Board of Ed draws QEIA line in sand
No waivers granted for academic shortfall
Administrators from Stockton Unified School District went home about $3 million poorer yesterday. They had traveled to Sacramento to appeal to the State Board of Education for waivers from the academic requirements of the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). All five of the district’s K-8 schools receiving QEIA funds had failed to meet their Academic Performance Index targets, and that meant being expelled from the program at the end of this school year.
The principals argued their cases, some more compelling than others. Monroe had undergone an entire change in leadership, Grunsky had two special day classes added after becoming a QEIA school, Roosevelt and Van Buren experienced high teacher turnover, and Nightingale, a new charter, needed more time to prove itself.
It didn’t take long for the State Board to decide the schools’ fate. Denied. Not just for Stockton, but also for another five schools in other districts.
“We took a bullet today,” a school principal was overheard saying to a colleague as they left the meeting room.
This month’s meeting marked the second time QEIA schools that missed their API marks had come to the Board seeking relief; and it was the second time that Board members rebuffed them. The Board has been liberal in approving waivers for going a little over class size reduction and a little under the teacher experience index, but for academic achievement, well, it’s a bit like Tevye’s ethical choice in Fiddler on the Roof: “On the other hand… No… there is no other hand.”
“They accepted the money. This was a voluntary grant, which they accepted under clear and explicit conditions and, therefore, in following the intent of the law they need to meet those conditions,” said Board President Michael Kirst after the meeting.
The entire board appears to have arrived at a consensus on this issue. ”We seem to have drawn a collective line with regard to the API,” said board member Carl Cohn. “Even though circumstances have changed dramatically, you still have to have some central tenet of a program like this and, for me, it is the API. ”
But Stockton school officials find the reasoning inconsistent. If the goal is to raise student achievement, why take away the money that’s providing additional teachers, resources, counselors and professional development necessary to help students learn. Van Buren principal Ione Ringen said without QEIA funds she’ll lose more than a quarter of her 32 teachers, boosting class size from 20 to 32.
“Losing this is going to negatively impact our students,” said Ringen. ”We come from high poverty areas with high numbers of second language learners, and having that opportunity to be in a smaller class has allowed them to have more individualized education.”
QEIA, for a quick refresher, was created to settle a lawsuit brought by the California Teachers Association against Gov. Schwarzenegger for failing to keep his promise to repay school districts and community colleges $2 billion “borrowed” from Proposition 98 in 2004-05 to help the state get through a budget crisis.
Under the agreement, schools in the lowest academic levels were eligible to apply for funds to improve achievement by maintaining class size reduction, hiring more counselors, providing more directed professional development, having more highly qualified teachers than the district average, and exceeding their API growth targets averaged over three years.
State Board of Ed action on QEIA waivers since January 2009. (Source: California Dept. of Ed). Click to enlarge.
Since QEIA began, the State Board has approved 86 waivers and rejected six on non-academic grounds, and denied 16 for not meeting API goals. As of now, nearly 140 QEIA schools out of 474 have failed to meet at least one requirement. [Click here for chart] .
Department of Education staff warned the board on Thursday to expect waiver requests to mount. At least fifty more are on the docket for the July meeting propelled in part by the financial crisis that’s forced schools to lay off teachers and scale back class size reduction.
One waiver request expected to be reconsidered at the May board meeting could break the de facto API denial rule. Over the past few years, thousands of Iraqi refugees have resettled in eastern San Diego County, within the boundaries of El Cajon Valley High School.
The school population swelled by more than 700 students, nearly all English learners. El Cajon redirected some of its QEIA funds to organize community and social service organizations to help the students and their families adjust to life in America. The school’s API score dropped.
Department of Education staff recommended denial of the waiver, but the board postponed its vote until the next meeting, and asked the staff to try to peel off the refugees’ test scores to see how the school would have done without them. Regardless of those results, most board members suggested that this could be one of those difficult and exceptional situations that has no precedent.
“It seems to me that that as a state we have an obligation to ensure that our districts welcome these youngsters and make sure that they’re we’ll supported,” said Cohn. “This is markedly different from any other waiver request that’s been before us.”
Interesting. So I guess after the schools class sizes go up to 32 and the quality of education declines (and likely scores right along with it), what will the next punitive measure be? Raising class sizes to 45?
I know there needs to be accountability but Im not clear how there is any way of seeing a decision like this not making things worse. The district has some tough decisions ahead of it. (of course these are all high-poverty, low PEL and significant ELL population schools).
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
But Stockton school officials find the reasoning inconsistent. If the goal is to raise student achievement, why take away the money that’s providing additional teachers, resources, counselors and professional development necessary to help students learn. Van Buren principal Ione Ringen said without QEIA funds she’ll lose more than a quarter of her 32 teachers, boosting class size from 20 to 32.
Pretty much.
The board’s reasoning seems to be that if API scores didn’t go up, that the money was squandered. I doubt you’d feel that way if you walked into those schools and looked at what they were doing. And if you did feel that way, then the local decisionmakers should be fired, right?
“Well, that didn’t work out exactly as we’d hoped, so we’ll just throw those kids to the wolves. Oh Well.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Thank you for this interesting story.
I have to say, if the money were contingent on improving APIs, why would you continue to fund schools that weren’t able to deliver? Actually, it just doesn’t make education sense either way — fund or withdraw funds — as it sounds like cutting the baby in half to satisfy disputatious mothers.
Still, if Carl Cohn thinks the decision was indicated, I would trust his judgement, but there’s a lot about this story that is terribly sad.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Well, as I see it it’s more about making foolish conditions and threats, something we’re taught as parents not to do. You truly have to be prepared for both alternatives. So I guess following through has a certain satisfaction, but I think more thought needs to go into the whole “it’s all about API” criterion.
The fact is, it’s not a cookbook, where you can attribute failure to carelessness or lack of technique. Frankly I doubt there are any examples of a school following a particular set of steps and exceeding 800 API after 3 years when they were sub 600 to start without changing the students or cheating on the exams. (I realize their target was not that grand, but I think the example is important.) The point is, this is hard, pioneering work, and there’s no trail broken… at least, not available with the tools at hand.
What I want to know is, did the kids benefit from the way the funds were spent? If so, what is the evidence for that? What positive results were there?
If there were no positive results, then what can we conclude? Should those interventions not be used in the future?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@el: Schools made a commitment to perform to get the money. They failed. Why should we keep paying them extra to do what they have showed they can’t do? To show everyone that nobody expects their promises to count? It is not like we are taking away their regular funds. I find Stockton school officials reasoning inconsistent. In fact, I find it whining and self serving, covering up their own failures.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
el, its a question of relativity not of absolutes. The ‘positive’ results may manifest in a reduced ‘bad’ outcome. One of the problems with how we do accountability and intervention is we’re not really sure what we should expect on a ‘per-dollar’ basis. Just picking one of these schools at random (roosevelt), I noticed their swd api was 336 last year (!). scores like that are usually reserved for worst performing high school subgroups. not an elementary/middle. not that it matters anymore, but their ell api went up 47 points in the past 4 years. that while their ELL rates went up 10 percentage points. (48 to 58). Hispanic api went up 20 (less positive but still movement. This is a school with 100% SED. Funds well spent? Depends on your priorities and what you take into context?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Ze’ev, what choice did they have other than to make that promise? They made the promise and hoped for the best. Their kids are likely better off for having done so, because at least the funding was available for those few years.
When was the last time you heard someone say, “The crime rate in Suzyville is too high. Thus, effective immediately, we’re cutting the police force by 10% until they turn it around.” ?
When was the last time you heard someone say, “We’ve been monitoring the 1-mile running times of the senior class at Suzyville High School for the past three years. 90% of the kids still cannot run a 5 minute mile. Thus, we are cutting physical education, because it is obviously doing no good.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Talk of changing the state’s accountability system has gained currency amid recognition that narrow measures under the state’s Academic Performance Index, combined with federal accountability requirements, have skewed priorities and undervalued much of what schools try to accomplish.
The above quote came from John’s article (from today) “First Pass at School Inspections” that accurately reflect the discussion that went on at the SBE yesterday.
Yes, the general discussion at the SBE and legislature (particularly Steinberg as well as the Governor) focused on the fact that the CA API has indeed “skewed priorities” and just generally does a lousy job at accurately summing up what is going on in CA’s schools. Not to mention the reductio ad absurdum of trying to capture all of a schools achievements (in the larger sense) with a single number.
So, obviously the SBE had little choice other than to cut funding from schools that didn’t have the absurd and “skewed” single API number required by QEIA regulations and reduce the ability of the subject schools to serve their students. The only other choice would have been to actually think about the issue, understand that a dogmatic fidelity to abstract regulations would have disastrous pragmatic consequences for hundreds of students, and put off any significant decision making until a more meaningful “accountability” (sic) system could be implemented. But, oh no, the SBE was on the edge of the abyss and chose to take a bold step forward.
It is so absurd it’s almost funny. On the other hand, having been a teacher for 35 years I know the difference between having a class size of 25 and a class size of 30+ which is what those districts, schools, teachers, and students now face. Of course all of those “self-serving” students, upon whom the consequences of the SBE decision really falls, will know the SBE really means business!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity