The Oakland Unified school board told staff not to close any district-run schools, despite its own facility plan showing that its schools are only around 60% full.
The voters keep voting the same way. It’s not like the candidates or unions are hiding anything—both trumpet their mutual affiliation, and, pretty much throughout California, that relationship reliably delivers votes.
Yes, charter schools in Oakland (and most everywhere else) are not unionized. Regular Oakland school teachers are all union members. Like all other elected officials in Oakland and throughout most of California, the OUSD board first takes care of its public sector unions.
This article is horribly misleading - and honestly, articles like this are so unhelpful to charter schools.
5 of the 6 actually "self closed" - where the decision was made by the charter operator.
This article makes it sound like OUSD closed them, but that is incorrect. "5 of these closures were approved by OUSD " is really poor journalism and unhelpful for charters in the Oakland context. And this is coming from someone who leads a charter network in East Oakland.
Hi Rich -- Thank you for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. It is good to hear from someone with experience working with charter schools.
This article, like others we publish, is focused on presenting the data so readers can decide for themselves what to think about them. Whether the data is helpful to specific interests or not, also is for the reader to decide.
If you have found something in the article or underlying data that is incorrect, please let us know, and we will be happy to correct it. We can find no factual errors in the article, but we're open to feedback -- we're not perfect.
On your specific points:
The author makes clear that the closures were not discretionary: "... for the weakest schools, refusing charter renewal is what the law expects. So the governing agencies (OUSD and ACOE) were following the [charter school] law."
They also raise the point you made about performance-based closures: "All six of the Oakland schools were closed... mostly over test scores. For example, on the 2025 state tests, only around seven percent of students at Aspire Golden State College Prep met the math standard."
In the conclusion, the author makes clear that, "Neither the data nor this analysis pass judgment on the value of charter schools versus district-run schools. Each type of school — public, charter, private, homeschool — has its benefits and drawbacks for parents to consider."
The author, like you, has had extensive dealings with OUSD, and their article is grounded in primary source evidence provided by the school district and CDE -- all of which is provided in the footnotes for readers to check for themselves.
We would welcome a counterpoint article from authors who have local experience on this subject, such as yourself. If you're interested, please do let us know by DM or email to letters@citizensoakland.org.
Thank you again for writing in; the discussion is very much appreciated.
I think this is pretty suspect reporting, and cannot waste my time on some counterpoint to "Charlene Price's" article - plus, I dont know who this is and find that a pretty bizarre pseudonym (is this in reference to CM Wang and our former DA?). Also, I was deeply disappointed a few weeks ago with the reporting on Councilmember Ramachandran on this channel.
When a charter school chooses to close, they are mostly likely doing so for a combination of academic, financial, enrollment, or governance issues. That said, all 6 charters here were "middle track" schools eligible for a five year renewal per AB 1505. And, when a charter closes, there are specific steps with its remaining assets and legal obligations that have to be approved by the authorizer - in this case ACOE or OUSD. That is what happened to 5 of the 6.
Putting a picture of Board President and suggesting OUSD closed these schools is disingenuous, misleading, and unhelpful to charters. If this author cares about schools, she should edit and clarify how the majority of these schools chose to close, and that their autorizers followed the legal expectation that is required to sunset a publicly funded charter school.
Hi Rich -- Thank you for your additional comment. The photo of board president Brouhard is there to illustrate the article's main contrast: while charter schools have closed, the district has pointedly taken closures of the schools it runs off the table, at the direction of the board. That direction was confirmed unequivocally by board president Brouhard, who is quoted in the opening paragraphs of the article. On your other objections, we did answer them in our previous reply -- and our offer to publish a counterpoint from you still stands. Thank you again, your perspective is appreciated.
The section titled “ OUSD’s enrollment decline was concentrated in district-run schools – not charters” may be factually true, but it is very misleading. The recent trend is that charter enrollment is declining very rapidly while OUSD’s is declining slowly or has flatlined.
Since 2018, charter lost 3337 students or nearly a 20% loss in total enrollment. During that same time, OUSD lost 2633 or about 7.5%.
When you look at all of the charters that were closed, you will see not only academic and governance concerns, but all 6 were experiencing enrollment decline.
The title of that section got the headline wrong. It should be opposite given recent trends.
Hello -- Thank you for your comment, and for the good work you are doing with your "Understanding OUSD's Budget" page.
As noted in our reply to another comment in this thread, we would appreciate hearing about any factual errors in the article, and we would welcome counterpoint articles from others who have experience on this topic, such as yourself.
On your specific point about enrollment trends, the article examined long-term trends over the past 27 years, and it did note that charter school enrollment has fallen in recent years: "Charter enrollment grew significantly over the same time span [2000-01 to 2025-26], from about 1 percent of Oakland’s public school students to 22 percent — though it has fallen in more recent years."
Regarding the reasons for the charter school closures, the author cited the state law that essentially requires closures in cases of low academic performance, and they provided an example to illustrate: "For example, on the 2025 state tests, only around seven percent of students at Aspire Golden State College Prep met the math standard."
The data and their sources are presented in the article so the reader can check them and decide for themselves what to think about them. Your feedback is helpful and appreciated, and we'd be open to publishing a more fulsome counterpoint from you, if you are interested.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is very much appreciated.
I've been watching from a distance as the school district I grew up in continues to shoot itself in the foot, as year upon year administrators (with voter support) refuse to make the hard but obviously necessary decision to close schools. It is painful to close schools and lay off the staff tied to that facility. However, closing schools would allow the district to both save money and concentrate resources--really meaning staff, such as SLPs, counselors, therapists--who directly support children and help them progress and succeed.
The middling district my son attends underwent difficult closures and that cost some family support. However, the upsides were immediate: the balanced budget brought program stability, allowing the district to support staff development and not just react from crisis to crisis; middle school sports returned; there's more support for the arts; there are more paraprofessionals in the classroom; these and other benefits have more than offset the sacrifice. I don't know why Oakland keeps doing this to itself, but it saddens me to see such wasted potential.
Is it fair to say Charter Schools are Non Union. So they did not touch any Union Teachers ?
Once again Unions run Oakland. Taxpayers, not so much.
The voters keep voting the same way. It’s not like the candidates or unions are hiding anything—both trumpet their mutual affiliation, and, pretty much throughout California, that relationship reliably delivers votes.
Yes, charter schools in Oakland (and most everywhere else) are not unionized. Regular Oakland school teachers are all union members. Like all other elected officials in Oakland and throughout most of California, the OUSD board first takes care of its public sector unions.
This article is horribly misleading - and honestly, articles like this are so unhelpful to charter schools.
5 of the 6 actually "self closed" - where the decision was made by the charter operator.
This article makes it sound like OUSD closed them, but that is incorrect. "5 of these closures were approved by OUSD " is really poor journalism and unhelpful for charters in the Oakland context. And this is coming from someone who leads a charter network in East Oakland.
Please make the appropriate edits.
Hi Rich -- Thank you for your comment, and for reading Oakland Report. It is good to hear from someone with experience working with charter schools.
This article, like others we publish, is focused on presenting the data so readers can decide for themselves what to think about them. Whether the data is helpful to specific interests or not, also is for the reader to decide.
If you have found something in the article or underlying data that is incorrect, please let us know, and we will be happy to correct it. We can find no factual errors in the article, but we're open to feedback -- we're not perfect.
On your specific points:
The author makes clear that the closures were not discretionary: "... for the weakest schools, refusing charter renewal is what the law expects. So the governing agencies (OUSD and ACOE) were following the [charter school] law."
They also raise the point you made about performance-based closures: "All six of the Oakland schools were closed... mostly over test scores. For example, on the 2025 state tests, only around seven percent of students at Aspire Golden State College Prep met the math standard."
In the conclusion, the author makes clear that, "Neither the data nor this analysis pass judgment on the value of charter schools versus district-run schools. Each type of school — public, charter, private, homeschool — has its benefits and drawbacks for parents to consider."
The author, like you, has had extensive dealings with OUSD, and their article is grounded in primary source evidence provided by the school district and CDE -- all of which is provided in the footnotes for readers to check for themselves.
We would welcome a counterpoint article from authors who have local experience on this subject, such as yourself. If you're interested, please do let us know by DM or email to letters@citizensoakland.org.
Thank you again for writing in; the discussion is very much appreciated.
Sean,
I think this is pretty suspect reporting, and cannot waste my time on some counterpoint to "Charlene Price's" article - plus, I dont know who this is and find that a pretty bizarre pseudonym (is this in reference to CM Wang and our former DA?). Also, I was deeply disappointed a few weeks ago with the reporting on Councilmember Ramachandran on this channel.
When a charter school chooses to close, they are mostly likely doing so for a combination of academic, financial, enrollment, or governance issues. That said, all 6 charters here were "middle track" schools eligible for a five year renewal per AB 1505. And, when a charter closes, there are specific steps with its remaining assets and legal obligations that have to be approved by the authorizer - in this case ACOE or OUSD. That is what happened to 5 of the 6.
Putting a picture of Board President and suggesting OUSD closed these schools is disingenuous, misleading, and unhelpful to charters. If this author cares about schools, she should edit and clarify how the majority of these schools chose to close, and that their autorizers followed the legal expectation that is required to sunset a publicly funded charter school.
Hi Rich -- Thank you for your additional comment. The photo of board president Brouhard is there to illustrate the article's main contrast: while charter schools have closed, the district has pointedly taken closures of the schools it runs off the table, at the direction of the board. That direction was confirmed unequivocally by board president Brouhard, who is quoted in the opening paragraphs of the article. On your other objections, we did answer them in our previous reply -- and our offer to publish a counterpoint from you still stands. Thank you again, your perspective is appreciated.
The section titled “ OUSD’s enrollment decline was concentrated in district-run schools – not charters” may be factually true, but it is very misleading. The recent trend is that charter enrollment is declining very rapidly while OUSD’s is declining slowly or has flatlined.
Since 2018, charter lost 3337 students or nearly a 20% loss in total enrollment. During that same time, OUSD lost 2633 or about 7.5%.
When you look at all of the charters that were closed, you will see not only academic and governance concerns, but all 6 were experiencing enrollment decline.
The title of that section got the headline wrong. It should be opposite given recent trends.
Hello -- Thank you for your comment, and for the good work you are doing with your "Understanding OUSD's Budget" page.
As noted in our reply to another comment in this thread, we would appreciate hearing about any factual errors in the article, and we would welcome counterpoint articles from others who have experience on this topic, such as yourself.
On your specific point about enrollment trends, the article examined long-term trends over the past 27 years, and it did note that charter school enrollment has fallen in recent years: "Charter enrollment grew significantly over the same time span [2000-01 to 2025-26], from about 1 percent of Oakland’s public school students to 22 percent — though it has fallen in more recent years."
Regarding the reasons for the charter school closures, the author cited the state law that essentially requires closures in cases of low academic performance, and they provided an example to illustrate: "For example, on the 2025 state tests, only around seven percent of students at Aspire Golden State College Prep met the math standard."
The data and their sources are presented in the article so the reader can check them and decide for themselves what to think about them. Your feedback is helpful and appreciated, and we'd be open to publishing a more fulsome counterpoint from you, if you are interested.
Thank you again for your comment; the discussion is very much appreciated.
Good.
I've been watching from a distance as the school district I grew up in continues to shoot itself in the foot, as year upon year administrators (with voter support) refuse to make the hard but obviously necessary decision to close schools. It is painful to close schools and lay off the staff tied to that facility. However, closing schools would allow the district to both save money and concentrate resources--really meaning staff, such as SLPs, counselors, therapists--who directly support children and help them progress and succeed.
The middling district my son attends underwent difficult closures and that cost some family support. However, the upsides were immediate: the balanced budget brought program stability, allowing the district to support staff development and not just react from crisis to crisis; middle school sports returned; there's more support for the arts; there are more paraprofessionals in the classroom; these and other benefits have more than offset the sacrifice. I don't know why Oakland keeps doing this to itself, but it saddens me to see such wasted potential.