In This Issue:
 |
| • |
NEW LAUSD SCHOOL BOARD HAUNTED BY OLD PROBLEMS |
|
| • |
“No one wants to be the next LA Unified.” LAUSD’s iPADS: WHAT WENT WRONG? …AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO LEARN? |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
The electorate have spoken.
Probably only in the Electoral College do so few voters decide an
election as was decided for the LAUSD Board of Education last Tuesday.
7.64% of eligible voters voted. $726.61 was spent by the campaigns and
Political Action Committees for each vote cast. I’m sure I’ve read 20+
words for every vote cast about what it all means.
The most succinct appraisal was Diane Ravitch’s: “It was a wash.”
Being a pundit - if not a card-carrying/fully-fledged member of the
pundocracy, at least a member of the pundit class - I can’t leave it at
that.
Q: A Kayser staffer at the Kayser “Victory Party” asked me – just as the
inevitable (washed down with beer and wine and cheese nibbles) was
sinking in: Was I already writing my reaction piece?
A: I was listening and making note – the most elemental part of writing.
Driving there I passed multi-car freeway pileup: all firetrucks,
twisted metal and dazed survivors standing on the shoulder. Surely that
was a metaphor. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Let me add my two-cents worth.
IT’S REALLY VERY SIMPLE. The voters voted the rascals out. It didn’t
matter where they stood, how much money they raised or how many fliers
they flew. If they were in – they were out. (Note: The previous line is
best read with Heidi Klum’s accent.)
It was an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the current
situation/the status-quo-of-the-moment/the stasis. And it leaves us
exactly where we were …but with a couple of new faces on opposite sides
of issues: A celebration of an Opposite Day that lasts for
five-and-a-half-years
Two incumbents of completely different political
persuasions+(in)sensibilities were defeated. One incumbent survived –
but not by all-that-much when one considers that his opponent had little
money and a reputation as a whack job. To Lincoln’s admonition “You can
fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the
time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time” – we need to add
the caveat that you can apparently buy some of the people some of the
time.
(In the City Council Race David Ryu, the outsider won handily even
though his opponent Carolyn Ramsey was supported by the termed-out
incumbent, the mayor, the city council president and the LA Times. Mayor
Garcetti didn’t do well in his support for Tamar Galatzan either.)
There are some that say it was a referendum on iPads or educational
technology. Or perhaps John Deasy. Or testing or Common Core or charter
schools or Corporate ®eform. That Deasy supported Tamar Galatzan when
her opponent accused her of being a Deasy supporter probably wasn’t
$500-worth-of-helpful; Ref Rodriguez took Deasy’s money – but $500 was a
meaningless contribution in his multi-million-dollar effort.
IT WAS A STRANGE ELECTION; many of the lessons to be learned are
meaningless. We will never have another like it again because of Charter
Amendments 1 and 2 - which passed back in March to move city and L.A.
Unified school board elections to June, with a November runoff, in
even-numbered years along with state and federal elections. No more
March and May. No more odd numbered years. No more one or two races on
the ballot in regular elections.
• In terms of politics, Scott Schmerelson framed his argument that Tamar
Galatzan was a Deasy supporter. Time for a change. He won.
• Ref Rodriguez and his supporters framed his argument that Bennett
Kayser was for iPads, against charter schools, brown children and was
clumsy with a coffee cup. Time for a change. He won.
• Lydia Gutiérrez got painted as a tea party Republican, had
little-to-no money and got a hell of a lot of votes for someone so
burdened in her race against Richard Vladovic (who was supported by the
unions and the charter folks). Not quite time for that much change!
• In the city council race David Ryu was a Korean from Koreatown - a
convincing argument on the face of it ...except Koreatown is
predominantly Hispanic. LeBonge was old+old school - he wore us all out
and we could vote against him and business as usual without actually
voting against him. Time for a change. Ryu won.
The voters who voted – and 65% of them voted by mail, some voting almost
a month before Election Day - decided that the incumbents were not
effective at governing the District. More of a
“I’m-Mad-As-Hell-and-I’m-Not-Going-To-Take-It-Anymore”/”Toss-The-Rascals-Out”
mentality than anything else.
Sarah Bradshaw, Kayser’s chief-of-staff, in a moment of pure wit+insight
said Bennett’s election was lost in the Absentee Vote ...because the
campaign was absent when the voters were voting!
In voting early, early voters were not aware/informed of late
developments in the races and of the obscene amounts invested by outside
donors. In the Kayser/Rodriguez board race they missed the news that
one of Ref’s PUC Charter schools was in serious legal and financial hot
water; in all elections early voters missed how ugly the campaigning
got. In Kayser’s case the traditional polling place voters
skewed+trended in his favor …but the early voters trumped the surge.
THE SWINGING PENDULUM MEETS THE REVOLVING DOOR. In the case of Board
District Three, the ®eform Inc. vs. Teachers’ Union incumbents have
alternated in the seat. It was Caprice Young’s seat when Caprice was
Mayor Riordan’s candidate; Caprice was defeated by Jon Lauritzen, a UTLA
stalwart. Mayor Tony ran Tamar Galatzan against Lauritzen and now Tamar
has lost to Scott Schmerleson, the union supported candidate.
In Board District Five David Tokofsky first had union and mayoral
support, then lost the mayor but won reelection – then left the seat to
have it picked up by Villaraigosa candidate Yolie Flores. Yolie was
about as pro-®eform as they get, but didn’t run again. UTLA’s Bennett
Kayser defeated Mayor Tony+Monica Garcia’s handpicked Luis Sanchez in a
squeaker in ®eform’s attempt to buy that election – and now the pendulum
has swung back to Charters+®eform Inc. with Ref Rodriguez.
End of the world? Not quite. Armageddon has been avoided, dystopia
averted. Looking at the score card it looks like a draw/a wash/a
flip-flop. Is a tie a win by more than one side? …or a loss equally
shared?
FUTURE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS WILL BE DIFFERENT. It will be a long
ballot and school board races will be deep down in it. Congresspeople
and assemblymembers and state senators will be on the ballot; the mayor
and half the city council. Judges. Initiatives+Referenda. The political
money and effort will be spread thinner, the phone banks will be tied up
– the political consultants already employed. It will be easier to get
folks to vote and harder to get them to pay attention. Or pay money to
your campaign.
IT IS ALL VERY COMPLICATED.
• Things are going to be testy on the board as the players figure out what their roles are.
• The current board (with lame duck members) must set the budget the
next board – with the ducks long gone – will be accountable for.
• The Inspector General has an investigation ongoing of PUC Charter
Schools. PUC’s CEO is now on the Board of Ed. the IG reports directly to
the board.
• Who will the next board president be? The rules say it can’t be Dr.
Vladovic – but the rules can be changed. In a moment at the last meeting
when he didn’t know his mic was on Dr. V. pretty much said he was
looking forward to not being the president.
• Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Rodriguez – despite the campaign vitriol – are
going to have to figure how they can work together when that makes
sense.
• We won’t have the two attorneys from The Valley constantly trying to
square off and argue every legal point while their attorney – the
General Counsel – waits+watches.
• The political split will continue be generally
pro-educator/®eform-averse. There will now be five members on the board
with administrator’s credentials and six with classroom teaching
experience.
• There will be surprises. Watch this space.
I MUST SAY THIS and then I need to step back from the ledge. This is
Memorial Day weekend and the following is in no way In Memoriam: That
honor and this holiday is earned+deserved by those who gave us their
last full measure of devotion.
TAMAR GALATZAN is sometimes a disruptive force. She was brought onto the
board to follow Mayor Tony’s lead and she really isn’t a follower. On
occasion – when she wasn’t bored or just angry she could be a voice of
reason – especially on issues that sometimes don’t get enough attention
like procurement …although she let the iPad procurement slip-through
unquestioned and defended it and the leadership that proposed it as
it+they descended into chaos. She first won her seat by defeating a man
with terminal cancer. That seemed politically heartless …but he really
shouldn’t have been the candidate.
BENNETT KAYSER is one of the most decent men I have ever met – and a
good friend to me and kids and parents and teachers and public
education. There is a crazy selflessness that afflicts middle school
educators like a mutant gene: ‘Who, in their right mind, would return
there?’ Bennett possesses this in spades. The victory-at-all-costs
campaign waged against him was particularly brutal and unnecessarily
hurtful to him, his wife Peggy and his friends, colleagues and family.
‘It’s not personal, it’s politics’ is easy to say and tougher to live.
Forgiveness+forgetting will be harder to come by from his friends than
from Bennett.
“A righteous man does not conceive of himself as righteous; he is ‘only
doing what anyone else would do,’ except, of course, that no one else
does it.” ― Martin Berman-Gorvine, 36
Nothing to see here. We pick up the pieces and move along.
¡Onward/Adelante! – smf
NEW LAUSD SCHOOL BOARD HAUNTED BY OLD PROBLEMS
by Annie Gilbertson | KPCC 89.3 | http://bit.ly/1AnpHzT
Audio from this story | 0:58 Listen: http://bit.ly/1LytcVk
May 20 2015 :: When the Los Angeles Unified School District's two new
board members take their seats, they'll face this glaring projection for
the next school year: the district will have about 5,000 fewer
students.
Tuesday's general election swept out two incumbents in a continuing show
of voter dissatisfaction with the status quo. But it also swept in
board members who are on opposite sides of an ongoing political power
struggle between charter school interests and the teachers union.
After millions in campaign contributions and a dismal school board
turnout of 7.6 percent of registered voters, the result was a political
draw between the two forces.
Declining enrollment makes it all the more challenging for the new board
to invest in improvements to stem the exodus. Each student who leaves
is a loss of about $10,000 in state funds.
Scott Schmerelson, board member-elect for the West San Fernando Valley's
District 3, said piquing parents interest so they send or keep their
children in the district comes down to creating successful schools.
"It's not to fight with charter schools, but let them know traditional
public schools have a lot to offer – open the doors, let them see,"
Schmerelson said Wednesday.
L.A. Unified's shrinking student numbers can be attributed in part to
fewer school aged-children in Los Angeles County, and the growth in
charter schools. Charters serve nearly 100,000 of the district's 650,000
students.
Ref Rodriguez, board member-elect for east Los Angeles and a charter
school administrator, suggests all schools start sharing best practices
in educating students.
"And, charter schools have a great role around incubation, but this is
happening at many schools across this district," he said.
Board President Richard Vladvoic, the only contested incumbent who held
on to his seat Tuesday, said the district could start making traditional
schools more attractive by presenting parents with more choices.
"We may need, as a board, to offer more thematic schools and more
alternatives," Vladovic said. Options may include expanding magnet
school offerings that can tailor instruction based on students'
interests or creating small learning communities with more
individualized teaching.
While Gov. Jerry Brown's latest revised budget calls for billions more
in K-12 spending statewide, much of the new funding will be one-time
allocations, while falling enrollment has long-term implications.
The new board may find itself facing a choice: find ways to increase enrollment or shave services.
The new board members will be sworn in July 1.
“No one wants to be the next LA Unified.” LAUSD’s
iPADS: WHAT WENT WRONG? …AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO LEARN?
►WHAT SCHOOLS MUST LEARN FROM LA’S IPAD DEBACLE
Issie Lapowsky | WIRED | http://wrd.cm/1FbNvbX
05.08.15. | 7:00 am. :: When Los Angeles schools began handing out
iPads in the fall of 2013, it looked like one of the country’s most
ambitious rollouts of technology in the classroom. The city’s school
district planned to spend $1.3 billion putting iPads, preloaded with the
Pearson curriculum, in the hands of every student in every school.
Less than two years later, that ambitious plan now looks like a
spectacularly foolish one. In August, the Los Angeles Unified School
District halted its contract with Apple, as rumors swirled that Apple
and Pearson may have received preferential treatment in the district’s
procurement process, something the FBI is investigating. Then, this
spring, the district sent a letter to Apple seeking a refund, citing
crippling technical issues with the Pearson platform and incomplete
curriculum that made it nearly impossible for teachers to teach. If a
deal can’t be reached, the district could take legal action. (Apple did
not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.)
Pearson, whose stock tumbled following the news, has publicly defended
the curriculum it provided LAUSD, which included digital learning
content for math and English courses 1. LAUSD’s director of the
so-called Instructional Technology Initiative, on the other hand,
denounced the material as utterly unusable in a memo earlier this year.
But while the the parties involved continue pointing the finger and
picking up the pieces, the important question to ask now is what this
fiasco means for the future of technology in the classroom. If one of
the country’s largest school districts, one of the world’s largest tech
companies, and one of the most established brands in education can’t
make it work, can anyone?
Experts who have been following LAUSD’s troubled tech rollout say that
while this does not mean education technology is inherently flawed, it
does illustrate just how difficult a program like this is to pull off.
Rather than proving these programs are hopeless, they say LA may have
provided other districts and tech providers with an unfortunate, yet
vivid, blueprint of what not to do. Learning from LA’s mistakes, they
say, is critical to ensuring that already resource-strapped schools
won’t continue spending precious funding on misguided programs.
“No one wants to be the next LA Unified,” says Michael Horn, executive
director of the education program at the Clay Christensen Institute. “I
think that’s healthy, and it will get people to pause and learn the
bigger lesson.”
‘THE CLASSIC CASE’
According to Horn, who also is author of Blended: Using Disruptive
Innovation to Improve Schools, Los Angeles is a classic case of a school
district getting caught up in the ed tech frenzy without fully thinking
through why technology is important in the first place.
“LA is emblematic of a problem we’re seeing across the country right
now,” he says. “Districts are starting with the technology and not
asking themselves: ‘What problem are we trying to solve, and what’s the
instructional model we need to solve it?’ and then finding technology in
service of that.”
At the crux of the FBI’s investigation into LA’s iPad program are emails
exchanged between then-Superintendent John Deasy and executives from
Pearson, in which Deasy expresses his excitement about being able to
work with Pearson and Apple. The only problem is, the emails were sent a
year before LAUSD started the bidding process with other vendors,
indicating the deck was stacked before the district had a chance to vet
other providers or come up with a comprehensive plan for using and
managing the technology.
It’s not unusual even in an above-board bidding process for districts to
start by choosing a vendor, instead of first discussing how that
technology will be used in the first place
That’s an extreme example, Horn admits. But he says it’s not unusual
even in an above-board bidding process for districts to start by
choosing a vendor, instead of first discussing how that technology will
be used in the first place.
“A lot of schools get into trouble when the conversation starts with the
vendor,” Horn says. “Where I’ve seen these programs work is when the
school starts off with its vision, and only once they’ve sketched out
what the solution should look like do they go out to the hardware and
software communities to mix and match to meet those needs.”
THE MILPITAS MODEL
That was the approach that Cary Matsuoka, Superintendent of California’s
Milpitas Unified School District, took when he began bringing
Chromebooks into district schools in 2012. Milpitas, a town of 70,000
outside San Jose, often is held up as a successful example of how
technology can enable more personalized education, even in a district
school setting, and that has a lot to do with how Matsuoka went about
designing the program. In spring 2012, he challenged principals
throughout the district to present a compelling answer to the question:
If you could design the school of the future, what would it look like?
The goal, Matsuoka says, was to give principals and teachers the
autonomy to determine what would work best for their schools rather than
mandating change from the top. “Any time you control things from the
top, you get compliance, where people just go through the motions,”
Matsuoka says. “We wanted to say: ‘Here’s the model. Come up with your
version of it and go test it.'”
Any time you control things from the top, you get compliance, where people just go through the motions.' Cary Matsuoka
It was through that process that Matsuoka realized having one device per
student wasn’t actually necessary. Instead, the principals proposed a
rotation model, in which students would take shifts on the devices.
“Part of that was about cost” Matsuoka admits, “but there’s also the
important question to ask, which is, what would you do if you had the
one-to-one environment? How would you take advantage of that?”
Instead, Milpitas started with 2,000 Chromebooks, because they’re less
expensive than iPads and are cloud-based, so they can be centrally
managed and updated. Now, the district has 6,000 Chromebooks for 10,000
students and may continue to scale, depending on which schools and
classrooms could benefit from more devices.
THE CURRICULUM PROBLEM
But the abundance of expensive hardware wasn’t the central problem in
LA. It was Pearson’s curriculum that proved most troublesome. In her
memo, Bernadette Lucas, the initiative’s director, wrote that less than 5
percent of students had consistent access to the content due to
technical issues, and that some students had no access at all for
months. As of March, all but two schools had stopped using the Pearson
curriculum entirely.
In a statement to WIRED, a Pearson spokesperson said, “This was a
large-scale implementation of new technologies and there have been
challenges with the initial adoption, but we stand by the quality of our
performance.”
For Horn, such problems occur when ed tech companies design their
software in a vacuum. “A lot of people will say, ‘Our program works
great when you use it for this long and in this way,'” he says. “The
question is: Do schools use it that way?'”
You can make a change that makes sense on its own, but when it’s
introduced to the complex setting of a school, the net effect is
negative.' Max Ventilla
That’s one reason startups like AltSchool are working on building
schools and technology simultaneously. “It is so hard to be the setting
in which a child learns in a school that if you don’t run schools
yourself, and deal with all the practicalities around everything from
technology to lunch to transportation, you risk missing everything below
the water line,” says Max Ventilla, founder and CEO of AltSchool.
“What’s tough about education is things are so complex and connected
that sometimes, you can make a change that makes sense on its own, but
when it’s introduced to the complex setting of a school, the net effect
is negative.”
And yet, according to Robin Lake, director of the Center on Reinventing
Public Education, the stodgy education procurement system isn’t always
set up to find the best technology solutions for schools, regardless of
how that technology was designed. “There’s a rising tension between the
folks who want to move new tools and learning programs into school
systems and a pretty archaic procurement system that can easily stand in
the way,” she says. “Smaller companies are saying, ‘We just don’t have a
chance against the big companies.”
Lake says that is the fatal mistake LAUSD made, but the district is not
alone. “School systems in general do not do a good job on R&D,” she
says. “They’re built to work with one or two companies that will provide
a one-size-fits-all solution, and that’s not how technology is moving.”
Horn agrees, adding that while schools need more thoughtful ways of
selecting tech vendors, the vendors need to be more thoughtful about
selling to schools. “Of course device companies are trying to sell
devices, but if they don’t want this big blowback on edtech, then it’d
be prudent to take a long term mindset and really help these districts
think through a more strategic planning process before they implement
the program.”
Lake says some cities, like New York, have found ways around this
procurement problem. In 2010, the Big Apple launched its so-called iZone
program, which was designed specifically to connect startups and
developers to the city’s schools. “New York said, ‘We actually have to
cultivate a marketplace if we want to find these solutions,” says Lake,
who hopes to see more cities taking New York’s lead.
Not Giving Up
Los Angeles, for its part, says it’s not giving up on technology in the
classroom. “We’re still very much moving forward in technology and
continuing to deliver devices to schools,” a spokesperson for the
district told WIRED.
For now, the iPads with Pearson’s curriculum are still being used in 58
schools, but students and teachers are using them simply to access other
apps. Meanwhile, after cutting short its initial contract with Apple
and Pearson, last winter, LA’s school board approved another $40 million
for more iPads, as well as Chromebooks. Those devices aren’t loaded
with Pearson’s content and are being used exclusively for testing.
The difference is now, under the leadership of Superintendent Ramon
Cortines, the district is trying to learn from its mistakes and do some
serious strategic planning before expanding the program further. The
district has formed a task force, which will develop a new plan for
using technology in the classroom and present it to the superintendent
and school board next year.
Los Angeles has not given up on technology in the classroom.
The group has four key questions: What will students learn? How will
students learn? What resources will be needed? How will it work? These
are questions anyone can see the district should have asked long before
it purchased a single iPad. But they are critical questions to ask, no
matter how late they may be.
During the task force’s first meeting in April, Cortines emphasized how
critical this process was in a statement to members, “You have a
monumental job ahead of you,” he said. “We have spent more than $100
million dollars on this project and it is now time to regroup and
develop a solid plan that allows us to move forward and leverage
technology as a tool to improve teaching and learning for our students.”
______________
►WHAT WENT WRONG WITH L.A. UNIFIED’S iPAD PROGRAM? To put it simply:
There was a complete breakdown in the planning and execution of the
initiative.
by Tod Newcombe / Government Technology | http://bit.ly/1KfOMjw
This story was originally published by Governing Magazine [http://bit.ly/1B7A1qE] as:
A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR ANY GOVERNMENT IT PROJECT: L.A.'S FAILED IPAD PROGRAM
How did Los Angeles spend more than $1 billion to buy an iPad for every
student and instead end up losing its leader and being investigated by
the FBI and SEC?
May 14, 2015 :: Two years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) tried an interesting new experiment: give every student a
tablet computer equipped with a digital curriculum. It was a bold move
that was supposed to push Los Angeles public schools into the 21st
century. It turned out to be a disaster.
The idea was certainly huge, requiring the purchase of 650,000 Apple
iPads, networking gear and educational software from Pearson -- all at a
cost of nearly $1.3 billion. L.A. Schools Superintendent John Deasy,
who launched the program in 2013, also saw it as a way to help the
city’s low-income students. Until Deasy’s announcement, students had
limited access to digital education tools at computer labs, which
couldn’t accommodate all students at the same time.
Today, LAUSD is exploring possible litigation against Apple and Pearson,
the world’s largest education publishing company, to recoup millions of
dollars; a criminal grand jury is investigating possible ethics
violations by district officials; the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Securities and Exchange Commission have launched their own
inquiries into possible wrong-doing; and Deasy resigned.
So what went wrong? To put it simply: a complete breakdown in the
planning and execution of the initiative. The Los Angeles Times labeled
the mega-technology project “ill-conceived and half-baked.”
In fall 2012, Deasy announced to school administrators his plan to give a
tablet computer to every student. Convinced the highly popular
technology was going to be the future of education and that low-income
students would struggle academically if he didn’t move quickly, Deasy
gave LAUSD only a few months to generate a plan before putting the
initiative out to bid in 2013, according to a report by the U.S.
Department of Education.
In June 2013, the Board of Education approved a contract with Apple and
Pearson worth $500 million and set aside another $800 million to improve
Internet access at schools. The entire purchase was funded by
construction bonds, which are typically used to build and repair
schools.
LAUSD bought 43,261 iPads loaded with a curriculum, which the school
district selected from Pearson based only on samples of a math and
English program available at the time. Problems surfaced immediately
during the rollout at 47 schools in fall 2013.
Internet connectivity was spotty at some schools, partly because the
district’s facilities chief was not included in the planning process for
upgrading school networks to carry the heavy data demands of so many
devices connecting to the Internet. Teachers were ill-trained on how to
use the iPads and curriculum, and faculty never widely embraced the
tablet, according to the Department of Education report. And many
students learned how to bypass the security features and just used the
iPads to surf the Internet.
With problems occurring almost daily with either the technology or the
curriculum, Deasy slowed down the rollout. But criticism of the
initiative from teachers, administrators and the local media kept
mounting, and under pressure, Deasy resigned in October 2014. In
December, LAUSD officially ended the initiative and canceled the Apple
contract -- though schools and students continue to use the existing
iPads.
In addition to poor planning, the Department of Education's review of
the initiative found LAUSD was too “heavily dependent on a single
commercial product for providing digital learning resources.” While the
district followed state guidelines for purchasing hardware that aligned
with Common Core standards, a report released in August 2014 by the
LAUSD board showed that the district had added detailed specifications
regarding screen size and touchscreen functionality that heavily favored
Apple and essentially excluded other technology options.
Media reports also detailed how bid requirements seemed to track with
curriculum specifications suggested by Pearson in private email
exchanges before the bidding process opened. The FBI has since launched
an investigation into questions about whether Apple and Pearson enjoyed
an advantage in the bidding process.
Beyond the issue of whether or not Apple and Pearson had an inside track
in winning the bid, LAUSD has been faulted for choosing one rather
expensive device when less expensive choices were available. Devices
with keyboards might have been a better option, for instance, since
older students could have used them to write papers. Google’s
Chromebook, for example, is a laptop that can cost as little as $200,
while LAUSD paid $768 apiece for its iPads, including the software,
according to the Times.
The SEC in April also launched an inquiry into whether L.A. school
officials complied with legal guidelines in the use of bond funds to
finance the iPad deal. Using construction bonds to purchase Internet
infrastructure is common, but the LAUSD also used money from the bonds
to purchase the iPads, which break down after a few years. Some critics
of the plan have said LAUSD should have set aside a sum from its
operating budget to purchase the tablets.
Meanwhile, LAUSD took action of its own in April, announcing it would
seek to recoup millions of dollars from Apple because it was
“dissatisfied with their product.” The district’s demands for a refund
stem from materials that didn't adapt well for students who weren't
proficient in English and a lack of software tools to analyze how well
the curriculum functions.
Government technology projects often fail because policymakers take too
long to deploy them, so they miss deadlines and end up with out-of-date
technology. But as LAUSD’s fiasco showed, moving quickly can be just as
disastrous. Without proper planning, a technology project of this size
and scope is bound to fail.
Another important lesson from this story is how a district’s reliance on
one type of technology can end up limiting the value of that
investment. Students of different ages have different needs and no one
device is necessary or sufficient to solve all education problems.
Computers are nothing more than tools that can help educate students
when they are used as part of a well-planned curriculum. Unfortunately,
that point was lost when Los Angeles let the glamour of a new and
popular product cloud its judgement.
• Tod Newcombe | Senior Editor: With more than 20 years of experience
covering state and local government, Tod previously was the editor of
Public CIO, e.Republic’s award-winning publication for information
technology executives in the public sector. He is now a senior editor
for Government Technology and a columnist at Governing magazine
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
NEW CALIFORNIA TEACHING CREDENTIALS DECLINE FOR 10TH
SUCCESSIVE YEAR -- Fueling concerns about a teacher shortage that many
educators have been worrying about for years, the number of credentials
issued to new teachers trained in California has decreased for the 10th
consecutive year, according to the latest figures from the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Katherine Ellison and Louis
Freedberg EdSource -- http://bit.ly/1FIvbWg
CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS ACT TO MANDATE VACCINES FOR DAY CARE WORKERS --
California lawmakers acted Friday on a measure that would require
workers in day care centers to get vaccinated as part of an effort to
protect children from preventable diseases, including measles, for which
there have been recent outbreaks in the state. Patrick McGreevy in the
Los Angeles Times -- http://lat.ms/1PFqVxl
LAO PREDICTS CALIFORNIA REVENUE WILL EXCEED REVISED BUDGET ESTIMATE BY $3 BILLION | The Sacramento Bee http://bit.ly/1dryjve | ADDITIONAL $660 MILLION MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS - LA School Report http://bit.ly/1GwR8IE
Counting chickens before they hatch: “Due to LA Unified’s size as the
state’s largest school district, it is expected to receive roughly
10-to-11 percent of the additional revenue, totaling around $72 million,
which would be on top of the additional $638 million the revised budget
is already setting aside for the district.”
In DISCONNECTED SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: 3 AREAS OF CONCERN Peter DeWitt says
in EdWeek that there are 3 Reasons Why Your Faculty Meetings are a Waste
of Time:
1. It could’ve been summed up in an e-mail
2. Teachers didn't help co-construct the meeting
3. It didn't focus on learning
Which leads him to this: “If we believe that faculty meetings should be
one-sided venues for principals to talk at teachers then we must believe
the classroom should be a one-sided venue for teachers to talk at
students.”
He says more: http://bit.ly/1BkeU4v
MOMENTUM BUILDS TO FIX PROP. 13 | http://bit.ly/1ReSifa
ON HEAD START'S 50TH ANNIVERSARY, 5 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PROGRAM | http://bit.ly/1eoliD3
DEMONSTRATORS CALL FOR REMOVAL OF PRINCIPAL AT JOHN W. MACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN SOUTH LOS ANGELES + smf’s 2¢ | http://bit.ly/1RewEaN
Locals only?: OUT-OF-TOWNERS COULD BE BANNED AT S.F.’S PREMIER ARTS SCHOOL - SFGate | http://bit.ly/1IX2l5y
Calling Dr. Quincy: TWO MORE ELECTION POST MORTEMS | http://bit.ly/1emYKm9
ZIMMER STILL ANGRY ABOUT RODRIGUEZ CAMPAIGN but vows to work together | LASR | http://bit.ly/1dr4BH1
Another Postmortem: LA ELECTION LESSONS - ANATOMY OF A SHAKEUP … IN THE
LAUSD BOARD RACES | CITYWATCH | HTTP://BIT.LY/1HNBVUA
NEW LAUSD BOARD HAUNTED BY OLD PROBLEMS | 89.3 KPCC | http://bit.ly/1AnpHzT
GALATZAN'S LOSS? Blame it on iPads, anti-incumbency and Galatzan - LA School Report | http://bit.ly/1F3SFS6
MIXED REACTIONS TO MIXED RESULTS OF LAUSD SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION - LA School Report | http://bit.ly/1eimpEc
CSEA: LAUSD CLERICAL WORKERS TO GET RAISES IN 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 | http://bit.ly/1FzRZrg
COSTLY LAUSD BOARD CAMPAIGN ENDS WITH NO NET GAIN FOR TEACHERS UNION, CHARTER SCHOOL ADVOCATES | http://bit.ly/1AhzZSq
WHY IS THIS LITTLE GIRL CRYING? | (Lawrence K. Ho, Los Angeles Times) |http://lat.ms/1HvZY8i
WHY TECHNOLOGY WILL NEVER FIX EDUCATION http://bit.ly/1c7lYe5
Editorial: BACK TO WORK AT LA UNIFIED | http://bit.ly/1Lpqz84
L.A. SCHOOL BOARD SEAT IS A PIVOTAL WIN FOR CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT + smf’s 2¢ | http://bit.ly/1PyMGyU
Early News Reports: THE LAUSD ELECTIONS | http://bit.ly/1PwX8XH
The raw data: UNOFFICIAL MAY 19 ELECTION RESULTS – FINAL BULLETIN http://bit.ly/1efsiC3
Video (on the radio): HOW PACS ARE IMPACTING SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS IN LA | 89.3 KPCC
http://bit.ly/1EUY8cP
Political action committees are spending 15 times the cash they did six years ago on the LAUSD election today | http://bit.ly/1EUY8cP
URBAN SPATIAL SEGREGATION IN SAN FRANCISCO: Living together. Learning apart.
http://bit.ly/1EXy7uj
Q: WHAT WENT WRONG WITH L.A. UNIFIED’S iPAD PROGRAM?
A: There was a complete breakdown in the planning & execution.
http://bit.ly/1HcuSjf
CALIFORNIA STATE PTA SUPPORTS LOCAL INITIATIVE SEEKING TO INCLUDE LGBTQ PERSPECTIVE IN HEALTH EDUCATION | http://bit.ly/1FtHPds
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
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!
|
