In This Issue:
 |
| • |
Local Control Funding Formula: CREDIBILITY GAP COULD ERODE LONG-TERM PROMISE OF NEW FUNDING SYSTEM |
|
| • |
LCFF - CALIFORNIA SPEAKS ON FAIR SCHOOL FUNDING: Final Report of the School Success Express |
|
| • |
TOP LEGISLATORS JOIN CRITICS OF PROPOSED REGS FOR LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN |
|
| • |
BE THANKFUL FOR LIBRARIES |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
A slow week in Education news.
But when one has a week-off to think one puts one’s ear to the ground and listens.
And you hear that – as they say in the old movies in the days before PC - that “The natives are restless”.
…Or perhaps that sound is the wheels coming off the fast track of School
Reform. And not just the trademark ©orporate ®eform (or Rheeform) of
privatization / charterization / voucherization / ”Test ‘em ‘till they
fail …and then blame it on teachers!” … But of ALL the flavors defined
by their acronyms:
NCLB - No Child Left Behind
CCSS - Common Core State Standards
LCCF - California’s own Local Control Funding Formula
CCTP - LAUSD’s own Common Core Technology Project
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (and its stepchild Race to the Top) has been left on the battlefield for dead by all
the players in the federal government: Executive, legislative, Democrat
+ Republican - and the political appointees+beauraucrats in the
Department of Ed – resurrected only to threaten those who would dare to
fail-to-test. {“NO ONE REALLY CARES, DO THEY?” + “ARNE DUNCAN SCHOOLED
IN LIMITS OF POWER” + Diane Ravitch’s 2¢}
A decade ago it was predicted that all schools would fail by 2014, that
prediction will prove true-to-the-point-on-its-pointy-little-head one
month from today…
(Isn’t “Every Child Left Behind” the Rose Parade Theme?)
…unless your state or district got a waiver. Waivers being like
indulgences granted by the pope prior to the Reformation – or “Get out
of PI status free” cards.
Q: If every program should be constantly+consistently improving, why is “Program Improvement” a bad thing?
And the feds and the state have not yet even agreed what upon testing will be in place this year!
THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS are losing popularity faster than the
Bowl Championship Series. While the CCSS are supposed to foster
critical thinking among students there has been much critical thinking
focused on the standards themselves. This week Massachusetts – which
(arguably) has the best and best-funded public education system in the
nation is contemplating jumping the CCSS ship - joining more than a
dozen others — including Florida, the pioneer of corporate-influenced
school reform — to slow or rethink Core implementation - not taking the
Titanic (or perhaps the Magic Christian) on its maiden voyage. See:
MORE STATES DELAY COMMON CORE TESTING AS CONCERNS GROW + MORE CRACKS IN
THE CORE: Massachusetts Halts Common Core Implementation:
My daughter, visiting from Boston, disputes the superiority of the
commonwealth’s system – and points out that the popular unhappiness with
Massachusetts’ Common Core implementation has a name, and it’s
“Pearson”.(in the interest of full disclosure, and pretence at fairness:
She works for a competitor of that publishing/testing monolith.)
THIS WEEK THE LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA got piled on by the
legislature like a loose ball at a rugby match. [A Local Control
Funding Formula: CREDIBILITY GAP COULD ERODE LONG-TERM PROMISE OF NEW
FUNDING SYSTEM + CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE LEADERS RAISE SCHOOL FUNDING
CONCERNS] adding to the democratic majority (which regained its
veto-proof supermajority) - editorial boards joined in [SPEND MONEY ON
THE STUDENTS IT’S MEANT TO HELP] and the California Endowment issued a
report from a statewide listening tour [CALIFORNIA SPEAKS ON FAIR SCHOOL
FUNDING - follows} which contains the following quotes about the opaque
transparency and unaccountable accountability in the proposed
regulations:
¶ “A back to school night and a once-a- year parent-teacher conference is not real engagement.” – Richmond high school student.
¶ “We need more counselors to counsel. More therapists to provide
therapy for the children and parents and families. Full time community
workers at all schools to provide more communication to the parents.” –
Anabel Brown, Richmond parent
¶ “Authentically engage parents. Don’t use this as a way to have a rubberstamp from parents.” – Laura Rios, Sacramento parent
¶ “Our school has been deprived of the simple essentials needed to
operate and function. No money allotment for copy paper, toilet paper,
toner, tissue boxes, school supplies, cleaning products, etc. It is
assumed our school parents will provide all needs for our school,
teachers and most importantly our students!” – Sandie Burgess,
Sacramento
And a reminder: The LCFF is not the huge paradigm-shifting Public
Education Funding Reform it has been sold to be. It is provisions in a
trailer bill agreed-to in a rush behind closed doors by a few
politicians, un-debated in the legislature, never heard in a committee,
to implement a one-year budget. Only this and nothing more.
AND THE LAUSD COMMON CORE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM – which will give an iPad to everyone – thereby
● addressing poverty and civil rights issues of adequacy+access;
● give everyone a testing platform for tests unknown using curriculum unseen –
● and propel the District into the future …only sooner?
see: HOW MUCH ARE iPADS REALLY HELPING KIDS IN CLASSROOMS? + ARE iPADS
REALLY HELPING KIDS LEARN? Extra Credit: HOW APPLE, GOOGLE, CISCO ARE
COMPETING FOR THE $5 BILLION K-12 ED-TECH MARKET: ….if it is a $5
billion market
Never has a magic bullet been called upon to do so much!
Superintendent Deasy has said he was going to take this holiday break to
reevaluate his thinking based in the Bond Oversight Committee
recommendations. He should also reevaluate based on all of the above.
NCLB is dead. The Common Core State Standards are under attack, not by
random bloggers and disgruntled naysayers in the peanut gallery – or by
grumpy employees who haven’t had a raise in seven years (…but have seen
their earnings eroded by the economy, basis-shifts, furloughs and “work
harder/longer/with-less support’) -- but by the very folks who were
once its champions. The Local Control Funding Formula is being
questioned by all sides …and whatever ‘local control’ of the funding
there will be will not be controlled by him!
…and one doesn’t have to scratch too deeply to compare+contrast the
Sacramento judges’s challenges to the dubious bond funding, contracting
and accounting of the California High Speed Rail project [http://huff.to/19cc4QV] to the funding, contracting and dubious accounting of the CCTP.
Anyway –
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
Local Control Funding Formula: CREDIBILITY GAP COULD
ERODE LONG-TERM PROMISE OF NEW FUNDING SYSTEM
Commentary By Arun Ramanathan |EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/IiRN5
November 27th, 2013 :: English is my second language. I spent the
early part of my life in India speaking my native tongue. When we
immigrated to the West, I went to school to learn English.
After some early struggles, I have reached a fair degree of proficiency
in the English language. I can now write blogs for EdSource Today,
reports on educational inequities and letters to the State Board of
Education. But there are still some things I have trouble doing.
I can’t spell worth a damn. My handwriting has been described as Martian
hieroglyphics. And, like many English learners, I tend to mix metaphors
and muddle catch-phrases.
This is an unfortunate problem for someone like me who loves idioms and
metaphors. For example, for years I thought the saying was “You can lead
a horse to water but you can’t make him think,” which was very
confusing for me and the folks who heard me say it.
My new favorite idiom is “penny wise and pound foolish.” It’s about
putting short- ahead of long-term gains. And it’s an apt description of
the education establishment’s stance toward the proposed regulations for
the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
Administrators, school boards and teachers unions, joined by prominent
superintendents, support a set of regulations that would give them free
rein with the funding, including the supplementary dollars generated by
high-needs students. In public, they argue that they need this
flexibility to better serve these students. But behind closed doors,
many of them, including some of those superintendents who portray
themselves as champions of poor children, are desperate to use this
funding to “offset their structural deficits.”
In plain language, this means that districts want dollars generated by
high-needs students to pay down salary, health benefit and other debts.
Some of these wounds are self-inflicted, such as LAUSD’s decision years
ago to provide lifetime health-care benefits to their employees and
families. Others derive from districts’ failure to respond to external
factors such as declining student enrollment. District leaders are
similarly frank about wanting to use the funding to “make up for the
sacrifices of their employees” in the bad times. Roughly translated,
this means giving everyone a raise.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with districts giving across-the-board raises
or trying to improve their balance sheets with the base funding
generated by every student. But I have a hard time understanding why
districts should be allowed to use the additional funding generated by
low-income students, English learners and foster youth for these
purposes – especially when the law says that this funding must be used
to improve services for these students.
Of course, superintendents promise they will take care of their
high-needs youth after they handle their structural deficits. But that’s
already the status quo. In good times and bad, poor kids always get the
short end of the stick. These services are the first things to be cut
and the last things restored – even during the heyday of categorical
funding. Instead of long-term investments in intervention and support
services necessary to close achievement gaps, districts use short-term
patches such as philanthropic giving, external grants with expiration
dates (SIG, QEIA, etc.) and other more troubling routes such as
identifying a student as disabled.
In contrast, the supplementary and concentration grants offer the real
possibility of sustained investments in early intervention and ongoing
services for underserved students in their schools. That promise,
expressed by the governor and others, is why so many of us in the civil
rights community supported the new funding formula.
This gap between the rhetoric that promoted the LCFF and the reality of
its implementation is the proverbial elephant in the room. Complete
flexibility with this funding means that nothing will improve in the
schools and classrooms that serve California’s highest-needs students.
This may be penny-wise for certain superintendents and Sacramento
interest groups, but it is pound-foolish for California’s educational
system and the new funding formula itself.
We all know that a few years from now, Proposition 30 will expire along
with the funding it brings into our state’s coffers. Even with Prop. 30,
we are still far from the national average for per-pupil funding.
Fixing this will take a unified effort from a broad range of interests.
But the current fight over the LCFF is splitting the very stakeholders
essential to the success of that future initiative.
Further, this fight is exposing racial and class divisions in our
education system. The demographic composition of our state has
dramatically changed over the last 20 years. But that change has not
been reflected in the ranks of educators or the education establishment.
The interest groups supporting the proposed LCFF regulations do not
reflect California’s ethnic, linguistic and racial diversity. On the
other hand, the groups opposing total flexibility are representative of
its communities and students. The distrust emerging from this divide
over the new funding formula will impact its implementation at the local
level and linger for years to come.
To truly resolve our education funding issues, we must convince the
majority of California voters to make personal investments for our
schools in the form of broad-based tax increases. The establishment
should remember that “low propensity voters” from our highest-needs
communities were crucial to the passage of Prop. 30 and will be
similarly important to the success of any future initiative. The failure
to appropriately spend LCFF funding will invariably be used to
undermine any future argument for increased funding for schools. Misuse
of supplementary funding will actually give that argument real
credibility.
Lastly, the roots of any new reform are shallow. Building broad public
faith and support during the early stages of implementation is
essential. That will not happen for the LCFF with this level of
dissension, even with the governor’s veto pen to protect it. The logic
of the new funding system runs counter to the natural instinct of
legislators to create dedicated programs for students. That instinct
will not dissipate in the coming years, particularly if the LCFF does
not result in any benefits for high-needs students. To secure the
governor’s legacy on LCFF over the long term, it must result in visible
changes in California’s education system, down to the school and
classroom level.
I was an advocate for the LCFF. I want to see it succeed. The education
establishment may get their wish for weak LCFF rules from the State
Board of Education. But this will be a Pyrrhic victory for them and the
LCFF and produce painful conflicts at the community and school district
levels. Given the short- and long-term stakes, it would be far wiser if
the education establishment and the civil rights community came together
and constructed a reasonable compromise on the new regulations that
truly balanced flexibility and equity. That would be penny- and
pound-wise for both the adults in our education system and the children
and communities they serve. After all, as the old saying goes, “a house
divided against itself on the LCFF cannot stand.”
••• Arun Ramanathan is executive director of The Education Trust–West, a
statewide education advocacy organization. He has served as a district
administrator, research director, teacher, paraprofessional and VISTA
volunteer in California, New England and Appalachia. He has a doctorate
in educational administration and policy from the Harvard Graduate
School of Education. His wife is a teacher and reading specialist and
they have a child in preschool and another in a Spanish immersion
elementary school in Oakland Unified.
LCFF - CALIFORNIA SPEAKS ON FAIR SCHOOL FUNDING:
Final Report of the School Success Express
Condensed (with apologies) from the report on the
Local Control Funding Formula + Local Control Accountability Plan by The
California Endowment issued Nov 15, 2013 | http://bit.ly/1dJp08g
Too often, local voices are not heard in the state capitol, especially
those of parents, students and residents who live in communities that
don’t receive their fair share of resources. For this reason, The
California Endowment health foundation held 12 public forums across the
state in low-income neighborhoods where we work to improve community
health. We were pleased to collaborate with the state Board of
Education, the California Department of Education, the of!ce of
California Gov. Jerry Brown and dozens of community partners in
organizing the forums, which were attended by more than 1,600 people.
The comments collected at these forums represent the largest single
source of community feedback on LCFF that has been gathered in
California.
►Also see: PARENTS WANT DISTRICTS TO KEEP THEM IN THE FUNDING LOOP,
ACCORDING TO FEEDBACK FROM BUS TOUR by Kathryn Baron/EdSource | http://bit.ly/InGWr6
We heard a range of perspectives at the forums, but these key themes
emerged: • The importance of accountability for how decisions are made,
money is spent and progress is measured, especially regarding
disadvantaged students whose learning needs and academic success are a
primary focus of the new law.
• The essential role of parents and caregivers, and the need for major
improvements in how school leaders engage them in the education of
children and in decisionmaking about school priorities and spending.
• A meaningful role for students in providing input and being involved in decision making.
• The importance of positive learning environments that keep students
engaged and in school, with more support staff and services such as
guidance counselors, nurses, mentors, health services and after-school
activities.
• The need for well-maintained and well-equipped schools to support learning and health.
THEMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accountability for Shared Leadership and Transparency in Decision Making
Parents, students and residents expressed enthusiasm for the promise of
LCFF as well as serious concerns that implementation would fall short
given their experiences to date with schools and school leaders.
Participants reported little or no communication from school leaders
about LCFF, though the law is bringing sweeping changes to schools and
LCFF funds have already been disbursed to districts.
Parents had little trust in current processes aimed at involving them in
decision making. Many who served on school site councils and other
advisory committees felt they were expected to serve as a rubber stamp
rather than as true partners.
Parents who have taken a great deal of time to provide input to
districts aren’t sure of the “return on investment” for their effort
because they often don’t hear back from school of!cials about whether
any of their suggestions were appreciated or adopted.
Students, the primary clients of schools, felt excluded from LCFF and
asked for an of!cial and meaningful role in advisory and decision-making
processes.
Forum participants were glad to see the state is investing more in
education and a higher priority is being placed on closing the
achievement gap for low-income students, English learners and foster
youth. However, there was concern that the money will not be used for
its intended purpose. Parents and students want to be able to “follow
the money” and see LCFF funds result in tangible improvements in
learning, services, staff and facilities at the school site level.
THE LCFF ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDERTAKE WILL BE
ESSENTIAL TO BUILDING TRUST, ENGAGEMENT AND FAITH IN LOCAL SCHOOL
LEADERSHIP.
It is clear from the forums that communication and collaborative
decision making are not areas of strength for many school districts.
They would bene!t greatly from additional guidance and oversight from
the Board of Education to ensure that baseline standards of
communication and transparency are in place statewide.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Work with parents, students and local leaders to develop a
publicly-announced timeline and plan for LCFF community engagement.
Communication should be in the appropriate languages for each community
and distributed through information channels that reach parents and
students, not simply posted on a web site.
• Announce opportunities for community involvement in LCFF advisory
committees, including roles and responsibilities of committee members.
Consider a democratic selection process for committee members to build
trust.
• Establish a role for students in advisory committees and decision-making processes.
• Provide training in how to understand school budgets, success
measurements relevant to LCFF and other operational matters so community
stakeholders and committee members can be full participants in the
decision-making process.
• Create budgets that clearly explain how many LCFF dollars are being
received to support low-income, English learner and foster youth
students, and how this incremental funding is being spent.
• Provide at least two weeks public notice about important upcoming decisions regarding LCFF implementation.
• Establish a clear feedback process for advisory committees so that
participants understand how the input they provided was used.
• Publicly communicate recommendations of the advisory committees to all parents and community stakeholders.
TIME AND AGAIN, PARENTS EXPRESSED THE NEED FOR SCHOOL LEADERS TO GET
BETTER AT THE BASICS, including holding meetings at convenient times and
places, making materials available in the languages they speak and
read, and offering translation, child care, transportation and food at
meetings.
Many parents expressed frustration at school districts’ heavy reliance
on oneway communication, such as automated “robo-calls” and emails, as a
proxy for meaningful parent engagement. Parents want to see schools
make more of an effort to “meet them where they are” through approaches
such as home visits, employing parent outreach workers (promotoras) and
partnering with community organizations that have trusted relationships
with parents.
Parents do not always feel welcome and respected at schools and
sometimes face high barriers to participation. In Richmond, for example,
parents said they were required to pay for a $35 identi!cation card in
order to volunteer in classrooms. At several forums, parents asked for
every school to have a parent center where they could gather, meet other
parents and receive information.
Parents are eager to learn more about how to support their children,
understand how to interpret grades and test results, and how to
communicate more effectively with teachers.
MORE RECOMMENDATIONS
• Provide school districts with speci!c guidance on the basics of good
parent and caregiver engagement and explain how they will be held
accountable in this area.
• Ask school districts to include measures of parent involvement in
LCAPs, not simply a description of actions that were taken. See Appendix
B for speci!c suggestions from parent organizations such as Families in
Schools.
• Ask districts to document the dollars and resources devoted
speci!cally to parent and caregiver involvement and include that
information in LCAPs and budgets.
• Assess language and communication needs of local parents to improve outreach.
• Provide a best practices guide including strategies such as home visits, parent centers at schools and parent academies.
• Recommend that school districts create partnerships with trusted
parent and community organizations as part of outreach strategies.
TOP LEGISLATORS JOIN CRITICS OF PROPOSED REGS FOR
LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN
By John Fensterwald| EdSource Today http://bit.ly/18lOPJw
November 25th, 2013 :: In a letter on Monday, leaders of the state
Senate and Assembly criticized proposed regulations on state funding for
the state’s neediest students as inconsistent with the intent of the
new school finance law.
Their letter to the State Board of Education [follows], which must adopt
the regulations in January, adds an exclamation point to similar
criticisms from organizations representing low-income students, foster
youth and English learners. Legislators and advocates are arguing that
the proposed regulations for the Local Control Funding Formula or LCFF
would give districts too much flexibility to decide how to spend money
targeted for high-needs students.
Signing the letter were Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg;
Assembly Speaker John Pérez; Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mark Leno,
D-San Francisco; Assembly Budget Committee Chairwoman Nancy Skinner,
D-Berkeley; Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Judy Liu, D-Glendale;
and Assembly Education Committee Chairwoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo.
The three-page letter suggests nine changes to the regulations and the
proposed template for the Local Control and Accountability Plan or LCAP,
which the State Board also is considering. Starting the next school
year, every district and charter school will be required to adopt an
LCAP, detailing how they will respond to the eight priorities,
including school climate, parent engagement and student achievement,
that the Legislature mandated under the new school funding formula.
The regulations are an attempt to strike a balance between LCFF’s goals
of giving school districts flexibility over spending decisions and
ensuring that extra money allocated to high-needs students are spent on
them. Legislators conclude those students need more protection. Among
the recommendations:
Eliminate the option that districts could set goals and claim they
raised student achievement for targeted students without actually
spending proportionally more money on them;
Ensure that, in districts and schools with few high-needs students,
money is spent directly on services for those students and not on
school-wide or district-wide purposes;
Create a standard methodology for determining how much money for
calculating how much districts receive under LCFF for high-needs
students;
Standardize the reporting of outcomes and growth data under the LCAP so that districts statewide can be compared;
Make reporting of expenditures under the LCAP transparent so that
parents and the public can see which services are for targeted students,
how much will be spent on them and whether the expenditures are for
schoolwide or districtwide purposes.
The legislators wrote that they appreciate “the scope and complexity of
the task” facing the State Board. In what could be interpreted as an
offer or help or a veiled threat if they weren’t satisfied with what the
State Board adopts, they conclude, “If statutory changes are needed to
realize the promise of the LCFF, we are prepared to make them.”
State Board Chairman Michael Kirst declined to comment on the letter
other than to confirm in an email that the Board would be making changes
to the proposed regulations. The Board sees the regulations and the
LCAP “interacting together,” he wrote.
BE THANKFUL FOR LIBRARIES
by John Merrow in Taking Note | http://bit.ly/1blLISe
26. Nov, 2013 :: Like many of you, I gave thanks for our public
schools and their teachers during American Education Week, which just
ended. Now, during Thanksgiving week, I suggest we give thanks for our
public libraries.
First of all, they’re everywhere: “If you have ever felt overwhelmed by
the ubiquity of McDonald’s, this stat may make your day: There are more
public libraries (about 17,000) in America than outposts of the burger
mega-chain (about 14,000). The same is true of Starbucks (about 11,000
coffee shops nationally).” So wrote Emily Badger in the Atlantic Cities
back in June. She adds that libraries serve 96.4% of the US
population. While that does not mean that nearly everyone uses a public
library, they could if they wanted to.
Public libraries are aggressive because they have to be; they need
people coming through their doors, and so they provide internet access,
loans of DVDs and more, all with the endgame of promoting literacy.
The strategy of meeting the public’s needs seems to be working: Library
membership and usage are up in most parts of the country, even though
public financial support has been declining. Here in New York City for
example, circulation, participation in educational programs and the
number of visitors are up by 45% on average, although funding from the
City is down 18%, according to the Library’s President, Tony Marx.
New York’s public library system could be a national model for how to
work with schools. NYPL main library and its branch libraries deliver
books to about 600 of the city’s 1700[1] public schools, when requested
by students and teachers. The aim, Dr. Marx told me, is to supplement
school libraries “…so that those libraries can also circulate from our
17 million books and better meet needs, rather than forcing students and
teachers to rely only on the books they have in their own small
collections.” His goal, he said, is to support school libraries and
learning everywhere–and to give every child a (free) library card.
● ^smf: Mayor Garcetti – and the County Board of Supervisors - please take note!^
I have been a fan of libraries for a long time, probably because, when
we were kids, our Mom was a regular patron of our local public
library.[2] In the Preface to The Influence of Teachers, I wrote:
Just a few years ago, libraries and schools were the places that
stored knowledge—on microfiche, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in
the heads of the adults in charge. We had to go there to gain access to
that knowledge.
Not any more. Today knowledge and information are everywhere, 24/7,
thanks to the Internet. Unless libraries have been closed because of
budget cuts, they have adapted to this new world. Most have become
multi-purpose centers with Internet access that distribute books, audio
books and DVD’s. Librarians encourage patrons to ask questions, because
they need to keep the public coming through their doors.
By contrast, schools remain a monopoly, places where children are
expected to answer questions, by filling in the bubbles or blanks and by
speaking up when called upon.[3]
Those thoughts can be condensed into a bumper sticker: “People go to
libraries to find answers to their own questions. We make kids go to
schools to answer someone else’s.” It’s not that simple, of course,
because there are schools and teachers that insist on students taking
control of their own education, and some teachers pose questions that
they themselves do not know the answers to—and then enlist their
students in figuring it out. [4]
But schools in general aren’t changing fast enough. It’s time to
recognize that, because our children are growing up swimming in a sea of
information, it’s incumbent upon adults to make certain that the
institutions we force kids to attend are teaching them how to formulate
questions, not merely regurgitate answers to the questions we pose.
Meeting that challenge will require a sea change by the people in
charge, and all the talk about ‘deeper learning,’ ‘blended learning’ and
‘flipped classrooms’ won’t amount to much if we don’t make that
fundamental change.
The old saying, “If you can read this, thank a teacher,” still
resonates. but I would add, “If you are a reader, you probably should
thank a library.”
Happy Thanksgiving and Happy Hanukkah, everyone……
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
MORE CRACKS IN THE CORE: Massachusetts Halts Common
Core Implementation: By Brittany Corona On Education,Front... http://bit.ly/1eN090y
GATES FOUNDATION AWARDS EDUCATION GRANTS DURING LAST QUARTER OF 2013: By Judith Fenlon | The Chronicle of Soci... http://bit.ly/1j8yvhk
HOW MUCH ARE iPADS REALLY HELPING KIDS IN CLASSROOMS? + ARE iPADS REALLY HELPING KIDS LEARN? + smf’s 2¢: HOW M... http://bit.ly/1cDq0Wx
Thankful http://bit.ly/1cCvtwT
SPEND MONEY ON THE STUDENTS IT’S MEANT TO HELP: A revamping of California school funding sends more dollars to... http://bit.ly/1iiQ941
“NO ONE REALLY CARES, DO THEY?”: By Valerie Strauss Washington Post The Answer Sheet | http://wapo.st/1glUtei ... http://bit.ly/1jNUNSQ
Politico: ARNE DUNCAN SCHOOLED IN LIMITS OF POWER + Diane Ravitch’s 2¢: By Stephanie Simon- POLITICO.... http://bit.ly/1iiuBV3
LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS TO TRY NOT TREATING CHILDREN LIKE CRIMINALS TO SEE HOW THAT GOES: Scott Shackford|Reason.c... http://bit.ly/IjOGKk
JUDGE: MIRAMONTE CLAIMS CAN MOVE FORWARD: AP from KPCC | http://bit.ly/1bWkkFaKrista Kennell/AFP/Ge... http://bit.ly/1cwbZKh
HOW APPLE, GOOGLE, CISCO ARE COMPETING FOR THE $5 BILLION K-12 ED-TECH MARKET: ….if it is a $5 billion market... http://bit.ly/1eAGcKe
Local Control Funding Formula: CREDIBILITY GAP COULD ERODE LONG-TERM PROMISE OF NEW FUNDING SYSTEM: Commentary... http://bit.ly/1aUU8OL
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE LEADERS RAISE SCHOOL FUNDING CONCERNS: Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert: http://bit.ly/1 ... http://bit.ly/1iT4Ng9
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCRAMBLES FOR SUBS AS TEACHERS SKIP SCHOOL: Jill Tucker | SF Chronicle | http://... http://bit.ly/1cvaGeJ
TWEET: “People go to libraries to find answers to their own questions. We make kids go to schools to answer someone else’s.” http://bit.ly/1exZqAe
ARE YOU READING THIS MAYOR GARCETTI? New York City libraries deliver
books to the city’s public schools when requested to supplement school
libraries. | http://bit.ly/1exZqAe
BE THANKFUL FOR LIBRARIES: by John Merrow in Taking Note | http://bit.ly/1blLISe 26. Nov, 2013 :: Like many... http://bit.ly/1iQahIl
Grading the Digital School: IN CLASSROOM OF THE FUTURE, STAGNANT SCORES: NY Times: Technology in Schools Faces... http://bit.ly/1icljKi
TOP LEGISLATORS JOIN CRITICS OF PROPOSED REGS FOR LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN: By Jo... http://bit.ly/Il0r3G
MORE STATES DELAY COMMON CORE TESTING AS CONCERNS GROW: By Valerie Strauss/The Answer Sheet | The Washington ... http://bit.ly/1i9ga5I
YOUTH SPEAK OUT ON WHAT THEY WANT FROM AFTER-SCHOOL ARTS PROGRAMS: By Susan Frey, | EdSource Today http://bit.... http://bit.ly/1aNpgiZ
MANY DISTRICTS ARE GIVING THEIR REPORT CARDS A FACELIFT FOR COMMON CORE: Adolfo Guzman-Lopez| Pass / Fail | 89... http://bit.ly/1aNiaeh
AS LA SCHOOLS TAKE A WEEK OFF, PARENTS TAKE A DEEP BREATH: Annie Gilbertson | Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http:/... http://bit.ly/1clpAUF
TWEET: HOROSCOPE Mine for today/Everyone's for every day: GEMINI: The
application of knowledge is more important than the acquisition of
knowledge.
L.A.; UNIFIED’S LOCAL FOOD PUSH IS HEALTHY FOR AREA ECONOMY TOO: School district's commitment to more local so... http://bit.ly/1clgpDM
PROGRAM AIMS TO GET PARENTS ON THEIR CHILDREN’S ACADEMIC TEAM: New Open World Academy in Koreatown is using a ... http://bit.ly/1i8Kr4F
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700
What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Tamar.Galatzan@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Bennett.Kayser@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Monica.Ratliff@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Richard.Vladovic@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Steve.Zimmer@lausd.net • 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: http://bit.ly/dqFdq2 • There are 26 mayors and five county supervisors representing jurisdictions within LAUSD, the mayor of LA can be reached at mayor@lacity.org • 213.978.0600
• Call or e-mail Governor Brown: 213-897-0322 e-mail: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
• 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!.
|
