Help Your Child Attend Integrated School... NOW

    NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 

10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 • (2i2) 586-8397 

EDUCATION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 

January 24, 1983 

Oakland, California 

REPORT 

Submitted by·: 

Jean Fairfax, Di.rector 
Division of Legal Information 

and Community Service · 

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes 

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it 
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDFhas had for over25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget. 



The Oakland Education and Career Development Project was 

an outgrowth of Project Alert of the NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). Proj.ect Alert combines monitoring 

and advocacy at the national and state levels to ensure com­

pliance with statutes that provide federal financial assistance 

to vocational programs and those that prohibit race and sex 

discrimination by vocational education institutions. 

To enhance the status of black students in the nation's 

vocational education system, LDF focuses on four critical 

questions: 

l. Does the distribution of funds under the Vo­

cational Education Amendments (VEA) by state 

agencies target money to property-poor school 

districts in area of high youth unemployment 

so that scarce federal resources are concentrated 

on those most in need of job training? 

2. Are the problems of sex stereotyping and dis­

crimination that are especially encountered by 

black girls and women addressed in compliance 

with VEA's prohibition against sex bias? 

3. Are the responsible state and local agencies 

addressing the serious maldistribution of black 

vocational students that affects the quality 

of their preparation for the world of work? 

4. Are the responsible federal agencies fulfilling 

their surveillance and enforcement responsibilities? 

The nature of America's vocational education system dictates 

that we pay particular attention to secondary education and 



- 2 -

especially to comprehensive high schools. The alarming increase 

in black teenage unemployment demands an urgent assessment of 

the effectiveness of inner city high schools in their role as 

_linkages between learning and work. 

In our country, vocational education in the public sector 

is provided in three kinds of institutions: postsecondary 

(usually junior or community colleges) , area vocational-technical 

schools, and comprehensive high schools. About three-fourths 

of the total vocational education enrollment in the United States 

is in secondary schools. Minorities comprise 27.4 percent of 

the enrollment in comprehensive high schools, but are substantially 

underrepresented in the area "vo-tech" and postsecondary institu­

tions. From both observation and research, LDF identified three 

attributes of quality vocational education: comprehensiveness 

and depth of instruction; proximity to jobs; and flexibility 

in responding to changing labor markets. Measured by these 

criteria, comprehensive high schools - where minorities are 

concentrated - are least likely to prepare students successfully 

for the world of work. 

Barriers to quality instruction in vocational education are 

the consequence of certain characteristics of comprehensive 

secondary schools. Fewer than half of the comprehensive high 

schools offer as many as five or six occupational areas. It 

is highly unlikely that each high school would have enough vo­

cational students to justify the expense of in depth programs 

in a number of different occupations. Scheduling difficulties, 

conflicts with required courses and transportation problems 

are impediments to the achievement of economies of scale through 



- 3 -

specialization of courses at different campuses. High school 

principals, by background and community expectations, place 

priority on preparation for college rather than for immediate 

employment. Teacher tenure laws make difficult the expansion 

and contraction of course offerings to meet changing labor 

market demands. 

As a consequence, black vocational students are concentrated 

in precisely those schools that offer them the least hope of 

training for immediate employment after graduation. Curiously 

enough, one of the obj.ectives of introducing vocational train­

ing into American secondary schools was the prevention of drop­

outs by offering incentives to non-college bound students to 

finish high school. With the extraordinarily high dropout 

rate of black inner. city youtlis today, that rationale is now 

questionable. 

LDF was eager to find a city school system in which we 

could explore all of these issues in depth. For a manageable 

project, we sought a medium-size district in a state where we 

already had compiled information about the governance and fund­

ing of vocational education •. We were interested in a project 

in California inasmuch as it was one of the five states whose 

enforcement of the VEA was being monitored by Proj-ect Alert and 

because we had a regional office in San Francisco. At a 1979 

consultation of persons interested in research, advocacy and 

litigation involving vocational education nationally as well as 

in California, we were strongly urged to consider Oakland. 

Access to the school system and th~ confidence of key persons 

in the community were.essential, if we were to do the kind of 



- 4 -

in depth research and interviewing that was contemplated. For­

tunately, Phyllis McClure, the director of Project Alert, knew 

Dr. Ruth Love, who was the Superintendent at that time. Informed 

of our decision to locate a project in Oakland, Dr. Love en-

couraged our critical examination of the school system. 

The editor of the Oakland Tribune, Robert Maynard, was a 

long-time friend of LDF - an important factor if issues we raised 

were to get media coverage. Two persons who had worked with 

LDF staff members on other projects before they became officials 

in the Oakland Public Schools (OPS), Robert Blackburn, who had 

been Deputy Superintendent, and Electra Price, Director of 

Community Relations, shared valuable insights into the politics 

and personalities of the system and its board members. 

PHASE ONE: RESEARCH FOR AND PUBLICATION OF LDF'S REPORT TO 
THE CITIZENS OF OAKLAND, Vocational Education: . 
Cause or Cure for Youth Unemployment? 

The investigation of vocational education in Oakland's high 

schools. that began in 1979 was coordinated by Phyllis McClure, 

who wrote the final Report. The research was based on school 

visits, interviews and analyses of internal school system docu-

ments. The issues upon which our research focused were those 

we had identified as critical to an assessment of the effective-

ness of the linkage between a high school education in Oakland 

and the world of work. The issues emerged in Cause or Cure as 

five basic findings: 

* The vocational curriculum received lower 

priority than the pre-college programs. Most 

vocational classes were not even designed to 



* 

* 

* 

* 

- 5 -

prepare students for work. They served as 

feeder programs for advanced study in com­

munity colleges, as electives to complete 

. graduation requirements, and as means to 

acquire personal skills or pursue avocation­

al interests. 

There was no structured program to combine 

classroom training with on-the-job experience 

and no formal placement program to help stu­

dents make the transition from school to work. 

Oakland employers were ill-informed about 

high school vocational programs and found 

graduates poorly prepared· for the workplace. 

Federal VEA funds were used as. general aid. 

44 percent of the money specifically targeted 

for disadvantaged, high-need students had 

not been spent. 

The school system had done virtually nothing 

to address sex inequity in vocational education. 

These findings suggested detailed recommendations for re-

form. Dictating specific remedies based on excellent models 

that Project Alert had observed in other school districts was 

very tempting. However, we were not planning to remain in 

Oakland for the extended period of time that would be required 

to accomplish the changes we envisioned. Neither did we be­

lieve that we possessed total wisdom concerning how vocational 

education in Oakland might contribute positively toward curing 

youth unemployment. We decided to use our findings as a 



- 6 -

vehicle for community education and a stimulus for action, 

to make our recommendations general, and to involve Oakland 

citizens in fashioning their own specific solutions to the 

problems raised in caus·~ ·or cure. 

PHASE TWO: THE COMMUNITY ALERT (May - July 1981) 

LDF's original intention was to stay in Oakland only through 

the summer of 1981. Our strategy for short-term involvement 

was encapsulated in four goals. 

l. To alert the community to the serious long­

range implications for Oakland of schools 

that do not prepare young people to be pro­

ductive participants in the economic life 

of the area. 

2. To use LDF's Report to the Citizens of Oak­

land as the framework for stimulating com­

munity-wide discussion and engaging others 

in more detailed research of the school 

district's deficiencies and possible remedies. 

3. To combat the sense of hopelessness by forg­

ing working relationships among those in 

Oakland whose mutually supportive efforts 

to challenge the status quo would be essential. 

4. To mobilize a representative group of con­

cerned citizens into an organization that 

would be capable of mounting a comprehensive, 

sustained effort to press for reforms in the 

Oakland school system. 



- 7 -

Presentation o;I; the Report 

Once Cause ·or Cure had been written, the task was to pro­

duce a publication that would attract the widest possible audience 

and stimulate Oakland citizens to take action. We hired Amahra 

Hicks as our consultant to prepare our Report for publication 

and to alert citizens about its implications. The text had to 

·be accompanied by compelling visual testimony about the con­

sequences of a deficient school system for the lives of Oakland 
I 

youth. For this purpose, Hicks engaged photographer, Joffre 

Clark. His portraits were a photographic investigation into 

the daily reality of life on the streets that captured the 

despair and hopelessness of youngsters whom the schools had 

failed and who did not possess the skills for productive employ­

ment. This pictorial evidence of the neglect and injustice 

suffered by minority youth ensured that caus·e or Cure could 

not be white-washed or ignored. 

LDF knew that many Oakland citizens, including those in 

positions of power and influence, were not unfamiliar with 

the inadequacies of the public schools. Many groups and 

organizations were also concerned about massive unemployment 

among minority young people and perhaps even sympathetic with 

their plight. But the problem of escalating youth unemploy­

ment had not yielded to fragmented, stop-gap solutions, some 

of which were described in the Report. 

Cause or Cure was released on April 30, 1981, at a press 

conference and formally presented to the Oakland School Board 

on May 6, 1981. 

Although the Report was harshly critical of the school 



- 8 -

system, LDF publicly proclaimed a non-adversarial stance and 

offered to work with the school.district, employers and. grass­

roots conununity groups to promote quality vocational education 

and the employability of high school graduates. The decision 

to convey a cooperative, rather than hostile, attitude was 

based on advice from neighborhood leaders and city politicians. 

Oakland would be more receptive to LDF if we approached:·_the 

school district in a non-confrontational posture, inasmuch as 

LDF was an outside organization. Furthermore, many of the 

teachers and administrators - especially black staff members -

were either in the conununity's leadership themselves or close­

ly connected with it. Their advice subsequently became refined 

and adopted as operating guidelines by LDF. 

The night LDF's Report was presented to the School Board, 

the response was positive but largely non-conunittal. Although 

all members had not read or fully digested the Report, they 

appeared ready nevertheless to address the problem, and some 

penetrating questions were raised. The response of Robert 

Blackburn, who had become Interim Superintendent, was wholly 

different. In a monologue that was in part an ad hominem 

attack on the Report's author, Blackburn defended the school 

district's staff, but acknowledged that the administration 

would have to take a close look at LDF's reconunendations. Even 

though he was hostile, Blackburn correctly observed that good 

training is driven by job opportunities and that the blame 

for youth unemployment should not be placed exclusively on 

the schools. 



- 9 -

Media coverage of the Repo:t't' s findings was extensive. 

Both weeklies, the Oakland p·ost -and the Mo:ntclari·on, gave in 

depth treatment. The Oakland Tribune ran pre-and post-release 

stori.es on the front page. There was also some radio coverage. 

A meeting of LDF staff with the editorial board of the Oakland 

Tribune resulted in a favorable editorial entitled "Youth and 

Hope." 

Simultaneously with release to the press and the School Board, 

the Report was presented to the community. The special brief­

ing, given to approximately 25 persons representing diverse 

organizations in the city, was the first of many LDF presenta­

tions throughout the summer of 1981, Amahra Hicks presented 

the Report's findings to: the Council of Seven Chairpersons of 

the Community Development Districts, the North Oakland District 

Council, the West Oakland District Council, the Chinatown Central 

District Council, the Youth Planning Council, Workforce '81, 

the Chamber of Commerce, Oakland Community Organizations, Inc., 

Progressive Black Professional and Business Women, Inter­

denominational Ministerial Alliance, and the Spanish Speaking 

Unity Council. 

As a result of the public information campaign, LDF re~ 

ceived overwhelming response from the community and offers 

of assistance to work with us in bringing about change ih the 

Oakland Public Schools. Letters supporting LDF's recommendations 

were sent to the Oakland School Board. 

Neighborhood workshops: Mobilizing the community for Action 

The original design of the Oakland Project contemplated 

holding seven neighborhood workshops from early June through . . . 



- 10 -

August. The purpose of these sessions was .to brief parents., 

students and school personnel within each of the seven community 

development districts (CD) about the Report's findings, and 

to identify key grassroots leaders who would gath.er together 

on an ad hoc basis to continue working for change after LDF 

departed. If the ad hoc group solidified into a single organiza­

tion, LDF would be prepared to assist in its establishment and 

in fundraising for it. 

The plan was not implemented. Critical ·developments in 

Oakland during the summer of 1981 and some miscalculations on 

our part led us to abandon our original plan. 

First, we were unable to implement our plan for workshops 

because district councils were reluctant to reorder their priori­

ties. The CD had been created to facilitate planning for and 

spending Oakland's community Development Block Grant Funds. 

Each of the seven CD councils was deeply engaged in developing 

funding priorities for the year's block grant money. The CD 

were not only arguing among themselves for apportionment of 

funds; they were also fighting downtown economic interests 

that the CD perceived were siphoning off money for projects 

antithetical to neighborhood priorities. Invitations were 

extended to Hicks to participate in meetings of CD councils, 

and LDF's goals were commended. However, there was little 

commitment to assume responsibility for the implementation of 

our objectives when they felt that their own survival was at 

stake. 

We considered organizing workshops on our own without 

the CD, but Hicks strongly advised against that strategy. 



- 11 -

She felt that LDF was not yet sufficiently accepted in the com­

munity to attract broad.participation, and we might be perceived 

as intruding on the turf of grassroots groups should we proceed 

on our own. We had clearly overestimated our ability to gain 

acceptance and to cosponsor seven workshops with the CD within 

a few months. 

Furthermore, the NAACP, through its regional office and 

its local branch, actively disparaged our efforts in Oakland -

an unfortunate consequence of a national dispute between our 

two organizations. 

The unexpected and rapid emergence of a different kind of 

ad hoc leadership group was the second major factor which caused 

us to scrap our original plan. Despite the difficulties en­

countered in mobilizing neighborhood leaders into an entity 

that would focus on the findings of our Report, LDF continued 

to make a significant impact in Oakland. Cause or cure had 

generated interest among a body of influential people from 

various segments of the population - representatives of labor, 

religious, business, educational and minority groups. Hicks 

found h.erself more and more engaged in helping this group to 

mobilize itself - time well spent because this ad hoc group 

ultimately became the Education and Career Development Com­

mission. 

Education and Career Deve1·opment Commission 

On the last day of June, the Commission held its first meet­

ing. Approximately 50 people in attendance signified their 

interest in working with a broad-based coalition. LDF played 

a pivotal role in bringing together people with diverse in-



- 12 -

teres.ts. and in assisting in the development of an organization-

al structure. 

The proposal from its chairman, Lonnie Dillard, that the 

Commission make a statement before the Oakland School Board 

helped solidify this group. The statement called for the inte­

. gration of quality vocational training in high schools into the 

city's economic development plans. 

The Commission's statement presented to the Board on July 15, 

1981, recommended that the School Board adopt a policy that the 

Oakland Public Schools 

develop a public school system that will 
complement the economic development goals 
of the city ••• and the region, through 
preparation of students to meet the chal­
lenges of relevant existing occupational 
opportunities as well as emerging career 
fields and occupations. 

The Commission proposed that the Board of Education establish 

a special select Commission on Education and Career Development, 

composed of persons knowledgeable in both .economic development 

and education. The select Commission, to be chaired by a mem-

ber of the Board of Education, was to be composed of 21 members 

selected from business, labor, the community, school administra-

tors and teachers, parent groups, city officials, clergy and 

the local postsecondary institutions. 

Board members were extremely pleased with the commission's 

statement and lauded the Legal Defense Fund for its continuing 

commitment to a process which would help the entire community 

work together on an urgent problem. 



- 13 -

Relating to the' School· System:- ' A con:fl:ict Resolved 

The Conunission's July 15, 1981 presentation to the Board 

of Education was more than appeared on its face. The event 

was actually the resolution of a conflict that had developed 

with Interim Superintendent Robert Blackburn. 

Despite Blackburn's defensive posture the night cause or 

Cure was presented to the School Board, the Interim Superinten­

dent had announced in early June the school system's plan to 

establish a Conunission to Study Vocational Education. It was 

to be chaired by the Associate Superintendent of schools. 

Its charge was to assess the district's vocational education 

program, study better alternatives, and make reconunendations 

to the School Board. LDF's Oakland Project Director was named 

as one of the Study Conunission's members. Several people who 

were then working with Hicks to form the ad hoc leadership 

. group were also asked to participate. 

The Associate Superintendent had sent out notices of the 

Study Conunission's first meeting when Blackburn learned that 

there was an external group which had already secured a place 

on the School Board's agenda for July 15th. The Interim Su-

' perintendent was furious. He was trying to control all conununi-

cation with the School Board, an historic pattern of previous 

Oakland superintendents. 

LDF was upsetting Blackburn's apple cart. He telephoned 

the Project Alert Director in Washington to protest the develop­

ment of an external group without the school system's involvement 

or knowledge. Blackburn accused LDF of practicing the "politics 



- 14 -

of mistrust and disparagenient '" and complained that LDF' s 

local staff was not in di.rect contact with him. 

Wires had obviously beeri crossed. There wa:s clearly over­

lap betwe.en the "internal" and "external". groups that were then 

in their formative stages. Hicks was communicating frequently 

with the Associate Superintendent who apparently was not brief­

ing his superior. Although the Interim Superintendent accused 

us of not maintaining a relationship, he had taken no initiatives 

to have direct contact with Hicks and the chairman of the ad 

hoc group. 

At issue was who was going to control th.e post-report 

process, respond to the findings, and engage the persons neces­

sary to press for change. The school administration wanted to 

ensure that central staff was not circumvented and that the 

Board heard recommendations from its own staff, not the "external" 

body. The Superintendent correctly perceived that LDF and the 

ad hoc leadership had concluded that the "internal" review 

would protect the status quo. The ad hoc group was gaining 

powerful adherents, and it wanted to ward off the likelihood 

that the administration's Study Commission would come forward 

with self-serving recommenda~ions. 

A meeting was hastily ar.ranged with the Interim Superinten­

dent, Hicks and Lonnie Dillard to find some accommodation 

between LDF and the school system. The meeting of the Com­

mission on Education and Career Development on June 30th was 

actually a meeting of the "external" and "internal" groups. 

Blackburn and several school board members spoke and gave their 



- 15 -

endorsement to the creation of the Commission. The storm had 

been weathered. During the summer, Hicks and the ad hoc group 

took over the development and organization of what is now the 

Commission on Education and Career Development. 

The swiftly moving events during the summer of 1981 and 

the crucial role which LDF was playing in forming a potentially 

effective instrument for change, convinced us that LDF had an 

unus.ual opportunity to be a catalyst. We, therefore, decided 

to remain in Oakland for a limited duration and we reformulated 

our strategy for the next phase of the project. 

PHASE THREE: A COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECT TO INVOLVE THE OAKLAND 
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN AN AGGRESSIVE EFFORT TO 
LINK LEARNING WITH THE WORLD OF WORK 

The extension of the LDF Oakland Project beyond the summer 

of 1981 was necessary because we had not accomplished our ob­

jectives within the original time frame. We had documented the 

failure of the Oakland Public Schools to help young people make 

the transition from school to the workplace. We had publicized 

our findings throughout the community. We had facilitated the 

development of a broad-based leadership. group. The Commission 

on Education and Career Development had in effect given an 

indigenous "seal of approval" to LDF's Report by its July 15th 

statement to the School Board. LDF did not want to walk out 

without some assurance that the forces that we had unleashed 

would sustain the momentum for change in our absence. 

From this point on, LDF's major objective was to turn over 

to another group - an independent advocacy and monitoring 

organization - the work we had started. We thought at the time 



- 16 -

that we had two options: We could either identify an existing 

group that shared our concern about the vital role of schools 

in combatting youth unemployment; or we could organize a new 

entity. We soon .realized that the second was our only option. 

There simply was no other group that had the capacity - or the 

desire - to take over. 

We, therefore, refined our strategy to c:i:.eate this new· 

entity, and set the following objectives for ~981~82: 

1. To promote through a "bottom up" approach, 

the formation of a grassroots advocacy group, 

using community workshops as the organizing 

vehicle; in the process we would identify 

potential leaders who would create a city­

wide body to which we would provide technical 

assistance; 

2. To work simultaneously with downtown, city-· 

wide, civic and business groups that are con­

cerned about the role of the school system in 

the economic development of Oakland; 

3. To forge a link between leaders in Oakland 

and neighborhood groups that share a concern 

about the urgency of relating schools to.the 

world of work. 

To implement these goals, LDF sought financial support 

from major foundations in the Bay Area; hired Amahra Hicks as 

project director; and moved into a modest office in downtown 

Oakland with an administrative secretary as our only other 

staff person. 



- 17 -

The Community Work -· September 19:9:1 thr'c:>ugh Janu·ary 19-82 

LDF continued to believe that efforts to use the district 

councils' leadership as vehicles for access into communities 

could be intensified and would produce a body of volunteers 

to organize neighborhood workshops or forums. As a result of 

these efforts, we cosponsored a workshop in East Oakland on 

November 21, 1981, and participated in several smaller neighbor­

hood events and in meetings of city-wide and grassroots organi­

zations. The East Oakland Conference was also sponsored by 

the East Oakland Youth Development Center, Neighborhood Pals, 

Oakland Youth Cadre, United East Oakland Clergy, and Project 

Volunteer. The Conference planning committee was successful 

in enlisting the active participation of youth from several 

organizations. They not· only contributed to the design.of .the 

Conference, but also appeared on television and radio shows, 

distributed leaflets, prepared refreshments and, most im­

portantly, served as informed and vocal members of panels. 

During the summer and fall, LDF had been working simul­

taneously with other.district and neighborhood groups to 

replicate the East Oakland effort, but we were unable to 

accomplish this objective. One of the problems was the lack 

of sufficient staff. In addition, we were counting on groups 

to provide volunteers to handle many of the details involved 

in organizing, program planning and recruitment for workshops. 

However, many community workers expected remuneration and 

were not available for assignments on a volunteer basis. 

Furthermore, LDF encountered both covert and public opposition 



- 18 -

to our atterript to organize at the. gr.assroots. Some. groups felt 

we were treading on their turf. Oakland Community Organizations, 

Inc., for example, decided after much. discussion not to be in­

volved in anything other than its own agenda. The NAACP used 

the "letter to the editor" column and circulated information in 

an attempt to undermine our credibility. 

In the. summer of 1981, LDF had constituted a small advisory 

committee for the Oakland Project. We felt the need for a sound­

ing board of local citizens from whom we could get an honest 

evaluation of our work and its impact on Oakland. Persons who 

were constructively critical of LDF were purposefully included. 

At a meeting of the Advisory Committee on January 25, 1982, a 

heated discussion took place over LDF's legitimacy. Sylvester 

Hodges, chair of the Title I Parent P.dvisory Committee, re­

ported the reaction of some community people who felt that 

the pictures in Cause or cu:re reflected negatively on black 

youth. There was also a perception of LDF as a fly-by-night 

organization that came into town, raised a red flag and then 

left. Parents were tired of outsiders who raise issues direct­

ly with school officials and neglect to involve local folks 

who have been struggling with the same issues. 

A spirited discussion, and considerable disagreement with 

Hodges ensued, but his candor sensitized us to the imperative 

to work with existing organizations and concerned individuals. 

We found that it was not easy to translate our mutually shared 

interests into effective and continuous working relationships. 

LDF did not abandon efforts to develop educational forums in 



- 19 -

the gra.ssroots co!llinunity:. Hicks took advantage of every avail­

able opportunity to appear on panels at such events as the 

San Antoni.o District Conference; to facilitate workshops, such 

as, the Oakland Progressive Political Alliance; and to report 

developments at district council meetings. She had a heavy 

schedule of meetings of numerous educa.tional, religious, po­

.litical, social and community organizations at which time she 

raised the issues of vocational education and youth unemployment 

and distributed the LDF Report. 

We heard from our Advisory Committee and other sources 

that many people were deferring to the Co!llinission, as its work 

became publicized and commended, and were reluctant to launch 

efforts at the neighborhood level that might become redundant. 

In other words, wait and see! 

The Commission on Education and Care·e:r D:evelopment - September 1981 
through January 1982 

The last quarter of 1981 was an important transition period 

for the Commission. Its presentation to the School Board in 

July had provided a focus and a sense of mission. We were excited 

about the interest and dedication of its members. Initially, al­

though it had a .chair, it had no secretariat. Hicks felt com­

pelled, therefore, to devote increasing efforts to nurturing 

this fledging organization and became deeply absorbed with it -

as the Commission shaped its goals and strategies and organized 

itself for a year of work. Without a formal decision, LDF 

moved into the role of providing the professional staff, secretariat, 

and technical assistance for the Commission as we attempted at 

the same time to integrate the concerns of the community into 



- 20 -

the. workplan and structure. of the 'Commission. 

The. Commission had rece.ived the. ·unanimous endorsement of 

the School Board as its official advisory.body and was com­

missioned to report its recommendations in a year. The Com­

mission defined its primary goals as: 

1. To assist the Oakland Public Schools in 

developing staff and programs to achieve 

maximum educational quality related to vo­

cational and career development for all 

students; 

2. To involve.all constituents in that process 

in an organized and supportive way; 

3. To create appropriate linkages for pro­

viding maximum employment opportunities 

for all students; 

4. To induce the creation of an integrated 

policy by the City of Oakland for education­

al and economic development and employment. 

Task forces were created in the areas of Occupational Pre­

paration, Basic Education, Human and Fiscal Resources and 

Career Opportunities. Their tasks were: to analyze school 

improvement needs; to consider possible school improvement 

strategies; and to recommend appropriate actions to the Com­

mission for the improvement of the Oakland School System. 

The Fiscal and Human Resources Task Force was led by Dr. 

E. Gare.th Hoachlander, Hoachlander was the director of the 

Project on National Vocational Education Resources based at 



- 21 -

the Univers.ity of California-.Berkeley. His work was part of 

a Congressionally-mandated study administered by the National 

Institute of Education. This Task Force investigated how 

much. money OPS spends for vocational education compared with 

other large urban distr.icts; how these fiscal resources are 

allocated and monitored; the problems in the expenditure and 

administration of federal VEA funds; and the fiscal impli­

cations of centralizing vocational education programs in a 

new location, e .. g. the proposed Oakland School for Commerce 

and Technology. 

The Task Force on Career Opportunities, chaired by Mel Wall 

of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, developed a paper on present 

and future occupations· that have high growth potential in Oak­

land. Wall collected primary data through a questionnaire to 

personnel directors of major industries and businesses. Secon­

dary data were obtained from other studies of short-term and 

long-range needs in the primary and s.econdary labor markets. 

Norman Clerk co-chaired Occupational Preparation with Hicks. 

Clerk is the president of the Advisory Council at Baymart, 

OPS' s downtown facility that .. offers all of the distributive 

education (retail and wholesale marketing) programs. This 

group examined the standards of vocational programs; the busi­

ness and industry linkages with OPS; the functioning of the 

existing advisory committees as vehicles for program improve­

ment; the quality of OPS's monitoring of program effective­

ness; and the special concerns for equity in vocational train­

ing for female, handicapped and bilingual students •. 



- 22 

The Basic Education Task Force was convened by Dr. Charles 

Benson. Benson, a nationally recognized expert on school 

finance, was the Principal Investigator of the Project on Nation­

al Vocational Education Resources. This committee exploredc.a 

range of subj.ect areas, including the tracking of students, staff 

development and assignment, early student failure, dropouts, 

follow-up of graduates, and parent-school-relationships. Dr. 

Benson produced an interesting paper·that reveals that poverty, 

as measured by children from AFDC families, does not always 

correlate with achievement in Oakland elementary schools. The 

policy implication of his work, that some schools are succeeding 

at least at the third grade in equipping students with. employ­

ment skills. was clear: OPS should discover why some schools 

are not successful and how s.econdary schools can build on early 

success and produce graduates who read well enough to get jobs. 

As recommendations from the task forces emerged, the Com-

mission held seminars for members, school officials and interested 

community leaders in order to achieve consensus on them. The 

recommendations were compiled into an interm report that was 

presented to the Board of Education on February 10, 1982, and 

summarized in the press. 

The Commission• s Final Report: Workin·g Together: The Future of 
Collaborative Efforts in the Oakland Public Schools (Appendix ll 

Two hard-working Commission members, Nancy Tapper and 

Oscar Goodman, were largely responsible for translating the 

interim report into a final document that made specific proposals 

for res.tr.ucturing the school di.strict 1 s curriculum, programs 

and managment information system. 



- 23 -

LDF assumed responsibility for community input into the 

final recommendations. We hired a program associate whose 

energies were exclusively devoted to community outreach from 

late March through May 1982.. Richardine Rice-Gore compiled 

a contact list of 260 organizations and individuals who might 

potentially become the nucleus of a long-range community-based 

education project. To 800 persons contacted by letter or tele­

phone, she reported on the Commission's work, extended invita­

tions to leaders' workshops and made herself available to speak 

at meetings. The 100 persons who registered for her four work­

shops received kits prepared by staff that focused on four 

issues in which specific input from community leaders was solicited: 

the unified curriculum, counseling, cominunity/parerit/student 

involvement, and magnet/specialized schools. The kits were 

reproduced by Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation as an in-

kind contribution. 

Although we were disappointed that only 50 persons partici­

pated in the workshops, they were leaders of key organizations 

in the community and. made excellent specific recommendations to 

the Commis.sion. Rice-Gore made 11 visits to individuals or 

. groups for mini-workshop presentations. She estimated that per­

sons representing constituencies of over 2,000 persons were in­

volved in the workshops. and the leaders whom she visited had 

constitutencies of over 20,000 persons in their parent, pro­

fessional and social organizations. It is difficult, however, 

to measure the impact of her work because one cannot ascertain 

how much filters. down from leaders i.nto the lives of those who 



- 24 -

are the real targets of an outreach effort. 

The Commission's final report, chartering a course that 

goes far beyond a narrow approach 'to. careerism, summarized 

issues that must be explored for all students, if their years 

in public schools are to be the basis for a lifetime of pro­

ductive work. The Commission called for a "comprehensive re­

newal of all of the resources and programs of the Oakland Public 

Schools, and the welding of links between that system and all 

of its constituents." Working Together·: The Future of Collabora­

tive Efforts in the Oakland Public S'chdols, described as a 

working document of critical issues for planning and implementa­

tion by the School Board, contains 21 recommendations, clustered 

in four sections, each of which is accompanied by a statement 

of the rationale for proposed actions. 

* Res·ources. Concerned about the Board as a resource, 

the Commission urged it to have an independent staff to under­

take research and other supportive activities that would enable 

members to devote more time to, and become more knowledgeable 

about, policy matters. Full benefits from .financial resources 

would require procedures to assure that the district is getting 

all of the federal and state funds to which it is entit+ed, 

improved fiscal monitoring, and closer attention to the alloca­

tion of budgets within the system. A quality management informa­

tion system would make possible the collection and retrieval 

of data - a vital resource for monitoring student performance, 

preventing dropouts and following graduates. A coordinated 

approach to staff development would assure that administrators, 



- 25 -

teach.era and counselors ·are enhanced as resources, A master 

planning system, with provisions for regular input from 

parents, students, and the community, would further enrich 

the district's resources. 

* The Commission recommended the institution 

of a uniform core curriculum that would be required of all 

students and offered in all schools and provide the basis for 

success in college or employment; the elimination of tracking; 

and the availability of a core.guidance/counseling program 

throughout the system. All students should be helped to develop 

positive attitudes toward lifelong development, and to acquire 

a realis.tic understanding of the world of work, basic job seek­

ing and job keeping skills, .as well as life skills in such 

areas as consumerism,. home management and personal decision­

making. In addition, for students preparing for immediate 

employment, vocational programs should emphasize the acquisition 

of transferable skills, combine classroom with work experience, 

involve employers, and match training to labor market opportuni-

ties. A "sunset clause" in vocational programs would force a 

periodic evaluation of them. The Commission urged the re-

structuring and rescheduling of vocational programs; the ex­

ploration of the feasibility of magnet schools; and attention 

to students - female, handicapped, minority and pregnant stu-

dents - whose special needs for vocational education require 

different approaches. 

* L·inka;ges. The Commission called for vigorous pursuit 

of a broad range of linkages ·- collaborative efforts between the 

schools and .external groups to assure the fiscal and human 



- 26 -

resources necessary to improve and maintain the quality of 

education in the system, working' To·g:ether described examples 

of collaboration and some initiatives from outside bodies 

such as the City Council. The Commission recommended the co­

ordination of linkages through a clearinghouse and a "venture 

fund" that would subsidize the pursuit of linkages. 

* Imp1·ementation. working: Together recommended the 

continuation of the Commission and the creation of an Implementa­

tion Team ·of internal and external consultants. The Team, to 

be cosponsored by OPS and the Commission, would develop and 

coordinate implementation strategies. 

Working Together was first presented to the Oakland 

School Board on June 30, 1982, and again in a more extended 

session on July 14th. The Board received the Report enthusiasti­

cally but, contrary to expectations, did not approve its recom­

mendations, including the proposal for the extension of the 

Commission. Rather, the Board asked the new Superintendent to 

review th.e recommendations and report back in six weeks. The 

Commission felt it had been double crossed. During the pre­

ceding months, individual Board members had been briefed about 

the recommendations. Several members led Hicks and other 

Commission meinbers to expect prompt ratification of the recom­

mendations. Superintendent David Bewick, who had seen an 

advance copy of working Together, had praised it in principle. 

Based on this. positive response, the CoJllillission had fully anti­

cipated approval of the recio=enda.tions without any difficulties 

so that implenientation could proceed without delay. 



- 27 -

Dissens;lon within the comxni:ssj:on 

The fai:lure of the school Board and the Superintendent to 

endorse the recommendations speci:fically threw the Commission's 

leadership i.nto disarra::t• Core ·members differed over the motives 

of the Boar·d and the Superintendent and over appropriate strategy 

for the Commission. With one ·faction advocating an adversarial 

approach because the time for cooperation had expired and another 

desiring continuing cooperation with school officials, strong 

dif:f;erences of opinion inevi:tably created personal antagonisms. 

The."hard-line" faction advised the Board by letter that 

the Commission would continue with or without the Board's ap­

proval, and sought to disassociate the commission from LDF and 

Amahra Hicks, who had become allied with those Commission mem­

bers wh.o were convinced that continued collaboration with the 

school district administration was essential. Effective imple­

mentation of the recommendations would be possible only when 

they became the Superintendent's goals and were institutionalized 

into the structure under his personal leadership. Disagreements 

between the Commission and the administration could be negotiated. 

Although LDF had announced our intention to withdraw 

from Oakland at the end of the summer, it was apparent that 

our departure would have to be postponed until the Commission 

once again became a stable working group. All of Hicks' time 

and energies had to be devoted to the reconstitut;lon of the 

Commission - a task whi:ch she accomplished with incredibly 

skill:f;ul diplomacy. Members who were committed to a collabora­

tive relationship with.O!?S he:came the nucleus for a reorganized 



- 28 -

CoilUlliss:ion. Three members, .Gareth ·Hoachlander, Robert Gicker 

and Joseph Bute made very constructive contributions by sub­

mitting written documents: with proposed missions and organiza­

tional structure. By-la,ws were drawn up; a tentative organiza"". 

tional structure was designed. Lonnie Dillard resigned as 

Chair. Elections for new officers were held in November. 

The new Chair, warren Wilson, a lawyer, is president of the 

Thomas Bros. Map Company. Ms. Pat Golde; the Secretary, is 

an employment agency executive and represents women's American 

Organization for Rehabilitation for Training (women's ORT). 

Robert Gicker, Financial Officer and Treasurer, is the Vice­

president for Urban Affairs for wells Fargo. Papers for in­

corporation under California law and for status as a 501-C-3 

nonprofit orga,nization under federal law have been filed. 

Relations with the Oakland School System 

Six months after the publication of Caus·e· ·or Cure and two 

months after the CoilUllission's first public appearance before 

the School Board, a new Superintendent, Dr. David Bewick, was 

appointed. Despite the policy of collaboration with the school 

system that had been articulated by LDF and the CoilUllission, 

relations with Dr. Bewick were not harmonious at first. He 

declined an invitation to be the keynote speaker at the East 

Oakland CollUl\unity Conference and finally consented to meet with 

th.e Commission only after he had turned down several requests. 

The fi.rs.t meeting between the CoilUllission and the new 

Superinteriderit did not go well. Dr. Bewick let it be known 

that he felt the Commission was an a,dversary with whom he . 

would be reluctant to work. The Commission regarded Dr. Bewick 



- 29 -

as indi:f;ferent and perhaps even hostile. Commission leaders ex­

pressed their concern to Board members who had been openly 

supportive. They urged time to permit Dr. Bewick to become 

acclimated to Oakland and were clearly reluctant to force his 

hand on policy issues so early in his tenure. 

Following the Interim Report that had reaffirmed the policy· 

of collaboration, the Commission sought a closer working relation­

ship with Dr. Bewick and his executive staff in the spring of 

1982. As a result of these efforts, an environment of trust 

began to develop and the Superintendent agreed to support the 

recommendations of the Commission in principle when he received 

his advance copy. 

In view of the warming relations with Dr. Bewick and his 

private praise for Working Together, Hicks and the Commission 

were puzzled by his refusal to endorse the Commission's 

recommendations publicly. Hicks.' insistence on continued com-

munication with Dr. Bewick, despite that disappointment, was 

a major factor in the split with the faction within the Com­

mission that advocated confrontation. During the period of the 

Commission's internal conflict, Hicks continued to meet with 
' Dr. Bewick and his staff on the recommendations. Dr. Bewick 

opposed two of the recommendations - the proposals for an 

independent staff for the School Board and the employment of 

an outside. team of consultants - but was willing to work with 

the Commissi.on and to negot:i.ate differences. The split in the 

commission e:f;:f;ectively permitted Dr, Bewick to delay his formal 

response to working Togeth:er's recommendations; his report to 



- 30 -

the Board, scheduled for August 25th, did not occur. 

Other matters complicated our relations with the school 

system in the late summer and early fall of 1982. The district 

was preoccupied by a budget crisis and personnel reorganization, 

and the staff member who had been designated to work with the 

Commission was clearly stonewalling the implementation effort.· 

The need for strategies to implement recommendations that 

would emerge had been on our agenda from the inception of the 

Commission, and our 1981-82 work plan had included the convening 

of a "think tank." During the spring of 1982, Tapper and 

Goodman had devoted considerable time to the design of an im-

plementation conference. LDF's New York and Washington staff 

began to compile names of persons with national expertise who 

might be involved in a "working party." It became increasingly 

clear, .however, that implementation would have to be a process 

that was jointly planned with OPS. Planning sessions met delays 

as a result of matters mentioned above as well as medical leaves 

of LDF and key OPS staff. 

By early December, Dr. Bewick had begun to take a more 

direct role in planning collaborative efforts with the Com­

mission,; and had assigned coordinating responsibilities to de­

puties who are sympathetic to our objectives. 

On December 14th, Dr. Bewick advised senior staff members 

by memorandum of the official working relationship between the 

school district and the Commission as set forth in guidelines 

approved by the Board of Education. (Appendix 2) The recipients 

of the memorandum were: the Associate and Assistant Superinten­

dents and directors or coordinators of such areas as Vocational 



- 31 -

Education, State and Federal Programs, Programs for Exceptional 

Children, Research and Evaluation, and Instructional Programs. 
' . 

Bowick affirmed his corrunitment to "continue towards the creation 

of a successful vocation and career· education program with the 

assistance of the Corrunission." He requested written responses 

by January 13, 1983, "to those recommendations made by the Com­

mission that relate to your area of responsibility." The. 

responses should include what has already been done, the cost 

and ramifications of implementation, policy issues and a priori-

tized implementation plan. 

To Commission members, Dr. Bowick has delcared that he 

is "tired of talking; let's implement!" and that implementation 

is a mandate from his Board. He has agreed to an implementation 

schedule. By February 14th, his deputies and the Corrunission 

will compile and analyze the responses for a staff "shirt-sleeve" 

session, in preparation for a conference of Commission members 

and some outside experts that will be held around March 1st. The 

agenda for this conference will be to set priorities and to 

cost-out and identify resources for implementation. 

Hicks has had a series of meetings with key individuals in 

Oakland's political and business leadership: Mayor Lionel Wilson; 

Charles Patterson, Executive Vice President of World Airways and 

Chair of the Employment and Training Advisory Corrunittee (.ETAC) ; 

William Downing, President of the Chamber of Corrunerce; and Doug 

Higgins, President of Bay Rubber, a Director of the Port of 

Oakland and President of the Private Industry Council (PIC) • 

Dr. Edward J. Blakely, As.s.is.tant .Vi.ce P,:es.ident for Academic 

Personnel and Professor of Economics at the University of California, 



- 32 -

Berkeley, has been very resourceful and has urged the involve­

ment of Dr. Bernard Gifford, the new Dean of the School of 

Education at Berkeley who has a strong commitment to urban educa­

tion. A retreat that would involve top business, educational 

and political decision-makers in the area has been proposed to 

solidify the community's leadership in support of the school 

district's implementation efforts. 

The Situtation as of December 31, 1982 

By the end of 1982, the Commission had reorganized under 

strong leadership. The School Board had approved guidelines 

for a continuing relationship to the Commission. Superintendent 

David Bewick had. voiced his total commitment to create a success­

ful vocation and career education program with the assistance of 

the Commission and had agreed to a schedule of implementation. 

Under the leadership of Pat Golde, an officer of the Commission, 

a plan for community education and involvement is being developed 

that would include a volunteer speaker's bureau and a newsletter 

and encourage the participation of parents and interested groups 

in monitoring the implementation of the recommendations in the 

s.chools. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Having invested several years in Oakland, we must now 

evaluate our efforts. The Oakland Project arose out of our 

despair over the alarming incidence of black youth unemployment 

nationally and our desire to participate in finding solutions 

that are within our mandate as a civil rights agency. A focus 



- 33 -

on the role of schools seemed appropriate. Our nation looks 

to the public school - not as the sole solution for all of 

our country's ills, but as the institution that has been as­

signed primary responsibility for producing America's leaders 

and workers. For more than a generation, public education has 

also been the primary target of LDF's efforts to secure justice. 

We eagerly sought a community where, together with local citizens, 

we might participate in the reform of a school system, promot-

ing those steps that would effectively link schooling with the 

world of work, as one way of reducing youth unemployment. 

To what degree has LDF as a national agency succeeded in 

the reform of a school system 3,000 miles away? 

l. We have demonstrated that outsiders can alert citizens 

about the implications of national developments for their com­

munity and the need for their involvement if meaningful change 

is to occur. In fact, although there was some initial resent­

' ment (Why are you picking on us; your critical expose could have 

been about any school system?) , we may have been heard precisely 

because we brought a national perspective. 

2. We have been a stimulus for action. We were successful 

in mobilizing a broadly-based. group of dedicated, resourceful, 

and hard-working people that became the official Commission of 

the School Board. After a year of intensive work, it produced 

on schedule a thoughtful, provocative document that could become 

the charter for reform. Several factors contributed to our 

success: our experienced, mature project director, fortuitous 

timing; and the readiness of leaders for changes in the school 

system as a necessary complement to the economic development 



- 34 -

in the area. 

3. We have been a catalyst for change. But will reforms 

actually take place so that OPS will become an effective force 

for reducing youth unemployment in Oakland? The jury is s.till 

out. One question, of course, is the degree to which an out­

side agency can reform a local institution. Reform takes time 

and often occurs in spurts, with rapid movements followed by 

periods of consolidation. A national agency can rarely make 

the investment in financial and human resources that is required 

not only to initiate but to sustain reforms. Waiting in the 

wings for outsiders to leave are local folks who are eager to 

champion a return to the status quo ante. Questions of pride 

arise. We have met some resistance to our suggestions of. con­

sultants whose practical expertise,_ gained elsewhere in the 

country, might be constructively shared with Oakland. The 

Commission has received accolades and endorsements and officials 

are no longer defensive; but some of the substantive issues 

raised by cause or· cure that could have been immediately addressed 

are. still being discussed •. Change is political, often requir-

ing the reordering of priorities, the phasing out of favorite 

programs and the shifting of entrenched personnel. Whether 

outside agencies with limited resources for long-term involve..: 

ment in communities can reform local institutions is indeed 

uncertain. 

Our major goal, therefore, was to mobilize citizens and 

create a local entity that would assume full responsibility for 

carrying on our work. We never resolved to our satisfaction 



- 35 -

the issue of a grassroots vs. a top-down strategy. As. a civil 

rights agency, LDF's strengths and success elsewhere in the 

country have been with community organizations that confront 

public agencies and officialdom. The initial plan, therefore, 

was "bottom up" and envisaged the creation of an independent 

body committed to advocacy, monitoring, whistle-blowing and 

action. Our staff's early success in mobilizing a commission 

with ties to the power structure and an official relationship 

to the School Board necessitated a change in our initial plan. 

We decided to pursue both strategies - bottom up and top down -

but were never really successful in grassroots community organi­

zation in Oakland. There were some differences among LDF 

staff - with national staff pressing for the grassroots approach -

but when it became clear that we could not do both, .the advice 

we received from the persons with whom.we were· working in Oakland 

prevailed. Did we make the best decision for the children of 

Oakland? The Commission produced an excellent report but then 

lost precious time during the sununer and fall of 1982 as mem-

bers sought to resolve a most unfortunate internal conflict. 

We are pleased that it has weathered this crisis. 

LDF is now in the process of deciding how we can be most 

helpful to the Commission as we phase out. Commission officers 

have urged us to remain in Oakland. Whatever our decision, we 

are convinced that the Commiss.ion must lessen its dependence 

on us and become truly independent. It must complete its re­

structuring,. get commitments for long-term financial support and 

make the kinds of personnel decisions that are expected of 



- 36 -

established organizations. We are indeed gratified that a 

relationship with the school district has been formalized and 

that a schedule of implementation is in place. Our continu­

ing concern is that progress in agreements. on proces.s must 

not become a substitute for action on substantive issues. 

The next three months will be critical. 



Sl\U\RIES 
Project Director 
Secy. Asst. 
Fringe Benefits 

TOmL SAfARIES & 
FRINGES 

OFFICE EXPENSES 
Rent 
Telei;hooe 
Duplicaticn 
Supplies 
EquiplEnt 

'IUrAL OFFICE EXPENSES 

PROGRl\M COSTS 
Postage 

• 

N A,AC P LEG 1\L DE"!!'~ !'I~ E & ~DUCAT I ON A, L FUND, INC, 

DIVISIOO OF LEGl\L INFORMM'IOO AND a:MUNITY SERVICE 

F.ducaticn and Career Developrent Project, Oakland, Califomia 

Original Budget Expenditures Revised Budget 
9/81 thru 8/82 9/5/81 thru 8/27/82 9/5/81 thru 12/28/82 

$ 30,000.00 $ 30,807.71 $ 43,500.00 
15,000.00 14,576.57 21,400.00 

7,700.00 7,715.34 11,033.00 
~ 53,200.00 $ 53,099.62 $ 75,933.00 

$ 3,468.00 $ 2,919.94. $ 4,800.00 
1,200.00 1,269.12 1,600.00 
1,100.00 1,549.35 1,600.00 

600.00 . 936.11 1,000.00 
432.00 . 387 .89 1,200.00 

$ 6,800.00 $ 7,062.41 $ 10,200.00 

$ 1,000.00 1,607.46 $ 2,000.00 
Prog. Materials, Printing 1,500.00 5,642.47 7,800.00 
Travel 1,000.00 2,547.00 2,000.00 
Meetings 1,000.00 1,869,90 2,000.00 
Misc. 500.00 740.15 1,000.00 
Conferences o.oo o.oo 15,000.00 
ecmliunity \'k>rker 2,500;00 3,000.00 

'IUrAL PROGRl\M COSTS $ 5,000.00 $ 14,906.98 $ 32,800.00 

GRMID 'IUrALS $. 65,000.00 $ 75,069.01 $ 118,933.00 

- 37 -

Expenditures 
9/5/81 thru 12/31/82 

$ 42,230.78 
19,941.92 
10,569.36 

$ 72,742.06 

$ 4,044.94 
1,790.75 
1,679.55 
1,285.75 

442.89 
$ 9,243.88 

$ 1,834.25 
5,757.47 
3,495.86 
2,189.34 

923.67 
0.00 

2,500.00 
$ 16,700.59 

$ 98,686.53