Bullis proposal needs more balance

While we’re encouraged by the recent diplomatic efforts to reopen the Bullis-Purissima School site and fend off a Los Altos Hills redistricting bid, we ask that all school communities involved look over any proposal carefully before signing on the dotted line.

As we understand it, the current proposal that affected school districts will review prior to a June 8 town council meeting seems to clearly favor Bullis Charter School, not a balanced charter-Los Altos School District use of the site we envision.

We appreciate the town council’s extension on the redistricting deadline. In fact, we think the two sides should negotiate from this point without a town-imposed deadline.

So take your time and get it right. Some numbers in this latest proposal give us pause: a 380-480 projected enrollment figure for the charter school versus a 100-student limit for district programs and not a K-6 school (100 students does not a school make); and an apparent long-term commitment of at least 20 years for the charter school to stay at Bullis as long as the state recognizes the charter.

First, the enrollment figure appears wishful thinking, taking into account those Hills students already happy at schools in Los Altos and Palo Alto. Would they suddenly defect to the charter? Recent history shows the district closed Bullis because it had the smallest enrollment and its facilities and flood-prone grounds were in need of the greatest work.

Second, a long-term lease and no K-6 campus doesn’t seem right for the school district. The charter basically ties up the property with no district control. The charter school exists only because a contingent of town residents wanted their neighborhood school back.

That the charter succeeded is a salute to supporters’ efforts to make it work. But let’s have a balanced campus and see where kids go.

Is the charter concerned about a little competition, as supporters claimed the district was? Is there a concern that residents, their neighborhood school returned, would opt for the district’s conventional K-6 format and abandon the charter?

A balanced plan would either put this scenario to rest or fulfill it. Let’s find out.

Gay parade amounts to pure politics

Someone once said, “Everyone loves a parade.” But what if it’s a parade you feel obligated to have?

That’s a question facing the Los Altos community as its city council prepares to approve a permit for a June 4 parade celebrating gay pride. It’s a subject that has had some unfair broad-brushing of our community as bigoted and backward.

Hindsight is 20-20, but clearly the council’s intention in February to avoid gay pride proclamations backfired. And now, in the spirit of political correctness and damage control, the council is faced with approving a parade that will draw attendees from all over the Bay Area.

Discrimination against anyone in any form is wrong. But this issue seems almost entirely political, and having little to do with addressing problems facing local gay students. These students are far better served through the Community Health Awareness Council’s Outlet program, and by gay-straight alliance groups at the schools.

The fact that this parade, sponsored by the Los Altos Community Foundation, only addresses gay students and will involve those outside the Los Altos community also troubles us. Does this really promote community?

Why recognize one small group? Let us recognize all high school clubs and show that all students are valued. Make it truly hometown. Oh, we already have a parade like that: it’s called Homecoming.

It’s really too bad that the efforts of some fair-minded residents are going into a parade with intentions that ultimately ring hollow at the core. It’s also too bad that downtown businesses will be hurt by downtown street closures set for 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. to accomodate the parade.