More Of The Same With State ESSA Plan

 More Of The Same With State ESSA Plan

If it is true that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then it appears the State Board of Education’s planned proposal for following the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has entered the realm of crazy.

Implemented by the Obama administration, ESSA, the federal law that replaced No Child Left Behind, was designed to identify and assist the nation’s lowest-performing schools. All states are required to submit a proposal outlining plans to comply with the law, and California submitted its plan last September.

But on Dec. 21, the United States Department of Education rejected California’s proposal after determining that it was incomplete and requested that the State Board of Education submit a revised plan by Jan. 9. Specifically, the DOE took issue with the plan’s failure to address long-term goals for high school students and deemed the state’s method of identifying underperforming schools to be inadequate.

The state wants to use its ever-evolving and oft-maligned California School Dashboard to meet the school identification component of ESSA. The Dashboard is a rating tool intended to provide a well-rounded way to assess school health by placing districts into color-coded performance categories for measures ranging from test scores and school attendance to graduation rates and college and career readiness.

The problem, however, as described by KPCC’s Kyle Stokes, is that “the state's accountability system is not a hand-in-glove fit with ESSA: the state's system identifies the districts in the need of most help, but the federal government requires identifying the schools” in most severe need.
"We're worried that if you only look at districts, you're going to overlook some pretty poor schools," Brian Rivas of the organization Education Trust-West said in public comments reported by KPCC. "We don’t want districts to be able to hide a bad school in the system."

Last Thursday, the State Board voted to send its revised version of the original proposal back to Washington, but to the chagrin of many, it appears largely unchanged from its original version.  There were attempts to make a few small clarifying details requested by the DOE, but according to a report in the Los Angeles Times’ by Joy Resmovits, the revised proposal, “clings to a vision some Board members call the ‘California Way,’ a road map rooted in the unique needs of the state's diverse student body. It doesn't so much address broader federal concerns, but rather aims to justify the state's decisions.”

Carrie Hahnel, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at Education Trust-West told the Los Angeles Times: “We have seen no substantive changes to the ESSA plan. It's clear that California wants to press ahead and is not going to make adjustments because the federal government asked for them.” 

Advocacy group EdVoice was equally scathing in its reaction to the Board’s revised proposal. 

“[Thursday’s] foot dragging on accountability leaves parents and local communities wondering if there will ever be help for teachers and schools so that English learners, students of color and low-income students can graduate, go on to college and get a good paying job,” said Bill Lucia, President of EdVoice. “The federal law requires states to use this extra money to ensure schools provide extra help to disadvantaged students, but the state has shown it isn’t committed to ensuring every student reaches their full potential.”

Read More

Governor's Budget Increases Ed Funding But Not Enough, Critics Say

Governor's Budget Increases Ed Funding But Not Enough, Critics Say

California Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his final state budget proposal Wednesday, a plan highlighted by substantial increases in funding for education. But while the additional funding itself was celebrated, there remains growing concern that the proposal and larger expenditures still fall well short of empowering California schools and districts to serve the needs of all its students.

According to the Governor’s 2018-19 Budget Summary, “the Budget proposes an increased investment of $4.6 billion in K-14 education.”  The most significant portion of the spending increase is an additional $3 billion earmarked for the final funding of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which provides additional funding for low-income students, English language learners and foster youth and provides more local control.  Original estimates for LCFF had final funding not being realized until 2020-21, but the new budget advances that timeline by two years...

While these proposals and the Budget’s increase in dollars dedicated to education have been applauded as a sign of the state’s commitment to it students, reaction from many district board members and educational groups has been tempered enthusiasm. Critiques have largely centered on a lack of transparency and accountability in regards to LCFF funding and the overall feeling that the increase in expenditures is merely a small first step in the much longer journey California still must take in order to rise to the level of per-pupil support of other states in the nation. 

Read More

CA Board Of Ed Changes School Ratings Dashboard To Make Failing Schools Look Better

CA Board Of Ed Changes School Ratings Dashboard To Make Failing Schools Look Better

Numbers are often celebrated for their ability, in their simplest form, to tell objective truths. However, their close cousin, statistics, are more easily manipulated and -- through subjective selection or omission -- can be powerful tools used to bolster any side of a given argument.  Now it looks like the California State Board of Education will be engaging in such statistical shenanigans. 

When faced with dismal school performance ratings, California’s answer was not to fix the problems but to change the ratings system, instead, to make the schools look better.

 On Wednesday, State BOE unanimously voted to revise the criteria for rating performance on standardized test scores to magically reduce the number of schools and districts that will be considered part of the lowest-performing group required to receive intervention from their counties. This will make an already complicated rating system even less useful to parents trying to determine how well their schools are doing.

Read More

The Fate of Ed Bills As State Legislative Session Closes

Here's a scorecard from EdSource on the bills that passed, failed and stalled during the recently ended legislative session.

Among the legislation that stalled was a bill to create a state-sponsored STEM school, which Speak UP supported. Also held by the author was a bill that Speak UP supported to extend the teacher probationary period to three years before receiving tenure. 

Speak UP applauds the failure a bill, SB808, that could have led to the closure charter schools by local districts without any chance of appeal. A bill to mandate later schools start times also failed. And in the pass column was a bill to end "lunch shaming" by giving inferior food to families who have not fully paid their school lunch bills. 

Read More

State Board of Ed Approves ESSA Plan


Sept. 14

The State Board of Education approved a plan to submit to the federal government under the Every Student Succeeds Act that fails to do enough to address the achievement gap or to define an ineffective teacher based on student outcomes. To read more from LA School Report, click here.

Sept. 13

The State Board of Education will address three topics at this week’s State Board Of Education meeting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

1.  State standardized test scores. Last year’s scores have not yet been released because of a data glitch.

2.  The state’s plan to satisfy requirements of the Every Students Succeeds Act. Many groups, including Speak UP, believe the state plan is inadequate because it fails to identify and outline ways to improve the bottom 5 percent of schools. While the plan was recently amended to make sure the definition of an ineffective teacher did not include every teacher in an intern position, the definition of an "ineffective teacher" still does not include how a teacher affects student outcomes.

3.  The Local Control Funding Formula and how the state will identify and assist low-performing school districts.

To read the entire Los Angeles Times article, click here.

Read More

Parents Support New State STEM School

Rashidah and Dylan cropped.jpg

The LAUSD Board votes Tuesday on a resolution to oppose the creation of an innovative new state-authorized STEM middle and high school intended to increase the pipeline of qualified under-represented students of color and women attending elite STEM universities and entering science, technology, engineering and math professions.

The resolution against this proposed school, which would be located in Los Angeles and operated in partnership with UCLA, demonstrates a reflexive opposition to innovation and ignores the desperate need for underserved kids to have more high-quality school options in math and science.

District 1 Board Member George McKenna and District 3 Board Member Scott Schmerelson are sponsoring the resolution opposing AB 1217, the state bill that would create the new school. The resolution claims that with 97 existing STEM magnet programs, Los Angeles is “already addressing the need for STEM education.”

There’s just one glaring problem: McKenna and Schmerelson fail to address the quality of those programs. Speak UP asked McKenna’s office to share the percentage of students that are meeting state proficiency standards in math at LAUSD’s STEM schools that admit all students – not just those serving kids chosen to attend because of high test scores.

“That would not be relevant,” said Sharon Robinson, McKenna’s chief of staff.    

We beg to differ. A quick look at the data suggests that Los Angeles has a serious need for higher-quality options. Right now, 75 percent of LAUSD 11th grade students are failing to meet or exceed state standards in math.

LA’s existing STEM schools are also underperforming in science. The average number of proficient students in schools that have “science” in their name was 51 percent, which is below the LAUSD average of 53 percent and the county average of 60 percent, according to analysis published last November by LAUSD math teacher Benjamin Feinberg on his School Data Nerd blog.

California is the fifth worst state in the nation in terms of 8th grade science performance, according to a report card from the National Assessment of Educational progress. 

And while Latino and black students represent 56 percent of total secondary enrollment in California, they only represent 28 percent of those enrolled in a calculus course, which is considered the gateway to university-level STEM degrees.

Part of the problem is the shortage of teachers qualified to teach high-level math and science.

This new STEM school proposes to address that problem by tapping university professors and science and tech professionals to teach alongside credentialed teachers – something magnet and charter schools are not able to do in the large numbers this school envisions. Universities such as Caltech and MIT have signed letters supporting the creation of this school.

Parents also see this as an incredible opportunity for kids. Speak UP member Rashidah Shakir-Blackshere, who lives in Board District 1, has a third-grade African-American son interested in studying aerospace.

“STEM education is not just about technical aptitude. It's about building confidence in problem solving and critical thinking, “ she said. “What better way to foster that confidence, especially in underserved, largely minority communities, than by hands-on collaboration with scientists and engineers?”

Shakir-Blackshere teaches at LA Trade Technical College and sees first-hand how much her community needs better high school math instruction. Eighty percent of the new students test in at a remedial 6th-8th-grade level in math and have a hard time catching up. “If they’re coming in at an 8th grade level, something is missing in their formative years,” she said. “They’re stunted.”

As for a new public STEM school run in partnership with UCLA: “I only see good things coming out of it,” she said.

The entire tone of the opposition to the school suggests a hidebound mentality that puts bureaucratic rules before the needs of kids.

“It’s not a matter of not wanting to try something new,” Robinson said. “It’s a matter of the process and procedure of doing it. And there are guidelines in the state of California.”

The McKenna-Schmerelson resolution makes the tired argument that a state-run school will siphon dollars away from the district and existing LAUSD STEM schools. “If we have 100 kids in the building or 300 kids, we still have to turn on the lights,” Robinson said.

It’s high time that LAUSD reexamined that assumption and its stubborn adherence to a failed status quo. If a program is losing enrollment because it’s not successfully educating students, perhaps its time to consider turning off the lights and creating something new and better instead. 

Improve failing programs, expand the seats available at more successful programs or cut bureaucratic staff when enrollment declines. But please don’t limit quality choices for parents and kids. That’s not a kids-first solution to LAUSD’s fiscal problems.

In fact, opponents of this bill may be squandering an opportunity to help all of LA’s kids. The visionaries behind this new STEM school hope to have university professors and industry experts conducting teacher trainings to increase the pipeline of qualified STEM teachers in LA, benefitting all kids.

Fourteen other states, including Illinois, North Carolina and Texas, have established similar state-run STEM high schools that have trained thousands of teachers and produced graduates who attend the nation’s best STEM universities and who go on to be leaders in STEM fields.

Los Angeles currently has no public schools serving under-represented populations that are considered regular feeder schools to top STEM universities. This is a chance to change that.

Because the school would require a new state-authorizing model, lawmakers may have legitimate questions about transparency, accountability and local control. But that’s no reason to reject this plan out of hand, especially given the auspices behind it and the fact that other states have similar models that are successful. 

As for fears about oversight quality because of the distance between LA and Sacramento, let’s not forget that we already have schools authorized and overseen by the state, such as New West Charter, which is successful and in demand.

The bottom line: California has the country’s largest tech workforce, and its largest city should be producing graduates who are qualified to enter the field. And as Silicon Valley and Silicon Beach struggle to create a more diverse workforce, this new school, if allowed to succeed, could be part of the solution.

We urge board members not to stand in the way of progress.