IMPEACH BUSH

(09-22) 20:20 PDT  -- If the system mandated by No Child Left Behind to fix thousands of failing schools were subjected to its own rigorous standards, it too could fail.

That's the conclusion of the first large study examining whether school-restructuring programs required by the federal No Child Left Behind education act are actually working.

The study, released today, found that the number of schools failing to meet achievement goals nationwide under No Child Left Behind jumped by 50 percent since last year - with California leading the way.

California now has more than 1,000 persistently failing schools forced to undergo drastic restructuring, the study found. That's more than any other state, yet few are being helped by the mandated process.

"We think the federal law is like a first draft of a paper - and we don't think it's developed very well," said Jack Jennings, president of the independent Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C., which has studied No Child Left Behind for years and has now turned its attention to "school restructuring" efforts in five states, including California.

The study name says it all: "A Call to Restructure Restructuring."

Little guidance from feds

The U.S. Department of Education "has offered little guidance on what to do about persistently struggling schools," according to the report.

As a result, the study found that local efforts to comply with the law and turn schools around are often poorly focused and tend to lack a key ingredient: qualified teachers.

"I would agree," said Jack O'Connell, California's elected schools chief. "You have to question your entire accountability program when you're setting all your schools up for failure."

The idea of No Child Left Behind is that 100 percent of students will score "proficient" in reading and math by 2014. To get there, a rising percentage of students at every school has to score proficient each year.

Program Improvement

Schools failing to meet those annual proficiency goals two years in a row enter Program Improvement. The first few years include carrots: free tutoring for kids, extra training for teachers and other technical help. Schools that still don't meet the goals after three years face drastic restructuring measures: reopening as a charter school, replacing all staff, being operated by an outside agency or - the most popular - "any other major restructuring" they choose, such as changing the curriculum.

More than 3,500 schools across the country are in the restructuring phase of Program Improvement this year. That's a 50 percent increase from last year, when about 2,300 schools had to restructure, the study says.

The problem is that even those drastic measures don't help in most cases.

Success is measured by whether a school meets academic goals. (Last spring, about 35 percent of California students had to score proficient in reading and math at each school. Next spring, it will jump to about 45 percent.) If a school succeeds for two years in a row, it can exit Program Improvement.

Schools stuck in phase

But once in Program Improvement, the study found, schools rarely exit.

For example, in 2007, when just 25 percent of students had to score proficient at each school, only 14 percent of restructuring schools in California met the academic goals.

Cox Elementary in Oakland entered Program Improvement years ago, before the ink was dry on the No Child Left Behind law.

By 2005, it had failed so many times that drastic restructuring was required. Cox chose to reopen as an autonomous public charter school that could make its own decisions - an idea embraced by the U.S. Department of Education as a good move for troubled schools.

Three years later, the school has yet to meet its academic targets.

"Program Improvement does nothing for me," said Principal Fernando Yanez, who works for the nonprofit Education for Change, which now operates Cox.

"Program Improvement is a stigma that's placed on a school. There's no funds - No Child Left Behind is great political rhetoric. But is it really realistic that 100 percent of our students will get there by 2014?"

Money is a big problem, the study found.

Funding drops dramatically

Each state is required to set aside 4 percent of its federal Title 1 funds for low-income children specifically to help schools in Program Improvement. Two years ago in California, that was $69 million.

But last year, it plunged to $33 million because a clause in the law says states can't set aside the full amount if doing so would deprive other schools of money they are entitled to.

The study also found that "dramatic flourishes" such as transformation into charter schools really didn't help with achievement.

For example, replacing the staff - one of the law's recommended approaches - often had the unintended consequence of leaving the school with no qualified replacements.

Focus on better instruction

"These methods satisfy the adults because you can walk away and say, 'I really kicked ass - I made them abolish their school,' " said Jennings, president of the group that conducted the study. "But instead of shaking up the school, it may be that we need to improve instruction."

The study found more success at schools that focused intensely on improving instruction, extending the school day and tutoring.

Written by consultant Caitlin Scott, the study offers several recommendations for "restructuring restructuring." These include expanding the list of strategies that work, better monitoring of schools and their plans, and replacing teachers only if there are enough experts to take their place.

How restructuring works

Schools enter Program Improvement if they miss No Child Left Behind's academic targets for two years in a row, and if they receive federal Title 1 money for low-income schools. In California, more than 6,000 schools are eligible, and more than 4,500 are in Program Improvement.

Schools exit Program Improvement by making targets two years in a row.

During the first two years of Program Improvement, schools receive help from the school district. This ranges from free tutoring for certain students to professional development for teachers. In the third year, the district steps in with greater oversight. If the school still fails to meet targets, it enters the Restructuring phase of PI. Here's what happens:

Year 4

The district continues providing technical assistance and professional development, and it must notify parents of the school's status; children have the right to transfer to a higher-performing school, and to receive tutoring. The district and school must choose which restructuring method they will implement:

-- Reopen school as a charter.

-- Replace all or most staff, including principal.

-- Contract with outside entity to manage school.

-- State takeover.

-- Any other major restructuring.

Year 5

The school and district carry out restructuring. The school remains in Program Improvement until it meets academic goals for two consecutive years.

Source: California Department of Education

Restructuring

1,013

Number of California schools required

to restructure

48

Number of restructured schools in the state that met academic goals

To see the full report, go to the Center on Education Policy at www.cep-dc.org.

E-mail Nanette Asimov at nasimov@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle