By Craig Jones

What is the genesis of the Bullis Charter School movement?

The Bullis Charter School movement was initiated by parents and community members who wanted to form a high-quality, curriculum-rich school that is local, safe and serves the entire town (Los Altos Hills is currently split down the middle between the Los Altos School District and Palo Alto Unified). We were also encouraged by State law, which supports tuition-free charter schools, and the successful charters in many towns with similar demographics, like Pacific Palisades, La Jolla and Santa Rosa.

There has been growing distrust of the Los Altos School District by Bullis parents and community. The LASD raised $100 million in a bond measure promising to renovate our school and never did so. As recently as last November they sought our vote to raise the parcel taxes with the promise of “saving our neighborhood schools,” while keeping secret their plan to close Bullis-Purissima Elementary. There was a complete lack of trust in the intentions of the district. They should have revealed their plans before the vote last November; it is just a question of openness and honesty in government. We realized that the charter school option or the option of creating our own school district were viable approaches to solving this problem. The creation of our own school district will be pursued in the unlikely case the charter is unsuccessful on appeal.

What are the main arguments in favor of a charter school in Los Altos Hills?

First and foremost, a group of parents (100 strong) are willing to substitute hard work and private donations for district overhead and provide our own governance. We will have a school run by the principal instead of the superintendent, so we will have less overhead. Bullis Charter School would serve all the residents of Los Altos Hills and anyone else in the district who chose to attend. It’s voluntary. If we don’t put out a great educational product, no one needs to send their children there.

Second, we are offering a smaller school than the district. They believe 700-plus student elementary schools such as Covington are cost effective. We believe Covington was great as a middle school but not for elementary school. As Education Week reported in its April 28 issue, smaller school size is associated with better education and greater parent-student-teacher interaction. If the district were serious about maximizing financial resources they would rent out Covington and save Bullis and Oak. They have made a different decision, so we need to develop our own school. This is better than the old Bullis because it is available to all in Los Altos Hills.

Third, the parent volunteers and the existence of the Bullis Foundation allow us to tailor the school to the needs and desires of our community. In the charter application we made it clear we will fund smaller class sizes in grades 4-6 than the district. As we become successful at fund-raising, we can pay for and will then pay for P.E., instrumental music, and art. We made it clear we intend to emphasize the natural rural environment in Los Altos Hills to take advantage of our unique geographic setting, history and environmental citizenship. For example, we intend to have many more local field trips to explore the LAH open space and facilities. We intend to use local resources such as the University of California at Santa Cruz extension teacher training in environmental studies and then tie in local government to help our students understand how open space, pathways and other local issues are resolved.

Your movement has been attacked as being a negative to the district financially. The district seems to want to rent out the old Bullis site to a private school. How do you respond to the criticism?

As we have proven, every student in the LASD would have $100 more per-student funding with the charter school than before. This has never been refuted by the district because they cannot. As enrollment declines, the district still gets to keep all the funds from parcel taxes which means the overall per-student funding goes up. The maddeningly contradictory part of the district arguments is that a private school would have exactly the same fiscal impact as a charter school. If parents send their kids to a private school, it reduces the ADA funding (and the associated costs of education), but the district gets to keep the parcel taxes - exactly the same impact as the charter school. Thus the use the district has in mind for the site has the same impact they are complaining about with the charter school.

The district rejected your petition saying it was educationally unsound. How do you respond?

We are adopting the core curriculum of the district, so how can they argue it isn’t educationally sound?

The district also said you are not innovative enough. Response?

Gordon Moore spoke to some of our supporters recently and he said, “In my career in Silicon Valley I have found that innovation comes from competition. One of the best features about the charter school law is it allows for competition with the educational monopoly.” Gordon is a longtime Los Altos Hills resident and his grandchildren are in the district.

The innovation comes from the following six elements: 1. independent governance and independent administration; 2. a school available to everyone in LAH and in the district for the first time; 3. smaller school and class sizes; 4. extracurricular activities funded by the directed foundation; 5. local flavor with special emphasis on the environmental citizenship of kids taught through direct exposure to local ecology, open space, facilities and local government. This school will be different from the district-run schools. We are using the core curriculum as the starting point. The energy and interests of the parents will cause us to evolve from there. Another strong interest is in introducing foreign language and foreign studies earlier in elementary school. Remember, if we don’t produce a great educational product, no one needs to attend.

The district also said the Bullis Charter School application was not financially sound. Response?

That is pure conjecture on their part. The only specific they could point to was that we would need more money for textbooks than we budgeted. O.K., maybe the budget needs a little more money for that, but that is hardly a reason to turn down an application. They indicated that you needed to raise the money before a charter is approved. In almost all cases, it works the other way around. If you look at the financial resources of the parents, it is reasonable to assume that a donation rate can adequately supplement the state funding.

Why is it so important to have a school in Los Altos Hills?

Many Los Altos residents agree that having eight public schools in Los Altos and none in Los Altos Hills bespeaks a rather odd political dynamic. The district has turned its back on us. To preserve the soul of our town, we will bring back public education ourselves. A public school for our youngest students is a common interest.

How much of this battle is due to the fiscal crisis in Sacramento?

This battle is not due to the fiscal crisis. It is due to the district deciding to forgo $500,000 a year in rental income the past several years by kicking out the tenants at Covington, overspending on the renovation and creating a seventh elementary school we did not need. The district said we cannot afford a seventh elementary school. We agree. They should never have created one by renovating Covington and then compounding the error by refusing to rent it out. The district refused to consider rental income as criteria for which school to close despite the advice of the Citizens Advisory Committee for Finance. They knew that objective market-based data would point to renting out Covington as the most fiscally sound move the district could make. Instead they closed Bullis and they are going to close Oak Avenue School next.

Can you ever work in peace with the district?

Yes, once we have the charter, they need to work with us. Unfortunately, we have to go to the county and state to appeal. We knew the district would oppose us before we ever got started. They have used “fiscal impact” to rile up other school parents, never telling them that a private school will have the exact same impact. At least we are keeping the money in public schools. The district would prefer we start a private school, but that would hurt public education more. If they force us to have our own district, that would have a much more severe fiscal impact on the district.