In This Issue:
 |
| • |
LAUSD EXECUTIVE RECEIVES $75,000 AWARD TO FIGHT CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM |
|
| • |
$1 BILLION FOR IPADS …BUT NOT $1.4 MILLION FOR TITLE ONE STUDENTS? |
|
| • |
THE LA SCHOOLS iPAD ADVENTURE KEEPS GETTING WORSE |
|
| • |
A COSTLY GIFT …..from the past |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
Between California’s kerfuffle with the federal
mandate for standardized testing and LAUSD’s shenanigans with iPads –
both in the name of the Common Core State Standards – the Common Core
could get a bad name.
There is plenty of cause for concern about the Common Core [“Common Core Unrest Obvious in 17 States” http://bit.ly/17RP5zk] but on the Left Coast we choose our own battles, controversies, shenanigans+kerfuffles.
If you haven’t been following it, the US Department of Education and the
California Dept of Education (and Governor Brown and Ed Secretary
Duncan) have issues – dating from previous Ed Sects and Governors over
previous standards, API v. AYP and teacher evaluation that can best be
boiled down to: “Who’s in charge of public education in California?”
After all, the feds provide 11.8% of school funding …why shouldn’t they run the show?
Earlier this year the legislature – egged-on the governor and the state
Dept of Ed and the teachers unions - did away with federally mandated
high-stakes standardized testing for this year, signaling The End of the
World as the feds and the testing companies know it.
The C.O.R.E. districts (including LAUSD) panicked – they had made their
own Mephistophelean deal with Duncan and the Feds. “OMG: How can we
evaluate teachers using standardized tests if there are no standardized
tests?”
Arne and The Feds have threatened to withhold federal education funds –
as much as $3.5 billion – if California doesn’t restore the tests. (The
message here was very mixed and from the first both sides sought cover
…even Arne said he wouldn’t withhold that much!) But the threat of the
carrot and the stick paid off first with one compromise: to give one
test in either English or Math – and then last week’s offered compromise
to test in both subjects.
“Offered Compromise” over-describes and under-explains the situation –
because it has been offered to the citizenry and the media and the
education community – but not yet to the Feds. This was a trial balloon –
or a test case for the testing of the test. (see: CALIFORNIA SWITCHES
TESTING PLANS …BUT MAY STILL RISK LOSING $3.5 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS http://bit.ly/17GvrUN). Stay tuned, but hold that thought; we will be returning to this twisted strand of the story later in this essay.
TUESDAY BEFORE LAST in an endless and fairly well documented meeting the
LAUSD Board of Ed and Superintendent Deasy labored and gave birth to a
convoluted and not-very-well-documented compromise over three hours that
seemingly gave everybody everything they wanted in terms of
iPads+Laptops. In actuality the compromise only authorized the
superintendent to go to the Bond Oversight Committee and ask for the
iPads for phase 2 and laptops for the woefully-named Phase 1L …plus a
few more extra items like 49,000 keyboards and 2000 carts + 67,000 iPads
for testing and 28,000 iPads so every teacher and administrator in the
District could have one.
ON WEDNESDAY The Oversight Committee approved the 25,000 Phase 2 iPads
to equip 38 schools and the Phase 1L laptops to equip 7 high schools
…and sent back the “but wait …there’s more!” extras
● We sent back the keyboards because there was no cost detail attached to the program. No blank checks.
● We sent back the teacher and administrator iPads because we question
whether all those people need all those iPads now …when most students
won’t have them until 2015-16.
● We sent back the testing iPads+carts questioning the estimate of need –
especially as no inventory has been made of all the computers the
District already owns+operates in classrooms.
TO BE CLEAR: The oversight committee did not say “No way/No how.” We
simply ask for more justification and detailed cost estimates and a
delivery timeline.
● We also request a through program review and evaluation of Phase 1 and
then Phase 2: What are the educational goals? Are we meeting them?
● We requested a review of all the Pearson software content no later than March 1. Show me the content.
● We want to see a plan for maintenance, replacement and continuation of
the Common Core Technology Program when the Apple/Pearson contract
expires in 2016.
● We want to see the legal questions definitively answered (They are
still working on that Parent Responsibility Form…and what about taking
them home?) …as well as the strategy for bond finance of short term
assets.
● We want to see the impact of the iPads project on the facilities build
and repair program: What won’t be doing if we buy all these iPads?
During the presentation District staff attempted to offer last
minute/back o’ th’ envelope cost estimates – and the BOC chair shot that
down. He didn’t say: “Do your homework!” – but he might as well have.
As representatives of the voters and taxpayers the Bond Oversight
Committee doesn’t want guestimates – we want boring through detailed
cost projections and needs assessments.
The Times wrote; “The [Oversight Committee] vote is advisory, but Supt. John Deasy has been unwilling to oppose the panel.”
The Daily News: “’I’ll be finalizing my recommendation to the board over
Thanksgiving break,’ Deasy said. ‘I am considering adjustments after
listening to the concerns raised by the Bond Oversight Committee.’”
The superintendent can ask the Board of Ed to reject the Bond Oversight
Committee’s recommendations; he does so at his own peril. The Board
could accept the superintendent’s proposal and reject the BOC’s advice. I
believe that would break hard won faith and trust with the voters and
taxpayers. There is a glaring example of the Board working outside Bond
Oversight Committee advice - and its name is “Belmont Learning Center”|
http://lat.ms/1epP3OF.
…Or the superintendent and his team can return next month, next year or
when the time is right with the numbers which we ask and with a
convincing argument for what he asks.
REMEMBER HOW YOU WERE HOLDING THAT THOUGHT ABOUT TESTING? The new
testing paradigm, if accepted by the feds, simplifies the ask for the
iPads and the pressure for testing. There will be one test – not two -
combined English and Math, given in a single 3½ hour sitting,
lightening the demand on computers, students and teachers.
Don’t let this get by without chewing on it: The Smarter Balanced Field
Test to be given this spring will be the farthest thing from “high
stakes”. The old California STAR Tests never counted for much except
evaluating schools and (in Dr. Deasy’s dreams) teachers. No college
admissions officer or prospective employer ever asked to see a student’s
STAR results. This year the test scores for students, teachers and
schools will not be known; it is a Test of the Test solely for the
benefit of the Testers. And perhaps practice for the kids and teachers.
As it is not even a full test how can it serve to benchmark future
results? Why do the feds even care except that it shows they can make us
do it? I fail to see the benefit to the taxpayers and voters. The
Smarter Balanced Field Test is a distraction subtracting from
instruction.
RETIRED PRINCIPAL AND LONG TIME 4LAKIDS READER/FREQUENT CORRESPONDENT
DAN BASALONE writes from retirement in Idaho: “While I am glad to hear
that the Board passed Monica Ravitch's motion to scale back the
distribution of the iPads, the entire program needs to be taken off the
table.
“LAUSD has experience with the payroll fiasco of a few years back to
draw from when getting involved in a billion dollar program. The
payroll technology was presented as a 70 million dollar investment and
years later the total cost was far greater. Look what is happening with
the Affordable Care Act.
“Has a survey been taken to see where students already have personal
computers in sufficient quantity at schools and where there is a
technology gap which could be filled with longer library hours and
computer center hours. Weren't community schools where libraries and
other facilities stayed open longer a goal of the District in years gone
by? And, isn't this an area where the Mayor of Los Angeles could
better support schools by making the area around schools be safer for
students and parents to use during evening hours?
“While I don't currently work in LAUSD, I do have a very real interest
in the schools of LAUSD after serving for 40 years in the District.
“Hmmm...which company will hire Deasy has a high priced consultant when
he is fired at LAUSD...will it be Apple, Pearson or Microsoft? Isn't
anyone in the LAUSD ethics office concerned about sweetheart contracts?
Why aren't teachers and local school administrators selecting the
methods to deliver curriculum to their students with parental input
where appropriate? There are many older schools in LAUSD that could
certainly use the one billion dollars that the citizens in LAUSD voted
to build new schools and refurbish older schools. Deasy is not an
educator, nor is anyone on the Board who supports his corporate schemes.
Smaller class size, more counselors, especially college counselors in
high school, librarians, art, music and PE teachers in elementary
schools along with principals and assistant principals in all schools
would improve education..not drill and test technology. Test scores in
Grades 1 - 3 increased dramatically when class size was reduced to 20 to
1.
Didn't that experience teach the Board Members
anything?
“The Board needs a true educator as Superintendent. One who will
support and enforce the policies of this new Board majority. The
electorate voted for change..and the major change that a Board makes is
that of naming a Superintendent who will reflect the change.”
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST THIS WEEK: The California Legislative Analyst
Office reported Wednesday the minimum funding guarantee for schools next
year is likely to be $8 billion higher than current spending. The LAO
is suggesting existing debts should be priorities before new programs or
service expansions are considered. Among the current obligations that
should be at the top of the list, he said, are those owed to schools –
the $6.2 billion in appropriation deferrals and $4.8 billion in unpaid
mandate claims. http://bit.ly/1c1PoXJ
However… (there is always ‘However..’) The LAO is predicting that even
its healthy revenue projections for Proposition 98 funding will not be
enough to fully fund the Local Control Funding Formula in eight years,
as the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown is counting on http://bit.ly/1i5rb8e
LAST WEEK AN LAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER POSTED ON HIS FACEBOOK PAGE:
“Thinking a lot about the "almost fight" today between two of my 7th
graders today. I stopped being a PE teacher and tried to just be an
empathetic adult, helping these two boys-becoming-teenagers process
their intense feelings, pain, and anger with each other. I was very
proud of the courage it took to hang in there and keep talking through
the tears Mr. S and Mr. R. Your willingness to try to dialogue gives me
hope. Of course, it would give me even more hope if LAUSD would fund a
real counselor and PSW for every school, so our youth could be properly
supported in their growth.”
smf: Thank you Daniel for being the adult who was/is/will be there for
those young men as they grow. As people and committees in Beaudry
grapple with policy and process and bulletins [Ignoring the speed-bumps:
THE CHALLENGE OF AUTHENTICALLY IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICY IN
LAUSD http://bit.ly/17SKtZT] you are doing the real work
I agree that every school needs those missing staff members: counselors
and PSWs and nurses and librarians – but in the long run it isn’t just
the school that needs those folks.
●it’s the kids – whether they are Early Childhood Ed kidlets or nineteen
year old seniors struggling to get those last few credits.
●It’s educators like yourself who need the support.
●It’s the City of Angels we aspire to be that needs the support …the community our schools are the vibrant, throbbing heart of.
There is no app for that.
Children, especially middle-schoolers are rarely appreciative – it’s not
in their job description. For Thanksgiving I am thankful that you are
there. And for Chanukah/The Festival of Lights I celebrate the light
that you and your colleagues light every day. And as it’s Budget Season
– let’s get you and yours, our schools and these kids the things you
need – not the shiny sparkly things from the Apple Store.
Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Chanukah.
The two are not expected to occur simultaneously again until 2070, then 2165, then in another 70,000 years.
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
LAUSD EXECUTIVE RECEIVES $75,000 AWARD TO FIGHT CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM
By Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/1aK98yT
11/19/13, 11:44 AM PST :: Debra Duardo, a former high-school dropout
who went on to earn her doctorate and to head LAUSD’s dropout-prevention
program, was announced Tuesday as the recipient of a $75,000 fellowship
from the Durfee Foundation.
Duardo, executive director of the Student Health and Human Services
Division, will plans to use the two-year award to decrease chronic
absenteeism, a strong predictor of dropout rates.
“Congratulations to Debra on this richly deserved honor,” said
Superintendent John Deasy. “She has done remarkable work in addressing
the problem of student drop outs. Largely through her efforts, the LAUSD
is making considerable strides in reducing the drop rate and keeping
students focused on graduating.”
Duardo was hired as a Los Angeles Unified as an attendance counselor in
1996, after working 12 years for the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults
Against Women.
Duardo was among six recipients of the fellowship, which is awarded to
civic leaders working to improve life for Los Angeles residents. She is
the first school district employee to receive the award.
$1 BILLION FOR IPADS …BUT NOT $1.4 MILLION FOR TITLE ONE STUDENTS?
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Update | Week of November 25, 2013 |http://bit.ly/1aQBLJz
Nov. 21, 2013 :: As the LAUSD Board of Education moved forward with
its Common Core Technology Project to provide iPads to all students last
week, it took a step backward in the decision to not restore Title I
funding to schools within the 40 – 49 percent threshold. In a 3-3 vote
with one member abstaining, Tamar Galatzan’s and Monica Ratliff’s
resolution, which would have allowed 23 schools to regain the Title I
funds that they lost in 2011 when the cut-off for participation was
raised from 40% poverty to 50% by Superintendent Deasy with Board
acquiescence, failed. While we have disagreed with Ms. Galatzan on
occasions in the past, we support her and Ms. Ratliff in this effort.
Despite the pleas of children, parents, teachers and administrators, the
Board was unable to reach a majority vote, thereby compelling the
resolution to fail. It would have cost only $1.4 million to include
these 23 schools in the budget, or a reduction of less than $5 per
student at the schools
that are currently in the
program.
When one looks at the ever escalating costs of the iPad project, it is
mind-boggling to try to understand why Board Members would be so divided
about a million dollars. To the 23 schools, it means the loss of
counselors, clerical support, library aides, after-school programs and
other supplemental activities. We’re guessing that the schools would
gladly give up some of their iPads to get back some tangible resources
that have proven their effectiveness. We are aware that the construction
bond money being used for the devices cannot be spent on salary or
personnel, but we are just as sure that the $1.4 million needed could be
found elsewhere. How can one justify committing the District to a $1
billion project that has a shelf life of 3-5 years, requiring new
curriculum purchases after 3, when schools are still suffering from the
budget cuts of 2009 that reduced staffing, resources and maintenance?
We understand that Board Members must represent their districts, but
they must also act in the best interests of all of the children in
LAUSD. In this case, they acted with blinders on, only looking at their
respective areas and adamantly refusing to give up anything, even if it
was for the greater good. We know that this is a difficult issue with
compelling arguments on both sides, but on a day when a vote was taken
to barrel ahead on an ill-prepared plan for iPads costing $1 billion and
rising, it seems irresponsible, uncompassionate and miserly to deny
these 23 schools a few extra dollars. Board Member Bennett Kayser, who
abstained from voting, intends to raise the issue at the meeting of the
Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee on December 12, 2013. Hopefully,
this will result in an agreement to revisit the motion at the full
meeting of the Board of Education in January. If not, the old adage,
penny-wise and pound-foolish, seems especially appropriate.
THE LA SCHOOLS iPAD ADVENTURE KEEPS GETTING WORSE
By Michael Hiltzik, LA Times Business columnist | http://lat.ms/1jyG2Dy
5:14 PM PST, November 20, 2013 :: One thing about cautionary tales --
the cautions just seem to proliferate as time marches on. That certainly
seems to be the case with the Los Angeles Unified School District's
increasingly fraught involvement with education by iPad.
In the latest development documented by my indefatigable colleagues
Howard Blume and Stephen Ceasar, it turns out that the district costs
for the software on its thousands of student-friendly tablets could be
$60 million a year higher than anticipated.
That's because the licenses for the educational programs installed on
the devices expire after three years. Originally, the district was led
to believe that once the programs were paid for, they belonged to LAUSD,
lasting "as long as the iPads themselves," as Blume and Ceasar write.
But no. As LAUSD board member Monica Ratliff extracted from a district
staffer, "at the end of three years, that content is going to disappear
or we're going to be violating something by attempting to use this
content."
The most obvious lesson to be learned from this is the necessity of
dotting your i's and crossing your t's when you contract for any goods
or services with a vendor. That sort of fiasco can happen whether you're
a public body purchasing chalk, floor wax or electricity.
But what's more important is that this belated discovery that software
commonly isn't sold but leased (anyone who owns a computer running on
Microsoft Windows and using Microsoft Word should know this already),
gives the lie to a fundamental rationale put forth for moving from books
to computer tablets. That rationale is that books go out of date but
software is infinitely upgradable.
Yes, but at a price. The question is whether that price is worth it, and
the answer in this case is no. At issue is the tablet-based English and
math curriculum, which is hardly subject to cutting-edge changes. As
I've pointed out in the past, the text of, say, "Romeo and Juliet" has
been pretty much locked down since 1709. Even if you're inclined to
teach by multimedia, the Bax Luhrmann MTV-style movie version came out
in 1996 and isn't likely to get upgrading unless it's for 3-D. (And who
needs that?) And it isn't as though high school calculus needs
rethinking, even with new discoveries in particle physics.
The aspect of technology-based teaching that never gets the attention it
deserves is the cost of ownership. Tablets need to be fixed or
replaced, for hundreds of dollars a shot. And as the LAUSD has
discovered, software isn't forever. Think of the teachers and real
pedagogical tools that could be paid for with $60 million a year, and
how much added value they'd provide to students.
Here's a question for LAUSD Supt. John Deasy, who has pronounced the
iPad program "an astonishing success." Does he still think so? Feel free
to deliver your answer via iPad-compatible digital video, Mr. D.
__________________
►ROOSEVELT HIGH ALLOWED TO USE IPADS AFTER TWO-MONTH HIATUS
By Howard Blume, LA Times | http://lat.ms/1fAURIn
Roosevelt High allowed to use iPads after two-month hiatus
Story | November 23, 2013 | 8:30 AM
Two months after losing iPads because of a security breach, Roosevelt
... using the devices again last week. The iPads remain out of service
at two other schools ... within a day or two of getting the iPads, more
than 300 students at the Roosevelt ...
► OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS BUY IPADS TOO, THOUGH MORE CHEAPLY
By Karin Klein, LA Times | http://lat.ms/1cKmycx
Other school districts buy iPads too, though more cheaply
Story | November 23, 2013 | 8:00 AM
... District is way out in left field to be buying iPads for its
students, consider this: According ... briefly vents frustration with
the cost of iPads, noting that she could buy a Google Chromebook ...
there have nonetheless been purchasing iPads with their own funds from
various sources
A COSTLY GIFT …..from the past
By Alan Warhaftig in Teacher Magazine | bit.ly/1c3k9vi
Originally Published: October 1, 2005
You know the story. Four [now twelve] years ago, the boxes and wires
were installed. The boxes were speedy G3 iMacs running OS 9 with 128
megabytes of RAM; the T1 connection was wicked fast, boding a limitless
future. Today, those nifty boxes are, well, G3 iMacs with 128 megs of
RAM, at least $200 shy of being able to run Tiger, the current Macintosh
operating system—and, even then, running it slowly. Upgrading would
demand more than $100,000 for a school with 500 computers, an
impossibility in an era of shrinking budgets.
Four [twelve] years ago, education technology appeared to be all upside;
it had been bought with money allocated specifically for that purpose.
Few understood that though the boxes and wires had been purchased with
one-time funds, the costs of maintaining them were ongoing. The concept,
well-known in the business world, is “total cost of ownership,” and
these days schools are learning painful lessons about TCO.
The problem is deeper than stretching funds to buy toner for printers
and $300 bulbs for digital projectors. The former technology coordinator
is back to teaching five periods, or, in other schools, math classes
are three students larger because a teaching position has been diverted
to technology. The nice young man who goes around fixing computers is
now paid under Title I—money that could be used for many other
purposes—and he still doesn’t have medical insurance.
Technology is a commitment with an embedded logic: Once installed, it
must be maintained, so budgets have to include network access and
security, software licenses, repairs, and, ultimately, hardware
replacement. It’s a far cry from the initial impression of “free money,”
placing technology on a collision course with other priorities.
A reorientation of priorities would be justified if the result were
improved learning, but the effect of instructional technology to date
has been far more modest, to put it kindly. Installing networks and
hardware was a significant accomplishment, but what has been done with
the capability they provide? Most professional development focused
simply on using computers and applications; curricular integration was
the holy grail to be pursued later. Constructivist bromides about
project-oriented learning were neither helpful nor convincing.
Good ideas have surfaced occasionally, but several years into the
rollout, just what constitutes an appropriate use of technology in the
classroom has yet to be defined.
Computers may be fabulous, but are webquests and similar online projects
a means to achieve adequate yearly progress? To what extent should
multimedia presentations replace the essay in the 21st century?
The now-graying technology in schools was rolled out without serious
consideration of its relationship to a school’s core mission. True
believers, dazzled by the possibilities, forgot what K-12 education is
supposed to accomplish—and how they themselves had become educated.
Superintendents and board members regarded technology’s benefits as
self-evident, certain that good things would happen when computers
arrived, a classic confluence of vendor hype and the “ready, fire, aim”
propensity of the education establishment.
In Teacher’s August/September 2005 issue, Kevin Bushweller wrote about
the absence of a national standard for face-to-face contact in online
courses. The rush to implement technology in general has often been
half-baked, with too little effort to identify effective practices and
belated consideration of how much technology the schools can afford to
sustain. My experience with nonvirtual schools is that many fine
teachers don’t use instructional technology much, and not because
they’re technophobes. Most have not been persuaded that altering their
curricula will improve learning. First and foremost, IT must stand for
“instructional time,” and the best teachers are frustrated by how little
remains after days lost to standardized testing, final exams, and
school activities.
So under what circumstances should teachers use instructional
technology? I would like to propose a common-sense rule: Use technology
in academic classes only if it allows you to teach what you’re supposed
to teach better than you could do it without technology. If this dictum
were followed, technology might find its proper place in education—as a
beneficial tool rather than a monster demanding to be fed.
● Alan Warhaftig teaches English at the Fairfax Magnet Center for Visual Arts in Los Angeles. He still does.
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
Ignoring the speed-bumps: THE CHALLENGE OF AUTHENTICALLY IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICY IN LAUSD http://bit.ly/17SKtZT
CALIFORNIA SWITCHES TESTING PLANS …BUT MAY STILL RISK LOSING $3.5 BILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDS: By Sharon Noguchi,... http://bit.ly/1cejqWj
TWEET: When I find myself in times of trouble, Julie Andrews comes to me, Speaking words of wisdom: Do Re Mi. | http://bit.ly/1aGyptw
Nov 22, 10:30 AM, PST: by smf Nov. 22, 2013 :: That other November 22nd was a Friday also. At 10:30 am I was... http://bit.ly/18WL8V7
IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING ON PUBLIC EDUCATION: 1 in 4 U.S. students at districts and/or schools that depend on... http://bit.ly/1aDbgbz
TEACHERS & ADMINISTRATORS TOGETHER: NEA and AASA Executives Call on Congress to Get Serious About Investing in... http://bit.ly/1bY1Ur6
Mass. gives schools option of putting off CCSS tests. Asked if CA might follow suit, BdofEd Pres Kirst replies: "No" http://bit.ly/1aCT4yH
Deasy on iPads:“I am considering adjustments after listening to the concerns raised by the Bond Oversight Committee.” http://bit.ly/1i1C6zD
Deasy on iPads: “I’ll be finalizing my recommendation to the board over Thanksgiving break.". more>>>
THE 2 TEST COMPROMISE: California students will take ½ of English+½ of math test in this spring's Test o' th' Test. http://bit.ly/1doekvO
4 STORIES + A PRESS RELEASE ON “TESTING THE TEST”: The headline says students will be tested …that isn’t quite... http://bit.ly/1e81nT3
LAUSD iPAD PROGRAM GETS MIXED REVIEW FROM COMMITTEE: By Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News | http://... http://bit.ly/18SZcij
L.A. UNIFIED COMMITTEE VOTES TO CURTAIL EXPANSION OF iPAD PROGRAM: The Bond Oversight committee authorizes $45... http://bit.ly/18SYl16
TWEET: A Twitter Party for Arts in Schools! Join us TODAY at 11AM. use hashtag #KIDSCRE8 GO VIRAL FOR THE ARTS/TWEET IT ON! http://bit.ly/1aGklj0
LAUSD’s iPads: BOND OVERSIGHT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TASK FORCE REPORT & RECOMENDATIONS FOR CCTP PHASE 2: To ... http://bit.ly/1atqNKZ
iPads: THE STORY CHANGES YET AGAIN AS PARENTS, TEACHERS PROTEST: iPad software licenses expire in three years,... http://bit.ly/1c1ZcPD
Some Kids “Aren’t Brilliant”? THIS DUNCAN BLUNDER IS BIGGER THAN IT FIRST APPEARS: by email from deutsch29 ... http://bit.ly/1dXUWBQ
TEACHING AS PIECEWORK? @howardblume:Giving "stronger" teachers more students - and presumably more pay. From Fordham: http://ow.ly/qYVGN
NEWS FLASH: @LASchoolReport: #LAUSD Bd of Ed met in open session but
forgot to turn the camera on. Board now retired behind closed doors.
TWEET: @HowardBlume Today 3PM KPFK 90.7:a talk w @DianeRavitch,
interviewed during recent LA visit. She pulls no punches on topic of Ed
®eform
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
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!.
|
