My point is – of the three “flat land” schools I visit to bring free books, each elementary school has a minimum of two guards and no librarians. All schools have declining test scores, all schools have SLIP money which includes money for a librarian.

In elementary school a good librarian can make the difference between the great majority of the kids reading for pleasure or NOT. In addtion, going to the library gives kids an opportunity to hear a story read to them (at least at our elementary school all children are read to by the librarian).

And, a measure of learning is the number and quality of books a children have access to daily.

We also have a fabulous librarian who supports literacy across the school and provides a safe, comfortable place for students to read and work.

Please don’t make blanket statements about schools. All students have different needs and the more positive adults you can have at an Oakland middle school, the better. The ratio of security guards to librarians certainly isn’t a deciding factor in student achievement.

You are right that the 15% is mentioned in the County Counsel’s analysis of Measure N, and in the argument in support of Measure N.

I fear that many voters will not (unlike you) read beyond the boxed statement. And, I also fear, that seeing the statement in the voter pamphlet that there was no argument in opposition to Measure N submitted will encourage voters to pass Measure N. Although there is no argument printed there is growing opposition to Measure N.

And, although the framed question mentions the parcel tax is to support successful charter schools (however that is defined), it would be an easy mistake for a voter, reading his/her voter information pamphlet, to think that the parcel tax money for corporate charter schools had to be used exclusively on charter school teacher salaries.

If I had written an argument against Measure N, I would first question why requested parcel taxes for the Oakland Public Schools, and money for the Oakland Charter Schools, had to be combined. Why can’t Oakland’s corporate charter schools ask Oakland’s voters for a charter school tax money on their own?

Then I would raise the issue of what $1.8 million dollars a year for successful corporate charter schools will do in increasing interest in starting up more charter schools in Oakland, and thereby, decreasing enrollment, further putting stress on an already stressed budget.

As I mentioned in my earlier post State Administrator Vincent Matthews feels that including charter schools is an issue of equity. However, nowhere in the laws enacted around the State loan, and State take-over, is mentioned the issue of charter school equity. This is obvious a role that was self-defined.

At last night’s meeting he mentioned that Measure N is designed to close the gap between San Francisco teacher pay and Oakland teacher pay. So why did he leave out the charter school teachers? San Francisco wrote its parcel tax and included charter schools but the money is to be spent for teacher salaries and not charter school programs (whatever that means).

Also, San Francisco’s parcel tax language was for more money, $195 per parcel while Oakland is asking for $120, and for twice as many years. Plus, the parcel tax is indexed for inflation over those 20 years.

Oakland’s parcel tax was not designed by State Administrator Matthews to keep up with San Francisco’s parcel tax despite his words about closing the gap in teachers’ pay.

That Measure N falls short in closing the gap in competitive teacher pay is just one of the many reasons I have listed above for voting NO on Measure N.

Jim Mordecai
Oakland Substitute Teacher

Schools large like Lakeview, Fruitvale and Garfield don’t even come close – they value security guards more than librarians. Both are funded – just ask the schools how many times per week the students at the schools listed above see guards and how many times a week they see a librarian. Guards are not helping kids learn – it could be argued they are not keeping things any safer than other school adults (like librarians) who care about children.

Is it true Jim Moredaci is just a sub? Wow, and we wonder why this city is the state is in. That is like having the janitor speak for a schools academic program!

I know some will say “whats wrong with that”?

To quote Oaklands own Too Short- “Oakland is the City of dopes cant be saved by John the Pope.”

Schools are not the problem. We need places for teachers to esducate the students. That is where the revenue is generated. All this talk about schools is “premature”, as Kakishiba says.

Downsize the central office. It is top heavy. Too many administrators earning 6-figure salaries. Getting rid of 8 of them making $125k a year would net $1 million.

Why do we have a state administrator and a superintendent? Their salaries with benefits and perks are at least $500k.
Freeze unnecessary expenses (travel & conference).

Dismiss all consultants (no point in hiring 6 figure personnel tghen hiring outside consultants as well).

The Categorical money needs to be spent…on schools. Too often, Oakland has had a negative general fund balance but a huge balance in the categorical programs. Money that the State and Feds send Oakland for school use is not being used…In some cases, it is being returned.

Clean up the central office budget before you start talking about closing schools. Closing schools is an expensive affair financially and emotionally and not worth it in the end. It should only be carried out as a last resort.

turner

We don’t have the energy for so many false alarms. Its very difficult to keep up with what the BOD is going to do without having to guess what they are thinking.

Also, some of the larger schools require security guards which adds to costs – check out which schools have more security guards than librarians and you will find schools that are not, for the most part, educating their students to the minimum required standards.