News

School District Avoids State Takeover with Two-Year $32 Million Budget Cuts

Published

7 years ago

October 7, 2017

State control of the Oakland Unified School District has changed its form over the years since the takeover in 2003 but remains a constant presence in determining policy in the public school system.

When the state fired Oakland Schools Supt. Dennis Chaconas and suspended the Board of Education in June 2003, some of the outlines of state control soon became clear: school closures; attempts to sell school property to real estate developers; the rapid growth of charter schools; and the lease of school sites to charter schools.

Always on the defensive, community groups have thwarted some of the school closures and several times prevented the sale of the district headquarters’ property to developers.
Aligned against the district in its fight for local control were East Bay Senator Don Perata, president of pro tem of the State Senate, known for his connections to powerful developers; State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, with ties to billionaire charter school advocate Eli Broad; former governor and then Mayor Jerry Brown, a close Perata ally; Sheila Jordan, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools; and the Fiscal Crisis and Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT), an organization based in Bakersfield that is funded by the state to intervene in school districts but is lacking in state oversight.

FCMAT was led by Tom Henry and Joel Montero. Randolph Ward, a graduate of Eli Broad’s superintendent training program, became the district’s first state administrator.
While the state administrator ultimately was removed in 2009, a state trustee with power to rescind the district’s financial decisions remains in place.

The takeover was presented as a necessity designed to save the district from bankruptcy, but the reality remains very controversial and raises questions about the role of powerful political and economic interests.

Apparently forgotten was a previous unsuccessful takeover attempt promoted by Senator Perata even before the district uncovered an economic shortfall.
When the district became aware that it had overspent its budget in 2003, the OUSD administration developed a plan to maintain local control, which included borrowing money from funds paid to the district to partially reimburse OUSD for school construction projects.

The district’s plan was to repay the money over time into its construction fund.
“The use of the (reimbursement) money in this way was approved by OUSD’s bond attorneys, who happened to be the bond attorneys for the State of California, and expert in their field,” according to Jesse Douglas Allen-Taylor, writing at the time for the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Rather than approve borrowing and repayment plan, then County Supt. of Schools Jordan asked for an opinion from State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who declared the plan illegal and blocked OUSD from using the money to balance the budget.
“In a mass community meeting later held at Allen Temple Baptist Church, Ms. Jordan defended her actions by saying that she could not allow the bond transfer because it was illegal,” according to Allen-Taylor.

When Jordan ran for reelection, she was criticized by her opponent Newark Superintendent of Schools John Bernard for her role in the takeover.

“Other county superintendents allow districts to use (construction reimbursement) money as a loan when the district is going into the red,” Bernard told the press. “The incumbent, Sheila Jordan, did not allow Oakland to use the (construction) bond money, they went into default, and the state took over,” he said.

Once the state had blocked the use of the bond reimbursement money, the debt rolled over into the next school year, becoming over $60 million, and the state rounded its bailout loan up to $100 million for good measure.
Thus, the district was forced to borrow $100 million rather than the $37 million it needed.
Of course, the bailout came in after the state took over, and therefore the state-appointed administrator – in consultation with his bosses- was in charge of how the money was spent.

Many people said that “Mr. Perata was the driving force behind the 2003 state seizure of the Oakland public schools,” wrote Allen-Taylor.

The political maneuvers behind the state takeover were suggested in an Oakland Tribune article written by then Tribune staff writer Robert Gammon, now editor of the East Bay Express.

“(Some) say office and cell phone records obtained by the Oakland Tribune provide evidence the takeover, and the resulting loss of local control of Oakland’s schools, was politically orchestrated,” Gammon wrote.

“The records show top officials from the Bakersfield-based Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) called Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, the office of state Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, and then-Compton schools chief Randy Ward at least 40 times each in the months before the takeover,” according to Gammon.

Brown and Perata had publically supported a takeover during the preceding year. They voiced support for “placing Ward and FCMAT in charge of the school district,” wrote Gammon.

In the six months prior to the takeover, the records show FCMAT officials did not call Supt. Chaconas or school board President Greg Hodge, according to the Tribune.

“FCMAT (pronounced fick-mat) was supposed to be our fiscal advisers,” Hodge told the Tribune. He and Chaconas said FCMAT officials did not return their calls for months.

“They were supposed to be helping us. But instead they turned this into a political campaign to take over the district,” said Hodge.

Sheila Jordan in an interview with the Post disputed those who said the takeover was political.

The district wanted to borrow from its school construction funds to pay off the shortfall, she said. “Many districts do that understanding that because those funds were passed by the voters to update and build schools, districts by law must establish their ability to repay what is a short-term loan.”

“Oakland did not have anywhere near the revenues to repay the loan. The hole in their budget was $27 million,” Jordan said.
“The investigation discovered a plug in the budget. It rolled over into the following year and resulted in close to a $65 million deficit,” she said. “I never did understand why the loan was $100 million.”

The analysis of the district’s finances was conducted by School Services of California, the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT) and Alameda County Office of Education “working together at the table,” she said.

“The Trib(une) reporting at that time was upholding a theory of action that was wholly discredited by the facts produced by the fiscal experts,” said Jordan.

Disagreeing with Jordan was Lewis Cohen, who served as an assistant superintendent in Dennis Chaconas’ administration at the time of the takeover.

“The 2003 state take-over was a largely political process. The $100-million-dollar loan was concocted by then County Superintendent Jordan’s experts and put into legislation by Senator Perata, as she seems to have conveniently forgotten,” he said.

“We lobbied against this legislation at the time, but Perata and his allies forced the loan on the school board by blocking the legal use of construction funds reimbursed by the state,” said Cohen.
“These were not bond funds and carried no legal restrictions at all, much less that the loan needed to be short-term,” Cohen added.

Direct state control of the school district was ended in 2009, due in part to the efforts of Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, wrote reporter Allen-Taylor at the time.

“Without Mr. Swanson’s dogged persistence on the Oakland school issue (for) three years, it is probable that local control would still be years away,” he wrote.

“(State Supt. of Public Instruction) O’Connell gave every indication that unless he was forced to do so under

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Congress of Neighborhoods Seeks Community Power in East Oakland Flatlands

Don't Miss

Opinion: Let’s Promise to Put the Dream of College Within Closer Reach

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Lawmakers Greenlight Reparations Study for Descendants of Enslaved Marylanders

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Maryland lawmakers have approved Senate Bill 587, authorizing the creation of the Maryland Reparations Commission.

Published

1 day ago

April 4, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Maryland lawmakers have approved Senate Bill 587, authorizing the creation of the Maryland Reparations Commission. The body will study and make recommendations for reparations to descendants of enslaved people and others harmed by centuries of discriminatory policies. The legislation now awaits the governor’s signature and is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025. The commission will examine Maryland’s long history of slavery, the economic and social systems that benefited from it, and the lingering impacts of those institutions. Its work will include recommendations on financial compensation, housing and business support, tuition waivers, and other forms of restitution. “This commission is not only about acknowledging our past – it’s about using that understanding to pave the way for a more equitable and fair future,” said Del. Jheanelle Wilkins, Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, which made reparations a top priority for the first time this legislative session.

From its founding in 1634 until the abolition of slavery in 1864, Maryland was a society built on slave labor. Tobacco, the colony’s staple crop, fueled economic growth and political dominance for the state’s elite. By the mid-18th century, nearly one-third of Maryland’s population was enslaved. Skilled and unskilled laborers like Frederick Douglass, who caulked ships in Baltimore, contributed to the state’s prosperity under brutal conditions. The legacy of that bondage continued to echo across generations. Del. Aletheia McCaskill, the lead sponsor of the House version of the bill, said the measure lays the groundwork for redress. “I am overjoyed at the passage of this monumental legislation,” McCaskill said. “This commission will gather historical evidence, examine present-day disparities, and provide a data-driven framework to acknowledge past harms. By recommending policies and developing solutions to repair the damage done, we can take meaningful steps toward true equity in our state.”

Sen. C. Anthony Muse, sponsor of the Senate version, called the passage historic. “We took a historic step towards justice and healing for our communities,” Muse remarked. “The passage of Maryland Senate Bill 587 marks a significant commitment to addressing the long-lasting effects of slavery and systemic inequities.” The commission’s membership will include lawmakers, historians, HBCU scholars, civil rights experts, representatives from the NAACP and the Maryland Black Chamber of Commerce, and members of the public. It will examine reparations programs in other states and recommend procedures for verifying eligibility and the feasibility of funding and distributing reparations. Maryland’s history makes it a powerful setting for this initiative. The state witnessed the forced transport of nearly 100,000 Africans during the 18th century. The rise of tobacco plantations led to a devastating regime marked by family separation, disease, forced labor, and systemic brutality. Enslaved individuals in Maryland built canals, smelted iron, and helped fuel the economic engine of the state while living under constant threat of sale or violence. The stories of individuals like Hillery Kane at Sotterley Plantation and Lucy Jackson at Hampton Mansion reveal not only the cruelty of slavery but also the resilience and resistance of the enslaved.

By the 19th century, Maryland became a central player in the domestic slave trade, with an estimated 20,000 people sold to cotton plantations in the Deep South between 1830 and 1860. Even after emancipation in 1864, freed Black Marylanders faced decades of disenfranchisement, segregation, and economic exclusion. “This is about more than history,” Wilkins said. “It’s about how that history has shaped the realities of today.” The commission will submit a preliminary report by January 1, 2027, and a final report by November 1, 2027. It will explore possible sources of funding, such as businesses and institutions that benefited from slavery and discriminatory government practices.

Opposition to the bill has centered mainly on its cost, but the fiscal note details only a modest increase of $54,500 in 2026 to fund contractual staff. No reparations payments are authorized under the current bill. Maryland is joining California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York in forming a reparations commission. The move comes as diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives face increasing national scrutiny and political attacks. Still, supporters of the commission insist the time for reckoning is now. “We’re not just commemorating the past,” McCaskill said. “We are charting a course toward justice, informed by our truth and grounded in our responsibility to future generations.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

Harris, Obama, and Booker Step Up as Resistance Against Trump Takes Shape

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Obama, meanwhile, broke his silence during an appearance at Hamilton College in New York, offering one of his sharpest public critiques yet of Trump’s second administration.

Published

1 day ago

April 4, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

Is the resistance finally taking form?

As Kendrick Lamar asked during his powerful Super Bowl performance, “Are we really about to do it?” That question now echoes in the political arena as former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris have entered the public fray, joining voices like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett in confronting President Donald Trump and his administration’s sweeping changes head-on. After months of relative silence following her defeat to Trump last November, Harris returned to the spotlight Thursday during a rare appearance at the Leading Women Defined conference at a seaside resort in Dana Point, California. According to The Los Angeles Times, she didn’t mention Trump by name but spoke forcefully about the anxiety many Americans are experiencing under his new administration.

“There is a sense of fear that is taking hold in our country, and I understand it,” Harris said. “These are the things that we are witnessing each day in these last few months in our country, and it understandably creates a great sense of fear. Because, you know, there were many things that we knew would happen, many things.” “I’m not here to say, ‘I told you so,’” she continued. “I swore I wasn’t going to say that.” The appearance marked a shift in tone for Harris, who has been weighing a potential run for governor of California in 2026 or waiting until 2028 for another shot at the presidency. Still, she clarified that her political silence hasn’t equated to surrender. “We can’t go out there and do battle if we don’t take care of ourselves and each other,” Harris told the crowd. “I’ll see you out there. I’m not going anywhere.”

Obama, meanwhile, broke his silence during an appearance at Hamilton College in New York, offering one of his sharpest public critiques yet of Trump’s second administration. He condemned Trump’s attempts to reshape the federal government, stifle dissent, and punish those who oppose his policies. “So, this is the first time I’ve been speaking publicly for a while,” Obama said. “I’ve been watching for a little bit.” “Imagine if I had done any of this,” Obama added. “It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent now would have tolerated behavior like that from me or a whole bunch of my predecessors.” While calling Trump’s proposed tariffs bad for America, Obama said his larger concern lies with what he described as the White House’s alarming overreach.

“I’m more deeply concerned with a federal government that threatens universities if they don’t give up students who are exercising their right to free speech,” he said. “The idea that a White House can say to law firms, if you represent parties that we don’t like, we’re going to pull all our business or bar you from representing people effectively. That kind of behavior is contrary to the basic compact we have as Americans.” Obama, who campaigned for Harris during the final stretch of the 2024 election, had warned that a second Trump term would endanger the nation’s democratic norms. “Just because [Trump] acts goofy,” Obama said at the time, “doesn’t mean his presidency wouldn’t be dangerous.” With Trump’s second term underway, the voices of resistance are growing louder.

Sen. Cory Booker added fuel to the movement by making history on the Senate floor. He delivered a 25-hour, 5-minute filibuster that broke the record previously held by segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond. Thurmond’s 1957 filibuster—lasting 24 hours and 18 minutes—was aimed at blocking the Civil Rights Act. Booker used his record-breaking speech to denounce what he called a deliberate dismantling of government at the hands of Trump, Elon Musk, and Congressional Republicans. “It always seemed wrong,” Booker said, referring to the Senate room still named after Thurmond. “It seemed wrong to me when I got here in 2013. It still seems wrong today.”

The New Jersey senator, a descendant of both enslaved people and slave owners, framed his marathon speech as a moral plea, reading letters from Americans affected by deep cuts and policy threats to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. “This is a moral moment,” Booker declared. “It’s not left or right; it’s right or wrong.” With Booker’s record-setting stand, Harris’s reemergence, and Obama’s warning shots, what once felt like fragmented frustration among Democrats may now be coalescing into something more deliberate: a resistance that is finally, visibly, on the move. “I’ll see you out there,” Harris said. “I’m not going anywhere.”