I respectfully ask those Anti-Bullis folks to read the 48-page ruling before responding. I think you'll be shocked at the behavior of the LASD administration. Excluding more than 1 million sq. ft. from the 'comparison' schools was not an accident. Every comparison school was understated and Bullis was overstated. You'll see that some of the turf-areas at the comparison schools actually shrunk from 2008 to 2010 according to the LASD's own reports. LASD was unable to explain why their own reports changed over time. This list goes on and on and on. I would love to see LASD step up, do the right thing, and take care of all of our children fairly.

Let's not forget that this was an appeal, which means that LASD prevailed before. I won't defend all of their arguments, but I think reasonable people can disagree about whether Prop 39 requires that every last square foot of non-teaching space be accounted for. The previous judge agreed with LASD; the appeals court agrees with BCS.

LASD is a very small district, and does not have the kind of monetary or facilities resources assumed by Prop 39 and related legislation. I agree that we need to take care of all children fairly. Going forward, the BCS community will need to help if LASD is to find a site solution which will not massively disrupt and/or impoverish the other LASD schools.

This ruling finally brings to light the duplicitous behavior of the LASD board and staff that has run unabated over the last 8 years.

As I stated in my article in opposition Measure E, if BCS won the appeal, LASD would be passing on the $3 million inducement BCS offered it to meets it's proposition 39 obligations. And what of the $13.9 million LASD spent on renovating the Gardner Bullis site when BCS offered to renovate it at its own expense. And of course, the multi million dollar legal expenses on both sides. Is LASD going to be required to pay the BCS legal expenses?

The other item buried in the ruling that should really worry the district is the statement that charter schools are "entitled to full funding ". Share of parcel taxes and basic aid monies? Expect to see a lawsuit from the charter to get it's "fair share" of both of these items. Currently LASD is witholding $2 million a year. A successful suit by the charter could find LASD owing BCS in excess of $12 million dollars. Where is this money going to come from - yet another parcel tax??!

The current LASD board reminds me of my old football team - we were small, but we were slow! They should follow Harrigan and fall on their swords. Let's get some honest and competent board members in place now!

The whole point of equitably sharing is that no one gets all that they want. BCS won't get all that they want; neither will LASD. They have to share what exists as opposed to BCS getting what's left over. That is what the law says.

I would remind everyone also that only "elected" judges have ruled so far. This ruling comes from THREE "appointed" judges. This ruling carries much more weight.

This community clearly wants a choice school -- because LASD doesn't offer that, BCS is the de facto choice school. I was thrilled to read in the MV Voice that nearly 20% of their students come from Mountain View and that the majority of the kids come from Los Altos proper.

I hope LASD will not appeal this decision but will step up and do what's right. This decision is huge for charter schools in general, but the Los Altos community needs to put this fight behind us.

I think it's a great opportunity for LASD to really rethink their structure. There's been a lot of talk about moving the 6th graders to a separate school. Let's look at that.
Enrollment is declining according to the census and also because of the change in Kindergarten enrollment... that brings more opportunities.

Will there be disruption--for sure... But this can also bring positive change!

As for the LASD staff - it's clear that they have been falsifing information for years. These are the same people coming to taxpayers for more and more money, based the projections of staff who falsify figures to support their goals. Can we ever trust them again? I think not! It's time to clean house!

Ron - I skimmed the decision this morning. Yes, it upholds almost all of the BCS argument. That doesn't mean that the LASD argument was totally unreasonable, it just means that the BCS argument was better.

It's a great decision for all of LA/LAH/LASD, not just BCS. It's particularly good for all those in favor of choice and innovation in education through out CA.

As for costs to LASD:
LASD should remember if there were no BCS, they'd have to figure out how to accommodate those same students. I can't imagine LASD/LASD parents would be proud to send their kids to facilities like BCS' facilities-either in quantity or quality.

Interesting comments from the judges ruling regarding LASD's 'lack of good faith' with respect to the miscalculation of sq footage. This ruling should be required reading for anyone discussing BCS/LASD.

As I said, I think LASD was pushing as hard as they could, and I don't think everyone's motives were pure. I think that if it was fraud, the appeals court would not have declined to find that LASD acted in bad faith.

Lee - Accomodating those students at the existing LASD schools would be much easier than figuring out how to build a new 10-15 acre campus in the local real estate market.

The court said on bad faith "There is certainly evidence in the record ... from which such a finding could be made." i.e. the evidence shows they acted in bad faith. They didn't rule because it didn't want this precident making decision to rest on proving the district acted in bas faith.

The elephant in the room is that, unlike other Charter schools that exist to help disadvantaged areas, BCS is essentially a government-subsidized private school.

The leaders of the school have very specific ideas about education, and if you happen to agree with them all, then great. Otherwise, too bad--go to a public school or pay full price for a private school.

With many extremely high-quality choices available, BCS exists as an alternative approach. It's not "water in the desert" like other charter schools, it's a different vintage of Chardonnay at the Country Club.

Now this would be "fine" (in the narrow sense) if it weren't for the fact that tax dollars are a zero-sum game: BCS takes resources away from local public schools. Sure, the BCS folks will pillar public schools for all of the things they think they do wrong--and they are perfectly entitled to their opinion and may even have a point or two. Public entities like schools aren't very perfect because they need to be run by democratic vote.

This alternative, however, is worse: private appropriation of funds with no democratic accountability.

As a parent of a public school attendee, I continue to wonder why a bunch of rich people are using a law meant for poor people to attack middle-class people. Why don't they just pony up and pay for their own private school?

Harold,
Ah, the politics of envy!
Why don't you read the opinion. BCS students are public school students, requesting nothing more than they would get if they attended LASD.

I agree with Harold Barton 100%! BCS IS a government subsidized private school. Furthermore, there are a significant number of students who left LASD schools to attend BCS and ARE BACK at LASD schools. I find that quite ironic. (My wife works in the LASD, that's why I know). Mr. Barton said it best, BCS needs to pony up and pay for their own private school instead of acting like spoiled rich kids who whine when they don't get what they want. One thing I also know is that BCS teachers get paid a lot more than LASD teachers. I don't know how that works but that isn't right. BCS is a thorn to many.

Ron Haley you doth protest too much! This is a private school in a public school costume. Pony up the big bucks and send your children to a private school if you do not care for the offering of the district. It makes me ill to see Bullis Charter School using a law meant to offer better to underserved children for the gain of a bunch of well off children and their parents who DO have a choice in educational circumstances. If anyone is truly being deceitful and abusing the spirit of the law it is Bullis Charter School.

Marcia,
Unlike you, I don't have family working at LASD or BCS. I have children in both LASD and BCS, so my interest is in improving education in LASD as a whole.

You unfortunately have a lot of your facts wrong. The average fully loaded teacher salary in LASD is $99,000. The average for Santa Clara county is $80K. The average for BCS is $68,000. i.e. LASD loaded salaries are 45% higher than BCS.
I suggest you read the opinion from the court - you'll be shocked at the LASD behavior!

Oops - that's how we got here in the first place - let's close the "rich students" school. The "Politics of Envy" is a powerful driving force. If you want to see it in full force, attend an LASD board meeting :)

Ron, you're a really sad guy. I'm looking at these posts and I realize you're sitting by your computer 24 hours a day, ranting and venting your spleen. Get a life and find something productive to do.

part 2 - It is kind of funny to hear BCS characterized as rich and entitled because it looks like we go to school in an overcrowded trailer park, while other LASD campuses look like country clubs in comparison. But I guess I understand why people on all sides are mad, sometimes I get really upset, too. I’m not saying I know what the solution is, it’s a very complicated situation. I am hopeful, though, that in our wonderful, very fortunate community of Los Altos/Los Altos Hills, we can take the steps necessary to put the disagreements between a few adults behind us, and move forward in a positive manner for all of our children. Fear can make us say and do crazy things. But when we see our childrens' scruffy sneakers, or take in their wonderful lopsided grins, let's try to remember that we all have a similar pair of sneakers by the garage door, or children with equally endearing smiles. Let’s try our best to move forward in a positive, mature way for the sake of all of our children.

Ron,how sad, you responded within two minutes of my comment, I guess my point is right on the mark. Get away from this sad little obsessions of yours, it's a beautiful day here in the Bay Area. You need to go outside and get some fresh air AND get a life!

Whoa, this 'discussion' has gotten out of hand and off-topic. BCS IS a Charter School, NOT a publicly funded private school. As I stated in my first comment (way back at the top), 'PLEASE read the judges report'. Pages 11-13 nicely define Charter Schools and their purposes in California education. The relative wealth of a community does no exclude Charter Schools from existing. Why are we agruing over facts? Charter Schools ARE public schools and are legally entitled to reasonably equivilant facitities compared the local school district. Most of the arguments here against the judges' ruling (and against BCS) are saying that BCS shouldn't be a Charter School. . . but, that is NOT the question being asked. The question is, 'Are BCS's facilities reasonably equivilant?' The next question is, 'How can LASD and BCS work together to give ALL our children the best possible educations?'

I am a 30-year Los Altos tax payer with two kids who graduated the LASD system by 2000. I wish we'd had more choice along the way. For years and years, I paid no attention to the LASD school board elections. Now I think I will be watching, looking for more innovative candidates or for real change of heart and change of behavior among incumbents.