PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Education

SAN FRANCISCO, April 22, 2015—As California schools begin administering new online standardized tests, most public school parents say they have heard nothing about them, according to a statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). 

A majority (55%) say they have heard nothing at all about the Smarter Balanced Assessment System, which replaces paper-based tests. The new tests are based on the Common Core math and English standards. About a third of public school parents (36%) have heard a little about the tests, and just 8 percent say they have heard a lot. Latino public school parents (54%) are much more likely than white parents (32%) to say they have heard about the tests.

While concerns have been raised about whether all schools have enough computers, bandwidth, and technology staff to effectively administer the online tests, most public school parents say they are very confident (29%) or somewhat confident (42%) that their local schools do.

Other states have found that the switch to the Common Core standards and new tests significantly reduced student scores. How do California public school parents expect students to score on the Smarter Balanced tests? A plurality (42%) predict that scores will be about the same as those on past tests, while 29 percent expect scores to be higher and 23 percent predict that they will be lower.

More generally, Californians are divided about whether standardized tests are accurate measures of a student’s progress and abilities, with 51 percent very or somewhat confident that this is true, and 46 percent not too confident or not at all confident. But few say there is too much testing in their local schools (24% too much in elementary and middle schools, 22% too much in high schools).

A year after the Common Core State Standards were implemented, 66 percent of public school parents have heard of them (43% a little, 23% a lot), while a third (32%) say they have heard nothing at all. White public school parents are nearly three times as likely as Latinos to say they have heard a lot (38% vs. 13%).

A third of public school parents (34%) say their child’s school or district has provided them with information about the Common Core standards and that this information has been adequate. But 20 percent say they have received inadequate information, and the largest share of parents (42%) say they received no information about the standards.

"Many public school parents are in the dark when it comes to Common Core," said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. "Local schools need to do a better job of keeping parents informed as the state implements the new English and math standards.”

Based on what they’ve read and heard about Common Core, 47 percent of adults and 57 percent of public school parents favor the standards. There is a partisan divide, with Democrats (49%) much more likely to be in favor than independents (37%) or Republicans (30%).

Concerns have been raised about teachers’ readiness to teach the new standards—concerns that are shared by California adults (73% very or somewhat concerned) and public school parents (80% very or somewhat concerned). But Californians are optimistic that Common Core will meet two goals: Most (57%) are confident that implementing the standards will make students more college or career ready, and most (57%) are confident that the standards will help students develop critical thinking and problem solving skills. Public school parents express even higher levels of optimism (71% confident about each goal).

Baldassare summed up: "Most Californians are hopeful about the effect of Common Core on improving student achievement, but many worry that teachers are not fully prepared to implement these new standards in the classroom.”

Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos are much more likely than other groups to express confidence that Common Core will make students more college and career ready (75% Latinos, 65% Asians, 58% blacks, 44% whites) and help students develop critical thinking and problem solving skills (77% Latinos, 60% blacks, 51% Asians, 45% whites). Yet Latinos are also the most likely to express concerns about teacher preparedness to implement the standards (80% Latinos, 79% blacks, 70% Asians, 67% whites).

Most Expect New Funding Formula To Boost Achievement

As the state implements a new system for financing schools—the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF)—most Californians say they have heard nothing about it (75% adults, 69% public school parents). Across racial/ethnic groups, Latinos (30%) are the most likely to have heard a little or a lot about the LCFF, followed by Asians (27%), blacks (20%), and whites (19%).

When they are read a brief description of the LCFF, strong majorities of adults (70%) and public school parents (73%) favor it. Among those who have heard at least a little about the LCFF, 75 percent favor it.

The LCFF allocates extra money to districts with more English Learners and lower-income students. Californians have long expressed the view in PPIC surveys that school districts in lower-income areas of the state lack the same resources—including good teachers and classroom materials—as those in wealthier areas. Today, 82 percent hold this view, which is consistent with their support of the LCFF. A majority (59%) also say they are very concerned that students in lower-income areas are less likely than other students to be ready for college when they finish high school. About half of Californians (48%) say they are very concerned that English Learners score lower on standardized tests than other students.

The LCFF allows local districts more control over spending decisions, and it gives additional funding to districts with more lower-income students and English Learners. How confident are Californians that districts receiving the extra money will spend it to support these students? Most adults (56%) are at least somewhat confident, and public school parents (66%) are especially likely to express this view. Will the LCFF improve academic achievement of English Learners and lower-income students? Strong majorities of adults (68%) and public school parents (78%) say it will, at least somewhat. Latinos (85%) are much more likely to expect improvement than Asians (67%), blacks (62%), and whites (59%).

The LCFF requires each school district to get input from parents in designing a Local Control Accountability Plan. While 42 percent of public school parents say they were given information about how to get involved, most (54%) say they did not receive any. Lower-income parents (51% of those with household incomes under $40,000) were much more likely than wealthier parents (37% of those with incomes of $40,000 or more) to say their child’s school or district provided them with information.

Among the parents who received information about participating, most (72%) say they were not involved in the process. Notably, public school parents with lower household income are more likely than those with higher incomes to be involved (25% with incomes under $40,000 vs. 8% $40,000 or more).

State Funding For Schools Is Up, But Most Say It’s Not Enough

California funding for K–12 public education has been rising in recent years, but 60 percent of all adults and 70 percent of public school parents today say current state funding for their local public schools is not enough. Among likely voters, 54 percent say there is not enough funding. Asked to identify the most important issues facing public education today, Californians are most likely to mention lack of funding (16%) and quality of teachers (12%). Public school parents are most likely to mention lack of funding (18%), large class sizes (13%), and quality of teachers (12%).

How do residents think California K–12 education compares to that of other states? About a third of adults (35%) say California’s spending per pupil is lower than average and 26 percent say it is higher than average. Only 29 percent correctly say that spending per pupil is average. Asked about K–12 test scores, 46 percent correctly say California’s results are lower than average (11% higher than average, 38% average).

How can California significantly improve the quality of public schools? Just 9 percent say increased funding alone will do this, while 38 percent prefer using existing funding more wisely. The largest share (49%) prefers that the state do both.

The survey also asks a series of questions about ways to fund education projects.
A state bond for school construction projects: 66 percent of adults and 55 percent of likely voters say they would vote yes if there were a measure on the ballot.
A local bond for school construction projects: 65 percent of adults and 53 percent of likely voters would vote yes if their local districts put a measure on the ballot. (A 55% majority vote is required for passage.)
A local parcel tax for schools: 57 percent of adults and 49 percent of likely voters would approve an increase in local parcel taxes to benefit local schools. (A two-thirds majority vote is required for passage.) Half of adults (50%) think it is a good idea to replace the two-thirds requirement with a 55 percent majority vote to pass local parcel taxes for local public schools. However, only 44 percent of likely voters express support—short of the majority vote required to make the change.

More Key Findings
Half approve of Brown’s job performance—page 14
The governor’s approval rating is holding steady (50% adults, 53% likely voters), as is the legislature’s (42% adults, 36% likely voters). Approval of the way both the governor and legislature are handling of K–12 education is lower.
Local schools get record-high ratings for college, career preparation—page 18
Most adults (58%) say their local public schools are doing a good to excellent job of preparing students for college, and 48 percent rate their schools as good to excellent when asked how well they are preparing students for the workforce.
Half give local schools an A or B—page 20
While 53 percent of all adults give their neighborhood schools good grades, blacks are much less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to do so (blacks 38%, whites 50%, Latinos 59%, Asians 63%).

via: http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1751

Website allows tracking of Prop. 30 money to schools

Proposition 30, enacted by voters in 2012 to temporarily raise sales taxes and income taxes on the wealthy, was touted by Gov. Jerry Brown and other proponents as an alternative to making billions of dollars in cuts to state school spending due to state budget deficits.

Since its enactment, state Controller John Chiang reported Wednesday, Proposition 30 has pumped about $13 billion into local school district coffers. Chiang unveiled a new website, entitled Track Prop. 30, that allows users to plug in their local school districts and see their total budgets and the portions being financed through Prop. 30.

As large as the $13 billion may be, it's still a relatively small portion of K-12 and community college finances, which approach $70 billion a year from all sources. The website reveals, for instance, that during the 2012-13 fiscal year, the latest for which complete data are available, Los Angeles Unified, the state's largest district, had $5.7 billion in revenues from all sources, but Proposition 30 provided just $659.4 million or 12 percent.

Proposition 30, which raised sales taxes fractionally and imposed surtaxes on high-income taxpayers, generates about $6 billion a year and by long-standing constitutional law, a large chunk of the revenue stream must go to schools.

The tax hikes will begin expiring in 2017-18, however, and whether - and how - their revenues to schools will be replaced is still uncertain. Tom Torlakson, the state superintendent of public instruction, has called for making the tax increases permanent, but that would take another ballot measure or two-thirds votes in both houses of the Legislature, plus Brown's signature.

PHOTO: Students, dignitaries and supporters cheer on Gov. Jerry Brown who holds up a campaign sign and encourages students to vote yes for Proposition 30 at Sacramento City College. Thursday, October 18, 2012. The Sacramento Bee/Randy Pench

Categories: Ballot initiatives, Budget, California by the Numbers, Education, Gov. Jerry Brown

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/website-allows-tracking-of-prop-30-money-to-schools.html#storylink=cpy

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/website-allows-tracking-of-prop-30-money-to-schools.html

Gov. Jerry Brown signs on-time budget into law

Gov. Jerry Brown's signing of the state budget Thursday was a sharp contrast from the grim visages and rueful statements that came with the past decade's spending plans.

Instead, Brown and legislative leaders wore big smiles and proclaimed a new era of fiscal stability and aid for struggling Californians as the governor signed the $96.3 billion spending document into law at the State Capitol.

"It is a big day for school kids, it is a big day for Californians who don't have health care or don't have adequate health care," Brown said, claiming other states are studying California's plan enviously to see how it was accomplished.

Most new revenues -- driven by the Proposition 30 income- and sales-tax hike that voters approved in November, plus a resurgent economy -- will go to K-12 education, which is always the general fund budget's largest section. This budget dedicates 41 percent of its funding to public schools, and every district will get more money to spend per pupil, while disadvantaged students will get even more funding.

But the budget also starts restoring some of the deep cuts made in recent years, with funding for dental care for the poor, child-care subsidies for working families and beleaguered trial courts. Meanwhile, it creates a $1.1 billion reserve and makes small payments toward the state's $27 billion "wall of debt."

The governor acknowledged California still has sizable long-term liabilities -- most notably its public employee pension funds -- but said that for the first time in years it has a balanced, on-time budget that addresses Californians' needs while remaining fiscally responsible. He used his line-item veto power to pare about $40 million, spread across a long list of programs, from the Legislature's plan.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said "budgets represent signposts of great progress or difficult times," and this one is the former: "Real people, hurt for so long, will get some help."

The biggest noneducation budget increase this year is for mental health services, he noted. "Thousands of people will benefit as a result, no more desperate family members having to see their loved ones in emergency rooms or in jails or on the streets."

Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the budget "builds on the progress we've made over the last couple of years; he added that he's proud that California is creating jobs at a faster rate than any other state.

"It is a budget that says the fiscal health of the state is on the mend ... but also that we're committed to the health and well-being of all of the people who live in California," Perez said.

Among Perez's and fellow Democrats' biggest wins in this budget are middle-class scholarships, which will kick in for eligible Cal-State University and University of California students in the 2014-15 school year. When fully effective in 2017-18, they'll cover 10 percent of tuition and fees for families earning between $125,000 and $150,000; 25 percent for those earning less than $125,000; and 40 percent for those with a family income of $100,000 or less. CSU alone estimates 150,000 students may qualify.

Brown also Thursday signed a separate bill to expand Medi-

Cal eligibility to more than 1 million low-income people and streamline the program's eligibility and enrollment rules -- a key part of implanting the federal Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

The state Senate approved the main budget bill 28-10 while the Assembly passed it 54-25 two weeks ago, with Republicans in both houses opposed.

Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff, R-Brea, said the budget "includes some positive steps forward in education funding and reform, but it does not keep the campaign promises made to Californians that all the money from the Proposition 30 tax increases would go to fund schools." He said he's also disappointed that the budget doesn't pay down enough debt or address the state's huge pension liabilities.

"Keeping promises to the people of California on education funding and paying off our state debt load so as not to burden future generations with our mistakes should have been the first priority, but unfortunately that did not happen," he said.

California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she's "both pleased and concerned." On one hand, it's the first time in five years that the judicial branch hasn't taken more cuts, "the first step in the long road to restoring funding."

"On the other hand, we have a long way to go. In the last several years, about $1 billion in general fund support has been taken from the judicial branch," she said. "And we are out of one-time solutions and funding transfers to blunt the impact of such massive budget reductions in the future."

The extra $63 million in this year's budget may not be enough to reopen closed courts, bring back laid-off workers or stop furloughs, she said, "and it absolutely won't be enough to provide the kind of access to justice the public deserves."

Jerry Brown Prepares to Do Battle for His California Education Budget

 

For some time, California's budget woes brought to mind a jalopy barely coughing along on a quarter-tank of highly dubious grain alcohol. But thanks to the passage of Proposition 30 last year that lead to broad tax increases earmarked largely for K-12, the prospects have improved, at least from a revenue perspective. And Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, pledged not long after the measure's passage that he would actually simplify things, while also providing a bigger share of funding to districts with the highest proportion of English-language learners and low-income students. In addition, revenues from personal income taxes this year are also ahead of projections, further helping the budget outlook.

The newest budget plan from Brown includes $1 billion in additional spending on K-12 from fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2014, thanks to the infusion of Proposition 30 money that helps the fiscal 2013 budget in mid-stream to the tune of $2.9 billion, although the minimum guarantee for state K-12 aid is projected to drop from that level for fiscal 2014.

The Associated Press has examined how Brown's plan for K-12 breaks down. Total education spending would increase by $1,046 per student, and the base per-student funding level is $7,895 in the governor's 2013-14 budget plan. But the real controversy comes with Brown's weighted-funding formula. As part of his initiative to streamline the state's education-funding system, Brown wants to ensure that districts with a higher share of ELLs, low-income students, and students in foster care get a greater share of money. That would mean $1.9 billion in education spending specifically directed at those students under the new formula, or about 4 cents more out of every education dollar. Those numbers, by the way, were released on May 14, and are a revised version of the initial budget plan Brown released in January. Lawmakers have to pass a spending plan by June 15.

In Brown's new budget plan, there's a breakdown of how exactly the money would flow to districts through the new Local Control Funding Formula. (You'll find the breakdown on page 16 at the link.) In addition to the base grant per student, each district would receive a supplemental grant, based on the percentage of ELL, low-income, and foster children. But districts with a share of those students that tops 50 percent would get an extra boost in education spending through a second formula.
In the example used, a hypothetical California district with 41.9 percent of ELL, low-income, and foster students would have a final per-pupil spending amount of $9,053, while a district consisting entirely of students who fall into those categories would have $12,040 available per student. In an initial review of the January version of this formula, the California Legislative Analyst's Office pointed out that nothing in Brown's plan mandates that the supplemental cash actually go to supplemental services for the targeted students. Brown has reportedly tightened accountability for the supplemental money to try to ensure that it gets spent on the students in question.

Brown's plan also includes $1 billion in funding to implement the Common Core State Standards that districts can spend over the next two years. As John Fensterwald at EdSource notes, the chairmen of the Assembly and Senate education committees lobbied Brown to earmark funds for phasing in the new standards.

It's also worth pointing out that while Brown's budget plan includes an increase in K-12 spending, he said he was taking a cautious approach to spending in other respects, and his revised plan for all spending is $1.2 billion less than the one he put forward in January.
But as AP notes, legislators aren't entirely satisfied with what Brown has put out. As you might imagine, the feeling from some relatively wealthy (or at least middle-class) districts is that the formula won't be particularly fair to them. "The local control funding formula is an interesting problem because it's not really a partisan issue. It's more of a geographic issue," Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, told the AP. And whether by coincidence or not, the government affairs director for the Chamber of Commerce in Gorell's district in Camarillo, Sean Paroski, also tweeted this on May 14: "W/new formula, $1 of $5 will go to English-learner or low-income students. What do suburban schools think of Prop 30 support now?"

Prominent Democrats, like Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, also say they have reservations about how Brown's plan would work, even if they like the general idea, as Fensterwald points out. So Brown has multiple fights on his hands as he presses forward with his plan, and indeed he appears to be approaching them pugilistically, saying that foes of his budget will be in for "the battle of their lives".

via Edweek.org

Gov. Jerry Brown's California budget includes major infusion for education

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest budget proposes a $17 billion infusion for California’s K-12 schools over the next four years, a dramatic turn-around after years of teacher layoffs and program cuts that were common during the recession.

He also wants to reshape the financial decision-making process by giving local districts more authority to spend state money as they choose. The question now is whether all the additional money and the freedom to decide how to spend it will be enough to restore the luster of California’s once-renowned public school system.

The budget released by the Democratic governor this week would boost K-12 spending in the current school year by $2.8 billion, including $1 billion to implement an overhaul of the state’s standards for English and math. That money, in particular, is encouraging to school advocates and teachers’ groups that stand to benefit as districts invest in professional training, technology and instructional materials.

“The proposals that are included in the budget are really game-changers,” said Arun Ramanathan, executive director of The Education Trust-West, which advocates for poor and minority children.

As important as the additional funding is the governor’s proposal to move much of the decision-making about how the money is spent away from Sacramento to the local level, where the administration believes officials are better able to decide their own needs.

“Each district … is supposed to come up with a plan on how they’re going to spend these dollars,” Ramanathan said. “And the plan has to have goals and targets. Parents are going to have under the proposal a big voice in that process, both in the committee level and at the district level.”

Students First, an education reform group headed by former Washington, D.C., schools superintendent Michelle Rhee, has pushed for states to make more information available about how school money is spent. Without transparency, it’s impossible to gauge whether the state spending is sufficient to properly educate California children, said Rebecca Sibilia, the group’s chief financial officer.

“We have to also ask, ‘Are we giving enough money in ways that districts can use it,’ because otherwise the money means nothing,” Sibilia said. “Parents should start to ask school district administrators what they’re spending the money on, how much of the money is going to the classroom. … It’s incumbent upon the district administrators to use the money in a way that benefits kids.”

Brown still has a fight on his hands over how best to distribute some of the extra money to the neediest children. Supplemental money will go to districts with students who are low-income, English-learners or foster children, and Brown wants to send even more to districts where more than half the students fall into one of those categories.

The governor and some education advocates say that funding formula is essential to equalizing the state’s education system and boosting achievement for the 6.2 million public school students, more than half of whom are poor, according to state guidelines. English is not the primary language for nearly a quarter of the students.

“Most of the school districts, even those that aren’t getting as much money, like the flexibility. That’s the feedback I’m getting from my district,” said state Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. “It’s different in different areas of the state, but all in all, I think the governor is on the right track to give more local control.”

Lawmakers in both parties who represent more affluent and suburban areas are pushing back against Brown’s proposed formula.

Among them is Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. On Tuesday, he released a list of 405 California schools that he said would not stand to gain as much money as others under the governor’s plan.

“Those kids matter, too. Their civil rights matter too,” Steinberg said in a meeting with reporters.

Brown’s budget would push per-pupil funding in California to an average of $8,475 for the remainder of the current school year. Although the funding would dip slightly in the coming school year, it is expected to rise to $9,929 for the school year that starts in 2016.

The governor’s office said schools would return to their peak funding year, 2007-08, by the 2015-16 school year if current projections hold, but there are disagreements over the exact calculation.

Some education experts say even that level of funding would not be enough to fix some endemic problems in California schools.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a Democrat, said a comprehensive state report completed in 2007 found that the public school system needed another $15 billion to $20 billion to get back to its revered status of the 1970s — and that was before the state cut about $20 billion from schools over the last five years.

He noted that other social service cuts made during the recession have affected poor children, who then come into California schools less prepared than in the past. As an example, he cited a $1 billion cut to the state’s preschool program.

———

Associated Press writer Don Thompson contributed to this report.

Via rgj.com

Move toward 'inclusion' sparks class size debate

An ambitious plan to move San Francisco special education students into mainstream classrooms is getting mixed reviews from teachers and sparking a debate over class size as the school district and teachers union try to reach an agreement on a new labor contract.

The shift is part of an effort to improve special education by teaching students in the least restrictive environment possible, a model known as inclusion. Last fall, under the new plan, special education students in kindergarten and sixth and ninth grades were given a wider choice of schools they could attend and, in some cases, placed in general education classes.

Although teachers support the concept of inclusion, they worry that the district’s implementation has been haphazard.

“It’s great, provided that it meets the students’ needs, but there seems to be a push toward this whether or not it meets the students’ needs,” said Patty Golumb, a special education teacher at A.P. Giannini Middle School.
“Some of the kids are five or six grade levels behind in reading, and they’re saying that they should be able to access mainstream classes.”

Leaders of the teachers union argue that the district's contract proposals could actually undermine special education.

One proposal to raise the cap on the number of students allowed in special education classes would make it nearly impossible for teachers to give kids the individual attention they need, according to Linda Plack, vice president of the United Educators of San Francisco, the union that represents the district’s 6,000 teachers and other school staff.

Plack said the district's goals seem to be contradictory. It wants to allow more students in special education classes at the same time it is trying “to make general education classes larger and put as many kids as possible into general ed," she said.

Dr. Elizabeth Blanco, assistant superintendent of special education, said the district needs the flexibility to place students in whichever classes suit them best.

“It’s not about trying to overload teachers and give them more work,” Blanco said. “It’s a matter of giving our students more access to the least restrictive environment. Some of the current caps don’t allow us to do that.”

Class preparation time is another divisive issue. For years, special education teachers in secondary schools have been allowed two periods per day to prepare lessons, work with families and meet with colleagues. General education teachers are allotted one such period a day. The district now wants special education teachers to work with students during one of their two preparation periods.

“There’s nothing in the contract that delineates an extra preparation period,” said Tom Ruiz, the district’s chief negotiator for labor relations. “Every preparation period costs about $13,000 per year. Before we were kind of going above and beyond what the contract provided, but you have to look at the fiscal issues.”

But Plack said teachers need time to manage the additional paperwork and meetings associated with special-needs students.

“You can call it what you want,” she said, “a counseling period, conference period, coffee at Starbucks, but they did a lot of work during that period. I don’t see how they’re going to get it all done now.”

The teachers union and the district began meeting with a mediator last week, after contract negotiations broke down this spring. Both sides say they want a new labor agreement before school starts in August.

Two months ago, the California Department of Education found the district in violation of more than 100 special education regulations during the past year. The violations include failures to properly assess students’ disabilities, implement federally mandated services and employ qualified staff to work with special-needs students.

The report angered parents who have argued for years that the district has failed their children. Last month, at a meeting of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education, parents had the opportunity to speak directly to the district’s incoming superintendent, Richard Carranza.

He asked to hear their concerns but said he was also interested in “what’s working, what’s going well.”

Patrick McAllister – who pulled his son out of Alamo Elementary School in March, citing a sharp decrease in services for special education students – rose from his seat and said: “I get really upset, Mr. Carranza, for you coming here when the district is under investigation by the state and saying, ‘What’s going right?’ ”

Carranza tried to reassure the group. “How many superintendents have come to your meeting? This is my third time. I’m invested," he said.

McAllister and other parents at the meeting complained that teachers – even those with specialized credentials – are unqualified to work with students struggling with physical, developmental and emotional challenges.

“While there are dedicated special educators that have a tremendous, positive impact on their students, the overall lack of qualifications is a serious issue,” McAllister said. “Just ask the state.”

Teachers say they want more training, too.
“I couldn’t agree with them more,” Maggie Englesbe, a special education teacher at Sutro Elementary School, said of the parents’ concerns. “We get a lot of feedback about writing compliant Individualized Education Programs” – written agreements with parents outlining which services a student will receive – “but not a lot of professional development around teaching and learning.”
At the meeting, Carranza and Blanco promised that would change in the coming months. The district will have to provide more training for teachers in order to comply with state regulations.
“I think there has to be a basic cycle of training for anybody coming into an existing system,” Blanco said. “General education teachers should be trained as well as special education teachers on how to work with students who have challenging behaviors.”
The move toward inclusion began in 2010, when independent auditors hired by the district found that students with special needs were largely marginalized and viewed by administrators as an encroachment on school resources. Special education students were flailing in a web of isolated programs, “resulting in fragmented and disconnected services for these students,” according to the report.
The district lacked “a clear agenda for how it can provide equity and access to students with disabilities, improve expectations for their achievement and implement the accountability structures necessary to ensure results,” the auditors wrote.
They recommended the district abandon its traditional special education programs and instead provide services to students in mainstream settings. In September 2010, the district adopted those recommendations and began gradually moving toward inclusion. Carranza, then assistant superintendent, vowed to fully implement the plan.
He acknowledges the move will take years.
“We’re not looking at special education as a place where you go,” he said. “We’re looking at special education as a service that takes place in a general education classroom.”
Still, he said, “We’re changing the paradigm, and it’s going to be messy.”

L.A. Unified Can Apply for Federal Race to the Top Funds

Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. John Deasy. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)

For the first time, L.A. Unified and other individual school districts can apply for federal Race to the Top grants, bypassing California officials, including the governor, who had objected to the rules for receiving the education-reform incentives.

The draft rules, announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Education, will allow school systems to vie for funds that had been unavailable to any state that was unable or unwilling to compete for the grants.

"We're wide open to new strategies, new approaches," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in a conference call. "Every district in America can apply."

Race to the Top was launched by the U.S. Department of Education under President Obama in 2009. It was intended to spur states into adopting education policies favored by the administration, including revamping teacher evaluations to include student test score data. Three times California applied and lost.

Most recently, in 2011, senior state officials took California out of the running: They declined to endorse an application submitted by a consortium of districts, including those in L.A., Long Beach, San Francisco and Sacramento.

The money was too little to pay for what was required, a particular burden during the current budget crisis, according to state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, Gov. Jerry Brown and other officials. But there also were philosophical objections to using student test scores as one measure to evaluate teachers.

The largest state teachers unions also have opposed using this data in performance reviews, unless teachers approve it as part of a collective bargaining agreement.

In 2010, the state's first application was weakened by the unwillingness of some teachers unions and school districts to sign on.

The new guidelines for the $400-million pool include the requirement that districts remake teachers evaluations. In Los Angeles Unified, schools Supt. John Deasy is moving in that direction.

"We intend to apply," Deasy said. "We've been waiting for this. We're ready for this. Everything we've done has laid the groundwork for a strong application."

If successful, L.A. could receive $25 million, much less than the $100 million the district could have obtained in an earlier funding round.

Still, the money would prove valuable for advancing such district initiatives as an evaluation system now being tested by volunteers in some schools.

Deasy is planning to expand the program districtwide, but faces a legal challenge by United Teachers Los Angeles, the teachers union.

UTLA could play a role in the Race to the Top bid.

"Local buy-in," including from teachers unions, "and commitment to reform is very important," Duncan said.

Stanford education professor Linda Darling-Hammond believes the emphasis is misplaced.

"Evaluation is actually a tiny aspect of the entire puzzle," Darling-Hammond said at a talk Monday to teachers and union activists at the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools in Koreatown. "The big issue for the U.S. is inequality." The nation has "continually disinvested in schools that serve children who live in poverty."

A contrasting view appeared in a report released Tuesday by Communities for Teaching Excellence, a locally based organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The report called for linking improved evaluations — including the use of student data — to decisions on whether teachers should receive and retain tenure protections.

The group saluted recent changes to tenure laws in other states. In Tennessee, teachers now must work five years to earn tenure; California teachers earn tenure after two years. Tennessee teachers also must rank in the top two of five categories for overall performance in the two years before achieving tenure. And teachers can lose tenure if they are rated ineffective for two consecutive years.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0523-teachers-evals-20120523,0,3011182.story

Governor wants to cut funding in school science

Science and technology may stimulate the state's economy, but the governor wants to cut funding for a second science requirement in high school.

The California finalists for Intel's Science Competition have developed truly amazing things; they began their projects in high school. The genetic test James Thomas of San Jose generated will be helpful.

"I created a model that actually has 92 percent accuracy in predicting the on-set of alcoholism in individuals," said Thomas.

The technology Jessica Richeri of Riverside developed will change the way we drive.

"My research finds a way to avoid traffic jams in the future with an autonomous robotic vehicle," said Richeri.

Supporters believe this illustrates how innovation can stimulate California's economy, that these kids are tomorrow's 

job creators, and it all begins with STEM: science, technology, education and math.

But because of California's continued budget crisis, the governor proposes to cut the second year science 

requirement in high schools to save $245 million.

For decades, schools have always gotten reimbursed by the state for teaching a second science class, but Gov. 

Jerry Brown wants to move away from state mandates because they're too expensive. He dropped by the science fair and said the cuts mean districts will have to find the money themselves to continue the program.

"I personally went to the School Board and said this is a good requirement, but we want the locals to pick up that up. Otherwise, they charge us," said Brown.

Critics say, though, after years of decreased state funding, schools can barely keep the lights on, let alone pay 

for science curriculum.

"The problem is all of this is being done during a time when other states and other countries are boosting their 

science and technology education to make their students and their population more competitive in this global 

market," said Matt Gray from the California STEM Learning Network.

The other problem is University of California and Cal State both require two years of science for admission. So if 

you're in a school where you can't take a second class, it'll be tough to get in.

What are the options?

"I go to Carnegie Mellon University," said Richeri.

"I'm going to MIT this fall," said Thomas.

Sounds like a California brain drain.

Via: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=8674570

Chronic absence, suspension derail Oakland black boys

High rates of chronic absence, suspension and poor academic performance signal that more than half of African American male students in the Oakland Unified School District are at risk of dropping out, according to new research.

The Urban Strategies Council, an Oakland-based community advocacy organization, found significant disparities between African American boys and their peers: Fifty-five percent of black boys in the 2010-11 school year were falling off course from graduation or were at risk of doing so, compared with 37.5 percent of students overall in the district.

From kindergarten through 12th grade, researchers found that black boys struggled with regular attendance and suspensions and scoring proficiently on standardized tests or maintaining grades above a C average – warning signs that they might drop out.

Among African American males who were not on track to graduate, 73 percent in elementary school were chronically absent, missing 10 percent or more of school days for any reason, according to the findings released this week. In middle school, the same percentage had been suspended at least once. Nearly two-thirds of high schoolers were chronically absent and had less than a C average; 41 percent had been suspended at least once.

The council's reports on dropout indicators are part of Oakland Unified's African American Male Achievement Initiative, an effort launched in 2010 to improve academic and social equity for black boys. The findings provide "a sense of urgency" for the district, said Chris Chatmon, executive director of the district's Office of African American Male Achievement. "We need to understand what's going on if we're going to effectively intervene and improve outcomes and graduation and success of African American males," said Junious Williams, chief executive officer of the council. 

Chatmon, who plans to hold a community meeting next month to discuss the council's findings, said improving attendance among black boys requires working with other agencies and the community and presents different challenges in different age groups.

In kindergarten and first grade, African American boys in the district were more than four times as likely as their white peers to be chronically absent, the council found. 

"Five-year-olds don't miss school without an adult knowing at home," said Hedy Chang, director of Attendance Works, an initiative that seeks to improve student success by reducing chronic absence. 

Families might face hurdles, such as transportation or health problems, in getting their young children to school, or they might not understand the importance of kindergarten, said Chang, who has worked with Oakland Unified to address chronic absenteeism. 

"Once you miss a month or more of school, and you miss a month or more in kindergarten and first, you're not on track for reading in third grade," she said. "We've got to make sure kids have a chance to start on the right track."

One way the district has tried to target chronic absenteeism among young black students is by working with the Oakland Housing Authority. Forty percent of students at four West Oakland schools live in public housing; 30 percent of those students were chronically absent in 2010-11. Chatmon said the district saw an uptick in school registration by reaching out to West Oakland families living in public housing.

By the time black boys reach middle and high school, different factors begin to undermine attendance, Chatmon said.

"Street culture becomes more attractive than learning and school culture," he said. "How do we define school culture? What is it? What would get our students getting up at 5 in the morning, running to school? … You get school culture right, then you will produce African American boys that produce high academic outcomes."

Cultural clashes and misunderstandings also factor into high rates of suspension among black boys, Chatmon and Williams said. 

"We still have a teaching and administrative body that doesn't … understand the cultural context of where our students come from," Chatmon said. "We have to do a lot of work with our adults to authentically engage with our boys, with our families, to understand our community context."

African American boys made up 17 percent of Oakland Unified students in 2010-11, yet they represented 42 percent of students suspended. Disruption or defiance of authority was the most common reason for discipline, accounting for 38 percent of their suspensions.

Subjective standards for disruption and defiance – the reason behind more than 40 percent of suspensions in California and the recent target of criticism and legislative action – could be contributing to high suspension rates among black boys, Williams said.

The council recommended that Oakland Unified carefully monitor such offenses and clearly define what constitutes impermissible behavior. The district also needs strategies for prevention and intervention so students are not suspended for single incidents, Williams said.

In many ways, Chatmon said, that work already has started.

"This is a 'we' problem," he said. "We are taking this on with the frame of full-service community schools that call out everybody, humbly. We can't do it in isolation."


Via:  http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/chronic-absence-suspension-derail-oakland-black-boys-16298

Calif. schools employing fewer nurses, librarians

Joanna Lin/California Watch Mary Nixon is one of two school nurses in Trinity County. The number of school nurses in California has dropped 13.3 percent in five years.

Joanna Lin/California WatchMary Nixon is one of two school nurses in Trinity County. The number of school nurses in California has dropped 13.3 percent in five years.

California is issuing fewer credentials for public school service positions such as librarians, school nurses and administrators, and its schools are employing fewer service staff, according to a recent report by the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

The commission issued 11 percent fewer service credentials between the 2006-07 and 2010-11 school years. The number of people employed in service positions declined 9 percent during the same period, according to the report.

The findings [PDF], released last week, track credentials and employment in five areas: administrative services; teacher librarian services; school nurses; speech-language pathology, and clinical or rehabilitative services; and pupil personnel services, which include school counselors, psychologists, social workers, and child welfare and attendance workers.

The number of credentials issued also fell by 19.1 percent for administrative services, 18.9 percent for school social workers and 10 percent for school psychologists. Except for school social workers, whose ranks rose 20.2 percent, schools employed fewer service staff in all these areas than they did five years ago.School nurse credentials saw the biggest drops, with just 209 issued in 2010-11 – a 26.4 percent decline from 2006-07. At the same time, the number of school nurses employed in public schools fell by 13.3 percent to 2,474.

While service positions saw a downward trend overall, the number of credentials issued in some areas has grown.

The 104 new teacher librarian credentials in 2010-11, for example, represent an 8.3 percent increase since 2006-07. But the decline in working teacher librarians was three times that figure: Just 895 teacher librarians were employed in 2010-11 – 339 fewer than five years earlier.

The same was true among speech-language pathologists: More credentials were issued, but fewer people were employed in these areas.

California awarded 504 language, speech and hearing credentials in 2010-11 – a 40 percent increase over five years. At the same time, however, the number of speech-language pathology waivers remains high, with 439 waivers issued in 2010-11. The commission issues waivers when there are not enough credentialed individuals to fill positions.

In fact, since 2006-07, only in the past two years has the number of speech-language pathology credentials trumped the number of waivers, the report found. Overall employment for speech-language pathologists fell 8.4 percent in the five-year period to 4,646.

Only school counselors saw an increase in both the number of credentials issued and employment. The 1,166 school counseling credentials issued in 2010-11 represented a 14.8 percent jump over 2006-07. California's public schools in 2010-11 employed 8,201 counselors – a 4.7 percent increase.

The commission said the growing numbers of school counselors and school social workers, whose ranks climbed 20.2 percent to 417 in 2010-11, could be attributed in part to the Quality Education Investment Act of 2006. The act provides funding for the state's lowest-performing schools to improve student achievement.

Still, the commission said, California's student-to-counselor ratio remains among the worst in the nation: 49th in 2009-10, according to U.S. Department of Education data, with 810 students for every counselor. The national average at the time was 459 students to every counselor.

Via: http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/calif-schools-employing-fewer-nurses-librarians-16202