After failing to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress goal, the
Spring Grove School’s appeal was denied by the California
Department of Education Monday.
The only school in the county to appeal its placement as a
Program Improvement school, Spring Grove appealed based on four
grounds. The biggest discrepancy was that the district met its AYP,
but the school did not, even though the two populations are the
same.
After failing to meet its Adequate Yearly Progress goal, the Spring Grove School’s appeal was denied by the California Department of Education Monday.
The only school in the county to appeal its placement as a Program Improvement school, Spring Grove appealed based on four grounds. The biggest discrepancy was that the district met its AYP, but the school did not, even though the two populations are the same.
“How can we meet the AYP as a district, but not as a school even though we’re a single-school district?” said Tom Guajardo, superintendent of the North County Joint Union School District. “I didn’t expect this at all. I hope to get something in writing as to why we were denied.”
Program Improvement means students at public schools did not meet targets on standardized tests. Scores on these tests are calculated into a target, referred to as Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP. If a school fails to meet its AYP for two years in a row, it is categorized as a PI school. AYP and PI are parts of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Spring Grove is in Year 2 with consequences including offering parents the choice to send their children to another school not in PI, spending 10 percent of funds on professional development and providing supplemental services to all eligible students. The school has already sent out school choice letters, but has received no requests to transfer to another school, Guajardo said.
Almost 200 schools across the state appealed the PI placement. While most appeals were denied, others were approved, deferred or pending. All decisions are final, according to the California Department of Education Web site.
Spring Grove’s other appeal grounds were: Academic Performance Index estimates show socio-economically disadvantaged students made big improvements, so officials argue AYP numbers should show the same; and the Safe Harbor provision that allows English Language Learners who have been redesignated as fluent to be categorized as English Language Learners for three years after the fluency redesignation for the purposes of the AYP – something Spring Grove officials did not know about at the time of the Standardized Testing And Reporting test in May.
There are two more phases of appeals available.
The Phase II appeal period will occur in October once the Phase II data are released. Eligible to appeal will be schools that may have met the Phase I criteria but do not meet the October AYP criteria and, thus, face PI consequences.
The Phase III appeal period will begin in December. This final appeal will be allowed for those few schools that changed PI status as a result of the Phase III data.
For more information on the appeals, visit www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/titleone/pi/piappealdecision.htm
