California confronts troubled schools...it's just so frustrating

[alp227]

In a conference call Friday, state and federal officials explained the consequences of the designation to school superintendents who were reportedly agitated by the method used to label schools and the vagueness of the regulations.

One main concern of local school officials is the short notice given for instituting far-reaching changes. For instance, if a district closes or overhauls a school, that may require laying off teachers, but the deadline for giving preliminary notice looms in just one week.

The mandate for change comes from the federal government, but the notice requirements are set in state law.

--"California lists 187 chronically low-performing schools, San Jose Mercury News

...from California's roughly 10,000 public schools, state officials created a pool of 3,759 low-scoring schools, and divided them into five categories. Two of the categories include elementary and middle schools that receive federal aid for poor children and that failed to get enough of their students proficient in math and English....The other two categories include middle and high schools that also have a substantial number of poor children, but are not receiving federal funds targeted to help them. Historically, the federal government has had no leverage over such schools. The five San Jose middle schools fall into that group.

--"Seven South Bay schools ranked among lowest performers in the state, same paper

Sigh, the signs of No Child Left Behind, a bunch of responsibilities that ironically the federal government won't ever be responsible for.

[soleiri]

1. We got a robo-call last night

From my son's principal at his middle school.
We're in the bottom 5%.

I'm not sure which category, and how they determine the rankings.
I'd be interested in finding out once it's released.

In case anyone is interested, here's my perspective as a parent of a student in a "low achieving" school.
Okay, it's more like a mini-rant.
For the past 2 years, my younger son has attended this school, and the two years before that, my older son.

I've seen the school try everything under the sun to get test scores up.
A,B Block scheduling (this was tried for a year and didn't work),
Double blocks of English and Math for basic and below basic students,
parent workshops in both English and Spanish (the school is 75% hispanic or latino)
and probably countless other measures that I don't see.

I've seen them cut electives in order to add more core classes. In fact, at the beginning of this year,
my son had to chose another elective (his class was cancelled) and as we went down the list
we realized that he had already taken every elective offered except for AVID
(which technically he didn't qualify for) or become a teacher's aide.

As a mother of a successful student, I look at his assignments and his homework,
I ask him questions about his school day and he describes in detail what he's learned that day.
So I know that he has great teachers who are really good at what they do.

I'm going to the Honor Roll ceremony tonight for my son and
I may try to speak with the principal about what he thinks about this ranking.
I'm also going to let them know that I fully support them.

[YvonneCa]

2. Thank you for your supportive, caring post. As a former teacher in a similar...

...school, I saw...from the inside...what you describe here. Teachers and students working hard to fix the school.

Strong students with strong parental support...like your children...are sometimes underserved in the effort to help struggling students. Often, those families leave because they want their child to be challenged more...something which makes perfect sense to me as a parent. Thank you for doing your part, which I know you did for your child.

If your school is one of the 187, it faces closure, turnaround or charter status...if the legislature approves it on Thursday. I am sure the principal and teachers will appreciate your support. But it may not be enough to matter.


http://educatedguess.org/blog/2010/03/04/failing-schools-list-on-monday/

[soleiri]

3. I don't think they'll close it.

It has strong support from the community.
The funny or not so funny thing is, I'm about to finish my teaching credential in Special Education.
(wow, did I pick the wrong time to go into teaching, or what?)
If they fire 1/2 the teachers, I may be able to find a job at one of these turnaround schools.

So I asked myself this question;
Am I, with absolutely no experience in the classroom, as qualified as the teachers that they're firing?
Hell freaking no!

And why would I want to teach at a place that basically has a target on its back?
Once these teachers are gone, they'll hire new teachers, when they're not good enough, they'll blame them too.

I think in addition to talking with the principal, I'll talk with other parents and see what can be done.
Maybe if the parents get more involved, we can prevent any teachers from losing their jobs.

[YvonneCa]

4. You sound like you'll be a great teacher. I wish you every ...

...success in your new career. You seem to be a very caring person, able to see and understand complex, multi-faceted issues...like education. :7 That will be a gift to your students.

Good luck to you...and consider the torch passed. ;)

[Hannah Bell]

6. If the state's applying for title 1 SIG funds, the school will *indeed* have to be

"restructured" by one of the four options is my understanding.

unless there's a huge public outcry -- not just from your school, but from all schools.

this is the kind of thing that can't successfully be challenged on a school-by-school basis. talking to other parents is a good start; finding out which other schools in your area are targeted & combining efforts is another.

all of the four options lead to the same place: closing or charterization. two of the options are just a little slower to arrive there.

[soleiri]

7. The Principal thinks they'll do the least invasive option,

for now.

My son's teacher told us that they didn't even count schools that had an API of less than 700.
In California, the target API for schools is 800.
So the really low performing schools (those with an API of less than 700)
aren't even counted as being a low achieving school for these purposes.
I hadn't heard this before, so I'm not 100% sure it's accurate.

Btw, the school has had improved API scores every year for the past 4 years and met it's target growth, overall.
Out of the only subgroups that count at the school as far as API is concerned;
Latino/Hispanic, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English learners.
Only Latino/Hispanic didn't meet it's target growth. Target Growth was 6, actual growth was 4.
the target growth for socioeconomically disadvantaged was 7, actual growth was 10.
For English Learners the target growth was 9, the actual growth was 44. Yes, 44.
but since they average the scores, that doesn't matter.

The more I look into how the school has improved, the more irritated I am about the whole thing.
Basically, they're calling schools that are on the cusp of meeting the standards that the state has set, low achieving in order to destroy public education. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Hannah Bell]

5. The Mercury article presents this like it's a mandate from the feds.

But it's not - at least not as presented.

And it's not (directly) NCLB.

It's a response to Duncan's new rules for Title 1 School Improvement Grant funds: to apply for those funds, you now have to ID schools targeted for improvement (by their guidelines) & commit to one of their models.

But this isn't the only Title 1 grant. And states DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE SIG FUNDS. That's where the Mercury is creating a false impression.

Another troubling thing:

The fact that the announcement was kept "secret" from the majority of ed personnel & from the public until this late date. The new rules were announced in the federal register 12/10/09 & applications were due 2/8. Administration would have known before then, & in fact stakeholders like school administration, unions, etc. must - expressly - be consulted.

So when Superintendent Don Iglesias of the San Jose Unified School District says "I'll take my lumps if we deserve it, but we were surprised."

I don't believe him. I don't believe he didn't know this was in the works, & that he might have schools on the list. Unless he's a great fuckwit of an administrator who doesn't keep up with developments in his arena.


Boo to the Mercury (the formerly "liberal" paper which published Gary Webb's work, then fired him) for misinforming the public. Again.