California’s past efforts to turn around chronically dismal schools have been timid or unsuccessful. The state currently has no clearly defined program at all.

That’s why the surprisingly easy passage this week  in the Senate of SB X5-1 is important. Among its provisions, the bill would demand the  restructuring of most stagnant 5 percent of the lowest performing schools. The state has yet  to define this subset.

The chief sponsor, Sen. Gloria Romero, a candidate for superintendent of public instruction, and Gov. Schwarzenegger pushed the bill as necessary to make the state competitive for a Race to the Top grant. But at least that section of the bill is worthy in its own right, whether or not a grant comes through.According to the Legislative Analyst, nearly a quarter of the state’s schools are in Program Improvement for failing to make target scores under No Child Left Behind two consecutive years. And two-thirds of these schools have been in PI status three or more years. No Child Left Behind requires restructuring by the fourth and fifth years, but the state hasn’t forced the issue.

U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan is proposing that, conditional to applying for Race to the Top and receiving federal School Improvement Funding, states must agree to enforce one of  several strategies  for the lowest 5 percent: close down the school, hire a new principal and staff, or bring in a charter or private operator to take the school over. SB X5-1 would mirror the federal requirements.

The turnaround requirement of the proposed Race to the Top guidelines received a lot of criticism nationwide, and states are waiting to see if the final rules are different. Critics argue that in many cases, failing schools have already installed new principals who need time to succeed.  States also argue they should have more flexibility over the remedy. An alternative to an outside charter operator is  charter-like autonomy, in which a new principal at a failing school would control hiring and budgeting, and be freed from constraints of the state ed code and work rules under teachers’ contracts.

If the final language of Race to the Top changes, so should SB X5-1.

The bill is not likely to receive quick action or as warm a welcome in the Assembly, where the California Teachers Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. are lying in wait. One reason is that the bill includes a massive expansion of parental choice, which has nothing to do with the Race to the Top application.

A parent in any school with test scores in the bottom 30 percent could apply to attend a school in any other district. The receiving or “enrollment district” could choose to set strict limits on outside students, as long as they use a lottery system and don’t discriminate against individual students. Adoption of such a system could promote healthy competition, especially among districts with declining enrollments. But it also could further destabilize struggling districts. There’s no reason to rush this provision into law.

SB X5-1 would also lift the cap on charter schools, which currently allows up to 100 new charters every year. It’s not been a problem, but removing the restriction would also advance the state’s  Race to the Top application.

Assembly Education Committee Chair Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, is holding hearings on all aspects of Race to the Top and is waiting for the final  language before drafting a bill. That’s probably smart, but whatever she proposes should include strong measures for turning around the worst schools.

By John Fensterwald on November 6th, 2009