Davis School Reform Bills Clear Senate

Gov. Gray Davis’ education reforms were halfway to becoming law Monday when two bills to improve public schools cleared the state Senate.

Proposals for a binding high school graduation exam and a stricter process for reviewing schools passed with a sprinkling of Republican no votes.

And several senators from both parties said they were supporting the legislation in hopes that the bills would continue to change before a final vote at the end of March.

Despite what he called “very grave reservations” that the bills remain short on funding, Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) said he had seen enough progress during the past month of negotiations to give the bills “a courtesy vote out of respect to the governor’s intentions.”

Some conservatives said the reform package started weak and has grown weaker. Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), who voted against both bills Monday, said that if harsher punishments for poor performing teachers are not incorporated, “two years from now we’ll find out we really didn’t do anything.”

The bills now move to the Assembly. Two Assembly bills that passed that house last week on peer review of teachers and reading skill move to the Senate.

Education was the major thrust of Davis’ campaign for governor, and within days of being sworn into office he detailed a plan to improve public schools.

Experienced in legislative give-and-take from his quarter of a century in state government, Davis said then that he would entertain all sound suggestions, from the right or the left.

And so the tinkering commenced.

Davis envisioned a high school graduation exam as the litmus test for the class of 2003. As approved 34-3 on Monday, it represents an important graduation hurdle--but probably not the only one--facing the class of 2004.

Davis said a best-to-worst ranking for schools would help the state oust bad principals, “the CEOs” of schools. But little by little, responsibility for improving lagging schools has shifted to the districts, an alteration that gained a 33-4 vote Monday.

The governor wanted peer review of teachers to be mandatory and vowed to withhold annual cost-of-living increases from straggling districts. The bill that came out of the Assembly last week leaves to collective bargaining the decision of whether to review or not, tied to several pots of teacher improvement money.

From Day 1, special interests have fretted that their needs would not be respected. Teachers and administrators unions, school boards, civil rights activists and even the state Department of Education all pressed for modifications during public committee hearings and private meetings with legislators and bureaucrats.

The only interested parties not weighing in were parents and students. But Republican legislators took up the parents’ cause, insisting that they play a role in reforming schools.

On Monday, Sen. Ross Johnson (R-Irvine), the upper house’s GOP leader, asked that parents make up a fifth of special school accountability teams. “Of all of the folks who have an interest in the success of our children in California . . . there are no greater stakeholders than the parents,” he said.

This is what has occurred so far:

* The reading improvement bill (AB 2X) caused the least consternation. Early on, Republicans complained that it omitted any mention of phonics instruction. The administration quickly added that.

* The peer review bill (AB 1X) to compel veteran teachers to critique their colleagues drew the most vociferous opposition because of the political muscle of teachers unions.

The bottom line: Unions want to be asked, not ordered.

“The history in California is good: People react when the governor and the Legislature ask them to,” said Mary Bergan, president of the California Federation of Teachers.

Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles), a former teachers union organizer asked by the governor to handle the bill, tossed out an olive branch. He changed the bill’s title from peer review and assistance to peer assistance and review--a seemingly minute semantic switch that he hoped would reassure unions that Davis wants to help weak teachers, not dump them.

The unions first went to work on the legal problems, urging an amendment that leaves decisions on whether and how to establish peer review to contract negotiations between union leaders and district administrators.

Then, the unions turned their attention to the cost-of-living incentive. Davis agreed to tie peer review compliance to $413 million in teacher improvement money instead.

But that was not enough. Last week, union representatives made it clear that they will insist on no financial penalties for school districts that opt out of peer review.

* Ranking of schools under the campus accountability bill (SB 1X) became the primary cause of school employees’ anxiety. It is easy to dismiss their opposition as the product of bad schools not wanting to be exposed. But protests that the real problem is the non-level playing field of public education resonated in some quarters of the Capitol.

The first adjustment was structural: State scrutiny was shifted from principals to school districts because of complaints from administrators that the original proposal violated the chain of command.

The second was philosophical: After complaints from a phalanx of civil rights advocates, teachers and liberal legislators, the rankings will include a separate accounting of students’ socioeconomic status, how many know English and so on.

The third was a matter of equity: Instead of offering $150 million to reward improving schools and just $42 million to help trailing ones, the money was split equally.

* High school exit tests (SB 2X) in math and language arts drew the ire of civil rights attorneys and provoked a belated media campaign by an Oakland think tank contending that similar exams may have accelerated dropout rates among minorities in other states.

Democratic legislators insisted that students have a full four years to pass the test rather than three and extracted a promise from the administration that money would be sought to give remedial assistance to students who fail the test.

Last week, the state education department was instructed to develop ways for students to demonstrate that they deserve a diploma, incorporating other test scores and good grades, perhaps.

That did not satisfy the Applied Research Center, which took the dramatic step of running full-page ads in the New York Times accusing Davis of peddling “a phony fix to a complex problem.”

Senior researcher Libero Della Panna said that since the ads ran, several legislators have shown interest in reviewing the center’s research.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Gov. Davis’ Education Plan

Since Gov. Gray Davis unveiled his four-pronged plan to improve public education, the related legislation has been subject to dozens of changes.

Teacher peer assistance and review (AB 1X)

Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin (D-Duncans Mills).

THEN: Required all school districts to participate. Punishment for violators was withholding about $409 million in cost-of-living increases.

NOW: Allows districts to decide whether to participate. Punishes those that don’t by withholding $413 million in teacher assistance money.

****

Reading improvement (AB2X)

Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni (D-San Rafael) and Assemblyman Jim Cunneen (R-San Jose).

THEN: Created summer reading academies for struggling students in kindergarten through fourth grade.

NOW: Specifies that phonics instruction must be included. Allows schools to fold academies into regular school year.

****

School accountability act (SB1X)

Sen. Dede Alpert (D-Coronado).

THEN: Ranked all 8,000 California public schools by combining test scores and attendance.

NOW: Expanded to include information on students’ socio-economic status, transience and knowledge of English.

****

High school exit exam (SB2X)

Sen. Jack O’Connell (D-San Luis Obispo).

THEN: Required testing in math and language arts for graduating class of 2003.

NOW: Initiates test a year later. Requests that the state investigate other ways to determine competence.