Ethnicity, Race and Enrollment
Ethnicity, Race and Enrollment Over Time
In May of 2021, the Santa Clara County Board of Education voted 6-1 to reprimand Bullis Charter School for what it described as a chronic failure to proportionately enroll low-income students, Latino students and children with disabilities. How is BCS doing in meeting the board’s mandate for change? Our latest research shows that BCS has made little or no progress toward the goal of equality. You can read our latest report on BCS enrollment here.
BCS was originally founded to meet the needs of a portion of Los Altos Hills school children after their neighborhood school closed in 2003. Five years later, the district reopened that school facility and BCS began to reinvent its reason for being. Since then, achieving a representative ethnic, racial and economic balance has been a stated goal of BCS. However, the data shows BCS has not come close to meeting that goal. Virtually all of its growth over the past decade has come from the rapid expansion of two ethnic categories, along with the addition of 7th and 8th graders.
This web posting is an effort to present observations and questions from the examination and analysis of information downloaded from a number of sources, and is organized as follows:
Observations and Questions
Part 1 – 2004 to 2008 – BCS 1st Five Years – mission accomplished
1.1 - A Brief Summary of Why Old Bullis was Temporarily Closed
1.2 - A Brief Summary of the 2003 BCS Charter Petition Documents
1.3 - 2004-2008 - BCS Facilities and Enrollment
1.4 - 2004-2008 - The Old Bullis Campus
Part 2 – 2009 to 2019 – BCS Next Ten Years – Has the intent of the Charter Act been accomplished?
2.1 - 2009-19 Incremental Reinvention of the Charter
2.2 - A Commuter School Serving all of LASD – K-8
2.3 - A Population NOT reflective of LASD Racial and Ethnic Balance
Part 3 – The Lottery – Are the mechanics of the admission priorities and the lottery in harmony with the intent of the Charter Act?
3.1 - Over each of the last six years, how did over 50% of new admissions are from one ethnicity, and 80% of the new admissions are from two ethnicities, change the BCS enrollment profile?
3.2 - Why did BCS invest resources managing so many Out-of-District Applications?
3.3 - Did the 2011–12 BCS Lottery Pool have “realistically ineligible” applicants? Was SCCOE presented information that was confusing?
3.4 - The 2019-20 BCS Enrollment, Lottery Pool and Waitlist
3.5 - Why was the 2019-20 lottery activity so out-of-the-norm for BCS?
Observations and Questions
Part 1 – 2004-2008
Observation – The goal of serving students who had attended Bullis-Purissima Elementary School, which was closed from 2003 to 2008, was accomplished after 5 years, when the renovated neighborhood school reopened.
Observation – The goal of the BCS founders to either control or own one of the last of seven elementary school sites was not accomplished.
Question – Why was controlling or owning a public-school campus so important?
Part 2 – 2009-2019
Observation – Once the local neighborhood school was reopened, the BCS Board probably recognized the need for a new role, serving a population different than the goals stated in the original charter. The BCS Board submitted to SCCOE three charter petitions in less than two years. Examples of changes include, in 2008 the focus moved from a geographic area to the entire district and adding 7th and 8th graders. In 2014 the focus moved from being a neighborhood school to a community school.
Observation – Since 2009, all growth in enrollment came from two ethnicities (Asians and 2 or More Races) and from expanding the school to include 7th and 8th graders.
Observation – Today, the BCS population is NOT reflective of LASD Racial and Ethnic Balance
Question – Why has BCS failed so dramatically in meeting its goal of achieving a student population reflective of the district’s racial and ethnic balance?
Question – Is there a connection between rapid, unreflective racial and ethnic growth and the original desires of the BCS founders to own or control an entire public-school campus? Was the unsuccessful 2011-12 effort to take control of the Old/New Bullis campus a pivot point in accelerating an unbalanced growth strategy? The following year, the focus shifted to control either the Old/New Bullis site, Covington, Santa Rita, Almond or Egan.
Question – What are the long-term BCS goals?
Part 3 – Questions About the BCS Lottery
Question 3.1 – Over each of the last six years, how did over 50% of new admissions are from one ethnicity, and 80% of the new admissions are from two ethnicities, change the BCS enrollment profile?
Question 3.2 – Why did BCS invest resources managing so many Out-of-District Applications?
Question 3.3 – Did the 2011-12 BCS Lottery Pool have “realistically ineligible” applicants? Was SCCOE presented information that was confusing?
Observation 3.4 – The 2019-20 BCS Enrollment, Lottery Pool and Waitlist
Question 3.5 – Why was the 2019-20 lottery activity so out-of-the-norm for BCS?
Abbreviations
CDE – California Department of Education
SCCOE – Santa Clara County Office of Education
IRS – Internal Revenue Service
LAH – Los Altos Hills
LA – Los Altos
MV – Mountain View
PA – Palo Alto
LASD – Los Altos School District (Enrollment ~61% LA, 29% MV, 7% LAH & 3% Other)
Old Bullis - Bullis-Purissima Elementary School
New Bullis – Gardner Bullis Elementary School
BCS – Bullis Charter School (aka Bullis-Purissima Elementary School)
Original BCS – 2004-2007
Reinvented BCS – 2008-2019
BCS Foundation – Bullis-Purissima Elementary School Foundation
PART 1
1.1. A Brief Summary of Why Old Bullis was Temporarily Closed
At the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year, a perfect storm of events occurred, which led to the closing of the smallest LASD school, Old Bullis. The factors that led to this storm:
Bursting of the Dot.com Bubble
A resulting large California State deficit
Lower LASD enrollment
State changes limiting LASD funding for student transfers from other districts
Higher LASD operating costs after the over-budget and behind-schedule renovation of other schools
A weak economy resulting in a LASD deficit
In 2004 a thoughtful analysis titled A HISTORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN LOS ALTOS HILLS was prepared and noted in the Meeting Minutes for a special meeting of the Town of Los Altos Hills City Council on June 2, 2004. On page 6, the analysis noted: “In May 2004, an LASD Board Member speaking on his own behalf suggested to the then-mayor of LAH that Bullis may be reopened as a public school within the district if funds could be identified to fund its reopening. That Board Member estimated it will cost approximately $750,000 to $1 million annually to reopen Bullis as a full-service school… The formation of a Bullis School Foundation along with financial assistance from [LASD] and the Town was mentioned as possible funding solutions.”
Although the Bullis School Foundation had raised over $1,000,000 in 2004 and would raise and additional $6,000,000 in 2005, there was no agreement to collectively bridge the funding gap.
Background information: In the 1960’s, LASD had 15 schools serving just under 6,000 students. During the 1970’s, the LASD school population declined by almost 50% to under 3,000 students. The declining student population and Proposition 13 (which reduced property taxes and limited future growth) led to the closure of six of the 15 LASD public schools.Three of the ten elementary schools serving Los Altos residents were closed, and three of the four that primarily served Los Altos Hills residents were closed.(In addition, PAUSD closed Fremont Hills, now Pinewood Upper School, in 1977.)
At various times, when the LASD Board (serving ~61% of LAH households) and PAUSD Board (serving ~39% of LAH) members faced difficult dollars and cents trade-offs, the higher-utilization, lower-cost-to-operate school facilities were kept open.
There were a number of reasons why neighboring cities/towns had different numbers of surviving elementary schools. Los Altos Hills has 8.8 square miles of land area, a population of ~900 per square mile, and ~19% of the population between 5 and 18. Los Altos had less land area (6.5 square miles), 5 times higher density (a population of 4,500 per square mile) and ~22% of the population between 5 and 18. Palo Alto had a similar set of demographics.
Seven LA, LAH & PA neighborhoods were damaged and many hearts were broken when these schools closed. The lesson was painfully learned, “never sell another school.”
1.2. A Brief Summary of the 2003 BCS Charter Petition Documents
In 2003, parents who had been served by Old Bullis felt they were being unfairly treated, as a letter to the SCCOE from a Los Altos Hills Town Council member stated “Los Altos Hills will be the only town in the Peninsula without a public school.” The Town of LAH K-6 students were served by two school districts. School district boundaries drawn many decades earlier, resulted in approximately 61% of the households in LAH being served by LASD and 39% served by PAUSD.
In addition, although Old Bullis was serving approximately 40% of the LAH households, the previously mentioned report titled A HISTORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN LOS ALTOS HILLS, mentions “LAH residents pay far more for public education than do their neighbors in Los Altos, Palo Alto and Mountain View, yet LAH has no public school operating within its boundaries.” The primary reasons for LAH residents paying more mentioned in the report were the relatively higher property values in LAH resulting in high property tax funding for public schools, the PAUSD and LASD parcel taxes, various bond measures and a relatively higher proportion (~40%) of LAH students attending private schools. The comments in this report point to an “attitude” that the closing of OLD Bullis was an emotional and logical breaking point. The report goes on to suggest potentially merging “more of the town with PAUSD… form our own K-8 District… or form our own K-12 unified district.” In June 2006 The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills passed a resolution (‘No,42-06https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/49) to pursue this option. The option was reviewed by the County Committee on School District Reorganization. A January 2007 article in the San Jose Mercury (https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/01/25/calls-for-one-district-denied/) reported the County Committee “rejected a request from the Los Altos Hills Town Council to study redrawing district boundaries.” The article indicated a spokeswoman stated “that the proposed district would not have at least 900 students, the state’s minimum for a new school district and that it would limit educational opportunity.” In 2008 Gardner Bullis opened after $11 million renovation and issue of a separate LAH school district received less attention.
After a difficult period in the community, a dedicated group of parents began the process of starting a charter school. The original 2003 BCS Charter Petition Documents are accessible here.
A number of notable people were involved with preparing and supporting the petition, including SCCOE District 1 Board Member Grace Mah, who was the 16th signer of the first document of petitioners in original 2003 BCS charter petition, which indicated she had a “meaningful interest in having his or her child, or ward, attend the school.” She also played a role in trying to establish charter schools in both Palo Alto (2007 - not approved) and in Mountain View (2019 - not approved).
Francis La Poll was a second notable original signer and author of a letter of support. He became a founding BCS board member and is now in his 16th year on the BCS Board.
Another notable person writing a letter of support was Kim Cranston, the son of the late U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, whose family has deep roots in Los Altos Hills, arriving in 1914.
BCS intended to locate in the former facility of the Bullis-Purissima Elementary School. The charter organizers had an affectionate memory of the Bullis-Purissima school and site and wished to continue and build upon that memory. Students would be taught in a neighborhood school where they would learn in close proximity to their parents and neighbors. Neighborhood elementary schools were popular throughout California due to the perception that keeping younger students closer to home enhances parental involvement and provides a nexus of teacher/parent/student interaction, which was so important to early education.
The program would mirror the LASD curriculum, serve 310 students (no more than 350) for each of the next 6 years.
"We are using the LASD curriculum as a starting point for the core ‘college prep’ curriculum.”
The differences in the educational programs included:
Smaller school limited to 350 children
A Los Altos Hills-based school taking advantage of the neighborhood/town location and emphasizing local field trips into the local geography/ecology and town issues
Smaller class sizes, and
Fully staffed PE, instrumental music and art.
The student demographics would be similar to the enrollment of the recently closed Old Bullis.
The clearly stated goal and the enrollment preferences were to serve the neighborhood previously served by Old Bullis.
2003 Charter: WHOM THE SCHOOL IS ATTEMPTING TO EDUCATE
Enrollment Policy - “All students who reside in the State of California may attend the school subject only to capacity at each grade level.”
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving primarily the former students and siblings of the traditional public school, students within the former Bullis-Purissima boundaries and the Los Altos Hills Community as a whole and secondarily residents of the Los Altos School District as a whole and Santa Clara County. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through sixth grade students.
As illustrated in the left graph below, from 1996-2003, the neighborhood school, Old Bullis (blue bars) was serving 350 to 400 students during per year before it closed.
The orange bars in the center graph below indicate the enrollment plan requested, and approved, in the original 2003 charter school petition. The goal was to serve 310 students, no more than 350 students, who had previously been served by the closed Old Bullis (Bullis-Purissima).
Stitching together the historical Old Bullis enrollment and the 2003 petition (a graph on the right) created a logically consistent enrollment picture.
Craig A.T. Jones, the lead petitioner, stated the primary purpose of the original charter was “In order to regain a local school to serve the community of Los Altos Hills.”
The census and Santa Clara county data indicate that the charter petition would serve only 41% of the “community of Los Altos Hills.”
Approximately 61% of the households in LAH are served by LASD and 39% are served by PAUSD. A subset of the 61%, approximately 41% of LAH households, were inside the Old Bullis school boundary.
Households in the west Los Altos area were also in the Old Bullis school boundary. The Original 2003 BCS charter petition was focused on serving the 41% of LAH students, other students from Los Altos, and acting as a neighborhood school.
The geographic boundary was basically that part of west LA bounded by two busy streets (Foothill Expressway and El Monte) and that part of LAH not served by PAUSD or Loyola. (The LAH households then served by Loyola are now jointly served by both Loyola and Covington.)
Potentially 30% of LAH households served by LASD are in walking distance of the Old Bullis campus. To give a geographic perspective, a recognizable landmark, Foothill College, is 2 ½ miles from Old Bullis campus and the more distant households are 5 miles from the Old Bullis campus. The data suggests that approximately 15% of that portion of LAH served by LASD, were in walking distance of the Old Bullis campus.
The 2003 petition stated goal, “In order to regain a local school to serve the community of Los Altos Hills” might have been an overstatement. The goal was to serve ~41% of LAH.
1.3. 2004-2008 - BCS Facilities and Enrollment
According to SCCOE Board meeting minutes from November 2003, the SCCOE Board approved the BCS charter but declined to discuss the “site preference”.
The stated goal in the BCS charter petition was “to create a charter school and operate the school on the campus of the former traditional school.” The BCS petitioners clearly wanted the Old Bullis campus, the SCCOE Board declined to be involved, and in March 2004 the LASD board offered the recently vacated camp school on the Egan campus, which had been used, one year at a time, to serve students from various other schools as campuses were renovated.
Proposition 39, a state law requiring school districts to make facilities available to public charter schools serving students in their districts, had been passed by California voters in 2000 and implementation guidance began to emerge, as the 2003 effective date approached. As with many new rules and guidance, the open issues and specific interpretations were sorted-out, over time, by the courts. LASD and BCS were on the forefront of the specific definition of these emerging practices and both organizations incurred substantial legal fees.
Immediately, legal challenges began. Within two months, in May 2004, the court ruled that LASD complied with the Proposition 39 requirement for “reasonable equivalency.” In July 2004, BCS accepted the Egan camp school as their campus. One year later, in June 2005, the courts denied a BCS request to move to the Old Bullis campus.
The BCS founders retained a very strong interest in either buying or controlling the Old Bullis school campus.
May 2005 – “Los Altos School District board later rejects Los Altos Hills City Council offer to buy Bullis-Purissima campus.”
May 2009 – “Los Altos School District rejects Bullis Charter School foundation’s offer to donate $3 million to district in exchange for exclusive use of Gardner Bullis School, citing potential implications for district students.”
In 2003-04, the Old Bullis school closed and most of the students went to the newly renovated Covington Elementary School (approximately 2 miles away but across a very busy expressway).
In 2004-05, BCS opened and served 170 of students on the Egan site (also approximately 2 miles away but across a very busy expressway).
During the next three years BCS served 228, 256 and 286 students on the Egan site. As the following graph indicates, this was consistent with the goals outlined in the original charter.
During this period, BCS helped meet the needs of the Old Bullis student population and the LAH and West LA communities. Historic ethnic and race balance was maintained. The graph below indicates that student demographics were similar to LASD from 2003-04 to 2007-08
The BCS Foundation made its first IRS filing in 2003 and directly supported the start-up of the BCS School for two years, until 2005, when the BCS made its initial IRS filing.
1.4. 2004-2008 - The Old Bullis Campus
In 2004-05, the first year after closure, a LASD-wide preschool autistic program was offered at Old Bullis. Space was also temporarily leased to the Town of Los Altos Hills, as its interim town hall, while the permanent facility was renovated. In addition, three classrooms were leased to private preschool programs.
In 2005-2006, the second year after the closure, the LASD-wide preschool autistic program continued, the lease to the Town of LAH continued, the lease to private preschool programs continued, and an extended-day kindergarten was also offered at Old Bullis. The two-year earlier budget pressures eased and the LASD Board was able to commit the investment to renovate and then reopen the Bullis-Purissima neighborhood school.
In 2006-2007, the third year after the closure, the LASD-wide special education program and one of the private preschools were moved from the Old Bullis site to the Covington site. The extended-day kindergarten continued at Old Bullis. In June 2006, LASD debt was refinanced, which yielded the additional $11 million to fund renovation of the Old Bullis-Purissima campus while eight portables were added to the site.
In 2007-2008, the fourth year after the closure, kindergarten was offered at Old Bullis and the renovation was completed.
In 2008-2009, the renovated Old Bullis was reopened with a new name, Gardner Bullis (New Bullis for this posting). The school boundaries were modified to reduce crowding at another neighborhood school and more potential students were added to the New Bullis service area.
As a foreshadowing of the next decade, the racial and ethnic composition of the New Bullis remained similar to the Old Bullis. As a neighborhood school, the enrollment generally reflects the surrounding neighborhood. The, now dated, 2010 census, although updated by the census with algorithms, indicates that LAH and LA population had 31% to 34% Asian and 2 or More Races. Potentially, the 2020 census will indicate that these two groups will now comprise a higher proportion of the population.
BCS, after the 2007 opening of the New Bullis school, chose a different path.
PART 2
2.1. 2009-19 - Incremental Reinvention of BCS
In 2008-2009, the sixth year after the closure, Old Bullis (Bullis-Purissima) was renamed New Bullis (Gardner Bullis) and was reopened serving 202 students (over half of the average historical Bullis-Purissima enrollment). BCS served 325 students on the Egan site.
The combined student population served by the reopened neighborhood school and the charter school was over 40% greater than the historical population of the Old Bullis neighborhood school.
The original 2003 BCS charter petition was approved to serve 310 formerly Old Bullis students. During the first year after the $11 million school renovation, New Bullis was serving 65% of the charter school approved petition enrollment of 310. The primary goal of the original charter had been achieved, “In order to regain a local school to serve the community of Los Altos Hills.”
One year before the approved expiration of the charter, BCS had exceeded the 310-enrollment goal, but with approximately half the students from outside the historical Old Bullis student population.
The original Charter was approved on 11-5-03. The term of the original charter began “on the day of County Board of Education approval and expired five years thereafter, at the end of the school year.” The BCS Board probably recognized the need for a new role, serving a population different than the goals stated in the original charter.
The BCS Board submitted to SCCOE three charter petitions in less than two years. The 2007-12 Renewal Petition was approved. Then, 10 months later, a November 2007 Material Revision request was approved. Then, 12 months later, another Material Revision request was approved.
The admission requirements were changing and the definitions of Who We Intend to Educate were also changing. By 2008, the BCS Board stated that they were serving all the students of LASD. Five years later, in 2013, the BCS Board dropped the goal of preserving a neighborhood school environment, but held on to the goal serving all the students in the state of California.
Progression of Bullis Charter School Charter Petitions
WHOM THE SCHOOL IS ATTEMPTING TO EDUCATE:
In the original 2003 BCS Charter School Petition, page 2 states:
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving primarily the former students and siblings of the traditional public school, students within the former Bullis Purissima boundaries and the Los Altos Hills Community as a whole and secondarily residents of the Los Altos School District as a whole and Santa Clara County. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through sixth grade students.
In the January 2007 Renewal Petition, page 2, the focus evolved to:
From: The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶u̶d̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶b̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶d̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶ ̶s̶c̶h̶o̶o̶l̶, students within the former Bullis Purissima b̶o̶u̶n̶d̶a̶r̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶o̶s̶ ̶A̶l̶t̶o̶s̶ ̶H̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶C̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶o̶n̶d̶a̶r̶i̶l̶y̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ of the Los Altos School District a̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶t̶a̶ ̶C̶l̶a̶r̶a̶ ̶C̶o̶u̶n̶t̶y̶. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through sixth grade students.
To: The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving students of the Los Altos Elementary School District especially the former Bullis-Purissima Elementary School community. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through sixth grade students.
The goal remained the same in the October 2007 Material Revision request
In the September 2008 Material Revision Request, page 2, the focus evolved again to:
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving students of the Los Altos Elementary School District. e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ ̶B̶u̶l̶l̶i̶s̶-̶P̶u̶r̶i̶s̶s̶i̶m̶a̶ ̶E̶l̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶S̶c̶h̶o̶o̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through eight sixth grade students.
The goal remained the same in the August 2011 Material Revision request
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving students of the Los Altos Elementary School District. The school seeks to preserve a neighborhood school environment, serving kindergarten through eighth grade students.
In the August 2014 Renewal Petition, page 2, the focus evolved to:
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving students of the Los Altos Elementary School District. The school seeks t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶e̶i̶g̶h̶b̶o̶r̶h̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶ maintain a community school environment, serving kindergarten through eighth grade students.
In the April 2016 Renewal Petition the goal seems to have remained the same as the 2014 Renewal Petition
In the April 2016 Renewal Petition (over 1,000 pages), the traditional WHOM THE SCHOOL IS ATTEMPTING TO EDUCATE is not in the traditional first part of the document. Page 13 indicates in the section titled:
TARGET SCHOOL POPULATION:
The School seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the School subject only to capacity, with a focus on serving students of the Los Altos Elementary School District. The school seeks t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶e̶i̶g̶h̶b̶o̶r̶h̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶maintain a community school environment, serving kindergarten through eighth grade students.
Admission Preferences – Updates of Priority with each Petition to SSCOE
Santa Clara County Office of Education – Bullis Charter School
2.2. A Commuter School Serving all of LASD – K-8
Today, BCS is serving three times the number of students envisioned in either the original charter request or the historical run-rate of Old Bullis. The reopened New Bullis neighborhood school is serving a similar number of students as was historically served by Old Bullis.
Although BCS is not transparent regarding the residential areas of their students, the reinvented BCS has been committed (since its 2008 Charter Petition) to serving all of LASD, an area of over 20 square miles. The historical Old Bullis population served in Los Altos Hills is again being served by a neighborhood school. Thus, the vast majority of the families BCS serves have opted for an educational experience based on a commuter campus and a commuter community. (Approximately 75% of the current BCS students are commuting to campus. https://www.needanotherlook.com/)
The BCS Board recognized this and in the 2016 BCS Charter Petition, they formally changed the section, WHOM THE SCHOOL IS ATTEMPTING TO EDUCATE, from “preserving a neighborhood school environment” to “maintain a community school environment.”
Are one third to half of the BCS applications from out-of-district? The BCS Board has also chosen to recruit students from outside the LASD district. According to 2008, 2011 and 2014 petitions, one third of BCS applicants came from outside of the district. The 2019-20 facilities request indicates over half the BCS applications are from out-of-district.
Are approximately 5% of BCS enrollees from out-of-district? The 2019-20 facilities request mentions the out-of-district enrollment was 8% in 2012-13 and 5% in 2013-14. A petition filing in 2014-15 noted 6% were out of district. In another public document, the proposed facilities plan for 2019-20, the projection indicated the expectation of 4% of students would come from out of district. Representatives of BCS have mentioned a similar ratio, approximately 5%, in public discussions.
The addition of 7th and 8th grade students began in 2008, growing to serve 183 students in 2018-19.
Out-of-district students were recruited to help fill these enrollments. For the three years of available data, BCS has enrolled 22, 33 & 37 out-of-district 7th & 8th grade students. In 2011-12, 46% (22 of 48) 7th & 8th grade students were out-of-district and a decade later, in 2019-20, 37 of the 7th & 8th grade students, or 13%, are projected to be out-of-district. This much higher than the 2% to 3% out-of-district K-6 enrollees.
The ethnic and racial balance of the BCS 7th and 8th grade students seems to be evolving toward the balance of the BCS K-6 feeder population.
2.3. A Population NOT Reflective of LASD Racial and Ethnic Balance
In each of seven petitions to the county, from 2003 to 2016, BCS has committed to a student recruitment strategy that attempts of achieve a racial and ethnic balance among students that reflects the general district population. However, throughout its reinvention process, achieving this balance has not been accomplished.
The California Department of Education (CDE) defines the following categories and collects data from each school:
African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Filipino
Hispanic or Latino
Pacific Islander
White
Two or More Races
Not Reported
As the following graphs indicate there was an inflection point in 2009, when the BCS Board realized that the reopening of New Bullis, the renovated local neighborhood school, would accomplish the primary purpose of the original charter, “In order to regain a local school to serve the community of Los Altos Hills.”
Today, a decade later, examining the enrollment data provided by BCS, and collected by California Department of Education, provides perspective on the status of the BCS reinvention.
The number of students reported as Asians grew dramatically, from 91 to 461, over the last decade. Approximately 18% per year.
The number of students reported as Two or More Races also grew dramatically, from 26 to 167, over the last decade. Approximately 20% per year.
The number of students reported as Hispanic or Latino, Whites and the aggregation of all other (African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Filipino, Pacific Islander and “Not Reported”) grew modestly, from 208 to 288, over the last decade. Approximately 3% per year.
The next 5 graphs all use a consistent vertical axis, from 0 to 500 students. This presentation format allows the reader to see substantive changes, relative to the other graphs.
Over the 11-year period of reinvention, the Asian group has increased enrollment from 91 to 460, an annual growth rate of 18% per year.
Over the 11-year period, the Two or More Races group has increased from 26 to 167, an annual growth rate of 20% per year.
Over the 11-year period, K-6 students in the White group have declined by 17. The addition of 7th and 8th grades have added 66 students. The net annual growth rate has been 2% per year from the addition of 7th and 8th grades.
The Hispanic or Latino students and the All Other Ethnicities (African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Filipino, Pacific Islander and “Not Reported”) Students changed very little over the last decade.
The addition of the two additional grades (7th & 8th), when mixed with Race and Ethnicity, can be confusing. Separating the K-6 enrollment, and the 7th - 8th grade enrollment, provides a clearer picture. Three categories of enrollment drove BCS growth over the last decade:
K-6 Asian students,
K-6 Two or More Races students, and
The addition of 7th & 8th Grade students
Today, BCS is serving a student population which does NOT reflect the racial and ethnic balance of the LASD population.
Part 3
3.1. Over each of the last six years, how did over 50% of new admissions are from one ethnicity, and 80% of the new admissions are from two ethnicities, change the BCS enrollment profile?
Today, BCS is serving a student population which does NOT reflect the racial and ethnic balance of the LASD population How did this change occur? Modeling the change in the enrollment from one year to the next, assuming one grade level graduates each year (e.g. 8th graders move to high school) and 10% of the prior year enrollment turnover (e.g. moving, health, student/family preferences, etc.), yields an estimate of each year’s new enrollees.
Based on a few simple assumptions, over the last 5 years, 50% increasing to 60% of new BCS enrollees were Asian.
Based on the same extrapolation, over the last 5 years, 60% increasing to 80% of new BCS enrollees were Asian plus Two or More Races.
Mechanical Examples of Year-to-Year Enrollment Changes
3.2. Why did BCS invest resources managing so many Out-of-District Applications?
If 1% of out-of-district applications were accepted, and ~5% of enrollees are out-of-district, why manage 33% to over 50% out-of-district applications in the lottery pool?
Why has the BCS Board devoted resources to consistently recruiting, reviewing and managing so many out-of-district applications?The magnitude and consistency of the practice is curious since recruiting hundreds of effectively “ineligible” out-of-district applicants does not seem to be consistent with the need to recruit and serve students from LASD who reflect the community.
A number of hypothesis that have been discussed:
A Tool to Manage Perceptions:
Regulatory Requirement - The perception the lottery pool (vs. the actual admissions) reflects the racial and ethnic balance in LASD. Potentially, the racial, ethnic and economic profiles of the in-district applications in the “realistically eligible” lottery pool did not meet the racial and ethnic balance in LASD. Potentially, an overapplied lottery pool, using out-of-district applicants, better reflected the racial and ethnic balance in LASD. A frequently mentioned comment by BCS leadership, which to some people has the aura of deflection and diversion, “We have an open lottery and we do not determine who applies.”
Create a Perception of Scarcity – The perception of scarcity influences many behaviors (e.g. demand spikes for consumer products which are in limited supply, collectors bid-up prices of scarce objects, colleges advertise their application to admission rates to enhance the desirability of a university, and parents may perceive value in a school which limits the number students and has requirements for admission).
Create a Perception of Failure of LASD - Potentially the BCS Board wanted create the perception that LASD is not meeting the needs of many families/students?
Create a “Brand” - Nurture a regional “Brand” which helps insulate the BCS Board from the mandatory actions related to compliance concerns.
A Precursor to a Broader Strategy:
One twist might be for multiple legal entities, in various school districts, which could be merged to create a combined race, ethnicity and economic profile which might satisfy the legal expectations set forth in the charter act.
A precursor to a strategy to significantly expand the out-of-district enrollment. Why does BCS state in its charter petition that “it seeks to educate all students in the state of California who wish to attend the school, subject only to capacity”? Does the BCS Board, as a part of the California charter movement, have aspirations to increase the ratio of out-of-district enrollment in LASD facilities?
Another twist might be BCS plans control LASD land, and then invest BCS funds in physical assets for the benefit of out-of-district students, who are not offered Proposition 39 facilities.
One potential strategy to pursue to achieve this goal might be, if a neighborhood school is forced to close, and the former neighborhood campus is dedicated to BCS, what will happen to the new facilities paid for by BCS? The BCS foundation has available over $6,000,000 originally raised to buy a campus from LASD. Potentially, the BCS Foundation might choose to make improvements to the dedicated campus, although it is publicly owned by LASD.
For example, since each portable cost is ~$200,000 to install and ~$100,000 to lease for 10 years ($200,000 plus $100,000 = $300,000), could BCS decide to deploy a portion, in this example, half of its investments ($3,000,000) and install 10 additional portables, allowing the admission of 210 to 260 out-of-district students?
At the end of a multi-year facility use agreement, what long-term options would the LASD Board have? Would LASD be required to provide facilities to both in-district students and several hundred out-of-district students? Was this the intent of Proposition 39?
Speculating five years into the future, would a physical neighborhood which had been denied their local neighborhood school, instead be indefinitely hosting a “community” of in-district and out-of-district commuters, who if current practices continue, would not reflect the rest of racial, ethnicity or economic status of LASD?
Negotiation Leverage:
Create the impression that BCS has unlimited growth potential (while ignoring the requirement to reflect LASD’s ethnicity, racial and economic).
Financially weaken LASD by redirecting funds, from programs for in-district students, to out-of-district students.
Based on the mix of students in the 2019-20 facilities request, the gross cost per student to LASD is ~$8,000 and the net cost is ~$5,000. On average, each out-of-district enrollee requires ~$5,000 annual net funding from the LASD general fund.
The net LCFF funds transferred from LASD, to BCS, for BCS out-of-district students varies:
From LCFF/Revenue Limit districts are reimbursed at 70%,
From Basic Aid districts are not reimbursed and
From Palo Alto 100% reimbursed.
The following example is based on the BCS forecast for their recent facility request.
The BCS forecast 2019-20 indicates LASD’s net transfer out of the LASD General Fund, to BCS, would be approximately $235,000 of annual out-of-district student funding.
LASD has no choice on how many out-of-district students BCS chooses to enroll, in this case 47 students, at an annual cost ~$235,000 to LASD.
If BCS wants to add an additional 100 out-of-district students, then LASD would be obligated to fund them, assuming the relationships in this example, for an additional $470,000?
Since BCS added over 500 out-of-district applications to their 2019-20 lottery pool, does this foreshadow dramatically more out-of-district enrollments, which would generate an even more significant financial re-deployment of LASD resources.
The only check-and-balance available to LASD is to only provide facilities for in-district students.
Part 3.3 - Did the 2011-12 BCS Lottery Pool have “realistically ineligible” applicants? Was SCCOE presented information that was confusing?
The petition filing set the expectation of the projected racial and ethnicity of BCS for the next three years. These expectations were not reflective of the actual enrollments for 2011-12, 2012-3 or 2013-14.
The 2014 BCS petition document below shows BSC’s projected enrollment by race and ethnicity. It compares those projections with the total student population of LASD and contends that this enrollment would closely mirror the district’s racial balance. The subsequent table and chart demonstrate how widely actual enrollment differed from its projections to SCCOE.
The following narrative is included in both the 2011 and 2014 petitions:
“By July 22, 2011, Bullis Charter School had received 680 registrations for the 2011-12 school year. Upon analysis of each student’s registration forms, there is no doubt that the school’s Recruitment and Registration Plan has been extremely successful. Not only did students who represented the ethnic and racial balance of the Los Altos School District register for enrollment, but the Bullis Charter school was able to attract families with diverse backgrounds from communities beyond district boundaries. Applying students came to us from twenty-six (26) different school districts, twenty-two (22) nearby towns, and over two hundred and twenty (220) schools both public and private, and reflect a more varied demographic than even the Los Altos School District.”
The July 22, 2011 narrative indicates that 220 out of 680 registrations (32%) came from outside LASD.
The extra 220 out-of-district applications were above the 463 planned admissions mentioned in the narrative. Out-of-district applications were the last to be considered in the lottery, and in-district applications were almost equal to the 463-enrollment goal. (Actual enrollment was 465 in 2011-12.) Thus, it appears the 220 out-of-district applicants were not “realistically eligible” in the lottery pool.
Why did BCS pursue these out-of-district applications? Is it possible that these extra out-of-district applications were recruited for compliance with the ethnicity and racial commitment BCS made to SCCOE, but were not really intended to be enrolled? Potentially, an overapplied lottery pool, using out-of-district applicants, was statistically reflective of the racial and ethnic balance in LASD.
Did the “realistically eligible” lottery pool of in-district applications not reflect the racial and ethnic balance in LASD? The actual ethnicity and racial results of enrollees were very different from the projected results for the year the charter petition document was submitted, and each of the next two years. Was the lottery pool, not the pool of “practically eligible” applicants, used to demonstrate "the means by which the school will achieve racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the general population."
Potentially, the SCCOE was presented information that was confusing. There might have been confusion between registration goals and enrollment goals, between in-district and out-of-district registrations, and the known ethnic and racial profiles of the “practically eligible” in-district registrations.
A page from the BCS 2014 Material Revision Petition - Submitted 8-6-14
This spreadsheet is another presentation of the material presented above
3.4. The 2019-20 BCS Enrollment, Lottery Pool and Waitlist
It is easy to be confused by the terms used to describe various aspects of the student enrollment process. Since the data used to develop the two examples (2011-12 and 2019-20) was primarily extracted from infrequent publicly available documents (petition filings and facilities requests), there is no consistent data series.
A waterfall graphic is used to present the following 2019-20 Forecast. Note that this data came from a facility request which emphatically stated that the enrollment forecast was supported by a completed lottery and comprised of already registered students. LASD provided facilities per the request.
The actual enrollment is 65 below forecast and has more the forecast out-of-district students. Potentially, the turnover was higher. Potentially, the 211 in-district wait list was a “soft” number. The net effect suggests lower net in-district enrollees than the completed lottery used for the facility request.
There are a number of observations and questions which might be interesting. For example:
Enrollment (Red Box)
Grads and Turnover – 93 reduction – The forecast might be low, since there were 89, 8th grade students, in the prior year’s enrollment. Did the forecast assume only 3 other students would turnover (1/2%)?
New In-District – 279 increase mentioned in the source documents. The source documents indicate that 157 of the 279 were for adding additional classes (2 kindergarten and 1 each of 1st to 5th).
New Out-of-District – 3 increase mentioned in the source documents.
The forecasted net change, from 915 to 1,104, is a net increase of 190 students. The forecast had 282 (279 + 3) new enrollees, 157 were for adding additional K-5 classes and the replacement of the 89 graduating 8th graders, leaves approximately 36 to grow 8th grade enrollment and fill-in enrollment gaps in various classes.
Lottery Pool (Green Box)
There were 490 (279 + 211) in-district applicants and 590 (3 + 587) out-of-district applicants. The forecast indicated 1,080 lottery applications, 45% in-district and a 55% out-of-district.
57% of the in-district were accepted and only 1% of the out-of-district were accepted.
Why were there 100 more out-of-district applications than in-district applications, particularly when the out-of-district acceptance rate was 1% and a historical run rate of ~5% of total enrollment. The BCS admission priorities limit (to low single digits) out-of-district enrollment to primarily:
Siblings of current Bullis Charter School students who reside outside the boundaries of the Los Altos School District but within California.
Children of BCS staff members who reside outside the boundaries of the Los Altos School District but within California.
211 in-district applicants either not accepted or withdrew their application.
Waitlist (Yellow Box)
On 11-30-19 the BCS web site noted - "There are no open spots for the 2019-20 school year at this time. To be added to the waitlist, please be sure to select forms for the 2019-20 school year when you complete the enrollment process."
Why were applications being taken, 12 months after the deadline, and 2 months after classes had begun, when there were 211 students already on the waitlist? Was the class preference composition for these 211 not available? Did a number of applicates decline admission or withdraw their applications?
The FAQ on the BCS website includes o
FAQ - If I enroll my child at BCS, can I change my mind?
Yes. Filling out and returning an acceptance packet does not commit you to a decision. If for any reason your plans change and you no longer wish to enroll your child at BCS, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can offer your child’s place to another interested student.
It seems the 211 in-district wait list was not effective filling the 65-student enrollment gap.
Why did BCS commit resources to recruit, qualify and organize so many (590 = 3 + 587) out-of-district applications?
Part 3.5 - Why was the 2019-20 lottery activity so out-of-the-norm for BCS?
Why forecast in 2019-20 to double the run rate of enrolling new students?
The actual enrollment was 65 lower and has a higher number of out-of-district students.
In 2019-20, why was the historical pattern of maintaining the number of applications at 150% of enrollment, set aside, and applications were below 100% of enrollment?
Why have the number of in-district applications been fairly stable, while out-of-district applications have grown dramatically?
If 1% of out-of-district applications were accepted, why manage 33% to over 50% out-of-district applications in the lottery pool?
