THOUGHTS ON SUSPENSION AND OTHER TRICKS

When I originally posted the quote below I didn't include the paragraph you're reading now and didn't mention that Superintendent Richard Carranza was the speaker of the quote which is an excerpt from his introductory speech at the Administrator's Institute from last June.  I wanted to see how people would react.  Replacing the word "superintendent" on a couple of occasions  to hide the identity of the speaker, I sought to demonstrate how people process the views, opinions and attitudes of others based on their political affiliations or preconceived notions. Some people naturally assumed I wrote it and derided me for it.  What is clear is this: Superintendent Carranza  expressed opposition to a suspension ban on the principle that it's disrespectful to his administrators. Nonetheless, he was supportive of the Board's decision to impose a ban. What do you think this says about the  Superintendent?  Is it fair to say the Superintendent had an understandable change of heart? Is this a case of pure hypocrisy or is it something else?  I'm curious to hear what you have to say. I my opinion I can appreciate a change of mind or heart. I cannot appreciate a change of heart about  what is respectful. This has more to do with character and morals and is not situational.

"I've been a teacher. I know what these kids are like. I wanted to smack one or two up side the head. Absolutely. I get it. But I'm the adult. If I'm putting that kid out of school am I contributing to that kid's prison life time? I don't know. I'm struggling with this. As your Superintendent, as an educator, as your educating buddy,  I'm struggling with this because, right now, I know that I could just say, "administrators, there will be zero suspensions for willful defiance for the rest of this school year." How do you think that would feel? Five urban superintendents have done that....But because I've been a teacher, because I've been a principal, you know what? It's so disrespectful in my humble opinion."

SFUSD WANDERS OFF COURSE (WAY OFF)

Today the Vergara trial began but an ultimate outcome may be years away after the appeals process. The case is an important milestone in the quest to reform the teaching profession and to develop teacher quality equity between schools, something that would have an outsize and positive impact on the least successful students.

While we await and hope for an outcome in favor of  a long-overdue change to the way we evaluate, hire and fire teachers, we should take a look at the general policy initiatives of this school district because statutory employment reform is not a cure-all for what ails public education here or anywhere.

SFUSD has defined itself by promoting three goals - diversity, access and equity.  In fact, the SFUSD policy literature always begins with a rededication to these goals. But these three policy goals  remain unfulfilled and few ever ask the question as to why success has eluded the District, especially given the widespread support of the Board and the community.

There's little doubt that SFUSD  remains largely undiversified relative to the demographic diversity of the individual neighborhoods. This disconnect is widely acknowledged by SFUSD itself and, therefore, is not a matter of debate. As for the other two goals, access and equity, they remain alarmingly elusive due to SFUSD's own policies which promote lowered access and inequity. 

Every school will have a unique character reflecting not only the community served but the culture of the staff and the district. But there should be uniformity as well if access and equity are goals. If Central Office policies intend to promote access and equity, differences in the school programs and services should be minimized such that families can reasonably expect to get the same or very similar opportunities both in quantity and quality from one school to another. But we know that isn't the case. SFUSD has spent years creating a school district with widely disparate offerings  - schools with honors or music or foreign language programs and schools without them. Schools from K to 8. Schools from K to 5. Schools with after school sports and schools without them. Schools with a range of co-curricular activities and clubs and schools with few. Alternative schools, bilingual schools, small schools, magnet schools, academic merit schools, art schools, schools with counselors, schools with parent liaisons, school with computer labs... And now they complain about equity?

For some, particularly those who attend their preferred schools, these differences are considered a strength of SFUSD, but from an equity point of view it is hard to make a case that such fundamental differences between schools are consistent with that goal. The prevalence of school options increases choice, to be sure, but choice is only partially defined by the number of offerings. More importantly, it is defined  by the  ability to access those offerings, for what good is choice if you can't get any?

SFUSD has a long standing problem of applicant oversubscription and that inability for families to receive school placement choices has fueled the long-term exodus from San Francisco and/or its public schools. (By the way, few applicants are really satisfied with their third  or fourth choice let alone their tenth, making suspect SFUSD's optimistic measure of placement success.)

All this constitutes the backdrop by which to analyze and evaluate this district in its ability to "make diversity,  access and equity a reality" (their words, not mine). Just as schools must evaluate teacher effectiveness for the betterment of student achievement so the public must evaluate district effectiveness for the sake of the same.

But any way you cut it, SFUSD fails dismally to achieve the three goals, and that is so because its policies are contradictory to those very same goals. You can't create diversity through the artifices of lottery-based student assignment, a point which I believe has been demonstrated repeatedly with one failed SAS followed by another. We've seen years of diversity-inspired assignment systems and SFUSD remains undiversified in relative terms.

And equity and access will never see the light of day as long as resourced families are allowed leave their neighborhoods for higher demand schools. If the District wants access and equity it has to provide it at each and every school.  It has to make the offerings universal, not a hodge-podge with widely varying opportunities.  The model of moving the pieces around the chess board has not resulted in higher overall student achievement. It has resulted in the opposite - greater disparity in student achievement. Modern day public schools need the resources of the communities and that means moving to a neighborhood-centric model where people come together in public-private partnerships.

SFUSD  has failed to realize diversity, access and equity for one simple reason: it has strayed from the practical and historical mission of public education which is to raise student achievement. This is achieved through universal school attributes - quality teaching and instructional practices, relevant, engaging curriculum, as well as a full range of enrichment classes and other programmatic offerings and services. That is to say, it shouldn't matter where one attends school in order to receive a high quality education. 

It isn't lost on me that the elected  Board members and their administrators rarely speak of achievement  but speak incessantly of diversity, access and equity - platitudes that are little more than political props short of clear policies to promote them.  To this day the stated goal of the SAS is to promote diversity even though it is doing just the opposite. The leadership tells us lack of educational opportunity is the greatest civil rights issue of our time. If it is why  do they make every school different from one another and then proclaim lack of access and equity? Why do they keep blaming the middle class for lack of diversity when they can't get low income applicants to use the CTIP preference? Why one failed assignment system after another?

Our elected representatives on the Board and their administration have not come out publicly in favor of Vergara V. California , despite having done the right thing in imposing some restrictions on lay-offs at-hard-to- staff schools. As the largest inequity of all - the lack of effective teachers at underperforming schools, a true civil rights issue, the Board needs to go much further to fundamentality change seniority and LIFO to bring about the changes implicit in access and equity. The mighty axe of the union stands high in the air and ready to strike down the tenure of any Board members who take any union opposition too far.

 

 

 

HIGH QUALITY TEACHER'S ACT of 2014

Currently the State Attorney is reviewing an initiative for the November ballot, the High Quality Teacher's Act of 2014. It was submitted by Matt Davis and appears that Students First is the sponsor. I have copied portions of the submittal below. With the Vergara case to start this month, there now appears to a second front in an all out assault on teacher tenure and LIFO.

Let me know what you think about this.

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the High Quality Teachers Act of

2014.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations.

The People of the State of California find and declare as follows:

(a) All California children deserve access to a high quality education.

 

(b) A high quality education begins with making sure our children have a high

quality teacher in every classroom. Students of high quality teachers are more likely to

go to college, earn higher salaries, and have lower rates of teen pregnancies. However,

California currently ranks near the bottom among states when it comes to identifying,

retaining, and promoting high quality teachers.

 

(c) For too long, California has gone backwards when it comes to providing a

high quality education to our children-the state's dropout rate is one ofthe highest in

the country, our K-12 schools badly underperform in terms of student achievement, and

California's low-income and minority children are disproportionately impacted by the

decline in California's public education system.

 

(d) Today, there are plenty of high quality teachers available, but local school

districts are not able to make sure all of our children have access to a high quality

teacher because local districts are currently forced to retain teachers based on how long

they have been on the job rather than based on whether or not a teacher is doing a good

job of teaching in the classroom.

 

(e) California is just one of eleven states that bases teacher layoff and

reappointment decisions primarily on how long someone has been teaching, which led

to a finding by the nonpartisan, independent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) that

such a system can lead to a "lower quality of the overall teacher workforce." (LAO, "A

Review of the Teacher Layoff Process in California,"Mar. 2012, p. 17.) California needs

[1]

to follow the lead of states like Massachusetts, Florida, Tennessee, and several others

and put in place a system which identifies and retains teachers based mainly on an

objective, comprehensive, and fair review of whether the teacher is doing a good job of

teaching children in the classroom.

 

(f) Teachers are more than just educators. They are role models that children

look to for examples of civic and moral standards. At six to eight hours a day, five days

per week, a teacher is poised to become the most influential person in a child's life after

his or her parents. Much of what a high quality teacher "teaches" is not detailed on a

syllabus. As positive role models, high quality teachers also set good examples inside

and outside the classroom of how young people should strive to be law-abiding

individuals and develop good character, integrity, responsibility, respect for others,

honesty, and trustworthiness. As future leaders of our communities, our state, and our

nation, it is imperative that our children have role models who conduct themselves

appropriately both inside and outside the classroom. It is a self-evident truth that

teachers convicted of violent, serious, or sexual crimes cannot be high quality teachers

because they have fundamentally and irrevocably failed in their duty to act as good role

models for our children and therefore must be immediately and permanently dismissed.

 

(g) A safe learning environment is guaranteed by our State Constitution, which

declares that every person, including our children, has a constitutional right to be safe

and secure in our public and private schools. (California Constitution, article I, section

28(a)(7).) Teachers convicted of a violent, serious, or sexual crime cannot be high

quality teachers because they undermine our children's constitutional right to a safe

learning environment. A teacher who threatens the constitutional rights of our children,

or who creates an environment where parents reasonably worry about the criminal

background of their child's teacher, does not possess the character and trustworthiness

necessary to qualify as a high quality teacher.

 

Section 3· Statement of Purpose.

The purpose of this measure is to provide every child in California with a high

quality teacher so that they can reach their full potential regardless of economic or

ethnic background.

 

•.

Section 4· Section 44955 of the Education Code is amended to read:

44955. (a) No permanent employee shall be deprived of his or her position for

causes other than those specified in Sections 44907 and 44923 and Article 3.1, and

Sections 44932 to 44947, inclusive, and no probationary employee shall be deprived of

his or her position for cause other than as specified in Article 3.1 and Sections 44948 to

44949, inclusive.

 

(b )[Jl Whenever in any school year the average daily attendance in all of the

schools of a district for the first six months in which school is in session shall have

declined below the corresponding period of either of the previous two school years,

whenever the governing board determines that attendance in a district will decline in

the following year as a result of the termination of an interdistrict tuition agreement as

defined in Section 46304, whenever a particular kind of service is to be reduced or

discontinued not later than the beginning of the following school year, or whenever the

amendment of state law requires the modification of curriculum, and when in the

opinion of the governing board of the district it shall have become necessary by reason

of any of these conditions to decrease the number of permanent employees in the

district, the governing board may terminate the services of not more than a

corresponding percentage of the certificated employees ofthe district, permanent as

well as probationary, at the close of the school year. Except as othenvise provided by

statute, the seFViees of no permanent employee may be terminated under the provisions

of this section ..... hile any probationary employee, or any other employee vvith less

seniority, is retained to render a service 'Nhieh said permanent employee is certificated

and competent to render.

(gl In computing a decline in average daily attendance for purposes of this

section for a newly formed or reorganized school district, each school of the district shall

be deemed to have been a school of the newly formed or reorganized district for both of

the two previous school years.

As be'h\'een employees who first rendered paid service to the district on the same date,

the governing board shall determine the order of termination solely on the basis of

needs of the district and the students thereof. Upon the request of any employee TNhose

[3]

order of termination is so determined, the governing board shall furnish in VtTiting no

later than five days prior to the commencement of the hearing held in accordance vvith

Section 44949, a statement of the specific criteria used in determining the order of

termination and the application of the criteria in ranking each employee relative to the

other employees in the group. This requirement that the go~;erning board provide, on

request, a "V\'Fitten statement of reasons for determining the order of termination shall

not be interpreted to give affected employees any legal right or interest that vvould not

exist vmhout such a requirement.

(3)(A) liVhen terminating the services of a certificated employee or employees .

pursuant to paragraph (1) who are assigned to positions as classroom teachers, the

order in which certificated employees shall be terminated shall be based on

performance.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, performance shall be iudgedprimarily

upon the evaluation and assessment of each certificated employee conducted pursuant

to Article 11 (Section 44660 to Section 44665) of Chapter 3 ofthis Part. Performance

evaluation and assessment ratings shall be averaged based on the three most recent

years ofperformance evaluation and assessment data. In the event that three years of

performance evaluation and assessment data does not exist for an employee, the

performance evaluation and assessment rating shall be averaged based on the two

most recent years ofperformance evaluation and assessment data. In the event that

two years ofperformance evaluation and assessment data does not exist for an

employee, the performance evaluation and assessment rating shall be based on the

most recent performance evaluation and assessment data.

(C) Under no circumstances shall a certificated employee with a higher

performance evaluation and assessment rating be terminated before a certificated

employee with a lower performance evaluation and assessment rating.

(D)(i) liVhen two or more certificated employees assigned to positions as

classroom teachers receive identical performance evaluation and assessment rating

scores pursuant to Article 11 (Section 44660 to Section 44665) of Chapter 3 oft his Part,

then the order of termination shall be based on the specific needs of the schools within

the school district and the students thereat 'When required to choose pursuant to this

clause between two or more employees receiving identical performance evaluation

and assessment rating scores, the governing board shall identify the specific needs of

the schools within the school district or the students thereofthat justify the order of

termination. which shall be provided in writing to the affected employees.

(ii) 'When two or more certificated employees assigned to positions as classroom

teachers receive identical performance evaluation and assessment rating scores

pursuant to Article 11 (Section 44660 to Section 4466.1:\) of Chapter 3 of this Part and

are not distinguishable on the basis of the specific needs of the schools within the school

district or the students thereof. then the order of termination shall be based on

seniority, with an employee with less seniority being terminated before an employee

with more seniority. 'When required to choose pursuant to this clause between two or

more employees receiving identical performance evaluation and assessment rating

scores on the basis of seniority, the governing board shall provide an explanation of

why the employees were not distinguishable on the basis of the specific needs ofthe

schools within the school district or the students thereof. which shall be provided in

writing to the affected employees. The governing board shall develop guidelines to

govern situations involving employees who first rendered paid service to the district

on the same date and thus have equal seniority.

(iii) The use of seniority pursuant to this subparagraph shall represent the sole

and exclusive exception to subdivision (d).

(c)(1l Notice of such termination of services shall be given before the 15th of May

in the manner prescribed in Section 44949, and services of such employees shall be

terminated in the inverse of the order in which they vvere employed, as determined by

the board in accordance vmh the prm'isions of Sections 44844 and 44845. In the event

that a permanent or probationary employee is not given the notices and a right to a

hearing as provided for in Section 44949, he or she shall be deemed reemployed for the

ensuing school year.

[gl The governing board shall make assignments and reassignments in such a

manner that employees shall be retained to render any service which their seniority and

[sJ

qualifications entitle them to render. However, prior to assigning or reassigning any

certificated employee to teach a subject which he or she has not previously taught, and

for which he or she does not have a teaching credential or which is not within the

employee's major area of postsecondary study or the equivalent thereof, the governing

board shall require the employee to pass a subject matter competency test in the

appropriate subject.

TEN SCHOOL REFORMS

A belated Christmas wish list.

1.  Dismiss all teachers by the end of the school year who have a documented record of failure should Vergara succeed in striking down the teacher protection statutes. SFUSD  decides whether it will be the protector of failing teachers or the protector of successful students.

2. Apply the cost savings from differential of dismissed employee salaries and new hires to further increase the base salaries for old and new teachers in hard-to-staff schools.  Salaries increases do not carry over if teachers move to other non-qualifying schools.

3. Increase neighborhood residence to highest preference after siblings for elementary, middle and high school. Remove CTIP classification and give 3rd preference to student applicants with lowest quintile MAPP scores.  Elementary classification to be based on socio-economic class using tax records.

4.  Sell a portion of surplus real estate and rebuild schools where infrastructure is lacking using SFUSD surplus real estate grand jury recommendations.

5. Establish per pupil minimum based upon general revenue funding  not specifically allocated  for categorical purposes. Hard-to-staff schools excepted for the purpose of base salary increases.  Remove favoritism in school site funding to assure that all students receive equal treatment under law. Abolish Superintendent Zones.

6. Restructure and enlarge Board of Education to elect district representatives on the same model as the Supervisors. Establish a two- term limit. Limit union influence on Board elections and give neighborhoods representation.

7. Increase school day by one hour for four days a week and implement homework period during regular school day, K-3 excepted. Shorten summer break by 5 weeks and expand quarter and semester breaks by 3 weeks. Funding to be applied from LCFF increases. Teachers to work one hour longer daily and school year to increase by 2 weeks to bring annual works hours closer to industry standards and to increase student achievement. Teachers will still work considerably fewer days than other state employees and far fewer than in private industry.

8. Increase annual instructional hours by removing the two winter and spring finals-only weeks in high school, with the exception of senior year to prepare for college.

9. Abolish teacher tenure. All teacher pay increases based upon merit and COLA.

10. Abolish social advancement. Establish multi-level remedial classes for students with failing grades to be paid for with supplemental and concentration LCFF grants. 

STUDENTS FIRST PROP H PROPONENTS VINDICATED BY PROGRESSIVE MATT HANEY

In Sunday's Examiner article, "School placements akin to college admission", writer Joel Engardio makes a strong case for the failure of the latest school assignment system. In response to Stanford's Center for Education Policy Analysis, which cited data demonstrating a propensity for families to self-select same race schools, Board of Ed Commissioner Matt Haney is quoted saying, "It shook me a bit. People are picking schools that look like them when their neighborhood school would actually be more diversified if everyone just went there."

I wasn't shaken by this revelation. It's obvious. This is what  our group, Students First, the creators of Prop H, had been saying all along - that neighborhood schooling would increase diversity throughout the district because of the uniquely diverse nature of a majority of neighborhoods.

Haney went on to say, "Some people say that what we have now is the best bad option. But I don't think we should just throw  parents to 'The Hunger Games' and say 'good luck'. If the system isn't working for people, we need to address that." Engardio elaborated on Haney's comment that parents face " a classic prisoner's dilemma", saying, "if ten families live on the same block, they could work together to improve a struggling neighborhood school. But if five families win the lottery for a top school elsewhere, five are left with less incentive to commit to the local school. They could opt for private education or leave The City."

And they do.  All the money spent, human resources, community meetings, Board meetings, committee meetings and testimony by experts that went into creating the assignment system is negated by the simple facts that we have more students in private schools and the fewest families percentage-wise of any American city. If Haney sees the high rate of African American suspensions (see last post) as problematic, he should be livid that America's most progressive city has a school policy which drives people away from public education and out of The City itself.

Haney said it all with this comment: "I was willing to excuse some of the anger, the frustration, families leaving San Francisco - because our crazy system had a bigger goal of better outcomes. Now I question if it is all worth it. If the system isn't accomplishing its goals, then what's the point?"

Exactly. Thank you, Matt, and please read my earlier post,"SFUSD Manipulating Assignment Data" to see how your administration has been manipulating data to hide the failure of its assignment system.

NEW BOE RESOLUTION TO LIMIT SUSPENSIONS FOR WILLFUL DEFIANCE

I have wanted to write my next post on the Local Control Funding Formula, but I've decided to delay that post to discuss a new Board resolution to do away with suspensions for willful defiance that Matt Haney will propose as a first reading this coming Tuesday, Dec 10th.

Right off the bat let me say that I don't support this resolution because, first of all, it is central office meddling in school site affairs. It was the Board that mandated Restorative Practices in all schools and if it is constructive in resolving conflict why the need for a limit on suspensions? In addition, it is also creating an inequity to the extent that   it's more difficult for schools with fewer intervention resources to effectively moderate student behaviors compared to  schools in the Superintendent Zones which have more counseling and other intervention resources. The District should respect the school staff to do what's right, a point that Richard Carranza made just this last summer at the Administrator's Institute, though I suspect he probably supports this resolution anyway. 

I acknowledge that the high number of suspensions of African American students is a problem, but it is also as an embarrassment to a politically far-left District that views everything through the prism of statistical equity.   No doubt, suspending students who, often times, end up on the streets is a lousy outcome. I think we can all agree that suspensions ought to be a last resort to protect teachers, students and  classrooms as a whole from frequent or extreme disruptions to instructional time and quality and the District is rightfully obligated to assure suspension protocols aren't abused, though this resolution is something quite different. It is building a high bar for suspensions, but does nothing to increase services required to implement that bar.

I believe there are genuine cultural issues which make some unwanted behaviors understandable in context of the difficult circumstances some students face. In response, some critics of the suspension limit would say that  the necessary self-discipline and structure necessary to  to succeed in high school and successfully enter the working force or attend college requires a clear code of behavior. Others point out that suspensions as a behavioral tool aren't generally successful for inculcating discipline anyway. They say a school system cannot mandate behavior since education is a right in California and, therefore, the "system" must learn how to engage students such that they enjoy to be in school - a commendable if tall order for sure.   In fact, as tall orders go , this one is often ridiculous since some of the students who are habitually suspended are incorrigible.  

Proponents of the resolution cite statistics that show African American suspension rates at approximately five times the district norm.  They maintain that this number reflects a racial bias and that removing willful suspensions will rectify what is essentially a racist policy.  I believe, though I'm not sure, that those proponents, at least the less ideological ones who dig deeper than a politically-favorable statistical correlation to use as a truncheon, believe that the cultural component of behavior is critical in understanding what they consider to be a soft racism in high African American suspension rates. I cannot discount this idea as invalid, though it is a rationale not a solution for destructive behavior in class and as such it fails to advance students towards the  skills and attitudes necessary to compete in a society that has fundamentally different cultural requirements for mainstream employment and upward mobility. For example, sagging in the black community is an acceptable dress code, but few employers will hire anyone who doesn't comport with their standards of appropriate dress and sagging isn't one of them.  The schools ought to promote standards that help not hinder student transition to adult life, whether that has to do with school dress code or, more importantly, the way students act and react to others when under stress. We can respect each other's differences and at the same time require a universal code of conduct. No school administrator anywhere in the world will tell you that a school can be run without a code of conduct or that conduct can be controlled without enforcement.

School isn't only about learning the core curriculum. It's about learning to get along and go along. Disruptive and defiant students should not be allowed to remain in the classroom regardless of the reason why they can't or won't change their behavior. Administrators need to be given the discretion and have the confidence of their superiors to do what is appropriate for the benefit of their schools, even if it means suspending students for willful defiance.  If District officials want site administrators to refrain from suspending students that's OK in certain less egregious circumstances as long as they don't insist that defiant students be placed in the regular classroom. Provide an in-school alternative to suspension and provide the services these students need. This resolution  speaks to the arrogance of the Board in lording over the more experienced site administrators. Mandating a suspension protocol without providing the tools necessary is irresponsible and pointless.

If Restorative Practices are beneficial for moderating conduct, why does SFUSD need to make it more difficult to suspend students when site administrators deem it appropriate? We have to ask ourselves whether our leaders are interested in preserving the integrity of the school as an institution of learning or whether the leaders just want to do what is politically correct and equalize suspension statistics? Or is it all just about getting the maximum ADA. One way or another, if suspensions are to be used only after a long list of other interventions have been exhausted, SFUSD will have to provide the financing necessary to implement those supports or their resolution will surely fail when administrators find themselves at their wit's .end to comply with another central office mandate.

.

SFUSD LYING ABOUT SUCCESS OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

SFUSD has been hyping the success of SIG since the program ended in 2012-2013, last school year.  To be sure I was skeptical about this $45M grant from the get-go - what I considered to be an absolutely obscene amount of money to throw at nine schools over a 3-year period, especially with so little preparation time. That amount of money is more than the annual budgets of over 30 elementary schools combined. After having spent considerable time researching SIG during the first two years of the program,I commented repeatedly  on another blog, the SF K Files, about the waste, fraud and abuse that I discovered.  So, while I acknowledge I am not the most objective observer to comment on this $45M program, I also did a lot of homework on the subject.  I put this caveat up front so readers can review these results with that in mind. Of course, I believe that any bias I may have is not reflected in the numerical results or comparisons drawn. If anyone thinks otherwise I would like to know and please feel free to comment with any concerns. I'm not a statistician and is this not an in-depth analysis nor does this simple bread and butter statistical comparison require a higher level of  scientific procedure. We are simply reviewing the numbers based on information gathered from California Department of Education API reports.

Results

In short, what I gleaned from the API data was that 5 of the 9 schools did little to no better than the District API achievement averages  and three did worse. Nevertheless SFUSD's  review is misleadingly positive. SFUSD  pats itself on the back for a job well done though $45,000,000 in grant money for approximately 3,860 student participants did not raise achievement numbers in any significant way for most of the schools.

Method

The method of analysis I use  is simple. I compare the API of the last year before the start of SIG (2009-10) with the final year API (2012-13). Many of you know that the now defunct API index is a statistically adjusted achievement metric.  It is different from using STAR, an absolute metric, though individual STAR results provide the raw data for API.  That data is adjusted for statistical variants that would cause averaging errors. As examples, and there are many, new students are not included in an API because they don't figure in a school's growth and Students With Disabilities are not included as the kind and number of SWDs varies considerably between schools  and creates an apples to oranges comparison. Also, it should be noted that API has a subjective quality that gives additional weight to growth at the lowest quintile because that is where schools are expected to target remediation efforts and are statistically rewarded for doing so which handicaps the results at low performing schools for the better. This gives low performing schools a leg up and leans in favor of increased success when large grants are employed with the intent to focus on that lowest performing quintile. Also, schools in the lowest quintile typically show a potential for more upward mobility as there's more room to grow. Conversely, high performing students show less upward mobility in a sort of law of diminishing returns, if you will. In any case,  API results yield more favorable numbers than STAR test results. Since STAR is only assigned by individuals and grades, not to schools overall, and because of the adjusted quality of API for school-wide analysis and comparison,  API is a better tool than STAR and really the only tool, despite the preferential statistical treatment of lower performing schools.  

I would be remiss not to point out one problem with the STAR data used to create API. It has a Federally mandated test participation rate of 95% to be considered scientifically viable and  legal. Over the years few underperforming schools have met that target participation rate and the Feds  have looked the other way. Those of you who have reviewed STAR results may be aware of this participation rate issue. If you look at the results on the CDE's STAR site of high performing schools in SFUSD, invariably you will notice that participation rates are well over 95%. However, low performing schools often have much lower rates, sometimes as low as 80%. This is a variable that is hard to factor in, but the general rule is that test no-shows are low-performers. In effect, if rates were higher at low performing schools, it is likely that the results would be lower than they are. It's something to keep in mind and bears mentioning since it also handicaps results to favor low performing schools.

SIG was in effect for the school years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.  I compared the year (09-10) before the grant started with the year of the grant ended (12-13). This allowed for a comprehensive review since individual yearly statistics varied and the important numbers were how the schools started out versus how they ended up. Also, SIG got a late start in the first year and growth that year can't be compared correctly with the next in a year-over-year comparison.  Also, Chavez ES had its first-year tests invalidated due to some funny business during test administration.

The nine SIG schools are Bryant, Chavez, Carver, Muir, Buena Vista-Horace Mann, Revere, Everett. Mission and O'Connell. I will not be including Buena Vista Horace Mann in this analysis because that school became a K-8 and adjusted API data is not available.  Willie Brown received some SIG funding for school closure, though it is reopening soon. SFUSD favorably compared the SIG schools  to the other five schools in the two Superintendent Zones, Bret Hart, Drew, Malcolm X, Flynn and Marshall HS. Three of those schools actually dropped over the 3-year period which meant that SFUSD's comparison was really a joke. That is to say, it is easy to compare favorably to schools that lost ground (and rather ridiculous).  Below I have listed the nine SIG schools and the  five other schools included in the SZ. The names are followed by the 2009-10 API, 10-11,11-12 and the 2012-13 API. The BVHM numbers are not accurate apples-to-apples comparisons due to the merger of BV and HM.

DATA

 Name                  09,   10,   11,   12

Bryant               696, 701, 731, 703

Chavez              685, NA , 661, 690

Muir                  635, 689, 715, 731

BVHM*...........653,  682, 727, 748

Carver.............701, 701, 740, 755

Revere              655, 683, 753, 772

Everett              607, 638, 693, 728

Mission........... 625, 642, 639, 641

O'Connell........603, 594. 667, 656

****************************

Bret Hart           627, 650, 655, 648

Drew                  710, 609, 677, 665

Malcolm X         800, 790, 724, 711

Flynn                  706, 710, 738, 694

Marshall HS       758, 774 ,768, 783

Summary of Data

The obvious first conclusion that can be drawn is that the Bryant, Chavez and Mission results are absolutely awful with or without an investment in millions. Underperforming the District, their 7 and 5, and 16  respective point increases over the  3-year period are negligible and statistically insignificant. Small variations are statistical noise as school APIs experience normal random fluctuation year over year. Remember that these numbers do not represent a one year change, but the total change over three years making these results very disappointing indeed. These lowest performers I term Tier 3 schools.

In the second tier, are the very mediocre results of Carver and O'Connell which rose 54 and 53 points over the period. This is mildly above the overall district results, but only when the low quintile weighting is not factored in. These results also do not speak particularly well to the efficacy of the SIG grants, though the results are better than the abysmal improvement of three Tier 3 schools.

In Tier 1, are Muir (96 pts.), Revere (117pts.), and Everett (121 pts.). These schools far outperformed the other SIG schools with the possible exception of BVHM which was not included in this comparison and they represent the high point of the SIG program.  These schools showed steady gains over the period. Bryant, Mission and O'Connell did not manage to post increases in all three years and Bryant and O'Connell scores dropped significantly in the final year, which is very disappointing considering that the implementation should have shown the best results in that third and final year.

In regards to the rest of the five schools also in the Superintendent Zones that were not SIG recipients, their results were terrible in the main, especially considering that these schools were also given many additional resources, though not nearly so much as the SIG schools. Of the five schools three of them, Drew, Malcom X and Flynn actually dropped over the same 3-year period. The other two, Bret Hart and Marshall saw district- average size increases.  What does this say about the benefit to SFUSD of Carlos Garcia's and Richard Carranza's Superintendent Zones - a program that has been the District's highest priority?

Conclusions

The School Improvement Grant program over the 3-year period  produced very different achievement results among recipient schools. Three schools did very well, over-performing district averages, and three did very poorly, underperforming district averages. Two schools showed mediocre but around average  compared to non-SIG schools, thereby under-performing as SIG recipients.  One school was excluded from analysis. Approximately $12,000 -$13,000 was spent per student on average in the nine schools over the 3-year period, factoring in attendance. It is difficult to concur with SFUSD that the grant program was successful since at least half the schools didn't do any better than the district as a whole and some did considerably worse, especially considering the statistical benefits enjoyed by low performing schools, as  previously mentioned. Despite the extraordinarily large and unprecedented windfall funding that was SIG,  the costs versus results point to a very uneven intervention with more poor results than good ones. The fact that some schools outperformed while others underperformed speaks to poor implementation at the district level where  money totaling in the millions was spent on administration.

I would be remiss not to point out that statistical comparisons are difficult for many reasons. Besides the bottom quintile advantage, the highest quintile sees the smallest gains year over year as it becomes more and more difficult to improve over-performance. So comparing districtwide averages gives a great  advantage point for point to the lowest schools. For example, a school above 900 is hard-pressed to raise a score by 30 points in a year but a low performing school  could easily see a similar point improvement.  The real gains of the SIG schools, especially the five Tier 2 and 3 schools was bad, indeed, considering the unprecedented funding made available to them during the last three years. So why is SFUSD gloating?