Broad EEO

Ensuring Equal Opportunity
in Public Education
How Local School District Funding
Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students
and What Federal Policy Can Do About It
Introduction by
John Pod e st a a n d C y n t h i a B r o w n
Papers by
Phyllis McClure
R o ss W i e n e r
Marguerite Roza
Matt Hill
C enter fo r A m e r i c a n P r o g r e ss
June 2008
Made possible
with support from
Funding Schools Equitably
Results-Based Budgeting in the
Oakland Unified School District
Matt Hill
Oa kla nd U n i fi e d S c h o o l D i st r i c t
June 2008
79
J U N E 2 0 0 8 w w w . a m e r i c a n p r o g r e s s . o r g
80
w w w . a m e r i c a n p r o g r e s s . o r g
C en ter fo r A m er i c a n Prog res s
Introduction and Summary
D
uring the early 2000s, the Oakland Unified School District embarked on a
reform initiative that was focused on achievement, accountability and equity.
Through their analysis, the leadership team at Oakland Unified realized that
there were disparities in student educational outcomes and resources between the
schools located in high-income neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods. To
correct this issue, the leadership team embarked on a path to equity via funding and
budget transparency.
To accomplish this they implemented a new budgeting system called Results-Based

Budgeting, which combined elements of Student-Based Budgeting and School-Based
Management. SBB is a system that distributes dollars to schools on a per-pupil basis
rather than allocating money in the form of staff positions, programs, and other
resources. SBM is an organizational structure in which school districts allow decisions
about the allocation of resources to be made at the school level, usually by a principal
and a committee of teachers. This new Results-Based Budgeting system pushed dol-
lars out to school sites and used actual site-by-site expenditures to develop budgets. In
conjunction with its other reform initiatives, the Oakland Unified School District has
been the most improved large, urban school district in the state of California over the
last three years. Since 2002, Oakland Unified has seen its state Academic Performance
Index rise from 568 to 658.
This paper addresses why and how the Oakland Unified School District changed the
way it funded schools. Through this revolutionary process, Oakland Unified was the first
district in the country to take on the funding inequities that have plagued our schools. By
reflecting upon our school districts’ challenges and successes, we can learn ways to address
the current loophole that exists today in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (known today as the No Child Left Behind Act) Title I comparability provision
discussed elsewhere in this volume. This paper will focus on the following topics:
Background on Oakland Unified’s Expect Success Initiative—a short over-

view of the Oakland school district’s history and budget reform strategy.
Funding Allocation Issue—a brief overview of the issue of Oakland’s traditional

approach of using average expenditures when budgeting for schools.
Oakland Unified’s Solution—an explanation of Results-Based Budgeting, how it

differs from other models, and how it addresses the funding allocation issue.
81
Implementation of Results- Challenges and Lessons

Based Budgeting—an explanation Learned—key lessons learned that
of the phases of implementation, with can be used when considering the
key activities highlighted in each phase. implementation of this type of model.
Results—current academic, equity, State and Technical Assistance

and financial successes that demon- Needed—suggestions for federal and
strate our school district is heading in state authorities to consider when
the right direction. planning on how to help districts
address the inequities caused by our
funding models.
82
w w w . a m e r i c a n p r o g r e s s . o r g J U N E 2 0 0 8
Background on Oakland Unified School

District and its Expect Success Initiative 1
T
he Oakland Unified School District started its reform initiatives in 1999 when
parents and community members were upset about the deplorable conditions
of the schools. Schools were overcrowded and underperforming, with inequities
existing throughout the district. Oakland Unified’s lack of equity can be demonstrated
by what locals call the “Hills vs. Heartlands” divide. In 1999, Oakland’s “hill” schools
(see top of map, below) had lower free-and-reduced-lunch-program, or FRLP student
populations—an educational proxy for poverty—and higher academic results than our
“heartland” schools (see bottom of map).
In 2000, Oakland Unified’s Board of Education adopted a policy that focused on small
autonomous schools—beginning the process of breaking up large high schools into
smaller schools. This movement influenced leadership to look differently at how the
District funded schools. Then, in 2003, the school district experienced a fiscal crisis that
led to a state takeover. Additional challenges included chronic academic underachieve-
ment and lack of equitable funding between individual schools.
Hills vs. Heartlands

Academic Disparity Between Oakland’s High- and Low-poverty Schools in 1999
Source: Academic Performance Index data from the California Department of Education.
83
In the fall of 2005, the Oakland Unified of its school system—shortcomings that
School District, the Bay Area Coalition are profoundly felt in the achievement gap
for Equitable Schools, and their partners that exists between students from different
in the community launched an ambitious neighborhoods, different races, and differ-
plan to transform an urban school system ent economic levels. This effort is called
that had struggled to meet the needs Expect Success because it’s about raising
of children and families in every neigh- expectations of Oakland faculty, staff, and
borhood of the city. This effort, called students to a much higher level, and mak-
Expect Success, expands on grassroots ing sure they have the systems and support
reforms started in Oakland over the last they need to achieve them.
decade, and brings in best practices, new
ideas, and common sense from some of Oakland’s approach isn’t complicated. It’s
the most successful and innovative educa- about having good people and using best
tors in North America. practices in places that encourage aca-
demic success. It’s about respecting educa-
The Oakland Unified School District tors and providing them with needed sup-
started with a clear vision statement to port, while building a strong professional
guide the work: “In partnership with our culture in every school. It’s about investing
community, we are creating an excep- in teachers and school leaders, and then
tional public school system with high holding them accountable for meeting
standards of teaching and learning for higher expectations. And it’s about reach-
every student, and high standards of ser- ing out in a serious way to neighborhood
vice to our schools.” To implement this groups, churches, families, rank-and-file
vision, the district set a number of five- teachers, students, businesses, and orga-
year goals (see box below). nized labor to involve them all in making
the greatest difference in students’ lives.
Introducing change is never easy. Where
Oakland has made progress, it has done so Expect Success has attracted an unprec-
by honestly addressing the shortcomings edented level of financial support to the
Expect Success
Oakland Unified’s Five-Year Goals
• All students will graduate prepared to succeed in college and the workplace.
• All students will read and write at or above grade level by the end of 3rd grade.
• All students will succeed in algebra by the end of 9th grade.
• All students and adults will respect one another and work together across cultures.
• All employees will be high performers.
• All schools will be clean, healthy, and safe.
84
Oakland schools from local and national gested that the leadership team was tak-
donors, who collectively have contributed ing on too much at once, but given the
more than $28 million over the past four data at the time, something drastic had
years. Some of the changes funded by to be done. Too many students were not
this effort are highly visible: the creation receiving the skills necessary for them
of new neighborhood schools to give all to succeed in life. Incremental changes
families more quality educational oppor- were not going to be enough to remedy
tunities, and the reorganization or closure systemic issues that were plaguing the
of programs that were not attracting suf- children of Oakland.
ficient enrollment or meeting high stan-
dards for students. Other changes, such Today, the Oakland Unified School
as a more effective management struc- District currently operates 142 schools
ture, better technology for educators, and (107 regular public schools and 35 char-
more empowerment for school leaders, ter schools) serving over 44,000 students,
might go unnoticed by the city at large, including charter students. 38 percent
but are important nonetheless. of our students are African American,
33 percent Hispanic, 16 percent Asian,
Expect Success has been a very ambi- 7 percent white, and 6 percent other. Of
tious plan that has taken a hard look at these, 68.4 percent are eligible for the
many aspects of educating the children free and reduced lunch program.
of Oakland. Some opponents have sug-
85
Overview of the Funding Equity Issue
W
hen the Oakland Unified School District was wrestling with its many chal-
lenges in 2003, the leadership team decided to tackle an issue that it had been
discussing for the past couple of years. Traditionally, schools in the Oakland
school district had been staffed based on a formula that allocated teachers based on the
number of students enrolled in a particular school. Costs for employees were allocated
using average salaries and benefits. Data showed that while this system provided an
equitable number of teachers, it did not necessarily provide for equitable funding of
those teachers. The reason: Individual school sites have staffing costs that vary signifi-
cantly due to the seniority of teachers.
The issue affected Oakland’s “heartland” schools the most since they had a dispropor-
tionate share of new teachers, and the actual salaries at those schools were lower than
the “hill” schools. In essence, the “heartland” schools ended up paying for the “hill”
schools’ teacher salaries instead of having the additional funding available to support
their own programs. Therefore, new teachers, who most needed a more supportive
environment and the mentorship of a stable staff with veteran leadership, were usually
left without any additional supports.
Often the result has been that these potentially excellent teachers have stayed only a
year or two before leaving the school, the district or the profession. Over time, the expe-
rience curve at the different schools became polarized, to the detriment of the students
who attended the “heartland” schools.
As Marguerite Roza indicates in her research, the inequities in teacher salaries between
high- and low-poverty schools is prevalent in urban districts across the country.2 Many
advocates from across the country had hoped that the No Child Left Behind Act might
offer a strategy to help equalize the discrepancy in funding by providing additional
funds to schools with high Free and Reduced Lunch Program, or FRLP students, a
common educational proxy for levels of poverty.
The language of the Title I provision of NCLB, however, continued to allow districts
to take advantage of a loophole created by traditional budgeting practices. Because all
districts (except for Oakland today) use a budgeting system based on average teacher
salary figures, it allows them to easily demonstrate comparability when determining
whether Title I and non-Title I schools have equal expenditures before federal funds are
added to a Title I school. Traditional budgeting models that use staffing ratios to allo-
cate resources create a comparability loophole.
86
Under this type of budgeting model, Some school districts, such as the Hous-
districts use actual salaries to calculate ton Independent School District, started
total teacher compensation. But because down the path of rectifying this issue, but
school budgets are developed using a staff- no district had successfully resolved it—
ing ratio that is based on average salaries, until Oakland Unified. With the support
Title I and non-Title 1 schools demon- of many key stakeholders, the Oakland
strate comparable expenditures when in Unified School District was determined
reality the difference can be quite stark. to rectify this problem.
87
Oakland Unified’s Solution:

Results-Based Budgeting 3
Overview
The Oakland Unified School District’s solution was called Results-Based Budgeting.
RBB is a budgeting process designed to allocate funds in a way that follows the child.
The process is based on a per-pupil formula that takes into account all of the school dis-
trict’s expenses. After the allocation amounts are determined, schools are then provided
local autonomy in return for accountability in making data-based decisions that lead to
results as demonstrated by improved student achievement sustained over time. RBB is
focused on four key tenets:
Transparency
Equity
Accountability
Autonomy
Oakland Unified’s end goal is to create communities of learning in every school where
there are opportunities for new teachers to learn from experienced teachers, and where
there are opportunities for experienced teachers to mentor new hires and learn from
their innovative approaches. Results-Based Budgeting in the district is designed to make
this happen by maintaining fiscal responsibility, promoting more effective and effi-
cient decision-making around the use of funds in support of student achievement, and
addressing systemic inequities in funding allocations.
The term Results-Based Budgeting begins with the word “results” because this is the pri-
mary goal of the process. It is designed to empower school administrators by giving them
control over their resources so they can best serve the needs of their students in the most
effective and efficient way possible. After all, how can we hold principals accountable for
student achievement if we do not give them the resources they need alongside the oppor-
tunity to use those resources to address their students’ particular needs?
Control over these resources provides site administrators with the ability to make
choices about how best to serve the needs of their students. The Oakland Unified
School District expects such individual school or site control to increase the responsive-
ness of district schools to their specific conditions, and thus expects RBB to better meet
the needs of students, teachers, and staff. The result: sustained improvement of aca-
demic achievement (see box on page 79).
88
School-by-School Accountability
Objectives for Results-Based Budgeting
• Allow individual decision units (school sites and central office departments) to develop
budgets aligned with desired results.
• Connect decisions regarding use of resources to incentives for efficiency.
• Give principals and department heads more control over the conditions of success to
increase effectiveness.
• Distribute resources in a more equitable manner.
• Create greater and broader autonomy for decisions and results.
• Create transparency in the budget process to allow greater access by staff, community,
parents, and students, and build trust.
• Develop and use better data to drive decision-making.
In addition, site administrators have an on School-Based Management and

incentive to change their site’s cultural Student-Based Budgeting systems, and
norms around control and minimization takes these principles further by using
of miscellaneous expenses that reduce actual salaries and average daily atten-
funds available for use in the classroom, dance (see page 80).
such as unnecessary copying or substi-
tute costs, because every dollar saved on
extraneous expenses remains in the site’s Traditional Budgeting based
budget. In exchange for such control, on Staffing Ratios
sites will be held accountable for sustain-
ing academic improvement. Specifically, Traditional-based budgeting models use
all of the District’s schools are expected staffing models because it is easier for
to continue their progress toward achiev- districts to manage the complex urban
ing the key results for all children. education funding system. This staffing
model, however, causes many inequities,
which happen for a number of reasons.
Comparison to other models Specifically:
Results-Based Budgeting builds upon Schools of different sizes benefit differ-

two forms of organizational reform that ently from the central office’s alloca-
have become popular in urban districts tions of, say, librarians and counselors.
throughout North America over the past
20 years: student-based budgeting and Teacher salaries continue to get dis-
school-based management. RBB builds tributed unfairly.
89
Complex school accounting proce- But in order to have true transparency and
dures—Oakland Unified manages equity, SBB needs to focus on the expense
over 125 resources, such as Title I side of the budget ledger. When districts
and Title II—make it difficult for calculate a school’s expenses based on
outsiders to compare budgets from average district salaries instead of actual
school to school. salaries of that particular school’s staff,
then the outcome is often inequitable.
Using average expenses does not represent
Student-Based Budgeting the true costs of serving a child. Through
the use of average salaries, schools that
Student-based budgeting is a system that have less-than-average labor costs must
distributes dollars to schools on a per- bear the burden of covering the costs of
pupil basis rather than allocating money schools that have higher-than-average
in the form of staff positions, programs, labor costs. This difference will be illus-
and other resources. Proponents of SBB trated below in our comparison of two
(sometimes also referred to as Weighted schools pre-RBB and post-RBB.
Student Funding) believe it will increase
equity and transparency. Unfortunately,
this only holds true for the revenue side School-Based Management
of the budget equation. Revenues are
allocated on a per-student basis, which School-Based Management is an organi-
means the system is transparent and zational structure in which school districts
equitable on how those funds are utilized. allow decisions about the allocation of
Better Budgeting, More Equality

Increasing Equity by Moving to a Results-Based Budgeting Model
Staffing Based RBB

SBB SBM
(Traditional) (Actual Salaries)
Staffed-Based Budgeting al- Student-Based Budgeting is a School-Based Management is an Results-Based Budgeting allocates
locates teachers based on the system that distributes dollars organizational structure in which funds based on a per-pupil formula
number of students enrolled in a to schools on a per-pupil basis school districts allow decisions that takes into account all of the
particular school, with the cost rather than allocating money about the allocation of resources school district’s expenses. After
allocated using average teacher in the form of staff positions, to be made at the school level, the allocation amounts are deter-
salaries and benefits. This results programs, and other resources. usually by a principal and a com- mined, schools are then provided
in inequitable funding for indi- mittee of teachers. local autonomy in return for ac-
vidual schools because staffing countability in making decisions.
costs that vary significantly due RBB’s defining reform—allocating
to the seniority of teachers. actual revenues and expenses so
that schools with inexperienced
teachers have additional resources
they can use to retain and develop
those teachers. RBB equalizes the
distribution of resources across dis-
trict schools, giving all students an
equal chance at a good education.
90
resources to be made at the school level, ment. In order to do so, the district must
usually by a principal and a committee revise school budgets in November—after
of teachers. Districts using SBM control the school year has already started. This
the quality of the education that schools means that a school can lose money if
deliver by evaluating the outcomes of the its attendance was lower than its average
schools, instead of telling schools exactly for the prior year, or if enrollment for the
how to educate their students. Arguments current year is below projected levels.
for SBM focus on the increase in qual-
ity that comes from delegating decision- Oakland Unified chose to base bud-
making powers to the schools. gets on actual enrollment and atten-
dance because if it had based them on
SBM is thought to improve performance projected enrollment then it would be
by putting power in the hands of the allocating a different amount to the
people who have the most control over school than it actually receives in revenue
results. Many experts believe that teach- from the state, and quite possibly giving
ers and principals know what the students schools money the district did not earn.
in their schools need better than district In addition, RBB gives principals a very
central offices. When school leaders con- strong incentive to increase both atten-
trol how resources are spent, they can use dance and enrollment. Nevertheless, the
them to fund innovative programs that November budget revision unquestion-
meet the particular needs of the com- ably complicates the budget planning
munity. Principals will be more zealous process for principals.
about eliminating waste when they have
control over the money they save. The second way RBB is different is that
teacher salaries in the Oakland Uni-
SBB and SBM have been implemented in fied School District are accounted for by
many districts other than Oakland: Seattle, using actual expenditures versus average
Houston, Chicago, and most famously expenditures. In contrast, U.S. school
Edmonton, Canada. Edmonton Public districts that use SBM and SBB account
Schools credits the enormous gains in for teacher salary expenses on an individ-
public satisfaction with the school system ual school basis using the district’s salary
over the last 30 years to the implementa- average, which means that the district
tion of SBM and SBB in the 1970s. Sev- “charges” the schools the same amount
eral delegations of leaders from Oakland for every teacher—regardless of whether
Unified visited Edmonton to learn from its that teacher is a 20-year veteran or a new
model before launching RBB. teacher, even though the district pays
those teachers very different amounts.
Results-Based Budgeting School districts that use SBM and SBB

systems do not solve the problem of
The Oakland Unified School District’s inequitable funding. Schools in high-
budget system is different from typical income communities are still better able
implementations of SBM and SBB in to attract high-paid experienced teachers,
two important ways. First, under RBB and because of the average salary system
school budgets are calculated based on they don’t have to account for the extra
average daily attendance and actual cost of those teachers in their school
enrollment rather than projected enroll- budgets. More affluent schools appear to
91
have the same budgets as other district actually needs more teaching resources,
schools, but only because they’re receiv- is in fact receiving $300,000 less in
ing veteran teachers at no cost. Under teaching expertise.
RBB, schools with newer teachers receive
additional funds that allow them to bring Under RBB, this story ends differently.
in teacher coaches, expand programs, or School A and School B would receive
reduce class sizes. the same amount of money on a per-
pupil basis. School A now has to pay for
Consider the two following examples, the additional experience it is receiv-
the first is a traditional, SBM- or SBB- ing through higher teacher salaries, and
run school district, and the second is School B now has extra money to spend
Oakland Unified’s RBB-run district. In on additional learning materials, profes-
the first case, imagine two schools under sional development, or overtime hours
an “average teacher salary” scenario— for its teachers.
School A and School B. The two schools
each decide to hire 10 teachers. The This is RBB’s defining reform—allo-
average salary of teachers in the district cating actual revenues and expenses so
is $50,000, so each school pays 10 x that schools with inexperienced teachers
$50,000 = $500,000 in teachers salaries. have additional resources they can use to
School A, however, attracts 10 veteran retain and develop those teachers. RBB
teachers who receive salaries of $70,000 equalizes the distribution of resources
each ($700,000 total), while School across district schools, giving all students
B has 10 newer teachers who receive an equal chance at a good education.
$40,000 each ($400,000 total). The
district actually pays those teachers very One case in point: Oakland Unified’s
different amounts based on their experi- Think College Now elementary school.
ence, yet it charges each school the same David Silver, the founding principal at
amount—$500,000. School B, which Think College Now, had a very inexpe-
HOW RESULTS-BASED BUDGETING WORKS

The RBB Model Ensures Budget Equity
Pre-RBB Allocations RBB Allocations

School Expenditures (in thousands)
$1,500
All other expense
Teacher salaries
$1,000
$500K
$350K
$650K
$500K
$500
$700K $700K
$400K $400K
$0
School A School B School A School B
92
rienced team during his first couple of The use of actual teacher salaries is the
years. Under RBB, he was able to use the most revolutionary aspect of RBB. No
additional resources he received to bring other school district in the country did
in coaches to support his new teachers. this before Oakland (currently no other
Over the past couple of years David has district has implemented an actual sal-
been able to retain much of his team, ary model), including districts known for
and now has a more experienced staff having innovative SBM and SBB mod-
of teachers. He acknowledges this has els, such as Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and
caused his labor costs to increase, leav- Houston. Opposition to RBB is in part
ing him with fewer funds for coaching due to strong resistance from teachers
and other services. Yet he says this is a unions, which argue that schools would
tradeoff he will make every time because fire experienced teachers if they were
his students are benefiting from having more expensive. Advocates of RBB coun-
experienced teachers, and boast the aca- ter that good teachers are worth their
demic results to prove it. Think College weight in gold, as illustrated by David Sil-
Now was named a California Distin- ver’s success with his Think College Now
guished School in 2008. elementary school.
93
The Genesis of Oakland Unified’s

Results-Based Budgeting
R
BB has been part of the Oakland Unified School District’s policy dialogue for
several years. The site decision-making policy was passed by the Board in 1999
and provided schools with great control over decision making at their sites. The
small schools policy, which was passed by the Board in 2000, started the process for
breaking up our large high schools. Both of these policies laid the initial ground for the
introduction of the RBB system. The district’s 2002 strategic plan called for greater site-
level autonomy over budgets. Then a principals’ committee was formed in 2003 to study
results-based budgeting, culminating in a Board resolution in support of site-based bud-
geting. Here’s a detailed description of how these decisions played out in practice.
Phase I of RBB: Change Budgeting Systems
Oakland Unified’s Under Superintendent, Dennis Chaconas, had been experimenting in

2002 with a new budget system based on the feedback of the community to ensure equity
for all students. At the time, Oakland used a traditional method of allocating resources to
schools in which the district decided the staffing level for each school based on enrollment
size. Those resources were purchased by the district and then distributed to the schools.
In 2002, Oakland Unified decided to exempt seven of our recently established small
high schools from this system. Instead, each small school would receive a budget based
on the same way the district received its funding—the average daily attendance of the
students enrolled at that school multiplied by a per-student allocation determined by
the district. After the principal received their revenue, he or she could determine the
best use of the funds. This small school, site-based budgeting system was the “Beta ver-
sion” of what was to become RBB.
The Oakland school district had two key building blocks when developing site-based
budgeting. First, the Oakland Education Association, or OEA, Oakland’s teachers
union, supported the idea of giving more budget decision-making power to schools.
Second, each school had some experience with deciding how to spend funds because
they already had control over NCLB Title I money. Therefore, every school with Title I
money (most Oakland schools) should have already had in place a process for making
group decisions about how to allocate financial resources.
At first, there were only a few small schools, and their budgets did not have a significant
impact on Oakland Unified’s overall budget. As the number of small schools grew, how-
94
ever, the Office of School Reform had The unrestricted funding allocation for-
to determine whether or not the small mula was developed based on extensive
schools were getting their fair share of modeling using an analytical approach
Oakland’s resources. That meant calcu- to determine the range of the base level
lating how much money every student in funding and an empirical approach to
the district could be getting, and com- determine specific allocations. A decision
paring it to the resources actually being was made that Oakland Unified would set
allocated to schools. the funding amount at a level that would:
The Oakland school district did these cal- Push most schools to cut their costs to
culations, and discovered that the system a minimum
was, indeed, unfair. Under the staffing
model the school district was not allocat- Equitably fund schools that had been
ing the appropriate amount of revenue underfunded in the past
on a per-student basis.
Stay within a total expenditure
amount for all schools
Phase II of RBB: District-Wide
Implementation and Development As an inevitable reality, the transition to a
of Tools and Support formula required that some schools would
be allocated insufficient unrestricted rev-
By the 2003–2004 school year, 14 schools enue to operate their schools regardless of
were using a per-pupil funding formula. any adjustments they could make.
Following the two-year pilot program,
RBB was launched district-wide in all Consequently, the school district agreed
of Oakland’s schools for the 2004–2005 that it would provide transitional fund-
school year. ing—from a local parcel (property) tax for
these schools—for a period of one to three
Implementation was a grueling process. years in lieu of requiring massive involun-
Staff from the Office of School Reform tary transfers that would be highly disrup-
and the finance department single-hand- tive to many school communities. There-
edly designed and launched the entire fore, no teachers were forced to change
system within three months without any schools, and school communities had the
additional support from outside organi- time to structure their programs and sup-
zations and without developing a formal port systems to match their funding.
implementation process. Instead, staff had
to personally walk every principal through In order to create the RBB funding
the budgeting process on their laptop. allocation, district staff modeled budgets
for every school as though they would
The time pressure was immense. The have been funded in the traditional way
process involved huge Microsoft Excel using staffing formulas (based on student
spreadsheets that had to be emailed enrollment) to determine staffing alloca-
back and forth between the principals tions, and using current average salaries
and central office and then manually to determine the cost of these posi-
consolidated and uploaded into the dis- tions. The staffing formulas were based
trict’s financial system. on formulas used in the staffing alloca-
95
Overview of the RBB Formula

Adjusting the RBB Process
1. In cases of historically underfunded schools, funding allocations were adjusted up to minimum

expenditure levels required to operate the school; for historically overfunded schools, alloca-
tions were leveled down in order to begin addressing the issues of equity.
2. Transitional funding (amounting to approximately $3 million out of a budget of $479 million

over a three-year timeframe) was provided to bridge the gap in funding that resulted from the
district’s choices not to:
a. Achieve the target funding by having the most needy students bear all of the burden
b. Disrupt school communities and lose teachers by massive involuntary transfers
3. Work was started within the district’s human resource and labor department to begin shifting
provisions and practices that have supported or allowed the inequity in distribution of teach-
ing resources. This work is consistent with other goals of recruiting and retaining teachers and
establishing balanced staffing at all schools so that professional learning communities that
utilize the strengths and address the needs of veteran and novice teachers can be addressed.
tion process in 2003–04. The total site their current staffing costs. As a result,
expenditures, using this modeling process, the funding formula was adjusted to
established a minimum total expenditure ensure that these schools could operate in
level for sites given the current configura- 2004–2005 (see box above).
tion of schools and projected enrollment.
This minimum total expenditure level Phase III of RBB: Provide

was used as the target in developing the Additional Support and
funding formula allocations. In other Evaluate Model
words, the formula was designed to
develop school budgets that would be as In the 2005–2006 school year, the school
close as possible to the minimum total district implemented an online tool to
expenditure level for sites. Every princi- help principals and financial service
pal then worked with a team made up employees to manage budgets. We also
of the executive director, fiscal analyst, rolled out additional training sessions and
human resources staff, labor analyst, and guides to support our principals on how
accountability Teacher on Special Assign- to build their budgets.
ment to create a balanced school-level
budget for the 2004–2005 school year. In the 2006–2007 school year, the school
district better integrated our school site
As the teams worked through this process, planning process with our budget process
it was apparent that indeed, some schools so that principals, teachers, and families
could not balance their budgets given could see the connection to program-
the constraints of the union contract and matic choices and the budgets that they
96
developed. This school year we have teaching experience at our “hill” schools is
implemented technology to create an still higher than our “heartland” schools.
online integrated school site planning
and budgeting process. We have also This will require additional research to
partnered with the American Institutes determine why this is occurring and
for Research to analyze the results of our which schools are outliers. Some ques-
RBB strategy. AIR is collecting qualita- tions that we will explore include:
tive and quantitative data to provide to
us, so that we can better understand the What are “heartland” schools doing
impact of our budgeting process. with their extra funding?
Is it having an impact on student

Phase IV of RBB: Analyze achievement?
Results and Perform Continuous
Improvements Are there labor policies discouraging
veteran teachers from going to heart-
Starting this summer, we will enter into land schools?
the next phase of our work by reviewing
the research of AIR and identifying ways What will be the impact of not having
to improve our budgeting process and the veteran teacher support subsidy?
tools so that we can reach our goals of
equity and high student achievement for How has our small schools initiative
all of our students. One interesting pre- affected teacher distribution?
liminary finding is that overall the average
97
Oakland Unified School

District’s Progress to Date
I
n the last three years, the Oakland Unified School District has made significant
progress in improving academic performance, ensuring equitable outcomes for all
students, and restoring public confidence in the district, particularly in the area of
fiscal responsibility. It is the most improved large urban school district in the state of
California over the last three years. While these results cannot be tied to one single ini-
tiative, RBB has been a critical component to our equity strategy to ensure that we are
focused on raising student achievement for all of our students.
Academic Performance
Oakland Unified continues to make progress on the Academic Performance Index,

gaining 7 points for an API district total of 658. This increase makes our district the
most improved large urban school district in the state of California over the past three
years. The API summarizes a school district’s performance on California’s standardized
tests (see charts on page 99).
Equitable Outcomes
Every subgroup of students in the Oakland Unified School District made gains on the
API in the 2006–2007 school year. Several student populations demonstrated particu-
larly impressive progress in their API performance.
Filipino and Pacific Islander student populations, for example, made large strides, gain-
ing 27 and 41 points, respectively, on the API. Other subgroup populations, such as
Asian and students with disabilities, made noticeable gains as well. In addition, from
1999 to 2007 the API scores have increased for all of our schools and substantially for
our “heartland schools” (see map on page 83).
Fiscal Responsibility
Oakland Unified has made great strides toward improving its financial condition
between 2003 and 2007. In 2003, the adopted budget General Fund balance for
2002–03 was negative $59.7 million (both unrestricted and restricted), and our legally
required reserve was not budgeted. In addition, we received a negative certification
98
OAKLAND’S IMPROVING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

The District’s Academic Performance Index Gains Over the Past Three Years
API Growth Base API Growth API
700
675
7
650
19
625
33
600 13
575 28 651
634
550 592 601
568
525
500
2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007
Number of Points Added to API Scores from 2004 to 2007

(California School Districts > 20,000 Students)
60
59
50
51
40 45 44
41 40 39 38 37
30
20
10
0
ed ed ifie
d
ifie
d ed ed ifie
d ed ifie
d
Unifi Unifi Un Un Unifi nifi Un nifi Un
e e na iU U y
and ello Jos rov Lod cisc
o ton alle
Oa
kl nte
b
San G ta A n mp oV
Mo rden San Fra Co ren
Ga San Mo
Source: OUSD’s 2006–2007 Annual Report.
from the Alameda County Office of Edu- stricted and restricted), and we had fully
cation, and our bond rating outlook was budgeted our legally required reserve.
negative. Most devastating, the state in Alameda County Office of Education
2003 took over the district when Oakland has raised our certification to “quali-
Unified had to borrow a $100 million fied,” and our bond rating outlook has
loan for recovery from the state. increased from negative to stable. We
have also made strides to pay down our
By 2007, our ending General Fund loan from the state and have outstanding
balance was $43.2 million (both unre- debt of $87,292,836.
99
Academic Achievement Gains Across Oakland

Academic Performance Index Scores Rise in All Schools from 1999 to 2007
Source: Academic Performance Index data from the California Department of Education.
Additional Improvements management system. We have increased

parent control over where their children
In addition, Oakland Unified has attend school, and invested in technology
increased access to professional devel- to improve performance and efficiency.
opment for all staff through a focus on
professional learning communities. The Yet there is much more work to be done
district has enhanced student assess- to achieve our district’s vision and ambi-
ment and reviews of data about student tious five-year goals.
performance through a new performance
100
Challenges and Lessons Learned
F
or other school districts that are considering the implementation of a similar
RBB funding model, it is important to study the challenges experienced and les-
sons learned by Oakland Unified. After eight years of implementation, I feel that
there are five lessons learned that can be shared (see box on page 102).
Overcommunicate
The most important area to focus on is communication. In the early phases of RBB,
the concept of moving to a new budgeting model that was more transparent, provided
more autonomy to schools, and sought to fix the inequities was supported by the com-
munity and schools. But during the implementation of RBB and during the transition
to state receivership in 2003, the amount of communication decreased. Many people,
including teachers, administrators, and the community, were confused about the goals
and purpose of RBB. Given the speed of the implementation and the lack of resources
focused on the work, it was very hard to build consensus around the changes.
In hindsight, Oakland school district officials should have had at least one individual
who was solely focused on the change-management aspect of the project. Unfortunately,
this did not occur as RBB began to take on a life of its own. Whenever there were chal-
lenges with budgeting, RBB was blamed.
Under any budgeting system, Oakland Unified would have faced the same challenges
of declining enrollment, rising health care costs, and limited funding from the state. But
due to the lack of communication, RBB was always seen as the culprit. Perhaps the best
way to avoid this problem is not to “brand” your budgeting model. When communi-
cating a new budget strategy, focus on the goals of the budgeting model (transparency,
equity, accountability, and autonomy) instead of what the budgeting process is named.
Work Closely with Your Labor Organizations
Partnerships with labor organizations are extremely critical. The concept of RBB was
initially supported by Oakland Unified’s unions, but when the communication channels
broke down the unions started to rally against RBB. Their primary concern was that
RBB was intended to force veteran teachers out of the system since RBB was based on
actual versus average teacher salaries.
101
subsidy for the first

Five Lessons Learned time. Those schools that
have a veteran staff will
receive enough funding
1. Overcommunicate
for their staff, but they
2. Work closely with your labor organizations may need to cut back
on other supports, such
3. Ensure you have adequate funding to support the transition as teacher coaching.
4. Invest heavily in support tools for principals and finance staff
Principals, like David
Silver at Think Col-
5. Stay the course lege Now, will continue
to make the necessary
tradeoffs to balance
Contrary to this belief, our analysis shows the needs of their students and teachers
that under RBB each school receives while balancing their budgets.
enough money to staff a school with
the most expensive salary levels and a Since there was not an open dialogue
base level of non-labor expenses. Yet between leadership and the unions, the
this is the absolute minimum amount misconception that RBB is an attack on
of funding for a school to remain finan- veteran teachers still exists in the Oak-
cially viable and does not factor in the land school district today. Reflecting
programmatic needs of the school or the upon this dilemma, there should have
professional development needs of the been more analysis and data shared
staff. Therefore, it is a reality that some between leadership and unions up front
principals will find it very challenging to to demonstrate that this model was not
make the tradeoffs necessary to balance intended to affect our teachers or stu-
their school’s budget, especially if their dents in any negative way.
school districts are in similarly difficult
financial situations as Oakland’s over the Due to the lack of communication and
past several years. trust between the district’s leadership
team and union, the two sides did not sit
In addition, for the first three years of down together to address the major issue
RBB, Oakland Unified used a local of equity. Unfortunately, we still have
parcel (property) tax to cover the addi- many veteran teachers choosing to work
tional cost of having veteran teachers at in our “hill schools” versus our “heartland
a school. If a school’s average teacher schools.” RBB is the first step to remedy-
compensation was more than the dis- ing the issue, but a conversation still needs
trict’s average, then the school would to occur over how we can create condi-
receive a subsidy. This was intended to tions that will ensure an equitable mix of
ensure that veteran teachers were not new and veteran teachers at all schools.
forced from their schools, which could
have had a potentially negative impact What could do the trick? Is it compen-
on student achievement. sation? Is it recognition? Is it working
conditions? Until these questions are
Next year, veteran teachers in the Oak- answered jointly by our leadership team
land Unified School District will not and unions we will not realize our goal of
receive the veteran teacher support equity for all students.
102
Ensure You Have Adequate that schools have developed over many
Funding to Support the Transition years will most likely thwart efforts to
transition to the RBB funding model.
Before deciding whether to implement Instead, plan for a subsidy to provide to
this type of budgeting model it is critical schools that have above average salaries
to consider two key financial factors. The for a set number of years.
first is the financial environment of your
state and district. Ideally, the best time to In Oakland, district officials were fortu-
implement this model is when revenues nate to have a local parcel (property) tax to
are increasing so that more funding can subsidize the funding of veteran teacher
flow to the schools each year. Principals salaries at schools for three years. This
are going to be a lot more receptive to approach has provided our principals
this change when their decision making with the opportunity to adjust the finan-
is focused on programmatic expansion cial structure of their schools gradually
versus cutting core programs. over time. The downside of this approach
is that it delays the conversation about
Unfortunately, Oakland Unified experi- equity among the schools, but at least we
enced very challenging financial condi- are now being more transparent about
tions due to declining enrollment, limited the true expenses and funding received
state funding (California ranks 46th in at each school. Other districts that have
funding per student), and a state budget higher per-student funding could also hold
crisis. Even though the percentage of back some of the funding they allocate to
Oakland school district dollars allocated to schools in addition to a parcel tax.
schools has increased each year (currently
83 percent), the total amount of funds to
allocate has decreased each year. In other Invest Heavily in Support Tools
words, the slice of the pie is getting larger, for Principals and Finance Staff
but the size of the whole pie is shrinking.
It is very easy to underestimate the sup-
Given these circumstances, principals must port that schools will need to manage
now make extremely difficult decisions their budgets, especially since this type
about what to cut from their budgets. The of change will be driven by the district’s
benefit of RBB for principals is that they financial team. It will be easy for the
have the opportunity to decide what gets financial team to overestimate the com-
cut. But nobody wants to be put into the fort level school administrators will have
difficult situation of cutting budgets. It was with their budgets. In addition, many
a lot easier under the old budgeting model principals have a hard time seeing the
to blame the “district” for cuts. connection between being an instruc-
tional leader and a “budget director.”
The second factor to consider is the
amount of money necessary to support The first step for a district to take before
schools that have above average teacher they change budgeting systems is to sur-
salaries. Punishing schools for having vey their principals to gauge their com-
above average salaries at their schools, a fort level with budgets, Microsoft Excel,
so-called “flip the switch” problem, is and technology. Do they understand
best avoided. Drastic cuts to programs the vision behind the change in budget-
103
ing? Do they feel that they can handle decision to change budgeting models,
the new responsibilities themselves or do they need to be sure they have the sup-
they have someone on their team that port, courage, and determination to stay
can handle these functions? What type of the course. They need to set expectations
training would they like? by clearly explaining that the results of
moving to a new budgeting system will
Next, the district must assess the capac- take several years.
ity of its finance team to become trainers.
Many traditional district finance teams School district officials also have to detail
have never had to train or coach schools why moving to a new budgeting system
on how to manage their budgets. This will create the opportunity for higher stu-
is a new skill set that they will need to dent performances precisely because the
learn. In addition, the finance teams at new budget process is transparent about
most school districts are overworked due funding, and allows for greater auton-
to antiquated, paper-based processes and omy in budgeting decisions. Budgeting
procedures. Adding this type of respon- systems by themselves will not guarantee
sibility on top of their existing workload increased student performance, of course,
without technology and process improve- but in the right hands RBB decision-
ments is not advised. making can clearly deliver better and
more equitable education to all students
Finally, a district will need to develop in a given school district.
streamline tools to help principals and
finance departments adjust to this change. School officials implementing an RBB
In Oakland, we moved very quickly dur- makeover of their districts must also be
ing the implementation stage in order prepared for many of the people involved
to ensure that we could avoid too much in the process claiming it is too hard and
resistance. Therefore the tools were very not worth the trouble. These people will
rudimentary (Microsoft Excel spread- demand a return to the status quo. The
sheets). If officials are able to build con- status quo, however, is simply not accept-
sensus up front, then they should take the able for all children. To the opponents of
time to create user-friendly technology RBB, the main question is this: How does
tools, trainings and processes for budget an RBB-type system harm students com-
development, and revisions before rolling pared to the traditional type of budget-
out to schools. ing? The answer is clear.
Remember, this is not a one-time effort. Besides, the amount of distraction that
In order to be successful, officials will would be caused by switching back and
need to continually improve policies, pro- forth between budgeting systems is not
cesses, and tools. good for students. Too much time will be
focused on financial systems and not on
instruction. It is critical for district leader-
Stay the Course ship to perform a comprehensive analysis
of the district’s ability to transition, and
Change is difficult. No matter how much then make sure support is available to the
you plan, there will always be resistance. district before it decides to implement
Before school district officials make the this type of change.
104
Conclusion: Federal and

State Assistance Needed
A
cross the country today there are only a handful of school districts that have
moved to a student-based budgeting model, and Oakland is the only district
to use actual salaries, though a couple of other districts are currently moving
in that direction. The main reason districts do not move to this new budgeting system
is complexity. Oakland, for example, manages over 125 sources of funding, including
Title I, Title II, and Targeted Instructional Improvement Grants. It would be a lot eas-
ier to manage those budgets centrally, but as this report makes clear, the consequences
of a centralized system that does not focus on actual expenditures is far worse than the
complexity of moving to a new budgeting system.
Still, given all of the challenges that school districts face it is unlikely that changing
budgeting systems will rise to the top of their priority lists. To ensure all of our students
receive the resources they deserve, federal and state assistance is needed. Here are four
ways that essential assistance could be forthcoming (see box below).
Require a Budgeting Model That Promotes Transparency
To ensure equity, there must be 100 percent transparency with revenue and expenses.
The best way to do this is to implement a standardized budgeting model that is based
on the tenets of results-based budgeting. The federal government could provide a finan-
cial incentive for states to do this. The model should ensure that equitable resources
make it all the way down to each and every child. Most federal and state funding is
Helping Hands Needed

Four Ways Federal and State Governments Can Help
• Require a budgeting model that promotes transparency
• Invest in data systems
• Provide strategic assistance vs. compliance oversight
• Focus on results not inputs
105
already allocated on a per-student basis, caught in the red tape from the past that
so this would not require too much effort prevents them from doing the right thing
at those levels. Most of the support will for their students now.
be needed at the district level.
The Oakland Unified School District, for
example, was still cleaning up audit find-
Invest in Data Systems ings from the 2002–2003 school year at
the start of the 2007–2008 school year.
Even if there is no national RBB model, While compliance is important, the best
school districts could benefit greatly from cure for an issue is prevention. If state
better budgeting systems and/or support and federal agencies invest in a strategic
from their state governments. If funding budgeting unit that can assist districts
were available for states to implement a during transition to a clearer budgeting
standard budgeting system it would allevi- system, then those agencies should be able
ate the fears of many districts to migrate to reduce compliance costs in the long run
to a new budgeting process. The Oakland and have a greater impact on all students.
Unified School District had to develop
its budgets during the first year using
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets because the Focus on Results Not Inputs
district’s existing finance system could not
support the new process. A new federal/ Building on the last recommendation,
state-approved budgeting system would many districts spend a lot of time and
need to break down revenues and expenses energy documenting and worrying about
on a site-by-site basis. This technical sup- what they are spending their money on
port would remove a significant initial bar- rather than focusing on results. At the
rier toward moving to an RBB model. very least, Title I legislation needs to be
rewritten to examine the effect the dollars
have on closing the achievement gap.
Provide Strategic Assistance vs.
Compliance Oversight If principals and districts could submit
strategic plans that demonstrate the prac-
When districts move to a fully transparent tices that they are going to implement
budgeting system by using actual teacher with their Title I dollars and then show
salaries, they may uncover that they have matched cohort results for their Title I
not been adequately allocating resources students over time, then they would see
to Title I schools. Instead of imposing better results than the ones we are seeing
hefty audit findings on these districts, it today. What is a better use of a princi-
would be beneficial to provide strategic pal’s time—ensuring their team com-
assistance to the districts to develop a pletes employee time sheets or working
three-year plan to ensure resources are with their team to develop differentiated
equitably distributed to their schools. instructional strategies for their students?
Too many times, districts end up getting
106
Endnotes
1 Adapted from OUSD’s Expect Success: Making Education Work and 2007 Annual Report, available at http://wcbperfal.ousd.
k12.ca.us/docs/10480.pdf.
2 M. Roza, “What if We Closed the Title I Comparability Loophole?” in Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education, How
Local School District Funding Practices Hurt Disadvantaged Students and What Federal Policy Can Do About It (Washington,
DC: Center for American Progress, 2008).
3 Adapted from OUSD’s Multi-Year Fiscal Recovery Plan.
107
About the Authors

Matt Hill
Matt Hill is currently working for the Oakland Unified School District as the execu-
tive officer for strategic projects. In this role he oversees the District’s strategic planning
process and helps manage the strategic projects for the district. Prior to this role he
was the program manager for Expect Success, the school district’s $43 million reform
program that consists of over 20 initiatives. Prior to joining Oakland Unified, Mr. Hill
worked in Black & Decker’s Business Development group, where he redeveloped the
strategic planning process for the hardware and home improvement division. Mr. Hill
also worked as a strategy consultant with the Johnson and Johnson UCLA Management
Fellows program for Head Start and healthcare executives. Previously, he worked for
Accenture as an analyst, and then as a process consultant in the financial services indus-
try, where he worked on technology and strategy projects. He holds a B.S. in business
administration from the University of North Carolina, and an M.B.A. from the UCLA
Anderson School of Management. In addition, Mr. Hill serves on the board of direc-
tors for the Children’s Council of San Francisco.
Phyllis McClure
Phyllis McClure’s professional career has centered on school desegregation and Title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. That involvement began in the 1960s
in the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
and at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She continued her career commitment
to educational equity for poor and minority students at the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund in 1969 until 1994. Throughout those years she played a direct
role in monitoring enforcement of Title I and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
This involved conducting workshops on Title I for black parents and community
groups, investigations, filing complaints about misuse of Title I funds and the adverse
racial effect of ability grouping on black students, and studying the implementation of
school desegregation plans. She was co-author of the 1969 report “Title I of ESEA:
Is It Helping Poor Children?”—an expose about the initial failure of Title I to spend
federal money on the educational needs of disadvantaged children in high-poverty
schools. Ms. McClure then served on the U.S. Office of Education’s Title I Task Force
in 1969–1970 that helped create the first rules on comparability. Ms. McClure holds
a B.A. from the University of Connecticut, an M.A. in history from the University of
California-Berkeley, and an M.P.A. from the John F. Kennedy School of Government.
108
Marguerite Roza
Marguerite Roza, Ph.D., serves as a research associate professor with the Center on
Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. Dr. Roza’s research
focuses on education spending and productivity in the context of education policy.
Recent research has documented the real dollar implications of education policies once
realized inside schools and across schools within districts. Her calculations of dollar
allocations and cost equivalent tradeoffs have implications for education finance policy
at all levels in the education system. Her work has been published by Education Sec-
tor, the Brookings Institution, Education Next, and the Peabody Journal of Education.
Dr. Roza earned a Ph.D. in education from the University of Washington. Prior to that,
she served as a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, teaching thermodynamics at the Naval
Nuclear Power School. She has a B.S. from Duke University and has studied at the
London School of Economics and the University of Amsterdam.
Ross Wiener
Ross Wiener is vice president for program and policy at the Education Trust, a national,
non-profit organization focused on closing achievement gaps in public education. Prior
to joining The Education Trust, Mr. Wiener served as a trial attorney in the civil rights
division of the U.S. Department of Justice. As an attorney in the educational oppor-
tunities section, he investigated and prosecuted violations of federal civil rights laws in
schools and school districts across the country, including cases involving desegregation,
disability rights, harassment, and the adequacy of services to limited-English profi-
cient students. Mr. Wiener received a B.A. with honors in history from the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, a law degree with high honors from the George Washington
University Law School, and clerked for Judge Kermit Victor Lipez of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
109
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation for their sponsorship of this
publication as well as their ongoing support of our education programs.
110
Results Based Budgeting (RBB)
Analysis
November 5thh, 2008
0
Multi-Year Financial Sustainability Plan (MYFSP) Timeline
• 9/3 – Financial Planning (OE 7) and Financial Administration (OE 8)
• 9/10 – ’07‐08 Closing of the Books
• 10/1
10/1 – Small Schools Financial Analysis
Small Schools Financial Analysis
• 11/5 – Results Based Budgeting Analysis
• 11/5 – Discussion of two tier approach of presenting MYFSP
• Jan – Financial analysis
• Apr/May – District blueprint based on community feedback
• 12/10 –
12/10 ’08‐09 Interim Budget Report
’08 09 I i B d R
• 12/17 – Second draft of MYFSP
• January –
y BOE Budget Working Sessions
g g
• 1/7 – Implementation of approved modifications to RBB & School Changes
• 1/10 – Governor’s recommended state budget for next fiscal year
• 1/28 – Third/Final Draft MYFSP
1
RBB Analysis: Timeline
Date Activity
May 22nd BOE Review of 1st Draft of Multi Year Financial Sustainability Plan
May to August Internal Staff Analysis
September to Stakeholder input

October
November 5th American Institute for Research (AIR) report released &
Analysis and Recommendations presented to BOE
November 5th Solutions developed
p byy Finance Team and Cabinet
to January 17th
January 17th RBB revisions implemented
2
What is Results-Based Budgeting (RBB)?
Overview: RBB is a budgeting process based on a per student formula that
accounts for all expenses associated with school operations. Budgets are
allocated to and managed by school sites. RBB focuses on four key elements
which
hi h iinclude:
l d equity,
it ttransparency, accountability
t bilit and
d site
it based
b dddecision
i i
making.
Equity
• Allocation of funds are based on actual students versus staff allocations
• Schools have more control over the direction of their resources
Transparency
• Easier to understand budgets for community and parents
• Reflects true cost to operate instructional program for schools
Accountability
• RBB tied directly to school’s
school s strategic plans (SPSA)
• School Site Council (SSC) oversight of categorical funds
Site based decision making
• Schools have more control over their budgets
g
3
External Research: Staff’s Response to AIR Findings
AIR Finding Staff Response
Interviewees had a strong preference for We are keeping the RBB model and we will
RBB over previous budgeting system continue to improve the model
Equity of spending has increased for Given the fact, we allocate more to low income
elementary
l t schools,
h l b butt nott as much
h ffor schools,
h l we need d tto d
determine
t i why
h th
they h
have
secondary schools not expended more (budget monitoring)
Increase transparency at central We will implement easy to read central office
office/district levels budgets
g and hold communityy forums
Service economy model is confusing Staff has already moved away from this model
to a service culture model
Operation Support coaching has been a very We will continue to look for ways to offer this
positive innovation coaching in the future
Continue to move to more web based As funds are available, we will continue to
systems upgrade our web based systems
Focus on a culture shift away from pure Staff will continue to explore ways to streamline
compliance to innovative planning to address compliance process and provide tools to ensure
the needs of students better resource maximization
Build into the budget development process Staff will include this in the budget development
an annual review of the RBB model calendar
4
Internal Stakeholder Feedback - Principals
Recommendation
• The overwhelming response from principals is to keep RBB, but to continue
to refine the budget process.
Proposed Changes
• Modify the budget development calendar to start earlier
• Provide differentiated fiscal support to schools
• Continue to enhance the services offered by financial services
• Provide guidance on core staffing requirements
• Provide additional comparative budget analysis to schools
• Include job descriptions in budget development manual
• Increase fiscal/budget training (e.g. categorical compliance, special
education, attendance tracking, etc.)
• Load funds (i.e. carryover funds) as soon as possible
• Willingness to explore the reallocation of funds to support schools that need
support
• Willingness to consider a process that tiers schools based on financial
management effectiveness.
5
Summary of concerns/issues of RBB
Concerns/issues Potential Solutions
Increased administrative • Develop comprehensive budget planning book
responsibilities (financial mgmt) – Develop core staffing guides
placed on principals • Provide differentiated support and training
Involuntary transfer of teachers • Create central funding source for involuntary
produce unanticipated cost for transfers based on past trends
school’s budget • Allocate additional funds to schools if transfer costs
more than average teacher
Concentration of veteran teachers • Ensure enough funding is allocated to schools to
put strain on school’s budget cover high concentration of veteran teachers
Employees on extended leave • Create central funding source for extended leave
employees
• Develop process for providing funding for schools
Budget development occurs too • Initiate process earlier including allocations and
late opening of RBB tool
Lack of integration between RBB • Continue to explore the integration of the two
tool and IFAS systems
6
RBB - Next Steps
• Nov – Dec: Development of RBB enhancements
• Jan: Incorporation
p of RBB enhancements into MYFSP
• Jan: Training on RBB enhancements
• Jan - Feb: School site RBB (budgeting) process
7
RESULTS-BASED BUDGETING
The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) pioneered a new resource allocation system for its 108
schools, known as Results-Based Budgeting (RBB), in 2004. OUSD used RBB as a strategy to
increase equity, transparency, school-level autonomy, and accountability.
Under RBB, public dollars follow the student. RBB directs dollars to schools and gives each school
community the flexibility to decide how it will spend its dollars. Under RBB today, 84% of the district’s
general purpose funds go directly to school sites. RBB reflects the district’s belief that the people
closest to the students will most effectively manage a school’s resources in support of achieving
better academic outcomes.
Prior to RBB, school positions were allocated to schools regardless of salary. This practice created
inequities as higher-performing, higher-income schools tended to have the most highly paid veteran
teachers. As a result, schools with more veteran teachers received substantially more resources
than schools with newer teachers. Under RBB, OUSD became the first public school system in the
country to require schools to pay the actual cost of each teacher on staff.
Key results to date include:
Achievement: OUSD considers RBB as one of the key strategies that has made OUSD the most
improved large district in California for four years in a row (2004-2008).
Equity: RBB has improved equity among Oakland’s schools. Under RBB, higher-poverty elementary
schools receive more resources. They are spending 20% more per pupil than schools with zero
poverty.
Transparency: In a district with a troubled financial history, RBB improved fiscal transparency and
helped restore public confidence by directing more resources to schools.
Autonomy and Accountability: School communities like having discretion and flexibility over how
to spend their resources. Principals believe having budgetary discretion is necessary in order to
effectively and efficiently deploy resources to improve student performance. Principals willingly
accept greater accountability for budgetary control.
Lessons learned for other districts considering a student-based funding strategy like RBB:
Capacity requirements: In order to get maximum student results, a student-based funding

system like RBB requires strong leadership and management capacity at the school site and
strong technology systems and financial management support capacity at the central office.
OUSD recommends diagnosing the capacity of both principals and finance/operations staff prior
to implementation and then investing heavily in training and technology to make the system user-
friendly.
Communications: OUSD leaders recommend “over-communicating” the goals of any new

budgeting system to ensure understanding and buy-in. Communication with the school board,
principals, and labor leaders are particularly critical.
—Caroline King
RESULTS BASED BUDGETING (RBB)
OUSD KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE PROJECT

The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) pioneered a new resource allocation system for its 108 schools, known
as Results-Based Budgeting (RBB), in 2004. Essentially, RBB directs dollars to schools and gives each school
community the flexibility to decide how it will spend its dollars. RBB reflects the district’s belief that the people
closest to the students will most effectively manage a school’s resources in support of achieving better
academic outcomes. OUSD implemented a new accountability system that holds principals accountable for raising
student performance and closing the achievement gap in exchange for this budgetary autonomy.1
Why RBB?
OUSD introduced RBB as a strategy to increase equity, transparency, autonomy, and accountability
throughout the district.2 Two OUSD Board of Education policies laid the groundwork for RBB: 1) a 1999 policy to
strengthen decision-making at school sites and 2) a 2000 policy to create new small autonomous schools, primarily
to replace low-performing, overcrowded schools in Oakland’s low-income “flatland” neighborhoods.
OUSD’s last locally appointed Superintendent, Dennis Chaconas, piloted RBB in 2002 by giving the district’s seven
new small schools discretion over their own budget. Similar to charter schools, the new small schools received a
budget using a per-pupil allocation and paid the actual salaries of the staff they chose to hire.
In addition to creating budget equity, RBB gave schools more flexibility in order to configure their own staffing
arrangements3 and instructional programs. As the number of new small autonomous schools rapidly increased,
1 district leaders became convinced of RBB’s potential as a district-wide strategy to redress historic inequities,
award sites more site-based decision making in exchange for greater accountability, and introduce greater fiscal
transparency. OUSD’s first State Administrator, Randy Ward, directed OUSD to roll out RBB to every district school
in 2005.4
Prior to RBB, OUSD, like the majority of public school systems in the U.S., used enrollment-based formulas to
allocate positions (such as administrators, teachers, counselors, and janitors) and supplies, rather than dollars, to
schools. Under the staffing formulas, positions were accounted for in a school’s budget using average salaries,
a practice that masked the earnings differential between lower-paid novice teachers and more expensive veteran
teachers. In OUSD, like many urban districts, more experienced teachers clustered to the higher-performing
schools, leaving struggling schools to hire a revolving door of new teachers. From a resource standpoint, the district
created inequities.
The following example shows how two schools that each hire 10 teachers fared in OUSD pre- and post-RBB. The
average salary system in use prior to RBB “charged” all schools an average salary of $50,000 per teacher, although
schools never experienced a savings or deficit if they hired teachers earning below or above the average. If School
A attracted 10 veteran teachers each earning $70,000 ($700,000 total), and School B hired 10 novice teachers
each earning $40,000 ($400,000 total), the district simply allocated an additional $300,000 to School A to cover its
more expensive teacher salaries. If Schools A and B received equal budgets and made the same hiring decisions
described above, School A would have less money to spend on non-salary expenses (e.g. professional development,
supplies, etc.) while School B would have more.5
How RBB Works

Under RBB, dollars follow the students. A school’s budget is determined by the number and type of students enrolled 2
and the attendance rates of the school. Each year, OUSD determines the basic per-pupil allocation by dividing the
district’s General Fund revenues (after taking out some district-wide expenses (e.g. encroachments, debt payments,
etc.) by the total number of students in the district based upon the average daily attendance rate (ADA). The district
has steadily increased the percentage of its general purpose funds allocated to sites (versus retained for central
office expenditures) to 84% in 2009 (see Exhibit 1). In 2008-09, each school received approximately $4000 per
student from general purpose funds.
Categorical funds, which support specific student populations, are distributed to schools based upon federal and
state regulations. For example, the district’s total $25.3 million Title 1 budget in 2008-09 was divided by the district’s
25,055 Title 1 students (after deducting mandatory takeouts), resulting in an additional $485 per low-income student
flowing to schools.6 For the first three years of RBB’s implementation, OUSD used a parcel tax to give schools with
higher than average teacher salaries a subsidy (ranging from $500-$600 per pupil in the first year to less than $100
per pupil in the third year)7 so that schools were not punished for having a veteran teacher team.8
RBB differs from other school budgeting systems in three important ways.
First, most other districts that have replaced staffing formulas with student-based budgeting systems use a Weighted
Student Formula (WSF).9 Under WSF, a local board of education or other policy-making body devises a per-pupil
allocation formula that affixes a different “weight” to each student group, with the heaviest weights going to the most
at-risk students. For example, under San Francisco’s WSF, a low-income first grader who is an Advanced English
Language Learner has a total weight of 1.4805, 48.05 percent higher than the average fourth- or fifth-grader.10 The
rationale for WSF is that it costs more to educate students with greater needs, however, some evidence has been
collected under adequacy studies that suggests otherwise. In any case, the process of determining how much “more”
is a political decision. Oakland’s design choice uses its categorical funds to serve as the “weights” since the
district receives a high percentage of its budget in categorical funding, which target students with specific needs (e.g.
poverty, disability, etc.)
RESULTS BASED BUDGETING (RBB) “OUSD
was the first
public school system
in the country to require
Another unique feature of RBB is its use of actual staff salaries. OUSD was the first public schools to pay the actual
school system in the country to require schools to pay the actual cost of each teacher cost of each teacher on staff.
The district’s unprecedented
on staff. The district’s unprecedented use of actual salaries is considered a key lever
use of actual salaries is
for achieving equity as “schools with inexperienced teachers have additional resources considered a key lever
they can use to develop and retain those teachers, thus equalizing the distribution of talent for achieving
11
across district schools.” Arguing that average salaries obscure the primary source of inequity equity.”
between higher income (typically higher-performing) and low-income (typically lower performing)
public schools, some national education experts have lauded OUSD’s results-based budgeting system as “the only
district in the country to fully implement equitable funding of all of its schools on a per-school, per-pupil basis.”12
Finally, OUSD school budgets are calculated by “weight[ing] the [current] total enrollment at the school by the school’s
average daily attendance (ADA) from the previous year. For example, if the district calculates that a school has an
actual enrollment of 500 students and had an ADA the previous school year of 90 percent, the school would receive
general purpose funds for 450 students (500 x .90 = 450).”13 Operationally, this means that OUSD must adjust school
budgets in November of each current school year. In contrast, most school budgeting systems allocate dollars or
positions based on spring enrollment projections or straight enrollment counts from the 10th day of the current year.
OUSD’s system ensures accurate per-pupil resource allocation and gives schools a compelling incentive to
increase attendance throughout the school year.
RBB Implementation Tools and Supports

Originally implemented through lengthy Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, OUSD developed an online RBB tool in 2006.
Every spring, the OUSD budget office sends each school its projected budget allocation for the following school year.
Principals then work with their staff and school site council to create and approve a budget. Principals log-in into the
3 RBB system and enter the school’s spending decisions. Budget allocations are revised each November when the fall
enrollment and Average Daily Attendance (ADA) numbers are released, and principals often adjust their budgets.
The online tool has been refined every year based on principal feedback. One of the most notable changes to the
tool was integrating RBB and the state’s annual mandated Single Plan Student Achievement (SPSA) in 2008. The
SPSA allows a principal and school site council to analyze achievement data and detail the strategies that the school
will pursue to improve student performance. By integrating RBB and the SPSA, principals are able to drill down and
show how resource allocation choices support each strategy. (See Exhibit 2 for a screenshot of the RBB tool. See
Exhibit 3 for a sample SPSA.)
Within the OUSD finance office, a budget director oversees RBB and the budget office. A team of operations support
specialists are tasked with training and supporting principals on RBB. Network Executive Officers (NEXOs), who
each manage 8-15 principals, help principals develop and align their SPSAs and budgets, and ultimately approve
both documents.
RBB in Practice
“At
Interviews at six OUSD schools in fall 2008 revealed strong support for RBB. School community
communities from the previously under-resourced flatlands felt that resources were more meetings across
equitably and transparently allocated across the district. Principals viewed RBB as a Oakland to address
the district’s potential
critical mechanism for aligning resources with their school’s vision and instructional
budget cuts due to the State
program, a necessary step for improving student outcomes.14 Teachers described how of California financial crisis,
budget discretion at the site enables their school to spend its dollars on site-determined school staff and parents
priorities. At community meetings across Oakland to address the district’s potential demanded that schools
retain site based budget
budget cuts due to the State of California financial crisis, school staff and parents
decision making.”
demanded that schools retain site based budget decision making. Schools said that they
would rather have to make the difficult decisions about spending tradeoffs at their sites versus having cuts handed
down by the central office.
The following vignettes describe RBB in practice at three Oakland schools.
Life Academy of Health and Bioscience

Serving 250 9th-12th graders in East Oakland, Life Academy of Health and Bioscience was the first small high school
to open in OUSD in 2001. Students primarily live in the surrounding Fruitvale and San Antonio neighborhoods and
are drawn to Life Academy in order to pursue an interest in the medical field. Life Academy offers a rigorous college
prep curriculum and internships to juniors and seniors. Principal Erik Rice calls RBB “essential because it enables
me to be strategic with our resources.” He continues, “The district hired me to be in charge of the instructional
program and produce high academic achievement. Bottom line is I need control over my budget to be able to do that.
I like that I’m held accountable for my choices. If we’re not producing results over time, I’d be the first to say replace
me. But I think the gains that we’ve been making prove that we know how to best help our students’ achieve across
many different measures.”
Rice’s number one priority is to “hire the most amazing and committed instructors I can find.” “Teachers are the most
important positions we hire,” he adds. “As part of the small schools model, teachers and every adult in the building
fill multiple roles to support various student needs. Each teacher works with a small group of advisees to help them
select their courses and extracurriculars, find internships, and plan for college. We are best positioned to advise our
students because we know their academic, personal and social needs, and long-term goals.”
Rice also acknowledges that while Life Academy is “extremely fortunate” to have a very stable teaching staff, he will
have to pay more to retain these teachers as their actual salaries rise with experience. “But facing the tradeoffs that
4
will come by having a veteran teaching staff are exactly the hard decisions that my school community and I want and
need to make ourselves,” said Rice.
“The district
RBB’s flexibility enables Rice and his team to provide Life Academy students with hired me to be in
unique experiences and services. Examples include: lowering class size in most charge of the instructional
program and produce high
core curriculum areas, taking students on 3-4 day trips (including a college tour)
academic achievement.
every year, implementing a new technology-based intervention for struggling Bottom line is I need control over
readers (Read 180), offering three weeks of arts and other enrichment classes at my budget to be able to do that.
the end of the school year and robust after school programs (including community I like that I’m held accountable
for my choices.”
service, dance, young women’s club, etc.), and hiring two parent coordinators to offer
— Principal Erik Rice
English as a Second Language classes and other workshops designed to help parents
become academic advocates for their children.
Rice argues that Life Academy’s investments are paying off. The school had one of the highest one-year gains
(58 points) on California’s Academic Performance Index among district high schools in 2007-08. On the California
Standards Test (CST), 18% of Life Academy students achieved proficiency in English/Language Arts and 13% in
Math.
College Preparatory and Architecture Academy

College Preparatory and Architecture Academy (CPAA) is one of four small high schools that replaced the
underperforming comprehensive Fremont High School in 2002. Nearly 400 9th-12th graders attend CPAA, which
offers a rigorous college prep curriculum and theme-based classes in architecture, design, construction, and
technology.
Principal Daniel Hurst, previously an English teacher at Fremont for 13 years, joined other teachers and parents
on a design team to create CPAA. Hurst described the old Fremont HS as “sometimes violent, often chaotic, and
with class sizes sometimes as high as 45 students, it was programmed for failure not learning. The small school
autonomies were what attracted me to get involved with CPAA—I believed that with more power over our staffing,
instructional program, and environment we could provide a high-quality education and actually help our kids stay in
school and succeed.”
According to Hurst, RBB is “critical. Our job is to hold these kids and make sure they graduate with real options for
the future. We couldn’t do our job without budget autonomy—it would be disastrous.” With his budget discretion,
Hurst’s first priority is to hire additional teachers and lower classes to 22 students to 1 teacher instead of the 32:1
ratio averaged by most OUSD high schools. Hurst focuses professional development resources on setting up internal
learning communities so that teachers can analyze current student work against college-going expectations and
plan common strategies to improve and differentiate instruction. He invests heavily in technology and supplies so
that “teachers feel supported and respected as professionals and so that they can spend their energy on teaching.”
Hurst also purchases two sets of books so that every student has one to take home and one that stays in class.
CPAA is showing remarkable progress. In 2008, CPAA became the first high school to earn the highest ranking on
OUSD’s tiered accountability system.15 CPAA also had the highest score on California’s Academic Performance
Index among the flatland high schools in 2007-08, although CPAA still ranks among the lowest 20% of high schools in
the state. Twenty-two percent of students are proficient in English/Language Arts and 12% demonstrated proficiency
in Math.
ACORN Woodland Elementary

Located on the far eastern edge of Oakland, ACORN Woodland Elementary (AWE)
“I’m very
5 comfortable creating serves 250 K-5 students. AWE was the first new small autonomous school in the
and managing our budget. district, opening its doors in 2000 as a collaboration between former Superintendent
And I like to see how we’re Chaconas, the nonprofit Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now
using every dollar to maximize
student learning. But I would
(ACORN), and parents dissatisfied with the previously overcrowded and low-
suspect that not every principal performing elementary school in their low-income neighborhood. AWE Principal
in OUSD has this degree of Kimi Kean was one of the school’s founding teachers who returned in 2004
comfort with RBB.
after completing the New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS) principal training and
– Principal Kimi Kean
certification program.
Commenting on RBB, Kean said, “RBB is the key to getting what we need to help our
students achieve. I remember teaching at AWE prior to RBB and we could not make the most important resource
allocation decisions that we believed would significantly boost academic performance. The most experienced
teachers were also flocking to the wealthy hill schools—a further inequitable concentration of resources to students
who already have so much more than ours. Now with RBB, we use student data to drive our budgetary decisions.
We pinpoint our weaknesses and target our resources to address them.”
Kean also acknowledges that working with RBB requires a certain degree of capacity and comfort. “Because of
my NLNS training, I’m very comfortable creating and managing our budget. And I like to see how we’re using every
dollar to maximize student learning. But I would suspect that not every principal in OUSD has this degree of comfort
with RBB.”
AWE has more teachers early in their careers than veterans. Under RBB, Kean estimates that since she is paying
her teachers’ actual (and lower) salaries, she recoups approximately $100,000 that would have been lost to AWE
under the old average salary system. Kean uses her extra resources to lower class sizes (the student to teacher ratio
is 20:1 compared to up to 32:1 in other elementary schools), hire a 80% part-time literacy coach who works alongside
teachers to improve the quality of instruction and created standards-based formative assessments, hire four part-
time tutors and two part-time family engagement coordinators, and offer an engaging after-school program that runs
from 3:00 – 6:30pm every day. “This is a rough neighborhood with considerable gang violence and drug activity,”
explained Kean. “Our families want their kids to stay here to be safe, get homework help, and have fun. We are also
able to provide an enriching visual and performing arts learning that would otherwise be squeezed during the school-
day.”
Kean points to AWE’s results as evidence that she and her staff and parent leadership team are making sound
budgetary decisions. Indeed, AWE posted the highest one-year gains on the CST in 2007-08, with 44% of students
proficient in English/Language Arts and 65% in Math. Also notable were the 20+point gains made by AWE’s sizeable
English Language Learner student population. AWE also has virtually no achievement gap between any subgroup.
RBB: Lessons Learned “RBB

requires
OUSD’s results-based budgeting system offers a number of compelling lessons learned. high leadership
and management
RBB and academic achievement: OUSD leaders consider RBB as one of the key capacity at the school
strategies that has made OUSD the most improved large district in California for four site and strong technology
years in a row (2004-2008)—along with the opening of small schools, closing of failing systems and financial
management support
schools, a new standards-based curriculum and set of formative assessments, formation
capacity at the
of professional learning communities in schools, clear accountability for results, and central office.”
community and family engagement.
Budgeting as an equity strategy: RBB demonstrates that public school systems can increase equity among
schools by funding schools on a per-pupil basis and using actual salaries. An external study of RBB conducted
by American Institutes of Research (AIR) found that the district directed significantly more dollars to high-poverty
6
elementary schools under RBB compared to pre-RBB, such that in 2006-07, “an elementary school with 50%
poverty was expected to spend approximately 20 percent more on average than a zero poverty school.” While
high-poverty middle and high schools received more resources than higher-income schools, the difference in
resource expenditures was not deemed statistically significant pre- and post-RBB.16 The district is still analyzing
the distribution of teacher talent across the district before and after RBB. However, according to the AIR report,
“several district staff noted that there may not be as large a shift as anticipated from using actual salaries because of
collective bargaining agreements.”17
Improved transparency and confidence: In a district with a troubled financial history, RBB heightened fiscal
transparency and helped restore public confidence by directing a greater percentage of general purpose resources
each year (up to 84% now) to schools.
Creating a culture of empowerment and accountability: Principals cite budget autonomy as essential for
creating an aligned instructional program and improving student performance. Principals are willing to accept this
responsibility in exchange for heightened accountability for results.
Increased productivity and efficiency: A system like RBB has the potential to eliminate waste and increase
productivity. Principals in particular, as well as teachers and parents, see how every dollar counts for maximizing
student learning. Principals and teachers may choose to take on additional responsibilities (e.g. counseling) instead
of hiring a dedicated staff member. Principals argue that with budgets declining admidst state and local budget cuts,
site discretion is even more critical. As one principal commented, “The flexibility of RBB is essential, particularly
in these budget constrained times. If I’m able to find a grant to fund X, then I can use district money to fund Y. If
the district prescribed how I should spend district dollars, I’d lose the ability to leverage and maximize all available
resources.”
Capacity requirements: In order to get maximum student results, RBB requires high leadership and management
“The capacity at the school site and strong technology systems and financial management
unprecedented use support capacity at the central office. OUSD recommends diagnosing the capacity
of actual salaries tackled a of both principals and finance/operations staff prior to implementation and then
primary source of intra-district
investing heavily in training and technology to make the system user-friendly.18
inequity in the US public education
system. Is it difficult to know if
this politically-charged aspect of
Communications strategy: OUSD acknowledges that RBB’s swift
RBB would have been possible to implementation process shortchanged critical understanding of and buy-in for
implement if OUSD had not been RBB across some district stakeholders. District leaders recommend “over-
under the control of a state
communicating” the goals of any new budgeting system. Communication with
appointed administrator
with the ability to act labor leaders is particularly critical as RBB raised concerns about the potential to
unilaterally.” force veteran teachers out of the district and reduce the number of classified non-
instructional staff.19
Funding conditions: OUSD implemented RBB during a period of declining enrollment, meaning that school sites
gained autonomy over shrinking budgets. OUSD suggests that the “best time to implement this model is during a
time of increased funding” because “principals will be a lot more receptive to this change when their decision making
is focused on programmatic expansion versus cutting core programs.”20 OUSD also advises districts moving to
actual salaries to consider how they will support the transition in schools that pay above average salaries.
Funding complexity: With over 125 federal, state and local funding sources, OUSD acknowledges that it is far more
challenging to manage this complexity across multiple school sites than at the central office level. OUSD suggests
that streamlined funding sources would help convince more large districts to implement site-based budgeting.21
Political implications: OUSD’s unprecedented use of actual salaries tackled a primary source of intra-district
7 inequity in the US public education system. Is it difficult to know if this politically-charged aspect of RBB would have
been possible to implement district-wide if OUSD had not been under the control of a state appointed administrator
with the ability to act unilaterally. The only other US districts to follow Oakland’s lead and require all or some of their
schools to pay actual staff salaries—New York City Schools and Chicago Public Schools—have been under mayoral
control since 2002 and 1995, respectively.
Additional Resources
Chambers, Jay, Larisa Shambaugh, Jesse Levin, Mari Maruki and Lindsay Polland. “A Tale of Two Districts: A Comparative Study
of Student-Based Funding and School-Based Decision Making in San Francisco and Oakland Unified School Districts.” American
Institutes of Research (AIR). October 2008.
Hill, Matt. “Funding Schools Equitably: Results-Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School District,” Center for American
Progress. June 2008.
“Results-Based Budgeting: The Challenge of Autonomy,” University of California-Berkeley Haas School of Business Case.
Exhibit 1 Allocation of OUSD General Fund
 
* - OUSD Budget represents the General Fund (Fund 01) from the 2008-09 fiscal year.
8
Source: OUSD Fiscal Sustainability Presentation, Community Meetings. September, 2008.
Exhibit 2 Screenshots of RBB tool for Life Academy
Source: OUSD.
Exhibit 2 Screenshots of RBB tool for Life Academy cont’d.
10
Source: OUSD.
Exhibit 2 Screenshots of RBB tool for Life Academy cont’d.
11
Source: OUSD.
Exhibit 3 Excerpt from Life Academy of Health and Bioscience Single Plan
for Student Achievement, 2008-2011
SECTION 4: Academic Action Plan and Budgeting for 2008-2009
Student Groups:
ACCELERATED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND COLLEGE READINESS
EO, EL, RFEP, SPED, GATE,
ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS Grade Levels, Ethnicity, FBB/
BB, B, P/A, all
ELA TARGETS:
44.5% of students overall and in each subgroup score proficient or above in ELA
100% of students advance 1 CELDT level per year
Average Score of 70% on CAHSEE Writing Conventions and Writing Strategies.
Average Score of 3 on CAHSEE Essay.
ITEMS REFLECTED IN RBB IN SPRING 2008
Measure
STUDENT
GROUP of Resource Resource Object Budget Expense Item
ACTIONS PRACTICES IMPACTED Success # Name Code Object Name FTE Amount Description
FBB
.40 FTE to maintain reduced Class $23,873.93
BB
Size in 9th Grade ELA 9th Grade Reduced
$9,549
HQI B CAHSEE 7090 EIA - SCE 1105 TEACH. SAL. 0.4 (Approx. Benefits) Class Size. Jill Thomas.
TEACH. SAL.! $11,936.97

12
$4,774 Read 180 Instruction
HQI EL CAHSEE 7091 EIA - LEP 1105 0.2 (Approx. Benefits) Jill Thomas
TEACH. SAL.! $11,505.09

.60 FTE to support implementation of
Read 180 supplementary reading $4,602 Read 180 Instruction
intervention program.
HQI EL CAHSEE 7091 EIA - LEP 1105 0.2 (Approx. Benefits) Emily Rigotti
TEACH. SAL.! $10,828.44
$4,331 Read 180 Instruction
HQI EL CAHSEE 7091 EIA - LEP 1105 0.2 (Approx. Benefits) Kimberly Trujillo Young
FBB TEACH. SAL.! $12,193.65 11th/12th Grade

Coordinate academic interventions/ Academic Intervention
PLCS; BB $4,877 Coordination
support for 11th and 12th graders.
HQI B GPA 7090 EIA - SCE 1105 0.2 (Approx. Benefits) Yumi Matsui
Create and implement tightly aligned

reading and writing curriculum across FBB
all grade levels and in all content
areas. Emphasis on cooperative PLCS; BB
learning, writing benchmarks,
assessment, and literacy. HQI B CST 3010 Title I 5825 CONSULT. 0 $15,000.00 ELA Coaching
Create and implement tightly aligned

reading and writing curriculum across FBB
all grade levels and in all content
areas. Emphasis on cooperative PLCS; BB
learning, writing benchmarks, Coaching: Assessment
assessment, and literacy. HQI B CST 7258 HPSG 5825 CONSULT. 0 $40,000.00 and data-based inquiry
Coordinate and expand library $11,505.09

Silent Sustained
selection, matching up appropriate
$4,602 Reading Coordination
texts for lower-level readers for
Sustained Silent Reading. All CST 7395 SLIBG 1105 TEACH. SAL. 0.2 (Approx. Benefits) Kimberly Trujillo Young
Collaborative planning time for grade FBB

level teams to review student work and
PLCS; BB
implement literacy strategies across
TEACH. SAL. Extended Contracts
disciplines.
HQI B CST 7258 HPSG 1122 EXTRA COMP 0 $15,000.00 Grade level teams
Exhibit 3 Excerpt from Life Academy of Health and Bioscience Single Plan
for Student Achievement, 2008-2011 cont’d.
MATHEMATICS
MATH TARGETS:
43.5% of students overall and in each subgroup score proficient or above in math
Average Score of 70% on CAHSEE Algebra 1 and Algebra Functions.
MATH ACTION PLAN AND BUDGETING
ITEMS REFLECTED IN RBB IN SPRING 2008

Measure
STUDENT
GROUP of Resource Resource Object Budget Expense Item
ACTIONS PRACTICES IMPACTED Success # Name Code Object Name FTE Amount Description
Reduce class size and team teaching $21,472.11

options in mathematics to offer more FBB
direct support for students during class $8,588
Reduce class size in
time. HQI BB CST 3010 Title I 1105 TEACH.SAL. 0.4 math. Federick Ngo.
(Approx. Benefits)
Interactive math software to support FBB

students in filling in gaps for math
instruction. HQI BB CAHSEE 7090 EIA - SCE 4315 COMP. SUPP. 0 $2,138.26 Math software
Create aligned standards-based $22,511

Math Curriculum
mathematics system with emphasis on PLCS; FBB
$9,004 Coaching.
cooperative learning, literacy TEACHER
strategies, and aligned assessments. HQI BB CST 3010 Title I 1105 SALARY 0.5
13 (Approx. Benefits)
ITEMS NOT REFLECTED IN RBB IN SPRING 2008, BUT APPROVED BY SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL IN APRIL 2008 TO IMPLEMENT
WHEN FUNDING BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR 2008-9 SCHOOL YEAR.
FBB
TEACH. SAL. Teacher to run after
After School Math Workshops to
HQI BB CST 1128 Hourly $15,000 school study support.
provide targeted interventions for
students far below mastery in
FBB
mathematics class.
HQI BB CST 2928 Student Wages $4,000 Student tutors
FBB
TEACH. SAL. Summer Institute
HQI BB CAHSEE 1128 HOURLY 0 $10,000 Teacher compensation
Summer Institute with focus on
mastery over high priority math FBB
standards and CAHSEE proficiency. Curricular supplies for
HQI BB CAHSEE 4300 MAT. & SUPP. 0 $5,000 summer institute
FBB Outside support provider

to run summer institute
HQI BB CAHSEE 5825 Consultants 0 $15,000 workshops.
!
Source: Life Academy of Health and Bioscience Single Plan for Student Achievement, 2008-2011.
Notes
1 See OUSD Knowledge Capture Project caselet on School Portfolio Management for a description of the district’s
tiered accountability and support system.
2 Hill, Matt. “Funding Schools Equitably: Results-Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School District,” Center for
American Progress, June 2008.
3 Schools still have to abide by contractual requirements and state class size mandates.
4 In California, when the state takes over a district, the state appoints a State Administrator who has all the duties of
a Superintendent but reports to the state instead of to the local governing body. For a more thorough history of RBB
and its implementation, see Matt Hill’s “Funding Schools Equitably” and “Results-Based Budgeting: The Challenge
of Autonomy,” University of California-Berkeley Haas School of Business Case. Background information in this
section draws upon these papers.
5 Example and chart from Matt Hill, page 92.
6 By Federal law, the district has to account for set-asides not reflected in this calculation, such as for supplemental
education services, professional development, parent education, and charter and private school students.
7 Chambers, Jay, Larisa Shambaugh, Jesse Levin, Mari Maruki and Lindsay Polland. “A Tale of Two Districts: A
Comparative Study of Student-Based Funding and School-Based Decision Making in San Francisco and Oakland
Unified School Districts.” American Institutes of Research (AIR). October 2008, page 25.
8 “Results-Based Budgeting: The Challenge of Autonomy,” University of California-Berkeley Haas School of

14
Business Case. See page 10.
9 WSF was pioneered in Edmonton, Canada and has been implemented in the US in Hawaii, Seattle, San Francisco,
Washington, DC, and a handful of other major urban districts.
10 The average fourth- or fifth- grader receives the base weight of 1.00. Additional weights are added for students
who are low-income, in a different grade level, learning English, or in a special education program. See AIR page
18 for example and an explanation of San Francisco’s weights on page 19, Exhibit 9: San Francisco’s Weights for
General Purpose Funds, 2006-07.
11 “Results-Based Budgeting: The Challenge of Autonomy,” page 6.
12 “NEEDED: Federal Action for Fair Funding of High-Poverty Schools,” By John Podesta & Cynthia G. Brown.
Commentary in Education Week, July 30, 2008. Vol. 27, Issue 44, pages 28,32. Note that New York City has since
implemented Fair Student Funding, a weighted student formula using actual salaries, and Chicago Public Schools
requires a subset of its schools (new schools created under Renaissance 2010 and high-performing Autonomous
Management and Performance Schools) to pay actual staff salaries.
13 AIR, page 16.
14 These sentiments were shared by the six principals interviewed by AIR for their report “A Tale of Two Districts.”
See page 48.
15 See OUSD Knowledge Capture Project caselet on School Portfolio Management for a description of the district’s
tiered accountability system.
16 AIR, pages 79-85.

17 AIR, page 25.
18 Matt Hill, page 103.
15
OUSD School Budget Handbook
2009-10
February 9, 2009
2009-10 OUSD School Budget Handbook
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Letter from Dr. Mayor on 2009-10 Budget Development Cycle……………………………………3
II. Overview of State Economic and Fiscal Climate and Impact on OUSD…………………………....4
III. Preliminary School RBB Allocations (Summary)…………………………………………………...5
IV. School Staffing Guidelines (Summary)………………………………………………………………7
V. History of Results-Based Budgeting………………………………………………………………....9
VI. School RBB calendar (December 2008 to April 2009)………..……..…………………………..…10
VII. RBB Session Principal Checklist………..…………………………………………………………..13
VIII. Resource Funding Guidelines……………………………………………………………………….14

a. Categorical Program Funding Guidelines…………………………………………...………….14
b. Appropriate Use of Measure G Funding Sources………………………………………………18
c. Supplement, Not Supplant Guiding Questions...……………………………………………….18
IX. Staffing Change Form……………………………………………………………………………….19
X. Consultant Contract Planning Tool…………………………………………………………………20
XI. Common School-based Staff Job Descriptions………………………….………………………….21
XII. Direct service agreements…………………………………………………………………………..23

a. Operations Support Order Form……………………………………………………………...24
b. Custodial Services Appeal Form……………………………………………………………..25
XIII. RBB and SPSA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)……………...………………………………..27
APPENDIX
I. School RBB Policies……………………………………………………..………………………….32

II. OUSD 2009-10 Budget Development Calendar…………………………………………………….33
III. Final RBB session calendar…………………………………………………………………....……34

Page 2

February 5, 2009
Dear OUSD Principals,
As you know, school Districts across the state are now facing devastating cuts due to the state economic crisis.
For OUSD, these cuts will have drastic impacts on the current fiscal year, 2008-09, as well as 2009-10 and
beyond. The cut to OUSD in 2008-09 is expected to be approximately $12 million reduction and for 2009-10
approximately $28 million reduction in unrestricted funding.
These cuts are a great loss to the students of Oakland. In order to pull through this crisis, we must stay focused
on the quality of our core programs while remaining fiscally solvent. The District has made great strides in
financial sustainability over the past years, and now—as FCMAT has recommended a return of full local
control—maintaining our financial health will continue to be a top priority during these challenging times.
Our approach to managing these catastrophic losses reflects our core values. We will do all we can to shield our
school sites from the brunt of the cuts. Still, it is inevitable that cuts this deep will be felt at the site level. Site
budgets will be leaner than previous years, and school leaders will be forced to stretch limited resources farther
than ever. Our priority as a District is to ensure schools are able to provide, at least a basic set of core services.
The Central Office will bear the responsibility for identifying the additional necessary reductions to balance the
budget. We’re now working to cut $6 million in spending through the Central Office (CO) General Purpose
fund, plus $13 million in additional cuts gained through other Central Office cuts. Central Office reductions
may come from a variety of sources including, but not limited to paying District-wide expenses off with other
funds, removal of one-time Central Office General Purpose expenses, a shift of Measure E/G Central Office
expenses, and shift of TIIG Central Office expenses.
This Handbook is designed to help you and your teams prepare a strategic 2009-10 budget for your school.
Within it, you will find a history and background of OUSD’s unique budgeting process, schedules, worksheets
and forms, as well as quick references including Frequently Asked Questions and the most common job
descriptions used at school sites.
If you have questions about any of the material presented in this Handbook, or need additional support, please
contact your Financial Services Associate.
Sincerely,
Dr. Roberta Mayor

Interim Superintendant, Oakland Unified School District

Page 3

Overview of State Economic and Fiscal Climate and Impact on OUSD
California is currently in the midst of a severe economic downturn. The joint effect of the state’s continuing
structural budget deficit and an extreme, unpredicted loss of tax revenues resulting from the slowdown in the
economy has resulted in a budget shortfall of just over $40 billion—about half of the state revenues originally
predicted for 2009-10.
Where did the budget gap come from?
In the late 1990s, California’s budget was balanced and projected to remain so. In 1999, state revenues began to
experience a massive jump, almost 25%, due to the dot-com boom. The dot-com boom created increases in
stock option and capital gains income for many California workers, the likes of which the state had never
encountered before. A release from the Governor’s office addressing the 2009-10 Budget explains,
“These [increases] were magnified from a state revenue perspective because the
state’s income tax system relies disproportionately on the very high-end earners
most likely to receive such gains. The surge in revenues resulted in massive and
unsustainable new spending commitments. When revenues declined, the state
relied mostly on one-time measures, such as borrowing, to temporarily reduce
spending without cutting back underlying program commitments. Thus the
structural deficit was born.”
Tax revenues collected during a 2005-06 surge were used primarily to repay loans. Proposition 13, enacted by
voters in 1978, has long limited the state’s ability to raise revenue through property taxes, making California
heavily reliant on sales and income taxes which are much more sensitive to changes in the health of the
economy. The deficit that was born following the dot-com crash now has been aggravated by the dramatic
decline in tax revenues resulting from the current economic recession.
How long will the budget gap last?
The largest and most immediate problem impacting the state’s budget is the current recession, brought about by
the worldwide credit crisis. Rising unemployment has resulted in lower sales tax and income tax revenue for the
state. As a result, public schools and other service organizations are left facing greater demands with far fewer
resources. The economic and financial event of the past four months, including failing banks and increased job
loss, indicates the continued downward trend of the national economy. Primary revenue sources for the state,
such as personal income tax and corporate tax, continue to be severely below projections included in the current
year budget. Many experts are predicting that it will be at least two to three years before we see a recovery.
Meanwhile, California continues to spend more dollars and provide more services than other states.
School Services of California asserts that in the long-term the state funding system will continue to see drastic
upswings and downswings, suggesting, “Prospects for a long-term solution hinge on a willingness to put
everything, including Proposition 13, on the table—that is not likely to happen anytime soon.” Reform must
also set new priorities for spending within the state. California places a lower priority on supporting schools and
investing in education than other states across the nation, and has been less successful in controlling costs for
prisons and welfare than other states.
The budget crisis seems to have no end. Is there a solution?
OUSD, and all California school districts, must seek out more stable funding sources. Many are looking to the
potential of parcel taxes to provide another revenue stream to suffering school districts. SCA 6 (Simitian) is a
bill now under consideration by California’s state senate that would reduce the two-thirds vote required to pass a
parcel tax. In the long term, revenue prospects for school districts will depend on the voters. California voters
must demand real change from their leadership and be willing to pay for a quality school system.

Page 4

Preliminary School RBB Allocation: 2009-10
Subject to change based on the Governor’s Initial January and May Budget Revision
The thoughtful consideration of the use of your school’s resources is absolutely critical in these uncertain and
challenging fiscal times. Financial Services is therefore publishing school RBB allocations for the upcoming
2009-10 budget development process.
The purpose of this document is to provide information that helps in appropriately planning labor and non-labor
resources for your school next year. In conjunction with this summary there are other resources – such as SPSA
review session, Network meeting time, and a staffing worksheet that will help in the planning process leading up
to and through your RBB session.
Due to the state fiscal crisis the District has made every effort to minimize the cuts to schools. In order to
accomplish the goal of only a 4.5% reduction in basic school program funding, other resources are being used to
help supplement General Purpose dollars. The table listed below provides a comparison of 2008-09 to 2009-10
allocations using Measure G, Lottery: Unrestricted, and TIIG to help minimize funding reductions to schools.
These additional resources – Measure G: Basic School Support, Lottery: Unrestricted, and TIIG: Basic School
Support – should be used primarily for classroom staff and non-labor resources.
BASIC SCHOOL PROGRAM FUNDING
Base Allocation per student*
2008-09 2009-10
School Total General Measure Lottery: TIIG3 Total Difference %
Type Purpose G1 UR2 Change
Elementary $4,013 $3,381 $265 $116 $69 $3,832 ($181) (4.5%)
Middle $4,327 $3,646 $286 $126 $75 $4,132 ($195) (4.5%)
High $4,383 $3,693 $290 $127 $76 $4,186 ($197) (4.5%)
K-8 $4,170 $3,513 $276 $121 $72 $3,982 ($188) (4.5%)
6-12 $4,355 $3,669 $288 $126 $75 $4,159 ($196) (4.5%)
K-12 $4,240 $3,573 $280 $123 $73 $4,049 ($191) (4.5%)
* - Per student allocations will be adjusted for individual school attendance rates.
OTHER SCHOOL FUNDING – PROGRAM SPECIFIC
Measure G Funding Allocations per student (Resource 0091)
Program 2008-09 2009-10 Difference Notes

School Libraries $57 $56 $1 Elementary & middle
Staffed Prep (EEIP) $2,411 $2,404 ($7) Elementary (per teacher FTE)
Middle School Electives $125 $125 $0 Middle
CSR Funding (Resource 1200, 1300)
Program 2008-09 2009-10 Difference Notes

State CSR K-3 $1,017 $1,017 $0 per eligible student
State CSR 9th grade $192 $192 $0 per eligible student hour
Measure G CSR: K-3 Site-specific $246 n/a per eligible student
1
Labeled as Measure G (resource 0097) basic school program funding in RBB tool.
2
Labeled as Lottery: Unrestricted (resource 1100) basic school program funding in RBB tool.
3
Labeled as TIIG (resource 7394) basic school program funding in RBB tool.

Page 5

Small School Support Allocation per student (TIIG, Resource 7394)
School Type 2008-09 2009-10 Difference Notes

Elementary $543 $543 $0 < 300 students
Middle $543 $543 $0 < 300 students
High $543 $543 $0 < 300 students
K-12 $543 $543 $0 < 500 students
Restricted Funding per student

Categorical Program 2008-09 2009-10 Difference Notes
Title I (resource 3010) $7.95 $7.81 ($0.14) Parent Ed allocation
Title I (resource 3010) $476 $484 $8 Basic allocation
EIA-LEP (resource 7091) $505 $400 ($105)
EIA-SCE (resource 7090) $240 $182 ($58)
S&LIBG (resource 7395) $94 $99 $5
Arts & Music BG (resource 6760) $10 $17 $7
Other Funding Sources per student (unless otherwise noted)
Program 2008-09 2009-10 Diff. Notes

PD Block Grant (resource 7393) Site-specific Site-specific n/a
ASES/Prop. 49 (resource 6010) Site-specific grant Site-specific grant n/a
21st CCLC (resource 4124) Site-specific grant Site-specific grant n/a
HPSG (resource 7258) $400 $400 $0 Site specific,’05-’06 CBEDS
QEIA (resource 7400) $500 K – 3rd $500 K – 3rd $0 Site specific,’07-’08 CBEDS
$900 4th – 8th $900 4th – 8th $0
SAIT (resource 3013) Site-specific Site-specific n/a
Pupil Retention BG (resource 7390) Site-specific Site-specific n/a
California Partnership Academy Site-specific Site-specific n/a

Page 6

School Staffing Guidelines: 2009-10
The following school guidelines are meant as a benchmark that can be used to determine how a school site
might be staffed based on a District average across that type of school, i.e. elementary, middle, high, etc. These
benchmarks provide a starting point for a conversation with your Network Officer regarding the reasons your
student to staff ratios for teachers or other employees may be other than the contract maximums noted below.
Certificated Teaching Staff
School Type Grade Span Ratios CSR Ratios

Elementary School K 27 to 1 20 to 1
Elementary School 1st to 3rd 30 to 1 20 to 1
Elementary School 4th to 5th 31 to 1
Middle School 6th to 8th 6th: 31 to 1
th
High School 9 ELA/Math 31 to 1 20 to 1
High School 9th to 12th 31 to 1
General Purpose dollars should be used to fund teachers staffed at contract maximums. To reduce certificated
staff ratios, school should use non-General Purpose funding, i.e., state CSR, Measure G, or other restricted
resources.
The RBB tool will automatically provide the average teacher salary for a vacancy.
Minimum Staffing Levels for Classroom Teachers
An Excel-based tool was provide to principals to understand what the minimum staffing levels for classroom
teachers in their school would be based on the projected enrollment. This tool is not meant to be inclusive of all
expenses at the school site, but just those related to classroom teachers. The tool automatically calculates the
number of required FTE using the formulas noted below.
Middle and High Schools
1. Take the projected enrollment of the school and multiply that number by 6 (number of
periods of class OUSD is mandated to provide each day).
2. Divide that number by 160 (the maximum number of students a teacher can work with
each day by OEA contract).
3. This will provide the number of teaching positions that must be funded using unrestricted
resources, i.e. General Purpose, CSR, and/or Measure G.
Elementary Schools
1. Look at the student teacher ratio for each classroom after class size reduction funds have
been used (usually 31 to 1 in grades 4 & 5 and 20 to 1 in grades K-3). Any reduction in
these class sizes can be funded with Title I or SCE funds.
For example: You can reduce the class size in four grade 4 & 5 classrooms from 32 to 1 to 26 to 1 by
hiring an additional teacher using Title I funds. Four classes at 32 to 1 equal 128 students. 128 students in
five classes brings the ratio down to 25.6 to 1 (or 26 to 1)

Page 7

Certificated Administrative Staff
Assistant
Students Principal Principal Librarian
Elementary (200 Days) (200 Days) (183 Days)
1 to 400 1.0 0.0 0.0
401 to 800 1.0 1.0 0.5
801+ 1.0 2.0 0.5
Middle (200 Days) (200 Days) (183 Days)

1 to 400 1.0 1.0 0.0
401 to 800 1.0 1.0 0.5
801+ 1.0 2.0 0.5
High (200 Days) (200 Days) (183 Days)

1 to 400 1.0 1.0 0.0
401 to 800 1.0 1.0 0.5
801 to 1,200 1.0 3.0 1.0
Clerical Staff
Students Clerk/Admin/Secrt Asst Attn Clerk

Elementary (10/12 months) (10 months)
1 to 200 0.5 0.5
201 to 400 1.0 0.5
401 to 600 1.5 0.5
601 to 800 2.0 0.5
Students Clerk/Admin/Secrt Attn Clerk

Middle (10/12 months) (10 months)
1 to 200 1.0 0.5
201 to 400 1.0 0.5
401 to 600 2.0 0.5
601 to 800+ 2.0 0.5
High (10/12 months) (10 months)

1 to 200 1.0 0.5
201 to 400 1.5 0.5
401 to 600 2.0 0.5
601 to 1,200+ 3.0 1.0

Page 8

The History of Results-Based Budgeting
OUSD started its reform initiatives in 1999 when parents and community members were upset about the
deplorable conditions of the schools. Schools were overcrowded and underperforming, with inequities existing
throughout the district. Oakland’s lack of equity was demonstrated by what locals called the “Hills vs.
Heartlands” divide. In 1999, Oakland’s “hill” schools had lower free-and-reduced-lunch-program, or Free
and/or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) student populations—an educational proxy for poverty—and higher
academic results than our “heartland” schools.
In 2000, the Board of Education adopted a policy that focused on small self-directed schools—beginning the
process of breaking up large high schools into smaller schools. This movement influenced leadership to look
differently at how the District funded schools. Then, in 2003, the school district experienced a fiscal crisis that
led to a state takeover. Additional challenges included chronic academic underachievement and lack of equitable
funding between individual schools.
Following the state takeover, the District’s leadership team decided to tackle an issue impacting the quality of
education across District schools. Traditionally, schools had been staffed based on a formula that allocated
teachers based on the number of students enrolled in a particular school. Costs for employees were allocated
using average salaries and benefits. Data showed that while this system provided an equitable number of
teachers, it did not necessarily provide for equitable funding of those teachers. The reason: individual school
sites have staffing costs that vary significantly due to the seniority of teachers.
The disparate staffing costs impacted the “heartland” schools the most since they had a disproportionate share of
new teachers, and the actual salaries at those schools were lower than the “hill” schools. In essence, the
“heartland” schools ended up paying for the “hill” schools’ teacher salaries, instead of having the additional
funding available to support their own programs.
The solution implemented is called Results-Based Budgeting (RBB). RBB is a budgeting process designed to
allocate funds in a way that follows the child. The process is based on a per-pupil formula that takes into
account all of the school district’s expenses. After the allocation amounts are determined, schools are then
provided local decision-making in return for accountability in making data-based decisions that lead to results as
demonstrated by improved student achievement sustained over time. RBB is focused on four key tenets:
• Transparency
• Equity
• Accountability
• Site-Based Decision Making
The end goal is to create communities of learning in every school where there are opportunities for new teachers
to learn from experienced teachers, and where there are opportunities for experienced teachers to mentor new
hires and learn from their innovative approaches. Results-Based Budgeting in the district is designed to make
this happen by maintaining fiscal responsibility, promoting more effective and efficient decision-making around
the use of funds in support of student achievement, and addressing systemic inequities in funding allocations.
The District implemented RBB district-wide in the 2004–05 academic year. American Institutes for Research
(AIR) conducted a study of the roll out and results of RBB over the course of 2007-08. The AIR findings,
combined with the District’s internal analysis of RBB, provide a solid basis for targeted process improvements.
These improvements are ongoing.
(Adapted from Funding Schools Equitably: Results Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School District, Matt Hill, Center for
American Progress, June 2008.)

Page 9

2009-2010 Planning and Budgeting Cycle (RBB/SPSA)
Timeline of Activities
Acronyms under Owner: SPM = School Portfolio Management Office; NExO = Network Executive Officer; FCO = Family Community Office;
RA = Research and Assessment
Phase Two: Planning and Budgeting for 2009-2010
Key Dates Owner* Activity
Early January Budget and January 6th ELT Meeting

SPM
Budget director and TASS coordinator reviews 09-10 budgets by network:
Projected enrollment numbers

Projected budget range
Staffing guidelines
o Budgeting for certificated staff
January 8th NExO January 8th Network meeting
NExO leads costing and budgeting of potential strategic activities to achieve school goals.
Project enrollment numbers

Projected budget range
Staffing guidelines
January 8th Principal School site
through
January 30th Principals costs out preliminary strategic activities and determines priority list for funding to achieve goals.
Scaffolding Tools: Complete Staffing Worksheet
SSC meeting by end of January:

SSC reviews and prioritizes strategic activities to achieve goals based on program review and needs
assessment.
January 10th FCO, SPM, Red and Orange Schools – SPSA SSC Summit
and RA
Central Office holds summit focused on prioritizing strategic activities for the 09-10 budget.

Page 10

January 26th NExO Red and Orange Schools – SPSA Reviews
through
February 5th NExO with central office support conducts review of:
• SPSA with preliminary school budget.
• Restructuring plan (for PI Year 4 and Year 5 schools)
February 2nd Principal RBB Opens
From completed staffing worksheet, principal allocates funds for certificated classroom staff PRIOR to their
scheduled RBB session.
For example:
School has RBB session scheduled for Wednesday, February 18th.
RBB opens on Monday, February 2nd.
Between February 2nd and February 17th, principal must allocate funds for their K-5th grade classrooms
within RBB prior to their session on Wednesday.
February 2nd Budget RBB Training Sessions
through
February 6th Budget holds RBB training sessions at TLC in the Harper Building.
• Mandatory for first year principals and Red/Orange schools
• Recommended for Blue, Green, and Yellow
February 6th Principals Deadline to Notice Certificated Staff for March 15th Notices
February 9th Principal RBB Sessions

through March
6th NExO (for • Principal with Fiscal Services Associate and Human Resources Generalist:
Red and 1. Reviews and approves certificated staffing already entered by principal
Orange) 2. Allocates funds for additional non-classroom certificated staffing
3. Allocates funds for classified staffing
4. Allocates funds for all non-salary expenses
5. RBB is “turned off,” no changes may be made to the budget after the session.
• NExO attends Red and Orange RBB sessions in TLC.
• A representative from the State and Federal Compliance and School Portfolio Management will be present
during RBB Sessions to answer questions related to compliant spending for categorical resources and next
steps related to SPSA
Deliverable: Completed and Finalized RBB with SPSA Section 4 & 5

Page 11

Phase Three: Finalizing 2009-2010 SPSA with budget
March 31st Principal School Site
Principal finalizes Sections 1, 2, 3, 6 and Appendices of the SPSA.
NOTE: The budget portion of Section 4 & 5 is already finalized from RBB session.
Deliverable: Hard copy of the SPSA to NExO with original signatures on page 2 and principal and SSC
chairperson initials on every page.
SSC meeting by end of March
• SSC approves finalized SPSA
March 15th to Principals Prepare professional services’ consultant contracts for the 2009-10 school year.
May 30th
April 30th NExO and Central Office

State &
Federal NExO approves and State and Federal Compliance prepares SPSA for board approval.

Page 12

RBB Session Checklist Date ________________
School ______________________ Principal _________________________
The purpose of this checklist is to provide guidance to the principal, FSA, and other attendees at the
RBB session to ensure all necessary items are covered during the session. Many of these items
reference other material in the school budget handbook.
General Items
1. Are all of the resources in your RBB balanced? That is, does your revenue match your expense
in each resource? You should balance to -0- on the Surplus/Deficit line.
Labor Items
2. Have you determined the minimum number of GP-funded teachers needed given your projected
enrollment? Please refer to page 7 or use the Excel-based, “Staffing levels for classroom
teachers”.
3. Have you completed the Staffing Change Form which reflects changes in FTE, new positions,
or eliminated positions?
4. Have you compared your site’s staff roster to RBB? Anyone missing? Should they be in the
RBB tool?
5. Have your compared a current version of your PC201 to RBB? Is everyone reflected on RBB
who should be there?
6. Have you appropriately budgeted for your substitue costs based on prior year trends? Please
refer to Step 6 in RBB under object 1150.
7. Given the reduction in funding for school SSO’s, do you need to account for a SSO in your
budget for 2009-10?
8. Are you planning on having academic mentors for the 2009-10 school year? Are current
academic mentors accurately reflected?
9. Please be aware that if you multi-fund a school position on a categorical program, especially
Title I, they will be required to submit timesheets throughout the school year on a regular basis.
Non-Labor
10. Have you budgeted for your full custodial allocation? If necessary, have you filled out a
custodial appeals form?
11. If you are projected to receive Prop 49/ASES funding for 2009-10, have you logged the
expense in a compliant object code? If you are using any portion of the $5,500 for custodial
expenses, have you put it in the right object code? Refer to page 25 for additional details.
12. Did you identify those consultant contracts that start at the beginning of the school year (vendor
name and amount)? This can be noted on RBB page 8 Non-Salary Costs and the Consultant
Contract RBB Planning tool can be filled out.
13. Have you accounted for any copier maintenance lease agreements necessary for next year?
14. If you intend on purchasing direct service agreements, have you filled out the appropriate
paperwork (e.g., Ops Support, etc.)?

Page 13

Categorical Program Funding Guidelines
Categorical Programs are programs for which funding is restricted to specific purposes. These purposes are governed
by a unique set of laws and controlled by language found in the budget item governing the program. The chart below
provides guidance on how to appropriately use each of the different categorical funding sources by suggesting possible uses
in relation to focus areas of the plan.
School/Library
State Compensatory
Funding Source Title I EIA-LEP Improvement
Education (SCE)
Block Grant
Funding Helping A state program Beginning July 1, Implemented similar to

Description Disadvantaged supporting English 2005, this program is Title I
Children Meet State language acquisition part of the 825 Block
Standards and development for Grant Program A program providing
identified EL students. funding to support
A federal program that A program for instructional
provides elementary and middle improvement for the
supplementary funds to schools to improve lowest achieving
help improve instruction, services, pupils
instruction in high school environment
poverty schools to and organization at
ensure all students school sites according
meet state academic to plans developed by
standards. SSC’s
At site level: these

must be direct services
to students
Note: All uses of Title I

funds must be based on
scientifically - based
research and data that
verify actions result in
increased student
achievement.
Students to be Students who are far English Learners All students Students who are far
served below basic, below below basic, below
basic & basic on CST, basic & basic on CST,
including English including English
Learners; Special Learners; Special
Education students Education students
Examples of SUPPLANTING SUPPLANTING SUPPLANTING SUPPLANTING

expenditures GENERAL FUNDS GENERAL FUNDS GENERAL FUNDS GENERAL FUNDS
NOT • Strategies that are • Regular teacher pay • Regular teacher pay • Regular teacher pay
Appropriate for not based on • Food for staff • Food for staff • Food for staff
funding source scientifically based meetings meetings meetings
research or have no • Capital outlay • Capital outlay • Capital outlay
data to support • Non ELD related
increased student materials or supplies
achievement
• Regular teacher

Page 14

Categorical Program Funding Guidelines (continued)
Focus Title I EIA-LEP School State
Improvement Block Compensatory
Grant Education (SCE)
ENGLISH Academic Interventions Academic Academic Academic

LANGUAGE ARTS Interventions Interventions Interventions
• Extended day/year for
• Reading targeted students To support students • Extended day/year • Extended day/year
• Writing • CAHSEE interventions meeting EL Catch-up for targeted for targeted
• ELD • Supplemental Benchmarks and students students
instructional materials reaching CST • CAHSEE • Supplemental
that support standards proficiency: interventions instructional
MATH & core program • Supplemental materials
• Support students meet • Specialized and instructional • Supplemental
EL Catch-up targeted materials that Instructional
Benchmarks and interventions support standards materials/equipme
reaching CST • Extended day/ & core program nt to support
proficiency week/year for To support students targeted students
• Specialized and targeted students meeting EL Catch-up only
targeted interventions • Supplemental Benchmarks and • instruction/support
• Extended day/ instructional reaching CST • Primary language
week/year for targeted materials and proficiency materials
students equipment • Targeted
• Supplemental • Primary language • Specialized and intervention to
instructional materials instruction/support targeted accelerate ELL
and equipment • Primary language interventions students’
• Primary language materials • Extended day/ reclassification
instruction/support • Targeted week/year for
• Primary language intervention to targeted students
materials accelerate ELL • Supplemental Support Personnel
students’ instructional
reclassification materials and • Tutors
Support Personnel • Support for equipment • Instructional Aide
reclassification • Primary language • Reading/Math
• Reading/Math/ELD process instruction/support Intervention
Coaches • Support for • Primary language Teacher
• Supplemental Class CELDT materials
Size Reduction teachers • CAHSEE
- In Schoolwide Title I interventions
only Support Personnel
• Intervention teacher Support Personnel
• Academic & Post • Reading/Math/ELD
Secondary Counseling • Reading/Math/ELD Coaches
• Instructional Aide Coaches • Supplemental Class
• Supplemental Class Size Reduction
Size Reduction teachers-- In
teachers - In SWP Schoolwide Title I
Title I only only
• Intervention • Intervention
teacher teacher
• Instructional Aide • Instructional Aide
• Multilingual Parent
Advisor
• Multilingual
Community liaison

Page 15

Focus Title I EIA-LEP School/Library State
Improvement Compensatory
Block Grant Education
(SCE)
Other Core • Academic • Supplemental • Academic

Curricular Areas: Science, V&PA, Art
Conferencing materials in English Conferencing
& PE
• Training and the primary • Training
• Science • Consultants language • Consultants
• Social Studies • Instructional
• Principal Coaching • Field trips materials & • Principal
• Teacher stipends • Primary language equipment Coaching
• Teacher substitutes support • Professional • Teacher stipends
• Training Development • Teacher
Materials/resources substitutes
• Duplication • Training
• Conferences/workshops Materials/
that support school plan resources
goals • Duplication
• Food: reasonable costs • Conference/
associated with teacher workshops that
professional support school
development that plan goals
extends over a meal • Food: reasonable
period costs associated
with teacher
professional
development that
extends over a
meal period
Capacity
• Academic • Academic
Building/Professional • Academic
Conferencing Conferencing
Conferencing
Development • Training • Training
• Training
• Consultants • Consultants
• Consultants
• Principal Coaching • Principal Coaching
• Principal Coaching
• Teacher stipends • Teacher stipends
• Teacher stipends
• Teacher substitutes • Teacher substitutes
• Teacher substitutes
• Training • Training Materials/
• Training Materials/
Materials/resources resources
resources
• Duplication
• Conferences/workshops • Duplication • Duplication
that support school plan • Conference/ • Conference/
goals workshops that workshops that
• Food: reasonable costs support school plan support school plan
associated with teacher goals goals
professional
development that • Food: reasonable • Food: reasonable
extends over a meal costs associated costs associated
period with teacher with teacher
professional professional
development that development that
extends over a meal extends over a meal
period period

Page 16

Focus Title I EIA-LEP School/Library State Compensatory
Improvement Education
Block Grant (SCE)
SCHOOL Set-aside 1% of Title I With a focus on • Food for parent • Food for parent
CLIMATE allocation for Parent ELAC activities meetings & trainings meetings & trainings
involvement activities • School Site Council • School Site Council
• Food for parent expenditures expenditures
• Parent
• Food for parent meetings & • Parent • Parent
Engagement meetings & trainings trainings training/education training/education
• School Site Council • School Site Council opportunities opportunities
expenditures expenditures • Parent Workshops • Parent Workshops
• Parent • Parent • Speakers for parent • Speakers for parent
training/education training/education workshops workshops
opportunities opportunities • Duplication • Duplication
• Parent Workshops • Parent Workshops • Parent support • Parent support
• Speakers for parent • Speakers for parent materials materials
workshops workshops • Translation • Translation
• Duplication • Duplication
• Parent support • Parent support
materials materials
• Translation • Translation
Support Personnel Support Personnel Support Personnel Support Personnel
Parent • Multilingual Parent Parent Parent

Advisor/Community Advisors Advisor/Community Advisor/Community
Liaison • Multilingual Liaison Liaison
Community Liaison
• Attendance • Attendance • Attendance • Attendance

Family Support Recognition Recognition Recognition Recognition
& Learning • Home Visits • Home Visits • Home Visits • Home Visits
• Parent Orientations • Parent Orientations • Parent Orientations • Parent Orientations
Environment • Kinder Academy • Kinder Academy • Kinder Academy • Kinder Academy
• Pre-K articulation • Pre-K articulation • Pre-K articulation • Pre-K articulation
Support Personnel Support Personnel Support Personnel
• Attendance clerk • Multilingual • Attendance clerk

• Student Outreach attendance clerk • Student Outreach
Worker • Multilingual Parent Worker
• School Nurse/Aide Advisor
• Counselor/Therapist • Multilingual
• Healthy Start Community Liaison
• additional
personnel

Page 17

Appropriate Use of Measure G Funding Sources
The recently renewed local parcel tax by the Oakland voters begins in the 2009-10 fiscal year and is now named
Measure G. While the intent of the funds and amount per parcel remains the same, the name is changing. Below
is a listing of each of the Measure G funding sources that will be made available to the schools through per
student allocations. You must follow these guidelines in order to ensure continued use of the funds.
• Measure G: Basic School Support: Intended to help supplement a school’s basic instructional program,
equal to General Purpose funds. Should primarily fund classroom teacher’s compensation. All schools
receive this resource.
• Measure G: Staffed Prep (EEIP): Intended to fund prep teachers during the school day. Should fund the
prep teacher’s compensation. Only elementary schools receive this resource.
• Measure G: Class Size Reduction (CSR): Intended to supplement elementary school class size reduction
efforts. Should fund the compensation for those teachers that are participating in class size reduction.
Only elementary schools receive this resource.
• Measure G: School Libraries: Intended to provide funding for libraries in elementary and middle
schools. Should fund compensation for librarians and/or librarian assistants and associated non-labor.
• Measure G: Electives: Intended to provide funding for middle school electives. Should fund
compensation for teachers offering electives to middle school students.
Supplement, not supplant

All students have the right to receive an education paid for with unrestricted funds. This includes a teacher,
textbooks, and instructional materials. Categorical funds are to be used to support, supplement, and enhance this
basic instructional program. They cannot be used to pay for services or materials that must be provided to
students as a part of their basic educational program.
Guiding Questions
1. Are the services or materials you want to provide through the use of categorical funds truly an
addition to the services the eligible students are already mandated to receive?
If the answer to this question is “no”, then it’s time to think about whether the funds are really being
used properly.
2. Were these services paid for with unrestricted funds in the past?
If the answer to this question is “yes”, then you have a textbook example of “supplanting”.
3. If no categorical funds were available, would you still be mandated to provide these services?
If the answer is “Yes”, then you cannot use categorical funds to provide the service.
Noncompliant use of categorical funds puts funds at risk for all the schools in the District.

Page 18

STAFFING CHANGES FOR 2009-10
Site: Site#: Administrator: Generalist: Date:
Please bring with you to your RBB session this completed form and an org chart listing all of the employees whom you presently fund.
We need to eliminate any discrepancies that may negatively affect our staffing projections and placements. To facilitate your RBB staffing session,
we urge you to inform your HR Generalist now of any anticipated staffing changes. Your HR Generalist will bring your PC201,
HQT/EL/Credential Report, and Consolidation documents to the RBB session.
PART 1. Please list any discrepancies between what was loaded in RBB and your present staffing:
Position FTE Months Employee in position Presently at site Presently at site Presently in JUSTIFICATION
(Last name, first name) (employee or vacancy) (employee or vacancy) RBB, but not
or Vacancy and would like to and would like to change at site
continue for 2009-10 as follows for 2009-10
(+/- position, FTE or
months)
PART 2. Summary of staffing changes from 2008-09 to 2009-10:

Position FTE Months Employee Eliminate/ Reduce Reduce Add Increase Increase JUSTIFICATION
(last name, consolidate FTE to months position FTE to months
first name) position to (FTE and to
or vacancy months)
Page 19
Consultant Contract RBB Planning Tool
Directions: Please use this form as a planning tool to identify consultants who will be working in the fall. Contracts for
these consultants will be eligible for the Spring Pre-Approval pilot (see additional information below). Complete the
vendor name and contract total columns and bring the form with you to your RBB session.
School Site__________________________________ Network Executive Officer________________________
Vendor Contract Total Resource Funding Allocated in RBB

(FSA Signature Verification)
Spring Pre-Approval of Consultant Contracts Pilot Information:

In spring of 2009 the District will pilot a new process to pre-approve contracts for work beginning in the fall. The basic
process has four parts:
1. Planning: In order for a contract to be eligible for pre-approval funds must be allocated in RBB and, if using
categorical funds, the services must have been included as an action item in the SPSA for the next year.
2. Contract Paperwork: Later in the spring (anticipated mid-March) a pre-approval contract packet will be available
on the School Operations Library with additional directions. Sites will generate the contract using this template
and submit the packet and attachments for approval. During this period you will be able to submit requests to
HRSS to complete the Pre-Consultant Screening Process (including fingerprinting) for individual consultants.
3. Approval: The contract will go through the same approval process as normal, up to the Superintendent. It will
then be routed to Procurement to wait for the school site to create a requisition in the new fiscal year (after July
1st).
4. Encumber Funds: After the new fiscal year begins you will need to create the corresponding requisition and
email the Contracts Buyer in Procurement (Shelia Mack) to let her know the requisition has been created.
a. If the contract is eligible for ratification (i.e. vendor is under Board limit of $72,400) Procurement will
issue the PO within one week.
b. If the contract requires Board approval before a PO is issued, it will be submitted to the next Board
meeting. To be considered for the August 12th Board meeting you will need to create the requisition by
July 15th.
Financial Services Associates and Network Office Managers:

Routing Directions: At the conclusion of the RBB session, please make a copy of this form for the principal and
retain a copy. When RBB closes, please forward your forms to the Contracts Analyst. The Contracts Analyst will then
prepare a list of eligible contracts for the Network Office Managers. Please contact Amanda von Moos if you have any
questions.
Page 20
Common School-based Staff Job Descriptions
Below is a list of brief descriptions for many of the varying positions that may be staffed at a school site. These
descriptions are provided to help ensure consistency across the District, and aid in the shared understanding of
roles and responsibilities of each employee.
Use these job descriptions when considering the crucial staffing decisions that you are making for the 2009-10
school year. These job descriptions can be used to ensure that all core instructional and operational activities are
accounted for in the coming year.
Job descriptions should be visited and considered throughout the hiring process, and during performance
evaluations.
Instructional Support Staff
Assistant Principal
Under the direction of a Principal, organize, coordinate and administer assigned programs and activities related
to student discipline, attendance and instruction at an assigned elementary school; assist the Principal with
administrative duties involving student conduct, curriculum development and school plant operations as
assigned; supervise and evaluate the performance of assigned personnel.
Teacher on Special Assignment

Teacher is appointed to a special assignment and serves to support and assist Principal in implementation of
various programs, testing, assessment and projects. Classification: OEA. Work Year/Hours: 10 months, 205
days.
Instructional Assistant or Aide

Under the direction of a Principal, assist a certificated teacher in reinforcing instruction to individual or small
groups of students in a classroom or other learning environment; assist teachers with the preparation of
instructional materials; tutor students in assigned subject areas. Classification: Classified SEIU. Work
Year/Hours: 10 months, 205 days 6.0 hours. Salary Grade: Range 1, 3, 5, or 6: K121 (based on 10 month, 205
day, 7.5 hour work year).
Intervention Specialist
Under direction of the principal and an assigned supervisor(s), support the instructional program by providing
information and expertise to an assigned student or group of students in a specialized area. Classification:
Classified SEIU. Work Year/Hours: 10 months, 205 days 6.0 hours. Salary Grade: Range 30: $29,241-$39,140
WTCL (based on 12-month, 261 days, 7.5 hour work year).
Academic Mentor
Under the direction of a Principal, serve as a mentor assisting individual students identified as working below
grade level by providing additional instruction in basic academic skills. Classification: Classified SEIU. Work
Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5 hours. Salary Grade: WTCL 40.
Classified Support Staff
Administrative Assistant I
Perform a variety of proficient, specialized administrative assistant duties in an assigned area requiring good
communication skills; utilize specialized knowledge and independent judgment involving frequent and
responsible public contact; analyze and interpret data; plan, organize and coordinate office activities and
communications to relieve the administrator of routine duties; provide for accurate and timely entry of a variety
data into various computer software programs. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 261 Days/7.5
Hours. Salary Grade: WTCL 40.

Page 21

Administrative Assistant II
The Administrative Assistant I is distinguished from the Administrative Assistant II in that the higher Level II
position requires more experience, performs more difficult and complex duties, and is required to demonstrate
validated test skills at a higher proficiency (see Licenses and Other Requirements). The Administrative Assistant
II performs diverse, technical duties. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 261 Days/7.5 Hours, or Duty
Days/Hours as assigned. Salary Grade: WTCL 44.
Office Manager
Perform proficient, specialized supervisory, administrative and highly skilled office management work
involving access to information concerning employer-employee relations in all bargaining units throughout the
District; organize, manage and direct the clerical functions of the assigned department; assume primary
responsibility for implementing designated activities and operations of the department; provide staff training and
recommend training from outside agencies; maintain official records; execute administrative policies.
Classification: Classified Management. Work Year/Hours: 261 Days/7.5 Hours. Salary Grade: ADCL9.
Receptionist
Perform a variety of proficient, routine duties requiring good communication skills, specialized knowledge and
responsible public contact, greet the public, provide information to the appropriate person or office; answer
telephones, and assist others; provide or verify information as directed. Classification: Classified. Work
Year/Hours: 261 Days/7.5 Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as assigned. Salary Grade: WTCL 17.
Clerk
Perform a variety of routine, difficult clerical duties requiring good communication skills, including assisting
others in the workplace, filing, duplicating, and maintaining records or reports in support of an assigned school
district function. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5 Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as
assigned. Salary Grade: WTCL 12.
Clerk Typist
Perform a variety of routine, complex clerical duties requiring good communication skills, including assisting
others in the workplace, typing on a computer keyboard, filing, duplicating, and maintaining records or reports
in support of an assigned school district function. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5
Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as assigned. Salary Grade: WTCL 14.
Attendance Clerk Assistant

Perform a variety of routine, highly difficult clerical duties related to attendance accounting and record-keeping;
good communications skills in contacts with parents, guardians, and others to report and verify excused and
unexcused absences; operate a computer terminal to enter and update attendance data. Classification: Classified.
Work Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5 Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as assigned. Salary Grade: WTCL 13.
Attendance Clerk
Perform a variety of difficult, prescribed clerical duties requiring good communication skills in an assigned
school; utilize specialized knowledge and independent judgment involving frequent and responsible public
contact; provide for accurate and timely entry of a variety of attendance and other data into various computer
software programs. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5 Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as
Noon Supervisor
Perform a variety of routine, difficult duties requiring good communication skills by assisting the school staff in
supervising students in cafeteria areas and on playgrounds during breakfast, lunch and recess periods at an
assigned school. Classification: Classified. Work Year/Hours: 10 months/7.5 Hours, or Duty Days/Hours as

Page 22

Direct Service Agreement Forms
The menu presented below is meant to provide an understanding of the direct services currently being offered
by the district, and to provide transparency around the associated cost and funding sources for each of the
offerings.
For the fiscal school year 2009-10, school sites can order direct services from the district by using their available
funds. As principals complete their RBB sessions, they will want to consider how much money to set aside to
purchase optional services.
Support sites offering direct services:

• Operations Support - Coaching from $9,000 to $30,000 per year
• Custodial Services - $59,700 per FTE
• Technology Services – If a school budget is supporting technology staff please contact Ron Chandler,
Executive Officer of Technology Services to discuss reporting for this person.
• Instructional Services – If a school budget is supporting a full or partial instructional coach please
contact your Network Executive Officer who will be coordinating the purchase of these services with
the Instructional Services department
• School Security Officers – Centrally-allocated SSO’s will be provided to some school site campuses.
However, a school may have to provide resources for a SSO if one is not allocated from the Central
Office.
The following pages include order forms for direct services. Available services for school sites to
purchase in 2009-10 include:
Operations Support (see page 24)

• Coaching and training/Time management training for principal and staff
• IFAS basics (receiving, creating requisitions) CDD reports to manage budgets
• Creating and generating report on student absence rates by teacher (Aeries training)
• Translate priorities into SPSA and input into RBB
• Troubleshooting
o Spend less time following up with central departments and more time at your school.
o Troubleshooting on Edusoft at site
o Follow up on staffing, payroll, contract, vendor payment and other challenges
• Deliverables Support and Special Projects
o Project planning --- thought partner developing timelines and milestones
o Outlook training --- effective management of emails and calendars
o Draft language for grant proposals
(For more details contact Sele Nades-Hayes, Sele.Hayes@ousd.k12.ca.us)
Custodial Services (see page 25)

• Custodial staffing appropriate to your campus size
• All custodial supplies including paper products, cleaning supplies, deep cleaning supplies, light bulbs
• Custodial equipment, as needed
• Substitute custodian coverage when custodian is absent or there is a vacancy at your site
• Field supervisor assigned to your site
o Site inspection with your custodian
o Offer to meet with you to discuss the cleanliness of your site
o Complete the formal performance evaluation of your custodian
o Work in partnership with you to address performance concerns
(For more details contact Roland Broach, Roland.Broach@ousd.k12.ca.us)

Page 23

Operations Support (Object 5711)
Optimizing operations in support of academic achievement
School Name: _______________________Site #: ________ Principal Name: _________________________
Schools may use GP (0000), TIIG (7394), QEIA (7400), SLIBG (7395) or HPSG (7258) to purchase these
services.
Yes! I am interested in purchasing the services of an Operations Support Coach for the 2008—2009
school year.
I am interested in purchasing:
Standard Service Package (16 hrs/school month)

Price: $15,000/school. Object Code: 5711. Resource: __________ Fund ______
Limited Service Package (8 hrs/school month).

Maximum Service Package (32 hrs/school month).

If possible, I would prefer to work with the following Operations Support Coach.
Name: ____________________________________________________________
No. I do not plan to purchase the services of an Operations Support Coach for the 2008—2009 school
yr.
I am simply not interested.
I would really like to purchase this service, but I do not have sufficient funds available in the
appropriate resources. The maximum I could pay is: _________________
Total Amount Ordered: $___________
School Org Key/ Resource & Object Code _________________________________ Amount: __________
_________________________________ Amount: __________
Principal Signature: ______________________________________________________________
School Site Financial Associate Signature: ______________________________________
Central Office Financial Associate Signature: ________________________________________
Operations Support Signature: ____________________________________________________
Please return this form or the equivalent information to your Financial Services Associate or Operations
Support Coach. Questions? Feedback? Email Sele Nades-Hayes at Sele.Hayes@ousd.k12.ca.us

Page 24

Custodial Services (Object 5721)
Optimizing operations in support of academic achievement
School Name: ______________________ Site #: ________ Principal Name: _________________________
Schools may use General Purpose (GP) or Prop. 49/ASES funds up to $5,500
NOTE: The use of Prop. 49/ASES funds cover custodial expenses during the after-school program. If you have a night
custodian, place the $5,500 into object code 5721. If you do not have a night custodian, place the $5,500 into
object code 2220 for overtime of the day custodian. Also note that supplies and materials for the after-school
program are not included in this amount.
Yes, I agree to the recommended level of service for my site indicated on the Custodial Services
Recommended Level of Service Spreadsheet
I would like to appeal my recommended level of service.

I am interested in purchasing:
Additional Service
I wish to increase my service from _____ FTE to _____ FTE
Reduced Service
I wish to decrease my service from _____ FTE to _____ FTE
Plan to ensure my site is clean and the OUSD Cleaning Standards are met (REQUIRED)
OUSD Cleaning Standards are posted on the Site Deliverables and Documents intranet site.
Reduce square footage Custodial Services is required to clean.
I guarantee that the custodian(s) assigned to my site will not be asked to clean the
following rooms during regular work hours.
Rooms:
Community Cleaning Campaign or similar effort led by school site
I understand that I am voluntarily reducing custodial service for my site and I will
share responsibility to ensure my site is cleaned.
Summary of Plan (1-2 sentences):
Other Conditions

Page 25

I believe the recommended level of service is not correct for my site due to the
following conditions:
Total Amount Ordered: ________ FTE
School Org Key & Object Code ________________________________
Principal Signature: ____________________________________________________ Date:
Required for appeals:
School Site Financial Associate Signature: __________________________________ Date:
Network Executive Officer: ______________________________________________ Date:
Custodial Services Director: ______________________________________________ Date:
Please return this form or the equivalent information to your Financial Services Associate

Page 26

RBB Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. I heard that you are including staffing guidelines for a school’s use – what are these for?
California is experiencing a severe fiscal crisis which is impacting all public agencies, including OUSD.
In an effort to help schools understand the trade-offs in the resource allocations they make at their site,
staffing guidelines are included in this handbook to assist in this decision-making process. For
classroom teacher guidelines, these represent the teacher union contract maximums. Schools are
encouraged to fund the necessary number of teachers using the contract maximums. If the school
decides to lower class size, it should be accomplished using other resources such as the state CSR
program dollars, Measure G, or other restricted resources.
2. Has there been a change to the per student basic funding allocations?
Yes. The California budget crisis has presented a lot of challenges to OUSD including the funding of
schools. The District is striving to minimize the cuts that schools are experiencing this year. However,
in order to accomplish that goal schools are getting other funding to help supplement the General
Purpose per student allocation. Page 5 of this guide provides a full description of these other fundings
sources. These include: Measure G, Lottery: Unrestricted, and TIIG.
3. I heard that you are charging schools for use of the bilingual testing center?
Yes. Starting in 2009-10, schools that receive dollars for English language learner (ELL) students
through the EIA-LEP (resource 7091) program will be charged for their use of the bilingual testing
center. The charge will be on a per student basis.
4. My attendance improved since last year – does that count?
Yes, absolutely! The default for your RBB projected attendance percentage is last year’s P2 attendance
percentage. The actual P2 attendance percentages will be reflected in your revised RBB budgets in
October/November 2009. (And yes, this means that if attendance rates at your site have declined since
last year, you will see that reduction reflected in your revised RBB budgets as well).

Page 27

SPSA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1) Can I get computers, photocopiers, and other instructional technology using Title I funds?
Yes, but remember “Supplement, not supplant” – have you used any unrestricted funds to purchase
these items so you are using Title I funds to provide “over and above” services?
2) Can I get security devices with Title I funds?

Yes, as long as you purchase them at the same time you purchase the equipment and use them only on
equipment purchased with Title I funds.
3) Can I get computers with LEP funds?

Yes, as long as they are only used by EL students
4) Can I use Title I funds to purchase textbooks?

Yes, as long as they supplement your obligation to provide 1 GP funded textbook to each student.
5) Can I use Title I and other categorical funds to pay for teacher or aide salaries? (to provide lower
class size, complimentary learning opportunities, or instructional support)
Yes, as long as you are adding teachers to the number you are obligated to provide with GP funds. In
addition, remember that any instructional staff funded with Title I funds must be “Highly Qualified”
(check with HRSS) under NCLB requirements, and provide direct services to students.
6) What are the “time accounting” requirements for staff that are funded using multiple sources?
Any school staff funded using federal funds must complete the “time accounting” chart on the OUSD
website. If they are multi-funded, they must complete the form monthly. If they are single funded they
must complete the form only twice a year (November and May). If you think that your staff cannot
complete the process regularly and successfully – do not use federal funds.
7) Can I use any categorical funds to purchase custodial supplies for the school?
No, custodial supplies must be purchased with unrestricted funds.
8) Can I use Title I funds to hire an attendance clerk?

Yes, as long as the attendance clerk’s duties are exclusively to improve student attendance (not take
student attendance). The clerk must have a rigorous comprehensive schedule that demonstrates direct
services to students – and keep a log.
9) Can I hire an office clerk to take care of Title I paperwork requirements using Title I funds?
Title I funds must be used to provide direct services to students. Administrative support is not a direct
service to students.
10) Can I spend more than 10% of my Title I allocation for professional development?
If your comprehensive needs assessment indicates this need and your SSC agrees that this is an effective
method of improving student academic achievement, yes.
11) Can I spend more than the mandated 1% of my Title I budget to support parent involvement
activities?
If your comprehensive needs assessment indicates this need and your SSC agrees that this is an effective
method of improving student academic achievement, yes.
12) Can I use Title I funds to provide field study tours for students?
Yes, as long as the field study tour directly supports and supplements the instructional program of the
class. No, if the study tour is a reward or includes going to an amusement park (has rides).

Page 28

13) Can I use Title I funds to purchase PE equipment or materials?
NO.
14) Can my NEXO or other central administration representatives tell me how I must use my
categorical funds?
If you are a year 3 (or higher) Program Improvement school, then yes, the LEA may “significantly
decrease the management authority” of the school with regard to the SPSA.
15) If I don’t use any categorical funds to implement my Pre-School to Kindergarten transition
program, must I still include it in my SPSA?
Yes, the Pre-School to Kindergarten transition plan must be included in your SPSA as per NCLB
mandate.
16) Can I purchase attendance incentives with categorical funds?

No, you cannot make a gift of public funds. But you can purchase certificates that recognize student
achievement.
17) Can I purchase furniture or have repair work done using Title I funds?
You can purchase furniture that is necessary to the use of equipment purchased with Title I funds –
computer table and chair, television and VCR/DVD stand, etc. No school repair work can be paid for
with Title I funds.
18) Can I pay for a school nurse using Title I funds?

If the school’s comprehensive needs assessment indicates this need and your SSC agrees that this is an
effective method of improving student academic achievement, yes.
19) My school is 98% English Learner (EL). Can I use Limited English Proficient (LEP) funds for
some schoolwide activities?
No. LEP funds are to be used to support ELD for EL students. They cannot be used to provide services
or materials to English Only (EO) students.
20) My school is 60% English Learners and 40% English Only. Can I pay for some schoolwide
activities or materials using 60% LEP funds and 40% Title I?
No. If these activities or materials support the schoolwide (for all students) academic program then you
must use Title I funds. LEP funds provide services and materials targeted to ELD for EL students in
addition to the support they receive from Title I, not instead of the support they receive from Title I.

Page 29

APPENDIX

Page 30

School Site Carryover Policy for 2009-10
The material below was originally communicated in late January 2009 from the Superintendent’s office. This is
reprinted from that original communication.
On December 12th we shared with you the actions that the District is taking to mitigate the impending budget
cuts to education. As part of that memo I informed you that all site and program administrators will be allowed
to keep 80% of all funds not expended this year as carry over, available for use in the 2009-10 school year. This
policy is an effort to encourage all site administrators to conserve their resources for what will surely be a tight
budget in the coming 2009-10 school year.
The purpose of this memo is to provide clarification for which resources will qualify for this temporary site-
based carryover policy. As communicated to the Board of Education and the public last week, the following
resources will qualify under this policy:
• General Purpose (resource 0000)

• EIA - SCE (resource 7090)
• EIA - LEP (resource 7091)
• School, Library, and Information Block Grant (resource 7395)
• Arts and Music Block Grant (resource 6760)
We welcome any additional cost avoidance strategies that can assist the District in mitigating the impact of the
potential reduction in revenues in the 2008-09 school year and the anticipated reduction in revenues in the 2009-
10 school year.
School Site Salary Savings

The material below was originally communicated in September 2008 from the Budget office. This is reprinted
from that original communication. The last paragraph has been modified. The same practice will be used for the
2009-10 school year.
As has been the practice in past years, schools will not be allowed to transfer money from salary line items until
late October of the 2008-09 school year. During the rest of the school year principals will be able to transfer
salary savings to augment their programs and other changes at the school site.
Given changes in enrollment at the beginning of the school year, it is anticipated that staff will not fully stabilize
until late October. Please work with your FSA to ensure all staff is covered prior to using any portion of those
salary savings. Further, it is the responsibility of the FSA to ensure that the school maintains a balanced budget
until the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2009). The transfer of available balances in these salary object codes
that may jeopardize the school’s balanced budget may be denied.

Page 31

2009-10 OUSD Districtwide Budget Development Calendar
NOTE: Items denoted in blue italics are for FY 2008-09 and items in red bold are proposed Board engagement
November
1st interim revisions implemented by Fiscal Services
RBB Board engagement session analysis and recommendations (AIR study and internal analysis)
December
1st interim budget approved by Board (2nd week)
Monthly budget monitoring reports produced for Central Office and school sites
Preliminary enrollment projections developed, appeals process begins (2nd week)
Draft of 2009-10 Budget Handbook published for review by Cabinet
Implementation of approved modifications to RBB policy and process
BOE retreat: Discuss 2009-10 budget development calendar and Board study sessions (2nd week)
Cabinet conducts program and fiscal reviews and categorical program allocations
RBB tool prepared with initial snapshot of current year labor and non-labor (4th week)
January
Governor releases state budget proposal (2nd week)
Revenue forecast for 2009-10 fiscal year (2nd week) conducted by Accounting
1st Board study session held on 2009-10 budget (3rd week)
Cabinet reviews Governor’s budget proposal and prioritizes Central Office allocations (3rd week)
Enrollment appeals process completed, enrollment finalized (3rd week)
RBB allocations (Central and school) determined and loaded (4th week)
Final draft of 2009-10 Budget Handbook published (4th week)
Central Office managers engage in program inquiry process; Principals/NExOs in results-based inquiry
February
Staff models run and completed based on Governor’s January budget4
RBB opened for schools and Central Office (2nd week)
RBB sessions held for schools and Central Office complete by 3/1 (2nd to 4th week)
RBB/SPSA trainings for schools; NExOs meet with schools to develop prelim SPSA/align budget
March
HR DEADLINE: 3/15 letters to certificated staff
Budget completes matching of orgkeys in RBB (2 weeks)
Budget moves fiscal and personnel data from RBB to IFAS
2nd interim Budget due to Board for approval
April
Fiscal Services validates budget data in IFAS, begins tech review for SACS (1st week)
2nd Board study session held on 2009-10 budget (3rd week)
May
Governor’s May Revise budget released (2nd week) and adjustments made as necessary
Documents prepared for adoption budget submission to ACOE
Budget prepared for 1st reading and public notice made of upcoming adoption budget
3rd Interim Budget due to Board for approval (if necessary)
June
1st reading of 2009-10 adoption budget (2nd week)
Final budget delivered for adoption (3rd week)
Documents finalized for adoption budget submission to ACOE
4
Due to RBB sessions not being completed by the first week in February in time for the March 15th deadline for HR, the staffing model will use current
year staffing ratios and student to teacher ratios to determine the approximate number of necessary teachers for the 2009-10 school year. The forecast will
provide a high, medium, and low projection.

Page 32

RBB School Central Site Meetings 2009‐10
2009-10 School and Central Site RBB Meetings

F:\Synchronized Computers\OUSD Mobile\Desktop\OUSD Mobile\_09-10 Budget Development\2009-10 Sch Budget Handbook\Inserts for Handbook\[09-10 RBB Sess
Team 1: Cecelia Shields - Sharon & Geri's Network

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
Carl Munck Redwood Think College
9:30am - 12:00pm Franklin (116) Markham (138) Miller (142) Bella Vista (102)
(168) Heights (148) Now (190)
RBB Planning RBB Planning
Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC HOLIDAY Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC
Room Location
Lab 2 Lab 2 Lab 2 PC Lab 1 Session PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 Session
FS Associate Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields
NExO Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson
La Escuelita Crocker
2:00pm - 4:30pm Cleveland (108) Sequoia (151) Montclair (143) Glenview (119) Ascend (185)
(121) Highlands (111)
Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC HOLIDAY Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC
Room Location Session Session
PC Lab 2 Lab 2 Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1
FS Associate Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields
NExO Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson
Team 2: Ruth Dubose - Denise & Dahyana's Network

2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
East Oakland
9:30am - 12:00pm Parker (144) Marshall (174) Chabot (106) Lincoln (133) Peralta (145) Thornhill (157)
Pride (107)
RBB Planning Harper Bldg., TLC PC RBB Planning
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC HOLIDAY Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC
Room Location
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Session PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 Session
FS Associate Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose
NExO Dahyana Otero Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero
Grass Valley Sobrante Park Piedmont Ave

2:00pm - 4:30pm Hillcrest (127) Emerson (115) Kaiser (171) Futures (123)
(122) (154) (146)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC HOLIDAY Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1
FS Associate Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose
NExO Dahyana Otero Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero
Team 3: Keisha Smith - Gia & Jamie's Network
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
Edna Brewer West Oakland Alliance Middle NExO - Middle NExO -
9:30am - 12:00pm Montera (211) Bret Harte (206) Roots Int'l (226)
(210) Middle (204) Academy (224) Jamie (963) Gia (964)
RBB Planning
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC HOLIDAY Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
Room Location
PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 Session Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields
NExO Jamie Marantz Gia Troung Jamie Marantz Gia Troung Gia Troung Gia Troung Jamie Marantz Gia Troung
United for
2:00pm - 4:30pm Elmhurst (221) Explore (225) Melrose (235) Roosevelt (212)
Success (228)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC RBB Planning RBB Planning RBB Planning Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC RBB Planning
Room Location HOLIDAY
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Session Session Session Conference Rm 1 Connf Rm 2 Conference Rm 1 Session
FS Associate Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smtih
NExO Jamie Marantz Gia Troung Gia Troung Gia Troung
Team 4: Marla Williams - Wendy & Alison's Network
Page 1 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
OAL (933) &
Architecture Oakland Int'l Rudsdale Cont High NExO -
9:30am - 12:00pm Far West (314) School to Career Mandela (342) BEST (350) Bunche (223)
(339) (353) (352) Wendy (972)
(929)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Cecelia Shields
NExO Alison McDonald Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz Alison McDonald M. Moore/G. Cephas Alison McDonald Alison McDonald Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz
Dewey High Independent Life Academy

2:00pm - 4:30pm MetWest (338) EXCEL (351) CCPA (232)
(310) Study (330) (335)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC RBB Planning RBB Planning Harper Bldg., TLC PC Harper Bldg., TLC PC RBB Planning
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 Session Session PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 Session
FS Associate Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Keisha Smith
NExO Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz Wendy Gudalewicz Alison McDonald Alison McDonald Gia Troung
Team 5: Linda Wu - Central, Adult Education, and CDC
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim 2nd Interim
9:30am - 12:00pm
Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report Financial Report
FS Associate
Department Contact
2:00pm - 4:30pm
HOLIDAY
Room Location
FS Associate
Department Contact
Team 6: Roxanne - Central Office and Food Services

2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
9:00 - 11:00am

FS Associate
HR Generalist
Department Contact
2:00 - 4:00pm
Room Location
HOLIDAY
FS Associate
HR Generalist
Department Contact
Page 2 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
Team 7: Katema - Central Office and Facilities
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
9:30am - 12:00pm
FS Associate
Department Contact
2:00pm - 4:30pm
HOLIDAY
Room Location
FS Associate
Department Contact
Team 8: Diane - Instructional Services, CCRO, and Alternative Education
2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20
9:30am - 12:00pm
HOLIDAY
Room Location
FS Associate
Department Contact
2:00pm - 4:30pm
HOLIDAY
Room Location
FS Associate
Department Contact
Page 3 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
2009-10
F:\Synchronized Csion Schedule_8Feb2009.xls]RBB Session Meetings
Team 1: Cecelia Team 1: Cecelia Shields - Sharon & Geri's Network

2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Learning w/o Maxwell Park Manzanita SEED Elem NExO - Bridges @ Burckhalter Elem NExO -
9:30am - 12:00pm Lazear (132) Laurel (131) Tilden (176)
Limits (113) (139) (175) Sharon (961) Melrose (178) (105) Geri (965)
Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
Room Location
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Room PC Lab 2
FS Associate Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields
NExO Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson
Global Family Manzanita Horace Mann

2:00pm - 4:30pm Greenleaf (112) ICS (186) Allendale (101) Fruitvale (117) Garfield (118)
School (114) Comm (179) (136)
Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Room
FS Associate Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields Cecelia Shields
NExO Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras Sharon Casaneras Geri Isaacson Sharon Casaneras
Team 2: Ruth D Team 2: Ruth Dubose - Denise & Dahyana's Network

2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Community Sankofa Elem NExO - New Highland
9:30am - 12:00pm ACORN (165) Lakeview (130) RISE (192) Hoover (170) Lafayette (129) Brookfield (103)
United (149) Academy (191) Denise (966) (125)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC
Room Location
Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Cecelia Shields Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose
NExO Dahyana Otero Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Denise Saddler Denise Sadler Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero
Encompass Reach Academy Esperanza Elem NExO -

2:00pm - 4:30pm Korematsu (172 Howard (166) Santa Fe (150) PLACE (183) MLK (182)
(181) (193) Academy (177) Dahyana (962)
RBB Planning
Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
Room Location Session
Conference Rm 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 1 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Ruth Dubose Cecelia Shields
NExO Dahyana Otero Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero Denise Saddler Dahyana Otero
Team 3: Keisha Team 3: Keisha Smith - Gia & Jamie's Network
2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Special Special Special Special
9:30am - 12:00pm Westlake (213) Frick (203) Claremont (201)
Education Education Education Education
RBB Planning
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC
Room Location
Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 Session Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1
FS Associate Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith
NExO Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Jamie Marantz Gia Troung Jamie Marantz
Special Special Special Special Urban Promise Alternative

2:00pm - 4:30pm Madison (215)
Education Education Education Education Academy (236) Learning (208)
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Building, TLC RBB Planning Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC Harper Building, TLC
Room Location
Conference Rm 1 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Conference Rm 1 Session Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1 Conference Rm 1
FS Associate Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith Keisha Smith
NExO Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Lisa Cole Jamie Marantz Gia Troung Jamie Marantz
Team 4: Marla W Team 4: Marla Williams - Wendy & Alison's Network
Page 4 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
High NExO - ROP BUDGET Oakland HS Oakland Tech ROP BUDGET ROP BUDGET
9:30am - 12:00pm Robeson (340) YES (344) Skyline (306) Leadership (347)
Alison (967) worksession (304) (305) worksession worksession
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
Room Location
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Cecelia Shields Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams
NExO Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz Wendy Gudalewicz Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz Alison McDonald Alison McDonald
College Prep ROP BUDGET Oakland HS 2 Oakland Tech 2 ROP BUDGET

2:00pm - 4:30pm CBITS (346) Skyline 2 (306) EOSA (348)
(343) worksession (304) (305) worksession
Harper Building, TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC RBB Planning Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC RBB Planning
Room Location
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Session PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 Session
FS Associate Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams Marla Williams
NExO Alison McDonald Wendy Gudalewicz Wendy Gudalewicz Wendy Gudalewicz Alison McDonald Alison McDonald
Team 5: Linda W Team 5: Linda Wu - Central, Adult Education, and CDC
2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Family/
Adult Education PFCA/CBET Adults with Career Tech Ed Comp Learning Health Services
9:30am - 12:00pm ECE (910) CCA (906) Community
(400) (416) Disabilities (418) (420) (922) (968)
Office (969)
Adult Ed Resource Adult Ed Resource Financial Services Financial Services Financial Services Financial Services Financial Services Financial Services
Room Location ECE Office
Center Center Room 314 Room 314 Room 314 Room 314 Room 314 Room 314
FS Associate Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu
Department Contact Brigitte Marshall Brigitte Marshall Brigitte Marshall Brigitte Marshall Lynne Redezno Jane Nicholson Jane Nicholson Adrian Kirk
Family/
ESL Program Older Adults Comp Learning
2:00pm - 4:30pm ABE/ASE (417) Fund 12 - ECE ECE (910) Community
(415) (419) (922)
Office (969)
RBB Planning
Room Location
Adult Ed Resource Adult Ed Resource Financial Services Financial Services
ECE Office
Financial Services Financial Services Session
Center Center Room 314 Room 314 Room 314 Room 314
FS Associate Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu Linda Wu
Department Contact Brigitte Marshall Brigitte Marshall Brigitte Marshall Lynne Redezno Lynne Redezno Jane Nicholson Adrian Kirk
Team 6: Roxann Team 6: Roxanne - Central Office and Food Services

2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
State & Federal
Labor Relations Communications Fd. 13 - Food Site Support Human (950) Attend &
9:00 - 11:00am PAR (927) Research (948)
(942) (958) Service (913) Resources (944) Private School Achieve (970)
Office (978)
Room Location Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308
FS Associate Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunne Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn
HR Generalist Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez
Department Contact Brad Stam Troy Christmas Troy Flint Jennifer LeBarre Jill Schiager Delia Ruiz Amy Malen Bill Nownes Angela Haick
State
Board of Educ. Office of the General Counsel Fd. 13 - Food Superintendent School Portfolio
2:00 - 4:00pm Administrator
(940) CSO (907) (946) Service (941) Mgmt (956)
(945)
Room Location Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 RBB Planning Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 RBB Planning
FS Associate Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunne Session Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Roxanne Dunn Session
HR Generalist Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez Randy Perez
Department Contact Edgar Rakestraw Laura Moran Deb Cooksey Jennifer LeBarre Vincent Matthews Dr. Roberta Mayor Diana Lee
Page 5 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
Team 7: Katem Team 7: Katema - Central Office and Facilities
2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Accounts Chief Financial Financial Fund 67 - Self Police Services Maintenance Fd. 21 - Building Fd. 25 - Capital
9:30am - 12:00pm Payroll (983) Faciliities (918)
Payable (902) Officer (905) Services (951) Insurance (994) (988) Fund Facilities Fund
Room Location Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308
FS Associate Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum
Department Contact Amy Fong Vernon Hal Roberta/Jason Linda Davis Reggie Crowell Jonathan Bellusa Tim White Leroy Stokes Tim White Vernon Hal
Risk Procurement & Fd. 14 -

Internal Auditor Print Services Tech Services Operations/ Fd. 21 - Building
2:00pm - 4:30pm Management Distribution Deferred
(949) (979) (986) Custodial (989) Fund
(987) (990) Maintenance
Room Location Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Session Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Admin. Rm 308 Session
FS Associate Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum Katema Slocum
Department Contact Reggie Crowell Ian Marsh Norm/Lincoln Ron Chandler Tonie Irving Roland Broach Leroy Stokes Tim White
Team 8: Diane - Team 8: Diane - Instructional Services, CCRO, and Alternative Education
2/23 2/24 2/25 2/26 2/27 3/2 3/3 3/4 3/5 3/6
Instructional Instructional Instructional Instructional

9:30am - 12:00pm CFO (903)
Services (908/9) Services (908/9) Services (908/9) Services (908/9)
Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC
Room Location
PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara
Department Contact Mary Buttler Mary Buttler Mary Buttler Mary Buttler
Instructional Instructional Instructional Instructional Alternative College & Career

2:00pm - 4:30pm
Services (908/9) Services (908/9) Services (908/9) Services (908/9) Education (957) Readiness (912)
Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Session Harper Bldg., TLC Harper Bldg., TLC Session
Room Location PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2 PC Lab 2
FS Associate Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara Diane O'Hara
Department Contact Mary Buttler Mary Buttler Mary Buttler Mary Buttler Monica Vaughn Monica Vaughn
Page 6 of 6 2/8/2009 12:05 PM
RBB Issue Group Finalizes Recommendations « Great Oakland Public Schools Page 1 of 6
Great Oakland Public Schools

Go!
• Home
• About
• Issues
• Action
• Events
• Join
RBB Issue Group Finalizes Recommendations

December 8, 2009
The RBB Issue Group has made a total of sixteen specific recommendations to address the current
challenges of results-based budgeting, as it is currently implemented in the Oakland Unified School
District. We believe that this set of recommendations will allow for the greatest equity in funding
distribution, while addressing the concerns from schools with higher personnel costs. RBB Issue
Group co-chairs David Silver and Sondra Aguilera have distributed the RBB group’s letter throughout
the district, and have been asking principals to show their support by endorsing it. Katy Murphy also
included a post about the letter on her blog last week. As of Tuesday, December 8, eighty-three
Oakland principals have endorsed the letter. Click here to download the full text of the letter and click
here to endorse.
In mid-October, RBB Issue Group members collaboratively developed a survey to gather information
from OUSD principals about the efficacy and challenges of RBB within our school communities.
Over 60 principals from across the district took our survey; they represent elementary, middle, and
high schools, small and traditional schools, and schools from the hills and the flatlands, North, East,
and West Oakland. Small groups of principals met twice to review the data and analyze the responses
to identify significant patterns and trends. Results from the survey indicated that:
• 93.3% of principals surveyed value having decision-making authority over their school site’s
budget
• 93.1% of principals surveyed responded that if budget cuts have to be made, the principal with
the school community should have the primary responsibility for making these decisions
• 86.4% of principals surveyed prefer to have control over the number and type of position at
their schools
• 82% of principals surveyed believe that changes to OUSD’s budgeting system are necessary
• 77.8% of principals surveyed believe that General Purpose dollars should be equitably
distributed among all OUSD students
• 67.3% of principals surveyed feel that they have the ability, or are prepared, to completely run
their entire site budget, including personnel decisions
The RBB Issue Group identified several key values that the surveyed principals hope to maintain and
strengthen. These include:
http://gopublicschools.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/rbb-issue-group-finalizes-recommendatio... 5/6/2010
1. Equity and Transparency

2. Fiscal Autonomy and Accountability
3. Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement
4. Community Awareness and Collective Responsibility
5. Flexibility and Responsibility
Survey Results yielded three key challenge areas:
1. Timing
2. Support
3. Veteran Teacher Funding and Funding Distribution
The RBB Issue Group made specific recommendations to address each of these challenges, which are
consistent with the values that emerged from the data. For a brief history of Results-Based Budgeting
in OUSD, please keep reading!
In 2004, the Oakland Unified School District adopted the results-based budgeting (RBB) policy,
shifting a significant amount of responsibility for site and department budgets from a centralized
process to site/department administrators. Traditionally, schools in OUSD had been staffed based on a
formula that allocated teachers based on the number of students enrolled in a particular school.
Employee costs were allocated using average salaries and benefits. This system provided an equitable
number of teachers, but it did not necessarily provide for equitable funding of those teachers, as
individual school sites have staffing costs that vary significantly due to the seniority of teachers.1
“RBB is a budgeting process designed to allocate funds in a way that follows the child. The process is
based on a per-pupil formula that takes into account all of the school district’s expenses. After the
allocation amounts are determined, schools are then provided local autonomy in return for
accountability in making data-based decisions that lead to results as demonstrated by improved
student achievement sustained over time. RBB is focused on four key tenets: Transparency, Equity,
Accountability, Autonomy.”2
RBB is “designed to empower school administrators by giving them control over their resources so
they can best serve the needs of their students in the most effective and efficient way possible.”3 GO
Public Schools acknowledges that there are many challenges to RBB, and that more support is
required for the tool to function as intended. We also hold that the original objectives for RBB (see
below) must be maintained in order for all Oakland children to receive the high-quality education they
deserve.
Objectives for Results-Based Budgeting:

• Give principals and department heads more control over the conditions of success to increase
effectiveness.
• Distribute responsibility across the system (greater site-level accountability for spending).
• Create greater and broader autonomy for decisions and results.
• Create transparency in the budget process to allow greater access by staff, community, parents, and
students, and build trust.
• Develop and use better data to drive decision-making.4
Sources Cited:
1. Matt Hill, Funding Schools Equitably:Results-Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School
District, Center for American Progress, June 2008,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/comparability_part4.pdf.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
Entry Filed under: Innovation. .
Leave a Comment
Name Required
Email Required, hidden
Url
Comment
Submit
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Subscribe to this site by email
Some HTML allowed:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code>
<pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Stay Informed with GO!

Sign up for our mailing list to receive updates on how you can make GREAT OAKLAND PUBLIC
SCHOOLS for all our children! Sign Up Now!
Read our first print newsletter in English and Spanish!
Become a GO2!
Are you an advocate for public education in Oakland? Do you want to help expand our network and
share information with others? Learn more about becoming a GO2 today!
Local Elections Feature

Learn more about Oakland's upcoming school board, city council, and mayoral elections - check out
our elections information page today!
Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!
Feeds!
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Board Agenda Updates

This school year, GO formed a Board Agenda Team that will review each OUSD Board of Education
meeting agenda and highlight a few items and issues that impact our beliefs and visions. If you are
interested in getting an email summarizing what is coming up on the board's next agenda
(approximately two emails per month) and a summary email that details what happened at the
meeting (approximately two emails per month), please sign up here and we will keep you informed!
Click here to sign-up
Translate this website into…

‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
（）
（）
िहन्दी
Русский
Español
GO is on Twitter!
• Oakland Unified Has Too Many Schools http://www.eastbayexpress.com/x/1725235
16 hours ago
• Teachers give union leaders the go-ahead http://bit.ly/dbU9w0 1 day ago
• Education Chief Vies to Expand U.S. Role as Partner on Local Schools - http://nyti.ms/auiJdZ
2 days ago
• Oakland teachers vote on labor proposal; results TBD http://bit.ly/b3Zdi1 2 days ago
• State superintendent race tests education reforms, union power - http://bit.ly/befi9D 2 days ago
GO is on Facebook!
Great Oakland Public Schools (GO Public Schools)
Promote Your Page Too
Recent Articles
• Board Committees to Discuss Budget, Layoffs, Instructional Programs, and More
• OUSD Board Highlights – April 28, 2010
• One middle school teacher's picket sign
• STATEMENT FROM GO PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Respecting our Students, Families, Teachers,
and OUSD Employees
• Notes from OUSD Board of Education’s Strategic Retreat
• OUSD Board Agenda – April 28, 2010
Blogroll
• Great Oakland Public Schools
• Katy Murphy’s Blog
• OakBook
• OCO
• OUSD
Meta
• Register
• Log in
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.com
Theme: Blix by Sebastian Schmieg . Blog at WordPress.com.
To: Dr. Smith, Cabinet, and OUSD Board of Education
From: OUSD Principals
Re: OUSD Budgeting – RBB Letter of Support and Recommendations
Date: November 30, 2009

Executive Summary

We, the undersigned principals, appreciate the hard work you are doing to move Oakland’s public schools
forward.

We are writing to communicate to you that a significant group of principals believes that the values behind
RBB are indispensable. At the same time, we recognize that the budgeting system needs to be improved,
and that more support is required for RBB to realize its intended goals. For OUSD’s rapid rise to continue,
we believe that principals and our school communities need to be the ones making the important decisions
about how to spend our limited available funds.

In late October, we sent a survey regarding the budgeting system to all OUSD principals. Over 60 principals
from across the district have taken our survey ‐ they represent elementary, middle, and high schools, small
and traditional schools, and schools from the hills and the flatlands in North, East, and West Oakland.1
Small groups of principals have met twice to review the data and analyze the responses to identify
significant patterns and trends. Results from the survey show that:
• 93.3% of principals surveyed value having decision‐making authority over their school site’s budget
• 93.1% of principals surveyed responded that if budget cuts have to be made, the principal with the
school community should have the primary responsibility for making these decisions
• 86.4% of principals surveyed prefer to have control over the number and type of positions at their
schools (principal with community decides staffing instead of according to central office formulas)
• 77.8% of principals surveyed believe that General Purpose dollars should be equitably distributed
among all OUSD students
• 67.3% of principals surveyed feel that they have the ability, or are prepared, to completely run their
entire site budget, including personnel decisions

From our survey results, we identified several key values that the surveyed principals hope to maintained
and strengthened. These are 1) Equity and Transparency, 2) Fiscal Autonomy and Accountability, 3)
Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement, 4) Community Awareness and Collective Responsibility,
5) Flexibility and Responsibility.

Survey Results yielded three key challenge areas: 1) Timing, 2) Support and 3) Veteran Teacher Funding
and Funding Distribution.

We have made a total of sixteen specific recommendations to address each of these challenges that are
consistent with the values that emerged from the data. We believe that this set of recommendations will
allow for the greatest equity in funding distribution, while addressing the concerns from schools with
higher personnel costs. In closing, we, the undersigned, with humility and appreciation of your leadership,
appeal to you to keep RBB as a fundamental practice of this district and improve it by implementing the
recommendations in the body of this letter.
1
See Addendum 2.
1
MEMO – Full Text
To: Dr. Smith, Cabinet, and OUSD Board of Education
From: OUSD Principals
Re: OUSD Budgeting – RBB Support and Recommendations
Date: November 30, 2009

We appreciate the hard work you are doing to move Oakland’s public schools forward. We believe in your
work, and we believe that together we will ensure Oakland has the best urban public schools in the
country. We also believe that Results‐Based Budgeting, though imperfect, has been one of the most
important tools available to principals as we have begun to dramatically raise student achievement for all
students in Oakland.

We write this letter to demonstrate that a significant group of principals believes that the values behind
RBB are indispensable. We believe that RBB’s original objectives (see below) must be maintained in order
for all Oakland children to receive the high‐quality education they deserve. At the same time, we recognize
that the budgeting system needs to be improved, and that more support is required for RBB to realize its
intended goals. We would eagerly work with you to address problems such as the unfair burden on sites
with disproportionate teacher costs, especially at sites with predominantly low‐income populations and
limited access to additional funds. Nonetheless, for OUSD’s rapid rise to continue, we believe that
principals and our school communities need to be the ones making the important decisions about how to
spend our limited available funds.
Original Objectives for Results‐Based Budgeting: 2
• Give principals more control over the conditions of success to increase academic achievement.
• Create greater and broader autonomy for decisions and results that impact achievement at our schools.
• Create transparency in the budget process to allow greater access by staff, community, parents, and
students, and build trust.
• Develop and use better data to drive decision‐making.
In late October, we sent a survey regarding the budgeting system to all OUSD principals. Over 60 principals
from across the district have taken our survey, weighing in on their thoughts about both the values behind
RBB as well as the implementation of the RBB system ‐ they represent elementary, middle, and high
schools, small and traditional schools, and schools from the hills and the flatlands, North, East, and West
Oakland.3 Small groups of principals have met twice to review the data and analyze the responses to
identify significant patterns and trends.

The next sections of this letter summarize findings and includes representative quotations from the survey.
2
Matt Hill, Funding Schools Equitably: Results‐Based Budgeting in the Oakland Unified School District, Center for
American Progress, June 2008, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/comparability_part4.pdf.
3
See Addendum 2.
2
Survey Analysis
Below is a summary of our analysis:

• 93.3% of principals surveyed value having decision‐making authority over their school site’s budget
• 93.1% of principals surveyed responded that if budget cuts have to be made, the principal with the
school community should have the primary responsibility for making these decisions
• 86.4% of principals surveyed prefer to have control over the number and type of position at their
schools (principal with community decides staffing instead of according to central office formulas)
• 77.8% of principals surveyed believe that General Purpose dollars should be equitably distributed
among all OUSD students
• 67.3% of principals surveyed feel that they have the ability, or are prepared, to completely run their
entire site budget, including personnel decisions

Benefits of Results‐Based Budgeting
From our survey results, we identified several key values, as supported by principal’s responses and
examples from our experiences with our school communities.

Equity and Transparency
We are all working to ensure that every child in Oakland receives a high quality education. In the past,
when schools in OUSD were staffed based on a formula that allocated teachers based on the number of
students enrolled in a particular school, employee costs were allocated using average salaries and benefits.
This system provided an equitable number of teachers, but it did not necessarily provide for equitable
funding of those teachers, as individual school sites have staffing costs that vary significantly due to the
seniority of teachers.4

With RBB, money follows students directly to schools, and students at schools with less experienced
teachers who often serve the neediest populations are not shortchanged funds just because they don’t
have more senior teachers. The money follows the students. Through RBB, resources can be allocated to
meet the needs of the school, its students, and its teachers. For example, a school site with a large number
of 1st‐3rd year teachers may have low salary costs, but will have extremely high professional development
and academic intervention costs (the first to support teacher development, and the second to maintain
student academic levels during the period of time that the new teachers are developing their skills.)

The central tenant of RBB is that money follows students directly to schools, and schools make decisions
about what resources their students need. For example, schools should decide whether reducing class
sizes should be prioritized over other resources as well as the optimal number and type of positions to
impact student learning at their particular site. We recently learned of a potential scenario that would
shift the formula so that the central office would no longer assign funds to schools on a per student basis.
Instead, central office would use a pre‐determined class size ratio combined with enrollment numbers to
determine how many FTEs are needed at each site, calculate funding to support those FTEs, and then
provide that amount of funding to the sites. We oppose this scenario because it would undermine the
values behind RBB. For the sake of equity and transparency, we do not want enrollment to determine a
set number of FTEs or a funding amount that is essentially a de facto number of FTEs. Rather, it is essential
that money follows students to schools with a dollar amount tied to each student as has been done in the
past several years.

4
Hill.
3
• “RBB has let us choose Operations Coaching and development of our administrative staff so I can be
focused on instruction, supporting school culture and family partnership. I actively coach,
observe/supervise, monitor instruction AND have time to coordinate and support the work of key
leaders at the site (family coordinators, instructional coaches, intervention coordinator, etc) due to the
way we have been able to design our staffing plan.”
• “RBB allows for equity and increased resources for more at‐risk populations. More resources have
enabled us to differentiate and address the achievement gap.”
• “Because of RBB, we have been able to allocate funding toward PD according to the needs of our
teachers. When we started as a school, we were unable to attract many experienced teachers with
what we considered to be an appropriate orientation toward students and capacity to help them excel.
We ended up hiring many inexperienced teachers with great potential, and we spent a great deal of
funds developing those teachers ‐‐ including coaching from GLAD consultants, taking staff and
community members on trips to see high success‐high poverty schools, providing a full‐time Literacy
coach, providing after‐school collaboration time, providing classroom management training to name a
few examples. We have begun to dramatically raise student achievement, but we would not have been
able to provide the training our teachers needed if we didn't have funds that followed students.”

Fiscal Autonomy and Accountability
Every site is different. Every teacher is different. Every child is different. We have to be able to direct
resources to respond to our unique circumstances. Principals see every day what is working and what isn’t
working. We know what teachers need, how many of them need this, and how badly they need it. We
also have daily experiences with children that keep us centered and motivated to focus resources on what
counts – great outcomes for kids. We are held accountable by our communities to produce outcomes that
prepare all of our students for college and career.
• “Autonomy over how to invest money to reach specific academic goals based on the needs of each
school community is key to success.”
• “Accountability at the site level encouraged me to think about the various programs and their
effectiveness – it enabled me to purchase materials and contract with providers in a targeted, strategic
way, focusing on student achievement.”
• “It is essential for the principal with school community to decide the number and type of positions at
our school sites. We know best if we should allocate resources towards an additional teacher to
provide intervention versus using that money for supplementary resources. This has empowered our
school and helped to increase student learning because this process allows schools to use their values
to drive the key priorities.”
• “Principals with their school communities are best positioned to know how to prioritize resources for
student success.”

Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement
Principals’ time should be spent observing, coaching, and supporting teachers, studying our contexts as
they change, and thinking about how to move our schools forward. Principals should not have to compete
for funds in a nebulous process. The recent outcomes Oakland deserves to be proud of would not have
been possible without budgetary authority in the hands of principals.
• “[RBB] has made me much more thoughtful about how money has been used and links it much more
closely with student outcomes. It enters every conversation. If I am spending X, then what can I expect
in terms of student achievement? This reality forces the conversation down to the children
immediately. If you cannot add value to the student outcomes and know that is part of your
responsibility then you put that expenditure at risk. It has really helped with all of the support agencies
that we work.”
• “[RBB] is directly related to my ability to be an instructional leader because I get to build teacher
capacity by providing the PD, intervention, and culture/climate resources for them and the children.”
4
• “RBB has meant that I am really responsible for identifying the professional development needs on site
because when I discern what the needs are I have the power to develop teachers according to need. It
also means I'm constantly thinking about how to direct resources to support student learning.”

Community Awareness and Collective Responsibility
Because we lead the process of reaching important budgetary decisions, we can better generate buy‐in
from teachers and families. We are never tempted to blame spending decisions on any “they,” because we,
with our communities, are the decision makers.
• “RBB has increased parent and staff engagement and involvement related to EQUITABLE allocation of
resources at the school site.”
• “When teachers have input on class configurations, they have buy‐in and make challenging situations
work out. By choosing to spend carefully, we have enough to hire two stip subs to provide direct
student intervention.”
• “I have learned how to work with my parents on the SSC, teachers, community partners, OSSF and our
operations coach to maximize investments in our school's vision and support student achievement.”

Flexibility and Responsibility
Principals without expertise in the area of budgeting, or who want help with budgeting, should have timely
access to support. The lack of confidence, will, or ability of some principals should not limit the opportunity
for the many principals who can effectively direct resources to improve outcomes for children.
• “With RBB I have the flexibility to work with staff to focus our resources based on student achievement
data, Use your voice data, parent input, teacher input and a variety of other sources.”
• “Due to RBB, I have been able to hire an AP for the last four years. Under the district's guidelines, my
site would not qualify for one. Having an AP has allowed me to focus on instruction and spend more
time coaching teachers.”
• “Each site has specific needs. As a principal, I am held responsible for meeting those needs and I have
to make sure we can allocate our resources to address them.”
• “It makes me more responsible for understanding the overall budget picture for my school. It helps me
be able to discuss that picture and those decisions with my staff and parent leaders. It empowers me
to take responsibility and to be a professional in this way.”

5
Challenges, Recommendations, and Next Steps
From our survey results, we identified several key challenges to RBB as it is currently implemented: timing,
support, and veteran teacher funding and funding distribution. Through analysis of survey data and
thoughtful conversations, we have developed several recommendations and next steps. While many are
cost neutral, we recognize that some of our ideas have associated costs.

1. Timing
Survey data indicated that many principals are concerned with the lack of adequate time to strategically
build budgets aligned with school site priorities. Challenges were noted regarding timing for carry‐over
funds to be loaded, preliminary budget estimates to be released, and coordination challenges between
fiscal services and human resources slowing down the process.
• “I think there are challenges with the timelines for finalizing budgets (adjustments, final allocations,
etc.) and the budget monitoring process (timeliness of journals, updated salary encumbrances, etc) ‐
not RBB.”
• “The RBB process should not only take place in January, but as it gets closer to the end of the school
year (May‐June) a second revision should be instituted to make sure the schools needs have not
changed since January RBB.”

Recommendations
We acknowledge the reality of the impact of the state funding cycle ‐ that OUSD’s budget office does not
receive preliminary numbers from the state until the Governor’s proposal comes out in January, and thus
has a hard time estimating numbers for RBB until the end of that month. Despite these challenges, we
believe that there are several strategies the district could put in place to ease the timing challenge:
1. Ask NEXO’s to embed strategic budget planning time in network meetings as early as October. This will
allow us to strategically develop our budgets from the ground up.
2. Include carryover funds in RBB so that programs/positions are not cut.
3. Allow sites to carry over GP funds to subsequent years, whenever possible, without penalties. If we
know that we will have cuts the following year, we should be able to save and plan ahead.
4. Consider working with community organizations to advocate for the continuation of Tier 3 flexibility
and potential carryover from year‐to‐year without penalties.
5. Reinstate appeals process for schools with enrollment increases after the 20 day count.
6. Create a master calendar for the entire strategic budgeting process (pre‐RBB, RBB, SPSA, budget
transfers) to ensure that timelines are clear to principals and central office staff.

2. Support
School leaders have various levels of knowledge and expertise, both around strategic budgeting and
technology.
• “My challenge with RBB is technical ‐ it's a very awkward and time‐consuming program to work in. I
hate scrolling through the entire program to figure out how to split‐fund a position.”
• “There has never been a complete training on fiscal management at the site level. Administrators teach
each other and we learn from our analyst. However, you have to know what you don't know. The
assistance that I would need would be more in the area of systems for managing the budget.
Spreadsheets, schedules/time management for reviewing budget needs, etc...”
• “Every principal should receive an Operations Coach to help with the budgeting process. The fiscal
analyst should take care of the negative balances.”
• “A list of effective programs, tools, and strategies, and their costs, should be shared with principals so
that we're not all ‘re‐inventing the wheel.’"

6
Recommendations
From our survey data and subsequent conversations, we have arrived at the following recommendations
regarding how best to support principals through the RBB process:
1. Provide differentiated training options for school leaders and support staff around both the technical
implementation of the RBB system (computer‐based) as well as the strategic budgeting process. Begin
the trainings in the fall to allow RBB implementers adequate time to familiarize themselves with the
system as well as potential strategic budgeting tools.
2. Invite principals to share best practices around strategic budgeting. Expand the new principal
mentoring pilot to include principals with strong skills in RBB and strategic budgeting to give workshops
to principals who are requesting/needing extra support.
3. Principal best practice sharing could occur not only at workshops, but also during network meetings
and online. For example, an online tool could be used to promote information sharing (posting helpful
documents, questions for others to respond to) Note: effective use of this technique has been used by
Microsoft, Turbo Tax, etc.
4. Have a back‐up plan for personnel turnover in the HR/fiscal services departments, as personnel
changes slow processes and add more work for school site leaders.
5. Provide Operations Coaches for any new principals who request them.
6. Train Fiscal Services and Human Resources staff to provide on‐the‐ground support throughout the RBB
process.

3. Veteran teacher funding and funding distribution
Schools have differing needs, differing priorities, and differing funding streams. It was evident, from our
survey results, that schools with veteran teachers faced budget challenges, as significant percentages of
budgets were directly allocated to personnel costs.
• “Schools that serve high poverty populations and have experienced teachers need more resources to
provide the additional services students need.”
• “Ensure that schools with veteran teachers, especially those serving low income and kids of color have
enough resources to impact student learning. These schools should definitely have enough $$ for
coaching and PD rather than the principal having to play all those roles.”
• “I do not think there are major changes that are needed to RBB. However, I think some tweaks could
be made to ensure that every school that gets a "bumped teacher" that is higher than the average
salary should get an extra amount loaded into the budget to cover the extra amount. I also think that if
any school has no discretionary money, especially if they are in a low‐income area and cannot raise
extra money through family donations, then they should get some money loaded into the budget.”
7
Recommendations
We recommend the following to ease the challenges we face in funding allocations:
1. Create a central funding “pool.”5 First, assess the amount required to meet the base programming
needs of school sites either in the red or with no discretionary funding. Next, create a pool. Ideally, this
pool would come from central office funds. However, if it is impossible to fund this “pool” solely from
the central office, we need to have an equitable formula to access some funding from school sites:
• Any school with an enrollment over 400 and with teacher salary averages below the average
teacher cost (salary + benefits) of $75,549 would contribute 0 ‐ 1% of their GP funds to a “pool”
(i.e. by taking funds from a Tier 3 or TIIG resource).
• Any school with an enrollment under 400 and with teacher salary averages below the average
teacher cost would contribute 0 – 0.5% of their GP funds to a central pool (perhaps by taking the
funds from a Tier 3 or TIIG resource).
2. Provide for support for bumps. In cases where teachers are “assigned” to a school via the involuntary
transfer process versus the principal selecting the teacher: if the salary is higher than the average,
school pays the average and the “pool” contributes the rest.
3. Prioritize resources. For schools over budget because of personnel costs, the central pool may be used
to bring the budget deficit to $0 and if possible an additional x% (suggestion: 1‐2%) discretionary
beyond salaries. The amount of funding those schools would get is dependent upon a formula that
factors in veteran teachers whose salaries are significantly above the district average (using a sliding
scale compared to the district average) AND excessive poverty (using a sliding scale based on Title I).
Schools that have access to supplemental resources (i.e. PTAs with the ability to raise significant
amounts) would have lower priority. It would be necessary to do an analysis of the school’s budget to
determine whether resources need to be reallocated or whether additional resources are actually
needed.
4. Application criteria. Schools that require additional funds “apply” for the funds. They must be:
• Under‐enrolled (<325) with excessive crime/community stressors in the neighborhood and/or poverty
(using a sliding scale based on Title I) OR
• Maxed out at <325 because of facilities capacity with excessive crime/community stressors in the
neighborhood and/or poverty (using a sliding scale based on Title I) OR
• Any school in the red and not able to access supplemental resources (including PTA resources) to
provide base programming to get to a balanced budget will also be allowed to apply for funds. Strong
preference will be for schools with excessive crime/community stressors in the neighborhood and/or
poverty (using a sliding scale based on Title I)
AND
• Needing those funds for base programming due to veteran teachers whose salaries are significantly
above the district average (using a sliding scale compared to the district average), small size, etc; the school
that applies for the fund, cannot ultimately have more than x% (suggestion: 1‐2%) for supplemental
services.
We believe that this set of recommendations will allow for the greatest equity in funding distribution,
while addressing the concerns from schools with higher personnel costs.
5
See Addendum 1
8
Appreciation and Support
Over the past five years, our schools have made significant gains in student achievement. As school
leaders, we made the funding decisions that led to those achievements. Given budgetary autonomy, we
made key decisions that were appropriate for our different contexts. If OUSD had not supported the
principal as the budgetary decision‐maker, those achievements would likely not have been as significant as
they have been. At this time, we do not have all of the information necessary to make more specific
recommendations. Therefore, we look forward to being your thought partner in working through various
scenarios that would adhere to the values of RBB as we’ve outlined, as well as to the spirit of our
recommendations.6

In closing, we, the undersigned, with humility and appreciation of your leadership, appeal to you to
keep RBB as a fundamental practice of this district.

6
This work was staffed and supported by GO Public Schools, and led by David Silver and Sondra Aguilera, Co‐Chairs of
the GO RBB Issue Group.
9
Addendum 1:
Do the numbers work and can the budget balance? This was a question that our team asked ourselves. In partnership
with the OUSD budget office and cabinet, we received initial figures so we could run the numbers. It is important to
say at the outset that we need more information to do a fuller analysis. In particular, we need to know the Title I
allocations for each school to determine which schools would qualify for additional funding using the criteria we laid
out. This is necessary for us to know whether our suggestions are truly feasible and to make changes in line with the
approach we have suggested where feasibility issues arise. We look forward to continuing to work in partnership
with the OUSD budget office and cabinet as thought partners looking at various scenarios that would adhere to the
values of RBB as we’ve outlined, as well as to the spirit of our recommendations. Nonetheless, the figures we have
suggest our recommendations could indeed work.
After initial projections, the amount of money that the central office needed to provide (over and above the per‐pupil
allocation in 2009‐10) was approximately $2.5 million, which served 26 schools that were in the red. According to
Vernon Hall, approximately $1 million of this was allocated to two schools that were being phased out, and therefore
would not be needed in 2010‐11 if there were no additional cuts.
Additional budget cuts to schools are impending, so we recommend budgeting the additional $1 million from the 2‐
phase out schools for the contingency fund “pool”, in case these schools who were in the red in 09‐10 or others who
may be at‐risk need additional funds. Assuming that 20 schools need an average of 50,000 additional dollars, the $1
million used for phase out schools in 09‐10 would be sufficient to cover the additional potential cost. To minimize
the need for the 24 schools to obtain as much funding as they did in 2009‐10, we also recommend that each of these
schools has a strategic budgeting session to support creative ways to cut costs while preserving base programming.
In addition to schools who needed support in 09‐10, there may be some schools that did not need support in 09‐10
that will need support in 10‐11. Therefore, we recommend budgeting an additional $500,000 for additional schools
needing support whether due to the depth of the overall budget cuts or to having received particularly experienced
teachers. For example, there might be 5 additional schools needing an additional 1% ($15,000) plus 5 needing 2%
($30,000), plus 5 needing 3% ($45,000), for a total of $450,000 with an additional $50,000 for further contingencies,
arriving at approximately $500,000.
Finally, to ensure that each of these schools in the red and/or other schools that are at $0 have some access to
discretionary funds, we estimate that we would need a pool of $500,000. For example, if 10 schools with an average
budget of $1.5 million (who fall into the higher priority categories outlined in the letter ‐ Title I, school size, veteran
teachers, etc.) get an extra 2%, this would equal $300,000. That would still leave $150,000 to pay for 12 schools of
similar budgets to receive an additional 1%. This calculation would result in a remaining $50,000 in case budgets are
higher. If it is impossible to make it work solely through district cuts, the school sites could bear some of the burden
in an equitable way given our formula (see recommendations on p. 8). Initial projections suggest that reasonable
school‐level cuts could generate up to $500,000 towards this end, thereby splitting the additional cost for 2010‐11.
In summary, the district would simply need to fund the same amount as it did last year, plus an additional $1 million
to provide the following:
Support for Funds Needed Funding Source

Supplementary budget resources (over and above their per‐pupil $2.5 million $2.5 million from the same pot(s) of funds used to
amounts), for schools to be whole that were not in 09‐10 (It is possible support 26 schools in 09‐10.
that not all 24 of the schools who received funds in 09‐10 will qualify for
support using the criteria we have laid out in the main body of the letter.)
15 schools that did not receive support in 09‐10 who will need support in $500,000 $500,000 from new central office source
2010‐11 whether for reasons of overall budget or because they are
welcoming involuntary transfers that are expensive.
Discretionary money for schools (1‐2% for those who qualify in our $500,000 $500,000 from central office if possible and if not
recommended application process) possible, then from schools based on the formula
described in the text of the letter

10
Endorsements as of 12:00pm, December 8
Name School
Network 1 John Melvin Lincoln
Roma Groves MLK
Zarina Ahmad Piedmont Avenue
Jonathan Mayer Chabot Elementary
LaResha Martin Hoover
Monique Brinson Sankofa
Karen Haynes Lafayette Elementary
Mel Stenger Kaiser Elementary
Wendy Caporicci Emerson Elementary
Network 2 Shannon Yip Bella Vista

Larissa Adam ASCEND
David Silver Think College Now
Michael
Rothhammer Garfield
Deitra Atkins Glenview
Elizabeth Rhine Crocker
Karen Monroe ICS
Paulette Smith Joaquin Miller
Pia Jara Lazear
Katherine Carter Manzanita SEED
Leo Fuchs Learning Without Limits
Eyana Spencer Manzanita Community School
Jeanette MacDonald Franklin Elementary
Nancy Bloom Montclair Elementary
Network 3 Carin Geathers Burckhalter

Clara Tarango Bridges Academy at Melrose
Sara Stone Redwood Heights
Steve
Thomasberger Allendale
Monica Thomas Greenleaf Elementary
Mia Settles Cleveland Elementary
Pamela Booker Markham Elementary
Viet Nguyen East Oakland Pride
Alanna Lim Horace Mann Elementary
Ron Smith Laurel Elementary
Terry Edwards Fruitvale Elementary
Rachelle Sallee Tilden Elementary
Kyla Johnson
Trammel Sequoia Elementary
Denise Burroughs Carl Munck Elementary
ACORN Woodland Elementary,

Network 4 Kimi Kean OUSD
Adam Taylor Brookfield Village Elementary
Community United Elementary
Patricia Ceja School
Sondra Aguilera Esperanza
Steven
Daubenspeck Futures
Liz Ozol New Highland Academy
Deborah Davis Parker
Connie Tillman Rise Community School
Marco Franco Sobrante
Minh-Tram Nguyen EnCompass Academy
Maya Woods-Cadiz Marshall Elementary
Carolyn Howard Howard Elementary
Charles Wilson Korematsu
MS
Network 1 Misha Karigaca Westlake
Seyana Mawusi West Oakland Middle School
Elia Bustamante United for Success Academy
Kenya Crockett Claremont Middle School
Mark Triplett Urban Promise Academy
Toni McElroy Barack Obama Academy
MS
Network 2 Laura Robell Elmhurst Community Prep
Yvette Renteria Alliance Academy
Sam Pasarow Edna Brewer Middle
Moyra Contreras Melrose Leadership Academy
Lucinda Taylor James Madison Middle School
Brandee Stewart Roots International
Teresa Williams Bret Harte
Jerome Gourdine Frick Middle
HS Network
1 Beverly Jarrett Far West HS
Hattie Tate Dewey HS
College Prep & Architecture
Daniel Hurst Academy
Yetunde Reeves EXCEL
Fulton Brinkley Ralph Bunche
Carmelita Reyes Oakland International High School
Robin Bailer-Glover Mandela High School 342
Benjamin
Schmookler Media Academy
Sheilagh Andujar Oakland Technical High School
Karen Todd BEST High
Alicia Romero Oakland High
Eve Gordon MetWest
HS Network
2 Aaron Townsend Coliseum College Prep Academy
Matin Abdel-Qawi EOSA
Life Academy of Health and
Preston Thomas Bioscience
Beverly Hansen Skyline High School
Willie Thompson Rudsdale and Independent Study
Susan Ryan CBITS
Denise Jeffrey Leadership Prep
Tony Smith, Ph.D. Communications Office
Superintendent Contact: Troy Flint
Oakland Unified Phone (510) 879-8242
School District Cell (510) 206-3737
1025 Second Avenue Fax (510) 879-8800
Oakland, CA 94606 troy.flint@ousd.k12.ca.us
www.ousd.k12.ca.us
Oakland Unified School District Press Advisory
For Immediate Release
Oakland Schools Demonstrate Some of California's Fastest Growth in Latest State Assessment
29 schools improve API scores by 50 points or better,
more than three times statewide average of 14 points
Oakland – September 15, 2009 – Student achievement in Oakland Public Schools grew 27 percent faster than the state
average according to the 2008-09 Accountability Progress Report (APR) released today by the California Department of
Education (CDE). OUSD's performance on the main index rose 19 points, the largest increase of all comparable districts, and a
mark which trailed only San Juan and San Bernardino among large, urban school systems.
The results extend OUSD's streak as California's most rapidly improving urban school district to a five-year period. Since 2004,
Oakland Unified has raised its Academic Performance Index (API) by a total of 92 points, leapfrogging numerous districts in the
process. The latest round of API growth contained significant gains across all levels and subgroups as 44 OUSD schools lifted
their API by 25 points or more.
Nowhere was the improvement more profound than in Oakland elementary schools, many of them located in some of the city's
poorest neighborhoods. Futures Elementary, where 70 percent of the students qualify for free and reduced lunch, boosted its
API by a staggering 118 points, the highest in the District and one of the largest growth rates in the state. Steven
Daubenspeck, who has worked at the school for 10 years, the last three as Principal, identified community engagement,
culturally sensitive instruction, a passionate staff, the opportunity to restructure Futures as a “small school” and dedicated
students as catalysts for change.
“We had the opportunity to redesign a school that had inspired little hope or trust and focused on improving relationships with
the children and the community,” Daubenspeck explained. “Relational trust plays a big role in our theory of action, as does a
commitment to equity on the part of our teachers and a willingness to meet children where they are. We emphasize a lot of
student dialogue – less teacher talk and more student talk”.
The Academic Progress Report (APR) combines a number of factors from the state's accountability system, notably the
Academic Performance Index (API) as well as measures from the federal government's tracking system, such as Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) and Program Improvement (PI).
While Futures made the most dramatic leap in terms of API, it was hardly alone as seven other elementary schools – East
Oakland Pride, Burckhalter, Learning Without Limits, Manzanita SEED, Think College Now, EnCompass Academy and Maxwell
Park posted API gains of 70 points or better. This feat was matched by West Oakland and Claremont Middle Schools and also at
the high school level by Sojourner Truth, Dewey Academy, Media College Preparatory and East Oakland School of the Arts. In
contrast, the average California school boosted API by just 14 points.
Equally noteworthy is the fact that Acorn Woodland and Sankofa Elementary were two of just 54 schools statewide to leave
behind Program Improvement (PI) status, a government designation assigned to schools targeted for enhanced performance.
While roughly a third of California's schools have been marked for Program Improvement, far fewer have emerged from it, a
process which requires meeting benchmarks in as many as 37 different categories for two years running.
For Acorn Woodland, an elementary school where more than 90 percent of students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, the
promotion represented another milestone in a long and impressive journey. In 2000, the school's API score of 384 was one of
the lowest in the District. Over the past nine years, the past five of them under the leadership of Principal Kimi Kean, the East
Oakland school has more than doubled its API to 782.
At Sankofa, a school where 70 percent of the student population is eligible for free lunch, current Principal Monique Brinson
credited founding Principal Danielle Neves, as well as the school's, students, teachers and staff for the accomplishment.
“We're seeing their hard work and dedication come to fruition in the latest data and it's exciting being the Principal of a school
where rigor and care are at the forefront of all we do,” Brinson explained. Referencing initiatives such as small class size,
interventions and innovative use of extended day and afterschool programs, Brinson noted that the progress is “a testament to
how the school community has come together in thoughtful and original ways to meet the unique needs of students, and in the
process, created a vibrant school community where achievement is important and valued.”
While the progress is undeniable, it isn't spread evenly throughout the District. The latest results brought substantial growth
among the Latino (17 points), African-American (19 points), English Learner (33 points), Special Needs (33 points) and Pacific
Islander (34 points) populations – growth which outpaced the state averages for these subgroups. Yet, the performance still
trailed that of students categorized as white and Asian by a large margin. At 902, the API for white students in Oakland Unified
is one of the highest scores of any major subgroup in the state of California. District administrators noted that raising the
performance of other populations to this level is the foremost challenge confronting the District.
“While our overall growth trends are impressive, particularly those in schools which were once low-performers, it's clear we
need to intensify our efforts to close the achievement gap. This is especially true where African-American students are
concerned,” added OUSD Chief Academic Officer Brad Stam. “We have a number of strategies focused on increasing African-
American and Latino achievement such as targeted Math and English Language Arts initiatives, increased access to mentors,
greater personalization, early intervention practices, modular credit and small communities within our large schools. We are re-
examining all these strategies with an eye toward extending the most successful methods and supplementing them with new
concepts that emerge from a dialogue with the Oakland community.”
2008 to
2009
Comparable
Change in
2008 2009 Growth School target subgroups
API
Elementary School Base API API met? met?
Futures 583 701 118 Yes Yes
East Oakland Pride 545 657 112 Yes Yes
Burckhalter 692 790 98 Yes Yes
Learning Without Limits 622 718 96 Yes Yes
Manzanita SEED 653 736 83 Yes Yes
Think College Now 768 848 80 Yes Yes
EnCompass Academy 653 733 80 Yes Yes
Maxwell Park 594 665 71 Yes Yes
New Highland 627 687 60 Yes Yes
Sobrante Park 694 754 60 Yes Yes
Global Family 523 582 59 Yes Yes
Korematsu Academy 592 641 49 Yes Yes
Greenleaf Academy 730 777 47 Yes Yes
Lakeview 717 760 43 Yes Yes
Esperanza 664 704 40 Yes Yes
Lazear 670 709 39 Yes Yes
Horace Mann* 724 761 37 Yes No
Montclair 922 957 35 Yes Yes
Howard 697 731 34 Yes Yes
Lafayette 630 664 34 Yes Yes
PLACE at Prescott 618 652 34 Yes Yes
Redwood Heights 890 923 33 Yes Yes
Emerson 694 725 31 Yes Yes
Crocker Highlands 868 898 30 Yes Yes
Chabot 905 932 27 Yes Yes
Lincoln 906 933 27 Yes Yes
Bridges Academy 704 730 26 Yes Yes
Peralta 866 892 26 Yes Yes
Sequoia 787 813 26 Yes Yes
Community United* 552 577 25 Yes No
2008 to
2009 Comparable
2008 Base 2009 Growth Change in School target Subgroups
Middle School API API API met? met?
West Oakland 587 698 111 Yes Yes
Peralta Creek 518 623 105 Yes Yes
Claremont 613 703 90 Yes Yes
Cole 506 580 74 Yes Yes
Madison 625 674 49 Yes Yes
Frick 557 597 40 Yes Yes
Urban Promise 658 694 36 Yes Yes
Barack Obama 362 395 33 Yes Yes
2009 2008 to
2008 Base Growth 2009 Change School target Comparable
High School API API in API met? Subgroups met?
Sojourner Truth 518 620 102 Yes Yes
Dewey Academy* 455 542 87 N/A N/A
Media College Prep 521 600 79 Yes Yes
East Oakland School of the Arts 481 554 73 Yes Yes
Oakland International 301 354 53 Yes Yes
Rudsdale Continuation 455 505 50 Yes Yes
OUSD
CA 2008 to
OUSD 2009 OUSD 2008 to 2009
2008 Growth 2009 Change CA 2008 CA 2009 Change in
Subgroup Base API API in API Base API Growth API API
Overall 676 695 19 741 755 14
African American 610 630 20 659 674 15
American Indian 707 729 22 708 719 11
Asian 801 807 6 865 878 13
Filipino 772 794 22 824 838 14
Hispanic or Latino 643 660 17 683 698 15
Pacific Islander 617 651 34 734 746 12
White 889 902 13 814 828 14
Socioeconomically 649 668 19 681 696 15
Disadvantaged
English Learners 643 676 33 663 677 14
Students with Disabilities 475 508 33 552 566 14
Questions or Feedback?
Terms of Use | TRUSTe Approved Privacy Policy
Copyright ©2002-2008 Schoolwires, Inc. All rights reserved.

Broad EEO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broad EEO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ensuring Equal Opportunity

Introduction and Summary

To accomplish this they implemented a new budgeting system called Results-Based

 Background on Oakland Unified’s Expect Success Initiative—a short over-

 Funding Allocation Issue—a brief overview of the issue of Oakland’s traditional

 Oakland Unified’s Solution—an explanation of Results-Based Budgeting, how it

 Implementation of Results-  Challenges and Lessons

 Results—current academic, equity,  State and Technical Assistance

Background on Oakland Unified School

Hills vs. Heartlands

• All students will succeed in algebra by the end of 9th grade.

• All employees will be high performers.

• All schools will be clean, healthy, and safe.

Overview of the Funding Equity Issue

Oakland Unified’s Solution:

• Connect decisions regarding use of resources to incentives for efficiency.

• Distribute resources in a more equitable manner.

• Create greater and broader autonomy for decisions and results.

• Develop and use better data to drive decision-making.

In addition, site administrators have an on School-Based Management and

Results-Based Budgeting builds upon  Schools of different sizes benefit differ-

Better Budgeting, More Equality

Staffing Based RBB

Results-Based Budgeting School districts that use SBM and SBB

HOW RESULTS-BASED BUDGETING WORKS

Pre-RBB Allocations RBB Allocations

The Genesis of Oakland Unified’s

Phase I of RBB: Change Budgeting Systems

Oakland Unified’s Under Superintendent, Dennis Chaconas, had been experimenting in

Overview of the RBB Formula

1. In cases of historically underfunded schools, funding allocations were adjusted up to minimum

2. Transitional funding (amounting to approximately $3 million out of a budget of $479 million

This minimum total expenditure level Phase III of RBB: Provide

 Is it having an impact on student

Oakland Unified School

Oakland Unified continues to make progress on the Academic Performance Index,

OAKLAND’S IMPROVING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

API Growth Base API Growth API

Number of Points Added to API Scores from 2004 to 2007

Source: OUSD’s 2006–2007 Annual Report.

Academic Achievement Gains Across Oakland

Additional Improvements management system. We have increased

Challenges and Lessons Learned

Work Closely with Your Labor Organizations

subsidy for the first

Conclusion: Federal and

Require a Budgeting Model That Promotes Transparency

Helping Hands Needed

• Require a budgeting model that promotes transparency

• Invest in data systems

• Provide strategic assistance vs. compliance oversight

• Focus on results not inputs

About the Authors

May to August Internal Staff Analysis

September to Stakeholder input

• Nov – Dec: Development of RBB enhancements

• Jan: Training on RBB enhancements

• Jan - Feb: School site RBB (budgeting) process

Key results to date include:

Capacity requirements: In order to get maximum student results, a student-based funding

Communications: OUSD leaders recommend “over-communicating” the goals of any new

OUSD KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE PROJECT

How RBB Works

Background on Oakland Unified’s Expect Success Initiative—a short over-

Funding Allocation Issue—a brief overview of the issue of Oakland’s traditional

Oakland Unified’s Solution—an explanation of Results-Based Budgeting, how it

Implementation of Results- Challenges and Lessons

Results—current academic, equity, State and Technical Assistance

Results-Based Budgeting builds upon Schools of different sizes benefit differ-

Is it having an impact on student