I believe we once had such schools – they were called “black schools”. They were staffed with teachers and administrators who were “old school”. They taught their students with an iron hand – coached them on how to make it in the larger world – then often placed them in jobs and higher education.

It all seemed to work pretty well. Until the civil rights movement of the mid 1960s imposed unwanted forced integration on schools together with protectionist policies and lower standards for blacks – indiscipline and coddling to protect “self esteem”. The rest is history.

Why is it that nobody worried about black student “self esteem” when the black schools were run by black old school staff? I don’t remember hearing of any “dealt with transparency, compassion, & empathy” going on when my ancestors and extended family ran black schools K-college) for 100 years up through the 1960s. Quite the opposite. The world was a tough place – and their students had to be tougher and better than most to find a role in it.

And they were dealing with students before the federalization of welfare. People were POOR sometimes. Everybody had to manage as best they could. General relief didn’t pay much – you had to hustle. So I don’t believe poverty is anywhere as bad now as it was then. Poverty is never the problem with schools and education – trashy people are more the problem.

Maybe they dealt with trashy people better in the first half of the 20th Century. It wasn’t allowed to get in the way of education.

Fuchs is a name associated with betraying atomic secrets. Some might think it an appropriate name for a principal betraying Oakland Public Schools by taking his Oakland Public School charter.

Aside from Fuchs’ name associated with a famous betrayal, some might question Hae-Sin Thomas exploiting her history with Oakland administrators to advance an agenda of growing Education for Change’s inventory of charter schools. As the Oakland administrator responsible for organizing 22 of Oakland’s small schools these two conversions to EFC charter schools will leave 20 small schools left to target for conversion.

As CEO Hae-Sin Thomas will have doubled EFC’s inventory from two elementary schools to four Oakland’s loss is her success.

In my opinion the Oakland small schools policy was not sustainable. With current state budget cuts, and without the Gates money, increase class size and consolidation of programs is a reality facing all of the state’s schools.

Only in Oakland a familiar figure to small school administrators seems to hold out the promise of not having to take the cuts that other schools in other districts will have to eat.

Only thing needed is to get 50% of the permanent faculty to vote for charter conversion and Education for Change will be there for the principals and teachers. Principals know that Education for Change allowed the principals of their two schools to become the principal of the schools they lead to become EFC charters.

And, even when one of the two principals didn’t stay at the converted school, the District welcomed him back and placed him in a new principal assignment.

OUSD administration is so tolerant that it not only welcomed back the EFC principal that had lead his Oakland school to charter conversion but it is tolerating both ASCEND and Learning Without Limit principals who on Monday lead the petition to convert their schools and is nevertheless letting them to continue to lead their schools.

Sort of like Lincoln tolerating Lee maintaining his commission while organizing Virginia and other states secession military to fight the union. Unlike Oakland principals, Lee resigned his commission when he decided to support right of the Confederate states to succeed.

Jim Mordecai

Larissa Adam is the Principal of ASCEND. Ms. Adam co-founded ASCEND in 2001. After teaching at ASCEND for two years, she became Assistant Principal in 2003, and has been principal there since 2004.

Hae-Sin Kim Thomas is the Chief Executive Officer of Education for Change, and was the founding Principal of ASCEND, one of the first five small autonomous schools created in Oakland.

Does anyone see a conflict of interest when the principal, and majority of the permanent teachers of an Oakland Public School, are going to convert that school to a charter school that is publicly funded and privately managed?

And, does anyone else find it strange that the District allows a principal petitioning to remove her school from the District to continue to manage that school?

I know that principals have a union, but I thought they were at will employees as principals but would have a job as teachers if busted. Shouldn’t petitioning the Board to remove your school from the District get you busted?

Jim Mordecai
Oakland Teacher
5022 Webster Street
Oakland, Ca. 94609
510-205-4635

I got a better idea. Why doesnt the district, who has zero incentive to get better considering they do not have a 5 year petition to go through; adverstise boldly that they have lower standards, make excuses, and continue to show students dance instead of reading.

This way, in Oakland, they will assuredly recieve kids and parents who are looking for the excuses and/or dont care about education.

OUSD will then keep their schools open and well stocked! What does OUSD have to lose- its kind of already being done right?

Sharon: You’ve got a point there. Cherry picking includes pruning. But even though everything you say is true there is nothing wrong with doing this, getting the superior stats, then claiming to be the better school. That’s what good schools do, and the students to the extent they can, rise to the challenge. Good students don’t want to fail.

The trick is screening out those physically unable to do well in a given program – suitability requirements for enrollment. OUSD would do well to have a set of schools that imposed suitability requirements for enrollment and stop worrying about racial representation.