Riverside County 2009 State of Education Address
Creating a Culture of Education across Riverside County
February 6th, 2009
Good Afternoon,
I want to thank all of you for joining us today as we bring together many of the stakeholders in our county’s public education system. I appreciate your interest in and support of our students and schools. Today, we will be highlighting some of their outstanding achievements over the past year. I also feel it is important to share with you some of the challenges we are facing in public education, along with the expectations and aspirations we hold for the success of every student.
The theme for this year’s State of Education address is “Creating a Culture of Education across Riverside County”. I want to acknowledge Ron Ellis, President of Cal Baptist University, for suggesting this idea. In some areas of our state and in pockets across the nation, students, schools, families and communities have developed and sustained high educational expectations for both youth and adults. The positive outcomes from those expectations create traditions that become an important part of their regional culture and identity. We want nothing less for our students and county.
With everything that public education has been going through over the past several years as a result of the economy, No Child Left Behind, and the never-ending California school funding crisis, we cannot waiver in putting forth our very best effort to demonstrate what we are made of, and that we, too, can create this culture.
With approximately 420,000 students, Riverside County is the 4th largest region of public education in the largest state in the nation. Our student population exceeds the total student enrollment in 17 states in our country. Our 23 local school districts are spread across seventy-two hundred square miles of diverse topography, communities and demographics. The Riverside County Office of Education fulfills an important intermediate agency role, serving both the California Department of Education and each local school district.
The county’s student population has changed significantly during the past decade. Our Hispanic students, depicted by the blue line on the graph, have reached almost 56% of the total student population. Our white student population, in the red, is about 28%, 7-1/2% are African-American students, and about 2-1/2% are Asian. The remaining students are comprised of a handful of other nationalities. This school year, for the first time in several decades, student enrollment in our county dropped by approximately 1,600 students, largely as a result of the slump in the housing market and foreclosures. That is a major trend shift, especially when we consider that during last year’s slowdown, Riverside County still increased by approximately 9,000 students over the prior year.
An important part of creating a culture of education with high expectations is having a solid school facilities infrastructure. There are 462 schools in the county and with our dynamic student enrollment and aging facilities there is an ongoing need for construction. Many of our school districts either have schools currently under construction or have completed construction projects during the past 12 months. These total almost $1.5 billion. Funds to construct and equip these projects come from four basic areas: voter approved statewide school bonds, local voter approved general obligation bonds, development fees assessed on new home construction, and financing at the local level.
Last summer, the Riverside County Office of Education completed a new Regional Learning Center adjoining the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District’s San Jacinto campus. And the Riverside County Office of Education plans to break ground on a new Regional Learning Center in Moreno Valley as soon as the state releases the freeze on funding school construction projects. The County Office of Education is also planning on breaking ground for a new Regional Learning Center in Murrieta—again, conditioned on the release of state funds.
With the problems that California is having in meeting their financial obligations, the state recently suspended its portion of the funding for several billion dollars in construction projects. This has brought havoc to school construction across the state, and several of the projects in Riverside County are impacted.
One of the most important marks of an educational culture is high levels of student academic achievement. As we open the classroom doors of these schools and look inside, two words best describe the scene of high achieving classrooms: “student engagement”. When students are engaged they are learning. And levels of learning are best reflected in assessments. I would like to spend a few minutes highlighting the results of student engagement as reflected in the state and federal academic accountability systems. Before I do, let me provide a brief context of these two systems for our stakeholders who may not be familiar with terms like API or AYP and the role they play in public education today.
In 1999, California adopted a set of statewide content standards, followed by an aligned curriculum and assessments through the Public Schools Accountability Act. This system has become known by its measuring stick, the Academic Performance Index, or API. The API is made up of a collection of assessments in four subject areas with an overall scoring range between 200 and 1,000. The state’s goal is for every school in California to have an API score of at least 800. When we look at school, district, and county API scores, we need to remember it is similar to scaling a mountain. The climbing is somewhat less difficult at the bottom but it is more difficult to make progress the higher up you go. The terrain is steeper, the air is thinner, the weather is a big factor, and unless you keep in excellent condition, the whole experience will drain your energy.
In 2001, with a concern for every student in every school, congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which created a federal accountability system. NCLB accountability is applicable to schools that accept Title I federal funding. NCLB required each state to develop its own standards, its own assessments, and its own curriculum, which California already had in place. But NCLB focuses on just two subjects; English Language arts, or ELA, and Mathematics as compared to California’s four; ELA, Mathematics, History/Social Science and Science.
NCLB created a two-part measuring stick based on what is referred to as subject “proficiency”, which was left up to every state to define, and “progress”, which are annual goals, or “targets” that were also left up to every state to establish—with the caveat that by 2014, essentially every student, grouped into what are called “significant Subgroups”, in every school in every state would be proficient in both subjects. The measuring stick is called Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP.
Schools and school districts that are not able to meet their targets for two consecutive years are deemed “failing” by the federal government and fall under a series of sanctions known as “Program Improvement.” California set mildly rigorous progress targets for the first few years of NCLB, but then the slope increases significantly.
With that backdrop, let us first take a look at how our students are doing on the state API assessment results—remembering that these numbers represent students, not just statistics. If we look at Riverside County as a whole, our 420,000 students made a 24 point API gain in the 2007-08 school year. That is the 2nd largest API gain of any county with 50,000 or more students in the state. When viewed over a nine-year period, a clear trend of sustained student academic improvement emerges. From 1999 to 2008, Riverside County’s average school API score rose 148 points from 591 to 739. This is the 7th largest total API gain of any county in the state. For the 2008-2009 school year we have established a countywide API target of 757—an increase of 18 points (see PowerPoint slides for district and school data.)
When we look at the countywide student data for NCLB proficiency in mathematics we see continual upward progress in the percentage of students becoming proficient for each significant subgroup. The same is true with our students in English Language Arts. This is good overall news for our students and schools (see PowerPoint slides for district and school data.)
The proficiency targets for next year for all students in all subgroups jump roughly another 11%.... As we can see by looking at the position of the tallest purple bar in each student subgroup compared to the light green line which represents the 2007-08 NCLB target of 34% on this slide, three subgroups in the county fell below the target; students with disabilities, English Learners, and students from low socio-economic circumstances. When we apply the 2008-09 NCLB target of 45% to the slide and then visualize the trend in the rate of increase in proficiency, we find there are five student subgroups which will likely be below the target.
Imagine what the gap will look like in the year 2014 when the target line is off the top of the slide! On a countywide basis, the highest performing subgroup of students grew by just over 20 percent during the past 7 years. There is only 5 years remaining under NCLB as it stands today and some student subgroups still have around 70 points to go! Given a realistic amount of time, we can get there, and we will. But not 70 points in 5 years!
As I mentioned before, if districts or schools are unable to meet those targets, they are subject to NCLB sanctions. As the targets now steadily increase, we are hearing more frequently about districts and schools across the state being designated as Program Improvement because their students cannot reach the moving targets. Some have irresponsibly applied that “failing” sound bite to anything that becomes Program Improvement, or PI. But unless NCLB is amended in the near future, every school and district in the state will eventually fall under PI and sanctions—including the very best schools.
On occasion, someone will ask if I believe NCLB is a “bad” thing, or if there is any real “value” to it. My answer is, “NO”, it is not a bad thing, and YES, there is some real value to it. While, as you can see, there are some aspects of NCLB that definitely need to be “fixed”, there is much good that we see coming from it. But NCLB and Title I help to remind us of the old saying, “there is no such thing as a free lunch”, and we might want to keep that in mind when we talk about the prospects of large quantities of “free” federal dollars pouring into California’s public school system in the near future.
When funding for California’s public schools were provided almost exclusively at the local level, it was largely up to those who provided that funding to hold their local school districts accountable for student achievement. When funding mandatorily shifted to the state, the state eventually took over the accountability piece. When the federal government stepped into the funding picture, albeit voluntarily, they also wanted a piece of the accountability process and NCLB was born. The difference is NCLB has some teeth in it.
With the state accountability system it is possible to score well on an overall basis and still leave some students “behind” to a degree. Not so with NCLB, and that is where the real value of it comes into play. As schools and districts have expanded their best efforts to affect every student at every school, largely through building true Professional Learning Communities, what was previously thought impossible becomes obtainable.
Some schools in the county that were designated PI, before getting too far up that steep slope, have been able to meet the NCLB targets and have their PI status rescinded. In fact, there were 8 that exited PI from our county just this past year. If representatives from these schools are with us today, we want to give them a special acknowledgement and invite them to stand. They are: Jefferson Elementary in Corona-Norco, Lyndon B. Johnson Elementary in Desert Sands, Hemet Elementary in Hemet, Butterfield Elementary and Elsinore Elementary from Lake Elsinore, Cathedral City Elementary and Della Lindley Elementary from Palm Springs, and Columbia Elementary from Val Verde. Let us give them a big round of applause!
A quote from an article in the Press-Enterprise about Columbia’s exiting PI reveals the real secret to that success. It reads, “Probably the single biggest factor in student improvement is teachers and kids believing in themselves…”
It certainly makes a difference when teachers believe in their students, and we have outstanding teachers in Riverside County that believe. Last year, one of our county’s finest teachers was selected to represent Riverside County at the state level. There, she was one of 13 finalists for consideration as one of 5 state teachers of the year. She was considered… and she was selected! She teaches 3rd grade at Eisenhower Elementary School in the Corona-Norco Unified School District. Although she is not able to be with us today, we are proud to acknowledge Lory Wicketts as a California State Teacher of the Year. Congratulations to Lory and her school!
There were 15 school districts in our county that have also been designated PI under NCLB. This past year, one of those districts was able to exit PI. They were the only school district in the state that was able to realize this extraordinary accomplishment last year [since that time, two additional districts across the state were determined by the California Department of Education to also have met the requirements to exit PI.] I would like to invite all of the representatives from the Lake Elsinore Unified School District who are with us here today to please stand! Congratulations!
Another aspect of NCLB is what is known as “highly qualified” teachers and paraprofessionals. In 2007-08, almost 95% of the teachers in Riverside County met the credential requirements to be considered “highly qualified”. In addition to ensuring our students are taught by highly qualified teachers, NCLB also requires training for paraprofessionals, such as instructional aides and librarians. 99% of the paraprofessionals in Riverside County were fully compliant with this area of NCLB.
When we talk about student academic achievement, we realize that some students are metaphorically climbing the mountain with a disadvantage. They may have started climbing later than the other teams or they may not speak the same language as their guides. Some even have physical, mental or emotional disabilities that limit their capacity to climb. But almost without exception they can climb. Whatever the reason for the climbing gap, ours is the responsibility to do everything we possibly can to help them catch-up with the others so they do not get left behind. We refer to this as closing the achievement gap between low-performing subgroups of students and higher-performing student subgroups.
The three measures we look at for determining our progress in closing the achievement gap across the county is data for each subgroup in API, AYP-English Language and Math for all students in the county.
In the first measure, which is looking at countywide API growth for our 6 significant student subgroups, I am pleased to report that Riverside County has the highest growth of any county in 4 of the 6 subgroups. In the second, which is looking at countywide AYP percentage of students proficient in English Language Arts in these same subgroups, I am very pleased to report that Riverside County has the highest increase of any county in the state in the percent of students proficient in all 6. And in the third, which is looking at countywide AYP percentage of students proficient in Mathematics in the subgroups, Riverside County also has the highest increase in the percent students proficient in all subgroups. That is exceptional news for our students!
The final area of student academic achievement I would like to focus on is high school graduation and post-secondary enrollment rates. In many ways, completing high school and being well prepared for postsecondary experiences like college, technical or industry training, and apprenticeships help build that culture and improve all of our student’s real world opportunities in life. It is the essence of student success. High school graduation ceremonies are intended to symbolize that accomplishment in the K-12 system.
Although data pertaining to high school graduation rates is already embedded in some of the measures we have looked at, those rates are so critical to our work that I would like us to look at them individually and in conjunction with data on students completing classes that meet what are called the “a-g” subject requirements for entrance into University of California or California State University schools. Students who make the effort to successfully complete the a-g requirements are highly likely to enroll in some form of postsecondary education.
Having said that, the data in both of these areas give us reason for grave concern and provide us with a great opportunity as a county. The current percentage of students graduating from high school in Riverside County is between 76 and 80%, based on data from CDE and local sources. However, Riverside County is currently ranked 42nd out of California’s 58 counties in graduation rates. As a county, we are committed to changing this and I know that every one of our school districts is working hard at it. Our countywide graduation rate target goal for the 2008-09 school year is 85%.
The current percentage of students completing a-g subject requirements is 27.3%. However, this data shows a downward trend. Riverside County is ranked 24th in students completing a-g requirements. We are also committed to reversing this trend. Our countywide target goal for the 2008-09 school year for the percentage of students completing a-g subject requirements is 35%.
I want to put in a strong word for the Advancement Via Individual Determination program, also known as AVID, which is one of the most effective strategies developed yet to deal with both of these two areas. AVID is an in-school academic support program that targets students in the middle—B, C, and even D students—who have the desire to go to college and the willingness to work hard. These students are capable of completing rigorous curriculum but are falling short of their potential. Typically, they will be the first in their families to attend college, and many are from low-income or minority families. AVID pulls these students out of their unchallenging courses and puts them on the college track: acceleration instead of remediation. AVID has a proven track record of helping students get on a college-bound educational pathway early in life and staying on it. It is most effective when it is offered well before students reach high school.
Let me share an excerpt from a story about how AVID has helped a young man living in the Coachella Valley. He writes “I’m Emmanuel, I’m 17 years old and currently attending Desert Mirage High School. My family and I immigrated four years ago, trying to achieve the American dream. The way to accomplish this is to go to college and to further educate myself. I hope to eventually attend medical school and become a doctor in my community. Since I want to major in medicine I like to challenge myself and I always try to get the challenging classes. The AVID program has encouraged me to pursue my dream. Currently, I’m ranked fifth in my class, achieve Honor Roll each semester, I’ve received Academic Achievement Awards, Good Citizenship Awards and I take almost every AP class my school offers.”
The vast majority of high school graduates in our county that attend college are AVID students. RCOE is a big, big supporter of AVID. We recently reassigned one of our county math coordinators to be a countywide AVID coordinator. But if we really believe that graduating from high school and being eligible for college is a major part of what public education is about, we must do more to help all school districts and secondary schools embrace AVID.
Now, I would like to mention a fairly unique initiative that was launched by the Riverside County Office of Education this past year called Come Back Kids. Those of you that know me well know of my deep concern for each student that drops out of school. There was a time in our nation’s history when completing high school was not an expectation for most young people and there were many opportunities for them to fit in on the farm or the factory when they left school early. Those days are long gone—especially in this economy. The 21st century economy and a standard of living above poverty require a skilled labor force. Dropouts are much more likely to live below the poverty level, become involved in criminal activity, and raise children who repeat the cycle.
Recently, a Coordinator Principal at one of RCOE’s regional learning centers told me of a young single mother with 3 children who was having difficulty finding a job that would allow her to care for her family. She stopped into the center and talked with Jay Franklin, the Campus Supervisor. She did not complete high school because at the time she did not value her education or see how it would impact her life in the future. When she left school, she felt she had a good grasp on where her life was headed and she believed she would be able to get a job that would pay enough to support her family. She asked, “Can I attend school here and somehow finish my high school education?” The better paying jobs she wanted to apply for all required a high school diploma and to be successful, she needed to complete her education. She stated to Jay that she could now clearly see having a good high school education was the key to getting a “good job” and without an education, she had no where to go!
There are essentially two ways to tackle the dropout issue, prevention and reclamation. Everything we have been talking about so far today relates to preventing students from leaving school prematurely by keeping them engaged and connected to their school through an interesting, challenging, relevant education. When students do leave school early, the vast majority of them do not come back. This school year, the Riverside County Office of Education opened Come Back Kids, the first countywide dropout recovery program. The program currently operates at the new regional learning center located next to the Mt. San Jacinto Community College campus in San Jacinto. The center is a joint-use project with the college where RCOE operates a variety of classes for students during the day and the college operates programs on the campus in the evening. Come Back Kids involves an outreach effort to locate and invite disengaged students to come back to school in a completely different learning environment than they experienced when they were unsuccessful, and reengage with their potential. We anticipate bringing back between 50 and 100 dropouts a year through this center.
Besides San Jacinto, RCOE also operates regional learning centers in Riverside, Banning, and Perris near March Air Reserve Base. We are approved for state funding for two more centers this year; one here in Moreno Valley and one in Murrieta. We have had preliminary discussions about the possibility of a center in the Romoland area, which would involve Supervisor Ashley’s assistance, and we are hoping to announce another center in the Coachella Valley in the next few months. It is our plan to operate Come Back Kids programs at each of our regional learning centers across the county. We believe these centers will be a significant support and resource to help student dropouts return to school and complete their high school education.
Before I say a few closing words about the state budget, I want to share an observation about another challenge that is affecting our students, and in many ways, it is the most important challenge—it is called home. Starting in kindergarten, we typically see a very high level of parental or caregiver involvement and support in their children’s education and in their life. But as a child progresses through school, going through the various stages of maturation, parents often experience difficulty adjusting to these changes, and they experience challenges of their own. As a child approaches graduation in the 12th grade, on an average, parent involvement drops to less than 50%! I have no reservations in saying, and I am sure Sheriff Sniff would concur; these are very challenging times to be a parent or to be a youth in California. Schools can be many things to many people, but they cannot be an effective substitute for parents or caregivers. I commend those schools that have taken the initiative to offer quality parenting classes and programs to their communities. Just think what a difference it would make in our society if every school had and promoted an ongoing parenting program.
Since public education in our state is so heavily impacted by the state budget, I suspect some of you are interested in hearing a little about this today. Each year, California’s students continue to have more required of them in terms of increasing student achievement, with decreasing resources. In the 2007-08 school-year, we were expected to meet these requirements with billions of dollars less than in the prior year. 2008-09 and 09-10 promise more of the same.
As we look across Riverside County, we see a regional public education system that is making steady progress in improving student achievement. These accomplishments are especially noteworthy when we consider that California’s instructional content standards are among the most rigorous in the nation and that Riverside County is home to an extremely diverse language, ethnic, and economic student population. But again, our schools are being expected to do more with less funding—this time, far less.
I wish to also point out, however, that California has an inherent financial problem unlike any other state. For well over a century, California’s public education system was funded in much the same way as public education is funded in most other states—at the local level. In 1972, California ranked 10th nationally in per pupil funding. Thirty years ago that changed. The funding model for California schools was completely revamped, shifting the responsibility from the local level to the state, which now controls over 80% of the funding that schools receive.
For years, both finance and education experts have been warning that California’s present education funding model will overburden the state budget’s financial capacity, inadequately fund our public school system, and transfer local control of public education over to the state. Local schools will have heavy accountability without authority to allocate resources. In testimony to their predictions, California has dropped to almost dead last in per-pupil funding and hundreds of new bills, designed to control some aspect of public education, are introduced each year. If passed, they ultimately end up as regulations in California’s mammoth Education Code—among the largest of any state. Now, we have introduced a new achievement gap: the gap between growing expectations for school performance and the resources that need to be invested to make it happen.
Just days after California adopted the 2008-09 state budget in September, the Governor convened a special legislative session to address a state budget shortfall. In reality, that shortfall is a carryover from prior years that has not been addressed. Since that time, the legislature and the governor have been grappling with an estimated $41 billion shortfall in budget revenues—the largest in U.S. History. As of today, there is no end in sight because there are no easy answers to this predicament.
Traditionally, in January of each year, the governor incorporates his budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year into his annual State of the State Address. This year, his State of the State was short and to the point – “we need a budget and we need it now”. His budget proposal contained two elements: one, addressing the current year shortfall and, the other focused on the 2009-10 projected shortfall. The proposed combined cuts to public education will be a devastating blow to our education system and our state’s economy! But without additional revenue from somewhere, they will be unavoidable.
No one can deny that our national economy is in a deep recession that is growing to look more like a depression by the week, and it is likely to last for quite some time. But we must also understand that no other state in this country is even considering the types of cuts to their public education system that are being proposed here in California. Solving this problem requires more than just saying “NO” to cuts or “NO” to taxes. It means all of us must fully comprehend the magnitude of the education funding problem facing us today and the impact it will have on us tomorrow if we do not take corrective action to fix it now.
Currently, we are approximately $13.9 billion dollars a year below the national average in per-pupil funding and we are almost $24 billion a year below our 10th place ranking in 1972. If we keep this up, California will soon be entering the funding range of 3rd world countries. I do not for a minute believe this is what our citizens want. We must be willing to make some difficult decisions and substantial sacrifices in order to create funding solutions dedicated specifically for public education. That is an investment in the future. California’s (and the nation’s) economy is only as strong as the education and skill level of those who work and live here. We must have an acceptable plan for funding our public education system that will move California back to at least the national average over the next seven to ten years and at the very least, keep us there. With all of the academic gains we have made over the last decade, we cannot afford to let our public education system continue to fall behind the rest of the country in funding.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank all of you for joining us today. We have our work cut out for us. As we work together we can continue to create that world-class education system our students so deserve. May God bless our country, and especially our county. Thank you!
|
