Letter to Board on BCS Charter Renewal Request
From: Steve Brown
One of the only times a chartering authority has an opportunity to hold a charter school accountable for its results is when their charter is being considered for renewal.
The BCS charter was renewed 8 years ago, and publicly available data suggests that BCS has not made the changes needed to enroll and serve the students who are the intended focus of the Charter Act. This 2024 renewal process is at a critical moment for the SCCOE Board to hold themselves, and to hold the BCS Board accountable.
Additionally, publicly available data suggests that BCS does not seem to be operating in good faith during this renewal process. From speeding up timelines (see Attachment 1), to presenting data in non-transparent ways (see Attachment 3), to refusing, even when directly asked, to provide demographic information for their 2024-25 students, to not fully cooperating with SCCOE staff (see Attachment 4) – there are many indicators that there seem to be tactics being used to rush and obscure in an effort to force a renewal, rather than to navigate this process in a transparent, careful, collaborative way that best serves our community.
There are many years of SCCOE documented benevolent oversight efforts. And the BCS enrollment data indicates the two recent Notices of Concern (May 21, 2021 and August 5, 2023) did not have a significant impact on the recent composition of BCS enrollment. These prior efforts and recent 47607(e) Notifications should not be ignored by the state, or the courts if BCS chooses that course.
This month the SCCOE Board will once again have the opportunity to hold BCS accountable and the data overwhelmingly suggests that the SCCOE Board should deny the current BCS petition.
Each of these points are detailed in the memo and attachments that follows:
Publicly available data suggests that BCS has not made the changes needed to enroll and serve students who are the intended focus of the Charter Act
The data indicates BCS has continued to under enroll “Academically Low Achieving” students.
The two BCS “Academically Low Achieving” student groups that seem to indicate that some progress has been made are students identified as Special Needs and English Learners. Unfortunately, there are glaring inconsistencies with these subgroups when compared with similar data for LASD and the surrounding districts.
Special Needs: During recent years, and in 2023-24 specifically, the composition of BCS students enrolled in special education seemed to increase. However, it is dramatically skewed, relative to the “normal distribution” of students enrolled in the three adjacent districts. It seems, BCS enrolled students with relatively mild disabilities that attend regular classes 80% or more of the day.
English Learners: In 2023-24 the number and the proportion of TK+K English Learners was substantially higher than the proportionate benchmark of LASD+BCS. BCS reported 63% of their TK students were English Learners, approximately 2.6 times more than the 24% reported by LASD. Assembly Bill 2268 was signed into law in June 2024, after this data was submitted, halting the identification of English Learners in TK
The BCS enrollment data indicates the two recent Notices of Concern (May 21, 2021 and August 5, 2023) did not have a significant impact on the recent composition of BCS enrollment.
Publicly available data suggests that BCS does not seem to be operating in good faith during this renewal process.
Two months ago, BCS forced the hand of the SCCOE Board by making an early submission of a 598-page renewal petition, and intentionally compressing the time available for the SCCOE staff to fully analyze and report their findings. See Attachment 1 for details.
The early submission seems to be a strategic effort to rush the process given timing of planned meetings. BCS was inflexible about requested extensions to appropriately review the data submitted in the 598-page renewal. The BCS choices on the timing, and later inflexibility, would have reduced the time for the SCCOE staff to prepare their report by 25 days, from the intended 75 days to prepare a compressed 50 days.
The SCCOE team preparing the Analysis and Proposed Finding did not have the hoped for time or the cooperation from BCS staff. See specific excerpts from the SCCOE staff report in Attachment 4. For example:
SCCOE staff encountered an uncooperative BCS staff, missing metrics, resisting requests, and delaying requests
SCCOE staff noted they did not have time to conduct independent interviews
SCCOE staff noted concerns about student satisfaction data
SCCOE staff noted concerns about teaching credentials of staff
SCCOE staff noted concerns about the composition of the BCS Board
The BCS enrollment data in their petition also suggests there are other important issues that may have not yet been examined. See Attachment 3 for details. For example:
Significant number of BCS students who choose to not re-enroll (~100 each of the last 3 years)
Decline in the combined enrollment of 7th and 8th grade students.
BCS increase in out-of-district enrollment (increased from 5% to 8% )
Hispanic students only averaged ~4 per grade
The proportion of TK+K English Learners
No Hispanic TK+K ELS students enrolled.
The composition of students enrolled in special education
BCS teaching turnover (20% to 25% each of the last 3 years)
Given the data and the approach, I strongly encourage the SCCOE Board members to decline the current BCS Charter Renewal Request for the following reasons:
BCS has not sufficiently responded to years of requests to serve academically low achieving students and serve their community as stated in the Charter Act[AC1] . And they have not sufficiently enacted the changes needed to address the concerns in the two recent 47607(e) Notifications
It seems the compressed timeline was intentionally reduced for the SCCOE staff to prepare their report by 25 days (or 3+ weeks) from 75 intended days to 50 days. This timeline compression was forced by both the unscheduled Sunday night board meeting, the over-night rush by the BCS Board to file a submission on June 3rd, and subsequent BCS inflexibility on the extension of the Decision Meeting date. Please see Attachment 1.
There seems to be a lack of transparency and responsiveness to limit the scope of SCCOE to access and review data. Although the SCCOE staff tried, due to both the compressed schedule, and the lack of cooperation from the BCS Staff, the SCCOE analysis is not complete. Please see Attachment 4.
There are other potential red flags that suggest enrollment issues. Please see Attachment 3.
This is a precedent setting event. Is this charter renewal process, and the resulting decision, setting a precedent not just for all the children living in the boundaries of the Los Altos School District, but also for other children in districts and charters throughout California?
Approving the current resolution will set the stage for five more years, like the last 8 years, of SCCOE requesting changes and BCS responding with actions which have little effect on “Academically Low Achieving” student enrollment.
Denying the current BCS Charter Renewal Request asserts the SCCOE is holding BCS accountable, and it creates the opportunity for substantive changes.
Faced with the potential Charter denial, the BCS Board might consider withdrawing the petition, before the SCCOE August 26th special board meeting. BCS choosing to withdraw their petition, could create an opportunity for the BCS Board to engage cooperatively with the SCCOE preparing a revised Charter Renewal Request.
Potentially BCS may prefer the denial, and then appeal to the state. There seems to be plenty of time, before the 2025-26 school year, for the appeal process to work through the system.
I appreciate each of your years of service to all the children in our community.
Thank you for taking the time to read this document and to consider the material presented.
If you have questions or comments, please let me know.
Steve Brown
650-996-4895
Attachments:
1. Was the petition submission date selected to limit the scope of the SCCOE analysis?
2. Will the BCS Charter Request be precedent setting?
3. Potential red flags suggesting enrollment issues?
4. Does the BCS Board support constraints on SCCOE access and review?
[AC1]You have this language in a previous memo. Make the law your number one reason