CSBA responds to recommendations for Program Improvement districts under NCLB

Lengthy uncertainty over regulatory sanctions to be applied to program improvement school districts under the federal No Child Left Behind Act cleared somewhat this week, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell released recommendations for the state Board of Education to consider at its meeting next month.

Action is needed under the requirements of NCLB because 96 school districts and one county office of education have reached their third year of Program Improvement status after falling short of the federal law’s adequate yearly progress targets. There are wide disparities among the districts on the assistance list. For example, CSBA Immediate Past President Kathy Kinley’s Chaffey Joint Union High School District appears on the list—even though Chaffey has met nearly 90 percent of its targets for adequate yearly progress under NCLB.

“School districts embrace accountability but reject the unrealistic demands of NCLB that set up successful schools to be labeled as failures,” Kinley said. “This situation illustrates why a sensible reauthorization of NCLB is a critical priority for CSBA. The fact is, NCLB will label all schools and districts failures by 2014. It’s not a matter of if a district will fall into corrective action, but when.”

CSBA President Paul H. Chatman agreed and noted that Schwarzenegger and O’Connell acknowledged problems with NCLB’s rigid requirements in their announcement.

“CSBA applauds the governor and superintendent for recognizing, unlike the No Child Left Behind Act, that one size does not fit all when it comes to the subject of improving student achievement. We thank the governor and superintendent for their collaboration, for recognizing that not meeting NCLB requirements does not equate with failure, and for their comments recognizing that the state’s goal should be to help these school districts improve, not punish them.”

Under the proposal unveiled by Schwarzenegger and O’Connell, all local education agencies must fully implement a new standards-aligned curriculum and must revise and implement their LEA plan. Some districts will be required to work with a District Assistance and Intervention Team—a state-approved team of education professionals who conduct needs assessments and make recommendations for district improvement. The proposal calls for DAITs 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 CDE proposal calls for four levels of differentiated technical assistance, designated as follows:

· Other—nine districts and one county office of education would receive resources tied to their LEA plan

· Light—42 districts would be required to implement targeted technical assistance with resources tied to their LEA plan

· Moderate—38 districts would be required to contract with a DAIT from the California Department of Education’s approved provider list in consultation with their COE

· Intensive—The six districts most in need of close attention and support would be assigned a DAIT by the state board. There would be additional monitoring and reporting required and possible additional corrective actions as determined by CDE and SBE. One district—Coachella Valley Unified—will be assigned a trustee under the terms of an earlier agreement with the state.

“We appreciate the joint efforts of the governor and superintendent but remain concerned about the forthcoming details,” said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin. “The effectiveness of the state’s approach with District Assistance and Intervention Teams remains in question. Even if one assumed that all of these districts actually need the type of intervention proposed, which is not an assumption that I would make, the proposed model is not without need of scrutiny.”

School districts will be able to comment on the recommendations at the SBE hearing in Sacramento March 12-13. The state board may decide on alternative sanctions or differentiated technical assistance based upon its determinations at this hearing. SBE postponed earlier consideration of corrective actions regarding PI districts earlier this year and instead held three regional hearings to discuss a course of action with local districts and county offices.

Related link:

More information on the proposed Program Improvement actions is available from CDE @ http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr08/yr08rel23.asp.