City Government

AIMS Charter Appeals to State for Survival

Published

13 years ago

June 29, 2013

By Tasion Kwamilele

AIMS Director Nabreehah Shakir (right) and parents gather at press conference on Wednesday morning following the County’s Board of Education vote to uphold the revocation of their accreditation.

Leaders of American Indian Model Schools (AIMS) – which houses 1,200 elementary, middle, and high school students – have announced they will take their appeal to the state after the Alameda County Board of Education Tuesday night upheld the Oakland school district’s decision to close down their school.
The county board’s 5-1 vote was based on financial allegations against the charter school, which outweighed the arguments that emphasized the academic success and national honors the school has acquired over recent years.
Speaking at a press conference Wednesday morning in downtown Oakland, AIMS Director Nabeehah Shakir said she was frustrated about the decision.
While there was a “possible reason for (the complaints) in the beginning,” she said, they have now all been responded to or refuted.
“We’ve done everything they’ve asked us to do. They asked to change our policies [and] we did that; to change our board, we did that,” Shakir said. “Alameda County found that most of the allegations were not substantial. So what went wrong? ”
“Politics,” she said.
Traditional public schools are losing the battle for students and funding and are therefore opposed to charter schools, she said.

AIMS is appealing to the state, but it can take until March of next year before a decision is made.

“What parent will put their child in a school that will close in March?” Shakir asked, noting that half of the school’s parents had already enrolled their children in other schools for the upcoming school year.
School supporter Carl Chan backs AIMS even though he does not have children attending the school. He points to the school’s academic success – being listed as the #1 high school in the nation according to the Washington Post.
He also says OUSD mishandled the procedure from the beginning, prematurely telling parents to look for other schools for their children, even before the official hearing.
“This is more about politics than anything else,” Chan said.
While waiting for the appeal, AIMS supporters are hoping Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo – who issued a restraining order allowing the school to stay open until July 8 – will grant a preliminary injunction to keep the school open until the end of the 2014 school year.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

BART, AC-Transit, Oakland City Workers Prepare to Strike

Don't Miss

West Contra Costa YMCA Celebrates 95th Anniversary

Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 31, 2025 – January 6, 2026

Published

2 weeks ago

January 2, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of December 24 – 30, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of – December 24 – 30, 2025

Published

4 weeks ago

December 25, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Oakland Council Expands Citywide Security Cameras Despite Major Opposition

In a 7-1 vote in favor of the contract, with only District 3 Councilmember Carroll Fife voting no, the Council agreed to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom cameras.”

Published

4 weeks ago

December 21, 2025

Oakland Post

At the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, Flock Safety introduces new public safety technology – Amplified Intelligence, a suite of AI-powered tools designed to improve law enforcement investigations. Courtesy photo.

By Post Staff

The Oakland City Council this week approved a $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety for a mass surveillance network of hundreds of security cameras to track vehicles in the city.

In recent weeks hundreds of local residents have spoken against the camera system, raising concerns that data will be shared with immigration authorities and other federal agencies at a time when mass surveillance is growing across the country with little regard for individual rights.

The Flock network, supported by the Oakland Police Department, has the backing of residents and councilmembers who see it as an important tool to protect public safety.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to City Council.

According to OPD, police made 232 arrests using data from Flock cameras between July 2024 and November of this year.

Based on the data, police say they recovered 68 guns, and utilizing the countywide system, they have found 1,100 stolen vehicles.

However, Flock’s cameras cast a wide net. The company’s cameras in Oakland last month captured license plate numbers and other information from about 1.4 million vehicles.

Speaking at Tuesday’s Council meeting, Fife was critical of her colleagues for signing a contract with a company that has been in the national spotlight for sharing data with federal agencies.

Flock’s cameras – which are automated license plate readers – have been used in tracking people who have had abortions, monitoring protesters, and aiding in deportation roundups.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with (the U.S.) Border Control,” she said. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Several councilmembers who voted in favor of the contract said they supported the deal as long as some safeguards were written into the Council’s resolution.

“We’re not aiming for perfection,” said District 1 Councilmember Zac Unger. “This is not Orwellian facial recognition technology — that’s prohibited in Oakland. The road forward here is to add as many amendments as we can.”

Amendments passed by the Council prohibit OPD from sharing camera data with any other agencies for the purpose of “criminalizing reproductive or gender affirming healthcare” or for federal immigration enforcement. California state law also prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data with the federal government, and because Oakland’s sanctuary city status, OPD is not allowed to cooperate with immigration authorities.

A former member of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission has sued OPD, alleging that it has violated its own rules around data sharing.

So far, OPD has shared Flock data with 50 other law enforcement agencies.