School closures, “political reality”
By Katy Murphy
Thursday, September 8th, 2011 at 2:26 pm in school closures.
Two weeks ago, as part of its big restructuring and school closure process, the Oakland school board approved a system of ranking schools, primarily based on where they are most needed, geographically. Board members talked about the importance of looking at the district as a whole when determining how many and which schools to close, rather than advocating for their respective districts.
That was all before anyone named names.
On Wednesday, the names of 10 schools “identified for possible closure consideration” appeared on a staff presentation, highlighted in yellow: Burckhalter, Kaiser, Lakeview, Lazear, Marshall, Maxwell Park, Santa Fe and Sobrante Park elementary schools; and Claremont and Frick middle schools. (Note: The superintendent said at the meeting it was unlikely any middle schools would actually be recommended for closure. The district is already consolidating a number of its high schools and doesn’t plan to recommend any more.)
District staff members stressed that the list was not a set of recommendations, but the result of initial number-crunching — running the district’s 101 schools through the first few steps of the formula the school board members approved. They began by ranking schools according to enrollment trends, population density and facility size. Schools that are already undergoing major changes are removed from the list.
Still, with those names in black and white, the conversation changed.
Jody London (North Oakland) said she wondered if district staff had taken into account the “political reality” of closing the only school of a certain type in an electoral district — namely, Claremont Middle School in North Oakland. Alice Spearman (East Oakland-Elmhurst) said she was disappointed to see smaller, predominately African-American elementary schools near Interstate 580 on the list. A vocal critic of the district’s small schools initiative — in which a number of large, low-performing schools were closed and smaller ones were opened in their place — Spearman said she’d rather see the district consolidate elementary and middle school campuses in the district’s flatlands, even if it meant creating an elementary school with 700 or more students.
Spearman also questioned why six schools in West Oakland were exempt from closure consideration — as specified in the criteria — because of a district initiative to bring a science, math, technology and engineering focus to the area.
Board member David Kakishiba urged his colleagues to maintain discipline in the face of a difficult decision. “Two weeks ago, we approved criteria,” he said. “The superintendent is coming back with results. When we get to the point where we’re going to completely upend the criteria, we’re wasting time. I’m wondering: What were we thinking two weeks ago?”
A number of parents from Kaiser Elementary made the case for their high-performing school, which had 272 students in 2010-11. Although it’s located in a wealthy Oakland hills neighborhood, they noted that most of its students come from other parts of the city, making it racially and socioeconomically diverse. Last year, African-American students made up the largest ethnic group at the school, with about one-third of the student population; they averaged a score of 816 out of 1,000 possible points on the state’s Academic Performance Index, well above the district average. The school’s API is 885.
Lisa Cartolano, whose children attend Kaiser and Claremont, said the idea of closing either school doesn’t make sense for the school district. “This is why people leave Oakland,” she said. “I have so many friends who have up and left. … It’s getting exhausting.”
Other speakers accused the district of protecting schools with predominately white student populations.
“How do we keep Montclair and Thornhill when they’re a block a way from each other?” asked Wandra Boyd, a longtime advocate for African-American students who once ran for a seat on the school board. “You’re closing high-performing schools that have a large African-American population. … In each and every case, you’ve never affected the white students.”
Preliminary recommendations for school closure and restructuring — which will take into account special education programming, board feedback and other factors — will be presented at a public board meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 27. The board is scheduled to make a final decision by Oct. 26.
Vernon Hal, the district’s deputy superintendent of business services and operations, estimates that each school closure would free up about $450,000 to spend on the district’s remaining schools, even if 20 percent of the affected students leave the district. Consolidating two schools that share a campus, he said, would result in a savings of about $250,000.
Restructuring presentation
var docstoc_docid=”93849562″;var docstoc_title=”Restructuring presentation”;var docstoc_urltitle=”Restructuring presentation”;
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
September 8th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
In case folks want to know about the bomb scare at Skyline today.
http://www.skylineoracle.com/news/2011/09/08/bomb-threat-leads-to-evacuation/
September 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I hadn’t heard about that! Thanks for letting me (well, us) know.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Did the criteria approved include just the API scores? I think the parents at Kaiser need to study the school board’s criteria and argue why they are wrong. If it’s strictly API scores then the schools that close will also be schools of color, just different ones.
I do agree with the critque about Thornhill and Montclair. Especially as Montclair is going through a redesign and expansion. If OUSD does not include this it will be an obvious sign of how the District caters to wealthier neighborhoods. Not just families of color or working class families, but middle class families too.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I am the fifth grade teacher at Burckhalter Elementary School.Yes, there is only one. Burckhalter is a beautiful , small school. In the not-too-distant past small schools and small class sizes were looked at as a district wide strategy to improve achievement. This has worked at Burckhalter.We are doing everything right.We have incredible leadership in our beloved principal, Ms. Geathers. She respects her staff, her families and has created a school culture that is unlike anything I have witnessed in my 30 years in Oakland Public Schools. When we have tough situations to deal with, her mantra has been,” This is the best it’s ever been” for each student we have.If it is not, she makes it so. She lives by that and makes it happen. She has her staff living that as well, and in the face of serious challenges she has made our school work and made her staff work for our school.
The criteria for school closures was academic success or failure. That is a criteria everyone could or should stand behind. Our successes are clear. Look for yourselves. We are a predominantly African- American, successful school. We are small. Recently we have been told that our students are not in our “community” and therefore we are not meeting someone’s standards for what a community school is. I define our school community as what goes on within our walls, on our grounds, and WE ARE VERY MUCH A COMMUNITY. But how can the district begin to say this should be criteria? Afterall, they are the ones who closed neighborhood schools,and created “options”,that directs students out of their neighborhoods. They also say our enrollment is too low. We have 3 empty classrooms, we have parents still wanting to enroll their children. Two teachers retired that they did not replace. The Student Assignment Office downtown can direct more students to us, and send us two teachers .
Now I ask, How can you threaten to close a school for not having children from the neighborhood, or threaten to close a school for not having enough children enrolled when that situation was created by the district itself and the way they decide to interpret facts?
So this brings us to the WHY are you really doing this. The politics of creating charter schools. When a school was doing poorly and a charter could step in to create a successful option for our children, I could get behind that. BUT WE ARE NOT A FAILING SCHOOL.
Chapter 2
Who is Making These Recommendations for Closures and Why? REALLY, Why?
September 8th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Regarding the mention of Montclair Elementary, it’s going through an addition to replace the portables that have been there since the 1940′s and it shows. I don’t see how this is catering to the wealthy- especially when you see how much nicer (a lot nicer!) the facilites are in many of the flat-land schools or lesser affluent neighborhoods. I’m thinking of Cesar Chavez for one. Montclair receives less money per pupil than any other in the district, and it doesn’t have half the resources the flat-land schools receive- i.e. new computers, loads of categorical funding, etc. It does have lots of hands-on volunteer work- much of it from working parents who decide to make it a priority! It also has students of all colors/backgrounds/religions, and takes in non-neighborhood kids. Maybe the reason both Thornhill and Montclair are not getting closed is that they are both well-run schools who do a lot with very little, have a high demand for enrollment, and are very welcoming to all.
September 8th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Katy. Questions…
Who is the person in charge of making the recommendations of closures?
Who decided , recommended the new criteria for school closures?
September 9th, 2011 at 9:08 am
David Montes de Oca, the district’s executive director of quality community schools development, was the person who presented the criteria to the board, along with the superintendent.
September 9th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Hi all –
In case you want to see some video clips of key parts of the board meeting, they are available on the Great Oakland Public Schools blog post recapping the meeting: http://www.goinfocenter.org/board_watch_blog/. Hope it’s helpful.
Jessica
September 9th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Thanks, Jessica! That’s a good idea, posting video clips from the meeting.
September 9th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Isn’t the Quality Community Schools part of a task force composed of many people? Or is Mr. Montes de Oca the sole decision maker? That’s the way it sounds at least without context.
September 9th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Re. Montclair vs. Cesar Chavez, it is simply not fair to say that Cesar Chavez is representative of all Flatlands schools. It is also not fair to say that Montclair receives half the resources of Flatlands or Slope schools. & I agree Montclair’s portables should be replaced: this is not the discussion here.
Montclair vs. Cesar Chavez is just the successful politics of one school vs. the successful politics of another. There are lots of schools across Oakland that have not had their portables replaced, and yet others that are getting prioritized in building.
The fact is that Thornhill IS very close to Montclair. It would simply be easy to build Montclair bigger and fold Thornhill back into it. If this wasn’t thought out it shows both a lack of strategic planning combined with catering to hills schools.
Not against all Flatland schools, but against the Slope and Flatlands schools that have not received Facilities attention. (& the Slope schools in the middle have received less attention than anybody. Oakland doesn’t know it needs a middle class even though it’s the biggest population of the country).
I understand the historical, overflow reason for Thornhill to exist. If you need more capacity to keep families in OUSD then you need more capacity. I’m just suggesting that overlap and proximity, combined with current Bond construction and the oversupply of school buildings in Oakland, would have made it a natural to address the situation & build the capacity back into Montclair (where both school populations used to go anyway).
Otherwise what you’re saying is small schools are ok for the Hills but not ok for the Flatlands. And then this whole effort will get really ugly, everybody ends up yelling at each other, and the whole effort will break down…
September 9th, 2011 at 11:54 am
David Montes de Oca is not the sole decision maker for his department (Quality Community Schools Development) or for the task force which he chaired — just like the superintendent isn’t the sole decision maker for the district. But both have a great deal of influence on the direction of the district’s policies as they relate to school closures, reforms, restructuring, etc. So do deputy superintendents Vernon Hal (business and operations) and Maria Santos (instruction, leadership, equity).
September 9th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Folks from Kaiser…have no fear…they will not close you. They have to put one distractor up there on the chopping block so it doesn’t look like what it is. One school from above 580. But really, it will always be schools in the African-American community targeted. And when they started doing well, they changed the criteria.
This is about wanting cute little school buildings for their charter schools. They will close a successful school now, to put in a charter. This is when good intentions turns bad.There are too many “politicians” in the district who have a personal financial stake in privatization. They are very well versed at appearing as though they are concerned about social issues. The proof is in the pudding.
September 9th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
All,
Interesting conveersation. For me the question of Equity will be the driving question when the final list of schools are presented. I personally know this decision will get very personal with many parents, but it is a decision that will have to be made. As I stated in my final comments, I am not comfortable, but I do understand it has to be done. So there will be some schools, mine inculded that will be on the recommended list, and there is politics involed. My neighborhood school is Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, for me, this is where the advocacy for students with me started, as the PTA President, it may still be on the list, let’s see who will win in this serious situation, it has to be student centered, not politically centered.
September 9th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Livegreen: What do you consider a small school?
Using 2010 – 2011 SARC reports on the district website these are the numbers of students enrolled
Thornhill 366
Howward 198
Burkhalter 184
Montclair 442
Kaiser 275
Think College Now (I believe inside Cesar Chavez Building) 298
Emmerson 286
Thurgood Marshall 211
Martin Luther King 266
Maxwell Park 271
Joaquin Miller 377
Garfield 579
Fruitvale 499
Middle Schools
Edna Brewer 809
Frick 396
Montera 1,015
Claremont 472
Yes, the hills schools are close together, however each have enrollment numbers that are relatively high for one-story schools. The only schools that have a greater number of students are two-story schools built on an entire city block.
As far as middle schools go, the two closures mentioned have fewer than half the students as the other middle schools.
September 9th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
LiveGreen- I hear what you are saying. However, Montclair is nearing 500 students in head count- is that still considered a small school?
September 9th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Alice,
Agreed.
So being student-centered the only criteria that should remain is how well those students are achieving and succeeding.
All the other criteria is really politically motivated.
September 9th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Katy,
How many consultants did they hire and at what cost, to decide all this?
Are these outside consultants? What relationships have existed in the past between these consultants and OUSD’s administration, if any?
September 9th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
I take that back , Kaiser. We are done for.
September 9th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Lisa,
Wen I stated “student centered” means we take into account student needs in any enrollment area, not to replace the criteria already approved by the board.
September 9th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Ann, Good point re. Montclair’s size. Of course they could have done like Cesar Chavez and made it one campus with 600 kids for two schools. Then at least they would have saved on overhead. No matter, that horse has already left the barn…
The big problem is those who funded the small school movement then pulled all the funds and vacated. Not just the Gates Foundation but also the Full Circle Fund.
You’d think they’d stick it out for the long term but that’s not their method. They believe in moving on quickly, not long term investment, and not supporting “large failing schools”. Since they’re academics, they just didn’t think about how they would fund the damn thing. Too practical a problem for them to worry about!
When are they and the East Bay Community Foundation (EBCF) actually going to fund what’s already working academically on the ground? Instead of reinventing the wheel based on their donors personal opinions or their theoretical musing?
September 9th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
FYI: David Montes used to be Director of the Office of Charter Schools and still oversees it. …Hmmmm. Task Forces were a joke…specifically the Quality Schools Task Force. I posted 4 months ago that Kaiser, Lazear, and one EAst Oakland school (Marshall/Burckhalter) should close. This would be one from each region and diverse. We have spent WAY more than $400,000 to come up with a list. I know that there are at least 4 administrators who are in newly created positions to “figure this out”. Makes me sick to my stomach…:(
September 9th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Why isn’t Carl Munck on the list? It’s a commuter school with little neighborhood attendance, and awful portables. Either they’re going to have to close it or rebuild it from the ground up…
September 9th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I actually heard from someone directly affected that Carl Munck was on a top-ten closure possibilities list (perhaps a list of TEN elementary schools, rather than the 8 elementary plus 2 middle?)…Katy, are you aware of any other lists?
September 10th, 2011 at 4:07 am
As the former principal of Burckhalter Elementary School I am disheartened to see the community constantly terrorized by the threat of school closure. Small majority African American high performing schools are jewels and should be supported. Why won’t Burckhalter be allowed to grow to it’s physical capacity? It could even become a lab schools for training new and struggling teachers. Let’s not waste the dynamic principal’s time and the energy nor the faculty’s and communities time with threats of closure. My grandson will need a school in the near future and we want a school that is strong academically, safe, multi national and a lovely school climate. Don’t tell me we cannot afford to hold on to our successes!
And by the way ..congratulations to Burckhalter for another year of outstanding Achievement particularly Lisa Oler’s fifth grade class.
September 10th, 2011 at 8:47 am
No, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a number of such lists circulating. They talked about closing 10 schools at the meeting, though that included middle schools, and the superintendent said that was unlikely.
If you go to slides 21-23 of the presentation posted in my previous blog post about the closures (http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2011/09/07/oakland-schools-under-possible-closure-consideration/), you’ll find a ranking of schools (from “where least needed” to “most needed”) based purely on Step 1 — which is explained in Slide 21.
September 10th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
When you look at the demographics of Kaiser, Kaiser really does represent Oakland’s diversity. In addition Kaiser is the ONLY school in OUSD where African American’s test on par with all the other sub-groups. Kaiser does an amazing job of teaching ALL children, and there is very little disparity between subgroups.Obviously Kaiser is doing something right and should be looked at as a model for what is possible in Oakland, not to shut it down.
In addition Kaiser has about 10% GLBT families at Kaiser. Many of these families chose Kaiser for its diversity and acceptance of these families. Several of these families transferred to Kaiser for safety reasons.
Take a look at the numbers for Kaiser below:
Demographics of Kaiser Elementary (API Score 885)
African American 40%
White 28%
Multiple or No Response 17%
Asian 8%
Hispanic or Latino 6%
Filipino <1%
Native Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
API for Kaiser was 885 Overall
African American Students 816
Asain 908
Hispanic 914
White 955
Soci-Economic Disadvantaged 792
September 10th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Another point of Kaiser that seems to be mis-represented. Kaiser is located in the hills but is not a “hills” school. All you have to do is look at the student body to see that. Kaiser is a school of CHOICE. Something that all schools in Oakland should be.
September 10th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
hmmm Frick or Claremont I wonder which would be closed, haha.
September 10th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
I live in the Thornhill attendance area and have two kids of elementary school age.
I wanted to mention that the fearmongering and class warfare stuff above about Thornhill/Montclair and hills schools in general is *exactly* why my kids are and will remain at private school from K-12.
The number 1 reason why OUSD is terrible is because they have scared away the parents with the highest performing kids.
September 10th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
@Lisa: You measn 40% black population represents Kaiser? You only say that cause of their color. Bet you would not make that point if the dominant population were white or Asian.
September 11th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Shane:
In America the “dominant population” is not black. I don’t think the word dominant attached to black depicts reality in our society regarding the power of America’s racial groups even if America’s President is black. 40% depicts the black plurality of Kaiser’s enrollment. It breaks the stereotype that all Oakland hills’ schools are white.
But, bringing up race/integration doesn’t however deal with the class split between Oakland hills and flatland. Although constantly at play, but uncomfortable to address, race and class will continue to be activated by school closure decisions.
So what if the majority or plurality of Kaiser enrollment was white or Asian and Lisa would not mention that fact? In that imagined circumstance Lisa would be dumb to call attention to white or Asian being the largest racial group enrolled. Why would Lisa want to bring up facts that would work against an effort to save Kaiser from closure?
But, the fact is integration and academic performance work in support of keeping Kaiser open if the School Board will allow those criteria to be used. And, if it does then the question becomes how much weight each criteria will be given?
Problem currently for those that value integration is that the majority of the Board has not included racial integration as a value in the school closure process.
Jim Mordecai
September 11th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Just an FYI: Lakeview Elementary has been around for 30+ years. I’m unsure of why all of a sudden the school is unneeded. I’m not surprised though since enrollment has decreased the past couple of years. It is like a pp said, the head office has NOT been enrolling kids from the school.
September 11th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
OUSD’s Guide For Parents 2011-2012 lists 5 year district accomplishments including: “Opened 31 new small schools in low income neighborhoods…” If opening small schools was an accomplishment in August, why is closing small schools desirable in September? I work as a volunteer librarian two days a week at Burckhalter along with 20 other women from the American Association of University Women. You can’t buy the kind of support and expertise these women bring to that small school. And they are not the only ones. Faith Network contributes 1000s of hours a year in volunteer service. What better defines a “community school” than support from the community? I think Lisa Oler has said it all. What are we thinking to consider anything other than performance as reasonable criteria for closing schools?
September 11th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Parents of children with special needs in Special Day classrooms and similar programs do not participate in the Options process; those families do not have schools of choice. Their children get bussed to a CONSTANTLY SHIFTING set of classrooms and programs. Those families cannot enjoy the solidarity of a neighborhood school or a school-of-choice identity because they land wherever they are placed(except for the small minority of special ed families with the resources to create opportunities for their children).
Children in such classrooms or programs constitute an especially vulnerable minority in their schools. In recent years and by design, their classrooms have been staffed with the least experienced teachers, most often interns with no training or experience. Vacancies in Special Ed aide positions abound even in the midst of a difficult economy where many seek employment.
Special Ed programs, their children, and even their teachers, are a hidden casualty in OUSD. Many see this but do not speak of it. When they disappear from sites, few of those not directly affected protest. Some celebrate having gained more seats to increase revenue.
The most vulnerable children are suffering from a profound and shameful segregation and disregard; their survival is on the balance in ways unimaginable to many. NO SCHOOL that has a proven record of fully serving these children should be closed. The few schools that do are demonstrating a true commitment to educating all children, something that surely translates to the rest of the student population.
September 11th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Jim, I can tell you’re Old School because you’re distinguishing only between Hills & Flatland schools. There is at least one shade of grey in between and that is the Slope schools (or Midlands as the Mayor calls them). The Slope schools have more student and family diversity than either most Hills or most Flatland schools (Kaiser being one of the exceptions as Lisa points out).
Also their neighborhood families are on average not rich and not poor, but middle class (along with the resources). It is time for Oakland to start remembering it has a middle class, and the first step towards that is acknowledging its very existence.
September 11th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Special Education Parent,
I appreciate your thoughts. I was an intern teacher in my same SDC classroom. Yes, you are correct that these students don’t participate in the options process. But, I also protest every single day when these programs get closed. And most of the time families are not notified by PEC in a timely manner.
I strongly feel that the issue you are I are discussing relates back to PEC’s relationship with the central district office and I would love to confront it. I will be at the CAC meeting tomorrow night to bring it up!
September 11th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Fletch, It’s interesting you will shy away from a discussion at Thornhill but you feel fine showing up here to engage in a discussion you supposedly don’t want.
I’m also curious why that would make you not want to go to Thornhill when Thornhill pulls mostly from it’s attendance area and has API scores comparable to Orinda.
Good for Thornhill!
September 11th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
It is so sad to see us pitted against eachother when many of our schools are doing well. What we really should be saying to the district is close those huge schools , with low API and send those children to successful thriving schools.
The problem I see with some of the schools like Hillcrest, Montclair, Thornhill, Redwood Heights is that they do not really participate in the “Options” process. All schools should really BE an option for everyone.
Just Teach: That sickens me. I have a very strong feeling that Burckhalter will become a charter. So when the charter goes in and the test scores drop, then what? You see, I will still be in Oakland teaching, but the culprits who should be held accountable for dismantling a successful school will be gone and on to their next school district.
On Friday evening Mr. Montes came out to Burckhalter to answer some questions. Truly what I got out of that discussion is that the criteria, and the people who designed and approved the criteria care little to nothing about academic achievement. They do not care if you are making gains and your children are happy and safe. They do not care if they close small schools. They will do it anyway. He also told us to keep going on like nothing is happening , for the children. I should still have my Eagle scouts put in new planter boxes and grow our garden…
Of course we will, all while he puts us in front of the firing squad.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:04 am
All,
As for now, any school may be affected, we the board have not seen a list of recommended schools. As for the criteria, the reason API was not included was for the staff to present the board with recomendations which would ensure equity during the conversation, (i.e. enrollment generated funding, what is small vs too small). We also have to take into consideration many many parents cannot transport their students to the slopes or hills.
Lisa for you information Burkhalter and Howard have been the top of the closure conversation as long as I have been a board member, seeing those schools on any list should not be a surprise to anyone, but the real recommended list is yet to be seen.
Again, this will be the hardest decision that I will be asked to make, I know there will be schools in my district, possibly my neighborhood on the final recommended list, I have to wait until I see firm recommendations.
I do know that there will be some closures/mergers of schools. With decreased funding from the state, the deferring of school funding payments from the state puts the district in a position where we have no choice but to decrease the number of schools in order to provide quality education for all students.
The other scnerio; OUSD could try to maintain all these schools, proably go bankrupt again, taken over by the state, then there will be no conversation with regards to closure, it will just be done.
P.S. Who says Charters will occupy any OUSD building, staff will proably occupy any school space not utilized by students. OUSD can elect to sell unused property also.
September 12th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Sorry, Jenna. I just rescued your post from the spam filter. Since it might not rise to the top of the comments section, here’s what she posted on Friday afternoon:
September 12th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
A couple things: 1) The hills schools seems like they’re close together geographically, but they each have huge catchment areas going even farther up the hill. There are no elementary schools up at the “top”, so everyone drives down to get to school (along with those who live within walking distance or used the options process and come from outside the area). There are huge traffic issues everyday with 450+ students getting to and from Montclair Elementary- the roads just arent’ big enough to accomodate everyone. AND… 2) In response to Lisa, Montclair does participate in the Options Process. In my child’s class alone, she has 4 friends from outside the neighborhood that used the options process to get into the school. I can’t speak for the other schools you mentioned, but I’m guessing they also have students that used the options process to get into the school. It just so happens that more kids from the neighborhood want to be at those particular schools (but that’s not always the case, as you can see from Fletch’s entry).
September 12th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Thornhill Elementary also participates in the Options Process. Every year there are several children from other parts of Oakland who are welcomed into our school community. We are close to the Montclair campus but at almost 370 children we are crammed full. We have a small campus and make the most of our space, but it would really not be safe to add many more kids. And I doubt that Montclair could fold all of our kids into its campus either. It has more space, but it also serves almost 100 kids than Thornhill. As for Hillcrest, I don’t have any kids there but I know the area and the school is even smaller than Thornhill’s so I doubt that it could take on any additional kids either.
September 12th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
It’s interesting how both Thornhill and Montclair have very small Free & Reduced Lunch populations, even if they have a lot of transfers in from outside their catchment (neighborhood school) area.
This makes one realize that a lot of people of all ethnic backgrounds are transferring from middle class or wealthy areas to go there (and probably to others as well). This means there’s potential to reinforce/improve schools in middle class areas that would then become more self supporting (more bank for the buck) than schools in lower income areas.
As I understand the Strategic Plan, part of the emphasis is to be able to create Thriving Neighborhood Schools throughout the City so people don’t feel they have to go to another location to get a good education.
What becomes difficult for OUSD is they need the money to make this happen (from school closures), before it actually happens. So they also have to convince the parents before it happens.
If I could give one recommendation to them (and they might already be planning this) it’s that they come up with a well defined strategy to retain parents from closed schools, and share it with both the Board, the public & those families.
This should entail some specifics about new school locations and how they would be supported. It would have to be in geographic areas students already come from. (Both middle class and lower income schools/neighborhoods).
From the OUSD presentation I do note 2 references that point in this direction:
-Families from closed schools will get priority in Options;
-”…possible relocation of some school programs intact”.
September 12th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Livegreen:
I think one of the problems with kids on free and reduced price lunches attending school in the hills is the way the before school, after school and enrichment are handled. In schools with 50% -60% of the students qualifying for free and reduced price lunch before school is free, after school is free, sports are free, art classes are free, and homework help are free. In the hills, parents pay for all of these services. Even Adventure Time, a non-profit, requires some financial support from families if they qualify for a reduction in fees.
I personally know one single mother who did not move her daughter from a school with a minimum of two lockdowns per month (due to gun violence on the same block) and an API score of under 650 because her daughter qualified before and after school care, free breakfast and free lunch. Her daughter was also assigned an academic mentor so homework was done at school. She played soccer at school free and had art on Wednesday and drama on Thursday at no cost. The hill school to which she was accepted could have offered her free lunch, and the PTA would have given a scholarship for one enrichment class. Gone was the before and after care, homework help, breakfast, soccer and one arts class.
It is not just about giving admittance to a school if the student cannot be a full an complete participation in the educational and social life of the school.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Jenna,
After School programs are not free in our below 580 schools.
Because you may know ONE SINGLE MOTHER who makes these choices, does not mean everyone would.
I was unaware that A PUBLIC SCHOOL had the option of “ACCEPTING” students.
Lastly, a CHILD should not looked at as though they can or can’t ” be a full an (sic) complete (participant) in the educational and social life of the school.”
It is up to the adults there to have them feel they are complete participants. Obviously you would not be that person.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Many Thanks to Ms. Ahmad and Pat Beckner for joining in our fight.
We need to be heard at the Board meeting, Wednesday night.
Livegreen,
Burckhalter IS a Thriving School. They do not care .
“Families from closed schools will get priority in Options;”
That may mean only one, two or several families get their first choice in options.
-”…possible relocation of some school programs intact”.
KEY WORDS, “POSSIBLE….SOME..”. What does this mean? NOTHING.
September 12th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Why are some comments being deleted?
September 12th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Lisa:
You are mistaken that there is not free before and after care at our public schools. Many of the schools established as Title 1 schools receive Federal funding for such programs that attempt to offer the enrichment found in middle class families. That is what Title 1 is about. Title 1 funds can be used to extend the school day, which is how many schools choose to use the money. They also use it to reduce class sizes. For example, many hills fifth grade classes have 30 – 33 students per class. OUSD Title 1 schools for the most part limit fifth grade to 28 students. See:
http://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/title1
The “extend the school day” is how the before and after care in this simple explanation is worded. You are right, I did name the one person I knew and guided through the “options” process. The school the student was able to get into was the first choice school. After weighing the child care and the after school enrichment this ONE family declined the space and talked to the principal in the “underperforming” school that had many, many spaces available so the student was able to be reassigned.
I have helped hundreds of students complete forms for public, private (with significant scholarships), and charter schools. I believe in school choice. I believe that every student deserves reading, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, drama, physical education and foreign language from preschool and beyond (foreign language, I believe should begin in second grade). All of these except foreign language are specifically identified in the standards for the State of California. A high quality school makes all of these subjects available to all students. That is what the State of California has deemed an appropriate education.
If we closed the schools that do not provide the education defined the the state as a high quality education, we would have very few Oakland schools left.
I am clear on my research of Title 1, I use it to help families choose their options. Oh, and I voluntarily drive the families to the schools to view them. I have a group of families that commit to providing public transportation to any student who chooses to leave a school with low test scores or neighborhood violence (routine lockdowns) to get to the public (non-charter) school of choice.
This is my way of keeping students in OUSD schools. How do you help?
September 12th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Hi Lisa,
I haven’t deleted any comments on this thread (or any thread, in recent memory). Did some appear and then disappear? Please send me details and I can look into it.
September 12th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Jenna,
I am not here to pat myself on the back.
I am expressing extreme displeasure at the fact that school closures are not being based upon the academic achievement of its students. Many “underperforming” schools will remain open because of this criteria, and high performing public schools will close. Burckhalter, Kaiser and Lakeview should not be on this list. Those with 1 and 2 rankings should be.
The criteria is wrong and we payed these people way too much money to come up with a way to justify closing schools that would be nice for charters based on their locations to freeways and being in the best locations.
Ms. Spearman,
You and the rest of the board members should not be allowing closures of thriving schools PERIOD. Those with low ranks of 1 and 2, and low API should be closed. The fact that Kaiser, Burckhalter, Lakeview are on there and Reach, Lockwood, Pride, New Highland with LOW RANKS, in UNSAFE AREAS are not being closed is an unjustifiable travesty. PLEASE DEMAND ACADEMIC SUCCESS coupled with SAFE ENVIRONMENTS for our children to be THE only criteria!. Thurgood, and Howard are BEAUTIFUL! Get our children away from crime ridden areas and use the money for bus passes!
September 13th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
I posted this on the other thread as well, but just wanted to underscore it here given some of the posts above. I’m a Lakeview-zoned parent, and our family would support closing Lakeview—not because of its performance, but because of its location immediately adjacent to I-580 with virtually no buffer between the school and the freeway. (If you haven’t been there in person, you can “experience” this by using Google Street View—stand on the 580 and you’ll find yourself looking directly into Lakeview’s school yard and classrooms.) This is not an appropriate location for an elementary school—the research is very clear that school proximity to freeways is directly related to respiratory problems and asthma in children who attend these schools, and we’re not willing to gamble our son’s health. Unfortunately, no amount of investment in the school or restructuring can change this basic problem.
The site would not be “nice for charters” given its proximity to the freeway—in fact, it would be highly unlikely to be approved as a school site or a charter under California’s current school facilities code, which considers air quality and noise. Title 5 specifically prohibits schools adjacent to freeways if these factors affect safety of educational activities, and I think a prospective school would be hard-pressed to prove that there would be no impact. California prohibits construction of new schools within 500 feet of a freeway for health and safety reasons; Lakeview is within 100 feet. So I don’t think there’s much threat of a hidden agenda to make room for a charter as far as Lakeview is concerned. (Lakeview itself is grandfathered in because it predates the freeway, but a new school would not be.) I do think the Lakeview site could be a great location for OUSD staff/offices, however, given its central location—for adults working indoors, the freeway proximity could be a plus.
Finally, it’s important to note that one big reason that Lakeview enrollment has dropped in recent years is that the school has been in PI since 2008, so many neighborhood families have successfully used the Options/appeals process to transfer to other nearby OUSD schools (I know of Lakeview-zoned families at Piedmont Avenue, Glenview, and Crocker, among others). Several of our neighbors are also at private schools. In fact, I don’t know anyone who listed Lakeview on their Options form at all for kindergarten in the last 2-3 years (mix of concerns about location and performance), so I’m not sure it’s fair to blame falling enrollment on the central office simply not assigning students to the school. Just another perspective on this challenging task…
September 13th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
As another parent in the Lakeview area with children not yet in school, I would strongly advocate for closing the school for both educational quality issues and the environmental health issues mentioned above, and I will be doing what I can to advocate for this.
I hope that people who are not in this area don’t advocate against this closure – not sure what the rationale would be. I have had teachers there tell me they thought it would be an unsafe place to send their own kids, we visits the school and were extremely underwhelmed with the experience and playing in the yard is an environmental hazard. This seems like a good, thoughtful recommendation and I appreciate the school district going through this process.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Montclair, Thornhill, Chabot, and Joaquin Miller could share kids. Has the board considered closing one of them?
September 13th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Franklin and Garfield could also share kids. Does any one know what is happening at Fremont and Castlemont? Are they closing or combining? I heard something about those schools in this.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
From the presentation I notice “restructuring” in Step 2 (“expansion” included) allows some schools to escape the criteria in Step 1.
Why is OUSD expanding a school that ranks #1 in “least needed” based on Population Density, Enrollment and Facilities (Step 1)?
Interesting how some schools can escape supposedly objective “criteria” while others can’t.
September 14th, 2011 at 12:01 am
Haven’t we missed an important point in this debate? Of course they are not going to select successful small schools to keep. “Small” isn’t in the future here! Instead of incompetence or malfeasance on the part of central office staff, couldn’t this simply be about math? The most recent negotiations between OEA and the District regarding a contract (where OEA opened with a demand for a 20% raise) illustrates the District’s problem. Until there are fewer schools (and, yes, fewer teachers) the District cannot hope to offer more competitive salaries to teachers. The only way this math works is if they keep large schools! So, no matter the success of small schools, they’re going to be high on the list of potential closures – unless something very dramatic happens with state funding. We’ve decided that schools are going to run like businesses, so these are the decisions we’ll continue to get – nothing matters but the math!
September 14th, 2011 at 8:43 am
Classified,
Very good point, this situation is analogous to CEO’s of major companies who dispose of 10,000 jobs and then subsequently receive a multimillion dollar bonus. I must state however, and I have posted many times before that Oakland has had too many schools, and thus too many teachers for years upon years. We have been for lack of a better phrase, for the most part a “financial black hole” where resources are just sucked up with not much societal benefit(with noted exceptions).
September 14th, 2011 at 9:56 am
The #1 school on the closure list is a small school, yet it’s being protected. So some small schools are given exception, I’m just curious why?
Re. budget, Small Schools happened because Foundations funded it, then pulled their funding. They wouldn’t have happened naturally anyway. So it’s not just the State or OEA contracts. It was NEVER sustainable.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Livegreen -
Read what Lisa wrote. That’s exactly the problem. We’re worried OUSD will come in one day and destroy Thornhill through busing or some such. We don’t want our kids to make a bunch of friends and then lose them all when they switch schools.
Also, OUSD’s curriculum is well known to be deficient, since it’s aimed at low-performing students.
September 14th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Fletch, I’ll reply to Lisa’s comment later, but to bring busing into this discussion is simply ridiculous. It’s not in OUSD’s plans, OUSD has long-chosen to give bus passes specifically as an alternative to bussing, and finally it simply doesn’t have the money to do busing.
This is so typical of Bay Area discussions: citizens of all political backgrounds bring everything into the discussion and it grows bigger & bigger and leads nowhere.
Busing has NOTHING to do with the issues at hand or, for that matter, anything. I’ll read Lisa’s post again and compare it to the OUSD list in their presentation (through the link Katy’s posted). Thanks for pointing back to it…
September 14th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I just want to put out there that I am NOT the same person as “Lisa C”
Classified,
Do you really think that by closing schools , teachers will be paid more competitive salaries?
Teachers could be paid more competitive salaries and schools could stay open if Mr. Smith and the Board would stop approving $842,000 contracts to West Ed. ,$400,000 for someone to come up with new criteria for school closures that do not value academic successes, 6 figure salaries to many of the people who are heading up these ridiculous “Task Forces”. And this is the tip of the waste-of- money -iceberg that exists.
Oakland spends $2384/student on consultants, Lafayette spend $274. Multiply that 2400 times 38,000 students…is a whopping $91,200,000. That is more than enough to keep 5 schools open.
Stop the insanity with outside contracts.
September 14th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Our School Board members need to be held more accountable. THEY HAVE THE POWER TO SAY NO. They have they power to stop spending these kinds of consultant fees to people who never even work with our children at the school sites.
HOLD THE BOARD ACCOUNTABLE.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:30 am
Livegreen -
I meant “busing” as a euphemism for loading up the higher performing schools with lower performing kids.
It doesn’t really matter how they do it — by consolidating schools or through the options process.
The only thing that would make me even consider Oakland would be if they set up a magnet school at the middle and high school levels. And, they would need to set up some kind of guaranteed funding source and autonomy for that school, so I could be sure they wouldn’t shut it down if it became too popular.
I wonder, is it possible to do such a thing through the initiative process? And, give it funding from some small parcel tax or whatnot? Probably not, but it’s an interesting thought.
Like most hills parents in Oakland, I simply do not trust OUSD with my kids. End of story.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:36 am
Just re-read what “Lisa Capuano Oler” wrote: “All schools should really BE an option for everyone.”
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. All it takes to ruin a classroom is a few disruptive kids uninterested in learning. Sprinkle them around cleverly enough and all the schools become unworkable.
I’m not interested in schools as some sort of social experiment. I’m interested in them so my kids can learn and get into a great college. Honestly, mostly the latter. When was the last time you put your high school on your resume? Not often, because college is what really matters.
The only way to enable this is through magnet schools and programs. OUSD resolutely refuses to create such a thing.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Fletch, Re. post 64, if you didn’t mean busing then you shouldn’t say busing. & Options is not the same as busing. The fact that you’re mixing up the two shows me how ignorant you are of existing and even long held policy. Re. “I simply do not trust OUSD with my kids”, well does that apply regardless of (even when you’re wrong about) the facts?
Re. post 65, I don’t know if LCO’s statement is in the context of “option” in general or specifically OUSD’s Options process. Either way you’re mixing up her POV with actual policy. Option’s criteria actually mitigate & address your concerns. Your policy concerns are mitigated by Thornhill’s demographics. Your academic concerns are mitigated by how well Thornhill is doing academically.
So who are the “disruptive kids” at Thornhill & where do they come from? And how the heck is going to Thornhill a “social experiment”?
September 15th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
As an Oakland parent of a toddler in a sub-par school district, I have planned to either move or send my child to a private school. I am absolutely not interested in sending my kid to an Oakland school unless I can get her into a Chabot or a Thornhill. If I were a parent in these or like areas, I would want some assurance that the parents and/or children entering the programs were vetted. I would have no problem being subjected to an interview. My wife and I are and plan to be a part of our children’s education, which means we will do what we can to ensure she can learn in a positive environment. The Hills schools and a few others offer this because these are truly community schools with super-active parental involvement, whether it be helping children learn or disciplining children for disruptive bahavior. I have absolutely no interest in being part of a school system that does not have active parent participation. It doesn’t take much to spoil a class. If I were Hills parents, I would fight like crazy to ensure that OUSD does nothing to marginalize the integrity of their programs.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
We used to attend one of the good hills schools but moved last year to a district with a better reputation and excelling schooling options for middle and high school.
While we were still in Oakland, things started to go downhill when class sizes increased. In addition to having too many kids in the classroom, this also meant that a bunch of out-of-attendance-boundary kids, mainly flatland kids, ended up at our school. Sadly, many of these new kids were not up to academic standard of most of the students at the school. Also many came with behavior problems.
Given this situation and with the lack of a quality middle school option, many families are fleeing the school. I think it’s a shame that OUSD doesn’t do more to hang onto their middle class and upper middle class families.
I know there are a bunch of families outside the attendance zone who would have been assets to the school. I wish that there could be some vetting process to admit the families that are committed to learning, willing to help, able to volunteer, capable of getting their children to school on-time with children who won’t be trouble-makers or distractions. I would have welcomed those families. But, generally speaking, those aren’t the families who gained a spot at the school.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Enough with the debate over whether Thornhill and Montclair should both exist. Yes, they are near one another geographically, but look at the numbers: Montclair has 439 seats to serve 373 students zoned to the school; Thornhill has 375 seats for 336 students in the zone. How would either school absorb the other in its entirety without significant capital investment by OUSD? (Not to mention that the number of students in the catchment area isn’t static and isn’t necessarily evenly distributed across the grades, so I think it’s always wise to have a little wiggle room so you don’t get into a pattern of turning away neighborhood families.) Now, could the schools share some of their administrative functions given their proximity? It would be great to see OUSD explore that to see.
Kaiser, on the other hand, has 272 seats with only 47 students zoned to it. So yes, if the question is where does OUSD need schools, we should absolutely be asking the tough questions about why a school with only 47 students in the zone is needed. Does that mean it should be the *only* criteria? Of course not—absolutely performance should be factored in as well. Personally I think the beauty of schools like Kaiser and Chabot is that they do present true options for flatlands families—many years Thornhill and Montclair don’t take families from outside the neighborhood, but Kaiser and Chabot virtually always do. So I see that as a compelling reason to keep these and other schools open even if the population numbers don’t support it—but this needs to be transparent and OUSD needs to factor this in as a goal. Keeping students in the system or bringing them back, hills or otherwise, is beneficial to OUSD as a whole, so I’d like to see that be a goal of the process as well. There’s a lot of talk of right-sizing the district for the 38K students it currently serves, but what about the other 25K students in Oakland who are opting out of the system today? Some number of those families will always go the private/charter route, but stronger OUSD options, especially at the middle and high school levels, could go a long way in bringing back many of those students.
If you really want to look at numbers and where we need schools, though, look more seriously at closing Lakeview. The schools along the northwest edge of Lake Merritt—Piedmont Avenue, Lakeview, Cleveland, and Crocker—have a lot of excess capacity collectively. Yes, those schools have been there for generations (80+ years)—but look at what’s happened to the housing around the lake in the last 40 years. All of those apartments built in the 60s and 70s replaced single-family homes, some of them quite large, with studios and 1BRs, and Adams Point in particular has very few children relative to its overall population.
Today, we have Cleveland, with 360 seats for 197 students in the zone; Piedmont Avenue, with 375 seats for 186 students; Crocker, with 377 seats for 304 students; and Lakeview, with 317 seats for 281 students. (In total, that’s at least 1,429 spots for 968 students.) If you take Lakeview out of the mix and rezone students to the other three schools, you still have 1,112 spots for 968 students. In addition, you solve the problem that exists right now where there are families near Lakeshore who are under a quarter mile from Cleveland or half a mile from Crocker but aren’t zoned to those schools, in spite of the fact that they could walk. At the western edge of the Lakeview zone, the neighborhood is already sliced up between PAES and Lakeview, so it would reunite the community that was originally served by Edison Elementary; today, families across the street from one another on small residential blocks are zoned to different schools. This is obviously unavoidable in some parts of the city, but near the lake it would be relatively easy to draw the boundaries along the major commercial corridors to avoid this.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Anon @ #68:
If you are basing your figures on the District’s presentation, be aware that OUSD did not use census figures of school age children in a given zone to calculate need. OUSD only used stats of children presently enrolled in OUSD schools.
No projection based on 4 year olds in a neighborhood.
No projection based on the total number of children living in the neighborhood at all.
It seems “need” in a zone might be more objectively based on the actual number of children who lived within the zone.
And if that is not important to the discussion, why focus on the neighborhood need at all. Why not capacity versus enrollment?
September 15th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Livegreen -
I see what you’re trying to do there, but the argument just doesn’t work. Why do houses in Piedmont cost 2x what they cost in Montclair? It’s because of the schools. Yes, *today* Thornhill is a fine school. Not superior (for curriculum reasons), but good enough for most parents. But, OUSD has a long history of throwing its energy and funding behind failed initiatives around the low performing kids. The district doesn’t have a coherent strategy for fostering the high achievers. Yes, I know about Paideia and Hillcrest — but those sort of underscore the point that high-performing programs come about in OUSD in spite of the district, not because of it.
Contrast that to Piedmont, where the priorities are more or less reversed. In Piedmont most of the high performing kids attend public school. In Oakland, the vast majority go to private school.
All of the above is because of the mistrust I described. And that mistrust is furthered by folks constantly complaining about the “hills schools” — like it’s a bad thing that OUSD has a few schools scoring above 900 on the API tests.
I know you can offer me detail after detail in support of this school or that, but the core problem in OUSD is one of credibility. Parents of high-performing kids need to see a real magnet program put in place with a guaranteed funding stream. Until that happens, enrollment will continue to fall.
One other point I’d make is that I don’t believe the API scores at any OUSD schools. I personally know an OUSD teacher who has witnessed cheating firsthand. You may have read about what’s going on in Atlanta. I’m confident something similar is at work in OUSD. I do *not* believe student achievement in OUSD is actually increasing (outside of *maybe* some of the more rigid charter schools) — not with what I read in the paper every day.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
@Trish, I was just using the number of students living within the zone—but no clue where their data came from on that (and would be interested to know). It would be good for them to run this with the 2010 Census data, though, given that this is recent data that would let them see a snapshot of projections for the next few years too. Is the number of students living within the zone just students attending some OUSD elementary school? Definitely misleading (and not terribly useful) if so—I assumed this was demographic data, and don’t really see the point of considering it at all if it’s not.
The main argument against just using capacity and enrollment, in my view, is that many children are in OUSD schools because private or charter schools are not an option for their families—so their presence there shouldn’t necessarily be taken as an endorsement of the school or its performance. (Sometimes it is, of course, but that’s where there the analysis of options can come into play.) But agreed with your concern—I was assuming those were Census 2010 numbers. (If OUSD is reading this—they should be!)
September 15th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Anon-
Yes, the data used to sort schools is only based on students enrolled in OUSD, not census data.
While presence in a school is not an absolute endorsement, I would argue that absence may be. If schools have 3-5 empty classrooms, it says something about where parents are choosing to send their children.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Trish,
We have 3 empty classrooms at Burckhalter. We have a waiting list of parents who want to send their children to us. The District refused to give us teachers to replace 2 retired teachers. So they stopped enrolling students. So your comment is false, and offensive.
Are you still active in OEA, or do you work for admin now? I can’t tell.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
It is interesting to keep in mind that the district also has a list of schools expanding or transforming. Manzanita Community is slated to “close” and Manzanita SEED will go K-8 dual language. Greenleaf will go k-8, Sankofa k-8, and a few others. How are these restructurings going to effect the elementary schools around them, as well as the middle schools. This will bring more school closures next year.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Wow–I find some of these comments absolutely chilling. Vetted? Really? You think that a PUBLIC institution should have to “vet” Oakland children to see if they’re good enough to go to school with your kids?
And for those who say they’re staying away from OUSD so their kids can get into a “good” college here’s a newsflash: it’s my observation that selective, elite colleges find graduates of urban public school systems like Oakland much more interesting, and therefore more desirable, than graduates of fancy private schools where half the graduating class applies to Harvard. (The same of course is true for elite public systems like Piedmont–where, let’s remind ourselves boys and girls, probably 95% of test scores reflect parents’ income, education level, and home language and 5% how “good” the school is.)
My credentials for weighing in: mom of two OUSD grad young adults (slopes schools, not hills), one of whom graduated from a UC and the other from one of the “little ivies,” both of whom now have graduate degrees. While it’s not necessarily the easiest path, few adolescents have an easy path; our family has no doubt that sticking with Oakland public schools was the best choice and in fact gives them many advantages.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
@Marcia. I spoke about vetting hypothetically but, of course, it is impossible to do at a public school. That said, let’s face facts: in today’s economic environment, where budgets don’t even cover the basics and good/great school depend on donations and volunteers, strong hills schools will likely decline if they take in a lot of non-neighborhood children. Unfortunately, the flatland families are generally less able or willing to support the school and often struggle with basic things such as getting their children to school on-time.
Each of the hills schools can – and does – absorb a portion of children who are below basic academically. They also all have some children who are troubled or distracting, but at a certain point it becomes too much. When this ‘tipping point’ is hit, things can go downhill quickly and those strong neighborhood families, those assets to the schools who volunteer in the classroom and run the fundraising events, will run to private schools or to Piedmont, Orinda, Albany, San Ramon, etc. It’s already happening!
I got my family out ahead of the crowd. Most of my old friends in Oakland are thinking about their own exits. The main reason: OUSD’s inability to provide a safe, academically challenging middle school. That does not exist in Oakland today.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Marcia -
I appreciate what you said, but you’re simply flat wrong. A kid’s odds of getting into a top college are dramatically and unmistakably higher if they go to an excellent public or private school than if they go to OUSD. Your examples are interesting, but the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
I really wish people would stop trying to defend bad schools. Sending your kids to a bad school is not something to be proud of.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I really don’t understand why some people decide to live in Oakland.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Harold -
Touche. I think plenty of people wind up sort of stuck here.
September 16th, 2011 at 6:06 am
Fletch — Marcia is not “flat wrong.” Rather, she is probably very right that a student with great grades and a commitment to taking advantage of every opportunity available to him/her at an urban school is more likely to gain entrance into top universities and get scholarships to pay for that university than a student who comes from a privileged school where everyone is college bound. If middle-class families would choose to put such students into the public schools of Oakland, and those families would continue to support those students at home with their education, those students will very likely have a better chance of getting into a good college than if the students simply become one of the masses of college-bound teens in a suburban or private school full of middle and upper-middle class classmates. They’ll also likely be more interesting and more compassionate people.
Marcia does NOT appear to be saying that the total percentage of students at an urban school who get into top universities is going to be higher than the total percentage of students who get into a “good” suburban school or a private school. But many of the students at urban schools don’t even apply to college, or top colleges, for an assortment of reasons, so that is not comparing apples and apples.
In a related note, I just got back from taking 45 students from Oakland to UC Berkeley and heard straight from an admissions official’s mouth that the university wants students who challenged themselves and did well in THEIR CONTEXT. They WANT urban students.
After that presentation, we met up with three of our alums who are currently at Cal on full-ride scholarships — all three stretched themselves at our school and got involved in many, many activities and took all four of the AP classes offered. One of them even commuted more than an hour each way every day her senior year to get to our urban school after her single mom moved out near Stockton. A kid like that WOULD be more desirable to a university than a student at a Piedmont-type high school who took 12 AP classes and drove a BMW a mile to school.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:21 am
There seems to be bias in the inclusion of comments in this thread.
I asked yesterday why the principal of Santa Fe suddenly left the second day of school and took a position at East Oakland Pride. I also asked why the district spent almost $700,000 on Santa Fe’s new playground and fencing when it seemed destined to be closed. Was the closing of Santa Fe a done deal all along? Is the school finally being renovated to make it a more attractive site for potential buyers?
Geographically, Sankofa falls between Peralta and Santa Fe, and it would seem according to the inital rankings that Sankofa could and should split its population between Peralta and Santa Fe. However, due to their status as a transitioning school to K-8, Sankofa has been moved to the bottom of the list. If Claremont is not being closed, and Santa Fe’s population will be moved to Sankofa, is it really logical that Sankofa become a K-8?
These are questions that readers of this blog might want to consider.
September 16th, 2011 at 7:29 am
Can someone elaborate on the potential change for some schools to go to a grade 6-12 model? I’m familiar with K-8 and the traditional middle school model of 6-8, but I’m not familiar with 6-12. As a parent with kids in OUSD, I’m curious about this as a potential option. Are other districts using it? What are the benefits? Is this option really on the table and if so, which schools would be impacted?
Also, can we also stop wasting energy bickering about where we choose to send our kids to school? I have my kids in public school here in Oakland. So far it has worked well and we are happy. However, I have seen many families leave and I understand why they made that decision. OUSD is not working for everyone and I think we need to focus on solutions rather than judge others for what they do to provide a quality education for their kids.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:35 am
I have two comments. First “teacher”s experience with the admissions officer at UC Berkeley is consistent with the experience of the students in my son’s 2011 graduating class at Skyline. Students were accepted to Stanford, Brown, Columbia, NYU, Michigan, Cooper Union, Pitzer, and all of the UCs, including large numbers at Berkeley and UCLA among other schools. But I also agree with Hills School Mom, OUSD worked very well for my children both of whom have now graduated. I do respect the decision of those who choose to send their children elsewhere but tired of the refrain that they had to do so because their student couldn’t get a great education and would never get into a great college.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Katy- can you get us any more info on the K-8, 6-12 ideas? I have a current 5th grader, so I’m especially interested in this news. I have tried calling the various contact numbers in the colorful flyer they handed out at my child’s school and left messages, but have not received a call back, which is frustrating.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:50 am
@Fletch – “stuck”?
Property in Oakland is expensive. If you don’t like the demographics, or the schools… there are communities through the tunnel that are less-expensive.
I’d like to thank all of the “white” folks who commit to the concept of neighborhood schools in Oakland. I am inspired by you.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:43 am
@Ann and Hills School Mom, EUSD is experimenting with the 6-12 model at Emery Secondary, which might be a school to watch since it faces many of the same challenges that OUSD schools face. I’m more enthusiastic in general about K-8 models than 6-12 models, but am glad to see any form of experimentation with the middle school model, since that’s a weak link not only within OUSD, but nationally. (In fairness, though, cities with K-8 models are often unhappy with them too and looking for alternatives; educating early adolescents is just incredibly challenging no matter how you slice it.)
Echoing Skyline Mom and Teacher, I concur—I interview East Bay students for an Ivy and we absolutely get strong candidates from both public and private schools in Oakland. Are there more from the private schools and elite public districts? Sure—but that’s because the vast majority of students at those schools are four-year-college-bound, have college-educated parents, have good college counseling and preparation for the admissions process, attended quality preschools, etc.—all factors in how likely you are to attend college yourself. You’re self-selecting (and, quite honestly, even within OUSD there’s a lot of this self-selection—most of the four-year-college-track students from these backgrounds who are in public school wind up at Skyline and Tech with a handful at charters, in my experience). It’s also important to note that in a diverse urban system, the goal is not to get every student to a four-year-college—that’s never going to be the right fit for every student, and the community college and vocational tracks will continue to be critical in providing job skills and training for students who aren’t pursuing liberal arts degrees. In contrast, at a school like Head-Royce there *is* an expectation that all students are headed to four-year programs, and that’s why they’re there. The admissions staff know the schools in this region and know what opportunities are afforded the students there—they look for candidates who push the limits of what’s available to them and explore the world beyond. That means something different at Tech than it does at College Prep, but that’s factored into the evaluation. At the end of the day, a kid who’s excelled at a school like Tech and is passionate and engaged is still a stronger candidate than a kid who’s drifted through a private school without pursuing much beyond what was offered, even if that student has higher test scores and more AP exams under his belt. They’re not looking at the overall performance of the school; they’re looking at the individual student. And the cold hard reality is that they take very, very few of these kids, period, simply because the acceptance rate is so woefully low right now that the school turns away students who would have been admitted in a heartbeat a decade ago. It just comes down to numbers. (And it’s definitely not about addresses!)
September 16th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I agree this is getting belabored, but here’s my basic argument:
1. In general, if you send the same kid to, say, Skyline vs college prep, the kid will have a higher probability of a better outcome in the latter case.
2. Oakland could create magnet schools that would do as well as prep. OUSD chooses not to. No one will ever explain why.
September 16th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Anon: Have a care about pushing valiant “struggling” students to the better 4 year college over the (presumably white) student who turns in higher test scores and grades without trying.
What you are typically doing is pushing the “struggling” student past the point of their competency and having them fail or get mediocre grades in a school beyond them, where they’d get high grades in a school more appropriate to their scoring.
If you miss-match the struggling student to their college you risk them dropping out, failing class, defaulting on loans and in general doing severe damage to their social and occupational futures. And this happens a lot with minority students. Schools (undergrad and grad schools) admit them for racial brownie points knowing they have little chance of doing well in their program. The fact of admission does not always mean it’s a good idea to go.
Those scores mean a lot. Especially when you’re dealing with post graduate scoring such as the LSAT, MCAT GMAT, GRE etc. It’s a mistake to place a student in a program with higher norms than they score and just wish and hope it works out.
September 16th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Many good comments here. I agree with many of the concerns about OUSD schools, but I also think facts speak for themselves and, using facts, one has to distinguish between where the problems are and where they are not. For example, I would agree with some of Fletch’s concerns when applied generally to some High and especially Middle Schools. That’s part of the emphasis on K-8 is coming from.
However I do not agree with Fletch where he is simply wrong about the facts. Namely when it comes to Elementary schools like Thornhill & Peralta that are not only doing well, but doing as well as Piedmont and Orinda, two of the best school districts in the entire State.
This can be demonstrated time & again, yet Fletch will continue to throw out his unfounded opinion & fears, confound them with facts, and try to convince hard working parents who ARE working for change at OUSD (whatever their backgrounds) that going here are a “social experiment”, we are “trying to defend bad schools”, OUSD parents are “sending your kids to a bad school”, an OUSD school whose scores are as high as Piedmont & Orinda is “not superior”, etc.
& since you “don’t believe the API scores at any OUSD schools” and “do *not* believe student achievement in OUSD is actually increasing”, when state wide evaluations show your opinions are factually wrong, since you don’t go to OUSD & you don’t know why anybody would even live here, I must ask:
Why are you here trying to deter us from our hard work, and our search for solutions? &, when we have demonstrated proof that some things are going well, why do you try to convince us we are wrong? & some of our best schools are (again, proven false) “just average”?
Why are you even commenting here?
September 16th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Back to the subject in this thread, School Closures, I think Peter has some good points in #82:
-If Santa Fe is being closed, since it is near Sankofa, that makes more sense to me now IF the two are being merged. I am curious about why it’s Sankofa, but my overall concerns are potentially mitigated;
-If OUSD used some Bond funds to fix up Santa Fe’s playground, and knowing that it takes some time to put such projects and spending into place, I’m guessing OUSD did this before they started figuring which schools would be closed. Can somebody at OUSD explain that?
Either way, both Facilities Bond spending AND school closures need to be folded into the coordination and umbrella of the Strategic Plan to make sense.
-Like Peter asks, but put in a slightly different way: will Sankofa have space to both absorb Santa Fe’s population AND go K-8?
September 16th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
@Nextset, believe me, no kid is getting into this particular school who is not equipped to thrive there. (And plenty of kids are not getting in who would also thrive there, because there’s simply not room for them all.) But to disregard strong applicants solely because they attended mid- or low-performing public schools is as ridiculous as admitting students solely because they attended private schools or high-performing public schools. Neither practice serves students well. That’s not to say the school admits students it does not feel confident will succeed—graduation rates and admissions to graduate programs are important measures for all colleges. But the point is that schools are looking at the entire student—not just at grades and scores, which can be context-specific.
This is one reason that, as an interviewer, I don’t see the application at all to make sure that I don’t assume a student is a particularly strong or weak academic candidate. I evaluate on the same criteria for every student, but how they meet these criteria can vary based on their unique experiences. For instance, two students might be interested in medicine. One might have taken his private school’s AP biology and chemistry classes and volunteered for a summer in a clinic in India because he was in a fortunate position to do so. Another might not have been financially able to do this and might have been at a school with no advanced classes, but he took everything that was offered and then signed up for a class at Cal and got a part-time job at the hospital near his home so he’d be exposed to the field. [Both real-world examples of private and public school Oakland applicants, though details/interests changed.] Both are completely valid ways to express an interest based on opportunities available, both students came across as very compelling applicants, and both received very strong reviews because they were articulate and passionate about how and why they had pursued their goals and how they wanted to continue to follow these interests through the programs at this particular college. In contrast, there are always the kids who are interested in medicine (or whatever) but cannot tell me how this has affected their high school experience or choice of classes/activities one whit, or how or if their interest is going to fit into the offerings at the college (please, do *not* ask the interviewer whether the college even offers the major you say you desperately want to pursue!) There are applicants like this from both public and private schools, so don’t kid yourself that this is unique to students from low-performing public schools.
Incidentally, in my personal experience (which represents only a very small snapshot of the set of kids who’ve applied in the last decade, so purely anecdotal), the demographics of the students I’ve interviewed have actually been the reverse of what you might expect given the demographics of the schools involved—more of the public school students have been white, whereas more of the private school students have been students of color. Surprised me too–go figure!
September 16th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Sankofa was originally a K-8 model, and the middle school was closed in 2007 for a multitude of reasons. It is interesting that we are know keeping a school open/not putting it on the closure list because it is going to be reincarnated as a K-8. Does that K-8 criteria trump all of the other criteria for closing schools, even if there are few neighborhood kids and poor test scores?
It does seem like we are in an endless cycle of every educational trend to come out: large year-round, small, back to large, K-6, then K-5, some schools fighting to stay K-8, open small schools, grow small schools into bigger small schools, now having K-8 be all that keeps a school from being closed.
Our school district is a model for constantly reinventing itself, and the effect/history is fascinating from an anthropological perspective.
Not so great for the students and the neighborhoods though.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Livegreen -
I actually appreciate your comments. The only reason I sort of care is the value of my home. Beyond that, I don’t care, since my kids will never go to an OUSD school.
I also don’t really care about API scores. All they show (assuming no cheating) is that a kid can do some trivially basic reading and math. I want much more for my kids.
The only other thing I’d mention is that, for OUSD, the problem starts at the top, not the bottom. So, your exhortations to fix things at the grass roots are well intentioned but won’t help.
I really appreciate how you and everyone else has studiously ignored my call for a magnet school. I know why you ignore it. It’s because you know that would actually require action from the OUSD bureaucracy. And, you know that will never happen. So, I think we actually agree.
September 16th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
Anon -
Maybe you should head over to Cal and sit in on a senior level class in the following majors:
Physics, Math, Computer Science, Chemistry, Electrical Engineering.
Then report back on the demographics of those classes.
I’ve done this. It’s 95% white and Asian.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Fletch:
I don’t know why people say that the problem is “at the top” — individual teachers have a LOT of say over what happens in the classroom, so if things are not as they should be, the problem is more likely to be at the bottom than at the top.
PS: I don’t care about API either, but it isn’t really about basic math and reading; the lions’ share of the API is based on the CST, which in high school tests kids re: the math and science level in which they are currently enrolled. See eg http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqalgebra2.pdf and http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/cstrtqbiology.pdf
September 16th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
@Fletch, I believe the number of Black and Latino students at Cal is only 10 or 15 percent of the total student body, so those numbers aren’t surprising. That’s true of most private liberal arts colleges, too. (You’ll also find that the majority of students in those classes are male.) That’s one of the reasons there’s a focus on STEM initiatives nationally—to increase the participation of all students, but especially underrepresented groups like women and people of color, in these fields. My point was just that you can’t assume, as Nextset seemed to be, that high-performing students at public schools are black and high-performing students at private schools are white, since it doesn’t always hold true.
September 17th, 2011 at 12:57 am
Will someone just humor me and say *something* about why there is no magnet middle or high school in Oakland?
September 17th, 2011 at 1:21 am
“Magnet” schools are just schools that may have a specialized area of instruction to attract people from outside their normal boundaries. Oakland School of the Arts, the STEM schools, Fremont High’s Media program are “magnets”. I don’t hear people using that term anymore.
hmmmm…
September 17th, 2011 at 1:35 am
It’s interesting that people are willing to use the API’s to demonstrate how good Piedmont & LamOrinda schools are, but when it comes to Oakland’s schools the API’s don’t mean a thing.
As for the claim that I’m making exhortations to fix things at the grass roots, that’s definitely part of it. But I also think OUSD’s emphasis on quality neighborhood-community schools in the Strategic Plan stands a chance of making things work for everyone. OUSD encompasses many many different populations, and must make this work for everyone. A very tricky thing that, recently at least, OUSD has actually improved it’s balancing act on.
Re. magnet schools, they serve a very small population. They disenfranchise all the other middle class & wealthy families when (surprise, surprise) their kids don’t get in. Especially if there’s nothing else than that. Instead it’s much much better to improve the whole school, for the majority of children and families. That way rather than everybody being at war, everybody’s working together.
The school our kids go to is not as high scoring as Thornhill. It is more diverse, the kids are thriving, all the kids scores are going up, we’ve had several neighborhood families come back from catholic and private schools (Park Day, Corpus Christi, Redwood Day, St. Paul’s, etc.), and some populations scores are higher than the averages at Thornhill, Piedmont, Orinda, etc., etc.
Maybe this is the balance that MLK was looking for. Maybe it wasn’t the all white before busing, or all the all black after busing, but the in between he was looking for. It’s just it took a little longer for it to be achieved…and a little longer for the white families to realize not all the black families were the gang bangers, the “disruptive” kids, but instead plenty of middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy black families that were already at neighborhood schools when the white families came back.
Now it’s on to the Middle Schools. The same questions linger there: are the lower scores because suddenly the minority kids who go there are disruptive?
Or is it because there’s a collective fear from the white families that, when they go there, turns out to be just as unjustified, just as normal, just as above average, just as superior as was their Elementary School experience.
And as were the minority families they were there with.
September 17th, 2011 at 1:50 am
Fletch, I’ve been advocate for a magnet middle school on this board for years (and earlier in this thread too). This is exactly what OUSD needs to keep some of the academically-minded and largely white population that abandons OUSD in droves after attending their good elementary schools. I have no doubt that there are some great teachers in OUSD at the middle school level and that my children could get a solid education if they were in class with other like-minded children, yet there ceases to be a middle school option that is safe, solid and acceptable to me.
We’ve since relocated to greener pastured, but in my former hills neighborhood, I know a number of families who, over the years, have sent their children to Edna Brewer, Bret Harte, Montera and OSA. Several have pulled their children after a semester or a year. The reasons vary: unsafe campus, drugs, academics, distracting kids, violence, bad influences, not the right fit, etc. Most of these folks were really excited about supporting public school options but most of the time they have ended up disatisfied and unhappy. I believe nearly all of the parents would have loved the idea of an academic middle school in Oakland. I simply can’t understand why OUSD won’t examine this options, especially as they will have empty campuses and classrooms to use for this purpose!
September 17th, 2011 at 1:57 am
#96
Do you even hear what you are saying?
The administration makes decisions that impact teaching in a classroom directly. That hierarchy dictates not only what, but way too often, how a teacher will teach. ( Open Court Reading, Si Swun Math, Success for All Reading…) There were people hired to make sure these programs were being implemented verbatim. Some elementary schools were told you can do nothing but teach math and English language arts. This meant no science, history, art, for the children. YES THIS DID happen and STILL does in places. I had a principal say to me that I would not be happy at her school because the teachers could not teach anything but Open Court and math. These were administrative mandates. This situation is far more complex than your understanding. It is easy to just blame those who work at the “bottom”. I guess that is your way of saying, blame those who work directly with the children. Funny how that works for a teacher, you get payed less than those on “top”, you are told what to do by those at the “top” and when things don’t go well you are solely to blame.
As far as the CST goes…math and science especially require layers upon layers of understanding. The sequence and scope is taught line upon line. Skill upon skill. So although students may be tested in a high school math course and level, success and understanding of that content is most definitely dependent upon basic math and reading , as well as all the sequence that follows. Children are CST tested from second grade up, BTW.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:04 am
Thank you Oakland Teacher #93 for the history of Sankofa and the K-8 model. It further mystifies me why this should be a disqualifier for their closure.
That said, from all accounts the Sankofa staff is a dynamic and dedicated group, and should they merge with Santa Fe I imagine it will be a very productive relationship.
My greatest concern, is for the children who in some cases will be asked to transfer schools for a second time. Santa Fe took in staff and many students from Longfellow and Golden Gate when they closed. Many of our families had and have difficulty with transportation. We also have a high rate of families who are homeless or living temporarily with relatives, and they may find it even more difficult to get to school on time (or at all) if they are required to travel the additional distance to Sankofa or Hoover.
As stated before, geographically it makes much more sense for Santa Fe to welcome the Sankofa population into our newly renovated facilities.
September 17th, 2011 at 2:16 am
Livegreen, my family is caucasian and we are also well-off. Both of those things put us in a small minority in the majority of OUSD middle schools. I’ve looked at the numbers for Edna Brewer and Bret Harte, for example. If I sent my children there, they would be among the few representing with race and socio-economic group. At those schools, only about 5-8% are white and the majority of kids at the schools are poor children of color. Socially, culturally and academically, there will be a large gap between my children and most of the students at these schools. Montera has many more caucasian students, but they are still a minority at the school. There are still way too many students at Montera that aren’t there to learn.
The small number of wealthier hills parents at places like Bret Harte and Edna Brewer are unlikely to make much of a difference, in contrast to the smaller elementary schools where the support of a neighborhood can turn around a school or a school with a solid reputation like Kaiser can attract strong families from all over Oakland.
Further change could come to Montera if all the neighborhood kids in its catchment area chose to support it. If all the kids from Montclair, Thornhill, Joaquin Miller and other hills schools sent their kids to Montera, and few flatlands kids were accepted as transfers, it could be a school on par with Orinda, Piedmont, etc.
A magnet school is the way to go. Sure, people might be upset if their kid didn’t get in, but right now families with means flee OUSD in droves after elementary school. A magnet middle school gives these folks an option to stay.
Finally, I’m all for diversity but not at the expense of my children’s education. I’d be happy for my children to attend a school that is reflective of Oakland’s melting pot but only if the kids are there to learn and advance themselves. We didn’t find the environment we needed and that’s why we moved last year. My oldest is now thriving in a middle school that is meeting our high expectations.
September 17th, 2011 at 8:47 am
If you own property in Oakland and send your kids to private school, you are paying twice for their education.
That doesn’t make any sense to me.
I have a relative who graduated from Tech two years ago. I watched her and dozens of her friends graduate from OUSD and head to ELITE universities. Most of them attended: Glenview/Crocker/Lincoln for grade school and Westlake/Brewer for middle school.
The biggest problem for OUSD is its unclear, ineffective discipline policy in the secondary schools. The children I mentioned above, were able to flourish in this environment. But they shouldn’t have had to.
The people at the top (Dr. Smith, Nexo’s and Principals) need to put the children first. Worrying about ADA money has led to a system that enables abhorrent behavior. Suspend and expel those who disrupt and are not focused on their education. Its really simple. OUSD owns a lot of property in Oakland. Take control. Open a middle school campus for students/families who cannot handle the basic expectations -behavioral and academic.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Lisa @ #74
I meant no offense. And I am still active in OEA, thanks for asking.
I am trying to explore logical, objective, (not political) methods to make these painful decisions. I acknowledge that a district that has lost 8,000 students over the last 20 years may not be able to support the same number of schools (and even more administrators) as 20 years ago. So where do we go from there?
I made the comment because I, like you, question the current criteria for the ranking of schools. I question why schools considering “restructuring” were removed from the list without any assessment of their “restructuring” plans. I question why Secondary Alternative Ed programs (at least 10 across the city) were not considered for consolidation. I question why all the schools in West Oakland were not considered. (Could not the STEM plan be put into action despite the number of schools involved?). While achievement should not be the absolute criterion, I question its complete absence from the process. I have many more questions.
I believe capacity vs. enrollment is one criterion that can be applied objectively as part of this process. I am open to others.
I need to state that I am a Kaiser teacher, came there when Washington was closed in its centennial year. Like you, I am fighting, along with our parents, to keep our exceptional school open. And I applaud your advocacy for your school and your broadcasting of district tomfoolery.
September 17th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Lisa-
I need more clarity on the staffing situation at Burckhalter. The district does not send teachers to a school, the principal hires staff based on enrollment and budget. What happened to the students of those retired teachers?
September 17th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Lissa -
I obviously meant an academic magnet like Lowell in San Francisco. Not some arts school that has to accept everyone or uses a lottery to pick who gets in.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Livegreen -
Magnets don’t have to be small. Lowell High in SF has 2700 kids. I’d say have the magnet target getting the top 10 percent (or so) of the kids. That’s plenty of opportunity there. If it’s popular, expand it!
September 17th, 2011 at 11:14 am
The bulk of my comments were geared for defending Fletch’s unwarranted and factually wrong criticisms of Elementary Schools. Regarding Middle Schools, I agree with the criticisms that the District is not doing enough, even if my anecdotal info from families I know attending some of these middle schools differs from yours. (& mine is from currently enrolled families, not from several years ago).
I entirely agree with Harold’s comments in 105. OUSD must do something to support teachers & families when dealing with disruptive kids.
September 17th, 2011 at 11:18 am
Fletch, point taken about Magnet Schools. Padea at Oak Tech already takes enough heat in the community (to your earlier point, just at the MSchool & HSchool levels). Since they’re getting through that and expanding academies on other campuses, they’ve apparently determined that’s the more politically feasible alternative that still IS making a difference. According to OUSD presentations I’ve seen, Oakland Tech IS attracting back students who previously left.
September 17th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Re. Burkhalter, didn’t they finish some major construction there a couple years ago too? I thought I used to see a lot of portables where the fixed up playground now is. Also, it’s just down the street from the new middle class Monte Vista Villas development. With a decent plan for Burkhalter, why couldn’t OUSD attract families from there?
I guess that’s included in the tough choices they have to make: money & attendance talks, BS walks…
September 17th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Livegreen
But why would the community have a problem with the program at tech.
September 17th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
re.#93, the constant recycling of ideas, it sounds like Oakland, California & U.S. politics. & a lot of big corporations (when they merge and then sell off their units). Keeps people at the top employed & earning the big bucks.
September 19th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Thought some might want to know what it felt like to sit with the district in one of those question/discussion meetings re: school closures. This was my impression of the meeting held last Thursday at Sobrante Park Elementary.
Sobrante Park will be closed! That was the subtext of a meeting with school staff, interested parties, and district personnel on Thursday, September 15th. District personnel led by David Montes de Oca, were very professional as they assembled to “answer questions and get input” from school staff and interested parties. But they answered few questions, even the one about overall cost savings if the selected schools were closed, an answer you’d think would be right on the tip of the tongue of everyone involved in this selection process. All in all, the meeting felt far more like a grief counseling session than a question and discussion session.
Before I say more, Sobrante Park is already a shining inner-city example of a school that fits OUSD’s Full Service Community School (FSCS) strategic vision, with all the academic programming, community outreach and partnering, and whole child view that a FSCS implies. But when the district applied their formula (considering school size, age, fiscal health among other issues), which apparently accounts for 3/5s of the decision, then made their exceptions, we were high on their list. Our ability to influence the remaining 2/5’s of the decision with subjective criteria like community and geographic issues, much less challenge the 3/5’s objective formula used, needs to be presented in 12 days to the board and Superintendent at the school board meeting on Sept. 27th.
Seriously? The school and the community are being given only 12 days to respond with issues that are vital to our students, their families, and the community, an absurd timeline that I imagine all other schools on the list are facing. Why such haste?
Considering the district’s goal of “radical transparency,” noted in its strategic plan, this selection process appears anything but. First, who (what group, district personnel or outside consultants) came up with these formulas to determine which schools were to be selected for closure? Second, what are these formulas? Third, where have these formulas been used with a successful result before?
Finally, when did all this start? The district’s web site notes a timeline (conveniently not presented at the Sobrante Park meeting, only alluded to) which looks like in August 2011 or earlier, the formulas were applied to all schools to see which might qualify; principals, school staff, and partners were to be notified/engaged in August/September (thank you Oakland Tribune); September and October parents and the community were to be engaged on the issue, with the final list to be announced by Oct. 26th. That compressed timeline has been further rushed in reality as the last opportunity to influence the decision by schools and the community is the school board meeting on Sept. 27th The process appears to be so rushed, it puts me in mind of those old Marx Brother’s films where one brother would stop running and the rest would topple into him, leaving them all in a big heap on the ground. Where’s the fairness and the equity (two concepts sprinkled liberally throughout the district’s strategic plan) to our students, their families, and the community in this rush to action? If the district needs to have a decision by October to insure affected students a place in another school next year, why didn’t they start this process last spring, allowing affected schools a reasonable amount of time to respond?
If schools must be closed, the process should be, as the district states in its strategic plan, radically transparent. It should also be equitable. There should be sufficient time for schools and communities to give serious feedback to the district with some faith that their input will be seriously considered. Isn’t that the kind of example we should be providing for our children of how to navigate difficult times? Shouldn’t our actions be examples of thoughtfulness and respect of all those involved in order to reach equitable outcomes? But then, that would be so radically transparent, wouldn’t it?
September 20th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Roberta,
How did you manage to get the district to come out? We at Kaiser have been inviting out Rep–Jody London–and other members of the board ad naseum. We have not been included in any discussion whatsoever. They won’t even talk to us on our campus.
September 20th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@Kaiser Parent – Maybe she’s too busy trying to save Claremont M.S. from the chopping block …
I really hope there’s more competition for school board seats in the future. People running unopposed is not good for the community.
September 20th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Points:
-Jodi London, or any other Board Member for that matter, does not represent Kaiser because the school is in one district but most of the parents in another. So Kaiser effectively has no representation (= no political consequences);
-If Claremont gets closed it will be to hit the reset button and reopen with a dramatically different population. It’s the only way to attract a large # of neighborhood kids and break the school out of it’s chaos.
-As I’ve said before & as the OUSD presentation says: the District MUST share plans with parents to help relocate them (or “entire programs”) in a way that mitigates concerns even when schools do close.
Otherwise the loss of parents are going to be way more than their projects. Which would be a real shame for all, esp. as their are viable alternatives to “all or nothing”.
Don’t believe me OUSD Administrators: see Netflix.
September 23rd, 2011 at 10:51 pm
I work at Lakeview elementary school and am tired of people who have chosen to send their children to other school bashing our school. You are absolutely correct, you have the option to send your child(ren) to any school of your choosing, as long as they have the room to accommodate the request. But high API scores do not tell the entire story of a school. Lakeview may not be everyone’s choice, but it is the choice for the 300+ plus students and their families that we serve.
In response to assertion that Lakeview’s position next to the freeway poses a greater risk to the students who attend, a study done by UCLA found that freeway pollution extends up to 1.5 miles from the freeway and is most pervasive during the early morning hours between 3:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m. You can’t’ find a school in OUSD that isn’t within 1.5 miles of a freeway (24, 580, 880)which means theoretically, the health of every child that goes to school in Oakland is compromised, not just those next to a freeway!
September 27th, 2011 at 10:55 am
I am a parent of a Lakeview student. My child is devastated at the idea of having her school closed just as I am as a parent. I live in the neighborhood and have a feeling that closing Lakeview is more political than anything. I believe the district could find better ways of saving money. We are left in the dark about the plans for the site if the school does close. In addition, was a study conducted to show that Lakeview students are less healthier than other students because Lakeview is near a freeway? Not one that has been shown to the parents of Lakeview. Plus the rumor is that they are going open up a Charter School. Will the Charter School children inhale less freeway fumes than Lakeview students did? This is political yall! Their alterantive to the site makes no sense based on their reasoning for closing Lakeview.
I agree that API scores don’t make a school (although important). It’s the teachers, students, parents, atmosphere, and faculty. I believe OUSD is one of the worst school dicstrcist in California, but, after touring Lakeview I knew I wanted my child to attend there. If Lakeview closes I am taking my child out of the OUSD.
Lakeview parents we have to stand up and attend the meetings and say “NO” we are not going for this.
September 27th, 2011 at 11:51 am
I totally agree. And I love the fact that the school is so diverse. My grandbaby love going to Lakeview. She is devastated at the thought of it closing. Our kids have a say in this as well. OUSD need to stop going by what they’ve heard and take a field trip to the school and judge it for themselves.