the problem with all of these debates is that they make the school district responsible for enormous social problems. it isn’t as if there aren’t good teachers with dedication in the lower-performing schools; the problem is often with the poverty, lack of education, and lack of access at home. by asking the parents who happen to live in less active, concerned neighborhoods to keep their child there rather than take them to school where they can be part of a community that raises the child seems unjust to the child. you can’t punish them for the apathy of their neighbors.

i believe that if we as a district spent more REAL time and effort getting families involved, making them feel comfortable and invested in school (which may mean events outside of the school’s walls in many cases), and helping them with obtaining necessary resources, then the neighborhood schools could have a chance at improving. maybe if you could show the parents who are choosing to go somewhere else that change is being attempted they could help lead it. it seems that the elementary schools with take-charge principals who have been relentless about community organization have been successful (sankofa, la escuelita are the first that come to mind as having made tremendous gains in climate, success, and community in recent years).

I have mixed feelings about the current school choice option, and sent my kids to their neighborhood schools, but the schools were decent (I guess some disagreed and voted with their feet). There is a history of parents organizing and “reclaiming” neighborhood schools that had been opted out of for periods of time, from Grass Valley to Brett Harte to Claremont to Edna Brewer, resulting in much greater success overall for all attending students. I always really admired the parents who spearheaded those efforts. While I did not hear Ms Spearman’s comments, I assume she also believes that if families stayed with their neighborhood schools, they too, could see remarkable improvement.

On a last note, thank you Kerry Hamill for the ethical and humanistic way you served OUSD on the board during one of its worst periods. I know that you sent your kids to their neighborhood schools and helped to support them on a smaller scale as well. I felt your perspective was enhanced by actually having kids in the district and it was much appreciated by many of us not in North Oakland.

“It would mean driving over the Richmond Bridge to work, spending untold hours in traffic. For me to give up a walker’s manna to commute 40 miles a day spewing exhaust and wasting money on fuel and tolls was ludicrous.

But that’s how bad it is in Oakland. It was easy for me to pick up and move, but what about young families who have kids in school, whose mortgages are tanking? Trapped.”

Read the full story here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/07/INDF14G3QD.DTL

Condolences offered here to “young Oakland families” trying to acquire a quality education for their children and having to endure, among other things, the tortures of schoolboarding.

I wasn’t at the meeting, but the Spearman comment sounded inappropriate. If you allow for an option program, do not criticize those who make the effort to find a better school. Let’s face it – there are only a handful of great schools and dozens of bad ones. I would do everything I could do LEGALLY to access a better education for my children and kudos to those who are persistent and lucky enough to land a spot at a good school. [As a side note, I hope you volunteer your time and/or donate money to help keep the school performing at a high level... think of this as a way of giving back for your good fortune.]

As for Gary Yee, in my experience he is NOT pro-neighborhood schools. In nearly every case in Oakland where there are high-performing elementary schools, it is because of the strength of the neighborhood families. Without the support of the neighborhood, it seems near impossible to a school to be high-performing. The exception would be Kaiser (this school seems to attract committed families across Oakland) and, in other communities, magnet schools (again, this would attract a certain type of student and family).

Parent participation, proximity to employment/bart (in the event of emergencies), enrichment programs, etc… were all a part of our decision to drive across town.

The fact of the matter is OUR family feels it was best to try to provide what we felt was best for our children… Am I wrong for wanting the best educational experience for my kids? What kind of parent would I be for not trying (choice lottery) to provide the strongest foundation possible???

I think the school board needs to take a hard look at making more schools appealing or they will eventually see the same situation they are experiencing with Claremont (currently several Independent schools [Athenian/Bentley/Prospect Sierra/Santa Domingo]providing shuttle service from Rockridge Bart station to/from their school…stealing Oakland’s best & brightest) at elementary level schools.

And the Spearman smack-down was particularly nasty and uncomfortable. Rather than singling out parents who care enough to show up and let their voices be heard, she (and all other BOE members), should use the opportunity to learn more about the issues they see in their local schools and use that insight to make the changes they need to make in order to improve them. But regardless of all that, it’s NOT OK for a public official to berate any community member who actually takes the time to be informed and speak up, regardless of the school or district they represent. Good grief!