Race to Top compromise heads to Assembly

By John Fensterwald - Educated Guess

Removing the annual cap on charter schools is out; giving parents in failing schools the right to transfer to  another district is in. And so is a public commission, with plenty of teachers on it, to review proposed changes to state academic standards.

In the latest twist in a battle of wills and education lobbies, the Senate yesterday passed a new version of Race to the Top legislation – SBX5-4 – and sent it to the Assembly. It’s not a done deal, but the bill followed intense negotiations involving aides for Gov. Schwarzenegger, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speak Karen Bass. Bass, in a statement, said “we have resolved all of the essential issues.’’ And the Legislature knows it has all but run out of time, with the state application for a piece of the $4.3 billion Race to the Top competition due Jan. 19.

That’s not to say the Assembly next week won’t stick in amendments that could queer the deal. Bass noted that there remains disagreement on issues “not directly related to Race to the Top.”

That’s code for parental choice.

Last week, the Assembly Education Committee defeated the original Senate bill, pushed by Schwarzenegger and Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles,  that would have given parents in low-performing schools the right of out-of-district transfer – a big change in state education policy. Also, if  50 percent of parents in a low-performing school or feeder schools signed a petition,  school trustees would have been forced to take dramatic action to turn the school around, such as hiring a new principal and staff or inviting in a charter school operator.

But what may have seemed radical two weeks ago gained momentum when parent groups in Los Angeles massed behind it as a civil rights issue. And the state could argue that parental choice could enhance a Race to  the Top application, even though it’s not explicitly tied to federal guidelines.

The compromise in SBX5-4: The parents’ petition provision will be limited to 75 schools, still a significant number, and the right of transfer will be limited to parents in the low-achieving 10 percent of schools. A representative of Los Angeles Unified testified in favor of the bill – much to my surprise.

The fight over charters

The importance of lifting the cap on charters, for additional application points, has been overstated. There are currently under 900 charter schools; the cap is 1,350 and grows 100 per year. The feds know California is charter-friendly.

The Assembly bill – ABX5-8,  sponsored by Education Committee Chairwoman Julia Brownley, lifted the cap but, in its earlier versions, included some potentially meddlesome language restricting charter growth. But differences have narrowed, so it became a battle over who has authority to regulate charters: the Legislature or the state Board of Education, appointed by the governor.

Compressed deadline for common-core standards

California and other states have been prodded by Race to the Top rules to join a hasty process to adopt national standards in math and English. The bill would commit the state to adopt, by late summer, 85 percent of the common core standards yet to be developed by National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Critics fear that the result will lower California’s academic standards.

Creating  an Academic Content Standards Commission, appointed by the Senate, Assembly and governor, would at least provide some oversight and an ability for the public to be heard.

SBX5-4 also requires establishing alternative training programs for aspiring teachers in science, math and technology, along with career academics – a move particularly advocated by business leaders in Silicon Valley.

3 Comments

  1. How will they decide which 75 schools will qualify?

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

    • Louis, from what I can tell, the parent empowerment provision applies to a low-achieving school that “continues to fail to make adequate yearly progress” under No Child Left Behind law. That’s potentially a lot of schools. If one half of parents or guardians of children in the school or in a feeder school for that school sign a petition, the district would have to choose from among several turn-around strategies. The parents may demand a charter school, but the school board could try another option, like replacing the principal and at least half the staff or a “transformation” option that could include a longer day, performance-based pay for teachers, working with a mentor school. I am assuming the provision would apply to the first 75 schools where parents submit a valid petition.
      (reporting from the Baltimore blizzard of 2009)

      Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

  2. For years, teachers in Los Angeles have begged the School Board for the tools we need to better educate children. For years, the District has slammed the door in our faces. Yet, private companies come along with their hands out, and they roll out the red carpet for them.

    Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.

10.1Assessments(35)
2010 elections(16)
2012 election(14)
A to G Curriculum(25)
Achievement Gap(35)
Adequacy suit(19)
Advocacy organizations(20)
Blog info(4)
CALPADS(31)
Career academies(18)
CELDT(1)
Character education(2)
Charters(81)
Common Core standards(69)
Community Colleges(60)
Data(25)
Did You Know(16)
Disabilities education(3)
Dropout prevention(10)
Education Excellence Committee(15)
© Thoughts on Public Education 2012 | Home | Terms of Use | Site Map | Contact Us