Covington has the most land as well as campus street access from two sides. And yet the LASD Board of Trustees absolutely refuses to consider Covington for any of this. Why might that be? Every other elementary school in the district except for Covington and Gardner Bullis are going to get hosed. It's your turn next year, Santa Rita.

Loyola Enrollment 2010-11 590 2011-12 588
Loyola Enrollment 2018-19 404
Loyola Projection 2019-20 340-375
Loyola Projection 2020-21 310-350

Drop in Loyola Students compared to 2011 about 240 next year, about 265 the following year.

Not true that this will bring more than the peak enrollment to Loyola. Charter School growth next year 220, but the following year only 45 or so. Even after
next year growth, still not as big as Loyola once was back in 2011. Worst case, it would tie.

Also, good chance Loyola keeps dropping in enrollment the 3rd year too.

We might be to the point where we just turn all of our public elementary schools into Charter schools in the district and play them at their own game. Bullis will not stop trying to take over the district schools and will eventually bankrupt our public schools. This is what privatization looks like. Wake up Los Altos! Mountain View they are coming for you.

BCS students are public school students and the district trustees are obligated to provide space for them in the facilities we elected them to manage. They are our community's SHARED facilities - shared by taxpayers, shared by public school students - including BCS students. LASD has spent 15 years ignoring their obligation and these students. It's time for some difficult decisions, but we all should be asking why the trustees are unwilling to look at the largest campus, Covington, which has multiple entry points and numerous options for sharing. Is it perhaps that the majority of trustees own children attend Covington and/or they live in close proximity? Yes, yes it is.

Shared everything, except they keep out those they deem undesirable.

Re: Sylvia's comments: If Bullis charter is where parents want to send their kids at the expense of public schools, so be it ! This paronia will only delay but not stop the inevitable: the kids and the money will find its way to the best available options at the expense of lower quality schools.

Charter schools are providing a choice to the parents of kids in poor performing schools as well as high performing neighborhoods and mostly at a lower cost than traditional public schools. As a parent and taxpayer I want to have choice for education of my kids, and would be so grateful to have Bullis and similar schools provide new options to our neighborhood !

IN LASD at least, the law only requires the charter school students to be funded $8K per year, partly because they have so many ELL students. If the entirety of LASD was switched to charter, then the 4200 students would get funding of about $8.5K because they have a few more ELL students and even some low income students. But the result would have LASD retaining something like $20 Million per year in unspent funds.

Oh yes, and LASD wouldn't have to contribute anything to STRS because they'd have
no employees. But as for school grounds, a school like Loyola would still have to share. It would make no difference that they were a charter school.

How's this for a long-term solution - move Egan to Covington - since Covington used to be a junior high anyway, and it's a much larger campus than other elementary schools. There are 3 preschools housed at Covington, which the school district is not obligated to house. So, there should be room for Covington and Egan to share.

Covington is at a very nice location, arguably safer for Egan students to bike to. Redistrict the Crossings students to other schools - they may prefer it, since Covington is a huge trek (which makes little sense) from the Crossings area.

Give Egan to BCS, and spend a good chunk of the $150 million to upgrade Covington facilities to worldclass junion high schools standard to make up for the fact that Egan students have to be relocated.

Does BCS have publicly elected board members? It's not a public school. It's privately run and backed by CCSA, the conservative billionaires group that pushes for the privatization of our public schools.

Are they still asking for a $5,000 donation once you get into the school?

It's a private school that is funded by public dollars.

Here are a couple good reads for you on the fallacy of school choice and the foundational fallacy of charter schools.
Web Link
Web Link

I highly suspect that there is a firm hired by anti-charter organizations to post here. I think that's why there is so much animosity towards BCS. Here's a list of some of the false claims.

1) Claim: BCS is a private school. The posters like to use words like "privatization" and "public commons" a lot.

Analysis: BCS is a public charter school. The purpose is to get readers to resent BCS students for getting a "better" education.

2) Claim: charter schools are for failing districts.

Analysis: No. Legistlative intent makes clear that it is to (a) Improve pupil learning, (g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system, amongst others.

3) Claim: What is legal is not always what is right.

Analysis: They are basically encouraging violation of charter laws here. Charter Schools Act was passed in 1992. In fact 45 states and DC have charter school laws. So, almost all of US have decided charter schools are good for society.

4) Claim: BCS likes to sue

Analysis: Again, they are supporting violations of law. They are saying that even if LASD violates Prop 39, BCS should not sue. The fact is that California Supreme Court (on Jan 18, 2018) found that LASD violated Prop 39.

5) Many of the posts use a mocking, juvenile tone to engage in personal attacks. There was a person by the name of "LOL" that was banned by mv-voice.

Analysis: the purpose is to intimidate pro-BCS people and to stop them from posting.


6) Other posts use full first and last names to mislead readers into thinking they are posted by real local residents.

Analysis: It's obvious that most posters here don't use their real names. These posters use a full first and last name to make readers think they are local residents. Often, they are not.

7) Many of these posts link to general articles against charter schools.

Analysis: We are not voting on whether to overturn California's charter laws. It's been the law since 1992 - over 25 years. The discussion is facilities for BCS children, so these articles are completely irrelevant. The intent of these posts is to create general animosity towards BCS.

Propaganda is dangerous - particularly because much of the information they spread is false.

It's created a culture here in Los Altos that choice in education somehow harms the community as a whole, which is complete garbage. Practically the entire US (45 states plus DC) have decided charter schools is good for society. It provides the ultimate accountability - charter students can always go back to their neighborhood schools. Also, it provides competition for the neighborhood schools.

Please purchase the Kohl's site ASAP so that we have our own school (whether it is a local or charter school with local preference) with our own park because we deserve our own "reasonably equivalent facilities" for OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

It is demeaning to be dictated to by others from OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD at OUR EXPENSE...SO PLEASE STOP AND GIVE US OUR REASONABLY EQUIVALENT ACADEMIC AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.

As a recent LASD resident, I pay taxes (remind some of you that I pay MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than you do) to fund the local schools. I deserve my fair share of the community, including school ground to be allocated to where I want to send my kids to. Just because we believe in a different education model does not exclude us from the community. We are the community itself. BCS is part of Los Altos. We are not coming from the moon. Stop using the world "encroach". Los Altos is changing, people has voted.

And now we have a paranoid Pro-Bullis/Charter spin master trying to silence the voices fighting against the privatization of our public schools. I am a public school parent and advocate and I don't work for some anti-charter organization. Stop spreading lies and spinning the truth. What are you afraid of?

We won't be silenced by your threats and multiple lawsuits. The tide is turning and people are waking up to why Charter schools are bad for public education and bad for our community.

Do you work for CCSA or Bullis?

Admit it people. You are actually all Donald Trump in the core. You want to build a wall to not letting people you don't like (not "your color", don't speak "your language") to come to what you consider "your land".

But too ball.. can't fund your wall.

@Sylvia Fuentes

No, I don't work for the CCSA or Bullis. In fact, I have no idea what CCSA is. You say that you are a voice "fighting against the privatization of our public schools." and that "people are waking up to why Charter schools are bad for public education and bad for our community."

So, basically, you want to overturn California's Charter Schools Act of 1992 and Proposition 39 (approved in 2000 by the people of California). We are not voting on these 2 issues, so what's the purpose of your posts here?

Also, the tide is turning Los Altos - LASD trustees now acknowledge their obligation under Prop 39 - Board member Steve Taglio said acknowledged that "spreading Bullis out to several school sites instead of consolidating the school, are actually illegal".

Thanks Sylvia. Don't be silenced by these people.

"Charters are publicly funded but privately managed. They call themselves public schools, but a federal court ruling in 2010 declared they are “not state actors.” The National Labor Relations Board ruled in 2016 that charters are private corporations, not public schools. As private corporations, they are not subject to the same laws as public schools."

Here is a great article worth reading that was put out last year which sums it all up pretty well.

Web Link

@Posted by LASD Parent
"As a recent LASD resident, I pay taxes (remind some of you that I pay MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than you do) to fund the local schools."

Your arrogance and self-centered remarks about how you pay "MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more than (us)" is shameful and appalling. And by recent if you mean recently moved to Los Altos and bought a house for $3.5M, then you DESERVE to pay $35K in taxes. We should just bow to you I suppose ignoring the fact that many of us planned better than you 10+ years ago when we bought in Silicon Vally and our taxes are lower.

Can you stop Uber? No you can't because too many people use it.

Can you stop Marijuana? No you can't because too many people smoke it.

Can you stop BCS? No you can't because people lining up for it.

Simple. Can't stop what people avtually want.

Why does LASD keep on complaining about growth in enrollment at BCS? Surely, it's obvious that it's growing because parents love the school and more and more people want to send their kids there. A school that parents love is a bad thing...how?

We are incredibly lucky to have won the lottery. If I didn't, I would be the first person to write to LASD to ask them to NOT cap enrollment. California Charter laws encourage good schools - parents obviously think BCS is a great school - and BCS is willing to provide great education to more students.

So, there's supply and certainly plenty of demand. Why is then a third party - LASD - trying so hard to impede the clear intent of California Charter laws?

Sounds like BCS leadership is inclined to agree to an enrollment cap - which I find unfortunate. US ranks 38th in math (Canada ranks 9th) - we as a society really need more great schools like BCS.

We have kids at Loyola - a wonderful neighborhood school.
I don’t have any problem with BCS as a alternative to the public school - however, I don’t understand why BCS didn’t put their enrollment projections forward 1-2 years ago so BCS and LASD could have found a good and sustainable solution for all parties...

...instead we are ending up with a compromise that is bad for everyone involved!

Why, BCS?

Here is an interesting thought. What if BCS opens enrollment to all Loyola kids? Curious to see how many will take the offer... All about choices...

@Los Altan

I don't have a specific answer to your question, since I'm not affiliated with BCS leadership. I'll have to say though that from having observed LASD in the last couple of months, it's clear to me that some of these trustees/educators have zero respect for charter schools, even though California Charter Schools Act has been around since 1992, so it's nothing new.

Shali Sirkay writes in a campaign email "the attack on public schools that is happening at the national level has found its way into our community," referring to BCS's facility request.

Ivanovic also said many incredibly anti-BCS things - which I won't repeat here.

I simply find it hard to believe that a board consisting of these two members has any intention of upholding LASD's obligations under Prop 39.

There was an 5-year agreement during which BCS agreed not to grow in exchange for a permanent solution to the facilities issue.

LASD has done nothing in these 5 years - and now it's putting all the blame on BCS for its failure to act.

LASD has come around recently, at least in appearance, because some LASD parents have put pressure on them to resolve the facilities issue. I think a long-term solution will only come about if LASD parent leaders continue to pressure LASD trustees to do what's right for BCS and LASD. The trustees simply won't listen to BCS.

They'll continue to find facilities solutions that make no one happy, and then place all the blame on BCS.

A cynical part of me thinks that instead of simply putting more portables at Blach, the trustees chose Loyola (and hinting maybe Springer is next) to incite more animosity towards BCS.

Correction to post above:

California Supreme Court found that LASD violated Prop 39 on January 18, 2012 (not 2018 as stated in above post) by upholding published appellate decision.

BCS grew during the 5 year agreement. LASD knew it would grow after. LASD just made no plans for next year and then faked surprise. Incompetent.

@Fortress Covington

"Covington has the most land as well as campus street access from two sides. And yet the LASD Board of Trustees absolutely refuses to consider Covington for any of this. Why might that be? "

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but is Covington even an elementary school?
I thought it was a middle school.

It's entirely inappropriate to put little kids into a middle school.

@Observer

"Can you stop Uber? No you can't because too many people use it."

As a company that requires a license to operate on the public streets, it is possible to stop these ride-sharing services. They can also be taxed or regulated out of existence.

"Can you stop Marijuana? No you can't because too many people smoke it."

Which is why the major tobacco companies and major drug companies will be taking over the entire Marijuana market in the coming decade or 2.

Drug-control laws have never been able to stop anyone from getting any drugs as long as people are willing to ignore the laws. Same for most "things" that the government wants to control access to. A black market will spring up to supply what is desired. Alcohol Prohibition proved this and proved how bad the damage can be from "control-laws".

"Can you stop BCS? No you can't because people lining up for it."

A Charter school is not an object, resource or substance that criminals can get mega-wealthy making and smuggling across the boarders.

Charters are an artificial creation of a law voters approved, but didn't understand what they were getting in to.

Prop 39 can just as easily be repealed by the voters. It is indeed possible to stop the charters and even force them fully back under the public school system control by our elected officials.

This may well happen if charters continue to anger so many people with their behavior. Not that school districts are innocent either.

"Simple. Can't stop what people avtually want. "

Depends on how something is created.
A law created charters and another law could eliminate them.
It would be wise for charters to re-think their relationships with the cities they operate in.

Anyone that thinks that Prop 39 can be easily repealed is delusional. That's one of the problems with ballot initiatives. They are almost impossible to undo once they have been passed. LASD and BCS need to get together and negotiate a solution that is agreeable to both sides.

@Interesting Thought

Loyola has ~20 FTE and maybe ~15 shared district staff, what would/what will happen to them if there were no LASD students at the the Loyola site?

@ST Parent

Many moons ago Covington was indeed a junior high and is currently an elementary school site that also houses three private pre-schools. One of the pre-schools, Stepping Stones, is the business that MV city councilman John McAlister has a financial stake in. Stepping Stones was also relocated from Blach to Covington to accommodate the current BCS site at Blach. Why such a cozy relationship with Stepping Stones?

Since BCS pays market rate rent to LASD for their school sites, why should it matter to LASD where the money comes from? Are for-profit dollars better than not-for profit dollars?

These Marin County folks think CCSA supports Bullis and is to blame. Not exactly. Bullis is 100% independent. They got created by necessity, at the suggestion of the LASD Superintendent. It's very old history, but LASD created BCS by having a closed empty school site sitting in the middle of the homes of a lot of parents who wanted to see it reopened. The Teacher's Union was of no help.

So over the years, Bullis grew into a very special program. Your program there in Marin County at Ross Valley could do the same. Before they even get started, the local PTA set about undermining them, and now they are down here posting on the Voice web site. That school needs CCSA support, but Bullis brought itself up by the bootstraps as it were. If anything, it supports CCSA rather than the reverse.

And anyone else who is wondering..same as those who were wondering about the NEC neighborhood, BCS cannot suddenly implement an enrollment preference for a particular neighborhood or school such as Loyola. They would have to include any preference in the next charter renewal which isn't for awhile. BCS will likely not implement a preference ever again. If they implemented a preference for Loyola students, imagine what would happen. There would be no more Loyola! Not a good idea.

There are solutions out there which won't require closing an existing school and don't require the wasteful purchase of the Kohl's site. LASD parents need to voice their support for the ideas from the Creative Facilities Solutions group.

Web Link

BCS is a good school, and it is good to have choice. I have no problem with that.

But I just wonder if this is causing so much trouble within the community, can they NOT increase the enrollment for now? And just continue to use lottery/ waitlist?
Who is pressuring the board to increase enrollment?
If They can just keep the same size and Then they don't have to find space and to hire new teachers... easy right?
What will they gain by going through all these? They are non-profit anyway.

@Los Altan

I think the issue is not really LASD parents vs. BCS parents but rather current LASD parents vs. incoming kinder LASD parents. As current LASD/BCS parents, we made our choices, so increasing BCS enrollment doesn't benefit either of our groups.

However, the incoming kinders want more choices - BCS hears the demand -
through their info sessions and how many apply via the lottery. They then increase their enrollment to meet the demand.

Unfortunately, the parents of incoming kinders don't generally have a voice on these message boards or in school board meetings - because they are not yet part of the school system.

As for getting more space and hiring teachers, that's just what charter schools do. They ask for facilities every year under Prop 39.

I wasn't here, but my understanding is that LASD parents were opposed to BCS even when it was much smaller, so had BCS complied with the demands of the LASD community, it probably wouldn't even exist - to the detriment of families like us who would like choice in schools.

I'm not understanding this outrage from the Loyola community - there are many empty classrooms in Loyola, and actually many other Los Altos schools as well. So, what's the problem?

Another thing to consider is that BCS has been growing steadily and consistently for 15 years. LASD always kept denying that it would really grow for the following year, and always provided them less facilities. For the first 10 years, LASD itself was growing and needed to add facilities somewhere so they just put the portables off in the corner instead of spreading them around their various schools as much (they did add portables to most school during that time, also). Then 5 years ago things changed. The negotiated that BCS could grow 300 more kids and they would put a few more portables over the 5 year period to handle that growth (sort of) at Blach and Egan. The growth at BCS was front loaded so the 5th year would see less growth (only 36 students in the end that 5th year, this school year). But something else changed. During the last 4 years, the enrollment in LASD combined with BCS included actually stayed the same. So all the LASD schools shrank by the same amount that BCS grew. But it was not even. LASD actually grew at the beginning even as BCS grew too. For the last year, LASD shrank by 160 while BCS only grew 36. The birth cycle reduced the total number of students. So LASD now has 300 more empty spots across all schools than it did 5 years ago, and they are trying to fill some of the space by using that empty space for future BCS growth. This is important because it looks like the shrinkage is going to continue for several years before stabilizing, i.e. no more growth at that point but no more shrinkage.

One of the big problems for LASD is that they are losing the battle of the "Kindergarten Information Night" and losing badly. BCS gives a very slick and polished presentation which focuses on topic which are important to parents in this area. The LASD kindergarten information night, on the other hand, is not so polished and seems more touchy feely. There is more of an emphasis on friendships and smiling kids on the playground. Honestly, I don't know how a prospective parent could attend both BCS and LASD Kindergarten information nights and not come away thinking that BCS is the superior program. That's a big problem for LASD which they need to fix!

"However, the incoming kinders want more choices - BCS hears the demand -
through their info sessions and how many apply via the lottery. They then increase their enrollment to meet the demand."

Therein lies the problem. They increase the size of the school to meet demand without regard for what that does to the families that prefer LASD schools rather than BCS. A lot of the posts here make the assumption that BCS is clearly the superior option. It's not. It's better for some kids, and worse for others. So, expanding to meet demand to the detriment of others may be legal, but it is not reasonable and makes BCS come across as a bad neighbor. School choice is fantastic, but schools have limited enrollment capacity. I know people who did not even get into their neighborhood schools because they were over-enrolled. For choice schools in other districts that have lotteries, we all understand that the lottery is there because there is not enough space for everyone who wants it. Instead, BCS says hey, everyone who wants a BCS education deserves one, and therefore we need others to give up access to some of their facilities or, preferably, an entire school.

"Honestly, I don't know how a prospective parent could attend both BCS and LASD Kindergarten information nights and not come away thinking that BCS is the superior program"

I went to both presentation. I talked to parents at both school. I absolutely 100% came out believing that my neighborhood LASD school is a superior choice for my child, and I couldn't be happier with it. Kids are different. Parents are different. Families are different. We need to stop assuming that BCS is the best choice for every child.

I read that 50% of LASD residents apply to BCS. If someone has the exact figures, please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's an astounding figure. If we are to assume that families that already have a child in LASD do not apply to BCS for their second child, and only families that are entering the school system for the first time apply ("new families"), then approx 80% "new families" apply to BCS. This is an amazing demand. See below for math and assumptions.

So, this is really a battle between "current LASD families" and "new families". BCS educators are passionate educators - that's what they do - kind of like Mercedes build great cars. Instead of criticizing Mercedes and trying to stop them from building more great cars - which the "new LASD community" overwhelming wants, shouldn't we ask ourselves why we are not building better cars? Not a great analogy, I know...

But, the point is....wouldn't it be more constructive to press LASD trustees to improve the school district and/or to improve relations with BCS?

Constant criticsm about "unchecked growth", and unilateral demands such as BCS should get out of town and onto Kohls site, a site that no one from LASD wants - without talking about what LASD trustees should be doing to work with BCS - don't seem conducive to improving relations.

-----
Math and assumptions: Given a sample of 100 kids, we assume each child has one sibling, on average. So, 50 kids have an older sibling ("current family"), and 50 kids are the first child ("new family") in their families. Out of the 50 "current family" kids, 10 go to BCS because 20% of LASD residents attend BCS, so they apply to BCS. None of the rest of the current family apply to BCS because an older siblings already goes to LASD school, so it's inconvenient.

We know 50 kids applied to BCS total, which means 40 out of the 50 new family kids applied. Conclusion: an astounding 80% of the new family kids applied. Please correct me if you disagree with the math and/or assumptions.

It sounds like Loyola parents are fearing that Loyola may close in the future?

If so, wouldn't it be

1) because of declining enrollment due to Los Altos crazy housing prices? How can BCS be blamed for that?!!!

or

2) because LASD trustees chose Loyola for BCS (and hinting possible future closure). Shouldn't Loyola parents be questioning why, instead of redrawing the current boundaries, which make no sense whatsoever, Loyola has been chosen?

Right now, the Crossings families have to "drive" 15 minutes one-way (30 minutes round-trip) to go to Covington. Calling Covington a "neighborhood school" to the Crossings students is an absolute joke.

"But, the point is....wouldn't it be more constructive to press LASD trustees to improve the school district and/or to improve relations with BCS?"

This is a separate question from whether it is fair to lasd families that don't choose bcs to be constantly threatened with the possibility that their kids'school will close to accommodate BCS. No matter how popular bcs is, the needs of all kids should be balanced. Those who prefer bcs shouldn't get to jump to the front of the line simply because the school they feel is best for their kids is a charter school.

You wrote "Instead, BCS says hey, everyone who wants a BCS education deserves one, and therefore we need others to give up access to some of their facilities or, preferably, an entire school."

School closure and giving BCS access to some facilities are 2 separate issues.

I think school closure would be due to declining enrollment in LASD overall because of skyocketing housing prices - so blaming BCS for that really isn't fair.

On the issue of giving up facilities, I think Loyola needs to ask LASD trustees if that really needs to be done or is it just playing games with BCS. LASD has a history of playing games with BCS - in 2011, appellate court ruled that there was evidence of "bad faith" meaning that there was intent to deceive on the part of LASD, which resulted in BCS getting much smaller facilities than it deserved. Assistant Superintendent Kenyon was the one who was responsible for facilities then, and he's also the one responsible now.

In a precedent-setting decision that was hugely embarrassing for LASD, Mr. Kenyon was mentioned throughout as having undercounted over 1 million square feet.

The assumption on the part of many of the BCS proponents here seems to be that the district schools are not performing, or that somehow almost everybody, given a choice, or given no constraints (like older sibling already at an LASD school) would choose BCS. Both assumptions are not true.

1. The LASD school communities are generally happy with their schools. On test scores too, the schools have been performing very well, in fact higher than BCS in the case of some of these schools.

2. Participation in the BCS school lottery does not automatically imply a preference for BCS. Many who get in at BCS (example us!) choose an LASD neighborhood school after weighing all factors. In our case, when we had an option to put our child's name in the lottery, we did, while still looking into the schools and considering the costs vs. benefits of both options. We came to the conclusion that going to a school that most of our neighbors' kids went to, the ability to walk/bike to school, and being part of a small school were valuable to us, and that the difference between the schools was marginal, with both being excellent schools. I myself know at least a few other families that chose our neighborhood school despite getting in at BCS. Other families can come to different conclusions. I am just pointing to the fact that participation in the lottery does not automatically imply preference for BCS as one person seems to be suggested. For some parents, it might mean that they wish to consider all options, and participating in the auction gives them the option value of BCS should their considered view be that it is better for their child.

Someone above said that bcs had a slick marketing presentation at the open house for incoming kindergarten students, while LASD needs to put work into their presentation to convince people that they're just as good. I went to both presentations and drew the opposite conclusion. I thought bcs put way too much effort ivy marketing, whereas the principal at my neighborhood school was proud of the teachers, the students, and the school. His enthusiasm and attitude said it was all about the students for him, and that has proven to be true for us. BCS has slick presentations, but I hope parents are looking beyond that to figure out what truly matters for their kids. Bcs might be the best choice for some kids, but not because they put together a decent PowerPoint presentation.

I want to echo the sentiment of a previous poster who mentioned that entrance in the lottery doesn’t necessarily correlate to the amount of students/families that find the program better than their neighborhood school.

When our son was beginning kindergarten we entered his name in the lottery because, like many others I suspect, wanted to keep our options open. At the time of submitting interest for Bullis we had only had one open house for BCS and one for our neighborhood school. We weren’t sure what would work best for our child because we expected that he would change dramatically between midway through Pre-K and the following fall. We ended up receiving a kinder spot at BCS but after further information and spending more time in each school we decided that our neighborhood school was a better fit.

I find the sweeping assumptions being made regarding the reasons family enter the BCS lottery to be a bit skewed. Parents, especially incoming kinder families, aren’t necessarily making a statement by entering the lottery, they are just keeping their options open.

Additionally, we had ample time to evaluate both options before deciding to go with our neighborhood school and I hope that other families who were offered a kinder spot for next year didn’t/don’t feel pressure to make a decision since their is a clear reason why BCS would prefer for parents to commit earlier than later.

Lastly, I hope that all parents recognize that no educational model is truly superior to another. It’s simply that some fit specific children’s learning styles while others don’t. As non-BCS parent, it often feels as though some don’t respect the traditional model that our district has histrorically used and I hope in the future EVERYONE can be mindful of the way they speak about all the wonderful schools and how they are doing their best for each student that walks through their door.

I had another comment. There seems to be an assumption that this is not a Mountain View issue and is a purely Los Altos issue. The implication seems to be that apart from the NEC area, MV does not have stakes and should not get involved.

Not true. Please look up the attendance boundaries. Almond, Santa Rita, Covington, Springer and Oak all have MV neighborhoods within their attendance boundaries. And therefore also Egan and Blach. In other words, 7 out of the 9 LASD schools have MV families in their communities. Perhaps even Loyola and Gardner Bullis if there are any LASD employees living in MV whose kids are in those schools.

@springer parent

Yes, thank you! We all make the educational choices we think are best for our kids (often on incomplete information, particularly since the kindergarten choice is made when kids are so young). I worry that charter schools in our district and others end up decreasing the options for those who prefer the neighborhood school model by reducing its resources and making it seem less stable as charter schools continue to demand more territory. Just read about a school closure in another district forced by the expansion of charter schools. I don't have a problem with bcs existing, and I hope bcs parents don't want their school to exist at the expense of district schools. What a terrible message we send our kids if we do anything other than plan for the best for all students, and not just our own.

@LASD parent and @Local Springer mom

Many BCS-proponents, including myself, post here not to say that BCS is the superior model. We are simply tired of the endless attacks on BCS - whether it's BCS the charter school or BCS leadership. The recent attack of "unchecked growth" is simply ridiculous. BCS is growing because the "incoming LASD families" have chosen it for their children. They applied AND enrolled. Nobody forced them. Their choices should be respected.

The fact of the matter is that there are 3 groups in the LASD community:

1) current LASD school families
2) current BCS families
3) incoming families (who overwhelmingly apply to BCS).

Some LASD families seem to think that BCS's increased enrollment by 200 this year may adversely impact Group 1. But, to say that the growth adversely impacts the "entire" community treats Group 2 and 3 as if they are invisible.

The LASD trustees only focus on the need of the current LASD families (Group #1). They ignore BCS's need for a permanent facility and ignore the desire of new families for school choice.

BCS has been part of our community for 15 years. It's now the size of 2-3 elementary schools. Yet, it doesn't have a campus.

A difficult decision should have been made to redistrict LASD, at least in 2011, when the appellate court held in BCS's favor. What should have happened is that they should have been given a permanent campus. The choice schools in Palo Alto have 3 out of the 12 campuses.

But, LASD trustees focused only on the needs of the then current families and refused. Well, this decision was not a good one for the "future LASD families" (Group 3) who are now the "current families".

The irony is that even if LASD trustees is planning to close Loyola to give to BCS, it doesn't solve the facilities issue. BCS has 1100 students, and Loyola is too small. So, really, Loyola, should be asking, "why us?"

The way out of this mess is to STOP attacking BCS and have the LASD parent leaders urge the trustees to solve this problem honestly, taking into account the needs of the entire LASD community - all 3 groups of it.

The talk about forcing BCS onto Kohls - smallest campus for the largest school - was an insult to BCS and was not conducive to improving relations.

To the previous poster;

Have you been to any LASD board meetings lately? The discussion has always been about how to provide for LASD and BCS kids. Is that the discussion at the BCS board too?

At 1200,’which single campus will provide equivalent facilities to BCS? Egan? Where do those junior high kids go at short notice? One of the elementary schools?

And I suppose you think increasing enrollment by 25% in one year unilaterally, doing it not at the usua time in Feb but in October and then presenting a fair accompli to the district is a good faith approach?

You make some good points, such as

"Yes, thank you! We all make the educational choices we think are best for our kids (often on incomplete information, particularly since the kindergarten choice is made when kids are so young)."

But, some sound like the anti-charter propaganda that's been tearing our community apart of the last 15 years:

"I worry that charter schools in our district and others end up decreasing the options for those who prefer the neighborhood school model by reducing its resources and making it seem less stable as charter schools continue to demand more territory."

Especially this sentence:

"Just read about a school closure in another district forced by the expansion of charter schools."

Please don't create any more anti-BCS sentiment. We really don't need it.

Ther is also a lot of attacks on the LASD trustees. I have only been exposed to this issue for the last few month, being a new resident in the area. But all I see is that they have a difficult position. They are accountable to the voters, which includes BCS parents by the way. BCS parents are free to use the normal processes that voters use to put pressure on them.

Who is the BCS board accountable to again?

OK, you are beginning to show yourself as an anti-charter propagandist, now that you have "one" Springer mom supporting you...

1) You are getting MV to rally against BCS by saying "There seems to be an assumption that this is not a Mountain View issue..."

2) You said "Who is the BCS board accountable to again?". This is a standard anti-charter propaganda line. BCS is set up according to Charter Schools Act of 1992. If you want to overturn the act, go to Sacramento, why post here?

3) Bringing up the whole "Egan" issue to pit LASD residents against each other...

Please stop.

You just don't get it. LASD Board of Trustees are pursing a strategy which is doomed to fail. If they continue down this road, BCS will have 2000 students and half of the LASD campuses in a few years. What is LASD's plan to stem the tide and/or win? They have no plan. These idiots are just burying their heads in the sand and kicking the can down the road for the next Board to try and solve.

Please stop the personal attacks. What is factually incorrect with saying that this is a MV issue (it is), talking about the Egan option (that was the Prop 39 facilities request from the BCS board). Or questioning the attacks on the LASD schools as non-performing (when most parents in the schools are satisfied with the schools and they are performing really well on objective measures as well).

And yes, If it comes to that, it might require going to Sacramento to reform any perversities or inefficiencies there might be in the law? But when did you get the authority to place a gag order on speaking about it here? This is a discussion board and these are legitimate issues for discussion.

You just gave yourself away. The topic of discussion is facilities for Los Altos students. You are supporting "going[ing] to Sacramento to reform any perversities or inefficiencies there might be in the law"? Please...people of Bay Area are highly educated.

I said "Please stop". You characterized that as "plac[ing] a gag order". Again, the very educated parents here actually know what a gag order is, and the typed words "Please stop" on a message board certainly isn't one.

To a previous commenter

If you have some solutions that serve everybody’s interest (current and prospective LASD and BCS families), why don’t you please share them in front of the community?

The LASD board of trustees is easy to attack. I am guilty of doing that in the past too. But after attending the last few meetings, I don’t know if I have any solutions for them either. None of the school communities want their school closed. There is no 20 acre parcel of land that is magically going to appear and allow for a fully adequate single campus solution for BCS. A junior high cannot be accommodated on an elementary school campus. Long term maybe some reconfiguration of schools and boundaries might be the only option. But it’s not going to happen in 6 months.

I’m at a loss as to what solution people have in mind?

"Please don't create any more anti-BCS sentiment. We really don't need it."

Worrying about how the growth of charter schools affects other kids is reasonable. Pointing to actual instances of campuses being forced to close to make way for charter schools is pointing out a difficult truth of the impact of prop 39, not spreading anti-bcs sentiment. How is pointing out the truth unreasonable? These are things that are happening in California, near us, and it is something that bcs has specifically requested in our distrust.

One limitation of public school education, charter or otherwise, is that not everyone gets to send their kids to their first choice school. This is true even is your first choice is a neighborhood school. Why should that be different for charter schools? Why should we start with the assumption that bcs should expand to meet demand at the expense of other students? I'm not talking about what prop 39 allows, but what is right. If my child's school had been chosen to share space with bcs, I'd help her greet her new neighbors and learn to share space cheerfully. I would hope that bcs parents would not want their kids to see their school force their neighbors out of theirs just so it can grow.

Dear Propagandist.

Is this supposed to be some joke? What does one give away by saying that if necessary, one needs to reform any percersities or inefficiencies in the law? Anything wrong with saying that? And what has that to do with Bay Area residents being educated?

And asking not to post or to take issues to Sacramento is asking for silencing discussion on legitimate issues. That’s the gag order reference, in case it was not clear.

@Another LASD parent

The difference between your post and the many posts by "LASD parent" is that your post is intelligently written (although I disagree with your position).

Many of us are aware of public affairs firms like Definers that are hired by corporations/organization to disparage others and/or to promote a certain political agenda. Because of the proliferataion of the internet as a mass communication platform, it has become a huge social issue. In some cases, this kind of speech has been said to promote genocides (Google "hate speech burma genocide" or "Russian meddling").

Many of the anti-charter propaganda here

1) spread the wrong information,

2) support that we violate Charter Schools Act of 1992, which may result in lawsuits, and

3) creates a hostile environment for BCS students, by continuing to say that charter schools somehow damage the "entire" community, which is complete garbage. 45 states and DC think that charter schools is a good thing.

Um... Dismissing the concerns posted here as possibly created by the same organizations that have promoted genocide through social media propaganda is not particularly conducive to a constructive conversation. I would urge you to tell us why you disagree with my post instead of lowering the level of discourse quite so far. You support BCS, and it seems you support their expansion. Many LASD parents are frightened about the implications of the expansion for their own kids, particularly in an atmosphere where bcs has asked for a school closure. If you want what you can anti-bcs sentiment to calm down, I think accusations of being in league with those who don't care if their posts support genocide might not further your goals.

What is the purpose of trying to paint discussion as propaganda? I have two kids in an LASD school. The MV voice has my email.

1. Throughout the discussion, including in the previous post, I have talked about solutions that work for all. Prospective and current LASD and BCS students.

2. Nowhere is there even a hint of suggestions to violate Prop 39. You simply made that up.

3. Please look up the charter school issue. It is a heavily debated issue and continues to be so. It is highly misleading to suggest that 48 states and federal level support it. There are surely supporters in 48 states and there are opponents as well. Studies showing evidence supporting both sides of the debate have been published including at least one that has a Nobel winning economist as a co-author (by the way, that paper does not take sides in the matter). The federal dept of education and its secretary currently supports chargers and vouchers, that is true.

4. For the record, I am not against charter schools per se and not against BCS. I applied to the BCS litter and got in. Have neighbors on our streets whose kids go to BCS and wish nothing but the best for them.

5. Questioning problems with the Prop 39 process (which both the LASD trustees and BCS board themselves acknowledge and point to - see videos of past meetings for instance) is not the same as being opposed to charter schools in general or BCS in particular. The process was not woriking, which is why the two boards signed a long term agreement and have said that they want to do again.

"BCS is growing because the "incoming LASD families" have chosen it for their children. They applied AND enrolled. Nobody forced them. Their choices should be respected."

Respecting their choice doesn't meant guaranteeing that it can be accommodated. Not all parents get their kids into their first choice school whether it's a charter school, a neighborhood school, or a choice school. It's not fair for bcs to expand in response to demand if doing so means the choices of other parents are not given equal weight.

What that means for bcs and the rest of LASD is not entirely clear. But I don't think saying that bcs must be permitted to grow in response to demand is reasonable. That's why you're seeing concerns about unchecked growth -- because there are people saying that bcs should grow to accommodate demand. Isn't that unchecked growth?

Obviously not all posts are propaganda...please don't twist my words.

Some of these recent posts are beyond ridiculous...the readers can decide for themselves whether the posts are written by real local residents.

I just don't see why suggesting prop 39 should be changed amounts to propaganda. I think the concept of charter schools is interesting and has some merit, but I don't think it's been implemented well everywhere it's been tried. Attacking people for questioning whether California has struck the right balance is ridiculous. It's a reasonable question.

@Propagandists_are_back

Shoot the messenger? Delegitimize your opponents as propagandists, fake news? Make up things on the fly (e.g.
The claim that somebody on this board is asking for the violation of the law). Call people names (propagandists).

Now where have I seen this before?

BTW, for those who are interested, here is the paper that I was referring to. My bad - the author I was thinking about - the MIT economist Joshua Angrist - did not win the Nobel Prize (yet). His name is floated every year though as a potential Nobel winner though (see for instance, Web Link

The full text of the article is available at the following link
Web Link

The title of the paper is "Explaining Charter School Effectiveness". It is a peer-reviewed publication in a good Economics journal.

Here's the short summary of it in case you don't want to read the whole article.

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2013, 5(4): 1–27
Web Link

Explaining Charter School Effectiveness†
By Joshua D. Angrist, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters*

Lottery estimates suggest Massachusetts’ urban charter schools boost
achievement well beyond that of traditional urban public schools students, while nonurban charters reduce achievement from a higher
baseline. The fact that urban charters are most effective for poor
nonwhites and low-baseline achievers contributes to, but does not
fully explain, these differences. We therefore link school-level charter
impacts to school inputs and practices. The relative efficacy of urban
lottery sample charters is accounted for by these schools’ embrace of
the No Excuses approach to urban education. In our Massachusetts
sample, Non-No-Excuses urban charters are no more effective than
nonurban charters. (JEL H75, I21, I28)

@LASD parent

Interesting -- thanks for posting that. I'm sure there are all sorts of reasons why people choose BCS, and the reasons why a particular school is a better fit for a particular kid can be personal and subtle. But I have talked to multiple parents of incoming kindergarteners who say BCS is better than their neighborhood school because the test scores are better . . . and that's about it. I am absolutely not saying that this is why all parents choose BCS -- definitely not. But I suspect the "test scores above all" attitude does contribute to the assumption some people seem to make that BCS is objectively better than LASD schools. The truth about charter schools in general and BCS in particular is more subtle than that. In our case, where our district schools are doing well for most students by most standards (which is not to say they're doing well for everyone, of course), I really wonder how parents of incoming kindergarteners are supposed to figure out which choice is better for their kids, and I fear that LASD is losing the marketing battle (not that it should even be a marketing battle!).

For those who do put test scores and academic performance first, I find that the neighborhood school model actually improves my daughter's academic performance. Running into her friends from school around the neighborhood improves her sense of connection to the school and her desire to do her best there. I hope parents considering BCS are giving that perspective some thought. (Also, test scores are connected to demographics, and so far BCS has had a lower percentage of students learning English as a second language and students who qualify for free lunches than do neighborhood school.)

Yes, purely looking at test scores shows a very incomplete picture of a school’s quality. Test scores are functions of demographics, what the parents are focused on etc. Faria and Murdock Portal are two lottery elementary schools In the Cupertino Union School District. Both had API scores of 999 last I checked. Does that mean they are the best schools possible? Ask some parents there.

Even if you do believe test scores, all our schools are in a relatively narrow band. And that band is in the excellent zone. Compare our schools to neighboring cities such as Palo Alto, Menlo Park for instance (I picked those because I suspextndekographics are comparable). Our school district is comparable if not better. Thrrr is no big push to say that these other districts are failing. And I see no evidence that ours is anything but an excellent district. BCS included when I say that.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe BCS is an excellent school. Has some nice aspects (though the only concrete thing that I found different there is the foreign language teaching; arts and drama are talked about but my local LASD has those too, funded by our donations to LAEF). The LASD schools are excellent too. Ours is, and I hear the same from parents at other schools in the district.

I don’t grudge parents who chose the charter school and don’t have any desire to “convert” them or to somehow give their kids lower resources than what my kids get. I don’t want them in the front of the line either. I suspect most BCS parents want the best for our kids too. At least that’s how we mutually feel about kids on our street, many of whom are in our neighborhood school, while a couple are at BCS. We wish them all well.

Let’s get past the bitter history and try to work in a cooperative way to find solutions that are in the best interests of all our kids. We parents need to pressure both boards to do that and we owe that to our kids.

One cannot help but notice the similarities in writing style between "LASD Parent" (above), psr, and Joan J Strong. What are the chances they are the same person?

Please stop this nonsense. One person tries to say that I am not even a parent. Then implies that fhrrr is some organization that is doing this. Another comes by and tries to imply some connection to Joan Strong (who is this btw)? I am not Joan Strong and have never heard of her.

I have not heard one reasonable argument from the BCS side in this discussion. Only attacks, some personal in mature. I know there is history behind this but most parents on both sides of the debate are I suspect not ideological - they only want the best for their kids.

The ironic thing about all these anti-charter posts, whether it's by local residents or PR firm paid to do this - is that it actually HURTS the neighborhood schools and the Los Altos community as a whole.

The truth of the matter is that BCS has the upper hand - the incoming LASD families are voting with their feet - they overwhelmingly apply to BCS. So, without negotiating an enrollment cap, BCS will just get larger and more powerful.

By getting "some" Los Altos residents to rally against BCS, these anti-charter posts are just hindering negotiations with BCS and hurting the neighborhood schools. How ironic.

Trust me: incoming LASD parents putting their child's name in the Bullis lottery feel like they're putting money down on a Pascal's Wager, as if there's only upside and no downside. They don't learn the truth until much later after their child has bonded with their classmates: if they win a spot in the lottery, they are yoked to a toxic brand, and like some fraternity pledge, will be under crushing pressure to defend their clan and recruit other members. Nothing galvanizes a clan like persecution and victimhood, even if it's self-imposed. The costs are real and right before your eyes.

I went through the entire discussion again, but not one of the BCS proponents has put forward a proposed solution for the facilities issue. What exactly do you want? Will somebody please come forward? As of now, there is a BCS proposal asking to take over Egan entirely. LASD thinks that is impossible in the time frame and has responded with the proposal to share space at Loyola, along with Egan and Blach. But BCS does not like the 3 location solution. But what do you want? Which facility would provide the equivalent space you want?

I remember when "Hating" another school was mostly in fun and part of a good natured rivalry. Now it's literal. I completely understand why the Bullis is so hated by so many, but it's still sad.

Creative Facilities Solutions (their intent is to be neutral, not pro-BCS): https://creativefacilitiessolutions.org

There have been plenty of other good ideas posted under other BCS-related articles. All ignored.

LASD has imposed so many artificial constraints that they have completely boxed themselves in, except for odd "solutions" like the 3-campus split that coincidentally stick it to BCS and anger parents. Never mind that throughout CA and US it's normal (and yes, painful) for schools to open and close and for boundaries to be redrawn, with or without a charter to blame, on a time scale of very roughly 10 years.

Consider that kids benefit from the Bulls program, if they attend the school. No way around this. It's got to be true. All this divisiveness is sown by the parents of the children not attending Bullis. Their kids don't really care. They don't really mind sharing their campus with a separate school. It really doesn't affect them. All this talk about traffic is a PARENT thing. You'd think TRAFFIC was the single most important concern of the LASD board from the amount of time they spend making obscure plans to "SPREAD" BCS around. They themselves are at the mercy of the entrenched bureaucrats who feel their career suffers from the competition from BCS. You can question BCS's program all you want, but it is clear that the Superintendents and Directors of This and That at LASD plus a lot of teachers even feel threatened by the existence of BCS. The board could have found a solution to the housing issue a long time ago. Clearly they once had a shortage of school space. More lately BCS has grown so much that it went beyond serving as the overflow for LASD's bad planning at providing school facilities. But for some years, LASD knew it had 10 schools and only 9 sites. They bent themselves all out of shape seeking a solution. But time did not stand still. Now, truth be told, they really once again could fit on these 9 sites only they have this problem of the 10th school THEY CREATED and NURTURED by their failure to plan appropriately. You can't just shout down this school. It's more important than any neighborhood school because it has suffered so long. It also has its own program. The BCS model has always cited project based learning and individualized programming for each child as the strengths. But consider also that they have better Computer Coding education, better ARTS, better school spirit, better appreciation of diversity, and a can-do attitude that has allowed them to thrive in the face of adversity. LASD's problem is envy, pure and simple, along with dereliction of duty on the part of the school board. They should have lived up to the spirit of the law a long time ago. Their excuse was they needed money to buy new facilities, but that was a false premise. They always had the capacity to house BCS and treat it with respect. No one can argue that getting this Measure N bond approved back in 2014 and then sitting on it has wasted value from inflation. The construction dollars would go 170% back in 2015 than they will in 2025. Who suffers? Well, if you believe portables are bad (I'm not so sure) then it's actually LASD who suffered the most. They have so many portable buildings at every site that it equals the number at BCS. But at least BCS has the adaptability to make a great program whilst living in portable housing.

That's how I see it anyway. All the finger pointing by the Loyola parents at their site meeting was right. They point at the LASD board for 6 different reasons. One was their pretense that they made no plans back in November when it was formally announced how much BCS was going to grow. Another is that they made no plans before that, just averaging the growth of BCS over the last 5 years and adjusting for the tiny growth this year, to project a likely 16% growth next year. So it ended up being 20%. Their condition was no better to deal with 15% than it was to deal with 20%. They were counting on upsetting everyone all along. It was INTENTIONAL. Look at the way they spread the word that they'd need to close Egan last November. That was not just a Red Herring, that was the epitome of FAKE NEWS. They knew they did not have to nor would they actually even do that. But they must have made the plan to split BCS 3-ways about then. Yet they kept it a secret, to maximize the upset at Loyola in the end. Who did this hurt? Why Loyola, that' s who. And it was not due to BCS growth but rather to the scheming way LASD has tried to deal with obvious growth.

How can this NOT make more parents eager to escape he incompetence at LASD and send their kids to BCS? I'm not saying everyone, but cannot it be argued as inevitable that it will INCREASE BCS interest on the part of the parents at LASD schools? They smell the desperation and clumsiness on the part of Jeff Baier and Randy Kenyon, let alone the Board of Trustees. A few resort to the idea that BCS should have nailed down space before they grew, but if they ponder it a while, they will see that BCS can not ever ask for space for enrollment it does not yet have. BCS could not exist without depending on LASD to shuffle things around based on the shifted BCS school enrollment (which they do for every school more or less). BCS is not recruiting from outside LASD. They are serving LASD needs. They don't run the LASD classes, and vice versa. They all need to share space and get along

Our sons attended Loyola back when the BCS/LASD controversy began back in the early 1990's. Both kids attended Mtn View High, graduated from college, and have located in the area, both with good jobs and fond memories of their grade school experiences and friends. I'm sad to follow this saga over the years, it seems to have continued its tortured path, now causing divisiveness in new generations of parents.
One observation- young parents often think they have to choose the "BEST" place because their child's future is cast in stone from the moment they enroll in kindergarten. I feel that the school choice is less important than the love and involvement in their lives given by the parents. My wife and I found the junior high and high school times to be far more treacherous and difficult. The problems encountered in grade school were far easier to deal with.
I'd advise young parents to take some deep breaths- enjoy the grade school times. If you are fortunate to have a child in either BCS or a LASD school- COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS! Lets stop the sniping and harsh criticism of either side.

Hello "older LASD parent". So, your kids attended Loyola "back when the BCS/LASD controversy began in the early 1990's". Really? That seems kind of unlikely considering that BCS did not exist before 2003. I think you are just another anti-BCS poster (we all know who) masquerading as someone pretending to be impartial.

Wow- sorry friend. My older brain sometimes misfires! My kids were born in 1987 and 1991. I might have gotten the date wrong there, but they attended Loyola during the time when the charter school was formed. It was controversial then, and has not abated.
I'm sorry you carry such anger. We live in a beautiful area with many wonderful opportunities. Life is long. You and your kids will make it if you take time to enjoy what you have.

@Reader

That post was interesting. It had a nice tone, but in fact it's again subtly criticizing choice...at least it tried to use a nice tone.

It's hard to tell which posts are written by real people and which ones are written by person/firm masquerading as a local resident.

An obviously fake one was "Another LASD parent" who said "...[d]ismissing the concerns posted here as possibly created by the same organizations that have promoted genocide".

Huh??!!! I asked people to Google "hate speech burma genocide" as an example. Obviously, I was not saying that Burma genocide and anti-charter comments are posted by the "same" organization. No rational person would say such a thing.

These type of posts like to twist other people's words...basically, promoting lies. And who are propagandists by people who promote lies to further a political agenda.

Wow. "older LASD parent" so now you are telling us that your oldest was born in 1987 yet somehow was still attending Loyola elementary school when BCS was formed in 2003? 16 years old and still attending elementary school? I'm impressed!

People have been sort of rude here, and I'm sure at least one post has come from the Ross Valley interlopers trying to stir up trouble. No matter. I can tell the Loyola parent's post is genuine because of the date issue. If you really know the history of BCS you'll know that it was tied up in a 1999 bond issue when the district began making plans to spend $100 Million fixing up schools. THAT'S what gave birth to BCS. It's only natural for someone LIVING through the issue to realize this and date it back to then.

Here's some more history. The administration made a mistake deciding to reopen Covington back in 1999. It was done in back rooms away from public view, sort of like the way this time the decided to split BCS 3-ways and move part to Loyola. The true need for another school in LASD wouldn't come until 2009, but the district's bureaucrats where ten years early. Covington had been rented out and was providing the district a lot of income, as well as district offices. Consider that the old buildings there had been for a junior high, and they covered something like 60,000 square feet. That's a lot of rentable space, and the district depended on that income. Even though it was old construction, it was still very much occupied by various tenants including a private school that had to move to Palo Alto when it lost that space, and other tenants.

Ok, so interesting, what the heck were they thinking? Well, the secret back room plan was ironically to Swap the new Covington for Loyola, and then rent (smaller)
Loyola out for income to replace what was lost from renting Covington. They knew they didn't need so many schools yet. But in all the hidden talks, the community wasn't behind the plan, even though it was what the bureaucrats wanted. It ended up they tried to use Bullis Purissima as the closee-school instead of Loyola, because it was less politically connected to the trustees at the time. Along the way a new trustee ran and was elected who lived next to Loyola and pledged to keep it from closing.

Such a lot of bad results from hidden back room plans.

Don't pick on this person who accurately relates an experience with Loyola, just because the real experience is much more complicated.