The @OUSDNews CBO says OUSD is solvent with strong cash flow. OUSD just passed a balanced budget. Clearly OUSD is not bankrupt, so why does Dir Hutchinson keep insisting it is? It's irresponsible and untrue and repeating the lie will hurt our kids.

For those who don't know Oakland, the school is in an affluent neighborhood which, like many affluent neighborhoods, had restrictive covenants in deeds which prohibited the sale of property to non-white people through restricted covenants.

This incident at an @OUSDNews elementary is horrific and disturbing, yet somehow the @sfchronicle which does nothing but post trash about Oakland has not reported it out, which is telling.

OUSD should not make cuts to schools, nor rush into school mergers, b4 addressing the structural problems with our central spending & the way we budget. The board special meeting is tonight at 6 in person at Met West or on zoom. https://t.co/9becd2bBY8

While our union represented employee wage increases have matched that of the Bay area as a whole, confidential employee salaries have risen far faster over time, leading to a wider gap between our highest central admin and other employees.

Not only has OUSD not returned to prepandemic levels of central office staffing, confidential staff salaries have continued to rise.

Although OUSD has been promising to reorganize central office, and claims to have reduced spending on central staff, they continue to increase central admin managerial positions despite a decline in ADA.

Overall spending on contracts and services is nearly twice that of similarly sized districts, something that is not related to the number of schools we operate.

$60 million could be saved by restructuring salaries, staffing and consultant spending in central office.

OUSD has a board policy which limits central spending to 12%, a requirement that they have never met.

OUSD continues to ignore the core structural issue: it overspends on central office staff, yet most of the cuts come from school sites

The @OUSDNews Board is having a special meeting tonight to discuss up to $175 million in "budget balancing solutions" as part of the plan to close a claimed $95m budget shortfall for next year. We reviewed the 30 options, 85% of which impact school sites. https://t.co/hzthEmYLGi

While @OUSDnews and charters were playing games, it was students who were losing. Unaccountable charter schools that don't serve all students grew without substantially improving outcomes as promised. Any "redesign" plan must include increased oversight/nonrenewal of charters.

The @OUSDNews narrative of sustained declining enrollment must be viewed in the context of the intentional privatization of OUSD. Over the last 20 years, we have lost 10,776 students and have 26 fewer programs while OUSD encouraged charter schools to grow in a zero sum game.

In other words, it seems they disclosed their campaign spending for Dwayne Aikens in District 3 not to follow the law or to be transparent, but because they got caught violating campaign finance laws. Hold them accountable.

So why did the PAC file suddenly & belatedly file their 496, 460 AND a new 410 to change the name to "Champions for Quality Education" as on the walk piece beginning 10/30? Our guess is bc they were informed that an ethics complaint was filed 10/25 for campaign finance violations

The Champions PAC also failed to disclose a $50,000 contribution from another PAC within 24 hours as required.

Any PAC that spends money supporting a candidate within 90 days of an election must, w/in 24 hours, file a form 496 in the jurisdiction in which the candidate is running. According to a Champions PAC filing 10/31/24, Champions has expenditures on 9/28, but didn't file until 10/30

Kimi Kean reached out to us on 10/1 about our post re a $1,200 direct contrib by c4 FIA for Justice, which is itself a violation of campaign contrib limits. Ms Kean did not want the public to think FIA was running an IE, but running it herself is just blurring the lines.

The Champions for Education PAC paid for this ad - maybe they will claim that the inclusion of the endorsement was a mistake, that they meant to include the c4 logo instead. The problem with that explanation: The PAC, the c3 @FIAOakland & c4 were all led by the same person.