Teacher, two superintendents to hold key positions on funding law's new agency

Screen Shot 2013-09-19 at 6.52.41 PMConsistent with the goal of shifting power over education decisions away from Sacramento, the Local Control Funding Formula law creates a new agency to work with, not dictate to, local districts on how to meet their improvement goals. In the first step toward launching the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, the Legislature this month determined that a teacher and two superintendents will form the majority on its governing board.

The passage of a bill designating the makeup of the five-member board should enable the agency to be in place by early next year, said Rick Simpson, deputy chief of staff to Speaker of the Assembly John Perez. The group’s purpose is to “advise and assist” school districts and charter schools in achieving the goals of their annual accountability plans that the school funding law requires. The collaborative is also charged with helping to improve the quality of teaching and leadership in a district or school.

Perez will name a teacher as one of the five board members. The other four members will be Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson or whoever he designates, State Board of Education President Michael Kirst or his designee, a county superintendent named by the Senate Rules Committee and a district superintendent named by Gov. Jerry Brown. The board, in turn, will select the experts who will work with schools or districts to address challenges that data collected for the accountability plans will reveal. The experts could be nonprofit agencies, individual consultants, or county or state teams with subject knowledge or expertise in working with English learners or children with disabilities; the law doesn’t specify.

Both the funding law passed in June and the additional language and technical fixes to it in Senate Bill 97 are skimpy on details on how the collaborative would operate. But as the name implies, the collaborative is intended to be a kinder and gentler overseer of the funding law than the rigid enforcer that the federal government has played with “failing schools” under the No Child Left Behind law and the state Department of Education has assumed with its past state intervention programs.

“The collaborative is intended to be a helping hand, not a slap in the face. It should be something districts welcome, not something they fear, and should be available to districts that are successful as well as those that are struggling,” Simpson said in an email.

The funding law spells out eight priority areas that districts should pay attention to and measure in their yearly accountability plans, although the law doesn’t spell out all of the ways to do so. The priorities cover quantifiable areas of student achievement, course access and the implementation of the Common Core standards, but also harder-to-measure school climate and student engagement.

The State Board will decide by October 2015 which metrics will be used to determine if districts and schools need low-level support or stronger interventions.

Districts could request the collaborative’s help, or a county office and the state superintendent might assign the collaborative based on a district’s failure to show improvement in priority areas, especially for high-needs students receiving extra money under the formula. The state superintendent would consult with the collaborative before deciding if stronger interventions, like appointing a trustee to run a district, is needed.

The focus, though, will be  on voluntary assistance to make a district successful, Simpson said. “I hope that demand exceeds supply, with districts asking themselves, ‘What do we need to help us?’”

The law doesn’t give an operational timeline or appropriate more than the initial $10 million budget covering assistance that the collaborative will provide, but Simpson expects that will be an annual expenditure.

John Fensterwald covers state education policy. Contact him and sign up for his tweets @jfenster.


Filed under: Legislation, Local Control Funding Formula, State Education Policy



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment Policy

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers.

  • To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective.
  • Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to.
  • EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and offensive comments.
  • EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.
  • Please limit comments to 250 words to prevent comment clutter; if you intend to say more please link out to a place that contains your full comment.
  • Comments with more than one link automatically enter moderation. Comments from new commenters are automatically moderated.
  • Repeated violation of this comment policy will lead to a warning. Continued violations will lead to a ban.

4 Responses to “Teacher, two superintendents to hold key positions on funding law's new agency”

EdSource does not track who "likes or dislikes" a comment. We only track the number of likes and dislikes.

  1. TransParent on Sep 21, 2013 at 10:54 am09/21/2013 10:54 am

    • 000

    …who else sees a train wreck coming??

  2. Ed on Sep 20, 2013 at 12:20 pm09/20/2013 12:20 pm

    • 000

    Jerry, the bill outlines the states eight priority areas as:

    1. The degree to which the teachers of the school district are appropriately assigned, and fully credentialed in the subject areas, and, for the pupils they are teaching, every pupil in the school district has sufficient access to the standards-aligned instructional materials, and school facilities are maintained in good repair.

    2. The academic content and performance standards adopted by the state board, including how the programs and services will enable ELs to access the common core academic content standards and the English language development (ELD) for purposes of gaining academic content knowledge and English language proficiency.

    3. Parental involvement, including efforts the school district makes to seek parent input in making decisions for the school district and each individual schoolsite, and including how the school district will promote parental participation in programs for unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs.

    4. Achievement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
    -Statewide assessments as certified by the SBE.
    -The Academic Performance Index.
    -The percentage of pupils who have successfully completed courses that satisfy the requirements for entrance to the University of California and the California State University (the “A-G” requirements), or career technical education (CTE) sequences or clusters of courses that satisfy the requirements for ROC/Ps, Linked Learning programs, or Partnership Academies, and align with SBE-approved CTE standards and frameworks.
    -The percentage of EL pupils who make progress toward English proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) or any subsequent assessment of English proficiency, as certified by the SBE.
    -English learner reclassification rate.
    -The percentage of pupils who have passed an advanced placement (AP) examination with a score of 3 or higher.
    -The percentage of pupils who participate in, and demonstrate college preparedness pursuant to, the Early Assessment Program, or any subsequent assessment of college preparedness.

    5. Pupil engagement, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
    -School attendance rates.
    -Chronic absenteeism rates.
    -Middle school dropout rates, as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 52052.1.
    -High school dropout rates.
    -High school graduation rates.

    6. School climate, as measured by all of the following, as applicable:
    -Pupil suspension rates.
    -Pupil expulsion rates.
    -Other local measures, including surveys of pupils, parents, and teachers on the sense of safety and school connectedness.

    7. The extent to which pupils have access to, and are enrolled in, a broad course of study that includes all of the required subject areas for elementary and secondary education, including the programs and services developed and provided to unduplicated pupils and individuals with exceptional needs, and the program and services that are provided to benefit these pupils as a result of the supplemental and concentration grants.

    8. Pupil outcomes, if available, in the required subject areas for elementary and secondary education.

  3. Jerry Heverly on Sep 20, 2013 at 11:38 am09/20/2013 11:38 am

    • 000

    Can someone relate what the eight priority areas are? I’d like to present them at our next SSC meeting.

  4. darlene on Sep 20, 2013 at 11:12 am09/20/2013 11:12 am

    • 000

    It is interesting that parents, who are key stakeholders are being left out of this process nor have the opportunity to participate in the larger decision making processes. Parents were not even thought enough about in the Common Core Professional Training and was not even budgeted. Parents have been hearing double talk – we support parents yet denied vital opportunity to be part of the education process, that can be supported from home to school to community. This is disappointing to say the least!!!!!!!!!!!

Template last modified: