State Upset as Irvine Schools Share Rewards

It was an egalitarian move, the decision by most Irvine public schools to share their state money for meeting testing targets. But now they could come under scrutiny from state officials who contend that the rewards aren’t supposed to go to schools that fall short.

The state reward program was intended to reward only schools that achieve year-to-year improvements in the state’s Academic Performance Index, which is based on Stanford 9 standardized test scores, said Bill Padia, director of the state Department of Education’s office of policy and evaluation.

The first year of such rewards brought $227 million in January to 4,502 schools statewide. Of that, about $1 million went to 24 Irvine schools. Five additional schools racked up high scores, but fell short of their improvement targets and didn’t qualify for an award.

They got some money anyway.

“No one school or group of teachers is solely responsible for our success here,” said Dean Waldfogel, deputy superintendent of Irvine schools. “We’re all in this together.”

In separate votes, site councils at 22 of the 24 schools that got funding agreed to share their windfalls with the five schools that didn’t, Waldfogel said. Site councils, made up of parents and educators, act as advisors to school administrators and by law have control over how the grants are spent.

“Did we think this was a very unusual posture to take? Absolutely,” said Bruce Baron, principal at Lakeside Middle school, which shared about $14,000, or a third of its money, with other schools. “Did we think that if it got out that it would raise eyebrows? Sure. Were we going to do it anyway because it helps kids? Yes.”

But Padia said schools may have overstepped their authority under the 1999 school accountability law.

“We would strongly advise against [sharing],” Padia said.

“Frankly, it hasn’t been tested by anyone in a legal challenge,” Padia said, conceding that it is a “gray area.”

Students at the five schools that didn’t get API awards hardly performed poorly on last year’s Stanford 9--they just didn’t improve upon their 1999 scores to the extent required. Alderwood Basics Plus, for example, scored above 900 on the test, a feat managed by only 2% of schools statewide. Still, it missed its “growth target” by one point.

Woodbridge High School improved its overall API score, but not the scores among its white students.

“They didn’t go down--they stayed exactly the same,” said Woodbridge Principal Greg Cops. “So, because of that, we didn’t get an award. I was sort of amazed.”

But because Irvine shared, Woodbridge will get $72,000--”oodles of money” that Cops said the school will put to good use.

District officials contend that the sharing is allowed under the law--and better for education. The API, Waldfogel said, could encourage educators to “teach to the test,” which would undermine districtwide efforts to improve curriculum and instruction--efforts that require cooperation among schools, not competition.

“There was the sense that there was some unfairness with the API,” Waldfogel said. “Our schools are geared to do very, very well on a standardized test. The problem is, your chances of increasing scores every year are not very good.”

Baron said sharing had nothing to do with generosity. Rather, it was self-serving.

Lakeside’s 871 API score ranked it as the top middle school in Orange County for the second straight year.

Improving on that might--or might not--be possible, Baron said.

“For schools that take this seriously, it’s much easier to develop a program that improves instruction if you can count on the funds year to year,” he said.

The schools that shared gave up a third of their API money, and agreed to share again next year--win or lose. The two schools that declined to share--Westpark and Northwood elementary schools--did so because they had pressing needs for computer technology, Waldfogel said.

Westpark is in the fourth year of a five-year upgrading effort. Sharing its $35,000 API award would have meant losing as much as $12,000, said Principal Ron Moreland.

But because Westpark didn’t agree to share this year, if the school doesn’t meet its API target for next year, it will get nothing.

“We could be out of luck,” Moreland said. “Because of these critical needs, we had to take advantage of the money we had now.”

But Padia contends that the entire sharing program could face some questioning.

The sharing plan will show up in annual audits. And it will be looked at next year when the program undergoes an outside evaluation, Padia said.

“They violated the spirit of the legislation,” he said. “Schools that didn’t perform shouldn’t get it. There’s an incentive out there to meet and actions like this undermine [that].”