GETTING BACK TO SCHOOL : Schools Get Cash, With Caveat

Five Orange County schools are among the 430 California campuses that are taking their first brave steps toward school accountability: admitting that their student performance is lagging and obtaining more state and federal money to bring about needed improvements.

The campuses were notified Wednesday that their applications for additional funding had been accepted, making them the first, bellwether class in the state’s new $96-million school intervention program. Aimed at campuses where standardized test scores have been bogged in the bottom half of state standings for two years running, the program is a crucial part of Gov. Gray Davis’ plan to improve the performance of public education.

The schools stand to receive an infusion of several hundred thousand dollars each over the next two years. In return, they face penalties if they don’t deliver the scholastic goods--penalties that include staff reassignment and even closure.

“There’s a risk to doing this,” said Buena Park Supt. Carol Holmes Riley. “There’s also a risk to not doing this. I choose to be proactive and look for solutions [to low performance], rather than sit back and hope a light magically comes on.”

In Southern California, about 70 schools in Los Angeles County received word of grants, five in Orange County and none in Ventura County. Of the 169 eligible Orange County schools, those approved were: Palm Lane and Paul Revere elementary schools in the Anaheim City School District, Gordon H. Beatty Elementary in the Buena Park School District, R.H. Dana Elementary in Capistrano Unified School District and Whittier Elementary in Newport-Mesa Unified School District.

Statewide, 3,144 schools were eligible for the program--almost half of which applied. State education administrators then winnowed the group to 430 campuses from across California, some whose test scores couldn’t go anywhere but up, and others within striking distance of the state average.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin said she was heartened by the enthusiasm school officials expressed for the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program.

“The substantial number of applications for this program confirms what I have always believed about California’s public education system--that most districts and schools in the state will do what it takes to raise achievement for all students in their communities,” Eastin said in a news release.

Depending on where schools were in their restructuring plans, they received either state or federal grants. The 77 campuses with improvement plans underway will receive federal aid of either $50,000 or $200 a pupil, whichever is greater, over the next three years.

The 353 taking home state grants get a $50,000 planning award--used to hire an outside evaluator to point out weaknesses and propose solutions. Once an action plan is submitted--including goals of raising test scores by at least 5% a year--the state will also give the schools about $168 a student to reach those aspirations over the next school year. Local districts must match that contribution.

Capistrano Supt. James A. Fleming said he’s thrilled that Dana Elementary received a federal grant worth about $150,000, which will fund an intensive reading program. Offering extra money is an effective way to bring about improvement, he said.

“It’s one thing to beat up schools with a stick,” Fleming said. “It’s another to say, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve got some additional needs here’ and then provide the resources to address those needs.”

Schools that meet improvement goals can obtain more grants. Consistently missing goals, however, could result in a school being converted to a charter school, loss of local control, or even the dismissal of a principal.

Initially, school growth will be judged by changes in Stanford 9 standardized test results. In subsequent years, state administrators will devise a ranking system called the Academic Performance Index, weighted toward test scores but including factors such as graduation and attendance rates.

“The people who stepped up to the plate are really going to be under the microscope a bit,” said Pat McCabe, an administrator in the state Education Department’s policy and evaluation office. “They’ll be given quite a lot of money and the opportunity to reform their schools--enacting reforms that aren’t systemwide, but specific to their school.”

“Obviously . . . there’s a hammer at the other end,” said McCabe. “Given the opportunity and the money to make changes, if [improvements] do not occur, these schools will be the first on the block for local intervention in 2001.”

That’s a chance Palm Lane Principal Randy Wiethorn is willing to take. The vast majority of students in his overcrowded school of 1,150 are struggling to learn English as a second language. Almost all are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches. His average Stanford 9 scores are stuck in the bottom quarter nationwide.

“With those factors, we’re obviously very proud of our instructional program,” he said, pointing to a new academic after-school program as an example. “But our instruction didn’t translate well into test scores. . . . There’s no doubt in our minds that we’re going to improve. If someone [from the outside] has suggestions and good ideas, we’re more than willing to listen.”

Not everyone was so willing. Some school districts thought they’d be better off devising improvement plans free of state money--and strings.

“We believe we know our schools and our kids better,” said an official with one Orange County district that did not seek funding. “With outside evaluators, their job is done when they complete a report. And we’re left holding the bag.”