The schools on this list are among the lowest 8 percent in the state in terms of performance data, according to a new state analysis. The high schools have extremely low graduation rates. The other schools are rated near the bottom in most performance metrics tracked by the state.
Thousands of human children – each one of them far less likely to succeed than their peers in other schools – attend these struggling schools every day. These children are more likely to be brown and poor than white and affluent. They are less likely to graduate, less likely to attend college, less likely to get a good job and more likely to go to jail. Do we have a plan for them?
Making lists like this is controversial. One need look no further than the release of the data last Thursday to understand the shifting dynamics of education politics. State officials quietly published the full list of under-performing schools, which is required by federal law, without even issuing a press release.
In years past, when charter school advocates had the political swagger, ranking schools was more in vogue. Many states still use an A-F grading system – California does not – to rate schools. But, as teachers’ unions and their supporters have rightly pointed out, what those rankings actually tell us is fuzzy. They may say more about a school’s poverty level, for instance, than whether teachers are doing a good job educating students. The grades have also been used to shut down schools, which can cause more harm than good.
But there should be a middle ground between grading schools and making no effort to publicly identify those in dire need of help.