U P D A T E D - Vergara v. California: SHOW TRIAL TO CHALLENGE JOB PROTECTIONS FOR CALIFORNIA TEACHERS BEGINS MONDAY

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez  | Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/1eY6HrO

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images | A view of the defendant's table in a courtroom at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.

January 24th, 2014, 6:01am  ::  The major players in California public education will face off in an unusual trial in a Los Angeles next week, where a judge will be asked to determine whether California teacher job protections interfere with students' constitutional right to an adequate education.

The lawsuit is being financed by Students Matter, a non-profit belonging to wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur David Welch, a charter school advocate. And the California Teachers Association is paying for lawyers on the defense team.

“This is a major case for California schools,” said well-known lawyer Ted Boutrous, who heads the plaintiff's team. “We are challenging the system..."

Boutrous, who successfully argued against California’s ban on same sex marriage at the US Supreme Court last year, argues the state is putting teachers above students by using seniority - not teacher quality – to determine who gets laid off, and by giving teachers permanent job status after only 18 months.

“We have parents who are going to show that these statutes are having a real and appreciable impact - that they are creating inequality," he said. He argues job protections reduce the quality of California’s teacher corps, leaving ineffective teachers on the job in violation of every California child’s constitutional right to an adequate public education.

Sofia – a whole different Vergara!

But it’s all show biz>>

Jim Finberg, a lawyer hired by the teachers’ unions on the defense side, said the teacher protection laws are legal - and good for kids.

“Labor economists will tell you that if you take job security away from people that you need to raise salaries in order to recruit and retain people of the same quality,” he said. “Nobody cares more about the students of California having a good education than the members of the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers.”

The suit, Vergara v. State of California, was brought on behalf of teenager Beatriz Vergara and eight other named California public school students. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu will preside over testimony and render a verdict in the bench trial. Opening statements are expected Monday.

The witness list is long, over 100 possible witnesses, including Governor Jerry Brown, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, LA Unified Superintendent John Deasy, and other local school officials - and the presidents of California’s largest public school teachers unions.

Cal State Fullerton politics professor Sarah Hill said the plaintiffs face an uphill battle proving these protections directly deprive students of an adequate education.

“It’s difficult to prove, you have to show that students are not getting the basics they have to get," she said. "If some students are getting more, that’s fine, but to show that students can’t even get a minimal education, it’s tough to show.”

This is clearly the latest salvo, she said, in an ongoing battle in California and the rest of the country over the future of public schools. Both sides have faced off on use of student test scores in teacher evaluations and public funding of charter schools.

UPDATE:

ED SOURCE

Lawsuit challenging teacher tenure, seniority protections goes to court next week

January 24th, 2014   ::  The trinity of teachers’ rights in California – tenure, seniority and due process in dismissals – will be under attack next week in a trial in Los Angeles with statewide impact and national interest. In Vergara v. California, a nonprofit organization, Students Matter, is suing the state to overturn five statutes in the Education Code on behalf of Beatriz Vergara, a Los Angeles Unified student who was 13 when the lawsuit was filed in 2012, and eight more students in five districts.

MORE: http://edsource.org/today/2014/lawsuit-challenging-teacher-tenure-seniority-protections-goes-to-court-next-week/56594#.UuKJhtLTlkp

AALA WEIGHS IN ON ELIMINATION OF LAUSD COMMON CORE TECHNOLOGY (iPAD) OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE & LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA ROLL-OUT

Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Weekly Update - Week of January 27, 2014 | http://bit.ly/1eY254Y

COMMON CORE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS DISBANDED!

Jan 23, 2014 :: Board of Education President Dr. Richard Vladovic announced last week that he was disbanding the Common Core Technology Project (CCTP) Committee as of April. The committee has the responsibility to provide oversight of the LAUSD $1 billion project to provide iPads or laptops to every student, teacher and administrator in the District and is intended as a vehicle to allow the public to receive in-depth information that cannot be fully provided at a regular meeting of the Board due to time constraints. Dr. Vladovic was quoted in the Los Angeles Times (January 20, 2014) as saying, “I think there needs to be a conclusion of some sort.”

While we understand that the establishment of LAUSD School Board Committees is under the purview of the president, one can only wonder why the oversight committee needs to come to a conclusion in the middle of the rollout. Why would it not conclude when every student has his or her iPad? What has necessitated this drastic move now? Even Board Member Mónica Ratliff, the chair of the committee, was surprised to learn that her committee was being eliminated as are we, at AALA, especially since some particularly pointed and relevant questions about the CCTP have been raised at recent meetings. Due to incomplete and often conflicting information being presented to the committee, the timeline of the CCTP has been appropriately slowed down. The committee’s work has also caused the inclusion of a more thorough evaluation of the project and a pilot of the use of laptop computers with older students.

While the CCTP committee has received criticism that it has provided roadblocks for what Superintendent John Deasy calls a superlative effort of what could be a national model, it has also been commended for slowing the pace of a too hastily implemented initiative. And even as there are lingering unanswered questions about whether the use of construction bond money for iPads is a legitimate expense, the Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) will have some limited jurisdiction of the CCTP as part of its many responsibilities. However, we question its effectiveness or influence since the BOC recently made some well-documented recommendations to the Board for the appropriate use of the bond money that were summarily ignored. We doubt that the same level of inquiry and oversight that was yielded by the CCTP Committee, under the leadership of Ms. Ratliff, can continue with this change by Dr. Vladovic.

Ms. Ratliff will become chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee that was formerly led by the late Ms. Marguerite LaMotte.¹ While we are certain that Ms. Ratliff will do a commendable job in this role and know that her leadership is needed on this critical committee, we cannot help but wonder who will be overseeing the CCTP or is that something that Dr. Vladovic and Dr. Deasy no longer think is necessary? We are currently in the process of securing an opportunity to speak with Dr. Vladovic to better understand his vision for Board Committees and oversight of the CCTP.

__________

¹ The  scheduled January 28th meeting of of the Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment Committee has been CANCELED.

 

LOCAL CONTROL FUNDING FORMULA (LCFF)

As Governor Brown delivered his State-of-the-State speech on Wednesday, January 22, 2014, he expressed his vision for the Local Control Funding Formula. His comments included the following:

…This was a major breakthrough in the way funds are allocated to California’s schools so that our laws explicitly recognize the difficult problems faced by low-income families and those whose first language is other than English. As a result, those with less are going to receive more and that is good for all of us. But something else is at work in this Local Control Funding Formula. Instead of prescriptive commands issued from headquarters here in Sacramento, more general goals have been established for each local school to attain, each in its own way. This puts the responsibility where it has to be: In the classroom and at the local district…Each local district now has to put into practice what the Local Control Funding Formula has made possible. That, together with new Common Core standards for math and English, will be a major challenge for teachers and local administrators. But they are the ones who can make it work and I have every confidence they will.

There are multiple guidelines and regulations that come with the LCFF, many of which are still being developed and will definitely impact administrators throughout the District. The article below, from the Chief Operating Officer, is just an example of some of the additional work that must be done. We know that each school must develop an Accountability Plan that is due in June and are eagerly awaiting guidance for administrators from the central office and the ESCs.

REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION FOR LCFF

AALA thanks Enrique “Rick” Boull’t, Chief Operating Officer, for providing this information.

As noted above, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides school districts with funds based on the needs of students, including English learners, foster youth and those who qualify for free or reduced-price meals. More money is sent to school districts that have higher percentages of these students.

In order to access these resources, LAUSD is required to submit each student’s eligibility status for the USDA Free and Reduced Price Meal Program (FRPM). Although this information is already collected from many students throughout the District via the annual FRPM meal applications, there are approximately 138,000 students from 380 campuses for whom the District has no information.

Last November, the District launched an initial collection process to collect this vital information from these students. Thanks to the leadership of our principals and school communities, the District now has 80% of the needed information. There remain, however, approximately 27,900 (20%) students from more than 350 school sites, representing millions of dollars, from whom the District still needs information.

To capture the remaining information and maximize the District’s allocation of state funding, LAUSD has launched a second and final collection period, which will last for 6 weeks beginning January 17, 2014, and ending on February 28, 2014. Participating schools should have received materials by Friday, January 17, 2014. To support collection efforts, the District has developed a LCFF Resource Site that includes a Principal Toolkit with sample parent flyers, message points, FAQs, best practices and parent letter templates. The District has also established a LCFF Support Call Center to address any questions or concerns regarding the collection process, 213.241.4133. EVERY FORM COUNTS! Every missing form means fewer resources for our classrooms!

PARENTS AND TEACHERS PROTEST LAUSD’S ELIMINATION OF COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING CONTROVERSIAL iPAD PURCHASE

By smf for 4LAKids News

Thursday, January 23, 2014 :: Parents and teachers held a press conference/photo op Thursday afternoon to express anger and disappointment at LAUSD school board president Dr. Richard Vladovic’s decision to disband a LAUSD school board committee which is investigating the District’s iPad purchase. The Ad Hoc Common Core Technology Program Committee, chaired by boardmember Monica Ratliff has 12 members - which includes community members and district related organizations.

Committee member Raquel Cedillo said: “ I am frustrated at the closing of this committee. This is a huge purchase and the community has a right and responsibility to ask questions and know what is going on. I think that disbanding this committee is another attempt to rush the through this billon dollar iPad purchase and leave the community in the dark …and with the bill.”

Committee member Kisa Karahalios says: “ I don’t think it’s is right that the Common Core Technology Committee is being disbanded. This will look like the school district sweeping a troubled project under the rug. This billion dollar plus pus purchase has raised many questions, such as how our tax money and bond money should be spent, can we afford this purchase, what will be cut to pay for it, what technology has the District already bought and what technology is best.”

The event, held on a grassy traffic island north the LAUSD HQ at 3^rd and Beaudry, was attended by about a dozen activists and four or five representatives from the English and Spanish language media - including television cameramen/reporters, press photographers and a newspaper reporter. Questions were raised about the timing of the elimination of the CCTP Committee – which reports directly to the Board of Education. More questions have been asked than answered about the iPad roll out. And with every new question asked by the committee newer ones arise.

Initially some were afraid that the CCTP Committee would be an attempt to whitewash the controversial iPad program and/or cover-up or stonewall the uncertain roll out and nagging questions of impropriety in the procurement process. Instead the CCTP Committee became a persistent investigator of the iPad program. One could easily see the next generation of questions being: What did Doctors Aquino, Deasy and Vladovic know… and when did they know it?

With the silencing of a powerful questioning voice the overarching question becomes: Is this an attempt to quiet the questioners rather than answer the questions?

Gov. Brown: THE STATE OF THE STATE …OF PUBLIC EDUCATION + smf’s 2¢ on the Principle of Subsidiarity

A few words on public education from Governor Brown by LA School Report | http://bit.ly/1hP6FFq Gov. Jerry Brown Posted on January 22, 2014  ::  In his State of the State address today, Gov. Jerry Brown spent a few minutes talking about public education in California. Here’s what he had to say: “Last year, I spoke of the principle of subsidiarity, a rather clunky word that nevertheless points to a profoundly important principle, namely that in our federal system there are separate layers of government, each with its own distinct responsibilities. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a “central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.” No better example of this can be found than in your enactment last year of the Local Control Funding Formula. This was a major breakthrough in the way funds are allocated to California’s schools so that our laws explicitly recognize the difficult problems faced by low-income families and those whose first language is other than English. As a result, those with less are going to receive more and that is good for all of us. But something else is at work in this Local Control Funding Formula. Instead of prescriptive commands issued from headquarters here in Sacramento, more general goals have been established for each local school to attain, each in its own way. This puts the responsibility where it has to be: In the classroom and at the local district. With six million students, there is no way the state can micromanage teaching and learning in all the schools from El Centro to Eureka – and we should not even try! Last week, 324 people from across the state traveled to Sacramento to speak to the State Board of Education about the merits of this new law and the regulations which should be adopted under it. Principals, teachers, students, parents, religious groups and lawyers, all came forward to express their views. Now that shows interest and real commitment! But their work is just beginning. Each local district now has to put into practice what the Local Control Funding Formula has made possible. That, together with new Common Core standards for math and English, will be a major challenge for teachers and local administrators. But they are the ones who can make it work and I have every confidence they will.” Take a card, any card… subsidiarity (səbˌsɪdɪˈærɪtɪ) n 1. (Roman Catholic Church) (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 Jerry Brown, the Jesuit seminarian, was exposed to the Principle of Subsidiarity in that context – which espouses local control at its most local: In the individual. In either definition: 1. Catholic or 2. political it’s the anti-hierarchical principle of libertarianism. What Subsidiarity isn’t is pushing decision making down from the State to the School District level when effective decision making in the social hierarchy should be – in ascending order: The School District The Local Office The School Site The Department or Grade Level The Classroom and the Teacher The Parents The Individual Student ,   ,,at no time in the in the limited-to-non-existent process of involving the community in planning for  LCFF and the LCAP out has-or-will anyone say: “We want the the superintendent and his sponsors on the northeast corner of the 24th floor of Beaudry to run the show!.”  Didn’t happen/never will.

Brown touts education accomplishments, priorities in upbeat State of the State By Kathryn Baron| EdSource Today http://bit.ly/1ircWdc January 22nd, 2014   ::  Gov. Jerry Brown highlighted his accomplishments in education during his State of the State address on Wednesday. Credit: Office of Gov. Jerry Brown Gov. Jerry Brown highlighted his education accomplishments in an upbeat State of the State on Wednesday that marked the final address of his current term and laid out priorities for the coming year and his likely reelection campaign. In remarks that were remarkably brief, just 17 minutes long, before a joint session of the state Assembly and Senate, Brown dedicated a portion of his speech to his educational priorities and accomplishments. He thanked voters for passing Proposition 30, the 2012 ballot measure that authorized temporary tax increases to fund education, and he praised legislators for approving historic school finance reform by enacting the Local Control Funding Formula, which he called a “major breakthrough in the way funds are allocated to California’s schools.” In addition to providing additional funds to improve learning for low-income students and English learners, the new funding formula also puts into law the principle of “subsidiarity,” or local decision making, which is one of the governor’s guiding philosophical tenets. “Instead of prescriptive commands issued from headquarters here in Sacramento, more general goals have been established for each local school to attain, each in its own way,” Brown said. “This puts the responsibility where it has to be: in the classroom and at the local district.” To underscore the goal of encouraging community participation in education, the governor cited last week’s State Board of Education meeting in Sacramento, where more than 300 people turned out to give their views on implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula. “Now, that shows interest and real commitment,” Brown said. Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union, lauded the governor for putting his faith in school communities, teachers and administrators. While acknowledging that the union hasn’t always agreed with the governor, Vogel said Brown has been a good partner. “The encouraging part is you’ve got a governor saying, ‘Look, we can do this, let’s work together and solve the problem,’ which is very different than what we’ve heard from other governors, which is more like, ‘You’ve got a problem, fix it,’” Vogel said. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson attended the State of the State address and was pleased with the governor’s focus on education in the speech and in his budget proposal released two weeks ago. “It made for a happy start to 2014,” Torlakson said in an interview. He added that the governor has “kept his promise to keep education as a top priority in the budget with the $10 billion for our K-12 schools and some money for higher education.” Reaction was more muted among advocates of early childhood education, a subject that Brown didn’t even mention in his speech. “California stands in stark contrast to New York, where yesterday Gov. Andrew Cuomo joined the growing list of national leaders focusing much needed attention on investing in early learning,” said a statement released by Raising California Together, a statewide coalition of several dozen organizations and unions advocating for increased access to child care. “Gov. Brown is correct to say that education is a priority for California, but if we want kids to succeed in grades K-12, we need to set them up for success from (infancy) to five.” Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, a nonprofit that works to improve the health and well-being of California’s children, agreed. Lempert said he was “thrilled” that the governor focused so much of his remarks on education, particularly Common Core State Standards and the Local Control Funding Formula, and would have “loved to hear something about early learning and more on education and children’s health.” But he wasn’t surprised by the omission. “Unfortunately not, because in the budget proposal he was pretty silent on anything for early learning,” Lempert said. “We’re obviously hoping that the governor changes course on that with the May [budget] revise.” Brown’s speech gave little indication that he’s willing to make any significant additions to the budget. Instead, he was clear about the need to create a rainy-day fund that protects the state from the natural pattern of economic ups and downs that California is just now recovering from. “So we can’t go back to ‘business as usual,’” Brown said. Then the former seminarian reached into the Bible to make his point. “Boom and bust is our lot and we must follow the ancient advice, recounted in the Book of Genesis, that Joseph gave to the Pharaoh: ‘Put away your surplus during the years of great plenty so you will be ready for the lean years which are sure to follow.’” Going deeper Full text of Gov. Jerry Brown’s State of the State address

ADVOCATES WANT TO LIMIT USES OF STUDENT DATA + smf’s 1¢

Annie Gilbertson| Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/LZE2e4

|

Maya Sugarman/KPCC

January 22nd, 2014, 10:06am  ::  As computerized testing becomes the norm in California schools and many students are using computers to turn in class assignments, tiny bits of data useful to school administrator are captured along with it.

An advocacy group is concerned about who else is using that data: software and publishing companies who created the tests and assignments and use it to improve products, increase sales and target advertising. And it commissioned a survey that found most people are worried about it, too.

In a poll released Wednesday, most of the 800 voters it contacted are concerned about a lack of government oversight. The poll was conducted by Benson Strategy Group and paid for by Common Sense Media.

"If you are a parent and your kid has a health problem - attention deficit disorder or something else - that information shouldn't be in the hands of an app maker or a computer software company," said Jim Steyer, CEO of Common Sense Media.

Steyer said he hopes the survey results will build awareness. It showed many of the parents don't know that personal data, such as age, grades and performance measures, is stored by software companies.

The survey found 89 percent of respondents were concerned about student data being used by advertisers to market to them - such as when kids have a class-required gmail account and Google uses data contained there to target ads to the kids. Steyer said he is advocating for legislation in Sacramento that would address it. 

"Right now it's sort of like wild, wild west when it comes to student privacy," he said. "There are no real laws or polices in place, so everyone does it differently - some do it well, some do it poorly."

Steyer said he wants educators to use student achievement data being used to better direct an individual student's study. He doesn't mind companies such Pearson - which is providing software still in development for the Los Angeles Unified School District's new iPads - collecting student achievement data to test, improve and market products.

But his group does want to ban schools from selling private information to advertisers - though Steyer couldn't say how often this happens.

The group also favors requiring schools to notify parents before data is shared with companies, and requiring tighter security for schools storing students data on site or in the cloud.

 

●smf’s 1¢: For a real eye opener one this issue Google InBloom

SB837: MORE PRESCHOOL THAN CALIFORNIA CAN AFFORD + smf’s 2¢

The 'transitional kindergarten' program championed by state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg would create an expensive new entitlement.

LA Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/1eVCt99

SB 837 would create a new program ‘universal transitional kindergarten’ for all 4-year-olds. (Los Angeles Times / January 22, 2014)

January 23, 2014  ::  Preschool can do wonderful things for disadvantaged children — get them used to how a classroom works, give them play time with others and help them build crucial developmental skills, such as vocabulary, simply by exposing them to more books and spoken language. Though the research results on preschool are limited and mixed, this much is clear: Children who have attended it start kindergarten much better prepared.

But rather than embark on a billion-dollar-a-year "transitional kindergarten" program, as proposed by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), California would be better off raising the quality and reach of its existing, far less costly subsidized preschool program.

SB 837 would create a new program — universal transitional kindergarten — for all 4-year-olds, regardless of their family finances. Despite the state's improved budget outlook, though, it cannot afford an expensive new entitlement at the moment.

The bill would add a 14th year to the current K-12 system. A credentialed teacher and instructional aide would oversee each class of 20 students. Attendance would be voluntary.

Some careful thought has gone into the bill. Transitional kindergarten would be phased in over five years, to avoid a sudden shortage of qualified teachers and classroom space. The money would be paid as per-student funding to school districts, which would have the option of contracting with private preschool operators to provide the instruction, as long as the other requirements are met.

But by making it mandatory that all districts offer transitional kindergarten, and by requiring the program to be staffed with credentialed teachers, the bill would dramatically increase costs, and it would embed them into the schools' Proposition 98 funding guarantee, further limiting legislators' ability to balance the budget and fund other worthy programs. Schools would be paid at least 50% more per student than is now paid for state-subsidized preschool, and even more for every low-income student. Nor would the budget of the state's existing preschool program be reduced; it would morph into wraparound child care. The bill would also increase the membership rolls of the California Teachers Assn., as well as future retirement costs, even though the state has not figured out how to pay its existing pension obligations. The fact that the program would cover all students, poor and wealthy alike, also raises the cost of the program.

Steinberg and other preschool advocates make a valid point that California falls far short of its obligation to provide worthwhile preschool for the children who most need it. The existing state preschool program is uneven in quality, its requirements for teachers are too low, and there aren't enough seats for all the children who should qualify. It will take money to remedy this situation — but not nearly as much as universal transitional kindergarten would.

 

Politics being the Art of the Possible, let’s get real.  Universal Preschool is great thinking. It works in many places in the world – most notably France. We need to go there …but in steps.

Transitional Kindergarten is now being offered to kids on the cusp of being ‘school age’.  This is a good thing – but what about the rest o’ th’ kids? 3-year-olds do not turn 4 all at the same time any more than 4-year-olds turn 5! And once we get all the 4-year-olds in Pre-K/TK – as SB837 proposes – what about the 3 year and 11 months old kids on the cusp of the “new school age”?

OMG: the sky is falling!

It’s a slippery slope and the naysayers, libertarians, tea-partiers and the Times editorial board are rallied around the buzz word of “entitlement”, the threat to Prop 98 (which they were for dismantling last week) and the specter of Teacher Organized Labor!  

All seriousness aside:

• I have been to a UTLA meeting – never has the definition of the word word “organized” been so tortured.
• And yes,  once upon a time (Oct 10, 1910) the McNamara Brothers – ¡trade unionists! – actually blew up the Times building. (Sometimes cancelling your subscription is just not enough!)

Everybody needs to look at this and suss out what it really means. Universal is not Mandatory. Kindergarten has gotten too academic. We don’t want that to happen in Pre-K.

Reality check:

• Senate President Pro-Tem Steinberg is about to be termed out – he sees Universal TK  as a legacy builder.
• Governor Brown is neither fan nor proponent of Early Childhood Ed – he would probably veto SB837 as written. It’s a budget and subsidiarity buster.

LAUSD now has Universal Full Day Kindergarten as well as Transitional K. 4LAKids thinks that the next step should be Universal Full Day K in all California schools - accompanied  by Mandatory K  attendance – kindergarten is optional in California! 

The picture of truant officers rounding up 5-year-olds and scofflaw helicopter parents is not a pretty one. I am all for allowing some parental latitude/flexibility as when to enroll their kindergartners– perhaps supported by  counseling – but kindergarten being optional cannot continue to be an option!

L.A. CITY HALL TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT LAUSD

By Dakota Smith, Los Angeles Daily News | http://bit.ly/1dVZLNW

LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy delivers his State of Schools report to members of the City Council at City Hall, Tuesday, January 21, 2014. (Photo by Michael Owen Baker/L.A. Daily News)

Posted: 01/21/14, 8:26 PM PST   ::  Los Angeles Unified Superintendent John Deasy made a rare appearance before a City Council committee on Tuesday, marking the potential start of a closer relationship between City Hall and the school district.

Deasy and members of the Education and Neighborhoods Committee discussed ways the two independent government entities could work together on education issues; for example, he suggested, the city’s neighborhood council system or town halls could help parents get involved. He also proposed using public transportation to help advertise LAUSD issues.

“It’s the access to all those channels,” Deasy told the council.

Deasy’s appearance before the Education and Neighborhoods Committee marked one of the first times in recent memory the council has sought a more formal relationship with the nation’s second biggest school district.

Historically, relations between the city and the district have ranged from friendly to hostile, but that was a relationship driven more by the mayor’s office. They particularly grew tense in the early part of former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s term, when he tried unsuccessfully to take over control of the district. Other mayors, like Richard Riordan, have gotten deeply involved in school board politics and elections.

It is more rare to see the City Council reach out to the district, said Raphael J. Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles.

“While the school district would like to have the help of the city government, there may be concern if there are any strings that come with that,” Sonenshein said.

City Councilwoman Nury Martinez, a former school board member for four years who now sits on the council’s education committee, said the two groups “have so much in common.”

“So many of the families in our districts look at the quality of our schools,” Martinez said.

Tuesday’s hearing was requested by Councilman Bernard Parks, who represents parts of South L.A. and chairs the Education and Neighborhoods Committee. Parks said he was interested on how education correlates with reducing poverty in his district.

Parks also said information simply isn’t being passed between the two agencies.

“A constituent would ask you for a question about LAUSD and (as a councilmember) you didn’t feel comfortable answering,” Parks said. “You didn’t know who to call.”

During the two-hour hearing, Deasy outlined recent academic gains at the district, and answered councilmembers’ questions on issues ranging from budget cuts to arts funding. He also defended the rollout of the district’s $1 billion iPad program.

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, education deputy to Mayor Eric Garcetti, attended Tuesday’s hearing. The former Santa Ana school superintendent has kept a low profile in Garcetti’s administration, and the mayor had announced no major education policies since taking office.

“Mayor Garcetti was pleased that Superintendent Deasy visited City Hall today and looks forward to partnering with LAUSD to help our students succeed and be prepared for the jobs of the future,” said Jeff Millman, a spokesman for Garcetti.

Deasy is expected to return to the city council next month with a detailed list of how schools in each city council district are faring, Parks said.

 

Article IX, Sec. 6 of the CA Constitution states that “no part of the Public School System shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than one included within the Public School System.” Mayors and City Councils are not part of the “Public School System” as defined by the constitution. Just sayin’

Deasy’s partners in the operation and running of LAUSD are his bosses – the Board of Education. He reports to and is accountable to them.

Twitterpated: SUPERINTENDENT DEASY CROSSES THE FREEWAY AND TESTIFIES AT CITY HALL COMMITTEE MEETING + smf’s 2¢

By L.A. Times reporter Howard Blume, via Twitter

6:01 PM - 21 Jan 2014 :: @HowardBlume: No immediate story forthcoming. Just thought I'd report a bit about this testimony before the city council committee via Twitter.

Here's link to critical report--harsh about many L.A. things. School officials said they weren't consulted: http://ow.ly/sOMh9

L.A. schools Supt. Deasy testifies at City Hall after city report calling schools a failure. Courtesy on all sides. No major fireworks.

3 councilmembers took no ownership of critical report. Deasy expressed no dismay, but thanked city for positive partnership.

Committee included former school board member Nury Martinez--greeted Deasy warmly. She's pondering where to send daughter to kindergarten.

Deasy talked of 3 goals: 1) transform how the district hires, fires, promotes, replaces, trains. 2) managing $7 billion budget well &...

and 3) providing families w high quality school choices. He presented for nearly an hour & answered friendly questions for an hour.

He also defended iPad effort, saying 3 goals 1) closing digital divide 2) having up to date curriculum 3) having technology for testing

Councilmember Nury Martinez to Deasy: "It’s great to see old friends...I think we did a lot of really great work together.”

Modest admonitions to Deasy. Martinez: "We need to work a little harder to make sure kids are learning.”

More modest admonitions. Mitch O'Farrell: "I’ve been disheartened about schools" not being accessible for neighborhood use.

More modest admonitions. Bernard Parks: Almost impossible to deal w LAUSD bureaucracy above level of principals.

Deasy on iPads: "I don’t know what the controversy is...Good healthy dose of political manipulation” is behind the furor.

More Deasy on iPads: "The initiative has certainly changed” w addition of laptops, a benefit of "good robust policy discussion."

But Deasy reiterates on iPads: "As to why it’s controversial. I don’t know. I think it’s a good thing to help youth in poverty.”

end twitter stream

 

I WROTE BACK TO HOWARD BLUME:

Thank you for your Twitter stream.

You wrote: But Deasy reiterates on iPads: "As to why it's controversial. I don't know. I think it's a good thing to help youth in poverty."

Howard, I not a fan of poverty and I agree with Dr D that poverty is an issue. However I do not see anywhere in the BB, K, R, Y, or Q school construction and modernization bonds – in the bond language or in the campaign literature or promises - that poverty was to be addressed by the bonds.

The bonds were to build schools and fix up old ones. To end school overcrowding. To end year ‘round calendars to get kids off the bus and back to their neighborhood schools. Later goals were Full Day Kindergarten and guaranteeing core facilities. Earthquake retrofit became a goal after the Belmont Learning Complex/Roybal fiasco identified other seismic needs at other schools

Test platforms and curriculum were never part of the deal. Ending poverty and social engineering are not school construction.

Ignoring the intent of the voters and taxpayers is what’s controversial

- smf

This AM’s School Board Meeting: TWO MONTHS AFTER HE KILLED ONE PLAN, KAYSER HAS HIS OWN TITLE I IDEAS

by Michael Janofsky, LA SchooLs Report  |  http://bit.ly/KCdvCa

<<LA Unified board member Bennett Kayser

Posted on January 20, 2014  ::  It’s not often that LA Unified board members Tamar Galatzan and Bennett Kayser agree, and Kayser’s abstention on a measure two months ago killed an effort by Galatzan that would have lowered the threshold for schools receiving federal dollars for low-income students.

Now, Kayser is returning to the board meeting tomorrow morning with a measure that appears similar to what he didn’t vote on in November. Discussion will commence, but no vote will occur until the Feb. 11 board meeting.

His motion — Creating Equitable Classrooms – seeks to bring back Title I dollars to any school in which 40 percent of students or more are from low-income families, starting in the 2014-2015 academic year. Federal Title I money is intended for extra learning resources and services.

Galatzan’s measure sought to lower the threshold to same 40 percent level. The cutoff was raised to 50 percent after federal education dollars were reduced by nine percent in 2011.

Why Kayser is offering this particular measure is unclear. Repeated efforts to seek comment from his office were unsuccessful.

Kayser says in his motion that LA Unified currently has more than 375,000 students in 600 schools who are eligible for Title I funding.

When the board considered Galatzan’s motion, which was co-sponsored by Monica Ratliff, the vote was, 3-3, with Steve Zimmer providing the third vote in favor. All three represent districts with mixed income levels. The dissenters were Board President Richard Vladovic, Monica Garcia and the late Marguerite LaMotte, whose districts include high poverty communities.

Kayser assured defeat when he chose not to vote.

“This is a really tough one,” he said at the time, explaining that his district would suffer no matter which side he took. Click here for a video clip of his reasoning.

The Galatzan-Ratliff proposal would have pushed back the line to 40 percent with three tiers of funding that increase with need: 40 to 50 percent, 50 to 65 percent and 65 to 100 percent.

As a result of the defeat, 23 schools that were in the 40 percent to 49 percent range lost between $160,000 and $600,000 each.

A staffer for another board member said Kayser’s plan includes different tiers but declined to discuss them, saying it was only proper that Kayser’s office discuss the details.

Only one other measure is listed on the board agenda for tomorrow, also from Kayser, asking that charter schools submit the same performance accountability information that other schools do.

The board has a number of issues to discuss in closed session, most of them dealing with labor contracts and legal matters.

ANNETTE BENING TO BECOME FACE OF ARTS ED FOR CALIFORNIA

Mary Plummer| Pass / Fail | 89.3 KPCC http://bit.ly/1ePLgsW

January 20th, 2014, 6:00am  ::  Actress Annette Bening has signed on as the new spokesperson for the California Arts Council's "keep art in schools fund."

<<AFP/Getty Images ::  Annette Bening

The fund raises money for arts education through public donations on state tax returns - a move that was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown September 30.  The goal is to raise at least $250,000 - enough to keep the donation on tax forms. Arts donations were removed from tax forms after that minimum wasn't met in 2011.

From 2004-08, Bening served as a member of The California Arts Council, a government agency run by the state that helps to expand arts education, among other things.

The council said the details of the new fundraising campaign haven't been fully worked out, but expects Bening will appear in advertisements and promotional materials.

She joins prior celebs Jack Black, Eli Broad, Macy Gray and others who have helped the council. Those three participated in the California Arts Plate campaign, which raises money for public arts funding when people purchase specially designed license plates.

For details on how to donate, visit the California Arts Council's website.

Tinkering w/LCFF: STATE LOOKS TO TRIM LIST OF SCHOOL PLANS REQUIRED

 

by Tom Chorneau, SI&A Cabinet Report  | http://bit.ly/1ePIV1g

January 21, 2014  ::  (Calif.) After a marathon hearing and a surprise visit by the governor last week, members of the California State Board of Education are not expected to make any major changes to a set of temporary regulations governing use of billions in new state money for schools during the coming year-long process to set permanent rules.

That said, the board has directed staff to look at several parts of the program while also signaling to critics their satisfaction with pieces already in place that some had called for revising.

For one, the board wants to review the growing number of planning documents that school districts must now file to see if the state can eliminate overlap and redundancy. There’s also interest in looking closer at how big federal programs interact with the new accountability requirements tied to the Local Control Funding Formula, especially as it relates to English learners.

One area of concern that was raised by civil rights groups, as well as other critics of the temporary regulations, last week had to do with district-wide spending and complaints that the new regulations provided a loophole that could allow districts to use money intended for disadvantaged students on those who are not.

But based on comments from Sue Burr, a key member of the state board who served as Gov. Jerry Brown’s primary education adviser from 2001-12, the board is not likely to take up the district-wide spending question.

Burr said that the temporary regulations gave schools a good balance between flexibility for spending the supplemental and concentration grants provided by the LCFF and accountability to the community for those choices.

“There is no loophole,” she said last week. “We have set conditions under which districts may use funds on district-wide expenditures and school-wide expenditures. We set thresholds in the regulations to conform with, what we felt was really federal law, and/or the level at which concentration grants are provided.”

But, Burr said, the temporary regulations do lay out a “fairly high accountability expectation” that districts must meet to explain to the community what expenditures they are making and “why they think those are the best expenditures on behalf of the students who generate them.”

One area of growing sensitivity, however, that board members expressed was on the number of plans that school sites and districts must create. Ilene Straus, who serves along with Burr as board liaisons on LCFF issues, said they want staff to look for ways to minimize duplication and opportunities to streamline reporting.

Two of the plans in question, however, are required under federal law – the School Site Plan and the Local Educational Agency Plan. Both call for reporting on how federal resources are being used to improve performance of struggling students.

Straus noted also the School Accountability Report Cards, which are required of each school under state law. The SARCs are produced annually and cover a variety of topics to allow parents and public the ability to compare and contrast schools

Now, with the creation of the LCFF schools are also required to begin providing a Local Control Accountability Plan, a document intended to disclose how the new state funding is being used to increase services to the educationally disadvantaged – low income students, English learners and foster youth.

One big new component for schools under the LCAP is that school and district managers will need to show how they have engaged parents in the planning process – something the board also asked staff to provide more and better examples of to shore up a draft planning template.  (smf: emphasis added)

The final area of interest that the state board will consider is how the new LCFF system and its new accountability requirements fit in against existing federal law.

The No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools use federal funding to supplement existing services – the law prohibits schools, districts and states from using federal money to supplant existing spending.

There are concerns that schools might overlook the federal supplant rules as they implement the LCFF – especially as it relates to the use of Title III money intended for English learners. The board has asked staff to look at the state program to see if clarification or support is needed to ensure supplanting does not occur.

Another look: SIGNS OF BALKANIZATION IN L.A. UNIFIED

This editorial from The Times staff ran last November. With the death of Marguerite LaMotte and a key population and vast+vibrant community unrepresented the handwriting on the wall moves from graffito to forgone conclusion – playing out in a board where a 3:3 tie is anathema, compromise is a sign of weakness and consensus is a pipedream.

By Karin Klein. LA Times editorial board member | http://lat.ms/1dQBGYV

November 11, 2013  ::  A potentially disturbing new phenomenon has cropped up a couple of times at recent Los Angeles Unified school board meetings. It’s not about the usual reform advocates vs. the board members aligned with the teachers union. It’s about whether this an overarching seven-member body that sees to the needs of all students, or a gathering of individual representatives who want to rule over their own electoral districts.

It came up during the board’s discussion last week of the project to equip all students with iPads. The board majority generally favors some kind of technology program, but it has well-grounded doubts about how the iPad purchase has been rolled out by Supt. John Deasy so far. But Monica Garcia, Deasy’s most ardent supporter on the board, prefers to move ahead swiftly and proposed that if the other board members have doubts, they should go ahead with Phase 2 anyway and put the tablets in her district’s schools, because she has no concerns about them.

Garcia is certainly entitled to her viewpoint on the iPads either way, and to fight vociferously to convince the rest the board. But the board is supposed to be adopting policies that are best for the overall district and its students. If there are problems with doing a faster iPad roll-out, that’s true for the entire district, not just for six-sevenths of it. And if it’s important to buy several hundred thousand of them quickly, that also is true for the entire district, not just Garcia’s one-seventh slice.

A worse example came up several weeks ago. The board was discussing a new system to test school volunteers for tuberculosis. The screenings are a state health requirement. Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte had concerns about the proposal and said she didn’t want the volunteers in the schools she represents to use the new program, so the board voted to leave those schools out of it.

Again, the issue isn’t whether LaMotte’s or Garcia's opinions were legitimate; they were. But board members, though they are expected to fight for their constituencies, are not the overlords of the schools in their respective areas. It’s the board’s job to make decisions for all students. Perhaps there could be an exception when a board member can convince the others that his or her district is significantly different and has different needs.

All board members are responsible to all the students. Disagreement should not devolve into the balkanization of L.A. Unified.

Ravitch: IN LOS ANGELES DEASY REFUSES TO RESTORE ARTS FUNDING

By dianeravitch  from Diane Ravitch's blog http://bit.ly/1haAa3A

January 17, 2014  ::  Despite a board resolution in 2012 calling for a restoration of arts funding in Los Angeles, Superintendent John Deasy has refused to prepare a budget complying with the resolution.

“In 2012, the Los Angeles Unified School District board voted to make arts education a core subject in its curriculum.

“Four months ago, the board gave district officials a Dec. 3 deadline to produce a budget for the school district’s Arts Education and Creative Cultural Network Plan, which aims to prepare students for work in creative and technology-based fields by increasing arts-related course offerings and increased faculty support.

“That deadline, however, came and went without so much as a “the check’s in the mail”— leaving public school officials and parents to wonder whether music and arts funding is coming at all.

“I see this as an absolute conflict between two opposing views on what public education should look like: Those who want to see arts as a core subject, and those who are only concerned about test scores and offering students a limited education,” said Karen Wolfe, a Venice Neighborhood Council Education Committee member whose daughter attends Marina Del Rey Middle School.

“Last year the school hired a ballet teacher and began requiring all of its students to take dance classes, said Marina Del Rey Middle School Performing Arts Coordinator Nancy Pierandozzi.

“Venice High School, Mark Twain Middle School and Grand View Boulevard and Broadway elementary schools have also begun integrating performing arts content into English/language arts classes.

“That combination has for some students resulted in a drastic turnaround in attendance and academic achievement, said LAUSD board member Steve Zimmer, whose district includes schools in Mar Vista, Westchester, Del Rey and Venice.

“Author of the September resolution calling for an arts budget, Zimmer has pledged to push Supt. John Deasy for answers when school is back in session later this month.

“Deasy could not be reached.”

The district has committed to spend $1 billion to give an iPad to every student and staff member, to prepare for Common Core testing.

J’accuse: THE WIRELESS DISCONNECT IN LAUSD

By smf for 4 LAKidsNews

20 Jan 2014 :: The L.A. Time’s Howard Blume writes in his article L.A. SCHOOLS’ iPAD WATCHDOG COMMITTEE SET TO DISBAND on the ongoing iPad fiasco misadventure* in LAUSD:

Materials from the most recent meeting of the bond oversight panel were not included in the information packet prepared for the board and the public. These materials included support for the panel's analysis that fewer iPads were needed.  http://bit.ly/auDNT3

I mentioned this oversight by the superintendent’s staff in my testimony to the Board of Ed on Tuesday – ‘oversight’ being the committee I serve on’s middle name. (I’m making light of this because if one doesn’t laugh one must get angry – and it’s a holiday weekend celebrating a prophet of nonviolence – which is anger management at the extreme.)

The Bond Oversight Committee’s position was hardly secret. It had been reported in the news. It was posted on the BOC website. I posted the BOC resolution on my website.

But the superintendent’s staff’s failure to include it in the Board Briefing Book was an egregious - and I suspect intentional - failure to communicate. The staff is an extension of the superintendent’s office. The responsibility for the failure - if not the decision - is entirely that of Superintendent Deasy.

This is the information transmitted to the Board in the briefing book for the Meeting of Jan 14^th. Item 1/pp 5 of 480:

True on the face of it …nonetheless False in the extreme.

Because the BOC also met and adopted a resolution on December 18th. It is this resolution that addresses the Board Report of Dec 10^th; the Board Agenda Item #1 of Jan 14^th.

HERE IS THE BOC’s ACTUAL RESOLUTION of DECEMBER 18^th – BOC Resolution 2013-36-A – reached after lengthy and far deeper debate by the BOC than that of the Board of Ed. The BOC position on numbers of devices needed for testing is totally in line with what Ms. Galatzan seems to believe is her original idea of “Not-to-Exceed permission”. It’s just that her permission is excessively permissive.

On the Monday before the Jan 14^th Board of Ed meeting the BOC delivered copies of the missing resolution and the report of BOC’s Common Core Technology Subcommittee to the board member ‘s offices – but there is no evidence that they were received by the actual board members, inserted into their briefing books – or even read by staff or the boardmembers.

At the Board of Ed meeting on the 14th Bond Oversight Committee Chair Stephen English addressed the Board and attempted correction of whatever misapprehension may have been created …but at this point I believe whatever damage was done was done.

Bond Oversight Committee Chair English presented a PowerPoint in his presentation to the board – which follows. He was also prepared to answer any questions from the Board with a continued presentation – which specifically identifies why the BOC believes that the 38,500 iPads for Testing the BOC approved was generous if not excessive. But the board asked no questions – essentially treating Mr. English like another public commenter who interrupts what even Ms. Garcia described at the meeting as “our nonsense”.

To cut the superintendent an inch of slack – it appears that he is going to initially order the iPads only in numbers recommended by the Bond Oversight Committee.

I thank him for that – but I don’t trust any public official any more than I trust a contractor or motion picture propmaster or a middle-schooler-borrowing-a-credit-card to come in with a number much less than a “Do Not Exceed” maximum!

Miracles happen …but they wouldn’t be miracles if they were dependable!

Quoting Michael Jackson:

If this town
Is just an apple
Then let me take a bite

[chorus]
If they say -
Why, why, Tell 'em that is Human Nature

 

*A “fiasco” is one of those straw-wrapped bottles Chianti comes in. In deference to the late Ms. LaMotte: It’s gonna take a pitcher of Margaritas to get through this mess!

---

• ·The first 6 pages of the following is BOC Chair English’s PowerPoint presented to the Board of Ed,
• pp 7 is intentionally blank.
• the next 10 pages were created to answer the unasked questions.

BOC_CCTP_BOE_01_14_14

L.A. SCHOOLS’ iPAD WATCHDOG COMMITTEE SET TO DISBAND

Decision to end schools' iPad panel raises questions about oversight of the program that has had a bumpy rollout.

By Howard Blume, LA Times | http://lat.ms/KxL4oH

Avery Sheppard checks out his L.A. Unified-provided iPad. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / August 27, 2013)

 

January 19, 2014, 4:57 p.m.  ::  The watchdog committee for the Los Angeles school district's $1-billion iPad program is scheduled to fold, raising questions about oversight of the ongoing effort to provide every student, teacher and administrator with a computer.

The decision to disband the panel as of April was announced last week by Board of Education President Richard Vladovic.

"I think there needs to be a conclusion of some sort," he said in an interview. He also insisted that all necessary oversight would continue.

School board committees, the purview of the president, are intended to allow members to publicly ask in-depth questions and raise concerns about policies and proposals for which there isn't enough time during regular meetings. They also can be used to change recommendations before they reach the full board.

Critics consider the panels redundant to the board's work, a prodigious waste of staff time. Previous board president Monica Garcia had dissolved them.

Vladovic said he intended to strike a middle ground, making most committees temporary, with a defined, finite purpose. Even so, his announcement caught Monica Ratliff, who chairs the watchdog technology committee, by surprise.

Ratliff's panel bears the cumbersome name of Common Core Technology Project Committee — Common Core refers to new state learning standards in math and English. The district intends to reach these academic goals through curriculum installed on the iPads, although that is not a state requirement. The iPads also will be used for new state tests, which eventually must be given by computer.

The 12-member panel consists of appointees from the community and district-related organizations, including employee unions.

Some have complained that the panel has impeded an innovative effort that would otherwise have progressed further and faster. The iPad program was envisioned as a national model, and senior officials, including Supt. John Deasy, defend the overall effort as superlative.

Others credit Ratliff's group for slowing a project that was being carried out too hastily.

"It's very clear that the rollout had some problems and the district has been well served by admitting there were problems and beginning to address them," said Ratliff. Also, "It was really important for the public to have their questions asked publicly and, to a degree, answered."

The panel has raised or unearthed issues that senior administrators sometimes fumbled, providing incomplete, inaccurate and conflicting information. At one point, for example, they said the iPads didn't need keyboards, then later that they did, then that they knew all along that keyboards would be necessary.

At another juncture, an administrator said the district owned the curriculum on the iPads; later, officials conceded that, in fact, the curriculum was licensed for three years.

Just last week, Ratliff related the latest of her unsuccessful attempts to get access to the full curriculum, which was selected based on incomplete samples.

The work of the committee also influenced changes to the project, such as the addition of a fuller evaluation and a trial of laptop computers for older students.

Ratliff said that continued scrutiny remains necessary, but she did not criticize Vladovic's move.

Vladovic wants her to take the helm of the curriculum and instruction committee, which was left without a leader when board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte died in December. Vladovic said the coming months will bring crucial decisions about instruction that will, at times, overlap with the computer issues Ratliff has been overseeing.

Deasy said he had no comment about the evolving committees, calling it a board issue. But in the past he has expressed concerns that the panels consume too much staff time.

Other elements of oversight remain in place. The school district's inspector general is examining the process that led to the computer contract, which was intended to supply more than 570,000 iPads at a cost of $768 apiece.

The board also will commission an evaluation of the computers' effect on student achievement.

Because the project is being paid for with voter-approved school-construction bonds, a separate committee, which oversees bond spending, also will continue with limited jurisdiction.

For years, the bond oversight group habitually supported staff recommendations. For the computer effort, however, the panel balked when Deasy sought one-time blanket endorsement of the entire effort, even before vendors began bidding for the work.

The bond panel insisted on a right to review each major expenditure of bond funds. The result is that it has examined the iPad project each time officials asked for substantial additional funding. Last week, for example, Chairman Stephen English challenged the district's analysis of how many iPads would be needed for upcoming state standardized tests.

Decisions by the bond panel are not binding on the school board, but district officials have rarely departed from its recommendations.

Last week, however, was different. Materials from the most recent meeting of the bond oversight panel were not included in the information packet prepared for the board and the public. These materials included support for the panel's analysis that fewer iPads were needed.

Deasy stood by his own numbers, and, in the end, the board gave him the discretion to buy as many iPads as he felt would be necessary.

Scott Folsom, a member of the bond committee, said he is concerned by Vladovic's move to disband Ratliff's panel. But he said he understands that it was not meant to be permanent.

"If Ratliff produces a report and the committee is dissolved, that is that," he said.

SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED APPROVES $700,000 iPAD PURCHASE: Offers parents lease-to-own option

Parents who wish to purchase pay $708 @ $20 per month.

There is no funding source identified to anything beyond the pilot year

By Kelsey Brugger | The Santa Barbara Independent http://bit.ly/1mkrqJl

Thursday, January 16, 2014  ::  Santa Barbara Unified School District approved a $700,000 iPad Air purchase at Tuesday’s board meeting. Discussed at great length over the past several months, boardmembers gave district administrators the go-ahead to officially begin the one-to-one pilot program. Third through 6th graders at Washington, Adams, and Franklin elementary schools and 11th graders at La Cuesta High School will receive iPads and cases next month.

The district is fronting the bill with the Common Core State Implementation Funds but is expecting most of the families to lease-to-buy the devices for about $20 a month for the next three years (based on results from parent surveys).

Several boardmembers voiced concerns about the shelf life of the devices and logistics of the multiyear rollout, but all approved the purchase and conceded responsibility to the district.

READ SBI Reader Comments | Spoiler Alert: LAUSD is mentioned!

---

background:

Santa Barbara School District’s iPad Program Could Get Clean Install OK in January

By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer | http://bit.ly/1e4xGTV

Published on 12.29.2013 6:00 p.m.  ::  If the Santa Barbara Unified School District approves a pilot iPad program, students could be using the Apple tablets every day by March.

Many teachers are already using iPads in their classrooms, but Superintendent Dave Cash and technology director Todd Ryckman have proposed the one-to-one program for schoolwide student use.

The program would require iPads for every student in grades three through six at Adams, Franklin and Washington schools, and 11th-grade students at La Cuesta Continuation High School.

Families have the option of sending an iPad to school with their child, buying one through the district’s lease-to-own program, or using a district-owned device.

According to parent surveys of the four schools, most families prefer to purchase iPads through the district.

The choices are divided seemingly along socioeconomic lines. Far more Adams and Franklin families — 80 percent and 87 percent, respectively — want to purchase iPads through the district, while less than a third of families from Washington would buy one from the district. Adams and Franklin schools serve predominantly low-income neighborhoods, while Washington historically serves higher-income households.

Washington School Principal Anne Hubbard said some families changed their minds after a parent training, when they learned more about the program.

At a special meeting Dec. 17, Ryckman explained the specifics to the Board of Education, which has the final decision on funding the program.

Every iPad purchased by the district will be covered by insurance for three years, but families must pay to replace the device if it’s lost or stolen, Ryckman said.

Families who buy iPads will have to pay $708, with monthly payments of about $20 for the device, taxes and insurance. That’s less than a retail purchase, since the district buys in bulk, according to the district's business services department.

Cash doesn’t expect many iPads to get stolen, since they can be “bricked” and made useless once they’re reported lost. The first thieves will be “ambassadors,” Cash said, because once it happens, the word will spread.

Ryckman said families won’t be able to refuse the responsibility of such an expensive device, just like they can’t refuse to use $150 textbooks.

District trustees will have to discuss that further, because some parents will “absolutely reject the concept,” board president Kate Parker said.

It would cost $660,000 for the first year of the pilot program if the district bought every iPad. If the trustees approve the purchase, the money will come from state funding for Common Core State Standards implementation.

The district is spending at least twice as much on professional learning as the hardware itself, Cash said.

His administration set up a coaching model at every school as well, so teachers can help fellow teachers learn more about the new technology.

If the board approves the iPads purchase at its Jan. 14 meeting, the district can order the iPads the next day, Ryckman said. It will take about a month for the tablets to get delivered and configured to the district’s standards before being distributed to students.

---

Santa Barbara District Outlines Plans, Goals for iPad Pilot Program

Four schools — Adams, Franklin, Washington and La Cuesta — have been selected to help implement the system

By Giana Magnoli, Noozhawk Staff Writer | http://bit.ly/1mkwOvZ

Todd Ryckman, the Santa Barbara Unified School District’s technology director, explains details of the one-to-one iPad pilot program to the school board Tuesday night. (Giana Magnoli / Noozhawk photo)

Published on 09.24.2013 11:13 p.m.  ::  The Santa Barbara Unified School District is planning a one-to-one technology pilot program with four schools that would put an iPad in every student’s hands and implement a system of teacher and parent trainings.

Adams Elementary, Franklin Elementary, Washington Elementary and La Cuesta Continuation High schools were selected from 11 schools that wanted to get in for the pilot year, Superintendent Dave Cash said.

Tuesday’s Board of Education meeting was the first time he announced details of the pilot program publicly.

Trying out a schoolwide use of wireless devices — iPads are already being used in many classrooms across the district by teachers and students alike — has been on Cash’s to-do list for a long time.

He and his technology director, Todd Ryckman, believe it will alter the learning environment in a good way, with customization available for students and more communication between teachers and students outside of school. Content is everywhere, and having access to technology helps students with and without means to explore the world, he said.

“It’s not about technology; it’s about the way students learn,” Cash said.

The new Common Core State Standards will require more use of technology and computerized testing in 2014-15, so it’s possible that arming every student with a device like a tablet will be necessary soon enough, some board members noted.

The four schools were chosen for their leadership: Adams Principal Amy Alzina, Franklin Principal Casie Killgore, Washington Principal Anne Hubbard and La Cuesta Principal Frann Wageneck.

Cash said these women have the ability to inspire and educate others, communicate effectively and “to deliver.” Not just that, but the faculties “get it” and are committed to finding ways to make it work, he said.

There have been a lot of concerns over this idea in the past, mostly about money, equal access and network capability.

“For me, this is a civil rights issue,” Ryckman said, adding that it’s an opportunity for every student — regardless of socio-economic status — to get access to an iPad and take it home.

“If we don’t intentionally get involved in an initiative like this," Cash said, "there will be a huge gulf between schools with parents of means and Title 1 schools, and it will be difficult to bridge that gulf.”

As to money, the bottom line is the district doesn’t have enough to fund a full one-to-one program. With the proposed pilot program, every student would use the device in school and at home, which is why they wouldn’t be able to share.

It would use Common Core implementation money (the district gets $2.5 million for the next two years) to fund the pilot year. If parents buy the iPads, as some do, the pilot year obviously would cost the district nothing. If the district has to come up with all the money, it will cost $660,000 — 26 percent of all the Common Core money for just four schools.

Further implementation could cost more than $1 million a year through 2016-17, with potential ongoing cost for incoming students.

“There is no funding source identified to anything beyond the pilot year,” Cash said.

The potential to spend millions of dollars without any increase in student achievement worried board president Monique Limon.

“We can’t fall flat on our face on this one," she said. "I mean, this is a big financial investment.”

She said the district needs to balance the two competing interests of moving to advanced technology and staying fiscally solvent.

The iPad shouldn’t become the next worksheet, just a time waster without any real learning or engagement, she added. The district should be more than prepared to walk away if the results aren’t good enough, she said, and Cash agreed.

Board member Kate Parker had similar sentiments, saying the district shouldn’t overpromise about the program’s results.

It will depend a lot on how much the teachers are comfortable with the technology, board member Pedro Paz said. He added that there have been plenty of technological advances promising to revolutionize the education system, and none has delivered.

Infrastructure issues with spotty wireless coverage have caused the district grief, and Ryckman now says the newer system should be able to handle 15,000 people all using 2.5 devices at once. There are still kinks to work out, but the network has more bandwidth and is more stable and speedier than it has been “in a long, long time,” he said. “We’re fixing things as we go.”

Several schools have teachers using iPads connected wirelessly to Apple TVs, and when the wireless goes out, so does the lesson plan.

“Nothing is more frustrating to a teacher than to find a really cool lesson and to be hampered or stopped by the technology,” Ryckman said.

The item was up for discussion on Tuesday and no action was taken, but the issue will come back at a future Board of Education meeting.

---

SPECIAL ELECTION COULD TIP BALANCE ON L.A. SCHOOL BOARD + smf’s 2¢

A vigorous and strategic successor to Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte could either pose a hurdle to Supt. John Deasy or steer a board majority back toward a more supportive, ancillary role.

By Howard Blume, LA Times | http://lat.ms/1bp8SGt

L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas is widely expected to back Alex Johnson, a senior aide to the supervisor who declared his candidacy last week. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times / September 3, 2013)

January 18, 2014, 5:20 p.m.  ::  A June special election to replace former Los Angeles school board member Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte has the potential to alter the political power dynamic and the overall direction of the nation's second-largest school district.

LaMotte, who died in December, was close to the teachers union and was a critic of L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy. Although she rarely played an influential role on the seven-member board, her replacement has the opportunity to do so.

A vigorous and strategic successor — aligned ideologically with LaMotte's views — would pose a hurdle to Deasy. The election of a Deasy ally, on the other hand, could steer a board majority back toward a more supportive, ancillary role.

This campaign also involves different factions within the black political establishment.

District 1, which stretches across a wide swath of south and southwest Los Angeles, has been held by an African American for decades. That officeholder is viewed, especially in the black community, as the particular guardian of black students, many of whom have struggled in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Black voters make up that district's largest voting bloc. They also account for a substantial amount of that area's school enrollment (28%), although most students (62%) are Latino.

Within the black community, many civic leaders pressed unsuccessfully to fill LaMotte's final 18 months with an appointee. Then they turned their attention to the special election.

This group is ideologically diverse. It includes LaMotte loyalists who want a successor like her: LaMotte challenged Deasy and could have supported replacing him.

But also among them are longtime activists willing to work with Deasy. The superintendent's focus on reducing the number of out-of-school suspensions, particularly among black and Latino boys, has impressed many. As for LaMotte, they respected the longest-serving board member but sometimes complained that she accomplished far too little in office.

The camp is reasonably united in its wariness of outside interests and what it regards as patronizing rhetoric.

"In general, African American voters are suspicious of this whole education reform movement," said political consultant Eric Hacopian. "They think of it as some Trojan horse for rich white people who want to privatize schools."

Much of the black civic leadership — including U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) — initially discussed appointing retired senior administrator George McKenna. Now many of them would like to elect him.

McKenna, who retired in mid-2012, was a rarity within L.A. Unified, a Deasy underling who was willing to disagree strongly with the schools chief to his face — albeit behind the scenes. McKenna's stubborn independence and frankness have unsettled the union and Deasy allies alike — making him all the more appealing to some supporters.

McKenna's problem could be to identify a source of substantial campaign funding.

Another contending faction is led by L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who has built a political base in his county district, which overlaps substantially with LaMotte turf.

In South L.A., when there is a fight, it's "generally between Mark Ridley-Thomas and the counter-Ridley-Thomas faction," Hacopian said.

Ridley-Thomas is widely expected to back Alex Johnson, a senior aide to the supervisor who declared his candidacy last week.

An alliance with Ridley-Thomas could make the difference either for the teachers union, which is short on money and unity, or Deasy allies, who have an image problem.

United Teachers Los Angeles had almost unilaterally financed LaMotte's three successful board campaigns. But it's beset by internal divisions, its own upcoming election and financial strains. And additional costly board elections are looming in 2015.

Union opponents also are expected to step in. They've included philanthropist Eli Broad and former Mayor Richard Riordan. In the last election cycle, they were joined by wealthy out-of-town contributors, such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

These philanthropists see Deasy as a key ally in their efforts to limit teacher seniority protections and to base instructors' pay and evaluations in part on student test scores.

Their donations delivered little return in 2013 board elections. And in her reelection campaigns in 2007 and 2011, LaMotte successfully cast such wealthy donors as untrustworthy outside interests.

The backing of Ridley-Thomas, if he gave it, could allay community concerns about these donors.

"I happen to be indigenous to this terrain and intimately familiar with it," Ridley-Thomas said in an interview. "And I expect to credibly advocate for the people who reside in the 1st District."

Another candidate is former school board member Genethia Hudley-Hayes. In her successful 1999 campaign, Hudley-Hayes enjoyed backing from both the union and donors allied with then-Mayor Riordan. But in 2003, the union left her for LaMotte and the donors were focused on other races; Hudley-Hayes lost narrowly to LaMotte. History aside, Hudley-Hayes could be a compromise choice for any of the factions.

The teachers union has in-house options: Sherlett Hendy Newbill, a teacher and union chapter chair at Dorsey High, and Rachel Johnson, a Gardena City Council member and longtime L.A. Unified elementary teacher.

(Retired teacher Jimmie Woods Gray, who serves on the city's Board of Fire Commissioners, indicated she would accept an appointment, but she hasn't confirmed she would run for office.)

"Whoever can accumulate money in the shortest period of time will be formidable," said Rachel Johnson. At the same time, "you can't underestimate the awareness of the voter. This now has created a firestorm of interest in the 1st District."

 

TWO THINGS:

1. Check out the Times Op-Ed For Supreme Court, It’s Not the Law, It’s the Power of Five http://lat.ms/1dR76NZ. While not about LAUSD and the Board of Ed, it is because the LAUSD Board is driven by the necessity of reaching four votes in a six voter universe. Last week’s Board meeting – filled with good, bad and indifferent decision making, was about avoiding 3:3 ties at all costs – that price being far too high!
2. I am a fan of Mark Ridley Thomas – but not quite this much! If MRT is interested in installing his person on the board to get himself  the deciding vote on the LAUSD board we need to squish that alongside the similar desires of Eli Broad or Michael Bloomberg.. The L.A. County Supes get to name all the members of the County Bd of Ed and the Superintendent thereof. That situation, unique to L.A. County,  is anti-democracy enough.