In This Issue:
 |
| • |
Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM |
|
| • |
A THRU G: LA UNIFIED TO CONSIDER DROPPING ‘C’ REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION |
|
| • |
CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT |
|
| • |
CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: "I
can't point to any meaningful progress in academic excellence or
equity." |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
In Sunday morning’s LA Times Steve Lopez makes the
crumbling gothic tower at Marshall High School – a soaring architectural
statement of previous generations’ commitment to public education – a
metaphor for the nation’s (and LAUSD’s) failure to maintain
infrastructure. [http://lat.ms/1AUaeb8]
My mother and daughter are Marshall alumnae. As heir and parent my
commitment is this: First we fix the tower and then we fix all the other
crumbling bits – not because they are symbols but because they need
fixing.
And now isn’t really soon enough.
“The line it is drawn…”
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?: “Bob Collins, former Superintendent of the
Grossmont Union High School District, and retired Chief Academic Officer
and Regional Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District,
has been elected Chairman of the Board of the National Dropout
Prevention Network, a national nonprofit agency located at Clemson
University, Clemson, SC” …from Facebook
I have friends who are fans of Bob Collins and friends who are not.
But when Bob was LAUSD Chief Academic Officer and A thru G came in Bob
saw the challenge and went at it – with plans to start the
implementation in Pre-K and support the work in elementary and most
critically in middle school – with accountability and intervention and
bridge programs and Individual Graduation Plans - to prepare the
District and the culture and the kids (The Kids! What a concept!) for
“A-thru-G-and-passing-with-a-‘C’” as the only option.
There were folks who weren’t comfortable with that and Bob couldn’t care
less – he was forcing change against the inert inertia of the
bureaucracy and the Way We’ve Always Done Things!
But then the economy went south and the inertia took over and things were put off for sunnier days …and Bob left.
When the weather cleared LAUSD bought iPads and MiSiS. Technology was the answer.
In a letter about something else Superintendent Cortines last month
wrote: “Presently, A - G has become a high school issue; however,
preparing our students should not begin in high school. The District has
not systemically taken into consideration the progress of students in
grades K through 3 who are not reading at grade level or meeting other
essential learning targets while moving forward with A - G.”
With apologies to my friends who are not fans: “Where have you gone, Bob
Collins? The District turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo-woo-woo.” The
answer is Clemson …where the pundits say they need a baseball coach and
not necessarily a dropout guru!
And the promise of A-G (which for a lot of reasons may be bogus … and is
certainly more political than pedagogic) – is going to have to be
modified. Because if it isn’t those dropout numbers are going to
skyrocket and the Chairman of the Board of the National Dropout
Prevention Network is going to be a very busy camper!
“….The curse it is cast…”
YOU WOULD THINK THAT CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS would be all unified – with
eyes on the prize and all that – especially when dealing with Public
Education - the unquestioned civil rights issue of the day. . But
instead they are fighting over Standardized Testing – the great magic
bullet/panacea of No Child Left Behind – which was to undo what George
W. Bush called: “The soft bigotry of low expectations“ (A beautifully
crafted piece of rhetoric worthy of Don Draper courtesy of speechwriter
Michael Gerson.)
Different civil rights groups are drawing lines in the sand with each
other over whether to toss-out or cling-to high stakes testing -
tattered scraps of NCLB – and using language like: . “Because even a
white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the
patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education ‘leaders’
when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been
shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree.“
Really? In post-racial America even a white girl can play the race card?
Careful, children are watching!
“…The slow one now
Will later be fast…”
IN LAUSD WE ARE FAST APPROACHING the inevitable moment when the lame
duck Board of Ed and the one-year-left-on-his contact Superintendent
must agree on a 2015 2016 Budget, The Local Control Funding Formula
(local at least to 90017), A thru G and SLRDP and ream of resolutions
(…they are a resolute group!) including Ethnic Studies and a $15 dollar
Minimum Wage. We have passed The Time of No Money and are now in The
Time of More Money. But never enough. Watch this space.
“…As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’…”
AND NOW WE HAVE CARL COHN, of immaculate credentials and background, suggesting it’s time to break up the District.
Cohn is always in that first tier of suggested Next LAUSD Superintendent candidates.
He’s the real deal/he has paid dues/been there and done that – based on ten years at Long Beach Unified.
But Cohn retired from Long Beach USD 13 years ago in 2002 and went on to
the Broad Superintendents Academy Class of 2003. LBUSD won the Broad
Prize in ’03 based on Cohn's record. Before Broad but after he left.
Cohn’s post-Broad stint at San Diego Unified (2005-07) didn’t go so well.
I fundamentally disagree with him on breaking up LAUSD for two big
reasons (...and 600,000 smaller ones) - and not one of them have
anything to do with the lovability of the status quo.
1: The argument that in a clutch of smaller districts we might produce a
well-performing Long Beach or ABC alongside new Inglewoods and Comptons
is unacceptable. I’m sorry but Inglewood and Compton are two too many
already and a step in the wrong direction from the LAUSD status quo …and
no students deserve less so some students may do better.
2: LAUSD currently has well over $20 billion in bonded indebtedness from
BB, K, R, Y and Q – including state school bonds which must be
accounted for if not repaid. That debt, asset management and debt
service obligation cannot be divided geographically; the voters and
taxpayers of the entire current school district are indebted and a new
government entity (a new level of bureaucracy): a Community Facilities
District separate from the school districts would have to be created to
assume the debt and asset management as a Joint Powers Authority. There
are many folks in LAUSD – in the field and at Beaudry – who believe the
Facilities Services Division is an unaccountable petty fiefdom already;
a JPA to administer a divided confederation of school districts would
raise petty fiefdom to a land use/fiscal management behemoth of
Brobdingnagian proportions. In a city+county where real estate
developers run the show politically that FSD JPA would be the biggest
landowner and real
estate investor and debt holder in the region. The potential for
shenanigans boggles the mind – and I was once a Hollywood
screenwriter!
“…And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’”
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM
ED SOURCE COMMENTARY BY CARL COHN | http://bit.ly/1MqlM6R
Jun 3, 2015 :: Now that the recent school board elections are over in
the Los Angeles Unified School District, there will be the usual calls
for a new beginning and getting down to the serious business of charting
a bright future for the 600,000 or so deserving students that the board
is privileged to serve.
Such a view ignores the fact that LAUSD’s governance structure is
fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced by smaller units of school
governance that are much more capable of delivering educational change
that better serves students and their parents. In addition to being
nimble and flexible, smaller school districts are physically closer to
the parents they serve, and can initiate change strategies in a much
more timely fashion. For example, Long Beach Unified, Garden Grove
Unified and ABC Unified are all known as urban districts that can move
quickly to implement needed changes that parents care about.
Ten years ago, while a faculty member at the University of Southern
California, I served as the federal court monitor for the Modified
Consent Decree, the blueprint for improving services to students with
disabilities in the behemoth district.
During moments of frustration with the district’s intransigence, I would
sometimes say to the courageous disability advocate lawyers
representing the plaintiffs that I had a tough time figuring out how
students and their parents benefited from maintaining the district at
its current size, and that breaking it up into smaller units would
better serve students’ interests.
They would quickly counter: “Now, Carl, if you broke it up, you’d get a
lot of Comptons or Inglewoods, which might be even worse than what
you’re getting now.” And I’d came back with: “You might also get some
Long Beaches, which would be a vast improvement over what these kids and
parents are getting now.”
The argument for breakup becomes even stronger today when you consider
the important equity promise of Gov. Jerry Brown’s remarkable LCFF/LCAP
school funding reform initiative, which places even greater authority at
the local level to get things right for kids. When Los Angeles Unified
screws up, more than half a million California youngsters are denied a
critical opportunity to get a decent education during their one shot at
using education to alter their life chances.
The missteps of the district are legion – everything from expensive
attorneys arguing for the district that a middle school student was
mature enough to consent to have sex with a teacher to the
billion-dollar iPAD and MiSiS technology debacles and school board
elections where records have been broken for adult
special-interest-group spending.
No single event better captures the failure of this system than the
recent revelation that 75 percent of the current class of 2017 is not on
target to meet the school board’s 2005 adopted policy requirement that
all students must meet UC/CSU A-G college entrance requirements in order
to receive a high school diploma. For urban school boards, there’s more
to policymaking than adopting well-intentioned higher standards. An
important part of the job is to make sure that staff develops timely
implementation plans without waiting 10 years to check progress. No
matter how much we adults may wish it so, not all youngsters need to go
to college.
Urban school boards like Los Angeles need to first deliver on the basics
before they start adopting high school graduation requirements that are
higher than those in the Palos Verdes and Palo Alto school systems.
Last October, you had students at Jefferson High School still walking
the halls and in auditoriums without scheduled classes even though
school had started back on Aug. 12. Even worse, you had a superintendent
giving a deposition in court (Cruz v. California) that he was powerless
to get these students scheduled in the right classes, and that he
needed assistance from the State of California to get this basic
responsibility done.
I often wonder how the Long Beach school community would react to school
starting in August and high school kids still without classes in
October. I know from experience that there would be a universal and
collective sense of community outrage and betrayal that no school board
or superintendent could survive.
The Los Angeles school system has fundamentally lost its way, and the
notion that a couple of new faces on the board and a skillful interim
superintendent, Ray Cortines, can improve it is a huge disservice to the
youngsters and their parents who deserve much better.
A blue ribbon task force with representation from the more than 20
cities served by the current district might be the best way to go. In
the past, the strongest argument against breakup was that you would end
up with new racially segregated districts. Today’s demographics make
that a weak argument. On the other hand, Gov. Brown’s belief that the
rescue of urban kids will take place closer to schools, classrooms and
families bolsters the case for this type of change.
Breaking it up won’t be easy, and I’m sure that Sacramento doesn’t have
this on its “to do” list, but we who advocate for education change often
frame the debate as those who are committed to the adult status quo
against those who are really for the kids. This will be the ultimate
test of where we stand.
● Carl Cohn is Director of the Urban Leadership Program at Claremont
Graduate University and until earlier this year was a member of the
State Board of Education. He was formerly superintendent in Long Beach
Unified and San Diego Unified. He is co-chair of the National Research
Council’s Committee for the Five-Year Evaluation of the Washington D.C.
Public Schools. He is a member of the EdSource Board of Directors. The
opinions expressed in this commentary represent solely those of the
author.
A THRU G: LA UNIFIED TO CONSIDER DROPPING ‘C’ REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION
Posted on LA School Report by Vanessa Romo | http://bit.ly/1RU6udK
June 4, 2015 4:27 pm :: In a major reversal, LA Unified school board
members are proposing to change graduation requirements that compel
students to pass college prep courses with a “C” or better, making a “D”
an acceptable grade to earn their high school diplomas.
If passed, the resolution by board members Monica Garcia, Steve Zimmer
and George McKenna would likely prevent an imminent graduation rate
crisis.
Under the district’s current A-G policy, which goes into full effect
with the Class of 2017, the only way for students to successfully
complete high school is to also be eligible for enrollment in
California’s public universities. UCs and Cal State schools alike set a
minimum “C” bar for 15 college-prep courses. But data made public by the
district in March revealed that only 37 percent of the first cohort
will meet the rigorous standards.
“This is not a retreat from the purpose of A-G nor should it be read as a
capitulation to those who said [the tougher standards] are setting up
these kids for failure,” Zimmer told LA School Report.
“It is just a recognition that there is an urgency to move the access
and equity agenda forward: to give all kids equal access to a rigorous
college prep education,” he said, adding, “The intention was never to
punish kids if we did not make the resources available.”
Despite ten years of implementation and studies in 2010 and 2012
tracking districtwide progress, records show many schools often in the
poorest pockets of LAUSD still do not offer core college prep courses.
The updated resolution by Zimmer and his colleagues calls for an
immediate “equity audit” of A-G courses offered to be completed by
October. The report “must surface and identify gaps in resources,
interventions and access to and successful completion of A-G courses in
all high schools.”
Further, the resolution seeks to create an intervention plan for schools
failing to provide adequate access and compels the district to devise
an Individual Graduation Plan for all seniors who are struggling to meet
the new standards.
“It is clear that we have not resourced A-G properly,” Zimmer said.
“That is why we need to a 360 degree report by the best experts in the
filed to tell us where we need to make the kind of investments that are
necessary.”
Only after allocating the right amount of resources to struggling
students, he added, can the district reconsider reverting to a “C” or
better threshold for graduation.
In the interim, “we can’t let the children who have been failed by those responsible to carry the burden,” Zimmer said.
The addition of board member McKenna’s name to the measure is evidence
of a significant compromise on the issue. McKenna strongly opposed the
resolution at the last board meeting and was the driving force behind
postponing a vote at the time.
McKenna’s strongest objection to the A-G policy has been the problem it
poses for students who may not be interested in attending college but
depend on a high school diploma.
“I am opposed to the requirement of a ‘C’ grade to get a diploma,” he
said at the May meeting. “A ‘D’ is a passing grade no matter what UC or
Cal State [schools] say.”
Blocking those students from graduating could destroy their entire futures, he argued.
“Not everybody needs to go to college but everybody needs a high school diploma,” he said.
CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT
Posted on LA School Report by Craig Clough | http://bit.ly/1dUQcD4
June 4, 2015 4:33 pm :: With Superintendent Ramon Cortines voicing
opposition to the idea, the future of LA Unified’s plan to make the
district the second in the state to require an ethnic studies course as a
high school graduation requirement appears to be in doubt.
In a May 8 letter (follows)obtained by LA School Report addressed to
the Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee that was also sent to the school
board and other district leaders, Cortines outlined his view that while
he supports the idea of the district offering ethnic studies courses, he
does not believe it should be a requirement for graduation. Among the
key points of the letter:
• “Although I am in agreement that schools should be allotted the
maximum flexibility in implementing Ethnic Studies, and agree that
courses should be made available in our comprehensive high schools,
pilot schools, and Options schools; I do not support the recommendation
to make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement.”
• “Ethnic Studies is not a requirement to gain acceptance nor is it a
requirement to graduate from any college institution; therefore, I do
not support this.”
• “I believe the timeline to ensure that Ethnic Students courses are
provided for students is unrealistic. I agree that some aspects of this
work should begin in 2018-2019, but the overall plan to implement what
is outlined is not realistic.”
• The budget implications to implement the plan as proposed is not
reasonable for the District. The District cannot afford to invest $72
million over four years when many other priorities are unfunded and
reductions to essential programs have been steadily made over the
years.”
The LA Unified school board made big headlines in the fall when it
became the second district in the state to require an ethnic studies
course be taken by all high school students as a graduation requirement —
El Rancho High School in Pico Rivera was the first. But a recent
estimate by the district that it will cost $72.7 million — which was
much larger than an original estimate of $3.4 million — along with the
Ethnic Studies Committee’s recommendation to delay its full
implementation makes it likely the school board will be reexamining the
issue soon.
Ethnic Studies Now!, a group that helped organize the campaign for the
ethnic studies resolution, is planning to stage a protest at the June 9
board meeting in reaction to Cortines’ letter. The board is not
scheduled to be voting on any resolutions regarding ethnic studies,
according to its meeting agenda.
The Ethnic Studies Committee, which was formed by Cortines as a result
of the board’s ethnic studies resolution, is meeting today (Thursday)
and will be discussing a reaction to Cortines’ letter, according to
committee member Allan Kakassy.
___________________
▼Text of Cortines’ May 8 Letter:
Dear Ethnic Studies Committee Members:
I have had the opportunity to review the draft Ethnic Studies Committee Report and the Committee Recommendations.
The following provides my thoughts concerning the recommendations.
Although I am in agreement that schools should be allotted the maximum
flexibility in implementing Ethnic Studies, and agree that courses
should be made available in our comprehensive high schools, pilot
schools, and Options schools; I do not support the recommendation to
make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement.
Ethnic Studies is not a requirement to gain acceptance nor is it a
requirement to graduate from any college institution; therefore, I do
not support this.
The action proposed does not take into consideration what I have stated
publicly on numerous occasions; Ethnic Studies should be embedded into
the Pre--‐K through 12th grade curriculum.
If the District does not move in this direction, it is my belief that we
will face similar issues that exist with A--‐G in the future.
Presently, A--‐G has become a high school issue; however, preparing our
students should not begin in high school. The District has not
systemically taken into consideration the progress of students in grades
K through 3 who are not reading at grade level or meeting other
essential learning targets while moving forward with A--‐G.
While I believe that Ethnic Studies will help students better understand
their own and different cultures, and provide students with the
opportunities to learn about the contributions and sacrifices of others,
I believe the District should inculcate Ethnic Studies at the beginning
of a student’s educational experience and not impose a new graduation
requirement for students at this time.
The following provides thoughts related to selected Options that were provided in the draft report (See p. 3 of 9):
MODEL A: I am interested in further examining Model A as outlined in the
draft report; however, not as written. I am in support of an Ethnic
Studies course being developed.
MODEL B: I support Model B and believe that we should have an inventory
of what and where ethnic studies can be embedded into A--‐G classes.
MODEL D: Some sort of accountability mechanism should be included with this model.
EXPECTED OUTCOMES: (See p. 5 of 9): I do not support the recommendation
that entering 9th grade students in 2018--‐2019 should have to satisfy
an Ethnic Studies graduation requirement.
Again, I believe making this a graduation requirement is unreasonable.
Ethnic Studies courses should be made available for all students in
grades 9--‐12.
TIMELINE: I believe the timeline to ensure that Ethnic Students courses
are provided for students is unrealistic. I agree that some aspects of
this work should begin in 2018--‐2019, but the overall plan to implement
what is outlined is not realistic.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The budget implications to implement the plan as
proposed is not reasonable for the District. The District cannot afford
to invest $72 million over four years when many other priorities are
unfunded and reductions to essential programs have been steadily made
over the years.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I would like to personally thank the Ethnic Studies
Committee for their hard work and dedication to develop a plan to
implement the Ethnic Student resolution.
Again, I am in support of Ethnic Studies, and believe that acquiring
knowledge related to other cultures and ethnicities can lead to a
responsible understanding of the contributions and sacrifices of others.
However, at a crucial time in the LAUSD, we must ensure that our
decisions that affect students should focus on ensuring that every
student is college and career ready.
Ramon C. Cortines
Superintendent
Office of the Superintendent
213-241-7000
CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF
ANNUAL TESTING: "I can't point to any meaningful progress in academic
excellence or equity."
From Politico Morning Ed: CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATES DIVERGE ON TESTING [http://politi.co/1JtEpH8]
6/4/15 :: As Capitol Hill slowly ramps up for more debates on testing
and accountability in No Child Left Behind, a handful of civil rights
advocates are going their own way: Leaders from the Advancement Project
and the Schott Foundation for Public Education penned an op-ed [follows]
in The Hill explaining why they think groups like the National Council
of La Raza and the NAACP have it wrong when they say preserving annual
testing and a strong accountability system are crucial.
Schott Foundation President John Jackson told Morning Education he
thinks the current system has been given a chance to work. "These tests
have been linked to limiting curricula and creating a high-stakes
environment," Jackson said. "I can't point to any meaningful progress in
academic excellence or equity."
And civil rights groups in Washington should be listening to more to
students and parents on the ground when they're building their policy
platforms, Jackson added, because many local groups feel the same way.
The foundation has also donated to groups who oppose annual testing,
such as FairTest, according to tax filings.
▲DC CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS FAIL TO REPRESENT EDUCATION CIVIL RIGHTS AGENDA
Commentary by Judith Browne Dianis, John H. Jackson and Pedro Noguera in The Hill | http://bit.ly/1FuTdj9
June 02, 2015, 01:00 pm :: In recent weeks, a few national civil
rights organizations including the National Council of La Raza, the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League
of United Latin American Citizens and National Urban League have vocally
opposed efforts to highlight the dangers of high stakes testing by
students and parents opting out of annual assessments. Uniting under the
banner of the Washington, D.C.-based Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, these groups are urging parents to comply with annual
testing requirements. We strongly disagree with their position.
Data from these annual assessments are not a reasonable proxy for
educational opportunity, and even more, educational equity. African
American and Latino students are more likely to be suspended, expelled
or pushed-out of school regardless of their performance on the test; and
despite some improvement in graduation rates, significant disparities
remain.
Moreover, of all the topics that could be addressed as No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) is considered for reauthorization, why defend a policy
that has proven ineffective in advancing the educational interest of
children of color and disadvantaged children generally? Schools serving
poor children and children of color remain under-funded and have been
labeled "failing" while little has been done at the local, state or
federal level to effectively intervene and provide support. In the face
of clear evidence that children of color are more likely to be subjected
to over-testing and a narrowing of curriculum in the name of test
preparation, it is perplexing that D.C. based civil rights groups are
promoting annual tests.
Why should wealthy parents be able to opt-out of the over-testing by
sending their children to private schools while disadvantaged students
are forced to exist in a high stakes, over-tested climate for the sake
of producing data that confirms what they already know---their schools
lack the needed supports?
We are not opposed to assessment. Standards and assessments are
important for diagnostic purposes. However, too often the data produced
by standardized tests are not made available to teachers until after the
school year is over, making it impossible to use the information to
address student needs. When tests are used in this way, they do little
more than measure predictable inequities in academic outcomes. Parents
have a right to know that there is concrete evidence that their children
are learning, but standardized tests do not provide this evidence
While high performing countries, wealthy parents and educational experts
are calling for more student-centered and deeper learning experiences
for their students, LCCR and others are asking communities to continue
the practice of subjecting students to tests that have failed to deliver
very little in the way of excellence or equity. Parents have a right
to demand enriched curricula that includes the arts, civics and lab
sciences. The parents who are opting out have a right to do so, and
they certainly have a right to demand that their children receive more
than test preparation classes that leave them bored and less engaged
We should all remember that NCLB was originally enacted in 1965 as the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as part of President
Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. The measure was designed to
compensate for disadvantages in learning opportunities between
low-income and middle-class children. While it was never adequately
funded, ESEA was envisioned as an "anti-poverty" bill.
We now know students cannot be tested out of poverty, and while NCLB did
take us a step forward by requiring schools to produce evidence that
students were learning, it took us several steps backward when that
evidence was reduced to how well a student performed on a standardized
test. Most states have long realized that the goals set by NCLB - such
as 100-percent proficiency in reading and math by 2014 - could not be
achieved. In 2013, the US Department of Education wisely began to allow
states to opt out of meeting this unattainable requirement. Why not
give parents the right to opt out of tests when they realize states have
not done the work of guaranteeing their children are being adequately
prepared?
The civil rights movement has always worked to change unjust policies.
When 16-year-old Barbara Johns organized a student strike in Prince
Edward County, Virginia in 1951 leading to Brown v. Board in 1954, she
opted out of public school segregation. When Rosa Parks sat down on a
bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 she opted out of the system of
segregation in public transportation. And as youth and their allies
protest throughout the country against police brutality, declaring that
"Black Lives Matter," we are reminded that the struggle for justice
often forces us to challenge the status quo, even when those fighting to
maintain it happen to be elected officials or, in this case, members of
the civil rights establishment.
Browne Dianis is co-director of the national racial justice organization Advancement Project.
Jackson is president and CEO of the Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Noguera is the Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University.
_______________
►PART II: TESTING RIFT INTENSIFIES – The race card is played….
From Politico Morning Ed | http://politi.co/1Mt76UF
| 5June2015 :: : Education Trust President Kati Haycock weighed in
Thursday on the debate over whether annual tests serve the interests of
the civil rights community, saying National Center on Education and the
Economy President and CEO Marc Tucker's recent thoughts [http://bit.ly/1HAn4rL
] on the subject were "breathtaking in their arrogance." Tucker argued,
among other things, that the current accountability system dumbs down
the curriculum and leads to excessive test prep especially for poor and
minority students. And he thinks civil rights groups like the NAACP and
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights should reconsider
their strong pro-accountability position.
Haycock disagrees with Tucker's stance - and his tone.
"We work with - and have learned from - [civil rights] leaders and
organizations on many issues over many years. And while they may or may
not decide to call him out on his accusations, I will. Because even a
white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the
patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education 'leaders'
when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been
shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree," Haycock wrote
in a blog post: http://bit.ly/1H5z6xl (follows)
- Tucker told Morning Education that Haycock is "just plain wrong." The
civil rights community is not as united on testing as many think it is,
he said, citing a recent op-ed [http://bit.ly/1BKzpI3].
"I actually laughed when I saw it, to tell you the truth," Tucker said.
"What's important to me here is not overriding the civil rights
community, but persuading people in it that they have misread the
situation."
____________________
▲CALLING THE NATION’S CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS IGNORANT ON TESTING: REALLY?
Published in the EdTrust Blog by Kati Haycock | http://bit.ly/1IhZymb
Jun 4, 2015 :: Last week, Marc Tucker, president of the National
Center on Education and the Economy, took to the pages of Education Week
to call leaders of the Urban League, the NAACP, the National Council of
La Raza, the League of Latin American Citizens, the Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and other national civil rights
and disabilities organizations unwitting participants in a plot to
injure the nation’s most vulnerable children. Their crime? A unanimous
conviction that our country should not abandon the annual testing that
gives parents and teachers a regular objective measure of how well their
children are progressing on their journey through school.
Tucker’s assertions are breathtaking in their arrogance: That these
leaders — many of whom run large, complex organizations and have
advanced degrees from some of the nation’s most prestigious universities
— are somehow less capable than he is of understanding what the data
say about the progress of black, brown, and Native children. That they
are so untraveled or unread as to be somehow unaware that most
high-performing nations don’t use such an approach. And, most
breathtaking of all, that these leaders — all of whom have devoted their
lives to bettering the conditions of low-income children, racial
minorities, English learners, and children with disabilities — are
willingly countenancing a policy that is doing actual damage to these
very children.
While neither I nor my organization was a part of the letter on testing
opt-outs that raised Tucker’s ire, we work with — and have learned from —
these leaders and organizations on many issues over many years. And
while they may or may not decide to call him out on his accusations, I
will. Because even a white girl can recognize that this is yet another
example of the patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white
education “leaders” when anybody from the black, brown or Native
communities that have been shortchanged in education for so long DARES
to disagree.
If it mattered, I would refute Tucker’s assertions one by one. That
would be easy, for the “evidence” he puts forth is weak. His suggestion,
in particular, that these organizations are blind to the problems
inherent in standardized testing should give pause to any knowledgeable
reader, for these very organizations have fought against the misuse of
tests for decades.
What is so especially galling, though, is that Tucker’s attack is simply
subterfuge for the real point he is trying to make, which is not about
the accountability that the civil rights leaders have been working so
hard to sustain. He doesn’t approve of the use of tests in teacher
evaluation.
Now what, you ask, does the civil rights leaders’ support of annual
assessment and the responsibility of every school to act when the
results show that any group of students is not progressing have to do
with whether it is right to use tests in the evaluation of teachers?
Not a damn thing.
But by baiting readers with his portrayal of civil rights leaders
“duped” into supporting practices that are bad for vulnerable children,
he avoided ever having to wrestle with efforts by the unions to dupe
parents into sabotaging the best tests we have ever had just because
those tests also are used in the evaluation of some teachers. That
sleight of hand might have confused some, but it would have taken a lot
more skill to dupe any of the civil rights leaders I know. Thankfully,
they’ve prevailed against far more determined and wily opponents.
At a time when almost every state has adopted new and much higher
standards for what its children should be taught, we owe parents,
teachers and students themselves at least an annual look at where
students are on their journey toward those standards. While tests
cannot, and should not, be the whole of that checkup, they are a
critically important part because they are common across all of the
schools in a state. That is why, even as they worry about the extra and
often lower quality tests that have been piled on by districts and
schools, American parents support continuation of this annual statewide
checkup, with support among parents of color highest of all.
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
WHY THROW MONEY AT DEFENSE WHEN EVERYTHING IS FALLING DOWN AROUND US?
by Steve Lopez, LA Times | http://lat.ms/1AUaeb8
In 2012, the entrance to John Marshall High School in Los Feliz was
closed to protect students from falling debris. The gothic tower above
the entrance was crumbling, so a wooden platform was built atop a tunnel
of scaffolding to catch falling brick and concrete.
AB 575 + SB 499: AALA CLAIMS ACSA OPPOSES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING | http://bit.ly/1Inl1KC
CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT http://bit.ly/1GgDUPZ
WASHINGTON STATE'S FIRST CHARTER SCHOOL GETS LAST CHANCE TO SHOW PROGRESS | http://bit.ly/1QwUJr8
PART II: CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: – The race card is played….
http://bit.ly/1QwTM27
Disinvesting in Health Ed: TEEN PREGNANCY IS STILL A PROBLEM — SCHOOL DISTRICTS JUST STOPPED PAYING ATTENTION | http://bit.ly/1FwZ2xu
Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM | http://bit.ly/1cAiXTV
CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: No progress in academic excellence or equity | http://bit.ly/1dhA5P8
Charter School Overhaul Bill Heads to Connecticut Governor's Desk with Veto-proof Majorities | http://bit.ly/1KOZH48
From the wonderful folks who brought you the Texas Miracle + NCLB: CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS, TRUANCY & RICK PERRY | http://bit.ly/1AGh5Vm
4LAKids CORRECTION: MiSiS in Prince George's County | http://bit.ly/1GPl6rt
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
June 9
10 AM: Closed Session
1 PM: Regular LA Unified school board meeting
June 11
11 AM - Budget, Facilities, Audit Committee meeting
2 PM: Early Childhood Education and Parent Engagement Ad Hoc Committee
*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!
|
