News

Stanford school tale reflects state-law conflict

Ravenswood gains financially by closing struggling but improving charter school

Closure of a Stanford University-sponsored charter elementary school in East Palo Alto will bring substantial sums into the coffers of the financially strapped Ravenswood City School District for the new school year.

Financial results of the abrupt closure of the low-performing -- but improving -- three-year-old charter school underline the conflict of interest inherent in state charter school laws.

In the case of the Stanford-sponsored East Palo Alto Academy Elementary School, which was shut down in June, the school's fate was in the hands of a financially pressed school district that directly benefited from the closure.

The vast majority of the 250 children from the shuttered school will fan out to neighborhood campuses this fall, bringing state revenue with them.

A $2.15 million increase in the Ravenswood district's operating budget is "entirely associated with the returning students," Chief Business Official Megan Curtis said this week.

Curtis was referring to children from the Stanford school as well as from Edison-Brentwood, another charter school whose operator withdrew in May after 10 years of managing the high-performing school.

Together, the two schools are sending approximately 600 students back onto district rolls.

"Overall, we would have lost $4 million, but the returning students reduced that and brought back revenues to the district," Curtis said.

As a "revenue limit" district under school finance formulas, Ravenswood state funding is tied directly to enrollment.

Following a contentious April meeting in which students, parents, volunteers and Stanford professors pleaded to save the Stanford elementary school, Ravenswood trustees voted 3-2 to deny a five-year charter renewal. A week later, they voted 4-1 to shutter the school as of this past June.

Trustees and Ravenswood Superintendent Maria De La Vega cited poor academic performance and ineffective classroom management as reasons for the closure.

Indeed, a month earlier, the Stanford elementary school was one of three Ravenswood campuses that had turned up on the state's preliminary list of "worst-performing schools." Stanford said it was appealing the listing.

"Whether your name is Stanford or something else, it's all about the data," Ravenswood trustee Larry Moody said at the time.

"Certain levels of performance had to be adhered to."

Ravenswood Board Chair Sharifa Wilson said the district had been embarrassed by the "worst-performing schools" listing.

"We have a responsibility to see that the children from this community are receiving a good quality education and, it frustrates me also, we are measured by these scores and held accountable for (Stanford's) failure."

Stanford argued that the decision to close the school was premature and rested on skimpy data -- barely more than two years worth of test scores.

The university said new policies were enacted last year that would boost results within a year or two -- and substantial improvement in the May 2010 standardized test results has borne out that argument.

In English Language Arts, the school went from having 54 percent to 70 percent of second graders scoring at "basic" or above achievement levels between 2009 and 2010. Among third graders in English Language Arts, the jump was from 35 percent to 64 percent. There was no 2009 data for fourth and fifth graders, and thus no basis for comparison.

In math, second graders scoring "basic" and above jumped from 52 percent in 2009 to 81 percent in 2010. Among third graders, the jump was from 38 percent to 71 percent.

"If you look at many charter schools, the first few years don't look that great -- and then there's often a jump," Stanford School of Education Dean Deborah Stipek said in an interview last week.

April's closure vote followed conflicting interpretation of reams of often contradictory state data, and ultimately was a judgment call by trustees.

Stanford argued that the charter was technically qualified for automatic renewal.

"In a technical sense I suppose we could say they have met the criteria," San Mateo County Counsel Tim Fox said at the April meeting.

"However, the overarching question for charter renewal is whether the charter petition represents a sound educational program and whether the charter petitioners are likely to succeed in implementing the program it describes.

"So when the data show there's a problem -- even if they technically meet the metrics -- it's a matter of consideration for the board."

The board chose to go with De La Vega's firm recommendation that the school was not likely to improve on its poor academic results.

Asked this week to comment on the improved May 2010 test scores, De La Vega responded: "I am pleased to see the progress of the students at Stanford Elementary on their (California Standards Test) for school year 2009-2010.

"Our decision not to allow Stanford New School to operate grades K-4 was based on 2009 data and programmatic issues."

De La Vega did not comment directly on a potential conflict of interest in having the school district decide the fate of the charter school.

However, in an interview that touched on the charter school issue last December, she said: "We're all working toward the same end, but oftentimes it becomes competitive.

"I know it's not their intent, but when you take (students) away it makes it more difficult to work through those challenges.

"My role as superintendent is to protect the district and make sure we're left with the ability to provide a quality education."

Stanford continues to operate a charter high school in East Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Academy, which also will house a fifth grade class this fall.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Oliver
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 25, 2010 at 10:43 am

Dear Superintendent De La Vega - Your role as superintendent should not be to protect the district. Your role should be to provide the best education and opportunities possible to students who live in your district.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2010 at 10:48 am

Oliver:

isn't the superintendent doing so, by funneling $2.6 million into the rest of the district, benefiting a far greater number of students?


Like this comment
Posted by C
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Aug 25, 2010 at 11:33 am

Money comes money goes..... When will they care about the students and what the student wants?


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2010 at 11:53 am

C:

isn't the superintendent doing so, by funneling $2.6 million into the rest of the district, benefiting a far greater number of students?


Like this comment
Posted by Joshua Zucker
a resident of Menlo Park
on Aug 25, 2010 at 12:15 pm

anonymous: 2.6 million for 600 students is only $4333 per student.

According to Web Link the district spends $7922 per pupil, and the district spends 58% on instruction, which is already more than $4333 per pupil without considering any other costs for supporting these students.

So how does this benefit other students? It seems like this is going to be a significant reduction in per-pupil spending.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Add the numbers in, use the whole equation.

or as Mr Twain is oft credited: "lies, damn lies, and..."


Like this comment
Posted by puckman979
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2010 at 3:32 pm

You can add, subtract, multiply and divide all you want. Ravenswood has 600 more students to educate and they'll be measured by the same academic standards. Give the Stanford vs. Ravenswood debate a rest and let the Ravenswood educators do their jobs. Try some support and encouragement for a change!


Like this comment
Posted by Lovinda
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2010 at 3:46 pm

As a volunteer for several years at the former East Palo Alto Academy, my experiences were all positive. The teachers were devoted; the kids worked hard. I fear that this decision was not made in the best interests of the children. Here's hoping that, somehow, the kids come out stronger and better educated!


Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2010 at 7:46 pm

This appears to be a black eye for Stanford. The kids apparently were not doing very well academically, and many of the teachers from Stanford had a hard time relating to the kids.

It's sad I don't think it should have been closed; Stanford should have been given another chance to revamp the program to help both the student teachers and the kids.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,219 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 1,157 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,004 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 847 views