State Board Action on Program Improvement Schools and Districts

[George Sheridan <learn@jps.net>]

 The following information is forwarded from CATEnet, an electronic newsletter of
the California Association of Teachers of English.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Last week the State Board took action on what process will be taken regarding
districts and schools under Program Improvement.
School Services provided a very good summary of the action that was approved by
the State Board. Please see below.


Amid a packed house of school district leaders from throughout the state, the
State Board of Education (SBE) approved recommendations on March 13, 2008, to
implement corrective actions on local educational agencies (LEA) that have
entered Program Improvement, Year 3 (PI Year 3), status as a result of failing to
meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for five consecutive years, as required by No
Child Left Behind.

The recommendations, which are summarized below, were modified by the SBE after
lengthy deliberations. The SBEs approval caps a lengthy and somewhat difficult
process as the state sought to implement the required corrective actions. 

·                    Recommendation 1: Require each LEA in PI Year 3 to implement
a standards-based curriculum and to provide the appropriate professional
development.

·                    Recommendation 2: Require each LEA in PI Year 3 to update
and revise its LEA plan and to bring the LEA plan back to the SBE for review at
the July 2008 meeting.

·                    Recommendation 3: Appoint a trustee for Coachella Valley
Unified School District.

·                    Recommendation 4: Reserve the right to allow the SBE to
modify corrective actions for LEAs in PI Year 3 at any time.

·                    Recommendation 5: The SBE directs the CDE and CDE staff to
create interim progress benchmarks and report back to the SBE the LEAs progress
towards these benchmarks not less than once a year.

In addition to the corrective actions, the SBE also approved the technical
assistance plan that would provide ongoing support to all 97 districts. Because
there is great diversity as to the needs of each district, districts were
assigned to one of four levels of intensity for technical assistance, with only
six districts receiving the most intensive assistance.

According to the approved technical assistance plan, those six districts would be
required to contract with an SBE-approved county office of education or other
assistance provider who would analyze the districts fiscal, academic (with
attention to English learners and special education students), and governance
capacity. The assistance provider would then report back to the SBE at the July
board meeting on recommendations where the SBE could take further corrective
actions.

The SBE will also require 38 LEAs to contract with an approved District
Assistance and Intervention Team (DAIT) provider or other CDE-approved
intervention team to analyze the districts academic (also with special attention
to English learners and special education students), fiscal, and governance
capacity. 

Those districts would be required to implement the recommendations from the
intervention team, but would be able to appeal to the SBE any recommendations
made by the intervention team with which the LEA does not agree. The SBE made no
other changes to the technical assistance plan.

The agenda item, which lasted a better part of the day, provided the opportunity
for the public to speak on the proposed SBE action. Leaders from more than 20
districts throughout the state spoke on the proposed corrective actions, where
many expressed concerns that the funding for these corrective actions is not
ongoing and the high likelihood that more districts will enter PI Year 3 status. 

Another common element going through many of the district presentations is the
impact of the English learners and the special education subgroups on their
program improvement status. Many districts fell into PI Year 3 status solely as a
result of these two subgroups not meeting their AYP. This concern was ultimately
reflected in the adopted version of the technical assistance plan.


_______________



    SBE: PI districts action required, but funding absent
    =====================================================



    Published: March 14, 2008

    Instead of helping the 96 school districts that face corrective action
    under the federal No Child Left Behind Act's Program Improvement
    requirements, the state Board of Education may have imposed yet another
    level of unfunded mandates on them, CSBA Assistant Executive Director
    Holly Jacobson charged after the board's March 13 vote on the issue.

    CSBA and other advocates for local public education had cautioned the
    board in extensive public testimony prior to the vote at the state
    Department of Education headquarters in Sacramento that the districts
    must be assured of adequate funding to carry out any corrective actions
    required.

    "CSBA cannot support this . unless it is linked with funding," Jacobson
    had written to SBE March 5. She cited the state Legislature's control of
    $45 million in Federal Title I funds for Program Improvement districts
    and said that any requirements "should remain inoperative" until a bill
    authorizing distribution of the funds is passed and signed into law.

    SBE, an 11-member panel appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, made
    several changes to the plan for PI districts proposed last month by
    Schwarzenegger and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack
    O'Connell. Chief among those changes was the deletion of three
    words"-contingent on funding"-from the technical assistance section of
    the recommendation.

    The move, coming after four hours of deliberations and public comment
    that largely focused on other aspects of the groundbreaking remedial
    action required under federal law, "blindsided" advocates for the local
    agencies, Jacobson said.

    "It took the state board completely out of the fight to advocate for the
    state resources," Jacobson said. "It essentially forces these local
    agencies to foot the bill for corrective actions imposed by a federal
    program that does not accurately measure academic progress or take into
    consideration California's unique challenges."

    Jacobson also objected to a change concerning 38 districts that would
    have been required to each contract with one of the 38 District
    Assistance and Intervention Teams that had previously been approved by
    SBE. Those districts can now choose either from those DAITs or other
    assistance providers.

    The DAITs-teams of education professionals who conduct needs assessments
    and make recommendations for district improvement-are to examine and
    evaluate existing practices at both district and school levels, identify
    and prioritize districts' major areas of need, develop and implement
    actions that target those needs and, ultimately, help districts exit PI
    status.

    "The board's authority to impose a DAIT is provided by California
    statute. There is no authority for the board to direct districts to
    contract with other assistance providers. We fear that not only does this
    go beyond the board's statutory authority, but it may be a way to fund
    the technical assistance at a level less than that which would be
    required for DAITs."

    Jacobson also criticized the power the intervention teams will wield,
    saying that it surpasses the authority even of the trustee who is to be
    appointed for Coachella Valley Unified School District in the most
    extreme corrective action. Coachella was the only district in California
    that accepted a 2005 Title I grant which carried stiff penalties for
    failure to make adequate yearly progress.

    "The Board's action requires districts that have been assigned DAITs or
    other intervention teams to implement any recommendations from those
    teams. The local governance teams lose all discretion to determine if the
    team's recommendations are appropriate for the district or even
    affordable. This is a de facto takeover of the district by the DAITs,
    which violates the spirit and likely the letter of the law that created
    DAITs," Jacobson said.

    The corrective action plan approved by SBE establishes four
    "demarcations" for PI districts:

      * Coachella and six other districts determined to be most in need of
        improvement must each have a DAIT analyze its fiscal, governance and
        academic policies, especially those affecting English language
        learners and special education students, and report back to SBE in
        July with recommendations for changes.

      * The 38 districts that are next in priority must each have a DAIT or
        other approved intervention team for the same services as those to be
        provided to the first seven districts. The state Department of
        Education will develop an appeal process that districts may use to
        challenge the recommendations to SBE.

      * Forty-four districts in the third tier of priorities for improvement
        must use PI instruments and technical assistance approved by SBE to
        analyze district needs and boost student achievement to assure
        compliance with NCLB.

      * Seven other districts must address the reasons why they failed to
        make NCLB benchmarks for adequate yearly progress. The Orange County
        Office of Education must also address the reasons it fell short of
        the benchmarks.


    With the SBE vote, California has emerged in the vanguard of states
    dealing with local education agencies at the district and county office
    level that are in Program Improvement. It's an issue that every state
    must face, however, as NCLB's requirements begin to tighten. There are
    also 2,189 individual schools in Program Improvement status in
    California, and thousands more nationwide.

    As with districts and county offices, the schools can fail to make NCLB's
    requirements for a variety of reasons, from unsatisfactory scores among
    racial and ethnic student subgroups on statewide achievement tests to
    such bureaucratic reasons as having insufficient percentages of students
    in all subgroups participate in the tests.

    California's 96 districts and one county office in year three of Program
    Improvement are the first wave in what will become a flood tide, Jacobson
    warned. Fifty more that are in year two this year are expected to enter
    year three next year, and a hundred more could follow the year after
    that. It takes two years of satisfactory progress to leave PI status.

    Related links:
    The state Department of Education has information on Program Improvement
    @ http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp




CATEnet is provided by the California Association of Teachers of English
(CATE), which is a California Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporation. Opinions
expressed on CATEnet are not necessarily those of CATE. CATEnet does not accept
solicitations from commercial publishers. If you are not a member of CATE please
contact me if you need help joining; CATEnet only exists because its membership
supports the organization. If you know anyone who would like to join the
conversation, they can do so by going to www.englishcompanion.com and submitting
their email address. To learn more about joining and supporting CATE contact Joan
Williams, CATE's membership chair, at WEH20ski@aol.com.

To contribute material to CATEnet, or to contact the moderator, write to:
jburke@englishcompanion.com. To join CATENet, go to
http://www.englishcompanion.com/catenet/catenet.html and follow the directions.


George Sheridan