In This Issue:
 |
| • |
LAUSD BOARD REVIEWS THE iPAD PROGRAM |
|
| • |
Title I: LAUSD BOARD TO CONSIDER CHANGE IN POVERTY-AID FUNDING |
|
| • |
SEPARATION
OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS FROM THEIR CLASSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
SCHOOL YEAR UPSETS PARENTS, TEACHERS & ADMINISTRATORS |
|
| • |
Funding
Formula+Accountability Plan sent back to drawing board: LCFF/LCAP
REGULATIONS GO BACK FOR REWRITE, STAY TUNED FOR JANUARY |
|
| • |
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:
|
|
|
|
Conspiracism reigns supreme. The black helicopters.
The grassy knoll. The evil plot to
subvert/privatize/de-unionize/charterize public education by Broad
+Gates + the Waltons. And/or Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg and
Pearson, LLC. See and check-off the 41 enumerated clues in: “By the
numbers: HOW TO TELL IF YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IS INFECTED BY THE BROAD
VIRUS” | http://bit.ly/jqDocs
A mental health professional once warned me to not be so paranoid that it shows.
• “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you, “Joseph Heller’s Yossarian says in Catch-22.
• William S. Burroughs says that: “Paranoia is just having the right information.”
• Satchel Paige famously said: “Don’t look back – something may be gaining on you!”
The great conspiracy of the seventeenth century, The Gunpowder Plot,
unraveled 408 years ago Tuesday when Guy Fawkes was discovered guarding
36 barrels of gunpowder placed under the Houses of Parliament on Nov, 5,
1605.
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
At the time the Pope was considered a conspirator. Guy Fawkes’ masked
image in the movie “V for Vendetta“tells us: “People should not fear
their government, the government should fear the people.”
It’s doubtful that Guy Fawkes was that kind of Jeffersonian democrat.
It’s doubtful that John Deasy plots at midnight to undo and overthrow
the elected LAUSD board of education.
Doubtful …but not proven. One way or the other
Submitted for your disapproval: On Saturday morning at six minutes
after midnight during a three day holiday weekend the superintendent
had a surprise change to the Tuesday School Board Meeting agenda
e-mailed out – calling for a new agenda item: To forward Phase 2 of the
Common Core Technology Program (iPads for Everyone) - to the Bond
Oversight Committee. At eighteen minutes after midnight the agenda
change appeared on the bulletin board at the Beaudry School District HQ…
just in time for the minimum 72 hours notice required by law -- even as
the apparent consensus at last Tuesdays’ Board of Ed Meeting was to
tone down the urgency and be a little more deliberate in the iPad
deliberations..
Deasy is a famous early riser – the working past midnight is a new wrinkle.
• In fairness, agenda item #43 is not a new piece of business – it’s a
previously offered compromise, discussed Nov. 5th and resurrected at
midnight as an alternative to Monica Ratliff’s “go-slower-and-smarter
plan”, agenda item #41. And Monica Garcia’s “Give Me the Money” agenda
Item #42.
• In bending-over-backwards fairness: The attributed author of the
zombie plan is the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction,
the lame duck Dr Aquino.
• There is a job search ongoing for a new occupant for the office of DSI.
• An office is a room in a building. A deputy superintendent is a real person. Education is a people business.
• All of Phase 2 and beyond will take place under the direction of the next DSI.
• Maybe that person should propose their own plan.
A 4LAKIds reader/Ed Tech industry insider writes:
“Last night Deasy pulled a fast one.
“He changed the agenda to include the passing of Phase 2 on Tuesdays’
board meeting. He sold his Apple stock and is back in the meetings and
in fact running the whole show. Vladovic is being manipulated and afraid
to make a move. Galatzan and Garcia are backing him. Zimmer is the
swing man and is too soft to stand up to what he ultimately knows is
wrong and has drunk the Kool-Aid on the Office of Civil Rights language
that Deasy, Aquino and the rest of the tribe keep throwing around.
“At this point you must know I could care less who won that RFP, but
this is a Civil Rights issue when you give "every student" in the
district of LAUSD something that will not take them one step forward,
but rather 5 steps back. I could theorize about the incentive to do this
for the next 10 years, but that's irrelevant.”
[Our correspondent continues:]
THE BIG QUESTIONS:
1) BOND MONEY: is it really legal to use for devices + software
2) PRICE: They keep repeating that the Apple option was the lowest
price, but that's not true. The alternative software was the cheaper
option by some $80+ million dollars
3) THE SCORING: It is still unclear that this was scored fairly. I can't
find any evidence of that anywhere. Some speculate that there was one
line that eliminated all the other options (like re-purposed or
refurbished content being unacceptable), but I have heard from multiple
sources that Pearson "digitized the text book and added video and
animation" and whatever other confusing mechanisms they put in place to
illustrate...acceleration for instance.
4) THE RELATIONSHIPS: Cooling off period or not, the relationship
between Deasy/Gates, Aquino/Pearson, Aquino/Codding, and Codding/Deasy
are undisputable. In Tokofsky's famous last words, "This was a deal
looking for an RFP".
5) CONTENT! Who buys unfinished, unproven, unseen, content up-and-down
K-12 for Math & ELA??? No one. This whole BS about the content being
"finished and available as soon as they sign phase 2", or that they
"don't want to overwhelm the teachers with too much at once", is
ridiculous. If it's done, then show everyone what it looks like.
THAT’S the Civil Rights issue...as I see it”
[End quote]
Q: Was the “Midnight Posting” of the revised agenda legal?
A:The Brown Act requires a local agency to post notice and an agenda at
least 72 hours in advance of any regular meeting (§ 54954.2(a)
The Brown Act INCLUDES weekends and holidays when computing the 72-hour
requirement of section 54954.2. The language of that section provides
that “[a]t least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body
of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a
brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or
discussed at the meeting including items to be discussed in closed
session.” Nothing in that section or other sections of the Brown Act
indicates that holidays or weekends are excluded.
So, while this is apparently legal, the posting of these revisions at
midnight of a holiday weekend demonstrates intentional minimal
compliance, bad faith, and ethical turpitude.
The pending question is not about policy or process. Like comedy, it’s
about timing. Maybe I make too much of a small thing, but unlike comedy –
and I think Drs. Deasy+Aquino will agree - this is not very funny.
....Perhaps, gentle reader, 4LAKids is wrong to expect a higher ethical
standard from the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School
District. He is not, after all, a kosher meat packer.
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
LAUSD BOARD REVIEWS THE iPAD PROGRAM
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Weekly Update | Week of November 11, 2013 | http://bit.ly/HMiqQl
7 November 2013 :: A full-day meeting of the Board of Education was
held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, to discuss the LAUSD iPad project.
Board Members asked staff pertinent and challenging questions about the
massive program which aims to put an iPad in the hands of every District
student. Although Phase 1 of the rollout has certainly had its share of
problems and unanswered questions, the Board indicated its commitment
to moving forward in a slower, more deliberate manner. After hearing
glowing testimonials from those selected by Common Core Technology
Project leadership, some of the more difficult issues regarding ongoing
funding, depreciation, storage, parental liability, professional
development, curriculum and infrastructure were raised. While staff
attempted to respond, it was clear that many unanswered questions
remain.
Monica Ratliff had asked AALA and UTLA to conduct surveys among the
Phase 1 school staffs and the general responses from the administrators
that we published last week were part of the District report. While the
UTLA survey results were not available for the meeting, AALA has
obtained them. It is obvious that teachers are key in the successful
implementation of this project and that professional development and
support for them must be addressed. The survey results clearly indicate
that teachers need much more support and training on the use of the
iPads in order to feel comfortable with them in the classroom. For
example, only 18 percent said that the District had provided them with
adequate training; 26 percent say the Pearson lessons are effective;
fewer than half feel comfortable using the iPads for classroom
instruction; and the bulk of teachers only use them about one hour per
week. While over half of the respondents indicated they had participated
in 11 – 20 hours of
training, they still felt that it was not sufficient. We are concerned
that ongoing professional development for teachers and administrators
was conspicuously absent from the District presentation at the Board
Meeting and hope that staff will look critically at the responses from
the teachers. While there is no question that the iPads improve student
engagement, school-site personnel must feel comfortable with both the
device and the built-in lessons in order for the iPad to be an effective
instructional tool. At this point, only 36 percent of the respondents
agree that it is.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Ratliff made a cogent, timely and
comprehensive motion that we support. The entire motion is printed below
and will be voted on by Board Members at their next meeting, November
12, 2013.
1) The District should focus on Phase 1 of the Common Core Technology
Project this academic year, 2013-2014. All necessary policies,
protocols, and practices related to the technology project should be
worked out during Phase 1, including parental liability, the development
of effective parent training modules geared to each school span
(elementary, middle and high school), and a detailed procedure for how
school communities, including parents, make the decision whether to
allow students to take the devices home.
2) Keyboards should be purchased for every Phase 1 high school student
and middle school student to better inform us of the possibilities and
to allow the keyboards to be used during testing. A number of keyboard
sets should be purchased for the shared use of classes at every Phase 1
elementary school for the above-mentioned reasons.
3) Now that the District has hired an evaluator to evaluate the use of
iPads at Phase 1 schools, the District should also analyze and evaluate
the many programs that are being conducted across the District that
involve other devices and curriculum such as the use of laptops for
students at Ivanhoe, the use of Springboard curriculum at Francis
Polytechnic High, the use of Google Chromebooks at KIPP charter middle
schools in South LA and East LA and the use of ST Math at several
schools.
4) Furthermore, in light of the fact that our ninth graders are now
responsible for meeting the A-G requirements with a C or better, a
separate pilot program should be developed in conjunction with key
stakeholders, particularly parents, for several non-Phase 1 OCR high
schools. The program should provide a laptop to every teacher and
student; the laptop should go home if the parents agree; the program
should include software chosen by teachers and administrators at the
school site; and the program should include information regarding all
surrounding free Wi-Fi locations and an investigation regarding the
feasibility, cost, and possible benefit of also providing home Wi-Fi
access or subsidized home Wi-Fi access. The BOE can then compare the
lessons learned in iPad Phase 1 high schools with laptop non-Phase 1
high schools as we move into future phases.
5) The evaluator should provide the District and BOE with an evaluation
at the end of the 2013-2014 academic school year related to Phase 1 at
the Phase 1 schools, the many non-Phase 1 schools that use other forms
of technology and curriculum across the District, and the schools in the
laptop pilot described in paragraph 4. The District should use the
information learned from the evaluations to draft a well-crafted,
data-driven potential Phase 2 that may or may not be a continuation of
the Apple/Pearson contract and that may or may not involve devices in
addition to iPads if the research shows those devices are the best
technology for our students at particular grade levels or schools.
6) In June or July 2014, the District should bring Phase 2 before the BOE for a vote.
Title I: LAUSD BOARD TO CONSIDER CHANGE IN POVERTY-AID FUNDING
By Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/1ftVMre
11/10 /13 :: Just two years ago, students at the Sherman Oaks Center
for Enriched Studies could get homework help, take college-prep classes,
go on after-school field trips, visit the school nurse — services
funded by federal money earmarked for educating low-income youngsters.
Today, those programs have been scaled back or eliminated altogether,
the result of a decision by the Los Angeles Unified school board to
divert the money from schools with relatively large numbers of poor kids
to campuses with even higher need.
Two San Fernando Valley school board members are now trying to get that
money back for SOCES and about a dozen other schools that lost their
Title I funding when the district tightened its eligibility rules.
Tamar Galatzan and Monica Ratliff want to return to the previous
guidelines, so schools with low-income enrollments of 40 to 49 percent
could again qualify for the federal money. The guidelines that took
effect last year set the threshold at 50 percent.
“That cutoff was random,” said Galatzan, the West Valley representative
who has been working on the Title I issue with parents and teachers at
the affected schools. “The money is supposed to go to schools to support
academic achievement for students living in poverty. A school that is
49 percent low income has the same issues, and the same needs, as a
school that is 50 percent.”
Ratliff, recently elected to represent the East Valley, is a co-sponsor of the plan.
Facing a 10 percent cut in the district’s $342 million Title I
allocation, the school board voted in December 2011 — Galatzan voted no —
to raise the threshold as a way to minimize the impact on schools with
the highest need. Money that would have gone to schools in the 40-49
percent range instead went to those where at least 65 percent of the
students were poor.
That meant that SOCES, with a low-income enrollment of 49.07 percent,
lost $400,000. Eight other Valley campuses and 14 other schools across
Los Angeles Unified lost anywhere from $100,000 to $600,000 each.
Several of those campuses subsequently converted to charter schools so
they could obtain state grants that helped offset the loss in Title I
money.
District officials did not respond to a request for next year’s
estimates of low-income enrollment, so it was unclear just how many
schools would be affected if the lower threshold is reinstated.
“The amount of 400,000 — it’s not something you can possibly do
fundraising to make up,” said Hooshik Bayliss Nazarian, whose son is an
eighth-grader at SOCES. “People think we’re well-off, but most of us are
blue-collar workers, living paycheck to paycheck.
“A magnet school like ours, kids from poor areas make the choice to come
here, and then we’re not able to help them. And they wonder if they’ve
made a mistake to come.”
Nazarian said she and other SOCES parents, along with those at Dahlia
Heights Elementary and Palms Middle School, plan to rally at Tuesday’s
board meeting. They are expected to speak about the loss of Title
I-funded tutors, counselors and other staff and how that has impacted
student success.
Backers of Galatzan’s resolution also have launched an online petition, which by late Friday had some 750 signatures.
“When board members are voting, they’re thinking about what’s good for
their own district,” Nazarian said. “But the boundaries shouldn’t be
there when they’re voting on something that affects all of the kids.”
With the state implementing a new funding system that provides more
money for poor students and English-learners Galatzan said she hopes her
colleagues on the board will consider a return to the 40 percent
threshold.
“Every school, no matter what their percentage, wants extra funds for
summer school, for after-school tutors, for intervention — all of those
academic support services,” she said. “None of the schools have enough
money. But those in the 40 to 49 percent range have no other option.”
●● smf: HOW POOR DOES A SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY HAVE TO BE TO HAVE A SCHOOL NURSE, A LIBRARIAN OR AN AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM?
This return-to-reason is extremely good thinking – just like the
previous decision to decrease participation in Title I funding –
proposed by Supt. Deasy at the suggestion of Ed. Secretary Duncan – was
extremely bad thinking.
Just like the 50% cut-off was random, so is 40%.
The Board of Ed could actually increase Title I participation to 35% of
low income enrollment (the federal limit) serving even more youngsters!
SEPARATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS FROM THEIR
CLASSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR UPSETS PARENTS, TEACHERS &
ADMINISTRATORS
TAKING PARENTS OUT OF THE EQUATION: PRINCIPALS ARE
"SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION" IF THEY DON’T REORGANIZE THEIR CLASSES
AS DEMANDED.
Opinion: L.A. schools should not separate non-English-speaking children
by Raul A. Reyes, NBCLatino |http://on.nbclatino.co/1b8NTTH
5:00 am on 11/04/2013 :: An education controversy is brewing in Los
Angeles. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is planning to
separate non-English speaking elementary students from other students
in core classes. These changes are to be made soon, although it is
almost three months into the school year. According to the Los Angeles
Times, LAUSD Superintendant John Deasy believes that too many English
Learners are learning “Spanglish” from their fellow students, rather
than proper English.
The move by the LAUSD has rightfully angered parents, teachers, and
principals. While the district’s experts say the plan is a sound idea,
common sense and past experience suggest that it may not be. It opens
the door to classifying Spanish-speaking pupils as “second-class
students” simply because they are not proficient in English.
“Kids with little or no English are going to be segregated and told
they’re not good enough for the mainstream,” one mother of a
kindergartner told the L.A. Times. ”Kids learn from their peers, and
they’re not going to be able to do that anymore.” Meanwhile, 17
principals from South L.A. schools have signed a letter to their local
superintendent expressing their opposition to the policy. They pointed
out that Spanish-speaking students will be uprooted from their friends
and familiar teachers, and that segregating students would create a
“chasm” between them. These concerns are all valid. It seems illogical
that schools trying to teach students English will now be forced to
separate these students from their English-speaking peers.
The LAUSD is the second-largest school district in the country. It is
73 percent Latino, and contains roughly 161,000 students learning to
speak proficient English. LAUSD is legally obligated to do better by
these English Learners, because in 2010 the federal Department of
Education launched an investigation into whether they were violating the
civil rights of English Learners by not properly educating them.
Under the terms of a 2011 settlement, the district agreed to implement
changes, which resulted in the new “separate learning” policy. The
unfairness here is that the LAUSD has made mistakes in how it educates
English Learners – yet it is students who will be paying the price for
the district’s errors.
The LAUSD English Learner Master Plan states that, “…a student’s
education should not be determined by his or her race, ethnicity,
linguistic background, or socio-economic status.” Unfortunately, in the
past reality has diverged from these ideals. A 2009 University of
Southern California study found that once students were designated as
English Learners and put in special classes, they remained there for too
long. Almost 30 percent of the LAUSD students put in the English
Learner classes during primary grades were still in them by high school.
Even more surprising: 70 percent of English Learners were U.S.-born.
Although LAUSD experts believe that their plan will enable students to
learn English faster, the Christian Science Monitor interviewed
education experts who were divided on the issue. The U.S. Department of
Education suggests that the “best practice” for English Learners is
peer learning between native- and non-English speakers. So the district
would be wise to come up with teaching methods for English Learners
that do not set them apart from other students.
This is a tall order. Consider that the LAUSD is bound by the Supreme
Court decision in Lau v. Nichols (1974) to provide equal educational
opportunities to all students, regardless of their language abilities.
Or that the LAUSD plan may have a broader national impact on other
districts as well. Given such complexities, the least the district
could do is delay implementation of these changes until the start of the
next school year, so as to minimize disruption to students.
The LAUSD should not return to the days of “separate but equal” in
education. All students deserve an equal chance to learn and succeed –
together.
Opinion: L.A. schools should not separate non English speaking children raul reyes nbc final education NBC Latino News
NBC Latino contributor Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors.
Funding Formula+Accountability Plan sent back to
drawing board: LCFF/LCAP REGULATIONS GO BACK FOR REWRITE, STAY TUNED FOR
JANUARY
►STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION STRUGGLES WITH LCFF IMPLEMENTATION
by Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Report | http://bit.ly/1bkbAvW
November 08, 2013 :: Enduring one of the longest public hearings in
recent years, the California State Board of Education Thursday passed on
until January a decision over regulatory options for governing the
state’s new school funding formula.
The marathon, six-hour debate drew nearly 200 speakers from across the
state including parents, students, teachers, district superintendents,
advocacy groups and even a state legislator. But in the end, the board
appeared to be largely where they were at the beginning of the day –
still struggling with how to provide operational governance over the
landmark Local Control Funding Formula.
“I feel like this is moving very fast – that’s part of what I’m
concerned about,” said board member Trish Williams. “Because this is
really a different system, really different.”
Although the summer budget agreement between Gov. Jerry Brown and
legislative leaders gave significant direction on how the new funding
system should work – actually defining key elements is proving
politically problematic.
Brown wants local school officials – not Sacramento – to have as much
authority as possible over spending decisions. But lawmakers included in
the plan accountability requirements that seem to simultaneously call
for spending restrictions.
Draft regulatory language offered to the board would seem to suggest
that the Brown administration wants flexibility to rule the process. But
there may be reason to believe the board is reconsidering its options,
after hearing testimony Thursday from parents of English learners, civil
rights advocates and representatives of low-income families – including
state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, who made her appeal in
person.
Advocates for restrictive regulations are concerned that state money
provided specifically for the educationally disadvantaged, might be
spent elsewhere.
The potential shift in thinking may have been best expressed by board
member Sue Burr, who previously served as executive director of the
state board and as the governor’s top education staffer. “We are very
open to what you had to say,” she said. “And I do expect that what you
saw today will look very different from what you will see in January.”
She did not articulate what changes might be considered.
Any move away from flexibility, however, will be resisted by schools and
their representatives – who were also well represented at the
Sacramento hearing.
The question centers on a key phrase in the enabling legislation that
requires that the targeted state grant money be used to “increase or
improve” services for the educationally disadvantaged.
The draft regulations pending before the board would allow districts to
satisfy this key mandate by either “spending more, providing more or
achieving more.” But under this proposal, local school boards – not the
state or county regulators – would be empowered to define those
benchmarks.
Advocates for the disadvantaged students have pointed out that one of
the governor’s motivations for pushing for the restructuring program and
the targeting spending was a matter of civil justice. “These proposed
regulations would do little to correct the historical inequities decried
by our governor,” a coalition of civil rights and community groups led
by Californians Together said in a letter to the board earlier this
week.
“Rather than ensuring that the LCFF funds generated by high-needs
students are spent wisely…these funds could be used to offset LEA costs
in other areas and underwrite the educational programs of non-needy
students.”
__________________
►AFTER FIVE HOURS OF TESTIMONY, STATE BOARD SENDS FUNDING LAW REGS BACK FOR REVISIONS
By John Fensterwald, EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/19b8ntD
November 7th, 2013 :: Staff and members of the State Board of
Education promised to revise proposed spending rules for the new school
funding system after hearing speed testimonies Thursday from
Californians from all corners of the state. The speakers disagreed on
what they wanted but largely agreed they didn’t like some of what they
saw.
Sue Burr, a State Board member active in planning the funding
regulations, promised speakers the board would consider their criticisms
and comments.
Sue Burr, a State Board member active in planning the funding
regulations, promised speakers the board would consider their criticisms
and comments.
Promising that the revision the State Board will vote on in January
“will look different,” board member Sue Burr, who has worked closely on
the proposed regulations, said, “This was a first shot, a draft. We are
open to what you had to say today.”
There was no consensus on what the 188 speakers – school
superintendents, executives of advocacy organizations, parents needing
interpreters, high school students and teachers – had to say during the
orderly but often impassioned one-minute testimonies that went on nearly
five straight hours. But that was predictable.
The Local Control Funding Formula unknots the state-imposed rules that
had restricted the use of K-12 dollars, directs more money to
disadvantaged children and shifts control over spending to school
districts. The tension between advocates for equity and defenders of
flexibility was reflected in comments on proposed options for meeting
the funding law’s key requirement – that districts provide additional
programs and services for high-needs students in proportion to the
additional revenue that the funding law allocates for them.
Superintendents and administrators, with few exceptions (see letter by
Michael Hulsizer, chief deputy for government affairs for the Kern
County Superintendent of Schools) praised the flexibility of allowing
districts a choice of three options: spending more money on high-needs
students; providing proportionally more services for them; or setting
proportionally higher achievement goals and being held accountable for
them, even if that doesn’t tie directly to more dollars for high-needs
children.
“Outcomes are why we do the work we do. Outcomes should drive the
accountability piece,” said Tim Stowe, chief academic officer of
Torrance Unified. “We should have local flexibility that will allow us
to use resources and target those who need assistance.”
But parents and advocates for low-income students are suspicious of not
tying any goal directly to more money. They viewed that as an end-run
around the law’s goal of giving more to students who need an extra
boost.
“Don’t flex equity,” was the refrain of the day.
“Make sure money is spent on what it is meant for and not on another broken promise,” said a parent leader from San Bernardino.
Sen. Holly Mitchell said support of many legislators was based on the
commitment of more spending for students targeted for more funding.
Sen. Holly Mitchell said many legislators’ support for the funding law was based on the commitment for more equitable spending.
Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, chairwoman of the Legislative Black
Caucus, told the State Board “it is important to understand that for
many legislators, our support (of the funding law) was based on
discussion and commitments that equity for students with greatest needs
will be honored.”
But representatives of teachers and districts viewed the option of
strictly spending more on high-needs students as focusing on bean
counting while handcuffing districts that want latitude to shift money
to districtwide purposes benefiting all students.
“It starts to feel too similar to where we were with restricted
categorical funds,” said Greg Magnuson, superintendent of Buena Park
School District in Orange County.
Greg Magnuson said the intent of the Local Control Funding Formula is
local control, and the State Board should err on that side of the law,
then fix it in 3-5 years if it's not working to the benefits of
disadvantaged students
Greg Magnuson said the intent of the Local Control Funding Formula is
local control, and the State Board should err on that side of the law,
then fix it in 3-5 years if it’s not working to the benefits of
disadvantaged students
“We support efforts to protect local flexibility and resist attempts to
reinstate restricted dollars,” said a representative of the California
Teachers Association.
Disconnect between regs and accountability plan
The new funding law requires that districts create a three-year Local
Control and Accountability Plan setting goals for meeting eight state
priorities, including improving student achievement, addressing school
climate, expanding access to programs and meeting goals of readiness for
college and careers for all students as well as subgroups of high-needs
students. Districts would have to show how they’d spend money to expand
services to meet the goals.
But the proposed proportionality regulations, by creating separate
options for achieving more, spending more and providing more services,
failed to make clear connections with the accountability plan. That,
several board members indicated after listening to the testimony, was
probably a mistake.
“I don’t understand three options,” said board member Bruce Holaday. “It
could help build trust to have one option: provide more services.”
That’s what parents wanted to talk about at a meeting on the Local
Control Funding Formula he attended in Oakland, he said, listing
“after-school programs, more counselors, training sessions for parents
on how to prepare children for college and careers.”
“It starts with services, then attach money and achievement,” he said.
Board member Trish Williams said, “Spending more doesn’t mean much if
you haven’t gotten anything for it. You need to connect achievement
goals to what you are choosing to spend money on; sometimes more is less
effective than changing what you are doing through innovation.”
“Spending more is important,” responded board member Patricia Rucker.
“But you are right; you can be busy doing a lot of things, but are they
the right things?”
Not connecting spending and achieving in the regulations, Rucker said,
led speakers to “draw lines in the sand.” It also stirred deep-seated
suspicions, noted board member Carl Cohn, a retired superintendent.
“The testimony showed a lot about people over the years feeling they got
a bad bargain on a whole host of promises about serving students,” he
said. “There will not only be a challenge for us, but also ACSA and
CSBA” – the Association of California School Administrators and the
California School Boards Association, organizations representing school
administrators and school boards – “will have to step up and make sure
the climate will be one of transparency, inclusiveness and
participation.”
Roberto Fonseco of Los Angeles urged requiring each district to hire
experts to train parents in budgets and financial information.
Roberto Fonseco of Los Angeles urged requiring each district to hire
experts to train parents in budgets and financial information.
Parent after parent, some having driven from Coachella Valley, San
Bernardino and Los Angeles, urged the State Board to hold districts
accountable for reaching out and listening to parents. Some had specific
demands. Roberto Fonseca, a parent from Los Angeles Unified, said the
board should require that parents be trained and given access to budget
data. “You want people to understand how things operate at a school
site? You must train them at the school site.”
Cynthia Rice, director of litigation, advocacy and training with
California Rural Legal Assistance, called for a complaint process for
parents who have been excluded from participating in the accountability
plan.
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill in September – Senate Bill 344, by Sen.
Alex Padilla, D-San Fernando Valley – that laid out requirements for
parent engagement, and board members have shown no intent to be
prescriptive either. Draft guidelines for what will become a template
for the Local Control and Accountability Plan listed issues that
districts should address and questions they should answer but not
specific requirements. But local control requires community engagement,
board members indicated.
“We need to be clear about how transparency might look and feel,” Holaday said.
The law establishing the funding formula requires the State Board to
adopt the spending regulations by Jan. 31 and the template for the local
accountability plan by March 31. The board has indicated that it
intends to approve both in January, leaving no meeting in between to
review the next revision.
Board members took no vote, and, other than their wide-ranging
discussion, gave no explicit instructions on specific revisions to staff
and consultants from WestEd, the San Francisco-based education agency
that drafted the proposals.
“We have provided some guidance,” Board President Michael Kirst said, hopefully. “I know you will sort through it correctly
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
TEACHER UNION SURVEY SHOWS MIXED SUPPORT FOR iPADS http://bit.ly/17NeoTq
iPads: A MIDNIGHT SURPRISE: by email from: BoardAgenda@LAUSD.NET Sat, Nov 9, 2013 12:06 am Attached is the Revi... http://bit.ly/19NPYHQ
KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK STRESSES NEED FOR EARLY EDUCATION: Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Weekly Update... http://bit.ly/
NAEP: ONE TEST, THREE SCORING RUBRICS? ….or it isn’t how you play the game, it’s who keeps ccore that counts:... http://bit.ly/1bioc4G
BUILDING SCHOOL DISTRICT STABILITY EXTENDS BEYOND THE SUPERINTENDENT: By Charles Taylor Kerchner / Special to ... http://bit.ly/1d1vHOw
SCHOOL SURVEY EXAMINES CALIFORNIA’S COMMON CORE READINESS: Posted by Jeremy B. White, sACRAMENTO bEE cAPITOL a... http://bit.ly/1bglNr6
L.A. UNIFIED LOSES ROUND IN EFFORT TO KEEP TEACHER RATINGS SECRET: By Howard Blume, L.A. Times | http:... http://bit.ly/1bbOhV2
LAUSD iPAD STATUS LOOKS GOOD, SCHOOL BOARD VOWS ‘WE ARE COMMITTED TO THIS. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD’: from the Huf... http://bit.ly/1d13zv1
HOW TO GRADE A TEACHER: The usefulness of test scores is limited and should be treated that way + smf’s 2¢: By... http://bit.ly/1betmPf
LAUSD’s COSTLY iPAD PROGRAM REASSSESED: Neon Tommy | Brianna Sacks, Sara Newman, Elisabeth Roberts, Alexa Liac... http://bit.ly/1cRt1mK
@howardblume: Marathon meeting on iPads has reached public speaker
phase. Staff worked 2 win board and public support 2 keep going.
Los Angeles moves forward with proposal for free citywide WiFi http://engt.co/1a6c2wm
Retweeted by Scott Folsom
@howardblume: Jaime Aquino says Pearson curriculum for iPads is
complete, contrary to prior information. It's just premature to use it
all.
@4LAKids Tweets: Ratliff notes and seconds Aquino's comment that the CCTP is understaffed
@4LAKids Tweets: Aquino abuses the garden metaphor ... right out of Jerzy Kozinsky and "Being There"?
@4LAKids Tweets: Aquino speaks!
@afhyslop: Guys, this is getting comical: an extension-extension for #NCLB waiver-waivers: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaig … via @PoliticsK12
@4LAKids Tweets: @Monica4LAUSD just showed up late+loudly.
@4LAKids Tweets: @howardblume It will still require four votes to decide to decide.
@4LAKids Tweets: Re @lausd board mtg: Recusal requires no participation
in debate+discussion.. Where are @Monica4LAUSD and @TamarGalatzan?
“Remember, remember, the fifth of November…”: HAPPY GUY FAWKES’ DAY: "Man is least h... http://bit.ly/1b1GNnm
LAUSD RELEASES iPAD BUDGET: COSTS FOR IT SUPPORT, TEACHER COACHES RISE: Annie Gilbertson | | Pass / Fail | 89.... http://bit.ly/1cLVbiQ
SEPARATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS FROM THEIR CLASSES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR UPSETS PARENTS, T... http://bit.ly/1cLV8Ug
LAUSD ISSUING FAR FEWER TRUANCT TICKETS, REPORT SAYS: NIn a push to lessen police presence in schools, LAUSD i... http://bit.ly/1b1qKGa
LAUSD’S GROUP THERAPY SESSION: By Rick Orlov, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/1hdLPSW 11/3/13, 11:44 A... http://bit.ly/1aZGwiW
@4LAKids Tweets: The 'Who to follow' on my Twitter acct suggests @MarshallTuck and @SteveBarrLA. Talk about suspect advice!
@4LAKids Tweets: Q for #ewacc: What are states+school districts across
the US doing to address the requirement for online connectivity for
every student?
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700
What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Tamar.Galatzan@lausd.net • 213-241-6386
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Bennett.Kayser@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
Marguerite.LaMotte@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Monica.Ratliff@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Richard.Vladovic@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Steve.Zimmer@lausd.net • 213-241-6387
...or your city councilperson, mayor, the governor, member of congress,
senator - or the president. Tell them what you really think! • Find
your state legislator based on your home address. Just go to: http://bit.ly/dqFdq2 • There are 26 mayors and five county supervisors representing jurisdictions within LAUSD, the mayor of LA can be reached at mayor@lacity.org • 213.978.0600
• Call or e-mail Governor Brown: 213-897-0322 e-mail: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
• Open the dialogue. Write a letter to the editor. Circulate these
thoughts. Talk to the principal and teachers at your local school.
• Speak with your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Stay on top of education issues. Don't take my word for it!
• Get involved at your neighborhood school. Join your PTA. Serve on a School Site Council. Be there for a child.
• If you are eligible to become a citizen, BECOME ONE.
• If you a a citizen, REGISTER TO VOTE.
• If you are registered, VOTE LIKE THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT. THEY DO!.
|
