S.-3 20-0605 Approval by the Board of Education of a Charter School Facilities Agreement between District and Aspire Public Schools, Inc., a California non-profit public benefit corporation ("Aspire") operating Aspire Berkeley Maynard Academy (the nonprofit corporation and the Berkley Maynard Academy, for use of the facilities (formerly Golden Gate Elementary School) located at 6200 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, CA 94608-2228, for a term of fifteen (15) consecutive fiscal years, commencing on July 1, 2020 and ending on June 30, 2035, subject to earlier termination as set forth in this Agreement ("Initial Term"), for annual rent as set forth in Section 3 of Agreement.
I am a North Oakland resident who is asking the board to refrain from entering into a long-term lease when Aspire still has 2 years left on its current lease. This is not a pressing matter, but it is a controversial one that should not be addressed during a pandemic while our community is in a state of shock and distraction. This is disaster capitalism. Contrary to the anecdotal evidence in the comments, a systematic look at this school shows that it has received an equity score of 2 out of 5 from OUSD staff because of the small number of English language learners, low income, and special education students the school serves. As a North Oakland resident, I am very concerned that half of Aspire Berkeley Maynard's students come from outside of Oakland. This school is not serving Oakland students, and has gone so far as to request incentives to take on more special education students -- a request that reeks of inequity and reveals a sad bias against serving students with special needs.
OUSD staff have given Aspire Berkley Maynard an equity score of 2 out of 5 because they serve fewer English learners, low income and special education students than OUSD - and half its students come from outside of Oakland. Why are we rewarding it with a substantially rent FREE long term lease when OUSD students are suffering BUDGET CUTS year after year?
Aspire’s offer to serve more special education students in EXCHANGE for OUSD paying down Aspire’s debt, reducing their rent, extending the term or enlarging their school is OUTRAGEOUS. OUSD should NOT reward Aspire for doing what the LAW requires of them to do, Serve ALL Students!
It is unconscionable that the Board would go forward at this time with allowing a private charter school--charters are NOT public schools no matter how many times you call them "public"-- to take even more space from Castlemont students. Does the the "progressive" Oakland Unified school board have even less shame than the ultra-right Trump administration that has put federal evictions of HUD tenants during this pandemic? If you go forward with evicting public school students from their classrooms at this time, apparently so. At long last OUSD, have you no shame? Can you really pass a motion to honor an icon of labor history and racial justice, Dolores Huerta, and take an action that is so blatantly anti-worker and racist as this? Say it ain't so!
Regardless of the merits of BMA this is NOT the time to push through a decision like this that has long term repercussions while most of the population is preoccupied with COVID-19.
There is no way the public comments are going to be representative - I'm sure you'll get a flood of YES votes from a coordinated group of people supporting the idea, but this really needs further consideration by the wider population.
This is a bad way to make a decision on a forty year lease, and a ridiculously sweet deal for an organization that should be paying a market rent. It's irrelevant how awesome the existing school may or may not be, this is a lousy real estate deal for the district.
In the midst of a pandemic and on the brink of a major economic recession is NOT the time to vote on a long term lease agreement that will impact the district's general fund. Please postpone!
OUSD staff have given Aspire Berkley Maynard an equity score of 2 out of 5 because they serve fewer English learners, low income and special education students than OUSD - and half its students come from outside of Oakland. Why are we rewarding it with a substantially rent free long term lease when OUSD students are suffering budget cuts year after year?
Aspire has 2 years left on its current lease and several years to move forward under Prop 51. Please take the time to make the best decision for our students. OUSD schools have already suffered millions in budget cuts over the past few years. A post Covid-19 recession is likely. OUSD needs every dollar of revenue from every source and to give up $17 million on this lease is the wrong thing to do when this board continues to make cuts to schools. Aspire’s offer to serve more special education students in exchange for OUSD paying down Aspire’s debt, reducing their rent, extending the term or enlarging their school is unacceptable. Serve ALL Students.
This is not an urgent matter and entering into a substantially rent free 40 year lease during a pandemic is inappropriate. Aspire has 2 years left on its current lease and several years to move forward under Prop 51 - OUSD should take the time to get this right.
For-profit charters should be paying market rates on Oakland public school properties. Why do these people get a free ride on the taxpayers of Oakland? Stop this madness!
I am writing AGAINST gifting Real Estate to corporations. Charter Schools are bleeding the East Bay School Districts dry. We need more public schools in public facilities that are answerable to the residents. This is corporation that could pay rent to the District. Giving away that money is budget mismanagement.
My children went to Peralta Elementary in North Oakland, and we, as parents and children, loved that school as much as anyone below says they love BMA. It does not have to be a Charter School paying extra large salaries to the parent corporations for it to be a great educational experience for the children and parents.
First of all, I oppose the vote taking place during the pandemic! This feels like it is being rushed through when the larger community is not able to focus on the impact of such a vote. I urge you to postpone your decision until more people can turn their attention to this. Otherwise many people will be up in arms when they realize this was done in the dark and that a 40 YEAR least has been signed without the dignity of light. Secondly, I oppose the lease because of the potential negative long term impact.
I support the facilities agreement that will provide BMA scholars with a safe and modern building. BMA sucessfully serves black and brown scholars, provides families with access to high quality education and has received national recognition. BMA scholars deserve a safe and secure building to learn and grow.
BMA is an INCREDIBLE school that absolutely deserves approval for its facilities lease. I'm always so impressed by BMA's supportive and loving community, deep commitment to educational equity, and high-quality education for the whole child.
No, no, no
Now is not the time to commit to a 40 year lease. I oppose.
Please reserve Golden Gate for our public schools in Oakland!
Thanks.
June Katzschner
I am a North Oakland resident who is asking the board to refrain from entering into a long-term lease when Aspire still has 2 years left on its current lease. This is not a pressing matter, but it is a controversial one that should not be addressed during a pandemic while our community is in a state of shock and distraction. This is disaster capitalism. Contrary to the anecdotal evidence in the comments, a systematic look at this school shows that it has received an equity score of 2 out of 5 from OUSD staff because of the small number of English language learners, low income, and special education students the school serves. As a North Oakland resident, I am very concerned that half of Aspire Berkeley Maynard's students come from outside of Oakland. This school is not serving Oakland students, and has gone so far as to request incentives to take on more special education students -- a request that reeks of inequity and reveals a sad bias against serving students with special needs.
OUSD staff have given Aspire Berkley Maynard an equity score of 2 out of 5 because they serve fewer English learners, low income and special education students than OUSD - and half its students come from outside of Oakland. Why are we rewarding it with a substantially rent FREE long term lease when OUSD students are suffering BUDGET CUTS year after year?
Aspire’s offer to serve more special education students in EXCHANGE for OUSD paying down Aspire’s debt, reducing their rent, extending the term or enlarging their school is OUTRAGEOUS. OUSD should NOT reward Aspire for doing what the LAW requires of them to do, Serve ALL Students!
It is unconscionable that the Board would go forward at this time with allowing a private charter school--charters are NOT public schools no matter how many times you call them "public"-- to take even more space from Castlemont students. Does the the "progressive" Oakland Unified school board have even less shame than the ultra-right Trump administration that has put federal evictions of HUD tenants during this pandemic? If you go forward with evicting public school students from their classrooms at this time, apparently so. At long last OUSD, have you no shame? Can you really pass a motion to honor an icon of labor history and racial justice, Dolores Huerta, and take an action that is so blatantly anti-worker and racist as this? Say it ain't so!
Regardless of the merits of BMA this is NOT the time to push through a decision like this that has long term repercussions while most of the population is preoccupied with COVID-19.
There is no way the public comments are going to be representative - I'm sure you'll get a flood of YES votes from a coordinated group of people supporting the idea, but this really needs further consideration by the wider population.
This is a bad way to make a decision on a forty year lease, and a ridiculously sweet deal for an organization that should be paying a market rent. It's irrelevant how awesome the existing school may or may not be, this is a lousy real estate deal for the district.
In the midst of a pandemic and on the brink of a major economic recession is NOT the time to vote on a long term lease agreement that will impact the district's general fund. Please postpone!
OUSD staff have given Aspire Berkley Maynard an equity score of 2 out of 5 because they serve fewer English learners, low income and special education students than OUSD - and half its students come from outside of Oakland. Why are we rewarding it with a substantially rent free long term lease when OUSD students are suffering budget cuts year after year?
Aspire has 2 years left on its current lease and several years to move forward under Prop 51. Please take the time to make the best decision for our students. OUSD schools have already suffered millions in budget cuts over the past few years. A post Covid-19 recession is likely. OUSD needs every dollar of revenue from every source and to give up $17 million on this lease is the wrong thing to do when this board continues to make cuts to schools. Aspire’s offer to serve more special education students in exchange for OUSD paying down Aspire’s debt, reducing their rent, extending the term or enlarging their school is unacceptable. Serve ALL Students.
Do not give away Golden Gate. Charge fair market rent.
This is not an urgent matter and entering into a substantially rent free 40 year lease during a pandemic is inappropriate. Aspire has 2 years left on its current lease and several years to move forward under Prop 51 - OUSD should take the time to get this right.
For-profit charters should be paying market rates on Oakland public school properties. Why do these people get a free ride on the taxpayers of Oakland? Stop this madness!
I am writing AGAINST gifting Real Estate to corporations. Charter Schools are bleeding the East Bay School Districts dry. We need more public schools in public facilities that are answerable to the residents. This is corporation that could pay rent to the District. Giving away that money is budget mismanagement.
My children went to Peralta Elementary in North Oakland, and we, as parents and children, loved that school as much as anyone below says they love BMA. It does not have to be a Charter School paying extra large salaries to the parent corporations for it to be a great educational experience for the children and parents.
First of all, I oppose the vote taking place during the pandemic! This feels like it is being rushed through when the larger community is not able to focus on the impact of such a vote. I urge you to postpone your decision until more people can turn their attention to this. Otherwise many people will be up in arms when they realize this was done in the dark and that a 40 YEAR least has been signed without the dignity of light. Secondly, I oppose the lease because of the potential negative long term impact.
We need/love BMA. It’s our community!
I’m opposed to the lease, primarily because of the 40 year term. Please postpone this vote at the very least!
I support the facilities agreement that will provide BMA scholars with a safe and modern building. BMA sucessfully serves black and brown scholars, provides families with access to high quality education and has received national recognition. BMA scholars deserve a safe and secure building to learn and grow.
BMA is an INCREDIBLE school that absolutely deserves approval for its facilities lease. I'm always so impressed by BMA's supportive and loving community, deep commitment to educational equity, and high-quality education for the whole child.
I support this renewal!!!