Education
Mayor Created Oakland Promise by Approving Resolution While City Council Was on Summer Break

Local residents who follow city government might well wonder why Oakland City Council members allowed Mayor Libby Schaaf to set up her signature multi-million dollar college scholarship program, Oakland Promise, placing complete control of the program in the hands of the mayor with a minimum of oversight or transparency.
The short answer: they didn’t.
Oakland Promise was created and approved by Mayor Schaaf on the Mayor’s Summer Recess Agenda on Aug. 25, 2015. In other words, while the council was on its annual summer recess, the Mayor’s Office single handedly approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the East Bay College Fund (EBCF), which went into effect in September 2015, bypassing public input and council approval.
In a legal opinion requested by Council President Rebecca Kaplan, City Attorney Barbara Parker wrote a memorandum last week, saying that the City Council Rules of Procedure 21 “prohibits the mayor from approving ordinances during the council’s annual recess.”
In response to Parker’s opinion, City Council President Kaplan wrote in an email, “There was no funding or urgent need to bring (the MOU) as a recess action. So, it was hidden from the public without a valid reason for doing so. The 2015 recess action clearly contains legislative action, which is prohibited.”
The 2015 MOU authorizes the Mayor’s Office to appoint one voting member of the EBCF Board of Directors and members of the Oakland Promise Advisory Committee. In addition, “The Mayor’s office will provide communication support, marketing collateral, engagement opportunities and support for promotion and collaborate on annual fundraising events for Oakland Promise,” according to the MOU.
The City of Oakland from 2016-2018 gave $1.15 million to Oakland Promise’s Kindergarten to College Program. In addition, Oakland Promise received 11th floor City Hall office space, as well as “desktop computers, phone and internet service for approximately five Oakland Promise staff,” according to an administrative report to the city/school district Education Partnership Committee.
Until recently David Silver, Special Assistant to the Mayor III, served as the head of Oakland Promise. While receiving no salary from Oakland Promise, Silver’s city salary in 2018 was $261,961.45, salary plus benefits.
In her cover memo to the August 2015 M.O.U., Mayor Schaaf wrote that the MOU “has no cost implications to the City of Oakland,” though that does not appear to be the case.
Council President Kaplan, following up on the issue after it was raised by community activist Gene Hazzard, requested an opinion from City Attorney Parker about the legality of the mayor’s decision to approve the MOU without going to the City Council.
The City Attorney on Sept. 11 wrote that Rule 21 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure that the mayor may make decisions “during the annual recess except for those matters specifically set forth herein.”
Restrictions on the mayor’s authority to bypass the City Council:
• “Rule 21 prohibits the mayor from approving ordinances during the council’s annual recess.”
• The mayor must “set for reasons in the agenda reports and resolutions why approval cannot be deferred for council approval after the recess.”
• The Mayor cannot “appropriate funds without prior council authorization and approval.”
• The Council “is required to approve by ordinance any lease with rent at below fair market value. “
“The (City Attorney’s) legal memo says that anything that requires legislative action — like renting space in city hall for free or changing how board members get appointed by moving the power out of the hands of the council and into the hands of the mayor — cannot be done by recess action,” Kaplan wrote in an email on Wednesday.
In July, the Oakland Promise appears to have merged with the EBCF. The governing board of the EBCF voted to convert their nonprofit to Oakland Promise, filing with the Secretary of State, according to newly hired Oakland Promise CEO Mialisa Bonta, president of the Alameda Unified School Board and wife of Assemblyman Rob Bonta.
“Functionally, that means that Oakland Promise has the EIN (nonprofit tax IRS tax identification number) of the East Bay College Fund,” she said.
Oakland Post Questions to Mayor Schaaf’s office were unanswered by press time.
In reply to an Oakland Post email, the City Attorney’s office said that Parker’s legal memo was written about the rules governing mayoral recess decisions in the current year, not about what Mayor Schaaf did in 2015.
“The City Attorney’s memo was written in response to a Councilmember’s request to explain the current rules of procedure regarding the mayor’s recess authority. It does not address or make a determination regarding whether any particular action was, or was not, in compliance with the rules. We will review the 2015 action and the rules that were in place at the time,” said Alex Katz, Barbra Parker’s representative.
For Gene Hazzard’s website, including his blog, go to www.cleanoakland.com
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.”

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.”
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
MLK Bust Quietly Removed from Oval Office Under Trump
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of April 30 – May 6, 2025
-
Activism3 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 7 – 13, 2025
-
#NNPA BlackPress3 weeks ago
Trump Abruptly Fires First Carla Hayden: The First Black Woman to Serve as Librarian of Congress
-
Activism2 weeks ago
New Oakland Moving Forward
-
Activism2 weeks ago
After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control
-
Activism2 weeks ago
Oakland Post: Week of May 14 – 20, 2025
-
Alameda County2 weeks ago
Oakland Begins Month-Long Closure on Largest Homeless Encampment