APPENDIX a Shortlisted Schools Approved by the Commission
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
APPENDIX A Shortlisted Schools Approved by the Commission Appendix A – Shortlisted Schools Approved by the Commission Appendix A – Shortlisted Schools Approved by the Commission Selection of schools approved May, 2016. Data for each school last updated January, 2018. Schools Participating in the STPP, as of Year One (*), Year Two (**), and Year Three (***) Income Opportunity Existing Bus (percent of Enrollment Traditional/ Stop within FRPM Planning (2016- Continuation 1/4 mile of eligible # of Bus Area School District School Name School Type Charter School Level Grades 2017) SR2S School Day School students) Routes North 1 Berkeley Unified REALM Charter High Traditional Charter High 9 - 12 347 No Yes Yes 66% 9 2 Berkeley Unified REALM Charter Middle Traditional Charter Middle 6 - 8 249 No Yes Yes 70% 9 3 Oakland Unified Castlemont High* Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 759 No Yes Yes 83% 10 4 Oakland Unified Fremont High* Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 764 No Yes Yes 86% 6 5 Oakland Unified McClymonds High** Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 372 No Yes Yes 89% 6 6 Oakland Unified Oakland High*** Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 1,562 No Yes Yes 88% 15 7 Oakland Unified Roosevelt Middle*** Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 524 No Yes Yes 93% 3 8 Oakland Unified Westlake Middle** Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 383 Yes Yes Yes 86% 6 9 Oakland Unified Bret Harte Middle Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 500 No Yes Yes 81% 10 10 Oakland Unified Aspire Berkley Maynard Academy Traditional Charter Middle K - 8 519 No Yes Yes 80% 4 11 Oakland Unified Oakland Military Institute Traditional Charter Middle/High 6 - 12 683 No Yes Yes 73% 10 12 Oakland Unified Alliance Academy Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 328 No Yes Yes 87% 1 13 Oakland Unified Elmhurst Community Prep Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 383 No Yes Yes 93% 1 14 Oakland Unified Frick Middle* Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 227 No Yes Yes 94% 5 15 Oakland Unified Urban Promise Academy Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 370 No Yes Yes 95% 6 Central 16 San Leandro Unified San Leandro High* Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 2,608 Yes Yes Yes 58% 5 17 San Leandro Unified John Muir Middle* Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 970 Yes Yes Yes 60% 1 18 Hayward Unified Cesar Chavez Middle Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 567 Yes Yes Yes 82% 5 19 Hayward Unified Bret Harte Middle** Traditional Non-charter Middle 7 - 8 637 Yes Yes Yes 59% 8 20 Hayward Unified Hayward High** Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 1,576 No Yes Yes 66% 3 21 San Lorenzo Unified Bohannon Middle Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 854 Yes Yes Yes 68% 4 22 San Lorenzo Unified San Lorenzo High Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 1,394 Yes Yes Yes 76% 2 Affordable STPP – Year Two Evaluation Report | Alameda CTC A-1 Appendix B – Performance Indicators and Metrics for Program Evaluation Income Opportunity Existing Bus (percent of Enrollment Traditional/ Stop within FRPM Planning (2016- Continuation 1/4 mile of eligible # of Bus Area School District School Name School Type Charter School Level Grades 2017) SR2S School Day School students) Routes South 1 ACT 23 New Haven Unified Cesar Chavez Middle* Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 1,255 Yes Yes Yes 62% 4 UCT 9 ACT 24 New Haven Unified James Logan High* Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 3,750 No Yes Yes 45% 6 UCT 25 Newark Unified Newark Junior High*** Traditional Non-charter Middle 7 - 8 901 No Yes Yes 51% 4 26 Newark Unified Newark Memorial High*** Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 1,703 No Yes Yes 45% 8 27 Fremont Unified William Hopkins Junior High*** Traditional Non-charter Middle 7 - 8 1,119 No Yes Yes 5% 2 28 Fremont Unified American High*** Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 2,200 Yes Yes Yes 17% 5 East 29 Dublin Unified Wells Middle Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 920 Yes Yes Yes 15% 2 30 Dublin Unified Dublin High Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 2,499 Yes Yes Yes 8% 5 31 Livermore Valley Joint Unified Del Valle Continuation High** Continuation Non-charter High 7 - 12 121 No Yes Yes 54% 1 32 Livermore Valley Joint Unified East Avenue Middle* Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 618 Yes Yes Yes 31% 1 33 Livermore Valley Joint Unified Livermore High* Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 1,810 No Yes Yes 21% 4 34 Livermore Valley Joint Unified Andrew N. Christensen Middle** Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 625 No Yes Yes 17% 1 35 Pleasanton Unified Thomas S. Hart Middle Traditional Non-charter Middle 6 - 8 1,243 Yes Yes Yes 6% 6 36 Pleasanton Unified Foothill High Traditional Non-charter High 9 - 12 2,148 Yes Yes Yes 6% 3 Affordable STPP – Year Two Evaluation Report | Alameda CTC A-2 APPENDIX B Performance Indicators and Metrics for Program Evaluation Appendix B – Performance Indicators and Metrics for Program Evaluation Appendix B – Performance Indicators and Metrics for Program Evaluation Indicators1 Rationale Metric Data Source Quantitative Transportation costs to families To determine the financial burden of transportation to/from Amount that families pay for school transportation and/or the Determined as part of program model parameters (participant cost) school pass Surveys Participant or student attendance To discern a relationship between pass program design and Average daily attendance Mandated school reporting attendance Pass availability and use To determine the level of penetration of the pilot program Number of eligible students School sites, transit operators, and Clipper if applicable (i.e., how many students could use the pass vs. actually use Number of passes distributed the pass) Number of passes used (depending on choice of fare media) After-school activity participation To discern a relationship between pass program design and Attendance of students at key clubs, activities and organizations Waiver forms and student surveys after-school activity participation associated with each site Student ridership To determine the impact of the pass program on ridership Number of passes provided Transit operators (i.e., net and gross change in ridership) Agency-level student ridership Diverse participant reach To determine whether geographic diversity and equity are Demographic information of program sites Determined as part of program model parameters addressed Program cost per participant To understand the overall cost-benefit ratio of the pass Overall program costs per participant, beyond what the pass Program model parameters; financial information provided by schools, program price is (if applicable) county agencies and transit operators Administrative costs as a proportion of To understand the overall cost-benefit ratio of the pass Costs borne by the transit operators, schools, etc. Financial information provided by schools, county agencies and transit total program costs program Including costs with an on-site administrator operators 1 After Commission approval, the metric “Inclusion of students, parents, community members, administrators” was moved from quantitative to qualitative due to an initial mis-categorization and some minor changes were made to data sources and timelines due to limitations in data availability and to align data requests with the realities of demands on the school site administrators’ time. The table presented here shows the current metrics after these minor revisions. Affordable STPP – Year Two Evaluation Report | Alameda CTC B-1 Appendix B – Performance Indicators and Metrics for Program Evaluation Indicators Rationale Metric Data Source Qualitative Student perception of transit options and To understand how students understand transportation options Number and extent to which students perceive pass options and Surveys or focus groups conducted by program team and school sites barriers and perceive barriers to accessing those options barriers to accessing those options, including cost Inclusion of students, parents, community To determine if community members are integrated and Engagement & participation in program activities: periodic Sign-in sheets, survey response rate, public comment submissions, members, administrators informed stakeholder group meetings, school-based outreach/tabling, formal/informal community feedback travel training, surveys Effectiveness of marketing and outreach To ensure that community members are integrated and Extent to which participants know about the program Student feedback (via focus groups and/or surveys) informed Linkages with existing fare payment To discern if linkages with existing options affects pilot Key features of fare payment options Determined as part of program model parameters; Clipper if option(s) outcomes applicable Leverage with other school-based To discern if coordination with existing programs affects pilot Aspects that benefit related programs (SR2S, crossing guards, Determined as part of program model parameters transportation programs outcomes etc.) Leverage with other funding and To understand potential for future funding opportunities Key findings regarding funding eligibility and partnerships Feedback from school sites, transit operators, other stakeholders administration programs Transit operator response(s) To understand how the pilot programs are perceived by transit Perceived impacts of program to service delivery Transit operator feedback operators Ease of participation To discern how students perceive the program model and Perceived ease of use of program model Participant surveys how to use it Ease of administration (program-wide, To discern how program administration is perceived by Perceived ease of administration by school sites, transit operators Feedback from school sites, transit operators, other stakeholders site-level, operator-level)2 different entities involved at different scales and countywide coordination Cost performance against expectations To understand or anticipate any potential future costs and Degree to which any cost overruns represent “one-time” versus Feedback from school sites, transit operators, other stakeholders issues recurring and/or unpredictable issues 2 Metrics associated with this indicator may be used to evaluate potential implications for the level of decentralized oversight and potential for replication in other schools.