By: John Public

John Public — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:34:52 +0000

It amazes me how these small schools are touted at the best answer to school failure and reform in Oakland. These small schools tend to bleed-off the more involved parents of an existing school site via the promise of a new start, and leave the rest of the community behind. Isn’t that like ladling the cream from the top? Why don’t they just admit that the reason that the small school movement will continue is because it gives the district the opportunity to restart the performance clock under NCLB. Close the old school, get a new CDS code and voila…a new 5-7 year clock and the district gets to keep the student population and all of the funds.

What are the real numbers behind the claims above…especially with regards to academic achievement? Is it truly statistically relevant or 1-2 more than another site? Additionally, the claim in number 7 above is utterly amazing in the sense that the schools can achieve high levels of organizational functioning during the first yar of operation. Quite an accomplishment given the lack of overall organization the district operates on as a whole. Seems as if common sense woud expect that the new school would mirror its system. Is this high level of organization widespread and sustainable, or is it highly dependent upon the site’s leadership?

The next question just has to be, with all of the additional support and resources given to these new small schools, who supports the existing infrastructure? Or is the expectation that it will eventually fail and become the next candidate for the small school movement?

Looks as if Oakland should move to a “New Small District” approach and take notes from its “proven” small schools reform.

Comments on: OUSD officials declare support of small schools

By: John Public