Legislative Analyst's Office
 
Sitemap
Return to LAO Home

June 2008

A New System of Support For Low–Performing Schools

California currently operates two systems designed to turn around low–performing schools—one for state purposes and one for federal purposes. The two systems are uncoordinated and often duplicative, in addition to being poorly structured. We recommend replacing the two systems with an integrated system that serves both state and federal purposes. Under the new system, the state would support district reform efforts. Districts would receive different levels of support depending on the severity of their underlying performance problem and be given short–term funding linked to specific short–term district reform activities. By virtue of being integrated and district–centered, the new system would cost substantially less than the existing system and could be supported entirely with federal funding.

Executive Summary

California, like most states, continues to grapple with how to improve schools that are failing to meet performance expectations. It continues to struggle despite widespread participation and substantial investment in its school improvement programs. Currently, over 2,400 schools in California (about one quarter of all schools) participate in school improvement programs. Since 1999, the state and federal government have invested $2.5 billion in these programs. Despite these efforts, more schools in California are deemed in need of improvement today than a decade ago.

The state and federal government has each devised its own school improvement system. They differ in important ways—measuring performance differently, setting different performance expectations, and taking different approaches to supporting low–performing schools. Taken individually, each system has its own inherent flaws. Taken together, the state and federal systems form a labyrinth of duplicative and disconnected program requirements that send mixed messages to teachers, parents, schools, and districts. As listed in the figure below, we think this dual system of school improvement has major problems.

Given the shortcomings of the current systems, many have acknowledged the need for a new system. In an effort to move toward an improved system, the administration presented a budget plan in January 2008 that entails a restructuring of the federal school improvement program. Although the administration’s budget plan contains some promising components, it leaves intact many of the fundamental problems of the existing dual system.

In this report, we provide a comprehensive reform plan that unifies the state and federal systems and attempts to overcome the various problems mentioned above. Compared to the existing school–centered system, the new system would be district centered. It would distinguish among districts based on the magnitude of their performance problems and link short–term funding to specific short–term reform activities. Because of the substantial overlap in participation that now exists among state and federal school improvement programs and the substantial federal funding that California now has available for school improvement efforts, the new system could be supported entirely with federal funds. Indeed, given available federal funds exceed the estimated ongoing cost of the new system, our reform plan includes a companion one–time initiative centered around improving the quality of student data in California.

Eight Major Shortcomings of
Dual School Improvement System

 

✔    Having two sets of performance measures and expectations sends mixed messages to schools.

✔    State decile rankings mask large differences in school performance.

✔    Federal indicators of progress mask large differences in school performance.

✔    School-based approach to reform shown to be ineffective.

✔    School-based approach ignores critical role of districts.

✔    School-based approach is unsustainable.

✔    Having multiple interventions is confusing and can be counterproductive.

✔    Neither state nor federal funds tightly linked to reform.

 

Introduction

For more than a decade, California has been measuring school performance and identifying schools that are not meeting state performance expectations. Since 1999, the state also has funded school improvement programs designed to turn around low–performing schools. Separate from these efforts, the federal government implemented a new school improvement system in 2002 pursuant to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Today, 25 percent of California schools are participating in school improvement programs. A growing number of schools are expected to enter the federal intervention program in the coming years, and many schools already participating will encounter more severe sanctions as they fail to meet increasingly stringent exit criteria. Regrettably, evaluations of state school improvement programs have consistently shown a negligible impact on student achievement.

This report examines the existing state and federal school improvement systems. It contains four sections. The first provides background on the state and federal systems and the second discusses the shortcomings of this existing dual system. We then describe and analyze the Governor’s 2008–09 budget plan, presented in January 2008, to improve part of this system. The last section identifies five principles we believe should guide the development of a new system and then lays out a new model for state intervention as well as an accompanying budget plan for 2008–09.

Background

Currently, California operates two school improvement systems—one for state and one for federal purposes. The systems are based mainly on Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessment results. However, the two systems use different school performance measures and set different performance expectations. They also take two distinct approaches to intervening in schools and districts that fail to meet performance targets. Below, we describe the state and federal systems and then highlight the differences between them.

State System

The state system is based on the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA)—Chapter 3x, Statutes of 1999 (SB 1x, Alpert). The cornerstone of the system is the Academic Performance Index (API), intended to measure a school’s overall academic performance as well as its progress over time. The major features of the state system are: (1) performance measures and expectations; (2) special planning, technical assistance, and support to help low–performing schools; and (3) sanctions (or consequences) for schools that fail to improve after receiving these special support services.

Performance Measures and Expectations

The state relies on two performance measures:

Annual Targets. Schools that have yet to reach the API performance target of 800 are expected to meet an API growth target. A school’s API growth target is equal to 5 percent of the distance between a school’s prior–year API and 800, or a gain of 5 points, whichever is greater. Each significant student subgroup at a school also is expected to meet an API growth target (the distance between the subgroup’s prior–year API and 800, or a gain of 5 points, whichever is greater). A subgroup is significant if it consists of: (1) 100 or more students or (2) at least 50 students making up at least 15 percent of the school’s student population. Subgroups exist for African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Filipino, Latino, Pacific Islander, White (not of Hispanic origin), economically disadvantaged, English learner (EL), and special education students.

Support for Low–Performing Schools

State school improvement programs are voluntary and focus directly at the school site level. The state provides schools that have chosen to participate in these programs with limited–term funding for planning, technical assistance, and support. In exchange, participating schools agree to greater state oversight and the risk of state–imposed sanctions if they fail to meet specified program requirements. Schools that have chosen not to apply or otherwise have been deemed ineligible are not subject to direct state monitoring or sanctions regardless of their performance.

To date, the state has funded three school improvement programs for low–performing schools struggling to meet state performance targets: the Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), the High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP), and the Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA). The II/USP was established as part of the PSAA in 1999. Three years later, HPSGP was established with the intent to replace II/USP. Compared to II/USP, HPSGP gave priority to lower performing schools along with higher funding levels. The state began phasing out II/USP in 2005 (though some II/USP schools remain in some stage of state monitoring or sanctions). An additional state school improvement program, QEIA, was created in 2006. Like HPSGP, it gave priority to lower performing schools but with even higher funding levels. Figure 1 summarizes basic information for these programs, discussed in more detail below.

 

Figure 1

State School Improvement Programs

 

II/USP

 

HPSGP

 

QEIA

Program Components:

 

 

 

 

 

Entrance criteria

Schools in bottom five deciles.

 

Schools in bottom two deciles.

 

Schools in bottom two deciles.

Program requirements

Develop and implement action plan for up to three years.

 

Develop and implement action plan
for up to four years.

 

Implement six specific strategies for seven years.

Exit criteria

Meet annual API growth targets each year.

 

Make at least one point of API growth and meet annual API growth target two out of three years.

 

Exit in seven years if all implementation requirements are met, as well as meet annual API growth target during first three years (on average) and each year thereafter.

 

      II/USP = Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program, HPSGP = High Priority Schools Grant Program, QEIA = Quality Education Investment Act,
API = Academic Performance Index.

Entrance Criteria. Although the three state programs have somewhat different entrance criteria, they all are based on API statewide rankings. As shown in Figure 1, schools in the bottom five deciles were eligible for II/USP, whereas schools in the bottom two deciles are eligible for HPSGP and QEIA. Participation in one state school improvement program (or the federal school improvement program) does not preclude a school from participating in other school improvement programs.

Program Requirements. Schools participating in these programs must implement reform strategies to improve student outcomes. Schools in II/USP and HPSGP develop and implement a local school reform plan with the help of outside technical assistance providers. Schools in QEIA, on the other hand, must implement a uniform set of improvement strategies, including class size reduction, teacher and principal training, and adding counselors to high schools.

Exit Criteria. In general, participating schools that show consistent improvement during implementation exit the program. Figure 1 shows the specific exit requirements for each state school improvement program. Schools in II/USP were required to meet annual API growth targets each year. However, HPSGP and QEIA schools have more latitude in meeting API requirements. In addition, QEIA schools must comply with six specific implementation requirements, as well as four interim requirements, throughout the seven years of the program.

Sanctions for Failing to Improve

Schools that fail to meet exit criteria but make some progress are placed “under watch,” while those who fail to make any progress become “state monitored.” While under watch, schools have no specific requirements, however, their progress is reviewed annually to determine if they should remain under watch, exit, or become state monitored. Under state monitoring, the Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends, and the State Board of Education (SBE) approves, sanctions for failing schools. The most common sanction is requiring schools to contract with a School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT). If schools continue to show no improvement, they may receive more severe sanctions. Only six schools have received further sanctions—three were assigned a trustee with the power to override local governing board actions and three were required to contract with a new SAIT provider at their own expense.

Federal System

In contrast to the state’s school–centered system, the federal system supports and sanctions both schools and districts. The federal system also applies to county offices of education (COEs) that operate special education and alternative education programs. In these cases, COEs are treated the same as districts. (For simplicity, in this section, we generally use the term “district” to apply to both districts and COEs.) The federal system is based on the NCLB Act of 2001. The cornerstone of this system is “adequate yearly progress” (AYP), intended to measure if schools and districts are meeting performance targets for all students. Similar to the state system, the federal system has annual performance targets, planning and support for low performers, and sanctions for those failing to improve.

Performance Measures and Expectations

Schools and districts are required to annually meet AYP, which measures success on four specific indicators, described below:

Counting all school and subgroup measures, the AYP consists of 46 performance targets.

Annual Targets. Schools and districts that have yet to reach all the performance expectations set forth by the state under NCLB are to meet annual AYP targets. The state has established annual AYP targets for the percentage of students required to score at proficient or above on STAR assessments in ELA and math. As shown in Figure 2 (see next page), in 2007–08, 35 percent of students are expected to score proficient or above in ELA for elementary schools. This target will increase by about 11 percent each year until all students are expected to be proficient in 2014. Although not shown in Figure 2, the annual targets for the percent of students required to be proficient in math for elementary schools are very similar, as are the ELA and math targets for high schools. The state also has annual graduation targets (set at 83.1 percent for all schools in 2007–08) that will increase by 0.1 percent annually. However, this requirement also can be met by simply improving high school graduation rates from one year to the next. Similarly, the state has set annual targets for API but allows schools and districts to satisfy the requirement if at least one point of growth on the API is made. The annual API target is set at 620 for all schools in 2007–08 and increases by 30 API points each year.

Federal Performance Expectations Increase Steeply Over Time

Support for Low–Performing Schools and Districts

To date, the federal government has funded two school improvement programs—Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) and Program Improvement (PI). The federal government also requires the state to intervene in districts that fail specific Title III performance expectations for EL students, though it does not have a dedicated funding stream for this purpose. (We discuss Title III requirements in the nearby box.) The CSR provided five cohorts of schools with grants to do comprehensive research–based reform between 1999–00 and 2006–07. The CSR was a school–based program tightly linked to state improvement efforts. In fact, the first two CSR cohorts overlapped with II/USP, while the last two cohorts overlapped with HPSGP.

In contrast to CSR, PI encourages states to focus on district accountability and relies on districts to work with individual schools to implement reforms. In contrast to the state’s voluntary school improvement programs, the federal system mandates all Title I schools and districts to participate in PI if they fail to meet performance expectations. While in PI, schools and districts receive technical assistance and support, along with sanctions if progress is not made. In addition, the federal government recently awarded California a School Improvement Grant (SIG) to help districts intervene in the neediest PI schools.

Entrance Criteria. Under the federal system, schools and districts that fail to meet performance targets for two consecutive years enter PI. Title I schools enter PI after failing to meet the same indicator or any AYP indicator in the same content area for two consecutive years. For example, a school would be identified for PI if it failed to meet its graduation requirement for two consecutive years or its math achievement target in one year and its math participation requirement the next year. In comparison to schools, districts enter PI only if they fail the same indicator or an AYP indicator in the same content area for all grade–spans for two consecutive years. For example, a district would be identified for PI if it failed to meet its graduation requirement for two consecutive years or if it failed to meet its ELA achievement target for EL students for all grade spans in one year and its ELA participation requirement for special education students in all grade spans the next year.

Program Requirements. Figures 3 and 4 show program requirements for schools and districts, respectively. Upon entering PI, both schools and districts must conduct a self–assessment and develop a reform plan with the help of a technical assistance provider. Districts identified for PI receive technical assistance through a regional support system, the Statewide System of School Support (S4), for two years. The S4 also provides support to non–PI districts with PI schools. In turn, districts provide technical assistance and support for PI schools to develop and implement a two–year improvement plan. As part of the reform plan, PI schools and districts must reserve 10 percent of their Title I funds for professional development. Although schools and districts are subject to the same planning requirements, PI schools have two additional requirements. As shown in the top half of Figure 3, students attending a PI school must be given the option to transfer to a higher performing school within the district. Schools entering their second year in PI also must make supplemental services available to low–income students who score below the proficient level on STAR assessments.

Figure 3

Requirements for Schools in Program Improvement

Initial Program Requirements

Year 1: School Choice

✔    Develop a two-year improvement plan.

✔    Use 10 percent of Title I funds for professional development focused on
school improvement.

✔    Provide students with the option to transfer to any other school in the school district and pay the transportation costs.

Year 2: Supplemental Services

Year 1 requirements plus:

✔    Use Title I funds to provide tutoring/after school programs from a
state-approved public or private provider.

Sanctions

Year 3: Corrective Action

Year 1 and 2 requirements, plus district must do one of the following:

✔     Replace staff responsible for school’s performance problems.

✔     Implement new curriculum.

✔     Significantly decrease management authority at school level.

✔     Appoint an external expert to advise school.

✔     Restructure internal organization of school.

Years 4 and 5: Restructuring

Year 1, 2, and 3 requirements, plus restructuring. Restructuring options include:

✔     Reopen school as a charter.

✔     Replace most of the school staff.

✔     Hire private management company to operate school.

✔     Turn the operation over to California Department of Education.

Exit Criteria. To exit PI, both schools and districts must meet all AYP requirements for two consecutive years. This means meeting up to 46 possible performance targets depending on the number of a school’s or district’s significant subgroups. (The same exit criteria apply to districts and schools even though they have different entrance criteria.)

Title III Requirements

Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Act funds supplemental services for English learner (EL) students. As with Title I, federal law requires states to hold districts receiving Title III funds accountable for student achievement. (Title III also applies to direct–funded charter schools, consortia of smaller districts, and county programs. For simplicity, in this box, we use the term “district” to refer to any of these local education agencies.) Below, we describe specific Title III district improvement requirements.

Performance Measures and Expectations. The State Board of Education established the following three Title III performance expectations for districts:

  • EL Students Must Make Annual Progress in Learning English. Each year, an increasing percentage of a district’s EL students must make gains on the California English Language Development Test (CELDT).
  • EL Students Must Attain English Proficiency. Each year, an increasing percentage of a district’s EL students must score proficient on CELDT. (This expectation applies only to (1) the subset of a district’s EL students who were close to achieving English proficiency in the prior year or (2) EL students who have been attending schools in the United States for at least four years.)
  • EL Students Must Meet Adequate Yearly Progress Requirement. Each year, an increasing percentage of a district’s EL subgroup must score proficient or above on the state’s English Language Arts and math assessments. This requirement is the same as the one that applies under Title I.

Requirements for Low–Performing Districts. Unlike Title I, the federal government has not established a separate school improvement program under Title III. States, however, are required to intervene in districts that fail to meet Title III performance expectations. Specifically, a district that fails to meet one or more performance expectations for two consecutive years must design a reform plan that addresses its EL issues. If a district fails to meet performance expectations for four consecutive years, it must revise its reform plan as well as modify its curriculum, program, and method of instruction for EL students.

Funding and Participation. Although the federal government does not explicitly require states to set aside funding for Title III improvement efforts, federal law allows states to use a portion of their Title III grant to support improvement activities. The CDE has set aside $1.8 million in Title III funds in 2007–08 for 11 designated county offices of education to provide technical assistance to struggling districts. Currently, 277 districts (or roughly one–half of districts receiving Title III funds) have failed to meet Title III performance expectations. Almost 100 of these districts have failed to meet performance expectations for four consecutive years.

Sanctions for Failing to Improve

Districts and schools that fail to meet performance targets after being in PI for two years are subject to federal sanctions. Districts enforce school sanctions whereas the state enforces district sanctions.

School–Level Sanctions. Each year that a school fails to make AYP results in additional program requirements. As shown in the bottom half of Figure 3, districts must choose among five corrective actions for schools entering their third year in PI. After four years of being in PI, federal law requires districts to undertake a major restructuring of the school (planning for the restructuring occurs in year 4 and implementing the restructuring occurs in year 5). In addition to the four restructuring options listed in Figure 3, federal law gives districts the flexibility to implement any other major restructuring of the school’s governance (such as reconstituting the school into smaller autonomous learning communities or narrowing the grades served at the school sites).

District–Level Sanctions. As shown in Figure 4, the state must choose one of six corrective actions for districts entering their third year in PI. The state can choose the seventh corrective action only in conjunction with another action.

Figure 4

Requirements for Districts in Program Improvement

Years 1 and 2: Planning

✔    Develop or revise district plan.

✔    Use 10 percent of Title I funds for professional development focused on school improvement.

Year 3: Corrective Action

The State Board of Education must impose one of the following sanctions on a district:

Defer programmatic funds or reduce administrative funds.

✔    Institute a new curriculum.

✔    Replace school district personnel.

✔    Remove schools from jurisdiction of school district and establish other public governance supervision.

✔    Appoint a trustee in place of the superintendent of local school board.

✔    Abolish or restructure the school district.

✔    Authorize students to transfer to other school districts.

Funding and Participation in School Improvement Programs

In this section, we describe how each state and federal program is funded, identify overall investment in these programs, and track program participation over time.

Funding for School Improvement

Funding Allocations for State Programs. State school improvement programs provide fiscal incentives for schools to participate. Figure 5 lists the funding levels for schools in each phase of each state program. Schools that are in multiple programs receive planning and implementation funds from each program. Schools placed under watch can receive an additional year of implementation funding if participating in HPSGP. State–monitored schools all receive the same level of funding for sanctions.

Figure 5

Funding for State School Improvement Programs

 

II/USP

HPSGP

QEIA

Phase of Program:

 

 

First-year
planning/start-up

$50,000

$50,000

Two-thirds of per pupil implementation rates (below)

Implementation

$200 per pupil
for three years

$400 per pupil
for three years

$500 (K-3), $900 (4‑8), $1,000 (9‑12) per pupil for six years

Under watch

—

One additional year
of funding

Unspecified

State monitoring

$75,000 to $100,000
for SAIT, $150 per pupil for three years

Same as II/USP

Same as II/USP

 

      II/USP = Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program, HPSGP = High Priority Schools Grant Program, QEIA = Quality Education Investment Act, SAIT = School Assistance and Intervention Teams.

Funding Allocations for Federal Programs. The NCLB requires states to set aside 4 percent of their Title I grants to support school improvement efforts. Currently, the state provides Title I set–aside funding to PI districts but not directly to PI schools. Specifically, the state provides PI districts with grants of $50,000 plus $10,000 per Title I school. These funds are for districts to develop a reform plan. The state does not provide PI districts with implementation funding. In contrast to PI districts, PI schools must implement program requirements and sanctions using base Title I funding.

State Investment in Interventions. Since 1999–00, California has spent almost $2 billion for state school improvement programs (see Figure 6). The sharp increases in state funding in 2002–03 and 2007–08 are explained by the introduction of HPSGP and QEIA, respectively. For 2008–09, the Governor proposes spending more than $500 million for school improvement—$107 million for HPSGP and $402 million for QEIA.

Federal Investment in Program Improvement. Since 1999–00, the state has spent more than $500 million in federal funds to support school improvement efforts (see Figure 6). In the last few years, however, the state has been unable to spend all its allotted funds. Thus, $18 million in carryover funds will revert to the federal government if unspent by September 2008 and approximately $29 million is in danger of reverting if unspent by September 2009.

Figure 6

State and Federal Investment in School Improvement Programs

(In Millions)

 

Expenditures

 

State

Federal

1999‑00

$21a

$14

2000‑01

57

14

2001‑02

167

23

2002‑03

325

115

2003‑04

319

122

2004‑05

249

148

2005‑06

197

80

2006‑07

219

40

2007‑08

413a

33a

  Totals

$1,967

$589

 

a  Reflects estimated rather than actual expenditures.

Participation in School Improvement Programs

Participation in State Programs. Figure 7 shows participation in each state school improvement program. The state has funded roughly 2,900 school improvement efforts since 1999. Given many schools participate in more than one school improvement program, somewhat fewer school sites have been funded (2,300). This means one in four schools have received funding from two school improvement programs. Approximately 1,000 schools currently participate in a state school improvement program.

Figure 7

Participation in State School
Improvement Programs

Number of Schools as of 2007-08

 

II/USP

HPSGP

QEIA

Phase of Program:

 

 

 

Implementing

—

495

488

Under watch

6

53

—

State monitored

50

61

—

Exited

1,232

549

—

  Total Schoolsa

1,288

1,158b

488

 

a  Reflects every school funded under each program (represents duplicated count).

b  Includes 290 II/USP schools that also received funding from HPSGP but were not subject to HPSGP requirements.

    II/USP = Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program, HPSGP = High Priority Schools Grant Program,
QEIA = Quality Education Investment Act.

Participation in Federal Programs. Since 2002, a total of 2,922 schools and 189 districts have participated in the federal PI program. Currently approximately 2,200 schools and 187 districts are in PI (see Figure 8). Of these PI participants, 1,300 schools and 97 school districts (including one COE) face corrective actions for failing to meet performance targets over several years. The number of schools and districts in PI is expected to grow every year as AYP proficiency targets increase and become more difficult to reach. In 2008–09, an additional 551 schools and 106 districts are at risk of entering PI. The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates that virtually all districts will be in PI by 2013–14.

Figure 8

Participation in
Federal Program Improvement (PI)

As of 2007-08

 

PI Schools

PI Districtsa

Year 1

428

38

Year 2

471

52

Year 3

281

97

Year 4

417

—

Year 5+

592

—

  Totals

2,189

187

 

a  Includes county offices of education (six in year 1, four in year 2,
and one in year 3).

Large Overlap in Participation. Much overlap exists among state and federal program participants. Currently, about two–thirds of HPSGP schools and the vast majority of QEIA schools (86 percent) also participate in federal PI. Approximately one in three PI schools also participate in a state school improvement program. In addition, many schools currently participating in a school improvement program have previously participated in another program. For example, of the schools currently in QEIA, 95 percent have previously participated or are participating in another school improvement program.

Dual System Riddled with Problems

In this section, we discuss several shortcomings with California’s current approach to intervention. As listed in Figure 9, we think California’s dual system suffers from eight major problems.

Figure 9

Eight Major Shortcomings of
Dual School Improvement System

 

✔    Having two sets of performance measures and expectations sends mixed messages to schools.

✔    State decile rankings mask large differences in school performance.

✔    Federal indicators of progress mask large differences in school performance.

✔    School-based approach to reform shown to be ineffective.

✔    School-based approach ignores critical role of districts.

✔    School-based approach is unsustainable.

✔    Having multiple interventions is confusing and can be counterproductive.

✔    Neither state nor federal funds tightly linked to reform.

Having Two Sets of Performance Measures and Expectations Sends Mixed Messages. As a result of California’s dual system, schools have their performance measured using both API and AYP scores. Moreover, these two measures are linked to different sets of expectations. For state purposes, California expects schools and subgroups to reach an API score of 800 and sets annual benchmarks that vary depending on current achievement levels. By contrast, for federal purposes, California expects schools to get students to reach a score of 875 and has set annual benchmarks for the percentage of students required to reach that score regardless of current achievement levels. In 2007, 40 percent of schools met accountability targets under one system but not the other—meaning a considerable percentage of schools demonstrate adequate performance under one system but are deemed failing under the other system.

Decile Rank Masks Large Differences in Performance. The use of decile rank for determining eligibility for state school improvement programs assumes that all low–decile schools are failing to progress quickly enough and need to change their reform approach. Schools with a low–decile rank, however, have highly variable growth patterns. For example, one in ten schools that were ranked in deciles 1 and 2 in 2004, made average annual gains over the subsequent three years of 38 or more API points. In contrast, one in ten schools made virtually no progress over the same period. The use of decile rank alone to determine eligibility for state interventions, therefore, fails to distinguish between those schools that are making significant gains in achievement and those that have demonstrated little or no progress.

AYP Masks Large Differences in Performance. Even more crude than decile rank, the federal performance measure also fails to make important distinctions among schools. By labeling schools as failing if they miss only one performance indicator or all 46 indicators, AYP masks the large variance in student achievement among PI schools. For example, some schools have been identified for PI because they failed to test at least 95 percent of their special education students, whereas others have been chronically failing most of their subgroups on ELA, math, and graduation indicators. The API scores for schools in PI also vary significantly—ranging from 572, well below the states performance expectation, to 820, solidly above the state’s target. In short, AYP does not distinguish between schools that are performing dismally on virtually every count and those that are among the state’s top performers.

School–Based Approach Found Not to Work. Independent evaluations of state school improvement programs show that participating schools generally do not perform better than nonparticipating schools. In the final evaluation of HPSGP (conducted by the American Institutes for Research [AIR] and released in 2007), researchers found no substantial difference in student performance between HPSGP schools and similar non–participating schools. Researchers reached similar conclusions in the final evaluation of II/USP.

School–Based Approach Ignores Critical Role of Districts. One major finding in the evaluations of HPSGP and II/USP was the limited role districts play in state school improvement programs. All of the state’s school improvement programs (II/USP, HPSGP, and QEIA) hold participating schools directly accountable to the state for improving student achievement. However, district leaders make important funding and management decisions that can help or hinder the ability of schools to improve student achievement. For example, districts hire and assign school administrators and teaching staff, negotiate the terms of collective bargaining agreements, and determine how to distribute discretionary resources. Districts also provide critical support, such as selecting curriculum and instructional materials, building/maintaining student assessment systems, and offering professional development. In short, districts control many critical decisions that can affect school improvement efforts.

School–Based Approach Unsustainable. A more practical concern about a school–based approach to intervention is the shear number of schools likely to be targeted for improvement in the near future. Currently, more than 1,000 schools are in some stage of a state school improvement program. In addition, approximately 2,200 schools are in some stage of federal PI, with the number projected to increase significantly over the next several years. The large number of schools being identified for improvement calls into question the state’s capacity to respond directly and provide adequate oversight of school–site improvement activities.

Having Multiple Interventions Is Confusing and Can Be Counterproductive. Another problem with California’s dual system is that it results in multiple types of school improvement efforts that must be implemented simultaneously. As mentioned above, substantial overlap exists among programs, with approximately 70 percent of HPSGP schools, 90 percent of QEIA schools, and one–third of PI schools participating in more than one intervention program. Although all programs have the goal of helping schools improve, each uses different strategies. Thus, schools in multiple programs must comply with multiple sets of rules. These multiple planning requirements, interventions, and exit requirements create a patchwork of conflicting messages for schools. For example, a school could be required simultaneously to implement an HPSGP school reform plan, class–size reduction under QEIA, and a PI restructuring plan. Schools also can exit from one set of interventions only to find themselves entering a new set of interventions under a different program.

Neither State Nor Federal Funds Tightly Linked to Reform. Providing short–term dollars to low–performing schools implies the need for strategic investments in short–term activities likely to have a long–term payoff. For example, funds could be used for activities that help cultivate a reform culture that fosters continual feedback and improvement. The evidence from AIR’s case studies suggests that this kind of strategic approach to reform is not broadly reflected in actual school improvement spending. For example, AIR found that personnel–related expenditures (such as instructional coaches, tutors, and collaborative teacher time) were the most common use of HPSGP funds, followed by textbooks and supplies. Similarly, QEIA’s required improvement strategies are largely personnel related. Compared to short–term targeted reform investments, these types of expenditures are much more reflective of routine ongoing school operations.

The Administration’s Plan for 2008–09

Given the shortcomings of the existing dual system, many in the administration, Legislature, and education community have acknowledged the need for a new system. Intended to move toward an improved system, the administration’s 2008–09 budget plan, presented in January, contains some changes to the state’s existing approach to federal program improvement. Although the plan contains some promising components, it leaves intact many of the fundamental problems of the existing system. Below, we describe the Governor’s 2008–09 plan, pulling together all his state–funded and federally funded school improvement and sanction proposals. At the end of this section, we discuss our concerns with his plan.

Administration Proposes Substantial Increase in Spending

As shown in Figure 10, the administration proposes to spend almost $700 million for school improvement programs in 2008–09. This represents a year–to–year increase of $258 million. Of the state programs, the administration proposes reducing funding for HPSGP while increasing funding for QEIA. In addition, the administration’s proposal contains a major expansion of federal funding for school improvement and sanctions.

Figure 10

Components of Administration’s
School Improvement Expenditure Plana

(Dollars in Millions)

 

 

2007-08
Estimated

2008-09
Proposed

Change

Amount

Percent

State Programs:

 

 

 

 

QEIA

$268.0

$402.0

$134.0

50%

HPSGP

145.2

107.0

-38.2

-26

  Subtotals

($413.2)

($509.0)

($95.8)

(23%)

Federal Programs:

 

 

 

 

Program Improvement

$26.0

$110.0b

$84.0

323%

School Improvement Fund Grant

—

78.1c

78.1

100

  Subtotals

($26.0)

($188.1)

($162.1)

(623%)

     Totals

$439.2

$697.1

$257.9

59%

 

a    Reflects funding for local assistance.

b    Of this amount, $45 million is one-time carryover.

c    Of this amount, $16.6 million is one-time carryover.

     QEIA = Quality Education Investment Act, HPSGP = High Priority Schools Grant Program.

Reduced State Funding for HPSGP. The Governor’s 2008–09 budget includes $107 million (Proposition 98) for HPSGP. This represents a decrease of $38 million, or 26 percent, from the current year. Part of the reduction ($26 million) is due to schools expected to exit HPSGP. The remainder of the reduction ($12 million) is due to the Governor’s proposal to discontinue funding for schools in state monitoring. Given that nearly three–fourths of schools in state monitoring are also in PI, the Governor proposes to eliminate the duplication and serve these schools only through the federal PI program. Thus, funding for HPSGP in 2008–09 would support only the implementation phase of the program.

Increased State Funding for QEIA. The Governor’s budget also includes $402 million (General Fund) to support the K–12 portion of QEIA. The 2008–09 funding level represents a major program expansion—$134 million or 50 percent—at a time when the Governor is proposing across–the–board reductions to virtually all other K–12 programs.

Expansion of Federally Funded Activities. California also is to have $188 million in federal Title I and SIG funding available for school improvement efforts in 2008–09. Of this amount, $127 million is ongoing and $62 million is one–time. Figure 11 shows the administration’s expenditure plan for federal funds. The administration continues funding for a regional network to support school improvement efforts ($10 million) and planning for districts entering PI ($17 million). Consistent with his HPSGP proposal, the Governor also eliminates federal funding for Title I, II/USP schools in state monitoring. In addition, the administration has two new proposals to support program improvement efforts, discussed below.

Figure 11

Administration’s Expenditure Plan for Schools and Districts in PIa

(In Millions)

 

2007‑08
Estimated

2008‑09

 

Proposed

Description

Ongoing Funding:

 

 

 

Districts with PI schools in restructuring

—

$61.5

Competitive grants for districts with PI schools in restructuring (104 districts with 304 PI schools are eligible). Funding rates unspecified.

PI districts in corrective action

—

38.2

Provides funding to 50 districts expected to enter corrective action in 2008‑09. Funding rates unspecified.

Districts entering PI

$10.5

17.0

Provides districts entering PI with $50,000 base grant plus $10,000 per Title I school to revise and implement district plan.