- 0 - 2005-2006 School Intervention Recommendations Oakland Unified School District November 2, 2005.

- 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 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





Total 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


- 10 -

Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level One

Criteria:


• 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





Total 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


- 11 -

Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level One

Criteria:



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





Total 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


- 12 -

Recommendation: Support and Monitoring – Level Two

Criteria:



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





Total 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





Total 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


- 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





Total 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


- 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


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



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


- 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


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



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


- 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


565 565

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

03-04 04-05


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



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


- 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



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



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


- 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


560 550

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

03-04 04-05


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



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


- 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





Total 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

- 0 - 2005-2006 School Intervention Recommendations Oakland Unified School District November 2, 2005.

Documents

necessary slide

school staff

school intervention

timeline slide

agenda slide

supplemental funding

monitoring level

madison academic achievement