In This Issue:
 |
| • |
IN CONTROVERSIAL MOVE, LAUSD'S DEASY WANTS TO RAISE HIGH-SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS + UCLA IDEA Response |
|
| • |
DOES MY WRITING COMPUTE? -or- “All watched over by machines of loving grace” |
|
| • |
ARE EDUCATORS SHOWING A “POSITIVE BIAS“ TO MINORITY STUDENTS – AND KEEPING THEM FROM DOING THEIR BEST? |
|
| • |
CHARTERS: MODELS OR OBSTACLES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION + CHARTER SCHOOLS: HOW MANY BUCKS FOR THE DESIRED BANG? + Report |
|
| • |
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 2005 The Board of Education passed a resolution
and drove a policy to implement the A-G college and university admission
requirements for UC and CSU as the graduation requirements for LAUSD.
There was debate and community activism and a commitment by the District
to this goal. There were about two or three years of intense focus on
the mission of A-G; plans were made – a timeline developed – a task
force appointed. In time the commitment and the resources and the
resolve – and mostly the money – waned. The A-G Task Force met less
often, then not at all. Small Learning Communities and Mayoral Control
and Small Schools… then Pubic School Choice v1, 2 + 3 were the flavors
of the month of reform. The mayor made his power play, supported by many
of the same folks who raised A-G in the first place. The superintendent
changed three times. The Board of Ed changed with every election. The
A-G timeline clanked inexorably forward; the two great unresolved
questions not just unanswered, but unasked.
• Would there be an opt out provision for the non-college bound as guaranteed in original resolution?
• And would LAUSD continue to recognize the grade of “D” as passing when UC+CSU did not?
Educators and others on the task force were universally college
educated – and universally opposed to the Opt Out. (OK – maybe not
universally opposed …but we were outnumbered ten to one!) Career and
Technical Education was treated like a red-headed stepchild.
And The “D” Grade Issue was so daunting that it was always put off until
the next meeting – in a parliamentary gambit called “tabling the
elephant in the room”.
In 2005 Roy Romer was superintendent of LAUSD and John Deasy was
superintendent of Santa Monica Malibu Unified, a few miles removed on
the 10 freeway from the A-G debate. That was then.
Now John Deasy – from Santa Monica Malibu via Prince George’s County,
The Broad Superintendents Academy and the Gates Foundation is LAUSD
superintendent and he is about to attempt to impose his vision of A-G
upon the class of 2016 (entering freshpeople 3 months from now) – while
postponing answering the “D” grade dilemma to the class of 2017. While
eliminating all elective requirements and dropping the rest of the
graduation requirements to the state minimum.
AND HERE’S WHAT UCLA IDEA – THE INTELLECTUAL CHAMPION OF A-G IN 2005, SAYS ABOUT THAT:
“(The LAUSD board resolution mandated) …A-G for all students and
stipulated that the requirements be accompanied by ‘necessary learning
supports, realignment and dedication of resources necessary beginning
early in a student's education so that they are prepared to successfully
complete the A-G course sequence at all grade levels from K-12.’
“But those ‘necessary learning supports... at all grade levels’ never
fully materialized. Indeed, some conditions have deteriorated
dramatically, such as access to summer school, tutoring, and small class
sizes. Without these and other supports, students are not passing their
college-prep classes at acceptable rates. And, unless this pattern
changes, once new graduation requirements are enforced, graduation rates
will drop.
“Some critics of LAUSD’s new plan believe that reducing the number of
required credits and eliminating non- A-G electives will result in
students from historically underserved neighborhoods becoming less
engaged in school, less likely to graduate, less likely to be accepted
to the most competitive colleges, and have fewer prospects for success
if they do get to college.
“The new ‘flexibility’ created by the district’s proposal appears
designed to allow students to make-up classes instead of finding some
way to provide the k-12 resources that prepare students to pass their
A-G classes the first time around. Of course, schools with lots of
resources and with a history of high achievement might take good
advantage of the new flexibility by adding more varied and engaging
curriculum. But elsewhere, parents, students, and educators worry that
their schools are falling into a cycle of failure, remediation, and poor
prospects for college.” | http://bit.ly/Igc6gy
There’s faint praise and there’s no praise at all. The above fits solidly into the second category
¿AND WHAT DO I THINK?: This “new” A-G policy has been in the works
since 2005 – and with all that run-up, only 15% of last year’s students
qualified.. LAUSD doesn’t have the counselors to support this. It is
doubtful if we have the teachers, textbooks or science labs to support
this; we certainly don’t at all schools.
The idea that having more than one kind of diploma somehow “dumbs down”
the process is preposterous. Back in the ‘good old days’/the so-called
‘Golden Age’ (and they were neither … though they are now old!) we had
major sequences in a course of study to gain a diploma – standards that
had to be met for college prep or industrial arts or math, arts,
science, …whatever. It said what your major was on your diploma.
Because campers, there are different routes to success -- and different
flavors thereof.
Dropping the number of classes you have to pass dumbs down the process and cheapens the diploma.
Yes, I have heard Dr. Aquino say that this isn’t lowering the bar …but
that’s EXACTLY what it does! And it would possible to get 180 credits
and graduate in only three years – creating high school graduates with
the intellectual depth and imagination of a Scantron score sheet. And,
because the bottom line IS the bottom line, costing the District a year
of ADA.
….but think of the classroom space all those early graduates would free up for Prop 39 charter co-locations!
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
PS: I cannot be at the board meeting Tuesday when this is to be decided.
Will someone please ask the question: “Will these new graduation
requirements be incumbent on charter schools?”
IN CONTROVERSIAL MOVE, LAUSD'S DEASY WANTS TO RAISE
HIGH-SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS + UCLA IDEA Response
By Barbara Jones, Staff Writer, LA Daily News | http://bit.ly/JUCA5c
5/5/2012 05:22:47 PM PDT :: He's moved aggressively to weed out
ineffective teachers, raise English-learners to language proficiency,
make schools safer and engage more parents.
Superintendent John Deasy is now poised to launch the next big piece in
his model for reforming the Los Angeles Unified School District, a
controversial move that would toughen the curriculum and grading scale
to make every high school graduate eligible for entry to a state
university.
His proposal is politically contentious, generating debate about his
strategy to overhaul a system where just half the students now graduate
from high school. Against the backdrop of a financial crisis and without
a strong support system in place, will those now struggling to learn
basic math be challenged by the rigors of Algebra II, or will they
falter along the way?
"We have to think long and hard about what we're doing," said board
member Steve Zimmer. "This policy is going to impact LAUSD for
generations."
The plan coming before the school board on Tuesday would implement a
policy passed in 2005, which calls for creating "educational equity" for
students in disadvantaged Latino and African-American students.
That policy mandates that beginning with the Class of 2016 -- this
fall's incoming freshmen -- every high school student must pass the A-G
curriculum in order to graduate.
A-G is a series of at least 15 high school courses required for
admission to the University of California or California State
University. For example, two years of social science and history courses
fulfill the A requirement, while B mandates four years of English
classes, C means three years of math studies and so on.
Deasy's strategy is to slash the number of credits required for high
school graduation by shedding 50 units of electives. Struggling students
could use those freed-up periods to get tutoring or retake failed
classes. Students who succeed in A-G could still take electives like
computer science or Advanced Placement classes.
Beginning in fall 2013, the passing grade requirement would be raised
from the current D to a C, a change that would make every graduate
eligible for admission to Cal State or the University of California.
Unlike the 2005 policy, Deasy's plan would not provide waivers for
English-learners or students who want to pursue a vocation rather than
college.
"We are fighting to honor the rights of every kid to graduate college- and workforce-ready," he said in an interview.
"For us, the threshold for college-ready is competitive admission to the
UC, which is taking A-G at a C (grade) or better as the floor. This is
not the ceiling, this is the bare minimum.
"And that curriculum is career-ready, as well. They're completely aligned."
Deasy's plan has sparked debate as to whether the district is raising or
lowering the academic bar since it scales back the number of credit
hours but increases the rigor of the mandated classes as well as the
grade needed to pass.
Considering that just 15 percent of the Class of 2011 passed the A-G
core with a C or better, an overwhelming number of students would be
challenged by the new standards.
A-G requires geometry and two years of algebra to satisfy the math
requirement, for instance, along with two years of science -- a
combination of biology, chemistry or physics.
Worried that tougher classes would trigger a wave of dropouts, officials
lowered the credit requirement so struggling students could have time
to make up classes, get back on track and graduate on time.
"Right now, those kids are on the sidelines," said Deputy Superintendent
Jaime Aquino, who chaired a task force that devised the A-G strategy.
"We need to be sure they can at least play the game."
In creating a safety net for failing students, the district must address
how to connect with those taking a class for a second or third time,
said Marisa Saunders, a senior research associate at UCLA's Institute
for Democracy, Education and Access, which worked closely with
community-based groups on the 2005 policy.
"The question arises as to whether the students will get tired of taking
the same boring academic classes over and over," she said. "The
district needs to do something different on its pedological approach."
[SEE UCLA IDEA’S CURRRENT APPRAISAL OF THE CURRENT PLAN | Follows]
Aquino said officials hope that students will be challenged by the
raising of the passing grade from the current D to a C, beginning with
the graduating Class of 2017.
"We think this is a way to motivate our kids and say, `We want you to
try your best because if you do and you're on track, you can take as
many electives as you want,"' Aquino said.
The push for A-G grew out of a grass-roots movement in the early 2000s
to improve the quality of education for students living in some of Los
Angeles' poorest neighborhoods.
"The district fails to properly educate a significant number of students
and provide them with the skills necessary for success in life and the
21st century workforce," says the 2005 resolution passed by the school
board. "Successful implementation of the A-G graduation requirements
will result in the improvement of education outcomes at all levels of
the K-12 system."
That policy required the district to provide access to A-G courses
beginning in 2006-07, for ninth-graders to enroll in A-G beginning in
2008, and for that academic core to become required for graduation
beginning in 2012.
Today's board members say students need A-G to give them a competitive
edge in applying for college or jobs, but some disagree on Deasy's
strategy for implementing it.
"I don't think the solution to a crisis in teaching and learning is
solved by taking away classes from kids," said Zimmer, who represents
the Westside and the South San Fernando Valley.
"I can stand behind the original 2005 motion, plus the elimination of
D's. But if the strategy is just to reduce the number of credits, that's
not a strategy. It's a cop-out."
Instead, Zimmer wants a plan that maintains the fundamentals of the 2005
policy, but integrates the district's small-schools and "linked
learning" initiatives, which allow students to take A-G courses that
relate to their vocational or career goals.
Those elements are included in a resolution that East Valley board
member Nury Martinez plans to introduce Tuesday as a "companion" to
Deasy's plan.
Her resolution also calls for training high school instructors to teach
the college-prep courses and better preparing middle-school students for
the rigorous classes they'll face beginning in ninth grade.
"The district needs an instructional plan, and this resolution addresses that," she said.
"This is not about taking necessary courses or mastering the subject
matter. It is about ensuring there is remediation and professional
development."
Board member Tamar Galatzan, who represents the West Valley, is
advocating a more measured approach, especially in light of the
financial crisis that has left LAUSD with a $390 million deficit.
She wants to ensure every high school student has access to A-G classes,
whether at their own school or a neighboring campus. She also wants to
have professional development for teachers and intervention services for
students before A-G is fully rolled out.
"It does really bother me that there are students who don't have access
to an A-G curriculum. That piece of this shouldn't wait. We need to make
those classes available to students who should be in them.
"But just by waving a magic wand and saying that we hope that every
child avails him or herself of these options doesn't make it happen,"
she said. "We need to get them ready for this curriculum.
"If we don't have money to do that -- that's the piece I'm not getting."
While Deasy's plan would make students eligible for admission to
California's public universities, it would not guarantee they actually
get in.
The UC system had a record 126,455 applicants for fall 2012 and admitted
about 80,300 freshmen, who carried an average high-school GPA of 3.86.
The 23-campus Cal State University system admitted about half of the
436,000 freshmen who applied for admission this year -- and enrolled
56,000.
The CSU system has lost $1 billion since 2008, but is serving 95,000
more students. Another cut of $200 million is looming for this year,
while next year's enrollment depends on the outcome of a tax hike on the
November ballot.
"Our goal is to be able to admit everyone who is eligible, but with an
influx of students that could prove a challenge to fulfill that
mission," said CSU spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp.
Students to be challenged Some disagree with plan There are no guarantees Others can benefit
Even students who are not college-bound can benefit from the A-G
curriculum, given the increasingly technical nature of the workforce,
according to employers and researchers.
Aspiring electricians, construction workers, graphic designers -- those
seeking a career, rather than just a job -- need the kinds of reading,
applied math and critical thinking skills taught in A-G classes.
"The educational piece is very important for any skilled trade out
there," said John Morton, president of the Southern California Building
Industry Education Council. "It's very important for kids who want to
have a vocational career to have access that would give them skill set
to compete in their market."
Deasy said there have been discussions about making A-G optional for
vocational students -- the 2005 resolution provides a waiver for those
seeking a career path -- but the superintendent is vehemently opposed to
that plan.
"You'd be giving some kids orange juice and other kids orange drink."
For him, the question goes to his belief in the role of public education.
"The issue comes up because we believe that it's OK to say, `They need a
job, they're not made for college.' That may not be my kid you're
talking about, or yours. Then who? Who are we deciding that it's OK for
you not to be competitive for college?
"That is not for the system to decide," he said. "The system's
responsibility is that everyone gets to have those choices. They get to
make them for themselves."
►UCLA IDEA’S CURRRENT APPRAISAL OF THE CURRENT [DEASY] A-G PLAN
from UCLA IDEA THEMES IN THE NEWS “The Opportunity to Repeat” | 4-20-2012
(smf: some quoted in the lead above, some excerpted below - see the entire critique at http://bit.ly/Igc6gy )
As members of the public and LAUSD officials deliberate about the policy
in the weeks ahead, they would do well to consider several questions:
• If the proposed policy is implemented, will schools that presently
experience high rates of failure in a-g classes add more credit recovery
classes and subtract elective and advanced coursework?
• If they do, will students in these schools receive as full and rich an education as students at other LAUSD high schools?
• Is it acceptable to have some district schools that provide more varied and higher-level coursework than others?
• What can be learned from Los Angeles schools that already graduate
substantial proportions of their students college-ready? What conditions
prevail at these schools and their feeder schools? What does the
district need to do to foster those conditions across all schools?
DOES MY WRITING COMPUTE? -or- “All watched over by machines of loving grace”
SOFTWARE TO SCORE STUDENTS' WRITING ESSAYS IS HERE, BUT IS IT REALLY USEFUL?
Editorial By Karin Klein/LA Times | http://lat.ms/IzGy1J
May 6, 2012 :: A few years ago, my local school district invested in
software designed to teach students better writing skills. The computer
program — without the help of a teacher — would rate their work on a
scale of 1 to 6 and give them feedback on the needed improvements, such
as fixing grammatical errors or expanding sentence fragments into full
sentences. The students could watch their scores rise as they made
corrections, actively engaged in the process of learning new English
usage skills, while their teachers were freed from the chore of reading
every draft.
Great theory. Now some reality: During my daughter's initial assignment
using the software, her first draft earned a 5.9 out of 6. The tenth of a
point deduction was for repeating a short phrase. Fair enough. She
changed the wording — maybe four words — and her score inexplicably
plummeted to a 4. She put the original wording back and her score rose
by a couple tenths of a point. Then she spent the next three hours
trying to figure out how to get her score back up and left the computer
sobbing and declaring that she hated writing and school.
Other students were having similar experiences, the teacher said. The
district used the software less and less, and three years later, the
principal mentioned that they were dropping it altogether.
So it was hard to avoid a little cynicism when a professor at the
University of Akron recently reported that automatic essay-scoring
software, used to assess the writing samples in the state standards
tests administered annually under the No Child Left Behind Act, rates
most essays about the same as human scorers do.
The field of natural language processing, a subfield of artificial
intelligence, is always growing more sophisticated. It would be unfair
to judge this software — several different types from different creators
were tested — by the computer disaster at my local school. But
sophisticated enough to lead us into an era of good writing?
What software can do, according to Akron education professor Mark
Shermis, is assess structure — the skeleton of writing but not the
flesh. It can judge whether a sentence is complete, but not whether the
sentence says anything worth a damn. It can hunt for sophisticated
vocabulary but can't determine whether those words are employed in
meaningful and appropriate ways. It can suss out poor grammar, incorrect
spelling and repeated phrases but not originality, flow or liveliness.
It also cannot begin to measure accuracy, depth, logic or critical
thinking skills. Sad to say, machines just don't understand us.
Meanwhile, the software takes a dim view of creative flourishes that
enliven prose if they reach outside a narrow box of English expository
writing. Sentence fragments? Forget it. And sentences that begin with
"and." What about intentional repetition for effect, a sort of
linguistic ostinato? Safer to stick with the plodding voice of the
traditional five-paragraph essay.
There are no official proposals at the moment to replace human scorers
with machines, Shermis said, but there are plenty of groups interested
in pursuing the idea. Right now, the movement smacks more of a desire to
save money than to improve education.
To be fair to the machines, this isn't solely about the weaknesses of
automated thinking. They're following a scoring rubric that calls for
rating composition skills based on form rather than substance. That's
why the scores are similar to those arrived at by humans, who have often
been instructed to follow the same paint-by-number rules. It results
from the emphasis on basic skills brought to us by the standardized
testing movement.
But no one should mistake that for good writing.
The education reform movement pushed schools into an era of ever more
multiple-choice tests. In response, teachers moved away from deeper
curriculum. When complaints arose that this was dumbing down education,
most states adopted a purportedly richer common curriculum for reading
and math, which will show up in schools in a couple of years and make
essays a bigger part of the testing equation. But if the scoring process
cannot measure whether a student has melded fact, thought and verbal
grace into cohesive written form, we might as well stick with having
students fill in the bubbles.
ARE EDUCATORS SHOWING A “POSITIVE BIAS“ TO MINORITY
STUDENTS – AND KEEPING THEM FROM DOING THEIR BEST?
ARE SOME TEACHERS HURTING STUDENTS WITH TOO MUCH PRAISE?
By Carla Capizzi / Rutgers-Newark.edu | http://bit.ly/IOdoSH
May 3, 2012 :: Remember that teacher you grumbled about back in your
school days, the really tough one who made you work so hard, insisted
you could do better, and made you sweat for your A’s? The one you didn’t
appreciate until after you graduated and realized how much you had
learned?
Minority students in the U.S. might have fewer of those teachers, at
least compared to white students, and as a result they might be at a
significant learning disadvantage.
A major study, led by Rutgers-Newark psychology professor Kent D.
Harber, indicates that public school teachers under-challenge minority
students by providing them more positive feedback than they give to
white students, for work of equal merit. The study, which is currently
available online at http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2012-10763-001/
in the Journal of Educational Psychology (JEP), involved 113 white
middle school and high school teachers in two public school districts
located in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut tri-state area, one
middle class and white, and the other more working class and racially
mixed.
Teachers read and commented on a poorly written essay which they
believed was composed by a student in a writing class. Some teachers
thought the student was black, some thought the student was Latino, and
some thought that the student was white. Teachers believed that their
feedback would be sent directly to the student, in order to see how the
student would benefit from their comments and advice.
In fact, there was no actual student, and the poorly written essay was
developed by Harber and his team. The real purpose was to see how
teachers would respond to subpar work due to the race of the student who
composed it. As Harber and his team predicted, the teachers displayed
a “positive feedback bias,” providing more praise and less criticism if
they thought the essay was written by a minority student than by a
white student.
An important aspect of the positive bias was that it depended on how
much social support teachers received from their fellow teachers and
administrators—but only if the student was black. In This case,
teachers lacking social support showed the positive bias, while those
who enjoyed support did not show the bias. Teachers who thought the
student was Latino showed the bias, regardless of their school-based
social support.
“The social implications of these results are important; many minority
students might not be getting input from instructors that stimulates
intellectual growth and fosters achievement,” notes Harber. “Some
education scholars believe that minorities under-perform because they
are insufficiently challenged—the ‘bigotry of lowered expectations,’ in
popular parlance,” he explains. “The JEP study indicates one important
way that this insufficient challenge might occur: in positively biased
feedback,” according to Harber.
Harber believes that the positive feedback bias might help explain the
stubborn academic performance gap between minority students and white
students, an enduring social problem that threatens to “reverse social
successes won through legislation, jurisprudence, and changing cultural
attitudes” toward minorities. Previous attempts to address the
performance gap have, correctly, examined inequalities in school
funding, racism, and distrust of academia in some minority communities,
notes the report.
The current study suggests that the performance gap might also be due to
a cause that has received relatively little attention: the nature of
instructional feedback from white teachers to minority students.
Harber believes the study’s findings have implications not only for
educational systems in the U.S. but also for businesses and in fact any
organization where performance appraisals and feedback are crucial tools
for training and development.
The study builds on and expands Harber’s previous demonstrations of the
positive feedback bias, involving college students in 1998 and in 2004,
and teacher trainees in 2010. His partners on this latest study are:
Jamie L. Gorman and Frank P. Gengaro, Rutgers University, Newark;
Samantha Butisingh and William Tsang, Rutgers University, New Brunswick;
and Rebecca Ouellette, Fairleigh Dickinson University.
Harber and his team believe their findings could have broad implications
for teachers, parents and students, and business leaders. He is
available to explain in detail how the research was conducted, who was
involved, the analysis and outcomes.
ABSTRACT: This research tested whether public school teachers display
the positive feedback bias, wherein Whites give more praise and less
criticism to minorities than to fellow Whites for equivalent work. It
also tested whether teachers lacking in school-based social support
(i.e., support from fellow teachers and school administrators) are more
likely to display the positive bias and whether the positive feedback
bias applies to Latinos as well as to Blacks. White middle school and
high school teachers from 2 demographically distinct public school
districts gave feedback on a poorly written essay supposedly authored by
a Black, Latino, or White student. Teachers in the Black student
condition showed the positive bias, but only if they lacked school-based
social support. Teachers in the Latino student condition showed the
positive bias regardless of school-based support. These results indicate
that the positive feedback bias may contribute to the insufficient
challenge that
undermines minority students' academic
achievement.
CHARTERS: MODELS OR OBSTACLES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION +
CHARTER SCHOOLS: HOW MANY BUCKS FOR THE DESIRED BANG? + Report
►CHARTERS AS MODELS AND OBSTACLES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Themes in the News by UCLA IDEA/Week of April 30-May 4, 2012 | http://bit.ly/JkQxtb
05-04-2012 :: Twenty years ago charter schools were created to introduce
innovation in teaching methods, in staffing, in school funding and in
school organization in order to improve students’ learning. It was hoped
that, by operating outside the established district structures, which
charter advocates portrayed as inefficient and stifling innovation,
charters would develop successful practices that could be used as models
for non-chartered, public schools.
There is no question that the charter movement has grown: today, there
are almost 1,000 charters enrolling more than 360,000 students in
California. And just this week two dozen elementary and middle schools
in the San Fernando Valley requested to become affiliated charters in
the Los Angeles Unified School District—in part so that they can capture
an additional $385 per student in state block grant funds (Los Angeles
Times, Los Angeles Daily News).
But how has the charter experiment played out? Have charters generated
realistic examples for districts seeking to serve all students well; or
are they obstacles to that all-important goal; or both? Charters
continue to raise difficult questions as witnessed by the move of
schools in San Fernando Valley as well as several other news stories
that have surfaced recently.
DISTRICTS PROVIDE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF MANY CHARTERS, BUT IS THAT OVERSIGHT TIMELY, ADEQUATE, AND WELL-ENOUGH RESOURCED?
In Los Angeles, board members issued a notice of violation to the
Birmingham Community Charter High School, the first of three steps in
revoking a charter. The school must respond to allegations that it
mishandled school admission and discipline issues. The board members are
concerned about the lack of communication between the district and
school (Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Times). Last month, Oakland
district officials considered not renewing the high-scoring American
Indian Charter School's charter for fiscal mismanagement (San Francisco
Chronicle, New America Media).
ARE GAINS FOR CHARTERS LOSSES FOR TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS?
Proposition 39 granted charter schools access to unused space in
local school districts. Known as co-location, a charter school would
operate out of the empty classrooms on public school. Sometimes shifting
enrollments and other factors result in charters occupying space that
is not actually “empty.” Los Angeles students at a Silver Lake
elementary school would have its bilingual kindergarten curtailed if a
co-located charter gets the space (KPCC). A Bay Area charter competed
for space until it reluctantly agreed to split up its k-8 program onto
two separate campuses (San Jose Mercury News). Teachers at Franklin High
School protested a proposed charter co-location that would limit
student access to libraries and the gym, and further burden
administrator (Patch). These incidents point to an emerging tension as
charters, which have positioned themselves as rivals to local public
schools, now seek to forge partnerships.
DO CHARTERS PROVIDE BETTER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WITH COMPARABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY?
A new report published by the National Education Policy Center
points to inconsistent funding and successes across the country, with
the unsurprising finding that the more successful charters outspend
neighborhood public schools. Charters receive both public and private
funds and sometimes, as in California, separate grants from the state.
Federal programs, like Race to the Top, are also directing more
resources to charters. According to the report, "Spending by the Major
Charter Management Organizations," with limited pools of private/public
funds that schools can draw upon, claims of charters’ superior results
should be balanced by their funding advantages. Perhaps, in many cases,
it’s not the innovation, but the money that makes the biggest
difference.
California and LAUSD (with more charters than any district in the
nation) must stop treating charters as fragile experimental sites. If
charters are going to be permanent features in our education landscape,
all public schools must have access to comparable resources and
oversight.
"I don't think anyone foresaw that they would be a substantial
proportion of your overall system of public education," Dr. John Rogers,
director of UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (UCLA
IDEA) said (KPCC| http://bit.ly/IKUSct).
"And now we're reaching that point and our structure of policies
doesn't really have the regulations in place to deal with this new
reality."
►CHARTER SCHOOLS: HOW MANY BUCKS FOR THE DESIRED BANG?
NEPC press release | http://tinyurl.com/d8dlmeb
BOULDER, CO | May 3, 2012) :: Do charter schools live up to their
supporters’ claim that they deliver a better education for less money?
While previous research has focused on the first half of that claim –
education quality -- a new report published by the National Education
Policy Center examines the second half – what charters spend.
Schools operated by major charter management organizations (CMOs)
generally spend more than surrounding public schools, according to
Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations: Comparing
Charter School & Local Public District Financial Resources in New
York, Ohio and Texas.
The finding is significant, especially when programs such as the U.S.
Department’s “Race to the Top” are directing more resources to charters
deemed to be successful. The NEPC report presents new research on this
question by Rutgers University Education Professor Bruce Baker, working
with University of Colorado Boulder doctoral students Ken Libby and
Kathryn Wiley. The research team examined spending in New York City,
Ohio and Texas.
“Charter school finances are hard to measure,” says Baker. “Charters
generally receive both public and private funds. Also, in-kind
assistance and resources from districts and states to charters vary
greatly. Yet we can see that the most successful charters, such as KIPP
and the Achievement First schools, have substantially deeper pockets
than nearby traditional schools.”
The report explains that most studies highlighting or documenting a
successful charter school have sidestepped or downplayed cost
implications while focusing on specific programs and strategies in those
schools. The broad conclusion across these studies is that charter
schools or traditional public schools can produce dramatic improvements
to student outcomes in the short- and long-term by implementing “no
excuses” strategies and perhaps wrap-around services. Most charter
school studies conclude that these strategies either come with
potentially negligible costs, or that higher costs, if any, are
worthwhile since they yield a substantial return.
But according to Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations,
a “marginal expense” may be larger than it sounds. An additional $1,837
expense in Houston for a KIPP charter school, where the average middle
school operating expenditure per pupil is $7,911, equals a 23 to 30
percent cost increase.
“A 30 percent increase in funding is a substantial increase by most people’s definition,” says Baker.
The study compares per-pupil spending of charter schools operated by
CMOs to the spending in nearby district schools. The report’s authors
examined three years of data, including information on school-level
spending per pupil, school size, grade ranges and student populations
served. For charter schools, the report’s authors drew spending data
from government (and authorizer) reports as well as IRS non-profit
financial filings (IRS 990s). Notably, the data from these two different
sources matched only for New York City; the data reported for Texas and
Ohio from the two sources varied considerably.
The study found many high-profile charter network schools to be
outspending similar district schools in New York City and Texas. But it
also found instances where charter network schools are spending less
than similar district schools, particularly in Ohio. In Ohio, charters
across the board spend less than district schools in the same city.
In contrast, KIPP, Achievement First and Uncommon Schools charter
schools in New York City, spend substantially more ($2,000 to $4,300 per
pupil) than similar district schools. Given that the average spending
per pupil was around $12,000 to $14,000 citywide, a nearly $4,000
difference in spending amounts to an increase of some 30 percent.
Similarly, some charter chains in Texas, such as KIPP, spend
substantially more per pupil than district schools in the same city and
serving similar populations. In some Texas cities (and at the middle
school level), these charters spend around 30 to 50 percent more based
on state reported current expenditures. If the data from IRS filings are
used, these charters are found to spend 50 to 100 percent more.
The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of
Colorado Boulder produced Spending by the Major Charter Management
Organizations: Comparing Charter School & Local Public District
Financial Resources in New York, Ohio and Texas, with funding from the
Albert Shanker Institute (http://www.shankerinstitute.org/) and from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (http://www.greatlakescenter.org).
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
ADMINISTRATORS’ UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: from the AALA Update | Week of May 7, 2012 | May 5, ... http://bit.ly/KG4enK
Miramonte: L.A. UNIFIED IS NAMED IN NEGLIGENCE LAWSUIT: Twenty former Miramonte Elementary students say they wer... http://bit.ly/LoRsNt
LAUSD DSI INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNIQUÉ :: MAY-JUNE 2012: Every two months the Office of the Deputy Superintendent o... http://bit.ly/JcRndQ
from Canadian Business News: CALIF.'S 4TH YEAR OF TEACHER LAYOFFS SPUR CONCERNS http://bit.ly/IXuQEb (well.... someone cares!)
The LACCD Scandals continue: COURT RULING COULD EXPEL HIGH-ACHIEVING CHARTER SCHOOL + smf’s 2¢: Adults misbehave... http://bit.ly/Kv2gqo
Getting Down to Facts+5: LATEST UPDATE ON CALIFORNIA’S K-12 EDUCATION FINDS LITTLE PROGRESS, LOTS OF CHALLENGES:... http://bit.ly/Ksk1X9
Preschool and School Readiness: EXPERIENCES OF CHILDREN WITH NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKING PARENTS: Jill S. Cannon, Aliso... http://bit.ly/KnipOw
CALIFORNIA MAY TRY FOR PERSONALIZED NCLB WAIVER: State Board to consider seeking relief from parts of law: By Ka... http://bit.ly/KnipOq
notyet LAUSD: Sexual reassignment to solve graduation crisis! http://bit.ly/IvsPZL
WTFUTLA from notyet LAUSD: http://bit.ly/LbDgHp
CHARTERS: MODELS OR OBSTACLES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION + CHARTER SCHOOLS: HOW MANY BUCKS FOR THE DESIRED BANG? + Rep... http://bit.ly/LbAtOB
Where were we …before we we so rudely interrupted? BACK TO THE FUTURE + GETTING DOWN TO FACTS: Looking to pivota... http://bit.ly/J4VYM3
4 STORIES FROM MIRAMONTE: The KPCC coverage: ●● smf notes: These stories should be read in reverse order, f... http://bit.ly/L8ado3
Expand
LAUSD HAS DUG UP 500 CASES OF UNREPORTED TEACHER MISCONDUCT SINCE MIRAMONTE SCANDAL: By Simone Wilson, LA Weekly... http://bit.ly/KhG3zu
LA UNIFIED’S MISCONDUCT PROBE PRODUCES MORE THAN 500 CASES FOR STATE REVIEW: By Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Re... http://bit.ly/K7PjT8
Of the students who started high school in LAUSD in 2006-07, 15% graduated in 2011 qualified to enter UC or CSU systems.http://lat.ms/Je1DQn
2 stories: MIRAMONTE TEACHERS BREAK SILENCE: Miramonte Elementary teachers to speak out after months of silence ... http://bit.ly/KXbDSm
FALTERING IN SPECIAL EDUCATION, LA UNIFIED SEEKS ANSWERS: Joanna Lin/California Watch | http://bit.ly/JW04L0 p... http://bit.ly/KWQXty
CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS NOT BANKING ON NEW TAXES FROM GOV. JERRY BROWN UPDATED + LAO Report: by Chris Megerian/LA Tim... http://bit.ly/JXnvRq
STATE SUPERINTENDENT CALLS FOR PUBLIC TO REJECT CUTS TO EARLY LEARNING: http://KTVU.com and wires | http://bit.ly/JXf3kY
Previewing “The May Revise”: BROWN WILL SEEK ‘SERIOUS CUTS’ IN CALIFORNIA BUDGET PLAN: By Michael B. Marois and ... http://bit.ly/JXcLm0
LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS JOHN DEASY MUST GO: by Joseph K in K-12 News Network | http://bit.ly/IYRcTl
S.O.S.: AN OPEN LETTER TO LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT JOHN DEASY: A parent of two middle school students at Palms Middl... http://bit.ly/IYN06j
¿Why is CA flag at Virgil MS upside down? CA APRIL REVENUE COLLECTIONS $2 TO $3 BILLION BELOW PROJECTIONS.
A REALLY COOL EVENT: Diane Ravitch's blog http://bit.ly/KowiJE May 1, 2012 :: Back when I was writing The De... http://bit.ly/JDORf1
STUDENTS POST SEVERAL HUNDRED IMAGES OF STATE TESTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS: By Tami Abdollah | KPCC Pass/Fail ... http://bit.ly/ISWXSC
KEEP ADULT ED ALIVE: Budget cuts are threatening adult education and ESL. Even for the sake of boosting the work... http://bit.ly/KCSYuR
LAUSD BOARD SET TO TACKLE BIRMINGHAM CHARTER ISSUES, POSSIBLY REVOKING CHARTER: SNews Staff Writer | http://bit.ly/ISSWgZ
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SCHOOLS SEEK CHARTER AFFILIATION WITH LAUSD: By Barbara Jones, LA Daily News Staff Writer | ... http://bit.ly/ISQy9W
L.A. YOUTH: Student newspaper faces funding crunch: L.A. High school students from around L.A. write for their p... http://bit.ly/IJinye
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
2012 CALIFORNIA STATE PTA ANNUAL CONVENTION
May 9 – 12, 2012
Anaheim CA | http://bit.ly/IDvs0K
________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700
What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Tamar.Galatzan@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Bennett.Kayser@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Nury.Martinez@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!.
|
