|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It took until past 1:30 a.m. and six different votes, but the Santa Clara County Board of Education ultimately voted this week to renew Bullis Charter School’s charter for five years, subject to Bullis agreeing to a set of conditions.
The board voted 4-3 to tie the charter approval to Bullis signing an agreement to follow a specific set of requirements laid out by county staff, including continuing efforts to increase enrollment of historically underserved student groups, setting goals to measure its success, and providing the county an annual report on the results of its admissions lottery.
The board also added an additional condition that there not be a cap on the admissions preference for low-income students, and that the agreement with Bullis come back for board approval in December.
Bullis officials have opposed conditions being placed on their charter renewal.
Board members Maimona Afzal Berta, Raeena Lari, Don Rocha and Tara Sreekrishnan voted in favor of the resolution, while Victoria Chon, Grace Mah and Joseph Di Salvo opposed it.
The vote came after five previous motions failed, which ranged from denying Bullis’ charter outright to a largely unconditional seven-year renewal. Each of these motions had only three board members in favor, in various combinations, short of the four member majority needed for passage.
Allegations fly at tense meeting
The Monday, Aug. 26, meeting was tense and at times emotional, with Bullis Charter School officials suggesting that the county staff recommendation was “crazy and racist” and that it would require Bullis to violate the law. The county has disputed these allegations.
Bullis is located within the Los Altos School District and its charter is authorized through the Santa Clara County Office of Education. Throughout the charter school’s two decade existence, its relationship with the Los Altos School District has often been marked by heated public conflicts.
In recent years, the county board of education has also raised concerns about Bullis’ demographics, in particular what the county describes as underrepresentation at Bullis of Latino students, students learning English, low-income students and students with disabilities. In 2021 and 2023, the county board issued formal letters to Bullis laying out its concerns and warning that the school’s charter renewal could be at risk.
An analysis conducted by county staff showed that statistically significant differences remain between Bullis and the Los Altos School District in terms of enrollment of Hispanic, socioeconomically disadvantaged and disabled students, county charter schools department Executive Director Mefula Fairley said on Monday.
Bullis has objected to these claims, arguing that it has a substantial outreach strategy and runs an enrollment lottery in the same way as other charter schools. School officials also object to the comparison to the Los Altos School District, arguing that they should instead be compared to the overall population of the school district’s geographic area.
At Monday’s meeting, Bullis Superintendent Maureen Israel and attorney John Lemmo presented on behalf of Bullis, urging the county board to give the school a seven-year, unconditional renewal. Because Bullis meets the criteria for a “high performing” charter school under state law, Lemmo said that the school was entitled to fast-tracked, presumptive approval. The exceptions are meant to be “super rare” and aren’t applicable in this case, Lemmo said.
In an Aug. 23 letter to the county, Bullis also alleged that the county had no authority to place conditions on its approval, given Bullis’ “high performing” status.
Fairley told the board that regardless of performance level, a charter can be non-renewed if it “is not serving all pupils who wish to attend,” which is the allegation in the county’s two notices of concern. Bullis disputes this claim.
Israel also said that Bullis is “deeply concerned” about county staff’s recommendation to create metrics around increasing Hispanic enrollment, which she said wasn’t legal. She and Lemmo both alleged that there was anti-Asian bias behind the staff recommendation. A majority of Bullis students are Asian.
“Staff believes there’s too many Asians at BCS and we should reduce that population to increase Hispanic enrollment – that’s crazy,” Lemmo said.
In response to a question from a board member about whether this was accurate, Fairley said it was “absolutely not true.” She added later in the meeting that the county isn’t asking for a quota, but rather that Bullis set certain goals and aim to meet them by working to recruit more students.
Los Altos School District board president Bryan Johnson also rejected Bullis’ characterization of the county’s recommendation.
“To approve this renewal petition as presented would be to lend credence to their incredibly offensive argument that efforts to exercise oversight authority over BCS are due to anti-Asian bias, rather than the fact that BCS was founded and operated for most of its history to serve the interests of wealthy neighborhoods rather than those of the district as a whole,” Johnson told the board.
Monday’s meeting included a packed audience, with around 60 people initially indicating that they wanted to speak during time set aside for public comment. The board ultimately decided to limit public comment on the Bullis renewal to 10 speakers in favor of renewal, and 10 speakers against, with one minute each.
Bullis objected to limiting public comment. Israel told the Voice that there were hundreds of parents and students in attendance and that students were “devastated and confused” that they couldn’t address the board.
Board weighs charter renewal
When it came time for board questions and discussion, board members appeared to have a range of opinions about the renewal request.
Board member Rocha said that he didn’t see Bullis acknowledge any of the concerns raised and said he was “at a loss” as to the strategy. Bullis generally seemed to be saying that the information shared was either not true, not accurate or irrelevant, Rocha said.
“When you start there, that’s a bit difficult to stomach,” Rocha said. “And the suggestion that this decision is political by any means, and that I’m making a decision in a political sense, is offensive.”
Board President Berta said that the data showed “systemic issues” impacting the most vulnerable students, and that she had deep concern about Bullis’ lack of willingness to work with the county.
“I’m trying to understand, how can this possibly work with this attitude?” Berta asked. “Because that’s not going to serve the best interests of all students.”
Other board members were more supportive of Bullis’ charter renewal request. Di Salvo supported a seven year unconditional renewal and said that the primary question was how the school was serving its students.
“To spend the kind of time that we’re spending on … a school that’s working so well for its students, as some have asserted, is wrong,” Di Salvo said. “It’s just plain wrong.”
Sreekrishnan favored a conditional approval, noting the “substantial negative impacts” that a denial would have on the community.
After a string of failed motions, the board ultimately got majority support to a motion from Sreekrishnan for conditional approval, when she agreed to accept a request from Berta to ensure there isn’t a cap on the enrollment preference for low-income students.
Currently, the second preference in Bullis’ enrollment lottery (under a sibling preference) is for students who qualify for free or reduced price meals, which is based on family income, who live within the Los Altos School District’s boundaries. The number of students admitted under this preference at each grade is currently limited to 10% of the total open spots at each grade level. Israel told the Voice that all in-district students qualifying under this preference who applied by the lottery date were offered admission.
With the amendment that would remove the 10% limit, Berta voted in favor, giving the motion the necessary majority support.
County staff will now work with Bullis to agree on a memorandum of understanding that meets the various conditions, with it set to come back for county board approval in December.
In response to questions from the Voice, Israel said Bulli was disappointed by the county board’s decision.
“We are happy to continue to work with SCCOE on any and all concerns that might have, but do not believe this should be a condition of our renewal,” Israel said. “Our Board does need to evaluate our next steps in light of the SCCBOE unexpected action.”
Thank U reporter – this type of Raw democracy meetings are grueling even to Watch! But, to me it seems, it must have been a fine show. Multiple Motions, seconds and fail-to-get-majority. Counter Motions, … fails. Opposite Motions … fails.
And then – The beloved (to me at least) COMPROMISE.
// To heck with BCS’s “beliefs”. The COMPROMISE is take-it-or leave-it-and-CLOSE. BCS is a public institution (a LEA) and under the Charter School Law they chose decades ago to go to the County Board to get this ‘public’ (right) charter.
There seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding between SCCOE and BCS during this meeting. BCS legally cannot ask people who apply to their lottery process to identify themselves as Hispanic, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or as disabled (doing so is illegal and discriminatory). While BCS can make sure they have outstanding outreach to these communities, they are legally constrained by the state from collecting information that would allow them to identify & prioritize these specific groups during the actual lottery process — meaning they cannot directly control their final demographics. Having a general goal to continue investing in this area is useful & important – but holding BCS to specific demographic targets just isn’t feasible. And this also ignores the fact that BCS outperforms a number of LASDs own individual schools on these same demographics (just not the district as a whole — a comparison that doesn’t seem fair).
BTW – the MVWSD has a Choice School Lottery (Stevenson) that also is clearly failing for SED (poor family) students, such that the Administration and it seems Board President Conley will just Not publish/report the numbers. The number are, if you pry them out for this year 2.8X less SED at Stevenson than that District’s SED proportion. A Clear Fail (for Conley and Dr. Rudolph).
— SED is a protected class that is not in any way an illegal racial preference (or Quota). In MVWSD the Administration and Board are “just too cheap” to give any needed Transportation help ($) to the poorest families who might want to attend! (sure / make them walk their kids 2 miles to-and-fro to kindergarten). Not in Lottery – no integration-of-the-poor problem! The same “fix” as BCS?
Mr. Nelson is a former Peace Corp Volunteer teacher and MVWSD Trustee
former Peace Corps Volunteer teacher and FORMER Trustee
Racist actions by an elected board should not be left unchallenged. Morally Bullis should refuse the racist conditions placed on it by the County Board since they are illegal on the face of them.
However the board should consult the County lawyers because they might decide to correct things. Not only are the conditions illegal in racist but they are an insult and an affront to the fine job done by Bullis. If there was discrimination going on the County Board should have taken legal action previously.
If the County Board denies the petition for renewal the whole matter goes to the State Board of Education with no doubt around a 7-year renewal without these stupid conditions.
To be clear the county boards conditions are racist on the face of them. They say the charter has too many Asian enrollees and not enough Caucasian Hispanics. That’s racism. It’s not like the school hasn’t been out recruiting low income residence which is the real issue yet the board doesn’t say you have to increase your low income enrollees instead it says you have to increase the number of Hispanic enrollees which is not the same thing and it’s racism to pretend that it is.
Mr Nelson’s first comment is accurate. 2nd comment is a bit of unfounded posturing
Accurate history is that Bullis went first to LASD for charter approval. Their superintendent Marge Gratiot had suggested they form a charter to reopen the closed Bullis School. LASD’s board turned them down and so they then appealed to the County which gave an initial green light. A few years later they charter being up for renewal the county offered LASD the option of taking back the charter as a district charter. LASD declined. So Bullis didn’t pick the county.
The question is will the racist requirement of monitoring hispanic enrollment with a goal of an increase actually remain intact. As the SCCBOE worded it what they required was progress towards an affirmative action quota which is illegal in California. So the SCCBOE might take legal advice to reword their racist condition. If Bullis is left to face the illegal requirement then the charter reapproval could move up to the SBE. Even if you don’t call it racist, the wording was illegal as described. Boards should not take rash action without checking with legal advisors. COMPROMISE or not this was an ill considered addition that was not on the Board’s agenda. Also violating the Brown Act was to limit public comment in such a way as to force equality between opposing views, even if those seeking to comment were 2 or 3 times as many in favor as opposed. THIS TO is something where they should seek legal advice.
The county has had this info about the Charter’s operations for 20 years. They have had the petition for renewal for months. Yet the board waited until the meeting to add unlawful criteria to the renewal offer for Bullis’s application. It’s not a question of disagreeing or not. SCCBOE isn’t communicating clearly with their staff. The ethnicity of Bullis students isn’t any of their business unless they can prove discrimination. Since the school has 100+ slots open and accept all applications from residents, how can they be discriminating? They keep acting like Bullis needs to reject more applicants so as to be balanced. But what if they aren’t rejecting any?
still open? Is the Los Altos board member running for County Board known to be “even and fair minded” on this issue? Or is she a well known “Bullis denier?” (like ‘every single vote’ or comment)? Jessica Speiser ?