Stanford Study of Oakland New Small Schools Initiative

1. Stanford Study of Oakland New Small Schools Initiative October 1, 2008

2. Research Goals • To understand how well new small schools and existing schools in OUSD are performing over time, taking into account the students they serve and their process of start-up & development • To understand what factors influence schools’ achievement and their improvement trajectories over time • To recommend policy strategies that can build on current successes and address identified needs and issues

3. Examining School “Productivity” Productivity is a school’s capacity to add value to students’ learning beyond students’ prior achievement and background characteristics. Productivity is evaluated by looking at how a school’s students achieve on the CST tests in comparison to those in schools serving similar students. A productive school produces achievement that is significantly higher than this benchmark.

4. Value-Added Analysis is Important Because Student Characteristics Vary Greatly Across Schools ASCEND KIPP Highest 1/3 Incoming 6th Graders Lowest 1/3

5. Student Level Factors Explain about 2/3 of Variance in CST Scores School and Other Factors 30.4% *CST Math model explained 66% of variance, leaving 34% to be explained by school and other factors

6. Summary of Initial Productivity Analyses • New schools are, on average, more productive than older schools at all levels, and especially at the high school level. • New schools become more effective and productive as they mature.

7. API and Three-Year Average Productivity: Elementary ELA Mean “Old” Schools = -.012 Mean New Schools = .019 Acorn Woodland API 2008 Three-Year Average Productivity

8. API and Three-Year Average Productivity: Elementary Math Mean New Schools = .010 Mean “Old” Schools = -.013 Esparanza API 2008 Three-Year Average Productivity

9. API and Three-Year Average Productivity: Middle School ELA Mean New Schools = .009 Mean “Old” Schools = .009 Elmhurst Community API 2008 Three-Year Average Productivity

10. API and Three-Year Average Productivity: High School ELA Mean New Schools = .008 Mean “Old” Schools = -.054 API 2008 Excel Three-Year Average Productivity

11. School Design Features Influence Productivity (2007 ELA Productivity* Associated with High School Characteristics) School Level CST Scores (Standard Scores)

12. Staffing Strongly Influences School Productivity(ELA Productivity* (2003-07) Associated with Teacher and School Characteristics) Difference in School-Level CST Scores per unit difference in Predictor (Standard Scores)

13. New Teacher Turnover* in New Schools (* Turnover = Percentage of BTSA induction and intern teachers in ’04-05, ’05-06, or ’06-07 who were no longer teaching in OUSD at the start of ’07-08) 55% OUSD New Teacher Average

14. School Case Studies Extend Themes Regarding School Design • ACORN Woodland (ES, 2000) • EnCompass Academy (ES, 2004) • ASCEND (K-8, 2001) • Elmhurst Community Prep (MS, 2006) • McClymonds Complex (HS, 2005) • BEST • EXCEL • Oakland International (HS,2007)

15. API and Value-Added Productivity (ELA) 2006-07 Encompass Academy ASCEND Acorn Woodland API EXCEL Elmhurst Community Prep BEST

16. ACORN-Woodland Elementary • Policy Rationale – A Turnaround School • Prior Superintendent’s “pilot” small school which was not succeeding was “re-incubated” by district and is now highly productive • Key Themes • District incubator helped establish new instructional program, school culture, and family partnerships • Open Court curriculum was modified and augmented to improve success with diverse learners • Teacher-lead professional development was enacted through school “culture team”

17. EnCompass Elementary • Policy Rationale • High performing ES serving low-income community • Exemplifies commitment to community outreach, inclusion, and collaboration • Key Themes • Culturally-relevant focus on the “whole child” and hands-on, project-based approach • Open Court modified to incorporate reading of leveled books and formative assessments • Intensive school-based selection process developed to improve “fit” for new hires

18. ASCEND (K-8) Policy Rationale Highly productive “mature” small school serving high-minority population One of first small schools “co-created and co-owned” by Community and District Key Themes: Strong School Design Features Personalization through Looping Interdisciplinary and arts-infused curricula focused on projects and “expeditions” RBB used to reduce class-size

19. Elmhurst Community Prep (ECP) • Policy Rationale – Middle School Turnaround • Dramatic improvement in school culture and academic achievement • “Big school principal” became committed to small school approach • Key Themes • Teachers and students in grade level teams • Daily advisory to personalize learning • Project-based “expositions” of learning • “Co-incubation” benefitted both schools and leaders sharing same campus • RBB used to invest in school leadership & coaching

20. McClymonds Complex • Policy Rationale • Conversion high school with somewhat divergent outcomes in two small schools (BEST & EXCEL) • Key Themes • Less change in design and staffing at BEST • Discontinuous leadership at BEST has posed challenges to school-level instructional coherence • EXCEL’s stable leadership committed to project and community-based learning • Attention to college-going culture significantly increased Excel’s A-G enrollment, graduation rate, & college-going

21. Oakland International • Policy Rationale • Serves a distinctive student population of ELLs • Recent successful start-up reflects current OUSD supports • Key Themes • Flexible budget, staffing, and curriculum enable distinctive school design • Strong district supports (e.g coaching and facilities) • Project-based learning and heterogeneous grouping • Extensive professional collaboration and PD to support strong content and language instruction • Alternative assessments matched to student needs

22. Cross Case Features of Highly Productive Schools • Key School Features • Mission-driven principals who were proactively recruited and mentored • Faculties with experienced as well as new teachers, committed to school mission • Personalization strategies are used extensively • Clear and coherent instructional programs focused on authentic hands-on instruction • Analysis of student learning has informed teacher professional development and school culture • Professional collaboration is norm not exception • Outreach to parents and community has been strong

23. Mission-Driven Principals • Were selected and mentored by prior principal and/or district leaders • Set high expectations for all students and are driven to serve historically underserved communities

24. Balanced faculties with novice and veteran teachers and focus on instructional development • Top schools attempted to build staffs with diverse and complementary strengths • ASCEND’s founding teachers ranged in experience from 3-23 years • When possible, AWE has hired teachers with 10+ year’s experience to balance staff • OIS also sought a balanced staff with EL teaching skills • BEST and EXCEL were unable to balance staffs, which has constrained both schools

25. Coherent, Engaging Instructional Programs • Goals connect to and extend district/state accountability • Instructional content aligned to state standards, but not test-driven • Active Learning Opportunities • Project-based learning • Career academies/community projects

26. Use of Student Achievement Data • Data used to inform instructional program and professional development • Acorn Woodland now supplements Open Court with more extensive literacy materials and strategies • ASCEND restructured Expeditionary Learning expeditions to improve mathematics performance • Performance data used to celebrate student success and cultivate academic climate • EXCEL college-acceptance wall and CST celebration • Acorn Woodland’s CST celebrations

27. Personalization Strategies • Looping • Home Visits • Whole Child Orientation • Advisory • Block Scheduling

28. Professional & Parent Collaboration Features of PLC’s are reflected in the schools Teachers plan and lead professional development Teacher collaboration built into school day (Two hours per week and common grade level planning time). Teachers sometimes work together through interdisciplinary courses Outreach to parents around school mission and student work

29. Key District Policy Supports for Schools • Provide support and flexibility • Network Executive Officers serve as thought-partners rather than compliance officers to school leaders • Embrace entrepreneurial ethos of small school principals; support innovation • Coaches go beyond Open Court implementation toward broader set of effective literacy practices and professional development support more broadly • Incubate new schools and leaders • Provide service and support orientation, especially in Human Resources • Streamlined hiring • More focus on mentoring and administrative supports

30. OUSD Progress & Policy Recommendations

31. OUSD Progress in Developing More Productive Schools • New school models have been largely successful and have grown in productivity as they mature • Incubation process has supported stronger, more focused school designs • Network coaching has enabled sharing of good practices and greater attention to school needs • Some weak schools have been closed

32. OUSD Progress with Teacher Workforce Development Strong strategic plan developed with teachers association Earlier filling of vacancies and eliminated filling with substitutes Smart decision not to “pink slip” last year Work on developing BTSA induction model

33. Teacher Recruitment Strategies • Continue to move up hiring window to recruit top-quality candidates • Prioritize hiring experienced, qualified teachers wherever possible • Evaluate teacher pipelines in terms of retention and effectiveness and further develop strong pipelines, including “grow your own” models • Identify and recruit strong student teachers

34. Teacher Retention Strategies • Continue to strengthen BTSA model by investing in coaches and their training • Develop incentives for developing / keeping strong teachers and attracting them to high-priority schools • Examine leadership, working conditions, hiring, and mentoring in high-turnover schools • Strengthen coaching support for all new teachers

35. Shaping the District Portfolio of Schools • Consider school productivity and trajectory over time when deciding whether to expand, merge, or phase out schools • Consider academic return on investments and costs of student failure, as well as immediate fiscal costs • Develop and expand successful models by proactively recruiting more students to successful campuses • Beware undefined mergers that merely combine campuses: enable leadership around a specific design