I have a few points that I will share here:
(1) OUSD enrolls close to 55-60% of kids. How does your facilities planning-blueprint-citywide plan incorporate public charters and private schools enrollment and shifts?
(2) Shiny building won't result in enrollment gains. It would be helpful to better understand the educational vision for these sites (and for this larger body of work). My concern is that we do not have a clear educational-instructional vision for this work. And so we jump into the weeds without understanding the "how" and "why". The public needs to understand the educational-instructional rationale. I am sure it exists, so we should incorporate into presentations. Shiny buildings with programming improvements-vision will grow enrollment.
(3) Charters are eligible for Prop. 51 dollars and the process has been painful. Millions of dollars were left on the table by OUSD. See this - https://greatschoolvoices.org/2018/08/will-ousd-leave-175-million-facilities-money-table/
I have a few points that I will share here:
(1) OUSD enrolls close to 55-60% of kids. How does your facilities planning-blueprint-citywide plan incorporate public charters and private schools enrollment and shifts?
(2) Shiny building won't result in enrollment gains. It would be helpful to better understand the educational vision for these sites (and for this larger body of work). My concern is that we do not have a clear educational-instructional vision for this work. And so we jump into the weeds without understanding the "how" and "why". The public needs to understand the educational-instructional rationale. I am sure it exists, so we should incorporate into presentations. Shiny buildings with programming improvements-vision will grow enrollment.
(3) Charters are eligible for Prop. 51 dollars and the process has been painful. Millions of dollars were left on the table by OUSD. See this - https://greatschoolvoices.org/2018/08/will-ousd-leave-175-million-facilities-money-table/