CROONER TAKES NOTE OF EAST L.A. HIGH SCHOOL

Tony Bennett and his wife, Susan Benedetto, check out Esteban E. Torres High School as they expand their New York-based student arts nonprofit to Los Angeles.

By Dalina Castellanos, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/12Sf8kE

Tony Bennett and his wife, Susan Benedetto, watch a rehearsal of the dance company of the East Los Angeles Performing Arts Academy. (Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times / April 26, 2013)

April 26, 2013, 10:35 p.m.  ::  With his hands clasped behind his back and his nose inches away from the wall, legendary singer Tony Bennett contemplated the photograph before him.

The grayscale image featured a young woman stretching her fingers toward the camera's lens, covering her face.

"The beginning of true creativeness comes from the hand," he said.

Bennett and his wife, Susan Benedetto, were at Esteban E. Torres High School in East Los Angeles on Friday to launch the expansion of their New York City-based nonprofit organization Exploring the Arts. The photographs displayed before them were taken by students at Humanitas Academy of Art and Technology, one of the five academies on the campus.

The couple founded Exploring the Arts in 1999 to strengthen the role of the arts in public high school education and to sustain arts programs amid school budget cuts. Bennett, a product of a public arts school in New York, and Benedetto, a former teacher at Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and the Performing Arts there, were inspired to give others similar opportunity.

The organization oversees programs in 14 high schools throughout New York City's five boroughs, benefiting more than 10,000 public school students, the majority of whom live below the poverty line. It is estimated that more than 1,000 students will take part in the Los Angeles programs at Torres High.

"The arts give students a reason to want to go to school," Benedetto said. "Quality arts in our public schools gives them something to feed their souls."

The philanthropic couple decided to bring their organization to Los Angeles specifically because of its status as a cultural capital, Benedetto said.

"It's sort of natural to be out here."

Three of the five academies on campus will benefit from Exploring the Arts' partnerships with private funders, individual artists and cultural institutions to give schools in different socioeconomic regions resources to explore art.

"We don't have the services that schools in the incorporated county area might have," said Cristina Patricio, community school coordinator for the campus. "These partnerships are extremely crucial to meet the needs of the students."

Though the singer's name and fame might not ignite the same reaction from students as it does with their teachers and administrators, many of the teenagers appreciated Bennett's visit and support.

"Someone of his stature taking interest in what we do is really big," said Randall Zaragoza, a junior at the East L.A. Renaissance Academy on the campus. "It tells us that it's not just us here fighting to keep these programs going."

Bennett and his wife sat in on a few classes at the East L.A. Performing Arts Academy and heard a rendition of Whitney Houston's "The Greatest Love of All," by Darlene Bryant's choir class.

Freshman Robert Varela rushed offstage after the song to ask his idol a question. He didn't mention to the crooner that he recently sang the classic "Fly Me to the Moon" for his audition to the Los Angeles County High School of the Arts. Nor did he boast that the performance earned him an acceptance letter.

Instead, he asked a question for his little sister.

"What was it like to sing on 'Sesame Street'?" the 15-year-old asked.

The 86-year-old patted the student's arm, chuckling, and said singing on the children's educational program was one of his favorite performances.

SENATE SCHOOL FUNDING PLAN INCLUDES BOOST FOR LINKED LEARNING

By Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Report. http://bit.ly/10M96UN

Friday, April 26, 2013   :: The Senate version of Gov. Jerry Brown’s school finance restructuring proposal would require district and county administrators to hold public hearings and develop plans detailing how they will use additional state support to improve the performance of educationally disadvantaged students.

SB 69, released Thursday, leaves open key financial elements pending release of the governor’s revised May budget that could be lifted by at least $3.5 billion in unexpected revenue.

Senate leaders also suggested a second front in the negotiations with Brown over schools and funding – calling for a visionary change in high school curriculum with linked-learning programs as a centerpiece.

Release of the bill comes just one day after Brown put on a fiery defense of his Local Control Funding Formula at a Capitol news conference in which he threatened tinkering lawmakers with the “battle of their lives.”

At a meeting with reporters Thursday morning, key Senators were careful not to inflame the rhetoric – but they were also clear about their intent to impose key changes to Brown’s plan.

“We are open to getting it done in any form,” said Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “But we are most concerned about doing it right, making sure the money gets to the kids most in need.”

After putting his restructuring plan on the back burner last summer, Brown reintroduced in January the proposal that he said is an effort to simplify the process and make it more equitable. As proposed he would pool virtually all state support to schools into three block grants – one that all districts receive and two others aimed at helping educationally disadvantaged students, especially English learners and those living in low-income neighborhoods.

Like last year, however, communities that would receive less over time under the plan have objected to the split. There have also been concerns from civil rights groups about ensuring the extra cash is spent on programs for those subgroups after local officials are granted greater spending authority.

SB 69 appears to strike a compromise by eliminating one of the block grants for disadvantaged students and using that money to raise the base, per-pupil rate that all districts receive, as well as enhance the supplemental grant for English learners, those who qualify for subsidized meals and foster children.

The bill includes additional accountability measures aimed at ensuring the extra funding promotes performance – including loss-of-spending-flexibility sanctions on districts that do not meet academic goals.

The Senate version would also take effect a year later than the governor’s plan, in 2014-15 rather than this coming school year.

Senate Democrats have clearly embraced the position of Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angles, that changes of this magnitude cannot be negotiated as part of budget negotiations – something Brown is seeking.

“This shouldn’t be rushed,” said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, noting the Senate version has been drafted as a separate policy bill. “If we didn’t have a policy bill, we would be on a very tight deadline to work all of this out.

“This is a policy that could be in place for one generation maybe two,” he said. “Maybe we can make the June 15 deadline – but if we don’t, we have a couple more months during the summer to focus on it after the budget is done.”

SB 69 has intent language aimed at promoting linked learning by earmarking some funds for high schools for college and career readiness. There is also reference to the “possible maintenance of existing categorical and competitive grant programs” to support career tech education such as the partnership academies and linked learning programs.

Steinberg said that while the Senate Democrats support the governor’s “grand finance vision,” it needs to be “matched with an equally grand vision to change high school curriculum. We have been very clear on that.”

Steinberg noted that almost the entire Senate went on a field trip earlier this year to campuses in Long Beach to witness in action successful linked learning programs – a broad designation of curriculum that combines high expectations in traditional academics with real-world job experience.

“We saw the power of merging academic rigor and career application across the board, called linked learning,” said Steinberg. “We want to make sure that if we are going to be giving more money to schools, especially high schools, that there is an incentive or requirement that districts actually take the best models and not only maintain them but enhance them.”

To read the current draft of the bill click on the link below:

Related links:
SB 69

DEMOCRATS SPLIT ON TIMING, SPECIFICS OF BROWN’S FUNDING FORMULA

By John Fensterwald, EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/11PPF9d

April 26th, 2013  :: Joan Buchanan, the Democratic chair of the Assembly Education Committee, grilled administration officials at length Wednesday on Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to reform school funding. She wanted, without success, to get them to concede there are flaws and inconsistencies in the plan.

Assembly Education Chair Joan Buchanan speaks at the hearing on Wednesday (photo from Cal Channel video).

Buchanan’s intense questioning prompted a frustrated Assemblymember Das Williams, a fellow Democrat from Santa Barbara, to call for a shift in the discussion from “poking holes” in the plan to “doing what we can to make it work.”

Their exchange captured the split among Democrats and the education community between those, like Williams, who want to act now on Brown’s Local Control Funding initiative to redo a school funding system universally acknowledged to be irrational and inequitable, and those, like Buchanan, D-Alamo, who are struggling to understand the details of a complex plan hundreds of pages long.

“I feel like we have the opportunity of a lifetime here,” said Williams, a former community organizer. “I would vote for it if put to us today. Justice should not have to wait a year.”

While agreeing with Brown’s goal of directing more money to high-needs students and “the moral imperative to have these kids succeed,” Buchanan added, “We need to be clear how the plan works. We need to read the details; otherwise, there is an abdication of the Legislature’s responsibility.”

In this looming divide over finance reform, a pretty good predictor of support for the plan is how legislators’ school districts will fare. Buchanan, an 18-year school trustee with San Ramon Valley Unified, serves a largely suburban region. She maintains that her districts would not receive enough money under Brown’s Local Control Funding Formula to bring spending levels back to where they were before the recession in 2007-08.

Williams represents a diverse region of rich enclaves, like Montecito, and less affluent districts, like Oxnard, with a high proportion of low-income children, that would gain substantially. “My district is illustrative of inequities in funding,” he said. “We don’t have equal funding in education.”

Buchanan is far from alone in resisting pressure to push through reforms that have not been thoroughly vetted. Senate Democratic leaders also called this week for a year’s delay. Buchanan and Assemblymember Susan Bonilla, D-Concord, who chairs the Budget Committee’s education subcommittee, see technical challenges that need fixing and major policy questions that need thorough discussion.

Backers of the LCFF, like Williams, fear tactics of delay, death by 1,000 questions. Brown has made the LCFF his priority this year; supporters say adjustments can be made during the seven-year transition to the new system.

Buchanan and others say sweeping changes to the single largest source of state spending – about 40 percent of the state budget goes to education – must be done carefully.

Waiting for revisions in May

What’s not known at this point is to what extent the Brown administration is willing to modify the LCFF in the governor’s May revision of the state budget, out in about two weeks. At Wednesday’s hearing, Nicolas Schweizer, who’s in charge of education issues for the Department of Finance, and Sue Burr, back from retirement as executive director of the State Board of Education to help Brown out with the LCFF, were good poker players. Without hinting at any specific accommodations, they said the administration is weighing various suggestions.

Nicolas Schweizer of the Department of Finance answers a question from Buchanan during the hearing (photo from Cal Channel video).

Along with transferring Sacramento’s power over the purse to local districts, by ending most categorical or restricted programs, Brown is proposing to funnel about an extra third more money per student for each low-income child and English learner. In addition, Brown is proposing money on top of that for those districts in which high-needs students form a majority. Districts serving only disadvantaged students could potentially get 53 percent more money – more than $3,000 more per student – than districts with few high-needs students.

Buchanan, who did nearly all of the interrogating at the hearing, didn’t question LCFF’s underlying concept of providing equity in funding or the amount of the supplement for targeted students. But she did intensely question other aspects of the plan – most of which have been already raised in previous hearings or in analyses by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Public Policy Institute of California. They include:

• Size of the core grant for all students:

This is the most contentious issue – and one that Brown can resolve. He is proposing an average of $6,812 per student, which would restore the base funding in 2007-08, known as the revenue limit, and build in cost-of-living increases since then and moving forward. This excludes special education and a few other programs. But the base also does not include categorical money for programs like teacher training, textbooks and building maintenance, because categorical programs would disappear under the new system. Districts with high-needs students would get the equivalent of that money – and more – in the form of supplemental dollars they can spend as they want. But districts with few high-needs students would lose money they once had.

Buchanan pressed the point: “Does not every child deserve textbooks, every teacher deserve training? You can’t talk about local control if it doesn’t include funding.”

Schweizer said the administration would consider adding $200 to $300 more per student to the base. Others say it should be up to $500 – about $3 billion statewide – or more, depending on which categoricals are defined as essential for all students.

• Concentration grant:

Brown is proposing bonus dollars where high-needs students comprise a majority in a district to compensate for the impact of concentrated poverty. Senate Democrats are proposing to eliminate concentration grants. Buchanan instead suggested that the money be awarded to school sites, not districts. She cited Elk Grove Unified, where schools serving primarily disadvantaged students would get no concentration money because the overall district average is much lower. As a result, high-needs students in two schools with identical demographics but located in different districts would get different amounts of money.

Schweizer said the administration built its model on district allocations and was concerned about a possible inflation of school-site data. In a recent comment in EdSource Today, school consultant Rob Manwaring elaborated in objecting to school-site based grants. There would be, he wrote, a “horrible incentive to further segregate our schools and to end school choice programs like those in San Francisco that offer greater choice to low income students. Basically, under a school site concentration system, a district could make more money if it consolidates its low income students into some of its schools and keeps all of the middle class students in other schools.”

• Exempted categoricals:

Two large categorical programs totaling $1.3 billion – funding for desegregation programs, known as Targeted Instructional Improvement Block Grants, or TIIG, and home-to-school busing – would be kept intact with current distribution formulas. In the case of busing, the formula is outdated and fails to fund adequately districts that have grown in the past two decades. Thus, Pasadena gets $3 million while Palmdale, with a similar number of students, gets $300,000, Buchanan said. TIIG favors a handful of districts that sought the money years ago: Los Angeles Unified gets more than $800 per student and San Jose Unified about $1,000 per student, compared with $8 per student in Santa Ana, with 91 percent disadvantaged students.

Schweizer cited the threat of lawsuits as justification for keeping the programs intact – a rationale that the LAO found unpersuasive, as did Buchanan and other committee members. With few exceptions, many court orders setting up desegregation programs have been lifted, newly elected Democratic Assemblymember Shirley Weber said. She urged the administration to confront the issue of TIIG. The “glaring inequities” that benefit a few districts are “a thorn in the side of my colleagues” and make it “harder to sell” the LCFF, she said.

• Accountability for spending:

To ensure that supplemental dollars are spent on targeted students, each district will be required to write a plan, which the county office of education will review, spelling out how money would be used to improve academic results for subgroups of students. Some advocates for minority students argue this won’t go far enough, particularly if the money doesn’t bring results.

At the hearing, Buchanan focused on another aspect: The accountability features will not kick in until the LCFF is fully funded, in an estimated seven years. In the interim, Schweizer acknowledged, “the fundamental premise is that districts should be trusted” to spend increasing amounts of money on targeted students.

Michael Hulsizer

“There is more accountability now than under the new system in the transition period,” Buchanan responded. The administration’s assumption “is unrealistic,” she said.

Buchanan plans an additional hearing on the accountability issue.

Several dozen patient observers waited for four hours Wednesday to give one minute of testimony. Among them was Michael Hulsizer, chief deputy of governmental affairs for the Kern County Superintendent of Schools and a supporter of Brown’s formula. “We think Finance is listening,” he said, “and are confident that the May revision will address concerns.”

A lot will ride on the outcome.

AALA explains it all for you: THE PARENT TRIGGER LAW, PARTS I & II

From the AALA Update, Weeks of April 22, 2013 http://bit.ly/1292EBl and April 29, 2013 http://bit.ly/1528rjI

PARENT TRIGGER LAW, PART I

On January 7, 2010, Governor Brown signed into law SBX4, Public Schools: Race to the Top, authored by then Senator Gloria Romero, with assistance from Senators Elaine Alquist (Santa Clara County), Bob Huff (LA, Orange, San Bernardino counties) and Mark Wyland (Orange, San Diego counties). It consisted of two major components to amend the California Education Code. The first component established the Open Enrollment Act which enabled pupils enrolled in low-achieving schools to attend another school; the second arm of the law allowed parents to require a district to implement one of the reforms listed in the Race to the Top program under specific conditions. This portion of the new law was initially called “parent empowerment” by its author, but is now known as the “parent trigger” law. California was the first state to pass this type of law and as of March 2013, at least 24 other states have considered it and six more have actually enacted some version of it. Those states are Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio (pilot program in the Columbus School District) and Texas. California is the only state that has actually had a school be the subject of a parent-trigger petition.

The parent trigger policy, which was recently enacted at LAUSD’s 24th Street School, gives parents the ability to intervene in their child's school if it is performing poorly. In California, that is defined as one that fails to make adequate yearly progress for 3 consecutive years, has an API of less than 800 and has been in ‘corrective action’ status under NCLB for at least one year. Any combination of at least 50.1 percent of the parents of children currently attending the school or those with children who will matriculate to the school must sign a petition requesting that the school district implement one of the school interventions identified in the Race to the Top legislation. Once accepted by the school district, only the parents who signed the original petition vote on the type of intervention to be used. The four types of intervention models and the required activities are outlined below.

1. TURNAROUND MODEL

a. Replace the principal

b. Replace the staffrehiring no more than 50 percent

c. Implement strategies to retain staff

d. Provide ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development

e. Adopt a new governance structurei.e., report to a new “turnaround office” in the district

f. Use data to identify and implement a research-based instructional program

g. Promote continuous use of data to inform instruction

h. Increase learning time

i. Provide social-emotional and community supports for students

2. RESTART MODEL

a. Convert the school to a charter school operator, a charter management organization (nonprofit) or an education management organization (for-profit).

b. The restart model must enroll any former student who wishes to attend.

3. TRANSFORMATION MODEL

a. Replace the principal

b. Use evaluation systems for teachers and administrators that use data on student growth as a significant factor

c. Reward staff who have increased student achievement and remove those who have not

d. Provide ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development

e. Implement strategies to retain staff

f. Increase learning time

g. Provide social-emotional and community supports for students

4. SCHOOL CLOSURE

a. Close the school and enroll the students in other schools in the district that are higher achieving and within reasonable proximity to the closed school.

b. The new school could be a charter or a district school that just opened and has no achievement data.

 

PARENT TRIGGER LAW, PART II

In last week’s Update we began sharing information on the parent trigger law that was recently used at 24th Street ES. This is the second article on a very hot topic.

The California parent trigger law has some unique components: (1) no more than 75 schools in the state can be subject to a parent petition (however, there is pending legislation that will increase that number); (2) parents must disclose any financial or organizing support they receive during the process; (3) parents cannot be paid by proponents of charter conversion; and (4) signature collectors must disclose if they are being paid. The National Conference of State Legislatures’ website, www.ncsl.org, provides a succinct summary of the views of those who support or oppose the parent trigger process:

Advocates argue that parents should have a more active role in how their child's school is managed. They also claim that the traditional procedures for turning around low performing schools are too slow and heavily influenced by political interests, not necessarily the students' interests. Supporters hope that the existence of a parent trigger law will encourage schools and districts to better communicate existing school improvements to parents in hopes of avoiding a parent petition.

Opponents claim that there are mechanisms already in place to intervene in low performing schools. They point to school accountability committees and local school boards as the existing means for parents to be involved in the operation of their child's school. They also worry that parents may not be aware of the changes low performing schools have already made such as hiring new administration and teachers. Some raise concerns that corporate charter school operators are using these laws to expand their business, an argument that some states look to address by prohibiting charter school operators from funding petition campaigns.

Former Senator Gloria Romero, who unsuccessfully ran for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, now heads the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform, an advocacy group that supports school reform through increasing parental choice, tying student performance to teacher evaluations and changing how teachers are hired and fired. She says that the law empowers parents to become leaders and demand that bureaucrats do something about systemically failing schools and likens it to another civil rights movement. However, the parent trigger has received considerable opposition from organizations such as CTA and the California Democratic Party. In fact, delegates from the party recently passed a resolution condemning the activities of groups such as StudentsFirst (Michelle Rhee) and Democrats for Education Reform, saying that they are just fronts for Republicans and corporate interests.

Parents from Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, assisted/organized by an L.A. advocacy group called Parent Revolution (heavily funded by the Walton Foundation which, according to many educators, strongly supports privatization of schools and antiunion policies), were the first Californians to use the parent trigger law. After an 18-month legal battle, the Adelanto Elementary District School Board voted to approve LaVerne Elementary Preparatory Academy to take over the school. LaVerne is a charter school that operates in the nearby city of Hesperia and partners with the University of La Verne. All students and their siblings will be guaranteed spots at the new Desert Trails Preparatory Academy, which will open in Fall 2013, but every teacher and staff member will have to file an application if they want to continue to work there.

Parent Revolution attempted the same process at an elementary school in Compton last year, but was blocked by legal action initiated by the Compton School District.

Their third attempt, 24th Street ES in LAUSD, was successful and resulted in the use of the restart model which pairs a charter with the District. Approximately 60 percent of eligible parents signed the original petition; about half of those voted on the intervention plan which resulted in LAUSD operating the PK-4 portion of the school and a charter, Crown Prep, operating grades 5–8. In essence, of the parents who have children who attend the school or will matriculate to the school, about 30 percent made this critical decision, and only 25 percent actually wanted the LAUSD/Crown partnership. LAUSD is the first district to approve a parent trigger petition without a court challenge and also without verification of the procedures or the voting processes that were used. Parents at 24th Street School so far seemed to have encountered much less resistance from LAUSD than the first two parent trigger groups.

“Superintendent John Deasy has been unusually cooperative,” said Ben Boychuk, a Heartland Institute education policy advisor. He noted that LAUSD leadership is more receptive towards charter schools and Superintendent Deasy is much more inclined to embrace some of these reforms than the previous superintendents would have been. Members of Parent Revolution are currently courting parents at other District schools.

STUDY WARNS THAT GRAD RATES WILL DIP WITH A-thru-G COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS

By Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Report | http://bit.ly/17Zsr53

Thursday, April 25, 2013  ::  Requirements that high school students complete college prep courses as a condition of graduation may upgrade the value of the diploma and make some quick inroads on federal goals to produce college and career ready students.

But new research released Thursday suggests the benchmark might prove too high and could result in a decline in graduation rates.

Four large, urban school districts – Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Oakland – have recently made completion of A-G coursework mandatory for graduation – although a grade of D is acceptable.

While the students in San Diego who will be impacted by this mandate only just started high school last fall, researchers from the Public Policy Institute of California analyzed transcripts to get a sense of what might happen three years from now.

They found that 61 percent of graduates from the class of 2011 would have met the A-G requirements – that is receiving at least a D in 15 college prep classes. Meanwhile, nearly 39 percent would not have graduated.

Not surprisingly, student experienced the biggest course struggle with math and English as well foreign language. The PPIC team found male students were more likely than females not to pass the A-G course requirement but also key subgroups too including English learners and those enrolled in special education as well as Hispanics, African Americans.

Julian Betts, a coauthor of the report who is both an adjunct fellow at PPIC and a professor at the University of California, San Diego said the study findings should motivate teachers and district administrations to put more emphasis on getting students ready for the requirement.

“San Diego students will need to dramatically change the courses they take," said Betts in a statement. “Clear communication with students, parents, and teachers about the new requirements is critical—and that communication needs to begin in middle school, if not earlier.”

www.ppic.org College Readiness as a Graduation Requirement by 4LAKids

BILLS PROMOTED BY LAUSD TO IMPOSE NEW TEACHER EVALUATIONS, LAYOFF RULES DIE IN COMMITTEE

By Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Report. http://bit.ly/11Hay6n

Thursday, April 25, 2013  ::  Efforts to rewrite longstanding rules surrounding teacher evaluations and educator staffing laws fell badly short of success Wednesday before a key Senate panel.

First, lawmakers killed a bill that would have given school districts the ability to make teacher staffing decisions based on performance evaluations. Then, members of the Senate Education Committee became badly spilt over legislation that would have imposed new requirements of how and when teachers are evaluated – but in the end killed that bill too.

Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, called his SB 441 a ‘modest bill’ that would require districts to use multiple measurements in performing evaluations at least every three years for veteran personnel. But critics, which included most of the state’s teacher unions, put up strong arguments in opposition mostly around concerns that the measure would undermine collective bargaining rights.

Calderon’s bill, which comes a year after lawmakers killed another teacher evaluation bill by a Democrat, did not attract enough votes for passage out of the committee.

“California public school students – our children – were the losers today,” said Calderon in a statement. “Those defending the status quo won the day and while I am disappointed I am hopeful that at some point the Legislature will show the leadership necessary to guarantee our children have the best teachers possible.”

The day-long hearing, which included review of nearly two dozen other bills, was representative of the challenge lawmakers face in taking on complex, sometimes emotionally charged issues dealing with teachers and classrooms.

At one point during the discussion of SB 441, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara said that while she was “anxious to move this bill along,” she said the bill “isn’t cooked yet.” She worried about how teachers might be stigmatized by a negative evaluation and what plans the state had for offering support and training.

“On the other hand,” she said, “I do think we need to keep this debate going.”

To which Sen. Calderon responded: “We can’t sit here and say, ‘we’ve got to get something going and then say, ‘well, I’m not going to support this bill – how can we do that?”

Unlike legislation last summer that would have at one point required student test scores be among the performance indicators – Calderon’s bill would require governing board of school districts to regularly “evaluate and assess the performance of certificated staff using multiple measures, including a minimum of four rating levels.”

The bill would give the school board authority to define each rating level used.

Opponents, which include the California Teachers Association, have argued the bill could result in requiring districts to bargain aspects of the system, evaluation criteria – for instance – which could intrude on the school districts rights to exercise managerial prerogatives, according to staff analysis.

Meanwhile, SB 453 by state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, was rejected outright – the third time his proposal failed to win support of majority Democrats. His proposal would have would have allowed districts to make staffing decisions based on performance evaluations and factors other than a teacher’s simple date of hire.

“We have an education system that is depriving students of the education they deserve,” he said in a statement. “We spend over half our state budget on education and yet we throw money at it without adopting the reforms we need to make it effective. I’ve tried to negotiate with the school employee unions who oppose this bill, but we’re just not going to come to an agreement. They represent the adults in the system. I’m representing the best interests of California students.”

‘The Battle of Their Lives’ over LCFF: GOV. BROWN PROMISES FIGHT OVER EDUATION OVERHAUL

Jerry Brown says lawmakers will get 'the battle of their lives' if they balk at his plan to give more funds to poor districts and more spending flexibility to all school districts.

By Anthony York and Chris Megerian, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/15JQaHm

Gov. Jerry Brown walks to a news conference on proposed education spending reforms with Mary Jane Burke, from the Marin County Office of Education, left; Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, of the Santa Ana Unified School District, second from right; and LAUSD's John Deasy, right. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / April 24, 2013)

April 24, 2013, 10:26 p.m. – SACRAMENTO  ::  Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday promised lawmakers "the battle of their lives" if they balk at his bid to overhaul state education.

A day after Democratic state senators announced their differences with him over his proposal to change the way schools are funded, the governor came out swinging.

"This is not an ordinary legislative measure. This is a cause," a combative Brown said at a Capitol news conference, flanked by 20 school superintendents who support his program. "I will fight any effort to dilute this bill."

Brown wants to direct more money to districts that serve large numbers of poor students and non-native English speakers than to wealthier areas, while giving all of them more flexibility in how they spend state dollars. Senate Democrats want a less radical redistribution of money, more restrictions on how it is spent and a one-year delay in any funding change.

Brown vowed to do everything in his power to protect his plan. "If people are going to fight it, they're going to get the battle of their lives," he told reporters. "Everything we have to bear in this battle, we're bringing it."

The nascent dispute adds to differences that have already emerged between Brown and fellow Democrats in other key policy areas, including healthcare, water and environmental rules. And an Assembly committee on Wednesday rejected a Brown proposal to speed students toward graduation in hopes of lowering costs in California's two public university systems.

The proposal is part of the governor's larger blueprint for overhauling higher education, which a legislative analysis said "could lead to less rigorous courses … or grade inflation."

The rifts could grow as the legislative session rolls toward summer and negotiations begin in earnest on Brown's proposed budget, which contains his education plans. Democrats won supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature in last November's elections — enough to override a gubernatorial veto.

Brown set education as his top priority in January, saying: "Equal treatment for children in unequal situations is not justice." On Wednesday, he said his school funding proposal was a matter of civil rights and the key to reversing a growing gap between rich and poor in California.

"Increasingly this state is turning into a two-tier society," he said. "Those at the top are doing better and better and those in the middle and the bottom are doing worse and worse.

"The very least that we can do is invest in our schools in a way that recognizes reality," he said.

Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. John Deasy was among those joining Brown on Wednesday. He said the governor's plan could mean as much as $300 million more annually for the district than the Senate Democrats' proposal.

Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), who briefly discussed the education issue with Brown on Tuesday and plans a news conference Thursday to detail his counterproposal, said he supported the central goal of more funds to help poorer students. But he said his caucus had other ideas about how to ensure that the money would help the right students.

Brown and the lawmakers are haggling over how to use about $2 billion of the $49 billion that Brown proposes for K-12 education beginning in July. The governor said he was concerned the Senate's preference, which is to distribute the $2 billion to more districts around the state, would dilute its impact.

"It's a relatively small amount of money," Brown told reporters. "If you spread it out to all the districts, it will have a trivial effect. If you put it into the districts that have high concentrations of poverty, it will have a very powerful effect."

Brown also railed against lawmakers' preference for limiting the flexibility he wants to give school districts, saying there are groups with "very powerful lobbyists" who want to protect the status quo.

Steinberg took Brown's comments in stride.

"The governor introduced this plan in January, but now he's beginning to engage," the Senate leader said. "And we're ready to engage."

During Wednesday's Assembly committee hearing, lawmakers, university officials and activists aired concerns about the governor's plan for higher education, which involves tying some new state funds to requirements that include higher graduation rates.

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla (D-Concord) said Brown's ideas seem "like we're talking about a factory, with these projections and percentages and outcomes."

A representative of the Legislative Analyst's Office said the governor's plan should focus more on ensuring that students are receiving a quality education and are correctly trained for the workforce.

 

Brown fights back, responds to critics of his funding formula

By John Fensterwald, EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/11npkP9

April 24th, 2013 | Gov. Jerry Brown emphatically vowed Wednesday “to fight with everything I have and whatever we have to bring to bear” for passage this year of his school finance reform, as proposed.

Gov. Jerry Brown>

Back from a trip to China and re-engaged on a priority issue, Brown spoke at a news conference a day after Senate Democrats announced they would propose a bill that would delay action on the governor’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for a year and would eliminate one of its chief features, providing a “concentration grant” for districts with high percentages English learners and low-income children.

“We will go for the full program and fight any effort to dilute” the proposal, Brown said. “Kids cannot wait; superintendents and thousands of people will work to see passage of our bill.”

Standing with Brown were 20 superintendents whom the governor had summoned to Sacramento to voice their support. Some then testified at a hearing on Brown’s proposal before the Assembly Education Committee.

Brown’s plan would invest an extra 35 percent in per student funding for every low-income student and English learner, with a concentration bonus in districts where high-needs students comprise a majority.

Brown said the concentration grant would put “a relatively small amount of money into high concentrations of poverty,” where it will have powerful effect.

Brown characterized LCFF as a civil rights issue that deals with “the fact of life that there are deep inequities from Oregon to the Mexican border.” In California, he said, 60 percent of children are poor and 23 percent speak a language other than English at home. “People who know best,” he said referring to the superintendents, “are confronting the challenges of a two-tier society.”

“I fully support the new formula. I deeply believe this brings equity long overdue to the state,” said Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy, who added that failing to take action this year would be “intolerable.”

“Equity delayed is equity denied,” he said.

Sacramento City Unified Superintendent Jonathan Raymond praised Brown for having the courage to “change the status quo and change it now.” He said it would be “criminal” and “intolerable” to delay passage.

Without naming names, Brown castigated consultants and groups in Sacramento he said are trying to thwart change from the current system, with its dozens of earmarked programs that have spending restrictions and regulations that the LCFF would eliminate. They “make money scaring people to keep categorical complexities to keep their employees and profits,” Brown said.

Brown did not say that he wouldn’t agree to changes to the LCFF, and his adviser, Karen Staph Walters,  who is also the executive director of the State Board of Education, promised “to sit down with colleagues in the Senate and work together” on the proposal.

Brown is expected to include amendments to the LCFF in the May budget revision; neither he nor his advisers would say what those might be.

Related Posts

• Democratic senators offer alternative to Brown’s funding formula
• State releases district breakdowns under school funding formula
• Study compliments and questions Brown’s funding formula
• With more money to spend, Brown launches K-12 funding reform
• Brown’s school funding formula lauded, then picked apart at hearing

U P D A T E: LAPD ARRESTS 3 IN CLEVELAND HIGH STABBING

By Eric Hartley Staff Writer, LA Daily News | - LA Daily News http://bit.ly/12nt4ls

4/25/2013 07:29:46 AM PDT  :: Online chatter about a fatal stabbing Wednesday afternoon outside a Reseda high school helped police find three suspects, who were arrested Thursday morning.

Kevin Orellano, 18, of Reseda was playing handball at Cleveland High School just before 4 p.m. when two young men, whom Los Angeles police said are gang members, walked up and got into an argument with him.

The two apparently didn't know Orellano, who had no gang ties, but felt disrespected for some reason, LAPD Detective Joel Price said.

"It doesn't take much to set gang members off," Price said. "All one need to do is look at them and they feel as though they're being mad-dogged, I guess, if you will. And they want to know what you're looking at."

One of the people punched Orellano, police said, then another took out a "a small pocket knife" and stabbed him in the torso.

The two ran off and rode away in a minivan driven by a young woman, Price said. Paramedics treated Orellano and took him to a hospital, but he died there.

It did not appear any of those involved was a current student at Cleveland High. Price said Orellano and the 16-year-old suspect were believed to be former students.

Students who heard about the stabbing and read a description of one of the suspects found a photo of him on a social media site and shared it with each other, Price said. Meanwhile, detectives were reading, too.

Price would not say what social media site the students used, but said it was not Facebook.

About 12:15 a.m. today, police went to a home in the 15000 block of Roscoe Boulevard in North Hills and arrested Michael Steven Carpio, 19, of Panorama City and a 16-year-old boy, both on suspicion of murder.

Price said detectives believe the 16-year-old, whose name police can't release, stabbed Orellano. He was booked as a juvenile but could later be charged as an adult.

Police also arrested Michelle Pineda, 19, of Los Angeles, whom Price said was the driver of the minivan that took the two other suspects from the scene. She was also booked on suspicion of murder.

Shenanigans in School Board Race: BLOOMBERG DONATES $350K TO ®EFORM CANDIDATE, RUMOR OF DEAL WITH ®EFORMER ROILS UTLA

Michael Bloomberg donates $350,000 to L.A. school board race

The New York City mayor's contribution to a political action committee led by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will benefit board candidate Antonio Sanchez.

ALSO SEE: The best LA school board the NYC mayor’s money can buy: NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG DONATES ANOTHER $350K http://bit.ly/ZsLl2c

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/12KtWSh

April 24, 2013, 10:30 p.m.  ::  New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg donated $350,000 to the Los Angeles school board campaign this week, records show.

Bloomberg's contribution, which was filed Tuesday, will enlarge the already sizable war chest of the Coalition for School Reform, a political action committee led by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The goal of the coalition is to back candidates who will support the policies of L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy and pledge to keep him on the job.

Before the March primary, Bloomberg contributed $1 million for the three board races — the largest contribution ever made in an L.A. school board campaign. Bloomberg also gave a sizable donation of an undisclosed amount to the advocacy arm for the California Charter Schools Assn. That group spent close to $400,000 to support candidates in the election.

The beneficiary of the latest donation is Antonio Sanchez, 31, a former Villaraigosa aide. He is facing teacher and former attorney Monica Ratliff, 42, in a May 21 runoff to represent the east San Fernando Valley on the Board of Education.

The March primary yielded mixed results for the coalition, which spent about $3.8 million. One of its endorsed candidates won and another lost. In the loss, the coalition tried unsuccessfully to defeat incumbent Steve Zimmer, who was backed by employees' unions. Zimmer, a frequent swing vote, said he has not targeted Deasy for dismissal, and it's not clear that Deasy's job is on the line in the contest over the remaining seat.

But Deasy's supporters are taking no chances. Even before Bloomberg's latest donation, the coalition had put together more than $600,000 for the second round of a campaign on Sanchez's behalf. This total included $250,000 from local philanthropist Eli Broad, who had already donated $250,000 for the first round. And StudentsFirst, the Sacramento-based advocacy group headed by former District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, gave $100,000 — after an earlier contribution of $250,000.

In the primary, money spent by or for Sanchez outpaced Ratliff's spending by a ratio of about 84 to 1.

So far, Ratliff has reported raising $7,297 for the runoff. Sanchez has reported raising $14,880.

United Teachers Los Angeles endorsed all the candidates in the race but did not provide any financial backing in the primary. For the runoff, the union gave $1,000 to Ratliff.

 

Rumor of deal roils teachers union

UTLA members allege that one of their leaders made a private arrangement on staffing with a school board candidate. Antonio Sanchez and union vice president Gregg Solkovits deny any deal.

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/11nlpSG

April 24, 2013, 10:28 p.m.  ::  The leadership of the Los Angeles teachers union is roiled over whether its officials made a private deal with a Board of Education candidate whom critics view as an ally of anti-labor forces.

The dispute centers on an alleged understanding worked out between candidate Antonio Sanchez and Gregg Solkovits, a union vice president. According to people with knowledge of the matter, Solkovits has said that Sanchez, if he wins, would let United Teachers Los Angeles choose his chief of staff.

Sanchez and Solkovits deny any such arrangement. Sanchez said he has no idea what the claim is based on; Solkovits blamed a willful misinterpretation of comments he made in leadership meetings.

The internal dispute says as much about union politics as about Sanchez. A struggle exists between pragmatists, such as Solkovits, who talk about the importance of working with current and potential school district officials, and idealists who want to see a relentless push to replace current leaders and unpopular policies.

An arrangement with Sanchez would be notable because he is endorsed by the Coalition for School Reform, a political action committee that supports the policies of L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy and wants to keep his job secure. Its endorsed candidates, including Sanchez, have pledged as much.

Deasy has successfully pushed to include student standardized test scores in teacher evaluations and to limit job protections in the name of improving the teacher corps, among other things.

The union has been sharply critical of Deasy, even handing him an overwhelming "no confidence" vote from its members this month.

But in March, UTLA mounted only one serious campaign for the Board of Education. That effort helped to reelect incumbent Steve Zimmer. Also winning, however, was incumbent Monica Garcia, the board president whom the union dislikes.

The east San Fernando Valley District 6 seat remains up for grabs in a May 21 runoff. Sanchez, 31, a former aide to L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, faces teacher Monica Ratliff, 43, a former attorney. In March, Sanchez took 44% of the vote compared with 34% for Ratliff.

In the primary, the union had endorsed three candidates for District 6, but provided no financial support to any of them. As a result, the coalition, spearheaded by Villaraigosa, was key to a huge funding advantage for Sanchez. Some unions also helped Sanchez.

In the runoff, the teachers union has given $1,000 to Ratliff. The coalition has amassed close to $1 million for Sanchez.

The internal dispute within UTLA became a topic on a website used by activist teachers.

"How about the backroom deal UTLA leadership made with Sanchez to support his campaign as long as he agreed to hire someone from UTLA as his chief of staff????" wrote UTLA board of directors member Jose Lara in a March 30 post. "I am not okay with backroom deals and then being told, 'That's the way things get done.'"

When contacted, Lara declined to elaborate, but didn't recant either. Lara supports Ratliff, and, like some other members, questions how the union could support Sanchez.

Solkovits said that the union had interviewed Sanchez before the coalition embraced him. He added that all UTLA-backed candidates were open to the idea that "at least one of the people on the staff would have relatively close ties to UTLA. I mentioned that at a board meeting," Solkovits said. The critics "chose to construe this as a deal."

"The goal was always to have good working relationships with whoever got elected," Solkovits said. "We don't ask for guarantees."

Several union veterans insist that Solkovits is underplaying the message that he and his allies conveyed. But they would not speak publicly because they were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

"This is something that Gregg was pitching to sell Sanchez to UTLA," said one veteran union leader, echoing comments that typically came from Ratliff supporters. They added that the pitch for Sanchez also included his support from powerful elected officials — and that these officials were needed to fight off unwanted legislation that would affect teacher job evaluations and job protections.

Solkovits acknowledged that at union leadership meetings he suggested two UTLA insiders who would serve well in a staff position: former school board staffer Ed Burke and former UTLA President John Perez.

Burke retired in December from a position with board member Bennett Kayser, a staunch union ally. Burke said only that he nixed the idea of possibly working for Sanchez. He also recently attended a fundraiser for Ratliff.

Perez, who is a vehement Deasy critic, said he has had no discussions with Sanchez about working for him. Sanchez characterized Perez as one of a number of people he respects as a source of advice.

TOM BARTMAN 1946- 2013, FORMER LAUSD BOARD PRESIDENT WHO HELPED END MANDATORY BUSING

Article by: Associated Press  from Minneapolis StarTribune.com http://bit.ly/15QugBN

Newly elected Los Angeles Board of Education member Tom Bartman is sworn in. In 1981, a majority of board members, including Bartman, voted to end mandatory busing in the school district. (Los Angeles Times / February 25, 1980)

April 25, 2013 - 8:42 AM - LOS ANGELES - A man who helped end forced busing for integration in the Los Angeles Unified School District has died. Tom Bartman was 67.

His wife, Eleanor, tells the Los Angeles Times ( http://lat.ms/10efSv2) that Bartman died of cancer on Monday at his Beverly Hills home.

The nation's second-largest school district began court-ordered busing in 1978. The compulsory program affected about 58,000 students.

Bartman was an attorney for the anti-busing group Bustop when he was elected to the school board in 1980, giving it a conservative majority.

After court actions cleared the way, Bartman voted with the majority in 1981 to dismantle the program. Bartman said he supported integration but not through mandatory busing.

He spent seven years on the board and was president twice.

STUDENT AT CLEVELAND HIGH SCHOOL IN RESEDA FATALLY STABBED DURING ARGUMENT

City News Service from LA Daily News |  http://bit.ly/10CAYuA

Updated:   4/25/2013 6:07:52 AM PDT - RESEDA - An 18-year-old adult education student was fatally stabbed at Cleveland High School in Reseda by two males during an argument on the campus Wednesday, authorities said.

The victim was approached in the area of the school's handball courts by two males believed to be between 18 and 20 years of age, and an argument ensued, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Christopher No said.

One suspect pulled out a knife and stabbed the victim multiple times. He died before arriving at a hospital, according to Los Angeles police.

LAPD Cmdr. Sharon Papa told the Los Angeles Times the student attended West Valley Occupational Center.

The stabbing occurred around 4:10 p.m., said Monica Carazo of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Police do not believe the suspects are students, No said.

CALIFORNIA SUED ON BEHALF OF FAILING ENGLISH LEARNERS

ACLU Sues California On Behalf of 20,000 Students, Says Schools Are Failing English Learners

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez | Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/10CtBDh

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez - Civil Rights lawyers at a press conference Wednesday announcing a lawsuit against California for allegedly failing to provide mandated help for students who aren't fluent in English.

April 24th, 2013, 4:55pm  ::  The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California has sued California officials alleging  about 20,000 students who don't speak English fluently are languishing in public school classrooms without the help schools are mandated to provide.

The state’s large immigrant population makes English learner instruction a big issue in California. The state labels about one in four public school students as English learners. Many are immigrants; others are U.S. citizens raised by parents who speak a foreign language. State and federal laws require schools to help these students become fluent speakers, readers and writers of English so they'll do well in other academic subjects.

But Oxnard teacher and administrator Walt Dunlop, who attended the ACLU's press conference announcing Wednesday's lawsuit, said that’s not what he saw in the classroom. He said English learner students went days without help from teachers or peers.

“Over a lifetime as an educator, I’ve known English learner students who in despair have said to me about dropping out of school: ‘there’s nothing here for me Mr. Dunlop, nothing here for me.’ High school students crying during high stakes exams feeling that failure is imminent,” Dunlop said.

Mark Rosenbaum of the ACLU said his group sued the state for doing "nothing, nada" to identify these struggling students to keep them from falling through the cracks, even though civil rights lawyers put the state on notice of the problem earlier this year.

The state has a complaint process and Rosenbaum said that's about all it does.

State officials would not address the specifics of the lawsuit, saying they have yet to receive it, but generally denied the ACLU's allegations.

“The California Department of Education is determined to ensure that all English learner students receive appropriate instruction and services,” California Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Zeiger said in a written statement.

The statement went on to say that a recent court ruling confirms the state is meeting its legal obligation to English learners and will ensure that school districts are following the law.

According to data released this month, the high school graduation rate for English learners is 61.6 percent and has remained static over a two year period. The rate pales in comparison to the statewide graduation rate of 78.5 percent.

 

California ignoring some English learners, lawsuit says

California's Department of Education has failed its obligation to give English-learning students legally required help, says a suit filed by the ACLU and others.

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/YUPpUd

April 24, 2013, 10:20 p.m.  ::  The state Education Department has ignored its obligation to make sure that thousands of students learning English receive adequate and legally required assistance, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

State officials said they had not studied the lawsuit, but insisted they are meeting their legal obligations.

The suit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, focuses on an estimated 20,000 students who are receiving no help or inadequate services as they work to learn English and keep up academically at the same time.

"It is a blatant violation of the law not to provide these students the most basic and essential component of their education — language to access their classes," said Jessica Price, staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

Advocates based their conclusions on information that school districts report to the state Department of Education. About 250 districts acknowledge they are providing no services or inappropriate language help to these students, and yet "the state of California does absolutely nothing in response," Price said.

The suit includes narratives, such as that of F.S., a student in the Compton Unified School District who was allegedly denied language help in third grade, failed most of his classes, and ultimately was retained. The next year, the same student, in the same school system, received help and "finally showed progress in his classes," according to advocates. Compton Unified is not a target of the litigation.

The suit was filed on behalf of six students and their guardians. They are remaining anonymous out of concern over possible retaliation from their local school systems, attorneys said. Also suing is Walt Dunlop, a former Oxnard Union High School District teacher who has worked with English learners and criticized his district's programs for them.

Although federal and state funds are set aside to help English learners, the best approach has long been a topic of contention. Programs that offer the teaching of academic subjects in a foreign language have become more rare. It's more common for English-speaking teachers to receive training in how to make their lessons more accessible. And students can also receive support in classes taught in English.

The ACLU's Mark Rosenbaum said it was outrageous that so many students received no help at all.

A state official insisted California was not shirking its obligations. The education department is "determined to ensure that all English-learner students receive appropriate instruction and services," said Chief Deputy Supt. of Public Instruction Richard Zeiger.

"When questions arose," he added, the department "asked local educational agencies to provide additional information regarding the services they are required to provide."

Zeiger also urged parents with specific issues to contact the department though its established complaint process.

Earlier this year, state officials said 98% of the state's 1.4 million English learners were receiving services.

In an earlier round of litigation, advocates targeted Dinuba Unified as well as the state. Dinuba settled the suit, setting the stage for the current legal action targeting the state.

Also participating in the suit are the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the law firm of Latham & Watkins.

California educators sued over English instruction

By Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, Associated Press Writer  from The LA Daily News |http://bit.ly/11UnBzZ

  

Mark Rosenbaum, chief counsel for the ACLU of Southern California, left, with attorney Jessica Price, center, and Walt Dunlop a teacher at Oxnard Union High School District talk during a news conference in Los Angeles, Wednesday, April 24, 2013. About 20,000 students in California who need to learn English aren't getting adequate language instruction, according to the lawsuit filed against the state and education workers on Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)

4/24/2013 06:50:03 PM PDT  ::  LOS ANGELES - About 20,000 students in California who need to learn English aren't getting adequate language instruction, according to a lawsuit against the state and education workers filed Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Under state and federal law, schools are required to teach non-English speakers the language, but by its own records, the state isn't offering English instruction to nearly 20,000 students. The suit alleges that lack of instruction has meant some children had to be held back a grade or live with low proficiency scores because of a language barrier.

The ACLU brought the issue to the attention of the state with a letter in January, and officials say they're working to ensure compliance at the local level.

Attorney Mark Rosenbaum said in Wednesday's filing that English learners fall behind without proper language lessons, even as school districts collect federal funds for providing such education.

"These kids are not getting the differentiated learning they're supposed to be getting," Rosenbaum said.

Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Richard Zeiger said in a statement that the state is determined to provide English learners appropriate instruction and encouraged parents to bring problems to the state's attention.

"The Department will continue to work with local agencies to ensure compliance with districts' obligations to provide services to English learners," Zeiger said.

Zeiger also noted that a recent appellate court decision found that the department was meeting its legal obligations related to on-site monitoring of English learners.

The ACLU's lawsuit describes the educational struggles of three families with Spanish-speaking children attending Compton Unified School District and a San Diego 18-year-old in the Grossmont Union High School District.

In each case, schools identified the students as English learners but were later taken out of English language classes and saw their grades drop dramatically in courses where they struggled to understand instruction, the suit alleged.

One mother had both of her children, an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old, held back a year immediately after they stopped being provided language instruction, the suit alleged.

Rosenbaum said parents often didn't know their children had been taken out of language classes, and in one case, a mother was told to bring her own translator to school meetings to get an explanation.

In response to the January letter, school officials acknowledged the problem while adding more than 98 percent of the state's 1.4 million English learners are receiving services.

The suit seeks a court order for schools to provide courses to English learners who need them, attorney's fees for filing the suit and unspecified further equitable relief the court finds appropriate.

Expurgated: TWO EXCELLENT STORIES ON THE PARENT TRIGGER: Who ‘they’ are …stuff they don’t want you to know …and how they work to make sure you don’t find it out.

THESE ARTICLES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR

Yasha Levine Writes: Thu, Apr 25, 2013 10:23 am  ::  I'm the author of the the two articles you published on your blog. I'm glad you liked them, but we're a paid subscription publication that relies on people reading the site (and hopefully subscribing) in order to be able to support this kind of journalism. You're welcome to include 2-3 paragraphs, but then please link to the main pieces. (Here are two links that will remain open to the public for the next 48 hours. 1.https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/parent-trigger/a9245e1c713b791a897da6d19a1710bec2072525/ 2. https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/et-tu-npr/f65fedd854ca24edc0c34952540a95a8663c8ce4/     smf: I’m not about to butcher Levine’s journalism and carve out the choicest bits to give the reader a taste.  I wish Levine good luck with this business model of investigative journalism and I fully realize that a free press is never really free. But I am enough of a provocateur (and an idealist) to believe that locking the truth behind a paywall isn’t freedom either. And I’m sure Ben Austin and the Waltons and the wonderful folks of ®eform, Inc.are glad to have this indictment placed where only subscribers can find it, like art locked away in a private museum for the enjoyment of the select few.

SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH BILL FALLS VICTIM TO GUN BILL DEFEAT

Capitol Connection Newsletter - ASCD Public Policy http://bit.ly/15NsYaH

smf/4AKids: The NRA and their bought-and-paid-for fellow travelers argued that “Guns don’t kill people, people with mental illness kill people”.  But now that they’ve defeated meaningful gun regulation they couldn’t care less about improving mental health services for children.

Apr 24, 2013   ::  The bipartisan amendment intended to improve mental health services for children, cosponsored by Senate Education Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and top committee Republican Lamar Alexander (TN), received overwhelming approval from the U.S. Senate but won't go anywhere because it was attached to a larger gun control measure, which the Senate will not take up due to various controversial issues.

The amendment, which easily cleared the education committee last week, focuses on awareness, prevention, and early identification of mental health conditions. It would have expanded the use of behavioral interventions and supports, promoted school-based mental health partnerships, clarified that Title I funds can be used for school emergency management plans, provided resources for suicide prevention, and more.

In response to the overall gun control measure's defeat, President Obama called it "a shameful day for Washington" and vowed to continue his efforts to combat gun violence. In the meantime, Harkin and Alexander could tack their amendment onto another piece of legislation that faces better odds in the Senate.

SB 69: DEMOCRATIC SENATORS OFFER ALTERNATIVE TO BROWN’S FUNDING FORMULA

By John Fensterwald, EdSource Today |  http://bit.ly/12J1IYc

April 23rd, 2013   ::  Democratic leaders of the state Senate want to delay Gov. Brown’s sweeping plan for changing how schools are funded by a year and will recommend significant changes to it in a bill that they will reveal on Thursday.

In a news release Tuesday, Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg and chairs of the Senate Budget and Education Committees stated they agree with the “fundamental goals and concepts” behind Brown’s Local Control Funding Formula.

 

CSBA’s price of support: $5 billion more The California School Boards Association has indicated it would back Gov. Jerry Brown’s new funding formula for schools, but only if the governor delivers at least an additional $5 billion to raise the level of spending for all students. Failing that, CSBA, which represents elected trustees at some 1,000 California school districts, will lobby legislators to delay providing all of the extra money for poor students and English learners that Brown has proposed in his Local Control Funding Formula. “While we support the general concept of recognizing the additional needs of low income students and ELs (English learners), those investments can’t come at the expense of restoring the Base funding for the cuts that school districts have experienced the last five years,” the CSBA wrote in a 21-page position paper, done by consultant Rob Manwaring, that it has forwarded to Brown and to legislators. <<The gap between the national and state per pupil spending has grown. Since 2009-20, it has widened further to about $4,000, according to CSBA (click to enlarge). California districts have seen their base level funding, known as the revenue limit, cut by 22.7 percent. Under the LCFF,  the state would fully restore the district average revenue limit in 2007-08: $6,817. On top of that, for every poor child or English learner, a district would receive an additional $2,375, plus a concentration bonus, starting when disadvantaged students comprise a majority of students in a district. Brown has promised that no district will receive less money under the formula than it got last year. CSBA, which represents both poor and wealthy districts, doesn’t disagree with Brown’s contention that disadvantaged students need more money; it accepts Brown’s level of extra funding, 35 percent more per high-needs student and the same amount in the concentration grant. But it contends that, despite the administration’s claim, many districts won’t get back to 2007-08, the high point in district revenue before the recession, for several reasons. Six years ago, about half the districts got more than the average revenue limit; those with substantial numbers of high-needs students will make up in supplemental dollars what they would lose in revenue limit dollars under the LCFF, but those districts with few of those favored students may not get back what they would lose. Furthermore, back in 2007-08, districts saw money for earmarked programs, called categoricals, cut 20 percent. These include basic programs, like maintaining buildings, training teachers and purchasing textbooks. Here, too, districts with few targeted students would not recover that money or the cost-of-living adjustments that would have accrued to it. CSBA estimates that it would require an additional $5 billion to make all districts whole, a figure that the Department of Finance believes is too high, Nick Schweizer of the Department said on Tuesday. CSBA Assistant Executive Director Dennis Meyers said that one option would be to go to voters in 2014 or 2016 to ask for more funding. Another would be to fund the base amount at a faster rate than the supplemental money for high-needs students. All of the funding problems would disappear if California raised its per-student funding level to the national average, which is what CSBA ultimately favors. That would be a heavy lift, since, by one measure, accounting for regional cost differences, California’s funding is 49th in the nation, and lagging the national average by $4,017, according to CSBA’s data. CSBA said that raising spending to the national average, while keeping Brown’s formula intact, would raise the base level funding about $1,000 per student, assuming California raised the money in one fell swoop next year. But the national average is a moving target, and other states will likely raise education spending, too, over the seven years in which Brown plans to phase in the LCFF. Thus, CSBA estimates that California would need to come up with billions more to match other states’ increases.

But the forthcoming Senate Bill 69 will include measures to make districts more accountable for the extra spending on low-income students and English learners that the proposal will provide. It will also eliminate a key feature of the formula: bonus dollars awarded to districts in which high-needs students constitute a majority, on the grounds that high concentrations of poverty present additional challenges.

Under Brown’s formula, all students would receive a base grant that restores most of the money that districts have lost since 2007-08. In addition, districts would receive an additional 35 percent – about $2,375  – for every English learner or low-income child. The concentration grant would be phased in on top of that. For districts with only high-needs students, it would provide an extra 18 percent: $1,120 per child – a significant boost for urban districts like Fresno, Santa Ana and Long Beach.

SB 69 would redirect the money for the concentration grant – about $2.5 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office – to increase the base funding and the supplemental 35 percent grant, although specifics weren’t disclosed. Senators said they want to insure that all districts have spending restored to pre-recession levels.

That approach responds to critics in suburban districts with few high-needs students who say the base amount would be too low (see accompanying piece) and the concentration grant would apply to too many districts.

However, Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based advocacy group that supports Brown’s plan, said that research on the struggles of children in high-poverty schools justifies a concentration grant. “The loss of a concentration factor would be a concern,” Lempert said. “There would have to be a strong rationale for that to go away.”

At the same time, Lempert said, he is encouraged that Senate Democrats are endorsing Brown’s overall plan. “It shows how far we have come; last year, it (Brown’s proposal) was not taken seriously.”

While “appreciating that the Senate is now engaged,” Lempert said he wants negotiations to continue and the plan to be adopted without a year’s delay.

Brown would give local districts more control over how state money would be spent; he would eliminate most state-directed programs called categoricals. However, districts would have to direct supplemental money to high-needs students and write a plan, subject to public hearings and a review by the county office of education, detailing how outcomes for those students would be improved.

SB 69 would add teeth to the accountability measures. It would give the state the authority “to intervene and support” districts failing to achieve state goals; districts could have spending restrictions reimposed if there’s no academic progress for subgroups of students, according to the news release.

Along with Steinberg, co-authors of SB 69 will be Carol Liu, chair of the Senate Education Committee; Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, chair of the Senate Budget Committee; Marty Block, D-San Diego, chair of Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education; Democratic Caucus chairman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo; Latino Legislative Caucus chairman Ricardo Lara, D-Long Beach; Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley; Bill Monning, D-San Luis Obispo; and Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles.

Going deeper

• Balancing Equity and Restoration in K-12 Funding, an analysis by CSBA, April 2013;
• Senate Bill 69 (to be filed as of April 25);
• Previous EdSource Today coverage of the proposed Local Control Funding Formula.

The best LA school board the NYC mayor’s money can buy: NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG DONATES ANOTHER $350,000 TO LAUSD RACE

By Barbara Jones, Staff Writer, LA Daily News | http://bit.ly/15I2ibF

4/24/2013 3:10:10/Updated: 4/24/2013 3:40:53 PM PDT  ::  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who contributed $1 million to a slate of reformers in the LAUSD primary election, has now donated $350,000 to support a candidate facing a runoff for a school board seat in May.

According to statements filed today on the city Ethics Commission website, Bloomberg made the $350,000 donation on Tuesday to the Coalition for School Reform, which is backing education advocate Antonio Sanchez in his bid for the District 6 seat on the LAUSD board.

In February, the New York City billionaire contributed $1 million to the coalition, an independent expenditure committee that supported Sanchez, District 2 incumbent Monica Garcia and District 4 challenger Kate Anderson. Garcia won outright, Anderson lost to incumbent Steve Zimmer and Sanchez was forced into a runoff with teacher Monica Ratliff for the East San Fernando Valley seat.

Bloomberg's $1 million donation came as the coalition tried to solidify support for Los Angeles Unified Superintedent John Deasy and his efforts to implement data-based performance evaluations and expand charter schools. Those policies are also supported by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who brokered that initial contribution.

The March 5 primary for three school board seats drew about $5.5 million in contributions to independent expenditure committees, with about $1.5 million spent on the District 6 race.

Bloomberg's contribution this week is the largest in the LAUSD runoff, and is more than double the $215,500 in independent expenditures that Sanchez reported through April 6. Since then, Sanchez received $50,000 from John Arnold, a billionaire hedge-fund manager in Houston.

Ratliff, meanwhile, has received $1,000 from the political action committee for United Teachers Los Angeles and another $1,000 from the PAC for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. She previously hadn't reported any independent expenditure donations.

FORMER SUN VALLEY TEACHER ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF HAVING CHILD PORN

Douglas Randolph Collins taught at Fernangeles Elementary School until the issue came to light last fall.

By City News Service from North Hollywood-Toluca Lake Patch | http://bit.ly/13Yv5IY

April 23, 2013   3:17 pm  ::  A former fifth-grade teacher at a Sun Valley elementary school was arrested Tuesday for allegedly possessing child pornography.

Douglas Randolph Collins was scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court on one count of possession of matter depicting a minor in sexual conduct, according to the District Attorney's Office.

Collins taught fifth-grade at Fernangeles Elementary School, but was removed from the classroom in October when the allegations first came to light, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District. He was arrested at the Van Nuys Educational Service Center, where he was assigned after being removed from classes.

According to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the 46-year-old Valencia man allegedly ordered child pornography online and received it through the mail.

Fernangeles parents were notified about the arrest through a letter and telephone calls, according to the LAUSD. Collins began his LAUSD career at Fernangeles in 1997. Crisis counselors will be at the school Wednesday, according to the district.

The charge does not involve any students at the school, officials said.

"Parents and guardians entrust their children to LAUSD, and we must take every precaution to ensure their safety at our schools," LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy said. "No teacher or employee interested in child pornography belongs in the district."

Additional coverage

Sun Valley teacher arrested at LAUSD Van Nuys office on child-porn charges

Pasadena Star-News

A fifth-grade teacher at Fernangeles Elementary School in Sun Valley was arrested today by federal authorities on charges of possessing child pornography, officials said. Douglas Randolph Collins, 46, of Valencia, was taken into custody at a Los Angeles ...

LA Unified teacher arrested for alleged child porn possession

Los Angeles Times

In a statement, school board member Nury Martinez assured parents the district “took swift action to remove the teacher from the classroom and notified the Fernangeles community as soon as law enforcement had notified us that he was under investigation.”

“As a mother and a school board member, I was outraged to once again discover an LAUSD teacher charged with a crime against children,” she said.

Elementary School Teacher Arrested on Kiddie Porn Charges

LAist

Elementary School Teacher Arrested on Kiddie Porn Charges

Los Angeles Times

A Los Angeles Unified School District teacher was arrested and charged Tuesday with possession of child pornography after he allegedly ordered and received through the mail sexually explicit DVDs of children, officials said. Douglas Randolph Collins, 46, ...

CALIFORNIA RANKS LOW IN DIAGNOSIS RATES OF ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

By Jane Meredith Adams, EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/10b8ErD

April 22nd, 2013  ::  California has one of the lowest rates of diagnosis in the nation of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, raising questions about the role of regional, economic and cultural differences in identifying what scientists regard as a brain disorder.

Over-diagnosing ADHD and over-prescribing medication to children has been the cause of considerable concern in education and other circles. But some researchers interviewed by EdSource Today say that the state’s relatively low rates may indicate that the condition is being under-diagnosed among some demographic groups. They suggest that some students aren’t getting the treatment they need to succeed in school.

California ranks fifth lowest in the nation – tied with Alaska – in the percentage of children diagnosed with ADHD, according to newly released data from the 2011-12 National Survey of Children’s Health. In part, California’s ranking reflects low rates of diagnosis among Latinos, who make up 38 percent of the state’s population, and even lower rates of diagnosis among Californians of Asian descent, who make up 14 percent of the state’s population.

It’s not the state’s overall rate of childhood ADHD that raises questions, with 5.2 percent of California children, or 1 in 20, receiving the diagnosis. Rather it is the wide variation in diagnostic rates among different racial and ethnic groups.

Kaiser Permanente researchers found that the rates of childhood ADHD in California were 5.6 percent for whites and 4.1 percent for blacks, but only 2.5 percent among Latino children, and 1.9 percent among children of Asian descent.

The very low rates for Latino and Asian American children stand out as anomalous, said Joshua Israel, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UC San Francisco. “In just about every country that has been looked at, including China, the rates have been about the same for children – between 3 and 9 percent, with the average closer to 5,” he said. “It’s likely that the true rates for Asians in California would not be 1.9 percent.”

The six states ranked the lowest in percentage of children diagnosed with ADHD.

“We know that there are relatively dramatic differences between ethnic groups in rates of diagnosis,” said Ruth Hughes, chief executive officer of the Maryland-based advocacy group Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. “Part of it is cultural, part of it is economic, and all of it has to do with the school system and the medical system.”

Under-diagnosing ADHD has serious consequences, said Sandra Loo, an ADHD researcher and assistant professor of psychiatry at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

“There is a common perception that ADHD is not as severe as other disorders, when in fact the long-term outcomes of people with untreated ADHD are really horrible,” she said, including high rates of dropping out of school.

In fact, nearly one-third of children with ADHD drop out or delay high school graduation, according to research conducted at the UC Davis School of Medicine.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV describes the condition as a “persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity.”

A child must show clear evidence of “clinically significant impairment” in the ability to function in two major settings – school and home – for at least six months, according to ADHD diagnostic guidelines by the American Academy of Pediatrics. In addition, the child must have at least six symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity to an extent that is “disruptive and inappropriate” for the child’s developmental level. Evidence of impairment should be documented in written reports from teachers and parents, and may include an observation of the child by a mental health professional.

Epidemiological studies of brain disorders find that prevalence is fairly constant across geographic regions, which means that rates of childhood ADHD should be roughly the same across the nation. But they’re not. In Kentucky, which has the highest prevalence, the rate is 13.1 percent, while Nevada has the lowest rate of childhood ADHD, with nearly 4 percent of children diagnosed. The national average is 8 percent, according to the survey. Diagnosis rates also vary broadly by region, with the South reporting higher rates and the West reporting lower rates.

How to account for the differences? It’s all about the beliefs and practices of parents, teachers and doctors, researchers say.

Top 5 states with highest rates of ADHD diagnoses in children

“Regional differences generally have to do with how parents interact with the education system and health providers, as well as with the prevailing attitudes of local health providers,” said Samuel Zuvekas, a senior economist at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “It’s a complicated dynamic.”

To avoid over- or under-diagnosis of ADHD, the evaluation process is supposed to be thorough. Yet at every step of the way the process can go awry, subject to pressures from schools, doctors and families.

Schools are on the front lines of identifying children who may have ADHD, working with their families and doctors and creating educational plans or accommodations if necessary. It’s a task that school systems don’t uniformly embrace, said Hughes of Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Some teachers and administrators may find the process overwhelming or may balk at the idea of suggesting that a child’s behavior is atypical, while others may be quick to spot a potential case of ADHD.

“There can be subtle, powerful messages in schools about whether kids get identified,” Hughes said. “The same kid who was never identified as having ADHD in one school system can move to another school system and be identified.”

Families, too, vary in their willingness to consider that their child might have a brain disorder, and their willingness to discuss the matter with teachers and doctors.

Another obstacle is that pediatricians, who make the bulk of diagnoses of childhood ADHD, typically aren’t reimbursed for the time it takes to conduct a rigorous evaluation, making the process “particularly challenging for primary care clinicians,” the American Academy of Pediatrics noted.

The need for appropriate diagnosis is considerable, researchers said, given risks at both ends of the spectrum: medicating children who don’t have ADHD or under-treating children who suffer from a disorder that may seriously impair their social and educational functioning.

“I am a researcher, but I am also a medical doctor, and I see the benefit of a carefully made diagnosis,” said Darios Getahun, lead author of the Kaiser Permanente study. “If you identify a child with ADHD in a timely way, and initiate treatment, the outcome will be better learning and better functioning in social situations.”

Going deeper

• Browse all the data at the National Survey on Children’s Health 2011-12 or see the chart on rates of ADHD by state
• For parents: Centers for Disease Control information on symptoms and diagnosis of ADHD
• American Academy of Pediatrics, ADHD Clinical Practice Guidelines
• “Recent Trends in Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” JAMA Pediatrics, March 2013
• The History of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Journal of ADHD, 2010