I am an OUSD parent with two teens in the system, at Claremont and Oakland Tech.
I am not opposed to closing schools, but I've noticed that the plan to close schools is always presented as an immediate and urgent need.
I'm wondering why OUSD can't come up with a multi-year, staged plan (like, 3-5 years, rather than 1-1.5 years) for closures and consolidations that would actually lay out these savings in a way that shows thought, not panic. Can you tell me why these are never pursued?
Also, can we look back on what we've learned from prior recent closures? What savings were recognized from the painful closure of Kaiser and consolidation with Sankofa? If the answer is that it was nominal or nonexistent, perhaps that should come into account.
Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean regarding charters. It seems to me as if charters have historically taken enrollment from OUSD, and have also taken over sites that were deemed budget-encroaching from OUSD. Are you saying that this has now stabilized and that enrollments across the board are going down in Oakland?
These are excellent questions. As much as Director Mike Hutchinson and I have had strong disagreements over the years, your idea of a multi-year staged plan, that frames the need as being based on long-term demographic change (due to lower birth rates and the impact of gentrification and displacement) rather than immediate fiscal crisis, was exactly what he was proposing in his "3Rs" resolution of 2024. That was also the direction that former Supt. Kyla Johnson-Trammell was proposing to Board members in 1-1 conversations that same year.
As far as Kaiser-Sankofa (and Roots/CCPA, Elmhurst United, SOL/Frick merger, Lockwood Steam Academy), it has been hard to name the exact savings because there are so many variables at play. Specifically for Kaiser/Sankofa, there was so much digging in by folks who were opposed to the merger that it created a lot of negative feelings that made it less successful than it otherwise could have been. However, CCPA, Frick, Lockwood, and Elmhurst are currently much stronger school communities than they were pre-merger. I agree with you that OUSD has not focused on the success of those mergers sufficiently, but absolutely should. While it's hard to factor out the savings given all the variables (enrollment changes, the pandemic, etc.), the academic successes of CCPA, Frick, Lockwood and Elmhurst compared to 6-7 years ago are undeniable.
Finally, yes, enrollments are going down across the board at both charter and district. (Though this year, the decline in OUSD was masked by an increase in TK due to the eligibility window expanding, so total enrollment in OUSD had a small increase.) In 2012, some of the schools that were closed converted to charters, which was a huge blow to the district. However, that was a much charter-friendlier time. None of the sites that had mergers or closures in 2018-2020 turned into charters. Over the last 18 months, 4 charter schools closed (NOCCS, Urban Montessori, OCHS and Aurum), and for the first time, many of those students chose to come back into OUSD.
Thank you for this detailed explanation. We had a child in an OUSD school in 2021-2023. Our concern with the early closure plan was that it was abrupt and forced kids under 13 out of their schools just as they were returning to friends and teachers from a year of pandemic remote schooling. Many of the best teachers left the system because their jobs were threatened. It was chaotic and tone deaf for the kids and families. A multi year staged plan with details on where kids and teachers would land post-closing, transportation details, and an explanation of the cost savings justifying the closure would have gone a long way to building public confidence and support for the plan.
Appreciate the transparency on changing positions based on data. The micro-school inefficiency argument makes sense when you look at per-pupil infrastructure costs, but the transition timing issue you mentioned about Johnson-Trammell's departure was clearly a missed window. Now the political capital needed is even harder to muster, which might force state interventon rather than local ownership of the solution.
I am an OUSD parent with two teens in the system, at Claremont and Oakland Tech.
I am not opposed to closing schools, but I've noticed that the plan to close schools is always presented as an immediate and urgent need.
I'm wondering why OUSD can't come up with a multi-year, staged plan (like, 3-5 years, rather than 1-1.5 years) for closures and consolidations that would actually lay out these savings in a way that shows thought, not panic. Can you tell me why these are never pursued?
Also, can we look back on what we've learned from prior recent closures? What savings were recognized from the painful closure of Kaiser and consolidation with Sankofa? If the answer is that it was nominal or nonexistent, perhaps that should come into account.
Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean regarding charters. It seems to me as if charters have historically taken enrollment from OUSD, and have also taken over sites that were deemed budget-encroaching from OUSD. Are you saying that this has now stabilized and that enrollments across the board are going down in Oakland?
These are excellent questions. As much as Director Mike Hutchinson and I have had strong disagreements over the years, your idea of a multi-year staged plan, that frames the need as being based on long-term demographic change (due to lower birth rates and the impact of gentrification and displacement) rather than immediate fiscal crisis, was exactly what he was proposing in his "3Rs" resolution of 2024. That was also the direction that former Supt. Kyla Johnson-Trammell was proposing to Board members in 1-1 conversations that same year.
As far as Kaiser-Sankofa (and Roots/CCPA, Elmhurst United, SOL/Frick merger, Lockwood Steam Academy), it has been hard to name the exact savings because there are so many variables at play. Specifically for Kaiser/Sankofa, there was so much digging in by folks who were opposed to the merger that it created a lot of negative feelings that made it less successful than it otherwise could have been. However, CCPA, Frick, Lockwood, and Elmhurst are currently much stronger school communities than they were pre-merger. I agree with you that OUSD has not focused on the success of those mergers sufficiently, but absolutely should. While it's hard to factor out the savings given all the variables (enrollment changes, the pandemic, etc.), the academic successes of CCPA, Frick, Lockwood and Elmhurst compared to 6-7 years ago are undeniable.
Finally, yes, enrollments are going down across the board at both charter and district. (Though this year, the decline in OUSD was masked by an increase in TK due to the eligibility window expanding, so total enrollment in OUSD had a small increase.) In 2012, some of the schools that were closed converted to charters, which was a huge blow to the district. However, that was a much charter-friendlier time. None of the sites that had mergers or closures in 2018-2020 turned into charters. Over the last 18 months, 4 charter schools closed (NOCCS, Urban Montessori, OCHS and Aurum), and for the first time, many of those students chose to come back into OUSD.
Thanks so much for the clear and thorough reply, Sam!
Thank you for this detailed explanation. We had a child in an OUSD school in 2021-2023. Our concern with the early closure plan was that it was abrupt and forced kids under 13 out of their schools just as they were returning to friends and teachers from a year of pandemic remote schooling. Many of the best teachers left the system because their jobs were threatened. It was chaotic and tone deaf for the kids and families. A multi year staged plan with details on where kids and teachers would land post-closing, transportation details, and an explanation of the cost savings justifying the closure would have gone a long way to building public confidence and support for the plan.
Appreciate the transparency on changing positions based on data. The micro-school inefficiency argument makes sense when you look at per-pupil infrastructure costs, but the transition timing issue you mentioned about Johnson-Trammell's departure was clearly a missed window. Now the political capital needed is even harder to muster, which might force state interventon rather than local ownership of the solution.