Perhaps one of the hottest circular white papers to strike a state education department since “Brown versus the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” has hit the state of California.  Addressed to Dr. Patricia Skelton, administrator of the academic accountability and awards division of the California Distinguished School Award Program, the letter has become circular by virtue of its discussion through California’s Southern California education community.  The letter attacks the state’s attempt to implement a “Closing the Achievement Gap” 2010 Distinguished School Eligibility Criteria, where schools may be eliminated from eligibility if the learning progress of white and Asian students equals or exceeds the measured progress of other students. 

The letter represents one of an estimated more than one hundred California schools whose Academic Performance Index (API) scores have risen significantly among all of its students.  However, these schools have been informed this year that they will be eliminated from eligibility if their white students are measured to be learning as much or more than other students.   

Since I was allowed to examine the letter by a state education administrator, I have discovered that some teachers are already aware of the issue forced on schools.  A consequence of the state criteria is that teachers understand they now may be pressured to hold back teaching white and Asian students until their learning measurements equal those of students who even have cultural reading disabilities. 

One teacher told me, “The new criteria threatens to bring back some of the destructive racial segregation in our schools that existed before ‘Brown versus Topeka, Kansas.’  It creates racially segregated classroom in schools that are supposed to be racially integrated, divided into classes of white and Asian students, and other classes that would be filled with Hispanic and African-American students.   It could end up with segregated African-American and Hispanic classes receiving an intense curriculum while the white and Asian students would have to watch more cartoons and G-rated movies in their classes or maybe just listen to music until the other students are caught up with them.” 

The pressures being exerted on schools to “close the achievement gap” also have an effect on professional careers among some of the state’s most successful educators.  The estimated more than one hundred high-achieving schools that would ordinarily qualify this year as a California Distinguished School had implemented their academic improvement programs equally to all students, regardless of race or ethnicity, based on requirements of equal protection constitutional laws.  

But because this year the stated eligibility requires disproportionate higher improvement among such categories as Hispanic, African-American, Severely Economically Deprived (SED) and  English Language Learners (ELL), bringing practically every student in the school to improve at about the same rate is seen as stigmatizing the educators in these high-achieving schools into an “undistinguished” category.  

One example of the new criteria’s effect is that of a Southern Californian school penalized from distinguished-school eligibility even when the API scores grew for African-American students grew by 18 points, Hispanic scores grew by 17 points, Special Education scores increased by 18 points, and English Language Learners gained by 18 points. 

By the criteria of past years, this school would already be a California Distinguished School.  But the offence this school committed against the new state criteria is that it improved the learning scores in 2009 of white students by 34 points.   If the white students had been held back and improved only half as much, this school may have been honored as one of the state’s outstanding sites in 2010. 

One of the purposes of the letter representing some Southern California public educators is to also give credit and cause for the improvement of white and Asian students.  

In the circulating letter, it is stated that “the unintended outcomes of criterion 3.1A are twofold: 

• Schools (that have not yet reached the API 90^th percentile) have a better chance to be eligible for the award if the significant white and/or Asian subgroup does NOT INCREASE:
• Outstanding growth made by significant disadvantaged subgroups is OVERLOOKED if a significant white and/or Asian subgroup also makes outstanding gains.”

The letter recommends that instead of penalizing schools that achieve improvement among white and Asian students, that an improvement of 17 points on API tests for white students and a gain of 13 points for Asian students become a part of the baseline criteria of an outstanding California school. 

The paper continues:   

“These simple changes would provide schools – with a significant white and/or Asian subgroup that is still approaching the API 90^th percentile (>897) – a reward for outstanding growth as these subgroups strive toward the API 90^th percentile.  The changes also prevent the eligibility of schools which are merely narrowing the achievement gap because of low, or even negative, white and/or negative white and/or Asian subgroups score results. 

“In addition, the changes support the goal to close the gap by allowing for the recognition of outstanding gains made by disadvantaged subgroups in where there are also high gains in the significant white and/or Asian subgroups. With the current language, many schools with disadvantaged subgroup gains are disregarded, even when these gains exceed those of the eligible schools.” 

Chris Sharp- Commentary 

Chris Sharp is an Educator and a prize-winning professional writer. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.