1. - 0 - School Portfolio Management Board Presentation Oakland Unified School District February 28, 2007

2. - 1 - Review of Framework and Process Recommendations Support & monitoring of plans to reduce overcrowding: 1 school Support & monitoring of recruitment plan to attract additional students: 1 school Ongoing Support & Monitoring: 6 schools New School Incubation: 1 school Internal Restructuring: 1 school Closure: 4 schools Appendix A: Data and Community Engagement for “Area of Focus” Schools Appendix B: Review of School Categorization Methodology Appendix C: Demographic Methodology & Small School Evaluation Update Agenda

3. - 2 - School Portfolio Management: Framework School Portfolio Management Every family will have access to at least two quality school options in their neighborhood, and the ability to select from a diverse range of educational options throughout Oakland DEMAND High quality and diverse educational options SUPPLY Enrollment / Capacity Quality Programmatic Diversity OUSD is continually managing its dynamic portfolio of schools across these three dimensions

4. - 3 - School Portfolio Management: 2006-2007 Process Data Analysis to identify 13 “Area of Focus” Schools (October – November) Transparent and Thorough Decision Making Process (November – February) Site visit conducted by CAO, CCA and NexO to each “Area of Focus” school Significant community engagement in each school community being considered for program adjustment or closure Detailed long-term enrollment projections for each school community being considered for program adjustment or closure Analysis of the financial and facilities impact of each intervention Recommendations of Appropriate Alternatives for each “Area of Focus” School (February 28, 2007) Intensive support to ensure smooth implementation of alternatives (ongoing)

5. - 4 - School Portfolio Management: 2006-2007 Process FactorStatusNext Steps Analysis of intervention work already happening at each school Each recommendation takes into account the intervention work already underway at the school. See Appendix A. Ongoing evaluation Evaluation of long- term enrollment trends Detailed long-term enrollment patterns have been evaluated for each of the 8 “Area of Focus” schools targeted as a result of enrollment issues. See Appendix A. Factors for consideration: new housing projects, birth rates, historical grade progressions District-wide long-term enrollment projection analysis will be completed April 15, 2007 Evaluation of small schools External evaluator has been identified: Strategic Measurement Company Pilot study is currently underway Pilot study will be completed March 14, 2007 Larger evaluation to be completed May 8, 2007 Factors for Consideration (as requested by Board)

6. - 5 - Recommendation: Adjust Enrollment to Support High Quality Programs RationaleRecommendation Lincoln Current building is significantly overcrowded Measure B facilities plan will improve the campus but will not increase capacity on the site However, there is a continued need to provide a high quality option for all neighborhood families Short-term recommendation: Monitor enrollment to ensure school can continue to provide a high quality program Short-term recommendation: Continue to prioritize new facility project within Measure B Medium-term recommendation: Evaluate strategies to increase enrollment at neighboring schools (M.L. King as an example) Howard Approximately 150 neighborhood students are choosing to attend elementary schools outside the neighborhood Facility could support a program of approximately 400 students Growing the school to a K-8 was on alternative for consideration due to the possible need for additional middle school seats in neighborhood School staff, leadership and neighborhood families are not interested in expanding the school to K-8 at this time Support the school to increase K-5 enrollment by 40 students per year: 07-08: 270 students 08-09: 310 students 09-10: 350 students Additional solutions MAY be necessary if Howard does not meet its enrollment targets

7. - 6 - Recommendation: Ongoing Monitoring & Support SchoolRationale05-06 Performance Three Year Performance Targets 06-0707-0808-09 Acorn Woodland PI Year 3 School has demonstrated capacity for growth (03-04 to 04-05) Significant intervention underway to target decline in Math scores API: 656 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 21.1% Math: 27.0% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 687 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5% Brookfield PI Year 4 School experienced significant growth in 05-06 Implementing targeted interventions to address reason for not making AYP – African American ELA performance API: 662 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 26.2% Math: 36.2% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 692 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5%` Allendale PI Year 5 School is in the second year of implementing an Internal Restructuring plan Made AYP in 05-06 API: 689 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 30.5% Math: 37.6% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 717 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5% * 165% of the average growth on the API achieved by unified school districts statewide.

8. - 7 - Recommendation: Ongoing Monitoring & Support SchoolRationale05-06 Performance Three Year Performance Targets 06-0707-0808-09 Horace Mann PI Year 5 School experienced significant growth in 05-06 School is strategically utilizing targeted interventions to accelerate achievement API: 649 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 26.5% Math: 38.2% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 681 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5% Claremont PI Year 4 School is in the first year of implementing a Local Solution plan School experienced growth in 05-06 API: 631 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 28.3% Math: 19.4% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 664 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5% Madison PI Year 4 School is in the first year of implementing a Local Solution plan School experienced growth in 05-06 API: 551 CST (%Prof/Adv) ELA: 11.5% Math: 9.3% OUSD Accelerated Growth Target* API: 592 Make AYP ELA: 35.2% MATH: 37.0% Make AYP and exit PI status ELA: 46.0% Math: 47.5% * 165% of the average growth on the API achieved by unified school districts statewide.

9. - 8 - Recommendation: Sherman/Maxwell Park/Tilden MegaBoundary Struggling academic program: significant decline in performance, low academic achievement, limited evidence of academic rigor in current program Small student body : 179 students projected for 07-08 Limited facilities capacity: School can hold approximately 251 students Struggling academic program: Low academic achievement, limited evidence of academic rigor in current program Small student body: 227 students projected for 07-08 Larger facilities capacity: School can hold approximately 460 students Opportunity to create a truly integrated setting for General Education and Special Education students Current student body mix needs additional General Education students to achieve the school’s vision Significant enrollment decline projected over next five years Factors for Consideration Sherman Maxwell Park Tilden 1 mile Some enrollment decline projected over next five years

10. - 9 - Recommendation: Sherman/Maxwell Park/Tilden MegaBoundary RECOMMENDATIONRationale Sherman Elementary School CLOSURE Significant decline in CST performance from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 Current reform efforts are insufficient to provide the accelerated academic achievement for students. Significant enrollment decline: loss of 30% over the past 5 years. Long-term enrollment projections indicate a continued decline over the next 5 years Maxwell Park NEW SCHOOL INCUBATION Current reform efforts are insufficient to provide accelerate achievement for students Integrating the large number of students from the closure of Sherman into the Maxwell Park community will require significant re-visioning of the school School community recommended restructuring and “reconstitution’ as their desired solution. Tilden INTERNAL RESTRUCTURING The original school design provides families with a unique programmatic offering for students with and without special education needs. The current school structure needs to expand to include more general education students to create a truly integrated setting. The process of internal restructuring will allow the school community to revision the school and attract additional General Education students

11. - 10 - Recommendation: Closure Rationale Kizmet Middle School Enrollment Current enrollment: 106 students vs. projection of 150 Only 17 6 th grade students selected Kizmet through the 07-08 Options process Long-term enrollment projections indicated a continued decline in West Oakland over the next 5 years Merritt Middle College End of Partnership College has decided to end the Memorandum of Understanding with OUSD to use the facilities space of other purposes East Oakland Community High Student Performance Largest drop in CST scores in the district for 05-06 school year: 72 points. 1% of students proficient in math and 4% proficient in ELA. Very low CAHSEE passing rate (380) for both ELA(19%) and Math(12%). Academic Program Students are not offered the appropriate coursework to graduate and attend a four year university. Students transcripts are inaccurate and student schedules do not reflect district course sequence. Highest rate of NM and Incomplete on grade reports out of all OUSD high schools(23%). Enrollment School opened with 70 fewer students than projected; General Purpose financial impact: $279,000 Long-term enrollment projections show a continued decline within the Castlemont attendance area

12. - 11 - Recommendation: Next Steps Category of Recommendation Next Steps Support & monitoring of plans to reduce overcrowding Lincoln Begin work with neighboring schools to evaluate ways to increase enrollment Continue facilities work as planned under Measure B to improve campus Support & monitoring of recruitment plan to attract additional students Howard Continue to support schools’ marketing efforts to attract additional students Ongoing support & monitoring Acorn Woodland, Allendale, Brookfield, Horace Mann, Claremont, Madison Central Office Support team visits in late-March to support schools finalizing 07-08 Site Plans for Student Achievement Evaluation of additional support necessary through 07-08 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process

13. - 12 - Recommendation: Next Steps Category of Recommendation Next Steps New School Incubation Maxwell Park Hire a leader to lead the design team Evaluation of additional supports necessary to accelerate achievement during 07-08 school year and fully integrate transitioning families from Sherman Internal restructuring Tilden Work with school communities to draft internal restructuring plans by June 2007 Closure Merritt Middle College, Sherman, Kizmet, East Oakland Community High Intensive support for all families to ensure access to high quality academic programs through the 07-08 Options process HR meetings with all Certificated and Classified staff at schools to discuss next steps (week of March 5 th ) Continued evaluation and final recommendation on appropriate use for facilities

14. - 13 - APPENDIX A: DATA AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FOR 13 “AREA OF FOCUS” SCHOOLS

15. - 14 - Acorn Woodland: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) School-wide lesson design for math with coaching & support After-school Challenge class in ELA & Math for Students in Basic Literacy Coaching for all classes Weekly grade level collaboration - Extended Contract Literacy & Math Academy for BB/FBB students School received $104,100 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support School Improvement Coaching and targeted Math coaching CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 3

16. - 15 - Brookfield: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Intervention Specialist is working with FBB and BB students. SST’s and Learning Plans for students for students not achieving at grade level Differentiated instruction for students in reading workshop for students Professional development is grade level focused Engaging parents and teachers in student outcomes School received $84,900 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support School Improvement Coaching and targeted ELD coaching CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 4

17. - 16 - Allendale: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Principal and staff engage in weekly Professional Learning Communities Use of math and language arts intervention programs such as, PLATO, Kaleidoscope and Breaking the Code. Focus is on classroom instructional practices (site principal, ELA, and math coaches) School received $52,500 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support an intervention specialist and teacher release time for collaboration CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 5

18. - 17 - Horace Mann: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Grade Level Academic Accountability Conferences (GLAAC) after every assessment Instructional support such as, Reading First Facilitator, Math Coach Si Swun math strategies 90 min. per day Teachers released to observe quality instructional practices Uniformed, highly structured schedule School received $56,300 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support School Improvement Coaching and targeted Math coaching CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 5

19. - 18 - Claremont: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Focus on reciprocal teaching, direct instruction and standards based lesson planning (with support of Action Learning) Holding academic conferences for all FBB/BB students Emphasis on mathematics (double math periods and class size reduction) School received $191,800 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support targeted Math interventions CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 4

20. - 19 - Madison: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) School received $162,000 through the 05-06 Oakland Acceleration Schools grant process to support a comprehensive school reform initiative with Action Learning Systems, who also serves as SAIT provider School is implementing Read 180 (intensive reading intervention) and High Point (intervention program for English Learners) Math: UCLA intervention program is used in all 7 th and 8 th grade strategic classrooms All teachers are using Standards Plus on a daily basis CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 4

21. - 20 - Red Schools: Engagement Log School Meeting / Activity Acorn Woodland Central Office Support Team visit: 12.14.06 SSC meeting: 2.20.07 Allendale Central Office Support Team visit: 12.11.07 SSC meeting: 2.22.07 Brookfield Central Office Support Team visit: 12.18.06 SSC meeting: 2.13.07 Horace Mann Central Office Support Team visit: 12.19.06 SSC meeting: 2.26.07 Claremont Central Office Support Team visit: 1.12.07 PTA meeting: 2.6.07 Madison Central Office Support Team visit: 12.15.06 SSC meeting: 2.20.07

22. - 21 - East Oakland Community High: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Master schedule was revised at semester. CAHSEE intervention will now be provided. Contracting with YMCA for PE classes. Contracted with a counselor to conduct a transcript review with EOCH students and families. All students will meet with a counselor to complete an individual learning plan. Site Council was established. CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 1

23. - 22 - East Oakland Community High: Where Students Live & Go to School Fremont 46 McClymonds 3 Oakland HS4 Oakland Technical2 Skyline3 Outside Oakland6 Total64 Neighborhood students not attending EOCH 2549 Students Castlemont Neighborhood students attending EOCH: 120 Students OUSD Castlemont Neighborhood Total: 2669 Students at EOCH from other neighborhoods: 64 Students East Oakland Community High 184 Non SDC Business & Information Technology376 Leadership Preparatory HS311 Skyline306 East Oakland School of the Arts278 Oakland Technical High School203 Oakland HS139 Youth Empowerment School126 Robeson School Visual & Performing Arts88 College Prep & Architecture Academy86 Rudsdale Continuation84 Media College Prep80 Mandela HS79 RALPH BUNCHE HIGH SCHOOL64 Dewey Academy62 Sojourner Truth Independent Study52 Life Academy48 Far West47 Street Academy35 Merritt Middle College HS31 MetWest27 E.X.C.E.L. College Preparatory H.S.13 Business Entrepreneurial Technology High 9 Community Day HS3 Hillside Academy2 Total2549

24. - 23 - East Oakland Community High: Long Term Castlemont Neighborhood Projections * * No significant housing development plans exist for the Castlemont neighborhood. Charter schools impacting the Castlemont neighborhood are Ed for Change Cox, Millsmont, East Oakland Leadership, Monarch, Reems, University Preparatory, Lionel Wilson and LPS College Park. 23 New Students from Coliseum Gardens, Hegenberger Housing and Tassafaronga Village factored in beginning 2007

25. - 24 - East Oakland Community High: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Neighborhood meeting (10.10.06) Central Office: Kirsten Vital, Wendy Gudalewicz School: None Community: King Estates Neighborhood Association State of the schools: leadership concerns, neighborhood concerns (crime), loitering students Staff Meeting (10.24.06) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: School leadership team Community: None Portfolio Management Strategies to pull the community together Site planning – lack of an SSC Short-term solutions Neighborhood meeting (10.30.06) Central Office: Kirsten Vital, Wendy Gudalewicz School: None Community: King Estates Neighborhood Association Middle School Data Elementary School Data School Community meeting (11.14.06) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: EOCH Staff Community: 45+ Parents and students Overview of Area of Focus school timeline for process Overview of CST, CAHSEE, Enrollment data

26. - 25 - East Oakland Community High: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Neighborhood meeting (11.27.06) Central Office: Kirsten Vital, Wendy Gudalewicz School: Community: King Estates Neighborhood Association Historical information on King Estates closure Neighborhood Association expressed the need for a Middle School School Community meeting (11.30.06) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: EOCH Staff Community: 120+ Parents and Students; Director Spearman Overview of Area of Focus school timeline for process Successes of the school program: small group discussion and whole group share out School Community meeting (12.05.06) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz, Kirsten Vital School: EOCH Staff Community: 100+ Parents and Students Data review: CST, CAHSEE, Grades, Retention, Attendance Break out sessions focused on data statements, problem areas and questions Whole group share out after breakout session Neighborhood meeting (12.11.06) Central Office: Kirsten Vital, Wendy Gudalewicz School: NA Community: King Estates Neighborhood Association OUSD shared discipline policy and updated group on engagement process Neighbors agreed that number of issues with students have done down but believe that it’s not sustainable

27. - 26 - East Oakland Community High: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed School Community meeting (12.20.06) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: EOCH Staff Community: Parents and Students Answer questions from last meeting Discussion of additional data: transcripts, lack of intervention classes, budget School Community meeting (1.16.07) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz, Kirsten Vital, Allison Sands School: EOCH Staff Community: 120+ Parents and Students Village United and Staff members presented their school improvement plan Panelists shared their views about the plan School Community & Neighbor meeting (1.23.07) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz, Kirsten Vital School: EOCH Staff Community: 32 Parents and neighbors Parents shared the problems they see with the school and their solutions Neighbors shared their concerns with the school an dtheir solutions Staff Meeting (2.22.07) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: EOCH staff Community: None Recommendation to close school presented to staff Discussion of next steps School Community meeting (2.22.07) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: EOCH staff Community: 250+ Parents and Students Recommendation to close school presented to community Discussion of next steps

28. - 27 - Howard: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Student Recruitment Plan Parent Walkthroughs Communication with CDC and Preschools in neighborhood CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: -

29. - 28 - Howard: Where Students Live & Go to School Webster Academy22 REACH Academy17 Parker16 Outside Oakland Addresses10 Marshall7 Burckhalter6 Highland6 Addresses With Invalid Formats5 Brookfield4 Markham4 Stonehurst3 Martin Luther King Jr3 Garfield2 Lockwood2 Sherman2 Allendale1 Crocker Highlands1 Glenview1 Jefferson1 Lafayette1 Lakeview1 Laurel1 Lincoln1 Horace Mann1 Manzanita1 Maxwell Park1 Melrose1 Montclair1 Santa Fe1 Sobrante Park1 Whittier1 Total125 Neighborhood students going outside for school: 147 Students Neighborhood students attending Howard: 105 Students Howard Neighborhood Total: 252 Students at Howard from other neighborhood: 125 Students Howard 230 Non SDC Grass Valley18 Carl Munck17 REACH17 Kaiser13 Chabot12 Parker9 Marshall7 Burckhalter6 Thornhill6 Sequoia5 Glenview3 ASCEND2 Brookfield2 Joaquin Miller2 Lafayette2 Montclair2 Redwood Heights2 ACORN1 Allendale1 Bella Vista1 Cleveland1 Crocker Highlands1 Franklin1 Garfield1 Hillcrest1 Horace Mann1 Jefferson1 La Escuelita1 Lakeview1 Laurel1 Markham1 Maxwell Park1 New Highland1 RISE1 Sankofa1 Santa Fe1 Think College1 Webster1 Whittier1 Total147

30. - 29 - Howard: Long Term Neighborhood Projections * Projections are for the Howard neighborhood, not Howard elementary school. Based on 5 year historical average. No charter schools sit in the Howard attendance boundary. 11 new students from Leona Quarry housing development factored in

31. - 30 - Howard: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Staff Meeting (11.30.06) Central Office: Donald Evans School: Howard staff Community: None Presentation of the need to increase enrollment at Howard in order to ensure the school can provide a high quality option for students Discussion of the possibility of growing Howard to a K-8 program Community Meeting (12.05.06) Central Office: Donald Evans, Allison Sands School: some Howard staff Community: 25+ parents Presentation of the need to increase enrollment at Howard Discussion of the possibility of growing Howard to a K-8 program Many community members expressed a desire to keep Howard as a K-5 program Community Meeting (1.22.07) Central Office: Donald Evans, Kirsten Vital School: some Howard staff Community: 25+ parents Discussion of strategies to increase K-5 enrollment at Howard Discussion of enrollment targets that would need to be reached in order to ensure Howard can support a viable program within 3 years Community Meeting (2.12.07) Central Office: Donald Evans School: some Howard staff Community: 25+ parents Presentation of recommendation to be made at the 2.28 Board meeting: continued support of plans to increase K-5 enrollment

32. - 31 - Kizmet: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Beverly Jarrett serving as interim Principal since November 12, 2006 Built school-wide/classroom level behavioral expectations, rewards and consequences Developed new reward system for students who meet three primary expectations Academic conferences offered to every 8 th grade student and parent/guardian (60% participation rate) Emphasis on Mathematics (double period Math0 CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: -

33. - 32 - Kizmet: Where Students Live & Go To School Westlake24 Claremont8 Calvin Simmons4 Frick1 Havenscourt1 Total 38 Neighborhood students not attending Kizmet: 447 Students Cole Neighborhood students attending Kizmet: 60 Students West Oakland Middle School Neighborhood Total: 507 Students at Kizmet from other neighborhoods: 38 Students Kizmet School 98 Non SDC Cole192 KIPP Bridge College94 Westlake66 Claremont37 Montera13 Edna Brewer Middle11 Bret Harte5 Frick5 Peralta Creek4 Roosevelt4 Calvin Simmons3 EXPLORE3 Hillcrest2 James Madison2 Urban Promise2 Coliseum College1 Elmhurst1 Elmhurst Community1 Roots International1 Total447

34. - 33 - Kizmet: Long Term Neighborhood Projections for West Oakland Neighborhood Attendance Boundary Change 30 additional students factored in beginning in 2007 from Pacific Canery, Zephyr, 14 th Street, Wood Street, Red Star, Market And Jefferson housing projects * Charter schools impacting the Cole neighborhood are Lighthouse Community, Junior Space and Space Exploration. Forecast

35. - 34 - Kizmet: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Staff Meeting (11.9.06) Central Office: Fred Brill School: Kizmet staff Community: None Introduction of Beverly Jared as principal Discussion of intervention strategies to accelerate achievement during 06-07 school year Discussion of enrollment challenges Community Meeting (12.14.06) Central Office: Fred Brill School: some Kizmet staff Community: 22 Parents Discussion of low attendance rates and exploration of possible next steps should the school be forced to close Community Meeting (1.23.07) Central Office: Fred Brill, Kirsten Vital School: some Kizmet staff Community: 25 parents Discussion of enrollment challenges at the school and the possible need for closure if enrollment projections do not drastically increase Discussion of intervention strategies currently underway at the school to accelerate achievement Discussion of possibility of recommendation of closure Community Meeting (2.26.07) Central Office: Fred Brill, Kirsten Vital School: Beverly Jarrett Community: 2 parents Recommendation to community for closure

36. - 35 - Maxwell Park: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) High Priority School Grant (planning phase) Two teachers piloting before school intervention program Math coach Parent Resource Center CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 2

37. - 36 - Maxwell Park Neighborhood: Where Students Live & Go to School Horace Mann24 Jefferson12 Melrose10 Webster Academy10 Allendale8 Laurel8 Sherman8 Whittier7 Invalid Addresses6 Markham5 Outside Oakland Addresses5 Burckhalter3 Lockwood3 Fruitvale2 Stonehurst2 Manzanita1 Prescott1 Sequoia1 Howard1 Cesar Chavez Learning1 REACH Academy1 Total119 Neighborhood students going outside for school: 115 Students Neighborhood students attending Maxwell Park: 136 Students Maxwell Park Neighborhood Total: 251 Students at Maxwell Park from other neighborhoods: 119 Students Maxwell Park School: 255 Non SDC Kaiser14 Sherman11 Allendale9 Fruitvale8 Laurel7 Redwood6 Burckhalter5 Chabot4 Crocker4 Jefferson4 Glenview3 Grass Valley3 Horace3 Manzanita3 Sequoia3 Thornhill3 ASCEND2 Markham2 Peralta2 Sankofa2 Bridges1 Brookfield1 Carl Munck1 Emerson1 Franklin1 Howard1 International1 Joaquin1 La Escuelita1 Lockwood1 Marshall1 MartinKing1 Montclair1 Highland1 Parker1 Think College 1 Webster1 Total115

38. - 37 - Maxwell Park: Long Term Neighborhood Projections * Projections are for the Maxwell Park neighborhood, not Maxwell Park elementary school. Based on 5 year historical average. No significant housing developments exist for Maxwell Park. No charter schools sit in the elementary boundary for Maxwell Park. ** New Category after 2000 **

39. - 38 - Maxwell Park: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Staff Meeting (12.05.06) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: Maxwell Park staff Community: None Presentation of Maxwell Park being identified as an “Area of Focus” school Discussion of the intervention alternatives Community Meeting (12.07.06) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: some staff Community: 10-15 parents Presentation of Maxwell Park being identified as an “Area of Focus” school Discussion of the intervention alternatives Community Meeting (1.25.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital, Allison Sands School: some staff Community: 50-75 parents and community members Presentation of Maxwell Park being identified as an “Area of Focus” school Discussion of the intervention alternatives Community Meeting (2.07.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital, School: some staff Community: 15-20 parents and community members  Community Workshop A: Learning about and evaluating alternatives Principal and parent guest speakers shared their experiences with the incubation process. a.Maxwell Park parents shared their school site observations at Horace Mann Elementary. b. Discussion: “Reconstitution” and Incubation

40. - 39 - Maxwell Park: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Community Meeting (2.12.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital School: some staff Community: 15-20 parents and community members Community Workshop B: Learning about and evaluating alternatives (continued) a.Guest principal shared experience with “reconstitution” process b.Continued discussion about “reconstitution” and Incubation Community Meeting (2.15.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: some staff Community: 10-15 parents and community members Parents and community members presented their recommendation to Sharon Casanares. They were most interested in the “Reconstitution” option. They also indicated a desire to keep the same leader in place Community Meeting (2.21.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital School: some staff Community: 15 parents and community members Sharon Casanares presented her recommended intervention for the school; which will be presented to Dr. Statham on February 28, 2007.

41. - 40 - Sherman: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) High Priority School Grant (planning phase) Uniform structured schedule Reading First Coach Parent liaison and Resource Center to increase parent engagement STIP sub to support in- class instruction HUGGS program to address social emotional needs of students. CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 2

42. - 41 - Sherman Neighborhood: Where Students Live & Go to School Whittier15 Markham11 Maxwell Park11 Horace Mann7 Burckhalter5 Parker4 Santa Fe4 Webster Academy4 REACH Academy4 Martin Luther King Jr3 Emerson2 Lafayette2 Laurel2 Lockwood2 Invalid Addresses2 Outside Oakland2 Cleveland1 Franklin1 La Escuelita1 Hillcrest1 Jefferson1 Melrose1 Prescott1 Stonehurst1 Hoover1 Total89 Neighborhood students going outside for school: 77 Students Neighborhood students attending Sherman: 113 Students Sherman Neighborhood Total: 190 Students at Sherman from other neighborhoods: 89 Students Sherman School: 202 Non SDC Maxwell Park8 Henry J. Kaiser7 Redwood Heights7 Carl Munck5 Laurel5 Burckhalter4 Crocker Highlands4 Montclair4 Brookfield3 Grass Valley3 Jefferson3 ACORN Woodland2 Bridges At Melrose2 Chabot2 Howard2 Lazear Elementary2 Peralta2 Thornhill2 ASCEND1 Emerson1 EnCompass Academy1 Fred T. Korematsu1 International Community1 Joaquin Miller1 Lakeview1 Markham1 Sequoia1 Webster Academy1 Total77

43. - 42 - Sherman: Long Term Neighborhood Projections * Projections are for the Sherman neighborhood, not Sherman elementary school. Based on 5 year historical average. No significant housing developments exist for Sherman. New Category after 2000 ** **

44. - 43 - Sherman: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Faculty Meeting (11.29.06) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: Sherman staff Community: None Presentation of criteria for Sherman being identified as “Area of Focus” school Discussion of intervention alternatives Community Meeting (12.04.06) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: Some Sherman staff Community: 5-10 parents Presentation of criteria for Sherman being identified as “Area of Focus” school Discussion of intervention alternatives Creation of short-term strategies to accelerate student achievement this year SSC Meeting (12.12.06) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: Some Sherman staff Community: 10 parents Presentation of criteria for Sherman being identified as “Area of Focus” school Discussion of intervention alternatives Creation of short-term strategies to accelerate student achievement this year SSC Meeting (1.9.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: Some Sherman staff Community: 10 parents Presentation of criteria for Sherman being identified as “Area of Focus” school Discussion of intervention alternatives Creation of short-term strategies to accelerate student achievement this year

45. - 44 - Sherman: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Community Meeting (1.24.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital, Allison Sands School: some Sherman staff Community: 40-50 parents Presentation of criteria for Sherman being identified as “Area of Focus” school Discussion of intervention alternatives Community input into decision making. Several parents spoke of a desire to keep the school open. Community Meeting (2.20.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares, Kirsten Vital School: Principal Community: 20-30 parents Sharon Casanares presented her recommended intervention for the school; which will be presented to Dr. Statham on February 28, 2007.

46. - 45 - Tilden: Home School of Attendees Tilden School 111 Students Total: 31 non-SDC + 90 SDC* Laurel13 Allendale7 Whittier7 Webster Academy6 Jefferson5 Santa Fe5 Invalid Addresses5 Parker4 REACH Academy4 Brookfield3 Cleveland3 Garfield3 Lakeview3 Lazear Elementary3 Manzanita3 Joaquin Miller3 Prescott3 Martin Luther King Jr3 Chabot2 Emerson2 Lafayette2 Lockwood2 Horace Mann2 Markham2 Sequoia2 Stonehurst2 Burckhalter1 Franklin1 Fruitvale1 Glenview1 Grass Valley1 Highland1 Maxwell Park1 Melrose1 Montclair1 Piedmont Avenue1 Sherman1 Carl Munck1 Total111 * This does not include the 200+ students in the pre-school population.

47. - 46 - Tilden: Long Term Projections for Laurel Neighborhood * The MacArthur Senior Housing is planned for the Laurel neighborhood, but new students are not expected to be generated.

48. - 47 - Tilden: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed School Site Council Meeting (2.21.07) Central Office: Sharon Casanares School: 1 teacher Community: 3 parents Network Executive Officer met with the School Site Council to share information about plans to increase the general education population and to get the council’s input.

49. - 48 - Merritt Middle College: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Met with families to share information about the closure and options for students. All students will meet with counselor to complete and individual learning plan. CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: 1

50. - 49 - Merritt Middle College Neighborhood: Where Students Live & Go to School Fremont Federation25 Skyline13 McClendon's Complex11 Oakland HS9 Oakland Technical7 Outside Oakland4 Invalid Addresses2 Total71 Neighborhood going outside for school: 2638 Students Neighborhood students attending Merritt: 31 Students Castlemont Neighborhood Total: 2669 Students at Merritt from other neighborhoods: 71 Students Merritt Middle College School: 102 Non SDC Business & Information Technology376 Leadership Preparatory HS311 Skyline306 East Oakland School of the Arts278 Oakland Technical High School203 Oakland HS139 Youth Empowerment School126 East Oakland Community HS120 Robeson School Visual & Performing Arts88 College Prep & Architecture Academy86 Rudsdale Continuation84 Media College Prep80 Mandela HS79 RALPH BUNCHE HIGH SCHOOL64 Dewey Academy62 Sojourner Truth Independent Study52 Life Academy48 Far West47 Street Academy35 MetWest27 E.X.C.E.L. College Preparatory H.S.13 B.E.S.T.9 Community Day HS3 Hillside Academy2 Total2638

51. - 50 - Merritt Middle College: Long Term Castlemont Neighborhood Projections * * No significant housing development plans exist for the Castlemont neighborhood. Charter schools impacting the Castlemont neighborhood are Ed for Change Cox, Millsmont, East Oakland Leadership, Monarch, Reems, University Preparatory, Lionel Wilson and LPS College Park. 23 New Students from Coliseum Gardens, Hegenberger Housing and Tassafaronga Village factored in beginning 2007

52. - 51 - Merritt Middle College: Engagement Log Meeting Attendees Issues Discussed Community Meeting (2.21.07) Central Office: Wendy Gudalewicz School: Most staff Community: 35 parents Wendy Gudalewicz presented her recommended intervention for the school; which will be presented to Dr. Statham on February 28, 2007.

53. - 52 - Lincoln: Academic Performance Interventions Currently UnderwayAcademic Performance Indicator (API) Lincoln’s academic performance is very strong The school is currently a “BLUE” school in OUSD Tiered Support and Intervention model and is not in Program Improvement CST: MathCST: ELA Program Improvement Year: -

54. - 53 - Lincoln: Where Students Live & Go To School Lafayette12 Martin Luther King Jr11 Franklin7 La Escuelita5 Bella Vista4 Cleveland3 Glenview3 Lakeview3 Garfield2 Laurel2 Manzanita2 Outside Oakland Addresses2 Crocker Highlands1 Fruitvale1 Highland1 Piedmont Avenue1 Sequoia1 Hoover1 Total62 Neighborhood going outside for school: 59 Students Neighborhood students attending Lincoln: 546 Students Lincoln Neighborhood Total: 605 Students at Lincoln from other neighborhoods: 62 Students Lincoln 608 Non SDC Franklin13 La Escuelita12 Cleveland8 Lakeview6 Lafayette3 ASCEND2 Chabot2 Carl Munck1 Emerson1 Garfield1 Glenview1 Henry J. Kaiser1 Hillcrest1 Howard1 Martin Luther King Jr1 Montclair1 Peralta1 Piedmont Avenue1 PLACE at Prescott1 Sankofa Academy1 Total59

55. - 54 - Lincoln: Long Term Neighborhood Projections * * Projections are for the Lincoln neighborhood, not Lincoln elementary school. Based on 5 year historical average. Charter schools impacting the Lincoln neighborhood are Bay Area Technology and Lighthouse Charter. 180 New Students from Broadway, Madison Lofts, Oak to Ninth, Embarcadero Cove, 11 th Street, 13 th Street and 14 th Street factored in beginning 2008

56. - 55 - APPENDIX B: REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATEGORIZATION METHOGOLOGY

57. - 56 - School Portfolio Management: Categorization of Schools - QUALITY Criteria Blue Achieved district level accelerated growth target* for either a one year or three year period Growth in all subgroups; Achievement Gap less than 50 pts** (or subgroup API > 800), closing achievement gap Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)***; No Program Improvement Status Green Made AYP No Program Improvement Status; no SAIT status Yellow Failure to make AYP in at least one of the past two years Orange All schools in Program Improvement Years 3+ Any school in PI Year 1 or 2 that experienced a >5% decline in schoolwide CST proficiency for either Math or ELA Red All schools in Program Improvement Years 4+ Any school in PI Year 3 that experienced a >5% decline in schoolwide CST proficiency for either Math or ELA 165% of anticipated API growth based on average growth within large California school districts ** Based on numerically significant subgroups: 100 or more students OR 50 or more students who make up at least 15% of the students at school. *** AYP is the measure under No Child Left Behind to ensure all students are moving towards proficiency

58. - 57 - School Portfolio Management: Categorization of Schools – QUALITY Absolute PerformanceSchool wide Growth Subgroup Performance / Achievement Gap Tier Sobrante Park Exited Program Improvement status this year Made AYP in both ELA and Math Achieved stretch growth target for both 1 and 3 years All subgroups are improving Gap between schoolwide and lowest performing subgroup (EL students) declined by 41 points during 05-06 BLUE Examples

59. - 58 - School Portfolio Management: Categorization of Schools - ENROLLMENT Primary Criteria 1: Significantly Under Enrolled Less than 200 students 2: Requires Significant Small School Subsidy Elementary: Less than 310 students Middle: Less than 250 students High: Less than 350 students 3: Requires Some Small School Subsidy Elementary: Less than 360 students Middle: Less than 300 students High: Less than 400 students 4: Appropriate Size Sufficient Facilities for students and enrollment greater than: Elementary: 360 students Middle: 300 students High: 400 students 5: Overcrowded “Negative” classrooms (based on facilities formula) Secondary Criteria: Facilities: Does school have the facilities capacity to grow its enrollment? “Mega-Boundary”: Do neighboring schools have the capacity to absorb additional students? Isolation: Does school meet geographical need based on how far away the next closest school is Programmatic Diversity: Does school meet a need not otherwise met in the district?

60. - 59 - School Portfolio Management: Categorization of Schools BlueGreenYellowOrangeRed Under Enrolled Possible need for additional proactive interventions to improve situation Need for Significant Intervention Appropriate Size Over Enrolled May need to address enrollment challenges Possible need for additional proactive interventions to improve situation QUALITY ENROLLMENT Ongoing intervention and support for ALL Yellow, Orange & Red schools

61. - 60 - School Portfolio Management: Categorization of Schools

62. - 61 - School Portfolio Management: Summary of Historical Interventions for Red Schools Continued Intensive Monitoring & Support School does not undergo any formal restructuring REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Identified as“Red”School Receive intensive monitoring & support Engage in community informed decision making process regarding appropriate long-term intervention strategy Brookfield, Acorn Woodland Closure Carter, Lowell New School: Year One School opens in new school network Alliance, Bridges at Melrose, CCPA, Elmhurst Community Prep, Esperanza,Korematsu,Manzanita Community School, New Highland Academy, Peralta Creek, Place at Prescott, Roots, United for Success New School: Year Two School moves to traditional network; receives final year of“protection”from additional intervention Best, Excel,Kizmet,ManzanitaSEED, Reach, Rise,Sankofa Internal Restructuring: Year One School implements self-created restructuring plan REQUIRED RESULTS: Growth in both ELA and Math Madison, Claremont Internal Restructuring: Year Two REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Allendale, Horace Mann New School: Incubation School engages in year long incubation process Lockwood, Webster, Whittier, Jefferson, Cole Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year One School re-opens as a charter conversion or a new charter opens on campus Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year Two School receives final year of “protection”from additional intervention EFC–Cox, EFC–East Oakland Year X Year X+1 Year X+2 Year X+3 Continued Intensive Monitoring & Support School does not undergo any formal restructuring REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Identified as“Red”School Receive intensive monitoring & support Engage in community informed decision making process regarding appropriate long-term intervention strategy Brookfield, Acorn Woodland Closure Carter, Lowell New School: Year One School opens in new school network Alliance, Bridges at Melrose, CCPA, Elmhurst Community Prep, Esperanza,Korematsu,Manzanita Community School, New Highland Academy, Peralta Creek, Place at Prescott, Roots, United for Success New School: Year Two School moves to traditional network; receives final year of“protection”from additional intervention Best, Excel,Kizmet,ManzanitaSEED, Reach, Rise,Sankofa Internal Restructuring: Year One School implements self-created restructuring plan REQUIRED RESULTS: Growth in both ELA and Math Madison, Claremont Internal Restructuring: Year Two REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Allendale, Horace Mann New School: Incubation School engages in year long incubation process Lockwood, Webster, Whittier, Jefferson, Cole Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year One School re-opens as a charter conversion or a new charter opens on campus Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year Two School receives final year of “protection”from additional intervention EFC–Cox, EFC–East Oakland Year X Year X+1 Year X+2 Year X+3 Continued Intensive Monitoring & Support School does not undergo any formal restructuring REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Identified as“Red”School Receive intensive monitoring & support Engage in community informed decision making process regarding appropriate long-term intervention strategy Brookfield, Acorn Woodland Closure Carter, Lowell New School: Year One School opens in new school network Alliance, Bridges at Melrose, CCPA, Elmhurst Community Prep, Esperanza,Korematsu,Manzanita Community School, New Highland Academy, Peralta Creek, Place at Prescott, Roots, United for Success New School: Year Two School moves to traditional network; receives final year of“protection”from additional intervention Best, Excel,Kizmet,ManzanitaSEED, Reach, Rise,Sankofa Internal Restructuring: Year One School implements self-created restructuring plan REQUIRED RESULTS: Growth in both ELA and Math Madison, Claremont Internal Restructuring: Year Two REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Allendale, Horace Mann New School: Incubation School engages in year long incubation process Lockwood, Webster, Whittier, Jefferson, Cole Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year One School re-opens as a charter conversion or a new charter opens on campus Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year Two School receives final year of “protection”from additional intervention EFC–Cox, EFC–East Oakland Year X Year X+1 Year X+2 Year X+3 Identified as“Red”School Receive intensive monitoring & support Engage in community informed decision making process regarding appropriate long-term intervention strategy Closure Carter, Lowell New School: Year One School opens in new school network Alliance, Bridges at Melrose, CCPA, Elmhurst Community Prep, Esperanza,Korematsu,Manzanita Community School, New Highland Academy, Peralta Creek, Place at Prescott, Roots, United for Success New School: Year Two School moves to traditional network; receives final year of“protection”from additional intervention Best, Excel,Kizmet,ManzanitaSEED, Reach, Rise,Sankofa Internal Restructuring: Year One School implements self-created restructuring plan REQUIRED RESULTS: Growth in both ELA and Math Madison, Claremont Internal Restructuring: Year Two REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Allendale, Horace Mann New School: Incubation School engages in year long incubation process Lockwood, Webster, Whittier, Jefferson, Cole Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year One School re-opens as a charter conversion or a new charter opens on campus Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year Two School receives final year of “protection”from additional intervention EFC–Cox, EFC–East Oakland Year X Year X+1 Year X+2 Year X+3 Closure Carter, Lowell New School: Year One School opens in new school network Alliance, Bridges at Melrose, CCPA, Elmhurst Community Prep, Esperanza,Korematsu,Manzanita Community School, New Highland Academy, Peralta Creek, Place at Prescott, Roots, United for Success New School: Year Two School moves to traditional network Best, Excel,Kizmet,ManzanitaSEED, Reach, Rise,Sankofa Internal Restructuring: Year One School implements self-created restructuring plan REQUIRED RESULTS: Growth in both ELA and Math Madison, Claremont Internal Restructuring: Year Two REQUIRED RESULTS: achieve AYP and OUSD accelerated growth targets Allendale, Horace Mann [reconstitution plan] New School: Incubation School engages in year long incubation process Lockwood, Webster, Whittier, Jefferson, Cole Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year One School re-opens as a charter conversion or a new charter opens on campus Charter Conversion or New Charter: Year Two School receives final year of “protection”from additional intervention EFC–Cox, EFC–East Oakland Year X Year X+1 Year X+2 Year X+3

63. - 62 - APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC METHODOLOGY & SMALL SCHOOLS EVALUATION UPDATE

64. - 63 - Demographic Methodology Methodology for long term neighborhood projections  Residents in neighborhood: District and Charter Projections are calculated by determining the number of OUSD students living in each neighborhood. Charter students are assumed to live in the neighborhood where they attend school, since their addresses are not currently available. Using the historical 5 year grade progressions for the neighborhood, we calculate long term projections for the neighborhood.  Housing developments New housing developments are factored into long term projections as a function of the number of units that are market rate units and/or below market units (BMR). The student yields in the long term projections uses a low student yield forecast. Unless specified, residential units were assumed to be at market rates and the following yields were used: Student Yield = 0.02 Below Market Units Student Yield = 0.4 Single and Mixed Family Housing = 0.2 Of the new students generated, 60% are projected to be elementary students, 20% middle school students and 20% are high school students.

65. - 64 - Update on Small Schools Evaluation Evaluation Phase 1 Pilot procedures and determine the feasibility of collecting and analyzing data at 4 schools: 1 elementary, 1 middle, 1 high vs. 1 large school that has not implemented a small school model. Evaluation Phase 2 Collect data related to important school and student outcomes related to the fidelity of program implementation and to establishing a school profile student achievement student motivation (e.g., attendance, discipline referrals, high school graduation) student satisfaction with the school (e.g., school climate inventory, feelings of being safe at school) cultural responsiveness TASK Collection of Data on Input and Outcome Variables Start Date End Date Identify location of data related to targeted input and output variables 1/242/09 Development of electronic data file containing data on targeted variables for each pilot (or all OUSD) school 2/122/16 Electronic data file sent to evaluator2/16 Provision of “Sample” Voice Survey data2/16 Calculation of descriptive statistics for all input and output variables and development of correlation matrices 2/163/01 Reporting Pilot Data and Finalizing Data Collection Procedures for Full Evaluation Start Date End Date Summarize interview data and develop final fidelity ratings for each pilot school. 2/233/02 Revise interview protocol as needed3/023/7 Prepare final evaluation pilot report with final input and output variables to be included in larger evaluation and include schedule for completing larger evaluation 3/23/14