Sunday, October 08, 2006

Hopefuly is not a plan.



4LAKids: Sunday, October 8, 2006
In This Issue:
• L.A. TEACHERS BUCK UNION, REPUDIATE MAYORAL TAKEOVER
• Schoolyard Fight: L.A. UNIFIED REBUFFS VILLARAIGOSA IN PICKING NEW SCHOOLS CHIEF + GIVE MAYOR A SAY IN L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF
• LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT CANDIDATE LIST REVEALED
• NY Times on Cafeteria Food: PRODUCERS AGREE TO SEND HEALTHIER FOODS TO SCHOOLS
• PARENTS ARE PARTNERS + POLITICIAN UNAPOLOGETICALLY GETS IT!
• EVENTS: Coming up next week...
• What can YOU do?


Featured Links:
• READING TO KIDS: Read to some kids the second Saturday morning each month. Make a difference. Change some lives (including your own!).
• The Blueprint for Effective School Reform: MAKING SCHOOLS WORK — Get the Book @ Amazon.com!
• THE BEST RESOURCE ON CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FUNDING ON THE WEB: The Sacramento Bee's series
• 4LAKidsNews: a compendium of recent items of interest - news stories, scurrilous rumors, links, academic papers, rants and amusing anecdotes, etc.
All through the week the Board of Ed and the Mayor played at schoolyard "Did not!"/"Did too!" / "My ball, my rules!" over the superintendent appointment. If one would run the schools one should model behavior, don'tchathink?


Thursday brought the news that the rank and file of UTLA has repudiated the union's complicity in the mayor's plan. ("L.A. Teachers Buck Union, Repudiate Mayoral Takeover")

• This was not a repudiation of union leadership; it was the repudiation of a decision.
• It is not a repudiation of the mayor.
• It does not sound the death knell for mayoral takeover of LAUSD or for AB 1381.
• It is also not, as UTLA leadership would have us believe: a moot point based on a campaign of disinformation. There simply hasn't been enough information about the mayor's plan developed for anyone to be disinformed about it!

Perhaps it's a campaign of under-information?

What the vote was was a victory of the democratic process, a victory of a small group of brave souls who dared ask questions and speak truth to power. It proves Margaret Mead's epigram that we dare not underestimate the power of a small dedicated group to effect change because they are the only ones who ever do.


Last Wednesday Ramon Cortines, Los Angeles Deputy Mayor for Education, Youth and Families spoke to the LAUSD Parent Collaborative — this was later in the day from Cortines' meeting with School Board President Marlene Canter in the lobby of the downtown Marriott reported in the LA Times' "LA Unified Rebuffs Mayor" (below).

Cortines was frank and forthright in his discussion with the representatives of various organized parent groups – mandated and voluntary – Title One, English Language Learners, Special Ed and Special Needs; District Advisory Councils and PTA.

In his brief opening statement and extensive Q&A he made a couple of things clear:

• Despite an earlier promise to the same group on August 2nd from mayors' spokesman Rafael Gonzales: "We will involve parents in the discussion and develop the specifics after the legislation passes." — there is no intent to develop a specific plan and the mayor and his team have no intention of collaborating with existing established districtwide parent groups.
• The mayors' yet-to-be-identified three clusters of schools will be testbeds – trying new things, thinking outside the box, retaining the best of current reform and pushing the envelope.
• 'Hopefully' best practices will transfer by osmosis between LAUSD schools and the mayor's schools.
• Likewise, while the mayor and Cortines are committed to serve those populations we should expect no specific defined plan on Special Ed and Special Needs, Gifted Ed, etc.
• The day-to-day governance of the mayor's schools – really the only portion of AB 1381 and mayoral takeover discussed Wednesday – would be in the hands of a local superintendent directly accountable to the mayor.
• The mayor expects to meet with the LAUSD general superintendent about once a month.
• Parents in the mayor's schools would have the option to transfer students out of the program – and presumably other parents could also "transfer in". But once identified - schools themselves could not "opt out" of the program or the clusters. Parents and administrators were not represented at the meeting; whether they could request transfers into-or-away-from the mayor's schools was not addressed.
• Cortines guaranteed that he would "B.S." no one; neither parents nor the mayor. He stated that many of the things the mayor said he would like to do in his campaign to take over LAUSD – things that were goals in the April draft plan (i.e.: reduce class size, lengthen the school year, etc.) are impossible given current circumstances — and he has told the mayor so.
• He made it clear that the mayor and the mayor's team would be dealing with parents at school sites — but do not intend to deal with parents groups organized at the district (and presumably state and national) level.
• Cortines bristled when questioned about the plan he championed and developed during his interim superintendency in 1999 to divide LAUSD into local districts; he was critical of Superintendent Romer and the Board of Ed in not following through on the plan they approved.
• He revealed that he had withdrawn his name from consideration for the LAUSD superintendency at the request of the mayor — and an inability to "serve two masters."
• And Cortines, a Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles, while shutting the door on dealing with organized parent groups, did offer to outreach and cooperate with the smaller cities within LAUSD.


►Some thoughts: Most of LAUSD's failures and shortcomings are directly attributable to a lack of long range planning – or planning of any kind. And here we go again …with a stated intention of to making it up as we go along!
• The dramatic turnaround in LAUSD school construction over the past six years is due to developing and adhering to Strategic Execution Plans
1. You set goals and priorities.
2. You make a plan.
3. You secure buy in.
4. You implement the plan. There is no skipping #1-3!
• The turnaround in elementary education required goals be set, planning and development of strategy and a defined implementation plan.
• The ongoing roll out the A-G Graduation Requirement has required Goals > Planning > Execution.

Charter schools are educational test beds; they operate at the cutting edge of public education. But to get a charter they develop and present a plan — a plan the state and school district buy into in granting the charter …and parents buy into when they apply for admission.

For there to be buy-in and commitment and success there simply must be a plan.

Otherwise the metaphor becomes building the airplane in flight – or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Both of those are vehicles we don't want Los Angeles' kids going anywhere in! —smf


L.A. TEACHERS BUCK UNION, REPUDIATE MAYORAL TAKEOVER

By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin, LA Times Staff Writers

October 6, 2006 — Los Angeles teachers have formally voiced opposition to state legislation, supported by their union leaders, that grants substantial control of the school district to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the union announced Thursday.

About a quarter of Los Angeles teachers voted, by a margin of 56% to 44%, to repudiate the schools law signed by the governor last month. A prominent dissident said the vote raised important, ongoing questions, including whether the union leadership should switch sides — and join an anticipated lawsuit challenging the new law.

Union officials called the referendum a moot issue.

Thursday also was marked by continuing theatrics swirling around the selection of the city's next schools superintendent, as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and school board President Marlene Canter traded verbal barbs.

In disparaging school board members for the secretive selection process, Villaraigosa said at a news conference that he had never been asked to nominate candidates to replace outgoing schools Supt. Roy Romer.

Moments earlier, however, a senior aide from the Los Angeles Unified School District had handed out copies of a June 16 letter from the firm conducting the confidential search, in which the mayor is asked "for any suggestions you might have for this appointment."

A Villaraigosa spokeswoman offered clarification later.

"Names of candidates were not submitted because Mayor Villaraigosa is not trying to dictate or control the process, but instead be a partner," said Janelle Erickson.

The teachers vote, meanwhile, was unwelcome news for union leadership, which downplayed it.

"We're disappointed," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers L.A. "But it has no effect on the legislation. And we're going to continue to be at the table with the school district, the mayor and the community. Clearly, we see that members are skeptical of the changes this legislation will bring to schools. I don't see it as a repudiation of leadership. I view it as a repudiation of Assembly Bill 1381," he said, referring to the law that becomes effective Jan. 1.

But dissidents see more to the vote.

"What's important now is that we have a new beginning and a chance to do this thing over," said Paul Huebner, a teacher at Rowan Elementary who wrote the referendum. "The membership went this way because we were very successful in informing membership that the lawsuit gives us a second bite at the apple."

Huebner suggested that UTLA should now side with the district in arguing that the new law is unconstitutional. "I prefer to think of it as the members' side, not the district's," Huebner said.

Also back on the table is whether and how teachers should participate in three groups of schools that the law places under Villaraigosa's direct control, said teacher Warren Fletcher.

The mayor's office — and the district superintendent — will choose three high schools and their feeder schools from a group of 19 eligible low-performing high schools.

Turnout for the teachers vote was low, but about the same as for the union's presidential election.

School board member Jon Lauritzen, who is closely aligned with the union but opposed the new law, said he expected the rank and file to come out against its leadership.

"They have to take this as a wake-up call and reexamine where they go from here," Lauritzen said, adding that the vote could weaken the union leaders' position as they try to salvage gains for teachers in the law.

In their own ballot arguments, union leaders said a repudiation could weaken their bargaining position in ongoing contract talks. The teachers contract expired June 30, although both sides have agreed on an extension of health benefits.

Duffy said that members' views had been distorted by characterization of the law as full "mayoral control," which, he said, the union had successfully negotiated out of the bill's final version.

Board President Canter suggested that teachers, in fact, understood exactly what was going on.

"It was a legislative deal that does not represent the people. The voters of Los Angeles were passed by and now it's clear the leadership of UTLA did not consult or represent their constituents."

Canter also had words for the mayor in her own news conference. She sternly dismissed the mayor's portrait of the board as disgruntled and unwilling to partner with the mayor.

"I have bent over backward … trying to find a way to common ground between what the Board of Education feels is its responsibility and what the mayor would like to do."

Villaraigosa, flanked by officials from other cities served by L.A. Unified, called in the media a day after the board on Wednesday formally rejected Villaraigosa's request to review the full list of more than 100 candidates for superintendent, interview finalists and give input on whom he wants hired.

"This is the biggest decision the school board will make. They shouldn't rush to make that decision behind closed doors," Villaraigosa said. "I believe we made a modest and reasonable proposal…. We simply asked the board to open up this process, to let the sun shine in."

Canter said that while "sitting in on interviews and offering in-put is one thing," she feared that Villaraigosa, if allowed to meet the finalists, would publicly criticize whom the board selects if he disagrees.

She left quickly to rejoin interviews the board was holding with two finalists. Board members hope to decide by the end of next week, according to some board members and staffers. The mayor departs Saturday for a 16-day trade mission to Asia.


Schoolyard Fight: L.A. UNIFIED REBUFFS VILLARAIGOSA IN PICKING NEW SCHOOLS CHIEF + GIVE MAYOR A SAY IN L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF
► L.A. UNIFIED REBUFFS VILLARAIGOSA IN PICKING NEW SCHOOLS CHIEF

Standoff looms as L.A. Unified trustees tell Villaraigosa it's inappropriate to seek his views until new law takes effect in January.

By Joel Rubin and Howard Blume, LA Times Staff Writers

October 5, 2006

The Los Angeles Board of Education has rejected Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's request to take part in choosing the city's next superintendent of schools.

"It is disappointing from my standpoint that there doesn't seem to be any opportunity on this issue for partnership," said Ramon C. Cortines, the mayor's top education advisor.

"The mayor and I understand that the board has the authority to select the superintendent." But, he added, it is proper for Villaraigosa to "have a role" in light of legislation signed into law last month that will give him substantial authority over Los Angeles schools. The law is scheduled to take effect in January.

Villaraigosa had asked to see the full list of superintendent candidates and to interview all finalists so that he can give his views to the school board.

The board's stance seemingly cements a standoff as the school district prepares to make its choice and the mayor prepares for a trade mission to Asia.

The board had previously offered to arrange for the mayor to meet the next schools chief before he or she is introduced to the public.

More than that, board President Marlene Canter said, would have been inappropriate. The school board, not the mayor, is currently charged with choosing a superintendent.

"He wants to interview all the candidates and do the same thing that the board does," she said. "This is our responsibility. This is what the law says the board should do and we will deliver."

If the selection had come after Jan. 1, the new law would have allowed Villaraigosa to reject the board's choice for superintendent. The board has vowed to challenge the law's constitutionality in court.

Canter held private conversations with the mayor's office last week, and conveyed the board's final decision to Cortines on Wednesday morning in the lobby of the downtown Marriott hotel. Also present was Ed Hamilton, the head of the firm that has conducted the confidential search.

The offer was unacceptable to the mayor, Cortines told Canter.

In the hotel lobby, Cortines and Canter also discussed possible compromises. At one point, Hamilton suggested that the mayor could interview finalists on the condition that he support the board's ultimate choice, Cortines said.

Cortines relayed these new suggestions to Villaraigosa, but the mayor rejected them as well.

Even the new law, if it survives the anticipated court challenge, will not give Villaraigosa the unilateral authority to fire a sitting superintendent without the board's consent. The result could be that the mayor, despite his new powers, would be stuck with whatever superintendent the board chooses.

The stalemate has the potential to place the next superintendent in an intractable situation, said Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, which has taken an active role in discussions about reforming Los Angeles schools.

Any candidate for the post, he said, would be wise to ask the school board for a meeting with the mayor.

"I would not want to risk my future because of a lack of due diligence," Toebben said.

Villaraigosa could not be reached for comment Wednesday. He is scheduled to hold a news conference this morning with mayors of other cities served by the Los Angeles Unified School District to discuss the superintendent search.

Current schools Supt. Roy Romer has announced that he intends to retire from the district as soon as a replacement is found.

Monica Garcia, the lone board member closely aligned with Villaraigosa, disparaged the position of her colleagues.

"This is by far the most critical decision we will make in charting our future. Our process would be strengthened by including the mayor's input," she said. "It is unfortunate that the board chose a different path."

Three of the five finalists on the short list submitted by a search committee were confirmed Tuesday by sources close to the selection process.

They are: Tom Vander Ark, executive director for education initiatives at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; former Occidental College President Ted Mitchell, who now heads a nonprofit firm that funds charter schools; and Carlos A. Garcia, the former head of the Clark County, Nev., school district.

The board has the prerogative to interview other candidates as well.

Villaraigosa could schedule interviews on his own but Canter said that would be improper.

"The candidates will not be taking calls during the interview search from anybody but Hamilton," Canter said. "A lot of the candidates have asked to keep the process confidential."

Canter declined to speculate on whether meeting with the mayor would harm an applicant's chances.

Board member David Tokofsky said the mayor was repeatedly invited to offer input and nominate candidates — which Villaraigosa never did, he said.

"Give us a name!" said an exasperated Tokofsky.


► GIVE MAYOR A SAY IN L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF

• The new superintendent must have broad appeal that can't be assessed just by the School Board.

By Ramon C. Cortines

Ramon C. Cortines is Los Angeles deputy mayor for education, youth and families. A former schools superintendent in Pasadena, San Jose and San Francisco, he also served as interim L.A. Unified superintendent; he has been chancellor of NY City Schools.

October 8, 2006 - Choosing the next L.A. Unified superintendent is the biggest decision the school board will make. It should be made with a keen eye on the future.

The next superintendent must be a leader and an agent of change — rapidly accelerating reform, reducing the dropout rate and increasing student performance, completing a historic school-construction program, and decreasing the district's central bureaucracy so that resources and decisions can be moved to school communities. He or she must have the financial acumen of a Fortune 500 chief executive, the mind of a scholar and the determination of a marathon runner.

Just as important, the next superintendent must have the support of parents, teachers and business and community leaders if the reforms already in place are to take root and those needed for continued educational improvement are to be implemented.

Although the school board clings to the outdated notion that selecting a superintendent is its job alone, the truth is that our public schools are central to our economy and quality of life, and to the future of our region. As former Mayor Richard Riordan aptly noted in 1997, "The new superintendent must also have the backing of our entire community, for we are all stakeholders in the education of our children."

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has proposed, on behalf of the soon-to-be-formed council of mayors, that he be allowed to interview the finalists for the superintendent job and provide feedback to the school board. This is a modest and eminently reasonable proposal that the board would be well advised to accept. It's true that the landmark L.A. Unified reform measure signed into law last month, which gives the mayor substantial control over the district, does not go into effect until Jan. 1. But despite that, the mayor should be part of the current superintendent-selection process to lay the groundwork for a long-term community partnership to bring about change.

In addition, the board should consider the voice of the community — perhaps taking a page from the lively community forums in which I participated as a candidate for the job of superintendent of the San Jose Public School District or from those held by L.A. Unified in the late 1990s — so that parents and community members can meet the candidates in person and ask questions.

The notion, advanced by some school board members, that those applying to head the nation's second-largest school district have something to fear by appearing in public is nonsense. The board should know — and the community will know — that any candidate who shies away from meeting parents, teachers and civic and business leaders is not going to last long as superintendent. This is a very public job.

The next superintendent will be responsible not only to the board of education but also to Villaraigosa and the Council of Mayors. In addition, he or she must be accessible to communities from San Pedro to the northern reaches of the San Fernando Valley to the city's border to the east and the Pacific.

I believe that the school board is committed to finding a dynamic leader to head the district, but that's not the point. The selection process must be transparent to ensure that the next superintendent is not only qualified but also has the broadest public support.


►4LAKids echoes: "…. the board should consider the voice of the community — so that parents and community members can meet the candidates in person and ask questions."

But not "In addition": PRIMARILY…! -smf


LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT CANDIDATE LIST REVEALED

from cbs2.com

Oct 4, 2006 (CBS) LOS ANGELES The short list to become the next Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent includes the top educator for the world's richest philanthropy, a former college president and a onetime Las Vegas schools chief, it was reported Wednesday.

Sources close to the selection process told the Los Angeles Times that the finalists include Tom Vander Ark, executive director for education initiatives at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; former Occidental College President Ted Mitchell, who now heads a nonprofit firm that funds charter schools; and Carlos A. Garcia, the former head of the Clark County, Nev., school district.

The names, confirmed to The Times by members of a search committee, were among five presented by the committee to the Board of Education in a private meeting Tuesday.

The board also reportedly is considering state Secretary of Education Alan Bersin, The Times reported. He was not among the finalists, but a search committee member told The Times that some board members had indicated interest in him.

The next Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent will replace Roy Romer as head of the nation's second-largest school district.


NY Times on Cafeteria Food: PRODUCERS AGREE TO SEND HEALTHIER FOODS TO SCHOOLS
► PRODUCERS AGREE TO SEND HEALTHIER FOODS TO SCHOOLS

by Marian Burros, New York Times

October 7, 2006 – In an effort to fight the rise in childhood obesity, five of the country’s largest snack food producers said yesterday they would start providing more nutritious foods to schools, replacing sugary, fat-laden products in vending machines and cafeterias.

French fries, ice cream, candy, cupcakes and potato chips from the machines, lunch lines, school stores and even school fund-raising events could disappear under a voluntary agreement between the companies and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation.

The plan, which may take effect at the beginning of the next school year, is the first nationwide effort to set strict nutrition guidelines for school vending machines.

Because the guidelines are voluntary, critics say they will not be effective.

Both the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a frequent critic of the food industry, and the School Nutrition Association want government regulation instead.

“Our organization feels pretty strongly that we need some kind of nutrition guidance from the Department of Agriculture,” said Janey Thornton, president of the nutrition association.

Dr. Carlos Camargo, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health was more positive. “I think it’s helpful for groups that have traditionally denied any connection between snack foods and obesity or health to be acknowledging now that there are links, and that moves the agenda forward,” Dr. Camargo said. A bill introduced in the Senate this year would require the Agriculture Department to set standards for snack foods based on those that the Institute of Medicine is expected to issue by the end of the year.

The agreement will be more difficult to implement than those announced in May between the three largest soft drink companies and the alliance, which is a partnership of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association, in which companies agreed to replace sugary soft drinks with more healthful beverages.

The soft drink companies account for 90 percent of soft drinks in schools, which are sold through the company distributors. But there are about 70 snack food companies that supply schools, and those products are sold through independent vendors who are not in the agreement.

That means yesterday’s initiative will require the companies to educate vendors on the need for more healthful snacks. At the news conference announcing the new initiative, former President Bill Clinton said: “The companies are going to work to convince distributors and even their competitors to follow suit. I think after today, their competitors are going to have a very difficult time explaining why they won’t.”

Several company officials agreed.

“The power of this alliance is to get others to join it,” said Charles Nicholas, a spokesman for Frito-Lay.

Under the guidelines, products could contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and have no more than 230 milligrams of sodium. No trans fats would be allowed. No product could get more than 35 percent of its calories from fat. The guidelines would also set calorie limits for each serving based on age: 150 calories for elementary school children, 180 calories for middle school children and 200 calories for high school students.

The five food manufacturers — Dannon, Kraft Foods, Mars, PepsiCo and the Campbell Soup Company — agreed to make specific changes in what they sell to schools. They are the following:

• Mars has created a new line of nutritious snacks.

• Frito-Lay, a unit of PepsiCo, is reformulating several products to meet the guidelines.

• Kraft is decreasing the sodium and calories in products it sells for school vending machines.

• Campbell is promoting soups that are lower in calories, fat and sodium, and offering additional products with less sodium.

• Dannon is reducing the sugar content of its Danimals drinkable yogurt by 25 percent.

Some states and school districts already have strict limits on food sold outside the government-regulated school lunch and breakfast programs. But the Center for Science in the Public Interest in a survey of states found that two-thirds of them had either extremely weak policies on snack foods or no policy at all.

Dr. Thomas Robinson, associate professor of pediatrics at the Stanford School of Medicine and director of the Center for Healthy Weight at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, takes the long view: “This problem is similar to what happened to tobacco over the last several decades; things happened incrementally,” Dr. Robinson said.

Mr. Clinton reminded his audience that problems of this magnitude aren’t solved in a day.

“We didn’t get in this fix overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight,” he said.


More NYT on Cafeteria Food: NO MORE MYSTERY MEAT!



PARENTS ARE PARTNERS + POLITICIAN UNAPOLOGETICALLY GETS IT!
►PARENTS ARE PARTNERS

• From the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Newsletter of September 25, 2006

STAKEHOLDER, SHAREHOLDER, CRITICAL FRIEND — these are some terms that have been used to describe staff, parents, students and community members who have participated in supporting our schools. Each school in the Los Angeles Unified School District has, to varying degrees, involved "stakeholders" or "shareholders" or "critical friends" in decision-making activities. School-Based Management, LEARN, LAUSD/UTLA Article 27, and other governance structures through the years have stressed community-wide involvement in decision-making, culminating in the charter school movement. Collaborative decision-making is accomplished through the use of various site councils and committees including School Leadership Councils, School Site Councils, Compensatory Education Advisory Committees and such.

While shared governance is critically important for the ongoing success of a school, the backbone of parent involvement locally, statewide and nationally has been and continues to be the Parent Teacher Association commonly known as PTA. PTA parents support our teachers with classroom assistance, school-wide activities, school fundraising activities, and recognition of teachers and other school staff. In addition to their school support service, PTA parents also serve as legislative advocates for children, both in each state and in Washington, D.C. PTA units at all levels look objectively at student needs and do not get involved in the political deal-making that tends to occur with other lobbying groups. This was never more evident than in the current debate over AB 1381. PTA was concerned, and rightly so, with the lack of parent involvement in what was basically a local decision. PTA advocated for the need for a parent voice through the ballot box if the City Charter or State Constitution were to be amended to allow mayors to govern our schools.

AALA is proud to partner with 10th District PTA and 31st District PTA in support of students, parents and staff in the District. The leadership provided by Scott Folsom, 10th District President, and Linda Ross, 31st District President, has been outstanding. AALA encourages all principals from Early Childhood to Adult Division to start a PTA unit at their schools if one does not already exist. The leadership in both PTA Districts is more than willing to assist any school that is interested in starting a PTA chapter. This is also the time of year to renew PTA memberships. Whether a staff member or teacher is in a school with a PTA chapter or not, anyone interested in PTA can join by requesting a membership envelope from a PTA District office. AALA is proud to be an institutional member.

Parents are partners, and PTA represents parents……PLEASE SUPPORT PTA.

• smf adds: September was Membership month in PTA, but members, whether parents, teachers, students, principals, school staff, local district superintendents, general superintendents, school board members, community members or elected officials —and new units — are always welcome!

31st District in local districts 1&2 pta31dist@aol.com
10th District in local districts 3-8 pta10thdistrict@aol.com


► POLITICIAN UNAPOLOGETICALLY GETS IT! - A LETTER FROM: SENATOR DAVE COX (R-1st District)

• First District includes the counties of Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Plumas and Sierra, as well as portions of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento Counties.

Monday, October 2, 2006 — Thank you for contacting me regarding Assembly Bill 1381 and the Los Angeles Unified School District. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Authored by Assemblyman Dario Frommer (D-Los Feliz), AB 1381 would alter the governance structure of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) by establishing a “Council of Mayors” to hire the next district superintendent of the LAUSD, granting the district superintendent extraordinary authority to negotiate and execute district contracts, and granting the Mayor of Los Angeles control over three “clusters” of low-performing schools.

Despite claims of educational reform and operational flexibility, this bill does not provide the mayor or the district superintendent more authority to make decisions without putting those decisions on the bargaining table. Without express statutory authority to implement reforms, the mayor will be every bit as hamstrung as any other well-intentioned reformer.

There were numerous discussions regarding this issue earlier this year, and wide speculation about what the specifics of such a bill would look like. In June, Assemblyman Frommer “gutted and amended” language into AB 1381 at the request of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Following many revisions and amendments, the Legislature passed a scaled-down version before adjourning in August, and Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law. While LAUSD has many glaring problems, I voted against this bill not only because it will not produce the necessary reforms, it does not require a vote of the people in the district to take effect. Furthermore, it is likely to be found unconstitutional.

State law establishes lines of authority and accountability with respect to school districts throughout California. Each school district is governed by a local school board, whose members are elected by the voters who live in that district. The board members have the authority to set policy, approve budgets and contracts, decide matters of litigation, and employ a superintendent to carry out the day-to-day management of the district. I am concerned that AB 1381 would dramatically change this governance structure by adding two additional layers of bureaucracy.

AB 1381 would create a “Council of Mayors,” comprised of the mayors and supervisors within the LAUSD. Each member’s vote is weighted proportionally based on their representation of LAUSD’s population (i.e., the Los Angeles Mayor accounts for some 80% percent of the weighted vote.) The Council would have the authority to review the budget and perhaps to revise it, and veto any appointment, contract term, renewal, or removal of the Superintendent. Any decision would only require a majority vote of the Council.

Additionally, the bill would create the “Los Angeles Mayor’s Community Partnership for School Excellence (Partnership).” It would require the Mayor to exercise oversight over three clusters of “the lowest performing schools,” each consisting of a high school ranked in deciles 1 or 2 on the Academic Performance Index and the high school’s feeder middle and elementary schools. Upon authorization and with input “from parents, community leaders, and teacher and employee unions,” the Mayor would select each cluster; the Superintendent would choose if no agreement is reached. The bill also states that “all authority” with respect to the schools in the clusters shall be transferred to the partnership, “which is directed by the Mayor.”

Moreover, other troubling provisions in this bill further diminish the Board’s authority, which in essence take the public out of the decision-making process. For example, with respect to selecting curriculum and instructional materials the bill requires the Superintendent and Board to ensure that teachers and certificated staff have an authentic and central role, and that a majority of the curriculum committee participants are classroom teachers. The public elects the Board to make these decisions, and this provision removes parents from these critical decisions.

Finally, there are significant questions regarding the constitutionality of this bill. Article IX, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that, “No school or college or any part of the Public School System shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than one included within the Public School System.” This bill appears to violate that provision. Local school groups have announced their intention to file a lawsuit immediately after this bill is signed into law. This will only add another layer of uncertainty over this entire experiment and waste millions of taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be spent in classrooms.

AB 1381 does nothing to accomplish the necessary reforms for LAUSD, and that is why I strongly opposed it. It complicates the District’s governance, removes parents’ involvement in the decision-making process, and obscures the lines of accountability and responsibility. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing other mayors to enact a similar "restructuring" of their respective educational systems of governance.

Thank you again for contacting me on this matter. Should you have another concern relating to state government, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,

DAVE COX
Senator, First District
Senator.Cox@sen.ca.gov


EVENTS: Coming up next week...
Monday Oct 9, 2006
►WILSHIRE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: RIBBON-CUTTING CEREMONY
Please join us to celebrate the ribbon-cutting of your new community school!
Ceremony will begin at 10:00 a.m.
Wilshire Park Elementary School (Los Angeles New ES #1)
4063 Ingraham St.
Los Angeles, CA 90005

Monday Oct 9, 2006
►SOUTH LOS ANGELES HIGH SCHOOL #3: PROJECT UPDATE MEETING
6:00 p.m.
Muir Middle School
5929 S. Vermont Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90044

Monday Oct 9, 2006
►CENTRAL REGION MIDDLE SCHOOL #9: PREFERRED SITE UPDATE MEETING
6:30 p.m.
Sunrise Elementary School – Gymnasium
2821 E. 7th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90023

Tuesday Oct 10, 2006
►Central Region Elementary School #14 Community Meeting
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Rosemont Avenue Elementary School – Auditorium
421 N. Rosemont Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90026

Tuesday Oct 10, 2006
►CENTRAL REGION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #20: PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT DEFINITION
At this meeting we will discuss the SCHOOL PROJECT DEFINITION that staff will recommend to the LAUSD Board of Education for review and approval.
6:30 p.m.
Belmont New Elementary School #6
100 N. New Hampshire Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90004

Tuesday Oct 10, 2006
►SOUTH REGION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #8: PROJECT UPDATE MEETING
6:00 p.m.
Harte Prep Middle School
9301 S. Hoover St.
Los Angeles, CA. 90044

Wednesday Oct 11, 2006
►BANNING NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #1: RIBBON-CUTTING CEREMONY
Please join us to celebrate the ribbon-cutting of your new community school!
Ceremony will begin at 10 a.m.
Banning New Elementary School #1
500 N. Island Ave.
Wilmington, CA 90744

Wednesday Oct 11, 2006
►SOUTH REGION ADDITION #1: PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT DEFINITION
At this meeting we will discuss the SCHOOL PROJECT DEFINITION that staff will recommend to the LAUSD Board of Education for review and approval.
6:00 p.m.
Ritter Elementary School
11108 Watts Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90059


Wednesday Oct 11, 2006
►CENTRAL REGION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #21: PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT DEFINITION
At this meeting we will discuss the SCHOOL PROJECT DEFINITION that staff will recommend to the LAUSD Board of Education for review and approval.
6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Harmony Elementary School
899 E. 42nd Pl.
Los Angeles, CA 90011

Thursday Oct 12, 2006
►CENTRAL REGION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL #22: PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDED PROJECT DEFINITION
At this meeting we will discuss the SCHOOL PROJECT DEFINITION that staff will recommend to the LAUSD Board of Education for review and approval.
6:00 p.m.
The CenterPointe Club
6200 Playa Vista Drive
Playa Vista, CA 90094

Thursday Oct 12, 2006
►SOUTH REGION SPAN K-8 #1: SCHEMATIC DESIGN MEETING
Please join us for a community meeting regarding the design of South Region Span K-8 #1.
At this meeting we will:
* Present schematic design drawings
* Receive community input on the design of the project
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Gulf Elementary School - Auditorium
828 W. "L" St.
Wilmington, CA 90744

*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213.633.7493
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213.633.7616


• LAUSD BOARD OF EDUCATION & COMMITTEES MEETING CALENDAR



What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Marlene.Canter@lausd.net • 213-241-6387
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Julie.Korenstein@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Mike.Lansing@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Jon.Lauritzen@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
David.Tokofsky@lausd.net • 213-241-6383

...or your city councilperson, mayor (mayor@lacity.org 213/978-0600), the governor, member of congress, senator - or the president. Tell them what you really think!
Call or e-mail Governor Schwarzenegger: 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. Make a difference. Be there for a child.
• Register.
• Vote.



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




Scott Folsom is a parent and parent leader in LAUSD. He is President of Los Angeles 10th District PTSA and represents PTA as Vice-chair the LAUSD Construction Bond Citizen's Oversight Committee. He serves on various school district advisory and policy committees and is a PTA officer and/or governance council member at three LAUSD schools. He is also the elected Youth & Education boardmember on the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council.
• 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 as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. 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 SUBCRIPTION LIST E-MAIL smfolsom@aol.com with "SUBSCRIBE" AS THE SUBJECT. Thank you.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Nobels & lemons.



4LAKids: Sunday, October 1, 2006
In This Issue:
• HOW TO WIN A NOBEL PRIZE: Even Australian pig-wrestlers have a shot, if they work hard and are exposed to good schools.
• BILL TO LET SCHOOLS LAND GOOD TEACHERS AND END
• Times²: FEUD OVER L.A. MAYOR'S TAKEOVER OF SCHOOLS IS PUBLIC ONLY + NEXT L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF GETS NEW POWERS TOO
• HIGH SCHOOL VOCATIONAL CLASSES MAY BE POISED FOR COMEBACK
• The News That Doesn't Fit: HOMEWORK, THE WORST JOB IN THE WORLD; HOW ANTONIO GOT HIS GROOVE ON, WORK IT OUT + FORCE-FEEDING OVERACHIEVERS
• EVENTS: Coming up next week...
• What can YOU do?


Featured Links:
• READING TO KIDS: Read to some kids the second Saturday morning each month. Make a difference. Change some lives (including your own!).
• The Blueprint for Effective School Reform: MAKING SCHOOLS WORK — Get the Book @ Amazon.com!
• THE BEST RESOURCE ON CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FUNDING ON THE WEB: The Sacramento Bee's series
• 4LAKidsNews: a compendium of recent items of interest - news stories, scurrilous rumors, links, academic papers, rants and amusing anecdotes, etc.
Not every kid will grow up to win a Nobel Prize. A few years back there was much made of storing the genetic code of genius in sperm banks for later reproduction; now there's a study and a book and an op-ed ["How to Win a Nobel Prize"] with a much more plausible, scientifically-arrived-at and workable formula for genius.

With a study, a book and an op-ed comes the inevitable 4LAKids bullet points, distilled from the editorial:

• Above all what we need is a great public school system.
• We need teachers really committed to public education.
• Kids need time to think and to learn for themselves …and plenty of support in their formative years.
• "We were looking for exceptional kids ...and what we found were exceptional conditions."
• Nobelists are not so much born to greatness as they are made. To get to Stockholm, it does indeed take a village.

Things we already knew indeed …but seeds of greatness. Nurture them.

From the sublime to the ridiculous we change channels to the new hit reality show: "So You Think You Can Dance (of the Lemons)".

And from there to making lemonade from AB 1381 ["Times²" & "How Antonio Got His Groove On" - in The News that Doesn't Fit]. It is about time we all started trying to get along; I would say that the time should've been pre AB 1381 …but that train has left the station. Progress in education reform in LAUSD must continue as the courts struggle with the bill, described in "HAGHGO" as " a five-legged calf of a law" with a "proposed system (that) looks like a flow chart of Enron reinvestment strategies – rife with unresolved power blurs, confusions, and potential city charter and state constitutional issues."

Returning to Times², AB 1381 gives the superintendent, not the Board of Education authority to "sign big-money contracts for everything from buying plastic utensils to building schools." The infamous hours-long School Board debate of years past over "spoons & forks v. sporks" is summoned up from yesteryear by the writer — held while unsupervised bureaucrats either (choose your own metaphor):
1. ran amok (or)
2. were asleep at the switch at the Belmont Learning Center.

But do we hand all the authority for plastic tableware AND building contracts to one unsupervised bureaucrat? At least the Board of Ed misbehaves in open meetings ...and the electorate can periodically boot them out! - smf


HOW TO WIN A NOBEL PRIZE: Even Australian pig-wrestlers have a shot, if they work hard and are exposed to good schools.

by Margaret Wertheim | LA Times Editorial

October 1, 2006 - This week, the Swedish Academy will announce the Nobel Prizes in science: on Monday, physiology or medicine; Tuesday, physics; Wednesday, chemistry. The Nobels are the science world's Academy Awards, elevating the winners into an Olympian pantheon whose members include many of the greatest scientists of the last century. The prizes are given for work the scientific community has recognized as fundamentally important — theories and discoveries that change our lives, and not infrequently save lives, even if most of us would have trouble comprehending the citation.

When Alfred Nobel set up the prizes, his will said that they should be awarded for work done in the previous year. That rule has long since been dropped, and these days Nobels are typically given decades after the original research.

What does it take to get to this pinnacle of scientific achievement? Are Nobelists born or bred? And what might we do to enhance our chances of generating more of these remarkable beings?

Peter Doherty, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1996 along with Rolf Zinkernagel, has been outspoken on the subject. Together the pair discovered "how T-cells recognize their target antigens in conjunction with major histocompatibility complex proteins."

I quote here from the entry in Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Their work broke fundamental ground in immunology and opened up new paths for developing viral vaccines. One of Doherty's many projects these days is as scientific advisor to a $30-million-a-year project to develop a HIV vaccine. Much of the rest of his time is spent researching the alarming new swath of flu viruses.

Doherty, who is an Australian by birth and by his laconic spirit, divides his time between the University of Melbourne and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. He recently published a book, "The Beginner's Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize," in which he offers forthright commentary on the Nobels in general, along with a charmingly homely account of his own unlikely path toward this pinnacle.

Speaking by phone from Melbourne in an accent reminiscent of the late, beloved Steve Irwin, he insisted that there was nothing about his background that might have suggested he was destined for scientific greatness. "Winning a Nobel Prize wasn't what I set out to do," he said.

Doherty began his career as a veterinary scientist researching animal diseases. "I was wrestling pigs," he said. Before pig wrestling, things looked even less promising. Doherty grew up in Brisbane, a place he describes in his book as "an isolated and parochial town in a country barely noticed by the rest of the world." (Brisbane has since morphed into a beautiful, cosmopolitan city.)

His parents both left school at 15. His father worked as a telephone technician, and his mother taught piano. Their lives had given them "no experience with higher education and no understanding of it." Yet, rather than seeing that as an obstacle, Doherty insists that, in many respects, his parents' lack of academic acumen assisted his intellectual development.

"If you look at the lives of Nobel winners," he told me, "what you find is that many of them came from these unlikely backgrounds — one-room schoolhouses and concentration camps." They do not necessarily hail from privileged backgrounds. What matters, he said, "is that you have fire in the belly."

Doherty believes that less fortunate kids may indeed be more fortunate: "You don't have parents who are so prescriptive in what they expect you to do and be. The individual is in a sense freer."

Critical to his own intellectual development were good teachers. Doherty attended a newly opened public school, Indooroopilly State High. It had no library, no books, no sporting equipment — "parents were expected to provide those things." What it did have were "teachers really committed to public education."

At Indooroopilly, and later in the veterinary department at the University of Queensland, Doherty was exposed to scientific ideas put forth by people who were passionate about conveying them.

If we want to create more truly innovative scientists, he said, above all what we need is a great public school system. Doherty noted that the New York City public school system has produced 25 Nobelists, five from the Bronx High School of Science. He believes such specialized programs are important to allow kids who are drawn to science to maximize their potential.

That does not mean hothousing. Doherty deplores the current trend of parents to try to create genius children: "It's no use hothousing kids so they just reproduce a lot of acceptable stuff. Kids need time to think and to learn for themselves."

Doherty's comments mesh with a number of studies that have been done on genius. No accepted measure of intelligence, such as IQ, has been shown to reliably predict who will achieve extraordinary things. What does correlate is persistent work on the part of the student and excellent teaching and support from the surrounding community.

Benjamin Bloom of the University of Chicago studied the lives of elite athletes, performers, artists and scientists. Every person in his study had taken at least a decade, if not longer, of intense hard work to achieve international recognition. Equally, they had good teachers and mentors and plenty of support in their formative years. "We were looking for exceptional kids," Bloom has said, "and what we found were exceptional conditions."

Like other categories of genius, Nobelists are not so much born to greatness as they are made. To get to Stockholm, it does indeed take a village.


►MARGARET WERTHEIM is director of the Institute for Figuring, an organization that promotes the public understanding of science and mathematics.



BILL TO LET SCHOOLS LAND GOOD TEACHERS AND END
By Deepa Ranganathan | Sacramento Bee

Monday, September 25, 2006 — It can take years to fire a bad teacher. So some principals don't even bother trying.

Instead, they make a deal. The principal asks the teacher to look for a job elsewhere in the district. In exchange, the teacher gets a good evaluation.

Now here's the rub. Since there's plenty of competition for plum jobs at affluent schools, the bad teacher gets funneled to a struggling school serving a needy population.

School administrators call it the "dance of the lemons," and it's surprisingly common. More than a quarter of the principals surveyed in San Diego Unified School District, for instance, admitted to coaxing an underperforming teacher to transfer elsewhere, according to a national study released last year by the New Teacher Project, a New York-based nonprofit organization.

A whopping 47 percent confessed they had hidden vacancies to avoid accepting such teachers. Meanwhile, 65 percent of the district's schools had no choice, or limited choice, in filling at least one position.

New legislation could change that in California. Senate Bill 1655 may be the first in the nation to alter union contracts that protect experienced teachers but don't give low-performing schools enough freedom to hire the people they want.

The bill, introduced by state Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena, would help districts snag promising new teachers early in the year. It also would give struggling schools the right to refuse bad teachers whose seniority otherwise might guarantee them a spot on the faculty.

"I think this is very, very much a precedent- setter," said Michelle Rhee, chief executive officer of the New Teacher Project. "This could have a positive impact, not only in California, but nationwide."

The bill sailed through the Democrat-dominated Senate and Legislature with enormous majorities, despite opposition from two party allies: the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers. It now awaits Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature. A spokeswoman for the governor said she did not know how likely he is to sign it.

Several groups representing low-income and minority communities supported the bill -- a factor that won over legislators despite union opposition, said Russlynn Ali, director of the advocacy group Education Trust-West.

"That's really unprecedented, isn't it?" she said. "You had a group of advocates that represent poor kids and kids of color saying, 'Enough is enough. We've got to make some headway on closing the teacher quality gap.' "

The bill contains the seeds of drastic change. For one, all districts would be allowed to hire new candidates as early as mid-April without considering their seniority.

Currently, many urban districts must give their tenured teachers the first crack at vacancies well into the summer. By that point, many of the best novices have received job offers from suburban districts with less restrictive contracts, proponents say.

In a 2003 survey of four urban districts across the nation, The New Teacher Project found aggressive recruitment yielded a glut of job applicants from outside the district -- many of them new teachers who wanted to work with low-income students but "were left hanging in limbo for months." Between 31 percent and 60 percent withdrew their applications and went elsewhere, the majority citing the late hiring cycle as a cause.

"The longer you wait, the poorer the quality of the pool is," Scott said. "The suburban schools really are able to pick off better candidates."

The bill also would give principals in very low-performing schools -- schools that are ranked 1, 2 or 3 on the state's 10-point scale -- the ability to turn down teachers who want to transfer from elsewhere in the district.

Not all teachers who want to switch schools are lemons, to be sure. "But when you are a school that is low-performing and you are trying everything you can possibly try, you need to be able to build a staff that will work well together," said Vernon Renwanz, principal of Creekside Elementary in north Stockton.

Over the past six years, Creekside, a high-poverty school, has seen a steady rise in test scores. Renwanz credits his teachers' willingness to work together on schoolwide reforms. It's hard, he said, when the union contract forces him to accept a teacher who isn't interested in change.

"If you have someone who's uncooperative, it makes everyone uneasy," he said. "It doesn't promote the good teamwork that is essential for good performance."

Not everyone is a fan of the legislation. Barbara Kerr, president of the CTA, called it "premature and unnecessary," saying it would keep veteran teachers out of needy schools that disproportionately lack experienced faculty.

"The idea that a school administrator would have the power to block transfers of highly qualified and senior teachers -- that's very troubling, since many of those schools need experienced teachers," she said.

Kerr said a CTA-sponsored bill -- Senate Bill 1133 -- would do more to get veterans into those schools by offering incentives such as smaller class sizes.

Even proponents of Scott's bill acknowledge it's no panacea. The legislation deals only with teachers who seek to switch schools. Teachers who lose their jobs involuntarily -- say, because the district closed their school -- could still be given priority in hiring at any time and placed at schools over a principal's objections.

As for delays in hiring, the bill wouldn't do anything to speed up districts that are mired in inefficiency.

"I can't make bureaucracies more effective," Scott said. "This is not a magic bullet that will solve every problem. ... But this allows students to get the best teacher, not the teacher who has been subtly forced out of another school."

No analysis exists showing how many districts would be affected. But large, urban districts such as San Diego, Los Angeles and Fresno would see changes in some of the hiring policies spelled out in union contracts, Rhee said.

Locally, both Sacramento City Unified and San Juan Unified school districts have teacher labor contracts providing schools limited choice in hiring, with some priority given to candidates with experience in the district. The bill would allow those provisions to last only until April each year. The legislation would take effect as existing union contracts expire.

►An 'editorialization' of the above article appeared in the Sept 27 Daily News; a reader responds:

NO TEST LEFT BEHIND

Your editorial "Dance of the lemons" (Sept. 27) seems to accept the premise that the goal of schools is to enable students to pass standardized tests. Thus, the teacher that can inspire young minds to think creatively, to go beyond Newspeak, is considered a "lemon," while those that follow the path of pablum indoctrination laid down by the Bush regime are the "educational" shining stars of the Fourth Reich.
The purge of intellectual activity in the public schools that began with expansion of standardized tests in the 1960s, furthered by Ritalin and other chemical toxins, and accelerated by "No Standardized Test Left Behind," thus advances another goose step thanks to the California Legislature and "Herr Goobernator."

— Terry L. Clark, Arcata


Times²: FEUD OVER L.A. MAYOR'S TAKEOVER OF SCHOOLS IS PUBLIC ONLY + NEXT L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF GETS NEW POWERS TOO

►FEUD OVER L.A. MAYOR'S TAKEOVER OF SCHOOLS IS PUBLIC ONLY: Villaraigosa and district prepare for court battle over takeover law. But privately the rivals are working together.

By Howard Blume and Duke Helfand, LA Times Staff Writers

September 29, 2006 — Even as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and school district officials prepare to wage war in court, senior aides on both sides are quietly laying the groundwork for a future partnership and collaborating on major initiatives, including a system to track dropouts.

The mayor's office also, for the first time, released a list of 19 low-performing high schools Thursday from which Villaraigosa ultimately would choose three to oversee directly.

Villaraigosa will manage those high schools, and the elementary schools and middle schools that feed them, as part of legislation that gives him substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District.

But before he does, the new law faces an expected court challenge, the latest round in a frequently hostile relationship between the leadership of the school district and a mayor who has repeatedly labeled L.A. Unified as "failing."

Yet on Thursday, the mayor's top education advisor revealed a major arena of blossoming collaboration.

"The district has been very, very cooperative," Deputy Mayor Ramon C. Cortines said. "We're very close to agreeing with the district on a coding process on dropouts. I hope to have a report to review in a few weeks."

The result, he said, would be a system to track dropouts that would be far ahead of other school systems and what the state requires.

Los Angeles schools Supt. Roy Romer said he had directed top aides and administrators to work closely with city officials.

"We must not continue the battle of us versus them," Romer told Times reporters and editors Thursday.

Speaking later in the day, he spoke about the cooperation over dropouts, while also insisting that the district already was working on a better tracking system as part of its dropout prevention initiative.

"This is not something they have come over and caused us now to do," Romer said. "We really are trying to work with them. We want to do this with their understanding, and if they have anything to assist us, we're happy to have that."

Romer's staffers said they got the message. Assistant Supt. Esther Wong, who oversees the district's data analysis branch, is spearheading the effort to develop the tracking system.

"This is new and significant," she said.

"And it's going to be something we're going to agree on," said Bob Collins, chief instructional officer for the district's secondary schools, who has a Monday meeting in the mayor's office.

"It's going to be powerful," he said.

Romer said he also would be meeting with Cortines over which schools should become part of the mayor's cluster.

Campuses under consideration are in four distinct regions of the sprawling school system: South Los Angeles, central city-Westside, the Eastside and the San Fernando Valley.

The school district says the mayor's office has requested detailed information on six schools: Crenshaw and Dorsey in South L.A., Monroe and Sylmar in the Valley, Roosevelt in Boyle Heights and Belmont near downtown. The mayor's office said all 19 remained in play.

Romer said it was premature to make final decisions.

"We need to clarify the constitutionality of this cluster idea before we get everybody unsettled about it," he said, referring to the impending lawsuit.

The school board and the mayor's office also remain at odds over the replacement for Romer, who is retiring. Cortines on Wednesday reiterated the mayor's request for full inclusion in evaluating all applicants, the mayor's office said.

District officials are so far moving forward with a confidential screening process. Still, the district and the mayor's office are cooperating on a school safety initiative.

And over the summer the two sides joined forces on a summer jobs program for 650 students who attended summer school.

"Regardless of the legislation, it behooves L.A. Unified to have partnerships with the mayor," school board President Marlene Canter said.


►NEXT L.A. SCHOOLS CHIEF GETS NEW POWERS TOO
Much has been made of the mayor's authority, but the superintendent may hold more clout than ever. Some fear confusion and conflict.
By Howard Blume
Times Staff Writer

September 30, 2006

The next superintendent of Los Angeles schools is likely to be the most powerful schools chief in the history of the system. This CEO, who runs an agency larger than the city of Los Angeles, won't need anyone's permission to hire senior staff, bring on consultants and sign big-money contracts for everything from buying plastic utensils to building schools. And the new superintendent will be much more difficult to fire.

While most attention has been focused on increased powers granted to the mayor in legislation signed into law recently, the changes it makes to the superintendent's role are just as sweeping.

This new reality will begin Jan. 1, pending an expected legal challenge, and is among the more experimental aspects of the reform plan advanced by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Critics have long maintained that the Los Angeles Unified School District's superintendent has been hampered by micromanaging from board members beholden to the constituents who elected them. And a remedy was very intentionally built into the Villaraigosa-backed legislation.

The next superintendent will have "more executive authority," said Thomas Saenz, counsel to the mayor and a primary architect of the new order. "This superintendent will be more of a CEO, with the ability to manage day-to-day operations without interference from the school board."

The role of the superintendent is especially important now that current schools chief Roy Romer, 77, has announced that he wants to retire as soon as a successor can be chosen. The selection process is well underway — a search committee met in private last weekend and plans to meet again today to interview candidates. A shortlist of finalists is expected to be forwarded to the school board next week.

Some observers have wondered why anyone would want a job that is not only impossibly difficult but suddenly a political minefield as well, with the mayor and the school board at odds. But Romer proved over the last six years that progress is possible, and his successor will have more muscle than he did.

Until now, the elected seven-member board has been the superintendent's boss. Given shifting alliances, even a request from one board member was something a superintendent would pay attention to.

Under the new law, Assembly Bill 1381, the superintendent has the power to make more decisions without heeding board input.

The superintendent's expanded jurisdiction applies to running the school-construction program, hiring senior management staff, seeking state waivers for new programs, assigning principals, signing contracts and making necessary but routine budget actions.

"I'm not sure that it's enough power, but it's certainly an improvement," said Caprice Young, who heads the California Charter Schools Assn. and was a member of the school board that hired Romer.

She recalled Romer's having to spend "60 to 70% of the time in school board meetings or preparing for meetings." The next superintendent will have "more power over the things that matter while the school board focuses on governance issues rather than sporks versus forks — or plastic pouches versus wax carton juice boxes."

Board members could, of course, continue to discuss any budget item or any contract, and request any information. But board members would have no greater legal claim than an ordinary citizen for detailed budget information. And except with major budget categories, the superintendent would not have to obey the board's wishes on how to spend the money.

Romer has some enhanced authority through his personal employment contract — especially when it comes to managing the building of 160 new schools. Officials wanted the district to respond quickly to construction bids in a tight market, so Romer can approve a project as large as $45 million and then get official board consent later.

He also can approve contracts up $250,000 without advance permission from board members.

The new rules make such authority — and then some — a matter of permanent law, not changeable policy.

But is this framework an overcorrection? Has the mayor created an unaccountable superintendent?

To address this concern, the mayor's team refined the role of the school district's inspector general. District officials already choose to employ an inspector general as an official watchdog. Under the new law, having an inspector general remains voluntary, but the board cannot trim his budget or terminate his contract without cause.

"Now there is a very, very strong incentive for the school board members to hire an inspector general," said Saenz, of the mayor's office. "Without one, they have much more restricted access to information about contracting."

Romer said this approach asks too much of the inspector general, whose job "is to look for a certain kind of fraud and abuse."

When it comes to evaluating the decisions of the superintendent, the ultimate and appropriate authority should be the mayor, said Saenz.

"First and foremost, the superintendent will answer to the mayor," he said. "This will be an improved system because instead of a shifting [board] majority of four that essentially determines what the superintendent is going to do, an individual dominant voice — the mayor's — has been added. The superintendent will have no difficulty deciding: 'Who is the one voice I should listen to?' "

That might be how things will work, especially under a mayor with the political skills of Villaraigosa, but such dominance is not explicit in the law. To fire the next superintendent, for example, would first require a majority decision of the school board. Then the decision would proceed to the new council of mayors, on which Villaraigosa will sit along with representatives from 26 other cities and the five county supervisors. Villaraigosa will control 80% of the vote because 80% of the school district is within the city of Los Angeles. But it would require a 90% tally to confirm the sacking.

Thus, firing the superintendent would require the concurrence of numerous elected officials from assorted jurisdictions.

The same scenario applies to the hiring of superintendents as of Jan. 1, but that's not how Romer's successor will be selected. That process is going forward under the old system — with the school board firmly in charge. This timing has created consternation in City Hall, where the mayor insists on an immediate role. But until the law takes effect, Villaraigosa remains on the outside looking in — and his new law is likely to make the board's choice harder for him to supplant.

Some parts of the law add complexity and uncertainty to the new power equation. The cities of southeast L.A. County, for example, will have veto power over the person the superintendent chooses to run their particular region of schools. The provision was part of a compromise to win the votes of legislators from that area.

"That is a breathtaking loss of autonomy for superintendent," said district general counsel Kevin Reed, "that he has to consult with city councils before he can make an appointment that is so key to his academic program."

In Reed's view, the new authority is outweighed by the potential for confusion and divisiveness. He noted that the bill retains for the school board the responsibility of collective bargaining with unions: "So the superintendent controls the budget, but the school board controls collective bargaining."

There are also other splits of power. The superintendent controls most decisions over school construction, but not the power to force the sale of private property for school construction. That stills rests with the board.

There also are potential contradictions: The bill grants the superintendent specific authority to assign principals, but in another section keeps jurisdiction over union employees with the board — and principals belong to a union. The bill also talks of promulgating more local control, including the right of school communities to choose their own principal.

The teachers union — which joined with the mayor on his legislation — exercised substantial influence on where the superintendent's new powers are limited. The schools chief cannot, for example, alter union work rules — which some critics cast as an impediment to reform. Those critics worry that the superintendent will have supreme day-to-day authority over the mundane but would be handcuffed in advancing transformative change.

Despite the more powerful superintendent, union leaders insist the law also enables them to push successfully for local control of schools.

A self-described union ally on the school board disagreed.

"UTLA has signed on to have an even more powerful superintendent," said Jon Lauritzen. "And yet, they've been arguing consistently that Roy Romer is too powerful."

School district attorney Reed foresees trouble ahead.

"All we can do is pray that we have smart and wise people on the school board and in the person of the superintendent," he said. "This splitting of accountability and authority creates an opportunity for conflict and tension."


HIGH SCHOOL VOCATIONAL CLASSES MAY BE POISED FOR COMEBACK

ANA BEATRIZ CHOLO | Associated Press | San Jose Mercury News

Sep. 30, 2006 - SAN DIEGO - Oscar Sandoval wanted to learn how to fix cars, but his high school's auto shop long ago became a student health clinic.

He couldn't transfer schools so he eventually resigned himself to tinkering at home.

"Just because I don't live in that area doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to take it," complained Sandoval, now a senior at large and urban Hoover High School.

Vocational education classes, once commonplace, began to languish as standardized tests started to determine success and failure and college became a singular goal. Now called career technical education courses, they are beginning to enjoy a renaissance, at least in interest if not yet in enrollment.

Legislators from North Carolina to Florida are reviving programs gutted years ago. In California, the movement is also gaining momentum, thanks in part to support from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a 2006 state budget that includes $100 million for program expansion.

Congress also has voted to reauthorize $1.8 billion in aid for high schools, community colleges and technical schools that President Bush had pushed to eliminate so more funds could be steered toward reading and math courses.

At Sandoval's Hoover High, Principal Doug Williams is committed to bringing back auto shop classes.

"When our students are connected to a person or a program, they seem to do better than those kids that are not connected, are struggling academically and are potential dropouts," he said. "If no connection is made, then kids will say, 'See ya. I don't need this. I'm out of here.'"

Around the country, hundreds of high schools are being transformed into career academies or adding smaller vocational schools within their buildings. In Chicago, where work-based training is a school district priority, Mayor Richard Daley recently announced a new initiative that will let high school students become qualified to work in particular industries. These students would then use their newly earned certificates to find high-skill, high-paying jobs.

In some places where course offerings are slim, community colleges or regional occupational training centers offer career education to juniors and seniors in high schools.

It will still take a lot of work to resuscitate even a semblance of the programs that existed 30 years ago, say vocational education advocates.

"There is widespread belief that academic achievement is key to student success in the future," said Patrick Ainsworth, director of secondary education for the California Department of Education. "We certainly saw a decline in the number of career tech ed courses."

Three-quarters of high school technology education programs have disappeared since the early 1980s, according to data from the California Industrial and Technology Education Association. As a result, the number of high school courses offered have dropped from about 40,000 in the late 1980s to 24,000 in 2005-06, according to state data.

In a report, the association cites an aging faculty, few reinforcements and competition for financial and space resources as well as pressure for college prep courses from the University of California.

The resultant curriculum resembles a Jeopardy-style game show in which memorizing for standardized tests is the prize, argues Jim Aschwanden, executive director of the California Agricultural Teacher's Association.

"We have a generation of students that can answer questions on tests, know factoids, but they can't do anything," said Aschwanden, who also is a recent appointee to the state Board of Education.

The question of how to create a skilled labor force that meets future needs is something that has occupied Rick Stephens for years.

The senior vice president for human resources at Boeing Co. said that these days everyone needs a range of training to succeed.

"An auto mechanic today needs to know computer science, electronics, how to use sophisticated electronic tools ... none of which require a degree," Stephens said.

To meet changing times, classes like drafting & design and creative woods are being created as a hybrid that mixes both the vocational and the academic.

In 2000, there were 258 career tech high school courses that met University of California standards. Six years later, the number is up to 4,705, according to state statistics. That is significant, say career tech advocates, because it illustrates how the academic world is beginning to realize the importance of the trades and include them in college courses.

The woodshop class at Hoover is one of the few electives available at the comprehensive high school. Sawdust coats the floor and the smells are unmistakable.

In a side classroom, about 38 freshman are working on a safety test. They are eager to start building things but must first pass the exam.

Teacher Arturo Gonzales spent 10 years working in the cabinetmaking industry before he took a pay cut to teach. He dreamed of being like his high school teacher.

His classes are crowded and he would benefit from having an assistant, but money is tight, he said.

"A lot of kids are in here to create, to get away from the math class, the English class," Gonzales said. "They want to work with their hands."

He tells his students that this is a math class, too, but a fun one. Nowadays, some kids don't have as many options on campus.

"It's hard to get into this class," he said.



The News That Doesn't Fit: HOMEWORK, THE WORST JOB IN THE WORLD; HOW ANTONIO GOT HIS GROOVE ON, WORK IT OUT + FORCE-FEEDING OVERACHIEVERS
Two long form pieces well worth the jump that should be required reading for 4LAKids readers ...except that we paid attention to the first!:

►HOMEWORK, PART 1 - THE WORST JOB IN THE WORLD

By Orson Scott Card | Greensboro-Charlotte Rhino Times

• Card is a parent and a best selling author of young adult fiction ("ENDERS GAME"), his essay looks at homework from a kid's perspective, an teacher's perspective and a parent's perspective and it loses on all three fronts for a multitude of reasons.

Sept 21, 2006 — What if you had a really lousy job? You’re only employed for seven hours a day, but you have to ride the bus for half an hour each way.

While you’re there, they only let you go to the bathroom at certain times. You only have 10 minutes to get from one work station to another, and somehow you also have to use the toilet and get your new work materials from a central depository during those breaks, without being late.

If you do anything wrong, you aren’t allowed to talk to anybody during lunch.

Even when you go home, it’s not over. A job supervisor also lives in your house, and makes you do two or three more hours of the same work you did on the job. The at-home supervisor is even harsher than the one at work and has more power to inflict annoying punishments if you fail to comply.

If you’re sick and miss a day or two, then when you get better, you have to do all the work that you missed – both the on-the-job and the at-home tasks.

Not only that, but you can’t quit this lousy job. It’s the law – the government requires you to stick with it for at least 10 years.

What if, on top of all this misery, the work you had to do at home wasn’t even real? What if you just went through the motions of all the tasks you did on the job, but you didn’t actually accomplish anything? You just spent meaningless hours, repeating the physical movements, while the at-home supervisor says things like, “That’s how you do it?” and “Are you sure you’re doing it right?”

That’s a fair description of the lives of far too many of our school-age children.

ARTICLE CONTINUES:
http://4lakidsnews.blogspot.com/2006/10/homework.html


►HOW ANTONIO GOT HIS GROOVE ON: Villaraigosa’s charisma gets the ink, but his wonky staff does the heavy lifting. For that, he can credit his real predecessor, Richard Riordan

by Marc Haefele | Los Angeles CityBeat

The lengthy legislative lucha libre was all over and Antonio Villaraigosa was the winner. He took his bows August 30, not at City Hall, but at Animo Charter High School way down on 111th and Western Ave., where the sound system played the Jackson 5’s “ABC” for one generation and U2’s “Beautiful Day” for another. He’d called in all his markers and so had the governor, and with just two days left in the summer legislative session, Los Angeles became the first city in California to have legally transferred control of its 712,000-pupil school district from its school board to the mayor. Sort of. The bill that passed, AB 1381, is really a lopsided, five-legged calf of a law, unlikely to survive a probable LAUSD court challenge in its current form – or maybe at all. It gives the mayor power to fire an otherwise all-powerful school superintendent. It also gives the mayors of the handful of nearby cities that share the district with Los Angeles a share of the decision-making power and neuters the current seven-member school board. It creates an institutional ER that puts the worst schools in the system under direct mayoral control.

On paper, the proposed system looks like a flow chart of Enron reinvestment strategies – rife with unresolved power blurs, confusions, and potential city charter and state constitutional issues. The governor signed it anyway.

ARTICLE CONTINUES:
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=4407&IssueNum=173


►WORK IT OUT: Neighborhood and school need to resolve differences

LA Daily News Editorial

Sept. 29, 2006 - Neighbors of Ivy Academia Entrepreneurial Charter School are justifiably annoyed. The school's administrators have ignored enrollment limits on the Fallbrook campus, allowing 40 more students to attend this year. This is just the latest of many clashes between residents and the school over noise, traffic and past permit violations.

It's time for city officials to step in and, once and for all, work it out.

It's true that the school's founders, husband and wife Eugene Selivanov and Tatyana Berkovich, have violated codes as Ivy grew from a home-care center to a full charter school. And it's true that the school has had internal controversies and is under investigation after assertions that it was misusing state funds.

But it's also true that Ivy Academia is in great demand among parents, who flock to the school to escape the bureaucratic nightmare of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

In fact, the very reason Ivy is in trouble this time is that so many parents want to send their kids there. School officials took in too many students, and were hauled before the City Council last week by angry neighbors.

That's saying something in a part of the city that's seen such huge enrollment declines that four LAUSD schools sit shuttered.

It's the responsibility of the city - starting with Councilman Dennis Zine - to find a way that Ivy can be both the pride of parents and its community.

The City Council took the correct first step Wednesday by giving Ivy the rest of the school year to reduce enrollment, while vowing to help it find another location to accommodate the growing student body. Now school officials must make good on the offer and truly assist the school and its parents in finding another location.

It shouldn't be that hard. There are those four schools that LAUSD officials have so far refused to sell to Ivy. Perhaps the mayor, with his new power over the LAUSD bureaucracy, could insist on some sort of mutually beneficial arrangement.

Ivy Academia is far from perfect. But this is also a school that had the highest academic test scores of any independent elementary charter school in Los Angeles for two years.

Something right is going on at its two campuses, and that something ought to be nurtured, not stamped out by the angry villagers.


►FOR A COMPLETELY OPPOSITE TAKE on the Nobel Hypothesis ("Kids need time to think and to learn for themselves") and Card's "Too Much Homework" check out the following as parents, facing an emphasis on testing and the desire to get their children into good schools, turn to private tutoring for kids as young as 3:


TUTORS PREPARE THEM -- FOR PRESCHOOL AND KINDERGARTEN | LATimes Sept 24



EVENTS: Coming up next week...
*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213.633.7493
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213.633.7616


• LAUSD BOARD OF EDUCATION & COMMITTEES MEETING CALENDAR



What can YOU do?

• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Marlene.Canter@lausd.net • 213-241-6387
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Julie.Korenstein@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Mike.Lansing@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Jon.Lauritzen@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
David.Tokofsky@lausd.net • 213-241-6383

...or your city councilperson, mayor, the governor, member of congress, senator - or the president. Tell them what you really think!
Call or e-mail Governor Schwarzenegger: 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.
• Register.
• Vote.


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




Scott Folsom is a parent and parent leader in LAUSD. He is President of Los Angeles 10th District PTSA and represents PTA as Vice-chair the LAUSD Construction Bond Citizen's Oversight Committee. He serves on various school district advisory and policy committees and is a PTA officer and/or governance council member at three LAUSD schools. He is also the elected Youth & Education boardmember on the Arroyo Seco Neighborhood Council.
• 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 as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. 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 SUBCRIPTION LIST E-MAIL smfolsom@aol.com with "SUBSCRIBE" AS THE SUBJECT. Thank you.