|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The county school board’s decision last month to give priority enrollment at Bullis Charter School to residents in the Bullis-Purissima attendance area continues to draw fire from board members of the Los Altos School District, who say they are moving ahead with litigation and recently filed a legal complaint against the county.
According to LASD board member David Pefley, he and fellow board members were united during their meeting Monday night in their stance against the county board decision.
“We think it’s unfair for families in one part of the district to have priority access,” he said, adding that “Everyone shoulders the financial burden for Bullis Charter School equally.”
A hearing on the matter is scheduled in Superior Court for late February, Pefley said.
While he and other board members still question the legality of BCS’s enrollment policy, which sets aside a certain number of seats for children living in the former Bullis-Purissima attendance area, others say the charter school is fully within its rights.
Gary Larson, spokesperson for the California Charter Schools Association, said that an enrollment policy which favors a certain group of constituents is “absolutely” within the law, so long as the school can prove it is oversubscribed.
“Charter law is pretty clear. If the school is oversubscribed, they can have a policy where students of the founders and their siblings are given a little bit more priority,” he said.
He also said there are other examples of charter schools in the state with similar enrollment policies.
Recently, BCS board president Ken Moore said the school was “enormously oversubscribed,” with only one applicant in six allowed in.
Bullis Charter School has only 288 students. Its new enrollment policy gives first priority to returning students and the siblings of current students, and then allocates 50 percent of the remaining spots to students in the former Bullis-Purissima attendance area, which mainly covers parts of Los Altos Hills.
Larson — who said he has “no vested interest” in the controversy either way — said BCS’s popularity is due to the fact that it is widely acknowledged as one of the best charter schools in the state.
“It is a highly reputable public school, very innovative and accountable. The staff it has attracted is unprecedented,” he said. “Parents are clamoring to get their kids in.”
Larson said it was one of the only charter schools in the state with a Mandarin language immersion program.
Currently there are 687 charter schools in California serving over a quarter million students. One hundred new charter schools opened up in the state this year alone, Larson said.
Larson said the incentive behind opening a charter school is the chance to create more innovative programs in the public school setting, and to address students’ educational needs in more varied and creative ways.
“We understand that different students learn in different ways,” he said.
Larson thinks that instead of spending considerable time and resources suing the county board, the district would do better to “learn from what Bullis Charter School is doing right.”
The students at BCS who come from within the borders of the Los Altos School District don’t receive a penny of the roughly $1700/student parcel tax that LASD collects from all parcel owners within their taxation jurisdiction. Mr. Pefley would do well to send about $450,000 a year to BCS to fully and fairly fund the students within his district before commenting about financial equality. Instead, LASD will waste that type of money on lawsuits with no apparent benefit to LASD or BCS.
p.s. BCS doesn’t have a Mandarin immersion program
I don’t mean anything bad towards BCS students, but lately I’ve been jokingly referring to BCS as “B*stard Child School” because nobody seems to want the school unless they’re in it. It was born out of a nasty dispute between LAH and LASD. LASD didn’t want it. The neighbors of it near Egan Middle School don’t want it. Now that LAH and LASD seem to be back together on a public Bullis-Purissima school, LAH doesn’t seem to want it now either. And like so many “love children” stories, it is truly the kids [of LASD] that suffer.
Grow up LASD and do the right thing! Move BCS to Bullis-Purissima.
Oh my – I had signed up to enroll my child but hadn’t really looked at all the politics going on… however, I do find that the administration seems to overly concerned about the Turtle migration project and making sure that everyone gave them the $3500/year/child… so, I said no… They accepted but I gladly just rejected the offer… I got a good laugh on the new meaning of BCS…. too funny.
BCS is indeed a wonderful school. Students are joyful to come to school and deserve to have a place, like BCS, where they can feel excited about learning. The conflicts between all the political parties involved is a shameful reflection on how quickly our society looses focus on what really does matter in education. Happy children and strong communities create healthy well-rounded children.
I am certain that Bullis Charter School is a wonderful experience for those students enrolled, and I am also certain that every child in the district deserves to have his or her needs attended to so lovingly. I find it unfortunate that charter schools, which have helped many low-income under-served students meet rigorous academic expectations, are being used to further stratify public educational experiences by providing de-facto private education under the guise of public schooling. Why does educational growth have to be at the expense of someone else’s child? In this case, the continued conflict is now resulting in groups of students constantly being shipped around the district because there isn’t enough space in the schools where it is needed and the board wants to battle it out, possibly with good reason; possibily with purely petty politics, over percieved or overt elitist attitudes about access to, need I say again, PUBLIC education. Even if they are taking the high road, this battle will be endless and it will mean likely a full cycle of students attend K-8 in LASD without a solution, and, as a result, some students will not recieve an equitable experience. Put BCS at Bullis-Purissima and MOVE ON.
If BCS wanted a preference for founding families, it should have stated it that way. That preference would be fair without being questionable under the Education Code.
A preference based on geography is overinclusive (it includes families who are NOT founders but who happen to live in the area) and underinclusive (it does not include founding families who live out of the area). It’s just not right.
Most people do not understand that the legislature provided for charter schools for many purposes. Focusing on under-served students was only one of them. Two other reasons that people should be aware of include:
1. Educational innovation and reform: BCS is certainly doing that
2. Providing competition to the local school district: BCS is also doing that.
Anyone who doesn’t think our educational system is broken, should think again. LASD may have great test scores but they teach to the test and they leave both the upper end of kids and the lower end of kids behind.
We need to give this board a message… VOTE NO on the next parcel tax coming up (by the way, they intend it to be “north of $900”. Vote NO on the next bond issue. They have been so fiscally irresponsible it is incredible.
How can Mark Goines in one breath say that next year is going to be VERY CHALLENGING financially, and then approve the full day Kindergarten which costs about $130K evidently. Full day K is a service… I understand that parents like it, but this district can’t afford it.
Or better yet, would someone please run a recall and recall the whole LASD board???
What concerns me more than the content of the comments is the fact that every one of them (with the exception of the Crossings) has been posted by “a resident of another community.”
This is a LASD issue. Regardless of comments to the contrary, the fact is that LASD has and will continue to bear the financial burden of BCS. Consequently, it should be the elected LASD Board and LASD tax payers who determine the course of action regarding BCS.
It seems that all those who want to put BCS at Bullis seem to forget that LASD needs the space or Santa Rita and Almond will have 600 or more children on campus. It would be wonderful if a campus could instantly appear near El Camino, but how would that happen? BCs has relieved some of the enrollment pressure at those schools, but siphoning off more students from LAH to the charter will only make the enrollment imbalance worse for the district.
Interesting how an obviously pro-charter parents talks about recalling the LASD board. Neither the local community nor even charter families get to vote for members of the charter board. So much for local control.
Wish those who claim the LASD board has been fiscally irresponsible would provide factual numbers indicating that the board misused funds. Of course previous boards did make mistakes in estimating the cost of building new facilities in the late 1990’s. They also rectified those mistakes by changing the mangement model. Later projects definitely stayed on budget. The current board is taking action to cover the cost of retire health benefit obligations incurred over 20 years ago. These funds have to be set aside out of the budget.
They have a difficult job to balance the educational program demanded by our community with the realities of underfunding. One might quibble over priorities, but overall they do quite well.
I don’t understand the heartburn with Extended Kindergarten. The same person who claims tht the district teaches to the test also complains about providing added enrichment time for kindergarteners. That person also encourages others to vote against any parcel tax increase from the amount approved 6 years ago. The parcel tax helps to provide smaller classes and enrichment programs.
Perhaps some reasonable discussion would be useful. Hit pieces are not.
to Los Altos Parent:
Well if BCS moved to BP (or co-shared that space), Egan camp would be free and provide space near where it’s needed. The LASD Board seems intent to keep BCS at this location seemingly forever, why not keep there forever another campus for the Northern part of the District?
Fiscal irresponsibilities is in display in the Board’s recent decisions. In the face of upcoming State cuts, the Board has steadily refused to even study the costs of reopening BP as full K-6 vs. a phased matriculation (which would have the welcome benefit to not disrupt as many (800+) District children as currently planned.
Kudos for “Parent of pre-schooler” for recognizing the difference between a BCS preference for “Founding Families” and a preference for a certain region of the district. The former I can easily understand. (Had I worked to found a school, I would desire the same.) The second is just more of the same politics that has been poisoning the district for way too long.
The LASD board is totaly myopic on this. Opening BP has
caused all sorts of problems for the distant residents being
forced to attend this location. The camp school at Egan
should be replaced by a permanent Elementary School to serve
the Mountain View neighborhoods currently shunted all over
the city of Los Altos to attend school, so that they
are relatively close to their school. There should have been
some Mello Roos funding from the developments to fund building
a school as one is obviously needed. The problem is only
getting worse and the solutions advanced so far are crazy.
At least they should provide busing to those traveling > 1 mile.
One thing for certain, the legal spat won’t be solved anytime soon:
See current case status here:
http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-08-CV-102873
case was pushed to tax day (4/15/2008).
Meanwhile, the LASD Board suspended its Full Day Kindergarten program, saving approximately the money they’ve spent to date on that lawsuit.
Meanwhile, BCS has gone through its 2008 open enrollment using the preferences in dispute.
Meanwhile, the LASD Board is a 1.1 – 1.7 Million budget cut next year while opening a brand new school for the same population BCS gave preference to (by far the smallest in the District and with class sizes far below the average in the rest of the District).
According to yesterday’s report in the Los Altos Town Crier, only 200 students are expected to attend the Bullis-Purisimma school next year. What a waste of money. What is the operating cost per student for BP compared to the rest of LASD schools? It has to be outrageous.
In addition, LASD is still facing a 650K deficit next year IF it attains Basic Aid status. Where will the money come from?
Oh, and not reported by the Los Altos Town Crier, LASD was still trying to find 160K or so for furniture/supplies at Bullis-Purissima.
That’s ridiculous.
So what happened on 4/15?
The docket site doesn’t have any information:
http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-08-CV-102873
Matt,
Check that same link again:
http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa5.asp?full_case_number=1-08-CV-102873
the case has been DENIED.
LASD has some serious answering to do now:
– how much did this lawsuit cost?
– why, after affecting so many neighborhoods and over 800 kids, will Bullis Purissima open only 200 kids next year?
– how does the district plan to deal with the fact that 2 public schools have the same (small) attendance area?
– where will the money for a permanent Bullis Charter School campus come from?
and more importantly, why reopen a school that doesn’t have enough students on Day 1, while the District is deciding on 800K worth of cuts for the next year, doesn’t have a contract with its teachers and a reserve about to plunge below 3%.
I don’t know of any corporation that would expand its business operations in an economic downturn while facing a deficit.
Thanks Parent,
I guess the docket wasn’t fully updated when I first checked it.
At least the lawsuit won’t cost any more money if they accept they court denial.
Hopefully, when LASD looks at where it makes cuts, it will put its legal budget first on the chopping block.
For all we know, that recent lawsuit might have cost the same amount than what was supposedly saved by cutting the District’s full day kindergarten program.