Connect with us

Education

Are Democratic Legislators Working for or Against Oakland Schools?

Published

on

Teachers and parents protest budget cuts at school board meeting earlier this school year. Photo by Ken Epstein.

Oakland and several other school districts were hoping this month that legislators would be willing to adopt provisions in the new state budget that would give their districts the financial relief they need to stabilize their finances.

 

But unfortunately, the Democratic administration was not interested in putting out a helping hand to these cash-strapped districts, which are made up primarily of students of color.

 

The four districts—Oakland, Inglewood, Vallejo and South Monterey County—were all taken over by the state in the past 15 years and are still struggling to regain stability while repaying loans that were imposed on them by the state.

 

Oakland was forced to take a $100 million loan in 2003 even though its deficit at the time was only about $37 million. The district is scheduled to continue paying about $6 million a year until 2024.

 

Although the OUSD superintendent and school board now run the district, a state-appointed trustee still has veto power over all of the district’s financial decisions.

 

Inglewood, which went into state receivership in 2012, is paying $1.8 million a year on a $29 million state loan debt and remains under the control of a state-appointed administrator.
Legislators recently rejected a recommendation proposed by Assemblymember Rob Bonta, which would have given the districts a five-year deferment on those loans.

 

The money might have averted a teachers’ strike in Inglewood Unified, where the district and union reached a tentative agreement, contingent on the district being able to receive $4 million in “state relief” for at least two years.

 

Oakland Unified, which also faces a possible teachers’ strike, wanted to be included in whatever deal was offered to Inglewood.

 

“To continue to offer high quality education to the young people of Oakland, we believe that our leadership needs this temporary budget relief so that they can make strategic choices to preserve the financial integrity of our district,” said Oakland Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell.

 

“The alternative could lead to draconian cuts that would hurt all students in our city.”
Oakland made $9.3 million in cuts this year and must cut another $10 million next year, according to district reports.

 

Assemblymember Bonta, (D-Oakland), worked with legislators from all four districts to provide the same relief to all of them, while recognizing that his proposal was a long shot, especially for Oakland.

 

He is now looking for other ways to obtain financial support for Oakland, according to his office.

 

“The state is not sympathetic to Oakland’s situation,” Bonta told EdSource. “I think there’s definitely push back from the administration on this, otherwise it would have been granted by now.”

 

Bonta said the governor’s administration does not look favorably at Oakland, in part because Oakland’s fiscal management has been criticized by the Fiscal Crisis Management & Assistance Team (FCMAT).

 

In an interview with EdSource, Michael Fine, CEO of FCMAT, said a just-completed analysis of district finances to be posted online soon shows that Oakland can meet its financial obligations at this time without state assistance.

 

“It’s in distress,” he said, “but Oakland doesn’t need this relief right now.”

 

According to FCMAT, which helped the state run the school district during the period of state receivership between 2003 and 2009, the district’s current financial woes are unrelated to the state takeover.

 

However, reports from the time show that under state receivership, with the involvement of FCMAT staff, the state spent Oakland’s $100 million state loan without consulting the community and ran the district’s finances without conducting any outside audits.

 

When receivership ended and FCMAT left, the district still had a deficit. Gov. Jerry Brown, who was mayor of Oakland at the time of the state takeover of the schools, was deeply involved in engineering the takeover, along with political allies. While mayor, he focused his efforts to support education by creating and fundraising for two Oakland charter schools.

Published by Post staff with material from EdSource/Theresa Harrington.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Activism

Gov. Newsom and Superintendent Thurmond Announce $618 Million for 458 Community Schools Statewide

The initiative aims to break down barriers to learning by providing essential services such as healthcare, mental health support, and family engagement alongside quality education. This round of funding marks the final phase of the CCSPP grants, which have already provided support for nearly 2,500 community schools statewide.

Published

on

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. File photo.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

California Governor Gavin Newsom and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond announced today the approval of over $618 million in funding to support 458 community schools. The funds were unanimously approved during the May meeting of the State Board of Education and are part of the state’s $4.1 billion California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP), the largest of its kind in the nation.

The initiative aims to break down barriers to learning by providing essential services such as healthcare, mental health support, and family engagement alongside quality education. This round of funding marks the final phase of the CCSPP grants, which have already provided support for nearly 2,500 community schools statewide.

Governor Newsom emphasized the importance of these schools in providing comprehensive resources for families, stating, “California continues to find and support innovative ways to make schools a place where every family and student can succeed.”

Superintendent Thurmond highlighted the positive impact of these community schools, noting, “Our Community Schools continue to serve as exemplars of programs that activate resources across the whole school community to educate the whole child.”

The initiative is part of California’s broader effort to transform public schools, including expanding access to free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, and comprehensive teacher support. The funds awarded on May 7 will help schools address foundational needs such as early childhood education, mental health services, and family engagement.

The CCSPP was established in 2021 and expanded in 2022. With today’s allocation, the program has provided funding to a total of 2,500 schools, benefiting some of the most underserved communities in the state. The initiative continues to prioritize the health and well-being of students, which research has shown is key to academic success.

To get more information about the California Community Schools Partnership Program, visit the CDE’s community schools’ webpage: www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/ccspp.asp.

Continue Reading

Activism

Childhood Literacy Bill Supported by NAACP and CTA Moves Closer to Becoming California Law

“This legislation is essential, important progress, and it reflects agreement and robust consensus on ways to provide educators the evidence-based tools they need to support California’s diverse students,” Rivas said in an April 30 statement. “We must make sure every child, no matter their background, has the opportunity to become a confident and thriving reader.”

Published

on

California Teachers Association Legislative Advocate Patricia Rucker, EdVoice CEO Marshall Tuck, Asm. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) and Asm. Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) listen to public comments at an Assembly Education Committee hearing for AB 1454 on May 1. CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey.
California Teachers Association Legislative Advocate Patricia Rucker, EdVoice CEO Marshall Tuck, Asm. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) and Asm. Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) listen to public comments at an Assembly Education Committee hearing for AB 1454 on May 1. CBM photo by Antonio Ray Harvey.

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌, ‌California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

The Assembly Committee on Education passed previously stalled legislation after an agreement was struck to strengthen early childhood literacy efforts in the state by equipping educators with the necessary tools and training.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1454, authored by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), and Assemblymember Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), unanimously passed out of committee with a 9-0 vote.

The evidence-based reading instruction bill, supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) California-Hawaii State Conference, now moves on to the Committee on Appropriations for review.

“This legislation is essential, important progress, and it reflects agreement and robust consensus on ways to provide educators the evidence-based tools they need to support California’s diverse students,” Rivas said in an April 30 statement. “We must make sure every child, no matter their background, has the opportunity to become a confident and thriving reader.”

AB 1454 would require the California Department of Education to identify effective professional development programs for educators primarily focused on teaching reading in transitional kindergarten through fifth grade.

It also requires the State Board of Education to adopt updated English language arts and English language development instructional materials. Additionally, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing would be required to update school administrator standards to include training on how to support effective literacy instruction.

The legislation was authored and introduced by Rubio as AB 2222 last year. She said was designed to implement evidence-based methods, also known as “the science of reading,” a scientifically-based research approach that advises how pupils are taught to read.

The bill stalled in April 2024 when the California Teachers Association (CTA) and other education stakeholders opposed the bill, questioning a mandate that would have required all school districts to standardize instruction and required training.

Rubio reintroduced the bill as AB 1121, but it too failed to advance, prompting Rivas to create AB 1454. After multiple rounds of negotiations, an agreement was made that reading instruction training would be discretionary.

Patricia Rucker, a legislative advocate for the CTA and former State School Board of Education member, said the agreement reached required each party involved to make concessions about implementation.

“Reasonable people can disagree on reasonable things, but we also can show the world how you can disagree and come together,” Rucker said during the hearing held at the State Capitol Swing Space. “We’re committed to continuing the work on this bill to keep the bill moving forward.”

Rubio said she was close to surrendering the fight for the bill, stating that the process “by far, has been the hardest thing that I have ever done in nine years as a legislator.”

“Sometimes I was ready to walk away,” she said, “but for the coalition (of supporters), parents, family members, and of course, our Speaker, for finally sitting us down and saying, ‘Get it done. Get it done.’”

Marshall Tuck, the CEO of EdVoice, told California Black Media that one-third of states have integrated evidence-based reading instruction into their early literacy policies and have done so with measurable success.

“Reading is a civil rights issue, and it demands urgent action,” Tuck said. “There are a lot of challenges that go into reading, but this is a big step forward.”

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.