DEASY FLIP-FLOPS ON HEALTH ED: It’s a Graduation Requirement, not an Elective …but it’s optional

By smf for 4LAKidsNews

Friday, June 8, 2012  ::  In an “informative” (a memo) to the Board of Education [following] Superintendent Deasy drew a very indistinct line in his own shifting sand about how important Health Education is.

A month or so ago he proposed – through his surrogate Assistant Superintendent Jaime Aquino – to eliminate Health Ed as a graduation requirement for LAUSD; turning the course in into an elective … as part of a proposal that would essentially eliminate electives.

Much of that proposal proved unpopular – and never received board support – and the superintendent (as if he’d never read the proposal) stood up for Health Education:

Lessons taught in health class are too critical to be offered as simply an elective.

"We use this course for our work on many, many issues, like anti-bullying, healthy nutrition and lifestyle, etc.," he wrote. "Given this, I feel that it must remain in the plan.” LAUSD'S DEASY KEEPS HEALTH ED AS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION REQUIREMENT - The Daily Breeze | http://bit.ly/LCJHOP

On Wednesday Deasy issued his informative – citing previously discredited and/or repudiated policies and turning Health Education – a graduation requirement – into an elective …but it’s administrators, bureaucrats, bean-counters, charter and partnership and pilot school operators – who are the electors. Not students or parents.

Deasy essentially says:

• It’s OK for the Mayor’s Schools (PLAS) to not require Health Ed in the most impacted schools in LAUSD.
• Ditto for other partners – like MLA Partner Schools/LA’s Promise operated by Deasy’s partner in the LA Fund for Public Education Megan Chernin.
• Ditto for Pilot Schools and Charter Schools.
• And ditto for schools where putting Health Education into the matrix would present too great a hardship upon the master schedule. “The District will continue to allow schools that are electing to choose an alternate option for meeting the Health requirement to continue.”  (In other words, if it causes too much trouble or expense for adults we really don’t need heath educated students.)

All of this was apparently done without consulting Health Education professionals, at the staff or state level.  And some of the responsibility is transferred to UTLA in allowing that:

Pilots (sic) schools, through the MOU with the UTLA (ATTACHMENT B), are “exempt from all Board rules and District policies.”

Pilot schools are exempt from ALL Board Rules and District Policies? Really?

That is the language in the Memorandum of Understanding – but MOU’s are not statutory or even contracts – and the Ed Code gives the Board of Ed – and the Board of Ed only – authority for setting graduation requirements - whether such authority is assignable by other than the legislature is dubious.

The California Education Code (EC) establishes a minimum set of requirements for graduation from California high schools. The requirements should be viewed as minimums and support regulations established by local governing boards. http://1.usa.gov/LDNew6

The Deasy  informative cites as authoritive:

May 7, 2010: Reference Guide 5100.0 (ATTACHMENT C) (which) provided guidelines for providing credit for Health if schools choose to exercise the non-course options available to them,

going on to state:

This guide was pulled on June 5, 2012 because it contains language that is confusing to the field.

and cites the clarifying (two weeks later):

May 21, 2010: An Inter-Office Correspondence (ATTACHMENT D) from the former Chief Academic Officer was issued to High School Principals re-iterating that, “Health is and continues to be a graduation requirement”. It further stated, “There should be no elimination of Health classes in the master schedule. There should be no reduction in Health teachers.” However, in the same correspondence, schools were provided flexibility to meet the requirement with various options.

And that wasn’t confusing to the field?

I asked the LAUSD general counsel if Partnership or Pilot schools could set different grad requirements and he said he didn’t think so, only the Board of Ed sets grad requirements. But now, armed with this informative and previous memos and letters that (mis)interpret graduation requirements just about anyone can set their own graduation policy.

ASTERISKS ANYONE?

An LAUSD diploma – and that’s what traditional, pilot, network partner and affiliated charter schools issue – states that that the graduate has met ALL the graduation requirements …not some – or two from Column A and three from Column B. This interpretation of the requirements creates a two tier diploma system – the very thing this Board of Ed has been trying to avoid.

And will the superintendent be so generous in waiving the A-G Graduation Requirements? At one level one almost hopes so.

The Board of Ed needs to determine if any assistant superintendent or the superintendent himself has the authority to waive graduation requirements for entire student populations by writing a letter – and whether the policies in “the former chief academic officer*”’s letters and memos correctly reflect board policy.

Board Informative - Health Graduation Requirements 6-6-2012