In This Issue:
 |
| • |
AALA explains it all for you in 400 words or less: LAUSD AND UTLA REACH A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT …but what about “Me too”? |
|
| • |
SENATORS PREPARE AMENDMENTS FOR FLOOR DEBATE ON ECAA (ECAA is potentially the new+improved NCLB) |
|
| • |
'LUNCH LADY' LOBBY JOINS GOP TO FIGHT OBAMA'S SCHOOL LUNCH RULES + feedback + smf’s 2¢ |
|
| • |
“VOTERIA”: AN ELECTION DAY LOTTERY DEMEANS THE VALUE OF VOTING – Pseudo Political Science, taken to an illogical extreme |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
[driv●uh n]
verb
1.
past participle of drive.
adjective
2.
being under compulsion, as to succeed or excel
It’s always interesting or amusing or something when different folks
come up with different conclusions from similar data. I often fear that
we are being data driven, like Thelma+Louise, off some cliff in pursuit
of vastly differing cinematic endings.
Two headlines from last week:
►MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA'S LATINO VOTERS HIGHLY VALUE SCHOOL TESTING
Zahira Torres | LA Times | http://lat.ms/1DzKBLD
April 12, 2015 :: Latino voters consider California's standardized
tests an important measure of student growth and school performance,
according to a new poll that shows the state's largest minority group
also feels strongly about teacher accountability and investing
additional…
►SURVEY FINDS MANY PARENTS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT NEW COMMON CORE TESTS
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez | KPCC | http://bit.ly/1FleXT5
April 23, 2015 :: According to the nonpartisan research group Public
Policy Institute of California, 55 percent of public school parents
surveyed say they have not heard at all about the new tests that public
schools are giving students grade 3 to 8 and grade 11 starting this
spring.
Essentially the same questions, infinitely different conclusions. It
would be wonderful to conclude that those Latino voters were somehow
better informed…perhaps the Translation Units and Communications
Departments at the school districts are overachieving?
For the most part, the numbers from the two polls agree – but the
interpreters of the data are looking for different patterns in the
bottom of the teacup.
The first difference to note is that The Times cites+polls “Voters” – and KPCC/PPIC refers to “Parents”.
We need to remember that the customers of public education are parents –
who tend to be demographically Brown – while the supporters of public
education, fiscally and at the ballot box, tend to be a little Whiter.
If I were to go all cynical and capitalist and register as a Republican I
might say that those voter-taxpayers are the true “customers” – and
that parents are only providers of raw materials – but I’m not going to.
But hold that thought.
The folks who did the parent survey, the Public Policy Institute of
California, headline their findings as: “MOST PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS
UNFAMILIAR WITH NEW ONLINE TESTS: High Hopes But Little Knowledge About
Common Core, New Funding Formula” – with two notable bullets:
• MOST EXPECT NEW FUNDING FORMULA TO BOOST ACHIEVEMENT
• STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS IS UP, BUT MOST SAY IT’S NOT ENOUGH
I refer all 4LAKids readers to the entire survey [PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians & Education| http://bit.ly/1I6DJat] - but let’s dig a little deeper into the questions The Times and KPCC are spinning here:
From the actual survey:
►PARENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENTS: In the latest
chapter of a long history of standardized testing in California,
students are taking their first Smarter Balanced tests, which are
designed to assess their proficiency in math, reading, and writing. The
Smarter Balanced assessments are a new set of tests designed to measure
whether students are proficient in math, reading, and writing at their
grade levels. Following the implementation of the Common Core standards,
these new tests are being administered statewide for the first time
this spring.
●How familiar are public school parents with the Smarter Balanced tests?
A majority of public school parents (55%) say they have heard nothing at
all about the new tests. Only 8 percent have heard a lot about the
Smarter Balanced assessments, while 36 percent have heard a little.
Latino public school parents (54%) are much more likely than white
public school parents (32%) to say they have heard about the Smarter
Balanced tests.
Unlike the paper-based tests they are replacing, the Smarter Balanced
tests are administered online. There has been some concern as to whether
all schools have the computers, Internet bandwidth, and technology
staff necessary to effectively administer these new computer-based
tests.
●The question was: “California public school students will participate
in the Smarter Balanced Assessment testing this spring. Thinking about
the Smarter Balanced Assessment testing, how confident are you that your
local public schools have the computers and technology resources they
need to administer the test—are you very confident, somewhat confident,
not too confident, or not at all confident?”
Seven in 10 public school parents are very (29%) or somewhat (42%)
confident that their local public schools have the technology resources
needed. Notably, public school parents with incomes over $40,000 are
twice as likely as those with lower incomes to say they are not too or
not at all confident (35% to 16%).
►STUDENT TESTING: Californians are divided about whether standardized
tests in general are an accurate indicator of a student’s progress and
abilities.
●The Question was: “How confident are you that standardized tests are an
accurate indicator of a student's progress and abilities?”
Half are very (12%) or somewhat confident (39%) in these tests, while 46
percent are not too (26%) or not at all (20%) confident. Findings were
similar in April 2013 (53%), but confidence today is lower than in April
2006, when 63 percent of Californians were at least somewhat confident.
Among public school parents, 62 percent are very (19%) or somewhat
(43%) confident in standardized tests. Latinos (64%) and Asians (59%)
are more likely to express confidence than whites (42%) and blacks
(38%). Fifty percent of Democrats, 46 percent of Republicans, and 43
percent of independents are at least somewhat confident about the
accuracy of standardized tests.
So The Times story is that Latinos are well informed and convinced while KPCC and PPIC and others like EdSource [http://bit.ly/1PBPmIA] say that most people aren’t informed at all.
And confidence is slipping.
LAST OCT 31, Moody’s Investors Service - a bond rating agency - issued a
report: GROWTH OF CHARTER SCHOOLS EXACERBATES LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT – that said in part:
“...On October 22, KIPP Schools, the nation's largest network of charter
schools, announced plans to more than double its enrollment in Los
Angeles by 2020. The continued expansion of independent charter schools
is credit negative for the Los Angeles Unified School District (Aa2
stable), because it will exacerbate the district's current trend of
declining enrollment. LAUSD, the state's largest school district, has
experienced a 20% decline in enrollment over the last 10 years, more
than 40% of which is due to attrition to independent charter schools.
• Declining enrollment means lost revenues for school districts under
the State of California's (Aa3 stable) revenue allocation formula.
• For every 1% reduction in enrollment, the district's revenues also fall approximately 1%.
• KIPP intends to more than double enrollment within the jurisdiction of
LAUSD, from 4,000 students to 9,000 students, by 2020.” | http://bit.ly/1KhRZfJ
The full Moody’s report is behind a pay firewall and I have yet to
locate anyone at the District who will share with me as an Oversight
Committee member – let alone 4LAKids readers.
ON FRIDAY THE TIMES endorsed Tamar Galatzan and Ref Rodriguez for school
board and got it wrong about George McKenna being on the ballot in the
May 19th election | http://lat.ms/1HBSkdg. [Note to The Times: McKenna already won, he ran unopposed in the March primary and got 100% of the vote!]
The Times endorsement of Galatzan wasn’t quite as filled with misgivings
as their misgiving-filled-one for her was back in the primary. [http://lat.ms/1zlsJgs]
In the editorial board’s opinion her knee-jerk support for John Deasy
and failure to ask hard questions grows more palatable with the passage
of time …much like their own.
They endorsed another candidate against Bennett Kayser in the primary,
he didn’t make the cut so they’ve pivoted to Rodriguez. They say it
shouldn’t be a race for-or-against charter schools or the teachers union
…but they are the LA Times and we all know how they feel about about
charter schools and labor unions!
The Times also endorsed Richard Vladovic without a good thing to say for him… other than they think even less of his opponent.
I’m sure Times publisher Austin Buetner (…and the Billionaire Boys Club,
former mayors Bloomberg+Tony, the ®eformers on Jaimie Lynton’s list* [http://bit.ly/1KeIhe9]
and the California Charter School Association) would feel much more
positive about the LAUSD Board of Ed if he could just install the Times
Editorial Board in their place.
LA School Report – which likes to count money like ®eformers count test
scores - reports: “Overall, the pro-Rodriguez groups have outspent the
pro-Kayser groups by almost 9-to-1, with the charter group outspending
the union by nearly 34-to-1” http://bit.ly/1GtugIb And that doesn’t count the Lotteria $! (see following)
Luckily, dollars spent don’t count on Election Day, votes cast count on
Election Day. If you don’t think so just ask Boardmembers Luis Sanchez,
Antonio Sanchez, Kate Anderson and Alex Johnson.
Consistency being the hobgoblin, 4LAKids continues to endorse SCOTT
SCHMERELSON IN DISTRICT 3, BENNETT KAYSER IN DISTRICT 5 & RICHARD
VLAODOVIC IN DISTRICT 7 – just like we did back in March.
The mail-in ballots have been mailed out, fill ‘em in and mail ‘em in.
Early and often. Or go to the polls on May 19th. Tell a friend/bring a
friend. Democracy is not a spectator sport.
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
_________
* - Jamie’s moving to NYC, they can’t print it in the Hollywood Reporter if it’s not true! http://bit.ly/1Jny1m8 OMG: Who’ll run the LASR?
AALA explains it all for you in 400 words or less:
LAUSD AND UTLA REACH A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT …but what about “Me too”?
●●smf: The administrators’ weekly newsletter puts the
proposed new contract between UTLA and LAUSD into pretty fair
perspective with the least amount of drama.
from the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Weekly Update | Week of April 27, 2015 | http://bit.ly/1FkqXV4
23 APRIL 2015 :: The Los Angeles Unified School District and United
Teachers Los Angeles reached a tentative agreement in contract
negotiations on Friday, April 17, 2015.
The agreement must be approved by both the LAUSD Board of Education and the UTLA membership.
●●smf: The Board approved the deal unanimously on Tuesday. UTLA
rank+file vote between May 1 – 7. If ratified, the Board of Education
will ratify at their meeting on May 12.
The parties agreed on a three-year, $607 million dollar contract that
includes a multitiered evaluation system, summer school, reduced class
sizes in 8th and 9th grade English/Language Arts and mathematics
classes, increased counseling services and a multiyear salary structure.
The agreement was reached after seven months of sometimes contentious
negotiations and a declaration of impasse, initiated by UTLA, which led
to mediation and a successful agreement. Both sides expressed pleasure
that an agreement had been reached.
A 10.36 percent salary increase covering several years is part of the
agreement. Details may be found in the second bullet below.
According to the District’s press release, the following are the key components of the agreement:
• A 3-year agreement covering 2014-2017 with limited reopeners in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 which includes a salary reopener.
• A 4% on-schedule salary increase effective July 1, 2014; a 2%
on-schedule salary increase effective January 1, 2015; a 2% on-schedule
salary increase effective July 1, 2015, and a 2% on-schedule salary
increase effective January 1, 2016.
• A 3-level final evaluation system, which will allow for additional flexibilities through the CORE Waiver.
• Additionally, a joint committee will be created with the certificated
bargaining units to help with the development of the improvements to the
teacher evaluation system.
• $13 million for class size reduction to English Language Arts and Math in grades 8-9.
• An additional $13 million will be provided to increase secondary school counseling services. •
• Continued protections for the District for budgetary uncertainties.
• A class size committee to explore options and strategies for further reducing class sizes.
• A more efficient grievance processing system that requires informal discussion prior to the filing of a grievance.
• Additional leave options to promote wellness among employees.
• Greater collaboration with UTLA in the assignment process.
• Substitutes will be provided additional rights to a meeting with representation.
►WHAT ABOUT ‘ME TOO’?
AALA members are aware of the “me too” clause in the contractual
agreements between AALA ( and other bargaining units) and LAUSD that
allows a union the opportunity to reopen salary negotiations should the
Board approve a higher raise for another union. In light of the
agreement with UTLA, Dr. Judith Perez, AALA President, sent the
following communication to Vivian Ekchian, LAUSD Chief Labor Negotiator:
“Consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the
District and AALA dated June 27, 2014, I am requesting that the District
schedule negotiations with AALA.
“On page 2 of the aforementioned MOU the following is noted “…should
the Board of Education approve a higher general percentage increase on
the base salary table for another group of employees, AALA will receive
comparable treatment.”
“AALA is interested in quickly addressing and resolving the “me too” clause matter on behalf of our membership.”
Members should be advised that before any negotiations between AALA and
the District can begin, the ratification of the District’s agreement
with UTLA must take place. According to staff in the Office of Labor
Relations, UTLA members will vote on the proposed agreement between May 1
– 7. Votes will be tallied and announced on May 8, 2015. If ratified,
the Board of Education will consider it for adoption at their meeting on
May 12, 2015, and since all Board Members have voiced support for the
agreement, we assume it will pass. Once adopted, AALA can initiate the
formal negotiation process with the District which should result in
administrators being offered a salary agreement that is on par with
their colleagues in UTLA.
SENATORS PREPARE AMENDMENTS FOR FLOOR DEBATE ON ECAA
(ECAA is potentially the new+improved NCLB)
by JCM | The following is from CDE’s federal update e-mail from advocates Brustein & Manasevit on federal issues
24 APRIL 2015 :: With Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) saying he wants to put
legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) on the Senate floor before the Memorial Day recess, lawmakers are
positioning themselves to offer amendments on a number of controversial
issues.
Several amendments submitted during Committee markup of the Every Child
Achieves Act (ECAA) were ultimately withdrawn by their sponsors in favor
of floor consideration, including an amendment from Senator Tim Scott
(R-SC) which would create a Title I “portability” option. This option
would allow States to set up systems in which funds are allocated to
districts and then to schools – including charters and private schools –
based on their population of Title I-eligible students. There is a
similar provision in the House’s ESEA reauthorization bill (which is
still awaiting a final vote), but Congressional Democrats and President
Obama have spoken out against it.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) offered an amendment regarding data
which she also withdrew with the intention of reintroducing during
debate on the floor. Her amendment would require cross-tabulation of
student assessment data across various reporting categories. While
cross-tabulated data does provide more information for teachers,
principals, and analysts, it represents a significantly increased burden
for data reporting.
A version of the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit
discrimination because of a student’s actual or perceived gender or
sexual orientation, was offered as an amendment in Committee by Senator
Al Franken (D-MN). Franken also quickly withdrew this amendment with
the intention of reintroducing it on the floor. And both Franken and
Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) say they will bring up amendments on bullying –
an issue that failed to gain traction during markup – in floor debate.
But not all the potential floor amendments come from Committee members.
Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced legislation on Tuesday which would
roll back some of the current testing requirements under ESEA, making
such tests a requirement only once in elementary school, once in middle
school, and once in high school. Tester has said that he plans to raise
that legislation as an amendment during debate on the ECAA.
While some of these amendments will be offered during floor debate with
the blessing of Alexander and Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray
(D-WA), others threaten to slow down consideration of the bill or even
stall it entirely. As the Title I portability provision in the House
bill was mentioned in President Obama’s veto threat, Scott’s portability
amendment could prove to be a poison pill for the Senate bill – and
Senators will have to consider these kinds of implications carefully if
they wish to see the President sign a reauthorization bill into law.
• Resources: Lyndsey Layton, “Sen. Jon Tester Seeks to End Annual Standardized Testing,” The Washington Post, April 21, 2015 | http://wapo.st/1z235EA
_____
●…but SI&A Cabinet Report reports: “The difficulty is getting a bill
that Congress will approve that the Administration will sign into law.”
21 April 2015 :: Despite signs of growing bipartisan support for
legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 52
percent of Washington’s education stakeholder community says it won’t
happen while President Barack Obama is in office…”
'LUNCH LADY' LOBBY JOINS GOP TO FIGHT OBAMA'S SCHOOL LUNCH RULES + feedback + smf’s 2¢
By Evan Halper | LA Times | http://lat.ms/1ddpDYZ
22 April 2015 :: In the farm-to-fork-crazed city of Portland, Ore.,
campus gardens supply public school cafeterias and food service workers
seek out chicken free of antibiotics.
But the school system's nutritional director finds there's one advocate
for healthy food whose demands she just can't meet — Michelle Obama.
"We have tried every noodle that is out there," said Gitta
Grether-Sweeney, the Portland nutritional director who says she is
exasperated by the federal school lunch rules the first lady champions.
"Whole-wheat noodles just don't work in lasagna. We are having to go
lawless to use regular pasta."
The locally sourced macaroni and cheese the schools had been serving
turned to mush when it was made with whole-grain macaroni to meet the
new rules, Grether-Sweeney said.
That once-popular meal is now off the menu. So too are wraps, which she
says won't hold together with the brittle wheat tortillas she now must
use. Many fewer meals are getting sold at school, she said.
Food service directors like Grether-Sweeney have been warmly embraced by
Republicans who are trying to undermine federal school lunch rules that
they see as the cornerstone of a nanny-state agenda from the first
couple.
In response, the Obama administration has put together its own coalition
of celebrity chefs, health organizations and military leaders to
mitigate the damage caused by its falling-out with the "lunch lady"
lobby — 55,000 school cafeteria workers who were once a major ally.
Back in 2010, when it passed, the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act was seen
as a landmark nutritional achievement for the most health-conscious
White House in recent memory.
Now, as the Republican-dominated Congress decides whether to renew the
law, school lunch trays have become a partisan battle zone. The law
expires on Sept. 30, although the status quo will remain in place if
Congress deadlocks.
"We should not have what is served for lunch at schools decided by
bureaucrats in Washington," said Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), who wrote
one of multiple bills that would ease the rules. "This has become a
burden."
The law and the regulations it spawned require school lunches to include
significantly more fruits and vegetables and an infusion of whole
grains; they also mandate a big drop in calories. Schools were told to
cut the salt and sugar in foods they sell, even in campus vending
machines.
Supporters of the law say that unwholesome frozen pizzas, chicken
nuggets and other junk food that once were lunchtime staples helped
drive the nation's epidemics of childhood obesity and diabetes.
They question whether the intense pushback against the new standards
truly reflects the concerns of lunch ladies or the views of big
processed-food companies that bankroll the School Nutrition Assn., which
represents cafeteria workers in Washington.
"We believe they are being highly nudged by the interests that represent
the frozen-pizza industry and some of the other processed-food folks
that provide significant funding," said Kevin Concannon, undersecretary
for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services at the Department of
Agriculture. "Regressive parts of the industry want to act like we are
not in the middle of a crisis in this country."
And many schools are all for the new rules — particularly in California.
The former food service director at the Los Angeles Unified School
District, where pizza is no longer on the menu, stood alongside the
first lady last year as she kicked off her public campaign to defend the
standards. State Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson has urged
Congress not to weaken them.
Few things government does have as much impact as the school lunch
program on the diets of Americans. More than 43 million subsidized
lunches and breakfasts are served daily. They account for half of the
calories many kids consume in a day.
Bill removing California vaccine exemptions approved by key Senate panel
The program was created in 1946 by a Congress alarmed that vast numbers
of young men were ineligible to serve in World War II because they were
undernourished.
Underfeeding is no longer the problem. Now, nearly a quarter of
recruiting-age Americans are too overweight to serve, according to
Mission: Readiness, a group of 500 retired military officials who argue
that school lunch trays laden with junk food are a major culprit. Its
leaders are confounded by the backlash against the new standards.
"It is amazing to us that this has become a political issue," said
retired Maj. Gen. D. Allen Youngman, former head of the Kentucky
National Guard.
"There are a lot of ways you can characterize 500 admirals and
generals," he added. "But a hotbed of liberal thought is not the first
thing that comes to mind."
The new lunch rules are strict. Schools are being told to restock pantries with ingredients alien to many students' palates.
If children pass up the fruit, cafeteria workers in many cases can't
sell them a meal until they take some, leading schools to complain they
are paying for produce that ends up in the garbage.
There have been other growing pains. The number of meals sold took a
steep drop with the introduction of the new rules, according to the
Government Accountability Office.
In St. Charles Parish just outside New Orleans, where more than half the
public school children qualify for free or reduced-priced school meals,
the fluffy biscuit that long enticed them to eat a hot breakfast has
been effectively outlawed. The children look at its whole grain
replacement with bewilderment, said Teresa Brown, the school's director
of childhood nutrition.
"We are struggling to find a biscuit they are happy with," she said. "It
is grainy. The texture is strange to them.... These kids don't eat
these things at home. We don't have anything in our cafeteria anymore
that is white. They haven't had time to adapt."
Nutrition advocates say they sympathize, but they point to studies
suggesting that after the expected bumpy rollout, schools are figuring
out how to make the new menus work.
Consumption of healthy food is on the rise, supporters of the program
say. They point to temporary waivers that allow struggling schools to
continue serving chewy, white noodles.
Some eager districts are engaging students in taste tests, surveys and
promotional campaigns, using the nutrition mandates as a catalyst to
elevate their dining experience.
A letter from 19 past presidents of the School Nutrition Assn. urged the
administration not to bend to the demands of their own group. The
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Assn. and the
American Heart Assn. have joined the USDA in campaigning against any
weakening of the rules.
Suppliers like Domino's and Pizza Hut have reformulated the pizzas they
sell to schools with whole grains and low-fat cheeses, and pasta
companies are scrambling to figure out how to make whole-grain products
palatable to children.
The federal government is providing grant money to bring in expert chefs
to assist districts that need help overhauling their menus.
Other grants can be used to convert kitchens into facilities better
equipped to prepare healthy meals. That might include replacing deep-fat
fryers and microwaves with high-tech combination ovens that use a
steaming function to make baked foods taste fried.
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican, visited a school in his home
state last month that enthusiastically embraces the new guidelines, and
he told student reporters there he was impressed by the meals being
served.
But don't look to him to vote to renew the program.
"I just have a problem with the federal government," Roberts said in a
lunchroom video interview. "I don't think our Founding Fathers sat
around the table and said, 'I have a great idea. Let's mandate what
people eat.'"
_____
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Washington's failure at fixing school lunches | http://lat.ms/1ORJfxD
Published 25 April 2015
To the editor: If only politicians knew as much about nutrition as they
did about fundraising. The food fight is too political and based more on
expected campaign contributions from the giant food suppliers than on
science. ("'Lunch lady' lobby joins GOP to fight Obama's school lunch
rules," April 22)
The obesity epidemic starts and ends with processed foods, from juices
to bread to pasta to chips to any packaged item. Whole wheat does not
ordain any health advantage to a processed food. The fiber it offers is
insoluble and not the healthful, soluble fiber from fresh fruits and
vegetables that our gut utilizes in maintaining the healthy bacteria and
regularity we all need.
Michelle Obama, who supports the use of whole-grain pasta, missed the boat on food science.
It is time for our leaders to declare victory in the federal lunch
program and prepare to tighten the students' belts. Maybe there should
be a lunch voucher program based on the body mass index of the student.
Jerome P. Helman, MD, Venice
..
To the editor: This article fails to mention that schools in California
and nationwide are struggling with higher costs and a lack of funding to
meet new school meal standards.
In Santa Clarita Valley, we are committed to serving nutritious school
meals that students consume and enjoy. We even hired a trained chef to
help improve menus, making our nutritious dishes more enticing.
Nonetheless, our program is losing money under the new rules, primarily
because of rising costs. Our produce budget alone is up 10%.
The federal government says schools will absorb $1.2 billion in new food
and labor costs this year under the regulations. That's about 10 cents
per lunch and 27 cents per breakfast in added costs. Congress provided
only 6 additional cents for lunch and no additional funding for
breakfast to cover the costs.
Congress needs to increase funding for school meals and give school nutrition professionals the flexibility to do our jobs.
Lynnelle Grumbles, Santa Clarita
The writer, a dietitian, is chief executive of the Santa Clarita Valley School Food Services Agency.
..
●● smf’s 2¢: In LAUSD we continue to pay the price for Supt. Deasy’s
sociopathic urgency and his belief in the beauty of his weapons -
whether iPads or MiSiS or Vergara or Academic Growth Over Time. We pay
for his “I know best” belief in getting rid of chocolate milk and
forcing Breakfast in the Classroom upon the District no matter what
anyone else thinks. Even those of us (me) who think BiC is a good
idea/badly done!
“VOTERIA”: AN ELECTION DAY LOTTERY DEMEANS THE VALUE
OF VOTING – Pseudo Political Science, taken to an illogical extreme
• A nonprofit voter group has a plan to turn around
traditionally abysmal turnout for a key election to the Los Angeles
Board of Education …it's going to pay one lucky voter $25,000
• “Gonzalez said his group has concluded that handing out a $25,000 cash
prize is legal in California but would violate federal law” …what part
of ‘violates federal law’ is so hard to understand?
• Venture capitalist/Alliance Charter Schools board co-chair Antony
Ressler, on the District 1 LAUSD School Board Election: “10000 votes
for School board race... Crazy that we have a publicly elected school
board... This is NOT what democracy is supposed to be. No one in LA
cares TR” - e-mail to Jamie Alter Lynton on Jun 5, 2014, at 10:04 PM
| WikiLeaks Sony Hack #126221 | http://bit.ly/1bExnCT
_____________________
●●smf’s 2¢: I am racking my brain and Googling like mad – and I haven’t
found it yet: There was an absurdity by The Firesign Theater back in the
sixties that followed the prompt: “Knowing that wrong thought creates
electrical resistance, it seemed possible….”
The following is like that: Let’s muck about with the democratic process and make it better: What could possibly go wrong?
►NONPROFIT HOPES $25,000 PRIZE LURES L.A. SCHOOLS' DISTRICT 5 VOTERS
By Howard Blume | LA Times | http://lat.ms/1G3f5Tn
20 April 2015 :: Those who cast ballots in the race for District 5 in the May 19 election will be entered in a drawing.
The idea is the brainchild of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.
"This is an experiment, a nontraditional out-of-the-box strategy"
because "participation has gotten so bad," said Antonio Gonzalez,
president of the organization, which focuses on increasing voter
turnout, especially within the Latino community.
The March primary for the school board drew marginal voter interest in a
citywide election that also failed to attract much interest.
Three board races are going to a May runoff. Southwest Voter
Registration is especially interested in District 5, because about 57%
of registered voters there are Latino.
Challenger Ref Rodriguez finished first against incumbent Bennett Kayser, who is seeking a second term.
Voter turnout was just under 12% in the area, which includes Los Feliz
and Silver Lake as well as an economically diverse range of Latino
neighborhoods, including the cities of southeastern L.A. County.
The most notable dividing point between Kayser and Rodriguez is over
independently managed charter schools, which are exempt from some rules
that govern traditional campuses.
Kayser has tried to limit their growth; Rodriguez co-founded one of the
largest charter organizations, People Uplifting Communities.
"If overall turnout is higher, it's hard to say what the effect would
be," said Dan Chang, who directs a political action committee that has
endorsed Rodriguez. "If there is higher turnout among Latinos, the
conventional wisdom is that Ref Rodriguez will do better — a Latino
candidate with a Latino surname."
Both campaigns pushed hard to win the Latino vote in the bitter, high-cost primary and said they are doing so again.
Gonzalez's nonpartisan group hasn't endorsed either candidate. And his
lottery strategy could increase turnout among all ethnicities.
He calls the idea "voteria," a play on the Spanish term "lotería," for lottery.
In its current form, the area's voting boundaries were carved out with
the idea of increasing Latino representation in a school system that is
more than 70% Latino.
That hasn't happened.
Kayser is white, and that seat has had white board members for 16 of the last 20 years.
The nonprofit has never before given out money but has tried other
incentives. To increase turnout in the 2004 presidential race, it held
drawings to give away a new car in each of four states: New Mexico,
Colorado, Nevada and Arizona. To enter, a voter had to recruit four
others.
Gonzalez said his group has concluded that handing out a $25,000 cash
prize is legal in California but would violate federal law. The plan is
to publicize the contest through traditional media and social media
platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat.
Other recent projects have included phone banking to turn out Latinas in
the 14th City Council District who voted rarely or inconsistently, and
regional training sessions for Latinos considering a run for office.
The nonprofit has teamed with Earth Day Network and the NAACP to launch a
nationwide effort to mobilize a million voters over the issue of
climate change.
___________________
►Editorial: VOTE, AND WIN $25,000: IT'S A LOSING IDEA
By The Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/1E6sugA
21 April 2015 :: Frustrated by the appallingly low turnout in local
elections, the nonprofit Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
is planning a cash lottery — or voteria — to get voters to the polls for
the Los Angeles Board of Education District 5 race. Anyone who
legitimately casts a ballot in the May 19 contest between incumbent
Bennett Kayser and challenger Ref Rodriguez will be automatically
entered into the drawing. After the election is certified, the group
will randomly select one person from the voting pool.
The winner gets $25,000. The losers are the people who still believe in the integrity of the democratic process.
This gimmick perverts the motivation to vote. It demeans the value of
voting. And it's the most superficial pseudo-solution to a very real
problem in Los Angeles, which is the pervasive civic malaise that
prevents so many eligible voters from feeling truly engaged. In fact,
the voteria only underscores the cynical view that people don't care
about their local government anymore and the only way to get them to
vote is to bribe them.
When the Los Angeles Ethics Commission floated a similar lottery
proposal last year, The Times called it one of the worst ideas put
forward in a long time. But even that was better than the voteria. Why?
Because at least a city-sponsored contest would be clearly
non-ideological and not aimed at influencing one particular election.
The Southwest Voter Registration Education Project is a well-meaning
organization with a long history of working to increase voter
participation in the Latino community — but what if this cash prize ends
up being advertised more heavily in the Latino community in District 5?
What if it brings out more Latinos than, say, African Americans? Is it
fair that one demographic has more of a financial incentive to vote?
What if in the next school board election an African American group
decides it should pay voters even more to turn out? Or a Republican
group? Or the teachers union or a charter school group? This is a
troubling precedent that could easily
devolve into an arms race among interest groups trying to get out their
votes to influence an
election.
Yes, low turnout is bad. It allows the few to make decisions for the
many, and that undermines the integrity of our representative democracy.
Angelenos were so concerned about low turnout that they voted in March
to move local elections to June and November of even-numbered years to
coincide with gubernatorial and presidential elections. That is a
meaningful reform that should boost turnout simply by capturing local
voters who show up for higher-profile elections. Groups like the
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project are right to look for
innovative ways to engage voters. But dangling money in front of polling
places is not the way to do it.
____________________
●● Someone else’s 2¢ – A 4LAKids reader with a JD degree (it takes all kinds!) writes : Don't quote me here, I'm just musing:
So they snaked past the CA ELECTION CODE because they aren't
explicitly urging the voting for one candidate over another (although
they are quoted as saying they want to encourage Latino voter
participation and Dan Chang muses over the effect of a Spanish surname):
18521. A person shall not directly or through any other person
receive, agree, or contract for, before, during or after an election,
any money, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration, office, place,
or employment for himself or any other person because he or any other
person:
(a) Voted, agreed to vote, refrained from voting, or agreed to refrain from voting for any particular person or measure.
(b) Remained away from the polls.
(c) Refrained or agreed to refrain from voting.
(d) Induced any other person to:
(1) Remain away from the polls.
(2) Refrain from voting.
(3) Vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or
measure. Any person violating this section is punishable by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal
Code for 16 months or two or three years.
And a lottery isn't illegal if you don't have to pay to participate, see CA PENAL CODE section 319
319. A lottery is any scheme for the disposal or distribution of
property by chance, among persons who have paid or promised to pay any
valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such property or a
portion of it, or for any share or any interest in such property, upon
any agreement, understanding, or expectation that it is to be
distributed or disposed of by lot or chance, whether called a lottery,
raffle, or gift enterprise, or by whatever name the same may be known.
But what about the good, old-fashioned law against slot machines in California?
Isn't this scheme converting every voter machine in District 5 into a:
"mechanical device, upon the result of action of which money or other valuable thing is staked or hazarded..."
...and therefore subjecting every person who permits the placement of
such a voter machine in place under her control to potential
prosecutions for a violation of CA PENAL CODE section 330a? | http://bit.ly/1z1hSPF
A stretch, maybe, but enough for someone/some organization to seek an injunction?
______________
Everybody's bragging and drinking that wine
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shine
Come to Daddy on an inside straight
I got no chance of losing this time
No, I got no chance of losing this time.
• Loser by the Grateful Dead | Words by Robert Hunter; music by Jerry Garcia
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
WANT REFORM? PRINCIPALS MATTER TOO + Letters to the editor: The Importance of Good Principals | http://bit.ly/1QuJxxY
TECH WOES AT PEARSON HALT MINNESOTA STUDENT TESTING | http://bit.ly/1z15ak2
LAO SAYS CA STATE REVENUE SURGES IN APRIL, could exceed estimates by billions through June | The Sacramento Bee | http://bit.ly/1b24QWO
LAUSD TEACHERS COULD COLLECT 14.3 PERCENT OF SALARY IN BACK PAY+RAISES THIS SCHOOL YEAR AND NEXT | LA Daily News | http://bit.ly/1HE3XSG
SENATORS PREPARE AMENDMENTS FOR FLOOR DEBATE ON ECAA (ECAA is potentially the new+improved NCLB) | http://bit.ly/1JmpnEp
AALA explains it all for you: LAUSD AND UTLA REACH A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT …but what about “Me too? | http://bit.ly/1HApmuz
VACCINE LEGISLATION PROPERLY PUTS PUBLIC HEALTH ABOVE PERSONAL BELIEFS: Immunization shouldn't be an issue | http://bit.ly/1zUYrDc
L.A. SCHOOL BOARD BACKS TENTATIVE TEACHERS PACT WITH 10% RAISE | http://lat.ms/1OcXqCq
Howard Blume @howardblume: PEARSON PRESENTS AT ED WRITERS GATHERING IN
CHICAGO. AMAR KUMAR FIELDS ALL QS, BUT NO SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO IPADS
ISSUES IN L.A.
LAUSD BD OF ED CALLS SPECIAL CLOSED MTG TO APPROVE CONTRACT OFFERED TO TEACHERS TODAY @ 3PM; CoW moved to 1pm+Agenda http://bit.ly/1HrgxmG
READ THE DAILY BREEZE’S PULITZER PRIZE WINNING CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT INVESTIGATION | http://bit.ly/1aOVpKc
DAILY BREEZE REVELS IN 1st EVER PULITZER PRIZE FOR CENTINELA VALLEY SUPERINTENDENT SCANDAL REPORTING | http://lat.ms/1Fc5Ns1
L.A. UNIFIED TARGETS THE WRONG PLACE TO START: PRESCHOOL | http://lat.ms/1yMd5S8
VOTERIA LEGAL IN CALIF BUT WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW ...what part of ‘violates federal law’ is hard to understand? | http://bit.ly/1bpytT0
3 stories+1 cartoon+2¢: “VOTERIA” - Pseudo Political Science, taken to an illogical extreme | http://bit.ly/1bpytT0
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
• The CA STATE PTA CONVENTION is this week in Sacramento | http://bit.ly/1bsGzcW
• The CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, & ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE meets Tues. April April 28, 2015 at 3:30PM
• Wed. April 29 is DENIM DAY | http://denimdayinfo.org/
• The BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE meets on Thurs. April 30 at 10AM
*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
George.McKenna@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!
|
