Enrollment Policy Statement Support

[Christine Zwerling]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.

 

 

Christine Zwerling   cmzwe...@yahoo.com IM: cmzwerling (yahoo) tel: mobile: 510-531-1727 510-735-4487

Want to always have my latest info? Want a signature like this?

 

 

 

 

To:        Directors of the Board of Education

 

From:    Concerned Oakland Pre-K Parents

 

Re:       Enrollment Policy to be Voted upon at the June 25, 2008 Oakland Unified School District Meeting

 

As parents and prospective parents who would like to support Oakland public schools and understand the importance of education for not only our own children but for all children in the City of Oakland, we thank you for the time and effort that you taken to craft an enrollment policy that attempts to balance various, and sometimes, competing concerns. We applaud these efforts and encourage you to continue to improve all Oakland public schools.  A reflection of the success of your dedication, and the dedication of your predecessors, in improving Oakland public schools is the number of overcrowded schools and schools projected to be overcrowded in the near future.

 

We believe that the keystones to the success of these schools are the neighborhoods that support these schools, that is, the families who reside in these neighborhoods.

 

We urge the Board to allow neighborhood schools to remain neighborhood schools. We respectfully request that you: 1) Gather data now to best determine neighborhood demand and analyze current capacity; 2) Perform necessary investigation to determine possibilities of increasing capacity at overcrowded schools and re-examine a school boundary, as necessary; and 3) Honor the families currently living in Oakland and the families that you will be attracting to the City of Oakland by providing certainty to them in making fundamental decisions regarding whether their children will go to public school and, if so, where the children will go.

 

We respectfully request that you continue to create strong neighborhoods by creating an enrollment policy that places neighborhoods first.

 

1. Reject the middle school mega-boundary concept and focus on matching neighborhood demand with capacity, and

2. Prioritize redirected children consistent with the view of neighborhoods first:

    a. Neighborhood siblings

    b. Neighborhood

    c. Redirected students

    d. Non-neighborhood siblings

    e. Program Improvement

    f.  Lottery

 

Thank you for your dedication and attention.

 

[Rhonda Woo]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.

***********************************

----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and delete the message in its entirety. Recipients are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry’s and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************

[Lawrence Busansky]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement

On Jun 18, 3:30 pm, "Rhonda Woo" <Rhon...@BerryAndBerry.com> wrote:
> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Christine Zwerling
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:19 PM
> To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Enrollment Policy Statement Support
>
> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> Christine Zwerling
>

>  <mailto:cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> cmzwerl...@yahoo.com

> IM: cmzwerling (yahoo)
>
> tel:
> mobile:
>

>  <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D531%2D­1727&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-531-1727
>  <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D735%2D­4487&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-735-4487
>
>  <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=34360456028&src=client_sig_212_1_banne...<=en> Want to always have my latest info?
>
>  <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_banner_sig<=en> Want a signature like this?

>
> To:        Directors of the Board of Education
>
> From:    Concerned Oakland Pre-K Parents
>
> Re:       Enrollment Policy to be Voted upon at the June 25, 2008 Oakland Unified School District Meeting
>
> As parents and prospective parents who would like to support Oakland public schools and understand the importance of education for not only our own children but for all children in the City of Oakland, we thank you for the time and effort that you taken to craft an enrollment policy that attempts to balance various, and sometimes, competing concerns. We applaud these efforts and encourage you to continue to improve all Oakland public schools.  A reflection of the success of your dedication, and the dedication of your predecessors, in improving Oakland public schools is the number of overcrowded schools and schools projected to be overcrowded in the near future.
>
> We believe that the keystones to the success of these schools are the neighborhoods that support these schools, that is, the families who reside in these neighborhoods.
>
> We urge the Board to allow neighborhood schools to remain neighborhood schools. We respectfully request that you: 1) Gather data now to best determine neighborhood demand and analyze current capacity; 2) Perform necessary investigation to determine possibilities of increasing capacity at overcrowded schools and re-examine a school boundary, as necessary; and 3) Honor the families currently living in Oakland and the families that you will be attracting to the City of Oakland by providing certainty to them in making fundamental decisions regarding whether their children will go to public school and, if so, where the children will go.
>
> We respectfully request that you continue to create strong neighborhoods by creating an enrollment policy that places neighborhoods first.
>
> 1. Reject the middle school mega-boundary concept and focus on matching neighborhood demand with capacity, and
>
> 2. Prioritize redirected children consistent with the view of neighborhoods first:
>
>     a. Neighborhood siblings
>
>     b. Neighborhood
>
>     c. Redirected students
>
>     d. Non-neighborhood siblings
>
>     e. Program Improvement
>
>     f.  Lottery
>
> Thank you for your dedication and attention.
>
> ***********************************
>
> ----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE.  This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as such is privileged and confidential.  If you are not an intended recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and delete the message in its entirety.  Recipients are not to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry’s and sender is a practicing attorney of Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************
>
>
>

>  image001.gif
> 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Sally Ann Friedman]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.

Much thanks,

Sally Ann Friedman

---

> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:33:54 -0700
> Subject: Re: Enrollment Policy Statement Support
> From: lbu...@gmail.com
> To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com

[pfile]

although in principle this sounds really good, consider the case where
you have one kid in hillcrest and one on the way to hillcrest.
inbetween the two kids they redraw the school catchment area. suddenly
you are out of the neighborhood and your 2nd child now has almost no
chance of attending hillcrest.

this is what almost happened to my family with the proposed
redistricting. i probably would have one kid in hillcrest and one in
chabot. then i have to divide my time and money between the two
schools, not to mention get 2 kids to 2 different schools at the same
time every morning. clearly this is suboptimal.

rob

On Jun 18, 3:18 pm, "Christine Zwerling" <cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> Christine Zwerling
>

> <mailto:cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> cmzwerl...@yahoo.com

> IM: cmzwerling (yahoo)
>
> tel:
> mobile:
>

> <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...
> 1727&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-531-1727
>
> <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...
> 4487&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-735-4487
>
> <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=34360456028&src=client_sig_212_1_banne...
> &invite=1<=en> Want to always have my latest info?
>
> <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_banner_sig<=en> Want a

> image001.gif
> 1KViewDownload

[AnnaMae Wilson]

We're in the same situation as Rob. Would this group support grandfathering in those future siblings as neighborhood siblings if they got redistricted based on shrinkage of the Hillcrest catchment area?

----- Original Message ----
From: pfile <rpf...@gmail.com>
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's <hillcres...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:47:18 PM
Subject: Re: Enrollment Policy Statement Support

[pfile]

note that supposedly under the proposed redistricting they were going
to grandfather, but for only one year. that didnt really help us as
there are 3 years between our two kids. i suspect 2-3 years between
kids is not unusual, so any grandfathering would have to be extended
for several years for it to be useful to most folks.

rob

[Lawrence Busansky]

We have tried to keep this statement focused on the current situation,
and certainly it doesn't address the scenario you raise, but that is a
very valid question and concern. I would propose that it should be
very specifically addressed in any plan to redraw boundaries. I
imagine if/when boundaries are re-drawn many who are pre-K parents
will find themselves in need of a grandfathering clause and that
should be part of the discussion.

[Katrina Saba]

I agree with the above statements in that not putting siblings first
is a problem. I, too, was in the situation where my second child was
going to be redistricted out, and was too young to be grandfathered
in. If you're going to propose extending the grandfathering clause,
then that's exactly the same thing as putting siblings first. So I
would keep siblings first. We have to remember that Oakland's strong
schools are strong largely because of parental involvement and the
school community that parents help develop. When you split up
families, you greatly reduce parental involvement and weaken the
commitment that comes with a strong school community. I think the
district heard this message loud and clear this past spring, and I
would object to any statement that negates siblings first. I do
understand that many pre-K parents only have one child at this time,
but if you ever have any possible plans of having a second kid, this
statement as it stands would jeopardize your chance to have both kids
in school together.

[elizabeth frumusa]

While I understand the concern for siblings first ( I have a child entering 1st grade this year and have another entering into K in 2009),  we in Redwood Heights want to be assured that if siblings first is proposed that it is neighborhood siblings only that have first priority vs neighborhood and non neighborhood siblings lumped together.  In Redwood Heights there has been many falsification of address' to get into that school, so much so, that this past year my daughter initially did not get into Redwood Heights even though we live walking distance to the school.  Out of 78 K students only 45 or so were from the neighborhood.  We went through hell, along with 15 other families, to get enrolled into the school.  Now, we might have the predicament that possibly our second child might not get in due to a non neighborhood sibling bumping us.  That is ludicrous!!

 

I believe Hillcrest might have other issues about megaboundaries that do not apply to the Redwood Heights situation, and perhaps do not have the high incidence of falsifying addresses as we have in Redwood Heights.

 

Thanks for listening~

elizabeth

 

Katrina Saba <katri...@comcast.net> wrote:

I agree with the above statements in that not putting siblings first
is a problem. I, too, was in the situation where my second child was
going to be redistricted out, and was too young to be grandfathered
in. If you're going to propose extending the grandfathering clause,
then that's exactly the same thing as putting siblings first. So I
would keep siblings first. We have to remember that Oakland's strong
schools are strong largely because of parental involvement and the
school community that parents help develop. When you split up
families, you greatly reduce parental involvement and weaken the
commitment that comes with a strong school community. I think the
district heard this message loud and clear this past spring, and I
would object to any statement that negates siblings first. I do
understand that many pre-K parents only have one child at this time,
but if you ever have any possible plans of having a second kid, this
statement as it stands would jeopardize your chance to have both kids
in school together.

On Jun 18, 8:20 pm, Lawrence Busansky wrote:
> We have tried to keep this statement focused on the current situation,
> and certainly it doesn't address the scenario you raise, but that is a
> very valid question and concern. I would propose that it should be
> very specifically addressed in any plan to redraw boundaries. I
> imagine if/when boundaries are re-drawn many who are pre-K parents
> will find themselves in need of a grandfathering clause and that
> should be part of the discussion.
>

> On Jun 18, 5:29 pm, pfile wrote:
>
> > note that supposedly under the proposed redistricting they were going
> > to grandfather, but for only one year. that didnt really help us as
> > there are 3 years between our two kids. i suspect 2-3 years between
> > kids is not unusual, so any grandfathering would have to be extended
> > for several years for it to be useful to most folks.
>
> > rob
>

> > On Jun 18, 5:11 pm, AnnaMae Wilson wrote:
>
> > > We're in the same situation as Rob. Would this group support grandfathering in those future siblings as neighborhood siblings if they got redistricted based on shrinkage of the Hillcrest catchment area?
>
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: pfile
> > > To: Hillcrest Pre-K's
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:47:18 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Enrollment Policy Statement Support
>
> > > although in principle this sounds really good, consider the case where
> > > you have one kid in hillcrest and one on the way to hillcrest.
> > > inbetween the two kids they redraw the school catchment area. suddenly
> > > you are out of the neighborhood and your 2nd child now has almost no
> > > chance of attending hillcrest.
>
> > > this is what almost happened to my family with the proposed
> > > redistricting. i probably would have one kid in hillcrest and one in
> > > chabot. then i have to divide my time and money between the two
> > > schools, not to mention get 2 kids to 2 different schools at the same
> > > time every morning. clearly this is suboptimal.
>
> > > rob
>

> > > On Jun 18, 3:18 pm, "Christine Zwerling" wrote:
> > > > I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> > > > Christine Zwerling
>

> > > > cmzwerl...@yahoo.com
> > > > IM: cmzwerling (yahoo)
>
> > > > tel:
> > > > mobile:
>

> > > > > > > > 1727&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-531-1727
>
> > > > > > > > 4487&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-735-4487

>
> > > > > > > > &invite=1<=en> Want to always have my latest info?
>

Elizabeth Frumusa

Key Accounts and Fine Wine Specialist

Wine Warehouse

800-339-1410 x: 6027

cell: 510-910-0729

[Jkfoust]

I don't believe they will redraw boundries because the don't have a means for doing it.  Accurate enough data is simply not available and they cannot redraw them each year.  If they did then there will be people with this very specific issue all over town and it should be addressed at that time.

Meanwhile the priorities as they stated give siblings within the neighborhood the priority that you are seeking.

I think we should tackle one at a time.

[elizabeth frumusa]

The problem is, is if there is another record enrollment year like we had this past year, which they are anticipating in the year 2009, there might not be enough space for all the children.  Some children will be bumped, be it neighborhood or non neighborhood.  They are anticpating a record year for sibling enrollment in 2009.  Thus, some children might be left out. With this new policy of neighborhood and non neighborhood siblings lumped together, we could be redirected once again to Carl Munck.

[b...@aol.com]

Ultimately every family is looking out for the well being of their children and their own situation, understandably so.
Unfortunately, no solution, other than increasing capacity, will satisfy all parties.
As an Oakland pre-K parent I support this Enrollment Policy Statement.

Brian Porter

-----Original Message-----
From: pfile <rpf...@gmail.com>
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's <hillcres...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: Enrollment Policy Statement Support

---

Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more!

[HRascher]

I am the parent of 2 pre-K children and I support the statement below.

On Jun 18, 3:18 pm, "Christine Zwerling" <cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> Christine Zwerling
>

>  <mailto:cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> cmzwerl...@yahoo.com

> IM: cmzwerling (yahoo)
>
> tel:
> mobile:
>

> <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...
> 1727&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-531-1727
>
> <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...
> 4487&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-735-4487
>
> <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=34360456028&src=client_sig_212_1_banne...

> &invite=1<=en> Want to always have my latest info?
>
>  <http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_banner_sig<=en> Want a

>  image001.gif
> 1KViewDownload

[Josh Hannah]

Sent from my phone, please excuse any typos.

[Rhonda Woo]

For clarification, do you support the statement?  Thanks!

 

---

[pfile]

fair enough, but the problem is that OUSD apparently considers them to
be separate things. when they were preparing to redraw the lines, they
consulted their enrollment priorities as they stood and applied them.

it might make sense to have the language there that at least asks OUSD/
the board to consider non-neighborhood siblings as a special case if
and when they redistrict.

[Preety Kalra]

Hi,

 

I support the statement below.

 

Preety Kalra

Oakland resident

--
Preety Kalra

[Karin Foust]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.

[ErikaSilk]

My husband Paul Silk and I, Erika Silk, are Oakland residents with two
pre-K children and we fully support the statement. We also firmly
believe in supporting the Oakland Public School system as long as they
respect and support the neighborhood school policy.
Thanks
Erika Silk

On Jun 20, 11:24 am, "Karin Foust" <thefou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Sally Ann Friedman <
>

> mustangsa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >  I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> > Much thanks,
>
> > Sally Ann Friedman
>

> > ------------------------------

> > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:33:54 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: Enrollment Policy Statement Support
> > > From: lbu...@gmail.com
>
> > > To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement
>
> > > On Jun 18, 3:30 pm, "Rhonda Woo" <Rhon...@BerryAndBerry.com> wrote:
> > > > I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > hillcres...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Christine Zwerling
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:19 PM
> > > > To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> > > > Subject: Enrollment Policy Statement Support
>
> > > > I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.
>
> > > > Christine Zwerling
>
> > > >  <mailto:cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> cmzwerl...@yahoo.com
> > > > IM: cmzwerling (yahoo)
>
> > > > tel:
> > > > mobile:
>
> > > >  <

> >http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...
> > ­1727&Email=cmzwerl...@yahoo.com> 510-531-1727
> > > >  <
> >http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?lang=en&src=jj_signature&To=510%2D...

[phili...@aol.com]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement

Philippa Porter

[BCarter]

I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement.

Bart Carter

On Jun 20, 10:27 am, philipp...@aol.com wrote:
> I am an Oakland pre-K parent and I support the below statement
>
> Philippa Porter
>

> > > > > To: ? ? ? ?Directors of the Board of Education
>
> > > > > From: ? ?Concerned Oakland Pre-K Parents
>
> > > > > Re: ? ? ? Enrollment Policy to be Voted upon at the June 25, 2008

> > > Oakland Unified School District Meeting
>
> > > > > As parents and prospective parents who would like to support Oakland
> > > public schools and understand the importance of education for not only our
> > > own children but for all children in the City of Oakland, we thank you for
> > > the time and effort that you taken to craft an enrollment policy that
> > > attempts to balance various, and sometimes, competing concerns. We applaud
> > > these efforts and encourage you to continue to improve all Oakland public

> > > schools. ?A reflection of the success of your dedication, and the dedication

> > > of your predecessors, in improving Oakland public schools is the number of
> > > overcrowded schools and schools projected to be overcrowded in the near
> > > future.
>
> > > > > We believe that the keystones to the success of these schools are the
> > > neighborhoods that support these schools, that is, the families who reside
> > > in these neighborhoods.
>
> > > > > We urge the Board to allow neighborhood schools to remain neighborhood
> > > schools. We respectfully request that you: 1) Gather data now to best
> > > determine neighborhood demand and analyze current capacity; 2) Perform
> > > necessary investigation to determine possibilities of increasing capacity at
> > > overcrowded schools and re-examine a school boundary, as necessary; and 3)
> > > Honor the families currently living in Oakland and the families that you
> > > will be attracting to the City of Oakland by providing certainty to them in
> > > making fundamental decisions regarding whether their children will go to
> > > public school and, if so, where the children will go.
>
> > > > > We respectfully request that you continue to create strong
> > > neighborhoods by creating an enrollment policy that places neighborhoods
> > > first.
>
> > > > > 1. Reject the middle school mega-boundary concept and focus on matching
> > > neighborhood demand with capacity, and
>
> > > > > 2. Prioritize redirected children consistent with the view of
> > > neighborhoods first:
>

> > > > > ? ? a. Neighborhood siblings
>
> > > > > ? ? b. Neighborhood
>
> > > > > ? ? c. Redirected students
>
> > > > > ? ? d. Non-neighborhood siblings
>
> > > > > ? ? e. Program Improvement
>
> > > > > ? ? f. ?Lottery

>
> > > > > Thank you for your dedication and attention.
>
> > > > > ***********************************
>
> > > > > ----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED
> > > ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE.

> > > ?This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and
> > > as such is privileged and confidential. ?If you are not an intended

> > > recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an
> > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this
> > > message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or

> > > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. ?If you received this

> > > message in error, please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies

> > > exist return it and delete the message in its entirety. ?Recipients are not

> > > to construe email messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless
> > > recipient is a represented client of Berry & Berry's and sender is a
> > > practicing attorney of Berry &
> > > Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************
>

> > > > > ?image001.gif

[Rhonda Woo]

Shannon Broome advised at 9:01 a.m. today that she was in contact with Kerry Hamill and that Kerry advised that the October 3, 2008 7:30 a.m. meeting of the Special Committee has been cancelled.  Should the status change, we will advise you as soon as we know.

[Rhonda Woo]

Director Dobbins has advised that he has requested that the October 3, 2008 meeting be taken off the OUSD website because the meeting is postponed. The Superintendent was unavailable to attend on October 3 and the Special Committee felt that her attendance was pivotal.  We will send out an e-mail regarding when the Special Committee will meet as soon as we obtain the information.

---

From: Rhonda Woo
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:28 AM
To: 'hillcres...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled

[Wendy Chow]

Dear Pre-K Caucus

Much has gone on over the last couple of days and we wanted to provide you with information regarding those events.  As noted by Rhonda in previous messages, there was scheduled to be a meeting of the Special Committee regarding enrollment this Friday at 7:30 am.  That meeting has been canceled.  We understand that it will be rescheduled for about two to three weeks from now. 

 

The reason the meeting was canceled was that, although the Committee had asked for scenarios that would solve the various overcrowding issues at North Oakland schools, it received instead a very narrow set of options from the interim superintendent.  The Committee members viewed this as unresponsive to their request.  In short, the options analyzed included one for maintaining the Hillcrest structure as K-8 and two options for converting to a K-5.  It set forth as the “district proposal” a scenario that would eliminate the middle school.  That scenario did not appear to address the overcrowding of other schools in the Hills area and there is some concern that it may not address the overcrowding issue at Hillcrest either (we urge you to review the Scenarios yourself so that we can have an informed discourse with everyone on both topics!). 

 

The board members, however, seem to have worked in a proactive manner to ensure that their directions are being followed and, as a result, the proposal was pulled and the meeting canceled. Also, there are elements of what the interim superintendent put on the table that could be helpful as the board works towards a final solution.  For example, the scenarios indicated that there is money to add portables and eventually a building at a neighboring school. 

 

Hopefully, the next (yet unscheduled) meeting will be a productive one, with proposals that are more consistent with what the Committee has considered in the past.  The board's timeline continues to be to bring this all to a vote at the board meeting in November. 

 

We’ll keep you posted.

 

 

 

Wendy Chow

phone:  (925) 362-6386

email:  wendy...@hpmg.com

---

[Karin Foust]

Dear Pre-K friends,

 

I am going to go out on this public limb and share my opinion on this very sensitive topic.  I strongly believe that the district needs to take a position that is for the greater good of students district wide.  Our Hillcrest School was built to serve the community as an elementary school first. It became a middle school when it was on the cut list due to low enrollment after the fire.  This was not without a staggering amount of effort by neighborhood families.  They built something wonderful there is no disputing that.  I just believe that the school should serve the community as an elementary school first. It may not solve all of Hillcrest's overenrollment problem, but it is a start. 

 

In the last couple years I heard many parents say that they would rather have the opportunity to attend the neighborhood elementary school K-5 than not at all.  I believe that these are the choices that we really have in front of us.  We have sought creative solutions to allow us to have our cake and it is too for quite a while, and nothing has come of it.  We just send our neighborhood kids to different schools.  We had proposed phasing out the middle school as a group in several forums last year.  It was never a popular opinion with those in the school, but it was a reality of choice for those of us that were not in the school and longed to go to school with our neighbors rather than be divided.  

 

If the district continues to propose a phase out over the next couple years I believe this could be viewed as a reasonable compromise.  Families have time to adjust and get more comfortable with the other middle school choices in our area.  HIllcrest families could work with other elementary school families to support the existing middle schools and continue to see them improve in time for their children to attend.  The HIllcrest middle school currently serves a very small number of families.  In looking at the closure of small schools across the city, this choice seems in complete alignment.  Other schools will be closed much faster and will impact far more children.

 

I hope we can engage in a positive and constructive discussion of what we believe we would like to see happen to serve the Pre-K family needs.  

 

Karin

[Rhonda Woo]

Perhaps one of the reasons why we heard no other response in the pre-k group is concern of backlash by those who do not support a stated position.  I am hoping that this will not come to pass and that we can share our thoughts with the knowledge that not everyone will support our views.  I am very appreciative that someone has stepped up to the plate and stated a position in a thoughtout and reasoned manner.  If everyone who has an opinion in this regard can continue in sharing thoughts in this way, hopefully more people will respond with their thoughts.

 

I am not sure that there is a right or wrong answer for the community.  I only know that I have personal desires for my family that not everyone will share.  I understand that but for the Oakland fire Hillcrest would most likely have remained a K-5 school. But the reality is that the fire happened.  Enrollment dropped. Enrollment increased when the middle school was added.  Now the success of the school has earned recognition by the State of California, residents in the Hillcrest boundary, and families who want to live in our neighborhood. 

 

Would I like 100% certainty that my children can attend Hillcrest?  Absolutely.  Do I want it at the price of eliminating a middle school that I believe is the only successful middle school in the OUSD if it means that my children can attend Hillcrest K-5?  I am quite conflicted.  Until I am convinced otherwise, and I think I can be if other people share their reasoned opinions, I am leaning towards keeping Hillcrest as a K-8.  Does it matter to me that the school used to be a K-5?  Not really.  Change happens and this change has led to Hillcrest being highly regarded as a K-8 school.  Do I care about children being split up?  I do if it means my kids will not go to the same school, which shouldn't happen now because of the recent OUSD policy placing siblings as first priority.  With respect to the neighborhood, my kids play with kids at their preschool and those kids come from all over Oakland and beyond.  As a result, when it comes time to go to kindergarten, I don't expect any of my kids' current friends attending Hillcrest because they don't live in our neighborhood.  And even if my oldest child were to have a friend in the neighborhood, they could still play together on the weekends.  They don't have to go to the same school. And even if they went to the same school, they might not be in the same classroom.  Does it seem fair that the parents currently at Hillcrest seem to be pulling up the ladder while the families turned away are left to observe? No.  Is the answer that these parents need to give something up as well to make the situation fair?  I am not sure.

 

Bottomline:  I am in favor of keeping Hillcrest K-8 until convinced otherwise.

---

From: Karin Foust [mailto:thef...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:52 AM
To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Lawrence Busansky; Rhonda Woo; wendy...@hpmg.com
Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled

[Mike Ambrose]

I think Karen makes a good argument.  If you look at Oakland School District as a whole, making Hillcrest an elementary school only is the best solution.  If this is done in the right manner, maybe parents, students, and the school District could focus on improving the middle schools to the levels attained by Hillcrest.
 
One of the reasons we moved to this area was so that our daughter could go to a "good" school up to the 8th grade.  So making this recommendation may be detrimental to our situation.  But, I believe it makes sense for the greater good.
 
Mike Ambrose

---

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:52:02 -0700
From: thef...@gmail.com
To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled
CC: lawrence...@ca.com; Rho...@berryandberry.com; wendy...@hpmg.com

<br

[Sally Ann Friedman]

I agree with Mike and Karin.  I worked for a year+ to come up with a better compromise solution as part of the LRPC and working with OUSD and the Board.  I do not see a better solution at this point. 

What is most disheartening is that when I was on the original LRPC (when it was selected by the PTA head and Beverly), I voted to let all the 2007 K applicants in despite knowing it could possibly hurt my childrens' chances of getting in down the road.  I fully believed and believe that all K applicants in the catchement should be able to have a hillcrest education even if that means only through 5th.  Many of the displaced 2007 K parents had said they would continue to fight for all future neighborhood applicants.  What I have since seen happen, is they have changed their tune and would now vote in favor of keeping the middle school. 

The pie is just not expanding folks.  I worked hard with current parents and the LRPC for a year to see if it could, and I firmly believe it will not.

Sally Ann Friedman

---

From: ambros...@hotmail.com

To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled

Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:31:41 -0700

<br
</html

[Sharon Murphy/Richard Nelson]

It is my understanding, however, that looking at the numbers from OUSD and from the LRPC, even if the two classrooms that comprise the middle school were freed up, there still would not be sufficient capacity to accept all potential K applicants for the foreseeable future from the current Hillcrest catchement area.

 

Sharon Murphy

[Joanne Karchmer]

We have both school-age and pre-K children.  Our preference is for the School Board to continue to look for ways to expand capacity at all the hills schools that need it -- either short-term or long-term.  It's still not clear whether OUSD has an adequate understanding of whether this is a trend or just something to deal with for the next several years.  We are not in favor of boundary change, especially that proposed last year, if such a change merely shifts kids to other schools that are also overcrowded, likely to exceed capacity in the near future, or do not provide the same quality of staff and facility.  In addition to shifting kids to other schools already at or nearing capacity, the previously suggested boundary changes did not seem to make sense, but instead appeared to be drawn along major street divisions without a lot of thought as to whether those particular changes would negatively impact those who could walk to school or whether the end result would actually result in a smaller census for Hillcrest.  Any further boundary change discussion should include all stakeholders, including homeowners who do not have school-age or pre-school age children. 
 
We are in favor of keeping Hillcrest a k-8 because it is a healthy, successful model for kids and that is why school districts like San Diego and Baltimore and moving back toward it. (See - http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/31/news/02k8schools123107.txt).  Eliminating Hillcrest's middle school would afford only two additional classrooms, which is not a long-term solution, if this is indeed a long-term problem.  It doesn't make sense to sacrifice something that is working for so little benefit to the bottom line issue.  The school district must be pressed to find ways to keep all families who want to stay in the public school system in it for as long as possible, rather than eliminating middle school options that retain students and even contribute to more families considering public high school as a possible option.  This pie should be getting bigger for everyone.

 

Joanne and Scott Karchmer

[wwagner]

Karin,

I concur with your thinking. The neighborhood schools are all good at
the K-5 level. What makes Hillcrest unique, is that the decision on
what middle school your child need to attend is delayed 3 years. That
is a huge advantage that is not shared across any of the other OUSD
schools. Making Hillcrest a K-5 would put everyone on equal footing –
everyone would need to have a plan for the 6th grade. I think dealing
with problems when there is equality across the board is much easier
than dealing with problems when there is one school that has a
slightly different make-up. I think that is a viable plan Karin and
two years should give ample time to adjust. I would love to not have
to worry about the 6-8 middle school years, but I agree that the
greater good would serve current and future families better and ensure
equality across the board: K-5 as a standard.

Separately - One item that I would like to get clarification on from
the Group if anyone knows the actual fact or bylaw is: If a family
moves from one school boundary to another, if they happen to have a
child in the old school boundary, is that same child grandfathered
into the old boundary from where the family previously lived?

-William

> > email:  wendy.c...@hpmg.com
> >  ------------------------------
>
> > *From:* hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > hillcres...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Rhonda Woo
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:04 PM
> > *To:* hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> > *Subject:* RE: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting

> > Cancelled
>
> > Director Dobbins has advised that he has requested that the October 3, 2008
> > meeting be taken off the OUSD website because the meeting is postponed. The
> > Superintendent was unavailable to attend on October 3 and the Special
> > Committee felt that her attendance was pivotal.  We will send out an e-mail
> > regarding when the Special Committee will meet as soon as we obtain the
> > information.
>

> >  ------------------------------
>
> > *From:* Rhonda Woo
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:28 AM
> > *To:* 'hillcres...@googlegroups.com'
> > *Subject:* October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting

> > Cancelled
>
> > Shannon Broome advised at 9:01 a.m. today that she was in contact with
> > Kerry Hamill and that Kerry advised that the October 3, 2008 7:30
> > a.m. meeting of the Special Committee has been cancelled.  Should the status
> > change, we will advise you as soon as we know.
>
> > ***********************************
>
> > ----->>>>>THIS EMAIL MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY
> > FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This
> > message may be an Attorney-Client communication from Berry & Berry and as
> > such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of
> > this message, or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended
> > recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in
> > error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
> > message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error,
> > please notify the sender immediately, if any hardcopies exist return it and
> > delete the message in its entirety. Recipients are not to construe email
> > messages from Berry & Berry as legal advice unless recipient is a
> > represented client of Berry & Berry's and sender is a practicing attorney of

> > Berry & Berry.<<<<<-----***********************************- Hide quoted text -

[Rhonda Woo]

If the question is for example if a family in the current Hillcrest boundary has a child currently at Hillcrest but later moves, does the child at Hillcrest get to continue on at Hillcrest, the answer is: Yes. Additionally, should that child have siblings, those siblings have priority even though the family no longer lives in Hillcrest. The limitation is that by the time the younger sibling(s) apply to Hillcrest, the older sibling(s) need to be attending for the school year that the younger sibling(s) will be attending.

-----Original Message-----
From: hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hillcres...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of wwagner
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:12 PM
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's
Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled


Karin,

I concur with your thinking. The neighborhood schools are all good at the K-5 level. What makes Hillcrest unique, is that the decision on what middle school your child need to attend is delayed 3 years. That is a huge advantage that is not shared across any of the other OUSD schools. Making Hillcrest a K-5 would put everyone on equal footing - everyone would need to have a plan for the 6th grade. I think dealing with problems when there is equality across the board is much easier than dealing with problems when there is one school that has a slightly different make-up. I think that is a viable plan Karin and two years should give ample time to adjust. I would love to not have to worry about the 6-8 middle school years, but I agree that the greater good would serve current and future families better and ensure equality across the board: K-5 as a standard.

> > ----->>>>>ONLY

[Daniel Lecocq]

I have one pre-k 09' child and two others already in Hillcrest. I fully support Joanne's statement below.

Candes Lecocq

________________________________
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:38:46 -0700
> From: joanne....@gmail.com

> To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled
>

> We have both school-age and pre-K children. Our preference is for the School Board to continue to look for ways to expand capacity at all the hills schools that need it -- either short-term or long-term. It's still not clear whether OUSD has an adequate understanding of whether this is a trend or just something to deal with for the next several years. We are not in favor of boundary change, especially that proposed last year, if such a change merely shifts kids to other schools that are also overcrowded, likely to exceed capacity in the near future, or do not provide the same quality of staff and facility. In addition to shifting kids to other schools already at or nearing capacity, the previously suggested boundary changes did not seem to make sense, but instead appeared to be drawn along major street divisions without a lot of thought as to whether those particular changes would negatively impact those who could walk to school or whether the end result would actually result in a smaller census for Hillcrest. Any further boundary change discussion should include all stakeholders, including homeowners who do not have school-age or pre-school age children.
>
> We are in favor of keeping Hillcrest a k-8 because it is a healthy, successful model for kids and that is why school districts like San Diego and Baltimore and moving back toward it. (See - http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/31/news/02k8schools123107.txt). Eliminating Hillcrest's middle school would afford only two additional classrooms, which is not a long-term solution, if this is indeed a long-term problem. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice something that is working for so little benefit to the bottom line issue. The school district must be pressed to find ways to keep all families who want to stay in the public school system in it for as long as possible, rather than eliminating middle school options that retain students and even contribute to more families considering public high school as a possible option. This pie should be getting bigger for everyone.
>
> Joanne and Scott Karchmer
>

[wwagner]

The last argument about K-8 betting better and districts moving
towards that model is a bit flawed. 1. Notice that that article
discussed moving eight schools to the K-8 because that works best for
the District, not one school “Grant is one of eight San Diego Unified
elementary schools converting into a K-8 school. It's a new tack for
the school district.” They are not keeping one school K-8 and the
others K-5. Again – to Karin’s point, San Diego is making a District
decision and converting eight (8) schools from K-5 to K-8. 2. I was
raised in a K-5, 6-8 Middle school and 9-12 High School district and
it worked great. That district has constantly received national awards
and continues to do so: (http://www.losal.org/146310117165917537/site/
default.asp ) . We need to devise a solution that works for our
district. So looking at other districts, while interesting, doesn’t
help us solve our issues. I think we should investigate bringing all
our schools to a standard.

I believe that the core of this issue is not about the K-5 population,
it is about seeing the possibility of using the 6-8 population to
offset the K-5 growth and giving every parent in the current Hillcrest
boundary the ability to send their child to a neighborhood school. If
all schools were K-5 and we still had overpopulation (which is
possible) then the arguments around solutions would be much different
and the solutions could be applied at a district level without having
to exclude one school from the discussion. Parents at Chabot, Kaiser,
Montclair, Thornhill, etc. all have to face the decision of what to do
for middle school, why shouldn’t Hillcrest parents?


On Oct 3, 11:38 am, "Joanne Karchmer" <joanne.karch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> We have both school-age and pre-K children.  Our preference is for the
> School Board to continue to look for ways to expand capacity at all the
> hills schools that need it -- either short-term or long-term.  It's still
> not clear whether OUSD has an adequate understanding of whether this is a
> trend or just something to deal with for the next several years.  We are not
> in favor of boundary change, especially that proposed last year, if such a
> change merely shifts kids to other schools that are also overcrowded, likely
> to exceed capacity in the near future, or do not provide the same quality of
> staff and facility.  In addition to shifting kids to other schools already
> at or nearing capacity, the previously suggested boundary changes did not
> seem to make sense, but instead appeared to be drawn along major street
> divisions without a lot of thought as to whether those particular changes
> would negatively impact those who could walk to school or whether the end
> result would actually result in a smaller census for Hillcrest.  Any further
> boundary change discussion should include all stakeholders, including
> homeowners who do not have school-age or pre-school age children.
>
> We are in favor of keeping Hillcrest a k-8 because it is a healthy,
> successful model for kids and that is why school districts like San Diego

> and Baltimore and moving back toward it. (See -http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/31/news/02k8schools12...).

> Eliminating Hillcrest's middle school would afford only two additional
> classrooms, which is not a long-term solution, if this is indeed a long-term
> problem.  It doesn't make sense to sacrifice something that is working for
> so little benefit to the bottom line issue.  The school district must be
> pressed to find ways to keep all families who want to stay in the public
> school system in it for as long as possible, rather than eliminating middle
> school options that retain students and even contribute to more families
> considering public high school as a possible option.  This pie should be
> getting bigger for everyone.
>
> Joanne and Scott Karchmer
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Sharon Murphy/Richard Nelson <
>
>
>
> sjse...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >  It is my understanding, however, that looking at the numbers from OUSD
> > and from the LRPC, even if the two classrooms that comprise the middle
> > school were freed up, there still would not be sufficient capacity to accept
> > all potential K applicants for the foreseeable future from the current
> > Hillcrest catchement area.
>
> > Sharon Murphy
>
> >  ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* Sally Ann Friedman <mustangsa...@hotmail.com>
> > *To:* hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> >   *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2008 8:33 AM
> > *Subject:* RE: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting

> > Cancelled
>
> > I agree with Mike and Karin.  I worked for a year+ to come up with a better
> > compromise solution as part of the LRPC and working with OUSD and the
> > Board.  I do not see a better solution at this point.
>
> > What is most disheartening is that when I was on the original LRPC (when it
> > was selected by the PTA head and Beverly), I voted to let all the 2007 K
> > applicants in despite knowing it could possibly hurt my childrens' chances
> > of getting in down the road.  I fully believed and believe that all K
> > applicants in the catchement should be able to have a hillcrest education
> > even if that means only through 5th.  Many of the displaced 2007 K parents
> > had said they would continue to fight for all future neighborhood
> > applicants.  What I have since seen happen, is they have changed their tune
> > and would now vote in favor of keeping the middle school.
>
> > The pie is just not expanding folks.  I worked hard with current parents
> > and the LRPC for a year to see if it could, and I firmly believe it will
> > not.
>
> > Sally Ann Friedman
>

> > ------------------------------
> > From: ambrose_m...@hotmail.com

> > To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: RE: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting
> > Cancelled
> > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:31:41 -0700
>
> > I think Karen makes a good argument.  If you look at Oakland School
> > District as a whole, making Hillcrest an elementary school only is the best
> > solution.  If this is done in the right manner, maybe parents, students, and
> > the school District could focus on improving the middle schools to the
> > levels attained by Hillcrest.
>
> > One of the reasons we moved to this area was so that our daughter could go
> > to a "good" school up to the 8th grade.  So making this recommendation may
> > be detrimental to our situation.  But, I believe it makes sense for the
> > greater good.
>
> > Mike Ambrose
>

> > ------------------------------

>
> > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:52:02 -0700

> > From: thefou...@gmail.com

> > To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting
> > Cancelled

> > CC: lawrence.busan...@ca.com; Rhon...@berryandberry.com;
> > wendy.c...@hpmg.com

> > email:  wendy.c...@hpmg.com
> >  ------------------------------
> > *From:* hillcres...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> > hillcres...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Rhonda Woo
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:04 PM
> > *To:* hillcres...@googlegroups.com

> > *Subject:* RE: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting

> > Cancelled
>
> > Director Dobbins has advised that he has requested that the October 3, 2008
> > meeting be taken off the OUSD website
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Wendy]

All,
As I’ve been following the discussion regarding the Hillcrest K-8
structure, I wanted to clarify something I said in my earlier email
that may have inadvertently created some confusion and also to throw
out some questions and food for thought for everyone on that topic.

1. In my prior email summarizing what was going on, I stated that it
was the district's proposal to phase out the middle school. What I
should have said was that the interim superintendent was putting that
on the table as an option. My take on the current situation is that I
don’t believe that the presentation set forth for the Oct. 3rd meeting
should be viewed as a “district proposal to phase out the middle
school over the next several years.” The Oct. 3rd meeting was
canceled precisely because the Board did not see the interim-
Superintendent’s proposal as consistent with the direction they had
given and the “proposal” to eliminate the middle school was explicitly
removed from the presentation. At this point, I think we need to
focus some energy towards proposals that address the overall over-
enrollment issues both at Hillcrest and in the area at large. Since
it is my understanding from the above actions that the K-5 structure
likely is not one the Board will pursue, I think we need to talk about
what solutions might work assuming the K-8. For example, if the
district will install new classrooms at Montclair, would members of
this group who live on that side of the neighborhood be happy with a
redrawn boundary line that made part of Hillcrest's current attendance
area a part of the Montclair attendance area? Under the board's new
policy siblings of current Hillcrest students would not go to
Montclair but would be admitted to Hillcrest so this would minimize
the impact of redrawing the line on Montclair. What other ideas do
people have for solving the problem?

That being said, it never hurts to address some of the points
regarding a K-5 model as I do below.

2. With respect to the position that the issue here is about “seeing

the possibility of using the 6-8 population to offset the K-5 growth
and giving every parent in the current Hillcrest boundary the ability

to send their child to a neighborhood school,” it seems that the
district already concluded that eliminating 6th to 8th grade at
Hillcrest would not achieve that goal. The numbers presented in
Scenario C of the Oct. 3rd presentation and, previously, in the Aug.
29th presentation, indicate that eliminating 6th to 8th grade will not
solve either the overcrowding issue at Hillcrest or the overcrowding
issue in the Hills in general unless the solution also includes
limiting the incoming kindergarten class to 50 or less through
boundary changes or a lottery process. “Scenario C” or slide number 5
of the Oct. 3rd presentation shows that limiting to a 50 child
kindergarten class and eliminating the MS would result in total
enrollment of 302 or less, which is within the facility capacity of
310 (noted in slide 13). Hence, this doesn’t result in “every parent

in the current Hillcrest boundary the ability to send their child to a

neighborhood school.” In discussing the analysis within the LRPC
this week, it was said by one of the members who knows how to run the
attrition model that if you take the analysis out a couple more years,
with a K-5, you start to exceed the capacity of the school by
significant amounts. I have not run that myself but will check into
it. Remember, as noted by the LRPC last year, the middle school only
uses 2 classrooms that could be freed up for lower grades. Although
the Hillcrest projections for Scenario B are not shown in that slide
(slide #5 says it is for Scenario B, but is for C since it corresponds
to the 50 child limit), slide #11 shows that eliminating 6th to 8th
grades while accepting, for example, 60 kindergarteners, which is the
projected number of kids in the current boundaries, would still leave
the school with enrollment of up to 345, where its stated capacity is
at 310. Can anyone provide a proposed solution that will both address
overcrowding and accommodate all the families within the current
boundaries? To date, I have not seen one.

3. I have trouble with the argument that we should “equalize” to a
lower standard than that which we are capable of attaining. I
understand that all parents (whether they live in the Hills or
elsewhere) want to have a middle school choice that performs the way
the Hillcrest has in the past. But is the answer to eliminate the
good in order to put everyone in an equally bad position? Isn’t it
better to have 70-90 kids to have a great model that could then be
expanded to other schools that might have space, rather than eliminate
that option altogether? Shouldn’t we instead be focusing on how this
model can be replicated in other areas of Oakland instead of
eliminating it because it has been so successful? We must weigh the
cost of annihilating one of the only successful middle schools in the
district in order to allow 10 additional children per year into the
elementary school (remember, the only viable proposal that would help
Hillcrest over-enrollment would be to limit the incoming class to
50).

4. With respect to whether looking at formats of other districts is
the right thing to do here, I agree with the opinion that what may or
may not have worked in Southern California likely doesn’t have much
influence over what might work in Oakland. But we don’t have to look
at other districts to see what has worked. The Hillcrest K-8 model
has in fact worked. It was named one of 3 California Distinguished
Schools. It was ranked 6th in the county overall – which included
high performing schools in Piedmont, Pleasanton and other areas. Its
graduates have been incredibly successful at their high schools of
choice. No one can dispute that the model has worked and continues to
work. Can we look at ways to make this model work in other places
like Montclair or Claremont Middle School, rather than eliminate what
exists?


Lastly, as one individual pointed out to me, there seems to be a clear
divide between those pre-K parents that currently have kids at
Hillcrest (of which I am one) and those that don’t. Personal
situations will always color one’s opinion and we just can’t avoid
that. Although there never may be consensus regarding the middle
school topic, I think we might be able to gain some agreement as to
some of the broader issues and solutions to over-enrollment as a
whole. As one of the pre-K reps, I am, as are the other reps, open to
and looking for input from everyone in the caucus on any and all of
the points above.

[suzie inadomi]

1.  I think the clear divide about middle school is partially due to the fact that non-Hillcrest families have little or no understanding of how the middle school was designed and how it works.  It is a "small school," and I am not just describing its physical traits.  Yes, it serves a small community, but it is in no way comparable to the poorly-performing schools of the flatlands that were closed due to dwindling enrollment.  The Hillcrest MS is highly successful.  How can it possibly benefit anyone to phase it out?  OUSD needs it as a resource to model for other schools.

2.   Regardless of whether Hillcrest is K-8 or K-5, when you let it get too big, you destroy the very thing that draws us all here.

 

3.  As a parent with 2 older kids at Hillcrest and one 2-year old, I support continuation of Hillcrest as K-8.   Reducing it to a K-5 will NOT solve the long-term overcrowding problem.  Reducing it would make our neighborhood less valued. 

 

Suzie 

----- Original Message ----
From: Wendy <wendy...@hpmg.com>
To: Hillcrest Pre-K's <hillcres...@googlegroups.com>

[Josh Hannah]

Hi All-

A message I sent to our reps the other day but am copying everyone just to share my views:

Sorry for the silence from the community!  I'm happy to reply directly but didn't want to project my opinions out to everybody on the list, and it didn't occur to me to reply directly to you guys.

First and foremost, thank you for putting the time and effort in our behalf to resolve this issue in the best way possible.  I'm grateful that you're willing to do this for us and clearly you are working hard to find the right answer!

From my perspective:

*  I'd like my kids to go to Hillcrest.  But I also understand we all would, and that won't be possible.  I'm happy for a fair and impartial solution that doesn't conclude with my kids at Hillcrest.  I fear, however, an environment where everybody in the community advocates their own narrow self-interest, and we end up with a suboptimal solution that serves their self-interest, because I sat quietly not just arguing for mine.  Does that make any sense?  I fear being punished for being reasonable!  But it seems like you guys are on the case so I'm not too worried.

*  If my kids don't get into Hillcrest, (we are on Heron Dr on the SE end of the boundary), I'd like to see my kids going to Montclair or Thornhill (or maybe Chabot?).  I'd like to be part of a community school.  I'd prefer Hillcrest, but I could see those schools being geographically close enough to feel that way about them.

* I generally don't think lottery solutions make a ton of sense.  it's hard on parents to say: when your kids get to school in a couple years, you'll have a 50/50 chance to get in (or worse, some unknown % chance).  You can't make any plans based on that.  So conceptually I'm a bigger fan of redrawing boundaries, however, that solution has problems with future scalability, only really solving the issue for one moment in time -- soon you're either not quite full, or stuck redrawing or doing another lottery.  In London they did it by measured distance to your front door, somebody literally took one of those rolling measuring devices and walked it to your front door from the school, and the closest people got in until it was filled!  With new technology maybe we can just use Google Maps.

*  K-8 vs. K-5:  I'm not sure, really.  Does a K-8 convert to an effective K-5?  Are you only freeing up 3 classrooms?  By the same reason that I'm willing to go to Thornhill and Montclair and make it a good school for my kids through us being involved, I would expect parents of kids at Hillcrest now to be willing to give up the middle school and go make Claremont (or whatever) a good school.  So I think the OUSD should do whatever makes the most sense in terms of a long-term plan for the area, and if on an integrated basis that means standardizing to all K-5 and 6-8, then fine.  Or if it makes sense to keep it K-8, then fine.  I don't think the views of the people there now and their preference should be overweighted, nor my individual desire for more slots for my kids at the K level.  Just balance the whole system.  [Interesting points made subsequently by Wendy that the MS classrooms might not convert efficiently to K-5.  Must admit I don't fully grasp that issue but think it's a relevant point]

Anyway, I doubt it's much help but those are my thoughts!  Thanks again!

Josh (dad of Kenzo & Sachi)


An addendum to my previous message based on the ones I've read in the interim:

1.  To Wendy's good question: "would members of this group who live on that side of the neighborhood be happy with a redrawn boundary line that made part of Hillcrest's current attendance area a part of the Montclair attendance area?"  As one who would fall into that, I'd say:  it would probably be my 2nd choice, behind getting into Hillcrest.  Happy would be an overstatement but it's certainly the best of the alternatives I've heard.

2.  The middle school issue is hard!  I agree wholeheartedly with Wendy's point:
"there seems to be a clear divide between those pre-K parents that currently have kids at Hillcrest and those that don't.  Personal situations will always color one's opinion and we just can't avoid that. " 

I fear many comments are unintentionally polarizing... when I hear Wendy say: "But is the answer to eliminate the good in order to put everyone in an equally bad position? We must weigh the cost of annihilating one of the only successful middle schools in the district in order to allow 10 additional children per year into the elementary school" or Suzie say "The Hillcrest MS is highly successful.  How can it possibly benefit anyone to phase it out? "   It's hard not to think: well, it could benefit someone, like the unnamed family who didn't get into Hillcrest and got Kaiser instead this year.  I think they might think "annihilating" the MS might be a reasonable idea, if it just means using the facilities for K-5 and getting a good education for their kid for the next 6 years.  I'm certain that many comments made by pre-K only families about closing the MS have the same effect on parents with kids in grades 3, 4 and 5!  If I had been here when it was being built and worked hard to bring it to life, I'm sure I'd be upset at people who moved here a year ago, did no work to make it good and want to shut down the MS I built just so they can get into the good K-5 that only became good through my work.  It cuts both ways, I think, and if we're not careful to see the issue through other people's eyes as well as our own, then I think the issue starts to divide our community, which is unfortunate.

It's not to say that it's not possible to come to a view about the MS independent of your own situation that happens to also serve your self interest: I don't doubt that people here have done that.  It's just really hard to persuade people of your view in that situation, because there's no way for the listener to truly understand your motives. 

I think we've all heard the arguments.  If I can oversimplify: pro's say: "it's a good MS, a model, we should keep it, why throw out a good thing."  con's say: "redeploy the classrooms, collectively improve the Oakland middle schools for everyone, get more (if not all) K-5 in at Hillcrest".  In the absence of new arguments (though I admit Wendy presents some good ones to consider), I think it's folly to try to achieve a consensus where there is none, or for our reps to try to represent a collective view where there is none, or to take a majority and represent it as the collective view.  My feeling is (in the absence of a mass persuasion) the reps can only honestly say, "The Pre-K community is somewhat divided on the issue of the MS, with the split falling somewhat though not strictly on the lines of who has kids already in Hillcrest vs. not.  At least, from these (few) emails that's my read on our situation.  They can present a more unanimous, collective view on our behalf for issues we all agree on. 

[Mike Ambrose]

Joshua is probably correct that there is no clear consensus on the Hillcrest Middle School.  Maybe it is time to start thinking "outside the box".  I have two ideas that I offer only half-joking.
 
1.  Use Hillcrest as the model for OUSD
 
If Hillcrest is a good model for a small K-8 school, why not expand that model to the rest of the District.  OUSD has too many schools overall and overcrowding in the hills.  So let's make all the elementary schools K-8 and spread the students out in the District.  More schools stay open and we all get the small school model.  The sacrifice is some students get moved to a new school.
 
2.  Auction spaces in the Hillcrest middle school
 
I have heard there will probably be a lottery for those in the Hillcrest elementary school to get into the middle school.  OUSD could use additional funds.  Why not auction those spaces in Hillcrest on ebay?  The school district would get additional funds and parents could choose using a free market system between 1). send your child to another public middle school without additional payments, 2). pay for the slot in Hillcrest, or 3). pay for private school.
 
Ridiculous?  Maybe.
 
Mike

---

Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:43:22 -0700
From: jha...@gmail.com

To: hillcres...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: October 3, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. Special Committee Meeting Cancelled