Sunday, June 07, 2015

Pictures hanging in a hallway and the fragment of a song



4LAKids: Sunday 7•June•2015
In This Issue:
 •  Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM
 •  A THRU G: LA UNIFIED TO CONSIDER DROPPING ‘C’ REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION
 •  CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT
 •  CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: "I can't point to any meaningful progress in academic excellence or equity."
 •  HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other Sources
 •  EVENTS: Coming up next week...
 •  What can YOU do?


Featured Links:
 •  Give the gift of a 4LAKids Subscription to a friend or colleague!
 •  Follow 4 LAKids on Twitter - or get instant updates via text message by texting "Follow 4LAKids" to 40404
 •  4LAKids Anthology: All the Past Issues, solved, resolved and unsolved!
 •  4LAKidsNews: a compendium of recent items of interest - news stories, scurrilous rumors, links, academic papers, rants and amusing anecdotes, etc.
In Sunday morning’s LA Times Steve Lopez makes the crumbling gothic tower at Marshall High School – a soaring architectural statement of previous generations’ commitment to public education – a metaphor for the nation’s (and LAUSD’s) failure to maintain infrastructure. [http://lat.ms/1AUaeb8] My mother and daughter are Marshall alumnae. As heir and parent my commitment is this: First we fix the tower and then we fix all the other crumbling bits – not because they are symbols but because they need fixing.

And now isn’t really soon enough.


“The line it is drawn…”


WHERE ARE THEY NOW?: “Bob Collins, former Superintendent of the Grossmont Union High School District, and retired Chief Academic Officer and Regional Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, has been elected Chairman of the Board of the National Dropout Prevention Network, a national nonprofit agency located at Clemson University, Clemson, SC” …from Facebook

I have friends who are fans of Bob Collins and friends who are not.

But when Bob was LAUSD Chief Academic Officer and A thru G came in Bob saw the challenge and went at it – with plans to start the implementation in Pre-K and support the work in elementary and most critically in middle school – with accountability and intervention and bridge programs and Individual Graduation Plans - to prepare the District and the culture and the kids (The Kids! What a concept!) for “A-thru-G-and-passing-with-a-‘C’” as the only option.

There were folks who weren’t comfortable with that and Bob couldn’t care less – he was forcing change against the inert inertia of the bureaucracy and the Way We’ve Always Done Things!

But then the economy went south and the inertia took over and things were put off for sunnier days …and Bob left.

When the weather cleared LAUSD bought iPads and MiSiS. Technology was the answer.

In a letter about something else Superintendent Cortines last month wrote: “Presently, A - G has become a high school issue; however, preparing our students should not begin in high school. The District has not systemically taken into consideration the progress of students in grades K through 3 who are not reading at grade level or meeting other essential learning targets while moving forward with A - G.”

With apologies to my friends who are not fans: “Where have you gone, Bob Collins? The District turns its lonely eyes to you. Woo-woo-woo.” The answer is Clemson …where the pundits say they need a baseball coach and not necessarily a dropout guru!

And the promise of A-G (which for a lot of reasons may be bogus … and is certainly more political than pedagogic) – is going to have to be modified. Because if it isn’t those dropout numbers are going to skyrocket and the Chairman of the Board of the National Dropout Prevention Network is going to be a very busy camper!


“….The curse it is cast…”


YOU WOULD THINK THAT CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS would be all unified – with eyes on the prize and all that – especially when dealing with Public Education - the unquestioned civil rights issue of the day. . But instead they are fighting over Standardized Testing – the great magic bullet/panacea of No Child Left Behind – which was to undo what George W. Bush called: “The soft bigotry of low expectations“ (A beautifully crafted piece of rhetoric worthy of Don Draper courtesy of speechwriter Michael Gerson.)
Different civil rights groups are drawing lines in the sand with each other over whether to toss-out or cling-to high stakes testing - tattered scraps of NCLB – and using language like: . “Because even a white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education ‘leaders’ when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree.“

Really? In post-racial America even a white girl can play the race card?

Careful, children are watching!


“…The slow one now
Will later be fast…”


IN LAUSD WE ARE FAST APPROACHING the inevitable moment when the lame duck Board of Ed and the one-year-left-on-his contact Superintendent must agree on a 2015 2016 Budget, The Local Control Funding Formula (local at least to 90017), A thru G and SLRDP and ream of resolutions (…they are a resolute group!) including Ethnic Studies and a $15 dollar Minimum Wage. We have passed The Time of No Money and are now in The Time of More Money. But never enough. Watch this space.


“…As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’…”


AND NOW WE HAVE CARL COHN, of immaculate credentials and background, suggesting it’s time to break up the District.

Cohn is always in that first tier of suggested Next LAUSD Superintendent candidates.

He’s the real deal/he has paid dues/been there and done that – based on ten years at Long Beach Unified.

But Cohn retired from Long Beach USD 13 years ago in 2002 and went on to the Broad Superintendents Academy Class of 2003. LBUSD won the Broad Prize in ’03 based on Cohn's record. Before Broad but after he left.

Cohn’s post-Broad stint at San Diego Unified (2005-07) didn’t go so well.

I fundamentally disagree with him on breaking up LAUSD for two big reasons (...and 600,000 smaller ones) - and not one of them have anything to do with the lovability of the status quo.

1: The argument that in a clutch of smaller districts we might produce a well-performing Long Beach or ABC alongside new Inglewoods and Comptons is unacceptable. I’m sorry but Inglewood and Compton are two too many already and a step in the wrong direction from the LAUSD status quo …and no students deserve less so some students may do better.

2: LAUSD currently has well over $20 billion in bonded indebtedness from BB, K, R, Y and Q – including state school bonds which must be accounted for if not repaid. That debt, asset management and debt service obligation cannot be divided geographically; the voters and taxpayers of the entire current school district are indebted and a new government entity (a new level of bureaucracy): a Community Facilities District separate from the school districts would have to be created to assume the debt and asset management as a Joint Powers Authority. There are many folks in LAUSD – in the field and at Beaudry – who believe the Facilities Services Division is an unaccountable petty fiefdom already; a JPA to administer a divided confederation of school districts would raise petty fiefdom to a land use/fiscal management behemoth of Brobdingnagian proportions. In a city+county where real estate developers run the show politically that FSD JPA would be the biggest landowner and real estate investor and debt holder in the region. The potential for shenanigans boggles the mind – and I was once a Hollywood screenwriter!


“…And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’”

¡Onward/Adelante! - smf


Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM
ED SOURCE COMMENTARY BY CARL COHN | http://bit.ly/1MqlM6R

Jun 3, 2015 :: Now that the recent school board elections are over in the Los Angeles Unified School District, there will be the usual calls for a new beginning and getting down to the serious business of charting a bright future for the 600,000 or so deserving students that the board is privileged to serve.

Such a view ignores the fact that LAUSD’s governance structure is fundamentally broken and needs to be replaced by smaller units of school governance that are much more capable of delivering educational change that better serves students and their parents. In addition to being nimble and flexible, smaller school districts are physically closer to the parents they serve, and can initiate change strategies in a much more timely fashion. For example, Long Beach Unified, Garden Grove Unified and ABC Unified are all known as urban districts that can move quickly to implement needed changes that parents care about.

Ten years ago, while a faculty member at the University of Southern California, I served as the federal court monitor for the Modified Consent Decree, the blueprint for improving services to students with disabilities in the behemoth district.

During moments of frustration with the district’s intransigence, I would sometimes say to the courageous disability advocate lawyers representing the plaintiffs that I had a tough time figuring out how students and their parents benefited from maintaining the district at its current size, and that breaking it up into smaller units would better serve students’ interests.

They would quickly counter: “Now, Carl, if you broke it up, you’d get a lot of Comptons or Inglewoods, which might be even worse than what you’re getting now.” And I’d came back with: “You might also get some Long Beaches, which would be a vast improvement over what these kids and parents are getting now.”

The argument for breakup becomes even stronger today when you consider the important equity promise of Gov. Jerry Brown’s remarkable LCFF/LCAP school funding reform initiative, which places even greater authority at the local level to get things right for kids. When Los Angeles Unified screws up, more than half a million California youngsters are denied a critical opportunity to get a decent education during their one shot at using education to alter their life chances.

The missteps of the district are legion – everything from expensive attorneys arguing for the district that a middle school student was mature enough to consent to have sex with a teacher to the billion-dollar iPAD and MiSiS technology debacles and school board elections where records have been broken for adult special-interest-group spending.

No single event better captures the failure of this system than the recent revelation that 75 percent of the current class of 2017 is not on target to meet the school board’s 2005 adopted policy requirement that all students must meet UC/CSU A-G college entrance requirements in order to receive a high school diploma. For urban school boards, there’s more to policymaking than adopting well-intentioned higher standards. An important part of the job is to make sure that staff develops timely implementation plans without waiting 10 years to check progress. No matter how much we adults may wish it so, not all youngsters need to go to college.

Urban school boards like Los Angeles need to first deliver on the basics before they start adopting high school graduation requirements that are higher than those in the Palos Verdes and Palo Alto school systems. Last October, you had students at Jefferson High School still walking the halls and in auditoriums without scheduled classes even though school had started back on Aug. 12. Even worse, you had a superintendent giving a deposition in court (Cruz v. California) that he was powerless to get these students scheduled in the right classes, and that he needed assistance from the State of California to get this basic responsibility done.

I often wonder how the Long Beach school community would react to school starting in August and high school kids still without classes in October. I know from experience that there would be a universal and collective sense of community outrage and betrayal that no school board or superintendent could survive.

The Los Angeles school system has fundamentally lost its way, and the notion that a couple of new faces on the board and a skillful interim superintendent, Ray Cortines, can improve it is a huge disservice to the youngsters and their parents who deserve much better.

A blue ribbon task force with representation from the more than 20 cities served by the current district might be the best way to go. In the past, the strongest argument against breakup was that you would end up with new racially segregated districts. Today’s demographics make that a weak argument. On the other hand, Gov. Brown’s belief that the rescue of urban kids will take place closer to schools, classrooms and families bolsters the case for this type of change.

Breaking it up won’t be easy, and I’m sure that Sacramento doesn’t have this on its “to do” list, but we who advocate for education change often frame the debate as those who are committed to the adult status quo against those who are really for the kids. This will be the ultimate test of where we stand.

● Carl Cohn is Director of the Urban Leadership Program at Claremont Graduate University and until earlier this year was a member of the State Board of Education. He was formerly superintendent in Long Beach Unified and San Diego Unified. He is co-chair of the National Research Council’s Committee for the Five-Year Evaluation of the Washington D.C. Public Schools. He is a member of the EdSource Board of Directors. The opinions expressed in this commentary represent solely those of the author.


A THRU G: LA UNIFIED TO CONSIDER DROPPING ‘C’ REQUIREMENT FOR GRADUATION
Posted on LA School Report by Vanessa Romo | http://bit.ly/1RU6udK

June 4, 2015 4:27 pm :: In a major reversal, LA Unified school board members are proposing to change graduation requirements that compel students to pass college prep courses with a “C” or better, making a “D” an acceptable grade to earn their high school diplomas.

If passed, the resolution by board members Monica Garcia, Steve Zimmer and George McKenna would likely prevent an imminent graduation rate crisis.

Under the district’s current A-G policy, which goes into full effect with the Class of 2017, the only way for students to successfully complete high school is to also be eligible for enrollment in California’s public universities. UCs and Cal State schools alike set a minimum “C” bar for 15 college-prep courses. But data made public by the district in March revealed that only 37 percent of the first cohort will meet the rigorous standards.

“This is not a retreat from the purpose of A-G nor should it be read as a capitulation to those who said [the tougher standards] are setting up these kids for failure,” Zimmer told LA School Report.

“It is just a recognition that there is an urgency to move the access and equity agenda forward: to give all kids equal access to a rigorous college prep education,” he said, adding, “The intention was never to punish kids if we did not make the resources available.”

Despite ten years of implementation and studies in 2010 and 2012 tracking districtwide progress, records show many schools often in the poorest pockets of LAUSD still do not offer core college prep courses.

The updated resolution by Zimmer and his colleagues calls for an immediate “equity audit” of A-G courses offered to be completed by October. The report “must surface and identify gaps in resources, interventions and access to and successful completion of A-G courses in all high schools.”

Further, the resolution seeks to create an intervention plan for schools failing to provide adequate access and compels the district to devise an Individual Graduation Plan for all seniors who are struggling to meet the new standards.

“It is clear that we have not resourced A-G properly,” Zimmer said. “That is why we need to a 360 degree report by the best experts in the filed to tell us where we need to make the kind of investments that are necessary.”

Only after allocating the right amount of resources to struggling students, he added, can the district reconsider reverting to a “C” or better threshold for graduation.

In the interim, “we can’t let the children who have been failed by those responsible to carry the burden,” Zimmer said.

The addition of board member McKenna’s name to the measure is evidence of a significant compromise on the issue. McKenna strongly opposed the resolution at the last board meeting and was the driving force behind postponing a vote at the time.

McKenna’s strongest objection to the A-G policy has been the problem it poses for students who may not be interested in attending college but depend on a high school diploma.

“I am opposed to the requirement of a ‘C’ grade to get a diploma,” he said at the May meeting. “A ‘D’ is a passing grade no matter what UC or Cal State [schools] say.”

Blocking those students from graduating could destroy their entire futures, he argued.

“Not everybody needs to go to college but everybody needs a high school diploma,” he said.


CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT
Posted on LA School Report by Craig Clough | http://bit.ly/1dUQcD4

June 4, 2015 4:33 pm :: With Superintendent Ramon Cortines voicing opposition to the idea, the future of LA Unified’s plan to make the district the second in the state to require an ethnic studies course as a high school graduation requirement appears to be in doubt.

In a May 8 letter (follows)obtained by LA School Report addressed to the Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee that was also sent to the school board and other district leaders, Cortines outlined his view that while he supports the idea of the district offering ethnic studies courses, he does not believe it should be a requirement for graduation. Among the key points of the letter:

• “Although I am in agreement that schools should be allotted the maximum flexibility in implementing Ethnic Studies, and agree that courses should be made available in our comprehensive high schools, pilot schools, and Options schools; I do not support the recommendation to make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement.”
• “Ethnic Studies is not a requirement to gain acceptance nor is it a requirement to graduate from any college institution; therefore, I do not support this.”
• “I believe the timeline to ensure that Ethnic Students courses are provided for students is unrealistic. I agree that some aspects of this work should begin in 2018-2019, but the overall plan to implement what is outlined is not realistic.”
• The budget implications to implement the plan as proposed is not reasonable for the District. The District cannot afford to invest $72 million over four years when many other priorities are unfunded and reductions to essential programs have been steadily made over the years.”

The LA Unified school board made big headlines in the fall when it became the second district in the state to require an ethnic studies course be taken by all high school students as a graduation requirement — El Rancho High School in Pico Rivera was the first. But a recent estimate by the district that it will cost $72.7 million — which was much larger than an original estimate of $3.4 million — along with the Ethnic Studies Committee’s recommendation to delay its full implementation makes it likely the school board will be reexamining the issue soon.

Ethnic Studies Now!, a group that helped organize the campaign for the ethnic studies resolution, is planning to stage a protest at the June 9 board meeting in reaction to Cortines’ letter. The board is not scheduled to be voting on any resolutions regarding ethnic studies, according to its meeting agenda.

The Ethnic Studies Committee, which was formed by Cortines as a result of the board’s ethnic studies resolution, is meeting today (Thursday) and will be discussing a reaction to Cortines’ letter, according to committee member Allan Kakassy.

___________________

▼Text of Cortines’ May 8 Letter:

Dear Ethnic Studies Committee Members:

I have had the opportunity to review the draft Ethnic Studies Committee Report and the Committee Recommendations.

The following provides my thoughts concerning the recommendations. Although I am in agreement that schools should be allotted the maximum flexibility in implementing Ethnic Studies, and agree that courses should be made available in our comprehensive high schools, pilot schools, and Options schools; I do not support the recommendation to make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement.

Ethnic Studies is not a requirement to gain acceptance nor is it a requirement to graduate from any college institution; therefore, I do not support this.

The action proposed does not take into consideration what I have stated publicly on numerous occasions; Ethnic Studies should be embedded into the Pre--‐K through 12th grade curriculum.
If the District does not move in this direction, it is my belief that we will face similar issues that exist with A--‐G in the future. Presently, A--‐G has become a high school issue; however, preparing our students should not begin in high school. The District has not systemically taken into consideration the progress of students in grades K through 3 who are not reading at grade level or meeting other essential learning targets while moving forward with A--‐G.

While I believe that Ethnic Studies will help students better understand their own and different cultures, and provide students with the opportunities to learn about the contributions and sacrifices of others, I believe the District should inculcate Ethnic Studies at the beginning of a student’s educational experience and not impose a new graduation requirement for students at this time.

The following provides thoughts related to selected Options that were provided in the draft report (See p. 3 of 9):

MODEL A: I am interested in further examining Model A as outlined in the draft report; however, not as written. I am in support of an Ethnic Studies course being developed.
MODEL B: I support Model B and believe that we should have an inventory of what and where ethnic studies can be embedded into A--‐G classes.
MODEL D: Some sort of accountability mechanism should be included with this model.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES: (See p. 5 of 9): I do not support the recommendation that entering 9th grade students in 2018--‐2019 should have to satisfy an Ethnic Studies graduation requirement.

Again, I believe making this a graduation requirement is unreasonable. Ethnic Studies courses should be made available for all students in grades 9--‐12.

TIMELINE: I believe the timeline to ensure that Ethnic Students courses are provided for students is unrealistic. I agree that some aspects of this work should begin in 2018--‐2019, but the overall plan to implement what is outlined is not realistic.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The budget implications to implement the plan as proposed is not reasonable for the District. The District cannot afford to invest $72 million over four years when many other priorities are unfunded and reductions to essential programs have been steadily made over the years.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I would like to personally thank the Ethnic Studies Committee for their hard work and dedication to develop a plan to implement the Ethnic Student resolution.

Again, I am in support of Ethnic Studies, and believe that acquiring knowledge related to other cultures and ethnicities can lead to a responsible understanding of the contributions and sacrifices of others.
However, at a crucial time in the LAUSD, we must ensure that our decisions that affect students should focus on ensuring that every student is college and career ready.

Ramon C. Cortines
Superintendent
Office of the Superintendent
213-241-7000


CARTOON from Facebook citing rapper KRS-One’s “You Must Learn”: ‘When one doesn’t know about the other one’s culture, Ignorance swoops down..."



CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: "I can't point to any meaningful progress in academic excellence or equity."
From Politico Morning Ed: CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATES DIVERGE ON TESTING [http://politi.co/1JtEpH8] 6/4/15 :: As Capitol Hill slowly ramps up for more debates on testing and accountability in No Child Left Behind, a handful of civil rights advocates are going their own way: Leaders from the Advancement Project and the Schott Foundation for Public Education penned an op-ed [follows] in The Hill explaining why they think groups like the National Council of La Raza and the NAACP have it wrong when they say preserving annual testing and a strong accountability system are crucial.

Schott Foundation President John Jackson told Morning Education he thinks the current system has been given a chance to work. "These tests have been linked to limiting curricula and creating a high-stakes environment," Jackson said. "I can't point to any meaningful progress in academic excellence or equity."

And civil rights groups in Washington should be listening to more to students and parents on the ground when they're building their policy platforms, Jackson added, because many local groups feel the same way. The foundation has also donated to groups who oppose annual testing, such as FairTest, according to tax filings.


▲DC CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS FAIL TO REPRESENT EDUCATION CIVIL RIGHTS AGENDA


Commentary by Judith Browne Dianis, John H. Jackson and Pedro Noguera in The Hill | http://bit.ly/1FuTdj9

June 02, 2015, 01:00 pm :: In recent weeks, a few national civil rights organizations including the National Council of La Raza, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of United Latin American Citizens and National Urban League have vocally opposed efforts to highlight the dangers of high stakes testing by students and parents opting out of annual assessments. Uniting under the banner of the Washington, D.C.-based Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, these groups are urging parents to comply with annual testing requirements. We strongly disagree with their position.

Data from these annual assessments are not a reasonable proxy for educational opportunity, and even more, educational equity. African American and Latino students are more likely to be suspended, expelled or pushed-out of school regardless of their performance on the test; and despite some improvement in graduation rates, significant disparities remain.
Moreover, of all the topics that could be addressed as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is considered for reauthorization, why defend a policy that has proven ineffective in advancing the educational interest of children of color and disadvantaged children generally? Schools serving poor children and children of color remain under-funded and have been labeled "failing" while little has been done at the local, state or federal level to effectively intervene and provide support. In the face of clear evidence that children of color are more likely to be subjected to over-testing and a narrowing of curriculum in the name of test preparation, it is perplexing that D.C. based civil rights groups are promoting annual tests.

Why should wealthy parents be able to opt-out of the over-testing by sending their children to private schools while disadvantaged students are forced to exist in a high stakes, over-tested climate for the sake of producing data that confirms what they already know---their schools lack the needed supports?

We are not opposed to assessment. Standards and assessments are important for diagnostic purposes. However, too often the data produced by standardized tests are not made available to teachers until after the school year is over, making it impossible to use the information to address student needs. When tests are used in this way, they do little more than measure predictable inequities in academic outcomes. Parents have a right to know that there is concrete evidence that their children are learning, but standardized tests do not provide this evidence

While high performing countries, wealthy parents and educational experts are calling for more student-centered and deeper learning experiences for their students, LCCR and others are asking communities to continue the practice of subjecting students to tests that have failed to deliver very little in the way of excellence or equity. Parents have a right to demand enriched curricula that includes the arts, civics and lab sciences. The parents who are opting out have a right to do so, and they certainly have a right to demand that their children receive more than test preparation classes that leave them bored and less engaged

We should all remember that NCLB was originally enacted in 1965 as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty. The measure was designed to compensate for disadvantages in learning opportunities between low-income and middle-class children. While it was never adequately funded, ESEA was envisioned as an "anti-poverty" bill.

We now know students cannot be tested out of poverty, and while NCLB did take us a step forward by requiring schools to produce evidence that students were learning, it took us several steps backward when that evidence was reduced to how well a student performed on a standardized test. Most states have long realized that the goals set by NCLB - such as 100-percent proficiency in reading and math by 2014 - could not be achieved. In 2013, the US Department of Education wisely began to allow states to opt out of meeting this unattainable requirement. Why not give parents the right to opt out of tests when they realize states have not done the work of guaranteeing their children are being adequately prepared?

The civil rights movement has always worked to change unjust policies. When 16-year-old Barbara Johns organized a student strike in Prince Edward County, Virginia in 1951 leading to Brown v. Board in 1954, she opted out of public school segregation. When Rosa Parks sat down on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955 she opted out of the system of segregation in public transportation. And as youth and their allies protest throughout the country against police brutality, declaring that "Black Lives Matter," we are reminded that the struggle for justice often forces us to challenge the status quo, even when those fighting to maintain it happen to be elected officials or, in this case, members of the civil rights establishment.

Browne Dianis is co-director of the national racial justice organization Advancement Project.
Jackson is president and CEO of the Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Noguera is the Peter L. Agnew Professor of Education at New York University.

_______________


PART II: TESTING RIFT INTENSIFIES – The race card is played….

From Politico Morning Ed | http://politi.co/1Mt76UF | 5June2015 :: : Education Trust President Kati Haycock weighed in Thursday on the debate over whether annual tests serve the interests of the civil rights community, saying National Center on Education and the Economy President and CEO Marc Tucker's recent thoughts [http://bit.ly/1HAn4rL ] on the subject were "breathtaking in their arrogance." Tucker argued, among other things, that the current accountability system dumbs down the curriculum and leads to excessive test prep especially for poor and minority students. And he thinks civil rights groups like the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights should reconsider their strong pro-accountability position.

Haycock disagrees with Tucker's stance - and his tone.

"We work with - and have learned from - [civil rights] leaders and organizations on many issues over many years. And while they may or may not decide to call him out on his accusations, I will. Because even a white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education 'leaders' when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree," Haycock wrote in a blog post: http://bit.ly/1H5z6xl (follows)

- Tucker told Morning Education that Haycock is "just plain wrong." The civil rights community is not as united on testing as many think it is, he said, citing a recent op-ed [http://bit.ly/1BKzpI3]. "I actually laughed when I saw it, to tell you the truth," Tucker said. "What's important to me here is not overriding the civil rights community, but persuading people in it that they have misread the situation."

____________________

CALLING THE NATION’S CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS IGNORANT ON TESTING: REALLY?
Published in the EdTrust Blog by Kati Haycock | http://bit.ly/1IhZymb

Jun 4, 2015 :: Last week, Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, took to the pages of Education Week to call leaders of the Urban League, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the League of Latin American Citizens, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and other national civil rights and disabilities organizations unwitting participants in a plot to injure the nation’s most vulnerable children. Their crime? A unanimous conviction that our country should not abandon the annual testing that gives parents and teachers a regular objective measure of how well their children are progressing on their journey through school.

Tucker’s assertions are breathtaking in their arrogance: That these leaders — many of whom run large, complex organizations and have advanced degrees from some of the nation’s most prestigious universities — are somehow less capable than he is of understanding what the data say about the progress of black, brown, and Native children. That they are so untraveled or unread as to be somehow unaware that most high-performing nations don’t use such an approach. And, most breathtaking of all, that these leaders — all of whom have devoted their lives to bettering the conditions of low-income children, racial minorities, English learners, and children with disabilities — are willingly countenancing a policy that is doing actual damage to these very children.

While neither I nor my organization was a part of the letter on testing opt-outs that raised Tucker’s ire, we work with — and have learned from — these leaders and organizations on many issues over many years. And while they may or may not decide to call him out on his accusations, I will. Because even a white girl can recognize that this is yet another example of the patronizing attitudes displayed by so many white education “leaders” when anybody from the black, brown or Native communities that have been shortchanged in education for so long DARES to disagree.

If it mattered, I would refute Tucker’s assertions one by one. That would be easy, for the “evidence” he puts forth is weak. His suggestion, in particular, that these organizations are blind to the problems inherent in standardized testing should give pause to any knowledgeable reader, for these very organizations have fought against the misuse of tests for decades.

What is so especially galling, though, is that Tucker’s attack is simply subterfuge for the real point he is trying to make, which is not about the accountability that the civil rights leaders have been working so hard to sustain. He doesn’t approve of the use of tests in teacher evaluation.

Now what, you ask, does the civil rights leaders’ support of annual assessment and the responsibility of every school to act when the results show that any group of students is not progressing have to do with whether it is right to use tests in the evaluation of teachers?

Not a damn thing.

But by baiting readers with his portrayal of civil rights leaders “duped” into supporting practices that are bad for vulnerable children, he avoided ever having to wrestle with efforts by the unions to dupe parents into sabotaging the best tests we have ever had just because those tests also are used in the evaluation of some teachers. That sleight of hand might have confused some, but it would have taken a lot more skill to dupe any of the civil rights leaders I know. Thankfully, they’ve prevailed against far more determined and wily opponents.

At a time when almost every state has adopted new and much higher standards for what its children should be taught, we owe parents, teachers and students themselves at least an annual look at where students are on their journey toward those standards. While tests cannot, and should not, be the whole of that checkup, they are a critically important part because they are common across all of the schools in a state. That is why, even as they worry about the extra and often lower quality tests that have been piled on by districts and schools, American parents support continuation of this annual statewide checkup, with support among parents of color highest of all.


HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other Sources
WHY THROW MONEY AT DEFENSE WHEN EVERYTHING IS FALLING DOWN AROUND US?
by Steve Lopez, LA Times | http://lat.ms/1AUaeb8
In 2012, the entrance to John Marshall High School in Los Feliz was closed to protect students from falling debris. The gothic tower above the entrance was crumbling, so a wooden platform was built atop a tunnel of scaffolding to catch falling brick and concrete.

AB 575 + SB 499: AALA CLAIMS ACSA OPPOSES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING | http://bit.ly/1Inl1KC

CORTINES OPPOSES ETHNIC STUDIES GRADUATION REQUIREMENT http://bit.ly/1GgDUPZ

WASHINGTON STATE'S FIRST CHARTER SCHOOL GETS LAST CHANCE TO SHOW PROGRESS | http://bit.ly/1QwUJr8

PART II: CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: – The race card is played….
http://bit.ly/1QwTM27

Disinvesting in Health Ed: TEEN PREGNANCY IS STILL A PROBLEM — SCHOOL DISTRICTS JUST STOPPED PAYING ATTENTION | http://bit.ly/1FwZ2xu

Carl Cohn: TIME TO BREAK UP THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL SYSTEM | http://bit.ly/1cAiXTV

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS DISAGREE ON NEED+EFFECTIVENESS OF ANNUAL TESTING: No progress in academic excellence or equity | http://bit.ly/1dhA5P8

Charter School Overhaul Bill Heads to Connecticut Governor's Desk with Veto-proof Majorities | http://bit.ly/1KOZH48

From the wonderful folks who brought you the Texas Miracle + NCLB: CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS, TRUANCY & RICK PERRY | http://bit.ly/1AGh5Vm

4LAKids CORRECTION: MiSiS in Prince George's County | http://bit.ly/1GPl6rt


EVENTS: Coming up next week...
June 9
10 AM: Closed Session
1 PM: Regular LA Unified school board meeting

June 11
11 AM - Budget, Facilities, Audit Committee meeting
2 PM: Early Childhood Education and Parent Engagement Ad Hoc Committee

*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700


• LAUSD BOARD OF EDUCATION & COMMITTEES MEETING CALENDAR



What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Tamar.Galatzan@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Bennett.Kayser@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
George.McKenna@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Monica.Ratliff@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Richard.Vladovic@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Steve.Zimmer@lausd.net • 213-241-6387
...or your city councilperson, mayor, the governor, member of congress, senator - or the president. Tell them what you really think! • Find your state legislator based on your home address. Just go to: http://bit.ly/dqFdq2 • There are 26 mayors and five county supervisors representing jurisdictions within LAUSD, the mayor of LA can be reached at mayor@lacity.org • 213.978.0600
• Call or e-mail Governor Brown: 213-897-0322 e-mail: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
• Open the dialogue. Write a letter to the editor. Circulate these thoughts. Talk to the principal and teachers at your local school.
• Speak with your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Stay on top of education issues. Don't take my word for it!
• Get involved at your neighborhood school. Join your PTA. Serve on a School Site Council. Be there for a child.
• If you are eligible to become a citizen, BECOME ONE.
• If you a a citizen, REGISTER TO VOTE.
• If you are registered, VOTE LIKE THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT. THEY DO!


Who are your elected federal & state representatives? How do you contact them?




Scott Folsom is a parent leader in LAUSD and was Parent/Volunteer of the Year for 2010-11 for Los Angeles County. • He is Past President of Los Angeles Tenth District PTSA and has represented PTA on the LAUSD Construction Bond Citizen's Oversight Committee for over 12 years. He is a Health Commissioner, Legislation Team member and a member of the Board of Managers of the California State PTA. He serves on numerous school district advisory and policy committees and has served as a PTA officer and governance council member at three LAUSD schools. He is the recipient of the UTLA/AFT "WHO" Gold Award and the ACSA Regional Ferd Kiesel Memorial Distinguished Service Award - honors he hopes to someday deserve. • In this forum his opinions are his own and your opinions and feedback are invited. Quoted and/or cited content copyright © the original author and/or publisher. All other material copyright © 4LAKids.
• FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. 4LAKids makes such material available in an effort to advance understanding of education issues vital to parents, teachers, students and community members in a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
• To SUBSCRIBE e-mail: 4LAKids-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com - or -TO ADD YOUR OR ANOTHER'S NAME TO THE 4LAKids SUBSCRIPTION LIST E-mail smfolsom@aol.com with "SUBSCRIBE" AS THE SUBJECT. Thank you.