Bullis files another lawsuit against LASD Around Town, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Bullis Charter School's legal team has filed another lawsuit against the Los Altos School District in an effort to get a judge to compel the district to provide the charter school with more facilities.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, September 13, 2012, 1:58 PM
Posted by Francis, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm
The Los Altos School District should move its administrative offices out of Covington School site and into leased office space with other non-profits and make the entire Covington School and the adjacent park that used to be Saint Williams School (then Walldorf School) and give the entire twenty acres to Bullis Charter School. After all it was the school board that started this whole mess when they closed the Bullis Gardner school in Los Altos Hills.
Los Altos School District -- Do The Right Thing And Stop All This Litigation.
Posted by Sickofit, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 2:46 pm
"After all it was the school board that started this whole mess when they closed the Bullis Gardner school in Los Altos Hills."
And there's the issue. A bunch of entitled folk who simply cannot, will not accept that in a fiscally challenged environment, someone would dare close THEIR school. Certainly there was another school that deserved it right? Wrong. It was the right decision and still is
Yah, just give Bull-S everything they want and the litigation will stop. That's blackmail.
Posted by ed reform supporter, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm
This has nothing to do with Mr. Moore's or anyone's at BCS's ego, please stop disparaging this nice family for things you clearly have no clue about. This has to with some kids, namely traditional public school kids in LASD, getting more than other public school kids, namely public charter school kids, and that not being legal, or fair or right. Protectors of the status quo, the status quo being some kids getting to have approximately $4200 more in public funding per student per year, and more facilities allocation per student, not to mention permanent facilities, don't want BCS to get an inch or a dollar more. And they haven't moved on this for 9 years. That's what this is about. BCS is not the only one who has fought this in court. And the LASD BoTs have demonstrated themselves to be impossible to negotiate with - see the last agreement that was reached - they walked away! And those protectors of the status quo have waged a war of misinformation swiftboating BCS and its supporters. The claims by the Hatelinger alliance and the LASD Board about BCS's demographics, Special Ed programs and diversity are ridiculous. BCS is a wonderful school, with a thriving, diverse population. I have seen numbers for diversity, EL, and special ed students on the BCS website Web Link and they are much higher than claimed by BCS's detractors. Stop the lying and name calling and the Cheney-esque tactics. We get it LASD BoTs, you don't like to share. That's obvious. It's time to put the kids and the community above your desire to have more for yourself. Respect the intent of both California Ed Code, which calls for equal funding between charters and traditional public schools, and Prop 39 which requires reasonably equivalent facilities, which we all know BCS doesn't have. It's time to share fair.
Posted by Girl Scout Leader, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:29 pm
How absolutely inappropriate to even in jest to name the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts is an organization that welcomes diversity and tolerance. Clearly you have neither. You and your brethern who spread lies believing that if you say it often enough people will believe it need instead to show grace and consideration and, oh yes, an understanding of the facts. Keep the Girl Scouts out of this.
All BCS has done is asked the courts to enforce the law. The court will decide what the law requires. The Appellate Court opinion was quite clear. BTW I suggest you actually read the opinion in case you haven't.
Posted by Mamabear, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm
You would stand a much better chance of winning the legal fees had you prevailed in court. Not only hasn't the district prevailed in court, it has now created all these spiteful splinter groups hell bent to destroy the best school in the district. Everyone needs to man up and put all the pieces of the pie back in the middle and redistribute.
NIne schools and Nine campuses. We have it, we can afford it and it treats all kids equally now. Now more lawsuits, hopeless bond measures or eminent domain.
Posted by Los Altan, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Hey BCS families. You do realize that the families from St. Nicholas, Bowman Intl, and Pinewood are just sitting back and laughing at you, right? Your little charter school doesn't stack up to a real school (and it never will)
Posted by Come On, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Dear Ed Reform Supporter, "disparaging ... ?" Have you been to a BCS Board Meeting to hear Andrea & Janet disparaging Mr. Kenyon regularly and quite unprofessionally in the format of a stand-up comedy routine? "We'll use the Blach bathrooms as a front office, ha ha ha" It's no wonder A.E. can't communicate well with LASD. She's too busy cracking herself up to work seriously and respectfully. Isn't it an election year? How about it folks?
Posted by Tired, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:27 pm
I am tired of all the fighting too. No one is happy about it. But, please get your facts straight, whichever "side" you support. Do you own research. BCS absolutely under serves EL, special ed and lower socio economic children. Look at CDE data.
Posted by LASD Supporter, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm
The question of racial, English language learner, and socio-economic diversity at BCS was asked and answered during the 2011 charter renewal with the Santa Clara County Board of Education. I would encourage those interested in the true detail to read the documents submitted as part of the renewal process. The question of racial, English language learner, and socio-economic diversity at BCS was asked and answered during the 2011 charter renewal with the Santa Clara County Board of Education. I would encourage those interested in the details to read the documents submitted as part of the renewal process. Web Link
Posted by MV Native, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 5:58 pm
This really is about choice. Either you support it or you don't. The law is clear, it supports choice. BCS follows the law. Parents all over California should have a choice in how their child is educated. LASD folks want to deny you that choice. They bought their house right next to a school, that's the only choice they support. It's wrong. They are control freaks who don't want to give up their cozy positions of power. They grin and bear their poor preforming schools because they are in charge. BCS is succeeding despite all the road blocks that LASD is throwing in their way. They are desperate, If you are tired of the nasty LASD power structure, with it's cliques and want to put an end to it, support BCS! It benefits everyone.
Posted by sr parent, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 6:00 pm
what does it take to seriously get this to all end? We both need to impress upon our boards that enough is enough. There has to be a way to work this out without all the hatred and acrimony. And, especially without all the legal bills. I am tired of being so divided and all the whispering and conniving. There are parents at Santa Rita that should feel great shame as well as at BCS for the nasty efforts to destroy one another. Some of us just want to get a great education for our kids and enjoy the community we live in. The fighting and suing has got to stop.
Posted by Tired of Bully Charter, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 6:33 pm
MV Native. If this is about choice, why does BCS insist on closing down an existing camput? That is not choice. Why does BCS insist that they have a campus K-8, and file lawsuits stating that they are not getting a comparable facilities, yet show me where in LASD there is a K-8 campus.
It is not about choice. If it was, they would not demand a campus, but just be requesting adequate facilities.
Posted by ed reform supporter , a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm
to "come on"
It may be difficult to understand if you don't have the context, however, maybe this will help. BCS was given soemthing like 3 acres of completely unusable scraps of land at Blach - tanbark strips around the track, but not the track, lumps of tanbark with bushes on them, puddles, etc. Here are maps: Web Link The facilities at Blach are completely unusable for BCS - there is no furniture, the bathrooms are an unrealistic distance a way (you pass other bathrooms on the way that BCS is not allowed to use) and key must be used to open them, kids have to be escorted by staff to use them every time, I guess for fear they might co-mingle with a Blach student, there is no BCS nurse on site and the Blach nurse refused to treat a BCS student who was injured. We cannot use this space! So we are still all on the camp site - the site that was deemed illegal for 365 kids is now housing 5515. As a BCS parent, going through what the district does to BCS every year from a facilities perspective is overwhelming. I can only imagine how stressful it is for board members who have a responsibility to house all of the students so they can deliver programs, and on time. I can only imagine sometimes you just have to laugh. The part about the offices ... you know the BCS board has NO offices, right? meetings at BCS happen in the staff room, the library, offsite, wherever -- there is no space, anywhere. As a parent, it looks to me like Mr. Kenyon is a nice enough man as person, but the proposals his board has asked him to pull together for BCS facilities communicate such dazzlingly disrespect for BCS students and their well being, and a disregard for the amazing program our board, administration, and parents have worked so hard to create. And the overwhelming desire for choice in our community. You really just have to shake your head at how crazy it all is. How can the LASD Trustees can care so little for the LASD students, 500 of them, that go to BCS, and the many hundreds every year who want to attend? And why do they seem so determined to do what they can to make it incredibly difficult for BCS? Every single year. They are the big bullies on the playground who just can't get enough of being mean. Remember, it is LASD that walked away from the May 7th mediated agreement. Also remember, that mediated agreement listed 4 schools that LASD proposed as potential school sites for BCS. This is the agreement that BCS is asking LASD to honor. The one the two boards have already spent months working out. Also remember, LASD has had several past opportunities to figure this out and chose not to (Covington and GB redistricting). Time is up.
Posted by Vote 4 Amanda, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I agree with comments of sr parent. Its time to stop the insanity. I am voting for Amanda Aaronson for Los Altos School Board. She is the only candidate that supports healing the rift in our community. She is also the only candidate in the race from Mountain View. Give peace a chance, vote for Amanda.
Posted by Voice of Reason, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm
BCS asked the court to force LASD to count all unusable lands everywhere, in order to get 12 acres or so. There are a lot of those unusable lands. BCS got its that wish. Then it complained that it had to get a share of those unusable lands.
Posted by Voice of Reason, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 8:56 pm
There was never an agreement in the way as described. It was a proposal which needed approval or feedback from the LASD community. The negotiation was done behind the doors, according to BCS' wish. The LASD community reacted very negatively against the proposal in its original form, so LASD board modified the proposal which was rejected by BCS.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Please...get lives, all of you! Particularly that ridiculous and petty group on the "Los Altos & Los Altos Hills Public Education Forum" facebook site who have developed an endless array of argument loops that does nothing but show what an uncreative group of time wasters they are.
Posted by an LASD parent, a resident of another community, on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:25 pm
What saddens me most is the level of anger being directed at BCS for even existing. As a parent with a kids in a neighborhood LASD school, I am frustrated with how the community is creating such a sentiment of hatred. Choice is important. Not all schools are good for all kids. I am glad BCS exists. Rather than direct anger at BCS, why not at the LASD BOT and admistration for the sitting behind the arrogant belief that since we are a top district in the state, we couldn't possibly need other options for families. As LASD parents, lets face the reality that the BOT could have averted many problems by granting the charter itself (LASD would have more say then), giving the Gardner Bullis campus to BCS instead of reopening another district school that continues to have a lower enrollment,, etc. The discussions about privilege also are upsetting. WE ALL ARE PRIVILEGED IN THE LASD. All of us have good schools with amazing fund raising by LAEF, PTA's, generous community members to keep our class sizes lower than our neighbors in Sunnyvale, etc. The smear campaign needs to stop. BCS has great programs. It's a good school. No one wants their school to close, or redistricting to occur, but honestly, it is time to hold the BOT's accountable for past and current decisions that have made this situation come to a boiling point. This is a painful time in our community, but rather than getting ultra protective of what we see as ours, let's start looking at this rationally, not emotionally. I can only imagine that after 8 years, all most of the BCS parents want is certainty of equity, not an annual unknown. The war must stop, and in a community of entitled homeowners, perhaps the only place it can stop is in court. Very sad.
Posted by Los Altos taxpayer, a resident of the St. Francis Acres neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 9:38 pm
I am not sure if you described is close to what has been happening. Some LASD parents are very upset about BCS has been targeting their campuses for a complete takeover, or to close a LASD for themselves. That's outright selfish for the significantly more privileged BCS (than Santa Rita which is one of the targets). I can understand why the parents are very upset. It seems that you are totally disregard their feelings for their own school community's survival.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm
At this point, both sides of the argument have forfeited all credibility. But we still have damage being done by a small core of self-appointed "mouthpieces" that continue to embarrass this community. These individuals, who fill every nook and cranny of social media with their bilge, will never be forgiven for their role in turning our local families against one-another. You are building future regret with every argument you create.
Posted by Really observer????, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm
No small group people have the power to turn a highly educated community against each other. People here are generally smart enough to be judge a really existing problem. Don't be naive. There is a real dispute there between BCS and LASD. Wake up. The problem has been there for many years.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Really observer: I will not argue your point. There are too many like you eager to argue. I'm not sure why, now that it no longer matters. Judges and lawyers now control the future of our local kids. A horrible legacy left behind by their parents who refused to grow up.
Posted by The Real Issue, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:50 am
Lets all admit something so that we can finally move forward. What is really has us all up in arms is NOT any of the following:
- Whether or not an LASD campus is handed to BCS
- Whether BCS facilities are reasonably equivalent
- Whether charter schools are positive or negative for communities
The REAL reason for all this intra-community hostility is that we can't agree on whether Joan J Strong is Dave Cortright or not. I mean, is he or isn't he? There are just so many convincing reasons to believe they are the same and yet so many arguments that they are different. I just can't stop thinking about it and neither can you. We really have to get to universal agreement on that point first before anything else can get done. The rest of the contentious issues will all fall in place quickly after we resolve this one. Can someone please start a separate facebook group and blog just dedicated to that topic? Recently there elapsed an 8 minute period where someone didnt post something on the existing facebook boards and I started getting really, really lonely. I think this separate facebook group will help prevent such episodes. The new group will be unmoderated, except any post not having to do whether Dave Cortright is Joan J Strong will be deleted. You will only be allowed to join if you use a fake alias - no real people allowed please. Anyway, please state your point of view on this subject here for the time being till the new group is up. Thanks.
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 6:49 am
The Real Issue: You have proven my point about immaturity. It makes me wonder what happens in the lives of people that makes the needling of others take precedent over living productively. Add to that the fact that almost all of the combatants in this story have children they are supposed to be setting examples for, I am left wondering what went wrong in this community.
Posted by bikerchick, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:38 am bikerchick is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
Amanda Burke-Aaronson is the Candidate for the Community running for LASD Board of Trustees. Her family, like mine, has attended both Santa Rita and BCS. She is the only candidate on the slate that is uniquely qualified to bridge the gap on the Prop 39 issue, find peaceful resolution and heal our community. She has lived this issue. There is middle ground. As another poster mentioned, Amanda is the only chance for continued representation of Mountain View on the LASD board.
Posted by bikerchick, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 9:10 am bikerchick is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
For those who are interested in participating in a respectful and open dialogue, there is a mediation listening event facilitated by Rev. Warren Dale of the Peninsula Conflict Mediation Center coming up next week. This is a wonderful example of positive community activism!
Thursday, September 20, 7:00 to9:30pm
Rev. Warren Dale, founder of the Peninsula Conflict Mediation Center, Redwood City, will explore ways we might defuse the level of acrimony in our community about the Bullis Charter School/LASD conflict. He will be leading a mediation listening event in Creekside Center. The purpose of the event is not to resolve or debate the conflict but, rather, foster an open dialogue of respect to lower the level of hostility as we speak our concerns and hear one another. Although organized by leaders in the Christian faith, this is not a religious event and all are welcome regardless of religious orientation.
Childcare will be available upon request; contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Los Altos United Methodist Church
Creekside Center (behind main Church bldg)
655 Magdalena Avenue (@ Foothill Expwy)
There was a recent write up in the Los Altos Town Crier.
Posted by Amanda for BCS board, a resident of the Whisman Station neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 10:32 am
Amanda's and her husband's positions are known in 3 facebook discussion forums. Although Amanda isn't neutral, she is good for a long due BCS board change. Maybe Amanda can mobilize BCS parents to push for her seat on the BCS board. The county had considered to appoint a board member to the BCS board, and BCS demanded a pro-BCS or pro-charter one, and the attempt apparently failed. I don't think that the LASD community will elect Amanda onto the LASD board.
Posted by LA Resident, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm
The LASD school board has certainly acted incompetently. Their program benefits from the high caliber mix of students it serves. That should make it EASIER not harder to handle a charter school. School boards all over the state are sharing facilities better than LASD has done. LASD is holding itself above the law. This is bad in and of itself no matter what you believe. A very thin veil is over their actions that does not conceal their motive of trying to hurt or kill the charter school. That's the reason the classroom sharing is such a mess.
Posted by lasd-voter, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 4:30 pm
any conflict of interest for amanda to be on the lasd board, esp on topics relating to bullis? will she act in the best interest of the broader lasd students, considering her well-documented disdain for lasd and the board? and, of course, considering she sends her children to bullis.
she has gone amazingly silent on the facebook pages since announcement of her candidacy. if she's aiming to be a voice for the lasd community, i'd like to hear her articulate/discuss her current positions on the issues and what she's doing now (not just after elections) to resolve this critical problem.
Posted by Voice of Reason, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 4:32 pm
If handling a campus to the charter is easier, the LASD board would have done it long time ago. The board had sent the pleasing-BCS proposal earlier this year, but the community reacted against it very strongly, then a modified version was made but was rejected by the BCS board. A couple of you folks out there, wake up. There is a really hard problem there.
Posted by BOT PURPOSE, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm
I agree with LA Resident. The BOT's number one priority is getting rid of BCS. It governs every decision that they make - They decide things that way - IT COMES AT A GREAT COST to kids in LASD schools and to Taxpayers. Here are a few choice examples:
1. Placing BCS at the camp site instead of BP - WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
2. Opening all day K at BP - Why put it there? why not at Covington or at every school in the district? That would have worked much better for everyone. but no it goes to BP. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
3. Reopening BP as GB at a cost of over 15 million dollars. A school with less than 300 in-district students WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
4. Redrawing attendance boundaries for the ENTIRE DISTRICT ( except for Oak), forcing over 300 students ( mostly from mountain view) from their neighborhood schools to schools that were much further away. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
6. Begging Palo Alto to let out of district Hills kids to attend GB at a cost of $5500/each to lasd taxpayers. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
7. Keeping a growing BCS at the camp site for 9 years greatly impacting Egan programs, instead of consolidating GB with Covington. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
8. Moving BCS 7 and 8 to Blach - when there are unused classrooms at Egan. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
9. Spending money on operating 9 schools when you don't need that many while most schools have portable classrooms. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
10. Keeping the ask for LAEF artificially low — because BCS has a higher one — killing fund raising for electives. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
11. Withdrawing facilities the day before school starts, forcing a lawsuit - WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
The list goes on and on. It would be so much easier to work towards a solution. They have never tried to do that. You might think its all the fault of BCS. Clearly it's not. The LASD BOT make getting rid of BCS, the number one charter school in the state, and most likely one of the top 10 schools in the state this year, Their number one priority. Even if it costs them money, even if it makes educating lasd kids more difficult. As long as it has a negative impact on BCS, they are for it. These are not the actions of mature adults. The BoT's are big babies, throwing a temper-tantrum. Open your eyes LASD parents, you are causing the problem, wake up and own up. Tell them no. Tell them to figure out the problem. Tell them to put education first.
5. Year after year offering crazy and inadequate facility offers to BCS. WHY? TO TRY AND KILL BCS
Posted by BOT Purposes is wrong, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2012 at 5:07 pm
One could easily make a counter argument that everything BCS does is to try to close Gardner Bullis. Why add 7th and 8th grades? Why grow enrollment to 500 students? Why file new lawsuits every year? Why target new student recruiting toward Los Altos Hills families? Why oppose Measure E?
Posted by Planner, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Here are the best solutions to solve the problem:
1. BCS and Santa Rita switch sites. - Sharing worked out between Egan and Santa Rita.
2. Make Covington a split campus with a smaller Covington elementary school and Egan. Build a gym, a state of the art science building and a music at that site ( the community could use another gym and Egan doesn't have modern science or music facilities) Figure out how to put in a track utilizing the space at Rosita as well. I don't think you will need much more classroom space there it was really overbuilt, as was Egan. There was a plan to share this space with BCS, so sharing with Egan should be easier, especially if you get some great new facilities to share as well.
Then split the current Egan campus into two schools. BCS gets the current Egan site. A new LASD school gets the camp site ( with the portables replaced. This school serves the area around Egan and the Crossings - relieving crowding at Almond.
I also think that a new middle school could be build at Covington, and Egan could be moved there. They could share the campus with a small elementary school. The current Egan Campus could be split
Posted by Planner, a resident of another community, on Sep 14, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Sorry posted before editing. There were more than a few typo's there. I also think that idea #2 has the most merit and would have benefits for all concerned. Kids in the Covington, Loyola and Springer attendance areas who go to LAHS could now to go middle school with their future hs classmates ( redraw attendance boundaries to align with HS boundaries) The community gets additional facilities. Covington stays open and gets a new gym, music room, track and science labs that it can share with Egan. The Crossings and the NEC area get a new school close to home. BCS gets a campus. Attendance areas stay the same except for a portion of the area around Egan and the Crossings which will be moved to the new campus.
How do we do this? Pass a smaller bound. One that clearly states what the money will be spent on. Most of the money will be spent on LASD run programs. BCS will just be taking over existing buildings. The bound could also include money to improve things at other schools - like a new MPR at Santa Rita, a library at Springer, bathrooms at GB or replacing the portables at Loyola. New science or technology labs at each elementary school. I am sure there are other needs. Just not office space, we have an excess of that.
Posted by LA Reader, a resident of another community, on Sep 17, 2012 at 1:30 am
'Special Master' is a legal term. It means a paid manager to manage the situation so the Judge doesn't need to get involved with the details that are involved. Clearly more oversight is needed of this thing based on all the really wierd twists LASD has folded into their plans.... many of which make no sense for either side, but they violate the legal rules for how to treat a charter school.
Posted by BCS should be monitored by the public, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Right now, the charter school operates like a private school totally controlled by a bunch of unelected aggressors on its board. It asked the court to count all the unusable lands, but demands the district to allocate only usable lands for its own use! Also, the district has always offered more space per district student at the school, but the charter school keeps asking for more! Those greedy people can't be trusted.
Posted by Make it like glass, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:24 am
I agree. Its time for independent public monitoring of Bullis. That way
we can ensure everything is on the up and up and not designed to exclude certain "undesirable" students. I'm sure the schoool is tired of these accusations, so lets take off the cloak of secrecy and open Bullis up for all to see what's going on. Seems completely fair considering how much public money (our money!) is going to their school.
Posted by glass house?, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2012 at 5:45 pm
What is it about Bullis that you believe is not "up and up"? What "cloak of secrecy" are you referring to? Last time I checked, their board meetings are open to public, and they submit to the County Board (the ones who granted the charter) a yearly report and yearly visitation from the staff of County Board. What other "independent public monitoring" are you suggesting?
Posted by Stone, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:13 pm
The community has good reason to believe that BCS admissions practices are not on the up and up. There is no transparency to their admissions process and it appears that they engage in the practice of "creaming". Their board is unelected and unaccountable. Independent public monitoring is definitely in order.
Posted by Teaching not creaming, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Maybe the reason for the popularity of BCS is great programs and great teaching. I think that might be the reason for the high API scores as well. Or maybe it's the fabulous facilities, after all we are all adults here and Doug Smith has informed us that they are actually much nicer than those at other LASD schools. I know that's why I moved my kids from Almond to BCS. Got to love the fabulous portables, and the tree filled campus.
Posted by secrecy, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 10:55 pm
The enrollment process is pretty straightforward - you fill out the registration forms, submit all the documents just like you do for the traditional public schools, and wait for the lottery to happen. If a ping-pong ball with your number on it comes up, you get a letter saying you have a spot! How do they "cream"? Do you have a proof or are you just making an empty allegation? If they were indeed violating whatever it is you think they are violating, don't you think the Santa Clara County Board of Education would have come down on them? In case you didn't know, they renewed the charter for another 5 years in 2011. In what ways are the elected LASD board accountable to you? Are they still in office because everyone in LASD believe they've done such a fabulous job? Elected officials being "accountable to the voters" sounds nice but in reality, how is that done? Margot Harrigan was on the board for 12 years. Mark goines 7 years. Bill Cooper 9 years. These are the same people who made the mess and perpetuated it. Accountability anyone??
Posted by LASD Voter, a resident of another community, on Sep 23, 2012 at 7:59 am
This was posted on the Town Crier - Los Altos on line forum yesterday:
"Taglio Pressured to Run"
at Saturday, 22 September 2012 21:40by LASD Resident
"I just heard an appalling rumor. I heard that Steve Taglio was pressured to run (as the current board thought he'd have an easy time getting elected as the incumbent) even though he doesn't really want to continue on. The plan was that after elected, he'd serve for a year or so and then step down "for personal reasons" so that the board could appoint whoever they wanted. If there is ANY truth to it, it is unbelievable manipulation of the democratic process, and everyone behind it should be ashamed."
It seems plausible to me. Marrigot Harriman resigned so that Steve Taglio could run for her seat as an incumbent. Giving him an advantage. I agree with original poster of the message, If true it is an unbelievable manipulation of the democratic process, and could be a considered racketeering. LASD BoT Gansta Style.
Posted by conspiracy theor, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Makes perfect sense - first, Margot Harrigan "resigns" and gives the seat to Taglio, who was a PTA president of Covington. He'll "run" and then conveniently "resign" before his term is up so they can appoint another one of their cronies. So much for democratic process...
Posted by HMMMMM, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm
It's easy to believe that you might resign in a year from now. You would just be following the pattern of your , Marigot Harriman, who resigned one year before the election so that you could run as an incumbent. I heard that you were considering not running last spring, and I am sure that you were then pressured to run by the rest of the board. Marigot should have let the voters choose her replacement. For that reason alone I will not be voting for you. Especially after the current BoT's voted to extend their terms for one additional year. I get that it's a good idea to align with even year elections, but why not shorten your terms by one year?
You also live way to close to a school site. I would like to see a board that is made up of members who live far away from the current schools, then we would have a more balanced approach. Right now the BoT favors the neighborhood school model because all of the BoT's live close to a school. The neighborhood school model might be easier to staff, but it really stifles innovation. It's ok to have some neighborhood schools, but it would also be a good idea to have choice in the LASD district.
I am also concerned that Pablo Luther is a business associate of Mark Goines. Mark Goines has been fined by Fair Election Practices Commission. I don't think that we need his crony on the Board. Its time for a change in LASD BoT.