- 0 - School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB Oakland Unified School District October 27, 2004.

- 1 -

School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic

under-performance and NCLB

Oakland Unified School District

October 27, 2004

- 2 -

Agenda

• Executive Summary

• School intervention criteria and considerations

• Conditions requiring action

– Loss of enrollment and enrollment shifts

– Underperformance and NCLB mandates

– Sustainability of schools

• Specific action steps

• Review of 2003-04 school closures

• Summary









• Summary

- 3 -

Executive Summary

• Critical conditions require immediate intervention in many district schools

• The loss of enrollment is attributed to macro-demographic shifts associated with economic conditions and gentrification, not district actions or conditions

• NCLB and the district’s own policy for the evaluation of the instructional program requires significant structural interventions

• The state administrator has appointed a School Intervention Team comprised of central office staff to review intervention criteria and strategies and propose immediate interventions by November 17, 2004

• The SIT will also consider longer term measures to address Oakland’s changing conditions

• Since additional schools may be closed or consolidated, a review of the measurable impact of 2003-04 school closures is included

- 4 -

Conditions require immediate structural intervention in some schools (including closure) to protect the long term interests of Oakland’s children

Regardless of all the external conditions to be managed, the guiding principle must be:

“A quality school in every neighborhood”

The leadership and support of multiple parties is needed to accomplish these interventions with minimal disruption to children

Proactive measures in response to loss of enrollment can create opportunities to regain play space and relieve overcrowding.

Proactive measures in response to under-performance can lead to improved educational outcomes

- 5 -

Agenda









• Summary









• Summary

- 6 -

All schools in the district will be assessed against three initial criteria to determine whether the need for intervention is indicated:

1. Enrollment loss and shifts and facilities utilization

– Under-utilizing facility

– Over-utilizing facility

2. Academic performance

– Program Improvement schools

– Schools under 600 API

3. Sustainability

– Schools with under 300 students

- 7 -

Depending on conditions, a range of interventions will be considered

• Portable building removal

• Staffing changes

• School consolidations

• School redesign and incubation

• Budget formula supplementary funding

• Internal charter development

• Closer monitoring and support

• Attendance boundary changes

- 8 -

Conditions that will be considered in proposing interventions will include:

• 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

- 9 -

Agenda









• Summary









• Summary

- 10 -

Facility utilization

Responding to:Enrollment loss and geographic shifts in enrollment

- 11 -

Since 1999, Oakland public schools (including charters) have lost over 6,000 students

Public School enrollment (including charters)

45000

46000

47000

48000

49000

50000

51000

52000

53000

54000

55000

56000

92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Year

En

rollm

en

t

- 12 -

Total ES enrollment including charters

22000

23000

24000

25000

26000

27000

28000

29000

30000

31000

32000

92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Year

En

rollm

en

tAlmost all of the enrollment loss has occurred at the elementary level

Ave. size of OUSD elementary school in 2004-05 = 396 students

Over 6000 less students enrolled since 1999 (including charter students)

- 13 -

The loss of enrollment experienced in OUSD cannot be attributed to loss to nearby districts

District total change % change

Alameda 10387 -170 -1.6%

San Leandro 8,889 +267 +3.0%

Piedmont 2,646 +40 +1.5%

Berkeley 8,900 +50 +0.6%

Lafayette 3,280 -125 -3.8%

Change in enrollment in select area districts from 2003-04 to 2004-05

- 14 -

Students in school in Oakland

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

year

% o

f to

tal en

rollm

en

t

Private

Public enrollmentincl. charters

The loss of enrollment experienced in OUSD cannot be attributed to loss to private schools

- 15 -

The loss of enrollment experienced in OUSD cannot be attributed to loss of local control

Public School enrollment (including charters)

45000

46000

47000

48000

49000

50000

51000

52000

53000

54000

55000

56000

92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Year

En

rollm

en

t

State

takeover

- 16 -

OUSD Baseline Status: 1999 Š 2000

OUSD Progress: 2003 - 2004

Schools with an API below 600

73% 43%

Schools with an API below 500

45% 8%

Elementary students scoring above the 50th percentile in language arts

28.5% 56% *

Elementary students scoring above the 50th percentile in math

46% 76% *

District EL students that were reclassified

1.6 % 17.1 %

The loss of enrollment cannot be attributed to academic performance since academic achievement has been improving

* elementary school students scoring Basic, Proficient or Advanced on the California Standards Test (CST) – an approximation of the 50th percentile achievement on the SAT9 norm-referenced test

- 17 -

Enrollment loss has occurred primarily within the African-American community with some additional loss in the Asian community

Enrollment change by ethnicity

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

African-American Hispanic or Latino Asian White (not Hispanic)

Ethnicity

En

rollm

en

t 1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

- 18 -

The loss of enrollment has changed the demographic make-up of the school district

Enrollment by ethnicity percentage

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Year

% e

nro

llm

en

t

White (not Hispanic)

Asian

Hispanic or Latino

African-American

- 19 -

In addition to the loss of public school enrollment in Oakland, more students are attending charter schools (non-charter enrollment has dropped by over 9500 students since 1999)

Charter vs Non-charter school enrollment

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Year

En

rollm

en

t

Charter enrollment

Non-charter enrollment

- 20 -

The facilities master plan will provide the data to be used to determine whether a facility is under-utilized or over-utilized in the Oakland context

• OUSD has contracted with a facilities master planner to assess all school facility conditions and needs

• Facilities data will be analyzed to determine five utilization bands for schools:

– Severely under-utilized– Under-utilized– Appropriately utilized– Over-utilized– Severely over-utilized

• Data analyzed will include:– Permanent facility capacity– Current and optimal portable usage– Flexible space usage– Special education usage– Community agency usage

- 21 -

Academic under-performance

Responding to:

NCLB legislation for schools in program improvement Board policy 6190: Evaluation of the instructional program

- 22 -

The failure of several schools to make adequate yearly progress will result in increasing sanctions under NCLB

Program Improvement - Schools and districts that receive federal Title I

funds enter Program Improvement (PI) when—for two years in a row—they

do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of having all

students become proficient in English language arts and mathematics by

2013–14. Schools in Program Improvement face sanctions as shown below:

Status Program Improvement Sanctions

Year 1 Parent choice, staff development

Year 2 Year 1 sanctions plus supplemental services

Year 3 Year 1-2 sanctions plus corrective action begins

Year 4 Year 1-3 sanctions plus create restructuring plan

Year 5 Restructure school

- 23 -

According to the law, restructuring of schools in Year 5 of Program Improvement must include one of the following:

• Reopening the school as a charter

• Replacing all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s poor performance

• Contracting with an outside entity to manage the school

• Arranging for the state to take over the school

• Any other major restructuring that addresses the school’s problems

- 24 -

Without intervention 38 OUSD schools are projected to enter Program Improvement Year 5 over the next four years

Year Schools in PI year 5 Schools to be restructured Schools still prior to Year 5 by NSDG needing

intervention

2005-06: 13 elementary 2 elementary 11 elementary

2006-07: 1 elementary - 1 elementary

2007-08: 3 elementary 1 elementary 2 elementary6 middle 4 middle 2 middle1 high 1 high -

2008-09: 6 elementary - 6 elementary5 middle 3 middle 2 middle3 high - 3 high

Total 38 schools 11 schools 27 schools

- 25 -

In addition to intervening in PI schools, the district has also committed to evaluation of the instructional program of all schools

• In alignment with OUSD board policy 6190, the following accountability criteria will be used for the evaluation of the core and consolidated programs instructional programs using the State Academic Performance Index (API) as the primary measure. The accountability criteria shall include five performance bands:

Exemplary (Blue) API 800+

Achieving (Green) API 675-799

Progressing (Yellow) API 600-675

Below Expectations (Orange) API below 600

Intervention (Red) API below 600 and further evaluated

- 26 -

Schools to be prioritized for intervention due to the instructional program (red performance band) will be evaluated against additional criteria

• Significant academic progress of the school as a whole and all significant ethnic groups

– 5% growth in Language Arts on the California Standards Test (CST) for the school as a whole and all significant ethnic groups

– 5% growth in Math on the CST for the school as a whole and all significant ethnic groups

• Significant academic progress of individual students – 5% growth in matched student scores on the Language Arts CST– 5% growth in matched student scores on the Math CST

• Significant progress in providing an environment conducive to learning– Significant improvement in attendance

Note: Alternative and continuation schools and schools less than three years old shall be evaluated based on the progress of individual students in the areas of achievement, attendance and discipline.

- 27 -

41 schools have API scores below 600 and are in the orange performance band (below expectations), five schools had no API score

Of these 46 schools:

– Nine schools are PI Year 4 schools already requiring intervention

– Over 20 additional schools are expected to meet the criteria of the red performance band suggesting significant intervention

– Seven are new schools in their three year development process and not being considered for intervention

– Four are alternative schools that will be evaluated with additional criteria

– Two are charter schools

- 28 -

Fiscal sustainability

Responding to:

Schools unable to operate within budget due to sub-optimal size (less than 50 students per grade at elementary and less than 100 students per

grade at secondary)

- 29 -

Analysis of district data shows that schools cannot operate below 300 students without supplementary funding

• 41 schools are currently enrolling less than 300 students. Of these nine are new and growing schools. The remaining 32 schools require structural intervention or supplementary funding.

• Certain conditions may warrant supplementary funding for some schools. These conditions might include:– High academic performance

– Geographic isolation

– Serving a particular subgroup or special need

– Site and facility limitations

– Anticipated future growth

- 30 -

Agenda









• Summary









• Summary

- 31 -

Structural intervention decisions must be made by December 2004

Any school consolidation, closure, school creation or other restructuring to be implemented in 2005-06 must be tentatively decided by December 12, 2004 in order to support:

– Student and family choice through open enrollment

– Operations and budget planning

– Program design and planning

- 32 -

To facilitate immediate action the State Administrator has convened a staff School Intervention Team (SIT)

This staff team is comprised of:• Continuous membership

– Deputy Superintendent, Arnold Carter– Deputy Supt Business Services, Gloria Gamblin– Assoc. Supt, Louise Waters– Asst. Supt, Timothy White– Director of Facility Planning, John Hild– Special Asst, Katrina Scott-George– HR manager, Dorothy Epps

• Ad-hoc membership– Executive Directors– Executive Director, Special Education, Phyllis Harris– Director, Early Childhood Education, Jane Nicholson– Director, New School Development Group, Hae-Sin Kim– Coordinator, Charter Schools, Liane Zimny– Coordinator, Alternative Programs, Monica Vaughn– District senior architect, Tadashi Nakadegawa

- 33 -

• Provide the board and the public with data for every district school against the three initial criteria– Academic performance– Facilities utilization– Sustainability

• Provide the board and the public with a proposed intervention for each identified school

• Attempt to convene a meeting of the staff at any school being considered for closure or consolidation in 2005-06 (unless no students were anticipated in 2005-06)

• Attempt to convene a meeting of parents at any school being considered for closure or consolidation in 2005-06 (unless no students were anticipated in 2005-06)

The SIT will by the November board meeting:

- 34 -

Home-grown structural interventionResponding to the challenge:

to develop quality schools from within Oakland to be competitive with other new entrants to Oakland

to meet the restructuring requirements of NCLB

- 35 -

Oakland has developed its own successful process for creating new schools

• Created 20 new schools since 2000

• In the process of transforming two entrenched under-performing high schools in East Oakland into 10 higher performing small schools

– All school leaders are local Oakland educators

– All schools work within Oakland union contracts

• Improved leadership recruitment, selection and development model

• New school incubation supported by the district’s New School Development Group

• School development model emphasizes working with local community organizations and parents in creating effective schools

• To be competitive with other new entrants, new schools need flexibility from bargaining agreement and district rules during the start-up phase

- 36 -

Oakland’s new schools are in most cases getting better results than their comparison schools

SCHOOL 2002-3 2003-4 2002-3 2003-4 2002-3 2003-4 2002-3 2003-4% % % % % % % %

ASCEND 40% 30% 22% 28% 29% 23% 35% 42%Jefferson Elementary 64% 63% 8% 10% 64% 60% 13% 15%International Community 45% 43% 18% 20% 36% 21% 36% 44%Hawthorne Elementary 60% 56% 10% 10% 52% 43% 20% 25%ACORN Woodland 72% 61% 5% 9% 63% 43% 10% 25%Highland Elementary 74% 66% 8% 8% 72% 57% 6% 14%Melrose Leadership 52% 62% 7% 10% 72% 65% 6% 11%Havenscourt Middle 65% 66% 8% 5% 70% 79% 4% 3%Urban Promise 55% 48% 7% 14% 69% 64% 7% 8%Simmons (Calvin) 69% 63% 7% 7% 71% 72% 6% 4%LIFE Academy 66% 51% 9% 14% 92% 91% 1% 2%Fremont Senior High 72% 78% 6% 1% 86% 96% 4% 1%KIPP 38% 20% 16% 35% 51% 31% 26% 33%Lowell Middle 62% 66% 7% 6% 76% 79% 2% 3%

FBB and BB P and A

CST ELA PERFORMANCE CST MATH PERFORMANCE

FBB and BB P and A

- 37 -

The percentage of students enrolled in new district schools is comparable to that of charter schools

New school entrants in OUSD

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05

Year

% e

nro

llm

en

t

Charter enrollment

New school enrollment

Traditional public school enrollment

- 38 -

Agenda









• Summary









• Summary

- 39 -

Since additional schools may be closed or consolidated, a review of the measurable impact of 2003-04 school closures is in order:

• In 2003-04, OUSD decided to close five under-enrolled and under-performing elementary schools impacting 782 students.

• All students were redirected to higher performing schools.

• All students/families were given choice under Open Enrollment and most received their 1st or 2nd choices.

• OUSD increased its efficiency by redirecting students to schools with (generally) lower per pupil expenditure.

• OUSD reutilized all closed school sites.

- 40 -

Students were redirected to higher-performing schools

• The majority of students attended schools based on redrawn attendance boundaries (564 students out of 782)

• All the redirected schools had higher 2004 API scores, 2003 API Rank, and 2003 Similar Schools Rank than the closed schools.

Redirected students

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Burbank John Swett Longfellow Marcus Foster Toler Heights

School

2004 A

PI

Closed

Redirected

Redirected

- 41 -

School Number of students Choice honored

Burbank 22 21 got into 1st choice

1 got into 5th choice

John Swett 46 39 got into 1st choice

4 got into 2nd choice

3 denied

Longfellow 4 All got into 1st choice

Marcus Foster 11 All got into 1st choice

Toler Heights 21 All got into 1st choice

Most students who applied under Open Enrollment were given their 1st or 2nd choice schools

- 42 -

All closed sites are being reutilized as other schools or service facilities

School Reutilization

Burbank East Oakland Community High

John Swett Tilden Children’s Academy

Longfellow Independent Study

Marcus Foster Special Education offices

Toler Heights Incubation site for new schools

- 43 -

Comparison of schools’ demographic profile Burbank Burckhalter Markham

Actual Enrollment 2003-04Students new assignment

2220

127102

49430

Ethnicity

African American 69.8% 67.7% 46.2%

Asian American 1.8% 13.4% 1.6%

White 0.5% 3.1% 0.4%

Filipino American 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Hispanic 22.5% 15.7% 50.4%

American Indian 0.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Pacific Islander 2.3% 0.0% 1.0%

Other 2.7% 0.0% 0.2%

Free/Reduced Lunch 85.6% 80.3% 73.7%

Limited English Proficiency 15.8% 14.2% 39.7%

ADA percentage 2003-04 92.7% 94.1% 93.9%

Case Study on Burbank school closure

- 44 -

Burbank Burckhalter Markham

California Standards Test (CST)

ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above) 12.0% 53.0% 21.0%

Math 2003 (performing at proficient or above) 10.0% 50.0% 30.0%

2004 API 538 736 623

2003 API data (not yet available for 2004)

2003 API Rank 1 6 2

2003 Similar Schools Rank 1 10 5

Met 2003 schoolwide growth target? no yes yes

Met all subgroup growth targets? no yes yes

Comparison of schools’ academic performance

Case Study on Burbank school closure

- 45 -

School closure did not accelerate the departure of Burbank families from the district

Note: 1. 2004-05 enrollment shows students who were redirected from Burbank who

ARE attending a district school2. All enrollments shown reflect October enrollment figures

Year Enrollment % Change

1999-00 352

2000-01 325 -8%

2001-02 301 -8%

2002-03 269 -12%

2003-04 222 -21%

2004-05 196* -13%

- 46 -

New attendance area for Burckhalter is within the range of other district elementary schools

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

- 47 -

Agenda









• Summary









• Summary

- 48 -

Faced with multiple simultaneous challenges, Oakland must respond strategically, aggressively and collectively to:

• Adjust to rapid and significant enrollment losses and shifts due to economic conditions

• Improve student achievement and meet No Child Left Behind laws

• Recover from financial crisis

• Respond to multiple audits and a complex regulatory environment

• Manage quality control with an influx of ‘new entry’ schools and educational service providers

• Recruit, retain and support teachers despite challenging financial circumstances

• Communicate effectively with the public

- 49 -

OUSD is working on various strategies to respond to the challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools

• Immediate strategies for responding to enrollment loss and shifts and improving student achievement

– School closing, charter partnerships, private operators, internal new school development, portable removal, staffing changes, etc.

• Immediate strategies for adjusting to revenue loss due to enrollment loss– Redesign of central office to support smaller district– Tying site expenditures to site revenue through RBB

• Longer term strategies for redistributing enrollment– Attendance boundary changes, transportation– Stronger City/School partnerships

- 50 -

Call for action

• Despite all challenges the goal remains:“A quality school in every neighborhood”

• Support is needed from board members, community leaders, bargaining unit leaders and city and state officials

• The assistance of board members in communicating with their communities is requested

• The assistance of principals in communicating with their schools is requested

- 51 -

Appendix

• Case study on John Swett• Case study on Longfellow• Case study on Marcus Foster• Case study on Toler Heights• Redirection of students from closed schools

- 52 -

John Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte:Comparison of schools’ demographic profile

John Swett Laurel Bret-Harte

Actual Enrollment 2003-04 216 464 965

Ethnicity



White 1.4% 2.6% 8.30%


Hispanic 6.9% 13.8% 24.20%



Other 0.0% 0.6% 0.80%



ADA percentage 2003-04 91.8% 95.9% 91.08%

- 53 -

John Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte:Comparison of schools’ academic performance

John Swett Laurel Bret-Harte


ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above) 22.0% 28.0% 27%

Math 2004 (performing at proficient or above) 10.0% 42.0% 21%

2004 API 625 716 659


2003 API Rank 2 5 4


Met 2003 schoolwide growth target? Yes Yes Yes

Met all subgroup growth targets? Yes Yes Yes

- 54 -

Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover:Comparison of schools’ demographic profile

Longfellow Santa Fe Hoover


Ethnicity



White 0.5% 3.3% 5.4%


Hispanic 4.4% 1.7% 16.6%



Other 4.9% 2.0% 1.9%



ADA percentage 2003-04 92.8% 92.9% 92.9%

- 55 -

Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover:Comparison of schools’ academic performance

Longfellow Santa Fe Hoover




2004 API 561 632 651


2003 API Rank 1 2 3


Met 2003 schoolwide growth target? Yes No Yes

Met all subgroup growth targets? Yes No Yes

- 56 -

Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover:Comparison of schools’ demographic profile

Marcus Foster Lafayette Hoover


Ethnicity



White 2.6% 1.9% 5.4%


Hispanic 26.5% 21.8% 16.6%



Other 0.4% 0.0% 1.9%



ADA percentage 2003-04 92.5% 92.8% 92.9%

- 57 -

Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover:Comparison of schools’ academic performance

Marcus Foster Lafayette Hoover




2004 API 526 629 651


2003 API Rank 1 1 3


Met 2003 schoolwide growth target? Yes Yes Yes

Met all subgroup growth targets? Yes Yes Yes

- 58 -

Toler Heights/Howard:Comparison of schools’ demographic profile

Toler Heights Howard

Actual Enrollment 2003-04 113 263

Ethnicity

African American 83.2% 87.1%

Asian American 0.0% 1.5%

White 0.0% 3.4%

Filipino American 0.0% 0.8%

Hispanic 9.7% 3.8%

American Indian 0.0% 0.0%

Pacific Islander 7.1% 3.4%

Other 0.0% 0.0%

Free/Reduced Lunch 69.9% 78.7%

Limited English Proficiency 7.1% 3.8%

ADA percentage 2003-04 92.5% 94.1%

- 59 -

Toler Heights/Howard:Comparison of schools’ academic performance

Toler Heights Howard


ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above) 12.0% 25.0%

Math 2004 (performing at proficient or above) 16.0% 37.0%

2004 API 567 720


2003 API Rank 1 5

2003 Similar Schools Rank N/A 9

Met 2003 schoolwide growth target? Yes Yes

Met all subgroup growth targets? Yes Yes

- 60 -

Students who did not attend assigned school

Originating School

Transferred to another OUSD

school

Attending a school outside

OUSD

Burbank 3 31

Longfellow 6 26

John Swett 4 24

Toler Heights 2 27

Marcus Foster 4 15

- 0 - School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB Oakland Unified School District October 27, 2004.

Documents

enrollment loss

action loss of enrollment

school closures summary

conditions nclb

school intervention

sustainability schools

considerations conditions

quality school