a California high school
Amazing in itself, two bills (SBX5 1 and SBX5 4) passed January 7, 2010, in the California legislature and were signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, aiming to get $700 million from the federal Race To The Top (RTTT) funds.
What will that money be used for? Most of the California education world only expects it to shore up the fiscal crisis, allowing legislators to say “See, we didn’t take any more money from schools.”
Such manipulation does nothing to address the real crisis in California, the governor and his party’s refusal to consider taxes, the Democratic majority’s inability to pass legislation anyway because of the supermajority (2/3) needed by the legislature and/or from the voters in an election for any tax or finance legislation.
Meantime, the onslaught against teachers continues, pay cuts, furlough days, increases in student/teacher ratio, all of which really are to the detriment of students for whom RTTT funds are supposed to benefit.
Round and round we go, where we stop…
Actually, anyone who studies school reform knows where to stop. At schools in deep failure, low-performing on exams; poor, poor, poor facilities; unsupported teachers; distracted parents consumed by pay and food for their children. Whether tax haters like it or not, systemic failure needs money to reverse itself. This blog has reported suggestions to reorganize without cost, but in the end, it’s dollar bills, used effectively and efficiently.
The legislation is geared to help the lowest-performing schools turn around, but two big issues dominate the legislation.
First, a bill component allows the linkage of school data to teacher evaluation, an ongoing concern with many competing ideas to put such a system in place. Randi Weingarten, AFT president, on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, offered a model in which teachers and other school personnel are part of the team designing the plan. In the California legislation, collective bargaining is part of the process.
Second, the bill establishes a commission to update the state’s student content standards, not revised since the mid-1990’s. No plan for teacher evaluation or changes to state testing would occur until the standards are revised.
Another aspect of the legislation has received strong support and strong condemnation. The provision allows parents to petition and state officials to force a school district to overhaul bad schools.
It’s true already that California State officials take over school districts, from community college to urban K-12. Sometimes parents develop a charter school, so that’s already happening. What will likely cause the uproar is allowing students to choose any school in the state to attend.
“Open enrollment” offers that possibility. RTTT suggests that open enrollment policies to allow students to transfer out of schools that fail to raise state test scores high enough, quickly enough, will help. Bruce Fuller, education and public policy professor UC Berkeley, says it’s just shifting chairs around on the sinking Titanic. (SFChronicle, January6, 2010)
Sounds good for the student, but what about the transportation costs, the cost to the receiving and sending school districts. Who puts up the money to make it happen?
While teacher’s unions have been wading in to advocate for a number of these provisions, after making sure their objections have been heard, the California Teachers Association (CTA) is adamantly opposed to the “open enrollment” part of the legislation.
It’s not hard to imagine the unintended consequences of the proposal. It will bring chaos to many school districts, like schools with high transient rates and low test performance, without offering any model for improvement.
Is that the answer to fix failing schools?
(Image by SHM)