The full editorial ...
... about the LAUSD's API scores collapse is now available online. Read it here.
|
|
|
|
Truth Mustbetold commented on Mayor's latest plan offers nothing new
AngelZR commented on Education Revolution Countdown
... about the LAUSD's API scores collapse is now available online. Read it here.
... of tomorrow (Thursday's) Daily News editorial on the LAUSD's API nose-dive. Be sure to check in after midnight for the full thing. Till then:
What’s worse is that Superintendent David Brewer III places blame on the the district’s black and Latino students. But the ethnic makeup of the LAUSD hasn’t suddenly shifted. So this excuse rings hollow, as do the two other excuses offered up: Results are analyzed differently, or the numbers are skewed by the opening of two new high schools.Baloney. Something’s wrong at the LAUSD, but it isn’t the students. What’s wrong is that failure is met with excuses, and the fundamental dysfunction of the school district is ignored.
"Already lagging behind their statewide counterparts, Los Angeles Unified high school students took a precipitous plunge on newly released Academic Performance Index." [READ ON.]
And LAUSD superintendent David Brewer seems to understand that. In Washington Monday, Brewer unveiled a plan for boosting parental literacy -- after all, parents who can read are more likely to raise children who can read. One can quibble with the mechanics of Brewer's plan -- sending teachers into housing projects -- but give him credit for addressing a fundamental problem that's too often ignored in the public-education debate. The family is the great engine of inequality in our society, and it's unrealistic to expect schools to even out all the inequalities that engine cranks out. Improving parental literacy is a worthy goal, even if hard to achieve.
One wonders if Brewer has any ideas on how to curb the greatest force for inequality of all -- the epidemic of fatherlessness.
Is today's story about day care and its effects on kids' classroom behavior. As any teacher will tell you, the addition (or subtraction) of just one disruptive child into a classroom can make a world of difference with regards to how much actual learning takes place. May there be, then, good educational reasons for trying to encourage alternatives to day care through social or tax policy? And given the overriding problem posed by disruptive kids, what could we do to better prepare teachers for the challenges they pose?
To muddy the waters here a bit, I thought I'd bring up one of the great educational controversies -- testing. Some call standardized tests the only guarantee of real standards in education. Others complain that they force educators to "teach to the test," and waste precious classroom time. I don't intend to get into that debate now, but readers are welcome to take it up in the comments box if they so choose.
Instead, though, I'd like to raise the question: Are we testing the right way? I ask in light of a conversation I recently had with my wife, who for several years taught first and second grades before becoming a full-time, stay-at-home mom.
In my wife's -- and most teachers' -- experience, classroom learning varies widely depending on what students bring with them from home. That is, some kids come "pre-educated" -- they've been read to, exposed to a wide vocabulary, maybe even taught to read -- before ever setting foot in a school. Others come not even knowing English, or having been "pre-educated" no further than whatever they happened to glean spending the day in front of a TV set.
The problem with the current testing system is that it tells us what kids know -- which is a combination of what they brought to school and what school gave them -- but doesn't necessarily measure the education that's been done on campus. In some communities, where parents don't have much education at all, merely getting the kids to grade level may be quite a feat. In others, where students already come in at grade level, keeping them there is a sign of failure.
Might part of the solution to this problem be in (shudder) more testing? What if we tested kids at the beginning of the year, and then again -- using the same standards -- at the end of the year? Unlike current annual testing, we wouldn't be evaluating kids against how they stack up to other kids, or how simply well they know certain material, but how well they've improved their knowledge of that year's standards over the course of that year.
Could such an evaluation give us a better sense of which teachers, which schools, and which curricula are most successful?
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has proposed a detailed nine-point plan aimed at dramatically improving Los Angeles Unified's dropout rate -- a plan that is virtually identical to efforts already in place in the district.
The plan, part of an 18-month review of best practices at schools across the country, proposes everything from boosting after-school programs to improving tracking of at-risk students.
But the district already began implementing such measures last year, raising questions about whether Villaraigosa's vision of school reform is a blueprint that will truly make a difference.
And even though the district and the mayor's efforts appear similar, UCLA professor John Rogers said it's too early to conclude they are the right steps.
``All of the ideas are positive,'' he said. ``Whether they're enough to make a substantial difference is a harder question.''
The Mayor's Office defended its dropout proposal, saying it differs significantly from district efforts because it emphasizes ending the practice of promoting students to the next grade even if they're not ready.
Officials also note the district's dropout efforts have been sporadic and the mayor's plan would emphasize creating smaller, more personalized schools to reduce dropouts.
``There is no evidence that the district has moved to implement a dropout reduction plan with the required urgency to solve the problem,'' said Marshall Tuck, education advisor to the mayor.
``What we need is leaders committed to a total realignment of the organization.''
There are just 60 days left until the Los Angeles Municipal general election on May 15 when voters will decide the fate of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.
The outcome of the two runoff elections, including the Jon Lauritzen-Tamar Galatzan race in the San Fernando Valley, will determine whether LAUSD stays in the same mediocre hands or whether major changes are made.
What the changes are depends on you the voters. We believe LAUSD needs a top-to-bottom overhaul and have challenged Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the candidates he supports and those who he opposes to come clean before the election on what the plan is to end decades of failure in our schools.
We think they also need to hear from parents, students, teachers and everyone in the community who cares about the future of the city and its residents.
So speak your mind. Do it here, in our Education Revolution blog, where we will post our editorials, information from our reporters and your comments.
|
|