Town Square

Plutocracy and the Santa Clara Board of Education

Original post made by Serge Bonte, Cuesta Park, on Dec 7, 2007

On November 26, the Santa Clara County Board of Education allowed the Bullis Charter School (BCS) to amend its enrollment procedure to favor a portion of Los Altos Hills (known as the former Bullis Purissima attendance area) over the rest of the Los Altos School District (LASD).

This story contains 645 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Mountain View Mom
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 7, 2007 at 6:05 pm

What bothers me most is that the district's children are the victims in this obvious power struggle between the distict, Los Altos Hills and now Santa Clara county.

Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of another community
on Dec 11, 2007 at 11:27 am

Sounds like a good reason for a lawsuit. Charter Law in the California Ed code says:

(2) (A) A charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend
the school.
(B) However, if the number of pupils who wish to attend the
charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except for
existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a
public random drawing. Preference shall be extended to pupils
currently attending the charter school and pupils who reside in the
district except as provided for in Section 47614.5. Other preferences
may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual school
basis and only if consistent with the law.

I would imagine that if a preference rule is granted that creates a protective bubble around a socio-economic class or creates racial preference selection bias, then that could be challenged as inconsistent with federal equal education opportunity law.

Any lawyers out there that want to help the 'little guy' who wants the ability to send his kid to quality charter schools across the state - as the law intended?

Like this comment
Posted by Matt Raschke
a resident of The Crossings
on Dec 14, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Serge, thanks for writing this. I fully agree with your conclusion: Los Altos School District should immediately put a moratorium on both reopening the Bullis Purissima school in K-6 configuration


Are there any laws that are designed to prevent segregation along socio-economic class boundaries? I don't think that is explicitly part of the current anti-discrimination code. I'm not a lawyer.

I heard that LASD intends to sue BCS over this, however. I think it will be a difficult case to win. LASD is ignoring their heavily populated area in the northern end of the district.

LASD should move BCS to Bullis-Purissima and open a new "overflow" elementary school beside Egan Middle School where BCS is currently housed. Geographically, that is where additional school capacity is needed.

Like this comment
Posted by Paul Mockapetris
a resident of another community
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:41 am

I send my kids to BCS, but I live in an unincorporated part of Los Altos, not in the preferred Bullis area. The ironies here are amazing:

BCS seeks donations as mentioned in the article, but designates many of its families as second class citizens by the preference, and doesn't have a coach fare.

I'm sure LASD has some complicated rationale about how they have a objective here other than wearing down Bullis and making it go away.

Many Bullis kids will rejoin LASD in higher grades, so there's really no permanent rivalry.

Voters need a way to tell the bureaucrats to stop the lunacy of this battle and get back to better education. There's still room for improvement in both Bullis and LASD.

Like this comment
Posted by LASD parent
a resident of another community
on Jan 8, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I agree that it makes no sense to have two schools serve a neighborhood (LAH) that is having trouble filling up even one school, especially when other schools are over capacity.

This is happening because:

1. LAH has shown that is willing and able to act against the district when its demands are not met - i.e. start BCS when BP was closed, and threaten to form its own district when BP remains closed.

2. LASD seems to act against BCS at any cost. They could have allowed BCS to move to the old BP site and avoid the cost of reopening another school. Instead, they are spending millions to reopen and renovate BP, while at the same time suing BCS.

It's clear that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, especially when you can back up your threats with action. What can those of us unhappy with this situation do to make the district listen to us?

Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of another community
on Jan 9, 2008 at 8:45 am

The reasons you're providing over look a few nuances:

- BCS via its new preference has some responsibility in that situation. Arguably, they could have refrained from proposing that preference and there would have been only 1 neighborhood school for LAH and 1 charter for all in the district.
- I don't know that the LASD Board driving factor is solely its will to arm BCS. They also seem intent on following LAH/PEC's lead on decision. One such example being Mr. Pefley's constant efforts to favor LAH residents in PAUD over LASD residents when it comes to attendance to Bullis Purrissima and terms of transfers.

This said, I agree that this is an un-tainable situation. The LASD Board seems to act as ostriches in every crisis situation so it might take an earthquake to get their heads out of the sand :)

More seriously, it's likely the LASD Board will have to ask for money soon (parcel tax increase, bond measure...); it will be a very opportune time to not sign them another blank check.