Los Altos Town Crier - Letters to the Editor

1"badly misinformed"
at Friday, 14 December 2012 12:23by BCS parent

Charter schools, like BCS, are tuition free public schools. and BCS follows ed code 220 in not discriminating against any students or staff on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. No one claimed that BCS is vilified for receiving public funds, bur rather that there is a lack of understanding in the community around the difference between charter schools and traditional public schools, and how each are governed. Ms. Rattner's letter demonstrates this lack of understanding and is mean spirited to boot. There is nothing remotely private about BCS. BCS is a public school that LASD families choose for their children because the instructional approach at BCS is vastly different, and many feel their children, including special needs children, will do better with BCS individualized learning approach. This is why school choice is important, one type of public school is not best for all. Public school choice helps more children succeed.

2Comment
at Friday, 14 December 2012 13:19by bcs parent

Further, I am not sure Ms. Rattner is aware that BCS students receive 60 cents in public funds to every dollar other LASD students receive, even though 95% of BCS students are LASD students. And that BCS students do not receive reasonably equivalent facilities by a long shot -the Santa Rita Mom's came out in force last week complaining at the board meeting that they would NEVER want THEIR children at the BCS campus.We are at BCS because of the amazing programs, but we can see it is very challenging for the teachers when there isn't sufficient space.The staff room often doubles as a class room or a meeting room. We make it work, but to say we want more than our fair share demonstrates a complete disconnect from reality.The LASD Board of Trustees continues to give BCS as little as they think they can get by with. Power doesn''t share willingly, it never has.Those that currently enjoy more resources don't want to share fairly amongst all public kids. Makes sense, but is it fair or r

3"BCS Lies & Corrections"
at Saturday, 15 December 2012 00:28by Joan J. Strong

1. Tuition: BCS must get, somehow, on average of at least $5000/child per year from parents to maintain the school.

2. Discrimination: there has been testimony filed in court alleging BCS discriminates. BCS calls out no extra spending on Spec. Ed. whereas LASD calls out 7.5 million.

3. Private: BCS gains over half of its revenue from private sources; BCS is governed by a private board of directors.

4. Not different: BCS has virtually the same test scores as LASD; BCS programs are very similar overall to LASD when you clear away the marketing hype.

5. Choice: parents choosing to thwart a school district does not help the cause of education.

6. Funding: BCS has less funding needs and thus gets less public funding. BCS still spends almost twice as much per typical student.

7. Power: the founding family of BCS gave Caltech $600 million dollars. Money is no object there. They are doing what they are doing out of spite and sacrificing BCS students to do so.

4Comment
at Monday, 17 December 2012 09:36by BCS badly informed

1. BCS does NOT fairly and adequately accommodate underprivileged and special needs children.

2. BCS came very close to having its charter NOT renewed.

3. BCS parents are not well informed because their board is unelected and feeds them biased reports.

4. BCS has very many characteristics of a private school. This was summarized by the latest judge's ruling that BCS would like the very best for its students, but at taxpayer expense. But that BCS is only entitled to reasonably equivalent facilities from the public school district.

For further background supporting the points above,
please read the following report from one of the Santa Clara County school board members:

http://losaltos.patch.com/ar ticles/sharp-criticism-pointed-at-bullis -charter-school

Or this article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

http://www.bloomberg.co m/news/2011-11-15/taxpayers-billed-for-m illionaires-kids-at-charter-school.html

5Comment
at Monday, 17 December 2012 09:35by Another BCS article

Here is another similar article:

http://www.kpao.org/2011/10/ anna-song-and-buffy-poon-emails-re-bulli s-charter-school.html

6Comment
at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 08:36by bcs parent

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please acknowledge it is such. BCS parents are not ill informed, they read all the same local news as the rest of the community and are in general very well informed on education issues. Please refrain from denigrating your neighbors and community members in this way, it is not helpful or respectful. BCS's charter was approved 5 to 2, not as you characterize. There are two pieces of information that might be helpful for you - one is a letter to the SCCOE clarifying some of the false issues that have been raised against BCS - it's posted here and it's dated 10/5/11: http://www.bullischarterschool.com/Page/ 318. Second, the claims made by anti charter groups within LASD mirror those made by anti charter groups across the country, they are nothing new, they are using the same script. Here's some FAQs on these anti charter myths and why they dont hold water: http://www.calcharters.org/understanding /faqs/myths.html

7"Charter Debate Balance"
at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 15:14by Joan J. Strong

Since the above BCS parent felt the need to deposit charter school industry propaganda here, here's some info to provide some balance.

Diana Ravitch was one of the founders of the charter school movement. Three years ago she reversed her stance on charter schools after seeing the wreckage they have caused across the country:

http://www.nybooks.com/artic les/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-sc hools/

While BCS has almost nothing to do with *real* charter schools (which were never, in a million years, meant to serve as discount private schools), the charter school movement itself is in serious question and there has been a growing backlash in the last three years since Ravitch published her book.

Fifty years ago parents in the USA had "choice": they freely created racially segregated schools. The Supreme Court ended this, and I suspect it won't be long before they stop charter schools as well.

Charter schools don't innovate, they segregate.

8Comment
at Wednesday, 19 December 2012 09:11by Interesting Link

Very Interesting article at the link in Comment 5 above.

Especially when the Santa Clara County School Board member said:

Would it be hard for you to believe that I’ve actually had numerous people (some elected officials included) challenge me directly in ever so blunt words like “How can you let those rich people who can afford to send their kids to private schools take away public funding?” And every time, my response to them was, “If you can’t justify discriminating against the poor, you cannot justify discriminating against the rich either. And by the way, the rich pay taxes too.”

We reserve the right to use comments submitted on our site in whole or in part. We will not publish comments that contain inappropriate content, advertising or website links to inappropriate content.

Columnist’s analysis applauded

Post Comment

Written by Los Altos Town Crier
Wednesday, 12 December 2012

So much for transparency I should have guessed as much. It’s amazing that under the leadership of Los Altos’ recently termed-out mayor, our city council has learned to model the behavior of our federal government: profess transparency and civility but remain nontransparent. The long wait for the release of the memo describing the interest in First and Main is only one example. What else is there? Tanya De Mare Los Altos Housing survey disregards area, quality Referring to the Town Crier article’s on relative house prices, based on a Coldwell Banker report (“Report lists Los Altos as priciest real estate market,” Dec. 5), the trouble with so many such reports is that they are based on insufficient criteria. This report does not take into account the area and quality of the house. I imagine that four-bedroom houses in Los Altos have an area significantly bigger than those in Redford, Mich., and that they also have reasonably modern kitchens and are built on larger lots. Too often surveys and studies only discover correlations and not cause and effect. John Watney Los Altos BCS seeks more than its fair share In his Nov. 28 column (“Bullis Charter School: Mission-focused accountability”), John Phelps, a member of the Bullis Charter School Board of Directors, seems to suggest that the charter school is an asset to our community, but his arguments fail to make the case. His first argument is that the charter school is a nonprofit governed by a mission-driven board. So what? Nonprofit status doesn’t make it comparable to a food bank or a community foundation. Bullis Charter School is more comparable to a private school, whereby the donors and recipients are the same individuals. Phelps asserts that the charter school’s outcomes are favorable in comparison to public schools. So what? The student population at Bullis Charter School resembles that of private schools. Disabilities must be mild enough not to require special services. Therefore, the charter school’s student outcomes must be compared only to those of private schools. Phelps says that Bullis Charter School uses best teaching practices and fulfills its mission. So what? All Los Altos School District schools are high performing and fulfill their missions. The teaching strategies at the charter school are identical to the best practices implemented throughout the district. The only differences at Bullis Charter School are not in quality, but in private-school-like benefits, such as afternoon music offerings, foreign-language enrichment and trips to Europe. Phelps imagines that Bullis Charter School is vilified because it receives public funding. That’s nonsense. Many private schools receive public funding. The difference is, decent schools do not try to get funds/facilities for themselves by taking away what belongs to existing schools. Decent schools do not try to destroy or displace others to grab more than their fair share. Bullis Charter School supporters who feel despised in the community might look at their sense of entitlement, incessant lawsuits, unwillingness to compromise and obnoxious grandstanding. I don’t think the public becoming better informed about the charter school’s mission-driven success is going to make a dent in that unfavorable perception. Sheryl Rattner Los Altos Columnist’s analysis applauded How I applaud Allyson Johnson’s genuinely informative and detailed linguistic analysis of Xin Hua’s reporting of President Barack Obama’s victory speech (“Lost in translation,” Dec. 5). Perhaps the Chinese readership in the People’s Republic of China did not receive a clear picture of the political process in the U.S., but we readers of the Town Crier benefited from a helpful glimpse of theirs. Wallis Leslie Los Altos Hills 8 Comments 1"badly misinformed" at Friday, 14 December 2012 12:23by BCS parent Charter schools, like BCS, are tuition free public schools. and BCS follows ed code 220 in not discriminating against any students or staff on the basis of race, gender, disability, age, religion, nationality or sexual orientation. No one claimed that BCS is vilified for receiving public funds, bur rather that there is a lack of understanding in the community around the difference between charter schools and traditional public schools, and how each are governed. Ms. Rattner's letter demonstrates this lack of understanding and is mean spirited to boot. There is nothing remotely private about BCS. BCS is a public school that LASD families choose for their children because the instructional approach at BCS is vastly different, and many feel their children, including special needs children, will do better with BCS individualized learning approach. This is why school choice is important, one type of public school is not best for all. Public school choice helps more children succeed. 2Comment at Friday, 14 December 2012 13:19by bcs parent Further, I am not sure Ms. Rattner is aware that BCS students receive 60 cents in public funds to every dollar other LASD students receive, even though 95% of BCS students are LASD students. And that BCS students do not receive reasonably equivalent facilities by a long shot -the Santa Rita Mom's came out in force last week complaining at the board meeting that they would NEVER want THEIR children at the BCS campus.We are at BCS because of the amazing programs, but we can see it is very challenging for the teachers when there isn't sufficient space.The staff room often doubles as a class room or a meeting room. We make it work, but to say we want more than our fair share demonstrates a complete disconnect from reality.The LASD Board of Trustees continues to give BCS as little as they think they can get by with. Power doesn''t share willingly, it never has.Those that currently enjoy more resources don't want to share fairly amongst all public kids. Makes sense, but is it fair or r 3"BCS Lies & Corrections" at Saturday, 15 December 2012 00:28by Joan J. Strong 1. Tuition: BCS must get, somehow, on average of at least $5000/child per year from parents to maintain the school. 2. Discrimination: there has been testimony filed in court alleging BCS discriminates. BCS calls out no extra spending on Spec. Ed. whereas LASD calls out 7.5 million. 3. Private: BCS gains over half of its revenue from private sources; BCS is governed by a private board of directors. 4. Not different: BCS has virtually the same test scores as LASD; BCS programs are very similar overall to LASD when you clear away the marketing hype. 5. Choice: parents choosing to thwart a school district does not help the cause of education. 6. Funding: BCS has less funding needs and thus gets less public funding. BCS still spends almost twice as much per typical student. 7. Power: the founding family of BCS gave Caltech $600 million dollars. Money is no object there. They are doing what they are doing out of spite and sacrificing BCS students to do so. 4Comment at Monday, 17 December 2012 09:36by BCS badly informed 1. BCS does NOT fairly and adequately accommodate underprivileged and special needs children. 2. BCS came very close to having its charter NOT renewed. 3. BCS parents are not well informed because their board is unelected and feeds them biased reports. 4. BCS has very many characteristics of a private school. This was summarized by the latest judge's ruling that BCS would like the very best for its students, but at taxpayer expense. But that BCS is only entitled to reasonably equivalent facilities from the public school district. For further background supporting the points above, please read the following report from one of the Santa Clara County school board members: http://losaltos.patch.com/ar ticles/sharp-criticism-pointed-at-bullis -charter-school Or this article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek: http://www.bloomberg.co m/news/2011-11-15/taxpayers-billed-for-m illionaires-kids-at-charter-school.html 5Comment at Monday, 17 December 2012 09:35by Another BCS article Here is another similar article: http://www.kpao.org/2011/10/ anna-song-and-buffy-poon-emails-re-bulli s-charter-school.html 6Comment at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 08:36by bcs parent You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please acknowledge it is such. BCS parents are not ill informed, they read all the same local news as the rest of the community and are in general very well informed on education issues. Please refrain from denigrating your neighbors and community members in this way, it is not helpful or respectful. BCS's charter was approved 5 to 2, not as you characterize. There are two pieces of information that might be helpful for you - one is a letter to the SCCOE clarifying some of the false issues that have been raised against BCS - it's posted here and it's dated 10/5/11: http://www.bullischarterschool.com/Page/ 318. Second, the claims made by anti charter groups within LASD mirror those made by anti charter groups across the country, they are nothing new, they are using the same script. Here's some FAQs on these anti charter myths and why they dont hold water: http://www.calcharters.org/understanding /faqs/myths.html 7"Charter Debate Balance" at Tuesday, 18 December 2012 15:14by Joan J. Strong Since the above BCS parent felt the need to deposit charter school industry propaganda here, here's some info to provide some balance. Diana Ravitch was one of the founders of the charter school movement. Three years ago she reversed her stance on charter schools after seeing the wreckage they have caused across the country: http://www.nybooks.com/artic les/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-sc hools/ While BCS has almost nothing to do with real charter schools (which were never, in a million years, meant to serve as discount private schools), the charter school movement itself is in serious question and there has been a growing backlash in the last three years since Ravitch published her book. Fifty years ago parents in the USA had "choice": they freely created racially segregated schools. The Supreme Court ended this, and I suspect it won't be long before they stop charter schools as well. Charter schools don't innovate, they segregate. 8Comment at Wednesday, 19 December 2012 09:11by Interesting Link Very Interesting article at the link in Comment 5 above. Especially when the Santa Clara County School Board member said: Would it be hard for you to believe that I’ve actually had numerous people (some elected officials included) challenge me directly in ever so blunt words like “How can you let those rich people who can afford to send their kids to private schools take away public funding?” And every time, my response to them was, “If you can’t justify discriminating against the poor, you cannot justify discriminating against the rich either. And by the way, the rich pay taxes too.” Post Comment Email (will not be published) Name Title Comment remaining characters Post We reserve the right to use comments submitted on our site in whole or in part. We will not publish comments that contain inappropriate content, advertising or website links to inappropriate content.