- 0 - 2005-2006 school intervention recommendations oakland unified school district november 2, 2005
TRANSCRIPT
- 1 -
2005-2006 School Intervention Recommendations
Oakland Unified School District
November 2, 2005
- 2 -
• Vision
• 2005-2006 Timeline
• School Quality Management Criteria
• 2005-2006 School Quality Management Recommendations
• Immediate Actions Necessary
• Review of Decisions Made in 2004-2005
Agenda
- 3 -
School Quality Management: Vision
School closures
Sc
ho
ol
Ba
se
d C
on
tro
l
Ac
co
un
tab
ilit
y f
or
res
ult
s
Sc
ho
ol
Ba
se
d
Imp
rov
em
en
tS
ch
oo
l B
as
ed
Im
pro
ve
me
nt
New School incubation
Under Performing Schools
High Quality Schools
OUSD VisionCreating a world class
public school system that educates all students to high
standards of learning in partnership with our
community, based in the resurgence of Oakland with
a recommitment to our shared values of equity, learning and community.
A high quality school in every neighborhood and serving every population of Oakland
Dis
tric
t M
an
da
tes
School closures
Facility Reutilization
- 4 -
9/1/05: State Administrator appointed a School Intervention Team to make recommendations to the OUSD Board
9/28/05: Board Presentation of School Lifecycle Management
10/1/05 – 11/2/05: Meetings with communities of schools needing interventions
11/2/05: Board Presentation of schools needing intensive intervention
11/2/05 – 2/1/06: Community inclusive decision making process around intervention strategies for each school
2/1/06 – 9/1/06: Execution of intervention plans
2005-2006 Intervention Process: Timeline
- 5 -
School Quality Management: Criteria for Categorizing Need for Intensive Intervention
ACADEMIC
Federal Program Improvement Status
Federal AYP Growth Prospect Ability to make AYP for 2005-2006 based on historical growth patterns
State SAIT Status
Local API Less than 600
Local CST Growth Failure to achieve 5% growth either into Proficient/Advanced or out of Far Below Basic / Below Basic in both Math and ELA
ENROLLMENT LOSS
Short-Term Loss of more than 10% of students since last year
Long-Term Loss of more than 30% of students over 5 years
SUSTAINABILITY
Size Less than 300 students after 3 years of existenceNote: Analysis has shown that schools under 300 students require supplemental funding
- 6 -
School Quality Management: Additional Factors Considered
• Travel distances and obstacles faced by families and students• Programs serving a special community need• Co-located early childhood programs• High academic achievement• Community/parent interests• Facility conditions• Program leadership and staff capacity• Neighborhood developments• Alternate site uses
- 7 -
School Quality Management: Recommendation Summary
Category Schools Total Screens Academic Screens
Support via Network 30 0-2 0
Level One Monitoring 27 1-2 1-2
Level Two Monitoring 14 3-5 2-4
Level Three Monitoring 11 5 or more 4-5
Immediate Action is Necessary
4 6 or more 6 or more
- 8 -
Recommendation: Support via Network
Criteria:
• 0-2 total screens
• 0 academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameCHABOT 0 0CLEVELAND 0 0CROCKER HIGHLANDS 0 0FRANKLIN 0 0FRUITVALE 0 0LAKEVIEW 0 0LAUREL 0 0LINCOLN 0 0MONTCLAIR 0 0PIEDMONT AVE 0 0SEQUOIA 0 0EDNA BREWER 0 0KIZMET ACADEMY 0 0BEST 0 0EXCEL 0 0
ENROLLMENT DECLINEACADEMIC
- 9 -
Recommendation: Support via Network
Criteria:
• 0-2 total screens
• 0 academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameKIPP 0 0REACH ACADEMY 0 0RISE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 0 0MANZANITA SEED 0 0SANKOFA 0 0CARL MUNCK 298 1 0LA ESCUELITA 235 1 0GRASS VALLEY 199 1 0HILLCREST 282 1 0PERALTA 245 1 0REDWOOD HEIGHTS 289 1 0HOWARD 256 1 0KAISER 238 1 0MARSHALL 236 1 0EMERSON -32% 247 2 0
ENROLLMENT DECLINEACADEMIC
- 10 -
Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level One
Criteria:
• 1-2 total screens
• 1-2 academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameMET WEST no 1 1THINK COLLEGE NOW no 1 1HOOVER no 1 1LIFE ACADEMY no 1 1ENCOMPASS yes 1 1EXPLORER yes 1 1BUSINESS AND INFORMATION TECHN 454 1 1EAST OAKLAND SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 428 1 1ROOSEVELT MS 1 1 1JOAQUIN MILLER yes 1 1THORNHILL yes 1 1MONTERA MS yes 1 1GLENVIEW yes 1 1OAKLAND COMMUNITY DAY HIGH 354 1 1
ENROLLMENT DECLINEACADEMIC
- 11 -
Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level One
Criteria:
• 1-2 total screens
• 1-2 academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameLEADERSHIP PREP 523 -11% 2 1BELLA VISTA 1 -32% 2 1SHERMAN 1 219 2 1MELROSE LEADERSHIP AC no no 2 2YES YOUTH EMPOWERMENT no no 2 2ARCHITECTURE ACADEMY no no 2 2MANDELA no no 2 2LAZEAR 1 no 2 2SKYLINE HS 1 no 2 2ASCEND no yes 2 2GARFIELD 2 2 2WESTLAKE MS 1 yes 2 2M.L. KING, JR. 1 yes 2 2
ENROLLMENT DECLINEACADEMIC
- 12 -
Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level Two
Criteria:
• 3-5 total screens
• 2-4 academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameMANZANITA 2 no yes -28% -49% 5 3PARKER 2 -16% -49% 264 5 2FAR WEST (MS & HS) no 565 214 3 2ROBESON VPA 1 no no 3 3INT'L COMM. SCHL. (ICS) no no yes 3 3MEDIA COLLEGE PREP 1 no no -11% 4 3URBAN PROMISE 2 no 3 3OAKLAND TECHNICAL HS 1 no 586 3 3MARKHAM no no yes -10% -31% 4 3BRET HARTE 2 yes 3 3MERRIT MIDDLE COL HS no no 446 102 4 3OAKLAND HS 2 no 598 4 4SANTA FE no no yes yes 4 4ACORN WOODLAND 3 no 4 4
ACADEMICENROLLMENT
DECLINE
- 13 -
Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level Three
Criteria:
• 5 or more total screens
• 4-5 academic Screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameSOBRANTE PARK 4 281 5 4BURCKHALTER 1 no no yes 171 5 4MAXWELL PARK 1 no no yes -36% 5 4LAFAYETTE 2 no no yes -20% 5 4CLAREMONT MS 3 no yes 5 5BROOKFIELD 3 no yes 5 5ALLENDALE 5 -12% -34% 7 5JEFFERSON 5 5 5FRICK MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 no no 596 5 5
ENROLLMENT DECLINEACADEMIC
- 14 -
Recommendation: Individual Review for Possible Immediate Action
Criteria:
• 6 or more total screens
• 6 or more academic screens
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NameCOLE 2 no no 550 yes 286 7 6HORACE MANN 5 no yes -11% -41% 9 7WHITTIER 5 no 596 7 7MADISON MIDDLE SCHL 3 no no yes 495 yes -31% 9 8WEBSTER ACADEMY 5 no no 532 yes -10% -44% 11 9LOCKWOOD 5 no no 565 yes -39% 10 9
ACADEMICENROLLMENT
DECLINE
- 15 -
Recommendation: Horace Mann Elementary
• Horace Mann Elementary demonstrated significant growth in 2004-2005
• The school made AYP in Math
• LEVEL THREE support and monitoring is necessary
584
621
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
ELA Proficiency = 17.3%
13.9% 17.3%
27.9%34.6%
58.2% 48.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 25.3%
20.0% 25.3%
24.9%28.7%
55.1% 46.0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 16 -
Recommendation: Whittier Elementary
• Whittier Elementary demonstrated significant growth in 2004-2005
• The school made AYP in Math
• LEVEL THREE support and monitoring is necessary
570596
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
ELA Proficiency = 14.0%
6.6% 14.0%28.5%
33.7%
64.9%52.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 28.2%
20.9% 28.2%
29.3%26.7%
49.7% 45.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 17 -
Recommendation: Webster Elementary
• Academic achievement is far below standard
• Significant change may need to occur in order for students to receive a high quality education
• Immediate action is necessary
553532
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
ELA Proficiency = 3.9%
4.6% 3.9%
29.8% 30.7%
65.6% 65.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 15.2%
16.4% 15.2%
28.2% 23.5%
55.4% 61.3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 18 -
Recommendation: Lockwood Elementary
• Academic achievement is far below standard
•Significant change may need to occur in order for students to receive a high quality education
• Immediate action is necessary
565 565
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
ELA Proficiency = 11.4%
8.8% 11.4%
26.7% 26.0%
64.5% 62.6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 18.2%
20.3% 18.2%
25.4% 26.4%
54.3% 55.4%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 19 -
Recommendation: Madison
498 495
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
• Academic achievement is declining at Madison Middle School
•Significant change needs to occur in order for students to receive a high quality education
• Immediate action is necessary
ELA Proficiency = 6.4%
5.1% 6.4%24.0% 26.7%
70.9% 66.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 1.9%
4.2% 1.9%16.6% 16.4%
79.2% 81.7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 20 -
Recommendation: Cole
• Academic achievement is declining at Cole Middle School
•Significant change needs to occur in order for students to receive a high quality education
• Immediate action is necessary
560 550
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
03-04 04-05
ELA Proficiency = 12.9%
11.4% 12.9%
36.4% 30.6%
52.1% 56.5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
Math Proficiency = 10.1%
7.6% 10.1%22.0% 16.0%
70.3% 73.9%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
2003-4 2004-5
Proficient and Advanced Basic Far Below Basic and Below Basic
- 21 -
Possible Alternatives to be Considered
Internal Restructuring • District and school staff develop a plan that has the capacity to accelerate student achievement to achieve the standard
Internal New School Development
•A new school is created through the OUSD new school incubation process
Model Based New School Development
•A new school model which has demonstrated success elsewhere is created on the existing campus
New Charter School • A new charter opens on the existing campus
Conversion to Charter School • Tenured members of the existing staff vote to convert the school to a charter school
Closure • School is closed and the facility is used for another purpose
- 22 -
Immediate Action Necessary: Timeline
Preliminary Staff Meetings Cole: October 17, 2005Madison: October 12, 2005Lockwood: October 24, 2005Webster: November 1, 2005
Preliminary Community Meetings
Cole: October 27, 2005Madison: October 19, 2005Lockwood: November 9, 2005Webster: November 14, 2005
Requests for Letters of Suggestion issued
November 7, 2005
Letters of Interest due December 5, 2005
Plan Proposals taken to the Community for input
January 15, 2005
Community Informed Decision Made by Dr. Randolph Ward
February 1, 2006
- 23 -
Review of Decisions Made in 2004-2005
School DecisionPrescott 1 new school incubating
Melrose 1 new school incubating
Highland 1 additional new school incubating
Stonehurst 2 new schools incubating
Havenscourt 2 new schools incubating
Elmhurst 2 new schools incubating
Calvin Simmons 2 new schools incubating
Hawthorne New charter school on campus: Education for Change
Cox Conversion to charter school: Education for Change
Horace Mann Reconstitution
Jefferson Reconstitution
Lockwood Reconstitution
Webster Reconstitution
Whittier Reconstitution
Carter Closing at the end of the 2005-2006 school year
Lowell Closing at the end of the 2005-2006 school year
- 24 -
Review of Decisions Made in 2004-2005
SIZE
PI Year
Positioned to Make
ELA AYP in 2005-
2006
Positioned to Make
Math AYP in 2005-
2006SAIT
school
API below 600
Fails All Four
Growth Targets
One year decline of over 10%
5 year decline of over 30%
Under 300 students after
3 years of existence
Total Screens
Total Academic Screens
School NamePRESCOTT 4 yes -10% -42% 8 6MELROSE ELEMENTARY 5 no 1% -25% 7 5HIGHLAND 5 no no 575 -31% -46% 8 6STONEHURST 5 no 2% -21% 7 5HAVENSCOURT MS 3 no no yes 513 yes -2% -26% 8 6ELMHURST MS 3 no no 527 -8% -24% 8 4CALVIN SIMMONS 3 no no 521 yes -9% -46% 7 5HAWTHORNE 5 no -86% -91% 123 8 5COX 5 no no 581 yes 9 9HORACE MANN 5 no yes -11% -41% 9 7JEFFERSON 5 5 5LOCKWOOD 5 no no 565 yes -39% 10 9WEBSTER ACADEMY 5 no no 532 yes -10% -44% 11 9WHITTIER 5 no 596 7 7CARTER MIDDLE SCHL 2 no no 580 -69% -80% 93 6 3LOWELL MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 no no 564 -67% -87% 85 6 3
ACADEMICENROLLMENT
DECLINE