Davis Seeks to Unify Schools With Tests, Accountability

A central theme runs through the education program Gov. Gray Davis has outlined this week--welding California’s 1,000 far-flung school districts for the first time into a unified, statewide system.

Under Davis’ predecessor, former Gov. Pete Wilson, the state took the first steps toward such a goal by setting statewide academic standards and reinstituting statewide tests.

Davis would go further--proposing a new statewide high school graduation exam and a system under which the state could hold school districts accountable for poor school performance.

A true statewide system would mark a significant departure from the current practice in which about 1,000 school districts chart their own courses.

But although an integrated system appears to be the new governor’s goal, his specific plans to achieve it have major gaps.

A unified system would not mean eliminating local school districts. But it would mean using the power of the state to make sure all those districts head in the same direction--giving the state the authority to police quality control.

In his State of the State speech Wednesday, Davis said that “when it comes to setting high expectations in public education, California will lead the nation.”

But his proposal for school accountability is, in fact, far more modest than what has already been done in several other states. In Texas, all schools are rated each year according to how their students perform on state tests and other measures. More than two dozen states conduct, or plan to conduct, similar rankings.

By contrast, Davis would have the state scrutinize the performance of only 200 of the state’s 8,000 schools each year. The schools would be selected for scrutiny at random from the lowest-performing 4,000 schools, meaning that at the rate of 200 per year, it might take 20 years for the state to intervene in a failing school.

Details Need to Be Fleshed Out

There are at least two major reasons for Davis’ caution. One is the political storm that could erupt if Davis tries to infringe too much on the cherished idea of local control of schools.

The other is money.

It’s unclear whether the governor, who has promised fiscal prudence as well as educational reform, is willing to spend what it would take on textbooks and teacher training and recruitment to ensure improvements in every school across the state.

Under the Davis plan, a school that is identified as a poor performer would initially receive grants to help it improve. If that failed, teachers might be reassigned, the school might be reorganized with the parents in charge or it could be shut down.

But because the schools would be selected randomly, one that is performing just below average--better than, say, 45% of those in the state--could face those consequences while a school that was doing far worse might escape public attention entirely.

“It’s going to be like the roll of the dice,” said Christopher T. Cross, president of the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that advocates high academic standards. “Accountability should have consequences for everybody involved.”

The random selection proposal “tells me they’re not very serious about those schools at the bottom that are academically bankrupt,” said Bill Lucia, former executive director of the State Board of Education under Wilson. “There are some schools that need major overhaul.”

Education groups are willing to give the Democratic governor time to flesh out the details of his plan before attacking it.

Some suggest that randomly choosing 200 schools for improvement could have an “audit effect” that would keep all schools on their toes.

The California School Boards Assn. is often a jealous protector of local power over educational decisions. But in the interests of accountability, said lobbyist Kevin Gordon, the group would be willing to cede the state some power over schools that are performing poorly.

“What’s happening now isn’t serving the taxpayer,” Gordon said. “For schools that are persistently not delivering for kids in their communities . . . we and everyone else in the education system have to be held accountable through some piece of appropriate state legislation.”

Bob Wells, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, which represents principals and superintendents, agreed that creating a meaningful accountability system was the most important task facing Davis’ young administration.

First, however, the state needs to improve its testing program, he said. Now, the statewide tests given to students are not linked to the state’s academic standards or curriculum. New tests are in the works.

Wells said the most severe sanctions for administrators, such as losing their jobs, should be delayed until the testing system is fixed.

Other steps Davis has proposed that move the state toward a unified system include tying the state’s academic standards to biennial teacher evaluations. That would require a change in state law that prohibits using the standards for that purpose.

Another proposal would establish a $150-million reward program for schools that meet or exceed student performance goals set by the State Board of Education. A third is the proposed high school exit exam, which Davis aides said also would be linked to state standards.

None of Davis’ ideas, in isolation, would bring radical change to the nation’s largest state public school network, which serves 5.7 million students. But analysts said they might if they are taken as a whole.

“It’s not systemic until the standards drive every part of your system: your textbooks, your teacher evaluation, your reward system,” said Kati Haycock, director of the independent Education Trust in Washington.

“What you have in California right now, I would argue, is a system with no consequences for anybody--but the kids--if they don’t learn.”