In This Issue:
 |
| • |
3 stories on Stull lawsuit: UTLA, LAUSD, PLAINTIFFS REACH CONSENSUS ON SETTLEMENT …OR DO THEY? |
|
| • |
DUAL HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE ENROLLMENT PROMOTES OUTCOME FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS |
|
| • |
The Williams Settlement: CALIFORNIA RENEGES ON 8-YEAR-OLD FUNDING AGREEMENT |
|
| • |
PARENTS TOOK OVER, NOW SHOW THEM THE MONEY |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
Listen to the wind blow, watch the sun rise
Run in the shadows
Damn your love, damn your lies
And if you don't love me now
You will never love me again
I can still hear you saying you would never break the chain
-- Fleetwood Mac
The governorship of Gray Davis was flawed. But I think enough time has
passed since the recall to say that things in state government are now
far worse. And we don’t have Gray Davis to kick around anymore. Or
Arnold.
The advent of Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn’t the genesis of
smoke-and-mirrors budgeteering – but it marked the golden (or leaden)
age of the art form. The elimination of The Car Tax – and the refusal by
the legislature to replace the lost revenue with anything is key. When
you eliminate an old tax and insist on no new taxes the outcome would be
obvious to a kindergarten economist.
Until the Great Recession/Not-so-Great Depression the amount of the
state budget deficit was almost exactly the same as the uncollected Car
Tax revenues. 1:1. And here’s the rub: the amount Californians paid in
Car Tax was deductible from their federal income tax; The Car Tax was
subsidized by the Feds!
The Car Tax Shortfall created the opening for magical realism budgets in
California. If only the glorious future viewed through the
rose-colored-glasses – accompanied by opportune visits from the Easter
Bunny – comes to pass everything will be slam-damn wonderful!
Schwarzenegger+Co. (The Big Five, meeting in a tent and smoking cigars)
relied upon ballot box support that never happened. The electorate is a
trifle more cynical than the elect.
Happily Ever After is never the legislative outcome; the current state
budget and its joined-at-birth connection to Governor Brown’s Tax
Initiative (Prop 30) is a case in point.
Public Education funding in California – already 47th in the nation -
has been cut 13.8% (or more depending how you work the numbers) since
the recession. This year’s budget maintains 100% of current education
funding (aka 86.2% or less) – BUT ONLY IF THE GOVERNOR’S INITIATIVE
PASSES. Otherwise the “Trigger Cuts” of additional $5+bllion buried in
the budget “trailer bill” (not Prop 30) kick in. And these cuts trigger
in the middle of the school year.
The Governor’s Initiative is not a referendum put on the ballot by the
legislature, that would almost make sense. It is a ballot measure
proposed by Governor Brown as a citizen: a constitutional amendment
that accomplishes his “realignment” of state and local government – and a
temporary tax increase. (This combination itself is constitutionally
questionable …if it passes the question will be asked.)
The spokespeople and surrogates for the governor – even legislators
themselves – try to delink/decouple/separate the budget from Prop 30 –
and make representations that the Prop 30 funding is in some sort a
lockbox to preserve education funding from “jiggering” in Sacramento.
This is a dubious political promise at best; a whopper at worst. Even
if Prop 30 passes the budget still contains some magical financial
projections: How much will the Facebook IPO really bring in?
New links have been added to the chain; it’s a veritable charm bracelet.
The UC Regents – appointees of the governor – promise they will not
increase tuition …unless Prop 30 fails.
The advocates say Prop 30 funds public education – the double negative
opposite is true: If it passes it doesn’t defund public education.
The title to Prop 30: “The Schools and Local Public Safety Act” is a
brand, like “Lucky Charms”. And like “Lucky Charms” it is neither lucky
nor charming. Nor particularly good for kids.
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
3 stories on Stull lawsuit: UTLA, LAUSD, PLAINTIFFS
REACH CONSENSUS ON SETTLEMENT …OR DO THEY?
►TEACHERS' ATTORNEY SAYS EVALS CAN INCLUDE TEST SCORES THIS YEAR: LAUSD
and its teachers union agree on a timeline to start factoring student
achievement into employee evaluations — if they can agree on how to do
it.
By Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/Nv1zlS
July 24, 2012, 9:58 p.m. :: In a potentially groundbreaking decision,
Los Angeles teachers and administrators agreed with the school district
for the first time to use student test scores as part of performance
reviews beginning this school year.
But an attorney for United Teachers Los Angeles later said the
commitment he made during a court hearing Tuesday was contingent on
whether the union and L.A. Unified School District could successfully
negotiate an agreement on exactly how such scores would be used in the
teacher evaluations.
That drew criticism from an attorney who sought the pledge in a case he
brought on behalf of Los Angeles parents, who successfully sued the
district for violating a 41-year-old state law that requires evaluations
to include measures of student achievement, such as test scores.
"This is exactly what we were concerned about — that [UTLA] would say
one thing in court and change their position thereafter," said Scott
Witlin, an attorney for the group of unidentified parents.
In the case, which could transform teacher evaluations in California,
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled last
month that L.A. Unified had violated the law, known as the Stull Act.
The plaintiffs' attorneys had argued that the absence of a rigorous
evaluation system that effectively identifies weak teachers for
improvement or, if necessary, dismissal, deprives students of their
constitutional right to educational equality.
In their agreement Tuesday, attorneys for the district and the unions
representing teachers and administrators set Sept. 4 as the date to
return to court with a progress report. They also agreed on a final
deadline of Dec. 4 to show proof they had started using student
achievement measures in performance reviews.
The teachers union's commitment to launch the new measures this year
came after Witlin told the judge he believed all sides were dragging
their feet on negotiating a new evaluation system.
UTLA attorney Jesus Quinonez sharply disagreed with Witlin, saying all parties were "very serious" about an agreement.
"Are you able to commit that what the district decides will be
implemented for the purposes of teacher evaluations this school year?"
Chalfant asked Quinonez.
"That's correct," Quinonez responded.
Under L.A. Unified Supt. John Deasy, about 700 teachers and principals
at about 100 schools are participating in a voluntary evaluation program
that uses a measure based on student test scores known as "academic
growth over time." The district plans to train all principals and
teachers in the program this year but has not decided when to begin
using it for all employees. Deasy has said he believes the district has
the right to create a new performance review system without
negotiations.
The teachers union has opposed the voluntary program, saying that
evaluations must be decided at the bargaining table and that test scores
are too unreliable for use in such high-stakes decisions as firing,
tenure and merit pay. Earlier this year UTLA proposed an evaluation
system that would use test scores to identify areas of student need but
not to judge teachers' performance.
In his ruling last month, Chalfant did not specify what measures of
student achievement should be used or how they should be included in
performance reviews.
Bill Lucia, president of EdVoice, the Sacramento group that brought the
lawsuit on behalf of the parents, said he was pleased by the day's
progress in setting deadlines.
"Ultimately, the kids are going to benefit," he said. "They are going to
have better assurances that they'll have effective teachers and school
site leaders."
►LAUSD MUST INCLUDE STUDENT TEST SCORES IN TEACHER EVALS BY DEC. 4
By Tami Abdollah | Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/OmWCr
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 :: Lawyers for L.A. Unified, United Teachers
Los Angeles, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, and parents
filing suit, were sent into the hallway to come up with a timeline for
when the district must be in compliance with state law and include
student test scores in teacher evaluations.
L.A. Unified must comply with a judge's ruling to include student test
scores in teacher evaluations by Dec. 4, a bevy of attorneys
representing the district, its unions, and parents agreed in court
today.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant made his
ruling in Doe vs. Deasy last month and asked the attorneys to agree on a
compliance timeline. After multiple meetings and disagreements,
Chalfant sent the attorneys into the hallway this afternoon to come to
an agreement, or face him imposing one unilaterally.
L.A. Unified attorney Barry Green said the district and its unions
agreed on a staggered timeline that included a check-in on progress
Sept. 4 and a final "drop dead date where everything has to be in place"
by Dec. 4.
"We can't just wave our wand and just implement, because we have the
unions" to negotiate with, Green said in court today. "We have a gun to
us that says we must do that."
Green said the district built into the proposed timeline the fact that
parties may reach an impasse and would then need to go through a
mediation and fact-finding process under the state's Public Employment
Relations Board. "If it were up to us, it would be in place already,"
Green told Chalfant.
The suit was filed in November by the Sacramento-based nonprofit EdVoice
on behalf of seven unnamed parents. The core of the brief centers on
the 41-year-old “Stull Act,” which requires school districts to
“evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably
relates to the progress of pupils” on district standards of expected
achievement in each subject area at each grade level. The act was
broadened in 1999 to require evaluation based on student progress on
state standardized tests.
In his ruling, Chalfant left the details of how the district must comply
with the "pupil progress requirement" primarily to its discretion. He
said details such as the system of measurement, how that plays into a
teacher's evaluation and how much it is weighted, may all require
collective bargaining.
"You've got to do it, you have to consider pupil progress both based on
CSTs [state standardized tests] and whatever assessments you want to
rely on for district standards in evaluating teachers," Chalfant said
last month. "Now how you go about doing that is a matter of your
discretion, how you want to collectively bargain that is a matter to you
and your unions."
Parties were generally pleased with the timeline agreed on in court today.
"The keys are that there's going to be time for the bargaining process
to run its course in a reasonable and not unecessarily impractical or
imposed way...and time for the parties to have meaningful good-faith
negotiations," said United Teachers Los Angeles attorney Jesus Quinonez.
Quinonez said in court that the union believed it "very possible and
very doable, ultimately" to have the new evaluation system in time for
teacher evaluations at the end of the 2012-13 school year.
"The agreement is everybody will make their 'best efforts' to do what is
necessary to abide by the judge's decision," said Judith Perez,
president of the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles. "I'm happy
about aspects of the decision, I'm glad the judge upheld collective
bargaining."
Witlin called the outcome a "major victory": "We got committments from
UTLA that whatever is agreed to is going to be implemented this school
year."
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has closely watched the legal proceedings,
publicly praising the judge's ruling last month. As speaker in the state
Assembly, Villaraigosa sponsored the amendment that expanded the law to
require evaluation based on student progress on state standardized
tests. He also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the suit.
"Anything that keeps the parties' feet to the fire is a victory," said
Brian S. Currey, counsel to the mayor, who watched the proceedings in
court today.
It is unclear how exactly the new system would be incorporated into the
2012-13 teacher evaluations as most of the discussions regarding the
process occur at the start of the school year. L.A. Unified starts
early, on Aug. 14, this year.
The proceedings also brought former state Sen. Gloria Romero to court.
She helped co-found the Democrats for Education Reform. She was "very
discouraged" by the conversation in court and the fact that attorneys
had to be sent out into the hall to reach an agreement.
"Oh my God, it's going to take another 30 years to bring them into
compliance with the law," Romero said. "It's all about delay...In the
last six weeks, they've negotiated three days. That really tells the
story. There is no sense of urgency."
Witlin said in court he was frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations
and that the district and its unions have only sat down three or four
times since the judge's June 12 ruling. But he said he "hoped they will
actually come through" as agreed.
EdVoice president Bill Lucia said he was pleased with the decision and
that ultimately it meant kids will be "more likely to have effective
teachers and school leaders" because of it.
►LEGAL WRANGLING STALLS LAUSD USE OF STUDENT TEST SCORES IN TEACHER EVALS
By Tami Abdollah | Pass / Fail 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/MWDhfy
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 :: More than a month after a judge ruled that
L.A. Unified must include student test scores in teacher evaluations,
legal wrangling over even a general timeline continues to stall efforts
to bring the district in compliance with state law.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant made his
ruling in Doe vs. Deasy last month and asked the district, its unions,
and the attorney representing parents who brought the suit, to agree on a
compliance timeline. Attorneys were to return to court with that
timeline today; instead, in multiple court filings over the last six
weeks, they continue to disagree over the broadest of details.
"That's 43 days ago, six weeks, where the district is not complying by
the law," said Scott Witlin, the attorney who represented parents suing
the district in the case. "There doesn't seem to be the requisite
urgency to get the district into compliance with the law...Every year
this doesn't get done it's another 50,000 kids who've never had their
teachers properly evaluated."
After a 40-minute hearing in court this afternoon, the bevy of attorneys
were told to go into the hallway and come up with an agreement;
otherwise, Chalfant would make a decision unilaterally.
"If you don’t want to run the risk of me mis-recollecting how I ruled,
then you should go reach an agreement now," Chalfant said.
The suit was filed in November by the Sacramento-based nonprofit EdVoice
on behalf of seven unnamed parents. The core of the brief centers on
the 41-year-old “Stull Act,” which requires school districts to
“evaluate and assess certificated employee performance as it reasonably
relates to the progress of pupils” on district standards of expected
achievement in each subject area at each grade level. The act was
broadened in 1999 to require evaluation based on student progress on
state standardized tests.
In his ruling, Chalfant left the details of how the district must comply
with the "pupil progress requirement" primarily to its discretion. He
said details such as the system of measurement, how that plays into a
teacher's evaluation and how much it is weighted, may all require
collective bargaining.
"You've got to do it, you have to consider pupil progress both based on
CSTs [state standardized tests] and whatever assessments you want to
rely on for district standards in evaluating teachers," Chalfant said.
"Now how you go about doing that is a matter of your discretion, how you
want to collectively bargain that is a matter to you and your unions."
L.A. Unified attorney Barry Green said the district and its unions
agreed on a staggered timeline that included a check-in on progress in
September and a final "drop dead date where everything has to be in
place" in December.
"We can't just wave our wand and just implement, because we have the
unions" to negotiate with, Green said in court today. "We have a gun to
us that says we must do that."
Green said the district built into the proposed timeline the fact that
parties may reach an impasse and would then need to go through a
mediation and fact-finding process under the state's Public Employment
Relations Board.
Witlin said he was frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations and that
the district and its unions have only sat down three or four times since
the judge's June 12 ruling.
"What we've been told is there are lots of impediment to bargaining over
this issue, people have vacations, there are travel plans, there are
union conventions, well all that is well and good, but when you're not
complying with the law you should be doing everything you can to get in
compliance with the law," Witlin said.
Witlin said it looked less and less likely that the district would be
abiding by the law this school year. He said the district and its unions
should be meeting daily to work this out.
Judith Perez, president of the administrator's union, said with the
early start of the school year in mid-August, it would be "impossible"
to abide by the judge's ruling, which requires adequate training for
teachers and administrators as well an understanding of the data and a
system for how it should be used.
"We're talking two weeks, I would say that it is impossible to implement
a fully-blown changed evaluation system in two weeks," Perez said. She
said the union has been in negotiations with the district and has met
thrice since the ruling and has four more meetings scheduled.
"We have every intention of reaching an agreement," Perez said.
United Teachers Los Angeles attorney Jesus Quinonez said in court today
the union has met with the district four times to discuss implementation
and has another seven meetings scheduled.
"There are a bunch of other elements of evaluation that have be
addressed here and are being addressed in a very serious way," Quinonez
said. He said the union intended to have a system in place in time for
evaluations at the end of the 2012-13 school year.
"We could have filed an appeal the day after the judgment was issued and
stay all of this. That is not the intent of UTLA. I can speak for
UTLA...I can tell you this schedule we agreed to is going to go
forward..That is very possible and very doable, ultimately."
DUAL HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE ENROLLMENT PROMOTES OUTCOME FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS
By Kimberly Beltran SI&A Cabinet Report http://bit.ly/OiPZZd
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 :: Analysis of a project designed to promote
college entry for high school students least likely to go showed that
career-focused dual enrollment programs can provide positive outcomes
for these often unprepared and underachieving pupils.
The three-year Concurrent Courses initiative, launched in 2008 and
funded by the James Irvine Foundation, partnered high schools with
colleges to create dual enrollment programs – high school students take
college courses and earn college credit – and make them available to
low-income youth who struggle academically or who are from minority
college populations.
A just-released study of the initiative, conducted by the Community
College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, found
that among the 3,000 students enrolled in the program, participants
were, on average, more likely to graduate from high school, transition
to a four-year college (rather than a two-year college), accumulate more
college credits and persist in postsecondary education. They were also
less likely to take basic skills courses in college.
“These are important findings because many people have long thought of
these programs as avenues only for high-achieving students to get a head
start on college,” said Hilary McLean, deputy director at the Linked
Learning Alliance, which was founded by a grant from the Irvine
Foundation. “But this initiative provides evidence that any student can
benefit from the experience of a dual enrollment program. It shows that
this type of program really can be a game changer for students who are
struggling academically or from populations historically
underrepresented in higher education.”
In recent years, educators and policymakers have become increasingly
interested in the potential of programs like dual enrollment to improve
educational outcomes for a broader range of students. At the same time,
there is growing evidence that giving the programs a career focus adds
relevance and interest and can re-engage students who may not see
themselves as being on a path to college and career.
Under the initiative, eight partnerships were awarded a share of $4.75
million to expand CTE-oriented dual enrollment participation to
low-income and underrepresented students while combining rigorous,
college-level academics and career/technical subject matter. Other
conditions of the program were to create strong collaborative
relationships between college and secondary partners, and collect data
on students’ secondary and postsecondary outcomes.
Courses offered broached a variety of career fields, including healthcare, multi-media, teaching and renewable energy.
Researchers looked at the performance of students in the dual enrollment
courses as well as the program’s influence on the students’ grade point
average, graduation rates, college choices and college performance.
While there was no significant difference in the grade point averages of
students in the program and their district peers, graduation rates were
higher for dual enrollees than their peers, the analysis found.
Following members of the cohorts who graduated from high school in 2009
and 2010, statistics showed that while the dual enrollees enter college
at rates similar to students outside the program, they enroll at
four-year colleges at a rate two percentage points above their district
peers.
Students taking part in the dual enrollment courses also persisted in
their postsecondary studies at a higher rate, and they accumulated more
college credits than the comparison group – and the advantages in credit
accrual grew as the students progressed through college.
Among several benefits of the Concurrent Courses initiative, the report
notes, were the establishment of new college-high school partnerships
and the expansion of existing ones – as well as a better understanding
between educators at both levels of what was needed to help the students
succeed.
Qualified high school teachers teaching college introductory courses
could see how unprepared their students were for the material, stated
the report, and college faculty teaching visiting high school students
shared their observations with their high school counterparts.
“This led to school-wide and cross-sector conversations about how to
improve students’ skills and facilitate a better transition from high
school to college,” researchers wrote.
The Williams Settlement: CALIFORNIA RENEGES ON 8-YEAR-OLD FUNDING AGREEMENT
National Education Access Network | http://bit.ly/ODy77L
July 25, 2012 :: California has yet to pay even half of the $800
million in Emergency Funds that it promised schools in a lawsuit
settlement eight years ago, leaving tens of thousands of students to
continue to attend schools in decrepit buildings with severe maintenance
problems. In 2000, the American Civil Liberties Union and other
organizations filed a class-action suit, Williams v. State, on behalf of
students attending substandard schools that allegedly had unhealthy
facilities, a shortage of qualified teachers, missing libraries, a lack
of instructional materials, and overcrowded schools.
Plaintiffs argued that sending students to schools in “slum conditions,”
with inadequate and unsafe facilities, amounted to a deprivation of
basic educational opportunities. After his predecessor spent four years
and nearly $20 million in legal fees fighting the lawsuit, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed in 2004 to settle the case by establishing
an Emergency Repair Program, instituting a complaint process for
inadequate instructional materials, teacher vacancies, and emergency
facilities problems, and taking other steps to improve conditions in the
state’s lowest-performing schools.
In the first years following the settlement, few districts applied for
the funds because they functioned as reimbursements, meaning districts
needed to pay for projects up front first. But after a 2007 amendment to
state law turned the fund into a grant, hundreds of districts applied
for the program and the allocation board eventually stopped accepting
applications in 2010.
Despite the high demand for repairs and the agreement to allocate at
least $100 million every year starting in 2005, the fund has dwindled,
and after paying out $338 million, the legislature amended state law to
avoid the annual payments for the past four years. Officials have also
deferred spending on maintenance to address other school needs, such as
teacher lay-offs or increased class sizes. Brooks Allen, the ACLU
attorney overseeing the settlement’s implementation, explained that it
is difficult to convince people to pay attention to the problem of poor
building conditions, noting it “really is very hard to capture the
attention” of the public.
The state’s failure to live up to the promises of Williams has left more
than 700 schools still waiting for funds to fix broken toilets,
infestation, battered walls, and clogged sewer lines. The director of
maintenance and operations for Moreno Valley Unified School District, a
district owed $26 million for repairs, expressed his frustration at the
state’s lack of commitment to the settlement agreement: “I think the
title says enough, doesn’t it? Emergency Repair Program. Should it take
four years to fund an emergency?”
There are currently two new adequacy cases pending in California –
Robles-Wong, et al. v. State of California and Campaign for Quality
Education v. State of California – that seek to ensure sufficient
funding for all educational needs. The Alameda County Superior Court has
dismissed both complaints, but the cases have recently been combined
and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the dismissal ruling.
PARENTS TOOK OVER, NOW SHOW THEM THE MONEY
THEMES IN THE NEWS by UCLA IDEA | Week of July 23-27, 2012 | http://bit.ly/PdxDFi
07-27-2012 :: Families in the San Bernardino County city of Adelento
are experiencing economic stress that is not so different from that of
many communities in California and across the country. The High Desert
community of 31,000 has 13 percent unemployment and most students in its
public schools come from low-income families.
But unlike similar towns, Adelanto parents have been in the national
news. A Superior Court judge ruled earlier this week that Desert Trails
Elementary School could become the first school in the nation to enact a
“parent trigger” to change the organization, structure and public
accountability of an existing school (Los Angeles Times, Huffington
Post, EdSource Today, San Francisco Chronicle). The parents' changes,
which could include seeking a charter for the 2013-14 school year, will
be unveiled today (Redlands Daily Facts).
Early this year some Adelanto parents circulated a trigger petition, but
in February, the Adelanto Elementary School District board rejected it
because of failure to meet the 50-percent threshold. More than 100
parents had rescinded their signatures claiming they were misled by the
petitions and petitioners. In his ruling, Judge Steve Malone said those
rescissions were improper and he qualified the petition (Washington
Post, Parents Across America).
Some parents rejoiced at the news: "My daughter is going to have a shot
at something good. She's not going to be failing; she's going to be able
to apply for college," Cynthia Ramirez said (CBS).
Others worried that school improvement plans already in place would be
wasted: "The trigger in this case was pulled in haste because they
didn't allow anything to get started. All our ducks were in a row. But
if you shoot them all, nothing will flourish," Lori Yuan said
(TakePart).
What played out in the Mojave Desert is part of a larger movement—not so
much initiated by local groups of organized parents but spearheaded by
large foundations with highly refined strategies for replacing existing
public schools. Pouring millions of dollars into their efforts, some of
these foundations seek to privatize elements (and in some cases, the
entirety) of the public education system.
The Los Angeles-based, Parent Revolution, was deeply behind Adelanto’s
petition to convert the school to a charter. The organization’s
leadership and donors have many critics among reformers who are working
for long-term school improvement (Education Week, Parents Across
America). These analysts worry that the main factors that led to
Adelanto’s school problems cannot possibly be addressed simply by
changing the governance structure or organization the school.
So, what will be the chances of Ramirez’s daughter and a substantial
number of other children having a much better shot at “something good”
and at going college? The root of Adelanto's poor test scores and low
statewide rankings lies with the district’s severe underfunding. And if,
by chance, years from now the students at Desert Trails Elementary are
doing as well as their advantaged peers across the state, imagine how
superior they might do if their school had a fair shot at school
funding.
During the 2010-11 school year, Adelanto Elementary School District
received 79 cents on the dollar compared to the statewide average.
Compared to the national average, Adelanto schools receive $4,000 less
per student. If foundation donors wanted to make a real difference in
Adelanto, they would need to come up with $2.8 million each year to
bring Desert Trails up to the national average. They could also become
outspoken leaders and sponsors of a statewide movement to bring fair and
adequate funding to all public schools.
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
►This just in: WHY BUDGET CUTS MATTER
From Dane Ravitch’s blog | http://bit.ly/OqvPhB
29 July :: There has been 4 straight years of budget cuts (called
austerity on the world stage) at my school in Brooklyn, New York. Larger
classes has been just one of the major effects of these cuts to our
funding. Our seniors, who came to our school because of the promise of
four years of math and science, as well as a diverse selection of
electives, are now mostly only taking the minimum amount of courses,
which does not include electives, math, or science. The budget cuts
meant a tremendous cut in our after-school programs. Our students do not
want to go home and sit in front of a computer by themselves, yet
schools are increasingly telling our children to leave at 3:00 instead
of offering robust after-school activities that will foster creativity
while keeping our children “off the streets”.
Many people like hearing that “government” is being trimmed down and our
city agencies are spending less, but do they really understand what the
term “budget cuts” entails. It means a decrease in the amount of
funding for; plays, musicals, dancing and drama clubs, yearbook, and
newspaper. These activities help our students gain the necessary skills
to compete in the globalized business world, skills such as innovation,
collaboration, and the ability to produce results. The loss of courses
has resulted in our children leaving school with less Math and Science
just when they need it most. Electives such as Psychology, Criminal and
Constitutional Law, Forensic Science, Organic Chemistry, Public Speaking
and Debate, among others help nurture critical thinking skills of
analysis and evaluation while exposing our children to subjects outside
of the core that they may want to further pursue in college.
I must inevitably get political here, I tend to subscribe to Paul
Krugman’s theory on how to solve the current economic problem. We should
have spent more money not less. America and it’s localities should have
reinvested more funding for schools to stay open after 3:00 and offer
more courses for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math)
clubs, more money could be used to better equip our schools with the
latest technologies, we should have brought more teachers in with
different specialties and added additional courses, and of course we
should have reduced class sizes so that each child receives the
individualized attention that he/she needs and deserves. Increased
investment in our schools would not have immediate results for our
children (although it would have kept thousands if not millions of
educators at work and off the unemployment lines), but in years to come
the country would see results that could never be measured by any
standardized test. Our children
would have learned invaluable skills from creating more science
projects, exciting plays or musicals on stage, how to play instruments,
and the ability to develop publications. These are skills that would
help our country continue to lead the world in innovation. Extra money
for our schools would have meant that our children entered college with a
diverse academic background because of all the different courses they
took. Instead we are now sending our children into the world with a
limited academic background and little hands-on experience that comes
from extra-curricular activities. All in the name of budget
cuts.
People will tell me the local and national governments simply didn’t
have the money so we had to have austerity, but somehow they found the
funds to pay private text-book and consulting companies to develop
countless tests and standards that have no real world meaning for our
students.
Mike Schirtzer
Teacher- Leon M. Goldstein High School for the Sciences
Member of- Movement of Rank & File Educators- Social Justice Caucus of UFT
_____
AIDS CONFERENCE, NEW DOCUMENTARY RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT SEX ED: From guest blogger Nirvi Shah | State EdWatch - E... http://bit.ly/OEWu4Y
ANNUAL STUDY FINDS CHILD EDUCATION, HEALTH IMPROVING: By Sarah D. Sparks - Inside School Research - Education We... http://bit.ly/OEH5BL
DUAL HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE ENROLLMENT PROMOTES OUTCOME FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS: By Kimberly Beltran SI&A Cabinet Rep... http://bit.ly/O9A1SG
AB 5: TEACHER EVALUATION BILL SET TO COME BACK ON THE FRONT-BURNER: By Tom Chorneau / SI&A Cabinet Report | http... http://bit.ly/Q4FHts
SCHOOLS OFFER FREE SUMMER MEALS, BUT FEW KIDS EAT THEM: Joanna Lin | California Watch | http://bit.ly/Nv6bIw ... http://bit.ly/O9s3cf
Updated/2 Stories: RETIRED LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT: Retired L.A. Superintendent Accused o... http://bit.ly/Pn5b7Q
3 stories on Stull lawsuit: UTLA, LAUSD, PLAINTIFFS REACH CONSENSUS ON SETTLEMENT …OR DO THEY?: Teachers' attorn... http://bit.ly/QF2r7U
The Williams Settlement: CALIFORNIA RENEGES ON 8-YEAR-OLD FUNDING AGREEMENT: National Education Access Network |... http://bit.ly/QF2q3T
CAMPBELL’S LAW: The social science principle sometimes used to point out the negative consequences of high-stake... http://bit.ly/NTSQp6
GROUP CAN USE ‘PARENT TRIGGER’ LAW TO TAKE OVER CALIFORNIA SCHOOL, COURT RULES: By Lyndsey Layton, Washington Po... http://bit.ly/OuTvMn
SIX MORE STATES + D.C. GET NCLB WAIVERS; MUM’S THE WORD ON CALIFORNIA: Six More States, District of Columbia Get... http://bit.ly/PCQMoJ
Diane Ravitch on Murdock+Klein’s entry into “the multibillion-dollar public education market”: NEWS CORPORATION ... http://bit.ly/PCNrpO
Reconstitution redux: NYC MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S NEW SCHOOLS HAVE FAILED THOUSANDS OF CITY STUDENTS: Did more poorly ... http://bit.ly/PCEE7c
LAUSD ADULT EDUCATION DIVISION ANNOUNCES REGISTRATION PERIOD FOR STUDENTS: Ten centers throughout Los Angeles Co... http://bit.ly/QurZo9
THE INVADING ARMY THAT OCCUPIES OUR SCHOOLS: smf: The metaphor of war is not mine . A Nation at Risk: The Imp... http://bit.ly/OoD4RJ
WATCHDOG GROUP LAUNCHES PETITION DRIVE TO PROTECT BROWN ACT: Californians Aware appeals to voters to help protec... http://bit.ly/QtBJPu
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700
What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Tamar.Galatzan@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Bennett.Kayser@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
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!.
|
