romans-utla

Thursday, November 8, 2007

LA High UTLA November Newsletter

11-8-07 UTLA Newsletter

Is Paying the “Net” too “Gross”?

UTLA cannot tell you which "option" to choose on the LAUSD recoupment letter, as each member's payroll

situation is unique. Below is some general information that may be helpful to you. We recommend that

you consult with your accountant for answers to questions specific to your situation.

This is what we believe to be true about each “option:

OPTION 1:

If your records indicate that you owe the amount in the letter, you may select

Option 1. If you select this option you should reduce the net amount in the letter by $250 and write a check to the District for the remaining amount. (The $250 is being waved because the District has determined that the process to collect and resolve disputes would cost at least $250).

Be sure to submit this payment by December 10, 2007, so that your W2 can be adjusted.

OPTION 2:

If your records indicate that you owe less than the District has alleged, you should only write a check for the amount that you are certain that you owe. In addition you should request an appointment with the “District Recoupment Representative.”

Be sure to submit this payment by December 10, 2007, so that your W2 can be adjusted.

OPTION 3:

If you believe that the District’s claim of “over payment” is wrong, you may choose to select OPTION 3. You may also choose, if you wish, to request an appointment with the “District Recoupment Representative.”

OPTION 4:

If you selected OPTIONS 1 and 2 you may wish to select OPTION 4 in order to set up a repayment plan with the District. In addition you may also wish to request an appointment with the “District Recoupment Representative.”

If, as part of a repayment plan, the District asks you to sign any type of agreement, please do not sign it until you have received advice or assistance from qualified representatives.

Dear Staff of Los Angeles High,

While the paycheck problem continues, I would like to propose a simple way that we can be helpful to our fellow LA High workers who are in an extreme financial plight. We could accept donations for a fund. Those who are in extreme hardship due to incorrect paychecks could explain their situation to either Ms. Solomon or Ms. Perez (union chapter co-chairs). We would collect money for about one month, and then split the money between those in need. If each of us gave $10, we could collect approximately $2000. This may not solve the person’s problem long term, but it could certainly alleviate an immediate burden.

If no one comes forward to the union co-chairs by the time the December paychecks have been distributed, then the donations would be returned. You would bring the donation to me and I will keep track of it, until the union co-chairs notify me that we have recipients. I will give the donation to the co-chairs who will, in turn, give the money to the recipients. If the money is distributed, then I will notify the donors by letter.

If you think this is a good idea and would like to help, please bring your donation to me in room 372, or send it with a responsible student in a sealed envelope with your name. Cash would be best as then I would not have to deal with the banks and depositing checks. Please do not put it in my box, as this is not a secure spot.

Thank you for consideration of this support effort.

Sincerely,

Clayton Estep

Science Department Chair



Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Cleanliness & Security Survey Results

n
Cleanliness & Security Survey Results
  • n*Classrooms need sweeping & mopping (Sweep floors daily/mop weekly)
  • n2nd floor lacking trash take out (3 different rooms)
  • nRoaches and mice infestation again
  • nHave any concerns been shared with the Night Shift Manager?
  • nPlace trashcans in the 2nd & 3rd floor hallways
  • nMore day time custodians needed
  • nGet rid of 3rd crew night shift (been seen hanging out in room 270 @ night)
  • nPeriod checks of night and day shift work
  • n3rd floor women’s restroom: 1 toilet needs work (too hard to flush)
  • nMake sure all staff & student bathrooms are fully stocked with paper towels, toilet paper, soap & seat covers
  • nLarge trashcans in every room
  • nHave leadership post up signs about school cleanliness & remind them to remove all posters
Cleanliness Survey Results
  • nHave a consistent discipline plan that is enforced
  • n*There is NO supervision on the 2nd floor all day during passing period or at the start of school! (only recently during lunch)
  • nWhere is the Tardy Sweep? (Is playing music still the signal? If not, don’t play it.)
  • nStudents are always in the bathroom (smoking & drugs)
  • nEnforce school rules
  • n*Security sweep through each hallways after passing period to push students into class
  • nGo back to announcing how many minutes are left until the tardy bell.
  • nMore security needed during the day.
  • nClear bathrooms after passing periods (lock them for 10 min and re-open them after 10)
  • nStudents outside of class with no pass should be sent to class and/or the Dean’s Office
  • nKeep students out of the teacher parking lot (entrance/exit area)
  • nA permanent security guard stationed in the middle of campus

n

Monday, November 5, 2007

Retreat Notes

Notes from the UTLA LAHS November 3rd Retreat

Agenda
1. An Assessment of LA High’s Strengths and Weaknesses as they relate to developing a plan for reform
2. Developing OUR vision - Why do we need one? How could we make one? And what is it?!
3. What elements do we need to put into place/build on in order to get our reform vision started
4. Next Steps

What actually happened at the meeting:

1. Assessment:


Strengths
SLCs:
• Smaller groups (students and staff)
• Heightened Teacher Collaboration
• Willingness of 60%+ percent of our faculty to participate is evidence that real comprehensive reform may be possible
• Expanded Leadership capacity and strength (seeing good things as more people are getting involved in design teams, etc)

Professional Development
• Seems generally more focused, more meaningful
• We actually have control over a great deal of what is going on in our PD (especially compared to other schools)

People are demonstrating a willingness to step up and take on new roles and leadership capacities

CLC: technology exists, is accessible and appears to be expandable at LAHS
Students appear willing to participate in big changes in the school culture (hats, ipods, SLCs)

We have a big chunk of quality teachers and a strong batch of newer, dedicated teachers

We have some money to play with e.g. QEIA, even if there is less of other funds than there were last year.

UTLA local chapter has some depth and strength.

Weaknesses
• Communication
o Between Staff
o No clear point people for certain resources and information
• Discipline policy, particularly consistency problems
• Integration of ESL students and Special Education students
• Data Transparency and Usability (meaningfulness)
• Lack of Training: technology, forms, student services and interventions
• General Lack of Clear Policies and Procedures
• Lack of Administrative Accountability and high administrative turnover
• Weak Communication amongst Teacher and Parent Leadership: Building council, SBM, SSC, Dept Chairs, parent councils
• Lack of a Real Unified Vision for the direction of the school
• Lack of Genuine Control: meeting times, bell schedule, etc
• Lack of Budget Transparency: Dr. Choe, S. Austin
• Bureaucratic system – near total lack of administrative accountability
• Programming problems and track equity
• Concerns about maintaining funding for CLC
• Weak community connections
• Weak parent involvement and underused parent resource center

2. Reform Vision

OverView of Discussion:
We discussed WHY and IF a vision was needed. The answer seemed a unanimous Yes (make much easier by our collective assessment that the lack of a common collective vision was a weakness.

With WASC/accreditation, the revising/re/writing of the LAHS Single School Plan, and the threats of being a PI5 school in a PI3 district all upon us, combined with the potential openings of the Innovation Division and other reform potentials which would require from us a clear sense of direction in order to be able to participate, it seemed to make a lot of sense to develop our own reform vision. This kind of plan could work to align all the work we are doing and help us all be on the same page.

We looked at three documents (see attached) the LAHS contributions at the Local District 3 focus groups; the 10 Schools Common Issues Modified for LAHS (made at the time when the superintendent promised $17 million to those high need schools), and the Crenshaw High Reform Vision. There are other documents that would be useful to look at (our High Priority School Grant Plan, the Mayor’s current proposal on school reform) but we focused on a few (short) ones.

There were strong cautions against forgetting – we have to use our institutional memory to say what it is we want and what we do NOT want (using our experiences and our ideas). We recognized that people might be a bit suspicious of starting a process of visioning when this had been done in different forms before. However, there was a clear recognition that a clear vision could be really useful in not only approaching 3rd party partners or the district and pushing them to move on our plans (as opposed to their own), as well as focusing our budgets and facilitating collaboration and communication between the different groups on campus.

Specifics of the Plan:

The easiest way, it seemed, to organize a reform plan was to have a number of key categories or shared values: “pillars”. By looking at the specific things that could be demands or elements of reform, we came up with a number of overarching categories:
 Control over our School Site/Local Power/Autonomy
 Parent Engagement (including under it things like z-time to call parents; fully funded parent center with computers for public/parent use, consistent community outreach)
 Classroom Quality
 Accountability
 Control over Funds and Generally Increased Resources
 Control over Scheduling
 Cleanliness/School Environment (increased custodial time
 Support for Teachers/Development of Teacher Networks
 Increased Class Offerings and Electives as well as Coordination of Curriculum with Middle Schools, Adult Schools and Intersession

There was a lot of discussion about what each of these could look like and what elements would support each more general topic.

3. Process to Flesh This Reform Plan Out:

We set a goal of having a strong draft of this Reform Plan out by the March Track Change. By that point we proposed having an all track meeting where the plan was revealed and (hopefully) approved. This would give us time to move on things for the 2008-9 School year. Then to follow this up with a community LAHS Townhall Meeting to make sure that this reached into the community.

Stephanie Forman agreed to take these ideas and turn them into some key organizing categories and then turn them back to us for further discussion and refinement (via email).

We discussed each one of us on the steering committee or interested participants taking some responsibility for further fleshing out areas of interest and then turning them back to the rest of us for discussion (via email).

After Stephanie gets us an initial skeleton that we then flesh out a bit, each of us would take on a subsection to further elaborate.
 Carmen Blacklock said she would further flesh out the section around Parent Outreach/Engagement
 What will you do?

Getting Additions/Feedback Contributions to the Reform Vision:

Discussions with Key Groups
This very rudimentary plan needs to be further elaborated, added to, etc. The process we discussed was one in which we would engage folks in a variety of ways – small groups lunch or afterschool conversations, one-on-one meetings during lunch, conversations in our departments or SLCs,etc.

Some subgroupings of LAHS that we zeroed in on as important included (in parentheses are the teachers who agreed to help get feedback from these groups) PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME TO A GROUP

* Students
* Parents (Carmen, Rebecca)
* Classified
* Lead Teachers
* Departments
* Alumni Teachers (Tim)
* Mid-Level Experience Teachers (8-15 year vets) (Rebecca)
* New Teachers
* Veteran Teachers (Tim)

Key Questions that we would pose to these groups:
? What do we need in terms of support services?
? What do we need in terms of safety?
? What do we need in terms of parent involvement?
? What do we need in terms of instruction/curriculum?
? What do we need in terms of school leadership?
? What do we need in order to improve communication?

(We might use a different filter when talking to different groups on campus, e.g.
• At a UTLA meeting: What do you want to see in terms of….?
• To new teachers: What do you need in terms of…?
• To veteran teachers: When things were the best, what did you have….? What do you not have now that you once did that was useful?)

Survey of Staff and Community:
We also discussed the creation of a survey at the beginning of the process in order to create a baseline for improvement
 A survey for the overall needs of the school
 A survey for how our administration is doing(!) in the spirit of collaboration and accountability

Parallel Track to the Development of the Reform Vision:

Concurrent with the creation of our school reform vision would be a seeking out of ‘audience’: we discussed the need to reach out to
* 3rd Party Partners to a) give us ideas and feedback on the reform vision and b) to potentially work with us to help us get the autonomy we need to implement our reform plan (e.g. get into the Innovation Division or get out of any High Priority Schools punishments)
* Community organizations who could partner with us on the implementation of our reform vision at the local level, actually helping us do some of the things that we want

“Branding” the Plan:

As people are participating in the creation of the plan, there needs to be a way to unify the process itself. Carmen was talking about a catchphrase; Jason was talking about a ‘tagline’. We need something that identifies the process.

Accountability to and for the Reform Vision:
We realized that a lot of the cynicism about the creation of reform plans comes from a history of making plans and not implementing them. While we aren’t going to be able to move on the accountability piece right away, we did discuss the need to
* Create an accountability timeline
* Assign groups on campus to certain aspects of the Reform Vision in order to work on accountability around those aspects.
* Continuously survey the staff on the administration, as well as other bodies on campus, to see how well people are doing (especially those who do not appear accountable to anyone in particular – a problem in a bureaucracy).

5. NEXT STEPS:

a. Help flesh out the plan over email
b. Pick some subgroups that you can solicit information/feedback from
c. Figure out if you have contacts with or want to help contact 3rd party partners or community organizations

Friday, November 2, 2007

FOOD AND DIALOGUE on SAT 11/3

http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-ed-brewer2nov02,1,4963675.story?coll=la-news-learning

This Saturday at 10AM at Felicia's house we are going to get together to talk about these issues, look at some materials and work on a strategic plan.

there will be food and relaxed dialogue.

Hope to see you there1769 Clinton St Los Angeles, CA 90026 (two blocks east of Alvarado; four blocks south of Sunset)

ThanksRebecca

School Reform at Crenshaw

School Reform at Crenshaw

We share a commitment to a process of school reform and restructuring through democratic, empowered collaboration among all stakeholders, where all stakeholders are accountable to each other. From this commitment springs a vision for educational excellence centered on the fostering of skilled, culturally-literate, autonomous learners who are well prepared to lead constructive and fulfilling lives.

We see a restructured and reinvigorated Crenshaw High School as a place where:
A. Personalized teaching and learning, and a strong sense of community, help students feel they belong, thereby supporting high student morale, a safe environment, strong attendance, and high academic achievement.

B. Positive, nurturing relationships among students, between students and teachers, and between students and other adults help students to enjoy school and to be interested in learning.
C. Effective support services are provided by adults who know students’ individual abilities, needs, and goals.

D. Students are prepared and empowered for active and constructive citizenship
1. Through engagement with the local community
2. Through student centered learning3. By having input into decisions that affect their lives4. By promotion of integration and mutual appreciation among diverse groups in the school5. By being encouraged and required to think critically about important issues

E. Students' academic achievement is enhanced because

1. Teachers make each other better through sustained and systematic collaboration2. Curricular unity is promoted without sacrificing the creativity of individual teachers
3. Interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning are facilitated
4. All stakeholders within the educational process are active and accountable
5. The curriculum is rigorous and standards-based

To support these goals, Crenshaw High School will reconfigure into smaller units (whether called “small learning communities,” “small schools,” or “academies”) by the beginning of the fall semester, 2008. To carry out this restructuring process it is imperative that:

1. Full support be given to the 9th grade academy and the career academies that are currently on campus, namely the Media, Art, and Design Academy and the Business and Entrepreneurship Academy, which may serve as models for successful implementation of “small learning communities” at Crenshaw High School.

2. School Improvement Facilitator Mr. Terrence Dunn be reassigned to Crenshaw High School

3. Administrators, faculty, parents, and students immediately begin to work together in a collaborative manner towards making this vision a reality.

Even as the restructuring process is moving forward, Crenshaw needs support in reaching a number of goals which fall within several distinct strands. Each strand is important in its own right, and the addressing of each will ultimately support a successful restructuring outcome. Over the last 3 years, we have made different levels of progress within different strands. We would expect all reform partners to assist in moving all strands forward.

Instruction

Ø Program of regular, respectful classroom visitations, systematically created by all stakeholders, with feedback going through departments and shaping instructional practices.
Ø Implementation of school-wide student evaluations of teachers.
Ø Parent, faculty, and administrative collaboration to agree on what assessments to use to measure student learning.
Ø Getting results of these assessments into parents and faculty’s hands as soon as possible, along with support for reading the data and incorporating it into instruction.
Ø Implementation of school-wide reading program.

Professional Development

Ø 100% of professional developments created collaboratively between administration, staff, parents, and students, focused on best practices, lesson study, cultural relevance, standards-based education, inquiry-based learning, and active learning.
Ø Expand, with appropriate support, the Academic English Mastery Program (AEMP), the Literacy Cadre, and protocols for lesson study and mutual classroom observations within departments.

New Teacher Support

Ø Capacity for new teachers to receive money for attending series of classroom management seminars held here at Crenshaw.
Ø Capacity to pay for full mentor system for all new teachers.

Student Intervention System

Ø A collaborative process to ensure there is a streamlined and transparent system between classroom, counseling office, dean’s office, intervention office, and administration to provide support to and intervention for (tardy and discipline-related, if necessary) all students. Accountability in following through on this system, and clarity in roles.
Ø Telephones that call off campus for each classroom to facilitate teacher-parent communication.
Ø Plan to fix / upgrade camera system for school.
Ø Potential to have more than one full-time dean of students, elected by the faculty, without increasing class size for other classroom teachers.
Ø Stronger and more consistent relationship with human relations organizations that facilitates regular and ongoing events on racial understanding, diversity, tolerance, violence, etc.

Governance / Single School Plan

Ø Support for School Site Council (SSC) – with its coordinated sub-committees and advisory boards, such as Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (CEAC) and English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) – to be the governing body of the school, including administration, elected faculty, elected parents, elected community, elected classified, and elected students.
Ø Support for appropriate trainings and paid time to ensure that these bodies have the knowledge and expertise to lead the school.
Ø Support for the Single School Plan being the living document that drives the school, revised each year by SSC, using data that is provided to them, workshops provided to them, etc., in doing the revisions.
Ø Accountability to the Single School Plan, through workshops for all stakeholders on what it says, what it means, etc., on extra paid time if necessary.

Governance Autonomies

Ø Streamlined way to sustain the merger of School Site Council (SSC) and Local Leadership Council – so that we have only one governing body.
Ø Support for SSC – and its coordinated structures, such as sub-committees, CEAC, and ELAC – to have control over all budgets that come to the school site, not just categorical.
Ø Support for SSC to hire and fire administration, faculty, and staff (consistent with due process and consistent with any guidelines created by Local 99, CSEA, UTLA, or AALA).
Ø Support for SSC – and its coordinated structures – to have purview over all broad areas of school policy, including plant aspects, calendar, technology plan, small learning communities conversion, reform programs, etc.

Class Size

Ø Capacity to cap class size in all subject areas at 32 or lower, P.E. at 55 or lower, and Special Ed classes at 14 or lower, while maintaining lower class size mandates in 9th and 11th grade where they exist.

Counseling

Ø Reduce student-to-counselor ratios to national average, 184-to-1.

Support Services

Ø Sufficient campus aides to supervise entire campus, with health benefits so that the school can retain these employees over the long-term.
Ø Two, rather than one, full-time psychiatric social workers.
Ø Permanent funding for two, rather than one, full-time Pupil Services and Attendance (PSA) counselors.
Ø Medical and dental clinic on campus for students and their families.
Ø Two, rather than one, school psychologists
Ø Intervention center where all of these services are located together.
Ø Expansion of Summer Bridge program for incoming 9th graders.
Ø Greater presence of School Safety Officers and School Police.

Technology

Ø At least 8-10 top-of-the-line computers in each classroom, in addition to teacher computer.
Ø Laptop for every teacher.
Ø Professional development support (paid beyond regular, if necessary) for all faculty on how to use these computers, both pedagogically and mechanically.
Ø Support for two full-time technology coordinators or micro-techs.
Ø Dedicated reading lab, math lab, updated computers in all computer classes, and at least 2 dedicated computer labs for classes to use.
Ø Support for other technologies in each classroom – LCD projectors, TV/VCR, etc.

Instructional Materials

Ø Enough textbooks for students to have one at home and class set in each class
Ø New and adequate classroom furniture
Ø Multi-hundred dollar stipend for each teacher to spend on class materials each semester
Ø Support for student-run copy center/resource center to be fully-loaded with materials and supplies
Ø Clear, consistent, time-efficient policy for ordering and attaining supplies

Community and School Partnerships

Ø Deep and consistent relationships with feeder schools that could include collaboration on diagnostic testing and the development of the master schedule, collaboration on consistent academic and disciplinary standards and practices, etc.
Ø Development of a Crenshaw Educational Collaborative that includes the many, many community organizations that the Crenshaw Cougar Coalition parents, administration, UTLA, departments, and individual faculty have worked with over the years – that could include existing organizations focused on school reform and redesign, health issues, civil rights, gender equity, racial understanding, community organizing, employment, college-going culture, etc.

Facilities

Ø Continued work to ensure that campus is inviting, park-like, encompassing of place for student and staff gathering, etc.






Innovation Division for Educational Achievement

idivision
Los Angeles Unified School District
Innovation Division for Educational Achievement


The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has outlined five guiding principles aimed at improving student achievement, in support of the Los Angeles Board of Education’s reform vision and the school district’s mission statement. Principle 3 establishes innovation as a core element of LAUSD’s transformation plan by calling on district officials to:

Improve the use of internally and externally derived innovations in order to drive a substantial and sustainable organizational change

In order to realize this goal, the Superintendent has created the Innovation Division for Educational Achievement of the Los Angeles Unified School District as a separate office, reporting directly to the Superintendent of Schools. The Division will enter into memoranda of understandings (MOUs) with four to six different “network providers” who will oversee clusters or families of schools.

Innovation schools will tightly couple an increased accountability for high achievement with the authority and resources required to successfully reach such objectives.

Participation in IDivision will grant each network provider at least five important autonomies including: 1) increased choice in determining a standards-based curriculum that includes a tight alignment of professional development, formative and summative assessments, and teaching strategies; 2) increased flexibility in hiring school personnel; 3) increased decision-making over school budgets; 4) ability to determine school day, schedule, calendar, and enrichment programming; 5) ability to independently contract with some external service providers. Networks may want to create internal, independent metrics of evaluation but also must comply with a standard set of metrics established by IDIVISION. Moreover, all networks must submit evidence to IDivision of a plan to align teaching, professional development, and assessments around a common, standards-based curriculum. All employees of the IDIVISION schools will be employees of the Los Angeles Unified School District. All IDIVISION schools must adhere to the regulations contained in the California State Education Code.

Theories of Action

IDIVISION is based on several theories of action contained in the literature on school reform, child development, and management theory. Such theories include:

Civic Capacity
At its core, IDIVISION believes that schools can improve when they engage the civic capacity of a given community. The theory that school reform works best when it martials the political, economic, human, and physical capital of civic institutions has been articulated most prominently by Clarence Stone, Jeff Henig, and Bryan Jones in their 2001 study of eleven urban school districts. The authors argue that:

It is essential for all important actors in an urban community to join together in a shared vision of what is wrong in the schools and how to fix it, and to pursue that vision strongly and systematically over a long time. That can only happen, however, if those same actors develop the ability and willingness to set aside narrow aims and opportunistic behavior in favor of pursuing the collective good.[i]

Because external partners bring civic capacity and engagement to the process of schooling, all IDIVISION projects must contain a partnership with an external network provider who will commit to a sustained, engaged role in running and evaluating schools. These external network providers must be anchored in the community, have the capacity to build and hold the community’s trust, and serve as a conduit for the necessary dialogue, facilitation, research and learning processes required for change. The networks will bring together parents, students, teachers, local organizations, local elected representatives, and all other interested and invested members of the community in order to create strategic school reform.

We expect networks to make the process as inclusive as possible, inviting not only teachers and parents of students currently attending the schools, but parents of alumni, alumni, interested community members, students, etc. The school transformation plan will, under the guidance of the network partner, incorporate all of the voices and interests of the diverse group of community members.

Eligible networks may include educational, government, community, academic, non-profit, or cultural institutions. Networks will apply for five-year performance contracts with IDIVISION. Contracts will be closely monitored and will contain provisions for termination at any time during those five years.

Families of Schools
IDIVISION strongly believes that the educational experiences of pre-kindergarten through adult education need to be more explicitly linked. Compelling research suggests that pre-kindergarten educational programs have powerful effects on long-term educational, economic, and health outcomes in adulthood.[ii] Moreover, many achievement gaps begin before students formally enter school.[iii]

In traditional school systems, preschool, elementary, secondary, and adult/alternative educators have few opportunities to interact and collaborate, leading to bifurcation and isolation of each age group. As a result, difficult transition periods (between 5th and 6th grade, for example) are too often overlooked.

In order to increase the level of communication among educators of children of all ages, IDIVISION will focus on “families” of schools. We define a family of schools as a set of institutions that includes partners from preschool programs, elementary schools, secondary schools, career/vocational institutions, and adult education programs. All IDIVISION networks must incorporate a plan to involve preschool through adult educational programs within the first five years of operation. Involvement in a family of schools may be an informal link between traditional LAUSD schools, charter schools, or other educational entities such as universities, or may be a formal link that specifically includes the school in the partnership agreement.

Empowered Leadership
A key theory of action underlying IDIVISION is that important decisions on teaching and learning should be made by those who are as close as possible to the students. IDIVISION schools will focus on an empowered building leadership making important policy decisions, with tight alignment between authority, autonomy, and accountability. IDIVISION principals and network leaders will have increased autonomy over decisions related to budgets, hiring/staff, scheduling, and school programming.

Equity
Successful school reform must be able to demonstrate significant results with the same populations of students that attend traditional district schools. IDIVISION networks will educate all children in compliance with existing state and federal laws. IDIVISION will carefully monitor the networks’ compliance with equity provisions and requirements.

Replication for System-wide Change
The overall mission of IDIVISION is to experiment with a streamlined method of governing, managing, and teaching children within a large urban school network. Our success will not only be measured by how well students in IDIVISION schools achieve, but also how networks disseminate their innovative practices in a way that can be replicated in the larger school district. IDIVISION will benchmark and replicate those practices that prove particularly successful in improving student outcomes.

IDIVISION Leadership
IDIVISION will take a new approach in assembling its management team. Successful educators will serve as the core of the management team. Professionals from other relevant fields such as business, non-profit management, government, etc. will join the core group of educators in order to create a healthy synthesis of skill sets and perspectives.

Individuals within other LAUSD central divisions and Local District offices will be identified as supporting team members, with ongoing involvement in IDIVISION policies, procedures, and implementation. The collaboration between IDIVISION and District-wide staff will draw upon the deep expertise of existing LAUSD personnel and, at the same time, facilitate the introduction of successful practices into the LAUSD infrastructure through a highly-matrixed organizational structure.

An IDIVISION Advisory Board, comprised of no more than five individuals recognized for their outstanding work in educational, policy, community, business, and organizational innovation, will serve on a rotating basis to advise IDIVISION and the Superintendent. An additional adjunct advisory committee, comprised of a much broader spectrum of local, national, business, community and educational interests, will meet no more than twice a year to support IDIVISION in outreach, communication, successful practices, and individual expertise.

Increased Accountability

All of the innovations described above are hollow promises without an unrelenting focus on student outcomes. All IDIVISION networks and schools will be granted five-year performance contracts that will include multiple measures of career and college success. The IDIVISION will conduct frequent, formative assessments in every Innovation Division school in order to aid networks in their management. Student data will be based upon and integrated with LAUSD student data systems, but will be enhanced by specific progress metrics identified by each IDIVISION school and their supporting network.

Networks that do not meet their goals will initially receive specific interventions and support to address shortfalls, but will lose their performance contract and their schools will be returned to district management if interventions are not successful in recovering performance objectives.

Timeframe

Planning Year I: 2007-2008
In the first year, no more than 4 to 6 networks will be invited to participate in IDIVISION. After a formal invitation has been granted, networks must submit evidence of the following:
· A committed network provider who will commit to sign an MOU for a 5 year partnership;
· An intent to include a Family of Schools articulation in the development of the schools strategic plan;
· Approval of 60% of the full teaching staff at each school in the Family;
· Approval of 50% of all parents attending a designated meeting at each school in the Family;
· Commitment of support by a significant number of community members, as evidenced by active Neighborhood Council Support (where applicable) and/or support from a minimum of 5 community-based entities such (as but not limited to non-profit organizations, businesses, community organizations, etc.);
· Commitment of support by non-teaching personnel at each school in the Family;
· Student voice will be included in the planning process;
· A commitment to work towards a strategic plan for each school during the planning year. The strategic plan will identify school goals, progress indicators and accountability measures, how curriculum, teaching and assessments are aligned, resource allocations, professional development, and governance mechanisms.

Years II-IV: 2008-2010
Each year, between two to eight networks will be chosen from a competitive application process based on the criteria established above.

Year V: 2010-2011
External evaluation of IDIVISION


Frequently Asked Questions

What is the process for becoming an IDIVISION school?
1. The Superintendent will invite a limited number of potential network partners (representing a family of schools) to submit a letter of interest to participate in the division.
2. Each school determines through a 60% vote of the entire faculty, plus a 50% vote of parents present at a noticed meeting, if they wish to accept the Superintendent’s invitation.
3. The Superintendent will signify the acceptance of school into IDIVISION with a letter of intent that commits the school to the Division for a minimum term of five years, and a formal contract agreement with the network partner specifically outlining accountability measures, roles and responsibilities.
4. Upon receipt of a confirmed letter of intent, an Instructional Network developer will be assigned to a network from IDIVISION as the delegated authority from the Superintendent. From that point on, IDIVISION is directly accountable for the relationship.
5. In collaboration with the families of schools, the network partner, parents, community, and other identified stakeholders, IDIVISION would immediately begin a facilitated planning process. The goal of the planning period will be to create a strategic plan for each school and the entire network. In addition, IDIVISION will help networks identify those resources and critical benchmarks that will be needed for the planning year. School plans will vary from school to school.
6. School plans must include the process for identifying leadership and faculty for implementation in the following school year.


Who will be invited to participate?
1. In the summer of 2007, invitations will be sent to a limited number of school clusters that represent a diverse group of constituents, that have evidence of an existing external partnership (or have indicated interest in working with an external partnerships), and that are willing to work as a family of schools.
2. Beginning in the 2008-2009 school year, the process for entry into IDIVISION will be opened to larger group of applicants.

What does it mean to be an IDIVISION school?
1. IDIVISION schools report to IDIVISION, under the direct accountability of the Superintendent. Networks may opt to procure services from the existing local district structure as may be appropriate to their school plans, but they are otherwise not included in the LAUSD Local District structure.
2. IDIVISION schools will be granted increased autonomy over budgets, hiring, school governance, school programming, selection of personnel, and working conditions (such as calendar, length of day, etc.) through an election-to-work agreement developed at the school site.
3. Each IDIVISION school and network will determine a set of progress indicators for one planning year and four mobilization years. Internal and external quality review teams will conduct an in-depth assessment of each school/network’s progress at Year III. If a school is demonstrating 11/2/2007difficulty in meeting progress indicators, IDIVISION will target resources to help schools meet targets.
4. All personnel in IDIVISION schools will remain LAUSD union employees, with protected rights for salary, benefits, and seniority upon return to any traditional LAUSD school structure. Job descriptions, commitments, accountabilities, additional financial opportunities, etc. will be developed by each network during the planning year.
5. Existing teachers, administrators and classified personnel will apply to participate in IDIVISION schools. If an individual determines that the election-to-work agreements or the school plan, as developed by the school during the planning year, does not represent the professional working environment that s/he chooses, they will be provided a transfer opportunity within LAUSD.
6. As needed, IDIVISION will provide resources for each network to engage in planning and implementation work. Resources may include additional direct budget resources for items such as time during the day for teams to plan or research, and may include non-direct resources such as access to high quality consultants to support specific school needs. In the planning year, IDIVISION will devise the process by which it allocates resources to each network.

How will IDIVISION relate to the Local District structure?
1. The intent of IDIVISION is to identify, model, and replicate successful practices in representative LAUSD schools for the purpose of leading change in classroom instruction and operational support.

[i] Clarence N. Stone, Jeffrey R. Henig, Bryan D. Jones, and Carol Pierannunzi, Building Civic Capacity: The Politics of Engaging Public Schools, Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001.
[ii] Arthur Reynolds et al, “Effects of School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-Being,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Volume 161, No. 8, August, 2007.
[iii] Lyn Karoly and James Bigelow, “The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California,” Rand Corporation, 2005.

Hello!!

As many of you have probably heard or read, Brewer looks to be backing off of his 44 schools separate district plan. Whether that means he is backing off of a plan to give us 'special treatment' even without a special district remains to be seen. Thanks to the hard organizing work of LAHS and the other 43 schools, Brewer realized he was not going to get any support (even the president of the Principals' Union didn't back him up.) If this turns out to be true, it would be a great thing; however, what it doesn't guarantee us is the room and resources to implement the kinds of plans we have for LAHS. It also doesn't mean that Brewer will not try and get some of the more insidious pieces of his plan in through the back door. Romer didn't need a high priority school district to mess with the 10 schools. He didn't need that kind of district to implement Open Court (the scripted curriculum for elementary school reading and writing) Brewer will be presenting his plan on the 13th of NOvember and the board will be voting on it on the 27th of November. His plan seems to be back on the drawing board. So we should still be ready to counterpose our plan with any that come down from the district. There is already backlash - that the superintendent is a wimp; that he not doing enough to 'fix' schools. (See Diane Rabinowitz's great response to such a backlash that came out in the time - it is cut and pasted at the end of the email)In the meantime, the innovation division seems prickly but interesting and stands as Brewer's only currently more-or-less formed reform. Only a few schools are in it and a few school board members are not supportive of the innovation division because it means that those schools will be taken out of their district - losing those school board members the opportunity to claim success and making them obvious candidates to be called failures (as the schools would rather get out of the local district and the school board member's district than stay in them)

So the question remains, what do we at LAHS want to do?


Do we want to make a break for the innovation division? This will take a bit of work - you have to get a 3rd party partner to replace the local district in a support role; you have to get a 60% yes vote from your faculty; and you have to make a five year committment (arguably longer than the district's past committments to any other reform plan!).


Do we want to try and find leverage with the big district and local district to get them to provide us with the resources, support and space we need to implement what we already have going and continue to work our plans?


Is there another route we could try?I have attached some documents that might help provoke conversation - Crenshaw's reform plan and timeline, a little background on the Innovation Division and the Brewer article about the potential abandonment of the High Priority Schools District.

Yesterday's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-lausd1nov01,1,2035213.story?coll=la-news-learningEditorial Response:

http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-ed-brewer2nov02,1,4963675.story?coll=la-news-learning

This Saturday at 10AM at Felicia's house we are going to get together to talk about these issues, look at some materials and work on a strategic plan. there will be food and relaxed dialogue.

Hope to see you there

1769 Clinton St Los Angeles, CA 90026 (two blocks east of Alvarado; four blocks south of Sunset)

ThanksRebecca