The above matrix of nine elementary and six middle schools — which underwent a pilot School Quality Review process last school year — is just a sample of the kinds of targets and scoring systems being put in place in Oakland Unified.
At 6 p.m. Wednesday, the OUSD board holds a special meeting to discuss this and other parts of its “Balanced Scorecard,” which sets goals for student achievement, attendance, discipline rates (racial disparities, in particular), effective teaching, teacher satisfaction, teacher retention — and, yes, for a balanced budget that maximizes teaching and learning with an equitable (read: not equal) base funding model for its schools.
It calls for increasing the graduation rate for each student subgroup (black, white, Asian, Latino, male, female, English learners, special education students) by 1 percent this year, as well as the overall rate.
Other goals include upping the number of students who graduate UC/CSU eligible, with A-G requirements (this is key, as OUSD’s current 9th and 10th-graders must complete A-G requirements to receive a high school diploma, as a result of a policy change promoted by student leaders and Ed Trust West in 2009); boosting the number of students who graduate from an academy or career pathway, and making it mandatory for 11th-graders to take the CSU’s Early Assessment Program test in English and math.
On average, just 14 percent of OUSD 11th graders who recently took the EAP test are deemed ready to tackle college-level English, and 6.7 percent in math, according to OUSD. That percentage could drop further once students are required to take it — now, roughly two-thirds of juniors take the assessment. Statewide, only 23 percent of students tested college-ready for English and 15 percent did so in math this spring.
Of course, no report on a so-called balanced scorecard would be complete without its share of buzz words, acronyms and catch phrases. I found a-plenty, especially in the parts about OUSD employees: human capital data system, Talent Acquisition Team, SQR, and “an integrated and aligned central‐ and site‐level investment tracking system,” to name a few.
What do you think about these ideas, in general, and the specific goals included in the draft? Are they the right goals — and are they aggressive enough?