Swift & Change Able

Medicine, sweeteners, storm clouds, and silver linings in California. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that:

“Officials from California school districts labeled as failing [sic] under the federal No Child Left Behind Act had their first chance Tuesday to weigh in on the state’s new intervention plan.”

Ninety-eight districts will have to follow state-prescribed plans for improvement because they have fallen short of their annual growth targets for student achievement for the past six consecutive years.

Actually, the federal law doesn’t label these districts as failing. It labels them as in need of “corrective action” or “restructuring.” See below.*

The SFC goes on to quote State Board member Ted Mitchell:

“These 98 districts are where they are for 98 different reasons, and it would be inappropriate for the state to have a one-size-fits-all approach. Today reinforced that,” Mitchell said following Tuesday’s hearing.

Actually, the federal law allows the state wide flexibility in what it chooses to prescribe. Some options are fairly mild and are supportive of educators rather than punitive (e.g., providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff). See the excerpt from the statute below.* Notice that the state only has to take one of these actions.

The Chronicle, citing the tough budget climate in California, ends on a sweet note:

“But there is a silver lining for districts facing sanctions under No Child Left Behind — $29 million in federal funding to help them make changes.”

For the entire Chronicle piece, click: here:

====================================================
* The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

As reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Title I

1116 c 10

“The State educational agency shall take at least one of the following corrective actions:

(i) Deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds.

(ii) Instituting and fully implementing a new curriculum that is based on State and local academic content and achievement standards, including providing appropriate professional development based on scientifically based research for all relevant staff, that offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students.

(iii) Replacing the local educational agency personnel who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress.

(iv) Removing particular schools from the jurisdiction of the local educational agency and establishing alternative arrangements for public governance and supervision of such schools.

(v) Appointing, through the State educational agency, a receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the local educational agency in place of the superintendent and school board.

(vi) Abolishing or restructuring the local educational agency.

(vii) Authorizing students to transfer from a school operated by the local educational agency to a higher–performing public school operated by another local educational agency in accordance with subsections (b)(1)(E) and (F), and providing to such students transportation (or the costs of transportation) to such schools consistent with subsection (b)(9), in conjunction with carrying out not less than one additional action described under this subparagraph.”