Education

School District Faces Conflict Over Teacher Pay and “Redesign” of Five Schools

Published

10 years ago

January 30, 2015

The Oakland Unified School District’s three new school board members and newly hired superintendent have taken their positions just as two of the district’s most protracted conflicts are coming to a head – poorly paid teachers who are demanding decent pay and job security, and communities at five schools that are fed up with district-led reorganizations that have repeatedly disrupted and destabilized their schools over the last decade.

&nbsp;

Most everyone agrees that Oakland’s teachers desperately need a raise. According to the teachers’ union, they are the lowest-paid in Alameda County and lowest-paid in the nine-county Bay Area.

As a result, the district has a 20 percent turnover rate each year, meaning the schools are stuck on a treadmill – hiring and recruiting mostly untrained teachers.

Angry teachers came out in force Wednesday night, marching down Park Boulevard to rally and speak at this week’s Board of Education meeting at La Escuelita Education Center.

In protest, teachers at many schools are staging a slowdown, called “work to rule,” coming at the beginning of the school day and leaving when school ends, not giving or correcting homework or doing any of the myriad other tasks they generally do.

Dancers support teachers at a rally at Wednesday’s school board meeting. Photo by Ken Epstein.

The district is offering a 10 percent raise over three years – 3 percent this year, starting in January; 3 percent next January; and 4 percent the following year, depending on the funds that come from the state.

Oakland Education Association (OEA) President Trish Gorham says the mid-year 3 percent raise this year does not keep up with the 3.25 percent other Bay Area teachers have received.

“That just makes us fall further behind,” she said.

Supt. Antwan Wilson responded to teachers at the meeting and in an email to the school community.

“We need to finalize these negotiations so that we can focus all of our energy on the work that is before us to ensure quality schools for all – and there is a lot of work to do,” he wrote.

“I remain committed to making Oakland the leader in attracting, retaining and rewarding the best talent,” he continued. “While this vision cannot be achieved overnight, it is possible.”

He pointed to the constraints the district is facing. “We can’t forget that California remains 46^th out of 50 states in per pupil spending.” Further, he said the district still has to pay $6 million per year to the state to repay the $100 million bailout OUSD received when it went into bankruptcy and was taken over by the state in 2003.

In addition to salaries, OEA President Gorham says teachers are concerned about the district’s desire to weaken teacher transfer provisions in the contract, allowing the administration to unilaterally and involuntarily transfer teachers from schools and weaken seniority rights to open positions.

The three high schools facing “redesign” this year – Fremont, McClymonds and Castlemont – were reconstituted three years ago, and every teacher had to reapply for their job.

Now the district is going to do it again, Gorham said. “Where is the analysis of what they did then? What is going to happen to the teachers who don’t want to leave their school sites and are forced to leave?”

The administration and the school board have admitted that they have to do a better job explaining their plans to “transform” five “failing” schools this year – Brookfield Elementary and Frick Middle schools, in addition to the two East Oakland and one West Oakland high schools.

Most everyone agrees that Oakland’s schools must make deep changes in order to improve graduation rates and post-secondary admission rates, particularly for African American and Latino students.

But questions and concerns remain. A group of students from Fremont High and other schools came to this week’s board meeting to oppose the plan. A group from the McClymonds community called on the district to explain what it is planning and to include the community in making the changes.

The districts plan calls for an open competition period to submit to school redesign proposals, starting in February. Charter schools and other outside organizations are eligible to apply to run the schools.

This approach was adopted by the school board in 2013 and re-approved in 2014 under the leadership of then Board President David Kakishiba and acting Supt Gary Yee. Supt. Wilson was hired to implement it.

District spokesman Troy Flint told the Post that no school would be forced to become a charter over community opposition. If a school is opposed to “the idea of charter, it would naturally follow that a charter proposal would not prevail in the selection process at that particular school,” he said.

State law permits groups of parents or teachers at individual schools to apply to become a charter, said Gorham. But the district is adopting a different approach: open up a competition for charters to submit applications, and the board and superintendent will make the decision.

According to Gorham and others, the district approach dooms the existing schools. “If you publically call them ‘failing schools,’ how many parents are going to enroll their kids in the schools next year?”

“It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. You destabilize, reconstitute, and then you convert to charter,” said Gorham.

Instead, a number of the opponents of the plan say the district should listen respectfully with the school communities, find out what they need, and pour in resources and other support to make them schools that students want to attend and where parents want to send their children.

Flint denied that anyone at OUSD referred to the schools as failing.

“I’m not aware of anyone publicly referring to these schools as ‘failing schools’. Perhaps this was mentioned at a meeting I didn’t attend, but that’s not what we’ve been saying in our official communications,” he wrote to the Post. “We do refer to patterns of relatively low academic performance and under-enrollment.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

“From Charity to Justice” – Allen Temple Holds International Missions Conference

Don't Miss

City Leaders Address Concerns Raised by Black Lives Matter Movement

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.”