By Sara Ballenger

It was the Santa Clara County Board of Education’s turn to hold a public hearing regarding the Bullis Charter School July 16. This is the first charter school appeal that the county board has heard, according to Bonnie Plummer, assistant superintendent for instructional services at the Santa Clara County Office of Education. The board expects to grant or deny the charter school’s appeal in writing as required by law at its Sept. 3 meeting.

The public hearing is part of the appeal process for the charter petition at the county level. The Los Altos School District Board of Trustees denied the charter May 5.

Efforts to start a charter school came after the district voted to close Bullis-Purrisima School this June. The school was the last K-6 public school in Los Altos Hills. Bullis students were reassigned to Covington School, starting this fall. The district’s Site Disposal Committee has declared the Bullis School site surplus. No decision has been made as to what to do with the site.

Los Altos school board officials originally cited the petition’s lack of program focus, lack of sufficient planning time, lack of familiarity with legal requirements, unrealistic financial and operational plan, lack of necessary expertise and lack of a viable facilities plan.

It is the county’s charge to see whether the district followed procedure, to review the charter petition and to make a recommendation to its board. Both the district and county boards are required by law to view the charter application while asking the following questions: Are the petitioners likely to successfully implement the program? Does the petition demonstrate compliance with the required affirmations in the Education Code? Does the petition contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the required elements of a charter petition?

Both the charter school supporters and the district made presentations to the county board.

Craig Jones of Bullis Charter School and Wanny Hersey, of the Bel Aire Elementary School in Tiburon, who has signed a letter of intent to serve as the principal of the charter school, represented the charter. Superintendent Marge Gratiot and Los Altos School District Board of Trustees President Duane Roberts represented the district.

“Here we are today without a single public school in Los Altos Hills,” Jones told the board. “We believe that something precious is lost without an elementary school in our town. We welcome a dialogue with the county superintendent’s office. We are open to potentially amending the charter and remain open to suggestions on how we can make something the county can oversee and be proud of the product we produce.”

Hersey spoke of being excited to be a part of the charter school and of the vision of the school.

“A principal can bring the actualization of the vision, the opportunity to truly meet the individual needs of students. What excited me was to be able to start from the ground up, bring in exceptional staff, and look at each child in terms of an individual education plan, with goals set annually with the students, parents and staff.”

Jones and Hersey also spoke of a change in the petition, for the charter school to have more of a focus on environmental education.

The charter school stated three major goals for its environmental education: “First, expose our students to more time spent in and learning about their natural environment and teach our students the basic elements of environmental protection and sustainablity; second, show them how they can participate in action intended to preserve the environment; and third, teach our children the power and effectiveness of systems thinking — the ability to see the interconnectedness of communities and actions.”

After the charter presented its environmental education plans to the board, Gratiot stated why the LASD board orginally denied the charter.

“We think the charter school described in the petition will put our students at risk academically. The charter petition contains no description of curriculum or educational program, other than to state it will be based on our district’s curriculum,” Gratiot said to the board. “We believe the attendance preferences outlined in the charter proposal are both discriminatory and illegal.”

Gratiot raised the question about the legality of the signatures collected on the charter petition.

“Although the charter school petitioners were required to submit the original petition to the county for evaluation, they have also proposed some changes in its curriculum and other specifics in response to our board’s denial,” Gratiot said. “To me, that brings into question whether the signatures they received would be valid for such a drastically changed proposal. Those signatures were based on the original petition, which described a conversion school — same site, same curriculum, restricted admission preferences and starting in the fall of 2003.”

According to the district, there are provisions in the Charter School Act of 1992 for reopening a closed school, known as a “conversion” charter school.

This option is available only if petitioners gather signatures from at least 50 percent of teachers from the closed school.

“If this revised proposal does not specify the same site, changes its curriculum emphasis and starts one year later, it is reasonable to assume the signatures on the original petition are no longer valid, as those people were signing up for something that is not going to be offered,” Gratiot said. Both the charter and the county board said their legal counsel will research the matter.

Supporters for both sides of the issue came and spoke during the public comment session.

Parent David Luskin handed the board copies of a parent petition with over 1,200 signatures of concerned district parents.

“These signatures were gathered in one week’s time, as the people learned how the proposed charter school would impact our children educationally, socially and financially,” Luskin said. “The overwhelming results of this petition should clearly demonstrate to this board the level of educated parental opposition to this proposed charter school.”

Charter supporter Ron Haley spoke of the other schools in Los Altos Hills that have closed.

“The record of the Los Altos School Board is to close schools,” Haley said. “We have gone from four to zero in our area.” Los Altos Hills Councilmen Breene Kerr and Dean Warshawsky also spoke in favor of the charter school.

County board members also raised questions after the lengthy public comment session. Most members wanted more detailed information on what the academic program will look like.

“Give us an idea of what the average school day or week would entail,” said board member Margaret Abe-Koga. “Give us the meat on the bones of the curriculum. It would help us make a better decision.”

Among other concerns brought up by board members were the start date and questions such as, Would parents send their child to Covington School for one year, then to the charter? If a student from the Palo Alto Unified School District were to go to the charter school, would they have to transfer back to that district for junior high? Is it legal to specify enrollment preferences? If the curriculum is environmental based but the school must accept a site outside Los Altos Hills, how would that affect the program? Can the charter school prove how it would replicate the district’s curriculum?

The charter school will be working to answer those questions in writing for the board before its Sept. 3 meeting.

If the charter is denied at the county level, petitioners have 180 days to appeal to the state board of education.

Charter supporters have stated their intent to appeal to the state if the charter application is denied by the county.

For more information, logon to the Santa Clara County Office of Education at www.cde.ca. gov.