In the past, BCS supporters have asked fairly directly for the Gardner Bullis campus. At this point, however, it's not clear that that campus would be big enough, given BCS' growth and this ruling.

BCS has only asked that they be given reasonably equivalent facilities. They have not specified where. The court basically said that LASD was not calculating reasonably equivalent correctly (they undercounted the space at LASD schools by under 1,000,000 square feet; they counted a building BCS built and maintained as space the district provided, etc.)
LASD has many options for how they address these deficiencies, but the reality is that they could not leave BCS on the Egan site. From where I sit, that looks to me like taking one of their existing elementary schools and distributing the kids to the remaining six. Since all of the schools are significantly larger than the space at Egan, any one of them would do. It's up to LASD to figure out which makes the most sense.

Christy - Another way of saying that is: "One LASD neighborhood should lose its school so that BCS can have the campus." Now, that may be what has to happen. But it will be very painful for the displaced students and community, and when prominent BCS backers are saying "we're growing quickly, and may soon need a second site as well", it does not help get us closer to a solution.

If you're waiting around for the state to repeal Prop 39, I wouldn't hold your breath. The charter school movement has established itself (in California AND across the nation) as one of the key players in education reform.
And just to clarify, Prop 39 does not establish any precedent that charter schools should 'take over' public schools with legal action as you are implying...it merely mandates that districts allot "reasonably equivalent" space to charter schools located within their jurisdiction. The district can choose to do this however they feel that they can best provide for both the students in their schools and the charter students.

Harold,
Great idea. In fact, we'll show you how to do it!

I also think a great idea. Would love to see more charter schools. But it wouldn't change the equation. There are nearly 65% more LASD students at BCS than there are at Gardner Bullis. The law now states that the facilities need to be shared equitably--so it would not be possible to leave one charter school with 460+ LASD students on a campus less than 6 acres, with another charter school with 280+ LASD students on a campus with over 10 acres.
But again, LASD is under no obligation to give BCS the Gardner site... it's entirely up to them which students (and how many) they intended to displace.

I attended a BCS "presentation" before I enrolled my child in an LASD school. I remember being struck by what a "sales pitch" it was--it was like I was at a Condo presentation. At the time it was puzzling: why would a public school be selling me something?

Now I understand. They are "organizing": gathering supporters in the same way and for similar reasons as Jimmy Hoffa did in the 50s and 60s. They are building up their own gang to give them dues (enrollment in their school) to gather power.

The more students they get, the more LASD schools they get to close. Soon they will take over the whole district and a tiny group of unelected millionaires will completely control how our children are taught here. Normal parents, the State of California, and anybody not connected to the secret cabal will have absolutely zero voice when it comes to controlling our children's futures.

They are convinced they "know better" so the ends justifies the means. Like the the well-connected gang who started Solyndra, they they "know better" how to spend taxpayer money, so they will find any and every loophole to appropriate tax dollars for their own experiments.

Democracy is messy and inefficient--and leads to things like salaries getting out of control and many other irritating things. But Winston Churchill put it best when he said (I paraphrase), "Democracy is the very worst form of government--except for all of the others".

Trading democracy for corruption is no choice at all.

Winston Churchill also said "the scariest thing about democracy is 30 seconds with the average voter". Harold. you are coming across as an "average voter" :)

Finally, the true, deep motivation of the BCS regime are coming to the fore.

In short, the BCS regime is against democracy. They think the the voting public are dummies--stupid sheep who should not be given any responsibility over their own children or their own tax dollars.

In their world view, the ends justify the means. If they need to lie to get what they want, then so be it.

The Measure E campaign was a perfect example: plop down thousands of signs all over town with a lie on it, in hopes that those "idiot voters" don't read the description of the law and/or cannot understand three digit numbers.

BCS itself is another example: replace Los Altos public schools, controlled by a democracy with schools controlled by a tiny group of millionaires.

***
Let the battle lines be drawn: the BCS regime is out for nothing less than complete control over all Los Altos schools. Prop 39 is just a handy loophole they are exploiting FOR NOW but you can be sure they will be on the lookout for others.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.". I'm personally going to do what I can to help LASD fight this threat to our freedom. I hope others will do the same.

Christy,
If we recognize that BCS kids are Los Altos kids too (eg their parents pay taxes, parcel tax etc) it's just that their school is administered by the county, not LASD, ALL Los Altos children will all be better off.

If LASD complied by the law (Prop 39) and provided reasonably equivalent facilities in the 1st place, the lawsuit would never have been necessary. BCS kids had their rights violated by LASD NOT complying with the law.

Lawsuit is over-lets' move forward and figure out what's best for all Los Altos students.

Actually, that's not the purpose of charter schools... there are 7 different points that the legislation detailed -- each of which (NOT all) are reasons for private schools. Not one of them requires that the schools serve the lowest performing/most under-served. I recognize that this is a common misconception especially in this area.
My favorite as taken from the California Teachers Association website is: "The purpose of charter schools is to create new professional opportunities for teachers to improve student learning while encouraging the use of different and innovative teaching methods. " http://www.cta.org/Issues-and-Action/Charter-Schools.aspx
Looks to me like BCS does that in spades!

From CA Ed Code:

Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils identified as academically low achieving.

Can you clarify what you mean by the legislative intent for charter schools "each of which (NOT all) are reasons for private schools"?

Were the LASD schools significantly under-performing in student learning prior to the opening of Bullis?

Bea, Here is the ENTIRE ed code piece:
(a) Improve pupil learning.
(b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special
emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are
identified as academically low achieving.
(c) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching
methods.
(d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including
the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the
schoolsite.
(e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types
of educational opportunities that are available within the public
school system.
(f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for
meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a
method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability
systems.
(g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system
to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools.

What I meant by each of which (NOT all) are reasons for CHARTER (my mistake) schools, is that the legislation meant for any of these items were valid reasons for an agency to support a charter. The school does not have to do all of these things, but any one is reason enough. In the fact that it says "with special emphasis" clearly means that this is a plus, but not a requirement.
We are fortunate in LASD that all the schools are good. BCS provide parents a choice.

The Legislature adopted the Act in 1992 for the express purpose of ―provid[ing] opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure . . . .‖ (§ 47601.) The Act had six stated goals: (1) improving student learning; (2) increasing opportunities for learning and expanding learning experiences, particularly for low-achieving students; (3) fostering teaching techniques that are different and innovative; (4) developing new teaching opportunities, including the opportunity to be responsible for learning programs at the charter school; (5) giving expanded choices in educational opportunities to parents and students beyond those available in the public school system; and (6) making charter schools accountable for achieving measurable student outcomes. (§ 47601, subds. (a)-(f).) When it amended the Act in 1998, the Legislature identified a seventh goal of affording robust competition within the public
school system to encourage ongoing improvements for all public schools. (§ 47601, subd. (g), added by Stats.1998, ch. 34, § 1, pp. 193-194.)

Totally lost as to why you think any charter school is a private school. Anyone from the state of California can apply. Entrance is by lottery. There's no tuition. Charter schools merely offer CHOICE. LASD was ripe for a charter school in the way that MV and PA were not, because the LASD administration did not believe in choice. Clearly the community does though given the number of people who would like to attend BCS.

Bea...can you define what it is that makes BCS a Private school? Is it academic excellence? LASD has that too. Is it wealthy people attend? LASD has the same demographics. Is it that we ask our families to pony up and close the gap on funding shortfalls? LAEF operates in the exact same manner as BCS' foundation. What is it that makes us "private" in your mind? Just curious, because one of the reasons I picked BCS was that it was public. Independent, but public. Lucky for me, we got in...

@Courtenay: You answered the question yourself. There is no actual justification for Bullis given the quality and demographics of LASD schools. It is simply "other" – which is the role private schools play on the great stage of K-12 education.

You are all very self righteous in clinging to "choice" as rationale enough for what you've gained for yourselves and the impact you have had and will continue to have on the traditional public neighborhood schools. It's understandable that you cannot see beyond your own children and your good fortune to grasp how Bullis plays into the demise of taxpayer funded schools as a public good.

A "private school" is one that is:

1. Not under the control of a democratically elected body.
2. Principally funded by non-government money.

BCS is #1, but not #2. This is a new kind of entity, so we have to make up a new name for it. The candidates are:

1. "Publicly funded private school", or,
2. "Privately controlled public school".

No matter how you arrange the definition, it's a perversion of the democratic process.

The BCS people here keep bringing up every imaginable aspect of their school in an attempt to whitewash the most important aspect: who controls it.

And who does control it? How are they chosen? What are their powers?

Nobody knows. This information is not publicly available as near as I can tell (the BCS website, a site sprawling with factoids about the school, curiously leaves this part out). Another important aspect left out is the definition of "lottery". In the presentation I attended, they listed several admission factors and then mentioned a "secret sauce" of sorts--staff preference or some such. It's just like any other kind of private club. If the tiny ruling clique of millionaires don't like you, then you don't get in.

So stop insulting our intelligence with the smoke screen. Private control means private. Period.

Reid Hastings, CEO Netflix quote at the Stanford education seminar last week; "The biggest problem with education in the US is elected school boards". Looking at the LASD board, it's hard to argue!

Wow Ron, thanks a lot for helping me make my point.

So get it straight everybody: BCS = Anti-democracy.

Ron and the rest of the thugs at BCS want to take over every single school in LASD and determine your child's future with absolutely zero accountability.

Soon we will have no choice but to do what Ron says, lest his mysterious "lottery process" determines that your child "won't fit in" to any Los Altos (aka BCS) school. Or maybe your child will be bullied in school and the teachers won't do anything about it. Is there any appeal process? Nope. It's a private school and if you don't like it, your child doesn't get educated.

For those of you that still think this is a "school choice" sort of thing, think again. Understand the following:

1. The secretive owners of BCS have made it clear that publicly elected school boards, public teachers, and public schools are EVIL. They hate them. They think they are stupid.

2. Since they are accountable to nothing and nobody, they are free to expand their "school" to encompass every student in the district. They have made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here that this is their dream.

4. Based on the latest ruling, the district will be forced to hand over every single school campus to them. Without any campuses, there will be no reason for there to be an LASD. Again, this is their stated dream.

And there you have it, a private take-over of a public school system by a secretive, unelected, unaccountable group of millionaires.

Harold,
For BCS to request facilities, they need students. To get students, parents need to decide to send to their child BCS rather than LASD. Are you saying parents shouldn't have this right? They should be forced to send them to LASD?

Should other parents have a "choice" to kick my child out of the school that's been near and dear to us for several years and force us to attend a school that is controlled by a tiny group of millionaires who are accountable to nobody? No. I pay my property taxes and I am owed a public school--which BCS is not.

But that's exactly the "choice" that BCS is offering. It's not "choose between LASD and BCS" it's "go to BCS or go to a school in Mountain View or Cupertino".

A lot of parents think BCS is a public school. They assume they will have the typical recourse and democratic control that public schools enjoy. They have no idea that BCS is controlled by a secret cabal of rich people who are accountable to nobody. This is of course by design as BCS does everything it can to hide its control structure. If parents knew what the deal was, attendance would plummet.

Anecdotally, I know of a LOT of parents that moved BACK to their local public school from BCS because of the curriculum and leadership there.

This is a choice that the BCS regime is working day and night to eliminate. If you don't like BCS--and prefer one of our existing world-leading public schools very close to you--it's because you are stupid and evil. The BCS secret cabal will soon make sure you aren't able to make such a big mistake.

The word "thug" is not a "swear word".

The exact definition is that of a person that uses violence to get what they want, but it's often used in political speech to connote somebody corrupting to democratic process to their own ends.

The term is used in this way to underscore that the power of the government means the power of jail, the power of the gun--if you don't do what the government says, you are taken to jail by armed men. Normally this is fine when it's criminals being so forced, but when the democratic process is corrupted the tables turn completely, and it's innocent people who are being forced to do things by criminals.

Is this hyperbole? Of course. Terms like this are used to make a point and to collapse a very complex concept into a single word. Anybody reading what I wrote would not interpret that I think that the BCS leadership literally acts in physically violent way, but rather that they are "as a thug" in that they use a form of indirect violence (the power of the government) to get what they want. It's not a nice thing to say to them, but I don't think they are acting nice because they apparently want to close my child's school.

When my children are old enough to understand complex political concepts like this (16?) I will absolutely teach them this term. They don't read this forum now and I wouldn't let them as I am a responsible parent and I don't let my children read material meant for grown-ups.

Excellent analysis.

In the BCS "marketing presentation" I attended, I don't remember hearing them tell me that their high test scores were simply a matter of not allowing anybody in the school who will reduce their test score average. They just talked about their high test scores (which is why 90% of the parents were there, sadly). I guess the science teachers just covered their ears during this part.

If I recall, BCS scored "slightly higher" than other LASD schools this year. Given this observation, that's actually pretty bad! They should be WAY higher!

***
What an absurd reversal of the original intent of prop 39: to separate the most privileged kids into their own school where they can siphon money from the schools who are forced by law to deal with the less privileged ones.

It's really gross.

As a Libertarian, Stossel is against the entire concept of public schools. I suspect he sees charters as a stepping stone to that end (which is completely wrong as it's going from bad to worse by his own standards).

Insofar as the Charter concept (as its implemented here in CA via Prop 39) appropriates public funds and real estate--and serves to DISPLACE existing public schools rather than to augment them--all you are doing is trading one government-protected monopoly for another. Except the new one has ZERO accountability instead of an albeit flawed system of democracy.

The "libertarian" answer to schools is PRIVATE schools and tax credits for parents who send their kids to them, not a "public/private" invitation to corruption.

Charters are just another government boondoggle. They might be doing some good in some areas where things are REALLY BAD in the existing public school system, but BCS is great example of how easy it is to exploit the system to achieve goals that have absolutely nothing to do with educating children better.

That would be fine, Jason, if that's all there was to it.

BCS now needs at least TWO campuses to accommodate it's growth--that leaves only five elementary campuses left in Los Altos--and they plan a heck of a lot more growth.

How do they do it? Simple: test scores. Most parents just want to send their child to the school with the highest test scores. It's no more complicated than that.

Since BCS is allowed to pick and choose only students who will make their test scores the highest, they will always have an unfair advantage and will have absolutely no problem maintaining a much higher average than any public school who must, by law, accommodate all students.

This little scam has only one logical ending: BCS will take over every campus in Los Altos and there will be NO public schools here. The less advantaged kids will be shipped off to Cupertino, Mountain View, or god-knows-where.

It doesn't matter how "good" the existing public schools are: they don't stand a chance against the millionaire owners of BCS.

Suggest you read more about charter law.
"Any child residing in the state of California." is a REQUIREMENT of all charter schools.
Note that LASD does NOT provide facilities for children that attend BCS that are from out-of-district. They are assumed NOT to exist when LASD does their calculations for space.

Then why don't they leave one of the top school districts in the country alone? Why do they want to destroy it?

Why are my children going to be kicked out of the school they've grown to love, torn away from all of their friends, disconnected from all of the teachers they know and forced to attend a school far away that has lower test scores, worse facilities, and less parental support?

That's the "choice" that BCS supporters are talking about: BCS or go grovel for a spot in a Cupertino or Mountain View and a 30 minute drive to school.

So that agenda is a LIE. You can say it twice or ten times or a hundred times. It will still be a LIE.

BCS exists to take over all of the schools in LASD so they can drag half of the Bay Area to our world-leading public schools in exchange for the regime gaining enormous power over people's lives and extracting the ultimate revenge over the LASD board.

There is absolutely NOTHING legally to stop the BCS regime from doing this. That is the FACT in this matter. They will immediately take two LASD campuses because of their growth.

Is it crazy to think they will need a lot more based on their STATED dislike for LASD and public schools in general? Based on their ends-justify-the-means righteousness?

That's right folks, prepare to share our wonderful campuses that our tax dollars, donations and participation over the years has paid for with EVERY CHILD WITHIN A 50 MILE RADIUS. Revenge will be theirs.

I speak for myself and I could care less about the "teacher's union". Nice attempt at a straw-man attack though.

So there you have it: if you actually LIKE the school your child currently attends and you do NOT wish to send your child to BCS for any reason, then you are a slimy union supporter.

If you don't wish for your children to be kicked out of the school they've attended for years, the school your work and your money have helped make great, then you are a shill for the LASD.

If you actually believe in democracy, and are against unchecked private control over people's lives, then you must be for the very worst aspects of such a system (and in a way, this one is true: democracy has a price--but it's far better than the alternatives).

By the way, MY family was one of the ones you have counted in your "applied for" statistics. Like most we know who "applied", we wanted to keep our options open WHILE WE DECIDED. The BCS philosophy was NOT for us, as it is for MANY others we've talked (many we've talked to have even switched BACK to LASD).

And as for the parents who are interested in "other things" OH COME ON. Just like boys get Playboy magazine "because of the articles". Take away the cachet of the "rich kids" school and the test scores, and BCS is TOAST. Both of those things would (hopefully will) happen if BCS followed the law.

Did you know that portables are a significant fraction of the classrooms on every LASD elementary school campus? If we're focusing on how to work together, let's see if we can figure out how to raise enough money to eliminate them all, rather than just for BCS.

For the record, I don't believe BCS supporters are devil worshipers.

So let's work together.

Given that you intend to close at least one, if not two campuses in the near future, has anybody over there thought of what to do with the "refugees"? You know, all of the kids' lives you will turn upside down when you kick them out of the school that they love? Remember them?

I mean, clearly they deserve what they get, given what LASD did to the millionaire founders of BCS, but do you have any mercy at all?

I'm pondering this myself. I'll spend my every last dime in donations and will offer my time to try to stop my child's school from closing, but I'm realistic: money trumps democracy sometimes, and the BCS has a lot of it (for everything except building a campus of their own that is).

So where will my child go?

BCS is, of course, out of the question: they "lock in" their kids from kindergarten with the the mandatory Mandarin class and other idiosyncrasies. Any child past 2nd grade wouldn't stand a chance at fitting in. I suspect this is by design.

Private? Probably. There will be a line a mile long after BCS does their work, but we're fortunate to at least have that option. I don't know about my children's classmates though. I guess they'll get bussed across town to a double-packed school somewhere.

It will be very, very sad and terrible unless we can, you know, "work together" and you can decide NOT to come close our schools.

I await your suggestions.

Excuse me? Why is that all the kids in the Crossings and 49 Showers go to Covington then? I know it's not a rationale way to draw lines (but LASD has never been rationale when it comes to attendance boundaries). I'm frankly not concerned about property values... I've heard 40% of the Hills children go to private schools anyway. If the Gardner families REALLY value their community, then swapping campuses should be a viable option they should push for. (Do they really value their home values more than their kids? I don't believe that for a minute.) The problem you have is the math. There is no way any court is going to look at 280 students on 10 acres and 450 on less than 6 and say that's fair.

you'll have to change your tag on the quote... i don't have a kid at bcs... change your tag to "school reform supporter"... i at least have a bit of objectivity which you are clearly lacking. suggest you take a deep breath and get a life. be thankful that ALL the schools here are good whether you choose LASD or BCS. Be thankful for the fact that our teachers have the curriculum they want to use, books for every child, more computers per child than 90% of the districts in this country, and an education to be envied (regardless of whether they are at an LASD school or BCS).
I'm working to make sure that ALL kids get this...and like it or not, sometimes reform has to start where parents can afford to stand up for their rights. Wish you could have seen how charter schools all up and down California were celebrating when this ruling came out.
Have at it Mr. Barton--unfortunately, the courts have already ruled.

Mr. Barton, BCS takes in 10 or 15 4th graders every year (i'm not sure of the exact number but I know it's pretty big) when class size increases. My neighbors joined at this point two years back... their 1st grader went at the same time. I'll say again.. you've built a great school... just swap the campuses... you'll only have to drive a little bit further. If the school is so great, and the community so strong, why is driving such an issue... the vast majority of GB kids cannot walk to school anyways.

All I know is that my children's school is under attack. It will be closed unless we do something to stop it.

It will be closed by people who are really angry that that their school was closed a long long time ago.

Yes, it's totally insane, but that's what we have to deal with in our town.

I wonder, if you did a spot poll, how many parents would say, "oh I don't mind that" when you told them that their local public school will soon be CLOSED.

The BCS people would tell you "none at all" or just one crazy person like me since
"normal" people couldn't care less about such a thing.

That's why there's only one of us. Harold Barton is the same person as Alfred Binnetti who is the same person as hundreds of other parents. Actually I have pseudonyms for several thousand parents and Los Altos residents who all purport to be against a private take-over of our school system. They are all me.

In reality, all of the LASD parents are absolutely going to LOVE that their school will be closed and that they now need to drive across town to a more crowded campus. They won't mind that the school they worked so hard to perfect will now be demolished by a bunch of well-connected rich people and their lawyers.

Keep thinking that. Don't worry. See you in court. See you in the papers. Look forward to the WHOLE WORLD getting to see what you are doing to one of the best school districts in the country.