Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 28, 2016

The space between

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:08 am

Tonight there might be a few unexpected fireworks at the School Board.  On the closed agenda there is an item about possible litigation with Community Learning Center Schools which is probably better known at Nea and ACLC.

Recall that Nea and ACLC negotiated a pretty sweet deal with the District a while ago securing a long term lease for the Woodstock Campus as long as they met enrollment requirements for Alameda residents.

Apparently CLCS wants to install seven new portables on their site.  From my second hand understanding, the District is denying their request to do so even though they have that long term lease in place.  According to reports the District was aware of their plans and CLCs has expended a significant sum of money for the design and planning of the portables, but now there is no response about why the District has decided to not allow the portables to go in.

Look, I’ve always been pretty skeptical of charter schools.  I’m not the biggest fan of them, but I can understand the need for parents to have options.   I will share that I did go and visit Nea’s campus pretty recently and, frankly, the campus is pretty shabby.  I mean, they make do with what they have and the students all seem pretty happy, but it’s really a shame that we have what are really sub optimal facilities for Alameda students.

The existence of charter schools in Alameda is not something that can be reversed by simply not allowing portables to go in, it’s important that everyone remember that the parcel tax renewal is coming up in November and there’s not a lot of wiggle room to alienate natural allies like the local charter school community.  This is not to say that the District needs to capitulate to every single demand, but if the request is reasonable and the District has no legal reason to deny the request, then the lease terms should be honored.





  1. Brexit- Alameda version…Offer the teachers basically nothing in salary increases, even though they are payed less than other Bay Area teachers, refuse to negotiate anymore until September, and then alienate charter school parents by giving them shabby facilities….and then ask everyone to support them in the upcoming election?

    Comment by Captain Obvious — June 28, 2016 @ 7:13 am

    • Teacher pay is dictated by The Market. There is no need to raise salaries if there is a sufficient quantity of teaching resources available at the current rate. Please cease commenting with your thoughts on economic issues; your comments exhibit a lack of knowledge regarding fundamental economic theory that is both embarrassing to read and, frankly, a waste of space in Lauren’s great database of comments.

      Comment by Rodney — June 28, 2016 @ 7:33 am

      • Actually, to a great extent teacher pay is dictated by the revenues the State gives a school district, something almost entirely out of control of the school district or the teachers and staff. The way that works (or doesn’t work) isn’t really through a market mechanism or anything close to the theoretical efficiency of “The Market.”

        Local parcel tax revenues also play a significant role in teacher pay, since the vast majority of expenditures by any school district necessarily go towards employees.

        Comment by Peace — June 28, 2016 @ 8:00 am

        • The Market has determined that you’re a nerd.

          Comment by Rodney — June 28, 2016 @ 10:11 am

    • The Brexit analogy fits in several, discouraging ways. Responsibility is shared for the bad place where things now stand after an important vote. That includes the responsibility of (a) leaders who did and didn’t do various things leading up to that vote and of (b) the majority of voters who, on the big vote, seemed to vote against their own interests and the interests of many of their allies, apparently based largely on emotion and exaggerated fears of unlikely scenarios (i.e., Leave voters in the U.K.= Teachers voting no on the T.A. that offered a salary increase of more than 3% for one year heading into a critical effort to renew and extend the term of the parcel tax).

      Let’s hope everyone does his/her best in coming months to prevent the worst from coming to pass, in AUSD, in the U.K./Europe, and in the U.S.A.

      Comment by Peace — June 28, 2016 @ 9:32 am

  2. There are already a few portables on site, yes? 7 more would surely impact parking down there. The lots are pretty full already. Is there room in the neighborhood to park a hundred cars?

    Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — June 28, 2016 @ 7:22 am

    • I believe that once the Cross Alameda Trail on RAMP gets built (supposedly this summer) CLCS has been offered space for parking over by the soccer fields. I’m going on memory about this one, but I can’t remember where I read this.

      Not sure why seven portables would generate a hundred cars, CLCS encompasses an elementary and middle school program as well, fairly sure these children are not driving single occupant vehicles, but yes, there are already portables one site, I want to estimate three, maybe four.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 28, 2016 @ 7:53 am

      • That funny. But when I was in 6th Grade in the 50’s I had two Classmates who drove to school. This was before they had Special-Ed and these two had just been ‘left back’ several years.

        Comment by frank — June 28, 2016 @ 9:33 am

      • Lauren. You may have heard the comments about additional parking space in a ARPD meeting. The plan is to build the trail and be done around October or so of this year. It is meant to be completed around the same time as the trail through Jean Sweeney Park. That may or may not happen, but that’s what they’re shooting for.

        Comment by Bill2 — June 28, 2016 @ 12:47 pm

  3. This decision is short sighted. The portables would likely stay with the school once Nea’s lease is up. That’s 7 portables worth of extra educational space at no cost to the district. This would be charter school money going back to AUSD. Plus, do you really think that the district needs to be seen as going back on a contract… while in negotiations with the teacher’s union? I don’t see how AUSD wins in this decision?

    Comment by Angela — June 28, 2016 @ 10:32 am

  4. I had heard that the middle schools at ACLC and NEA were planning to move to the old Christian School site on Bay Farm over the summer but that some Port of Oakland issue is delaying the move to Dec. 2016. Perhaps this has something to do with the denial of the portables?

    Comment by BAC — June 28, 2016 @ 3:40 pm

    • Interesting, I know the lease is ending for Crosspoint at the end of June, that site is a good fit for CLCS’s programs because it’s probably already converted for classroom space.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 28, 2016 @ 4:07 pm

  5. Coming out of closed session, there was a unanimous direction to AUSD counsel to respond to CLCS, which is a good result. It means continued negotiation.

    Comment by gaylon — June 28, 2016 @ 9:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at