 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Since December 22, 2004 |
Mission Unaccomplished: An Unruly Perspective on No Child Left Behind's Program Improvement Designation
When reflecting on the milestones of the George W. Bush presidency, Iraq and a host of Iraq-related scandals overshadow other controversies characterizing his troubled tenure in this country’s most prestigious office. Bush’s landmark education reform package—a bi-partisan behemoth endorsed and crafted by Bush, Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative George Miller infamously known as No Child Left Behind—rivals the litany of failures that will plague the historical legacy of America’s 43rd president. Unfortunately, education possesses the sex appeal of farm subsidies in public policy debate. NCLB has flown under the radar outside of education circles since its inception, with most of its most ardent vocal detractors working as educators penning invectives read by sympathetic colleagues in a variety of state and national union publications and education journals.
More punitive than progressive, NCLB uses a series of penalties to prod underperforming schools receiving federal Title I funds to improve their academic performance. State-mandated standardized testing scores are used to determine a school’s Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). Schools failing to show progress two years in a row are designated Program Improvement (PI) schools, which requires the implementation of a series of curricular reforms developed as the school’s academic plan. Schools failing to show improvement face a variety of punishments like the loss of Title I dollars, a state-takeover, reconstitution, charter conversion, or even total shut down.
Keep in mind this designation only applies to schools that receive federal Title I funds. In other words, schools serving students in upper-middle class and wealthy neighborhoods whose tax base is so strong the per pupil spending is significantly higher than schools in economically depressed neighborhoods will never receive a Program Improvement designation from the federal government for failing to raise test scores. Schools serving the poor, students who speak a language other than English, and historically underrepresented minorities suffer the burdens of NCLB.
In spite of the genuine concerns of NCLB’s most vocal opponents, there are compelling arguments to be made for measuring a school’s performance and holding all stakeholders in a public institution accountable for said institution’s success or failure. At issue now, as congressional leaders begin overhauling NCLB prior to a reauthorization vote, is the degree of equity and fairness used in defining Program Improvement status. Reaching consensus on the equity of that definition—if consensus is ever reached—is as easy a task as determining the correct shade of orange to paint a classroom wall to improve student performance (see this month’s related story, The Revolution is One Orange Wall Away).
NCLB has a ton of flaws, but the greatest exercise in futility comes from the circus taking place in districts across California under the guise of Program Improvement. A team of PI facilitators from the county office of education run training sessions with snazzy Power Points and a packet of data and research-based materials. The meetings begin by focusing on building collaborative teams where participants are led through a series of scientifically-determined team building questions like “what is your favorite childhood memory?” and “what do you like to do in your leisure time?” in order to break down those psychological defenses that keep teachers from working as colleagues to tackle the multifaceted problem of program improvement.
In reality, the team building exercises attempt to lighten the mood so that teachers in underperforming schools can swallow the bitter pill of NCLB curricular reform. The weapons of mass reformation trickle straight down from K Street lobbyists serving the education textbook publishing industry to district offices, school boards, and state legislators with sample copies of materials and volumes of corporate-sponsored research to support the company line that, yes, reading program X will prove that Johnny can read, read so much in fact that he can pass the state’s standardized tests, which just so happen to be manufactured, normed and administered by the same publisher for a significant yearly fee. Once those materials are ordered by a school district or PI designated school, the lucky classroom teacher gets to follow the textbook company’s research-based pacing guide everyday only to realize all those years of college weren’t as important as the two years spent in the corporate food service or retail industries, where she learned to follow the company’s entry-level version of a pacing guide for hourly wage workers: the handbook of customer service procedures.
However, to date only a handful of schools have suffered the most dire consequences of PI. In fact, this is the first year schools in California will reach PI level 5, the most extreme year in the Program Improvement matrix. Why, then, have schools currently in year one of PI suffered the sky is falling whims of site and district administrators?
Turns out the most plausible motive lies in self-preservation, arising from the simple tenets of economic determinism. Schools in the first year of PI must develop and implement an academic improvement plan as well as provide parents the option of moving to a non-program improvement school in the district. Schools in the third year of PI must also provide supplemental services in the form of tutoring, shadow classes, and support classes for targeted student populations. In other words, remediate as many as need remediation.
The ESUHSD, home base of the Unruly Advocate, has three high schools in the first year of program improvement (Independence, Foothill, and Andrew Hill). However, the district has failed to meet district-wide AYP goals four years in a row, which makes East Side a PI district. What are the legal requirements for a PI district? To implement one corrective action from an extensive list. Surprisingly, there is only one “corrective action” that directly impacts teachers: “Institute and fully implement a new curriculum that is based on state academic content standards and provide appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for high-priority pupils.” Translation: enroll students in a canned reading program that earned the state’s approval thanks to a bevy of corporate lobbyists.
If only one corrective action involves teachers, what pray tell are the others? First, replace all the district-level administrators associated with the failure to make AYP. Second, the state takes over the governance of the district from the school board and district-level administrators with a state-appointed trustee or receiver. Third, the district is abolished entirely or completely restructured. Fourth, allow the schools to convert to charter and remove themselves from the district’s jurisdiction.
Not to minimize the threat of a state takeover; the consequences leading the state to step in are dire indeed. It is a great unknown. However, it’s hard to deny the current chicken little mania is partly due to district administrators and school board trustees that fear losing their jobs. School district officials have a compelling interest to not leave their own behind behind. A state takeover will not prevent a teacher from being hired in another school district; the need for teachers is too great. A superintendent whose district was placed in state receivership during his or her tenure is another story. That mark will blemish a resume for quite a while.
Same with the politically aspiring board member. The dark cloud of PI receivership provides ample fodder for a future political opponent looking for mud to sling.
Only a couple of districts in Northern California have been run extensively by the state. Oakland Unified is the district invoked by those who fear the worst in any variety of meetings. “If the state takes us over, we’ll be just like Oakland,” is becoming a common sentiment at PI designated districts around the Bay Area. However, just how bad was Oakland’s situation?
Depends on who’s narrating the story. The teacher’s union lost a lot of power during state administrator Randy Ward’s tenure. Ward gave away the store to some shady characters (see this month’s related story on Issac Haqq and University Prep). Traditional schools lost significant operating revenues because of the takeover. Yet a few of the charter schools are doing well, providing a welcoming environment for students, teachers, and parents. This small point should be a real concern for East Side, given that at least three of its high schools have considered breaking away from the district in the past five years. If the state moved in, Oakland’s history shows schools like Andrew Hill and Evergreen might not have difficulty negotiating charter-like autonomy with the state trustee.
Meanwhile, all eyes are on James Lick High School as it enters the fifth year of Program Improvement, and congress as they debate revisions to NCLB. According to the law, Lick must appoint a school governing board separate from ESUHSD board to oversee its academic programs. Whether this will actually happen is another story. It’s a California dilemma now that 60% of the state’s schools are designated Program Improvement. There aren’t enough state administrators to fill the positions. Perhaps the real revision of NCLB will come from the harsh reality that policy makers have bitten off more than they can chew.
RECENT ISSUES |