Education

Political Leaders Engineered State Control of Oakland Public Schools

Published

7 years ago

December 23, 2017

OUSD was required to borrow $100 Million when they only needed $37 Million. Assemblymember Sandre Swanson pressured state schools Supt. O’Conncell for three years, resulting in return of local control

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, rapid growth of charter schools; attempts to sell school property to real estate developers 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 Senator Don Perata, president of pro tem of the State Senate, known for his connections to powerful developers; State Supt. of Public Instruction

Don Perata

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.

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 construction funds reimbursed by the state. The district would then repay the money to itself.

“The use of the bond 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.

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

Rather than approve the fund-borrowing transfer, then County Supt. of Schools Jordan asked for an opinion from State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who declared the transfer illegal and blocked OUSD from using the money to balance the budget.

The district was forced to borrow $100 million rather than the $37 million it needed.
“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 bond 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 bond money, they went into default, and the state took over,” he said.
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.

Randolph Ward, a graduate of Eli Broad’s superintendent taining progarm, became the district’s first state administrator.
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.

Leading up to the takeover, FCMAT officials made no calls to the Oakland school leaders they were appointed to advise on how to solve the district’s financial problems.
The records show FCMAT officials did not call Supt. Chaconas or school board President Greg Hodge in the six months prior to the takeover, 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.

Sheila Jordan

The district wanted to use facilities bond 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 bond 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.

“Mr. O’Connell gave every indication that uncless he was forced to do so under pressure, he would hold onto the Oakland schools.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:Education Oakland OUSD state receivership

Up Next

Profiles in Business: Wanda Pene, Director of Patient Care Services on In-Home Nursing Care for Wounds

Don't Miss

Black Psychologists’ Position on the Enslavement of African People in Libya

Oakland Post

Click to comment

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

6 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

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

6 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

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.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

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

6 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

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.

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.”