Oakland Unified School District, California

Oakland Unified School District
Oakland, California
District details
Superintendent: Kyla Johnson-Trammell
# of school board members: 7
Website: Link

Oakland Unified School District is a school district in California.

Click on the links below to learn more about the school district's...

• Superintendent
• School board
• Elections
• Budget
• Teacher salaries
• Academic performance
• Student enrollment
• Demographics
• Contact information

Superintendent

This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates.

Kyla Johnson-Trammell is the superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District. Johnson-Trammell was appointed superintendent in 2017. Johnson-Trammell's previous career experience includes working as an elementary school teacher, elementary school principal, and director of talent development.

Past superintendents

• Devin Dillon was the interim superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District in 2017. Dillon's previous career experience included working as the district's chief academic officer.
• Antwan Wilson was the superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District from 2014 to 2017. Wilson's previous career experience included working as the assistant superintendent for post-secondary readiness of Denver Public Schools, a middle school and high school teacher, and a middle school and high school principal.
• Gary Yee was the superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District from 2013 to 2014. Yee's previous career experience included working as the vice chancellor of the Peralta Community College District and dean of instruction at Merritt College.

School board elections

The Oakland Unified School District school board consists of seven members elected by district to four-year terms.

Office	Name	Date assumed office
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 1	Sam Davis	January 4, 2021
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 2	Jennifer Brouhard	January 9, 2023
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 3	VanCedric Williams	January 4, 2021
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 4	Mike Hutchinson	March 22, 2023
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 5	Jorge Lerma	November 27, 2023
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 6	Valarie Bachelor	January 9, 2023
Oakland Unified Board of Education District 7	Clifford Thompson	January 4, 2021

This officeholder information was last updated on March 14, 2024. Please contact us with any updates.

Election dates

See also: Oakland Unified School District elections in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and 2024

Members of the Oakland Unified School District school board are elected to four-year terms. Three or four seats are up for election on a staggered basis every even-numbered year in November.

Four seats on the board are up for general election on November 5, 2024.

Public participation in board meetings

The Oakland Unified School District school board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:

“

Public participation Members of the public are encouraged to attend Board meetings and to address the Board concerning any item on the agenda or, at regular meetings, a matter within the Board's jurisdiction. So as not to inhibit public participation, persons attending Board meetings shall not be requested to sign in, complete a questionnaire, or otherwise provide their name or other information as a condition of attending the meeting. In order to conduct district business in an orderly and efficient manner, the Board requires that public presentations to the Board comply with the following procedures: 1. The Board shall give members of the public an opportunity to address the Board either before or during the Board's consideration of each item of business at regular or special meetings. (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.3) Public comment shall be taken consistent with Board Bylaw 9322 (Agenda/Meeting Materials). 2. At regular meetings of the Board, the Board shall reserve time on each agenda for the president of each of the District's bargaining units, or his or her designee, to address the Board on behalf of the unit regarding any item of business on the agenda or not on the agenda. 3. Consistent with Board Bylaw 9322 (Agenda/Meeting Materials), members of the public may bring before the Board matters that are not listed on the agenda. The Board may refer such a matter to the Superintendent or designee or take it under advisement, but shall not take action at that time except as allowed by law. The matter may be placed on the agenda of a subsequent meeting for action or discussion by the Board. (Education Code 35145.5, Government Code 54954.2) 4. Without taking action, Board members or District staff members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by the public about items not appearing on the agenda. Additionally, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a Board or staff member may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his/her own activities. (Government Code 54954.2) Furthermore, the Board or a Board member may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, ask staff to report back to the Board at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action directing staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Government Code 54954.2) 5. The Board need not allow the public to speak on any item that has already been considered by a committee composed exclusively of Board members at a public meeting where the public had the opportunity to address the committee on that item. However, if the Board determines that the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard it, the Board shall provide an opportunity for the public to speak. (Government Code 54954.3) (cf. 9130 - Board Committees) 6. A person wishing to be heard by the Board shall first be recognized by the President and shall then proceed to comment as briefly as the subject permits. Individual speakers shall be allowed up to three minutes to address the Board. With Board consent, the President may increase or decrease the time allowed for public presentation, depending on the topic and the number of persons wishing to be heard. The President may take a poll of speakers for or against a particular issue and may ask that additional persons speak only if they have something new to add. 7. The President may rule on the appropriateness of a topic. If the topic would be more suitably addressed at a later time, the President may indicate the time and place when it should be presented. The Board shall not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts or omissions. (Government Code 54954.3) In addition, the Board may not prohibit public criticism of District employees. 8. The President shall not permit any disturbance or willful interruption of Board meetings. Persistent disruption by an individual or group shall be grounds for the Chair to terminate the privilege of addressing the Board. The Board may remove disruptive individuals and order the room cleared if necessary; in this case, members of the media not participating in the disturbance shall be allowed to remain, and individual(s) not participating in such disturbances may be allowed to remain at the discretion of the Board. When the room is ordered cleared due to a disturbance, further Board proceedings shall concern only matters appearing on the agenda. (Government Code 54957.9)

”

Budget

From 1993 to 2013, the Oakland Unified School District had an average of $469,602,000 in revenue and $489,323,048 in expenditures, according to the United States Census Bureau's survey of school system finances. The district had a yearly average of $362,058,095 in outstanding debt. The district retired $25,506,762 of its debt and issued $56,765,571 in new debt each year on average.

Revenue

The table below separates the district's revenue into the three sources identified by the agency: local, state, and federal.

Revenue by Source
Fiscal Year	Local		State		Federal		Revenue Total
	Total	% of Revenue	Total	% of Revenue	Total	% of Revenue

Click [show] on the right to display the revenue data for prior years.
1993	$52,696,000	18.17%	$206,853,000	71.34%	$30,421,000	10.49%	$289,970,000
1994	$79,759,000	25.78%	$196,888,000	63.64%	$32,720,000	10.58%	$309,367,000
1995	$85,563,000	28.58%	$181,601,000	60.65%	$32,262,000	10.77%	$299,426,000
1996	$87,370,000	27.92%	$195,244,000	62.40%	$30,269,000	9.67%	$312,883,000
1997	$110,845,000	27.38%	$260,353,000	64.30%	$33,680,000	8.32%	$404,878,000
1998	$111,102,000	26.63%	$270,498,000	64.83%	$35,671,000	8.55%	$417,271,000
1999	$109,680,000	27.81%	$242,817,000	61.56%	$41,919,000	10.63%	$394,416,000
2000	$119,715,000	25.87%	$290,968,000	62.87%	$52,094,000	11.26%	$462,777,000
2001	$145,074,000	29.50%	$295,107,000	60.02%	$51,521,000	10.48%	$491,702,000
2002	$143,454,000	28.37%	$304,484,000	60.21%	$57,775,000	11.42%	$505,713,000
2003	$150,026,000	28.00%	$325,488,000	60.75%	$60,308,000	11.26%	$535,822,000
2004	$167,031,000	33.67%	$252,241,000	50.85%	$76,751,000	15.47%	$496,023,000
2005	$141,612,000	27.79%	$284,157,000	55.76%	$83,819,000	16.45%	$509,588,000
2006	$162,844,000	29.92%	$303,382,000	55.73%	$78,128,000	14.35%	$544,354,000
2007	$156,077,000	28.82%	$307,646,000	56.81%	$77,855,000	14.38%	$541,578,000
2008	$170,062,000	29.73%	$324,775,000	56.78%	$77,187,000	13.49%	$572,024,000
2009	$161,647,000	29.25%	$297,500,000	53.84%	$93,453,000	16.91%	$552,600,000

2010	$172,976,000	33.47%	$254,985,000	49.34%	$88,869,000	17.20%	$516,830,000
2011	$172,576,000	31.74%	$283,262,000	52.09%	$87,951,000	16.17%	$543,789,000
2012	$183,055,000	32.89%	$289,622,000	52.03%	$83,946,000	15.08%	$556,623,000
2013	$204,198,000	33.81%	$325,280,000	53.85%	$74,530,000	12.34%	$604,008,000
Avg.	$137,493,429	28.81%	$271,102,429	58.55%	$61,006,143	12.63%	$469,602,000

Expenditures

The table below separates the district's expenditures into five categories identified by the agency:

• Instruction: operation expenditures, state payments on behalf of the district for instruction and benefits, and retirement system transfers
• Support Services: support services, food services, and retirement system transfers for support service staff
• Capital Spending: capital outlay expenditures (i.e., construction, land or facilities purchases, and equipment purchases)
• Debt & Gov. Payments: payments to state and local governments and interest on school system debt
• Other: all other non-K-12 programs, except food services

Expenditures by Category
Fiscal Year	Instruction		Support Services		Capital Spending		Debt & Gov. Payments		Other		Budget Total
	Total	% of Budget	Total	% of Budget	Total	% of Budget	Total	% of Budget	Total	% of Budget

Click [show] on the right to display the expenditure data for prior years.
1993	$165,741,000	56.69%	$104,402,000	35.71%	$11,390,000	3.90%	$2,564,000	0.88%	$8,256,000	2.82%	$292,353,000
1994	$162,656,000	53.25%	$116,110,000	38.02%	$11,077,000	3.63%	$2,504,000	0.82%	$13,083,000	4.28%	$305,430,000
1995	$165,632,000	54.51%	$113,547,000	37.37%	$10,231,000	3.37%	$3,597,000	1.18%	$10,843,000	3.57%	$303,850,000
1996	$172,973,000	55.06%	$113,547,000	36.15%	$10,869,000	3.46%	$4,800,000	1.53%	$11,940,000	3.80%	$314,129,000
1997	$170,083,000	53.12%	$119,140,000	37.21%	$19,514,000	6.10%	$1,227,000	0.38%	$10,197,000	3.18%	$320,161,000
1998	$199,727,000	47.57%	$127,836,000	30.45%	$78,106,000	18.60%	$3,183,000	0.76%	$11,021,000	2.62%	$419,873,000
1999	$209,344,000	52.52%	$131,869,000	33.08%	$42,381,000	10.63%	$3,704,000	0.93%	$11,327,000	2.84%	$398,625,000
2000	$249,448,000	49.54%	$135,259,000	26.86%	$101,583,000	20.17%	$4,600,000	0.91%	$12,636,000	2.51%	$503,526,000
2001	$284,428,000	52.79%	$150,537,000	27.94%	$84,957,000	15.77%	$5,618,000	1.04%	$13,255,000	2.46%	$538,795,000
2002	$276,068,000	46.79%	$204,380,000	34.64%	$66,759,000	11.31%	$9,770,000	1.66%	$33,054,000	5.60%	$590,031,000
2003	$270,505,000	47.34%	$185,819,000	32.52%	$61,222,000	10.71%	$15,868,000	2.78%	$38,029,000	6.65%	$571,443,000
2004	$251,806,000	48.18%	$168,716,000	32.28%	$40,794,000	7.81%	$16,173,000	3.09%	$45,108,000	8.63%	$522,597,000
2005	$248,786,000	46.43%	$173,380,000	32.36%	$54,604,000	10.19%	$16,378,000	3.06%	$42,630,000	7.96%	$535,778,000
2006	$236,879,000	41.22%	$180,561,000	31.42%	$90,512,000	15.75%	$20,819,000	3.62%	$45,926,000	7.99%	$574,697,000
2007	$246,596,000	44.91%	$191,441,000	34.86%	$46,098,000	8.39%	$26,676,000	4.86%	$38,328,000	6.98%	$549,139,000
2008	$250,690,000	41.15%	$215,290,000	35.34%	$61,638,000	10.12%	$43,564,000	7.15%	$38,079,000	6.25%	$609,261,000
2009	$239,706,000	40.16%	$208,953,000	35.00%	$80,994,000	13.57%	$29,077,000	4.87%	$38,212,000	6.40%	$596,942,000

2010	$245,944,000	42.99%	$195,763,000	34.22%	$63,706,000	11.14%	$32,105,000	5.61%	$34,572,000	6.04%	$572,090,000
2011	$225,659,000	39.60%	$200,196,000	35.13%	$76,914,000	13.50%	$39,757,000	6.98%	$27,335,000	4.80%	$569,861,000
2012	$240,145,000	40.56%	$190,617,000	32.19%	$101,940,000	17.22%	$39,344,000	6.65%	$20,025,000	3.38%	$592,071,000
2013	$243,203,000	40.87%	$194,872,000	32.74%	$96,401,000	16.20%	$41,454,000	6.97%	$19,202,000	3.23%	$595,132,000
Avg.	$226,477,095	47.39%	$162,963,571	33.59%	$57,699,524	11.02%	$17,275,333	3.13%	$24,907,524	4.86%	$489,323,048

Debt

The table below shows the amount of debt retired, issued, and outstanding in the district for each year.

Debt
Fiscal Year	Retired	Issued	Outstanding

Click [show] on the right to display the debt data for prior years.
1993	$1,755,000	$0	$14,035,000
1994	$1,755,000	$0	$12,280,000
1995	$1,755,000	$30,516,000	$41,041,000
1996	$1,755,000	$0	$39,286,000
1997	$2,201,000	$0	$37,085,000
1998	$31,993,000	$51,961,000	$83,229,000
1999	$31,284,000	$47,325,000	$112,514,000
2000	$8,164,000	$87,565,000	$191,915,000
2001	$6,102,000	$100,215,000	$286,028,000
2002	$26,002,000	$104,690,000	$364,716,000
2003	$25,356,000	$0	$339,360,000
2004	$8,530,000	$0	$346,961,000
2005	$9,109,000	$0	$337,938,000
2006	$7,457,000	$141,000,000	$485,661,000
2007	$8,212,000	$130,000,000	$601,308,000
2008	$266,770,000	$258,805,000	$642,866,000
2009	$23,751,000	$0	$559,554,000

2010	$10,614,000	$185,000,000	$733,941,000
2011	$23,121,000	$0	$755,622,000
2012	$18,139,000	$55,000,000	$819,853,000
2013	$21,817,000	$0	$798,027,000
Avg.	$25,506,762	$56,765,571	$362,058,095

Teacher salaries

The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.

Year	Minimum	Maximum
2023-2024	$62,695.65	$109,878.22
2021	$57,096	$102,646
2019	$52,764	$94,859

Academic performance

Proficiency assessments

Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.

Mathematics

The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2018-2019	27	45	12	16	11-19	55	65
2017-2018	27	45	12	17	20-29	54	63
2016-2017	28	51	13	19	20-24	50	60
2015-2016	24	43	10	14	≤10	53	62
2014-2015	23	42	10	14	10-14	53	62
2013-2014	45	70	33	37	PS	40-49	75-79
2012-2013	46	69	29	39	35-39	71	79
2011-2012	51	74	36	47	50-54	66	78
2010-2011	52	73	38	50	35-39	61	80

Reading/language arts

The following table shows the percentage of district students who scored at or above the proficiency level each school year:

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2018-2019	33	47	19	24	11-19	61	72
2017-2018	33	46	19	24	20-29	60	71
2016-2017	35	50	21	28	35-39	59	68
2015-2016	30	45	17	21	30-39	61	68
2014-2015	29	46	16	19	20-24	58	67
2013-2014	44	58	36	34	PS	50-59	80-84
2012-2013	44	60	33	34	45-49	75	81
2011-2012	48	64	39	41	45-49	68	81
2010-2011	47	63	38	40	40-44	61	83

Graduation rates

The following table shows the graduation rate of district students each school year:

School year	All (%)	Asian/Pacific Islander (%)	Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Native American (%)	Two or More Races (%)	White (%)
2017-2018	73	88	75	65	≥50	65-69	80-84
2016-2017	70	80	71	64	≥50	80-84	75-79
2015-2016	65	74	64	59	<50	70-79	75-79
2014-2015	63	78	61	56	40-59	70-79	75-79
2013-2014	60	71	57	54	≥50	60-69	70-74
2012-2013	63	74	57	59	<50	40-49	75-79
2011-2012	59	77	53	52	40-59	40-49	75-79
2010-2011	59	75	55	52	<50	50-59	70-74

Student enrollment

Year	Enrollment	Year-to-year change (%)
2018-2019	36,373	-27.4
2017-2018	50,090	0.9
2016-2017	49,621	1.4
2015-2016	48,949	2.1
2014-2015	47,940	1.9
2013-2014	47,028	1.6
2012-2013	46,298	0.2
2011-2012	46,193	-0.5
2010-2011	46,428	0.7
2009-2010	46,099	-0.9
2008-2009	46,516	5.5
2007-2008	44,084	-6.2
2006-2007	47,013	-2.3
2005-2006	48,135	-2.2
2004-2005	49,214	-2.4
2003-2004	50,437	-3.9
2002-2003	52,501	-1.9
2001-2002	53,545	-2.4
2000-2001	54,863	-0.3
1999-2000	55,051	1.5
1998-1999	54,256	1.3
1997-1998	53,564	0.2
1996-1997	53,462	1.9
1995-1996	52,452	1.4
1994-1995	51,706	-0.1
1993-1994	51,748	1.0
1992-1993	51,234	-0.9
1991-1992	51,698	-0.8
1990-1991	52,095	2.7
1989-1990	50,741	-0.9
1988-1989	51,218	-0.2
1987-1988	51,298	-0.6
1986-1987	51,622	-

About the district

Oakland Unified School District is located in Alameda County, California.

Oakland Unified School District is located in Alameda County, California. It is classified as a large city school district by the National Center for Education Statistics. The district served 36,373 students during the 2018-2019 school year and comprised 91 schools.

During the 2018-2019 school year, 73.4% of the district's students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 33.0% were English language learners, and 16.0% of students had an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

Racial Demographics, 2018-2019
Race	Oakland Unified School District (%)	California K-12 students (%)
American Indian/Alaska Native	N/A	0.5
Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander	13.8	11.7
Black	24.4	5.4
Hispanic	42.3	54.6
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	1.1	0.5
Two or More Races	6.6	4.5
White	11.6	22.9

Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Noteworthy events

2020: Recall effort

• 2020: Recall effort (click to expand)

  See also: Jody London recall, Oakland Unified School District, California (2020)

  An effort to recall acting president and District 1 representative Jody London from the Oakland Unified School District school board did not go to a vote in 2020. During a school board meeting on December 10, 2019, London was served with a notice of intent to recall her from her position. Those calling for her removal had to collect 9,236 signatures in order to get the recall election on the ballot. They did not submit signatures in time to hold an election six months before her term was due to end.

  The board voted in September 2019 to close Kaiser Elementary School and merge it at the end of the 2019-2020 school year with the Sankofa Elementary School. Kaiser Elementary School was in London's District 1. The school closure and proposed merger sparked protestors to initiate the recall campaign against London, who announced in 2018 that she did not plan to seek re-election in 2020.

  London argued that the student body of Kaiser Elementary was diverse and comprised of students from all parts of Oakland. She also argued the district could increase the quality of its schools by focusing resources on fewer facilities. London also said she did not believe enough signatures would be gathered to mount the recall.

  Protestors argued that school closures hurt students and demanded the halt of school closures until the summer of 2022 when voters would have the opportunity to vote on statewide ballot measures that could increase education funding.

2017: Superintendent announces plan to leave

• 2017: Superintendent announces plan to leave (click to expand)
  Oakland Unified Superintendent Antwan Wilson announced he would be leaving his position in February 2017 in order to become chancellor of schools in Washington, D.C. The board appointed Devin Dillon, the district's chief academic officer, to serve as interim superintendent.

  “I come to this work having worked at every level of the school system, starting out as an instructional assistant in college and my favorite role of being a teacher,” said Dillon. “I still consider myself a teacher first. We need to continue our focus on equity and ensuring that every student thrives.”

  Wilson was the district's eighth superintendent in 16 years. His time with the district ended six months before his three-year contract was up.

2016: CCSA and OUSD agree to stay Proposition 39 lawsuit

• 2016: CCSA and OUSD agree to stay Proposition 39 lawsuit (click to expand)

  

  In September 2016, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) agreed to stay a lawsuit it had filed against the Oakland Unified School District after the district offered to work on its process of sharing facilities with its charter schools. CCSA filed the lawsuit in March 2016 in order to require the district to align with Proposition 39, a law that was passed in 2000 to ensure that public school facilities were shared equitably among all public school students, including public charter school students.

  Under Proposition 39, the Oakland Unified School District was required to provide school space where the charter school wanted to be located—somewhere reasonably equivalent to the places other district students attend school. The district was also required to locate all of the classrooms for the charter school at one site. In its lawsuit, CCSA said the district had violated these laws for a number of years by offering charter schools split sites, not offering equivalent space, and not making a reasonable effort to offer a site in a desired location. The lawsuit also said the district's Proposition 39 process had lacked transparency and had used confusing language to "make charter schools inadvertently waive their Prop. 39 rights."

  "The illegal Prop. 39 tactics by OUSD create insurmountable barriers and we felt we had no alternative but to take action on behalf of Oakland students and families. CCSA has corresponded extensively with OUSD, putting it on detailed notice of its extensive violations of the law," said CCSA President and CEO Jed Wallace when the lawsuit was filed.

  The agreement to stay the lawsuit was reached six months after the lawsuit was filed. CCSA agreed to put the case on hold until the district issued its Proposition 39 facilities offers for the 2017-2018 school year. The district agreed to work with CCSA to provide a more transparent Proposition 39 process.

2016: School lacks accreditation

• 2016: School lacks accreditation (click to expand)
  Oakland Unified School District officials announced that they failed to meet a deadline to obtain accreditation for a new high school on September 27, 2016. Madison Park Business & Art Academy—a public elementary and middle school that was expanded to include grades nine through 12 for the first time that year—had not been accredited with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, making it harder for the 75 seniors set to graduate to get into a University of California or California State University school.

  In reaction to the announcement of the school lacking accreditation, students at Madison Park staged a walkout on September 28, 2016, demanding to know how the lack of accreditation would affect their chances of getting into a university. The district responded by holding an impromptu town hall meeting to answer questions.

  District spokesman John Sasaki said the accreditation process for the school had “dropped between the cracks” due to the school's newness and the district's staff turnover. He said students who planned to attend a community college, a private college, or an out-of-state college would not be affected. “Obviously this is not what we want to have our students dealing with,” said Sasaki.

  Certifying a school with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges proves that the school's courses are state-approved and allows admissions officers at universities to use students' grades and the courses they took in high school to determine their eligibility. Without that accreditation, the admissions process relies on test scores or "a demonstration of exceptional circumstances that merit admission despite the lack of traditional qualifications," according to SF Gate. Sasaki, however, said, "We have been assured by the UC system that it should not adversely affect these students.”

  The Western Association of Schools and Colleges voted on Madison Park’s accreditation application in December 2016, but the district announced that it had received early word that the school would receive full accreditation in October 2016. College applications for California university systems were due in November 2016.

  In response to the mistake, Oakland Unified officials hired an accreditation coordinator and pledged to send a college and career readiness counselor to Madison Park twice per week. The district also promised to sponsor a college admissions course and gave the school $10,000 for activities such as college campus tours. Officials said no other schools in the district lacked accreditation.

2016: Oakland Unified charter schools listed in ACLU discrimination report

• 2016: Oakland Unified charter schools listed in ACLU discrimination report (click to expand)

  

  Eleven of the Oakland Unified School District's 37 charter schools were alleged to have discriminatory admissions practices in an August 2016 report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California and Public Advocates. Researchers with the ACLU and Public Advocates said they started investigating admission policies after hearing from parents that some charter schools were not accepting all students as they were required to do by state law. The 11 Oakland Unified schools were included in a list of 253 charter schools flagged for discriminatory practices across California.

  The 11 Oakland Unified charter schools included in the report were:

  • American Indian Public Charter
  • ARISE High
  • Downtown Charter Academy
  • East Oakland Leadership Academy

  • Francophone Charter School of Oakland
  • North Oakland Community Charter
  • Oakland Charter Academy
  • Oakland Charter High School

  • Oakland Military Institute, College Preparatory Academy
  • Oakland School for the Arts
  • Oakland Unity High

  Before the 2016 election, two of the schools—ARISE High and the North Oakland Community Charter—were removed from the list after they adjusted their admissions policies.

  The ACLU report grouped the discriminatory admissions practices into five categories:

  “

  Exclusion Based on Academic Performance Discrimination against English Learners Pre-Enrollment Essays or Interviews Illegal Parent/Guardian Volunteer Requirements Requirements that Discourage Undocumented Students

  ”

  Schools could be put into multiple categories if researchers found multiple types of discriminatory practices. Oakland Unified's charter schools were nearly equally split between requiring essays or interviews and rejecting the applications of students who were in the U.S. illegally, but two schools were found to have mandates for parents. No schools in Oakland Unified were found to have bias against English language learners.

  In response to the report, the California Charter Schools Association encouraged its members to review their school policies and to revise them if needed.

2016: Grand jury report calls for better management of district's charter schools

• 2016: Grand jury report calls for better management of district's charter schools (click to expand)
  An Alameda County grand jury report released in June 2016 recommended that the Oakland Unified School District add more oversight and accountability to its charter school approval and reauthorization process in response to how the district's charter schools had performed on state assessments. The report also recommended that the district increase fiscal and governance oversight for its charter schools through a larger staff at its office of charter schools and through additional site visits.

  The grand jury report showed that Oakland Unified's charter schools had on average scored lower on the 2015 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress than the district's regular public schools. The report showed that 15 of the district's 37 charter schools had performed below the district's average in both math and reading. A total of 19 charter schools scored below the district's math average, and 17 scored below the district's reading average.

  More of the district's charter schools fell below the state's average. A total of 23 performed below the state's average in math, and 24 performed below the state's average in reading.

  Though the report acknowledged that additional measures should be used along with state assessment scores, it also stated that “it’s a concern that some charters are not achieving expected results and yet may still be reauthorized.”

  “The district remains committed to ensuring all students have access to a high-quality education and will continue our important work toward equity in our schools,” said Valerie Goode, a spokeswoman for the district. She said the district follows the state education code when reviewing charter school applications.

  The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) announced its disagreement with the report. “We find the report lacking understanding of the depth and nuance in both law and practice of charter schools across California. Furthermore, the report is oversimplified in both its definition of the issues and recommended solutions,” said CCSA spokeswoman Emily Bertelli.

  Oakland Unified had the largest number of charter schools in Alameda County in 2016. At the time the report was released, almost 25 percent of the district's schools were charters, compared to the average of 6% nationwide.

Contact information

Oakland Unified School District
1011 Union Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-879-8000

See also

California	School Board Elections	News and Analysis
List of school districts in California School board elections in California Public education in California	California school board elections, 2024	United States school shootings, 1990-present

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Oakland Unified School District
• California Department of Education
• California School Boards Association

Footnotes