Hi friends and neighbors, the first charrette is tomorrow: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:30-8:30pm in the Blach Multi-Purpose Room. Please attend at least one of the charrettes AND one of the workshops.
The charrettes feed into what's reviewed at the workshops: The charrettes review past scenarios and generate ideas for possible new scenarios. The ideas that come out of the charrettes will be reviewed at the workshops. At the workshops, participants will vote on their top scenario. You can attend the workshop even if you haven't attended a charrette; however, it's best to attend both.
Please review all materials here:
- Process overview: https://www.lasdschools.org/District/10745-Community-Engagement-on-Facilities.html
- History: https://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/Timeline.pdf
- Scenarios considered: https://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/Scenarios.pdf
Additionally, I attended the LASD Board meeting last night where they reviewed the process again and reviewed the BCS request for additional membership to the Facilities Master Plan Committee.
At that meeting, there was discussion about how the community engagement process will inform the values, options, and direction the community wants the Board to take. I went ahead and sent my input to the board on those items last night. Here's a version of my email to them.
Please also send your thoughts to trustees@lasdschools.org, communityengagement@lasdschools.org, JBaier@lasdschools.org.
-----------------
Dear Trustees for the Los Altos School District,
Thank you again for the countless hours you've spent on the community engagement process. During today's board meeting, you had a thoughtful discussion about the community engagement process. In that conversation, you mentioned that you'd like to hear community input on values, options, and general overall direction you'd like to see the LASD Board take. I'd like to provide my input on those items.
Values
Here are the values I believe many in the LASD community think would inform a fair deal:
- No neighborhood school moved/closed: The LASD community believes in the neighborhood school model, and we don’t want to close any school solely to benefit BCS.
- Equal burden, equal benefit: Reasonable and fair accommodations apply to LASD and not just BCS.
- Sharing can be successful: At its current size, a single site for BCS doesn’t make sense. Just as LASD students are split by grade at different sites due to size (and other reasons like making sure facilities are appropriate for the age group), BCS should also follow the same system.
Options to be considered
If giving BCS exclusive use of Egan and moving our junior high to NEC is one of the options considered, I think we should also look at what it would look like on the flip side -- specifically, some form of BCS at NEC. For instance, 2 options the community has discussed on various forums have been:
- BCS to NEC for elementary school and share Egan site with LASD for junior high school with cap at their current size.
- BCS to NEC with a 900-person cap.
I hope to see these two options reviewed at the charrettes and workshops to ensure that we are truly looking at all possible options.
Need to Differentiate Constraints vs. Requests
Additionally, I hope that you'll listen to the discussion and not just look to the ultimate votes. As mentioned tonight, many LASD community members have already discounted valid options because they are erroneously considering BCS requests as constraints and not merely requests.
For instance, BCS insists on having a contiguous site; however, a split site has already been litigated and considered legal. See the 2013 case 1-13-CV-245684: https://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/Filed%20Order%20on%20Motion%20for%20Judgment_062413.pdf. A contiguous site is a "nice to have" and not a legal constraint.
In another example, some people have discounted NEC because BCS won't give a Mountain View preference due to "legal reasons"; however, what's the different between a Los Altos Hills preference and a Mountain View preference? If the reason is due to language in the charter, then I would say it's not really a legal reason because the SCCBOE has indicated that it's relatively easy to change your charter language, and the charter language re: Los Altos Hills was about serving a population that had lost its school. There is now a school there (Gardner Bullis), so again this is not a real constraint. If the reason is that Mountain View City Council wants a preference, I think they should be more flexible because the 10th site has great benefits for Mountain View. I suspect they would be reluctant to walk away from this deal.
Board Direction
Ultimately, the direction I'd like to see the Board take is to move BCS to NEC in some form. It seemed to me that we were looking for a site explicitly because BCS chose not to self site and instead looked to LASD to find a site. The BCS Board has said in public forums that they have never rejected the 10th site as it's never been offered to them. I understand the community thinks BCS doesn't want the 10th site, but I don't think that's officially the case until we officially offer it and obtain a formal response from them.
Thank you again for your time.