ousd new small schools external evaluation - 0 - new small schools evaluation board presentation...

OUSD New Small Schools External Evaluation - 1 -

New Small Schools Evaluation

Board Presentation

September 26, 2007


2007-2008 School Portfolio Management Timeline Dates Activity Description9/26/07 Small Schools External

Evaluation (Phase I)• The Small Schools Movement has been a critical component of OUSD’s School Portfolio Management work over the past six years as we work towards our vision of providing families with two quality school options in each neighborhood

10/10/07 • Launch of Tiered Accountability & Support model• Presentation of 2007-2008 School Portfolio Management process and Area of Focus Schools

• OUSD has developed a robust and differentiated accountability & support model to ensure that all schools are receiving the supports required to ensure acceleration for all students• Staff have identified a list of Area of Focus schools with whom we will be engaging in a community decision making process about the appropriate interventions. This analysis takes into account enrollment trends, as well as academic performance

12/12/07 • Intervention recommendations for Area of Focus schools

• Following a thorough community engagement process, staff will make recommendations regarding the appropriate interventions

12/19/07 • Intervention decisions for Area of Focus schools

• State Administrator will make decisions regarding the appropriate interventions

Fall 2007 Small Schools External Evaluation (Phase II)

• School Portfolio Management will provide support to Research & Assessment for the completion of Phase II of the Small Schools External Evaluation

Fall 2007 • Collaboration with Fiscal regarding Multi-year Fiscal Recovery Plan

• School Portfolio Management will provide support to the Fiscal Team regarding the District’s fiscal recovery plan and the long-term impact on the optimal number of schools for OUSD


I. Small Schools Movement in Oakland

Historical Context

Incubation Process

II. External Evaluation Methodology

Results

III. New Small Schools Investment

IV. Reflections and Lessons Learned

Small Schools Evaluation Agenda

A New Small School is a school that is created around a common vision; has an explicit theory of action around closing the achievement gap; and develops a clear plan for a culture of high, non-negotiable expectations for student achievement.

Small size is a facilitating condition that enables personalized learning structures for students; personalized involvement and leadership opportunities for families; and personalized learning structures for staff.

PHASE 1 OF 2


Part 1: Small Schools Overview

Graphic: Courtesy of Oakland Community Organizations (OCO)

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Oakland’s Small Schools Movement was community-based and led by parents organized primarily by OCO.

Parents wanted an alternative to some of the most overcrowded and lowest performing public schools in California.

Parents and teachers were inspired by visits to successful small schools in Chicago & New York.

OUSD School Board unanimously passed the New Small Autonomous Schools (NSAS) policy in May 2000, and 9 schools were opened as a result.

In 2003 OUSD moved to full implementation and has opened 48 new small schools to date.

New small school creation is one of six foundational strategies for Expect Success.


Fall 2000

ACORN Woodland

Fall 2001

Urban Promise

Life Academy

Melrose Leadership Academy

Fall 2002

KIPP

Fall 2003

Fall 2005

Fall 2004

Think College

Now

YES

Mandela

Media College

Prep

Robeson School of Visual &

Performing Arts

College Prep & Architecture

ExploreCBITS

EnCompass Academy

*East Oakland

Community High School

East Oakland School of the

Arts

Reach Academy

Sankofa Academy

RISE Community

School*Kizmet Academy

ManzanitaSEEDEXCEL

HS

BEST HS

48 New Small Schools in Oakland: 2000 - 2007

ASCEND

MetWest

Fall 2006

United for Success

Academy Peralta Creek MS

Alliance Academy

Bridges Academy

ColiseumCollege

Prep

Esperanza Elementary

NewHighland

Fred T.KorematsuDiscoveryAcademy

ManzanitaCommunity

School

ElmhurstCommunity

Prep

PLACE @

Prescott

*Closed

*Opening 2007, Incubating 2007-08

*New York model, no OUSD incubation

Fall 2007

West Oakland

MSGreenleaf

Elementary

East Oakland PRIDE

FuturesElementary

Learning Without Limits

*Community United

Elementary

Global Family School

Graphic: Courtesy of OUSD New School Development Group

*InternationalHS

*School ofSocial Justice& Community Development

LeadershipPrep

Roots Int’l

International Community

School



New School Incubator Curriculum – 1st SemesterPrimary focus = to help design teams build background knowledge, conduct research and plan toward developing a thoughtful School Design Proposal that has a very explicit vision and a clearly articulated theory of action that addresses the needs of and ensures equitable outcomes for all children.

Strand Strand Name

Strand 1 The New School Incubator: The Year, The Work, The Movement

Strand 2 Know Thyself: Understanding who you are as a leader in the context of this work

Strand 3 Getting Started: Forming and working with a design team

SCHOOL VISITS

Strand 4 Visioning: Who is the child walking out of your doors?

Strand 5 Know Thy Community: Who is the child walking into your doors?

Strand 6 Theory of Action: Bridging the gap between the child walking in the door and the child walking out of the door

SCHOOL VISITS

Strand 7 The School Program: Laying the foundation for the development of your new school

Graphic: Courtesy of OUSD New School Development Group


Incubation Process: 2004-2007


OUSD INCUBATION PROCESS: 2004-2007

Recruiting Students

Fiscal Realities

Recruiting & Selecting Teachers

School Culture

Supporting & Training Teachers

Supporting Students

Community and Family

InvolvementGovernance

District Operations

New School Incubator Curriculum – 2nd Semester

Jan - Feb

Mar - Apr

May - Jun

Gra

phic

: C

ourt

esy

of O

US

D N

ew S

choo

l Dev

elop

men

t G

roup

Instructional Program


SCHOOL DESIGN PROPOSAL = THE FOUNDATIONCommunity Analysis Theory of Action Vision

Instructional Program


Part 2: External Evaluation of Small Schools

OUSD contracted with Strategic Measurement and Evaluation, Inc. to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic and academic profile of students attending New Small Schools?

2. Despite the lower average CST scores of students entering New Small Schools, is there evidence that the New Small Schools are accelerating student achievement?

3. How do the outcomes achieved by the New Small Schools compare to the outcomes produced by the schools they replaced?

4. Have the New Small Schools been successful at implementing the approved design models? Do the New Small Schools function effectively as organizations?

5. How does the number of years a New Small School has been open relate to measures of

model implementation and effective school functioning? How do these measures relate to measures of stakeholder satisfaction?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS


Methodology



QUESTION #1:

What is the demographic and academic profile of students attending New Small Schools?

RELEVANCE:

To identify the intended population at the New Small Schools

METHODOLOGY:

Analysis of the OUSD student data files focusing on gender, ethnicity, free/reduced lunch status, English language development status, disability status, and previous CST scores



Compared to the District overall, New Small Schools currently serve:

a greater percentage of Latino students (53% @ New Small Schools vs. 34% @ district) a greater percentage of English Learner students (38% vs. 29%) a greater percentage of students receiving free/reduced lunch than the district as

a whole (78% vs. 69%) .

Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSMALL SCHOOLS DEMOGRAPHICS in 2006-07


Compared to the District overall performance in 2005-06, New Small Schools serve:

a lower percentage of students designated as “Proficient” or “Advanced” based on state test scores (e.g. CST), and a higher percentage of students designated as “Below Basic” or “Far Below Basic”.

Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSMALL SCHOOLS STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

*CHASEE results are based on 2005-06 10 th grade performance.


For the 2006-2007 school year, the New Small Schools had fewer students who performed at “Proficient” or “Advanced” on the CST and CAHSEE exams.

Compared to Comparison schools, the New Small Schools had a lower average number of days absent per student and lower suspension rate. The differences are not statistically significant.

Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSMALL SCHOOLS ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE


FINDINGS:

The New Small Schools had significantly higher Use Your Voice ratings from students, parents, and teachers than did the comparisons schools. The New Schools compared favorably to the District ratings.

Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSTAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESPONSES

N=6,796 N=10,735 N=11,929 N=1,256


Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSTAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESPONSES

FINDINGS: The New Small Schools had significantly higher Use Your Voice ratings from students and teachers than did the comparisons schools in the categories of Clean Learning Environment, Safety, Caring and Support, and College Readiness.


QUESTION #2:

Is there evidence that the New Small Schools are accelerating student achievement?

RELEVANCE: On average, students who enter the Small Schools during 2006-07 generally demonstrate academic performance that are below the District average. How can we show that small schools truly accelerate student achievement in a way that factors in student initial academic achievement?

METHODOLOGY:

To show students performance relative to their starting point, a statistical model was created to link student demographic characteristics and previous year’s CST test performance to current year CST scores.

Use the model to calculate projected CST ELA and math scores for each student in each school year and grade level.

Compare average projected CST scores of students within each school to the average CST scores actually obtained by the same students.

If the average CST score obtained by a group of students is significantly higher than projected, there is evidence that the school may have accelerated student achievement.



SMALL SCHOOLS STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Student groups at the New Small Schools demonstrated accelerated CST ELA achievement 22% of the time and underperformed only 7% of the time.

Student groups at the Comparison Schools demonstrated accelerated CST ELA achievement only 16% of the time and significantly underperformed projected performance 25% of the time. A similar pattern was obtained on the CST math tests.

Both groups of schools tended to perform as projected on the CAHSEE.



QUESTIONS #3:

How do the outcomes achieved by the New Small Schools compare to the outcomes produced by the schools they replaced?

RELEVANCE:

By comparing outcomes for similar groups of students before and after they enrolled in the New Small Schools it is possible to track changes that can be attributed to the New Small Schools.

METHODOLOGY:

Sufficient data on attendance (days absent) and CST/CAHSEE test scores (percent of students proficient or higher) existed to make comparisons based on these variables. The family tree charts were used to identify the relevant transitions from a traditional school to New Small School(s).



FINDINGS: The percent of students labeled proficient or higher on the CST was compared as students moved from traditional schools to the New Small Schools. The chart below provides CST ELA data related to four transitions.

Over time, these transitions generally show an increase in the percent of students performing Proficient or higher on both ELA and Math CST when compared to the larger school that they came from.

Part 2: External Evaluation of Small SchoolsSMALL SCHOOLS PERFORMANCE

*The “n” is based on the number of students with valid CST scores.



FINDINGS: The chart below provides the percent of students labeled Proficient or higher on the CST ELA at the 10 comparison schools.

The pattern of performance change over the course of four years between the Comparison schools varied by as much as 23 percentage points in the percent of students performing Proficient or higher. The range was between +10% points to -13% points. Overall, the 10 Comparison schools made a 3.1 point gain in the percent of Proficient and Advanced students in ELA over the course of 4 years.

COMPARISON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

OUSD New Small Schools External Evaluation

Graduation Rates: New Small Schools vs. Comparison Schools

The percent of 2005-06 graduates (based on NCES calculations) in small high schools are higher than Comparison Schools, district, county, and state. The percent of small high school graduates who meet A-G requirements show more variability than Comparison Schools.


% Grad 0506 % w/ UC/CSU Courses (A-G) # Grads with A-GCASTLEMONT HIGH SCHOOL 2003-04 46% in 0304Business and Information Technology 92% 35% 21 East Oakland School of the Arts 92% 42% 20 Leadership Preparatory High 55% 34% 21

FREMONT HIGH SCHOOL 2003-04 26.7% in 0304 College Preparatory and Architechure 97% 18% 10 Mandela High 85% 38% 21 Robeson School of Visual and Performing Arts 69% 14% 9 Media College Preparatory 71% 39% 19

Life Academy 94% 38% 18 MetWest High 96% 46% 11 COMPARISON SCHOOLSOakland High 72% 40% 143 Oakland Technical High 61% 43% 113 Skyline High 80% 42% 138

DISTRICT 61% 37% 712 COUNTY 83% 47% 5,943 STATE 83% 36% 125,277

- 21 -


New Small Schools vs. Comparison* Schools

FREMONT FEDERATION

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API SC

OR

E

MediaArchitectureMandelaRobesonYESFremont HS

* Comparison School = School that students would have attended if the new school had not opened.


THINK COLLEGE NOW

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API S

CO

RE

TCN

Hawthorne

RISE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API SC

OR

E

RISEHighland

Aca

de

mic

Per

form

an

ce

Ind

ex (

AP

I)

Aca

de

mic

Per

form

an

ce

Ind

ex (

AP

I)


Model Implementation & School Functioning

QUESTION #4:

Have the New Small Schools been successful at implementing the district-approved design models? Do the New Small Schools function effectively as organizations?

RELEVANCE:

To understand the degree to which the district-approved design model has been implemented at each site. Evidence of effective school functioning provides additional context from which to judge the success of design model implementation.

METHODOLOGY:

Content analysis of each original design proposal identified specific organizational and instructional elements associated with each New Small School.

A customized survey was designed for teachers to assess the degree to which each element was present at a particular school.

A second survey was developed to assess the degree to which the New Small Schools exhibited characteristics associated with effective organizations (e.g., clear communication, strong leadership, shared purpose, etc.).



Model Implementation: Teachers at the New Small Schools tended to agree that the schools attempted to implement the organizational and instructional elements outlined in the approved design model. Their average model implementation rating was 3.85 on a scale of 1 (no implementation) to 5 (full implementation).

School Functioning: Teachers at New Small Schools tended to agree that their schools demonstrated characteristics associated with effective organizational functioning. Their average school functioning rating was 3.71, significantly higher than the functioning rating obtained from teachers at a sample of comparison schools (3.71 vs. 3.44).


School Functioning

n=322

n=125 n=322

Model Implementation


School Performance Over Time

QUESTION #5:

How do the number of years a New Small School has been open relate to measures of model implementation and effective school functioning?

RELEVANCE:

The time needed to demonstrate sufficient implementation and functioning informs strategies for incubation and district support.

METHODOLOGY:

The model implementation ratings and effective school functioning ratings were plotted by the number of years a New Small School had been open.



Model Implementation & School Functioning

FINDINGS: The average model implementation ratings were not significantly different based on the number of years a New Small School had been open. The 12 New Small Schools opened in 2006-2007 compared favorably to older New Small Schools.


Model Implementation

School Functioning

The average school functioning ratings were not significantly different based on the number of years a New Small School had been open.

There was significant variation at the individual school level. The district may benefit from reviewing organizational and personnel factors associated with higher functioning schools.


Part 3: External Evaluator Summary of Key Findings Most of the 39 new small schools open in 2006-07 appear headed in a positive

direction:1. The New Small Schools serve students, families, and communities in large, overcrowded, and low

performing schools.

2. New Small Schools accelerate both student CST ELA and Math achievement more frequently than do the comparison schools (22% vs. 16% for ELA and 33% vs. 21% for Math).

3. Most New Small Schools are achieving CST and CAHSEE scores that meet or exceed projected average levels. Compared to the traditional schools that students moved from, the graduation rates at the New Small High Schools were higher, ranging from 69% to 97% compared to 61% to 80% at existing comparison high schools.

4. There are examples of increases in the percentage of students being designated proficient or higher on the CSTs as students move from existing traditional schools to the New Small schools.

5. The average student, parent, and teacher satisfaction ratings achieved by New Small Schools were higher than the student, parent, and teacher satisfaction ratings achieved by a sample of comparison schools and compared favorably to overall district levels.

6. The survey data indicate New Small Schools are generally implementing proposed designs that address school culture, instructional program, professional learning community, parent, and community engagement.

7. New Small Schools can achieve high levels of organizational functioning during the first year of operation.


One-Time Investment in New Small Schools

OUSD’s one-time financial investment in the creation of new small schools has relied on Expect Success funding.

From the 2005-06 to the 2007-08 school year OUSD has invested $5.64M or, on average $201K per new small school. These dollars were invested in a number of activities including:

Incubator services, Support for principals in training, School improvement coaching services, and Subsidies for the opening and closing of schools.

* - Assumes that 28 new small schools have been opened between September 2005 and September 2007.

Part 4: Small Schools Investment

- 28 -


In addition to the financial investment made by OUSD, there are also other intangible costs to new small school development. These costs primarily have an impact on the capacity of district staff to serve schools. These include:

New principal recruitment, New teacher recruitment, High impact on Service Org to support new staff (e.g.

FS), High impact on Administration, and Facilities.

One-Time Investment in New Small Schools

Part 4: Small Schools Investment

- 29 -


Part 4: Spending Per Student, Small vs. Other Schools

Overall spending per student is higher among 1st year, new small schools due to categorical funding allocations that are driven by federal and state formulas based on the type of students in the school.

NOTE: Existing Small Schools + 2nd Year and Above New Small Schools are identified as those schools that fell below the small school cut-off as defined by OUSD. 1st Year, New Small Schools are those schools that are opening in the 2007-08 school year.

$3,636 $3,857 $3,844

$2,219$1,751

$3,507

$360

$31

$799

$53

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

1st Year, New SmallSchools

Existing Small Schools + 2ndYear and Above New Small

Schools

All Other Schools

Per

Stu

den

t ($

)

2007-08 ExpectSuccess

2007-08 TIIGFunding

2007-08 State &FederalCategorical2007-08 GeneralPurpose (GP)

OUSD Small School Cutoff

Elementary – 360 students

Middle – 300 students

High – 400 students


Part 4: Subsidizing 1st Year and Existing Small Schools

OUSD provided additional subsidies starting in 2006-07 through the Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG). There are two types of subsidies that new, small schools received: (1) For being in their 1st or 2nd year of operation and (2) For being classified as a small school.

2006-07 2007-08

1st Year New, Small Schools

Subsidy for opening/ closing

schools

$1.01M

($59K avg. per school)

$805K


Small school subsidy

$853K


$845K


Existing small schools + 2nd Year and Above, New Small Schools

Small school subsidy

$3.36M


$3.70M


TOTAL TIIG INVESTMENT

$5.22M $5.35M

Footnote: New, small schools and existing small schools received subsidies because their total enrollment fell below the small school cutoff established by OUSD.


Part 4: Comparison of allocation methods

# of students enrolled

Total subsidy

allocation at a school

360 cutoff

2001000

“Gap student” allocation method

Binary allocation methodIllustrative

The proposed “gap student” allocation method reverses which schools get the most subsidy


New Small Schools bring stakeholders together in new ways to create the conditions for student success, which is a major but not singular step in raising student achievement.

There are a number of new small schools that have leveraged these conditions to accelerate student achievement.

Having established these preconditions in almost all the new small schools, it will now be critical to press forward with academic rigor and quality of instruction while holding school accountable for performance with adequate levels of support.

OUSD has shifted our small schools strategy over time, based on lessons learned, to focus on providing more structure and support for the incubation process and ongoing monitoring and intervention. We believe that this approach will improve the performance of all of our small schools.

In order to continue to improve the effectiveness of new small schools we need to do a more in-depth analysis about how years of implementation, type of incubation, district support, and differences at elementary, middle and high school impact student achievement results.

Part 5: District Reflections


Phase II Evaluation Focus Areas

Analysis of performance at elementary, middle and high school level in alignment with District academic goals especially college readiness and post-secondary experiences/ choices of students who attend new small schools.

Analysis of student growth for students who participate in new small school for 2 or more years, and movement between performance bands on CST, especially out of far below and below basic.

Analysis of teacher and leader recruitment, quality, and retention as both a measure of success and as a variable that impacts student achievement.

Further analysis of how and to what degree new small schools have increased family and community engagement and ownership at a school level.

Further analysis of how new small schools have addressed family and community concerns around equity issues, especially related to the overcrowding and school quality.

Measures of Success


Phase II Evaluation Focus Areas (continued)

School Quality and Functioning Analysis of how decision making to incubate, incubation approach,

level of community engagement, options/ choice, age of school, and specific program design elements impact measures of success.

Increase depth of analysis of school fidelity to implementation models through on-site observations and evaluation using school quality rubrics.

Financial Analysis of the resources required for full initial implementation

and on-going sustainability of new school models. Study and illustrate the intended and unintended intersections and

impacts of new small schools with Results Based Budgeting and service economy/ central office services.

Analysis of the investment per graduate of new small schools including the impact of increased graduates in our community.


New Small Schools Evaluation

Board Presentation

September 26, 2007


Small Schools Evaluation

Appendix

OUSD New Small Schools External Evaluation - 38 -- 38 -

CONCLUSIONS: Before Small Schools Initiative and Expect Success

Performance Before and After Small Schools

Academic Performance Index (API)

<500

500-599

600-699

700-799

>800

This map illustrates OUSD schools in 1999 and their API performance range.

Notice the number of red schools (n=42).OUSD Schools:

1999 API Performance

OUSD New Small Schools External Evaluation - 39 -- 39 -

CONCLUSIONS: After Small Schools initiative and Expect Success



<500

500-599

600-699

700-799

>800

OUSD Schools:


This map illustrates OUSD schools in 2006 and their API performance range. Notice the number of red schools (n=3). Eight new Small Schools were opened in 2005-06.

*First-year schools in 2006-07



<500

500-599

600-699

700-799

>800

*First-year schools in 2006-07

OUSD Schools:


CONCLUSIONS: After Small Schools initiative and Expect Success


This map illustrates OUSD schools in 2007 and their API performance range. Notice the number of red schools (n=5). Twelve new Small Schools were opened in 2006-07.


Academic Gains: New Small Schools vs. Comparison* Schools ASCEND (K-8)

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API SC

OR

E

ASCENDJeffersonManzanita

URBAN PROMISE ACADEMY

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API SC

OR

E

UPASimmons

KIPP BRIDGE

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API SC

OR

E

KIPPLowell

THINK COLLEGE NOW

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

SCHOOL YEAR

API S

CO

RE

TCN

Hawthorne




Academic Gains: New Small Schools vs. Comparison* Schools


ELA: Predicted vs. Obatined CST Score Comparisons* Performed As Predicted

KEY: Performed Higher Than Predicted

Performed Lower Than Predicted

SCHOOL Year Open 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7

Acorn Woodland 00_01 * * * * * * * * * * * *Alliance Academy 06_07 * *Ascend 01_02 * * * * * * * * * * * *Bridges at Melrose 06_07 * * *Coliseum College Prep 06_07 * *Elmhurst College Prep 06_07 *EnCompass Academy 04_05 * * * * *Explore College Prep Middle 04_05 *Esperanza 06_07Fred T Korematsu 06_07 * *International Community School 01_02 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *KIPP: Bridges College Prep 02_03 * * * * * * * *Kizmet Academy 05_06 * * * * *Manzinita Community 06_07 * * *Manzinita SEED 05_06 * *Melrose Leadership Academy 01_02 * * * * * * * * *New Highland Academy 06_07 * *Peralta Creek Middle 06_07 * *Place at Prescott 06_07 * * * *Reach Academy 05_06 *Roots International Academy 06_07 * *RISE Community School 05_06 * * * * *Sankofa 05_06 * * * * * * * * *Think College Now 03_04 * * * * *United for Success 06_07 * *Urban Promise 01_02 * * * * * * *

Grade 8Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7


3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7 3_4 4_5 5_6 6_7

BEST 05_06 * * * * * * *Castlemont (CBIT) 04_05 * * * * * * * * *College Prep and Arch 03_04 * * * * * * * * * * *E. Oakland Community HS 04_05 * * * * *E. Oakland School of Arts 04_05 * * * * * * * * * *EXCEL 05_06 * * * *Leadership Prep 04_05 * * * * * * * * *Life Academy 01_02 * * * * * * *Mandela High School 03_04 * * * * * * * * *Media College Prep 03_04 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *MetWest High School 02_03 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Paul Robeson College Prep 03_04Youth Empowerment School 03_04 * * * * * * * * * *

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 CAHSEE


FINDINGS: Both the model implementation rating and the school functioning rating were positively and significantly correlated with the measures of student, parent, and teacher satisfaction on the Use Your Voice survey.

Higher model implementation and school functioning ratings assigned by teachers are linked to higher satisfaction ratings from students and parents (and other teachers). These findings support the validity of the implementation and functioning measures.

Small Schools Satisfaction


Forecast Methodology: Assumptions

ousd new small schools external evaluation - 0 - new small schools evaluation board presentation...

Documents

successful small schools

new small school creation

small schools overview

public schools

small schools overview

area of focus schools

small size

ousd school board