romans-utla

Los Angeles High School UTLA Newsletter

2008-05-19T13:31:00.000-07:00

Budget Cuts Fight Back!

These proposed budget cuts mean potentially bad news for schools…unless we stand up against them!

What the District is Saying:

Yesterday, the Governor announced his revision of the state budget. While it professes to “fully fund education”, according to Proposition 98 requirements, it would actually cut state education funding by $3 billion (or about $300 million to LAUSD). UTLA along with LAUSD Superintendent and Board President denounced the new budget as unacceptable.

What are they NOT Saying?!

Deep cuts…if we don’t fight back now. Not just the kind we are used to (i.e. electives, field trips, conferences), but bigger – class size norm increases are definitely being talked about. A raise in the class size norm means that we would not have district funding for as many teachers.

It could mean cuts in health care coverage. The district attempts this in fat times – we are almost assured they will attempt it in lean times. And beyond education, it could mean cuts in public services that directly hurt our students and their families (as well as many of us!)

What have we DONE?!

On May 4th, there was a big caravan to the Governor’s house in Malibu to let him know that he wouldn’t be safe from angry teachers ANYWHERE!

May 14^th, the DAY OF THE TEACHER – We did amazing picketing!

What else do we need to DO?!

May 29th – Parent Leafleting at PHABAO/Parent Night. We need to build a relationship with parents that is on-going, not a one-time thing. Unfortunately, right now, we do not have a fully functioning parent center, so we have to get out there and let parents know what is going on and how it could impact their kids…especially in preparation for the June 6^th job action.

June 6th AM Job Action –

On that day, UTLA members across LAUSD will stay outside of school with our parent/community allies and picket for the first hour of school. Here’s what’s at stake if the budget cuts go through:

□ There will be NO RAISES for the foreseeable future.

□ LAUSD will aggressively move to cut your health care benefits.

□ Class sizes will increase dramatically.

□ LAUSD can and will declare a state of emergency, which allows them to lay off permanent teachers without notice.

□ The jobs of thousands of talented probationary teachers—the future of our profession—will be in jeopardy.

By standing strong on June 6^th, we can go a long way in pushing the district to back off their potential cuts. Let’s show them our strength NOW. For one hour, we can stand together, outside LAHS, together with students and parents, and then walk back inside in order to remind the district what life would be like without us. (more discussions to come on this – including at UTLA meetings)

Call Somebody!

Give ‘Em a Piece of Your Mind!

Tell a CA Assembly Person or Senator to oppose the $4.8 billion in budget cuts and to make sure they continue to support Prop 98 which guarantees funding for schools in the state budget!

Mark Ridley-Thomas 213-745-6656

senator.ridley-thomas@sen.ca.gov

Gilbert Cedillo 213 612 9566

senator.cedillo@sen.ca.gov

Karen Bass 323 937 4747

Assemblymember.bass@assembly.ca.gov

Coordinator Elections Context

Thursday morning a panel of arbitrators met with Jean Moore, Ms. Anthony, Ms. Solomon and Ms. Perez. The arbitrators were: 1 UTLA Retired Teacher & 1 LAUSD Retired Principal. They conducted individual interviews with the aforementioned parties and decided who our Title I Coordinator will be for the next year. During the interviews your UTLA Co-Chairs strongly aired opposition to the process by which our current Title I Coordinator was informed of not being put forth on the ballot by Ms. Anthony. The results of the elections and the poll gave us a strong sense that the faculty of LAHS are not going to stand for Local District influence on our staffing and a lack of administrative support. We heard that what we need is an administrative team that provides support and just punitive responses. We were told during the arbitration process that the panel would not tell us why they reached the decision that they did but that their ultimate decision would be final.

In the end their final decision was to support the principal’s nomination of Ms. Karla Spivey. She will be in the position for one year and then will need to be re-nominated for a 2 year term in the Spring of ‘09. Over the last few weeks the contract procedure has been discussed, but the question is how did this mess get started?

Sold away our rights
In the 90’s, in the midst of pay cuts and budget cuts, not unlike now, UTLA bargained away competitive elections for coordinators. As part of a deal to get raises, this was generally supported by the membership. After a 10% cut, many people were happy for something. Since then UTLA hasn’t negotiated around elections in a decade.

Timeliness

We are a year round multi-track school which causes all kinds of mess on a daily basis. In the case of elections, it’s worse. Due to reasonable B-track pressure on the Elections Committee, people had until 9AM on Friday, April 25^th, to turn in their letters of intent to be coordinators (and could have turned in letters as early as February). This was, not coincidentally, the first day of elections. As the principal had until noon to choose her candidate, no one knew her choice until the polls opened.

Timeliness Pt II

The administrator’s decision to wait until the last minute to make a choice about candidates threw everyone into confusion…and generated a lot of frustration and resentment. Many teachers have stated that the reason they registered a “NO” vote on election day was because they felt that there had been insufficient notice given to the current Title I Coordinator about his non-selection. Others stated concern that the Local District 3 High School Director was playing too large a role in the personnel decisions of LAHS. Many said that a “NO” vote was a rejection of a flawed process, not a person.

The Future

As a union, we need to press accountability, timeliness, and transparency with ourselves and our administrators. This kind of debacle cannot happen again.

The position of Title I Coordinator can have a powerful impact on a school – not just in making sure that copies are done right, though this is important too. It has the potential to be a location for parents to engage with the school and to offer creative tutoring and remediation programs, as well as interesting after-school opportunities.

These are priorities for our school in general, and Title I in particular. Too many students are not getting the outside-class academic support they need, too few parents are involved in the life of the school, and currently there is no fully-functioning campus-wide parent center. It has fallen on the SLCs to deal with these issues. However, a school-wide program like Title I can go a long way in coordinating that effort and offering resources and support services that SLCs do not have access to.

Title I should be about a lot more than copies, whoever fills that position.

UTLA Meetings on Wednesdays

at lunch in Room 259!!

Title One Issues and Election

2008-05-01T13:04:00.000-07:00

TO: LA High Faculty & Staff
FR: Ms. PerezRE: Title I Coordinator Elections Procedure
DATE: 4/30/08

As many of you may know by now the Title I One Coordinator was not confirmed by the necessary 50%+1 needed votes. We are now in uncharted territory for LA High as this result is rather unprecedented. Our UTLA/LAUSD contract does spell out for us what is to happen next as a result of non-confirmation but it feels even less democratic than our initial non-direct election of a person for the position. Ms. Solomon and I would like to share with you our proposal for how best to go about representing the staff on this issue. We feel that we are not able to accurately assess what the vote meant so we are proposing that we all participate in an opinion poll about who of the candidates would be best for the position.

This opinion poll will help us make an accurate recommendation when we meet with the Principal to attempt to reach an agreement.

µ We will do our best to represent our entire staff and we will notify you of the details for how to participate in the poll by Friday.

µ Keep in mind again that any poll we conduct will be informal and will only be a guide to our part of the decision (the principal will be making up her own mind).

µ The final day to turn in nominations is Friday @ 3pm.

µ The opinion poll will start next week following a candidates panel that will take place at lunch in room 259 on Monday 5/5/08.

µ A mutual agreement must be reached no later than Wednesday May 7th – 3pm.

µ If we do not reach an agreement than a move on to the procedures laid out in #3 on the back.

c. Post-Election Procedures: (UTLA/LAUSD Contract p. 49-50)
(1) If a candidate selected by the site administrator receives a majority of the votes cast (50% + 1), the candidate is confirmed. The site administrator then need not declare the position vacant or submit a new nomination for up to two years (except that a coordinator’s first term shall be limited to one year.)

(2) If the candidate is not confirmed by a majority vote, the site administrator and chapter chair shall immediately inform faculty members that the coordinator position is still vacant. If the non-confirmed candidate received 40% - 50% of the votes, that candidate and other interested candidates may submit statements of interest within 24 hours in a single-track school or 72 hours in a multi-track school. The site administrator and chapter chair shall then seek to mutually agree upon the coordinator selection from among those candidates who submitted statements of interest within the time limits above. The coordinator who is selected will serve for up to two years except that the initial term shall be limited to one year.
*This is our current situation. Interest statements are due Friday @ 3pm. Principal & Chapter Chair try to agree on a candidate by no later than Wednesday May 7th.

(3) If the administrator and chapter chair do not reach agreement within a period of three (3) days following submission of the statements of interest, the selection authority will be delegated to a two member team from the District/UTLA Dispute Resolution Panel formed pursuant to Article V-A above. They will make the decision within an additional period of three (3) days. They shall review all statements of interest submitted, and be permitted to seek further information regarding the candidates from the site administrator, the chapter chair, and from the school faculty prior to making the final decision. The coordinator selected will serve for up to two years except that the initial term shall be limited to one year.
*In this instance an outside group of people make a decision about who should be in the position.

Developing OUR PLAN

2008-02-26T10:24:00.000-08:00

There is some great stuff afoot! First of all, people should definitely check out the Single Plan for Student Achievement - yes, there are 149 pages. Yes, it is highly skimmable.

http://www.lahigh.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=42156&type=d&rn=9458902

However, you can much more easily check out the last lines of the Table of Contents attachment and see what the prioritized "strategies" are. Second, what we discussed at the Starbucks last week (backed up by comments at the UTLA meeting) was making sure that a. we had people ready to participate in that committee and have key goals in each of the seven sections that we believe LAHS should focus on. These goals can guide the input that people will make into the i) the amendments to the Single Plan, ii) the QEIA plan, and iii) the High Priority Schools Plan.

Why are all these things being mentioned together?

Because all of these are going to be due together on April 15th. Yes, that April 15th. Oh, and yes, the WASC visit is going to be happening that same week. Thanks a lot, LAUSD.b. we were ready with thoughts on what our responses should be to the district's needs assessment/Compliance Checklist. (please see attached). Supposedly, this 'needs assessment' will be on-line starting now and we need to, as a staff and parent community, complete it by March 6. What 'completing' it means is not exactly clear, and we don't even have the actual link yet. However, this does give us a chance to communicate with other staff before the assessment must be complete. It feels really important that people don't see this as just another survey.The District's needs assessment could potentially be used like a Stull Evaluation, especially around curriculum and instruction. If we are assessed to NOT be complying with district mandates (remember, these are not just for the 34 High Priority Schools, but for all LAUSD schools), this could be used against us as individuals and as a school. Additionally, if their needs assessment’s key findings become action steps that cost money and end up attached to our Single School Plan for Student Achievement then our money could be used for what Brewer and the Local District think are important, as opposed to what we might prioritize based on a REAL needs assessmentStarting Wednesday, with the creation of a School Site Council Subcommittee designed to move forward on these things, we will be able to move this plan forward. However, as Rey suggested at the UTLA meeting, we ought to be as prepared as possible walking into the first meeting.

Here is a suggestion how:

Pick a section and put together your thoughts on what would actually help LAHS. You can use the genuine LAHS needs assessment conducted last semester as inspiration (it was an attachment on the last email).
Reply all and tell folks which one you are thinking about.

Try and fit your thoughts into the High Priority Schools plan Action steps (see attached). This is a great place to start cause this is how we get our ideas that can later guide budgets in.
Also, think about how we can bring this to the staff in any kind of meaningful way to get input.
Make sure that you are on the subcommittee (many folks raised their hands at the UTLA meeting, but if you weren't there and want to get in on it - email me. There will be something put out to the staff, but get in their first.)

B-trackers, don't forget to check your email in order to see scheduled meetings of UT@LA and the subcommittee!

I am proposing Thursday March 6 to come together and discuss what's up with all of these pieces of a delightful LAHS puzzle! Let me know if this works for you!?Again, we discussed the real strengths that could come with choosing a few foci and really putting our brain and budget power into them. If we can't get them into the Single Plan, then we can't spend the money or use it as our back-up when we push back on any Local District alternate proposals. Also, without staff and community buy-in, it can't really go forward.

Thanks again for moving on this stuff

- Rebecca

SINGLE SCHOOL PLAN

2008-02-21T08:54:00.002-08:00

The Single School Plan is available to ALL! Via this Link

SINGLE SCHOOL PLAN

2008-02-21T08:54:00.000-08:00

The Single School Plans available HERE

2008-02-21T08:52:00.000-08:00

Reflections on Single School Plans and District "Providers"

Hello, all!!!

So i spent all last Thursday at a meeting with a hundred + district people so they could tell us what we are supposed to do with this High Priority Schools Plan at our school. The district has already assigned us a provider, MGT of America. (I met the actual guy assigned to our school – he will be traveling back and forth from Roanoke City, VA for the 9 days that he will be spending with us at Los Angeles High School).

The meeting was stuffed full of talking head presentations that went on for hours. Unfortunately, one of the things that came out clearly was about the “needs assessment” associated with the HPSP. It became VERY clear that the “needs assessment” they were putting forward was not a needs assessment, It was rather, a compliance checklist to see how far along we are in our implementation of Superintendent Brewer’s plan. There was no discussion of what would happen to the school if we were found to be “far below basic” in reaching the benchmarks set by the district toward reaching goals set by the district using tactics created by the district. The most obvious example was the Curriculum Section: the “needs assessment’ asks how far LAHS has come in terms of implementation of pacing plans, content lessons, mandated assessments and ‘reducing’ the number of non-standards aligned materials. Based on how far we are, we are supposed to come up with a remedy and an action plan

This action plan is then to form part of our High Priority Schools Plan for LAHS and any monetary requirements are to be attached to the single school plan (so we can allocate the necessary funds – and if the funds are not there, we are supposed to go to the Local District, and if they are not there we are supposed to go to the Superintendent.) In a budget crisis this looks ridiculous and one of the district spokespeople on this issue even said so herself.

The Provider, in our case MGT of America, is supposed to facilitate the collaboration of our staff in
· conducting the “needs assessment”,

· selecting one key accountability or goal within each of the seven Plan Strategies (Curriculum, Instruction, Leadership, Parent/Community, Safety, Organizational and Support, Accountability) that we are going to be working on for the next school year Our goal must be related to their menu of potential overarching goals - see attached Accountabilities Sheet)

· and in in converting the information gathered in the “needs assessment” into an action plan around that goal, complete with benchmarks, responsible persons, expenditures and a timeline.
The district people were clear in saying that we had to choose a few goals to move on, and that they were not expecting us to achieve everything by the end of the 2009 school year (thank you very much).

At the meeting, many of the chapter chairs present pushed back on the plan (see the attached UTLA response that came out of the UTLA High Priority Schools Task Force: UTLA Position on High Priority Schools plan). We spoke from the podium and got our words in edgewise with our local district folks.

So what are the potential bad things that could come out of this and how can we counteract them? What are the things we might be able to push for in this process that might benefit our school in the long run?

Their needs assessment could potentially be used like a Stull Evaluation, especially around curriculum and instruction. If we are assessed to NOT be complying with district mandates (remember, these are not just for the 34 High Priority Schools, but for all LAUSD schools), this could be used against us as individuals and as a school.

If their needs assessment’s key findings become action steps that cost money and end up attached to our Single School Plan for Student Achievement then our money could be used for what Brewer and the Local District think are important, as opposed to what we might prioritize based on a REAL needs assessment.

What can we do within this process to get something for ourselves?

a) Use this as a way to jump start an actual collaborative process between the faculty to build common goals and a few things we might work on as a staff.

b) Using the process we discussed at the Starbucks on Wednesday, participate in the School Site Plan subcommittee to build into the SSP the key things we have gotten from the faculty that they want to see our school do. These are the things we believe the faculty wants to focus on, that we could get buy in on, etc.

c) Heavily promote/advertise/’brand’ those few key areas or goals to the faculty so that all instructional leaders (slc, depts, all of us) and other folks are very familiar with the main things we all feel our school should be working on.

d) Use that revised plan to guide our budget creations and hold administrators accountable in spending, as well as use the plan to guide policy decisions in all areas including SSC, SBM, etc.
Some thoughts on what do we have to do now:

Get ourselves familiar with whatever the hell the Single Plan is

Create our goals in each of the key areas (it seems like we have already said at least one of the goals is reorganizing Professional Development/Collaboration. That fits in in the Instruction area. It is also linked to the Curriculum section, as we are saying that a big reason to do this is to develop meaningful locally developed (rigorous, blah blah) curriculum that we can implement.
Make sure that we speak up and push that these goals are reflected even in a false needs assessment.

Make sure that we set up a subcommittee of SSC where we have a formal route to get input into the Single Plan

Push to have the Provider do a real needs assessment that uses existing structures like SLCs and departments, as opposed to creating anything new or artificial (or, even worse, temporary). We can start with what we have already done when we collected data from parents, teachers, and students last year. We even gave this to LD3 in October (see attached Information passed on at the OCT3 )

What is missing here? What is over the top? What is good? What is weak? Please reply all so we can dialogue.

D Rabinowitz Comment

2008-02-21T08:48:00.000-08:00

I like your idea of

Push to have the Provider do a real needs assessment that uses existing structures like SLCs and departments, as opposed to creating anything new or artificial (or, even worse, temporary).

We can start with what we have already done when we collected data from parents, teachers, and students last year.

Create our goals in each of the key areas
That way if these folks are forced on us, they become our supporters not our adversaries.