Rocketship crash landing?

In a huge retreat from their ambitious plans, Rocketship charter schools will no longer be opening the 20 new schools they had requested from the SCCBOE.

There's a complete document from the SCCBOE meeting that describes the settlement of a lawsuit brought by a number of school districts that would have been invaded by Rocketship's expansion plans.  One has to wonder whether this large scale retreat is due to the declining scores at a number of Rocketship schools.  In any case, it's a victory for public schools in our area.

SCCOE Agreement

NY Times Article on Success Academy

Author's note: Although I am grateful for the recently signed peace treaty with BCS, I still have concerns about how charter law is structured.  Just as I assume BCS will continue to advocate for what they believe in, I will continue to highlight issues that I believe are important to the education community.  This article shouldn't be interpreted as a specific concern with BCS, but more a concern with the way state and federal laws are structured.

The NY Times presented a piece of Eva Moskowitz, head of the NYC charter chain Success Academy.  You can read the article here.

Diane Ratvich, a former charter advocate and now charter critic, was quoted in the article.  The quotes in the article seemed somewhat benign.  However, Diane has recently posted a follow-up of her own, indicating that the NYT author watered down her comments.  Here's a link to her article.

Whatever the truth is, I believe that the charter model can only be successful if it proves itself on a representative sample of students.  The only way for that to happen is really through conversion charters.  In a  conversion charter, an entire school is converted in place.  That school must admit all students in the area, and must meet all of their needs.  This approach would avoid the question of whether the student body is representative of the wider population.  Then we can gauge the results.  I look forward to seeing peer reviewed articles that look at this type of data.

Advocating for the Overthrow of Local Government

Our situation with our local charter school is fairly unique, so I try not to get too wrapped up in the politics of "The Charter Movement".  However, there are some things that i just can't accept- one of which is advocating that local communities should have no control over how their tax dollars should be spent.  The following is a direct quote from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings' keynote at the California Charter School Association's annual conference:

"Now if we go to the general public and we say, “Here’s an argument why you should get rid of school boards” of course no one’s going to go for that. School boards have been an iconic part of America for 200 years.  So what we have to do is to work with school districts to grow steadily, and the work ahead is really hard because we’re at 8% of students in California, whereas in New Orleans they’re at 90%, so we have a lot of catchup to do"

For just a moment I'll look past the obvious failure of so many schools in Louisiana.  Using them as a model is ridiculous.  But the idea that someone is literally advocating that local communities are not to be trusted to educate their own children?  Who in the hell do these people think they are?  How is it that Hastings thinks he is better qualified to run the Los Altos School District than the people of our own community?

Here's the short highlight from Mr. Hastings' address:


And here's the full address:
http://youtu.be/svJdUUJHq8E

I am the first to acknowledge that not every community has a district as successful as LASD.  However, the fundamental principle that the citizens of this country are best suited to make judgments about how we shall be governed- that exists long before the CCSA or Mr. Hastings ever came along.

Folks, if your goal is to subvert the ability of local citizens to govern their own lives, there are places for that kind of behavior.  Many countries thrive under that system of government.  Just not here.

It's all in your persepctive

I've been thinking a lot about communication lately- how people view problems, and how their perspective impacts the way they view what is being communicated.  In my day job, I run a professional services practice, and this is second nature.  If we communicate the same information to a large number of clients, I know that some clients will react differently based on their own view and how the information is affected by where they are in their respective businesses.  This really came home to me when I watched two of our teams describe their perceptions of the same interaction.  Folks from both sides viewed it through their own specific lens- their role in our organization.

This was interesting, but it became a sort of epiphany this week as I was watching the videos of the first two LASD-BCS negotiation sessions.  For those who are interested in the videos, they can be found here:

Video 1: August 27th meeting
Video 2:  Thursday, August 29th meeting

There's an exchange at the end of the second meeting where BCS Board members are questioning the need for the detailed CEQA study, and LASD Board members are pushing back.  It got me thinking about the different perspectives at the table.

BCS is a charter school.  They are, by definition, not encumbered by most of the regulations that apply to traditional school districts.  Hence, it shouldn't surprise us when BCS board members are skeptical of the detailed process we have to follow.  They don't live in that same world, so they don't have the first-hand experience that compels us to be process-driven on issues like this.

Likewise, their leadership is appointed, not elected.  They feel that their ultimate accountability is whether or not parents choose to enroll students at the school.  This gives them the flexibility to do what the directors feel is right, and then see whether people continue to attend. 

The District operates very differently.  This isn't to say "better"- I'm simply highlighting how our operating environments drive different behaviors. 

LASD is not a charter school, so we have a lot of regulations that apply to us.  It's been estimated that charter schools only have to worry about 25% of the EdCode in California.  That means LASD has 4x the regulations that we deal with every day.  It is no wonder, then, that our institutional memory drives us to follow detailed processes.  That's not to say we don't innovate- we do, and we are very proud of the work that happens in our classrooms.  However, we also have to make sure we keep up with the myriad requirements from the State and Federal Government that are part of our daily existence.

The other piece is that we're an elected board, and we're driven by that connection to the broader community.  As mentioned above, a charter school is more-or-less accountable only to the parents of kids who attend.  LASD has enjoyed an extremely supportive relationship with the entire community- they support parcel taxes and bond measures, parents and community members volunteer as art docents and library assistants and lunch servers, and they participate fully in the process of running our schools.    In order to maintain this support, we are very careful to be extremely open, to include the broad community in all that we do. 

As a simple example, the LASD Blueprint Process intentionally included members of the public and folks who don't have kids in our schools.  When BCS did their strategic planning, they focused on input from existing parents.  The differences in how we operate drives the differences in our behaviors.

I'm not sure where to go with all of this.  It helps me think about their behaviors, and hopefully they'll understand our frame of reference too.  I don't yet know how we can help their board members understand our operating environment (other than continuing to explain it), but I'm going to be thinking about it.  In addressing this difference in our perspectives, we might find a way for us to bridge the gaps in our expectations.

Considering Raynor Site

The Town Crier ran an article today discussing the recent District action to consider the Raynor site in Sunnyvale as a possible location for BCS.  (link to article)  Overall, the article did a pretty good job of explaining the situation.  In a nutshell, Sunnyvale has a parcel available for sale that was a school site back in the 1970's.  LASD is submitting a bid to acquire that site to use as a location for BCS.

Of course, any sentence that includes "LASD" and "BCS" is bound to generate controversy, and this one is no exception.  Before LASD even passed the resolution to do this, the lead BCS attorney threatened to get an injunction to block the action.  BCS has stated that they do not believe it would be legal for LASD to place BCS outside of the District boundaries.

I'd love to be able to say that all laws surrounding charter schools are crystal clear, and that there is no room for doubt or interpretation.  However, this area of the law is relatively new, and as such, the existing laws and regulation require some interpretation.  BCS sees the issue as very "black and white".  However, the District has a different view.  Indeed, even the SCCBOE acknowledges that there are circumstances under which a charter school can be placed outside of the District boundaries.  We received a letter from the county recently detailing their views, and we sent them back a letter in reply.  Both of these letters were mentioned in the comments section of the LATC article.  I'm attaching both the SCCBOE letter and the LASD reply here to dispel any debate about the content of those letters.  (I imagine many will still apply their own interpretation, but there's little I'm going to be able to do about that.)

SCCBOE Letter to LASD
LASD response to SCCBOE

Clearly there are different interpretations of the law here.

• BCS contends that LASD cannot place them outside LASD borders
• SCCBOE acknowledges that there are some instances in which LASD can place BCS outside LASD borders
• LASD believes that those circumstances and other reasons make it legal for LASD to place BCS outside the LASD borders

So, when you find yourself with different opinions on a topic, what do you do?  First, you try to discuss the views.  We did try to engage BCS in a discussion about their view, but they declined to provide their legal reasoning why we shouldn't be allowed to do this.  I had an email exchange with a BCS Board Member where we gave them the opportunity to weigh in, and they declined to provide their thinking.

Failing getting their thoughts informally, the court system actually provides a mechanism to seek clarification of what the law permits.  That mechanism, called Declaratory Relief, is a simple way for LASD to seek clarification from the courts about the legal issues involved in placing BCS outside the District boundaries.  This process is normally fairly quick (~90 days) and LASD is very interested to hear from the courts on this topic.  We believe that BCS should also share that same interest, so we've asked them to agree to a speedy calendar for this motion.  We'll have to wait and see if BCS really believes in their viewpoint, or if they'd prefer to drag out the process.  Either way, this is a significant question on which we need to hear from the courts so that we can all be working from the same interpretation of the law.

Here's a copy of the request for Declaratory Relief


In closing, I'd observe that it didn't take long after the Town Crier article was posted before folks started weighing in with their views of the legality of this, and questioning the wisdom of the LASD Board in pursuing this option.  I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but I will share my own thoughts.

This controversy has dragged on for 8 years.  Over the past year, BCS has filed complaint after complaint with the court, and has exercised every conceivable legal maneuver to either delay the court's rulings or appeal decisions they've lost (multiple times).  Despite their public statements of "compromise" and collaboration, BCS has made it clear through the pace and tenor of the litigation that they won't rest until LASD has closed a site and handed the keys to BCS.  Any statements to the contrary fly in the face of a lengthy court record.

Given this backdrop, LASD needs to move as expeditiously as possible to secure a site for BCS so that we can prevent the disruption of the education of 4500 students who attend District schools.  Under these circumstances, we would be foolish - and I believe also derelict in our responsibilities - if we didn't consider every possible option for a site for BCS.  The Raynor site happens to be the first available site, so we are moving on that site.  If we had a different relationship with BCS- one based on cooperation instead of litigation- I could envision working closely together to evaluate sites and select one that is workable for the district and that is also appealing to BCS.  Under the current circumstances, though, we would be remiss if we didn't pursue every available option.  BCS can change this equation by dropping the litigation and working with LASD.  If they want to continue to pursue litigation, though, that's the clearest signal they can give that LASD has to find them a site- any site- as fast as we possibly can.

NY Times Speaks Against Charter Schools

In their editorial this morning, the NY Times raises some interesting concerns about charter schools.  To be clear, they're mostly targeting charter schools that are performing worse than the district they serve.  There's a good bit of that going on.  They also question those charter authorizers who fail to exercise oversight once the charter is granted.  This is a refrain I've heard in our community quite a bit- people wondering what the criteria is that establishes whether a charter school "adds to" the value of public education or not.

I'm specifically NOT calling on SCCBOE to shut down BCS, and I actually have never done so.  The only thing I'd ask is that we get something in exchange for the bargain.  Charter schools operate with taxpayer funds, and they do so without many of the restrictions that constrain traditional public schools.  In exchange for that funding and the reduced oversight, someone should be asking hard, measurable questions.  To any charter school, at the top, the middle, or the bottom, I'd like to see specific things that they call out as being different in their program, and how the specifically tie that to an improved student outcome.  If you're meeting that hurdle, I'm all for it.  But if the chartering agency allows a charter to operate without returning something to the equation, then that charter is really just operating outside the spectrum of public education for the sole benefit of those select students.   I'd love for someone to take a concerted approach (peer review?) to look at specific charter schools and examine what they're contributing back into the equation.

That level of review would actually benefit everyone.  Children in the school would benefit because they'd know what is helping fuel their success.  Children in other schools would also benefit because there would be clear data that shows a better way to operate a school.

That's one of those things I might do if I were part of the authorizing entity, and if I weren't tied up with lawyers. 

Read the editorial here

Thoughts On Being a Public School

Several months ago, the District field a cross complaint, asking the courts to evaluate whether BCS is truly a public school.   BCS has ridiculed the cross complaint, both in the press and in front of the courts.  At the core of the cross complaint, we've said they behave more like a private school than a public school.  This isn't meant to be a derogatory statement- our community has many private schools, and they seem to do a good job of educating students.  However, they aren't bound by the same rules that public schools are bound by- they can choose what students they accept, they are free from many of the obligations of public schools.  Let's step away from the heated discussion for a moment, and consider a simpler example: public meetings.

Because LASD is a public school district, we conduct our meetings under the Brown Act.  BCS has said that they follow the Brown Act.  Wanny Hersey has asserted this in communications with me and with the SCCBOE, including this instance, from an exchange in Dec 2011 where she also derides LASD for an unspecified Brown Act violation.  So let's look at this a bit deeper.

LASD does our best to follow not just the letter of the Brown Act, but the spirit of the law also.  I've personally been involved in discussions where we chose to delay meetings rather than utilize the "short notice" provisions under the Act.  We ensure the public has a place to wait while we meet in closed session, and when we anticipate a large crowd, we hold the meeting in an appropriate venue.  We also ensure that we receive public input before closed session, and report out any actions taken.

By contrast, I've seen several instances where BCS has either explicitly violated the Brown Act, or has skated dangerously close to doing so.  Some examples:

BCS posted a meeting notice stating that their meeting would be held Nov 6, 2012.  I found that odd, since Nov 6 was election day.  I snapped a photo of the notice as posted on the evening of Nov 4th.  When BCS apparently recognized the mistake, they simply changed the date on the agenda they emailed out on November 5th.  The minutes from that meeting - held November 5th- can be found on the BCS web site here.  The first part was likely an honest clerical error, but someone recognized the error before the meeting was held.  Rather than delay the meeting, they moved forward with a meeting that was not noticed to the public.

In May 2012, during a particularly contentious period, LASDVoices was regularly attending BCS Board Meetings.  Here is the report of one member of that group (in an email to the SCCBOE) about how the "report out from closed session" was handled.  In a nutshell, the email suggest that the "report out" was never made, or was done so in a manner that seems intentionally designed to deprive the public of knowing what happened.

Today, BCS held a meeting at the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation offices in Palo Alto, which puts them about 4 miles from BCS/Egan, and are definitely outside District Boundaries.  I don't know whether BCS is compliant with the "meet within the jurisdiction" requirement based on the fact that they are chartered with the County.  However, is it that difficult to find meeting space within the District's boundaries, so that community members can attend? 

I've also previously blogged about my experiences with BCS Board members when I recorded their board meetings, also explicitly permitted under the Brown Act.  Board member Janet Medlin took strong exception to my efforts, and also strongly criticized me for publishing the sworn deposition of a BCS Board member. 

During today's meeting, BCS Board Member Janet Medlin once again took me to task, it appears, for how I've insisted that the BCS facilities meetings this year be very public.  She posted part of an email exchange wherein she agreed with my request for public meetings, and implied to the public that she'd initiated the discussion.  I don't care about who gets credit, but I do care a lot that in that same exchange, she was arguing in favor of a "pre-meeting", a meeting over the weekend in advance of the LASD Board meeting.  I don't know how she thought that her proposal kept with my requirement that the meetings be public, but it certainly didn't come out in the full email exchange. 


So What?
To borrow a now famous phrase, "so what?"  These seem like small, innocuous things.  When it comes to serious matters of law, the general public might call these "technicalities" and accuse me of being overly pedantic.  That's part of the point, though.  The law *is* pedantic.  It demands that we follow it at all times.  LASD has a culture of understanding the legal requirements and following them in all aspects of how we conduct ourselves, from the largest matters of what students we educate down to the little things like how we post notice of our meetings.  If we educated 98% of our students in accordance with the law, there would still be nearly 100 children deprived of their rights to a public education.  To me, that isn't acceptable.

I work in private industry during the day.  I'm used to calling meetings on a split second notice, and reacting quickly to the situation.  As a public official, though, I have to be more measured.  I have a responsibility to the public, and part of that means ensuring the public can participate in the process.  I highlight this because I'm not convinced that all members of the BCS Board fully understand what it means to be a public entity.  Some BCS Board members (and especially their attorney) have scoffed at the District's allegations.  I'm not saying that all of these incidents were born out of ill intent.  However, I do think that some members of the BCS Board haven't fully internalized what it means to be a public entity, and to accept taxpayer funds.  It's easy to overlook the details, but it's not fair to say that the details don't matter.  The details do matter, because every child is entitled to a great public education- even the ones that don't attend a charter school.

A favorable ruling for LASD

One follow-up to my earlier post about the District's cross-complaint.

There was a ruling issued in Los Angeles yesterday that addresses some of the key questions of the LASD/BCS case.  In particular, the appellate ruling says that:

• Local elected officials and the community have a right to manage their resources locally, and the courts should generally defer to their judgement
• Prop 39 does not grant charter schools their "first pick" of the District facilities
• In allocating facilities, the District is entitled to consider the impact on ALL students, and does not need to put charter school children ahead of traditional in-District students.

The timing for this ruling couldn't be better.  I've attached it for folks to read if they'd like.

(Link to LAUSD ruling)

Legal Filings from BCS (Prop 39 complaint)

I expect that the legal paperwork is going to ramp up quite a bit over the next month or so.  I will try to make it clear at the top of each post which legal action the post deals with:
Prop 39 Complaint (2012-13)
Legal Fees (2009-10)
LASD Cross Complaint (semi-private school)

Prop 39 Complaint

We received the BCS filings for the lawsuit against LASD.  I remain deeply disappointed that BCS would choose to continue to litigate this matter.  I've reviewed the declarations, and as expected, the LASD interpretation of events is materially different from what is stated by BCS.  I won't go into chapter and verse here- I'll leave that to the lawyers, and let them decide when to deconstruct the nonsense in these filings.  Rest assured that the District will vigorously contest these accusations, and we have a few things we'd like the judge to consider while she's reviewing all of this.  I'm grateful that we'll be getting a full and fair hearing on the facts.  Thanks, again, to our legal team.

To say that this process is merely "disappointing" takes a great deal of restraint.  BCS repeatedly harps on the refrain that they want to be part of the community, that they are only interested in what is best for their kids. I find it hard to reconcile that with the blatant manipulation of facts and the use of children as stage props.  BCS takes no responsibility for what they're doing, and then asks why people don't admire them.  Reading these declarations, and understanding that they are manipulating the situation and doing so in order to close a high performing school.. well, let's just say that I don't wonder why they aren't beloved.

Plase note that we do not have any of the Exhibits that should accompany these documents.  once we have them, I will post them here for everyone to see.

Bullis MPA
BCS Notice of Hearing


BCS Board & Principal
Eyring Decl
Hersey Decl
Medlin Decl
Moore Decl

BCS Teachers
Lanzot Decl
Mok Decl
Stone Decl
Torretto Decl

Gonzalez Decl

Notice of Entry Order
Proof of Service

LA Times: Charter Schools Drawing from Private Schools

There's an interesting piece in the LA Times today, explaining that charter schools are drawing a significant chunk of their pupils from private schools, not from public schools. 

(Article link)

The article mentions that there may be some positives- for example, if the private school crowd puts pressure on Districts to innovate, that's not a bad thing. 

However, the article also notes that this change has placed a $1.8B additional burden on public education.  Yes, people who send their kids to private schools also pay taxes.  However, I don't think that is what the voters had in mind when they supported the charter school movement. 

And in case you don't think this is happening here, read the last quote in the Bloomberg article from last year:

During a break, Arash Baratloo, a Google Inc. software engineer and Bullis parent, said he considered the $5,000 donation requested every year by Bullis to be “money well spent.” He previously sent his child to a private school where tuition was about $25,000 a year.

Interesting reading...

BCS Opposes Amicus Briefs

BCS has filed papers with the court opposing the Amicus briefs filed by the Huttlinger Alliance for Education, the California School Board Association, and the Association of California School Administratiors.  I've written previously welcoming these briefs. 

The Huttlinger Alliance is a newly formed group, and the add a perspective to this discussion that the District does not always bring. 

The CSBA and ACSA are both statewide bodies that are widely recognized as the leading organizations in their respective areas.  For BCS to suggest that their opinions are not relevant is foolish, and it diminishes the role of public school districts across the state.

I believe that the court should admit all of these briefs.  I would also note that BCS has sought amicus briefs from the California Charter Schools Association all along the way.  For BCS to now argue that amicus briefs are superfluous is very strange indeed.

As they say, "See you in court."

BCS Opp to Amicus
POS Opp to AC

Please note:  The post below detailing BCS demands for $1.3m legal fees is also new.  I don't usually post several in a row, but readers will want to take a moment with that information as well. 

BCS Litigation Update - District Response

Today LASD filed our response to the latest litigation by BCS.  In the documents, we assert two key things:

1) The 2012-13 Prop 39 offer is legally compliant. 
2)  We may actually have been too generous, to the detriment of LASD students--particularly given the semi-private nature of BCS.

All of the district's filings are posted on the district website.


Whenever I've heard someone say "we look forward to the opportunity to face these allegations in court," I've always snickered.  Are they really "looking forward" to it?  In our case, I can say that I *am* looking forward to this.  I strongly believe that our facilities offer is compliant, so in that regard, I believe that the judge will not grant BCS's request to close an LASD school.  Moreover, the discussion of BCS's status as a public or private school is one that has been happening in our community for most of the last 8 years.  I look forward to guidance from the court about what impact that can have on any facilities discussion we have with BCS.

I would like to specifically thank the community members who have helped so much with this effort.  Some have provided declarations that give glimpses into what should otherwise be private matters (like a child's disability).  Others have done built a tremendous body of research, which in turn helped inform our legal arguments.  Others have helped in less obvious, but very important ways.  All of you have helped make our public schools stronger as we help our students (all of them!) develop their own passion for learning.  We are all indebted to those who have stepped up on behalf of the students.

For those following closely, BCS will have an opportunity to file one more set of papers (essentially a rebuttal to our arguments) in early August, and then we have a court date with Judge Lucas on August 15.  I, for one, really am looking forward to the opportunity to get clarity from the courts.

Appeals Court Denies Rehearing

If folks are following the news carefully, you may have seen an article saying that the Appeals Court denied the LASD petition for rehearing.

It should be clear to all that this was an expected outcome. In order to take a case from the Appeals Court to the Supreme Court, you first have to ask the Appeals Court if they want to reconsider their ruling. We did that, and of course we got the expected outcome- they said "no, we like the decision we just made".

This ruling clears the way for the Supreme Court to hear the case, should they decide to take it on. They have until Feb 6th to make that decision. Although the Supreme Court takes a relatively small percentage of cases that petition for a hearing, we believe there is a good chance that they'll take on this case for a number of reasons. For one thing, the issue at hand is a matter of public policy, which generally makes it more interesting than a typical civil case. Also, we believe that there are significant disagreements between the recent Sixth District ruling and the rulings of other California Appeals Court rulings on charter schools. One of the primary functions of the Supreme Court is to resolve differences from the Appeals Courts.

We will keep everyone posted on the petition to the Supreme Court, and we look forward to their decision.

Happy Thanksgiving to all, LASD and BCS alike.

Bloomberg article

I get a fair number of calls from the press, mostly local but sometimes with a wider audience. John Hechinger from Bloomberg spoke with a number of folks at LASD and BCS, and attended the BCS renewal hearing recently. Here's a link to the article he wrote.

( link )

BCS Litigation - continued

Tonight in closed session, the Board voted authorize our attorneys to appeal the recent BCS court case to the California Supreme Court.  This was not a simple decision, but in my mind, there were a number of factors that came together to make this the right course of action:

• We fundamentally disagree with the Court of Appeals ruling, both on the merits and the method on which they arrived at the decision.  "On the merits" is pretty simple- we believe that the court took as "fact" many assertions by BCS that are not complete or correct.  Equally important, the process they followed to evaluate this was incorrect- it placed the interests of the BCS students ahead of LASD students, rather than balancing those interests.  Prop 39 requires a balancing of interests of both groups.
• The Appeals Court fundamentally said that we can only use a very narrow set of criteria to evaluate how we meet the BCS request- and that set of criteria is actually narrower than what is provided under Prop 39.  The legal language of Prop 39 allows for discretion by the elected Board of Trustees.  The Court of Appeals ruling seems to strip this discretion, which seems contrary to the intent of the voters when they passed Prop 39. 
• The discretion of elected Boards has been upheld in multiple Appellate rulings throughout California.  That discretion is essential in trying to come to the best possible solution to difficult questions like how to share a fixed set of resources like facilities.  This new ruling seems to fly against those precedents, and could have significant impact on students not only in LASD, but across California.

I recognize that appealing this decision will not be popular with some members of our community.  Certainly BCS supporters will be opposed.  Ironically I argued against them appealing this case in the first place (link).  In this case, though, I can't reconcile myself to what I believe the Appeals Court should have done, and what they ended up doing.  The impacts of this decision are too large to ignore, and I can't let the interests of a subset of students put all other students into a distant second place.

I've already been asked about the 2012-13 Prop 39 process.  We'll still need to figure that out, just like we'll need to continue to move forward with the Long Term location discussions we opened last week.  This litigation will need to run in parallel.  I hope that there is still room for constructive dialogue on these other issues- we will need to continue to communicate our interests to one another if we have any hope of working out solutions we can all support.

BCS Decision

Author's note:  I didn't post this right away- I wanted to make sure I'd "cooled off" from the frustration of the meeting.  Still, I think these thoughts are worth airing.


I am saddened to report that the SCCBOE approved the BCS Application by a 5-2 vote.

To be clear, I did not advocate that their charter should not be renewed.  BCS is a high achieving school, and it would be very difficult to shut them down.  However, Like Anna Song, I believe that the BCS actions over the past 8 years have actively or passively discriminated against members of our student community.  I say that I am saddened by the renewal because the SCCBOE failed to take any meaningful measure to protect those underserved students.  This was effectively their only opportunity to do something meaningful and place hard requirements on BCS, and they chose to do nothing.

SCCBOE could have done several things to make this situation better.  I mentioned several of them in my remarks to them.  Those options included:

• Refuse to renew the charter.  (extreme, and politically unlikely)
• Renew, but make it a condition of the charter that they actually follow through on the hastily made promises to improve their outreach. 
• Renew, but require BCS as a condition of the charter to have an enrollment more representative of the student community.  (measure the results, not just the action)
• Renew, but strip the geographic preference for the Los Altos Hills area
• Renew, but require BCS to seek County Board input before filing future lawsuits against LASD
• Renew, but provide an avenue for LASD to supervise the admissions aspects of the BCS program.
• Take no action for 30 days and ask BCS to return to LASD and first ask for their charter from LASD, giving LASD the opportunity to help shape the conditions more clearly

In the end, the County Board simply rubber stamped the application as it was presented.  There are no meaningful new requirements placed on BCS as a condition for their renewal.  I am not sure why the County Board feels like BCS will change their behavior all on their own.  BCS has not followed through on previous promises to the County Board (such as their promise at last year's meeting to complete a merit-based teacher compensation system.)  Without the hammer of renewal hanging over their head, there is little chance that BCS will change.  In point of fact, BCS Board Charmian Ken  Moore repeatedly told the SCCBOE that BCS was, in fact, serving these underserved student populations.  He presented "data" to back this up, but the data methodology fails to conform with the way that California public school districts measure their populations.  I guess if you don't like the rules and you can ignore them, that's what you'll do.

If I sound bitter, frustrated, and angry, it is because I am.  Referring to the recent outpouring of public comment, one County Board member asked "where have all of these complaints come from?  We haven't heard anything for many years."  He then dismissed the complaints as not important.  When staff tried to explain that people felt the County Board was deaf to the public, he was dismissive.  The County Board has proven by their actions that they are, in fact, deaf to our community.  I am deeply saddened and frustrated by their actions.

I would also make an observation about the role of the county board.,  Craig Mann said during the renewal hearing that they couldn't do anything more than "follow the law".  I'm not advocating that SCCBOE create their own laws, but it is my considered opinion that BCS hasn't been following the law, and that SCCBOE failed in it's responsibility to hold them accountable for that.  Even IF someone felt that BCS was following the law, it was still within the bounds of the law to ask BCS if they'd make some of the changes listed.  As it stands, Board Member Mann seems to accept the LEAST that the law demands- hardly a recipe for a successful democracy.  If the only standard LASD used to measure our schools was "do they comply with the minimums proscribed by the law?", we would certainly not be a top performing school district.  I had hoped for much more from the County.  I guess now all we can do is hope that they'll be more active in their oversight for the next 5 years than they have been in years past.

Thank you to all members of the community who did reach out over the course of the past several weeks.  All I can ask you to do is to keep the pressure up.

BCS and the SCCOE

I had mentally told myself I was going to post less often about BCS, and more about District issues.  Then I received this letter.  I think it is important reading for everyone.  Anna Song, a Trustee of the Santa Clara County Office of Education, wrote this in response to a letter from Buffy Poon, parent of BCS students. I think Ms. song speaks eloquently about so many issues I've heard from community members over the past several years.

==================================
From: Anna Song


Date: Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Subject: RE: The "So What"

To: Buffy Poon , "Joseph DiSalvo [External]" , Leon Beauchman , Michael Chang , Julia Hover-Smoot , Grace Mah , Craig Mann

Cc: Charles Weis , Carmen Aminzadeh , Anna Song , "Ken.Moore@moore.org" , "amgallagher@stanfordalumni.org" , "francisla777@yahoo.com" , "peterevans.bcs@evanscentral.com" , "andrea@eyringsys.com" , "janetmedlin@comcast.net" , "jp@repat.com" , "covargas@sbcglobal.net" , Cindy Chavez , "SNoguchi@mercurynews.com" , "steve@atwork.org" , "bcooper@lasdschools.org" , "mgoines@lasdschools.org" , "dsmith@lasdschools.org" , "tlogan@lasdschools.org" , "mharrigan@lasdschools.org" , Jeffrey Baier jbaier@lasdschools.org

==Written communication to the board==
(This is in response to Ms. Poon’s email dated September 22, 2011. However, the BCS board members should also consider this as my formal communication to its board as a trustee on the Santa Clara County Board of Education. I am not communicating on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Education, and I am only writing the message as one member.)


Dear Ms. Poon and Bullis Charter School (BCS) community,


Thank you for expressing your thoughts.

When I commented on September 7, I seemed to have struck some nerves with my “So what?” comment with you and possibly with other parents in the audience as well. And I think that’s a good sign; I got your attention. But it is disappointing to learn that my comments were not taken in their entirety but some provocative words stood out more than the rest.

To me, “So what?” was meant to be a wake-up call. It was meant to point out that there is more for BCS to do than to educate your own. You may disagree. But in my opinion, BCS has more on its plate than any other neighborhood public schools.

A quick look at the Academic Performance Index scores for the Los Altos School District shows that BCS has performed abysmally in serving socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The numbers are so poor they could justify an immediate revocation hearing to cancel BCS’s charter and permanently shut down the school this term, in my opinion. BCS serves zero socioeconomically disadvantaged students. After eight years, you have zero. Zero. Los Altos School District reports 97 out of 3351 students are socioeconomically disadvantaged – a group of approximately three percent. LASD reports 380 of 3351 are English Language Learners. And, 406 of 3351 are Students with Disabilities. Also, 243 of 3351 are Latino. BCS reports 281 students in its recent API report. The comparable BCS ratios are: 0/281 are socioeconomically disadvantaged; 5/281 are English Language Learners; 18/281 are Students with Disabilities; 7/281 are Latino.

Additionally, BCS’ Parent Education Level is even more elite than LASD as a whole because BCS now serves zero families with a PEL below that of “some college.” BCS does not reflect the population of its school district.

By any measure, these numbers demonstrate BCS’ failure to meet state law as well as a disinterest in the legislative intent of Education Code 47601(b) that a charter shall “increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low-achieving.”

Page 3, section b of the BCS’ 2010-2011 Annual Charter School Report claims “BCS strives to attract, enroll, and retain the broadest spectrum of students and families who are representative of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Los Altos School District.” Despite the Communications Committee’s report, I do not believe the claim. For example, BCS reports zero outreach in Spanish.

Sadly, after being a strong advocate of BCS from its first days, I now conclude that BCS is in material breach of its charter agreement with the Santa Clara County Board of Education. Moreso, I conclude the BCS community does not take the contract with SCCBOE seriously. I note a sense of entitlement from BCS’ population in general, especially from your letter. And, after reading your letter, I seriously question if Bullis’ future would be better served as a private school. There is nothing dishonorable about private education.

BCS’ 2010-2011 Annual Charter School Report states “BCS does not request parents to donate to the school.” However, in the same section, BCS states “BPESF’s suggested donation for the fall annual campaign is $4500 per student.” The editorial construction in this section is misleading and borders on duplicitous as it refers to “our families,” while simultaneously suggesting that parents are not requested to donate. It appears that all parents ARE requested to contribute a suggested donation of $4500 a year. Donations may not go to “the school,” but parents certainly feel that a price of admission to BCS is the requirement to raise money. That to me, is not a public school.

Unfortunately, under state law, BCS does not have the privilege to take its existence for granted because the school is not like neighborhood public schools. The underlying agreement is that if a charter school does not perform well, it ceases to exist. And, there are many required categories besides academic achievement to assess whether BCS meets the standard of “perform well.” Therefore, BCS, no matter how well academically performing, constantly will need to justify its existence. You may say that it is not fair, but it is the reality of a charter school.

And when the founders of BCS came forward asking the county board to authorize its existence eight years ago, educating your own children and doing it well was a given, a minimum standard - a floor, not the ceiling. That is what I meant when I said “So what?” Your student achievement scores are the floor, not the ceiling.

Please don’t get me wrong. My words do not mean I do not appreciate what BCS has accomplished. It does not mean that I do not value that “Bullis is shaping our next generation of leaders and change agents, youngsters who will make a difference in the world. Bullis is creating inspired, inquisitive problem solvers with a social consciousness to give back to the world” as you stated. However, BCS doing so is given, to me because BCS promised to do so many years ago. The BCS founders promised to educate, innovate, and stand out. I believed in BCS and I voted in favor. And I have been a strong supporter from day one.

That “So what” to me, is “show me something more.” Again, you may say that is not fair. It may not be fair, but in my opinion, performing well above neighborhood public schools is what BCS signed up to do, and promised to do, but that alone is not enough to justify its existence.

As a strong supporter of BCS from its inception, I have to justify my action to many different people and entities. Few are receptive to my belief in BCS, and many are not.

You said, “I was greatly saddened by the Board's repeated implication of an "us versus them" mentality with respect to social economic status. One could take that further and interpret some of the comments to imply that our children are not worth spending more time and energy on because their parents are not struggling to put food on the table and pay rent.”

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.”

I will be honest. I was not implicating an "us versus them" mentality,” as you said. I was telling you that such a mentality is real and prevalent. Thus, my “So what?” was “what are you going to do about that while continuing to thrive?” As troublesome as it may be, ignoring such a mentality will do BCS more harm than good because BCS’ academic achievement by itself will not justify BCS’ continued existence in the future – especially given new trends in state education law. BCS cannot be complacent because its students are performing well on tests. BCS cannot be complacent that it has the support of the Santa Clara County Board of Education today, this year, this cycle. Because those naysayers are not going to change their minds no matter how great BCS is! In order for BCS to continue to exist, and to thrive, BCS has to add more value to public education as a whole, than just what BCS adds in a portion of your own community.

Perhaps you are not seeing that bigger picture. Perhaps you are not thinking 5 or 10 years down the road. But I am; I believe that is part of my job. So far, BCS has enjoyed the support of the majority of the members of the County Board of Education. But there will come a day when Anna Song is no longer on that board along with other board members whom BCS leaders have come to know. And if the new board majority one day happens to be made up of people who are more critical of the charter school movement, what justification will BCS give to continue to exist when a majority vote of the County Board of Education can dissolve Bullis’ existence at any time?

As a County Board member, I am constantly challenged with questions such as, “Should charter schools exist? Do they help public education? How can you justify a two-tier system? etc. etc.” The recent question with which I have struggled is, “Twenty years from now, would you look back and say charter schools helped or hurt public education?”

I struggled with that question because I honestly cannot conclude with a simple all-purpose answer one way or the other. I like to believe that the charters are helping, challenging, and improving our public education. But if all charters are doing is educating a limited cross-section of students whose parents are highly involved while not sharing best practices with traditional neighborhood public schools, I cannot, in good conscience, say that charters help the overall public school experience. And, I cannot disagree that we are creating a two-tiered system. That is what I meant by “So what? What’s next?”

You said, “We who have more should have more responsibility to the rest of the world” and I could not agree more. I think I’ve said something along the line “to whom much is given, much is expected” during the September 7th board meeting.

You continued, “and I believe that Bullis teaches that to our children as it encourages global citizenship and empowers our children to take action.” In my opinion, I think you should teach your children by your actions. Show them what “global citizenship” looks like by your actions. That’s what I meant by “So what?” Show me, don’t tell me. And, perhaps, rather than just focusing on global citizenship, Bullis should focus on county-wide citizenship. Your school is chartered by the Santa Clara County Board of Education. Perhaps the international field trips should be supplemented by field trips and service projects in challenged communities within Santa Clara County. Or, even more so, perhaps the local focus should be an even higher priority than global travel.

You said in your third point, “If we had more funding, we parents and teachers could do a lot more...Until we get more funding from another source, it would be very difficult for the school to take on more Board mandated projects without diluting the very qualities that make Bullis what it is.”

I disagree and I think you are contradicting yourself. You said in your second point that those “who have more should have more responsibility to the rest of the world” and yet, you fall back on a lack of funding to argue you could not do more. Lack of funding is not a unique problem to BCS alone. And, seriously, BCS has more access to private funding than probably any other public school in the state of California. Almost every other public school - charter or neighborhood - has less funding than BCS. And we may not see more funding in this state in our lifetimes. So if BCS sits on a “lack of funding” excuse for its inaction, I may never see the “global citizenship” in action locally.

I was extremely saddened to read your words:

“While we hope to be able to share lessons across our communities, the actions that work for one community might not work in another community because we are all struggling with different issues. I would love if we could take "the lessons" from a more economically distressed district and apply them to Bullis and vice versa, but I could see the reality that many of those lessons wouldn't translate.”

Though you seem to express how appalled you are “by the Board's repeated implication of an "us versus them" mentality,” your last words I quote above seem to reflect your own "us versus them" beliefs.

It is no secret that BCS and its local school board, Los Altos School District, do not see things eye to eye. BCS did not enjoy a collaborative working relationship with LASD eight years ago, and I don’t see either side moving forward anytime soon. It has been eight years…

Thus, I said and continue to say, “So what?” to all BCS members clearly knowing it is a provocative comment. In case you have not thought about it, I want you to know that as an elected official, it is much easier for me to offer compliments and niceties to a crowd than to offer criticisms and suggestions. All of you would love me if I just complimented your achievements, and voted your way. But I can’t do that. There are so many children who can benefit from your innovation, and generosity. And I feel time is running out.

I have been called names and labeled as “tough” & “harsh” by many charter school applicants. Some have told me that my support was a nice surprise given all the tough questions I’ve asked. I take that as a compliment. I am taking my job as an elected trustee seriously, and would rather ask tough questions and offer stinging criticisms so BCS (or any other schools) may improve than be concerned of my own popularity.

And, please note that only one of seven County Board members is elected by Los Altos voters. The other six areas all have a significant number of Title One schools in their boundaries and thus all County Board trustees want to see some empathy and hands-on passion for the challenges we face in our shared home of Santa Clara County. When Bullis appealed its denial by the local Los Altos School District Board, the County Board did not step into the shoes of your local Board for a do-over. Rather, we provided an alternate second consideration from a county perspective. My sincere hope is that Bullis will earn many decades of successful charter renewal as the school demonstrates a passionate contribution to public education throughout Santa Clara County.

I am saddened to find myself in conclusion, that after having been a strong supporter of BCS for eight years, I am extremely turned off by your sense of entitlement, and lack of understanding in what it means to be part of public education. I am looking forward to BCS’ presentation coming up in October. I sincerely hope that the BCS community, including you, will come up with better justification than what you sent below.


Anna E. Song
SCCBOE Trustee, Area Five


------------------------

From: buffypoon@gmail.com [mailto:buffypoon@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Buffy Poon
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:06 PM

To: Joseph DiSalvo [External]; Leon Beauchman; Michael Chang; Julia Hover-Smoot; Grace Mah; Craig Mann; Anna Song
Cc: Carmen Aminzadeh
Subject: The "So What"

Dear Board Members of the Santa Clara County of Education:

I am a parent of three Bullis Charter School students: a fourth-grader, a second grader, and a kindergartener.

On September 7th, I attended the Bullis Charter School charter renewal hearing, where I listened intently to the Board's comments. Afterwards, I could not stop thinking about them and felt compelled to let you know how distressed I am about several comments made by board members.
First, I was struck by Ms. Song's comment, "so what?" in regard to the many great things the school has achieved since its inception. To me, the "so what" is that Bullis is shaping our next generation of leaders and change agents, youngsters who will make a difference in the world. Bullis is creating inspired, inquisitive problem solvers with a social consciousness to give back to the world.

For example, my eldest son constantly talks about how he wants to study science and create a clean, renewable energy source to benefit the animals and humans on our planet. A few weeks ago, he was brainstorming about a potential computer application that he could sell and then give the earnings back to Bullis to build a science lab. I think if we were studying Bullis' students decades from now, we could see that many of them became impactful contributors to our world. I could see many of them, inspired by the incredible staff who work passionately on their behalf, becoming compelling, effective educators themselves, helping to solve the education gap. Many of them will enter public service, having been empowered by the environment Bullis creates to effect change. I could see many of them as scientists, having developed the passion for lifelong learning and inquiry that Bullis fosters. Some, having learned at Bullis that once can engage people with different media, will become artists able to convey powerful messages. This "so what" is no small or common achievement, and I do not want to see it curtailed.

Second, I was greatly saddened by the Board's repeated implication of an "us versus them" mentality with respect to social economic status. One could take that further and interpret some of the comments to imply that our children are not worth spending more time and energy on because their parents are not struggling to put food on the table and pay rent. I believe that if we can encourage all children, economically privileged or not, to develop to their full potential with effective public education, we will benefit society as a whole. We who have more should have more responsibility to the rest of the world, and I believe that Bullis teaches that to our children as it encourages global citizenship and empowers our children to take action.

Third, I commend Bullis' teachers and staff for taking on such an overwhelming workload and still innovating new ways to enrich our children's educational and social experience. If we had more funding, we parents and teachers could do a lot more. Unfortunately, we struggle every year just to meet the funding gap between how much it costs to educate our children versus how much state funding we get. The majority of the money from the funding gap comes directly from our parent population. Until we get more funding from another source, it would be very difficult for the school to take on more Board mandated projects without diluting the very qualities that make Bullis what it is.

The Board has a huge undertaking with its commitment to SJ2020. I can imagine the pressure that you are under to close the achievement gap in San Jose by 2020. While you focus on those 40,000 students who are not proficient in their grade level skills, I ask that you not turn your backs on students in other districts who face different challenges.

I am a child of immigrants to the United States. Our family struggled financially through the years. I moved nine times as a child because my father was mentally ill and kept getting fired from his job. They struggled to give me the best education they could, given their circumstances. However, when I told my parents that I wanted to become a teacher, they told me they would stop paying my tuition and pull me out of college. They worried that I would struggle economically like they did, and didn't want that for their child. I, on the other hand, have the luxury of not being afraid that my children’s basic needs won’t be met, and I can encourage them to reach higher. I would be proud if they became educators, artists, writers, or musicians.

It takes all of us, the "haves" and the "have nots" (I cringe to use such blunt distinctions), to help improve the world. While we hope to be able to share lessons across our communities, the actions that work for one community might not work in another community because we are all struggling with different issues. I would love if we could take "the lessons" from a more economically distressed district and apply them to Bullis and vice versa, but I could see the reality that many of those lessons wouldn't translate. However, if we can find ways to work together within and across our communities to provide relevant, inspiring education for all our children, we can develop highly effective leaders and implementers for our world.


Sincerely,

Buffy Poon

Working on Sacramento from Los Altos

Assemblyman Rich Gordon, who represents our district in Sacramento, has created an Educational Advisory Council, made of of Board Members, Administrators, and other leaders in education. I'm honored to be asked to participate. WE met for the first time today and discussed a number of issues facing the education community.

 

First on our agenda was discussing the impact of the budget, particularly the "handcuffs" it places on local school boards. This year's budget contains a number of triggers that would automatically cut revenues mid-year if certain economic indicators don't continue at the rosy pace they were hitting in May and June. Mid-year cuts aren't new, but this year's budget specifically prohibits local school boards from cutting certificated personnel (teachers) in responser to the cuts. I politely expressed my frustration with this, and told Asm. Gordon that I felt this was an unprecedented (and probably illegal) intrusion of Sacramento into the business of local school districts. Rest assured that the other districts felt equally unhappy with the law. Hopefully if the Assembly is called back into session in December, they'll address this issue.

 

We also discussed a number of other items folks would like to see improved:

• Clean up Ed Code 35021. This law makes it illegal to have a volunteer do any job previously held by a district employee. We talked about the inability to have parents supplement in the libraries and in aide positions. This problem is felt across many districts. It isn't my intent to replace our valuable employees with all-volunteers. However, it's hard to explain to parents why it is better to not have a program than to have volunteers help make it more cost effective.
• One of the other districts also mentioned the entire idea of outsourcing- the fact that we can't subcontract any of the work we have done. Simple examples like lawn mowing came up as areas where we could hire a service to do the work, rather than maintain tractors ourselves.
• We talked about AB1034, which would require charter schools to make efforts to serve students in under-served groups (such as economically disadvantaged kids, and English Language Learners). See my previous post for more information on this topic.
• We talked about the impact of redistricting, and the elimination of the Department of Education at the State level.

Overall, I felt the meeting was very positive, but clearly there's a lot on the legislative agenda. I don't know how quickly any of this will pass into law, but it was a great discussion. I look forward to working with the Assemblyman on his initiatives.

Rocketship Charter - SCCOE comments

Tonight I attended a meeting for the Santa Calra County Board of Education. Our biggest contact with the County Board should stem from the services they provide (like payroll, etc.). However, they are also the authorizing agency for the Bulis Charter School.

I went tonight to provide comments on an application by Rocketship Charter Schools for an expansion of their charter to add 20 new charters, run directly by the county. Since BCS is chartered directly from the county, I felt the need to weigh in on the impact of direct county involvement.

The following is a draft of my remarks. Due to time, I had to edit them slightly when speaking, but the general thrust of the comments was the same.

-----
My name is Doug Smith. I am a Trustee in the Los Altos School District. My comments today reflect my opinion as a trustee, but I haven’t had a chance to survey the other members of my Board, so my comments don’t represent an official board policy.

First, I want to commend Rocketship. They have an incredibly important objective – to serve the needs of students who are currently not being helped by their local neighborhood schools. As educators, we have to meet the needs of our students, and I applaud Rocketship for dedicating themselves to this goal.

Unfortunately, I also have some experience with the charter school process that gives me concerns about the manner in which Rocketship is proceeding.
As you are well aware, Los Altos is also home to Bullis Charter School, which is chartered directly through the county. There are some unique issues with schools chartered directly through the county that I feel must be considered and weighed against the application from Rocketship. As our Board’s representative in discussions with the charter school, I have first hand knowledge of the challenges that are created when charter schools are not accountable to the community in which they reside.

The proposed 20 new charter schools lack any meaningful connection to the community they serve. Bypassing the local school board says effectively “we don’t care about you, or the people you represent.” Rocketship’s petition demonstrates a frightening disregard for the local community. Their petition complains that requiring Rocketship to petition each local district would take time away from working to achieve their vision. I’m sorry that the feel that “consent of the governed” is such an inconvenience, but it is still one of the core principles of how a government should function. It speaks poorly of how they relate to the community that they think it’s OK to completely bypass this step of the process.

At a broader level, the County School Board simply isn’t set up to provide the type of close working partnership that would best benefit the schools and the students involved. At the local level, we discuss the academic operations of our schools at every board meeting we hold. We have principals in to present, hear from students, and challenge our administration on how things might be improved. The county board has a broader mandate, and it is literally impossible for you to track the detailed activities of individual schools. An annual review is not sufficient to ensure that the program is running at it’s best.

Charter schools exist not just to serve the students who walk through their doors, but to help improve schools that serve all students. In our own district, if we have teachers running a pilot program, they are in regular contact with their peers to feed back the results of their efforts. I am certain that Rocketship would meet this goal within their own schools, but it still leaves the rest of the students behind.

We discuss critical issues in real time, and adjust the mandate of the programs to ensure that the outcome of the pilot is beneficial to all of our students. A charter school that is disconnected from it’s local community does not have this connection and, in our experience, does not fulfill this mandate.

I would urge the County Board to direct Rocektship to go back to the local boards and work with those local boards to obtain charters. I am willing to appear with them and speak in favor of local charters, but they need to make sure they’re fulfilling the desires of the populations they seek to serve, and that they are providing a meaningful way to work with those local districts for the benefit of all the students, not just those that come to their schools.

Look overseas for better education

There was an interesting study done recently that looks at how to improve education in the US. They looked at all manner of reform over the past few decades and found that we simply aren't hitting the mark. Even charter schools, when controlled for student background, are faring no better than traditional US schools. (We have seen the same here, but that's for another day.). Not surprisingly, the conclusion was that other countries have better models and we could do well to follow their lead.

My kids started school in Singapore, and I have worked a fair bit in Japan and Ontario, Canada, two of the other places cited in the study. While the results of this study tend to focus more on the national level changes than local changes, it starts from the same place I've been talking about for a while. Los Altos has some great schools measured against the State of California, but we need to do better. Our kids will compete globally. We need to prepare them to do just that.

It seems strange to be talking about building a better school in the middle of the budget cutting season, but we need to stay focused on that goal. I'm pleased to see that the Khan Academy continues to get great press coverage. It is one way we are trying to "Think different" (with apologies to Mr Jobs' English teacher)

Read the Mercury News article here