The California Department of Education has released a list of the state’s 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools, issuing a call to action to improve performance. Meantime, ACSA is raising several concerns as to how state and federal officials are addressing these schools.
The preliminary list includes 188 schools. Of those, 135 are in Tier 1, 48 in Tier 2 and five are failing to meet the 60 percent graduation rate. The State Board of Education was scheduled to approve the list during its meeting March 10-11, after EdCal went to press.
The list was generated under pressure to apply for federal competitive grant funds under the School Improvement Grant Program, whose application deadline was March 15. However, the list goes beyond the SIG program and is intended to meet state statute and other federal grant programs in the future.
The identification of the 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools in California is a multi-step process that is informed by both federal and state law. Schools identified as the lowest 5 percent are required to implement one of the following four school intervention models:
•Turnaround Model. The local educational agency undertakes a series of major school improvement actions, including but not limited to replacing the principal and rehiring no more than 50 percent of the school staff; adopting a new governance structure; and implementing an instructional program that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the next, as well as aligned with California’s adopted content standards.
•Restart Model. The LEA converts a school or closes and reopens under a charter school operator, a charter management organization, or an education management organization that has been selected through a locally determined rigorous review process using state educational agency-provided guidance. A restart model school must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend the school.
•School Closure Model. The LEA closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for which achievement data are not yet available.
•Transformation Model. The LEA implements a series of required school improvement strategies, including replacing the principal who led the school prior to implementation of the transformation model, and increasing instructional time.
LEAs and school districts are responsible for ensuring that one of the four school intervention models is implemented at each school identified as persistently lowest achieving. To fund these turnaround activities, LEAs may use funds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and SIG, per the SIG program guidelines.
ACSA concerns
ACSA has raised several key concerns regarding methodology, times, funding, interventions implementation and a lack of exit criteria. These concerns have been circulating since September, when Race to the Top guidelines were published, regarding the overly prescriptive approach taken at the federal and state level to interject four "cures" upon struggling schools that have yet to be proven by research as effective.
ACSA is particularly concerned with the heavy reliance on removing principals under all four models and fought hard for an option to allow LEAs to submit a fifth intervention model approved by the state, allowing the right to retain exemplary principals recently placed in a struggling school.
Other key issues for ACSA include the methodology for determining the 5 percent. ACSA believes a two-tier plan that includes Title 1 vs. non-Title 1 schools may capture higher performing schools in Tier 2, rather than focusing on the lowest 5 percent. The Tier 1 lowest 5 percent should be the priority, as state and federal officials risk generating a lack of confidence that the true lowest 5 percent is the focus of this new federal effort.
ACSA is also concerned over ranking schools as "proficient or above." Ranking schools on schoolwide proficiency rates gives an incomplete picture of which are the truly struggling schools. For example, one school could have a 40 percent proficiency rate but have 60 percent of students "Far Below Basic," whereas another school may have a 30 percent proficiency rate with 70 percent at "Basic." The latter school is identified as lower performing, yet the first school has far more students failing. The methodology does not take this into account.
ACSA is also concerned over the way API growth is considered. The 50 points of growth required over five years does not distinguish between a school that starts at 500 API and grows vs. a school at 700 that makes 50 points, nor does it allow for any exceptions for schools really close to the 50 point mark.
Another concern is the exclusion of small schools, creating an "urban list" that may not reflect the entire state. The CDE has requested that any school with fewer than 100 valid test scores be excluded entirely from the list.
There are 4,000 schools with 300 or fewer students tested each year, according to the CDE. While it’s understandable to ensure test validity, ACSA believes the exclusion could create an urban focus vs. a statewide focus, and the needs of students struggling in smaller schools will be lost.
ACSA is also concerned over issues of alternative education school exclusions. The CDE is using a formula that combines state statute, which is required, and federal grant criteria, which is voluntary. The formula does not address the exclusions contained in SB X5 1 for certain alternative schools.
The CDE has stated federal officials won’t allow for exclusions of even highly mobile settings, such as juvenile court schools or community day schools. ACSA believes at the very least it should be formally requested in the SIG application and CDE and SBE should continue to strongly advocate for this exclusion contained in state statute.
Intervention timelines
ACSA believes the SIG turnaround intervention timeline is too short. In order to receive SIG funding, an LEA identified on the 5 percent list must agree to implement one of four mandated interventions by the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. The only exception is Closure, which occurs at the end of the 2010-11 school year.
The timelines established by federal and state officials are unrealistic and unworkable. CDE indicates that SIG applications are due June 1, which requires LEAs to determine very serious sanctions and possible staff and budget changes prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, or final state budget. This is not wise or prudent planning to ensure a positive 2010-11 school year. Students’ lives will be impacted and the community deserves adequate time to plan.
Also, the CDE has not distinguished nor notified LEAs in writing that timelines for SIG grant applicants and non-SIG schools differ. It’s anticipated that many LEAs with schools identified on the 5 percent list will apply for SIG funds, but CDE has not clearly alerted these LEAs they may choose not to apply for SIG, and thus not follow the short timelines. They can apply in future funding cycles.
They also can opt out of applying and can implement one of the four intervention models on their own timeline. SB X5 1 is silent on when an identified school must implement one of the four cures.
ACSA recommends the state include in the SIG application the request that LEAs applying for SIG have 2010-11 as the "planning year" to make thoughtful and reasonable reform decisions. ACSA recommends CDE immediately notify all identified LEAs that they have the right to implement the requirements of SB X5 1 later than the SIG deadline required. LEAs should have this in writing to share with their local governing boards.
In addition, it is unclear whether the state can force the implementation of SB X5 1 without participation in Race to the Top, regardless if SIG or any other programs have similar criteria. Those programs are not referenced under Education Code Section 53202.
If LEAs choose to apply for competitive SIG grants, they would meet the requirements as set forth in the SIG application. ACSA recommends an immediate legal opinion prior to directing LEAs to implement SB X5 1 in regard to the viability of EC Section 53202 without the state’s involvement in Race to the Top.
Additional concerns
•The CDE has not provided written direction pursuant to the requirements of SB X5 1 to ensure that all LEAs identified under the 5 percent must hold two public hearings prior to selecting one of the four interventions. One hearing is to be held at the school site and one at the district level. ACSA recommends immediate notification in writing by the CDE be sent to identified LEAs, so communities can plan and make thoughtful decisions.
•There is no identified appeals process for refuting data or formula calculations or an appeals process to ensure the appropriate school or schools were chosen. ACSA recommends the CDE immediately develop and submit to SBE a proposed appeals process before LEAs implement significant reforms.
•There is no guidance on how collective bargaining or state charter laws interface with the requirements of SB X5 1 or SIG and the mandated interventions. ACSA recommends CDE provide written guidance in these areas.
•The SIG application states that funding levels will be determined by enrollment size and "type of intervention model" LEAs select. It’s unclear what this means in terms of funding award. Is this based on actual costs to implement one of the four models, or does it indicate a preference for a model by the state? ACSA recommends this be clarified prior to submitting the SIG application.
•LEAs should be immediately notified that no more than 50 percent of their identified schools can use the Transformation model, which includes removing the principal and other reforms.
The other 50 percent must implement the Closure, Restart or Turnaround model. Turnaround requires the removal of up to 50 percent of staff and the principal. This restriction has serious implications for staffing and placement decisions in a very short window of time. ACSA recommends immediate notification in writing to impacted LEAs by CDE.
•LEAs should be immediately notified that while state and federal law is requiring the removal of principals under the four cures, they are not required to be terminated. ACSA recommends this be clearly stated by CDE in writing.
Exit Criteria
In addition, ACSA is concerned there are no exit criteria for the lowest 5 percent. Are schools forever labeled under this new formula? Does it change when federal grant criteria change? SIG requires a new list annually and SB X5 1 is silent on whether it’s an annual list or one time only.
ACSA recommends that an exit criteria be developed so that LEAs know what goals they are striving to achieve. These criteria should be developed in consultation with LEAs. Exit criteria needs to be addressed at the state and federal level.