After three hours of testimony from dozens of school districts, the State Board of Education voted unanimously March 13 to approve a plan assigning corrective actions and technical assistance to Local Educational Agencies under No Child Left Behind.

The plan, presented by the California Department of Education, with modifications, consists of two components: corrective actions and technical assistance, as required by federal law.

Corrective Actions
Action No. 1: The SBE assigned the same corrective action to all 97 LEAs, which is “instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on state academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high priority pupils.”

Action No. 2: The SBE approved a requirement that each LEA amends its LEA Plan or Plan Addendum identifying objectives and action steps to fully implement the corrective action. The SBE directed the CDE to bring the revised LEA Plans and Plan Addendums to the board for review at its July 2008 meeting. ACSA has sent a memo to the SBE and secretary of education expressing serious concerns with the unrealistic timeline of July 2008. This is the real work to be done locally and deserves great care, focus and time. The timeline should be tied to the Title 1 Set Aside funds that have yet to be released by the Legislature and governor.

Action No. 3: The SBE appointed a trustee to undertake prescribed duties in Coachella Valley Unified School District. A separate motion was approved to appoint Kenneth Young, superintendent of Riverside County Office of Education, as trustee.

ACSA believes “prescribed duties” were not defined in the motion and statute does not define the duties of an appointed trustee pursuant to a federal grant program. No entry, exit or achievement outcomes were defined or what the governance powers would be. No discussion occurred whether an MOU would be developed.

The rationale for the assignment of a trustee is that Coachella took a grant in 2005 in which the district agreed to harsher sanctions. The prior agreement was not provided to the SBE in writing during the meeting. Other sanctions were not discussed with the exception of one motion made by Alan Bersin and Ken Noonan to allow for a DAIT analysis in Coachella prior to the assignment of a trustee. The motion was rejected.

Coachella Superintendent Foch “Tut” Pensis spoke during the hearing, saying the district spent much of the 1990s under the supervision of a state trustee, and he would rather resign than see the district once again under outside control.

“To go back to that would be an embarrassment for the school district and an embarrassment to the community,” he told the board.

Action No. 4: The SBE voted to reserve its right to modify corrective actions for Program Improvement LEAs in Corrective Action at any time.

This motion was strongly opposed by ACSA and other groups as potentially creating an ongoing sanctioning process by an appointed body with no checks and balances. ACSA argued that current statute, which was carefully negotiated three years ago, should be honored by SBE.

That statute gives LEAs in corrective up to three years to implement the corrective action prior to any alternative corrective action assigned by the state. Current state law is actually stricter then federal law. The SBE felt that changing the term “invoke additional sanctions” to the term “modify the corrective action” would address concerns. It is unclear what “modify” means.

Action No. 5: The SBE directed CDE and SBE staff to create interim progress benchmarks and a reporting mechanism back to SBE for review once per year.

ACSA is unclear what annual benchmarks will look like with the exception of annual AYP targets.

Technical Assistance
Action No. 1: Six LEAs are mandated to individually contract with a SBE-assigned county office of education “or other assistance provider” approved by the CDE to analyze the capacities of the district including, but not limited to, fiscal issues, governance and academics, especially those facing issues with English learners and students with disabilities and report to the SBE by its July 2008 meeting with recommendations for corrective action.

The SBE president amended the original CDE proposal to strike DAIT and insert “other assistance provider” with no debate by board members. The public was not allowed to speak at that point in the deliberations but ACSA strongly opposes this amendment because there have been discussions that this is an attempt to not fully commit to the costs of the approved process outlined pursuant to statute that describes the role and function of DAITs.

ACSA believes the July 2008 deadline is unrealistic and has sent a memo to the SBE advising timelines should correspond to the release of federal funds for this work.

Action No. 2: Thirty-eight LEAs are mandated to individually contract with an approved DAIT or “other intervention team” approved by the CDE to analyze the capacities of the district including, but not limited to, fiscal issues, governance, and academics, especially those facing issues with English learners and students with disabilities, and report to the State Board by its July 2008 meeting with recommendations for corrective action; make recommendations to improve student achievement; and provide the LEA with technical assistance to fully implement the corrective action and any recommendations made by the DAIT or “other intervention team” approved by the CDE. The school district has the opportunity to appeal the recommendations of the DAIT team or other “intervention team” approved by the CDE to the SBE by an appeal process developed by the CDE and approved by the board.

ACSA contends that current statute does not grant DAITs authority to assign corrective actions, and there are concerns over how this impacts local governance. The SBE’s action states the DAIT comes back to recommend “corrective action,” yet the SBE has already assigned the corrective action. The CDE’s proposal states the LEA shall implement “any DAIT identified corrective actions.” Current statute does not provide DAITs this authority.

ACSA has sent a memo to the SBE that the July 2008 reporting deadline is unrealistic and the work of DAITs and LEAs must be aligned with the release of federal Title 1 Set Aside funds. Further, ACSA does not support the last minute addition of the term “other intervention team” because it believes this is an attempt to not fund current statute that defines DAITs pursuant to current law.

Action No. 3: Forty-four LEAs are mandated to use state-identified Program Improvement instruments to analyze LEA needs and access technical assistance to fully implement the sanction and remove barriers to student achievement that led to LEA advancement in PI.

Action No. 4: Seven LEAs are mandated to address specific reasons the LEA failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress targets. These seven were identified due to participation rate issues and other factors.

Action No. 5: Require the Orange County Office of Education to address the reasons the LEA failed to make AYP targets. ACSA has been told by CDE staff the exception for Orange County is that it will be its own DAIT to improve its Title 1 funded schools that failed to make AYP.

Testifying during the hearing was Greenfield Union ESD Superintendent Elida Garza. Greenfield, ranked No. 1 in the CDE’s priority assistance index, will be required to institute a new curriculum, amend its LEA plan and contract with a DAIT. Garza said she embraces the sanctions.

“It’s easy to overlook the purpose of NCLB – to ensure all children succeed,” she said. “I am willing to mobilize and do whatever is necessary. I look forward to getting assistance.”

Bobby Plough, superintendent of Romoland ESD, has been told she must buy new math textbooks as part of the district’s efforts to “institute and fully implement the most recent SBE-adopted standards aligned curriculum.” But the district already uses standards aligned curriculum, and will only receive about half the funding for each book, leaving the district to pick up the rest.

“We are frustrated because this is an unfunded mandate,” she told the board.

Oxnard ESD Superintendent Rick Miller said school reforms take time. Switching to a new reform plan stops the improvements that are already in motion.

“The Oxnard School District is already implementing aggressive reforms, but they take time to implement and show results,” he said. “Our staff has made heroic efforts.”

Arturo Flores, superintendent of Modesto City Schools, said he sees the issue as an opportunity. However, he is concerned about the long-term funding of such efforts, especially in light of budget shortfalls and declining enrollment.

“We welcome the assistance that can be provided to our district,” he said. “We will work diligently to improve student achievement. But technical assistance needs a component of sustainability.”

Alisal Union ESD Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas told the board that the unique needs of districts need to be taken into consideration. Not only does Alisal have a high English learner population, it has a high population of students who have never had any language training, or any formal schooling at all. A pilot program for these students is necessary for their success.

“They’re not even at the ELD level,” she said. “My commitment is to ensure all our students are learning.” As number 96 on the list of 97, Nevada Jt. Union High School District is facing the lightest of sanctions. However, for a high-performing district who entered Program Improvement due to participation rates – one student on one continuation high school campus who failed to show up the second day of testing – being on the list at all is a blow.

“I encourage you to look a little deeper and consider the criteria that put districts on this list,” said Superintendent Ralf Swenson. “To have this designation has caused a lot of stress in the community.”

ACSA is advising LEAs to take no action until there is clear and consistent communication from CDE that the funding is aligned to the mandates and that the Legislature and governor have approved the release of federal funds already set aside for the purposes outlined.

ACSA appreciates the work of Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and his staff to differentiate technical assistance and for keeping the education community informed. Much progress has been made since the outline shared with education groups by the secretary of education last December. However, ACSA remains concerned with the complexity and lack of clarity in a number of areas especially given the short time frames now imposed on LEAs due to delays at the state level.

ACSA’s most significant concern with the entire plan is that the State Board of Education struck the language at the last minute that the entire plan for technical assistance would be “contingent upon funding.” ACSA interprets this to mean the board expects LEAs to implement the mandates they approved with or without federal funding that has been set aside for these purposes.

Given the severe state budget crisis faced by school districts and schools, ACSA believes the SBE’s action to delete a relationship between the mandates and the funding source set aside for this purpose, is neither fair nor prudent. What is needed is collaboration with the Legislature rather than only assuming partial responsibility.

Given the complexity of the proposal and the lack of statutory clarity, ACSA is currently negotiating language in Senate Bill 606, Perata, D-Oakland. This is likely to be the legislative vehicle for the appropriation of the federal funds, estimated at $45 million, in Title 1 Set Aside.

“ACSA is thankful to CDE for their work in differentiating technical assistance and communicating with the field. However, we do not feel the plan, as large as it is, can be sustained financially,” said ACSA Legislative Advocate Sherry Skelly Griffith. “In addition, the short timelines are highly unrealistic and will result in superficial changes, if any, to the LEA Plans of these districts.”

For more information on the recent Board action, visit www.cde.ca.gov/be.