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

- 1 - 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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

- 2 - 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 school closures is included

- 3 - 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

- 4 - 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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

- 5 - 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

- 6 - 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

- 7 - 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

- 8 - 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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

- 9 - Facility utilization Responding to: Enrollment loss and geographic shifts in enrollment

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

Almost all of the enrollment loss has occurred at the elementary level Ave. size of OUSD elementary school in = 396 students Over 6000 less students enrolled since 1999 (including charter students)

The loss of enrollment experienced in OUSD cannot be attributed to loss to nearby districts Districttotalchange% change Alameda % San Leandro8, % Piedmont2, % Berkeley8, % Lafayette3, % Change in enrollment in select area districts from to

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Academic under-performance Responding to: NCLB legislation for schools in program improvement Board policy 6190: Evaluation of the instructional program

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: StatusProgram Improvement Sanctions Year 1Parent choice, staff development Year 2Year 1 sanctions plus supplemental services Year 3Year 1-2 sanctions plus corrective action begins Year 4Year 1-3 sanctions plus create restructuring plan Year 5Restructure school

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

Without intervention 38 OUSD schools are projected to enter Program Improvement Year 5 over the next four years YearSchools in PI year 5Schools to be restructured Schools still prior to Year 5 by NSDG needing intervention : 13 elementary 2 elementary 11 elementary : 1 elementary -1 elementary : 3 elementary 1 elementary 2 elementary 6 middle 4 middle 2 middle 1 high 1 high :6 elementary -6 elementary 5 middle 3 middle 2 middle 3 high -3 high Total38 schools11 schools27 schools

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 Progressing (Yellow)API Below Expectations (Orange)API below 600 Intervention (Red)API below 600 and further evaluated

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.

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

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)

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

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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

Structural intervention decisions must be made by December 2004 Any school consolidation, closure, school creation or other restructuring to be implemented in 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

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

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 (unless no students were anticipated in ) Attempt to convene a meeting of parents at any school being considered for closure or consolidation in (unless no students were anticipated in ) The SIT will by the November board meeting:

Home-grown structural intervention Responding 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

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

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

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

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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

Since additional schools may be closed or consolidated, a review of the measurable impact of school closures is in order: In , 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 1 st or 2 nd choices. OUSD increased its efficiency by redirecting students to schools with (generally) lower per pupil expenditure. OUSD reutilized all closed school sites.

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.

SchoolNumber of studentsChoice honored Burbank2221 got into 1st choice 1 got into 5th choice John Swett4639 got into 1st choice 4 got into 2nd choice 3 denied Longfellow4All got into 1st choice Marcus Foster11All got into 1st choice Toler Heights21All got into 1st choice Most students who applied under Open Enrollment were given their 1 st or 2 nd choice schools

All closed sites are being reutilized as other schools or service facilities SchoolReutilization BurbankEast Oakland Community High John SwettTilden Children’s Academy LongfellowIndependent Study Marcus FosterSpecial Education offices Toler HeightsIncubation site for new schools

Comparison of schools’ demographic profile BurbankBurckhalterMarkham Actual Enrollment Students new assignment Ethnicity African American69.8%67.7%46.2% Asian American1.8%13.4%1.6% White0.5%3.1%0.4% Filipino American0.0% 0.2% Hispanic22.5%15.7%50.4% American Indian0.5%0.0% Pacific Islander2.3%0.0%1.0% Other2.7%0.0%0.2% Free/Reduced Lunch85.6%80.3%73.7% Limited English Proficiency15.8%14.2%39.7% ADA percentage %94.1%93.9% Case Study on Burbank school closure

BurbankBurckhalterMarkham 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 API data (not yet available for 2004) 2003 API Rank Similar Schools Rank1105 Met 2003 schoolwide growth target?noyes Met all subgroup growth targets?noyes Comparison of schools’ academic performance Case Study on Burbank school closure

School closure did not accelerate the departure of Burbank families from the district Note: enrollment shows students who were redirected from Burbank who ARE attending a district school 2.All enrollments shown reflect October enrollment figures YearEnrollment% Change % % % % *-13%

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

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 school closures Summary 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 school closures Summary

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

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

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

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

John Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte: Comparison of schools’ demographic profile John SwettLaurelBret-Harte Actual Enrollment Ethnicity African American83.3%39.7%37.60% Asian American8.3%41.6%25.70% White1.4%2.6%8.30% Filipino American0.0%0.4%2.00% Hispanic6.9%13.8%24.20% American Indian0.0% 0.20% Pacific Islander0.0%1.3%1.10% Other0.0%0.6%0.80% Free/Reduced Lunch64.4%74.8%59.80% Limited English Proficiency3.7%29.1%17.40% ADA percentage %95.9%91.08%

John Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte: Comparison of schools’ academic performance John SwettLaurelBret-Harte California Standards Test (CST) 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 API data (not yet available for 2004) 2003 API Rank Similar Schools Rank255 Met 2003 schoolwide growth target?Yes Met all subgroup growth targets?Yes

Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover: Comparison of schools’ demographic profile LongfellowSanta FeHoover Actual Enrollment Ethnicity African American85.7%89.0%70.3% Asian American3.3%4.0%5.7% White0.5%3.3%5.4% Filipino American0.0% Hispanic4.4%1.7%16.6% American Indian0.0% Pacific Islander1.1%0.0% Other4.9%2.0%1.9% Free/Reduced Lunch81.9%71.0%78.2% Limited English Proficiency9.3%5.3%16.9% ADA percentage %92.9%

Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover: Comparison of schools’ academic performance LongfellowSanta FeHoover California Standards Test (CST) ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above)9.0%20.0%15.0% Math 2004 (performing at proficient or above)8.0%28.0%33.0% 2004 API API data (not yet available for 2004) 2003 API Rank Similar Schools Rank269 Met 2003 schoolwide growth target?YesNoYes Met all subgroup growth targets?YesNoYes

Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover: Comparison of schools’ demographic profile Marcus FosterLafayetteHoover Actual Enrollment Ethnicity African American64.9%70.5%70.3% Asian American5.6%5.5%5.7% White2.6%1.9%5.4% Filipino American0.0% Hispanic26.5%21.8%16.6% American Indian0.0% Pacific Islander0.0%0.3%0.0% Other0.4%0.0%1.9% Free/Reduced Lunch89.9%81.5%78.2% Limited English Proficiency27.6%18.8%16.9% ADA percentage %92.8%92.9%

Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover: Comparison of schools’ academic performance Marcus FosterLafayetteHoover California Standards Test (CST) ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above)10.0%21.0%15.0% Math 2004 (performing at proficient or above)18.0%24.0%33.0% 2004 API API data (not yet available for 2004) 2003 API Rank Similar Schools Rank149 Met 2003 schoolwide growth target?Yes Met all subgroup growth targets?Yes

Toler Heights/Howard: Comparison of schools’ demographic profile Toler HeightsHoward Actual Enrollment Ethnicity African American83.2%87.1% Asian American0.0%1.5% White0.0%3.4% Filipino American0.0%0.8% Hispanic9.7%3.8% American Indian0.0% Pacific Islander7.1%3.4% Other0.0% Free/Reduced Lunch69.9%78.7% Limited English Proficiency7.1%3.8% ADA percentage %94.1%

Toler Heights/Howard: Comparison of schools’ academic performance Toler HeightsHoward California Standards Test (CST) ELA 2004 (performing at proficient or above)12.0%25.0% Math 2004 (performing at proficient or above)16.0%37.0% 2004 API API data (not yet available for 2004) 2003 API Rank Similar Schools RankN/A9 Met 2003 schoolwide growth target?Yes Met all subgroup growth targets?Yes

Students who did not attend assigned school Originating School Transferred to another OUSD school Attending a school outside OUSD Burbank331 Longfellow626 John Swett424 Toler Heights227 Marcus Foster415