SACRAMENTO, CA - Under Gov. Gray Davis’s school accountability program, enacted in 1999, low-performing schools were to be subject to a series of tough sanctions. It turns out, however, that not only are those sanctions paper tigers, but state lawmakers are in the process of ensuring that many low-performing schools face no sanctions for many years to come.

Under the current accountability program, low-performing schools may voluntarily apply for the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP). If selected, a school would receive both a state grant to develop an improvement plan and increased per-pupil funding. However, since the program is voluntary and has limited space, in 2000-01, of the 938 eligible low-performing schools, only 532 schools applied for 430 slots.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has criticized II/USP’s selection criteria saying that not only are some of the worst ranked schools in the state not compelled to apply for the program, it is quite possible for merely sub-par schools to be chosen over truly horrendous schools. Worse, the LAO notes that the lowest performing school in the state could be ineligible for the program if it makes the tiny incremental improvement in test scores required by the state.

If chosen for II/USP, schools have two years to meet their state-determined test-score growth targets. If they don’t, the state superintendent has the option to impose an array of sanctions on schools, including state takeover, reassignment of principals, turning schools into charter schools, renegotiating new collective bargaining agreements, or closing down schools. Although seemingly severe, it is up to the discretion of the elected state superintendent to implement one or several of these sanctions. Politics would clearly play a part in any sanctions decision. For instance, given that recent state superintendents have received large campaign contributions from the teacher unions, is it realistic to expect that same superintendent renegotiating a collective bargaining agreement to institute, for example, merit pay for teachers? Absolutely not.

Lawmakers, though, are about to make the already ineffective sanctions regime worse. Under a bill that is making its way through the California legislature, and which will likely land on the governor’s desk, another state funding program will be layered on top of II/USP. Under the proposed program, low-performing schools would be given more grant money to raise student performance. However, instead of being subject to independent external evaluation, as is the case currently under II/USP, the new program allows districts to evaluate their own schools. Can you say, “fox guarding the henhouse?”

Further, the timeline for improvement is so drawn out that it may take five years for sanctions to be imposed under the new program. State Senator Charles Poochigian (R-Fresno) criticized giving low-performing schools more time to meet very minimal growth targets saying that such an action “relaxes the stick” that can encourage schools to work harder to improve. Also, according to one legislative analyst, the proposed bill may actually give the state Board of Education the power to waive sanctions indefinitely.

In Sacramento, there is fear of getting tough on poorly-performing schools when they fail to improve and fear of the teachers unions and other special interests. Lawmakers should also fear voters fed up with paying for a system that’s long on expense but short on accountability.

--Lance T. Izumi