education drives child achievement AND wealth AND having more options to choose from, like private school.
It all comes back to how much education the PARENTS have!

"The schools are optimized for the well off kids"

How exactly are you claiming that MVWSD has manipulated teaching standards in favor of the wealthy?
Not only would that be illegal, how could it possibly be done?
The STATE sets testing and performance measurement.

"such as those who live near Huff"

WHAT evidence are you claiming to have to show that?

"Many of these kids pay for private school"

Many kids living all over Mountain View attend private schools, that has NOTHING to do with the schools run by the MVWSD.

"so the district responds by favoring that background of student who remains in the district school. "

"responds" to what exactly?
HOW would the MVWSD "favor" wealthy kids?
WHY would MVWSD want to make a massive achievement gap when we know full well that it makes news and makes people angry?

Almost every public school district in the USA has an achievement gap and all of those gaps match the educational gap in the backgrounds of the parents.

@Norberto, sorry MV residents are smarter than this. They don’t go to links like gadflyonthewall to get their info on schools. All charters in CA are nonprofits and BCS and BMV are two distinct charters, authorized by different authorizers, with separate 501c’s and no overlapping financials or enrollment prefs. There is no way for one school in Los Altos to get extra money or extra credit points for having more FRPM kids at BMV. And coversely, there is no way for BMV to get credit for the great test scores at BCS. Charters don’t work this way. I suspect the only benefit to BCS might be more ‘street cred’ if they can prove their model works with poor kids. If this is the case, then the founders deserve to write their books, go have their TED talks and make gobs of money.

I am not rich (I chose to spend my career in education), but I am well educated (masters) so degrees don’t always correlate to affluence. While I do agree parent education levels play a big part in the academic success of a kid, it’s not always the case. My parents didn’t go to college and look at me for example. I think we as a community can’t just blame poor results on things like parent education levels when we’re not happy with the test results of certain demographics. If you look at all the charter schools in Redwood City as an example, some of these schools have FRPM rates as high as 80% and yet their FRPM students do very well (20-75% better than the District results). If BMV can hit 5% better, we as a community should embrace them.

@ST parent, because I’m an educator I know a thing or two about achievement gaps. There are ways to crack this nut. There are parts of our country that have radically minimized them. Please google Rocketship, Promise schools and Harlem Childrens zone.

@Alvin "I suspect the District decided to pull the bandaid quickly instead of taking in parent input." Ayinde has a history of this (4 principals comes to mind).

Nope. I watched the video of the hearing. He and the board (and the parents at the Dec 8 meeting and the MV editorial board ALL asked/suggested) that they do it a year later to get better stakeholder input and more community buy-in. Guess who did not amend their petition to make it a year later?

Yup - Bullis BMV principal Jennifer Anderson-Rosse and whatever leadership was present at the meeting. They even asked right before the vote count if Jennifer would be willing to delay one year. They said no. Its all on youtube. So yea, this is all leaves much to be desired from the Bullis folks. Well nothing we can do about it now.

And @Noberto is right - this is exact opposite of the population they targeted at Los Altos. They were even reprimanded by the County ed board for their abissmal service/scores of SED kids! Google it! If someone came in who had a track record of success with SED/ELL kids, I would said, oh, ok, let's give it a try. They had 1% SED compared to 6% LASD!! But here, they can get 35-40%?? Really? If you build it, they will come?? Well the same reason they couldn't get SED kids in Los Altos are pretty much the same reasons they probably won't get them in MT View. So again, will end up siphoning the cream of the crop students with highly motivated and educated parents who can donate extra cash. Which would be fine and dandy - couldn't give a hoot - if it did not cost our not-so-rich district an extra $2 million+ per year! And even if they did, I would rather see that 2 million dollars spent evenly on improving all SED kids and not just the 40-50 kids who got into BMV. IMHO.

In Los Altos, BCS basically attracted the cream of the crop of an already-well-performing academic population, (I think their top enrollment pref was Los Altos Hills residents), highly motivated and engaged parents and got $5k per student donation and then...showed some better scores. Wow what a resounding accomplishment. With all those advantages, it would be practically criminal if they didn't get better scores. Lol.

@Alvin Cole

Please provide the link to the list you mentioned, I have not seen it myself.

But of the great many Stevenson parents I have spoken to, I have not found one who wants to prevent BMV from existing and not one who wants to let the county or state be the one to be in control.
We just want BMV to do what it claims to want to do and put it all in writing.

Also, get your district history right and things might make more sense to you.

"@ST parent, my youngest attended Stevenson when it was a truly diverse school and located at Castro."

When PACT was at Slater, many low-income families within walk/bike distance of Slater did attend, but when Slater was closed and PACT was moved over to Castro, those Slater low-income families chose NOT to stay with PACT because of transportation issues.

When PACT was located at Castro (BEFORE Stevenson was even open) many of the Castro low-income families who could WALK/bike to PACT@Castro did indeed attend PACT because it did not change their transportation situation.

The MVWSD determined that the Castro site was so severely over-crowded (Castro site had well over 900 kids with PACT@Castro). The locals found the situation intolerable to have so many kids there. PACT was the only group that the district could move out of Castro.

When PACT was moved by the MVWSD to the hastily and cheaply refurbished Stevenson campus, the Castro area low-income families chose NOT to come with PACT to Stevenson because of their transportation issues. NOT due to ANYTHING about PACT.

"Stevenson has changed a lot since then, and needs to take a hard look at itself."

Again, Stevenson has ZERO control over who applies and ZERO control over who the DISTRICT OFFICE selects by it's enrollment lottery.

"It is the BCS of our District."

NO, Stevenson and PACT has ALWAYS existed and operated at the WHIMS of the MVWSD because everything about PACT and Stevenson and it's enrollment is totally owned and accountable to the MVWSD.

BCS has ZERO accountability to LASD and only limited accountability to Santa Clara County.

"...when I looked over the signatures in the parent petition letter, the largest group seemed to come from Stevenson."

Let's start by providing the link to that list.

"Maybe other parents chose not to state their schools,"

If you studied the list, you should already know how many parents chose not to state their school.

"...to deny a school that is giving a high enrollment preference to FRPM students."

First, I do NOT object to BMV coming into existence in Mountain View, I simply want the BMV leadership to put their promises in WRITING in their petition.
Like making their enrollment priorities actually match their stated goals.

"I can’t support cleverly disguised segregation in our public schools."

The schools are NOT causing "segregation", the housing types and where they are located is doing that. Property values and housing density are the major driving factors determining where people of various income levels live.

"If BMV becomes another Stevenson, you can bet your retirement savings that I will be fighting hard to shut it down too."

Then you should be SUPPORTING the position of Stevenson parents who are open to BMV, but want BMV to actually put their promises into writing.

Alvin, so why does on page 161 of the MV Bullis petition it say that Los Altos Bullis will be getting paid? Los Altos Bullis is getting a kick back from Mountain View. Why didn't MV Bullis put this monthly fee in their proposed budget in the same petition? Are you going to work for Bullis Mountain View?

And just because they are a non-profit doesn't mean that people aren't getting rich off this scam.

Here is a great article for everyone to read on the non profit charter scam.
Web Link

@Alvin Cole

You cannot make your point by conflating private, religious, charter and traditional public schools under one roof.
The "gap" is calculated for traditional public schools.

Your arguments are all about the rare cases, anecdotal, not statistical evidence.

"I am not rich..., but I am well educated (masters) so degrees don’t always correlate to affluence."

I never said education ASSURES wealth, just that education is the true root that drives everything else.

My parents were very well-educated, but couldn't translate that into wealth or even inheritance. Their education drove me to a college degree and 2 university degrees for my brother. (student loans) I am not affluent, but I push my child to get an even better education than myself.

My wife had parents with diplomas not college, however they placed a high value on education so my wife got a college degree and later a university degree as well. (student loans)

We also made the decision to only have one child, unlike our parents who each had three.
We expect that will also help our child achieve more than we did.
We might have something left for our child to inherit, but only if we are really smart with our income and keep our own standard of living as low as we can.

"While I do agree parent education levels play a big part in the academic success of a kid, it’s not always the case."

Parental attitudes about education can be nearly as powerful for some kids as their parent's actual education, but again, education is the root. Parental education is more predictive of child achievement than any demographic factors.

"My parents didn’t go to college and look at me for example."

Yes, each generation of parents who CHOOSE to push education can drive their kids to do better than they did.

"I think we as a community can’t just blame poor results on things like parent education levels when we’re not happy with the test results of certain demographics."

It's far more accurate than blaming it on racism or some evil plan to keep the poor kids from getting a better education than their parents did.

"@ST parent, because I’m an educator I know a thing or two about achievement gaps."

Then you should know they exist is virtually all public school systems and almost always directly track the educational gap for the parents.

"There are ways to crack this nut."

Great, then WHY have you sat on the solution all these years instead of getting the solution to the MVWSD?

"There are parts of our country that have radically minimized them. Please google Rocketship, Promise schools and Harlem Childrens zone."

NONE of those are traditional public schools.

@Alvin Cole

Mistral has NO income quotas, only a 50% native Spanish speaking language quota and even that is on the "honor system", Mistral can't actually verify.

What exactly do you claim Stevenson can do legally BY ITSELF to get more low-income families to apply?
Enrollment is done by the district.
Transportation is the big issue with low-income families and must be provided by the district.

WHY are you not targeting Huff and Bubb to alter their enrollment rules?
Huff has almost the exact same percentage of low-income kids as Stevenson in recent years and next year Huff will be noticeably BELOW Stevenson in low-income kids!!!!! Bubb will be close to Stevenson percentages next year.

"The enrollment preferences listed on the BMV website seem to be the same as what’s written in their charter petition so the FRPM preference is already there and in writing."

The MVWSD changes simply re-ordered the BMV list to adhere to the claimed intentions of BMV.

"I too agree that waiting for one year before BMV rolls out would serve the entire district better."

So, WHY are you not also asking BMV leadership to delay their opening as hundreds of Mountain View residents have asked for?

"I suspect the District decided to pull the bandaid quickly instead of taking in parent input."

WRONG!
The trustees and Rudolph and pretty much everyone else were pushing for BMV to delay the opening, but BMV refused. Even when BMV got asked right before the Board voted, BMV still refused.

"so it can easily do the same for Stevenson."

Stevenson already has families who speak 26 different languages from virtually all ethnic groups and first generation immigrants from many nations around the world. We have plenty of Spanish speakers too.

What Stevenson does not have are many families who live far away who don't have transportation solutions to/from Stevenson.
ONLY the MVWSD can provide transportation.

"The problem is that Stevenson parents wield a lot more influence (ie.$) than Mistral parents."

To do what enrollment-relevant things exactly?
If the low-income families don't choose to apply, there is nothing Stevenson can do about it on our own.

"Perhaps seeing how BMV can roll out their preferences legally will be a good eye opener for the community."

Indeed, we have all wondered about that as well.

HOW is BMV going to identify who to recruit or predict their percentages or make any sort of adjustments towards their stated goal of 40% low-income kids?

HOW exactly could Huff, Bubb or Stevenson begin to add more low-income families next year when Huff/Bubb will both drastically drop in their low-income percentages?

@Alvin Cole,,,,

Hey Alvin,
I finally found the link to the list of people who signed the open letter to Bullis and checked the list for Stevenson PACT names, both for those that self-identified and those who's names I knew.
It turns out only 2 Stevenson parents did not identify as such.

Now, after counting through the 12 pages of signatures, I found that out of the 350 people who signed the open letter, only 40 were from Stevenson PACT.

ALL of the other K-5 schools had far more signatures than Stevenson and even former parents of MVWSD out numbered Stevenson, as did taxpayers and some other misc identifications.
Even Graham and Crittendon had quite a few.

And from my personal polls the real opposition from Stevenson has to do with the timing of the opening and wanting BMV to put in writing what they have promised verbally.

Stevenson has nothing to fear from BMV, but we do care about it's impact on the district and other schools and it's behavior in this process.

Schools that educate elementary school children are the same basic idea. However, some are private, and some are public. In all cases, the management panders to the squeakiest wheel, especially if donations are coming from the squeakers. Donations come in private schools, and they come in public schools.

Now, above, ST parent says that it is misleading to CONFLATE these types of schools. Well, it is in fact accurate.

The problem in this case, is that those same less-educated parents he cites as being his idea of the root cause of poor performance in schools are ALSO not squeakers. They don't make big donations. They don't support candidates for school board and they don't give teachers and principals support with their management.

This is true in all types of schools. He alleges that charter schools are different. Well, I don't think that's exactly true. In California Charters follow the same Ed Code as do the traditional schools and the alternative traditional schools. But if ST parent is right, and Charters *Are* different, then is that not PROOF that there may be a better success chance there for students whose parents don't advocate for them (while other better off financially and more educated do advocate including in forums like this) Isn't ST parent essentially laying out a case to support the idea that a charter school might be the best chance for designing a program which compensates for the home support shortfalls for some of the students, through no intrinsic fault of their own? Saying that the cause of failure is lack of parental education is not the whole story. He's speaking in the context he knows and accepts as universal. He's assuming that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to supplement a program to fill in the gaps of background support. But this is not believable. He's stating the case for having a charter school and missing the things he himself is saying.

Sigh.

Dr. Rudolf wants to be sure that there are more Title 1 eligible children at the new charter than are found in all but 3 of the district's schools. He laments the idea that the funding will follow the students who switch to the charter within MVWSD. Unspoken is Rudolf's apparent lament that the Title 1 eligible kids carry more funding. Not only do they carry the paltry Title 1 added funding, but the state has an LCFF formula with greater effect.

Essentially, the state defines disadvantaged kids in a way that overlaps largely with Title 1 eligibility. The state says that a charter school will get 35% more funding for each of these kids than it gets for the other kids. This is a crap ton of added funding. The truth is that MVWSD doesn't devote that much of a funding differential to the disadvantaged kids, which it gets away with because it has so much local funding. However, for a charter school within the district, the distinction is still made.

The charter school is being attacked by the rich parents in a property tax rich district (including the Shoreline Park funding). It is being attacked for taking funding with a goal of serving especially those suffering from the achievement gap. Ths achievement gap is the WORST in the nation. There are plenty of other areas where there are 40% of disadvantaged kids mixed in with more fortunate kids. Lamentably, MVWSD is *Not* unusual in that aspect. It is unusual in its delayed attempts to start preschool service for the poor kids. It is unusual in having so much of a lack of special attention to the kids who don't have the same parental support as the others. It is unusual in having the BIGGEST achievement gap of anywhere.

@Norberto, I don’t know what kind of game you’re playing, but again MV residents are not that stupid. So stop with your lies - just stop. Here’s the link to the actual charter petition. Page 161 says no such thing about kickbacks to BCS.
Web Link

The only entity getting paid any fees is MVWSD. They may choose to charge a 1-3% oversight fee to the charter. They should charge what the County charges BCS. If BMV can prove a pattern of abuse by MVWSD, they can appeal to be authorized by the County so MVWSD needs to make sure all looks above board here. The Bullis team has a history of screaming foul so I would urge our Board to tread cautiously.

If you look at the link to the charter petition I provided, you can see that the preferences are all there and in writing. The thing I don’t like is having the FRPM pref so low. It should be #1. The reality is that BMV will not fill all 168 kids with FRPM students. Half of Castro is not going to decide to go to a new school. Some have siblings and therefore won’t swicth and due to the high transience of our FRPM students, charters usually never equal the same number as a District in terms of demographics. Therefore the District should have a paper trail of showing that it supported the Charter with enrollment. Not sure how, but they absolutely cannot have evidence that they hindered the charter. That is a fast track to a new authorizer.

@ST parent, I looked over that list of parent signatures again, and I stand by my original comments. Of the 350 signers, half are not parents (you have signers who don’t even live in MV so I tossed those names all out). Of the 100 or so parent signatures, 40+ from Stevenson, Mistral parents are a close second. Then Bubb, Huff and some middle school parents who are likely alumni parents of the schools I just mentioned. Almost no signatures from Castro, Monta Loma or Theuerkauf - the schools which would benefit most with a new charter. So there you have it, or rather ‘The Haves’ have it.

Why so much loud protesting from the Stevenson community? Bubb and Huff are not choice schools but neighborhood schools. Those parents paid their real estate premiums to live there and go to those schools. Stevenson is a choice program - the parents there opted out of their neighborhood school to get something they perceived to be better and then fought the District to not adjust enrollment so more diverse students are not there. Stevenson has the smallest low-income Spanish population in the District, despite being located in an area with many low income families. It should in theory reflect the demographics of Theuerkauf and yet it doesn’t. Sorry, I just don’t agree with that. And if BMV becomes another Stevenson, I can’t support it either. Rich parents should be sending their kids to private schools if they don’t like the school in the neighborhoods in which they live. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

If BMV can attract FRM students and do a good job with them, the District has an obligation to revisit enrollment at Stevenson. If it doesn’t, perhaps they don’t care about student equity.

@Alvin Cole, This is what the petition says on page 161. You are saying they won't be getting a management and services fee? Will you be working for Bullis MV?

"In the event that BMV will benefit from
shared services and supports from Bullis Charter School, BMV will pay BCS a management and
service fee. This fee may support the shared services provided by BCS for the operations and school
model development of BMV, capturing efficiencies and economies of scale so that the
administration at BMV can focus on instructional leadership. Services provided by BCS, should this
arrangement take place, may include compliance, reporting, food service administration, facilities
management, human resources, technology support, accounting, payroll, benefits administration,
financial management, audit preparation, teacher professional development, academic oversight
and support, special education, blended learning support, fundraising, outreach, strategy, and
alumni support."

@Norbert. “If” and “will” are two very different things. Nowhere in that statement does it definitively say that BCS is getting paid. If they share a music or PE specialist, it makes sense to pay BCS a fee to help cover that staff cost. MVWSD as an authorizer has a right to appoint a board member to help oversee such things. I hope the District exercises this right.

Alvin Cole..you are a master spinner of things. You fit right into the Charter school style and approach. If you look at the laundry list of areas where Los Altos can get paid, it is obvious that Bullis Mountain View is leaving the door open pretty wide to send funds/profits to Bullis Los Altos. They can get paid for fundraising, outreach, strategy and alumni support? Come on. This vague yet catch all paragraph in the petition is how Bullis Los Altos is going to stuff it's pockets with money from Mountain View.

What role will you be taking on at Bullis Mountain View? I notice you keep dodging that question. With a lack of transparency, truth and trust, it is going to be hard for anyone to accept the bull in Bullis.

Unfortunately I have a pretty severe disability so I’m happily retired at this point in my life, but I am confident BMV will be able to hire effectively. BCS has a strong reputation so I’m sure they will attract good teachers, and the enrollment pref for staff virtually assures it.

I don’t think BCS Los Altos needs any money from Bullis MV. According to the charter petition, the budget seems pretty thin whereas it’s widely known that BCS Los Altos has a generous foundation with very affluent parents. If anything, I suspect the flow of funds would go other way. After all, this same foundation donated a quarter million to BMV already. Why would a rich school take money from a poor school? Again, illogical inflammatory statements....

@ResidentSince1982

WOW, your trying to put words in my mouth that I never said. You must be a politician.

I am stating what educators and those who have studied the statistics that INCLUDE family and home factors in the calculations achievement of students.

Most studies only look at the schools themselves and thus predictably conclude a school has either "failed" or "succeeded".
Studies that add the income factor conclude that money makes all the difference.
Studies that only add ethnicity conclude it's all about racism.
Only the studies that INCLUDE ALL those factors AND family & home factors finally learn that the biggest factor is parental education.
(Single-parent is another major factor)

FYI, I am not against charters, not even against BMV, I am against the rush to open in 2019 and the tone-deaf behavior of the BMV leadership.

Schools are NOT "failing" just because some kids don't do as well as other kids, nor is a school a "failure" because their aggregate test scores are lower than some other school in the area.
A "failing" school is one where kids are not progressing in their achievement over time. The very best that schools can do is help each kid (regardless of family factors) achieve their personal best, but they cannot 100% compensate for family & home issues.

"Schools that educate elementary school children are the same basic idea."

Methodologies and accountability are all over the place and vary drastically from type to type.

Public school Boards are accountable to the VOTERS and the traditional schools are totally accountable to their School Board.

FYI, in Mountain View, for every household with a K-12 age child, there are 12 households with NONE. Voters out-number parents at least 12-1.

Charters straddle the border between public and private schools.

"In all cases, the management panders to the squeakiest wheel,"

Pretty much every decision before the MVWSD Board includes quite a bit of discussion about the impact on low-income and ELL families.

"ST parent says that it is misleading to CONFLATE these types of schools."

When people scream about the "achievement gap" they are only using the numbers from the public schools, not the religious, private, charters or home schooling.

Just because one school has 99% low-income kids with poorly educated parents and thus the statistics for that school are lower than the stats for another school with different demographics does NOT mean that one school is bad and "failing" while the other school is better and "succeeding".

What matters is forward progress.

"then is that not PROOF that there may be a better success chance there for students whose parents don't advocate for them"

Some charters may have figured out how to serve low-income kids better than their local traditional public schools have, but that's not due to the charter system. A normal public school district could do the same.

"Isn't ST parent essentially laying out a case to support the idea that a charter school might be the best chance for designing a program which compensates for the home support shortfalls for some of the students,"

NO, it's broader than charters, it's about school districts exchanging ideas and collaborating and having the courage to include choice or magnet schools in their districts. That way these alternative schools are still 100% owned and operated by the public school Boards and accountable to the VOTERS.

"Saying that the cause of failure is lack of parental education is not the whole story."

No one factor, no small set of factors, is the "whole story", but one factor has the largest and most consistent effect on the student outcome, parental education.

And I didn't claim anything about "failure", that's a value judgement.

"He's assuming that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to supplement a program to fill in the gaps of background support."

Not to 100% compensate for the families, no. Schools can do things that can help, but even those things are not cookie-cutter solutions, each child and each family is different. Solutions to help kids achieve their personal best have to be carefully designed and managed and individualized to be effective.

We shall see but odds are clearly in favor of the idea that a different program can make a difference. Yours seems to be a defeatist attitude. In saying that the schools need to give more resources to features that primarily benefit the poor kids with the limited home support. I'm also saying that some of the other parents always protest when this is done because it is not "fair". Your statements are examples of this in many respects. Saying the district should resign itself to lower performance overall and just look at yearly individual growth rather than the mastery as an absolute is weak.

I don't see why Bullis would object to the Board's conditions. After all, they mirror what BCS claims it was going to do in the charter petition.

The only reason for BCS to object to the conditions would be if BCS's charter petition was actually a sham and BCS just put forth a fake interest in helping SED students so it could get expansion space. I hope that is not the case. The idea of welcoming an organization willing to use SED kids in that way to get what it wants is horrifying.

I welcome BCS with conditions. The board is being reasonable. Let BCS come in and be held accountable for the goals it put forward. If it didn't believe in those goals, and wasn't willing to work for them, then they shouldn't have been in the charter petition.

Too many conditions. Excluding people from the board based on residence is not good. Illegal.

@ResidentSince1982 Giving enrollment preference by residency is not illegal, and will support the goals that BCS claims it wants to support. Are you saying that BCS was disingenuous in its petition?

Actually the residence as a subset of the district is probably illegal. The district can be accused of discriminating against people signing the petition. The Bullis petition already has an absolute priority for all low income. There is no grounds to favor some residential locations over others.

And the board of directors for the corporation formed to operate the charter already exists. It made a lawfull petition. Telling them to reorganize is not kosher. Basing the order on city of residence is a no go.

Putting aside the legality of the residency requirement (which I believe, based on my understanding of charter law, to be entirely legal, but let's let the lawyers that BCS will undoubtedly bring argue it out), what I don't understand is why BCS supporters are so resistant to the idea of any accountability to what they themselves wrote in their charter petition. What the MVWSD board did was entirely in line with what BCS itself wrote in its charter petition. Why is BCS so opposed to requirements that will help it meet its stated goals? Why the resistance to something that is nothing more than consistent with what BCS claims to want?

What I see from BCS up to this point is that BCS is willing to put forth a petition filled with language about how it wants to help SED students, but it is not wiling to be held accountable at all to the stated goals in that very petition. It's incredibly disappointing and cynical behavior from BCS. If BCS truly wanted to meet its stated goals regarding SED students, was willing to do the hard work to meet those goals, and made itself accountable to those goals, I would welcome the school with open arms. In fact, I would have been at the meeting petitioning the board to support BCS. But at every chance that BCS has had to prove that it genuinely wished to help SED students in MV, it has declined to do so. I can't support an organization that cynically claims one goal but then shies away from any accountability concerning that goal, particularly when that school will be taking money away from schools that are already helping SED students.

The only thing the MVWSD board is doing is holding BCS accountable to the very goals BCS claims it supports. Why such resistance, then, if BCS truly wants to meet those goals? Why not take this chance to show that BCS is genuine in its goals?

@ResidentSince1982 Enrollment preference based on Residence in a subset of the district is exactly what BCS has had in the books since 2003/2004. Leave it to lawyers to argue from both sides of their mouth :)
Also, re: "the Bullis petition already has an absolute priority for all low income" not really ...and that's why MVWSD asked that low income kids move up in the lottery preferences.

I think the conditions set by MVWSD will actually help BMV succeed in reaching and being true to its goals. And it'll be fair to question BMV's sincerity should they not embrace them.

If I were BMV, I would be popping champagne. The requests of the District are not onerous...just not particularly well thought out unfortunately.

The District thought they were being ‘clever’ with a 3 year term, but in my opinion this may screw them. CAASP is the standard, most widely used state assessment. However, because BMV will start as a K-2 program, they will only have 48 third graders in year 2 to test with CAASP, the same year by the way that BMV will be seeking renewal given the abbreviated term. I suspect many low income students will not enter this school midway through in a later grade so they likely won’t have more than 10 low income Hispanic kids in 3rd grade by year two of operations. CAASP results are not available for subgroups of less than 10 students per grade level. This isn’t something BMV did intentionally as most charter terms are for 5 years. The District basically hosed their own selves with this 3 year strategy.

If they try to make BMV use different assessments, that’s all well and good. But if the charter doesn’t agree to it, there’s nothing the District can do except reject the charter come renewal time, and then they will just go to the County who will likely agree that CAASP is the standard assessment to use. So BMV basically now has 6 or 8 years of runway instead of 5 (3 years as a District charter + 3 or 5 yrs as a County charter, assuming the District rejects at renewal time) to show the ‘proof in the pudding’ to use Ayinde’s own lingo.

If the District wants to claim that BMV doesn’t have the low income enrollment they were seeking as grounds for charter rejection, they need to show that they did everything they could to assist the charter with this effort. So far, it seems they’ve only hindered based on the negative letters from the Superintendent on the District website. If I were the charter, this is Exhibit A for when you go to the County on appeal.

Exhibit B is the Board meeting video from last week, where Ayinde had his emotional outburst. The grandstanding he made at the end was completely unprofessional, and sadly not in the best interest of the community, let alone students. It dripped with ego, unfettered rage, and a complete non-understanding of how charters work in California. I can’t imagine he did it just to please the PTA parents, what would be the point of that? If that was a planned speech on his end, he doesn’t have the strength of character and strategic vision to be going anywhere fast. He just shot himself big time. BMV, if you’re reading, this is Exhibit B for the County appeal hearing.

Finally, I am not sure one year delay makes sense for the District or for BMV. The big mistake BMV made was going to the PTAs. It should not have done that. PTAs are not going to support competition as they represent the folks with the most to lose with a shakeup of the status quo. More time just give the Haves more time to mobilize. As charter playbooks go, BMV did everything right including the timing. I might have filed a petition over the summer instead of Oct, but not any sooner than that. They could not agree to any more time if they wanted to appeal to the charter. In order to meet Prop 39 timing and give the County 60 days, they would have needed to file the appeal to the County by late Jan so no additional time could be given to the District. If you understand how charters work, this stuff isn’t complicated. I hope the District’s charter attorney is explaining all this clearly. Based on what I’m seeing so far, it doesn’t seem like he is. The District is making some beginner mistakes.

On enrollment pref, BMV already has FRPM prioritized in its charter petition. The neighborhood pref requested by the District is illegal. BCS had a geo-pref (not a neighborhood school pref - there is a difference, you just need to read the actual language). The County gave BCS a hard time about it so if I were part of the Bullis organization, I would not be eager to go down this path again. If anything, I might ask BMV to move the FRPM pref to #1. You can also give a pref to FRPM siblings which is legal. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. But the District enrollment pref request for certain neighborhood schools is not legal, and I would not agree to it if I were BMV.

I haven’t been following the BCS litigation history but I just perused some old articles. Looks like there were basically 4 lawsuits. Some in favor of BCS and some in favor of LASD. Some of the litigation was nonsense. LASD tried to buy some land down near Santa Clara and locate BCS down there. (What a tragic waste of taxpayer $!) The judge sided with BCS. BCS sued again when LASD split them onto 2 campuses. Judge said this was ok. But LASD still screwed themselves big time because this move is what has enabled BCS to grow the way that it has. If a southern BCS outpost never existed, demand for BCS would have petered out long ago. The biggest lawsuit centered around equivalent facilities. This one is a draw - BCS won the initial, but the District appealed. Hopefully MVWSD does follow the LASD playbook on litigation. Bottom line is that no one was a clear winner except the lawyers. Students and taxpayers definitely lost.

In my experience with District v. charter litigation, the law favors charters. It’s just how it is in CA. District are slow - they are public entities and by definition, they can’t be as nimble. If they try too hard to be ‘clever’, it usually winds up backfiring. Just follow the law, and it’ll all work out in the end. Truth will prevail as long as you don’t over-orchestrate it.

On one year timing delay, it would have be better for the community given all work done on the re-boundary. But if I’m BMV and the Superintendent, I might be thinking otherwise. For BMV, they’re probably eager to start and have the haters get resigned to the new reality. For the Superintendent, I probably want to get on with my job and having BMV hang over staff and parents is leaving the wound to fester.

At this point, it’s not worth spending more brain cells since the decision’s been made!

BCS had a charter conversion pref. It wasnt based on any operational school. It is expressly allowed in the ed code. LASD shut a neighborhood school and in that case it is allowed to form a charter with pref for the closed school's attendance boundaries. Still the county board gave BCS a hard time and the pref was limited to 50% of spaces.

I agree with Alvin Cole. The statements made at the approval meeting were often not supported by the facts. One zinger was when they said they had it in writing that BMV would talk about delaying a year. They asked for that. Then they voted to ignore the agreement to discuss. Worse they had no real discussion about negotiating a delay. One male board member shut
down the new female biard member when she asked to hear opinions on that before the vote. He was too pushy. He showed no respect.