|
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999: Californians Have Achieved the Goals of School Vouchers
Kimberly
M. Brodie We
contend that Californians have found a way to demand accountability in
their schools, while eliminating the radical consequences school vouchers
could have on their public school system (McEwan, 2000). Senator Alpert’s
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 – Intermediate Intervention/Under-performing
Schools Program (II/USP) takes out the “do or die” stealth market competition
feared by opponents of vouchers, and allows time for our public schools
to improve their “product of instruction” and meet community demands. The final caveat that propels Senator Alpert’s initiative to
succeed is that it includes a “last ditch effort” for parents whose children
remain in a failing school. Should
a local school not rise to the level of improvement planned by the community,
parents hold the final right and option to place their child in a school
environment that proves to be successful.
II/USP seems to successfully combine necessary over sight, accountability
and increased funding to improve our schools, while offering parents the
comfort of knowing the best education ultimately is available to all students. Anecdotal information have critics arguing that public
schools have little incentive to improve while districts have an existing
monopoly over the education of our children. By making it easier for parents to choose an alternative for
their child’s schooling, a free market is created in which healthy competition
forces schools to either improve, and meet the market demands, or be washed
up, and essentially put out of business (Greene, 2001). Although basic
economic logic supports the idea that force competition will automatically
force schools to improve their “product of instruction” and better serve
their customers, school choice has been consistently stopped by political
cries that this effort is unconstitutional and will destroy free public
education entirely. Americans can, following California legislation (SB
1552, 2000), improve education and force accountability while not
abandoning our schools, educators and student achievement and require
(through market demands) strong accountability measures in our schools.
Politicians have struggled to achieve these goals while still
calming the concerns of opponents of vouchers. The
California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, provides 430
selected schools in California with an opportunity to participate in
planning and implementation activities for improved student achievement.
This program focuses on the development of an action plan to
improve academic performance of pupils enrolled in a school.
Achievement would be based on test data, graduation and attendance
rates. Schools are ranked by
an Academic Performance index (API) that will eventually consist of
several indicators designed to measure the overall performance of these
430 schools in our state. California
schools with an API index score in the lower 50th percentile
are invited to participate in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (SB 1552, 2000). The
basic goal of this program is to raise student test scores and overall
achievement in California’s “lower performing schools” – thus
matching the goals of the more controversial school choice movement.
The success of this initiative is found in its ability to match the
goals of the voucher movement, without abandoning our public schools
entirely. A
comparative analysis between II/USP and the goals proposed by vouchers is
presented below:
§
The
Strategic Action Plan implemented in these low performing schools is to be
developed by a governing board made up of a diverse group of school-site
and community members. The
majority of the board must be community members, not school-site personnel
(California Department of Education,
2001). This is an
important element to consider, as it forces direct community involvement
in the development and implementation of the Action Plan.
§
Each
school whose Action Plan has been approved by the California Department of
Education, the school will then receive a $50,000 planning grant to cover
the costs of planning and implementation.
The grant is then supported by an additional, per student allowance
of up to $200.00. These extra
funds help to solidify the commitment of the community and staff to
improve their local school and help it meet performance standards
(California Department of Education, 2001)
§
Schools
that do not show improvement after two years may be taken over by the
Superintendent of Public instruction, which then may designate new
management (SB 1552, 2000). §
If
a school fails to meet the annual growth target rate developed by the
Strategic Action Plan the school may no longer be eligible to receive
funding, staff may be relocated, and the school may be closed (SB 1552,
2000). §
If
the school is closed, revision of attendance options for pupils will be
considered (SB 1552, 2000). Students
will be allowed to attend any public school in which space is available.
This last option in a sense creates a modified voucher system in
California- wherein parents have the ultimate right to choose another more
successful public school outside their immediate district, leaving no
parent forced to send their child to a continuously failing school. The
relative newness of the Immediate Intervention/Under-performing Schools
Program makes it difficult to analyze its success or failure rate at this
time. There is no doubt
however, that the aim of II/USP is most certainly a step in the right
direction. This program could
provide parental and community involvement, choice, and a voice in public
education forcing public schools to drop failing, bureaucratic methods of
instruction and improve their product to better serve all clients, their
students, successfully. References California
Department of Education. (2001). Frequently
Asked Questions: II/USP and CSRD. (On-Line)
Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 15, 2001. http://cde.ca.gov/iiusp/faq.html Greene,
J.P. (2001). An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and
School Choice Program. Florida State University, Center for Civic Innovation. (On-Line) Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 17, 2001. http://www.nmanhattan-institute.org/html/cr_aplus.htm McEwan,
P. (2000). The Potential Impact of Large-Scale Voucher Programs. Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 70, 103-149 SB
1552- Chaptered (2000). (On-Line) Retrieved from the World Wide Web on March 15, 2001.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00 |