The recent decisions by the LAUSD Board have determined winners among applicants to operate 24 new schools and 12 low-performing 'focus' schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) beginning in the 2010-2011 school year. The goal is to improve academic performance, somthing that LAUSD has seen deteriorate over the years. (Photo, right: LHS student protests LAUSD teacher layoff proposals, May 22, 2009. And, no, that's not a color-balancing error; the yellows shown are the actual shades painted on the buildings at LHS- an entirely separate problem.)SELECTION OF THE SCHOOLS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED
These selections were based on several factors. The voting was done on a local basis for each school as part of the "Public School Choice" process to determine what the parents, faculty, students, community and other interested parties wanted for each school. The results were evaluated by various teams making recommendations to Supt. Ramon Cortines. Cortines then used the information to send his recommendations to the Board where the final decision was made last month.
But how did Lincoln get into that group to qualify for such significant process? That's explained in the story published five months ago, on October 1, 2010, in EGPnews.com :
"LAUSD Identifies ‘Focus Schools’ Eligible for Potential Outside Takeover- The schools were selected based on the results of the latest Academic Performance Index that offers a complex view of incremental improvements of local public schools." By Paul Aranda Jr., EGP Staff Writer
http://egpnews.com/?p=13007
The problems considered were not just the low test scores but the "progress" made by schools in performance. Lincoln was low in test performance, as you can see in the story, but just as importantly, had not gained and instead, showed a negative for yearly progress in scores. I often criticize the way statistics that may be accurate in themselves, are manipulated by people to slant the picture to favor the presenter's objectives, and you see that with lots of local politicians as they try to make something out of what it is not.
Here, that's not the case and the low numbers, viewed in any light, still are low numbers that stand out for LHS because test scores went into a negative direction, too. The story fills in a picture that shows we have some very steep gains to be made if students coming out of these schools will have the level of education just to be considered "competent" as high school graduates. There's still the problem of the students that quit before graduation, adding to the roster of dropouts that LAUSD is becoming known for. Improving the way teaching is done could keep more in school. Finding ways to "engage" students is what most teachers try to do. If you can do that, it makes the rest of what you do as a teacher much more enjoyable as a teacher, and as a student, too. Being bored or lost is not what you want students to have as the high school experience. It goes for other levels, too, but I use observations and experiences of mine and of others that center on the high school range.
THE OUTCOME OF CHOICES MADE
"Teachers to Run Local Schools- Board turns northeast and eastside schools over to teacher applicants." By Gloria Angelina Castillo, EGP Staff Writer
http://egpnews.com/?p=16408 February 25, 2010. This report is on the Board's action just over a month ago, where you can see it was not a smooth process.
AJ Duffy, president of the teachers' union, UTLA, urged a rejection of outside applicants. No surprise there, as any union, not just the teachers, will oppose a threat to its membership's jobs and a weakening of union power. Another union leader echoed the same action, still a union-first, students-second or worse, in my opinion. In summary, there were disputes within the Board as Monica Garcia, Board President, favored teacher-led proposals over the outside applications, putting aside the choice recommended by Supt. Cortines, the person working on the recommendations report. You can see here that Garcia, continues to be concerned more with political influences than she is with what should be best for the students to improve.
Garcia, I will add for those not following these things much, has a lot owed to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for her job. She was on the staff of now-L.A. City Council Member for CD-14, Jose Huizar, then moved up when he left. CM Huizar owes much to Villariagosa himself, succeding him as CM in CD-14 when Villaraigosa won the election in 2005 for mayor. Much of the association with Villaraigosa is viewed as a negative now, with all the poor performance of the Mayor finally visible despite the spin that the Mayor and his staff put on things.
But getting to the impact on the students, we saw some dissension on the Board. It was between Garcia and Board member Yolie Flores who favored following the recommendations that the Superintendent presented. Flores did not prevail. This result, from other reports I read in the past, amounted to the Board rejecting a couple of charter school organizations that are the "gold standard" among charters, in favor of going to the untested proposals from the teachers' side. And if you consider that the influence of the LAUSD style on it's teachers imprints on their style to some extent, breaking away from those ideas is really not something of any realistic expectation.
Lincoln High School’s two applicants were approved. The Lincoln High SchoolI think that there should have been at least some less defensive attitude shown here. Something should have been done differently, some attempt to allow a charter school operation if it's going to work and help the students. Isn't that supposed to be the goal of the educational system, educating the students?
Focus Team was approved with reservations, while the ‘Law, Leadership in
Entertainment & Media Academy’ (LEMA) was strongly recommended by the
superintendent. There was no discussion regarding concerns of LEMA’s proposal to
pay students based on academic performance, behavior and attendance.
Eighty-five proposals were submitted for 12 low-performing schools and
24 new campuses that became available under the Public School Choice Resolution
approved last year. Cortines eliminated many of the applicants for submitting
identical proposals for different schools, for lacking details for
implementation, or lacking strong plans to help English Learners, among other
things.
The politics here are a strong influence. Garcia has consistently responded to situation with decision based on the influences exerted upon her by special interests, including the unions. The Mayor spent much time and energy in his first term as Mayor on trying to assume power over LAUSD schools. That is NOT within the scope of his powers as mayor, and he finally landed a partnership agreement with a few low performers that still have not shown any change from before. In fact, teachers in those schools voiced many complaint after the changes became effective. Not much to show here by the Mayor. Worse yet, the CITY where he was supposed to be managing, continued to show worsening conditions that only NOW he's forced to face up to.
What's to show for all this? Still a weakened school system that's got a money crisis, too. And the City is looking at 4,000 layoff to balance the budget, with services of all sorts being likely to be seriously reduced or eliminated across the city. So we need to see where all the changes approved by the Board will do any good. I am very skeptical since the LAUSD culture is really one that has no effective oversight of anything, tends to act way past the time something should have been done, and makes lots of decisions from the Board level down to the school level that don't make sense and perpetuate the same level of substandard education.
There are some fine products from LAUSD among the students graduating, but that's just it. They are graduating, a result of continuing student AND PARENT effort. Absent that, you add to the at-risk students population. Too often choosing to dumb down or lower the bar is preferred over finding ways to achieve higher goals. The Board talks about higer goals, everybody does. But they don't make them attainable by any plans or facilitations. The Fraud, Waste and Abuse in the system does not help either.
What I am talking about is not the handling of the "good students" that are really a pleasure to teach. They make their teachers look good and will rise to the top anyway. I am pointing to the other end of the spectrum with troubled students that need to be redirected. That may be the more sizeable portion of LAUSD students. Our students still can make some dramatic improvements with all the energy and potential they possess. The need that potential used to take advantage of the EXISTING opportunities for an education now, and not wait for some untested or theoretical solution as the LAUSD's savior as an institution. I used to remind my students of the following observation, or a variation of it, "This is the last time that you will have FREE education. In the future, you or somebody else will have to pay something for you to go to school, so you should try to get all you can now." I discussed this and the ways to do it. I did not just say this as a slogan but I have already written too much here to get into that.
It's a big job and the problems in the system are serious as they also affect getting the education job done. But we have to continue trying; and it might be a good idea to see what worked in the past and what now works for other districts that are doing better- so much so that parents have transferred their children to those districts.
That's the subject of another planned blog posting.
Posts
