A New Wave of Charter Schools: What Does it Mean?

Several years ago, when the state budget crisis began, we saw the first of the Valley Schools applying to become affiliated charters. Yesterday, at the Charter meeting, a whopping 24 schools had public hearings to become affiliated charter schools—nearly all of them from my own Board District 3 and the San Fernando Valley.

They represent some of the highest performing schools in my district, and some of the last schools with a significant middle class population in the city.

They represent a tidal wave of change, and I wonder what it means for the Los Angeles Unified School District and for public education.

Is this the birth of a new system? Will traditional public schools become a repository for the poor and the special education students of our city, with everyone else fleeing the traditional public school system? What does that mean for the future of California?

Affiliated charter schools are a peculiar hybrid. Schools apply to become affiliated charter schools seeking freedom and funding. Affiliated charters remain on their LAUSD campus, keep their LAUSD union teachers, but write a charter that can allow them curricular and decision-making freedoms not available to traditional public schools. Historically, schools that went affiliated also received a charter school block grant, which often meant they received more money than they would have as traditional public schools.

Deep budget cuts no longer guarantee schools receive more money; finances vary school by school. But going affiliated charter means a school has the latitude to decide for themselves how they spend their money. Instead of receiving money earmarked for specific programs, a school receives a lump sum. This gives a principal, and a campus, the freedom to design a curriculum and a budget.

I applaud the move to transfer decision-making power to school sites. 

Schools that have gone affiliated charter report not just greater fiscal and academic freedoms, but also surprising and positive side- effects. Teachers must work more cohesively as a team. A new governance model must be put in place. Parents and community members are forced to take on a larger role at the school. All of this changes the culture of the school and encourages more accountability and investment by community members. Principals report increased enrollment numbers -apparently having “charter” in your name lends some cachet among parents.

All this is good. Any school that offers students a great education should be encouraged, lauded, duplicated. But as the district splinters, I find myself wondering: If a campus with innovators has to become a charter to best serve our kids, have we succeeded? If every middle class family decides that only charters or affiliated charters suit their needs, does that deprive public education of its strongest advocates?

For a state that is already 46th in the nation in per pupil spending, I worry. Where will we obtain the political pressure to reform and improve public education when fewer and fewer of our voters are part of the traditional public education system? Will traditional public schools become like a charity, underfunded, but supplemented by grants from philanthropists who regard helping the poor and undereducated as a virtue?

But maybe this is what change looks like. As an old system refuses to change, a new system is born. The new system will retain students and families, move more nimbly and quickly to improve, and keep more students in some form of public school.

Though I have been talking publicly about this trend for several years, the speed with which this is happening astounds me. But when families, schools and community members leap in to make changes themselves, I also know something good is happening. I only wish reform could happen quickly enough for every child in this district to benefit—not just those lucky enough to be in schools where site leaders take charge and parents step in to support them.

-Tamar

The A-G Debate

Do we keep academic standards high because we believe kids rise to the expectations we set for them? Or should we lower standards so more students can meet them?

How you answer this question goes to the core of your beliefs about public education.

Next Tuesday, the school board will vote on whether to adopt a new policy that would require every student to complete the A-G requirements required to attend a state college in California in order to graduate from high school. The proposal would finally implement a resolution passed by the School Board in 2005.

Already the proposal has generated editorials, letters to editors, and arguments at dinner tables across the city. One board member has even suggested he will propose a two-tier graduation system, where one group of students graduates with a diploma, and others, an A-G diploma.

Simply stated, the proposed policy is this: Starting with the class of 2016, every graduating senior will need to complete classes that would allow him or her to attend a four-year state school in California.

Courses not mandated by the state or for “A-G” will no longer be a graduation requirement. (“A-G” refers to a set of college-prep classes that includes History and Social Science, English, Math, Lab Science, a foreign language, and Visual and Performing Arts.) Starting with the class of 2017, students will be required to get a “C” to pass, rather than the current “D.” This will bring district standards into line with state college requirements.

In addition, the number of credits required to graduate will drop from the current 230 to 180. Otherwise, district officials said, the new A-G requirements could cause a huge dip in graduation rates.

With students forced to take more academically rigorous classes, officials concede the number of students failing the first time is likely to increase. But they believe the lower unit requirement will give students a buffer, so they can re-take a class and still graduate on time.

Research also shows that interventions that take place during the school day rather than after school, or on Saturdays, are more likely to be successful. (This is convenient, since many of the district’s Saturday, after school and summer credit recovery programs have been eliminated due to budget cuts.)

Some argue that not every student should go to college. Some kids want to graduate and get a vocational job. But the latest research shows that in an increasingly technological world, the same high-level reasoning, problem-solving and tech skills are necessary for college as to work directly in a vocational field such as auto mechanics.

Some more context: Currently only 15% of all students in LAUSD graduate having completed A-G requirements. High school students must complete a graduation plan, but with approximately 800 students per counselor in high school, it is unlikely all students are getting much personal advice on the choices they make and how this will affect the rest of their lives.

As a parent and a board member, I believe children rise to the expectations we set for them. I also believe that raising standards without ensuring we have the resources in place to support our students is irresponsible and unfair. Right now our state is ranked 46th in the nation in per pupil funding, and 50th in the nation in class size. Just 54% of our seniors graduated from high school in 2010 last year.

I am glad we are having this discussion. But with our country mired in recession and state officials warning it could be years before money floods back to California schools, is now the time to push such a bold agenda?

Or, in our efforts to tout our own high standards, are we setting our children up for failure?

Why We Need to Better Protect Our Children in the Classroom

In the past months, our district has received national attention for several disgusting and tragic allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct.

These events have tarnished the reputations and hard work of tens of thousands of dedicated teachers and left parents fearful and frustrated.

My fellow board members, Nury Martinez, Board President Monica Garcia, and I introduced two resolutions this March that are born of that frustration. And on March 14, both resolutions passed unanimously. I want to tell you why they are so important.

Ms. Martinez’ resolution aims to create a uniform procedure for how and when the district notifies parents about misconduct cases.

As an LAUSD parent, I can tell you that there is nothing more confusing and uncomfortable to a child than when his or her teacher just disappears, and no one is told why or what happened. Trying to find this balance between protecting adults from false allegations but giving parents information to keep their children safe will not be easy, but we must make a better attempt.

My resolution seeks to change state law so that certificated employees engaged in acts that are unprofessional, immoral or criminal can be dismissed faster, and at less cost to the district.

Currently, dismissing a teacher can take between two and seven years, depending on the number of appeals, and costs an average of $300,000. (The longest and most expensive case in LAUSD history cost the district $1.6 million to get the teacher dismissed and defend the lawsuits.)

Other employees are swiftly fired by the school board, only to be ordered reinstated by the state appeals board. In many cases, the district doesn’t feel comfortable returning this person to the classroom, but has been ordered to rehire the individual.

I want to give you a few more statistics. In the last eight years, only 608 cases were filed with the state Office of Administrative Hearing. Just 68 employees were terminated. More than a third involved sexual or immoral conduct allegations.

Of the 42 NOT terminated, half involved sexual or immoral conduct. They were not dismissed for reasons including disbelief of students, belief the behavior was not intended to be sexual, and a promise that it wouldn't happen again.

Some would say such low numbers from the entire state of California show the system is working. But those on the ground say the opposite is true: that the low numbers show how unlikely it is that districts will pursue action given the cost and length of the dismissal process.

In other words, the cost and time involved to dismiss an immoral or criminal employee can be a deterrent to doing what is right for a school, and for children.

 If the District can be held accountable for the sexual misconduct of its teachers—as determined by the California Supreme Court in March—then the District should be able to decide when it can dismiss a teacher.

In addition, under California Education Code, evidence that is more than four years old cannot be used to fire a teacher. In cases of sexual abuse against children in the classroom, it often takes years for students to come forward and tell what has happened to them. My resolution seeks to change the law so that relevant evidence more than four years old could be considered in whether building a case for dismissal.

Much of what was approved in my resolution was actually approved by the School Board three years ago. Unfortunately, Sacramento wasn’t listening.

I hope this time the tragic events that have made the news in LA Unified and other districts across California will be a wake-up call to our legislators.

Already things are happening. Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando) is working on legislation that would streamline the dismissal process. And Assemblyman Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) is working on legislation that would strip a teacher convicted of sexual abuse of their pension.

We need changes to state law to better protect children in the classroom. I hope this time we follow through and finish the job.

An Inconvenient Truth About the District Budget

Last week, the School Board received the Budget Balancing Plan for 2012-2013. Today we are scheduled to vote on it.

The current financial crisis for the Los Angeles Unified School District is heartbreaking, infuriating, and real. Research-tested programs that are a literal lifeline to thousands of people are likely to be eliminated completely, or cut to subsistence levels. On March 15, 2012, 7500 employees will be given Reduction in Force notices.

Our students are already suffering from five years of cuts. Every cut we make from here on out is going to be felt in every community, every school, and every classroom.

Still, people resist the truth. When I go to meetings, to town halls, to schools, or talk to parents, and describe the district’s budget situation they say, “Cut administrative staff,” or “Use the emergency funds,” or “Eliminate waste.”

I want the public to know: There are no secret stashes of money. This is no longer a deficit we can cut our way out of.

The Budget Balancing Plan is not the district’s final budget. That will not be adopted until after the state passes its budget in June. But due to state rules, the district must follow a strict timeline and adopt a plan now to maintain fiscal solvency and retain its ability to lay people off, if necessary.  In order to put out RIF notices to teachers in a timely manner (teachers must receive their notices by March 15 to allow the district to lay them off next year), the district must therefore adopt a budget balancing plan now, even though we have no idea how much money there will ultimately be in the June state budget.

Here are some things we do know: The state now owes LAUSD $1 billion dollars. State funding for education has been cut 16% since 2008—more than any other part of the budget. LAUSD has laid off 8,000 people in the last four years. We have cut administrative staff, teachers, librarians and janitors. We have lost transportation funds and raised class size. We are now ranked 46^th in the nation in funding per pupil, and 50^th in the nation in student to teacher ratios.

As Superintendent John Deasy told the School Board this week, “We can barely afford the legally required minimum levels of service for our students.”

The superintendent and his staff put together a fiscal plan from the ground up, starting with the barest necessities we are required to pay for as a district.

Those include minimum staffing levels required by law, meeting the California Education Code, abiding by court orders/decrees and settlements, meeting our bargaining agreements, allocating 95% of all money to school operations, and allocating just 5% of funds to administrative costs in local districts and central office operations.

After paying for the minimum levels of service, the school district has only $353 million for all other staff and programs across the entire district.

We are faced with making horrifying cuts. At present, we are looking at eliminating most of Adult Education and Early Education, cutting all arts education in elementary school, getting rid of after-school programs at 560 sites across the district, and eliminating full-time librarians at secondary schools.

Every one of these programs is worthwhile and changes lives. Their success is supported by research, and their elimination will send ripples out across our city.

There are three ways to approach the budget deficit. We can increase revenue. We can cut programs (again!) or we can encourage our bargaining partners to give something up to help make up the difference.

Believe things are as bad as they sound. Educate yourself. And demand more money from our government for education. Our children deserve better.

-Tamar

Give In-District Reform a Chance

On Tuesday the School Board approved an historic agreement that will offer every LAUSD campus the freedoms of charter schools, so long as their faculty approves and their students perform.

This agreement is revolutionary, groundbreaking, and unprecedented.

In September, United Teachers Los Angeles and the District sat down at the bargaining table as a result of my resolution, Improving Public School Choice 4.0, which offered to remove new schools from Public School Choice—as long as UTLA granted in-district teams competing to run those campuses the freedoms they needed to succeed. Those freedoms included allowing them to hire their own staff, create their own curriculum, and adopt a stronger, fairer, more complete teacher evaluation system.

My resolution became the opening for a larger conversation about how to spread greater freedoms from a few schools covered by Public School Choice, to every school in the district.

This week, we succeeded.

The agreement, which suspends Public School Choice for 3years, requires teachers and administrators at low-performing schools to draft improvement plans. With a 60% vote of the faculty, a campus can vote to adopt reforms—in the form of waivers—that allow schools to select their own staff and set their own schedules, curriculum and teaching methods. Schools that are performing well can also opt to draft and implement an improvement plan, if 70% of their faculty elect to do so in year 1 or 2 or 60% in year 3.

Several stories and bloggers have mourned the suspension of PSC. These accounts miss the point. We are voting for students, and for families. We are voting to give every child at every school the right to participate in the reforms that until now have been limited to a couple dozen campuses.

Public School Choice was a critical first step in introducing competition into our system and giving parents a voice in how their local schools are run. But it was never meant to be the final solution. What about the hundreds of thousands of students who did NOT go to a Public School Choice school?

This is not about removing competition from the Los Angeles school system or about taking away the voices of parents in the process. This is not about returning to the status quo or eliminating charters. Charters are here to stay, and parent engagement is critical to our success as a school district.

This agreement is about extending the reach of reform, and reforming our district from the inside out. Instead of limiting the most bold and innovative reforms to charters and pilot schools, this will allow reform to take place at every school, potentially affecting every child.  This agreement will allow teachers and principals—district insiders—to be reformers, too.

-Tamar