L.A. School Report Cards: Zero for Improvement

• The conditions that "Mike" enumerates are obvious and well-known (even though he does seem prone to exagerate his numbers for effect). What is less understood, however, is that "affluent" schools (such as Palisades Charter High School in Pacific Palisades) show unacceptably low graduation rates (percentages in the 70s), and poor performance in math standards, with only 61% of "gifted and talented" students scoring proficient. Scores for Black and Latino students are deplorable--only 19% of Black students at Pali scored "proficient" in math. BTW 27% of Pali's student body is "economically disadvantaged." What is as obvious as a slap in the face is that even when "disadvantaged" students have the good fortune of attending "one of the best" and "safest" schools, there is still a huge achievement gap defined along race and class lines. Even in this "affluent" school, only 44% are completing the eligibility requirements for Cal State and UC. Furthermore, the most affluent citizens of Pacific Palisades send their kids to private and parochial schools. Just saying. . .

• Anybody can go to the LAUSD website and compare the "affluent" schools to the less fortunate schools and see that there is much truth to the first comment above. At the same time, even a so-called affluent school such as Palisades Charter High in Pacific Palisades has shockingly low proficiency rates in math, including for "gifted" students, and a graduation percentage in the 70s, with only 44% completing A-G requirements (eligibility for Cal State and UC). Percentage of Black and Latino students proficient in math and english is deplorable, even in this "affluent" suburb. Btw, 27% of Pali's students are "economically disadvantaged." If a school that is considered one of the best, and which (we are told) attracts the "best" teachers is still not serving it's students, then imagine what the blighted schools are like. Don't assume, though, that the "affluent" schools are providing a great education--or that all the students who go there are affluent, educated, or even graduating. Wake up and smell the future!

• If you are going to make up data to be dramatic, at least make them plausible. Twenty percent of LAUSD students live in foster care? how is that even possible? Cite your sources.

• Ignorance abounds on this topic. 1) Charter schools 'look better' because they can hand pick their students eliminating underperforming and behavior problem students who then get dumped on 'regular' public schools. 2# 1 in 5... that's 20% of all LAUSD students Live in foster homes, 3) 55% live in one parent households, 4) 80% of LAUSD students are title one #below the poverty level#, 5) the only people not being held accountable at this juncture are parents and students, 6) teachers in most LAUSD schools must teach in hostile work environments.... behavior that would get adults fired in "the real world" is excused on school campuses as the offenders are juveniles. I challenge ANYBODY to teach in an urban secondary school and see how they do. Only then will you truly understand what teachers face 7) LAUSD is for the most part serving children of poverty with no parents or one parent (not to mention the 3000 LASUD students who are classified as homeless) and this fact more than anything produces the present results. One does not see the problems facing LAUSD in affluent suburbs as the districts have money to spend and parents who care.

TotalComments: 4