This is the time to get the official information about the plans for offerings at these high schools next year. One can request written answers to the following questions – meaning Board documents and other planning papers, not Power Point presentations.

1. What will be the 9-12 course offerings at each school?
2. What textbooks, laboratory experiments, and practicums will be offered for each course?
3. What are the projected class sizes for each course?
4. Which courses will be in conjunction with local community colleges or industries?
5. What are the details of the school calendar and the school hours for students?
6. What after school tutoring and help will be offered?
7. What are the expected extracurricular programs? For example, will the previously strong media program exist at Fremont? or the strong entrepreneural and music programs at Castlemont return? or will McClymonds once again win mock trial competitions? Band? Boys and girls sports?

As parents get these documents, they might also try to gather information from OUSD administrators and Board members in person.

The next step is to take these plans to admissions officers at UC Berkeley, CSU East Bay, San Francisco State, Santa Clara, St. Mary’s, Mills, Cal Poly, ITT and DeVry. Ask these respected degree conferring institutions if what is planned for our high schools meets their requirements.

Finally, parents can send and discuss these plans with officials in the California Department of Education to see if they meet state requirements and if they are considered the proper use of state and federal funds.

Armed with real facts, parents and community can dialogue with the district on moving forward in students’ best interests.

Not only was the CEO of Education for Change the founding principal of Ascend, but she was promoted to the Assistant Superintendent in charge of starting up around 20 Oakland small schools. Its the government to private dance step employed so often in Washington. My guess is that other successful small schools with principals that worked with Hae-Sin will take their schools charter before the schools you listed. Lazear principal didn’t play the game of taking his school to charter like the two other principals that had a relationship with Hae-Sin.

However, Lazear, the only school scheduled to close, it was its parents that sought out Education for Change for help in being a charter and has submitted its petition to the School Board. And, their petition reflected that lack of a close connection to Hae-Sin.

And, the Lazear petition demonstrated that Education for Change is about taking on anybody that wants to become a charter under their management.

The half-million Obama dollars for converting is incentive for all Oakland principals to encourage their faculty to sign up to become a charter.

Conversion will let the School Board side-step the difficult process of school closure as they will vote against conversion and then create “partnerships” that the County Board of Education approves.

Jim Mordecai

The CEO of Education for Change was the founding principal of Ascend, so EFC will probably keep their finger in the pie. Also EFC is looking to expand and establish more schools and needs space (although they prefer these to be in the hills, hmm Marshall? Kaiser? Lakeview? even Maxwell Park?) so they may have plans for the Ascend building and the part of the building that is LWL.

These are portends of things to come; it’s just another example of public debt supporting private profit.

The reason Education for Change (EFC) kept Hawthorne and Cox sites is EFC asked “mother may I” and mother said “yes.” By the way the mother that said yes was Randy Ward State Administrator.

If on appeal the County Board of Education grants the two schools petition to become a conversion charter Mother (now Oakland School Board) will have no legal say on the property of Learning Without Limits and Ascend as all the property and the contents become property managed by EFC until such time as these two schools stop being charter schools and then the property reverts back to OUSD.

The agreements called “partnership” were made between Education for Change and OUSD before either of the two schools has been converted. And, this raises the question of whether these agreements undermines and weakens the School Board’s rejecting the two charter petitions when the County Board looks at the Oakland School Board saying no and then negotiating. Was there a deal whereby the Oakland Board representative will testify in support of the appeal? Partnership certainly doesn’t mean EFC is withdrawing its appeal.

I also believe the partnership policy will add encouragement for other small schools to go the charter route and get their “partnerships”. Maybe, the Obama charter school conversion dollars will pay down the debt and leave Oakland Unified (?) with a lesser debt but only low performing schools.

Jim Mordecai

The last time Education for Change tried this, they were able to keep newly renovated school buildings, Hawthorne and Cox, for their use. This time they are trying a different tack to keep real estate that has been built by bonds approved by Oakland voters for the use of public school students while they get to operate as private entities.