No escape for chronically failing schools
California’s past efforts to turn around chronically dismal schools have been timid or unsuccessful. The state currently has no clearly defined program at all.
That’s why the surprisingly easy passage this week in the Senate of SB X5-1 is important. Among its provisions, the bill would demand the restructuring of most stagnant 5 percent of the lowest performing schools. The state has yet to define this subset.
The chief sponsor, Sen. Gloria Romero, a candidate for superintendent of public instruction, and Gov. Schwarzenegger pushed the bill as necessary to make the state competitive for a Race to the Top grant. But at least that section of the bill is worthy in its own right, whether or not a grant comes through.According to the Legislative Analyst, nearly a quarter of the state’s schools are in Program Improvement for failing to make target scores under No Child Left Behind two consecutive years. And two-thirds of these schools have been in PI status three or more years. No Child Left Behind requires restructuring by the fourth and fifth years, but the state hasn’t forced the issue.
U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan is proposing that, conditional to applying for Race to the Top and receiving federal School Improvement Funding, states must agree to enforce one of several strategies for the lowest 5 percent: close down the school, hire a new principal and staff, or bring in a charter or private operator to take the school over. SB X5-1 would mirror the federal requirements.
The turnaround requirement of the proposed Race to the Top guidelines received a lot of criticism nationwide, and states are waiting to see if the final rules are different. Critics argue that in many cases, failing schools have already installed new principals who need time to succeed. States also argue they should have more flexibility over the remedy. An alternative to an outside charter operator is charter-like autonomy, in which a new principal at a failing school would control hiring and budgeting, and be freed from constraints of the state ed code and work rules under teachers’ contracts.
If the final language of Race to the Top changes, so should SB X5-1.
The bill is not likely to receive quick action or as warm a welcome in the Assembly, where the California Teachers Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. are lying in wait. One reason is that the bill includes a massive expansion of parental choice, which has nothing to do with the Race to the Top application.
A parent in any school with test scores in the bottom 30 percent could apply to attend a school in any other district. The receiving or “enrollment district” could choose to set strict limits on outside students, as long as they use a lottery system and don’t discriminate against individual students. Adoption of such a system could promote healthy competition, especially among districts with declining enrollments. But it also could further destabilize struggling districts. There’s no reason to rush this provision into law.
SB X5-1 would also lift the cap on charter schools, which currently allows up to 100 new charters every year. It’s not been a problem, but removing the restriction would also advance the state’s Race to the Top application.
Assembly Education Committee Chair Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, is holding hearings on all aspects of Race to the Top and is waiting for the final language before drafting a bill. That’s probably smart, but whatever she proposes should include strong measures for turning around the worst schools.
“This report reveals that eight in 10 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) students displaced by school closings transferred to schools ranking in the bottom half of system schools on standardized tests. However, because most displaced students transferred from one low-performing school to another, the move did not, on average, significantly affect student achievement.”
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=136
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thanks. I had heard about the findings but not read the report yet.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In reading the text of SB X5-1 it seems to be worded such that the district of enrollment can only limit its acceptance of students from other districts based on space limits. So I’m wondering if that would include teacher capacity as well as physical capacity. For example would the enrollment district have to hire additional teachers if the physical space was available? Could they convert classrooms to other purposes to restrict physical space limits? Just wondering if there is any related experience with such issues.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Good question. I will inquire.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I am a teacher in the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto, CA. Given what you understand about the Romero bill, how would this affect my district and/or specific schools within my district. Also, how would it ultimately help students. My students can’t just pick-up and move or go to the schools on the other side of the tracks (Palo Alto).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Craig: From what I understand, Palo Alto or other nearby school districts would have to determine how many seats they have available, based on criteria that they could determine, although a previous reader raises a good question as to whether physical space would be the determining factor. Once an enrollment district has said that it has, say, spots for 30 4th graders, any parent from a lower decile school could apply. There would be a lottery if the demand was higher than the spaces. I can see where declining enrollment districts might be interested in this.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Mr. Fensterwald–
It’s unfortunate that none of the proposed solutions to turn around the lowest performing schools have shown efficacy. It’s also curious why Senator Romero feels compelled to run in this race to the top when the final regulations haven’t been released yet by the federal Department of Education. Another salient point you fail to mention is that all of this is so that CA may compete in the race, where we might receive $500 million–half of which will stay in Sacramento, and half be doled out to some districts. In addition, this is one-time money. Although CA is hardly in a position to look a gift horse in the mouth, $500 million is peanuts when we’ve lost $18 billion.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
KC: Thanks for writing. I believe the proposed regs say that no more than 50 percent can stay in Sacramento. It could be less, if the state chooses. (I know, you’re saying, when has the state ever not taken its full share?) I paraphrased Deputy Superintendent Rick Miller, whom I thought made a valid case that $500 million could be significant for those districts — probably a small portion –that sign the MOU. As for an example of what works: closing perpetually failing comprehensive high schools and reopening them as small schools. I’m in San Diego today and have visited two campuses — Lincoln and Kearney — that provide strong evidence of improvement.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
If a school is in PI and receives Federal money then it has to offer all kids a chance to transfer to a different school. In one of the letters the CA Sec. of Ed. says transferring schools can be simply designating some buildings on a campus as part of a different HS.
C.F.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/choicecapltr.asp
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity