News

Would Closing Schools in Oakland Save Money or Raise Academic Achievement?

Published

8 years ago

January 8, 2018

Speakers line up at Oakland Board of Education meeting. Photo by Oakland North.

Despite the calls to close schools in Oakland and other cities – as a way to conserve money and focus resources on the remaining schools – there exists little evidence that shutting down campuses is a successful strategy for fiscal solvency or increasing student academic success.

The Oakland Board of Education, acting on the work of outside consultants and a community advisory group, is expected in January to start discussing possible school closings as a way to “right size” the district.

The changes could go into effect at the end of the school year in June.

Speaking to the school board last summer, Fiscal Crisis and Management and Assistance Team (FCMAT) staff urged the district to move ahead with plans to shut school sites, saying the board would be “amazed” by how much money they would save.

However, FCMAT produced no numbers or evidence of positive financial or educational results of the past closing of schools in Oakland or other districts under the agency’s leadership.

Proponents of school closings point out that the district has many more schools than the average district in California of similar size.

“Getting to the median would require OUSD to reduce its portfolio by approximately 30 schools,” according to an article published by Educate78, an Oakland-based, pro-charter school organization.

The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) already has a lot of experience with shutting down schools.

Under the administration of state receiver Randolph Ward, the state and FCMAT, a state funded nonprofit, in 2004 closed five elementary schools: Burbank, Marcus Foster, Longfellow, John Swett and Toler Heights.

They later closed another five schools: Washington and Golden Gate Elementary and Kings Estates, Lowell and Carter middle schools.

During the administration of Supt. Tony Smith in 2011, the district closed five elementary schools: Marshall, Lakeview Elementary, Maxwell Park, Santa Fe and Lazear.

In addition, a number of the small schools created two decades ago in Oakland during the “Small Autonomous Schools Movement,” were abandoned as larger schools were reintroduced on campuses such as Castlemont and Fremont High, regardless of whether or not the little schools had vitality, were popular or successful.

FCMAT’s push to close local schools goes back to when the state-funded, Bakersfield-based nonprofit arrived in Oakland in 2003. Word quickly spread that the agency was saying Oakland had too many schools, based on a mathematical ratio, which according to the California Department of Education (CDE) was: 73-square-feet per student in elementary, 80-square-feet per student in middle and 95-square-feet per student in high schools.

State Administrator Ward was reported to have said in a meeting that by the time he left OUSD, it would be small enough to fit in his hands, more like the size of a suburban school district.

Rather than improving district schools, the track record is indicative of a school district in upheaval that has steadily lost enrollment and revenue and has been unable to undo the stark inequity between resources available for most low-income flatland schools and affluent hill-area campuses.

In 2000, OUSD had about 52,0000 students. It currently has 36,000.

Most of the closed schools were those that served low-income students and students of color.

Meanwhile, charter schools – facilitated and protected by state laws – have grown in Oakland at the expense of the public system, with 44 schools and 14,000 students. Some of the charters occupy space on district campuses.

A number of research studies and reports call into question the claims of advocates of closing schools.

A major study released in May 2017 by the National Education Policy Center found that, “school closures as a strategy for remedying student achievement in low-performing schools is a high-risk/low-gain strategy that fails to hold promise with respect to either student achievement or non-cognitive well-being.

“It causes political conflict and incurs hidden costs for both districts and local communities, especially low-income communities of color that are differentially affected by school closings,” the report said. “There are costs associated with closing buildings and transferring teachers and students, which reduce the available resources for the remaining schools.”

Closings particularly negatively impact Black students, according to the study. In urban school closures 61 percent of the impacted students are African-American, though Black students make up only about 31 percent of urban school populations. And in districts such as Chicago, Black teachers are also more likely to be affected.

Ultimately, Oakland can look to its own history to answer questions about the value of closing schools: Did OUSD improve educationally and financially when FCMAT and the state directly managed the district from 2003 to 2009?

Has closing neighborhood schools contributed to the economic stability of OUSD?

Examining the legacy of the state takeover, Oakland Tribune reporter Katy Murphy wrote in 2009:

“The Oakland school district is emerging from state receivership $89 million in debt. It faces a budget hole of $18 million for the 2010-11 school year, even if the state government makes no additional cuts.”

“For years, auditors with the state controller’s office have issued “inconclusive” findings on the state of the school district’s finances,” she said. “The auditors reported last summer that the agency’s bottom line was unclear because key records dating to the time of the takeover were missing or inconsistent.”

The Tribune reported that that Alameda County Grand Jury, in its 2007-08 report, found that “the district was hampered by continuous staff turnover, particularly in the area of finance, numerous reorganizations and a succession of state administrators.… After nearly five years of state management, OUSD’s budget remains unbalanced, and the district’s future is unclear.”

In an interview, Robert Blackburn, a former Oakland schools’ superintendent, said the state takeover had done damage to the school system and to the city, according to the Tribune.

Blackburn said the State Superintendent of Instruction treated Oakland “like an absentee landlord with slum properties,” and that the upheaval led to many families leaving district schools.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Oakland School Board Gives Itself Raise After Deep Budget Cuts

Don't Miss

Opinion: Oakland Should Reject Jobs Policies that Increase Discrimination

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Rep. Kamlager-Dove Introduces Bill to Protect Women in Custody After Reports Detailing Miscarriages and Neglect

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

Published

3 minutes ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

iStock

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37) on May 7, reintroduced updated legislation aimed at strengthening protections and healthcare standards for pregnant and postpartum women held in federal custody, including in immigration detention facilities.

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

The legislation builds on a bipartisan version previously passed by the House during the 117th Congress. The updated bill includes new standards for healthcare access, mental health and substance use treatment, high-risk pregnancy care, family unity protections and increased federal oversight.

“Proper pregnancy care is a human right, regardless of your immigration or incarceration status,” Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that there are virtually no legal safeguards for pregnant women in federal custody.”

The bill would also limit the use of restraints and restrictive housing for pregnant women, improve data collection on maternal health in custody and require additional staff training and enforcement measures.

Supporters of the measure said the legislation is intended to address long-standing concerns about maternal healthcare and safety in detention settings, particularly for Black women and low-income women who are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and health disparities.

“Pregnant women in custody should never be subjected to dangerous and inhumane treatment that threatens their health, dignity, or the well-being of their babies,” said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP and a longtime public policy and government affairs strategist, in a statement.

A 2021 report estimated there are about 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into U.S. jails and prisons each year. Kamlager’s statement also cited a recent investigation by NBC News and Bloomberg Law that identified allegations of severe mistreatment or medical neglect involving at least 54 pregnant women or families in county jails between 2017 and 2024.

Federal policy under the Department of Homeland Security restricts the detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants except in extreme cases. However, the agency reported that ICE deported 363 pregnant, postpartum or nursing women between January 2025 and February 2026, including 16 recorded miscarriages during that period.

The bill is cosponsored by several House Democrats and backed by organizations including the NAACP and the Vera Institute of Justice.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Bay Area

Q&A with Steven Bradford: Why He Wants Your Vote for California Insurance Commissioner

Known for his work on issues ranging from energy and public safety to economic development, Bradford has also engaged with insurance policy during his time in the Legislature, serving on the Senate Insurance Committee.

Published

10 minutes ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Hon. Steve Bradford, candidate for California Insurance Commissioner.

By Edward Henderson, California Black Media

As California confronts rising insurance costs, market instability, and growing concerns about access and equity, the race for the state’s top insurance regulator is drawing increased attention.

Among the candidates is Steven Bradford, a veteran public servant with more than two decades of experience in government, including eight years in the State Senate and five years in the State Assembly.

Now, he is making his case to voters for why his background and perspective best position him for the role of California’s next insurance commissioner.

California Black Media (CBM) spoke with Bradford about his campaign experiences, key issues he plans to solve if elected, and his vision for the insurance commissioner role.

For readers who may not be familiar, what does the Insurance Commissioner do, and how would you use that role to address issues impacting communities in California?

The Insurance Commissioner is both a regulator and an administrator. The office oversees the entire insurance market—approving companies to operate, licensing agents and brokers, and reviewing rate increases or decreases.

This role is about oversight and action. The commissioner should be a watchdog, not a bystander, especially in a state like California, which has the third-largest insurance market in the world.

Last year, you shifted your campaign from running for lieutenant governor to the race for insurance commissioner. What spurred that decision?

Insurance impacts every part of people’s lives. You can’t buy a home without it—that contributes to the housing crisis. You can’t legally drive without it—that affects people’s ability to work. And businesses can’t operate without it.

For years, insurance has disproportionately impacted low-income communities and people of color. While everyone is feeling the strain now, those communities have long been hit hardest. That’s why it’s critical that insurance is not just available, but affordable.

What sets you apart from the other candidates in this race?

My record: 26 years of public service. I’ve shown up, stood up, and spoke up for Californians.

A recent Supreme Court decision impacting the Voting Rights Act has raised concerns about representation. What message do you have for voters in California regarding the importance of their vote?

It’s alarming. If people think this doesn’t affect them, they’re mistaken. There’s a real effort to roll back decades of progress and silence voters.

Your vote is your most powerful tool, and we have to use it—every election.

What are you hearing from voters as you campaign across the state?

Affordability and transparency.

People are struggling with rising costs, and many don’t fully understand what their insurance policies cover.

We saw that clearly in places like Altadena and the Palisades—people had insurance but were underinsured. They didn’t realize their coverage wouldn’t meet the cost to rebuild. That’s unacceptable.

We must acknowledge the inequities in the system. The FAIR Plan has roots in discrimination, and today we still see disparities based on ZIP code and income. We need a more competitive and equitable market where consumers have choices.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: The Fire of Oakland’s Justin Jones

Jones made headlines three years ago when he was one of a pair of Justins. Along with fellow State Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis), he fought their removal from the state house in Tennessee and won reinstatement. Now, Pearson is running for Congress and Jones is still fighting for all of us.

Published

21 minutes ago

May 17, 2026

Oakland Post

Tennessee State Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville). File photo.

By Emil Amok Guillermo

You may know Tennessee State Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville).

He grew up in Oakland and the East Bay. His mother is Filipino. You can tell by his full name Justin Shea Bautista Jones.

His father is African American.

He is fighting for all of us.

Now, Pearson is running for Congress and Jones is still fighting for all of us.

The recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision barring the use of race in drawing congressional districts marks a major turning point in U.S. history.

The decision took away the Voting Rights Act’s power to assure minority voices were both heard and represented.

“What we’re seeing now is this new Jim Crow system in which Black and Brown communities are without voice in our political process,” he told Fredricka Whitfield on CNN last weekend.

“That’s a canary in the coal mine for the rest of the nation. If they come for one of us, they’re coming for all of us, and some of my message to America is that the South is the front line of democracy,” Jones said. “They are dismantling multi-racial democracy here in the South, in states like Tennessee and Louisiana. But they aren’t going to stop here.”

That’s why Jones said we have to start paying attention to the South, and start helping them fight back there,” he said.

“I want to be clear that this terror, this type of system they’re enacting, are the same systems my grandparents told me about who grew up in Tennessee, a system where people like me couldn’t even be in political office. That’s the time they’re bringing us back to and I’m not sounding the alarm to be alarmist. But I am sounding it because we’ve seen this before in our history.”

Jones talked about Reconstruction and about what happened between the end of the 1800s and the beginning of the 1960s, when there was no Black political representation.

It’s a rebellion to keep our democracy going forward, he said.

“Stand with us and help us fight back against this extremist power grab — this racist power grab against our vision of a multi-racial democracy,” Jones added.

“While there is a litigation strategy, it’s important to maintain what he called a “movement strategy” that leads to the largest voter mobilization and registration that has ever been seen in the South,” he encouraged.

In 2026.

“Tennessee is an oppressed state,” Jones said. “It’s a state where one in five Black voters can’t vote because of felony disenfranchisement. It is where you can use a gun permit to vote, but you can’t use a student ID card to vote.

That’s the Asian American African American voice of Justin Jones.

Read his words for inspiration.

About the Author

Emil Guillermo is a veteran journalist, commentator, and comic stage monologist. His new show “69, Emil Amok: Anchorman—The News Made Me Do It,” is at the San Diego Fringe at New Destiny/Lincoln Park, 4931 Logan Ave. Ste. 102. May 14-23, at various times. Get tickets here.