KPAO by Dave Cortright

Bullis Charter School has a very weak case for demanding a single site from LASD

While the disagreement between LASD and BCS over acreage and square footage has been resolved (I hope!) by the recent court judgement, it looks like we are moving onto another disagreement: whether LASD can legally split BCS' school across two sites. LASD's facilities offer to BCS for 2012-13 places their elementary classes at one site (Egan) and their middle school classes at another (Blach). It is important to note that LASD traditional students are split in this exact manner.

BCS prefers a single site for their entire school, and they claim that the use of the word "contiguous" in charter law mandates they be given one. It appears they feel so strongly about this they are willing take LASD to court again. But if they do, they should be prepared to lose. They have a very weak case here.

First, there is this gem from the Ridgecrest decision (F045114): "We do not hold that section 47614 establishes an inflexible 'single site' rule." BCS cites freely from F045114 to support it's position, but strangely they have never cited this particular sentence.

Next, section 11969.2(d) of CA Ed. Code states "As used in Education Code section 47614(b), facilities are 'contiguous' if they are contained on the school site or immediately adjacent to the school site. If the in-district average daily classroom attendance of the charter school cannot be accommodated on any single school district school site, contiguous facilities also includes facilities located at more than one site, provided that the school district shall minimize the number of sites assigned and shall consider student safety."

The core conflict comes down to the interpretation of this phrase: "If the in-district average daily classroom attendance [ADA] of the charter school cannot be accommodated on any single school district school site". LASD claims this statement is true; there is no single school district site that can accommodate BCS' ADA. I agree with them. LASD does not have an integrated K-8 school, and thus there is no single site in the district that can safely accommodate the needs of such a program (e.g. has both a kindergarten play area and middle school science lab) without requiring modification.

CA education code 11969.3(a)(1) states "...The district is not obligated to pay for the modification of an existing school site to accommodate the charter school's grade level configuration."

So while one of the existing sites could be modified to accommodate an integrated K-8 program, LASD is exercising their legal right to not do so. I'm sure BCS will claim that LASD needn't to pay for the modifications; "Just give us the site and we'll happily pay for the modifications!" Yes, I have no doubt they would. But that doesn't change the fact that LASD is not required to allow any modifications to any site to accommodate BCS, as long as BCS can be accommodated in existing facilities without modification. And to be clear, they can.

CA education code 47614(b) states: "Each school district shall make available, to each charter school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school's in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other public schools of the district..."

In LASD, students are accommodated on one school site for elementary grades, and on a second distinct site for middle school grades. Splitting BCS in the same way ensures BCS students are accommodated in the same way. There is nothing in charter law that mandates that the school district provide to a charter school special facilities that deviate from the ones the district provides for traditional school students, regardless of what the charter's curriculum states.

FInally, I think it is important to point out that the current situation was entirely preventable, and BCS is at least partially to blame for where we are today. With all the rigorous planning and logistics that went into adding an integrated middle school, it is an egregious oversight that no one from BCS or SCCOE bothered talking to LASD to see if the district could accommodate an integrated K-8 program on a single site.

If BCS would swallow their pride here and admit they made a mistake, I would have a lot more sympathy for their plight. But thus far I've only seen indignant entitlement. This is an archetypal example of why the BCS/LASD situation has been so divisive.

I am pro-charter school, provided the charter school fully complies with charter law

From: Dave Cortright
To: Santa Clara County Board of Education
Cc: Santa Clara County Superintendant and Staff
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:04 AM
Subject: I am pro-charter school, provided the charter school fully complies with charter law

Members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education,

I was dismayed by an email exchange I had with Julia Hoover-Smoot yesterday in which she said I was "eager to defend the status quo in our world of education". Let me clearly and emphatically state that is not true. I recognize there are problems in public education. Since both my father and mother each worked 30+ years as public school teachers (high school math and speech therapy respectively), I was in a unique environment to see this first-hand growing up.

I also recognize the value of charter schools. They empower parents to act and make things better in a system that historically not allowed that. While I advocate identifying and fixing the root issues in our traditional public schools foremost, I still believe charter schools have their place.

However, charter schools are still public schools. While they are afforded more freedoms than traditional public school counterparts, there are still laws that must be followed. I assert that Bullis Charter school is not following charter law in several key areas (47601(b) and 47605(d) most notably). And the thing that troubles me the most is that SCCOE seems unconcerned by this. If you were to present solid, incontrovertible evidence to counter my assertions, I would be satisfied. But I have seen neither that, nor any significant action on your part to redress these legal deficiencies. So I persevere.

I apologize that I have not previously made my position clear. I hope this letter rectifies that. If you have any other doubts about me or my views, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. I am always here to talk to you. This issue is a priority.

Thank you for listening. And please stay tuned; there is much more to come.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright

Revising the Bullis charter to remove the geographic admissions preference would NOT allow any additional revisions

Here is another update from Kelly Toshach on the issue of removing the geographic admissions preference from the Bullis charter petition.

My take: It speaks volumes that—despite the repeated assurances of their own chartering authority—BCS still does not trust them. This is a clear symptom of the dysfunctional relationship between BCS and SCCOE.

Also, if anyone has any solid evidence of those "horror stories in other counties", please post them in the comments here, or anywhere else where the community can see. Without evidence, I must dismiss this claim as fear-mongering.

---

Kelly Toshach said:

Last week I posted a message to the LASDVoices Facebook page regarding the process to remove the geographical preference at BCS:

Many BCS parents on this list have mentioned a concern that removing the geographical preference would jeopardize the charter itself, and this appears not to be the case. I inquired about this issue with Dr. Weis, Superintendent of SCCOE. He confirmed that removal of the geographical preference would require a material revision of the charter. However, this action wouldn't expose the existing charter to any risk. BCS would submit the material revision (removing the geographical preference), and only the revision itself would be subject to approval or denial. If the revision was approved, the preference would simply be removed. If the revision was not approved, the charter would continue on as it is defined today. So according to Dr. Weis, BCS could submit a material revision removing the geographical preference at any time without exposing itself to any consequences.

One community member had this to say:

Dr. Weis unfortunately cannot guarantee this. Once the charter is "opened," the County board can choose to do whatever they want. There are horror stories in other counties of circumstances like this. Given the current tenor of the community, I cannot imagine BCS would take a chance like that.

I wrote to Dr. Weis seeking further clarification. He continues to state that there is no risk of other changes to the BCS charter if BCS submits for a material revision to remove the preference.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Charles Weis
To: Kelly Toshach
Subject: RE: Material Revision to remove geographical preference
Date: March 27, 2012 5:14:44 PM PDT

Dear Kelly,

A material revision is a request to change a portion of the charter school's petition. There is no option for the authorizing Board to "open" any other portion of the petition when a material revision is brought to the Board. Authorizing Boards cannot unilaterally generate a material revision to a charter petition.

Chuck Weis

Charles Weis, Ph.D.
County Superintendent of Schools
Santa Clara County Office of Education
1290 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95131-2304
Ph.: 408.453.6511
charles_weis@sccoe.org

Dave or David? It really doesn't matter

Many people I meet for the first time are baffled that I don't really have a preference between being called "Dave" or "David". I went by "David" for most of my life. Then when I started working at Microsoft in the late 90s, the IT deparment there assigned me the email ID "davecort". This was the techie equivalent of immigrants getting assigned an Americanized name at Ellis Island. At Microsoft, your email ID was effectively your name. We sent so much email to each other, that was the primary name that we associated with each other, and our digital habits carried over into meatspace. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer were always called "Bill Gee" and "Steve Bee" after their email IDs: billg and steveb.

Fast forward to 2008 and I was helping with the product vision and design for a company (Nombray) helping people manage their personal online identity. Working on that project I found another David Cortright out there who already had a reasonable web presence. Rather than competing with him for Google juice, I simply decided to go by Dave Cortright for my online identity.

My middle name is the same as my grandfather's. After Social Security was established in the 30s, every citizen had to get a card. My grandfather sent in his application with his name full name written out: "Maynard Channing Cortright". Channing was a maternal family name. His card came back, and either through poor handwriting, poor reading, or some combination of the two, the name on the card was "Maynard Stanning Cortright". He never bothered to correct it. And thus was born a new family name thanks to a transcription error at the Social Security office.

Case No 109CV144569 judgement: Bullis Charter vs. Los Altos School District

Case No 109CV144569 California superior court judgement was handed down on Friday, March 23, 2012. Linda Baxley posted it to the LASD Voices blog yesterday and gave a high-level summary of the key points. Here's my take.

There is a section of "declaratory relief" about how the 2009-10 facilities offer was not reasonably equivalent. "Declaratory relief" means there are no reparations. Insead it sets precedent that will apply to any future conflicts between the parties.

There are also 4 points upon which the judge ruled that LASD did not violate Proposition 39. Similar to the section above, no action is mandated.

The really interesting parts are the specific items the court is now requiring LASD to do for any Prop 39 facilities offers going forward. I count seven of them:

1. LASD must give more acreage to BCS in order to bring its overall footprint closer to that of comparison sites.
2. LASD must account for all indoor and outdoor spaces—regardless of how they are used—at the comparison sites in its analysis.
3. LASD must use actual measurements of indoor and outdoor spaces at comparison sites in its analysis.
4. LASD must properly amortize shared space/facilities (e.g. by comparing how much time/week BCS students have access vs. how much time/week traditional students have access).
5. The multi-purpose room must be omitted from analysis. BCS bought this with their own funds.
6. LASD must provide indoor space for child care facilities, an amphitheater, and possibly other specialized spaces that commonly exist at comparison sites.
7. LASD must provide specific sharing details (e.g. days and times) in the facilities offer saying when exactly BCS will have access to shared facilities and for how long.

Finally, "Bullis is awarded its costs of suit" means that LASD picks up the tab for things such as filing fees; it's a small amount. As Doug Smith clarified, this does not include attorney fees. That point is still up for debate at a hearing in May.

There is nothing in there that mandates a single site. There is also nothing in there that mandates a minimum site size.

It's all good, fair and reasonable guidance. I have renewed faith in our legal system. Thank you Honorable Patricia M. Lucas. You have served the public well with this judgement.

SMART goal for updating Bullis Charter School's chartering authority by 2017

From: Dave Cortright
To:  Santa Clara County Office of Education
Cc: Santa Clara County Superintendent and Staff
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: This is why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS

Below I have included an edited exchange that Grace Mah and I had on this issue earlier today.

But the main for this follow-up is that in my haste to send this message out last night, I neglected to include the most important part: the call to action. I assert that the current three-party management structure comprising SCCOE, LASD, and BCS is untenable. So I offer you this SMART goal as a strawman for addressing this issue.

By the end of 2017, there must be only one chartering authority for Bullis Charter School (BCS) who is responsible for all aspects of BCS' operation, including (but not limited to) administration, curriculum, and facilities.

Here are a few suggestions for ways to accomplish this goal (but there could be other solutions that would work as well):

1. Have BCS become a true district charter under the full authority of LASD, absolving SCCOE of all direct responsibilities.
2. Have BCS become a true county charter under the full authority of SCCOE, absolving LASD of all direct responsibilities.
3. Have BCS become a true state-wide charter under the full authority of the Charter Schools Division in the California Department of Education, absolving both SCCOE and LASD of all direct responsibilities.
4. Decline to renew BCS' charter.

Thanks again for listening. I'll be in touch again soon, I promise. :-)
·Dave

---

Conversation with Grace Mah on Bullis funding and facilities

Fight the good fight every moment...

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

The days grow shorter and the nights are getting long
Feels like we're running out of time
Every day it seems much harder tellin' right from wrong
You got to read between the lines

Don't get discouraged, don't be afraid, we can
Make it through another day
Make it worth the price we pay 

The Good Book says it's better to give than to receive
I do my best to do my part
Nothin' in my pockets I got nothin' up my sleeve
I keep my magic in my heart 

Keep up your spirit, keep up your faith, baby
I am counting on you
You know what you've got to do 

Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way 

All your life you've been waiting for your chance
Where you'll fit into the plan
But you're the master of your own destiny
So give and take the best that you can 

You think a little more money will buy your soul some rest
You'd better think of something else instead
You're so afraid of being honest with yourself
You'd better take a look inside your head 

Nothing is easy, nothing good is free
But I can tell you where to start
Take a look inside your heart
There's an answer in your heart 

Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay

Every moment of your lifetime
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay

Conversation with Grace Mah on Bullis funding and facilities

From: Grace Mah 
To: Dave Cortright
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:33 AM
Subject: RE: This is why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your message. I understand now that LASD is not allowed to give any part of the parcel tax to BCS by the legal binding language of the parcel tax.

However, I was wondering what your opinion is of the LASD board’s general statement that “what LASD needs is a 10^th campus” and that to get there, LASD will need to pass a bond. There was a lot of agreement at the LASD 3/19 board meeting about that. I found it really interesting.

What is your opinion of the Covington co-location proposal?

Grace

---

From: Dave Cortright 
To: Grace Mah
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: This is why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS

Grace,

Responding at 4:30 am. That is also impressive! I do want to say up front that you have no idea how proud I am of both you and Anna for having the fortitude to stand up to BCS and demand better from them. I completely understand that the expedient thing to do is to simply approve—despite your reservations—so you can move onto other things. You didn't, and has someone who has publicly stood up to BCS the past 6 months and said "you can do better", I have first-hand experience of how difficult it is. But I persevere in part because you and Anna have shown me that change is possible here. This is what I sent to Anna 6 months ago. As someone who stands with Anna, it applies equally well to you, Grace:

Some have asked why SCCOE has suddenly heard so much of the problems and issues with Bullis Charter School only within the month leading up to their charter renewal and so little before. The answer is simple (at least for me): it was you, Anna. Our community had thought that the BCS issue was a lost cause. We thought that our voices hadn't been heard for 8 years, and so we had all given up and moved on. It didn't feel like it was worth it to voice our dissent anymore. Your letter showed that there was still some rational and critical discussion to be had regarding BCS. That is why you've heard all that you have the past month. Your letter was the catalyst; it has given us hope and strength and courage to speak out for what we believe in.

So yes, the parcel tax cannot be legally shared. However, I didn't include that in my letter because I think the point I made is an even stronger justification and I didn't want to distract from it. Both Waldorf and Pinewood are both alternative schools with unique curricula located in Los Altos that educate children who have opted out of LASD. I feel that by your logic, if should LASD give additional funds to BCS, then they also should to Waldorf and Pinewood.

My take is that the district is already operating a 10th campus, and has done so throughout BCS' existence. It just happens to be carved out from one of the other 9. Yes, the Egan and Bullis campuses are adjacent, but they are not the same. LASD simply needs to continue to build out this 10th campus to support BCS as they grow. Ideally, the 10th campus would be entirely self-sufficient and thus would not require facilities sharing. But given that BCS now has a middle school, I'm not sure how likely that is. Does it really make sense for LASD to invest in all the required (and expensive!) specialized middle school facilities when BCS has such a small, unproven middle school program?

LASD does not need to pass a bond. They simply need to redistribute their existing assets. LASD could sell the land BCS is currently occupying to acquire a different property on which to establish a physically distinct 10th site. The best location for this would be somewhere on the north/east side of El Camino Real where student growth is biggest. Rumor has it the Target store is closing and that plot of land would be absolutely perfect.

I think the Covington+Egan arrangement is even worse than the current Egan+Blach proposal. We will end up with essentially the same situation (BCS split across 2 campuses and unhappy about it) with additional costs to move the current BCS facilities over, and additional disruption to Covington. It would be nice for the Egan folks to get a break, but all we're doing is moving the problem to a different location; we're not really solving it.

This is why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS

From: Dave Cortright 
To: Santa Clara County Board of Education
Cc: Santa Clara County Superintendent and Staff
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:08 PM
Subject: This is why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS

Members of the Santa Clara County Board of Education,

I hope you aren't yet tired of hearing from me. I have a list of a half a dozen letters I intend to send to you, and each day brings new information (such as the #4 Superintendent Report) which ultimately lead to more letters. Settle in and get comfy; we are collectively in for a long ride here.

6 months in, and I have a much better grasp on the situation of charter schools in general, and my own community charter BCS in particular. I do want to thank you and the staff at SCCOE for their patience and help with this. I understand you are all busy, and that BCS is just one small fraction of what you oversee. It means a lot that you are not dismissive of my questions and concerns (well, most of you at least; Harry S. Truman fans excluded).

And so I would like to come back to a point brought up by Grace Mah in an email she sent to me Oct 8, 2011 (a Saturday! Truly a committed public representative):

I am concerned about the perspective of BCS detractors who say that BCS is attempting to steal money from LASD. If all of the students at BCS are LASD children, then is there an ethical obligation to share a part of the parcel tax and other LASD funding with BCS? BSC is a public school, their parents support the local school district financially. I don’t understand why LASD can’t mete out some percentage of the parcel tax to BCS.

There are several reasons why LASD cannot give money to BCS to support it's curriculum, but here is the simplest one: LASD are not BCS' chartering authority; you are. As BCS' chartering authority, you have complete oversight of BCS' curriculum. Conversely, LASD has absolutely no oversight of BCS' curriculum. They are merely BCS' landlord. They are required to give BCS reasonably equivalent facilities—and in fact can do naught but that—so that is what they do.

Don't get me wrong, LASD wants to be the chartering authority for BCS. Yes, in the beginning LASD did not believe that BCS had a sound plan for their school, and thus rejected the charter. But I think we can all agree that BCS has since proven its worth. LASD has been clear as of late that they would much prefer to be BCS' chartering authority than to remain in this awkward and complex situation that includes coordination (or lack thereof) among three school boards rather than just two. I note also that President Di Salvo has been quoted publicly saying, "My hope is that, when up for reauthorization in 2017, Bullis will go to the Los Altos School District to become its independent charter." So it appears that of the three boards, BCS is the only one who prefers the current arrangement. Fascinating. I wonder why that is?

Back in 2008 when BCS added—and SCCOE approved—the geographic discrimination for admissions, LASD tried to have a say in the BCS curriculum. It filed a legal petition contesting this clause. Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy determined that LASD had no legal standing to challenge the BCS curriculum and denied the petition, thus setting a clear precedent.

So in essence, Grace Mah is asking LASD—BCS' landlord—to spend its own money on an educational curriculum with which it likely has some significant concerns and over which it has no visibility nor sway. And each dollar spent on BCS means one fewer dollar to be spent on the curriculum of the 4500 traditional students, which the LASD board fully controls. Given that charter law requires vigorous competition between traditional and charter schools, why exactly would LASD do that?

It would be as if a start-up that just received some seed money moved into a new office space. The venture capital firm that invested approaches the landlord and asks that they invest in the company as well. The landlord replies that he already is an investor and advisor to another company ten times bigger, and that he doesn't believe in the vision of the company. But if he's given a seat on the board to influence the company's direction, he'd consider it. And the VC laughs and says "you'll have no say in the direction of the company, but you should invest anyway."

The answer here is quite simple: if BCS wants money from LASD for its curriculum, it MUST become chartered by LASD so the district has influence and can ensure that the money is spent in ways that align with and further the vision of the district. However, as long as SCCOE is the chartering authority for BCS with exclusive oversight of its curriculum, it only seems fair that additional funds to further the BCS vision must come from the county. You have to admit, its an audacious curriculum they have. And you should know: you approved it! Even with the $5000/year "donation" that they HEAVILY encourage parents to make, it still may not be enough. iPads for each student, windsurfing lessons, and field trips to China and Costa Rica don't come cheap. I suggest that you reach deep within your pockets and give generously.

As always, thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

·Dave Cortright

Senator Joe Simitian, my thoughts on AB 360

Senator Simitian,

I wanted you to be aware of this email that I sent to your colleague Assemblyperson Julia Brownley regarding AB 360. If there is anything you can do to help unbundle the Brown and Open Records parts of this bill and get that passed, I would be ever grateful. I am also available to help you in any capacity you wish to achieve this end.

Thank you so much. It has been a pleasure having you as my representative, and I am truly sorry to see you termed out.

Respectfully,
·Dave Cortright