Re: School study calls for cash, local control---how about abolishing the exit exam? 10th grade STAR can be used for NCLB/AYP

[Jo Ann Behm <jobehm@behmer.us>]

Interesting O'Connell wants to add two new R's [Reform and Revenue] to his
three existing R's [Remediation, Retesting, and Regurgitation].

I hope the study covers the fact that about $700 million [just from state
coiffures] is wasted on the useless high school exit exam every year.  Dr.
Russell Rumberger was fortunately part of this Getting Down to Facts study.
Here is an excerpt of what Dr. Rumberger had to say at the Dec. 15, 2005
meeting convened [very late in the game] to hear alternatives to the CAHSEE
for 2006 seniors.  By the way, O¹Connell didn¹t show up because he was
christening a pre-school that day.

According to Dr. Russell Rumberger, professor of education and director of
the UC Linguistic Minority Research Institute at the University of
California, Santa Barbara this public policy spectacle [exit exams denying
diplomas], ³will cost California taxpayers $27 billion in lost wages and
$1.2 billion in lost state taxes for every 100,000 denied diplomas.²  Cost
of social services, correction systems, joblessness, homelessness, and
uninsured health care characteristic of populations without high school
diplomas will be staggering.

At the Dec. 15, 2005 meeting many well-respected presenters unanimously gave
sound diploma-generating alternatives [including mine for a ³Grade
Equivalency Model²] that the SPI obviously ignored.  We all know about the
outrageous options the SPI unilaterally offered-up at his solo Jan. 6, 2006
news conference [enroll as 5th year senior, Adult ed, Charter that takes
adults, take the GED, go to community college---but he later lobbied to gut
Senator Ortiz¹s bill that would have allowed rejected seniors who met or
exceeded all other grad requirements except passing CAHSEE to qualify for
Cal Grants worth nearly $40k for college or job training]...

Back to the eye-popping collateral damage due to CAHSEE.  Just ramping-up
Adult Ed to handle the anticipated 20,000 post-CAHSEE casualties every year
is estimated to cost another $33.5 million every year.

CAHSEE annual estimates below from report I recently prepared for SBE
testimony...figures obtained from various sources [very hard to mine this
information].  Remember $12 billion was spent in the first 27 months after
SB 2X High School Exit Exam Bill [Senator O¹Connell] passed in 1999 [Source:
2003 Comment to Ed Source by SBE Exec. Director John Mockler].  The
warp-speed exit exam was erected as Gray Davis¹s signature piece to reform
CA schools in time to show + results and be re-elected.  When
recalled---O¹Connell adopted the CAHSEE as his own.


$52.6 million       Ongoing Sp Ed discretionary fund-2006 targeted in CAHSEE
remediation for seniors w/disabilities
$2 million            Estimated salaries & overhead for SBE-CAHSEE office &
staff of 7
$275 million        CAHSEE focused assistance middle & HS students
$178 million        CAHSEE remediation grades 7-12
$69.6 million       CAHSEE remediation for Class of 2007 seniors @ $500 each
& Class of 2008 juniors @ $97 each
$0.2 million         CAHSEE evaluation of pilot programs for remediation
$5.5 million         CAHSEE intervention materials
$5.1 million         2 additional CAHSEE administrations per year
$55.1  million      Estimated 39-month ETS contract beginning July 1, 2007
$33.5 million       In legislature [AB 415-Karnette] to add LEA capacity to
handle estim. 20,000 yearly increase of seniors denied diplomas/
                          otherwise fully qualified to graduate expected to
enter Adult Ed
$2 million            HumRRO Independent Evaluations
$2 million            Litigation/legal costs
$2.5 million         Revised annual CAHSEE workbook
$3.2 million         Amt reimbursed to LEA¹s for mandated CAHSEE [$3 each
student tested on one or both parts w/complete demo fields
                         & answers x 1,053,00]
___________________________
$ 681.2 million
 


Jo Behm
------------------------
 
Jo Rupert Behm, M.S., RN
State and Federal Health and Education Public Policy Consultant
Phone:  415-897-2426
FAX:    415-897-8115
email:  jobehm@behmer.us


"Convincing Grown-ups to Enact Responsible Policy and Legislation When
Deciding the Future of Children"  JRB January, '04



> From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Reply-To: <ca-resisters@interversity.org>
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:16:07 -0700
> To: <ca-resisters@interversity.org>
> Subject: [ca-resisters] School study calls for cash, local control
> 
> Another article about the recently released set
> of studies on CA schools.  This one highlights
> the debate coming up between the pro-austerity
> Neo Liberals and those who want to increase school funding.
> 
> I just read one of the reports on "beating the
> odds" schools, and was shocked by its crudity.  I
> crashed out a document with their chapter on
> "evidence" from the field, and my own critical
> preamble about their findings and method.  It's
> 21 pages long (simple MS Word doc).  Let me know
> if you'd like to see it and I'll send as an attachment.
> 
> This report looks important (Lessons from
> "Beating-the-Odds" Schools: Successful California
> Schools in the Context of Educational Adequacy)
> because it will likely be used by the governor
> and his big business masters to oppose tax
> increases for more adequate school spending.
> They'll argue for more "efficient" use of
> existing funds and bash teachers who resist teaching to the test.
> 
> Pete Farruggio
> ******************************************************************************
> ******************************************************************************
> ***********************
> Here's the Chronicle article:
> 
> 
> School study calls for cash, local control
> 
> <mailto:nasimov@sfchronicle.com>Nanette Asimov,
> San Francisco Chronicle         Friday, March 16, 2007
> 
> 
> California would have to spend at least $17
> billion more on education each year as one step
> toward helping most low-performing schools reach
> academic targets -- but even that substantial
> boost would leave some of them short of the goal,
> says a new analysis of the public education system.
> 
> The yearlong study says a 40 percent increase of
> $17 billion must be accompanied by a radical
> change in the "irrational" and "inflexible" way
> California distributes the money to schools.
> 
> "Getting Down to Facts" -- billed as the most
> comprehensive look at the education system ever
> conducted in California -- is being offered as a
> blueprint for bipartisan cooperation in fixing
> the schools. It was commissioned a year ago by
> Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic
> lawmakers and state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell.
> 
> Yet a partisan split is already in evidence.
> 
> "We need to focus on critical school reform
> before any discussion about more resources,"
> Schwarzenegger said in response to the financial
> portion of the two-part study released Wednesday and Thursday.
> 
> But O'Connell said the two should happen in
> tandem, and declared two new "Rs" for education: "reform and revenue."
> 
> Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez sided
> with O'Connell: "If money alone guaranteed a good
> education, then Paris Hilton would have a Ph.D.,"
> he quipped. "But ultimately, these reforms need
> to come with resources. You can't do one without the other."
> 
> The nearly $3 million study, funded by private
> foundations, relies on the research of more than
> 30 experts. It says two changes are essential to
> improving student achievement:
> 
> -- Schools with high-needs students require a lot more money.
> 
> -- Local education officials -- not the state --
> need to decide how that money is spent.
> 
> The report confirms that California spends about
> 30 percent less per pupil on schools than most
> other states -- and 75 percent less than New York does.
> 
> But when the researchers tried to determine how
> much more California would have to spend for
> every school to achieve the state's target score
> of 800 on its Academic Performance Index, they
> reached wildly different conclusions ranging from
> a couple billion dollars to more than a trillion.
> 
> So economist Jon Sonstelie of the Public Policy
> Institute of California tried a different
> approach. He interviewed 567 teachers, principals
> and superintendents and put them in charge of a
> hypothetical school with a hypothetical budget
> that was up to 50 percent higher than in real
> life. Without raising salaries, participants had
> to decide how the money could best maximize achievement.
> 
> They lowered class size. They added a few
> administrators. They hired a lot more support
> staff. They increased collaboration time among
> teachers. And they lengthened not only the school day, but the academic year.
> 
> Sonstelie developed equations to predict the
> relationship between resources and student
> characteristics, adjusting for regional salary differences.
> 
> The result: Spending would have to grow $17
> billion -- from $43 billion (in 2003-04 dollars)
> to $60 billion -- for even half of the schools to
> hover in the desired 800-point range of the Academic Performance Index.
> 
> But where would the money come from?
> 
> The 40 percent increase would mean cutting other
> state programs by 10 percent -- or raising taxes
> by 8 percent -- Sonstelie said Thursday as he
> presented the findings with schools chief
> O'Connell, education director Marshall Smith of
> the Hewlett Foundation, Chairman Ted Mitchell of
> the governor's education committee and fellow researchers.
> 
> Sonstelie pointed out, however, that $17 billion
> is an estimate that could change as other reforms
> are put in place. And everyone -- Democrats and
> Republicans alike -- says a wholesale
> transformation of the public schools is essential.
> 
> "Our system is broken, and only major fundamental
> change can fix it," said Mitchell, adding that
> the committee of education experts that he chairs
> will spend this year figuring out how to
> translate the study into public policy next year.
> 
> One essential change, all agreed, was the need to
> let the state's nearly 1,000 school districts
> make their own spending decisions.
> 
> Currently, California restricts much of the
> education money it hands out, prohibiting
> districts from spending it except as prescribed.
> Money to reduce class size, for example, can only
> be used for that purpose. The same is true with
> money for drug prevention, preschool for American
> Indians, vocational education and more than 100 categories of funds.
> 
> The state runs a compliance unit just to make
> sure schools don't spend vocational money on
> teachers, or anti-drug money on the cafeteria, said Mitchell.
> 
> The new idea, which other states have adopted, is
> to give school districts more money for students
> with higher needs, and the freedom to spend it as they see fit.
> 
> "We won't disagree with that," said Mary Bergan,
> president of the California Federation of
> Teachers. "But we want teachers to have the main
> voice over how the money is spent."
> 
> Smith, of the Hewlett Foundation, said it could
> take five to 10 years to carry out a plan. But
> once in place, the results could be "tremendous," he said.
> 
> Others were hopeful, too -- even traditional
> adversaries of the education establishment.
> 
> "This is a historic opportunity," said attorney
> John Affeldt of Public Advocates, who has sued
> the state on behalf of low-income students three
> times in recent years, for better education at
> high-poverty schools, better-educated teachers
> and an end to the high school exit exam.
> 
> Affeldt said he expects disagreements along the
> way. "But I'm not waiting in the wings to file a
> lawsuit. I think there's some momentum here."
> 
> The study -- at 
> <http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm>irepp.stanford.edu/projects/
> cafinance.htm 
> -- was paid for by the Hewlett, Gates, Irvine and Stuart foundations.
> 
> E-mail Nanette Asimov at
> <mailto:nasimov@sfchronicle.com>nasimov@sfchronicle.com.
> 
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/BAGIHOMGNF1.DTL
> 
> This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> If you want to help support the operation of Ca-Resisters,
> visit http://interversity.org/donations.html and pitch in!
> -----------------
> Thanks in advance!
> -Eric Crump