It’s Report Card Time for Schools

The first statewide attempt to make schools more accountable to parents will turn up beginning today in the mailboxes of almost 120,000 residents with children in San Diego city schools.

The San Diego district--the state’s second-largest--is sending out its version of the “accountability report card,” a performance snapshot of each of the district’s 152 schools that is mandated under Proposition 98, approved by California voters in November, 1988.

In return for guaranteeing California public schools a fixed percentage of state revenues each year, Proposition 98 promised parents they would receive annual reports of how well the schools are carrying out their educational mission with the almost $17 billion allotted them.

Already, smaller districts throughout the county have disseminated their report cards, which must include comments in 13 educational areas at any given school, including student test achievement, dropout rates, class sizes, teacher evaluations and use of special money.

So far, the reactions of teachers, principals and parents have been mixed, with a consensus that while the documents provide useful information, overall they do not represent real “report cards” in the sense that schools admit specific weaknesses as well as touting their strengths.

“I think they’re informative, especially if parents haven’t gone to school meetings and aren’t really involved with the schools,” said Mary Lou Renckly, whose child attends San Pasqual High School in Escondido, which has already issued its four-page document. “We are involved but I think we learned some things about test scores, for example.

“But it’s not really a report card in that they are not grading teachers or discussing the actual curriculum,” added Renckly, who also substitutes at the elementary level in Escondido. “I think that might be real touchy and might not go over well at all.”

A San Diego middle school principal admitted that some parents probably will see the district’s standardized six-page cards as “a whitewash” because in many areas schools avoid being specific, especially regarding declining test scores or teacher evaluations.

“I think we would have improved our credibility if we had made these ‘warts and all’ ”, said the principal, who asked not to be identified. “Let’s be up front about both our problems and our successes.”

State School Supt. Bill Honig, who sponsored Proposition 98 and pointedly included the report card provision, said that districts still have “some work to do” on the best way to carry out the requirement.

“Generally, I think people believe it is a good idea to be held accountable in exchange for a guarantee of funds,” Honig said. “Accountability is a great management tool because over time, it requires you to examine what is not working if, for example, writing test scores do not go up.

“But I think we are still in the developmental stages” in finding out how schools should be rewarded if they do a good job and what hard questions to raise if they do not, Honig said. He said the difficulty in sending out a true picture of school performance reflects the larger debate going on in many districts--including San Diego--over how to better hold principals and teachers accountable for achievements and failures.

“There was a lot of spirited debate within many districts when the state sent out its suggested guidelines,” said Doug Langdon, a trustee of the South Bay school district and public information officer for the San Diego County Office of Education.

“Compare them to corporate annual reports, when those with poor earnings try to put the best face on the situation . . . . It stands to reason that those schools with poor ‘earnings’ will try to put forward the best possible face.”

A sample of report cards countywide show that some districts--and some schools within districts--are being more candid than others.

In San Diego Unified, scores on Carver Elementary’s statewide achievement tests, known as CAP, have declined over the past several years, and the trend lines on testing charts required on all city schools’ cards show Carver is below districtwide levels.

But in its text, the school says nothing about any decline, stating only that Carver “strives toward academic excellence . . . test scores are only one reflection of student progress towards becoming a literate and thinking person . . . many teachers are exploring core literature and reviewing learning styles. As a result, we hope to see improvement in all academic areas.”

In contrast, Adams Elementary admits in its text that its scores have dropped during the past two years, and tells parents that its loss in 1988 of special federal money to hire extra teachers and materials may be one factor.

“That year--1987--scores reached an all-time high, the school was designated a Distinguished School by the state, and then the federal money was withdrawn. Hopefully, we are anticipating renewal of that program in the fall of 1990.”

The cards in the Oceanside Unified School District were handled differently, with the district rephrasing the state reporting indicators into questions that parents often ask.

At San Rafael Elementary, the report offers detailed information on test scores for the past three years, not only comparing the school’s trends but also comparing the school against all state schools. The report also offers details about teacher training, about student reward plans, about the school’s discipline plan and drug education program, and about sixth graders with poor attendance who are using a new plan to improve achievement.

“We wanted more than just boiler-plate,” said Bruce Cunningham, Oceanside’s coordinator of instruction. “You don’t want them too long,” Cunningham said, noting that the district’s cards run 14 pages, among the bulkier in the state. “But we do want parents to understand what we are doing and understand that we are supposed to be improving, and our focus should be on what our next steps are going to be.

“Some of our schools were uncomfortable about reporting test trends since they do not score high, but our task force (which drew up the format) felt that it is helpful nevertheless to see comparisons.”

Hugh Boyle, president of the San Diego Teachers Assn., which represents San Diego Unified, said the cards “now look like public-relations gloss” but cautioned that they are only a first attempt.

“They do need to get better and to say more things, such as breaking down class size numbers more precisely so that a parent can tell if the smallest classes are for gifted students, for example, or for English classes, or whatever,” Boyle said.

But Boyle expressed concern with any move to specify how many teachers at a school receive “needs improvement” evaluations, although parents who advised the district in drawing up their cards suggested that data.

“Sure, we have some bad teachers, but I don’t think the district has a good evaluation system existing today” that fairly indicates who is good or bad, and therefore would not want such information on the cards, Boyle said.

San Diego city schools Supt. Tom Payzant hopes that parents will read the cards and attend special meetings that each school will be holding later this month.

“Sure, the question of honesty has come up because the prose is upbeat and positive,” Payzant said. “But in several categories, the quantifiable data speaks for itself, good or bad, and can’t really be masked.

“So if parents come out to meetings and ask questions, they can be a real catalyst to push schools to do better and the cards will have real value, and not something that everyone will see as simply an annual ritual to be resented.”