Thanks, everyone, for all that you have done on this.
One way or another we seem to be entering the last three weeks of this struggle. I think that the out-come is very unclear at the moment. We are "still in the running" in a lot of ways. There is so much which is still unclear and may remain so until the end.
The Tribune's report on the second hearing of the Curriculum Committee of the School Board was incorrect about the next steps in the process. The Committee members - especially Jean Quan and Wilda White - had a lot of probing questions about the finances and the viability of the proposal. The Committee mutually agreed with the proponents to extend the legal time for consideration of the matter to give time to answer the Committee's questions. The City Manager's office has to have answers back to the Committee for its next meeting, May 31. From there it will go to the full School Board meeting on June 7. There will most likely not be public testimony at the Committee meeting on May 31. There will DEFINITELY be testimony at the full School Board meeting on June 6. Everybody who can, should plan on being at this meeting: 1025 2nd Avenue, Oakland, at 5:30 p.m. And bring as many folks as you can bring with you. This is the crucial meeting!
I think that it would be helpful to write letters to all of the School Board members - those on the Committee and not - NOW. Those letters could also be sent to the Tribune and the Chronicle as letters to the editor. The more that we can send the better. The Board members can all be addressed at 1025 Second Avenue, Oakland, CA 94606-2296. (There names will follow below.) The letters should address all of our points that we spoke to at both of the previous hearings of the Committee.
They should also address (1) THE question of why the rush to push this ill-thought-out proposal THIS year; (2)that the City manager's office does not seem to know what they are doing in this area - why should they, they are not expert in school matters or in military matters; (3)the present effort should be rejected and those Board members who are favorable to the idea or who are willing to let it go forward, have a responsibility to make sure that it is of high quality. Send it back to get a quality proposal together for next year.
If the School District had approached the City with a proposal, the City would expect AND accept nothing less than a quality proposal. The District needs to be similarly serious about the business of educating Oakland's youth. There is no good reason to support a time table which is tied to a political agenda. Have the City Manager's office get it right!
The big holes in the proposal that were pointed out by the Curriculum Committee members were as follows:
1) who is the entity which is bringing this proposal to the Schools - this has not gone before the City Council which is the body which votes on official agreements, contracts, commitments, etc. on behalf of the City of Oakland. The City Managers office will likely set up a quickie nonprofit board to cure this. Who will they be? How will the School Board have the time to assess their capability to hold the education and fiduciary responsibility for these students. If they are the people who have been involved so far, one must question there capability since the proposal has been so poorly put together.I think that the City Manager's office is going to have a tough time answering these questions. We need to let all the school board members know that we heard the questions and that we expect the Board to require better responses than a "song and a dance!" The School Board has been criticized in the past by folks in the City for doing things for friends. They should not compound that by passing this because they are friends with the Mayor or the City Manager or because they work for them.
(2)Even though the budget for the proposal has been reduced so that it no longer reflects the $1.3 million from the State, it still has big holes in it. There is no paid principal; the commandant and the 14 noncommissioned officers are pro bono from the National Guard without a firm commitment letter from the Guard. Additionally one version of the budget showed a year of free rent on the property at the Oakland Army base while the final version presented to the Committee seemed to talk about $0.16/sq. ft. The proponents were changing the budget just minutes before the Committee meeting. This is very sloppy.
These are serious personnel cost holes in the budget. The base salary for the noncommissioned officers is minimally $30,000. For fourteen officers that would be $420,000. The Commandant would be minimally $50,000 as would be a principal. There is $8,000 in the budget for a principal. It is asking for failure to expect the principal to teach part-time, administer the school, and do the fundraising that will be necessary to supplement the proposed budget. The City Manager's office is going to be asking the National Guard to commit to more than $500,000 before the National Guard's budget is passed by the State. I think at best we will be looking at some very weaselly language from the National Guard. Weaselly language should not be good enough for the School Board.
The lease matter must go before the Port Commission since the property being considered is on the portion of the base being turned over to the Port. The Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) - neither its staff or the OBRA Board - would not be able to negotiate any lease for this property. Neither the Port staff or the Port Commission has ruled on this as of yet - we need to watch for this in the next couple of weeks. And the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which has to approve the Port's plan for the property - the plan, worked out with a lot of community input, does not currently have the school in it - BCDC is pushing the Port hard for only commercial maritime uses for the property. Otherwise the Port won't get the use of the property. Another big hole in the Military Academies budget.
(3) There were also a number of other serious questions raised about this proposal. (A)the question of accreditation of the two charter schools was raised so that the students who wanted to go on to college would get credit for the classes they took at the school. The accreditation authorities are going to have the same problems as the District should be having in accessing the suitability and viability of this proposal. (B)a question about the need to have the School Board's appointment to the Military Academy governing board be a voting member was raised. (C) the future fund raising plan for the charter school is slipshod. Even given one year of operation the possibility of raising $500,000 through dances (Military Ball), golf tournaments, government grants, corporate grants, etc. is highly speculative wishful thinking. Even in the best of circumstances this school will not have earned sufficient "spurs."
(4) There is a question that has not been raised previously. This school is not necessarily targeted to low achieving, kids-at-risk. Students will be chosen by lottery from a pool of applicants from all over the City. Low achieving, at-risk kids will not on their own be applying to attend this military academy. If they were so motivated, they would not be kids-at-risk. It is also unlikely that most of the parents of the kids-at-risk would be signing up these kids; a key factor for being at risk is poor parenting. The most of the kids that are going to be in the selection pool are going to be kids who are not at risk or kids who parents are motivated enough to look for alternatives. Very few kids-at-risk are going to have the luck of being selected. To that extent, this would be an elitist school.
(5)This question was raised by the Legislative Analyst's Office. There is no supporting evidence that military-style programs reduce dropout rates or facilitate college enrollment, the National Guard has no experience in operating a military academy, there is no well-defined evaluation plan and no funds have been allocated in the budget for evaluation.
It is clear that the Charter proposal will NOT pass the Curriculum Committee. Dan Siegel and Jean Quan will vote against it. It needs three votes to pass out of the Committee. Lucella Harrison indicated that she would vote for it (although she likes us) and Wilda White said that she would not vote against it because it is a military school. She left open what she would do based on the answers to the questions presented. Regardless of the vote at the Committee level, Dan will take the matter to the full board anyway.
Here's the Board breakdown as we know it at this point:
AGAINST - Ken Rice, Dan Siegel, Jean Quan
FOR - Noel Gallo, Lucella Harrison, and Gilda Gonzalez. Don't waste your time lobbying these three.
UNDECIDED - Bruce Kariya, Jason Hodge, and (maybe) Harold Pendergrass. We need two of these three and we will have five votes to stop it. I have a meeting with Pendergrass on Monday; he is at least willing to listen to our side. Do not talk to Wilda White about the military issues; talk to her about the other issues and she may be a possible no vote. But we should concentrate on Bruce and Jason. Those of us who have not called Bruce or Jason, NOW is the time to do so! Or write to them.
ALSO! ALSO!
The Assembly Budget Committee still has the matter under consideration. It is very important that we get calls and letters (emails) up to Sacramento. They should be directed to Assemblywoman Denise Moreno Ducheny's office, Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee. Ms. Sola Fernandez is the staff person in that office dealing with the military side of the budget. The telephone number is 916-319-2079 voice/916-319-2179 fax/
You can use some of the arguments from the Legislative Analyst's office here. (1) Funds to support charter schools (both Proposition 98 and federal monies) are available from the State Department of Education, there is no rationale why this charter school should receive General Fund subsidy not provided to any other charter school in the State or to the public schools in general; (2) There is no supporting evidence that military-style programs reduce dropout rates or facilitate college enrollment, the National Guard has no experience in operating a military academy, there is no well-defined evaluation plan and no funds have been allocated in the budget for evaluation; (3)Since the program will add students each year there will be an increasing need fo funds and supervising military staff, additional funds will be requested which are estimated to rise by $250,000 annually.
This last item should also be a concern for the School Board. Where are all these funds going to come from in the out years. Well, let's get busy. Talk to friends and family. Get one other person involved in this. I am running into folks who are glad that we are doing what we are doing but who are not active themselves. We have to move those folks to act. Let me know any response that you get back. I will see you at the meeting on June 7.
Back to EPI/CALC's
Directory
