Is it time to get rid of LAUSD? (Torrance: city hall, homes)

[hipcat]

It seems like most parents I know send their children either to charter schools, or non LAUSD schools. In the last 20 or so years, LAUSD has had a terrible track record with 23 of the 39 worst schools in this state being LAUSD schools. I'll be glad when LAUSD is finally shut down. Who agrees with me?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by hipcat

It seems like most parents I know send their children either to charter schools, or non LAUSD schools. In the last 20 or so years, LAUSD has had a terrible track record with 23 of the 39 worst schools in this state being LAUSD schools. I'll be glad when LAUSD is finally shut down. Who agrees with me?

This sounds like shoot from the hip question. Has anyone analyzed this and performed a cost benefit analysis?

If you live in the South Bay, couldn't that mean you don't live in the LAUSD district so naturally their kids wouldn't attend LAUSD?

How does LAUSD perform when the number of ESL kids is factored in?

Is LAUSD the problem (the problem defined as low performing)? Or, is it low performing students many of whom are ESL, or kids of broken homes and who have parents who themselves have sixth grade educations or are alcoholics and drug addicts?

According to Great Schools, LAUSD is 9% white and the overwhelming are Hispanic. Probably many of those Hispanic kids are ESL.

[BRinSM]

i'm sure some of the problems are administrative in nature, but I would guess that the main issues with poor performance are related to poverty and english skills (or lack thereof) as charles alludes to. LAUSD's problems aren't unique. from what i've seen, pretty much every urban area in america with concentrated poverty has performance issues. it seems like more of a social issue than a schooling issue in my opinion.

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by hipcat

It seems like most parents I know send their children either to charter schools, or non LAUSD schools. In the last 20 or so years, LAUSD has had a terrible track record with 23 of the 39 worst schools in this state being LAUSD schools. I'll be glad when LAUSD is finally shut down. Who agrees with me?

We are NYC teachers hoping to transfer to LAUSD schools. We hear the same rhetoric here in NYC. The fact is that public schools are REQUIRED BY LAW to service ALL students. Private and charter schools handpick their students.

Also, as previously mentioned, and a topic considered not PC but real nonetheless, is the size and distribution of students. Please see these pages for an interesting comparison (Note that Massachussettes schools are considered some of the best):

Massachusetts (MA) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

New York (NY) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

California (CA) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

The issues that politicians will NEVER address and are at the core of school performance:
Class size
Services for ESL students to learn English separate from regular curriculum
Services for Special Education

These three issues are at the root of problems in schools. While we all want students to be included as much as possible the fact is that ESL students and Special Education students often suffer by being forced to function in classrooms with over 30 students and lack of proper support. The problem is that these things cost money and no one wants to pay for them, and politicians and reformers LOVE to shift the focus from classroom costs to costs of teacher salaries.
No major metropolitan area would be able to survive without public schools and by their very nature they will become large bureaucratic messes.


So, to answer your question, NO, but it may be time to open the public's eyes and help them see where the money is really going and, again as previously mentioned, divert money from useless administration back into the classrooms.

[jm1982]

Started reading a book called Dumbing us down by John gotto

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, 10th Anniversary Edition:Amazon:Books

His criticism of public schooling in this country is spot on.

I think it's clear public schools are generally a failure in lausd.

Better to start over from scratch , so much money spent and the results are not good .

It is denial if you say lausd is not a failure

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by quixotic59

We are NYC teachers hoping to transfer to LAUSD schools. We hear the same rhetoric here in NYC. The fact is that public schools are REQUIRED BY LAW to service ALL students. Private and charter schools handpick their students.

Also, as previously mentioned, and a topic considered not PC but real nonetheless, is the size and distribution of students. Please see these pages for an interesting comparison (Note that Massachussettes schools are considered some of the best):

Massachusetts (MA) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

New York (NY) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

California (CA) Public Schools | PublicSchoolReview.com

The issues that politicians will NEVER address and are at the core of school performance:
Class size
Services for ESL students to learn English separate from regular curriculum
Services for Special Education

These three issues are at the root of problems in schools. While we all want students to be included as much as possible the fact is that ESL students and Special Education students often suffer by being forced to function in classrooms with over 30 students and lack of proper support. The problem is that these things cost money and no one wants to pay for them, and politicians and reformers LOVE to shift the focus from classroom costs to costs of teacher salaries.
No major metropolitan area would be able to survive without public schools and by their very nature they will become large bureaucratic messes.


So, to answer your question, NO, but it may be time to open the public's eyes and help them see where the money is really going and, again as previously mentioned, divert money from useless administration back into the classrooms.

Exactly. American's have their priorities incredibly twisted.

From what I have heard, much of the blame for the administrative inefficiencies in LAUSD lies with the school board.

It's funny how often you hear people (often LA natives) blame Tony V for the poor performance of LAUSD -

[JTGJR]

I don't blame Tony V. for poor LAUSD performance. I blame him for running the city into the ground. I blame him for being full of spit. I blame him for doing NOTHING to improve the city of LA. And I, like many LA residents, blame him for cow-towing to unions and cronies as he tries to position himself as a viable national candidate. God save us.

The problem with LAUSD isn't funding. It's how to use the funding. And how to get parents to parent, get teachers to teach and get kids to care about their future. Period.

[hipcat]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Started reading a book called Dumbing us down by John gotto

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, 10th Anniversary Edition:Amazon:Books

His criticism of public schooling in this country is spot on.

I think it's clear public schools are generally a failure in lausd.

Better to start over from scratch , so much money spent and the results are not good .

It is denial if you say lausd is not a failure

I went to a LAUSD high school. It seems the level of enthusiasm is lower for teachers who work in LAUSD compared to charter schools. Its basically like they are working for a paycheck, and that's it. And the textbooks were either outdated or had lots of defacement on them. Going to a Torrance High school was a world of a difference. It seems the teachers were more inspired of setting up students for sucess in the future, and the textbooks were up date. The differences were startling.

[Mr. Mysterious]

LAUSD just need little changes here and there! I still believe in the LAUSD! The only people I trusts are folks who receive their high school diploma through public education and able to climb their way through prestigious college education... thats amazing!

If I see a Charter type school education in your resume, don't expect me to hire you

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by hipcat

I went to a LAUSD high school. It seems the level of enthusiasm is lower for teachers who work in LAUSD compared to charter schools. Its basically like they are working for a paycheck, and that's it. And the textbooks were either outdated or had lots of defacement on them. Going to a Torrance High school was a world of a difference. It seems the teachers were more inspired of setting up students for sucess in the future, and the textbooks were up date. The differences were startling.

Interesting about your experience at Torrance High. I think LAUSD is way too huge, and it would be better if it could be broken up. The city is also too big and at least having the valley break apart would make it a lot more manageable. City Hall in DTLA has proven that they can't run the city decently.

I would really recommend everyone to read the book. The author was an NYC public school teacher for 30 years and he was even awarded Teacher of the Year ..ironic because of his views.