Charter Advocates Intentionally and Strategically Kept Board Members and Parents in the dark about Common Enrollment

Common Enrollment is being brought to Oakland by the same consultant that led the process in Denver where charter school advocates *intentionally and strategically* kept parents, teachers, community members and even School Board Members in the dark about their true goal: not improved enrollment, but Common Enrollment. Sound familiar? Here is a quote from a presentation by (Walton Foundation-funded) C.R.P.E. about the strategy used in other cities, which is now being replicated in Oakland.

Common Enrollment CRPE quote from boston (2)

Here is a link to the actual report: CRPE issue brief: Stakeholder Engagement for Common Enrollment Systems

Community Objections cause OUSD to push back vote on “Common Enrollment” Proposal

Oakland’s ‘common enrollment’ proposal fans the flames of great charter school debate

By Joyce Tsai jtsai@bayareanewsgroup.com

POSTED:   01/08/2016 04:50:32 PM PST | UPDATED:   A DAY AGO

OAKLAND — To some, it’s a streamlined system that allows families to more easily navigate a daunting array of school applications to find the best fit for their child. To others, it’s another Silicon Valley-backed reform tool that would undermine a struggling public school system by promoting charter schools.

A novel proposal by school district leaders to overhaul the school enrollment process would make Oakland the testing ground in the state for a universal enrollment system that allows parents to fill out a single application for their top choices for schools, both district-run and charter.

Charter schools have been school options for Oakland families for decades, despite the fact that some residents in the city’s highly segregated neighborhoods with high poverty levels may not realize it, said Superintendent Antwan Wilson. And it’s been difficult for the city’s most disadvantaged families to learn what all their options are, he said.

“Having a system that is as easy as possible and that doesn’t require them to go through multiple steps to enroll is important,” he said. “And that’s not a pro-charter strategy; that is a pro-child strategy.”

The system has already been adopted, some say with mixed results, in Denver, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Newark, New Jersey.

Advertisement

But like in Oakland, proposals for Boston and Philadelphia are meeting resistance because charters compete with public school districts for the same limited education dollars. Opponents fear that an exodus of students to charter schools would decimate the public schools. They say that charter enrollment policies allow them to “cherry pick” students and deny entry to those who will not further their academic goals.

That could be a concern. Some districts that have adopted common enrollment did not require charter schools to align their recruitment and retention policies with their respective public schools, and others allowed charters to opt out of the new program.

In response to critics, Wilson is pushing for the signing of a district-charter school compact, called an “Oakland Public Schools Equity Pledge,” which would help ensure an equitable playing field for all Oakland public schools.”It’s all grounded in the principles of equity and ensuring that our students get what they need to be successful,” said Wilson, who came from the Denver school district but did not spearhead the switch to common enrollment there.

Oakland’s current enrollment system, which district officials say is inefficient and outdated, allows families to fill out a common application to enroll at any of its public schools, ranking their top choices. But the charter schools have separate applications.

The district spends about $1.8 million annually on its enrollment system, and the new common enrollment system would cost an additional $1.4 million to start up. Philanthropic organizations would likely foot that startup bill, but only if charter schools were included, because that’s the best way to ensure an equitable system for students, said Gloria Lee, executive director of Educate 78, a pro-charter school group that is linked with Silicon Valley-backed NewSchools Venture Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Walton Family Foundation.

The group made a $300,000 investment to fund the initial outreach and development of the system, which sparked more angst among opponents.

“Why is the district allowing a private entity with their own agenda to market this?” asked Kiera Swan, who has two kids in Oakland public schools. The so-called common enrollment system would allow parents to use their smartphones or visit enrollment centers to do easy side-by-side online comparisons of both charter and district-run schools throughout the city and apply for them in a common application, regardless of school type.

A computer algorithm would generate a single match for students, streamlining the process for families, who currently have to navigate through a hodgepodge of different deadlines and requirements for charter schools. The exact mechanics and algorithm will likely be shaped based on additional community input and school board guidance, said OUSD spokesman Isaac Kos-Read.

Kim Davis, co-founder of OUSD Parents United, warned that results are mixed in districts that have adopted the system.

In Washington, D.C., the feedback from families and schools has been “overwhelmingly positive,” even though 5 percent of charters have not opted in, said Shayne Wells, a special assistant to D.C.’s deputy mayor for education. He said the percentage of students in charter and public schools has remained relatively unchanged at 44 percent at charters and 56 percent at public schools.

In Denver, which has had the system since 2012, many parents are satisfied with the system, with about three in four students matched to their first-choice schools, said Van Schoales, Chief Executive Officer of A+ Denver, a community-based education reform group that supports charters. But he admitted that parents from low-income areas remain frustrated by their access to the best schools because they often require traveling across the city and such spaces are limited.

And in Newark, universal enrollment didn’t cause a migration to charter schools from public schools; it was already happening, said author Dale Russakoff. Her book “The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?” chronicled the impact of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation to reform the Newark’s public school system.

The exodus, particularly from the highest-poverty ward of the city, where student performance is the lowest, led to hundreds of teacher layoffs and one-third of district schools being closed, consolidated, repurposed, relocated, restaffed or turned over to charters the first year of universal enrollment, she said.

“The bottom line is that if there had been more charter slots available, there would’ve been a larger exodus from the traditional public schools,” she said.

All the more reason that Oakland shouldn’t be encouraging an enrollment system that would pave the way for many students to apply to schools that aren’t district-run, critics say.

“We will absolutely lose students in the public schools to charter schools, which is a great concern,” Davis said. “And we don’t want to do anything to undermine the success of district-run public schools, so that our public schools lose more funding and support.”

Community unrest surrounding the proposal has delayed a board vote on the measure, which was planned for January, at least until June. Even still, the district on Monday is rolling out a test version of a school finder tool (ousd.org/schoolfinder) that could be used with common enrollment. It will allow users to find nearby schools, both district-run and charter, and review each one’s academic performance and enrollment information.

Board President James Harris said that he believed the charter compact would need to be to signed first, before common enrollment can be considered. School board member Shanthi Gonzales agreed, adding that too many questions on the proposal’s impact on district schools remain unanswered.

“And I don’t think private money and private agendas should be shaping policy,” she said. “If we don’t have the money ourselves, then we wait.”

Lee, of Educate 78, said it was unfortunate that the impression was that the pro-charter groups’ advocacy was somehow done secretly.

“There’s definitely been lots of outreach and parents from public schools, who were involved with these sessions,” she said. “But I guess in retrospect, I wish we’d done a lot more media about the opportunities for input.”

Contact Joyce Tsai at 925-945-4764. Follow her at Twitter.com/joycetsainews.

oakland schools By the numbers:

  • The number of district-run schools: 86
  • OUSD-authorized charter schools, which would be included in Common Enrollment: 32
  • County-authorized charters, which would not necessarily be included in the new system: 6
  • Number of Oakland School-age children: 65,740
  • Students in OUSD-run schools: 36,392
  • Students OUSD-authorized charter schools: 10,348
  • Students in Alameda County-authorized charter schools: 1,428
  • Students not in either district or charter schools, including private schools: 17,572
  • Percentage of Oakland’s school age children attending district or charter schools: 77

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_29361396/

 

Board Members and Community Object to Privately Funded Common Enrollment Plan

[School Boardmember Shanthi Gonzales] objected to how the administration is moving ahead on enrollment reform.

“It’s deeply problematic that we didn’t do an open call for anybody (in the community) to participate in this,” she said. “It was privately organized (and) funded by private dollars (that) led the planning process.”

“These are our public schools,” she said. “I don’t think people who potentially have other agendas (should be) shaping our public policy.”

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/12/04/community-objects-privately-funded-ousd-enrollment-reform/

 

Common Enrollment Not the Solution

From the Oakland Post:
DEBATE GROWS OVER OUSD “COMMON ENROLLMENT” PROPOSAL
Kim Davis, an Oakland parent and co-founder of OUSD Parents United, says she has attended two community meetings sponsored by the district about common enrollment and is not impressed with the proposal.
“They talk about what is wrong with the current enrollment system, but the system they have designed will not solve most of the problems they identified.”
Charter schools that “cream” off the top students can continue to do so, she said, because they do not have to join the new system. The charter schools that do participate do not have to follow district enrollment priorities, but are free to continue to set their own admission policies.
In addition, Davis objects to OUSD’s community outreach. “This isn’t authentic engagement. It’s more like they have decided what they want, and they want us to want it, too.”

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/11/27/debate-grows-ousd-common-enrollment-proposal/

Board Member Gonzales Raises Questions about Common Enrollment

“School Boardmember Shanthi Gonzales said she sympathizes with the superintendent’s goal of correcting the lack of transparency in the system and the inequities in the way charters currently recruit students, but she remains skeptical about the plan.

“‘It is very troubling that the staff have not provided board members any information about how moving toward a common enrollment system could decrease enrollment in OUSD schools. Moving forward without knowing whether such a system may lead to school closures if irresponsible.’

“‘What are trade offs going to be for OUSD families? Is it worth it?’ she asked. ‘Will we lose 2,000 students and end up laying off staff and closing schools?'”

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/11/27/debate-grows-ousd-common-enrollment-proposal/

Charter School Advocates push Common Enrollment

“Across the country, the idea of common enrollment is coming from market-driven reform groups, which believe that parental choice and competition for students will force low-performing and under-enrolled schools to innovate and improve.

“That’s a bad idea, said Kim Davis, co-founder of OUSD Parents United, which advocates increased community involvement in city schools.

“‘We need to give our public schools the support, leadership and resources they need to become great, not throw them into competition with well-resourced charters and let them duke it out,’ she said.”

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Charter-school-advocates-push-enrollment-shift-in-6668509.php?t=73fb1b7f09#photo-9041718

 

Lessons to learn about Common Enrollment

Wondering how common enrollment has gone in other cities? Here’s a report from Newark, NJ – where the same company that is leading Oakland’s charge, IIPSC, handled the process:

“[Superintendent] Anderson is closing the neighborhood schools. The charters are picking up students with the least problems while those with the greatest need–like special education students–are assigned to what is left of the public school stock.”

http://www.bobbraunsledger.com/camis-newark-enrollment-plan-collapses-in-the-heat/

 

Common Enrollment will divert scarce resources from our Public Schools

Big-money special interests, funded by the founders of Wal-Mart (The Walton Foundation), KB Homes (The Broad Foundation), and Dreyers (The Rogers Family Foundation), are pushing an effort to re-vamp our public school enrollment system. These are the same special interests that sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into our last school board election – leaving us with decisions to hire high-priced executive staff, while underfunded our teachers and classrooms. Now they have decided to add privately-managed charter schools to our school enrollment system – once again directing scarce resources away from Oakland’s public school children. Ken Epstein has the story.

 

http://postnewsgroup.com/blog/2015/11/20/teachers-say-common-enrollment-funnel-students-charters/

Teachers Say “Common Enrollment” Would Funnel More Students to Charters

By Ken Epstein

The local teachers’ union and school activists are raising concerns about a proposal, backed by the school district’s administration, to dramatically change how new students are enrolled in Oakland schools, called “Common Enrollment,” a computer-based system that would channel students equally to public and charter schools.

 

While the new plan is backed by the district administration and some local pro-charter organizations, it has not yet been approved by the Board of Education, though the issue could go to the board as early as December.

 

The district administration says the plan will increase transparency and efficiency, streamlining a needlessly bureaucratic process – thereby clearing up confusion and helping parents who needlessly run around filling out multiple applications for their children to attend district schools and charter schools.

 

Overall, the plan is designed to improve equity in the enrollment process, enabling all parents to have an equal chance to send their student to high quality schools of their choice, according to the administration.

 

At present, parents who want to enroll or transfer schools must go to the Student Assignment Center at Lakeview, located near Lake Merritt. The enrollment options window is open between December and January each year.

 

Families must apply separately at each charter school, and dates of notifying parents of admission are often sent out at different times.

100312-national-oakland-school-classroom

The district’s public meetings to gather community input on the proposal are frequently run by Great Oakland (GO) Public Schools, a nonprofit that supports candidates in school board elections and is tied to the Rogers Family Foundation, which backs local charter schools.

 

“Oakland is revising its enrollment system so it’s easier to use, more assessable and transparent, improves interaction with families (and) increases engagement and outreach,” according to the PowerPoint presentation produced by GO.

 

In talking points produced by the Oakland Education Association (OEA), the teachers’ union challenged the district to focus on providing all students with quality education and equal resources, rather than “an enrollment system that undermines their capacity to improve by directing students and resources away from them.”

 

OEA agrees that the current system has many flaws but says the proposal does not fix them but “in fact perpetuates many of the problems of the current system and adds new ones.”

 

Common Enrollment would send more students to charter schools, thereby depriving public schools of students and funding for resources, ultimately forcing more schools to close or be turned over to charter school organizations, according to OEA members.

 

In the 2014-2015 school year, there were 37,147 OUSD students attending 86 public schools while 11,034 students attended the 32 district-authorized charter schools.

 

Teachers at charter schools have few rights, say teacher activists, because charter school employees are not protected by a union or union contract. Parents who have complaints cannot go to the Board of Education – their complaints must be directed to the charter’s board of directors, who may not be located in Oakland.

 

“Common enrollment is dishonest: it presents all schools in its system as public schools even though charter schools are privately run and not publicly accountable,” according to the OEA.

 

Common enrollment increases inequity, says the union. “It will boost numbers of families applying to charters but won’t require charters to alter discriminatory admissions, discipline or expulsion policies.”

images

So far, the district has not said how much the new system will cost compared to the existing one. The program would be run by a new “Deputy Chief, Innovation,” who would be paid $157,500.

 

The district has already hired three consultants to work with a district committee to develop the proposal, including the person who was formerly in charge of Common Enrollment in the Denver schools, as well as two top executives of the firm that created Common Enrollment.

 

The program is based on a complicated mathematical algorithm that looks at students’ and schools’ six top choices and assigns students to a school.

 

It is unclear at present what would happen to existing rules that give preference to families that live near a school or already sending other children to that school.

Why are we still paying $30,000 per month to Lance Jackson?

It has been nearly a year that we have been paying Lance Jackson $30,000 per MONTH to oversee OUSD’s facilities planning division, a post previously held by an OUSD employee (not a contractor) for $150,000 per year. We were assured in February that this was just a temporary situation and were told in May that the position for a reasonably paid, district employee would be filled by the end of June. It is absolutely impossible to believe that there is not a reasonable candidate within the District or without who would be qualified for this position at a reasonable salary. It looks more and more like Superintendent Wilson is more comfortable having his consultant in that position, regardless of what it costs our children. This is not acceptable.

http://postnewsgroup.com/…/high-priced-consultant-still-ea…/

The Demise of Representative Democracy in Oakland Unified

Has Representative Democracy Broken Down at Oakland Unified?

By Ken Epstein

Local residents are raising concerns about “meeting procedures” and “meeting norms” dictating the behavior of the Oakland Board of Education, which could limit board members’ ability to lead the district, as they were elected to do.

Some of the norms and procedures, adopted unanimously by the board and implemented at last week’s meeting, might sound innocuous, though they have a paternalistic air that does not seem appropriate to a body that is elected to set policy that is supposed to represent the beliefs and needs of Oakland residents.

“Five minute speaking limit, no mingling with the audience, focus on agenda items, always be respectful, no interruptions, model desired behavior, no personal attacks,” says the list says, along with “honor the time, no sidebars, technology aligned to meeting purpose.”

However, at least one of the norms for board members has members of the community worried.

“Act as a collective body – honor confidentiality,” is a norm that appears on the surface to call on board members to close ranks, refrain from publically disagreeing with each other or the administration and avoid revealing too much about district proposals. But the Board is responsible for setting policy for the district and California law requires that those policy discussions be held in public

Recognizing the public’s concerns, School Board President James Harris said the changes are not designed to limit transparency or stifle the voice of elected officials but to guarantee that meetings are conducted legally and with civility.

“Some things are confidential to board members, such as closed session things,” said Harris. “We’ve had a few board members break those rules. You’ve got to respect the laws.”

Additionally, he said, “You don’t want personal attacks on board members,” he said. “We all need to get better. We need to be better communicators. “

However, there are community members who see this new policy as symptomatic of a school board that has lost its sense of responsibility as an elected body and generally passively follows the lead of the latest superintendent and his team of administrators

The problem goes back to Oakland’s loss of local control of the school district in 2003 when the district went bankrupt and took a $100 million loan (still not repaid).

The State Supt. of Instruction installed a trustee, Randy Ward, who ran the district singlehandedly. Working closely with a team of administrative advisors from Bakersfield, Ward fired principals and veteran administrators, in one shot eliminating much of the district’s diversity and the historical memory of the institution.

Over the course of the years, despite the return of local control to the school district in 2009, the balance of power has continued to shift away from the board and to the administration.

The attorney for the district used to be an employee of the board, but that has been changed. The general counsel now reports to the board and the superintendent.

The board secretary used to be an employee of the board. The superintendent is now the board secretary and sets the agenda of board meetings in conjunction with the board president.

Like the City Council, the board used to have a number of committees, including curriculum, facilities and business and finance. With the committees, board members could gather information, listen to community input and make informed decisions.

Without the committees, they lost their eyes and ears. They were forced to rely on what staff told them at board meetings, along with some one- or two-minute presentations from the public.

In addition, the board several years ago agreed in principle that it would not ask questions or disagree with the administration in public. Instead, individual board members are supposed to ask questions or disagree by email.

As a result, many policy differences among board members never come to public attention.

Though concerns about the board not fulfilling its role as an elected body have been raised under the one-year-old administration of Supt. Antwan Wilson, the same issues existed and were compounded under former superintendents Gary Yee and Tony Smith.

While some on the board are committed to the idea that board members should “not disagree publically on things, I think people should know if we are having disagreement on things. There’s nothing bad about disagreement,” said a board member who did not want to be identified.

Jim Mordecai

Another board member, who also asked not to be identified, said she and her colleagues were under tremendous pressure not to disagree with each other or with the district staff in public.

Staff also uses pressure to try to silence teachers and students who speak up at meetings, the board member said.

According to Jim Mordecai, a retired teacher who attends and speaks at most board meetings, the erosion of democracy in the Oakland district is also occurring in other school districts around the country, related to growth of corporate involvement and privatization of public education.

Much of the erosion of democracy norms is tied to a variety of corporate reformers, who want to run the school like their companies, such as billionaire Eli Broad and his Broad Foundation and the Broad Academy, where many of the nation’s new superintendents are trained he said.

Oakland’s State Trustee Randy Ward was an early Broad trainee, and he staffed the district with a crew of Broadees (rhymes with roadies).

People coming from the corporate mindset “prefer a board that is just a rubber stamp, “ Mordecai said.

“(But) Some of the women on the board are pretty strong, and sometimes they stand up and fight back,” he said.

But they are still struggling to understand the issues, which are not simple.

Book by school board trainer Don McAdams

“It takes a lot of time to understand,” he said. “It’s complicated. (For example) they don’t come on the board understanding about Broad training.”

Making their job more difficult, he said, Oakland school board members attend retreats where they learn from “experts” that their proper role is to be a cheering team for the administration.

Oakland School board members have attended two trainings by Texas based consultant Don McAdams, who worked for Eli Broad when he was setting up his superintendent academy.

According to critics around the country, McAdams suggests that board members not “interrogate” staffers during board meetings.

Board members are encouraged to vote unanimously, if possible, on important issues, such as school closings and bond proposals, sending a message to the public and workforce that the issue is a done deal, McAadams says in his trainings according to reports.

This approach is deeply flawed says civil rights attorney Dan Siegel, who served on the school board and worked as the district’s general counsel.

“As voters, we’re entitled to hear board members express their best opinions and if they disagree and to make decisions,” he said.

In reality, the board trainings are not neutral but ideological, encouraging the board to get out of the way of the experts, said Mordecai,

“But that’s not the process. The process has to be inclusive of the community. It’s supposed to be a democratic institution.”

Kaplan for Kids

Public education focusing on Denver, Colorado.

Cloaking Inequity

A website focused on education and social justice research

Reclaim Reform

by Ken Previti

deutsch29: Mercedes Schneider's Blog

Mostly Education; a Smattering of Politics & Pinch of Personal

Diane Ravitch's blog

A site to discuss education and democracy

CLASSROOM STRUGGLE

Strategy and Analysis to Defend and Transform Public Education

Toner Deeski

Ah yeah, that's me!