Monday, July 28, 2008

EXPERTS QUESTION CALIFORNIA'S ALGEBRA EDICT

collection logo

“It’s a shortsighted policy that confuses taking a course with learning,” said Tom Loveless, a member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a White House-commissioned group that spent nearly two years examining strategies to prepare students for algebra.

By Sean Cavanagh | EDweek

Published Online: July 23, 2008

Published in Print: July 30, 2008

Business leaders from important sectors of the American economy have been urging schools to set higher standards in math and science—and California officials, in mandating that 8th graders be tested in introductory algebra, have responded with one of the highest such standards in the land.

Still, many California educators and school administrators are questioning how their state will meet the new requirement, given students’ persistent struggles in that subject and the potential demand it will generate for more math teachers and classroom resources.

Those concerns are also shared by some members of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a White House-commissioned group that spent nearly two years examining strategies to prepare students for algebra. In interviews, four of the panelists, some of whom have disagreed with each other over approaches to math instruction, agreed in their view that the California requirement is a mistake.

“It’s a shortsighted policy that confuses taking a course with learning,” said Tom Loveless, a panelist and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washingon. “The state has not been serious about preparing kids for algebra—they’re just throwing it on the schools. It’s absolutely far-fetched.”

Algebra is widely regarded as crucial to students’ academic progress, and, some say, to their success in the future economy. California’s testing mandate, which takes effect in three years, means schools are likely to be forced to enroll all 8th graders in introductory algebra, or Algebra 1, to prepare them for the test, state officials say. California becomes only the second state with a requirement for a grade 8 algebra test, along with Minnesota, which is phasing one in, according to the Education Commission of the States.

More Math, Earlier

States have gradually moved to increase the number of students who take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. Among them:

SOURCE: Council of Chief State School Officers

Yet Mr. Loveless, a former elementary school teacher in California, said policymakers there were wrongly assuming that simply enrolling students in 8th grade algebra will result in more of them becoming proficient in the subject. An examination of students’ math course-taking and test performance, he said, shows that premise to be false.

Another panelist, Vern Williams, echoed another of Mr. Loveless’ concerns: California schools, when faced with the reality that many of their 8th graders are not ready for Algebra 1, will simply water down those courses and craft classes that are Algebra 1 “in name only,” as Mr. Williams put it.

Mr. Williams, who has taught algebra for much of his 36-year career and now teaches in Falls Church, Va., said some students, even motivated ones, are not ready for algebra until 9th grade. By forcing students into that class early, schools risk not only discouraging struggling learners, but also holding back higher-achievers, who have to wait for classmates to catch up.

“Sometimes, it’s strictly the [lack of] math preparation” that causes students to struggle, Mr. Williams said. “But also, there are just kids, even bright kids who ... need to be exposed to a bit more math in 8th grade, or to a pre-algebra course.”

Tensions Between Parties

But supporters of the new policy, approved by an 8-1 vote by the California board of education earlier this month, say it will bring more equity to math instruction by giving all students access to Algebra 1. About half of California’s 8th graders take that course now. Completing Algebra 1 is essential to moving on to more challenging math, which in turn increases students’ odds of prospering in college and the workforce, they say.

“The research has been pretty clear that Algebra 1 is a gateway course,” said Theodore R. Mitchell, the president of the California board. “We wanted to make it clear we’re going to give all kids the opportunity to go through the gateway. We will not have a two-tier system in middle schools.”

As policymakers across the country have sought to raise standards in math, they have also encouraged schools to teach algebra earlier. From 1996 to 2005, the proportion of students nationwide who took Algebra 1 in 8th grade rose to 34 percent from 27 percent, according to the Council of Chief State School Officers.

But the controversy in California underscores the contrasting views of business advocates, who see tougher math and science standards as crucial to the United States’ international competitiveness, and educators and others who say some of those goals are unrealistic and ignore the complexity of working with students who need more help.

After the board’s vote, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who backed the new requirement, cited the support of several business organizations, including California Business for Education Excellence, and the California Business Roundtable. Business leaders are convinced that the state’s workforce will suffer without boosting the state’s math requirements, said Matthew M. Gardner, the president and chief executive officer of BayBio, an association representing more than 400 Northern California life-sciences companies with 60,000 employees.

“The industry’s view is that California’s science and math education is falling behind,” Mr. Gardner said. “We should expect more from the kids in our school system and from the system itself.”

Others, however, say the state faces a daunting task. State schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell, who opposed the policy, pointed out that just 23 percent of students who take the state’s 8th grade test of general math skills­—not its Algebra 1 test—reached proficiency on that easier exam. Only 13 percent of African-American and 16 percent of Hispanic students met that mark, Mr. O’Connell noted.

Last year, California officials were so troubled by their students’ 8th grade algebra woes that they approved 11 separate “algebra readiness” programs for adoption, meaning districts can use state funds to buy them. Those remedial programs target students who are well below grade level in math, in an effort to raise their math skills quickly. ("Catching Up on Algebra," April 23, 2008.)

Responding to NCLB

Before the new mandate was approved, California recommended, but did not require, students to take Algebra 1 in 8th grade. California officials approved the new policy after the U.S. Department of Education determined that the state’s testing system was out of compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act. To that point, California had been giving an end-of-course Algebra 1 exam to 8th graders who had been enrolled in that course, and a general math test, based on grade 6 and 7 standards, to students who were not.

Some California officials, including Mr. O’Connell, said the state should come into compliance by revising its general math test to include some algebra content, which would give districts flexibility to work with struggling students who were not ready for the full Algebra 1 exam. But the state board, with Gov. Schwarzenegger’s support, rejected that option and instead voted to require that all 8th graders take the Algebra 1 test.

The governor noted that since 2003, the percentage of California 8th graders taking algebra has increased from 34 percent to 52 percent today. Given that progress, the state was justified in raising expectations on students, he argued.

“To do otherwise,” the governor wrote to the board before its vote, “would lower our expectations and continue to divide our children between those we believe in and those we leave behind.”

The governor said he was committed to providing schools with more resources to help them meet the mandate. But Mr. O’Connell questioned how likely that is, saying districts across the state are already being forced to cut academic programs because of California’s ongoing budget crisis. The state is struggling to close a $17 billion deficit for fiscal 2009.

It remains unclear how California districts, particularly those with large numbers of 8th graders who are struggling in math, will respond to the mandate. Meeting the requirement in three years “is a tough, tough job,” said Phil Quon, the superintendent of the Cupertino Union district, a 17,000-student K-8 system south of San Francisco. To put every student in 8th grade algebra, he said, “is a total disservice to the kid.”

Mr. Quon said the state would need to help schools revamp math instruction in early grades and introduce algebra “in a more concrete way” with those students.

State board member Kenneth Noonan, who voted for the new policy, suggested some districts will use algebra-readiness materials to supplement Algebra 1 courses for struggling students. He agreed that state funding will be necessary, particularly in retraining current math teachers, because the state’s teacher colleges, on their own, could not churn out enough new educators to meet the mandate. “To get them to produce more teachers overnight, it will not happen,” Mr. Noonan said.

California currently has about 3,300 middle school Algebra 1 teachers, according to the Center for the Future of Teaching & Learning, a nonprofit group that focuses on improving teaching. To meet the mandate, the state will have to double that number over the next three years through new hires and retraining, Margaret Gaston, the president and executive director of the Santa Cruz, Calif., organization, estimated.

Better Preparation

Despite that nationwide push to teach introductory algebra earlier, Francis M. “Skip” Fennell, a member of the national math panel, said policymakers should resist forcing students into Algebra 1 before they are ready. Mr. Fennell, a former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, noted that the math panel’s final report recommended that schools move more students into 8th grade algebra—but only if they had received thorough preparation in whole numbers, fractions, and other concepts.

“I’m all about raising standards, but I wouldn’t want to legislate that every 8th grader take a course in Algebra 1,” Mr. Fennell said of the California requirement. When it comes to that course, he added, “we need to provide access—to kids who are ready.”

Another member of the math panel, Russell M. Gersten, agreed, saying California officials would be better off focusing on math preparation in early grades and making sure that courses called “algebra” offer authentic algebra. Mr. Gersten is a professor emeritus at the University of Oregon and the executive director of the Instructional Research Group, a consulting company in Signal Hill, Calif.

“The reality is that a lot of kids fail algebra,” Mr. Gersten said. “If anything, [that] makes them math-aversive.”

But Mr. Mitchell and others are convinced that California schools can help students meet the higher standard in the years ahead. Employers and the public will continue to seek high expectations for schools, and the state must do its part, he said.

“We’ve been doing a terrific job of getting more kids into algebra,” Mr. Mitchell said. “We see this less as a hammer than as urging the state to get across the finish line.” He added: “The good news is we’ve never heard this level of conversation about what it will take.”

Coverage of mathematics, science, and technology education is supported by a grant from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation at www.kauffman.org.

Vol. 27, Issue 44, Page 1, 13

RESPONSES ON EDWEEK WEBSITE:

Math Chique wrote:

I've taught algebra in California for 15 years. 6 years in middle school, and 9 years in high school. The points made in this article, from the educators points of view are correct. The politicians and business leaders points of view are misguided. It seems like they have been informed about the consequences of dumping an algebra requirement onto 8th graders, but have chosen to arrogantly ignore the warnings.

7/24/2008 11:25 AM EDT on EdWeek

teachermom wrote:

I have not taught "algebra", but have taught algebraic reasoning that begins very early in elementary school. I have taught kindergarten, grades 2, 3, and 4. Math Chique and the points made by educators in this article are so right! I have attended many conferences on learning and the brain. The presenters are some of our country's most accomplished scientists. Attending these conferences has helped me use best practice so that I may optimize the learning of my students. Our world is changing, yes, but child development has not changed. Teaching skills and concepts earlier to children whose brains are not developed enough to really learn those concepts is just a lesson in futility! We teach it too early, (algebra, geometry, calculus - take your pick!)and then yes, we do "water it down" because it is too complex a concept and the kids just aren't ready! In my opinion, not paying attention to brain development and its impact on learning is creating math phobics and in many cases, "learning disabilities" in math! Teaching students something for which they are not developmentally ready is not holding our children to higher standards - it is hurting our students' confidence in themselves as learners. Educators know these things. Some parents know these things. Most politicians don't. I have stopped attending these conferences on brain development because what I believe and know to be true about children's learning is validated - but I am unable to teach the way I know will best promote learning because I am mandated to teach curriculum that sometimes pushes our kids too far too fast. It is frustrating. Using scientific research about best practice isn't just about curriculum. We have scientific evidence - brain research that gives us time tables that would optimize learning for all children if we could just use what we know! We are not helping our children prepare for our global economy by teaching things too early. Let's use science to inform our practice, and pay attention to the brain's development. If we wait until the brain is developed enough to comprehend a concept, I think people would be amazed at how quickly and easily students will learn! Then they can compete with our global neighbors.

7/24/2008 10:18 PM EDT on EdWeek

Recommend (12)

Roz wrote:

Obviously,the illustrious governor is uninformed about brain development, and is more interested in statistics. Just because there is an increase in algebra enrollment, doesn't mean that the 'proficiency'levels have, or will increase, proportionally or not.
Many students struggle with using basic math skills, and are nowhere near prepared for Algebra by 8th grade. Even a Pre-Algebra course would be frustrating for many of them, who are simply not "math people", or have not necessarily mastered anything requiring a calculator.
I know from personal experience that Algebra is not the only "gateway" to the future! I have a graduate degree, and teach a specialized area. I am extremely happy with my teaching career, and algebra is not a part of it!

7/26/2008 5:59 PM EDT on EdWeek

R. Gibbs wrote:

I have over 20 years experience as a middle-school math teacher in California and have just completed my Master's degree in education. What I have learned through study and personal research is that students learn if they believe the information is important. All learning is tied to emotions. The students who do best in math are usually the ones who are motivated simply because they like to learn. Of course there are many other factors, but the students who are successful with algebra at the middle school are usually, but not always, the same students who are successful in all academic areas.
If we truly want students to want to take algebra and be successful, we need to find something that motivates them to do so. Our district has a after-school intervention program to help students who are struggling in math. It must be run by a certificated teacher. I have developed and ran such a program. It is difficult to find qualified teachers, because we are usually exhausted by the end of the day. In my program, I had other students come in to help me. Unfortunately, they were not paid by the district. I paid them out of the money I made.
What if a student who had met certain criteria could be eligible to be paid? What if any student who had scored at least proficient on the California Algebra Test would be considered qualified. What if they could make at least $15 per hour as an after-school teacher's aid under the direct supervision of a highly-qualified teacher? Perhaps that might send a better message to our students about how important algebra is for their future.
I am very supportive of students having access to algebra in the 8th grade. I am not in favor of pushing students to achieve this whether they like it or not. Students who are not ready for a higher level math class but are placed there (usually at the demand of a parent), often times end up hating math. Their self-esteem suffers as well. That hatred builds an emotional barrier to learning.
The current message this legislation sends to the students is that they must be able to complete algebra in 8th grade in order to be considered intelligent. If you do not believe me, ask any 13 or 14 year old who struggles with math.

7/26/2008 7:38 PM EDT on EdWeek

mrscj wrote:

Why is it that the only solution our legislators have to academic deficiencies is to RAISE THE STANDARD/EXPECTATIONS? It makes absolutely no sense to do this. I am once again disheartened by the people who continue to drive education policy with absolutely no understanding. So they will create yet another course for students to fail at, further alienating them and fostering ill feelings in children about school in general. GENIUS!
And no doubt there will be a mysterious lack of funding to support these new expectations.

7/27/2008 1:23 PM EDT on EdWeek

DENVER MERIT-PAY PLAN EMBROILED IN CONFLICT: Union Objects to Proposal to Modify Pact

By Vaishali Honawar | EdWeek

Superintendent Michael Bennet, center, Rudy Andras, left, an A-Plus Denver member, and Alan Gottlieb, a business coalition member, stay after a June ProComp meeting.  Photo by Preston Gannaway/Rocky Mountain News/Polaris Images

Published Online: July 28, 2008

Published in Print: July 30, 2008

Denver’s performance-pay system for teachers has long been hailed as a model, in good part because it was jointly conceived and implemented by the school district and the local teachers’ union. But that collaborative spirit is now in jeopardy, with union and district leaders engaged in a protracted battle over proposed changes to the system.

The two sides are expected to go to the negotiating table Aug. 20 to sort out their differences, and have been meeting separately with mediators in the interim. But the rift is wide enough that the union, in a recent newsletter, called on teachers to prepare for a strike if negotiations fall through.

The district says the time is right for a change: ProComp, or the Professional Compensation Plan for teachers, as it is formally known, was ushered in by Denver voters in 2004, and the agreement calls for negotiations every three years, school officials say.

“ProComp was never intended to become a static plan like a traditional master salary schedule. Over time it needed to be adjusted based on the needs of teachers and the district and the window called for the negotiations is right now,” said schools Superintendent Michael Bennet, pointing out that the district and the union also signed an agreement to open negotiations on ProComp in February of this year.

School officials also say that the changes proposed by the 74,000-student district—including raising teachers’ starting salaries and giving additional incentives to teachers at hard-to-staff schools and of high-demand subjects like math and science—would help attract more teachers.

But the union says it is too early to take those steps.

President Kim Ursetta of the 3,200-member Denver Classroom Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association, says that while small changes have been made to ProComp over the past two years, she wants to wait until an external evaluation of the pay system, due next year and based on three years of ProComp data, is released before agreeing to any major changes.

“People are always asking me how ProComp’s working, and I say I don’t know,” said Ms. Ursetta. “We want to make sure we are very careful about looking at data and looking at the impact of the changes.”

Where to Put the Money

The only study released on ProComp so far is by Edward W. Wiley, an assistant professor of education at the University of Colorado at Boulder, that looked at two years’ worth of data. It found that teachers who opted into ProComp raised student test scores only slightly compared with their peers who did not take part in the pay plan.

But Mr. Wiley points out that the new system is still in its early stages. “To say it is working or not working are shortsighted responses,” he said. “Reforms take a while to mature, especially in complex urban school districts such as [Denver].”

The district proposal would give ProComp money to increase teacher salaries in the early years, and raise the starting salary from $35,000 to $44,000.

School and union officials agree that Denver has among the lowest teacher salaries in neighboring school districts, a situation that they believe is hurting recruitment and retention.

In a letter to teachers in May, Mr. Bennet pointed out that teachers with fewer than 12 years of experience are nearly 20 times more likely to leave the district than those with 12 or more years of experience.

Denver teachers’ union President Kim Ursetta listens during a discussion in June between the school district and her union about the ProComp performance-pay plan. The parties are in conflict over proposed changes to the system. —Photo by Preston Gannaway/Rocky Mountain News/Polaris Images

But the union says the district’s proposal would cause teacher salaries to freeze after a certain point. Ms. Ursetta said the union instead favors an across-the-board increase of 3.5 percent in the traditional salary schedule, which would raise the starting salary to $38,000. She added that she would also like the district to institute more induction and mentoring programs to help keep new teachers.

Mr. Wiley’s study included surveys of principals. Fewer than 14 percent said they believed that the financial incentives currently being offered to teach in hard-to-staff schools were attracting the best teachers.

The district wants to raise the amount of bonuses for teachers in such schools and in hard-to-fill subjects. Under its proposal, teachers would get an almost threefold increase in their ProComp bonuses, from $1,067 each in 2007-08 to $2,925. The union agrees that bonuses for teachers in those hard-to-fill jobs need to be raised, but not by nearly as much.

Behavior Unaffected?

The impasse in Denver is significant at a time when many states and districts are considering, or have already put in place, systems of performance-based pay, often referred to as merit pay.

The idea has traditionally been anathema to teachers’ unions, which typically favor a single salary schedule in which teachers are paid by seniority and education level. Lately, however, the concept has gained popularity among politicians, and both the Democratic and Republican presumptive presidential nominees, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, have spoken out in favor of performance pay.

Recent years have also seen some collaborative union-district partnerships on performance pay, with Denver and Minneapolis being among the earliest.

In Denver, voters agreed to pay $25 million a year in additional property taxes to implement ProComp and help ensure its success. Teachers were attracted by the fact that the system did not reward teachers just for raising student test scores, but for a combination of factors, including knowledge and skills, performance evaluations, student growth based on test scores, and for serving in high-risk schools as well as in positions that are hard to staff, including math, science, and special education.

The increases were incorporated into teachers’ base salaries, instead of being handed out as one-time bonuses.

About half of Denver’s teachers have opted in to ProComp over the two years it has been in place, and all new teachers are automatically enrolled.

But each year, only part of the funds in ProComp, which add up to $31 million including interest, have been paid out. This school year, for instance, less than $7 million will be given out because of the way the program is structured. School officials say there will be a surplus of $86 million in ProComp coffers by the end of 2008-09.

John Hereford, a co-chairman of a committee on ProComp set up by A-Plus Denver, a nonprofit citizens’ group, said changes are necessary because the system does not appear to be operating as it should.

“We know it is not affecting behavior as we had expected it to, and every year that goes by makes it that much harder to reform,” he said.

Observers say there is some anecdotal evidence that ProComp has attracted more teachers to the district. “We do hear reports from those involved in the hiring process that certain positions are easier to recruit,” Mr. Wiley said.

But the jury is still out on whether pay-for-performance plans actually help student achievement.

“It is fair to say that, across the country, there are not many good, rigorous studies that show performance pay improves student performance,” said Paul Teske, the dean of the school of public affairs at the University of Colorado at Denver, who is conducting the independent study of ProComp that is due out next year.

The ‘Right’ Components

One of the reasons for ProComp’s status as a model plan is the labor-management collaboration in its creation. “The union had to vote positively on ProComp, or it would be dead in the water back then,” Mr. Teske said.

This time around, district officials are trying to impose the changes, union officials say. “Previously, any proposals that would come forward were collaborative, and changes were jointly developed,” Ms. Ursetta said. “But this proposal from the district is coming solely from them.”

Observers like Mr. Hereford of A-Plus Denver acknowledge that union-district cooperation is important to the survival and success of ProComp. But he and others say residents never intended for ProComp funds to be spread out as an increase for all teachers, such as the one the union is demanding.

“A functional, collaborative working relationship with the union is in everybody’s interest,” said Mr. Hereford, a renewable-energy developer who has two children in Denver’s public schools. “It is hard to imagine far-reaching reform would be possible otherwise.”

On the other hand, he said, “letting ProComp drift into a base-pay-type system doesn’t have that surgically precise ability to affect and motivate teachers in an important and direct manner.”

Brad Jupp, a senior policy adviser on ProComp to Superintendent Bennet, said he is disappointed that the union has sought conflict over the proposed changes.

“This was not the way we did business when we were devising ProComp. What made the collaboration work is we were willing to work shoulder to shoulder on tough issues,” said Mr. Jupp who was a union representative when ProComp was first negotiated and who helped lead the initiative from its start.

Despite the differences, all parties voice hope that they will reach an agreement when they go to the table in August.

Ms. Ursetta, when asked about the possibility of a strike, will only say that her goal is to get to a settlement.

Thomas Boasberg, the chief operating officer of the Denver schools, said that there is room for compromise in the district’s proposal, and that he is hopeful of a “good result” given the long history of union-district collaboration over ProComp.

Mr. Wiley and others also note that the plan itself is not in danger of being shelved.

“When I look at the two sides of collective bargaining, I see a lot of similarities there,” Mr. Wiley said. “Nobody’s saying, let’s throw it out; everyone agrees that those [original] components are the right ones.”

Mr. Teske, the university dean, said he believes the proposed changes will only strengthen ProComp.

“If and when it gets negotiated and approved, it will be a better plan,” he said, “and it will have moved the national performance-pay movement in a better direction.”

Education Week: Denver Merit-Pay Plan Embroiled in Conflict

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS ENDING OR REDUCING BUS SERVICE FOR STUDENTS

 

Unlike most other states, California does not require districts to provide home-to-school transportation except in limited circumstances.
The high cost of fuel and budget shortfalls are being blamed. But some fear that forcing more students to walk or drive to school will cause safety problems.

Bus

photo: Los Angeles Times

By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 28, 2008 - Thousands more California students will have to find their own way to school this fall, as districts slash bus routes to cope with budget shortfalls and high fuel costs.

Critics worry that the cuts will increase traffic around schools, shift costs to parents already struggling with rising gas prices and prompt more absenteeism, hurting students' academic achievement. But paramount is the fear that the reductions will endanger students as more walk or drive to school.

"All the parents, we've been scrambling to try to work out car pools," said Wayne Tate, whose second-grader's bus to Castille Elementary, two miles from their home in Mission Viejo, was eliminated. "For somebody that young, that's a pretty long way to walk or ride a bike. All you need is one kid getting hit to realize that maybe the [savings] wasn't worth it."

Districts say they have no choice.

"It's a horribly difficult decision," said Larry Brown, assistant superintendent of business services at Moorpark Unified School District in Ventura County, which is eliminating bus rides for its 2,400 high school students. "It's a decision no one wants to make."

Unlike most other states, California does not require districts to provide home-to-school transportation except in limited circumstances. Fewer than 15% of the state's 6.3 million students ride school buses, according to a 2007 report by the state auditor's office. Los Angeles Unified is among districts that do not offer the service for most students.

A year's worth of bus service costs an average of nearly $1,400 per student in urban districts and more than $900 per rural pupil, according to the state auditor's report. The state provides less than half of the $1.1 billion that districts spend annually on transportation. To make up the rest, districts dip into their general fund, the same pot of money that pays for smaller class sizes, teacher salaries and textbooks. Many districts also require parents to buy bus passes that can cost hundreds of dollars annually per child.

But this year, in districts across the state, this method no longer works. State education leaders report that more districts are reducing or eliminating bus service, although no agency has a complete tally.

In Poway Unified School District near San Diego, where parents pay $399 for an annual bus pass, several hazardous conditions that once qualified students for bus service -- among them living near a busy intersection or lacking a safe path or sidewalk to school -- no longer are considered. In addition, only routes that draw at least 50 paying riders will operate. The change leaves as many as 1,600 students of all ages without rides.

"It's gotten to the point where we could not continue to do what we have historically done," said Tim Purvis, the district's director of transportation, who budgeted $700,000 for fuel last school year and ended up spending $1.1 million. "I have 26 years of experience in this business, and I've never seen such an erratic year for fuel increases."

In response, private shuttle companies are offering to ferry students to school -- for $400 a month. Purvis predicted that most of the students without bus service would be driven to school in family cars or neighborhood car pools. "School loading/unloading zones are going to be a mess," he said.

They also will be significantly more dangerous, according to Mike Martin, a spokesman for the American School Bus Council trade group.

"School buses are . . . the safest way for kids to get to and from school, bar none," he said.

About 800 children are killed and 152,000 are injured annually during school travel hours; 2% of the deaths and 4% of the injuries involve school buses, according to a 2002 study by the National Research Council. The rest occur when children are walking or bicycling to school, or in family cars, particularly if a teenager is driving.

Extra cars on the roads are also prompting at least one city to threaten to sue a school district over its bus program reductions.

The Capistrano Unified School District in south Orange County eliminated 44 of its 62 bus routes, saving $3.5 million annually and cutting service for 5,000 students who had transportation last year, including Tate's youngest son.

City leaders in surrounding communities are threatening to sue, arguing that the district failed to consider the traffic, noise and pollution implications of its decision.

"The school district, in making those reductions, is going to cause an impact on our students and on our neighborhoods," Mission Viejo Mayor Trish Kelley said.

Critics also are concerned about the long-term effect of the reductions on academic achievement. State Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell fears that less bus service will mean lower school attendance, particularly for families struggling economically.

"It's a question of our priorities as a state and as a society," O'Connell said. "Realigning bus routes . . . can potentially contribute to lower attendance and a higher dropout rate. What effect does that have on our society? People less prepared to become productive members of your community and more crime."

School district officials say the situation will get worse unless the state provides more funding for transportation.

Mike Patton, Capistrano Unified's director of transportation, said the district had to kick in several hundred dollars for each child who rode a bus, in addition to state funding and parents paying $400 for annual bus passes. Subsidizing so many students was no longer tenable, he said.

"If the funding is not fixed for home-to-school transportation, eventually home-to-school transportation will cease to exist in California," he said. "We are a direct encroachment into the general fund. We compete with classroom dollars and teachers' salaries and textbooks. Every year, we encroach more and more. The only way to control it is to stop providing service."

 

California school districts ending or reducing bus service for students - Los Angeles Times

Pay2Play: YOUTH SPORTS HIT BY LAUSD FEES

By Melissa Pamer, Staff Writer | Daily Breeze

 

July 28, 2008 - Youth sports groups in the South Bay and Harbor Area are starting to feel the pinch from the Los Angeles Unified School District's move to begin charging for the use of gyms and playing fields.

The increased fees, which came in March after clubs had for decades used facilities for free, have meant reduced practice schedules and, in some cases, increased costs for players.

The fear is that the fees - which district officials said were needed to make up for an incredibly tight budget year - will force low-income athletes to drop participation in sports clubs, which supporters say give at-risk youth positive after-school alternatives.

"The reality is that less kids might be participating and, with that, then comes the possibility of things that lead to more negative activities that lead to them not achieve academically," said Mike Lansing, executive director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Los Angeles Harbor.

Lansing served on the Board of Education when the possibility of imposing fees was last discussed several years ago. He opposed it then, but acknowledges now that the district's budget, which accounted for more than $350 million in expected state funding cuts, has put LAUSD in a financial bind.

That's the reasoning district officials gave for the new fees, which they said put them on par with, and in many cases below, fees charges by other school districts and municipalities.

"With the recent budget crisis and the cuts from the governor, we're left very little choice," said Kathryn Friedman, who manages the district's civic center permit operations. "We did it with a heavy heart."

The new fee system requires groups to pay $77.10 for a four-month permit, as well as a $5 daily custodial fee for days on which practices and games are held. A fee of $10 per hour applies to nonprofit groups that cater to district students; for others, the hourly fee is $25.50.

Locally, some groups said they were raising funds to cover the new costs - or passing them onto players.

Dig 4 Kids, a nonprofit that offers free, twice-weekly after-school tutoring, exercise and volleyball at Carson High School and Halldale Elementary School in Harbor Gateway, is covering its $500 to $700 increase in costs.

"We can handle the fee. But really what it does, it takes away from the kids," said Eric Fonoimoana, founder and president of the group.

With the money that the group spends to cover the fee, Dig 4 Kids could offer its services to three or four more children per eight-week session, he said.

"The inner city is in need of these after-school programs. They need it more than ever," Fonoimoana said. "Eventually, somehow, the trickle-down will have an impact on (children)."

Despite the higher costs that groups such as Fonoimoana's are facing, there's been no drop in usage since the new fees were instituted March 1, LAUSD's Friedman said.

"We're such a large urban area and there is always going to be so much need," she said. "The city of Los Angeles needs to build more parks. We have basically been the overflow for all of this need."

The district issues about 2,850 permits annually and hosts about 55,000 individual uses of its facilities per year. Its gyms and fields have long been preferred spots for some groups because they were free for many years, Friedman and youth sports organizers say.

The new permits are expected to bring in $1.4 million to $1.9 million this year, Friedman said. Most permits were issued at the reduced hourly cost to nonprofit groups, bringing in less money than the $3.8million expected when the fees were first discussed last fall, she said.

Some organizations in the region are turning to fundraisers to cover the new fees.

Kehlin Hayes, president of the Carson-based South Bay Waves girls basketball team, said two events had been held to cover the $585 needed for the team's Banning High School practice space.

"That's a pretty penny, coming from free," Hayes said. "In addition to the fees going up, gas is going up. That's needed for travel to tournaments. It's difficult for everyone."

Gardena-based South Bay F.O.R. Junior Sports Association has passed the costs on directly to those teams - among about 100 sponsored by the nonprofit - that use LAUSD facilities, said President Mel Iizuka.

Others have questioned the amount of the increase.

"It's ridiculous. It's too much," said Don DeBenedictis, who helms the San Pedro Knights Youth Basketball club.

The group, which has eight teams that practice at San Pedro High School and Dana and Dodson middle schools, was charged about $3,000 for the last four-

month period, DeBenedictis said. That's split up among the 70 to 80 players.

To save money, he said, the teams have stopped their popular Saturday practices.

"The school district's hurting. What are you going to do? Where are you going to look for money?" DeBenedictis said. "I understand it. But I don't like it."

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The news that didn't fit from July 27th

NEW DOWNTOWN PARK IS A TRIUMPH

Finally, wonderfully, they got it right.

The new Vista Hermosa Natural Park in City West is a triumph, a resource for a community that for too long has been shortchanged in facilities that other neighborhoods take for granted. With its winding trails, ample flora, emerald soccer field and more, it is proof that, with creative thinking, leadership and funds, even the biggest debacles can be righted.

Mayor's Poll: BOND BACKED, NOT LAUSD

Los Angeles voters support another school bond, but don't trust Los Angeles Unified School District leadership, according to a limited poll conducted for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The survey of likely voters found that 60 percent to more than 70 percent of respondents were willing to support bonds in amounts of $3.2 billion, $6 billion or $10 billion.

STUDY - KID'S SHARE 2008: How Children Fare in the Federal Budget

Kids' Share 2008, a second annual report, looks comprehensively at trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children. Key findings suggest that historically children have not been a budget priority. In 2007, this trend continued, as children's spending did not keep pace with GDP growth. Absent a policy change, children's spending will continue to be squeezed in the next decade.

The editorial drumbeat: GIVE CHARTERS THEIR DUE + LAUSD MUST DO RIGHT FOR AREA CHILDREN

GIVE CHARTERS THEIR DUE: If the LAUSD wants a $3.2-billion bond measure, it must fairly fund these independent schools.

LA TIMES EDITORIAL: For years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has been shorting charter schools on space to house their students, and a new $3.2-billion bond measure doesn't go nearly far enough to make up for it. Without a full $300 million earmarked for charters, a seat for them on the bond oversight committee and more authority over how to spend the money, the new bond will be difficult for this page and the voters to accept.

LAUSD MUST DO RIGHT FOR AREA CHILDREN

LA Daily News Op-Ed by Caprice Young - Last week the Los Angeles public school system was rocked with sobering news: According to the state, one in three Los Angeles Unified students is dropping out. But buried deep within the data was a sign of encouragement - charter high schools are showing strong signs of reducing this trend. In fact, every charter high school in Los Angeles Unified last year reported a dropout rate significantly lower than not only the school district's average, but the state's as well.

Pay2Play: LAUSD PAY-TO-PLAY CARRIES DEEP SOCIAL COSTS

When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa introduced his $1 million Summer Night Lights program a few weeks back, he was injecting a good dose of common sense into the city's anti-gang efforts.

After all, the program is designed to provide L.A. youngsters with evening events, so as to keep them out of trouble. And everyone knows that giving kids organized and constructive activities is a great way to keep them out of trouble.

Everyone, that is, except for officials in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

clip_image001

WATT'S LOCKE HIGH IS GETTING WHIPPED INTO SHAPE: Control, discipline and high expectations emerge

Steve Lopez: It's almost 8 a.m. on 111th Street in Watts, and here's a scene that could make a cynic faint:

A teenage boy is hustling across the street toward Locke High School while tucking a white shirt into his khaki uniform pants. He wants to pass inspection at the gate.

I'm visiting what might as well be called Dropout High to see if things have changed in the early going since Green Dot Public Schools took it over from Los Angeles Unified. Too soon to tell, for sure. We're only into the third week of summer school, which tends to be mellower than the regular school year and serves only 700 kids instead of the usual 3,000.

A LESSON FROM D.C. SCHOOLS

By Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman -Michelle Rhee should be commended for her determination to implement courageous and innovative educational reforms in the District of Columbia, and Congress should take note as it considers reshaping the No Child Left Behind Act.

When Mayor Adrian Fenty appointed Rhee chancellor of D.C. public schools in June 2007, she inherited a system that was near the top nationally in per-pupil spending but ranked among the nation's worst in the percentage of its students who were proficient in reading and math as measured on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Clearly, taxpayer money was not being put to good use. Nor were students being well served.

PAY2PLAY AFFECTING PARTICIPATION IN YOUTH SPORTS GROUPS

Just four months after Los Angeles Unified began charging for after-hours use of its fields and facilities, one of the San Fernando Valley's biggest youth sports groups is seeing a dramatic drop in some of its club memberships.

Inside LAUSD: MAYOR PUSHES BIGGER BOND

As reported in The Times, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has joined the push for a new local school bond -- and wants $300 million of it for charter schools. That level of charter funding has resulted in resistance from some school board members and senior district staff, including L.A. Unified  Supt. David L. Brewer.

To smooth the path for the bond, Villaraigosa began suggesting a bond larger than the proposed $3.2 billion measure. That way, charters could receive $300 million without cutting into funds for other purposes.

WHY DO ASIAN STUDENTS GENERALLY GET HIGHER MARKS THAN LATINOS? Trying to bridge the grade divide in L.A. schools: Lincoln High students have candid ideas.

The eight students walked into a room at Lincoln High School prepared to discuss an issue many people, including some of their teachers, considered taboo.

They were blunt. Carlos Garcia, 17, an A student with a knack for math, said, "My friends, most of them say, 'You're more Asian than Hispanic.' "

"I think Carlos is Asian at heart," said Julie Loc, 17, causing Carlos to laugh good-naturedly. Asian students who get middling grades often get another response, she said.

"They say, 'Are you really Asian?' " Julie said.

"It's sad but true," said Eliseo Garcia, a 17-year-old with long rocker hair, an easy manner and good grades. "I had an Asian friend, but he didn't necessarily get that great a grades. We used to say, 'He's Mexican at heart.' "

What accounts for such self-deprecating humor? Or the uneven academic performance that prompts it?

The state's top education official, Supt. Jack O'Connell, called for that kind of discussion last fall when he decried the "racial achievement gap" separating Asian and non-Latino white students from Latinos and blacks.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

NEW DOWNTOWN PARK IS A TRIUMPH

Editorial | Los Angeles Downtown News.

Monday, July 28, 2008 — Finally, wonderfully, they got it right.

The new Vista Hermosa Natural Park in City West is a triumph, a resource for a community that for too long has been shortchanged in facilities that other neighborhoods take for granted. With its winding trails, ample flora, emerald soccer field and more, it is proof that, with creative thinking, leadership and funds, even the biggest debacles can be righted.

The 10-acre park opened Saturday, July 19, on the western half of the plot that was once envisioned as the sprawling Belmont Learning Complex. It is filled with user-friendly amenities, from an information sign (in English and Spanish) indicating that the park could attract up to 350 varieties of birds, to benches, picnic tables and grass so green and lush that one feels nervous about stepping on it.

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, which undertook the construction of the $14 million project and will manage the park, deserves credit for paying attention to even small details. The children's play area, complete with climbable, gigantic snake and turtle toys, includes a rubbery patch so that tumbling tykes won't injure themselves. The colorful tile sign fronting First Street, created by students at Downtown's ArtShare Los Angeles, commands the attention of passersby. Even the fence that separates the park from the adjacent high school (slated to open this fall) stands out; it is shaped to resemble tall, bending grasses and reeds, rendering it more than stark iron.

The park is an instant success. On the first weekday afternoon following its opening, it already was attracting a heartening mix of users: One man walked a dog on the curving paths, while another rode his bicycle. A group of kids were kicking balls on the soccer field and on an upper level, near the gurgling waterfall, a couple was making out and laughing, in full view of anyone who walked by. While you could hear the traffic on First Street, there was also the chirp of birds.

The success needs to be taken in context. This was the mega-school/housing/retail complex that the Los Angeles Unified School District began building more than a decade ago. It was a bust almost from the groundbreaking, as the LAUSD was clearly out of its element. Then, construction on the site at First and Beaudry streets was halted due to the discovery of dangerous underground gases. The subsequent finding of an earthquake fault killed progress on the half-built campus, even though hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent.

The LAUSD was excoriated for its failures, which included never conducting appropriate soil and site tests before construction began. For many years it was the albatross around the school district's neck.

While there were cries to raze all the buildings and leave the site, or sell it to a developer, some better heads prevailed. José Huizar, then a school board member (and currently a city councilman), and Ed Reyes, the councilman representing the area, pushed to alter the former Belmont Learning Complex plan, ultimately earning the support of Roy Romer, the former superintendent of the LAUSD.

Ultimately they got their way, and the decision was made to tear down two existing buildings and divide the property, creating the school on one side and the park on the other. Steps were taken to build away from the earthquake fault and mitigate the danger posed by the gases. Finally, construction re-started.

Many feared it would be a case of throwing good money after bad, and indeed, by the time the school opens, it will be a shocking total expenditure: more than $350 million.

That said, the new park is a gorgeous addition to a neighborhood that, finally, is getting some of the attributes it deserves (including access to two nearby pools). The park will be used by Downtowners, by neighborhood residents and by others who happen to pass by.

It took much longer than it should have, and cost so much it hurts to think about it. But the Vista Hermosa Park is a wonderful addition to Downtown.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

URGENT MESSAGE FROM STATE PTA PRESIDENT RE: THE STATE BUDGET

Subject:        State Budget - Urgent Message

From:             Pam Brady, President, California State PTA

Thursday, 24 July, 2008

Word is out in Sacramento that there may be a vote on the state budget next Tuesday, July 29th.

As you know, legislative leaders and the governor have been meeting to try to work out a budget solution. A legislative conference committee (made up of Assembly and Senate representatives) released a budget proposal recently.  This proposal takes a more balanced approach and includes significant new revenues to help prevent against any deeper cuts to education and children’s services.  At the state Education Coalition meeting Tuesday, it was determined that, given the current economic and political climate, this conference committee budget represents the best proposal on the table for new revenues to prevent even deeper cuts to education and some other social services. The conference committee bill is a better budget solution than was proposed by the governor in January or at the May Revise.  We will, of course, be watching carefully to make sure that the revenue components are included in the "trailer bills" as part of any budget deal.

We must urge all of our members, fellow parents and colleagues in the education community to contact their state legislators right away with this message:

Support the Legislative Conference Committee Budget to Avoid Deeper Cuts to Education and Other Children’s Services.  The final adopted package must include revenue enhancements.

Attached is a set of updated key messages from the Coalition related to the latest budget proposal.  We are also providing a link to the California Budget Project’s side-by-side comparison of the governor’s and legislative budget plans, as well as a summary of the conference committee proposal as prepared by our Legislation Team for the Sacramento Update.

California Budget Project: http://www.cbp.org/

*

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FINISHES WORK ON 2008-09 STATE BUDGET

(from the California State PTA Sacramento Update)

July 12 — Tuesday night the Budget Conference Committee finished reconciling differences between versions of the 2008-09 state fiscal plan drafted by the Assembly and Senate. The plan, adopted along party lines on a 4-2 vote, rejects deep cuts in education and health care and includes $9.7 billion in new revenue, which is $1.8 billion lower than what the Senate recommended and $2.7 billion more in new revenue than what the Governor proposed. A counter proposal to close the budget gap will be offered by the Republican members of the Legislature.

The Conference Committee budget is a balanced approach.  It closes tax loopholes and rolls back tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest Californians and restores money to education, health care and public safety.

On the expenditure side, the committee’s plan:

  • Provides $2.3 billion more for K-12 education than proposed by the Governor.
  • Restores $1.5 billion in cuts to health and human services. This includes restoring nearly $200 million in health care services to some of the state’s most vulnerable residents, the reimbursement rate for Medi-Cal providers and federal pass-through funds for the aged, blind and disabled. 
  • Reduces corrections spending by $300 million with a reform package that helps lower the prison population.
  • Restores drastic cuts to home care services.
  • Restores funds for at-risk kids.
  • Restores $57 million in financial assistance for college students. 

On the revenue side, the committee’s plan:

  • Reinstates the tax brackets on the wealthiest Californians by reinstating the 10% and 11% tax brackets. Revenue generated: $5.6 billion.
  • Closes a corporate tax loophole for large corporations.  Revenue generated: $1.1 billion.
  • Suspends a tax adjustment for upper-income Californians.  Revenue generated: $815 million.
  • Rolls back a tax loophole for upper-income Californians.  Revenue generated: $215 million.
  • Restores the franchise tax. Revenue generated: $470 million.
  • Steps up tax enforcement. Revenue generated: $1.5 billion. This is one-time revenue. 

 

STATE BUDGET KEY MESSAGES FROM THE EDUCATION COALITION - July 24, 2008

THE EDUCATION COALITION  represents more than 1.7 million parents, teachers, school board members, school employees and administrators, represented by:, The Association of California School Administrators (ACSA).The California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO), The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESSA), The California. Federation of Teachers (CFT-AFL-CIO), The California School Boards Association (CSBA). The California School Employees Association (CSEA). The California State PTA. The California Teachers Association (CTA) and The Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

· Support the Legislative Conference Committee Budget to Avoid Deeper Cuts to Education and Other Children’s Services.  The final adopted package must include revenue enhancements.

· Time is running out for our students and schools. With the new school year approaching, our students and their education can’t afford to wait any longer. In order to open the door to learning, schools need the funding and resources to start the school year. It’s time for lawmakers to put partisan politics aside and support a budget plan that closes tax loopholes and increases revenues to protect public education and other vital services.

· In the midst of California’s $15.2 billion budget deficit, the Education Coalition supports a balanced approach to solving our state’s budget problems in order to protect our schools and safeguard our students’ futures.

· With the revenues generated in the Legislature’s Conference Committee budget plan, $2.4 billion of the Governor’s proposed $4.3 billion in cuts would be restored. This plan reinstates funding for important student programs such as Class Size Reduction and provides a partial cost-of-living-increase to help attract and retain quality teachers and offset rising gasoline and transportation costs.

· The Conference Committee budget plan closes tax loopholes for large corporations and provides new and steady sources of revenue to help protect our public schools and community colleges from deeper cuts and further deterioration.

· Our public schools have already experienced more than $500 million in unexpected budget cuts this year—forcing many schools to lay off teachers and education support professionals as well eliminating art, music, and vocational education programs that help students learn and succeed. These cuts come at a time when California already ranks 46th in per-pupil spending, and dead last in the number of counselors, librarians and school nurses per student. The simple fact is California’s schools need additional revenues to provide our students with the education they deserve.

· The recent “Getting Down to Facts” studies from Stanford University show that California seriously underfunds its public schools and would need to spend 40 percent more to ensure that all students meet the state’s rigorous academic standards. The studies also show that other states like New York spend 75 percent more on students than California.

· Our students and schools need real state budget solutions, not gridlock. Our students didn’t create this budget crisis and their futures shouldn’t be sacrificed to solve it. It’s time to take a balanced approach of cuts and revenue increases in order to solve the state’s budget crisis!

Mayor's Poll: BOND BACKED, NOT LAUSD

By George B. Sánchez, Staff Writer | LA Daily News

24 July 2008 -- Los Angeles voters support another school bond, but don't trust Los Angeles Unified School District leadership, according to a limited poll conducted for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The survey of likely voters found that 60 percent to more than 70 percent of respondents were willing to support bonds in amounts of $3.2 billion, $6 billion or $10 billion.

(The school board has yet to decide on an exact figure.)

The poll also found that 73 percent believe the school board is doing a poor or "just fair" job overseeing the district, while 55 percent rated Superintendent David Brewer III as poor or just fair.

The mayor's survey also found that 53 percent feel the city is "pretty seriously off on the wrong track."

The poll questioned 100 voters in Los Angeles on July 11. It was conducted for the Mayor's Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability, Villaraigosa's political action committee. It was provided to the Daily News by a source outside the Mayor's Office.

The survey was conducted as the school board is scheduled to vote July 31 on whether to place a multibillion-dollar bond measure on the November ballot.

A spokeswoman for Villaraigosa said the poll clearly indicates the public is tired of large bureaucracy and wants to send their children to smaller schools - one of the goals of the bonds.

Spokeswoman Janelle Erickson said the 53 percent who feel the city is on the wrong track are simply reflecting national economic problems.

"Like all Americans, Angelenos are suffering the effects of the national mortgage crisis, high fuel and food prices, and are anxious for our national leaders to help hard-working families and not just the large Wall Street banks," Erickson said.

More than half of the respondents said they supported the mayor's new role overseeing 10 of LAUSD's lowest-performing schools.

Fifty-four respondents identified themselves as Democrats and 18 as Republicans. Only 29 said they had children under the age of 18.

The poll also indicated 60 percent to 65 percent support for a specific bond that would "convert existing middle and high schools into campuses of 525 students or less" as well as "expand charter school facilities."

Brewer said he was not surprised to hear of the public's lack of faith in LAUSD leadership.

"That's consistent with all polls," Brewer said. "That's nothing new."

He said that despite low levels of support for district leadership, he was heartened by support for another bond.

"That's most important to me. What we want is people to support the bond, and 71 percent support is a good sign."

smf/4LAkids:

  • "The poll also found that 73 percent believe the school board is doing a poor or "just fair" job overseeing the district..."
  • The mayor has managed to elect a majority (57%) of the current board -this poll seems a repudiation of that leadership.
  • This is a poll of 100 voters - and one suspects that exactly zero are from outside the City of LA - even though the school district comprises twenty-eight municipalities and jurisdictions in addition to the City of LA. CORRECTION: The Daily News got it wrong - the poll was of 936 likely voters - though from the language  of the questions one must surmise all 936 were from the City of LA.
  • Welcome to the bandwagon, "convert(ing) existing middle and high schools into campuses of 525 students or less" is district policy. Only one high school in the District does not have a plan in place to convert to Small Learning Communities.
  • The real work of converting to Small Learning Communities / Personalized Learning Environments and/or Small Schools is not about facilities and bricks-and-mortar - not driven by bonds or construction or polls and politics; it's institutional - driven by a complete paradigm shift in mindset and instructional policy.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

STUDY - KID'S SHARE 2008: How Children Fare in the Federal Budget

an urban institute publication

Author(s): Adam Carasso, C. Eugene Steuerle, Gillian Reynolds, Tracy Vericker, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber

Other Availability: PDF | Printer-Friendly Page

Posted to Web: June 24, 2008

Permanent Link: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411699

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full report in PDF format.


Abstract

Kids' Share 2008, a second annual report, looks comprehensively at trends in federal spending and tax expenditures on children. Key findings suggest that historically children have not been a budget priority. In 2007, this trend continued, as children's spending did not keep pace with GDP growth. Absent a policy change, children's spending will continue to be squeezed in the next decade.


Introduction

As children are the country’s future workers, parents, and citizens, the federal government has directed resources to ensure their well-being and to help them develop their potential. So, as a nation, we devote federal resources to publicly educate kids, ensure their basic needs, develop their potential, and help protect their families from financial hardship. These resources are the “kids’ share” of our federal budget, allotted through direct spending on programs or through tax breaks. By tracking the changes in the children’s budget, we can take stock of our national priorities. We tracked federal spending on children from 1960 through 2018 based on actual budget outlays and projections of spending under current policies. We charted the relative changes—and therefore, the shifting national emphases—between children’s spending and spending on other priorities. We also examined changes in spending among different types of children’s programs. This report is the most comprehensive examination to date of trends in federal spending on kids.

In 2007, total federal spending was $2.7 trillion (20.0 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP)—and significantly more, if all tax programs are considered. The federal government disbursed some $354 billion, or 2.6 percent of GDP, through a combination of direct outlays and tax credits and exemptions on programs benefiting children. In comparison, $614 billion (4.5 percent of GDP) was spent on defense, non-defense homeland security, and international affairs; $1,076 billion (7.9 percent) paid for non-child Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; and $237 billion (1.7 percent) went to pay interest on the national debt. This report updates last year’s report, Kids’ Share 2007, adding in actual (rather than projected) budget numbers for 2007 and projections of spending within the children’s budget against other federal spending through 2018.3 We added several new children’s programs for which we have tracked budget data and we also improved our estimates of children’s spending in some programs included last year. These updates change the absolute amounts relative to what we reported last year but not the storyline. Future installments in this series may make similar improvements. We therefore emphasize that readers focus on the relative shares—the children’s share placed in context with the shares given to other national priorities and how these shares vary over time—rather than absolute spending or GDP numbers provided for a given year.

It is important to note that we do not assess the success, efficiency, or merit of any particular type of spending.4 Nor does the level of financing of children’s programs relative to GDP or other programs demonstrate how much help is needed. Yet, the modest share of domestic spending dedicated to children—a share scheduled for decline under current law—is an important gauge of the federal government’s national priorities.

(End of excerpt. The entire report is available in PDF format.)

The editorial drumbeat: GIVE CHARTERS THEIR DUE + LAUSD MUST DO RIGHT FOR AREA CHILDREN

GIVE CHARTERS THEIR DUE: If the LAUSD wants a $3.2-billion bond measure, it must fairly fund these independent schools.

LA TIMES EDITORIAL

July 23, 2008 - For years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has been shorting charter schools on space to house their students, and a new $3.2-billion bond measure doesn't go nearly far enough to make up for it. Without a full $300 million earmarked for charters, a seat for them on the bond oversight committee and more authority over how to spend the money, the new bond will be difficult for this page and the voters to accept.

The district's 2005 bond measure, for $4 billion, set aside a laughable $50 million for charter schools. We complained at the time but believed school construction was too important. Charter schools are still waiting for the board to release most of those funds. Meanwhile, charter operators complain that the district, rather than giving them money for facilities, forces them to buy its used furniture and in one case placed a school in an old administrative office -- and charged for it.

Earlier this year, Senior Deputy Supt. Ramon C. Cortines pulled back on an agreement to offer space in district schools to seven charters, saying it would disrupt operations at the schools by, for example, limiting their open-enrollment periods. Cortines' move was understandable; even though state law and a legal settlement require the district to provide space, it should not have to do so at the expense of its own students.

And yet the edict must be honored. Charter schools already get about $3,000 less per student than the district receives in funding. The district, meanwhile, largely uses bonds to pay for housing its students, while charters have to devise their own campuses.

Parents in L.A. Unified have repeatedly demonstrated that they want more of these innovative, independent schools, which already educate 7% of the district's students and are expanding rapidly. The school board has the perfect opportunity to do the right thing with its new bond measure, but already the attempts to shortchange charters have begun. An expected allocation of $300 million for charter schools now might be halved, with the other half going to the district partnership schools.

Charters seek $200 million for direct school construction. An additional $100 million in seed money to obtain loans would eventually be returned to the district. This is the minimum the bond should provide. In addition, charter funds should be given as outright grants that allow the schools to build and equip their own campuses. And the bond committee should include a member from a charter school to act as an ongoing advocate.

We looked the other way on this injustice three years ago. Not this time.

 

LAUSD MUST DO RIGHT FOR AREA CHILDREN

LA Daily News Op-Ed by Caprice Young

Caprice Young is former president of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and current president/CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, www.myschool.org.

Juy 23, 2008 - Last week the Los Angeles public school system was rocked with sobering news: According to the state, one in three Los Angeles Unified students is dropping out. But buried deep within the data was a sign of encouragement - charter high schools are showing strong signs of reducing this trend. In fact, every charter high school in Los Angeles Unified last year reported a dropout rate significantly lower than not only the school district's average, but the state's as well.

Yet despite this and other positive developments within the growing charter school movement, critics continue to cast aspersions on charter schools, repeating the same tired arguments that they've unsuccessfully used for years.

These arguments basically boil down to four points: Charter schools make their decisions locally, they select the best students, they're smaller, and they cause the district to lose funds as taxpayer money follows students to the schools they choose.

Yes, charter schools get to make their decisions locally, and since they're held accountable for how their students learn, this school-site control encourages innovation that leads to greater learning.

In contrast, a public-school system where seven school board members make every decision affecting nearly 700,000 students will have difficulty improving student achievement. I remember serving on the school board, when seven grown-ups would spend half a day debating the merits of whether schools should use forks or sporks during lunch. These decisions and vastly more important ones that impact learning should be left to educational professionals.

The second argument of preferential student-selection has consistently been debunked by academic research. Charter schools accept all students using public lotteries, not special selection. A 2005 Rand Corp. report again put this myth to rest when it found that in California, "African-American and Hispanic students were more likely to transfer to a charter school than other students, and this was especially true for African-American students." This underscores why public school choice is critical to closing the achievement gap, considering that a staggering 41.6 percent of African-American students drop out of district schools.

Third, it's unfair to dismiss charters' higher performance simply because they're smaller. Parents want the option of enrolling their child in a smaller, safer public school where every teacher knows every student by name. They know that when children feel safe, chances are greater that learning will occur - and the data prove this.

Last, it's true that charter schools do take away some control from downtown headquarters. In charters, money is spent on students, rather than in bureaucratic red tape.

Critics such as LAUSD school board member Julie Korenstein need to ask themselves what's worse - seeing thousands of students choose charter schools, or watching tens of thousands of Los Angeles Unified students drop out of school altogether?

Commenting on last month's report that found that most charter schools are academically outperforming their neighborhood peers, Senior Deputy Superintendent Ray Cortines said, "I think that what it says is that they have some best practices, and those should be replicated in the district in all schools. I would say the same about islands of excellence in the Unified district. ... We need to each learn from each other."

Cortines is right. Let's stop attacking each other with tired falsehoods that don't stand the test of credibility. Let's focus as partners on doing more of what's working for kids.

Pay2Play: LAUSD PAY-TO-PLAY CARRIES DEEP SOCIAL COSTS

LA DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL

July 23, 2008 - When Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa introduced his $1 million Summer Night Lights program a few weeks back, he was injecting a good dose of common sense into the city's anti-gang efforts.

After all, the program is designed to provide L.A. youngsters with evening events, so as to keep them out of trouble. And everyone knows that giving kids organized and constructive activities is a great way to keep them out of trouble.

Everyone, that is, except for officials in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Four months ago, the district decided to start charging community groups to use school facilities for after-school programs. This "pay-to-play" plan, while saving the district a piddly $3.8 million out of its $7 billion budget, has proved to be a back-breaker for many community athletic programs.

Take the Valley Falcons football club in the East Valley. According to Coach Santos Juarez, the team usually has 60 to 75 kids signed up by this point for the fall season. Now, it has 13. Juarez and other Valley Youth Conference officials worry that they won't have enough players to field a single team, let alone the usual seven.

The drop-off in membership can be attributed in no small part to the LAUSD's new fees. The various charges come to about $50 per athlete - a steep hit in a community where many families live on roughly $1,500 a month or have multiple children's fees to pay.

Other Valley Youth Conference teams - which serve some 9,600 elementary and junior high school students in football, track, basketball and cheerleading - estimate that the per-kid cost could reach $100 unless, through fund-raising efforts, they can significantly offset the cost.

No doubt, the sagging economy and the rising prices of food and gas play a large part in the drop-off in participation in many youth sports programs. With many families struggling just to cover the basics, extras like sports leagues may be out of reach.

But that's what makes the timing of the LAUSD's new fee structure so harmful. It comes at precisely the time when families can least afford it.

And it comes, perversely, at a time when the city is desperate to contain its gang epidemic, with the mayor and everyone else scrambling to find ways to keep kids engaged in wholesome activities - and off the streets.

It also comes at a time when the LAUSD's dropout crisis is in the news, with the state finding that nearly one-third of all high school students in the district never make it to graduation.

How many of these students' academic careers are derailed by the lures of gang life?

And how many more of these kids would stay in school if the district weren't nickel-and-diming youth programs that serve as an alternative to gangs?

Given that the district loses state money when students drop out, L.A. Unified has a financial interest - to say nothing of its moral obligation - to help these recreational programs stay afloat. Reducing the influence of gangs among the student population would also decrease the amount the district has to pay to secure and police its campuses.

It seems that the district's pound-foolish scheme to charge kids for using its fields is most likely not even penny-wise. The economic benefit is minimal at best, and the social cost is severe.

What's more, the plan is also an affront to Los Angeles taxpayers.

The parents of children who want to use LAUSD fields during off-school hours aren't freeloaders. They've already paid for those fields - we all did - through taxes and multiple school bonds over the years to build up L.A. Unified's campuses.

Indeed, when the district made the case for its bond measures, officials argued that these new campuses wouldn't only be new schools, but also functional community centers, serving a full range of community needs.

And yet now, when the need for youth sports programs is so great that City Hall is spending millions to create new ones, the LAUSD is charging millions to drive ones we already have out of existence.

Pay-to-play must go - before any more damage is done.

WATT'S LOCKE HIGH IS GETTING WHIPPED INTO SHAPE: Control, discipline and high expectations emerge

 

Steve Lopez

 

 

Steve Lopez: From the Los Angeles Times

July 23 2008 - It's almost 8 a.m. on 111th Street in Watts, and here's a scene that could make a cynic faint:

A teenage boy is hustling across the street toward Locke High School while tucking a white shirt into his khaki uniform pants. He wants to pass inspection at the gate.

I'm visiting what might as well be called Dropout High to see if things have changed in the early going since Green Dot Public Schools took it over from Los Angeles Unified. Too soon to tell, for sure. We're only into the third week of summer school, which tends to be mellower than the regular school year and serves only 700 kids instead of the usual 3,000.

The first thing I see after I park and walk onto campus are roughly three dozen tardy kids lined up against a fence just a couple of minutes after the hour, with Assistant Principal Charles Boulden giving them what for. On a megaphone, no less.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he barks, "school starts at 8 o'clock; 8:02 is like 8:14 to us."

Two kids roll their eyes when I ask what they think of their new drill sergeant.

"Nothing's going to change," one tells me while the other nods in agreement.

But they're wearing uniforms. That's a change. And they're about to be marked tardy, then led to their classrooms in small groups.

Other students say this clearly is not the Locke they knew last year.

Sure it's different, says Charles Brown, who will be a senior this fall.

"It's very radical," he says of the uniforms and the discipline.

Senior Lee Jones agrees it's a new day. "There's tighter security and it's more strict" in classrooms and on the yard, with security people everywhere. "They won't even let you in without your shirt tucked in."

There hasn't been a fight yet, says Michael McElveen, another senior. Two weeks without a fight is a good sign at Locke, his pals admit, even if it is usually quieter in summer. The students also agree that the uniform has its advantages -- you don't have to waste time and money on the fashions of the day.

Zeus Cubias, who has taught at Locke for 14 years after graduating from the school and going on to UC Santa Barbara, says the early indicators are encouraging. There were skeptics who said the uniforms alone would doom the experiment. Not only has there been compliance, but only a couple of the boys seem to feel bold enough to test the ban on sagging pants.

But will higher pockets mean higher grades?

"Part of it is setting the right tone," says Cubias. Right off the bat, you step onto campus knowing there's control, discipline and high expectations, and the reality is that's something most kids wanted.

"We had to step up our game, too," Cubias says. "I'm wearing a tie every day now."

Cubias is one of the Locke teachers who originally felt insulted by Green Dot chief Steve Barr's claim that he could do a better job than L.A. Unified. Cubias spoke up about it, telling Barr he and other teachers had made strides despite great challenges.

"Steve Barr's response was that that was exactly the kind of passion he was looking for," says Cubias, who became a convert during the long, acrimonious battle that ended with Green Dot winning support for a takeover.

When school starts in September, only 40 of last year's 120 teachers will still be there. Some left of their own accord; others weren't hired back.

Green Dot has hired 80 new teachers, created a separate and more intensive program for ninth-graders and divided Locke into several academies.

With the help of private donations, class sizes will be kept at about 28 instead of 40. Teachers will have more say on curriculum and teaching methods, and the Green Dot model is thin on administration.

In many ways, it's the antithesis of L.A. Unified, the listing Battleship Bureaucracy, with its staggering dropout rate and glacial pace when it comes to change.

Locke High represents Green Dot's biggest risk and greatest challenge yet. It didn't start a new school with students who chose to attend, as it has in the past. It adopted a massive dysfunctional mess, and if it can turn things around, maybe the lessons can be broadly applied.

Wayne Crawford, longtime Locke dean and head football coach, was another early skeptic even though he felt strongly that with fed-up teachers and inept district leadership, LAUSD was never going to save Locke. Could Green Dot do any better, he wondered, given that it had no history of taking in the most difficult children of derelict parents?

"This summer school is one of the best I've ever had at Locke," says Crawford. "The kids are in class, and it's more structured."

He excuses himself to fill in briefly for a teacher, taking charge immediately and sternly when a student gets up from his desk while others are giggling.

"Have a seat, and don't get silly," he orders the student. "Excuse me, young people. If you're taking a test in here, you should all be focused."

They clam up instantly.

While Cubias is escorting me across campus, he suddenly stops and points to something that can't be seen.

"Serenity," he says.

That's something new. Teachers are letting students out for brief breaks, but the uniformed kids are orderly and quiet. Teacher Tobin Paap says this is a dramatic difference from his Locke teaching experience from 1999 to 2001, after which he left the profession, burned out and demoralized.

"I felt like it was at the height of the craziness," says Paap, 34, who briefly went home to Boston to work for a suburban YMCA. He needed to decompress after the madness at Locke.

"There were hundreds of ditched kids who'd hang out. They'd sit right here," he says, showing me the ramp to the bungalow that was his classroom back then. "They smoked weed, played radios, spray-painted the walls and climbed on the roof."

I figure he's kidding, or at least exaggerating.

Not in the least, Paap says. He documented and reported all of it, but nothing ever happened to the young thugs.

When he returned to teaching in L.A., Paap says, it was with Green Dot. He knew every kid and every counselor -- as well as most of the parents -- so there were consequences when a student acted up. This fall, he'll be stationed in Inglewood. But he thinks Locke is going to be much better off than in the past.

Time will tell, and I'll keep an eye on the progress. But given the tagging and pot-smoking chaos Paap described -- and a dropout rate for which LAUSD should be ashamed -- how can Locke not be better off?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

A LESSON FROM D.C. SCHOOLS

 

sacbee.com - The online division of The Sacramento Bee

By Joseph I. Lieberman - Sacramento Bee - Opinion

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - Michelle Rhee should be commended for her determination to implement courageous and innovative educational reforms in the District of Columbia, and Congress should take note as it considers reshaping the No Child Left Behind Act.

When Mayor Adrian Fenty appointed Rhee chancellor of D.C. public schools in June 2007, she inherited a system that was near the top nationally in per-pupil spending but ranked among the nation's worst in the percentage of its students who were proficient in reading and math as measured on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Clearly, taxpayer money was not being put to good use. Nor were students being well served.

Rhee took office determined to reform the system's unresponsive bureaucracy so that D.C. schools would deliver for parents and their children. She had to make tough choices about marshaling resources and dealing with failing schools. Her bold steps have led to some dramatically positive results, and her initiatives are worth noting: She has dismissed 100 administrators, closed 23 schools and given notice to 38 principals, 23 assistant principals, 250 teachers and 500 teacher's aides. She has moved to put effective principals and teachers in every school and classroom, to this end recruiting motivated principals who share her belief in the use of data to assess student progress and make adjustments.

She seeks to reward teachers for good performance. While this is common, indeed intuitive, in most professions, it is considered a revolutionary concept in public education. Most union-negotiated teacher contracts base compensation on seniority. While this approach offers job security, it does not reward teachers for inspiring enthusiasm or promoting achievement in the classroom. This hurts children, particularly those from low-income families. Rhee proposes offering teachers the choice of staying in the seniority system or giving up their seniority and tenure rights in exchange for the opportunity to earn as much as $131,000 a year for raising student performance.

The results, after Chancellor Rhee's first year in the job: The D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System data released this month show that the proficiency of fourth-graders rose 11 percentage points in math and eight points in reading. For eighth-graders, proficiency increased nine percentage points in reading and math. All are substantial increases from previous years. While other factors are in play, including the mandate of No Child Left Behind, this is stunning progress in one year.

Innovative practices are being introduced in other jurisdictions as well. In Prince George's County, Md., for example, Superintendent John E. Deasy is planning to offer bonuses of up to $10,000 for exceptional teachers who choose to participate in an incentive pilot program. And in New York City, Chancellor Joel Klein has sought major reforms, including enhancing the charter school system, rewarding successful schools, closing the worst schools and evaluating teachers in part on the basis of their students' progress.

The original No Child Left Behind law recognized the importance of teacher quality but did not properly emphasize teacher performance in the classroom. The reforms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere offer a lesson for national policy-makers: To best serve our nation's children, Congress needs to fix No Child Left Behind rather than abandon it. Lawmakers can do this by identifying, promoting and rewarding successful teachers; by better targeting professional development; and by strengthening provisions that hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students.

Congress should encourage states to develop programs that attract the best and brightest teachers to the public schools, and we should ensure that educators are given the compensation they deserve. The innovations here in Washington and in school districts across the country demonstrate how this approach to education can work.

We owe it to all of America's children to ensure that they have every opportunity to succeed in the 21st century. The way forward includes enhancing teacher quality and insisting on high standards and accountability. The vitality of the American dream and the strength of the American economy depend on it.

Joseph I. Lieberman: A lesson from D.C. schools - sacbee.com