Comprehensive Review Pupil Achievement

Oakland Unified School District Pupil Achievement Comprehensive Review September 2003 Administrative Agent Larry E. Reider Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools Chief Executive Officer Thomas E. Henry PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT Summary of Findings and Recommendations In August 2003, a FCMAT review team of six members conducted an on-site assessment of the progress the Oakland Unified School District has made in implementing the recommendations of the Assessment and Recovery Plan of January 31, 2000 in the area of Pupil Achievement. The January 2000 assessment was based in part on a Curriculum Management Audit (2000) conducted by Curriculum Management Services, Inc. to compare, verify, and comment upon the district’s existing curriculum management practices. A curriculum management audit is designed to reveal the extent to which the board and professional staff of a school district have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system, set within the framework of adopted board policies, enables the school district to make maximum use of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. The goal of the January 2000 recovery plan for Pupil Achievement was to improve student achievement through implementation of the required programs and recommended strategies focusing on the following: • The State Core Curriculum Content and Performance Standards • The Bilingual Master Plan and Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of Civil Rights • The Voluntary Resolution Plan • The National Science Foundation Comprehensive Program for Math and Science Achievement • The Special Education Master Plan • The School Site Decision-Making Policy Since the release of the original Assessment and Recovery Plan in January 2000, additional required programs have been added to the list of mandates facing the district. Foremost among these are the various mandatory programs specified in the following: • California’s Public School Accountability Act • The federal government’s No Child Left Behind Act. To determine the extent of the district’s progress, the FCMAT study team examined curricu- lum guides, board policies, and various other district documents and updated the original data. In addition, they interviewed members of the administration, the faculty, the school board, and other key personnel directly involved with the design and delivery of curriculum in the district’s schools. Since school was not in session at the time of the team’s visit, the review team focused on the design characteristics of the recommendations in the 2000 Assessment and Recovery Plan. Ex- amination of the classroom implementation aspects of the recommendations will occur when the review team returns to observe instruction in January 2004. Pupil Achievement 1 Status of District Progress Overall, the Oakland Unified School District has made meaningful progress toward implement- ing the pupil achievement recommendations of the Assessment and Recovery Plan of January 31, 2000. However, much remains to be accomplished. Student achievement gains have been docu- mented, but scores remain low. Gains have been made toward establishing instructional program management based on the systematic use of data, but budgeting of district resources is not cur- riculum driven. The findings and recommendations of the study team are grouped in five categories correspond- ing with five major areas of investigation: 1. Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel 2. Clear and Valid Objectives for Students 3. Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Program Development and Implementation 4. Use of Assessments to Improve Programs 5. Improved Organizational Productivity 1. Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel. The Oakland Unified School District con- tinues to be embroiled in political controversy. It is too early to determine whether the beginning of state administration and the assignment of a State Administrator will have a positive effect on the disruption perpetuated by special interest groups. The district’s out-of-date and inadequate policy framework has not been addressed effectively. The study team was presented draft policies from the California School Boards Association, which were described as a work in progress. However, no progress has been made concerning staff development to promote policy implementation. The study team also was presented a revised draft of the Table of Organization which partially meets the requirements specified in the 2000 Recovery Plan. This document was also a work in progress and had not been adopted officially by the board. No progress has been made to revise inadequate job descriptions. The district’s planning processes remain disjointed although the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan establishes high expectations. 2. Clear and Valid Objectives for Students. There is no comprehensive curriculum manage- ment plan. A curriculum review cycle has not been established, and the board has not yet adopted policies directing such action. Some functional, user-friendly curriculum guides have been de- veloped; however, no uniform, districtwide format has been established. State content standards provide instructional objectives for teachers, but they lack the specificity needed by teachers to plan teaching effectively. There has been some progress on the scope of the written curriculum. Adoption and subsequent districtwide implementation of the Open Court, High Point, and Har- court Math instructional programs, along with the comprehensive benchmark assessment sys- tems, have at the elementary level addressed the lack of cohesion, feedback, and staff develop- ment described in the 2000 Recovery Plan. The study team heard in interviews that these systems were in place, but were not yet institutionalized in district curriculum design documents. 2 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 3 3. Internal Consistency and Rational Equity in Program Development and Implementation. Progress has been made in enforcing the provisions of the Voluntary Resolution Plan; however, personnel are not being held accountable through timely evaluations. Stricter monitoring of categorical funds, expenditures and verification of consistency with legal requirements has resulted in the elimination of many of the inequities created by school-based decisions. Deficiencies were noted concerning the implementation of the Voluntary Resolution Plan and Comité Monitoring Plan. The review team found no written comprehensive master plan for bilingual education to provide feedback for English Language Learner (ELL) achievement. FCMAT found numerous potential compliance issues within the special education programs. Of special concern were the high numbers of past-due yearly Individualized Education Program (IEP) reviews and triennial IEP reviews. Review team members also noted the high numbers of expensive private school special education placements. 4. Use of Assessments to Improve Programs. FCMAT found notable progress in the district’s systems for disaggregating data by race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic factors, and language. The district is also presenting these data in usable form to gauge operational performance and to improve instructional programs and decision-making. No progress has been made in expand- ing the scope of local assessments to include all required subjects at all grade levels. The present focus is on reading/language arts and math. Although the Oakland Unified School District has a very large number of schools in the Immedi- ate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), none were placed on sanctioned status. Sixteen of the district’s II/USP schools in cohorts I and II earned the lowest rank of one on the 10-point API comparison scale. Secondary school achievement continues to be a major concern. 5. Improved Organizational Productivity. There is no written guidance for developing a pro- gram-driven budget—or budget guidance of any sort. The current budget was developed dur- ing the recent fiscal crisis with minimal input from curriculum managers. The district based its budget formulas on attendance and categorical funds distribution rules. Fiscal recovery is a much higher priority among the district’s business officials than is developing a highly refined, curricu- lum-driven budget development process. 2 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 3 4 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 5 1.1 Curriculum Management—Policy Professional Standard The district through its adopted policy provides a clear, operational framework for the manage- ment of the curriculum. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. A draft of CSBA policies was described as a work in progress, but no policies had been adopted by the board. The original recommendations and recovery steps con- tained in the Assessment and Recovery Plan (2000) are still valid. 2. There was no policy calling for the Superintendent to approve all administrative bul- letins. 3. The district lacks a training program for the staff on policy implementation. 4. The district has not developed a plan to ensure the implementation of policy at all levels of the school district. 5. Policies are not evaluated for adequacy or for effectiveness of staff implementation. 6. The latest version of the Table of Organization includes the State Administrator’s organizational adjustments. a. The chart clarifies the reporting relationships between the program staff as- signed to the leadership team, leadership directors, and program managers. b. The chart does not show a staff member assigned to professional development within the Division of Curriculum and Instruction or in any other division. Clarification regarding who performs this function and the reporting relation- ships are missing in the current chart. c. The current chart shows that there is a Director of Technology and he and his support staff are placed under the supervision of the FCMAT fiscal team. The relationship between the Director of Technology and the Division of Curricu- lum is not identified. 7. There is no written process for communicating any changes to school district person- nel. District and site personnel indicated that changes are communicated via man- agement and meetings with the principal. The written Table of Organization is made available to district and site personnel through these meetings. 8. Job descriptions have not been systematically updated. This task was described as a work in progress. 9. There is no in-service training for administrators to develop their skills in monitoring the delivery of the written curriculum in the classroom and for evaluating the instruc- tional staff on ways to improve instructional skills. In interviews, some staff members indicated that executive directors provide some in-services on monitoring the curricu- 4 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 5 lum through walk-throughs, checklists, Open Court rubrics, a district teacher evalua- tion tool based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), and monthly meetings with principals. The CSTP standards are used in the teacher evalua- tion and in rubrics used for walk-through observations. 10. FCMAT examined the design of the evaluation tools used for administrators and the instructional staff to determine if they allowed for feedback to employees that would help them improve the delivery of instruction. The evaluation tools provide a rating scale with minimal recognition of meaningful feedback on how the rating was derived or how low ratings could be improved. The original recommendation in the January 2000 report is still valid. 11. The district has not performed a cost-benefit analysis of Teachers on Special Assign- ment (TSA). Recommendations to Address The original recommendations remain valid. 1. Develop a comprehensive set of board policies to guide curriculum design and deliv- ery, including the following. a. A policy that provides for overall curriculum management. This policy should clearly define the philosophical framework for governing the design and implementation of curriculum based on district priorities, and make provisions for a curriculum development cycle and periodic review by the district Board of Directors. b. A policy that links organizational structures, job descriptions (roles and re- sponsibilities), to the Table of Organization (accountability relationships). c. A policy that acknowledges long-range planning as an integral component of the district’s growth and development. d. A policy that requires K-12 alignment among the curriculum goals and objec- tives (written), teacher delivery techniques and strategies in the classroom (taught), and districtwide assessment (tested). Review courses of study to de- termine how they meet or must be updated to support the Board of Directors’ framework for curricular alignment. e. A policy that requires vertical and horizontal articulation between the grades and among all instructional levels. Articulation and coordination of instruc- tional resources should be addressed in the policy. f. A policy requiring comprehensive districtwide professional development experiences for all certificated and classified staff in the delivery of the cur- riculum. g. A policy that establishes clear expectations for monitoring curriculum and instruction by the staff at all levels of the school district. h. A review of policies that currently address assessment. Develop a policy requir- ing the development and implementation of a comprehensive assessment plan. 6 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 7 2. Design and adopt a policy calling on the Superintendent to approve all administrative bulletins in order to enable more rapid response to organizational problems and to authorize top administrators to act more effectively and efficiently. 3. Develop an ongoing training program for the staff on policy implementation. 4. Develop a plan that ensures the implementation of policy at all levels. Hold each administrator responsible for implementing policy and ensuring that his or her staff understands and follows relevant policy. Incorporate this expectation into the appro- priate annual staff evaluation process. 5. Implement and evaluate the adequacy of the policy and effectiveness of the staff in following the policy. Provide staff training as needed, and provide yearly reports to the board on policy implementation and administrative effectiveness. 6. Finalize revisions to the Table of Organization. 7. Update all job descriptions for certificated and classified personnel to reflect district operations. Ensure that job descriptions include appropriate linkages to curriculum and instruction and that they match the organizational chart. 8. Provide in-services for administrators to develop their skills in monitoring the delivery of the written curriculum in the classroom and for evaluating the instructional staff with an emphasis on improving their instructional skills. 9. Monitor evaluations of the administrative and instructional staff to ensure that they provide feedback to improve the delivery of instruction. 10. Develop and implement a plan to perform a cost/benefit analysis of district uses of Teachers on Special Assignment (TSA). Focus TSAs on observing and giving feed- back to teachers, performing demonstration teaching, and training teachers and admin- istrators. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 2 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 7 1.2 Student Objectives – Core Curriculum Content Professional Standard The district has clear and valid objectives for students, including the core curriculum content. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. There is no comprehensive curriculum management plan although some progress has been made in this area. Elements of a curriculum management plan were found in various district documents as follows: a. A philosophical framework is inferred in the Voluntary Resolution Plan (VRP) and in the district 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan. b. Roles and responsibilities regarding the design and delivery of curriculum are partially articulated in adopted board policy and articulated further in draft board policy not adopted by the board. c. Expectations for the delivery of the curriculum are documented in the current teacher appraisal system. e. Interviews with district personnel indicated that several projects integrat- ing technology into the curriculum had been accomplished. Examples of such projects are the Urban Dream project and training of teachers to use the Microsoft spreadsheet to display graphical data for Open Court, and Harcourt Math assessments. There is no document describing a districtwide process for integrating technology into the curriculum. 2. A curriculum review cycle that includes the design of curriculum guides has not been established. However, Board Policy 6141: Curriculum Development and Evaluation is in the process of being developed and directs the board to establish a curriculum review cycle. The board has not adopted the policy. Some progress has been made as follows: a. A uniform districtwide format for curriculum guides was not evident; how- ever, recently developed guides were functional and user friendly. b. The district’s recently developed curriculum guides were reviewed using the five basic minimum guide component audit criteria which follows. None of the guides reach the minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points or higher; therefore, all guides analyzed were inadequate. The process and results of analysis of the guides are as follows: To determine quality, the review team examined 17 curriculum guides devel- oped after 1999. These guides included district and school-developed scope and sequences, standards guides, and pacing guides. The documents were reviewed and rated on whether they contained the elements of each of five criteria that support effective delivery of the curriculum. The criteria are listed in the following exhibit. 8 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 9 Curriculum Guide Audit Criteria Criteria Description One Clarity and Validity of Objectives 0 No goals/objectives present 1 Vague delineation of goals/learner outcomes 2 States tasks to be performed or skills/concepts to be learned 3 States for each objective the what, when (sequence within course/grade), how actual standard is performed, and amount of time to be spent learning Two Congruity of the Curriculum to Testing/Evaluation 0 No evaluation approach 1 Some approach of evaluation stated 2 States skills, knowledge, concepts which will be assessed 3 Each objective is keyed to district and/or state performance evaluation Three Delineation of the Prerequisite Essential Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes 0 No mention of required skill 1 States prior general experience needed 2 States prior general experience needed in specified grade level 3 States specific documented prerequisite or description of discrete skills/concepts required prior to this learning (may be a scope and sequence across grades/ courses) Four Delineation of the Major Instructional Tools 0 No mention of textbook or instructional tools 1 Names the basic text/instructional resource(s) 2 Names the basic text/instructional resource(s) and supplementary materials to be used 3 States for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resource(s) and curriculum objective Five Clear Linkages (Strategies) for Classroom Use 0 No linkages cited for classroom use 1 Overall, vague statement on linkage for approaching the subject 2 Provides general suggestions on approach 3 Provides specific examples on how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom The guides were assigned values of 0 to 3 on each of the five criteria. A maximum of 15 points was possible. Guides receiving a rating of 12 or more points were considered strong or adequate for meeting audit criteria. The mean ratings for each criterion and the mean for the total guide ratings were then calculated. The next table shows ratings of the curriculum guides developed after 1999. 8 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 9 Rating of Most Current Curriculum Guides Grades K-12 Oakland Unified School District 2003 Grades K-12 Curriculum Guides, Pacing Guides, Grade Date One Two Three Four Five Total Syllabi, and Scope and Level(s) Written (Obj) (Assess) (Pre) (Res) (App) Rating Sequences Positive Prevention: HIV/ STD Prevention Education 6, 9 2000 2 2 0 2 3 9 for California Youth 9-12 Course Syllabi 2003- 9-12 2 1 1 1 2 7 2004 6-8 Course Syllabi 2003- 6-8 2 1 1 1 2 7 2004 ELD/ELA Standards K-12 2001 2 1 2 0 0 5 Visual and Performing Arts PK-5 2002 2 0 0 0 0 2 Content Standards Algebra A Not 2003 1 1 1 2 1 6 Scope and Sequence Stated Algebra 1 Not 2003 1 2 1 1 1 6 Scope and Sequence Stated Geometry Not 2003 1 2 1 1 1 6 Scope and Sequence Stated Intermediate Algebra Not 2003 1 2 1 1 1 6 Scope and Sequence Stated Algebra and Trigonometry Not 2003 1 2 1 1 0 5 Scope and Sequence Stated Math Analysis Not 2003 1 2 1 1 0 5 Scope and Sequence Stated Math 6 6 2003 1 2 1 1 1 6 Scope and Sequence Math 7 7 2003 1 2 1 1 1 6 Scope and Sequence Pre-Algebra Not 2003 1 2 1 1 0 5 Scope and Sequence Stated Vocabulary Development 9-12 Unknown 2 0 3 0 0 5 Scope and Sequence Year-at-Glance OUSD Sequence Planning and 3-5 2002 1 2 0 2 0 5 Pacing Guide HB Sequence Planning and 3-5 2002 2 0 0 2 3 7 Pacing Guide Grades K-12 Mean Totals 1.41 1.41 0.94 1.06 0.94 5.76 10 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 11 The table illustrates the following: • None of the guides reach the minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points or higher; therefore, all of the developed guides developed after 1999 are inad- equate. • The range of guide scores was from two to nine. • The strongest criterion across guides was the objectives. The core subject area objectives were the State Content Standards. • The weakest criteria were prerequisites and instructional strategies. • The average curriculum guide scored a 5.76 of a possible 15. The guides did not contain enough information to provide teachers with complete and comprehensive work plans to guide their teaching. No progress has been made on the recommendation made in the January 2000 report. 3. There are no board policies or administrative regulations for developing, adopting, implementing, and monitoring programs and interventions that are aligned to district priorities and student learning goals. 4. There is no process to inventory and assess current programmatic efforts. Board policy 6190(a/b/c): Evaluation of the Instructional Program is in the process of being developed but has not been adopted by the board. Recommendations to Address The original recommendations remain valid. 1. Design a comprehensive curriculum management plan that includes all the criteria de- scribed in the original recommendations in the Assessment and Recovery Plan (2000). 2. Establish and implement a curriculum review cycle consistent with Assessment and Recovery Plan (2000) criteria that includes the design of curriculum guides. 3. Establish administrative regulations for developing, adopting, implementing, and monitoring programs and interventions that are aligned to district priorities and stu- dent learning goals. a. Limit the number of ongoing initiatives to a manageable number, and align budget allocations with curriculum priorities so that initiatives can be sus- tained. Request funding for any program only as part of the budget planning process and after assurance that the program is aligned to the curriculum and will be evaluated continuously for positive effects on student achievement. b. Designate an administrator to supervise a clearinghouse for adopting and reviewing all programs and interventions. Assign accountability to a district administrator for the coordination of proposing, reviewing, adopting, imple- menting, and monitoring programs and interventions. 10 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 11 c. Develop a program intervention and screening process. The process should be in alignment with the curriculum and include the following components: • A statement of alignment with established district priorities; • Alignment with the curriculum; • A description of the program/intervention; a list of required resources and funding sources; • Budget; evaluation; • Programmatic results; and • Criteria for renewal. 4. Inventory and assess current programmatic efforts. Use the new screening process to assess programs and prioritize. • Eliminate programs that are not improving student achievement. • Maintain a current list of programs and interventions. • Design ongoing staff development for all stakeholders as an integral part of curriculum development, implementation, and assessment. • Hold the staff accountable for implementation and monitoring of curriculum delivery by district and school administrators. Standard Implemented: Partially Previous Rating: 2 September 2003 Rating: 4 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 13 1.3 Allocation of Resources Professional Standard The district directs its resources fairly and consistently to accomplish its objectives. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. Quantitative and qualitative data are used to support use of funds, and there were numerous examples that qualitative and quantitative tools are used to develop the budget. The Director of Accountability serves as the gatekeeper to ensure that expen- ditures of categorical funds are consistent with instructional and support priorities. However, the budget development process has not been committed to writing, and the budget office is being reorganized to better track expenditures. 2. There is no written guidance for developing a program-driven budget or evidence of budget guidance of any kind. The most recent budget was developed during a district financial crisis, with minimal input from curriculum managers, and using formulas based on attendance and distribution of categorical funds. 3. Key leaders reported that it is not always apparent how funds allotted on a per-pupil basis at each school are actually used. 4. The original recommendation concerning inequities perpetuated by formulas remains applicable. 5. Much of the quantitative feedback data and many staff actions have been designed to identify inequitable conditions for students so that the inequities could be corrected. The district has made progress in this area, but persistent achievement gaps and the distribution of some courses indicate that much remains to be done. 6. Some progress has been made regarding enforcing staff compliance with the provi- sions of the Voluntary Resolution Plan. Members of the central office staff regularly visited schools to monitor progress in order to meet deadlines. However, the staff is not being held accountable for meeting deadlines through the personnel evaluation process. The original recommendations are still valid. 7. The Director of Accountability monitors requests for reprogramming of categorical funds to verify that they are consistent with legal requirements and district guidelines. Further, instructional practices were being substantially modified to accommodate student needs. However, schools are not prohibited from making decisions that worsen educational equity. A persistent equity achievement gap and inequitable distribution of courses exists among high schools. Equity expectations should be announced in poli- cies and implementation documents. 12 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 13 Recommendations to Address The original recommendations remain valid. 1. Develop budget requests through analysis of basic instructional and support areas of the budget. 2. Initiate programmatic budgeting that includes the following steps: a. Ensure that budget requests are described in terms of performance results, which permits evaluation of the consequences of funding or not funding. b. Build budget packages within each activity or program that incrementally deliver objectives of the area of need. c. Use a broad participatory process to develop a tentative budget and program structure. d. Instruct leaders from each program to prepare a goal and outcome statement that expresses the purpose the program serves. e. Involve the staff to gather data describing service levels, program outputs, and cost benefits. f. Prepare guidelines for administrators in charge of program budget develop- ment. g. Compile program budgets on worksheets and include instructions for evalua- tion and ranking. h. Use historical income and expenditure data coupled with performance data to guide preliminary budget-building estimates. i. Develop a final recommendation based on projected revenues available and the ranked program priorities. j. Submit the final budget recommendations to the central office for review, revi- sion, and adoption, in ample time for inclusion into the yearly budget develop- ment process. 3. Modify resource allocations and expenditure accounting systems so that all funds spent per pupil, at each school, can be readily determined. Further, direct that this in- formation be incorporated into district decision-making processes and be used regular- ly to identify and correct inequities in the flow of resources to schools and programs. 4. Revise allocation formulas that perpetuate inequities. Implement the provisions of board policy 1050: Philosophy and Goals of the Oakland Unified School District, including those related to educational equity for all students. 5. Direct the staff to implement the provisions of the Voluntary Resolution Plan accord- ing to the deadlines specified therein. 6. Monitor the staff regularly to ensure that deadlines are met. Hold the staff accountable for meeting those deadlines via the personnel evaluation process. 7. Prohibit school-based decisions that cause inequities in course offerings, materials, and practices. 14 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 15 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 15 1.4 Multiple Assessments – Program Adjustment Professional Standard The district has adopted multiple assessment tools, including diagnostic assessments, to evaluate, improve, or adjust programs and resources. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. A comprehensive assessment and feedback plan does not exist in a single document. Several administrators commented that the district is moving to an assessment pro- gram that is systemic. The evidence indicates that the district is deficient in six of the 20 characteristics of a comprehensive student assessment program (see table below): a. The vision, mission, and goals mentioned in the district’s 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan and the Local Educational Agency Plan describe the frame- work of the program and the student assessment plan. The Associate Superin- tendent of Student Achievement, the Director of Research and Evaluation, and executive directors are responsible for the design and implementation of the assessment program. b. Little progress has been made to ensure that existing policies for program evaluation are implemented. Board policy and administrative bulletins are inadequate to provide appropriate ongoing direction. Board Policy 6162(a): Student Assessment and Board Policy 6190(a): Evaluation of the Instructional Program are in draft form and have not been adopted by the board. c. Some progress has been made to ensure that the assessment program is mul- timeasured, data-driven, integrated, and cohesive. The district is working to align assessment with the core curriculum, state standards, and categorical programs. d. Some progress has been made in evaluating programs and establishing time lines. The review team reviewed several teacher evaluation surveys at the elementary and secondary levels that included the assessment pacing guide for the math, Open Court Reading, Academic English Development, and High Point programs. e. Little progress has been made to produce guidelines for program evaluation that require the departments responsible for curriculum and instruction pro- grams to work in collaboration with the research department and that also require these departments to jointly write recommendations based on program evaluations. f. Little progress has been made to have departments develop written action plans designed to address student needs that came to light via program evalua- tions. g. Program evaluations and accompanying action plans are not submitted to the board through the Superintendent in a timely manner (in 90 days or less after completion). h. Departments are not held accountable for following up on recommendations for programs and for making progress reports through the Superintendent to the board. 16 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 17 i. Significant progress has been made to use formative and summative assess- ment for program development and implementation. The district has insti- tuted an accountability Web site that includes benchmark data, a database that includes aggregate and disaggregate information. This Web site will make assessment data usable, rapid, and accessible, according to one administrator interviewed. j. Some progress is being made to require the use of formative and summative assessment for program development and implementation. Each site receives ‘Data Rosters that include diagnostic information from local and state assess- ments. k. Significant progress is being made to continue to disaggregate data by race/ ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic factors, and language; to constantly monitor disaggregated data to gauge performance discrepancies; and to use these data for program improvement and decision-making. The district plans to train and assign executive directors and teachers on special assignment to help schools use data to monitor student achievement, instruction, and program effective- ness. l. Some progress is being made to strengthen principals’ skills in assessing the extent to which a deeply aligned curriculum is being taught by the teacher. There has been limited training for principals. m. Significant progress has been made to refine administrative guidelines that require the use of local assessments to foster the availability of valid and reli- able curriculum-based performance information that can be used to improve instruction. Instead of the local curriculum-embedded assessments (CEAs) teachers are using the district-mandated Open Court Reading and Harcourt Brace Math assessments, which are aligned with the state’s content standards, the California Achievement Test (CAT6), and the California Standards Test (CST). n. Little progress has been made to revise curriculum guides that reflect the alignment of state standards, local assessments, and state tests (see Standard 1.2). o. No progress has been made to expand the scope of local assessments to in- clude all required subjects and grades. The district is focused on local assess- ments in the areas of reading/language arts and math. The following table summarizes the district’s progress toward the development of a comprehensive program and student assessment plan. 16 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 17 Characteristics of a Comprehensive Program and Student Assessment Plan And Assessment of the District Plan Auditors’ Rating Characteristic Adequate Inadequate 1. Describe the philosophical framework for the design of the program and the student assessment plan (formative, alignment, X all subjects / all grades, link to mission). 2. Gives appropriate direction through policy and administrative X regulations. 3. Provides ongoing needs assessment to establish goals of student X assessment and program assessment. 4. Provides for assessment at all levels of the system (organiza- X tion, program, student). 5. Identifies the many purposes of assessments, the types of as- X sessments, and appropriate data sources. 6. Provides a matrix of assessment tools, the purpose, subjects, X types of students tested, time lines, etc. 7. Controls for bias, culture, etc. X 8. Specifies the roles and responsibilities of the board, central of- X fice staff, and school-based staff. 9. Directs the relations between district and state assessments. X 10. Specifies overall assessment procedures used to determine cur- X riculum effectiveness and gives specifications for such analysis. 11. Directs the feedback process; assures proper use of data. X 12. Specifies how assessment tools will be placed in curriculum X guides. 13. Specifies equity issues and data sources. X 14. Identifies the parameters of a program assessment. X 15. Provides ongoing training plan for various audiences on assess- X ment. 16. Presents procedures for monitoring assessment design and use. X 17. Establishes a communication plan for the process of student and program assessment. X 18. Provides ongoing evaluation of the assessment plan. X 19. Specifies facility and housing requirements. X 20. Describes budget ramifications and connections to resource al- X locations. 18 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 19 2. Some progress has been made in requiring executive directors (previously called “cluster leaders”) to monitor the training provided by principals on assessment at their respective school sites. The effort to train principals is still evolving. All principals are uniformly trained monthly by an executive (area) director or the Associate Su- perintendent of Student Achievement. Several principals indicated in interviews that they explain to teachers how to interpret and use the testing results. More information is needed regarding the training of teachers by principals and its effect on improved instruction and student achievement. Recommendations to Address 1. Continue to work on a comprehensive assessment and feedback plan that meets the 20 criteria described in the table. 2. Require the executive directors to monitor the training provided by principals on as- sessment at their respective schools. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 2 September 2003 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 19 1.5 Preparation of Students—Expectations for Practices Professional Standard Expectations and a practice exist to improve the preparation of students and to build a school structure that has the capacity to serve all students. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. The staff views the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan as the document that estab- lishes high expectations among the staff and community members. The introductory slogan is “High standards of learning, high standards of service.” This is followed with statements of high expectations in the sections labeled Mission Statement, Core Beliefs, Long-Term Goals, and Vital Signs. a. The belief that district students can achieve at high levels regardless of diffi- cult circumstances is captured in the following: • Mission – There should be high standards of learning for every student. • Core Beliefs -- Every student deserves equity of opportunity to thrive in a school that expects him or her to perform at high levels. • Long-Term Goals -- Every student by name will…read at grade level by the end of grade 3, write at grade level by the end of elementary school, pass algebra by the end of middle school, and complete the requirements for a high school diploma. • Vital Signs – 70 percent of students, including all subgroups, will meet or exceed state performance standards as measured by the California Standards Test within 5 years. 100 percent of English language learners and nonmainstream English speakers who are continuously enrolled for seven years will be redesignated in five years. At least 90 percent of 9th graders continuously enrolled will graduate from high school. b. The plan addresses employee work in the Twelve Core Strategies to imple- ment the Four Drivers of Change. The strategies address investing in hiring and retaining staff members through differentiated professional development, a culture of continuous learning and collaboration, and nurturing instructional and administrative leadership. c. Success as a joint effort between community members, parents, students, teachers, administrators, other staff members, and the board is not explicitly stated, but the intention to achieve success and collaborate is addressed to each group of stakeholders separately. d. The district has not focused principals, assistant principals, and other educa- tional administrators on high-quality curriculum and instruction, and there is no monitoring to ensure effectiveness. Some progress toward this recommen- dation was found in the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan (Core Beliefs and Twelve Core Strategies). References are global in nature. They indicate the belief that “leadership at all levels is imperative for educating all students to high levels,” and one of the strategies identifies ensuring the rigor of what is taught; but there is no explicit statement setting an expectation for princi- pals to implement high-quality curriculum and to monitor its effectiveness. 20 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 21 e. The district expects principals to spend two hours per day in classrooms. This expectation was conveyed through meetings and site visits. An evaluation of the principals’ notes made during classroom observations indicated complian- cy. There is no documented expectation presented for TSAs. The role of TSAs in supporting classroom instruction needs to be made explicit. f. Principals’ administrative duties have not been reduced so that they can spend half their workdays in classrooms. g. There is no documentation supporting training of educational administrators, TSAs, and teachers on improvement of instruction and student achievement. The district has provided staff development for teachers and administrators to verse them in adopted commercial programs, the goals of the Strategic Align- ment Plan, and use of data. h. The district has not communicated widely within the school district and the community that only high-quality curriculum and instruction are acceptable from teachers and educational administrators. High-quality teaching and administration is alluded to in the Strategic Alignment Plan, but this document does not establish that “Only high-quality curriculum and instruction are ac- ceptable,” and this document is not widely circulated among teachers and the community. 2. Planning for improved student achievement is evident in various plans, but planning processes have not been established for systematic planning. a. A long-range planning process has not been submitted to the board for adop- tion. Some elements of effective planning were found in various documents, including the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan (SAP), Local Educational Agency Plan (LEAP) 2003-2008, and the Instructional Technology Plan. The current planning efforts could be more powerful in directing district goals and objectives if there were a systematic planning process established. This plan- ning process could be adopted by the board and communicated to all stake- holders engaged in planning. b. The board has not been provided with regular reports on planning activities, and there is no indication of the extent to which these activities are attaining district goals and objectives. There are no progress reports to the board on district or site plans. c. A district mission has been articulated in the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan. All district plans and site plans developed in the past year have estab- lished goals toward reaching that mission. District and site goals are measur- able, and the tool for measurement is the California Standards Test. d. Training on effective planning practices is provided to all administrators and key instructional staff members. e. The district has not appointed a task force to incorporate all of its existing plans, grants, and endeavors into one long-range district plan. 20 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 21 Recommendations to Address 1. Focus principals, assistant principals, and other educational administrators on main- taining high-quality curriculum and instruction and on monitoring these areas to ensure effectiveness. 2. Reduce principals’ administrative duties (e.g., attending meetings and completing paperwork) to provide time for spending half the day in the classrooms. 3. Refocus educational administrator, TSA, and teacher training on improvement of instruction and student achievement. 4. Communicate widely within the school district and the Oakland community that only high-quality curriculum and instruction are acceptable from teachers and educational administrators. 5. Provide regular reports to the board on planning activities and their results as they pertain to quality planning and attainment of district goals and objectives. 6. Provide training for all administrators and key instructional staff members pertaining to: • Understanding and adhering to the critical components of an effective plan- ning system. • Building their capacity to address the components of planning as they assess the needs of their individual departments and the district. • Setting realistic goals and performance-based objectives. 7. Appoint a task force to incorporate all existing plans, grants, and endeavors into one long-range district plan. Ascertain that this plan matches and meets the mission. Eliminate any practices that conflict with or drain resources from the district’s mission and strategic goals. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 23 1.6 Assessment Tools – Direction for Improvement Professional Standard The assessment tools are clear measures of what is being taught, and they provide direction for improvement. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. This standard has been partially implemented (see Standard 1.4). a. Useful assessments are being implemented in several key curricular areas deemed necessary to improve student achievement. However, the develop- ment of assessment and curriculum guides is not being closely coordinated (See Standard 1.2). b. The district staff does not have a full range of valid and reliable assessments necessary to cover a minimum of 70 percent of the subjects/grade levels taught. However, it is making substantial progress in its focus on reading and math- ematics in the elementary grades, and on mathematics, language arts, science, and history in the secondary grades. 2. The central office staff clearly expects administrators and teachers to use data to modify and assess instruction effectiveness. This effort needed additional emphasis. a. There is systematic, districtwide orientation of faculty on the use of guides and testing procedures. b. The requirement to use test data has been added to the evaluation forms for teachers and administrators, but the requirements to use test guides and cur- riculum guides had not been added. Recommendations to Address 1. Develop district assessment tools that are clearly aligned with the written and taught curriculum (see Standard 1.4). 2. Conduct faculty orientation and in-depth training on the use of guides and testing pro- cedures. (To avoid surprises in testing, students prepare for testing in the same physi- cal environment, using the same procedures, and applying the same concepts as will be required during their actual testing.) 3. Add “the knowledgeable use of…test guides and curriculum guides” to the criteria for teacher supervision as well as principal evaluation. 22 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 23 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 25 1.7 Staff Development – Improved Instruction/Curriculum Professional Standard Staff development provides staff with the knowledge and the skills to improve instruction and the curriculum. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. The district has not adopted a policy requiring the alignment of systemwide staff de- velopment. 2. Although a great deal of targeted staff training is being conducted, there is no compre- hensive staff development plan. Further, none of the staff members that were inter- viewed knew of such a document. The Office of Civil Rights Report, dated May 2003, cited the district for not having an approved professional development plan. The need to address year-round staff configurations is no longer applicable because the district has eliminated year-round instruction. 3. Some aspects of this recommendation have been implemented, and some have not. Individuals with staff development responsibilities are not readily identifiable. There- fore, it was impossible to determine whether those responsible for staff development had sufficient time to adequately perform this function. Further, administrators indi- cated that the staff development responsibilities had been decentralized and assigned to numerous officials. Since there is no staff development plan, it could not be communicated to employees. There is substantial coordination of staff development and in-service training offered by district departments; however, the coordination mechanism has not been committed to writing. There is a substantial effort to eliminate departmental isolation, but this has not been achieved in all instances such as in the business services area. The district has a Web site that provides access to a great deal of useful information. Several administrators said there had been a Web-based staff development calendar during the previous school year, but there is no current staff development calendar at the district’s Web site. The number of teachers lacking credentials has been markedly reduced. The process of requiring credentialing needs to be sustained. Although administrators at all levels reported that classroom evaluations are being conducted regularly, there are no periodic, systematic follow-up evaluations to deter- mine if specific training received via staff development offerings had been effectively applied in the classroom to improve teaching and learning. 24 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 25 Recommendations to Address 1. Adopt a policy requiring a centralized staff development function and systemwide coordination of all professional development and training activities. Provide com- prehensive staff development planning for two to four years (with annual updates) to direct successful implementation of district program and attainment of systemwide and school goals. a. Provide a formally stated expectation that any school-based in-service will be aligned with school district goals and priorities. b. Require that staff development be evaluated periodically through the collec- tion of both qualitative and quantitative data from a variety of sources. c. Adopt this policy as a statement of expectations and require that periodic, formal progress reports be given to the State Administrator as well as periodic, formal evaluations based on outcomes resulting from staff development. d. Provide the financial resources to implement and support a districtwide staff development function and the resulting plan. 2. Design a comprehensive staff development plan. Include specific strategies to keep new staff members updated in areas of district training, and to ensure school admin- istrator competencies to guide and direct staff implementation of learning from staff development and in-service training. 3. Reduce the supervision and other management duties of the staff development admin- istrator to ensure full attention to: a. The timely development and adoption of the staff development plan, b. The widespread communication of the plan to schools and other work sites, and c. The coordination of all staff development and in-service training offered by the district departments. Changing the culture of departmental isolationism needs leadership and management time now spread thinly across several re- sponsibilities. 4. Design and use a Web site information clearinghouse with a staff development calen- dar formatted to include posting of district and school-based in-services and other staff development offerings. Assign someone the task of updating responsibilities to ensure that the posted calendar is always current and accurate. 5. Evaluate staff development results periodically with a focus on teacher behaviors and student results. Use a variety of sources and collect both qualitative and quantitative data. 26 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 27 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 2 September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 27 1.8 Staff Development – Purpose, Goals, and Evaluation Professional Standard Staff development demonstrates a clear understanding of purpose, written goals, and appropriate evaluations. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. Many aspects of program design are not in place (see Standard 1.7). Although inter- viewees reported that the district is engaged in some high-quality, targeted staff devel- opment, FCMAT saw no evidence of a comprehensive staff development program that was systematically planned, executed, and evaluated for its contributions to the dis- trict’s mission and goals, nor was the existing program revised accordingly. Classroom changes due to staff development were described as a criterion for classroom observa- tions and the subject was listed as an evaluation criterion on a classroom observation form currently in use. However, this form was not designed as a tool to evaluate staff development in general; rather, it was focused on the Open Court program. 2. Staff development is voluntary and incentive funds are scarce; therefore, the ability to control the focus of teacher staff development for all teachers is limited. 3. Progress on principal staff development needs to be sustained. 4. Written evaluations of staff development are not required. Recommendations to Address 1. Carefully design the comprehensive staff development program to clearly support the purposes and missions of the district. 2. Focus teacher professional development on the acquisition of basic teaching skills and on providing quality instruction to all students regardless of their ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. 3. Require a written evaluation of the effectiveness of staff development activities to determine whether the programs have the intended effect on student achievement. 4. In evaluating staff development programs, ensure they include an examination of classroom changes that are improving student achievement. 28 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 29 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 1 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 28 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 29 1.9 Evaluations – Improving Job Performance Professional Standard The assessment tools are clear measures of what is being taught, and they provide direction for improvement. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. Little progress has been made to revise the teacher evaluation system so that it consid- ers student assessment scores and so that teachers’ efforts are evaluated for effective use of the district’s curriculum. a. All principals have received an orientation on the Standards for the Teaching Profession (see Standard 1.12) that reviewed the use of assessments in evalu- ating teacher performance. b. On the Evaluation Report for Certificated Employees form (revised 8-00), one check-off item for assessing student learning called for a summative rating of a teacher’s performance. However there was insufficient information to deter- mine whether principals were expected to evaluate teachers based on their use of test data and curriculum guides. c. The recommendation that “the knowledgeable use of test data, test guides, and curriculum guides” be added to the criteria for teacher supervision and princi- pal evaluation still applies. 2. Principals are directed to be in the classroom two hours a day. Each principal was presented with a classroom observation guide that discussed lesson objectives, stu- dent outcomes, classroom communication, instructional practices, and the classroom environment. However, principals are not held accountable for high-quality curricu- lum monitoring, instructional supervision, assessment, and evaluation of staff. More evidence will need to be collected at the next review. Recommendations to Address 1. Add “the knowledgeable use of…test guides and curriculum guides” to the criteria for teacher supervision as well as principal evaluation (see Professional Standard 1.6 above). Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 31 1.10 Variety of Instructional Strategies– Student Diversity Professional Standard Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and resources that address their students’ diverse needs. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. Study team members were unable to visit classrooms in August to observe instruction. Staff development plans, instructional resources, and assessment data analyses were reviewed instead. Staff development documents describe various planned and imple- mented staff development activities designed to meet the needs of diverse learners through differentiated instruction. 2. The district has purchased High Point for students at risk in reading. Open Court sup- plemental materials, Into English, and Santillana supplemental materials are provided for English-language learners. The district has recently purchased Foro Abierto Para La Lectura for its Spanish-language arts students. Teachers have received extensive training in the use of these materials to meet the needs of their students. 3. The district maintains an extensive database of disaggregated state and local assess- ment data. The school and district staffs are being trained to analyze the data in order to make instructional decisions that meet the students’ diverse needs. Recommendations to Address 1. Fully implement the staff development elements laid out in standards 1.7 and 1.8. 2. Incorporate strategies for meeting the needs of diverse learners. 3. Focus on assessment feedback discrepancies through implementation of standards 1.4 and 1.6. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 31 1.12 California Standards for the Teaching Professional Professional Standard The standards set forth in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession are present and supported (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education, July 1997). Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. The district has policies supporting the California Standards for the Teaching Profes- sion. Some progress has been made as follows: a. The district’s new teacher support program (Oakland Teacher Support and As- sessment program--OTSA) is fashioned after the state Beginning Teacher Sup- port and Assessment program and is designed around the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. The district Web site contains a link to the state Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment program. b. All principals have been oriented on the Standards for the Teaching Profes- sion and have provided copies of the standards to teachers at their schools. The current district-mandated form used by principals to evaluate teachers is designed around the Standards for the Teaching Profession. Recommendations to Address 1. Develop and adopt board policies supporting the California Standards for the Teach- ing Profession. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 1 September 2003 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 32 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 33 1.13 Instructional Plans – Modification and Adjustment Professional Standard Teachers modify and adjust instruction plans according to student needs and success. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. The staff is engaged in a major effort to create equitable learning conditions and there is substantial equity monitoring (see Standard 1.6). Nevertheless, there is no policy defining equity and specifying the data required to monitor progress in that area. 2. There is a clear focus on identification of testing feedback discrepancies and using them to develop strategies to meet unique student needs. The district uses a variety of data reports and a color-coding system to quickly identify schools and student groups that required attention. The feedback from these sources was used to initiate programs such as the High Point reading program for at-risk students. However, test scores indi- cate that additional efforts are required. 3. Substantial instructional resources have been budgeted to address diverse student needs in the form of new reading and mathematics programs as well as before- and after-school enrichment classes. However, there is no budget guidance for addressing equity issues, and no progress has been made toward implementing a program budget or changing resource allocation formulas to better promote equity (see Standard 1.3). 4. Some roles have been assigned and the tasks inherent in those roles are being executed (e.g., the Director of Accountability, the monitoring roles of central office teachers-on- special-assignment, principals’ responsibilities shown in the Bins and Binders Com- pliance Process checklist). In general, however, the upper echelons of the organization are in a state of flux. The district has lost a substantial number of staff members, the organizational chart is in draft form, and organizational responsibilities, including those involving equity, have not been codified in regulations. Although evaluation forms for teachers and administrators allude to equitable learning conditions, there is a need for clarification. 5. Teacher evaluation criteria include a requirement to use a variety of instructional strat- egies, but the section on instructional strategies is one of the weakest in the district’s most recently developed curriculum guides (see Standard 1.2). 6. The district staff has implemented a data collection system capable of capturing and organizing information necessary to modify and adjust instruction. Documents and in- terviews with principals indicate that the data generated by this effort is adequate and is being used by teachers and school-level administrators to modify instruction. Also, evaluation forms for both teachers and administrators require the use of data to adjust instruction. In addition, the data collected is used to establish enrichment classes that take place during and outside of the normal school day. Because school was not in session during FCMAT’s site visit, the review team was unable to interview teachers or view their planning documents. This area needs continued emphasis. 32 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 33 Recommendations to Address 1. Develop and adopt a policy that includes a definition of equity and specifies data re- quired by the State Administrator to monitor performance. 2. Incorporate strategies for meeting the needs of diverse students while focusing on testing feedback discrepancies. Budget instructional resources to address the varying needs of a diverse student population. 3. Identify roles and responsibilities among faculty and administrators pertaining to eq- uity, and codify them in regulations. 4. Include in the district’s curriculum guides a variety of approaches and strategies for teaching each of the objectives prescribed by the district. 5. Use appropriate data to direct instructional modifications and adjustments. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 34 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 35 1.14 Learning Goals and Instructional Goals Professional Standard There is evidence that learning goals and instructional plans and programs are challenging for all students. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. The district lacks a comprehensive curriculum management plan, but some progress has been made in this area. Elements of a curriculum management plan, which in- cludes learning goals and instructional plans and programs challenging to all students, were found in various district documents. The district’s vision and core beliefs are described in the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan, which emphasizes the phrase “high standards of learning” and which states, “Every student and adult must feel safe, valued, and challenged to meet high expectations.” Some of the long-term goals described in the strategic plan are, “Every student by name will read at grade level by the end of grade 3; write at grade level by the end of elementary school; pass algebra by the end of middle school; complete the require- ments for a high school diploma; and excel in ways that express individual passion and unique talents.” The same document describes core strategies in supporting excel- lence in teaching and learning and accelerated interventions for underperforming and underserved students and schools. Roles and responsibilities regarding the design and delivery of curriculum are partially articulated in adopted board policy and articulated further in draft board policy not adopted by the board. Expectations for the delivery of the curriculum are documented in the current teacher appraisal system. Further prog- ress has been made as follows: a. The district has planned for improvement. School site plans were developed over the year with the support and direction of the district administration. In addition, there are plans mandated through state and federal regulations such as the Local Education Area Plan (LEAP). Principals have pacing calendars for student improvement developed by grade-level teams as a result of analy- sis of test data supplied by the district administration. Teachers and admin- istrators at all grade levels K-12 receive extensive professional development instruction in the use of High Point, Open Court, and Harcourt Math pacing calendars aligned with district developed benchmark assessments and correlat- ed with the rigorous State Content Standards. A district PowerPoint presenta- tion dated June 2003 describes five-year goals for interventions and extended day services. b. The district has curriculum guides, but they are inadequate. The core subject area guides are aligned to the State Content Standards. In order to determine the quality of these recently developed guides, they were reviewed for five basic minimum guide component audit criteria. None of the guides reach the minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points or higher; therefore, all guides analyzed were found to be inadequate (see Standard 1.2, Student Objectives – Core Curriculum Content). 34 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 35 2. The district has developed recommended time allocations that reflect district priorities. These time allocations have been presented by district administrators to the board and to site administrators. Site administrators presented these time allocations to their sites and included them in their site plans. Recommendations to Address 2. Develop board policy that clearly depicts expectations for curriculum management, including the expectation that the curriculum be challenging for students at all lev- els and that the approach to curriculum development include a comprehensive needs assessment, a systematic review of each instructional program every 4 to 6 years, the development and revision of curriculum guides, and the adoption of all curriculum by the board (see Standard 1.2). 3. Continue developing and implementing the district’s comprehensive curriculum man- agement system, focusing on challenging learning goals and instructional plans. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 37 1.15 Utilization of Assessment Information Professional Standard The administration and staff utilizes assessment information to improve learning opportunities for all students. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Little progress has been made in the development of policies that establish a frame- work for a comprehensive program of assessment. (See Standard 1.4, which refers to policies that are still in draft form.) 2. The district assessment program is evolving (see Standard 1.4). More data is acces- sible to school sites in a timely manner. The Department of Research and Evaluation is providing more services to the schools. Comments from administrators and teachers indicate that the data rosters are useful in diagnosing student strengths and weaknesses. a. Hewlett Packard and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative are supple- menting funds to permit employment of a full range of valid and reliable assessment strategies required to support a comprehensive program evaluation system. b. Little progress has been made to provide information on the results of staff de- velopment related to the use of assessment. However, the assessment training provided to teachers is not being implemented in ways that improve student achievement. The evaluation process is ineffective in determining whether teacher skills improve as a result of the use of assessment data. c. Board policy requires program evaluations. Some programs are evaluated, such as Open Court, High Point, and the Urban Dream project, but most pro- grams are not consistently evaluated through a coordinated, systematic pro- cess. d. The district uses assessment meeting/training agendas for principals, teacher leaders, secondary math department chairpersons, and participants in the literacy collaborative, as well as with a “Practice-Based Professional Devel- opment Model,” and a Data Roster worksheet. The district is in the initial stages of implementing strategies and procedures that would more effectively use assessment data to improve learning opportunities. However, administra- tor training may not be helping teachers use data to improve instruction and student learning. Recommendations to Address 1. Develop and adopt board policies that establish a framework for a comprehensive program of assessment. (See Standard 1.4) 2. Continue current efforts to implement strategies and procedures to effectively use as- sessment data to improve the district’s learning opportunities. 36 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 37 3. Upgrade administrator training on strategies to help teachers use data to improve instruction and student learning. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 38 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 39 1.17 Goals and Grade-Level Performance Standards Professional Standard Goals and grade-level performance standards based on a common vision are present. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. No document specifically conveys the district expectation that there be clear linkages among the district’s vision, the board’s goals, the district’s goals, and program goals. However, some progress has been made in this area. District and school personnel interviewed agreed that the California Content and Performance Standards drive in- struction. There are several district- and school-planning documents that reference this issue. The 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan Key Results and Vital Signs describe what all students in the district should know and be able to do. In addition: a. The district has allocated funding to design, implement, and evaluate the ef- fectiveness of the Open Court Reading/language arts and Harcourt Math pro- grams, recently purchased, as well as the Urban Dream program. The district has the results of the evaluations of these programs. There are no other evalua- tions of major district-adopted programs. b. Board Policy 6190(a/b/c): Evaluation of the Instructional Program is in the process of being developed but has not been adopted by the board. Key elements of the original recommendation listed below have shown no progress. Recommendations to Address 1. Design a common evaluation and reporting format that includes as major components cost analysis, program integration, evaluation cycle time line, and program effective- ness data. 2. Review with the Governing Board evaluations for each program annually, including a cost analysis, a description of how particular programs interact with other programs, and data on program effectiveness. 3. Create a database of supplemental programs, including: • The name of the program, • Purpose and the district goals it supports, • Number of students directly served, • Funding source, • Funds available, • Allocation of funds within program, • Costs of program per student, • Expected stability of funding, • Degree of learning achieved (or not achieved), and • Resulting action for improvement, including program termination, if appropriate. Use of a consistent data protocol across programs will allow for more meaningful comparisons 38 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 39 4. Set clear expectations and provide the necessary resources to the designated supple- mental program coordinators so they can be successful in the day-to-day implementa- tion of this recommendation. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 40 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 41 1.23 Initial Student Placement—Procedures Professional Standard Initial placement procedures are in place to ensure the timely and appropriate placement of all students with particular emphases being placed on students with special needs. Progress on Recommendations of the Improvement Plan 1. The district does not develop budget requests and does not provide resource allocation according to the recommendations and recovery steps described under Standard 1.3. 2. The district continues to allocate funding according to average daily attendance and through categorical funding. Identified inequities are being addressed through staff development and a literacy initiative using Open Court Reading and High Point mate- rials. The district should revise allocation formulas to address any inequities identified in student programs. 3. Professional development documents indicate training has been offered to the staff to address English-language learners, minority student learning, and special needs stu- dents. 4. The staff is not being held accountable for meeting the deadlines and implementing the provision of the Voluntary Resolution Plan. The Teaching and Learning staff pre- sented plans for incorporating some of the tenets of the Voluntary Resolution Plan into the District Staff Development Efforts. Notebooks of staff development for Academic English Development demonstrated two workshops in January 2003 to the staff for increasing an understanding of African-American language history and culture. The district should continue to hold staff accountable for meeting the deadlines and imple- menting provisions of the Voluntary Resolution Plan. 5. The district has a data plan to assist schools in monitoring course offering enrollments. However the district does not review site decisions to determine inequities in offerings and practice. Recommendations to Address 1. Implement the provision of board policy relating to educational equity for all students (see Board Policy 1050: Philosophy and Goals of the Oakland Unified School Dis- trict). 2. Continue to review site decisions relative to course offerings to prevent inequities in offerings and practices. 40 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 41 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 1 September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 42 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 43 1.25 Instructional Materials – Student Accessibility Professional Standard The district will ensure that all instructional materials are accessible to all students. Progress on Implementing the Recommendations of the Recovery Plan 1. Parents and teachers have complained that textbooks are not accessible to all students. District administrators indicated that the complaint came when the district purchased a science program consisting of classroom kits and no textbooks. In the past three years, a new science textbook has been purchased, and every student is issued a science book to use in school. 2. The district has purchased High Point for students at risk in reading. Open Court sup- plemental materials, Into English, and Santillana materials are provided for English language learners. The district has recently purchased Open Court’s Spanish version, Foro Abierto Para La Lectura, for its Spanish language arts students. Teachers have received extensive training in using these materials to meet the needs of their students. 3. District administrators and principals indicated that every student is issued a textbook for each subject/course, and that there is a process for textbook purchases. The process is not described in a document. Large purchases of textbook purchases, such as with districtwide adoptions, are based on the current enrollment for each school. Small pur- chase orders, such as for the replacement of books, are completed at the school level, and textbook funds are allocated to each school based on enrollment. Recommendations to Address 1. Continue efforts to ensure that all instructional materials are accessible to all students. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 5 September 2003 Rating: 6 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 42 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 43 1.27 Planning Process---Focus and Connectivity Professional Standard The district planning process ensures focus and connectivity to increased student productivity. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. No long-range planning process has been presented to the board for adoption. Some elements of effective planning were found in various documents (see Standard 1.5). 2. The Governing Board is not provided with regular reports on planning activities and with information on the extent to which these activities are attaining district goals and objectives. 3. A district mission has been articulated in the 2002-2007 Strategic Alignment Plan. All district plans and site plans developed in the past year have established goals toward reaching that mission. District and site goals are measurable, and the tool identified for measurement is the California Standards Test. 4. A district planning process has not been established. The people responsible for monitoring the plans are informed of their responsibilities through their participation in creating the plan, by the district lead planner, and through the written document. No progress reports have been forwarded to the board on district or site plans. 5. All administrators and key instructional staff have not been trained on effective plan- ning practices. 6. The district has not appointed a task force to incorporate all existing plans, grants, and endeavors in the district into one long-range district plan. Recommendations to Address 1. Develop a planning process. Provide reports to the Governing Board on planning activities and their results as they pertain to quality planning and attainment of district goals and objectives. 2. Provide training for all administrators and key instructional staff members pertaining to: • Understanding and adhering to the critical components of an effective plan- ning system. • Building their capacity to address the components of planning as they assess the needs of their individual departments and the district. • Setting realistic goals and performance-based objectives. 44 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 45 3. Appoint a task force to incorporate all existing plans, grants, and endeavors in the dis- trict into one long-range district plan. Ascertain that this plan matches and meets the mission. Eliminate any practices that conflict with or drain resources from the mission and strategic goals of the district. Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 0 September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 44 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 45 1.28 Human Resources Practices Professional Standard Human resources practices and supports the delivery of sound educational programs. Progress on Recommendations and Recovery Steps 1. Key leaders within the department have drafted a Human Resources Strategic Align- ment Plan to align the division’s work with district goals. Key elements in the HR plan have been incorporated into the district Strategic Alignment Plan. 2. The goals and objectives for the Human Resources Division in the Strategic Align- ment Plan do not directly address teacher absenteeism and turnover rates. Credentials are addressed in a goal to increase the number of fully credentialed teachers. 3. Although surveys are being administered and used for data collection, there is no requirement to do so. 4. There is no action plan that addresses issues of teacher turnover, absenteeism, and credentials. 5. Judging from the organizational structure of the division and from certain documents, the Human Resources Division has been directly involved in the decision-making pro- cesses related to goals and objectives; however, the overall requirement and process has not been documented. According to the job description for the Director of Labor Relations, he provides con- sultation to address contractual impediments to district goals and objectives. 6. The performance evaluation used to evaluate the Director of Human Resources in- cludes a provision to monitor goal implementation but not goal implementation strate- gies. Recommendations to Address 1. Form a district task force composed of district stakeholders to draft strategic goal statements to address teacher absenteeism, turnover rate, credentials. 2. Establish goals and objectives for the Human Resources Division that address teacher absenteeism, turnover rate, credentials. 3. Require systematic data collection, interpretation, and use of information regarding systems attitude surveys, climate studies, and exit interviews. 4. Consider retaining a collective-bargaining consultant to address contractual impedi- ments to the district’s goals and objectives. 46 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 47 Standard Implemented: Partially January 2000 Rating: 1 September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 46 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 47 2.3(a) Management Professional Standard A process is in place to maintain alignment between standards, practices, and assessment. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers and administrators 2. Policies, administrative bulletins, and curriculum development documents 3. Documents related to curriculum planning Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. The district has a commitment to maintaining alignment between standards, practices, and assessment. However, there is no document describing the district process. The district is making preliminary efforts through planned stakeholder focus groups and retreats. 2. Board Policy 6141: Curriculum Development and Evaluation is in the process of be- ing developed. The policy directs the board to adopt district curriculum. It states that curriculum development and evaluation is an ongoing process that should be support- ed with planned allocations of resources and staff time. It directs the board to establish a curriculum review cycle and ensure the process includes input from all stakehold- ers. The selection and evaluation of instructional materials will be coordinated with the curriculum development and evaluation process. The Superintendent or designee is directed to keep the board informed about curriculum. The board has not formally adopted the policy. 3. Current district curriculum guides are aligned to State Content Standards and assess- ments. In order to determine the quality of these recently developed guides, the dis- trict curriculum guides were reviewed for five basic minimum guide component audit criteria. None of the guides reach the minimum basic adequacy score of 12 points or higher; therefore, all guides analyzed were found to be inadequate (see Standard 1.2, Student Objectives – Core Curriculum Content). Recommendations and to Address 1. Develop and adopt a governing board policy asking district administrators and teach- ers to maintain alignment between standards, practices, and assessments. 2. Develop a curriculum management plan that describes the districtwide process for main- taining alignment between standards, practices, and assessments, and that includes: a. The district’s philosophical approach to the curriculum; b. A curriculum review cycle for all disciplines; c. A consistent curriculum guide format; 48 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 49 d. Delineation of responsibilities for curriculum-related decision-making for district administrators, principals, teachers, district, and school committees; e. Expectations for the delivery of the curriculum; f. Instructions for monitoring the curriculum that include specific procedures and criteria for principals and other staff; g. Timing, scope, team membership, and procedures for curriculum review and adoption; h. Selection procedures for instructional resources; i. A process for integrating technology into the curriculum; and j. A process for communicating curricular revisions to the board, staff, and com- munity. 3. Design curriculum by taking the following steps: a. Review the latest research and expert thinking in the discipline. b. Assess the existing curriculum’s strengths and weaknesses. c. Assess current and future expectations of students, the community, and society. d. Establish a complete set of goals and objectives for the discipline that are linked to the district’s mission and goals, that are aligned with State Content Standards, and that meet the needs of the Oakland Unified School District’s students. e. Align objectives with the content of the California Standards Test (CST), Cali- fornia Achievement Test (CAT/6), California High School Exit Exam (CAH- SEE), and local assessments. f. Determine prerequisite skills or concepts needed for the objectives. g. Match objectives to district-adopted textbooks and supplementary instruction- al resources. h. Integrate instructional technology. i. Develop specific examples and model lessons on how to approach key con- cepts or skills in the classroom using a variety of instructional techniques. j. Align instructional strategies with the context of state and local assessments. k. Include strategies for meeting the needs of special education and gifted students. l. Obtain feedback from the curriculum review team. m. Use external consultants as “critical friends” to critique the process and prod- ucts during the design stage. n. Field test the curriculum. o. Pilot the resource material, assessments, and instructional strategies. p. Evaluate curriculum effectiveness in terms of student achievement. q. Revise field-tested curriculum guides based on feedback. r. Submit curriculum for adoption by the board. 4. Direct the Associate Superintendent of Student Achievement to periodically report to the board the status of the alignment between standards, practices, and assessments. 48 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 49 Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 50 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 51 2.6(a) Standards Professional Standard The governing board has adopted and the district is implementing the California State Standards and assessments. Sources and Documentation 1. Interviews with teachers and administrators 2. Policies, administrative bulletins, and curriculum development documents 3. Documents related to curriculum and assessment planning Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. The board has not formally adopted the State Content Standards. District adminis- trators stated that curriculum is discussed in committee and that the board receives information about standards and curriculum; however, they did not believe the State Content Standards were officially adopted by the board. 2. In the district curriculum guides developed after 1999, all core subject-area curriculum guides are aligned to State Content Standards, but all were judged inadequate to direct instruction. 3. Instructional materials for core subject areas adopted since 1999 are correlated to the State Content Standards. 4. Teachers and administrators attend local and county office of education staff develop- ment training sessions on the State Content Standards. 5. Principals state that their teachers have the State Content Standards posted on their classroom walls and that they require their teachers to write the number of the stan- dard being used in lesson plans on chalkboards. 6. Professional development focuses on the implementation of Open Court and Harcourt Math. Both of these programs are correlated with the State Content Standards. 7. Pacing and instructional planning calendars are designed around the State Content Standards. 8. District and site administrators and teachers receive extensive professional develop- ment in the process of analyzing state and local test data and in planning instruction based on the analysis. 9. District and school classroom observation checklists contain evidence of the use of State Content Standards. 50 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 51 Recommendations to Address 1. Present to the governing board all curricula including the State Content Standards for formal adoption. This will restore appropriate control of the instructional program. 2. Align the district curriculum in content and context to the State Content Standards and assessments. Include the following in all curriculum guides: a. State for each objective standard, the sequence within the course/grade, and how the actual standard is performed as well as the amount of time to be spent learning each standard. b. Focus each objective on district and state assessments. c. State specific prerequisites or a description of discrete skills/concepts required prior to this learning (may be a scope and sequence across PK-12). d. State for each objective the “match” between the basic text/instructional resource(s) and the curriculum objective. e. Provide specific examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the class- room. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 2 Implementation Scale Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 52 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 53 3.1 English Language Learners Professional Standard The identification and placement of English language learners into appropriate courses is conducted in a timely and effective manner. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies and administrative regulations 2. Curriculum documents 3. Assessment procedures 4. Data regarding student achievement 5. Interviews with district personnel and principals Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. Board Policy 1050: Philosophy and Goals, Oakland Unified School District, cited in the January 2000 Report, is still the current policy. It addressed equity and established the board’s “…aim to provide all students with equal opportunities and resources to…realize their highest intellectual and physical capabilities.” 2. The district entered into a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 1998, which required the district to provide equality of educational access for all of the district’s students. OCR visited the district in May 2003 and issued a report regarding noncompliance in certain areas (see also Standard 3.2). a. The OCR found the district failed to provide a consistent communication process to promote and exchange information and ideas regarding gifted and talented education (GATE) programs and services to the parents and com- munity. There is no evidence of communication about GATE programs to all parents. b. According to the OCR, there is insufficient evidence to determine that all stu- dents are provided with adequate counseling; nor is there sufficient evidence to show that guidance is nondiscriminatory (for example, a discriminatory practice would occur when students are urged to enroll in particular classes or career programs based on their race, gender, etc.). 3. The ELL state compliance review on May 19-21, 2003, noted the district’s compliance efforts (see Standard 3.2): a. The district has to identify all students who primarily speak a language other than English. All such students are assessed in English and in their primary language, and the initial assessment results are provided to parents in a timely manner. 52 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 53 b. The district has recently revised the parent notification letter and program op- tions. School sites have begun the process of communicating the new program options with parents via written communication, parent meetings, individual contacts, and use of a district video. This item will be thoroughly reviewed again next fall. The new notification options and notification letters have been shared with and reviewed by the District English Learner Advisory Commit- tee (DELAC) members. The FCMAT review team partially confirmed this through interviews; however, no documents were provided relative to this issue. c. The Comité Report indicated the district has a process to notify parents about program placement and about all program options, including the availability of alternative program waivers. Program options include an alternative pro- gram description where instruction is not overwhelmingly in English. Each school site has documentation to verify when the information was provided to parents. In addition, the ELAC and DELAC members review the notification process, forms, and program designs during their meetings and provide feed- back 4. The district provides printouts of High Point scores to help counselors place middle school and high school ELL students in the mainstream programs. High Point pro- vides a standards-based instruction reading and language arts program for the English learners in Oakland Unified School District. This practice could not be confirmed dur- ing the review team’s August 2003 visit. 5. An AP Program Report for 2002 identified that of the 4,197 students taking AP exams, 679 were ethnic minority students (3.7 percent). 6. The number of ethnic minority students enrolling in higher level courses and taking AP exams has grown slowly since 1998. The last close data check of this was present- ed to the review team in 2000. 7. District data show ethnic minority students lag significantly in achievement. Recommendations to Address 1. Devise strategies to provide full access to the core curriculum for students who are multifunded (EL students, special education students, and Title I students). 2. Review curriculum to ensure that all programs provided for English learners are sup- portive of the general core curriculum. Likewise, appropriate instructional support and materials must match the needs of the English-learner students based on specific data. 3. Provide information to parents about programs provided by the district, i.e., Title I, English learner, GATE, before- and after-school supplemental services, tutoring, sum- mer school. Take steps to ensure they understand these programs. 54 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 55 4. Train counselors and teachers in taking a more comprehensive approach to helping all students understand their educational options. 5. Implement the Individual Student Profile in making course placement decisions for students. 6. Implement equity checks for courses and programs during the 2003-04 school year. 7. Develop a data system for evaluation of the English-learner program to assess whether the program successfully identifies English language learners and places them in ap- propriate courses. (see also Standard 3.2) Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 54 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 55 3.2 English Language Learners Professional Standard Programs for English language learners comply with state and federal regulations and meet the quality criteria set forth by the California Department of Education. Sources and Documentation 1. Board policies and administrative regulations 2. Curriculum documents 3. Assessment procedures 4. Data regarding student achievement 5. Interviews with district personnel and principals Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. District Policy 1050: Philosophy and Goals, Oakland Unified School District states, “The primary purpose of [the district] is to provide an educational program respon- sive to the needs of individual students.” With regard to equality, this policy stated, “We…aim to provide all students with equal opportunities and resources to…realize their highest intellectual and physical capabilities.” 2. The district policies on nondiscrimination have not been updated to meet new state and federal requirements. Further, the complaint process and all handbooks for dis- semination need to be updated. 3. The English learner redesignation rate for 2002-03 was 9.2 percent, as reported on CBEDS. 4. According to the CBEDS, 2002-2003, 83.9 percent of the district staff is fully creden- tialed. There are still 169 teachers in preinternship status, 62 on emergency status, and 12 on waivers. Most teachers on emergency status or waivers practice in the areas of special education and EL programs. 5. As noted in Standard 3.1, the district entered into a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Office of Civil Rights in 1998, which required the district to provide equality of educational access for all students. OCR visited the district in May 2003 and issued a report regarding noncompliance in the following areas: Integrated Program Items (1); Uniform Complaint Procedures (3); Gender Equity (9); Gifted and Talented Education (4); Dwight Eisenhower Professional Development Program (1); Safe Schools and Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education (1); and Career Technical and Civil Rights (2). The district had not responded to this written report as of August 13, 2003. Specific items related to the OCR findings include the following: 56 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 57 a. The OCR reported that not all staff, parents, students, and advisory committee members have received and understood the Uniform Complaint Procedures. There is no evidence to indicate this has changed. b. The OCR reported no professional development activities were conducted pursuant to an approved professional development plan that focused on teach- ing and learning in core academic subjects. There is no approved professional development plan; however, there is some evidence of professional develop- ment activities. c. The OCR reported that student achievement data collected by the district is not regularly applied to instruction in the classroom to ensure that students receive the most appropriate differentiated instruction. The review team found evidence on the student achievement data system; however, no evidence sub- stantiated the use of the data in classrooms. d. The OCR reported that the differentiated curriculum has not been expanded to accelerate pacing and add levels of depth, complexity, sensitivities, judgment, thinking, and self-concepts to the needs, interests, and abilities of gifted and potentially gifted students. There has been no change in this area. e. The OCR reported insufficient evidence to determine that the district and schools are providing a consistent communication process to promote and exchange information and ideas regarding GATE programs and services to the parents and community. There has been no change in this area. f. The OCR reported insufficient evidence to determine that all students have equal access to all educational programs. There is little change in this area; however, a new data system has been designed to monitor access issues begin- ning in 2003-04. g. The OCR claimed there was insufficient evidence to determine whether preg- nant students are provided access to equitable options at all sites. There is no change in this area. h. The OCR reported insufficient evidence to determine that the scheduling of classes provides a diverse population of students with access to all classes. In- terviews indicated that the scheduling process is improving, but no data were presented to this effect. i. The OCR reported there is insufficient evidence to determine that all students are provided with adequate counseling; nor is there sufficient evidence to show that guidance is nondiscriminatory. j. The OCR reported insufficient evidence to determine that all sites conduct equity training to provide strategies for identifying and eliminating gender and racial bias. There is only one training session on equity in staff development lists (attendance voluntary) districtwide, and there is no evidence that any ses- sions are presented at the sites. 6. An ELL state compliance review occurred May 19-21, 2003. A letter from the state to Oakland Unified School District indicated growth toward ELL program compliance. The Comité Report cited the district for making the full resolution of English learner compliance issues a top priority. Not all the following findings from the Comité Re- port were confirmed (see Standard 3.1): a. The Comité Report noted that site administrators were able to articulate dis- trict programs and procedures. This continues to be the case. 56 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 57 b. The Comité Report noted that the district devoted substantial attention to cre- ating systems designed to ensure full compliance with English learner issues. Documents showed evidence that this continues to occur. c. The Comité Report noted that the district continues to increase its capacity to use data to drive instruction for all students, including English learners, e.g., teachers receive Data Rosters for their students. School sites continue to plan professional development activities to ensure that teachers are thoroughly familiar with the data and can use the information to plan lessons and deliver effective instruction. The new data systems indicate that this is still the case. d. Secondary schools have implemented the materials of High Point for their English language development (ELD) program of instruction, and they plan to conduct a second round of training institutes on the High Point materials dur- ing August 2003. There is no change in this area. e. Teachers are being monitored for completion of all credential requirements (including authorizations to provide instruction to English learners), and the district is creating a system to accurately document progress toward comple- tion of all required authorizations. This continues to be the case. f. The Comité Report stated that the district has a process to identify all students whose primary language is not English. All such students are assessed in Eng- lish and in their primary language, and initial assessment results are provided to parents in a timely manner. Interviews and assessment results substantiated this. g. The Comité Report indicated the district has recently revised the parent noti- fication letter as well as program options. School sites have begun the process of communicating the new program options to parents via written communica- tion, parent meetings, individual contacts, and use of the district video. This item will be thoroughly reviewed again next fall. The new notification options and notification letters have been shared with and reviewed by the District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC) members. There is no change in this area. h. The Comité Report found that the district has a process to monitor teacher authorizations for English learner instruction. The district requires all teachers who provide instruction to English learners either to hold an authorization to provide such instruction or sign an agreement with a target time line docu- menting when the authorization shall be completed. This item will be thor- oughly reviewed again next year. The existence of this process was confirmed. i. According to the Comité Report, the district provides comprehensive profes- sional development for all staff. This has included training for site administra- tors and classroom teachers. The district plans to continue training for site ad- ministrators to ensure they have the skills needed to supervise English learner services at their schools. Professional development for the instructional staff has included training that leads to appropriate authorizations for teaching English learners. Other training includes topics such as SDAIE instructional strategies, literacy development, differentiation of instruction, standards and assessment, and ELD instruction. Interviews and documents confirmed this. j. According to the Comité Report, the district has a process to notify parents about program placement and about all program options, including the avail- 58 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 59 ability of alternative program waivers. Program options include an alternative program in which instruction is not delivered completely in English. Each school site has documentation to verify when information was provided to parents. In addition, the ELAC and DELAC members review the notification process, forms, and program designs during their meetings and provide feed- back. However there was no evidence that this is occurring. k. According to the Comité Report, the district has created an ELAC Tool Box that contains recommended time lines and documents to aid each school site in fulfilling the legal requirements for their ELAC. School sites have held meetings and have evidence of agendas, sign-in lists, and minutes. The legally required topics have been explained to members at meetings, and the member- ship of each school site is at various stages in understanding roles and respon- sibilities necessary to complete each of the four required advisory tasks. Train- ing of the committee members in their roles and responsibilities has been an ongoing item addressed at both district and site meetings. Interviews of ELAC members indicate that the four required tasks are fully addressed. However, site ELACs need to improve their documentation by showing when members provided advice to the site administration on the four required tasks. The DELAC has been able to record when it is providing advice to the Governing Board on required tasks, and documents verify the advice was provided to the board. The district has extensive documentation recording DELAC activities for the year. l. The district claims to have adequate basic general funds to provide English learners with instruction, texts, and services in the core program, including ELD. Adequate basic resources are available for English learners, and Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds are used only to supplement the district’s general funds. There was no evidence of this. 7. A draft Voluntary Resolution Plan and Comité Monitoring Plan with Benchmarks, Ac- tions Needed, and Evidence describes as the intent of Oakland Unified School District to fully implement the provision of services for ELL and African-American students. There was no evidence of plan implementation. 8. There is no written comprehensive master plan for bilingual education that would provide feedback aimed to improve English learners’ achievement. 9. A chart entitled OUSD Bins and Binders Compliance Process (revised August 9, 2001) was designed to assist the sites in all compliance issues. This chart details specific actions related to: (1) collaboration and training regarding access and equity issues; (2) parent communication with regard to notification and involvement; (3) mandated parent committees/councils for access, equity, involvement, and funding; and (4) advisory committees for school leadership teams, school-site safety and disci- pline committees, and student success teams. 10. A document entitled A Strategic School Plan for Self-Analysis Template and Calendar was designed to help the school sites satisfy the mandates of the Comité Report and the Voluntary Resolution Plan. The use of this document in trying to meet state and federal compliance issues is inconsistent and voluntary. 58 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 59 11. The district accountability Web site is intended to be used as a one-stop monitoring tool for all site-compliance mandates, including state and federal programs, the Comi- té Report, and the Voluntary Resolution Plan. This process is not currently operational. It is intended to begin during the 2003-04 school year. 12. The California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and ELD assessments are utilized in Oakland Unified School District when students are enrolled to identify ELL issues. This is done during the first week the student comes to school. Results are reported to the school within two working weeks. 13. Of the students continuously enrolled for seven years who are designated as ELL, 18 percent have been reclassified. The district goal is for 100 percent of these students to be redesignated in five years. No comprehensive plan was presented to demonstrate how this would be done. 14. A draft document entitled OUSD Spanish Primary Language Model had a date of Oc- tober 2, 2002, but it had not been implemented as of August 13, 2003.The same chart was later presented with a date of August 2003, even though no updates had been made. 15. A draft document entitled “Addressing the needs of ELLs” included an Individual Learning Plan for Newcomers and Language form and functions by grade level K- 5. Additionally, draft documents entitled Theory of Action: The Big Ideas for Foro Abierto Para La Lectura /Primary language program, ELD, Academic English Devel- opment (AED), and Open Court, were reviewed. These are proposed curriculum and training for ELL for 2003-04. Another document, Elementary Education Overview: DRAFT, outlined staff development, pacing, and assessment for Foro Abierto Para La Lectura and Open Court, ELL, Math and ELD. However, it did not appear that any of these documents were implemented. 16. The district has a draft plan for Instruction and Professional Development 2003-04 for the High Point reading program and the English/language arts program for high school. No efforts have been made to implement the plan. 17. The district provides printouts to aid counselors placing middle school and high school ELL students in the mainstream programs using scores on the High Point as- sessment. High Point is the identified standards-based instruction reading and lan- guage arts program for the English learners in Oakland Unified School District. The study team found no evidence that this program is being used. 18. An AP Program Report for 2002 revealed that of 4,197 students taking AP exams, 679 were ethnic minority students (3.7 percent). 19. The district has a classroom observation guide dated October 28, 2002 with a final draft date of February 2003. The document was used to monitor classroom compli- ance with issues such as ELD standards, alignment of instructional materials with grade level standards, and the suitability of the instruction for the English language 60 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 61 proficiency of the class. Principals did not identify this specific form as the one uti- lized, but did report using classroom observations as a major tool for monitoring instruction. Further, Executive Directors and Principals identified that the Executive Director’s role involved monitoring schools and providing feedback to principals. 20. Open Court, Foro Abierto Para La Lectura, High Point, and Harcourt Math were used as the language arts and math curriculum for English learner students. 21. There is a significant gap in achievement between ethnic minority students and the general student population. Recommendations to Address 1. Develop strategies to ensure full access to the core curriculum for students who are English language learners. 2. Monitor progress of English learners at all schools to ensure comparable progress is made at elementary and secondary levels. 3. Direct additional resources toward schools that the district has identified as being in a delayed state of progress. 4. Initiate appropriate instructional strategies in classrooms that would benefit from ELD instruction, and offer strategies differentiated according to each student’s level of Eng- lish proficiency. 5. During classroom observations, document the quality and amount of attention teachers devote to English-learner issues; also note the expectation for follow up by the teacher. 6. Specify that all English-learner programs be supportive of the general core curricu- lum, and make sure that this is a priority. Ensure that instructional support and materi- als match the needs of the EL students, and base this on specific data. 7. Identify methods of instruction to narrow the achievement gap between EL and gen- eral education learners. Provide training and monitor its implementation by giving feedback in the classrooms. 8. Ensure that parents are not only provided with information about programs such as Title I, English learner, GATE, before- and after-school supplemental services, tutor- ing, summer school, but that they also understand these programs. 9. Monitor the use of categorical dollars designated to address the needs of English learners and to provide access to the core curriculum for English learners. 10. Train the staff to include parents as partners in the decision-making process via their participation on school-site councils, school advisory committees, and English learner advisory committees. 60 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 61 11. Provide long-term training for staff, parents, and students to promote cross-cultural understanding that helps to eliminate racial and ethnic biases that would impede any student from having full access to the core curriculum. The district should enlist pro- fessionals with expertise in this area to assist them through technical assistance. 12. Design ways to more effectively monitor implementation of supplementary instructional/improvement strategies for multifunded students in the classroom. 13. Train counselors and teachers to take a more comprehensive approach in helping all students understand their educational options. 14. Continue to provide workshops on: 1) basic teaching tools and instructional strategies to teach students with diverse learning styles and 2) classroom management skills to noncredentialed teachers and paraprofessionals. 15. Implement the Accountability Monitoring Benchmarks Plan for 2003-04 (dated 7/28/ 03). 16. Improve use of data at all levels to improve ELD and EL achievement in the core cur- riculum. 17. Implement the Individual Student Profile in making course placement decisions for students. 18. Continue to monitor and improve the use of the classroom data rosters for individual- ization of student instruction in all classrooms, especially for the EL students. 19. Implement the equity checks for courses and programs for equity during the 2003-04 school year. 20. Develop a master staff development plan for the district that integrates all the differen- tiated instruction and compliance issues necessary to improve achievement and reduce achievement gaps for EL learners. 21. Develop a data system that assesses the effectiveness of EL programs in improving student achievement. Discourage use of anecdotal data for program evaluation. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 62 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 63 3.3 Special Education Professional Standard Individual education plans are reviewed and updated on time. Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. The district addressed the issue of overdue IEPs by hiring substitutes to cover classes while credentialed teachers updated the documents; also, additional IEP case man- agers were employed at the high schools. This process was curtailed in 2002 due to excessive costs. As a result, the following overall reduction was noted: a. June 1999 --1509 overdue IEPs b. June 2000 -- 598 overdue IEPs c. June 2001 -- 592 overdue IEPs d. June 2002 -- 443 overdue IEPs e. June 2003 -- 793 overdue IEPs 2. The site administrator evaluation process has been expanded to include overdue IEPs and triennial evaluations; however, this process has not been enforced. a. All principals receive a monthly accounting of students with overdue IEPs and quarterly reports on overdue triennials. b. Training for principals regarding the triennial evaluations and updated legal implications has been offered, but not mandated. 3. Interviews and documents show that triennial evaluations are not current. A training session for psychologists and resource teachers was conducted to facilitate efficiency of the process; however, more than 500 triennials are still overdue. 4. Psychologist time is prioritized to focus primarily on initial placement evaluations and behavior plans. Initial evaluations have increased as a result of the increased number of juvenile programs and behavior referrals. 5. An online IEP and special education management information system is not utilized. There is a Web site for special education on the district homepage with some useful pieces of information. 6. Principals refer to the resource teachers and support teachers for issues related to spe- cial education. There is no evidence that accountability for special education programs rests with the sites and is monitored by the district. 7. The district special education office has experienced tremendous turnover in the past year. As a result, documentation of necessary information was not immediately avail- able as new staff members were not familiar with the documents and processes. Fur- ther, different priorities and goals are driving the new staff in a different direction. 62 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 63 8. District data systems did not incorporate special education IEP data into their monitor- ing information. Recommendations to Address 1. Conduct a review of all procedures and processes related to the identification, evalu- ation, and placement of students in the special education program. Contract with an outside specialist to complete this intensive review and to recommend short-term and long-term strategies and procedures to the district. 2. Develop a coordinated and articulated special education assessment and IEP process. Ensure that all school staff members are trained in this process and that they assume responsibility for its implementation. 3. Develop, implement, and monitor a district procedure for maintaining updated IEPs. 4. Review current district procedures and determine necessary changes. 5. Implement a monitoring system that ensures the use of updated IEPs by classroom teachers, resource teachers, and school principals. 6. Develop an online data system for monitoring IEPs, triennials, and other special edu- cation information, and make this system available to sites as well as the district. 7. Provide mandated training for all staff members on the development and review of IEPs. 8. Monitor school-site compliance with IEP development and implementation, and implement a correction action plan for noncompliant sites. 9. Continue efforts to employ only credentialed special education teachers and parapro- fessionals. 10. Develop a board policy that holds the school sites accountable for their special educa- tion programs. Monitor the implementation of this policy. 11. Develop a special education district advisory committee that continually reviews data relative to all aspects of the special education program such as finances, identification of students, program placement, and student achievement; have this committee make recommendations to the district for improvement of the program. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 64 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 65 3.4 Special Education Professional Standard Programs for special education students meet the least restrictive environment provision of the law and the quality criteria and goals set forth by the California Department of Education. Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. A 2000 FCMAT (SELPA) report identified multiple compliance issues for special edu- cation and made several recommendations including: a. Update IEPs that are overdue (1,387). b. Provide triennial evaluations before they are overdue (811). c. Employ credentialed special education teaching staff. d. Include the issue of overdue IEPs in the evaluation of school principals. e. Eliminate unnecessary assessments through staff development. f. Install an online IEP and special education management system. g. Monitor the number of assessments completed by each psychologist. h. Centralize assessments for LCI students. i. Communicate that legal compliance for special education should receive high priority. 2. A Principal’s Guide for Managing Special Education Programs (2000-2001) is avail- able in paper and online form. 3. A special education newsletter is available to staff and is published monthly. It is en- titled A Bright IDEA. It contains information on who to contact regarding exceptional children, upcoming meetings, and any changes to IEPs or other special education documents. 4. Oakland Unified School District has a current SELPA Local Plan approved by the Board of Directors on June 25, 2003. This local plan contains assurances of state and federal compliance. 5. Interviews with special education district administrators indicated that lack of compli- ance with IEP reviews and triennials is still a problem. 6. The fact that noncompliance was concentrated in 16 percent of the schools was par- tially due to feeder schools sending overdue IEPs and triennials to middle schools and high schools. To date, no information was provided to indicate the district has taken action to alleviate this process. 7. The district eliminated the hiring of noncredentialed special education teachers. The current status is roughly 30 noncredentialed teachers, down from approximately 300. The district opened up an internship for special education with Bay Area universities. 64 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 65 8. The district has 60 special education interns of 225 teachers. 9. Interviews confirmed the least restrictive environment rules continue to be a concern. The district attempts to work on this through IEPs, but the number of mental health and special day classes have increased with their own campuses. Private school place- ments have not decreased. No plan has been put in place to date for reduction of these placements and for provision of programs within the district. 10. Transportation of special education students to special day school placements and private school placements continues to be a major expense item for the district. Inter- views with the new Director of Special Education indicated that the district will be addressing this issue during the 2003-04 school year. 11. The 2002-03 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report quoted the FCMAT report of January 2000 as having found that special education programs were over- spending their budgets by $13 million as well as overspending in other funds and encroaching upon reserves, thus making district finances increasingly precarious. Fur- ther, FCMAT explicitly warned that if the district was not careful, special education subsidies would be in the tens of millions of dollars. Page 38 of the 2002-03 Grand Jury Report states that 75 percent of the 2001-02 deficit resulted from a combination of overspending and underfunding in the area of special education. The grand jury found that the monitoring of Oakland Unified School District by the Alameda County Office of Education should have focused on the key area of overspending in special education. Oakland Unified School District does not currently review its special edu- cation program to determine how much special education spending the district wants and can afford to subsidize from unrestricted budget funds. The district does not have a plan that requires a detailed study of options and alternatives, nor one that requires serious consideration of the appropriateness of providing additional special educa- tion funding at the expense of funding all other programs. Page 47 of the Grand Jury Report states that the main issue for the district is to determine how to address the chronic underfunding of a group that needs special services and that by law is entitled to these services, without bankrupting the district. There is no evidence to indicate that this has been done. 12. Interviews verified that the budget is developed without special education input. 13. Documents and interviews showed that special education is afforded a strand in the staff development conference that is provided by the district annually. Some additional staff development is provided to special education staff throughout the year; participa- tion is voluntary. 14. Interviews and documents revealed that there is no monitoring process to ensure spe- cial education compliance. The district data system did not include any monitoring or data review for special education. 15. The district has no formal staff development plan, including special education for administrators, teachers, and the other staff. 66 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 67 16. There is no special education plan, other than the SELPA Local Plan for the district special education programs. 17. There is no evaluation plan for special education. 18. There are no procedures to ensure the access of special education students to the gen- eral core curriculum. Recommendations to Address 1. Focus on ensuring that overdue IEPs and triennials are not passed on with students as they move to other schools, either through transition or transfer. 2. Direct the Program for Exceptional Children to examine how it can better coordinate the flow of students and services as students matriculate. 3. Implement an evaluation for principals that includes overdue IEPs and triennials. Schools with overdue rates exceeding 20 percent should be subject to administrative intervention. 4. Provide a plan for psychological support for the increase needed in initial evaluations and triennials in a systematic process. 5. Increase the efficiency of psychologists and other special education personnel by pro- viding them with report-writing software, IEP software, and adequate clerical support. 6. Continue to eliminate unnecessary assessments. Provide additional training and guid- ance on triennial reviews, and monitor the performance of the schools and psycholo- gists to this end. 7. Monitor the number of assessments performed by each psychologist. Those perform- ing significantly below the norm should be given appropriate guidance. 8. Install an online IEP and special education management information system. 9. Encourage and support schools with backlogs of overdue IEPs to employ creative strategies to reduce the backlog. 10. Examine district policies regarding instructional aides to ensure that job descriptions and training are appropriate for the duties that support the work of special education teachers. 11. Consider centralizing assessments and initial IEP development of students who enter the district from group homes and outside agencies. 12. Make systematic changes in special education practices to address compliance issues. 66 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 67 13. Communicate to the regular and special education staff that legal compliance is of the highest priority. An employee’s failure to meet the established performance standards should result in an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. 14. Direct program coordinators and school principals to confer on special education pro- gram evaluations. 15. Develop written, integrated policies and procedures that ensure the efficient utilization of district resources for special education systems. 16. Involve SELPA and program directors in the development, implementation, and moni- toring of special education budgets. As a part of this, implement an integrated infor- mation system to assist the fiscal, human resources, and special education departments in coordinating the development and monitoring of the special education budget, and use this system to facilitate the dissemination of accurate data. 17. Provide a budget process that assigns codes to specific types of special education expenditures, such as personnel, materials, etc., to aid in total program evaluation and review. 18. Closely monitor special education growth and compliance, and implement innovative strategies to prevent general fund contribution increases. 19. Work with juvenile justice personnel in regard to appropriate referrals and program issues. 20. Continue to implement suggested strategies on meeting the needs of the special educa- tion department within the general curriculum through staff development, curriculum guides, and classroom monitoring. 21. Collect and maintain data on special education referrals. 22. Review district alternatives to reduce nonpublic school (NPS) placements with staff that makes NPS decisions. 23. Determine which traditional practices can be eliminated or replaced by innovative practices. 24. Shift from special day class (SDC) to least-restrictive environment placements for all students. 25. Develop a plan for allocation of special education personnel based on caseload, IEP reviews, referrals, triennials, and other staff or work responsibilities within the school. 26. Develop a special education philosophy regarding quality special education programs. Disseminate this to all staff, and monitor the application of this philosophy in deci- sions at site levels. 68 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 69 27. Review the current recruitment and retention plan for special education teachers to ensure it reflects the needs of the district presently and in the future. 28. Review the student study team process at school sites. Conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of each team and provide suggestions for improvement. 29. Review all special education programs. The district should immediately contract with a consultant to perform a total special education program review or audit. This review should address policy, staffing, program services, the referrals process, financ- ing, instructional materials, technology, equity, access to general curriculum, assess- ment data, and uses of data for instructional improvement, achievement data analysis, behavior and discipline referrals, etc. The final report should comprise the basis for a special education plan for Oakland Unified School District. 30. Implement the grand jury 2002-03 Recommendation 03-15: Oakland Unified School District must conduct a thorough study of the financing and delivery of its special education programs. In particular, they must study how best to keep large general fund subsidies of special education from bankrupting the general fund. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 68 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 69 4.1 High School Exit Examination – Pre-Exam Intervention Professional Standard A process to identify struggling students and intervene with the additional support necessary for them to pass the exit examination is well developed and communicated to teachers, students, and parents. Sources and Documentation 1. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) Procedures 2001-2002, Department of Research and Assessment, Oakland Unified School District 2. Memorandum, subject: CAHSEE Research and Intervention Project Overview, July 1, 2002, Division of Accountability for Teaching and Learning, Oakland Unified School District 3. Miscellaneous program description documents 4. Web sites: Oakland Unified School District and Office of the Secretary of Education, California 5. Interviews with the Associate Superintendent, Director of Student Achievement, and the Director of Secondary Education, Oakland Unified School District Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. There is no coherent, comprehensive set of requirements, responsibilities, and pro- cesses for meeting this professional standard. Existing documents are fragmented in composition and describe an approach that focuses on intervention only after a student has failed one or more sections of the High School Exit Examination. This post-ex- amination focus is inconsistent with the professional standard that requires: (1) early identification of students deemed at risk of failing the examination and (2) implemen- tation of effective academic interventions to prepare the student for success on the first attempt to pass the examination. 2. Since school was not in session, no students, teachers, or parents were interviewed for perspectives on how (or if) the professional standard was being applied. Recommendations to Address 1. Prepare a comprehensive written plan and set of procedures necessary to identify and provide effective interventions for students who, because of their past academic performance, are at risk of failing one or more sections of the California High School Exit Examination on their first attempt. 2. The procedures should include: a. A statement of purpose, modeled on the professional standard; b. The responsibilities of administrators, teachers, students, and parents for iden- tification of at-risk students; 70 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 71 c. The required, targeted, intervention(s); d. Expected contributions of each party to the intervention plan; e. Precise times in the school year for the identification and intervention actions; f. Times, content, and media for communicating with students, parents, teach- ers, and other appropriate parties. (To prevent oversight of critical dates, they should be incorporated into the academic calendar and posted on the district’s Web site. Standard Implemented: Not Implemented September 2003 Rating: 0 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 70 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 71 4.2 II/USP – Measurement of Student Achievement Progress Professional Standard Grant recipients are collecting required data to measure progress of student achievement. Sources and Documents 1. Board Policies and administrative bulletins 2. Interviews with district and site administrators, and teachers on special assignment 3. Oakland Unified School District’s data portal on the Internet 4. Curriculum-based assessment reports 5. Public Schools Accountability Act – PSAA (1999); Education Code 52052: Immediate Intervention in Underperforming Schools 6. II/USP Progress Reports to District and State Department of Education Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. The district, as a service to the II/USP schools, is collecting pupil data for Academic Performance Indices (API) that comes from achievement tests administered pursuant to EC Sections 60640 and 60644 and the high school exit exam administered pursuant to EC Section 60851. The data are disaggregated by special education status, English language learners, socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnic groups. In addition, the district is collecting local curriculum-based assessment data from Open Court Read- ing, math tests calibrated with the Harcourt Brace Math program, CELDT, and High Point reading. 2. The II/USP school sites use Data Rosters that show each student’s achievement scores from the SAT9, CAT6, CST, OCR and Harcourt Math; and CELDT, Santillana, and Foro Abierto Para La Lectura for English language learners for the elementary schools; and High Point, Secondary Math, MS Science, History and BAWP writing for the secondary schools. There is limited training for teachers and administrators in the use of data to effectively diagnose student needs, adjust instruction, and institute appropriate interventions. 3. The district is developing an online collection of reporting systems that increases the accessibility of assessment data to administrators and teachers. The district has devel- oped a basic red-green-yellow rubric for reporting all aggregate accountability data. The next steps are to make the reporting process more automated and Web-based, and to ensure that the data reported is as accurate and meaningful as possible. 4. With the Open Court Reading program there is still a need for faster turnaround, a greater variety of reports, and actual scores. The collection of data is limited to three times during the year. Comments indicated there is a need for more diagnostic assess- 72 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 73 ments with the Harcourt Math. Tests need to be administered at the beginning of the year. In terms of the 11th grade history assessments piloted this past fall and spring, there is still limited teacher commitment. 5. The assessment status report indicated that “Prior to the fall of 2000, most district assessment mandates were ignored, and there was a general implementation level of under 5 percent. Due to the training and implementation of the Open Court benchmark assessments, increased expectations, and infrastructure put in place, the implementa- tion of these assessments is now near 100 percent.” Recommendations to Address 1. Develop and adopt board policy that focuses on low-performing schools and the ongoing need for more disaggregated data and training in the use of data to improve instruction. 2. Continue to refine the online reporting systems so that information specifically for low-performing schools is timely, accurate, understandable, and useful to teachers and administrators. Continue to provide coaching and training for the staff of low-per- forming schools in terms of data interpretation, use, and follow-up actions related to improved instruction. 3. Continue to produce reports in a timely way, with a greater variety of reports that include actual scores and item/subset analyses that assist in diagnosing student needs. 4. Expand the collection of data to include history and science assessments. Provide as- sessments in timely ways, and begin them at the start of school. Continue to provide training for secondary teachers that promotes increased participation in the use of data to improve learning opportunities. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 5 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 72 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 73 4.3 II/USP – Progress toward Meeting/Exceeding Goals Professional Standard Grant recipients are meeting or exceeding goals as identified in action plans. Sources and Documents 1. Board Policies and administrative bulletins 2. Interviews with district and site administrators, and teachers-on-special-assignment 3. Oakland Unified School District’s school API and state ranking 4. Oakland Unified School District’s data portal on the Internet 5. District Assessment Reports for the SAT9, CAT6, and CST (2001-2003) 6. II/USP Action Plans and End-Of-The-Year Reports Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. Within the district, 43 schools participated in Cohort I (1999-2002) and Cohort II (2000-2003) in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program. Oak- land was the only urban district in the state that had no II/USP schools sanctioned. However, 16 of the 29 II/USP schools in Cohort I and II ranked a “1” on the API (ranging from a 412 to a 575 on the 2003 API CDE Report). 2. On the 2002 CDE report, 21 of the 43 schools (19 elementary and 2 middle schools) met both their School-Wide and Comparable Improvement Targets. Just 7 of the 43 schools (five elementary and two middle schools) met their School-Wide Growth Tar- gets. “Secondary schools did not make the progress desired.” 3. There was summative data specifically identifying and analyzing student achievement for the underperforming schools. The local and state assessment reports included all schools in the district. Disaggregated data reports are developed and disseminated in the same way for all schools. There was no comparative data specifically focused on II/USP schools. 4. Key findings from the End-of-the-Year District Level II/USP Progress Report and individual End-of-the-Year School Level II/USP Progress Reports were compared to the School Improvement Plan reports. These indicated that the assessment tools, class- room monitoring of instruction, textbook use, professional development, and coaching were much the same for underperforming schools as those provided from the schools that were not II/USP. As pointed out during the interviews, “The progress reports aren’t very good. Many schools lost sight of their action plans.” And as mentioned in one report, “The challenge that many of our secondary schools faced was the shortage of ‘qualified’ teachers and a lack of parent support.” 74 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 75 Recommendations to Address 1. Conduct a study of the II/USP schools to determine trends, common barriers to im- proved student achievement, and strategies for overcoming the barriers. Summarize information from the Action Plans and End-of-the-Year School Reports that provides more specific comparative information that is useful to the schools. 2. Provide comparative assessment data that specifically identifies and analyzes student performance for underperforming schools (II/USP). Develop trend data and sub- group item analysis for reading/language arts and math and key areas identified in the schools’ action plans that are common to a majority of the II/USP schools. Make the reports and data available to the II/USP schools, and provide opportunities for discus- sion about the data and ways to adjust programs and instruction based on the data. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 1 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 74 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 75 4.4 II/USP – Leadership for Underperforming Schools Professional Standard Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/or in schools under mandated improvement programs are provided special training and support by the district; improvement plans are monitored. Sources and Documents 1. Interviews with district and site administrators and teachers-on-special-assignment 2. II/USP Action Plans and End-Of-The-Year Progress Reports 3. Comprehensive School Plans to Improve Student Performance 4. Staff development and survey reports Findings This standard has been added since the January 2000 report. 1. The follow-up to the II/USP schools’ action plans regarding coordination of measures undertaken for improvement is not clear. Schools are working independently from one another to implement the steps of their action plans and with limited district-level coordination. There is data that compares the barriers to improved achievement at each of the 43 schools, but no information about the common needs of the schools and students at the identified II/USP schools. 2. The responsibility for district-level support and assistance from external evaluators and/or outside consultants (“critical friends”) assisting with the implementation and monitoring of action plans is unclear and lacks continuity. Executive Directors oversee the schools and provide some support through planning sessions at the district level and regular visits to the schools. 3. There is documentation to indicate that instruction is adjusted or improved at II/USP Schools based on the analysis and use of assessment data specific to II/USP schools. More training for staff on “best practices” for high poverty, underachieving schools is needed. 4. Assessment and training practices for teachers and administrators at II/USP schools are not consistent from one school to another. In addition, schools have different aca- demic focuses. For example, while the district mentions an emphasis on reading and math, schools mention an emphasis on writing. 76 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 77 Recommendations to Address 1. Develop a Comprehensive II/USP (Underperforming Schools) Strategic Plan for Im- proved Student Achievement. a. Use comparative data garnered from assessment and action plan reports for II/USP Schools (see Standard 4.3). b. Involve principals and lead teachers in the process of developing a district level II/USP Strategic Plan so there is buy-in and improved communication and understanding at the site level. c. Set clear goals, action steps, and a time line. d. Outline the responsibilities of executive directors and, if appropriate, those of outside consultants/external evaluators so that II/USP schools receive ad- equate and consistent support. e. Coordinate support services and resources for a cluster of II/USP Schools based on their data and common needs. 2. Develop guidelines for principals that make the implementation of the II/USP action plans and the meeting of II/USP goals a part of the administrative evaluation process. 3. Implement assessment and training practices that are specific to the needs of the II/ USP schools. Relate data analysis to improved instruction and intervention strategies. 4. Develop procedures that help administrators, school site councils, and lead teachers align their school’s primary academic goals with those of the district. Standard Implemented: Partially September 2003 Rating: 3 Implementation Scale: Not  Fully  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 76 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 77 78 Pupil Achievement Table of Standards for Pupil Achievement The ratings of all of the standards initially reviewed and presented in the Oakland Unified School District Assessment and Recovery Plan, January 31, 2000 were reviewed and updated as appropriate to indicate the district’s current progress in addressing the recommendations in the initial assessment and recovery plan. Additional standards have been added to the list of standards to reflect changes in legislation and/or regulation since the assessment and recovery plan was first published, and some standards have been reworded for clarity. In-depth FCMAT reviews were conducted for the standards that appear in bold print in this table of standards. A narrative is provided in this report for each of the standards that appears in bold print, describing the progress made by the district since January 31, 2000, and outlining the recommendations that still need to be addressed to meet these standards. A sub-set of 30 standards has been identified in this operational area that will be the focus of review in each six-month review period. These 30 standards are identified under the column titled “March 2004 Focus.” 78 Pupil Achievement Jan. Sept. March Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 rating rating focus Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. 80 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 888111 Jan. Sept. March Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 rating rating focus The district through its adopted policy provides a 1.1 clear, operational framework for management of the 2 2 ❒ curriculum. The district has clear and valid objectives for students, 1.2 2 4 ❒ including the core curriculum content. The district directs its resources fairly and consistently 1.3 0 2 ❒ to accomplish its objectives. The district has adopted multiple assessment tools, 1.4 including diagnostic assessments, to evaluate, improve, 2 5 ❒ or adjust programs and resources. Expectations and a practice exist to improve the 1.5 preparation of students and to build a school structure 0 3 ❒ with the capacity to serve all students. The assessment tools are clear measures of what is being 1.6 0 1 ❒ taught and provide direction for improvement. Staff development provides staff with the knowledge 1.7 and the skills to improve instruction and the 2 3 ❒ curriculum. Staff development demonstrates a clear understanding 1.8 1 2 ❒ of purpose, written goals, and appropriate evaluations. The assessment tools are clear measures of what is being 1.9 taught, and they provide direction for improvement 0 1 ❒ (Reworded since the 2000 Report). Teachers use a variety of instructional strategies and 1.10 0 1 ❒ resources that address their students’ diverse needs. Students are engaged in learning, and they are able to 1.11 0 1 demonstrate and apply the knowledge and skills. The standards set forth in the California Standards for the Teaching Profession are present and supported 1.12 1 5 ❒ (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education, July, 1997). Teachers modify and adjust instructional plans 1.13 0 2 ❒ according to student needs and success. There is evidence that learning goals and instructional 1.14 plans and programs are challenging for all students. 0 2 ❒ (Reworded since the 2000 report) The administration and staff utilizes assessment 1.15 information to improve learning opportunities for all 0 2 ❒ students. Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. 80 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 888111 Jan. Sept. March Jan. Sept. March Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 rating rating focus rating rating focus A common vision of what all students should know and be 1.16 0 1 able to do exists and is put into practice. Goals and grade-level performance standards based on 1.17 0 3 ❒ a common vision are present. Every elementary school has embraced the 1997 California 1.18 2 2 School Recognition Program Standards. Efforts will be made by the district to partnership with state 1.19 colleges and universities to provide appropriate courses 8 8 accessible to all teachers. Administrative support and coaching is provided to all 1.20 2 2 teachers. 1.21 Professional development is linked to personnel evaluation. 0 0 ❒ Collaboration exists between higher education, district, 1.22 professional associations, and community in providing 8 8 professional development. Initial placement procedures are in place to ensure the timely and appropriate placement of all students with 1.23 1 3 ❒ particular emphases being placed on students with special needs. Clearly defined discipline practices have been established 1.24 and communicated among the students, staff, board, and 7 7 community. The district will ensure that all instructional materials 1.25 5 6 ❒ are accessible to all students. The district has adopted a plan for integrating technology 1.26 2 4 into the curriculum. The district planning process ensures focus and 1.27 0 3 ❒ connectivity to increased student productivity. Human resources practices support the delivery of 1.28 1 1 ❒ sound educational programs. AIDS prevention instruction occurs at least once in junior high or middle school and once in high school 2.1 0 4 and is consistent with the CDE’s 1994 health framework (EC51201.5). On a yearly basis the district notifies all eleventh and 2.2 twelfth grade students regarding the California High School 9 9 Proficiency Examination (Title 5, 11523, EC48412). 2.3 Class time is protected for student learning (EC32212). 2 2 Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. 888222 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 888333 Jan. Sept. March Jan. Sept. March Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 rating rating focus rating rating focus A process is in place to maintain alignment between 2.3a standards, practices and assessments. New 2 ❒ (Added since the 2000 Report) Categorical and compensatory program funds supplement 2.4 and do not supplant services and materials to be provided 5 5 by the district (Title 53940). A requirement is in place for passing the basic skills 2.5 proficiency examination by instructional aides. 10 10 (EC45344.5, EC545361.5) The general instructional program adheres to all 2.6 5 6 requirements put forth in EC51000-52950. The Governing Board has adopted and the district is implementing the California state standards and 2.6a New 2 ❒ assessments. (Added since the 2000 Report) All incoming kindergarten students will be admitted 2.7 following board-approved policies and administrative 10 10 regulations (EC48000-48002, 48010, 498011). The district shall inform parents of the test scores of their 2.8 children and provide general explanation of these scores 10 10 (EC60720 and 60722). The district shall be accountable for student results by using evaluative information regarding the various levels of 2.9 proficiency and allocating educational resources to assure 1 3 the maximum educational opportunity for all students (EC60609). Student achievement will be measured using standardized 2.10 achievement tests and a variety of measurement tools, i.e., 1 3 portfolios, projects, oral reports, etc. (EC60602, 60605). The identification and placement of English-language learners into appropriate courses is conducted in a 3.1 New 3 ❒ timely and effective manner. (Added since the 2000 Report) Programs for English-language learners comply with state and federal regulations and meet the quality 3.2 criteria set forty by the California Department of New 3 ❒ Education. (Added since the 2000 Report) Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. 888222 Pupil Achievement Pupil Achievement 888333 Jan. Sept. March Standard to be addressed 2000 2003 2004 rating rating focus Individual education plans are reviewed and updated on 3.3 time. New 3 ❒ (Added since the 2000 Report) Programs for special education students meet the least restrictive environment provision of the law and the 3.4 quality criteria and goals set forth by the California New 1 ❒ Department of Education. (Added since the 2000 Report) A process to identify struggling students and intervene with additional support necessary to pass the exit 4.1 examination is well-developed and communicated to New 0 ❒ teachers, students and parents. (Added since the 2000 Report) II/USP grant recipients are collecting required data to 4.2 measure progress of student achievement. New 5 ❒ (Added since the 2000 report) II/USP grant recipients are meeting or exceeding goals 4.3 as identified in action plans. New 1 ❒ (Added since the 2000 Report) Principals and teachers in underperforming schools and/or in schools under mandated improvement 4.4 programs are provided special training and support by New 3 ❒ the district; improvement plans are monitored. (Added since the 2000 Report) Standards in bold print were reviewed for the September 2003 report and narratives are provided in this report. ❒ Indicates standards targeted for in-depth review for the March 2004 report. 888444 Pupil Achievement