Sadly, children with Special Needs very rarely set feet in those schools and even in many traditional public school campuses in our district.

There are many losers in this closure situation. Yet, let’s not forget that disability cuts across race, class, gender, etc.

Children with Special Needs are an indicator population. If you serve them well, you are probably serving all children well.

Sankofa is doing what very few schools in OUSD are doing: placing children with Special Needs at the center of school life and planning. While there are many reasons to support the work of this rare gem of a school, that one alone should cause everyone to pause and consider. The many of us who suffered through the closure of Tilden and the effects on our often very vulnerable children, fought to find schools who would welcome all of the children from Tilden. We chose Sankofa as one of those schools because of its strikingly inclusive vision and practice, and Sankofa chose us. I do not have a child at Sankofa but fully support the rare work that the school is doing on behalf of children with Special Needs.

Few schools expressed their solidarity when Tilden became an easy first target in a wave of closures. We were the canary in the gold mine and the closure happened a year after a long re-incubation process. We are all still healing from those 2 long years of difficult organizing given the daily challenges of supporting our children and the fact that we come from many neighborhoods and experiences by no design of our own. We get placed in “programs” and we work like hell to build a school experience for our children.

Children with Special Needs do not often figure in all of the comments made by and about schools. Yet, the schools that support our population of children do so at a cost to their site budgets and their population numbers (e.g. Special Day classrooms have less children and impact the total population numbers.)

I will defend Sankofa because it took risks for our children when they most needed it.

That vision was not temporary and expedient. They continue in that sacred, joyful, and difficult work.

Thank you.

Sadly, children with Special Needs very rarely set feet in those schools and even in many traditional public school campuses in our district.

There are many losers in this closure situation. Yet, let’s not forget that disability cuts across race, class, gender, etc.

Children with Special Needs are an indicator population. If you serve them well, you are probably serving all children well.

Sankofa is doing what very few schools in OUSD are doing: placing children with Special Needs at the center of school life and planning. While there are many reasons to support the work of this rare gem of a school, that one alone should cause everyone to pause and consider. The many of us who suffered through the closure of Tilden and the effects our often very vulnerable children, fought to find schools who would welcome all of the children from Tilden. We chose Sankofa as one of those schools because of its strikingly inclusive vision and practice, and Sankofa chose us. I do not have a child at Sankofa but fully support the rare work that the school is doing on behalf of children with Special Needs.

Few schools expressed their solidarity when Tilden became an easy first target in a wave of closures. We were the canary in the gold mine and the closure happened a year after a long re-incubation process. We are all still healing from those 2 long years of difficult organizing given the daily challenges of supporting our children and the fact that we come from many neighborhoods and experiences by no design of our own. We get placed in “programs” and we work like hell to build a school experience for our children.

Children with Special Needs do not often figure in all of the comments made by and about schools. Yet, the schools that support our population of children do so at a cost to their site budgets and their population numbers (e.g. Special Day classrooms have less children and impact the total population numbers.)

I will defend Sankofa because it took risks for our children when they most needed it.

That vision was not temporary and expedient. They continue in that sacred, joyful, and difficult work.

Thank you.

You have an opportunity to make a bold, positive cause for social justice in sparing one, two, or all of the schools slated for school closure.

I know you will continue to consider all of the information presented to you between now and October 26th, and I trust you will make the best decision.

I have copied below an e-mail I sent tonight to the Oakland City Council and OUSD Board:

Dear Council Members & Staff,

We currently have 65% of our students who walk to Santa Fe Elementary each morning, and many walk home at 6 PM after attending our After School Enrichment Program.

A representative from Assemblyman Swanson’s office, who also happens to be a former police captain with OPD, spoke before OUSD Superintendent Smith and OUSD Board President Jody London on October 6, 2011, and testified that asking Santa Fe children to walk to Sankofa Elementary, Peralta Elementary, or Piedmont Avenue would put them at serious risk for abduction or worse.

As of today, October 8, 2011, we have still received no plan from OUSD for the safe transit of our Santa Fe students to the schools they may attend next year. Before closing down Santa Fe, plans for the safety and welfare of all of our students should be fully considered and explained to the public. That is not the case.

Please contact Superintendent Smith and our OUSD Board Members, and share your concern over the potential harm to our children.

Superintendent Smith had no response to the greatest concern voiced about safety in getting our children to the new proposed school sites.

He also claimed he had not heard “directly” about his own school assignment office telling incoming parents that Santa Fe was closing and that they needed to choose another school.

While other members of his team said no final decision had been made, Superintendent Smith stated emphatically that his presentation to the Board was final.

Board President Jody London did not endear herself to the crowd by leaving midway through public commentary. She said she had to attend a mandatory Nutcracker meeting for her daughter.

She also did not respond to Santa Fe School Site Council members who reminded her that she was present when they approved a K-8 restructuring, and that she had promised her support in the process.

There were calls for her recall, perhaps due in part to the weary expression she wore throughout the proceedings, as if it was a burden to listen to the people she was elected to serve.

My 2 minutes of commentary:

Board President & Superintendent at Santa Fe Input – 10/6/11

My name is Peter von Ehrenkrook and I am currently a 5th grade teacher at Santa FeElementary.

I have to acknowledge that I am not worried about the Santa Fe teachers or staff. We will all have jobs in the fall, though some of us may be placed at less than desirable sites due to our public dissent.

In addition, I am not worried about our top performing students. They will be quickly assimilated into the local private and charter schools. Even Anna Yates in the Emeryville School District will turn a blind eye to home address issues if the child is a high performer.

My concern is for those children who are rejected by the local charters and private schools. Either their parents don’t have the savvy to get them in, or once they fail there the charters and private schools send them back to us.

This is often due to issues with low academic performance, erratic attendance, or behavioral problems. We always welcome them back and do the best we can to support them academically and emotionally.

We also do our best with children like the 13-year-old who came to me recently from a local private school knowing only 5 letters. They had passed him on year after year with As and Bs. Or the English Language Learner who was dropped into my class last year the day before the CST. His family kept him out of another local school for over a month in protest over his being bullied, and only reenrolled him when we opened our doors to him. This is what a real Full Service Community School does.

Nothing I have seen or heard from OUSD eases my deep concern about the future safety and welfare of our children in transition – those who are homeless, live with a grandma, or live with a relative who works nights.

These are real children I teach every day. They wander in around 10 AM, since they have to get themselves up and walk from the areas near the old Longfellow or old Golden Gate sites. If you ask them to travel to Sankofa, or even worse to Piedmont Avenue, they may just decide it’s not worth the effort.

They need a local public school they can walk to safely, and from which they can walk home safely at 6 PM after taking part in an After School Enrichment Program.

Until you can assure me our At Risk Students will be safe and their needs will be met, I will continue to rally public support against this closure.

Tony Smith is a charter school superintendent. He does not have the district best interest in mind. I am so tired of hearing, “we are not sure where our students are going”. CHARTER SCHOOLS!!!!! Why were charter put on the table when some of them are failing. Failing when they are able to put non performing students out. OUSD get it together!!!

& where does one get 5.2 million for facilities? All OUSD Bond money, or outside grants too?

Kudos to Sankofa for it’s successes.

On the other hand I do think some of the information & data from Sankofa supporters is powerful, and I appreciate the input and progress the school is making. The list of supporters is also powerful, to the point where frankly, I’m jealous. Being in a “slope” school where we have a majority African American students (most but not all from out of boundary) performing higher than Sankofa, where our facilities are mediocre at best, one of the frustrations has been how to support similar students.

OUSD and many grantors, including BACR, Oakland Schools Foundation & others listed, see that we’re in a middle class neighborhood and, regardless of our needy student population, look only at the middle income neighborhood where’s it’s located and flat-out reject us.

If a school is middle income, or located in a middle income neighborhood, you are either rejected, allowed to deteriorate to the point that then these donors might become interested, or by that time it will be too late and the school will be shut down.

I hope our school will continue to improve. If it does, however, it will be by the bootstraps with little help from OUSD, and no help from any of these foundations who don’t give even a smidgen of donation if the dirty words “middle class” are so little as mentioned. Even if many of our students are FRL or needy.