The Oakland school district might be finished downsizing
By Katy Murphy
Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 3:55 pm in families, kindergarten, OUSD central office, school closures, students.
photo by Jane Tyska/Bay Area News Group
I meant to post this story sooner: OUSD’s school closure process — which was supposed to last for two to three years and shrink the district by 20-30 schools — will likely stop after the first round, when the district is a dozen schools smaller than it was last fall.
District officials say the target changed because they are projecting a balanced budget for 2012-13, one without a structural deficit for the first time in more than a decade. You can find the story through the above link and read up on the district’s latest budget report here. The financial report will be presented at tomorrow night’s 5 p.m. board meeting.
P.S. Some have asked whether, in light of this development, OUSD will once again use adult education funding for adult education. California school districts are now — at least, for the time being — allowed to use the once-protected funding stream for any purpose, and many have spent it on k-12 programs. OUSD eliminated its large high school diploma program and its adult ESL classes, with the exception of Family Literacy, among others. I’ve submitted your queries; so far, however, I’ve heard no talk about rebuilding adult ed.
Two related school closure issues:
- On March 28, the school board discusses what to do with the closed school buildings. OUSD spokesman Troy Flint said the district is considering moving the offices (including the Family and Community Office) now located on 2111 International to Lakeview Elementary, one of the five elementary schools slated to close in June.
UPDATE: Flint initially thought the future use of Lakeview and other closed school buildings was on the March 28 agenda, but it’s not. I’ll let you know when I find out more.
- Flint also confirmed what some have posted here on this blog: oversubscription of the high-performing Crocker Highlands Elementary School. Because of the boundary expansion made after the closure of nearby Lakeview, some children in the Crocker neighborhood were not admitted to their home school. Flint wouldn’t provide numbers today, but said district staff are meeting on Friday to discuss the problem. (Sue Woerhle, an OUSD veteran who retired from the district almost five years ago, is once again in charge of the student assignment process.) In light of Crocker’s oversubscription, I’m puzzled by a statement in a proposed board resolution, which would amend a zoning oversight by adding one side of a street to the Crocker attendance area. I’m not saying the change itself doesn’t make sense — just noting that the resolution ignores the problem at hand.
I’ve bolded it below:
On January 11, 2012, the Board of Education approved school attendance boundary changes as a
result of the school restructuring decision made by the Board of Education on October 26, 2011.
Included in those approved changes was the Crocker Highlands Elementary attendance area.
Subsequent analysis by staff following the January 11, 2012 has determined that Trestle Glen
Road, which traverses the interior of the Crocker Highlands Elementary attendance area,
currently hosts one block where only those addresses on one side (even numbers) is included in
the Crocker Highlands Elementary attendance area. The remaining section of the block (odd
numbers) of Trestle Glen Road resides in the Glen View attendance area.
The staff recommendation addresses this anomaly by adjusting the Crocker Highlands
Elementary attendance area to include the odd-numbered addresses on Trestle Glen Road as
reflected in the attached map and list of affected addresses. Staff has determined that the
inclusion of the affected addresses is not likely to cause an undue burden on the enrollment
demands of Crocker Highlands Elementary attendance area. Signatures have been received by
the district from a majority of the residence affected agreeing with the proposed change.
Are other schools facing similar over-enrollment issues? What should the district do about it?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
March 13th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Some good news!
March 13th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
God forbid those kids might have to go to Glenview…
Of course Glenview is another overenrolled school.
Which brings up another issue. For these two or other overenrolled schools, OUSD is not compensating them for the higher # of students they enroll.
If more kids go to these schools than expected OUSD does NOT adjust their pass-through funding to them. Instead OUSD is reallocating this money to under enrolled schools.
Some might call this misappropriation of funds. Some might call this something else…
March 13th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
The District has already begun its repairs of Lakeview. They know full well what they are going to do, so why discuss it? They went in PAINTING while students were in class, exposing students to those nauseating fumes. Then when it was objected to, the offenders acted as though they were making the repairs for “the students” . Many of these repairs and such should and could have been done last year, last summer, or last weekend, but not while teachers are teaching and STUDENTS are present.
Why does everyone like to pretend that there is no real plan for these closed schools. They were chosen for a reason, We the People, just have not been told yet. Transparency……
And What is OVERSUBSCRIPTION? Overenrollment? Why not put another portable on their yard if they need another classroom? hm?
March 13th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Joel Velasquez, a Lakeview parent, said that in addition to the flurry of repairs (including one that, he said, was not requested by school staff and damaged a mural in the auditorium), some district employees have been visiting classrooms to check out the space and ask questions about the possible office relocation, which has upset parents and teachers.
By the way (in case your question wasn’t rhetorical!), oversubscription means more applicants than spots. A school could be oversubscribed, but not overenrolled — or it could be both. I don’t know what the case is at Crocker, but adding a kindergarten class is typically more involved than adding a portable. Depending on the school’s class sizes in the upper grades and future enrollment trends, it could mean adding a class, eventually, at each grade level. That might be under consideration though.
March 14th, 2012 at 9:20 am
On Nov. 18th Katy posted a blog about redrawing the boundaries after the school closures. Although there were 3 distinct proposals, Crocker Highlands was proposed to have same expanded catchment area in each proposal. I posted my strong concerns that the new area would render an oversubscription to this very desireable public elementary school. The worse case scenario, in my opinion, was to create another Hillcrest or Redwood Heights fiasco whereby there are not enough spaces in the local elementary school for all of the families, thus alienating a functioning community.
I am disgusted that the district has again foregone common sense and created a NEW problem in an area that was thriving and had a high functioning public school. How is it that citizens such as myself and others could easily predict the problem with oversubscription to Crocker Elementary while the paid officials (presumably with data and training) could not?!?
The problem is this; families in this neighborhood have invested time, money, and their children to this thriving public school. Perhaps they did not buy in Hillcrest or Redwood Heights to avoid the known issue with overenrollment in those areas. Perhaps they strained themselves financially to move to this particular area in order to avail themselves to the local school, knowing that they would not have to spend on private education. They now face an uncertainty that was CREATED by OUSD and was easily avoided.
Some of the families in this area do have the means to choose a home purchase in Piedmont, Lamorinda, or to send their kids to private. Others may opt for charters. Why, oh why would OUSD put stress on a high performing school and alienate families some of whom can opt out? Nextset has been adamant that OUSD is only in the business of running ghetto schools, and will eventually serve a population with no means of escape. Livegreen tells us that OUSD keeps alienating the middle class. Damn right! In my opinion, this is a royal mess manufactured by OUSD. Thanks Tony Smith! Good going OUSD!!!!
March 14th, 2012 at 10:12 am
Like everyone else, I’m not surprised about Crocker. Didn’t anyone in OUSD consider this obvious outcome?
Another question — I had heard rumors that Kaiser mighr relocate to Lakeview. That would make a whole lot more sense than turning into district offices. Anyone hear more about that?
March 14th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Katy, I would love to see data about which schools were chosen by students from the closing schools. I did hear that almost everyone got their first choice (as they should have). Is it possible to track that down?
March 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
What is the enrollment of Crocker?
Why can’t Crocker expand?
Why is it more complicated than adding a portable?
Why is expansion a solution and adding portables a solution at other sites, but it is not a solution for Crocker?
March 14th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Crocker Highlands is really locked in. There is no parking, other that the street. The students don’t need their playground shortened – by adding portables. This mess didn’t need to happen. Why our Superintendent wants screw around with this wonderful neighborhood school, is really puzzling to me. We bought our home (a block from the campus), because of the school and the FAMILIES who make it such a great school. These changes may lead to more neighborhood kids attending Corpus Christy or Charters.
Bad move Mr. Smith!
March 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I’m not in the know for all of the questions asked, but I can give my opinion as to why a portable would be a very poor option. Space is at a premium on the very small campus at Crocker. I don’t think that a portable would fit and still allow the school to have enough of a yard space for the kids who attend need space for lunch, recess and PE. The building and campus is quite compact.
Furthermore, the school’s popularity has grown in the past few years such that many more of the neighborhood families are sending their children to Crocker than before. I would assume that the incoming K classes reflect a greater number of neighborhood kids than in years past when there were more spaces for out of neighborhood children. If that is true, then that data should have been available to officials who were thinking about how much to expand the boundaries. I believe that is accurate. The point of more neighborhood kids is just to look at what type of capacity existed for pushing the boundary.
I have said before that ‘the more the merrier’, but only up to the point where you create a situation such as that of Redwood Heights and Hillcrest.
I do not believe that creating uncertainty for existing families or making neighborhood kids opt for schools in other areas of Oakland is reasonable just because OUSD did not use common sense or care in creating these new boundaries.
I sense that there is some question by Lisa that suggests that I am asking for special treatment for Crocker. I am only pointing out that the redrawn boundaries penalize all the families in the newly drawn Crocker area. Uncertainty is toxic and stressful for any family. Many families have made very, very careful choices to ensure the education of their kids. OUSD has made a horrible error, in my opinion.
It seems pretty cavalier and thoughtless to suggest that local families just suck it up and add portables.
March 14th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Crocker does not have the real estate to expand its enrollment. Lisa, have you seen that campus? It’s not big enough to add another portable. I’ve seen this issue come up several times when enrollment is discussed on this site. Several of the high performing hills schools in the hills (Hillcrest, Thornhill, Crocker) don’t have room or space to expand. The one campus that I know of that does have the real estate, Montclair Elementary, is being expanded and built out to support more students.
There are a lot of elementary schools in Oakland that have large areas that can house additional portables but Crocker is not one of them.
March 14th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
UPDATE: OUSD Spokesman Troy Flint initially thought the future use of Lakeview and other closed school buildings was on the March 28 agenda, but it’s not. I’ll let you know when I find out more about when those discussions will take place.
March 14th, 2012 at 4:56 pm
After reading posts last fall and sharing the same concerns as On The Fence, we were trying to stay optimistic about the Crocker boundary extensions given that our oldest is due to enter K in the fall. The OUSD and the school principal during tours seemed to reassure everyone that they had it “under control” even though we had already heard stories last year of neighborhood families having to appeal to get in. (Maybe they’ll have to have to add another K class, maybe there won’t be as many families applying, etc. etc.)
Well, letters went out last week and although we were accepted into Crocker for kindergarten, there are a number of families, who live in the ORIGINAL Crocker catchment area, who were not accepted. I hear that a total of 18 families were grouped together and told they had to go to Cleveland – none had listed it as a choice. Many of these students lived 1, 2 and 3 blocks from the school – crazy!!! This is completely unfair given that residents of Crocker Highlands pay a premium in home prices and property taxes to live in the neighborhood BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It is unconscionable that OUSD would allow it to happen – EVERYONE saw it coming. This will happen again next year and the year after until OUSD decides to admit they were wrong and restore the boundaries.
Lastly, I was also shocked to see the language associated with tonight’s board meeting agenda item further extending out the crocker boundaries:
Staff has determined that the inclusion of the affected addresses is not likely to cause an undue burden on the enrollment demands of Crocker Highlands Elementary attendance area.
What the hell is wrong with these people???
March 14th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
It’s not just OUSD that keeps alienating the middle class. The City of Oakland is even worse. In turn this undermines the tax base and makes it harder to pay for services for everyone (incl. the poor) AND functioning schools. But that’s another story…
March 14th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Question: Is the overcrowding of Crocker due to the expansion of their catchment area, or because school’s closing went through a special early Options process? Or both together?
Those are different, but of course the results are the same. The problem is this now going to be a fiasco for somebody. My question: was Options Enrollment speaking to Facilities speaking to the Rexo’s?
What did the Board Member representing this area know, and what did Board Members approve?
Either there was a major communications lap that occurred somewhere, or some folks made some really bad decisions, or there’s an ulterior motive we don’t necessarily know about yet.
Either way, and in summary, it seems like an extreme lapse in judgement (& I’m being nice) to commit to school closures because of under enrollment only to create an over enrolled school.
Not only does it defeat the facts on the ground. It defeats their entire argument (one that many of us had believed).
March 14th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Reading this discussion has brought out the public school curmudgeon in me.
Why would anyone think that buying a home in a particular school zone guaranteed their child’s future enrollment in that school? Especially in a district like Oakland where the “desireable” schools are acknowledged to be such a scarce commodity. I mean, one hopes to send one’s child to a neighborhood school, and of course stability is better than uncertainty, but it is also the case that our urban school district has a lot of needy schools– some dynamism and change (including closing schools, redrawing zone boundaries) may be ultimately a good thing. Maybe not a good thing for individual families, but I don’t understand the general air of outrage at the district from people who don’t seem to be personally affected.
To me, what is “unconscionable” is that we as a community allow inequities to exist to the extent that many relatively privileged parents consider a majority of OUSD schools to be unacceptable for their children. (I know there is no easy solution to that problem.)
As far as I know, families whose children already attend Crocker, or those who have a sibling attending Crocker, were not denied spots, just new families. In fact, the parents I know who didn’t get in to Crocker got into a good, close by school (Cleveland). They will therefore have plenty of opportunity to invest “time, money and their children” in a neighborhood school. I don’t see any reason why Crocker and Cleveland can’t continue to thrive.
March 14th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Public School Supporter, Cleveland is a good school but it is a couple of miles away from Crocker. I completely understand the upset when a child could potentially walk to school with other neighborhood kids but instead must be driven to a different neighborhood. I’m all for public schools, and mixing things up a bit is fine, but I do understand why these Crocker parents and families are upset by what is happening.
March 14th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Wow, Public School Supporter, Thank you.
March 14th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
It will be important to understand the nature of the oversubscribed status of Crocker. It could take a few years for some of the spots available to out-of-district sibling students to be freed to students within the district. As I understand it, the first priority students admitted into Crocker are siblings, regardless of whether the family lives in the district or not. Then the priority becomes the new families within the district. I’ve thought the situation will re-balance over time but I already sense that families are drawn to the new parts of the catchment so their kids can enroll into Crocker.
March 14th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
I do not begrudge Crocker for wanting to keep everything as it were. If portables cannot fit on the yard I understand that. I also get that uncertainty is toxic and stressful for any family. We do not disagree.
There are specs, ratios and building codes for everything, but not the square footage of playground space for children? I have been to Crocker and it is a very unique space.
I , however, think it is a bit cavalier and thoughtless to suggest that the inconvenience of a few people not attending their closest school is so huge a concern when whole schools are being closed,hundreds of families are being disenfranchised and portables are being placed on small school yards in many schools to now expand them and absorb the hundreds of children who are being displaced.
But my questions still were not answered ….
What is the enrollment of Crocker?
Why can’t Crocker expand?
Why is it more complicated than adding a portable?
Why is expansion a solution and adding portables a solution at other sites, but it is not a solution for Crocker?
What is the size of the play space available to the children at Crocker and how does that compare to other schools of similar size?
March 15th, 2012 at 8:53 am
I can only give you my unofficial observations and best guesses, but I am a current parent at Crocker (not in the neighborhood) and will give it my best shot.
When I toured schools, which I did extensively since we were going through options, I
would say that most, if not all, of the schools I looked at had bigger yards. I did not look at Thornhill, which I think my be smaller, but Peralta,, Kaiser, Carl Munk, Montclair, and Joaquin Miller appeared to have more space. Some of those schools also already had portables. I have no idea if we can fit a portable and still provide adequate space for children to play, but I do believe we are working with a smaller space than is usual. Currently only two grades go to lunch recess at a time which is quite a juggling act, and it’s pretty crowded, especially as the kids get bigger and more active!
Regarding adding one kindergarten class. While we may be able to find space for them, unless you add teachers at every grade (which obviously we don’t have the space or budget for),there is the problem of four full kindergarten classed going into three classes in 1st and 2nd grade. Last year we lost one teacher and went to two larger third grade classes. Currently we have more second graders than can fit in two classes (approx 75). I’m not sure how the school is going to handle that at this point, but I think it’s going to have to be addressed before hiring another kindergarten teacher.
I not sure exactly what the enrollement is, but I think it’s gone up over 380. It has gone up every year we’ve been there. I’m not really offering an opinion, but trying to answer the questions Lusa asked as best I can. I don’t have a dog in this fight as my kids are enrolled and we don’t live in the neighborhood. I’m not sure, but I don’t think there are even that many outside of the boundery kindergarteners coming in. Maybe a handful at most. Certainly not 18! I am pretty frustrated that OUSD is once again causing uncertainty and stress due to poor planning. They had to know that Crocker couldn’t absorb that entire catchment area.
March 15th, 2012 at 8:53 am
@20-
Portables are being added to other sites? We were told that OUSD was trying to end reliance on portables. We were told that we cannot consider more portables.
Where is OUSD adding portables?
March 15th, 2012 at 8:56 am
I’ll bet those neighborhood families who were denied a spot at Crocker would be happy to have a portable.
March 15th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Regarding too many kids per grade at Crocker–
Peralta is a small school, smaller than Crocker. They are VERY creative about how they divide up the kids, including split grades, which I know is not everyone’s cup of tea. But it seems to work at Peralta. Out of 11 classes, four are split grades. All are at full capacity (which means 31 kids per class in 4th and 5th grade). We have portables on a very tiny campus. We also have two grades at a time having lunch. Peralta’s gotten creative about how to handle full enrollment on a small campus–with much success.
March 15th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Another question that might shed some light on the situation. Did parents of the disenfranchised students coming from one of the closed schools (e.g. Lakeview) receive special priority in the options process to place their students in the school of choice? And if so, did many pick Crocker?
More data would be nice. At a minimum, OUSD owes an explanation to the Crocker-area families assigned to Cleveland.
March 15th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
To Adams Point Mama
That was a misleading and non-factual rumor circulated earlier in the year by the publicly elected branch of the OUSD.
Proving the point, that rumor and innuendo will persist and people will repeat and believe them, despite being untrue well past the time when these rumors should be believed.
March 15th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Tony made sure his children attended Crocker before his fiasco. Perhaps if his suggested changes affected his kids he’d think differently.
March 15th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
I have a child enrolled at Crocker, and my comment has more to do with the duplicitous culture of OUSD that lends to the stress many other bloggers have mentioned. I am just blowing off steam.
Ours, and several of our friends’ families were overtly lied to about boundaries and enrollment in Crocker, Glenview, and Kaiser two years ago that led to our enrolling in private school initially. We all reapplied early the following year and got in, but that experience left a bad taste in our mouths, and a whole lot of suspicion toward OUSD.
The one good thing that’s come out of this disgusting train wreck is that we are all aware and talking about it now. Hopefully, we also will deflect our frustration at closer and more democratic reviews of any new propositions for legislation before we vote on them at the polls, and hold accountable the appropriate persons, be they the Superintendent or others who determine the marching orders for our city.
March 15th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
How does one or OSUD decide what the Crocker neighborhood boundries should be?
We live at the 3 houses off the Crocker boundires before Lakeview closed?
We live just at the Lakeshore end of Trestle Glen.
When we bought the house 28 years ago we were in the Crocker District. Then some OSUD moved the lines
Once again it has happened with no real plan in place or awareness of the # of kids
We have lotteried for Crocker and Edna Brewer and got it in . My 13 year is now off to Tech.
When she started at Crocker 8 years ago it was a school that very few wanted their children to attend. It took the parents ,staff and kids to build then outstanding school that now everyone wants to get into today.
WE support Public Schools and have been very impressed at all the schools We want the same for our son
Yet it has always been a headach to work with in the system and will continue to be
I have frinds who have moved thru the tunnel . They have bought a house in a near a school they wanted for their child
Gues what she was sent to a school at the other other end of town as were 12 other kids
This is a problem not just in Oakland.
Now with a 4 year old I have no idea where he will end up for K
While I hope it is our neighborhood school Crocker
If not then I hope it is in a school such as Cleavland that is on the verge of becoming another great OSUD school for my son.
I cant with for the sitting Board memebrs to take the action that is really needed to offer our kids a outstanding education.
It takes each of us . the staff,parents and kids to make that happen.
crocker,as both times we did the lottery we did not get in to our first choice.
we had to push and hope for openings at the last minute. We were lucky
We have alot of soon to be great schools.. lets help build them up to Crocker level.
March 15th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
I am just an ordinary citizen, but here is the solution that I would propose:
Let all the kids who were let in to Crocker this year attend. In particular, this would not penalize the kids who were displaced by the Lakeview closure. This would allow all those who have already gotten their acceptance letters to attend, and presumably any siblings that they may have coming down the pike.
Redraw the boundary so that it is larger than the original catchment area, but not so large as to create a shortage of spaces. Spend the effort and resources to understand how the demand for Crocker Highland Elementary is growing, so that we do not underestimate the demand for the school in the newly drawn area.
Make every effort to accomodate any neighborhood families that were displaced this year, by whatever means are feasible. If there are still families who cannot be accomodated this year, give them first priority for any openings mid year and next year.
Expand boundaries of nearby schools that have room to accept a greater number of students. For example, if Crocker neighborhood students are being sent to Cleveland, it signifies that Cleveland must have more room.
Ensure that sufficient research is done so that Cleveland, Piedmont, Lincoln or any other school that can accomodate students does not face a situation similiar to the oversubscription fiasco of Crocker.
Given that this is just my off the cuff wishful thinking, my ideas may be seriously flawed. I suppose that the real point of my post is that I hope that the district will amend this situation ASAP however they determine is best.
By the way, Katy. I would like to know if the district is willing to rethink the boundaries of Crocker Highland or if they will let this become yet another problem that families must deal with in this district. Can you find out what the district’s response is to this issue and whether they plan to make any changes? Thanks!
March 15th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
We need effective leadership from Second Avenue, not politically-correct social engineering.
Put up a bunch of portables at Crocker and its going to turn into a commuter school.
March 15th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Either OUSD has bungled this or they’re planning on adding a new building at Crocker.
I say this both because of my comments above, also because OUSD has bungled enrollment projections for the past few years (school boundaries too), and because adding new portables makes absolutely no sense esp. when their goal in the Facilities Master Plan is to take them out everywhere else. & Crocker is not on the Facilities Master Plan.
OUSD has repeatedly underprojected increased enrollment at growing schools. The problem is it allocates both student slots AND school budgets based on those faulty projections. Then the school gets oversubscribed and beyond capacity and SURPRISE! the current situation.
Re. funding the District still gives the school it’s budget based on it’s underenrolled and faulty projections. (Where does that money go? Hint: Equity).
And that is WITHOUT the increased size of the attendance area.
Now OUSD is left with a giant Hillcrest style mess on it’s hands. Go figure.
It’s time for OUSD to reform how it does projections. & get them & mapping to pick up the phone. That’s what it’s there for…
March 15th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
@ 22
The District will be placing portables at schools slated for expansion.
@31
No one is asking for “political correct”ness… how about morality.
I had to laugh….who said Crocker was taking in any families displaced by Lakeview’s closure?
March 15th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I heard there are 8 Lakeview students who have chosen Crocker as their school. They would not be kindergarteners though. I suppose they could have younger siblings who are entering kindergarten though who could get sibling priority.
March 15th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Lakeview students cab also affect the # of Grade 1-5 classes, thereby possibly decreasing the # of Kinder classes, all in a finite space. 8 students won’t make an extra class by themselves but combined with other high #’s might force a “tipping point” or a split level class.
Also Lakeviw students might b optioned in. The increased geographic boundary might or might not include them…
March 16th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Hmmm hundreds of minority children are having their schools closed and are being forced to go to new schools. But it appears by many of the above comments that the real problem is that some of them will be going to the fancy hills schools.
And the idea that paying a lot for house somehow entitles a person to a “better” public education than others is disgusting.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:17 am
@Del – paying a lot for a house and coming out of pocket (big time) through the PTA does pay for a lot at slope and hill schools – who don’t get as much money from the district.
I have a friend who was Principal of a flatland elementary school, a few years ago. He told me flat out that his PTA meetings would get two or three people showing up. That’s not going to pay for: a Librarian, Music Teacher, Computer Teacher, etc. The district -relies- on well to do families ability to supplement all these things at slope/hill schools.
Buying a house doesn’t guarantee anything – but an active PTA and lots of PTA money does make things happen. Maybe our Superintendent doesn’t “mind” the idea of all that money going to private school tuition, or charters.
What is “disgusting” is OUSD’s inability to lead from Second Avenue.
March 16th, 2012 at 10:47 am
Del: You are darned right that paying more for a house entitles you to what goes with it – better services including better schools. Why do you think the house (same construction and square footage) is worth more? Expensive Dirt??
The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t not make it not so.
Perhaps in this case the buyer of the house made the major miscalculation of buying in Oakland – a failed city. This is why prices are higher for the same house in Piedmont, Bellmont, Orinda and all the other better places. Some of these places are not on a bus line and don’t have a BART station either. Blackhawk anyone??
March 16th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Nextset:
“Entitled” seems like a legal concept and moving to a high rent zip code can’t legally gain a family their children’s admission to a public school even if it is next door.
As a lawyer you would better define “entitled” than me.
My uneducated view in the matter would be that a district might have a policy saying the school next door is filled, in part with students from out of the neighborhood, and their in no room for the neighborhood family’s children. In other words there is not usually today a legal entitlement to attend the neighborhod school. (Wasn’t that in part what the 50′s bussing struggle was about?)
But, since zip codes normally reflect political power, it is usually a moot point whether there is entitlement as wealth usually prevails.
Seems like you feel wealth should usually prevail while I believe it should be decided in a political struggle because there is never settled class struggle and no final solution–French Revolution and Pol Pot intolerable solutions not reflective of that struggle. Magna Carte is reflected of that struggle as the Millionare’s tax in my view.
Jim Mordecai
March 16th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Del, You wrote, “Hmmm hundreds of minority children are having their schools closed and are being forced to go to new schools. But it appears by many of the above comments that the real problem is that some of them will be going to the fancy hills schools.”
Whoa, hang on there! Why must this conversation devolve into an accusation of racism? Seems like an attempt to shut down the conversation and shut down those with a different opinion. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the opposite of what has concerned me from the start! Reread my posts from Nov. 19th.
My whole point was that the area that was added is really dense. In fact it is a pretty dang affluent and highly educated area and therefore the families there likely underutilized their public school option, Lakeview Elementary. If we are to believe what was posted above, only 8 families from Lakeview Elementary will come to Crocker! That is tiny!
My issue is that the newly added area is simply too dense with families to be able to be added without creating oversubscription. Look at the area, it has tons and tons of families, many of whom have opted for private schools or charters. Many of these families would opt into, or back in to public school if they could go to a school like Crocker.
I don’t begrudge them. I am a strong believer in public education. I went to Oakland public schools and applied for out of neighborhood schools. My own kids initially got into Crocker out of neighborhood and were welcomed without question by the community. Not that it is necessary to add this, but we are a ‘minority’ family. None of the posters so far have made any indication of not liking minority children in their fancy school. That is not the point.
The unfortunate situation is that there is not enough room in this school. When OUSD does not make proper calculations and over extends the boundaries to a school it creates a horrible situation such as that in Redwood Heights and Hillcrest, stress and anxiety over not enough seats for the neighborhood kids. Not a good position to be in for any family.
That type of uncertainty will make lots of families consider raising their kids in communities where they know they can get into a school of their choice (or communities where they feel every school is acceptable to them). It may also lead some local families to apply widely to private schools, when they otherwise would not, in case they do not get into the neighborhood school.
Again, I think that all the families lose with this type of stress and uncertainty. I am disgusted that OUSD and Tony Smith created this issue, and I hope that he will consider amending this situation.
March 17th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Note to Del…this issue that is on our hands is NOT about race and socioeconomic class!! It’s about numbskulls that seem to think it’s OK to change the rules of logic such that 1 + 1 = 3 (so to speak).
And why do you fault the people who want the best education for their kids that they can get, for a price they can afford, and for planning ahead for their kids education? What would you choose if you had choices in front of you and you were trying to figure out your child’s education plan? It seems clear that your opinion (at least on education) is more socialist in nature, which is fine. But that is a whole different topic saved better for a dinner conversation or perhaps a different era past or future. We just don’t have that kind of a system in place so it’s a complete waste of time to call people’s ideas on wanting to choose and seek out the best education for their kids as “disgusting.” You seem bitter that you have to belittle a high-performing school as “fancy” instead of “good.” I think it’s clear where the discrimination is coming from but you’re lashing out at the wrong people.
Back to the point…SO disappointed in OUSD! They need to redraw or revert the boundaries of the schools that are having this problem and find a sensible solution to the original problem that doesn’t just continue to make new problems again and again within the community.
If only we had the space at Crocker how great that would be to invite more children and families into that wonderful community. But the school is kind of like those streets in Crocker…skinny, small and locked in. Can’t widen our streets, can’t expand the school.
March 17th, 2012 at 11:23 am
I know we all know this, but I’m never afraid of being redundant. Something resembling the answer is to make all of Oakland’s Public schools of the same ilk, and quality. Then there is only the preference of the Real Estate that attracts buyers to an area. And yes I’m confident enough to say that a more expensive house only guarantees a more expensive house and yes, dirt. The tax fund is a pool and should not, cannot differentiate, it should, like justice, be blind. We are easily divided, thus easily conquered by this complicated foe, public education and how to provide it. I think my new challenge is to help at a different school, one that really needs it.
March 17th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Del, who has talked about race? Who has even hinted at it? You are not even reading bet the lines. You are inserting your own. On the Fence and Disappointed hit the mark.
March 17th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Chris, your proposal has about as much a chance as me having a glass of wine on the moon (at least in this lifetime).
It’s not just the “better” school that makes the school desirable, it’s the community, composed of parents who have the time, dedication, interest, wealth (etc, etc.) to make a little or a lot of difference, whether at the church, school, rec park, you name it. As long as the socioeconomic and other conditions are different, so will many things in the community, including the school.
It’s all about investing for the greater good. Time, energy, resources, money. Community’s that do that tend to succeed; those that don’t, languish and rely on public support to stay afloat. Most are inbetween.
March 18th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Most of the parents who contribute here are those whose children attend hills schools. The Crocker situation is unfortunate, but one that flatlands schools lived with in the 80s and 90s when enrollment was growing. The “solution”- lots of portables and year round schools.
Let’s all take a moment and think about the Santa Fe students who will cross Market St., Martin Luther King, and Shattuck Ave. to attend Sankofa. Or others that will now cross Telegraph to attend Emerson. Let’s also empathize with their parents who have to be at work and who cannot drive or walk their 6-11 year olds to and from school whatever the weather.
Or the Maxwell Park students who will now cross High Street to attend Allendale. And the Marshall students who have to contend with 98th Ave, and the freeway to go to Grass Valley.
Hope the district has plans for good traffic signage (from the city) and crossing guards for the little ones from day one. And one hopes that the academic programs at the receiving schools are designed for the newcomers to do well and for their teachers to feel welcome.
March 18th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Peach, this “Hills Parent” happened to post similar concerns for the flat land kids when their schools were put on the chopping block. I am all for safe neighborhood schools where families are able to access their kids schools on foot. I’m not a big fan of cars. I do get tired of hills folks always being painted as rich racists who could care less about the rest of the kids in Oakland. Not the case. I may not speak for all hills parents but I know I speak for many when I say that ALL OF OAKLAND’s kids deserve much better than the district is able to provide. This particular thread concerns Crocker and its challenges. Other threads, especially the ones that addressed the closing of schools in the flat lands and Kaiser (which is in the hills) had plenty of input and concern for those kids who now have to jump through too many hoops to get to school each morning – safely.
March 19th, 2012 at 9:54 am
Shouldn’t the dissatisfaction be directed towards the state and OUSD for not properly funding all schools? Crocker and other “Hills” schools have the same as other schools without the PTA money that pays for EVERYTHING extra. ALL the schools should have those “extra” (I don’t really consider PE and library to be “extra,” but that’s where we are at) things, and they should be funded by tax dollars, not individual contributions. Then, at least one factor would be equal. I feel like the anger is being a little misdirected.
March 19th, 2012 at 11:32 am
The problem is not that we don’t tax people enough and/or have enough money(that is a red herring created to lock in massive public sector debt service). The real problem is that not enough money gets to where and who it is intended for.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx#zzee_link_29_1294170707
The debt will never go away because it is growing, as these retirees and pensioners get raises and make more money than when they were working(getting benefits that far and away exceed what they put into it).
A major problem also is that California is 12% of the US population, and yet has almost 40% of the US total of people on public assistance. You have to remember that the district pays for students who are on free or reduced lunch which is in the 70% range I believe. Along with that is the massive cost of illegal immigration(more kids = more teachers,more staff = greater cost borne by taxpayers). To sum it up, do not blame taxpayers, you should be thanking them profusely for pulling this wagon, while most have chosen to jump in the wagon.
March 19th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
@ J.R. Saying I should be “thanking tax payers profusely” sort of implies that I’m not one of them, no? Perhaps you should be thanking me? I wouldn’t make that assumption though. I’ll assume you pay your fair share as do I. Anyway, I didn’t say that people should pay more taxes (not that I’m saying some people shouldn’t), I said tax dollars should be used to fund basics for the schools, not private contributions.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
OUSD,
Put it this way, there is no prop 13 to protect me so I pay over triple compared to most of my neighbors. As for as for addressing you personally(as I don’t know your status, I should have worded it better to say , those that depend on taxes should feel fortunate. The state is to blame, but not for the reason you cite, they have taken peoples money and spent it recklessly on a bureaucracy that is too big, bloated and overpaid(not to mention the programs they run). The budget framework of all public sector institution has always been flawed. The premise was always to use every last dime so that the next budget will be at least as much.To a pragmatist, a cut toward a balanced budget is : reduced revenue = budget cut until balance is achieved. To a progressive a budget cut is a reduction in the size of the expected raise in compensation, which is not really a cut at all.
March 19th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
OUSD,
One more question, there are certain progressives(Ben Visnick for one) out there that would love to confiscate all the PTA money, and spread it around the district, is this what you want?
March 19th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
A concern that I have about this blog, is the tendency for some bloggers to breach defamation of character, libel and slander. You might want to caution your bloggers, Katy. I don’t know if you can be held responsible.
#51, and to whomever it may relate to-
You tread on questionable water when you attack individuals by name with fantastic statements like that. If you cannot PROVE what you say, take heed. We are all subject to the law.
March 19th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
@David – We have certainly heard that the district thinks it should raid the PTA funds and spread the money around (Don’t know what Ben or the union think).
That conversation has been going on for a year and a half. They can’t give hills schools title 1 money and other earmarked money, so our parents fund raise their little hearts and check books out to help our schools offer libraries and computers and other “extras”. I am not sure whose good idea it is to raid PTA money, but I am hoping it is not allowed to happen (and it may be illegal).
March 19th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
David,
The statement was at the board meeting, and I don’t know if there is a clip of that. I’ll try and find it.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
David,
Here is a excerpt of quote along the same lines, the full version can be found here:
“I believe in economic justice and a level playing field. As a parent who has donated hundreds of dollars to Redwood Heights and will do so at Montera Middle, I want some of my dollars to go down the hill for the disadvantaged students who I teach at Oakland High”.
http://www.gopublicschools.org/questionnaires/schoolboard/
You can call it economic justice, but it is what it is.
March 19th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I think it’s very honorable of this guy who has the means to contribute to Redwood Heights and Montera to want some of his funds to go to Oakland High. Where I’m confused is why doesn’t he write a check to OH as well? I have contributed cold hard cash to several OUSD schools where my kids are not students. But it’s my call. I choose to do it and if someone told me that I had to, or that they were going to allocate some of my funds to another school, frankly, I’d be peeved and would probably shut my checkbook for good.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it shouldn’t be up to him.
March 20th, 2012 at 7:50 am
OUSD, I don’t disagree with the unfairness you mention. But this is a national and statewide problem. Practically and locally speaking, if OUSD does this it’s going to do is create middle class flight, set back the district and further erode the tax base.
Now who is that going to help? Just when OUSD is making progress bringing families and students back in…
Instead cooperative voluntary efforts need to encourage this, combined with school diversity. Combined with family retention that builds active school populations (no matter the socio-economic background).
Building neighborhoods and community schools is key. If the hills can voluntarily act to support the flatlands that is better. The slope schools in between already are.
If we had a safe city attracting business and employment that would be even better…
March 20th, 2012 at 7:52 am
David Laub: Are you an attorney?
You might want to read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
It is hardly defamation to make public policy argument about educational policy and political intentions of political adversaries.
It is predicitable liberal nonsense to try to silence opponents. Conservatives don’t seem to do this.
So much for your “defamation” issue. It’s not as if anyone on this board ever accuses someone of having a dread disease. We are a policy blog. Get used to the discourse.
March 20th, 2012 at 8:03 am
Thank you, Livegreen! I like what you have to say in your post #57.
March 20th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Nextset,
As long as I stick with the facts(and links thereto), silence is not an option. We are in desperate times, and as a matter of course, progressives want more of the productive peoples money(by any means necessary)? The only answer they have ever had for anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXZmb4J3e34
Just a reminder to progressives, you are not entitled to all of my money(although you already help yourself to a portion of it). I will give money, but I will give it to whom I choose(If I choose, when I choose. It’s called freedom of choice. Some people hate freedom, but I love freedom!
Governments don’t create many necessary jobs, people do. The majority of productive jobs in this country are provided by small businesses followed by corporations. Some corporations are horrid(while some are good), but so are people who feel entitled to take more and more of the money that we earn to subsidize those that do not.
March 20th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Since progressives love talking about the 99%, would you be surprised who is in or near the 1%?
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/10/25/govt-union-boss-in-top-1/
March 20th, 2012 at 9:16 am
Just watch all the tax increases get voted down in November – and watch the “education” establishment in CA squirm.
March 20th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Netset:
Your are only half right. Liberals try to silence opponents but conservatives do too. I suggest that you are being self-selective if you think there is a difference in a liberal vs. a conservative seeking an advantage over an opponent.
Both sides are human although they might be fearful to concede that in front of their reference group and have their loyalty questioned.
Self-righteousness is also working to justify limiting an opponent’s speech. This is where the “by any means necessary” thinking comes into play and the end justifying the means.
I have liberal utopian goals but I don’t believe in the by any means necessary in trying to achieve those goals.
American ideal of letting both sides be heard is played out in this forum. Some liberals and some conservatives subscribe to that ideal. Of course both sides think they have the better argument that is a winner in a free market of ideas.
Jim Mordecai
March 20th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Nextset,
I actually think the blended proposal has a good chance to pass, after all even people who do not pay taxes can vote. The real problem is that the debt burden keeps growing day by day, with more public sector people retiring(and many making more than they did while working. All this while there are less productive people working and paying taxes(of course you can’t count subsidized taxpayers, they’re a wash). This is unsustainable, and we all see the folly of highly paid yet ineffective redundant bureaucracy in our public & charter approval/disapproval/re-instatement mess. Our school board denies a charter, who then appeal to the county, and are then approved, so much for local control(but hey, who cares, as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill).
March 20th, 2012 at 11:39 am
I do believe that the Liberals we are experiencing in the USA are actually looking for a totalitarian state – they badly want to silence all dissent. As far as the Conservatives – I see them as weak sisters, losers actually. They are more inclined to accept dissent.
I give you John McCain who ran for president while refusing to go negative on Obama. Weak. Weak. Weak.
Although there are plenty of people who have reason to believe and do believe that McCain and Rhinos like him are really not conservatives.
And then we have Santorum. Another big government so called Conservative who wants to legislate morality.
Oh well.
Brave New World!
March 20th, 2012 at 11:40 am
Not that I have a problem with legislating morality. I don’t. But only at the state level.
March 20th, 2012 at 11:56 am
Nextset,
They want, and(more than that)need cradle to grave support and sustenance. They don’t see the ensnaring ropes of that safety net as a hindrance and a barrier to freedom, they see it as a hammock. It is not the perfect way to sleep, but it’ll do just fine(beats workin’).
March 20th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Katy, Did you get an update after Friday’s meeting about the Crocker situation? Thanks.
March 20th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for the reminder. I’ve been wrapped up in other things, but will try to call tomorrow.
March 21st, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Gracious me, I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate that anyone above is a racist. Let me explain my situation:
I live with my grandkids & their dad in North Oakland, less than a block from Santa Fe (where I sent my kids as well). Their mom lives in an apartment near Lakeview. My kids are of mixed race but wouldn’t pass a paper bag test. Myself, my grandchildren, and their parents have obviously been going through the difficult process of picking a new school. I am well aware of the physical space limitations of Crocker (and many schools), but honestly that is not the main feeling I get when visiting these schools and their PTAs. I get the feeling that we are not wanted, and when a large group of white people come up with various vague reasons as to why a child cannot/should not come to their school, it does feel a bit racist. Again, I’m not saying any one on this blog is, and I know most of us are doing our best for the students of Oakland. This entire process is traumatic for us all and I know it is not convenient for current families at the not closed schools. At the same time, put yourselves in my place. How does this conversation sound to you?
In terms of a “better public education” we all obviously want what’s best for our families. But if anyone expects me to take my children out of a school because another family came a long with a higher home value, there is something seriously wrong with that reasoning, and yes it is disgusting.
March 21st, 2012 at 2:26 pm
To address some confusion as to school funding:
PTAs at many schools provide quite a bit of funding for student opportunities. There is noting wrong with that. It does not make up for a “short changing” from the district—it is supplemental. Some schools get more money than others because federal law requires that students “at risk” get more funding. This money comes with tons of restrictions and caveats—for example Santa Fe is REQUIRED to provide every child with their school supplies, and school supply money cannot be spent on an art teacher. Meanwhile, a school with a moneyed PTA can spend that money where ever it is necessary (and many DO support students who come from families struggling financially). However, it is not as if PTAs are making up for money that is being funneled away from their schools by a capricious district.
On a semi-related note, those who think more money is not at least a partial situation are simply not looking at the facts. At an Oakland middle school of roughly 600, they have had to cut eleven positions over the past 6 years despite rising test scores and enrollment. That includes a counselor, security officer, two office staffers, an assistant principal, a literacy coach, a math coach, and other adults that worked with the kids on a daily basis. Does anyone think that school didn’t need those people?
Per pupil funding for students in California has dropped precipitously over the past years—it’s not because everyone is satisfied with the schools. It’s not because the schools are no longer needed.
In my budget, I prioritized my spending and realized that I didn’t have enough to live as I wanted off of retirement alone. So I found a way to get more income. In California we do not have enough to cover our bare minimum of costs, so we need to look for more income.
March 21st, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Del, All good points, and thank you for the clarification. I think students coming from closing schools have already gone through the Options process and been accepted to schools, correct? If so I’m curious about where they decided to go…
If that’s not yet final, my suggestion is to check out the most diverse schools in Oakland that tend to “score” as well as the hills schools or almost. And because they are diverse you won’t get the feeling that you are not wanted…
March 21st, 2012 at 9:39 pm
That’s a good idea, Livegreen. Some excellent schools actually SEEK out diversity, both ethnic and socioeconomic.
March 22nd, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I am in the process of appealing OUSD to get into my local public school for 1st grade. My local school is fairly good, but it didn’t have room for my child, thus my child got assigned to a low-performing public school in the lottery (bad luck for us I guess). Does anyone know if it is OK to hold a spot at a charter school while you wait out the appeal-process for the public school? We don’t want to go the charter school route, but would choose it above the low-performing public school (in the event that we don’t succeed with the appeal). I just want to make sure I don’t get dis-qualified during the public school appeal process by holding a spot at a charter school. Has anyone else had this experience? Thanks for any clarification on the subject!
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Unfortunately, I don’t have answers for you, but I do have questions. I’m wondering what you did for K, did you move from other district, or did your child skip K? What school did not have room, and where were you assigned instead?
I’m not sure if you feel comfortable sharing any of that info, but it can be helpful to you and enlightening to others. There are a lot of parents on this blog who have good anecdotal info about how things shake out at particular schools.
In any case, I hope that you find a spot.
March 22nd, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Dm’s question makes me wonder: how many schools don’t have room for students in their neighborhoods?
Dm might or might not have an unusual case but it would be interesting to know…So far everyone knows about Hillcrest and we’ve been discussing Crocker. Who else is on the list?
Dm, Do whatever you have to do for your child. & I 2nd the Fence’s Q. I’m curious about the schools you were and weren’t accepted to…
March 23rd, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Over enrollment will be an issue this coming year for all highly sought after schools. All the hill schools will be affected. Student Assignment has sent more students than spaces at most schools. This has left us out of a spot at our neighborhood school. (We moved in after the options process and assignment letters) Our son is a 3rd grader and it is not easy to find a spot at that level. What is up with over enrolling? We will be homeschooling and not dealing with OUSD anymore. Our hope had been to become a part of the community but OUSD is pushing people apart not only in the schools but within their own neighborhood. We can not share the same things with our neighbors. We are very hurt and disappointed with this whole process. Needless to say, our son is too as he will not be able to go to school with neighbors that he has befriended.
March 23rd, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Don’t be afraid of the appeals process.
The questions remains: why is OUSD botching enrollment projections so badly? Year after year after year.
To some degree I understand that in the past 3rd grade and then 5th grade were “jumping off” points when OUSD lost students. The problem is that is changing, more families are willing to stay longer, and OUSD is not.
OUSD is still using their old historical models. Their projections are NOT based on facts on. the. ground.
March 23rd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
I wouldn’t be overly concerned about your son not being in the same school as the neighbors. Likely, even if he was in the neighborhood school, a lot of neighbor kids are not. My daughter is not in ours and neither are many other kids. But she has friends in the neighborhood and they all play together. And because she goes to school in a different part of Oakland, she has friends in many different areas and walks of life. That’s kind of the way it is in Oakland and maybe as it should be? Why should children be relagated to their neighborhood? I travel all around Oakland from Fruitvale to Rockridge, Maxwell Park to West Oakland. Its a fascinating city because of the people who live here and I think its great that our school has given our family connections to many different parts of town.
March 26th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Beth Rhine, the principal at Crocker, posted this bulletin which was also sent to all Crocker families.
http://principal.crockerschool.org/2012/03/26/school-boundaries-and-enrollment-update/
What she wrote was not entirely correct as we were aware of isolated incidents of families last year who lived in the neighborhood and were not assigned to Crocker but eventually got in during the appeals process, so this was not the first year. When specifically asked about this during the school tour, Beth Rhine was very careful to say that all neighborhood children were “eventually” accepted. I wonder if this was written to also back up the statement, “I’m not sure anyone knew just how much it (the boundary expansion) would affect our school.” Really???
If they don’t have a big picture solution for this, they better be prepared to add a kindergarten every year or deal with another set of angry parents (who already have their radar up after this self-generated fiasco) wondering why the boundaries were expanded to begin with.
March 27th, 2012 at 8:33 am
Thanks for posting, Wishful. Were the reassigned neighborhood children from last year only kindergarteners? Were they kids who moved in after the options process or who failed to submit their options paperwork on time? I am trying to understand what information that OUSD actually had about enrollment projections when they created this mess. It was obvious to so many that the school could not support such a large new boundary, but if OUSD already had good evidence that the school was over subscribed from the year before, then Tony Smith really must not have much regard for the families affected.
Katy, have you heard any formal statement from OUSD, and specifically from Tony Smith on how they plan to address this issue?
Am I being wishful to think that Beth Rhine’s statement, “there is some conversation regarding readjusting the boundaries, but nothing is yet confirmed” signifies that the right people are discussing this fiasco? Can anyone comment on this?
Also, what types of calls have people made to our school board representative and to Tony Smith about this? Have you gotten any response?
March 27th, 2012 at 10:05 am
It sure seems like adding a 4th kindergarten school would ensure split or very large classes for the years going forward as those four kindergarten classes would have to then go to 3 1st grade classes next year and 2nd grade the year after. Also, currently there are 3 classes of 24 – 25 2nd graders heading into 2 3rd grade classes. I’m all for fitting these families in this year, and understand that address is no guarantee of placement, but the district really messed this one up. There is no logical reason to have created this problem knowing that there were going to be more kids than spaces. When they changed the boundaries they could have chopped off existing Crocker families and pushed out to include more across Lakeshore if they wanted to be more equitable, but keeping the enrollment numbers sustainable. Expanding them out all around so that it creates over crowding doesn’t make sense, especially since there are other schools that seem to have space and need kids (Good schools like Cleveland). I wonder if we are looking at 1/2 day kindergartens now, or hiring another kindergarten teacher. Of course if we hire a new kindergarten teacher this year and then end up not needing her/him next year if the boundaries are readjusted, that person would potentially bump out one of our newer teachers (which Crocker has a lot of). I’m sure the principal is muling al of this over. I certainly don’t envy her.
March 27th, 2012 at 10:20 am
“The Emperor has no clothes”
$275,000 a year!
May 17th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
My name is Tara Montanez and I’m a mother of 2 who will be Kindergarteners in 2014 and 2016. We live in the Crocker Highlands neighborhood and are concerned about the recent redistricting of Crocker. I, together with a number of our neighbors, have created a petition for a change to the current districting for the school. The OUSD seems open to having change happen but has expressed a need to hear from the community to prioritize this as an issue. I hope many of you will sign and pass along.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/support-the-crocker-neighborhood/
May 17th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
In addition – there is a meeting to discuss this at Crocker on June 6 at 6:30PM – here is the invitation from Beth Rhine:
Dear Crocker Community,
As many of you know, recently there were many discussions regarding the expanded boundaries and the impact on enrollment at Crocker Highlands. We were able to add an additional kindergarten class this year to accomodate all our neighborhood families but that is a short-term solution.
We are having a meeting with David Montes de Oca, Executive Director, Quality Community Schools Development of the Oakland Unified School District, to address the long-term enrollment capacity of the school on Wednesday, June 6, from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. at Crocker Highlands in the Library . Everyone is invited.
Please spread the word about this meeting to anyone interested !
Beth Rhine
May 17th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
The Oakland unified suits are about to learn the lesson “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you”, and these parents are rightfully angry about the boundary changes and disruption. Signed and sealed, and now it’s time to deliver the message.
May 18th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Tara, Katy,
Is there any reason why the OUSD can’t mine the data from the 2010 Census to get a rough idea of how many children are in each cachement area? Granted it wouldn’t be entirely accurate — people have moved in and out since, and some families might be planning on private school — but it would give them some concrete measure to use while drawing boundaries.
June 4th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Tara,
Can you post a link to your petition to redraw the boundaries for Crocker Elementary? Also, is the meeting with the district still scheduled for this Wednesday? I’m interested if you have any information about whether Tony Smith will attend? Thanks!