The thing that is really bothering me is that somehow Hillcrest families continue to receive special treatment, not only keeping their k-8 program, but also guaranteeing that the neighborhood kids who get turned away get into Thornhill, another really good scho.

I am now raising awareness. Per OUSD personnel – 90 students were offered spots for 3 kindergarten classes. 24 were siblings (neighborhood and not). The remaining spot went to neighborhood families. That means 21% of the non-sibling neighborhood families were turned away – I’m sure everyone can agree that is an outrageous statistic. And even if we all get in via appeal the school is going to be EXTREMELY crowded.

All 18 families were put into Cleveland (and not other choices on their options form), another of the schools impacted by the Lakeview closure. It seems quite clear to me that ALL FACTORS WERE NOT CONSIDERED as voiced above and that OUSD has made a very, very serious mistake. A lot of angry people are about to make a lot of noise. I hope you will show your support.

BTW, some schools DO have efforts to try to target & assist students who r behind (some based on grades regardless of socio-economic, some based on socio-economic).. Could b those r working too…

While it’s always possible a school may decide to actually teach in year two or three where they refused to teach in year one and this is the primary reason behind a jump in API, I don’t think that’s common.

Scoring reflects the presense of good students as much or more than good teachers. This is the major problem with paying teachers based on the student scores and/or changes in the scores.

When good parents are doing their homework for placement of little Johnny they have issues of not placing the kid where he can’t keep up, as well as placing him where he won’t be bored and idle. These suitability and placement problems become more acute after puberty and of course with higher education placement.

Suitability testing and placement is the norm in Europe and other parts of the world where there are no illusions that all are created equal. Here we will place students where they can’t keep up and then try to water down standards to force them to fit (i.e. the terrible “no-flunk” policies common to US urban public education).

Minorities can be bright or dull, but the percentages are different than other groups. Here in Oakland we have specific (cognitive) issues with black students (and thier averages)- elsewhere it may be with some other group. These problems have been/are going to get worse with diseugenics. The added (by OUSD) damage I see now that was avoided generations ago, is caused by the school district refusing to deal with any of it head on and by use of social promotion and teaching of indiscipline to damage the black students generally and the entire district to a degree never seen in the 1960s.

This thread is on drawing attendance boundries. Of course the plan with this urban district is that all students bright and dull are to attend the same schools and the same classes. Good luck with that. It would be far preferable to have large district boundries but separate distinct schools within each boundry for the brights and dulls without regard to race. Enrollment would be through suitablity and testing with the default enrollment the bonehead schools. Doing so would allow the cognitively higher students to feel safe using the OUSD and allow the district to prosper in total enrollment and reputation of the schools. Continuing down the path the district is on will mean shrinking enrollment until the district only functions as a continuation school and the Charters have all the good students – regardless of race.

Brave New World.

The children I know who cause challenges are not just AfAm. The stereotypes are often (not always) just that.

I’m just saying many of the schools cannot be assumed to be bad or mediocre because they’re in Oakland, because neighborhood kids are few, or because most of the students are of one minority or another. You just might find many of the schools are better than you think, &/or good for most of the kids of any racial or socioeconomic background…

I agree that you have to satisfy yourself in the individual situation.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Demographis is destiny – it’s also a changing API score. You cannot rest that blacks (for example) are well served just because the API is rising (because blacks are leaving?).

While it’s always possible your black, brown or whatever child may fit in or be well handled in a rising API school or even a higher API school you cannot count on this or anything else without considering the particular child in question and checking out the operation and atmosphere of the proposed school.

Perhaps the issue is not as acute at a primary school as it is a UC Berkeley – but the issues remain nonetheless. You have to satisfy yourself in the individual situation. You can’t rest on the numbers for all your kids.

Re. Lincoln & demographics, these are also available on the API Chart Katy links to above. Though I caution this because it’s in %’s (not #’s) and is always behind the current year. A tour of the school is good.

Finally, hopefully the school & teachers will be open & caring to all students no matter their demographic. So will most students. Those that aren’t need to be addressed & such problems can be found at any school, no matter their demographic.

And any school with a decent or rising score is often (though not always) being successful with many of their students, regardless of race.

We’re in the region that could either go to Lincoln or Piedmont Avenue. Lincoln has amazing test scores, but I worry that it’s not diverse. Can anyone tell me about the culture and curriculum at Lincoln? Would a non-Chinese student feel out-of-place?

The alternative of Piedmont Aveune is no alternative — if that scenario happens, we will move.