OEA and OUSD have headed back to negotiate a new contract. While much attention has focused on 15 percent salary increases and class size reduction, the OEA-OUSD Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) actually spans hundreds of policies that create the environment for great teaching and great public schools - the foundation of a great city. GO Public Schools wants to ensure that both sides of the table consider our neediest students during this critical process.

Since OUSD's funds are precipitously shrinking, we would be remiss not to discuss any and all inexpensive contract changes that improve teaching and learning conditions, especially in our neediest schools. We hope OUSD and OEA will put the following few ideas on the table. Most of these ideas can be implemented without taking away any rights from current teachers. Some of these strategies may involve weighting the allocation of general fund dollars to schools according to student need.

1. Allow the District to help the lowest performing schools build the strongest teaching teams they can (CBA Article 12). Teachers are the key levers for low-performing schools to improve. The CBA currently does not allow schools to hire teachers until transfers are complete. This policy creates a culture of hiding vacancies and forces teachers who may not be prepared for or interested in teaching in a low-performing school upon school communities where they may not be a good fit.

OEA and OUSD could agree to support our 15-20 lowest performing schools next year by protecting them from impact of transfers on teaching teams, along with other interventions. The list could be decile 1 and 2 schools (lowest performing schools based on State API), similar to what OEA called out in their class size proposal. The list could be revised as needed.

Jobs would still be guaranteed to teachers who are transferred or consolidated but OEA and OUSD would support the lowest-performing schools through this process.

2. Move up the hiring timeline (CBA Article 12). The current hiring timeline makes it difficult for all schools to hire the teachers they need when they need them, due in part to transferred or displaced teachers. The CBA could set dates by which the external hiring window must open each year, with exemptions for certain subject or schools. Transferred or displaced teachers could be guaranteed interviews for openings and would be guaranteed a job in the fall, but would not have rights to a particular position or school.

3. Incentives for early notification of retirements or resignations (CBA Article 12). When the District and schools know which teachers are not coming back the following school year, they have a chance to build the best teaching teams possible. There could be an incentive for a retiring or resigning teacher to notify the District in January. The District could raise funds for this program from outside sources, and this program could result in cost savings during the hiring process. Every veteran teacher whose retirement we know about sooner allows us to avoid issuing a layoff notice to a teacher early in his/her career.

In addition, the District could offer early retirement or a "golden handshake" which would honor veteran teachers' service while helping to retain teachers who have just started their careers with OUSD. Golden handshakes have been implemented in school districts across the state; the golden handshake does not require changes to the CBA.

4. Invest in the front end of the salary schedule (CBA Article 24). Teacher turnover in OUSD was 14 percent in 2008-09, with about 65 percent of the turnover in steps 1-5 of the salary schedule. Teacher turnover has unacceptable financial and educational costs to the District, to schools and to students.

There is consensus that we need an across the board salary schedule increase. However, we suggest prioritizing additional salary increases for teachers on the front end of the salary schedule, perhaps those in their 3^rd to 10^th years. We want to target for retention and training those teachers who have started to settle into their teaching career in Oakland, who have started to take on leadership roles, and who are invested in our community.

The recent Recommendation from the State Fact Finding Panel suggested a new salary schedule longevity step of 5 percent for teachers with 30 years of STRS service and then adding another 5 percent step for those with 28 years of STRS service.  This policy would increase retirement pensions for those teachers, but does little to address teacher retention.

5. As for class size (CBA Article 15), there is a clear trade off between class size and teacher compensation; smaller classes require more teachers which means less funding is available for each teacher. School Board Director Noel Gallo recently suggested that an increase of 3 students per class could save the district $15 to $28 million toward the $85 million of needed reductions for 2010-2011.

Our experience shows that most parents would generally prefer smaller class size for their child but would choose a larger class with a great teacher instead of a smaller class with a less effective teacher. Site-based budgeting allows school communities to decide how they want to make this tradeoff. At the same time, our teachers deserve certainty that their classes will not reach unwieldy and unsafe sizes.

If you can agree with any or all of these strategies, let our leaders know. Once OEA and OUSD reach an agreement, the CBA will likely sit untouched for three years aside from specific salary/benefit openers). That's too long for our teachers and students to wait to address other important provisions of the contract.

Recent articles on OEA/OUSD contract negotiations:

Oakland teachers call one-day strike a success - KGO, April 29, 2010

California City and Striking Teachers Agree - We're Broke - Youth Radio April 29, 2010

Oakland teachers strike ends after 1 day - SF Chronicle April 30, 2010

Oakland teachers' one-day strike is over: What's next? - Oakland Tribune, April 30, 2010

Oakland Unified Has Too Many Schools - East Bay Express, May 5, 2010

Joint Statement from OEA and OUSD on collective bargaining - May 12, 2010

Oakland Education Association (OEA) website

OUSD web pages explaining the contract negotiations and strike response

School Board Director David Kakishiba talks about working on the school board, politics, local control, and more.

"David Kakishiba is a life-long children's advocate. David is the author of Measure K - The Kids First! Initiative, Oakland's landmark ballot measure requiring the City of Oakland to protect and expand funding for children and youth services. David has played a leading role in the founding of several Oakland-based youth development organizations, including Oakland Kids First, Youth Together, and Youth Sounds. In March 2002, Kakishiba was elected to the Oakland Board of Education, representing District 2. David was re-elected to a second term in June 2006. Director Kakishiba was appointed Chair, Finance and Human Resources Committee in 2009."

GO Public Schools wants to help you get "in the know" about Oakland's public schools. Over the next few months, we hope to interview each Oakland School Board member about their role and work on the board. Previous interviews include Director Jody London, District 1.

GO: What motivated you to run for school board?

DK: I live in the outer edge of the San Antonio neighborhood district. I have worked there for many, many years with young people who live in that area and the majority of whom go to the schools located in the San Antonio District of District 2. And while we have had school board representatives who are very intelligent, and they're good people, they, in my opinion, were fairly disconnected to the schools and to the neighborhoods and to the families in the neighborhoods below the 580 freeway. And frankly, I don't think those schools' issues were being addressed and I felt there was a need for a more effective advocate for those schools.

GO: What do you see as your responsibilities as a board member?

DK: I think that there are three basic responsibilities. One, I do believe that a school board member is responsible for being an advocate for parents and for families within the district they represent. The second thing is that a school board member is responsible for being part of a governing board to establish goals and priorities and having a superintendent and a budget that corresponds to those goals and priorities. The third thing is that as a part of the governing body, the board is responsible for performance management - making sure that we're achieving goals and priorities, and if we're not making it because of somebody's work, then we've got to deal with that. But, if it's because of what we're doing, like our strategies or investments aren't quite making it or they're not the right mix, then we've got to make those adjustments -- setting policy and then monitoring implementation and monitoring results.

GO: What do you think are the qualities of a successful board member?

DK: For me, I think a good board member, and that's true for practically any elected official, is that they have to be very good listeners. That means the process of listening to people's stories. They have to be patient with people who are bureaucrats, who will talk "edu-speak", and they have to be patient with the local mom or pop in the neighborhood whose form of communication or the way they communicate may be on the rough side. Basically, they have to be able to be good listeners, and they have to be willing to reach out to a really broad, diverse array of people.

I'm probably a bit biased, but a good school board member is somebody who believes that schools should be able to serve well all kids, and in particular kids who are from families and are from neighborhoods that have a great deal of need. That's a particular bias because I don't think everybody feels that that's a quality of being a good school board member.

GO: What do you think is the hardest aspect of being an Oakland school board member?

DK: For me, the hardest aspect of being a school board member is working with the rest of my colleagues on the school board. There are seven members on the school board who have different interpretations and beliefs about a lot of different things, and being able to get folks to come together to speak with a single voice or at least a clear majority voice and minority voice - it's very difficult for that to happen.

GO: What do you wish the public understood better about the school board?

DK: If you want good schools, I think electing good school board members is really important. Any other ideas, alternative forms of governance of schools like mayoral control, state control, those kinds of things - I don't think there's any structural advantage to any of them. It really boils down to who it is. A lot of other elected officials or candidates will run for office on the state of our schools, not just Oakland, but California - like Meg Whitman, schools are the third part of her platform - but nobody wants to run for school board. They want to run for every other office but not for school board and I think that that's very dangerous.

GO: Why do you think people might not want to run for school board?

DK: I think being a politician or an elected official has become a career in the United States. Maybe that's not true in other countries, but it's like a career here. It's not really public service where you're going to do your time like the Peace Corps or the army or something like that. So school board member is like the worst thing you could possibly do for your career as a politician because school boards tend to have very little control about the amount of revenue that comes into a school district because its largely state controlled. Fixing schools is not easy - it's not like fixing a sewer which can get done within a day. But educating kids - that's tough work and there's no magical or mechanical formula to it. So, results are slow to come by as a school board member. And then finally, you don't get paid and you have no staff.

GO: Why should somebody run for school board?

DK: I think it's for anybody really concerned about the lives of children and young people. School is the public institution where they spend the majority of their lives, and schools shape a lot about who young people are and what their adult opportunities are. If you care about kids, you should consider running for school board.

GO: What's one of your proudest accomplishments as a school board member?

DK: I think where I have been a good advocate is largely on facility issues. There had been a lack of investment in District 2 schools, and I think I've been able to, within the context of the District's facilities master plan, be successful in demonstrating that the facility needs in District 2 had been long neglected. At Lincoln Elementary, we got rid of all these old, dilapidated portables, and got a brand new state-of-the-art classroom center there. At La Escuelita, we have construction for a new (pre-K to 12th grade) education center on 2nd Avenue - this has been a 15-year struggle. I think making renovations at Edna Brewer Middle School has made a huge difference in school climate there and middle-class parent support for that school.

There are a number of other facilities things that I could speak to, but it's not just bringing in those dollars. It is connecting parents and principals, and connecting their voice and getting it heard downtown that has been the most rewarding. There are a lot of things we couldn't really do under state administration, and I had anticipated state administration to end three years earlier than it actually ended. So, I can't really claim anything during that time, but I do think I helped in getting the board to be better equipped to accept its governing responsibility in a responsible fashion.

GO: How has your role changed since OUSD has been back to local control?

DK: On one hand, it doesn't really have to change. During state administration, we had board meetings regularly, we listened to staff reports, we would take advisory votes, and as we moved into full governing authority, we could function in that same way. I'd say that there are some board members that are comfortable with that.

For me, the change has been the opportunity to develop and craft legislation that puts the district on a different or better policy direction. Also, around budget development, the board is now part of the budget development process. I would say that as an institution, we are still pretty rusty on that in terms of budget development in the public arena with the board - with public disclosure. But that requires a great deal of thoughtful planning and collaboration with staff, and so it's just a lot more work to do it well.

In very concrete terms, we're facing cutting $85 million from our budget. Under state administration, we could be very cavalier about that, like "big deal - that's the state's job to do" but in a very concrete way now we have to make that decision.

GO: What do you think of the coherent governance policies and that system? How it is working out?

DK: I probably was the most central board member bringing that set of protocols and that framework to the board and going through training with that. I would say that now that we are in the power, the board is not administering coherent governance in a systematic fashion. There's a lot of reference to it, it's on our board policies, it's on the books, but implementation is very uneven.

Having said that, I think the biggest bang for the buck around coherent governance is the oversight function. Before, the board never had any mechanism to provide clear standards of performance, clear outcome goals, and to have a process where the Superintendent had to document progress towards these outcomes and performance standards.

I chair the Finance and Human Resources committee and there are three sets of policies that are under that committee. I feel like we are making real progress on finance and to some extent personnel. On finance, what's happening is that our Chief Financial Officer is reporting out different sets of financial information that I think had they been revealed ten years ago, we would have prevented our financial meltdown. These are pretty standard accounting practices, but the board never knew how to ask the right questions.

On personnel, I'd say that the biggest problem we have is the fact that our teachers are on the inexperienced side. What I mean, concretely, is that about one-fourth of our teacher workforce is new teachers in their first or second year because we have constant turnover every year. We are one of those few districts that need not issue layoff notices because we have enough people leaving on their own. Through the coherent governance what got revealed was that this is a real problem because not only do we have that kind of turnover, but our turnover seems to be concentrated at the secondary level. It's at the secondary level where student outcomes are very weak, and having a stable, effective teacher force at middle schools and high schools is at least the starting point to having good outcomes for kids.

Through coherent governance, we were able to uncover some of this. We did direct the Superintendent to establish a teacher-led task force on expanding teacher effectiveness, and we're looking for this task force by October to give us policy recommendations about reforming our compensation plan, our performance evaluation plan, and creating a career ladder for teacher leaders.

Our intent in directing the Superintendent to do this is to get a real handle on increasing teacher retention, reducing teacher turnover to maybe ten percent, and then figuring out how to keep our tenured teachers, 12- and 15-year teachers, that can play additional or different kinds of roles without just thinking that they have to be a principal - and they can be compensated accordingly. I don't envision any one- or two-year impact - I think this is something to see five to seven years down the road, hoping that Oakland gets a reputation for being a stable place to work, and getting incremental but steady improvements - a place where people want to stay.

GO: Do we have any data or surveys on exactly what causes teachers to leave?

DK: The District has done a number of exit interviews, and I don't think it's super-scientific, but what we're finding out is that working conditions are pretty key. People have expressed that where they are in work environments, where it feels chaotic to them, they're not getting any leadership or support around their instructional practice, they feel isolated, they may not feel inspired by the school leadership, and then, if they need to change their benefits or something like that, they deal with downtown and there's all this red tape. Another big thing is their relationship with students - this points more to the secondary level - feeling like too many students are disengaged or out of control. Salary is an issue, not an overriding issue, but I think there's some sense that -- if you start out at $39,000 a year, and then when you pass your probationary period, your third year you might be at $42,000 -- if that was instead $50,000, it might make a difference.

Every two years, we elect people to the Oakland Board of Education - a group of seven adults who arguably hold the most power in our community to improve Oakland's public schools. This November, Oakland voters will elect school board Directors in Districts 2, 4, and 6.

As Board Member David Kakishiba recently told GO Public Schools, "If you care about kids, you should run for school board." Given Oakland's affinity for democracy and activism, voters should be choosing from an amazing array of school board candidates. Oakland has no shortage of passionate leaders, well-qualified to be effective board members. Teachers, volunteers, nonprofit leaders, coaches, principals, after-school providers, neighborhood activists, and parents (only one sitting board member has children in OUSD schools) can all be candidates.

Compared to a city council race, running for school board in Oakland can be an inexpensive endeavor. If there are fundamental reasons that the position of School Board Director does not attract candidates, it is our responsibility as Oaklanders to change the job description and public perceptions of the board. To create a great system of public schools, we must elect a great school board.

Of the seven sitting Oakland School Board Directors, three ran unopposed. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not good Directors. It just means there's a lack of competition. Competition in school board races generates important ideas and critical conversations about our public schools. Voters are better able to hold school board members accountable. Board members better engage with their schools, parents, and students. Conflicts of interest are revealed. We spend public money conducting elections -- competition helps ensure real engagement in return.

School Board Director is a very powerful position: the board directs hundreds of millions of dollars for Oakland's 45,000 public school students, 95 campuses, 3,000 teachers, and 476 acres of land. The Board's areas of influence are wide-ranging: teaching and teacher effectiveness, school facilities, parent engagement, collective bargaining, technology use, college and career readiness, budgeting and taxes, health, safety, and more.

Oakland Public Schools are the most improved in the State of California over the past five years. After five years of state receivership, we have local control back, the school board hired a promising new Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith, the Mayor hired Police Chief Dr. Tony Batts, and Oakland will likely have a new Mayor next year. The 2010 Board of Education election comes at a crucial time for our public schools.

If school board elections and OUSD decision-making got just a fraction of the attention the City Council gets from the media, advocacy groups and aspiring elected officials, our schools would make dramatic progress.

Our schools are our city. Oakland's children are Oakland's future. Great Oakland Public Schools believes that Oakland's adults need to dramatically increase engagement with our Board of Education.

Decide how you will be a part of the Board of Education elections this year:

• RUN for the Board of Education. GO explains the basics of running for school board and about the Oakland Board of Education.
• CHALLENGE candidates about schools and education - including City Council and Mayoral candidates. GO has prepared a list of questions for Board of Education candidates.
• VOLUNTEER your time for a candidate you support.
• GIVE money to a candidate you support.
• VOTE -- October 18th is the last day to register to vote, and vote-by-mail begins October 4th.
• ATTEND candidate forums and debates.
• SIGN UP and BE INFORMED via GO Public Schools' regular election and education updates.

This editorial was published in A Better Oakland on March 29, 2010.

On Thursday, March 11, nearly 100 parents, teachers, principals, and community leaders from across Oakland came together to dialogue with OUSD Superintendent Tony Smith about his ideas to continue improving Oakland's public schools.

Before Dr. Smith took the podium at the Jack London Aquatic Center, the group took a few minutes for updates on activities within the GO network. Click here for a copy of the network updates report.

Dr. Smith shared his thoughts around the need for a "One Oakland"- an Oakland in which schools, families, business, and civic communities join together to support public education in our city. He discussed the need for unified resources and a unified vision, and an Oakland in which schools serve as the "hub" of the community. While more details of a strategic plan for Oakland's public schools are coming soon, Dr. Smith shared his intent to workshop the plan at forums and with diverse constituents across the city. On Saturday, March 27, Dr. Smith will begin the strategic planning discussion at a retreat with the Board of Education which is open to public. Click here for more information.

Participants took the opportunity to process the information presented by Dr. Smith (read Oakland Local's coverage for details), and to offer feedback, in small group break-out sessions. Teacher and principal facilitators guided groups to identify their "wows" and "wonders" from the evening's presentation. Click here to access the full set of notes from the small groups.

Highlights included the following "wows":

• One Oakland: unification of resources and a common vision for Oakland
• Schools as "hubs of communities" - facilities are assets to host services from multiple providers
• Proposed new position in OUSD: Cabinet-level leader responsible for African-American male student achievement
• Creation of a "Quality School Development Group" that includes charter and district public schools to facilitate the sharing best practices and provide accountability
• Community engagement is essential

And the following "wonders":

• How will OUSD define effective teaching and teachers? When?
• How can community help the parcel tax to increase teacher compensation succeed in light of conflicts with the OEA?
• Is there a commitment to continue successful reforms, i.e. benchmark assessments, flexibility with staffing and budgets?
• Will the "wow's" become a reality?
• In regards to Dr. Smith's plan for Oakland:
  • What are the checkpoints?
  • Timelines?
  • Who will lead the work?
  • How will we know we've arrived?

Encouraged by Dr. Smith's vision, participants left inspired to get involved and engaged around the important decisions that will be facing the district in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

Superintendent Tony Smith will host a Town Hall Meeting on the "Lowest Achieving Schools" tomorrow, March 24, at 8am at Elmhurst Community Prep (1800 98th Avenue). Addressing the communities of schools named to the State's "Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools" list, Superintendent Smith will outline the procedure where school communities decide which reform options to pursue, as well as the application process for School Improvement Grants to fund the reforms.

Make your voice heard - participate in this conversation! For more information, please call the OUSD Communications Office at (510) 473-5832.

OAKLAND SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS ARE NOVEMBER 2010!

We need a great school board to have great schools and a great city! Three Oakland Unified School Board Director positions are up for election this November.  There are no term limits for Oakland School Board members, so incumbent Directors may run for another term.

To locate these districts, visit http://gismaps.oaklandnet.com/councils/

There are many ways you can show up for our students this election year:

• RUN for school board
• ASK candidates about schools and education - including City Council and Mayoral candidates
• VOLUNTEER your time for a candidate you support
• GIVE money to a candidate you support
• VOTE - October 18th is the last day to register to vote and vote-by-mail begins October 4th
• LOOK for regular election updates from GO Public Schools

Why run for school board?

• Are you committed to advocating for the best possible public education for students in Oakland? Are you willing to spend time and energy to improve public education in Oakland?
• Our school board is democracy in action. The School Board directs hundreds of millions of dollars for Oakland's 45,000 public school students.
• Directors make critical decisions about teaching, school facilities, parents, teachers, college and career readiness, budgeting, health, safety, and more.

What is the job description?

• The Board's primary responsibilities are to ensure that every student served by the District is well educated and demonstrates high academic achievement. (For more information, please visit www.ousd.k12.ca.us and click on Governing Board).
• The Board meets publicly twice monthly in the evening, and Directors also sit on Board committees, each of which meets approximately twice per month.
• Board members are expected to engage with the schools, parents, and students in their districts.
• The current compensation for Directors is $787.50 per month. OUSD pays for board members to participate in the health and welfare benefits program provided for district employees.
• Elected candidates will take office on January 3, 2011.

Who can run?

To run for school board, you must be a citizen of the United States, eligible to vote, a resident of Oakland for at least 30 days, and a resident of the district for which you are a candidate for at least 30 days immediately preceding the nomination. A district employee elected to the Board must resign or be terminated before being sworn into office.

How do you become a candidate?

July 12^th through August 6, 2010 is the nomination period, when candidacy application packets will be available from the Oakland City Clerk. The candidacy application asks for: 50-100 nominating voter signatures from the District, a $300 filing fee, place of residency and occupation for past five years, 150 words describing qualifications, and signatures of 10-20 nominators. All nomination documents and fees must be filed by August 6^th with the Oakland City Clerk.

How many votes do you need to win?

A majority (50% plus one) was required to win past elections. This year, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV or "ranked-choice voting") will be used for the first time in Oakland.  IRV allows voters to rank up to three candidates, in order of preference, when marking their ballots. Ranked-choice voting eliminates the need for run-off elections.  Below are results from recent Oakland School Board elections:

2008 Elections
District 1

• Jody London 7,410 (56.35%)
• Brian Rogers 4,574 (34.78%)
• Tennessee Reed 1,098 (8.35%)

District 3

• Jumoke Hinton Hodge 3,799 (51.91%)
• Olugbemiga Oluwole, Sr. 3,438 (46.98%)

District 5

• Noel Gallo 4,434 (98.47%)

District 7

• Alice Spearman 2,844 (50.41%)
• Doris Limbrick 1,821 (32.28%)
• Beverly Williams 935 (16.57%)

2006 Elections

District 2

• David Kakishiba ,7169 (99.17%)

District 4

• Gary Yee 11,088 (99.01%)

District 6

• Chris Dobbins 4,426 (51.94%)
• Wandra J. Boyd 4,073 (47.80%)

Know the laws: California Political Reform Act and Oakland Political Reform Act

Any candidate who raises funds to spend on his/her campaign must regularly disclose fundraising and expenditure information to the State Fair Political Practices Commission and the Oakland City Clerk.  The Oakland Campaign Reform Act allows any candidate who voluntarily agrees to limit his/her campaign spending to receive larger contributions than those who do not. Any candidate is free to contribute to or loan his/her campaign any amount of money from his/her personal funds.

For more information:

• Oakland Unified School District: 1025 Second Avenue http://www.ousd.k12.ca.us/
• Oakland City Clerk: City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 2nd Floor http://www.oaklandnet.com/cityclerk/
• Oakland Public Ethics Commission/Oakland Campaign Reform Act: City Hall, 1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/public_ethics/
• Alameda County Office of Registrar: http://www.acgov.org/rov/index.htm
• California Fair Political Practices Commission: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/

GO Public Schools wants to help you get "in the know" about Oakland's public schools. Over the next few months, we hope to interview each Oakland School Board member about their role and work on the board.

We started with the District 1 (North Oakland) School Board Director - Jody London. Director London was first elected in 2008. From the OUSD web site: "Professionally, Ms. London is a consultant to local governments and non-profit organizations on a wide rage of energy and environmental issues.  Prior to joining the Board, Ms. London volunteered with the Oakland Unified School District in several areas, most notably as an Energy Policy Advisor, Co-Chair of the "Yes on Measure B" campaign, Vice-Chair of the Measure B Advisory Committee, Chair of the Long Range Planning Committee at Chabot Elementary and Chair of the Chabot: Way to Grow special fund campaign. Ms. London earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of California, Berkeley and received her Masters of Public Administration degree from Columbia University."

GO: What motivated you to run for School Board?

JL: Kerry Hamill, the former District 1 School Board member asked me to run for the seat. At the time, this was in fall 2007, Oakland schools were under state control.  I thought, "Why on earth would I do this?" I had been very involved with OUSD and my children's schools, I have a background in public policy, and my professional business is working with local and state governments and non-profits on energy on environmental issues. The more I thought about it, with my interest in public policy, and my interest in public service - if I didn't run then I would always wonder "what if?" and I don't think you should live life with "what ifs?". I had not thought about running for office before then.

GO: What are your responsibilities as a School Board member?

JL: Right now, I have two main responsibilities. One: make sure on June 30, our budget for next fiscal year is balanced; and two: make sure we provide quality instruction that results in a high level of learning for every student.

GO: What are the qualities of a successful School Board member?

JL: Each school board member does this job a little bit differently. I can tell you how I approach the job, but I can't speak for others. The primary thing people elected me to do is show up every other Wednesday to OUSD School Board meetings and vote. I have to be prepared for these meetings, review the agenda, ask questions, and consider how the pieces fit together. That's the bare minimum.

In addition, we sit on committees. I was on two committees last year, and sit on four committees this year. That is a lot of time that you don't have in other districts - preparing for committee meetings.

Personally, I have a goal to attend at least one PTA or School Site Council meeting at every school in my district each year. It lets me hear issues at the school, and I can talk about community engagement, academics, and some of fiscal challenges we face. These meetings have been a great communication tool to help educate the public.

GO: What is the hardest aspect of being a School Board member?

JL: The money - the lack of resources to do what we know we need to do. The other thing that's hard is people expect School Board members to solve their problems at schools sites and that's not where we can get really engaged. As the Board, we hire the Superintendent and rely on him to manage day-to-day operational matters. That's hard: when people call me and they want to me get involved with a school problem, I'm not able to do that. Or if someone thinks they deserve a job or contract, I just tell them what the process is.

GO: What do you wish the public understood better about School Board members?

JL: I would like public to understand more about the choices we have to make. I didn't run to have to sit here and figure out how to cut programs for kids, but that's the hand I've been dealt. When I talk about fiscal challenges, people need to understand that 80% of our budget comes from Sacramento. Certain realities we face are because we are heavily dependent on funding from State. People feel their local taxes are paying for our schools, but those local taxes go to the State and are reallocated. I think people don't really understand this.

Oakland is doing really great - we have been the most improved urban school district in California for five years running. But we are heavily dependent on state finances. People need to stand up and advocated for a different State system of funding education so we aren't faced with really horrible choices.

GO: What is your proudest accomplishment as a School Board member?

JL: The fact that we now present our budget on one page. It might seem silly, but when I was running, it was hard to figure out what the budget was. I did a Town Hall meeting in April 2009 with the OUSD Chief Financial Officer, Vernon Hal, where we talked about the OUSD budget, the State budget, Results Based Budgeting. Preparing for that helped the CFO prepare the chart we now use.

Also, we are now, in a more systematic way, going out and reaching the public. Each Board member has done town hall meetings in every part of the City, using the same set of slides. We have an online survey and have already had 600 people take it. I do believe government should be available to the public and the people who should be benefiting from it.

As chair of the Board's Intergovernmental Relations committee, I have rebuilt better relations with our elected officials in Sacramento and Washington. This work is more behind-the-scenes, but important.

GO: How does having children in OUSD schools affect you as a Board member?

JL: I think it makes me very aware of things. I'm the only person on the board with children in OUSD schools. Some have grandkids, and some have school-age kids not in OUSD schools. I am in a unique position on the board.  For example, the issue of safety patrols - other school board members may not see the importance. But I look at how this program is for my daughter, how it has provided her with a leadership role, and how she learns how to interact with adults and cars and such.

I hear a lot from other parents in a way you don't hear when you don't have kids in schools, maybe during a soccer game or while dropping kids off. There isn't always an appreciation for those informal interactions, where you hear about where the tension is. For example, the student who won the citywide spelling bee has been in class with my daughter for several years. I called to congratulate them because we are friends.  Having children in OUSD schools provides interactions that I might not get other ways.

Stay tuned for our next interview with District 2 Director, David Kakishiba - coming soon!

On Wednesday evening, OUSD's Board Finance and Human Resources Committee considered two draft parcel tax proposals to increase teacher compensation in Oakland. The Committee decided to move toward a November ballot proposal. While the proposal contains a provision for 15% of revenue to be allocated to charter schools "to increase compensation for teachers and school employees, " several other details remain to be resolved, including whether the tax will be a flat parcel tax or a tax based on square footage of the parcel.

The Committee directed district administration to immediately commission a tracking poll to gauge current support for the parcel tax. The poll will also test whether voters would support a longer term for the tax than four years. Unlike previous parcel tax measures, the draft proposals have provided for a senior exemption rather than a low-income homeowner exemption.  Director David Kakishiba will reconvene the community coalition that has been meeting for over a year to discuss the Board Committee's actions so far. To read complete versions of the proposals, please click here.

The last few months have been a roller coaster ride for the Budget and School Portfolio Management Issue Group and Oakland education community. It began with an announcement that the district would have to cut another $27 million out of its operating budget for 2010-2011 after making significant cuts the past two years.  Our issue group immediately advocated to the Board of Education and the district leadership to make the majority of the budget cuts at Central Office, protecting site budgets as much as possible.  Tony Smith, OUSD's superintendent now for six months, made a commitment to cutting 70% centrally and 30% at sites, which we felt was fair.

The entire budget for OUSD is $616.6 million.  After we cut this $27 million, Dr. Smith that we would have to cut another $100 million over the next three years.  Vernon Hal's report on the 2010-11 budget and budget cuts is at http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/ousd/lib/ousd/_shared/Finance%20and%20Budget%20Docs/Budget_Challenge_Section/OUSD%2009-10%20Budget%20Breakdown%20v16%2010.06.09.pdf.

Our issue group met in November to see how we could cut $27 million out of the OUSD budget minimizing impacts to school sites. We reviewed the central office budgets that we had requested from OUSD.

At that meeting we took on the task of trying to cut $70 million out of Central Office to see if we could keep the cuts away from schools. We could not, and we concluded that $100 million could only be cut if the school sites took significant hits - hits potentially as large as $1,000 per student - AND we decimated Central Office.

So, while the Budget and School Portfolio Management Issue Group is proud that next year's cuts will be minimized at sites, we are devastated that the state's crisis is going to gut public education (there is hope but you have to keep reading) and eliminate key services at both school sites and the Central Office.

On November 14, 2009, Vernon Hal at a Special Board Meeting presented a budget overview and provided some scenarios that put forward breakeven school sizes and recommended class sizes.  It also presented savings from closing and merging schools.  http://publicportal.ousd.k12.ca.us/ousd/lib/ousd/_shared/Finance%20and%20Budget%20Docs/Budget_Challenge_Section/Budget%20Analysis%2011.14.09.pdf.  These school and class size suggestions are based on some assumptions we challenge -

1. Using maximum salaries in all the calculations is idealistic and unrealistic. OUSD has one of the youngest teaching forces in California.
2. The fixed cost assumptions under middle and high schools are based on a very traditional organizational structure.  Every school has an AP, a counselor, an attendance clerk... Results-based-budgeting enables sites to determine what positions they need or want, what they can do without, and what is most high leverage for student achievement.  These positions are not fixed and have not been since we adopted RBB.  Many secondary schools do without counselors and APs. We would put forward that the only REAL fixed costs are a certain number of teacher FTEs as dictated by the OEA contract, a principal, an office staff person, and some custodial support.

Changing these assumptions dramatically changes the breakeven school size. In fact, leaving everything else as is and just changing from maximum teacher salary to average teacher salary, we found that the breakeven sizes changed to 250 at elementary and 384 at middle school.

Dr. Smith was clear in his messages about how challenging these cuts were going to be, how we couldn't do business as usual, and how we would have to truly rethink how this system is structured.  He messaged the need to close/merge up to 30 schools over the next few years.  He put forward "focus schools" that were potentially being recommended for closure this spring and ultimately recommended the closures of Explore Middle, Paul Robeson High School, Tilden Elementary, and BEST High School.

At a recent OCO meeting with Dr. Smith, he stated that up to 30 schools could be closed over the next few years. He committed to using as thoughtful a process as possible but admitted that the urgency of the cuts would prohibit being as thoughtful as he would like.  He committed to:

• Using an incubation process and re-instating the incubator to transition schools
• Doing a thoughtful community engagement process giving the community options (as OUSD once did with the PI5 schools)

At this same meeting, he was asked about how the district was working to capture additional resources.  The Board has directed the OUSD staff to start researching a parcel tax to increase school site staff salaries. This parcel tax is being opposed by the OEA because charter schools would received their share, but Dr. Smith was clear that he felt teachers are inadequately paid in this city, that charter schools are public schools, and that we have a responsibility to pursue this tax.

With respect to accessing coveted federal stimulus monies, OUSD has signed an MOU with the state of California to participate in Race to the Top should California receive funding.  It's important to realize that the state has to apply for these funds and commit to:

• Making progress toward rigorous college- and career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable for all students, including English language learners and students with disabilities;
• Establishing pre-K-to college and career data systems that track progress and foster continuous improvement;
• Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all students, particularly students who are most in need;
• Providing intensive support and effective interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

Once the state receives these funds, the district can then apply for the state funds and will also have to comply with the agreements the state has made with the federal government.  GO Public Schools recently met with Don Shalvey, Senior Program Officer for the Gates Foundation, who was clear that California and OUSD would not be unless we could get a broad coalition of labor, government, schools, and philanthropy unified around a revolutionary plan.

Dr. Smith also communicated his intention of having something prepared to apply for Federal I3 Funds (Investing in Innovation). He stated that he was applying to re-instate the some of the turnaround/incubation processes OUSD has used in the past.

Last, he put forward that he felt Oakland was best positioned to receive Promise Neighborhoods funding.  This is also federal funding to replicate systems like the Harlem Children's Zone.  Currently, there are many players attempting to be the lead applicant. Dr. Smith felt that Oakland could only receive this coveted pot for only 20 cities if there is one lead applicant with all the others signed up as collaborators. He felt OUSD was best positioned to be the lead applicant.

One last piece of potentially good news:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/01/06/18sosca.h29.html?r=1724195320

Governor Schwarzenegger stated that there would be no more cuts to the education budget. We sense he is aware that continuing to gut our education budget is being frowned upon by the federal government, and that our ability to access significant education funding depends on California appearing to take education seriously.  Or maybe he realizes that he can't cap prison spending if he doesn't invest in education. We are not yet sure how this might change the OUSD plan to cut $100 million. If the state maintains and maybe even restores some education funding, we would not have to make those dramatic cuts... Cross your fingers.  And hope.

Oakland's School Board is currently examining how to restructure the OUSD budget to accommodate the significant cuts (10 percent of the unrestricted general fund or $25 million) that the district will face in Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Future, additional reductions are expected as well due to the current California budget crisis.

The district has posted an online survey where teachers, parents, community members, and district staff can provide feedback regarding the budget crisis. GO Public Schools encourages our community to  provide input on this survey, and to share your thoughts regarding spending priorities with the district. Click here to take the survey! http://www.ousd. k12.ca.us/ budgetfeedback.

After a yearlong negotiation, the remaining members of the community parcel tax task force (including representatives from GO Public Schools) have reached consensus on a framework to place a parcel tax measure on the 2010 ballot. While many details of a final initiative are still being discussed, the task force felt confident enough in its proposal that Board of Education Director David Kakishiba is planning to introduce the framework at a board Finance Committee meeting on January 4, 2010. GO Public Schools urges its members to attend this meeting to support moving forward in the process of placing the parcel tax on the ballot.

The proposed framework allocates 80 percent of the tax proceeds for salary-benefit increases to OUSD site-based staff, which would be bargained with the Oakland Education Association (OEA) and other labor unions. The other 20 percent of parcel tax proceeds would be split into two pots: one pot would provide raises for charter school teachers and staff, and the other pot would support professional development for teachers and staff at all Oakland public schools - traditional and charter. The amounts that would go into each of these two pots have yet to be determined. Additionally, discussions are still ongoing in regards to a dollar amount for the parcel tax and the length of time that the tax would be levied.

Due to a variety of factors making this a tough decision, when the measure will be placed on the ballot is still to be determined.  The committee has debated about the state of the economy, other parcel tax measures being placed on the Oakland ballot in June, which election (June or November) has a better turnout, the instatement of instant runoff balloting that has eliminated the candidate primaries in June, as well as OUSD's immediate need for fiscal support. The ongoing negotiations between the Oakland Education Association (OEA) and OUSD could also delay a parcel tax. Yet, the task force felt that in order to ensure a parcel tax initiative appears on either the June or November 2010 ballot, the Board of Education must begin preparing for it now.

The other issue that could impede the successful passage of a parcel tax is the withdrawal of the OEA from the community task force. Throughout these yearlong negotiations, it has been made clear by numerous advisors and task force members that passing a parcel tax in Oakland will depend on unanimous support from all community stakeholders, including the OEA. However, the OEA continues to remain steadfast in their position that they will not participate in the task force if parcel tax proceeds are directed toward charter schools.

GO Public Schools believes that the community should be supportive of the proposed framework and should urge the Board of Education to begin preparations to place the parcel tax on the ballot. The proposed framework will support both traditional and charter public schools in Oakland, help the District in this time of financial crisis (cuts of approximately $100 million over the next three years), and could mean at least a 5 percent raise for all Oakland teachers. This parcel tax is the only way that Oakland will be able to continue to attract and retain the most highly qualified teachers in the Bay Area.

Please join us at the Board of Education Finance Committee Meeting on January 4 (1025 Second Avenue) to show your support for the parcel tax!

The RBB Issue Group has made a total of sixteen specific recommendations to address the current challenges of results-based budgeting, as it is currently implemented in the Oakland Unified School District. We believe that this set of recommendations will allow for the greatest equity in funding distribution, while addressing the concerns from schools with higher personnel costs. RBB Issue Group co-chairs David Silver and Sondra Aguilera have distributed the RBB group's letter throughout the district, and have been asking principals to show their support by endorsing it. Katy Murphy also included a post about the letter on her blog last week.  As of Tuesday, December 8, eighty-three Oakland principals have endorsed the letter. Click here to download the full text of the letter and click here to endorse.

In mid-October, RBB Issue Group members collaboratively developed a survey to gather information from OUSD principals about the efficacy and challenges of RBB within our school communities. Over 60 principals from across the district took our survey; they represent elementary, middle, and high schools, small and traditional schools, and schools from the hills and the flatlands, North, East, and West Oakland. Small groups of principals met twice to review the data and analyze the responses to identify significant patterns and trends. Results from the survey indicated that:

• 93.3% of principals surveyed value having decision-making authority over their school site's budget
• 93.1% of principals surveyed responded that if budget cuts have to be made, the principal with the school community should have the primary responsibility for making these decisions
• 86.4% of principals surveyed prefer to have control over the number and type of position at their schools
• 82% of principals surveyed believe that changes to OUSD's budgeting system are necessary
• 77.8% of principals surveyed believe that General Purpose dollars should be equitably distributed among all OUSD students
• 67.3% of principals surveyed feel that they have the ability, or are prepared, to completely run their entire site budget, including personnel decisions

The RBB Issue Group identified several key values that the surveyed principals hope to maintain and strengthen. These include:

1. Equity and Transparency
2. Fiscal Autonomy and Accountability
3. Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement
4. Community Awareness and Collective Responsibility
5. Flexibility and Responsibility

Survey Results yielded three key challenge areas:

1. Timing
2. Support
3. Veteran Teacher Funding and Funding Distribution

The RBB Issue Group made specific recommendations to address each of these challenges, which are consistent with the values that emerged from the data. For a brief history of Results-Based Budgeting in OUSD, please keep reading!

In 2004, the Oakland Unified School District adopted the results-based budgeting (RBB) policy, shifting a significant amount of responsibility for site and department budgets from a centralized process to site/department administrators. Traditionally, schools in OUSD had been staffed based on a formula that allocated teachers based on the number of students enrolled in a particular school. Employee costs were allocated using average salaries and benefits. This system provided an equitable number of teachers, but it did not necessarily provide for equitable funding of those teachers, as individual school sites have staffing costs that vary significantly due to the seniority of teachers.1

"RBB is a budgeting process designed to allocate funds in a way that follows the child. The process is based on a per-pupil formula that takes into account all of the school district's expenses. After the allocation amounts are determined, schools are then provided local autonomy in return for accountability in making data-based decisions that lead to results as demonstrated by improved student achievement sustained over time. RBB is focused on four key tenets: Transparency, Equity, Accountability, Autonomy."2

RBB is "designed to empower school administrators by giving them control over their resources so they can best serve the needs of their students in the most effective and efficient way possible."3 GO Public Schools acknowledges that there are many challenges to RBB, and that more support is required for the tool to function as intended. We also hold that the original objectives for RBB (see below) must be maintained in order for all Oakland children to receive the high-quality education they deserve.

Objectives for Results-Based Budgeting:
• Give principals and department heads more control over the conditions of success to increase effectiveness.
• Distribute responsibility across the system (greater site-level accountability for spending).
• Distribute resources in a more equitable manner.
• Create greater and broader autonomy for decisions and results.
• Create transparency in the budget process to allow greater access by staff, community, parents, and students, and build trust.
• Develop and use better data to drive decision-making.4

Sources Cited:

1. Matt Hill, Funding Schools Equitably:Results-Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School District, Center for American Progress, June 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/comparability_part4.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

From November 2009 through January 2010, OUSD Board of Education Directors will be holding community meetings throughout the city at which they will discuss the district's plan for Academic and Fiscal Solvency.  The purpose of these meetings is "to dialogue with the community about the present and future state of the School District to promote academic success and fiscal responsibility."  The community is welcome to attend all of the meetings listed below.

Directors Dobbins and Hinton-Hodge held meetings on December 1 and 2. The community is also invited to participate in the upcoming meetings:

December 14 - Noel Gallo will be holding a meeting at the Fremont Federation Campus from 6:30 - 8:00PM

December 15 - Alice Spearman will be holding a meeting at the East Oakland School of the Arts from 6:30 - 8:00PM

January 23 - David Kakishiba will be holding a meeting at Garfield Elementary School from10:00 - 11:30AM

Oakland has many tremendous teachers - teachers who dramatically raise student achievement levels each year irrespective of where their students were performing when they entered their classrooms, or their family's income and education levels.  However, Oakland has a problem: The Oakland Unified School District currently has no systematic way to identify these teachers. Therefore, these teachers are hardly ever recognized for the amazing work that they do. Lastly--and probably the problem with the worst ramifications for improving our educational system--we have very little knowledge regarding what practices in their classroom lead to their effectiveness.

The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)--another U.S. Department of Education fund that received an influx of cash through the Stimulus Package--addresses each of the current problems within Oakland's education system. Unlike Race to the Top and the Investing in Innovation Fund, which are brand new programs created by the Obama administration, TIF was established in 2006. With 34 TIF-supported programs currently operating around the country, the fund supports a variety of performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems that reward teachers and principals for increases in student achievement and boost the number of effective instructors teaching in hard-to-staff subjects and in high need schools. The program received a boost of $200 million through the Stimulus Package.

The goals of the Teacher Incentive Fund program include:

• Improving student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness;
• Reforming teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement;
• Increasing the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and
• Creating sustainable performance-based compensation systems.

The official request for proposal has not been released yet from the Department of Education, and there is no official release date for it as of the writing of this post. However, it has been outlined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that--similar to the Investing in Innovation Fund--TIF is a competitive grant program with school districts, charter management organizations, or partnerships between a district and at least one nonprofit organization being eligible to apply. The TIF program is also exclusively targeted toward high-need schools, defined as schools with more than 30 percent of their enrollment from low-income families.

TIF Myths and Realities

One of the most prevalent misconceptions about the Teacher Incentive Fund is that the program exclusively rewards teachers for producing gains only in standardized test scores. While it is true that performance-based compensation systems funded by TIF must consider gains in student academic achievement, classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year also must be included in a proposal, as well as financial incentives for educators to take on additional responsibilities (such as mentoring and coaching new teachers) and leadership roles (such as chairing a grade level or subject) or teaching in shortage areas (such as secondary Math and Science, Special Education, and Bilingual Education).

Most of the programs do not directly compensate individual teachers for their students' progress either. For example, the Effective Practice Incentive Community (EPIC)--a TIF-funded program operating in Memphis, Washington D.C., Denver, and amongst a national consortium of charter schools--identifies teachers and schools that have demonstrated dramatic student achievement gains and then compensates these educators to document and share their effective practices with the greater EPIC community. For information and profiles regarding other TIF-funded programs, click here. For a report on other common myths and the realities about TIF, click here.

Oakland and the Teacher Incentive Fund

The Oakland Unified School District unsuccessfully applied twice for a grant through the Teacher Incentive Fund in 2006. Though the proposals had numerous strengths, the most salient weaknesses, according to Department of Education sources, were the following:

• The participating schools within the district were not clearly identified;
• The details regarding the criterion and process for the evaluation of teacher and principals were vague; and
• There were no letters of support from Oakland teachers, principals, or community members.

The new round of TIF funding through the stimulus package and beyond (an additional $300 million has been appropriated for the 2010 fiscal year) represents an awesome opportunity for Oakland to accomplish the following essential endeavors:

• Boost the compensation of teachers, principals, and other staff members at Oakland's high-need schools;
• Establish the technological infrastructure necessary to systematically identify the district's best performing educators; and
• Develop a system to capture and, most importantly, disseminate effective practices in raising student achievement amongst the Oakland community.

Crafting plans that improve upon the weaknesses of past Oakland TIF proposals requires a great deal of discussion, forethought, and the essential input and buy-in of the greater Oakland community, especially its teachers and principals. Great Oakland Public Schools' Funding and Resource Roundtable, featuring Don Shalvey, Senior Program Officer of Education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former CEO of Aspire Public Schools, on Wednesday, December 2 from 6-8PM at Elmhurst Community Prep provides just this opportunity. In addition to the Teacher Incentive Fund, other federal funding opportunities, as well as a local parcel tax, will be addressed. Click here to RSVP today!

As a result of hard work and ingenuity on the part of Oakland's students, educators, families, and community members, the Oakland Unified School District has been the most improved large urban district in the state of California over the last 5 years.

Many of Oakland's charter schools are also among the most successful schools in the state, compared to schools serving similar populations. Innovative policies ranging from the creation of small schools to Results-Based Budgeting to School Portfolio Management, and the creation of the District's Charter School Office--symbolizing oversight, cooperation, and collaboration between the district and its charter schools--have played a significant role in these student achievement gains. Despite our tough financial times, we must continue improving student achievement and innovating to support that improvement in Oakland!

Fortunately, resources are available to do just that. As mentioned in What the Stimulus Package Means for Oakland, multiple opportunities through the Federal Government's Stimulus Package are available for our community. One of the most salient opportunities to Oakland, as a result of its success and its track record of innovation, is the $650 million Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). Broadly speaking, the purpose of i3 is to expand the implementation of and investment in innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on:

• Improving achievement or growth for high-needs students;
• Promoting school readiness, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, and improving teacher and school leader effectiveness.

As opposed to the Race to the Top Fund, which permits only states to apply directly for the fund and then dole the money out to districts and charter organizations, eligible applicants for the i3 competitive grant process include:

• School districts;
• Charter management organizations; and
• Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more district or charter organization or (b) a group of schools.

The main goals, according to the proposed priorities (note that final regulations are expected to come out in late winter/early spring of 2010), mirror those of Race to the Top as the Department of Education will require proposals that contain practices, strategies, or programs that address one or more of the following areas:

• Increasing the number or percentages of highly effective teachers and school leaders, especially for high-needs students;
• Encouraging and facilitating the evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth data to inform decision-making;
• Implementing high-quality standards and high-quality assessments that complement states' efforts to transition to college- and career-readiness standards and assessments;
• Turning around persistently low-performing schools through either whole-school reform or targeted approaches to reform.

Under the proposed priorities, grants would be awarded in three different categories, based on the strength of the evidence regarding a program's or policy's effectiveness and both its previous and possible breadth of impact:

• Scale-up Grants of up to $50 million: The largest possible grant category is focused on programs and practices with the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of students. Applicants must have a strong base of evidence that their program has had a significant effect on improving student achievement.
• Validation Grants of up to $30 million: Existing, promising programs that have solid evidence of their impact and are ready to improve their evidence base while expanding in their own and other communities.
• Development Grants of up to $5 million: The smallest grant level designed to support new and high-potential practices whose impact should be studied further.

What are the effective practices, policies, or strategies that the district, charters, and partnering nonprofits in Oakland are implementing that fit the priorities of the Investing in Innovation fund? We will explore this question at GO Public School's next Speaker Series on Wednesday, December 2 at Elmhurst Community Prep from 6 to 8pm--the Funding and Resource Roundtable . Topics will include not only Investing in Innovation, but also other opportunities available through the Federal Government as well as a local parcel tax, a measure that could potentially increase compensation for Oakland's educators. RSVP for this special event today!

The College and Career Readiness Issue Group has been making significant strides throughout the months of October and November. Following are some group updates:

• Mr. Oscar Wright has accepted the role of Honorary Chair of the College and Career Readiness Issue Group. Mr. Wright sued OUSD in 1993 for discrimination regarding tracking of students based on race, grossly disproportionate suspensions of African-American students, and inequitable distribution of resources. The United States Office of Civil Rights agreed with Mr. Wright's case and worked with OUSD to adopt the 1998 Voluntary Resolution which set goals to remedy the discrimination outlined in the suit.
• The group will be meeting with Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith on Thursday, November 12 to discuss the district's plan for ensuring that all students are A-G ready by 2015, and to propose a timeline and report format for progress reports to the community - including an update on progress since 1998 in the areas identified in the Voluntary Resolution.
• Issue group co-chairs Debbra Lindo and Brian McKibben have been invited to participate in Jeannie Johnson's College and Career Readiness Planning Council meetings. Ms. Johnson, Director of College and Career Readiness in OUSD, presented a Multiple Pathways overview to the Board in Spring 2009. Deb and Brian will be attending meetings with her group on November 19 and December 8, to start, and will report back on the content and progress.

If you are interested in getting involved with the College and Career Readiness Issue Group, please click here.

The GO Public Schools Budget and Portfolio Management issue group will be attending the October 14 board meeting to better understand the OUSD strategy for authentically engaging the community around budget cuts and school portfolio decisions. We understand that there has been a lot of recent discussion about the budget and school portfolio decisions at the senior leadership level and our issue group has learned the following:

 * OUSD must cut a minimum of $25 million for 2010-11.

* The superintendent has verbalized a commitment to making the majority of cuts in a way that has the least negative impact on children and schools.

* Budgeting decisions must be made by January to ensure schools and central departments can start planning for the upcoming year and any necessary staffing cuts are done according to labor-negotiated timelines.

* Closing schools does not save significant monies, especially given the new investments needed for the students and families displaced by the closure.

* However, "tiny" schools are still considered a budget issue because they require central investment to sustain.

* Central office job cuts and furloughs have been mentioned at district budget meetings.

* Increasing K-3 class sizes from 20:1 to 24:1 has been mentioned at principal meetings.

* The Board of Education will convene community outreach meetings from November through December around the 2010-2011 budget cuts.

* The "focus" schools will be presented at the October 14 (tomorrow) board meeting. Click here to download the presentation.

* Community engagement around the focus schools will take place between now and early December.  On December 16, the Board is expected to vote on any school transitions.

 The GO Public School Budget and Portfolio Management issue group feels positively about the superintendent's statements about keeping the cuts away from schools, and we have not seen evidence of financial benefit from closing schools. We are concerned, however, with the very brief timeline for community engagement around both the budget and the focus school process. It is not clear that OUSD has allowed adequate time to help the public build enough understanding of the budget and the focus schools challenges to authentically engage in problem-solving in this short window.  Many of us participated in the engagements held last fall around the budget cuts and the engagements held in the spring around the focus schools and did not believe the community was adequately engaged. We also acknowledge that our community must make difficult decisions by January and want to support a process that includes stakeholders, is transparent, and ensures that we are best using our scarce resources to continue gains in student learning.

 We have other requests and questions as well and will be asking both the Board and the superintendent the following:

 1. GO Public Schools requested and received a copy of the 2008-2009 central office budget, and an issue group comprised of principals, teachers, parents, and community leaders recommended $17 million cuts for 2009-2010. We are again requesting a copy of the 2009-2010 central office budgets and would like another opportunity to propose possible central office cuts to keep the cuts as far from the schools as possible.  We would also like to understand how OUSD leadership is evaluating central office investments, and we would like to see the evaluation of these investments.

 2. We understand that one of the options being discussed is a district-wide 24:1 K-3 student-teacher ratio. We wonder why sites wouldn't determine how they want to make those cuts if cuts have to happen at sites. We have heard that a significant class size increase could address the entire cut. Wouldn't that scenario put the entire burden of the cuts on children and schools?

 3. We have heard discussion about 24:1 class sizes and employee furloughs. We are sure other proposals are being considered. The community should be presented all the scenarios being considered with a cost-benefit analysis of these scenarios so we can understand and give input thoughtfully. Please advise us the best place to access information about scenarios under consideration.

 4. We want to support OUSD to think more about generating revenue. What is OUSD's plan to access Innovation, Race to the Top, and Turnaround funds?

 5. We have heard OUSD leaders express concern about the financial toll of "tiny" schools. We would like clarification on what data and criteria are being used to determine that a school is "tiny."

 6. We have seen the presentation on "focus" schools. Numerous criteria are presented, but none are weighted or fully defined. Actual evidence for each school is not presented, simply a list of variables that were considered. How one school becomes a "focus" school and another does not is unclear. Why in one area are all the high schools identified as focus schools and in another region only one high school? How will we create "regional" solutions while engaging only one or two school communities in a region?

 7. We would like to request a copy of the most updated tiering information to see how the tiering aligns with the focus schools? The connection between tiering and becoming a "focus" school is unclear. Why would yellow schools be focus schools? Why would a school that is red not be a focus school?

 8. What are the possible outcomes for focus schools? Is closure the only option?  If yes, and if closing schools may or may not save money, what would be the purpose of closing these schools? Also, if schools are being closed, what thoughtful process will be used to do this? All school closures are mergers, and we recently received a substantial report from a study the Board commissioned from Linda Darling-Hammond at Stanford University. This report clearly recommended that we be thoughtful about how we merge schools and be wary of the hidden costs of closing schools. Again, GO Public Schools has not seen compelling evidence that closing schools will actually save us money.

 GO Public Schools asks for transparency and engagement around the budget and school portfolio management process. We have energy and creative ideas to offer OUSD in this difficult budget time, and we want to help sustain and accelerate the gains that our children have been making.  

We can make significant contributions to this work, and offer our time, energy, and thought partnership to OUSD.

OUSD is considering placing a parcel tax measure on the ballot in June 2010 with the primary purpose of improving teacher effectiveness and increasing teacher compensation. GO Public Schools has been one of the community stakeholder members of a Citywide Parcel Tax Planning Committee working to develop a consensus approach. A key issue is whether charter schools and their teachers should be allocated any of the parcel tax funds. We'd like to know what OUSD teachers and community members think about this issue.

Click here to take our one minute survey!

Please spread the word to other teachers and community members that a parcel tax in June could be an important opportunity to support our Oakland teachers.

Last month's Widget Effect event, attended by over 75 Oakland education stakeholders, resulted in many ideas and recommendations around what Oakland can do to ensure that quality teachers are not only recruited and retained in our city's classrooms, but also fairly and effectively evaluated and professionally developed.

GO Public Schools will continue discussing the implications of the Widget Effect for Oakland public schools at our meeting this Thursday, 10/8 from 5:30-7:30pm at Coliseum College Preparatory Academy. Please RSVP and join us.

As promised, here are participants' recommendations from last month:

13 participants recommended that teacher evaluation/performance data should support and inform teacher development and identify and celebrate success/exemplars.

8 participants recommended that teachers/we need clearly defined expectations for performance/good teaching.

5 participants recommended that principals need training to effectively evaluate teachers.

5 participants recommended that the evaluation protocol needs to be clear and transparent to all - and followed.

3 participants recommended that multiple evaluators are needed in the teacher evaluation process.

3 participants recommended that evaluation should support the career ladder, and more experienced teachers.

2 participants recommended that we look at existing evaluation models in other places.

Below are some of the take-aways, in participants' own words:

• An infrastructure problem exists: administrators and district personnel are not properly trained to provide effective evaluations, and therefore are not giving good feedback.
• Oakland is a little further along in evaluating teachers effectively than the other districts represented in the study.
• Hypocrisy: we evaluate (test) students to see how they are doing but do not test the adults who teach them!
• Teachers want to be recognized, yet we do so little to identify what good teachers do well.
• Those who are doing well are not recognized, nor do we have systems to replicate best practices.
• Evaluation should be used to provide support for teachers (meaningful, targeted, and appropriate professional development), not as a punitive measure.
• It seems incredibly complex to create a fair/equitable system that compensates effective teachers.
• We don't have a systematic way to retain excellent teachers.
• Evaluations as they are can lead to complacency.

Many questions were surfaced during small group discussions as well:

• What are meaningful ways to recognize teachers?
• What does an effective evaluation system look like?
• How do we identify factors other than student growth?
• How do we mentor/counsel people in all stages of their career?
• What are the characteristics of an effective teacher?
• How can we use evaluations to keep effective teachers in and ineffective teachers out of the classroom?
• How can we monitor abuses in the evaluation process and not have a stigma attached to low evaluation?
• How do we develop a quality evaluation when teachers and principals are over worked and under resourced?
• Who is doing teacher professional development and evaluations well nationally?
• Is there a role for third parties in evaluation? Is there any room for student/parent feedback in evaluation?

We will continue the discussion about the implications of the Widget Effect for Oakland public schools at our GO General Meeting this Thursday, 10/8 from 5:30-7:30pm at Coliseum College Preparatory Academy. Please RSVP and join us.

GO Public Schools hosted its inaugural Speaker Series event yesterday evening, featuring Tim Daly, CEO of The New Teacher Project. Mr. Daly presented findings from the recent TNTP study, The Widget Effect, regarding teacher evaluation and effectiveness. The study has the support of Democratic education leaders like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Congressman George Miller. In addition, the Presidents of both the major national teachers unions (the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers) have offered words of support for The Widget Effect which includes responses from more than 15,000 teachers and 1,300 administrators in 12 school districts in four states.

Tim Daly, CEO, The New Teacher Project

Over 75 people, including Oakland teachers, parents, principals, nonprofit leaders, and interested community members attended the event. In addition to learning more about the Widget Effect, the purpose of the event was to begin to build a constituency here in Oakland that considers its implications for Oakland public schools. Attendees engaged in small group discussions to process key learnings and take-aways, and to surface outstanding questions.

Table Breakout Discussion

Four guiding recommendations were proposed for Oakland:

FOCUS - To make real changes to the OUSD teacher continuum, we need to create a dialogue and a working group that crosses traditional district departments and the existing silos across all of the individuals and projects that currently affect teachers. We need a unified vision across human resources, school management teams, instructional support, operations, and other departments.  This work cannot be accomplished piece-meal. We need to align resources and efforts around these changes.

GOALS - We should have goals that are clear and bold enough that they define true change across the individuals and departments that affect teachers. Our goals should result in a dramatic shift in the way we think about and use teacher evaluations and the way evaluations help us differentiate our approach to individual teachers.

TIMELINE - There is a tremendous sense of urgency in this work and many opportunities to make meaningful change quickly by addressing current practices that undermine the professionalization of our teaching force. We need concrete benchmarks for what we can accomplish in the next 12 months, and in the next 24 months in Oakland.

TRANSPARENCY - For true change to be successful and well-coordinated across all areas of the district, we need transparency around what we are trying to do, how it is being done, and the results tied to the timeline and goals.

Additional participant recommendations will be posted here shortly. Please check back soon!