Rather than campaign contributions, I’m sure her role and success on the M-B campaign played a role in Chabot being prioritized (without precluding that the Facilities Master Plan also played a role, whether this was a political process or not). I do understand this success is to be commended. What I’m still wondering is why some schools with multiple portables have not been included?

Is there a reason 60 y.o. portables are more suitable for some campuses than others? -or- Why are some schools more deserved of Portable Replacement contracts than others?

Thanks for any explanations that can be given.

PS. Separate from the issue of Ms. London & Ms. Spearman doing their jobs (by replacing portables at the schools they represent) I wonder what our Representative has been doing and why he was not equal to the task.

Here’s a blurb from the OUSD events calendar:

The Oakland Unified School District invites you to learn about the specific work being done on the Tilden Campus to support the District’s Strategic Direction, so you can get involved on the spot!

Be sure to arrive promptly to hear Superintendent Smith’s welcome. Special invited guests include Mayor Jean Quan and District 4 Councilwoman Libby Shaaf.

Please join us at Tilden School, 4551 Steele St, Oakland, CA 94619.

For more information, please contact Denise Saddler at denise.saddler@ousd.k12.ca.us, or (510) 336-7574.

My children attend one of the schools you described as being “middle class” and while I agree that these schools experience funding constraints that neither the wealthier schools nor the poorer schools face your emphasis on the Chabot project seems misplaced. I have visited over half of the elementary schools in the district and the site conditions at Chabot were such that a new building was justified. The portables at Chabot dated from the WWII era and had clearly were in need of a permanent replacement. Add to this the demand for placement at Chabot and in my opinion it was logical to commit funds to the project. I have no stake (other than being a concerned taxpayer) in the project as I do not live within that neighborhood, nor do I have children at that school. The question that I have, perhaps Ms. Spearman can answer this, is how does the district prioritize school site improvements (i.e. new buildings and/or portables) and major maintenance? Does projected enrollment or demand get factored into the decision, because in my travels in recent school years I have seen a few cases of schools that were recently modernized but had several vacant classrooms or were at 75% or less of their capacity. This in turn leads to the question of school closures and what the district had once referred to as “right-sizing”, but perhaps that is better addressed on another thread. So, while I agree with your question of who got (or gets) what and why I think that the emphasis on Chabot was unnecessary.

To Ms. Spearman and Mr. Flint:

For the record, as a parent this is what I expect (and hope for) from OUSD, of course the devil is in the details…
1.A rigorous learning environment for all students
2.A school environment that emphasizes discipline and personal responsibility for staff, parents and students
3.A clean, well maintained school site
4.Teaching staff that communicates with parents to alert them of minor behavioral/health/academic issues
5.Secondary school only: vocational education and work experience opportunities.
6.Magnet schools where students can receive training in a field or preparation for further study (i.e. carpentry, digital media, culinary, foreign languages, science, automotive technology, etc.). These schools would be available starting in middle school, and would be open to Oakland students meeting the program’s prerequisites. If more students apply than can be accomodated, perhaps a ranking or lottery system could be devised for placement. Among the types of magnet schools I would include is a “Lowell-type” high school and perhaps a middle school for those kids that want an education that would prepare them for placement and success at a highly-selective college or university.

It’s like they do not want you to understand so they perhaps appear very smart, or so that others are too busy deciphering long tangents to even question the rhetoric?

Thats all Im saying. This city has urban problems that need a bit of fire- this aint it! Too much of this already exists in Oakland. Quality schools should mean different approaches, cause what has been done in the past has obviously not worked.

Im glad it is being re-taped though. I look forward to part 2. My advice……keep it simple!

Sadly, I do not believe that OUSD will do anything other than what they have already planned with regards to these ‘full service schools’ and ‘quality community schools’. Indeed, this is where they are directing the district’s resources, and indeed, they are paying lip-service to this whole information gathering phase. But I believe that the whole deal has already been made despite how many people show up to the flatland schools to opine on the issue. Lip-service, my friends, it is all lip-service.

I was involved in a grassroots community movement several years ago in my former flatland neighborhood. OUSD held community meetings to determine what to do with our neighborhood school. We had a very strong neighborhood group, well regarded principal, and a unified parent group that spoke clearly and cohesively about how our school should be redesigned (I can’t recall the educational jargon that they were spouting at that time). We all attended the ‘community meeting’ at the school site, en masse, and in marched the OUSD administrators to state that they would do the exact opposite. This was supposedly an open ‘community meeting’, but OUSD had already made all the decisions.

Perhaps I sound cynical and inflexible in my assertions, but remember this, I am a parent with two OUSD students, a tax payer, home owner and a member of the community, and like many others on this blog, I want OUSD to succeed. What would it look like for OUSD to focus on all children and truly take into account the opinions of its constituents?

As a result, its’ the middle income schools that OUSD doesn’t pay attention to (especially below the 50% FRL #), but that still need resources.

Separately from the Chabot issue, how do schools with many portables get on the list to get bond money?

So there will be a wide variety in the proportion of middle class & FRL students, some over 50% of one, others over 50% of the other. The elementary schools I see as middle class are: Cleveland, Kaiser, Piedmont Ave.(?), Peralta, Sequoia, Glenview, Redwood Heights, Carl Munck, Grass Valley, Garfield (?).

Note Redwood Heights has much less FRL, but given the neighborhood I believe it’s more middle class than Chabot, Hillcrest, etc. On the other end are schools like Grass Valley, Garfield, etc. which have about 60% FRL, meaning roughly 40% middle class.

The other characteristic of these schools is that most of them are extremely diverse. How well they’re doing, what they’re doing right, the challenges they face, etc. are all reflective of Oakland.

Finally, if OUSD can help these schools continue to improve, it will help increase recent middle class buy-in, it will help the finances of these schools, it will help the poorer kids at these schools, and it will increase the resources available to the district & poorer schools.

To date, however, OUSD has essentially ignored them. They instead need to be part of OUSD’s focus. It’s in it’s own self-interest.