Monthly Archives: July 2009

‘Race to the Top’ begins – will it pass California by?

Today President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan officially announced the beginning of the ‘Race to the Top,’ an unprecedented $4.35 billion competitive grant fund that will support educational innovation and renewed focus on rapidly closing the achievement gap. In the announcement, the President said:

This competition will not be based on politics, ideology, or the preferences of a particular interest group. Instead, it will be based on a simple principle—whether a state is ready to do what works. We will use the best data available to determine whether a state can meet a few key benchmarks for reform—and states that outperform the rest will be rewarded with a grant.

And there’s the rub, as far as California is concerned –we don’t stand a very good chance in this competition.  For one thing, there’s the budget crisis, which has severely limited our ability to hold on to the status quo, let alone innovate. For another, there’s the fact that California is among the worst of all the states in tracking and analyzing student academic performance data — one of the reforms that are central to the President’s education agenda. Today’s Los Angeles Times has an article on this topic, in particular our  conscious policy choice not to link student performance with a particular teacher, a decision which Secretary Duncan has reportedly called “mind-boggling” and “ridiculous.” (The Times chose to frame this debate in rather alarmist terms, saying the state would be “threatened with loss of funds” because we continue to debate whether student test scores are the best way to measure teacher effectiveness. But really we are being threatened with missing out on new money if we don’t go along with the Secretary’s enthusiasm for this reform.)

Here in San Francisco, we had been hoping that our local reform agenda and influence in Washington would help us qualify for a taste of the ‘Race to the Top’ funds. But when he visited San Francisco last spring, the Secretary threw a dash of cold water on any expectations that individual school districts in California would be able to convince him to sponsor their reform efforts. He made clear that ‘Race to the Top’ is about state-level reform.

It’s a shame, because encouraging innovation and fostering reform in California could have a tremendous effect on the state and the nation as a whole. The combined size of the California’s 10 largest school districts (San Francisco is the 7th largest) is over 1.3 million students–primarily low-income students of color– and bigger than the total K-12 enrollment of 39  states.  There are good ideas and energy here, and the impatience and frustration is palpable at every education conference and meeting I attend.  Right now, because of the state’s broken system of governance and the budget crisis, education in California can’t catch a break.

More details of the state budget and how it affects SFUSD

Tonight the state legislature is passing a budget, bit by bit, acting on 30 bills detailing spending cuts, fee increases and accounting gimmicks to close the state’s $26.3 billion budget deficit for fiscal 2009-10.   At the moment it’s not clear whether all of the bills will pass with the required two-thirds majority; anything that falls short will force the Big Five to go back to the negotiating table. (At this point I can’t resist sourly pointing out that the legislature has not seen fit to make itself subject to the Brown Act — the open meeting law that our Board and all other legislative bodies in the state must observe. If we tried to do business with a tiny minority of the Board negotiating in secret . . . well, you can imagine the uproar.)

Anyway. I’ve been asking some questions of our staff on the issue of how $2.6 billion in cuts to K-12 education and an additional $1.7 billion in deferrals will affect our district budget. As a very rough yardstick, every billion dollars in unrestricted funding (also called our “revenue limit” funding)  adds up to about $160 per student.  So, the proposed cuts add up to about $430 per student plus an additional $270 per student deferred to later years — in all, an alarming $700 per student. But I’m told that we have been reasonably accurate with our assumptions and so, while cuts of this magnitude are painful and alarming, we have anticipated them and planned accordingly. Also, it’s inside baseball, but because the state did not enact a revised 2008-09 budget before the end of the fiscal year last month, the cuts we were expecting for 2008-09 did not materialize, giving us more cash on paper than anticipated going into 2009-10 and allowing us to absorb more cuts for the current fiscal year. And, it bears mentioning again, we have been bailed out for the second straight year by a share of the City’s rainy day fund.

It also bears repeating that the 2010-11 budget will present much more difficult choices with little or no relief coming from the City.  The outlook continues to be grim for the state, and while we locally have been cushioned from the worst by the foresight of the Rainy Day Fund and the generousity of the voters, that cushion is eroding fast.  It also doesn’t bode well for the future that, in addition to devastating cuts to education, health care and services for the poorest and most vulnerable state residents, the legislature yet again turned to accounting gimmicks like issuing employees’ June 30 paychecks on July 1 so as to kick a chunk of the state payroll into the next fiscal year. That’s what counts as “budgeting” in today’s California.

News of a budget deal

The Sacramento Bee and other news outlets are reporting that the Big Five (the Governor and the Democratic and Republican leaders in the legislature) have at long last reached a budget deal.  The Bee reports:

The proposal includes spending cuts to programs ranging from schools to welfare-to-work to prisons. It takes money from local governments, including borrowing $2 billion that the state will repay starting in 2013.

But Democrats also ensured that California will pay $9.5 billion to education once the state’s economy rebounds as compensation for 2008-09 school cuts. They also avoided suspending Proposition 98, the state’s constitutional guarantee for education funding.

The compromise package is also filled with changes to state government not normally associated with budget deals. It increases sanctions on welfare recipients in an attempt to encourage more people to work. But Democrats said they avoided wholesale cuts in welfare-to-work, Healthy Families and Cal Grant programs.

Don’t be too excited by the promise that schools will get repaid for earlier cuts, but it is always a good thing if lawmakers avoid suspending Prop. 98. Anyway, once the staff gives us a more specific sense of what the final budget means for us in 2009-10, I’ll post it here.

Who’s in charge of education in California?

romero_ppsState Senator Gloria Romero (second from left, at a recent meeting with members of Parents for Public Schools in San Francisco), chair of the Senate Education Committee and its Subcommittee on Educational Governance and Accountability, has announced she will be holding a hearing to consider changes to the roles and duties of the state’s key policymakers – the State Board of Education, the Secretary of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The hearing will feature Ted Mitchell, President of the State Board of Education, who chaired the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence; and Dede Alpert, a former legislator and chair of the joint committee that produced the 2002 California Master Plan for Education.

The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, July 29 in San Diego, but the Senator told me and other parents at a meeting sponsored by Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco recently that she would consider holding an additional hearing in Northern California depending on local interest.

At that meeting, Senator Romero characterized education reform in California as an “archeological dig,” with legislators having to evaluate layers upon layers of policies imposed over the years.

Senator Romero is a candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, a statewide office currently held by Jack O’Connell, in November 2010.

Rebuilding California: From the ground up

Over the weekend I spent two days in Sacramento at the Local Government Summit hosted by the Cities Counties Schools (CCS) Partnership, a consortium of advocacy organizations representing about 8,000 local elected officials from school boards, city councils and county boards of supervisors all over the state.

The idea behind the summit was to gather the clout of all of those elected officials together and try to develop some broad principles for change in California.  There were presentations on various reform efforts, including those being put forward by the Bay Area Council (which is pushing for a constitutional convention) and California Forward (which is proposing a set of discrete legislative proposals/ballot initiatives that would reform the state budget and the way state government works);  an interesting presentation on the mood of the electorate; and breakout sessions for participants to discuss and indicate support or opposition to various proposals and initiatives.

The meeting was energizing, since it is amazing to realize how much power local officials could have in harnessing the discontent that is being voiced by all Californians. Indeed, polls all over the state are showing that voters trust their locally elected officials but are losing more confidence in the legislature and the Governor by the day.  Still, for that power to be realized, all of us local officials would have to speak with one voice, which the meeting also showed could be a tall order.

For example, while participants overwhelmingly supported the idea of “protecting local revenues,” a huge sticking point arises over which revenue sources are local and moreover, what “local” means, since cities, counties and school districts are each discrete entities with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions (luckily we don’t have that issue here in San Francisco, since the city/county/school district boundaries are the same).  In the breakout conversation I attended, city council members from rural and suburban areas sparred over how to divide sales taxes and property taxes, which doesn’t bode well for all of us finding a way to agree.

Anyway, there was broad agreement on the fact that state government is broken, and that the relationship between local entities and the state needs to be overhauled. School district, city and county representatives all voiced the sense that the state has lost its ability to prioritize, and would rather meddle in local affairs rather than pay attention to tougher statewide issues like the budget.

In the straw poll at the end of the two-day meeting, participants voiced the most support for:

  • Protecting local revenues;
  • Reforming term limits;
  • Reducing the 2/3 requirement to pass a tax/bond issue;
  • Requiring legislators to find new funding sources for initiatives that impose new responsibilities on local governments.

In the end, I came away feeling that something good has started, but it remains to be seen where the effort will go and whether it will really enact the change all of us are yearning for. To learn more, download the statement of joint principles and possible reform options created by the CCS Partnership.

Sobering news out of City College

The former Chancellor and two current admininistrators of San Francisco’s City College were charged today with using college funds for illegal political and personal expenses.  It’s always sobering to hear about misuse of public funds, and it makes me want to look deeper into our own mechanisms for overseeing expenses. Having volunteered on a number of SFUSD campaigns, I am certain we have followed the letter and spirit of the law to fundraise for our political campaigns. Still, news like today’s reminds me that anything can happen, and that it’s important to be continually vigilant when overseeing the spending of public monies.

“Cyber High” helps students get back on track

The SF Chronicle has a nice feature on the Cyber High program, which helps struggling students recover or gain credits in order to graduate on time.

Since December, the Internet courses have allowed students to get a do-over for both D’s or F’s by taking the classes on a laptop computer at home or at Galileo through a program administered 200 miles away at the Fresno County Office of Education and Fresno school district.

“It’s made college a possibility for our students that wouldn’t have been able to go,” said Galileo Assistant Principal Nancy Lambert.

In June, 56 percent of the school’s graduating seniors were bound for a four-year college, up from 41 percent the year before.

Lambert said she doesn’t know how much of the increase can be attributed to the online courses, but said she can think of many students who are college bound because of Cyber High.

Perhaps more important, the program offers failing students an alternative to make up credits, giving them renewed hope that they will graduate on time.

“It’s preventing students from dropping out of high school,” Lambert said.

Cyber High is available at all SFUSD high schools, but is used most intensively at the county and continuation high schools. When I visited Civic Center High earlier this spring, I spoke to students who said the online classes they took through Cyber High were intense, but worth the effort.  I think anything we can do to help students get back on track and keep them from dropping out is worth the expense and time.

Expanding access to advanced placement

The New York Times reports on an interesting program in the urban, high-poverty Newark, NJ school district: a summer institute to prepare students for challenging advanced placement (AP) courses. Expanding the access to AP is part of a larger conversation on increasing rigor for all students; at the CUBE Summer Issues forum I attended several weeks ago it was a major topic. The Times reports:

While high-performing suburban schools have long pushed A.P. courses, even struggling districts like Newark are seeking to enroll more students in courses that have virtually become a prerequisite for admission to the most selective colleges and are routinely used to determine rankings of the best public schools. As A.P. has spread to more schools in recent years, a growing number have developed a full menu of support activities, like summer readings and boot camps, to prepare students for the fast-paced curriculum.

In San Francisco we have restructured the honors curriculum in our middle schools to make the honors track available to any student who wants to challenge themselves,  and I supported that move. I do, however, remain troubled that we have two “tracks” at all — shouldn’t we expect rigor for everyone?  Procedures for enrolling in Advanced Placement courses at SFUSD high schools differ according to the course and the high school, but we know that in general, not enough students in San Francisco have access to the rigorous curriculum and expectations AP courses represent.

At the CUBE forum, a member of the Austin, TX school board described her frustration when being told by a teacher that her students could not handle the rigor of AP courses. The board member said that in her view, it was most important for students to get in the habit of taking challenging courses, and that the expectations for students should be uniformly high. The consensus for a smaller breakout discussion after the panel was that taking challenging courses benefits students– even if  they ultimately do not get a passing score on the AP test. In Austin they have seen a significant increase in the number of students taking AP courses since beginning an initiative to expand access several years ago.

Austin’s initiatives have focused on three areas:  “laying the ground” in middle schools to prepare students for rigor in high school; expanding teacher preparation by sending teachers to AP institutes over the summer; and expanding outreach to families through targeted district communications and volunteer “AP coordinators” (usually teachers who are enthusiastic about the program) at high schools and middle schools who act as evangelists for AP courses and support/encourage students to enroll.

Fourth of July in the rose garden

The roses in our jewel-like garden (enter from Fulton & Park Presidio Blvd or JFK Drive just west of the De Young Museum) are at their peak just around the Fourth of July. Magnificent!