He was probably a very good classroom teacher at one time. I appreciated the way he interacted with my sons the first time we met him – his first day in the district.

He was not good at interacting with families or staff, though. Too autocratic and at times dictatorial. He needed to listen, and he seemed to have little or no skills or interest in doing so. He made some people so upset that he believed their anger at him could become violent, and as a result of his poor handling of these situations (I was a witness to one at a meeting of special education families, and understand there were others.) the district had to hire personal bodyguards for Dr. Ward. This is an expense that no other superintendent or state administrator has inflicted on our finacially troubled district.

He should stay in San Diego if they’re happy with him, and if he’s happy living there. OUSD needs someone who won’t antagonize families and consequently feel unsafe in the position.

I see some positives to the state takeover of Oakland schools.

* Finances. Current school board president David Kakishiba stated last September “In reality, the district is in the best financial shape it’s been in ten years.” The state doesn’t deserve credit for the school bonds passed by Oakland voters, and former administrator Kimberly Statham in particular should be criticized for not spending millions in funds available to the district, but in general they get credit for managing finances wisely, a skill which landed the district in state receivership to begin with.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/oakland_schools__cash_stash/Content?oid=499156

* More planning and research. In the past the school board seemed to lurch from crisis to crisis without a road map for longer term outcomes. And it is helpful to have numbers and research to develop policy.

* Action. The state administration seems less restricted by the need to reach political consensus. Even a casual observer of OUSD’s previous school boards would note their feckless nature.

* Innovation. I’ve heard OUSD described in recent years as a laboratory for educational innovation, and that has the potential to be a good thing, depending on how such a laboratory is run.

Then there are the drawbacks.

* CEO model. In a system based on a CEO model it becomes critically important who leads. OUSD saw excellent advances under Randy Ward, but fewer under Kimberly Statham and Vince Matthews.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/eli_s_experiment/Content?oid=518210&page=1

* Anti-democratic. Obviously this one is huge. One must rely on the state appointed administrator to be good at what he/she does and to act in the best interest of Oakland’s citizens. If one disagrees, or if the administrator is incompetent or a tyrant, he/she is beyond direct reach of the voters as there are no elections or impeachment/recall process.

In the end, I think leadership of the district can be high quality under either scenario, state administration or local control. It depends on the people leading. In my ideal scenario, the board regains control and hires Randy Ward as superintendent. In addition, I would like the district to retain the planning and financial practices of the state, and I would like the board to focus on oversight and policy only and leave day to day management to professionals.