We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning LAUSD Breakup
By Greg Gittrich, Staff Writer
A day after the first statewide academic rankings rated 82 percent of Los Angeles schools as below average, officials and community leaders called on Tuesday for greater accountability and a speedup of reform efforts. 96 percent of Los Angeles Unified schools failed to meet the state's educational performance target
In all, 96 percent of Los Angeles Unified schools failed to meet the state's educational performance target, a district analysis showed. Of the 561 schools ranked, only 21 -- including six in the San Fernando Valley -- met the high-achieving target score of 800 on the new Academic Performance Index.
Pressed by interim Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines for a comprehensive response to the dismal showing, district officials recommended an accountability plan that awards money to high-achieving schools and threatens to reassign the staff of failing schools. But poor-performing schools would not face tough sanctions for at least three years and no school personnel could be reassigned unless the school fails to meet its state and district academic goals for at least four years.
"We've found low-scoring schools should be given the opportunity to improve before sanctions are applied," said Judy Burton, assistant superintendent of school reform for the Los Angeles Unified School District. State and local officials and civic leaders reacted with dismay to the API results, which showed that 458 Los Angeles schools out of 561 performed in the bottom half of the state. More than half were in the bottom fifth. In the Valley, 127 out of 170 schools ranked below average, slightly better than the LAUSD's overall performance.
Richard Close, president of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, said the low scores argued for breaking up the mammoth district. "It's easier to solve problems when you have a smaller group of schools to deal with," he said. "Right now, you have a school board focused on 711,000 students. As evidenced by these scores, the task is too big for one board."
Mayor Richard Riordan, a champion of reform, called for stepped-up efforts to improve the schools. "This confirms everything he's been saying," said Noelia Rodriguez, deputy mayor and chief spokeswoman for Riordan. "It's another clear signal that the district needs to move ahead with reform."
Councilwoman Rita Walters, a former school board member, attributed the dismal scores to overcrowded classrooms, a dearth of qualified teachers and limited resources. "This is a very sad situation," Walters said. "And it's complicated. This is not about any one factor."
Maria Casillas, head of the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project school reform effort, said it was troubling that so many urban schools across the state had low scores. "I think it's telling us that urban schools are in deep, deep trouble, but there is promise," said Casillas, who is also working on Cortines' plan to restructure the district. "Some urban schools outperform others, so we need to see what they're doing right.
State schools chief Delaine Eastin hailed the Academic Performance Index as a cornerstone in California's continuing academic reform efforts. "I think this is an important step for California," Eastin said. "I think this will be really meaningful for every parent."
Gov. Gray Davis described the ranking as the beginning of an "era of accountability" for public schools. "It matters less to me where a school ranks today; what really matters is whether it shows improvement a year from today," Davis said. "Starting today, every school will have to demonstrate improvement over its performance in the previous year."
Preliminary recommendations by LAUSD curriculum officials call for schools to be placed into six categories, defined primarily upon ability to meet performance targets imposed by the state. The categories would be used to determine the resources, sanctions and awards meted out to schools.
To boost schools' academic performance, curriculum administrators proposed unspecified changes to the district's standards-based instruction and reading programs as well as health and counseling intervention programs and added professional development for teachers.
Low-performing schools also would receive priority staffing, expanded teaching training and added administrative and technical support, while students would receive more learning time. Schools that fail to meet state-imposed goals would face staff changes and a reduced say over the allocation of their campus budgets.
The state also may impose sanctions if a school fails to meet its target score for two years. The penalties include the removal of a principal, state takeover, the reconstitution of a school and the formation of charter schools.
Schools that perform well on the state index will be eligible for monetary awards from the state and the district. A fund was created for that purpose as part of the Public Schools Accountability Act, the 1999 state law that created the API list. Senior district staffers will not offer final recommendations to the school board until March 15.
"The bottom line is our kids are ultimately tested by whether they can fill out a ballot, whether they can fill out an application for a job and whether they can get into college," board member Caprice Young said.
Cortines warned against putting too much value in API results, which show some district schools performed well when compared with schools with similar student demographics. "I encourage the board to not get caught up in the (comparative data)," Cortines said. "You want your diploma and instructional program to mean something . . . The (comparison data) should be used for motivational purposes. We've really got to use a support system to get us to higher (overall) levels."
Cortines reviewed the API results last week and said he was shocked by the response of district administrators when he asked them how they planned to improve the quality of education for the 711,000 students. "They were not going to do anything," Cortines said. "That's what blew me away." Annoyed, Cortines said he advised the administrators to be prepared to give a detailed presentation to the board Tuesday. His only advice? "Focus," he said.
Following Tuesday's presentation to the board, Cortines said the staff's recommendations were comprehensive.
Finally, the first report card has been issued rating California's public schools, and the news, while not unexpected, is disheartening to many parents with children in Los Angeles. District wide, more than half of Los Angeles Unified schools scored in the bottom 20 percent in the new Academic Performance Index, which was designed to be the linchpin of the state's reform package for schools.
San Fernando Valley schools did better than other schools around the district. But only 25 percent ranked above the state average, and only 12 schools ranked in the top fifth.
The Daily News published school-by-school results Tuesday and repeats them today.
The report comes just as the LAUSD is finally putting to rest the Belmont Learning Center scandal, which has consumed the attention and energy of the reform-minded board since taking control six months ago. But as all Angelenos know, the real issue is not the wasted $170 million on the Belmont Learning Center, but the poor quality of education provided by the LAUSD.
The API is insightful in showing that L.A. can't even match the performance of schools in other parts of the state that have similar demographics, such as students' economic backgrounds and language skills. The report puts the lie to the LAUSD's longstanding claim that it's the kids' fault for bringing schools down. Demographic comparisons show it's the LAUSD's fault.
The report provides some encouragement for Valley parents, since most of the shining examples of excellence and quality are in the Valley. But it's not enough. Northeast Valley schools are among the district's lower performing schools and the LAUSD has, through many incarnations, failed to prove it can produce results among the poor, disadvantaged and immigrant population.
The reason is not simply that it's too big. It's the politics of the district -- there are too many private agendas in play that do nothing to teach kids to read and write.
We believe the Valley is different, that if the community had direct power over its own neighborhood schools, the people of the Valley would rally to the cause and bring the resources and leadership to bear to fix the problems and bring those scores up.
When 299 schools out of 561 rank in the bottom 20 percent compared with other campuses across the state, it is intolerable. The burden for the board and interim Superintendent Ramon Cortines is to somehow find solutions today, not six months or a year from now.
We support them in this Herculean task and urge them to move with all due speed to reorganize schools, push bad principals and bad teachers out of the way and produce improvement by next year when the new API is released.
In the meantime, the Valley has every right to use its resources to push for a breakup, so that at least it can save its own children from a life of illiteracy and poverty. People have a right to provide the best for their own children and the children of their community.
By David Baker, Staff Writer
Los Angeles is home to a few of California's very best public schools -- and many of its worst -- according to the new Academic Performance Index released today.
San Fernando Valley schools, in general, fared better than other schools within the sprawling Los Angeles Unified School District. But only 25 percent ranked above the state average and only 12 schools -- including Granada Hills and El Camino high schools -- ranked in the top fifth. District wide, more than half of Los Angeles Unified schools scored in the bottom 20 percent in the new API rankings.
The index, designed to be the linchpin of the state's education reforms, shows 299 of 561 LAUSD schools ranking in the bottom 20 percent compared with other campuses across the state. Even worse, most of the lowest-ranked Los Angeles schools scored below other campuses throughout California that have similar demographic factors, such as students' economic backgrounds and language skills.
But the index also shows that some area schools rank at the very top statewide. Most of those, located in relatively affluent neighborhoods, compared favorably with other California schools with similarly advantaged students.
And some schools publicly perceived as doing a poor job of educating students actually fared well when compared with similar institutions elsewhere.
"Some people are going to be surprised about Los Angeles," said Day Higuchi, head of the local teachers union. Created by a 1999 state law, the index is designed to show how California schools rate against each other.
Each school receives a simple score based, for now, on the Stanford 9 standardized test. Then, a second score shows roughly how that school compares with all others at its grade level throughout California. A third score rates that school against others statewide with similar characteristics, such as the wealth or poverty of its students and the percentage of its teachers who are fully credentialed.
Finally, each school receives a target score state officials want it to achieve on the next index. Some schools may eventually face sanctions for failing to hit their targets, while others that meet their goals will be eligible for extra money from the state.
By comparing similar schools, the index helps address a long-standing complaint of urban educators. Officials in large districts like Los Angeles have often blamed their low test scores on demographics, saying their schools are filled with many students who are poor and, in many cases, struggling to learn English.
Ann S. Bancroft, spokeswoman for California's secretary of education, said the state wanted to set the bar high for everyone. "The reason it's set up this way is not to say, Oh, well, you've got poor demographics, we don't expect much," she said.
The school-to-school comparison yields surprising results in Los Angeles. More than half of the local schools that performed worst on the index scored below their peers with similar demographics throughout the state. But 115 of LAUSD's lowest-performing schools actually bested the state average for similar schools.
Sylmar's Dyer Street Elementary, for example, scored just 468 on the index, out of a possible 1,000. That performance gave it a statewide ranking of 2, with 10 being the best possible score. But Dyer scored 7 out of 10 when compared with similar schools, much better than average.
School board member Caprice Young drew encouragement from those 115 schools. "That's definitely good news, but it underscores what a lot of work we have to do statewide," she said. "The fact that other people are doing badly doesn't make me feel better."
At the other end of the spectrum, only 32 of the 561 LAUSD schools in the index ranked in the top 20 percent statewide. But almost all of them -- 29 schools -- scored better than average for their demographics.
Academic powerhouses El Camino Real and Granada Hills, for example, both scored nine out of 10 when compared with all high schools throughout the state. When compared to those with similar characteristics, Granada Hills rated nine again, while El Camino hit 10.
Of the Valley's 170 schools, 41 scored above average while the bulk fell below average in the state's first-ever ranking of public schools. Ten Valley elementary schools scored in the top fifth. Only five Valley middle schools performed above average and none scored in the top fifth of the state ranking.
Valley charter schools fared well when compared with schools with similar student populations. Fenton Avenue Charter School in Lake View Terrace performed the best, scoring a 7, while Vaughn Next Century Charter School got a 5 ranking out of 10.
Some schools that are perceived as top performers by the public actually do a poor job educating their students when compared with schools having similar student demographics. Dixie Canyon Elementary in Sherman Oaks, for example, got a ranking of 7 compared with schools throughout the state, but only a rating of 2 when compared with schools with similar student bodies.
Elementary schools in the Northeast Valley ranked at the bottom of the list. Among those in the bottom 10 percent were Broadous, Pacoima, Sylmar, Noble in North Hills and Burton in Panorama City.