ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Times indicated are estimates and may change at the Board's discretion.

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

AGENDA: VOL. XXIX, NO. 11

OPEN SESSION: Regular Board Meeting: April 14, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.

MEETING LOCATION: 313 W. Winton Avenue

Hayward, CA 94544 510-887-0152 www.acoe.org

CALL TO ORDER: Time: p.m. ROLL CALL: President McWilson Vice-President Knowles _____ Trustee Berrick Trustee Rivera _____ Trustee McDonald _____ Trustee Sims Trustee Cerrato _____

Any member of the public may comment on agenda items, as each item is presented. Individuals wishing to address

the Board need to complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the meeting room and provide it to the recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers are asked to limit their comments to two minutes each, and the

Board President may limit the amount of discussion time for any one agenda item.

SALUTE TO THE FLAG:

Pledge of Allegiance

MISSION STATEMENT:

Provide, promote and support leadership and service to ensure the success of Every Child…in Every School… Every Day!

RECORDING STATEMENT: This meeting is being recorded and/or broadcasted at the direction of the Board.

1. Civic Learning Presentation

A. Hon. Justice Henry Needham will present to the Board the Civic Learning Initiative overview.

B. Board will consider approval of Resolution No. 1987: Civic Learning. (Att. 1)

MOTION: SECOND:

AYES: NOES: ABST:

INFORMATION/ ACTION

2. Consent Agenda – General Matters: A. Minutes of March 10,

2015 Board Meeting

A. Board will consider approval of the Minutes

from the March 10, 2015 Regular Board Meeting. (Att. 2)

ACTION

http://www.acoe.org/

ACBE Regular Meeting Agenda April 14, 2015

ITEM

DESCRIPTION SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION


B. Temporary County Certificates

C. Resolution No. 1988 – Child Abuse Prevention Month (April)

D. Student Programs and Services (SPaS) Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure Quarterly Report

E. Resolution No. 1989 – Earth Day (April 22, 2015)

B. Board will take action regarding approving issuance of Temporary County Certificates. (Att. 3)

C. Board will consider approval of the Child Abuse Prevention Month resolution. (Att. 4)

D. Board will consider approval of Student Programs and Services (SPaS) Williams Uniform Complaint Procedure Quarterly Report for the period of January 2015 – March 2015. (Att. 5)

E. Board will consider approval of the Earth Day resolution. (Att. 6)

MOTION: SECOND:

AYES: NOES: ABST:

3. Personnel Actions

Personnel update and employment related actions from the preceding months will be presented to the Board. (Att. 7)

INFORMATION

4. Personnel Commission Appointment The Board will consider taking action to fill the

seat of former Personnel Commissioner Marsha Lang Collins thru December 31, 2015. The nominees are as follows: (Att. 8) A. Jerome Wiggins

B. Cindy Ornellas

MOTION: SECOND:

AYES: NOES: ABST:

INFORMATION/ ACTION

5. Public Comments [as close to 7:15 p.m. as possible]

Only on items not listed on the agenda. This part of the meeting provides an opportunity for the public to address the Board of Education on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Comments are welcome; however, the Board is prohibited by law from having a discussion with the speaker(s) during this segment of the meeting. Board members may respond briefly, refer an item to staff, or ask clarifying questions. Individuals wishing to address the Board need to complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the meeting room and provide it to the recording secretary prior to the start of the meeting. Speakers are asked to limit their comments to two minutes each, and the Board President may limit the amount of comment and discussion time.

INFORMATION

ACBE Regular Meeting Agenda April 14, 2015

ITEM

DESCRIPTION SUPERINTENDENT'S RECOMMENDATION


6. Determination Hearing—FAME Charter Schools Renewal Petition

A. The Board will receive an Evaluation Summary Report from ACOE Charter School Review Team regarding their evaluation and recommendation. (Att. 9)

B. The Board will take action to either Approve or Deny the renewal petition of FAME Charter Schools.

MOTION: SECOND:

AYES: NOES: ABST:

INFORMATION/ ACTION

7. Resolutions for Missed Board Meetings

Board will consider approval of Resolution No. 1990 for Board meeting absence of the following Board member:

− Aisha Knowles: March 10, 2015(Att. 10) MOTION: SECOND:

AYES: NOES: ABST:

INFORMATION/ ACTION

8. Print Shop Surplus Equipment

Board will review list of waste from the former print shop for disposal. (Att. 11)

INFORMATION

9. Items from the Board Board members will discuss the status of their activities and possible topics of interest to the Board and the general public.

INFORMATION

10. President’s Report The President will discuss the status of his activities and possible topics of interest to the Board and the general public.

INFORMATION

11. Items from the Secretary The Superintendent, as the Secretary to the Board, will present topics of interest to the Board and the general public. Education Services Division Report

(Att. 12) CCSBA/ ACSBA April 16th Meeting ACOE Annual Job Fair April 22nd

INFORMATION

12. Adjournment Adjourn the meeting (Time: ____ p.m.) Visit www.acoe.org/board to view live webcasts of regular Board Meetings.

Next Meeting: Regular Meeting

May 12, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.

All materials related to an item on this Agenda distributed to the Board of Education within 24 hours of the meeting are available for public inspection at the front desk of the Alameda County Office of Education at 313 W. Winton Avenue, Hayward, California at the time they are distributed. For inquiries, please contact the Superintendent’s Office at 510-670-4145.

http://www.acoe.org/board

LKM/kk

Item No: 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Civic Learning Presentation Background: Hon. Justice Henry Needham, First District Court of Appeal, Division Five, has played a key leadership role in revitalizing civic engagement in Alameda County. On March 13, Superintendent L. Karen Monroe joined his efforts and helped launch the countywide initiative called the Power of Democracy to revive civic learning in public schools and ensure that all students are college, career, and community ready. Action Requested: Consider approval of resolution No. 1987: Civic Learning Partnership Attachments: Res. No. 1987

Alameda County Board of Education and

Alameda County Superintendent of Schools

Resolution No. 1987

Civic Learning Partnerships

WHEREAS, It is the goal of Alameda County Office of Education to support all students for college, career and civic life; and WHEREAS, Schools are a critical place for students to develop the civic knowledge, skills and values needed to effectively participate in our democracy, and research demonstrates that six core activities known as the Six Proven Practices in Civic Learning – classroom instruction in government, history, law and democracy; discussion of current events; service-learning; extra-curricular or co-curricular activities; student voice in school governance; and simulations of democratic processes – directly improve the quality and effectiveness of civic learning in schools; and WHEREAS, In the wake of civil unrest in communities such as Ferguson, MO, Charleston, SO and our own Oakland, CA, the success of our Nation, State, and County depends on educated, informed and engaged citizens and residents, and California currently ranks 38th of 50 states in civic engagement; WHEREAS, The education system has a major role in ensuring students have equitable access to learning to participate in our democracy; and WHEREAS, Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) recognizes the necessity of investing in the reduction and ultimate removal of inequitable outcomes by making resources available to revitalize civic learning opportunities in an equitable manner to meet these goals; and WHEREAS, We have much to gain by engaging in civic learning, in addition to the chief benefits of a vibrant and informed civic life and democracy, high quality civic learning also helps teach children the skills they need for the 21st century workplace, such as critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, initiative, and innovation; and WHEREAS, Civic learning can improve school climate and safety, lower a schools’ dropout rate and promote academic achievement, including in Common Core State Standards; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Alameda County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools will lead by example on what good participatory citizenship looks like by actively reaching out to our constituents, including students; carefully considering the needs and wishes of parents and students; thoroughly deliberating issues that come before us, working collaboratively, and appropriately to bridge the divide between classroom instruction, student empowerment, and community life.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABST: ABSENT: __________________________________ __________________________________ Marlon McWilson, President L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools Alameda County Board of Education Alameda County Office of Education

LKM/ kk

Item No: 2A Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Minutes of March 10, 2015 Board Meeting Background: The Board will receive and consider approval of minutes of the March 10, 2015 Board meeting. Action Requested: Review and approve minutes of the March 10, 2015 Board meeting. Attachments: Minutes of the March 10, 2015 Board meeting

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Meeting Location: Alameda County Office of Education 313 W Winton Avenue, Hayward, CA 94544

Unadopted Minutes of the Board Meeting of March 10, 2015

Vol. XXIX No. 10

Presiding President McWilson opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Flag Salute Led by Trustee Berrick Mission Statement Read into the record by Trustee Berrick

Provide, promote and support leadership and service to ensure the success of Every Child…in Every School… Every Day!

Recording Statement: Read into the record by Pres. McWilson. This meeting is being recorded and/or broadcasted at the direction of the Board.

Item #2: Report from President on Board decisions made in closed session

Pres. McWilson reported that there were no actions taken during closed session.

Roll Call Conducted by Supt. L. Karen Monroe Trustees Present: Joaquin Rivera, Marlon McWilson, Fred Sims, and Eileen McDonald, Yvonne Cerrato Absent: Aisha Knowles Supt. Monroe also introduced new ACOE staff: Monica Vaughan, Chief of Schools, and Dan Bellino, Professional Expert – Sr. Staff Aide. She announced that there was an offer made to Michele Huntoon to fill the Chief Business Officer, Associate Superintendent, Business Services position.

Item #3: Arts Learning Presentation

Supt. Monroe introduced Ray Cagan, Arts Learning Coordinator. Highlights from Mr. Cagan’s presentation are as follows:

− This is the 15th Art IS Ed month − Inspiring Creative Communities theme − Showcased flyers, posters, and handouts related to Art is Ed month − Encouraged parental involvement − Commented on Integrated Learning Specialist (ILSP) professional

development • Trustee Cerrato commented that she completed the ILSP program and

how it fits in with Common Core and how art crosses all culture and glad that ACOE is leading the way.

• Trustee Cerrato moved to approve Res. No. 1985. • Trustee McDonald seconded. Resolution unanimously approved (6-0).

Item #5: Consent Agenda – General Matters: A. Minutes of February

10, 2015 Board Meeting

B. Temporary County Certificates

Trustee Rivera moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Trustee Cerrato seconded. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Adopted Minutes of the A.C.O.E. Board Meeting 3/10/15 Page 2 of 5 C. Resolution No. 1986 –

Women’s History Month (March)

D. Court School Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA)

Item #6: Personnel Actions

None.

Item #7: Policy and Legislation Committee Report

− BP 4222 Teacher Aides/ Paraprofessionals

• Trustee Rivera introduced the item and stated that the Committee recommended approval.

• Trustee Rivera moved to waive second reading and approve BP 4222 on the first reading.

• Trustee Berrick seconded. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Item #8: Education for Change - Cox Academy Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

• Trustee Rivera commented that Committee recommended approval of the MOU.

• Trustee Berrick moved approval. • Trustee McDonald seconded. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Item #4: Public Comments

None.

Item #9: FAME Charter Schools Renewal – Public Hearing

• Trustee Rivera moved to open the hearing. • Trustee McDonald seconded. • Supt. Monroe introduced the item. • Pres. McWilson allowed FAME to present 10 min.

− Naeem Malik, CEO of FAME Charter Schools − Neil McChessney – Provided a prezi of FAME’s background and

academic achievements and prospects for the future. Highlights detailed below: Mission statement and goals for next renewal period 5 members on current board and hope to gain two more Plans to form a ELT – Ed. Leadership Team (CEO, Principals

of all sites, Lead teachers, and other staff as necessary) Has met Ed. Code 47607 requirements

Pres. McWilson opened the floor for Board questions/ comments • None. Board allowed public comments for 1 min each:

− JoHanna McCormack, FAME Kearney Principal (support) − Chad McCain, FAME Kearney ELA Teacher (support) − Faisal Ahemed, FAME Kearney parent (support) − Heratib Mehmood, FAME Kearney student (support) − Dr. Cervante, FAME San Leandro Director (support) − Ryan Johnson, FAME San Leandro Teacher (support) − Rachel Uthman, FAME Leslie Campus Principal (support) − Christopher Tang, FAME Leslie Campus Teacher (support) − Laura Mercer, FAME Independent Study (I.S.) Principal (support) − Justine Kwikel, FAME I.S. Transition Coordinator (support) − Seima Herroon, FAME parent (support) − Erum Siddiqui, I.S. Former FAME student − Nahil Irieqat, FAME Arabic Teacher (support) − Nawal Laymoun, FAME Dual Immersion Program (support) − Sean McGan, CFO clean audits and 8% fund balance (support) − Lori Nardone, FAME Academic Counselor

Adopted Minutes of the A.C.O.E. Board Meeting 3/10/15 Page 3 of 5 − Tagreed Badwai − Faisal Ahmed, FAME Math Teacher (support) − ELD Specialist Luis Guitierrez (support) − Aaliyah Gaphoor, FAME Parent Leader (support) − Student comments of why they like FAME: Amal Obad, AJ,

Marwan, Uness, Edgar, Saga, Max, Fareedah Bashiel − Denny Fisher Sullivan, Behaviorist (support) − Sumbul Rehman, FAME Parent − M. Yasin Nagori (support) − Buthiendah Taha (support) − Leena Rehman, FAME student − Guillermo Nava, FAME student − Vidy Sudarsan, FAME special needs student parent − Claudia Delacruz, FAME parent − Pas. Sandra (support) − Geety Waziri, FAME Parent − Will Pease, FAME Kearney PE Teacher − Supt. Jim Morris FUSD data performance (against) − Rebecca Patterson, FAME I.S. Parent and Board member − Lillian Roncari, Dual Immersion parent − Ariana, FAME student − Jemal Saeed − Dr. Robert Chisolm (donated 49 sec to Maram Alaiwat) (against) − Maram Alaiwat spoke 1 min 49 sec about FAME governance

practices and litigation (fraud, oppression, and malice) (against) • Trustee Rivera moved to close the public hearing. • Trustee McDonald seconded. • Hearing closed.

Item # 10: Personnel Commission Appointment – Public Hearing

• Trustee Sims moved to open the public hearing. • Trustee Cerrato seconded. • Supt. Monroe introduced the item. • Pres. McWilson allowed each nominee 5 min to speak:

− Cindy Ornellas − Jerome Wiggins

Pres. McWilson opened the floor for questions/ comments by the Board: • Trustee McDonald asked Ms. Ornellas why she was not re-appointed?

− Pres. McWilson responded that CSEA decided not to re-appoint and appointed V. Toni Adams.

• Trustee McDonald asked: will there be a conflict with Mr. Wiggins’ role on ACSBA?

• Trustee Cerrato asked: are any of you CSEA? − Mr. Wiggins is a federal employee (no) − Ms. Ornellas is a district CSEA member

• Pres. McWilson asked about the tension of not being reappointed and how that would work if appointed by the Board − Response: seasoned Commissioner who respects the process and

know the role is to uphold the merit system not be a mouthpiece of the appointing body

• Pres. McWilson asked Mr. Wiggins: as a former Board member what value would that bring to your role as the Commissioner? − Response: Role is to best represent the policy of the Board.

• Trustee Rivera asked candidates how they would juggle meeting attendance.

Adopted Minutes of the A.C.O.E. Board Meeting 3/10/15 Page 4 of 5 − Response: Ms. Ornellas will use her lunch hour plus personal time

(in close proximity at San Lorenzo USD). − Response: Mr. Wiggins says he has plenty of personal time

(meetings are only once a month) • Trustee Rivera asked Mr.Wiggins what his experience was with merit

system and why he wanted to serve on the Commission. • Pres. McWilson expressed concerns that Ms. Ornellas is a CSEA

employee and a former CSEA appointee and how that could possibly skew the Commission Board and also his concern that she sought the nomination out.

• Trustee Rivera asked Ms. Ornellas to respond to Pres. McWilson’s comments. − Ms. Ornellas stated she took stance based on merit system rules and

regulations and was not a CSEA rubber stamp. • Trustee Sims asked Mr. Wiggins about his strong points pertaining to

leadership. • Pres. McWilson allowed 30 sec for summary by each nominee. • Trustee Berrick thanked both candidates. Public Comments allowed for 2 min • Juanita Parker, Job Steward CSEA, felt that Ms. Ornellas’ possible

appointment is ethically wrong. • Trustee Berrick moved to close. • Trustee Cerrato seconded. • Hearing closed. Pres. McWilson stated deliberation and vote will be conducted at next meeting (April 14, 2015).

RECESS Board took a break at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.

Item #11: Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) Second Interim Report – FY 2014/2015

• Supt. Monroe introduced staff Jeff Potter, Executive Director District Business & Advisory Services, acting Chief Business Officer and Leigh Ann Blessing, Executive Director, Internal Business Services.

• Mr. Potter acknowledged staff effort DeKarlos Kaigler, Director III, Fiscal Services and Ms. Blessing.

• Ms. Blessing presented and noted the significant changes and declining ADA in SPaS resulting in $1.2 million reduction in LCFF funding and she anticipates closing the fiscal year at a deficit which is estimated much more conservatively than the presumed actuals.

Board Comments/ Questions • Trustee Berrick asked about decreases in personnel cost in line with ADA

drop. • Trustee Rivera asked about our current ADA. Response: 517 • Trustee Rivera asked about what adjustments we are considering.

− Response: Increase ADA in community schools and other • Trustee Rivera expressed awareness of the size of our budget being small

relative to our size. − Supt. Monroe responded that we are looking for new revenue

services and how other districts have large ROP programs and Special Ed programs.

• Trustee Cerrato moved approval and thanked staff for the way they handled themselves in the absence of CBO.

• Trustee Rivera seconded. Unanimously approved (6-0).

Item #12: Items from the Board

• Trustee Sims attended fundraiser for Assemblymember Sandre Swanson Youth Foundation. He exited the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

• Trustee Cerrato finished ISLP program on Saturday and wrote a unit on

Adopted Minutes of the A.C.O.E. Board Meeting 3/10/15 Page 5 of 5

parent advocacy. • Trustee Berrick attended and invited the Board to attend an exhibit for loss

childhood that offered a reflective experience of foster youth. • Trustee Rivera attended the CSBA Policy Platform Committee meeting,

CCBE Planning Committee (Annual Conference Sept 11-13 in Monterey), and attended CCBE Governance Workshop with Supt. Monroe and Dan Bellino.

• Trustee McDonald is on the Parks and Historical Commission and is working with Board of Supervisors to have an Alameda Co. Day to commemorate the 1915 opening of the Panama Canal. She is also working with Supt. Monroe regarding Newark issues on Community Day School.

Item #13: President’s Report

Pres. McWilson stated he is in discussion for one June SPaS graduation. He invited ACOE Employees to participate in Oakland Run Festival. Pres. McWilson is planning Board photos to be taken next month and arranging Board school sites tour.

Item #14: Items from the Secretary

In response to Trustee McDonald’s comment Supt. Monroe stated that her Grandma attended first World Fair in San Francisco. Supt. Monroe attended JJC Graduation on Feb. 20; Principal for the Day in Livermore; and announced the Civic Engagement Breakfast on Friday March 13th.

Adjournment Pres. McWilson adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.

__________________________________ Marlon McWilson, Board President

__________________________________ L. Karen Monroe, Board Secretary

MS/ kk

Item No: 2B Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: Movetia Salter, Chief Human Resources Officer RE: Temporary County Certificates Background: Education codes 44332 and 4432.5 authorize the issuance of Temporary County Certificates and the payment of warrants to individuals who hold a TCC. This section was revised as a result of SB 148 (Bergeson) and again with AB 1139 (Woodruff) in 1991. The employer must make sure to the best of their ability that the individual meets the academic requirements for the permit prior to placing them in a position and submitting the application to the Commission. The County may issue a TCC, which allows the individual to serve in their school for up to a year while the application is being processed by the CTC. Action Requested: The Board will take action regarding approving the issuance of the Temporary County Certificates. Attachments: Temporary County Certificates issued YTD Temporary County Certificates issued March, 2015.

Alameda County

Temporary County Certificates March, 2015

Last, First District Credential Type code

Williams, Aaron ALA Physics spec. C

Servello, Kathleen ALA English GELAP E

Kenney, Diana ALA English GELAP E

Higashi, Todd ALA ITE GELAP E

Wasteney, Dorothy ALA Librarian WV

Downs, Jessica ALA M/S SELAP E

Murphy, Joanne ALA Admin. P

Rubio, Joanne ALB CLAD E

King, Alyson BERK Mult Subj. ST

Ordonez, Javier BERK Spec. Bio. C

Owens, Destiny BERK English IN

Conrad, Amy CV Health Sci. GELAP E

Dube, Michelle CV Bio Sci GELAP E

Alkire, Melanie CV English GELAP E

Swartz, Thomas CV English GELAP E

Vallejo, Peter CV Health GELAP E

Day, Heather DUB ECSE STSP ST

Cichowski, Tammi DUB PPS C

Harvey, Elizabeth DUB CLAD C

Damario-Labbe, Sarah DUB CLAD C

DeMelo, Christina DUB Mult Subj. w/EL P

Fichter, Carrie DUB Science upgrade to clear C

Walker, Julius EMRY Mult Subj. P

Arroyo, Christina FRE Admin. P

Miles, Heather FRE Biology STSP ST

Tam, Kathy FRE FLGS E

Standfield, Joanna HAY Health Sci. GELAP E

Snyder, Yllyssa HAY SA: Eng;Art;Soc. Sci. C

VanSteenberg, Vicki HAY M/M SELAP E

Kopel, Alexander HAY ITE GELAP E

Smith, Jennifer HAY ITE GELAP E

Harrison, John HAY CLAD E

Sheng, Mingxia HAY ECSE P

Martin, Teresa HAY Library Waiver WV

Smith, Terry HAY PE E

Gonzalez, Tirso HAY Art P

Yates, Celine LIV M/M ST

Psaros, Heather LIV M/S C

Wilson, Elizabeth LIV FLGS ST

Davis, Dedra NH Music STSP ST

Borton, Lisa NH CLAD E

Agregado, Kenyetta NH Admin. P

Moukhoy, Koulee NPS Biology STSP ST

Hunter, Kendsie NPS Bio Sci. P

Connors, Kimberly NPS CCSD WV

Helfrich, Kathryn NPS CCSD WV

Meyer, Christopher NPS CCSD WV

Morgan, Jodi NPS CCSD WV

Olsen, Solana NPS CCSD WV

Ramirez, Maria NPS CCSD WV

Randall, Skot NPS CCSD WV

Rigl, Cathy NPS CCSD WV

Wei, Shen NPS BCLAD Mand C

Alexander, Jessica NPS Mult Subj. P

Alameda County

Temporary County Certificates March, 2015

Wendt, Karl NPS Mult Subj. STSP ST

Fox, Joel NPS Mult Subj. GELAP E

Arechiga, Arturo NPS Mult Subj. ST

Perry, Danielle NPS Mult Subj. w/EL P

Zhao, Zhiyi NPS Mandarin P

Galli, Mitchell OAK Music P

Bui, Vi OAK Bio Sci. C

Clendenen, Marsha OAK Art GELAP E

Tahai, Nima OAK Mult Subj. C

Cooper, Brian OAK Admin. P

Johnson, Zachary OAK FLGS GELAP E

Harris, Gary OAK M/M STSP ST

Blackmon, Jennifer OAK M/M PIP PI

Udell, James OAK M/M STSP ST

Brown, Lauren OAK Mult Subj. ST

Diaz, Reyna OAK CLAD E

Wilson, Chynna OAK English w/EL C

Scott, Kennan OAK Math STSP ST

Sabry, Jamillah OAK SS STSP ST

Powell, Mary OAK Career Sub E

Khalifa, Natalia OAK Soc. Sci. C

Benson, Bonnie OAK Mult Subj. P

Ghazizadeh, Negin OAK M/S waiver WV

Dao, Toai OAK PE C

Williams, Adetola PIED Nurse P

Sandrew, Linsey PIED SLP: LSH C

Craig, James PLEA Soc. Sci. ST

Burak, Amber PLEA English SA C

Morales, Lorry SLZ M/M P

Jude, James SLZ Career Sub E

2014/2015 Alameda County

Temporary County Certificates

Through March, 2015

District Full Credential Intern

Prov.

Intern Short Term Emergency Waiver Child Dev CTE/Adult

Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD Mo. YTD

ACOE 1

Alameda 2 13 0 1 1 5 4 20 0 3

Albany 0 6 1 8

Berkeley 1 7 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1

Castro Valley 0 5 5 17 0 1 0 1

Dublin 5 17 1 3 0 15

Emery 1 2 0 1 0 1

Fremont 1 24 1 12 1 43

Hayward 3 27 0 1 0 2 6 41 1 5 0 2 0 2

Livermore 1 10 2 6 0 8

Mt. House

New Haven 1 11 1 1 1 14

Newark 0 6 0 8 0 5

Oakland 8 101 1 7 5 79 4 97 1 6 0 3

Piedmont 2 10 0 4 0 1

Pleasanton 1 25 1 4 0 13 0 1

San Leandro 0 8 0 1 0 7

San Lorenzo 1 19 0 1 0 1 1 31

Sunol Glen

Non Public/Charters 5 35 0 1 0 5 3 29 1 28 8 8 0 8 0 4

Totals 32 327 1 4 1 13 16 154 24 354 10 22 0 14 0 10

LKM/ kk

Item No: 2C Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Child Abuse Prevention Resolution No. 1988 Background: The prevalence of child abuse in our communities is heartbreaking. Sadly, each day many instances go unreported and countless children are subject to abuse and neglect. April was first declared Child Abuse Prevention Month by presidential proclamation in 1983. Since then, April has been a time to acknowledge the importance of families and communities working together to prevent child abuse. Action Requested: Request that the Board consider approval of Resolution No. 1988. Attachments: Resolution No. 1988



Resolution No. 1988

Declaring Support of the National Child Abuse Prevention Month

WHEREAS, Child abuse and neglect is an important societal concern that may affect the long-term health and well-being of children; and WHEREAS, The prevalence of child abuse in our communities is heartbreaking, with 35% of children in Alameda County enduring physical abuse and 30% some form of neglect, not including the many instances that go unreported; and WHEREAS, April was first declared Child Abuse Prevention Month by presidential proclamation in 1983. Since then, April has been a time to acknowledge the importance of families and communities working together to prevent child abuse; and WHEREAS, On September 29, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1432 (Chapter 797, Statutes of 2014) that went into effect January 1, 2015, and requires California school districts to annually train mandated reporters on their child abuse reporting obligations under the law; and WHEREAS, Safe, stable and nurturing relationships and communities can break the cycle of abuse and maltreatment; and WHEREAS, child abuse prevention requires a coordinated and comprehensive response by all systems supporting children, youth and families (e.g., schools, law enforcement, health systems, faith-based organizations, and community programs); and WHEREAS, Everyone has a stake in ensuring that children have access to the resources and supports they need to be safe, healthy and successful; and WHEREAS, Suspected child abuse or neglect must immediately be reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Board of Education and Alameda County Superintendent of Schools have identified child safety and family services to be a priority and recognize our responsibility as mandated reporters and encourage all educational communities to honor April as Child Abuse Prevention month by providing training to staff and appropriate instructional activities to students to prevent child abuse in Alameda County.


LKM/ kk

Item No: 2D Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: l. Karen Monroe, Superintendent RE: Williams Uniform Complaints Quarterly Report for January - March

2015 Background: The Valenzuela/CAHSEE Lawsuit Settlement has been added to the Williams Uniform Complaints quarterly report. As per Education Code 35186(d), districts are required to provide information on a quarterly basis for public reporting by the governing board that no complaints have been filed in regards to:

• textbooks and instructional materials • teacher vacancy or mis-assignments • facilities conditions • CAHSEE intensive instruction and services.

Action Requested: Publicly report at the board meeting and document in the board minutes that no complaints have been filed for schools operated by the Alameda County Office of Education in regards to the Williams Uniform Complaints for the period of January – March 2015. Attachments: Williams Uniform Complaints Quarterly Report for January – March 2015.

Al•mcda Count• Orner or Education .shc-il.tJ.Jf\bft, .. ~

Quarterly Report on Williams Uniform Complaints [Education Code § 35 186]

ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF3 EDUCATION

Person completing this form: MONICA VAUGHA

Quarterly Repott Submission Date: check one and include yeaJ~

0 D D D

CHIEF OF SCHOOLS

April July October January

(for Jan-Mar) (for Apr-J une) (for July-Sept) (for Oct-Dec)

Date for information to be reported publicly at governing board meeting: April 14, 2015

Please check the box that applies:

0 No complaints were filed with any school in the district during the quarter indicated above.

D Complaints were filed with schools in the district during the quatter indicated above. The following chart summarizes the nature and resolution of these complaints.

General Subject Area Total# of

#Resolved Complaints

Textbooks and 0 Instructional Materials

Teacher Vacancy or 0 Misassignment

Facilities Conditions 0 TOTALS 0

Signature of District Superintendent

1 Date

Please return completed form to Denise Warren, Administrative Asst.

District UCP Report

ACOE - 3 13 W. Winton Ave., Hayward, CA 94544-1136 FAX: (5 1 0) 670-3747 E-MAIL: [email protected]

ACOE

#Unresolved

12 03 12

kking

Rectangle

LKM/ kk

Item No: 2E Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Earth Day Resolution No. 1989 Background: Earth was launched in April of 1970. Subsequently, every year on April 22, over a billion people in 190 countries take action for Earth Day. From San Francisco to San Juan, Beijing to Brussels, Moscow to Marrakesh, people plant trees, clean up their communities, contact their elected officials, and more—all on behalf of the environment. Action Requested: Request that the Board consider approval of Resolution No. 1989. Attachments: Resolution No. 1989



Resolution No. 1989

Earth Day – April 22, 2015 WHEREAS, all living things, including humans, depend on a healthy environment; and

WHEREAS, Earth Day was established on April 22, 1970 by Senator Gaylord Nelson as environmental “teach-in” to raise awareness about environmental issues; and

WHEREAS, the environment faces many man-made challenges such as climate change, deforestation, over-consumption, and pollution; and

WHEREAS, environmental costs are frequently borne by the most vulnerable communities; and

WHEREAS, the Alameda County Office of Education supports high-quality, action-based, environmental education for all students through programs such as the Service-Learning Waste Reduction Project, the Leadership in Energy Efficiency Program, Project E.A.T. and others; and

WHEREAS, teachers connect real-world environmental issues with classroom lessons to inspire stewardship and leadership; and

WHEREAS, young people in schools throughout the county organize and participate in Earth Day events on their campuses and in their communities to engage and empower their peers and neighbors to make positive environmental choices;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alameda County Board of Education and Alameda County Superintendent of Schools recognize April 22, 2015 as Earth Day.


MS/ kk

Item No: 3 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: Movetia Salter, Chief Human Resources Officer RE: Personnel Actions Background: Employment related actions from the preceding month. CHRO Salter will give a Personnel update to the board. Action Requested: None requested. Information only. Attachments: Classified Actions

Alameda County Office of Education Human Resources Division

313 West Winton Avenue, Hayward, CA 94544-1198

Classified Personnel Actions

January 16, 2015 – February 15, 2015

Action Department Date Range/Step

Appointments:

Increased FTE –

Precious Owens Instructional Assistant, CS

Student Programs and Services

Retro 11/19/2014 Range 12 CSEA Step 5

Approved By: Personnel Commission

Approved Date: 03/19/2015

LKM/ kk

Item No: 4 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Personnel Commission Appointment Background: Appointments to the personnel Commission are for a period of three years. The governing board makes one appointment, the classified employees’ bargaining unit recommends one appointment and the third commissioner is determined by the other two appointees [Education Code § 45240-45320]. The Board appointed Commissioner, Marsha Lang-Collins, resigned as of December 31, 2014. An appointment needs to be made to fill the seat for the remainder of the term expiring December 31, 2015. A public hearing was held March 10, 2015. Action Requested: Board consider taking action to appoint a Personnel Commissioner. Attachments: Jerome Wiggins Application Packet Cindy Ornellas Application Packet

CYNTHIA A. ORNELLAS

15039 Juniper Street

San Leandro, CA 94579

Home (510) 969-5777 E-Mail: [email protected] Work (510) 317-4670

SKILL Desktop publishing, graphic design, electronic pre-press, bindery and finishing; web design;

accounts payable; administrative, secretarial, word processing, data base, and other PC use.

EXPERIENCE

01/94-Present SAN LORENZO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT San Lorenzo, California

Desktop Publishing Technician

Graphic Arts 11/98-Present

Perform a variety of technical duties involved in the creation and design of computer generated,

hand drawn, or photographs for print-ready artwork for offset printing purposes; design, create

and/or revise illustrations and graphics for forms, electronic publications, logos, retractable

banners, letterhead, documents, business cards, calendars, program brochures, posters, handbooks,

staff directories, tickets, certificates, flyers, invitations and other documents; proofread materials

prior to publication to assure proper grammar and spelling. Create a variety of graphic designs and

layouts; utilize artistic, photographic, graphic and desktop publishing techniques; perform a variety

of layout and paste-up work; create, plan, arrange, and layout text and artwork; select type style

and size, font type, colors, spacing of letters and text lines, placement, and size and type of photos

and artwork to be used to meet customer specifications. Communicate with customers to plan,

design, and layout text and artwork and determine final output.

Account Clerk II

Education Services 09/96-11/98

Working closely with the Special Projects Coordinator, provide budget tracking, salary projections,

site budget allocations, and other accounting functions for Categorical Accounts. Provide

secretarial support for Director of Planning and Assessment and Special Projects Coordinator on a

daily basis. Take minutes for SPOC and DBAC meetings. Provide general computer support for

department.

Reason For Leaving: Advancement

Clerk II

Personnel Services 01/94-09/96

Certificated and Classified substitute placement, tracking, and reporting. District Office

switchboard operation. General clerical as needed.

Reason For Leaving: Advancement

Out of Class Work:

05/07-06/27/96: Payroll Clerk, Certificated Payroll

01/30-06/15/95: Confidential Secretary, Personnel Services

12/89-03/92 DENNY'S INC. Pleasanton, California

Secretary

Division Two Facilities

Accounts Payable with $500.00 signing authority for maintenance of 120+ restaurants.

Maintenance, tracking, and reporting of Capital Budget projects. General secretarial as needed.

Reason for Leaving: Position Elimination

CYNTHIA A. ORNELLAS Page 2

02/87-09/87 BEAR STEARNS & COMPANY San Francisco, California

Word Processor/Secretary

Public Finance

Full secretarial, workflow coordination for other secretary, typed proposals, researched possible

bond leads, composed and typed general correspondence.

Reason for Leaving: Position Elimination

09/87-12/89 Various Temporary Personnel Services:

06/86-02/87 STAFF BUILDERS (510) 829-1050 TEMPSAMERICA WEST (415) 986-7787

11887 Dublin Blvd., Ste. B205 44 Montgomery St., Ste. 2716

Dublin, CA 94568 San Francisco, CA 94104

MADSEN PERSONNEL (415) 433-1018 TEMPORARIES INC. (415) 956-0600

220 Sansome St., 8th Flr. 44 Montgomery St., Ste, 650

San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94104

05/80-06/86 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. San Francisco, California

Administrative Secretary

Express Banking Division - 06/84-06/86

Full secretarial, workflow coordination for Secretary II, complex and confidential typing projects,

invoice processing and research, personnel coordination and reporting, information source on

Division policies and procedures.

Reason for Leaving: Personal

Oakland, California

Senior Word Processor/Secretary

Real Estate Product Management - 01/83 to 06/84

Full secretarial, typed training manuals used by branch personnel, proposals, information bulletins,

and comparative data for various real estate products. Helped Product Managers with branch

surveys, and direct mail and branch promotional campaigns. Information source on departmental

policies and procedures.

Reason for Leaving: Transfer with Advancement

San Francisco, California

Word Processor

CBG/IBG Administration - 05/80 to 01/83

General secretarial, typed credit reports and miscellaneous correspondence, co-created and updated

Corporate/International Customer Data Base, maintained customer files.

Reason for Leaving: Transfer with Advancement

REFERENCES

Available upon request

TK/kk

Item No: 6 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: Teresa Kapellas, Executive Director | Administrative Services RE: Determination Hearing - FAME Public Charter School Renewal Petition Background: The Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) began its review of the charter school renewal petition of FAME Public Charter School on March 4, 2015. A public hearing was held on March 10, 2015, in accordance with the Education Code (§§47607 and 47605), to consider the level of support for the petition renewal by teachers, parents and the community. The ACOE Charter School Review Team analyzed the charter renewal petition in detail, using a checklist based on mandated elements and affirmations. The Review Team also evaluated the charter school’s record of past performance, based on documentary evidence, site visits and interviews. Charter renewal standards were applied, as required under the Education Code, as amended. A copy of the staff's Evaluation Summary Report was sent to the Petitioner. Action Requested: That the Board take appropriate action to either approve or deny the charter renewal petition for FAME Public Charter School. A sample Memorandum of Understanding is included. Attachments: Charter School Evaluation Summary Report by the ACOE Review Team (with attachments)

CH

B

CharterEducatioBusiness

HARTER

BAY AR

r Review Teon Services: Ns Services: M

R SCHO

REA SCHFAME P

CHAR(

California

eam RepresNathalie Longr

Movetia Salter,

OOL STARE

HOOL FOPUBLIC

TER RE(Submitteda Education

Apr

sentatives: gree-Guevara, , Shirene Mor

AFF EVAEPORT

FOR

OR INDECHART

ENEWALd March 3Code §4760

ril 14, 201

Celine Liu reira, Spencer

ALUATIO

EPENDETER SCH

L PETIT3, 2014) 05.6, 47607,

15

r Mead, Teres

ON SUM

ENT STUHOOL

ION

47605

sa Kapellas, G

MMARY

UDY’S

Gail Greely

FAME Pu

EXECThe Acharter(“BASFAMEreneweyear ofcharterSchooquestiopetitioanalyson-sitethrougtrackinsource

The Chgroupsthe renanalysidentif

ublic Charte

CUTIVE SUlameda Cour renewal pe

SIS”) for FAE was originaed in 2010 fof operation. r renewal prls Office to rons were ansn was held ois of availab

e interviews,ghout the chang, documenes) and other

harter Revies of pupils senewal petitiois (summari

fied in this reBecause ofPerformanthreshold fwith certaidistricts, wthreshold, comparisoas the mosFAME’s acpublic schothat of schosignificant that FAMEin site-baseThe educatAdequate Ymeet the an(English lefully implestudents (Eresulted in The renewarequired elwere foundassessmentresolution.

er School Cha

UMMARY unty Office oetition submi

AME Public Cally granted

for a term of Prior to subotocol, and oreview the pswered by phon March 10ble evidence,, board obserarter term (puntation of comr relevant res

ew Team conerved by theon. Despite szed below) meport and itsf the suspensnce Index, anfor charter reinty. An alte

was analyzedfurther analyn provides c

st important fcademic perools that the ools where thsubgroups.

E students woed programs tional prograYearly Progrnnual measuearners) accoement prograEnglish learn

lower acadeal petition coements (36 o

d in several st, governanc

arter Renew

of Educationitted by Bay Charter Schoby the Alam5 years, end

bmission, FAoffered an op

protocol. FAhone and em

0, 2015. An , including thrvations, revursuant to thmplaints, ansearch.

nsidered incr charter scho

some improvmade the fol attachmentssion of statewnd eliminatioenewal (per ernative thred. (Even if Fysis of the sc

context for cofactor when formance is charter schohe charter scFAME did nould otherw- the largest

am, as impleress in 2010-

urable achievountability inams to addreners and sociemic achieveontains reasoof 44 petitiosections. Elece, means for

al Petition

’s Charter RArea Schoo

ool (“FAMEmeda Countyding June 30AME was propportunity to

AME did not mail. A publ

ACOE Charhe charter pe

view of docuhe Memorannalysis of stu

reases in pupool as the movements in thllowing majos: wide testing on of school Cal. Ed. Cod

eshold measuFAME is fouchool’s perfoonsidering inconsideringlower than t

ool pupils wochool is locanot perform ise attend. (Ft share - resi

emented, is u-11, 2011-12

vement objecn 2010-11, 2ess the needsio-economicement for theonably compn content sta

ements that dr achieving r

Review Teamol for IndepeE”) on Marchy Board of Ed, 2015. Theovided with o meet with t request a mlic hearing onrter Review etition and a

uments submndum of Undudent data (fr

pil academicost importanhe educationor findings,

and calculatdecile rankide §47607(bure, compariund to have mformance is rncreases in p

g a charter rethe academicould otherwated, school-as well as thForty percenide in Fremounsound. FA2, or 2012-1ctives (AMA2011-12, or 2s of educatioally disadvaese studentsprehensive dandards met)did not meet racial/ethnic

A

m conducted endent Studyh 3, 2015. Tducation in 2

e school is noa copy of Athe Director

meeting, althon the charterTeam condu

appendices, smitted to ACOderstanding),rom CDE an

c achievemennt factor in itnal program, based on spe

ation of the Aings, the minb)) could notisons to othemet the minirequired. Thpupil academenewal petitic performanise attend, a

-wide and fohe Fremont snt of FAME’ont.) AME did not3. FAME d

AOs) for Titl2012-13. Faonally-disadvantaged stude.

descriptions ), although d

t the standardc balance and

April 14, 2015

a review of y, Inc. The charter fo2005. It was ow in its 10th

ACOE’s updar of the Charough some r renewal ucted an site visits anOE by FAM, compliancend school

nt for all ts analysis othe staff

ecific facts

Academic nimum statutt be determiner schools animum statutoe school

mic achievemion.) nce of s well as r schools ’s students

t meet did not le III ailure to vantaged ents)

of most deficiencies d included d dispute

5

1

the

or

h ated rter

nd ME

e

f

tory ned nd ory

ment,

FAME Public Charter School Charter Renewal Petition April 14, 2015

2

The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program

and plans for future improvement based on the record of past performance, including:

o The school is, overall, not an academic success, although there have been improvements in instructional leadership and the quality of instruction during the charter term. Key facts include: High rates of turnover among principals and teachers. Failure to hire a Director of Education until late in the charter term

(February 2015). Poor implementation of assessments and student data systems. Non-compliance with Title III requirements for programs for English

learners. o The organization is not effectively led and managed. Board members do not have needed knowledge and experience. As a result,

they do not exercise strong oversight of management and hold the organization accountable for student performance.

The CEO has insufficient experience and has made numerous management errors, including improper removal of sitting board members, opening an unauthorized independent study service center, failing to implement the Title I plan, and failing to timely apply for non-classroom funding.

Board failed to evaluate the performance of the Board Chair/Interim CEO (nearly 3 years) and appointed him as CEO with no process or stakeholder engagement.

o The school has not been operated prudently, especially with regard to cash management. It has not met all regulatory requirements, including the terms of the charter and MOU. There is evidence of violations of the charter, MOU, and federal grant requirements. The school has had to sell receivables to maintain positive cash and projects

a continued need to do so, despite the end of state deferrals. Financial reports and payments have not been submitted to ACOE on time. Requirements for federal Title I, Title III and eRate programs were violated.

The governing board has failed to hold management accountable for academic and financial performance. Therefore, the circumstances leading to the abuses documented in the FCMAT extraordinary audit still exist.

The school’s performance reflects improvements in implementation of the educational program as a result of the County Board’s revocation proceeding, and financial practices have been improved following the FCMAT extraordinary audit and fiscal review. Students, staff and families support the school, although stakeholder knowledge of and input to the educational program has been lacking. Despite staff and leadership turnover, the school’s educators have shown commitment to their students and to improving their own practice. However, the governing board and management of the school have failed to provide the resources that a school in its tenth year of operation should have: effective leadership, funding, facilities, and systems to hold leaders accountable for results. The school’s weak governance and management, combined with a lack of transparency and parental engagement, adds up to a lack of accountability and unsatisfactory outcomes for students and the public.


3

Some of the concerns regarding the content of the petition and past performance could be addressed through conditions placed on approval. But the most critical changes would require a level of involvement and direction by the County Board as the authorizing agency that is incompatible with the Charter School Act’s intention to provide substantial autonomy to charter schools. Attachments to the Staff Evaluation Summary Report that provide data and facts referenced within this report:

Past Performance Tables Petition Review Checklist Supplemental Finance Data Supplemental Academic Data Corrective Action and Compliance Summaries

FAME Pu

INTRThe ChprovidmaintaCharteschoolprogra

When years, Agreemto orgarunninto contcharterresultsthe MOcharterschoolsuccesdetermterm.

ChartCurren

The authwith spec

1 During theaverage APIthreshold is relies. It is schools still

ublic Charte

ODUCTIONharter Schoo

de opportunitain schools ther schools arls because thams.

the Alamedspecific goament/Memoanize around

ng a successftrol their owr school is hs within its aOU, approvar, including l. A thorougss in achievinmines whethe

ter Renewalnt law requir

Meet the stthe academperformancbeen requirschool distcompositio§47607(b))Submit a pelements, igranted or

orizing agencific facts to

e suspension of tI for some purpounclear, as it faiclear, however, l applies.

er School Cha

ST

N ols Act of 19ties for teachhat operate ie a part of th

hey are exem

a County Boals and operarandum of U

d a core missful program.

wn budget, seeld accounta

approved termal by the authsubstantial c

gh renewal png its goals aer the charter

l Standards res renewingtatutory min

mic performace of the pubred to attendtrict in whichon of the pup)1; and etition contancluding anylast renewed

ncy may den support one

the state calculatoses, as providedils to reference tthat the alternati

arter Renew

TAFF EVALR

992, (Califorhers, parentsindependenthe public sch

mpt from man

oard of Educating proceduUnderstandinsion, and setCharters ha

et salaries, anable for its pm, or risk loshorizing agechanges to throcess helpsand objectivr has sustain

g charter schoimum thresh

ance of the chblic schools d, as well as th the charterpil population

aining reasony new requird. (Cal. Ed. C

ny a petition e or more of

tion of API and dd in Cal. Ed. Codthe API growth tive threshold tha

al Petition

LUATION SREPORT

rnia Ed. Cods, pupils, andly from the ehool system,ny state laws

cation approvures for the cng (MOU). Ts its own go

ave their ownnd hire (and

performancesing its chartency is requihe educations to determinves as outlinened operation

ools to meethold for reneharter schoothat the charthe academi

r school is lon that is serv

nably comprrements enacCode §47607

for renewal the grounds

decile ranks, pubde §52025(e)(4)targets or decile at compares the c

SUMMARY

de Section 47d communityexisting scho, but differ frs relating to

ves a chartercharter schoThe new chaoals and objen governancefire) teacherand must de

rter. Under chired for any mnal program, ne whether thed in its orignal viability

t the followinewal, based ool is at least erter school pic performanocated, takingved at the ch

rehensive dected into law7(a)(2))

only if it mas for denial.

blic schools may. The applicationranks upon whiccharter school’s

A

Y

7600), was ey members toool district s

from traditionspecific edu

r petition forool are detailarter school hectives in este structure ars and staff. emonstrate reharter law anmaterial chamission, or

he school haginal charter

throughout

ng standard:on API and dequal to the pupils wouldnce of the schg into accou

harter school

escriptions ow after the ch

akes written (Cal. Ed. Co

y rely on most ren of this section ch the minimumperformance to

April 14, 2015

enacted “to o establish astructure.” nal public ucational

r a term of 5led in an has the freedtablishing anand are allow In return, theasonably gond the terms

anges to the vision of the

as demonstrapetition, andits approved

: decile rank; academic

d otherwise hhools in the

unt the l (Cal. Ed. C

f the requireharter was

factual findode. §47605

ecent API or a 3-to the charter re

m renewal thresholocal districts an

5

4

and

dom nd wed he ood s of

e ated d d

or

have

Code

ed

ings 5(b))

- year enewal old nd


5

These are:

The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.

The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.

The petition does not contain required affirmations and assurances. The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the

required petition content (referred to as the “16 elements”).

As a countywide benefit charter authorized under Cal. Ed. Code §47605.6, the grounds for renewal of countywide benefit charters authorized pursuant to Cal. Ed. Code §47605.6 also include, according to CDE regulations at 5 CCR §11966.5(c)(2), “Any other basis that the county board of education finds justifies the denial of the petition.” For purposes of this report, the findings of fact have been grouped for convenience under the above-stated grounds for denial of a charter petition. Certain findings of fact may support more than one ground for denial. In making its decision, the chartering authority is also required to consider:

Increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most important factor (Cal. Ed. Code §47607(a)(3)(A));

Past performance of the school’s academics, finances, and operation in evaluating the likelihood of future success (5 CCR §11966.5(c)(1); and

Future plans for improvement, if any. (5 CCR §11966.5(c)(2))

The County Board may deny a petition for renewal of a charter school only if it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of the grounds for denial set forth in the Education Code. (5 CCR §11966.5(c)(2)) However, in the case of a countywide benefit charter, such as FAME, the petitioner may not elect to submit the petition for renewal to the State Board. (Cal. Ed. Code §47605.6(k); 5 CCR §11966.5(e))

Renewal Process In applying the legal standard, the following questions are used by the ACOE Charter Review Team as a guideline when assessing the past performance of the school’s academic, finances, and operation:

• Is the academic program a success for all students? • Is the organization effectively lead and managed? • Is the school being operated prudently and meeting all regulatory requirements

(including the terms of its charter and MOU)?

Annual site visits, reports provided by the school (academic, financial and operational), interviews of school leaders and stakeholders, published school data, other research and a review of the charter’s plans for the next five years are all sources of information used in the renewal application process. Internal protocols and checklists, developed by the charter schools office, assist the review team in completing a thorough analysis of the charter school to determine its eligibility for renewal and to provide relevant information to the County Board.

FAME Pu

BACKG

ChartThe Baholds tIndepe(whichcharterCountycountyagreemFAME FAMEcontinubenefitendingthe chaCharteRenewMarchheld onmembegroup Team financBASIS Timel

2 The timeliof the charteparties. Therenewal of cwithin 60 da

ublic Charte

GROUND

ter History aay Area Schthe FAME cendent Studyh came to ber school authy Board appywide benefiment, the BAE.

E opened in fuing the indt charter was

g June 30, 20arter office oer Schools Owal Performah 10, 20152. n March 18,ers of the ACinterviews wthen compleial performaS.

ine of Key E

ACBE grants c

FCMAT extra

FCMAT extra

ACOE Notice

FCMAT updat

ACBE renews

FCMAT comp

Executive Dire

Notice of Viol

Notice of Inten

Alameda Coun

ACBE agreem

ine for countywier to hold the pu law and regulatcountywide beneays.

er School Cha

and Renewahool of Indepcharter, was iy and the Fame known as Fhorized by Sroved an iniit charter sch

ASIS charter,

fall 2005, wiependent stus renewed, w015. FAMEon March 3,

Office on Marance Report An interview 2015. Full-COE Chartewith studentseted a thorouance of FAM

Events

charter for FAM

ordinary audit in

ordinary audit re

of Required Cor

te on FAME pro

charter for FAM

pletes FAME fisc

ector Alawait pla

lation issued by A

nt to Revoke on

nty Grand Jury r

ment to discontinu

ide benefit charteublic hearing, 90 tions are unclearefit charters. Th

arter Renew

al Process pendent Studinitially founmilies of Ala

FAME). It oSunol Glen Sitial petition hool, to be op, authorized

ith a classrooudy programwith conditio Public Char2015. It warch 4, 2015 and petition w with the B-day site visir Review Tes, parents, teugh review a

ME, as a char

A

ME to BASIS

nitiated

eport released

rrective Action

ogress

ME

cal review

aced on leave; B

ACBE

ACBE agenda

report released

ue revocation of

ers granted pursudays for finding

r as to whether thhe County Board

al Petition

dy, Inc. (BASnded in 2002ameda for M

operated the BSchool Distri

for FAME Pperated by Bby Sunol Gl

om based prm serving graons, on Januarter School das determine(although threview chec

BASIS goverits were heldeam observeeachers, and and analysis rter school op

Action

Board Chair Mali

f FAME charter

uant to Cal. Ed. gs, with one extehis 60/90 timelin

d and ACOE are

SIS, Inc.), th2 to operate

Multi-CulturaBASIS indeict starting inPublic ChartBASIS, Inc.,len was clos

rogram startiades K-12. Tary 12, 2010delivered a pd to be subs

he package wcklist). A purning board d on March 2ed classroomschool leadeof the educaperated by th

ik appointed Int

Code §47605.6(ension of 30 dayne for countywidtaking the most

A

he non-profitthe Bay Are

al/Multi-Lingpendent studn 2002. In Mter School (F for a 5-year

sed prior to t

ing in gradesThe initial co0 for anotherpetition for ctantially com

was missing tublic hearingand manage25, 2015, du

m instruction,ership. The ational, operahe non-profi

terim CEO (unpa

(b) provides 60 dys upon mutual ade benefit charteconservative ap

April 14, 2015

t corporationea School forgual Educatidy program May 2005, thFAME) as a r term. By the opening o

s K-8, and ountywide r 5-year termcharter renewmplete by ththe completeg was held oement team wuring which , and conducCharter Revational, and it corporatio

Date

8/23/0

6/19/0

4/6/0

6/3/0

12/8/0

1/10/1

2/10/1

aid) 12/14/

4/23/1

5/29/1

6/25/1

6/26/1

day from submisagreement of the ers also applies opproach and will

5

6

n that r ion as a he

of

m wal to e e

on was

cted view

on,

e

05

08

9

9

09

10

10

/11

12

12

12

12

ssion

on act

FAME Pu

Missio

“The mvisionawho wethnic excelleFAMEtheir revalues petition CharaDescriFAME12 and

ublic Charte

Addendum #1

ACOE Respon

3 FAME board

Malik resigns

Charter renew

on of the Schmission of Faries who areill always steducationa

ence, while raims to dev

esponsibilityin all aspe

n, p. 35)

acteristics ofiption

E Public Chad serving a to

K-12 nonclBrentwoodcampus. TSeptemberby Sunol GK-8 classroLorenzo UK-5 classroElementaryFAME’s LK-4 ArabicFAME’s Kprogram w6-12 prograstudents.

er School Cha

to MOU with co

nse to Grand Jury

d members remo

as Board Chair;

al petition subm

hool FAME is to e intellectuatrive to achi

al environmecognizing t

velop in studto their com

ects of pers

f the School

arter School otal of 1,117lassroom-ba

d, at FAME’The independ. (This progr

Glen.) oom-based pnified Schoooom-based py School cam

Leslie campuc/English lan

Kearney campwas started in

am located i

arter Renew

A

orrective action

y Report

oved; 3 new mem

hired as paid CE

mitted by FAME

enable our ally confidenieve the high

ment, FAMEthe diversitydents a sensemmunity andsonal growt

l

operates 5 p7 students (asased indepens San Leand

dent study prram is the su

program in Sol District, seprogram in Fmpus of Fremus. The Leslinguage dual pus and serv

n fall 2010. in Fremont a

al Petition

Action

plan signed

mbers seated

EO

diverse popnt, innovativhest ethical E helps st

y and individe of profound to instill inth and phy

programs at 4s reported to

ndent study pdro campus arogram serveuccessor to th

San Leandro,erving 223 s

Fremont co-lmont Unifiedie campus seimmersion p

ving 116 stud

at FAME’s K

pulation of ve, insightfulstandard. By

tudents to duality of all d empathy a

n them the imysical develo

4 sites, coveo ACOE 9/30program withand at FAMEed 360 studehe original B

, within the bstudents. ocated on thd School Diserved 199 stuprogram locdents. The d

Kearney cam

A

students to l, bilingual sy fostering achieve acstudents.

and an awaremportance ofopment.” (R

ring grades 0/14). Thesh service cenE’s Fremontents at the enBASIS chart

boundaries o

he Durham strict and kntudents in Seated in Fremdual immers

mpus and serv

April 14, 2015

Date

8/1/1

9/21/1

1/21/1

8/6/1

3/3/1

become students a multi-cademic

eness of f human Renewal

K through e are: nters in t\Kearney nd of ter granted

of the San

nown as eptember. mont at sion

ving 219

5

7

e

2

12

13

4

5

FAME Pu

FAME dinclude:

FS

Enroll

3 This descr

0

500

1000

1500

2000

ublic Charte

escribes the

AME leaderupports (“Mo High-

qualitylinguisettingbehavinstru

o Systemimprograde/CCSSsuppoeffect

o IntegrIntegrtests, uobservas welsystem

o Positivand imbehavstrongsystemmanag

lment

ription of MTSS

0

0

0

0

0

2010‐11 201

1480 1

FAME PTotal En

er School Cha

features and

rship has adoMTSS”)3, incl

quality, diffy, standardsistically-relevgs by highly

vioral expectctional stratemic and sust

ovement proc/course level

S, identify keorts and strative processerated data syrated data couniversal scrvations at thll as data colmic improveve behaviora

mplement schvioral supporg focus on inmic changes gement struc

is taken verbatim

11‐12 2012‐13 2

15931401

ublic Chartenrollment ‐ C

arter Renew

d strengths o

opted and beluding the fo

ferentiated cl-based (withvant instruct

y qualified tetations, attainegies. tainable chancesses at all ls). Collaborey initiativesegies based

es. ystem. Districollection systreening, diage site to infollection methment. al support. Dhoolwide, clrts for achievntegrating ins

based on strctures across

m from the CDE

2013‐14 2014‐15(ACOEdata)

13321117

er SchoolCDE Data

al Petition

of its program

egun to implollowing corlassroom insh a focus on tion in their

eachers, whoned through

nge. MTSS plevels of therative restrucs, collect, anaon data are t

ct and site sttem that inclgnostics, proorm decisionhods such as

District and slassroom, anving importastructional arong, predicts the entire s

E website at: http

5

7

m (Renewal

lement a Mure componenstruction. AlCCSS), cultgeneral educ

o have high adifferentiate

principles pre system (discturing efforalyze, reviewthen refined

taffs collaboludes assessmogress monitns about tieres parent surv

school staffsnd research-bant social anand interventtable, and co

system.

p://www.cde.ca.

A

petition, pp.

ulti-tiered Synts: l students returally-and cation classracademic anded learning

romote contistrict, schoolrts made to aw data, impl

d as necessary

orate to creatments such atoring, and ted support pveys for cont

s collaborativbased positiv

nd learning otion strategieonsistent cla

gov/ci/cr/ri/mtss

April 14, 2015

47-48) to

ystem of

eceive high-

room d

inuous l site, and align RtI, lement y to sustain

te an as state eacher lacement, tinuous

vely select ve utcomes. A es supports ssroom

scomponents.asp

5

8 p.

FAME Pu

CDE dat2222

2014-15 repor

2010-112011-122012-132013-142014-15

In the chthan the gsmall incindepend

Studen

Over the based onfrom 201enrollme In order tdistricts wof studenstudents Area schFAME stdistrict b

ublic Charte

ta unless noted2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

(source: 9/30/14rt to ACOE)

Total(Sept

(P-2) 2 (P-2) 3 (P-2) 4 (P-2) 5 (P-1)

arter renewagrowth of th

crease (approdent study pr

nt Demogra

charter term CDE data.

10-11 to 201nt increased

to understanwithin Alamnts enrolled awere not incool districtstudents withoundaries.

er School Cha

d K 1st 141 141 158 152 137 139 121 143

4 102 102

l Enrollment ember 30th) 1480 1593 1401 1332 1117

al petition, Fhe Arabic duoximately 25rogram, but o

phics

m, the overalThe percent3-14; Africa

d from 50.9%

nd FAME’s dmeda County as of 9/30/14cluded in thi.) San Loren

h postal addre

arter Renew

2nd 3rdd 4t141 134 15157 137 13141 121 11130 131 11124 98 10

Classroom-bADA

761.06802.78760.96759.12730.72

AME does nal immersion

5 students, potherwise no

l racial/ethnitage of Hispaan American% to 52.6%.

demographicthat roughly

4 in FAME’ss analysis, anzo USD waesses in San

al Petition

th 5th 6th50 121 12039 143 13116 110 11516 95 10503 86 75

based Noncl

not propose n program toer 3/18/15 ino change.

ic balance oanic enrollm

n enrollment

c characterisy corresponds classroom-s they are spas included bLeandro res

7th 8th122 113116 119107 95108 9486 79

lassroom-baseADA

683.26 692.09 603.18 541.72 326.57

changes in go grade 5. Bnterview) ov

f FAME hasment increase

dropped fro

stics, compard to the most-based progrpread more bbecause mapsided within

A

9th 10th 1177 82 7

102 83 888 86 774 87 860 71 6

ed Total AD

1444.321494.871364.141300.841057.29

grade configBudget assumver current en

s remained fed from 12.3om 10.6% to

risons were mt common cirams. (Indepbroadly overpping revealen the San Lor

April 14, 2015

th 12th Tot4 64 1489 67 1591 75 1401 47 1337 64 111

A

gurations, othmptions inclunrollment in

fairly constan3% to 14.0%

8.1%; white

made with 7ities of residpendent studr dozens of Bed that manyrenzo USD

5

9

al8093013217

her ude a

n the

nt, %

e

7 dence dy Bay y

FAME Pu

FAME’s whole, nogeneral, Fand a hig

F

Alame

Frem

San Le

San Lo

Hayw

Oakl

New H

New It is to befamilies oprogram program,

ublic Charte

racial/ethnicor in the distFAME serve

gher percenta

AME

eda County

mont USD

andro USD

orenzo USD

ward USD

land USD

Haven USD

ark USD

e expected thof Middle Eenrolls a hig

, however, m

er School Cha

c balance is tricts in whices lower percage of white

Hispanic A

14.0% 33.0%

15.9%

48.0%

53.5%

61.1%

42.7%

36.2%

51.4%

hat the Arabiastern heritagh percentag

makes up onl

arter Renew

not reflectivch FAME’s centages of H students.

American

Indian Asian

0.8% 19.7%0.4% 22.3%

0.4% 55.4%

0.3% 14.6%

0.4% 12.8%

0.4% 7.7%

0.3% 13.2%

0.3% 21.9%

0.3% 11.9%

ic dual immeage (as Yu Mge of Chinesely 10% of FA

al Petition

ve of public sfacilities areHispanic, A

n Pacific

Islander

% 1.6% % 1.2%

% 0.6%

% 1.3%

% 1.4%

% 3.4%

% 1.1%

% 3.0%

% 2.3%

ersion progrMing Chartere-American AME’s curre

school studee located andfrican Amer

Filipino Afr

Ame

2.2% 8.4.9% 12

5.7% 3.

7.5% 14

7.0% 12

6.8% 11

0.8% 28

19.2% 7.

8.9% 6.

ram would br School’s Mstudents). T

ent total enro

A

ents in Alamd its studentsrican, and Fi

frican

erican White

1% 52.6% .2% 20.9%

2% 15.3%

.9% 10.1%

.6% 9.4%

.9% 5.7%

.0% 9.8%

3% 6.8%

0% 15.3%

be particularlMandarin duaThe Arabic dollment.

April 14, 2015

meda County s reside. In ilipino studen

Two or

More

Races R

0.0% 4.4%

3.4%

3.2%

1.7%

2.4%

2.6%

5.3%

3.7%

ly attractive al immersiondual immers

5

10

as a

nts,

Not

Reported

1.1% 0.6%

0.1%

0.1%

1.2%

0.5%

1.5%

0.0%

0.1%

to n ion

FAME Pu

Because student dEast and a significlocal dist The neigFAME (w

Number Students b

LanguCDE Data Arabic Farsi (PersUrdu Spanish Pashto Hindi Other non-languages Somali Punjabi Tigrinya Albanian Cantonese Dutch Filipino (PiTagalog) Gujarati Japanese Korean Turkish FAME’s disadvaneconomic

ublic Charte

the CDE racdemographic

South Asia cant enrollmtricts.

hboring distwith the exce

of EL by Home uage

2013-14

FAM

14ian) 5

3211

-English 7

422111

ilipino or 1

1111

enrollment ntaged studencally disadva

er School Cha

cial/ethnic cac profile. Enin larger proent of Spani

tricts do, howeption of Du

ME Fremon

USD

48 83 58 223 35 148 26 2049

9 68 1 319

7 228

4 3 2 333 2 4 1 2 1 329 1 0

1 240

1 95 1 42 1 113 1 8

includes stunts in percenantaged stud

arter Renew

ategories arenglish learneroportions thaish-speaking

wever, serveutch).

nt San

Leandro USD

49 4 2

1635 0 3

62

0 10 1 0

222 0

137

0 3 2 0

udents with dntages compadents than m

al Petition

e broad, theyrs at FAME an in neighbog ELs, it is a

students in

San Lorenzo

USD

66 5 1

2585 2

11

38

0 13 6 0

326 0

171

2 2 8 1

disabilities, Earable to Ala

many of the n

y do not tell tspeak homeoring districmuch smalle

all language

Hayward USD

45 61 9

5923 17

152

91

0 72 2 0 23 0

238

9 4 3 1

English learnameda Coun

neighboring d

A

the whole ste languages fcts. And alther percentag

e groups repr

Oakland USD

605 8 1

11033 8 10

510

8 5 61 0

1078 0

85

0 13 13 0

ners, and socnty, but fewedistricts.

April 14, 2015

tory of FAMfrom the Mihough FAMEge of ELs tha

resented at

New Haven USD

NeU

13 152 30

1547 148 64

20

0 295

1 0

73 0

411

11 2

14 3

cio-economier socio-

5

11

ME’s ddle E has an in

ewark USD

3 33 3

1210 2

21

23

0 45 0 0

15 0

88

5 4 4 0

cally

FAME Pu

Analysi

This tabl2 and 3 othe legislAPI calcu

Statutory R

API school

API subgro

API subgro

API subgro

API subgro

API subgro

API subgro

API growt (2) Ranked(3) Ranked Howeveralternativ§52052(epursuant recent AP(C) Alterpupils scmeasureswhether Aschool demeasuresmeasure

FINDstatutoshould Is

perfor and of

accoun When eli

ublic Charte

is of Char

Has the sc API and ac

e summarizeof §47607(b)lature changulations, and

Renewal Thresh

lwide growth ta

oup growth tar

oup growth tar

oup growth tar

oup growth tar

oup growth tar

oup growth tar

th target met

d deciles 4-10?d deciles 4-10 s

r, as FAME nve to API due)(4) states thto subparag

PI calculatiornative meashoolwide ans do not corrAPI targets ecile rankings referenced for decile ra

It canDING:ory thresholdd not be relie

s the academ rmance of th

f schools in t nt the comp

igibility for c

er School Cha

rter Renew

hool met the cademic ran

es the statuto), applying thed Californid eliminated

hold

arget met

rget met: Black

rget met: Asian

rget met: Hispa

rget met: White

rget met: SED

rget met: ELs

schoolwide an

? similar schools

notes in its ruring the perihat “Schools

graph (F) of pon. (B) An avsures that shond among sigrespond to thhave been m

gs. The Caliby FAME in

ankings after

nnot be deterd for renewaled upon as a

mic performa he public sch

the school d osition of th

charter renew

arter Renew

wal Standa

e statutory m nk (Cal. Ed.

ory minimumhe plain langa’s accountadecile ranki

k

n

anic

e

nd all subgrou

s?

renewal petitiod of the stas and schoolparagraph (2verage of theow increasesgnificant subhe charter renmet, and therifornia Depan its renewar the 2012-13

rmined whetl under Ed. Cbasis for den

ance of the c hools that th

district in wh he pupil popu

wal cannot b

al Petition

ards

minimum thr Code §4760

m threshold guage of the ability systemings.

2010-11

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

ups?

4 4

tion (p. 31), ate’s accounl districts tha2) shall use oe three most s in pupil acabgroups.” Unewal threshre is no substartment of Edl petition (p.3 academic y

ther the charCode §47607nial.

charter scho he charter sc

hich the cha ulation?

be establishe

reshold for 07(b))?

for charter rstatute, whi

m and suspe

- 2011-12

20

No Y

N/A N

Yes Y

Yes N

No N

No Y

No Y

3 3

the legislatuntability tranat do not havone of the fot recent annuademic achi

Unfortunatelyhold in Ed. Ctitute given iducation’s g. 32) does noyear.

rter school h7(b)(1-3), th

ool at least e chool pupils

arter school i

ed under the

A

renewal, ba

renewal undeich was not anded statew

012-13

2013-14

Yes N/A

N/A N/A

Yes N/A

No N/A

No N/A

Yes N/A

Yes N/A

4 N/A 4 N/A

ure did provisition. Ed. C

ve an API caollowing: (A)ual API calcuievement fory, the first 2 Code §47607in Ed. Code

guidance on aot include a

has met the mherefore this

equal to the would other

is located, ta

first 3 tests

April 14, 2015

ased on

er subsectionamended wh

wide testing a

Met in Prior Year?

M2 3 y

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A N/A

ide some Code alculated ) The most ulations. r all groups oalternative

7, which trac§52052 for

accountabilisubstitute

minimum standard

academic rwise attend aking into

(Ed. Code

5

12

ns 1, hen and

Met in of last years? N/A

N/A

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No No

of

cks

ity

d

FAME Pu

§47607(bperformaof the schfollowingclassroomCAHSEESupplem Academ

2013 Grow

FAM

Fremon

San Loren CST Adv

FAME

Fremont U

San Lorenz

FAME

Fremont U

San Lorenz

ublic Charte

b)(1-3)), chaance relativehools in the g tables comm-based faciE and high sc

mental Acade

ic Performa

wth API Lwi

ME

nt USD

nzo USD

v/Prof (from

LE

nified

zo Unified

EL

nified

zo Unified

er School Cha

arter law perm to the publidistricts whe

mpare FAMEilities are locchool graduamic Data inc

ance Index

LEA-ide API AA

781 73

891 73

739 67

m 2013 AYP

EA-Wide Eng57.9%

79.1%

45.1%

LA-Wide Eng55.0%

80.2%

45.2%

arter Renew

mits authorizic schools there the chart

E’s academiccated (Fremoation rates. Mcluded with

API AsianAPI

38 872

34 962

74 863

P Report)

English Langu

glish learners 48.4%

62.4%

40.0% Mathema

glish learners 53.6%

69.2%

43.9%

al Petition

zing agencieat the charteter school is c performancont USD andMore detailethis report.

n Hispanic API 736

746

710

uage Arts

Socio-economi48.2

55.3

40.0atics

Socio-economi49.4

56.9

41.0

es to renew cer’s students located (Ed.

ce to the distd San Lorenzed analysis is

White API 757

848

766

ically Disadv 2%

3%

0%

ically Disadv 4%

9%

0%

A

charters basewould other

. Code §476tricts in whiczo USD), uss provided in

SED API E

735

774

719

April 14, 2015

ed on academrwise attend

607(b)(4)). Tch FAME’s sing API, CSn the

EL API DiA

753 6

807 6

723 5

5

13

mic d, and The

ST,

isab API 629

690

571

FAME Pu

CAHSEE

20

FA

Fremo

San Lor

20

FA

Fremo

San Lor *FAME dany Englicorrectly High Sch

SummarFAME’s FAME’s classroomLorenzo

ublic Charte

E 10th Grad

13-14

AME

ont USD

renzo USD

13-14

AME

ont USD

renzo USD

data on perforish learners acategorized f

hool Gradu

ry of Districperformancschool-base

m-based studUSD – the d

er School Cha

de Pass Rate

Math All

78% re92%

82%

ELA All

77% re90%

81%

rmance of ELss fluent Engli

for purposes o

ation Rate

ct Comparisce across seved campusesdents reside.district in wh

arter Renew

e

Math Sped

MEL

not eported 65

68% 70

48% 54ELA Sped

ELEL

not eported 56

69% 47

33% 24

s and RFEP sish proficient of reporting C

sons veral measure are located FAME’s p

hich FAME’

al Petition

ath Ls*

MathRFEP

5% 88%

0% 97%

4% 90%LA Ls*

ELARFEP

6% 92%

7% 97%

4% 93%

students may during 2011-

CAHSEE resu

es is lower thand in whicerformance s San Leand

h P*

Math SED

% 73%

% 81%

% 81% A P*

ELA SED

% 78%

% 75%

% 77%

be impacted -12 and 2012

ults.

than that of Fch approximais overall sli

dro campus i

A

Math Not S

85%

94%

88%

ELA Not S

88%

95%

92%

by FAME’s f2-13. Students

Fremont USDately 40% ofightly betteris located.

April 14, 2015

SED

SED

failure to recls may not be

D, where 2 of FAME’s r than that of

5

14

lassify

of

f San


15

Summary of School Comparisons Because FAME is a large school with three classroom-based locations separated by over 21 miles and an independent study program serving students from over 50 school districts, comparing FAME’s performance to the schools that its students would otherwise be required to attend was a difficult undertaking. The analysis began by sorting student addresses by city to identify districts in which large numbers of current (9/30/14) FAME students are resident. Student addresses were then mapped, along with district schools, to identify “clusters” of FAME students associated with district schools. Demographics of comparison schools were then reviewed to ensure that the composition of the student population was reasonably comparable. This resulted in selection of comparison public schools from seven districts: Fremont, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, Oakland, New Haven and Newark. Twenty-three (23) elementary schools, 15 middle/junior high schools, and 12 high schools were included (although the number of comparison schools varied, depending on availability of data). Because FAME’s academic performance data is reported as a single school, most of the comparisons analyzed were between FAME whole-school performance and the identified comparison schools. Comparisons of individual FAME campuses were limited to CST data previously provided by FAME for 11-12 and 12-13, disaggregated by FAME campus and by English learners. The analysis, contained in detail in the Supplemental Academic Data, showed the following: API Analysis FAME’s 2013 growth API was compared to that of the identified schools that FAME students would otherwise attend, with the following results. It is important to note that all comparisons are between FAME as a single school (all 5 FAME programs) and the individual schools within the comparison districts. School demographic characteristics vary across the comparison schools and districts.

FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 17th across all 48* comparison schools. FAME’s English learner API ranked 17th across all 48 comparison schools. FAME’s socio-economically disadvantaged API ranked 20th across all 48 comparison

schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 10th of the 22 comparison elementary schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 7th of the 14 comparison middle schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 2nd of the 9 comparison comprehensive high schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 11th in a comparison with the 11 Fremont schools.

(40% of FAME’s students in site-based programs reside in Fremont.) o FAME’s English learner API ranked 9th in a comparison with the 11 Fremont

schools. It was lower than all of the Fremont comparison elementary schools. o FAME’s socio-economically disadvantaged API ranked 11th in a comparison

with the 11 Fremont schools. It exceeded only Kennedy High School. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 1st in a comparison with the 4 San Lorenzo schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 1st in a comparison with the 5 San Leandro schools.

(15.5% of FAME’s students in site-based programs reside in San Leandro.) FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 2nd in a comparison with the 10 Hayward schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 1st in a comparison with the 9 Oakland schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 3rd in a comparison with the 5 New Haven schools. FAME’s Schoolwide API ranked 4th in a comparison with the 5 Newark schools.

*A 2013 growth API for Oakland’s Fremont High School and New Haven’s James Logan High School were not available, so they were removed from this comparison.

FAME Pu

AdequatThe criteFAME anNewark UBecause number ocommon English lnumber oFAME an Year FA2011 8 o2012 2 o2013 1 o CST AnaData regaprograms Leslie, FAlearner reidentified

Tcoov

Tmhim

Tth

Tgistmnu

FINDperformrequirenot perpercen

The Arenewa

ublic Charte

te Yearly Preria for Adeqnd the districUSD, New Hof its overal

of applicablecriteria rela

learners, andof these in alnd all other

AME Fremoof 10 8 of 1of 10 5 of 1of 10 2 of 1

alysis rding the acawas only ava

AME San Leasults, is mixecomparison s

The CST Adv/omparison schverall.

The CST Adv/mid-range of c

igh school stumathematics anThe CST Adv/he comparison

The CST Adv/iven the addittudent results

math). Compaumbers of stu

FAMDING:ming at leasted to attend,rform as wel

nt of FAME’

Did the schdescription

into law af

COE Charteal petition su

er School Cha

rogress Anaquate Yearlycts in whichHaven USD,ll smaller size criteria wasated to studend socio-econoll 3 years. Wdistricts ove

ont Haywar10 1 of 1010 1 of 1010 1 of 10

demic performailable in CSTandro, and Indd, but exhibitschools: /Prof rates forhools, but fal

/Prof rates forcomparison scudents performnd for ELs an/Prof rates forn schools at th/Prof rates fortion of the Arcompared fav

arisons of perudents tested.

ME did not mt as well as t and of scholl as the Frems students in

hool submit ns of the req

fter the char

er Review Teubmitted for

arter Renew

alysis y Progress weh its students , Oakland USze and fewers smaller fornt proficiencomically dis

With the exceer the 3 years

rd Newark 0 2 of 10 0 5 of 10 0 2 of 10

mance of FAMT results for 2dependent Stuts the followin

r students at Fl below those

r students at Fchools, althoum below studnd RFEP studr students at Fhe elementaryr students at Frabic Dual Imvorably, as diformance of E

meet the alternthe public sc

ools within thmont schooln site-based p

a petition co quired eleme

rter was gran

eam revieweFAME. Th

al Petition

ere compareprimarily re

SD San Leanr numericallyr FAME thancy (ELA andsadvantaged)eption of Nes.

New Haven2 of 10 0 of 10 0 of 10

ME students 2012 and 2013udy. The datang patterns, w

FAME’s Lesle of most com

FAME’s indepugh out-perfordents in the codents in ELA. FAME’s San y level, but arFAME’s Kear

mmersion progid high schooEL and RFEP

native minimchools the stuhe districts ins that FAMEprograms re

ontaining re ents, includin nted or last r

ed the informhe petition w

ed for 2011, eside (Fremondro USD any significantn for the com

d math for al), Fremont Uewark, the nu

Oakland S4 of 10 0 of 10 0 of 10

disaggregated3. Groupingsa, which inclu

when analyzed

lie campus aremparison scho

pendent studyrming Oaklan

omparison sch Leandro camre lower in mrney campus gram and chanol students in P students we

mum renewaudents wouln which FAME students weside in Frem

easonably co ng any new

renewed?

mation contawas reviewed

A

2012 and 20ont USD, Hand San Loret student submparison disll students, wUnified met tumber of cri

San Leandro 2 of 10 0 of 10 1 of 10

d by the diffes were: FAMEudes grade levd in comparis

e in the mid-rools for ELs a

y program arend schools. Inhools, especia

mpus are genermiddle grades.

included gapnging grade lELA (althoug

ere limited due

al eligibility ld otherwise ME is locate

would otherwmont.

omprehensivrequiremen

ained in the cd for all 19 co

April 14, 2015

013 among ayward USDenzo USD). bgroups, the tstricts. Of thwhite, Asian,the largest teria met fel

San Lorenzo2 of 10 2 of 10 0 of 10

erent FAME E Kearney, Fvel and Englison to the

range of and RFEP stud

e generally inndependent sally in

rally higher th

s in some gralevels. Elemegh less so in e to the small

threshold byhave been

ed. FAME dwise attend. F

ve nts enacted

charter ontent

5

16

D,

total he 10 ,

ll for

o

AME ish

dents

n the tudy

han

ades, entary

l

y

did Forty


17

elements, plus supplemental information and legal requirements (including independent study). (ACOE has adopted an updated petition review checklist developed by the County Charter Authorizers Work Group under the leadership of Riverside COE.) A total of 44 components, of varying degrees of importance and complexity, were checked. Specific criteria are referenced in each element as expectations for a “reasonably comprehensive description”. New requirements are referenced in the table contained at the beginning of the petition. Below are the results.

Area of Review in Charter Petition Checklist

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard

Fails to Meet

StandardCharter-Specific Legal Requirements

Legislative Intent X Private School Restrictions X Signature Requirements N/A Grade Levels X

Sound Educational Program X (petition content)

Likely to Successfully Implement X Charter Petition Content

Educational Program (Element A) X (overall) Description of educational program X Transitional K X Special education students X Implementation of Section 504 X English Learner services X Annual Goals and Actions (in Element

B) X

Measurable Pupil Outcomes (Element B) X Method of Measuring Pupil Outcomes(Element C)

X

Governance Structure (Element D) X Employee Qualifications (Element E) X Health and Safety (Element F) X Means to Achieve Racial and Ethnic Balance(Element G) X

Admission Requirements (Element H) X Manner of Conducting Annual Audit (Element I) X

Student Discipline Procedures (Element J) X Retirement Programs (Element K) X Public School Alternatives (Element L) X Employee Return Rights (Element M) X Dispute Resolution (Element N) X Declaration of Exclusive Employer (Element O) X

School Closure Procedure (Element P) X


18

Area of Review in Charter Petition Checklist


Fails to Meet

StandardAdditional Legal Requirements

Required Affirmations X Admissions X Notification of Student Exits X Information Regarding Proposed Operation X Preference for Academically Low AchievingStudents X

Certification of Charter School Teachers X Independent Study Requirements X Local Control and Accountability Plan X Nondiscrimination X

Admissions X Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) X

English Learners X Discipline X

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act X No Required Student Fees X Student Fee Complaint Procedure X Sum 0 36 8

The Petition Review Checklist, included as an exhibit to this report, contains more detailed analysis of each Element/Section.

The Review Team found that content in most areas of the petition met the standard. However, the reviewers identified specific deficiencies in some key areas that fell short of the standard, even though the overall assessment was that the content was “reasonably comprehensive”. If the charter is renewed, modifications to program and/or policy in these areas should be considered: No plan for professional development; no sequencing or specific topics in calendar. No plan for gifted students, although petition states that the school will provide services.

(p. 57) Fails to address need for wet labs to meet A-G science – an issue with WASC (p. 58) Incomplete description of the independent study program (pp. 73-78) No evidence of or reference to stakeholder engagement in current or future LCAP

preparation (p. 95, App. D) Educational contractors for Independent Study program not included in HQT, credentials,

TB screening and other safety measures (pp. 138-39, 142-44) No detail on timing of enrollment and lotteries for the different programs and sites;

lottery weighting; limit on number of employee children (p. 146) Lack of clarity in discipline policy: no standard for choosing between suspension vs.

expulsion; no standard for choosing administrative panel vs. board (pp. 150-170) Future facilities needs for high school science labs (“wet” labs) and additional service

centers for independent study mentioned, but no plans or locations described (p. 132)


19

Independent study program isn’t separately referenced in the LCAP (p. 95), although according to petition text (p. 36) it does not have the same college-going goals as site-based high school program.

In eight (8) area/s of review the Review Team found the petition content failed to meet the standard. The Review Team would recommend that these sections be rewritten if the charter is renewed:

Likely to Successfully Implement o Governing board does not have identified knowledge and expertise. o Overall concern is lack of structures and practices for internal

accountability. o Multiple inconsistencies among description of program, budget included

with petition, and revised budget subsequently provided. Transitional Kindergarten

o No description or plan for transitional kindergarten program, although petition states (pg. 9) states “If Charter School receives apportionment for TK, it will offer TK”. State funding is already available for TK.

Method of Measuring Pupil Outcomes o Benchmark tests not identified. o No measures for K and 1. o No single-year targets for ELs progress toward language proficiency (2

and 5 year measures) (p. 131). ADEPT assessment was not included in assessment section, MPOS or LCAP, despite a commitment in the post-revocation work plan to use it.

Governance Structure o Petition fails to address past history with a plan to ensure no return to

prior abuses. o Governing board does not have identified knowledge and expertise. (App.

F) o No structure for staff or parents to inform the governing board – no

committees or procedures. (Per 3/18/15 and 3/25/15 interviews.) Means to Achieve Racial and Ethnic Balance

o Petition does not describe specific under-represented populations to be targeted or methods of recruitment designed to increase enrollment among such groups.

o School relies heavily on word-of-mouth (interviews of 3/18/15 and 3/25/15), which reinforces current enrollment patterns.

Dispute Resolution o There is no description of how the costs of the dispute resolution process

will be funded. Certification of Charter School Teachers

o Petition does not describe credential requirements for educational contractors providing instruction in Independent Study program.

o No description of qualifications for non-core, non-college prep teachers. Independent Study Requirements

o Audit section does not reference specific guidelines for independent study. o Does not include specific requirements or describe how teachers are

assigned or ratios calculated.

FAME Pu

FINDall the

To evaincreasschoolTeam’increaswhetheincludpupils studenTeam pupils above. API G

2011 2012 2013

FAMEavailabmeaninstuden

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

ublic Charte

The pDING:required ele

Does the ch to be enrol

aluate the “soses in pupil al as the mosts report provses for each er renewal oe ethnic subwith disabil

nts in only soexamined evserved by th

.

Growth

SchoolwideAPI

777 769 781

E has experieble, but growngful change

nts (SED and

2011

FAME G

er School Cha

petition doesements, inclu

harter schoo lled in the ch

oundness” oacademic act important fvides informsubgroup ag

of the Petitiongroups, socilities and fosome ethnic suvidence of inhe charter sc

e AA API

735 712 738

enced increawth has not be. Significan

d EL) and wh

2012

rowth APICDE

arter Renew

s not containuding any ne

ol present an harter schoo

of the educatchievement ffactor in its amation to allogainst all of tn is approprial-economicster youth. Fubgroups anncreases in pchool, in add

Asian API

840 844 872

ases in its APbeen consistent gaps persihite and Asia

2013

over CharE Data

al Petition

n reasonably ew requirem

n unsound e ol?

ional prografor all subgroanalysis of thow the Counthe concernsiate. (The sucally disadvaFAME has nnd has not reppupil academdition to the c

Hispanic API

W

706 733 736

PI during theent, nor havest between ean students.

rter Term ‐

Sch

AA

Asi

His

Wh

SED

EL A

Dis

comprehensments.

educational

am, the Revioups of pupihe renewal pnty Board to s examined iubgroups deantaged pupi

numerically sported any f

mic achievemcomparative

White API

SEAP

772 71757 70757 73

e 3 years for e all student educationally

‐

hoolwide API

API

an API

spanic API

hite API

D API

API

sab API

A

sive descript

program fo

ew Team firils served bypetition. Theanalyze, andin this reportefined in the ils, English lsignificant nfoster youth.ment for all ge analysis con

ED PI EL AP

17 748 07 722 35 753

which this mt subgroups sy-disadvanta

April 14, 2015

tions of

or the pupils

rst considerey the charter e Review d weigh, the t to determinstatute learners,

numbers of ) The Revie

groups of ntained

PI Disab API

629 627 629

measure is showed aged

5

20

ed

ne

ew


21

CST % Advanced and Proficient

ELA -

All Math-

All ELs ELA

ELs Math

SED ELA

SED Math

2010-11 60.0% 52.7% 51.0% 53.0% 52.4% 47.6% 2011-12 61.7% 57.0% 50.5% 55.1% 50.9% 50.4% 2012-13 57.9% 55.0% 48.4% 53.6% 48.2% 49.4%

Schoolwide percentages of students scoring advanced and proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics have shown limited growth. In fact, by 2013, the last year of standardized testing, FAME’s ELA scores were below those at the start of the current charter term. English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students have lower rates of proficiency, and also failed to show consistent growth. CAHSEE 10th Grade Pass Rates

Math All Math ELs

Math RFEP

Math SED

Math Not SED

2013-14 78% 65% 88% 73% 85%

2012-13 78% N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011-12 74% 29% 75% 57% 83%

2010-11 64% 18% 95% 50% 70%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

FAME % CST Adv/ProfCDE Data

ELA ‐ All

Math‐All

ELs ELA

ELs Math

SED ELA

SED Math

64%74% 78% 78%

78% 81% 80% 77%

50%

70%

90%

2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14

FAME 10th Grade CAHSEE Pass Rate

CDE Data

Math All

ELA All


22

ELA All ELA ELs ELA RFEP

ELA SED

ELA Not SED

2013-14 77% 56% 92% 78% 88%

2012-13 80% N/A N/A N/A N/A

2011-12 81% 43% 85% 62% 89%

2010-11 78% 54% 95% 65% 83%

Although overall 10th grade CAHSEE pass rates have not substantially increased, 10th grade ELs and socio-economically disadvantaged students have shown some gains in mathematics and ELA on this test. High School Graduation Rates and College Readiness

CDE Cohort Graduation

Rate

Grads Meeting UC/CSU Entrance

Requirements

FAME Data: % of Graduates Enrolled in School Since 9th Grade

FAME Data: Graduation Rate of School’s 12th

Grade Students

2013-14 N/A N/A Unknown 94.0% 2012-13 73.7% 42.0% 7.4% 100.0% 2011-12 83.8% 45.1% 6.0% 94.0% 2010-11 71.1% 16.7% 9.2% 87.5%

Early Assessment

Program (CSU Data)

Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness - English

Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness -

Mathematics

2013 100% 50%

2012 94% *

2011 85% *

2010 86% *

*Fewer than 10 scores

As calculated by CDE, FAME’s cohort graduation rates have varied, and may be affected by the characteristics of high school students enrolled at FAME’s independent study program. (No data or explanation was provided by FAME to assist in interpreting this relatively low cohort graduation rate.) The percentage of students graduating without meeting UC/CSU requirements and the low levels of college readiness (as measured by EAP results) is inconsistent with the charter petition’s commitment to providing a rigorous, college preparatory program for its secondary students. 2013-14 Academic Performance Data Because of the suspension of most statewide testing, little data on the academic performance of FAME students is publicly available. (CAHSEE 10th grade passing rates for 2013-14 are included above.) FAME’s charter petition includes some information on academic achievement in 2013-14 in the introduction (pp. 24-26) and table of Measurable Pupil Outcomes (App. A), including results on internal ELA and math benchmarks. However, according to FAME leadership (3/18/15 interview), the Curriculum Associates benchmarks were not consistently administered in the fall of


23

2013, so growth from the beginning to the end of the year could not be measured. These benchmarks were CST aligned, while the benchmark assessments used in 2014-15 (Riverside Publishing) were aligned with common core. Comparisons from 2013-14 to 2014-15 could not be made. FAME does not rely on these benchmark assessments to measure growth among its independent study students, but uses grade promotion as a proxy for proficiency. (It was not clear from the interview how decisions about the assessments and their administration are made.)

Reclassification of 49.8% of English learners as Fluent English Proficient in 2013-14. (Renewal petition p. 24) This statement is misleading because FAME did not reclassify any ELs as RFEP in 2011-12 and 2012-13. FAME leadership acknowledged (3/18/15 interview) that the 2013-14 reclassification figures include “catch-up” of an unknown number of ELs who should have been reclassified earlier. FAME reclassified 7.7% of its ELs as RFEP in 2010-11 (CDE data).

The percentage of FAME graduates enrolled since 9th grade has increased to 88% in 2014 and the number of dropouts has decreased. (Renewal petition p. 26) This information is inconsistent with data in Appendix A, which shows the percentage of graduates enrolled since 9th grade as “Unknown”. (Percent of graduates enrolled since 9th grade is reported as ranging from 6.0% to 9.2% in prior years.) FAME leadership stated at the 3/18/15 interview that this information was not available from the student information system and would have to be determined through a manual file review.

82% of site-based students participated in end-of-year benchmarks (Curriculum Associates) in ELA; 80% in math. FAME’s target was 95% participation.

46% of site-based students assessed in English in January and May demonstrated at least one level of proficiency gain (Curriculum Associates benchmarks). FAME’s target was 65%.

54% of site-based students assessed in math in January and May demonstrated at least one level of proficiency gain (Curriculum Associates benchmarks). FAME’s target was 65%.

The following percentages of site-based students demonstrated at least one level of proficiency growth in English and math in ½ year on Curriculum Associates benchmark exams. In the absence of more information about the assessment and the targets, it is difficult to make meaning from these results.

% of Site-based Students Demonstrating at Least One Level of Proficiency Growth in ½ Year

(Curriculum Associates benchmark assessment)

Student Group English Target

English Result

Math Target

Math Result

Socio-economically Disadvantaged 30% 32% 30% 37%

English Learners 28% 35% 28% 31% Hispanics 40% 38% 40% 43% African-Americans 20% 33% 20% 33% Students with Disabilities 20% 26% 25% 28%


24

43% of English learners continuously enrolled at FAME for 5 years achieved reclassification to Fluent English Proficient. The target was 75%. Given the failure of FAME to reclassify any ELs in 2011-12 and 2012-13, this data is ambiguous.

66.1% of EL students continuously enrolled at FAME for 2 years increased one overall CELDT level each year. FAME’s target was 35%. English learners in California are expected to grow at least one CELDT level per year (CDE).

32% of Arabic Foreign Language students at the Kearney campus continuously enrolled at FAME for 5 years achieved novice high level in speaking Arabic. Results at other campuses were not reported; FAME’s target was 50%.

Other indicators of student achievement for 2013-14 identified by FAME in its Transitional Accountability and Assessment Plan were not measured.

Based on the limited data provided, FAME students overall did not show increases in academic achievement in 2013-14. Measurable Pupil Outcomes In addition to the published CDE data, the Review Team also examined the school’s performance relative to the Measurable Pupil Outcomes in its charter and, for 2013-14 (when state data was not available), the outcomes in its Transitional Assessment and Accountability Plan (TAAP). For 2014-15, FAME’s accountability targets will be drawn from the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), but data for this current year is generally not available. The following table summarizes the school’s achievement of Measurable Pupil Outcomes (MPOs).

MPOs in Charter TAAP LCAP

Target 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

School will achieve 94.6% ADA (attendance rate) Met Not Met Met Met

Met (per data provided to date: 95.5%)

FAME will make Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB) Not Met (22 of 26 criteria)

Not Met (14 of 26 criteria)

Not Met (15 of 24 criteria)

N/A

95% or higher participation in required standardized assessments (part of AYP measure)

Met

Partial (Met ELA; Not Met Math)

Met

Increasing proficiency in math and English Schoolwide and in each significant subgroup (CST adv/prof % change)

Met – all numerically significant groups

Partial (did not meet for ELs and SED ELA)

Not Met (growth for Asian subgroup in math only)

95% or higher participation of site-based students in end-of-year benchmarks (Curriculum Associates)

Not Met (82% ELA, 80% Math)


25

MPOs in Charter TAAP LCAP

Target 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

At least 65% of site-based students assessed in English in January and May will demonstrate at least one level of proficiency gain (Curriculum Associates benchmarks)

Not Met (46%)

At least 65% of site-based students assessed in math in January and May will demonstrate at least one level of proficiency gain (Curriculum Associates benchmarks)

Not Met (54%)

At least 97% of independent study students in grades 3-11 will qualify to be promoted to the next grade. No results

available

A decreasing percentage of socio-economically disadvantaged, English learner, or racial or ethnic minority students who have been continuously enrolled at FAME for at least 2 years will perform below grade level proficiency.

No results available




Increasing proficiency in Math and English in each significant subgroup (state and school-adopted assessments)





Target percentages of site-based students and significant subgroups will demonstrate at least one level of proficiency growth in English and math in ½ year on Curriculum Associates benchmark exams.

Met for all groups in both ELA and Math, except Hispanic students in ELA

Target percentages of independent study students and significant subgroups will qualify to be promoted to the next grade.


At least 75% of students with disabilities will meet at least 75% of their IEP goals.

Met Met (information to date)

FAME will achieve its state API growth target

Partial (met schoolwide, did not meet all subgroup targets)

Not Met

Partial (met schoolwide, did not meet all subgroup targets)

70% of FAME students who complete 9th grade at FAME will graduate within 4 more years from FAME or report enrollment in another program (CDE Cohort Grads)

Met Met Met

No 2013-14 cohort graduation data provided by FAME.

80% of FAME students will pass both components of the CAHSEE by end of 12th grade.

No data provided by FAME



80% of FAME 9th grade students who remain at FAME will graduate with or before their cohort in 4 years.

No 2013-14 cohort graduation data provided by FAME.

FAME Pu

70% of FA– Math.

75% of FA– ELA.

75% of Enfor 5 yearsProficient.

35% of ELyears will

75% of sitfor 5 years(ACTFL). At least 50enrolled athigh level

50% of sitcontinuousnovice hig

Target perdual immelevel of Ar

FAME’s Arabic lastated res

FINDenrolle2012-1LanguIndex,gaps fosubstanpopuladistrictMeasumeetincharterFAMEachiev FINDOutcom

ublic Charte

Ta

AME 10th grade s

AME 10th grade s

nglish learners cos will achieve rec (Basis for recla

L students continincrease one ove

e-based studentss will achieve bil

0% of Dual Immt FAME for 5 yein speaking Ara

e-based Arabic Fsly enrolled at FA

gh level in speaki

rcentages of contersion or Arabic rabic proficiency

renewal petanguage datasults could n

The pDING:ed. Although13, schoolwi

uage Arts and CST proficior socio-econtial percentation in the cts and the10

ures of collegng UC/CSU r’s commitm

E for 2013-1vement gaps.

FAMDING:mes in its ch

er School Cha

rget

students will pas

students will pas

ontinuously enroclassification to

assification revis

nuously enrolled erall CELDT lev

s continuously enlingual proficien

mersion students cears will achieveabic.

Foreign LanguagAME for 5 yearing Arabic.

tinuously enrolleforeign languag

y.

tition did nota referenced not be verifie

proposed eduh FAME’s scide percentagd Mathematiiency and CAnomically dtages of the charter. Theth grade CAHge readinessentrance req

ment to a coll4 shows no c.

ME has not mharter.

arter Renew

ss the CAHSEE

ss the CAHSEE

olled at FAME Fluent English ed for 2013-14.)

at FAME for 2 vel each year.

nrolled at FAMEncy in Arabic

continuously e intermediate

ge students s will achieve

ed students in e will gain 1

t include anyin the MPO

ed.

ucational prochoolwide Ages of studenics have beenAHSEE pas

disadvantagedschool’s enr cohort gradHSEE pass r, including E

quirements, alege preparachange in th

met or did not

al Petition

MPOs i

2010-11

)

Not Met (57.1%)

Met (60.2%

E No results available

y breakdown table for fur

ogram is unsAPI grew ovents scoring an stagnant. s rates all ded students anrollment andduation rate irates have noEAP results aare also low,atory programhe pattern of

t measure th

in Charter

2011-12 201

Not Met (69.5%)

Not(60

Met (74.9%)

No ava


No ava

Not met (35%)

No ava

n of the bencrther analysi

sound for theer the three yadvanced anThe Academ

emonstrate pnd English l

d are identifieis low relativot substantiaand the perc, which is inm. Limited limited grow

he majority o

A

TAA

12-13 2013

Met

Met

t Met .9%) Not M

(43%

results ailable Met (

results ailable

No reavail

results ailable

Not m(32%Kearnonly)Data compdata pby FA

chmark, Engis by the Rev

e pupils to byears from 2

nd proficient mic Performapersistent achlearners, whoed as the tarve to neighbally increasecentage of grnconsistent wdata providewth and pers

of the Measu

April 14, 2015

AP LCAP

-14 2014-

t – 78%

t – 77%

Met %)

(66.1%)

esults able

Firstof fivcoho

met %;

ney )

being piled (No provided AME)

glish learner view Team,

be 2010-11 to

in English ance hievement o make up get oring d. raduates with the ed by sistent

urable Pupil

5

26

P

-15

t year ve-year ort

or so

FAME Pu

To evaindicatCharte

The dathat stuachievFAME In addevidenrenewa O

bu T

ef T H T T

The Reassessm

ublic Charte

Are the pet program se

performan

aluate the chtors organizeer Renewal S

Is the acad

ata provided udents woul

vement, provE’s English l

dition to the snce of the schal benchmar

Over the charut its School

The school haffectiveness

The school’s High quality The school haThe school do

eview Teamment system

Assessmennot includeprogram (dinconsistenThe schoolCCSS-aligevidence inguides) aliand teacheThe qualityKearney anvariable; leclassroom implementInstructionprincipal lesupport berecord of s

er School Cha

titioners dem et forth in th nce of the sch

harter schooled around 3 Standards tab

demic progra

above compd otherwise

vide evidencelearners and

student achiehool’s past prks: rter term, thelwide API gras elements and student curriculum pinstruction ias strong insoes not meet

m found that Fm, curriculumnt system hae K-1; only Cdespite 3 yeant; and school has begun

gned lessons n the chartergned with Cr involvemey of instructnd Leslie caevels of engmanagemen

ted were notnal leadershievel. Profesing provided

substantial tu

arter Renew

monstrably u he petition, t

hool’s acade

’s past perfokey questionbles attached

am a succes

paring studenattend, plus e that the acasocio-econo

evement dataperformance

e school did rew. of an assessmlearning.

partially sups evident in

structional let the educati

FAME had om, instructioas improved,CST and benars of implemolwide acadimplementaand employ

r petition or CCSS; proceent is not contion observeampuses. Hoagement in h

nt and positit evident. p, although

ssional deved for teacherurnover of te

al Petition

unlikely to s taking into c emics, finan

ormance, thens. Conclusd to this repo

ss for all stud

nt academic the evidenc

ademic progomically disa

a, the Reviewand conclud

not meet its

ment system

pports teachesome of the

eadership foronal needs o

only partiallyon and leade, but it is notnchmark datmentation);

demic data isation of comy effective teobservationss of decidinnsistent. d as high in owever, the high school ve behavior

varied, was lopment hasrs at some oeachers and

successfullyconsideratio

nces, and op

e Review Teasions and eviort and summ

dents?

performance of changes

gram has notadvantaged s

w Team conded that the

Measurable

m that improv

ers in their in school. r most of theof at-risk stu

y met the beership becaust comprehen

ata are availateacher abil

s not shared mmon core an

echniques. Hns of curricung on curric

some classrcognitive riclasses obse

r strategies d

observed tos improved,

of the sites. principals, a

A

implement t on the past

eration?

am utilized aidence are inmarized belo

ce at FAME s over time it met the neestudents.

nsidered varischool partia

e Pupil Outc

ves instructio

nstructional

e program. udents.

enchmarks fose: nsive. The sable in the Dlity to use Dwith parent

nd many teaHowever, th

ulum structurculum was n

rooms, partigor of lessoerved was lo

described as

o be generalwith some cHowever, Fand did not

April 14, 2015

the

a set of ncluded in thow.

to the schooin student eds of

ious other ally met the

omes in all a

onal

planning.

or its

system does DataDirectorDataDirector ts. achers use here is no re (e.g., pac

not described

icularly at thns was ow; and being

ly strong at coaching

FAME has a have a

5

27

he

ols

areas,

r is

ing d

he

the

FAME Pu

The Rebecaus

FINDrespecHowevservingstudenassessm

The Refound questio T

el

P

The Revi

Tin

ublic Charte

Director of

eview Team se:

FAME’s cureported noincome coustudents haSchedules fprograms atime and FAand 2012-1reclassifiedStructures fsupporting

The FDING:t to its assesver, the schog educationa

nts. Progress ments identi

Is the orga

eview Teamthat FAME on. FAME p

The school islements inclo Acade

were ro Techn

fully iarents/Guardo Total

indepeo Parent

analyzo Parent

schoo

iew Team foThe charter scnstructional p

o Studeno Schooo Teach

er School Cha

f Education

found that F

urrent studeno students wiunts in prior ad been enrolfor designate

and did not mAME failed 13 (producingd in 2013-14)for implemenlow-income

FAME acadessment systemool is now inally-disadvantoward Arab

ified in the c

anization eff

m considered did not fullypartially met faithful to iuded in its cemic Discovremoved fronology integrimplementeddians and stuenrollment hendent studyt surveys havzed. ts have not bl’s future (e

ound that FAchool organiprogram. nt informatio

ol has experihers have bee

arter Renew

to oversee a

FAME did no

nt informatioith 504 plansyears, and colled. ed ELD instr

meet FAME’to reclassifyg the mislead). ntation of RT

e students des

emic programm, curriculu

n its 10th yearntaged studebic language

charter’s Mea

fectively led

various othey meet any ot the followits mission an

charter: very Lab, prom the charteration and ind over the coudents are sahas dropped y program. ve not been

been effectiv.g. LCAP, ch

AME did not ization does

on system isienced substaen hired with

al Petition

and develop

ot meet the b

on system was and no homould not relia

ruction for Es previously

y any ELs as ding statistic

TI varied at tscribed in th

m has made um, instructior of operatioents such as Ee fluency is uasurable Pup

and manage

er evidence oof the benchmng benchmand but did n

oject-based ler after 2 yeandividualizedourse of the catisfied withsignificantly

regularly co

vely engagedharter renew

meet the remnot effectiv

s acknowledgantial turnovhout required

site princip

benchmark fo

as acknowledmeless studenably determi

ELs were not y stated comm

fluent Englisc that nearly

the FAME she charter are

progress ovonal quality on and has mEnglish learunclear withpil Outcome

ed?

of the schoomarks associarks becausenot implemen

learning and ars of non-imd ELD suppcharter.

h the school, y over time,

onducted; da

d in decisionwal).

maining benvely support t

ged by FAMver of teached credentials

A

als until Ma

for serving at

dged to be unnts, had inaccine how long

consistent amitment of insh proficient50% of ELs

ites and syste not in place

ver the charteand educatio

made insufficrners and lowhout results fs.

ol’s past perfiated with th: nt some prog

d “mini-lessomplementatioort have not

however: particularly

ata has not be

ns regarding

nchmarks becthe delivery

ME to be inacers and princs.

April 14, 2015

arch 2015.

t-risk student

nreliable. It curate low g high school

cross the nstructional t in 2011-12 were

tems for e.

er term with onal leadersh

cient progresw income from

formance andhis renewal

gram

ons” on. t been

y in the

een

the

cause: of the

ccurate. cipals.

5

28

ts

l

hip. ss in

d


29

o FAME has not received Title I funding and failed to implement its 2012-13 plan for socio-economically disadvantaged students despite a high percentage of qualifying students (approximately 50%).

o FAME did not use high school classrooms, including wet labs required for UC/CSU science courses, provided by Fremont USD pursuant to Prop. 39 litigation.

o Availability of electives, enrichment courses and after-school programming has declined.

o FAME board has engaged in limited review of academic progress; data for analyzing progress toward some Measurable Pupil Outcomes was not collected.

The charter board does not work effectively to achieve the school’s Measurable Pupil and Operational Outcomes.

o Three of six FAME board members were removed in January 2013 in a process that violated both FAME bylaws and the Brown Act. Replacements were recruited and selected by the Board Chair.

o Board Chair served in incompatible dual capacities of chair and interim CEO for nearly 3 years (despite concerns expressed by ACOE).

o FAME board operates with no committees, inactive officers, limited discussion of agenda items and limited engagement with parents and public. (Time and location of board meetings inhibit parent participation.)

o Board members’ expertise is not consistent with charter. Members are concentrated in computer science, with none having experience in school administration, law or finance.

o No strategic plan has been adopted for the school. Board members are unfamiliar with plans described in LCAP and charter renewal petition.

o Key leadership vacant for extended periods: Interim unpaid CEO for 3 years; Director of Education not hired until February 2015; Director of Operations and Director of Charter Development remain vacant; Director of Special Programs held by San Leandro Principal.

o CEO and Director of Education were hired although they did not meet qualifications stated in charter.

o Parent organizations were disbanded by the CEO in early 2013 and have not yet been rebuilt at 2 of 3 campuses.

The charter school board does not implement, maintain and abide by appropriate policies, systems and processes.

o FAME has submitted about half of its required non-financial information to ACOE on time and complete. Loan and lease documentation required by the MOU has been submitted only after repeated requests.

o FAME has paid oversight fees to ACOE late in 13 of 18 quarters (to date) over the charter term.

o FAME failed to make timely payments to Fremont USD for removal of portable classroom and food service.

o FAME board failed to respond to management deficiencies, including: Declining enrollment High staff turnover Declining academic performance Failure to implement Title I plan

FAME Pu

FIND

The Revi(describebenchma

Tim

The Revi

Tbuamfo

ublic Charte

o Boardnot be

o Agend

FAMDING:

Is the scho(including

iew Team coed in Exhibitarks: The school mmplemented

iew Team foThe school op

udgets that imong variouorecasts: o Propo

descrio No ev

board o Actua

er School Cha

Failure to center Failure to Violationsimprovem

d members reeen reported da and board

January 21removal frOctober 15meeting laincludes nSeptemberunaudited August 20August 6, mention ofboard meeJune 4, 20April 16, 2materials iadjustmenMultiple mmeetings, Standard Oannouncin

ME is not effe

ool being opethe terms of

onsidered vat A to this re

maintains appthe recomm

ound that FAperates pursuit monitors aus financial r

osed budget iiption and wvidence of pa

awareness oal enrollment

arter Renew

obtain prior

submit times of Title III

ment status eceive stipenon IRS Form

d meetings v1, 2015: discrom consent5, 2014: creaaws (similar no descriptionr 17, 2014: nactuals to be

0, 2014: agen2014: no maf previous di

eting 14: agenda n2014: personin public bin

nt to approvemeetings: imwithout requ

Operating Prng personnel

ectively led a

erated prudef its charter

arious other eeport) and co

propriate intemendations of

AME had onluant to a lonand adjusts wreports raise

in renewal pwith projectedarents or teacof link betwet has been lo

al Petition

approval fo

ly applicatiogrant requir

nds in excessm 990. violated the Bcussion of co; all materialation of CEOaction consin of topics no materials e approved bnda items imaterials in puiscussions o

not posted atnnel policy mnder; items taed agenda

mproper use ouired disclairocedures foraction only

and managed

ently and meand MOU)?

evidence of toncluded that

ernal controlf the FCMA

ly partially mng-range finawhen approps concerns a

petition (15-1d prior year cchers contribeen LCAP aower than the

or independen

on for non-clrements and

s of transpor

Brown Act oonsent agendls not includO committeeidered Augu

in public binby board

mproperly addublic binder n CEO appo

t site of meemislabeled oaken out of o

of sign-in shimer r hiring incluin closed se

d.

eeting all re?

the school’st the school

ls and procedAT reports.

met the folloancial plan inpriate. Howevabout the reli

16) is inconsclosing posibuting to bud

and charter ree projection

A

nt study serv

lassroom funTitle III pro

rtation costs

on multiple oda item withded in publices to circumvust 2014); CE

nder on curr

ded during mon multiple

ointment out

eting n agenda; morder withou

heets at board

uding improession

egulatory req

s past performmet the follo

dures. It has

owing benchmn which it crver, errors oiability of th

sistent with pition (14-15)dget processenewal budgin the schoo

April 14, 2015

vice

nding gram

that have

occasions: out

c binder vent open EO report

rent year

meeting items;

tside of

missing ut

d

operly

quirements

mance owing renew

s substantial

marks: reates realist

or inconsistenhe school’s

program ). s; no evidencget. ol’s prelimin

5

30

wal

lly

tic ncies

ce of

nary

FAME Pu

Tancofo

Tfi

FINDconcerrequirerequire

A

Identified

C N M

FINDmanagsucces

ublic Charte

budgeo Budgeo Durin

projecThe school hand the State omplete andor federal gro Only

and coo FAME

grant o FAME

includof par

o FAMEconten

The school minancial needo The sc

and prdeferr

o FCMAnot cu

BASIDING:rns regardingements in thements.

Are the schoo

d program chCommon CorNext GeneratMulti-Tiered

o High qo Systemo Integro Positiv

BasedDING:gement, as dessfully imple

er School Cha

et in the pastets do not co

ng the chartercted). as complied Department

d follow geneant program50% of FAMomplete. E failed to imfunds. E has not meding designarents. E has failed nt.

maintains adeds of the schchool has forojects a conrals. AT-recommurrently in pl

IS and FAMg managemee financial r

ol’s plans fo

hanges to bere State Stantion Science System of Squality diffemic and sustrated data syve behaviora

d on efforts etailed in theemented.

arter Renew

t 3 years; subonsistently inr term, expen

with financit of Educatioerally accept

ms have not bME’s financi

mplement its

et program rated ELD ins

to comply w

equate financhool are not dund it neces

ntinued need

ended practilace (last not

ME have not oent of cash flealm, but ha

or the future

e implementendards

Standards Supports, witerentiated clatainable chan

ystem al support

to date and pe analysis ab

al Petition

bstantially lonclude prior nses have ex

ial reportingon with requited accountin

been met: ial reports to

s 2012-13 Ti

requirementsstruction and

with eRate re

cial resourcedependent onsary to sell r

d to do so, de

ice of updatited on board

operated thelow. FAMEas not compl

e likely to be

ed include:

th the followassroom instnge

past performbove, the sch

ower in 2 of year payabl

xceeded reve

g requiremenired financiang principle

o ACOE hav

itle I plan an

s associated d formation o

equirements

es to ensure sn variable inreceivables tespite the end

ing the boardd agenda in J

e school prudE generally mlied with fed

e successful?

wing key asptruction

mance of the hool’s future

A

the past 3. les balance. enue in 3 of

nts by providal reports thaes. However,

ve been subm

nd was requi

with Title IIof an advisor

for screenin

stable operatncome, howeto maintain pd of state fun

d on cash floJune 2010).

dently, givenmeets regulatderal program

?

pects:

school and ie plans are un

April 14, 2015

5 years (14-

ding ACOE at are on tim, requiremen

mitted on tim

ired to refund

II funding, ry committe

ng Internet

tions. Criticever: positive cashnding

ow monthly

n continued tory mmatic

its nlikely to be

5

31

-15

me, nts

me

d

ee

cal

h

is

e

FAME Pu

Is

§

As notedhold the included County Gplan that the Counhas exceeapparent informedachievemfinancial to FAMEproblemslevel is lievident faccountathe abusethe publi

CONCLThe ACOgroups ofHoweveroutweighconclude

ublic Charte

s there any o

11966.5(c)(2

d in the timelschool accoua FCMAT e

Grand Jury inprovided fo

nty Board aneded that reqfailure of FA

d and engagement of clear

controls, anE’s current cs have not beimited, and mfrom a seriesability, FAMes of the pastc interest, is

LUSION OE Charter Rf pupils servr, on balancehed by the sued that FAM

er School Cha

other basis t

2),

line above, Funtable for iextraordinarynvestigation

or progress red ACOE to quired for otAME to deved governingr goals. As nnd a broken grisis.” (Repoeen remediedmanagements of poorly ex

ME will contint. That conti another bas

Review Teamved by the che, the limitedubstantial de

ME has not m

arter Renew

that would ju

FAME has bts commitmy audit and f

n, and a charteports and ouensure that Fher charter s

velop strong g board willioted by the Ggovernance mort, p. 106) d: governanct has insufficxecuted initinue to requirinued risk tosis that woul

m consideredharter schoold increases ineficiencies armet the stan

al Petition

ustify denial

een the subjents to its stufollow-up FCter revocatioutside reviewFAME compschools. Thestructures fong and able Grand Jury, model are amThe Reviewce remains wcient experieiatives. In thre additional FAME’s stud justify den

d increases il as the mostn academic articulated bydard for ch

l of the petit

ect of multipudents and tCMAT fiscaon proceedinws. The levplied with the reason for or internal acto hold man“Poor mana

mong the maw Team’s anaweak, financence in eduche absence ol oversight oudents, staffnial of the pe

n pupil acadt important fachievement

y the Reviewharter renew

A

5 CCRtion?

ple investigathe public. Tal review, anng with a corel of oversig

he requiremethis extra ef

ccountabilitynagement accagement, unsajor problemalysis showscial oversighcation adminof strong inteor remain at f and familieetition.

demic achievfactor in its at for some st

w Team. The wal.

April 14, 2015

R

ations intendThese have n Alameda rrective actioght required ents of its chffort is the y, including countable fosophisticated

ms that have s that these ht at the boarnistration, as ernal risk of repea

es, as well as

vement for aanalysis. tudents are Review Tea

5

32

ded to

on of

harter

an or d led

rd

ating s to

ll

am

1

RESOLUTION OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Resolution No. ____

TO APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, THE CHARTER RENEWAL PETITION OF

FAME PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL

WHEREAS, by enacting the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code §§ 47600, et seq.), the

Legislature has declared its intent to provide opportunities to teachers, parents, pupils and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure for the purposes specified therein; and

WHEREAS, the Legislature has declared its intent that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California educational system and that charter schools are part of and under the jurisdiction of the Public School System and the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; and

WHEREAS, charter schools are accountable for complying with the terms of their charters and applicable law; and

WHEREAS, Education Code Section 47605.6 empowers county boards of education to approve a petition for the operation of a countywide-benefit charter school that operates at one or more sites within the geographic boundaries of the county and that provides instructional services that are not generally provided by a county office of education; and

WHEREAS, Education Code Section 47607(a)(2) provides that renewals of charter petitions are governed by the standards and criteria in Section 47605, and shall include, but not be limited to, a reasonably comprehensive description of any new requirement of charter schools enacted into law after the charter was originally granted or last renewed; and

WHEREAS, Education Code Section 47607(b) provides that a charter school that has

been in operation for at least four years shall meet at least one of four specified performance criteria prior to receiving a charter renewal; and

WHEREAS, FAME Public Charter School is a charter school that began operating in

2005 and is in its tenth year of operation; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2015, the Alameda County Office of Education received a

petition to renew the charter for FAME Public Charter School (“Petition”), a school serving grades K-12 in both classroom and non-classroom settings, with an approximate enrollment of 1,100 students during the 2014-2015 school year; and

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the Board held a public hearing on the renewal petition

as required by Education Code Section 47605(b); and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Office of Education, on behalf of the County Board,

convened a Charter Review Team to analyze the petition and other evidence and prepare a Charter School Staff Evaluation Summary of its findings; and

2

WHEREAS, the County Board, under Education Code Section 47605(b), will take

action to grant or deny the renewal petition within 60 days of submission; and WHEREAS, the County Board holds its charter schools to a high academic standard and

its charter schools need to show marked increases in academic achievement over their charter term, or have demonstrated the ability to implement a well-defined plan for improvement, to qualify for renewal; and

WHEREAS, the County Board has considered increases in pupil academic achievement

for all groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most important factor in determining whether to grant the charter renewal;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Alameda County Board of Education approves FAME’s petition to renew its

charter for a five year team, from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020; and, 2. Said approval of FAME’s petition to renew is conditional upon FAME, the County

Board of Education, and the County Superintendent of Schools finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) by June 30, 2015; and,

3. Said MOU must address the Alameda County Office of Education staff concerns noted

in its Charter School Staff Summary; and, 4. The County Board hereby designates to the County Superintendent, and/or her

designee, the authority to negotiate the terms of the MOU and the standards for satisfying the conditions; and,

5. Any notice to the California Department of Education in regard to this Board’s action

on the petition to renew must note that the approval is conditional; and,

6. If, by June 30, 2015, the terms of the MOU have not been finalized, FAME may not commence operations for the 2015-2016 school year. Passed and adopted this 14th day of April, 2015 AYES: _____ NOES: _____ ABSTAIN: _____ ABSENT: _____ President or Designee L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent Alameda County Board of Education Alameda County Office of Education

1

RESOLUTION OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Resolution No. ____

TO DENY CHARTER RENEWAL PETITION OF FAME PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL

AND ADOPTION OF WRITTEN FINDINGS OF SUPPORT THEREOF

WHEREAS, by enacting the Charter Schools Act (Ed. Code §§ 47600, et seq.), the Legislature has declared its intent to provide opportunities to teachers, parents, pupils and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure for the purposes specified therein; and

WHEREAS, the Legislature has declared its intent that charter schools are and should become an integral part of the California educational system and that charter schools are part of and under the jurisdiction of the Public School System and the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; and

WHEREAS, charter schools are accountable for complying with the terms of their charters and applicable law; and

WHEREAS, Education Code section 47605.6 empowers county boards of education to approve a petition for the operation of a countywide benefit charter school that operates at one or more sites within the geographic boundaries of the county and that provides instructional services that are not generally provided by a county office of education; and

WHEREAS, Education Code section 47607(a)(2) provides that renewals of charter petitions are governed by the standards and criteria in section 47605, and shall include, but not be limited to, a reasonably comprehensive description of any new requirement of charter schools enacted into law after the charter was originally granted or last renewed; and

WHEREAS, a county board may deny a petition to renew a countywide benefit charter school if it makes written findings to support any of the following under Education Code section 47605(b): (1) the charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school; (2) the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition; (3) the petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in Education Code section 47605, subdivision (d); and (4) the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of all of the criteria set forth in Education Code section 47605.6(b)(5)(A)-(Q); and

WHEREAS, Education Code section 47605.6(b)(6) allows a petition that establishes a

countywide benefit charter school to be denied for any basis that a County Board finds justifies the denial of the petition; and

WHEREAS, Education Code Section 47607(b) provides that a charter school that has

been in operation for at least four years shall meet at least one of four specified performance criteria prior to receiving a charter renewal; and

WHEREAS, FAME Public Charter School is a charter school that began operating in

2005 and is in its tenth year of operation; and

2

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2015, the Alameda County Office of Education (“County Board”) received a petition to renew the charter for FAME Public Charter School (“Petition”), a school serving grades K-12 in both classroom and non-classroom settings, with an approximate enrollment of 1,100 students during the 2014-2015 school year; and

WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the County Board held a public hearing on the Petition

as required by Education Code section 47605(b); and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Office of Education, on behalf of the County Board,

convened a Charter Review Team to analyze the Petition and other evidence and prepare a Charter School Staff Evaluation Summary of its findings; and

WHEREAS, the County Board has reviewed and analyzed the Charter School Staff

Evaluation Summary and its supporting documents, which is hereby incorporated and attached to this Resolution as Attachment A; and

WHEREAS, the County Board hereby adopts the Charter School Staff Evaluation

Summary and its supporting documents, and the findings of fact included therein, as its own; and WHEREAS, the County Board, under Education Code section 47605(b), will take action

to grant or deny the Petition within 60 days of submission; and WHEREAS, the County Board’s Charter School Policy (BP 0420.4) states that the

ongoing operation of a charter school should be dependent on the school's effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals for student learning, including student achievement for all numerically significant student subgroups served by the charter school; and

WHEREAS, The County Board holds its charter schools to a high academic standard

and its charter schools need to show marked increases in academic achievement over their charter term, or have demonstrated the ability to implement a well-defined plan for improvement, to qualify for renewal; and

WHEREAS, the County Board has considered increases in pupil academic achievement

for all groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most important factor in determining whether to grant the charter renewal; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND AND RESOLVED by the Alameda County

Board of Education that, in regard to increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school:

1. FAME’s academic performance is mixed across programs, campuses, grades, and student subgroups, but based on available data, the school’s overall performance has shown small increases over time, while the performance of English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students has been stagnant.

2. Although FAME’s schoolwide API grew over the three years from 2010-11 to 2012-13, it grew by only four (4) points, and schoolwide percentages of students scoring advanced and proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics have been stagnant.

3. The Academic Performance Index, CST proficiency and CAHSEE pass rates at FAME all demonstrate persistent achievement gaps for socio-economically disadvantaged students and

3

English learners, who make up substantial percentages of the school’s enrollment and are identified as the target population in the Petition.

4. In comparison with schools that FAME students would otherwise attend, and the school districts in which its facilities are located, FAME ranks lower across multiple standardized performance measures, including measures of high school graduation and student readiness for college. FAME’s schoolwide 2013 growth API ranked 11th of 12 in a comparison with the Fremont schools that a plurality of FAME site-based students would otherwise attend.

5. The cohort graduation rate at FAME is low relative to neighboring districts and the10th grade CAHSEE passing rates have not substantially increased.

6. English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students at FAME consistently

perform at lower levels than other students and the achievement gap has not closed during the current charter term.

7. At FAME, measures of college readiness, including EAP results and the percentage of graduates meeting UC/CSU entrance requirements, are low, which is inconsistent with the charter’s commitment to a college preparatory program.

8. Limited data provided by FAME for the 2013-14 school year shows no change in the pattern of limited growth and persistent achievement gaps.

9. FAME did not make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2010-11, 2011-12, or 2012-13.

10. FAME has not met the annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for Title III (English learners) accountability for the past 3 years.

THE BOARD FURTHER FINDS AND RESOLVES THAT:

1. The Charter School presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled

in the Charter School. Said finding is supported by, but not limited to, the following facts:

a. FAME has not met the majority of measurable pupil outcomes articulated in its charter.

b. Programs to support English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students have not been fully implemented and substantial achievement gaps remain for these groups.

c. Information regarding FAME’s curricular materials provided in the appendices to the Petition are not consistent with the scope and sequencing of the Common Core State Standards.

d. No professional development plan for teachers is provided or described in the Petition.

2. The Petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth

in the Petition. Said finding is supported by, but not limited to, the following facts: a. Petitioners have had to return Title I Funds for failure to implement its program

for low income students in compliance with federal funding requirements. b. In this term of its charter, FAME has had a teacher turnover rate of 20 percent or

greater each year, with 37 percent new teachers in the current school year. The

4

charter school has a high turnover rate for principals, with the Kearney, Leslie, and independent study programs having each had 3 principals during the current 5 year charter term.

c. FAME’s governance structure has repeatedly failed to take proactive and timely measures to remedy repeated governance and operational concerns, even following critical reports by FCMAT, the Alameda County Grand Jury, and Alameda County Office of Education.

d. FAME’s information and assessment systems are not effective. For example, FAME’s student information system is inaccurate, and its assessment program is not comprehensive, excluding effective assessment for its K-1 students and failing to provide comprehensive use of its DataDirector program.

e. This charter term, key positions on the organizational chart have remained vacant for extended periods of time. Significantly, FAME did not appoint a Director of Education to coordinate, oversee and develop site principals, and the educational program, in general, until the March of 2015, despite listing this position (under various titles) in its organization structure since July 2011.

f. Substantial achievement gaps remain for English learners, in part, due to the fact that FAME has failed to comply with conditions of receipt of Title III funding, including providing the required minutes of daily designated ELD instruction, failing to reclassify any English learners as fluent English Proficient in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and failing to convene a parent advisory group (ELAC) until fall 2014.

g. Structures for supporting socio-economically disadvantaged students that are described in the charter are not in place. For example, the program for assisting low income and immigrant families described in the Petition is not being implemented in any systematic way that assigns responsibilities or tracks participant families.

h. FAME has not implemented key educational program elements included in its 2010-2015 charter, including, multiple assessments, technology integration, individualized ELD support and student planned and implemented service projects.

i. Despite a continuing decrease in enrollment in recent years, and a failure to recruit to be reflective of Alameda County’s diversity, most recruitment and outreach activities identified in the charter have not been implemented.

j. In 2014, FAME failed to submit a timely request for a funding determination to the CDE, jeopardizing all State funding for its non-classroom based program for the 2014-2015 school year. It was Alameda County Office of Education staff that notified FAME of its error. Only through a waiver to the State Board, submitted by the County Office on FAME’s behalf, was the charter school able to obtain the this essential funding.

k. FAME opened a satellite facility in Berkeley without petitioning the County Board to amend the charter, although such prior approval is clearly required by the Memorandum of Understanding and the need for an amendment was communicated to FAME in advance.

l. In 2011, FAME’s Board Chair was appointed as the Interim CEO of the Corporation without any documented formal action by the Corporate Board. In 2014, that same Interim CEO / Board Chair was appointed as the permanent CEO by the Board that he chaired. There is no known documentation of recruitment, interviews, or discussion by FAME’s Board of any other CEO candidates while the appointed CEO sat on the Board.

5

3. As described in the Charter Petition Review Checklist and Staff Report, the Petition does

not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the following essential elements:

a. Method of measuring pupil outcomes ((Education Code §47605.6(b)(5)(C)); b. Governance structure of the school (Education Code §47605.6(b)(5)(E)); c. Racial and ethnic balance (Education Code §47605.6(b)(5)(H)); d. Dispute resolution procedures (Education Code §47605.6(b)(5)(L));

4. The Board hereby adopts the following documents, and the facts and findings within, as its

own: Charter School Staff Evaluation Summary, Past Performance Tables, Petition Review Checklist, Supplemental Finance Data, Supplemental Academic Data and Corrective Action and Compliance Summaries;

5. THE BOARD FURTHER HEREBY RESOLVES AND FINDS that the limited increases in academic achievement for FAME, as a whole, and for some of its student subgroups, are outweighed by the lack of growth in achievement for English learners and socio-economically disadvantaged students, the absence of a sound educational program, the finding that FAME is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement its program, and the lack of comprehensive descriptions of all required elements provided in its Petition;

AND, THEREFORE, the Board hereby denies the Petition under the provisions of California’s Charter Schools Act. The Petition is hereby denied. Passed and adopted this 14th day of April, 2015 AYES: _____ NOES: _____ ABSTAIN: _____ ABSENT: _____ President or Designee L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent Alameda County Board of Education Alameda County Office of Education

Summary of Compliance Activity: FAME Public Charter School

Page 1 of 6

Issue Description Initiated Document Reference Response or Action Document Reference Current StatusViolation of student policies and notification requirements by giving full credit to HS students for half-semester courses

November-12 Letter to CEO of 2/19/13

Remedied: practice changed and parents notified

FAME response of 3/5/13

No further action

Improper removal of board members – insufficient members to conduct business: 2 board members removed; 1 pressured to resign; immediately replaced

January-13 Minutes of board meeting of 1/21/13 and 2/2/13; email of 1/25/13; letter of 2/26/13

Specific violation remedied: board action re-taken

Minutes of board meeting of 3/7/13

Continued observation of FAME board operation

Unauthorized operation of Berkeley independent study service center: classes offered at additional IS service center in Berkeley without prior approval, as required by state law and MOU

February-13 Letter to CEO of 3/1/13; material amendment process begun 3/6/13

Unauthorized satellite program terminated; material amendment submitted and subsequently withdrawn

Material amendment withdrawn 5/10/13 (email)

No further action


Page 2 of 6

Brown Act compliance: agendas and conduct of meetings

March-13 Governing board observations from March 2013 through January 2015; Presentation to FAME board on governance best practice of 6/19/13; board observations sent 5/15/14

None received Some Brown Act violations have persisted: *January 21, 2015: discussion of consent agenda item without removal from consent; all materials not included in public binder*October 15, 2014: creation of CEO committees to circumvent open meeting laws (similar action considered August 2014); CEO report includes no description of topics*September 17, 2014: no materials in public binder on current year unaudited actuals to be approved by board*August 20, 2014: agenda items improperly added during meeting*August 6, 2014: no materials in public binder on multiple items; mention of previous discussions on CEO appointment outside of board meeting*June 4, 2014: agenda not posted at site of meeting April 16, 2014: personnel policy

mislabeled on agenda; missing materials in public binder; items taken out of order without adjustment to approved agenda Multiple meetings: improper use of

sign-in sheets at board meetings, without required disclaimer


Page 3 of 6

Complaint re: testing irregularities at Kearney site during spring 2013 CST

March-13 CSO letter to FAME sent 9/23/13; response received and further inquiry sent 11/27/13

FAME response included witness statements contradicting original information to CSO; additional information provided by former FAME staff member; conflicting versions of events could not be reconciled

FAME response of 12/13/13

Conflicting witness statements; reminded FAME of need for clear procedures for training and reporting on statewide testing

Concern with sufficiency of playground supervision at Leslie campus raised by parent during site visit

April-13 Email of 6/5/13 Information provided on staffing

FAME written response provided 7/10/13

No further action

Lack of first aid and blood borne pathogens training at Kearney

April-13 Email of 6/5/13 Commitment to training for new staff

FAME written response provided 7/10/13

No further action

Inadequate response to parent complaint of student bullying at Leslie campus

May-13 Email to CEO 5/13/13; follow-up letter 6/12/13

Remedial action proposed to facilitate conversation among students and their families; plan for additiona clarification of procedures and staff training

FAME response to follow-up letters 9/9/13; CSO letter closing out investigation sent 9/12/13

Training of staff on response to bullying observed march 2014; no further action

Parent complaints regarding detention practices at Kearney campus

June-13 Emails week of 6/3/13 Procedures clarified; no violation found

FAME written response 6/14/13

No further action

Complaint from family of S.S. re: discipline and student academic progress

June-13 Email week of 6/10/13

FAME provided documentation; no legal violation found

FAME email response 6/18/13 with documentation

No further action


Page 4 of 6

Title III/English Learners compliance: failure to comply with requirements for student testing, reclassification, parent notification, and parent engagement

August-13 8/27/13 letter from CSO to FAME

FAME response reviewed and files reviewed by CSO on 3/27/14; informed that files would be reviewed and completed during summer 2014

FAME letters of 10/4/13 and 3/4/14; CSO letters of 1/14/14

FAME completed review of student EL status and reclassified numerous Els during 2013-14; status of files remains unclear (3/25/15 site visit)

Title I compliance: failure to implement Title I plan despite receipt of Title I funding in excess of $200,000

September-13 Discussed at spring site visit 2013

Title I funds refunded

Board minutes of 9/4/13

Completed; FAME CEO stated on 3/18/15 that FAME will not request Title I funds during next charter term

Community/neighbor complaint re: traffic safety at Kearny

September-13 Email to FAME 9/5/15 FAME instituted new procedures; CSO observed 9/12/15 and 3/25/15

Second report March 2015; re-checked procedures at 3/25/15 site visit; procedures in place

Complaint from Fremont Unified re: failure to provide student records

October-13 Email to FAME 11/8/13

Student records provided to FUSD by FAME

FAME written response to Fremont USD 11/12/13

No further action

Immunization reporting: failure to complete 7th grade reporting

November-13 Email sent to FAME 11/8/13

Report submitted by FAME; delay in receiving confirmation

Completed, with no subequent notification of failure to report

Late Nonclassroom Funding Request: failure to timely file request for state funding

February-14 CSO letter to FAME of 5/2/14

FAME followed CDE-directed process to obtain general waiver for late filing, then submit funding request

ACBE approved general waiver on 6/10/14; State Board approved nonclassroom funding December 2014

No further action

Enrollment/admissions process: inconsistent explanations of process from office managers at FAME sites during spring 2014 site visits

March-14 None Reviewed with FAME office managers during 3/25/15 renewal site visits

Explanations of process consistent as of 3/25/15; documentation in renewal petition, policies and brochures remain unclear on timing and lottery weighting


Page 5 of 6

Teacher credential issue: Kearney HS "teacher on trial" S. Loyd with no credential (expired sub permit); not qualified for HS social science subjects taught

March-14 CSO letter to FAME 3/6/14; FAME responses 3/14/14 and 3/17/14; document review 3/26/14

FAME identified S. Loyd as a" teacher on trial" under continuous supervision of another teacher; statements of students and parents contradicted this; CSO concluded FAME was out of compliance

CSO close-out letter 2/5/15

Close-out requires providing auditors with copy of CSO letter

Independent study contract and attendance documentation compliance

March-14 Ferber audit, fall 2014 None requested Independent study student files reviewed as part of 2014 compliance audit; contracts found in majority of files with file clean-up continuing fall 2014

Student records: office managers at all FAME sites unfamiliar with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requirements

April-14 2014 site visit observations

CSO provided training for charter office managers in 2014-15

File logs in place for student files at Kearney site as of 3/25/15

Technology Plan: failed to obtain CDE approval prior to submitting for full eRate discounts and Microsoft vouchers

June-14 Verbal communication to FAME CEO of May 7, 2014

FAME submitted tech plan for approval

Tech plan approved (CDE)

Portables at Durham: failure to remove portables from Fremont USD Durham campus pursuant to lease agreement with FAME

July-14 Emails from 7/3/14 through 9/9/14

FAME failed to remove portables; eventually removed by Fremont USD; delay by FAME in compensating FUSD for costs

FAME board minutes 8/20/14

No further action


Page 6 of 6

Teacher credential issue: expiration of preliminary credential for P. Hassan

January-15 Email from ACOE credentials of 1/30/15

FAME email of 2/5/15 claimed teacher was not a classroom teacher, although he supervised students in PE class

CSO close-out letter 2/5/15

Teacher renewed an emergency permit and pursued extension of his preliminary credential; no further action

Teacher credential issue: absence of credentialed teacher for HS math to replace M. Sarig

February-15 Internal email 2/24/15 - not referred to FAME as it could be addressed during 3/25/15 renewal site visite

Pending Determined non-compliant from 3/25/15 independent study teacher roster; follow-up pending

Summary of Corrective Action: FAME Charter Revocation Proceeding

Issue Description Document Reference Response or Action Document Reference Evaluation of Response Document Reference Current Status

1.Teacher Driven Curriculum Notice of Violation (4/23/12); Notice of Intent to Revoke (3/12/13)

FAME shall strengthen lesson plan and delivery on asystem wide basis by implementing the following: 1. DataWorks training on lesson planning and Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) on Aug. 29, 2012 and demonstration, observation and debrief of modeling example, and coaching on 3 days tbd during the school year.‐Evidence: Contract, agenda, attendance logs, training materials within 10 working days of training session. 2. Principals will review lesson plans and observe delivery on a weekly basis and collect evidence for Leadership Team.‐Evidence: Sample lesson plans, classroom observation instrument, compiled classroom observation logs. 3. Principals/Leadership Team will follow‐up plans with teachers, assign additional training and support. ‐Evidence: Redacted examples of follow‐up advice to and agreements with teachers for ACOE follow‐up visit to verify progress of implementation on this element on or about Nov. 1, 2012 and ACOE feedback to FAME. 4. FAME Leadership Team shall conduct review of Action Plan implementation on quarterly basis (end of Sept., Dec.,March, & June) and report to the FAME Board. Evidence: Copy of quarterly reports to FAME Board.

FAME Addendum 1 Corrective Action Plan

FAME has fully implemented this element of the Written Action Plan. Strengths: Evidence indicates the process of improving instructional design and delivery is moving forward at the Leslie campus, the San Leandro campus, and the K‐3, Middle School, and High School programs at the Kearney campus. FAME recognizes the need to continue EDI professional development and coaching throughout 2013‐2014. Needs: Evidence indicates the process of improving instructional design is beginning for the 11 new teachers at the Kearney campus, the two new teachers at the Leslie campus, and the two new teachers at the San Leandro campus.

B. Wagner report of November 2013

Role of EDI in program design unclear from charter renewal petition, but interviews indicate it will continue in use (3/5/15). Implementation will be impacted by continued teacher turnover (reported as 37% new hires in 2014‐15).

2. Multiple Formative And Summative Assessment Measures Including Authentic, Standards‐Based Assessments

FAME will integrate use of Data Director as an assessment and monitoring system to guide instruction in the FAME programs.1. Teachers will be trained by Data Director Aug. 30, 2012. ‐Evidence: Contract, agenda, attendance logs, training materials within 10 working days of training session. 2. Principals will follow‐up by providing ongoing site‐based professional development with teachers.‐Evidence: Professional development calendar3. Teachers will use formative assessments using the Data Director test bank. Teachers will review assessment data monthly. Teachers will use assessment analysis to guide their instruction.‐Evidence: Lesson plans, interventions andsubsequent test data.ACOE will conduct a follow‐up visit to verify progress of implementation on this element on or about Nov. 1, 2012. ‐Evidence: ACOE feedback to FAME.FAME Leadership Team shall conduct a review of Action Plan implementation of this element on quarterly basis (end of Sept., Dec., March, & June) and report to the FAME Board.‐Evidence: Copy of quarterly reports to FAME Board.


FAME has fully implemented this element of the Written Action Plan. Strengths: The charter school understands the benefit to students and will develop a coherent data system to monitor student progress sequentially by aligning essential standards, common curricular pacing guides and common formative assessments. The charter school has developed systems using Data Director to display data in ways administrators and teachers can use to identify student learning needs. Professional Learning Communities provide scheduled time and structure for teachers to analyze student work and plan instruction. PLCs are developing SMART goals. The charter school employs a full time Testing and Assessment Coordinator that coordinates the district’s assessments and testing program. Systems have been developed using Data Director to display data in ways that administrators and teachers can use to determine learning targets.

B. Wagoner report of November 2013

Staff turnover has impacted continued implementation of this element of the plan. Responsibility for DataDirector has been held by a different staff member in each of the past 3 years. Testing coordinator is new in current school year. Newer teachers report that they don't use DataDirector but rely on administrators for data. Only benchmarks and CST scores are included in DataDirector. SMART goals were not discussed by teachers during 3/25/15 site visit.

Page 1 of 5



3. Response to Intervention in English and Mathematics

1. Teachers will be trained in Response to Intervention (RTI) strategies on Aug. 31, 2012 and sessions throughout the school year‐Evidence: Contract, agenda, attendance logs, training materials within 10 working days of training session.

2. Principals will follow‐up by providing ongoing site‐ based professional development with teachers‐Evidence: Professional development calendar.

3. FAME’s comprehensive RTI plan shall be submitted to ACOE by October 12, 2012. The plan shall consist of the following:

‐RTI strategies, understood to have previously been known as “Academic Discovery” at FAME. (See attached charter Educational Program description red‐lines that revise references to this strategy.)

‐Changes to the master schedule to accommodate RTI strategies.

‐Assessment tools for induction, intervention and exit from RTI.

4. ACOE shall conduct a follow‐up visit to verify progress of implementation on this element on or about Nov. 1, 2012. ‐Evidence: ACOE feedback to FAME.


FAME has fully implemented this element of the Written Action Plan. Strengths: Professional Learning Communities have a process that is effective in supporting teachers and guiding instructional decisions. Principals guide teachers in identifying struggling students and determining appropriate interventions. English Language Development and Educational Specialists support teachers with differentiating strategies. All schools have implemented master schedules that include intervention time.


Site visit (3/25/15) found some inconsistent procedures at school sites for RTI.

4. Project‐Based Learning FAME teachers will provide a sound educationalprogram of differentiated instruction for FAME’sstudents by focusing on teacher‐driven curriculum,data‐driven instruction, and RTI.

By mutual agreement, Project‐Based Learning will beeliminated as a mandated instructional strategy by anonmaterial revision to the charter. (See attachedcharter Educational Program description red‐lines thatomit references to this strategy.)



5. Integration of Technology across the Curriculum

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

1. FAME’s school‐wide technology plan describing how it will reach this goal shall be submitted to ACOE by August 31, 2012.

‐Evidence: The Technology Plan will include: *Identification of the Technology Focus Group members *Group’s review of Technology AuditUpdate of technology access *Plans and timelines for implementing technology plan2. ACOE shall conduct a follow‐up visit to verify progress of implementation on this element on or about Nov. 1, 2012. ‐Evidence: ACOE feedback to FAME.

3. FAME Leadership Team shall conduct a review of Action Plan implementation of this element on quarterly basis (end of Sept., Dec., March, & June) and report to the FAME Board.‐Evidence: Copy of quarterly reports to FAME Board.


FAME has fully implemented this element of the Written Action Plan for Year 2012‐2013.

B. Wagner report of March 2013

Technology plan not approved until June 2014. Reports on technology plan implementation not provided quarterly to FAME board during 2013‐14 and 2014‐15 (to date) academic years. SmartBoards installed but software and training insufficient (3/25/15 visit). Ratio of sudents to computers observed to be 4:1, rather than 1:1 stated in renewal petition cover letter.

Page 2 of 5



6. Mini‐Lessons Addressing Specific Skills

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

FAME teachers will provide a sound educational program of differentiated instruction for FAME’s students by focusing on teacher‐driven curriculum, data‐driven instruction, and RTI.

By mutual agreement, Mini‐lessons will be eliminated as a mandated instructional strategy by a nonmaterial revision to the charter.


FAME has sufficiently implemented this element of the Written Action Plan to make substantial progress toward full implementation.


Extent of differentiated instruction observed (3/25/15) varied, but it remained a focus of instructional leadership.

7. A Code of Conduct for All Members of the School Community

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

1. The FAME Student‐Parent Handbook for Site‐based Programs is available on the FAME website under “Resources” or by clicking: http://www.famecharter.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/07/FAMEStudentParentHand book.pdf. 2. The FAME Student‐Parent Handbook for independent Study is available on the FAME website under “Resources” or by clicking: http://www.famecharter.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/07/IndependentStudyParenthand book2010‐2011.pdf 3. The FAME High School Handbook for Independent Study is available on the FAME website under “Resources” or by clicking: http://www.famecharter.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2012/07/ISHighSchoolHandbook2011‐ 2012.pdf 4. FAME has designated the HR/Marketing Manager as the person responsible for ensuring all Internet posting requirements are met on an annual basis.(prior to the commencement of the school year) in accordance with MOU requirements. Per the ACOE staff report, this element has been fullyremedied.




Independent study handbook out of date (App. L of charter renewal petition).

Page 3 of 5



8. Foreign Language Instruction at Every Grade Level

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

All workshops for FAME’s Arabic teachers include instruction in the 5 C’s of ACTFL Foreign Language Instruction. All FAME Arabic teachers have participated in multiple teacher training using ACTFL guidelines.Training Evidence: See workshops provided for FAME’s Arabic teachers: http://www.acoe.org/acoe/EdServices/ProgramsandS ervices/FLAPGrants/ProjectMushruBoloughAlMaram. In addition, FAME Arabic teachers participated in training in California content standards at the California Language Teachers Association (CLTA) Conference (Mar. 17‐20, 2011). By Sept. 17, 2012. FAME will provide ACOE a list of all FAME attendees at each workshop.Implementation Evidence ACOE shall conduct a follow‐up visit to verify progress of implementation on this element on or about Nov. 1, 2012 and provide feedback to FAME.FAME will provide sample lesson plans, in English and Arabic, that reflect implementation of the 5C’s of ACTFL standards (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons & Communities)FAME will provide the classroom observation instrument and each Site Administrator’s compiled classroom observation logs.


FAME has fully implemented this element of the Written Action Plan for Year 2012‐13.

B. Wagoner report of March 2013

9. Full Immersion Arabic/English at the Kindergarten Level and Beyond

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

FAME confirms its commitment to the dual immersion program and continuation of curriculum development. FAME is grateful to ACOE staff support and provision of professional development services to FAME. Per the ACOE staff report, this element has been fully remedied.




Dual immersion program has grown to K‐4 with planning for grade 5 underway.

Page 4 of 5



10.Individualized English Language Development Support, and Collaborative Planning Time, and Professional Development with Emphasis on Direct Instruction

FAME Addendum 1 CAP

1. FAME shall strengthen individualized English language development and support on a system wide basis by implementing the following:Training on ELD strategies by DataWorks on 8/30/12.‐Evidence: Contract, agenda, attendance logs, training materials within 10 working days of training session.Principals will follow‐up by providing ongoing site‐based professional development with teachers. Principals will review lesson plans and observe delivery on a weekly basis and collect evidence for Leadership Team.‐Evidence: Sample lesson plans, classroom observation instrument, compiled classroom observation logs.All teachers who have EL students will review and analyze CELDT and CST assessment data of EL students annually to identify and implementappropriate ELD strategies within 30 days of school start or receipt of CELDT and CST assessment data, whichever is later.‐Evidence: The FAME Leadership Team will construct assessment procedures for induction, intervention and exit from RTI by Oct. 12, 2012. Employment of an ELD teacher at each site.‐Evidence: Roster of teacher assignments for 2012‐13.FAME Leadership Team shall conduct a review of Action Plan implementation of this element on quarterly basis (end of Sept., Dec., March, & June) and report to the FAME Board.

2 ACOE shall conduct a follow up visit to verify progress of


FAME has completed the requirements of this element as outlined in the Written Action Plan. I recommend this component be revisited in the Winter to observe current year program option implementation. Strengths: All teachers are CLAD certificated. The Testing and Assessment Coordinator continues to clarify and monitor student language levels and implement reclassification procedures. This year, FAME is adding A Developmental English Proficiency Test (ADEPT) to its assessment tools to monitor EL students’ language growth over time in grades K‐8. ADEPT is a valid and reliable oral language assessment instrument aligned with the CELDT. On October 22, the ELD teachers and the Testing Coordinator received training in ADEPT. Professional Development is scheduled on November 22 for teachers to learn and practice the use of CELDT levels and CST data to determine student needs.


ADEPT assessment is not included in renewal charter petition MPOs; no ADEPT data provided in renewal performance report (App. A). ELD teachers are currently provided for each site, although days and time for direct ELD varies by site and student groups. Site ELD instructors also provide support for Independent Study students.

Page 5 of 5

Summary of Corrective Action: FAME Alameda County Grand Jury Report

Issue Description Document Reference FAME Response or Action Document Reference ACOE Response or Action Document Reference Current StatusPoor Management Grand Jury Report The former FAME CEO was

dismissed in May 2012 and no longer receives a salary. FAME is in the process of retrieving the car that is being wrongfully withheld by the former employee. FAME is managed by a highly qualified leadership team consisting of an Acting CEO, and four credentialed principals with over 100 years of experience in education.

FAME Response to Grand Jury Report

ACOE was greatly concerned with FAME's lack of ability to effectively lead and manage its three school sites and independent study program. Notices of corrective action to FAME began in June of 2011. Since then, ACOE has worked very closely with FAME Charter School to remedy its charter violations.

ACOE Response to Grand Jury (9/21/12)

Revocation proceeding was initiated and ended with an addendum to the MOU and an extensive corrective action plan with follow‐up reviews by outside parties.

Broken Governance Model

Grand Jury Report In full compliance with its charter and bylaws, the FAME Board of Directors consists of six qualified and dedicated members.


While the charter did remedy violations with respect to their governance structure, we continue to closely monitor board meetings to ensure compliance with their petition and bylaws.


Monitoring of governing board meetings continued through January 2015. Feedback was provided to the board through correspondence and presentations to the FAME board.

Financial Issues Grand Jury Report FAME is fiscally solvent and has a sustainable financial future.


In the coming year, we will work to expand our current audit process to fully implement a seven‐point checklist covering the following areas: general requirements; fiscal and business operations; educational performance; facilities; governance; personnel; and student services. A new Director of Charter Schools position will be added to oversee this work.


The position of Director, CSO was created and oversight has been expanded, consistent with the MOU and corrective action plan, and guided by the Authorizer's Toolkit.

Increase in number of Independent Study students in violation of charter

Grand Jury Report FAME has maintained student enrollment numbers in full compliance with its charter in the independent study and site‐based programs.


Page 1 of 2

Summary of Corrective Action: FAME Alameda County Grand Jury Report

Issue Description Document Reference FAME Response or Action Document Reference ACOE Response or Action Document Reference Current StatusRequire charter school leaders to attend FCMAT charter school training when a charter is approved or renewed.

Grand Jury Report We agree with this recommendation and agree to implement when permissible by law. California Education Code allows a county office to "impose any additional requirements beyond those required by this section that it considers necessary for the sound operation of a countywide charter school." Our county‐wide MOU has been revised to reflect this requirement, and plan to negotiate this requirement with charters that are approved on appeal.


Brown Act and conflict of interest training requirement in FAME MOU has been implemented. FCMAT training for charter school leaders has notbeen offered on a regular basis.

Ensure that each charter school includes a conflict of interest policy in its charter and follows it.

Grand Jury Report We agree with this recommendation. All of ACOE's charters include such a policy as part of our MOU agreement. Monitoring of this policy is built into our framework and is in our Oversight Toolkit.


Incorporated into charter school MOU. No evidence of non‐compliance with conflict policy at FAME.

Page 2 of 2

Summary of Corrective Action: FAME FCMAT Fiscal Review

Issue Description Document Reference Response or Action/Document Reference Current Status

Major Recommendations Related to Financial Processes:

Documentation of FAME response to FCMAT Fiscal Review not available. Current status noted where known.

Develop MYFPs with and without assumptions that enrollment will increase. Use the MYFP that assumes no enrollment growth to ensure that staff and the community are aware of the potential effects of such a scenario.

FAME FCMAT Fiscal Review 2/10/10

Enrollment projections for budgets during the charter term have been higher than actual in 4 of 5 years. Not clear that impact of enrollment decline has been communicated effectively to board, staff and community. See Supplemental Financial Data.

Review historical staffing increases, including those related to attrition but excluding new salaries added for growth, to develop a historical average percentage increase, and use this as a basis for the projected cost of step and column increases in the subsequent fiscal years of its MYFP.


No evidence in recent financial reports that this methodology is in current use.

Ensure that revenues and expenditures are accounted for using the full accrual bases of accounting.


Full accrual basis is in use.

Continue to monitor its current and subsequent year cash flow at least monthly, including reporting to the governing board monthly in accordance with board policy.


Monthly cash flow reporting last appeared on an agenda in June 2010.

Page 1 of 3



Update the current year and projection year cash flow statements to include a column for current year and prior year accruals, ensure that the total column for each line item balances to the budget for that respective year, and include formulas to calculate the projection months.


As noted in Supplemental Financial Data, cash flow statements do not demonstrate clear continuity from prior year to current year.

Include a line item for prior year accounts payable on its cash flow statement to ensure that all items that affect cash are reflected.


As noted in Supplemental Financial Data, prior year accounts payable is not consistent in cash flow statements.

Preliminary findings and recommendations from FCMAT exit conference:FAME Public Charter School continues its practice of utilizing complex spreadsheets to manage salaries and benefits (position control), and develop the current year budget, multiyear projected budgets and cash flow projections. This Excel workbook contains numerous user‐modified cells of data, which require considerable time and expose the charter school to risk of data entry error and/or omissions.

FCMAT Letter of 3/28/11

FAME contracts with a payroll service and with Charter School Management Corp. for access to the CharterVision accounting system.

Page 2 of 3



During interviews, staff members indicated that the charter school is transitioning from the Microsoft Office Small Business financial system for all accounting transactions to the AptaFund financial system, which is utilized by Delta Management Solutions (DMS) to process payroll. The charter school anticipates a complete transition to this new system by May 2011, reducing the vulnerability that exists as a result of utilizing several accounting systems.


Not clear if AptaFund financial system was employed. By 2013, FAME had contracted with CSMC and used the CharterVision accounting system.

A preliminary review of the estimated student enrollment and average daily attendance for the current and two subsequent fiscal years indicates that the projection assumptions are reasonable.


Enrollment assumptions for budget purposes exceeded actual ADA in 2012‐13, 2013‐14 and 2014‐15.

FAME Charter School relies heavily on bridge financing to meet the monthly costs of operation. Because the options are very limited in securing financing to bridge the shortfalls that result from the reduction and/or deferral of state funding, it is imperative that the charter school secure a lending source for next fiscal year.


FAME has secured financing to bridge shortfalls by factoring receivables. It continues to do so, despite elimination of state deferrals.

Page 3 of 3

ALAMEDA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATIONFAME Public Charter SchoolCorrective Action Report - March 1, 2010

No.

FCMAT Subject Area and Recommendation

(April 2009)FCMAT Findings from Follow-up Review (December 2009) ACOE Follow Up Review from Visit to FAME

February 1, 2010 Finding

Resolved

1

Cash Flow & Loans Item 2. Review spending patterns and expenditure allocations and make adjustments necessary to address the cash flow deficiency so that RAN proceeds can be used for cash flow needs and not as operating capital.

The charter school’s 2008-09 unaudited actuals report indicates that general fund revenues exceeded expenditures by $627,977. The 2009-10 adopted budget projects that general fund revenues will exceed expenditures by $49,313. Based on the continued and increased cash deferrals included in the state’s 2009-10 budget, including deferrals equal to 25% of the current year funding into 2010-11, it is imperative that the charter school continue to monitor its current year and subsequent year cash flow at least monthly and continue to carefully monitor its annual budget to ensure that expenditures do not exceed revenues. Note: FAME has hired FCMAT under a separate agreement to review their cash flow and multi-year projections.

FAME Charter School Staff (FAME) provided the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) with copies of their Statement of Activity and latest Cash Flow Statement, dated December 21, 2009. There was not an updated Balance Sheet statement to monitor the Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Balance. In August 2009, the FAME Public Charter School independently entered into an agreement with FCMAT to provide a review of the charter school's fiscal status. A copy of the findings of this review was provided to the ACOE. The recommendations, when fully implemented, will help to continue to improve FAME's business processes and procedures.

YES

2

Cash Flow & Loans Item 3. Determine if an additional loan from the RAN lender is needed to cover cash flow needs for the remainder of the 2008-09 fiscal year, rather than borrowing from private individuals.

On July 9, 2008 the charter school obtained a revenue anticipation note (RAN) from Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC in the amount of $2 million. This note matured on September 1, 2009 and was repaid by the charter school as of the same date. On April 28, 2009 the charter school obtained a RAN from Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC in the amount of $1.575 million, which will mature on September 1, 2010. The charter school’s 2009-10 cash flow statement indicates that it will need an additional loan of $1.3 million in June 2010 to end the year with a positive cash balance.

FAME provided the ACOE with a letter dated February 8, 2010, of its intent to obtain a Revenue Anticipation Note (RAN) from Comerica through the DMS 2010 Cash Flow Financing Program in the amount of $3.1 million. $1.3 million will cover their projected cash flow shortfall in Spring 2010 due to the current state apportionment deferrals, and the remainder will be used to pay off the RAN from Wells Fargo Institutional Securities, LLC, which matures on Sept. 1, 2010. FAME's Board reviewed and approved this item on Feb. 11, 2010. ACOE staff has determined this RAN appears to be reasonable, allowing FAME to end the year with a positive cash balance.

YES

3

Executive Director's Compensation Item 1. File with the federal and state taxing agencies corrected forms W-2 that include all reportable wages for the executive director for the 2006 and 2007 calendar or tax years.

County office staff have communicated with charter school staff to identify information needed to prepare corrected W-2c forms for 2006 and 2007. The executive director anticipates that this issue will be resolved by December 31, 2009. The charter school’s executive director also indicated that she has secured assistance from a certified public accountant (CPA) to gather the information needed to file amended tax returns based on the W-2c forms. A meeting was scheduled for October 2009 between the executive director and the CPA. In addition, FCMAT observed that the instructions for filing a W-2c form indicate that corrections are to be filed as soon as any errors in the original forms are discovered.

County office staff and charter school staff met on February 2, 2010 to go over the corrected W-2c forms for the executive director, to be filed with the federal and state taxing agencies for the 2006 and 2007 calendar year. The amended documents were finalized and filed with the appropriate agencies on February 4, 2010. YES

corrective action items final review3-1-10 page 1 of 7


No.




Resolved

4

Executive Director's Compensation Item 2. Ensure that reportable wages for all employees are paid through the payroll system rather than through accounts payable, and ensure that they are properly reported on Form W-2.

In addition to paying some of the executive director’s reportable wages through the accounts payable system in 2008, a review of the 2008 1099 forms indicates that three part-time teachers received payments for tutoring services through accounts payable. Charter school staff reported that this procedure has been changed in 2009-10 and part-time teachers who also provide tutoring services will be paid through the payroll system. In April 2009, the charter school entered into a contract with an outside provider for payroll services, and charter school staff indicate that the school is working with the provider to ensure that all reportable wages are paid through the payroll system.

A review of timesheets for part-time teachers shows that eleven part-time teachers now receive payments for tutoring services through the accounts payable system. Per an interview with FAME's CFO, all part time teachers or other employees that are not consultants are required to complete time sheets. Consultants are required to fill out a consulting checklist, W-9 and are issued a 1099 at the end of the year. Copies of FAME's current consultants and 3rd party contracts were provided to ACOE. These documents were found to be reasonable.

YES

5

Executive Director's Compensation Item 4. Ensure that all payment authorizations for the executive director are signed by a member of the board of directors.

The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors’ meeting includes Policy 3100.1, Executive Director’s Contract, which states, “All payment authorizations for Executive Director compensation shall be signed by a member of the Board. Under no circumstances may the Executive Director be compensated as an independent contractor, and any compensation shall be paid through the payroll system and is subject to standard payroll taxes and reporting.” Because the executive director sits on the governing board, FCMAT recommends that the policy clarify that the board member who signs the payment authorizations for the executive director be a member other than the executive director.

Per FCMAT's recommendation, FAME revised their Policy 2100.1, to include, "All payment authorizations for Chief Executive Officer compensation shall be signed by a member of te Board other than the Chief Executive Officer. " This policy was reviewed and apporoved by FAME's Board on January 31, 2009. The Chief Executive Officer resigned from the Board as of December 31, 2010. YES

6

Executive Director's Compensation Item 7. Reconcile all vacation earned, used and paid to the executive director, and recapture any overpayments.

A formal vacation accrual record for the executive director is not available. Charter school staff members reported that accrual recordkeeping will be implemented via the payroll system that was implemented in April, 2009 using an outside services provider. The charter school board members interviewed believe that all vacation payouts to the executive director were appropriate. The executive director has used or been paid for all accrued vacation earned through June 30, 2008, and has used or returned all accrued vacation for 2008-09 in July and August 2009. Thus the charter school’s board and executive director believe there is no need to reconstruct the executive director’s accrued vacation history.

FAME provided the ACOE with an accured vacation report of all vacation earned, used and paid to the executive director from 2005/06 through 2009/10. This report was signed by FAME's Board President and the Executive Director indicating that the vacation payouts to the executive director were appropriate. ACOE was able to verify that the report received matched the backup documentation provided.

YES



No.




Resolved

7

Executive Director's Compensation Item 11. Ensure that the automobile provided for the executive director in the employment agreement is reported correctly on the executive director’s Form W-2.

Staff from the Alameda County Office of Education met with charter school staff on November 9, 2009 to identify information needed to prepare corrected W-2c forms for 2006 and 2007. The charter school’s executive director indicated that she has obtained assistance from a CPA to gather the information necessary to file amended tax returns based on the W-2c forms. FCMAT reviewed the executive director’s 2008 form W-2, which was prepared and filed by the county office on behalf of the charter school, and noted that taxable income differed from FCMAT’s estimate. The charter school reported most of this difference to the IRS on a Form 1099. Difference between what was not reported is $932. This discrepancy should be resolved.

County office staff reviewed the discrepancy of $932 reported by FCMAT. After its review, ACOE staff concluded there is no discrepancy to the amount reported in the corrected W-2c forms prepared for the filing for FAME's executive director. County office staff met with charter school staff on February 2, 2010 to report the findings regarding this issue, and discuss the filing of the executive director's W-2c forms. YES

8

Executive Director's Compensation Item 15. Ensure that all expense claims submitted by the executive director are reviewed and authorized by a member of the board of directors.

In interviews, charter school board members indicated that the boardpresident reviews the executive director’s expense claims. A review ofthe accounts payable records from November 1, 2008 to September 29,2009 indicated that the executive director has not been reimbursed forexpenses through accounts payable since November 13, 2008.Interviews further indicated that the executive director is using the debitcard associated with the petty cash account for expenditures becauseshe may spend up to $5,000 without prior board approval. The charterschool should ensure that a policy is in place that provides for a memberof the board of directors to review expenses incurred by the executivedirector through the petty cash account. Because the executive directorsits on the governing board, the policy should clarify that the boardmember who reviews the executive director’s expenses is a memberother than the executive director.

Per FCMAT's recommendation, FAME revised their Policy 2100.1, to include, "All payment authorizations for Chief Executive Officer compensation shall be signed by a member of the Board other than the Chief Executive Officer. " This policy was reviewed and approved by FAME's Board on January 31, 2010. In addition the Chief Executive Officer resigned from the Board as of December 31, 2009.

YES

9

Executive Director's Compensation Item 16. Establish a board policy with guidelines regarding allowable and prohibited expenditures.

The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors meeting includes Policy 2200.1, Bank Accounts and Petty Cash, Policy 2500.1 Debit and Credit Cards, and Policy 2600.1, Expense Reimbursement, which include guidelines regarding allowable and prohibited expenditures. The charter school should work with its legal counsel to ensure that these policies are in compliance with all applicable laws.

FAME provided the ACOE with a copy of a letter from their attorney dated February 1, 2010 confirming legal counsel's review of Policy 2200.1, 2500.1 and 26001, for legal compliance, and ensured they comply with all applicable laws.

YES



No.




Resolved

10

Other Expenditures Item 1. Cease using the petty cash account and credit card account for routine operating expenses; pay these expenses using the accounts payable system (operating account).

FCMAT reviewed all petty cash account transactions for November 2008 through August 2009 and observed that routine operating expenses are being funded through this account. However, the number of such transactions has decreased significantly since FCMAT’s review in October 2008. The charter school should investigate whether it is eligible to participate in the state’s CAL-Card program through the California Department of General Services, and cease use of the petty cash account for routine operating expenses. A review of credit card statements from September 2008 to September 2009 indicated that the use of credit cards for routine operating expenses decreased significantly since FCMAT’s prior review. The supporting documentation provided with the July 2009 credit card statement was missing a receipt for a hotel charge dated June 21, 2009.

In an interview with charter school staff, they indicated they did investigate and discover that FAME is eligible to participate in the state's CAL-Card program. Staff further indicated that FAME has opted to use the "Wright Card" which is an auto servcies credit card. One other credit card used is a $1000 limit American Express card, only used to make travel reservations and buy food for board meetings. Since the consolidation of the Dublin and Newark administrative offices, the American Express card previously used for postage is no longer in use, and has been destroyed.

YES

11

Other Expenditures Item 2. Require that all purchases using petty cash, credit card accounts or operating funds have properly authorized written purchase requisitions, and require itemized receipts and the signature of the employee for each purchase.

FCMAT reviewed all petty cash account transactions for November 2008 through August 2009 and found that purchase requisitions are not used for this account. Itemized receipts were not provided to support a significant number of transactions, but the executive director made notations on the bank statement describing the business purpose of these disbursements. Employees did not always sign the receipts. All statements were authorized for payment by the executive director. A review of the credit card statements from September 2008 to September 2009 indicated that purchase requisitions are not used for credit card purchases. While this is often the case with credit card purchases, in many cases the supporting documentation did not contain the employee’s signature, and FCMAT found no evidence that the employee’s supervisor had reviewed and approved the purchases monthly. The charter school should require each employee who is provided with a school credit card to review and sign the monthly statement; the employee’s supervisor should also review and sign the statement.

A review of credit card statements for expenses in November and December 2009 found that the use of credit cards for routine operating expenses is being used infrequently. Copies of receipts were attached as supporting documentation for all transactions, and were signed by the person making the purchase. The supporting documentation provided with the credit card statement for December did not appear to consistently have the CFO's authorized signature on all the receipts, but there were copies of emails approving purchases. ACOE recommends that the CFO sign each Expense Authorization in order to provide consistency and a complete audit trail for petty cash, credit card accounts, or other operating funds.

YES



No.




Resolved

12

Other Expenditures Item 4. Prohibit all cash withdrawals from the petty cash account, including those using the PayPal system.

FCMAT’s review of petty cash account transactions from November 2008 through August 2009 did not reveal any cash withdrawals from the petty cash account or any use of the PayPal system. The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors meeting includes Policy 2500.1, Debit and Credit Cards, which states, “No FAME debit/credit card shall be used to make PayPal payments.”

ACOE's review of FAME's petty cash account transactions from November 2009 through January 2010 did not reveal any cash withdrawals or any use of the PayPal system from the petty cash. Petty cash transactions were made through the debit card in January for hotel accomodations & rental car for a pre-approved conference that was attended by the Executive Director and one other staff member.

YES

13

Other Expenditures Item 6. Establish a board policy that identifies allowable and prohibited expenditures as well as the public purpose for purchases of items such as gift cards, flowers and gift baskets.

The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors meeting includes Policy 2700.1, Bonuses, Incentives and Awards. Although this policy identifies allowable expenditures, it does not explain the public purpose for the items listed, nor does it state which funds other than federal and state funds will be used to pay for the items. The charter school should work with its legal counsel to ensure that the policy is in compliance with all applicable laws.

FAME provided ACOE with a copy of a letter from their attorney dated February 1, 2010 confirming legal counsel's review of Policy 2700.1, for legal compliance. This policy has been amended to clarify the public purpose for bonuses, incentives and awards. It also clarifies that no state or federal funds will be used to pay for staff gifts or treats. Copies of FAME's Board Meeting Minutes show that FAME's Board approved all of the revisions at its January 31, 2010 Board Meeting.

YES

14

Other Expenditures Item 7. Indicate the business purpose and the participants when meals are provided as a part of staff development, staff appreciation or any other activity. Require itemized receipts for all meal purchases.

A review of petty cash account transactions for November 2008 through August 2009 found that most disbursements for meals included the business purpose of the meal and the names of employees who participated. However, the supporting documentation for some disbursements did not include an itemized receipt or information regarding employee names. One transaction was a $1,500 payment to a local restaurant that was approved by the executive assistant and contained no details of the meals provided other than a notation that it was a staff development activity. Following FCMAT’s field work, a receipt from the restaurant was provided indicating the activity was for approximately 80 people, but there were no notes on the receipt substantiating this number or approval for payment. The executive director verbally acknowledged to FCMAT that the activity was authorized. A review of credit card accounts for September 2008 to September 2009 indicated that most purchases included the business purpose of the meal. However, some purchases did not include an itemized receipt or the names of the attendees.

A review of credit card accounts did find one transaction for a group meal in December. Supporting documentation included the business purpose of the meal, an itemized receipt, a sign-in sheet with the list of people who attended, and an Expense Detail Form with the Program Director's signature.

YES



No.




Resolved

15

Other Expenditures Item 9. Ensure that all accounts are managed so that late fees and insufficient funds charges are not incurred.

FCMAT found 15 petty cash account overdrafts that occurred over a four-day period in June 2009. The bank charged no fees for the first six overdrafts, but did charge a $35 insufficient funds fee for each of the last nine overdrafts, resulting in charges totaling $315. The executive director indicated that this occurred as a result of some confusion regarding hotel room reservations for a conference attended by the charter school’s board members and staff. The executive director reimbursed the charter school for all of these charges from her personal funds. The charter school has implemented procedures to help prevent situations like this in the future. The charter school should investigate whether it is eligible to participate in the state’s CAL-Card program through the California Department of General Services, and cease using the petty cash account for travel expenses. This will help avoid insufficient fund fees in the future.

ACOE's review of FAME's petty cash account transactions from November 2009 through January 2010 did not reveal any cash account overdrafts, even though it was used for hotel room reservations and car expenditures during a conference. Charter school staff have indicated they did investigate and discover that it is eligible to participate in the state's CAL-Card program. FAME has opted to use the "Wright Card" which is an auto services credit card and believes this will cover any problems regarding overdraft issues. In order to avoid insufficient fund fees in the future, ACOE concurs with FCMAT's recommendation that FAME cease using the petty cash account for travel expenses and use its credit card or Purchase Order system whenever possible.

YES

16

Other Expenditures Item 10. As long as the vehicle provided to the executive director is registered in the name of the charter school, ensure that evidence of the vehicle’s insurance is kept in the vehicle and on file at the administrative office at all times.

The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors meeting includes Policy 2900.1, Risk Management. Charter school staff provided FCMAT with a copy of the vehicle registration and insurance information. However, when FCMAT asked to see if the information was in the vehicle, the request was not accommodated. Following FCMAT’s fieldwork, charter school staff provided FCMAT with a copy of the revised vehicle registration showing that the registered owner is the Bay Area School for Independent Study, Inc. (BASIS), with a transfer date of October 27, 2009. The charter school should provide the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with documentation indicating BASIS’ nonprofit status and a completed REG 5050 form so that the DMV can determine if the organization is eligible for an exempt license plate for this vehicle.

FAME provided ACOE staff with a copy of the DMV Registration card, valid through 12/31/2099, indicating that the vehicle owned by BASIS has exempt status. A copy of the license plate on the vehicle was also provided.

YES

17

Other Expenditures Item 11. Establish a board policy that prohibits using charter school funds to pay for citations, fines or other penalties incurred by employees.

The fiscal policies manual approved at the June 18, 2009 board of directors meeting includes Policy 2500.1, Debit and Credit Cards, which states, “FAME debit/credit cards may not be used for … d. Traffic fines and citations, including parking and speeding tickets.” The manual also contains Policy 2600.1, Expense Reimbursement, which states, “The following costs are not eligible for reimbursement: … d. Traffic fines and citations, including parking and speeding tickets – tolls are reimbursable.” However, a policy was not provided that prohibits use of all charter school funds for these purposes.

FAME provided the ACOE with a copy of a letter from their attorney dated February 1, 2010 confirming legal counsel's review and recommendation to amend policies number 2500.1 and 2600.1, to clarify that no charte school funds will be used at any time for reimbursement of traffic fines and citations, including parking and speeding tickets. ACOE's review of FAME's Policies 2500.1 and 2600.1 reflect these changes. Board Meeting Minutes show that FAME's Board approved the revisions on January 31, 2010.

YES



No.




Resolved

18

Other Expenditures Item 12. Consider establishing accounts with vendors that accept purchase orders (such as those that provide office supplies) to take advantage of the convenience, controls and cost savings that this arrangement provides.

Charter school staff stated that most supply purchases for the classroom occur via the school’s online purchasing system (OPS) and that this system provides access to requested materials and supplies at competitive prices. Charter school staff are investigating the feasibility of establishing charge accounts at various discount office and building supply stores to complement this system. Purchase requisitions and/or orders are used for purchases made through the OPS, which provides a significant degree of control over each purchase. The purchasing clerk reviews and approves all purchases transacted through this account, and the staff member requesting the purchase must approve the related invoices for payment. FCMAT reviewed several transactions that were initiated through the OPS and charged against the operating account and found all of the above controls in place. FCMAT also reviewed transactions charged against the operating account but not initiated through the OPS system and found that controls were lacking .

In an interview with charter school staff, they stated that there are still some transactions that are not initiated through the OPS system. These are considered items that need immediate repair and payment (i.e. emergency plumbing repairs, etc). ACOE's review of these transactions concur that this statement is true. However, there are still no formal controls in place for emergency purchases. A sample emergency PO procedures document was provided by ACOE and FAME has created and implemented an internal process for Emergency Purchases. YES

19

Other Expenditures Item 13. Review shipping charges and consider establishing an account with the US Postal Service to lower costs.

Charter school staff reported they are investigating options to reduce shipping costs, but no action has been taken to date .

FAME has consolidated their Dublin Independent Study Administration Office and Newark Administrative Offices into one office located in Newark. Charter school staff indicate that the majority of Federal Express expenses were due to internally transporting special education records. FAME expects the consolidation to greatly reduce shipping costs. The only Federal Express shipping costs in the future will be to send records to school districts.

YES

20

Conflict of Interest Item 1. Ensure that all employees and board members who are in the classifications which require them to complete Form 700 do so and submit the form to the proper county agency.

The charter school’s governing board approved a revised conflict of interest code on December 17, 2008. FCMAT was provided with copies of the annual Form 700 statements for 2008 and, in the case of new employees and employees who had changed positions, statements made upon assuming their offices or positions. However, two of the statements were not dated prior to the April 1, 2009 reporting deadline as indicated in the Form 700 reference pamphlet published by the Fair Political Practices Commission. FCMAT also noted that not all individuals used the 2008-09 version of the form.

ACOE received signed copies of correct Form 700 forms for all of FAME's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer for the year ending December 31, 2009. ACOE also received a copy of the CEO's Form 700 resignation from the Board of Directors.

YES


Supplement Academic Data FAME Public Charter School Charter Renewal

April 14, 2015

Comparison to Schools that FAME Students Would Otherwise Be Required to Attend

District Type Name Schoolwide EL SEDCharter K-12 FAME 781 753 735Fremont USD High Kennedy HS 743 622 692Fremont USD High American HS 842 679 737Fremont USD Middle Walters Jr. High 796 684 753Fremont USD Middle Horner Jr. High 920 765 793Fremont USD Elementary Durham K-6 844 788 794Fremont USD Middle Thornton Jr. High 903 759 805Fremont USD Elementary Warwick K-6 907 865 812Fremont USD Elementary Brier K-6 860 822 820Fremont USD Elementary Parkmont K-6 951 912 821Fremont USD Elementary Maloney K-6 875 815 827Fremont USD Elementary Hirsch K-6 928 909 884Hayward USD High Tennyson HS 627 574 608Hayward USD Elementary Ruus K-6 673 644 661Hayward USD High Hayward HS 688 613 665Hayward USD Elementary Strobridge K-6 691 676 680Hayward USD Middle Cesar Chavez 7-8 697 645 687Hayward USD High Mt. Eden HS 699 607 666Hayward USD Elementary Cherryland K-6 702 694 700Hayward USD Elementary Lorin Eden K-6 767 763 722Hayward USD Middle Bret Harte 7-8 775 728 752Hayward USD Middle King 7-8 782 716 767New Haven USD Middle Cesar Chavez 6-8 725 662 679New Haven USD Elementary Searles K-5 760 729 734New Haven USD Elementary Emanuele K-5 776 745 728New Haven USD Middle Alvarado 6-8 812 733 747New Haven USD Elementary Pioneer K-5 842 851 777Newark USD Elementary Schilling K-6 718 703 712Newark USD High Newark Memorial HS (9-12) 766 652 711Newark USD Elementary Graham K-6 786 769 748Newark USD Middle Newark Junior HS (7-8) 820 830 783Newark USD Elementary Bunker K-6 895 875 825Oakland USD High Castlemont HS 509 496 541Oakland USD Middle West Oakland MS 575 611 573Oakland USD Middle Frick MS 621 613 621Oakland USD Elementary Reach K-5 628 645 628Oakland USD Elementary ML King Jr K-5 651 759 653Oakland USD Elementary East Oakland Pride K-5 668 694 670Oakland USD Middle Elmhurst MS 686 681 686Oakland USD Elementary Fruitvale K-5 703 698 705Oakland USD High Oakland Tech HS 737 617 660San Leandro USD High San Leandro HS 701 631 675San Leandro USD Middle Bancroft 6-8 709 651 672San Leandro USD Elementary Jefferson K-5 743 744 722San Leandro USD Elementary Monroe K-5 769 784 756San Leandro USD Middle John Muir 6-8 774 757 756San Lorenzo USD Elementary Hillside K-5 639 642 634San Lorenzo USD Middle Edendale 6-8 648 644 637San Lorenzo USD High San Lorenzo HS 669 637 666

Charter K-12 1Elementary 23Middle/Junior High 15High 10Total 49

2013 Growth API

Adequate Yearly Progress SummaryStudent Proficient Target Met - Common Subgroups

Year Criterion Student Group FAME Fremont Hayward Newark New Haven Oakland San Leandro San LorenzoELA Target % Proficient All Students No Yes No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient All Students No Yes No No No No No NoELA Target % Proficient White Yes Yes No No No Yes No NoMath Target % Proficient White Yes Yes No No No Yes No NoELA Target % Proficient Asian Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes YesMath Target % Proficient Asian Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesELA Target % Proficient SED Yes No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient SED Yes No No No No No No NoELA Target % Proficient EL Yes Yes No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient EL Yes Yes No No No No No No

8 of 10 8 of 10 1 of 10 2 of 10 2 of 10 4 of 10 2 of 10 2 of 10ELA Target % Proficient All Students No Yes No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient All Students No Yes No Yes No No No NoELA Target % Proficient White No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient White No No No Yes No No No NoELA Target % Proficient Asian Yes Yes No Yes No No No YesMath Target % Proficient Asian Yes Yes No Yes No No No YesELA Target % Proficient SED No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient SED No No Yes Yes No No No NoELA Target % Proficient EL No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient EL No Yes No No No No No No

2 of 10 5 of 10 1 of 10 5 of 10 0 of 10 0 of 10 0 of 10 2 of 10ELA Target % Proficient All Students No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient All Students No No No No No No No NoELA Target % Proficient White No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient White No No No Yes No No No NoELA Target % Proficient Asian No Yes No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient Asian Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes NoELA Target % Proficient SED No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient SED No No No No No No No NoELA Target % Proficient EL No No No No No No No NoMath Target % Proficient EL No No No No No No No No

1 of 10 2 of 10 1 of 10 2 of 10 0 of 10 0 of 10 1 of 10 0 of 10

2011

2012

2013

FAME Public Charter School: Analysis of Student Performance

Julie Slayton, JD, PhDJeff White, MA

4/8/15

The following pages represent an analysis of student performance for students at the FAME sites as well as comparisons between the FAME sites and comparison districts and schools.

Pages 2-15 reflect a comparison of student performance from 2011, 2013, and 2014 for FAME Public Charter School and the districts within which FAME Public Charter Schools are located. Data from the Annual AYP Progress Reporting from the CDE was used for this analysis.

Pages 16-57 represent comparisons between individual FAME Public Charter School sites, FAME Public School overall, and comparison schools. For each Fame site we used the data provided by the Alameda County Office of Education for 2013 and 2014. These data were organized by major language subgroup and compared to CST data from the CDE STAR school level data files. These files provide disaggregated data by grade level and major subgroup. These data were combined aggregated for major language groups at the total school and schooling level.

From here, each site was combined in tabular format with the schools provided by the Alameda County Office of Education as comparisons for each individual site. These tables present the data for each site in rank order by the percent proficient on CST. The overall FAME CST score is provided on each table in order to compare the individual FAME site to FAME overall. Overall FAME is presented in italics and the FAME site is in bold face with colored shading depending upon the subgroup being compared. This presentation helps the reader to understand the relative performance of each FAME site compared to to similar schools and FAME overall.

2011, 2013, and 2014 Adequate Yearly Progress DataComparison of FAME Public Charter School and Alameda County Unified Districts

1 of 29

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

AYP Category SubgroupFAME Pub

Fremont Unified

Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

San Lorenzo Unified

ELA Valid All Students 867 18870 12396 3864 7383 22495 5047 6307ELA N Prof All Students 520 14736 5247 2076 4262 10608 2439 2858ELA % Prof All Students 60.0 78.1 42.3 53.7 57.7 47.2 48.3 45.3ELA % Prof Met All Students No Yes No No No No No NoMath Valid All Students 861 18873 12387 3856 7376 22475 5044 6295Math N Prof All Students 454 14601 5416 2180 3948 11936 2292 2891Math % Prof All Students 52.7 77.4 43.7 56.5 53.5 53.1 45.4 45.9Math % Prof Met All Students No Yes No No No No No NoELA Valid White 437 3406 956 701 557 1863 602 718ELA N Prof White 261 2520 554 465 361 1583 363 391ELA % Prof White 59.7 74.0 57.9 66.3 64.8 85.0 60.3 54.5ELA % Prof Met White Yes Yes No No No Yes No NoMath Valid White 437 3401 953 697 556 1862 600 715Math N Prof White 231 2377 502 455 320 1549 308 387Math % Prof White 52.9 69.9 52.7 65.3 57.6 83.2 51.3 54.1Math % Prof Met White Yes Yes No No No Yes No NoELA Valid Asian 186 9891 949 462 1586 3211 721 645ELA N Prof Asian 137 9039 610 336 1174 2159 495 445ELA % Prof Asian 73.7 91.4 64.3 72.7 74.0 67.2 68.7 69.0ELA % Prof Met Asian Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes YesMath Valid Asian 186 9887 949 461 1587 3207 721 645Math N Prof Asian 123 9186 645 364 1167 2473 545 514Math % Prof Asian 66.1 92.9 68.0 79.0 73.5 77.1 75.6 79.7Math % Prof Met Asian Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesELA Valid Af. Amer. 98 770 1697 258 634 7014 792 804ELA N Prof Af. Amer. 41 363 627 106 270 2562 309 277ELA % Prof Af. Amer. 41.8 47.1 36.9 41.1 42.6 36.5 39.0 34.5ELA % Prof Met Af. Amer. -‐-‐ No No No No No No NoMath Valid Af. Amer. 98 773 1691 257 635 6998 796 806Math N Prof Af. Amer. 42 318 497 110 224 2625 239 247Math % Prof Af. Amer. 42.9 41.1 29.4 42.8 35.3 37.5 30.0 30.6Math % Prof Met Af. Amer. -‐-‐ No No Yes No No No NoELA Valid Latino 92 2852 7252 1917 2547 8529 2289 3417ELA N Prof Latino 47 1408 2603 827 1088 3209 898 1314ELA % Prof Latino 51.1 49.4 35.9 43.1 42.7 37.6 39.2 38.5ELA % Prof Met Latino -‐-‐ No No No No No No NoMath Valid Latino 89 2859 7254 1915 2540 8528 2284 3408Math N Prof Latino 30 1358 2926 892 1011 4101 851 1314Math % Prof Latino 33.7 47.5 40.3 46.6 39.8 48.1 37.3 38.6Math % Prof Met Latino -‐-‐ No No No No No No No


2 of 29

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011


Fremont Unified

Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

San Lorenzo Unified

ELA Valid Fillipino 14 1119 883 331 1410 197 402 498ELA N Prof Fillipino 13 831 577 230 971 128 245 323ELA % Prof Fillipino 92.9 74.3 65.3 69.5 68.9 65.0 60.9 64.9ELA % Prof Met Fillipino -‐-‐ Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes NoMath Valid Fillipino 14 1119 882 331 1409 197 402 496Math N Prof Fillipino 10 796 567 246 872 142 231 331Math % Prof Fillipino 71.4 71.1 64.3 74.3 61.9 72.1 57.5 66.7Math % Prof Met Fillipino -‐-‐ Yes No Yes No Yes Yes YesELA Valid Pac. Isldr. 18 142 467 88 264 246 63 95ELA N Prof Pac. Isldr. 7 84 183 41 152 83 20 44ELA % Prof Pac. Isldr. 38.9 59.2 39.2 46.6 57.6 33.7 31.7 46.3ELA % Prof Met Pac. Isldr. -‐-‐ Yes No -‐-‐ No No -‐-‐ -‐-‐Math Valid Pac. Isldr. 16 145 466 88 263 246 63 95Math N Prof Pac. Isldr. 9 79 193 44 124 112 20 34Math % Prof Pac. Isldr. 56.2 54.5 41.4 50.0 47.1 45.5 31.7 35.8Math % Prof Met Pac. Isldr. -‐-‐ No No -‐-‐ No Yes -‐-‐ -‐-‐ELA Valid Soc. Disadv. 187 4248 9074 2114 3474 13777 2872 4020ELA N Prof Soc. Disadv. 98 2248 3283 894 1526 5508 1146 1587ELA % Prof Soc. Disadv. 52.4 52.9 36.2 42.3 43.9 40.0 39.9 39.5ELA % Prof Met Soc. Disadv. Yes No No No No No No NoMath Valid Soc. Disadv. 185 4254 9067 2111 3471 13761 2868 4011Math N Prof Soc. Disadv. 88 2273 3566 986 1460 6510 1154 1637Math % Prof Soc. Disadv. 47.6 53.4 39.3 46.7 42.1 47.3 40.2 40.8Math % Prof Met Soc. Disadv. Yes No No No No No No NoELA Valid English Learner 355 6146 6032 1570 3000 9684 2108 3004ELA N Prof English Learner 181 4267 1912 597 1354 3738 777 1155ELA % Prof English Learner 51.0 69.4 31.7 38.0 45.1 38.6 36.9 38.4ELA % Prof Met English Learner Yes Yes No No No No No NoMath Valid English Learner 353 6153 6035 1570 2998 9686 2104 2996Math N Prof English Learner 187 4494 2381 730 1448 5122 938 1321Math % Prof English Learner 53.0 73.0 39.5 46.5 48.3 52.9 44.6 44.1Math % Prof Met English Learner Yes Yes No No No No No NoELA Valid SWD 60 1957 1101 450 777 2357 672 725ELA N Prof SWD 29 966 294 146 285 674 205 224ELA % Prof SWD 48.3 49.4 26.7 32.4 36.7 28.6 30.5 30.9ELA % Prof Met SWD -‐-‐ No No No No No No NoMath Valid SWD 59 1960 1096 452 776 2360 672 715Math N Prof SWD 21 979 321 139 269 721 231 255Math % Prof SWD 35.6 49.9 29.3 30.8 34.7 30.6 34.4 35.7Math % Prof Met SWD -‐-‐ No No No No No Yes No


3 of 29

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011


Fremont Unified

Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

San Lorenzo Unified

grad10/11/12 grad10/11/12 76.14 91.58 77.48 85.19 81.06 59.20 83.59 85.70grad11/12/13 grad11/12/13 71.05 93.93 74.55 87.01 85.19 59.33 82.89 85.11api10b/11b/12b All Students 761 867 707 763 778 718 730 739api11g/12g/13g All Students 777 877 715 773 775 726 738 741API Change All Students 16 10 8 10 -‐3 8 8 2met AYP Criteria All Students No No No No No No No NoAYP Criteria Met All Students 22 37 22 25 28 32 28 25AYP Criteria Total All Students 26 46 42 38 46 46 42 40ELA Enroll All Students 1009 19676 13043 4062 7764 23922 5321 6688ELA Tested All Students 961 19573 12938 4031 7681 23564 5282 6639ELA Part Rate All Students 95 99 99 99 99 99 99 99Math Enroll All Students 1009 19682 13039 4062 7764 23920 5321 6686Math Tested All Students 954 19574 12925 4023 7673 23550 5276 6625Math Part Rate All Students 95 99 99 99 99 98 99 99


4 of 29

AYP Category SubgroupELA Valid All StudentsELA N Prof All StudentsELA % Prof All StudentsELA % Prof Met All StudentsMath Valid All StudentsMath N Prof All StudentsMath % Prof All StudentsMath % Prof Met All StudentsELA Valid WhiteELA N Prof WhiteELA % Prof WhiteELA % Prof Met WhiteMath Valid WhiteMath N Prof WhiteMath % Prof WhiteMath % Prof Met WhiteELA Valid AsianELA N Prof AsianELA % Prof AsianELA % Prof Met AsianMath Valid AsianMath N Prof AsianMath % Prof AsianMath % Prof Met AsianELA Valid Af. Amer.ELA N Prof Af. Amer.ELA % Prof Af. Amer.ELA % Prof Met Af. Amer.Math Valid Af. Amer.Math N Prof Af. Amer.Math % Prof Af. Amer.Math % Prof Met Af. Amer.ELA Valid LatinoELA N Prof LatinoELA % Prof LatinoELA % Prof Met LatinoMath Valid LatinoMath N Prof LatinoMath % Prof LatinoMath % Prof Met Latino

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012FAME

Pub ChtrFremont Unified

Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

862 19297 12193 3776 7377 21991 5076532 15247 5341 2063 4310 10669 255061.7 79.0 43.8 54.6 58.4 48.5 50.2No Yes No No No No No858 19306 12200 3783 7378 21973 5069489 15187 5248 2381 3906 11412 233757.0 78.7 43.0 62.9 52.9 51.9 46.1No Yes No Yes No No No430 3271 881 666 464 2178 571257 2402 512 438 311 1804 35959.8 73.4 58.1 65.8 67.0 82.8 62.9No No No No No Yes No427 3273 882 668 462 2173 571243 2295 451 459 263 1764 30756.9 70.1 51.1 68.7 56.9 81.2 53.8No No No Yes No Yes No188 10332 943 450 1645 3221 756142 9458 617 348 1214 2162 51975.5 91.5 65.4 77.3 73.8 67.1 68.7Yes Yes No Yes No No No188 10326 946 450 1647 3218 753135 9645 648 383 1210 2476 55571.8 93.4 68.5 85.1 73.5 76.9 73.7Yes Yes No Yes No No No77 758 1575 250 569 6654 79336 411 611 100 269 2543 337

46.8 54.2 38.8 40.0 47.3 38.2 42.5-‐-‐ Yes No No Yes No No77 762 1572 249 568 6658 79338 343 488 100 185 2378 234

49.4 45.0 31.0 40.2 32.6 35.7 29.5-‐-‐ No No No No No No

101 2783 7256 1911 2613 8674 232656 1400 2751 836 1116 3379 946

55.4 50.3 37.9 43.7 42.7 39.0 40.7Yes No No No No No No100 2791 7262 1916 2618 8663 232441 1345 2835 1054 1010 3986 901

41.0 48.2 39.0 55.0 38.6 46.0 38.8No No No No No No No


5 of 29

AYP Category SubgroupELA Valid FillipinoELA N Prof FillipinoELA % Prof FillipinoELA % Prof Met FillipinoMath Valid FillipinoMath N Prof FillipinoMath % Prof FillipinoMath % Prof Met FillipinoELA Valid Pac. Isldr. ELA N Prof Pac. Isldr. ELA % Prof Pac. Isldr. ELA % Prof Met Pac. Isldr. Math Valid Pac. Isldr. Math N Prof Pac. Isldr. Math % Prof Pac. Isldr. Math % Prof Met Pac. Isldr. ELA Valid Soc. Disadv.ELA N Prof Soc. Disadv.ELA % Prof Soc. Disadv.ELA % Prof Met Soc. Disadv.Math Valid Soc. Disadv.Math N Prof Soc. Disadv.Math % Prof Soc. Disadv.Math % Prof Met Soc. Disadv.ELA Valid English LearnerELA N Prof English LearnerELA % Prof English LearnerELA % Prof Met English LearnerMath Valid English LearnerMath N Prof English LearnerMath % Prof English LearnerMath % Prof Met English LearnerELA Valid SWDELA N Prof SWDELA % Prof SWDELA % Prof Met SWDMath Valid SWDMath N Prof SWDMath % Prof SWDMath % Prof Met SWD

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012FAME


Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

24 1158 860 334 1426 202 40420 871 549 242 1001 130 261

83.3 75.2 63.8 72.5 70.2 64.4 64.6-‐-‐ No No Yes No No No24 1159 860 334 1427 202 40318 852 532 275 889 127 228

75.0 73.5 61.9 82.3 62.3 62.9 56.6-‐-‐ Yes No Yes No No No15 147 429 71 251 251 667 77 185 38 143 82 24

46.7 52.4 43.1 53.5 57.0 32.7 36.4-‐-‐ No No -‐-‐ No No -‐-‐15 147 430 71 249 251 665 91 187 43 119 103 17

33.3 61.9 43.5 60.6 47.8 41.0 25.8-‐-‐ Yes No -‐-‐ No No -‐-‐

352 4456 9246 2001 3506 13319 3329179 2376 3580 830 1552 5510 140150.9 53.3 38.7 41.5 44.3 41.4 42.1No No No No No No No351 4464 9260 2006 3504 13313 3324177 2430 3633 1077 1431 6116 133850.4 54.4 39.2 53.7 40.8 45.9 40.3No No No Yes No No No313 6816 5949 1568 3038 9535 2165158 4893 1936 602 1354 3696 85550.5 71.8 32.5 38.4 44.6 38.8 39.5No No No No No No No314 6816 5959 1571 3040 9525 2160173 5161 2288 866 1461 4812 96855.1 75.7 38.4 55.1 48.1 50.5 44.8No Yes No No No No No59 2026 1100 548 778 2301 68329 997 341 199 277 767 200

49.2 49.2 31.0 36.3 35.6 33.3 29.3-‐-‐ No No No No No No60 2038 1110 550 791 2311 68528 1011 316 213 244 753 214

46.7 49.6 28.5 38.7 30.8 32.6 31.2-‐-‐ No No Yes No No No


6 of 29

AYP Category Subgroupgrad10/11/12 grad10/11/12grad11/12/13 grad11/12/13api10b/11b/12b All Studentsapi11g/12g/13g All StudentsAPI Change All Studentsmet AYP Criteria All StudentsAYP Criteria Met All StudentsAYP Criteria Total All StudentsELA Enroll All StudentsELA Tested All StudentsELA Part Rate All StudentsMath Enroll All StudentsMath Tested All StudentsMath Part Rate All Students

2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012FAME


Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

San Leandro Unified

69.01 82.74 64.58 86.87 75.87 55.16 79.8671.05 88.91 68.92 87.93 79.54 58.35 82.10777 876 716 771 775 726 737769 884 718 780 773 728 742-‐8 8 2 9 -‐2 2 5No No No No No No No14 34 25 27 24 26 2326 46 46 38 46 46 42965 19990 12950 3918 7743 23402 5315918 19920 12880 3896 7661 23095 529895 100 99 99 99 99 100965 19994 12943 3920 7740 23402 5316912 19929 12883 3899 7662 23062 528995 100 100 99 99 99 99


7 of 29


2012San Lorenzo

Unified6346306548.3No

6335296346.8No67738657.0No67735953.0No72551270.6Yes72557379.0Yes80231939.8No80224530.5No

3417141041.3No

3411136640.0No


8 of 29


2012San Lorenzo

Unified49532064.6No49232065.0No9243

46.7-‐-‐9239

42.4-‐-‐

3801162342.7No

3797157241.4No

3017119539.6No

3009130943.5No72223432.4No71724534.2No


9 of 29


2012San Lorenzo

Unified80.3382.8273874810No2138

6706665999

6705665199


10 of 29


2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013FAME


Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

794 19672 12509 3699 7382 21281460 15566 5307 2061 4146 965057.9 79.1 42.4 55.7 56.2 45.3No No No No No No796 19697 12506 3699 7419 21265438 15805 5630 2390 3832 1029655.0 80.2 45.0 64.6 51.7 48.4No No No No No No404 3148 772 598 467 2302219 2293 430 400 294 187354.2 72.8 55.7 66.9 63.0 81.4No No No No No No406 3157 773 597 471 2302209 2274 385 428 260 185151.5 72.0 49.8 71.7 55.2 80.4No No No Yes No No165 10851 950 447 1609 3050116 9929 602 343 1163 197270.3 91.5 63.4 76.7 72.3 64.7No Yes No No No No166 10851 951 447 1611 3043122 10169 680 387 1125 225973.5 93.7 71.5 86.6 69.8 74.2Yes Yes Yes Yes No No73 688 1511 225 521 631432 359 586 97 212 2142

43.8 52.2 38.8 43.1 40.7 33.9-‐-‐ No No Yes No No73 688 1509 225 527 630030 343 518 105 181 1976

41.1 49.9 34.3 46.7 34.3 31.4-‐-‐ Yes No Yes No No94 2900 7709 1891 2688 831852 1469 2841 854 1120 2901

55.3 50.7 36.9 45.2 41.7 34.9-‐-‐ No No No No No93 2910 7701 1892 2709 832942 1460 3172 1065 1064 3453

45.2 50.2 41.2 56.3 39.3 41.5-‐-‐ No No No No No


11 of 29


2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013FAME


Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

21 1167 858 334 1417 19414 861 536 238 955 115

66.7 73.8 62.5 71.3 67.4 59.3-‐-‐ No No No No No21 1169 861 334 1420 19513 884 547 262 838 115

61.9 75.6 63.5 78.4 59.0 59.0-‐-‐ Yes No No No No13 145 427 90 234 24710 96 161 51 130 74

76.9 66.2 37.7 56.7 55.6 30.0-‐-‐ Yes No -‐-‐ No No13 146 428 90 235 2467 91 187 59 108 100

53.8 62.3 43.7 65.6 46.0 40.7-‐-‐ Yes No -‐-‐ No No

390 4665 8856 1877 3812 16786188 2580 3311 825 1612 626348.2 55.3 37.4 44.0 42.3 37.3No No No No No No391 4667 8848 1878 3843 16771193 2655 3655 1016 1566 702949.4 56.9 41.3 54.1 40.7 41.9No No No No No No347 4896 6454 1524 2959 9072168 3056 2128 581 1250 312548.4 62.4 33.0 38.1 42.2 34.4No No No No No No347 4904 6446 1524 2974 9078186 3392 2621 837 1363 418653.6 69.2 40.7 54.9 45.8 46.1No No No No No No68 2010 1330 449 767 288717 974 395 141 254 829

25.0 48.5 29.7 31.4 33.1 28.7-‐-‐ No No No No No69 2034 1337 449 804 289123 987 366 158 215 807

33.3 48.5 27.4 35.2 26.7 27.9-‐-‐ No No No No No


12 of 29


2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013FAME


Hayward Unified

Newark Unified

New Haven Unified

Oakland Unified

71.05 88.91 68.92 87.93 79.54 58.3583.33 90.16 71.23 89.30 80.63 58.96771 885 718 784 774 728781 891 721 795 775 72110 6 3 11 1 -‐7No No No No No No15 30 26 26 23 2224 46 46 42 46 46890 20381 13248 3853 7690 22584862 20301 13147 3822 7606 2226497 100 99 99 99 99890 20385 13246 3853 7688 22584864 20324 13145 3821 7641 2224797 100 99 99 99 99


13 of 29


2013 2013San Leandro

UnifiedSan Lorenzo

Unified5016 65802394 296947.7 45.1No No

5022 65752343 297146.7 45.2No No525 670312 36659.4 54.6No No528 670296 33556.1 50.0No No753 725526 48069.9 66.2No No754 721565 55874.9 77.4Yes No741 840274 29337.0 34.9No No741 845215 24829.0 29.3No No

2402 3608945 142339.3 39.4No No

2404 3605927 143738.6 39.9No No


14 of 29



UnifiedSan Lorenzo

Unified376 496227 29460.4 59.3No No376 496222 29059.0 58.5Yes No65 9420 41

30.8 43.6-‐-‐ -‐-‐65 9224 35

36.9 38.0-‐-‐ -‐-‐

3498 44641434 178541.0 40.0No No

3504 44611444 182941.2 41.0No No

2284 3372915 134940.1 40.0No No

2287 33651017 147744.5 43.9No No679 793199 21429.3 27.0No No687 797209 21530.4 27.0No No


15 of 29



UnifiedSan Lorenzo

Unified82.10 82.8283.09 82.21742 748740 739-‐2 -‐9No No23 2242 44

5244 69225211 687399 99

5245 69135215 686499 99

Comparison of Fame Public Charter School (by Site) with Similar Schools: California Standards Test Scores from 2012 and 2013

2012, ES, All Students, Grade

All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013, ES, All Students,

Grade All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2012, ES, English Learner,


% Prof

/ Adv

2013, ES, English Learner

(EL), Grade All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Ruus El. 334 26.6 Ruus El. 353 24.9 Ruus El. 167 10.3 Searles El. 143 9.8

Schilling (August) El. 284 34.7 Schilling (August) El. 278 33.9 Searles El. 158 15.1 Ruus El. 169 12.4

Searles El. 439 44.1 Searles El. 417 42.1 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 163 16.6 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 151 13.8

Lorin A. Eden El. 263 46.2 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 449 48.9 Schilling (August) El. 148 18.4 Schilling (August) El. 157 19.8

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 471 50.7 Lorin A. Eden El. 269 50.9 Pioneer El. 92 22.7 Fame (Leslie) 37 21.6

Maloney (Tom) El. 301 59.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 461 59.6 Lorin A. Eden El. 74 25.0 Pioneer El. 92 24.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 491 64.1 Brier El. 380 62.2 Fame (Leslie) 23 26.1 Lorin A. Eden El. 79 31.7

Pioneer El. 534 65.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 224 63.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 109 41.2 Brier El. 140 36.5

Durham (J. Haley) El. 218 66.2 Pioneer El. 522 64.3 Durham (J. Haley) El. 70 47.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 84 36.7

Brier El. 362 67.7 Fame (Leslie) 165 66.1 Brier El. 147 50.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 37.2

Fame (Leslie) 113 68.1 Maloney (Tom) El. 277 66.7 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 146 55.5 Maloney (Tom) El. 81 43.5

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 220 74.3 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 255 79.4 Warwick El. 99 58.4 Warwick El. 77 58.7

Warwick El. 486 79.0 Warwick El. 488 81.2 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 76 60.4 Parkmont El. 71 67.5

Parkmont El. 505 88.9 Parkmont El. 521 88.1 Parkmont El. 65 78.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 57 78.0

2012, ES, English Only (EO),


% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

2012, ES, R-FEP, Grade All,

CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Ruus El. 88 31.8 Ruus El. 97 29.8 Ruus El. 39 64.5 Ruus El. 51 41.1

Schilling (August) El. 79 43.2 Schilling (August) El. 68 44.0 Schilling (August) El. 54 68.4 Searles El. 91 59.7

Lorin A. Eden El. 114 44.0 Searles El. 154 50.7 Searles El. 100 72.0 Schilling (August) El. 47 65.7

Searles El. 149 51.5 Lorin A. Eden El. 125 51.9 Fame (Leslie) 58 77.6 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 91 66.9

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 183 60.1 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 185 58.5 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 105 79.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 78.0

Pioneer El. 240 62.6 Pioneer El. 224 58.8 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 83.0 Fame (Leslie) 71 83.1

Maloney (Tom) El. 132 62.9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 266 59.6 Maloney (Tom) El. 43 83.7 Maloney (Tom) El. 49 85.4

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 267 64.5 Brier El. 128 64.7 Lorin A. Eden El. 38 85.0 Pioneer El. 177 86.6

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 69.3 Durham (J. Haley) El. 117 65.6 Pioneer El. 168 88.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 31 87.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 70.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 96 71.1 Brier El. 67 89.2 Brier El. 83 91.6

Brier El. 124 72.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 123 73.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 92.7 Parkmont El. 109 92.3

Warwick El. 257 78.6 Fame (Leslie) 46 73.9 Warwick El. 82 93.9 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 92.5

Fame (Leslie) 28 82.1 Warwick El. 256 79.0 Parkmont El. 113 94.7 Lorin A. Eden El. 31 94.0

Parkmont El. 270 88.8 Parkmont El. 271 89.1 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 95.2 Warwick El. 98 95.0

February 2015 Page 1 of 41

Leslie Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (Leslie) Ruus El. 105 30.0 Ruus El. 96 14.0 Ruus El. 76 8.0

Schilling (August) El. 78 21.0 Schilling (August) El. 80 30.0 Schilling (August) El. 57 25.0 Schilling (August) El. 67 21.0

Ruus El. 83 33.0 Searles El. 111 35.0 Searles El. 104 26.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 71 27.0

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 109 38.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 119 37.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 69 30.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 69 41.0

Searles El. 130 46.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 57.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 79 38.0 Searles El. 114 44.0

Lorin A. Eden El. 69 49.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 130 59.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 121 45.0 Brier El. 98 46.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 84 56.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 73 60.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 125 50.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 48.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 58.0 Pioneer El. 137 61.0 Brier El. 95 53.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 99 49.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 134 61.0 Fame (Leslie) 32 65.6 Pioneer El. 146 55.0 Fame (Leslie) 48 50.0

Pioneer El. 124 65.0 Brier El. 112 66.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 56.0 Pioneer El. 118 53.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 79.0 Fame (Leslie) 41 63.4 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 54.0

Brier El. 99 72.0 Warwick El. 119 79.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 72.0 Warwick El. 141 76.0

Warwick El. 148 77.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 83.0 Warwick El. 109 75.0 Parkmont El. 147 79.0



4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Schilling (August) El. 87 44.0 Searles El. 94 40.0 Schilling (August) El. 62 48.0 Schilling (August) El. 77 38.0

Lorin A. Eden El. 58 52.0 Schilling (August) El. 54 50.0 Searles El. 105 51.0 Searles El. 98 50.0

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 114 53.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 121 53.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 67 55.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 55 53.0

Searles El. 100 53.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 63.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 127 65.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 110 57.0

Fame (Leslie) 39 59.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 70 64.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 67.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 65.0

Pioneer El. 135 70.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 66.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 68.0 Brier El. 83 67.0

Brier El. 85 75.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 70.0 Pioneer El. 130 68.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 55 75.0 Brier El. 87 71.0 Brier El. 83 72.0 Fame (Leslie) 42 69.1

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 77.0 Pioneer El. 137 74.0 Pioneer El. 129 73.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 70.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 80 80.0 Fame (Leslie) 43 81.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 79.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 70 74.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 50 84.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 83.0 Warwick El. 109 79.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 52 83.0

Warwick El. 120 85.0 Warwick El. 111 83.0 Fame (Leslie) 33 84.9 Warwick El. 117 88.0

Parkmont El. 117 96.0 Parkmont El. 137 93.0 Parkmont El. 117 85.0 Parkmont El. 117 91.0


Leslie Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- ELA



All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


(EL), Grade All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Ruus El. 335 26.4 Ruus El. 352 34.6 Ruus El. 167 16.3 Searles El. 143 28.1

Lorin A. Eden El. 262 51.4 Searles El. 418 51.9 Fame (Leslie) 23 30.4 Ruus El. 168 29.3

Searles El. 443 51.7 Schilling (August) El. 281 52.1 Pioneer El. 95 33.5 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 155 36.8

Schilling (August) El. 288 57.2 Lorin A. Eden El. 271 55.0 Searles El. 160 36.1 Schilling (August) El. 160 41.2

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 493 62.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 454 61.4 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 165 44.3 Fame (Leslie) 36 41.7

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 475 64.9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 459 64.6 Schilling (August) El. 150 44.7 Lorin A. Eden El. 80 42.3

Pioneer El. 539 66.4 Pioneer El. 525 71.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 73 47.6 Pioneer El. 92 46.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 302 67.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 277 71.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 110 61.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 83 50.7

Brier El. 361 72.4 Brier El. 381 72.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 147 63.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 56.6

Fame (Leslie) 113 78.8 Durham (J. Haley) El. 226 74.1 Brier El. 148 63.8 Brier El. 140 57.1

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 221 79.2 Fame (Leslie) 164 81.7 Durham (J. Haley) El. 71 67.8 Warwick El. 79 60.9

Durham (J. Haley) El. 219 79.5 Warwick El. 493 83.1 Warwick El. 100 68.9 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 62.7

Warwick El. 484 81.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 260 88.7 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 77 80.4 Parkmont El. 70 81.1




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Ruus El. 89 26.9 Ruus El. 97 34.1 Ruus El. 39 53.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 36.2

Lorin A. Eden El. 115 42.6 Lorin A. Eden El. 127 51.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 38 70.0 Ruus El. 51 44.9

Searles El. 151 49.0 Searles El. 155 57.5 Searles El. 100 73.9 Schilling (August) El. 47 46.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 268 55.6 Schilling (August) El. 68 57.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 85.6 Searles El. 91 63.9

Schilling (August) El. 81 61.7 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 265 58.9 Pioneer El. 168 85.9 Durham (J. Haley) El. 32 81.0

Pioneer El. 242 63.7 Pioneer El. 227 64.7 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 86.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 91 87.6

Maloney (Tom) El. 132 63.9 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 186 68.7 Maloney (Tom) El. 43 86.4 Maloney (Tom) El. 49 87.7

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 185 67.3 Brier El. 129 71.5 Fame (Leslie) 58 87.9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 87.8

Brier El. 122 68.8 Durham (J. Haley) El. 118 72.2 Brier El. 67 89.4 Brier El. 83 87.9

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 71.6 Maloney (Tom) El. 124 72.5 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 105 92.6 Lorin A. Eden El. 31 88.0

Warwick El. 254 79.1 Warwick El. 258 82.6 Schilling (August) El. 54 92.9 Pioneer El. 177 89.3

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 82.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 100 85.9 Warwick El. 82 93.8 Parkmont El. 109 92.7

Parkmont El. 269 88.3 Parkmont El. 270 89.5 Parkmont El. 113 97.5 Fame (Leslie) 71 93.0

Fame (Leslie) 28 96.4 Fame (Leslie) 46 93.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 100.0 Warwick El. 99 95.1


Leslie Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learners, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (Leslie) Schilling (August) El. 80 43.0 Ruus El. 96 20.0 Ruus El. 75 21.0

Ruus El. 84 29.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 119 50.0 Searles El. 107 50.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 71 48.0

Schilling (August) El. 78 38.0 Ruus El. 105 50.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 69 52.0 Schilling (August) El. 69 48.0

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 109 41.0 Searles El. 111 55.0 Schilling (August) El. 58 57.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 69 55.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 62.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 73 59.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 126 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 63.0

Lorin A. Eden El. 69 65.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 66.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 79 63.0 Searles El. 116 65.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 135 68.0 Pioneer El. 137 67.0 Brier El. 95 66.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 102 68.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 84 69.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 128 68.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 120 73.0 Brier El. 99 70.0

Pioneer El. 124 71.0 Brier El. 112 76.0 Pioneer El. 147 73.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 74.0

Searles El. 130 71.0 Warwick El. 121 80.0 Fame (Leslie) 41 78.1 Pioneer El. 119 74.0

Brier El. 99 75.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 83.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 81.0 Warwick El. 142 80.0

Warwick El. 148 78.0 Fame (Leslie) 31 83.9 Parkmont El. 134 84.0 Fame (Leslie) 48 81.3

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 88.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 88.0 Warwick El. 108 86.0 Parkmont El. 147 90.0

Parkmont El. 136 98.0 Parkmont El. 119 92.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 93.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 60 93.0


4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Searles El. 101 42.0 Searles El. 94 37.0 Searles El. 105 39.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 54 41.0

Lorin A. Eden El. 57 44.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 121 61.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 67 43.0 Schilling (August) El. 78 45.0

Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 117 58.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 47.0 Searles El. 97 47.0

Schilling (August) El. 88 65.0 Lorin A. Eden El. 73 68.0 Pioneer El. 131 55.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 64.0

Pioneer El. 137 66.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 71.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 64.0 Pioneer El. 131 65.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 69.0 Brier El. 87 72.0 Schilling (August) El. 64 70.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 112 68.0

Brier El. 85 72.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 74.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Brier El. 83 69.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 81 74.0 Pioneer El. 138 78.0 Brier El. 82 77.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 70 73.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 57 77.0 Warwick El. 112 80.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 78.0 Fame (Leslie) 42 76.2

Fame (Leslie) 39 79.5 Schilling (August) El. 54 81.0 Fame (Leslie) 33 78.8 Durham (J. Haley) El. 53 83.0

Warwick El. 118 81.0 Fame (Leslie) 43 86.1 Warwick El. 110 82.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 54 85.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 51 86.0 Parkmont El. 138 87.0 Emanuele (Guy Jr.) El. 129 84.0 Parkmont El. 115 90.0

Parkmont El. 115 92.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 89.0 Parkmont El. 118 85.0 Warwick El. 118 93.0


Leslie Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- Math



All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 193 23.0 Reach Academy 199 16.2 Reach Academy 63 20.8 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 36 0.0

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 176 25.1 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 189 21.3 Fruitvale El. 115 31.3 Reach Academy 65 3.5

Fruitvale El. 281 41.3 Fruitvale El. 278 35.9 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 38 43.0 Fruitvale El. 100 17.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 491 64.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 461 59.6 Durham (J. Haley) El. 70 47.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 84 36.7

Durham (J. Haley) El. 218 66.2 Fame (IS) 173 63.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 146 55.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 37.2

Fame (IS) 178 68.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 224 63.8 Warwick El. 99 58.4 Warwick El. 77 58.7

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 220 74.3 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 255 79.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 76 60.4 Fame (IS) 3 66.7

Warwick El. 486 79.0 Warwick El. 488 81.2 Fame (IS) 4 75.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 57 78.0



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 119 21.8 Reach Academy 113 15.1 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 83.0 Fame (IS)

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 130 24.7 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 143 21.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 92.7 Reach Academy 19 73.0

Fruitvale El. 124 33.5 Fruitvale El. 123 36.9 Fruitvale El. 31 93.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 78.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 267 64.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 266 59.6 Warwick El. 82 93.9 Fruitvale El. 46 78.5

Fame (IS) 163 68.7 Fame (IS) 162 61.7 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 95.2 Durham (J. Haley) El. 31 87.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 69.3 Durham (J. Haley) El. 117 65.6 Fame (IS) 1 100.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 92.5

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 70.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 96 71.1 Reach Academy 8 Warwick El. 98 95.0

Warwick El. 257 78.6 Warwick El. 256 79.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 7


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 47 9.0 Reach Academy 55 9.0 Reach Academy 38 8.0 Reach Academy 51 6.0

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 49 35.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 46 24.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 44 25.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 55 13.0

Fruitvale El. 69 36.0 Fruitvale El. 80 33.0 Fruitvale El. 71 31.0 Fruitvale El. 64 25.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 58.0 Fame (IS) 35 48.6 Fame (IS) 49 49.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 48.0

Fame (IS) 40 60.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 57.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 125 50.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 54.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 134 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 130 59.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 56.0 Fame (IS) 50 60.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 79.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 72.0 Warwick El. 141 76.0

Warwick El. 148 77.0 Warwick El. 119 79.0 Warwick El. 109 75.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 60 85.0


4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 48 23.0 Reach Academy 41 20.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 35 14.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 44 11.0

Fruitvale El. 71 48.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 44 39.0 Reach Academy 60 22.0 Reach Academy 52 31.0

Reach Academy 48 50.0 Fruitvale El. 70 41.0 Fruitvale El. 70 50.0 Fruitvale El. 64 45.0

Fame (IS) 44 75.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 63.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 65.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 55 75.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 70.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 70.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 77.0 Fame (IS) 44 68.2 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 79.0 Fame (IS) 44 75.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 50 84.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 83.0 Warwick El. 109 79.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 52 83.0

Warwick El. 120 85.0 Warwick El. 111 83.0 Fame (IS) 45 91.1 Warwick El. 117 88.0


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- ELA



All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 194 29.1 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 191 32.0 Reach Academy 63 31.9 Reach Academy 66 23.4

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 178 43.9 Reach Academy 202 33.2 Fame (IS) 4 50.0 Fruitvale El. 101 40.5

Fame (IS) 178 51.7 Fruitvale El. 280 49.3 Fruitvale El. 116 51.9 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 37 42.0

Fruitvale El. 280 54.0 Fame (IS) 173 54.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 147 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 83 50.7

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 493 62.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 459 64.6 Durham (J. Haley) El. 71 67.8 Warwick El. 79 60.9

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 221 79.2 Durham (J. Haley) El. 226 74.1 Warwick El. 100 68.9 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 62.7

Durham (J. Haley) El. 219 79.5 Warwick El. 493 83.1 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 77 80.4 Fame (IS) 3 66.7

Warwick El. 484 81.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 260 88.7 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 39 86.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 58 82.3



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 120 21.6 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 144 27.6 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 85.6 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 36.2

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 131 35.9 Reach Academy 115 31.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 86.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 32 81.0

Fruitvale El. 122 44.0 Fruitvale El. 124 40.3 Fruitvale El. 31 89.7 Reach Academy 19 82.0

Fame (IS) 163 50.3 Fame (IS) 162 52.5 Warwick El. 82 93.8 Fruitvale El. 46 83.6

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 268 55.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 265 58.9 Fame (IS) 1 100.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 87.8

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 71.6 Durham (J. Haley) El. 118 72.2 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 100.0 Warwick El. 99 95.1

Warwick El. 254 79.1 Warwick El. 258 82.6 Reach Academy 8 Fame (IS) 1 100.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 82.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 100 85.9 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 5 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 7


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Fruitvale El. 69 49.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 46 35.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 45 42.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 57 39.0

Fame (IS) 41 61.0 Fruitvale El. 80 44.0 Fame (IS) 48 47.9 Fruitvale El. 64 50.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 62.0 Fame (IS) 35 57.1 Fruitvale El. 71 58.0 Fame (IS) 50 60.0

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 48 67.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 66.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 126 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 63.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 135 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 128 68.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 81.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 74.0

Warwick El. 148 78.0 Warwick El. 121 80.0 Warwick El. 108 86.0 Warwick El. 142 80.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 88.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 88.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 93.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 60 93.0


4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 50 36.0 Reach Academy 42 38.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 35 26.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 44 11.0

Reach Academy 49 45.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. El. 44 41.0 Reach Academy 60 35.0 Fruitvale El. 65 48.0

Fruitvale El. 71 54.0 Fame (IS) 44 47.7 Fame (IS) 45 42.2 Reach Academy 55 49.0

Fame (IS) 44 56.8 Fruitvale El. 71 56.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 47.0 Fame (IS) 44 52.3

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 69.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 63.0 Fruitvale El. 69 55.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 64.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 57 77.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 74.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 53 83.0

Warwick El. 118 81.0 Warwick El. 112 80.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 78.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 54 85.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 51 86.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 89.0 Warwick El. 110 82.0 Warwick El. 118 93.0


Independent Studies Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- Math


2012, MS, All Students, Grade

All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013, MS, All Students,


% Prof

/ Adv

2012, MS, English Learner,


% Prof

/ Adv

2013, MS, English Learner


% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 164 13.4 West Oakland MS 155 14.0 Frick MS 56 3.6 Chavez (Cesar) MS 154 0.6

Frick MS 336 30.2 Frick MS 290 25.1 Chavez (Cesar) MS 151 4.6 Frick MS 55 5.5

Elmhurst Community Prep 316 37.6 Elmhurst Community Prep 308 30.3 West Oakland MS 20 8.0 Newark JH 86 8.1

Chavez (Cesar) MS 587 40.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 566 33.7 Newark JH 121 12.6 Elmhurst Community Prep 89 11.1

Newark JH 882 60.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 297 55.2 Elmhurst Community Prep 93 15.2 Horner (John M.) JH 71 12.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 314 60.8 Newark JH 827 58.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 15.5 Fame (IS) 7 14.3

Fame (IS) 125 77.6 Fame (IS) 126 75.4 Horner (John M.) JH 67 18.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 57 15.7

Horner (John M.) JH 870 83.4 Horner (John M.) JH 955 81.7 Fame (IS) 7 28.6 West Oakland MS 21

2012, MS, English Only (EO),


% Prof

/ Adv

2013, MS, English Only

(EO), Grade All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2012, MS, R-FEP, Grade All,

CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 137 13.8 West Oakland MS 122 13.0 Frick MS 73 56.3 Chavez (Cesar) MS 219 48.4

Frick MS 195 25.7 Frick MS 170 21.1 Chavez (Cesar) MS 208 57.5 Fame (IS) 4 50.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 105 28.7 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 23.2 Elmhurst Community Prep 99 66.8 Elmhurst Community Prep 99 51.5

Chavez (Cesar) MS 151 38.4 Chavez (Cesar) MS 152 41.5 Newark JH 299 70.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 82 51.5

Newark JH 387 66.4 Newark JH 368 63.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 69 71.3 Frick MS 56 51.7

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 165 71.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 150 70.0 Horner (John M.) JH 270 90.1 Newark JH 317 63.2

Fame (IS) 110 80.0 Fame (IS) 104 79.8 Fame (IS) 1 100.0 Horner (John M.) JH 354 88.4

Horner (John M.) JH 380 85.4 Horner (John M.) JH 378 81.3 West Oakland MS 6 West Oakland MS 12


Independent Studies Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 62 16.0 West Oakland MS 58 16.0 West Oakland MS 41 10.0 West Oakland MS 59 14.0

Frick MS 134 24.0 Frick MS 71 21.0 Frick MS 97 28.0 Frick MS 124 26.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 104 35.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 30.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 306 41.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 242 32.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 58.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 54.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 101 42.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 102 32.0

Fame (IS) 41 75.6 Fame (IS) 43 72.1 Newark JH 391 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 97 56.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 106 70.0 Newark JH 434 60.0

Horner (John M.) JH 391 84.0 Fame (IS) 42 76.2

Fame (IS) 49 85.7 Horner (John M.) JH 541 86.0


8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 61 13.0 West Oakland MS 38 11.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 111 36.0 Frick MS 95 27.0

Chavez (Cesar) MS 281 39.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 98 29.0

Frick MS 105 40.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 324 35.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 96 54.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 88 56.0

Newark JH 491 59.0 Newark JH 393 57.0

Fame (IS) 35 68.6 Horner (John M.) JH 414 76.0

Horner (John M.) JH 479 83.0 Fame (IS) 41 78.1


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School 6-8 -- ELA



All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 102 5.6 West Oakland MS 117 7.5 Fame (IS) 4 0.0 Frick MS 41 5.1

Frick MS 231 17.0 Frick MS 192 11.6 West Oakland MS 17 0.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 44 13.4

Chavez (Cesar) MS 275 26.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 211 23.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 82 9.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 71 14.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 209 38.5 Elmhurst Community Prep 211 32.9 Frick MS 42 12.1 Fame (IS) 7 14.3

Fame (IS) 128 50.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 206 35.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 42 14.3 Newark JH 59 15.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 215 54.8 Fame (IS) 127 44.9 Newark JH 59 24.0 Horner (John M.) JH 27 22.0

Newark JH 343 59.0 Newark JH 416 55.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 67 24.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 74 22.8

Horner (John M.) JH 354 82.0 Horner (John M.) JH 471 80.0 Horner (John M.) JH 37 46.0 West Oakland MS 15



% Prof

/ Adv


(EO), Grade All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 82 6.6 West Oakland MS 90 4.4 Frick MS 46 39.1 Fame (IS)

Frick MS 135 11.2 Frick MS 106 8.4 Chavez (Cesar) MS 92 45.0 Frick MS 39 23.0

Chavez (Cesar) MS 70 19.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 58 19.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 62 69.5 Chavez (Cesar) MS 71 35.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 71 24.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 71 23.0 Newark JH 119 71.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 36.5

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 98 42.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 45 71.3 Elmhurst Community Prep 60 57.0

Fame (IS) 79 62.0 Fame (IS) 68 50.0 Horner (John M.) JH 111 91.0 Newark JH 144 68.0

Newark JH 144 63.0 Newark JH 190 54.0 Fame (IS) 1 100.0 Horner (John M.) JH 202 87.0

Horner (John M.) JH 152 80.0 Horner (John M.) JH 185 76.0 West Oakland MS 3 West Oakland MS 12


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learners, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

West Oakland MS 62 6.0 Frick MS 71 11.0 West Oakland MS 40 5.0 West Oakland MS 59 3.0

Frick MS 133 20.0 West Oakland MS 58 12.0 Frick MS 98 13.0 Frick MS 121 12.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 105 33.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 26.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 275 26.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 211 23.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 111 49.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 29.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 104 44.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 103 37.0

Fame (IS) 41 61.0 Fame (IS) 43 32.6 Fame (IS) 49 57.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 94 46.0


Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 104 61.0 Fame (IS) 43 62.8

Horner (John M.) JH 354 82.0 Horner (John M.) JH 471 80.0

2012, MS, All Students, CST

General Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


General Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Algebra I N

% Prof

/ Adv


Algebra I N

% Prof

/ Adv

Chavez (Cesar) MS 14 0.0 West Oakland MS 56 2.0 West Oakland MS 19 0.0

West Oakland MS 26 0.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 110 4.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 320 29.0

Chavez (Cesar) MS 23 0.0 Frick MS 110 18.0 Chavez (Cesar) MS 257 23.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 71 38.0

Horner (John M.) JH 82 13.0 Newark JH 167 22.0 Frick MS 105 29.0 Fame (IS) 26 46.2

Fame (IS) 14 28.6 Horner (John M.) JH 126 24.0 Fame (IS) 24 29.2 Newark JH 223 65.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 27 30.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 75 25.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 73 46.0 Horner (John M.) JH 353 74.5

Newark JH 334 42.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 19 47.0 Newark JH 185 80.9 Elmhurst Community Prep 23 96.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 4 Fame (IS) 18 50.0 Horner (John M.) JH 423 87.2 Frick MS 1


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- Grades 6-8 -- Math


2012, HS, All Students, Grade

All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013, HS, All Students,


% Prof

/ Adv

2012, HS, English Learner,


% Prof

/ Adv

2013, HS, English Learner


% Prof

/ Adv

Castlemont HS 133 24.0 Fremont HS 475 13.5 Castlemont HS 34 0.0 Fame (IS) 17 0.0

Tennyson HS 844 31.6 Castlemont HS 347 16.4 Tennyson HS 227 2.3 Tennyson HS 220 1.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 239 45.0 Tennyson HS 867 30.1 San Leandro HS 186 3.1 Fremont HS 194 3.1

San Leandro HS 1,838 45.5 San Leandro HS 1,849 44.0 Oakland Technical HS 110 5.0 Castlemont HS 90 3.2

Fame (IS) 120 50.0 Fame (IS) 126 46.0 Fame (IS) 16 6.3 San Leandro HS 194 4.8

Oakland Technical HS 1,268 53.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 218 52.7 Kennedy (John F.) HS 143 7.7 Kennedy (John F.) HS 126 7.3

Kennedy (John F.) HS 989 53.6 Kennedy (John F.) HS 1,015 53.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 45 11.1 Oakland Technical HS 107 7.6

Oakland Technical HS 1,373 57.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 41 28.3

2012, HS, English Only (EO),


% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

2012, HS, R-FEP, Grade All,

CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Castlemont HS 54 17.0 Castlemont HS 132 9.0 Fame (IS) 9 22.2 Fame (IS) 17 23.5

Tennyson HS 225 29.6 Fremont HS 151 13.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 61 44.3 Castlemont HS 107 31.6

San Leandro HS 883 44.6 Tennyson HS 220 32.0 Tennyson HS 308 47.5 Fremont HS 103 31.9

Kennedy (John F.) HS 513 53.3 San Leandro HS 872 44.1 San Leandro HS 579 53.9 Tennyson HS 341 42.4

Oakland Technical HS 863 57.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 558 53.2 Oakland Technical HS 239 56.6 San Leandro HS 604 48.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 123 57.0 Oakland Technical HS 936 60.5 Castlemont HS 37 57.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 68 57.5

Fame (IS) 89 61.8 Fame (IS) 82 61.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 242 74.5 Oakland Technical HS 268 58.7

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 107 61.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 248 69.9


Independent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



9, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 9, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 10, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 10, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Castlemont HS 133 24.0 Fremont HS 168 15.0 Tennyson HS 284 28.0 Castlemont HS 119 13.0

Tennyson HS 295 33.0 Castlemont HS 108 24.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 72 44.0 Fremont HS 179 14.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 94 52.0 Tennyson HS 304 33.0 San Leandro HS 634 45.0 Tennyson HS 295 29.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 343 52.0 Fame (IS) 52 46.2 Oakland Technical HS 446 48.0 San Leandro HS 625 41.0

San Leandro HS 625 53.0 San Leandro HS 616 50.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 333 54.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 342 49.0

Fame (IS) 41 58.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 85 60.0 Fame (IS) 40 55.0 Fame (IS) 41 51.2

Oakland Technical HS 473 59.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 345 61.0 Oakland Technical HS 455 54.0

Oakland Technical HS 505 67.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 80 56.0


11, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 11, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Tennyson HS 265 34.0 Fremont HS 128 11.0

Fame (IS) 39 35.9 Castlemont HS 120 13.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 73 37.0 Tennyson HS 268 28.0

San Leandro HS 579 38.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 53 36.0

Oakland Technical HS 349 52.0 Fame (IS) 33 39.4

Kennedy (John F.) HS 313 55.0 San Leandro HS 608 41.0

Oakland Technical HS 413 48.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 328 49.0


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- Grades 9-11 -- ELA



All, CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade All, CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


(EL), Grade All, CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (IS) 6 0.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 0.0 San Leandro HS 254 3.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 0.0

Tennyson HS 129 1.4 Fame (IS) 3 0.0 Castlemont HS 49 4.0 Fame (IS) 3 0.0

Castlemont HS 31 3.0 Fremont HS 109 1.2 Tennyson HS 91 4.3 Fremont HS 109 1.2

Kennedy (John F.) HS 61 7.0 Oakland Technical HS 37 3.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 13.8 Oakland Technical HS 37 3.0

San Leandro HS 102 7.5 Tennyson HS 102 5.7 Oakland Technical HS 170 15.8 Tennyson HS 102 5.7

Oakland Technical HS 30 14.0 San Leandro HS 100 8.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 32 16.0 San Leandro HS 100 8.3

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 6 Kennedy (John F.) HS 57 8.5 Fame (IS) 43 27.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 57 8.5

Castlemont HS 39 11.0 Castlemont HS 39 11.0



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv

San Leandro HS 254 3.3 Fremont HS 70 0.0 Fame (IS) 5 0.0 Fame (IS) 4 0.0

Castlemont HS 49 4.0 San Leandro HS 235 5.7 San Leandro HS 99 3.9 San Leandro HS 91 5.6

Tennyson HS 91 4.3 Tennyson HS 57 7.0 Tennyson HS 89 9.7 Tennyson HS 53 8.7

Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 13.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 8.0 Castlemont HS 30 13.0 Oakland Technical HS 36 12.0

Oakland Technical HS 170 15.8 Oakland Technical HS 152 11.7 Kennedy (John F.) HS 33 15.0 Fremont HS 39 18.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 32 16.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 172 13.5 Oakland Technical HS 20 20.0 Castlemont HS 26 19.0

Fame (IS) 43 27.9 Castlemont HS 42 17.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 11 Kennedy (John F.) HS 46 20.9

Fame (IS) 41 29.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 8


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Algebra I



All, CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade All, CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


(EL), Grade All, CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 47 11.5 Castlemont HS 72 2.8 Oakland Technical HS 23 0.0 Fame (IS)

Kennedy (John F.) HS 247 15.0 Fremont HS 92 4.4 Fame (IS) 1 0.0 Castlemont HS 14 0.0

Fame (IS) 22 18.2 Kennedy (John F.) HS 268 10.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 21 7.0 Fremont HS 28 3.5

San Leandro HS 440 18.8 San Leandro HS 442 11.3 Tennyson HS 20 12.0 San Leandro HS 29 3.8

Tennyson HS 143 25.2 Tennyson HS 183 17.3 San Leandro HS 20 18.0 Oakland Technical HS 27 5.0

Oakland Technical HS 413 28.1 Fame (IS) 16 18.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 5

Oakland Technical HS 437 23.5 Kennedy (John F.) HS 19

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 46 59.0 Tennyson HS 14



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv

Kennedy (John F.) HS 124 11.9 Castlemont HS 33 0.0 Fame (IS) 1 0.0 Castlemont HS 25 0.0

San Leandro HS 196 14.5 Fremont HS 25 0.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 77 16.9 Fame (IS) 2 0.00

Fame (IS) 20 20.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 144 7.9 Tennyson HS 76 18.3 Fremont HS 36 8.0

Tennyson HS 29 24.0 San Leandro HS 200 9.4 San Leandro HS 159 23.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 83 10.8

Oakland Technical HS 282 27.4 Tennyson HS 46 9.9 Oakland Technical HS 88 28.3 San Leandro HS 158 12.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 36.0 Oakland Technical HS 283 22.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 Tennyson HS 100 22.1

Fame (IS) 13 23.08 Oakland Technical HS 110 28.3

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 70.0


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Algebra II


2012, HS, All Students, CST

Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv


Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade All, CST Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv


(EL), Grade All, CST Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv

Tennyson HS 271 3.9 Castlemont HS 114 0.0 Fame (IS) 2 0.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 45 0.0

San Leandro HS 595 8.2 Fremont HS 120 0.7 Tennyson HS 66 1.6 Castlemont HS 31 0.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 368 15.9 Tennyson HS 349 2.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 57 1.7 Fremont HS 50 0.0

Fame (IS) 27 18.5 San Leandro HS 587 3.8 San Leandro HS 67 4.4 Fame (IS) 3 0.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 77 20.3 Fame (IS) 28 17.9 Oakland Technical HS 44 7.3 Tennyson HS 85 3.5

Oakland Technical HS 393 24.1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 323 19.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 San Leandro HS 57 5.4

Castlemont HS 13 31.0 Oakland Technical HS 394 23.4 Castlemont HS 1 Oakland Technical HS 28 8.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 29.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 7



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv

Tennyson HS 67 4.5 Castlemont HS 46 0.0 Fame (IS) 3 0.0 Castlemont HS 31 0.0

San Leandro HS 283 9.5 Fremont HS 44 2.2 Tennyson HS 109 5.5 Fremont HS 22 0.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 205 17.0 San Leandro HS 291 4.1 San Leandro HS 189 6.8 Fame (IS) 6 0.0

Oakland Technical HS 254 23.2 Tennyson HS 93 5.5 Kennedy (John F.) HS 84 21.4 Tennyson HS 139 0.7

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 30 26.5 Kennedy (John F.) HS 181 16.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 24.0 San Leandro HS 192 2.3

Fame (IS) 19 36.8 Oakland Technical HS 295 24.6 Oakland Technical HS 80 34.1 Oakland Technical HS 59 30.6

Castlemont HS 5 Fame (IS) 19 26.3 Castlemont HS 7 Kennedy (John F.) HS 61 36.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 28 34.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 22 38.0


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Geometry



All, CST HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade All, CST HS Sum

Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


(EL), Grade All, CST HS

Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 20 6.0 Castlemont HS 37 3.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 4

Fame (IS) 8 25.0 San Leandro HS 328 33.4 Kennedy (John F.) HS 4 Tennyson HS 1

Tennyson HS 58 41.3 Tennyson HS 62 36.8 Tennyson HS 3 Castlemont HS 6

San Leandro HS 278 44.3 Fame (IS) 10 50.0 Oakland Technical HS 6 Fremont HS 2

Oakland Technical HS 212 54.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 126 50.3 San Leandro HS 4 Oakland Technical HS 8

Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 69.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 54.0 San Leandro HS 7


Fremont HS 10


Grade All, CST HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (IS) 8 25.0 Tennyson HS 17 25.0 Tennyson HS 25 32.0 Castlemont HS 21 5.0

San Leandro HS 111 41.3 San Leandro HS 124 33.1 San Leandro HS 123 44.5 Tennyson HS 33 18.0

Tennyson HS 21 44.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 51 46.0 Oakland Technical HS 46 47.8 San Leandro HS 147 30.9

Kennedy (John F.) HS 43 52.0 Fame (IS) 10 50.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 47 73.6 Oakland Technical HS 62 36.6

Oakland Technical HS 144 58.3 Oakland Technical HS 175 62.7 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 58 52.6

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 10 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 11 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 5

Castlemont HS 8 Fremont HS 4

Fremont HS 2


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Summative Math



General Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


General Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv

Tennyson HS 21 0.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 21 0.0 San Leandro HS 480 4.6 Fremont HS 235 2.8

San Leandro HS 11 0.0 Fame (IS) 21 0.0 Tennyson HS 335 5.2 Fame (IS) 26 3.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 13.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 3 Castlemont HS 118 7.0 Tennyson HS 230 6.2

Fame (IS) 11 18.2 Tennyson HS 8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 228 11.8 San Leandro HS 450 6.6

Kennedy (John F.) HS 5 San Leandro HS 1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 50 14.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 48 7.0

Oakland Technical HS 1 Oakland Technical HS 225 16.0 Oakland Technical HS 236 10.2

Fame (IS) 31 16.1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 285 13.4

Castlemont HS 117 17.0


Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv


Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 47 11.5 Castlemont HS 72 2.8 Tennyson HS 271 3.9 Castlemont HS 114 0.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 247 15.0 Fremont HS 92 4.4 San Leandro HS 595 8.2 Fremont HS 120 0.7

Fame (IS) 22 18.2 Kennedy (John F.) HS 268 10.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 368 15.9 Tennyson HS 349 2.8

San Leandro HS 440 18.8 San Leandro HS 442 11.3 Fame (IS) 27 18.5 San Leandro HS 587 3.8

Tennyson HS 143 25.2 Tennyson HS 183 17.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 77 20.3 Fame (IS) 28 17.9

Oakland Technical HS 413 28.1 Fame (IS) 16 18.8 Oakland Technical HS 393 24.1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 323 19.8

Castlemont HS 13 31.0 Oakland Technical HS 394 23.4

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 29.3


HS Summative Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


HS Summative Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 20 6.0 Castlemont HS 37 3.0

Fame (IS) 8 25.0 San Leandro HS 328 33.4

Tennyson HS 58 41.3 Tennyson HS 62 36.8

San Leandro HS 278 44.3 Fame (IS) 10 50.0

Oakland Technical HS 212 54.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 126 50.3

Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 69.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 54.0


Fremont HS 10


Indpendent Study Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students -- General Math, Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Summative Math




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 193 23.0 Reach Academy 199 16.2 Cherryland El. 212 13.2 Reach Academy 65 3.5

Hillside El. 310 28.6 Hillside El. 308 22.5 Hillside El. 147 18.4 Cherryland El. 220 11.4

East Oakland Pride El. 249 29.5 East Oakland Pride El. 281 22.7 Reach Academy 63 20.8 East Oakland Pride El. 157 12.6

Cherryland El. 424 31.1 Cherryland El. 416 29.7 East Oakland Pride El. 162 24.0 Hillside El. 156 14.1

Jefferson El. 327 45.2 Fame (San Leandro) 93 37.6 Jefferson El. 125 26.6 Jefferson El. 135 20.4

Fame (San Leandro) 64 56.3 Jefferson El. 363 43.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 146 55.5 Fame (San Leandro) 24 20.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 491 64.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 461 59.6 Fame (San Leandro) 25 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 84 36.7



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 119 21.8 Reach Academy 113 15.1 Jefferson El. 70 72.8 Fame (San Leandro) 20 55.0

East Oakland Pride El. 60 24.1 East Oakland Pride El. 82 18.2 East Oakland Pride El. 25 85.0 Hillside El. 25 55.0

Cherryland El. 117 25.4 Hillside El. 121 19.0 Cherryland El. 65 89.0 Reach Academy 19 73.0

Hillside El. 128 27.4 Cherryland El. 107 33.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 92.7 Jefferson El. 85 75.3

Fame (San Leandro) 34 44.1 Fame (San Leandro) 46 39.1 Fame (San Leandro) 1 100.0 East Oakland Pride El. 38 75.8

Jefferson El. 128 47.0 Jefferson El. 138 45.5 Reach Academy 8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 78.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 267 64.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 266 59.6 Hillside El. 24 Cherryland El. 64 79.6


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



Grade 2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Cherryland El. 95 14.0 East Oakland Pride El. 92 17.0 East Oakland Pride El. 69 9.0 Hillside El. 80 14.0

Hillside El. 80 26.0 Cherryland El. 120 18.0 Hillside El. 79 22.0 Cherryland El. 92 15.0

East Oakland Pride El. 80 34.0 Hillside El. 95 23.0 Cherryland El. 100 28.0 East Oakland Pride El. 77 16.0

Jefferson El. 79 46.0 Jefferson El. 110 33.0 Jefferson El. 103 44.0 Fame (San Leandro) 22 18.2

Fame (San Leandro) 26 50.0 Fame (San Leandro) 35 51.4 Fame (San Leandro) 16 50.0 Jefferson El. 80 36.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 134 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 130 59.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 125 50.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 48.0


Grade 4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

East Oakland Pride El. 50 32.0 Reach Academy 41 20.0 Fame (San Leandro) Hillside El. 59 24.0

Hillside El. 73 34.0 East Oakland Pride El. 56 23.0 Reach Academy 60 22.0 Reach Academy 52 31.0

Cherryland El. 113 37.0 Hillside El. 74 30.0 Hillside El. 78 33.0 Fame (San Leandro) 22 36.4

Jefferson El. 72 44.0 Fame (San Leandro) 14 35.7 Cherryland El. 116 42.0 Cherryland El. 108 38.0

Reach Academy 48 50.0 Cherryland El. 96 49.0 Jefferson El. 73 47.0 Jefferson El. 72 39.0

Fame (San Leandro) 22 68.2 Jefferson El. 101 63.0 East Oakland Pride El. 50 48.0 East Oakland Pride El. 56 41.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 77.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 70.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 65.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- ELA




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 194 29.1 Reach Academy 202 33.2 Hillside El. 147 27.6 Reach Academy 66 23.4

Hillside El. 312 32.9 Hillside El. 308 35.1 Reach Academy 63 31.9 Cherryland El. 221 27.9

Cherryland El. 424 45.4 Cherryland El. 417 38.9 Cherryland El. 213 33.5 Hillside El. 155 33.1

East Oakland Pride El. 248 45.6 East Oakland Pride El. 283 46.1 East Oakland Pride El. 161 45.2 Fame (San Leandro) 24 37.5

Jefferson El. 326 59.4 Fame (San Leandro) 92 47.8 Jefferson El. 126 51.7 Jefferson El. 135 44.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 493 62.0 Jefferson El. 361 54.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 147 63.0 East Oakland Pride El. 161 45.4

Fame (San Leandro) 64 68.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 459 64.6 Fame (San Leandro) 25 84.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 83 50.7



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Reach Academy 120 21.6 Hillside El. 122 28.0 Cherryland El. 65 82.0 Hillside El. 25 45.0

Hillside El. 130 26.7 Reach Academy 115 31.1 Jefferson El. 70 82.9 Fame (San Leandro) 20 65.0

East Oakland Pride El. 60 29.4 East Oakland Pride El. 80 36.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 86.0 East Oakland Pride El. 38 69.3

Cherryland El. 116 40.4 Cherryland El. 107 37.3 Fame (San Leandro) 1 100.0 Jefferson El. 85 72.8

Fame (San Leandro) 34 52.9 Fame (San Leandro) 45 44.4 East Oakland Pride El. 25 100.0 Cherryland El. 64 73.7

Jefferson El. 126 54.6 Jefferson El. 136 51.4 Reach Academy 8 Reach Academy 19 82.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 268 55.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 265 58.9 Hillside El. 24 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 87.8


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learners, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



Grade 2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Hillside El. 81 32.0 Cherryland El. 120 29.0 East Oakland Pride El. 69 25.0 Fame (San Leandro) 22 27.3

Cherryland El. 94 40.0 Hillside El. 96 33.0 Cherryland El. 100 47.0 Cherryland El. 92 38.0

East Oakland Pride El. 79 53.0 Fame (San Leandro) 34 50.0 Hillside El. 79 48.0 Hillside El. 80 46.0

Fame (San Leandro) 26 57.7 East Oakland Pride El. 91 54.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 126 63.0 East Oakland Pride El. 77 49.0

Jefferson El. 80 61.0 Jefferson El. 110 54.0 Jefferson El. 101 70.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 63.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 135 68.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 128 68.0 Fame (San Leandro) 16 81.3 Jefferson El. 80 64.0


Grade 4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Hillside El. 73 26.0 Hillside El. 75 37.0 Fame (San Leandro) Hillside El. 57 21.0

Reach Academy 49 45.0 Reach Academy 42 38.0 Hillside El. 79 25.0 Jefferson El. 72 25.0

Cherryland El. 114 47.0 East Oakland Pride El. 57 40.0 Reach Academy 60 35.0 Cherryland El. 109 31.0

East Oakland Pride El. 50 48.0 Fame (San Leandro) 14 50.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 47.0 East Oakland Pride El. 58 36.0

Jefferson El. 71 48.0 Cherryland El. 96 61.0 Cherryland El. 116 47.0 Reach Academy 55 49.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 69.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 63.0 Jefferson El. 74 54.0 Fame (San Leandro) 22 63.6

Fame (San Leandro) 22 72.7 Jefferson El. 99 70.0 East Oakland Pride El. 50 60.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 64.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- Math




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 290 25.1 Fame (San Leandro) Fame (San Leandro) 20 0.0

Edendale Middle 505 29.8 Fame (San Leandro) 55 25.5 Cherryland Elementary 32 3.0 Bancroft Middle 123 0.0

Frick Middle 336 30.2 Edendale Middle 574 27.2 Frick Middle 56 3.6 Edendale Middle 129 1.6

Cherryland Elementary 102 36.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 308 30.3 Edendale Middle 135 5.4 Frick Middle 55 5.5

Elmhurst Community Prep 316 37.6 Bancroft Middle 875 43.1 Bancroft Middle 159 5.7 Cherryland Elementary 26 8.0

Bancroft Middle 900 45.1 Muir (John) Middle 851 51.9 Muir (John) Middle 106 8.5 Muir (John) Middle 84 9.6

Muir (John) Middle 867 55.1 Cherryland Elementary 118 53.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 93 15.2 Elmhurst Community Prep 89 11.1

Fame Public Charter 314 60.8 Fame Public Charter 297 55.2 Fame Public Charter 58 15.5 Fame Public Charter 57 15.7



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 170 21.1 Fame (San Leandro) Edendale Middle 227 39.0

Frick Middle 195 25.7 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 23.2 Edendale Middle 182 43.2 Fame (San Leandro) 13 46.2

Elmhurst Community Prep 105 28.7 Edendale Middle 208 30.3 Frick Middle 73 56.3 Bancroft Middle 224 47.8

Edendale Middle 186 33.9 Fame (San Leandro) 20 35.0 Bancroft Middle 191 57.8 Elmhurst Community Prep 99 51.5

Cherryland Elementary 30 37.0 Cherryland Elementary 34 44.0 Muir (John) Middle 303 62.6 Fame Public Charter 82 51.5

Bancroft Middle 483 48.2 Muir (John) Middle 338 46.5 Cherryland Elementary 36 64.0 Frick Middle 56 51.7

Muir (John) Middle 362 55.5 Bancroft Middle 469 49.2 Elmhurst Community Prep 99 66.8 Muir (John) Middle 358 62.2

Fame Public Charter 165 71.2 Fame Public Charter 150 70.0 Fame Public Charter 69 71.3 Cherryland Elementary 55 80.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



Grade 6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 71 21.0 Fame (San Leandro) Fame (San Leandro) 14 21.4

Frick Middle 134 24.0 Fame (San Leandro) 25 24.0 Frick Middle 97 28.0 Edendale Middle 201 24.0

Edendale Middle 199 24.0 Edendale Middle 208 28.0 Edendale Middle 157 36.0 Frick Middle 124 26.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 104 35.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 30.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 101 42.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 102 32.0

Cherryland Elementary 102 36.0 Bancroft Middle 275 45.0 Bancroft Middle 288 44.0 Bancroft Middle 310 49.0

Bancroft Middle 315 50.0 Muir (John) Middle 286 48.0 Muir (John) Middle 271 63.0 Muir (John) Middle 293 52.0

Muir (John) Middle 295 50.0 Cherryland Elementary 118 53.0 Fame Public Charter 106 70.0 Fame Public Charter 97 56.0

Fame Public Charter 112 58.0 Fame Public Charter 112 54.0


Grade 8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 95 27.0

Edendale Middle 149 31.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 98 29.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 111 36.0 Edendale Middle 165 30.0

Frick Middle 105 40.0 Fame (San Leandro) 16 31.3

Bancroft Middle 297 41.0 Bancroft Middle 290 35.0

Muir (John) Middle 301 53.0 Fame Public Charter 88 56.0

Fame Public Charter 96 54.0 Muir (John) Middle 272 56.0

Muir (John) Middle 272 56.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- Grades 6-8 -- ELA




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 192 11.6 Fame (San Leandro) Edendale Middle 101 4.9

Edendale Middle 352 13.9 Edendale Middle 410 17.5 Edendale Middle 99 5.1 Frick Middle 41 5.1

Cherryland Elementary 102 16.0 Bancroft Middle 539 28.0 Bancroft Middle 106 5.5 Bancroft Middle 73 5.5

Frick Middle 231 17.0 Fame (San Leandro) 55 29.1 Cherryland Elementary 32 6.0 Cherryland Elementary 26 8.0

Bancroft Middle 545 26.7 Elmhurst Community Prep 211 32.9 Muir (John) Middle 63 11.4 Muir (John) Middle 68 11.7

Muir (John) Middle 500 35.9 Fame Public Charter 206 35.1 Frick Middle 42 12.1 Fame Public Charter 44 13.4

Elmhurst Community Prep 209 38.5 Muir (John) Middle 526 38.3 Fame Public Charter 42 14.3 Fame (San Leandro) 20 10.0

Fame Public Charter 215 54.8 Cherryland Elementary 118 46.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 67 24.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 74 22.8



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 106 8.4 Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 39 23.0

Edendale Middle 129 11.0 Edendale Middle 141 16.0 Cherryland Elementary 36 19.0 Edendale Middle 159 25.5

Frick Middle 135 11.2 Elmhurst Community Prep 71 23.0 Edendale Middle 122 25.5 Bancroft Middle 143 30.1

Cherryland Elementary 30 17.0 Fame (San Leandro) 20 25.0 Bancroft Middle 115 35.2 Fame Public Charter 58 36.5

Elmhurst Community Prep 71 24.0 Bancroft Middle 293 30.0 Frick Middle 46 39.1 Muir (John) Middle 222 51.1

Bancroft Middle 288 28.3 Muir (John) Middle 210 32.9 Muir (John) Middle 178 46.4 Elmhurst Community Prep 60 57.0

Muir (John) Middle 214 29.2 Fame Public Charter 98 42.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 62 69.5 Fame (San Leandro) 13 61.5

Fame Public Charter 112 61.0 Cherryland Elementary 34 47.0 Fame Public Charter 45 71.3 Cherryland Elementary 55 64.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



Grade 6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 71 11.0 Fame (San Leandro) Frick Middle 121 12.0

Cherryland Elementary 102 16.0 Edendale Middle 212 17.0 Bancroft Middle 228 11.0 Edendale Middle 198 18.0

Edendale Middle 202 16.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 26.0 Edendale Middle 150 11.0 Fame (San Leandro) 14 21.4

Frick Middle 133 20.0 Bancroft Middle 281 27.0 Frick Middle 98 13.0 Bancroft Middle 258 29.0

Elmhurst Community Prep 105 33.0 Fame (San Leandro) 25 28.0 Muir (John) Middle 207 33.0 Muir (John) Middle 241 35.0

Bancroft Middle 317 38.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 108 29.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 104 44.0 Elmhurst Community Prep 103 37.0

Muir (John) Middle 293 38.0 Muir (John) Middle 285 41.0 Fame Public Charter 104 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 94 46.0

Fame Public Charter 111 49.0 Cherryland El. 118 46.0


San Leandro Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- Grade 6-7 -- Math




% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) El. 284 34.7 Schilling (August) El. 278 33.9 Searles El. 158 15.1 Searles El. 143 9.8

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 166 78.4 Searles El. 417 42.1 Schilling (August) El. 148 18.4 Schilling (August) El. 157 19.8

Graham (James A.) El. 249 42.4 Graham (James A.) El. 252 49.1 Pioneer El. 92 22.7 Graham (James A.) El. 101 23.7

Searles El. 439 44.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 461 59.6 Graham (James A.) El. 131 32.2 Pioneer El. 92 24.9

Maloney (Tom) El. 301 59.8 Brier El. 380 62.2 Bunker (James L.) El. 53 37.3 Brier El. 140 36.5

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 491 64.1 Durham (J. Haley) El. 224 63.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 109 41.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 84 36.7

Pioneer El. 534 65.5 Pioneer El. 522 64.3 Durham (J. Haley) El. 70 47.2 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 37.2

Durham (J. Haley) El. 218 66.2 Maloney (Tom) El. 277 66.7 Brier El. 147 50.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 81 43.5

Bunker (James L.) El. 305 66.9 Bunker (James L.) El. 315 75.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 146 55.5 Warwick El. 77 58.7

Brier El. 362 67.7 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 27 77.8 Warwick El. 99 58.4 Bunker (James L.) El. 35 67.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 220 74.3 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 255 79.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 76 60.4 Parkmont El. 71 67.5

Warwick El. 486 79.0 Warwick El. 488 81.2 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 107 67.3 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 16 75.0


2012, ES, English Only


% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) El. 79 43.2 Schilling (August) El. 68 44.0 Schilling (August) El. 54 68.4 Graham (James A.) El. 56 42.9

Graham (James A.) El. 94 48.0 Searles El. 154 50.7 Searles El. 100 72.0 Searles El. 91 59.7

Searles El. 149 51.5 Pioneer El. 224 58.8 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 14 78.6 Schilling (August) El. 47 65.7

Pioneer El. 240 62.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 266 59.6 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 83.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 73 74.4

Maloney (Tom) El. 132 62.9 Graham (James A.) El. 92 60.1 Maloney (Tom) El. 43 83.7 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 78.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 267 64.5 Brier El. 128 64.7 Pioneer El. 168 88.5 Maloney (Tom) El. 49 85.4

Bunker (James L.) El. 169 67.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 117 65.6 Brier El. 67 89.2 Pioneer El. 177 86.6

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 69.3 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 96 71.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 92.7 Durham (J. Haley) El. 31 87.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 70.5 Maloney (Tom) El. 123 73.8 Warwick El. 82 93.9 Brier El. 83 91.6

Brier El. 124 72.8 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 8 75.0 Parkmont El. 113 94.7 Parkmont El. 109 92.3

Warwick El. 257 78.6 Bunker (James L.) El. 185 76.6 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 95.2 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 92.5

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 35 80.0 Warwick El. 256 79.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 48 96.6 Warwick El. 98 95.0

Parkmont El. 270 88.8 Parkmont El. 271 89.1 Graham (James A.) El. 22 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 3 100.0


Kearney (K-5) Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



Grade 2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


2, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


3, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) El. 78 21.0 Schilling (August) El. 80 30.0 Schilling (August) El. 57 25.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11)

Graham (James A.) El. 74 45.0 Searles El. 111 35.0 Graham (James A.) El. 62 26.0 Schilling (August) El. 67 21.0

Searles El. 130 46.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 57.0 Searles El. 104 26.0 Graham (James A.) El. 73 25.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 84 56.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 130 59.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 79 38.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 69 41.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 58.0 Pioneer El. 137 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 125 50.0 Searles El. 114 44.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 134 61.0 Graham (James A.) El. 68 65.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 86 52.0 Brier El. 98 46.0

Pioneer El. 124 65.0 Brier El. 112 66.0 Brier El. 95 53.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 48.0

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 58 69.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 27 77.8 Pioneer El. 146 55.0 Pioneer El. 118 53.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 79.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 56.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 54.0

Brier El. 99 72.0 Warwick El. 119 79.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 46 58.7 Bunker (James L.) El. 79 73.0

Bunker (James L.) El. 78 73.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 81 80.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 72.0 Warwick El. 141 76.0

Warwick El. 148 77.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 83.0 Warwick El. 109 75.0 Parkmont El. 147 79.0



Grade 4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


4, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


5, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) El. 87 44.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) Graham (James A.) El. 62 47.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11)

Graham (James A.) El. 51 53.0 Searles El. 94 40.0 Schilling (August) El. 62 48.0 Schilling (August) El. 77 38.0

Searles El. 100 53.0 Schilling (August) El. 54 50.0 Searles El. 105 51.0 Searles El. 98 50.0

Pioneer El. 135 70.0 Graham (James A.) El. 58 59.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 76 62.0 Graham (James A.) El. 53 51.0

Brier El. 85 75.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 63.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 67.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 65.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 55 75.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 89 65.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 68.0 Brier El. 83 67.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 77.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 66.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 70.0 Pioneer El. 130 68.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 80 80.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 103 68.0 Brier El. 83 72.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 53 70.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 50 84.0 Brier El. 87 71.0 Pioneer El. 129 73.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 70 74.0

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 44 84.1 Pioneer El. 137 74.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 79.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 52 83.0

Warwick El. 120 85.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 83.0 Warwick El. 109 79.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 66 85.0

Bunker (James L.) El. 65 85.0 Warwick El. 111 83.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 18 83.3 Warwick El. 117 88.0

Parkmont El. 117 96.0 Parkmont El. 137 93.0 Parkmont El. 117 85.0 Parkmont El. 117 91.0


Kearney (K-5) Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- ELA




% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) Elementary288 57.2 Schilling (August) El. 281 52.1 Searles El. 160 36.1 Schilling (August) El. 160 41.2

Graham (James A.) Elementary253 58.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 459 64.6 Schilling (August) El. 150 44.7 Pioneer El. 92 46.0

Fame Public Charter 493 62.0 Graham (James A.) El. 254 70.4 Graham (James A.) El. 132 51.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 83 50.7

Pioneer Elementary 539 66.4 Pioneer El. 525 71.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 110 61.1 Graham (James A.) El. 102 53.2

Maloney (Tom) Elementary 302 67.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 277 71.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 147 63.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 56.6

Brier Elementary 361 72.4 Brier El. 381 72.0 Brier El. 148 63.8 Brier El. 140 57.1

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 167 78.4 Durham (J. Haley) El. 226 74.1 Durham (J. Haley) El. 71 67.8 Bunker (James L.) El. 34 58.0

Bunker (James L.) Elementary305 78.9 Warwick El. 493 83.1 Warwick El. 100 68.9 Warwick El. 79 60.9

Hirsch (O. N.) Elementary 221 79.2 Bunker (James L.) El. 317 83.6 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 108 71.3 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 62.7

Durham (J. Haley) Elementary219 79.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 27 85.2 Bunker (James L.) El. 53 80.0 Parkmont El. 70 81.1

Warwick Elementary 484 81.4 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 260 88.7 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 77 80.4 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 16 81.3

Parkmont Elementary 503 89.8 Parkmont El. 519 89.7 Parkmont El. 64 84.3 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 58 82.3

2012, ES, English Only


% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Searles El. 151 49.0 Searles El. 155 57.5 Searles El. 100 73.9 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 68 36.2

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 268 55.6 Schilling (August) El. 68 57.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 42 85.6 Schilling (August) El. 47 46.0

Graham (James A.) El. 97 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 265 58.9 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 14 85.7 Searles El. 91 63.9

Schilling (August) El. 81 61.7 Pioneer El. 227 64.7 Pioneer El. 168 85.9 Graham (James A.) El. 56 70.2

Pioneer El. 242 63.7 Brier El. 129 71.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 55 86.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 32 81.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 132 63.9 Durham (J. Haley) El. 118 72.2 Maloney (Tom) El. 43 86.4 Bunker (James L.) El. 73 81.1

Brier El. 122 68.8 Maloney (Tom) El. 124 72.5 Brier El. 67 89.4 Maloney (Tom) El. 49 87.7

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 81 71.6 Graham (James A.) El. 93 75.2 Schilling (August) El. 54 92.9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 100 87.8

Bunker (James L.) El. 169 75.8 Warwick El. 258 82.6 Warwick El. 82 93.8 Brier El. 83 87.9

Warwick El. 254 79.1 Bunker (James L.) El. 188 85.9 Bunker (James L.) El. 48 96.6 Pioneer El. 177 89.3

Durham (J. Haley) El. 114 82.5 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 100 85.9 Parkmont El. 113 97.5 Parkmont El. 109 92.7

Parkmont El. 269 88.3 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 8 87.5 Durham (J. Haley) El. 22 100.0 Warwick El. 99 95.1

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 35 97.1 Parkmont El. 270 89.5 Graham (James A.) El. 22 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 3 100.0


Kearney (K-5) Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



Grade 2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


2, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


3, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Schilling (August) El. 78 38.0 Schilling (August) El. 80 43.0 Graham (James A.) El. 63 43.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11)

Graham (James A.) El. 74 61.0 Searles El. 111 55.0 Searles El. 107 50.0 Schilling (August) El. 69 48.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 55 62.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 58 66.0 Schilling (August) El. 58 57.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 69 55.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 135 68.0 Pioneer El. 137 67.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 126 63.0 Graham (James A.) El. 75 60.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 84 69.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 128 68.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 79 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 63.0

Searles El. 130 71.0 Brier El. 112 76.0 Brier El. 95 66.0 Searles El. 116 65.0

Pioneer El. 124 71.0 Graham (James A.) El. 68 79.0 Pioneer El. 147 73.0 Brier El. 99 70.0

Brier El. 99 75.0 Warwick El. 121 80.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 86 80.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 74.0

Warwick El. 148 78.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 80 83.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 47 80.9 Pioneer El. 119 74.0

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 58 79.3 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 27 85.2 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 52 81.0 Warwick El. 142 80.0

Bunker (James L.) El. 78 85.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 81 86.0 Parkmont El. 134 84.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 81 85.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 88.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 90 88.0 Warwick El. 108 86.0 Parkmont El. 147 90.0

Parkmont El. 136 98.0 Parkmont El. 119 92.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 54 93.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 60 93.0


Grade 4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


4, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


5, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Searles El. 101 42.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) Searles El. 105 39.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11)

Graham (James A.) El. 53 64.0 Schilling (August) El. 69 48.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 47.0 Schilling (August) El. 78 45.0

Schilling (August) El. 88 65.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 69 55.0 Pioneer El. 131 55.0 Searles El. 97 47.0

Pioneer El. 137 66.0 Graham (James A.) El. 75 60.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 58 64.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 108 64.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 116 69.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 120 63.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) 18 66.7 Pioneer El. 131 65.0

Brier El. 85 72.0 Searles El. 116 65.0 Graham (James A.) El. 63 67.0 Brier El. 83 69.0

Maloney (Tom) El. 81 74.0 Brier El. 99 70.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 76 68.0 Maloney (Tom) El. 70 73.0

Hirsch (O. N.) El. 57 77.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 57 74.0 Schilling (August) El. 64 70.0 Graham (James A.) El. 52 77.0

Fame Kearney St (K-5) 44 79.6 Pioneer El. 119 74.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 56 71.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 53 83.0

Warwick El. 118 81.0 Warwick El. 142 80.0 Brier El. 82 77.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 64 84.0

Bunker (James L.) El. 65 83.0 Bunker (James L.) El. 81 85.0 Durham (J. Haley) El. 59 78.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 54 85.0

Durham (J. Haley) El. 51 86.0 Parkmont El. 147 90.0 Warwick El. 110 82.0 Parkmont El. 115 90.0

Parkmont El. 115 92.0 Hirsch (O. N.) El. 60 93.0 Parkmont El. 118 85.0 Warwick El. 118 93.0


Kearney (K-5) Comparison 2012/2013: Elementary -- Grades 2-5 -- Math




% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Edendale MS 574 27.2 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Edendale MS 129 1.6

Edendale MS 505 29.8 Cesar Chavez MS 1,284 43.8 Cesar Chavez MS 228 2.9 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 108 1.9

Cesar Chavez MS 1,326 47.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 114 46.5 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 100 4.1 Cesar Chavez MS 212 4.7

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 549 52.4 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 644 50.0 Edendale MS 135 5.4 Bret Harte MS 56 5.3

Bret Harte MS 583 56.0 Bret Harte MS 601 54.5 Bret Harte MS 55 5.6 Newark JH 86 8.1

Newark JH 882 60.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 297 55.2 Newark JH 121 12.6 Walters (G. M.) JH 103 11.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 314 60.8 Walters (G. M.) JH 670 58.0 Alvarado MS 116 15.4 Horner (John M.) JH 71 12.8

Walters (G. M.) JH 633 64.5 Newark JH 827 58.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 15.5 Alvarado MS 111 13.2

Alvarado MS 1,319 69.6 Alvarado MS 1,309 66.8 Walters (G. M.) JH 93 15.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 57 15.7

Thornton JH 914 79.1 Thornton JH 958 78.5 Horner (John M.) JH 67 18.1 Thornton JH 56 17.7

Horner (John M.) JH 870 83.4 Horner (John M.) JH 955 81.7 Thornton JH 62 20.9 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 21 19.1



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Edendale MS 186 33.9 Cesar Chavez MS 531 45.9 Edendale MS 182 43.2 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 61 49.2

Cesar Chavez MS 569 47.1 Bret Harte MS 346 55.5 Cesar Chavez MS 442 63.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 82 51.5

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 150 49.6 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 188 56.1 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 205 68.1 Cesar Chavez MS 461 57.4

Bret Harte MS 328 54.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 23 60.9 Newark JH 299 70.5 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 273 58.8

Newark JH 387 66.4 Walters (G. M.) JH 316 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 69 71.3 Newark JH 317 63.2

Alvarado MS 515 68.0 Newark JH 368 63.5 Bret Harte MS 133 74.4 Bret Harte MS 150 65.0

Walters (G. M.) JH 349 68.9 Alvarado MS 529 64.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 148 77.9 Walters (G. M.) JH 210 70.6

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 165 71.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 150 70.0 Alvarado MS 552 78.1 Alvarado MS 556 77.0

Thornton JH 459 75.7 Thornton JH 462 74.6 Thornton JH 267 89.3 Thornton JH 324 88.0

Horner (John M.) JH 380 85.4 Horner (John M.) JH 378 81.3 Horner (John M.) JH 270 90.1 Horner (John M.) JH 354 88.4


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



Grade 6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


6, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013,MS, All Students, Grade

7, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Edendale MS 199 24.0 Graham (James A.) Elementary 57 44.0 Edendale MS 157 36.0 Cesar Chavez MS 459 40.0

Schilling (August) Elementary 87 41.0 Schilling (August) Elementary 54 46.0 Cesar Chavez MS 443 52.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 41 46.3

Cesar Chavez MS 450 46.0 Cesar Chavez MS 399 47.0 Bret Harte MS 291 55.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 345 50.0

Graham (James A.) Elementary61 51.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 42 52.4 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 306 59.0 Bret Harte MS 313 54.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 58.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 54.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 317 62.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 97 56.0

Bunker (James L.) Elementary 75 63.0 Durham (J. Haley) Elementary 59 63.0 Newark JH 391 63.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 350 57.0

Brier Elementary 85 67.0 Bunker (James L.) Elementary 73 64.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 106 70.0 Newark JH 434 60.0

Durham (J. Haley) Elementary 56 70.0 Alvarado MS 406 67.0 Alvarado MS 422 73.0 Alvarado MS 471 70.0

Alvarado MS 454 70.0 Brier Elementary 84 75.0 Horner (John M.) JH 391 84.0 Thornton JH 487 81.0

Maloney (Tom) Elementary 54 74.0 Warwick Elementary 103 83.0 Thornton JH 469 84.0 Horner (John M.) JH 541 86.0

Warwick Elementary 107 75.0 Maloney (Tom) Elementary 56 86.0

Parkmont Elementary 119 87.0 Hirsch (O. N.) Elementary 56 86.0

Hirsch (O. N.) Elementary 85 88.0 Parkmont Elementary 114 88.0


Grade 8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


8, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Edendale MS 165 30.0

Edendale MS 149 31.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 31 38.7

Cesar Chavez MS 433 43.0 Cesar Chavez MS 426 45.0

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 243 44.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 299 50.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 96 54.0 Bret Harte MS 288 55.0

Bret Harte MS 292 57.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 88 56.0


Alvarado MS 443 66.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 320 59.0

Walters (G. M.) JH 316 67.0 Alvarado MS 432 63.0

Thornton JH 445 74.0 Horner (John M.) JH 414 76.0

Horner (John M.) JH 479 83.0 Thornton JH 471 76.0


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- Grades 6-8 -- ELA




% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


Edendale MS 352 13.9 Cesar Chavez MS 748 31.2 Edendale MS 99 5.1 Alvarado MS 69 5.7

Bret Harte MS 221 25.0 Bret Harte MS 266 33.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 51 6.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 15 6.7

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 230 29.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 115 33.9 Bret Harte MS 29 7.0 Cesar Chavez MS 138 7.9

Cesar Chavez MS 743 30.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 206 35.1 Cesar Chavez MS 157 7.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 44 13.4

Alvarado MS 635 42.8 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 278 39.0 Alvarado MS 71 10.1 Newark JH 59 15.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 215 54.8 Alvarado MS 686 39.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 42 14.3 Bret Harte MS 37 16.0

Newark JH 343 59.0 Newark JH 416 55.0 Newark JH 59 24.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 68 16.0

Walters (G. M.) JH 318 60.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 352 56.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 56 30.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 56 18.0

Thornton JH 451 78.0 Thornton JH 450 78.0 Horner (John M.) JH 37 46.0 Horner (John M.) JH 27 22.0

Horner (John M.) JH 354 82.0 Horner (John M.) JH 471 80.0 Thornton JH 34 53.0 Thornton JH 27 44.0



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Edendale MS 129 11.0 Cesar Chavez MS 303 30.4 Edendale MS 122 25.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 44 36.4

Bret Harte MS 132 28.0 Bret Harte MS 147 31.0 Bret Harte MS 33 30.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 36.5

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 66 29.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 18 33.3 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 83 42.0 Bret Harte MS 67 42.0

Cesar Chavez MS 314 31.0 Alvarado MS 292 36.3 Cesar Chavez MS 232 43.6 Cesar Chavez MS 259 42.7

Alvarado MS 262 36.4 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 73 40.0 Alvarado MS 257 57.9 Alvarado MS 275 47.5

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 98 42.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 86 70.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 109 55.0

Walters (G. M.) JH 155 61.0 Newark JH 190 54.0 Newark JH 119 71.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 115 65.0

Newark JH 144 63.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 164 62.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 45 71.3 Newark JH 144 68.0

Thornton JH 216 72.0 Thornton JH 223 74.0 Thornton JH 146 87.0 Thornton JH 159 85.0

Horner (John M.) JH 152 80.0 Horner (John M.) JH 185 76.0 Horner (John M.) JH 111 91.0 Horner (John M.) JH 202 87.0


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Math



Grade 6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


6, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


7, CST Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Edendale MS 212 17.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Cesar Chavez MS 347 14.0

Edendale MS 202 16.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 42 19.0 Edendale MS 150 11.0 Edendale MS 198 18.0

Schilling (August) Elementary 90 38.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 112 26.0 Cesar Chavez MS 292 15.0 Alvarado MS 279 22.0

Cesar Chavez MS 451 41.0 Graham (James A.) Elementary 58 38.0 Alvarado MS 179 22.0 Bret Harte MS 266 33.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 111 49.0 Cesar Chavez MS 401 46.0 Bret Harte MS 221 25.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 278 39.0

Graham (James A.) Elementary61 51.0 Schilling (August) Elementary 56 50.0 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 230 29.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 42 42.9

Alvarado MS 456 51.0 Alvarado MS 407 52.0 Newark JH 343 59.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 94 46.0

Brier Elementary 85 60.0 Bunker (James L.) Elementary 73 62.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 318 60.0 Newark JH 416 55.0

Warwick Elementary 109 65.0 Durham (J. Haley) Elementary 59 63.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 104 61.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 352 56.0

Bunker (James L.) Elementary 76 67.0 Brier Elementary 84 75.0 Thornton JH 451 78.0 Thornton JH 450 78.0

Maloney (Tom) Elementary 54 72.0 Warwick Elementary 103 77.0 Horner (John M.) JH 354 82.0 Horner (John M.) JH 471 80.0

Durham (J. Haley) Elementary 56 77.0 Maloney (Tom) Elementary 57 79.0

Parkmont Elementary 119 81.0 Parkmont Elementary 115 83.0

Hirsch (O. N.) Elementary 85 86.0 Hirsch (O. N.) Elementary 56 95.0


Alg I N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg I N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Edendale MS 140 4.0

Edendale MS 95 8.0 Cesar Chavez MS 197 28.2

Cesar Chavez MS 397 24.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 71 38.0

Alvarado MS 480 38.6 Alvarado MS 294 38.3

Bret Harte MS 305 40.4 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 30 40.0

Walters (G. M.) JH 251 44.0 Walters (G. M.) JH 263 42.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 73 46.0 Bret Harte MS 298 44.1

Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 282 50.4 Martin Luther King, Jr. MS 303 49.8

Thornton JH 373 76.3 Newark JH 223 65.0

Newark JH 185 80.9 Horner (John M.) JH 353 74.5

Horner (John M.) JH 423 87.2 Thornton JH 425 74.7


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: Middle School -- Grade 6-7 -- Math and All Students -- Algebra I



All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 1,026 28.7 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Hayward HS 164 1.2

San Lorenzo HS 1,046 29.3 Tennyson HS 867 30.1 Tennyson HS 227 2.3 Tennyson HS 220 1.9

Tennyson HS 844 31.6 Hayward HS 1,208 36.7 Mt. Eden HS 242 2.5 Mt. Eden HS 180 2.0

Hayward HS 1,193 37.1 Mt. Eden HS 1,296 43.3 San Leandro HS 186 3.1 San Lorenzo HS 149 2.0

Mt. Eden HS 1,343 41.4 San Leandro HS 1,849 44.0 Hayward HS 193 3.2 Newark Memorial HS 72 4.2

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 239 45.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 218 52.7 James Logan HS 332 3.3 San Leandro HS 194 4.8

San Leandro HS 1,838 45.5 Kennedy (John F.) HS 1,015 53.1 San Lorenzo HS 191 4.5 James Logan HS 299 5.1

James Logan HS 2,731 51.1 James Logan HS 2,659 55.4 Newark Memorial HS 111 5.5 Kennedy (John F.) HS 126 7.3

Newark Memorial HS 1,366 52.3 Newark Memorial HS 1,372 57.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 143 7.7 American HS 86 11.6

Kennedy (John F.) HS 989 53.6 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 92 62.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 45 11.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 41 28.3

American HS 1,400 72.3 American HS 1,346 73.0 American HS 103 19.6 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 19 42.1



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013, HS, R-FEP, Grade All, CST

ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 392 31.1 Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 420 33.3

Tennyson HS 225 29.6 Tennyson HS 220 32.0 San Lorenzo HS 413 36.7 Hayward HS 409 42.0

San Lorenzo HS 385 30.6 Hayward HS 528 41.1 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 61 44.3 Tennyson HS 341 42.4

Hayward HS 520 36.5 San Leandro HS 872 44.1 Tennyson HS 308 47.5 San Leandro HS 604 48.9

Mt. Eden HS 392 38.3 Mt. Eden HS 467 45.2 Hayward HS 338 47.7 Mt. Eden HS 457 50.4

San Leandro HS 883 44.6 Kennedy (John F.) HS 558 53.2 Newark Memorial HS 477 53.4 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 68 57.5

Kennedy (John F.) HS 513 53.3 James Logan HS 1,043 56.1 San Leandro HS 579 53.9 Newark Memorial HS 527 58.1

James Logan HS 1,055 55.2 Newark Memorial HS 671 61.2 Mt. Eden HS 428 54.4 James Logan HS 950 63.2

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 123 57.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 107 61.9 James Logan HS 884 57.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 248 69.9

Newark Memorial HS 686 57.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 21 61.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 242 74.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 49 71.4

American HS 715 72.3 American HS 697 73.1 American HS 363 80.0 American HS 383 80.2


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- ELA



9, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013, HS, All Students, Grade 9,

CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


Grade 10, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

2013,HS, All Students, Grade 10,

CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Tennyson HS 304 33.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 364 22.0

Tennyson HS 295 33.0 San Lorenzo HS 323 37.0 Tennyson HS 284 28.0 Tennyson HS 295 29.0

San Lorenzo HS 367 36.0 Hayward HS 401 46.0 San Lorenzo HS 374 28.0 Hayward HS 410 36.0

Hayward HS 416 42.0 San Leandro HS 616 50.0 Hayward HS 410 33.0 Mt. Eden HS 474 40.0

Mt. Eden HS 470 45.0 Mt. Eden HS 422 53.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 72 44.0 San Leandro HS 625 41.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 94 52.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 85 60.0 Mt. Eden HS 437 45.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 342 49.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 343 52.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 345 61.0 San Leandro HS 634 45.0 James Logan HS 891 52.0

San Leandro HS 625 53.0 James Logan HS 910 61.0 Newark Memorial HS 444 50.0 Newark Memorial HS 468 55.0

James Logan HS 937 55.0 Newark Memorial HS 490 64.0 James Logan HS 905 51.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 80 56.0

Newark Memorial HS 483 61.0 American HS 445 76.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 333 54.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 39 61.5

American HS 480 76.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 33 81.8 American HS 481 69.0 American HS 451 73.0


11, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv


11, CST ELA N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Hayward HS 397 28.0

San Lorenzo HS 305 23.0 Tennyson HS 268 28.0

Mt. Eden HS 436 34.0 San Lorenzo HS 339 28.0

Tennyson HS 265 34.0 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 20 30.0

Hayward HS 367 36.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 53 36.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 73 37.0 Mt. Eden HS 400 37.0

San Leandro HS 579 38.0 San Leandro HS 608 41.0

Newark Memorial HS 439 45.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 328 49.0

James Logan HS 889 47.0 Newark Memorial HS 414 51.0

Kennedy (John F.) HS 313 55.0 James Logan HS 858 53.0

American HS 439 72.0 American HS 450 70.0


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- Grades 9-11 -- ELA



All, CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

2013, HS, English Learner (EL),


% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 500 4.9 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11)

San Leandro HS 480 4.6 Tennyson HS 230 6.2 Tennyson HS 129 1.4 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 0.0

Tennyson HS 335 5.2 San Leandro HS 450 6.6 Hayward HS 126 3.4 Hayward HS 103 2.1

Mt. Eden HS 379 7.2 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 48 7.0 Mt. Eden HS 127 3.8 San Lorenzo HS 106 3.7

Hayward HS 491 8.9 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 22 9.1 James Logan HS 160 5.3 James Logan HS 152 5.2

Kennedy (John F.) HS 228 11.8 Hayward HS 495 9.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 61 7.0 Tennyson HS 102 5.7

James Logan HS 634 12.1 James Logan HS 657 12.4 San Leandro HS 102 7.5 San Leandro HS 100 8.3

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 50 14.2 Kennedy (John F.) HS 285 13.4 San Lorenzo HS 134 9.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 57 8.5

San Lorenzo HS 526 14.7 American HS 198 16.2 Newark Memorial HS 68 9.9 Newark Memorial HS 44 9.6

Newark Memorial HS 457 18.9 Mt. Eden HS 353 17.2 American HS 35 15.0 Mt. Eden HS 97 11.2

American HS 231 24.8 Newark Memorial HS 407 19.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 6 American HS 32 25.0



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg. I N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 205 3.7 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 18 11.1

San Leandro HS 254 3.3 San Leandro HS 235 5.7 San Leandro HS 99 3.9 San Leandro HS 91 5.6

Tennyson HS 91 4.3 Tennyson HS 57 7.0 Tennyson HS 89 9.7 San Lorenzo HS 167 7.8

Mt. Eden HS 125 6.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 8.0 Mt. Eden HS 75 11.7 Tennyson HS 53 8.7

Hayward HS 207 8.9 Hayward HS 211 8.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 33 15.0 Hayward HS 147 14.1

James Logan HS 264 11.5 James Logan HS 292 11.0 Hayward HS 112 16.0 James Logan HS 160 15.1

Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 13.8 American HS 127 13.4 James Logan HS 161 16.6 American HS 30 17.0

San Lorenzo HS 203 14.2 Kennedy (John F.) HS 172 13.5 San Lorenzo HS 170 19.3 Mt. Eden HS 89 18.9

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 32 16.0 Newark Memorial HS 180 17.2 Newark Memorial HS 158 22.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 46 20.9

Newark Memorial HS 212 19.5 Mt. Eden HS 138 20.2 American HS 53 33.0 Newark Memorial HS 161 24.7

American HS 131 25.9 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 52 26.9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 11 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 8


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Algebra I



All, CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


All, CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Kennedy (John F.) HS 268 10.3 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 4 0.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 47 11.5 San Leandro HS 442 11.3 James Logan HS 26 0.0 James Logan HS 41 2.4

Kennedy (John F.) HS 247 15.0 Tennyson HS 183 17.3 Mt. Eden HS 26 5.0 San Leandro HS 29 3.8

Mt. Eden HS 334 16.6 James Logan HS 776 19.2 Kennedy (John F.) HS 21 7.0 American HS 20 20.0

San Leandro HS 440 18.8 Hayward HS 224 22.0 Tennyson HS 20 12.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 5

Hayward HS 223 23.4 Mt. Eden HS 296 23.7 San Leandro HS 20 18.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 19

Tennyson HS 143 25.2 Newark Memorial HS 395 26.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 6 Hayward HS 6

James Logan HS 680 29.7 San Lorenzo HS 139 30.9 American HS 18 Mt. Eden HS 15

Newark Memorial HS 278 29.9 American HS 368 44.4 Hayward HS 12 Tennyson HS 14

San Lorenzo HS 137 30.3 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 30 56.7 Newark Memorial HS 8 Newark Memorial HS 7

American HS 450 47.5 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 46 59.0 San Lorenzo HS 6 San Lorenzo HS 10



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv


Alg. II N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 4 0.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Kennedy (John F.) HS 83 10.8

Kennedy (John F.) HS 124 11.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 144 7.9 Kennedy (John F.) HS 77 16.9 San Leandro HS 158 12.8

Mt. Eden HS 82 13.4 San Leandro HS 200 9.4 Tennyson HS 76 18.3 Hayward HS 88 17.0

San Leandro HS 196 14.5 Tennyson HS 46 9.9 Mt. Eden HS 140 19.8 Tennyson HS 100 22.1

Hayward HS 98 19.4 James Logan HS 296 17.4 Newark Memorial HS 97 22.4 James Logan HS 310 22.2

San Lorenzo HS 41 19.8 Mt. Eden HS 101 23.2 San Leandro HS 159 23.9 Newark Memorial HS 148 23.6

Tennyson HS 29 24.0 Hayward HS 106 23.7 Hayward HS 83 26.5 Mt. Eden HS 123 25.2

Newark Memorial HS 154 27.8 San Lorenzo HS 41 25.4 James Logan HS 253 34.8 San Lorenzo HS 76 26.6

James Logan HS 264 28.9 Newark Memorial HS 202 27.8 San Lorenzo HS 74 35.1 American HS 110 53.0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 36.0 American HS 193 39.1 American HS 140 55.1 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 22 63.6

American HS 208 40.8 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 70.0


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Algebra II



Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv


Geometry N

% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) Tennyson HS 349 2.8 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Kennedy (John F.) HS 45 0.0

Tennyson HS 271 3.9 Mt. Eden HS 434 3.6 Tennyson HS 66 1.6 Newark Memorial HS 21 0.0

San Leandro HS 595 8.2 San Leandro HS 587 3.8 Kennedy (John F.) HS 57 1.7 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 2 0.0

Hayward HS 387 10.6 Hayward HS 321 4.7 Mt. Eden HS 83 3.6 Mt. Eden HS 60 1.8

Mt. Eden HS 456 10.8 James Logan HS 703 11.5 James Logan HS 111 3.7 Hayward HS 44 2.3

James Logan HS 913 12.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 323 19.8 San Leandro HS 67 4.4 James Logan HS 86 3.2

Kennedy (John F.) HS 368 15.9 Newark Memorial HS 434 19.9 Newark Memorial HS 35 5.9 Tennyson HS 85 3.5

San Lorenzo HS 260 20.2 San Lorenzo HS 246 24.0 Hayward HS 50 9.6 San Leandro HS 57 5.4

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 77 20.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 58 29.3 American HS 38 17.6 American HS 26 6.0

Newark Memorial HS 513 29.6 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 30 30.0 San Lorenzo HS 36 34.7 San Lorenzo HS 19 27.0

American HS 436 45.9 American HS 446 45.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 7



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv


Geom. N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Leandro HS 291 4.1 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Tennyson HS 139 0.7

Tennyson HS 67 4.5 Mt. Eden HS 152 4.7 Tennyson HS 109 5.5 San Leandro HS 192 2.3

Mt. Eden HS 131 7.6 Hayward HS 134 5.4 San Leandro HS 189 6.8 Mt. Eden HS 167 3.8

San Leandro HS 283 9.5 Tennyson HS 93 5.5 James Logan HS 315 11.7 Hayward HS 116 5.1

Hayward HS 175 9.9 James Logan HS 267 10.2 Hayward HS 116 12.3 James Logan HS 266 14.2

James Logan HS 359 12.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 181 16.5 Mt. Eden HS 155 14.1 Newark Memorial HS 175 19.1

San Lorenzo HS 89 13.6 San Lorenzo HS 106 19.0 San Lorenzo HS 116 19.0 San Lorenzo HS 105 25.2

Kennedy (John F.) HS 205 17.0 Newark Memorial HS 209 21.1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 84 21.4 Kennedy (John F.) HS 61 36.8

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 30 26.5 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 11 27.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 24 24.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 22 38.0

Newark Memorial HS 252 29.6 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 28 34.6 Newark Memorial HS 185 33.2 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 15 40.0

American HS 249 39.0 American HS 224 40.9 American HS 100 67.8 American HS 132 45.3


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Geometry




% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 68 23.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 0

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 20 6.0 Mt. Eden HS 164 31.3 James Logan HS 14 55.0 American HS 6

San Lorenzo HS 47 26.0 San Leandro HS 328 33.4 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 1 Kennedy (John F.) HS 4

Mt. Eden HS 142 29.4 Tennyson HS 62 36.8 American HS 5 Mt. Eden HS 1

Tennyson HS 58 41.3 Hayward HS 108 41.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 4 Tennyson HS 1

Hayward HS 70 41.4 Kennedy (John F.) HS 126 50.3 Hayward HS 3 Newark Memorial HS 1

San Leandro HS 278 44.3 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 16 54.0 Mt. Eden HS 3 James Logan HS 8

Newark Memorial HS 89 59.2 James Logan HS 491 59.0 Tennyson HS 3 San Leandro HS 7

James Logan HS 419 60.4 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 6 66.7 Newark Memorial HS 1

American HS 255 66.7 Newark Memorial HS 112 71.9 San Leandro HS 4

Kennedy (John F.) HS 123 69.8 American HS 300 72.3 San Lorenzo HS 2



% Prof

/ Adv



% Prof

/ Adv


CST HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv


HS Sum Math N

% Prof

/ Adv

Fame Kearney St (K-5) San Lorenzo HS 16 20.0 Fame Kearney St (K-5) Tennyson HS 33 18.0

Mt. Eden HS 36 23.0 Tennyson HS 17 25.0 Hayward HS 22 19.0 Hayward HS 45 23.0

Hayward HS 27 32.0 Mt. Eden HS 52 26.0 Mt. Eden HS 53 20.5 San Lorenzo HS 43 26.0

San Lorenzo HS 15 33.0 San Leandro HS 124 33.1 San Lorenzo HS 28 25.0 Mt. Eden HS 70 27.2

San Leandro HS 111 41.3 Kennedy (John F.) HS 51 46.0 Tennyson HS 25 32.0 San Leandro HS 147 30.9

Tennyson HS 21 44.0 Hayward HS 48 48.1 Newark Memorial HS 24 41.0 Kennedy (John F.) HS 58 52.6

Newark Memorial HS 52 51.0 James Logan HS 174 54.0 San Leandro HS 123 44.5 James Logan HS 206 59.8

Kennedy (John F.) HS 43 52.0 American HS 131 68.1 James Logan HS 138 59.6 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 5 60.0

James Logan HS 137 59.1 Newark Memorial HS 58 72.6 American HS 68 63.0 American HS 103 72.0

American HS 113 61.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 11 Kennedy (John F.) HS 47 73.6 Newark Memorial HS 41 75.7

Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 10 Fame Kearney St (2, 6-11) 1 100.0 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 9 Fame Pub. Chtr. (All Locs) 5


Kearney Comparison 2012/2013: High School -- All Students, English Learner, English Only, R-FEP -- Summative Math

1

Supplement Finance Data FAME Public Charter School Charter Renewal

History of Enrollment Projections Projected ADA has exceeded actual in 4 years of the charter term. For 2012-13 and 2014-15, the ADA was over-estimated by 15% and 22% respectively. YEAR PRELIMINARY

BUDGET ASSUMED TOTAL ADA

TOTAL ADA AT P-2 (P-1 FOR 2014-15)

DIFFERENCE

2010-11 1479.7 1444.32 (35.38) 2011-12 1489.0 1494.87 5.87 2012-13 1564.9 1364.14 (200.76) 2013-14 1380.0 1300.84 (79.16) 2014-15 1297.0 1057.29 (239.71) History of Revenue and Expenditures During the charter term, the actual expenditures exceeded the revenues three times (including results for 2014-15, as projected at 2nd Interim) as shown in the table below: YEAR EXPENDITURES REVENUES DIFFERENCE 2010-11 10,571,323 10,977,319 405,996 2011-12 10,878,634 10,791,196 (87,438) 2012-13 10,412,517 10,306,351 (106,167) 2013-14 9,640,427 9,960,054 319,627 2014-15 (at 2nd Int.) 9,967,077 9,471,885 (495,192) History of Fund Balance During the charter term, the school has maintained a beginning fund balance that contains liquid reserves to partially fund expenses in the event of a potential income loss. The table below depicts the beginning fund balance, adjustments to the beginning fund balance and the adjusted beginning fund balance levels of the school through 2014-15.

2

YEAR PERIOD

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE

AUDIT ADJMTS / RESTATEMENTS

ADJUSTED BEG. FUND BALANCE

2010-11 Unaudited Actuals 932,159.27 (353,646.00) 578,513.27 2011-12 Unaudited Actuals 984,509.27 (319,328.27) 665,181.00 2012-13 Unaudited Actuals 577,743.49 54,561.00 632,304.49 2013-14 Unaudited Actuals 526,137.84 (331.00) 525,806.84 2014-15 2nd Interim 845,434.00 (27,746.00) 817,688.00 History of Required 3% Reserve The school has accumulated unrestricted net assets equal to or exceeding three percent of annual expenditures from 2010-11 through 2013-14.

YEAR UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS

3% OF EXPENDI-TURES

EXCESS (SHORTAGE)

3% RESERVE MET?

2010-11 984,509.27 317,139.69 667,369.58 Yes 2011-12 577,743.49 326,359.01 251,384.48 Yes 2012-13 495,473.59 312,375.52 183,098.07 Yes 2013-14 550,544.16 289,212.80 261,331.36 Yes

FAME Revenue vs. Expenditures

3

Review of Charter Renewal Petition Budget Documents Detailed review of the budget and cash flow projections provided with the charter renewal petition, and subsequent revisions to those documents, generated the following specific comments from the DBAS review team members:

In 2015/16, The Charter anticipates to continue to carry forward a “current loan” balance (that is to be remitted in one year) of $330K that they will not be able to make payment on until 2016/17, per the revised cash flow submitted 3/20/15. However, based on the 2nd Interim Cash Flow, the Charter will have a remaining balance from 14/15 of $494,384 (Accounts Payable & Current Loans carryover) in addition to the proposed agenda item from the March 18th Board Meeting that discussed FAME approving a $429K agreement with Charter Asset Management for the potential deferral of “June LCFF”. Further, the Charter’s initial financial documents proposed the Charter starting 15/16 with a Beginning Fund Balance of $476,674, but was revised based on the new financial documents (3/20/15) to $322,496 (based on the recent 2nd Interim ending balance).

Revenue was overstated in the initial financial submission, and has been further reduced. While the charter appears to balance their revenue with their expenditures in all three years, they do not appear to affectively address the prior year payable balances, as well as appear to struggle maintaining a positive cash balance (ie receivable factoring when deferrals are no longer occurring at the State level.)

4

Charter includes common core funds in 15/16 both in the LCAP and original budget (petition) submission, but these funds are a proposal of the Governor’s at this time. Charter said they have contingency plans in place.

FTE Assumptions provided in the revised budget sheets do not match the FTE breakouts for Teachers. Budgetary items are difficult to review as the Charter shows inconsistent information. Total teacher salaries appear to go up from 14/15, but FTE’s (per the Assumptions’ breakout) go down. $490K of other classified salaries are reduced from the budget in 15/16 over 14/15’s 2nd Interim, yet the FTEs for classified staff appear unchanged.

The charter understates liabilities and includes a $222K deferral in state aid as a receivable when this is not anticipated in 15/16. In addition, and most concerning, the revised cash flow shows the payables going the reverse direction. Meaning, they add payables and increase the ending cash balance and the accounts payable debt balance by adding $305Kof debt. They only make a payment in May, all other months, the payables are reversed. This is likely to be an error by the Charter.

Based on the previous cash flows, submitted with the original petition, the school shows fiscal stability, and a minor reduction to payables, but does not address the prior year balance in its entirety and have significantly larger accrued revenue. This, again, seems inflated and not an accurate portrayal.

Revenues appear overstated, but not materially. Charter appears to have expenditure reductions in the 4000 and 5000 object codes,

although they anticipate enrollment growth. This is above one-time revenue sources. Liabilities are understated in the Cash Flow based on current year liabilities and this is in both the original and revised submission.

Current revenue and expenditure estimates (totals, as breakouts of salaries are hard to address) are reasonable, but financial support appears likely based on balance sheet account information and cash flow needs by existing charter. Charter has mentioned that these financial burdens are due to litigation and additional consulting fees for petition renewal. This appears to cause a financial hardship, but petition budget aligns with expenditures.

Small beginning fund balance, but Charter appears to meet reserve. Liabilities are not effectively addressed, so this could absorb beginning fund balance without expenditure reductions in place.

This rubric is also used as guidance for review of charter petition that is provided to a County Board of Education on appeal of a denial by the governing board of a school district. 6/13/2014 pc; 9/2014 ph; 11/2014 gg

Charter Petition Review Rubric Charter Petitions Submitted Pursuant to EC 47605, 47605.5, 47605.6 (with variations), 47607 (including renewal and revision)

Proposed Charter School Petitioner Contact Petition Review Time LinesName of Charter School: FAME Public Charter School

Name:Naeem Malik

Petition Received:Date: 3/3/15 Determined to be Complete* Date: 3/4/15 *within 10 workdays of receipt

Public Hearing30 days from determination

Date Due: 4/2/15 Date Held: 3/10/15

Board Decision60 days from determination, by agreement of both parties, may be extended by 30 days.

Date Due: 5/2/15 30 day extension to: __________ (If applicable)

Date Held: 4/14/15

Location(s) of School(s): 1. Fremont – Kearney St.

2. Fremont – Leslie St.

3. San Leandro – Carolyn St.

4. Brentwood IS Service Center

Phone: 510‐687‐9111

Cell: Email: [email protected] Address:39899 Balentine Drive, Suite 335 Newark, CA 94560

Area of Review Rubric Headings Responsible Dept. Reviewer/Date Submitted

General Petition Requirements Legislative Intent, Private School Restrictions, Signature Requirements, Grade Levels

CSO Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely

Review Standard Sound Educational Program Ed. Services Celine Liu, Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

Likelihood of Successful Implementation All

Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely, Movetia Salter, Shirene Moreira, Celine Liu and Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

Reasonably Comprehensive Description Educational Program, incl. Transitional K, SpEd, 504 and ELs Ed. Services Celine Liu, Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

Annual Goals Ed. Services Celine Liu, Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

Transferability of HS Courses Ed. Services Celine Liu, Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

Measurable Pupil Outcomes and Assessment Tools Ed. Services Celine Liu, Nathalie Longree‐Guevara

School Governance CSO, HR, DBAS a Kapellas, Gail Greely, Movetia Salter, Shirene Moreira

Employees, Health and Safety, Racial and ethnic balance CSO, HR Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely, Movetia Salter

Charter Petition Review Rubric For a Petition Submitted Pursuant to California Education Code 47605, 47605.5, 47605.6 (with some variance)

1

Area of Review Rubric Headings Responsible Dept. Reviewer/Date Submitted Admissions CSO Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely Audits DBAS Shirene Moreira

Discipline Procedures CSO, HR Teresa, Kapellas, Gail Greely, Movetia Salter

Retirement systems HR Movetia Salter Students not choosing charter school CSO Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely Employee rights and employer for charter school HR Movetia Salter Dispute resolution, closure plan CSO Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely District impact, financial plan and facilities DBAS Shirene MoreiraAffirmations and Other Legal Requirements Affirmations, notifications, independent study, LCAP, civil rights CSO Teresa Kapellas, Gail Greely

Reviewer Directions: 1. The gray shaded column in the rubric provides you with guidance in conducting your review. 2. Please make notes, either on the rubric or a separate sheet of paper to support your finding of whether or not a standard has been met.

Requirement

Item

Code Reference (Required Elements) Evaluation Guidance Provided for review guidance purposes only. Based, in part, on 5 CCR 11967.5.1 describing how the State Board will review a charter application. This is NOT a checklist of required items, but a reference for review of the standard.

Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

LEGISLATIVE INTENT

EC 47601. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish all of the following:

Pupil Learning CSO (a) Improve pupil learning Educational program provides a description of how program will improve student learning

Page(s) Standard Met

Yes No

Academically Low Achieving Students CSO

(b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.

Petition language and referenced or attached documents do not provide for dismissal of a student based on: Poor achievement or minimum grade point average Incomplete or missing assignments Poor attendance Discipline issues that do not meet criteria for expulsion

Petition contains a statement that students will not be dismissed for the above reasons.


Yes No

Innovative Methods CSO (c) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods.

Petition provides a description of innovative teaching methods related to proposed to program and curriculum


Yes No


2

Requirement

Item


Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Professional opportunities for teachers

CSO (d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the schoolsite.

Language of the charter describes a program that provides new professional opportunities for the teachers employed by the School.


Yes No

Expanded choices CSO (e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system.

Petition describes a unique program that allows for expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities.


Yes No

Performance-based accountability systems

CSO

(f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to performance-based accountability systems.

See petition content sections on Measurable Pupil Outcomes and Methods for Assessing Student Performance


Yes No

Competition within public school system CSO

(g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools

Petition includes a description of how the proposed program will provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual improvements in all public schools


Yes No

PRIVATE SCHOOL RESTRICTIONS

No Conversion of Private School CSO

47602(b) No charter shall be granted under this part that authorizes the conversion of any private school to a charter school.

The petition does not represent a conversion of a private school to a charter school. Page(s)

Standard

Met Yes No

Concurrent enrollment CSO

47602(b) No charter shall receive any public funds for a pupil if the pupil also attends a private school that charges the pupil's family for tuition.

The petition provides a statement that the school will not seek funding for any pupil who also attends a private school that charges the pupil’s family tuition.

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No


3

Requirement

Item


Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS

Parent Signatures

OR

CSO

47605(a)(1)(A) The petition is signed by a number of parents or guardians of pupils that is equivalent to at least one-half of the number of pupils that the charter school estimates will enroll in the school for its first year of operation.

Petition meets all of the below: Number of signatures equals or exceeds half of the number of pupils that charter school

estimates will enroll in its first year of operation Along with signature/address columns the petition contains columns indicating names/ages/

grades of children to be enrolled. Ages of students, at the proposed time of opening, will be appropriate to the ages served by

the charter school. There is a “prominent statement” indicating that each parent signing the petition (1) has read

a summary of the petition that adequately and appropriately describes the education program set for the in the petition or has be has such a summary read aloud, and (2) is meaningfully interested in having his/her child attend the charter school.

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No

N/A

Teacher Signatures

CSO

47605(a)(1)(B) The petition is signed by a number of teachers that is equivalent to at least one-half of the number of teachers that the charter school estimates will be employed at the school during its first year of operation.

Petition meets all of the below: Number of signatures equals or exceeds half of the number of teachers that charter school

estimates will be employed in its first year of operation All teacher signatories have current, active credentials to teach core subjects. There is a “prominent statement” indicating that each teacher signing the petition (1) has read

a summary of the petition that adequately and appropriately describes the education program set for the in the petition, and (2) is meaningfully interested in teaching at the charter school

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No

N/A

Conversion of existing public school

CSO

47605(a)(2) A petition that proposes to convert an existing public school to a charter school that would not be eligible fora loan pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 41365 may becirculated by one or more persons seeking to establish the charter school. The petition may be submitted to the governing board of the school district for review after the petition is signed by not less than 50 percent of the permanent status teachers currently employed at the public school to be converted.

Petition meets all of the below: Petition contains signatures of not less than 50% of the permanent status teachers currently

employed by the school to be converted. Contact with district confirms that the signatures presented are those of the teachers currently

employed at the school to be converted.

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No

N/A

Signature indicates meaningful interest

CSO

47605(a)(3) A petition shall include a prominent statement that a signature on the petition means that the parent or guardian is meaningfully interested in having his or her child, or ward, attend the charter school, or in the case of ateacher’s signature, means that the teacher is meaningfully interested in teaching at the charter school. The proposed charter shall be attached to the petition.

Evidence that petition was attached to signature page Signature requirement met (items 3‐5) Statement on petition that signature indicates meaningful interest in school by either teachers

or parents

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No

N/A


4

Requirement

Item


Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

GRADE LEVELS TO BE SERVED BY THE CHARTER SCHOOL

Serves all grade levels served by the district

CSO

47605(a)(6) …a petition to establish a charter school may not be approved to serve pupils in a grade level that is not served by the school district of the governing board considering the petition, unless the petition proposes to serve pupils in all of the grade levels served by that school district.

Charter proposes to serve all grade levels served by the petitioned school district. Charter provides program/curriculum to address all grade levels served by the district

Page(s)

Standard Met

Yes No

N/A


5

Requirement

Item

Code Reference (Required Elements)

Evaluation Guidance Provided for review guidance purposes only. Based, in part, on 5 CCR 11967.5.1 describing how the State Board will review a charter application. This is NOT a checklist of required items, but a reference for review of the standard.

Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

47605(b) A governing board shall grant a charter for the operation of a school under this part if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice. The board shall not deny a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support one or more of the following findings:(47605)(b)(1) or 47605(b)(2)

Sound Educational Program

Ed. Serv

47605(b)(1)The charter school presents an unsound educational program for the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.

Note: While, the language of the Education Code 47605 is written in a negative voice, the petition will be reviewed in a manner that will determine whether the positive standard is evident.

Reviewer: Consider the information in 47605(b)(5) when making this determination

A charter petition presents a sound educational program if it is all of the following:

Involves activities that do not present the likelihood of physical, educational, or psychological harm to the affected pupils.

Indicates the proposed charter school’s target student population, including, at a minimum, grade levels, approximate numbers of pupils, and specific educational needs, backgrounds, or challenges.

Specifies a clear, concise school mission statement with which all elements and programs of the school are aligned and which conveys the petitioners’ definition of an “educated person” in the 21st century, belief of how learning best occurs, and goals consistent with enabling pupils to become or remain self‐motivated, competent, and lifelong learners.

Includes a framework for instructional design that is aligned with the needs of the pupils that the charter school has identified as its target student population.

Includes an instructional philosophy and framework with a clear foundation in research‐based educational practices, teaching methods, and high‐standards for student learning.

Indicates the basic learning environment or environments (e.g. site‐based matriculation, independent study, community‐based education, technology‐based education).

Indicates the instructional approach or approaches the charter school will utilize, including, but not limited to, the curriculum and teaching methods (or a process for

Page(s) 35‐111 Apps. A, B, C, R, S, T, U, V

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Petition Description

Overall Meets; Past Performance

Does Not Meet

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Fails to Meet Standard Although the petition content meets the standard overall (see below), some deficiencies were noted: Independent study program section fails to describe how the program works: assignment of teachers, evaluation of student work, use of educational contractors and “units”. Lacks implementation plan that fully describes resources & scheduling. No professional development plan or calendar with topics identified. Instructional


6

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

developing the curriculum and teaching methods) that will enable the school's pupils to master curriculum content standards and to achieve the objectives specified in the charter.

Indicates how the charter school will identify and respond to the needs of pupils who are not achieving at or above expected levels.

Indicates how the charter school will meet the needs of students with disabilities, English learners, students achieving substantially above or below grade level expectations, and other special student populations.

Specifies the charter school's special education plan, the process to be used to identify students who qualify for special education programs and services, how the school will provide or access special education programs and services, the school's understanding of its responsibilities under law for special education pupils, and how the school intends to meet those responsibilities.

Includes an implementation plan that demonstrates the resources, scheduling, and professional development that support effective implementation.

Specifies the strategies to evaluate effectiveness and respond when student performance falls short of goals.

Additionally: Description of the proposed program and

curriculum reflects a focus on California’s adopted Common Core State Standards.

For renewal:

Has met standards for renewal in EC 47607(b) or;

Has met measurable pupil outcomes described in charter

X

X

No

X

No

No Addressed in staff report and renewal standards attachment

strategies do not reflect overall high level of cognitive rigor. Unclear how instructional strategies address rigor as described in CCSS Math Standards. Mention of CCSS, but lack of detail seems to indicate lack of focus on CCSS implementation. Curricular materials in appendices (scope and sequence) not consistent with CCSS.

CSO

47605(b)(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully

The following factors are to be considered: Petitioners/Governing Board members:

Page(s)133‐170Apps. E, F,


Fails to Meet Standard


7

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Required elements that indicate the School’s likelihood of successful implementation Required elements that indicate the School’s likelihood of successful implementation (continued from previous page)

implement the program

Have past history of involvement in charter schools or other education agencies (public or private) that is regarded as successful.

Are familiar with contents of the petition or the requirements of law that would apply to proposed charter school.

The petitioners document they personally have the necessary background knowledge and skills in the following areas critical to the charter school’s success, and the petitioners have a plan to secure the services of individuals who have the necessary background in these areas: Curriculum, instruction, and assessment Finance and business management

G, K, M, N, O, Q

X

X

X

Governing board does not have required knowledge and expertise identified in charter. Addressed more fully in staff report and past performance tables.

CSO, HR, DBAS

47605(b)(2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program

Petitioners: Have presented realistic financial and operational plans for

the proposed school: In the area of operations, charter or supporting documents demonstrate: Proper legal structure (Articles of Incorporation stamped by

the Office of the Secretary of State and corporate bylaws), Evidence of 501(c)(3) Non‐Profit Corporation status, Adequate bylaws, policies, and procedures, Understanding of the Governing Board’s responsibility for the

educational and fiscal integrity of the school and for fulfilling the terms of the charter,

Clear, reasonable selection and removal procedures, term limits, meeting schedules, and powers and duties for members of the Governing Board,

Reasonable conflict of interest policy, Adequate plan for clear, reasonable delineation of roles and

responsibilities of parent council(s), advisory committees, or other supporting groups

Clear, sensible definition of Governing Board roles and

Page(s)171‐178

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard No

X

X X

No

No

X No

No


Overall fails to meet standard. Bylaws provided with petition not current; did not include 2013 and 2014 revisions. More information regarding board function is included in past performance tables. Overall concern is lack of structures and practices for


8

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

responsibilities in relation to management.

In the area of administrative services, charter or supporting documents adequately Describe structure for providing administrative services, including, at a minimum: personnel transactions, accounting and payroll that reflects an understanding of

school business practices expertise to carry out the necessary administrative services,

or; A reasonable plan and time line to develop and assemble such

practices and expertise. For contract services, describes criteria for selection of

contractor(s).

In the area of financial administration, include, at a minimum: 1st year operational budget, start‐up costs, and cash flow, and

financial projections for the 1st 3 years. Include reasonable estimates of all anticipated revenues and

expenditures necessary to operate the school, including but not limited to, special education, based, when possible, on historical data from schools or school districts of similar type, size, and location.

Budget notes that clearly describe assumptions on revenue estimates, including, but not limited to, the basis for average daily attendance estimates and staffing levels.

Present a budget that in its totality appears viable and over a period of no less than 2 years of operations provides for the amassing of a reserve equivalent to that required by law for a school district of similar size to the proposed charter school.

Demonstrate an understanding of the timing of the receipt of various revenues and their relative relationship to timing of expenditures that are within reasonable parameters, based, when possible, on historical data from schools or school data from schools or school districts of similar type, size, and location.

In the area of Insurance, the charter and supporting documents adequately provide for the acquisition of and budgeting for general liability, workers compensations, and other necessary insurance of the type and amounts required for an enterprise of similar purpose and circumstance.

In the area of facilities, the charter and supporting documents

No No No N/A No

X

X

No X

No

X

No

internal accountability. Issues include: board meetings demonstrate lack of accountability for academics and operations; director removal process abused; terms unclear; no meaningful board development; board actions discourage parent participation and lessen transparency; delegation to CEO not documented. With respect to administration, multiple serious mistakes have been made during charter term: opening new campus without prior approval, failing to implement Title I plan; failure to obtain approval of tech plan; failure to timely apply for nonclassroom funding; late


9

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

adequately: Describe the types and potential location of facilities needed

to operate the size and scope of educational program proposed in the charter.

If a specific facility has not been secured, provide evidence of the type and projected cost of the facilities that may be available in the location of the proposed charter school.

Reflect reasonable costs for acquisition or leasing of facilities to house the school, taking into account the facilities the charter school may be allocated under the provisions of EC 47614.

X

X

submission of charter renewal petition; and multiple teacher credential issues. Multiple inconsistencies among description of program, budget included with petition, and revised budget subsequently provided. The projected ending position for 14-15 is not consistent with the opening position in 15-16, as presented in the revised or the original budgets in the renewal petition for the next charter term. The charter projects a need for financial assistance in 15-16 and going forward in the form of additional cash (factoring receivables or short-term loans) despite elimination of state deferrals.


10

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

CCR Title 5: 11967.5.1(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” A “reasonably comprehensive” description, within the meaning of subdivision (f) of this section and Education Code 47605(b)(5) shall include, but not be limited to, information that:

1. Is substantive and is not, for example, a listing of topics with little elaboration. 2. For elements that have multiple aspects, addresses essentially all aspects of the elements, not just selected aspects. 3. Is specific to the charter petition being proposed, not to charter schools or charter petitions generally. 4. Describes, as applicable, among the different elements, how the charter school will:

(A) Improve pupil learning (B) Increase learning opportunities for its pupils, particularly pupils who have been identified as academically low achieving. (C) Provide parents, guardians, and pupils with expanded educational opportunities. (D) Hold itself accountable for measurable performance‐based pupil outcomes. (E) Provide vigorous competition with other public school options available to parents, guardians, and students.

47605(b)(5) REASONABLY COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION of 47605(b)(5)(A-P) EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Description of Educational Program

Ed. Serv

47605(b)(5)(A)(i) A description of the educational program of the school, designed, among other things, to identify those pupils whom the school is attempting to educate, what it means to be an “educated person” in the 21st century, and how learning best occurs. The goals identified in that program shall include the objective of enabling pupils to become self-motivated, competent, and lifelong learners.

5 CCR 11967.5.1 (f)(1)(A‐H)The description of the educational program of the school as required by Education Code: The description of the educational program of the school must, minimally, contain all :

Indicates the proposed charter school’s target student population, including, at a minimum, grade levels, approximate numbers of pupils, and specific educational interests, backgrounds, or challenges.

Specifies a clear, concise school mission statement with which all elements and programs of the school are in alignment and which conveys the petitioners’ definition of an “educated person” in the 21st century, belief of how learning best occurs, and a goals consistent with enabling pupils to become or remain self‐motivated, competent, and lifelong learners.

Includes a framework for instructional design that is aligned with the needs of the pupils that the charter school has identified as its target student population.

Indicates the basic learning environment or environments (e.g. site‐based matriculation, independent study, community‐based education, technology‐based education).

Indicates the instructional approach or approaches the charter school will utilize, including, but not limited to, the curriculum and teaching methods (or a process for developing the curriculum and

Page(s)35‐78 Apps. R, S, T, U

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Overall meet

standard

X

X

X

X

X


Although overall petition content meets standard, some deficiencies were noted:

Although many instructional strategies are mentioned, a more comprehensive “framework for instructional design” is not included. No plan for professional development; no sequencing or topics in calendar.


11

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

teaching methods) that will enable the school's pupils to master curriculum content standards and to achieve the objectives specified in the charter.

Indicates how the charter school will identify and respond to the needs of pupils who are not achieving at or above expected levels.

Indicates how the charter school will meet the needs of students with disabilities, English learners, students achieving substantially above or below grade level expectations, and other special student populations.

Specifies the charter school's special education plan, the process to be used to identify students who qualify for special education programs and services, how the school will provide or access special education programs and services, the school's understanding of its responsibilities under law for special education pupils, and how the school intends to meet those responsibilities.

Additionally: Description of the proposed program and curriculum

reflects a focus on California’s adopted Common Core State Standards.

Educational program describes professional development for teachers in implementing the curriculum

X

X

Lack of specificity re: CCSS in programs may indicate lack of focus on CCSS. Limited inclusion of pacing guides; some curriculum descriptions are not aligned with CCSS. (App. R) Limited discussion of curriculum. No plan for gifted students, although states they will provide services. (p. 57) Fails to address need for wet labs to meet A-G science – an issue with WASC (p. 58) No discussion of how the Arabic dual immersion program will grow; challenges of space and small class sizes resulting from attrition with no backfill (pp. 68-73) Incomplete


12

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

description of the independent study program: how teachers are assigned and work with students; how educational contractors are used; the purpose and structure for student credits (pp. 73-78)

Transitional Kindergarten

Ed. Serv

47615. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Charter schools are part of the Public School System, as defined in Article IX of the California Constitution. (2) Charter schools are under the jurisdiction of the Public School System and the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools, as provided in this part.

According to the CDE in its FAQs, beginning with the 2012‐13 school year, any school offering kindergarten must also offer transitional kindergarten programs to students who will have their fifthbirthday between November 2 and December 2 of the 2012‐13 school year, October 2 and December 2 of the 2013‐14 school year, and September 2 and December 2 of the 2014‐15 school year and thereafter. The CDE expressed thatall California elementary , high

In accordance with the stated legislative intent of SB 837 to “make Transitional Kindergarten available to all 4‐year‐olds in California” the Petition includes a plan for the provision of Transitional Kindergarten as required by the Kindergarten Readiness Act that: Provides for enrolling students within age range designated

in Reference column Describes an appropriate curriculum to address the needs of

TK students OR Proposed school does not offer Kindergarten

Page(s)37

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Fails to Meet Standard

X No description or plan for transitional kindergarten program, although petition states (pg. 9) “If Charter School receives apportionment for TK, it will offer TK”. State funding is already available for TK.


13

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

school and unified school districts must offer transitional kindergarten programs for children who meet the birthday cut‐off criteria specified above , including charter schools. The Legislature also expressed this intent in passing transitional kindergarten legislation.

Special Education students to be provided with services as in all public schools.

Ed. Serv

56145. Individuals with exceptional needs attending charter schools pursuant to Part 26.8 (commencing with Section 47600) shall be served in the same manner as individuals with exceptional needs are served in other public schools.

Petition provides that: Petitioners possess an understanding of federal and state

special education requirements.. The school’s LEA status for the purposes of special education

has been determined. There is alignment between the special education plan with

the core educational program. All eligible students enrolled in the charter school will receive

appropriate special education services in accordance with applicable state and federal law and the SELPA Local Plan for Special Education.

No student “otherwise eligible to enroll in the charter school” will be denied enrollment due to a disability or to the charter school’s inability to provide necessary services.

Staff members providing special education services are appropriately credentialed

Any facility used by the school does not present physical barriers that would limit an eligible student’s full participation in the educational and extracurricular programs.

The charter school will assume full responsibility for appropriate accommodation to address the needs of any student.

The responsibility of the school to provide special education, instruction and related serves to the students enrolled in the school regardless of students’ district of residence

Petition includes a “Reasonably comprehensive description of” : Specialized instruction and services available at the school. The provision of Designated Instruction and Services (DIS). Special transportation for students whose IEPs indicate that

service is necessary for the provision of FAPE. The procedures for ensuring that students are referred

Page(s)78‐95 App. V


X

X

X

X

X

X

No

X X

X No

X

X


Overall meets standard, but some deficiencies were noted: No discussion of facilities as it relates to student ability to participate in activities. No discussion of transportation.


14

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

assessed and served in a timely manner. A description of the school’s “Search and Service”

procedures. A description of the school’s SST process as it relates to

identification of students who may qualify for Special Education.

The dispute resolution procedures that will apply to any disputes between educational entities, including the SELPA and LEA, regarding the provision of special education services in the charter school.

X

X

Section 504 and English Learner Services Reference: U.S. Department of Education Publication: APPLYING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS TO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

Implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Ed. Serv

“Under Section 504 and Title II, students with disabilities enrolled in public schools, including your charter school, are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The Section 504 regulation includes several substantive and procedural requirements regarding the provision of FAPE. Among these requirements is that a student with a disability must receive appropriate regular or special education and related aids and services. The requirement is designed so that the individual educational needs of the disabled student are met as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students.”

Petition provides: All eligible students enrolled in the charter school will receive

appropriate accommodations and modifications consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

No student “otherwise eligible to enroll in the charter school” will be denied enrollment due to a disability or to the charter school’s inability to provide necessary services.

ALL Staff members providing services to the student are familiar with the identified needs of the student.

Any facility used by the school does not present physical barriers that would limit an eligible student’s full participation in the educational and extracurricular programs.

The charter school will assume full responsibility for appropriate accommodation to address the needs of any student.

The responsibility of the school to provide accommodations, modifications and services to the student regardless of the student’s district of residence

Page(s)88

App. V


X

X

X

No

X

X


As discussed in renewal standards attachment, school reports no students with 504 plans in petition (App. A); stated in 3/18/15 interview that 4 students had 504 plans and acknowledged that student information system is inaccurate. Number of 504 plans is small relative to enrollment.

Facilities not explicitly addressed.


15

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

English Learner Services

Ed. Serv

Federal civil rights law requires that public schools provide LEP children appropriate services designed to teach English and the general curriculum.

Petition provides: A demonstrated understanding of the likely English Learner

population. All eligible students enrolled in the charter school will receive

appropriate English Learner services in accordance with applicable state and federal law.

Staff members providing English Learner Services are appropriately credentialed.

A description of the manner in which students are identified as requiring English Learner services.

A description of the process for reclassification of English Leaners

An acknowledgment of the responsibility of the charter school to provide access to grade‐level core curriculum for English Learners. (Check for reference to the use of California English‐language Development Standards)

References to curriculum and materials that will be utilized in the instruction of English Learners that demonstrates a sound approach to helping English Learners fulfill expectations of the core educational program.

Petition tells how English Learners will be reclassified English Learners will be monitored.

Page(s)79‐83 App. S

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Petition Description


Does Not Meet X X X X

No

X

X


No discussion of grade-level core curriculum for ELs. No reference to use of ADEPT assessment, although it was included in work plan from revocation proceeding.

Annual Goals and Annual Actions to Achieve Goals for Subgroups in EC 52052 (LCFF/LCAP)

Ed. Serv

47605.6 (b) (5) (A)(ii) A description, for the charter school, of annual goals, for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils identified pursuant to Section 52052, to be achieved in the state priorities, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, that apply for the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated, by the charter school, and specific annual actions to achieve those goals. A charter petition may identify additional school priorities, the goals for the school priorities, and the specific annual actions to achieve those

Describes annual goals for all pupils and for each subgroup of pupils identified in 52052) to be achieved in the state priorities, as described in 52060 (d), that apply for the grade levels served, or the nature of program operated by the charter school.

Provides specific annual actions to achieve these goals for each of the subgroups listed below: Racial/Ethnic groups Low‐income students, including homeless

students English learners Students with disabilities Foster youth

Page(s)95‐110 Apps. B,

C

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard X


Foster youth not referenced in goals. No evidence of or reference to stakeholder engagement in current or future LCAP preparation. App. D (LCAP input survey) has only


16

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

goals. 12 respondents for student enrollment over 1,000.

Transferability of High School Courses

Ed. Serv

47605(b)(5)(A)(iii) If the proposed school will serve high school pupils, a description of the manner in which the charter school will inform parents about the transferability of courses to other public high schoolsand the eligibility of courses to meetcollege entrance requirements.

If serving high school students, describes how district/charter school informs parents of: 1. Transferability of courses to other public high schools; and 2. Eligibility of courses to meet college entrance requirements 3. Courses that are accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) may be considered transferable, and courses meeting the UC/CSU "a‐g" admissions criteria may be considered to meet college entrance requirements)

Page(s)58

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard X


B. MEASURABLE PUPIL OUTCOMES: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Measurable Pupil Outcomes (Includes LCAP requirements EC 52060)

Ed. Serv

47605(b)(5)(B) The measurable pupil outcomes identified for use by the charter school. “Pupil outcomes,” for purposes of this part, means the extent to which all pupils of the school demonstrate that they have attained the skills, knowledge, and attitudes specified as goals in the school’s educational program. Pupil outcomes shall include outcomes that address increases in pupil academic achievement both schoolwide and for all groups of pupils served by the charter school, as that term is defined in subparagraph (B) of

Program and can be assessed, at a minimum, by objective means that are frequent and sufficiently detailed to determine whether pupils are making satisfactory progress.

Multiple performance measures are applied to student learning objectives

Measures include performance goals based on absolution (e.g. proficiency levels), relative (e.g. comparison schools), and individual growth (e.g. year‐to‐year matched cohort growth).

Outcomes are specific, measurable, and time bound. Performance levels are both ambitious and attainable. It is intended that the frequency of objective means of measuring

pupil outcomes vary according to such factors as grade level, subject matter, the outcome of previous objective measurements, and information that may be collected from anecdotal sources. To

Page(s)111‐125,

127 Apps. B,

C

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Overall Meets

Standard X

X

No

X X X


No comparative measures. No measures for K and 1. No single-year


17

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 47607. The pupil outcomes shall align with the state priorities, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 52060, that apply for the grade levels served, or the nature of the program operated, by the charter school.

be sufficiently detailed, objective means of measuring pupil outcomes must be capable of being used readily to evaluate the effectiveness of and to modify instruction of individual students and for groups of students.

Include the school’s API growth target, if applicable. Statement that pupil achievement measurements will include the elements listed below: Alignment with state priorities 52060 (d) (A) Statewide assessments administered pursuant to Article

4(commencing with Section 60640) of Chapter 5 of Part 33 or any subsequent assessment, as certified by the state board.

(B) The Academic Performance Index, as described in Section 52052.

(C) The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University, or career technical education sequences or programs of study that align with state board‐approved career technical educational standards and frameworks,

(D) The percentage of English learner pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test or any subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the state board.

(E) The English learner reclassification rate. (F) The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced

placement examination with a score of 3 or higher. □ (G) The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program.

X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

targets for ELs progress toward language proficiency (2 and 5 year measures) (p. 131) No reference to use of ADEPT assessment, although it was included in work plan from revocation proceeding. MPOs measure A-G achievement for all high school students, but text does not require college prep for Independent Study students (p. 36)

C. METHOD OF MEASURING PUPIL OUTCOMES: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Assessment Tools Ed. Serv

47605(b)(5)(C) The method by which pupil progress in meeting those pupil outcomes is to be measured. To the extent practicable…consistent with the way information is reported on a school accountability report card.

At a minimum: A. Utilizes a variety of assessment tools appropriate to the

skills, knowledge, or attitudes being assessed, including, at a minimum, tools that employ objective means of assessment consistent with paragraph A (in Section B above).

B. Include the annual assessment results from the state program.

C. Outlines a plan for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data continuously to monitor and improve the charter school’s educational program.

D. Presents a coherent strategy for using student assessment and performance data to evaluate and inform instruction on an ongoing basis.

E. Demonstrates a commitment to sharing performance information with students, families, and public agencies, as

Page(s)127‐131Apps. B, C, T



X Other than indicating unspecified benchmark assessments, no discussion of forms of assessment. No reference to use of ADEPT


18

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

required. No

X

X

X

No

assessment, although it was included in work plan from revocation proceeding. Lack of assessments for TK, K, 1. Per interviews of 3/18/15 and 3/25/15, use of DataDirector limited to benchmark assessments only. No plan for sharing schoolwide data with students and families; required part of LCAP process; no discussion of stakeholder engagement. Vague about assessments for IS (“variety” at pg. 77).


19

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

D. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE SCHOOL: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

School Governance Including Parental Involvement

CSO

HR

47605(b)(5)(D) The governance structure of the school, including but, not limited to, the process to befollowed by the school to ensure parental involvement.

At a minimum: A. Includes evidence of the charter school’s incorporation as a

non‐profit public benefit corporation, if applicable. B. Includes evidence that the organizational and technical

designs of the governance structure reflect a seriousness of purpose necessary to ensure that: 1. The charter school will become and remain a viable

enterprise. 2. There will be active and effective representation of

interested parties, including, but not limited to parents (guardians).

3. The educational program will be successful

Page(s)133‐137App. D, F,

G, H

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X

No

No No No


X Addressed more fully in staff report and past performance tables. Petition fails to address past history with a plan to ensure no return to prior abuses. Governing board does not have identified knowledge and expertise. (App. F) Bylaws provided with petition not current; did not include 2013 and 2014 revisions.(App. F) Concerns include: board meetings demonstrate lack of accountability for academics and operations; director removal process abused;


20

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

terms unclear; no meaningful board development; board actions discourage parent participation and lessen transparency; delegation to CEO not documented. No structure for PTSAs to report to or inform board – no committees or procedures. (Per 3/18/15 and 3/25/15 interviews.)

E. EMPLOYEE QUALIFICATIONS: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Employees HR 47605(b)(5)(E) The qualifications to be met by individuals to be employed by the school.

At a minimum: A. Identify general qualifications for the various categories of employees the school anticipates: For example: Administrative Instructional Instructional support Non‐instructional support

B. Identify those positions that the charter school regards as key in each category and specify the additional qualifications expected of individual assigned to those positions.

C. Specify that the requirements for employment set forth in applicable provisions of law will be met, including, but not limited to credentials as necessary.

Page(s)137‐139Apps. K, M, O

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Overall meets

X

X

X X

No X

No

X


Deficiencies noted: Educational contractors for Independent Study program not included in HQT and credentials. Missing job description for transition coordinator.


21

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Qualifications for CEO were lowered in September from previous charter to match qualifications of incumbent. (App. M) Dir. of Ed. hired in Feb. does not meet listed qualifications (App. M).

F. HEALTH AND SAFETY PROCEDURES: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Student/Staff Health and Safety

HR

47605(b)(5)(F) The procedures thatthe school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff. These include the requirement that each employee of the school furnish the school with a criminal record summary as described in §44237.

At a minimum: A. Require that each employee of the school furnish the school

with a criminal record summary as described in EC 44237. B. Include the examination of faculty and staff for tuberculosis C. Require immunization of pupils as a condition of school

attendance to the same extent as would apply if the pupils attended a non‐charter public school.

D. Provide for the screening of pupils’ vision and hearing and the screening of pupils for scoliosis to the same extent as would be required if the pupils attended a non‐charter public school.

Page(s)141‐144Apps. J, K, L, N


X

Partial

X X


Deficiencies noted: Fails to include TB screening for Independent Study educational contractors; does not include health and safety standards and procedures for educational contractors (esp. instruction conducted on contractor premises).


22

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

G. MEANS TO ACHIEVE RACIAL AND ETHNIC BALANCE: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Racial and ethnic balance reflective of district

CSO

47605(b)(5)(G) The means by which the school will achieve a racial and ethnic balance among its pupils that is reflective of the general population residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the school district to which the charter petition is submitted.

To the extent admission requirements are included in keeping with EC 47605(b)(5)(H), the requirements shall be in compliance with the requirements of EC 47605(d) and any other applicable provision of law. See Item 30

Page(s)147‐149App. P



X The student population at FAME is not reflective of the population residing in Alameda county or in the districts in which the school is located. Petition does not describe specific under-represented populations to be targeted or methods of recruitment designed to increase enrollment among such groups. School relies heavily on word-of-mouth (interviews of 3/18/15 and 3/25/15), which reinforces current enrollment patterns. No discussion in


23

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

petition or evidence of any prior recruitment efforts. Brochures and flyer provided were in English and Arabic only (3/18/15 interview); reinforcing, rather than diversifying, current recruitment.

H. ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Admissions CSO 47605(b)(5)(H) Admission requirements, if applicable.

Petition describes the policies and procedures the school will implement for the admission and enrollment of students. The requirements shall be in compliance with the requirements of EC 47605(d) and any other applicable provision of law. (See 47605(d)(2)(A)). See Item 30

Page(s)146


X


Deficiencies noted: No detail on timing of enrollment and lotteries for the different programs and sites; no information regarding how the weighting is done or levels of preference; no limit on number of employee children. (p. 146)


24

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

I. MANNER OF CONDUCTING ANNUAL AUDIT AND RESOLVING AUDIT EXCEPTIONS: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Audits DBAS

47605(b)(5)(I) The manner in which annual, independent financial audits shall be conducted, which shall employ generally accepted accounting principles, and the manner in which audit exceptions and deficiencies shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the chartering authority.

At a minimum: A. Specify who is responsible for contracting and overseeing

the independent audit. B. Specify that the auditor will have experience in education

finance. C. Outline the process of providing audit reports to the SBE,

CDE, or other agency as the SBE may direct, and specifying the time line in which audit exceptions will typically be addressed.

D. Indicate the process that the school will follow to address any audit findings and/or resolve any audit exceptions.

Page(s)172


X


J. STUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEDURES: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Discipline procedures

CSO 47605(b)(5)(J) The procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled.

At a minimum: A. Identify a preliminary list, subject to later revision pursuant to subparagraph ( E ), of the offenses for which students in the school must (where non‐discretionary) and may (where discretionary) be suspended and; A². Separately, the offenses for which students in the school must (where non‐discretionary) and may (where discretionary) be expelled. B. Identify the procedures by which pupils can be suspended or expelled. C. Identify the procedures by which parents/guardians, and pupils will be informed about reasons for suspension or expulsion and of their due process rights in regard to suspension or expulsion. D. Provide evidence that in preparing the lists of offenses specified in subparagraph (A) and the procedures apply to students attending non‐charter public schools, and provide adequate safety for students, staff, and visitors to the school and serve the best interests of the school’s pupils and their parents/guardians. E. If not otherwise covered under (A), (B), (C), and (D): 1. Provide for due process for all pupils and demonstrate an understanding of the rights of pupils with disabilities in regard to suspension and expulsion. Outline how detailed policies and procedures regarding suspension and expulsion will be developed and periodically reviewed, including, but not limited to, periodic review and (as necessary) modification of the lists of offenses for which students are subject to suspension and expulsion.

Page(s)149‐150App. L

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X


Deficiencies noted: Infractions are the same for suspension and expulsion, but no standard provided for choosing between the two options. Appeal provided only if there is an administrative panel; no appeal if decided by board; no standard for determining when a matter goes to an administrative panel vs. board.


25

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

K. RETIREMENT PROGRAMS: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Retirement systems HR

47605(b)(5)(K)The manner by which staff members of the charter school will be covered by the State Teachers’ Retirement System, the Public Employees’ Retirement System, or Federal Social Security.

At a minimum, specifies the positions to be covered under each system and the staff who will be responsible for ensuring that appropriate arrangements for that coverage have been made.

Page(s)140


X


L. PUBLIC SCHOOL ALTERNATIVES: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Students not choosing charter school

CSO

47605(b)(5)(L)The public school attendance alternatives for pupils residing within the school district who choose not to attend charter schools.

At a minimum, specify that the parent or guardian of each pupil enrolled in the charter school shall be informed that the pupils have no right to admission in a particular school of any local educational agency (or program of any LEA) as consequence of enrollment in the charter school.

Page(s)149


X


M. EMPLOYEE RETURN RIGHTS: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Status of employee right of return to district

HR

47605(b)(5)(M) A description of the rights of any employee of the school district upon leaving the employment of the school district to work in a charter school, and of anyrights of return to the school district after employment at a charter school.

At a minimum, specifies that an employee shall have the following rights: Any rights upon leaving the employment of an LEA to work in the

charter school that the LEA may specify. Any right of return to employment in an LEA after employment in

the charter school as the LEA may specify. Any other rights upon leaving employment to work in the charter

school and any rights to return to a previous employer after working in the charter that the SBE determines to be reasonable and not in conflict with any provisions of law that apply to charter school or to the employer from which the employee comes to the charter or to which the employee returns from the charter school.

Page(s)140


X


N. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Dispute Resolution procedures

CSO

47605(b)(5)(N) the procedures to befollowed by the charter school and the entity granting the charter to resolve disputes relating to provisions of the charter.

At a minimum: Describe how the costs of the dispute resolution process, if

needed, would be funded. Recognize that if the substance of a dispute is a matter that could

result in the taking of appropriate action, including, but no limited to, revocation of the charter (47604.5), the matter will be addressed at the board’s discretion in accordance with that provision of law and any regulations pertaining thereto.

Page(s)144‐145



X Renewal petition does not acknowledge that


26

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

No

No

procedures will be superseded by the MOU. There is no description of how the costs of the dispute resolution process will be funded. Petition does not acknowledge County Superintendent’s authority to investigate pursuant to Ed. Code 47604.4.

O. DECLARATION OF EXCLUSIVE EMPLOYER: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Employer for charter school HR

47605(b)(5)(O) A declaration of whether or not the charter school shall be deemed the exclusive publicschool employer of the employees ofthe charter school for purposes of Chapter 7 (commencing with §3540) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code.

Petition must declare whether or not the charter school shall be deemed the exclusive public employer of its employees for purposes of the Educational Employment Relations Act that recognizes the right of public school employees to join and be represented by organizations of their own choosing.

Page(s)140


X


P. SCHOOL CLOSURE PROCEDURE: CCR Title 5: 11967.51(g) Definition of “Reasonably Comprehensive Description” Required

Description of charter school closure

CSO

47605(b)(5)(P) A description of the procedures to be used if the charter school closes. The procedures shall ensure a final audit of the school to determine the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the charter school, including plans for disposing of any net assets and for the

Statements describing how charter school will comply with code. All three areas must be addressed: Ensure a final audit of the school to determine the disposition of all

assets and liabilities of the charter school, Including plans for disposing of any net assets and For the maintenance and transfer of pupil records.

Page(s)173‐176


X

X



27

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

maintenance and transfer of pupil records.

X

47605(b)(4) REQUIRED AFFIRMATIONS If “The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the conditions described in subdivision (d)” this constitutes reason for denial of charter petition.

Student Assessment

Ed. Serv

47605(c)(1) Charter Schools shall meet all statewide standards and conduct the pupil assessments required pursuant to Sections 60605 and 60851 and any other statewide standards authorized in statute or pupil assessments applicable to pupils in non-charter public schools.

Petition describes how the school will meet all statewide standards and ensure that the requirements of education of education code are addressed in the state testing and other statewide standards authorized in statute or pupil assessments applicable to students in public schools.

Page(s)20, 127


X


Consultation with stakeholders CSO

47605(c)(2) Charter schools shall, on a regular basis, consult with parents, guardians and teacher regarding the schools educational programs.

Petition provides a description of how the school will consult with parents and teachers, on a regular basis, regarding the school’s educational programs.

Page(s)135

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Affirmation included; past practice fails to

meet


Parent organization was suspended by action of CEO; only 1 of 3 campuses has completed organization of PTSA to date. Teachers were included in the Educational Leadership Team only in last few months. (3/25/15 site visit) English Learner Advisory Group (ELAC-


28

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

equivalent) first met in 14-15.

Affirmations CSO

47605(d)(1) Charter school: Shall be nonsectarian in its

programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations

Shall not charge tuition Shall not discriminate against

any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability.

Admission shall not be determined according to the place of residence of the pupil, or of his/her parent except in case of conversion charter school.

Includes a clear, unequivocal affirmation of each condition, not a general statement of intention to comply.

Neither the charter nor any of the supporting documents shall include any evidence that the charter will fail to comply with the conditions described in §47605 (d).

Page(s)20‐23


X


Concerns noted re: past practice: Petition states that school adjusts schedule for Muslim and Jewish religious practice; unclear if actions are consistent for all faiths (p. 43).

47605(d)(2) ADMISSIONS

Admissions CSO

47605(d)(2)(A) A charter school shall admit all students who wish to attend.

Petition description of compliance with this section shall not allow for discrimination against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. Description shall include that charter admissions shall not discriminate again any pupil on the basis of actual or perceived gender identification, or sexual orientation.

Page(s)146


X


Public random drawing

CSO

47605(d)(2)(B) If the number of pupils who wish to attend the charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except for existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a public random drawing. Preference shall be extended to pupils currently

Petition includes a statement that if the number of pupils who wish to attend the charter school exceeds the school's capacity, attendance, except for existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a public random drawing as described in (B).

Page(s)146


X


Concerns re: past practice: Preferences in admissions include siblings of newly-admitted students (not just currently-


29

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

attending the charter school and pupils who reside in the district except as provided for in Section 47614.5. Other preferences may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the law.

enrolled). This preference further concentrates enrollment of current groups, rather than encouraging diversity.

47605(d)(3) NOTIFICATION TO DISTRICT FOR STUDENT LEAVING CHARTER SCHOOL

Notice to school district: Student status

CSO

47605(d)(3) If a pupil is expelled or leaves the charter school without graduating or completing the school year for any reason, the charter school shall notify the superintendent of the school district of the pupil's last known address within 30 days and shall, upon request, provide that school district with a copy of the cumulative record of the pupil, including a transcript of grades or report card, and health information. This paragraph applies only to pupils subject to compulsory full-time education pursuant to 48200.

Statements that if a pupil is expelled or leaves the charter school without graduating or completing the school year for any reason, the charter school shall Notify the superintendent of the school district of the pupil's

last known address within 30 days, and shall, Upon request, provide that school district with a copy of the

cumulative record of the pupil, including a transcript of grades or report card, and health information.

Page(s)20, 149‐150


X

X



30

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

47605(g) INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED OPERATION

Proposed operation and potential effect of the school (continued)

CSO

47605(g) The governing board of a school district shall require that the petitioner or petitioners provide information regarding the proposed operation and potential effects of the school, including, but not limited to, the facilities to be used by the school, the manner in which administrative services of the school are to be provided, and potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the school and upon the school district. The description of the facilities to be used by the charter school shall specify where the school intends to locate. The petitioner or petitioners shall also be required to provide financial statements that include a proposed first-year operational budget, including startup costs, and cashflow and financial projections for the first three years of operation.

Petition provides information regarding the proposed operation and potential effects of the school, including, but not limited to:

The facilities to be used by the school. The manner in which administrative services of the school

are to be provided. Potential civil liability effects, if any, upon the school and

upon the district. Description of facilities to be used by the charter. Specify where the school intends to locate. The petitioner(s) shall also be required to provide financial statements that include a proposed 1st year operational budget, including: Start‐up costs. Cash‐flow and financial projections for the first 3 years of

operation.

Page(s)172‐177


X X X

X

No

X X


Deficiencies noted: Petition fails to identify where it will locate “wet” labs for high school A-G science courses. (Interview of 3/18/15- CEO stated charter will not request secondary space from Fremont USD.) Petition says additional service centers will be provided for Independent Study, but no locations are identified (p. 131).


31

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Preference to be given to petitions that focus on academically low achieving students

Ed. Serv

47605(h) and 47605.6(i) In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter schools within the school district [county], the school district governing board [county board of education] shall give preference to petitions that demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to the standards established by the (charter schools) department under Section 54032.

Petition provides a detailed description of how the charter school will identify and respond to the needs of pupils who are not achieving at or above expected levels. Petition contains description of students who are identified

as academically low achieving. Petition contains description of a program designed

specifically to provide comprehensive learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving.

Petition and/or referenced documents do not allow for the dismissal of students who fail to reach a specified academic level or; who have poor attendance.

Page(s)


X

No

X


Deficiencies noted: Petition contains broad description of students who are underserved by traditional public schools with respect to home language, but not specific to academic low performance.

Certification of charter school teachers

HR

47605(l) Teachers in charter schools shall hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. These documents shall be maintained on file at the charter school and are subject to periodic inspection by the chartering authority. It is the intent of the Legislature that a charter schools be given flexibility with regard to noncore, non-college preparatory courses.

Copies of valid credentials held by teachers assigned to core and college prep classes.

Description of qualifications for teachers of non‐core, non‐college prep classes who are not credentialed.

Page(s)138

Apps. J, M



X Petition does not describe credential requirements for educational contractors providing instruction in Independent Study program. No description of qualifications for non-core, non-college prep.


32

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

INDEPENDENT STUDY

Annual Audit CSO

DBAS

47612.5(b). (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except to the extent inconsistent with this section and Section 47634.2, a charter school that provides independent study shall comply with Article 5.5 (commencing with Section 51745) of Chapter 5 of Part 28 and implementing regulations adopted thereunder.

The petition verifies that the K‐12 public school guidelines of independent study will be evident in the annual audit.

Page(s)172‐173



X Audit section does not reference specific guidelines for independent study.

Ratio of ADA to FTE

CSO

DBAS

51745.6. (a) The ratio of average daily attendance for independent study pupils 18 years of age or less to school district full-time equivalent certificated employees responsible for independent study, calculated as specified by the State Department of Education, shall not exceed the equivalent ratio of pupils to full-time certificated employees for all other educational programs operated by the school district. The pupils-to-certificated-employee ratio described in subdivision (a) may, in a charter school, be calculated by using a fixed pupils-to-certificated-employee ratio of 25 to one, or by being a ratio of less than 25 pupils per certificated employee. All charter school pupils, regardless of age, shall be included in pupil-to-certificated-employee ratio

The petition states that it will meet the requirement related to the ratio of ADA to FTE as described in EC 51745.6.

Page(s)73‐78

Exceeds Standard Meets Standard Fails to Meet Standard

X Petition states generally that independent study will be operated in compliance with law, but does not include specific requirements or describe how teachers are assigned or ratios calculated. (Some additional info in parent handbook for IS; no IS Standard Operating Procedures provided.)


33

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

calculations. The computation of those ratios shall be performed annually by the reporting agency at the time of, and in connection with, the second principal apportionment report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Written Policies to receive apportionments (continued) 43. Written Policies to receive apportionments (continued from previous page)

CSO

DBAS

51747. … shall not be eligible to receive apportionments for independent study by pupils, regardless of age, unless it has adopted written policies, and has implemented those policies, pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, that include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (a) The maximum length of

time, by grade level and type of program, that may elapse between the time an independent study assignment is made and the date by which the pupil must complete the assigned work.

(b) The number of missed assignments that will be allowed before an evaluation is conducted to determine whether it is in the best interests of the pupil to remain in independent study, or whether he or she should return to the regular school

The petition includes written policies required for eligibility to receive apportionments for independent study that include all of the elements delineated in 57147.

Page(s)73‐78; App. L


X



34

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

program. - A written record of the findings of any evaluation made pursuant to this subdivision shall be treated as a mandatory interim pupil record. The record shall be maintained for a period of three years from the date of the evaluation and, if the pupil transfers to another California public school, the record shall be forwarded to that school.

(c) A requirement that a current written agreement for each independent study pupil shall be maintained on file including, but not limited to, all of the following: (1) The manner, time, frequency, and place for submitting a pupil's assignments and for reporting his or her progress. (2) The objectives and methods of study for the pupil's work, and the methods utilized to evaluate that work. (3) The specific resources, including materials and personnel, that will be made available to the pupil (4) A statement of the policies adopted pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) regarding the maximum length of time allowed


35

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

between assignment and the completion of a pupil’s assigned work, and the number of missed assignments allowed prior to an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be allowed to continue in independent study. (5) Duration of independent study agreement, including beginning and ending dates for the pupil’s participation in independent study under the agreement. No independent study shall be valid for any period longer than one semester. (6) A statement of the number of course credits or, for elementary grades, other measures of academic accomplishment appropriate to the agreement, to be earned by the pupil upon completion. (7) Inclusion of a statement that Independent study is an optional educational alternative in which no pupil may be required to participate. (8) Each agreement shall be signed, prior to commencement of independent study, by pupil,


36

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

pupil’s parent,/guardian/or caregiver, certificated employee who has been designated as having responsibility for the general supervision of independent study, and all persons who have direct responsibility for providing assistance to the pupil.

Supervised by credentialed teacher

CSO

DBAS

5174. (a) The independent study by each pupil or student shall be coordinated, evaluated, and, notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 46300, shall be under the general supervision of an employee of the school district or county office of education who possesses a valid certification document pursuant to Section 44865 or an emergency credential pursuant to Section 44300, registered as required by law. (b) School districts and county offices of education may claim apportionment credit for independent study only to the extent of the time value of pupil or student work products, as personally judged in each instance by a certificated teacher.

Petition ensures all independent study shall be supervised by a credentialed teacher.

Page(s)73‐78, App. L


X


Concerns re: past practice: Independent study principal acknowledged in public board meeting (8/6/14) teacher assignments in program had not been in compliance with credential requirements for high school students. Procedure for ensuring credential compliance for educational contractors not stated.

LOCAL CONTROL ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN


37

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

CSO

47606.5. (a) On or before July 1, 2015, and each year thereafter, a charter school shall update the goals and annual actions to achieve those goals identified in the charter pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605 or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605.6. {Description of the Educational Program} The annual update shall be developed using the template adopted pursuant to Section 52064 and shall include all of the following:

(1) A review of the progress toward the goals included in the charter, an assessment of the effectiveness of the specific actions described in the charter toward achieving the goals, and a description of changes to the specific actions the charter school will make as a result of the review and assessment. (2) A listing and description of the expenditures for the fiscal year implementing the specific actions included in the charter as a result of the reviews and assessment required by paragraph (1).

Petition contains a statement that the charter school shall update the goals and annual actions to achieve those goals identified in the charter pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605 or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 47605.6.

Page(s)111‐125App. C


X


Deficiencies noted: Independent study program is not separately referenced in the LCAP, although according to petition text (p. 36) it does not have the same college-going goals as site-based high school program.


38

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

(b) The expenditures identified in subdivision (a) shall be classified using the California School Accounting Manual pursuant to Section 41010. (c) For purposes of the review required by subdivision (a), a governing body of a charter school may consider qualitative information, including, but not limited to, findings that result from school quality reviews conducted pursuant to subparagraph (J) or paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052* or any other reviews. (d) To the extent practicable, data reported pursuant to this section shall be reported in a manner consistent with how information is reported on a school accountability report card. (e) The charter school shall consult with teachers, principals, administrators, other school personnel, parents, and pupils in developing the annual update.


39

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Charter School Legal Obligations Under Federal Civil Rights Laws (May 14, 2014 US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights – Dear Colleague Letter) These Federal civil rights laws and the specific legal obligations discussed in this letter apply to all public charter schools in the United States, regardless of whether they receive Federal funds under the Department's Charter Schools Program.

Equal Opportunity in Admissions

CSO

Nondiscrimination in admissions. Charter schools may not discriminate in admissions on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability. Although public charter schools’ civil rights obligations are no different from those of other public schools in this regard, the fact that students choose to attend a charter school and are not simply assigned to attend a charter school underscores the need to be mindful of the rights of children and parents in the community when publicizing the school to attract students and when evaluating their applications for admission. Charter schools must ensure that language-minority parents who are not proficient in English receive meaningful access to the same admissions information and other school-related information

Petition describes an admissions policy that ensures: Language‐minority parents who are not proficient in

English receive meaningful access to the same admissions information and other school‐related information provided to English‐proficient parents in a manner and form they can understand, such as by providing free interpreter and/or translation services

Communications with parents with disabilities must be as effective as communications with other parents. Appropriate auxiliary aids and services (such as Braille materials or a sign language interpreter) must be made available whenever they are necessary to ensure equally effective communication with parents with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities

School’s eligibility criteria for admission is nondiscriminatory on their face and will be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner

Does not propose admissions criteria that have the effect of excluding students on the basis of race, color, or national origin from the school without proper justification.

Does not categorically deny admission to students on the basis of disability.

Page(s)146‐147App. L,

P

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X

X

X

X

X



40

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

provided to English-proficient parents in a manner and form they can understand, such as by providing free interpreter and/or translation services. Also, communications with parents with disabilities must be as effective as communications with other parents. Appropriate auxiliary aids and services (such as Braille materials or a sign language interpreter) must be made available whenever they are necessary to ensure equally effective communication with parents with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities As a general rule, a school’s eligibility criteria for admission must be nondiscriminatory on their face and must be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. In addition, a charter school may not use admissions criteria that have the effect of excluding students on the basis of race, color, or national origin from the school without proper justification.


41

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Charter schools also may not categorically deny admission to students on the basis of disability


42


43

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

Ed. Serv

Free appropriate public education for students with disabilities. Under Section 504, every student with a disability enrolled in a public school, including a public charter school, must be provided a free appropriate public education*–that is, regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet his or her individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of students without disabilities are met. Evaluation and placement procedures are among the requirements that must be followed if a student needs, or is believed to need, special education or related services due to a disability. Charter schools may not ask or require students or parents to waive their right to a free appropriate public education in order to attend the charter school. Additionally, charter schools must provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in such a manner

Petition describes a FAPE policy that provides student with disabilities under IDEA and/or Section 504: Regular or special education and related aids and services

that are designed to meet his/her needs as adequately as the needs of nondisabled students are met.

Evaluation and placement procedures, for student with suspected disabilities, that align with Special Education and/ 504 laws.

Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in such a manner that students with disabilities are given equal opportunity to participate.

Additionally, Petition contains a statement that the charter school will

not ask or require students or parents to waive the right to a free appropriate public education in order to attend the charter school.

Page(s)78‐95

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X

X

X

X



44

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

that students with disabilities are given an equal opportunity to participate in these services and activities. *(IDEA defines FAPE as special education and related services that meet the standards of the state education agency and are provided at public expense. These include appropriate preschool, elementary school, and secondary school education. The education is to be provided in accordance with the child's IEP, as described below. FAPE, for each child, is defined by that student's IEP.)

English Learners Ed. Serv

Affirmative steps for English-language learners. Like all public schools, charter schools must take “affirmative steps” to help English-language learners overcome language barriers so that they can participate meaningfully in their schools’ educational programs. A charter school must timely identify language-minority students who have limited proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, or

Petition describes a policy that ensures the school will: Timely identify language‐minority students who have

limited proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, or understanding English.

Will provide those students with an effective language instruction educational program that also affords meaningful access to the school’s academic content.

Describes or identifies the curriculum that will be used to satisfy the school’s legal obligations to meet the needs of English Learners

Page(s)79‐83 App. S

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard Petition Description


Does Not Meet

X

X

No


Concerns re: past practice: Random file review conducted in March 2014 found, of 25 files reviewed: 3 missing CELDT test results; 9 CELDT testing beyond legal deadline; only 1 contained notice to parents of EL program


45

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

understanding English, and must provide those students with an effective language instruction educational program that also affords meaningful access to the school’s academic content. Federal civil rights laws do not, however, require any school, including a charter school, to adopt or implement any particular educational model or program of instruction for English-language learners; schools have substantial flexibility to determine how they will satisfy their legal obligations to meet these students’ needs.

assignment; and none included evidence of reclassification process by FAME. Petition does not describe curriculum for English learners.

Discipline CSO

Nondiscrimination in discipline. Data collected by OCR have demonstrated significant disparities in the use of exclusionary discipline (such as suspensions or expulsions) against students of color and students with disabilities in many schools across the country, and that an increasing number of students are losing important instructional time due to exclusionary discipline.

U.S. Dept. of Justice (Civil Rights Div.) U.S. Dept. of Ed (OCR) Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline‐ January 8, 2014 includes the guidance provided below.

Charter describes a schoolwide discipline plan that is designed to avoid and remedy discrimination of school discipline that includes:

Climate and Prevention: Safe, inclusive and positive school climates that provide

students with supports such as evidence‐based tiered supports and social emotional learning.

Training and professional development for all school personnel.

Appropriate use of law enforcement A. Establish procedures and train school personnel and

school volunteers how to distinguish between disciplinary

Page(s)149‐150App. K,

L

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard Overall meets

X

X

No


Concerns re: past practice: Recently-adopted Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) not consistently implemented within sites, or among sites. (3/25/15 site visits)


46

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

All public schools, including charter schools, are obligated to avoid and redress discrimination in the administration of school discipline on the basis of race, color, or national origin; disability; and sex. This obligation applies over the entire course of the disciplinary process, from behavior management in the classroom, to referral to an authority outside the classroom because of misconduct, to resolution of the discipline incident. The Guidance on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline offers detailed assistance on how to identify, avoid, and remedy discriminatory discipline. The discipline guidance document focuses on racial discrimination, but much of its analytical framework also applies to discrimination on other prohibited grounds. In addition, when addressing discipline for students with disabilities, it is important that charter schools comply with applicable legal requirements governing the discipline of a child for misconduct caused by, or related to, the child’s

infractions best handled by school personnel vs. major threats to school safety or serious school‐based criminal conduct that cannot be safely and appropriately handles bye the school’s internal procedures, and how to contact law enforcement when warranted.

Clear, Appropriate, and Consistent Expectations and Consequences: Nondiscriminatory, fair, and age‐appropriate discipline

policies Communicating with and engaging school communities A. Provide discipline policies and student code of conduct

to students in an easily understandable, age‐appropriate format that makes clear the sanctions imposed for specific offenses, and periodically advise students of what conduct is expected

B. Put protocols in place for when parents and guardians should be notified of incidents meriting disciplinary sanctions to ensure that they are appropriately informed.

C. Post all discipline‐related materials on school website D. Provide parents and guardians with copies of all

discipline policies, including the discipline code, student code of conduct, appeals process, process for re‐enrollment, where appropriate, and other related notices; and ensure that these written material accurately reflect the key elements of the disciplinary approach, including appeals, alternative dispositions, time lines, and provisions for informal hearings. (Due Process of Law per the 14th Amendment)

Positive interventions over student removal Schools written discipline policy emphasizes constructive

interventions over tactics or disciplinary sanctions that remove student from regular instruction.

Written discipline policy explicitly limits the use of out‐of‐school suspensions, expulsions, and alternative placement to the most sever disciplinary infractions that threaten school safety or to those circumstances mandated by Federal or State law.

Written discipline policy provides for individual tailored intensive serves and supports for student reentering the classroom following a disciplinary sanction.

Written policies provide for alternatives to in‐school and out‐of‐school suspensions and other exclusionary practices

X

X

X

X

X

X

X


47

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

disability.

X

X

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

CSO

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

Petition includes a description of how the charter school shall comply with FERPA Description evidences a full understanding of FERPA law.

Page(s)22

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X


Concerns re: past performance: Office managers at 3 classroom-based sites were unfamiliar with FERPA (annual site visits spring 2013 and 2014). ACOE provided training fall 2014.

Pupil Fees

Definition of terms related to Pupil Fees

CSO

EC 49010. For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Educational activity" means an activity offered by a school, school district, charter school, or county office of education that constitutes an integral fundamental part of elementary and secondary education, including, but not limited to, curricular and extracurricular activities.

Neither the petition , nor any accompanying or referenced documents provide information that would conflict with the following: Fee for registering for school or classes, or as a condition

of participation in class or any extracurricular activities Security deposit, or other payment that a pupil is

required to make to obtain a lock, locker, book, class apparatus, musical instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment.

A purchase that is required to make to obtain materials, supplies, equipment, or uniforms associated with an educational activity.

The petition contains a statement that acknowledges the

above criteria.

Page(s)20, 146? App. L

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard


X After-school soccer program at Leslie campus charges fee. (3/25/15 interview) Brochures provided prior to 3/18/15 interview describe requirement for parent volunteer hours (20 per year).


48

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

(b) "Pupil fee" means a fee, deposit, or other charge imposed on pupils, or a pupil's parents or guardians, in violation of Section 49011 and Section 5 of Article IX of the California Constitution, which require educational activities to be provided free of charge to all pupils without regard to their families' ability or willingness to pay fees or request special waivers, as provided for in Hartzell v. Connell (1984) 35 Cal.3d 899. A pupil fee includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) A fee charged to a pupil as a condition for registering for school or classes, or as a condition for participation in a class or an extracurricular activity, regardless of whether the class or activity is elective or compulsory, or is for credit. (2) A security deposit, or other payment, that a pupil is required to make to obtain a lock, locker, book, class apparatus, musical instrument, uniform, or other materials or equipment. (3) A purchase that a pupil is required to make to obtain materials, supplies, equipment, or uniforms associated with an educational activity


49

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

Pupil enrolled in public school shall not be required to pay pupil fee for participation in educational activity (continued) 52. (continued from previous page)

CSO

49011. (a) A pupil enrolled in a public school shall not be required to pay a pupil fee for participation in an educational activity. (b) All of the following requirements apply to the prohibition identified in subdivision (a): (1) All supplies, materials, and equipment needed to participate in educational activities shall be provided to pupils free of charge. (2) A fee waiver policy shall not make a pupil fee permissible. (3) School districts and schools shall not establish a two-tier educational system by requiring a minimal educational standard and also offering a second, higher educational standard that pupils may only obtain through payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that the school district or school does not provide. (4) A school district or school shall not offer course credit or privileges related to educational activities in exchange for money or donations of goods or services from a pupil or a pupil's parents or guardians, and a school district or school shall not remove course credit or privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise discriminate against a

Neither the petition , nor any accompanying or referenced documents provide information that would conflict with the following: All supplies, materials, and equipment needed to

participate in educational activities shall be provided to pupils free of charge

The school will not establish or utilize a fee waiver policy The school will not offer a higher educational standard

that pupils may obtain through payment of a fee or purchase of additional supplies that the school district does not provide.

The school will not offer course credit or privileges related to educational activities in exchange for money or donations of goods or serves from a pupil or a pupil’s parents or guardians

The school will not remove course credit or privileges related to educational activities, or otherwise discriminate against a pupil, because the pupil or the pupil's parents or guardians did not or will not provide money or donations of goods or services to the school district or school.

The petition contains a statement that acknowledges the

above criteria.

Page(s)20, 146? App. L

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X

X

X

X

X



50

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

pupil, because the pupil or the pupil's parents or guardians did not or will not provide money or donations of goods or services to the school district or school. (c) This article shall not be interpreted to prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations of funds or property, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities. (d) This article applies to all public schools, including, but not limited to, charter schools and alternative schools. (e) This article is declarative of existing law and shall not be interpreted to prohibit the imposition of a fee, deposit, or other charge otherwise allowed by law.

Student Fee Complaint procedure and remedy

CSO

49013. (a) A complaint of noncompliance with the requirements of this article may be filed with the principal of a school under the Uniform Complaint Procedures set forth in Chapter 5.1 (commencing with Section 4600) of Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.

The petitions includes or references the intent to develop the policy described in 49013

Page(s)Apps. I,

L

Exceeds Standard

Meets Standard

X



51

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

(b) A complaint may be filed anonymously if the complaint provides evidence or information leading to evidence to support an allegation of noncompliance with the requirements of this article. (c) A complainant not satisfied with the decision of a public school may appeal the decision to the department and shall receive a written appeal decision within 60 days of the department's receipt of the appeal. (d) If a public school finds merit in a complaint, or the department finds merit in an appeal, the public school shall provide a remedy to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians that, where applicable, includes reasonable efforts by the public school to ensure full reimbursement to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians, subject to procedures established through regulations adopted by the state board. (e) Information regarding the requirements of this article shall be included in the annual notification distributed to pupils, parents and guardians, employees, and other interested parties pursuant to Section 4622 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations.


52

Requirement

Item



Located on Page(s)

Evaluation

(f) Public schools shall establish local policies and procedures to implement the provisions of this section on or before March 1, 2013.

Charter School: FAME Public Charter School

Reviewers: CSO and Ed Services Review Team Members Date Completed: 4/7/15

Charter Renewal Standards and Evidence: Educational Program Page 1

Charter Renewal Standards: Evidence of Past Performance from Charter Renewal Site Visit and Other Sources Educational Program

Renewal Question 1 Is the academic program a success?

If Observed: Yes/No/Partial

Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit)

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1A Measurable Pupil Outcomes

Over the charter term, the school met or made substantial progress toward meeting its Measurable Pupil Outcomes.

Other indicators of academic program success include promotion and graduation rates, internal assessment results, and state assessment results.

Partial FAME has made progress in student academic performance for some students within some of the FAME programs, but overall the school has not performed as well as the districts in which it is located or schools its students would otherwise attend. Significant achievement gaps remain for English learners and socio‐economically disadvantaged students. See Measureable Pupil Outcomes table in Staff Summary Report and Supplemental Academic Data for analysis.

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1B Use of Assessment Data

The school has an assessment system that improves instructional effectiveness and student learning. The following elements are generally present: The school regularly administers

valid and reliable assessments aligned to the school’s curriculum and state performance standards;

The school has a valid and reliable process for scoring and analyzing assessments;

The school makes assessment data

Partial Element: Administers valid and reliable assessments During site visit, teachers used classroom observations

(with whiteboards, verbal or written answers, answers on board) to determine student mastery of objectives.

Riverside CCSS‐aligned benchmark exams administered quarterly along with textbook and teacher‐made assessments throughout the year. (Prior year assessment was from Curriculum Associates and was CST‐aligned.)

Element: Valid and reliable process for scoring and analyzing School utilizes DataDirector for scoring and analysis. Only benchmark data is included (no grades K or 1, no

CELDT, no writing). Element: Data is accessible







accessible to students, teachers, school leaders, and board members;

Teachers use assessment results to meet students’ needs by adjusting classroom instruction, grouping students and/or identifying students for special intervention;

School leaders use assessment results to evaluate teacher effectiveness and to develop professional development and coaching strategies; and

The school regularly communicates to parents/guardians about their students’ progress and growth.

Teachers work with administrators to analyze the data to inform their instruction.

Degree of direct teacher use of DataDirector tool varies after 3 years of implementation. (More at Kearney than Leslie or San Leandro. Use by independent study teachers unclear.)

Students in upper elementary and at the secondary level know their areas of weakness and areas of strength.

Element: Teachers use assessment results to meet student needs Teachers shared that they use Data Director regularly to

drive instruction, but no evidence was seen of this in the classroom (San Leandro).

Teachers at Kearney and Leslie say they use the data to inform instruction, change their sequence of teaching (math), and reteach.

San Leandro 7th grade teachers shared that they use the data to create instructional groups based on assessment data; also apparent in Kearney 6th grade observation.

Element: School leaders use assessment results to evaluate teachers and develop PD Assessment results were not identified as a component of

teacher or principal evaluation; teacher evaluation process inconsistently described and no forms/documents included (Interviews of 3/25/15 and







Petition Apps. J, K and O). Teachers and leaders report that data analysis is

discussed in PLCs. PD and staff meetings involve school leaders working with teachers to analyze and inform instruction.

Element: School communicates to parents about student progress Student results provided to parents in conference and

progress reports. At San Leandro, grades are available to parents and

students via Engrade program. At Kearney, middle school grades and assignments available to parents through Canvas program.

Feedback on learning progress also shared via emails, phone calls, newsletters, as reported by teachers and parents at classroom sites.

No evidence that school‐wide data is shared with families; limited sharing with board. Parents at all sites unfamiliar with LCAP; teachers at San Leandro also unfamiliar; no teachers discussed LCAP goals and actions in interviews.

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1C Curriculum

The school’s curriculum supports teachers in their instructional planning. The following elements are generally present: The school has a curriculum

Partial Element: Curriculum framework providing underlying structure In San Leandro interviews, teachers indicated that

decisions about instructional planning happen at their







framework with student performance expectations that provides a fixed, underlying structure, aligned to state standards and across grades;

In addition to the framework, the school has supporting tools (i.e. curriculum maps or scope and sequence documents that provide a bridge between the curriculum framework and lesson plans);

Teachers know what to teach and when to teach it based on these documents; and

The school has a process for selecting, developing, and reviewing its curriculum documents and its resources for delivering the curriculum.

PLCs. At Kearney, CCSS aligned math books and lessons were

observed in classrooms. CCSS aligned ELA lessons were observed in classrooms, including Arabic DI program.

Arabic DI program has created scope and sequence for all grade levels, as has the Arabic FL program. (Prior interaction through FLAP grant.)

Element: School has supporting tools for curriculum Limited curriculum structure (pacing guides, etc.)

provided with charter renewal petition. No evidence of use of pacing guide in classrooms at San

Leandro. Teachers at Leslie and Kearney felt that they had

sufficient resources to deliver the curriculum; reported spending about 2 hours a week collaborating and learning new strategies.

Element: Teachers know what to teach and when it teach it Teachers at Kearney and Leslie appeared to have a clear

understanding of the scope and sequence of their curriculum for the year.

Element: School has a process for selecting, developing and reviewing curriculum Curriculum decisions made by Education Leadership

Team (formed in 13‐14; lead teachers added in 14‐15). (3/18/15 management interview)






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit) Process for deciding on curriculum not described in

petition or discussed in interview. ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1D Pedagogy

High quality instruction is evident throughout the school. The following elements are generally present: Teachers deliver purposeful lessons

with clear objectives aligned to the school’s curriculum;

Teachers regularly and effectively use techniques to check for student understanding;

Teachers include opportunities in their lessons to challenge students with questions and activities that develop depth of understanding and higher‐order thinking and problem‐solving skills;

Teachers maximize learning time (e.g., appropriate pacing, on‐task student behavior, clear lesson focus and clear direction to students); transitions are efficient; and

Teachers have effective classroom management techniques and routines that create a consistent

Partial The quality of instruction observed varied by school site, grade and individual classroom. Quality of instruction delivered through independent study program could not be assessed. Element: Teachers deliver purposeful lessons with clear objectives

Every Leslie and Kearney classroom visited had objectives on the board and scheduled lessons were aligned with the CCSS standards.

Some objectives statements in secondary classrooms at Kearney were assignment notes, rather than learning objectives.

Element: Teachers use techniques to check for understanding The majority of classrooms visited at San Leandro

were student‐centered, with formative assessment strategies that assessed all/some students throughout the course of the lesson.

San Leandro observations demonstrated variable levels of student engagement and teacher checking. Teachers observed at Kearney and Leslie checked for understanding frequently and used EDI strategies such as white boards, popsicle sticks, etc.

Element: Teachers challenge students







focus on academic achievement. At San Leandro, cognitive rigor of lessons was variable, with some teachers asking questions that provided students with opportunity to process and apply knowledge.

San Leandro 7th grade math class activity involved evaluating algebraic expressions (DoK 1). Given the date on which this visit was conducted, it is questionable whether students are receiving high‐quality instruction since the remaining 7th grade CCSS standards require a much higher DoK and proficiency in the evaluation.

Lessons observed at Kearney and Leslie were rigorous for grade level and provided ample challenge.

Differentiation of instruction not observed at Leslie or secondary level at Kearney.

Element: Teachers maximize learning time No closure or clear transition occurred in San Leandro

math class observed. Pacing in Leslie and Kearney elementary classes was

excellent. Student were engaged and on task. Observed Kearney high school classes exhibited less

student engagement. Element: Teachers have effective classroom management techniques and routines

Generally, in San Leandro, transitions between







activities were smooth, although in two class visits students were unclear about procedure and expectations since they were only provided verbally and not visually.

There was effective classroom management and a consistent focus on academic achievement in classrooms observed at Kearney.

However, classroom management and PBIS techniques described by Leslie principal were not evident in classrooms.

Character Counts program was only evident at San Leandro and Leslie.

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1E Instructional Leadership

The school has strong instructional leadership. The following elements are generally present: The school’s leadership establishes

an environment of high expectations for teacher performance (in content knowledge and pedagogical skills) and in which teachers believe that all students can succeed;

The instructional leadership is adequate to support the development of the teaching staff;

Instructional leaders provide

Partial The quality and continuity of instructional leadership varies across the FAME sites and programs. The independent study principal is in her first year; the Kearney and Leslie principals are in their 2nd years at FAME; the San Leandro principal is in her 3rd year, but also serves as the director of special programs (apparently on an interim basis, as the CEO indicated the position is to be filled). FAME has not had a Director of Education (role identified on org chart) to oversee and develop the site leaders during most of the term of the charter (appointed in February 2015). Element: Leadership establish an environment of high expectations Principals at Kearney and Leslie are very enthusiastic and

passionate about their schools and their leadership roles.







sustained, systemic and effective coaching and supervision that improves teachers’ instructional effectiveness;

Instructional leader/s provide opportunities and guidance for teachers to plan curriculum and instruction within and across grade levels;

Instructional leaders implement a comprehensive professional development program that develops the competencies and skills of all teachers;

Professional development activities are interrelated with classroom practice;

Instructional leaders regularly conduct teacher evaluations with clear criteria that accurately identify teachers’ strengths and weaknesses; and

Instructional leaders hold teachers accountable for quality instruction and student achievement.

They have high expectations for student learning and for the quality of teaching.

Parents and students at Kearney and Leslie voiced how effective, positive and supportive the principals were.

Element: Leadership is adequate to support development of teaching staff FAME’s schedule allows for after school meetings and PD

time every other Friday. Beginning teachers provided with BTSA coaches and

mentors. Coaching for teachers not in an intern or induction

program is less clear. Some informal coaching is provided at all classroom‐based sites; Kearney site has more structure with assigned coaches meeting during PD time.

Charter renewal budget does not include instructional coaches; CEO said there were none, but a math coach was on site at among the 3 campuses. Role and effectiveness of math coach during classroom observation was not evident. Coach shared that strategies that she gains from PD are disseminated to teachers, but follow‐through process is not systemic. Utilization of coach in a co‐teaching model at San Leandro (7th grade) did not demonstrate added value.

Leadership at Kearney as observed and described was very strong in terms of supporting improvement in instructional quality.






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit) Element: Leaders provide guidance for curriculum planning FAME schedule provides time and structure for

curriculum planning, although small size of individual sites limits ability to collaborate at grade level or with same subject teachers.

Collaboration across the FAME sites/programs is limited. Few days of all‐FAME PD are scheduled and they do not provide collaboration time. (PD schedule review)

Element: Leaders implement professional development program PD schedule indicates that Leslie campus had spent

relatively more time on administrative issues than on instructional development, which may be the result of facilities and enrollment challenges.

Neither charter petition nor interviews clarify how PD topics are chosen and scheduled – either for the individual sites or FAME‐wide.

Element: Professional development activities are interrelated with classroom PD at Kearney (and to a lesser degree at Leslie) is aligned

with classroom practice and priorities. Kearney teachers are encouraged to observe each other

as part of professional development, but this process is not formalized in evaluation process.

Teachers were not observed to be effectively using






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit) available technology resources (SmartBoards; laptop

carts; computer lab); teachers at Leslie commented on lack of training and tech support for SmartBoards.

Element: Leaders regularly conduct teacher evaluations with clear criteria Evaluation process described by Kearney teachers is

inconsistent with charter petition appendices (Apps. J, K and O) and policy and procedures are inconsistent with each other. Processes and forms for evaluation of CEO, principals and teachers do not include student performance as an identified consideration.

Kearney teachers appreciate the evaluation process conducted by the principal. Principal at Kearney is in classrooms every day. One teacher stated that the principal had observed her classroom 20 times this year.

Kearney teachers stated that the observations and feedback were highly effective and liked how frequently observations occurred and were appreciative that they received feedback on the same day as the observation.

San Leandro principal visits classrooms weekly to give feedback, both formal and informal.

Unlike Kearney, Leslie and San Leandro teachers did not describe their principals as frequent classroom visitors, nor that they modeled good instructional practice through PD.

Element: Leaders hold teachers accountable for quality






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit) instruction and student achievement Teacher accountability system is not clear from

evaluation form; evaluation process is not described in charter petition, and the descriptions in policy, procedure and handbook are inconsistent. No form for teacher evaluation (other than 1‐page goals) is provided (Apps. J, K, and O)

Evaluation policies, procedures, and forms for CEO, principals and teachers make no reference to student academic performance data.

Unknown how many of departing teachers were dismissed for poor performance.

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 1F At‐Risk Students

The school meets the educational needs of at‐risk students. The following elements are generally present: The school uses clear procedures for

identifying at‐risk students and including students with disabilities, English language learners and those struggling academically;

The school has adequate intervention programs to meet the needs of at‐risk students;

General education teachers, as well as specialists, utilize effective

No Analysis of student academic performance data shows persistent achievement gaps for English learners and socio‐economically disadvantaged students. These students do not perform as well as similar subgroups in the districts and schools FAME students would otherwise attend. Element: Uses clear procedures for identifying at‐risk students Teachers were unaware of the shift, described in the

charter petition as being implemented, to MTSS. Management acknowledged that the current student

information system is inaccurate and unreliable. No students were reported having 504s (App. A), no homeless students were identified (App. A), and counts of low‐income families were not accurate (2013 interview),







strategies to support students within the general education program;

The school adequately monitors the progress and success of at‐risk students;

Teachers are aware of their students’ progress toward meeting IEP goals, achieving English proficiency or school‐based goals for struggling students;

The school provides adequate training and professional development to identify at‐risk students and to help teachers meet students’ needs; and

The school provides opportunities for coordination between classroom teachers and at‐risk program staff including the school nurse/counselor, if applicable.

resulting in fluctuating numbers over the charter term. Review of random student files indicated some students

were not CELDT tested within the required window. Procedures described for identifying homeless students

were passive and inconsistent with federal guidelines. Given the number of low income and immigrant families served by FAME, having no identified homeless students is likely erroneous.

Steps described to support low‐income students were not implemented as stated in the charter petition; services provided to low‐income students are not tracked in any systematic way.

Teachers and administrators were able to explain the system they use for identifying their students in need of special education services.

Element: Adequate intervention programs Supports for students with IEPs have clear schedules. Students were observed working with paraprofessionals

in classes at all 3 classroom sites. Supports for independent study students with IEPs were not observed.

Parents, teachers and students stated that all students and all types of learners were highly supported. Several classrooms were observed with 2 or 3 adults in the classroom giving students, or small groups of students, individualized attention. A behavioral specialist was







present. In the past three years, ACOE received one complaint

regarding special education services and it was resolved by the school. The El Dorado SELPA reports FAME to be in good standing.

Schedules for direct ELD instruction for ELs are not consistent with FAME’s stated standard of 45 minutes per day. According to San Leandro principal (Director of Special Programs), schedules are revised based on regular assessments. Schedules for ELD instruction at Leslie, however, are aligned with grade level, rather than language proficiency.

Direct ELD instruction opportunities for independent study teachers are limited. Student “check‐ins” of varying length are scheduled, but extent to which these check‐ins provide direct ELD instruction is unclear.

General education teachers utilize effective strategies to target at‐risk students:

Effective scaffolding strategies designed to support English learners were not consistently evident in classroom observations.

At San Leandro, several teachers provided directions verbally but students were not clear on process and had to ask or be corrected multiple times, indicating lack of scaffolding or multi‐modal communication to support students who may have difficulty processing aurally







(whether they are ELs or native English speakers). In another San Leandro class (7th grade ELA), a teacher did

not address student understanding or completion, nor try to identify the reason for off‐task behavior to redirect a pair of students struggling with the assignment.

High school lecture‐style classes observed at Kearney did not exhibit any differentiation of instruction or support for ELs.

Element: Adequately monitors progress and success of at‐risk students FAME failed to reclassify any ELs as fluent English

proficient during the school years 11‐12 and 12‐13, resulting in a large increase in FEP reclassification in 13‐14 as “catch up”. Actual progress of ELs during this period is unknown.

Teachers described the reclassification and monitoring processes for FEP students in only general terms, stating that they are not significantly involved.

Students involved in the school’s RTI program are monitored during staff meetings. Practice varies among sites.

No data from ADEPT assessment (included in work plan from revocation proceeding) referenced; not included in charter petition.

Element: Teachers are aware of students’ progress






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, incl. past reporting or other visits – identify if other than renewal visit) Structure for SST meetings varied among the sites, with

Kearney having set times and Leslie’s SST meetings occurring on an as needed basis.

Element: Adequate training and PD to identify and help at‐risk students Schedule of ELD teachers at Kearney and Leslie did not

include time for ELD teacher coaching of classroom teachers.

In current and prior years, PD focused on serving the needs of ELs and special needs students has been provided, and in interviews, teachers shared a variety of EL strategies.

However, even a teacher who described using EL strategies for all of her students was not observed using those strategies in her San Leandro classroom, suggesting that strategies learned in PD have not yet been embedded in classroom practice and teachers are not being held accountable for their use.

Effectiveness of PD on strategies for at‐risk students is likely impaired by the high turnover rate of school faculty, with 37% of 2014‐15 teachers new to FAME.

Element: Opportunities for coordination between classroom teachers and at‐risk program staff ELD and special education teachers have opportunities to

participate in school site staff meetings and PD.


Reviewers: CSO, DBAS and HR Review Team Members Date Completed: April 7, 2015

Charter Renewal Standards and Evidence: Operations and Governance Page 1

Charter Renewal Standards: Evidence of Past Performance from Charter Renewal Site Visit and Other Sources Operations and Governance

Renewal Question 2 Is the organization effectively lead and managed?


Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, including past reporting or other visits/interactions – please identify)

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 2A Mission & Key Design Elements

The school is faithful to its mission and has implemented the key design elements included in its charter. The following elements are generally present: The school faithfully follows its mission;

and The school has implemented its key

design elements

Partial The following design elements of the charter renewed in 2010 were not being implemented as of April 2012, with the result that charter revocation was initiated: Teacher‐driven curriculum (2010 charter, pp. 29, 31) Multiple formative and summative assessment measures

(2010 charter, pp. 29, 52‐53) Academic Discovery Lab (2010 charter, pp.30, 33‐34) Integration of technology across the curriculum (2010

charter, pp. 30, 35) Code of conduct for school community (2010 charter, p.

30) Foreign language instruction with training using ACTFL

guidelines (2010 charter, pp. 30‐33) Individualized ELD support and collaborative planning

time and PD (2010 charter, pp. 30, 41‐43) The revocation proceeding ended with an action plan for implementation and a charter revision that eliminated the following elements: Academic Discovery Lab (2010 charter, pp. 30, 33); RTI

was substituted Project‐based learning (2010 charter, pp. 30, 34) Mini‐lessons (2010 charter, p. 30); differentiated







instruction was substituted Elements of the 2010 charter, as revised 2012, that are not yet completely implemented (per B. Wagoner report, site observations, board meetings, renewal petition) include: Multiple formative and summative assessment measures

o No K‐1 assessments o Only assessments included in DataDirector are

benchmarks and CST o All staff not proficient in DataDirector

Integration of technology across the curriculum o Tech plan not approved by CDE until summer

2014 (CDE); implementation beginning (board minutes)

o Ratio of computers to students is 4:1; not 1:1 as alleged in new petition cover letter (3/25/15 site visits)

o SmartBoard software has not been installed and teachers have not been trained (3/25/15 site visits)

o Management is unaware of requirements of federal Children’s Internet Protection Act and provided laptops to independent study students without required screening software (3/18/15 interview)

Individualized ELD support and collaborative planning time and PD







o No students reclassified fluent English proficient in 2011‐12 and 2012‐13 (CDE data)

o Direct ELD instruction time not consistent across sites at level committed to.

o Strategies for EL support in classroom not consistently used (3/25/15 site visits)

o English learner advisory group (ELAC‐equivalent) not formed until late 2014 (board minutes; 3/18/15 interview)

Design elements of the 2010 renewed charter, as revised in 2012, that are not implemented (as of 3/18/15 interview and 3/25/15 site visit) but were not included in the revocation proceeding include: FBI Adopt‐a‐School Program (2010 charter, p. 25) Green Charter School Network (2010 charter, p. 25) Student planned and implemented service projects;

(service projects at Kearney and San Leandro were staff led) (2010 charter, p. 25)

Recruitment outreach plan (2010 charter, p. 65) ACOE Renewal Benchmark 2B Organizational Capacity

The school organization effectively supports the delivery of the educational program. The following elements are generally present: The school has established an

administrative structure with staff, operational systems, policies and procedures that allow the school to

No Element: Administrative structure Senior positions on org chart remain unfilled, including

Director of Charter Development and Director of Operations; Director of Education first filled February 2015; Transitions Coordinator filled July 2014; principal at San Leandro has doubled up as special programs director for the past year (3/18/15 interview)







carry out its academic program; The organizational structure

establishes distinct lines of accountability with clearly defined roles and responsibilities;

The school has a clear student discipline system in place at the administrative level that is consistently applied;

The school retains quality staff; The school has allocated sufficient

resources to support the achievement of goals;

The school maintains adequate student enrollment;

The school has procedures in place to monitor its progress toward meeting enrollment and retention targets for diversity, special education students, English language learners and students who qualify for free and reduced price lunch, and adjusts its recruitment efforts accordingly; and

The school regularly monitors and evaluates the school’s programs and makes changes if necessary.

Student information system acknowledged to be inaccurate (3/18/15) with respect to students with special needs (e.g. 504 plans and ELs) and dates of enrollment (e.g. how many high school graduates have been enrolled since 9th grade)

School did not follow Standard Operating Procedure for hiring Director of Education or CEO (App. J); recruitment and interviews not conducted as stated (board minutes, 3/18/15 interview of Board Chair)

Element: Organization structure No board discussion of accountability or review of org

chart responsibilities (board observations March 2013 through January 2014)

Board titles and roles not as described in bylaws; Board Treasurer does not undertake tasks in bylaws; Board Chair does not know who Board Secretary is (3/18/15 interview, board observations)

Roles of consultants and staff shift at direction of CEO: CFO was assigned to manage litigation, behaviorist was assigned to investigate a teacher credential issue, operations consultant assigned to prepare LCAP (ACOE correspondence, observations)

Element: Student discipline system Student discipline system that mirrors Ed Code is in

place, although it lacks clarity in key areas: selection of suspension vs. expulsion and choice of administrative or







board hearing (2010 charter, p. 141) Element: Retains quality staff Substantial turnover of teachers and principals (App. A

and ACOE data): o 20% of more turnover per year over charter

term; 37% new teachers in 2014‐15 o Independent study has had 3 principals in

charter term; current principal new this year o Kearney has had 4 principals in charter term;

current principal in 2nd year o Leslie has had 4 principals in charter term;

current principal in 2nd year; o San Leandro has had 2 principals in charter term;

current principal in 3rd year Personnel policy and employee handbook inconsistent

with respect to evaluation process and to internal employee disputes; no form for guiding evaluation of teachers other than 1‐page development plan (Apps. J, K and O);

Instances of teachers hired without appropriate credentials, including high school social science, single subject independent study teachers, and upper level HS math independent study (ACOE records)

Element: Allocated sufficient resources Contrary to statement in charter (2010 charter, p. 5, 59;

renewal charter, p. 57), FAME has consistently not







applied for Title I funding to support low income students and stated it does not intend to do so through the next charter term (3/18/15 interview)

FAME did apply for and receive Title I for 2013‐14, but had to return the funds because it failed to implement the Title I plan (board observations; financial reports)

FAME has received Title III funding for ELs throughout the charter term, but has failed to provide required levels of EL support (specifically, direct ELD instruction) and to engage stakeholders (ELAC) (3/18/15 interview; Title III review; revocation proceeding)

FAME did not apply for eRate funding or submit a tech plan for CDE approval until spring 2014 (board observations and minutes, CDE and ACOE staff)

School pursued litigation with Fremont USD for facilities under Prop. 39, and settled with an agreement that provided FAME with 2 high school classrooms at Kennedy High School that included science labs; FAME chose not to use the space allocated in 2014‐15 and stated that it will not request space from FUSD again for secondary students (interview 3/18/15)

FAME opened a satellite space for independent study in Berkeley without required prior approval by County Board, and subsequently submitted a request for material revision, which was withdrawn; no subsequent request has been made for approval of space to serve







the identified need (ACOE/ACBE records) During the past 2 years, electives/enrichment and after‐

school opportunities have decreased; access to on‐line courses at the high school level (including AP) has increased (3/25/15 site visit)

Students, parents and teachers identify need for program improvements (3/25/15 site visit): more outdoor space, enrichment and elective classes, and afterschool programming. Renewal petition does not identify plans to provide these additional resources.

Element: Maintains adequate student enrollment School has experienced steady decline in enrollment

over the charter term; primarily in the independent study program (CDE, ACOE records)

Enrollment decline not predicted; ADA projections in budget exceeded actual results (financial reports)

Unanticipated enrollment changes disrupted educational program at San Leandro (under‐enrolled K) and Leslie (uneven distribution of students by grade) (site visits 3/25/15)

Element: Procedures to monitor enrollment Student information system contains unreliable data for

analyzing enrollment patterns (3/18/15 interview) School switched SIS programs from PowerSchool to

School Pathways for 13‐14; switching back to







PowerSchool for 15‐16 (3/18/15 interview) Recruitment for racial/ethnic diversity has been effective

at San Leandro, with the growth of the Hispanic enrollment through outreach to local organizations (CDE data; 3/25/18 site visit)

Other than San Leandro, outreach activities for diverse recruitment described in charter (2010 charter, p. 65) not implemented (site visits 2013, 2014 and 2015; FAME recruitment documents)

Element: Monitors and evaluates school programs Board engages in minimal review of progress of

academic program (4 agenda items on academic program results in last 15 governing board meetings observed); data limited and discussion negligible (board agendas and observations)

Data to review academic program limited: testing inconsistent from year to year (12‐13 CST, 13‐14 Curriculum Assoc. benchmark, 14‐15 Riverside benchmark); no data presented from other assessments (3/18/15 interview, board observations)

Despite 3 years of implementation of DataDirector, only CST and benchmark data entered into system (3/18/15 interview); extent of staff training not consistent (3/25/15 site visit)

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 2C

The charter school board works effectively to achieve the school’s Measurable Pupil and

No Board effectiveness, generally:







Board Oversight

Operational Outcomes. The following elements are generally present: Board members possess adequate skills

and have implemented structures and procedures with which to govern the school and oversee management of day‐to‐day operations in order to ensure the school’s future as an academically successful, financially healthy and legally complaint organization;

The board requests and receives sufficient information to provide rigorous oversight of the school’s program and finances;

The board establishes clear priorities, objectives and long‐range goals (including academic, fiscal, facilities and fundraising) and has implemented benchmarks for tracking progress as well as a process for regular review and revision;

The board successfully recruits, hires and retains key personnel, and provides them with sufficient resources to function effectively;

Governing board during initial term was not compliant with bylaws or conflict of interest standards (FCMAT report)

Board size was increased in September, 2010, but by early 2013 3 members were removed (in procedure violative of both bylaws and Brown Act) (ACOE correspondence, board minutes); replacements were recruited and selected by Board Chair (3/18/15 interview), who had also been appointed Interim CEO in 12/14/11 (public statement by CEO; no board minutes available).

From December 2011 until August 2014, Board Chair served in inconsistent dual capacity as Interim CEO (board minutes, board observations, Ferber audits); stayed in that position despite concerns expressed by ACOE

Board has operated during the charter term with agendas controlled by Board Chair/Interim CEO, no committees, inactive officers, very limited discussion of agenda items, and limited engagement with parents and other stakeholders (board observations, Ferber audits, 3/18/15 interview)

Of 5 current board members, only the Board Chair showed up for “meet the board” event at Kearney in spring 2015 (3/18/15 interview), charter renewal public hearing of 3/10/15, and charter renewal interview of







The board regularly evaluates its own performance and that of the school leaders and the management organization (if applicable), holding them accountable for student achievement; and

The board effectively communicates with the school community including school leadership, staff, parents/guardians and students.

3/18/15 Element: Board skills, structures and procedures Range of expertise among board members is not

consistent with the charter; members are concentrated in the computer science; none of the board members has experience in school administration, law or finance (2010 charter p. 113, renewal charter App. I)

As described above, board structures and procedures are minimal and provide little guidance to management (board observations)

Element: Rigorous board oversight of finance and program Board Chair and members do not develop the agenda

and rarely request items; scope of board oversight is controlled by CEO (board observations, 3/18/15 interview)

As described above, board oversight of academic program is limited (board observations, board minutes)

Board Chair’s and CFO’s descriptions of how often and in what form financial information is reported to the board; no clear protocol in place (3/28/15 interviews)

FCMAT recommended that management produce a cash flow report to the board monthly; included in fiscal procedural manual but not implemented after June 2010 (board agendas, interview 3/18/15)

Board Chair was not familiar with school’s cash







management challenges; believes the school has no debt and is improving financially; exhibited limited understanding of the impact of declining enrollment (3/18/15 interview)

Board request in April 16, 2014 to be provided with access to and training in use of CharterVision program for financial oversight still pending as of 3/18/15 interview

Element: Board establishes clear priorities Board has no strategic plan for the school; has not

initiated any planning process; has no metrics or school‐wide benchmarks to track progress (3/18/15 interview)

Board Chair was unable to identify any major school goals (3/18/15 interview)

Board engaged in minimal discussion of school plans to be reflected in charter renewal petition; no board action or review of charter renewal petition was undertaken between 12/18/14 and filing on 3/3/15 (board minutes, board observations, 3/18/15 interview)

Board Chair was not familiar with any of the goals or actions listed in the school’s LCAP (3/18/15 interview)

Element: Board recruits, hires and retains key personnel Charter, bylaws, policies and Standard Operating

Procedures are inconsistent regarding which hiring decisions are the board’s vs. the CEOs






Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit (or other sources, including past reporting or other visits/interactions – please identify) Key positions on org chart remained vacant for extended

periods, including CEO (2 ½ years vacant), Director of Education (vacant until 2/18/15), Director of Charter Development (vacant), Director of Operations (vacant), Director of Special Programs (held by current San Leandro principal)

Board action on CEO position contrary to charter, adopted policy, and best practice:

o Board Chair appointed by board to serve as interim CEO; served in incompatible positions of Chair and CEO during interim period, which extended over 2 years; no evidence of any effort to recruit a permanent CEO (board minutes)

o Board Chair did not meet qualifications for CEO position stated in charter (2010 charter, p.57)

o No evaluation of performance of interim CEO was conducted by the board (interview 3/18/15)

o Resignation of Board Chair and appointment to permanent, paid CEO position in August 2014 was done by board with no recruitment, no interviews, no stakeholder involvement, and no discussion by the board (board minutes, board observations, 3/18/15 interview)

o Qualifications for CEO adopted in January 2015 (5 months after hiring) reduced the level of knowledge and experience required (App. M)







o Board Chair did not know how the appointment of former Board Chair/Interim CEO to paid CEO position came to be placed on the board’s agenda; unaware of any recruitment, evaluation or interview process (3/18/15 interview)

Director of Education appointed 2/18/15 does not meet stated qualifications (renewal petition p. 16, App. M)

Element: Board evaluates its own performance No evidence of any self‐evaluation having been

performed by board Board Chair had never heard of idea of board self‐

evaluation (3/18/15 interview) Element: Board effectively communicates with community Board policies and practices include no structure for

representation of parents or other stakeholders (bylaws, board observations, 3/18/15 interview)

In early 2013, Interim CEO, with acquiescence of board, disbanded PTOs at Leslie and Kearney sites and required parent groups to be chapters of statewide PTA; replacement parent organizations not in place as of 3/25/15 site visits at Leslie or San Leandro

Board meetings are held at Newark offices, rather than at school sites; building is locked at time of meeting start (7 pm), discouraging participation; agendas and board notices are prepared in English only







ACOE Renewal Benchmark 2D Governance

The charter school board implements, maintains and abides by appropriate policies, systems and processes. The following elements are generally present: The board effectively communicates

with its management or partner organizations as well as key contractors such as back‐office service providers and ensures that it receives value in exchange for contracts and relationships it enters into, and effectively monitors such relationships;

The board takes effective action when there are organizational leadership, management, facilities or fiscal deficiencies, or when the management or partner organizations fails to meet expectations, to correct those deficiencies and puts in place benchmarks for determining if the partner organization corrects them in a timely fashion;

The board regularly reviews and updates board and school policies as needed and has in place an orientation process for new members;

No Element: Board effectively communicates with partner organizations Non‐financial filings required by the MOU with ACOE

have been on time and complete 53% of the time during the charter term (ACOE records)

School has failed to make timely payment of oversight fees to ACOE in 13 of 18 quarters over the charter term; repayment to ACOE of excess special education funding late by over 1 year (ACOE records)

ACOE has received complaints from Fremont USD of non‐compliance with contract terms for portables at Leslie site and failure to pay for food service provided by FUSD (ACOE records)

Board Chair is not familiar with cash flow support from Charter Asset Management; board apparently has no communications with CAM representatives (3/18/15 interview)

Relationship with landlord for San Leandro campus is positive (public hearing)

Element: Board takes effective action to respond to deficiencies FAME board has not responded to the following

deficiencies in management performance: (board observations)

o Declining enrollment o High staff turnover







The board effectively recruits and selects new members in order to maintain adequate skill sets and expertise for effective governance and structural continuity;

The board implements a comprehensive and strict conflict of interest policy – consistent with that set forth in the charter and as required by law –and consistently abides by it throughout the term of its charter;

The board generally avoids conflicts of interest; where not possible, the board manages those conflicts in a clear and transparent manner; and

The board abides by its by‐laws including, but not limited to, provisions regarding trustee election and the removal, and filing of financial disclosures.

o Lower academic performance of FAME students compared to Fremont USD and other neighboring districts

o Opening of independent study service center site in violation of charter law and MOU

o Failure to implement Title I plan and consequent return of federal funds

FAME board responded to failure to timely file request for nonclassroom funding with request that CEO implement a compliance tracking system (board observation); unclear if this has been undertaken

Board request for access to CharterVision system to be able to more closely monitor financials not acted upon (interview 3/18/15)

Element: Board reviews and updates policies Board policies are reviewed and updated by staff in

response to changes in the law identified by counsel; board has not been observed to initiate policy changes (board observations)

Element: Board recruits and selects new member Following removal of board members on January 21,

2013, recruitment of 3 new members done by Board Chair/Interim CEO with no involvement of other members (3/18/15 interview)

Board Chair not aware of how recent solicitation for new board members was initiated; could not identify any







specific expertise being sought (3/18/15 interview) Element: Board implements conflict of interest policy FPPC Form 700s have been filed by board members and

designated employees (documents requested for 3/18/15 interview)

Conflict of interest policy in place; board receives training on policy (board agendas, ACOE documents)

Element: Board avoid conflicts of interest No evidence of board members having financial conflicts

of interest (board agendas, financial reports) Conflict existed in incompatible offices of Board Chair

and Interim CEO for 2+ years (board minutes, Ferber audits, board observations)

Board members receive stipends of $275 per regular meeting in lieu of travel expenses; amount exceeds reasonable transportation expense to 1 meeting in Newark; stipends have not been disclosed on IRS Form 990 for past 3 returns (3/18/15 interview, IRS documents)

Element: Board abides by bylaws Brown Act (incorporated into bylaws) violations

identified or observed: o January 21, 2015: discussion of consent agenda

item without removal from consent; all materials not included in public binder

o October 15, 2014: creation of CEO committees to







circumvent open meeting laws (similar action considered August 2014); CEO report includes no description of topics

o September 17, 2014: no materials in public binder on current year unaudited actuals to be approved by board

o August 20, 2014: agenda items improperly added during meeting

o August 6, 2014: no materials in public binder on multiple items; mention of previous discussions on CEO appointment outside of board meeting

o June 4, 2014: agenda not posted at site of meeting

o April 16, 2014: personnel policy mislabeled on agenda; missing materials in public binder; items taken out of order without adjustment to approved agenda

o Multiple meetings: improper use of sign‐in sheets at board meetings, without required disclaimer

o Standard Operating Procedure for hiring violates Brown Act (App. J)

Minutes incomplete: o 10/15/14 missing decision to create CEO

committees and action on sale of receivables to Charter Asset Management (board agendas,







minutes, observations and audio recordings) Bylaws posted on school website not current; bylaws not

updated following board vote on 8/6/15 to have vice president automatically succeed to board chair

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 2 Parents and Students

Parents/Guardians and students are satisfied with the school. The following elements are generally present: The school regularly communicates

each child’s academic performance to families;

The school conducts an annual family and/or student survey;

Families express satisfaction with the school; and

Parents keep their children enrolled year‐to‐year.

Partial Element: School regularly communicates to families School provides information to families on individual

student performance through conferences, progress reports, report cards and informal communication

School posts SARC and LCAP on website; outreach and notification to parents regarding these reports minimal (website, 3/25/15 site visit parent interviews)

Parent concern from Kearney that meetings not convenient for working parents; advance notification of special events insufficient (3/25/15 site visit)

Two systems being piloted for parent access to student grades (Engrade at San Leandro and Canvas at Kearney); limited grades and access to date

Element: Annual family surveys LCAP parent survey provided (App. D) very limited; 12

responses for 1,000+ students School states that some parent surveys were done

previously by hand, but weren’t repeated because of difficulty of data analysis; results weren’t provided (3/18/15 interview)

School does not conduct exit interviews of dis‐enrolling







families (2013 and 2014 site visits) Element: Families express satisfaction with the school Families at interviews (2013, 2014 and renewal) and

renewal public hearing strongly expressed satisfaction 8 complaints received at ACOE by FAME parents,

addressing bullying, Special Ed, student treatment, facility conditions, administration, use of detention, and credentialing (ACOE records)

Element: Parents keep their children enrolled year‐to‐year As reported in App. A performance report,

approximately 2/3 of FAME students return from year‐to‐year, although school acknowledges uncertainty about the accuracy of the data (3/18/15 interview)

Student retention from 9th grade to graduation is reported in App. A as lower than 10%, but with acknowledgement that data is likely inaccurate

Overall enrollment has declined during the charter term from 1,480 in 2010‐11 to 1,332 in 2013‐14 (CDE data); most recent available data for 2014‐15 shows enrollment at 1,086 (ACOE data)




Renewal Question 3 Is the school being operated prudently and meeting all regulatory requirements?


Describe Evidence from Renewal Site Visit

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 3A Budget and Long‐Range Planning

The school operates pursuant to a long‐range financial plan in which it creates realistic budgets that it monitors and adjusts when appropriate. The following element are generally present: The school has clear budgetary

objectives and budget preparation procedures;

Board members, school management and staff contribute to the budget process, as appropriate;

The school frequently compares its long‐range fiscal plan to actual progress and adjusts it to meet changing conditions;

The school routinely analyzes budget variances and makes necessary revisions; and

Actual expenses are equal to, or less than, actual revenue with no material exceptions.

Partial Element: Clear budget objectives and procedures School has budgetary objectives reflected in budget

assumptions worksheets provided with regular financial reports and renewal petition financials (FAME financial reports, renewal petition App. E)

Budget assumptions in renewal petition and in some previous financial reports have been inconsistent with program descriptions and other financial worksheets (FAME financial reports, renewal petition App. E)

Charter continues to require support to balance and float the payables; requires loans to maintain a positive cash balance, due in part because of state deferrals, but may also reflect errors in budget preparation procedures, such as enrollment projection (FAME financial reports)

Element: Board, school management and staff contribute to budget process No evidence of parent or teacher contribution to

budget process (board minutes and observations) Participation of principals unclear: Leslie principal

not aware of hiring on‐site behaviorist (2014 site visit); Kearney principal not aware of decision not to seek lab facilities for 2015‐16 (3/25/15 interview)

Minimal stakeholder participation (low survey response) in development of LCAP expenditures for







2014‐15 (App. B) Element: Compares long‐range fiscal plan to actuals and adjusts Actual enrollment consistently lower than projection

in preliminary budget (FAME financial reports) Material variance between projected net operating

revenues and audited actuals (FAME financial reports)

Concerns with long range/long‐term fiscal management: budgets don’t include current year payables, deferring items that should be remitted in one‐year, to two to three year remittance schedule (FAME financial reports; audit reports)

Audit adjustments have been required every year since the 2005 approval. Those adjustments with significant materiality have decreased; however liabilities and general cash management health has declined (audit reports)

Element: Analyzes budget variances and makes revisions School makes revisions at 1st interim and 2nd interim

reporting periods; adjustments have been made for enrollment declines (FAME financial reports, board observations, 3/18/15 interview)

Element: Actual expenses are equal to or less than actual revenue During the charter term, from 2010‐11 through







2014‐15 (as projected at 2nd interim), the actual expenditures exceeded the revenues 3 times (FAME financial records, audit reports)

Unpredicted enrollment changes have impacted costs. For example, San Leandro under‐enrolled K and 7th for 14‐15; Leslie had to re‐align classroom sizes and grade configurations in the first few weeks of school.

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 3B Internal Controls

The school maintains appropriate internal controls and procedures. The following elements are generally present: The school follows a set of

comprehensive written fiscal policies and procedures;

The school accurately records and appropriately documents transactions in accordance with management’s direction, laws, regulations, grants and contracts;

The school safeguards its assets; The school identifies/analyzes risks and

takes mitigating actions; The school has controls in place to

ensure that management decisions are properly carried out and monitors and assesses controls to ensure their

Yes Element: School follows written fiscal policies Written fiscal policies adopted following FCMAT

audit and fiscal review; no current evidence of variance from policy (ACOE records)

Element: Accurately records and documents transactions Two exceptions known:

o Minutes for 10/22/14 incomplete with respect to vote on factoring receivables with CAM

o Contract for food service from Fremont USD in 14‐15 not in place (communication from FUSD)

Element: School safeguards assets Facilities well‐maintained (2013, 2014 and renewal

site visits) No evidence of theft of or serious damage to

equipment or furnishings (2013, 2014 and renewal site visits)







adequacy; The school’s trustees and employees

adhere to a code of ethics; The school ensures duties are

appropriately segregated, or institutes compensating controls;

The school ensures that employees performing financial functions are appropriately qualified and adequately trained;

The school has systems in place to provide the appropriate information needed by staff and the board to make sound financial decisions and to fulfill compliance requirements;

A staff member of the school reviews grant agreements and restrictive gifts and monitors compliance with all stated conditions;

The school prepares payroll according to appropriate state and federal regulations and school policy;

The school ensures that employees, trustees and volunteers who handle cash and investments are bonded to help assure the safeguarding of assets;

Element: School identifies/analyzes risks and takes mitigating action Facilities inspected for safety (2013 and 2014 visits) During charter term, school settled 3 wrongful

termination lawsuits (one lost at trial and subsequently settled); Standard Operating Procedures adopted to reduce future employment risks (board minutes, board observation)

Element: Controls in place to ensure management decisions are carried out, adequately Supervisory relationships in place; no evidence that

management decisions are not carried out Element: Trustees and employees adhere to code of ethics Board conflict of interest policy in place with training Employee Handbook includes code of ethics Element: Duties are segregated No evidence that practices are inconsistent with

fiscal policies Element: Finance employees are qualified and trained CFO qualified; school supplements staff with

established charter school back‐office contractor Element: Systems in place to provide information to make sound financial decisions and to fulfill compliance Board members requested access to CharterVision







and The school takes corrective action in a

timely manner to address any internal control or compliance deficiencies identified by its external auditor, the CSO, and/or the State Department of Education, if needed.

accounting and compliance tracking system in 2014; not provided as of 3/18/15 interview

Element: School reviews grant agreements and monitors compliance School was required to return Title I funds for failure

to implement the approved plan Management unfamiliar with eRate requirement for

compliance with Children’s Internet Protection Act (3/18/15 interview)

Element: Prepares payroll according to appropriate state and federal regulations Complaints received on 3 occasions regarding late or

incomplete payments to employees Element: Ensures that those who handle cash and investments are bonded Unknown Element: The school takes corrective action to address deficiencies School responded to FCMAT extraordinary audit

with corrective action plan; also took action following FCMAT fiscal review (FCMAT audit 2009, FCMAT review 2010, follow‐up correspondence); not all efforts sustained (see Corrective Action Summaries)

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 3C

The school has complied with financial reporting requirements by providing ACOE and

Partial Element: Timely accurate and complete reporting Over the term of the charter, the school has submitted







Financial Reporting

the State Department of Education with required financial reports that are on time, complete and follow generally accepted accounting principles. The following reports have generally been filed in a timely, accurate, and complete manner: Annual financial statement audit

reports, including federal Single Audit report, if applicable;

Annual budget and cash flow statements;

First and second interim reports of income and expenses;

Monthly enrollment reports; Special education maintenance of effort

reports; and Grant expenditure reports.

timely financial reports only 50% of the time. Corrected filings have been required on multiple occasions. (FAME financial reports, ACOE compliance tracking logs) Special education maintenance of effort reports

have not been provided Grant expenditure reports have not been provided,

although school’s receipt of restricted grant funds (other than Title III) is minimal

ACOE Renewal Benchmark 3D Financial Condition

The school maintains adequate financial resources to ensure stable operations. Critical financial needs of the school are not dependent on variable income (grants, donations and fundraising). The following elements are generally present: The school maintains sufficient cash on

hand to pay current bills and those that are due shortly;

Element: Maintains sufficient cash With the exception of several periods when the

school found it necessary to sell its receivables to maintain positive cash on hand to pay current bills (discussed above), the school has otherwise maintained sufficient cash. (FAME financial reports, audit reports)

Element: Maintains adequate liquid reserves During the charter term, the school has maintained a







The school maintains adequate liquid reserves to fund expenses in the event of income loss;

The school prepares and monitors cash flow projections;

If the school includes philanthropy in its budget, it monitors progress towards its funding goals on a periodic basis; and

The school accumulates unrestricted net assets that are equal to or exceed three percent of annual expenditures.

beginning fund balance that contains liquid reserves to partially fund expenses in the event of a potential income loss. (FAME financial reports, audit reports)

Element: Prepares and monitors cash flow projections Cash flow projections are prepared for required

financial reports. Some cash flow projections have not included timely clearance of outstanding payables. (FAME financial reports, audit reports)

Corrective action identified in response to FCMAT reviews included presenting monthly cash flow to the board. This practice is not currently in place. (FCMAT fiscal review, 3/18/15 interview)

Element: Monitors progress toward philanthropic funding goals No philanthropic funding goals identified. Element: Accumulates unrestricted net assets > 3% School has accumulated unrestricted net assets

equal to or exceeding three percent of annual expenditures during the charter term. (FAME financial reports, audit reports)

LKM/ kk

Item No: 7 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools RE: Resolution No. 1990 for Missed Board Meetings Background: Education Code 35120 provides that the monthly compensation provided to Board members shall be commensurate with the percentage of meetings attended during the month unless otherwise authorized by Board resolution, and specifies limited circumstances under which the Board is authorized to compensate a Board member for meetings he/she missed. Action Requested: Requesting Board excuses the absences of V.P. Aisha Knowles for the reasons indicated in writing or in public. Attachments: Res. No. 1990

1

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION RESOLUTION No. 1990

RESOLUTION ON BOARD COMPENSATION FOR MISSED MEETINGS (Aisha Knowles)

WHEREAS, the Alameda County Board of Education appreciates the services provided by members of

the Board and provides compensation for meeting attendance in accordance with Education Code 35120 and Board Bylaw 9250; and

WHEREAS, Education Code 35120 provides that the monthly compensation provided to Board

members shall be commensurate with the percentage of meetings attended during the month unless otherwise authorized by Board resolution; and

WHEREAS, Education Code 35120 specifies limited circumstances under which the Board is

authorized to compensate a Board member for meetings he/she missed; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that Aisha Knowles did not attend the Board meeting(s) on March 10,

2015 for the following reason(s): (check applicable reasons) [ ] Performance of other designated duties for the district during the time of the meeting [ x] Illness or jury duty [ ] Hardship deemed acceptable by the Board NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board approves full compensation of the Board

member for the month of March. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Alameda County Board of Education on this 14th day of April,

2015 by the following vote:

AYES: _______ NOES: ________ ABSENT: ________ ABSTAIN:_________

________________________________ ______________________________ Marlon McWilson, President L. Karen Monroe, Superintendent of Schools Alameda County Board of Education Alameda County Office of Education

JP/kk

Item No: 8 Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 TO: Alameda County Board of Education FROM: Jeff Potter, Executive Director, District Business & Advisory Services RE: Disposal of Print Shop Surplus Equipment Background: ACOE occasionally has broken and/or obsolete equipment that requires proper disposal. Currently, the organization is seeking to dispose the attached listing of equipment from the former print shop. ACOE is therefore seeking the Board’s review in accordance with the following Education Code:

1279.(b) The county superintendent of schools shall not in any manner dispose of any personal property worth less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) that belongs to the county office of education unless he or she certifies the value of the property in a quarterly report and submits that report to the county board of education for its review.

Action Requested: Review the attached listing of equipment to be disposed of. Attachments: List of equipment intended for disposal

DescriptionAB Dick 9980 PressPlockmatic VF1008 Feeder Pro (Digital Screen Faulty)

BM 2000 BinderFTR 2000 TrimmerSQF 2000 Square Folder

TR Bourg Collator/Trimmer Model-TrimmerAB Dick ScanmasterAB Dick DPM 34 HSC Digital PlatemakerBostich Model#7 Wire Stitching MachineMultigraphics Model 1650 Plate MakerEasy-Lam II 27" LaminatorGBC 4250 LaminatorFastback Model 15 Binding MachineEpson Stylus Pro 7600Martin Yale CV-7 Auto FolderGBC 16-FB-2 Binding MachineKreonite Model 40-424ERO-65 SinkMartin Yale 410 Paper JoggerRobbie R-138 Shrink Wrap MachineIdentification Product 12" Pouch Laminator Model 7020Antique Dark Room TimerGBC Puncking Machine 116-EP-2Spinnit by Lassco Floor Model FM-2Misc. Additional Print Shop Equipment w/ little value

PRINT SHOP SURPLUS ITEMS

Educational Services Summary Report Reporting Period: Through April 2015

Department Director Summary

Integrated Learning

Louise Music

Arts Learning – Ray Cagan • On March 4th and 5th, Ray Cagan presented to the CA Bilingual

Educators Conference in San Diego on ACOE’s work to bring arts integration into the Alameda County court and community schools.

• On March 17th, Ray Cagan gave two presentations at the statewide Creativity at the Core gathering. The first presentation was with Jean Johnstone of Teaching Artist’s Guild, on ACOE’s court and community schools arts integration project. The second presentation targeted district and school administrators, provided training on how to integrate the arts across the curriculum and with Common Core State Standards.

Connected Learning – Tina Silverstein

• Digital Learning Day Kickoff of ACOE Future Ready Series for ACOE Staff— Short introductions to digital learning and productivity tools. Topics Covered: Google Forms, Free Digital Learning Resources, Twitter as a Professional Learning Tool, and QR Codes. These bite-sized digital tools trainings will be offered monthly.

• Leading Edge Online and Blended Teacher Certification Course – Wrapping-up the current cohort for this course. First time a higher education professor has enrolled and completed the ACOE offering of this course. Another first— first course participant from outside of the United States. A teacher from El Salvador was part of this cohort. He wants to implement blended learning and there is no professional development about this topic in El Salvador.

District and Regional Initiatives – Carolyn Carr

• Led Alliance Steering Committee in Engaging Stakeholders process • Planning Cross Sector Collective Impact Convening, April 28 • Inventing Our Future 2015— Keynotes secured: Sarah Crowell;

Shawn Ginwright; Joanna Macy; Shirley Brice Heath; Ken Wesson • Attended Arts In Education Conference, Bethesda for STTARTS

grantees

Integrated Learning Specialist Program (ILSP) – Mariah Landers • ILSP was awarded an AAEMD grant in October 2014. This grant


will support the work to bring the full ILSP to Alliance Middle School and Roots Middle School in East Oakland with additional one-on-one coaching, and school-wide support for technology integration to support the learning of ILSP content.

• Mariah Landers presented the collaboration between Oakland Museum of California and ACOE at the National Arts and Education Association Conference held in New Orleans. It was well received by educators nationwide. Mariah discussed how staff and docents at OMCA understand student centered learning and develop ways to build student and teacher connections to the museum and modalities for student driven learning as a means of supporting Common Core and structural changes in Education across the Bay Area and California.

• ILSP successfully completed Courses A and B in San Francisco and Courses A, B, and C in East Bay.

• ILSP Course A is running in Marin County and New Haven Unified with their assessment leaders. Summer courses begin and continue in Solano, SF, East Bay, Marin and New Haven this summer.

Out-of-School Time / Expanded Learning – Joe Hudson, Jackie Shonerd • The 6th Annual Region 4 Bridging the Bay Afterschool Conference ,

January 31 in Oakland, featured 70 workshop sessions and was very well received by 647 workshop participants and another 100 people including presenters, exhibitors and youth performers. The full conference program can be viewed at: http://www.acoe.org/acoe/files/Communications/BridgeProgram_2015_FINAL_FULL.pdf

• Upcoming Region 4-sponsored conferences and trainings include the Middle School Mini-Conference at the California Endowment in Oakland on May 14, the High School ASSETs Training for new grant managers and staff (designed for ACOE’s Community Schools and others) at the San Leandro Public Library on June 23, and the Region 4 Kickoff Conference in Solano on August 4.

Power of Discovery STEM2 – Jackie Shonerd

• We held our 3rd successful training on the Dimensions of Success (DoS) STEM Program Quality Observation Tool from the Harvard PEAR Center. Twenty-two people attended the 2-day training and can now move to the next steps in becoming certified observers. Many were from Hayward’s YEP afterschool programs, as was the

http://www.acoe.org/acoe/files/Communications/BridgeProgram_2015_FINAL_FULL.pdf

http://www.acoe.org/acoe/files/Communications/BridgeProgram_2015_FINAL_FULL.pdf


majority who attended our August DoS training. More information on the tool is at http://www.pearweb.org/tools/flyers/DoS_Brochure.pdf

Teacher Pathways/ILSP/School Transformation Through the Arts (STTArts) – Joelle Fraser

• ACOE’s Alternative Certification work group met on March 4th. Another meeting scheduled on April 2nd to go over alarm statement PowerPoint, strategic plan, and discussion on how to engage the Advisory Committee. Planning for the May Arts & Activism in Education meeting.

• Continued with the planning and implementation of the STTArts grant. Running ILSP courses in East Bay, San Francisco, Solano, and Contra Costa, and Marin County

Core

Learning Jamie

Marantz Leadership

• Core Coaching Network (monthly) o 9 districts participate by sending Common Core and other

instructional coaches and leaders to learn and collaborate on implementing best practices of Common Core implementation.

• Curriculum Council: PLC and PD for chief academic officers of the 18 Alameda County school districts

• Tier 2 program: Becoming an affiliate of ACSA (Association of California School Administrators) in order to administer a clear credential program for administrators starting July 1, 2015.

Conferences/Presentations • CUE: Computer Using Educators: Jamie Marantz presented

‘Latest & Greatest Formative Assessment Tools’ • Making Math Expo: Planned and created a Making event in

partnership with Lighthouse Community Charter on 3/28 with over 100 participants

Math District Level Professional Development

• OUSD: Roots: Common Core PD and Leadership support – ongoing

• San Lorenzo USD: Secondary Math Training: Common Core Lesson Design, Math Pathways and Course Sequence – ongoing

http://www.pearweb.org/tools/flyers/DoS_Brochure.pdf


(until June )

Parent/Community Engagement Meetings • Pleasanton: Parent engagement day for Math (4/25)

Workshops at ACOE: Open to any participant • Productive Math Discussions (1/22)

C-STEM: Computing & Robotics • Ongoing Network of C-STEM teachers support meetings –

training monthly (1/19 and 2/9) Regional Work

• Region 4 Math Meeting – San Mateo COE Oakland Museum of California

• Participated in the Think Tank for creating new and engaging exhibits and activities for OMCA to better serve teachers and students.

Literacy District/School Professional Development

• Castro Valley: Literacy Design Collaborative Model for Common Core aligned writing training for secondary teachers

• Fremont Unified: Technology & Literacy Workshop as well as ongoing Literacy Network focusing on Writing for Elementary teachers

• Newark: Series of Literacy Workshops: SBAC Digital Library, Critical Reading Strategies

• Northern Light School: Ongoing (bi-weekly) professional development training for writing workshop model of teaching writing

• Roots International Middle School: Ongoing (bi-weekly) professional development to support planning units and lessons aligned to rigor of the Common Core Standards

• San Leandro Unified: 15 days of professional development for the Educational Innovators of SLUSD that focused on Project Based Learning, new literacies, Common Core rigorous curriculum and technology integration

Workshops at ACOE: Open to any participant • ERWC: Expository Reading & Writing Course for high school

teachers • Creating SBAC Like Assessments • Technology Integration in Literacy


Educational Technology Trainings District/School Professional Development

• San Leandro Innovators Training: Five (5) day training focused on Project based Learning integration with New Literacy Technology tools and tips. Ten (10) more days upcoming before end of June.

Workshops at ACOE: Open to any participant • Chromebook Management for Beginners (2/5) • Google Classroom Workflows (2/11) • Websites for Teachers: Create your own teacher webpage (2/26)

Other Activities and Services

• Career Pathways Trust (CPT): Began our work of creating UC a-g compliant courses that are also CTE certified for inclusion into pathways for participating districts in the grant

• Alameda County Spelling Bee: Two finalists made it to the state Bee!

• Maria Vlahiotis chosen as a reviewer of new Common Core aligned ELA/ELD materials

• Ongoing development of Core Learning website to share resources with districts

Research,

Assessment & Accountability Partnerships

Ingrid Roberson

Accountability: • All districts including SPaS are invited to attend a work session

focused on completing a particular section of the 15-16 LCAP. April is focused on the budget and May will be focused on the entire draft LCAP for feedback.

• Starting in January, RAAP began one-to-one meetings with districts, at their request, for personalized technical assistance. Technical assistance will be provided through June.

• ACOE’s Accountability Network continues to meet every other month, focused on federal and state accountability requirements. The meeting is attended by accountability directors, managers and coordinators from our districts.

Assessment: • Throughout the Spring, RAAP will make presentations to parents

and teachers on the new assessment system at districts’ request.

• ACOE’s Assessment Network continues to meet monthly focused on the summative and interim assessments. The


meeting is attended by assessment directors, managers and coordinators from our districts.

Research (Career Pathways): • RAAP has started a Phase I study of 10 districts’ student

information systems and Career Pathways data collection and management systems. This will inform CPT’s data approach to collecting K-12 data.

Student

Programs and Services

Monica Vaughan

School News and Events • Graduates – ACOE has 58 graduates to date in the 2014-15

School year! 10 at Butler Academic Center 11 at Camp Wilmont Sweeney 3 at Cal-SAFE 2 at Thunder Road 3 at Bridge Academy 28 at Quest Independent Studies

• June Graduation on Wednesday 6/17/2015 at 6:00 pm – Commencement activities for the Class of 2015 will be held at San Leandro Performing Arts Center at 2250 Bancroft Avenue, San Leandro. All June graduates will participate in this ceremony (as opposed to prior years when we hosted two June ceremonies.) We are looking forward to celebrating with any Board Members who are able to join us. Board members will also be invited to participate in pre-graduation activities soon.

• Middle School Promotion Ceremony – Our first ever Middle School Promotion and Awards Ceremony will be held at Butler Academic Center Multipurpose Room on May 21, 2015 at 11:00am, with lunch to follow after. Please join us to help recognize the accomplishments of our youngest students.

• CASAPP Testing begins the week of 4/20 and rolls through the week of 6/8 – In order to maximize technical support and minimize disruption of learning, state testing will be phased across sites, following the below schedule:

4/23-5/1 – CST @ Community 5/4-5/8 – CST @ Court 5/1-5/4 – CAT @ Community 5/12-5/13 – CAHSEE @ All Sites 5/14-5/15 – CST @ Quest 5/18-5/22 – CAT @ Quest


5/26-5/29 – CAT @ Sweeney 6/1-6/12 – CAT @ Butler

• Classroom Technology goals met, and exceeded – This year SPaS has met its goal of having at least one student computer for every two students across all sites, a huge leap from the beginning of this school year. Many community school sites have opted to invest in additional student computers and we now have 1:1 student laptops at Bridge, Burke, Fruitvale, Thunder Road, and Hayward Community School (which took delivery of three new carts of Chromebooks in March.) We are beginning a pilot at Quest in which we provide Chromebooks with wireless internet access to students who don’t have other access to distance learning technology.

• Open House Family Celebration and Meeting – On 3/19 SPaS Community Schools hosted a joint Open House, School Site Council and DELAC meeting. 40+ Families were able to visit with staff and see student work at Fruitvale, Burke, and Bridge while video-linking across sites to learn about and give feedback to the schools.

• After School Program – SPaS has partnered with Moving Forward Education to fully implement after school and extended learning programming funded by a 21st Century ASSETS grant at Bridge, Burke, Fruitvale, and Hayward Community. Offerings include credit recovery, tutoring, job readiness, movement, and leadership opportunities.

• Spring Intersessions – New this spring, our 21st Century ASSETS program is not just for after school! The ASSETS program will be piloting offsite credit recovery intersession programs in Emeryville for Bridge students and Hayward for Burke students. Arts enrichment programs will also be offered at Butler Academic Center and Camp Wilmont Sweeney during the spring break week of 4/6-4/10.

• Freedom Schools will be returning to Camp Sweeney this summer. Three ACOE staff will join a team from Probation and the Lincoln Child Center at the national training by the Children’s Defense Fund this spring and run this enrichment program this summer.

• Butler Science Enrichment – Science classes at Butler Academic Center have been featuring enrichment experiences including presentations about wild cats from Felidae and visits with reptiles from the East Bay Vivarium.


• Infant and Family Support Program transition to Natural

Environment – Transition completed at the Valley (Dublin) site, and in process at Peixoto (Hayward) to complete by May 1st and Burbank (Oakland) site to complete by June 1st. In the Natural Environment model, staff works with student in their homes, parks, or other places from daily life rather than just in classrooms.

• IFS program is growing – The minimum number of students served rose from 42 to 46. Families are receiving weekly home visit meetings, monthly play group meetings, and monthly parent support meetings. Staff reorganization allowed additional service to the northernmost Alameda County cities.

Professional Development

• Response to Intervention (RtI) – SPaS Community Schools are moving deeper into implementing school-wide RtI. The RtI process begins with high-quality instruction and universal screening of all students to look for and systematically address struggles. In SPaS programs we are screening each student every month for barriers to learning in Academics, Attendance, Behavior and Health. School teams including teachers, IAs, support staff, and partners are becoming sophisticated about looking at student data and providing targeted interventions.

• 3/6 Professional Development Day – SPaS hosted all Court and Community School Teachers and Instructional Assistants for a day of learning about literacy instruction and interventions, a need identified by our RtI Team. This day continued the work of our August and November learning, going deeper with Literacy Interventions and technology tools for teachers, including: o Literacy across the Content Areas: Staff learned practical

strategies for helping kids with summarizing and making meaning from non-fiction texts, with a especial focus on resistant readers.

o Reading Skills and Intervention: Staff in this workshop learned to use the Lexia and Reading Plus Software to do differentiated reading instruction. Lexia Strategies is a computer-based remedial reading program that focuses on fundamental literacy skills, starting at first grade skill levels, with a more mature, age-appropriate interface. It’s partner program, Reading Plus, is a web-based program for students closer to grade level that transforms how, what,


and why students read while broadening interests and building knowledge.

o English Language Development: Teachers in a pilot program trained in the 3D English Program to build Academic Literacy Skills for intermediate and advanced English Language Learners who need to build vocabulary and develop the skills to communicate powerfully in school and career environments.

o Technology Tools: All staff were also able to spend time learning LAN School to supervise student screens in the classroom, Aeries.net to access student records, or NewsELA to acquire news articles in which the same content is written at the different reading levels of a class.

Accountability

• SPaS has begun their official Federal Program Monitoring audit. From April 1st through April 3rd staff at the CDE will review documents submitted by Christina Faulkner as evidence of compliance for Federal programs. The programs being audited for 2015 are: Title I Part A (Compensatory Education), Title I Part D (Neglected and Delinquent), Homeless Education Services, Fiscal Monitoring, English Learners, and Uniform Complaint Procedures. There are 96 areas within the 6 programs we must show compliance in.

• SPaS staff have been attending the LCAP workshops provided at ACOE and begun to draft the 2015-16 LCAP. An overview of the LCAP was presented at the Community Schools Open House in March and students and parents are currently submitting feedback and ideas for funding via the online and paper survey. The survey can be found here: www.acoe/SpaSLCAP .

Foster Youth Services (FYS)

• FYS program manager, Foster Focus data manager (Sacramento COE), Alameda County’s DCFS data manager, ACOE’s CALPADS manager, and SPAS budget manager met at ACOE’s computer lab. Data sharing development moved forward significantly as all parties met and reviewed respective data programs dealing with foster youth.

• FYS, Oakland USD, and Alameda County’s Independent Living Skills program met to discuss how to be more efficient in obtaining school records for ILSP participants.

http://www.acoe/SpaSLCAP


• FYS program manager and staff began discussion regarding

AB854. The preceding bill will impact the future program design of FYS statewide.

• Program manager attended annual Foster Youth Education Summit and FYS coordinator’s meeting hosted by Southern California FYS programs. The summit focused on districts working with foster youth, LCAPs, and foster youth identification challenges.

McKinney-Vento (MKV)

• MKV RFA was submitted in February with the help of ACOE’s resource developers. Award notification has not yet been posted.

• MKV forms used at Butler Academic Center were revised. Transition Center (TC)

• Located at the Juvenile Justice Center, ACOE professional expert (PE) provided school re-entry support for 208 youth. An MSW Intern is also at the Transition Center offering assistance two days a week.

• PE attends bi-monthly case collaboration meetings with other service providers in TC to discuss youth and services provided, to discuss best practices as well as ensure needs are met.

• With TC partners, PE participated in Gang Awareness Training sponsored by Oakland USD.

• Collaboration with community based agencies continues (e.g. Soulciety, Eden Youth and Family Center, Berkeley Youth Alternatives, and Youth Employment Partnership).

Mental Health and Social-Emotional Support Systems

• SPAS staff and Superintendent have been meeting with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services and behavioral health care providers to further discuss points of future collaboration. Meeting was followed-up by a visit to Fremont High School to see mental health services provided by Lincoln.

• School Social Worker supported community school students in completing applications for Youth Radio’s media training program. Several students were granted interviews to participate in their spring session.

• School Social Worker participated in CSUEB’s MSW Field Fair in


order to start recruitment of MSW interns for the 2015-2016 school year.

• School Social Worker continues to develop relationships with therapists at Alameda County Medical Center’s Highland Sexual Assault Center in order to provide no-cost mental health services to students who have been victims of sexual assault. Several students have been able to take advantage of these services.

Project EAT

(Educate, Act, Thrive)

Chris Boynton

Carol White • Initial data from our first round of year 2 evaluations:

o Fruit & Veggie: Last year, 24% of students consumed 3 or more fruits and 2 more vegetables per day. In our first round of surveys for this year, that number went up to 30.3%.

o Pedometers: Last year 23% of students tallied 9,000 or more steps per day. This year the number went up to 46.4%.

o 3 Day Physical Activity Recall Survey: Last year 27% of students engaged in at least 60 minutes of physical activity per day. This year the number rose to 41.4%.

• Provided FAN class series at Madison, Garfield and McKinley elementary schools.

• Wellness Liaison Training— Alliance for a Healthier Generation full day professional development

• Evaluation— Pedometer testing – 2nd window for year 2 • Professional development training for physical education

teachers • Attended national physical education conference • Observations and interviews at sites

Harvest of the Month

• Our 16,059 students received their own personal Brussels sprout for the month of February and a mandarin orange for March. They’ll receive their own peeled yellow or orange carrot with a little green on top for April.

• The afterschool program has been receiving healthy recipes— coleslaw and yogurt with fruit. Next month will be carrot crudité.

• Classrooms led Rethink Your Drink lessons with sliced orange flavored water with their March tasting. School events in April


and May will have RTYD stations to reinforce the importance of hydrating without sugary drinks.

Get Fresh Stay Healthy (GFSH)

• Students in Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and Alameda were hired and trained to become our spring peer-to-peer GFSH nutrition education interns.

• The Alameda County Social Services Agency came out to visit trainings at Tennyson High School and the farm. They were happy to see students demonstrating their new knowledge and showing leadership as they prepared for their upcoming events.

• Interns have been leading grow festivals and workshops to educate our communities about nutrition, vegetable gardening, cooking and physical activity.

Booklet

• The Project EAT booklet is looking great and close to production. The cover is attached below and the whole 16-page booklet is available upon request. The following themes are highlighted in the brochure: cultivating; learning; strengthening; achieving; leading; and partnering.

• The booklet discusses our many accomplishments and offerings and will be an excellent way to promote our program.


Tennyson High School (THS) Community Garden

• Continue to get new members for the THS Community Garden • Sponsored the first in a series of Landscape Design Workshops

for community gardeners and students in partnership with Planting Justice

• Taught Iron Chef competitions as part of Food Justice Unit with the Community MultiMedia Academy

• Met with the Seed Lending Library to discuss collaborating on a city-wide campaign for growing out heirloom beans

• Garden mentors started working at Elementary Schools leading garden clubs and supporting family garden days

• GFSH interns helped to host a Grow Festival at the THS Farm on March 28th with 25 students from CSUEB Freshmen Day of Service

• THS Community Garden meeting also held on March 28th • Interns presented Project EAT, the THS Farm, and the Pathways

to Careers at the Alameda Board of Supervisors on National Agriculture Day and were well received

CalFresh AB402 • Trained 9 Project EAT interns in English at THS Get Fresh! Stay

Healthy! meeting • Presented to THS Parent Café in Spanish; about 15 attended • Tabled at Hayward High Health Fair with YPAR interns and

Shamia Sandles; about 100 students and staff visited the CalFresh table

• Presented to Hayward High Grupo Café in Spanish; about 22 attended

Summer and After School Youth Employment Program (SASYEP) • 5 youth were enrolled, oriented, and cleared to work • 14 youth received coaching and case management around

educational goals, emotional support, understanding resources and overcoming barriers to success

• 2 new local job sites were identified and oriented in working with youth interns

• 4 youth were placed at paid jobs in their communities • 1 youth enrolled in high school, adult school or a credit recovery

program as part of participation in the program • Working with a positive youth development committee of the


Positive Youth Justice Initiative to produce better outcomes for youth who are involved in child welfare and probation “crossover youth”

• Currently recruiting new interns to hire, train and place at work sites in their communities

Paradise Garden • Member Meetings held monthly • March Workshop by Sandra Nevala-Lee, Landscape Designer,

topic: Native Plants Attract Beneficial Insects • April Workshop: Beekeeping • GFSH interns to be trained at San Lorenzo High on how to build

raised garden beds; they will teach/lead this activity for the community on May 3

• Youth Garden Mentors will lead “Be Healthy in the Garden” workshops at Open House event on April 4

Community Outreach

• April 11 Community Forum, YPAR Student Project Showcase and film screening of The Apple Pushers at the Hayward Library

• Eden Area Livability Initiative (EALI) Environmental & Agriculture Coordinating Team - research ranching, agriculture/environmental educational job trainings & internships

• EALI Joint Meeting with Education, Environmental & Agriculture Working Groups, April 27

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR)

• All the Hayward schools have collected data from their student population. YPAR group at Tennyson High completed a survey and analyzed the results on survey monkey. YPAR group at Hayward High facilitated a focus group for 9-11 grade students and also administer an online survey at their health fair. YPAR group at Mount Eden High conducted a PhotoVoice project and analyzed pictures of their campus. All the groups will be presenting their results at the Hayward Main Library on April 11.

Civic Engagement Kick-Off Breakfast and Panel Discussion

• Two YPAR students from Hayward High were asked to explain


how participating in YPAR has helped them and their school. They also participated in a brief interview video for ACOE.

Hayward High Health Fair

• Project EAT partnered with HealthCorp in the Hayward High Health Fair. YPAR interns were able to collect survey results from their peers at the event. It was well-attended with representatives from over a dozen local health agencies, including the Golden State Warriors and Mayor Halliday.

Harder Family Clean Up Day

• Students from the Garden Mentor Internship at Tennyson High participated as youth leaders at Harder Elementary’s Garden Clean Up Day. The event was hosted by the Mission Continue, a non-profit who connects veterans to local volunteer opportunities. The interns worked with families to revamp the elementary school’s garden.

Kaiser Mid-Program Board Review

• Two interns accompanied Melissa Morris and Shamia Sandles for a presentation to the Southern Alameda County Kaiser Board of Directors. The interns were asked about their experiences. Each intern explained how the internship has changed them and their community.

Community Garden Day

• Garden mentors will be holding workshops at Paradise and Tennyson community gardens.

Pathways to College and

Career

Chris Boynton

Career Pathways Trust Grant I • Data Contract underway to provide support for 11 school

districts • Professional Development ( Core) contract for the creation of

integrated courses for career sectors Career Pathways Trust Grant II

• Invitation to an interview April 20 Yes We Code

• Exploration of being the fiscal lead for ICT apprenticeship programs


SB1070 Data Committee

• Working across segments on Data Policy Statewide Pathway Data team

• Working collaboratively with CC to agree on measures and create systems for consistent naming and norming

• Facilitated meeting at the California Community College Adult Occupational Educators between CC and K12 (including CDE)

California

Healthy Kids and After

School Resource

Center

Maria Casey

CHKRC and CASRC Service Data Data on the services provided by the California Healthy Kids Resource Center (CHKRC) and the California After School Resource Center (CASRC) are compiled quarterly.

• The CHKRC and the CASRC scheduled, shipped, and circulated 458 academic and health instructional and professional development materials in 22 subject areas from March 1 to April 7. A total of 1,146 academic and health instructional and professional development materials in 22 subject areas were shipped from January 1 to March 31, 2015.

• Maintained and updated the center’s online training platform and awarded certificates to 663 teachers, after school providers, and educators for completing professional development from 49 CHKRC and CASRC academics, health education, nutrition, physical activity, and health services online trainings for March 1 to April 7. Certificates were awarded to 2,023 teachers, after school providers, and educators from January 1 to March 31, 2015.

• Developed and distributed three electronic CHKRC and CASRC updates for March 2015 to 6,156 subscribers per campaign, highlighting new materials and training opportunities available from the center. Sent 12 electronic CHKRC and CASRC updates to 6,156 subscribers per campaign from January 1 to March 31.

• Maintained, checked, updated, and added new content to the CHKRC and CASRC websites. There were 26,044 site visits and 94,995 page visits from January 1 to March 31 for both websites.

CASRC

• Participated in seven after school outreach events to provide presentations and exhibits, making contact with more than 200 after school educators and other stakeholders around the state. The professional development topics offered by CASRC


presenters included integrating the English Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State Standards, as well as the Visual and Performing Arts through the Learning in After School and Summer Principles.

• Designed, published, and distributed 2,906 copies of print library catalogs for after school program staff.

• Published and distributed two quarterly, electronic newsletters for after school professionals focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) and Quality Standards for Expanded Learning Programs.

• Co-chaired the statewide CDE After School Division’s Policy Guide Committee.

FRESHMeals@School

• Coordinated, participated, and provided support and exhibits for six conferences in Clovis, Turlock, Natomas, Encinitas, Conejo Valley, and reaching more than 400 School Nutrition Directors and staff.

• Created web pages to host 84 recipes that were developed, standardized, and student-tested in 16 school districts throughout California. These web pages and recipes will be resources for school meals programs throughout the state and the nation.

Tobacco Use Prevention Education (TUPE)

• Program Managers participated in 2 statewide meetings on behalf of the California Department of Education, including the TUPE Coordinators’ Meeting, the TUPE Request for Applications Cohort K Webinar.

• TUPE Wellness wrapped up the Middle and High School Teens Tackle Tobacco Youth Conferences. Over 550 secondary students and adult advisors served. 100 percent rated as excellent/good.

• Began planning for the annual Northern California Safe and Healthy Schools Conference scheduled for November 12-13 with Region 4 COE partners.

• The Youth Advisory Board members judged over 150 entries for the countywide anti-vaping PSA contests and will begin planning for the PSA Awards Ceremony here at the Alameda COE on May 4, 2015.

• Working with districts and direct funded charter schools not


currently tobacco-free to become tobacco-free LEAs by adopting and enforcing a tobacco-free policy that includes e-cigarettes.

• Renewing tobacco-free certifications for LEAs certifications that expire June 30, 2015.

Team California for Healthy After Schools (TCHAS) Contract

• Planning a two-day training in Visalia, CA scheduled for May 7-8, 2015.

• After school programs from seven California regions, representing 24 after school sites are participating in the TCHAS project to create healthy after school environments through wellness policies and effective nutrition and physical activity programs.

• Planned, coordinated, and conducted two Professional Learning Community conference calls for all TCHAS Teams in February and March 2015.

Region IV System of District &

School Support

Robin Hall Regional and Statewide Councils, Consortium and Meetings Attended and/or Provided Support Services

• State Board of Education Meeting at the CDE – March 11 • Region 4 Curriculum & Instruction Leadership Council (CILC) at

Marin COE – March 6 and April 30 • Statewide Regional Consortia Meeting (CDE, RSDSS, WestEd) at

WestEd Sacramento – March 18-19 • State and Federal Program Directors’ Meetings at the CDE –

March 20 and April 17 • LCAP Rubric Input Session #3 at Sacramento COE – April 2

On-Going Project Leadership

• Development and management of Statewide Regional System of District and School Support (RSDSS) On-Line Technical Assistance Toolkit (website)

• Development and submission of the RSDSS, Region 4, Mid-Year Narrative and Fiscal Report as required by the CDE

Professional Development Presented/Facilitated by R4SDSS

• CCSS-Aligned Mathematics Strategies (Workshop) at ACOE – March 3

• Powerful Learning via CCSS-Aligned Math Performance Tasks


(Workshop) at ACOE – March 7 and April 25

• Teacher-Friendly CCSS-Aligned EdTech Resources (Part IV of CCSS Leadership Series) at ACOE – March 11

• CCSS-Aligned English Language Arts Strategies (Workshop) at ACOE – March 14

• Professional Learning Community (PLC) Driven Response to Intervention (RtI) (Workshop) at ACOE – April 28

• Progress Monitoring the Implementation of District and School Plans (Workshop) at ACOE – April 16

• Developed and published to www.r4sdss.org March 2015, e-Learning Parent Module I: Essential Resources for Schools to Increase Meaningful Parent and the Community Engagement

• Developed and published to www.r4sdss.org April 2015, e-Learning District & School Support Module: Professional Learning Community (PLC) Driven Response to Intervention (RtI)

• On-Demand e-Learning modules are available at www.r4sdss.org/courses/ on the following topics: 1) Program Improvement Overview; 2) Program Improvement Corrective Action and Restructuring, School-Level – Years 3, 4 and 5; 3) Using State Recommended Tools to Self-Assess District Instructional Program: 4) Professional Learning Community (PLC) Driven Response to Intervention (RtI); 5) Essential Resources for Meaningful Parent and Community Engagement (Parent Guidance); 6) Essential Resources for Meaningful Parent and Community Engagement (School-Site Guidance); and 7) Getting Aligned with the CA CCSS and SBAC

Support to ACOE Divisions/Programs • ACOE Executive Director Cabinet and Educational Services

Division Meetings – March 3, March 17, April 7, and April 21, 2015

• Planning, preparation and facilitation of ACOE Internal Business Department’s Mission Development Meeting – March 10 and 13, 2015

http://www.r4sdss.org/

http://www.r4sdss.org/

http://www.r4sdss.org/courses/

ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Documents

Transcript of ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION