Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Class of 2017

Onward! 4LAKids
4LAKids: Sunday 28•Oct•2012
In This Issue:
 •  LOTS OF ‘IFS’ IN ADOPTING A-G: Districts must make commitment to students
 •  HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other Sources
 •  EVENTS: Coming up next week...
 •  What can YOU do?

Featured Links:
 •  OUR CHILDREN, OUR FUTURE: What will California schoolchildren, your school district and YOUR School get when the initiative passes?
 •  Follow 4 LAKids on Twitter - or get instant updates via text message by texting
 •  4LAKids Anthology: All the Past Issues, solved, resolved and unsolved!
 •  4LAKidsNews: a compendium of recent items of interest - news stories, scurrilous rumors, links, academic papers, rants and amusing anecdotes, etc.
THE LAUSD BOARD OF EDUCATION CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION COMMITTEE reconstituted itself and met after a hiatus last Tuesday. [Video:]

The boardmembers on the committee: Marguerite LaMotte, Bennett Kayser and Richard Vladovic are trustees with classroom instruction experience – along with Steve Zimmer a quartet that should dominate the board …not the politically ambitious +connected “Tony’s Grlz". But reality and the tangled web of L.A. politics and political/foundation/philanthropic finance portend otherwise.

The outside (ex-officio) members of the committee form a rare mix of LAUSD institutional memory – a commodity missing in an organization that has deliberately pushed out, RIFed, laid-off, and voluntarily separated itself from its own past …a culling of the herd through attrition, budget cuts, back-room political intrigue and rightsizing.

During the C&I Committee meeting – during a PowerPoint-driven data dump celebrating the glorious upward sweep of test scores and graduation rates - the good news came eyeball-to-eyeball with the Elephant in the Room: The implementation of the A-G Graduation Requirements. When one looks at that data the trending – and the inevitability – is negative. Grad rates will plummet lower than they have ever been; the Dropout Rate (which is not the same) will climb off-the-charts because students will not stay in school if graduation is impossible. The Goal is 100% Graduation – 64% is the current rate – but only 32% of students are currently on track for Graduation under A-G.

Excuse me for tossing away statistical analysis and trending algorithms for third-grade math …but 32% is half of 64%.

“Wait!” you say; “Isn’t A-G isn’t already in place?”

THE A-G GRAD REQUIREMENT was adopted with great fanfare by the Board of Ed in 2005, seven years ago – driven by Monica Garcia when she was Jose Huizar’s chief-of-staff; then Families in Schools maven/current LAUSD chief of parent engagement (enragement?) Maria Casillas [], and UCLA IDEA.

But in the years since the A-G implementation has been oft-delayed+postponed. A-G now applies as a grad requirement for the first time to incoming high-school freshmen (freshpeople?) this fall. The Class of 2017 …students who were in the first grade in 2005.

Monica is now the President of the Board of Ed; Ms. Casillas was the subject of vitriolic attack (and allegations of assault) from parents later in the C&I meeting, and UCLA IDEA has distanced itself from LAUSD’s diluted flavor of A-G |

And after seven years to prep, LAUSD is neither ready nor prepared. We can blame the economy; District staff is prepared to blame the trigger cuts if those happen. A little hubris goes a long way. Nobody seems prepared to look in the mirror – especially those in the restrooms on the 24th floor at 333 South Beaudry Avenue.

See: Blaming Your Own Team by Deborah Meier --

San Jose Unified has had an A-G Grad Requirement since the class of 2002 and a Stanford U/Silicon Valley Education Foundation study recommends more districts adopt A-G …but:

“…if and only if they have the means to implement the policy properly. A district must determine if they have the resources to establish adequate supports, provide sufficient professional development, and execute the other important steps discussed in the practical issues section.

“Furthermore, we encourage districts to methodically plan for A-G well in advance, and to have committed leaders steering the initiative. “ []

That has to be one of the great “but… qualifiers” in public education. Everyone should have a Bentley …but only if they can afford one.

On the face of it San Jose Unified has an 83.7% grad rate – which is phenomenal. But SJUSD recognizes a “D” as a passing grade in A-G courses; the UC/CSUs do not, LAUSD will not. Only 40.5% of SJUSD grads actually meet UC/CSU admission standards. [CDE data]

When Deputy Superintendent Jaime Aquino – the LAUSD point person on A-G – was asked if the counselors, parents and the actual eighth grade students themselves – they who are the subjects and poster-children of this great social experiment – are aware of that status he was momentarily taken aback – and then began to describe a proposed tri-fold brochure to inform them.

TRI-FOLD BROCHURES ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS, STAFF or STUDENTS. And no self-respecting middle-scholar ever took any tri-fold brochure home that wasn’t about grad night at Disneyland, Magic Mountain or Universal Studios.

And totally absent in the LAUSD plan for A-G (or the seeming lack thereof) – or in the apparently aborted application for the $40 million Race to the Top Grant – is any acknowledgement that any of this discussion has taken place before – that these plans have been planned before – that some of the groundwork has been done – and conveniently ignored – the process abandoned in favor of other, sparkly, shiny things.

BEFORE THERE WAS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE and Partnership Schools and Pilot Schools and all those Charter Schools – before there was Reform-with an-® – there were plans for deep and meaningful intervention programs, bridge programs for transitioning elementary-to-middle and middle-to-high schoolers. There was discussion and plans and programs about College Prepared and Career Ready where the career readiness part was more than two empty words. There were plans for Individualized Graduation Programs to engage students and their parents in own personalized education plans. There were comprehensive after, before and between-the-bells programs to address the gaps: Achievement, Opportunity and English Language Learners. There was Summer School. There was deep discussion among educators, parents, community partners and experts from preschool-to-higher-ed about A-G. There were task-forces and study groups and plans made.

Nobody makes excellent plans and then puts them on a shelf to never look at them again better than LAUSD.

IT ISN'T JOHN DEASY'S FAULT that LAUSD has failed to pursue and implement reforms defined and designed during Roy Romer and David Brewer’s tenures.

But those reforms – newly rediscovered as this week’s flavor of reform in the RttT Application and A-G Implementation – reinvented and reverse engineered, the data digitized+disaggregated and labeled as New+Improved, are many days late and many dollars short. And they ignore the contributions, input and hard work of many stakeholders – including community partners, collective bargaining partners and past leadership since discredited, disrespected and forced out. They are not Deasy’s fault, neither are they Deasy’s doing. They are, like a past-due assignment, just late.

It never was about bad teachers or bad teachers unions. It was and continues to be about poor leadership. It will probably continue to be so until July 1, 2013.


Gentle Readers, Much hinges on the election ahead. And the one after that.

I have stated on these pages my support for Proposition 38 – which really sends real money to schools.

If the argument was either 38 or 30 – or which is better for schools and kids – I’d have to say vote for 38 – but it isn’t.

No Harm Can Be Done By Voting YES ON BOTH …and relying upon the pure democracy of the will of the majority for the one with the most votes to prevail.

The polling and trending is sadly running negative on both – and the children of California will be harmed if both fail. Will they be harmed irretrievably? No, but damage will be done and they will be hurt by having class sizes increased, programs cut and the school year shortened. Not one of them will ever get the years spent with not enough money, time and programs back.

I am not going to sermonize and weigh the decision between What is Politic vs. What is Right. Stephen Hawking describes the Arrow of Time. We cannot change its direction, only the way we face.


¡EverOnward/SiempreAdelante! - smf

LOTS OF ‘IFS’ IN ADOPTING A-G: Districts must make commitment to students
By John Fensterwald – TOPEd/Educated Guess |

(a chestnut, suitable for roasting from April of last year)

Posted on 4/27/11 :: Five large urban school districts[1] have joined San Jose Unified in adopting the course requirements for admission to California’s four-year universities as their high school graduation requirements, and plan to impose them within the next five years. A report by public policy seniors at Stanford University concluded that other districts also should consider doing so – but “if and only if they have the means to implement the policy properly.”

With heavy budget cuts on the books and more looming, that will be increasingly difficult to do. Last month, the school board of one of the five districts, San Diego Unified, voted to push back the start of the new graduation requirement two years because of the expense involved in hiring more counselors, helping students struggling with higher standards, and adding academically demanding career technical programs at a time when existing career academies are under financial strain. The new graduation requirement will first affect this year’s seventh graders, the Class of 2016, according to Sid Salazar, assistant superintendent of the the state’s second largest district.

Previous TOP-Ed posts (here: and here: have debated the wisdom of adopting a universal college prep high school curriculum, which in California is 15 courses that the California State University and University of California require all entering students to have completed with at least a grade of C in each. Known as A-G, it includes four years of English, three years of math, two years of lab science, two years of history, two years of a foreign language, a year of visual or performing arts and a year of electives.

What the report “RAISING THE BAR” makes clear is that data in California for and against the policy arguments is spotty. In part, that’s because San Jose Unified remains the only urban district to have adopted A-G, staring with the Class of 2002. Comparisons are limited.

San Jose Unified reports that its dropout rate has not fallen, while its A-G completion rate has risen from about 30 percent in 1998 to 47 percent of the class of 2008, compared with the statewide rate of 35 percent. The percentage of Latinos in the district satisfying the A-G requirements was 29 percent, compared with 22 percent statewide. The percentage of students deemed college ready in math, under the Early Assessment Program that juniors take, was about 8 percentage points higher than the state average, but, at 23 percent, still very low. A majority of students at CSU campuses must take remedial courses to catch up.

Dropout rates in California have been inaccurate (they soon will become accurate, however, as a result of four years of data using student identifiers); A-G course completion rates are self-reported by districts and, according to the UC system, very unreliable. Limited data notwithstanding, San Jose Unified argues that raising standards and expectations through A-G adoption has been a success. To an extent, that is true.

But the 50 percent of students in the district still not satisfying A-G admission requirements, primarily because they received Ds or Fs (48 percent in math alone, according to an Education Trust-West study| raises two questions:

Can districts adopt more and earlier interventions for struggling students?

Should there be other options than A-G for students who decide, by the time they’re juniors, that they may want to pursue job training or an associate’s degree or vocational certificate after high school?

San Diego Unified views career and college preparation as linked. The intent, Salazar says, is to require all high school students to take some career courses, whether culinary arts, pre-engineering or medical technology, exposing all students to technical skills and vocations. Seeing that all of the courses meet A-G requirements will be a challenge; adding a career component will be another expense, which is why the trustees put off formal adoption for now.

East Side Union High School District in San Jose has adopted an opt-out policy for the inaugural Class of 2015, which will permit exemptions by students and families from A-G. In the Stanford report, educators disagreed as to whether that will end up being a high or low number. That will likely depend on how well students are prepared for higher level work when they arrive in ninth grade.

The Silicon Valley Education Foundation (my employer) pushed East Side Union trustees to adopt A-G and is now helping the district prepare for it. It is starting Stepping Up To Science, a summer program preparing incoming ninth graders for biology; many otherwise would be assigned a non-A-G lab science. It is sponsoring a massive summer school program to prepare eighth graders in San Jose for algebra, the gateway course for college. And it is working with the elementary feeder districts to East Side Union to establish common student placement criteria for Algebra – something that’s been talked about for years.

Foundations, with corporate help, can fund summer bridge classes and provide other vital help, especially now, but districts must create a college-going culture, educate parents on A-G, hire counselors, establish high school programs like AVID, train teachers and ensure there enough classes in A-G courses. San Diego Unified has estimated the cost during the first four years of implementing A-G at $16 million, according to the report; the district is facing $120 million in cuts this year.

It is cruel to children – dooming many to failure and frustration – to raise standards and add courses without the method and means to support them. The onus lies not only on districts but on legislators who decide how much to fund them.

(The authors of the report are Josh Freedman Max Friedmann, Cameron Poter and Anna Schuessler, all students in the Program in Public Policy program. Mary Sprague, senior lecturer, oversaw their work. Staff at the Silicon Valley Education Foundation also provided guidance to the students. For an executive summary of the report, click here| Go to the bottom of this page for a link to the full study.)


1.The five, with the dates affecting graduating seniors, are San Diego Unified (2016), East Side Union (2015), Oakland Unified (2015), San Francisco Unified (2014) and Los Angeles Unified (2012).

RAISING THE BAR: Download the entire Report



By Tony Perry and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times |

October 28, 2012 :: SAN DIEGO — The days when auto shop was a major part of the high school curriculum have long since been consigned to revivals and reruns of the musical "Grease."

But auto shop's long skid in the face of budget cuts and a shift toward college-prep classes may be reversing.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in the San Diego Unified School District, where officials have built automotive program facilities at three high schools and hope to upgrade shops at two other schools if voters approve a bond issue next month.

John Abad, who is 17 and studying auto body repair at a $3.7-million facility opened last month at Morse High, knows why this is being done.

"As long as people buy cars, those cars are going to break," Abad told the ribbon-cutting gathering. "We're going to be the technicians who do the repair right the first time."

Decades ago, many districts viewed training in car maintenance as a way to impart a job skill for the majority of students who were not college-bound.

But tight budgets and a pervasive emphasis on academics, especially college preparation, contributed to the decline of auto shop. During years of overcrowding in the Los Angeles Unified School District, many shop rooms were converted to classrooms, said former district administrator Santiago Jackson.

Yet many students still need vocational training, not to mention something to interest them enough to earn a high school diploma.

These are not your father's or grandfather's auto shop classes, where guys install glass-pack mufflers and cheater pipes on their cars.

"It's much more electronic, digital, computer-driven," said Rob Atterbury, executive director of Berkeley-based ConnectEd, the California Center on College and Career. The nonprofit is working with school districts throughout the state to bring back auto shop.

In L.A. Unified, most auto training is available through adult school locations, where about 1,800 students are enrolled. At high schools, efforts are underway to link surviving auto tech classes with physics, algebra and geometry — all topics important to understanding the modern internal combustion engine. This linkage with such core subjects could preserve auto shop, because it can win state approval as part of a college-prep curriculum.

An auto tech program at Belmont High is moving toward such certification. Last year, it enrolled 60 students who restored a 1960s Volkswagen Beetle, installing an electric engine, said Felipe Caceres, principal of Belmont High's SAGE Academy.

With budgets still tight, school districts have relied on partnerships with private industry and community colleges, as well as bond issues. At the Morse ribbon-cutting in San Diego, officials thanked State Farm Insurance and other members of the Transportation Industry Advisory Board.

Funding for the Morse facility came in part from a $1.5-billion bond issue approved by voters in 1998 for maintenance projects at 161 schools and construction of 12 new schools; a similar measure would raise $2.8 billion if passed in November.

Morse and other auto shop programs aim to prepare students for immediate employment or an apprenticeship, or to provide the science instruction that will help those students heading to college.

"It's not just a skill," said Shawn Loescher, director of college, career and technical education in the San Diego Unified School District. "It's a deep understanding of how things connect."

Such connections are embodied in "common core" standards recently adopted by 45 states, including California. Students, for example, are supposed to apply their knowledge of history to an understanding of literature, or principles of music to math.

Still, just like in the old days, the hands-on stuff can be the most engaging for many students.

San Diego officials believe the return of auto shop and other practical vocational classes has helped cut the dropout rate, which now stands at 6%, the lowest of any big-city district in the state.

Six of the district's auto shops focus on car maintenance and repair, while another — Morse — specializes in auto body repair, a demanding skill in the age of unibody construction.

The programs are spread throughout the city, from Morse and Crawford on the eastern edge to Point Loma and La Jolla in the west, with Mira Mesa, Clairemont and Madison in between.

The $3.7-million facility at Madison High opened two years ago. The floors are clean, the tools professional-quality. Cars are donated. Among other projects, students prepare for an annual competition sponsored by Hotrodders of America.

Students have different motives for signing up for Omar Sevilla's class. Jeremy Ross, 17, plans to enlist in the Marines and work on tanks; Kioni Bishop, 17, and Carlie Brickley, 16, want to be able to repair their own cars; and William Codianne, 16, wants to attend a trade school and make auto repair a career. Sevilla teaches four auto-shop classes, about 140 students, including a dozen girls.

"We're getting them ready for the real world," he said.


By Barbara Jones , Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writer |

Updated Saturday 10/27/2012 06:16:18 PM PDT :: The Los Angeles teachers union has refused to sign off on Los Angeles Unified's bid for a prestigious Race to the Top grant, costing the district a shot at winning $40 million in federal money, sources said Saturday.

LAUSD had been negotiating for days with United Teachers Los Angeles, in the hope of gaining the endorsement it needed to submit the the Race to the Top application.

Superintendent John Deasy had said he needed the application approved by Friday so there would be make revisions and overnight a finalized copy to the Department of Education in Washington, D.C., by Tuesday's deadline. Sources said talks broke off late Friday, and the district and union had no further contact on Saturday.

Deasy and UTLA President Warren Fletcher could not immediately be reached for comment.

This was the first time the Education Department had opened Race to the Top grants to individual districts, with a total of $400 million to be awarded. Deasy had said he considered the district's application to be very strong, and he had high hopes of winning one of the highly competitive grants.

Sources said LAUSD's application targeted middle school students, with a multi-phased program to get and keep them on track for high school graduation.

The proposal included hiring hundreds of teachers, counselors and social workers to step in and help underperforming students, sources said. It also included the resumption of summer school at the middle
school level - courses that have been cancelled for the past several years because of the budget crisis.

Money also would have been set aside to create clusters of small learning communities on high school campuses, sources said, an effort to boost graduation rates that have reached about 64 percent. There also would have been trips to college and university campuses in an effort to inspire students to continue their educations after getting their diplomas.

Sources said the district's plan exceeded the grant total by about $3 million, but that money from private donors had already been raised to cover the additional costs.

One requirement of the Race to the Top process is that districts include student test scores as a significant factor in teacher evaluations by the 2014-15 school year. That issue has long been a sticking point between LAUSD and its teachers union, with the two sides disagreeing over how to measure student success.

Deasy supports a system uses classroom test scores and demographic data, a complex formula known as Academic Growth over Time. LAUSD is in the second year of a no-stakes pilot program that uses AGT to evaluate one teacher at each of the district's schools.

UTLA maintains that the classroom scores are too volatile, and has expressed support for a schoolwide AGT model.

In fact, the two sides have been trying to reach a compromise on a new evaluation system after a federal judge ruled said LAUSD had to start using student scores in job reviews in order to comply with the law. The district has declared an impasse in those talks, even as it tries to meet a Dec. 4 court-ordered deadline for creating a new evaluation system.

In an effort to broker a deal on Race to the Top, sources said the district had proposed that nothing agreed to as part of the lawsuit would be binding on the application. However, that apparently didn't sway union leaders.

Themes in the News by UCLA IDEA/Week of Oct. 22-26, 2012 |

10-26-2012 :: A majority of Californians support increased investment in public education, yet both statewide initiatives that would bring more money to public schools lag in the polls. How did California get in this mess? Earlier this year, at least three different political, ideological and educational “interests” were mobilizing for the ballot.

Gov. Brown supported a measure recognizing that schools alone can’t address all the state’s health, welfare, and other supports California students require. Thus, money from his proposed measure would not be limited to k-12 schools, but could also lessen the impact of the state’s debt crisis on broad health, welfare and other education needs.
The California Federation of Teachers and grassroots groups in the Restoring California Coalition favored, in particular, a “millionaires tax” that Brown initially found unacceptable. This group and Brown were able to achieve a compromise that would benefit students and not compete on the ballot. That compromise became Proposition 30, which would raise $6 billion annually for schools and other services.
Molly Munger and the California PTA preferred a more restrictive approach—pretty much insisting that all the new monies go to schools and classrooms, pre-kindergarten to 12th grade. Unable or unwilling to compromise, Munger supported efforts to place her proposition on the ballot. These ideas are now found in Proposition 38, which would raise approximately $10 billion a year.

However, as Election Day approaches and television and radio advertisements ramp up, separate polls have pointed to a dispiriting likelihood—neither 30 nor 38 may pass.

Based on a telephone survey of 2,006 California adults, the Public Policy Institute of California found support for Proposition 30 dipping to 48 percent—a drop of 4 percentage points (EdSource Today, San Francisco Chronicle). Brown’s Proposition 30 would raise income taxes on higher-earners, along with a quarter-cent sales tax increase. The money would go towards public k-12 schools and community colleges. More importantly, the state budget is tied to this initiative. Should it fail, schools would automatically lose $5.4 billion, and the state’s public universities would also be forced to cut $250 million.

Support for Proposition 38, which would use a sliding scale to increase income taxes, fell even more by 6 percentage points to 39 percent.

A separate poll by USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times of 1,504 registered voters confirms those results. Forty-six percent of those surveyed support Proposition 30, while Proposition 38 has less than 30-percent approval (Los Angeles Times).

It’s worth taking a closer look at those numbers and their breakdown. For Proposition 30, there are stark differences along party lines (65% of Democrats support, but only 19% of Republicans), and by race (54% of minorities support compared to 41% of whites). The youngest voters—those between 18 and 29 years old—were the most likely to indicate they would vote for Proposition 30.

There were geographic differences as well with Bay Area residents expressing overwhelming support (63%) compared to tepid approval in the Central Valley (35%) and Southern California regions outside of Los Angles County (38%).

One of the curiosities was that there was no real difference between households with children under the age of 18 and those without. Neither displayed majority support for the measure.

Moving forward, one strategy both campaigns can employ is to focus on voter turnout and the groundswell of newly registered voters who are likely to come out during a presidential election. A second approach will be to target messages to sway voters on the margins. According to the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, 7 percent of likely voters expressed concerns (but not strong concerns) about Proposition 30—this group may well be open to persuasion. Many of these 7 percent are parents or grandparents of school-age children.

A third approach will be for the 30 and 38 campaigns to switch gears in the final 10 days of the election. Rather than drawing distinctions between two visions for protecting California’s public schools, the campaigns can encourage all voters to check yes on both initiatives. Right now a quarter of Proposition 38 supporters indicate that they wouldn’t vote for Proposition 30. A full-throated endorsement of “Yes, Yes” might be what makes a difference in this election.

An EdSource Infographic: COMPARING PROPOSITIONS 30 + 38: The Question Asked: Can I vote YES on Both? And Answered. YES!

HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other Sources

Prop 30 Vs. Prop 38: WHY TEACHERS AND PARENTS ARE DIVIDED: by Karla Robinson | Staff Reporter, Neon Tommy: the o...

PROPOSITION 30, 38: SCHOOL SUPPORTERS DUEL OVER TAX MEASURES; Voters have two approaches to weigh in deciding wh...

Report: WEIGHTED STUDENT FORMULA ALONE NOT ENOUGH + Tipping the Scale Towards Equity: by John Fensterwald EdSour...


CALIFORNIA’S EDUCATION (BUDGET) REFORM: “Change waits patiently in the voting booths…”: By Kaylee Hunt, [STUDENT JOURNALISM] ...



‘YES, YES’: IT’S A MESS, BUT DON’T PUNISH KIDS: Themes in the News by UCLA IDEA/Week of Oct. 22-26, 2012 | ht...

Proposition 3o: CAN’T CALIFORNIA DO BETTER?: By Peter Schrag| OpEd Special to The Secramento Bee |



BLAMING YOUR OWN TEAM: By Deborah Meier. Bridging Differences/Ed Week | October 18, 2012 9...

RttT: L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF URGES UNION COOPERATION ON FEDERAL FUNDS: Supt. John Deasy seeks teachers' backing on a...


MORE THAN 2 DOZEN L.A. UNIFIED MAGNET SCHOOLS ARE UNDER-ENROLLED + smf’s 2¢: LAUSD magnet schools have long been...

Fact Check: MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL TEST SCORES + smf’’s 2¢: Posted by Josh Hicks, Washington Post Campaign 2012 ...

ROMNEY'S 5 POINT PLAN: 1.Put rt. foot in. 2.Take rt. foot out. 3.Put rt. foot in. 4.Shake it all about. 5.Do the Hokie-Pokie

#debate Who knew that Education Policy and Detroit Auto Makers are Foreign Policy? OK, Canada IS south of Detroit. We all[Heart]Teachers!

#debate: Romney is describing Pakistan as "too scary to fail".

An EdSource Infographic: COMPARING PROPOSITIONS 30 + 38: The Question Asked: Can I vote YES on Both? And Answ...


EVENTS: Coming up next week...

*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
Phone: 213-241-5183
Phone: 213-241.8700


What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member: • 213-241-6386 • 213-241-6180 • 213-241-5555 • 213-241-6382 • 213-241-6388 • 213-241-6385 • 213-241-6387
...or your city councilperson, mayor, the governor, member of congress, senator - or the president. Tell them what you really think! • Find your state legislator based on your home address. Just go to: • There are 26 mayors and five county supervisors representing jurisdictions within LAUSD, the mayor of LA can be reached at • 213.978.0600
• Call or e-mail Governor Brown: 213-897-0322 e-mail:
• Open the dialogue. Write a letter to the editor. Circulate these thoughts. Talk to the principal and teachers at your local school.
• Speak with your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Stay on top of education issues. Don't take my word for it!
• Get involved at your neighborhood school. Join your PTA. Serve on a School Site Council. Be there for a child.
• If you are eligible to become a citizen, BECOME ONE.
• If you a a citizen, REGISTER TO VOTE.
• If you are registered, VOTE LIKE THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT. THEY DO!.

Who are your elected federal & state representatives? How do you contact them?

Scott Folsom is a parent leader in LAUSD and is Parent/Volunteer of the Year for 2010-11 for Los Angeles County. • He is Past President of Los Angeles Tenth District PTSA and represented PTA on the LAUSD Construction Bond Citizen's Oversight Committee for ten years. He is a Health Commissioner, Legislation Team member and a member of the Board of Managers of the California State PTA. He serves on numerous school district advisory and policy committees and has served as a PTA officer and governance council member at three LAUSD schools. He is the recipient of the UTLA/AFT 2009 "WHO" Gold Award for his support of education and public schools - an honor he hopes to someday deserve. • In this forum his opinions are his own and your opinions and feedback are invited. Quoted and/or cited content copyright © the original author and/or publisher. All other material copyright © 4LAKids.
• FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. 4LAKids makes such material available in an effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to parents, teachers, students and community members in a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.