Heedless 'Reform' in D.C. Schools

Wednesday, November 26, 2008; A12

I was pleased to read Larry Cuban's articulate commentary on D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's efforts to reform the District's failing school system ["Michelle Rhee: Better to Be a Marathoner," Close to Home, Nov. 23]. (see story below: THE MICHELLE THAT OBAMA SHOULD AVOID )

I, too, am concerned that the urgency of her response has compromised her analysis of what is wrong with the system. Intelligent analysis, though time-consuming, is an essential step in identifying and implementing effective solutions. Ms. Rhee, I am afraid, skipped this step.

Mr. Cuban was also correct to stress how important it is for superintendents to work with teachers unions. Ms. Rhee and the union that represents D.C. public school teachers are equally ardent in their desire to better educate students. Why, then, have they become enemies? As Mr. Cuban noted, once these battle lines have been drawn, you can "kiss reform goodbye."

As a D.C. public school teacher, I would like to add another concern to Mr. Cuban's list.

Ms. Rhee prides herself on having a "data-driven" administration. Has she missed the data on public school test scores vs. charter school scores?

Charter schools in the District of Columbia can fire teachers at will, and yet few of them are outperforming their public school counterparts. If firing teachers lay at the heart of the problem, wouldn't these charter schools be doing better by Ms. Rhee's favorite yardstick, test scores?

A good educational leader needs to carefully analyze the issues before blindly grasping at solutions. Unfortunately, Ms. Rhee, in her impatience, has not adequately analyzed the issues and has made enemies of people who share her goals of bettering the education of our students.

SUSAN BORN-OZMENT

Washington

Return to Top of Page

California Physical Fitness Test Results

Written by Imperial Valley News   

Wednesday, 26 November 2008

Sacramento, California - State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today released the results of the California Physical Fitness Test that is given annually to all fifth, seventh, and ninth grade students enrolled in the state's public schools.

"Students are moving in the right direction toward better fitness," said O'Connell. "But to get them to take giant leaps instead of baby steps will require additional encouragement from school administrators, teachers, and parents.We all need to work together to help our students attain the level of fitness and well-being that will keep their bodies in shape and their minds sharp."

The 2008 test scores show that 28.5 percent of the students in grade five, 32.9 percent in grade seven, and 35.6 percent in grade nine achieved in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) for all six areas of the test. These results represent a 1.4 percentage point increase in fifth grade students' scores, a 2.0 percentage point increase in seventh grade students' scores, and a 5.5 percentage point gain in ninth grade students' scores compared to last year's results.

"The Superintendent and I both know that academics and fitness go hand-in-hand," said Jake Steinfeld, chair of the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. "When children are physically active and eating well, their confidence, focus, and self-esteem improve and their academic scores do too. I look forward to working with the Superintendent to insure that California students are provided every possible opportunity to get active, get healthy, and get fit."

The goal of California's physical fitness test is to facilitate learning about physical activity and physical fitness concepts in order to increase the likelihood students will adopt lifetime patterns of physical activity.

A score in the HFZ represents the level of fitness thought to provide some protection from the potential health risks imposed by a lack of fitness in this measure. The HFZ reflects reasonable levels of fitness that can be attained by most students that participate regularly in various types of physical activity. 

A comparison of the results for the last three years shows an encouraging 2.9 to 8.2 percentage point improvement in achieving the HFZ across all six areas of the test. Sixty percent of the students across the three grades in 2008 met the targeted performance level for aerobic capacity, considered the most important of the six areas tested. Recent research correlates good aerobic capacity with a reduction in many health problems.

The results for students in the Class of 2011 cohort (i.e., grade five students in 2004, grade seven students in 2006, and grade nine students in 2008) scoring in the HFZ are shown in. Students in the class of 2011 have shown steady improvement over similar students in the classes of 2009 and 2010. Students from the class of 2011 achieving the HFZ in six out of six fitness standards in grade five was 2.5 percentage points higher than the class of 2009 students and 1.0 percentage point higher than the class of 2010 students. Examining the ninth grade level students from the class of 2011 they achieved the HFZ in six out of six fitness standards 8.2 percentage points higher than students from the class of 2009 and 5.5 percentage points higher than students from the class of 2010. 

State law requires school districts to administer a physical fitness test, designated by the State Board of Education, to all fifth, seventh, and ninth graders annually.  

The physical fitness test designated for California public school students is the FITNESSGRAM®, developed by The Cooper Institute. The test assesses six major fitness areas, including aerobic capacity (cardiovascular endurance), body composition (percentage of body fat), abdominal strength and endurance, trunk strength and flexibility, upper body strength and endurance, and overall flexibility. A number of test options are provided so that most students can participate.

In 2008, the physical fitness test was administered to a total of 1,371,411 California public school students: 454,276 fifth grade students, 458,122 seventh grade students, and 459,013 ninth grade students.  

Imperial Valley News  

Return to Top of Page

THE MICHELLE THAT OBAMA SHOULD AVOID

Progressive Review - DC School Chancellor Michelle Rhee is getting rave reviews everywhere except in real DC, where our egocentric, bullying, my-way-or-the-highway approach is making new enemies every day.

This is no longer just a local concern, however, as there are reports that Obama plans to appoint her to a high position in his administration, encouraged by uninformed articles like one in Newsweek that claimed, "The chancellor of the D.C. system, Michelle Rhee, has proposed an innovative teachers' contract that could allow her to reward the best teachers and dismiss the bad ones. Educators everywhere are watching to see what Obama says and does. If he backs Rhee's proposal, he will send a powerful signal to struggling inner-city schools that reform is possible. If he fudges or says nothing, it will be a signal that little will change for the poor and mostly black children in the capital's nearly dysfunctional apparatus.  

"Rhee has made no secret of her determination to break the union. With the support of Mayor Adrian Fenty and the promise of funds from private foundations, she wants to offer teachers a choice of two contracts. Under the first, teachers can make up to $130,000 in merit pay-but they must forgo tenure. Or they can choose to keep tenure, but accept a much more modest pay raise (the average teacher's salary in Washington is $65,902)."

What Newsweek and other media don't tell you is that the increase in salary is being funded by donations from private foundations with absolutely no guarantee the money will still be there a few years down the pike. It short, it amounts to a first class con being perpetrated with the aid of third rate media.

Following are some other things about Rhee you may not know:

Washington Post Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee told the D.C. Council that the District needs to completely rethink its approach to preventing school violence, with a better trained security force but also by teaching students to manage conflicts before they spiral out of control. Rhee spoke to the council a day after fights among rival groups at Anacostia High School left five students injured, including three with stab wounds. . . D.C. State Board of Education member William Lockridge, who represents wards 7 and 8, said the Anacostia situation was triggered by tensions about the enrollment of students from Eastern High School, which is being reorganized under the No Child Left Behind law, and M.M. Washington Career High School, which was closed because of low enrollment.
"I think it was a bad idea from the beginning," Lockridge said. "The community forewarned the administration that this was going to happen, and it's happened.  

They're not listening." Rhee said the transfers played no role in the disorder.

Washington Post - At Hart [school], where the level of violence and disorder - including assaults on at least three teachers - prompted Rhee to intervene this month with a team of administrators and to dismiss Principal Kisha Webster, about 200 parents and faculty packed the school auditorium to air complaints. . . D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) said much of the violence at Hart could have been averted if the school system had planned more carefully for its consolidation with P.R. Harris, another Southeast middle school that was closed in June. Barry said administrators did nothing beforehand to ease the potential for neighborhood tensions and school rivalries that have played out under Hart's roof. "They sent sixth , seventh and eighth-graders to Hart from P.R. Harris without any preparation for the neighborhood beefs," Barry said.  

Washington Post - About a third of D.C.'s school principal corps has turned over on Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's 17-month watch, through firings, resignations and retirements. She's replaced at least three since the beginning of the school year, and has put out the word that she is not done.  

The writer of the following is a former D.C. Public Schools teacher and was superintendent of schools in Arlington, VA from 1974 to 1981:

Larry Cuban, Washington Post In her second year as the District's schools chancellor, Michelle A. Rhee looks like a sprinter. In less than two years, with the full support of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, she has already cut central office administrators, fired principals, closed schools and challenged the teachers union on seniority transfer rights and tenure.  

By comparison, Atlanta Superintendent Beverly L. Hall and Austin schools chief Pat Forgione each served a decade and showed strong gains in students' academic achievement. They were long-distance runners. Fixing urban school districts takes marathoners, not sprinters.  

Look at Alan Bersin, who ran out of gas as San Diego's superintendent in 2005. Determined to lift student learning rather than preserve school officials' status quo, he reorganized the system and fired administrators. He went after collective bargaining rules that protected seniority rights and incompetent teachers. Union leaders fought him by seeking national and state allies and turning to parents. He exited well before fulfilling his reform agenda.  

My point is not that union leaders block reform. In some cities they work closely with superintendents. Nor should superintendents play nice with unions to avoid conflict.  

But sprinter superintendents err in jumping on unions too early in their long-distance race for better student achievement. They suffer from ideological myopia. They believe low test scores and achievement gaps between whites and minorities result in large part from knuckle-dragging union leaders defending seniority and tenure rights that protect lousy teachers. Such beliefs reflect a serious misreading of why urban students fail to reach proficiency levels and graduate from high school. . .  

This error in thinking has occurred often in districts where impatient superintendents have demonized unions, only to discover that they have stumbled into a war as a result. Once union leaders were convinced that they were fighting for their survival, they converted the battle into an "us vs. them" struggle. When that happens, kiss reform goodbye.  

Rhee's ideological push against unions comes much too early in her tenure to improve teaching and learning. Such initiatives fail because they can turn the entire D.C. teaching corps -- including first-rate veteran and mid-career teachers -- against any classroom change. Rhee may deceive herself into believing that teacher whispers about forming another union will split a chapter of the American Federation of Teachers that was founded in 1925. It won't.  

"Us vs. them" is not predestined. Boston's Tom Payzant and Carl A. Cohn in Long Beach, Calif., served more than a decade in their districts and received national awards for raising student performance. Neither saw teacher unions as foes to be squashed. They convinced union leaders that it was in teachers' best interests to work with them. Trying to destroy the union will not throw 4,000 teachers behind the mayor and chancellor.  

Were the untimely face-off with the D.C. teachers union to spiral into an ugly scrum, angry union leaders and teachers would reach out to allies on the D.C. Council and elsewhere to join against a mayor and chancellor viewed as determined to destroy their organization, much like President Ronald Reagan was with the air traffic controllers union in 1981. Such conflict could possibly end in the mayor dumping his talented chancellor. Another round of high hopes for the D.C. schools would be dashed.  

Guy Brandenburg, Concerned 4 DCPS - I know that the major media are totally enamored of Michelle Rhee. But those of us who live and work right under her are much less in love with her.  

Closing schools? Other school chiefs in DC have been doing that for at least a decade.  

Firing lots of DCPS central office workers? Just about every single one of our last 7 or 8 superintendents started out by doing that. Fat lot of good that's done.

Increased test scores? Many of us point out that that's the result of a new curriculum brought about under the former school chief, Clifford Janey, and the public schools wildly outperformed the charter schools. Yes, you read that correctly: the traditional public schools did much, much better on the [test] than all those supposedly wonderful charter schools Rhee has been promoting.  

Her three main actual accomplishments to date, it seems to me are:

- bringing about the largest single-year percentage drop in student enrollment in DCPS;  

- making union-busting seem like a progressive idea in education; and

- promoting the myth that it doesn't take any experience or training to be a wonderful teacher.  

It is an outright lie to say that the reason that the contract that Rhee proposed has not been brought to a vote of the membership is because of a 'meltdown' in the Washington Teachers' Union leadership, and that the WTU leadership is preventing an eager union membership from voting for the contract. . . 

When teachers heard some of the details of the outline of the contract that Rhee [and the head of the teacher's union] had been working on - in total isolation from the rest of the bargaining committee - the vast majority of the rank-and-file teachers thought that the central ideas were no good and that our leaders needed to go back to the negotiating table and start over.  

Teachers overwhelmingly are rejecting the idea of doubling, tripling, or quadrupling their own salaries. Can you imagine the CEOs of any corporation doing that? In my opinion, teachers are rejecting that idea because they don't trust the leadership of our school system, pretty much at any level.  

Most teachers know quite a bit about favoritism, nepotism, and politics, and are quite happy to have unions representing them so that there will be due process when complaints or problems come up. We have seen our often-clueless administrators leave incompetent teachers in classrooms because the administrators didn't care, while harassing teachers they felt to be troublemakers.

Teachers also know how extremely difficult it is to work in what is euphemistically called "inner-city" schools, and how much easier it is for your students to achieve at a high level if they already come with an excellent background. Just about every method I have seen proposed for judging teachers and by student achievement levels will not account for that, and will deem as "successful" the schools where lots of parents have PhDs, LLDs, and MDs, and will give the "failing" label to schools where lots of the parents have jail records, high unemployment, little education, and so on.  

Quite a few of my fellow-teachers don't even believe that Rhee actually has the money to pay those huge salaries.  

The St Hope connection:  

Saint Hope News Release, July 2007 - St. HOPE Public Schools announced that Michelle Rhee has been confirmed as the new Chancellor of Washington D.C. Public Schools. . . Rhee, who has served on the St. HOPE Public Schools Board of Directors for one year, played an instrumental role in the hiring of new staff and professional development. . . Both Rhee and McGoldrick will continue serving on the SHPS Board of Directors  

Sacramento Bee, September 2008 - The federal government released findings of its investigation into management of the nonprofit St. HOPE volunteer program founded by Sacramento mayoral candidate Kevin Johnson, citing violations that include having youthful participants run personal errands and wash his car.  

The findings from the federal probe followed by a day the government's announcement it was barring Johnson, St. HOPE Academy and a former official from access to federal grants and contracts for up to a year. .  

The federal funding suspension was triggered by a months-long investigation into Hood Corps' use of AmeriCorps funds. The program received $807,000 between 2004 and 2007. Federal funding for the program was not renewed last year. In a notice of suspension sent to Johnson, an official from the AmeriCorps agency said evidence indicates that Johnson, as president and chief executive of St. HOPE Academy, improperly diverted grant money.  

Sacramento Bee - While under the management of Sacramento Mayor-elect Kevin Johnson, St. HOPE Public Schools fell more than $1 million behind on required payments to the Sacramento City Unified School District. St. HOPE started paying the money back in October, and the Sacramento City school board Thursday night voted 5-2 in favor of an agreement that would require it to pay off the remaining $729,742 debt with interest by June 30, 2010.  

Washington Post - Rhee appeared at a news conference in Sacramento as part of the transition team of Mayor-elect Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who will take office Nov. 25, replacing two-term incumbent Heather Fargo. According to The Sacramento Bee, she was presented by Johnson as one of the leaders of a transition team that could eventually total as many as 100 people. Rhee is a long-time friend of Johnson's and served as a member of the board of directors of St. Hope Public Schools, the system of charter schools Johnson founded in Sacramento.  

Roger Newell notes: Remember, this is the same person who said that she was too busy to appear before the City Council to answer questions from elected officials on how she is spending our tax money and educating our city's future.  

Bll Turque, Washington Post - A new group has organized around the proposition that fixing D.C.'s schools will require nurturing and developing teachers -- not just threatening them with dismissal for failing to raise student test scores. Teachers and Parents for Real Education Reform was co-founded by a core of activists who agree with Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee that DCPS is in need of dramatic change. But they say that school reform requires a broader conversation than the one taking place between Rhee and the Washington Teachers Union over a new labor contract.  

DC Examiner - The prevailing attitude in elite education circles these days seems to be: "We've tried everything else and that didn't work, so let's try bribing students to learn." So starting October 3rd, D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee will begin doling out up to $100 per month to 3,000 middle school students for doing what other children around the nation are expected to do for free - show up for class, behave, do their homework. . . New York University Professor Pedro Noguera questioned the value of financial incentives after the percentage of New York high school students who earned Advance Placement credits decreased from 35 percent in 2007, when no cash incentives were offered, to 32 percent this year, when students received cash bonuses of as much as $1,000.  

DC Wire, Washington Post - She's said it before, but Michelle Rhee keeps hammering away at the Democratic Party for being weak on education accountability and reform. Last night, Rhee appeared before the Ward 4 Democrats at Emery Recreation Center and explained that she appeared on an education panel discussion in Denver during the Democratic National Convention to "make a statement to the Democratic Party" about why it needs to get tougher on unions and other "political interests." Rhee stressed that she has been a lifelong Democrat, but then she lit into the party. "Republicans are much better at education policy than Democrats," she said. "Democrats are soft on accountability and they're anti-NCLB [No Child Left Behind], they don't want to test anyone. This attitude in my mind does nothing for the neediest students who need help the most." To Rhee, Democratic leaders pander to unions and other interest groups who are "driving the agenda on school reform. Everyone thinks Republicans are for the rich, white oil guys to whom they give tax breaks and Democrats are for kids and the underclass. I don't think the Democratic Party operates that way. So we were there [in Denver] speaking out and pushing the Party to move in a different direction."  

Progressive Review - The school system's brutalist boss, Michelle Rhee, not only feels free to trash the city's teachers but the DC city council as well. In an article in the business mag Fast Company, Jeff Chu writes that she "refuses to play the traditional, subservient role of a D.C. agency chief with the city council, which, despite its limited authority over DCPS, has repeatedly questioned her decision making and management." When Rhee catches a council hearing on late night TV she sees "her own version of a horror movie. . . 'There's this crazy dynamic where every agency head is kowtowing. They sit there and get beat down. . . I'm not going to sit on public TV and take a beating I don't deserve. I don't take that crap.'" Sounds like someone should introduce her to DC law as well as to common sense.  

Gary Imhoff, DC Watch - At Wilson High School, we have just had a graphic example of how insecure a teaching job can be under the whims of Rhee's administrators, even for a teacher as admired and beloved as Dr. Arthur Siebens . . . Why on earth should teachers give up whatever protection tenure can give them against arbitrary and capricious decisions that they 'fit in with the new' order? What have Rhee and [Mayor] Fenty done to earn the trust of teachers? Why should teachers believe that they won't be treated just as shabbily at Siebens, that they won't be scorned and swept out by young, arrogant, and inexperienced school officials who are convinced that they know it all and that anyone who was in the Washington school system before they took over should be 'excessed' and disposed of?  

Progressive Review - We have in the past recommended a saner approach to bureaucratic reform, such as coming up with a plan of where you want to be a few years from now, including the specific jobs that will be available after the reorganization. This not only would allow the public to know what was actually being proposed - something Rhee hasn't let us in on - and would let staff know whether their job would be there or not. If not, the employees would have time to look for another job or apply for one of the jobs under the new plan. Using such an approach is far less disruptive than the slash and burn approach of Rhee. 

Top Scoops

Return to Top of Page

Editorial: City school rule inhibits choice

CHANGES DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS TO DRAW STUDENTS

Published: Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008 | Page 10A

Families in Sacramento City Unified schools have more educational choices than ever, a good thing.

Part of this array of choices is a host of public charter schools – six operated directly by the school district and six operated by nonprofits.

But there's a major flaw in the setup. The district does not provide information to parents about all the public school choices within its boundaries. continue reading the story at sacbee.com

Response to Sac Bee Editorial: City school rule inhibits choice

Mike Simpson, editor sacdac.org aka coopmike48

Fox news proves that opinion is as important as fact in what passes as news today.  I guess that is ok as long as everyone knows it. The insidious part of this is that the opinion/news makers always frame the argument. Frame to promote an opinion. The public can only respond to the pre-framed article or report. It is the free enterprise news version of the “politics of confrontation" that has been in vogue for some time. I would prefer not to debate the editorial board of the Bee over charters. I would really like to be talking about the extremely difficult decisions that the SCUSD Board will be facing in two months. School closings will change the fabric and soul of the neighborhoods affected, cutting programs and services at a time the need is the greatest, dealing with the fall out of all the unhappy parents, neighbors and other learning community partners created by these inexcusable budget cuts and the list goes on.

I am sure the Bee is aware of how the Times reports on the turmoil in the LAUSD, a district having many of the serious challenges facing our district, yet you talk about St. Hope like there really is a Saint named Hope and the SCUSD Board as if they are bozo the clown. Our Board and our District stand out for leadership, vision and solvency, when compared to other urban school districts. I have not read that in the Bee.  The challenges of education in Sacramento are far greater than the Bee's current focus and framing of the St. Hope charter debate. I have the greatest respect for the efforts of the Bee to support education but the editorial board does us all a disservice when it practices the politics of confrontation. Now is the time for the Bee to show the leadership it has in other areas to focus our community on all the issues facing Education in Sacramento rather than their favorite.

Return to Top of Page

California's children deserve better

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana

Article Created: 11/15/2008 06:56:21 PM PST

When Congress agonized recently over whether to spend $700 billion to bail out banks, what finally tipped the scales was the real concern that people's investments and futures might well be at stake.

When our Legislature and governor struggled for months to reach agreement on a new state budget, however, there was no such concern expressed about protecting public education, Californians' most significant civic investment. On the contrary, it was decided from the beginning of the debate that, once again, public schools and students would simply have to do more with less.

Now, with even more cuts on the way, the truth is that what's at stake at this point is nothing less than the very survival of public education in California.

For the current school year, our school board was forced to make some very difficult decisions. Due to a new state budget that included a near-zero cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), our board had to cut $11 million from our district budget. It meant cutting a number of administrator positions at both the district and school levels that directly supported teaching and learning; cutting departmental budgets by as much as 10 percent; freezing all district hiring except for those positions deemed absolutely critical for district operation; and letting go many talented temporary-contract teachers who have served our students well, because we simply couldn't afford to keep them on. The result is that this year many of our classrooms have

as many as 32 students.

Now the budget-cutting process is beginning all over again. The state's revenue forecast looks even gloomier, and the outlook for school districts all over California looks even worse. Up to just a week or so ago, we at Pomona Unified were bracing for a projected $15 million in additional cuts this coming year. But now the governor is warning of potential midyear cuts, which for PUSD would total approximately $10 million.

How can we possibly absorb another $25 million budget cut in the coming year? We honestly don't know the answer to that question, short of doing what the government does when it runs out of money: Close the doors and send people home, which, in our case, would include students. We can't do that.

We are not alone. All school districts were forced to make severe cuts this year and, like us, are now facing more drastic cuts again for the coming year that ultimately affect not only student academic achievement, but now the survival of public education in our state. It has finally reached that point.

Educators and parents are rightly starting to wonder exactly how low the state is willing to go when it comes to public education. With the current state budget, California maintained an embarrassing distinction as one of the states that makes the smallest possible investment in public education. Depending on the calculations used, our state still ranks as low as a mediocre 29th to a dismal 48th among states in terms of education funding, which really is the single most important investment it makes in its long-term health. It is a clear expression of our state's priorities.

California's children deserve better than this, of course, but there's little evidence that they will get it any time soon. The budget-cutting process has begun even earlier this year, with the current special legislative session, and so far there has been no call from Sacramento for any rescue plan for public education.

Meanwhile, at Pomona Unified we are now two years into a very intensive effort to transform the education we offer. It involves a great deal of professional development, as well as program restructuring in direct response to calls from parents and students for a greater variety of educational options. Like them, we understand that the old one-size-fits-all approach to education does not meet all students' needs, and we are working diligently to change the way we teach in order to reach and help each individual student. At the same time, like other school districts, we are working hard to continue to meet the ever-rising academic achievement targets set for us by the state and federal governments.

The state's lack of funding threatens to erase all our work, and all the improvement we've made. It already has forced us to let go of good teachers and create larger classes, making individualized instruction more difficult, and taking from children the level of attention and focus they deserve. And the governor's proposed midyear cuts would force us to cut programs our community values halfway through the year.

Interestingly, on Election Day, voters across our state, including here in Pomona and Diamond Bar, approved billions of dollars in bonding authority for school districts to improve their school facilities. We are so grateful for their trust and support.

It was a clear message that they support their schools, and even support making a greater personal commitment when they know it's for their children's education. State lawmakers, on the other hand, are still only willing to discuss how much more to cut school funding in order to balance the budget.

We have asked our community to step up to challenges before, and today I urge all concerned parents and other citizens to join with us and with educators from across our state and speak up on behalf of children. Please contact your state legislators and the governor and insist that they respect the critical importance of public education and give it budget priority.

Our elected leaders need to be reminded of what hard-working Californians already know: These devastating cuts to public education are undermining our state's future. And before it's too late, they also need to take to heart the lesson that we as educators and parents try so hard to teach our children: that we always have a responsibility to do what's right, even when it's difficult.

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana is superintendent of Pomona Unified School District.

LA Inland Valley News

Return to Top of Page

Teachers Win Bonuses at

 High-Need Schools

By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ

Teachers at 33 high-need secondary schools across New York City will receive bonuses of several thousand dollars each, totaling $6.5 million, as a reward for student gains on school report cards released this week, Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein announced Friday.

In addition, the city will reward principals and assistant principals at 86 schools with checks of up to $25,000, bringing the total in bonuses given to educators this fall to $28 million. “I am enormously proud to be able to recognize educators who are improving outcomes for students, especially those in our highest-need schools,” Mr. Klein said in a statement.

The bonuses, financed primarily from private sources, are New York’s first pay-for-performance experiment for teachers, and have come under renewed criticism in light of impending cuts to the education budget.

Under an agreement with the teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers, each school gets a lump sum that can be distributed to staff members at the discretion of a school committee. Most schools chose to spread the wealth evenly among teachers, and several have chosen to give less to school aides and other staff members. Some schools reward teachers who take on extracurricular activities and other responsibilities with a more sizable slice of the pie.

At the High School of World Cultures in the Bronx, the teaching staff earned $78,000 to be split among 25 teachers, and the principal, Ramon A. Namnun, received $7,000. Mr. Namnun, who is in his sixth year as principal, attributed the awards to significant improvements in graduation rates and 9th- and 10th-grade credit accumulation. The school received a B from the city this year and last year.

He said the school, which is made up almost entirely of recent immigrants, had made much progress in the past year in motivating students, through schoolwide assemblies on grading policies and visits to college campuses on the East Coast. He said teachers also worked hard, pitching in during school breaks.

“It is because of the teamwork,” he said. “I told them we were going to be one of the best schools in New York City. The teachers did the work. I just led them.”

In total, 39 high-need secondary schools vied for bonuses. The 33 that got them either met performance targets set at the beginning of the last school year or maintained an A grade for a second year in a row. In September, teachers at 89 high-need elementary and middle schools got bonuses totaling $14.2 million.

Principals and assistant principals of schools whose report card scores were in the top 20 percent citywide were eligible for bonuses; three got the top prize of $25,000 in this round, along with 12 in September. The bonuses for administrators, totaling $1.7 million for secondary schools and $5.5 million for elementary and middle schools, are paid for with public money.

“In order to be accountable, any kind of long-term program within a school system should be publicly funded,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the teachers’ union, referring to plans to use only public funds next year.

Ms. Weingarten said she was pleased to see that 85 percent of secondary schools that participated in the program won bonuses.

The New York Times Company

Return to Top of Page

Obama Is Expected to Put Education Overhaul on Back Burner

Critics of the Bush administration's education policies had hoped that putting a Democrat in the White House would mean dramatic changes, including the potential scrapping of the No Child Left Behind law and its reliance on standardized testing, as well as more federal dollars for schools.

But with the financial crisis and other priorities bearing down, President-elect Barack Obama's education initiatives -- at least early in his term -- are expected to be more about tinkering than bold change.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Obama's education initiatives are expected to be more about tinkering than bold change. Above, Obama shakes hands with a student at Carver Elementary School in New Orleans.

Although he has said education is an issue close to his heart, in an interview late last month with CNN he listed it as fifth among his priorities, after the economy, energy independence, a health-care overhaul and tax cuts for the middle class.

As American students fall behind many of their peers abroad, business leaders and others have said education must be a top priority if the nation is to produce a work force that is more competitive.

Mr. Obama "talks about energy independence and green-collar jobs, but we are not going to have people to take all of these green-collar jobs unless we get serious about our schools very quickly," said Amy Wilkins, a vice president of the Education Trust, a Washington group that advocates for low-income children.

No Child Left Behind mandates that all children meet proficiency standards on multiple-choice tests by 2014. Schools face increasingly severe penalties if their students don't meet achievement goals.

Susan Traiman, director of public policy at the Business Roundtable in Washington, said NCLB has fallen short on ensuring that middle- and high-school graduates master advanced subjects, particularly in math and science. "That's why it's so urgent that we not postpone an education-reform agenda indefinitely," she said.

Mr. Obama has called for increased funding for NCLB programs such as teacher training and better testing. He has said he wants to increase spending on early-childhood education by about $10 billion annually and provide a $4,000 annual tax credit to college students who perform 100 hours of community service.

With the federal government under pressure to rescue banks, auto makers and homeowners, as well as a federal budget deficit that could double to $1 trillion this fiscal year, many observers question whether Mr. Obama will undertake education measures that require significant spending.

Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said he expects Mr. Obama to sidestep most major issues involving public schools and instead focus on small, symbolic initiatives in the mold of former President Bill Clinton's promotion of school uniforms as a way to instill discipline in classrooms.

Economically, the new president faces a "tough, tough balancing act," said Arne Duncan, chief executive of the Chicago Public Schools and an education adviser to Mr. Obama. Even so, Mr. Duncan said education has been pivotal to Mr. Obama's personal story, and he predicted "a very strong, aggressive and comprehensive strategy" on the issue. "This is something that is hugely important to him," said Mr. Duncan, who has been mentioned as a possible secretary of education in the Obama administration.

Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, said stimulating the economy and getting people back to work will be the new administration's top priority. But he added that the president-elect sees the financial crisis as an opportunity to make changes in energy policy, health care and education. "Those issues that are usually referred to as long-term are immediate," he said.

The economic crisis has altered the landscape in which any education-policy shifts by the Obama administration would play out. In recent months, at least 16 states have cut funding to public schools, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan Washington research group. Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was cutting $566 million over the next two years and cutting 475 administrative jobs from the city's Department of Education.

"School boards around the country are going to be in real trouble over the next year or two," said Andrew Reschovsky, a University of Wisconsin economist, who added that some states may be forced to seek additional federal funds to help their school districts maintain programs.

Fearful of cuts that could affect schools and students for years to come, some education groups have called for the new president to make economic recovery his first priority.

The American Federation of Teachers is lobbying for an economic stimulus package that includes expanded unemployment benefits, fiscal relief for states and public-works projects. "We have to focus on the economy first," said Randi Weingarten, the union's president.

Meanwhile the fate of NCLB -- widely viewed as the Bush administration's signature domestic achievement -- is uncertain. Mr. Obama has signaled that he doesn't plan to jettison the law.

But other than bolstering funds for teacher pay and measuring students through means other than standardized testing, he has offered few details about his reform plans.

Joel Klein, chancellor of the New York City schools, expressed skepticism about using alternative testing. "If you water down accountability, if success or failure depends on the eye of the beholder, you run the risk of letting down kids," he said.

Some observers say that, rather than taking the lead in what could be a contentious reauthorization battle, the new president may wait for the new Congress to hash out a consensus on what changes need to be made. "I think it's going to take months to figure that all out," said Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy, a nonpartisan research group.

Write to Robert Tomsho at rob.tomsho@wsj.com and John Hechinger at john.hechinger@wsj.com

Full Story: CareerJournal

LAUSD halts most spending in effort to save $300 million

By George B. Sánchez, Staff Writer

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 10:52:04 PM PST

Facing a midyear budget cut of up to $300 million, the Los Angeles Unified School District has issued an immediate halt on filling open positions, using district credit cards and spending on a variety of contracts.

While the cost-saving measures are temporary for now, they could lead to closing small schools, combining continuation programs and reducing administrative staff sizes if the budget crisis worsens, said Senior Deputy Superintendent Ramon Cortines. He is also considering "taxing" every department, meaning a percentage of department budgets will be slashed to address looming budget cuts.

"I've got to find a way to deal with a $200 (million) to $300 million midyear cut, or we won't make payroll," he said.

Cortines announced the purchasing freeze Monday in a memo sent to all schools and district offices. Only purchases for health, safety, legal requirements, school construction and school lunches will be allowed.

"This does not mean that I do not trust your judgment and respect your ability to make wise decisions, but these are unpredictable times and we need a few days to assess where we are financially for the 2009-2010 school year and beyond," Cortines wrote.

Megan Reilly, the LAUSD's chief financial officer, explained: "This freeze is asking to stop all spending so we can do an assessment of where we stand in preparation for massive budget cuts."

Mike O'Sullivan, president of the district's principals

union, said the memo surprised employees. "We understand the need to reduce expenditures. There's a need to see the district's financial standing, but what's really disturbing was the nature of how it was done," O'Sullivan said.

Those with district credit cards should have been notified earlier, O'Sullivan said, adding that it is unclear how long the freeze will last.

The purchasing freeze should not change day-to-day school operations, Cortines said, noting that essential programs, supplies and even training will continue.

"I'm asking people to use judgment and wisdom on what is essential," he explained.

But there will be no new programming and open positions won't be filled. With decreased personnel ranks, he said, the district will need to set new priorities as well.

Last week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed cutting state spending by $4.5 billion for the current year. More than half of the cuts would come from education.

"He made this recommendation based on the assumption that he'd get approval for a tax increase," said Cortines. "If he doesn't get that approval, the midyear cuts could could go up as high as $350 million."

LAUSD Superintendent David Brewer III has warned that the governor's cuts could lead to school closures. School districts throughout the state are facing similar tough choices.

"It's not only logical, it's necessary," said Bob Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies. "There's a lot more coming, and there will be more pain because it's in the middle of the year."

Before last week's announcement, the LAUSD was facing $188million in budget cuts from the approved 2008-09 state budget. District officials said in October that dire financial straits would effectively end the small-class-size initiative next year.

District officials will meet today to discuss the freeze and budget options, Reilly said.

Facing a projected cumulative cut of $700 million over the next three years, Cortines said cuts will first happen at LAUSD headquarters, then local district offices, and last at school sites. But with 80percent of the district's budget going to staffers, there's only so far he can cut.

"Even if we closed down (LAUSD headquarters), it wouldn't be $400 million," Cortines said.

george.sanchez@dailynews.com 818-713-3738

LA Daily News

Return to Top of Page

Sacramento Public School Parents are getting “Hip” to Politics

By Mike Simpson sacdac.org

The Parent movement is alive, well and growing in the Capitol City. Diana Rodriguez, parent joins Ellyne Bell, parent on the SCUSD Board of Trustees. Six candidates for the SCUSD Board that identified as parents garnered an astounding 16,714 of the votes counted so far in this election with thousands of votes still to be counted.

School Site Councils elected this fall at most schools in the SCUSD district have parents, teachers, principals, staff and students (in middle schools and high schools) participating as partners to improve the education at each school site. School Site Councils (SSC) are the “local school boards” representing the individual and specific needs of the learning community at their schools.

On November 18, the District Citizens’ Title I/State Compensatory Education Programs Advisory Committee also known as DAC, will elect parents to the DAC Executive Board. Parents elected by their School Site Council are eligible to run for the DAC Executive Board. The goal of DAC is to be the public square, a forum to discuss and bring the concerns and needs of our learning community to our public officials at the local, state and federal level. The public is always welcome at DAC meeting and are encouraged to bring their concerns to this forum.

Most Sacramento parent groups are ramping up their activities to deal with the devastating cuts in education caused by the current state budget crisis and years of underfunding. Groups as diverse as PTO/PTA, Sacramento Coalition to Save Public Education, Where’s My High School and parent’s groups that were formed to oppose specific cuts in the programs and services are looking at ways to increase the voice of concerned parents.

Parents must be aware that “What happens … begins in the council chamber, the school board meeting room, the state house, the U.S. Capitol, and the White House. "Every decision is a political decision," and we should no longer accept people making decisions for us, about us, and without us." As stated by NEA President Reg Weaver.

The DAC Executive Board has established the following goals for building parent involvement in our schools and community…We need your help!

• Recognize that all parents, regardless of income, education or cultural background, are involved in their children's learning and want their children to do well.

• Design programs that will support families to guide their children's learning, from preschool through high school.

• Develop the capacity of school staff and families to work together.

• Link activities and programs for families to improving student learning.

• Focus on developing trusting and respectful relationships among staff and families.

• Build families' social and political connections.

• Embrace a philosophy of partnership and be willing to share power.

• Make sure that parents, school staff, and community members understand that the responsibility for children's educational development is a collaborative   enterprise.

• Build strong connections between schools and community organizations.

• Include families in all strategies to reduce the achievement gap between white, middle-class students and low-income students and students of color.

If you would like further information about issues discussed in this article point your web browser to http://sacdac.org

Return to Top of Page

Sacramento school officials look at possible closures

mnix@sacbee.com

Published Monday, Nov. 10, 2008

The Sacramento City Unified School District has arrived at a threshold that other urban, slow-growth districts have crossed recently: closing schools, consolidating campuses and renting out district property.

The budget crisis, built-out neighborhoods and stagnant enrollment have pushed the district to explore how to cut costs and get more out of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of property.

Sacramento City Unified trustees and administrators say the district faces a budget shortfall of at least $7 million in the 2009-2010 school year.

"We are down to the bone, folks," trustee Jerry Houseman said at the Thursday school board meeting.

Other area districts have wrestled with the problem.

In the past six years, San Juan Unified School District's declining enrollment has led it to close nine schools.

Don Myers, San Juan's director of facilities and planning, said the suburban district is now discussing additional closures. Enrollment dropped another 1,000 students this year and Myers said the decline hasn't hit bottom. Meanwhile, district property and acreage combined is worth at least $2 billion, he said.

And earlier this year, Davis Joint Unified School District trustees, facing a $4 million budget shortfall, proposed closing under-enrolled Emerson Junior High to save nearly $600,000 a year.

The proposal followed a controversial decision in June to shutter Valley Oak Elementary because of declining enrollment. Angry parents opposed the Emerson plan and trustees decided to study other options.

In Sacramento, City Unified officials said they could save money – and enhance learning environments for students – by consolidating campuses. The district could also earn some income renting out unused property.

The district said its 1,178 acres and 5 million square feet worth of facilities have been appraised at between $450 million and $750 million.

Compared with neighboring districts, Sacramento City Unified has a surplus of sites in proportion to enrollment: 45,000 students and 86 school sites.

Elk Grove Unified, the largest district in the Sacramento area, has 62,000 students and 58 school sites; San Juan Unified has 40,000 students and 61 school sites; and Stockton Unified has 39,000 students and 44 school sites.

Sacramento City Unified won't decide on closures or leasing before March. Also, the community will have until at least February to provide ideas and input, officials said.

Tom Barentson, the district's chief financial officer, said the district's ideal elementary school has 400 to 600 students; middle schools, 700 to 900; and high schools, 1,800 to 2,000.

And yet, Sacramento City has 24 K-12 sites with 350 or fewer students, he said.

Some of these elementary schools have split-grade classrooms, such as a fourth-fifth grade combined. The district also has 50 K-12 sites with "considerable excess capacity."

Consolidating 24 under-enrolled sites could reduce expenses by $12 million, he said.

"We want to continue to support neighborhood schools whenever possible," he said. "But the fact of the matter is that you have to have enough students in the school to offer the best possible programs."

In evaluating whether schools should close or remain open, Barentson said a number of factors come into play: community input, school enrollment and capacity, on-site pre- and after-school programs, traffic patterns, test scores, the number of children on free and reduced-price lunch, proximity to another site, and school-age population in the neighborhood.

Barentson said the district is also talking with the city, UC Davis and California State University, Sacramento, about leasing parts of the Serna Center, the Marian Anderson Special Education Center, the Old Marshall Adult Education Center, the Fremont School for Adults and the Florin Technology Center. No properties will be sold.

Myers, of San Juan Unified, said the district hasn't sold former schools, opting instead to lease property to charter schools or use them for administrative purposes.

"If the population ever rebounds, getting back the land is almost impossible," Myers said. Also, he asked, "Where would you find a 14-acre site for an elementary school or 40 to 50 acres for a high school?"

Selling school sites in the current real estate market would be foolish, Myers said.

Bay Area education consultants Jeanne Gobalet and Shelley Lapkoff co-authored a research report on school closures in 2004. They urge districts to resist selling sites, to keep them in reserve in case enrollment grows.

In the long run, they said, California's population will continue to grow, increasing real estate value and the number of children public schools will need to serve.

Even in a built-out district like Sacramento City Unified, potential factors such as urban redevelopment, fuel price hikes and state government hiring could increase the need for schools, Gobalet said.

"Who's to say that sometime in the future there won't be enrollment growth?" she said.

This story is taken from Sacbee / Our Region / Education

Return to Top of Page

This page was last modified on Thursday, November 27, 2008 09:14:15 AM

Obama Elected 44th President

President-elect Barack Obama and his family arrive on stage for his election night victory rally at Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois.
—Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

The Democrat’s agenda includes expanding preschool, recruiting teachers, increasing funding for charter schools, and amending the No Child Left Behind Act.

By David J. Hoff

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, whose campaign platform laid out an expansive agenda for pre-K-12 education, will have the chance to fulfill those promises when he takes office Jan. 20 as the 44th president of the United States.

The Democratic candidate, who defeated Sen. John McCain of Arizona in a hard-fought campaign that concluded Nov. 4, said he would expand federal preschool programs, “recruit an army of new teachers,” and provide scholarships to college students and to professionals from other fields who promise to pursue careers in teaching. The president-elect also has said he would work to change the No Child Left Behind Act, building on the federal law’s accountability measures designed to improve student achievement, and would double federal funding for charter schools.

But with budget pressures driven by deep troubles in the financial markets and in the broader economy, the Obama administration may have difficulty generating public support for the campaign’s ambitious education agenda and the spending needed for the programs in it.

The president-elect alluded to those problems in a speech shortly after Sen. McCain called him to concede the election.

“The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term,” said Mr. Obama at a rally in Chicago’s Grant Park.

But Mr. Obama said in the past month that he considers education an important ingredient for addressing the country’s long-term economic problems. In the Oct. 8 presidential debate, he rated education as a priority on a par with expanding access to health care, reforming entitlement programs, and developing new forms of energy.

“We’ve got to deal with education so that our young people are competitive in a global economy,” Mr. Obama said in that second debate with Mr. McCain, held in Nashville, Tenn. He made a similar statement in an interview with CNN shortly before the election.

Expanding Federal Role

President-elect Obama campaigned on a wide-ranging education platform that would expand the federal role in preschool and in teacher recruitment, retention, and compensation, in particular.

His platform proposed to spend $10 billion a year to create grants to help states offer universal preschool and expand existing programs such as Head Start and Early Head Start.

Complete Election Coverage

As part of Mr. Obama’s proposals to improve the quality of teaching, he would offer scholarships to college students and midcareer professionals to pay for costs of undergraduate and graduate studies that would prepare them to enter jobs in the classroom. The president-elect also would create residency and mentoring programs to help beginning teachers, particularly those who work in schools with the most challenging learning environments.

The most significant—and perhaps most controversial—section of his education plan is to underwrite federal efforts to experiment with teacher pay plans that deviate from traditional salary scales, which set teachers’ pay based on their years of experience and levels of educational achievement.

Mr. Obama and his education advisers said throughout his two-year campaign for the presidency that an Obama administration would support efforts to link a portion of teachers’ pay to the achievement gains of their students.

He has said that such pay experiments would need to be negotiated with teachers. That could be hard to do, given teacher unions’ opposition to pay plans that differ from the traditional pay system. Despite disagreement on that issue, both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Mr. Obama for president.

Growing Democratic Majority

To enact his education agenda, Mr. Obama will be working with a Democratic majority in Congress than is larger than the current one.

In the House, Democrats will gain at least 18 seats with the outcome of at least one race still unclear, according to the Associated Press. The House had 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans going into the election, with one vacancy.

After last night’s election, the Senate will have at least 54 Democrats plus two independents who currently caucus with the party. The outcome of races in four states was still unclear, according to the AP. The Senate now has 49 Democrats and the two independents.

The top education issue facing the president-elect and Congress is the renewal of the NCLB law.

Now that the Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches, they will have to reconcile differences within their party on education in order to get a reauthorized version of the NCLB law, said Jack Jennings, the president of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization.

He said Democrats would be looking to the new Obama administration to set priorities for the law. Republicans, particularly in the House, are likely to become more conservative and seek a reduced role for the federal government in education, he said.

“I’m confident that [Democrats] will resolve the differences among themselves,” said Mr. Jennings, who served as an aide to Democrats on the House education panel from 1967 to 1994. “I don’t think there will be deep divisions because of the moment, because of the political demands of the time. … Democrats have been out of power for so long they understand that they have their chance now. It isn’t a permanent chance, they could lose it, [the] moment means they have to govern correctly.”

The nearly 7-year-old law, which is one of President Bush’s most important domestic accomplishments, is overdue for reauthorization. Its critics, who span the political spectrum, say it requires states to do too much testing and make accountability decisions based primarily on the results of those tests.

The law requires states to assess students in grades 3-8, and once in high school, in reading and mathematics. The law’s accountability measures kick in for schools and districts that are not on pace to meet the law’s goal that all students be proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

President-elect Obama said during the campaign that he supported the NCLB law’s goals, particularly the one to narrow gaps in achievement between minority and white students. He said he believes that the law hasn’t received enough federal money, and that he would work to improve the quality of tests used under the law so they measure higher-order thinking skills.

“We also have to fix the broken promises of No Child Left Behind,” Mr. Obama said in a Sept. 9 speech in Riverside, Ohio. Among the problems with the law, he said, are inadequate funding and lack of support for schools failing to make its achievement goals.

But, Mr. Obama added, “I believe that the goals of this law were the right ones.”

EdWeek.org

Return to Top of Page

DonorsChoose.org

Give to schools with just a click

This story is taken from Sacbee / Living Here

DonorsChoose.org is a simple way to provide students in need with resources that our public schools often lack. At this not-for-profit web site, teachers submit project proposals for materials or experiences their students need to learn. These ideas become classroom reality when concerned individuals, whom we call Citizen Philanthropists, choose projects to fund.

Proposals range from "Magical Math Centers" ($200) to "Big Book Bonanza" ($320), to "Cooking Across the Curriculum" ($1,100). Any individual can search such proposals by areas of interest, learn about classroom needs, and choose to fund the project(s) they find most compelling. In completing a project, donors receive a feedback package of student photos and thank-you notes, and a teacher impact letter.

Fulfilling Student Projects
Sustaining Operations
Spreading the Word

Fulfilling Student Projects

DonorsChoose.org performs a good deal of work to ensure the integrity of its philanthropic marketplace. Here's how it works:

1. Public school teachers create student project proposals at DonorsChoose.org. This consists of writing a one page essay and listing the exact resource(s) needed.

2. DonorsChoose.org volunteers screen each project proposal before posting to the website. Volunteers verify that the teacher and project meet our eligibility requirements, emailing follow-up questions to the teacher if anything is unclear.

3. Concerned individuals fund the student projects of their choice—in whole or in part—and are emailed immediate email gift acknowledgments from DonorsChoose.org which can be used for tax deduction purposes.

4. DonorsChoose.org emails the school principal, alerting him/her to the funded project.

5. Within the next week, DonorsChoose.org forwards the donor an "e-thank-you" from the teacher, which notes the date by which the donor can expect his/her full feedback package.

6. DonorsChoose.org purchases the student materials and ships items directly to the school along with a disposable camera, guidelines for preparing feedback packages, and a stamped envelope in which to enclose the feedback.

7. Students experience the project that the donor made possible! The teacher photographs the students participating in the project and writes an impact letter to the donor. Students write their own thank-you notes. This feedback is then mailed to DonorsChoose.org headquarters.

8. DonorsChoose.org develops the photos, and compiles the letter and thank-you notes. This feedback is mailed to the donor(s) who completed the project or made a partial contribution of $100 or more.

DonorsChoose.org works equally hard to strengthen the framework which enables citizen philanthropists to connect with classrooms in need. In order to ensure a secure, efficient, and effective exchange, we:

• Negotiate discounts and partnerships with vendors to get the best prices available.

• Continually upgrade our web technology to make DonorsChoose.org more user-friendly and effective for donors and teachers.

• Acquire and update databases of all the public schools in the regions we serve. We track everything from the principal's name to the number of students who receive free or reduced price lunch (a measure of poverty) to ensure the information we provide donors is accurate.

• Create community awareness about DonorsChoose.org to increase funding of student projects.

Sustaining Operations

The price of a student project includes an optional fulfillment fee covering the work performed by DonorsChoose.org (see Fulfilling Student Projects). After clicking to fund a project, the donor may decide not to include this fulfillment fee. By choosing to include it, donors support the necessary resources—staff time, office space, and technology—to bring their chosen projects to life.

While the cost of fulfilling student projects remains the same, DonorsChoose.org offers a "scholarship" to higher need schools by discounting the fulfillment fee. Depending on the school's poverty level, fulfillment is assessed at 15%, 20%, or 25% of the project's cost. The vast majority of schools using DonorsChoose.org have high rates of poverty, so most proposals carry the 15% fulfillment fee.

Donors' inclusion of the fulfillment fee is essential to the existence and success of DonorsChoose.org. Thankfully, 90% of donation dollars come to us with the fulfillment fee included, and income thus earned allows us to continue our work.

As more student projects are funded and donors continue to include the fulfillment fee, DonorsChoose.org becomes increasingly self-sustaining. However, during this early stage in our growth, we also depend on grants and contributions to support our operation.

Spreading the Word

The most powerful motivator of new donors is you. By sharing DonorsChoose.org with friends, family, and colleagues, you can help bring resources to students in struggling classrooms. Ways to involve one's personal community include:

Funding a project in someone's honor. Here, the donor can recognize someone special by funding a project in his/her honor. The donor gets the tax deduction and the honoree is acknowledged by the classroom.

Giving a GivingCard. A DonorsChoose.org GivingCard allows the giver to get the tax deduction and enables the recipient to fund student project(s) of his/her choice—and to receive the classroom acknowledgment. Parents often use this tool to introduce their children to philanthropy. Click here to give a GivingCard.

Opening a Gift Registry. Whether getting married or running the marathon, DonorsChoose.org supporters can use special occasions to help students learn. The gift registry feature enables anyone to select his/her favorite projects and to share that list with family and friends via our email engine. The registrant is acknowledged by the classroom, while the tax deduction goes to those who donate to projects on the gift registry. Click here to open a gift registry.

Learn about more ways to help spread the word about DonorsChoose.org.

More questions? Please see our Frequently Asked Questions in the Help section.

Return to Top of Page

Educators: We can't cut more

Governor hasn’t yet said he wants midyear slashes, but schools say they’re maxed out.

By Zain Shauk

GLENDALE — In the wake of a meeting where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reportedly told educators he may call for up to $4 billion in midyear budget cuts to education, state and local officials expressed concern about a crisis that may further impair an already struggling state education system.

In the private meeting, the governor told legislators Tuesday to brace for the midyear cuts, adding that he would make a push for a sales tax increase to help in closing the budget gap, according to Rick Pratt, assistant executive director for governmental relations at the California School Boards Assn., who was one of the education representatives at the meeting.

“He mentioned that the state right now is looking at possibly a $5-billion to $8-billion shortfall in general fund revenue,” Pratt said. The governor later said it could go as high as $20 billion by the end of next year, Pratt said.

Burbank Unified School District Supt. Gregory Bowman said that because Schwarzenegger had not yet made a formal proposal for cuts to education, the district wasn’t aware of how specifically it might be affected, although he added that the situation could be dire.

“Parents of children in public schools should be greatly distressed and alarmed that these reductions are being called for at this time,” Bowman said. “Especially when we’re only two months into a budget that was signed by the Legislature and governor.” That budget made up for some shortfalls in education funding by making unreasonable assumptions about future revenues from the state lottery, said Glendale Unified trustee Chuck Sambar, adding that the budget does not account for inflation, which has driven up costs for districts across the state that don’t have added funds to match the higher prices.

“We estimated our utilities to go up by $200,000. Now where does that come out of?” said Sambar, who is also president of the Los Angeles County School Trustees Assn., which launched a campaign Monday to urge representatives to oppose cuts to education.

The association, which includes representatives from 94 school districts and 1.4 million students, has lobbied the governor and Sacramento lawmakers about the difficulties schools could face with a midyear cut.

“We want them to know that school districts are not factories, they’re not banks, they’re not financial institutions,” said Sambar, explaining that midyear cuts would require a reduction in programs already being offered to students. “School districts work with kids in classrooms, and we cannot send kids home.”

Schwarzenegger will proclaim a special legislative session Nov. 5 to discuss the growing deficit, his press secretary Aaron McLear said, adding that the governor’s specific proposals for how to address the debt would be announced then.

State lawmakers said they would be hard-pressed to cut from education and were hoping for a more comprehensive plan for attacking the budget crisis.

“It’s about the governor having a bipartisan discussion on setting priorities,” Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Portantino said. “You know, I didn’t get elected to cut education. I think if that’s the first thing out of the governor’s mouth, he’s starting in the wrong place.”

State Sen. Jack Scott, chairman of the Senate’s education committee, said midyear cuts “could be disastrous.”

“It’s almost impossible for [school districts] to make those kinds of cuts,” Scott said. “If they happen to have reserves, they might dig into those kinds of reserves, but a lot of schools are on the margin. They can’t dig into those.”

While Scott said a good option for deflecting some cuts to education might be some kind of tax increase, and possibly a sales tax hike, Portantino rejected that idea and insisted that a sales tax hike, if it followed the same formula of a temporary increase proposed in the summer, would result in a “$2-billion budget hole” if the hike were repealed in three years.

Scott countered that a rejuvenated economy would bring in more money to the general fund, therefore allowing for an end to the temporary sales tax increase.

The governor failed to win over a two-thirds majority of the Legislature for a proposed sales tax hike this summer during the state’s 85-day budget impasse.

Regardless of what other options might be taken, Pratt said, Schwarzenegger was clear that he thought cuts to education funding were necessary.

“The Legislature can be very clever when they need to be, but I think whether there will be cuts and how big they will be, it’ll come down to whatever we do about revenues,” he said.

Burbank Leader

Return to Top of Page

VALLEY FALLS SHORT ON PREPARING YOUTH FOR SUCCESS

Study: Valley youth less likely to be enrolled in preschool and less

 likely to have completed classes required for UC/CSU admission

Modesto, CA (October 22, 2008) – According to a new report released today, youth in the Central Valley are less likely to be enrolled in preschool, less likely to take classes required for CSU/UC enrollment, less likely to take college entrance exams, and more likely to live in poverty than the rest of the state.

These are a few examples of the findings from two dozen education and youth indicators compiled by the Great Valley Center in the second edition of its latest report, “The State of the Great Central Valley: Education and Youth Preparedness.” Positive findings of the report include a decline in the juvenile drug- and alcohol-related arrest rates; a decline in births to teen mothers; and a decline in substantiated reports of child abuse or neglect. Despite an overall pattern of decline with these indicators the Valley continues to have higher overall rates on these indicators than the state average. Click here to continue reading the story

Return to Top of Page

  Ed Week

Districts See Rising Numbers of Homeless Students Foreclosures caused by mortgage crisis said to be fueling increases.

By Catherine Gewertz

School districts across the country are enrolling growing numbers of homeless children, as parents lose their jobs, leases, and mortgages in what many observers are calling the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Many districts were already seeing a spike in homeless enrollments last spring, when the subprime-mortgage crisis began unfolding. But this fall¹s numbers are rising at an even faster clip as more families feel the fallout of a stumbling economy, said Barbara Duffield, the policy director for the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, in Washington.

School district liaisons who coordinate services for homeless families are scrambling to sign up students for class, get them backpacks and other supplies, and arrange transportation for them, as well as help their parents find clothes, food, and shelter.

³Referral rates are sky-high,² Ms. Duffield said. ³People are calling us in a panic because of the numbers.²

In the first two weeks of this school year, the Clark County, Nev., district, which includes Las Vegas, identified 1,500 homeless students, nearly twice the number it saw during the same period last school year, according to the association. The Albuquerque, N.M., district this fall is seeing double its usual level at this time of year. Between mid-August and mid-October, the Wichita, Kan., district had 720 homeless students, two-thirds the number it had in all of 2007-08.

³This is my fifteenth year, and I haven¹t seen anything like this,² said Kathleen M. Kropf, the homeless-education liaison to the Macomb Intermediate school system, which coordinates services for 21 districts in the Detroit area. ³If it keeps going like this, I don¹t know what we are going to do.² Subprime Fallout

Last year, the district served 514 homeless students, but in the first two months of this year, it has already had 239, and several referrals a day are still rolling in, Ms. Kropf said. The district is seeing more families made homeless because banks foreclosed on mortgages, she said, while in previous years, homelessness was more typically caused by family traumas such as domestic abuse or a home fire.

A recent analysis by First Focus, a Washington-based advocacy group for children and families, estimated that 2.2 million foreclosures on subprime home mortgages will affect 2 million children nationwide in the next two years. It noted that many more children will likely end up homeless as their parents default on conventional loans or are evicted from rental units whose landlords have defaulted.

District liaisons for homeless families are seeing those dynamics daily.

Roxanne M. Richardson, the homeless liaison for the 20,000-student Kyrene, Ariz., schools near Phoenix, said two families had rented a place together when they arrived from Mexico recently, but had to leave when one of the adults lost his job. Both families moved in with a relative who was renting a house, and the adults got jobs working in fast-food restaurants and cleaning homes.

But one afternoon a month ago, the families¹ four school-age children returned to find the house padlocked. The bank had foreclosed because the landlord couldn¹t pay his mortgage, she said. Now, they are bunking with someone else.

Middle Class Affected

Front-line workers report that more middle-class families are finding themselves homeless. Single parents are hit particularly hard, like the mother of four girls in the Kyrene district who called Ms. Richardson¹s office when she was evicted after losing her job in advertising.

³We¹ve had lots of people calling who have just been evicted. These are middle-class people, people who have never been evicted before,² said Helen E. Fox, the liaison for the homeless in the Albuquerque district, which had enrolled 2,235 homeless students as of last week, double the number at that time last year. ³They¹ve lost their jobs, or their homes have been foreclosed on.²

The increase in homeless families can strain a school system¹s transportation budget, since the federal McKinney-Vento Act instructs districts to let children stay in the same schools if at all possible, and provide transportation, even they are living outside the boundaries.

Timothy J. Couto, the homeless liaison in the 12,000-student L¹Anse Creuse district outside Detroit, said he just applied for a $10,000 state grant to help defray those costs. Last year, the district spent $3,048 to transport one family¹s children to school when they were staying in a shelter 25 miles away for a month, he said.

Many recently homeless people ³double up² with friends or relatives and are unaware that even temporary homelessness makes them eligible for the help under the McKinney-Vento Act: the right to keep their children in the same schools with free transportation and help getting school supplies, said Diana Bowman, the director of the National Center for Homeless Education, a federally financed technical-assistance center in Browns Summit, N.C.

In response to the rise in the numbers of homeless children this fall, the organization produced a brochure and a poster on its Web site outlining the rights of parents and the obligations of districts under that law.

Elizabeth Hinz, the Minneapolis district¹s liaison for homeless and highly mobile students, said the influx this year is stepping up demand on psychological and social-work services.

By the end of September, the district had identified 2,086 homeless children. At this time last year, the number was 1,850. ³I just don¹t know where all this goes,² she said. ³It¹s very frightening.²

Vol. 28, Issue 11, Page 7

Return to Top of Page

New DAC Executive Board

Elected November 18 2008 

at the Serna Center 

36 DAC  Representatives

Elected the

2008-2010 Parent Leadership Team

Wanda N. Yanez - Chair

Joe Sison - Vice Chair

Sara Myers Bisler - Secretary

John Gross - Parliamentarian

The New DAC Executive Board

Each a member of  their School Site Council  

S.F. schools chief wants higher bar for grads

Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, November 21, 2008

San Francisco schools Superintendent Carlos Garcia wants to raise the bar for earning a high school diploma - requiring every graduating senior, starting with the class of 2014, to pass all the college prep classes required for admission to the University of California and California State University systems.

Currently, about half of the city's 3,800 high school graduates each year attain that lofty height - while also earning at least C grades in the classes.

In a measure before the school board, Garcia has proposed requiring students to complete the 15 courses needed for admission to the state's four-year universities. It would take the district several years to ramp up for such a requirement, ensuring all students are prepared for the more rigorous course work and that there are enough qualified teachers to teach them.

Garcia calls his proposal a "rigorous life-readiness curriculum" giving students the choice of pursuing college, a career/technical education or a career upon graduation.

In short, there would be only one track for all students, and it would basically lead to college - if they want to go.

"Right now, we have a district where certain populations of students are not getting that chance because we are not ensuring that they have the opportunity to complete the (course) sequence," Garcia said Thursday. "Whether or not to go to college should be a student's choice, not a failure on our part to prepare our students."

The 15 courses, called the A-G requirements, include four years of English, three years of math, two years of a foreign language, two years of a lab science, two years of history/social science and one year of art, plus an extra year in any of the above.

The state universities require students to earn a C or better in those classes.

Garcia's proposal doesn't include a grade requirement, but one could be added during implementation, district officials said. Without one, the new graduation requirement still would not ensure every San Francisco graduate would qualify for admission to a UC or CSU campus.

The San Francisco school board will likely review the proposal in committee over the next few weeks. The board is expected to take a final vote on the proposed graduation requirement in December or January.

Last year, 49 percent of San Francisco's 2008 graduating class was ready for CSU or UC, completing the 15 college prep classes with a grade of C or better, according to state statistics.

Statewide, 35 percent of high school graduates completed the A-G requirement.

Those percentages don't include students who took all the classes but didn't earn grades of C or better.

Under A-G, every student must take algebra, algebra II and geometry.

A handful of school districts in the state have passed measures requiring completion of the college prep course sequence and are in the process of implementing the plan.

San Jose Unified is the only urban district to currently require it. There, starting with the class of 2003, students have had to pass the A-G courses to get a diploma, and 66 percent have met the UC and CSU requirement of a C or better in each class.

"Every myth that we hear about increasing high school expectations - that kids will drop out - that is debunked," said Russlyn Ali, executive director of the Education Trust-West, an Oakland nonprofit focused on closing the achievement gap. "When you give kids the right support, when you give teachers the right support, graduation rates will rise."

E-mail Jill Tucker at jtucker@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/21/MNRS148VG9.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Return to Top of Page

Urban Schools Deserving of Far More Credit than They Receive

by Thomas

We have often quoted Mark Twain when it comes to the use of statistics.

“Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

While most have heard that expression, Twain is also said to be the author of an even more telling summary of the world of statistics.

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.”

The Poor Educational Performance of Urban Schools

The statistics indicate that urban schools perform very poorly on national tests. If one takes a composite look at test results, one will note that DC, New York, and Boston all perform collectively far worse than the national average on various standardized tests.

As Matthew Yglesias notes at TheAtlantic.com, the data reveals a classic “big city, bad schools” association.

But Mr. Yglesias goes on to do a little more in-depth analysis of the performances of urban schools and in doing so, reveals that some big cities actually exceed the national average when poverty figures are taken into account. Not all big cities mind you. But two that perennially take media hits, Boston and New York, are definitely given an unjust rap about the performance of their students.

Controlling for Poverty Factors

Yglesias provides helpful charts, the first noting the initial basic data that demonstrates that Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. all saw a higher percentage of students perform below basic on the 2005 NAEP math test than the national average. New York and Boston appeared to have at least 30% more low performing students while DC had more than double that of the national average.

But Yglesias continues onward to examine those substandard scores in greater depth. Prior to his charts, the writer notes the longstanding impact that demographic factors have on school achievement. Yglesias asserts, “Big city school systems tend to contain a higher-than-average number of poor kids, and poor kids tend to do worse than middle class kids, so cities wind up with bad test results.”

He then backs his premise by restricting results so as to really compare apples and oranges. He breaks the data down so as to contrast school performances for all kids from economically struggling families. His criteria for poverty is to compare the students eligible for federally subsidized school lunches.

The resulting impact totally contradicts the urban myth that inner city schools offer a substandard education. In fact, when eighth grade math scores are compared, Boston and New York schools actually do a better than average job educating our nation’s economically disadvantaged children.

Yglesias notes the difference between facts and statistics. The ‘big city, bad schools’ label is simply a result of the fact that the overall numbers of these inner urban school districts “are pulled down by their larger-than-average number of poor kids.”

In other words, big city schools have more children in poverty and these children score poorly on the exams. More kids scoring at lower rates brings the averages for inner city schools below that of the nation as a whole.

At the same time, it must be noted that taking the data apart does not help the DC school district results. DC has a large number of economically disadvantaged children but their data does not change when adjusted for poverty.

Yglesias pulls no punches.

“DC, by contrast, does have a challenging population, but also is doing a crappy job relative to the challenge.”

Reversing the Focus

Adding support to the assertions of Yglesias is the fact that he also takes time to reverse his performance focus. He moves on from his comparison of those who scored below basic to examine the percentage of students who scored proficient.

Once again, New York and Boston matched or exceeded the national average when their non-federally lunch eligible students were compared to those nationally. And once again, sadly, DC’s results remained typical to the public viewpoint of urban school districts.

The writer concludes:

“All across the United States we have a problem with kids from disadvantaged backgrounds doing poorly in school. We also see kids from disadvantaged backgrounds overrepresented in urban school systems. Consequently, average results from city school systems tend to be below average.

Some cities — i.e., Washington DC — really do have sub-standard school systems and would do well to implement reforms that made DCPS get results more like what you see in Boston or New York. But even if all cities did get the level of performance that you see from the best cities, there would still be a problem insofar as poor kids tend to do badly even in ‘good’ schools in the United States.”

Statistics Versus Facts

We have to believe that such analysis is the basis for Twain’s “facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” Statistics can be used to create the impression that our urban schools are doing a poor job of educating their students.

At the same time, it is a fact that both New York and Boston, two of our largest urban school districts, score lower overall on national tests. But when one peels back that initial set of data, one quickly sees that these two cities do a better job with the student population they have been given than does the rest of the country as a whole.

And that leads to one last critical fact: our urban schools are deserving of far more credit that they receive.

Editor: New York public school photo courtesy of Steve and Sara, Boston public school courtesy of Jonk.

Openeducation.net

Return to Top of Page

Peter Schrag: True leadership needed for 'loyal opposition'

pschrag@sacbee.com

Published Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008

Last week, the state Chamber of Commerce sent another unsurprising "don't" letter to the governor and Legislature: Don't raise taxes on oil extraction; don't increase taxes on the sale of wine and beer; don't impose sales taxes on services and entertainment. Don't, don't, don't.

But there wasn't a word about how California could get itself out of its $28 billion budget hole, or whatever it has by now grown to.

The same lack of helpfulness is true of the California Business Roundtable, which like the chamber, supported the governor's failed attempt in September to secure a temporary sales tax increase but hasn't provided any hint of a solution since or done anything to nudge its Republican friends in the Legislature toward something more flexible than "no." Ditto for CBEE, California Business for Education Excellence, which has always been quick to demand tougher standards but which has been silent as existing standards are jeopardized by multibillion-dollar cuts to education budgets.

The three leaders of the business groups, CBEE President Jim Lanich, Roundtable President Bill Hauck, and Chamber President Allan Zaremberg, are talking about some engagement with the budget crisis in the coming weeks, although only Zaremberg was definite that a "more fleshed out proposal" would come.

Nobody in Sacramento expects much movement on the fiscal crisis until next month, when newly elected legislators arrive in Sacramento. There'll be two or maybe three more Democrats in the Assembly, still short of the two-thirds vote needed to enact a budget without Republican votes.

And while a couple of Republican senators showed some signs of flexibility, Democrats in that house won't have a two-thirds margin either.

Hauck complains that the education community, the teachers unions particularly, haven't shown any flexibility either, lobbying to protect school funding and, like the Legislature's Republicans, not budging on their demands. But the Democrats have been willing to swallow spending cuts, including cuts in education, if the Republicans gave them cover by compromising on the revenue increases that are essential to any solution. All that's as unfortunate for the GOP as it is for California generally. It further marginalizes an ever more estranged party whose membership is slipping and whose connection with young voters and the state's growing minorities – Latinos particularly – is ever more distant.

More and more, it's a party of aging white men clinging to a rapidly fading past. As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said last year, Republicans "are not filling the seats" – nor, as even Republicans noticed earlier this month, are they packing them in at polls.

California needs a vital and responsible conservative opposition that comes to the table with a long view and a broad policy program, not just a shrinking collection of petulant politicians whose only agenda is resistance and exclusion. They'd be bereft of all power in any of the 40-plus other states where budgets can be passed by majority votes.

At the moment, the bipartisan California Forward and a number of other groups as well as the governor himself are trying to develop long-term fiscal reform proposals. But even if reforms, including changes in the tax and budgeting systems, are finally accepted by voters – itself still a long shot – California urgently needs the restoration of a loyal opposition not bent on self-immolation.

There's no voice, or set of voices, better fitted to convey that message than a business community that's as dependent on California public services – transportation, schools, universal health care, and recreational facilities – as anyone in this state.

The Business Roundtable, California Business for Education Excellence and other business organizations frequently like to remind Californians about the importance of education to the economy and the future of the state. But now that all those services are headed for severe chopping, quality education seems to have slipped so far on the priority list that it's hardly visible.

This week, the trustees of California State University, Bill Hauck among them, are meeting in Long Beach to decide what to cut and by how much. The university already has warned that, for the first time in the system's history, enrollment may be reduced to the point where some ordinarily eligible students won't be guaranteed admission.

Hauck said everything is on the table, fee increases included. CSU is already carrying 10,000 students for which it's not getting state funding. But whatever expedients are adopted – by CSU, by the University of California, by the community colleges and the huge K-12 system – the result will be fewer and flimsier opportunities and still fewer well-trained workers for California's economy.

That's not a message that can be left just to the public employee unions and the education community. If it is, most Californians will never hear it.

This story is taken from Sacbee / Opinion

Return to Top of Page

Report: High school graduation rates decline in Sacramento County

Sacramento Business Journal - by Kelly Johnson Staff writer

High school graduation rates are falling and fewer teens are meeting requirements to get into University of California and California State University schools in Sacramento County.

Those are among the many findings of the 2008 Sacramento County Children’s Report Card, according to a report to be presented Tuesday to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

The Sacramento County Children’s Coalition, an advisory group to the board, compiled the 78-page report that provides a 10-year look at such indicators as education, family economics, health, and social and emotional well being. It is the group’s fifth biennial report since 2000.

Among its education findings, the group reports that the graduation rate among high school seniors decreased to 79.6 percent in 2006-07, from 85.1 percent in 2000-01.

The study found that the percentage of high school graduates who meet the UC and CSU requirements decreased to 22.5 percent in 2006, from 34.4 percent in 2002. In comparison, the number of California high school graduating seniors meeting the requirements grew to 35 percent in 2006-07, from 34 percent in 2002-03.

Of the public school students who graduate from high school, two-thirds attend community college, the report found. Among those, only 24 percent complete their community college requirements. About 40 percent of students who enroll in community college seek basic job skills and personal growth instead of a degree. Among the 60 percent who want a degree or a certificate, only about one-forth are able to transfer to a university or earn an associate’s degree within six years, the report found.

Education is so vital, the group noted, because it “prepares our citizens for employment, as well as full civic participation.”

In still other findings, the group reports: • High school drop outs earn an average of $21,346 a year, while graduates earn an average of $8,747 more. •Those with a bachelor’s degree earn more than $21,000 annually more than people who have only a high school diploma. •Spending per student in Sacramento County in 2005-06 was $7,324, compared to the state average of $8,486 and the national average of $9,138.

As for what this all means for the future health of the local work force and economy, the advisory group wrote: “Not only is it questionable whether our children will be self-sufficient, but who will fill the void left by retirees if our children are not capable of taking over in the work force?”

The report added, “The development of today’s children and youth for tomorrow’s work force is vital to the economic health of our community.”

Sacramento Business Journal

Return to Top of Page

---

Garamendi as a Regent: Why Education Funding is Critical to Improving California’s Future Workforce and Economy

By Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog's California Notes

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, who serves as a University of California regent and a California State University trustee, said at the UC and CSU governing board meetings next week he will encourage board members to focus on their vital role in improving California’s economy by investing in education and the future workforce.

“We need to stand up and say enough. Education already took a substantial hit earlier this year. California and its future economy literally cannot afford more cuts. In the short-term, cuts will cause massive lay-offs and slam the door on Californians wanting to train for the future workforce. Long-term the cuts will knock California down to a second rate education system and will put this state at risk of falling further behind. California will not have the innovation, curriculum and training programs needed to produce the nurses, engineers and green economy workers of the future. California’s universities and colleges are the keys to maintaining and stimulating our economy.” Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi said.

Investing in higher education is not an abstract concept, Garamendi said, because it has real and immediate consequences that can shore up California’s troubled economy. The Lieutenant Governor said the recent high unemployment numbers are causing California’s budget and economy to worsen by the day. The solution, he said, is to get unemployed Californians back to work through higher education.

There is a growing green technology industry but few Californians are trained to fill the jobs. Garamendi said California’s colleges, labor and business are willing to work together to develop curriculum, internships and job placement programs for our future workforce. This will not only put Californians back to work but put tax dollars back into the economy.

“In the fall of 2009, the largest freshman class in California’s history is expected to enter our colleges and universities. Right now students are turning in their applications with high hopes,” Garamendi said. “But the admissions door is already closing. The proposed cuts and tuition hikes (taxes on students) will make it even harder for them to go to college. If we are to meet their high hopes of a college education, we need to invest in them now.”

The California State Trustees will meet November 18-19 at California State University Long Beach. The University of California regents will meet November 18-20 at the University of California San Francisco Mission Bay Community Center.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) recently released a new survey showing the state’s higher education systems receiving high marks for quality, but also college cost and a lack of government funding as top issues.

At a time when the state’s economic crisis is deepening and the financial fortunes of many families have worsened, Californians see higher education as important to the futures of their own children and to the state. They are concerned that college is affordable neither for their own families nor for others.

Most parents of children ages 18 and younger (71%) say that students have to borrow too much money to go to college, and most are very or somewhat worried (72%) about their own ability to afford a college education for their youngest child. A majority of Californians (59%) and residents across regional and demographic groups say that qualified students from low-income families have less opportunity than others to get a college education.

“Californians’ belief in the importance of higher education is strong, and their regard for the state’s educational system is high — but their trust in state leadership is low,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

With an economic crisis affecting family finances, the availability of student loans, and state funding for public higher education, college costs are on the minds of Californians. An overwhelming majority (84%) say affordability is somewhat of a problem (32%) or a big problem (52%).

Most Californians favor proposals that would make higher education more affordable. Asked about specific alternatives, overwhelming majorities favor expanding work-study opportunities (88%), increasing money for scholarships (83%), and establishing a sliding scale for tuition and fees (70%).

Read the full PPIC report here.

Randy Bayne is Chair of the Amador County Democratic Party. This article originally appeared in The Bayne of Blogs and is published with the permission of the author.

Posted on November 16, 2008

California Progress Report

Return to Top of Page

size=2 width="100%" align=left>

California is cutting education funding at its own peril

The costs to the state in the long run will be much greater than the expense of supporting our schools now.

By Saree Makdisi

November 17, 2008

With California's budget now facing an $11-billion shortfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed billions of dollars in spending cuts, most of them aimed at the state's already beleaguered schools, colleges and universities.

The governor's proposal is now on the table of the special legislative session that he called to address the budget crisis, so this is the time to draw a line to defend our public education system, before any further damage is added to the toll already taken by years of budget cuts on the educational -- and hence life -- prospects of a whole generation of Californian students.

Most of the prospective cuts -- more than $2 billion -- would be to California's public elementary, middle and high schools, on top of the $3-billion cut from K-12 funding in the current budget.

According to the Census Bureau, California is already spending far less than the national average for each of its students, and about half what states such as New York and New Jersey and even the District of Columbia spend per student.

There is nothing left to pare. "From Siskiyou County to San Diego, districts have spent reserves, reduced staff, eliminated transportation or increased class sizes over the past difficult year," warned Jack O'Connell, state superintendent of public instruction. "The governor's proposed additional $2 billion in cuts to K-12 education would not only create catastrophic disruption in our schools and harm to our students in the middle of the school year, they would damage our future economy."

The governor is also proposing to slash $330 million from community college budgets, $66 million from the Cal State system and $66 million from the University of California -- all, again, on top of cuts that have already been made. In schools and colleges alike, spending cuts have immediate implications for the classroom (fewer instructors, fewer classes, more students per instructor, etc.).

But universities don't just teach, they produce knowledge. In fact, what makes a great university great is that its students are taught by those engaged in state-of-the-art research. And cuts in spending on research can far outlast the transitory budget crises that produced them. A library that is forced to stop buying books may never recover, even if its budget is eventually restored. A lab that can't purchase needed equipment will fall behind. Faculty members whose research stalls can lose touch with their fields and spend years playing catch-up. Many will leave, and schools that develop reputations as underfunded second- and third-tier institutions will find it difficult to replace them. Merely restoring a budget sometime in the future will not instantly undo those kinds of losses.

We live in a global-knowledge economy in which California developed a leading role in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s precisely because of the strength of its education system. Cal State and UC produced many of the highly skilled professionals working in science, computing, gaming, animation, writing and film production that together drive the state's economy. To under-fund our educational system is to jeopardize our position in the global economy.

The problem is not simply a lack of money. We also have some of our spending priorities back to front. Even before the budget cuts, the state planned to spend $5,900 a student in California's higher-education system this year (including community college students) but almost 10 times that amount ($58,000) per inmate in our bloated prison system, which absorbs as much money from the state budget as Cal State and UC combined.

Not only can we afford to spend more on education, but we Californians have repeatedly shown our willingness to tax ourselves for public projects we believe in: Witness the recent votes in favor of Proposition 1A and Measure R to raise transportation funds, and the passage of all 23 school bond measures on the L.A. County ballot, including the $7-billion Measure Q.

No one likes to pay higher taxes, of course, especially in difficult economic circumstances. And the current crisis will force us to make some tough choices. But if we choose not to collectively finance the state's education budget at the required levels, more of a burden will fall on individual students and their families, many of whom simply won't be able to afford it. Cal State and UC both warn of fee increases next year of up to 10% if state cuts go through, and they may also have to deny admission to thousands of qualified students. Community colleges may have to turn away more than 250,000 current students.

Not paying for the education system that made California an economic powerhouse is not an option: We can pay now, or we can pay much more later in lost opportunities carrying dollar price tags just as real as those of tax increases, not to mention the social cost of having a higher-education system beyond the reach of more and more Californians.

California has a $2-trillion economy, the eighth-largest in the world, ahead of Canada, Russia, India and Brazil, among others. Not only can we afford to offer our children a first-rate public education from kindergarten through college, but we are cheating them, and ourselves, if we don't.

But our ability to raise the necessary revenue is currently being blocked by conservatives in the state Legislature who have categorically refused to countenance new taxes -- and hence left the state no option but to cut. By starving our educational system of the funds it needs, they have chosen to protect the narrow interests of those who can afford to send their kids to private schools and universities, rather than the much broader public that voted them into office in the first place. That's a choice they may come to regret at election time.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA.

From the Los Angeles Times

Return to Top of Page

---

Give schools leeway on using funds

If state and federal authorities can't give California schools extra money, they might look at providing flexibility in letting schools allocate what they do get.

November 16, 2008

For California's schools, the question of the state budget shortfall comes down to this: Will they have an utterly unthinkable year, or just a horrible year? Even if the Legislature approves new taxes or other ways to raise revenue, the current projection is that $2.5 billion will be cut immediately from education.

The prospect of a sudden drop in funding has school officials so flummoxed that many are engaged in magical thinking, insisting that extra revenue must be found, somehow, somewhere. These days are short on fairy dust, though. The federal government, the most likely source of financial aid, is besieged with bailout requests.

If state and federal authorities cannot give California schools extra money, they might look at providing extra flexibility. To start, the U.S. Education Department should put an emergency moratorium on the sanctions prescribed by the No Child Left Behind Act. As it stands, schools that have fallen short of their testing targets must spend a chunk of their federal Title I funds on tutors and transporting students to other schools. There will be no improving test scores if schools can't afford basics; the common-sense move is to free this money for classroom use, at least until this crisis passes.

At the state level, large sums of education funding are tied up in a knot of rules about how money can and cannot be used, even when those rules don't always make sense for individual school districts.

School superintendents have been asking for years for leeway on the programthat limits class sizes to 20 students in kindergarten through third grade. The state hasn't paid the full costs of this limit in years, and education scholars are still arguing its usefulness in boosting achievement. Popular as the smaller classes have proved with parents and teachers (at least the primary-grade teachers), they have become an expensive burden that doesn’t always make pedagogical sense. Third-graders go from a class of perhaps 18 students to a fourth-grade class that often has 33 or more, and those disparities are likely to grow if schools have to lay off teachers.

Schools don't have to participate in the program -- as long as they're willing to face a mob of snarling parents -- but then they get none of the associated funding. It makes better sense to continue funding the smaller classes, but allow schools to raise the limit to 24 or 25 students.

The Legislature also should free up the sizable sums tied to other so-called categorical programs -- money that can be used only on arts and music education, say, or gifted students. Each program has worth, and each has a dedicated lobby that will shout doomsday if the money isn't preserved for its cause. But these discussions should take place at the local level, where school administrators, teachers and parents can determine the priorities that work best for their children in this bad year.

From the Los Angeles Times

Return to Top of Page

Internal Affairs: Mike Honda plumping for post in Obama Cabinet

By the Mercury News

Article Launched: 11/16/2008 12:00:00 AM PST

Hillary Clinton may be mum on whether she's interested in joining the Obama administration. But San Jose Congressman Mike Honda sure isn't; he's hoping to be considered for secretary of education.

"If I don't throw my name out, it won't show up in the mix,'' said Honda, whose 30 years in education included stints as a San Jose middle school principal and San Jose Unified School Board member.

Honda noted that Asian-Americans supported Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio, and many expect high-level appointments in the new administration. Over the summer, he started talking to education union leaders and others about his quest. He said the reaction ranged from "very enthusiastic to guarded.''

Competition for the nation's top education job promises to be stiff. Among names making the rounds: former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Caroline Kennedy and the school chiefs of New York City and Chicago. Stanford education professor Linda Darling Hammond, an adviser to Barack Obama during the campaign, has also been mentioned.

What does Honda have on this stellar cast? He says it's the unique experience of having worked on education issues on the local, state and federal levels.

"They're all high-profile, and I think that's good,'' he added of his possible competition. "But I don't think any one of them has really talked about a national dialogue on the issue of equity'' in education.

And one more thing: "I'm a damn good teacher.''

San Jose Mercury News

Return to Top of Page

---

Parents’ Night With the President

Illustration by Gary Hallgren; Pool Photographs by Amanda Rivkin

SCHOOL DAYS Malia Obama, 10, and her sister, Sasha, 7.

IN a town abuzz about all things Barack Obama, the policy wonks and government insiders have been whispering and wondering about who will be who in his incoming cabinet. But among power parents in the nation’s capital, there is yet another burning question.

Where will the Obama girls go to school?

Michelle Obama toured at least two of Washington’s most prestigious private schools last week — Sidwell Friends School and Georgetown Day School — and touched off a frenzy of dreaming, gossiping and well-mannered jockeying among the Washington elite. Maret School, another exclusive academy, is also believed to be on the shortlist for the future first children, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7.

With annual tuitions that can exceed $28,000, these liberal-leaning schools have long brimmed with the scions of senators, representatives, financiers, diplomats, scholars, lawyers, journalists and even a few American presidents.

Notable parents currently include several Obama advisers. Eric H. Holder Jr., a top contender for attorney general, has children at Georgetown Day. Susan E. Rice, a foreign policy adviser, has a child at Maret. And Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the vice president-elect, has grandchildren at Sidwell.

The school competition has transfixed a city where high-profile personalities and institutions often place a premium on access to political power. But the Obamas’ decision is also being closely watched for what it might reveal about the parental sensibilities of the president-elect and his wife.

Will the Obamas choose the Quaker-run Sidwell, established in 1883 and described by some as the Harvard of the three schools? (Sidwell has already educated children of two sitting presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Bill Clinton.)

Will they pick Georgetown Day, which became Washington’s first integrated school in 1945 and is known for its informality (students call teachers by their first names) and its emphasis on diversity and social justice? Or will they select Maret, a smaller, more intimate academy founded in 1911 that would allow the first family to keep both children on one enclosed campus?

The Obamas and their aides declined to discuss the family’s inclinations, and no one knows how their choice may ultimately affect Washington’s social landscape. City officials say the Obamas have not visited any public schools here, and their daughters, who attend private school in Chicago, are not expected to switch course.

But those are only details. All across town, parents are already dreamily envisioning casual chats with the president and first lady at soccer practices and PTA meetings, while little girls are swooning over the prospect of White House sleepovers with the daughters of the nation’s first black president.

“With this particular president, there’s so much excitement,” said Natalie Wexler, a novelist whose daughter caught a glimpse of Mrs. Obama at Sidwell last Monday. “Anything or anyone connected to him is going to be exciting.”

History, of course, is not the only consideration.

Michael Kazin, a historian of American politics at Georgetown University, said some parents and administrators are focused on the prestige the Obamas would bring to any school and the students and families affiliated with it.

“No matter what the ideology of the president who is elected or what his party is, the privileged people in Washington always want to get a little more privileged,” said Mr. Kazin, who has a daughter at Maret.

“It’s clear that many parents who send their kids to these schools would want the Obamas to go there,” he said. “They want their particular niche of the community to be enhanced.”

School administrators, trustees and politically-connected parents bristle at the notion that they have done any hard-core lobbying for the Obama children, though some say they have offered the family some friendly counsel. Indeed, Mrs. Obama has already reached out to several prominent people with first-hand experience with the schools.

She called Senator Hillary Clinton the day after the election to discuss the joys and challenges of raising children in the White House, Clinton aides said.

And Beth Dozoretz, a prominent Democratic donor, said that Mrs. Obama asked her about Sidwell a couple of months ago. She said she encouraged Mrs. Obama to consider the school, but emphasized that the city has several excellent private institutions, including Georgetown Day.

Mrs. Dozoretz also passed along a note from her 10-year-old daughter, Melanne, who was thrilled about the prospect of an Obama presidency and the possibility that the girls might end up at her school. (“I love Sidwell because I learn so much there,” Melanne wrote in the note addressed to Mrs. Obama.)

“Of course, anybody would be happy to have that family in their school,” Mrs. Dozoretz said. “This is the first family. But I really feel they will do what’s right for their family. It’s a very personal decision.”

Aides to Mr. Obama and his wife declined to comment on whether Mr. Biden or any other Obama advisers linked to the three schools were quietly (or loudly) rooting for their favorites.

Carl Sferrazza Anthony, a historian who has written about first families, said that public fascination with the school decision-making process bloomed in the 1970s when President Jimmy Carter made a point of sending his daughter, Amy, to a public school in Washington. The Clintons drew enormous attention — and some criticism — when they enrolled Chelsea at Sidwell. (She was in public school before Mr. Clinton became president.)

“Those decisions are now often weighed with the thought of what kind of message they will send or what they will symbolize,” Mr. Anthony said. “But the truth of the matter is that most of the presidents’ families were from the elite ruling class. So their kids tended to go to private schools.”

The Obama girls attend the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, a progressive private institution that has about 1,700 students and is larger than any of the schools under consideration here. Annual tuition runs as high as $21,480.

That has not deterred Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and his education chancellor, Michelle Rhee, from lobbying for Washington’s public schools. The officials have presented several options to the Obama family, a city spokeswoman said.

“Our goal is to have D.C. public schools be as serious an option as any charter or private schools, not just for the Obamas but for any family making the decision," Mr. Fenty said last week on MSNBC.

Mr. Fenty, however, sends his children to private school, though not to Sidwell, Georgetown Day or Maret. (Chancellor Rhee’s children attend public school.)

And while the decision between public and private can sometimes be an agonizing one for some black professionals, who worry about isolating their children, it is not known to have been an issue for the Obamas.

Washington is typically a socially segregated city, but the schools the Obamas are considering appeal to the elite across color lines. (Mr. Holder and Ms. Rice, the two Obama advisers, are African-American.)

Sidwell administrators say its student body is 13 percent black. Georgetown Day and Maret officials say their schools are 20 percent African-American. (Officials at the Laboratory Schools in Chicago say the population there is about 10 percent black.)

And for many black parents and students, the buzz has been thrilling. Dylan McAfee, an African-American girl in second grade at Georgetown Day, met Mrs. Obama last Monday and has been star-struck ever since. “I touched her hand and she smelled like cherries,” she said.

Malia and Sasha Obama are the talk of the school and the town, said Dylan’s mother, Anita LaRue-McAfee, who is a lawyer.

It’s the first time, she said, that she has seen Washington’s power people utterly agog over two black schoolgirls.

“Here are two little girls that everyone is fawning over, and they look like my kid,” Ms. LaRue-McAfee said. “That’s why I’m excited.”

Caption research was provided by Ashley Parker.

The New York Times Company

Return to Top of Page

size=2 width="100%" align=left>

Making charter schools measure up

The L.A. school board needs a stricter policy when approving or renewing charter schools.

By Tamar Galatzan

November 14, 2008

When historians write the story of public education in Los Angeles at the beginning of the 21st century, they may well dub this the Decade of the Charter. Since 2002, the Los Angeles Unified School District has added about 120 independent charter schools and another 12 that are affiliated with the LAUSD -- more than any other district in the country.

Last month, the L.A. Unified Board of Education's Charters and Innovation Committee finally kick-started its attempt to catch up to this exploding movement. It began discussing how to revamp the policies that govern such schools, with the expectation that recommendations will come to the full board for a vote next spring.

This debate marks a pivotal point. As a school board member since July 2007, I have been extremely uncomfortable with the loose and inconsistent manner in which we consider charters for approval or renewal. But without a strong policy on the books, the board has little alternative. If the district and the board don't adopt a strong and fair-minded policy that reflects well-considered instructional priorities, the credibility of the charter movement in this city could be severely damaged in the years to come.

Most egregiously, the district has never clearly defined the educational mission of charter schools. For example, if School A proposes a Swedish/English dual-language program, and School B is geared toward getting recent dropouts back in school, should we grant both charters? Under the current policy, our students' needs aren't driving such decisions, and most new charters just get approved.

Our so-called standards for judging charters' academic performance are hardly better. At a board meeting this year, I reluctantly voted to renew the charter of a school that was performing below stated expectations. Why? Only because the neighborhood schools were even worse. On another renewal, a colleague of mine shook her head and said a poorly performing charter school with 300 students was still better than a poorly performing comprehensive high school with 3,000.

But I am not convinced that such comparisons -- commonly used by the district -- are to the benefit of charter students. Charters should not be rewarded for simply out- performing their underachieving LAUSD counterparts. The philosophy of charter schools is based on accountability, and the district must hold them to their promises. Lack of accountability is not uncommon in the school district, but we cannot let it seep into the charter movement as well.

One more point to consider: Now that voters have passed the $7.2-billion school bond -- $450 million of which is slated for charter schools -- charters soon will be lining up for their share. Without a coherent charter policy, how can the district reasonably and equitably decide which applicants receive funds, and the amount?

Charters are already demanding buildings and classroom space, to which they are entitled under Proposition 39, passed by voters in 2000. But the LAUSD has more requests for rooms than space available, and everyone is angry about the manner in which the district allots what it can. The situation is such a mess that some people have proposed a moratorium on new charter schools. A policy that coherently delineates the rights of charters and noncharters under Proposition 39 would enable the district to more equitably and efficiently fulfill its legal requirements.

The LAUSD's next charter schools policy must up the ante. The guidelines should include mandatory academic benchmarks, a means of assessing whether innovation is in fact benefiting students and a non-intrusive mechanism for monitoring schools' financial health. It also must set out clear and fair standards for allocation of district space and resources.

Charters thrive on their reputation for sound fiscal management, educational excellence and the freedom to innovate. But their good standing will suffer in the eyes of the public if the market is flooded with schools that don't measure up.

It's time the district gets a good yardstick.

Tamar Galatzan represents District 3 on the Los Angeles Board of Education. She was first elected to the board in 2007.

From the Los Angeles Times

Current School Board Election Results

Governing Board Member Area 3
          SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
          Vote for  1
              (WITH 48 OF 48 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           DONALD TERRY  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     4,691   33.94
           VICKI SIMPSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     4,488   32.47
           DAVID CHANCE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,489   18.01
           JAMES CRAMER  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,111   15.27
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        43     .31
              Over Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        21
             Under Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     4,684

          Governing Board Member Area 4
          SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
          Vote for  1
              (WITH 30 OF 30 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           GUSTAVO ARROYO.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     4,287   44.59
           THERESA SAECHAO  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,874   40.30
           DARLENE ANDERSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,433   14.91
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        20     .21
              Over Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         5
             Under Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,789

          Governing Board Member Area 5
          SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
          Vote for  1
              (WITH 46 OF 46 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
           DIANA RODRIGUEZ  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     6,086   67.20
           LEO BENNETT-CAUCHON .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,500   16.56
           TONI COLLEY-PERRY.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,438   15.88
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        32     .35
              Over Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         5
             Under Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,048

ESTIMATE OF TOTAL BALLOTS LEFT TO PROCESS

Inquire about the availability of documents in alternate formats.

Return to Top of Page

 This page was last modified on Thursday, November 27, 2008 09:14:15 AM

---

Destroying Public Education in America

Posted on November 2, 2008 by the editor

Diogenes called education “the foundation of every state.” Education reformer and “father of American education” Horace Mann went even further. He said: “The common school (meaning public ones) is the greatest discovery ever made by man.” He called it the “great equalizer” that was “common” to all, and as Massachusetts Secretary of Education founded the first board of education and teacher training college in the state where the first (1635) public school was established. Throughout the country today, privatization schemes target them and threaten to end a 373 year tradition.

It’s part of Chicago’s Renaissance 2010 Turnaround strategy for 100 new “high-performing” elementary and high schools in the city by that date. Under five year contracts, they’ll “be held accountable….to create innovative learning environments” under one of three “governance structures:”

o    charter schools under the 1996 Illinois Charter Schools Law; they’re called “public schools of choice, selected by students and parents….to take responsible risks and create new, innovative and more flexible ways of educating children within the public school system;” in 1997, the Illinois General Assembly approved 60 state charter schools; Chicago was authorized 30, the suburbs 15 more, and 15 others downstate. The city bends the rules by operating about 53 charter “campuses” and lots more are planned.
 
Charter schools aren’t magnet ones that require students in some cases to have special skills or pass admissions tests. However, they have specific organizing themes and educational philosophies and may target certain learning problems, development needs, or educational possibilities. In all states, they’re legislatively authorized; near-autonomous in their operations; free to choose their students and exclude unwanted ones; and up to now are quasi-public with no religious affiliation. Administration and corporate schemes assure they won’t stay that way because that’s the sinister plan. More on that below.
 
George Bush praised these schools last April when he declared April 29 through May 5 National Charter Schools Week. He said they provide more “choice,” are a “valuable educational alternative,” and he thanked “educational entrepreneurs for supporting” these schools around the country.
 
Here’s what the president praised. Lisa Delpit is executive director of the Center for Urban Education & Innovation. In her capacity, she studies charter school performance and cited evidence from a 2005 Department of Education report. Her conclusion: “charter schools….are less likely than public schools to meet state education goals.” Case study examples in five states showed they underperform, and are “less likely than traditional public (ones) to employ teachers meeting state certification standards.”
 
Other underperformance evidence came from an unexpected source - an October 1994 Money magazine report on 70 public and private schools. It concluded that “students who attend the best public schools outperform most private school students, that the best public schools offer a more challenging curriculum than most private schools, and that the private school advantage in test scores is due to their selective admission policies.”
 
Clearly a failing grade on what’s spreading across the country en route to total privatization and the triumph of the market over educating the nation’s youths.
 
In 1991, Minnesota passed the first charter school law. California followed in 1992, and it’s been off to the races since. By 1995 19 states had them, and in 2007 there were over 4000 charter schools in 40 states and the District of Columbia with more than one million students in them and growing.

Chicago’s two other “governance structures” are:

o    contract (privatized) schools run by “independent nonprofit organizations;” they operate under a Performance Agreement between the “organization” and the Board of Education; and
 

o    performance schools under Chicago Public Schools (CPS) management “with freedom and flexibility on many district initiatives and policies;” unmentioned is the Democrat mayor’s close ties to the Bush administration and their preference for marketplace education; the idea isn’t new, but it accelerated rapidly in recent years.

Another part of the scheme is in play as well, in Chicago and throughout the country. Inner city schools are being closed, remaining ones are neglected and decrepit, classroom sizes are increasing, and children and parents are being sacrificed on the alter of marketplace triumphalism.

Consider recent events under Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago. On February 27, the city’s Board of Education unanimously and without discussion voted to close, relocate or otherwise target 19 public schools, fire teachers, and leave students out in the cold. Thousands of parents protested, were ignored and denied access to the Board of Ed meeting where the decision came down pro forma and quick. And it wasn’t the first time. For years under the current mayor, Chicago has closed or privatized more schools than anywhere else in the country, and the trend is accelerating. Since July 2001, the city closed 59 elementary and secondary schools and replaced many of them with charter or contract ones.

Nationwide Education “Reform”

Throughout the country, various type schemes follow the administration’s “education reform” blueprint. It began with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) that became law on January 8, 2002. It succeeded the 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act that set eight outcomes-based goals for the year 2000 but failed on all counts to meet them. Goals 2000, in turn, goes back to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and specifically its Title I provisions for funding schools and districts with a high percentage of low-income family students.

NCLB is outrageous. It’s long on testing, school choice, and market-based “reforms” but short on real achievement. It’s built around rote learning, standardized tests, requiring teachers to “teach to the test,” assessing results by Average Yearly Progress (AYP) scores, and punishing failure harshly - firing teachers and principals, closing schools and transforming them from public to charter or for-profit ones.

Critics denounce the plan as “an endless regimen of test-preparation drills” for poor children. Others call it underfunded and a thinly veiled scheme to privatize education and transfer its costs and responsibilities from the federal government to individuals and impoverished school districts. Mostly, it reflects current era thinking that anything government does business does better, so let it. And Democrats are as complicit as Republicans.

So far, NCLB renewal bills remain stalled in both Houses, election year politics have intervened, and final resolution may be for the 111th Congress to decide. For critics, that’s positive because the law failed to deliver as promised. Its sponsors claimed it would close the achievement gap between inner city and rural schools and more affluent suburban ones. It’s real aim, however, is to commodify education, end government responsibility for it, and make it another business profit center.

Last October, the New York Times cited Los Angeles as a vision of the future. It said “more than 1000 of California’s 9500 schools are branded chronic failures, and the numbers are growing.” Under NCLB, “state officials predict that all 6063″ poor district schools will fail and will have to be “restructured” by 2014, when the law requires universal proficiency in math and reading.” It’s happening throughout the country, and The Times cited examples in New York, Florida and Maryland. Schools get five years to deliver or be declared irredeemable, in which case they must “restructure” with new teachers and principals.

In Los Angeles and around the country, “the promised land of universal high achievement seems more distant than ever,” and one parent expressed her frustration. Weeks into the new school year, she said teachers focus solely on what’s likely to appear on exams. “Maybe the system is not designed for people like us,” she complained. Indeed it’s not.

New Millennium Education

That’s the theme of Time magazine’s December 9, 2006 article on the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). It’s on NCEE’s New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.

Time called it “a high-powered, bipartisan assembly of Education Secretaries, business leaders and a former Governor” and the pre-K to 12 education blueprint they released. It’s called “Tough Choices or Tough Times,” was funded by the (Bill) Gates Foundation, and below is its corporate wish list:

o    moving beyond charter schools to privatized contract ones; charter schools are just stalking horses for what business really wants - privatizing all public schools for their huge profit potential;
 

o    ending high school for many poor and minority students after the 10th grade - for those who score poorly on standardized tests intended for high school seniors; those who do well can finish high school and go on to college; others who barely pass can go to community colleges or technical schools after high school;
 

o    ending remediation and special education aid for low-performance students to cut costs;
 

o    ending teacher pensions and reducing their health and other benefits;
 

o    ending seniority and introducing merit pay and other teacher differentials based on student performance and questionable standards;
 

o    eliminating school board powers, all regulations, and empowering private companies;
 

o    effectively destroying teacher unions; and
 

o    ending public education and creating a nationwide profit center with every incentive to cut costs and cheat students for bottom line gains; this follows an earlier decades-long corporate - public higher education trend that one educator calls a “subtle yet significant change toward (university) privatization, meaning that private entities are gradually replacing taxpayers as the dominant funding source as state appropriations account for a lower and lower percentage of schools’ operating resources;” corporations now want elementary and secondary education control for the huge new market they represent.

The Skills Commission’s earlier 1990s work advanced the scheme and laid the groundwork for NCLB. It came out of its “America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages” report on non-college-bound students. It called them “ill-equipped to meet employer’s current needs and ill-prepared for the rapidly approaching, high-technology, service-oriented future.” It recommended ending an “outmoded model” and adopting a standards-based learning and testing approach to enforce student - teacher accountability.

Both Commission reports reflect a corporate wish list to commodify education, benefit the well-off, and consign underprivileged kids to low-wage, no benefit service jobs. It’s a continuing trend to shift higher-paying ones abroad, downsize the nation, and end the American dream for millions. So why educate them.

School Vouchers

They didn’t make it into NCLB, but they’re very much on the table with a sinister added twist. First some background.

It’s an old idea dating back to the hard right’s favorite economist and man the UK Financial Times called “the last of the great (ones)” when he died in November 2006. Milton Friedman promoted school choice in 1955, then kick-started it in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. He opposed public education, supported school vouchers for privately-run ones, and believed marketplace competition improves performance even though voucher amounts are inadequate and mostly go to religious schools in violation of the First Amendment discussed below.

Here’s how the Friedman Foundation for Education Choice currently describes the voucher scheme: it’s the way to let “every parent send their child to the school of their choice regardless of where they live or income.” In fact, it’s a thinly veiled plot to end public education and use lesser government funding amounts for well-off parents who can make up the difference and send their children to private-for-profit schools. Others are on their own under various programs with “additional restrictions” the Foundation lists without explanation:

o    Universal Voucher Programs for all children;
 

o    Means-Tested Voucher Programs for families below a defined income level;
 

o    Failing Schools, Failing Students Voucher Programs for poor students or “failed” schools;
 

o    Special Needs Voucher Programs for children with special educational needs;
 

o    Pre-kindergarten Voucher Programs; and
 

o    Town Tuitioning Programs for communities without operating public schools for some students’ grade levels.

What else is behind school choice and vouchers? Privatization mostly, but it’s also thinly-veiled aid for parochial schools, mainly Christian fundamentalist ones, and the frightening ideology they embrace - racial hatred, male gender dominance, white Christian supremacy, militarism, free market everything, and ending public education and replacing it with private Christian fundamentalist schools.

In March 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman against parochial funding in what became known as the “Lemon Test.” In a unanimous 7 - 0 decision, the Court decided that government assistance for religious schools was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, and the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….”

That changed in June 2002 when the Court ruled 5 - 4 in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that Cleveland’s religious school funding didn’t violate the Establishment Clause. The decision used convoluted reasoning that the city’s program was for secular, not religious purposes in spite of some glaring facts. In 1999 and 2000, 82% of funding went to religious schools, and 96% of students benefitting were enrolled in them.

The Court harmed democracy and the Constitution’s letter and spirit. It also contradicted Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 affirmation that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.” No longer for the nation’s schools.

Nationwide Efforts to Privatize Education

In recent years, privatization efforts have expanded beyond urban inner cities and are surfacing everywhere with large amounts of corporate funding and government support backing them. One effort among many is frightening. It’s called “Strong American Schools - ED in ‘08″ and states the following: it’s “a nonpartisan public awareness campaign aimed at elevating education to (the nation’s top priority).” It says “America’s students are losing out,” and the “campaign seeks to unite all Americans around the crucial mission of improving our public schools (by using an election year to elevate) the discussion to a national stage.”