SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF MUST BACK NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS UNDER BILL

LAURA OLSON , Associated Press/ AP California StaTe News Wire | http://bit.ly/1a8IAJw

Aug 30, 9:06 PM EDT  ::  SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Legislation that cleared the state Assembly on Friday could make it harder to create charter schools in California by requiring supporters to seek consent from at least some lower-level unionized school employees.

Under AB917, at least 50 percent of teachers and support staff, such as cafeteria workers or custodians, would need to back any effort to convert a public school to a charter or start a new one.

The bill's author, Assemblyman Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, said it would allow "employees who play a vital role in the education of our kids, whether they're in the classroom or not, to have a voice in whether we convert or create a new charter school."

Current law requires petitions for a new charter school to include at least half the parents who expect to send their children to the school or half the teachers expected to work here. To convert an existing public school, at least half the teachers working at that school must sign the petition.

The number of teachers and support staffers employed at a public school or expected to be hired at a new charter would form a pool of potential supporters under Bradford's bill. The 50-percent threshold could be met with any combination of teachers and support staffers.

The proposal to include other school employees in the petition process is sponsored by the Services Employees International Union and is supported by the California Charter School Association. The groups say doing so would give support staff a more substantive role in creating charters without overly burdening charter school petitioners.

"We simply acknowledge that when you're trying to change the entire culture of a school, that doesn't just include the teachers or the parents," said Myrna Castrejon, senior vice president of government affairs for the charter school association.

But opponents, including some Republicans and the Sacramento-based Charter Schools Development Center, say provisions in the bill are confusing and would create roadblocks to forming charter schools.

"With this new signature requirement, it will drive down the number of charter schools that are created in a given year and it will further prevent parents from pursuing education options," said Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto.

Eric Premack, executive director of the Charter Schools Development Center, said it's unclear who would be eligible to offer their backing as a support staffer for creating a new charter school, as opposed to converting a public school.

"It sort of assumes that you have an entity that's already employing people, when in fact you don't," Premack said.

Matt Stauffer, Bradford's spokesman, said support employees at working at other district schools would be surveyed about their interest in working at the proposed charter and could sign the petition.

The Assembly approved AB917 Friday on a 52-24 vote, sending it to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Brown vetoed an identical bill in 2011. In his veto message, the Democratic governor wrote that while support staff plays a vital role in school operations, "this bill would unnecessarily complicate an already difficult charter school petition process."

Bradford said in a statement he is continuing to push for approval in spite of the veto because he believes the support employees are critical to the successful operation of charter schools.

 

smf:

1. The alliance with SEIU and CCSA is one of  strange bedfellows.It is in CCSA’s interest to dilute the influence of teachers in charter petitions (which this bill does)  – but what does SEIU have to gain here? How many SEIU members are employed by charter schools? Or perhaps the question should be: How many SEIU employees will work in charter schools in the future?
2. Nothing here dilutes the influence of parents under The Parent Trigger – which requires absolutely no teacher or staff buy in.
3. This is the identical bill as 2011 with the identical governor. Why wouldn’t there be the identical outcome?

U P D A T E - LAUSD: STUDENTS CAN’T TAKE SCHOOL-ISSUED iPADS HOME

by Michael Linder KABC NEWS/TalkRadio 790 | http://bit.ly/1dsnyFZ

---

As the LAUSD prepares to roll out its first batch of iPads to students in 47 schools — a new development. The school district now says kids will not be allowed to take those tablets home. KABC’s Michael Linder has the latest.

 

update   ::  AUG 30, 2013 The quoted source for this story is niether an employee of nor  a spokesperson for  LAUSD. LAUSD  is NOT an agency of The City of L.A, December 13, 2012: Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced that Steve Reneker has been appointed as permanent general manager for the city's Information Technology Agency./ http://bit.ly/12Tmd5j Mr Reneker’s point and concerns  are well made and he is entitled to his opinion. It is unclear whether Mr Renenker spoke to KABC in his official capacity as City of LA Chief Information Officer or as a private citizen.

Undated report  [presumed Aug 29th] :: The Los Angeles Unified School District’s plan to equip each of its students with an iPad has hit a snag, families too poor to afford a broadband connection.

Steve Reneker who heads LA’s Information Technology Agency says its the about 30% of LAUSD students whose parents can’t afford a $40 a month or more broadband connection at home.

Reneker says, “They’re going to have a difficult time getting their school work done, let alone their parents being able to manage their student’s activities.”

The LAUSD is looking at $100 million a year in internet hook-up fees in student homes. Reneker says even if the Feds provide low-cost internet like libraries, the fees will still be substantial.

“LAUSD would still have to pick-up those costs, which for them is still about 1.5 million dollars a month to be able to have that broadband connection for those children that don’t have that in the at home”.

Prop 39 Co-locations: MAKING ROOM FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. Providing for them should not come at the expense of students in traditional public schools.

L.A. Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/1dwujYt

August 28, 2013  ::  When voters passed Proposition 39 in 2000, they surely had no idea of the headaches it would cause Los Angeles schools. Most Californians probably never even noticed the wording about providing space for charter schools, and if they did, they had little idea of what a charter school was. The chief purpose of the measure was to allow school bonds to pass with 55% of the vote rather than the two-thirds supermajority required up to that point. Schools were falling apart and classrooms were so tightly packed that many campuses operated on year-round, multitrack schedules. By making it easier to pass school bonds, Proposition 39 literally changed the school landscape.

But what Proposition 39 gives, it occasionally takes away. Now that the Los Angeles Unified School District has a little room to spare, charter schools — publicly funded, privately operated schools that are free from most district rules and state regulations — have been invoking the provision in the proposition that requires space for charter students that is "reasonably equivalent" to that in the district schools they would have attended. This usually means sharing a campus with a traditional public school. In most cases, the two must coordinate the use of playing fields, gyms, the cafeteria and other common areas.

But the effects go beyond figuring out how to divide up library hours. The California Charter Schools Assn. has been in a legal battle to gain more from L.A. Unified. Under the formula that it says should be used to allocate space for charters — a formula backed by state regulations implementing Proposition 39 — each charter school student would be allotted more space than a district student on the host campus. That's because charter schools, which are often subsidized through foundation grants, tend to have much smaller class sizes. The charter schools contend that they should be given a room for each class, even if that class has 15 students while a classroom of the same size at the traditional public school might have 30. They also claim that preschool classrooms and parent centers should be counted in the formula under which charter space is allocated.

This shouldn't be considered "reasonably equivalent." Nor is it a given that, when a host school's enrollment grows, it can reclaim some of the charter classrooms. Now that L.A. Unified will be getting significant new money from the state, it can afford to reduce at least some class sizes as well as expand art and science programs. Those will need space, and first priority should go to the traditional public schools.

That's not to minimize the contribution made by charter schools. Many have provided a superior education to students who otherwise would have been forced to attend lackluster or even terrible schools. When independent researchers examine whether students fare better in charter schools than they would have in the public schools, the answer for Los Angeles students is yes, they generally do. When there is extra space on a campus, it is unfair and wasteful — not to mention illegal — to withhold it from a charter school.

And L.A. Unified must take some responsibility for its current situation. It should have dedicated a far bigger proportion of its $7-billion school construction bond in 2008 to charter schools, providing them with grants to buy or rent their own campuses. But it didn't, so schools will continue to share. The question is whether the district must be held to the untenable standards laid out by the state's regulations. It won the latest round in court, but the charter schools association appealed to the state Supreme Court. In addition, L.A. Unified school board member Steve Zimmer plans to propose next month that the district seek legislative changes in the regulations. We support the district's position in court as well as Zimmer's attempt to gain some relief for its schools.

The advantages that charter schools offer deservedly make them an attractive option, but providing for charter students should not come at the expense of students in traditional public schools.

PATT MORRISON ASKS MONICA RATLIFF, THE NEW TEACHER ON BOARD

The fifth-grade teacher's improbable election victory brought her, and a new perspective, to the L.A. Unified School District board.

By Patt Morrison, LA Times | http://lat.ms/15a9vws

August 28, 2013  ::  It was a spur-of-the-moment thing that became momentous. Monica Ratliff, outspent by nearly $2 million, improbably won election to the L.A. Unified School District board. She's a second-generation teacher — her mother teaches Spanish at a charter school in Phoenix — and her new view, from the 24th floor of "Beaudry," the district's headquarters, is far different than it was from her schoolroom at San Pedro Elementary, on the edge of downtown. Voters in her San Fernando Valley district figured that if she could handle a classroom full of fifth-graders, she could manage the affairs of the second-largest school district in the country.

What's a nice teacher like you doing in a place like this?

Making a difference! I found out the Wednesday before the filing deadline that Nury Martinez was not running [again] for school board. So I looked up on my phone: How do you run? I'd been concerned over how the district seemed disconnected from the classroom, and here was my chance.

People talk about you as a swing vote and a board outsider. How do you see yourself?

One of the beautiful things about my election is my ability to remain independent. My commitment is to the students and the voters. I do think there's a tendency to forget the nitty-gritty of the classroom. Every [issue] that comes my way, I look at in terms of how does this impact the classroom. It's important to me that over time we provide more autonomy to our schools, to teach in a way they believe is best.

What kind of autonomy?

I think a huge amount of freedom should exist in terms of curriculum. I loved [San Pedro Elementary's] commitment to real literature; that wasn't necessarily something the district mandated or even supported. Every school is different, and to say one size fits all is a mistake. Some schools may choose to put more money into counselors. Some may put more money into structural security.

As a teacher, did you get memos from LAUSD headquarters and wonder, what universe are they living in?

A lot of times you would get mandates to teach more of this or that, and teachers would say, "When?" Teachers are told to teach so much, they can't fit it into the school day.

A lot of people hate Congress but like their representatives. People may love their kids' teachers but hate the teachers union.

Yes, absolutely. Teachers need to start addressing that. People talk positively about teachers [but] have real issues with the union. We [teachers] are here because of the students. We need to remind the public of that.

Did you have one or two superb teachers?

Absolutely. There was Mrs. Thrasher. She did a great job of bringing literature alive. And then Mrs. Cresto. This student was harassing me. She and I went classroom by classroom until we found him. She told him if he bothered me again, he would go to the principal's office, and he stopped bothering me. That made me feel very safe, that the school cared about my well-being. I would hope the LAUSD would feel the same.

How did your K-12 experience measure up?

In Phoenix, I thought I had received a fantastic education. But when I went to college [Columbia University], most of my fellow students were from private schools, and I realized they had done a great deal more writing, had received a lot more commentary on their writing, had been exposed to a wider breadth of literature. I was very disappointed by that. It's important to give our students an education that matches the education students might receive at an excellent private school.

Do you have any difficulty with disciplining teachers or with merit pay?

I don't think it is difficult for me. Recognition is really important, to say, "You are a rock star at teaching literature." It's also important to say "You're still in development in teaching algebra." That shouldn't be a bad thing as long as we're providing support. When you see weaker teachers, the question is how can we lift those teachers up?

What's your reaction to the teacher evaluation standards that the Los Angeles Times published?

I thought it was a little bizarre that anyone could look up a teacher and see the scores. Your neighbor could look up your scores. We should allow parents and interested community members to have access, but I think it would be best to have it at the school site rather than [a public site].

Did you look up your own?

I did. I thought, "They're OK, but all they've done is rank me compared to other teachers." It doesn't provide much detail about what makes you a strong this or a weak that. Not even as detailed as Yelp.

What about the new Common Core standards?

It's a good idea to focus on greater depth. It's a problem when we try to cover a tremendous amount of standards in one year. You'd have students who managed to merit passing but would have huge gaps in certain areas. It's not about following a curriculum to the letter; it's about teaching a student.

From your office window I can see from the Hollywood sign to East L.A. I am not seeing kids spending summers working on family farms. What about a longer school year or school day?

I don't know anyone who would be opposed to it. I think the question is do we have the money for it?

You come on the board after so much budget bloodletting and after the Proposition 30 school tax passed.

[After] I sat with the district's budget department, I was thinking, I don't know that this is as great as I thought it was. We started talking about a structural deficit. We need to make decisions about where we're going to put the [Proposition 30] money. What should be [the priority] at every school? For example, a school nurse, an assistant principal, a counselor, smaller class size?

"Reform" is the hot word in education. What does it mean to you?

I'm against these labels; it's almost like you're reform or you're status quo. When did that happen? When did education become about these two labels? Take charter schools. It's as if all reform is good, all charter schools are good, and I don't really think that's the case. There are going to be some fantastic things coming out of the quote reform movement, and some fantastic things have been part of our traditions over the years. Why are we going to get rid of these things?

Everyone says reform is for the kids.

The problem is adult agendas come into play, and we need to be very wary of those. If you're really doing it solely for the students, then you're also going to be able to be self-reflective and say this part of our agenda may or may not really be for the students. You've got so many fantastic ideas. What is stopping ideas from moving forward? This idea of bureaucracy, I haven't yet found where this bureaucracy is, I can't find the bureaucracy department to try to eliminate it.

My biggest goal is for people to feel confident in their local schools' ability to listen to them and serve their children.

What's your take on the "parent trigger"?

It didn't come out of nowhere. If parents had felt they were being listened to, there would have been no movement in this direction and the trigger would never be pulled. We should ask some questions: Why can't you pull the trigger in a school in Brentwood? Why is it only in low-performing schools?

Here's another thing to discuss: How are students being served when charter schools and traditional public schools have different discipline standards? Some charter schools can have parent volunteer requirements, whereas a traditional public school cannot. I think all schools need to be held to the same standards, and we need to discuss what they are.

Your widowed mom is Latina. Three-quarters of LAUSD students are Latino. What personally do you bring to that?

I have two younger brothers. When I was growing up, my mom would send me to their parent conferences. I think she felt very much like an outsider in the education system. They felt one of my brothers had a speech impediment; no, he just has an accent. Experiences like that led her to say, "Monica can go to the conferences." If we don't make our schools welcoming to parents, they will not come. I had back-to-school mornings for parents who were unable to come at night. There were times I would go to the house to meet with them.

LAUSD promises an iPad for every student by next year. Does that risk creating the perception that a computer notebook solves classroom problems?

I've been very impressed that both Dr. Deasy and Dr. Aquino [LAUSD superintendent and deputy superintendent, respectively] have been trying hard to get out the message that iPads are not a silver bullet, that our silver bullet is effective teaching. This is a tool, like a ruler or a protractor. It is not going to solve the education problems in this city.

You support vocational education, which some people think of as tracking.

I know, and the last thing I want to do is track my students. As one woman said to me, "My husband is a carpenter; he purchased this home as a carpenter; why are we telling students they can't be carpenters?" It's not about tracking, it's about allowing students to do what they want. Not everyone wants to work in an office.

You didn't sound very positive about Deasy when you were running. How about now?

I believe he's open to feedback, he's open to constructive criticism, I've really enjoyed working with him, and his commitment to students is without question. I thought it was great when he went to work as a cafeteria worker the other day. I'd love for him to sub for a day. Obviously I don't want him to be a bus driver! But it'd be great for him to go around and show that he understands what it's like.

CALIFORNIA STUDENT’S TEST SCORES DECLINE, LAUSD’S EKES UP

 

Find out how your local school or district faired on its API scores. Visit our searchable database containing all California schools.

Test scores of state’s students decline as educators prepare for sea change By Rob Kuznia, LA Daily News/Daily Breeze | http://bit.ly/1a3ElPj

LAUSD ekes gain on state API, other urban districts stumble By Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/17oofOi

8/29/13, 11:48 AM PDT   ::  Test scores released Thursday by the state of California revealed the first backslide in the overall score of the state’s students in years. Most education officials attribute the score decline to a transition period under way as schools prepare for a coming sea change in testing protocols. Schools in California have just one more year to fully implement Common Core, a national set of content standards that prioritizes critical thinking and real-world relevance over the bubble-in testing and rote memorization. California’s accountability program as currently configured will be around for just one more year. The Academic Performance Index assigns every school in the state a score between 200 and 1,000 based largely on students’ performance on California Standards Tests taken in the spring. (The state-set goal is for every school to reach an API score of 800.) For the first time since at least 2005, California’s API score slid backward, albeit by just two points, to 789. On the other hand, the state’s release also reveals that the students’ performance on the high school exit exam has never been higher, with 95.5 percent of students in the class of 2013 earning a passing score. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson accentuated the positive in a Thursday statement. “Despite the very real challenges of deep budget cuts and the ongoing effort to shift to new, more demanding academic standards, our schools persevered and students made progress,” he said. Bucking the trend of the slipping API scores was the Los Angeles Unified School District, which actually boosted its number by three points, to 749. But even this marked a notable departure from the double-digit gains LAUSD has achieved in each of the last several years. LAUSD officials noted that the three-point increase marked the second highest gain among all urban districts statewide, behind San Diego Unified, which picked up nine points for an API of 817. “For the second-largest school district in the nation to outpace nearly all urban districts in California in the API is an extraordinary accomplishment,” said Superintendent John Deasy in a statement. “I’m tremendously proud of our administrators, students, and teachers for achieving this result while the District remained in the throes of a devastating budget crisis.” Tim Stowe, Torrance Unified School District’s chief academic officer, said he believes Common Core will ultimately be good for kids, even if it means taking a hit on test scores. “It will help them develop into better critical thinkers and better 21st Century learners,” he said. “Whereas the more fact-driven CSTs have not done that. Educationally this is a step in the right direction, but we have an assessment system that doesn’t align.”

8/29/13, 12:14 PM PDT  ::  Updated: 31 secs ago  ::  Los Angeles Unified continued its climb up the state’s Academic Performance Index for the sixth consecutive year, one of only a handful of urban school districts in California to show improvement on a key measure of student success. After five years of double-digit growth, the state’s largest school district gained three points to score 749 on the annual API, which was released Thursday. The index is based on the results of standardized state tests and the California High School Exit Exam. By comparison, the state’s API fell two points, to 789, and such districts as Burbank, Glendale, Simi Valley, Long Beach and Pasadena also saw declines in their scores. At the same time, San Diego increased by nine points, to 817, while San Bernardino and Las Virgenes Unified reported two-point gains — to 729 and 896, respectively. “Taken as a whole, this year’s API results show that the LAUSD continues to make significant progress in providing students with a quality education,” Superintendent John Deasy said. “The picture is resoundingly positive for students who have long deserved it.” Among Los Angeles Unified schools, 36 percent hit the statewide target of 800 on a scale of 200 to 1000. A total of 25 middle and high schools reached that goal — four more than last year — while the number of elementary schools at that level slipped by seven,to 222. Among the campuses reaching that elusive mark for the first time were Anatola Elementary in Lake Balboa, which saw its score climb from 792 to 825; Nevada Elementary in West Hills, which went from 797 to 811; Napa Elementary in Northridge, edging up from 799 to 814; and Cleveland High in Reseda, which jumped from 789 to 807 — one of only nine high schools to surpass 800. Of the 171 charters authorized by Los Angeles Unified, 39 percent met or topped the 800 mark, compared with 44 percent last year, according to reports compiled by state and district officials. Statewide, 51 percent of schools hit the 800 target, a two-point drop from the previous year. In LAUSD, overall scores for African-American and Latino students rose by one and four points, respectively, while English learners showed the biggest improvement — a 28-point jump, to 706. For the first time, however, scores fell among white, Asian and Pacific Islander students. Deasy credited the district’s English-Learner Master Plan, which provides strategic intervention for struggling students, as well as efforts to reduce suspensions and keep kids on track for graduation. “What you’re seeing is the district making strategic investment in our youth,” he said. “The district is headed in the right direction.” Along with the API scores, the state released figures showing that 95.5 percent of the class of 2013 passed the CAHSEE, the best showing since the math and English tests were made a graduation requirement in 2006. In LAUSD, a record 69 percent of sophomores passed both parts of the exam on their first try. This compares with 67 percent the previous year and 44 percent a decade earlier. Students take the CAHSEE exam beginning in 10th grade, and those who don’t pass can retake it as juniors or seniors. Students must pass the reading, writing and math tests in order to get their diploma. “Despite the very real challenges of deep budget cuts and the ongoing effort to shift to new, more demanding academic standards, our schools persevered and students made progress,” state schools Superintendent Tom Torlakson said. “These results should give us confidence as we start the new school year, and our efforts to make college and career readiness a goal for every student move into high gear.” The academic report includes the Adequate Yearly Progress results, used to measure whether schools met federal benchmarks in the No Child Left Behind act. The NCLB benchmarks steadily increase annually, and schools had to reach a proficiency rate of nearly 90 percent in English and math to meet the federal standards. Those goals were met by 14 percent of schools statewide, 17 percent of charters and 10 percent of traditional schools in LAUSD. A consortium of eight districts, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, recently won a federal waiver from the NCLB targets. This will give them more flexibility both in how they measure student performance and in the ability to work toward improving academic performance. However, the remaining districts in California are still subject to those mandates, so even high-achieving schools that fall short of the goals are subject to structured intervention.

NEW LAUSD TECHNOLOGY PANEL TACKLES DETAILS OF iPAD PROJECT

By Barbara Jones, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/1dvI35H

8/28/13, 7:17 PM PDT   ::  A day after LAUSD handed out iPads to kids at two of its campuses, the school board’s Technology Committee started its own deep dive into the program that will put a tablet computer in the hands of every student by this time next year.

Chaired by Monica Ratliff, who gave up her teaching career after she was elected to the board in May, the panel got an overview Wednesday of Los Angeles Unified’s ambitious technology initiative. In a project that rolled out Tuesday, about 30,000 students at 47 schools will get iPads this year, with all 650,000-plus kids in the district being equipped with the portable computers in 2014-15.

“I can’t reiterate enough about the excitement in the field about improved instruction,” said Gerardo Loera, executive director of curriculum and instruction. “The feedback is overwhelmingly very, very positive.”

Although the technology project has been in the works for years and the district’s iPad purchase has made the national news, committee members had a lot of questions on the basics of the plan: Is there a cost to students? What happens if the device is damaged, lost or stolen? And just how does it fit in to what teachers do in the classroom?

Loera and Chief Information Officer Ron Chandler explained that the district will register each iPad so it knows who has which device, but there’s no cost to students — even if something happens to the tablet. However, there is software that enables the district to track and remotely “kill” a tablet, making it useless to thieves. There are also filters to prevent kids from accessing inappropriate material, both at school and at home.

Even more important, Loera said, is how iPads will help LAUSD implement the Common Core curriculum standards being introduced in 2014 and prepare students for college or careers. California and 44 other states have adopted the standards, which will rely on online tests to gauge student progress.

“This is led by instruction, but it’s powered by technology,” Chandler said. “It’s about the magic in the classroom.”

The iPads come preloaded with instructional software that teachers can use as tools in devising their lesson plans. The software is the main reason the cost of each iPad comes in at $678, well above what a shopper could pick up off the shelf at a big-box store.

The Technology Committee is one of several ad hoc panels organized by board President Richard Vladovic. He wants them to function as working groups, providing their colleagues with more in-depth information than available in past meetings.

Ratliff took detailed notes, pausing frequently to summarize issues and assigning Chandler and Loera lists of information she’d like to discuss in September. She also wants the public to weigh in with questions, which can be emailed to cctpquestions@gmail.com.

LAUSD ROLLS OUT iPAD-FOR-EVERY-STUDENT PROJECT IN THE SOUTH BAY

By Rob Kuznia, The Daily Breeze | http://bit.ly/17h6LU3

Third grade teacher Tiffany DeCoursey helps steer students in the right direction. Cimarron Elementary School in Hawthorne where all students received iPads to use in the classroom. First day of instruction with them in the LAUSD school. (Brad Graverson / Staff Photographer)

Queron Bailey, 3rd grade, writes his first sentence on the iPad at Cimarron Elementary School in Hawthorne, where all students received iPads to use in the classroom. (Brad Graverson / Staff Photographer)

8/27/13, 7:41 PM PDT |  ::  When third-graders at Cimarron Avenue Elementary School in Hawthorne walked into their classroom Tuesday morning, they saw a cart of iPads.

But Omar Mario Del Cueto, director of change management for the Los Angeles Unified School District, saw something akin to the first Model T rolling off the assembly line.

“This is our game-changer,” he said, referring not to LAUSD so much as to the entire field of education.

Tuesday marked the launch of an ambitious plan by the nation’s second-largest school district to equip all 720,000 students with an iPad by next fall.

In a sense it was the first trickle of the first wave of an approaching tsunami. The rollout was a ceremonial media event including just two schools, the other one being Broadacres Elementary in Carson.

In the coming weeks, 43 more schools will get their devices, culminating the project’s first $30 million phase.

Del Cueto estimates that the entire project will cost the district in excess of $500 million. That amounts to about 7 percent of the district’s entire $7.3 billion general-fund budget. The money for the iPads is drawn from a separate pot of voter-approved bond funds.

Del Cueto firmly believes it is worth every penny.

He says that, unlike laptops, which had their own heyday in recent years, the tablet computer — and in particular the iPad — is the perfect tool to prepare the district for Common Core, a national set of standards that prioritizes critical thinking and real-world relevance over memorization and lecturing.

“Here’s what’s new: All the knowledge of the human race is now at kids’ fingertips,” he said. “The new skills are going to be searching for information, making sure the information is from a credible and reliable source ... and organizing that information to create something and communicate it.”

Del Cueto envisages a future where a student’s entire portfolio from their K-12 career is contained in the portable device assigned to them, or in the digital cloud on which their assignments are stored.

Tiffany DeCoursey, the teacher of the third-grade class where Tuesday’s media event took place, shares Del Cueto’s enthusiasm.

“Look at their faces; they are so engaged,” she said of her students, as they worked on their first iPad assignment. “I think this is going to be the bridge way for a lot of children who we thought had so many deficits, but perhaps this is the type of tool that particular learner needs.”

The plan thus far seems to have few outspoken opponents other than Microsoft, whose public proposal for the contract lost out to Apple’s. In June, it was approved in a 6-0 vote of the LAUSD school board. At the time, the teachers union voiced moderate concern, unsuccessfully urging the board to delay the vote. A spokesperson with United Teachers Los Angeles couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

As for the students at Cimarron, they will soon begin using their iPads in the same way students have always used books. This means they will be able to take them home.

Del Cueto believes it is difficult to overstate the historical significance of the iPad plan. In conveying it, he invokes a hypothetical. Pretend John Dewey — the 19th century philosopher widely considered the father of modern education — was able to time travel to the modern era and get a tour.

“If you took Dewey to the airport and say this is how we get around, he would be blown away,” he said. “If you took him into a standard high school classroom today ... it would be so familiar.”

The iPad, he claims, is the beginning of a new age that will truly change classrooms as we’ve known them for 100 years.

U P D A T E: FIRST L.A.UNIFIED SCHOOL(S) GET iPADS - LAUSD launches its drive to equip every student with iPads

Two elementary schools — Broadacres in Carson and Cimarron in Hawthorne — roll out the tablet computers. Some question if they will help learning.

By Howard Blume, LA Times | latimes.com http://lat.ms/184sudY

• update of: FIRST L.A. UNIFIED SCHOOL GETS iPADS IN $1BILLION EFFORT: http://bit.ly/1cezN5S

Avery Sheppard, left, views a smiling Tiannah Dizadare on his iPad at Broadacres Avenue Elementary in Carson. The L.A. Unified school district launched its program to equip every district student with iPads at Broadacres and Cimarron Elementary in Hawthorne. (Bob Chamberlin, Los Angeles Times / August 27, 2013)

August 27, 2013, 8:35 p.m.  ::  Two local elementary schools became the first to roll out tablet computers Tuesday in a $1-billion effort to put iPads in the hands of every student in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

For Broadacres, in Carson, the tablets were an exhilarating upgrade for a campus that had no wireless Internet and few working computers. Technology was only marginally better at Cimarron, in Hawthorne, where the computer lab couldn't accommodate an entire class.

"This is going to level the playing field as far as what schools are doing throughout the district," said Principal Cynthia M. Williams of Cimarron, where 70% of students are from low-income families.

L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy has pushed for the technology, which will cost about $1 billion — half of that for the Apple tablets and about half for other expenses, such as installing a wireless network on every campus. The vast majority of the cost will be covered by school construction bonds, a payment method that has sparked some concerns and legal and logistical hurdles.

Not everyone is sold on whether the tablets will improve learning.

Still, the hope is that the effort will improve teaching and boost achievement — as well as put a school district composed mostly of low-income, minority students on an even footing with more prosperous students, who have such devices at home, at school or both.

"It gives us the sense of hope that these kids are being looked after, that they're now able to move into the future," said Dwayne Loughridge, a parent who also works as a Broadacres campus aide. "It gives them a sense of aspiration and inspiration ... that we're not left out."

To students in Karen Finkel's second-grade class, the tablets initially seemed like toys.

"I'm having fun on this iPad," said Beautiful Morris, who was using a photo-effects app to distort an image of her face in the manner of a fun-house mirror. She also tried out a kaleidoscope effect and a double mirror.

Her teacher's typically orderly class was distinctly turbulent in the morning as students explored their iPads amid a swirl of district staff and visitors.

By the afternoon, at Cimarron, third-grade teacher Tiffany DeCoursey was trying out a lesson inspired by the children's book "Have You Filled a Bucket Today?"

Students drew a bucket on their iPads with a finger, then typed in what they wanted it to contain.

It's the kind of activity that could be done with paper, pencil and crayons, but DeCoursey is excited by the potential of the device. "At the beginning of the year you usually have arts and crafts projects," DeCoursey said. "Now they can create movies. If they have a burning question and I don't have an answer, now they can Google. It's literally going to bring the world into the classroom, but positively."

DeCoursey had three days of training on both the iPad and the state's new learning standards, which she's supposed to teach with the devices.

That pace concerns Brandon Martinez, a professor at USC's Rossier School of Education.

"Having an iPad for personal use is not the same as using it to instruct students," Martinez said. "Before you put any kind of technology into the hands of students, the teachers have to be fully trained and capable of using it to teach."

Over the next two weeks, iPads will be distributed at 45 other campuses. The district's 650,000 students, from kindergarten on up, are supposed to receive them over the next year or so.

The district is paying $678 per device — higher than tablets cost in stores — with pre-loaded educational software that has been only partially developed. The tablets come with tracking software, a sturdy case and a three-year warranty.

The district is using school construction bonds, approved by Los Angeles voters, which didn't mention the purchase of iPads. This factor raised questions among members of the appointed Bond Oversight Committee.

School bonds typically pay for construction. The permanent installation of a wireless network, for example, would certainly qualify. And computers installed in a lab conform to spending rules, in the view of many, since they aren't removed from school grounds.

Tablets, however, are potentially a different matter because students will be taking them home. This raised a legal issue about spending bond money to pay for them.

For that reason, district officials told the committee in January that the tablets wouldn't leave the schools during this first test phase. After the oversight committee narrowly endorsed the project, district officials changed their minds.

Another issue was whether it's legal to buy tablets, with an estimated life of three to five years, with bonds that taxpayers would retire over 25 years. Early on, the district talked of using short-term bonds that would match the life of the tablets.

But officials have since decided that regular, long-term bonds can be legally used, provided that some of the money goes to projects, such as buildings, with a longer lifespan, said John Walsh, L.A. Unified's director of finance policy.

Even so, the devices also will consume a significant portion of money that could otherwise repair and maintain campuses, said Stuart Magruder, an architect who sits on the committee.

"I don't think we should be using bond funds for this purchase," he said.

For students and parents Tuesday, the focus was on the thrill of receiving cutting-edge technology. Parents had to sign a form taking responsibility for the devices, which Brenda Brandon was delighted to do just before school as her daughter, Krystal, 7, waited impatiently.

Said her father, Edward Brandon: "There was nothing like this when I was in school."

U P D A T E D: THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS: BOUGHT-AND-PAID-FOR BY THE GATES FOUNDATION – A Brief Audit of Bill Gates’ CCSS Spending

by Mercedes Schneider from her EduBlog deutsch29 | http://bit.ly/16QoQFB

[ referred by DianeRav | About Mercedes Schneider ]

  August 27, 2013   ::  This is a post about Bill Gates and his money, a brief audit of his Common Core (CCSS) purchases. Before I delve into Gates accounting, allow me to set the stage with a bit of CCSS background.

It is important to those promoting CCSS that the public believes the idea that CCSS is “state-led.” The CCSS website reports as much and names two organizations as “coordinating” the “state-led” CCSS: The National Governors Association (NGA), and the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Interestingly, the CCSS website makes no mention of CCSS “architect” David Coleman:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).  The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce. [Emphasis added.]

Nevertheless, if one reviews this 2009 NGA news release on those principally involved in CCSS development, one views a listing of 29 individuals associated with Student Achievement Partners, ACT, College Board, and Achieve. In truth, only 2 out of 29 members are not affiliated with an education company.

CCSS as “state-led” is fiction. Though NGA reports 29 individuals as involved with CCSS creation, it looks to be even fewer:

NGA first directly involved governors in nationalizing education standards in June 2008, when it co-hosted an education forum with the Hunt Institute, a project of former North Carolina Gov. James Hunt Jr. In December 2008, NGA, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve Inc. released a report calling for national standards. The report recommended “a strong state-federal partnership” to accomplish this goal.

Those three nonprofits answered their own call the next few months, deciding to commission Common Core. NGA and Hunt’s press releases during that time, and a paper describing NGA’s Common Core process by former NGA education director Dane Linn, provide no endorsement of such activity from more than a handful of elected officials. [Emphasis added.]

Also involved in creation of CCSS is Student Achievement Partners, the company David Coleman started in 2007 in order produce national standards. Student Achievement Partners has no work other than CCSS.

Now to Bill Gates and his money.

The four principal organizations associated with CCSS– NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and Student Achievement Partners– have accepted millions from Bill Gates. In fact, prior to CCSS “completion” in June 2009, Gates had paid millions to NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve. And the millions continued to flow following CCSS completion.

Prior to June 2009, NGA received $23.6 million from the Gates Foundation from 2002 through 2008. $19.7 million was for the highly-disruptive “high school redesign” (i.e., “small schools”) project, one that Gates abandoned.

After June 2009, NGA received an additional $2.1 million from Gates, the largest payout coming in February 2011,

…to work with state policymakers on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, with special attention to effective resource reallocation to ensure complete execution, as well as rethinking state policies on teacher effectiveness
Amount: $1,598,477 [Emphasis added.]

Years ago, Gates paid NGA to “rethink policies on teacher effectiveness.”

One man, lots of money, nationally shaping a profession to which he has never belonged.

As for CCSSO: The Gates amounts are even higher than for NGA. Prior to June 2009, the Gates Foundation gave $47.1 million to CCSSO (from 2002 to 2007), with the largest amount focused on data “access” and “data driven decisions”:

March 2007
Purpose: to support Phase II of the National Education Data Partnership seeking to promote transparency and accessibility of education data and improve public education through data-driven decision making
Amount: $21,642,317 [Emphasis added.]

Following CCSS completion in June 2009, Gates funded CCSSO an additional $31.9 million, with the largest grants earmarked for CSSS implementation and assessment, and data acquisition and control:

July 2013
Purpose: to CCSSO, on behalf of the PARCC and SBAC consortia to support the development of high quality assessments to measure the Common Core State Standards
Amount: $4,000,000

November 2012
Purpose: to support the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in helping States’ to build their data inoperability capability and IT leadership capacity
Amount: $1,277,648

October 2012
Purpose: to support strategic planning for the sustainability of the Common Core State Standards and the two multi-state assessment consortia tasked with designing assessments aligned with those standards
Amount: $1,100,000

June 2011
Purpose: to support the Common Core State Standards work
Amount: $9,388,911

November 2009
Purpose: to partner with federal, state, public, and private interests to develop common, open, longitudinal data standards
Amount: $3,185,750

July 2009
Purpose: to increase the leadership capacity of chiefs by focusing on standards and assessments, data systems, educator development and determining a new system of supports for student learning
Amount: $9,961,842  [Emphasis added.]

Gates money also flowed to Achieve, Inc.; prior to June 2009, Achieve received $23.5 million in Gates funding. Another $13.2 million followed after CCSS creation, with $9.3 million devoted to “building strategic alliances” for CCSS promotion:

June 2012
Purpose: to strengthen and expand the ADP Network, provide
more support to states for CCSS implementation, and build strategic national
and statewide alliances by engaging directly with key stakeholders
Amount: $9,297,699  [Emphasis added.]

CCSS is not “state led.” It is “Gates led.”

How foolish it is to believe that the man with the checkbook is not calling the CCSS shots.

The “nonprofit” Student Achievement Partners, founded by CCSS “architect” David Coleman, also benefits handsomely via Gates. All that Student Achievement Partners does is CCSS, and for that, in June 2012, Gates granted Coleman’s company $6.5 million.

In total, the four organizations primarily responsible for CCSS– NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and Student Achievement Partners– have taken $147.9 million from Bill Gates.

Common Core Gates Standards.

Let us now consider major education organizations and think tanks that have accepted Gates money for the express purpose of advancing CCSS:

American Enterprise Institute: $1,068,788.

American Federation of Teachers: $5,400,000.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: $3,269,428.

Council of Great City Schools: $5,010,988.

Education Trust: $2,039,526.

National Congress of Parents and Teachers: $499,962.

National Education Association: $3,982,597.

Thomas B. Fordham Institute: $1,961,116.

(For most of the organizations above, Gates has funded other reform-related efforts, including those related to charter schools, small schools, teacher evaluation, and data systems. My comprehensive listing of Gates grants for the organizations above [and then some] can be found here:  Gates Foundation Grants to Select Education and Policy Groups)

From the list of organizations above, I would like to highlight a few particular Gates purchases. First is this one, paid to the Fordham Institute:

Date: January 2011
Purpose: to track state progress towards implementation of standards and to understand how what students read changes in response to the standards
Amount: $1,002,000 [Purpose emphasis added.]

Even though CCSS was never piloted, Gates and Fordham want to watch state “progress” in implementing CCSS, and they even want to know how the untested CCSS shifts the curriculum– even though reformers are quick to parrot that CCSS is “not a curriculum.” This “tracking” tacitly acknowledges CCSS is meant to drive curriculum.

Next is this Gates purchase of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

Date: June 2012
Purpose: to support their education policy work in four distinct areas:
Exploring the Challenges of Common Core, Future of American Education Working Groups, Innovations in Financial Aid, and Bridging K-12 and Higher Ed with Technology
Amount: $1,068,788 [Purpose emphasis added.]

Gates is paying AEI to promote educational policy that bolsters CCSS. And Gates is getting his money’s worth from AEI “scholar” Frederick Hess, who offers these two articles advising “Common Core’ites.”

Third is the Gates purchase of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT):

Date: June 2012
Purpose: to support the AFT Innovation Fund and work on teacher
development and Common Core State Standards
Amount: $4,400,000

Even though AFT was not invited to the CCSS table until the “standards” had already been drafted by the CCSS Inner Circle noted above, and even though CCSS has not been piloted, AFT only called for a testing moratorium and not for a cease-and-desist of CCSS altogether. It appears that accepting $4.4 million in order to “work on teacher development and Common Core Standards” precludes “just saying no” to what amounts to the CCSS Colossal Education Experiment.

Fourth is the Gates purchase of the National Education Association (NEA). In July 2013, NEA officially endorsed CCSS, and in July 2013, Gates paid NEA for its support in the form of two grants totaling $6.3 million:

Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support the capacity of state NEA affiliates to advance teaching and learning issues and student success in collaboration with local affiliates
Amount: $2,426,500

Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support a cohort of National Education Association Master Teachers in the development of Common Core-aligned lessons in K-5 mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts
Amount: $3,882,600

NEA was not at the CCSS birthing table with NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and David Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. However, after the establishment of CCSS without teachers, now Gates is willing to pay a teachers union to create curricula that in the end do not really matter since the CCSS power is in the assessments that are completely out of NEA’s control.

I have saved my favorite CCSS-Gates purchase for last, this one to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS):

Date: June 2011
Purpose: to promote and coordinate successful implementation of the new common core standards in major urban public school systems nationwide
Amount: $4,910,988

Date: March 2010
Purpose: to support the development of a cross-sector proposal to pilot test the new common core standards in a set of selected cities
Amount: $100,000  [Purpose emphasis added.]

It seems that Gates paid CGCS $100,000 to propose a pilot study of CCSS in 2010 (not to conduct a pilot study– just to draft the idea for a pilot). Fifteen months later, there is no mention of a “proposal” much less a pilot study materializing; instead, Gates pays CGCS to “just go ahead” and “coordinate successful implementation” of the untested CCSS.

So much Gates cash, and so many hands willing to accept it.

Bill Gates likes Common Core. So, he is purchasing it. In doing so, Gates demonstrates (sadly so) that when one has enough money, one can purchase fundamentally democratic institutions.

I do not have billions to counter Gates. What I do have is this blog and the ability to expose the purchase.

I might be without cash, but I am not without power.

Can Bill Gates buy a foundational democratic institution? Will America allow it? The fate of CCSS will provide crucial answers to those looming questions.

 

---

●●smf: Mercedes Schneider is, like each-and-everyone-of-us, a complicated person. A contradiction.

She is that rare thing, a public school teacher in Louisiana who doesn’t teach in a charter school and doesn’t believe in vouchers and all the rest of the Bayou State’s ®eform agenda – what a correspondent yesterday called:  “the package deal in Louisiana”.

She is an intellectual  and  Christian and a creationist who  passionately believes in encouraging critical thinking in her students. Her argument for creationism is that it creates Order from Chaos through God’s word; God spoke the world into existence. The Word and the Power of The Word being All Powerful.

Before I write this philosophy off  as God as novelist I am reminded of my own little philosophic meme; “Fiction is something that didn’t happen, not something that isn’t true.”

Schneider says:  “Corporate reformers introduce chaos. The return on this investment is also chaos.”

That is truth to set us free.

---

U P D A T E D | AUGUST 31ST | T H E   D A T A: …or $5000 here,  a hundred-thousand there and a couple of million somewhere else and it all starts to add up to some serious money! Gates Foundation Grants to Select Education and Policy Groups
Retrieved by Mercedes Schneider on August 26, 2013, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database
[ Spreadsheet by smf for 4LAKidsNews/Math by Excel }
National Governors Association
Date: March 2012
Purpose: to support effective implementation of the Common Core State Standards through the development and dissemination of an official set of identifiers and metadata
Amount of Grant:	$37,674
Date: February 2011
Purpose: to work with state policymakers on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, with special attention to effective resource reallocation to ensure complete execution, as well as rethinking state policies on teacher effectiveness
Amount of Grant:	$1,598,477
Date: November 2009
Purpose: to build capacity and awareness among governors around postsecondary goals
Amount of Grant:	$512,197
Date: May 2008
Purpose: to help governors improve college and career ready rates and make state education systems internationally competitive
Amount of Grant:	$2,496,814
Date: December 2005
Purpose: to support the State Early Childhood Policy Leadership Forum
Amount of Grant:	$62,000
Date: March 2005
Purpose: to provide states with grants and assistance to develop and implement comprehensive plans for high school redesign and increase college-ready high school graduation rates
Amount of Grant:	$19,658,214
Date: September 2004
Purpose: to support NGA Initiative: "Redesigning the American High School"
Amount of Grant:	$187,435
Date: September 2004
Purpose: to support NGA Initiative: "Redesigning the American High School"
Amount of Grant:	$511,658
Date: October 2003
Purpose: to support creation of a coherent system of education pathways that lead students through at least the second year of college
Amount of Grant:	$382,918
Date: November 2002
Purpose: to support a one-day meeting to prepare a publication focusing on turning around low-performing high schools to be presented at the NGA's Winter Meeting
Amount of Grant:	$30,000
Date: May 2002
Purpose: to support changes needed to transform high school education in the United States
Amount of Grant:	$275,515
Total National Governors Association:	$25,752,902
Achieve, Inc.
Date: June 2012
Purpose: to strengthen and expand the ADP Network, provide more support to states for CCSS implementation, and build strategic national and statewide alliances by engaging directly with key stakeholders
Amount of Grant:	$9,297,699
Date: April 2012
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$3,500,000
Date: November 2011
Purpose: to bolster efforts to support national and state strategies to adopt, implement and sustain college and career-ready policies
Amount of Grant:	$375,000
Date: February 2008
Purpose: to support Achieve's American Diploma Project
Amount of Grant:	$12,614,352
Date: October 2005
Purpose: to help states align secondary school math expectations with the demands of postsecondary education and work
Amount of Grant:	$2,148,910
Date: May 2004
Purpose: to assist and encourage specific states to adopt high school graduation requirements that align with college entry requirements
Amount of Grant:	$7,747,861
Date: September 2001
Purpose: to support the National Education Summit in Palisades, NY on October 9-10, 2001
Amount of Grant:	$25,000
Date: October 1999
Purpose: to support comprehensive benchmarking and review of academic standards and assessments between states
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Total Achieve, Inc.:	$36,708,822
Student Achievement Partners
Date: June 2012
Purpose: to support teachers nationwide in understanding and implementing the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$4,042,920
Date: June 2012
Purpose: to grow capacity to support teachers and to strengthen operations
Amount of Grant:	$2,490,430
Total Student Achievement Partners:	$6,533,350
Council of Chief State School Officers
Date: July 2013
Purpose: to CCSSO, on behalf of the PARCC and SBAC consortia to support the development of high quality assessments to measure the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$4,000,000
Date: June 2013
Purpose: to support the Council of Chief State School Officers’ Institute for Transition and Transformation Services partnership with the NJ DOE to support the state’s efforts to support high quality implementation of the Common Core of State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$799,825
Date: April 2013
Purpose: to support a multi-state pilot on education preparation
Amount of Grant:	$703,737
Date: November 2012
Purpose: to support the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in helping States’ to build their data inoperability capability and IT leadership capacity
Amount of Grant:	$1,277,648
Date: October 2012
Purpose: to support strategic planning for the sustainability of the Common Core State Standards and the two multi-state assessment consortia tasked with designing assessments aligned with those standards
Amount of Grant:	$1,100,000
Date: December 2011
Purpose: to support NGLC Impact Strategies
Amount of Grant:	$400,381
Date: June 2011
Purpose: to support the Common Core State Standards work
Amount of Grant:	$9,388,911
Date: March 2011
Purpose: to support capacity building at SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) regarding assessment framework development and higher education engagement
Amount of Grant:	$743,331
Date: January 2011
Purpose: to assist with the design of Wave 2 of the Next Generation Learning Challenges, marketing it to the field, recruiting applicants and advisors, and processing applications
Amount of Grant:	$289,899
Date: July 2010
Purpose: to assist with the design of the digital learning initiative, market it to the field, recruit applicants and advisors, and process applications
Amount of Grant:	$64,628
Date: November 2009
Purpose: to partner with federal, state, public, and private interests to develop common, open, longitudinal data standards
Amount of Grant:	$3,185,750
Date: July 2009
Purpose: to increase the leadership capacity of chiefs by focusing on standards and assessments, data systems, educator development and determining a new system of supports for student learning
Amount of Grant:	$9,961,842
Date: March 2007
Purpose: to support Phase II of the National Education Data Partnership seeking to promote transparency and accessibility of education data and improve public education through data-driven decision making
Amount of Grant:	$21,642,317
Date: October 2005
Purpose: to support technical assistance and research-based information to NGA Honor States pursuing high school redesign efforts
Amount of Grant:	$201,312
Date: April 2004
Purpose: to provide states with sophisticated, web-based data tools that will strengthen accountability and improve results through data-driven decision making
Amount of Grant:	$25,000,000
Date: July 2003
Purpose: to support activities of CCSSO around educational issues, particularly related to secondary school reform
Amount of Grant:	$249,000
Date: May 2002
Purpose: to support a working conference on using the 'No Child Left Behind Act' to improve achievement of students in the middle grades
Amount of Grant:	$25,000
Total Council of Chief State School Officers:	$79,033,581
National Congress of Parents and Teachers
Date: May 2013
Purpose: to educate parents and communities on the new standards and to empower leaders to create the changes they need in their school systems for Common Core implementation
Amount of Grant:	$499,962
Date: November 2009
Purpose: to support implementation of a strategic plan for national PTAs to promote college-readiness, and higher student performance outcomes
Amount of Grant:	$2,000,000
Date: October 2008
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$5,000
Total National PTA:	$2,504,962
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support implementation of the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$244,733
Date: February 2011
Purpose: to provide teachers and school leaders with supports to implement the Common Core State Standards at the district, school, and classroom levels
Amount of Grant:	$3,024,695
Total ASCD:	$2,749,695
Thomas B Fordham Institute
Date: April 2013
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Date: June 2011
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$500,000
Date: January 2011
Purpose: to track state progress towards implementation of standards and to understand how what students read changes in response to the standards
Amount of Grant:	$1,002,000
Date: October 2009
Purpose: to review the common core standards and develop supportive materials
Amount of Grant:	$959,116
Date: June 2009
Purpose: to support the PIE Network which brings together policy research groups and state-level education advocacy organizations to advance equity, improve student achievement, share best practices and capture lessons learned
Amount of Grant:	$398,534
Date: July 2008
Purpose: to support the activities of an emerging network of state level education advocacy organizations in support of a convening around strategic issues
Amount of Grant:	$155,000
Date: August 2006
Purpose: to support creation of a new education policy network promoting equitable education reform
Amount of Grant:	$100,000
Date: July 2005
Purpose: to support the Fordham Foundation in its role as a community school sponsor in Ohio to recruit other high school developers and to share best practices across the field
Amount of Grant:	$1,849,173
Date: July 2005
Purpose: to inform public debate and advance academic achievement in Ohio charter schools by convening charter school leaders, producing research, and disseminating information on charter school issues
Amount of Grant:	$497,639
Date: July 2003
Purpose: to strengthen Ohio's charter school program by recruiting, training, and supporting quality sponsors for existing and future charter schools
Amount of Grant:	$250,000
Total Thomas B Fordham Institute:	$6,711,462
American Enterprise Institute
Date: June 2012
Purpose: to support their education policy work in four distinct areas: Exploring the Challenges of Common Core, Future of American Education Working Groups, Innovations in Financial Aid, and Bridging K-12 and Higher Ed with Technology
Amount of Grant:	$1,068,788
Date: October 2011
Purpose: to support original research and analysis to influence the national education debates and create a supportive policy environment for reform to improve the efficiency and productivity of higher education
Amount of Grant:	$445,496
Date: April 2009
Purpose: to support original research and analysis to influence the national education debates and create a supportive policy environment for dynamic reform
Amount of Grant: $2,144,000
Date: November 2007
Purpose: to provide original research and analysis to influence the national education debate and create a supportive policy environment for dynamic reform
Amount of Grant:	$500,000
Total American Enterprise Institute :	$2,014,284
Brookings Institute
Date: May 2013
Purpose: to conduct efforts to summarize the work of the Reimagining Aid Design & Delivery (RADD) project to date
Amount of Grant:	$77,271
Date: November 2011
Purpose: to establish standards for rating teacher evaluation systems
Amount of Grant:	$494,826
Date: September 2011
Purpose: to examine personalized learning, real-time student assessment, collaboration and social networking, dashboards, and K-12 innovation success stories with the goal of evaluating progress, improving implementation, and sharing best practices
Amount of Grant:	$600,000
Date: June 2011
Purpose: to support the Brookings Blum Roundtable on Global Poverty to address aid and development effectiveness issues
Amount of Grant:	$960,515
Date: October 2010
Purpose: to create a model that will enable policy makers, practitioners, researchers, and foundations to better assess the likely success of any strategy designed to improve the life prospects of children and youth
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Date: August 2010
Purpose: to conduct high-quality policy research focused on sustainable economic development in Africa, while amplifying the voice of African researchers in policymaking in the United States and Africa
Amount of Grant:	$6,270,792
Date: July 2010
Purpose: to develop criteria for certifying teacher evaluation systems
Amount of Grant:	$337,000
Date: May 2009
Purpose: to enable availability and strengthen the quality of workforce and labor market statistics, and connect them to longitudinal higher education data at the federal level
Amount of Grant:	$350,000
Date: May 2009
Purpose: to improve media coverage of secondary and post-secondary education
Amount of Grant:	$501,210
Date: November 2008
Purpose: to support the planning phase of the development of a life-cycle model for estimating the impact of various policy interventions aimed at increasing social mobility
Amount of Grant:	$128,984
Date: July 2008
Purpose: to bring the best African-led research and perspectives on development challenges to US policy makers by supporting the African Growth Initiative and to explore the potential of partnerships with African think tanks
Amount of Grant:	$5,774,324
Date: December 2007
Purpose: to support ongoing publication of key recovery indicators as a resource and accountability tool for continued policy attention to long-term recovery in the Gulf Coast region
Amount of Grant:	$400,000
Date: November 2007
Purpose: to support policy research on new federal and state policies in response to demographic and economic changes
Amount of Grant:	$1,500,000
Date: October 2001
Purpose: to support a National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 Education through The Brookings Institution
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Total Brookings Institute:	$19,394,922
American Federation of Teachers
Date: May 2013
Purpose: to enable the American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation to support the Minnesota Guild of Public Charter Schools to become a self-sustaining organization
Amount of Grant:	$150,000
Date: June 2012
Purpose: to support the AFT Innovation Fund and work on teacher development and Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$4,400,000
Date: May 2012
Purpose: to provide AFT conference support
Amount of Grant:	$75,000
Date: April 2011
Purpose: to assist teachers in understanding and implementing the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Date: February 2011
Purpose: to provide conference support for the conference on teacher development and evaluation systems
Amount of Grant:	$230,000
Date: July 2010
Purpose: to support the American Federation of Teachers Innovation Fund and the union's teacher development and evaluation programs
Amount of Grant:	$4,021,725
Date: June 2010
Purpose: for conference support
Amount of Grant:	$217,200
Date: June 2009
Purpose: to support the work of a teacher evaluation task force
Amount of Grant:	$250,000
Date: January 2009
Purpose: to support teacher-and union-led reform efforts to improve public education and raise student achievement
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Total American Federation of Teachers:	$11,343,925
National Education Association
Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support the capacity of state NEA affiliates to advance teaching and learning issues and student success in collaboration with local affiliates
Amount of Grant:	$2,426,500
Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support a cohort of National Education Association Master Teachers in the development of Common Core-aligned lessons in K-5 mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts
Amount of Grant:	$3,882,600
Date: October 2012
Purpose: to build and enhance teacher voice in the development and implementation of the teacher and leader Professional Growth and Effectiveness System and the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$99,997
Date: April 2012
Purpose: to support the NEA Foundation Institute for Innovation in Teaching and Learning
Amount of Grant:	$550,000
Date: March 2010
Purpose: to support an in-person meeting of the Planning Committee of the NEA Foundation Institute for Local Innovation in Teaching and Learning
Amount of Grant:	$38,420
Date: October 2009
Purpose: to support training for local NEA affiliates to take on a leadership role in improving teaching practice and student achievement in their districts
Amount of Grant:	$358,915
Total NEA:	$7,356,432
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Date: October 2005
Purpose: to develop a cadre of certified principal trainers in each of the NGA Honor States
Amount of Grant:	$219,980
Date: March 2005
Purpose: to produce and disseminate a Leader's Guide to Adolescent Literacy that will outline what middle and high school principals can do to implement a schoolwide literacy program
Amount of Grant:	$125,000
Date: June 2004
Purpose: to support the implementation of strategies and tools recommended in "Breaking Ranks II" report for 17 state associations of principals
Amount of Grant:	$503,320
Date: June 2003
Purpose: to support dissemination of 'Breaking Ranks Leadership: Mapping the Change of an American Institution', the second edition of 'Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution.'
Amount of Grant:	$182,000
Date: March 2003
Purpose: to identify and showcase exemplary high schools
Amount of Grant:	$1,072,738
Total National Association of Secondary School Principals:	$2,103,038
American Association of School Administrators
Date: June 2011
Purpose: to help publicize the public release of college-going data for all high-schools and to support educators to understand the data, prepare for its release, and effectively use the information
Amount of Grant:	$331,512
Date: April 2011
Purpose: to create a website that provides analysis from the user's perspective of the most prevalent student information and learning management systems
Amount of Grant:	$417,697
Total AASA:	$749,209
Council of Great City Schools
Date: March 2013
Purpose: to develop benchmarking of instructional-related expenditures to enable strategic resource alignment in K-12
Amount of Grant:	$614,954
Date: June 2011
Purpose: to promote and coordinate successful implementation of the new common core standards in major urban public school systems nationwide
Amount of Grant:	$4,910,988
Date: March 2010
Purpose: to support the development of a cross-sector proposal to pilot test the new common core standards in a set of selected cities
Amount of Grant:	$100,000
Date: October 2008
Purpose: to improve student outcomes by understanding the gaps between standards and instruction in urban contexts and by leveraging student data to improve instruction and support
Amount of Grant:	$3,735,866
Total Council of Great City Schools:	$9,361,808
National Urban League
Date: November 2012
Purpose: to contribute important stakeholder information to guide and shape the larger Reimagining Aid Design and Delivery project
Amount of Grant:	$98,471
Date: June 2011
Purpose: to continue support for the NUL Equity and Excellence Project and build the capacity of the NUL Policy Institute to advocate more effectively at the federal and state levels
Amount of Grant:	$2,900,000
Date: October 2009
Purpose: to more effectively leverage its affiliate network, introduce common (national) policy goals and objectives, and involve local and state NUL leaders in the national federal advocacy work of the Campaign for High School Equity
Amount of Grant:	$800,000
Date: September 2007
Purpose: to participate in the Campaign for High School Equity Coalition and raise public awareness to issues and solutions to improve graduation and college readiness of students of color
Amount of Grant:	$358,267
Total National Urban League:	$4,156,738
Black Alliance for Educational Options
Date: November 2012
Purpose: to contract a consultant to develop a strategic plan that enhances BAEO’s ability to advocate for college ready education and college completion
Amount of Grant:	$250,000
Date: November 2011
Purpose: to support the launch of High Performing Black-led Charter Schools Initiative as a pilot initiative for schools in New Orleans, Philadelphia, and the District of Columbia
Amount of Grant:	$99,360
Date: March 2003
Purpose: to support the creation of new small high schools
Amount of Grant:	$4,000,000
Total Black Alliance for Educational Options :	$4,349,360
Center for Education Reform
Date: October 2011
Purpose: to support Phase II of the Media Bullpen and to advance charter policy advocacy work in five states
Amount of Grant:	$600,000
Date: June 2010
Purpose: to support development of a new awareness tool, "The Bullpen", that will offer and analyze real time education news
Amount of Grant:	$275,000
Education Trust
Date: July 2013
Purpose: to focus on redesigning grants and work study loans for Phase II of the Reimagining Aid Design & Delivery (RADD) project
Amount of Grant:	$350,431
Date: November 2012
Purpose: to support the Access to Success program in helping to provide data, evidence, best practices, and training to campuses in support of continuous improvement in providing equal opportunity for access and success to underrepresented minorities
Amount of Grant:	$800,000
Date: November 2012
Purpose: to inform state and local policies on teacher evaluation as a significant and valuable tool
Amount of Grant:	$2,101,177
Date: September 2012
Purpose: to begin pressure testing possible education finance reform solutions—both substantively and politically
Amount of Grant:	$304,971
Date: September 2010
Purpose: to support a group of major university and community college system heads to build better data systems, financial aid policies, and student support services
Amount of Grant:	$1,060,000
Date: January 2010
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$1,000,000
Date: September 2009
Purpose: to develop a set of open-source literacy courses that align to the Common Core State Standards
Amount of Grant:	$2,039,526
Date: November 2007
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$10,000,000
Date: November 2007
Purpose: to increase access and success, particularly for low-income and minority students and bring systems together to work on critical actions to accelerate improvement
Amount of Grant:	$1,507,077
Date: October 2007
Purpose: to ensure that all students in California graduate college and work ready, and that the state invests and targets the necessary resources to get them there
Amount of Grant:	$7,750,000
Date: August 2006
Purpose: to support technical assistance to Los Angeles Unified School District for development of a high school progress report
Amount of Grant:	$111,376
Date: June 2006
Purpose: to develop regional American Diploma Projects in Sacramento /Silicon Valley/San Bernardino region
Amount of Grant:	$94,500
Date: March 2006
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$2,200,000
Date: November 2005
Purpose: to support the National Association of (University) System Heads to engage higher education leaders in high school redesign
Amount of Grant:	$369,150
Date: September 2004
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$1,200,000
Date: July 2003
Purpose: to support research and dissemination of findings about effective practices in high-performing high schools and institutions of higher education, particularly those serving high concentrations of low-income and minority young people
Amount of Grant:	$2,000,000
Date: May 2002
Purpose: to provide matching contribution for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$100,000
Date: December 2003
Purpose: for the production of the "California High School Status Report"
Amount of Grant:	$201,820
Date: August 2010
Purpose: for general operating support
Amount of Grant:	$8,300,000
Total Center for Education Reform :	$42,365,028
Center on American Progress
Date: July 2008
Purpose: to expand work on improving the quality and effectiveness of human capital in the public education sector
Amount of Grant:	$1,198,248
Total Center on American Progress:	$1,198,248
GRAND TOTAL GATES FOUNDATION GRANTS:	$263,189,518