Oakland Unified School District
Download
1 / 60

School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 90 Views
  • Uploaded on

Oakland Unified School District. School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB. October 27, 2004. Agenda. Executive Summary School intervention criteria and considerations Conditions requiring action Loss of enrollment and enrollment shifts

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB' - claral


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Oakland Unified School District

School Intervention in response to loss of enrollment and academic under-performance and NCLB

October 27, 2004


Agenda
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


Executive summary
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


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


Agenda1
Agenda schools (including closure) to protect the long term interests of Oakland’s children

  • 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


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

  • Enrollment loss and shifts and facilities utilization

    • Under-utilizing facility

    • Over-utilizing facility

  • Academic performance

    • Program Improvement schools

    • Schools under 600 API

  • Sustainability

    • Schools with under 300 students


Depending on conditions a range of interventions will be considered
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


Conditions that will be considered in proposing interventions will include
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


Agenda2
Agenda interventions will include:

  • 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


Facility utilization responding to enrollment loss and geographic shifts in enrollment
Facility utilization interventions will include:Responding to:Enrollment loss and geographic shifts in enrollment


Since 1999 oakland public schools including charters have lost over 6 000 students
Since 1999, Oakland public schools ( interventions will include:including charters) have lost over 6,000 students


Almost all of the enrollment loss has occurred at the elementary level
Almost 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)


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


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 to private schools


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



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 to determine whether a facility is under-utilized or over-utilized in the Oakland contextResponding to:NCLB legislation for schools in program improvementBoard 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:

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


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

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 elementary

6 middle 4 middle 2 middle

1 high 1 high -

2008-09: 6 elementary - 6 elementary

5 middle 3 middle 2 middle

3 high - 3 high

Total 38 schools 11 schools 27 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 675-799

    Progressing (Yellow) API 600-675

    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.


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


Fiscal sustainability performance band (below expectations), five schools had no API score 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


Agenda3
Agenda below 300 students without supplementary funding

  • 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


Structural intervention decisions must be made by december 2004
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


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


The sit will by the november board meeting
The SIT will by the November board meeting: convened a staff School Intervention Team (SIT)

  • 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)


Home-grown structural intervention convened a staff School Intervention Team (SIT)Responding to the challenge:to develop quality schools from within Oakland to be competitive with other new entrants to Oaklandto meet the restructuring requirements of NCLB


Oakland has developed its own successful process for creating new schools
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
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


Agenda4
Agenda is comparable to that of charter schools

  • 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


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.


Students were redirected to higher performing schools
Students were redirected to higher-performing schools review of the measurable impact of 2003-04 school closures is in order:

  • 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.




Comparison of schools demographic profile
Comparison of schools’ demographic profile service facilities

Case Study on Burbank school closure


Comparison of schools academic performance
Comparison of schools’ academic performance service facilities

Case Study on Burbank school closure


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

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%

Note:

2004-05 enrollment shows students who were redirected from Burbank who ARE attending a district school

All enrollments shown reflect October enrollment figures



Agenda5
Agenda other district elementary schools

  • 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


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
Call for action challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools

  • 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
Appendix challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools

  • 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 Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ demographic profile


John swett laurel redwood heights bret harte comparison of schools academic performance
John Swett/Laurel/Redwood Heights/Bret-Harte: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ academic performance


Longfellow santa fe hoover comparison of schools demographic profile
Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ demographic profile


Longfellow santa fe hoover comparison of schools academic performance
Longfellow/Santa Fe/Hoover: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ academic performance


Marcus foster lafayette hoover comparison of schools demographic profile
Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ demographic profile


Marcus foster lafayette hoover comparison of schools academic performance
Marcus Foster/Lafayette/Hoover: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ academic performance


Toler heights howard comparison of schools demographic profile
Toler Heights/Howard: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ demographic profile


Toler heights howard comparison of schools academic performance
Toler Heights/Howard: challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools Comparison of schools’ academic performance


Students who did not attend assigned school
Students who did not attend assigned school challenges of loss of enrollment and continued under-performance of schools


ad