Funny, all I have read from the Bullis crowd over the years was how they were completely free from preferences.
I wonder what other "preferences" are yet to be discovered?
The truth always catches up with you...good lesson for the kids and their parents...and Trump for that mater.

@ Oh REEEEALLY

If you tried googling, you would have seen exactly what the "preferences" are/were. There still are preferences, such as Siblings, LA school district, etc. BCS isn't hiding anything, they never did. Furthermore, there was also a time line to the ramp down of the Hills preference.

Instead of spreading hatred, why not take the high road?

Not only did the judge find LASD had no standing, but even if they did, the lottery preference is lawful by statute.

Case No: 108CV102873
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND REQUESTED DECLARATORY RELIEF

This Court held a hearing to consider Petitioner Los Altos School District's Amended Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunctive Relief, on April 15, 2008. Donald Velez and John R. Yeh from Miller Brown & Dannis appeared on behalf of Petitioner, Richard M. Noack from Hopkins & Carley appeared on behalf of Respondents Santa Clara County Office of Education and Santa Clara County Board of Education ("County Board of Education"), and Arturo J. Gonzalez from Morrison & Foerster appeared on behalf of Real Party in Interest, Bullis Charter School ("Bullis").
Bullis has filed a request for judicial notice. The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
Having considered carefully the oral arguments and written briefs of the parties, the Court holds that :
(!). Petitioner lacks standing, for the reasons set forth in the opposition briefs of the Respondents and the Real Party in Interest; and
(2). Even if the Petitioner were found to have standing, Respondent Santa Clara County Office of Education did not abuse its discretion, according to the statutory analysis argued in the opposition briefs of the Respondents and the Real Party in Interest, which the Court accepts.
The Court therefore DENIES the Amended Writ of Mandate and requested Declaratory
Relief.

Dated: May 22, 2008

Judge Kevin Murphy
Santa Clara Superior Court

Do the defenders of Bullis' actions realize how ridiculous they sound when Bullis says they did nothing wrong, then concedes to a corrective action? I have no horse in this race, but retreating is usually a clear sign that you've made a mistake.

If Bullis is right, then keep on going! Perhaps the pressure of always being in the right is just too much for such a fine institution.

Can someone clarify did Bullis indeed say they planning to restore the enrollment priority, or was it implied by LASD because of their expired agreement?

The preference should have been entirely gone long ago. Even if the fact of discrimination is in dispute, any loosely-plausible interpretations over the line are a signal that harm might be happening regardless of intent. Stepping away from that line is always the right thing.

Having said that, between LASD and BCS this was entirely a contest of political power. BCS wanted to use the preference as a bargaining chip, but that opened them up to political attacks and LASD's complaint to SCCOE. And LASD ultimately got leverage through SCCOE to make the preference go away.

The SCCOE, prodded by the LASD letter, put BCS into an untenable situation by requiring them to prove a negative, that the preference won't discriminate. We talk about burden of proof (e.g. innocent until proven guilty) for a reason, because it's a tool of political power. Anything that can be used for power, will be used for power.

ah, exercise of power / that is granted to the SSCOE because the County is the Charting organization, not the local LEA, LASD.

SO good. BCS administration/board-majority got knocked down a few notches. Had it coming to them, in this particular case. And IMO the County Board / using the administration they control / SCCOE / is doing a much better job this decade - than the horrible job they did in charter school oversight (even 10-12 years ago).

County Trustee Grace Mah - good pushing on cleaning up charter school oversight (I've seen her work behind the scenes also)

I read the revised MOU. The County office said the change was required by changes to the state charter school rules as of 1 January 2020. That answers those that comment that the preference was wrong all along. Nope.

What's interesting is you have people saying how terrible Bullis is but then you have 400 K students applying this year when aside from those attending Bullis, 400 would be the ENTIRE K class from LASD. So something like 80% of the district wants to attend the charter.

The rub is that there is only 5% of the district kids who can be called disadvantaged. The county rationale is that the preference didn't include many at all out of the 5%. Seems it is EVERYONE ELSE who is not disadvantaged that wants to enter the Charter school. The district doesn't like Bullis because it is embarassed that the district schools are so UNPOPULAR. Really bizzare. You can't make assumptions because the whole district is an outlier case. Imagine if MVWSD only had 5% disadavantaged kids. That would be different.....

We all recognize that this preference was gross. The district was right to protest it, the charter was wrong to even threaten to resurrect it, LaPoll was unwise to champion it as a bargaining chip. Just gross. It’s gone now, which is great, let’s move on. Lessons learned, hopefully.