Appendix - William C. Overfelt High School

Appendix Table Of Contents 

Item A 7-Period Bell Schedule ............................................................................................... 175 

Item B Budget Cut Results .....................................................................................................177 

Item C 

Budget Profiles............................................................................................................179 

Item D Campus Map ............................................................................................................. 181 

Item E Collaboration dates .................................................................................................... 183 

Item F Decision-Making Model ............................................................................................ 185 

Item G Demographic Data..................................................................................................... 187 

Item H GPA of 10th–12th Grade Students ............................................................................ 211 

Item I Graduation Requirements .......................................................................................... 213 

Item J School Accountability Report Card Summary............................................................ 215 

Item K Single Plan for Student Achievement ......................................................................... 217 

Item L Administrative Organizational Chart.......................................................................... 237 

Item M SLC Proposal ............................................................................................................. 239 

Item N Summary of Categorical Funds, Grants, and Partnerships.......................................... 245 

Item O Pyramid of Effort-Based School Success ..................................................................... 247 

Item P Rosters ....................................................................................................................... 249 

• 18.4 

• Equity Committee 

• Professional Learning Community 

• Safety Committee 

• School Site Council 

• Staff House Assignments 

Appendix 173


ITEM A 

Bell Schedule 


Bell Schedule 

ITEM A 


ITEM B 

Budget Cut Results 

TITLE 2005-2006 2011-2012 

Student Advisors 2 2 

Academic Counselors 5.8 3 

School Psychologist 1 full time 1 Part time 

Librarian 1 1/5 

Library Technician 1 0 

Literacy Coach 1 0 

Athletic Director 2 2 

Student Activities Director 0.6 0.4 

Healthy Start Coordinator 1.0 0.4 

Healthy Start Secretary 0 0 

Attendance Secretary 1 1 

Attendance Clerks 2 1 

Bank Clerk 1 1 

Book Room Clerk 1 0.2 

Repro Technician 1 0 

Day Custodians 2 1 

Testing Clerk 1 0 

Registrar 1 1 

Receptionist 1 0 

Electronic Academy Technician 1 0 

Computer Technician 1 0.5 

Resource for Special Education 

Staff Development Coordinator 0.6 0 

Career Center Technician 1 0 

Campus Security San Jose Police Officers 

Para Educators -5 

Community Liaison 1 0 

Health Clerk 1 0.5 

Account Analyst 1 0 

Increase in class sizes has resulted in the loss of 8-10 teachers. 



ITEM C 

Budget Profile 


Budget Profile 

ITEM C 


ITEM D 

Campus Map 



ITEM E 

Collaboration Dates 

1 24-Aug House 

2 31-Aug House 

3 7-Sep WASC Home 

4 14-Sep House 

5 21-Sep Department 

6 28-Sep House 

7 5-Oct Staff - Grade Lesson (10/6) - Code red? 

8 12-Oct House 

9 19-Oct WASC Focus 

10 26-Oct WASC Focus 

11 2-Nov House 

12 9-Nov WASC Focus 

13 16-Nov WASC Focus 

14 30-Nov House 

15 7-Dec Department 

16 4-Jan Staff - Kick Off 2nd Semester 

17 11-Jan House 

18 18-Jan Department 

19 25-Jan House 

20 1-Feb House 

21 15-Feb Department 

22 29-Feb House 

23 7-Mar House 

24 14-Mar Department 



27 4-Apr STAR Lesson 4/5 

28 24-Apr WASC Visit (Reverse Collaboration) 

29 2-May House 

30 9-May Department 



Appendix 185 

Student Senate 

Meet: monthly 

Members: elected 

representatives from 

each 3 rd period class 

School Site Council: 

Meet: monthly 

Members: elected parents, 

students, staff, 

administration 

Responsible for oversight of 

the school plan and budget. 

Forum for parent and 

student concerns. 

Safety Team: 

Meet: biannually 

Members: APA, nominated 

staff, students, parents, 

community agencies. 

Responsible for the school 

safety plan. 

Administration: 

Meet: weekly 

Members: Principal, APED, APA, 

Final decision making authority 

including confidential issues. 

Management Team: 

Meet: weekly 

Members: administration, director of 

activities, professional development, 

head counselor 

Responsible for day to day operation 

of the entire campus. 

Department Chairs: 

Meet: monthly 

Members: elected chairs from each 

department and program. House Leaders! 

Responsible for department budgets, 

supplies, staffing, text books, curriculum… 

Equity Committee 

Meet: monthly and as needed 

Members: nominated by Principal, approved by constituents 

Audit for Equity within SLC and House Model (process and performance) 

18.4 Committee: 

Meet: monthly 

Members: 5 elected certificated 

staff, union representative, 

principal 

Responsible for advising changes 

in teachers’ working conditions. 

A forum for teachers’ concerns. 

SLC Coordinators: 

Meet: monthly (+ with DC) 

Members: Coordinators of all SLCs 

Responsible for guiding the work of 

our small learning communities 

including equity of placement and 

supporting schoolwide efforts. 

Teacher Leadership Team: 

Meet: every other week 

Members: APED, House Leaders, and 

volunteer teachers, open to all staff 

Responsible for planning collaboration 

and professional development, organizing 

school reform efforts.


ITEM G 

Demographic Data 

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 

BY ETHNICITY (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

American 4 0.3% 4 0.3% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 

Indian 

Asian 156 10.2% 125 8.0% 136 8.1% 142 8.2% 123 7.0% 119 7.8% 

Pacific 

41 2.7% 32 2.0% 36 2.2% 37 2.1% 35 2.0% 21 1.4% 

Islander 

Filipino 138 9.0% 134 8.6% 128 7.7% 131 7.6% 133 7.7% 121 8.0% 

African- 38 2.5% 38 2.4% 42 2.5% 30 1.7% 36 2.2% 29 1.9% 

American 

Hispanic 1126 73.6% 1201 76.9% 1300 77.9% 1361 78.5 1400 79.6% 1210 79.5% 

or Latino 

% 

White 

25 4.6% 24 1.5% 23 1.4% 30 1.7% 27 1.4% 18 1.2% 

(not Hispanic) 

Two or More 1 0.1% 4 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 

Races 

Total 1529 1562 1669 1733 1756 1520 

BY GRADE (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 9th 10th 11th 12th Total 

2005-06 383 25.6% 419 27.4% 364 23.3% 363 23.7% 1529 

2006-07 407 26.1% 419 26.8% 394 25.2% 342 21.9% 1562 

2007-08 457 27.4% 449 26.9% 421 25.2% 342 20.5% 1669 

2008-09 440 25.4% 475 27.4% 433 25.0% 385 22.2% 1733 

2009-10 420 23.9% 440 25.1% 490 27.9% 406 23.1% 1756 

2010-11 369 24.3% 412 27.1% 379 24.9% 361 23.7% 1520 

BY GENDER (number/percent) 

OVERFELT Male Female Total Students 

2005-06 804 52.6% 725 47.4% 1529 

2006-07 805 51.5% 757 48.5% 1562 

2007-08 853 51.1% 816 48.9% 1669 

2008-09 904 52.2% 829 47.8% 1733 

2009-10 929 52.9% 827 47.1% 1756 

2010-11 820 53.9% 700 46.1% 1520 

TRENDS IN STUDENT ENROLLMENT 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Total Enrollment 1529 1562 1669 1733 1756 1520 

Gain/Loss +20 +33 +107 +64 +23 -236 

Grade 9 383 407 457 440 420 368 

Grade 10 419 419 449 475 440 412 

Grade 11 364 394 421 433 490 379 

Grade 12 363 342 342 385 406 361 

Ungraded 0 0 0 0 0 0 



ITEM G 

PARENT EDUCATION LEVEL 

OVERFELT 

Response Rate 

Not High School 

Graduate 

High School 

Graduate 

Some College 

College 

Graduate 

Graduate 

School 

2005-06 99% 62% 20% 9% 7% 1% 

2006-07 99% 59% 23% 11% 6% 1% 

2007-08 98% 56% 26% 11% 6% 1% 

2008-09 92% 52% 28% 12% 8% 1% 

2009-10 99% 56% 27% 9% 7% 1% 

2010-11 97% 67% 21% 7% 5% 1% 


ITEM G 


STAFFING 

TEACHERS BY ETHNICITY (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

American Indian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 

Asian 4 5.6% 5 6.8% 6 7.3% 6 7.1% 6 7.3% 7 9.0% 

Pacific Islander 1 1.4% 1 1.4% 3 3.7% 2 2.4% 2 2.4% 2 2.6% 

Filipino 6 8.5% 6 8.1% 7 8.5% 9 10.5% 8 9.8% 5 8.4% 

African-American 6 8.5% 6 8.1% 8 9.8% 6 7.1% 6 7.3% 3 3.8% 

Hispanic or Latino 20 28.2% 19 25.7% 20 24.4% 28 32.9% 24 29.3% 22 26.2% 

White (not Hispanic) 34 47.9% 37 50.0% 37 45.1% 33 38.8% 33 40.3% 39 50.0% 

Multiple/ No Response 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 2 2.4% 0 0.0% 

Total Staff 71 74 82 85 82 78 

STAFF EDUCATION REPORT (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Doctorate 2 2.8% 2 2.7% 3 3.7% 2 2.4% 5 6.1% 5 6.4% 

Master’s Degree +30 8 11.3% 16 21.6% 17 20.6% 16 18.8% 18 22.0% 29 37.2% 

Master’s Degree 20 28.2% 14 18.9% 13 15.8% 14 16.5% 12 14.6% 0 0.0% 

Bachelor’s Degree +30 31 43.7% 35 47.3% 40 47.7% 40 47.1 43 52.5% 43 55.1% 

Bachelor’s Degree 9 12.7% 6 8.1% 7 13.5% 10 11.8% 2 2.4% 0 0.0% 

Less than Bachelor’s 1 1.4% 1 1.4% 2 2.7% 3 3.5% 2 2.4% 1 1.3% 

Total Staff 71 74 82 85 82 78 

TEACHER CREDENTIALS (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Full Credential 63 88.7% 66 89.2% 67 81.7% 67 78.8% 

University Intern 2 2.8% 5 6.8% 8 9.8% 8 9.4% 

District Intern 1 1.4% 1 1.4% 1 1.2% 1 1.2% 

Pre-Intern 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.7% 0 00% 

Emergency 12 16.9% 8 10.8% 8 9.8% 9 10.6% 

Waiver 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.4% 

Total # of Teachers 71* 74* 82* 85* 

*The total number of teachers credentialed is higher than the stated number because some teachers have more than one 

credential. 

TEACHER EXPERIENCE 

OVERFELT 

Avg. Years 

Avg. Years in No. of First Year No. of Second Year 

Teaching 

District 

Teachers 

Teachers 

2005-06 17.5 15.3 3 2 

2006-07 15.8 13.5 6 3 

2007-08 14.4 12.2 7 7 

2008-09 12.2 9.9 5 10 

2009-10 12.5 10.1 3 3 

2010-11 12.2 9.9 5 1 



ITEM G 

CLASSIFIED STAFF INFORMATION 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Para Professionals 12 13 11 12 18 15 

Office Staff 17 13 16 15 9 8 

Other Classified 15 16 14 16 11 14 

Full Time 43 41 28 27 38 18 

Part Time 1 1 13 16 0 19 

Total Classified 44 42 41 43 38 37 

CLASSIFIED STAFF BY ETHNICITY (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

African-American/Black 4 9.1% 3 7.1% 3 7.3% 2 4.7% 4 10.6% 0 0.0% 

American Indian/Alaskan 2 4.5% 2 4.7% 2 4.9% 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 2 5.4% 

Native 

Asian 1 2.3% 1 2.4% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 1 2.7% 

Filipino 3 6.8% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 2 4.7% 2 5.3% 2 5.4% 

Hispanic Latino 27 61.4% 22 52.4% 25 61.0% 28 60.2% 20 52.6% 24 64.9% 


White, Not Hispanic 6 13.6% 6 14.3% 7 17.2% 7 16.3% 11 28.9% 8 21.6% 

Multiple/No Responses 0 0.0% 7 16.7% 1 2.4% 2 4.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Total Classified 44 42 41 43 38 37 

OVERALL STAFF BY ETHNICITY (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2010-11 2010-11 2010-2011 2010-2011 Total 2010-11 

Certificated Classified Total # 

% 

American Indian 0 2 2 2.0% 0.1% 

Asian 7 1 8 7.0% 7.8% 

Pacific Islander 2 0 2 2.0% 1.4% 

Filipino 5 2 7 6.0% 8.0% 

African-American 3 0 3 3.0% 1.9% 

Hispanic or Latino 22 24 46 40.0% 79.5% 

White (not Hispanic) 39 8 47 40.0% 1.2% 

Multiple/ No Response 0 0 0 0% 0.1% 

Total Staff 78 37 115 


ITEM G 


LANGUAGE TESTING 

CALIFORNIA ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT TEST (CELDT) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Advanced 138 20 24 25 20 18 

Early Advanced 204 120 131 117 130 96 

Intermediate 94 155 156 164 160 121 

Early Intermediate 35 90 89 58 60 53 

Beginning 14 41 4118 37 20 18 

Number Tested 485 426 44196 401 390 306 


ENGLISH PROFICIENCY 

(Students Meeting State Board of Education Criterion for English Proficiency) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Number of Students 326 131 135 117 131 94 

Percent of Students 67% 31% 31% 29% 33.6% 31% 

Number Tested 485 426 441 401 390 306 


ENGLISH PROFICIENCY BY GRADE 

(Students Meeting State Board of Education Criterion for English Proficiency) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

9th Grade 153 133 181 144 145 81 

10th Grade 122 113 96 103 108 110 

11th Grade 128 96 96 97 85 76 

12th Grade 82 84 68 67 52 39 

Total Number 485 426 441 401 390 306 

NCLB TEACHERS AND CLASSES 

NCLB 

NCLB 

63NCLB % 

NCLB 

% Teachers 

OVERFELT 

Core Classes Compliant Classes Compliant Classes Core Teachers In Prof. Development 

2003-04 212 199 94% 50 100% 

2004-05 229 201 88% 45 100% 

2005-06 265 214 81% N/R N/R 

2006-07 276 254 92% N/R N/R 

2007-08 276 254 92% N/R N/R 

2008-09 303 274 90.4% N/R N/R 

ENGLISH LEARNERS BY LANGUAGE (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Spanish 526 83.9% 493 87.6% 412 89.4% 417 89.1% 535 90.7% 437 89.5% 

Vietnamese 37 5.9.% 31 5.5% 23 5.0% 22 4.7% 25 4.2% 23 4.8% 

Punjabi 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 2 0.4% 

Khmer 8 1.3% 7 1.2% 5 1.1% 0 0.0% 3 0.5% 3 0.6% 

Cantonese 4 0.6% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 

Filipino 25 4.0% 18 3.2% 12 2.6% 19 4.1% 14 2.4% 12 2.6% 

All Others 26 4.1% 13 4.3% 8 17% 9 1.9% 11 1.9% 9 1.9% 

Total 627 563 461 468 590 488 



ITEM G 

ENGLISH LEARNERS BY GRADE (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

9th Grade 222 35.4% 194 34.5% 167 36.2% 159 34.0% 158 26.8% 167 34.3% 

10th Grade 162 25.8% 159 28.2% 108 23.4% 124 26.5% 164 27.8% 148 30.3% 

11th Grade 146 23.3% 112 19.9% 107 23.2% 101 21.6% 154 26.1% 110 22.5% 

12th Grade 97 15.5% 98 17.4% 79 17.2% 84 17.9% 114 19.3% 63 12.9% 

Total 627 563 461 468 590 488 

ENGLISH LEARNER CLASSIFICATION BY YEAR 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

English Learners 627 563 461 468 590 488 

FEP Students 546 615 781 812 756 679 

Students Redesignated 175 144 239 139 19 78 

Total Enrollment 1529 1562 1669 1730 1756 1520 

FLUENT-ENGLISH PROFICIENT (FEP) BY LANGUAGE 

(number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Spanish 380 69.6% 445 72.4% 603 77.2% 641 78.9% 612 81.0% 549 80.9% 

Vietnamese 54 9.9% 49 8.0% 63 8.1% 67 8.3% 47 6.2% 49 7.2% 

Filipino 51 9.3% 59 9.6% 53 6.8% 45 5.5% 45 6.0% 41 6.0% 

Cantonese 8 1.5% 10 1.6% 8 1.0% 7 0.9% 8 1.1% 4 0.6% 

Punjabi 2 0.4% 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 2 0.2% 2 0.3% 3 0.4% 

Khmer 10 1.8% 11 1.8% 12 1.5% 0 0.0% 10 1.3% 6 0.9% 

Ilocono 14 2.6% 15 2.4% 15 1.9% 12 1.5% 7 0.9% 6 0.9% 

Hindi 2 0.4% 3 0.5% 2 0.3% 2 0.2% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 

All Others 25 4.5% 22 3.5% 24 3.1% 36 4.5% 24 3.1% 51 3.1% 

FEP TOTALS 546 615 781 812 756 679 

FLUENT-ENGLISH PROFICIENT (FEP) BY GRADE 

(number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

9th Grade 94 17.2% 126 20.5% 188 24.1% 172 21.2% 171 22.6% 128 18.9% 

10th Grade 156 28.6% 159 25.9% 216 27.7% 237 29.2% 181 23.9% 178 25.7% 

11th Grade 132 24.2% 176 28.6% 208 26.6% 217 26.7% 215 28.5% 188 27.7% 

12th Grade 164 30.0% 154 25.0% 169 21.6% 186 22.9% 189 25.0% 185 27.7% 

Total 546 615 781 812 756 679 

ENGLISH LEARNER INFORMATION (number/percent) 

OVERFELT Enrollment English Learners 

Fluent 

Student (FEP) 

English-Proficient 

Redesignated 

2005-06 1529 627 41.0% 546 35.7% 175 11.4% 

2006-07 1562 563 36.0% 615 39.4% 144 9.2% 

2007-08 1669 461 27.6% 781 46.8% 239 14.3% 

2008-09 1730 468 27.1% 812 46.9% 139 8.0% 

2009-10 1756 590 33.6% 756 43.1% 19 1.1% 

2010-11 1520 488 32.1% 679 44.7% 78 5.1% 


ITEM G 


LANGUAGE GROUP DATA TO DETERMINE “15 PERCENT AND ABOVE” TRANSLATION NEEDS 

OVERFELT 

Enrollment 

Number of 

English Learners 

Number of Fluent 

Eng. Learners 

Total English 

Learners and 

Fluent English 

Learners 

Overall Percent 

2005-06 1529 627 546 1173 76.72% 

2006-07 1562 563 615 1178 75.42% 

2007-08 1669 461 781 1242 74.42% 

2008-09 1730 468 812 1280 73.99% 

2009-10 1756 590 756 1346 76.65% 

2010-11 1520 488 679 1167 76.78% 



ITEM G 

GRADUATION AND COLLEGE-BOUND 

12th GRADE ENROLLMENT AND GRADUATION 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

12th Grade Enrollment 345 363 342 342 384 406 

Graduates 261 226 213 228 232 264 

UC/CSU Eligible Grads 57 50 43 57 69 68 

% UC/CSU Eligible Grads 20.7% 22.1% 20.2% 25.0% 29.7% 25.8% 

GRADUATES COMPLETING UC/CSU REQUIREMENTS BY ETHNICITY 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

American 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

Indian of 0 

of 1 

of 0 

of 0 

of 0 

of 2 

8 

12 

20 

18 51.4 10 

18 

Asian 

51.3% 

35.7% of 36.4% 47.4% of 52.2% 

of 39 

of 35 % of 28 

of 38 

22 

23 

Pacific 

Islander 

Filipino 

Hispanic/ 

Latino 

African 

American 

White not 

Hispanic 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

Total 

1 

of 4 

20 

of 41 

15 

of 

166 

1 

of 6 

0 

of 5 

0 

of 0 

57 

of 

261 

25.0% 

48.8% 

9.0% 

16.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

21.8% 

0 

of 7 

12 

of 26 

16 

of 

148 

4 

of 6 

0 

of 2 

0 

of 1 

50 

of 

226 

0.0% 

46.2 

% 

10.8 

% 

66.7 

% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

22.1 

% 

0 

of 3 

11 

of 35 

20 

of 133 

1 

of 9 

1 

of 5 

0 

of 0 

43 

of 213 

0.0% 

31.4% 

15.0% 

11.1% 

20.0% 

0.0% 

20.2% 

0 

of 5 

15 

of 

30 

33 

of 

161 

0 

of 6 

1 

of 4 

0 

of 0 

57 

of 

228 

0.0% 

50.0% 

20.5% 

0.0% 

25.0% 

0.0% 

25.0% 

0 

of 7 

13 

of 23 

37 

of 

161 

1 

of 2 

0 

of 1 

0 

of 0 

69 

of 

232 

GRADUATION RATES BASED ON NCES DEFINITION 

0.0% 

56.5% 

23.0% 

50.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

29.7% 

0 

of 1 

13 

of 

27 

39 

of 

201 

1 

of 5 

2 

of 4 

1 

of 1 

69 

of 

264 

0.0% 

48.1% 

19.4% 

20.0% 

50.0% 

100.0% 

25.8% 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Dropouts 33 66 52 62 72 67 

Graduates 261 226 213 228 232 264 

Graduation Rate 83.4% 77.4% 61.9% 78.6% 60.4% 72.7% 

DROPOUTS AND ONE-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR DERIVED RATES 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Dropouts 33 66 52 53 107 67 

1-year drop rate 2.2% 4.3% 3.3% 4.3% 5.6% 3.8% 

4-year dropout rate 9.6% 18.0% 15.1% 19.2% 23.1% 16.1% 


ITEM G 


DROPOUTS BY ETHNICITY (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

American Indian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Asian 1 3.0% 13 19.7% 3 5.8% 3 5.7% 4 3.7% 7 10.4% 


Filipino 0 0.0% 3 4.5% 1 1.9% 2 3.8% 6 5.6% 1 1.5% 

Hispanic 32 97.0% 48 62.8% 44 84.6% 45 84.8% 92 86.0% 56 83.6% 

African American 0 0.0% 1 1.5% 3 5.8% 2 3.8% 2 1.9% 2 3.0% 

White 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.9% 0 0.0% 

Multiple/No Response 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Total 33 66 52 53 107 67 

DROPOUTS BY GENDER (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Male 23 69.7% 39 59.1% 31 59.6% N/A N/A 54 50.5% 33 49.3% 

Female 10 30.3% 27 40.1% 21 40.4% N/A N/A 53 49.5% 34 50.7% 

Total Dropouts 33 66 52 53 107 67 

DROPOUTS BY GRADE (number/percent) 

OVERFELT 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

9th Grade 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 7.5% 0 0.0% 

10th Grade 0 0.0% 2 3.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 7 6.5% 0 0.0% 

11th Grade 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 8 7.5% 5 7.5% 

12th Grade 33 100.0% 64 97.0% 51 98.1% 52 98.1% 84 78.5% 62 92.5% 

Total Dropouts 33 66 52 53 107 67 

ACT SCORES 

OVERFELT 

Grade 12 Number Percent Average Score Score Score 

Enrollment Tested Tested 

≥ 21 Number ≥ 21 Rate 

2004-05 345 25 7.2% 19.2 11 3.2% 

2005-06 363 16 4.4% 19.6 5 1.4% 

2006-07 342 16 4.7% 19.6 5 31.3% 

2007-08 342 15 4.4% 17.5 2 13.3% 

2008-09 384 33 8.59% 18.09 90 27.27% 

2009-10 406 65 16.01% 17.31 12 18.46% 

SAT 1 SCORES 

OVERFELT 

Grade 12 Number Verbal Average Math Average Writing VMW 

Enrollment Tested 

Average Average 

2004-05 345 86 434 467 N/A 901 

2005-06 363 121 417 461 430 1308 

2006-07 342 91 423 460 432 1315 

2007-08 342 91 429 439 429 1297 

2008-09 384 95 434 453 423 1310 

2009-10 406 78 444 457 433 1334 



ITEM G 

ADVANCED PLACEMENT SCORES 

OVERFELT 

Grade 12 Grade 11/12 No. of No of Exams AP ≥ 3 AP ≥ 3 

Enrollment Enrollment Test Takers ≥ 3 (12th Grade) (11-12th Grade) 

2005-06 363 727 199 48 26 15 

2006-07 342 736 223 39 44 11 

2007-08 342 763 231 64 49 23 

2008-09 384 817 276 57 53 34 

2009-10 406 896 267 65 40 35 


ITEM G 


API INFORMATION 

API SCORES 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

API Base 621 643 655 654 659 661 

Change -1 +22 +12 -1 +5 +2 

Number students tested 998 998 1099 1108 1085 968 

Statewide Rank 2 3 3 3 2 

Similar Schools Rank 7 9 9 8 7 

SUBGROUPS 2006 


African 

American 

American 

Indian 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

25 No -- -- -- 

1 No -- -- -- 

African 

American 

American 

Indian 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

20 No -- -- -- 

2 No -- -- -- 

Asian 95 No -- -- -- 

Filipino 101 Yes 728 5 733 

Asian 88 No -- -- -- 

Filipino 88 No -- -- -- 

Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

739 Yes 599 10 609 

23 No -- -- -- 

Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

762 Yes 619 9 628 

26 No -- -- -- 

White 14 No -- -- -- 

White 12 No -- -- -- 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

774 Yes 612 9 621 

624 Yes 591 10 601 

92 No -- -- -- 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

762 Yes 632 8 640 

596 Yes 596 10 606 

98 No -- -- -- 



ITEM G 

African 

American 

American 

Indian 


Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

28 No -- -- -- 

1 No -- -- -- 

Asian 92 No -- -- -- 


Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

855 Yes 633 9 642 

20 No -- -- -- 

White 15 No -- -- -- 

African 

American 

American 

Indian 


Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

21 No -- -- -- 

1 No -- -- -- 

Asian 84 No -- -- -- 


Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

866 Yes 630 10 640 

21 No -- -- -- 

White 22 No -- -- -- 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

901 Yes 638 8 646 

639 Yes 593 10 603 

124 No 451 -- -- 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

898 Yes 639 10 649 

609 Yes 591 12 603 

130 Yes 501 17 518 



African 

American 

American 

Indian 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

15 No -- -- -- 

0 No -- -- -- 

Asian 78 No -- -- -- 


Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

881 Yes 640 9 649 

17 No -- -- -- 

White 12 No -- -- -- 

African 

American 

American 

Indian 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

16 No 589 -- -- 

0 No -- -- -- 

Asian 82 No 806 A A 

Filipino 80 No 743 -- -- 

Hispanic/ 

Latino 

Pacific 

Islander 

769 Yes 639 +9 648 

12 No 645 -- -- 

White 8 No -- -- -- 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

4 No -- -- -- 

990 Yes 655 8 663 

647 Yes 600 11 611 

Socioecon. 

Disadvant. 

English 

Learners 

Students w/ 

Disabilities 

1 No -- -- -- 

634 Yes -- -- -- 

571 Yes 597 +10 607 


ITEM G 


Asian 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 95 No -- -- -- 

2007 88 No -- -- -- 

2008 92 No -- -- -- 

2009 84 No -- -- -- 

2010 78 No -- -- -- 

2011 82 No 806 A A 

Hispanic/Latino 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 774 Yes 612 9 621 

2007 762 Yes 632 8 640 

2008 904 Yes 638 8 646 

2009 898 Yes 639 8 647 

2010 990 Yes 655 8 663 

2011 634 Yes -- -- -- 

English Learners 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 624 Yes 591 10 601 

2007 596 Yes 596 10 606 

2008 639 Yes 593 10 603 

2009 609 Yes 591 10 601 

2010 647 Yes 600 11 611 

2011 571 Yes 597 10 607 

Filipino 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 101 Yes 728 5 733 

2007 88 No -- -- -- 

2008 90 No -- -- -- 

2009 93 No -- -- -- 

2010 76 No -- -- -- 

2011 80 No 743 -- -- 

Socio-Economically Disadvantaged 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 774 Yes 612 9 621 

2007 762 Yes 632 8 640 

2008 904 Yes 638 8 646 

2009 898 Yes 639 8 647 

2010 990 Yes 655 8 663 

2011 634 Yes -- -- -- 

Students with Disabilities 

Test 

Takers 

Num. 

Signif.? 

API 

Base 

Growth 

Target 

API 

Target 

2006 92 No -- -- -- 

2007 98 No -- -- -- 

2008 124 No 451 -- -- 

2009 130 Yes 501 17 518 

2010 95 No -- -- -- 

2011 104 No 420 -- -- 



ITEM G 

OVERFELT 

STAR AND CAHSEE TESTING 

STAR RESULTS SCIENCE AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 

Science % Proficient 

and 

Above 

Science % 

Basic and 

Above 

Social Science % 

Proficient 

And Above 

Social Science 

% Basic and 

Above 

2005-06 11% 51% 13% 44% 

2006-07 14% 60% 17% 47% 

2007-08 16% 58% 20% 47% 

2008-09 15% 54% 25% 52% 

2009-10 18% 57% 26% 54% 

2010-11 17% 56% 24% 52% 

STAR RESULTS LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS PROFICIENCY 

OVERFELT Language Arts % 

Proficient and Above 

Language Arts % 

Basic and Above 

Mathematics 

% Proficient and 

Above 

Mathematics 

% Basic and 

Above 

2005-06 20% 50% 15% 44% 

2006-07 26% 59% 12% 40% 

2007-08 26% 60% 14% 39% 

2008-09 31% 63% 15% 36% 

2009-10 31% 64% 16% 39% 

2010-11 32% 63% 17% 40% 

CAHSEE Mathematics Pass Rate By Year 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Number Tested 753 389 423 474 391 394 

Number Passing 313 256 316 327 271 272 

Percent Passing 42% 66% 75% 69% 69% 69% 

CAHSEE English/Language Arts Pass Rate By Year 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Number Tested 770 389 423 475 393 396 

Number Passing 327 245 308 306 282 267 

Percent Passing 42% 63% 73% 64% 72% 67% 

Male 

Math # 

ELA 

Tested Passing Tested Passing 

2005-06 180 89 48% 175 101 58% 

2006-07 70 51 73% 69 52 75% 

2007-08 81 65 80% 81 67 83% 

2008-09 92 69 75% 93 71 76% 

2009-10 35 24 69% 34 26 76% 

2010-11 112 84 75 111 81 73% 

Female 

Math 

ELA 


2005-06 369 159 43% 346 166 48% 

2006-07 196 129 66% 196 136 69% 

2007-08 205 149 73% 204 154 75% 

2008-09 331 186 56% 354 177 50% 

2009-10 173 121 70% 176 131 74% 

2010-11 187 128 68% 186 130 70% 


ITEM G 


African-American 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 27 12 44% 19 9 47% 

2006-07 5 * * 5 * * 

2007-08 9 * * 9 * * 

2008-09 21 13 62% 21 16 76% 

2009-10 6 * * 6 * * 

2010-11 

*Scores are not reported because it would be too easy to identify 

individual students 

American Indian 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 3 * * 2 * * 

2006-07 0 * * 0 * * 

2007-08 1 * * 1 * * 

2008-09 0 * * 0 * * 

2009-10 0 * * 0 * * 

2010-11 0 * * 0 * * 




Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 599 236 39% 604 236 39% 

2006-07 299 186 62% 299 175 59% 

2007-08 336 240 71% 337 233 69% 

2008-09 572 296 52% 523 283 45% 

2009-10 310 208 67% 315 223 71% 

2010-11 307 201 65% 308 202 66% 

Filipino 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 46 30 65% 44 37 84% 

2006-07 31 26 84% 31 25 81% 

2007-08 29 25 86% 29 26 90% 

2008-09 53 40 75% 52 33 63% 

2009-10 19 18 95% 19 17 89% 

2010-11 36 31 86% 36 30 83% 

Socio-Economically Disadvantaged 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 536 215 40% 558 220 39% 

2006-07 315 203 64% 316 192 61% 

2007-08 308 248 73% 338 239 71% 

2008-09 380 258 68% 380 235 62% 

2009-10 356 247 69% 359 256 71% 

2010-11 278 185 67% 279 182 65% 

White Not Hispanic 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 15 4 27% 13 8 62% 

2006-07 3 * * 3 * * 

2007-08 5 * * 5 * * 

2008-09 8 * * 7 * * 

2009-10 5 * * 5 * * 

2010-11 1 * * 1 * * 



Pacific Islander 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 17 4 24% 21 5 24% 

2006-07 11 8 73% 11 8 73% 

2007-08 6 * * 6 * * 

2008-09 14 7 50% 13 9 68% 

2009-10 0 * * 0 * * 

2010-11 6 * * 6 * * 



Asian 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 46 27 59% 67 32 48% 

2006-07 40 32 80% 40 32 80% 

2007-08 37 33 89% 36 33 92% 

2008-09 38 33 87% 51 29 57% 

2009-10 25 23 92% 26 21 81% 

2010-11 33 28 85% 33 23 70% 

English Language Students 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 367 105 29% 426 104 24% 

2006-07 154 68 44% 155 46 30% 

2007-08 118 54 46% 119 37 31% 

2008-09 124 39 31% 124 16 13% 

2009-10 135 70 52% 139 52 37% 

2010-11 147 60 41% 152 48 32% 

Not Socio-Economically Disadvantaged 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 180 89 48% 175 101 58% 

2006-07 70 51 73% 69 52 75% 

2007-08 81 65 80% 81 67 83% 

2008-09 92 69 75% 93 71 76% 

2009-10 35 24 69% 34 26 76% 

2010-11 112 84 75 111 81 73% 



ITEM G 

Redesignated Fluent-English Proficient 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 120 84 70% 106 90 85% 

2006-07 111 95 86% 111 96 86% 

2007-08 147 136 93% 147 137 93% 

2008-09 192 170 89% 191 164 86% 

2009-10 137 116 85% 137 130 95% 

2010-11 143 133 93% 141 135 96% 

Special Education 

Math # 

ELA 


2005-06 146 12 8% 137 14 10% 

2006-07 37 6 16% 37 8 22% 

2007-08 51 22 43% 52 19 37% 

2008-09 54 14 26% 54 17 31% 

2009-10 32 11 34% 34 14 41% 

2010-11 32 7 22% 33 10 30% 


ITEM G 


ENROLLMENT IN UPPER LEVEL MATH AND SCIENCE CLASSES 

Year 

Interme 

d 

Algebra 

OVERALL 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

9-12 

Enroll 

2004-05 0 205 149 21 1509 

2005-06 129 72 198 32 1529 

2006-07 196 79 233 53 1562 

2007-08 209 111 245 61 1669 

2008-09 271 143 268 73 1730 

2009-10 

Upper-Level Science by Gender 

Year 1st-Year Chem 1st-Year Physics 

Male Female Male Female 

2004-05 91 58 11 10 

2005-06 113 85 18 14 

2006-07 129 104 3 20 

2007-08 118 127 35 26 

2008-09 146 122 34 39 

2009-10 

Upper-Level Science by Gender (%) 

Year 1st-Year Chem 1st-Year Physics 


2004-05 61.1% 38.9% 52.4% 47.6% 

2005-06 57.1% 42.9% 56.1% 43.9% 

2006-07 55.4% 44.4% 13.0% 87.0% 

2007-08 48.2% 51.8% 57.4% 42.3% 

2008-09 54.5% 46.5% 46.6% 53.4% 

2009-10 

Upper-Level Math by Gender 

Year Intermediate Advanced Math 

Algebra 


2004-05 61.1% 38.9% 52.4% 47.6% 

2005-06 57.1% 42.9% 56.1% 43.9% 

2006-07 55.4% 44.4% 13.0% 87.0% 

2007-08 48.2% 51.8% 57.4% 42.3% 

2008-09 54.5% 46.5% 46.6% 53.4% 

2009-10 

Upper-Level Math by Gender (%) 

Year Intermediate Advanced Math 

Algebra 


2004-05 0.0% 0.0% 53.7% 46.3% 

2005-06 58.1% 41.9% 59.7% 40.3% 

2006-07 52.6% 47.4% 62.0% 38.0% 

2007-08 54.1% 45.9% 52.3% 47.7% 

2008-09 54.6% 45.4% 54.5% 45.5% 

2009-10 



ITEM G 

Upper-Level Math and Science 2004-05 

OVERFELT 

American 

Indian 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

0* 0 0 0 

Asian 0* 57 25 10 

Pacific 

Islander 

0* 3 3 0 

Filipino 0* 44 35 2 

Hispanic 0* 92 78 9 

African 

American 

0* 6 5 0 

White 0* 3 3 0 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0* 0 0 0 

Total 0 205 149 21 

* No students reported in Intermediate Algebra. They were 

probably included in the Advanced Math column. 

Upper-Level Math and Science 2004-05 (%) 

OVERFELT 

American 

Indian 

Intermed Adv. 1st Yr 1st Year 

Algebra Math Chem Physics 

0.0%* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Asian 0.0%* 27.8% 16.8% 47.6% 

Pacific 

Islander 

0.0%* 1.4% 2.0% 0.0% 

Filipino 0.0%* 21.5% 23.5% 9.5% 

Hispanic 0.0%* 44.9% 52.3% 42.9% 

African 

American 

White 

0.0%* 2.9% 3.4% 0.0% 

0.0%* 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 

Multiple/ 0.0%* 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

No Response 

Total 0 205 149 21 




OVERFELT 

American 

Indian 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

0 0 0 0 

Asian 24 25 28 11 

Pacific 

Islander 

3 0 3 1 

Filipino 28 14 37 6 

Hispanic 67 32 123 11 

African 

American 

3 0 4 1 

White 4 1 3 2 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0 0 0 0 

Total 129 72 198 32 




OVERFELT 

American 

Indian 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Asian 18.7% 34.7% 14.1% 34.4% 

Pacific 

Islander 

2.3% 0.0% 1.5% 3.1% 

Filipino 21.7% 19.5% 18.8% 18.8% 

Hispanic 51.9% 44.4% 62.1% 34.4% 

African 

American 

2.3% 0.0% 2.0% 3.1% 

White 3.1% 1.4% 1.5% 6.2% 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 129 72 198 32 




ITEM G 



Upper-Level Math and Science 2006-07(%) 

OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

American 

Indian 

0 0 0 0 

American 

Indian 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Asian 27 24 31 11 

Asian 13.8% 30.4% 13.3% 20.8% 

Pacific 

Islander 

2 0 4 0 

Pacific 

Islander 

1.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 

Filipino 43 19 35 14 

Hispanic 121 34 159 28 

Filipino 21.9% 24.1% 15.0% 26.4% 

Hispanic 61.8% 43.0% 68.2% 52.8% 

African 

American 

2 0 2 0 

African 

American 

1.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 

White 1 2 2 0 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0 0 0 0 

Total 196 79 233 53 



White 0.5% 2.5% 0.9% 0.0% 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 196 79 233 53 





OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

American 

Indian 

1 0 1 0 

American 

Indian 

0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 

Asian 36 24 37 16 

Asian 17.1% 21.6% 15.1% 26.2% 

Pacific 

Islander 

1 1 5 0 

Pacific 

Islander 

0.5% 0.9% 2.0% 0.0% 

Filipino 25 29 33 12 

Hispanic 141 56 162 32 

Filipino 12.0% 26.1% 13.6% 19.7% 

Hispanic 67.5% 50.5% 66.1% 52.5% 

African 

American 

4 0 5 0 

African 

American 

1.9% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 

White 1 1 2 1 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0 0 0 0 

Total 209 111 245 61 

White 0.5% 0.9% 0.8% 1.6% 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 209 111 245 61 



ITEM G 



OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

OVERFELT 

Intermed 

Algebra 

Adv. 

Math 

1st Yr 

Chem 

1st Year 

Physics 

American 

Indian 

1 0 0 0 

American 

Indian 

0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Asian 31 38 31 17 

Asian 11.4% 26.6% 11.6% 23.3% 

Pacific 

Islander 

7 1 4 2 

Pacific 

Islander 

2.6% 0.7% 1.5% 2.7% 

Filipino 28 20 25 15 

Hispanic 196 82 201 37 

Filipino 10.3% 14.0% 9.3% 20.5% 

Hispanic 72.5% 57.3% 75.0% 50.7% 

African 

American 

7 1 6 1 

African 

American 

2.6% 0.7% 2.2% 1.4% 

White 1 1 1 1 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0 0 0 0 

Total 271 143 268 73 



White 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 1.4% 

Multiple/ 

No Response 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 271 143 268 73 




ITEM G 


American Indian 

Year 



2004-05 0 0 0 0 

2005-06 10 0 0 0 

2006-07 0 0 0 0 

2007-08 1 0 1 0 

2008-09 1 0 0 0 

2009-10 

Pacific Islander 

Year 



2004-05 0 3 3 0 

2005-06 3 0 3 1 

2006-07 2 0 4 0 

2007-08 1 1 5 0 

2008-09 7 1 4 2 

2009-10 

Asian 

Year 



2004-05 0 57 25 10 

2005-06 24 25 28 11 

2006-07 27 24 31 11 

2007-08 36 24 37 16 

2008-09 31 38 31 15 

2009-10 

Filipino 

Year 



2004-05 0 44 35 2 

2005-06 28 14 37 6 

2006-07 43 19 35 14 

2007-08 25 29 33 12 

2008-09 28 20 25 15 

2009-10 


Year 



2004-05 0 92 78 9 

2005-06 67 32 123 11 

2006-07 121 34 159 28 

2007-08 141 56 162 32 

2008-09 196 81 201 37 

2009-10 0 92 78 9 

African-American 

Year 



2004-05 0 6 5 0 

2005-06 3 0 4 1 

2006-07 2 0 2 0 

2007-08 4 0 5 0 

2008-09 7 1 6 1 

2009-10 

White 

Year 



2004-05 0 3 3 0 

2005-06 4 1 3 2 

2006-07 1 2 2 0 

2007-08 1 1 2 1 

2008-09 1 1 1 1 

2009-10 

Multiple or No Response 

Year 



2004-05 0 0 0 0 

2005-06 0 0 0 0 

2006-07 0 0 0 0 

2007-08 0 0 0 0 

2008-09 0 0 0 0 

2009-10 



ITEM G 

OTHER 

FREE & REDUCED LUNCH TOTALS 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Free/Reduced Lunches 854 873 1058 846 1103 1104 

CalWORKS 1509 1591 1627 1730 1619 1520 

Percent 56.6% 54.9% 65.0% 49.0% 68.1% 79.4% 

COMPUTER AVAILABILITY 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

No. of Computers 450 450 300 301 301 506 

No. of Students per computer 3.4 3.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 3.0 

No. Classrooms with Internet 100 100 125 125 125 79 

NUMBER OF CLASSES BY SUBJECT AREA 

Year English Math Science Social 

Science 

Foreign 

Language 

AP Fine Arts Health 

P.E. 

05-06 70 57 33 33 14 7 21 21 

06-07 66 58 35 35 16 9 23 21 

07-08 83 74 43 34 16 10 20 26 

08-09 93 82 47 39 18 13 18 23 

09-10 

10-11 81 72 44 41 14 13 20 23 

SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSION INFORMATION 

Year 

Suspensions 

Violence/Drugs 

Expulsion 

Violence/Drugs 

Total Suspensions Total 

Expulsions 

2004-05 50 6 594 7 

2005-06 3 2 5 2 

2006-07 17 3 21 3 

2007-08 86 2 697 2 

2008-09 85 5 481 5 

2009-10 74 3 676 3 

PUPIL TEACHER RATIO AND AVERAGE CLASS SIZE 

OVERFELT 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Pupil Teacher Ratio 21.9 22.0 21.8 21.1 21.6 21.1 

Average Class Size 27.8 28.2 26.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 


ITEM G 


CLASS SIZE (ESUHSD) 

DEPARTMENT 

AVG. CLASS SIZE 

Art 29 

Band/Choir 

No Limit 

Business Education 29 

Drama 

No Limit 

English 30 

Foreign Language 29 

Freshman Orientation 35 

Health/Driver's Education 35 

Home Economics 29 

Language Arts 1 & 2 (ELL) 20 

Language Arts 3 (ELL) 25 

Mathematic 32 

Performing Arts 29 

Physical Education 42 

Reading 25 

Reading Improvement 20 

Safety Education 35 

Science 32 

Sheltered Core Classes 25 

Social Science 32 



ITEM H 

GPA of 10th-12th Grade Students with 1 or More Referrals 

GPA of 10th -‐ 12th Grade Students with 1 or 

More Disciplinary Referrals 

2011-‐2012 

6% 

22% 

34% 

0.0-‐.99 

1.0-‐1.99 

2.0-‐2.99 

3.0 -‐ 4.0 

38% 

1 



ESUHSD Counseling Publication, September 2008 


COMMUNITY COLLEGE ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS 

1. Student must meet one of the following requirements: 

Earn a high school diploma. 

Pass the California High School Proficiency Exam. 

Pass the GED. 

Be 18 years of age or older. 

2. Students must take placement exams in Math and English. 

3. Students who plan to transfer from a community college to a 4-year 

college/university should take the UC a-g sequence of classes during high 

school. 

COLLEGE TESTING RECOMMENDATIONS 

Shown below is a recommendation of when students should take/re-take required 

college entrance exams. 

For UC/CSU - PSAT in October of the 11 th grade. Many students take the PSAT 

in the 10 th grade, also. The PSAT is excellent practice for the SAT Reasoning Test. 

For UC - SAT Reasoning Test or ACT Assessment plus Writing in the spring of 

11 th grade. 

For UC - SAT Reasoning Test or ACT Assessment plus Writing in the fall of 12 th 

grade. 

For UC - 2 SAT Subject Tests usually taken at the end of the year the subject area 

course is completed. 

For CSU - SAT Reasoning Test or ACT Assessment in the spring of 11th grade. 

For CSU - SAT Reasoning Test or ACT Assessment in the fall of 12 th grade. 

Useful Web Sites: 

CSU = www.csumentor.edu 

UC = www.universityofcalifornia.edu 

Community College = www.cccco.edu 

College Board = www.collegeboard.com 

ACT = www.actstudent.org 

AP = www.apcentral.collegeboard.com 

SAT = www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/reg.html 

EAP/CSU = www.calstate.edu/eap 

East Side Union High School District = www.esuhsd.org 

Fast Web (Scholarship Site) = www.fastweb.com 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) = www.fafsa.ed.gov 

Fin Aid = www.finaid.org 

Scholarships.com = www.scholarships.com 

U.S. Dept. of Education = www.ed.gov/students 

East Side Union High School District 

Graduation and College Entrance Requirements 

ESUHSD HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 

In order to earn a diploma from the East Side Union High School District, students 

must: (1) pass the California High School Exit Exam, and (2) pass 220 credits in 

the areas shown below. 

Subject 1 year of World History 

1 semester of Economics 

1 semester of American Government 

Geometry or Integrated Math 2 

(or higher level courses) 

that satisfies the University of 

California a-g course sequence 

( 1 year must be taken in grade 9) 

Students must pass elective courses 

chosen in the following areas: Art, 

Business, Home Economics Careers and 

Math, Music, Industrial Technology 

Education, P.E., Reading, Science, Social 

Science, Safety Education, and Work 

Experience/ CCOC/ROP. 

Requirement Credits 

English 

Students must pass: 

4 years of English 40 


Social Science 1 year of United States History 

30 

Mathematics Students must pass: 

Algebra 1 or Integrated Math 1 

20 

Science 


2 years of college prep lab science 20 

Fine Arts or 


1-year course in Fine Arts or 

10 

Foreign Language Foreign Language 

Physical Education Students must pass: 

2 years of Physical Education 

20 

Electives 

Technology, English, Foreign Language, 80 

Total Credits Required for Graduation 220

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS 

UC Subject Requirement 

Students must complete 15 units of high school courses to fulfill the UC Subject 

Requirement. This sequence of courses is known as the UC a-g requirement. At least 

7 of the 15 units must be taken in the last 2 years of high school (a unit is equal to an 

academic year, or 2 semesters, of study). 


a. History/Social Science—2 years required 

Two years of history/social science, including one year of world history, cultures 

and geography: and one year of U.S. history or one-half year of U.S. history and 

one-half year of civics or American government. 

b. English—4 years required 

Four years of college preparatory English that include frequent and regular writing, 

and reading of classic and modern literature. No more than one year of ESL-type 

courses can be used to meet this requirement. 

c. Mathematics—3 years required; 4 years recommended 

Three years of college preparatory mathematics that include the topics covered in 

elementary and advanced algebra and two- and three-dimensional geometry. 

Approved integrated math courses may be used to fulfill part or all of this 

requirement, as may math courses taken in the seventh and eighth grades that your 

high school accepts as equivalent to its own math courses. 

d. Laboratory Science—2 years required; 3 years recommended 

Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in at least two 

of these three core disciplines: biology, chemistry, and physics. Advance 

laboratory science courses that have biology, chemistry or physics as prerequisites 

and offer substantial additional material may be used to fulfill this requirement. The 

final two years of an approved three-year integrated science program may be used to 

fulfill this requirement. 

e. Language other than English—2 years required; 3 years recommended 

Two years of the same language other than English. Courses should emphasize 

speaking and understanding, and include instruction in grammar, vocabulary, 

reading, and composition. Courses in language other than English taken in the 

seventh and eighth grade may be used to fulfill part of this requirement if your high 

school accepts them as equivalent to its own courses. 

f. Visual and Performing Arts (VPA)—1 year required 

One year of visual and performing arts chosen from the following: dance, 

drama/theater, music and/or visual art. 

g. College Preparatory Electives—1 year required. 

One year (two semesters), in addition to those required in “a-f” courses above, 

chosen from the following areas: visual and performing arts (non-introductory 

level courses), history, social science, English, advanced mathematics, laboratory 

science, and language other than English (a third year in the language used for the 

“e” requirement or two years of another language). 

UC Examination Requirement 

Freshmen must submit the following test scores: 

The ACT Assessment plus Writing or the SAT Reasoning Test. The verbal, 

mathematics and writing scores on the SAT must be from the same sitting. 

Students who take the ACT must report each test score and the composite 

score. 

Two SAT Subject Tests in two different areas, chosen from the following: 

history, literature, mathematics (Level 2 only), science or language other than 

English. 

Students applying for admission to the fall term must take these tests no later than 

December of their senior year, preferably earlier, to ensure that their application 

receives prompt and full consideration. 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS 

CSU Course Requirement 

The California State University System (CSU) requires students to complete 15 units 

of college preparatory courses with a grade of 'C' or better (1 unit is equal to 1 year). 

a. History/Social Science—2 years required 

Two years of history/social science, including one year of world history or 1 

semester of U.S. History or 1 semester of American Government: and 1 year of 

history/social science from either the "a" or "g" subject areas. 

b. English—4 years required 

no more than 1 year of advanced ESL/ELD courses can be used 

c. Mathematics—3 years required 

Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry 

d. Science—2 years required 

1 year of physical science and 1 year of biological science must be completed, one 

of which must be from the "d" subject area and the other from either "d" or "g" 

subject area 

e. Foreign Language— 2 years required 

2 years of language other than English (must be the same language) 

f. Visual and Performing Arts— 1 year required 

1 yearlong course in visual and performing arts (selected from dance, music, 

theater/drama, or visual arts) 

g. College Prep Electives— 1 year required 

1 year elective chosen from any areas on approved "a-g" course list 

Agriculture courses traditionally accepted by CSU that are not on the "a-g" list will 

be considered on a course-by-course basis. 

CSU Examination Requirement (students may take either test): 

ACT Assessment 

SAT Reasoning Test

School Fact Sheet, 2008–2009 

EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 

William C. Overfelt High School 

ADDRESS: 1835 Cunningham Ave., San Jose, CA 95122 PHONE: (408) 347-5900 

PRINCIPAL: Vito Chiala GRADE RANGE: 9–12 SCHEDULE: Traditional 

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS 

Teachers 

KEY FACTOR 

OUR 

SCHOOL 

COUNTY 

AVG 

STATE 

AVG 

Number of teachers (FTE) 84 57 47 

Students per teacher 21 22 23 

Average years of teaching 12 13 13 

experience 

Teachers with one or two 18% 13% 12% 

years of teaching experience 

Full credential holders 79% 92% 94% 

Trainee credential holders 12% 6% 5% 

Emergency permit holders 11% 4% 3% 

SOURCE: 2008 CBEDS data, California Dept. of Education. County and state averages represent high 

schools only. Because teachers can hold more than one type of credential, percentages rarely add up 

to 100 percent. 

Our teachers bring an average of 12 years of teaching 

experience to their classes. About 79 percent have a full 

credential. Statewide about 94 percent of high school teachers 

hold this credential. 

Average Class Sizes 

CORE COURSE 

OUR 

SCHOOL 

COUNTY 

AVG 

STATE 

AVG 

English 24 25 25 

History/social science 29 28 29 

Math 25 26 27 

Science 29 28 28 


schools only. 

The average class size of core courses varies at our school from a 

low of 24 students to a high of 29 students. Our average class 

size for all classes schoolwide is 27 students. The average class 

size schoolwide for other high schools in the state is 28 

students. 

Students 

KEY FACTOR 

OUR 

SCHOOL 

COUNTY 

AVG 

STATE 

AVG 

Number of students 1,730 1,260 1,082 

English Learners 27% 14% 15% 

Low-income students 61% 32% 46% 

Students whose parents 

attended/graduated college 

21% 67% 56% 


schools only. 

The factors above may affect students’ performance in school. 

COLLEGE PREPARATION 

Three factors indicate how effectively we prepare students for 

college: whether students are taking the courses required for 

college admission, whether the school offers Advanced 

Placement (AP) courses, and where students ultimately enroll in 

the state’s public college system. 

KEY FACTOR 

2008 graduates meeting UC 

or CSU course requirements 

AP exams passed per 100 

juniors and seniors (2008) 

2007 graduates 

attending UC 

2007 graduates 

attending CSU 

2007 graduates attending 

community colleges 

OUR 

SCHOOL 

COUNTY 

AVG 

STATE 

AVG 

25% 50% 36% 

18 47 27 

3% 15% 8% 

12% 14% 13% 

4% 7% 30% 

SOURCE: 2008 CBEDS data, California Dept. of Education. California Postsecondary Education 

Commission. County and state averages represent high schools only. 

Information in this report changes throughout the year. A 

complete annual accountability report is available from our 

school or district office, and on our district Web site: 

http://www.esuhsd.org/ 

Published By School Wise Press 

www.schoolwisepress.com © 2009 by Publishing 20/20 

rev20090918_43-69427-4335428/23799 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 

California Standards Tests 

This series of tests is based on what California students are 

expected to know and learn at each grade level. 

Student Proficiency 

SUBJECT 

PERCENT 

PROFICIENT 

OR HIGHER LOW SCORES HIGH SCORES 

English/Language Arts (Reading and Writing) 

Our school 30% 

Calif. high schools 46% 

Geometry 



US History 



Biology 



Life Science (Tenth Grade) 



SOURCE: The scores for the California Standards Tests are from the spring 2009 test cycle. State 

averages represent high schools only. 

MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PROGRESS 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API): This is California’s 

way of rating schools. Using student test scores, the API places 

schools on a scale from 200 to 1000. Our school’s API was 655, 

compared with 712 for the average high school. The state 

expects schools to attain an API of 800 eventually. 

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP): This is a federal 

measure that requires schools to meet test score goals 

schoolwide and for all subgroups ∗ of students. We met 11 out 

of 18 criteria for yearly progress. Because we fell short in seven 

areas, we did not make AYP. Note that the number of criteria 

may vary from school to school. 

CALIFORNIA 

API 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX 

FEDERAL 

AYP 

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS 

Met schoolwide 

growth target No Met AYP No 

Met growth target for 

prior school year 

Yes 

API 655 

Growth attained from 

prior year +0 

Met subgroup * 

growth targets 

No 

Met schoolwide test 

participation rate 

Met schoolwide test 

score goals 

Met subgroup * test 

participation rate 

Met subgroup * test 

score goals 

Met API for AYP 

Met graduation rate 

Program Improvement 

school 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

SOURCE: API growth score, 2009 test cycle. API and AYP current as of September 2009. 

∗ Numerically significant groups, such as English Learners and ethnic groups, with separate API and 

AYP goals. 

N/A Data unavailable or unreported; statistically insignificant number of valid test scores; testing 

data under review; or school uses alternative accountability measures. 



The Single Plan for Student Achievement 

__William C. Overfelt High School___ SCHOOL 

_43 69427 4335428__ 

CDS Code 

Date of this revision: _April 6, 2011 

The Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) is a plan of actions to raise the academic 

performance of all students to the level of performance goals established under the California 

Academic Performance Index. California Education Code sections 41507, 41572, and 64001 

and the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) require each school to consolidate all school 

plans for programs funded through the School and Library Improvement Block Grant, the Pupil 

Retention Block Grant, the Consolidated Application, and NCLB Program Improvement into the 

Single Plan for Student Achievement. 

For additional information on school programs and how you may become involved locally, 

please contact the following person: 

Contact Person: Vito Chiala 

Position: Principal 

Telephone Number: 408-347-5910 

Address: 1835 Cunningham Ave, San Jose, CA. 95122 

E-mail Address: chialav@esuhsd.org 

___East Side Union High School District_________School District 

The District Governing Board approved this revision of the School Plan on __4/6/11____. 

Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement 


Form A: Planned Improvements in Student Performance 

The school site council has analyzed student academic performance and has considered the effectiveness of key elements of the instructional program for 

students failing to meet API and AYP growth targets. As a result, it has adopted the following school goals, related actions, and expenditures to raise the 

academic performance of student groups not meeting state standards: 

SCHOOL GOAL # 1. Increase the percentage of students reading and writing at or above grade level each year as 

indicated by multiple data measures including CST and CAHSEE. 

Student groups and grade levels to participate in this goal: 

All 9th and 10 th graders, with special emphasis on students in 

the following categories: 

• Latino 

• English Language Learners 

• Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 

• Students with Disabilities 

Anticipated annual performance growth for each group: 

• Meet API and AYP targets for ELA schoolwide and in 

each subgroup 

• Increase CAHSEE pass rate at the 10 th grade level to 

75% in 2012. 

o Total 2006: 64%; 2010: 72% Goal 2012: 75% 

o SPED 2006: 12%; 2010: 41% Goal 2012: 46% 

• Increase CAHSEE proficiency rate in ELA schoolwide 

to 75% in 2012 (42% in 2010) 

o Latino 2010: 39%; Goal 2012: 75% Proficient 

o ELL 2010: 22%; Goal 2012: 75% 

o Socio-economically Disadvantaged: 40%; Goal 

2012: 75% 

• Increase CST percent proficient and advanced for ELA 

by 10% at each grade level. 


Means of evaluating progress toward this goal: 

• Progress on state assessments which include proficiency rate on 

CSTs schoolwide and for each subgroup, participation and 

proficiency rate on CAHSEE census 

• Evidence of placing students in benchmark (core), strategic, and 

intensive classes based on multiple assessment criteria to target 

needed support 

• Read 180 for all intensive 9 th and 10 th special needs and regular ed 

students. 

• Comparison of 2011 -2012 census data for the CAHSEE (ELA) 

• Support classes at the 9 th and 10 th grade level 

• Evidence of teachers use of pacing guides in 9 th and 10 th grade ELA 

• Enrollment of teachers participating in SB 472 training 

• Monitoring of the use of collaboration periods to analyze data and 

inform instruction 

• Classroom Observations 

Actions to be Taken to Reach This Goal 1 

Consider all appropriate dimensions 

Start Date 2 

Completion Date 

Group data to be collected to measure academic gains: 

• CAHSEE Census data 

• Percent proficient rate on CST and CAHSEE census by schoolwide 

and subgroups 

• Master schedule indicating placement in benchmark (core), 

strategic, and intensive. 

• Analysis of curriculum embedded assessments 

• Examine lesson plans for coordination with pacing guides 

• Examine collaboration period agendas and minutes 

• Number of teachers completing SB 472, 1 st segment 

• Examine walk-through observation data 

Proposed Expenditures 3 Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Source 

1. 9 th grade intensive literacy intervention. 

a. LA3/9 + Read 180 for English 

Intensive students. 

b. English 1/9 + Support for English 

Strategic students with reading 

support component. 

c. FOG/AVID integrated literacy 

program 

August, 2011 Counseling 

.2 Technology Mentor 

Professional Development, 

Read 180, and ELA Support 

Literacy Materials, SSR, 

Accelerated Reader, School 

$25,508 

$20,000 

$32,720 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

CAPP 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 


2. SPED: 

a. SDC English Blocks 

b. Read 180 for intensive students 

c. Collaboration between SDC and 

mainstream Read 180. 

d. Accommodations for 10 th 

Modifications for 11 th and 12 th 

3. 10 th Grade 

a. Implement district PI plan for 10 th 

grade intervention. 

4. Schoolwide Literacy 

a. Teacher Leader Plan and Organize 

b. Collaboration – meet regularly to 

analyze data to inform instruction. 

c. Professional Development: SB 472 

for all English Teachers 

d. Benchmark assessments and data. 

Continue to implement benchmark 

assessments. 

e. Professional development with 

Academic Language for all 

teachers 

f. Library support for AR, GALE, 

Perfect Copy, and other literacy 

strategies. 

g. Routine classroom observations 

and walk-throughs. 

August, 2011 

August, 2011 

August, 2011 

June, 2011 

August, 2011 

June-August, 2011 

August 2011 

Loop, Reproduction 

Data Support and Professional 

Development 

$10,000 

$5,693 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 






SCHOOL GOAL # 2. Improve the achievement of ninth and tenth grade students in Algebra 1 and increase the pass and 

proficiency rate on the math section of the California High School Exit Exam for all 10th grade students each year. 


All 9th and 10 th graders, with special emphasis on students in 

the following categories: 

• Latino 





• Meet API and AYP targets for math schoolwide and in 

each subgroup 

• Increase CAHSEE pass rate at the 10 th grade level to 

75% in 2012. 

o Schoolwide 10 th : 2010: 69%; Goal 2012: 75% 

o SPED 10 th 2010: 34%; Goal 2012: 40% 

o ELL 10 th : 2010: 52%; Goal 2012: 60% 

• Increase CAHSEE proficiency rate in math schoolwide 

to 75% in 2012. 

o Schoolwide 10 th : 2010: 39%; Goal 2012: 75% 

o Latino 2010: 34%; Goal 2012: 75% Proficient 

o ELL 2010: 28%; Goal 2012:75% 

o Socio-economically Disadvantaged: 24%; Goal 

2012: 75% 

• Increase CST percent proficient and advanced for 9 th 

and 10 th graders in Algebra by 10% 



• Progress on state assessments which include proficiency rate on 

CSTs schoolwide and for each subgroup, participation and 

proficiency rate on CAHSEE census 

• Evidence of placing students in benchmark (core), strategic, and 

intensive classes based on multiple assessment criteria to target 

needed support 

• Comparison of 2011 -2012 census data for the CAHSEE (math) 

• Algebra Support classes at the 9 th and 10 th grade level 

• Enrollment of teachers participating in SB 472 training 

• Monitoring of the use of collaboration periods to analyze data and 

inform instruction 

• Classroom walk-through observation data 


• CAHSEE Census data 

• Percent proficient rate on CST and CAHSEE census by schoolwide 

and subgroups 

• Master schedule indicating placement in benchmark (core), 

strategic, and intensive. 

• Analysis of curriculum embedded assessments 

• Examine lesson plans for coordination with pacing guides 

• Examine collaboration period agendas and minutes 

• Number of teachers completing SB 472, 1 st segment 

• Classroom walk-through observation data 



Start Date 2 



Cost 

Funding 

Source 

1. 9 th and 10 th Grade Intervention Plan 

a. Strategic: Algebra with support 

class – same teacher 

b. Intensive: Algebra + support class 

– same teacher 

c. Focus on CAHSEE skills in 10 th 

grade support class 

August, 2011 

Professional Development 

and support 

Counseling 

$9,268 

$25,508 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

2. SPED: Math Support for 9 th and 10 th 

3. Professional Development 

August, 2011 

June-August, 2011 

Math program Support 

$14,195 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 


a. SB472 Math Training all teachers 

b. Instruction and Curriculum (GRR) 

c. Increase and maximize use of text 

book. 

d. Collaboration – teachers meet 

regularly to use data to guide 

instruction. 

e. Continue to implement curriculum 

embedded common assessments. 

4. Regular walk-through observations August, 2011 






SCHOOL GOAL # 3. Improve the success rates of all students with a focus on our most reluctant learners defined by multiple 

measures including grades, GPA, discipline, and attendance. 


All students with special emphasis on students in the following 

categories: 

• Students failing two or more classes. 

• Latino 





• Increase percentage of students passing all classes to 

75% schoolwide with no class less than 60%. 

• Increase the percentage of students earning all grades of 

C or better to 50%. 

• Increase Schoolwide GPA to 2.5 schoolwide with no 

grade level less than 2.0. 

• Increase schoolwide attendance to 95%. 


• Grade distributions every six weeks 

• 6 week GPA 

• Student Grades 

• Monitor ADA 

• Identify at-risk students every six weeks 


• Grade distributions every six weeks 

• 6 week GPA 

• Student Grades 




• Regular Counseling Intervention for students 

who earn F’s. Include parents. 

• School Loop Target Student Groups 

• Attendance intervention: START Saturday 

School 

• Small Learning Community – Schoolwide 

Implementation 

• Link Crew peer mentoring 

• Before and after school tutoring in the library. 

• YWCA Project Inspire after school program 

• Parent Conferencing Plan 

• CSI – summer bridge 

• Schoolwide and targeted Professional 

Development to address the high percentage 

of failing students. 

• Professional development to support 

implementation of benchmarks and data 

• Multi Service Team to provide student 

support. 

• Weekly Collaboration 

• ISP Opportunity Classes for 9 th and 10 th 

• Substitute Support Plan 

Start Date 2 


June 2011-June 

2012 

August 2011 – June 

2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


2012 


Cost 

Counseling 

$25,508 

1.0 SLC Coordinator 

$125,000 


$10,000 

At Risk Support 

$25,217 

Parent Support 

$17,875 

Funding 

Source 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

SLC 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 






SCHOOL GOAL # 4. Increase the preparedness of our highest achieving students for success at the university level during the 

2011-12 school year. 


All students with special emphasis on students in the following 

categories: 

• Latino 





• Increase the percentage of underrepresented students 

prepared for admission to four year university by 10%. 

• Maintain the number of AP test takers to 500 while 

increasing to a 60% pass rate. 

• Increase the percentage of students taking the EAP in 

math and English to 90% and the number passing to 

100. 

• Increase the percentage taking the SAT or ACT by 

10%. 

• Increase the percentage taking the PSAT by 10%. 

• Increase the average score on the SAT or ACT at 

Overfelt to within 5% of the national average. 



• SAT/ACT Scores 

• PSAT Scores 

• AP Enrollment 

• AP Pass Rates 

• Number/Percentage of applicants 

• EAP/ELM success rates 

• % Students meeting A-G requirements 

• Membership in NHS, CSF, MESA 

• Success rates for programs: Puente, AVID, Advanced 

• Participation in Pre-college Programs 

• Number of students taking concurrent community college courses 


• SAT/ACT Scores 

• PSAT Scores 

• AP Enrollment; AP Pass Rates 

• Number/Percentage of applicants to four year University 

• EAP/ELM success rates 

• % Students meeting A-G requirements 

• Membership in NHS, CSF, MESA 

• Success rates for programs: Puente, AVID, Advanced 

• Participation in Pre-college Programs 

• GATE student performance and achievement 



Counselor visits and intervention 

Support academic programs (AVID and Puente) 

Start Date 2 


8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 


Cost 

Counseling 

$25,508 

Funding 

Source 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

Professional Development EAP, AP, UC A-G, Grade 

Lesson, New Teacher support, questioning 

strategies… 

AP and Pre-AP courses 

Parent Information 

Encourage and promote PSAT, SAT, ACT, EAP 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

Social Science Support 

Science Support 

Academic Program Support 

$2,379 

$2,160 

$10,000 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 

PI, EIA, 

Title 1 


(Focus on math as well as English). 

Incorporate EAP preparation in curriculum in English 

and math. 

Support CSF, NHS, MESA 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 

8/2011 – 6/2012 


Form B: Centralized Support for Planned Improvements in Student Performance 

The school site council has analyzed the planned program improvements and has adopted the following program support goals, related actions, 

and expenditures to raise the academic performance of student groups not meeting state standards: 

PROGRAM SUPPORT GOAL: 

ESUHSD will raise the achievement for all students in English Language Arts and Mathematics and reduce the racial predictability and 

disproportionality of which student populations occupy the highest and lowest achievement levels.(Achievement Gap) 

Groups and grade levels participating in this goal: 

1. ELA and Math students grades 9-12 

2. All NCLB sub-groups 


• District percent proficient in ELA and mathematics will increase 

by 10% as measured by 2009-10 AYP. 

• Each district subgroup will meet the minimum NCLB AMO 

targets and /or increase percentage proficient performance by at 

least 5% in ELA and mathematics –‘ 09-’10. 


1. Evaluation of school and district-wide AYP performance targets 

2. Monitor participation rate for CAHSEE 

3. Graduation rate 

4. Progress towards API subgroup targets 

5. Analysis of ELA and Math curriculum imbedded assessments 

6. Analysis of ELD common assessments 

7. Review of collaborative time process focused on the Formative 

Assessment Protocol. 

8. Enrollment in AB 430, administrator training program, SB 472 

teacher training in core and or state board of education adopted ELA 

9. Monitor implementation of effective intervention curriculum 

10. Enrollment in EL Academic Language Training. 

Group data to be collected to measure gains: 

1. CAHSEE proficiency rate 

2. CAHSEE participation rate by subgroup 

3. Student data indicating progress towards graduation requirements 

4. CST % of proficiency in ELA and Math by subgroup 

5. Semester 1 and Semester 2 proficiency rates 

6. Pre and post benchmark assessments for ELD 1, 2, & 3 

7. Summary of evidence by departments and schools of the monthly 

formative assessment collaborations. 

8. Completion rate: attendance sheets AB 430 and SB 472 

9. Curriculum imbedded assessments of ELA and Math CAHSEE 

intervention/support classes quarterly. 

10. Number of teachers by site participating in the EL Academic 

Language Trainings. 

Actions to be Taken to Reach this Goal 35 

Consider all appropriate dimensions (e.g., Teaching 

And Learning, Staffing and Professional 

Development) 

Start Date 36 


Proposed 

Expenditures 37 

Estimated 

Cost 

Funding 

Source 

1. Provide a Trainer-of-Trainers model for regular 

education teachers targeting strategies for 

mainstreamed special education students. (EPC 2) 

June 2011 – July 2012 PD $40,000 Title I 

EIA 


2. Provide an EL Institute for teachers focusing on 

academic language acquisition and SDAIE 

strategies in all content areas to develop a trainer 

of trainers model. (EPC 1, 6) 

3. Provide ongoing professional development and 

coaching on academic language acquisition using 

a trainer-of-trainers model. (EPC 1, 6) 

4. Create & post content specific SDAIE lessons on 

E-Coach. (EPC 1) 

5. Provide direct classroom support for the 

implementation of program improvement, which 

includes, coaching, curriculum workshops, lesson 

design, and creating benchmark assessments. 

(EPC 6) 

6. Implement the common district-wide walkthrough 

protocol. (EPC 1,6) 

7. Create curriculum imbedded formative 

assessment questions in all content areas. (EPC 1, 

6, 8) 

8. Develop a collaboration protocol for the analysis 

of the formative assessments. (EPC 8) 

9. Schedule AB 430 / SB 472 training and identify 

participants. (EPC 4) 

10. Professional development that supports district 

Program Improvement goals. (EPC 1,2,6,7) 

11. Continue to build and implement data warehouse 

to support PI activities. (EPC 7) 

May 31 – June 3, 2011 

August 2011 – ongoing 

June 2011 – ongoing 

June 2011 - ongoing 

June, 2011 – October 

2011 

April, 2011 – June, 2012 

June, 2011 – October, 

2011 

June, 2011 – ongoing 



PD 

PD 

Curriculum Support 

PD/Curriculum 

support/Support 

Teacher 

Program 

Monitoring/Instruction 

al Support 

Instructional Support 


PD 

PD 

Data Director 

Software 

$60,000 

$110,000 

$20,000 

$360,000 

$10,000 

$20,000 

$10,000 

$110,000 

$98,000 

$192,044.00 (2yr) 

Title III 

Title III 

Title II 

EIA 

Title III 

TitleI 

Title II 

N/A 

Title I, 

EIA, 

Title I 

Title I/II 

Title I/II 

Multi 

funded 

Multi 

funded 


12. Continue to schedule and train certificated and 

clerical district employees on Data Director. (EPC 

7) 

June 2011 – Ongoing 

Teacher Hourly 

$ 40,000 

Title II 

13. Expand common assessments for program 

monitoring (EPC 1,6,7) 

June 2011 – June 2012 


$10,000 

Title I 

14. Support sites in the implementation of 

collaboration meetings through coaching, 

facilitation training, and models. (EPC 8) 

June, 2011 – June 2012 

Program 

Monitoring/Collaborat 

ion 

N/A 

N/A 

15. Monitor the identification process for students in 

the PI model. (EPC 1) 

16. Monitor the placement of Long-Term EL 

students. ( EPC 1) 

April 2011 - Ongoing 

April 2011 - Ongoing 

Program Monitoring 

Program Monitoring 

N/A 

N/A 

35 See Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for the SPSA for content required by each program or funding source supporting this goal. 

36 List the date an action will be taken or will begin, and the date it will be completed. 

37 If funds appropriate to this goal are allocated to the school through the Consolidated Application or other source, list each proposed 

expenditure, such as “middle grades reading tutor” or “laptop computer”, and the quantity to be acquired. Schools participating in 

programs for which the school receives no allocation may omit proposed expenditures. 

Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement 22 


Form C: Programs Included in this Plan 

Check the box for each state and federal categorical program in which the school participates 

and, if applicable, enter amounts allocated. (The plan must describe the activities to be 

conducted at the school for each of the state and federal categorical programs in which the school 

participates. If the school receives funding, then the plan must include the proposed 

expenditures. 

State Programs W.C. OVERFELT Allocations 

California School Age Families Education 

Purpose: Assist expectant and parenting students succeed in school. 

Not Funded 

Economic Impact Aid/ State Compensatory Education 

Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students succeed in the regular 

Program. 

√ Economic Impact Aid/ English Learner Program 

Purpose: Develop fluency in English and academic proficiency of English 

Learners. 

High Priority School Grant Program 

Purpose: Assist schools in meeting academic growth targets. 

Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform 

Purpose: Train classroom personnel to improve student performance in 

core curriculum areas. 

√ Peer Assistance and Review 

Purpose: Assist teachers through coaching and mentoring 

Pupil Retention Block Grant 

Purpose: Prevent students from dropping out of school. 

School Library Improvement Program Block Grant 

Purpose: Improve library and other school programs. 

School Safety and Violence Prevention Act 

Purpose: Increase school safety 

Tobacco-Use Prevention Education 

Purpose: Eliminate tobacco use among students. 

List and Describe Other State or Local funds (e.g., Gifted and Talented 

Education) 

Not Funded 

$42,373 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

District Services 

to Schools 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

Total amount of state categorical funds allocated to this school $42,373 

3-09 Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement 24 


Federal Programs under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) WCO Allocations 

Title I, Neglected 

Purpose: Supplement instruction for children abandoned, abused, or rejected 

who have been placed in an institution 

Title I, Part D: Delinquent 

Purpose: Supplement instruction for delinquent youth 

√ Title I, Part A: School-wide Program 

Purpose: Upgrade the entire educational program of eligible schools in high 

poverty areas 

Title A, Part A: Targeted Assistance Program 

Purpose: Help educationally disadvantaged students in eligible schools 

achieve grade level proficiency 

√ Title I, Part A: Program Improvement 

Purpose: Assist Title I schools that have failed to meet NCLB adequate 

yearly progress (AYP) targets for one or more identified student groups 

Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting 

Purpose: Improve and increase the number of highly qualified teachers and 

principals 

Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology 

Purpose: Support professional development and the use of technology 

Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited-English-Proficient (LEP) 

Students 

Purpose: Supplemental language instruction to help limited-English- 

Proficient (LEP) students attain English proficiency and meet academic 

performance standards 

Title IV, Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

Purpose: Support learning environments that promote academic 

achievement 

Title V: Innovative Programs 

Purpose: Support educational improvement, library, media, and at-risk 

students 

Title VI, Part B: Rural Education Achievement 

Purpose: Provide flexibility in the use of NCLB funds to eligible LEAs 

Other Federal Funds (list and describe 40)Small Learning Communities 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

$191,677 

Not Funded 

$12,730 

Not Funded 





Not Funded 

Not Funded 

Not Funded 

$225,000 

Total amount of federal categorical funds allocated to this school $429,407 

Total amount of state and federal categorical funds allocated to this school 

$471,780 

40 For example, special education funds used in a School-Based Coordinated Program to serve students not identified 

as individuals with exceptional needs. 

3-09 Template for the Single Plan for Student Achievement 25 


Form D: School Site Council Membership 

Education Code Section 64001(g) requires that the SPSA be reviewed and updated at least 

annually, including proposed expenditures of funds allocated to the through the Consolidated 

Application, by the school site council. The current make-up of the school site council is as 

follows: 1 

Names of Members 

Principal 

Classroom 

Teacher 

Other School 

Staff 

Parent or 

Community 

Member 

Secondary 

Student 

Albini, Sandra 

x 

Brown, Marissa 

x 

Burgara, Elvia 

x 

Cantrell, Pat 

x 

Chiala, Vito 

x 

Gregorio, Edna 

x 

Hurndon, Floyd 

x 

Martinez, Bruni 

x 

Murillo, Yovi 

x 

Panahi, Mehdi 

x 

Ramos, Robert 

x 

Solorio, Nancy 

x 

Taliaoa, Lealofi 

x 

Tamez, Deb 

x 

Trieu, Nhu 

x 

Varguez, Syonna 

x 

Numbers of members of each category 1 4 3 4 4 

1 At elementary schools, the school site council must be constituted to ensure parity between (a) the 

principal, classroom teachers, and other school personnel, and (b) parents of students attending the 

school or other community members. Classroom teachers must comprise a majority of persons 

represented under section (a). At secondary schools there must be, in addition, equal numbers of 

parents or other community members selected by parents, and students. Members must be selected 

by their peer group. 



Form E: Recommendations and Assurances 

The school site council recommends this school plan and proposed expenditures to the district 

governing board for approval and assures the board of the following: 

1. The school site council is correctly constituted and was formed in accordance with district 

governing board policy and state law. 

2. The school site council reviewed its responsibilities under state law and district governing 

board policies, including those board policies relating to material changes in the school plan 

requiring board approval. 

3. The school site council sought and considered all recommendations from the following 

groups or committees before adopting this plan (Check those that apply): 

___ School Advisory Committee for State Compensatory Education Programs 

_X_ English Learner Advisory Committee 

___ Community Advisory Committee for Special Education Programs 

___ Gifted and Talented Education Program Advisory Committee 

___ Other (list) 

4. The school site council reviewed the content requirements for school plans of programs 

included in this Single Plan for Student Achievement and believes all such content 

requirements have been met, including those found in district governing board policies and 

in the LEA Plan. 

5. This school plan is based on a thorough analysis of student academic performance. The 

actions proposed herein form a sound, comprehensive, coordinated plan to reach stated 

school goals to improve student academic performance. 

6. This school plan was adopted by the school site council at a public meeting on: _4/6/11_. 

Attested: 

__Vito Chiala____________ _______________________ _4/6/11 

Typed name of school principal Signature of school principal Date 

___Edna Gregorio _____ _______________________ _4/6/11_ 

Typed name of SSC chairperson Signature of SSC chairperson Date 



I. Resources 

This section contains the following appendices that will assist a school site council in 

completing the Single Plan for Student Achievement and in maintaining a cycle of 

continuous improvement: 

• Appendix A: Programs Funded through the Consolidated Application 

• Appendix B: Chart of Requirements for the Single Plan for Student Achievement 

• Appendix C: Sample School and Student Performance Data Forms 

• Appendix D: Demographic Data Summary 

• Appendix E: Analysis of Current Instructional Program 

• Appendix F: Outline of Sample Bylaws 

• Appendix G: Use of Resources 

• Appendix H: Acronyms and Specialized Terms 



ITEM L Organizational Chart 2011-2012 

Principal 

• Associate Principal Supervision 

• School Plan, WASC, Williams 

• Leadership Team Coordination 

o Department Chairs 

o 18.4 Working 

Conditions 

o 

o 

School Site Council 

Teacher Leadership 

Team Coordination 

• Collaboration/Staff 

Development Plan 

• Budget and Account 

Management 

o General Fund Coordination 

& Control 

o Compensatory Education 

Funds Coordination 

Control 

o Finance Process, Practices 

& Coordination with 

District 

o Human Resources/Payroll 

• Staffing & Teacher Evaluation 

• Collective Bargaining 

Compliance 

• SPED Legal Compliance 

• SLC Coordination 

• Link Activities 

• Athletics 

• Communication with Board, 

Superintendent, and 

designees 

• Back To School Night 

• Classified Supervision & 

Evaluation 

• Graduation 

• Technology Plan 

• Student Nutrition 

• Library and text book Fees 

• Staff Recognition 

• CSI Coordination 

• Mandated Cost 

• Grants and Corporate 

Outreach 

W.C. Overfelt Organizational Chart, 2011-2012 

APED 

• Instructional Program 

• Master Schedule 

• Student Scheduling 

• 8th Grade Placement 

• Articulation with Feeder 

Schools 

• 8th Grade Parent Night 

• Academic Counseling 

• Assessment & Testing 

• Registrar/Counseling Tech 

• Data Collection & Reporting 

• ELD/LEP Program 

Coordination 

• ELAC/DLAC 

• SPED Instructional Program 

• Teacher Evaluation 

• School Loop, Tele Parent 

• Tutoring Programs 

• CPM 


• SST and 504 Coordination 

Head Counselor 

• Coordination of Guidance 

Program 

• Scholarship and Financial 

Aid 

• Student Recognition 

• PSAT Testing 

• Honor Night 

APA 

• Student Discipline 

• School Safety & Security 

• Advisor & Campus Monitor 

Supervision 

• Attendance and SARB 

• Athletic Council 

• Attendance Staff & Health 

Center Tech. Supervision 

• Custodial Supervision 

• Maintenance of Facilities/Plant 

• New Facility-Construction 

• Articulation with Public Safety 

• Updated Safety Plan, Drills 

• Safety & Crisis Team 

• Teacher Evaluation 

• Summer School Coordination 

• Classified Supervision & 

Evaluation 

• ASB Activities 

• Short Term Independent Study 

• Parent and Community 

Involvement 


• Lockers 

• Facility Use Coordination 

Activities Director 

• ASB Activities 

• Student Senate 

• Senior Institute 

• Academic Assembly 

• Leadership Class 

• Crown Awards 

• Staff Activities Supervision 

MST Coordinator 

• Coordination with Outside 

Agencies 

• MAA Coordination 

• Alignment of Services with 

Needs 

• MST Referral Process and 

Reporting 

• Healthy Start Center 

Supervision 


Organizational Chart 2011-2012 

ITEM L 

Athletics 

• Football – Chiala 

• Volleyball – Miranda/Murillo 

• Boys’Baseball – Murillo 

• Girls’ Baseball – Miranda 

• Boys’ Soccer – Chiala 

• Girls’ Soccer – Chiala 

• Wrestling – ? 

• Baseball – Admin on Campus 

• Softball – Admin on Campus 

• Track – Admin on Campus 

Collaboration 

Departments 

• English – Miranda 

• Math – Chiala 

• SS – Murillo 

• Sci – Chiala 

• PE – Murillo 

• FL/ELD – Murillo 

• SPED – Miranda 

• Arts – Chiala 

SPED Case 

Management 

• Rodriguez – Chiala 

• Hall – Murillo 

• Alfaro – Chiala 

• Arnold – Miranda 

• Nickerson – Miranda 

• Rehrig – Chiala 

• Cabral – Chiala 

• Stauffer – Murillo 

• Serote – Miranda 

• Gallegos – Miranda 

• Christian – Murillo 


DRAFT: 3/25/11 (FINAL) 

Small Learning Communities Proposal 

Overfelt High School 2011‐2012 

• Vision/Purpose (brief) 

• Description/Overview of Plan (all students/academies assigned to a house) 

• Leadership and Decision Making 

• Plan for inclusion of special needs, ELD 

• Plan for Electives and Singletons 

• Student Choice and Equity (include new student placement) 

• Adult Choice and Assignment 

• Discipline and Student Support 

• Professional Development 

• Monitoring and Evaluation 

Vision/Purpose 

In an effort to accelerate academic achievement for all of our students, we will structure Overfelt High 

School into small learning communities to create a positive connection to school, facilitating increased 

rigor, relevance, and support. The plan will build a close‐knit community in order to unify our efforts to 

advance our struggling students as well as our highest achieving students. 

Description/Overview of Plan 

The plan is to create three houses. All students will be assigned to a house in a manner that ensures 

equity across houses and support for all students. The staff and students in each of our existing 

academies will be placed into one of the three houses. Students learning English as a second language, 

advanced students, and students with special needs will be supported within the house structure. 

Whenever possible within the master schedule, teachers will be assigned to one of the three houses. A 

conscious effort will be made to ensure students and teachers are placed entirely within their academy 

or house. A special plan for teachers of electives and singletons is included in this proposal. See 

attached chart for specifics. 

Leadership and Decision Making 

• The leadership structure will continue to include current decision making groups including the 

18.4 Committee, Department Chairs, and Teacher Leadership Team. The current SLC 

coordinators group will be expanded to include one leader from each house. 

• The House Leader will provide a single point of contact for the house, will pay special attention 

to freshmen and unassigned students, will facilitate house collaborations, and will represent the 

house at Department Chair meetings. The house leader could not be a current academy 

coordinator and would be selected using the Department Chair selection process. This position 

will not have the authority to evaluate or direct teachers. Administration will continue to retain 

those responsibilities as specified by the bargaining agreement and district policy. 


Plan for inclusion of Special Needs, ELD, and Advanced Students 

• Special Education students will be incorporated into the houses in a manner that provides as 

much access to the mainstream as possible. Resource (RSP) students will have access to all 

academies and be supported by a case manager assigned to each house. That case manager will 

teach a class to support students in each house as well as assist mainstream teachers with 

providing accommodations and modifications for RSP students. Special Day Class (SDC) students 

and teachers will be assigned to one house. SDC students will have the option to join an 

academy whenever their IEPs permit. 

• English Language Development (ELD) students and teachers will be assigned to one house. ELD 

students will have the option to join any academy at the point when they reach a satisfactory 

English proficiency level as determined by the ELD teachers. 

• Those advanced students who do not select an academy will be placed in one particular house 

where they will receive the support and opportunities provided to academy students (e.g., field 

trips and counseling). Additionally, efforts will be made to provide teachers of these students 

the opportunity to collaborate in addressing these students’ needs. 

Plan for Electives and Singletons 

• Students will take the majority of their elective classes outside of the house structures although 

efforts will be made to assign teachers to houses whenever possible. Additionally, singleton 

classes will, of necessity, be offered to students from all houses. 

• Any teacher not assigned to a house will select a house to join for the purposes of professional 

development and collaboration. Teachers will be able to use the house assignments of their 

students to guide their collaboration decision. The commitment to collaborate with a particular 

house will be for no less than one semester. 

Student Choice and Equity 

• All incoming ninth grade students will be given the opportunity to select a ninth grade program 

during our eighth grade middle school visits. Students who are not enrolled in a program will be 

randomly assigned to each house in manner that assures equitable distribution of ability levels 

to all houses. 

• During the ninth grade year, students will learn more about the existing academies at Overfelt. 

All ninth grade students will attend an academy and elective fair followed by a presentation by 

each 10‐12 academy. Students will then prioritize their academy selections. Efforts will be made 

to place students in their first choice of academy while maintaining equity. Unassigned students 

will remain in their original house. 

• Students who want to leave or change academies will have the opportunity to request the 

change during a designated one month window. The process will be managed by the counseling 

office. All changes will be for the following school year. Academies who wish to remove students 

who are not achieving will follow a process that shares students equitably between academies 

and meets students’ learning needs. 

• When new students enroll, they will participate in an orientation that provides them 

information about the expectations and opportunities at Overfelt. These students will have the 

opportunity to select an academy based upon available space and student preference. Students 

who do not select an academy will be assigned to a house with deliberate attention to 

maintaining equity. 


• The Equity Committee will be formed to oversee the processes outlined above. The goal of this 

committee will be to monitor the equitable distribution of students across houses using 

academic achievement, behavior, and attendance data as primary indicators. The committee 

will include an administrator, counselor, a teacher elected by each house, a teacher from the 

electives, and a special education teacher. The members cannot be academy or SLC 

coordinators. Each committee member would serve for a year and would receive schoolwide 

access and training on data gathering. Meetings will be scheduled in advance and will 

correspond to the scheduling and placement timeline. The committee will report findings and 

recommendations after each meeting. Administration will be responsible for identifying proper 

avenues for the resolution of issues identified by the committee. 

Adult Choice and Assignment 

• Teachers will complete a preference sheet prioritizing their desired courses, academies, and 

houses. The sheet will be submitted to the Department Chair. 

• Department Chairs and Academy Coordinators will share the preference sheets and make 

schedule recommendations based upon student need, department, house and academy 

courses, and teacher preference. 

• The master schedule building team will use the schedule recommendations to complete a 

master schedule that best meets the students’ needs. 

Discipline and Student Support 

Teachers will follow the school’s discipline policies and procedures; however they will be able to consult 

with other teachers within their house about specific students. In addition, academy and house 

teachers will have the flexibility to develop their own strategies and interventions for dealing with issues 

as long as they do not contradict school policy. Administration will actively seek solutions to address 

students with the most serious behavior issues. 


Professional development will be critical as we increase our ability to positively impact student 

achievement within the small learning community model. House teachers will develop a plan for 

professional development to meet the needs of the teachers in each house. Department chairs will 

continue to develop approved curricular professional development for content areas. Administration, 

guided by the Teacher Leadership Team, will plan necessary school‐wide professional development, 

particularly in the area of effective collaboration. All professional development will support Overfelt’s 

Single Plan for Student Achievement. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

The Equity Committee will present data annually to monitor and evaluate the impact of the Small 

Learning Community plan on student achievement. Data will be evaluated on three levels. First, student 

attendance, behavior, and retention data will be evaluated to assess student connection to the school. 

Second, academic achievement will be evaluated through trends in GPA, California Standards Tests, 

California High School Exit Exam, and class pass rates. Third, longer‐range success of the small learning 

communities will be analyzed through data on A‐G completion and graduation rate. 


Appendix 

• Proposed SLC Chart 

• Rationale (the whys) 

• SLC Terms and Research 

• Data from WCO 


Rationale for Schoolwide Change Proposal 

Why Small Learning Communities? Why now? 

Overfelt specific rationale: 

• Our current model does not serve all students. Students are able to opt out of small learning 

communities. Frequently the students who opt out are our highest and lowest achieving 

students. Our highest achieving students will benefit from the opportunities created in the 

house model. Our lowest achieving students are the ones we most need to serve with our 

efforts. This model will provide the opportunities and support for all students. 

• Our current SLCs are not as effective as they could be at connecting students and increasing 

achievement within the SLCs. Many students at this time take classes outside of their academies 

or with teachers from other academies. Frequently these students are in math and English 

support classes. As a result, there are reduced opportunities for collaboration with these 

teachers and students are more likely to fall through the cracks in some of our most critical 

courses. The proposed model will keep critical classes within the house where teachers can 

support the students. 

• With current model, teachers are pulled in many directions creating confusion, fragmentation, 

and distrust. Teachers who are involved in academies often serve students from other 

academies as well as non‐academy students. Teachers who are not in academies may feel that 

their students do not have the advantages of academy students. This tends to overextend some 

teachers and be divisive for others. The proposed model will unify the teachers in three houses 

which will enhance communication, collaboration, and support. 

• We will need to be increasingly competitive with the charters if we are to continue to attract 

students with diverse academic abilities. The proposal will structure Overfelt in a way that 

supports increased personalization, creates pathways that weave rigor and relevance, and 

improves our ability to accelerate academic achievement. Implementing this model will allow us 

to offer many of the same advantages of charter schools along with the advantages of a 

comprehensive high school. It will also send a strong message to the public that we are 

committed to providing the high quality education needed to be successful in the 21 st century. 

• Showing a unified approach in adopting a research based schoolwide effort to improve 

academic achievement for all students will help us to maintain current funding and attract 

future partnerships, resources, and financial support. 

Research Findings (general): 

• SLCs bring students together into a structure that makes them feel more connected to their 

teachers and other students, and thus more engaged. 

• Teachers get to know their students well and take on a variety of roles, such as helping to guide 

them toward future goals. 

• In career academies students orient their high school coursework toward some future endeavor 

and learn the value of higher education in their field. 

• A number of studies of these approaches have shown positive impacts on such measures as 

attendance, retention, grades, graduation rates, and employment as well as a statistically 

significant positive impact on college going among academy graduates. 



ITEM N Programs, Grants, and Partnerships, 2011 

2011-2012 Summary of Categorical Funds, Grants, and Partnerships 

W. C. Overfelt High School 

Federal 

State 

Grants 

Funding Source Description Amount 

NCLB – Title 1 

Funds used to support professional development $11,607 

including extra time, sub out days, instructional 

materials and supplies. 

Title 1 

$51,460 site allocation not for district allocated $223,088 

personnel costs. Funds used to cover repro and 

materials costs, library tutoring and tech mentor. 

Small Learning Communities 5 Year grant to support WCO and AH 

implementation of school-wide small learning 

communities. Funds go to counseling, SLC teacher 

release periods, summer professional development. 

$187,382 

Perkins Funds 

Funds directly support CTE courses in Electronics, $22,562 

Multimedia, and Child Development 

EIA 

$33,299 site allocation not for district allocated $54,602 

personnel costs. Funds support tutoring, parent 

outreach and conference days, instructional supplies 

and materials. 

Professional Development Funds used to support AP training $6,062 

CPA Electronics 

Lead teacher release period and other academy $33,482 

related costs 

CPA Multimedia 


related costs 

CPA Child Development 


related costs 

CAPP High School Leadership Funds and support for developing principal and $64,313 

teacher leadership. Funds pay for teacher sub out 

days, teacher extra time for TLT and summer work, 

and materials. Team planning retreat, mentor, and 

two site visits per year provided as part of grant. 

CAPP Expository Literacy 

Funds cover teacher time and materials to support $31,101 

development of expository literacy in English 

courses. 

CAPP Algebra Support 

New planning grant to develop math articulation $15,000 

with feeder middle schools. Next year $75,000 

implementation grant. 

SJ Safe Summer Initiative 

Funds help support summer opportunity program $5,960 

within CSI. 

Applied Materials Foundation Carryover from $50,000 grant to support student $3,066 

interventions used to operate library after school. 

Google – Tides Foundation Funds to support math materials and PD as well as $15,000 

library tutoring. 

IBM Community Impact Grant Funds to purchase science materials and equipment. $10,000 

ALearn 

Support for CSI algebra and geometry classes in $32,000 

2011 

SVCF Support for CSI Program in 2012 $50,000 


Programs, Grants, and Partnerships, 2011 

ITEM N 

Partnerships 

Silicon Valley Education 

Foundation 

New Teacher Center 

YWCA Project Inspire 

SJSU Gear Up 

CALSOAP 

Step Up to Biology program in CSI and at three 

other sites, Summer Math Acceleration at WCO, A- 

G Audit district-wide 

PD support for GRR in Math and Science, PLC for 

house leadership training 

After school program and summer support for CSI 

and three additional courses 

After school program and student support for 10 th 

grade students. Summer program 

College readiness support and CSI college tutor and 

college curriculum support 

$35,000 

$872,567 

+ Services 


ITEM O 

Pyramid of Effort-Based School Success 



ITEM P 

Rosters 

SCHOOL COMMITTEE ROSTERS 

18.4 Committee Members 

Eleanor Aguirre 

Natalia Baldwin 

Brian Barrientez 

Vito Chiala 

Mark Delgado 

Yovi Murillo 

Rachel Stanek 

Equity Committee 

Laura Alfaro 

Chrisanne Beebe 

Nilda Calvo 

Paul Maligalig 

Coleen Montesano 

Lawrence Yee 

Professional Learning Community 

Knights 

Lions 

Marissa Brown 

Sandra Albini 

Prema Gammons 

Natalia Baldwin* 

Honey Gubuan* 

Julie Broquet (Fall Sem.) 

Julie Gonzalez (Spring Sem.) 

Jill Stauffer 

Torchbearers 

Ludy Aguada 

Veronica Davis 

Douglas Day 

Kelly Kreidler* 

Araceli Rodriguez 

School Safety Team 

Alex Adayan 

Bob Barnes 


Vito Chiala 

Carolina Garcia 

Floyd Hurndon 

Marcela Miranda 

Yovi Murillo 

Kurt Nickerson 

Richard Pierce 

Police Officer 


* House Leader 

Alejando Saldivar 

Monica Schneider 

Rachel Stanek 

Soladad Varela 


Rosters 

ITEM P 

School Site Council 

Chairperson: Sharon Ha 

Vice-chairperson: Edna Gregorio 

Secretary: Verenice Esquivel 

Sergeant of Arms: Luis Ruiz 

Staff 

Ludy Aguada 

Sandra Albini 

Marissa Brown 

Vito Chiala 


Eugene Martinez 

Debbie Tamez 

Joe Te 

Students 

Edna Gregorio 

Sharon Ha 

Laura Diaz 

Athena Bugarin 

Parents 

Elvia Burgara 

Pat Cantrell 

Sylvia Diaz 

Nhu Trieu 

Student Alternates 

Eric Morales 

Brandon Segovia 

Victor Cruz 

Arturo Rocha 

Stephanie Serrano 

Suleyma Valdovinos 

Parent Alternates 

Estella Gregorio 

Patrice Kelly 

Staff House Assignments 

Knights 

Hope Alley 

Chrisanne Beebe 

Marisa Brown 

Chris Cali 

Adrian Crawford 

Deigo Depaz 

Martha Espinoza 

Eugene Martinez 

Prema Gammons 

Honey Gubuan 

Huy Nguyen 

Floyd Hurndon 

Dan Nevo 

Mehdi Panahi 

Harilaos 

Petropoulakis 

Marylynn 

Reynolds 

Adele Sagun 

Estrella Serote 

Marcy Burwin- 

Smith 

Rachel Stanek 

Lions 

Ludy Aguada 

Laura Alfaro 

Felicia Arnold 


Richard Cabral 

Veronica Davis 

Doug Day 

Kris Ferguson 

Vicky Gallegos 

Jim Hall 

Kelly Kreidler 

Deborah Maybee 

Kurt Nickerson 

Paul Ortiz 


John Selby 

Wendy Van Camp 

Mark Wightman 

Lawrence Yee 

Torchbearers 

Eleanor Aguirre 

Joe Albers 

Sandra Albini 

Natalia Baldwin 

Julie Broquet 

Mike Cross 

Ben Ellison 

Ellen Hansen 

Jenny Kim 


Tony Pacheco 

James Radcliffe 

Jeff Rehrig 

Jill Stauffer 

Hector Tejada 

Truc Tran 

Cindy Wu 

Electives 

Nilda Calvo 

Glen Davis 

Mark Delgado 

Alvin Floro 

Mike Gomez 

Julie Gonzalez 

Alejandro Saldivar 

Ernie Mendoza 

Virginia Monge 

Van Nguyen 

Richard Pierce 

Ian Rowe 

Joe Te

Appendix - William C. Overfelt High School

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?