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.

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!

-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.

I really hope there’s more competition for school board seats in the future. People running unopposed is not good for the community.

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.

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?

But why would the community have a problem with the program at tech.

I guess that’s included in the tough choices they have to make: money & attendance talks, BS walks…