Another big donation to Great Oakland Public Schools PAC
By Katy Murphy
Tuesday, October 30th, 2012 at 6:45 pm in Uncategorized.
This week’s campaign filings show another major donation to the Great Oakland Public Schools PAC – $49,995 from the California Charter Schools Association. That brings the group’s fundraising total to $184,980 — a staggering amount for local school board races. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago, when the total was about $123,000.
The GO PAC is supporting three candidates: Jumoke Hinton Hodge in District 3, Rosie Torres in District 5, and James Harris in District 7. It’s supporting neither candidate in District 1.
GO’s director, Jonathan Klein, stressed in a recent letter he posted on an Oakland parents email list that GO is in favor of both charters and traditional public schools, that its staff and board members are Democrats, and that the group is being supported by volunteers from across the city (Policy platform here.):
Folks on this list have also asked questions about our organization’s funding and policy agenda. While these school board races are non-partisan elections and we are a non-partisan organization, everyone on our staff and board are Democrats.
With respect to charter schools. We do not advocate for charter schools over district schools. It always has been our position to work for high quality schools. In our experience, most parents do not make distinctions and neither do we. The vast majority of our organization’s energy is spent working to support OUSD and the implementation of the Thriving Students strategic plan. We do not support for-profit charter schools and are glad to live in a city where these schools do not exist.
Klein also had this to say about the PAC, itself:
We–like many Oakland organizations such as the Ella Baker Center, Sierra Club, and the Oakland Education Association–formed a political action committee to give our members a way to engage in partisan elections. We have received over 200 grassroots contributions — probably at least 95 percent of them are from Democrats. Our 501(c)(4) has received hundreds more grassroots contributions – some as small as $3 from an OUSD parent who attended our District 5 endorsement interviews. There are OUSD teachers who have been giving $50 per month to this work because they know the importance of having a strong school board.
Over the past month, an average of over 60 volunteers per week have been stepping up to support our endorsed candidates. This last week, there were over 100 volunteers engaging in our phone banks and precinct walks.
He added, “We are Oakland parents, teachers, and community members who want to see our public schools thrive.”
What do you make of this contribution? Given that one in every four Oakland public school children attends a charter school this year (including county-approved charters), do you feel it’s time for the board to embrace this option — or to do what it can to hold the line against their continued expansion?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 30th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Do way more than hold the line against their continued expansion and stand up and get involved in the fight against the privatization of public money.
Oakland has been targeted along with New Orleans, Baltimore,Atlanta and a host of towns. But Oakland could be the place that sponsors the showdown and radically stands up against charters. It has the political heritage and the enough of a progressive population to do it.
October 30th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
The people of Oakland should stand up for great schools. Time to embrace the change. Shouldn’t be one or the other. We all have a tremendous opportunity to learn from one another, doing what is best for all Oakland students.
October 30th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
GO Public Schools, and their position that ALL students deserve a high quality education, should be embraced by anyone who cares about our children and youth. Enough of the petty bickering about charters vs. traditional public and how ’bout we just focus on who matters the most: students.
The board does need to embrace the option of charter schools. Clearly the parents in Oakland are voting with their feet. Instead of the conversation being how to marginalize, ignore, fight against the groundswell of charters in Oakland, the conversation should be, “What can we all learn from each other? What is working that can be shared?” for the betterment of all.
Shifting the conversation to that will take board leadership. It’s about time for a positive, forward looking change.
October 30th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
The parents are being led to charters with a carrot and a stick.
Oakland schools “were” improving, in fact they were improving a great deal a few years after the state takeover. Until the district was specifically attacked by national charter corporate conglomerates. “non profits” my foot.
October 30th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Don’t vote for any candidate for school board who supports the existence of public charter schools.
Don’t vote for any candidate for school board who supports the existence of public traditional schools.
The only candidate worth considering is the guy who pledges to work to reduce OUSD to its constitutional minimum of ONE school.
Sorry, but if elected, I will not serve.
October 30th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Frankly, I find this level of money being poured into a local election to be very troubling.
October 31st, 2012 at 8:09 am
I can understand why the amount of money in this school board election could feel troubling to some. But the facts are this:
*GO is a community-based non-profit that was formed to find ways to support a better education for students. This is not a charter vs. district conversation for them.
*GO has pursued various routes to improve our schools, particularly our district schools, and saw that policy at the board level was a key factor in why our Oakland schools struggle.
So, GO invested their time and collected money to try and help shed light, put pressure, and change that.
There’s no other ulterior motive. When we get caught in the district vs. charter fight, we are ignoring the needs of kids. Even the Tribune’s endorsement of exactly the same candidates that GO endorses shows that this isn’t about district vs. charter, but about strong and competent leadership: http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_21889484/oakland-tribune-editorial-oakland-schools-need-calm-steady?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
Until every school in Oakland – district or charter – is one in which you would send your kids and that actually provides college-ready education, we haven’t done enough.
October 31st, 2012 at 8:57 am
DistrictEd posted
“Until every school in Oakland – district or charter – is one in which you would send your kids and that actually provides college-ready education, we haven’t done enough”.
Exactly right!
Just look at the decades long miserable track record of the public schools(grad rates, dropouts, levels of remediation in college). This is about much more than test results, this is about kids not being prepared for life. The assertion that things were getting better is just a large dose of manipulated smoke and mirrors(with exceptions of course).
http://www.edsource.org/today/2012/overusing-test-for-special-ed-students-inflates-api-scores/21028#.UJFH0WfhcwQ
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/State-overuses-easier-special-ed-tests-3986019.php
http://learningdisabilities.about.com/od/disabilitylaws/qt/testaccomodate.htm
Another problem is Spec ed criteria is too broad, and many kids who are basically normal are wrongfully included in spec ed. This bumps up costs and allows more kids to take the easier version of standardized tests.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9906.worth.scandal.html
October 31st, 2012 at 9:13 am
More…….
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/19/4833079/state-flags-4-sacramento-area.html
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/10/13/the-seven-broken-premises-of-special-education-in-california/
Of course making these issues much worse is the unfunded mandate that we educate those kids who are illegally in this country.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:14 am
#7 Right. That’s why 99.9% of the money GO has raised comes from individuals and organizations that seek to privatize the public school system in Oakland (using tax payer dollars).
Sorry, but GO needs to re-evaluate this party line and either not take the donations or accept the fact that if they are to exist, they are a union busting, pro charter organization because that is the outcome if their actions.
If the 3 candidates are elected, we will no longer have a board that has consistently denied charter applications (with the exception if Hodge who voted for every single one and has not put one of her four children in an Oakland public school, the only member not to do so. In fact, I don’t believe Hodge has attended public school herself?).
Again, if the GO sponsored candidates are elected, you will see a corporate run school system. All public schools will lose, including the top tiers like Chabot, Hillcrest, Peralta, Brewer, etc. The availability of funds for excellent programs in high schools like Padeia at Tech will whither.
Remember, the charter movement does not seek to educate middle class families. The golden apple is to educate the working class to the impoverished. This is because more federal funding grants and private grants are available to this group. That is why there is two –out of over 40—–TWO charter schools in Oakland that have a significant percentage of middle class families.
October 31st, 2012 at 9:42 am
one more….
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2011/08/16/cst-results-need-an/
October 31st, 2012 at 9:52 am
DisrictEducator:
Jonathan Klein, GO CEO testified against AB 5 Teacher evaluation making the point that teacher evaluation needs to be tied to student test score.
The point here is that GO in proclaiming its goal as Great Oakland Public Schools doesn’t define what it thinks makes Oakland Public Schools great.
In fact its title is very clever because behind its title is accepting the assertion that charter schools are public schools. But, the whole story is that charter schools are in fact publicly funded and privatively managed or mismanaged. Saying charter schools are public schools is not the whole story and misleading as to privatizing their management.
It is GO’s actions and not its title are the basis of judging what GO is about.
GO’s actions show that its leadership believes in the “no excuses” philosophy as basis of educational reform; and that no excuses philosophy naturally led to Jonathan Klein testifying against AB 5.
Michelle Rhee and others in the no excuse camp were successful in their effort to block passage of AB 5. The AB 5 proposed reform to state law on teacher evaluation was without student test score component it and therefore wasn’t the reform they of the “no excuses” reform want.
But, the bottom line here isn’t just with the details of the GO “no excuses” school of reform but it is with the issue of charter schools. And, with the huge amount of charter school influenced big money in the GO PAC the defenders of GO claiming charter school neutrality on the issue of charter schools doesn’t add up.
And, if the GO endorsed candidates claim ignorance of GO’s values and actions, shouldn’t that alone be troublesome?
Jim Mordecai
October 31st, 2012 at 10:02 am
Observe this:
95%+ of the taxpayer funded union dues(targeted for political purposes aside from funding these bureaucracies) confiscated by the NEA,CTA, and or local unions go to democratic politicians or causes and measures. What can we deduce from that? The education establishment desires status-quo and monopoly status(irregardless of performance). They want to keep the golden apple all to themselves, and want the the taxpayer to “just pay and shut up”. We will be diverted no longer, the time for learning is now. Too much time has been wasted.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:16 am
We have been in the grip of Right Wing Education reform since Bush Sr. That’s over two decades. You’re right- we should not take it any longer.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:32 am
I think if GO were 100% clear on supporting teacher’s rights, that would boost Jonathan’s statements about the organization, build a wall against money with strings, and allow the discussion of charter schools to take a better direction.
Charter schools (and remember magnet schools?) are a good idea at heart that has been commandeered by a right-wing agenda of privatizing (and de-unionizing) schools nationwide at the public’s expense.
I think GO should return the donation because it damages GO’s stated neutrality.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:34 am
Observer,
Charters and charter law have been around since the mid 90′s(and not in appreciable numbers until 2000), and this district and others in California have been under-performing since the 70′s and even late 60′s. We have been pumping in billions of dollars(much more than other countries in that span, and we have been rewarded with mediocrity on the whole.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:40 am
So, if a group comprised of parents and community members comes out in great numbers to support a school board election AND gives money to an organization other than the union, what might the union garner from that action?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because we believe we should have a choice when voting for school board, that we believe the election should decide who belongs on the school board, and that putting good people on the school board will allow the best decisions to be made on behalf of all Oakland students.
People trying to make this election out as a Battle Royale between public schools and public charter schools are missing the point entirely. Both types of schools can and do co-exist in this city, learn from each other, have parental supporters, and are serving students. GO is making it possible for parents to have a voice and a choice in this election.
This community is sick and tired of OEA and others hijacking this conversation and making it about something it is not. Get out and read about the candidates, the incumbents’ track records, and vote, as now there are some choices!
October 31st, 2012 at 10:42 am
This is not a public charter / public district issue. That is smoke and mirrors. This is about great schools for all Oakland students. The honest truth is that OUSD district schools are in trouble. Even with the current board, they were not able to get OEA sign off for RTTT. While folks argue over private vs. public, 75% of our students are behind left behind. Charters are forging new ground, and we have a tremendous opportunity to learn from one another.
I suggest you visit a charter school. Visit a district school. Oakland students – Oakland teachers. The rhetoric on this blog is not what you hear in schools. Teachers want to collaborate. Leaders want to collaborate.
We need a new board that will work to ensure that we are moving forward, and unified as one community. See you on November 6th!
October 31st, 2012 at 10:51 am
Thank you Jim and Observer for speaking out about the platform of GO and other organizations that seek to directly or indirectly foster the privatization of our public school system. Privatizing public education will be a game changer for our society and will not serve the children/families/public, but only those who stand to profit from the ever emerging education industry $$$. I know that parents need to seek the best education for their children NOW, but I hope that people can think ahead to the implications of what their choices will mean for the future of education.
As an aside, I found the Oakland Tribune endorsement mentioned above in post #7 troubling to say the least. I found their analysis to be scant and superficial. Besides endorsing GO candidates, they also largely promoted those candidates who will be docile followers of Tony Smith’s agenda. How about the many of us who support public education, BUT think that Tony Smith is making a royal mess of our already beleaguered district? Busy parents and community members may look to the newspaper to inform their decisions — tragic.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:00 am
Oaklandedlandscape:
O.K. the GO candidates according to your words are “colaborators”.
Therefore, how is colaborating with 40 charter schools of Oakland not the issue?
Growth of charter schools is at the District expensive and associated with school closures among other stresses to the District budget.
The smoke and mirrors is provided by the charter school supporters.
Jim Mordecai
October 31st, 2012 at 11:05 am
Only when compared to countries that ALSO fund:
Healthcare
Childcare
Family Leave
Transportation
FOR ALL
Unless you want to throw in China. Do you really want that?
Our country is run by old men that don’t believe in dual income families, but at the same time tweak the economic waves that mandate dual incomes.
We have been defunding public education from the levels of the 70s since Reagan.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:12 am
I have visited the following Charters:
Cova
Civicorps (whoops!)
KIPP
American Indian
NOCCS
Manzanita SEED
I found they all extremely different from one another with few commonalities. To me, that struck me as strange. With the exception of NOCCS and KIPP to a lessor extent, they felt much more like idelogical experiments and opposed to structured earning environments. AIPCS was militant. JMO.
GO, you are simply going to have to address that you are now almost solely financed by backers of the privatazation of education movement. It is not a group comprised of concerned parents; it is a group comprised of parents taking money from corporate interests and until you address own that, you have no credibility.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:13 am
as opposed to structured learning environments (phone and big fingers!)
October 31st, 2012 at 11:21 am
@Observer – Manzanita SEED is a district school. Not much else there in your reflection. The schools are different. That is the point.
@Jim – Ask yourself one question – What drives parents to greats schools (and these may be charters)? You can (and probably will) defend OUSD until the cows come home. When will you stop blaming charters and start advocating for all Oakland students?
October 31st, 2012 at 11:38 am
Observer,
All you are accomplishing is causing tax-paying people to really question the motives of the education establishment,union’s,and the politicians that support them without reservation. So go ahead and keep making my argument for me. You take your side and I’ll just stand for what works in the best interest of the children.
October 31st, 2012 at 11:47 am
Observer,
I know you would love us to fund 20-30k per child(LAUSD is getting up in that rarified air), but that would be unsustainable, and furthermore money is not the most important factor(the children do have most of what is necessary in order to learn). If we were to downsize the waste and duplicity of the education bureaucracy and structure that has nothing to do with the child in the classroom perhaps then there would be sufficient resources to keep more teachers and smaller class sizes.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:04 pm
And that’s Charter schools? Show me the evidence of that please.
#24- You are correct. I meant the one that is now housed in the old Maxwell Park building. Cannot remember the name of it (theres so many that come and go, change their names, their staff depending on the wind it seems).My refelcetion is that Charter schools in Oakland seek to serve one type of student and no others. There was zero diversity: racial, cultural or socioeconomic with the exception of NOCCS (which had nearly zero socioeconomic diversity). If the Charter schools are so great, how come the waiting lists at Chabot, Hillcrest, Peralta, Redwood Heights, Thornhill, Montclair, Edna Brewer and a small handfull of others continue to grow? Why are those families not finding the Charters up to snuff when they compare them to the Hills schools? I really am curious why you think that is?
And, JR, who exactly are public schools giving a mediocre education to and how is that shown? Is the socioeconomic group that traditionally went into blue collar, manufacturing and trade employment? Because it certainly has not had an effect on those folks who have always reared their children to be college bound as evidence by too many qualified applicants for too few spots at both top public and private universtites. Those jobs are no longer widely available and we are left with far lower paying, unsecure service sector employment. Where did those jobs go and who is responsible for that loss and why?
Couple that with the massive growth in the prison industrial complex and well, this is what you get. In all this talk against teacher’s unions, where is the backlash against the even more powerful and welathier prison guard movement? You do not think there’s no connection, do you?
Seems to me it’s same folks behind the fleecing of public tax dollars under the guise of “educating the under-served”.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:08 pm
JR: Agreed! I’m certain we can agree that it’s not my children’s teahers (one is in her 4th year, $45k and the other is over 10 $62K) that is the waste. The bureacrats that keep coming to tell us we are 1.5% over budget and therefore must have class sizes exceeding 32, who do not even pay for the repairs of broken windows, peeling paint much less proper playground equipment yet make well over $150k a year? Hm.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
@Observer – A district school is now located at Maxwell site (Melrose Leadership Academy). Moving on, the district schools you reference are all in the hills. If you live in the hills, that’s where you go to school. Most charters are in the flat lands. These schools reflect that demographic. Many OUSD schools are serving students well. Many parents simply choose charters because they have a choice. Look at the district high school drop out rates for black and brown males. We all hope to see a day when all public district and public charters have wait lists. Not there yet. Not even close.
October 31st, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Wow. I thought this conversation was about the school board election and making good choices for kids and families. Why must the old guard in OUSD continue to moan and complain without moving the dialogue (and ultimately the district) forward?
Seems to me, many of the high performing charter schools in Oakland have wait lists and have for years. Isn’t it about time to recognize that some charter schools in Oakland are doing a remarkable job educating students and offering parents a choice?
Don’t we want a good education and choices for all Oakland kids? Is there any room in the OEA’s mindset for what’s not just good for teachers, but also good for kids? This is a school board election, not a union meeting. I’m grateful that finally this community is participating in the election and not just letting the union control the dialogue anymore.
October 31st, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Mr. Mordecai,
Since you bring up AB5 regarding teacher evaluations, I want to share a little perspective re GO’s position. Since I know that facts and accurate language are important you. Our Executive Director, Jonathan, did not testify regarding AB5. GO did sign on to a letter of opposition, if that is what you meant to communicate.
In your portrayal of GO as opposing the bill based on test scores alone – you misconstrue the foundation of our opposition as well as the breadth of the opposition to the bill.
We thought that AB 5 was a deeply important and deeply flawed California bill. So did others.
For example, editorial boards from around the state weighed in to oppose this bill:
Sacramento Bee: Take time to do teacher eval bill the right
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/25/4755577/take-time-to-do-teacher-eval-bill.html
La Opinion: Nightmare legislation
http://www.laopinion.com/article/20120826/IMPORT01/308269935#.UJGHJWl247g
SF Chronicle: AB 5 should be voted down
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/AB5-should-be-voted-down-3805501.php
Great Oakland Public Schools joined the California State PTA, ACSA, CSBA, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and a long list of organizations opposing AB5, including:
• Alliance for a Better Community
• Association of California School Administrators
• Bay Area Council
• California Association of School Business Officials
• California Association of Suburban Schools
• California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
• California School Boards Association
• California State PTA
• Central Valley Education Coalition
• Children Now
• Democrats for Education Reform
• Ed Voice
• Educate our State
• Educators 4 Excellence
• El Dorado County Office of Education
• Families in Schools
• Great Oakland Public Schools
• Green Dot Public Schools
• Kern County Superintendent of Schools
• Los Angeles County Office of Education Supt. of Schools, Arturo Delgado
• Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
• Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent John E. Deasy
• Parents Advocate League
• Riverside County Office of Education
• Riverside County School Superintendents’ Association
• Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, Kenneth M. Young
• San Bernardino County District Advocates for Better Schools
• San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools
• San Diego County Office of Education
• San Francisco Unified School District
• School Employers Association of California
• Small Schools Districts’ Association
• Southern Christian Leadership Conference
• Students First
• Students Matter
• Teach +Plus
• The Education Trust West
• United Way of Greater Los Angeles
As you see, GO was not alone in its opposition to this bill.
Thank you,
Marc Tafolla
Policy Director, Great Oakland Public Schools
October 31st, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Mr. Mordecai,
Additionally, the circumstances of AB5’s movement through the legislature was highly irregular. The bill sat dormant for months, then days before the close of session, it was reworked and hurried through various committees with amendments being promised left and right to address concerns that people were raising. Legislation was hastily drafted and redrafted. Hearings were called on very short notice. People whose entire job it is to track these developments could barely keep abreast of what was happening.
In fact so many amendments were being offered that the Wednesday night before the close of session–at 8:00 P.M., at the meeting called with no more than 30 minutes notice–the Senate Education Committee voted to advance AB 5 without even having the language of some promised amendments in front of them to read.
Below is a list of issues that we and others thought should be addressed before bill passed. We support working toward improvement of the teacher evaluation system and view evaluations as part of an ongoing process for professional development.
However, as of the night before the vote, and not knowing what the actual last minute amendments will be, we felt that AB 5 (as drafted) was not a good bill for students for many reasons, including the following:
• AB 5 imposed a costly mandate on all districts but provides funding only for start-up costs at schools that receive QEIA funds.
• AB 5 removed local decision making for additional QEIA monies by directing those funds towards implementing a new teacher evaluation system.
• AB 5 prohibited the State Board of Education from waiving the best practices teacher evaluation system in order for a school district to add additional measurements.
• AB 5 reduced local control by limiting the ability of local governing boards to act on objective data to hold employees accountable.
• AB 5 did not meet federal requirements in order for California to receive the federal NCLB waiver.
• AB 5 prevented any meaningful gauge of student growth in evaluations and invited disputes over allowable evidence of student learning.
• AB 5 expanded the scope of collective bargaining for school districts. Evaluation criteria and standards for satisfactory performance would be subjects of bargaining, weakening an LEA’s ability to hold teachers accountable.
• AB 5 repealed grade level proficiency. There would no longer be a default provision in California law requiring performance evaluations of teachers and principals to include the assessment of the progress of pupils toward expected grade level achievement.
• AB 5 placed the program under the new mandate block grant replacing the less costly Stull Act. The new block grant would need to be adjusted to reflect the increase in mandates resulting from AB 5 estimated to be $18 million annually with some estimates considerably higher.
Please forgive any error in highlighting concerns that were addressed by last minute amendments. It was very difficult to keep pace with all of the on-the-fly promises that were being made to address concerns Senators had about the bill– especially given its importance.
Best,
Marc Tafolla
Policy Director
Great Oakland Public Schools
October 31st, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Mr. Mordecai,
Since you choose to consistently promote that we are only focused on test scores, I’d also like to take a moment to share our actual perspective. From a FAQ on our website, we elaborate that:
“First, to be clear, a teacher’s evaluation should be one part of a professional growth system whose purpose is to (1) support and develop the teachers who have chosen to serve Oakland’s students; and (2) ensure that students are achieving.
As a part of that evaluation, we believe that state test scores are one of multiple measures (including, for example, student portfolios, benchmark assessments, and peer, student, parent, and administrative feedback) that should be included. We believe that student test scores on state assessments are relevant to talking about teacher effectiveness, but not reliable enough to be the sole or even predominate basis for measuring teacher effectiveness. We believe that assessment of student achievement should be focused on student growth over time which allows for more analysis of where a given teacher’s students started when they walked into his or her classroom. There are promising models emerging from around the country such as the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) programs in San Juan and Poway and The College Ready Promise Program.
Additionally, we believe that there are strong models and frameworks for effective teaching that, if adopted by a district, would help establish clear expectations and help align professional development to actual teacher need in a systematic way that is focused on the core skills (and art) of instruction.”
Further, we understand that any existing system would have to be adapted from its place of origin to address Oakland’s needs. However, we think that the learning and development in this field provide promising starting points for collaboration around the development of a true professional growth system that values support for teachers.
I hope that clarifies our position a bit.
Thanks,
Marc Tafolla
Policy Director
Great Oakland Public Schools
October 31st, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Mr. Tafolla and others;
The conversation here seems to have wandered very far from Katy’s original post.
How do Oaklanders feel about a handful of wealthy individuals (and a charter school organization) attempting to buy a school board race? What do those individuals expect to gain from such a purchase?
The fact is, these contributions come from folks who have a clear agenda of taking public monies (read tax dollars) and directing it to privately managed corporations on the theory that the magic of the marketplace will produce better results. The evidence from many studies is that this true about 20% of the time. But the ideology has big money behind it, so the myth persists.
There are good charters and good charters operators, there are mediocre ones and there are poor ones. Just like other public (and private) schools. What charters don’t have that other public schools do is clear public oversight from elected representative. That’s how you wind up with messes like occured at American Indian, where almost $4 million appears to have been pocketed by one family.
Millionaires have contributed a huge amount of money to this race. Doesn’t it appear naive to believe that these individuals don’t have some purpose in mind that goes beyond a desire to “help Oakland’s students?”
As Marc knows, GO and OEA have done some minor collaboration together during the campaign around Prop 30 and Measure J. Many of GO’s stated goals and policies may well align with OEA/CTA’s. I hope we find opportunities for dialogue and joint work which does benefit all of Oakland’s students. And while I hope that Marc’s pronouncements about GO’s independence and good intentions prove true, I can’t help but expect that their funders will have something to say about it.
Doug Appel
CTA Staff
October 31st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
It’s a bit much for someone from the CTA to say that organizations that contribute to PACs are trying to “buy” a school board race. What did CTA expect to gain from its $70,000 donation to United Educators of SF Candidate PAC three weeks ago? That, along with the CTA’s other PAC donations, can be viewed at the following website:
cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1018473&type=monetary&view=contributions&session=2011
For the record, both of my kids are in public, district schools. I just can’t stand hypocrites.
October 31st, 2012 at 3:35 pm
If you want to stop GO public schools’ big mine campaign, please, get off this website, and get on the phone to the campaign of a candidate you support. Volunteer to phone bank or walk door to door. That will work. Debating in this site will have a negligible affect at best.
Get out there and volunteer for a campaign
October 31st, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I don’t agree with everything, but I respect the process that GO went through to endorse school board candidates. They interviewed all of the candidates, asked them to answer questions in writing (holding them accountable to their positions), made that information publicly available, hosted public conversations, asked for input from hundreds of district stakeholders, and then finally made a decision about who to endorse. When else have you seen an organization be so thoughtful about School Board races? They are raising money for these races because they truly care about the outcome for kids and teachers, which is refreshing.
I went to one of those community meetings about the school board candidate endorsements and every person in the room was directly connected to Oakland Public Schools. I’m fairly certain that there was no one in the room from a charter school, and although I didn’t ask each person in the room which party they tend to vote with, I can guarantee you that the vast majority, if not everyone, was lower to middle income democrats who either teach or have children in Oakland district schools.
I believe the endorsement selections were made long before a few big donors stepped in to support the cause of electing strong board members. (The fact that 8 of the last 14 school board races were uncontested speaks to the need for more interest in them from all sides.) We should hold GO accountable to continue that kind of transparency and community decision-making and ensure that they are not “bought” by big funders in the future, but I definitely don’t think that happened this time.
Now the Tribute has endorsed the same candidates after their own review (http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_21889484/oakland-tribune-editorial-oakland-schools-need-calm-steady?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com)
Everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, but at least GO went to the trouble of asking candidates about their actual position on issues and making that information public to help voters make an informed decision about this important issue. I respect and appreciate that and would like to see this conversation be less partisan and focused on real issues that actually affect the quality of education in Oakland, especially for those most underserved by our current system.
October 31st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Thanks Max
October 31st, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Tobefair: I identified myself using my real name and my employment so as to be clear and transparent as to my interests. CTA supports candidates and ballot measures it believes will improve the conditions for teaching and learning. Others may view that statement cynically, but it is how we view those political issues we support and oppose. Our funds come from small contributions from our members. Proposition 32 would prevent us from doing continuing to do so–but not Arthur Rock or Gary Rogers.
Max: I have spent every weekend (and many weeknights) this past two months working to support the candidates and issues I feel strongly about. I just happen to have a enough energy left over to make the occasional posting in public blogs.
October 31st, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Educatedvoter:
Perhaps all are not as educated as you as to the part of Jonathan Klein’s biography left out on the GO webpage. Sharon Higgins rsponded to a my question on another list service as to whether Jonathan Klein has worked at OUSD as a Broad Foundation intern is a part of Jonathan Klein’s biography you may know but many other voters may not know. This was her reply to my question:
FROM:Sharon Higgins Wednesday, October 31, 2012 5:47
PM
Jonathan Klein absolutely was a Broad Resident.
http://www.broadcenter.org/residency/network/profile/jonathan-klein
He served under all three Broad State Administrators as Special Assistant. I believe he arrived at the later stage of Randy Ward’s term.
His wife, Amanda Klein, is the founding Executive Director of Urban Montessori, the brand new Alameda County Office of Education-approved charter school which acquired the site on International Blvd, formerly occupied by LIFE Academy.
http://www.urbanmontessori.org/about/founding-team
After leaving Oakland Unified, Klein became the Executive Director of the Oakland Small Schools Foundation. He also has been involved with Revolution Foods, the company that provides meals to the growing number of charter schools, along with some private schools.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=30118789&privcapId=28532382&previousCapId=1056364&previousTitle=Catamount%20Ventures%20Management%20LLC
He is also Chief Program Officer of the Rogers Family Foundation. T. Gary Rogers is the patriarch, former CEO of Dreyer’s Ice Cream. Brian Rogers is his son and founder of the two Lighthouse Community Charter Schools (a K-8 and a 9-12). Lighthouse used to be in downtown Oakland but moved a few years ago to a newly renovated industrial building on Hegenberger, close to the southwest corner of the Walmart intersection.
You state Educatedvoter that you want: “focused on real issues that actually affect the quality of education in Oakland, especially for those most underserved by our current system.”
I guess we differ in that the voters should know as much as possible about GO and its leadership as well as its funding.
And, here is a “real issue” that impacted not only “those underserved by our current system” but all students in OUSD, when Jumoke Hinton-Hodge and the rest of her Board Members spent $50,000 on a consultant for a charter school to get started. How did the Board serve the interest of all OUSD students by spending its general fund on a charter school? The state provides start up loans for charter schools, so why did OUSD pop for $50,000.
I guess Jumoke Hinton-Hodge was modeling behavior the Tribune’s editor would support: using public money intended for OUSD to support privately managed charter school.
Jim Mordecai
October 31st, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Of course GOPS opposes “for-profit” charter schools.
The elites *always* support socialism (guarenteed profits) for themselves, competition (with risk of loss) for everyone else._
October 31st, 2012 at 9:02 pm
I must agree with those who argue for a middle ground, and it is about supporting good schools, b they traditional public or charter. We have neighbors who have done one, we have neighbors who have done the other. We have neighbors who have done both. What is common is they’re all going to public school and staying in Oakland to do so.
I have heard OUSD officials argue against auto-approval of charters ( only to be repeatedly overruled by Alameda County BOE) and that the formula for charters reimbursing OUSD for facility costs does not really do so.
& I have seen GO organize a conference at Edna Brewer to engage District Officials and have heard theyve done the same at other traditional Public Schools. They have been clear that they want all Oakland PS’s to be successful. Clearly this is not the Privatize Everything organization that the OEA wants to make them out to be. & clearly this issue is more complex than that as well.
Having listened to some of the Candidates GO has endorsed (for my own info & reasons, nothing to do with those of GO) , I have concluded these are clearly liberal and clearly independent thinkers who wish the best for Oakland students and families. I have heard at least two of them (Hodge & Rosie) argue for “equity” for schools in poorer parts of the district.
They are clearly not the evil candidates supported by evil corporations that the OEA would have us believe. & the issues are not as simple and all or nothing as the OEA or right wing nut jobs would have us believe.
JR is right…the OEA is marginalizing itself.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Of course we all want great schools for our kids, although there certainly is a difference of opinion about how to get there. Seems that there may be a role that charters can play in innovating and providing alternatives for students who might need a different kind of learning environment. What concerns me is that the path OUSD is on seems unsustainable, with 25% of the schools being charters, the highest proportion of any district in the state. Having this large a proportion of students going to charters drains resources at traditional public schools and eliminates families’ opportunities to choose a neighborhood district school if they want to, let alone the district’s ability to ensure all kids receive a quality education where a quarter of kids attend schools beyond the district’s oversight. For example, the Lazear parents and students adamantly protested closure of their neighborhood public school to no avail and as a result, many have opted to attend the new Lazear charter school in the same building. Is that voting with their feet? Seems more like they were left with no choice. This is a point that I have heard District 5 candidate Mike Hutchinson make at a recent forum – that until we have a thorough analysis of the impact of the proliferation of charters, the board should place a moratorium on their expansion. This is probably a reason why we see so much pro-charter money for his opponent.
October 31st, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Charter Schools seem to have had little effect on the drop-out rate for African-America boys in Oakland. This problem is unique to Oakland and the inner city. If we are really going to make permanent change, we need to fix that problem. I have tutored, in math and life, two middle school age African-American boys who are both willing and able to succeed. Both attended and were later kicked out of Charter Schools. Both passed through St. Anthony’s on West St. One ended up at Westlake and I fear the other is on the street. While their expulsions were justified, the Charter School was allowed to give up. For the one at Westlake, the OUSD is his only hope. In both cases the parents have not exhibited the ability to successfully guide their child’s education.
If Charters will not commit to solving the drop-out rate, they will never be the solution for Oakland.
Are the teacher’s the problem? People go into teaching to teach, not to teach in Charters or be part of a union. The same Teachers teach in the Charters and the public schools. All the Union does is make sure the Teachers are treated fairly.
Charter School’s can’t fix the drop-out rate, the Oakland School Board can. That’s what this election is about. If we elect a Board committed to Charters instead of ending the drop-out rate, we are going to get four more years of smart ideas and no solution.
Don’t kid yourselves, African-American boys who drop-out become the criminals on the street. Four more years of failure means 400 more dead, maybe not now, but in the near future. It means 4,000 more going to prison for the first time.
A School Board that will focus on African-American boys learning the fundamentals in elementary school, and thereby not dropping-out later, needs to be elected.
Minority school closures won’t solve the drop-out rate and may make it worse. Charters have demonstrated they are not the answer. Elect those who fought school closures, those who will bring the commitment to having all students learn the fundamentals in elementary school.
November 1st, 2012 at 12:12 am
Livegreen:
My view is not OEA policy and OEA President Trish Gorham speaks for OEA.
But, in my view there cannot exists a middle ground for public schools and charter schools as both are competing for the same enrollment. To talk about a middle ground is to pretend that competition for student enrollment doesn’t exist. And, to take a middle ground is not to fully support public school District as charter school growth is at the expense of the local school district’s enrollment.
In some degree those GO PAC candidates for school board by accepting the endorsement of the GO PAC are demonstrating support for charter schools yet such support is to a degree disloyalty to the students of the District that need 100% of a School Board members focus on them.
For me it is unfortunate that the Oakland Public Schools does not have a school board that is 100% committed to the students in its District but divides its loyalty with students enrolled in charter schools. Perhaps the Board members have a twisted sense that their divided loyalty is that middle ground between public school and charter school. But, the Board is the public school Board and charters have their own corporate private governing board. The Board does little to defend the District from charter schools and has allowed the District to grow 40 charter schools.
I thought the School Board of Oakland was acting like a criminal robbing the children of Oakland Public Schools of its funding when the Oakland School Board voted to ratify the initiative of Superintendent Smith to pay $50,000 to hire a consultant to help a charter school get started.
In my view is not one dollar of money for OUSD should be spent on charter schools.
Look at the big money that the GO PAC attracts by those associated with charter schools. In addition to small contributions by charter school operators, the Charter School Association contributed $50,000 to the GO PAC.
The question of whether there is a middle ground on the issue of public schools and charter schools is similar to the question of being a little bit pregnant. Two systems; one managed by the representatives of the public, and the other system managed privately are engaged in an unending competition for enrollment as was intended by authors of California charter law.
It is either a good idea to have two systems of public schools and charter schools competing or not. Given the reality of competition for enrollment and funding between public schools and charter schools where is the middle ground?
To say one is for good school whether public schools or charter schools is to argue for the competition but ignores the harm the competition does in destablizing both public schools and charter schools while money that should go to students is diverted to the competition between the two systems.
Jim Mordecai
November 1st, 2012 at 8:49 am
I wonder what the private charter movement people will do when there are too many charters in Oakland for too few students?
Like Box Stores, will the largest and most prolific (best funding) simply eat the competition and leave the the carcasses of empty institutional structures to blight while the children hop into cars every morning and go in various directions to KIPP here or KIPP there (why is there no focus on “neighborhood” in the private charter movement?). It seems there is no stopping the onslaught. Is opening 6 or more new schools a year really sustainable in an area where the child population is declining?
November 1st, 2012 at 9:02 am
Jim,
Fact check time!
“In some degree those GO PAC candidates for school board by accepting the endorsement of the GO PAC are demonstrating support for charter schools yet such support is to a degree disloyalty to the students of the District that need 100% of a School Board members focus on them”.
All these children live in Oakland(they are not the enemy). The board is responsible for the education of the children.
“I thought the School Board of Oakland was acting like a criminal robbing the children of Oakland Public Schools of its funding when the Oakland School Board voted to ratify the initiative of Superintendent Smith to pay $50,000 to hire a consultant to help a charter school get started”.
I witnessed plenty of charters turned away by the board, only to get approval from the county board(this overly-bloated redundant,overcompensated bureaucratic education system works so well,huh)?
“In my view is not one dollar of money for OUSD should be spent on charter schools”.
The education of children is a public trust, not a divine right of the education mafia. That tax money belongs to taxpayers and their children, not the failed educratic system. You have violated public trust in poorly preparing children for decades, and parents should have the choice to go elsewhere.
I have had all I can stand from a system that forces students to be stuck in failing conditions. A system that requires and forces its own members to pay dues or agency fees that are used to enrich a chosen few and keep the pay,perks and pensions flowing for the worker bees.This district budget at one time was nearly half a billion dollars, and was it any better? No it was not.
November 1st, 2012 at 1:19 pm
This whole debate about ‘traditional vs charter’ is just another version of the long running war between left and right over TAX DOLLARS.
It makes little difference to taxpayers which side prevails. In either case,
our money gets BURNED.
thousands of gov regulations make *either* approach DOOMED TO FAIL.
The only reason we haven’t adopted a voluntary attendance, 100% privatized and 0% regulated model is because both political parties have a financial interest in the status quo (on the *receiving* end of tax $$$.
November 1st, 2012 at 8:42 pm
J.R.
Thank you for your statement “all these children live in Oakland and the Board is responsible for their education.”
Yes, the Board is responsible for the education of the children enrolled in OUSD, period
The Board has no more responsibility for Oakland’s private and church school children than it has for the children enrolled in charter schools.
However, that statement needs to be qualified because the Oakland School Board does have some narrow responsibilities for some private/church schools that receive Federal flow through Title I funding.
And, the Board, unlike its limited responsibility for private/church schools, does have oversight responsibilities over the schools it charters. But, the Oakland School Board does not have responsibility over the children enrolled in the schools it charters.
The Board has limited responsibility of determining if a charter lived up to the promises it made in setting down its charter. Under law charters are granted for give years and school boards have the responsibiity in determining if a charter should be renewed after five years.
And, if a charter is not living up to the promises made in granting the charter, the Board may move to remove the charter it granted and close a school, after having given the charter school a warning and legally defined time to cure and correct the violations of the conditions for granting the charter.
Oakland has complicated my assertion that it has no responsibility over charter schools a little more because Oakland has signed contracts with a few charter schools whereby both the District and the charter school enter into a contract for Oakland to receive payment for certain services including such services as diverse as special education services, professional development and custodial services to name a few. These contracts complicate the relationship of the Board to the charter schools.
But, again the Board’s responsibility in oversight of these contracts and with oversight of charter schools under charter law is a contractual responsibility in relationship to the school’s management and not a responsibility in relation to the students enrolled in the charter school. Although the charter school is a public school it is under private management leaving responsibility of Oakland School Board members to the children of charter schools behind.
Charter schools are not normally limited to the geographic area of an authorizing local school district. An exception is for public schools like Acend that were converted to charter school status.
An example of charter school not accountable for enrollment of District children is Aspire’s Golden Gate campus charter school. This Aspire school continues to enroll children from Richmond. Meanwhile, the Parcel tax spent on Golden Gates facilities is used to house Richmond children paid for by Oakland property owners. Just one of the many unintended consequences of weakly regulated charter schools.
Finally, while charter school children are not the enemy of public schools, the Oakland charter schools reduce Oakland School enrollment and are therefore taking public educational dollars from Oakland public schools and the children Oakland Schools enroll.
Charter schools are like an enemy raiding party at war with public schools over the educational dollar. Clearly charter schools act as the enemy of public education. The State legislature wrote California’s charter laws so charter schools would compete for the public education dollars like an enemy raider. Supporters of Oakland charter schools may well want to yell “Go Raiders”!
Jim Mordecai
November 1st, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Jim,
Which is precisely why we need to encourage and nurture talented people with real world budgetary experience(CEO’s,CPA’s,budget analysts, financial managers etc to run for positions). Community activists, not for profit organizational heads, lawyers, restorative justice types are not working out too well, as the record shows. For the record, the regular public school system has had more than their share of unintended consequences, foibles,controversies and scandals even though they are regulated. I don’t really need to put up a huge list of links that back up my assertions do I? I’ll leave it up to you. As far as the term “raiding party” goes we the taxpayers have been raided and picked clean for decades(in a very short time we will be asked for even more). There is no such thing as a temporary tax(not when pension liabilities are growing exponentially. I’ll toss this link in just for the conversational starter. Everybody say “thank you OEA”!
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/johnson/article/Oakland-teachers-failed-kids-over-grant-4002117.php
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 am
J.R.
Thanks for the reference to Columnist Chip Johnson’s rant against OEA; I don’t take the Chronicle.
Chip Johnson attacked OEA for blocking dollars for OUSD because it wouldn’t accept tying student test scores to teacher evaluations, an Obama Administration demand for Race to the Top bucks.
There have been many unions across the country in these hard times willing to lay down for the Race to the Top bucks. Chicago wasn’t and I am proud that OEA hasn’t.
Neither teachers nor students are test scores. Management by body count failed in Viet Nam and management by student test scores will continue to be a failure in America. We are so far the only country fixating in using tests designed for students in such a fashion. Value Added Measurement is popular with Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) that has the ear of the Obama administration on importance of tying test scores to reform public education. The fact that study after study of Value Added Measurement has demonstrated the unreliability of using VAM as part of a teacher evaluation has had some impact because it is presented as being only one part of a teacher’s evaluation.
Why would anyone want to include an unreliable measurement as any part of a teacher’s evaluation? What? Oh, it’s about the Federal money that Chip Johnson wants OEA to take no matter that taking the money is agreeing to a bad idea that would be unfair to OEA’s members.
Chip Johnson perhaps should join as a member of Great Oakland Public Schools (G0) organization as what he has in common is GO leadership is also crazy for tying test scores to teacher evaluations. Jonathan Klein, GO’s CEO worked with Michelle Rhee, former State Senator *Gloria Romero DFER’s California representative, and others to defeat AB 5, reform of teacher evaluation, because it didn’t include tying teacher evaluation to student test scores.
I am surprised that you are not in support of OEA rejecting this Federal money as test scores provides a whole industry that is vested in gaining more and more market share of the education tax dollars.
Jim Mordecai
*Note I just saw DFER California Representative Gloria Romero on a T.V. add in support of yes on 32, an attack on unions.
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:58 am
Jim,
I don’t like measuring teaching and or learning ability solely by test scores, there should be at least a handful of metrics used. No one ever mentions the grade book, and I think that grade books that list assignments reveal a great deal of information. If you have teachers who do not use grade books or hand back corrected homework, that is a red flag right there. As I have said before in my experience most teachers are fair,good, and or even great, but the systems incentives for excellence are backwards as is the pay and seniority issues. The system is not built for kids to thrive, it is built for the security of the adults free from any kind of expectations. That along with home life is why our kids struggle so badly. As far as unions go they have gone too far(all of them), I have had a construction worker fall off my roof when the fire dept came they had six firemen wheel one gurney(I wouldn’t want these guys trying to lift any bodies out of a fire). These were all older guys(all the younger guys got whacked by budget cuts). Same with the police, all the young guys got thrown under the bus. And when these guys are finally good and ready to retire we wont be able to pay the new guys squat! We are paying so much for the people that are not working, that all the new hires are working for low pay(if we can afford them at all. So yeah, unions cause way more trouble than they solve, and if they truly believed that they are relevant and necessary, the would make dues voluntary. On the day they do that I will back unions 100%!
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:23 am
Having attended the last three school board meetings, I don’t find this news surprising. I saw parents from several schools (Crocker, Cleveland, Brookfield, Kaiser) and special education speak passionately about their school communities, point to specific administrative errors–and run into a brick wall of bureaucratic double speak. Shout out to Alice Spearman, who engaged directly with parents at Brookfield in an attempt to resolve an issue. But in the other cases, all we heard was the bureaucratic passive voice “mistakes were made.” Faced with this kind of response, parents who can may seek other options. The District needs to overcome the indifference that seems to characterize its dealings with parents and other stakeholders and actually be responsive.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:15 am
J.R.
“I don’t like measuring teaching or learning ability soley by test scores…”
We agree that both teachers and students should ideally be evaluated on a diversity of metrics.
Perhaps we part company because I believe in banding the use of student test scores on standardized test in any part of a teachers’ evaluation.
Having been in the U.S. Air Force when Robert McNamara became Secretary of Defense making management by objectives the reform of the day, and having watched the metric of body count become the military’s significant metric of all metrics, I witnessed the harm of that day’s reform when winning the war was defined as increasing the day’s body count.
I see student test scores as inappropriate metric for evaluating teachers as body count was for evaluating progress in the Vietnam War.
I am seeking not your support of unions. But, I would welcome your support in resistance to an inappropriate metric, whether that support is 100% or not.
As you point out in your post there are a multiple of metrics that provide a basis for evaluation of both teachers and students. So why employ a metric that scholars have tested and found to be unreliable?
Jim Mordecai
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:03 am
Jim,
I grant you, just maybe the testing metric is inappropriate for use as a teaching ability benchmark(especially in certain circumstances,SDC class etc). These evaluation, and metrics would not be an issue if the system was predicated on the basis of achievement and rigor instead of “good enough” and “social promotion”.
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:22 pm
J.R.
The scholarship testing the premise of VAM clearly shows that testing is inappropriate for use as a teaching performance benchmark. And, there has not been a circumstance (SDC class etc.) where using VAM is an appropriate performance benchmark.
So why are you stuck on maybe?
Of course metrics would not be an issue if the system were perfect. But, issues such as rigor or social promotion are issues separate from the question of what metric is appropriate for teacher evaluation.
It doesn’t make any sense to me to justify using an inappropriate metric because the system is not perfect and you will only endorse not using the metric when the system changes the things you want changed.
Jim Mordecai
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Jim,
The good part about the value added model is the fact that the measurement is the child’s own progress(or lack thereof). I am no statistician so this seems common sense to me. When you have children struggling in certain teachers classes year after year(that is a red flag. As you may or may not be aware, is students are placed with weak teachers two years in a row it is a well established recipe for large educational setback of that child or children.
http://generalhealthtopics.com/bad-teachers-put-students-big-disadvantage-study-finds-1093.html
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:11 pm
The “proper metrics” debate is totally *avoidable*.
If education were 100% privatized nobody would care what “metric” was being used internally. There’d be no doubt about who the good teachers were. They’d be the ones with wait lists.
However, since public education is 100% *regulated*, every political constituency (the “stakeholders”) needs to have their point-of-view (special interest) addressed in the matter.
Like every other political solution, whatever comes out it will only make things worse (and cost more).
The taxpayers can only watch in horror.
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:39 pm
J.R.
I wish I could convince people “weak” teachers are not the problem. They are “a” problem, but in the context of a well run school district, apparent teacher issues would be seen to have minimal effect on results. Whatever it look looks like on the outside, I can tell you from the inside, replacing “weak’ employees is not how business succeeds. It succeeds through leadership which brings the best out of the people who do the work.
99% of people want to do a good job, from self-respect if nothing else. That can be tapped into in many ways including, treating them as important and listening to and treating seriously what they think would improve the situation. I taught in an Oakland school, the teachers I worked with (a) were not “weak” and (b) knew they could work in a better environment. We didn’t need replacing, we needed focus and committment from the top.
To all; Think of that when you vote.
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Charlie,
All the various weaknesses, waste in the system need to be fixed(which include teacher, and or union issues). The redundancies in federal state and county education departments. Is it really helpful to read a press release from the state superintendent that informs us that there will be cuts if prop.30 does not pass? As far as teachers go, we should have the freedom to keep the teachers who have the right combination of academic and psychological makeup, and commitment geared to being a teacher. In no way shape or form is length of service necessarily have anything to do with these traits. I have witnessed career changers(management professionals who made absolutely fabulous teachers by the time they hit their third year of teaching(some people are born to connect and reach and teach other people,I guess)?
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:05 pm
I looked at the study. Much of what happens in education is driven by studies. While usedful and sometimes true in the context of the study, when implemented outside the judgement of those “on the ground”, often lead to actions which do not produce results.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Charlie,
We could just ignore the studies and just focus on whether or not most kids are being well prepared for the rigors of higher academics and life(which is a fairly decent barometer of our education system).We shall see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/students-lacking-college-_n_1606201.html
http://www.communitycollegereview.com/articles/442
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_mixed_signals/index.shtml
Our kids were being left behind well before “NCLB” ever existed.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Some more disturbing facts:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43397386/ns/us_news-life/t/report-students-dont-know-much-about-us-history/#.UJSpgWfhcwR
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/feature-is-it-just-us-or-are-kids-getting-really-stupid/
November 3rd, 2012 at 12:03 am
Nonclair:
If education were…
I note that J.R. was addressing what is rather than as you are doing speculating as what might be of only…
Because in the here and now public education is governed by State Education code and that code deals with teacher evaluation, the metric used for that evaluation is what was being discussed.
I will leave to you the role of seeking debate on what could be, could be.
As for J.R.’s point that test scores are a child’s test score that is the problem, teachers are being evaluated on someone else’s work.
And, it is not the work of one student (class size of one is even unusual since the days of George Washington and never achieveable for the masses)but, the average of all the children in a teacher’s class. Scholars have shown that the number for evaluation computed for such an average is an unstable number showing a teacher outstanding one year and failing the next or falling from one extreme to the middle range. The statistical norm is that all scores tend to fall toward the middle range. Also, tests are designed toward a goal and current tests are designed to test student performance and not designed to judge the performance of a teacher.
Jim Mordecai
November 3rd, 2012 at 11:04 am
Jim,
I suspect that even if unions and districts developed a system of evaluation with common sense metrics that are agreed upon, the union would still cry age discrimination, unlawful termination or whatever…….. The die has been cast, and we are beset with a system of entitlement of sorts. We need to look really hard into cutting the non-teaching portion of the school system or we won’t be able to keep our heads above water. Prop 30 may not pass, and even if it does it will only stem the massive tide of pension obligations for a short time. Mark my words, massive tax hikes will be inevitable at some point. Normal private sector taxpayers will be little more than wage slaves destined to work until death to pay for pension obligations of the state.
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:48 pm
J.R.
I hope you are not being facetious when you write “We could . . . just focus on whether or not most kids are being well prepared for the rigors of higher academics and life(which is a fairly decent barometer of our education system).
That is exactly how success should be defined for Oakland’s (or any) School District. Meeting it should be the objective.
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
[prep for the rigors of higher academics and life] is exactly how success should be defined for [public education districts].
Pretty fuzzy.
Kids must be forced to attend K-12 so that they .. can go on to even MORE education. That is, they need a:
BA so that they can go to grad school
MA to get a doctorate
Phd to qualify for post-Doc
etc. and so forth.
At the end of the process, after they’ve practically bankrupted their parents and hit the rest of us up for a few hundred thou, they’ll end up working for the *government*, where they’ll spend the rest of their “careers” bleeding us dry.
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:27 pm
prep’d to hit life’s curve balls.
How exactly is public education supposed to accomplish this?
It works to make the kids more dependent on the government and more obedient subjects.
November 3rd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
J.R.
“I suspect that even if unions and districts developed a system of with common sense metrics that are agreed upon, the union would still cry …”
The process of determining metrics on teacher evaluation at the district level is called collective bargaining. But, it is the state’s education code that determines the framework for that bargaining. Common sense on the issue of what goes into teacher evaluation may or may not be part of what takes place at a bargaining table as teacher evaluation is only one of many items bargained not least being teacher compensation.
The clash of ideas in regard to teacher evaluation; and specifically the appropriateness of the metric of student test scores used for teacher evaluation, plays out as a contest to directly and indirectly influence the state legislature.
Both the don’t-use student-test scores and the use-student-test-scores groups try to win public opinion to their side. So far the issue has not attracted wide public notice.
However there are national groups such as the right wing group ALEC trying to influence state legislatures with ALEC model legislation that tie student test scores to teacher evaluation.
Within the Democratic Party there is a group called Democrats for Educational Reform (DFER) that like ALEC also lobbies for tying teacher evaluation to student test scores.
In Oakland, Great Oakland Public Schools (GO) leadership worked with Michelle Rhee, DFER’s California representative ex-State Senator Gloria Romero and others, for the defeat of AB 5, a new teacher evaluation law, because AB 5 didn’t require tying teacher evaluations to student test scores.
Historically, the focus on student test scores advanced with the Bush/Kennedy Title I reform named no child left behind or NCLB.
In practice NCLB met no child left behind untested and was part of a standards movement bridge to national testing. Student test scores in math and reading were the basis of comparing school test scores and those schools not making passing grade for two years in a row were labeled a failure.
NCLB was followed by the Obama administration Race to The Top (RTTT)offering money for helping low performing schools. But as a requirement of receiving the RTTT money states were required to have, or pass, laws tying teacher evaluations to student test scores.
Politics will determine metrics used to evaluate teachers. My hope is that the scholarly research showing that use of student test scores for teacher evaluation will not be discounted in the process of coming to that political decision.
Jim Mordecai
November 4th, 2012 at 10:57 am
It isn’t just in Oakland where unprecedented amounts of big money have been poured into the campaigns of pro-corporate ed reform school board candidates. Here are a few examples of the public school privatization money iceberg:
In NJ: “… four wealthy Californians and one wealthy Coloradan – heavy hitters in the tech, financial, and health care sectors – have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a slate of candidates running for the school board in Perth Amboy, a city of 50,000 with a majority Hispanic population.” (NOTE: Arthur Rock, the SF billionaire who donated $49K to GO’s PAC is one of the CA contributors @ $8K).
http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-to-buy-school-board-3000-miles-away.html
In CT: “… Corporate reformers and privatizers have poured record amounts of campaign cash into Bridgeport, Connecticut, to persuade voters to turn control over their schools to the mayor.”
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/11/02/big-to-convince-bridgeport-voters-to-abandon-democracy/
In New Orleans: “One of the city’s leading charter advocates, Sarah Newell Usdin, is the recipient of more than $110,000, way more than her opponents.”
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/11/04/outside-cash-flooding-into-new-orleans-school-board-race/
In Santa Clara County: “With an unprecedented surge of cash from charter schools and their high-tech backers, normally low-profile school board campaigns have morphed into big-bucks contests to elect charter-friendly candidates and defeat their challengers.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_21896419/pac-money-floods-local-school-board-races
A small but increasingly wealthy group of plutocrats are in the process of grabbing full control of public education systems across the country. So submit to our new masters’ astronomical wealth and overwhelming power, my fellow Americans. Our neo-feudal lords demand that we kowtow. Chris Hedges explains it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfLL8ZACwKU
November 4th, 2012 at 11:13 am
One more story from Minneapolis where a rephormy former Teach For America candidate who just moved into his district in May has has raised seven times as much as his opponent, setting a fundraising record.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/177047761.html?refer=y
The very unusual phenomenon happening in Oakland this year is not occurring in isolation.
November 4th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Actually, we need *more* money in politics.
Establishment candidates almost always have a LARGE advantage raising campaign funds. The exceptions generally being rich guys who can self-finance and (to a lesser extent) celebrities like athletes and movie stars.
In Minneapolis you have an unknown newcomer looking to expand charter schools. It is only fair that he can raise a relatively large sum of money from the special interests who he fronts for.
If challengers can’t take their message directly to the People at election time, how else are they supposed to overcome the political high ground held by the status quo?
ABOLISH campaign finance laws.
In states where such regs are not *entirely* unconstitutional, they have a distinction of being 180 degrees at-odds with constitutional guarentees of free speech.
Campaign finance arguments aside, once again we see members of the big government coalition fighting amongst themselves over the spoils of war (education-related tax dollars).
As government grows bigger and BIGGER the spoils become even LARGER.
Is it any wonder that political campaigns grow continuously more *expensive* with each cycle?
November 4th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Whether or not any one of you consider GOPS an advocate of charter schools, the California Charter Schools Association certainly does to the tune of $49,995.
GOPS lauds the 200 grassroots donors (in and outside of Oakland) that created a $184,980.00 PAC.
OEA’s 2400 in the trenches donors voluntarily contribute $5.00 a year. Our PAC will catch up in about 15 years.
From Citizen’s United, to the Koch Brothers buying the election of the Wake County, North Carolina school board, to Proposition 32 trying to silence the unions, the influence of outside, corporate money in elections should always be subject to inquiry.
November 5th, 2012 at 6:45 am
Katy,
Thank you for reporting on this. In addition to concerns around the huge contributions, and where they are coming from, I wonder if you could tell us more about the make-up of GO Public Schools. They claim to be a coalition of parents, teachers, principals, and community leaders. I know that Jonathan Klein, used to head up TFA in the Bay Area, and I know that many of the active staff and volunteers are TFA too. I’d be curious to know the percentage of staff and members that are TFA. I’d like to know the percentage of staff and members that are teachers that did not come from alternative certification routes (like TFA or OTF), but actually got training to be a teacher through a traditional program that has student teaching, etc. I’d like to know the percentage of staff and members that are parents, and particularly parents of children in OUSD schools. What percentage of all this fundraising comes from parents?
November 5th, 2012 at 7:58 am
I suggest that all of the energy that goes into these comments be spent working to improve schools. You can blame charters, TFA, CCSA, rebublicans, walmart, the tea party freakshow, and/or R. Murdoch all day long. These organizations did not cause the downfall of OUSD. Parents do not care what kind of schools their children attend. They simply want the best option, and hope that it is free. Any parents does. OUSD is losing enrollment due to many factors. Parents are fed up. Low performing schools and a system that is crippled by OEA and archaic thinking about education. It is very sad day for all students in OUSD schools. Just look at the leadership. Unfortunately, OEA leadership doesn’t represent membership. That too will change over time. There are many great teachers in Oakland that leave because of OEA.
This conversation is sad, but it does shine a light on the lack of responsibility that people are willing to take for failing schools. Be part of the solution or get out of the way.
November 5th, 2012 at 8:33 am
@74 The absurd idea that many teachers leave Oakland because of the OEA cannot go unchallenged. Please give your source on that.
And while you imply that the blame game does not speak to our immediate issues, you make no such distinction when blaming the organization that, at its core, aims for equity and stability for ALL educators and ALL students.
Efforts to separate teachers from their leadership is an old saw that has been tried across the country but somehow ignores the fact that the leaders are the teachers, elected by the teachers. And while any group of 2400 individuals do not always agree on everything, those 2400 OEA members are part of the solution EVERY day.
November 5th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Oaklandedlandscape:
“There are many great teachers in Oakland that leave because of OEA.”
But, I know many great teachers in OEA that are elected leaders of OEA.
However these many “great teachers” that you know that leave because of OEA did not because of any other factors?
Are you saying they don’t leave because of poor working conditions, lack of support from their principal, frustration over an administration that doesn’t get paychecks correct, constant teacher bashing in the media, administration that take $50,000 from the general fund to pay consultant to help get a new charter school started, administration that hasn’t provided teachers with a pay raise in four years, etc.
Do you think these “great teachers” you know demonstrated their dedication to making Oakland public schools “great” by leaving?
Do you thinking that these great teachers by bailing on working within the democratic structure of OEA to change the leadership sustained their greatness?
I believe you are mistaking “sad” for frustration over others not defining “great” in the same way that you see great and thereby are resistant to you trying to impose your definition of Great Oakland Public School.
Yes, the current OEA leadership doesn’t see tying student test scores to members evaluation is the road to greatness nor growing Oakland charter schools anything but a negative for the students of Oakland. And, OEA sees the road to great public schools is by funding them and not defunding them as failure for Proposition 30 will accomplish and Superintendent Smith has accomplished by not funding the classroom in the lawfully required 55% of the budget.
I feel troubled by your argument: “Parents do not care what kind of schools their children attend. They simply want the best option, and hope that it is free.”
This is the argument that says that parents don’t care if the governance of charter schools are corrupt or democratic as long as their kid gets into college. This also the argument that privatization of public education doesn’t matter.
But, privatization of public education is not free; if it comes at the cost of destroying education for the public and by the public.
Jim Mordecai
November 5th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Incarceration of street thugs comes at the cost of destroying violent crime perpetrated upon the public by the public.
And government *is* corruption.
November 8th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
This is in response to posting 32 by Mac Tafolla, Policy Director of Great Oakland Public Schools, private non-profit corporation posting #32 whose posting in turn was responding to my comments asserting that his organization supports TYING TEACHER EVALUATION to student test scores; and worked in cooperation with like-minded organizations, and individuals, that find unacceptable a teacher evaluation bill that does not include student test scores as a component.
I accept as accurate that GOPS CEO Jonathan Klein didn’t testify in person regarding his organization’s opposition to AB 5.
But, the leaders of GO were certainly on the public record as critical of AB 5 for a host of reasons, but TYING STUDENT TEST SCORES TO TEACHER EVALUATION was one of the organization’s values reflected in the that letter to the Committee evaluating AB 5.
And, a number of papers lead to their reporting on AB 5 was about the opposition’s to AB 5′s focus on AB 5 NOT TYING STUDENT TEST SCORES TO TEACHER EVALUATIONS!
CTA, NEA and AFT are all on record as for multiple measures for evaluation of teachers. Even the Chicago strike was not over the termination of student test scores as one factor in a teacher’s evaluation, but part of the strike was over resistance to increasing the amount of weight that student test scores should have in a teacher’s evaluation.
As a delegate in the past to both CTA and NEA policy bodies, I have unsuccessfully sought to establish as union policy that student standardized test scores have zero weight in evaluation of teachers.
Scholarly study after scholarly have found that test scores of students is unacceptably and an unreliable number for evaluation of a teachers’ performance. It is the unreliability of such data that is the reason I argue that student test scores should have zero, and only zero weight, in evaluation of a teacher’s performance.
My fear is that the decision to place a number based on student standardized test scores as part of a teacher evaluation will be used ignoring best practice and the research that looked at the reliability of such a number.
However, the power of political lobbies could determine making such a unreliable number part of a teacher’s evaluation.
I don’t take lightly GOPS, Michelle Rhee’s Students First, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) and other such organizations flexing their political might for a number to evaluate teachers based on student standardized test scores.
But, I don’t feel might makes right. And, I will continue to lobby my union to back away from a policy of bending to the management by test score forces.
My view on GOPS’s teacher evaluation policy is that GOPS, like the policy positions of CTA, NEA and AFT, bend to management by student standardized test scores allowing unreliable number into the evaluation of teachers.
“We believe that student test scores on state assessments are relevant to talking about teacher effectiveness, but not reliable enough to be the sole or even predominate basis for measuring teacher effectiveness.”
What does that GOPS policy language mean? It means that one year a teacher is assigned a class that busts the test and the next year the same teacher using the same practices must hold talks about her ineffectiveness.
My experience as a classroom teacher working in Title I schools from their origin with the Johnson administration’s War on Poverty was placing women of poverty in schools as instructional assistants was a jobs program. Over the years at Title I schools was always a focus on how to improve standardized test scores, part of the Federal accountability program.
But, over time it was the ncrease in jobs for the poor, such as jobs provided in schools for single women with children working as instructional assistants, one of the hardest groups to move out of poverty, that were hugely successful; and lead to many of these women and their children moving out of poverty simply by the jobs they gained. These jobs at the local schools rovided both new income and benefits in helping these women of poverty to raise their children.
But, over time, these jobs for the poor single women with children were shifted to middle class women with pre-service AA degrees leaving the women of the poor behind and out of jobs and benefits to help raise healthy children.
And, the women hired during the Johnson administration without AA degrees and special talents such as the ability to speak a language in demand, these women were shown the door.
Meanwhile, the women managing to hang on without degrees found their hours cut and left without any benefits if they were not lucky enough to hold onto a full time position.
Many of the women that pulled themselves out of poverty by working in local schools, and their children, are the ones that are currently underwater with their American dream houses or been foreclosed.
My point is that of course standardize test data should be considered and talked about, but the forces outside of a local school and its teachers will often have more to do with the outcome on standardized tests and more importantly the outcome in the lives of former students.
Test data will continue to reflect a students zip code with always a few exceptions that are statistical outliers.
And, such data should have a value of zero when it comes to performance of teachers.
Jim Mordecai
November 24th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Revisiting this blog after many months. On most issues positions seem to have hardened among the frequent posters, but also seems to be a tiny bit of common ground on some value for standardized tests.
Is there any common agreement that OUSD HQ administrative and maybe independent consultant costs are excessive?
i can’t get excited about the role of concentrated donors to OUSD campaigns because
a. compared to general City elections, the OUSD elections seem to have attracted at least some countervailing donors. To be sure, would have to wait for the Dec 31 final campaign reports to see the dollars vs the expenditures.
b. i know a few things about multi millionaires because I have quite a few as clients. To assume that their main motive when contributing to political causes is to increase their income or wealth is not accurate. Many of them are just doing what they might have done if they weren’t wealthy, but didn’t feel they could afford to. Then there are others who never donated when less wealthy and still don’t.
c. at the current rate of creation, when do we reach 50/50 charter/ousd public schools here?
d. pardon my ignorance, but is there any charter high schools here?
The intensity of the opinions might just look divisive to people in the fray, but to us residents who work on general City policy issues, you have succeeded in forcing your elected officials and bureaucrats to at least attempt to face issues and data. I suppose your secret sauce is a combo of jobs at stake plus the shared belief that schools can be improved. In contrast, resident expectations for other city services other thna libraries, is abysmally low.
November 24th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Len:
Information on charter schools can be obtained from a site maintained by former Oakland School Parent Sharon Higgins at her blog: The Perimeter Primate. Below is her listing of the location of Oakland’s 40 charters including 7 high school programs that I counted.
Jim Mordecai
From The Perimeter Primate blog:
For the 2012-2013 school year, Oakland will have 40 active charter schools.
1. Eleven of those charter schools are at sites where an OUSD school has been closed or forced out.
100 Black Men of the Bay Area Community School at 3400 Malcolm Ave. is at the original site of Thurgood Marshall Elementary School (closed June 2012).
World Academy (K-3) & Achieve Academy (4-5) at 1700 28th Ave. are at the original site of Hawthorne Elementary School (closed June 2005).
The ASCEND charter school at 3709 East 12th St. is remaining at the original site of ASCEND Elementary School (closed June 2012). This is a new OUSD “partnership charter school” conversion.
Berkley Maynard Academy at 6200 San Pablo Ave. is at the original site of Golden Gate Elementary School (closed June 2005).
Urban Montessori Charter School at 5328 Brann St. is at the original site of Sherman Elementary School (closed August 2007). Note: OUSD’s Melrose Leadership Academy had occupied the Sherman site until Summer 2012 but its new campus is on the site of Maxwell Park Elementary School (closed June 2012).
Oakland Military Institute at 3877 Lusk St. is at the original site of Longfellow Elementary School (closed June 2004).
Bay Area Technology School at 8251 Fontaine St. is at the original site of King Estates Middle School (closed June 2005). Note: this is a new location. “BayTech” and a small OUSD school had been sharing the original site of Verdese Carter Middle School (closed June 2006).
Learning Without Limits charter school at 2035 40th Ave. is remaining at the original site of Learning Without Limits (closed June 2012), a site that was originally Jefferson Elementary School (closed June 2009). This is a new OUSD “partnership charter school” conversion.
Lazear Charter Academy at 824 29th Ave. (a county-approved charter school conversion) is remaining at its site of Lazear Elementary School (closed June 2012).
Community School for Creative Education @ 2111 International Boulevard (the former site of Life Academy which was forced to move to another campus in 2008, purportedly because of earthquake concerns).
2. Four of those charter schools have been collocated with an OUSD school.
LPS College Park (Grade 10-12, phasing out) & LPS Oakland R & D (Grade 9, new) at 8601 MacArthur Blvd., Bldg. 100 are collocating with Castlemont High School (in its former science wing).
Cox Academy at 9860 Sunnyside St. is collocating with Reach Academy on the site originally occupied by E. Morris Cox Elementary School (closed June 2005).
KIPP Bridge Charter School @ 991 14th St. is collocating with West Oakland Middle School at the original site of Lowell Middle School (closed June 2006).
3. Four of the charter schools rent property from companies owned by Ben Chavis, former director of the American Indian Public School (this was presented in the FCMAT audit released in June 2012 (2.54 MB pdf).
American Indian Public Charter School at 3637 Magee Ave. pays $20,684/month to American Delivery Systems (owned by Ben Chavis).
American Indian Public Charter School II at 171 12th St. pays $21,000/month to Lumbee Holdings (owned by Ben Chavis).
American Indian Public High School at 3637 Magee Ave. (using adjacent property at 3626-28 35th Ave.) pays $20,280/month to American Delivery Systems (owned by Ben Chavis)
Oakland Unity High School at 6038 Brann St. sublets its site for $12,500/month from American Delivery Systems which leases it for an unknown amount from Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, the owner.
4. Five charter schools are at sites where a religious school has been closed.
College Academy at 8030 Atherton St. is at the original site of St. Benedict School (closed ?)
Millsmont Academy at 3200 62nd Ave. is at the original site of St. Cyril’s School (closed June 2004)
Monarch Academy at 1445 101st Ave. is at the original site of St. Louis Bertrand School (closed June 1999)
Conservatory of Vocal/Instrumental Arts (“COVA”) at 3800 Mountain Blvd. is at the site previously occupied by Golden Gate Academy (Seventh-day Adventist).
E.C. Reems Academy of Technology and Arts at 8425 MacArthur Blvd. is part of the E.C. Reems complex (church, apartments, services); site of the former Hope Academy.
5. Two charter schools are in historical buildings in downtown Oakland
Envision Academy of Arts & Technology at 1515 Webster St. is in the former Oakland YWCA Building (on National Register of Historic Places). This school was originally called Urban Renaissance School of Arts & Technology; it was located at 967 Stanford Ave.
Oakland School for the Arts at 530 18th St. (Fox Oakland Theatre)
6. Two charter schools are in brand new buildings
Golden State College Preparatory Academy at 1009 66th Ave. is on a site previously used for manufacturing and warehousing.
Lionel Wilson College Preparatory Academy at 400 105th Ave.; previous use of property is unknown.
7. The rest of the charter schools (12) occupy an assortment of properties.
ARISE High School at 3301 East 12th St. is in a public building (Ste. 205 of the César E. Chávez Branch Library building).
Civicorps Academy (Grade 12+) at 101 Myrtle St. (previous use unknown)
East Oakland Leadership Academy at 2614 Seminary Ave. (storefront)
East Oakland Leadership Academy High at 2607 Seminary Ave. (storefront)
ERES Academy at 1936 Courtland Ave. (took over site of failed charter school (Delores Huerta Learning Academy, closed June 2009)
Lighthouse Community Charter High School and Lighthouse Community Charter School at 444 Hegenberger Rd. occupy a converted R&D building.
North Oakland Community Charter School at 1000 42nd St. (unknown previous use; shares site with Destiny Arts Center?)
Oakland Charter Academy at 3001 International Ave. (unknown previous use)
Oakland Charter High School at 345 12th St. (in building previously occupied by Lighthouse Community Charter School)
Vincent Academy at 1911 Union St. (in building previously occupied by Architectural Glass & Aluminum Co, Inc.)
Yu Ming Charter School at 321 10th St. (in building occupied by Shoong Family Chinese Cultural Center, “the premier Chinese school in Oakland,” since 1953).
November 26th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Jim, thank you.
is there a summary of the parochial school situation? How many students enrolled, demographics, changes from 10 and five years ago?
November 26th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Len:
I have no information about parochial schools. But, I believe the growth of charter schools has put added stress on parochial schools and is assoicated in my mind with the closing of parochial schools in recent years, not only in Oakland, but many other urban areas across the country.
Jim Mordecai