Item H on the agenda for the Nov. 17 meeting of the Board of Education is titled “Final Review of Request for Division-Level Review for Richmond City Public Schools.” It recites a request from the Richmond School Board for a division-level review of the Richmond system.
The agenda item concludes:
The Superintendent of Public Instruction recommends that the Virginia Board of Education approve the Request for Division-Level Review for Richmond City Public Schools.
Rationale for Action:
The request for Division-Level Review for Richmond City Public Schools supports accountability for student learning. Results of the review will be used to develop a division-level Memorandum of Understanding and Corrective Action Plan which will support improvement in the academic performance of students in Richmond City Public Schools.
The Board is operating here under an enabling statute:
§ 22.1-253.13:3. Standard 3. Accreditation, other standards, assessments, and releases from state regulations.
* * *
When the Board of Education determines through the school academic review process that the failure of schools within a division to achieve full accreditation status is related to division-level failure to implement the Standards of Quality or other division-level action or inaction, the Board may require a division-level academic review. After the conduct of such review and within the time specified by the Board of Education, each school board shall submit to the Board for approval a corrective action plan, consistent with criteria established by the Board setting forth specific actions and a schedule designed to ensure that schools within its school division achieve full accreditation status.
That’s clear enough: The prerequisite to a division-level academic review is a “determin[ation].” No determination, no authority to conduct a division-level review.
The agenda item, notably the recommendation, is silent as to the required determination of “division-level failure to implement the Standards of Quality or other division-level action or inaction” leading to failure to receive full accreditation. The Board thus is proposing to strike out into ultra vires (that’s Latin for “lawsuit bait”) territory.
As well, the Superintendent’s rationale is silent as to facts that would support a determination of such division-level failure or action or inaction. It mentions only that the Richmond request “supports accountability for student learning” (whatever that means) and will lead to a “Plan.” So the Board’s paperwork also fails to state the factual prerequisite for the required finding. In this respect, the rationale ignores the attachments that show only a third of the Richmond schools fully accredited).
Finally, and most important to the schoolchildren of Richmond, the Board’s paperwork asserts only that the resulting Plan will “support” academic improvement but not that it will produce improvement or lead to accreditation. This Board of “Education” is so unsure of its own capability that it is unable to assert that its intervention will do any good.
Unfortunately, that timidity is well founded. The Board has been conducting futile “academic reviews” of the Petersburg system since at least 2004 with the result that only two of six Petersburg schools are fully accredited. Indeed, the Board members admit (Sept. 21, 2016 video starting at 1:48) that they don’t know how to fix bad schools.
For observance of the requirement of § 22.1-253.13:3 and for clarity and completeness of its paperwork and for the effectiveness of its academic review process, the Board of Education gets an F.